Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. explains why some leftist bloggers set themselves up for failure when they espouse their intellectual superiority. Screaming “hell, high water, global boiling, climate disruption, etc ” while at the same time saying “you’re too dumb to understand it” looks to be an epic “failure to communicate”.
He writes:
If you spend anytime at all perusing the blogosphere, you will find a common theme coming from self-described liberal or progressive bloggers, and that is that those on the political right are ignoramuses.
The argument is that they are just too stupid to know what’s what – they are even anti-science, rejecting knowledge itself — and consequently they support dumb candidates advocating ignorant policies. Such arguments are particularly evident in the corner of the blogosphere that discusses the climate change issue. This line of argument of course is a variant of the thinking that if only people shared a common understanding of scientific facts they would also share a common political orientation (typically the political orientation of whomever is expressing these views).
Read his whole post here where he explains why.
Or buy his book:
The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming is now available at Amazon.com
Why has the world been unable to address global warming? Science policy expert Roger Pielke, Jr., says it’s not the fault of those who reject the Kyoto Protocol, but those who support it, and the magical thinking that the agreement represents.
In The Climate Fix, Pielke offers a way to repair climate policy, shifting the debate away from meaningless targets and toward a revolution in how the world’s economy is powered, while de-fanging the venomous politics surrounding the crisis. The debate on global warming has lost none of its power to polarize and provoke in a haze of partisan vitriol. The Climate Fix will bring something new to the discussions: a commonsense perspective and practical actions better than any offered so far.
Editorial Reviews via Amazon
From Publishers Weekly
Pielke (The Honest Broker) presents a smart and hard-nosed analysis of the politics and science of climate change and proposes a commonsense approach to climate policy. According to Pielke, the iron law of climate policy dictates that whenever environmental and economic objectives are placed in opposition to each other, economics always wins. Climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a precondition for their success, he writes, and because the world will need more energy in the future, an oblique approach supporting causes, such as developing affordable alternative energy sources rather than consequences, such as controversial schemes like cap-and-trade, is more likely to succeed.
Although some may protest on principle the suggestion that we accept the inevitability of energy growth, Pielke’s focus on adaptation to climate change refreshingly sidesteps the unending debate over the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and opens up the possibility for effective action that places human dignity and democratic ideals at the center of climate policies.
The book is available at Amazon.com and I think it is destined to be a best seller in the “Global Warming” category.
The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming is now available at <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fix-Scientists-Politicians-Warming/dp/0465020526/&tag=wattsupwithth-20″ target=”_blank”>Amazon.com</a><!–more–>
Why has the world been unable to address global warming? Science policy expert Roger Pielke, Jr., says it’s not the fault of those who reject the Kyoto Protocol, but those who support it, and the magical thinking that the agreement represents.
In <em>The Climate Fix</em>, Pielke offers a way to repair climate policy, shifting the debate away from meaningless targets and toward a revolution in how the world’s economy is powered, while de-fanging the venomous politics surrounding the crisis. The debate on global warming has lost none of its power to polarize and provoke in a haze of partisan vitriol. <em>The Climate Fix</em> will bring something new to the discussions: a commonsense perspective and practical actions better than any offered so far.
Editorial Reviews via Amazon
From Publishers Weekly
Pielke (The Honest Broker) presents a smart and hard-nosed analysis of the politics and science of climate change and proposes a commonsense approach to climate policy. According to Pielke, the iron law of climate policy dictates that whenever environmental and economic objectives are placed in opposition to each other, economics always wins. Climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a precondition for their success, he writes, and because the world will need more energy in the future, an oblique approach supporting causes, such as developing affordable alternative energy sources rather than consequences, such as controversial schemes like cap-and-trade, is more likely to succeed.
Although some may protest on principle the suggestion that we accept the inevitability of energy growth, Pielke’s focus on adaptation to climate change refreshingly sidesteps the unending debate over the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and opens up the possibility for effective action that places human dignity and democratic ideals at the center of climate policies.
