Over at Bishop Hill there is a post titled A Study in Groupthink that looks at an exchange of Twitter comments between Maurizio Morabito (@Omnologos) and Bora Zivkovic (@BoraZ), the blogs editor at Scientific American.
The author of the Bishop Hill blog, Andrew Montford, explains in his post that Zivkovic is clearly very much out of the same mould as Peter Gleick, which I take to mean an unswerving true believer, a rigid in his views who sees anyone dissenting from what he chooses to believe in and argue for as ultimately evil or corrupted by vested interests. Montford’s take is that Zivkovic perhaps views his cause as beleaguered by wicked big business, and opines that reading Zivkovic’s tweets it’s a fascinating study in groupthink.
Strictly speaking, when looking at the cabal of proponents of man-made global warming theory (AGW) and the band of sceptics lined up against them, you can see they are all in fact caught up in a groupthink. Because both sides act as if the issue at hand is about whether mankind really is causing the planet to warm significantly and therefore endangering the earth. Which is why I left the following comment on the blog:
Ultimately it is all meaningless. While people like Zivkovic, Gleick, Mann, Trenberth, Briffa, Jones etc try to make this into a scientific argument, because they are funded to churn out hypotheses about the climate and the ecosystem, it is nothing of the sort. It is all about politics.
Sceptics, and scientists who dissent from the ‘consensus’, could falsify, debunk and disprove every element of the AGW narrative and see off every member of the ‘team’ and make a laughing stock of the ’cause’, but we will still come under assault. For this is all about politics and ideology, even if the prominent actors don’t realise it.
Ultimately if it is not climate change it will be some other vehicle connected to ‘sustainability’ that will be used as a means of controlling the population and redistributing wealth from the industrialised world to the developing world in a way that enriches the corporates.
From the United Nations down, every tier of governance has been tasked with executing the ‘progressive’ agenda, which in reality is regressive for all of us. It’s not some crackpot conspiracy, it’s just the way those with power and wealth are steering the ship.
This direction of travel will not be defeated by butting heads with a small band of AGW blowhards who are lavishly funded to continue producing ‘findings’ and ‘projections’ that fit in with the actions needed to further the overarching agenda. Until people start to tackle the root cause of the disease instead of the symptoms, we will continue to go round in circles playing ‘he said, she said’ while our democracy, liberty, wealth and individual rights ebb away.
Expose the distortions, errors, scientific flaws all you like, but don’t lose sight of what is really going on and why.
Politics has changed. We no longer have a left-right paradigm, even if many who are politically active but unaware of what is going on around them still define themselves in such terms. Today we have an authoritarian mix of progressive and fascist corporatism (rule by and in the interest of government and corporations) on one side, and mix of classical liberalism and libertarianism (limited government and individual liberty) on the other.
We can see the evidence of the corporatist approach. It makes me laugh when the global warming fanatics try to undermine opposition to them by arguing the sceptics are in the pay of ‘big oil’. One of the worst propagandists for spinning this line is Bob Ward, mouthpiece for the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. Australian Journalist Jo Nova reported that Exxon-Mobil had paid $23 million to sceptical groups over a ten-year period. Big corporate Exxon-Mobil are therefore considered evil personified by warmists like Ward.
Ward’s employer is named after its benefactor – the uber wealthy fund manager, Jeremy Grantham. In 2011 Grantham held 11,309,048 shares of Exxon stock. Why would Grantham fork out to fund an institute researching climate change when he is making a fortune from the very company cited by his minions as evil big oil? Perhaps because as a corporate animal his only interest is making money, and his hypocritical fence straddling is a means to that end.
Let’s compare Exxon’s oft cited $23m funding of sceptics to money poured into environmental interests. How about another big corporate, BP? They were investing $8 billion in biofuels, wind power and solar while building long term options in carbon capture and storage and clean technology. Five billion dollars of that had already been invested by 2011. That money is funnelled into delivering exactly what the environmentalists want and also supports lobbying and activism. But they are still considered ‘big oil’.
There are plenty more examples of these kind of inconvenient facts, where the supposed enemy is a friend and supposed ally is an opponent. The bottom line is these companies will support whatever helps their bottom line. They are super powerful and influential corporates, and with the subsidies on offer utterly committed to keeping the climate change gravy train on the tracks. And we, the taxpaying consumers, foot the bill to increase the wealth of these corporations.
