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…
h/t Adrian
I stopped reading when he explains in his post that Zivkovic is clearly very much out of the same mold as Peter Gleick.
–
Peter Gleicks confession:
“in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics,
I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone Else’s name.”
Isn’t Peter Gleick a felon?
@Fearless Leader
Thats a shame, because he doesn’t. Try again and read carefully.
This was a roundabout way of making the same point that has been made thousands of times in comment threads across the web.
Og fear. The post is not about AGW, nut a eanr about nusiness and government co-habitating.
OK, it happems, sire. Two very recent examples, the GM and banking bailouts. spring to mind. Especially the GM fiasco: too big to fail? No. When even such a large conglmerate goes under, except in circumstances not in play there (such as wagon makers losing out to trucks and cars replacing almost the whole market) most of its pieces are picked up and restarted, though perhaps for new purposes (like wagon makers making truck and auto bodies: ever hear “body by Fisher?”).
So yes, it is dangerous. But scarcely a new problem. Certainly Rome had the same sort of thing going on when it was a Republic, and worse as an Empire. India was put under British rule mostly at the behest of the East India Company, and the Governors were Company employees rather than civil government appointees. Even more recently, German industry helped force the National Socialists into power. So yes, warn about it and tell we citizens about it, try to come up with a way of stopping the most egregious examples! But not by saying it is a new problem noone has ever addressed before.
Posted by: Adrian at March 5, 2012 4:49 AM
–
My bad,
I had insulated myself against AGW posts,
should have finished reading,
Sheepishly.
I thought the quoted blog post excellent. It may not be an entirely original point, tim in vermont, but the author is right. And because it is so shocking, it bears repeating: these guys think that entirely politicized science is what science should be. So, you cannot beat them employing scientific standards they reject.
The quoted post is spot on. It is the best description I have seen of what is happening to our society.
Cont’d from @8:03:
The “warmists” are not doing science; at least, they’re not doing what the rest of us think of as science. By “fact”, they don’t mean what you mean by ‘fact’; by “reasoning”, they don’t mean what you mean by ‘logic’. Part of their strategy is to force the “deniers” to live up to their own standards, to play their old-fashioned scientific games. Their happy to have the fight play out on those grounds, because it is nothing but a distraction. Meanwhile, they’ve moved on. They’re playing an entirely different game. It’s called “politics”. And in that game, “facts” are not facts; “reasoning” is not reasoning. Until we fully realize this, until we fully digest the thoroughgoing postmodernist corruption of our language and our institutions, we are playing a losing hand. That’s AM’s point. It can’t be repeated often enough.
So it’s fascism against libertarianism. Unfortunately the fascists think they’re liberals and and the libertarians call themselves conservatives. And the nastiest think the corporate state fascist can call a conservative is a fascist. WTFs going on here?
“German industry helped force the National Socialists into power”.Incorrect
Hitler siezed power in a putsch. Companies always “go along to get along” or as Lenin said “the capitalists will supply the rope for their own hanging”. The centralization and corruption of government enable and facilitate the corruption of the corporation. (esentially the people; since a corporation is nothing more than a group of people or shareholders)
That was my point some years back when the debate warmed up. The corporations were maneuvering to place themselves in the most favorable position no matter how things turned out. That’s what corporations do and they will fund and lobby to promote their interests.
When the debate came to the fore, the IPCC, the UN and the “warmers” had quite a head start. They had calculated that a catastrophic peril, one that threatened everyone and one which could be laid at the door of the wealthy nations, was one way to move the agenda in a direction they favored.
I disagree with the article when it blames both sides for “group think”, either because they are fanatics or have too much invested in supporting a particular agenda. I think the skeptics show more tolerance. The hysterics all seem to argue from the warmist side. (Case in point, Canada will fall farther behind in international hockey because the warming climate will make outdoor rinks a thing of the past: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/climate-change-threatens-outdoor-hockey-in-canada/article2358320/) They have attacked the group think of the climate cabal with research and carefully supported conclusions–and have done so without the funding and the publicity available to the climate clique. If it had not been for the blog world, you can be sure that the dissenting research would never have seen the light of day.
Corporations will protect their own interests. So if they’re involved in the oil sands, they will lobby to protect that. At the same time, they likely will be looking at ventures in alternative energy. Why would they not when various governments are subsidizing solar and wind energy like mad? I suspect that if you look at your mutual fund portfolio, you have some investment there too.
Kyoto and the coming sub-sequent schemes has always been about re-distributuin of wealth and nothing more.
Scar, it’s a fight between those who believe in objectivity—that there are objective facts, and that they are ascertainable by us; and those who deny it, who think instead that facts, truths, objectivity are just things we make up to get our own way. The former think that they live in a real world of facts, and that our lives play our in that world. The latter think we make it all up, so why not make up things as we would like them to be. The fantasists are running all our most important institutions, from schools and universities, to governments, both national and global.
