The Institute for Public Policy Research - the left's favourite think tank - actually publish a propaganda manual for Canutists.
Treating climate change as beyond argument
Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact. (my emphasis)
It's another way of saying "just pretend that there is no argument and that we're right - even if we're not sure."
The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.
Why is facts in quotes? Are they facts or "facts"? Why do they need to be "treated" as taken for granted if they are facts? Constructing factuality? Stalin and Hitler would love that one.
Myth (which can reconcile seemingly irreconcilable cultural truths) can be used to inject the discourse with the energy it currently lacks.
Got that? Use myth to give the propaganda energy.
How do we want people to feel? Making desired behaviours attractive and compelling to ordinary people means using metaphor as well as more rationalistic approaches, to enable them to emotionally engage with the desired action, rather than emotionally disengaging with the problem through fear overload. We should not present ‘messages’, with the implication of rational argument and top-down persuasion. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.
So the idea of giving people the information backed with "rational argument" and allowing them to make their own judgement is not acceptable to Canutists. They need to be "shrewd" and "subtle" to make them behave in the "desired" way.
What kind of authority can we harness? We live in a culture where top-down authority is being systematically replaced by bottom-up or horizontal authority – where people increasingly trust other people (even those they have not met) more than governments, businesses and other institutions. This has huge implications for the way climate change needs to be tackled. Communications that emanate from authority sources and that continue to instruct, or even cajole, are likely to be less successful than those that work with this emerging dynamic.
Which is why they use organisations like Greenpeace, Desmogblog and Realclimate to disseminate their propaganda.
What will really make people act? We also live in a culture in which celebrity rules supreme, and in which 44 per cent of the population is ‘outer-directed’. That is, they have esteem-driven needs, seeking success, recognition and status through acquiring and displaying the ‘right’ brands, fashionable lifestyles and other goods, services and experiences (Rose et al 2005). Cultural Dynamics’ work indicates that the outer-directed section of the UK population offers a ripe opportunity for climate-related behaviour change. People like this want to feel special, and are accustomed to achieving this feeling through what they do and what they buy, rather than what they do not do or do not buy.
And that's why they engage "celebrities" to promote their propaganda as willing tools. That's why they encourage those who "go green" to feel good about themselves and seek to punish the 4x4 drivers. That is why they promote schemes to "offset" your carbon emissions. Just to get you to buy into their world.
How can we change what constitutes ‘common sense’? The challenge is to make climate-friendly behaviours feel normal, natural, right and ‘ours’ to large numbers of people who are currently unengaged, and on whose emotional radar the issue does not figure. The answer is not to try to change their radar but to change the issue, so it becomes something they willingly pick up, because it means something valuable in their own terms.
Why would you need to change "common sense". Common sense is common sense, isn't it?
All you AGW supporters - are you aware of how you are being manipulated? Do you realise the subtle techniques and methods they are employing to mould you, trick you, brainwash you?
Do you realise that you're someone else's tool? Do you realise who that someone else is?