WUWT reader “Carl” Submits this story:
New research suggests people tend to hold negative views of political and social activists
Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways? New research presents one uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists.
That’s the conclusion of troubling new research from Canada, which similarly finds support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.
Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir. This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.”
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/
[I dub it the “Gleick effect”. – Anthony]
UPDATE: Pamela Gray in comments provides the abstract:
Heaven help us if the Gleick and Gore effects coincide.
Speaking as an Australian, we call it the Flannery Effect.
So environmentalists need to get people who are NOT environmentalists to write pro-environmentalists articles for the people who would lean tword environmentalism if it weren’t so radically environmental?
Absolutely right. Nobody likes a zealot. Even if you agree with their views, it can be discomfitting. I think this is especially true for the English. Like being seen to try too hard, it goes against our natural reserve.
There’s a lesson here for skeptics, too.
I have all kinds of statistical doubt about methodology. Social opinion science has lost its bearing in terms of behavior one cannot “see”. It used to be that such research was engaged in only with great trepidation. Now it seems as easy route to a Ph.D.
It makes it hard for red neck, ludite, organic vegetable growing CAGW sckeptics like me. Put in “environmentalist” and it just doesn’t sound right.
Local enviro protest group invited a few activist types to protest some issue . They occupied
downtown park for a few hours then left. Smell of Patchouli, body odor, and something burning lingered for a couple of days. Human feces found in park did not help. The local city pressure washed the bandstand and surrounding parking lot…
Yep there is something to the study…
they needed a study/research to show that people do not agree with them?
someone is handing out way to much grant money
Unfortunately, just as labour relations was hijacked by Marxists with wrong-headed ideas about the value of work, environmentalism (which is actually something worthwhile) has been hijacked by political operatives whose sole objective is to reduce the standard of living of the rich, even if this means delayed development for the poor.
Funny, people prefer reason and common sense to manipulation, force, propaganda and downright ugliness.
Who’d have thunk it?
Link doesn’t seem to work, lands me on a generic 2013 article page.
Tim says:
September 29, 2013 at 8:26 am
Unfortunately, just as labour relations was hijacked by Marxists with wrong-headed ideas about the value of work, environmentalism (which is actually something worthwhile) has been hijacked by political operatives…….
______________________________________
You think they’re separate groups?
I wonder if they “controlled out” for those who had negative views of political and social activists based on well informed views that the activists positions were technically wrong, incomplete, or not reflecting a good balance between individual liberties and authoritarian controls.
(yes I should go read it myself, and I will, and perhaps I’ll even be pleasantly surprised… actually I will probably be shocked…)
Could be that this sort of disagreeable person knows early what train to get on, and just how to get negative attention. So what if their behavior slows it down and pisses off the passengers, as long as everyone thinks they’re in control.
Once we have reduced the size of climate change departments in the wake of their abject failure to make predictions correctly at least 50% of the time, I think there is scope for economising on the social “scientists” who seem equally dodgy and narrative driven.
Not usual , indeed you to tend to find with most religions that the hard fanatics tend to discourage rather than encourage, ‘unbelievers’ to join in.
And we can actual be rather grateful that such techniques are employed , the mixture of arrogance form its leaders , the diet of doom and its OTT nature as done ‘the cause ‘more harm than often sceptics have done in the eye’s in joe public. Its why people like Mann need to be kept in the public spot light and under pressure , they simple cannot help themselves .
I flaunt my skeptical views whenever I get the opportunity and my experience is that
most people are skeptical and welcome factual information which reinforces their
instinctive dislike of environmentalists.
Well there is one good outcome from this study. If you are a used car salesman/woman,your stature has now risen above politicians,lawyers,envirowackos,eco-cultists,the UN, and the IPCC.Oh.And teachers.
Warmists kept telling me that their failure to enact quicker change in tackling ‘climate change’ was because of ‘well funded’ sceptics. But now we know why, but will thy deny it?
The problem is they are too forceful and loud.
For me it is the Monbiot effect. Drove me here with all his sneering at sceptics when I was simply trying to find out what the “settled science” was.
If you have a keen eye and half a mind its pretty easy to see that environmentalism & Feminism are both hate based movements,, Ugly small minded jerks who think their ability to clear a room somehow makes them right..
Then the media & government highlight these cultist freaks, like they’re some sort of role model..
Which seeds anti media / government feelings, right into class warfare because the believers all have University degrees..
The lines are drawn and no amount of comment or follow the leader propaganda will change the fact that environmentalists / Feminists are either ignored or detested by the general public..
A socially elite group $$$ decide to bring suffering to everybody except themselves.. These swine have to coin a study to dance around their ever present hate..
There is no hope for the hopeless..
Anthony….I think this is the right link…..morning!
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/
Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted […]
Are they ‘stereotypes’ or ‘caricatures’ if those concerned rarely fail to live up to them?
I dislike tree hugging sandal wearers because they always have dirty feet and their women don’t shave under their arms nor anywhere else. 🙂
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/ejsp.1983?locale=en
Abstract plus first page. Best I could do. Apparently no author has posted a pdf of the final draft prior to publication.
Completely understandable : 1) people don’t cotton to “holier-than-thou and 2) people don’t like being implicitly accused of being bums, which, of course, is what activists’ arguments imply, although nominally activists find some institutions (companies, etc) to blame
Like Kaboom, link doesn’t work for me either. In UK, but using US provider.
Is this the right link?
http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/feminism-maybe-feminists-ewww-66918/
Took a while to find the article on the site, which seems rather full of pablum. There’s another story running right now on the need to act on global warming that is so full of blatantly wrong facts and panicky calls to action that it turned into a fine example of over the top rhetoric that turns rational people off. Turning back to the article which is the subject of this thread:
Another study, featuring 17 male and 45 female undergraduates, confirmed the pervasiveness of those stereotypes. It further found participants were less interested in befriending activists who participated in stereotypical behavior (such as staging protest rallies), but could easily envision hanging out with those who use “nonabrasive and mainstream methods” such as raising money or organizing social events.
So…. 62 undergrads represent the opinion of the world’s population? Seriously? 62 kids under the age of 22? Then the study goes on to admit that those same kids are happy to hang out with the crowd that actually does something positive about problems, just not the shrill in your face over the top crowd who do plenty of fixing the blame and precious little about fixing the problem.
A sample size too small and too narrow to be considered representative, and evidence right in their own paper that their conclusions are wrong. I really should go back to university and get a degree. Apparently fiction writing is now a sufficient skill set to get one.
To be fair, there are those who genuinely care about the environment and there are those like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the EPA and any government environmental bureaucracy, whose leaders and acolytes are there for the glory of sticking it to the system and anyone who has made something of their lives.
Salon Study_Everyone hates environmenalists and fenminists
The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence
So, in a nutshell, you can’t tell people what to think. Who knew?
Baa Humbug:
At September 29, 2013 at 9:06 am you say
This is an interesting conclusion. Was your research peer reviewed?
Richard
Article is paywalled, but this is the link to the abstract “The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983/abstract
I think one would not find the same dislike of Martin Luther King and those who followed him (maybe except for Jessie Jackson, who became such a self-aggrandizing dweeb). The reason might be that King was never strident and always reasonable. He was loyal to the western political ideal, and wanted in to the American system as the Constitution clearly required. His whole project valued the Western ethic, and he merely demanded honor for his right to be included.
I think his loyalty explains the whole difference in attitude. Environmentalists and radical feminists too often take the political view that capitalism and liberal democracy are inherently bestial systems. They are hostile to it, and look to destroy the system rather than join it. People see that, inchoately or consciously, and react against it as the threat it is.
I work with an organization that has similar goals to what most environmentalists claim as their goals. This organization however raises its own money and relies on hard science for our projects.
We do not consider ourselves environmentalists, We call each other conservationists.
Did somebody say “Monbiot”. Bless George – the virulence of his attacks on opposing views in climate science were what started my move to scepticism. I could not see why on earth he needed to be so rude.
