Comments on: Comment is NOT Free http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/comment-is-not-free.html Challenging Climate Orthodoxy Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:47:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Robert Wood http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/comment-is-not-free.html#comment-1031 Robert Wood Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:00:25 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=261#comment-1031 "Class War"? Is Moonbat a grown-up? “Class War”?

Is Moonbat a grown-up?

]]> By: Eric Smith http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/comment-is-not-free.html#comment-1030 Eric Smith Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:45:52 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=261#comment-1030 Monbiot is an old fashioned anti globalisation minimalist anarchist. He probably doesn't care too much about the environment, it has merely given him a route into the mainsteam. He has shot himself in the foot because AGW has completely obliterated anti globalisation. He is also a liability to the green movement. He is too emotional, his seething hatred of consumer capitalism gets the better of him and he loses the plot far too often. Monbiot is an old fashioned anti globalisation minimalist anarchist. He probably doesn’t care too much about the environment, it has merely given him a route into the mainsteam.

He has shot himself in the foot because AGW has completely obliterated anti globalisation. He is also a liability to the green movement. He is too emotional, his seething hatred of consumer capitalism gets the better of him and he loses the plot far too often.

]]> By: geoff chambers http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/comment-is-not-free.html#comment-1029 geoff chambers Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:07:42 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=261#comment-1029 It’s a peculiar article. It reads like a magician’s patter designed to distract your attention from something which he doesn’t want you to see. There’s a sideswipe at the carbon footprint of middleclass Aga owners; a defence of Greens against the accusation that they’re an overwhelmingly middle class movement; and a rather pathetic attempt at a class breakdown of Ryanair customers, before getting down to the main issue - an attack on Spiked and its principal contributors for their agnostic position on global warming. The ad hominem part is typical Monbiot, attributing to his opponents caricatural views, hypocritical shifts of opinion, and guilt by association with right wing groups and personalities. But the core criticism of the Spiked writers is the attribution of motives. He says: But if ... you refuse to accept that man-made climate change is real, you must show that the campaign to curb it is the result of an irrational impulse. The impulse they choose, because it's an easy stereotype, ... is the urge to preserve the wonders of the world for the upper classes. Well of course. if believers in catastrophic AGW are unwilling or unable to give rational support for their belief, we non-believers are bound to try and find motivations, the better to understand and counter their movement, which we consider loony and dangerous, just as they consider us sceptics. Spiked’s criticism, far from being “an easy stereotype” is interesting, since it goes against a lot of the popular imagery of Greens as humble peasants tilling the soil. Though I agree that Monbiot’s argument is shallow, weird and infantile, I don’t feel either you or any of the many critical bloggers have got to the heart of it. Part of the problem is the unhealthy symbiotic relation between him and the “comment is free” format. The latter provides the Guardian with a handy alibi (see, global warming deniers are free to express themselves) which allows Monbiot to ignore substantive criticism and concentrate on Savonarola-like moralising. His insufferable pose of infallibility (Trust me, I’ve read the peer-reviewed science, which I don’t need to bore you with) coupled with his prosecuting attorney’s talent for the vicious (irrelevant) detail, makes him an interesting and dangerous opponent. Of course, if the whole global warming thing melts away, the Guardian will give him a column about how to save hedgehogs, and we can forget him. Until then, keep up the criticism. Excuse the punctuation. Apostrophes and inverted commas on my French laptop don’t seem to cross the Channel . It’s a peculiar article. It reads like a magician’s patter designed to distract your attention from something which he doesn’t want you to see. There’s a sideswipe at the carbon footprint of middleclass Aga owners; a defence of Greens against the accusation that they’re an overwhelmingly middle class movement; and a rather pathetic attempt at a class breakdown of Ryanair customers, before getting down to the main issue – an attack on Spiked and its principal contributors for their agnostic position on global warming. The ad hominem part is typical Monbiot, attributing to his opponents caricatural views, hypocritical shifts of opinion, and guilt by association with right wing groups and personalities. But the core criticism of the Spiked writers is the attribution of motives. He says:
But if … you refuse to accept that man-made climate change is real, you must show that the campaign to curb it is the result of an irrational impulse. The impulse they choose, because it’s an easy stereotype, … is the urge to preserve the wonders of the world for the upper classes.

