[LINK] IPA, astroturfing and fantsy themes

Craig Sanders cas at taz.net.au
Mon Feb 20 23:06:06 AEDT 2012

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 08:39:04AM +1100, David Boxall wrote:
> On 17/02/2012 8:25 AM, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> > ... Most people live in a fog and are so oblivious to how the world
> > works and the meta-structures, that it's a wonder society works at
> > all.
> > ...
> The risks exposed by climate science are deeply unsettling. The
> likes of the IPA tell us more comforting things, so we allow them to
> influence us. We will get what we deserve.

no, it's not that simple, and it's not just individual foolishness.

there's hundreds of billions of dollars at stake and billions being
spent on propaganda to create Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Truth has
as hard a time competing against that kind of spending as healthy food
has against the advertising of the junk food industry.  (I suspect that
if it wasn't for the rise of the internet, the issue of climate change
would be as obscure and ignored today as it was for the prior 40 or so
years since scientists started raising concerns about it). advertising
*works*, it exploits human weaknesses like foolishness and distractability
(and fear and envy and more).

so yeah, people are foolish. but that doesn't absolve those who take
advantage of it.

the lies that the likes of the IPA tell us suit the interests of those
who own most of the world so they get far more air-time and publicity
from the media organisations (by no co-incidence also owned by those who
own most of the world) than they would deserve on merit.

The IPA tells such lies because that is what they are paid to do.

a tiny handful of crackpots and industry shills and right-wing
propaganda-farms are presented as being of equal - or greater - worth as
the consensus of the vast majority of scientists. it's just FUD.


craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

More information about the Link mailing list