Direct link
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/
As much as I want to believe this, a poll done a few years ago (also) in Canada, “showed” that David Suzuki was one of the most trusted people in Canada. Not sure if it was independent study or one done by the CBC, in which case, the methodology would be in doubt.
He was recently at a televised public forum in Oz and a couple of credible people in the audience challenged Dr. Fruit Fly and Suzuki made an ass of himself as he did not have the most basic knowledge of climate, data sources and trends. (He could only utter the mantra, “The earth is warming. The earth is warming.”)
In Canada, Suzuki never gets challenged on the CBC. Heck, one of the CBC’s prominent “talk show” hosts is on the board of the Suzuki Foundation. You can imagine the incestuous love fest when Strombo and The Fruit Fly get together.
End of Suzuki rant. ☺
Social “science” is itself no better than climate “science”. Worthless sample groups and no control , I’d give this a much credibility as Lew-paper.
That said, they may be right about some of it. I argue for environmental changes since the early 80s. It jumped ship some time late in 2007 once I’d had time to realise AR4 was a con.
Activists, the agents of social change is enough to turn any stomach outside of academia..
These people have rejected the traditional social definition of themselves to embrace the letters after their names.. Safely floating above us all they dictate away they only self defining characteristics left to the common man, their beliefs..
These beliefs are either passed on from their parents or based on general observations of the world around them.. Cracking this egg by kicking over a information booth or blocking traffic is a exercise in delusion..
Why wont we listen to the PROBLEM CHILD cuts to the bone of human social interaction..
Why cant we get everybody to throw a temper tantrum?
Why do they insist on self regulating their own social interactions?
Why do these idiots think a few letters after their names puts them in control over human behaviour or the climate.. They don’t understand either..
Today we’re all nature lovers but could it be that there are people with 3 more brain cells than a three year old who smell a rat when they are dealing with the cloaked attempts of the Eco Nazi’s to lure them into the straight jacket of the UN Agenda 21 Bull Shit?
Please read “Blue Planet, Green Shackles” from Vaclav Claus and if you want a fast course about the effects of de-industrialiation and forced reduction of energy consumption will do to a the people of a Nation, please read about the Morgenthau Plan (Wiki) that was implemented in occupied Germany from 1945 until the end of 1947.
At the end the Americans had to make a choice:
a. kill 25.000.000 people, b. quit the deindustrialization process. remove the set restrictions and allow for new industrialization.
As for the image of environmentalist in general, I think people are fed up from all the tagged wild life and the doom stories of pending extinctions. Just stop screwing around with nature and leave those poor animals alone.
LOl – yes we have been dealing with this research through the National Post in Canada in the comment sections. Might I say the activists who came on the National Post were absolutely hysterical, abusive, land lost all sense of reason. According to the research many people looks at activists as criminals, or outright terrorists. Fun day in the comments.
Just for understanding, the Morgenschau, a combination from deindustrialization and power use restrictions is exactly what the EU has turned into law including a penalty system.
From this plan which is well documented we know Europe in the near future will turn into a slaughter house because a de industrialized economy in combination with restrictions on energy use won;t be able to support the current population numbers.
So screw these eco nazi’s and screw UN Agenda 21 and screw the EU.
The recent Eric Holthuas comment comes to mind when discussing extreme behavior.
What I see in Canada and the USA is that activists became prominent in the education areas and the junior political jobs and then moved up the ranks. It seems to me that many mid-level and senior government positions are now populated by the activists.
People who want sensible fact based policy have now become the activists.
Has nobody else noticed this flip-flop? Is it only me?
Just asking.
There is another backlash, probably in the unintended consequences category, that I noticed a few years ago during dozens of presentations to school students.
About 20 percent say, “You have convinced me the world is coming to an end. So I want the big house and the big car and I am going to enjoy the last few years as long as I can.” I understand there was a study in Texas a little while ago that confirmed what I had discovered.
I also know from hundreds of presentations that the same sentiment is held by a similar percentage of adults.
Environmentalism is the new religion and environmentalists are the new Puritans. Someone defined a Puritan as a person who was afraid that somewhere somebody was having a good time. Most people simply want to have a good time as the Founding Fathers understood with their phrase “pursuit of happiness”.
A political psychologists gives insight into the difficulties inherent in attempting to use statistics, university samples, and self-reporting in his field:
So the progressives will be looking to recast the World Empire (UN) activists as soccer moms who are demanding cotton tampons, food in their gas tanks, organic enforcement on all agriculture, and a 365-day school year, 14 hours a day, with after school programs and an on-campus “health care center.” (ref: Arne Duncan)
I’m not sure what a “Mechanical Turk” is but I would bet it’s not a recognised unbiased selector.
The three studies sound like a farce to me.
Let’s have a fund raising event. Then people will listen to use more. RIGHT.
Like black people got the voter because they were inoffensive and had lots of cheese and wine fund-raising social events.
Get Real buddy.
I think it is providing you take a look at the ‘articles’ posted at the target. The link then made perfect sense – to me at least.
This is why you see people like Van Jones being washed clean of his radical roots, and wearing a suit and tie on CNN. You should read Jonah Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change”. There is a good reason he has a smiley face on the cover. Here is the summary from Amazon’s site:
“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?
Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s Fascism.
Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.
Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler’s Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.
Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.
These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism…
The study is good news for radical enviro-politicians.
With the study in hand they can say something like, “we can ignore the folks blocking the good work of my friends the environmental activists because those folks are just negative stereotypers.”
John
Tim Ball says: “About 20 percent say, “You have convinced me the world is coming to an end. So I want the big house and the big car and I am going to enjoy the last few years as long as I can.” I understand there was a study in Texas a little while ago that confirmed what I had discovered. ”
You can only scare people by telling them there’s no future for so long. I grew up expecting the world to end before I got to 35. Now it’s thermogedon.
At some point everyone goes ” WTF, live for today and make the best of it.”
It does not incite people to forgo what they have today for some hypothetical gain “for our grandchildren.”
Looks like Steven Schneider et al should have stuck to being honest instead of trying to be “effective”. His trivial and naive political strategy of scare stories is neither honest nor effective.
Once again we see cause and effect being reversed, no doubt wittingly. This idea that we start out hating environmentalist nutcases and therefore don’t accept CAGW is so idiotic it’s a wonder anyone could seriously claim that to be the case. It is, of course, completely the other way around: we know the science of CAGW is complete BS and therefore hate the environmentalist nutcases who ram this BS down our throats.
This applies to anything and everything in life, and has done since the dawn of time. If we have a disdain for X, it follows that we will have equal disdain for those who insist that we embrace X. I mean: DUH.
This helps to explain why journalism is among the least trusted professions, as most journalists having long since veered into social and political activism. Most trusted: armed forces and education. I have no doubt that the esteem given teachers will slide as more and more take up the cause, whatever that cause may be.
So with this study as justification will some bright radical enviro-politician introduce ‘anti-negatve-stereotype’ legislation?
John
How about scientivists, like the disappearing MWP trick chart charlatan Magician Mann?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers
I hope the effect applies in their case, too.
Baa Humbug says:
I dislike tree hugging sandal wearers because they always have dirty feet and their women don’t shave under their arms nor anywhere else. 🙂
—
What does your preference for women to resemble pre-pubescent teenagers have to do with the climate debate?
Keep your p0rn fantasies to yourself please.
Just a side remark but from the comments I conclude that most posters here have absolutely no clue about the real intentions behind the “social reset of our societies”. They want you dead ASAP and reduce population number to “sustainable” levels. Any idea why they have come up with a concept of the carbonfootprint as a measure for restrictive policies which is absolute ape shit since we live on a carbon life based planet, why they have declared CO2 a poisonous gas which is ape shit too, why they talk about obligatory birth control measures and “humane programs” to prevent pain and suffering of those people who have no sustainable futures and have become “obsolete” and why they are constantly projecting three planets in their propaganda to illustrate their claim that we consume more resources than the planet is able to deliver which of course is ape shit too, They want to micro manage the human population in the same manner as they want to manage all other life on the planet and they now have become a political force. In the Netherlands for example WWF and Greenpeace have a seat at the negotiation table when the government meets with industry and workers and their demands get integrated into the policy.
