Thought-Terminating Clichés
How climate-clichés are stifling proper debate
For even the most inquisitive of minds, the chances of making it through the web of carbon-containing clichés with all of your intellectual faculties intact are basically (net) zero!
An overview:
What are Thought-Terminating Clichés?
Their use in scientific discourse, including climate science.
Specific examples of clichés that prevent interrogation of greenhouse theory.
BONUS: links to information that will help you resist the carbon-cliché mind control!
What are ‘Thought-Terminating Clichés’?
Put simply, these are phrases that stop you thinking!
For example, the phrase
‘It could be worse’
has that strange effect of allowing you to accept a situation as it is, without need for further analysis.
Or in religious discussions, the phrase
‘God moves in mysterious ways’
provides a one-size-fits-all explanation to often difficult theological questions.
Thought-Terminating Clichés might be used deliberately to manipulate your ability to reason. For example, a political party may claim that a rival’s tax reforms are nothing more than
‘Tax cuts for the rich’
knowing that using such a cliché will deflect attention away from the possibility that such a reform might actually benefit those members of a constituency whose interests they are ostensibly protecting.
Dystopian novels give us many great examples of the nefarious use of Thought-Terminating Clichés.
For example, in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, citizens of Utopia under totalitarian control are heard saying a phrase that is designed to discourage the expression of any emotions - except happiness - or else risk causing social instability.
And it was in his 1961 book ‘Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism’, that Robert Lifton first coined the phrase ‘Thought-Terminating Clichés’.
Lifton describes how the Communist Party of China’s language was used to limit thought, or, as he describes it;
"the start and end of any ideological analysis."
Robert Jay Lifton, 1961
In Science
After hearing of Lifton’s coining of the phrase ‘Thought-Terminating Cliché’, I began to wonder whether they are being used in discussions of science, deliberately or otherwise?
Here are some examples that spring to my mind, annotated with the kind of reaction I have when I hear them:
‘The science says…’
(I thought science was meant to be a process, not a repository of knowledge with elected representatives?!)
‘We know that…’
(Who is this ‘we’ you speak of? You don’t speak on my behalf, that’s for sure!)
‘There is a consensus on…’
(Democracies might work on the basis of consensus, but it has NO place in science!)
There’s no such thing as a stupid question!
Moving away from general scientific discourse, I have noticed that specific scientific disciplines also contain well-used clichés, not only acting like barriers to further inquiry, but also making you feel somewhat embarrassed for questioning the validity of such statements!
Quantum mechanics is one such example. It has gained a reputation of being a discipline that you are not even supposed to understand! Clichés exist to serve as reminders to budding physicists of its intellectually impenetrable status.
“if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand it”
Attributed to Niels Bohr
Here are some more examples from other fields, again annotated with some of my own personal reactions upon hearding such clichés:
‘Nothing can go faster than the speed of light’
(Before we get into it’s ‘speed’, can we first agree what light actually is? Is it a massless particle moving infinitely through space, or a wave of electromagnetism?)
‘The Universe started at the Big Bang’
(But creating something from nothing is a common scientific criticism of religion; ‘if He created everything, who created Him?’ Are we not just moving the goalposts?)
‘Gravity is the warping of spacetime’
(The warping of what?! Space has no properties, by definition. It is not ‘something’, but the absence of something. How can you ‘warp’ nothing, exactly?)
‘Carbon dioxide’ - the Ultimate Thought-Stopper!
I believe that the REAL power of carbon dioxide lies not in it’s ability to warm up planets, not even as plant food, but in it’s ability to manipulate our ability to think!
For even the most inquisitive of minds, the chances of making it through the web of carbon-containing clichés with all of your intellectual faculties intact are basically (net) zero!
Try talking about energy policy, cars, flying abroad on holiday, even diet(!) and it will not be long before discussion turns to some combination of the following:
‘..carbon emissions’
‘..carbon footprint’
‘..net zero’
‘…sustainable development’
‘..energy transition’
And so on..
Such phrases have the effect of diverting you away from and even making you feel stupid for asking fundamental questions!
Questions like;
Should we really be trying to solve hypothetical problems of tomorrow by creating real problems today?
or,
Can we humans actually change the weather, even if we wanted to?
should be perfectly legitimate question to ask, right?
Greenhouse Theory
Try, as I have done numerous times, to scratch beneath the surface of greenhouse theory - the basis upon which the entire climate change paradigm rests - and you will be met with yet more sophisticated-sounding clichés, blocking your path to further understanding.
Every time I read an article or listen to a podcast on the topic, I am waiting for the clichés to be challenged and for the fundamentals to be questioned. But I am inevitably left disappointed. Such is the power of the clichés rolled out.
Below are some examples of the kinds of greenhouse theory, Thought-Terminating Clichés that I am talking about. I have also added references to previous articles that I written which might give you some material to help protect you against the mind-control!
‘Carbon dioxide traps heat’
See ‘HEAT & RADIATION; do you know the difference?’
‘Carbon dioxide absorbs radiation’
See ‘What is the Greenhouse Effect?’
‘The greenhouse effect stops the planet from freezing’
See ‘Is ChatGPT Lying to you About Climate Change?’
And ‘Is there a Greenhouse Effect on Venus?’
‘We’ve known about the greenhouse effect since the 1800’s’
See ‘Is Greenhouse Theory based on a Botched Experiment?’
‘There is a consensus among climate scientists that…’
There it is again… CONSENSUS! See ‘The Climate ‘Consensus’ Trick’
Now I must admit, if you make it this far you will most likely hear a repetition of earlier points, witness looks of complete bewilderment, or perhaps experience a refusal to discuss further. And if all else fails, you may even get accused of being a ‘climate denier’.
I’ve had them all!
The Emperors New Clothes
My point here is not to argue that greenhouse theory fundamentals are wrong. Nor do I contest that clichés can sometimes contain truth, just in a condensed format.
But rather, I wish to highlight how easy it is to impose self-inflicted thought restrictions as soon as Thought-Terminating Clichés are invoked.
I am reminded of the story of The Emperors New Clothes. Everyone in the land was too scared to admit that they could not see the Emperors lavish robes for fear of looking stupid, or unprofessional. That fear was enough to stop people asking questions, to the extent that people started to fool themselves into actually believing the clever trick. The people no longer saw the naked Emperor, but rather their glorious leader draped in the finest attire, spun from magical thread. They stopped believing what was right in front of their faces.
And it took the innocence of a young boy, not restrained by the fear of sounding stupid, to shatter the illusion and to say the obvious.
Don’t let clever sounding clichés stop you from seeing what is in front of your face, or from asking the basic questions.
Because what if,
Just what if,
The Emperor, does indeed, have no clothes on?
Be careful out there…
-T