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.
I think it always amazes people in the rest of the developed world, that how many US voters will consistently vote against something that is in their own interests. Obamacare is a shining example. Would anyone outside the US really believe some of the absolute nonsense churned out by Fox news and the Tea bag party? Having given up news broadcasting they seem to have mutated into a purely political propaganda machine. We in the UK have our own oddballs such as UKIP, but they are in the main kept in check by the more sensible left and right of centre parties. In the US it seems every year that there are less and less moderate politicians fighting for the wellbeing of the American public, as opposed to their own narrow political ideals. It’s all so sad to see such a great nation slip into the rabbit hole of extremism. America was pregnant with promise and anticipation but ……………………………
Without knowing it, I think you have been Gruberized. Obamacare was in the voter’s interest? Why then the Gruber deceit about it? He helped write the law.
Your right is still pretty far left. US Democrats are definitely far right of UK conservatives.
That’s because you accept socialism in your country.
US Patriots don’t trust any big government control.
Big governments lie to their citizens.
We demand our liberty.
I am sure the people who had their policies cancelled, and now must pay more for insurance, would agree with you 100%. The President assured them they could keep their polices, repeatedly. I bet they feel bad.
If you think Obamacare is an example of how laws should be made, you are, alas, just wrong. Nobody who voted for the bill read the bill or knew what was in the bill. Is this your idea of democracy in action?
BTW, do you watch Fox news?
And, you know, Gruber was probably referring to people like you.
Grubering bring s to mind an old word; crooks!
I love it. Ridicule is a powerful tool.
A house semi submerged into the ground so that only the roof showed was a common structure in early Saxon Britain. It was designed to cope with really nasty weather. It was called a 13 Nov 14 Gruben house.
ps, ignore the 13 Nov 14, problems with pasting. It called just a Gruben house.
Well, Grube is German for hole in the ground. A Gruber would be someone who digs such holes. This is how those surnames came into existence.
…which leads one directly to the first rule of holes; when you’re in one, stop digging… Gruber didn’t. Power of names.
A classic example of “Grubering” is Obama’s meaningless “climate agreement” with China which requires China to do nothing over the next 16 years to reduced its huge and growing CO2 emissions while mandating high cost CO2 reductions in the U.S.
According to the 2013 Energy Information Administration International Energy Outlook report data U.S. CO2 emissions peaked in 2007 at just over 6 billion metric tons of CO2 but have declined and stabilized since then. Meanwhile China’s CO2 emissions have skyrocketed since 2005 and are forecast to reach over 14 billion metric tons per year by 2030.
Obama’s proposed climate agreement gives China a pass on committing to any CO2 reductions for the next 16 years until after 2030 at which time China will supposedly establish a CO2 emissions cap.
Thus under Obama’s scheme China is allowed to increase its CO2 emissions by over 8.5 billion metric tons per year (which is more than 1.5 times the entire U.S. 2014 CO2 emissions amount) from 2005 levels through 2030 while the U.S. is mandated to reduce its emissions by between 24% to 26% costing tens of billions of dollars each year in higher energy costs.
The increase in China’s CO2 emissions allowed under Obama’s scheme is more than 5.5 times greater than the size of the entire reduction mandated in U.S. emissions. This is just plain crazy.
Obam’s war on coal which cost him dearly in the last national election is out of touch with energy reality here in the U.S. where coal use has significantly declined and stabilized at lower levels as shown in 2013 EIA IEO report data.
In sharp contrast to the declining and stabilized lower coal use here in the U.S. coal use in China’s which is now more than 4.5 times greater than here has skyrocketed and will continue to climb into the decade of 2030.
By the year 2030 China is forecast to be using more than 6 times more coal than the U.S. and yet it is Obama’s intent to impose massive energy cost increases on Americans to further reduce our already declined and stabilized lower level of coal use.
The Obama climate agreement schemes with China are out of touch with the energy use and emissions performance here in the U.S. and sharply penalize Americans while giving a monumental 16 year long pass to China to continue to significantly increase both the use of coal and its CO2 emissions. The Obama “climate agreement” is a really dumb deal.
