<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cut and Paste Journalism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/cut-and-paste-journalism.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/cut-and-paste-journalism.html</link>
	<description>Challenging Climate Orthodoxy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:05:43 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alex Cull</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/cut-and-paste-journalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1016</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Cull</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=283#comment-1016</guid>
		<description>Paul, I totally agree with you there; I&#039;ve listened to this quite a few times, and the only discontinuity I can hear is just after Obama says &quot;rightful place&quot;, where it sounds as if he&#039;s been cut slightly short. There are no fades that I can detect - you can even hear the faint sound of a plane in the background, and this sound doesn&#039;t fade and return but seems to continue evenly, allowing the &quot;warming planet&quot; segment to merge seamlessly with the &quot;We will harness the sun&quot; segment.

There&#039;s been no update about this from Susan Watts or Peter Rippon on the Newsnight science blog, since Peter&#039;s &quot;montage&quot; explanation back in January.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul, I totally agree with you there; I&#8217;ve listened to this quite a few times, and the only discontinuity I can hear is just after Obama says &#8220;rightful place&#8221;, where it sounds as if he&#8217;s been cut slightly short. There are no fades that I can detect &#8211; you can even hear the faint sound of a plane in the background, and this sound doesn&#8217;t fade and return but seems to continue evenly, allowing the &#8220;warming planet&#8221; segment to merge seamlessly with the &#8220;We will harness the sun&#8221; segment.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s been no update about this from Susan Watts or Peter Rippon on the Newsnight science blog, since Peter&#8217;s &#8220;montage&#8221; explanation back in January.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PaulM</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/cut-and-paste-journalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1015</link>
		<dc:creator>PaulM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:54:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=283#comment-1015</guid>
		<description>I have just looked at the newsnight clip again and there are no fades between the re-pasted re-ordered snippets.
Newsnight editor Peter Rippon is not telling the truth.
There are no fades between the section, just a slight pause such as might be necessary for the speaker to draw breath between the phrases.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have just looked at the newsnight clip again and there are no fades between the re-pasted re-ordered snippets.<br />
Newsnight editor Peter Rippon is not telling the truth.<br />
There are no fades between the section, just a slight pause such as might be necessary for the speaker to draw breath between the phrases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: geoff chambers</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/cut-and-paste-journalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1043</link>
		<dc:creator>geoff chambers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:21:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=283#comment-1043</guid>
		<description>Alex
Thanks for your supporting comment at Monbiot’s article. I was encouraged by the 5 or 6 contributors who attacked Monbiot’s criticisms of Booker patiently and politely, so when I challenged him to reply to all of us, I didn’t feel like a lone idiot crying for attention. He’s lambasted one blogger at length for an irrelevant citation, but not replied at all to the six of us who attack him on the substantive issue. My hope is that someone at the Guardian is counting the points, and Monbiot will be forced to come down from the pulpit and  get his hands dirty with statistics, science, or just plain reasoned argument.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex<br />
Thanks for your supporting comment at Monbiot’s article. I was encouraged by the 5 or 6 contributors who attacked Monbiot’s criticisms of Booker patiently and politely, so when I challenged him to reply to all of us, I didn’t feel like a lone idiot crying for attention. He’s lambasted one blogger at length for an irrelevant citation, but not replied at all to the six of us who attack him on the substantive issue. My hope is that someone at the Guardian is counting the points, and Monbiot will be forced to come down from the pulpit and  get his hands dirty with statistics, science, or just plain reasoned argument.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Cull</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/cut-and-paste-journalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1042</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Cull</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=283#comment-1042</guid>
		<description>Stefano: re Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber etc., this is fascinating and something I&#039;ve been meaning to read about for a long time, my local library has some relevant books, I think.
Geoff: I&#039;ve been over to the Graun and had a look - if I&#039;m not mistaken, basically people responding to your comment re McIntyre vs Steig are saying something like: RealClimate are real climate scientists. Therefore: if you disagree with RealClimate, you disagree with climate science (and are thus anti-climate science) and also with science itself (and are thus unscientific/anti-science/a kook.) Absolutely impeccable logic in its awful way, and I think it goes to support Stefano&#039;s comment that &quot;debates against AGW always hit a brick wall.&quot; However, I guess the value is that someone somewhere will read it and start to think for themselves, maybe decide to visit RealClimate and Climate Audit and make up their own minds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stefano: re Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber etc., this is fascinating and something I&#8217;ve been meaning to read about for a long time, my local library has some relevant books, I think.<br />
Geoff: I&#8217;ve been over to the Graun and had a look &#8211; if I&#8217;m not mistaken, basically people responding to your comment re McIntyre vs Steig are saying something like: RealClimate are real climate scientists. Therefore: if you disagree with RealClimate, you disagree with climate science (and are thus anti-climate science) and also with science itself (and are thus unscientific/anti-science/a kook.) Absolutely impeccable logic in its awful way, and I think it goes to support Stefano&#8217;s comment that &#8220;debates against AGW always hit a brick wall.&#8221; However, I guess the value is that someone somewhere will read it and start to think for themselves, maybe decide to visit RealClimate and Climate Audit and make up their own minds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: geoff chambers</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/cut-and-paste-journalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1041</link>
		<dc:creator>geoff chambers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:20:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=283#comment-1041</guid>
		<description>To Alex and Stefano
Interesting stuff. Will the editors here either comment, rap our knuckles, or impose a couple of Hail Marys? I’m keeping busy over at Monbiot’s blog, where he’s laid into Booker, and met stiffer opposition than usual. The Guardian has officially allied itself with RealClimate, thus committing itself to a party line in a way which compromises totally their journalistic independence, it seems to me. It’s the difference between saying “we think Obama is a good guy” and promising to adhere to Democratic Party policy .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To Alex and Stefano<br />
Interesting stuff. Will the editors here either comment, rap our knuckles, or impose a couple of Hail Marys? I’m keeping busy over at Monbiot’s blog, where he’s laid into Booker, and met stiffer opposition than usual. The Guardian has officially allied itself with RealClimate, thus committing itself to a party line in a way which compromises totally their journalistic independence, it seems to me. It’s the difference between saying “we think Obama is a good guy” and promising to adhere to Democratic Party policy .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stefano</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/cut-and-paste-journalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1040</link>
		<dc:creator>Stefano</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:12:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=283#comment-1040</guid>
		<description>Geoff wrote:

