As a new Ice Age imperils the world, a lunatic fringe of the environmental movement has taken control of the U.S. government.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
When outsiders like myself think of California, we normally think of the most rabidly pro-alarmist, anti freedom state in America, a sea of climate alarmist orthodoxy, tempered by the occasional voice of skepticism.
But some of California’s most prominent fiction authors, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Michael Flynn, were poking fun at global warming dogma way back in the early 90s. Their satirical science fiction book, “Fallen Angels”, written in 1991, depicts a world in the grip of a new ice age, triggered by green initiatives to reduce CO2 emissions, with radical green governments trying to pin the blame for crashing global temperatures on high technology and “air stealing” space colonists – the remnants of American and Russian space efforts.
Many, perhaps most of you have probably not heard of “Fallen Angels” – it never achieved the prominence of better known stories such as the Ringworld series, the Known Space series, Lucifer’s Hammer, Footfall, and many other Niven and Pournelle science fiction classics. But for me Fallen Angels planted a seed of skepticism – towards the end of the 90s, when a rising tide of voices claimed climate consensus, and predicted imminent doom, I remembered reading “Fallen Angels”, and wondered whether the anti science green dystopia they satirised was actually coming to pass. My doubt caused me to dig a little deeper, and helped me to see past the climate lies of the alarmists.
Perhaps other authors are out there, wondering if now is the time to take the plunge, to satirise that which must not be questioned. My suggestion – it didn’t do Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Michael Flynn’s career any harm. Author Scott Adams (Dilbert) still publishes a lot of cartoons, despite his occasional nods towards climate skepticism (e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/20/dilbert-becomes-skeptical-of-climate-change-disaster/ ).
And who knows – if the lunatic fringe of the climate alarmist movement is sufficiently outraged by your effort, you could sell a lot of books.
========================================================
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Angels_(science_fiction_novel)
The book is available on Amazon, here.
Tucci78, you have presented no factual arguments. Just an appeal to authority where you choose an electrical engineer as your authority and a lot of insults against the entire profession of climate scientists, only to complain that *I* use ad hominems. As you come up with no scientific arguments, what else can I do but comment on the credibility of the one person you name as if he meant anything? And as far as ad hominems go, all your posts contain far more of them than anything I produced.
I didn’t attack science fiction fans, I attacked your conspiracy theories about how corrupt scientists deliberately distort the truth. There is nothing wrong with reading science fiction, I do it a lot, but if you think it’s a good source of scientific facts, then you have a problem. Most science fiction fans I know do know the difference. For example, anyone who read that passage from Fallen Angels you linked to and actually believed the fusion in the sun had almost stopped would have been seriously misled. It was a far out idea by some scientists at the time, never a mainstream view, but why should Pournelle care? It sounded cool, and he was writing fiction. No different from the scientific sounding stuff in The Day After Tomorrow which didn’t make much sense either.
Proving that he has absolutely no friggin’ education in formal logic, at 2:30 PM on 23 June we’ve got the egregious Thomas conflating argumentum ad hominem with simple insult (a common failing among the blithering “Liberal” fascisti, who seem to think that the idiot use of fancy Latin tags somehow perfumes their stupidity), writing that I
…thereby also proving that Thomas is as the beasts that perish when it comes to understanding the circumstances under which the fallacy of appeal to authority can be discerned.
Thomas, old sock, did you ever come anywhere near a course in formal logic in your little life? Or even try out for the debate team in high school?
To attack a man’s position on a subject on no basis other than his alleged qualification to speak constitutes the evasion of a disputant’s responsibility to address the substance of that position. Thomas could well have snarked at Dr. Beckmann’s credentials in passing, but he would have had to consider Dr. Beckmann’s statements on the subject of anthropogenic global warming in order to claim that Dr. Beckmann’s views on the climate catastrophists’ duplicitous Cargo Cult Science were incorrect.
