Where on Earth do you get the idea that we think that politics should drive facts? We just plain old fashioned do not think that. We do, however, recognise that politics often DOES drive facts. You, however, would appear to be in [cough] denial on that one, so please excuse us if we take your “facts” with a pinch of salt.

Likewise, where’d you get this one from? “by your own words you admit that your view of the facts is governed wholly by your politics”.

And there’s more… “We’ve merely pointed out that there is a strong consensus among scientists and scientific organizations that it is a problem that merits attention; and that a student textbook does a disservice by arguing otherwise using cute little phrases like “activist scientists.” That’s the fact. That’s what we’ve said.”

We have already pointed out that the text accepts that “Most scientists agree that the earth has gotten a bit warmer over the past century. But from there on profound disagreements exist.” Sorry Paul, we remain wholly unconvinced by your examples of global warming “facts” that you think the authors have got wrong.

“So how about pulling back that letter to Houghton-Mifflin and telling them that while you deplore the methods of FoE, you now recognize that the text is unacceptably slanted and misleading, and should be corrected.”

Because to do so would fly in the face of the “the facts”. You of all people should see that.

You’ve been attacking our assessment of something we have read, and you by your own admission have not read. Now by your own words you admit that your view of the facts is governed wholly by your politics.

We haven’t argued for any particular response to global warming. We’ve merely pointed out that there is a strong consensus among scientists and scientific organizations that it is a problem that merits attention; and that a student textbook does a disservice by arguing otherwise using cute little phrases like “activist scientists.” That’s the fact. That’s what we’ve said.

So how about pulling back that letter to Houghton-Mifflin and telling them that while you deplore the methods of FoE, you now recognize that the text is unacceptably slanted and misleading, and should be corrected. A more balanced and more accurate approach like that would lend you credibility.

Matthew was criticizing a textbook because it was inaccurate and misleading. He is right. The media instantly spun that as a crtiticism of bias, which is not the main point. FoE has taken the point to argue their cause. People who deny that global warming is a problem, like the authors of this blog, have completely distorted the debate to make their point. In all of this, Matt’s main point, which is about education, has been lost.

So everybody can write Houghton-Mifflin, but no one has a right to force the authors or the publisher to re-write the textbook their way. What we do have a right to insist on is that it be accurate.

Whether or not they would still think of themselves as communists is hard to say – and they themselves are extremely cagey on the subject, preferring to witter on about the alleged bankrupcy of other people’s politics without offering anything coherent by way of a political programme themselves. I suspect that they imagine themselves as some sort of vanguard group that will declare its true revolutionary colours and lead the grateful workers to a land of limitless material wealth when the right historical moment arises.

As with most such groups, the position they most revile is that of reformist liberal democracy. They are far happier cosying up to extreme right-wingers, with whom they indeed have a lot more in common. So if you’re not too fussed about political labels, this could be the start of a beautiful friendship!

We’ve certainly noted that the environmental movement is indeed authoritarian. And that that is a good reason to object to it.

But is it really socialist? And communist? We don’t think it is.

And we have written previously on why we think it is a mistake to confuse green with red .

Environmentalism differs from socialism or communism in many ways. But one of the most important is that the abolition of scarcity is a key intention of socialism and communism. Environmentalists, on the other hand, aim to limit our material expectations – “REDUCE! REUSE! RECYCLE!”, and make a virtue out of scarcity. They don’t want us to go on flights across the world, or to trade with people in far away places. Instead, they bang on about localised systems of small-scale production, which would, of course, have the effect of limiting the horizons of individuals who lived in them, and their work and social aspirations. Critics of capitalism, on the other hand, might argue that it had failed to deliver the benefits of industrial society equally or fairly, and that capitalists who had argued that it’s not society’s responsibility to extend such benefits had thus made an ethic out of austerity – for the poor – in much the same way as the Greens; it is the poor who have to adjust their expectations to the ‘realities’ of the market under capitalism, and to the ‘realities’ of the biosphere under environmentalism.

And environmentalism is no ‘majority rule’, ‘tyranny of the majority’, or as socialists might aim for, ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Indeed, environmentalism is elitism, against the interests of the masses, and is cynical of mass politics. It is ‘inconvenient’ and stands in the way of the ‘higher purpose’.

Communism’s ultimate objective – a free, stateless society – seems to share something with what Ike has expressed. After all, the desire to achieve a free society, and some pertinent questions about the legitimacy of cold bureaucracy are where most revolutionaries start out.

Are you a communist, Ike?

That manipulation is precisely what is being attempted by the Greens and their fellow-travellers. Without some formal known and supported limits to governmental powers, democracy only changes the identity of the tyrant, not the fact of tyranny.

As an aside, have you noted how the stock solution to these “dooms-day” predictions is always authoritarian and socialist if not outright communist? Why is it true that the proposed solutions to the “New Ice Age Coming” scares of the 70’s and 80’s was tyranny as is the proposed solution to the “Earth Burning Up” scares of this decade or so is likewise tyranny? Why is the proposed solution never freedom? e.g., reduced laws, reduced taxes, reduced bureaucratic regulation? Why always more of those things rather than less? Because the proponents suppose that we are too utterly stupid to save ourselves; not to mention their penchant for autocracy and tyrannies, so long as they are the autocrats and tyrants! Coincidence? I think not.

A more accurate description would be ‘majority will’, but this too is incomplete, because it makes no mention of the process by which the majority will is determined.

I wonder how Anon beleives the ‘majority’ can establish their will – let alone their rule – without debate.

Closing down debate is anti-democratic, even if it is the majority’s desire that debate be closed down.