Comments on: Climategate and a Tale of Two Georges http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/11/climategate-and-a-tale-of-two-georges.html Challenging Climate Orthodoxy Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:12:39 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: geoffchambers http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/11/climategate-and-a-tale-of-two-georges.html/comment-page-1#comment-1952 geoffchambers Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:26:52 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=418#comment-1952 Monbiot is off again, on a Savonarolan roll, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/14/climate-change-battle-redefine-humanity He’s caught the mood of the Copenhagen negotiations with all the flair of a tone deaf busker in a crowded tube train. Go to the comments thread and add your voices to the storm of derision. Give him one for Gaia. Monbiot is off again, on a Savonarolan roll, at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/14/climate-change-battle-redefine-humanity
He’s caught the mood of the Copenhagen negotiations with all the flair of a tone deaf busker in a crowded tube train. Go to the comments thread and add your voices to the storm of derision. Give him one for Gaia.

]]> By: Editors http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/11/climategate-and-a-tale-of-two-georges.html/comment-page-1#comment-1913 Editors Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:31:03 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=418#comment-1913 Geoff - 'It seems to me that any party which presents itself before the electorate is legitimate.' We're not arguing that environmentalism as a political philosophy is illegitimate (even if we argue that it is ill-conceived). We are arguing that its influence has not been legitimate. <blockquote>It is illegitimate we argue, <b>not because of any of its premises</b>, but by virtue of the fact that it has installed itself within political institutions <b>without due process</b>, so to speak. It has never been tested democratically, and so on.</blockquote> Environmental ideas are even used as arguments against democracy proper. For instance the idea that democracy is inadequate to meet the challenges of a changing climate. Environmentalists demand that 'brave' governments create legislation that will punish non-conforming lifestyles. We argue that supra-national institutions are sought in order to establish legitimacy for environmental ideas, because contemporary politicians - never mind the environmental argument - cannot move the public mind at all. Environmental ideas are convenient, in other words, to those with only a fragile hold on their public roles. You are probably right that we over-state the coherence of yesterday's political movements to some extent. Nonetheless, they were actually movements, and they were moved by ideas. Any old pseudo-scientific factoid passes for an argument against capitalism and economic growth today. There were theoretical foundations to movements comprising the various parts of the Left and (probably to a lesser extent) the Right, even though they didn't form a coherent unit. They contained numbers who were more or less conversant with the philosophy they had attached themselves to in the form of a movement. But for today's movements... IPCC reports, Stern Reviews, and sheer innuendo take the place of Das Kapital, Little Red Book, the Wealth of Nations... whatever... A million prejudices whinges and grumbles find expression through the language of environmental apocalypse, with 'data' tagged on, almost as an afterthought. So Johann Hari (see our latest post) gets to make up his own stats on the hoof, about 'by 2012, the north pole will be a point in the open ocean'. The double-first Cambridge grad makes shite up, not even to score points. What does it say that someone so seemingly intellectually capable as Hari is incoherent <i>by himself</i>, never mind as part of a movement? Geoff – ‘It seems to me that any party which presents itself before the electorate is legitimate.’

We’re not arguing that environmentalism as a political philosophy is illegitimate (even if we argue that it is ill-conceived). We are arguing that its influence has not been legitimate.

It is illegitimate we argue, not because of any of its premises, but by virtue of the fact that it has installed itself within political institutions without due process, so to speak. It has never been tested democratically, and so on.

Environmental ideas are even used as arguments against democracy proper. For instance the idea that democracy is inadequate to meet the challenges of a changing climate. Environmentalists demand that ‘brave’ governments create legislation that will punish non-conforming lifestyles. We argue that supra-national institutions are sought in order to establish legitimacy for environmental ideas, because contemporary politicians – never mind the environmental argument – cannot move the public mind at all. Environmental ideas are convenient, in other words, to those with only a fragile hold on their public roles.