And this – of course! – Thomas has failed to do. Therefore “attack upon the man” rather than attack upon the contention held. Argumentum ad hominem.
In my posts I’ve merely recounted how Dr. Beckmann had brought the spectacular crapola of the AGW concept to my attention back in 1981, being merely a factual account of my earliest personal experience in considering this crippled conjecture through the courtesy of a correspondent, and noting said correspondent’s own personal response to the reeking stench thereof.
That I did not present “factual arguments” against the great hideous “man-made climate change” fraud in this forum is nothing more than plain fact. I did not intend to do so, nor am I going to do so. In this venue, that would be carrying coals to Newcastle, and I will not indulge the asininity of Thomas in this regard, for Thomas is obviously a credulous climate catastrophe-pusher, almost certainly refractory to reasoned argument on this subject and being very much beneath contempt therefore.
That, by the way, is insult. Not argumentum ad hominem but rather another chorus in the hymn of hatred which these chiseling bastiches have earned. Opprobrium is at the very least is what they deserve, and if there is justice in our republic, both criminal prosecution as well as civil suits at law to recover compensatory and punitive damages resulting from their political depredations.
Mind you, I’d not object more than faintly if their neighbors – having been subjected to energy costs made to “necessarily skyrocket” by the administration of our Illegal-Immigrant-in-Chief – were to get the tar a-bubble and the feathers ready to give these Watermelons a ride out of town on fencerails.
As for Thomas‘ lackwit misconception of science fiction fen as credulously relying only upon speculative fiction for scientific fund of knowledge, why should we irk ourselves further over the yammering of someone who’s manifestly both a warmist and a friggin’ mundane?
Now that’s argumentum ad hominem of a sort, isn’t it?
@alex Pournelle
Your dad is awesome. Larry Niven is equally so. I have read all their work, and I don’t see 60’s influence – beyond that they wrote stories in the early to mid 70’s and those stories reflected the times.
I heard Larry Niven last night on Coast to Coast (which is great for insomniacs). He seemed overly fearful of organ banks – I’m not sure he’s up to date on the new work being done with bioprinting or using denatured organs and adult stem cells to regrow or regenerate organs (work being done by Dr Atala and others… http://www.ted.com/speakers/anthony_atala.html).
It will be a sad day when we won’t have their contributions in science fiction.
Eric Worrall says:
Different people like different stories.
I’ve been thinking about this common generalization. Many times.
In some up-to-the-minute, practical sense the “each to his taste” adage holds water.
For example, I do not enjoy the prolific writings of Charles Dickens. I could write a book about why I don’t like Charles Dickens. My opinion wouldn’t harm in the least Dickens’ stature as a “great writer,” of course. He is an established authority in the modern system of cultural coordinates. Fighting the establishment of any kind is a dangerous, unprofitable, and depressing adventure.
But in time — in a long time — people tend to re-evaluate their idols. It already happened in the past, and it will happen again. People stop reading books that were extremely popular before, and discover more or less forgotten works that reflect their current interests. Only very few books survive this “paradigm shift” process; they are invariably written in prose that speaks to any generation, without being too time-specific in its cultural references. The same could be observed in music and in the fine arts.
Since this is a lengthy process, encompassing many generations, people usually don’t notice how it happens. Shostakovich, for example, continues to be regarded as an authority of high degree in the circles of musicologists and theoreticians, especially those of old Soviet school. At the same time, it is already very difficult to find a lay person who really likes to listen to Shostakovich’s music. He has already started to fade into oblivion (as he deserves), though it would take generations before all panegyrics written about him will be forgotten, before textbooks will change, before Shostakovich will be relegated to the historical footnotes describing him as a cowardly, subservient Soviet graphomaniac, highly professional but no more than that. It will inevitably happen — but today my opinion would provoke a fury of protests, of course. People do not part with their delusions, delusions die with their holders.