&quot;naturally seek some ideology which distinguishes them from the great unwashed. Higher education enables them to combine left-wing sentiments (internationalism, solidarity with the oppressed) with a sense of superiority (not in terms of race or power or ideological domination -perish the thought!) - but in terms of access to knowledge denied to the common mortal. Such knowledge must be scientific, at least in appearance, and must satisfy their activist desire to assume responsibility for the world’s ills (the B.A. Honours man’s burden).
The Green Ideal has a strong (and I believe) legitimate aesthetic and moral appeal, and the CO2 mumbo jumbo provides the graphs and statistics which give it the semblance of scientific objectivity.&quot;

I find this interesting and I&#039;ll have to try to read up on Todd.

The features you mention:
- solidarity with the oppressed
- responsibility for world
- anti-racism, anti-power

are also described with some overlap in that theory of psychosocial development, Spiral Dynamics. In SD there are 6 or 7 main core codes or social values systems/intelligences, which have arisen progressively over thousands of years. Each new one brought something new which went beyond what the previous value code was capable of. So for example, for thousands of years, the tribal way of life and tribal values were the most advanced form of social grouping available for humans. Later in our history these disparate bands formed into larger social groupings, usually bound together by mythic religions, and eventually came to form nation states. The values that an individual has in a tribal society are quite different to the values of a  modern citizen in a democratic industrialised nation. Even the very notion of individuality is quite different in a tribal society, and doesn&#039;t bear a lot of resemblance to our modern individualistic egos.

OK, so at least 6 or 7 major codes or values intelligences are identified in the model. The most recent two, code Orange and code Green, arose roughly with the Enlightenment and with the 60s, respectively.

The Green core value is the one which most resembles your description of environmentalists. I&#039;m not saying they all are, just that perhaps a fair number of scientists from a certain generation all awoke or developed to the Green sociocultural values stage at the same time, and came to interpret their scientific data from the perspective of Green values/intelligence global responsibility.

There are a whole host of implications of SD theory, and other theories like it, but let me just mention a couple here. Anyone interested can read the book which is quite accessible, written more for business managers.

The Enlightenment was more or less the dawn of the Orange code or stage of culture. The theory says that each new code or values stage arises in response to problems that the previous intelligence values stage can&#039;t resolve. Now the Enlightenment gave us the principles and values of science, freedom from dogma, citizenship, one man one vote, technological progress, and the individual &quot;pursuit of happiness&quot;. It also gave us the atomic bomb, global pollution, oil spills, and multinationals stomping over Third World economies.