In the mean time your 2005 model Volvo Diesel is no longer aloud in the Green Zones, most of the 80 km/h roads have been cluttered with speed bumps and now allow a maximum speed of 60 km/h and if you move to another home you automatically get a smart meter to control your electric power use. We also see the emergence of neighborhood committees to promote the “social fabric” among communities. This is a tested concept of a control model which was applied for decades in the DDR until the Berlin Wall came down.
The “change artist” who resides in the White House today is advancing the same agenda.
I really hope you get the picture because this is serious shit and they rape sccience and common sense to get what they want.
Europe is screwed and the only hope I have is that the house of cards called EU will collapse ASAP.
http://green-agenda.com
Zeke said on September 29, 2013 at 10:31 am
that leftists are in favor of big government, because he cites written history about communism and other leftist movements that favored big government. Many people who consider thermselves progressives want fair wages, equal rights, businesses to play fair, no pollution, and government to stay out of their bedrooms. Nowhere near all of them want a big, controlling government.
Greg,
What is a “pre-pubescent teenager”? Never heard of that one before.
Makes me wonder. Do we have any deep cover mobys pushing the climate change, making
outlandish, easily recognized false claims in the service of “the cause”?
Could it be that Joe Romm is working for the angels?
How about Chris Moody _ too freakish to be real? What about that other clown, Scott Mandia.
A deep cover operative whose mission is to discredit the alarmist camp?
Bill McKibben?
Not a chance.
Every one of them are as wacked in the head as they appear.
I learned very quickly to assure people that I’m a conservationist (as are most out here) but not an environmentalist. And I explain that my researches focuses on water and land use, rather than saying “environmental history.”
Conservation = save the baby seals/wise use Environmentalism = kill the humans/ban meat (at least in the minds of a goodly number of people I talk to).
Greenpeace in Russia…
‘They were even seen as terrorists’: Why people seem to hate activists, but not what they stand for
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/27/they-were-even-seen-as-terrorists-why-people-seem-to-hate-activists-but-not-what-they-stand-for/
Growing up in Ore., I started to dislike environmentalists when they essentially destroyed the timber industry over the spotted owl.
Well first up, what the hell is social justice? What is it’s definition?
Jay,
I got to your post and stopped reading.
“Jay says:
September 29, 2013 at 9:00 am”
I have been working out a similar line of thinking for some time; it isn’t developed quite well enough post anything in great detail in writing, but the jist is that every “social movement”, yes environmentalism and feminism (there are others) have at their core a hate group that keeps them alive, vital, and progressively doing great damage to innocents, and the poverty-stricken.
In the early phase of such movements, an ill is posited, (unfairness between the sexes; rivers on fire and smog chocked skies… you name it); an antagonist is identified (men; capitalists); members are recruited; organizations organized; hierarchy established; the whole shebang is somehow funded; full-scale battle begins.
Perhaps there was a legitimate gripe; from there some “action”, usually social, media like themes on TV shows for example; and even legislative action. Change is demanded and received; inevitably there are harmful unintended consequences: generally swept under the rug.
That’s round one. To keep this short, just stick with these two examples – environmentalism and feminism and start in your mind’s eye from their inception to the present day. Look who runs the hierarchy; look at cash-flow; look at their future plans.
What I see is quite irrational and passion-filled. A succinct word that comes to my mind is hate.
Feminism: Hate for men and boys
Environmentalism: Hate for humanity in general; the poor in particular.
Peter Miller says:
September 29, 2013 at 9:24 am
To be fair, there are those who genuinely care about the environment…
Yes, and as an environmentalist myself for decades it was the hijacking of the movement by hypocritical anti-science eco-activists that forced me to suspend support of many of the organizations, local and international, that I had long cherished. The negative transition of the “movement” not only forced me to be much more selective with my support of time and money, but also raised my hackles. The good news from my perspective is that there are still many worthy conservation causes that have maintained their original directives and have not expanded their scope to encompass their “limits to growth.”
As for the “stereotypical” hate and intolerance that now permeates the ideology of so many environmental NGOs, I initially tried playing the “nice guy” and use reason to allay my stance. It was an abject failure and a waste of effort. I was met with such hostility and attempts at shutting down the discussion that my only recourse was to fight fire with fire. This intolerance by those who were erecting groupthinktanks persuaded me more than anything to alter my tack and reduce my tact.
In light of this study, if its conclusions have merit, perhaps my own methodology is faulty and ineffective. No matter. There are enough “nice guys” out there covering that angle and I prefer positioning myself even as a bit soldier on the front lines and strenuously opposing those who try so hard to silence my voice. Having grown up where I grew up and living the way I did makes me better suited to fight than negotiate anyhow. And in this particular case, why even try to negotiate with tyrants? Figuratively speaking, it’s far better in my eyes to raise your fists, go on the offensive, and smack some sense into unyielding and unreachable opponents, especially now in their hours of desperation. Their anti-human agenda needs to be squashed and going all touchy-feely ain’t gonna cut it in my view. Um, Cheers!
The late George Carlin: Environment
They are being kind by characterizing the behaviors of activists as ‘stereotypes’. As if they aren’t generally sanctimonious, disparaging and hypocritical…?
What the political psychologist has said is that progressives cannot acknowledge the truth about their own need for increased government in all areas of life, including diet, education, medical treatment, private property, private contracts, etc.. They cannot acknowledge the fact that they need to insinuate government into every human act. This makes the self-reporting of progressives totally unreliable, in his experience, even correcting for university samples vs. general public.
It may be that the commenter above, DL Klipstein, does not recognize the use of increasing federal and global controls in order to reach these “progressive goals.” For example, no two people can make an employment agreement, without the progressive middleman declaring “fair wages.” The doctor must submit to federally mandated “exchange panels” in treating patients. The state is the final arbiter in “what is best for the child,” as opposed to the parent. This is the legal reality of what these slick slogans mean.
And I do think there are some people who are to air-headed to realize they are Maoists with five-year plans for “remaking the economy,” in particular, agriculture, energy, and water use. But silly, uninformed credulity can turn deadly for many people, so these are no less responsible than the Communist hard-liners who know what they are crafting.
One just has to look at Al Gore. He is the number two reason I’m not a alarmist. The number one reason is the data!
It is interesting that this is a “new” idea, as the reverse, that people will emulate in behaviour those they admire, is the basis of both Madison Avenue and religion: we wear the clothes and drink the drinks of favoured celebrities, and decide what we (white, American Christians) on what “Jesus would do”. That we do not wish to do what those we do no like do, is no surprise.
What is not considered is that we do not behave as environmentalists (or feminists) would have us do even though the goals are worthy, may be because we recognize the extreme ends to their behaviour or aspirations. From the earliest age we have learned that extremists mostly miss the point of existence being a balancing act, that the “correct” behaviour is somewhat less than the ideal (though certainly more than the minimum).
Pamela Gray says:
September 29, 2013 at 9:07 am
Abstract plus first page.
====
thanks Pamela….
They qualified the stereotypes….but not why there is a negative connotation attached to them
That’s a shame, because it would have told them more….
I know I do, I’m sick and tired of them screaming wolf about every little thing…when almost all of it never pans out to be true
What people dislike is the stridency more than anything. With stridency comes ad hominems, the ‘I know best, do what you’re told’ bossy boots. Any self-regarding person hates that.
Feminists hate man rather than promoting women. Many feminists actually hate a lot of women too. i’ve worked with some and it was striking that they bitched about their female colleagues.
They also want to impose a totalitarian solution. People don’t want that. They want freedom to choose. They don’t want to hear that all men are evil, that all men treat women badly, that every human is a danger to the earth, that every human kills polar bears.
Arguments which are shaped in the ‘law of unintended consequences’ would be more relevant as they are usually more accurate. Equally, the ‘the previous way of doing this was logical back then, but now times have changed’.
