The science intelligentsia and our betters among the liberal elite want what they want—and they aren’t about to be constrained by the rules of fair and honest debate to get it. Thus, in the euthanasia debate—which itself is a word that once did not mean mercy killing but was co-opted by early euthanasia activists—changed to euphemistic phrases such as “death with dignity,” and we were told that dying people can’t commit “suicide,” rather they seek “aid in dying.” (For a detailed overview of the euthanasia movement’s many iterations of words and phrases for mercy killing, see Rita Marker’s and my, “Words, Words, Words.”)
As we have discussed often here at SHS, Big Biotech and its advocates have completely roiled the waters by creating a postmodern science lexicon in which terms cease to be precisely defined and become whatever suits the needs of advocacy: Thus, embryonic stem cell research caused problems because of the word “embryonic.” So, that word was dropped and the subject became just “stem cell research” or “early”stem cell research.” For the same reasons, embryos ceased to be embryos, and became “pre-embryos” or “just a ball of cells,” with scientists even denying they were living organisms. When people reacted negatively to the word “cloning,” in the phrase “therapeutic cloning,” Big Biotech’s proponents scrapped the the C-word and the process morphed into “a form of stem cell research” or SCNT, which we were also told did not create an embryo—making one wonder how Dolly the sheep was born since she had to have started as an cloned sheep embryo.
Now, the climate hysterics are about to enter the word engineering game. Recent polls have shown that relatively few people care a whole lot about “global warming.” And so, it’s back to the old lexicon drawing board. From the story:
I don’t know about y’all, but I am mighty sick of this kind of verbal engineering, which is explicitly designed to hinder rather than promote free and open debate. Hopefully, the people are too sophisticated and jaded by now to be so easily manipulated.
The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.” The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.Cap and cash back! If cap and trade is adopted, it is going to cost us a fortune in higher prices from food to fuel! The only cash “going back”—and it will be billins—will be to firms of the kind in which Al Gore has business interests that will broker the carbon trading system put in place.
Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “{cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”
I don’t know about y’all, but I am mighty sick of this kind of verbal engineering, which is explicitly designed to hinder rather than promote free and open debate. Hopefully, the people are too sophisticated and jaded by now to be so easily manipulated.
