Submitted by Professor Bob Ryan
The debate between advocates of CAGW and ‘sceptics’ is a rerun of an old argument between those who take a pessimistic and those who take an optimistic view of humanity. Following the collapse of communism – an extreme version of the pessimists’ creed – those who took that position had to regroup around a new agenda. This post, which is an opinion piece, argues that in searching for their new Trojan Horse the pessimists discovered, in climatology, the ideal opportunity to bring together science, political expediency and social uncertainty in a way that would enable them to capture the political high ground. – Professor Bob Ryan
Although many of us would prefer it otherwise arguments are won through the heart as much as through the mind. To turn the tide against the advocates of CAGW we should recognise that fact and understand what has been happening over the last 20 years. I believe that it is only through recognising the ‘global warming’ debate for what it is that we can make sense of the violence and antagonism it has generated and come up with a successful counter-narrative to the CAGW position.
Throughout recorded history individual and political opinion has always polarized into two camps. There are those who fundamentally believe that humanity is irredeemably lost, that people must be subordinated to social control and that individual choice cannot lead to desirable social outcomes; and there are those who take the opposite view. This is what I describe as the ‘pessimistic’ and the ‘optimistic’ view of humanity – this distinction has been manifest in many ways: the catholic versus the protestant, the communist versus the capitalist, and now those who support the CAGW version of environmentalism and those who do not.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990’s the pessimists were in disarray. Communism, the creed which had emerged as the 20th Century expression of the pessimists’ agenda had collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. For a short while those who believed that humanity could, through individual action and freedom, create a better world appeared to have won the argument. The retreating left had to find something – anything – to turn the tide in their favour. They needed a much more sophisticated argument to express their world view – an incontrovertible argument that would allow them to capture the moral high ground and be sufficiently alarming in its implications to win over politicians and populations to their agenda. The beauty of CAGW is that it cannot be fixed by the individual or indeed the individual state. It needs a global solution because if runaway global warming has the potential to wipe out a large proportion of humanity then action to prevent it must be equally drastic.
However, the last dozen years have not been good for those who take a more optimistic and liberal view of humanity. The turn of the century brought a nasty dose of millennium angst and a fundamental questioning about where we go from here. Y2K, the dot.com crash, 9/11, financial boom and bust have all produced fertile ground for the pessimists to regroup and in climate science they found their Trojan Horse. Here was a relatively new science bringing under a single umbrella a wide range of sub-disciplines: geo-physics, oceanography, meteorology and many others – all populated by scientists who whilst not technically involved in atmospheric physics might well be sympathetic to the central CAGW message.
By good fortune for the pessimists, a small sub-group of relatively modest UK and US research institutions had been developing their specialism investigating the recent history of global temperature change and the role of CO2 and other atmospheric gases in regulating the climate. Bring them together with a group of savvy and articulate politicians of the (mainly) left, establish a UN panel with the remit of winnowing out of the scientific literature anything which supported the CAGW position and marginalised anything that challenged it, and the Trojan Horse was assembled.
The attack came on two fronts: first the CAGW narrative had to be sufficiently persuasive to win over those scientists whose research, no matter how tangential to the central thesis, would give it added credibility. With this a claim of ‘scientific consensus’ could be established supported by the various scientific bodies who in one way or other act as mouthpieces for the scientific community. Second, the political agenda had to be captured. In this the pessimists were aided by another social and political change.
Across the major economies, politicians had found it increasingly difficult to relieve their populations of their cash. The old approaches to the taxation of income were no longer viable – so called ‘progressive’ taxation and the ‘welfarism’ it supported were becoming very unpopular. Politicians, who by and large are a pragmatic lot, had to find ways of relieving us of our cash by stealth. In the UK, for example, hundreds of tax wheezes were invented to raise taxes in ways the political class hoped would go unnoticed. Furthermore, stealth taxes are much harder to avoid – no accountant or tax lawyer can reduce the tax you pay when you buy a new TV, fill your car with fuel or buy an airline ticket. So the last 20 years have been characterized by a search for new ways to relieve us of our money. In CAGW, the scientific and moral argument could be made for the ultimate stealth tax. Use energy and we will tax you.