Much of what Green values, has to do with a reaction against Orange. It is interesting that AGW theory supporters usually frown upon  geoengineering projects. They sound too much like Orange technical fixes (something Orange is usually very good at). It is also telling that in a debate with AGW supporters, the skeptics are often accused of being in the pay of oil companies, ie. they are being accused of being Orange.

This similar pattern of breaking free from and denying, can repeat itself though the other codes or values intelligences as well. Orange free thinking hates Blue mythic dogma. Blue order and justice hates Red&#039;s impulsive violent power drives. Red freedom hates Purple&#039;s tribal sleepy submission to tribal customs and spirits. The literature fleshes these out, I&#039;m just trying to provide a very quick taste.

Basically, the more we try to champion rationality, individual freedom, the economy, the industrial machine, the innovations of new technology--the more we will come across sounding Orange to a Green values intelligence which is trying to free us from the abuses and problems of Orange in the first place. We are all in the pay of the oil industry, in the felt sense that we are all promoting a values intelligence that Green feels is already outdated anyway. I think this is why debates against AGW always hit a brick wall; they already know your values, and that is the very thing that they are trying to fight against (although they may never have heard of developmental theories of psychosocial growth, so they mey never have the words or labels to be able to identify just what it is about your whole point of view that they so detest--they just know you are wrong, even if you&#039;ve logically handled point by point everything they said).

The other implication of SD is that we cannot change a person&#039;s values intelligence. That is a process that seems to take decades, so if you disagree with someone over a values conflict, go away, wait ten years, and then try again. What can be done, however, is realise that the core values can be expressed in any number of ways. Having a Green core value doesn&#039;t necessarily make you an environmentalist, and it doesn&#039;t necessarily make you a supporter of the UN or the IPCC. Rather, we need to be able to find a healthier way for Green intelligence to express itself so that it really does help society. We need to speak to Green core values, and address them in their essence. AGW is just one surface issue, and as we know it has changed from one issue to another over the years. It is as if Green values are trying to find a place in the world, as the demographics indicate that an ever greater percentage of the population in the West is awakening and shifting to Green core values.

