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.
Grubering is like making fun of your victim, after jamming something unpleasant down their throat. It reminds me of the recent “cowardly” and “chickensh**” remarks made about Israeli PM Netanyahu. they were aying that he had been too cowardly to nuke Iran, and now it is too late.
Bullies and thugs get enjoyment out of bullying people. It’s hard for them NOT to brag about it. Notice that (D)irtbags will acknowledge that politicians are liars, even that (D) politicians are liars – they seem to take pride that their guys are better liars than (R)s.
BTW, I deeply appreciate being able to comment without giving up identification info.
Agreed. Too many websites are run by control freaks.
Algore has been feeding the public Green Gruber Pellets for many years. GGPs are really rabbit excrement coated with green slime. Liberals can’t discern their true nature, and cheerfully beg for more.
Soylent Gruber. It’s made of … porkies.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Very apt: What Dr. Gruber and his allies did to sell healthcare is just like what Al Gore, Michael Mann, Paul Krugman, and other climate alarmists do to sell the global warming/climate change/WE’RE ALL DOOMED!! scare. In their view, we’re too stupid to understand that (in their minds) the policies they advocate are for the best, so they have to lie to us to get us to agree.
On CBS “Face the Nation” they just played clips of Gruber Grubering.
That really surprised me. Maybe there is hope for the skeptic view in the MSM.
They didn’t mention the word Grubering however.
Gruber: a type of porky.
The public still thinks a holy man in the sky controls their lives, A nasty guy in hell is going to torture them for eternity and that they were all created equal. When you got minds that are so easily manipulated is that, how do you expect them to suss out the nuanced differences in political policy?
Tom, you sort of hope that the opposing parties themselves will delve into things to reveal dishonesty, hypocrisy, lies….in each other. People who care and know a few things are more likely to vote and many of those that Gruber is trying save despite their stupidity are less likely to vote. Hey the system works and if they were mistaken, they get to throw out the mistake. The US has beaten the rest of the world hands down and most of the earth’s citizens have their leaders chosen for them. You wouldn’t suggest that an academic elite is going to choose what’s best for you are you? When the Stalin types get voted in, they are the only choice on the ballot. Stop being so statistical and sociological.
Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday promulgated the “97% of scientists” lie this morning. Through ignorance, I hope.
Twitter #FNS
Your description and explanation of ‘Grubering’ is a perfect match for the whole approach to governance (Ruling) within the EU.
The Unelected Eurocrats who run the EU believe that you cannot trust the electorate to make the right decisions and as an extension of that you cannot allow the elected representatives, Members of the European Parliament, to have the final decision on EU Laws. They might be swayed by their voters and reach the ‘wrong’ decision that is at odds with the unelected and unaccountable Eurocrats.
On the odd occasion when the public have been allowed a say on a key EU issue, such as their country remaining in the EU or signing up to a new treaty giving more sovereignty away to the unelected, then when the public vote the ‘wrong way’ they are forced to have referendum after referendum until they eventually vote the ‘right way’.
That is the left-wing technocrat approach, epitomised by the UN and ‘climate change’ that will destroy democracy amongst western nations if we are not all very careful. You have begun to experience that in the US with Obama using the EPA to side-step democracy and in effect force carbon legislation to suit his and the UN’s agenda.
Grubering, yes I like that word and it ‘sounds’ right.
Here’s a less than 1 minute video which helps explain Grubering:
Bishop Hill has a really good post today that goes a long way toward explaining this issue.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/11/15/climate-change-and-the-left.html
Yes, an accurate description of the Watermelon mentality.
“Grubering” is just another manifestation of Alinksky’s “Rules for Radicals”. Everyone should read his (Alinsky’s) chapter on ethics and his defense of “The end justifies the means” and how he views all political and social conflicts as war where most anything is justified. The problem with this philosophy is that it always turns out that the means most always corrupt the ends. This idea was not originated by Alinsky as it goes back to Lenin and even further back. Alinsky just brought it into the context of American politics and modern progressives have brought it to a new level. Much of the “anti-skeptic” diatribe relies on one or more of Alinsky’s Rules.
It’s amazing that most people using in these Alinsky ‘ethics’ don’t realize that there’s always someone else using those very ‘ethics’ against them — and they’re ostensibly on the same side.