To believe the corporates have anything other than a vested interest in the centralisation of power and control that coordinates global action, to erode democracy and liberty which thus enables the transfer of wealth, is to reside in a realm of delusion. No matter what the ‘science’ reveals and how much it is debunked, there will always be another line of attack from the sustainability playbook to further the political – and dare I say economic corporatist – agenda. This is where the battle needs to be fought, not in the theatre of carbon dioxide emissions, raw and adjusted data or fractions of a degree of temperature change.
Autonomous Mind 
“What is the regulation of CO2 all about?”
“that enriches the corporates”. Your particular Evil Axis, obviously. Everything subsequent in the post consists of rationalizations and obfuscations of that single point you want to drive home.
No sale.
Brian H arrives with a criticism! No surprise.
Feel free to counter my points if you feel you can.
I agree. Wholeheartedly.
However, the battle against the proponents of Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming is one I feel I can personally take on and be part of , be it in ever so small a way.
If we can convince the populace that they have been seriously duped in this matter, convincing them of other things becomes easier.
A war is won a battle, or even a skirmish, at a time.
Absolutely spot on AM, the struggle is and always has been between the statist centralisers & the profit margin of the Corporatist on one side and the rights & freedoms of the individual on the other. Any vehicle which fwds that momentum will suffice, we can view these as political-ideological proxy wars if you like. Politicians, the political class & Corporatists afterall only see humans as a means to an end, representative democracy the fallacy that it is again furthers that end. Unfortunately and the sad fact is most people are content to have others do their thinking & decision making for them so do not see this let alone care to. So until that changes at an individual level the world will continue to turn in favour the authoritarians & Corporatist. But even in that recognition this doesn’t mean we have to lay down & take it.
Excellent post.
I think more and more “ordinary” people are getting more and more sceptical (and often cynical) about the whole cAGW nonsense-fest.
But although there may conceivably be change in the USA, Japan, Australia, here in the EUSSR there is not even a plausible mechanism for change. And although there will be a succession of minor victories for common sense, we will still keep on hosing money into “solutions” (which demonstrably don’t work) to “problems” (which are almost entirely illusiory).
I can see no way this will change until lots of people tire of shivering in the dark.
Quite how it will play out then I don’t know. Hopefully rationally and peacefully. But if it involves piano wire and lampposts, then the Thermogeddonists will only have themselves to blame.
Reblogged this on The Council Estate Commentator and commented:
An excellent post & critical expose of the true underpinings within the whole climate change debacle, by Autonomous Mind. Well worth a read.
A great post AM.
The whole shebang would collapse without taxpayer levys, no big banks would risk ‘real venture capital’ without the backing of taxpayer monies, therefore the only way to halt this worldwide scam is to change government, the citizens must take back power.
BUT – it’s how that can be achieved which is the problem, without revolution or civil strife, and engaging the population who are on the whole – “not bovvered, I can’t be a***d!”.
Or, the whole banking system collapses, I think we must hope for the end of the euro – a great purge is needed.
Your central thrust is so right, lets cut out the left and right idiocy. No, the argument is far bigger than that – that is exactly what they [British political elite and thus in progression the EU and UN] want – little groups squabbling over vacuous nothings, the real WAR must transcend such petty battles.
Good post, but I’m not sure about the definition of corporatism. It seems lately to have become confused with the American usage of “corporation“ to mean “publicly-traded business”. But, as coined by Mussolini, it means (from the Latin, “corpore” – body – as I’m sure I don’t need to point out to such an erudite audience) the fusion, or corporation, of state and nation into a single entity: the simultaneous centralization of power and extension of its reach. In other words, exactly what we’ve seen in most western countries over the last few decades.
It does benefit “corporations”, but only as a side-effect: the larger the business, the easier it is for the corporate state to deal with. Similarly, the fewer they are in number: that fusion process will, naturally, consist of the consolidation of businesses in each sector of the economy, often to the point of monopoly (eg, the NHS).
The danger of equating all this with Big Business alone (although there’s certainly a connection) is that we give ground to the anti-all-business lobby, who simply see “corporations=bad”. The problem is the centralizing expansionary state. Businesses simply take advantage.
Mankind doesn’t change. This is just a re-emergence of an old order, it seems, but within larger geographic bounds. How did the peasants deal with the Baron? Sadly, they didn’t popular revolts were soon crushed.
