“Plato’s Noble Lie resuscitated in a pas de deux of flimflammery”

Fakegate Apologism — It’s How They Roll

Guest post by Chris Horner

This morning I read a terrific recounting of the “the fact that a whole section of the scientific establishment is defending Gleick on the grounds that it’s OK to lie to promote their cause…from the intellectual heights of the establishment and specifically from those who have proclaimed themselves to be experts on scientific ethics.” (“‘Fake But Accurate’ Science”, TIA Daily, subscription required). Following on my post Fakegate: It’s what they do, and Anthony’s continuing elaboration of the “noble cause corruption”, this recalled for me a recent experience that had nagged at the back of my mind, bothersome for what it indicates. And it all fits together.

Last week I gave a talk at Yale Law School on the role of environmental regulation, sponsored by the Federalist Society and Young America’s Foundation. I made my way to the greatest economic boom-time opportunity we’ve ever faced — we’re told — which happens to be (surprise!) a massive regulatory boom. But before being sold — in adaptation to the downturn — as an economic boom it was sold — during flush times — as necessitating economic slowdown. Got it.

Rationales I cited and supported with sources included: make the uneconomic “profitable” (Pres. Obama, Ken Lay), redistribute the world’s wealth (UN guy), restructure the global economy, “level the playing field” (unions, greens, EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom), “slow down our economy” (Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan), create a boom economy (Pres. Obama, Al Gore, Carol Browner, some congressmen), transform our economy (Tom Friedman), “raise billions of dollars”/finance social agenda (Pres. Obama, lawmakers), avoid having “too much energy”, too little drudgery (John Holdren and his ilk).

President Obama said in his 2010 State of the Union speech that, even if you doubt the scientific argument, it’s “the right thing to do”, echoing movement-godfather Sen. Tim Wirth who said the very same thing in 1988. Now, with more “human redemption”! (guess who).

Thomas Friedman, responding to such doubts, told Meet the Press that, “everything we would do to get ready for climate change, to build this new green industry, would make us more respected, more entrepreneurial, more competitive, more healthy as a country.”

To which Jonah Goldberg responded, “Thus Plato’s Noble Lie is resuscitated in a pas de deux of flimflammery. The diagnosis might be fake, but the cure will still fix your lumbago, whiten your teeth, and give your horse a shiny coat.”

And I walked through the raging hypocrisy and outright fabrications embodied in the sales pitch for an agenda that was rebranded as pollsters dictated. When John Kerry cancelled the scheduled (by pure coincidence) Earth Day introduction of his cap-and-trade bill, he told the press it was because “this is not an environment bill.” Amending the Clean Air Act. Granting authority to the…EPA. Riddled with hundreds of references to “environment”, “greenhouse” and “pollution”. 

Not an environment bill. And, true enough, no one says it would detectably impact the climate. It was repackaged and introduced as the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act.  It was now a jobs bill. His pollster told him so.

And it would bring a jobs boom the likes of which we had never seen, though it had killed jobs everywhere; it would lower the price and increase the reliability and security of our energy supply, though the opposite had been proved true; and it would lower emissions as study after study indicates the opposite results, from the inefficiencies.

Hey, man, back off. There’s a “cause” to push here, after all. By whatever means necessary.

During the discussion that followed one attendee, a student at the nation’s most prestigious law school clearly unnerved by my challenging the climate agenda, if not by the brazen employment of untruths to justify employing the state’s police power, complained that I was merely making fun of flaws in their communication effort. In focusing on such details I wrongly ignored the larger problem that we must act.

So, a movement being exposed as risibly dishonest in saying whatever might wash in order to get their way, a way which as I noted is leading to terrible human consequences in the European theater of operations where they are several years ahead of us, merely harps on a communications problem?

No. This is a movement — someone once called it a “cause” — clearly not about what it says it’s about. After all, no one or no computer model on which they premise their cause claims that anything they’ve ever proposed, all of which is typically sold as salvation, would actually do anything about that in which name it is demanded.