Sorry that&#039;s a bit long, I&#039;m just trying to get the balance between suggesting why it is relevant and encourage people to grab some of the basic material and the research into these cultural core values.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Geoff wrote:</p>
<p>&#8220;naturally seek some ideology which distinguishes them from the great unwashed. Higher education enables them to combine left-wing sentiments (internationalism, solidarity with the oppressed) with a sense of superiority (not in terms of race or power or ideological domination -perish the thought!) &#8211; but in terms of access to knowledge denied to the common mortal. Such knowledge must be scientific, at least in appearance, and must satisfy their activist desire to assume responsibility for the world’s ills (the B.A. Honours man’s burden).<br />
The Green Ideal has a strong (and I believe) legitimate aesthetic and moral appeal, and the CO2 mumbo jumbo provides the graphs and statistics which give it the semblance of scientific objectivity.&#8221;</p>
<p>I find this interesting and I&#8217;ll have to try to read up on Todd.</p>
<p>The features you mention:<br />
- solidarity with the oppressed<br />
- responsibility for world<br />
- anti-racism, anti-power</p>
<p>are also described with some overlap in that theory of psychosocial development, Spiral Dynamics. In SD there are 6 or 7 main core codes or social values systems/intelligences, which have arisen progressively over thousands of years. Each new one brought something new which went beyond what the previous value code was capable of. So for example, for thousands of years, the tribal way of life and tribal values were the most advanced form of social grouping available for humans. Later in our history these disparate bands formed into larger social groupings, usually bound together by mythic religions, and eventually came to form nation states. The values that an individual has in a tribal society are quite different to the values of a  modern citizen in a democratic industrialised nation. Even the very notion of individuality is quite different in a tribal society, and doesn&#8217;t bear a lot of resemblance to our modern individualistic egos.</p>
<p>OK, so at least 6 or 7 major codes or values intelligences are identified in the model. The most recent two, code Orange and code Green, arose roughly with the Enlightenment and with the 60s, respectively.</p>
<p>The Green core value is the one which most resembles your description of environmentalists. I&#8217;m not saying they all are, just that perhaps a fair number of scientists from a certain generation all awoke or developed to the Green sociocultural values stage at the same time, and came to interpret their scientific data from the perspective of Green values/intelligence global responsibility.</p>
<p>There are a whole host of implications of SD theory, and other theories like it, but let me just mention a couple here. Anyone interested can read the book which is quite accessible, written more for business managers.</p>
<p>The Enlightenment was more or less the dawn of the Orange code or stage of culture. The theory says that each new code or values stage arises in response to problems that the previous intelligence values stage can&#8217;t resolve. Now the Enlightenment gave us the principles and values of science, freedom from dogma, citizenship, one man one vote, technological progress, and the individual &#8220;pursuit of happiness&#8221;. It also gave us the atomic bomb, global pollution, oil spills, and multinationals stomping over Third World economies.</p>
<p>Much of what Green values, has to do with a reaction against Orange. It is interesting that AGW theory supporters usually frown upon  geoengineering projects. They sound too much like Orange technical fixes (something Orange is usually very good at). It is also telling that in a debate with AGW supporters, the skeptics are often accused of being in the pay of oil companies, ie. they are being accused of being Orange.</p>
<p>This similar pattern of breaking free from and denying, can repeat itself though the other codes or values intelligences as well. Orange free thinking hates Blue mythic dogma. Blue order and justice hates Red&#8217;s impulsive violent power drives. Red freedom hates Purple&#8217;s tribal sleepy submission to tribal customs and spirits. The literature fleshes these out, I&#8217;m just trying to provide a very quick taste.</p>
<p>Basically, the more we try to champion rationality, individual freedom, the economy, the industrial machine, the innovations of new technology&#8211;the more we will come across sounding Orange to a Green values intelligence which is trying to free us from the abuses and problems of Orange in the first place. We are all in the pay of the oil industry, in the felt sense that we are all promoting a values intelligence that Green feels is already outdated anyway. I think this is why debates against AGW always hit a brick wall; they already know your values, and that is the very thing that they are trying to fight against (although they may never have heard of developmental theories of psychosocial growth, so they mey never have the words or labels to be able to identify just what it is about your whole point of view that they so detest&#8211;they just know you are wrong, even if you&#8217;ve logically handled point by point everything they said).</p>
<p>The other implication of SD is that we cannot change a person&#8217;s values intelligence. That is a process that seems to take decades, so if you disagree with someone over a values conflict, go away, wait ten years, and then try again. What can be done, however, is realise that the core values can be expressed in any number of ways. Having a Green core value doesn&#8217;t necessarily make you an environmentalist, and it doesn&#8217;t necessarily make you a supporter of the UN or the IPCC. Rather, we need to be able to find a healthier way for Green intelligence to express itself so that it really does help society. We need to speak to Green core values, and address them in their essence. AGW is just one surface issue, and as we know it has changed from one issue to another over the years. It is as if Green values are trying to find a place in the world, as the demographics indicate that an ever greater percentage of the population in the West is awakening and shifting to Green core values.</p>
<p>Sorry that&#8217;s a bit long, I&#8217;m just trying to get the balance between suggesting why it is relevant and encourage people to grab some of the basic material and the research into these cultural core values.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Cull</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/cut-and-paste-journalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1014</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Cull</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:45:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=283#comment-1014</guid>
		<description>Following on from Stefano’s comment of “They desire a worldwide change, within their own lifetime, to a system of united world peace” and also from Geoff’s comments re the desires and ambitions of an educated elite, I would add that the idea of a world government has had its ardent followers, I would imagine, since before the dawn of socialism. I recall reading, as a student, some of H.G.Wells’s more idealistic novels, such as The World Set Free and The Shape of Things to Come, and thinking: why not a world government? Such a development certainly seemed logical, sensible and attractive, to me at that time. An end to world wars, squabbles between nations, protectionism, inequalities of all sorts, and a unique chance to better the general lot of humankind.

Now I’ve grown up a bit (or just become middle-aged and cynical, some might say) and the idea of a world government has lost its shine; in my more Eeyorish moments I can’t help thinking it would be an amazing opportunity, surely, for bureaucracy, corruption and incompetence at the current regional and national levels to metastatise into bureaucracy, corruption and incompetence on a truly global scale.

But I can see that for many, this idea might still be fresh and shiny. After all, who hasn’t, at some point, wished that all of humanity would unite against a common enemy? If all nations forgot their differences and their quarrels with one another and joined forces, what could we not achieve? Americans, Chinese and Russians all on the same side, Israelis and Iranians working together in a common cause. In SF this common enemy has often been aliens – H.G.Wells’s Martians perhaps, or the baddies in Independence Day. But it could equally be climate change. Remember the finale of The Day After Tomorrow, when the survivors were airlifted out of New York, and the Dick Cheney-like new President apologised to the world for causing the disaster (or was that in an episode of South Park? I can’t remember exactly.) The mighty U.S. and humble Mexico on an equal footing, working hand in hand to help humanity against climate chaos.