You are probably right that we over-state the coherence of yesterday’s political movements to some extent. Nonetheless, they were actually movements, and they were moved by ideas. Any old pseudo-scientific factoid passes for an argument against capitalism and economic growth today. There were theoretical foundations to movements comprising the various parts of the Left and (probably to a lesser extent) the Right, even though they didn’t form a coherent unit. They contained numbers who were more or less conversant with the philosophy they had attached themselves to in the form of a movement. But for today’s movements… IPCC reports, Stern Reviews, and sheer innuendo take the place of Das Kapital, Little Red Book, the Wealth of Nations… whatever… A million prejudices whinges and grumbles find expression through the language of environmental apocalypse, with ‘data’ tagged on, almost as an afterthought. So Johann Hari (see our latest post) gets to make up his own stats on the hoof, about ‘by 2012, the north pole will be a point in the open ocean’. The double-first Cambridge grad makes shite up, not even to score points. What does it say that someone so seemingly intellectually capable as Hari is incoherent by himself, never mind as part of a movement?

]]> By: geoffchambers http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/11/climategate-and-a-tale-of-two-georges.html/comment-page-1#comment-1912 geoffchambers Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:31:14 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=418#comment-1912 Editors, Thanks for the reply, most of which I agree with wholeheartedly, and which goes further than I would dare to in some respects. In characterising the response of the Guardian as “an angry and infantile tantrum” you wave goodbye to two centuries of radical mainstream journalism in our country. I’m older than you, and I find it rather more difficult to say farewell to a tradition that stretches from Hazlitt to Paul Foot and - dare I say? - Monbiot, so casually. I thought the Guardian and the Observer were broad churches capable of tolerating dissent. I was wrong. In your second paragraph you identify exactly where we disagree. I suggested that you see Environmentalism as illegitimate, and you don’t deny this. You say: “it is a phenomenon more than it is an idea. As ‘movements’ go, environmentalism is much less coherent than political movements before”. As a matter of historical fact, I’d dispute that. Socialism, to take the last big political idea, was espoused by Marx, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, and a million others, and it would be vain to try and find a ‘coherent’ common ground between them all. But my real disagreement is with the idea of legitimacy. Granted, environmentalism receives a pathetic number of votes, in relation to its influence in the media and with the mainstream political parties. So what? In this, British politics is simply conforming to the European model, where proportional representation and the existence of multiple mini-parties gives a disproportionate power to any 5% of the electorate who are up for grabs. It seems to me that any party which presents itself before the electorate is legitimate. Before the Green Party, the joker in the British Political Party Pack was the Monster Raving Loony Party. Then one day (before you were born, maybe..) they beat the SDLP into fourth place in a by-election, and destroyed a party which was promoted by the Guardian, among others, as the future of Britsh politics. Once the insanity of global warming alarmism is defeated, I’d be happy to vote for a Green Party which defended badgers, footpaths, and Bangla Deshis (not necessarily in that order). I probably wouldn’t, because I like the British first-past-the-post system, but that wouldn’t render a clean Green Party illegitimate. Editors,
Thanks for the reply, most of which I agree with wholeheartedly, and which goes further than I would dare to in some respects. In characterising the response of the Guardian as “an angry and infantile tantrum” you wave goodbye to two centuries of radical mainstream journalism in our country. I’m older than you, and I find it rather more difficult to say farewell to a tradition that stretches from Hazlitt to Paul Foot and – dare I say? – Monbiot, so casually. I thought the Guardian and the Observer were broad churches capable of tolerating dissent. I was wrong.
In your second paragraph you identify exactly where we disagree. I suggested that you see Environmentalism as illegitimate, and you don’t deny this. You say: “it is a phenomenon more than it is an idea. As ‘movements’ go, environmentalism is much less coherent than political movements before”.
As a matter of historical fact, I’d dispute that. Socialism, to take the last big political idea, was espoused by Marx, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, and a million others, and it would be vain to try and find a ‘coherent’ common ground between them all.
But my real disagreement is with the idea of legitimacy. Granted, environmentalism receives a pathetic number of votes, in relation to its influence in the media and with the mainstream political parties. So what? In this, British politics is simply conforming to the European model, where proportional representation and the existence of multiple mini-parties gives a disproportionate power to any 5% of the electorate who are up for grabs.
It seems to me that any party which presents itself before the electorate is legitimate. Before the Green Party, the joker in the British Political Party Pack was the Monster Raving Loony Party. Then one day (before you were born, maybe..) they beat the SDLP into fourth place in a by-election, and destroyed a party which was promoted by the Guardian, among others, as the future of Britsh politics.
Once the insanity of global warming alarmism is defeated, I’d be happy to vote for a Green Party which defended badgers, footpaths, and Bangla Deshis (not necessarily in that order). I probably wouldn’t, because I like the British first-past-the-post system, but that wouldn’t render a clean Green Party illegitimate.