These are Alinskyites, schooled that the issue isn’t the issue. When I pointed that out at a Heartland event, a leftist journalist in the audience dedicated many words of outrage in response. Outrage grounded in (faux) morality. Outrage not that I would say that — she also went on to say that of course the issue isn’t the issue. But that I would say that.

She had heard me recount the serial admissions of this by her ideological allies, but left that part out of her otherwise deathless essay which found room for anything and everything else. Not relevant.

As always with this crowd, it’s one’s cause, or motivations, that determine the rightness of their words or deeds. Greenpeace said the same thing about how our replicating their FOIA request to the University of Virginia was, well, different than their identical effort. Sorry, their multiple efforts. Our “objective” was different, you see. A hypocrisy shared by the Washington Post and the academic and scientific establishments.

This movement is quite plainly one infested with unethical actors. Climategates 1 and 2 exposed this. Fakegate affirmed it. The apologies for Fakegate cast it in stone. The political and policy dogmatists only adorn the stone with flowers. R.I.P. 2012.

This is not a communications problem any more than what we have seen from Fakegate’s fallout represents science.

About these ads

59 thoughts on ““Plato’s Noble Lie resuscitated in a pas de deux of flimflammery”

  1. The Climate Changers Creed: If you can’t beat em with FACTS, smear em with lies…then circle your wagons if you are caught RED HANDED

  2. “….a student …..complained that I was merely making fun of flaws in their communication effort. In focusing on such details I wrongly ignored the larger problem that we must act….”

    This sums it up well. These crafty salesmen have been reasonably effective in marketing the need for their cure, and scarcely bothered to explain the disease.

    Now, when we question them on the details (and indeed existance) of the disease, we are accused of obstructing them in their craft, and of terminally endangering the patient.

    We are told, we must ask no questions and buy the cure now, just in case they happen to be correct.

  3. steveta_uk
    February 29, 2012 at 10:10 am

    Can I suggest that this article could do with a total re-write once the caffeine overload has worn off?
    ###

    Sure, you can suggest watering down the truth so as to not offend those trying to destroy civilization.

  4. Wow! This article reminds me of a pony I used to exercise – as soon as I hoisted myself into the saddle and it knew it had my attention, it’s ears would go back and away we would go, careering madly all around the paddock while I clung on for dear life. I was never quite dislodged from the saddle, but it was always a near thing and every ride was breathless from start to finish.
    Great article, but I was a bit breathless when I reached the conclusion.

  5. “And I walked through the raging hypocrisy and outright fabrications embodied in the sales pitch for an agenda that was rebranded as pollsters dictated.”

    To me, the biggest hypocrisy of the global warming movement/religion is that, by and large, the most ardent supporters of the movement are WELL COMPENSATED for their efforts. In fact, MONEY and CLIMATE CHANGE go hand-in-hand. Billions of dollars are spent each year on “the science” and millions more on advocacy and “policy making”. And when these people tell us we need a new tax to artificially increase energy prices (hurting the poor) or we need to eliminate jobs in the oil and gas industry, they can do so knowing they don’t have to worry about increased prices with their fat salaries and benefits or their jobs because they have enriched themselves on the spoils of government climate ca$h.

    Someday, I would like to get an accounting of how much stimulus money was wasted on climate research. This was money over and above the huge funding increases these group were enjoying back in 2009 and 2010. Yes, our climate heroes were living it up while our neighbors were being let go from their jobs…

    NOTE: NONE of the usual warmist commenters who visit here will EVER talk about the climate ca$h. Never..Ever…

  6. I think it says some things that are way overdue to be said. Perhaps it might benefit from having two or three cowlicks combed down, but I’d rather it stay as-is than get toned down too much. After all, there is reason for outrage!

    RTF

  7. Algae will run all our cars. Obama said so. Algae, in case you don’t know, is green slime. Not to be confused with algore, which will cause all our cars to stop running.

  8. The remarkable thing about the entire AGW episode is that it has brought into high relief the extent to which a kind of intellectual and moral decay has seeped into many sectors of the intellectual life of the West.

