 |
| Source |
Carbon pollution? Maybe they mean soot, the only form of carbon pollution I can think of, but of course they don't mean soot they mean carbon dioxide. It's sloppy reporting, but common enough to be almost standard. Yet the use of a scientifically incorrect term raises the question of why it is done and why it is so rarely corrected.
Apart from common usage, one obvious possibility is that the climate change narrative is not merely a narrative about the catastrophic effects of carbon dioxide emissions, it is two narratives.
One narrative is the official we’re all doomed unless you become relatively impoverished serfs narrative. A parallel covert narrative implies that assent is safe so don’t venture beyond it or social disadvantages will be the result. Disadvantages such as abuse for example.
Here in the UK, the coronavirus narrative turned out to be similar. One narrative is the official we’re doomed unless you observe all official guidelines. A parallel covert narrative implies that assent is safe so don’t venture beyond it or social and perhaps legal disadvantages will be the result.
Ignorance is good say the narratives.
4 comments:
I like to think of there being too many diamonds lying about.
Anon - a good way of looking at it - all those killer diamonds being emitted.
Pollution and the virus are to us what witches were in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Let the priests argue about their exact characteristics. I just know that I'm not going out after dark.
Sam - I wonder if the virus is more active in the dark? If not it soon will be.
Post a Comment