I wonder if this kind of sentiment underpins much of the middle-class drive towards decarbonising the world, penalising and demonising all those selfish industrial nations, sending payouts to the people of nations deemed under threat from rising seas, etc., and also the opinion of some that “even if climate change were not real” (I won’t attempt to analyse that phrase), stringent world-wide measures and controls would be a good thing anyway. A United Earth Federation, committed to equality and fairness between rich and poor countries, arbitrating conflicts, regulating trade – and, of course, tightly controlling the entire world’s carbon emissions.

Something to be excited about! (In certain circles, anyway.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following on from Stefano’s comment of “They desire a worldwide change, within their own lifetime, to a system of united world peace” and also from Geoff’s comments re the desires and ambitions of an educated elite, I would add that the idea of a world government has had its ardent followers, I would imagine, since before the dawn of socialism. I recall reading, as a student, some of H.G.Wells’s more idealistic novels, such as The World Set Free and The Shape of Things to Come, and thinking: why not a world government? Such a development certainly seemed logical, sensible and attractive, to me at that time. An end to world wars, squabbles between nations, protectionism, inequalities of all sorts, and a unique chance to better the general lot of humankind.</p>
<p>Now I’ve grown up a bit (or just become middle-aged and cynical, some might say) and the idea of a world government has lost its shine; in my more Eeyorish moments I can’t help thinking it would be an amazing opportunity, surely, for bureaucracy, corruption and incompetence at the current regional and national levels to metastatise into bureaucracy, corruption and incompetence on a truly global scale.</p>
<p>But I can see that for many, this idea might still be fresh and shiny. After all, who hasn’t, at some point, wished that all of humanity would unite against a common enemy? If all nations forgot their differences and their quarrels with one another and joined forces, what could we not achieve? Americans, Chinese and Russians all on the same side, Israelis and Iranians working together in a common cause. In SF this common enemy has often been aliens – H.G.Wells’s Martians perhaps, or the baddies in Independence Day. But it could equally be climate change. Remember the finale of The Day After Tomorrow, when the survivors were airlifted out of New York, and the Dick Cheney-like new President apologised to the world for causing the disaster (or was that in an episode of South Park? I can’t remember exactly.) The mighty U.S. and humble Mexico on an equal footing, working hand in hand to help humanity against climate chaos.</p>
<p>I wonder if this kind of sentiment underpins much of the middle-class drive towards decarbonising the world, penalising and demonising all those selfish industrial nations, sending payouts to the people of nations deemed under threat from rising seas, etc., and also the opinion of some that “even if climate change were not real” (I won’t attempt to analyse that phrase), stringent world-wide measures and controls would be a good thing anyway. A United Earth Federation, committed to equality and fairness between rich and poor countries, arbitrating conflicts, regulating trade – and, of course, tightly controlling the entire world’s carbon emissions.</p>
<p>Something to be excited about! (In certain circles, anyway.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: geoff chambers</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/cut-and-paste-journalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1039</link>
		<dc:creator>geoff chambers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:35:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=283#comment-1039</guid>
		<description>Stefano
You wonder why AGWers “keep choosing to believe the theory” and what it is they value. I’d suggest that the analysis of conscious motives, though vital for knowing what the “movers and shakers” are up to (eg that Maurice Strong has been pushing for “world government” for decades) is inadequate for the analysis of social movements. Many use psychological terms like “mass hysteria”, which to my mind describe the phenomenon accurately, but don’t advance the argument much. CR don’t like going down that route, I think, partly because of their correct assessment that environmentalism is not a genuine “mass” movement, in the sense that they can’t get tens of thousands out on the streets, or win significant support at the ballot box.
In a previous comment on CR’s article on George’s Aga, I suggested that the kind of demographic analysis developed by the French historian Emmanuel Todd might help to understand the environmentalist phenomenon. Roughly: universal literacy ushered in an era of egalitarian politics. All men can be considered equal, when all can read and write. Mass access to further education, on the other hand, divides the opinionated “haves” from the ignorant “don’t knows”.
As long as the educated élite were a tiny minority of society, they necessarily kept some linkage with “the masses”, even if only via their servants (think Bertie Wooster and Jeeves). When 30% of the population have a university education, they form a group apart, (the Guardian-reading “chattering classes”) and naturally seek some ideology which distinguishes them from the great unwashed. Higher education enables them to combine left-wing sentiments (internationalism, solidarity with the oppressed) with a sense of superiority (not in terms of race or power or ideological domination -perish the thought!) - but in terms of access to knowledge denied to the common mortal. Such knowledge must be scientific, at least in appearance, and must satisfy their activist desire to assume responsibility for the world’s ills (the B.A. Honours man’s burden).
