WUWT reader M. Paul writes: Sometimes a new word emerges that neatly encapsulates a set of complex ideas. We have recently seen such a word enter the lexicon: Grubering.
For those of you who missed it, an MIT Professor named Jonathan Gruber has been caught on video describing all the various ways that he helped the Obama Administration to deceive the public regarding the true nature of Obamacare.
People are now referring to what the Obamacare campaigners did as “Grubering”. Grubering is when politicians or their segregates engage in a campaign of exaggeration and outright lies in order to “sell” the public on a particular policy initiative. The justification for Grubering is that the public is too “stupid” to understand the topic and, should they be exposed to the true facts, would likely come to the “wrong” conclusion. Grubering is based on the idea that only the erudite academics can possibly know what’s best of the little people. Jefferson would be turning in his grave.
I think that no other word describes what we have seen in the climate debate quite as well as Grubering. The Climategate emails are full of discussions about how to “sell” the public on CAGW through a campaign of lies and exaggerations. There are many discussion about how the public could not possibly understand such a complex subject.
The late Steven Schneider puts it succinctly:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
Our critics sometimes dismiss skeptics as “conspiracy theorists” noting how unlikely it would be that thousands of scientists would collude. They miss the point. We now know that Grubering takes place — we see it laid bare in the Obamacare campaign. It was not strictly a “conspiracy”. Rather it was an arrogant belief that lying was necessary to persuade a “stupid” public to adopt the policy preferences of the politicians and the academics in their employ. Its Noble Cause Corruption, not conspiracy, that is at the root of this behavior.
“Climate Grubering” — its a powerful new word that can help us to describe what’s been going on.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So now there are Denialists, skeptics, warmists, alarmists and Gruberists.
Actually, there are just two camps: Liars and non-liars. Gruberists are the liars.
Rocky I agree but liars get caught eventually because they forget what they said last time. Truth comes naturally and doesn’t need such memory. Something most of us learn young, and, it seems, some never do.
Noble cause corruption does exist, but yes, the liars are in many cases simply greedy money grubbing power hungry individuals, invested, ego wise and monetarily in green energy, political power and personal prestige. Nothing nobel about that.
So Martha Stewart got thrown in Jail for “lying” to “The Government” (about something that is none of their business).
So hasn’t Gruber lied to the Congress of the United States, in what he has presented to them as Obamacare, and told them it contains ?
Even Nancy Pelosi seems to have been taken in by his lies, and you know what a stickler for the truth that she is.
Seems like Gruber should be headed for jail sometime, considering how much his lies have cost virtually all of us (American taxpayers).
Noble cause corruption does not exist. Corruption is never noble. Noble is having the courage to do the right thing, no matter the consequences for yourself. Corruption is lying and cheating for your own benefit.
Thomas, it’s the cause that is noble, not the corruption.
I think the name of the two camps are Gruberists who think they lie for the greater good and Truth tellers who tell the truth for the wrong (according to the Gruberists) reasons.
A fine and apparently necessary addition. Bravo.
The problem with using the word ‘Grubering’ as a label is it’s meaning is different depending on your core beliefs, it confuses the underlying problems/issues with allowing and/or encouraging ‘climate change’ white lies/propaganda . Some people believe Grubering is necessary.
The Obama administration believes ‘white’ lies are OK if the objective is worthy. Most people would agree that health care is a worthy objective. The question is how much it will cost, who pays, and what are the most effective systems to provide it.
From the Obama administration’s standpoint (and many democrats) Gruber’s fault then is not the white lie, but rather bragging that he lied, not keeping his mouth shut, not effectively hiding the lie.
The skeptic’s issue with ‘cimate change’, ‘white lies’, is lying/propaganda, data/analysis manipulation and so on makes it impossible to make an informed decision. What is the nature of the ‘climate change’ policy problem(s) that do or do not need to be addressed, changes how much money should be spent on the problem(s) in question.
Almost $2 trillion dollars has been spent on green scams and climate change.
What is the benefit that we have received for the $2 trillion dollar expenditure? Is there less climate change? Did the planet get colder? If the planet got colder, is that a good thing or bad thing?
The logical best policy for all countries is different if there is no extreme AGW problem to solve. There is a limited amount of GDP to spend on everything. Less money spent on AGW leaves more money to spend on health care, education, roads, bridges, research and so on. Spending more and more money on AGW is not win-win.