    It’s been about 40 years since Political Correctness first manifested itself – in places like Comparative Literature and Anthropology departments, as well as faux academic areas like Women’s Studies and Black Studies. Even liberals made fun of it at one time, but the decay spread, seemingly unstoppable. Now, thanks to the AGW episode, can we see the extent that it has invaded even the august halls of physical science.

    Happily, PC entails a kind of natural stupidity that has allowed those in its thrall to promote something as silly as CAGW, without realizing that Nature might not comply with their alarums and their breathless predictions. (And they’ve left a six-lane highway of evidence behind them! thankfully collected on the Internet and elsewhere, that they can never evade or explain away.) This is why I see the whole AGW movement as a kind of gift from on high.

  9. Chris Horner writes:
    “This morning I read a terrific recounting of the “the fact that a whole section of the scientific establishment is defending Gleick on the grounds that it’s OK to lie to promote their cause…from the intellectual heights of the establishment and specifically from those who have proclaimed themselves to be experts on scientific ethics.” (“‘Fake But Accurate’ Science”, TIA Daily, subscription required).”
    The article is available for free here:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/fake_but_accurate_science_113294.html

  10. Chris – terrific, punchy summary. Unfortunately, although I find its fast pace, clipped, fluffless style both infromative and persuasive, I’m afraid it is above the 8th grade reading level of the NYT style book and those who NEED to read this in fora other thatn WUWT will be lost and give the thing up.

    Loved it – but it ain’t for the masses.

  11. Given the resounding support Gleick has received in certain quarters, I have to wonder if he expected to get away with his forgery, even if caught. After all, his previous lies got him the chair of the AGU’s task force on scientific ethics, to name just one reward. Bigger lies, bigger rewards, right? In the world Chris Horner describes, it could well happen.

  12. I read the linked article by Naomi Klein. Most striking–how the hordes of displaced auto workers and coal miners will experience the joys of a new job: millions of people stooping to pick crops in the blazing Kansas sun!

    “Another bonus: this type of farming is much more labor intensive than industrial agriculture, which means that farming can once again be a substantial source of employment.”

    I saw no indication, however, that she herself is ready to embrace the raptures of shoveling dung or digging in the muck for organic heirloom potatoes.

  13. Those who have trouble following Chris’s staccato prose should perhaps limber up with some James Ellroy (L.A. Confidential, White Jazz). Great piece Chris.

  14. Excellent Chris!
    Well stated even though it was a choppy ride with some abrupt transitions. I liked it much much better than all of those “Isn’t Gleick such a handsome and courageous hero? blink flutter blink blink” instances of gooey sophisms so abundant around the net.

  15. This could be an absolutely excellent article for long term reference if just a few sentences are added to provide a bit of transition and clarification.

    Tom G(ologist) said “Loved it – but it ain’t for the masses.”

    It seems to me that just smoothed out a little (NOT ‘toned down’) would very much make it exactly what is needed “for the masses.” A few more links to support points being made such as “greatest economic boom time” or Obama’s “profitable” would help also – along with links to info showing the inverse is true.

    Many of us here are well aware of such extravagant claims along with the dismal reality, but I suspect that quite a few are not, and that quite a few ‘warmists’ would likely take issue supporting the claims while being oblivious to the real facts.

  16. “she also went on to say that of course the issue isn’t the issue.”

    Worth mentioning again Naomi Klein’s unfortunate comment late last year, well before the Gleick affair:

    “Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.” Here’s my inconvenient truth: they aren’t wrong.”

    I would playfully add about curing lumbago and giving horses a shiny coat: this was the shonky salesman meme of the 19thC. And the answer was white arsenic. It does actually work very well (Mellor’s Treatise v9 pp 44-45). For a while. Mellor goes on to hypothesise that arsenic-eating was the root source of the vampire myth, which is apposite. To me the CAGW movement does indeed come across as a pack of vampirical used horse salesmen.

  17. Here’s the propaganda sales pitch at its worst from someone we’re supposed to trust. And the woman wonders why the public want her out!

    Julia Gillard, our Prime Minister of Australia had this to say soon after her Labor Government’s Clean Energy Legislative Package (now who could object to “Clean Energy”??!!) was passed by the Senate on 8 November 2011:

    Describing it as an historic day, she said “the federal parliament landed our nation on the right side of history.”