And so we have it: a potent brew of political fundamentalism, fiscal expediency, social anxiety, uncertain science and huge vested interests. I do not think science can now resolve the debate about global warming. It is not that the science is of no consequence – it has simply been marginalised in the much bigger social and political debate that is underway. Scientists are highly specialised, discoveries come in bits and the knowledge gained is provisional. For the young working scientist cracking the next problem and publishing the result is the main priority. They will interpret the significance of what they discover, just like the rest of us, according to their underlying beliefs about the way the world works. But as far as the bigger picture is concerned their views are no better than anyone else’s.
The positive message is that the tide is now beginning to turn against the pessimists. Climategate and all that went with it gave hope to those arguing against the CAGW orthodoxy. But in the end the revelations were not conclusive. What is and will be conclusive is the fact that the climate is simply not playing ball. The balmy climate of the last 50 years may be coming to an end. Global temperatures appear to have steadied over the last ten year, the rate of increase in sea level is slowing and across the planet things are not quite going the way the prophets of doom would have us believe. It is not decisive yet but in 5 years it might well be, and as further good quality research establishes the role of other forcings in climate change the pessimists will have to look for another outlet for their world view. But be of no doubt – they will. The battle will be reengaged but next time on a different stage.
Short summary:
Story title:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pessimism is thinking that Murphy was an optimist.
This battle will be fought for a long time to come. We witness things that simply scream “Inquisition” from alarmists and some flawed idea that we can go back into time as a society.
That will not go away, and its been popping its head up a lot since roughly the 50’s and 60’s. I tend to think this is more of a continuation of the failed idea of eugenics then anything, a philosophy based on death and population control. We never killed off the movement like we should have then…
And as such there is always the possibility that we will repeat these same mistakes time and time again until we utterly demolish the movement in its entirety.
First step is to fix science and get it back to the basics of its method. Yes, the scientific method has not been used correctly for some time, and this is a large part of the problem. Fix this, and downgrade the scientists who jumped on the warming band-wagon. They have no part in the scientific world when they can not even follow the basic tenants of the scientific method.
And more then anything else, remember who said what. Quotes are very useful as they will tell us the people who should be derided and ignored in the future. They gave up their worth when they quoted lies, distortions and insults at people who disagreed with them.
The fight will happen someday, and if we do not fight it today, tomorrow we might be facing a second holocaust worst then the first. That is the end result of the AGW alarmism. If you follow the basic ideas to their logical conclusion, the only reasonable way you can “save the planet” and “reduce CO2 emissions” is by killing off a large portion of the world’s population. This is also why you see such terms as “Carrying capacity” and “overpopulation fears” as being paramount by the same people who spread AGW alarmism.
If this battle is not fought today, it will be much worse tomorrow. But regardless, the true nature of the beast is a false and evil philosophy that believes that mankind can live in harmony with nature. I would have thought the history of Yellowstone Park by itself would have shown how futile that is, but go figure…those who promote fear tend to either not understand history or just ignore it.
Murphy was an optimist.
I consider myself an optimist, and I would not be the slightest bit suprised if this is the way things have transpired since the wall came down. However, I need examples of known socialists/communists who ran to the green movement. Do we know of any examples? Anyone by name?
BTW – I’ve heard Patrick Moore, formerly of GreenPeace say this very same thing. So, I’m not doubting this senario. I would just like to see some proof before I start talking to others about it.
Much as I’d like to agree with the proposal, one thing nags at me. That they, the CAGW crowd, are always making unwarranted assumptions about us, the deniers and lukewarmers. They don’t acknowledge our individual positions, they assume that if we are not complete buyers of the consensus then we have a given view on religion, evolution, GMOs, politics or whatever, and that we take our cue from those who are ‘funded by big oil’. Now, that is not a fair position, as we would all agree. But it’s out there. The last thing we ought to be doing is assuming that some CAGW supporter is of a certain view on any other thing at all, unless he states it explicitly. Not tree huggers, not zero population growthers, not anything else but what they say. This keeps our side honest. Probably won’t work on them though.
As the movie trailer voiceover might say, “In a world where confidence in human ingenuity has failed, and irrational fear takes hold, …” And people with too much to eat were fearful of slightly milder winters. Well, you fill in the details.