The book is available at <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fix-Scientists-Politicians-Warming/dp/0465020526/&tag=wattsupwithth-20″ target=”_blank”>Amazon.com</a> and I think it is destined to be a best seller in the “Global Warming” cate
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The depressing take-home point should be that we as a society view education as “elitist”
Reading some of these comments makes me sad too.
This claim of “right wing” tends to mean “to the political right of Trotsky”. It’s sort of meaningless.
If I identify myself as a classical liberal, then I am neither a socialist nor a conservative nor a libertarian nor a moderate. But to people who disagree with me on global warming, I am part of the enemy that makes believers bond to each other when all else fails.
Does this mean I don’t criticize classical liberal beliefs or those who call themselves classical liberals? Heck no.
One of the things I have learned about myself is that intelligent people can be very easily deceived into believing stuff that ain’t so. And often showing people the error of their ways does not make them grateful, but angry and defensive instead. Global warming is the latest manifestation of a very long list of apocalyptic belief systems that are as old as humanity itself.
We all like our prejudices reaffirmed and not challenged. I know I do.
DesertYote says:
October 31, 2010 at 1:51 pm:
“I tend to agree that those with college degrees tend to be more Marxist then those without, just like those who sunbath tend to be darker then those who do not. ”
I concur. Unfortunately the timing is a bit early. It can be considered that Marxist will be the future of economic principles, but without abundant, cheap energy, it has no hope. People tend to forget that “energy” translate easily to “slave power”. Less external energy (kinetic or potential) will equal more human power. Thinking about the amount of automation in the modern steel processing plant in the terms of the amount of machinery that is doing the human equivalent is mind blowing.
In the future, we will be forced to consider Marxism, but we are not ready now.
And the Pharisee said, I thank you Lord that I am not as other men …
As soon as voting came in, this sort of pitch became suicidal. But some of these people are still around – and CAGW seems to particularly attract them. How many times have I seen them loftily telling me that I am a nazi-like denier, an agent of big oil (not a cent from them) or big tobacco (one of my pet hates), or a dummy who can’t see that the science is settled (they predicted the temperature stasis of the last decade of course).
Something that the “educated elite” never seem to remember is that education and intelligence are not the same thing.
Grow up, you guys! Leftism is about looking after people instead of money, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we accept the warmists and alarmists version of climate. As a one-time student of geology and astrophysics I vigorously deny AGW, and support the idea that more CO2 means better food crops. As a lifelong ‘Labor Party’ voter in Australia I deplore their rather dubious support of carbon taxes as wholly destructive of our economy.
As I recall it leftists or to be more prudent and suitable for the self proclaimed geniuses of the huddled mass’ from the world of academia, yet plain and simple, god damn hippies frankly just didn’t understand that the hashish use as a focal instrument to reach once true mental potential and that’s exactly what they did they reach their true mental potential when the lot of ’em went completely and utterly mental.
The other problem the hard left / pro-AGW crowd face is the fact that a lot of us on the right have PhDs too. So what? The ClimateGate fraudistas all have doctorates, and they used them as a shield against legitimate enquiry. “How dare you question us? How dare you ask for our data and methods? We’re beyond reproach! We’re SCIENTISTS, dammit!”
What about doubt? What about wonder? What about following the data where it leads, instead of following your theory and cherry-picking the data to fit? What about a little humility, for crying out loud, before the awesome, unpredictable glory of nature?
It’s not about comparing sheepskins. I work in a scientific organization and I’m surrounded by over-educated boffins incapable of actually thinking. Moreover, you don’t need to be a post-doc to understand that science is about validating or falsifying an hypothesis through experiment and observation. All due respect to the pro-AGW crowd, but I’m still waiting for one of them to demonstrate empirically a causal correlation between delta CO2 and delta T. The day somebody does is the day I’ll give the AGW thesis a second look. Furthermore, as Popper argued, an hypothesis must also explain all previous data as well as making accurate predictions about future system behaviour. So in addition to fixing the problem of T refusing to scale linerarly with CO2 concentrations over any time period (except to the extent that, according to ice core data, T seems to respond to changes in CO2 concentration), the anthropogenic climate changers have yet to explain why climate changed before there was any anthropic consumption of fossil fuels, not to mention before there were any anthropoids at all.