New Old
World Government = Emperor/King & Executive
Continental Unions = Feudal Barons
Nation States = Knights of the Manor
People = Peasants
Or is that too gloomy?
The enemy hides behind the lie of “benevolent bureaucracy”. The enemy is the cardre of bureaucrats who become plutocrats, without any oversight. The model for the UN and tranzies is the EU; when was the last time its books were audited? Who elected the commissars? They were given their positions by negotiation between various corporate (and I don’t just mean business) interests who …. I could go on. However, the message from me is Stop The UNelected!
These people truly are the wise guardians of Plato’s Republic; they know best for the masses and thanks for all that money and power, suckers!
Sam Duncan, many years ago, I dated a VAT inspector. She was quite clear that the state prefered few large businesses rather than a pletora of small ones – it made tax collection easier.
RoO;
Considering the % of job creation and economic growth contributed by small business (large majorities), such an attitude is self-defeating beyond words. ‘Crats and pols “know” this, but it’s so inconvenient for the process, that it’s honoured only in the breach.
There is one good element in the fight against AGW alarmism that helps in the wider battle, if the more see this as a distortion of the truth they might be more amenable to examining other areas of political life with critical eye. While that has not happened yet, the internet has allowed more in the way of debate that is assisting in exposing the political/bureaucrat/corporate/media world for what it really is, a self serving monster.
Sam Duncan,
I’d say we can see a tendency for big businesses to become effectively part of the state. In some cases their main customer is the state. In other cases they successfully lobby for regulations on H&S or environmental grounds which outlaw a cheap product, leaving their product, or which oblige people to buy a product they otherwise would choose not to. It’s fairly easy for a big business to cope with extra regulation because they are very much bureaucracies themselves, but much harder for a smaller competitor, and it’s cheaper and more certain than advertising.
The “Big Oil is a climate denier” argument has never been borne out by the facts. My favourite (and most concise) counter punch is this:
“We [the Climatic Research Unit at UEA] would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders… British Petroleum… Shell.”
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
As far as I know, those two funded the CRU from the start (1972).
Cosmic, I don’t deny that. But it’s not corporatism.
Or at least – I suppose I’m just arguing about semantics – it’s not why corporatism is called corporatism. And, as I said, perpetuating the myth that it is plays into the hands of “anti-capitalists” by portraying big business as the problem.
It’s a problem, certainly – many monopolies and near-monopolies, not to mention businesses that rely solely on government contracts, couldn’t be sustained without the corporate state – but anyone assuming that business is corrupting the state is looking at it from the wrong end.
The “Big Oil funds Climate Deniers” chant is designed to appeal to the Faithful, who seem to think in comic strip terms, and the kind of folks who still think the WWF is about cuddly pandas.
Big Oil is just big money and its actions are based on gaining more money.
Sam Duncan,
Maybe there’s a better word for it than corporatism, and it certainly isn’t just about wicked capitalists and eeevil multinationals or US corporations.
What I see is large bodies, government, trans-national government constructs such as the EU, NGOs, large companies, fake charities, finding that whatever their stated aims, they have a lot in common and collude. Much of the point of the collusion is to remove democratic or normal market feedbacks. Crony capitalism comes to mind.
@ Sam Duncan,
I would say the whole point is that the problem is not big companies, the problem is politicians.
Big companies (assuming they are regulated as they always used to be, ie anti monopoly, anti-corrupt practices) can exert considerable commercial power but it is just that, commercial power, if I choose to I can avoid going to Tesco, or using google or buying BP (just about)
The danger, that I interpreted AM’s post as pointing out, is when big business climbs into bed with government who can force us to do whatever it wants. Political power, sovereignty and legitimacy have been divided up and the most power now resides with the least legitimate authorities eg the EU, UN etc. These bodies have been hi-jacked by big business (in a sense quite legitimately doing all they can to increase returns for shareholders and less acceptably, to senior management) and so economic clout is now leveraged by political clout (ie the barrel of a gun).
For ordinary working folks this is an astonishingly unpleasant position and one which is likely to lead to increasing violence and disaffection in the years to come.
But “corporate” as in the nexus between big business and government is precisely the problem.
I agree with you AM (despite being slightly at odds with my Mustering Point post).
I think the heart of the problem is some of that old left / right dynamic. That is still there despite there being a haves and have nots dynamic also. The thing for me is though is that the far left are much better organised and geared towards political warfare than those of us who sit on the other side of the political spectrum. The fact that we even had the Franfurt Institute or that someone dreamt up the Cloward Piven strategy shows they have a mindset towards a battle that does not exist to the same degree on the right hand side of the political divide.