Wait. Obama doesn’t have a “war on coal”. Just on use of the coal in the US power industry. While Obama blocks the Keystone oil project, his buddy, Warren Buffet is making millions shipping oil by rail car. But wait for it … at the same time good ol’ Warren is shipping US coal to CHINA by way of Washington State and the Twassen Coal Port in British Columbia, Canada. Don’t want to be seen shipping that nasty coal out of the US to China, so just railroad it over the border and ship it out from Canada. No one will notice the coal trains of death going through Delta, BC, will they???
And on top of everything, Gruber himself is a denialist saying that “American voters were too stupid”. That is simply not true! Thousands and thousands of voters were shut out of democrat offices to discuss the bill back in 2009 recess. My own weasel / tax cheat / money launderer democrat rep at the time, John Tierney offered a “town meeting” on the issue – BY PHONE INVITATION ONLY. (when the phone don’t ring you’ll know it’s him…).
It was no different than what they say about CAGW, “the debate is over”. They don’t say that because they believe they won any debate, they say it for the same reason a dog licks ….”
Jonathan Gruber – the most honest person alive today. He knew the people he was trying to persuade better than anybody – he knew the Democrats.
Good to know that they’re using a grubber whilst having their evil way with us.
Gruber is the poster boy of rent seeking seeking corruption using academia as a mantle of crediblity.
He just happens to be a corrupt rent seeker pushing faux medical “reform” and getting personally rich in the process.
We can see others pushing insane environmental policies, destructive unworkable political policies and of course climate alarmism all posing as academics.
Interesting take on the situation from a US news source.
Was Gruber making a larger point here that we’re missing?
Definitely. If you can get past his condescending tone and insults, Gruber’s speeches actually offer some insight into how policy is impacted by politics.
“If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK?” Gruber said.
And while the (impartial) jury on the Affordable Care Act is still out, the law has lowered that national uninsured rate and, so far, the law is proving to be cheaper than expected.
Either way, Gruber has said he believes the U.S. is better off with Obamacare than without it.
And if less transparency helps implement better policy, he’s O.K. with that.
Sounds like Gruber is saying the end justify the means. I wonder if anyone else in politics has ever done that?
I agree with your understanding. The media is covering a remark, not the real thing.
I took the time to listen to his entire presentation at the University of Rhode Island:
It is about 30 minutes of description of the ACA and the origin from Romney care, ideas taken from the Heritage Foundation and then what is politically feasible at the national level. First time someone explains to the public the intricacies of getting the ACA implemented.
The next 30 minutes, he is answering very specific questions submitted by the audience. Prof. Gruber is not Nancy Pelosi, he knows exactly what is in the ACA. He is also brutally honest, in answering the questions, that he does not know what the future hold for many of the issues involved in this new law. As he specifically said, we have to crawl before we walk. An experiment is under way.
Prof. Gruber knows more about health care issues and economic issues associated with such and can explain them and the process followed better than anybody.
As for your last question in your post, I think you know the answer!
“Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.
But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.”
From Gruber to Schicklgruber, the grand tradition of Grubering.
Gruber’s statement is anything but a bombshell. Congresses and Presidents have been passing legislation
with benign and or misleading titles while deliberately obscuring their contents for eons. Democratic and Republican. How about the PATRIOT act? In reality, it’s the TYRANNY act.
Remember the Greenpease principle. Plausibility is more important than the truth.
They know their supporters. If I show them a chart of a Hockeystick with the hidden decline or a chart describing the difference between observations and models, they ask about experts behind this. They say openly that they can’t read the charts and that they want experts’ opinion because of that.
This is why the claim of “97% support” is important to them. Because Who is the most important question, ad hominem attacks to the “deniers” is a relevant tactic.
Keep in mind it was passed on Christmas Eve also. There were no Republican votes for it. However, the NRCC is totally worthless and systematically outspent and destroyed all Presidential candidates who were running against Obamacare in 2007. They are very frightened that a candidate will be nominated who opposes both Obamacare and Obamacore. Yes these same experts want to educate your children.
