Understanding strategic positions requires more than simply reading the labels. In my last post
, the topic covered the difficulties people have seeing their own position. I sometimes describe having a position like being in a jar. You cannot read the label on the jar from the inside. Discussing positions is also difficult because they are frequently intentionally mislabeled. A great example of this is the â€œglobal warmingâ€ debate.
I always have to put in quotation marks around â€œglobal warmingâ€ simply because the term has two distinct meanings. People supporting the political movement labeled â€œglobal warmingâ€ intentionally confuse their specific political agenda with the scientific fact of global warming. They mix up the labels on the jars so than when they are attacked on the basis of their social ideology, they can claim their attackers are attacking the science. Usually, the opposite is the truth. Many of those who attack the political cause of â€œglobal warmingâ€ do so in defense of what real science can and cannot tell us about global warming and its causes. Two recent news stories highlight the almost nonsensical way that â€œglobal warmingâ€ proponents seek to confuse the science to advance their position.
First, we have the story about Senator Inhofe, who tried in a very well thought out speech
to separate the science facts of global warming from the myths promoted by â€œglobal warmingâ€ proponents. The result, of course, was that his statements were misrepresented by â€œglobal warmingâ€ proponents in the media and Senator Inhofe had to make a point-by-point response
, clarifying exactly how what he said about global warming, the scientific evidence, differs from the points he was making about â€œglobal warmingâ€ the political agenda. Science, of course, doesn't require misrepresenting your opponents, whose opinions will stand of fall on the evidence. However, politics seems to more or less require it.
However, even more entertaining, we have the leading apostle of â€œglobal warming,â€ Al Gore promoting his book on â€œglobal warmingâ€ at the UN. In his presentation, he made the claim
that cigarette smoking was a â€œsignificant contributor to global warming!" This statement does a lot more than any careful explanation to make the distinction between the politics of â€œglobal warmingâ€ and actual science very clear. â€œGlobal warmingâ€ is a social program, aimed at controlling people and their choices. It connection to the actual scientific evidence of global warming is highly selective. Evidence is not an requirement. All that is required is that an attack on choices that others make that you personally do not approve of.