Murphy was an engineer. Operating under the assumption that if something can go wrong it will is not a bad way to design machines. Assuming the same thing about humanity or nature, however, is not such a good idea. We are both complex systems with adaptation and homeostasis mechanisms. That’s why Mathus and the neo-Malthusians (e.g. Ehrlich) got it so ridiculously wrong, and keep doing so.
I’ve never stopped to think if I’m a pessimist or optimist.
…..I just have a keen sense of smell………………………
Jason says:
June 9, 2011 at 8:11 am
I consider myself an optimist, and I would not be the slightest bit suprised if this is the way things have transpired since the wall came down. However, I need examples of known socialists/communists who ran to the green movement. Do we know of any examples? Anyone by name?
Well try here for a start…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-green_allianceMain article: Green left
Far-left political parties or joint electoral lists have been formed over the years, most often between socialists and left-oriented greens. Example include:
* GreenLeft of the Netherlands: a political party that began 1989 as an electoral alliance comprising the Communist Party of the Netherlands, Pacifist Socialist Party and the Christian left parties Evangelical People’s Party and Political Party of Radicals. The alliance had been known as Rainbow for the 1989 European elections.
* Red-Green Alliance of Denmark: a political alliance, later a political party formed in 1989 by the Left Socialists (VS), Communist Party of Denmark (DKP) and Socialist Workers Party (SAP).
* The European political alliance Nordic Green Left Alliance, formed by the Left Alliance (Finland), the Left-Green Movement (Iceland), the Left Party (Sweden), the Socialist Left Party (Norway) and the Socialist People’s Party (Denmark). The MEPs of the NGLA sit in the European United Left–Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) grouping in the European Parliament, although the Socialist People’s Party MEPs sit in The Greens–EFA group.
* The Italian The Left – The Rainbow: a short-lived political alliance, formed in December 2007 and dissolved in May 2008, comprising the Federation of the Greens, the Communist Refoundation Party, Party of Italian Communists and the Democratic Left.
* Left Ecology Freedom: initially a successor of sorts in Italy to The Left – The Rainbow, also comprising the Federation and the Greens and Democratic Left, along with former-communist Movement for the Left and Unite the Left, and the Italian Socialist Party, a centrist social-democratic party. However, by November 2009, both the Greens and Socialists had abandoned the alliance. Left Ecology Freedom became a formal party in October 2010.[2]
***************
Hope that helps.
This account views the world through a very distorted and excessively political lens. I don’t think this kind of thing is constructive.
Horsesh*t was the big issue in 1897. An architects’ congress in New York despaired at the prospect of accumulating horsesh*t in the central avenues of big cities. Solidified piles of horsesh*t reaching three stories high would choke London and New York by 1930, they predicted and concluded that the future was impossible.
Doomsday scenarios usually turn out like the horsesh*t predictions of 1897. No matter how diligent, futurologists cannot foresee the unpredictable results of unforeseeable technical developments. Who in 1950 could have foreseen the impact of cell phones in 2010?, Of twitter, blogs, the Net and the resulting efficiencies they bring about from the saving on unnecessary travel to mention just one effect.
So when you hear doomsayer prediction think of horsesh*t.
Nik
I have always been an optimist, both for my personal life and for humanity. And I have been an individualist, not wanting government to get in the way or do things that individuals can do on their own. However, some things do require government intervention. Our air and water could be cleaner than they are, for example; but they would be much dirtier without laws that reduce the dumping of wastes into them. The vast majority of commenters here don’t think that climate change is a problem, or that humans have anything to do with it, or that anything should be done about it. I disagree. As much as I wish otherwise, government action is required to slow (and eventually reverse) the changes we are causing. I am becoming pessimistic, not because of natural inclination (as Prof. Ryan seems to think), but because so many people fail to see this need.
The projection that the Global Warming argument will fail when the climate stops cooperating has already happened. However, the alarmists have simply changed the argument to faith in Climate Change. The climate will always support that belief system.
Arguing that the issue is simply philosophical while mostly true opens the skeptic up to charges of being anti-science. The anti-science charge has credibility because the CAGW believers are still clinging to the fig leaf of science even after abandoning the hypothesis of CO2 forced global warming.
Every mention of a partisan divide in Climate Change with conservatives not accepting the science can be met with two points.