We shall reap the whirlwind.
The very premise of this whole socialist propelled worldwide hissy-fit is so absurd. Any sane person who has ever flown over the poles, across any of the 72% of oceans that cover this planet, across the vast expanses of nothing but deserts and forests etc could quickly see, this is a SCAM. Man cannot change the climate of this huge ball, only the SUN can heat this ball up, should I say that slower for you liberals. The crooked liberal squealer on the other hand looks out his office window on 4th or where ever sees a lot of people and city and thinks “we’re all gonna die, gotta steal some money first”, exactly as RL says, governments should be so ashamed they have wasted one taxpayer nickel on this flimsy non-problem.
Once upon a time I used to think gun control was about guns. I thought that disproving the science would be sufficient and government would change their policy.
Then I discovered that gun control is about money. As in, the Liberals stealing a billion dollars from the Canadian taxpayer.
Global warming is the same. Just bigger numbers being stolen.
CBC now linking pond-hockey demise to..wait for it…GLOBAL WARMING!
His blog post is bang on, and can be reduced down to this:
The ENTIRE “man-made climate change / global warming” issue has nothing whatever to do with science, and everything to do with political promotion of the progressive-left big government redistribution agenda.
There; that was easy … the distilled concise essence of what Kate and many others have been posting for at least a decade.
I think it would’ve been better to quote the parts about big government and corporate facism against classical liberalism.
Particularly the part about the AGW guy with stock in Exxon was enlightening, but that shouldn’t have been news to me. Also note that BP spent billions in “sustainable energy” but skeptics are accused of taking the money.
I agree with the authors premise – AGW is not about science, it’s about corporatism and statism vs. libertarianism.
OTOH, science is not irrelevant. Discrediting government/corporate policies by proving that their ‘science’ is wrong, incomplete or sloppy is important. Getting the public to be cynical of experts, to not blindly trust politicians and to question received wisdom has to have a factual basis. Repetition and government scandals like Solyndra reinforce these lessons. Unfortunately for conservatives, they too engage in corporate cronyism and, therefore, cannot credibly attack the left.
SDA posted the videos of Lord Moncton laying out the motive(s) behind the ‘Glob al Warm up’ hoax when the Copenhagen thug fest was gearing up to punish/distroy people who dare to prosper. PMSH helped to derail the hoax by refusing to sign on unless the third world polluters (like China, India and Russia) agreed to sign on too.
I don’t have the link but it is all right here at SDA. This post re enforces what Lord Moncton said at the time – and what PMSH said in the HOC (when he was leader of the opposition) about Kyoto Agreement – fore runner of the big hoax; AGW.
Not especially original, but an excellent blog post nonetheless.
Lots of parallels!
What happend to the “anti-war” movement when Obama took over?
Answer: it wasn’t about “war”.
Why aren’t the feminists fighting Islamic misogyny?
Answer: It’s not about “womens’ rights”.
An old former friend after years of Bush and neo-con bashing was totally onside Obama’s Libyan adventure. I was amazed, but I was younger then. He was Paul-bot isoloationist but was horny for R2P (Responsbility to Protect – an open sesame to interminable foreign entanglements).
And he’s right about large corporations. Only small emerging companies like capitalism which = competition. When you’ve GOT YOURS you’re not than keen on it! Human nature.
I agree with Cjunk’s post – the real war is much bigger than the earth’s climate.
Sky Alarmism was never about just the climate. It was always about a ‘climate scare’ hooked up to ‘crony capitalism’.
First step was to expose the alarmists “science”. Done.
Now onto the ‘crony capitalism’ part.
Sarah Palin is the only politician in North America who mentions crony capitalism. This is why the crony loving media pulled out all the stops to try and stop her. Nothing was off limits, not even selective misogyny (hello liberal feminists). Just ask Bill Maher.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/03/maher-responds-limbaugh-i-can-call-palin-c-word-because-i-dont-have-s
Globull warming could mean the end of hockey.
Think about all the little Gretskys in the land.
The story is about all the dreadful things in the future. The damnedest thing happens. When we get to the future, nothing ever happens. The hockey stick should have killed us by now but what’s happened. Just a bit of cooling. The predictions are now extending out to 50 years to cover their asses.
I simply can’t believe that a few hundred parts per million of an invisible gas that weighs only 1 1/2 times that of average molecules can have much of an effect on anything especially when compared to the variability of solar radiation.
While I skated on lakes on ponds as a youth I would have rather been swimming.
As the haze of battle fades, proper procedure in this matter of climate change comes to mind. If I had a good climate model that I believed in (I don’t) I would make a prediction, state the criteria for comparison with observation, and stick to it. A good model would give predictions for local weather – it is not very useful to say that climate is warming or cooling if in fact it is way above normal in one part of the world and way cooler in other parts of the world.
