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.
Not to be confused with Herr Gruber. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=herr+gruber&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=FE77662D29D2372BB6D3FE77662D29D2372BB6D3
I love the quote “double ethical bind” was that guy serious? He succinctly nailed it. They think what they are doing is ethical.
I believe Orwell called it doublethink.
Why use Grubering when we already have demagogue?
It was just his way of saying that the ends (“saving the planet”) justify the means (lying). Down that road lies totalitarianism.
Gruber thought he was in a “safe” environment, so the truth was told far better than in front of a grand jury under oath. The “safe” environment was just a routine meeting of high-level academics. I can imagine the audience barely nodding & shrugging their shoulders, whispering (like the TV insurance commercial) — “Everybody knows that…”
Reminds me of the FBI agent that infiltrated some communist organization and was told “15-20 million Americans would have to be “taken care of” after the revolution”, and the other communists casually nodding and murmuring agreement.
there is no need for a new word. We already have LIAR and the term “snake oil salesman”
Except that it is more nuanced, more descriptive than the word liar, and the phrase snake oil salesman applies to dirtbags like Gore.
Grubering also implies the deliberate obfuscation of legislation so it can’t be criticized. That’s why the word is a worthy addition.
“Grubering also implies the deliberate obfuscation of legislation so it can’t be criticized. That’s why the word is a worthy addition.”
Ok, but do we throw him is prison, or does he get a talk show?
Jonathan Gruber has demonstrated his worth, but his direct family and relatives have little choice. Bet there are also many unrelated individuals, not limited to Germany and Austria only, feeling vicarious embarrassment towards this man. No need to add insult to injury in their case. So, I vote against this one, sorry.
Yeah, well, maybe he should have thought of that before he ushered his name into this infamy, don’t you think?
In my opinion the chances of Jonathan Gruber giving any dignity to others are close to nil. Is it worth slandering the most common surname in Austria because of him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruber.
It happens. Adolph Hitler cannot be the only person on Earth with a surname “Hitler”. Well, maybe NOW he is/was. How many people want to be named Lenin or Stalin?
But other readers have pointed out that the techniques are well known and identified in George Orwell’s “1984” (and its cousin, “Animal Farm”).
Stalin was a nickname meaning “man of steel”, sort of like Superman. His given last name was Jughashvili.
As you said, it happens. Look at the occupation named after “Fighting Joe” Hooker, or
the syndrome named after Dr Downs
or the term for murdering someone by suffocation- named after grave robber and murder William Burke.
FYI – there are now online 6 different “Gruber” speeches that debase the USA voters. He did mean it.
Was there any doubt?
My apologies, I forgot it was 1984. It makes perfect sense that the great communicator, Obama would use “segregators” to dispense newspeak and that nouns and verbs are interchangeable. I quess Gruber really is “relatable”.
Jaakko, Gruber is responsible for damage to his family’s name. To “Gruber” has entered the lexicon and I believe it will and should have a long life.
Uh, but will the “stupid” public be able to figure out that they’ve been deceived or will only the “not so stupid” folks figure it out?
Große Lüge, (German for big lie) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Hitler asserted the technique was used by Jews to unfairly blame Germany’s loss in World War I on German Army officer Erich Ludendorff. (Source – Wikipedia)
So now we have Große-Lüging or Grubering for short….
In American English, we have “gross loogy” which is roughly the same thing. Something one spits out, and you don’t want to step in it.
… and he learned the technique from the Woodrow Wilson era Progressives in the US a decade before.
to be precise, from Edward Bernays, advisor of Wilson and inventor of modern Propaganda.
The last election proves most “stupid voters” aren’t as dumb as grubface
Democrats didn’t turn out… Republicans did. Hmmm…
This kind of addition to the English lexicon is like having too many passwords to remember. It drives me batty. I prefer “propaganda”. I just don’t have brain space for all the new ways to talk about ancient concepts. That said, I do like using the phrase “Mannian graphing techniques” when I criticize inappropriate or unmarked splicing of two differently derived value sets.
He deserves total public condemnation from US taxpayers.