    “Friends, in getting to this point, we’ve seen some of the less favourable aspects of political life on display: fear-mongering”. (Good on Tony Abbott, the Opposition’s leader doing his job.)

    It was sickening and was “rash, irresponsible talk”. “Their sole intention is to cause damage by corroding certainty and seeing investment deferred”.

    The Opposition was… guilty of “distortion of facts and the trashing of science”; “playing to short-term political advantage to the detriment of the national interest”; in a “bizarre parallel universe”.

    “We accept the cost of not acting is too great to accept because not acting means more and longer droughts, rising sea levels; more severe storms and cyclones; lasting damage to the Murray Darling food bowl; to the Great Barrier Reef; and to Kakadu. No nation can accept such threats. We must act.”

    There was “ability to see solutions where once there were only problems”; “reason, creativity and innovation”; able to bring about a “stable” climate; it was “the right thing to do”.

    “Governments must walk the reform road and make the big calls”.

    Her “one big decision” would break the “three-century-old link between emissions growth and economic growth. The age of carbon pollution will end for the same reason we don’t ride in horses and buggies anymore. Or send our messages by carrier pigeon”.

    “Friends, you here in this room and your colleagues around the nation will be the leaders of that change. So by the middle of this century, we will be a different nation – cleaner, smarter, richer”.

    What a whole load of cods-wallop! Now you know why Australians are sick and depressed with the lies and propaganda being shoved down our throats. We want an election NOW.

    Please read Michael Kile’s article called “GILLARD EXPO-ED!

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/12/gillard-s-bad-talk

  18. I have been reading with some glee all of the warmist’s latest travails. Since the subject of PC has been mentioned, thought I’d add this link for those of you who do not know where the idea of PC came from…

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml

    … and a quote from Mr Twain that fits all this in my mind…

    “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.” – Mark Twain

  19. “No. This is a movement — someone once called it a “cause” — clearly not about what it says it’s about. ”
    Autonomous Mind addresses this very well:

    http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/forget-climate-change-we-must-focus-on-the-real-issue/

    “This direction of travel will not be defeated by butting heads with a small band of AGW blowhards who are lavishly funded to continue producing ‘findings’ and ‘projections’ that fit in with the actions needed to further the overarching agenda. Until people start to tackle the root cause of the disease instead of the symptoms, we will continue to go round in circles playing ‘he said, she said’ while our democracy, liberty, wealth and individual rights ebb away.”

  20. “No. This is a movement — someone once called it a “cause” — clearly not about what it says it’s about. After all, no one or no computer model on which they premise their cause claims that anything they’ve ever proposed, all of which is typically sold as salvation, would actually do anything about that in which name it is demanded.”

    From my view, this has always been one of the most fundamental reasons to consider this whole flap as nonsense. I have argued on numerous occasions in the past that, even if we were to stipulate to every bit of the dubious science, to bend over and willingly accept the profound detriments to our liberty and prosperity that the supposed “solutions” to this phony crisis demand, to conscientiously implement every minute detail of those “solutions”, that when our ultimately unknowable future eventuates, the difference due to all that we have ratholed along the way would be so infinitesimal as to be completely unmeasurable. Even the most ardent advocates of CAGW admit as much, although, if you relied upon anything other than your own capacity to research the notion, you would have scant opportunity to discover that fact. Even if we could “know” that our future was as completely “catastrophic” as has been suggested, none of the UN’s plans would make any sense.as the only thing they can guarantee is that our future capacity to respond to any challenges the climate may present will be seriously diminished because the global wealth necessary create our adaptations won’t exist because of what has been squandered and the growth of wealth has been suppressed

    The proponents of CAGW hysteria attempt to justify their various nefarious behaviors based on the notion that their superior understanding of the “science” has given them almost certain knowledge of the doom that awaits us and therefore what they have and are doing is really for the good of all of us. However if you were to task a truly objective outside observer, perhaps an extraterrestrial visitor, to rate the beliefs of the various actors in this controversy based solely on the changes in their personal behavior that they have made as a result of these ideas, Anthony, in a bit of almost comical irony, would come off as one of CAGW’s most avid enthusiasts and virtually everyone from the IPCC, theTeam, and all the politicians attempting to use this phony crisis to drive their agendas would appear, based on their continual personal carbon profligacy, to be the ultimate “deniers” of humanity’s role in our changing climate.