Before 1945, men went to work and to war, women ran the home. A few women hated that, a few men hated that. But most saw it as a satisfactory compromise when a lot of work was hard physical labour. Now, with automation, the male strength argument is disappearing. But men really hate being told that they were evil for fitting into society as it was.
Equally, it’s the rise of human population that has caused environmental stress, not mass evil. What was no problem with 200 million humans is a great problem with 5 billion or more.
You won’t change the radicals though.
Klipstein said: “Many people who consider thermselves progressives want fair wages, equal rights, businesses to play fair, no pollution, and government to stay out of their bedrooms. Nowhere near all of them want a big, controlling government.”
Who determines what fair wages are and how?
Equal OPPORTUNITY should be the goal. Too many people think equal rights apply to that which should be earned.
Businesses to play fair – as long as they ar allowed to make a fair profit, too?
“No pollution” is absurd unless you are willing to forgo ever using the bathroom again. Acceptable remediation of harmful pollution based on cost-benefit studies is the best we can do.
“government to stay out of their bedrooms,” even if participants are minors, cause harm to each other, or present health risks to society?
Those issues are not as simplistic as presented. The question is where do you draw the line between a government powerful enough to protect the individual yet not powerful enough to control him.
Some Small Minded Jerk said: “its pretty easy to see that environmentalism & Feminism are both hate based movements,, Ugly small minded jerks who think their ability to clear a room somehow makes them right.”
It is hard to understand how these groups are “hate” groups. When I think of hate groups, it’s the KKK and Nazis and skin heads, groups that for all intents and purpose have no positive role in society other than hate. What with the air and water being cleaner and women not being the property of their husbands, we could use more groups like environmentalists and feminists.
But you might not think so.
Makes perfect sense to me. People can smell sanctimony and priggishness a mile off. They don’t like being lectured, or being cast as a backer of those who lecture. The wider the value/policy gap between activist and audience, the more turned-off the audience will be by a given level of stridency. Because activists are by definition people who have abandoned an ordinary life and a receptivity to new information in order to lecture others all day long, they tend to get more strident, not less.
Plus if there is a bad change in the underlying facts or benefits for their sales pitch, the audience will be less willing to listen.
So these factors can compound one another. Fun to watch the activists struggle and turn off the prospects and, maybe, disappoint their donors. Pass the popcorn, please.
Prince Charles yesterday [2010] urged the world to follow Islamic ‘spiritual principles’ in order to protect the environment.
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
— Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?
— Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader and IPCC creator
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
— Dave Forman (founder of Earth First!)
What’s not to love about people who want to destroy civilization and/or wipe out an entire species (the human race) in the name of the environment? Hanging out with would-be mass murderers and hypocrites who would like very much to destroy my life or my way of life just doesn’t appeal to me for some reason. Go figure.
Pippen Kool:
You say in your post at September 29, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Strange. I did think so. Then you said it, and I know your record of ‘accuracy’ in your assertions. So, now I doubt it.
Richard
There are those who are screechy and preachy and don’t care about anything but the specific activism of the moment. Or go into their ivory tower think-tanks and issue proclamations from the oracle.
The poverty pimps who would not look at a homeless person or directly help a poor person that asked but campaigns for subsidies would be an example. There is such a thing as “moral authority”
Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta was definitely an activist, but one you could respect since she lived out what she was preaching. Willis Eschenbach here helps directly and on the ground.
Too many want a 1-click fix to the problems. But I think people realize that it doesn’t and can’t work. The issues are complex enough that they don’t fit into a sound bite or elevator speech, but that is all activists have – “help the cause or we’ll all die” is how they must summarize it.
Even the longer forms like the Al Gore movie have forgotten how to persuasively argue. Yet panic only works in a crowded theater with locked doors. Given time to think or even ask questions – then they must provide answers. Instead they respond with insults, evasions, or nonsense.
Yet the conscience still exists and people know in their hearts there is something wrong when answers aren’t given, rhetoric is toward fear instead of reason, and such.
The activists have been crying “wolf” for years, yet there never is a wolf, only a big expensive wolf study and prevention non or actual government organization that studies, regulates, and otherwise seems to be more interested in perpetuating itself on whatever issue is at hand.
Conversely there are people actually fixing problems (the group bringing clean water or the herds of ruminants that restore grasslands).
It may help also that they’ve destroyed the economy so there isn’t any surplus left from the ordinary middle class contributors.
I think Pamela nailed the research early in the comments.
Still; keep moving, don’t make eye contact, mouth absurdities, cram a dollar into the can or drop some change and escape.
I am a naturalist and have been since the sixties. Only I find a lot of extremists with minimal knowledge of nature they’re ranting about.
I also tear up the bulk business mail from the eco-nuts. Which is a lot nicer I guess than using their pre-paid mailers and sending them back sheet lead. (Receiving Post Offices often weigh the entire load and divide by the average piece weight to determine charges. Unfortunately, they tend to tear the envelopes off of cinder blocks or bricks so the receiving group doesn’t pay for the masonry. Pity.
In the USA, if one really wants to donate to wilderness stuff, buy a hunting license, fishing license, duck stamps (at your local Post Office), ammunition or gear.
Dingell-Johnson Act or Wallop-Breaux Act
Pittman-Robertson Act.
Duck Stamp Act
Duck Stamp Revenues for 2011-2012 (easier to find current amounts) is
$1,517,647
Duck Stamp revenues have been declining.
All of these tax situations were initiated by sportsmen and sportswomen and actively supported over the years. These same people have actively defended the collected funds from government entities trying to snip the funds for their own usages, known as money government black holes.
Most of the collected funds are destined for wildlife and not for ‘administration’. Sadly, when the eco-nutty send out flyers about how much money was spent for specific wildlife, a little investigating often reveals that the funds actually spent for the wildlife are funds from the “Wildlife Restoration Acts” and not directly from the eco-batty treasure chests. Because any field wildlife restoration must be permitted through and coordinated the Federal or State FWS agencies. Somehow, the totals spent by the State and Federal agencies are included in eco-propaganda blurbs about money spent for wildlife.
If it is in the U.S. wild and it affects or interacts with wildlife, usually on Federal or State property (but not always); then at least some of the funds likely came from the taxes described above.
PS Eco-terrors hate to have this shown to them. In their minds, nature recovered by their self imposed deprivations, not because some hunter or fisherperson.
One year, about 1989, I participated in a swamp restoration effort south of New Orleans. The effort involved collecting, transporting and anchoring post xmas Christmas trees into swamp outlets to help cause the outgoing water to drop silt. Anchoring meant that a bunch of us nutty outdoorsmen, (no foolish ladies that day), strung chicken wiring fencing from post to post across outlets. All of us actually in the water wore chest waders, except for the Coastguard worker helping us. He wore a Navy neoprene dive suit.
Men in the one flat boat would hammer in the posts that we tried to hold steady. When a post was hammered in, that was what we held onto so our chest waders stayed above water while we strung the fence, wired the fence to the post and then wired the trees to the fence.
When water slops over the top of the chest waders, (mine leaked anyway) cold water would trickle around warm body parts. And we would envy the Coastguard guy for his neoprene suit. Only, if one can keep too much cold water from circulating around one’s privates, the body warms the water and it isn’t too uncomfortable; till the next dollop of cold water joins the fun.
Then at some point in the afternoon, the Coastguard man was shivering hard and asked to be relieved. Men in the flat boat had to pull him in and help him back to their mother ship.
I’ve never wanted a neoprene anything since then; not when leaky waders in over their depth trump.
There wasn’t one activist in that volunteer group, hunters and fishermen all. Which is pretty much a norm for the really grotty jobs or restoration activities.
On a more recent streambank improvement activity coordinated by the trout groups, there were several active activists. By which, I mean that they worked hard, got in the water and suffered with us. There were a number of other activists present; they made good if reluctant litter picker uppers, sort of.