The Green Ideal has a strong (and I believe) legitimate aesthetic and moral appeal, and the CO2 mumbo jumbo provides the graphs and statistics which give it the semblance of scientific objectivity. Only at this point do the movers and shakers - bureaucrats, journalists, and last and indeed least the politicians - move in, and an ideal becomes an ideology. The self-interest of the S&amp;M élite (shakers and movers, not sado-masochists, though ...) gets the ideal cemented into the political system, without the democratic process getting a look in.
That’s my idea, anyway, speaking as a paid-up member of the chattering classes...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stefano<br />
You wonder why AGWers “keep choosing to believe the theory” and what it is they value. I’d suggest that the analysis of conscious motives, though vital for knowing what the “movers and shakers” are up to (eg that Maurice Strong has been pushing for “world government” for decades) is inadequate for the analysis of social movements. Many use psychological terms like “mass hysteria”, which to my mind describe the phenomenon accurately, but don’t advance the argument much. CR don’t like going down that route, I think, partly because of their correct assessment that environmentalism is not a genuine “mass” movement, in the sense that they can’t get tens of thousands out on the streets, or win significant support at the ballot box.<br />
In a previous comment on CR’s article on George’s Aga, I suggested that the kind of demographic analysis developed by the French historian Emmanuel Todd might help to understand the environmentalist phenomenon. Roughly: universal literacy ushered in an era of egalitarian politics. All men can be considered equal, when all can read and write. Mass access to further education, on the other hand, divides the opinionated “haves” from the ignorant “don’t knows”.<br />
As long as the educated élite were a tiny minority of society, they necessarily kept some linkage with “the masses”, even if only via their servants (think Bertie Wooster and Jeeves). When 30% of the population have a university education, they form a group apart, (the Guardian-reading “chattering classes”) and naturally seek some ideology which distinguishes them from the great unwashed. Higher education enables them to combine left-wing sentiments (internationalism, solidarity with the oppressed) with a sense of superiority (not in terms of race or power or ideological domination -perish the thought!) &#8211; but in terms of access to knowledge denied to the common mortal. Such knowledge must be scientific, at least in appearance, and must satisfy their activist desire to assume responsibility for the world’s ills (the B.A. Honours man’s burden).<br />
The Green Ideal has a strong (and I believe) legitimate aesthetic and moral appeal, and the CO2 mumbo jumbo provides the graphs and statistics which give it the semblance of scientific objectivity. Only at this point do the movers and shakers &#8211; bureaucrats, journalists, and last and indeed least the politicians &#8211; move in, and an ideal becomes an ideology. The self-interest of the S&amp;M élite (shakers and movers, not sado-masochists, though &#8230;) gets the ideal cemented into the political system, without the democratic process getting a look in.<br />
That’s my idea, anyway, speaking as a paid-up member of the chattering classes&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TonyN</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/cut-and-paste-journalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1038</link>
		<dc:creator>TonyN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:28:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=283#comment-1038</guid>
		<description>I have received a reply, of sorts, from the BBC Trust:

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/bl...com/blog/? p=153

It looks as though we are going to take the pretty route to a proper response, but we will get there!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have received a reply, of sorts, from the BBC Trust:</p>
<p><a href="http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/bl...com/blog/?" rel="nofollow">http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/bl&#8230;com/blog/?</a> p=153</p>
<p>It looks as though we are going to take the pretty route to a proper response, but we will get there!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TonyN</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/cut-and-paste-journalism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1037</link>
		<dc:creator>TonyN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:28:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=283#comment-1037</guid>
		<description>I have received a reply, of sorts, from the BBC Trust:

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/bl...com/blog/? p=153

It looks as though we are going to take the pretty route to a proper response. but we will get there!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have received a reply, of sorts, from the BBC Trust:</p>
<p><a href="http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/bl...com/blog/?" rel="nofollow">http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/bl&#8230;com/blog/?</a> p=153</p>
<p>It looks as though we are going to take the pretty route to a proper response. but we will get there!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