    To all those dolts out there demanding that the world transform itself to avoid climactic doom, my response remains what it has always been. YOU FIRST!!

  21. “the fact that a whole section of the scientific establishment is defending Gleick on the grounds that it’s OK to lie to promote their cause…from the intellectual heights of the establishment”

    Anyone lying to promote Federally funded work they are doing, would be committing a Federal offense, under the following Federal law: “whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully – (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;”

    With the corruption under the current A.G., it is doubtful that any of the Global Warming Scammers will be investigated, arrested, and prosecuted. However, things change, and with a new A.G., Global Warming Scammers in the future may find themselves pleading mercy before Jury & Judge.

  22. Can’t pass up a chance to talk Political Theory!

    I just wanted to note that the Noble Lie is invoked by Socrates (Republic, Plato) when he is describing the perfect city and trying to have his audience realize the rediculousness of the idea (of the perfect city). Thus allowing the conversation to progress to the perfection of the soul without the political ambition of his young audience standing in the way.

    I enjoyed: The Republic, translated and with interpretive essay by Allan Bloom.

  23. I think it is a hoot to listen to people talk about climate scientists have a communication problem.

    When the message you are trying to communicate is either not what you are saying it is or not supportable by evidence, then the problem you have is not one of communication but of message.

  24. timg56 says:

    “I think it is a hoot to listen to people talk about climate scientists have a communication problem.”

    Could you please translate that into a coherent sentence?

  25. Robert said @ February 29, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    I read the linked article by Naomi Klein. Most striking–how the hordes of displaced auto workers and coal miners will experience the joys of a new job: millions of people stooping to pick crops in the blazing Kansas sun!

    “Another bonus: this type of farming is much more labor intensive than industrial agriculture, which means that farming can once again be a substantial source of employment.”

    I saw no indication, however, that she herself is ready to embrace the raptures of shoveling dung or digging in the muck for organic heirloom potatoes.

    Believe everything that loon writes do you? Apart from organic fertilisers being bulkier than artificials, nearly everything on an organic farm works the same as on a conventional farm. And organic farmers are not so stupid that they don’t know enough to put a scoop on the front of a tractor to make compost. Do you think conventional orchardists use robots to pick their apples, or do they use humans just like their organic counterparts? Get a life!

    • That’s pretty pompous, Git. Humorous hyperbole has its place. Okay, make it a million former oil industry workers picking tea leaves by hand. She’s talking about getting rid of most tractors and such…okay, make it a million former liberal arts majors emptying bed pans. That was her other growth industry.

  26. Robert said @ February 29, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    That’s pretty pompous, Git. Humorous hyperbole has its place. Okay, make it a million former oil industry workers picking tea leaves by hand. She’s talking about getting rid of most tractors and such…okay, make it a million former liberal arts majors emptying bed pans. That was her other growth industry.

    Sorry if I got up you there Robert, but it’s a bit frustrating being perceived as a Luddite when you have worked in a highly competitive and successful industry. I like the idea of former liberal arts majors emptying bed pans. One arts lecturer at a university told me she was working class because she worked for a living. Treating humans as machines I don’t like so much.

    For interest, a tea harvester.

  27. CAGW demonstrates the need of people to believe in something bigger than themselves. In essense it is replacing deistic, theistic and eastern religions. CAGW meets that need in people. CAGW is secular humanist religion seeking a metaphysic. The apocalyptic meta-narrative is in place, the forecast of the old earth giving way to the Davidic eschatological paradigmatic heaven of Psalm 23: pastoral green pastures and still waters, where no one labors all is provided by the Deistic and omnipotent nanny state. The Michael Manns and Gleiks are those figures providing the “metaphysic” or the salvific way to the eschaton through the pseudo-scientific field of IPCC brand climatology. People need to believe in something, God, Science, Nation, Economic system, humanitarian endeavor, sporting teams, something bigger than themselves that they can commit to and that allows them to live a meaningful life. Until we can give enviros, sincere as they are, some way to find significance in their life through our skeptical view, they have no reason to join our side or abandon CAGW because at least CAGW offers concrete steps toward significance.