]]> By: Editors http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/11/climategate-and-a-tale-of-two-georges.html/comment-page-1#comment-1910 Editors Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:29:26 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=418#comment-1910 Geoff, 'You seem to be arguing that environmentalism is somehow illegitimate as a political idea.' We prefer to say that it is a phenomenon more than it is an idea. As 'movements' go, environmentalism is much less coherent than political movements before. More to the point, it is principally a phenomenon of the political establishment than any kind of grass-roots, or otherwise spontaneous expression of political voices. It is illegitimate we argue, not because of any of its premises, but by virtue of the fact that it has installed itself within political institutions without due process, so to speak. It has never been tested democratically, and so on. "how best to oppose them, if not by attacking them at their weakest point, which is currently the climategate scandal?" This is the subject of a post coming soon, other deadlines willing. We're not saying, by the way, that climategate ought to be ignored. Our criticism was about expecting another layer of officialdom to come and sort the whole mess out. Of course it wont. On the subject of the Guardian's editorial. It stinks, of course, and it is almost funny to see how easily and quickly it appeals to inquries that have gone before, i.e. Stern. It is also interesting to see how democratic politics is itself the subject of the Guardian's criticism, as you say. The Guardian presents itself as radical and even edgy, but in reality, it's doing the establishment's bidding. It is, as usual, as if Stern had no critics. Has the Guardian ever been so uncritical of any previous government-commissioned review, report, or inquiry? And the usual confusion about what 'facts' are 'science' and which are politics are again, routinely confused. The 2 degrees target, for instance, has no basis in science, but is a political goal that ultimately has no more meaning than 2.1 or 3 or 1.5 degrees. The phenomenon in journalism is the same as in politics. Without the issue of climate change to see the world through, Guardian hacks are as disorientated about the world as politicians are. Thus scepticism appears to them as an existential threat. They cannot tell the difference between loosing their purchase on the world and the world ending. The result is an angry and infantile tantrum. Geoff, ‘You seem to be arguing that environmentalism is somehow illegitimate as a political idea.’

We prefer to say that it is a phenomenon more than it is an idea. As ‘movements’ go, environmentalism is much less coherent than political movements before. More to the point, it is principally a phenomenon of the political establishment than any kind of grass-roots, or otherwise spontaneous expression of political voices. It is illegitimate we argue, not because of any of its premises, but by virtue of the fact that it has installed itself within political institutions without due process, so to speak. It has never been tested democratically, and so on.

“how best to oppose them, if not by attacking them at their weakest point, which is currently the climategate scandal?”

This is the subject of a post coming soon, other deadlines willing. We’re not saying, by the way, that climategate ought to be ignored. Our criticism was about expecting another layer of officialdom to come and sort the whole mess out. Of course it wont.

On the subject of the Guardian’s editorial. It stinks, of course, and it is almost funny to see how easily and quickly it appeals to inquries that have gone before, i.e. Stern. It is also interesting to see how democratic politics is itself the subject of the Guardian’s criticism, as you say. The Guardian presents itself as radical and even edgy, but in reality, it’s doing the establishment’s bidding.