Thus, I think, the terms “good taste” and “vulgar taste” have objective meanings, and an impartial, informed observer could sometimes predict, on the objective and logical basis, which of the popular works of literature, music, etc., would survive the judgment of generations, and which would not. In the long run, “different people like different stories” is a false wisdom.
Tucci78:
Re: Opprobrium is at the very least is what they deserve, and if there is justice in our republic, both criminal prosecution as well as civil suits at law to recover compensatory and punitive damages resulting from their political depredations.
To use Niven & Pournelle’s favorite expression: TANJ.
They are laughing at us.
In response to my earlier observation:
…at 4:32 PM on 23 June Alexander Feht had commented:
Thus the desirability of less formal means to address their infamies.
Let’s listen to their chortles as they begin to arrive at burn units all over the republic, greasy with petrolatum (still about the best thing to get tar off a critter’s hide) and reeking of pitch and singed hair.
When push comes to shove, and the citizenry cannot have recourse to a legal system that is not corrupted beyond function by the partisans of a felonious and hostile regime, inter arma silent leges.
Or perhaps it’s better to quote a colleague of mine – Dr. John Locke – from his Two Treatises of Government regarding “an appeal to heaven”:
@ur momisugly Thomas
How does one determine who is a “qualified climatologist”? There are very few universities that offer a degree in climatology. Hubert Lamb, a climatologist I greatly admire, attained his degree in geography.
The U.S. government, the largest employer of climatologists, suggests:
* 24 hours of meteorology or atmospheric science courses
* 3 hours ordinary differential equations
* 6 hours of college physics or 9 hours of physical sciences, including chemistry
* Statistics and computer science are also recommended. Statistics is helpful in computing and analyzing data, and many climatologists are running models on supercomputers.
No mention there of geologists, who would arguably be the most climatologically knowledgeable group. I am glad to see the recommendation of taking a statistics unit given that hardly any “qualified” climatologists show any grasp of that subject! I am glad also that they do not recommend failing theology as Al Gore did in order to become “qualified”.
At 7:52 PM on 23 June, The Pompous Git writes that:
Now that’s interesting. I myself am twice as well-qualified in undergraduate differential equations and have 8 credit hours of college-level physics in my C.V., with a helluva lot more hours in the “physical sciences,” including analytic chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, marine biology, instrumental analysis, microbiology, vertebrate physiology, chordate morphology, endocrinology, and what-not else. After which, of course, came the medical school curriculum, which is almost entirely pure and applied science studies for the first two years, incidental to which was introduction to statistical analysis in the consideration of epidemiology.
And just about every meteorologist of my personal acquaintance isn’t more than a few credits shy of full “climatologist” qualification.
I honestly hadn’t known how cheaply in terms of effort and knowledge the title “climate scientist” could be won.
Tucci78 “but he would have had to consider Dr. Beckmann’s statements on the subject of anthropogenic global warming”
Great advice, except Tucci didn’t actually present any such arguments or give a link to any. Tucci then go on to explain that he has no intention of ever presenting any factual argument, probably because he is to incompetent to come up with anything but incoherent rants and insults. It’s so much easier to attack me for not responding to those non-existing arguments.
The Pompous Git, what about looking at the publication record? Looking at relevant articles published in scientific journals is not perfect, but probably the best that can be done on a casual basis.
Ignoring the fact that I had simply “recounted how Dr. Beckmann had brought the spectacular crapola of the AGW concept to my attention back in 1981, being merely a factual account of my earliest personal experience in considering this crippled conjecture through the courtesy of a correspondent, and noting said correspondent’s own personal response to the reeking stench thereof,” at 10:24 PM on 23 June we’ve got the necrophilic Thomas insisting we dig up the bones of a man who had died in 1993 so that Thomas can “consider Dr. Beckmann’s statements on the subject of anthropogenic global warming” on the basis of a BBS mirror created in 1989.