1. There is nothing partisan about science.
2. There is no science in Climate Change.
I don’t believe in Climate Change. I’m a Methodist.
I am in almost complete agreement with the Professor.
Ironically, we are being told to reduce our “footprint” at a time when things are already incredibly better than they were.
Fuel economy became a priority during the Energy Crisis of the 70s, and vehicles get increasingly efficient. What happens? Everyone ignores ‘economical’ and, by definition, lower emission vehicles and moves to bigger, faster vehicles. Vehicles themselves become increasingly disposable, as they self-destruct to save their passengers from their own mistakes. Apparently nobody factors in the cost to replace a self-destructed vehicle after a crash, and by cost I mean the cost of resources (energy, etc.)
Our “environment” is in more danger from “environmentalists” than from normal, intelligent people. Such insanity as reintroducing predatory species creates a more hazardous environment. Here in Calgary, we are seeing wildlife encroach on the city to an amazing extent. I know two people whose cats have vanished this year, most likely eaten by the coyotes that freely wander the area now. Dandelions and mosquitoes are no longer sprayed for, and the entire city is a carpet of yellow, with disease-carrying insects running rampant.
All soaps and detergents were changed overnight with NO public knowledge, resulting in a massive number of people having to buy new dishwashers and washing machines because they didn’t realize it. My parents got a water softener and new dishwasher before they realized that the problem was meddling by ignorant people.
It is called the “LAW of unintended consequences”, and everyone out to “change the world” had better be prepared for it. The inane soap/detergent thing alone has done an immense amount of environmental harm, certainly more than the simple upgrading of sewage processing would ever have done.
Changing food crops to fuel use has resulted in food shortages in many areas, but they are hidden from view so “we” can safely ignore them.
But hey, if there’s one thing we’ve learned from communism, it’s that a LOT of people have to die before it can possibly work. And everything looks good on paper, too bad it always gets messed up by the “real world”.
Prof Bob
Agree entirely with your summary of where we are.
However, what happens if the CAGW gravy train heads for the buffers ?
Where will all the increasingly extorted cash come from then ?
Who will re-employ the millions in the green economy currently with non-jobs ?
Who will carry the losses of all the Greenie companies getting subsidies (our money) in order to exist ?
My fear is that the clear path toward barely disguised ‘global governance’ will accelerate before
the ‘science’ unravels. CAGW cannot fail – the survival of the pessimists will be paramount
and once a fully unelected soviet style elite is in power they will control the planet
and all the science within it.
The EU is an example of what is happening already – a faceless cabal of pessimists
decide policy and a local council (sorry parliament) does the implementation as directed
by the UN/IPCC. From UN documents already seen the intention is clear, an important
subject such as CAGW requires undemocratic intervention for the good of ‘the people’ (the people being themselves of course)
Well I’m both a skeptic and a pessimist. But what I’m pessimistic about is that the warmers will drive us to ruin.
Not even this relatively famous left wing anti-nuclear activist buys into AGW. He states that Murphy’s Law is an absolute, as an argument against nuclear power. He then proceeds to delightfully trash AGW.
A broader pattern may be the cycles of boom and bust as described by Howard Bloom.
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism
http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Beast-Radical-Re-Vision-Capitalism/dp/1591027543
There is a tremendous loss of faith and emotional commitment to “capitalism”, and it is losing its broad progressive innovative and creative power. It has lost mass appeal, even at a time when it has yielded the greatest uplift for humanity from base suffering and disease.
Just as the West is losing touch with the deep drivers of growth which are part of our very nature and biology and psychology, Bloom’s message is being picked up and championed by crown Princes and heads of development in the Middle East, who point to his book as the future for the Arab world.
People in the West often talk about the need for a post-capitalist world, but that seems in part to be a misunderstanding of the deep nature of capitalism. In its deep drives, capitalism isn’t winding down, it is just getting started.
Jason says:
June 9, 2011 at 8:11 am
I consider myself an optimist, and I would not be the slightest bit suprised if this is the way things have transpired since the wall came down. However, I need examples of known socialists/communists who ran to the green movement. Do we know of any examples? Anyone by name?
11. Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Brower- Political Radical -Former head of EPA — known for anti-business activism. Strong anti-gun ownership.