Our second issue is the green scams do not work, even if there is an extreme AGW problem to solve. The problem is the ‘greens’ irrationally hate nuclear power which is the long term solution. There is roughly a billion years of fissionable material using fourth generation nuclear reactors.
I know a baby food called Gurber./Gerber.
So that’s what we get fed by those whose care we are in.
Here comes the aeroplane open wide.
More apposite in this context: “So that’s what we get spoon-fed by those whose care we are in.”
It’s warmista pablum
More like dog food.
Or, dog …
I somewhat agree with Edward. I think the term is absolutely fair, but overuse will justify use of the other terms like denier. I suspect I’ll use the new term, but sparingly and only in specific cases where the record supports it.
I don’t think the crooks need any excuses to use the ‘D’ word
Don’t forget the MoneyGrubers.
Democrats paid Gruber, a heretofore respected Ivy League professor, $400,000 to lie to the American people. How many “respected scientists” did Democrats buy for tens of billions of dollars of climate science grants?
Climate Grubering certainly seems to have a long tradition of being the weapon of choice for the members of the Green Blob [h/t on the latter to the U.K.’s former Environment Secretary – who has seen both the blight and the light – Owen Paterson]
Here is the earlier Grubering. These people know full well what they are doing, and prefer to call sceptics nasty names. They know they are telling fairy tales and exaggerations.
Some years ago, when Brinkley was still hosting the Sunday morning show, the topic of bias in the media came up. George Will said something very close to “If I were to give my good friend Sam Donaldson truth serum, attache him to a lie detector, and ask if there is bias in the media he would reply “No!” and pass the test. The reason is it is not a conspiracy, but something much worse, a consensus.” He was not using “consensus” in quite the same way the “science is settled” folks are, but more along the lines of an agreement on how things should be. Whether health care or CAGW, we see much the same “consensus.” Or “Grubering” though I prefer the term “being Gored” in the area of climate.
Was Gore Grubering or was Gruber just Goreing us?
The truth was Gored
Gruber was Goebbelsing us…
Goebbels warming…
Goebbeling.
Feeding us Goebbelsdegook..
George Will was trying to be polite. Here are some other words and phrases that more directly suggest what is going on:
groupthink
mob psychology
moral posturing
heresy trials
political pressure
political correctness
political orthodoxy
competitive praying in public
In all cases, speakers face an incentive structure where they are under pressure to show that they are “well intended”. In the case of AGW, the reporters, and artists, and academics need to show that they “care about our precious mother earth”, and are willing to challenge the “greedy overconsumers”. If they fail to do that they are obviously in the pay of the Koch brothers.
That is largely how the “consensus” has been achieved.
I forgot to include words like banishment, shunning, excommunication. Politically derived “consensus” is a human dynamic that has been around for a few thousand years.
Good post, Tregonsee. I once read an interview with a college senior who was asked why she chose Journalism for a major. She replied, “Because I want to make a difference.” This was accepted as a perfectly logical answer. This implies that journalism is all about opinion. Opinion is fine – but only on the editorial page.
Also see Plato’s Noble Lie, Machiavellianism and Taqiyya. Although the first two primarily deal with politics, the concepts also work well for any persuasive argument – especially with uncritical individuals. In my beloved South it translates to “Just say anything to win, Bubba!”
Could it be said that you were ‘Gored’ by a ‘Gruberist’?
Once again the key component is the mass media. CBS, NBC, ABC ad nauseum are barely mentioning Gruber. The mass media blithely gives credibility to the relatively small team of hyper-partisan “climate scientists” without ever really investigating their claims. If reporters, editors, and journalists hadn’t abdicated responsibility for the last 40 years, millions of low information American voters would not have been Gruberized.
And the mass media is not mentioning House Dem leader Nancy Pelosi, who recently claims she never heard of him. “I don’t know who [Gruber] is,” “Pelosi told reporters Thursday. “He didn’t help write our bill”
From an earlier quote off a video of her mentioning him: “I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange…”
She most likely worked with him in writing the bill.