It is, as usual, as if Stern had no critics. Has the Guardian ever been so uncritical of any previous government-commissioned review, report, or inquiry? And the usual confusion about what ‘facts’ are ’science’ and which are politics are again, routinely confused. The 2 degrees target, for instance, has no basis in science, but is a political goal that ultimately has no more meaning than 2.1 or 3 or 1.5 degrees.

The phenomenon in journalism is the same as in politics. Without the issue of climate change to see the world through, Guardian hacks are as disorientated about the world as politicians are. Thus scepticism appears to them as an existential threat. They cannot tell the difference between loosing their purchase on the world and the world ending. The result is an angry and infantile tantrum.

]]> By: geoffchambers http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/11/climategate-and-a-tale-of-two-georges.html/comment-page-1#comment-1909 geoffchambers Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:42:33 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=418#comment-1909 I’ve been trying to come to terms with your thesis that it’s environmentalism which is the problem, and not the political misuse of bad science. You seem to be arguing that environmentalism is somehow illegitimate as a political idea. I can agree with you 100% that the adoption of a green agenda by all political parties can be seen as both cause and effect of the current vacuity of much political debate. But what follows, if not the need to oppose green ideas? And how best to oppose them, if not by attacking them at their weakest point, which is currently the climategate scandal? You seem to be suggesting that there is some greater battle to be fought, at some deeper level While I agree entirely in your characterisation of eco-politics, I cannot see how you can counteract an abstraction on the political level, within the limits of democratic action. Having said that, today’s Observer editorial seems to agree with you that it’s environmentalism, and not just action on climate change, which is at stake at Copenhagen. Here, shorn of subsidiary argument, is their analysis, under the title “ The truth about climate: Copenhagen isn't enough”. “... The problems divide into three broad categories. “First is money. On a simple cost-benefit analysis, the best value lies in substantial and early action, as Sir Nicholas Stern's landmark report in 2006 found... “There lies the second problem: politics... Meanwhile, the prospect, however distant, of a global climate governance regime will surely fire the growing anti-environmentalism movement to new excesses of paranoia. “And that is the third problem: denial of the science. ..the emails... prove nothing. Man-made climate change is real ... The scientific case for action is irrefutable. So is the economic case. That just leaves the politics ...” Note how the economics and the science are presented as irrefutable truths, leaving just the politics as problematical. And the political problem is defined as anti-environmentalism. That’s us folks. We’re defined as being opponents of truth, and therefore outside the limits of political discourse. And that, I suppose, is the problem with environmentalism. I’ve been trying to come to terms with your thesis that it’s environmentalism which is the problem, and not the political misuse of bad science. You seem to be arguing that environmentalism is somehow illegitimate as a political idea. I can agree with you 100% that the adoption of a green agenda by all political parties can be seen as both cause and effect of the current vacuity of much political debate. But what follows, if not the need to oppose green ideas? And how best to oppose them, if not by attacking them at their weakest point, which is currently the climategate scandal?
You seem to be suggesting that there is some greater battle to be fought, at some deeper level While I agree entirely in your characterisation of eco-politics, I cannot see how you can counteract an abstraction on the political level, within the limits of democratic action.

Having said that, today’s Observer editorial seems to agree with you that it’s environmentalism, and not just action on climate change, which is at stake at Copenhagen. Here, shorn of subsidiary argument, is their analysis, under the title “ The truth about climate: Copenhagen isn’t enough”.

“… The problems divide into three broad categories.
“First is money. On a simple cost-benefit analysis, the best value lies in substantial and early action, as Sir Nicholas Stern’s landmark report in 2006 found…
“There lies the second problem: politics… Meanwhile, the prospect, however distant, of a global climate governance regime will surely fire the growing anti-environmentalism movement to new excesses of paranoia.
“And that is the third problem: denial of the science. ..the emails… prove nothing. Man-made climate change is real … The scientific case for action is irrefutable. So is the economic case. That just leaves the politics …”

Note how the economics and the science are presented as irrefutable truths, leaving just the politics as problematical. And the political problem is defined as anti-environmentalism. That’s us folks. We’re defined as being opponents of truth, and therefore outside the limits of political discourse. And that, I suppose, is the problem with environmentalism.