    I post this because someone needs to be able to explain what our view of an environmentally significant life looks like from our skeptical perspective. Only then will we draw support away from CAGWists. Sorry if this sounds too philosophical but that is what you get from a scientist-turned-chef-turned-sychologist-turned-pastor.

  28. The article by Cris Horner was very direct and to the point. No BS or PC.

    The CAGW movement is in a rout. It’s way past time for them to face the music. Put the pressure on. Expose their hypocricy for what it is.The evidence against the CAGW and the perpentrators of this cult movement is incontrovertible.

    To paraphrase one commenter here “Horner’s article may be too much for the general reader.” Well maybe not. Maybe a slap in the face with the truth will wake them up. If they can’t read through what has been happening then it may well be a waste of time even trying to explain it to them. For those trying to aviod the truth, well it may push them over the edge but then again they already are.

    Until the sad state of affairs is presented to the overall public they will never know. Controlling and manipulating the message has been the operational tactic used by the entire CAGW movement. It is time for it to end. Like a rabid animal it needs to be put down now before it infects society more than it already has.

  29. This is why polar bears on bergy bits are so effective. The Cause, or The Issue, is ideological, i.e. one of feelings rather than economics (energy, effort or money). As Obama said, you can always fall back to doing the “right” thing if the technical reasons for doing so drift away.

    Which is what religion is about. Have faith and live well. God, if He exists, wants it. And if He doesn’t exist or, in this case, doesn’t really care, our social values still say living well is the correct thing to do.

    If Gleick or Gore could be got at to say that it doesn’t matter if C02 is raising the temperature of the Earth or not, but that reducing C02 emissions or paying other parts of the world for the legal right to emit CO2 are what we should do as decent human beings anyway, I suspect we skeptics would not have “won” anything. It’s like the bully in the playground when we say we object to doing as told: he looks at us, says, “I don’t care. Do it anyway”, and where are we?

    Doing it anyway, confused and resentful.

    Right now the warmists are still saying that technically, CO2 is a villian. As long as we can keep them on the technical front, we can stop them. If they ever drop the technical argument for the straight-out social argument, all they’ll need is 50% plus 1 at the polls. Like in Australia.

  30. Scott Smith said @ February 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    CAGW demonstrates the need of people to believe in something bigger than themselves. In essense it is replacing deistic, theistic and eastern religions. CAGW meets that need in people. CAGW is secular humanist religion seeking a metaphysic. The apocalyptic meta-narrative is in place, the forecast of the old earth giving way to the Davidic eschatological paradigmatic heaven of Psalm 23: pastoral green pastures and still waters, where no one labors all is provided by the Deistic and omnipotent nanny state. The Michael Manns and Gleiks are those figures providing the “metaphysic” or the salvific way to the eschaton through the pseudo-scientific field of IPCC brand climatology. People need to believe in something, God, Science, Nation, Economic system, humanitarian endeavor, sporting teams, something bigger than themselves that they can commit to and that allows them to live a meaningful life. Until we can give enviros, sincere as they are, some way to find significance in their life through our skeptical view, they have no reason to join our side or abandon CAGW because at least CAGW offers concrete steps toward significance.

    I post this because someone needs to be able to explain what our view of an environmentally significant life looks like from our skeptical perspective. Only then will we draw support away from CAGWists. Sorry if this sounds too philosophical but that is what you get from a scientist-turned-chef-turned-sychologist-turned-pastor.

    I’m happy to give it a go if Anthony’s interested.

  31. “Plato’s Noble Lie resuscitated in a pas de deux of flimflammery

    Whoops – thought you said flim Flannery

    It’s an easy mistake to make for a downunder denizen.

