I watched some of this yesterday, noting that Mr. Hertsgaard seems to simply be making a ruckus to promote his new book. There doesn’t appear to be any depth beyond that. The Economist seems to agree. – Anthony
Who are you calling a climate crank, nut job?
by C.W.H. | WASHINGTON
HOW do you describe a phenomenon that is global in its impacts, yet must be addressed locally? A phenomenon that is difficult, if not impossible, to detect clearly at a single place in time? That’s the linguistic challenge that has confronted climate activists for decades. Forget the science and geopolitics of the issue. What name can communicators use to communicate the scope and severity of the challenge at hand?
…
The public is now aware of the issue. But the record global temperatures set last year make clear that naming a problem is quite different from solving it. The remaining challenge for “climate hawks”, as some environmentalists have taken to calling themselves, is to convince or confront politicians and businessmen, who still question whether the world has a climate problem. In that pursuit, the Guardian’s Leo Hickman worries that environmental activists have again gotten side-tracked in linguistic debates.
Just what the climate debate doesn’t need: a new moniker for those who do not accept the mainstream scientific view of anthropogenic climate change. According to environmental activists planning a day of protests across the US [on February 15th], “climate crank” is set to be the latest name added to the growing list – self-appointed, or otherwise – which already includes sceptic, denier, contrarian, realist, dissenter, flat-earther, misinformer, and confusionist….I’m left wondering whether this new exercise in name-calling will only serve to distract from the important task at hand.
…
Environmentalists efforts to fight spin with spin seem to have spun out of control. The Twitter hashtag created to publicize Tuesday’s event, #climatecranks, was used in nearly equal measure by both Mark Hertsgaard, the environmental correspondent for the Nation who coined the phrase and led the action, and an opponent of greenhouse-gas regulations, who co-opted it to heckle him. And America’s “fair and balanced” network was also quick to belittle the activists’ efforts. “Global Warming Nuts Try to Ambush Sen. Inhofe…Fail”, jeered the Fox News headline.
Climate activists have the science on their side, but American conservatives are winning the war of words. And as the rhetoric heats up, so too does the planet.
===================================================
read the whole article here http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/02/environmental_insults
You got it Pamela, what AGWers are saying is anything now goes!
(careful of my talons please)
— Climate Dove ☺
The only warming currently going on (that is truly global) has nothing to do with temperature.
It has everything to do with masses of people tearing away at corrupt and/or despotic governments.
Egypt just lost it’s constitution, President and Parliament.
The country is now firmly in the Egyptian Military’s hands, which may turn out to be an unintended consequence.
I bought one issue of `The Economist` that contained an article titled `Canada’s new spirit`.
http://www.economist.com/node/2085200
I am disappointed to learn of its ignorance on the subject of Climate Science. It makes me wonder about its accuracy on other subject matters, such as economics.
I used to subscribe to the Economist for years. Grounded and rational, it was always a breath of fresh air. Lately, this is not the case. Today, it harps and preaches. Now, it is void of ideas. The thinkers have moved on.
I don’t buy The Economist anymore.
It’s absolutely galling! A scientific education and years of rigorous evaluation of scientific data renders one to despise the CAGW propaganda and then you have to read that garbage regurgitated in a supposedly prestigious news periodical like The Economist. I hope that their science writers are truly suffering from the current winter in the northern hemisphere.
pat says:
February 17, 2011 at 8:29 am
Unfortunately I’ve had to put the Economist in the same category as Time, Scientific (Politically Correct) American, NYT, etc. Every time these publications talk about something I know a little about, they get it wrong. I’ve come to the conclusion this is intentional with the intent of forcing opinions in one direction.
Perhaps this is why print media is losing its fight to stay economically alive? A lot of people have just quit supporting them financially.
I read The Economist from 1976 until 2003 when I cancelled my subscription in protest against their support for the Iraq invasion. This magazine had always celebrated the rational and measurable. How wierd that it gets taken in by Global Warming, this fad for over-interpreting a chaotic data series; finding patterns where there is none!
In searching for a Montaigne quotation – something about the unprovable attracting the strongest belief – I came across this nugget of his: “I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly”. Yep. The AGW religion does seem to afflict the well-educated, well-heeled, sophisticated chattering classes. Give ’em jobs as farm labourers over the winter, I say! That’d soon cure ’em!
I just sent the following tweet saying
The biggest #climatecranks I know are James Hansen, Michael Mann, Al Gore and Joe Romm. No one who seriously studies AGW believes the scam.
I don’t know why I bothered. I expect more people will see it here. There are fewer that 50 #climatecranks tweets since Feb 13. I am now beginning to believe that the scam is dying from lack of interest. Why does the Economist, much MSM and so many politicians keep on peddling the message?
Ended my subscription long ago,because they are morally obtuse. They see markets as something to be exploited by gov’t, not as something empowering people to live their lives to suit themselves. The obtuseness shows itself in many ways,but I would say endorsing Obama was the ultimate in cretinism.