]]> By: I'm talking shit? So what? http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/11/climategate-and-a-tale-of-two-georges.html/comment-page-1#comment-1854 I'm talking shit? So what? Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:41:17 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=418#comment-1854 This was fun: Dr Doug Parr takes a mauling; http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11 This was fun: Dr Doug Parr takes a mauling;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11

]]> By: Stefan http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/11/climategate-and-a-tale-of-two-georges.html/comment-page-1#comment-1851 Stefan Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:30:11 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=418#comment-1851 Incidentally, in my own ignorance i just stumbled upon the Gapminder tool, and noticed how India's population grew rapidly after 1960. I googled why this might be and stumbled across the Green Revolution, which not only saved India from the brink of starvation, but allowed their rapid growth thereafter. What raised my eyebrows is how Norman Borlaug is apparently criticised by Environmentalists, and how they apparently have blocked his methods from being applied in Africa. I mean, I guess if you see human consumption as a problem, you want to reduce human numbers, and where are those numbers growing most rapidly? Well, in the Third World. Basically, environmentalists are against the Third World having the same population density and infrastructure as we do, and you know, it is hard to discern how that isn't just a little bit racist. But I can really see where the Environmentalist's antithesis to any technological fix or any new technology, especially bioengineering, and cheap energy, may come from---not to mention, what are all those fertilizers made of? They have seen what it did to India---made sudden growth possible. And they don't want any more of that. By definition, only SLOW technologies are permitted. The fact is, if the world overstretches its capacity, there is no telling which countries might perish. It could even be European countries. But if we can slow down everyone else, and maintain the status quo, remain "conservative", then we at least know that we will stay on top of the pile and have enough for ourselves. So what if Africans starve. "They" shouldn't be born anyway. I'm sorry to post such a dark speculation and image, but there it is. Incidentally, in my own ignorance i just stumbled upon the Gapminder tool, and noticed how India’s population grew rapidly after 1960. I googled why this might be and stumbled across the Green Revolution, which not only saved India from the brink of starvation, but allowed their rapid growth thereafter. What raised my eyebrows is how Norman Borlaug is apparently criticised by Environmentalists, and how they apparently have blocked his methods from being applied in Africa.

I mean, I guess if you see human consumption as a problem, you want to reduce human numbers, and where are those numbers growing most rapidly? Well, in the Third World. Basically, environmentalists are against the Third World having the same population density and infrastructure as we do, and you know, it is hard to discern how that isn’t just a little bit racist.

But I can really see where the Environmentalist’s antithesis to any technological fix or any new technology, especially bioengineering, and cheap energy, may come from—not to mention, what are all those fertilizers made of? They have seen what it did to India—made sudden growth possible. And they don’t want any more of that. By definition, only SLOW technologies are permitted.

The fact is, if the world overstretches its capacity, there is no telling which countries might perish. It could even be European countries. But if we can slow down everyone else, and maintain the status quo, remain “conservative”, then we at least know that we will stay on top of the pile and have enough for ourselves. So what if Africans starve. “They” shouldn’t be born anyway.

I’m sorry to post such a dark speculation and image, but there it is.

]]> By: Alex Cull http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/11/climategate-and-a-tale-of-two-georges.html/comment-page-1#comment-1850 Alex Cull Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:57:28 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=418#comment-1850 Just got the tweet - George Monbiot takes to the air again. But "flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable, in terms of its impact on human well-being, as child abuse." Should we call the police? Just got the tweet – George Monbiot takes to the air again. But “flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable, in terms of its impact on human well-being, as child abuse.”

Should we call the police?