A big difference between projects? Some, mostly the latter project was an easy drive and short walk for people in city shoes. The swamp project required a boat ride in the bottom of a flat boat, and slog across swamp in at least hip waders. Did I forget to mention the gators?
Opinion, (even if I plagiarized Pamela’s), rant and story… 🙂
Pippen,
The climate alarmist clique has plenty of members who routinely call for the firing, and for the incarceration, and even for the outright murder of scientific skeptics who even question their demonization of “carbon”.
But I have yet to see a scientific skeptic call for the murder, or firing, etc., of those who do not agree with them.
Thus, by your own criteria, you are part and parcel of a hate group. You are their enabler.
I would love to see you overcome your hatred, but in most cases that seems to be impossible. In your case, you could start by loudly condemning the climate alarmist cult in the same terms you condemn the KKK [a Democrat organization], the Nazis [a Socialist organization], and ‘skin heads’ [a Brit Leftist-controlled confederation of unemployed haters].
Stopping the hatred starts with you.
You’re right, I don’t think so.
The current eco-activists have nothing to do with the water quality; unless you think 1.8gpm showers and fail to flush toilets make for cleaner water. Clean water laws came well before the rise of big eco-green seeking endless funds for misuse.
The current troupe of feminists have nothing to do with woman’s equality to men, getting the vote or whatever.
Do the women in your life insist on equal and fair treatment? Respect? Is every one of them a dyed in the wool activist feminist? I doubt it, insisting on fair treatment is the right of every American. Insisting on fair treatment does not make one an activist, it does make them American.
The first sentence of the abstract says, “Despite recognizing the need for social change in …” The abstract does not say, “Despite believing …” it uses the word recognizing. Therefore I refuse to recognize anything the authors say as having validity. If they bring their political beliefs into the first sentence of the abstract (that there is a need for social change in …) then I have no way to know how they have distorted everything else in their paper. This is how I treat all papers now; when authors show their prejudices or lack of objectivity in the title, abstract or first paragraph I refuse to read further.
The alarmists and other social activists just can’t grasp the idea that people are sick of being shouted at by condescending holier-than-thou types. Debate just doesn’t feature, either, because their “ideals” are built on air. So they have to bully – they’ve got nothing else. And. People. Are. Sick. Of. It.
Humanist / Humanism works sufficiently and necessarily for me. If you are human I think you should have equal human rights; anywhere on earth or in space.
Although I am not an activist for humanism, I am not put off in any way by the most obnoxious / strident of humanist activists. No negative stereotyping by me in that regards.
However, I draw a line in the intellectual sand that humanist activists shall not cross. A humanist activist shall not harm any human’s rights in pursuit of humanism.
John
Seeing as the thread has went to hell and gone.
I’ll post the results from Woodbine racetrack:
1 1/16 Miles | 3 Year Olds And Up | CLAIMING ( $10,000 – $9,500 ) | Open
3 Sir McIntyre P. Husbands $9.00 $4.90 $3.60
7 Get A Grip (IRE) D. Moran $5.60 $4.50
8 Smooth Charlie S. Chernetz $4.10
==============
That was race #5 today, easy money.
Advocacy used to be civilized, constructive, and useful. Today, almost all advocacy boils down to one interest attempting to impose (usually by force of law) their will upon others (including those with differing viewpoints).
I dislike most activists for the simple reason they almost always want to impose their agenda on me.
I have strong feelings about many things. But I don’t go around seeking to impose them on others. Therefore, I do not consider myself an activist or advocate.
We are all so wrapped up in these polarized debates (left .v. right, pro-choice .v. pro-life, affirmative action .v. color blind etc.) that we seem to have forgotten that personal freedom to choose is something worth fighting for.
Human nature hasn’t changed in ten thousand years, and it never will. Live with it and stop constantly pestering us to conform to the socialist model. History proves socialism is unsustainable and always fails.
The use of lofty endeavors such as environmentalism to trick people into believing everything on the socialist plate is sinister. It’s not difficult to see a carbon dioxide tax is not beneficial to the individual, is ultimately harmful to society, and accomplishes nothing except for the wealthy elite to have people control. I don’t want the wealthy elite to have people control.
Imagine if all the people of the Earth believed the climate of our planet is not our fault?
[Rather, “not everything on the socialist plate” ? Mod]
Lilith says:
September 29, 2013 at 8:59 am
“For me it is the Monbiot effect. Drove me here with all his sneering at sceptics when I was simply trying to find out what the “settled science” was.”
Don’t forget he’s a believer in the God Of The Soil.
http://www.monbiot.com/2005/03/22/god-of-the-soil/
Pippen Kool says:
September 29, 2013 at 12:36 pm
“What with the air and water being cleaner and women not being the property of their husbands, we could use more groups like environmentalists and feminists.”
They are controlled opposition and get created by the governments as needed.
Could it be that these results are just as E.T. Jaynes might have predicted them, applying his evaluation of ‘Converging and diverging views’ of ‘Queer uses for probability theory’, Section 5.3 of Probability Theory: The Logic of Science?
“Not only in political speeches and news reporting, but wherever we seek for information on political matters, we run up against this same obstacle; we cannot trust anyone to tell us the truth, because we perceive that everyone who wants to talk about it is motivated either by self-interest or by ideology. In political matters, whatever the source of information, our prior probability for deception is always very high. However, it is not obvious whether this alone can prevent us from coming to agreement.”
“The initial portion of section 5.3 is reproduced below.”
http://www.variousconsequences.com/2009/11/converging-and-diverging-views.html
Greg says: September 29, 2013 at 10:32 am “I’m not sure what a “Mechanical Turk” is but I would bet it’s not a recognised unbiased selector. ”
“The Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) is a crowdsourcing Internet marketplace that enables individuals or businesses (known as Requesters) to co-ordinate the use of human intelligence to perform tasks that computers are currently unable to do. It is one of the sites of Amazon Web Services. The Requesters are able to post tasks known as HITs (Human Intelligence Tasks), such as choosing the best among several photographs of a store-front, writing product descriptions, or identifying performers on music CDs. Workers (called Providers in Mechanical Turk’s Terms of Service, or, more colloquially, Turkers) can then browse among existing tasks and complete them for a monetary payment set by the Requester. To place HITs, the requesting programs use an open Application Programming Interface, or the more limited MTurk Requester site. Requesters are restricted to US-based entities. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Mechanical_Turk)
Activists of any type or noisy opinionated blowhards who really DON’T know how to make friends and influence people. Activists have 3 distinct characteristics.
1. They base their arguments on emotion. The whales are dying, It is for the children etc etc. Their opinions on how to fix a problem are never fact based and the long term response is that never actually fix anything.
2. They are control freaks. This comes out of using emotion as their initial argument. People are manipulated easier when emotional rhetoric is used. This is how cults are born. Activism is actually another form of cultism.
3. They have a messiah complex i.e. they believe they are doing something good by saving something even at a cost of killing something else.
How do you fight these type of people. Very difficult since they believe that they alone are right and every other bastard is wrong.
I knew a man known only as Big Demo. He used to burst into my local pub almost every saturday lunchtime shouting ‘big demo in London today, march against nuclear submarines, big demo, big demo’. I saw him on the TV a few weeks ago at the anti-fracking campaign in Balcombe, West Sussex screaming ‘no justice’ over and over again at some patient copper.
So Big Demo is still alive and kicking. Only the target of his deep-seated hate and rage has changed. And I still don’t know his real name. Just a small angry man, Big Demo.
@Richardscourtney
No mate, personal research only.
@Greg
Lighten up sweetheart, some of us see a funny side.
Furthermore, keep your fantasies about my fantasies to yourself. I was actually thinking about not shaving legs. Perhaps you’re projecting?
Should I check with you prior to posting comments comrade?
So let’s see if I understand this. People that witness criticism, founded our not, of received knowledge are prone to have less belief in the received knowledge? Sounds like their ought to be a law against challenging the testimonies clerics and experts.
One more time and so relevant: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” — Richard Feynman
Actions speak louder than words.