And then I would put my model out there for all to see. Anyone with the slightest interest would be able to find it. If I became convinced that my model was flawed, I would correct it, with a new prediction, while leaving the old prediction available. After, say, ten years there would be little to debate. Either my model worked reasonably well, or it didn’t.
This could have been done, and should have been done, in 1980 and every decade thereafter.
After all, this is what weather forecasters do every day. Their predictions are available for all. Their analyses of the accuracy of their predictions (“skill” in the jargon of the trade) are available.
Of course GW was happening so quickly (even though the predictions first surfaced in the late `70s), it was said, that the detailed comparison with models could be skipped. The result is not science in any way,
Jema 54, google is your friend when you use: ‘site:smalldeadanimals.com’ in the search.
EG: “Lord Monckton site:smalldeadanimals.com”
The third link is: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012429.html
This guy isn’t saying anything that most on this site haven’t already stated in one form or another. Rand said it much better 50 years ago. The only thing Rand couldn’t predict was the exact form of environmental hysteria that would dominate the rationale for the anti-industrial revolution. The investment in CAGW by the institutional left is now monumental. The point the author makes is that one side, (the skeptics) are concerned with objective reality (science) while the other, are more interested in growing leviathan assisted by corporate rent seekers (winning).
More accurate predictions from the Climate Scientology Crew that are going sideways . . .
http://tinyurl.com/85uvlfk
And I was sure the CBC was planning a new show that featured a water skiing business being set up in Iqaluit.
Hitler did not seize power in a putsch. He was offered power because he had put together a coalition agreement that could provide a majority in the Reichstag for the first time in years, and could thus return Germany to proper constitutional government. Which he did, for a few months. And when he then changed the constitution to make himself dictator, he did so by the appropriate constitutional means, with the approval of a majority in the Reichstag.
He was not an agent or tool of big business. He did get the support of big business, but late in the day, after he had reached the point where he had a chance at cobbling together a majority, and for that very reason: nobody else could do it, and a stable, legitimate government was considered necessary for economic stability. He had gotten to that point without appreciable support from the German capitliasts and did not consider himself to owe them anything, as he subsequently demonstrated.
Thanks lance, I should have known how to do that! Now I do.
“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.” from Autonomous Mind
That’s the best I’ve seen it described. Thanks for the link SDA.
Damn Lance, you opened up a can of worms with that one.
I just did ‘ratt site:smalldeadanimals.com’ . Oh Man, cannot believe how politically stupid and naive I was just 5 years ago. Wow !
Be fair to yourself, Ratt. 5 years is a long time. Think of the differences in perspective and experience within these 5 year periods:
9-14
18-23
26-31
38-43
60-65
Yeah well, I’m an old cold warrior…just fadin’ away.
When this “Great Warming”…”Inconvenient Truth” sophistry exploded on the scene…I recognized it for what it was….the freudian slips gave away the inconvenient truth that it was no more about science and human welfare than “gun control” was about crime. Same hidden agenda and indeed the same players….
Yeah lance, perspective changes with experience and maturing….once was the time when I could hunt down the Marxists and kill them…..but now that would be my head writing cheques that my body can’t cash…..and retirement has placed me in an allegedly civlized nation that places constraints on such activity.
However civilization, at best, is an extremely thin veneer which even here is now showing signs of imminent rupture…..
I don’t make the rules….I just play the game….
Tain’t right….tain’t wrong….just is….
“Hitler did not seize power in a putsch”.
I guess I was thinking of the beer hall putsch of 1924 for which Hitler served prison time and during which time he completed “Mein Kampf”. The beer hall putsch, while unsuccessful, certainly helped as a springboard to power for the notoriety Hitler received. My main point stands, there is little that a business can do about the government of the day that they are forced to deal with.
Oh, I’m with you on that, nold, I was just being picky. An old grouch needs a hobby, you know.
nick, you are right. The Soviets perfected the art of politicizing science to enlist in the advancement of their agenda. Their AGW acolytes have learned from their ideological fore-bearers.
ebt, good synopsis @ 2:05.
Thanks for the link to the blog post and thanks also for the interesting and substantial discussion about it here.
Yes, the post isn’t saying anything that is necessarily new to people here on SDA. But there is a problem elsewhere with people who are very animated about the climate change argument focusing on science while missing the big picture. My post was directed as those people.
I’m a big fan of Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford (Watts Up With That? and Bishop Hill, respectively) but sometimes I feel they are not helping people see the real issue when they keep the conversation fixed firmly on science centric ‘findings x’ vs ‘findings y’.
That is exactly the argument that suits the ‘globalist warmists’ as it keeps too many people occupied with minutiae and in ignorance the political agenda.