And the admin paid $400k for some guy who “didn’t help write our bill”
All politicized media behaves in the same manner, that is, ignoring or downplaying whatever upsets their party line… while trumpeting with earnest frivolity their most rigorous commitment to the highest standards of impartiality.
Nothing unusual here.
Besides, all politicians lie… constantly.
Nothing unusual here either.
What Jonathan Gruber got caught running his mouth. It’s fine that he is now made to “pay” for his imbecility but it demonstrates nothing new about politicians or politics.
I love it. From here on out, when I am called a denier, I now have an equally immature, insipid and jejune response. Thank you Mr. Gruber!!
This is by far the site that has the done most to turn the tide against AGW. Just to clear things up. It is obvious, never thought I had to say it. But thank you Mr Watts LOL My point is that John Coleman got onto the MSM and got a somewhat lukewarm message across successfully. Imagine when the stuff here gets to MSM it will really open the Pandoras box required LOL
The MSM will make sure this ‘stuff’ never gets there and have been doing so for decades.
“segregates”? This is a verb, not a noun. Perhaps you mean surrogates.
Same paragraph: probably intended to say “what’s best /for/ the little people.”
3rd paragraph — “segregates”??? how about “surrogates”
I teach my grand children that “consensus” is a political term, not a scientific one.
The example I use is “George Washington was bled three times on the day he died.” If it had not been the “consensus” of the medical community that bloodletting was the proper treatment, he might still be alive today.—Sarc
Grubering is a big part of Chicago style politics. Lean on people you want corroboration from with personal destruction for them and their families using certain agencies under the auspices of this administration for the “greater good”. Almost had this style of politics in 1960 but the Kennedy’s wouldn’t play ball. When you keep that in mind you can understand how trusted agencies seem to be doing things that are counter to the way they have always done things in the past. Basic shakedown method.
You have people in high places grubering whom would not normally do so, including in the media. I would put more faith in the climate data if there wasn’t a Chicago politician in the WH. It’s not working too well in foreign affairs. With the election there is now blood in the water, we will see what happens.
Grubering is essentially an euphemism for the Government — Academic – Media Complex
To sell the naturally conservative and skeptical public on something which you as the all-knowing academic know in your “head of heads” tpo be true or at least should be true — you exaggerate and then use the gullible “useless idiots” of the media to do your PR — the benefit is lots of gov’e $ in research and consulting grants and the creation of more “Grubers” to carry on your foul legacy.
Thanks to Jon’s arrogance — we’ve seen it exposed for all its worth — in his case you can supplement the MIT profs sallary with at least $2M in state and Fed contracts
I thought nouns and verbs were fully interchangable in american English.
Sorry, that was supposed to be a reply to Jim, above.
Amazing thing about the American english language.
It’s so versatile.
Touché!
Oh, no. Not strictly a “conspiracy”… just a large number of conspirators following the ‘policy preferences’ line and telling lies to hoodwink the public for an agenda outcome.
Maybe ‘Treasoning’ would be a better description.
Tregonsee
November 16, 2014 at 5:06 am
Some years ago, when Brinkley was still hosting the Sunday morning show, the topic of bias in the
========================================================================
Simply put “Group Think”
MIT must be soo proud.
After how they suppressed their initial results in cold fusion, this is nothing new for MIT.
Chomsky is a hard act to follow.
Who’d Want to?
Grubering is a great term. Makes me think of Monty Python’s “Are you embarrassed easily?”
I like it. Additionally, we would have the nouns Climate Gruberism, and Climate Gruberist(s), and the verb to Climate Gruber and the past tense Climate Grubered.
Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Found a list of quotations on
Global WarmingCatastrophic Climate Change on this site;http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
Good list. More at that site pointing out hypocrisy and lies from the CAGW crowd.
Terrific list. Recommend to everyone. The quote most relevant to “Grubering” that I saw was this one:
Quote by Club of Rome: “Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
I would guess that is the same argument that all technocrats(technocrazis) throughout history have always used.
The only surprise (to me anyway) with Jonathan Gruber is that he admitted on camera that he had lied as he did. I am not surprised that most Americans are too stupid to understand that. I am also not surprised that Dr. Trenberth and others in his coterie lie to people they think are too stupid or malleable to call them on it. After a few years working as a legal aid attorney, I have seen and heard too much to have any faith whatsoever in the American people. Most of my clients were* too dumb to figure their way out of a paper bag, much less figure out how to make a rent payment on time. How could anyone expect them to recognize the political lies they are fed?