Well we may agree on the global warming scare, but I really think any one who does not understand that the public finance effects of quasi-monopolistic insurance companies charging premiums and govermental tax supported health care are nearly identical is just poorly informed. Private health insurance premiums are simply a private tax. As for the Republican position on health care reform it is has been every bit as disingenuous – to the point of no more than outright propaganda. There is not now and never will be a Republican alternative to Obama Care unless it is the same program under a different name with a few tweeks and modifications. Why? Because you cant insure everyone unless everone pays. So, you Republicans can crow all you want about Gruberr but you are every bit as bad. At least he was trying to help poeple who need coverage to get it instead of inventing lies to prevent them from getting it.
I’d have expected Pelosi’s congress to start by establishing a program to get more medical staff like doctors and nurses and technicians to ensure 10M – 30M new patients would actually get healthcare.
ACA is just insurance not medical care.
Healthcare is already an assembly line process. Adding more sick people will bottleneck the system even more.
The progressives should have just come out and said:
We are expanding Medicaid to accept anyone that wants to enroll.
Medicaid rates will be means tested.
We’ll be increasing the tax rate and removing the cap on earnings subject to the tax to help pay for it.
That’s progressive.
I don’t like the ACA because it’s BS and it will damage healthcare in the US with little or no gain.
TRP blurted out: “Private health insurance premiums are simply a private tax.”
That’s amazingly creative. I have never considered such a thing as a “private tax” but now I see every time I buy food, pay rent, purchase gasoline or go to a movie I am paying someone’s “private tax”.
“As for the Republican position on health care reform it is has been every bit as disingenuous”
It seems pretty simple to me. Tort reform is likely to make a big difference. I think you mistake that Republicans are wannabe Democrats.
“There is not now and never will be a Republican alternative to Obama Care”
Duh. Read again my statement above. Republicans are not and should not be engaged in socialism.
“Because you cant insure everyone unless everone pays.”
Yep, like I said, socialism. You can have liberty and choice or you can have socialism. It isn’t even all bad so long as everyone understands that you are giving up liberty to have “everyone insured”.
But you know what? I don’t care about INSURANCE. I prefer good medical care. An insurance card is USELESS without medical facilities.
“You Republicans can crow all you want about Gruberr…”
Thanks, not that I needed your permission…
“but you are every bit as bad.”
Says you. Your mileage obviously varied.
“At least he was trying to help poeple who need coverage to get it”
Well, sure, order them to get it “or else”. But I see you are obsessed with “coverage” rather than CARE.
TRP: “At least he was trying to help poeple who need coverage to get it instead of inventing lies to prevent them from getting it.”
The ends justify the means, in other words. Well, Leftist SOP, nothing new under the sun. But it’s amazing that you even defend your SOP in front of people of whom you know that they have much higher standards.
Also, these liars as they do the Grobering in fact are Grub worms eating at the roots of science.
The proverb isn’t exactly the same in English, but seems fitting. Wer andern eine Grube gräbt, fällt selbst hinein = you can easily fall into your own trap.
In My Humble Opinion, The politically correct speech rules placed on people so that they must attach being a liar to individuals and then use that name, in an effort to make the example, to get the point across has been a disaster for both science and politics.
Since when have we allowed ourselves to be muzzled and our thoughts censored to the point that we ourselves wont use the truth outright? The ends justify the means (any means) is the mark of a thief and a liar.
I grow tired of being told i cant hurt these peoples feelings. WHY? They aim to deprive me of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I can think of many things more destructive than calling these people out as the liars and thieves they are.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” –Edmund Burke
Yes, I agree. I have recently taken to linking peer reviewed articles to support the skeptics case at several pro CAGW sites. At some, like “Eco watch” I can post whatever I want, (at least they do not edit) but I am called an evil capitalist, devoid of all scientific thought, a science denier, oil funded bot , a paid shill for big oil, etc. The substance of my links to disparate CO2 science links, NIPCC links, Pop tech links, and other links to the peer reviewed skeptics case is never addressed. At best , even if I reference twenty or more scientific publications demonstrating a lower climate sensitivity then the IPCC, I am accused of cherry picking, with out any address to the points made.
It took the Guardian, less then five posts and one hour on their site to send all my comments to pre (read permanent) moderation /censorship, because, as their rules say, some comments are censored because they are offensive.