What people are reacting against is the “extremist” or “true believer” mentality and behavior pattern. I suspect one can find checklists of their characteristics online if one googles for them.
As the old joke has it,
“What’s the the difference between a dead dog and a dead environmentalist?”
“Skid marks in front of the dog.”
Some of us environmentalists try to do the right thing. But I must admit there are a number of environmental extremists that give the science a bad name and many more politicos who hijack legitimate environmental concern for their own agenda. It creates a backlash that makes it harder to get support for honest efforts to build a more resilient environment.
Notice the attribution of cruelty: “This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.””
We all know how activists avoid “surprisingly cruel caricaturing.” Anti-fossil fuel activists are all sweetness and light. You greedy lying bastards. (:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/12/warmist-epic-greedy-lying-bastards-bombs-at-the-box-office/
I told someone the same thing at the Guardian comments just last week – before I was banned. I made it clear that the more they used ad hominems the worse it would be for the down-in-the-toilet Guardian circulation. I give the toilet paper less than 5 years.
The really serious situation is that the environment continues to suffer because of their fixation with the plant fertilizer co2. Some deny that fact but I have peer reviewed science and observations on my side.
Opportunists, with the aiding and abetting of the UN, from back in the late 1970s and 1980s led the environmental movement astray. Dr. James Hansen was the useful idiot followed in the ensuing decades by Al Gore. The rest is history – FAIL on co2.
jim Steele says:
September 29, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Some of us environmentalists try to do the right thing. But I must admit there are a number of environmental extremists that give the science a bad name and many more politicos who hijack legitimate environmental concern for their own agenda. …………………”
Being an Environmentalist is not the problem, activism is the problem. We have a guy here in Oztralia who started the Clean Up Australia campaign. It was a great idea. No activism – he just called for some volunteers to clean up a bit of their area an they did. Now it is an institution and 100’s of tons of garbage in the bushland gets picked up.
I thought I was the only one!
My first encounter with an environmentalist was not positive. I was hiking in the woods with a small group. I decided to pop a stick of gum in my mouth. Without giving it a thought I dropped the wadded up paper wrapper on the trail. The stranger behind me let out a yell and wanted to know what I thought I was doing. Clearly he was upset. I asked what the problem was. He said it was the gum wrapper as he pointed in disgust. Realizing he was serious I advised him not to worry, it was small and sure to compost quickly. Not good enough. He insisted it had to be picked up. No it doesn’t, I said, but you are welcome to do it if you want. With a great show of self righteousness he put it in his pocket. We proceeded in icy silence.
That was many decades ago. Since then I’ve become aware the world is filled with these people. I’m no psychiatrist but my guess is it has to do with over zealous potty training. As adults they are haunted by the feeling that they, and by projection all of humanity, are fouling the environment. Now they are in positions of power and influence. It’s sure to get worse before it gets better.
I’ve had a full life littering here and there in small ways on the sly. I sleep well knowing that all efforts to preserve and protect the current state of what the environmentalist think of as a fragile Earth Mother must in the end fail with the advent of the next glacial period or mountain-sized asteroid impact. The earth will endure long after we and our delusions are gone.
I wonder what his nest, his ‘crib’ is like, fouled.
dbstealey says: ” I have yet to see a scientific skeptic call for the murder, or firing, etc., of those who do not agree with them.”
But apparently you at What’s Up can joke about killing environmentalists:
Foster says: “What’s the the difference between a dead dog and a dead environmentalist?”
No, only a fool says groups they dont agree with are “hate” groups, especially if the rhetoric of individuals (killing, murder, etc) has not been substantiated with deeds.
Even Greenpeace, which works at being a little over the top, exactly how many people have they killed?
The Russians have now jailed all 30 eco-terrorists “protesting” too close to the arctic oil rig. Reading comments at several news sites shows little sympathy for them, least at the National Post. Hopefully they seize their ship, might make Greenpeace think about their next protest legalities.
Pippen,
How many hours did you spend in your mom’s basement, feverishly looking for an example of a skeptic threatening an alarmist?
And that was the best you could come up with??
My point stands:
I have yet to see a scientific skeptic call for the murder, or firing, etc., of those who do not agree with them. Thus, by your own criteria, you are part and parcel of a hate group. You are their enabler.
If it weren’t for your hatred, and your wish for the murder of those you don’t agree with, what would motivate you? It certainly wouldn’t be scientific facts, because you have none that support your belief system.
dbstealey says: “If it weren’t for your hatred, and your wish for the murder….”
Right, Bud. Perhaps you should use a mirror.
Pippen!
It is the CAGW religion that demands the death of millions, the starvation and illness and deprivation of billions of innocents; and the CAGW dogma that promoted those who most enthusiastically for even more deaths of today’s humans. All a skeptic would request is that those who so fervently believe in their CAGW dogma should be neutered first, so they don’t continue to breed. The threats of death, imprisonment and demotion and job firings are all from the CAGW promoters. /sarcasm
Pippen,
In the print version of Kevin Trenberth’s oddly named 2011 speech “COMMUNICATING CLIMATE SCIENCE AND THOUGHTS ON CLIMATEGATE” there was a cartoon from “The Politician” at the end that read ” Climate change is not the biggest threat to the planet” ….Climate change skeptics like you are!” The top climate scientists have fostered an ugly atmosphere of hate by calling anyone who disagrees a denier. Although I consistently argue we need more respectable debate, I do understand why any skeptic will vent. We are slammed as stupid deniers that are the biggest threat to the next generation’s children. Activist like Joe Romm, Bill McKibben and climate scientists instill fear and anger against deniers every day . It has the same tactic used by religions that use the word heretic to justify any and all attacks on non-believers whether they directly call for murder or not.
Baa Humbug says:
September 29, 2013 at 3:11 pm
“Lighten up sweetheart, some of us see a funny side.
Furthermore, keep your fantasies about my fantasies to yourself. I was actually thinking about not shaving legs. Perhaps you’re projecting?
Should I check with you prior to posting comments comrade?”
=============
Unless we are just playing games ?
You’ll know when we’re not playing anymore.
Pip,
Rather than launch into another diatribe, I direct you here. You are what I refer to there as one of the enlisted in the “army of self-deluded useful idiots [that] march forth with a smug self-righteousness that belies the ignorance of their advocacy.” You support an agenda of anti-human AGW zealots that will undeniably prolong poverty this entire century ensuring the needless deaths of tens of millions, so step off your high horse and take a nice long look into the mirror yourself. The AGW ivory tower of cards is crumbling. Deal with it. My advice to you is to drop your deadly advocacy rather than prolong your self-inflicted reign of ignorance.
galileonardo says: ” drop your deadly advocacy rather than prolong your self-inflicted reign of ignorance.”
Bud, looks like you need a mirror too.
Golly! Things are just like they were in high school. Regular people don’t like to be seen or associated with weird people. What is weird? If you have to ask, then you are weird. Think, Peter Gleick, or Michael Mann.
Weird science or math is Mannian, and weird personality is Gleickian. Any combination of which would be alarming.
Pippen Fool:
That is no answer. The fact is that you are consumed by hatred for those you don’t agree with. You are an enabler of the hate-filled alarmist cult, and you still can’t find an explicit statement from a skeptic calling for the murder, censoring, or incarceration of climate alarmists. But we have seen those things posted by the alarmist cult regularly.
So wallow in your hatred. It’s doing you no good at all, and it is destroying your soul. Hatred is a typical response of those who have no credible scientific facts to support their belief system. So hating is all you’ve got left.
Yeah its a bit like alternative medicine. If alternative medicine was obviously effective, then it would become conventional medicine. In rare cases it has a place (in that it may be very limited, or expensive, or ambiguous in its effects etc), but it often has very limited or no effectiveness, otherwise medical science would simply use it, and it wouldn’t be ‘alternative medicine’ anymore.
Same goes for environmental activists, anything that is obviously environmentally useful and unambiguous gets adopted by science and policy, what doesn’t gets left to activists, which usually means there is something defective or wrong with it, or that it actually does more harm than good.