  32. A wonderfully written post, Chris, carrying a very solid punch. Delightful to read; depressing to reflect on,

  33. Scott Smith says:
    February 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    Sorry if this sounds too philosophical but that is what you get from a scientist-turned-chef-turned-sychologist-turned-pastor.

    Hm, you psorta make me psceptical. A real psychologist would pcertainly know how to pspell it!!

    ;D

  34. we must act
    Sez who? Sez you? When acting (as you prescribe) is useless? And pauperizes the planet, killing millions or billions with privation and starvation?

    Evil stupidity.

  35. As for the jobs: fat gubmint regulatory/supervisory jobs for us, stoop labour and manual drudgery for you! It’ll be wonderful …

    Evil stupidity.

  36. ExWarmist says:
    February 29, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    “Plato’s Noble Lie resuscitated in a pas de deux of flimflammery”

    Whoops – thought you said flim Flannery…

    It’s an easy mistake to make for a downunder denizen.

    Heh. There’s an even better mistake to make, and I almost wish I was down under to make it: “Tim-Flammery”.
    Enjoy!

  37. The flimflammery is bipartisan. To point the lead Repub candidate promising to “create” jobs. Forgetting that the best the government can do is help not kill them.

  38. “I saw no indication, however, that she herself is ready to embrace the raptures of shoveling dung or digging in the muck for organic heirloom potatoes”

    Or paying the [much] higher prices.
    Unless the intention is to either not pay wages, or pay lower-than-poverty-level wages ?
    Mechanisation = lower costs = less employed
    And vice-versa

  39. Speaking of (ig)noble lies, the “section of the scientific establishment” (a vague bit of phrasing, that gives the author self-serving license to include a journalist under that rhetorical umbrella) that I’m familiar with is generally condemnatory of Gleick’s action.

    There is a copy of the article, “Fake but Accurate Science” at RCP, by the way, if anyone would care to see evidence of this “whole section of the scientific establishment” (arf!) that condones Gleick’s identity theft.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/fake_but_accurate_science_113294.html

    Personally, I would be glad to imagine that university students are getting interested in causes again. Goodness knows they’ve been a nauseatingly nice and obedient lot for the last few decades. I thought the younger generation had forever forgotten how to channel the energy of their youth into passion for ideas and wanting to change the world for the better.

    It was only a decade ago that noble lies were being told to liberate the people of Iraq from the Butcher of Baghdad. But it wasn’t leftist flapping their jaws about that, although the Democrats of the day marched in lockstep, for the most part, with that glorious ambition.

    So who is “this crowd,” this scientific establishment that favours the noble lies? It is Thomas Friedman. It is Barack Obama. It is John Kerry. It is a law student… no, hang on, that’s Chris Horner’s article, above, which is about politics. The “scientific establishment” referred to by the author Horner refers to is referred to like this….

    It starts with science journalists and commentators. In Britain’s leftist newspaper The Guardian, for example, James Garvey..

    Ok, there’s 1. One journalist. A science journalist. Part of, you know, the scientific establishment. Probably one of the… you know what they’re called. Trend setters. Yeah.

    So it starts with journalists and commentators, and the next one is….

    You might reply that this is just what you’d expect from journalists, who have looser moral standards than, well, just about everybody

    Ok, he’s talking in plural here, so he must have named another miscreant, right. Uh-uh.

    But the author’s bio informs us that “James Garvey is secretary of the Royal Institute of Philosophy and”—get this—”author of The Ethics of Climate Change.”

    Oh no, it’s the same guy. Ooh and look, he’s a linchpin in the scientific establishment at the Institute of Philosophy, as the author points out.

    This is coming straight from the intellectual heights of the establishment…

    Of the scientific establishment, remember! The ultra-central Philosophy section.

    But even the ink-stained wretches of the press are supposed to have higher ethical standards than this.

    There’s that plural usage but only one example thingie. Probably something got cut. Tell you what, the author is gonna be so mad with his editor, don’t you think?

    So, the others on the scientific establishment backing Gleick’s action are… re-scanning the article Horner read….

    Dan Rather?

    um….