*In my cynicism, I have moved on to private practice. Hopefully, the clientele will improve at least a little. Sorry for the rant.
Agreed. I.Q. 100 means *average* and that means half are below it (and half above it). Certain employments will tend to put you in contact with one half or the other disproportionately. Academics live in a bubble as also legal aid attorneys. Might be the same bubble — if you have a high I.Q. you *might* be stuck in a university but more likely gainfully employed somewhere doing something with your mind.
Good computer programmers tend to consistently be above 100 in my opinion since the computer is dispassionate; it doesn’t care about your politics, only your correctness.
Do not confuse high IQ with not being stupid. Academics manage to take stupidity to an art form, or as Stephen Vizinczey, stated in “An Innocent Millionaire”:
Dr Gruber please note.
Umm. the mean is not always the median..
Consider 10 people with 1Qs of 50, and 20 with IQs of 125
the average IQ is 100, but most people are (a lot) more intelligent than 100.
Leo,
IQ 100 is median by definition. We can call that average IQ as well, since IQ score distribution assumes symmetry.
However, you get slightly different IQ scores depending on how you measure the assumed ‘intelligency’. So it is not mathematically precise distribution.
IQ is a measurement of an individual’s capacity to reason and understand, not their knowledge of facts. An individual’s IQ can be measured at any age and normally stays fairly steady throughout one’s life, increasing some from the benefit of one’s life experiences.
Ian,
Do not confuse high IQ with success in Academia. High IQ is not required and may not even be compatible with staying in an Academic environment. Those with high IQ often struggle to keep staying there and instead move to a more compatible place to work and to achieve their goals.
Leo,
Sorry, not even close. As noted by Hugh, IQ is a ranking of individuals based on the scores of these individuals on an IQ test. IQ 100 is the ranking given to the individuals who achieved a score that is the median of all of the scores. Assuming that the scores fall into a normal distribution, every 15 points in each direction is one standard deviation from this median. So a ranking of IQ 115 states that 15.9% of the individuals achieved scores higher and an IQ 85 ranking states that 15.9% of the individuals scored lower.
Gruber laughed about the deception at conferences of like minded folks, and they laughed with him. He excused his comments by noting that they were made at these “academic conferences,” indicating that the comments were not made for the common folk to hear, but only the other elite, clearly in order to improve his image among his peers. IQ has nothing to do with it. Grubering is the simple ego-centered belief that one is superior to others and should run their lives for them. It festers where other like minded egoists can encourage each other with little interference from realtiy. And it describes the Climate Alarmism Community perfectly.
James Loux wrote “IQ is a measurement of an individual’s capacity to reason and understand, not their knowledge of facts”
It is necessarily both. I agree with you in principle but in practice one must possess some skills and knowledge to permit being tested. It also assumes, I think, that the person being tested wishes to get the highest score possible.
Gotta agree.
Some people are so smart they’re stupid. Nothing like the circular reinforcement that comes from believing that $100K student debt shoes how smart you are, cos, you know,..it took a lot of smarts to get that far in the red.
If you majored in the Liberal Arts, or that other pseudo science ‘Sociology’, then you are even smarter-er, than the Business Majors. Cos if you get tenure, you can get other students to pay off your student debt.
Gotta love that money go around.
“There are Liers, Damn Liers, and then there are Grubers”
Well, many, and maybe most, understand they are lying. And we are just stupid enough to accept it as necessary as long as it’s for our own good or addresses a primal fear like weather and the lack of control of it. It “helps” to think the other side is lying too. Fortunately, reality intrudes – but on its own schedule.
This only proves that an electorate allowed to vote their choice, stupid as much of it may be, still produces a better political economy than the high IQ tyrants and central planning paternalists of the 20th Century whose ugly works are hanging out for all to see. Careful in your cynicism that you don’t opt for someone like Gruber or Stalin to do your voting for you.
Rather than endorsing Gruberism, don’t you think a nice alternative would be to have as choices for the voter as upstanding and thoughtful candidates as we can get? And if any of them are somewhat lacking, that the other side will be busy pointing out their flaws, dishonesty, hypocracy, etc. It works and is far superior to the “smart” people making choices for us. The USA came to be the greatest nation in the world by giving freedom to all and sundry to do. This freedom to do, created the world’s economic engine for 7 billion people who have taken freely, if reluctantly from the USA.