So people learn not to trust activists in a society which is open, free and amenable to new ideas and change, what doesn’t get taken on board is often defective to begin with.
dbstealey says:”consumed by hatred … the hate-filled alarmist cult… wallow in your hatred…Hatred is a typical response… hating is all you’ve got left.”
Bud, I think you have a problem dealing with people you disagree with.
Remember: “Love is the answer and … you got to let it grow” (John Lennon, 1973)
Sippen Kool-Aid says:
September 29, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Bud, looks like you need a mirror too.
Hmm. That’s great. My hope for you, truly, is that you reevaluate your stubborn faith. It must be difficult to realize that what you have been propagating for only you know how long is not quite the noble cause you envisioned. Find solace in the fact that you are not alone. The flocks of the faithful AGW sheep are many and in many ways you are not to blame. You were led astray. You should try to lead rather than follow, ya know, a little independent thinking. You’ll sleep a lot better at night if you do because there’s no way around the unforgivable human cost of the policies you advocate. Then again, as others have noted, maybe hatred is your thing.
Good luck with that.
I note that there is still no repudiation by the hater Pippen of the calls for the murdering of scientific skeptics by the alarmist cult.
Therefore, Pippen is simply dissembling; emitting nugatory words.
Unless and until Pippen clearly and decisively repudiates the calls for violence against skeptics by his fellow alarmist cultists, he is simply being a hypocrite.
galileonardo says: “The flocks of the faithful … sheep are many and in many ways you are not to blame. You were led astray. You should try to lead rather than follow, ya know, a little independent thinking. ”
Given the blog that you and 97% of your friends post on, I really think you should take the mirror thing seriously. Really!!! Read your own quote!
http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/UN-Blames-Cows-for-Global-Warming-Again.html
this is official insanity. the old whacko marxist hippies shine through with this lot.
regards
Sippen Kool-Aid says:
September 29, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Given the blog that you and 97% of your friends post on…
Yeah, that’s about the level of response I expected. And what’s with the warmist’s 97% fetish? Give it up already. That goose is Cooked.
So you’re pretty much going the “nothing to see here” route, eh? Instead of the phantom climate refugees your ilk failingly try to highlight, perhaps you could speak to the known negative effects implementing the backward CO2 mitigation agenda will have on the poor.
Do you even know what the IPCC themselves expect will happen to economic growth for the world’s poor under Sustainable Development? Did you realize that by their own numbers the poor of the world will be half as wealthy as they would be under Natural Development? Have a read. Finally, do you even care? Or is your hatred of humanity so strong that colossal collateral damage is actually a good thing? Cuz that’s what you signed up for with your SD bandwagon. Take the blinders off and grab that mirror again.
Speaking of murderous tendencies, we all remember this Alarmist gem:
It was supposed to be “humorous”. What it provided was a deeply-disturbing look into the blackened soul of a movement which essentially hates mankind, but most especially hates those who oppose the movement itself.
@ September 29, 2013 at 5:15 pm, the “mirror” troll, Pippen Kool, says:
Who knows how many, but it certainly is not through lack of trying. Yeah, that’s a really Kool thing to do. Just gotta love those enviros…
Fuel poverty *; old people …
Amplifying that: By furthering the economic and political climate that ensures fuel poverty; affecting, in particular, old people.living on fixed pensions who can’t afford to pay the heating fuel bill and which are particularly susceptible to dying from the ‘cold’ and physical conditions/maladys brought on by ‘cold’ conditions.
(* “Brought to us by the loving, caring, kind, considerate and understanding left?”)
.
If this study is accurate and from what I can tell it sounds about right, environmentalists merely need to change their name.
These sociology studies are too tiny, too targeted at people who sign up to get paid for giving their opinions (any of you remember participating in psych and soc experiments in university in the 60s and 70s?) to produce anything that could be considered a science finding.
They do provide food for thought — and a staring point for someone who might actually want to do a *real* study on the subject.
Some of us distrust “activist” groups because we can sense we aren’t just being “told” something, we’re being “sold” something.
Generally, it’s something we don’t need or what was advertised.
==========================================================================
I’m late to the thread (again) but this reminded me of something.
Anybody remember Jurassic Park 2? A T Rex kills a bunch of people. An evil hunter had a chance to kill the T Rex before all the mayhem but an animal rights activist (I think he was an “undercover” Greenpeacer.) had sabotaged his gun. Spielberg’s movie never once hinted that anything was his fault.
Yeah, I gotta admit that I didn’t jump on the bandwagon when confronted by loud, mean, sallow costumed and topless university humanities’ undergraduates (engineering, medicine and science students usually remain working at their considerably more demanding studies) searching for an identity and waving derogatory slogans on wood and cardboard signs. Its like the animal rights and save-the-planet groups whose hatred of humanity, freedom and productive capitalism is certainly undisguised. Indeed, it is probably part of their sociology/history curriculum. Who would have thunk that such campaigns were ineffective? Probably most engineers could have instructed the psychologists who wrote this “seminal” paper.
Pippin: “I know you are but what am I?”
I haven’t heard that since first grade…
tom says:
September 29, 2013 at 12:34 pm
…
Who determines what fair wages are and how?
Fair wages are easily determined. If you can live on that wage, that is, pay for necessary food (not luxuries), necessary transportation (at least to and from work and markets), and necessities such as clothes, rent or mortage, doctors, etc., at an agreed upon rate per hour and hours per week, then the wage is fair. If the wage is such that you need to take a second or third job simply to aquire the necessities and maintain a home, then the wage is not fair two reasons, first, it is not a living wage, and second, if you need two jobs to simply survive, that second job that you need to survive is hampering the ability of someone else to survive without going on welfare. It also encourages wage payers to pay lower – non survival rate – wages.
I thought that was the “Flim-Flannery Effect”!.
?? Is that Aussie for “toward”?? ;p
That doesn’t mean what you think.
→Disputes or contradicts
Can you imagine anyone so ignorant and vile as to want to “resist social change”?
So . . . by logical extension, the way to encourage environmental conservation is to go out and act as an anti-environmentalist redneck oaf that a lot of Sierra Club types envision occupying all of ‘fly-over’ country.
Simply by being a bad example, you can encourage people to behave in more environmentally sound ways.
Too bad I could never do that.
Truth is a lot of the pro-environment hippies that pass for activists these days don’t know anything about the natural world and frequently make a mess when they visit. Can’t tell you how many hippies I’ve run into, either in the high country (actually usually in the camp grounds down below the true high country) or the BWCA/Quetico who leave an absolute disaster area behind when they depart. I guess its tough to remember to pick up after yourself when you’re stoned and cannot even be bothered to shower on a regular basis. ‘But do go on, tell me why the oil & logging companies and local outfitters are run by evil people who don’t care about the environment, Mr. long haired, trash everywhere, car camping, cigarette tossing environmentalist, it’s so very interesting.’
Yeah, I guess I see now why your typical environmental activist is off-putting.
====================================================================
That all sounds nice. Calling Government hand-outs “entitlements” also sounds nice.
Maybe you are an employer. Maybe, but it doesn’t sound like it.
An employer owes his employees an honest wage for an honest days work. He owes them what their skill set and their application of that skill set is worth to him. Nothing more.
The employee’s living situation has nothing to do with what the work he/she does is worth.
(And no, I’m not an employer or self-employed. I make my living by working for others.)
Someone in the US once said, “A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellowman and is determined to pay that debt with your money.
Brian H says:
September 30, 2013 at 9:24 pm
…army of self-deluded useful idiots [that] march forth with a smug self-righteousness that belies the ignorance of their advocacy.
That doesn’t mean what you think.
→Disputes or contradicts
I’m confused. Largely self-inflicted I suppose. You forced me to visit Merriam. I do know what the word means and thought it fit here, but I see your point. Using both the negative “smug self-righteousness” with unwitting “ignorance” can be interpreted as incorrect usage depending on how you define it.