She was a member of a socialist party.
Until summer 2008 she was a member of Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society,[60][61][62] From Wiki.
Jason says:
June 9, 2011 at 8:11 am
I consider myself an optimist, and I would not be the slightest bit suprised if this is the way things have transpired since the wall came down. However, I need examples of known socialists/communists who ran to the green movement. Do we know of any examples? Anyone by name?
I can give you a list of thousands. All of them prominent. But I continue to be employed by a university, so I cannot. Of course, a list is easily available to all Americans. At the top are Farrakhan, Rev. Wright, the infamous “Green Czar,” (whose name I forget), Cass Sustein, most of Obama’s advisors, everyone employed in the Department of Justice; the list is endless.
I find myself agreeing with this professor. Specifically to the point science is now irrelevant to the argument used by greens world wide. Many once reputable scientists such as Hansen are following this path as is Jones from East Anglia not to forget the IPCC. Greens increasingly do not use science in their arguments as science itself refuses to agree with their narrative. As does real world weather combined with the ten years average of weather all failed to agree with their predictions. Greens are increasingly using emotion and fear tactics – further Greens who are failing to win the AGW argument have moved their fear and emotion movement inside the western classrooms concentration on children in their longer term plan to win the argument by any means necessary. No doubt with this approach this is NOT over – not for decades yet to come.
Ian H says:
June 9, 2011 at 8:36 am
This account views the world through a very distorted and excessively political lens. I don’t think this kind of thing is constructive.
Ian, do not dismiss this perspective so quickly. It may not be hard science, but Professor Ryan’s insights are vital to understanding the cognitive dissonance resonating through science at the present time (and, indeed, throughout the history of science). Ultimately, the science will win out, but do we want it to win out in our life times, or only after a thousand years of avoidable suffering, like we saw in the Dark Ages.
The more cognizant we are of the social and political forces at play, the more likely we are to avoid the misery those forces can produce. I think the professor is illuminating a world that you may have never observed, leading you to believe that his observations are distorted. Trust me, if you look at that world carefully, you will find that the professor is right on.
Jason:
May Day parade held in downtown Los Angeles on May 1, 2011. Obama’s favorite thugs SEIU – The leader of their contingent proudly waves a bright red communist flag and joins in his troops leading the cheers for “Legalizacion o Revolucion! (Legalization or Revolution) among many other causes. Joining the SEIU members are several other labor unions including the United Teachers of Los Angeles, members of La Raza (The Race), a racist organization promoting Hispanic superiority, and brown-shirted Brown Berets from what appears to be a para-military Hispanic organization called “La Causa” pumping their fists in the air and leading chants of “Chicano Power” and “Viva la raza!” Gays are represented by a full-throated contingent chanting: “We are the Queers.”
The scores of communist flags on display are flown alongside many Mexican flags and maps and posters calling for the “Reconquista” or reconquering of California and other lands ceded by Mexico in the late 19th and early 20th century. The full litany of leftist causes is represented from the call for open borders, to signs demanding free health care, seemingly out-of-place posters promoting environmental protection, and “Tax the Rich” t-shirts and posters. Posters calling for war and revolution are rampant as are militant headgear including the aforementioned berets and checkered headwraps one would expect to see at a Palestinian demonstration. Posters featuring Che Guevara, Lenin, Marx and Ho Chi Minh are everywhere in evidence.
The great optimist Julian Simon is remembered for winning a wager with the neo-malthusian P. R. Ehrlich —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon
I suggest that Anthony and others offer similar bets to the AGW cabal. The leaders will decline, of course, since they know that AGW is mostly propaganda. Some of the lesser lights who actually believe in AGW might take the bait, however. If the Dalton Minimum analog continues to develop, within a five years the data will be beyond Hansenization.
Given the rate of technical advancement that has been seen since, say, the second world war, burning fossil fuel will be obsolete by mid-century. And the writing on the economic wall will be obvious long before the last legacy system is abandoned. It might be a little early right now, but at some point there will be a great short sale play in the shares of subsidized wind or solar companies. Jim Chanos, the leading bear in the US, is already short First Solar, FSLR.
Truth will out.
As Nigel Lawson has it – “green is the new red”