“Good men who do nothing” is an oxymoron.
I would propose a new analytical tool for grading research papers on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate [insert current scary term here] along with “news” reports and government “studies.” Each claim and parameter in the body of the work (including graphics and imagery) is assigned a value from 0 to 100 where 0 is an accurate, truthful, scientifically supported statement or properly presented testable theory, and 100 represents an out-and-out wagon load of BS pulled by Unicorns that may be used to fleece taxpayers, destroy economies or further impoverish and oppress the world’s developing populations. The arithmetic mean of them is calculated and becomes a measure of the “truthiness” of the data. It will be called the CGI or “Climate Grubering Index” and all “peer reviewed” papers must be submitted to the “opposition” for grading and assignment of a CGI value. For public, taxpayer supported research the value will be converted into a percentage and will be used to calculate the amount of funding to be cut from the researcher’s budget in the next cycle. Values over 50 will be applied immediately to the funding stream with listed authors being required to pay back any salary already paid in excess of the adjusted budget. That should clear the fraud out of academia in a year or two and we might actually get some real, valid climate research in the bargain. Politicians and government employees will have the percentages removed from their pensions and government benefits. News media outlets will have the percentages subtracted from the ratings used to determine advertising rates.
I’m sure someone else has some better ideas, but this is offered as a starting point. Let’s all try to make MIT proud of Gruber… by making him the poster child, kind of the “Mr. Yuk” of bad research, in the much needed cleaning up of the good name of science.
Wonderful start. I second the motion.
Too, think for a moment on the e-mails from and to Grouber.
Think of those from all the Grouber Cult on the whole of it.
I wonder what the Gruber / HHS emails looks like.
Related to Global Warming but off topic for this article.
I have been trying to find confirmation or a report that additional CO2 is effective in green houses to reduce the total energy costs. On the basis that it is supposedly such a major influencer of our climate by warming the atmosphere almost singlehandedly by only changing the atmospheric make up by a fraction to me it would stand to reason that when a green house operator increases the CO2 content inside the unit to 800-1000 ppm to improve growth of the plants there would also be a demonstrable reduction in energy required to warm the air inside to the desired temperature.
So far no such luck to find this confirmation other then that any search turns up the use of CO2 to stimulate plant growth.
If anyone here knows of such report I would appreciate it if a link can be provided.
Regards
You’ll find no such report because that isn’t the way the GHE works.
The debate has gotten so off kilter than before we can debunk the theories of warmists, we first have to explain to the warmists what their side of the science actually is.
Appreciate that.
The debate we can argue is about getting rid of carbon based fuel, AGW is the (wrong) message, which is a matter of opinion.
There are some overall long term health advantages in getting rid of carbon as fuel, but from my side just because there will then be more of it available as raw material for production. Which will also benefit all for a while as for some time the cost of a vast range of chemicals and plastics will drop quite a bit, until supply and demand have aligned themselves again.
I was interested in this to read how they had gone about it and what the findings were. We can introduce the incoming radiation lost through the glass and create extra outgoing radiation in the green house. If the theory were to be somewhat correct there can be major savings in that industry in particular. The lack of it can be seen as proof that the theory does not hold water let alone AGW.
The worst part of the Grubering is that it didn’t happen to cover up after they were caught in lies but to cover up the lies so they could take effect.
Don’t let Obama do anything to make a “free and open” internet.
This is where the purpose of “Freedom of the Press” still lives, not in the MSM.
I agree with that.
Let’s be honest, shall we? Both parties are guilty of Grubering. Manipulating the electorate. Outright lying. Nothing new.
Yes, Let’s be honest.
Show me a Grubering by the right, the conservatives, the tea party. Show me.
I’ve had enough of this “both sides do it” as if that is self evident. It is not. You have bought into another falsehood.
Come on, show me something where a Republican said we got something pat because the American People are stupid. It should be easy… because THAT’ is something CBS or NBC would air constantly.
The moment you’re open to a reply, history is replete with lies from both sides. But you’re defensive. If you weren’t so defensive and closed-minded, you wouldn’t even need my help. You would already know. Neither party is angelic. Or innocent. Remember to breathe!
The Iraqi invasion comes to mind.
outtheback
November 16, 2014 at 8:02 pm
“The Iraqi invasion comes to mind.”