For these people the battle is everything and they make sure they turn up in numbers at everyone of their pet projects. They turned up at the workfare protests. Monbiot had his little arrangement to notify CAGW adherents of counter narrative stories in the press so they could go to the comments section and shout down challenges to CAGW and the persistent rumours of the SWP having people palying games during last years riots.
They’re up for a fight in a way most of us aren’t. I’m not just talking about a few Wolfie Smith types either. They probably all start off that way, but they’ve been around for decades now with the same mindset only many of them now are in key positions with that self same mindset that they set out on their road with. They’re well versed at pulling strings in different directions, probing where we’re weakest and striking there.
I think we might have started fighting back but as I say, they’ve been organsing for deacdes and can call on people for whom the war is everything. We’ve got a lot of work to do on tackling that.
So are you saying that if I refuse to believe in AGW, there will be an infinite amount of oil and gas? Enough for me, us, China, India and another billion or so people by 2050? I just have to believe (and not believe in AGW) and it happens? Wow. That’s some serious mind over matter.
A good piece, but I have a grumble ! When you use “title” as a verb it should be “entitle” or entitled. Title is the noun. Sorry, but it is very irritating.
AM one of your best posts, and from the comments you have struck a chord, lots of worthwhile comment and suggestions, and I agree 100%.
I would like to add to the comments about “corporatism”. It not about corporations, but about our economic system, capitalism. Capitalism has been hijacked and replaced by Corporatism, or as some call it “crony capitalism”. Corporatism has at its heart regulation, and this is where our governments come in.
Capitalism works on the principle of competition. To compete one must innovate. Regulation destroys competition, and benefits Corporates who hate competition. This destroys innovation and we stagnate and there is no renewal of stale companies. Much of this is natural behaviour and it is incumbent upon our politicians and regulators that they recognise this and act to prevent it, or we end up with what we have today, an unworkable mess. Take General Motors as an example; a poorly managed company that needed to go bust so that it could be broken up into manageable parts. But instead it is rescued; the underlying issues remaining unresolved and then instructed to produce a product that no one wants.
We all know that Corporates are slow to innovate, slow to make decisions and therefore find it harder to compete. But don’t confuse corporations for corporates. Corporates rely more and more on government subsidy to survive, relying on regulation to keep the competition at bay or making it impossible for new and fresh companies to enter the market and flourish. Just think of the mess our financial system is in. As an example try starting a new insurance company. You will soon find that compliance costs outweigh operational costs to the benefit of no one.
Not all sectors have been destroyed, Companies such as Rolls Royce Aero Engines, JCB, Cummins Engine Co and Dyson have managed to remain independent and focused on their core business, but they are engineering based, have all had to fight the corporate raiders who look at the level of investment and see short term profit. Look at the Formula one constructor, cutting edge innovation at its best and most of it in Britain. These companies and their activities are for the moment beyond the comprehension of our political class, but fear not, if we continue to do nothing they too will be destroyed.
The only way we are going to fix this is by changing our political system. And more particularly we have to remove from the political class the ability to borrow and spend money without our direct agreement. This would be a far from ideal situation but what we have now is little more than dictatorship. Perhaps in the future our politicians could be trusted once again. I have never felt so much contempt for the whole lot of them.
John Main if you paid any attention to energy matters, you would know there are hundreds of years of hydrocarbon fuel, below us in Britain. In fact the world is awash in cheap hydrocarbon fuel. Technology and innovation when the political class get out of the way means we won’t be switching to electric cars any time soon.
As for the future, well we have tens of thousands of years worth of thorium available. Thorium as a nuclear fuel is far better than Uranium and Plutonium. But that is only to be expected as they the nuclear equivalent of burning wood. The only thing we have lacking is brain power in politics.
As for AGW, well scientifically its dead and buried. Of course the arguments will continue but the fact remains that the earths atmosphere is not a greenhouse and the whole thing is based on some shoddy and baseless physics. CO2 is the very cornerstone of life on earth, and is in very short supply at present.
Just read this for a taster and think all about what it implies.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/30/i12/html/12learn.html#auth
@ Napiersabre
From your post – “the whole thing is based on some shoddy and baseless physics”
And the skeptics argument is based on science? If there was ever something as baseless and unsubstantiated and simply not supported by the scientific method…it is the skeptical view.
Libertarians are quick to point that alternative energies are bunk and can’t replace good ol’ hydrocarbons and there’s plenty of shale to supply the world for the next few centuries. Hence there’s no profitable reason for BP to explore alternative energies except renk-seeking from government appeasement to Greenies.
@Jon Flatley If you were even part way informed you would know that those who promote the greenhouse effect have for the last 30 years or more been asked for observational proof. And you would also be aware there has been none forthcoming. All the observational data, and remember its the bit that really counts, neither proves nor disproves the greenhouse effect. This is important, because if you can’t disprove something then surely it must be true! right! But this is not science.
If you assume the green house effect is real then observational data has so far shown that feedbacks (which is at the heart of the scientific argument over AGW) must be on the whole negative, and not positive as in all the models. This is a big problem for the warmists. If we were this slap happy in the engineering world aeroplanes would be falling out of the sky and bridges collapsing. But these are real structures so we use real science and engineering not IPCC voodoo science.
You don’t have to look at AGW for more that 10 minutes with a critical eye to realise its a crock of S…t. I take nothing away from all the effort that has gone into showing temperatures are not rising, that the sea levels are not rising, and all the other efforts that have gone into demonstrating that much of climate scare is exaggerated . This has been necessary because everyone assumes that the green house effect is real but the increase in CO2 concentration too small to be of any effect.
The reality is there has been NO increase in temperature that it can be shown to be directly related to any increase in CO2. Another big problem for the Warmists
And anyone who is only remotely interested in how life evolved on earth knows that the most important gas in the atmosphere for life was, and still is CO2. But only now we are very low on CO2 as most of it has been turned into carbonate rocks. If this continues we will all die, as we will have no food. In fact far from life surviving until the sun burns us up in its Red giant phase, all life will have cease though lack of CO2. This could happen geologically speaking very quickly given how fast CO2 has bee absorbed. Food for thought as they say.
And this brings us back to politics where there has been no joined up thinking and only opportunism and greed. It all about to come to a halt as our money has run out and all our politicians have been shown to lack the intellect and historical knowledge to provide a framework for our recovery.
@Gil we have many viable alternative energy souses, its just that wind and solar are at the bottom of viability, along with biomass, which is like going back to pre industrial times and not sustainable, and bio-fuels, that have a long history of environmental destruction and are responsible for more illegal logging and rain-forest destruction than any other cause.
I have a list, but first lets hear yours.
“Viable energy sauces?” The only real world ones are hydrocarbons, coal and nuclear fission. Anti-Greens love pointing out that few places in the world could justify solar panels or wind turbines let alone pretending that nuclear fusion is going to happen. Though I did hear a claim that ethanol might be viable with algae instead of taking up land. Then again anti-Greens tend to be Libertarians hence if they had their way much food land would be lost in lieu of marijuana and heroin plantations.
Well, there were so many good points made both in the post and in the comments that I thought I would add one of my own. And then Vanessa chimed in, and now I feel obligated to answer the single most erroneous point made throughout the entire discussion. With all due respect, Vanessa, to say that “title is the noun” (i.e., ‘it is NOT a verb’) is an astonishingly ignorant thing to say. Just google it. Just dictionary it. It isn’t difficult. Historically “entitle” meant not “to title,” but to provide someone or something with an entitlement. In modern times the word became perverted to become synonymous with “title,” but the historically correct manner to say that some such thing has a title is to say that it is “titled” such and such, not “entitled.” Because “entitled” has now inserted itself, primarily through the linguistic laziness of modern times, into the realm of acceptability as an alternative to the original and proper “titled,” I do not suggest that there is anything wrong with using it thusly. But to call out as horribly mistaken a person who properly uses the ever-correct term of “titled” is no different from making fun of a person for saying “just between you and me” instead of the horrific “just between you and I.” I wonder, Vanessa (and I truly mean this in the spirit of debate and not as ad-hominem), do you say things such as, “Yes, precisely! I made the exact same point to he and Mary the other day?” Do you know what a preposition is? What a prepositional object is? What is a subjective personal pronoun versus an objective personal pronoun? I fear not. Those who do would NEVER call out another for using the VERB “title” in the most correct manner possible. Those who live in linguistic glass houses should hesitate, and investigate, before throwing linguistic stones.
Sorry everyone if I’m off topic, but perversion of language is not a thing to be taken lightly, nor to be left unchallenged. Orwell was no dummy.
I have to disagree. Not that there are ideologies that move to overthrow the current democratic order, but rather the claim that the strategy for dealing with them are flawed. Coming up with a policy attack -based vehicle for ideological purposes is not a trivial task. It’s not like guessing passwords or trying different keys in a lock. Each attempt takes a great deal of effort, communication, and coordination. And exposes the participants to risk of humiliation, disfranchisement, and even criminal charges, if they go too far.
Dealing with the attacks rather than the ideology has three strengths. First, it builds up a body of policy for when a valid weakness is found. Ultimately, having an established, democratic plan for dealing with valid environmental or societal problems will do more to cut off these attacks than fighting the ideology directly. Democracy by itself has done much to weaken the power of these ideologies, precisely because it provides conduits for debate and action that ideologues can’t bypass.
Second, they lose something every time they fail. The more they cry “wolf” the more they discredit themselves in future assaults. They don’t have infinite resources at their disposal.
Finally, it means that the strategy remains effective, even if the ideology mutates or is replaced. It works as well against would-be theocrats (of any flavor), Marxists, or any new ideologies that haven’t yet had a chance to rear their nasty, little heads.
You make sense I accept but if there is no climate change why are clouds 30 metres lower than 10 years ago?The answer is simple-there is less atmosphere to ride on top of.Reason I see is as o2 becomes co2 which is heavier so it sinks down near ocean and is then absorbed making ocean acidic.I do not look forward to having clouds on the ground.
“It makes me laugh when the global warming fanatics try to undermine opposition to them by arguing the sceptics are in the pay of ‘big oil’.
Your definitely are a seriously uninformed idiot. The funding of climate skeptics and all their ilk has been clearly laid out time and time again.
Obviously, your pandering to the idiots that read this blog. Your bog comment that “it’s all about politics” is unbelievably naive — and incredibly stupid.
What are you going to do when climate change actually affects you? Say you live in the Maldives, or Australia, or Peru or Brazil or Pakistan or any number of places now where climate change is having truly terrifying effects? Will you still be stupidly arguing “it’s all about politics”?
Probably. To you it is about politics because you have your head deeply inserted into your ass and your ignorance about the real facts and real events that are now taking place (and who is really receiving the funding you decry) is unbelievably wrong. All you can see, hear and smell is the odor of your own ignorance.
When it all comes out in the end (and it most surely will), all you deniers are going to be found to be dangerously deluded — and will have helped ensure that the climate is near to non-inhabitable, because you will have assisted in the delay of humanity actually doing something about it in time. Then I challenge you to come crawling back here and tell all your readers that “it’s all about politics”, you fucking nitwit.
It’s about having a planet we can actually live on.
The obvious is so incredibly obvious, and so unbelievably true (and so easy to see if you did not have your head inserted in that dark hole you use to marinate your brain) that all you idiots just keep on denying it over and over and over again, ad naseum.
It’s also obvious right fucking now, but probably not to the likes of you and your kind, who do not read the actual news, do not have any idea how bad it is already for many countries and people of the world and really, in the end, could care less, as evidenced by stupid inane comments and posts like this one posted today.
You people are unbelievably stupid — and incredibly ignorant, a waste of breath, space and resources, useless bags of water hell-bent on making sure that the real culprits and the real facts about what is really taking place in the world today are covered up and distracted from the public knowledge. No wonder Americans are the laughing stock of the world, and the only real country that denies climate change. Everyone else is actually getting on board, but not here, oh no, Americans are smarter then all those other people and all those world class scientists. What utter fools you are.
I am deeply ashamed of people like you whom I barely consider even human anymore. You insist that we’re not responsible, that it is all a ‘conspiracy’ and that we have no burden upon humanity or any future generation to fix it and make it right. The truth is, your guilty of ecocide, the death of the biosphere through sheer ignorance and denialism.
One day, in the not too distant future, you will finally wake up, as will every other denialist on this entire planet, because either droughts or floods or lack of food or some other ‘disaster’ will slap you fools belatedly upside the head in your comfy little American world and you will finally realize the stark, horrifying truth to what has been going on for a long, long time.
But I and many others will have absolutely no pity whatsoever on you. Willful ignorance is not excusable. Getting online and spouting off the absolute nonsense I just read is inexcusable. The facts, evidence, science, peer reviews and agreements are all out there if you would extract your head from your ass and go READ IT. That’s all anybody has to do to find out the real truth about climate change, who is responsible and what (if anything) can now actually be done about it.
Why people like you take comfort (and waste blog space) putting up stupid little “I don’t agree with the facts or science” arguments is beyond me. Your grandstanding assholes, every last one of you. All you care about is getting people to read your stupid little tripe and care nothing about the truth or the facts or what this actually means for the rest of humanity.
It just shows how incredibly small-minded and mean-spirited you people really are, deep down inside, especially at a time when we really do need everyone’s cooperation and assistance if we even have a chance at fixing this.
But I’m not holding my breath that you fools will wake up in time, the louder you keyboard commandos get, the worse it is actually getting out there in the real world and the more and more suffering there is, and the more and more stupid you people appear.
We’re nearly out of time — but clearly, you don’t care. After all, it’s “just about politics”.
Sure it is. If you say so, then it must be true.
Idiot.
Thank you Dave Norquist, for your lengthy ad hominem attack.
It is a masterly measure of how rattled you true believers are that you have to resort to this kind of hilarious spleen venting. Clearly the sceptics have got you and your ilk very worried. When the globalist warmists have no argument their final refuge is to hurl invective and play the man instead of the ball. Yours is a case in point.
You’ve made my day. Cheers! :)
Can I suggest a different way of looking at this?
The people who really care about climate change, don’t care about climate change.
That is to say, what they care about is the growth of compassion in humanity as a species. But that is a very hard thing to do. Humanity has become less barbaric as the centuries have passed, and we can anticipate a future more harmonious world. But it is a very slow process. It takes the accumulated wisdom of many many generations. Only a few decades ago we saw the Earth from space. But most of the people of the world are still living in old societies, poor societies, and they don’t think or care globally. If you live for a few years in a varity of countries you see this naturally. The Middle East for example, as one region, of hundreds of millions of people, is struggling with entering the modern age. In the West we take for granted that the whole world will understand the environmental message. That is unfortunately not the case. A growth in compassion in the Middle East might mean their people can find some stability and safe neighborhoods. Maybe. In a couple of generations. Then talk about compassion for not just their neighbour, but the planet. Africa meanwhile is even further bahind.
The problem with the last trend in environmentalism focussed on climate change is that they’ve decided to fix the world in one generation. That isn’t going to happen. You can cover Europe with enough wind farms and super insulated homes to zero carbon, but that won’t change the world.
Changing the world in one generation, or even two or three, is not doable. We have never as a species had massive wide across the board change of that scale. Today we have 7 billion people, the scale is unimaginable.
The environmental message, “only 4 years left” or “only 15 years left” is not sustainable. It is causing more problems. Environmentalists seem to just attack others for their lack of care, a move which in itself betrays, If I can say this without causing offence, betrays an error of judgement — to despise people because they don’t care as much as you do?
Stefan;
It’s much simpler than all that tracking of ‘growth of compassion’ bumpf. Emotional parasites have found that they can get away with saying and believing, “I absolutely HATE people who don’t love humanity like me!”
They are plumbing the depths of self-deception and manipulation of others. Beware!
Dave Norquist I can only but echo AM’s comment to you. If this is all you have to say then we have nothing to worry about, or perhaps everything if you represent a majority view. But the reality is no real people who I meet in my everyday life share your views or anything like them. You could not have demonstrated the point of this post better even if you sat down with a focus group, or perhaps sort the advice of experts. Very well done and thank you for the laugh
Perhaps the outlook should be optimism.
‘All you care about is getting people to read your stupid little tripe and care nothing about the truth or the facts or what this actually means for the rest of humanity. ‘
Excellent psychological projection, Norquist, and a perfect description of yourself and the knobs you support. Take it up with your therapist (and if you haven’t got one, hurry up and get one because cognitive dissonance is grim if untreated).
Come on, AM, you’re don’t seriously want us to believe that Dave Norquist is a real person. Nice try, you almost had me going, but in the end the combination of ignorance and spleen marked it out as a spoof – I mean, nobody can be that intellectually challenged in real life… Can they?
Does Dave Norquist think you are an American? What a rant? If this is what the ‘supporters’ of climate change call a balanced opinion, then there truly is nothing to fear.
Dave – no human is less than human; you need help; go seek it.