Little hint, Thomas. I gave those reading here a link to that FortFreedom.org mirror, already permitting all and sundry to look directly into what Dr. Beckmann had aggregated and articulated on his BBS by late 1989.
You didn’t look? Well, whose fault is that?
Not that any nit-picking in which Thomas might care to indulge matters one goddam little bit in the context of our present-day discussion of the “man-made global climate change” fraud, because in 1989 Dr. Beckmann was working on the basis of then-prevailing knowledge both of climate science and the chicanery of the “consensus” quacks, and all honest folk reading in this forum know that the Watermelon manure pile grew higher and broader and ever more hideously malodorous through the decades following.
I like to imagine Dr. Beckmann’s merry laughter at the revelations to be romped through in FOIA2009.zip, but he’d been sixteen years’ dead by 17 November 2009, and until somebody manages to get the mythical USB 2.0 computer/Ouija board interface working, we’re not going to commune with Dr. Beckmann’s spirit to oblige Thomas’ perverse fixation on what that particular individual might have said about the past 24 years’ worth of developments in the criminally debauched discipline of climatology.
It would be rather too much like drawing upon Dr. Beckmann’s observations about AIDS as of 1989 in the discussion of the syndrome and its complications today. The first clinically reliable serological tests for HIV-1 had not become available until 1985, and the first marginally effective antiretroviral chemotherapeutic agents (leading in the mid-’90s – a couple of years after Dr. Beckmann’s death – to the initial implementation of HAART combination regimens) had not even been accorded marketing approval until 1987.
What I’d written yesterday with regard to the presentation of “factual argument” on the subject of global climate change (and why the contention of anthropogenic causation is purest horsehockey) was that in this forum and at this time I have no intention of making the case for such a debunking because – as I’d observed – it’s just carrying coals to Newcastle. Those reading here with honest intentions have for the greatest part followed the autopsy of the warmists’ dead and stinking dog and do not need a recapitulation of the postmortem findings, while Waterrmelons like Thomas are impervious to reasoned argument by virtue of their feculent dishonesty and other manifestations of moral depravity.
Instead, permit me to provide Thomas a link to science educator Joanne Nova’s The Skeptic’s Handbook (2009 – pre-Climategate) and suggest that he make use of this and the other resources Ms. Nova has aggregated and made accessible by way of her Web site. That’s about all the hand-holding this critter needs. Or warrants.
Let’s send him back to “Dick and Jane” primer level. Thomas certainly shows no sign of the literacy in these matters which might be expected of an honorable frequenter of Mr. Watts’ online offerings, does he?
@ur momisugly Thomas
Interesting — less than 40 hours of study and pals in the right places is all you need to qualify as a climatologist. No wonder so many of the last decade’s climate papers read like the studies were undertaken by people with no knowledge of the literature! I sure am glad that my GP put in more diligence to attain his qualification.
Dear Tucci, maybe one day you will grow up. Until then, have a nice day and wipe that spittle off your screen.
In response to my comment at 1:26 AM on 24 June, we have from Thomas at 2:23 AM one of those “non-response” boluses of bilge typical of the credulous (and/or duplicitous) puckers who cling bitterly to the utterly bankrupt AGW fraud, confirming my diagnosis of his reason for infesting this forum.
And it ain’t honest interest in the subject at hand, folks. Well, what the hell are we supposed to expect of yet another friggin’ mundane Watermelon, anyway?
A classic of early web lit.
“It was far from their best book, and as I remember, treated Richard Stallman as some sort of demi-god. I will give him his due for persistence, and he also seems to be a competent programmer, but on the political side he to way to the left of Lenin.”
ISTR they auctioned (for charity) placement in the book.
Fallen Angels: I loved it! High irony for the eco-fanatics….
I’ve enjoyed many of the books written by Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven, authored individually and collaboratively. Thanks for bringing back those good memories….
MtK
Just got my copy from Amazon yesterday. I bought the paperback so I could more easily share it with family and friends.