Well of course. if believers in catastrophic AGW are unwilling or unable to give rational support for their belief, we non-believers are bound to try and find motivations, the better to understand and counter their movement, which we consider loony and dangerous, just as they consider us sceptics. Spiked’s criticism, far from being “an easy stereotype” is interesting, since it goes against a lot of the popular imagery of Greens as humble peasants tilling the soil.
Though I agree that Monbiot’s argument is shallow, weird and infantile, I don’t feel either you or any of the many critical bloggers have got to the heart of it. Part of the problem is the unhealthy symbiotic relation between him and the “comment is free” format. The latter provides the Guardian with a handy alibi (see, global warming deniers are free to express themselves) which allows Monbiot to ignore substantive criticism and concentrate on Savonarola-like moralising. His insufferable pose of infallibility (Trust me, I’ve read the peer-reviewed science, which I don’t need to bore you with) coupled with his prosecuting attorney’s talent for the vicious (irrelevant) detail, makes him an interesting and dangerous opponent. Of course, if the whole global warming thing melts away, the Guardian will give him a column about how to save hedgehogs, and we can forget him. Until then, keep up the criticism.

Excuse the punctuation. Apostrophes and inverted commas on my French laptop don’t seem to cross the Channel .

]]> By: Gooner2008 http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/comment-is-not-free.html#comment-1028 Gooner2008 Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:36:53 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=261#comment-1028 Bish, not only has my response been removed, but they've banished all trace of the post having been there to begin with. I've posted another response asking for an explanation, but it certainly seems, and has done for some time, that as the title of this entry argues: Comment is NOT Free. It is an absolute disgrace. Bish,

not only has my response been removed, but they’ve banished all trace of the post having been there to begin with.

I’ve posted another response asking for an explanation, but it certainly seems, and has done for some time, that as the title of this entry argues: Comment is NOT Free.

It is an absolute disgrace.

]]> By: bert&ernie http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/comment-is-not-free.html#comment-1027 bert&ernie Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:39:10 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=261#comment-1027 Brendan O'Neil has posted a response to Monbiot on CiF... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/13/george-monbiot-class-war Brendan O’Neil has posted a response to Monbiot on CiF…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/13/george-monbiot-class-war

]]> By: Bishop Hill http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/comment-is-not-free.html#comment-1026 Bishop Hill Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:14:32 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=261#comment-1026 Ha! I put a pointer to this post on the new Brendan O'Neill thread on CiF. They deleted that too! Ha! I put a pointer to this post on the new Brendan O’Neill thread on CiF. They deleted that too!

]]> By: Gooner2008 http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/comment-is-not-free.html#comment-1025 Gooner2008 Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:17:11 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=261#comment-1025 I left a comment on this at CiF, but I'm alarmed to see that JH's comment was removed by the moderators. For what possible reason? It seems GM has shifted from braying about 'the science' and painting apolocalyptic visions, to attacking those who he feels are responsible for mass rejection of his doctrine. The anger and frustration is showing, and really, if Sp!iked and the ordinary Joes and Josephines posting on CiF, and few other bloggers, are undermining 'the consensus', then it really wasn't very robust to being with. I left a comment on this at CiF, but I’m alarmed to see that JH’s comment was removed by the moderators. For what possible reason?

It seems GM has shifted from braying about ‘the science’ and painting apolocalyptic visions, to attacking those who he feels are responsible for mass rejection of his doctrine.

The anger and frustration is showing, and really, if Sp!iked and the ordinary Joes and Josephines posting on CiF, and few other bloggers, are undermining ‘the consensus’, then it really wasn’t very robust to being with.

]]>