An interesting bit of history: recall that Chief Justice John Roberts also ruled it Constitutional by claiming it was a tax. It was not a tax.
The appointment of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts came after the political destruction of the Harriet Miers nomination – BY THE RIGHT.
How would Chief Justice Harriet Miers have ruled on Obamacare?
The Grubing Gruber’s of climate lies are even worse as they have grown to believe their own “Grubering” aka lies.
Grab your Gruber’s step back 20 paces turn fire at will.
Re Grubering 11/16/2014. Quoting Dr. Gruber:
We just tax the insurance companies. They pass it on [as] higher prices. That offsets the tax we get [formerly called premiums]. It ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.
Gruber isn’t like ordinary American people. He has the last laugh. It takes a Harvard PhD in econ to know that businesses pass taxes on to customers.
And they proposed it and that passed, because the American voter is too stupid to understand the difference. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know call it the stupidity of the American voter, whatever. But basically, that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass. So what does this bill do? This bill takes what I call the spaghetti approach. Which is takes a bunch of ideas that might work and throws them against the wall and we see what sticks.
Dr. Gruber says it passed when the American people voted Aye — on what? On the referendum? When their representatives passed the law without ever reading it? Like Dr. Henry Lee testified for OJ, “something wrong here”.
If we made it explicit that the healthy will pay and the sick people will get money, it would not have passed.
Gruber knows better because without pre-existing conditions, it takes a Harvard doctorate to know that no one is going to buy health insurance before he gets sick. Only an expert can figure out that healthy people pay for the sick! And for the adult children living in the basement. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act without bothering to read it because they never suspected a Harvard econ PhD might sneak an individual mandate into Obamacare.
When is the good professor going to share his expert opinion that Obamacare nationalized the health insurance business, cleverly concealed by claiming to provide health care? When is Gruber going to admit that the premiums were kept to no worse than about double by tripling or quadrupling deductibles? That the deductibles make Obamacare catastrophe insurance? That the outlawing of catastrophe insurance was a cover for putting everyone but Congress on catastrophe insurance? That pulling the wool over the eyes of the public, its representatives, and the mainstream media would be as bad, say, as foisting off a Photoshopped birth certificate as if it were a photocopy. Oh, wait … !
So the President and the EPA are going to regulate CO2 emissions by claiming the climate is warming, and by claiming CO2 is the cause. Two gotchas for the price of one. The people, Grubered again, passed the Referendum. By not turning out, or when they did, by voting conservative, they delivered an overwhelming mandate to stay the course — full left rudder. It’s the 97% consensus. It’s as easy as taking polls.
This way, Occupiers. Solidarity, 99%ers. On two, fists, up. Gruber is with you! Nationalize the energy sector!
I say some of the post herein were OK’d at high levels of the Grubering Cult, and paid Grubers are doing the Grubing herein within now. Not just the climate type, the high paid gofers of the elite cult of tax and spend.
Chief Justice John Robers being told by VP Joe Biden he will rule on:
implanted radiofrequency micro chips, and brain scans to determine tendency to criminal behavior.
http://youtu.be/sUByhFfxvao
Obamacare also includes a Data Hub that unites dozens of state and federal files on every individual with his “health care” profile.
The Data Hub is hackable as well.
So what does the Adminstration have planned for this Christmas Eve? That is the only question.
Wow…You guys are truly amazing. You have completely turned around what Biden was saying by taking it out of the larger context, which was Biden’s concern about the justice having too narrow a view regarding the Constitutional right to privacy. You can read the full transcript here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091300693.html
I’ll give you a few some of the context here:
Joeldshore says (or quotes, it isn’t clear) “Like most Americans, I believe the Constitution recognizes a general right to privacy.”
Forget the “Like most Americans”. You do not speak for most Americans. *I* say the Constitution appoints some duties to the federal government and forbids some practices by the federal government but is completely silent on most “rights”, neither creating nor forbidding human behavior. Each state has a constitution and that is where you’ll find most “statutory rights” and prohibitions.