It is why the rest of the world, largely of the Gruber, elitest persuasion, abhors and denigrates the US. It is why world institutions are set up to put the USA down and stop this mighty engine so that they can carry on with their elitist plans for people, including you Mr/Ms Starzmom. This of course would make you an officer of the state, but what the heck, you would be run by smart people. Full disclosure, I’m not even from the USA.
starzmom
November 16, 2014 at 6:09 am
My rant above was for starzmom
My take runs somewhere between yours and Starzmom. I don’t doubt her stories from the legal aid society. However, that in no way implies support for turning our liberties over to an “elite” set of central planners.
The problem is that human being have a very strong tendency towards deluding themselves about their own “good intentions”. Granting unaccountable power to central planners is a virtual guarantee of vile despotism.
There is a reason that bad administration is historically associated with slave owners, nursing homes, mental institutions, foster homes, juvenile reformatories, and autocracies of all kinds. In all cases, the governed are powerless to change their governance. They have no liberties that their masters are obliged to respect. Not coincidentally, in every one of those cases above, those with power are nearly always certain that their mastery is appropriate and relatively benign.
The best guarantee of good governance is still limited government and a strong Bill of Rights, imperfect though it may be.
I was not endorsing Gruber’s actions at all. I am only bemoaning the fact that too many people bought what he was selling, either because they are too dumb to see it for what it was, or because his means achieved their ends. Sadly, the people who will bear the brunt of the negative aspects of obamacare will be the less well off, while the elitists like Gruber either have enough money that they don’t care, or they will have carefully excluded themselves from the law to begin with.
It would be nice in this country to have more choices in candidates, and to have a media that is at least nominally neutral in its treatment of candidates and parties. But we don’t have either, and likely never will.
I largely agree with TYoke above. I don’t want to see the elitists we have seen recently telling us what is good for us. The problem is that there are many–legal aid clients and other welfare recipients on one hand, and elitists who want to take care of them on another–who see governance by elitism as the only way to accomplish their goals. We will suffer for that.
For what it’s worth, while I was at legal aid I rarely talked with a client who understood that his or her problems were mostly his or her own fault. Most expected that if they called a lawyer, everything would be fixed to their satisfaction. Sorry, if you can’t or don’t pay the rent you cannot live there anymore.
starzmom
November 16, 2014 at 2:37 pm
“I was not endorsing Gruber’s actions at all. I am only bemoaning the fact that too many people bought what he was selling, either because they are too dumb to see it for what it was, or because his means achieved their ends.”
The American public did not elect Obama because of Grubering but because of free stuff.
Or in other words, because of their rational self-interest. All socialists I know personally are piss poor and incapable of handling money (exactly like their idol Marx). OF COURSE they hate capitalism; they’re not good at it.
And isn’t it perfectly rational to want to destroy a system in which you keep losing?
This reply is to DirkH. You’re right. Gruber, among other things, convinced people that they were going to get something for free or at least at a lower price–health insurance. Those folks contacted their elected representatives and put pressure on them. As it turns out, the people who were getting free health care still are–through Medicaid. Everybody else who pushed for it has found their bills going up, because Gruber lied. It was just one part of the free stuff people were going to get.
Yeah, it was called the uninformed voter.
This why Dems want to make it mandatory to vote- how else how going get every last
stupid voter to the polls.
Not sure that adding a name to a tactic mankind has long used is really helpful. Grubering, exaggeration, spin, swift boating (what is that? No don’t tell me I don’t really care), Oreskes’ ‘merchants of doubt’, argumentum ad verecundiam, they’re all labels for the art of persuading people to do things your way.
If there’s one rule to the game that warmists should have remembered it is ‘don’t lie if there’s a chance the subject will find out the truth before they sign on the dotted line’. Since AGW is for ever and not just for Christmas, they should, for the first time ever, have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The definition of Grubering should be the inadvertent admission of deceptive political strategy. Politicians almost always lie about their motives for pushing a policy, but we rarely get them on camera bragging about it.
segregates ? surrogates?