To be a real Grubering there would have to be a bunch of videos showing Cheney and Rumsfeld telling an audience smugly how easy it was to fool the dopes.
THAT is the special quality of Grubering.
… And on the odd chance you can find something from the conservatives….
Can you find FIVE?
By the same guy?
Who helped write a trillion dollar swindle?
And even if he could find something, should it be tolerated or excused? In the name of “the end justifies the means”?
No thanks.
Be honest about what you want to do. If I agree, I’ll support it. If I don’t, I won’t. Don’t trick me into supporting it.
Same guy: We must go in. We must go in now. Can’t wait another day and the oil will pay for the war. Well shock and awe it didn’t. Three guesses. First two don’t count.
Re: Iraq war.
Not the same.
Show me the video where Bush, Rumsfeld, Chaney, or Powell admits that they got the war approval because of the “stupidity of the American voter.”
We went into Iraq because of a very real Anthrax scare. To this day we don’t know who did it. At the time, MWD activities in Iraq were not far fetched. And I, for one, do not believe the trucks containing stainless steel vats, were used for the manufacturing of hydrogen for weather balloons.
So I repeat. The Bush Administration may have been wrong about going into Iraq. But show me the videos where their advisors gloated about getting their way past the “stupidity of the American voter.”
We can smell a Democrat. Every time a Democratic pol is caught lying or cheating, the Democrats say they all do it so, why bother about it. So, I guess all Democrats are liars, since they think it no big deal and they expect their pols to lie.
Whilst grubering is being defined as targeting the ignorant masses it actually targets the ignorant academe, media and political class a gathering of some of the most gullible groups in society. They tend to be gullible because they actually want to believe in the integrity of people with whom they have something in common. Unfortunately they also tend to be some of the most arrogant groups in our society and rather than fess up and say I may have been mistaken they will do anything including lying rather than admit they are wrong. That is why none of these people will engage in debate. Students who disagree will be given fails on their papers, media refuses to show people that have an opposite view and politicians even ones who are sceptics are too afraid of public opinion to actually call out the AGW scare for what it is , a great big expensive lie.
Ironically I don’t believe it’s just about the money. If these groups who benefit from perpetuating this myth had no financial consequences to an admission of a mistake they still wouldn’t fess up . It’s human nature. No one likes to admit they were wrong especially if that showed they were also gullible and stupid . It really is the blind leading the blind . They have become so entrenched in perpetuating the myth they forget how it started in the first place. The rotation of classifying the Global warming myth now as the Climate Change myth is tantamount to an admission that they made a mistake but don’t want anyone to notice. Eventually liars run out of lies . At some stage they will throw up their hands and say ok I admit it , it was all a lie but until we can bring these activists to the confessional we are all going to have to suffer.
This is yet another shining example of the fact that for LEFTISTS, truth is not a value.
Truth, fact, reason, cost/benefit analysis, empirical data, the laws of physics and economics…….NONE of these matter. The end justifies the LYING means.
The very moment you understand this, you understand exactly how the Leftist media has created the religious belief system known as “global warming”, “climate change”, and (coming to a theater near you…) “climate disruption”.
We are up against Eco-Socialism, out to control free markets, capitalism, industrialization, and population growth – and to reset perceived global “inequities” caused by the first 3 – using energy as the means to do so. This is their tactic because they cannot achieve these ends via US election/legislation/Constitution ……even despite the environmental movement using 2+ decades of GRUBERISM to achieve its objective and the abrogation of science in the process.
Stop them or live under their rules. Simple as that. It starts with incandescent light bulbs (thanks Bush Energy Dept.) and ends up with $8/gallon gas and 80 cents/kw electricity, all for a difference in “climate” that cannot be differentiated from natural variability.
“getting loads of media coverage If a dog bites a man that’s not news but if a man bites a dog that’s news.
But nobody seems to care if the tail wags the dog…
To be Grubered is to have your dishonesty EXPOSED by bragging on VIDEO recording that makes it to air or goes viral.
By that measure, I don’t know that Climate Science has its own Gruber.
Gleick, Mann, Jones are contenders, and they may have exposed sufficient hubris on video tape somewhere, but it hasn’t gone viral.
Bravos to the many clever comments, four stars to Gary Pearse. I didn’t read the all, so I may have missed it, but how about SHICKLGRUBER?