“I believe a woman’s right to be nationally and vigorously protected exists.”
Whereas I do not believe it. The 14th Amendment would seem to especially forbid making rights just for women since it requires equality of laws.
If it were actually the case that women were to be “nationally and vigorously protected” a good place to start would be to keep them out of harms way — no military service, no law enforcement, firefighting or any other dangerous job.
Biden: “when it should be obvious we need a more energetic national government to deal with the challenges of the new millennium”
What is obvious is that the Left has *always* wished for central government — with Democrats in charge of it. THE challenge of the new millenium is what happens when that national government is seized by the enemy? How did Hitler gain control of Germany? Easy — a central government and he became its chancellor. How did Lenin and Stalin control Russia? Same way. Big central government, dictator on top.
Big government was good for GPS and landing on the moon but it is sorta like having a wolf or a python for a pet — you never know when it is going to turn on you.
Obamacare is over 2,500 pages long and obviously addresses and permits the use of implantable devices for the purpose of medical identification, and there are also ink versions of RFIDs which can be permanently placed on the skin.
Some states have already passed laws that outlaw placing any mark or implantation on its citizens. For example, Wisconsin and North Dakota, I believe. These are real technologies which would work in certain radio frequency bands. These laws outlawing them are a response by states to known threats of imminent uses of these ID chips.
Any upcoming ITU-R (International Telecommunications Union for Radio Communication) regulations would clear the way for these frequencies to be reserved to rfids.
And Obamacare is to be enforced by the IRS, so this does include economic coercion. It is totally stupid to pass a bill that lengthy, which the Legislature did on Christmas Eve.
I ask again, what is the Administration planning for this Christmas Eve, 2014?
Zeke says: “Obamacare is over 2,500 pages long and obviously addresses and permits the use of implantable devices for the purpose of medical identification”
Well, it is not so obvious to me. Could you point me to where in the law it discusses this?
@joeldshore
The appropriate sections deals with Class II devices which are implantable, life sustaining, or life sustaining, and the law says that their will be a national registry of these, for data retrieval.
Veri chip advertisement
IBM “Chekout lines – who needs them?”
IBM advertisement
Try again.
IANAL; however, wondering if Jonathan Gruber runs afoul of 18 US Code §1001 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
Jefferson would be turning in his grave.
Washington, Adams, and Hamilton wouldn’t.
Iraq war 2 and Obamacare come to mind for Grubering… sell sell sell.
I’m surprised they have any soul left after all that selling. Maybe they never had one to begin with. That would explain a lot.
To Zeke above: “Heritage did not invent the individual mandate”
Yes, I understand this and the other points you made.
Romney and Gruber certainly understood this also.
Yes sir.
Question: So you must be a climate denier or skeptic?
Answer: So you are a climate Gruberer and believe in climate Grubering?
Question: What do you mean???
Answer: Go look up Grubering.
Read Plato’s ‘The Republic’, the concept is called the ‘Noble Lie’ and the idea is that the elite have a responsibilty to lie to the ordinary people for the greater benefit of society as a whole. It is not a new idea…
Rape and stealing are not new ideas either. The ends do not justify the means is not a new idea either. The road to hell is paved with good intentions is not new.
Nothing new under the sun does not justify bad behaviour.
Truth should not always be told, it should not be used to hurt people, like telling an unattractive person they are ugly. Lies do not seem to help anyone except those that told the lie as in your example the elite.
When non-elite lie they are scoundrels and prosecuted, when the elite lie, they are heroes and it is for the greater good. Nice to know climate science has globaly and warmly embraced this concept.
Plato hated democracy, and wrote some of the worst invective about it. He preferred a caste system ruled by a philosopher king and a loyal aristocracy. He grieved that slavery was going out of style in Greece.
Plato said that he saw no effective difference between a well trained body guard and a dog.
There are only two systems: caste systems, with an unassailable and unchallengeable uber class, or total equality before the law.
Obamacare has garnished important support by granting waivers.
So it is unlawful for that reason. It creates laws that apply to some but not to all. Congress, unions, and public employees are excepted by waivers.