]]> By: geoffchambers http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/11/climategate-and-a-tale-of-two-georges.html/comment-page-1#comment-1849 geoffchambers Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:19:24 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=418#comment-1849 George Monbiot, in the peculiar satire which follows his noble mea culpa, reveals a rather frightening insight into his soul. The satire is so embarrassingly bad that most of his fans will probably have passed over it and gone on to the article which followed in which, back on form, he is calling us sceptics “scumbags”. So who is right, George Monbiot, who thinks Professor Jones is a disgrace to science, or us scumbags, who think Professor Jones is a disgrace to science? Only George can tell. Does anyone else remember the post-Watergate press conference, where a trembling Nixon addressed the journalists with: “Why are YOU (pointing a finger at his chest) always picking on ME?” (jabbing a finger at the journalists)? George Monbiot, in the peculiar satire which follows his noble mea culpa, reveals a rather frightening insight into his soul. The satire is so embarrassingly bad that most of his fans will probably have passed over it and gone on to the article which followed in which, back on form, he is calling us sceptics “scumbags”.
So who is right, George Monbiot, who thinks Professor Jones is a disgrace to science, or us scumbags, who think Professor Jones is a disgrace to science? Only George can tell.
Does anyone else remember the post-Watergate press conference, where a trembling Nixon addressed the journalists with: “Why are YOU (pointing a finger at his chest) always picking on ME?” (jabbing a finger at the journalists)?

]]> By: Ian Wilson http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/11/climategate-and-a-tale-of-two-georges.html/comment-page-1#comment-1848 Ian Wilson Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:07:48 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=418#comment-1848 Editors, <blockquote>Perhaps there are two (main) kinds of ’sceptic’… We’ve always emphasised that we are sceptical of climate politics, rather than climate science.</blockquote> This is a good point, and is perhaps why I find myself not disagreeing with your posts, but sometimes not fully understanding them. I said in a comment some months ago that I think I'm fairly straight talking, and frankly I despise politics in all its guises and forms, since that is as far from straight talking as it is possible to be. I firmly hope that a systematic review of the data that has been leaked (it must be a leak not a hack) continues to be undertaken (as it appears to be being done dillegently by a number of skeptics on the internet). The climate (science) skeptic in me wants to see clear hard facts and evidence (I'm a mathematician by qualification and I know perfectly well how to manipulate statistics and data). I know you say that this has been known for some time, which it has by us on this side of the fence, but only until these cover ups are systematically exposed by evidence is there actually the possibility of persuading people on the other side of the fence. I don't however think it will change much. The news this morning goes on again about Copenhagen with never a mention of all the tainted data. The juggernaut is rolling and I don't think it can be stopped - that is (I think) your point about climate politics and the other type of skeptic - and one which I'll leave you to continue to argue far more eloquently than I can manage. Keep up the excellent blog. Editors,

Perhaps there are two (main) kinds of ’sceptic’… We’ve always emphasised that we are sceptical of climate politics, rather than climate science.

This is a good point, and is perhaps why I find myself not disagreeing with your posts, but sometimes not fully understanding them. I said in a comment some months ago that I think I’m fairly straight talking, and frankly I despise politics in all its guises and forms, since that is as far from straight talking as it is possible to be.

I firmly hope that a systematic review of the data that has been leaked (it must be a leak not a hack) continues to be undertaken (as it appears to be being done dillegently by a number of skeptics on the internet). The climate (science) skeptic in me wants to see clear hard facts and evidence (I’m a mathematician by qualification and I know perfectly well how to manipulate statistics and data). I know you say that this has been known for some time, which it has by us on this side of the fence, but only until these cover ups are systematically exposed by evidence is there actually the possibility of persuading people on the other side of the fence.

I don’t however think it will change much. The news this morning goes on again about Copenhagen with never a mention of all the tainted data. The juggernaut is rolling and I don’t think it can be stopped – that is (I think) your point about climate politics and the other type of skeptic – and one which I’ll leave you to continue to argue far more eloquently than I can manage.

Keep up the excellent blog.

]]>