The most important thing,it seems is to be fashionable.
Since the Economist has taken up the AGW mantra I stopped subscribing years ago. Adhering to the status quo without even a limp attempt to look into dissenting views shows a certain laziness in journalistic effort I thought was beyond a publication with the Economist’s pedigree. I’m disappointed but it’s completely in keeping with the stumbling descent of all mainstream media.
For years when one teacher or another was cranking out biased politics in the class room, it was the Economist that I reached for first to confront their abuse of the facts to support their politics. My kids are no longer in school and so I don’t have need of it from that perspective anymore. Good thing, because the last 5 years in particular it has slid so rapidly from carefully and fairly presented facts to random unssuported opinion with no facts at all. I first noticed the degradation in quality analysis on climate issues, but the cancer has spread.
I do think also that the warmists need a mascot. A gift from the skeptics. If, as the Economist presumes its all about name calling while the earth warms, then I would like to propose an honorary mascot to represent the warming side.
Chicken Warm Little
I’m not certain what the characture would look like, but for debate purposes the mascot name allows for a variety of important points. In brief they are all Chicken Warming Littles, but:
Scientist who won’t debate the science – Chickens
Alarmists who scream slogans but have no facts – Chicken Littles
Lukewarmists – Warm Littles
Activists with their hand in the tax payer’s pocket (mutation) – Chicken Fingers
Politicians with their hand in the tax payer’s pocket (mutation) – Sticky Chicken Fingers
Jones re statistical warming of last 15 years – Chicken Warming Little
What starving nations want – Little Chickens Warming
What wealthy nations want – Big Chickens Warming
What tax payers want – Chickens with no Fingers
If we could just figure out how to breed activists and politicians with no fingers, it would save us trillions. And with all the extra fingers lying around, next time there’s a debate with globalcoolawarmalarmists we could just give them the fingers. But alas, I doubt they would see the irony of giving a Chicken Warming Little the Chicken Finger.
Another former Economist reader here. Sad to see a once great journal slide into mediocrity and partisanship.
Although I have to agree that The Economist has drifted sharply leftwards over the last 10 years or so, it must be noted that the piece of MBO (male bovine excrement) in question is published in their ‘blogs’ section, not in The Economist itself. In Europe, these sections often host a swarm of people holding opposite views. For example, The Telegraph has Delingpole and Booker, but they also have Geoffrey Lean. Also, The Economist has some even worse MBO than this in their blogs section.
Brent Hargreaves says:
February 18, 2011 at 4:09 am
“In searching for a Montaigne quotation – something about the unprovable attracting the strongest belief – I came across this nugget of his: “I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly”. Yep. The AGW religion does seem to afflict the well-educated, well-heeled, sophisticated chattering classes. Give ‘em jobs as farm labourers over the winter, I say! That’d soon cure ‘em!”
activists behave like witch hunters, such as like in this article from the economist. However, I thought this quote from Russell might be applicable.
“The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic.”
— Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays, “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish” (1950)
“The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed, the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction.”
— Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays “On the Value of Skepticism” (1950)
“Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.”
Russell
DMC says:
February 17, 2011 at 9:43 am
Many months ago I got fed up with the Economist and its blithe disregard for anything rational when talking about this issue. Yes, it pops up in the oddest places in their articles and you get a cringing feeling that you know it is coming in that last paragraph.
Yes, it has become the rule to append a green tail to their articles, just as it used to be “highly advisable” in the communist times to explain in a closing passage of any scientific publication how the findings proved the validity of Marxism-Leninism or how their roots could be traced back to the works of Engels. (That passage was known as the ‘red tail’.)
I would like think it’s the work of a zealous editor, and it doesn’t reflect the opinion of all the correspondents whose article sports a green tail. BTW, the fingerprints of his heavy hand can be seen in other, more subtle ways, too. In many issues, you find a fancy, rarely used word that somehow pops up in 3 or 4 articles on completely different topics. Afterwards, this word of the week may not be printed for years. (Or maybe it’s not the editor but one particularly prolific and polyhistoric correspondent? Or so many of them just happen to hit upon the same mot juste?)
What record might that be? That’s right a “record” anomaly based on a 30 year period from the 20th century being the criterion. Given that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old I don’t think much of your so called “record.”
Is it just coincidence that economists’ (and The Economist’s) predictions fail almost as routinely as Climate Scientists’?
The only economists currently writing I have much respect for are Sowell, and perhaps John Tamny (RealClearMarkets). But I think Thomas would have been a standout in any field; he’s virtually a polymath anyway.
Maybe greenies have been spoiled with the always on hydro and carbon based energy. They have mistakenly thought that all energy is always on. Think what would happen if Hoover froze up. Regularly. On…off…..on…off. And then someone came up with the idea of using wind power. My hunch is that greenies would be as skeptical as the rest of us are regarding the reliability of wind.
I propose the pejorative “corruption denier”, aimed at THEM.