Tom Harris explains
(Business Day Live) IN OCEANIA, the dystopian society of George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, a new language was created by the government to control the thinking patterns of the populace. Officially labeled “Newspeak”, it was the first language that, when fully adopted, was meant to limit the range of human thought. Concepts such as freedom, scepticism, and debate were virtually unthinkable since no words existed to describe them, aside from the generic term “thoughtcrime”.
Perhaps most insidious was “duckspeak”, a form of speech consisting entirely of words and phrases approved by the party. Someone who had mastered duckspeak could fire off ideologically pure assertions like bullets from a machine gun without thinking at all. Their words merely emanated from the larynx like the quacking of a duck. Being called a duckspeaker was considered a sincere compliment since it indicated that you were well-versed in the official language and views of the state.
More than ever before, we are in an era of climate change duckspeak. Rather than being merely ridiculous or social satire, the apparent underlying purpose of climate duckspeak is ominous: to convince opinion leaders and the public to think about climate change only as the government wants. To support alternative points of view is “climate change denial”, today’s version of thoughtcrime, punishable by excommunication from responsible citizenry and, at times, loss of employment. If AGs United for Clean Power, a coalition of 16 Democratic state Attorneys General (AG), has their way, speaking out on the other side of the climate debate could soon result in civil or criminal charges.
Harris points out words and phrases like “carbon pollution”, “97% consensus”, and “green” as part of the duckspeak. Warmists are using this to justify the use of government force to increase the size and scope of government, especially centralized government. Increasing its power of people, private entities, energy, and the economy. Yet, most Warmists are unable to argue without their talking points. They’ve been told something, and they will simply parrot what they’ve heard. All while refusing to change their own lives to abide by their duckspeak.