Still, I do feel my usage applies well to the secondary definition of belie: to run counter to ; contradict (the definition you gave). Cleaner example: The AGW activist’s notion that he is helping the poor belies the fact that what he advocates actually hurts the poor…You probably still think it was a hack job. That’s OK. The defense rests. But barren mind, like the devil in the skies I will go forth and continue hackling the English language irregardless of the feedbag I am given…Sorry.
No, your sentence has “ignorance” as the object of the sentence, and “belies” as the verb. Think about it.
And why would I want to “barren” my mind, even if that were a verb? Bear in mind the construction of the sentences you write. Then read them aloud: it reveals what they actually say, rather than what you thought they were going to.
Is “hackling” (not a word) really so much fun?
Pippen long stockings: It is hard to believe that could be a paid troll, your attempts to thread bomb are too clumsy. Similarly, it is hard to believe you are a committed activist either for you lack the typical activist responses. That leaves a lack of maturity, either age and/or experience based, for your resorting to the lower level school responses you are using.
When questioned for facts or references you change your attack. When cornered with your own biases you resort to ‘look in a mirror’ responses.
At this point you are a joke in this thread and any other threads you may participate in at WUWT. Replies to your pathetic posts should be laughter as you’ve certainly proved reason is not your mettle.
I do hope you spend your time here at WUWT reading and actually trying to understand science.
About your ‘greenpiece’ (sp? yeah so what) claim that they’ve never killed anyone.
So in your book only a direct murder is evidence of serious intent to hate? You really need to look up the various international hate crime laws. You’ll find that murder is not required as evidence.
Next look up greenpiece’s activities around the world and what those interventions actually mean to people. Whether it’s anti-genetic modifications to food, anti-timber harvesting, anti-water use, anti-pesticides or anti-herbicides, anti-inexpensive fuel, anti-nuclear, anti-population; greenpee is not there for you and they certainly don’t care about you and your life.
If Greenpee hasn’t murdered anyone directly yet, it isn’t for want of trying.
Do try and grow up.
@ATheoK
Add anti-GMO activism to your list:
Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1320.full
Say what!?
I worked two jobs for over a decade, two full jobs; with naps whenever and wherever. On that combined salary I could usually pay my rent, buy enough food and occasionally, very occasionally take a lady out for a nice dinner. Shows were way out of my league.
–Clothes? Sears jeans and shirts were my finery. I preferred moccasins for shoes. Suits were out of my league.
–Doctors? Fortunately I had the good health, strength and stamina of youth back then. Doctors only came into my life when I really got sick or injured.
–Rent? Barely and this was for dives with room mates to share in expenses. Still, did without heat for most of one winter in Massachusetts. Used a coleman catalytic heater for essentials.
–Food? There was one period where after paying for vehicle repairs, rent and school fees my room mate and I settled on a five pound can of baked beans for nutrition. Peanut butter is out as I have bad reactions to things peanut. It took four days before my room mate went buggy, zoomed off with his motorcycle and came back with a fifty pound sack of potatoes. My response was “Where’d you get the money?”. We ate a lot of potatoes that year.
Was that fair? It sure wasn’t unfair. I knew adults with families living on those salaries; in houses they bought for much less. They were not better off than I, just better conditioned to without.
I worked hard, if I wasn’t working two jobs, then I was working one job and attending school. Eventually I reached a plateau where I could afford a family, vacations, even a new (gasp!) truck.
Is it fair that I expect to be paid for my sufferings while learning skills and gaining experiences that are in demand? It is for knowledge and experience that my salary is based. I think that is very fair, and I really don’t care if you do or don’t.
No problem – I just wanted to share because I had come across that particular story only within the past two days, and it is an illustration of GP activism directly contributing to children’s deaths. And it comes from a source that is hardly climate skeptic-friendly
Gunga Din says: @ October 1, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Duster says:@ September 30, 2013 at 3:12 pm
tom says:@ September 29, 2013 at 12:34 pm
…
Who determines what fair wages are and how?
====================================================================
That all sounds nice. Calling Government hand-outs “entitlements” also sounds nice.
Maybe you are an employer. Maybe, but it doesn’t sound like it.
An employer owes his employees an honest wage for an honest days work. He owes them what their skill set and their application of that skill set is worth to him. Nothing more.
The employee’s living situation has nothing to do with what the work he/she does is worth….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The employer also has to make a profit for either himself or his stockholders.
If the employee (usually through a union) demands so much in wages that the employer can not sell the product at a reasonable profit then everyone loses. Detroit and the US Auto industry is a glaring example.
In the case of small business owners we are often competing with the US government for ’employees’. If an employee ‘earns’ more on welfare than you can afford to pay them you are stuck with the choices of hiring illegals, paying under the table or not hiring anyone.
As more and more of the country’s wealth is diverted to paying taxes and ‘forced purchases’ of expensive products such as twisty light bulbs, insurance, the freon subsitute and now higher cost energy less and less income is available for other purchases. Although manufacturing costs go up the price that can be charged is capped because the consumer just doesn’t have the income. Employers are then faced with how to still make a profit so they can stay in business. One method is firing higher cost older workers and bringing in low cost youngsters or H1b workers and hoping like heck you didn’t just shoot yourself in the foot by firing critical expertise. Another is to shutdown marginal product lines or facilities and the last is just to pull up stakes and move to a better business climate.
Brian H says:
October 2, 2013 at 1:42 am
Is “hackling” (not a word) really so much fun?
Well actually, in this case I suppose it is. Lighten up a bit, no? First, this isn’t Grammar Girl, its (apostrophe intentionally omitted) WUWT. Second, that last sentence in my previous comment was a joke, apparently a poorly received one. Given your editorial proclivities, I’m surprised you missed a few “errors,” though kudos for sorting out the real intent of “barren mind” and realizing my intentional misuse of “hackling.”
Speaking of which, hackling is in fact a word: combing out with a hackle (a comb or board with long metal teeth for dressing flax, hemp, or jute). Example: “The hackling hackler hackled with his hackle.” Barren mind the presentation of errors as authoritative statements of fact in the sentences you write. Better still, before making erroneous statements I recommend gathering information from which proper judgement can be drawn so as to potentially avoid making such statements. Sorry again. I guess my hacks are up a hair.
Back to that offensive sentence. Baron Mined I also used “devil in the skies” instead of “devil in disguise.” I know it is a real word, but I deliberately used the ever-annoying “irregardless.” I then used “feedbag” instead of “feedback” and ended with a pre-emptive apology for the bad joke.
As for “belies,” I did think about it, more than I should have really due to it””s insignificance. I may delve further and don’t completely understand the objection but again, that’s OK. It speaks more to my lack of mastery of the art of writing than anything else. Irregardless, it feels a bit of a nit to pick considering nearly all threads everywhere are full of typos and grammatical errors. I know its a bit of a habit, but really you’ll drive yourself mad if you go on a crusade of correction (as someone with OCD I do understand the compulsion).
Ironically, you are guilty of it as well. In your comment just above your original response to me you use “!.” as punctuation. “One should bear in mind the content of their sentences. Then reread them to search for typographical errors: it reveals what they actually should say, rather than what you thought you said.” Would you be cool with that? I’m guessing you would probably respond similarly to how I am responding now, though I’m guessing far more succinctly.
Most of this is in jest as I do realize you are attempting to help me to improve my communication skills. That is appreciated. But as an immigrant born into a dictatorship I can’t help but defend my liberties to amassacre the langwich as I see fit. Cheers! And happy typo haunting!
galileonardo says:
October 3, 2013 at 8:45 pm (replying to)
Brian H says:
October 2, 2013 at 1:42 am
Ah, but a barron mind will never yield a royal belie full of child, but will ever languish in o’pun succinity…
Environmentalists are only interested in their view of the world. They do not believe in considering the opinions of others. It must always be their way or they keep on protesting and disrupting!
=======================================================================
That reminded me something I came across several years ago, when people were debating the Bush tax cuts.
“Tax code explained in Beer
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12..
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible”