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.