Leave his name on it
Personalize it.
Shame the man.
Ridicule the man.
Say it often and say it loud..
Some more fuel for the US House to add to the fire.
Like Gleick, Jones, Mann and the rest of the team, they wear dishonesty as a badge of courage.
Progressives have no shame.
The problem is the only stupid, ignorant, dummy citizens voting on ACA were elected politicians in congress.
The US Congress was Gruberized and they accept it happily.
+100
Keeping the names of the Gruberists to the fore has not worked so far as Gore, Mann and the like are still held up as experts. Only Mann seems to be dropping in the popularity stakes but he is still out peddling his wares to the gullible.
So far, no one has drawn the obvious conclusion that this past week has been Obamacare’s #GruberGate, which is a thing on Twitter by the way.
Also, WUWT will have to add “Gruber” to the Tag Cloud.
And GruberGate.
And “Gruberish”. As in “speaking Gruberish”.
+1
I prefer gruberish – nonsense with the clear intent to deceive.
Sorry to submit all these shorter comments–should have rolled them into one. But, the main benefit of the term “Gruber” is that millions of Americans now grok that they’ve been lied to by the government deliberately. The term is at or near the top of Twitter for a week now. People that have not yet understood that AGW is a hoax may now “get it.” So, I definitely vote for using the term “Gruber” as it relates to climate.
“Grubering”, trendy but after a few more weeks of burying this story, people may not get it. I’ll stay with the old technical terms-“climate goobering”.
People in the public sphere have not yet adapted to the reach of detail, accuracy, and longevity that the internet gives the masses in researching prior positions. I think even some politicians who ought to have known better have been stung by this.
A key characteristic of Gruberism is, of course, contemptuous arrogance. And what better example of that is there than Gruber’s own comic book he wrote in which he casts himself as a superhero that single-handedly rescues the American health care system using his superior smart powers.
http://clashdaily.com/2014/11/breaking-here-is-jonathan-grubers-health-care-comic-book-stupid-americans/
I really hate this stuff. One of the reasons I have been skeptical about climate alarmism for years is precisely because we have been treated like mushrooms — kept in the dark and fed manure, as the old joke goes. Do the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age present a problem to the warming narrative? Solution: make them disappear!
What makes this even worse is that politicians of all stripes and sides do this. “Being economical with the truth” isn’t just a Dem or warmist bad habit. Nobody to turn to, in the political arena, if you actually were to be so silly as to want a politician to speak reasonably accurately and truthfully.
I think I get it now. Those who do not posses a college degree are considered ignorant, those who do are considered “properly programmed”. Unless they disagree with the consensus, which classifies them as “doubters” and therefore dangerous.
Point of fact, the American public was not all aboard with the ACA, It was the politicians who passed it, less than half of the electorate was supportive of its passage.
Same with the bailouts, the public largely opposed them, but panicked politicians passed the legislation anyway.
True in many respects, but Grubering was the deflection of valid criticism and critical thought that could have otherwise stopped the political act. Which brings us back to climate agreements, EPA executive actions, and government grant and department scientific Grubering. It still works for their purposes.
The point is to seize the initiative and require proof not that you might be wrong, but that you are wrong and are not trying to do good. Climate is the perfect topic for Gruberng. That healthcare Gruber only lasted until the delays of implementation started to wear off.
Grubering? Let’s not forget Goreboring and Mannipulated.
You find Gore boring too?
Or mann-bare-pigging.
I like Grubering in regards to trying to sell CAGW. I think it will stick (I hope it will).
Climate Grubering, I’ll be using that.
The first time I heard the term was this morning. (and by the way “Meet The Press” this Sun morning did mention Jonathan Gruber, talking about Obamacare)
In fairness,I disagree with the comparison, although explaining why is difficult. There is a difference between lying to reach a policy outcome (bad, more state-run healthcare) and lying about science that does not exist. Both are terrible, but the second is much worse
In fairness,I disagree with the comparison, although explaining why is difficult. There is a difference between lying to reach a policy outcome (bad, more state-run healthcare) and lying about science that does not exist. Both are terrible, but the second is much worse