The Maldives are fine, I was there late last year. Australia, may well soon kick out Labour and the climate tax – so again, they are OK. No idea about Peru, but as they are not in the news I presume that they continue as normal. The Brazil rain forest thing was a lie – see news. Pakistan, will continue to flood if they try and put so many people on a flood plain – it has always flooded.
Climate changes Dave, it always has, it bring good and bad, and humans adapt. What you cannot do is change what nature does, either deliberately or by accident.
That Dave bloke, he’s a right mess. I think he might harm someone quite soon if he’s not sectioned.
Kudos Autonomous Mind: Excellent coverage.
Pea green president Obama will have us all starving and freezing in the dark hoping our windmills turn around. With gas at $5.00 per gallon and escalating we won’t be able to go get our free government cheese,
http://www.magnifiedview.com/2010/09/17/yodas-little-known-tactics-to-avoid-being-a-target/
Right on Autonomous Mind – Write on!.
Cordially, Yoda@magnifiedview.com
P.S. “May you live in interesting times.” Ancient Chinese curse.
Dave Norquist, as China is now the largest emitter of CO2, why not pop over there and pass on your delightful comments to President Hu Jintao?
Is Dave Norquist a watermelon…?
I think we should be told.
Wow, can we connect Mr Norquist to the grid? There’s some serious energy in there.
Should that read: “Climate changes Dave, it always has, it bring good and bad, and smart humans adapt”? In other words, if noticeable climate change happened it would be a quality filter just as the sudden cold snap at the end of the 19th century – it culled the weak and improved the human race.
Norquist, explain your side’s funding. It is thousands of times greater than the skeptics’. It is Big Government propaganda … or are you unaware of this?
Sam Duncan 27/02/2012 at 1:42 pm
Cosmic, I don’t deny that. But it’s not corporatism.
Or at least – I suppose I’m just arguing about semantics – it’s not why corporatism is called corporatism. And, as I said, perpetuating the myth that it is plays into the hands of “anti-capitalists” by portraying big business as the problem.
It’s a problem, certainly – many monopolies and near-monopolies, not to mention businesses that rely solely on government contracts, couldn’t be sustained without the corporate state – but anyone assuming that business is corrupting the state is looking at it from the wrong end.
Pretty much agree. Mises made a related observation:
“Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire.” Ludwig von Mises – Austrian Economist 1881 – 1973
Following from Bastiat:
“…since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds. “
Dave Norquist writes: “Your definitely are a seriously uninformed idiot”
Grammar: the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you’re shit
A suggestion: perhaps it is time to permit a change of ink? Green ink for Dave Norquist?
There are some good supporting arguments for the groupthink hypothesis to be found in an examination of the movement backing the science fraud Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich in the 1970s, whose book The Population Bomb was an effort to create a worldwide authoritarian regime against “the population explosion”.
In it you will find proposals very similar to those found in the MMGW proposals. To summarize: “There is a crisis that will destroy us all, so you must give us money and absolute power!”
Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich (please include the “R.” so as never to confuse him with the great scientist he was named after) is still admired and embraced by these people, though virtually everything he wrote was wildly wrong, with none of his predictions came to pass.
He still has many followers, such as the downright evil Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an advocate of the extermination of 90% of the Earth’s human population, for which he even suggested the means being a “mutated ebola virus.” (For which advocacy he received a standing ovation from fellow “scientists”. Only one out of a large crowd found it troubling enough to contact the FBI).
The historical roots to such groupthink are extraordinary indeed, actually originating with proto-socialists (before the word “socialist” had been coined). One such was George Fitzhugh, a slavery apologist, whose book Cannibals All! or, Slaves Without Masters, suggested that only 1 person out of 10 was fit to be a master, and the other 90% of humanity should be slaves. (The “1 out of 10” concept is a reoccurring theme among such people.)
They are caught up in an almost royalist, “Old Europe” mode of dividing humanity into nobility and peasantry, with the nobility, today self-appointed hereditary “elites”, possessed of all the wealth and absolute power, even over life and death, of the peasants. It permeates their thinking. And any means to achieve this is acceptable.
So the OP is essentially correct that MMGW is a groupthink concept, backed by unscrupulous “progressives” and “corporate (economic) fascists”. But it is far worse than imagined. Until what is effectively their religion is destroyed, they will cause immense harm to billions of people, astounding waste of resources and horrific destruction.
“Here at least We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven…”