What do they do instead? Hold conferences where they all close their eyes, concentrate until they start to sweat, and try desperately to wish the MWP away. Presumably the Roman and Mycenaen warm periods are next. Sorry. If your thesis doesn’t fit the data, a scientist changes his thesis. A fraud changes his data.
Until these niggling little details are sorted out, non-correlation still means non-causation, and the AGW thesis will remain on the scrap-heap of history, along with alchemy, astrology, phrenology, phlogiston, and other theories that can’t explain data or make accurate predictions. From a scientific perspective, that’s really all there is to it.
Well, I have a Masters degree with 1st class honours and I can say that my studies, especially in the field of analysis, led me to see the blatant flaws in the leftist ideology. The biggest flaw of a leftie is their inability to ever admit they’re wrong, they are superior after all, so how is this possible? Their self righteousness is 2nd only to their hypocrisy, eg ‘you need to have an open mind’, or Al Gore.
Basically the left passes themselves off as honest, caring, & tolerant, but the reason they champion (exploit) the poor is purely for political power, the more poor people the bigger their voting base – they don’t help poor people they propagate them. The biggest flaw in a lefties mindset is the ability for self delusion despite all the evidence. This can best be observed in the AGW debate where, contrary to the facts, the devotees cling for dear life to their beloved theory. When backed into a corner they prefer to lash out with slander, lies, and red herrings rather than admit their superior intelligence could be wrong in any way.
In essence your average leftie is vain, self righteous, hypocritical, closed minded, self deluded, and intolerant – more so than any of the righties that I know.
Education and intelligence are two seperate things. It’s a mistake to assume that all formally educated people are intelligent and it is another mistake to assume all people without a formal education are not intelligent.
DesertYote says:
“I tend to agree that those with college degrees tend to be more Marxist then those without, just like those who sunbath tend to be darker then those who do not. ”
Do people still actually sunbathe? Out in the actual sun? Don’t they know they’ll catch cancer? Oh, the humanity!!
Gneiss says:
October 31, 2010 at 1:14 pm
“What’s the evidence, apart from Pielke’s own political prejudices, to support assertions that accusations of ignorance and stupidity come more frequently from “self-described liberal or progressive bloggers?”
We’ve seen many, many such accusations on this blog, for instance.”
Please you asked. Why just the other day on WUWT a blogger called GM these choice titbits for readers.
I won’t even comment on the fact what is revealed about the intellect of the author by his inability to understand that the problem with CO2 is that by a long, unfortunately much longer than the ability to grasp such things that the average ignoramuses let loose on the pages of this blog possesses,….
And
We also lock up people for crimes against humanity. Simon and Lomborg are firmly in that category.
And
I am not saying that they should be jailed – they should be laughed at and ignored as the village idiots they are.
Cap & Tax is like telling your teenager not to drive the car while you are away on vacation.
Sure, anything you say, pops. Bye, see ya, have a nice trip, don’t worry about a thing.
(Has he left yet??…)
DesertYote – I think that college profs and universities in general tend more towards Marxism today than at the time I attended college . My oldest stepson – a recent grad – seems steeped in the stuff . Fortunately , he has a libertarian streak and enjoys the good life too much to become a true believer . Like a lot of his peers , he spouts that garbage because it sounds “cool”. Unfortunately , like a lot of his peers , he can and will do a lot of damage at the ballot box before wisdom catches up with him .
As an aside , when I was in college , I was always astounded by the disdain my more liberal profs held for the middle class . Especially when they were so middle class themselves .
Well, I’m a liberal, but I am fed up to my eyeballs with what is going on.
Not having a college degree is not a big impediment to voting for elitists.
That’s what unions and ACORN are for.
You left out phonebooks, graveyards, super heroes, and comic book characters.
(However, it turns out that being on active military service is a big impediment to voting for anyone, elitist or no.)