    Oh! Andy Revkin, who quotes a scientist…. er… denouncing Gleick. Oh, Scott Mandia and Naomi Klein from the Guardian article, then a couple of other scientists condemning…

    Ok. This “whole section of the scientific establishment” is a handful of scientists and a couple of journos.

    Robert Trancinski, the author of the article Horner cites, claims that there was one denouncer against a slew of those ‘lining up on the side of fraud’. But actually the split is even – 2 scientists quoted upholding, and 2 denouncing Gleick’s action.

    Finally, Trancini quotes the Guardian article – “”But there were relatively few in the campaigner or scientific community who shared that view.” – claiming that this statement reflects the opinion of people supporting Gleick. But in fact it refers to the concern that “his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the ‘rational public debate’ .”

    One of the things I like about science is that it isn’t politics. One of the more loathsome things about politics is the use of rhetorical language to persuade by muddying the truth. The article above and the one that appears to have spawned it, are pure politics, and are as distant from science as Australia is from Alaska. These pieces work because they rest on the paradigm that climate science is a liberal plot, and because there are irrational ideologues who actually believe that kind of manure. In fact, I don’t think that many of these types believe such in their heart of hearts, it’s just satisfactorily exercises their bile to lash at the idea with ever-evolving rhetorical flourishes in the company of others who will hoot at each new iteration.

  40. “Last week I gave a talk at Yale Law School on the role of environmental regulation, sponsored by the Federalist Society and Young America’s Foundation. I made my way to the greatest economic boom-time opportunity we’ve ever faced — we’re told — which happens to be (surprise!) a massive regulatory boom. But before being sold — in adaptation to the downturn — as an economic boom it was sold — during flush times — as necessitating economic slowdown. Got it.”

    Can’t you Americans insist on separation of Church and State? Insist then on dismantling immediately all regulations and regulating bodies and taxes and restrictions created out of this religion: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/EcoReligion.htm

  41. Y’all not too brite. Overwhelming consensus of climate scientists points one way. But all the MONEY (ie folks paying for Horner’s Hummer) wants a different outcome. Oh, but those pin head academics are all commies dreaming of one world government. They’re not in it for the dough. Got it.

    [Moderator's Note: Site policy requires a valid e-mail address. If you want to come by and sneer you'll have to learn to obey the house rules. -REP]

    • Kntryboy, the money is all on the side your championing, You are the none too bright one bud. Guppy stamped on your forehead? The corporate money is greatest by far on the side of the agwists. When you learn to do your research for yourself, you will begin to understand. There is no consensus, you have been duped.

  42. Lehautegryphon – , guess your rite, Im not too brite. (Thanks for clarifying the correct spelling of you’re is your). I’m also not brite enough to see through the barrage of ads on the telly touting “clean coal” and energy industry billions poured into lobbyist coffers as being reverse psychology misdirection. And no consensus? Spose you got me there. Must confess its (who needs commas?) under 100%

    • Kntryboy, lololololol the clear indicator someone has lost the debate is when the become spell checking grammar police. Thanks for conceding. I could say, spelling correction from someone who spells Country with a K is rich, but I won’t so forget I said anything about that lol. As to the commercials about clean coal, yada yada, those are a corporation getting the message out that it is moving in the direction of cleaner energy already. It isn’t with the urgency the CAGWist religionists demand, because their apocalyptic vision and timeframe of urgency are inaccurate. CAGW has a bad model, they lie, manipulate data, conspire to cover-up the fact that there has been no warming trend for 12 years but academic pride won’t let them admit it to even themselves. They have abandoned the scientific method and stifled the debate because they can’t accept their models are flawed. If they partnered with those on the other side, injected new data streams into their models imagine the great progress we could make. Accurate data, unmanipulated data, would allow them to develop a model that fits the reality of the climactic conditions we experience. But they refuse to participate and insist they alone are correct.

      That isn’t science Kntry, it’s a group of people desparately seeking a meta-narrative of redemption to fit the categorical framework of their apocalyptic vision. That is not science, it’s religion. They want to force everyone to live their belief system because it is the only correct one, that’s fundamentalism. CAGW is the fundamentalist religion of secular humanists.

Comments are closed.