Has the time come to question the value of most education? It seems to me that we are now seeing the Triumph of the Essay-Writers: of those who were set a certain amount of verbiage to crank out by Friday and could best sense what was required in the way of futile puffery. It’s been going on forever, you might say; but it’s only now that the Essay-Writers are becoming a governing class, unhampered by a seniority system and other such traditional limiters.
At Joanne Nova’s site today, she describes the background of the young West Australian Environment minister with the power to annihilate viable, high investment rural businesses with the stroke of a pen. If ever there was an example of essay-complete-by-late-Friday…and she’s not even from the Left!
Since most of what we do is governed by commonsense and experience, there’s a real danger that education will only work to short-circuit the natural judgment of the educated, while enhancing their natural vanity. More and more, the educated see facile equivalence and sequence in matters that are far too fluid and complex. One might say that this literal-minded and compulsively abstract approach is already apparent in the evolution of so much mock-science appealing to the envies, spites and frustrations of the Left: Marxist Dialectic, Derridanism, the Gaia Hypothesis…
Oh, and climate modelling, of course.
Gneiss says:
October 31, 2010 at 1:14 pm
What’s the evidence, apart from Pielke’s own political prejudices, to support assertions that accusations of ignorance and stupidity come more frequently from “self-described liberal or progressive bloggers?”
Right, I’d say it boils down to being more like the Progressive’s only response, or at least it’s the response which defines the “quality” allegedly validating Post Normal Science’s CO2CAGW Method – the “you’re stupid, we’re smart” PNS definitional*: ~”You inferiors can’t possibly see that real Science with its Scientific Method just can’t handle the [alleged by virtue of the same ‘qualilty’] CO2CAGW problem, nor likewise that we self-annointed Intellectual Superiors don’t have to use the Scientific Method. ”
*which in turn is a form of the definitional argument that, “The Monkeys know it’s true because they always say it’s true.” – Mogli, The Jungle Book Movie.
Malcolm Miller says:
“Leftism is about looking after people instead of money”
Well, Malcolm, that’s certainly the leftists’ conceit. However, acting out of good intentions feels so good, that leftists tend to believe their own preferred solution to a problem is the only solution, and will demonize anyone anyone who disagrees. Righteous wrath is such a seductive emotion. And they tend to blind themselves to the disastrous consequences of their actions.
Meanwhile, “rightists” give tremendously more actual money and time to helping others.
As Prof Lindzen says: ‘Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears — but educated people are very vulnerable’
Well from my viewpoint in Denmark some of the candidates from the Tea party movement are amazingly ignorant and stupid. One of the candidates just claimed that Denmark has “panels” deciding on who is valuable enough to recive treatment in the health care system that is just som amzingly stupid that …. well im at a loss for words. Or how about Palin claiming that she knows a lot about russia because she’s seen russia across the Bering strait……..
REPLY: Your viewpoint on stupidity from Denmark needs a spelling and punctuation checker. – A
Or buy his book:
Will his book tell me why Creationism/Intelligent Design/”Teach the Controversy” proponents tend to run as Republicans?
@Gneiss
“What’s the evidence, apart from Pielke’s own political prejudices, to support assertions that accusations of ignorance and stupidity come more frequently from “self-described liberal or progressive bloggers?”
This seems like the critical question and I don’t see any answer to it either in the post or the comments. This post seems like a lump of “red meat” for people opposed either to climate science, “leftism” or both to chew on but it lacks substance and coherence.
http://trollphysics.tumblr.com/post/1223790818
I must suggest that they do one on Global warming.
So, Pielke first proclaims that the only intelligent people are the ones with a college degree? And then claims that the other side is the one with elitist views? Fascinating.
Just say you want to talk about partial differential equations, numerical methods, or climate code documentation, and they’ll all go running for the tall grass…
To Paul Coppin on the Dunning Kruger effect. My old roommate, a dog lover and very smart guy (PhD solid state physics), put this much more simply. He said he and his dog have equal intelligence. However, since he didn’t really believe in his heart that the dog was that smart, it gave the dog operational advantage.