Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Naomi Klein has claimed that the reason Americans, British, Australians and Canadians are the world’s leading “climate deniers”, is that we share a “frontier mentality”.
According to Klein;
Klein said the denial of climate science was prevalent in English-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, the US and the UK because of a “colonial settler mentality”.
“Countries founded on a powerful frontier mentality have this idea of limitless nature than can be endlessly extracted,” she said.
“Climate change is threatening to that because there are limits and you have to respect those limits. Where that frontier narrative is strongest is where denialism is strongest.
“The rest of Europe has a keener sense of boundaries – they’ve lived against the limits of nature for longer.”
For once Naomi has a point. People who reject climate alarmism, in my experience, tend to be people who think for themselves.
There may be some correlation there, but I can assure you that not all deniers are “rape the earth for all it’s worth” types. Some of us just seek truth. Just because coal is dirty and fracking isn’t without it’s pitfalls, doesn’t mean I’m going to exaggerate the CO2 impact on the environment in order to exert control.
Her comparison of the New World to Europe’s “keener sense of boundaries” reminds me of one of the best monologues in film spoken by James Garner in The Americanization of Emily:
You American-haters bore me to tears, Miss Barham. I’ve dealt with Europeans all my life. I know all about us parvenus from the States who come over here and race around your old cathedral towns with our cameras and Coca-Cola bottles… Brawl in your pubs, paw your women, and act like we own the world. We over-tip. We talk too loud. We think we can buy anything with a Hershey bar.
I’ve had Germans and Italians tell me how politically ingenuous we are. And perhaps so. But we haven’t managed a Hitler or Mussolini yet. I’ve had Frenchmen call me a savage because I only took half an hour for lunch. Hell, Miss Barham, the only reason the French take two hours for lunch is because the service in their restaurants is lousy. The most tedious lot are you British. We crass Americans didn’t introduce war into your little island. This war, Miss Barham, to which we Americans are so insensitive, is the result of 2,000 years of European greed, barbarism, superstition, and stupidity. Don’t blame it on our Coca-Cola bottles. Europe was a going brothel long before we came to town.
In addition to the several good points already made, one factor is probably that the bulk of literature that takes a serious skeptical look at the “science” behind climate alarmism is in English (this blog, for example). That might also explain the Scandinavian countries because of the very high number of fluent English speakers in those countries.
My Sister lives on Ontario and her experience argues against Canada reflecting the views of Tony Abbot: “We are in election Mode over here the election is not until October 19th mean while the radio and newspapers are full of it and the thing is our newspapers are very left wing they drive me crazy We have Justin Trudeau very left wing who is an absolute dimwit one of his famous comments is the budget will balance its self wants to raise taxes on the high income earners and give it to the poor and middle class of course his father was P.M he almost bankrupt Canada, then we have Tom Mulcair who is N.D.P which is extreme left he wants to give all parents $15.00 a day daycare that would bankrupt the country and close down the oil sands these two get all the publicity and our current P.M who is conservative gets hardly any publicity unless the media can find something that they think will harm his chances of re election at which point he is front page and the worst picture of him that they can find of him
The Ontario Provincial government is in so much debt it doesn’t know which way to turn to get more money out of Ontarians They are wasting billions on these bloody windmills and solar panels and the amount of power they produce is negligible but the thing is the liberal government is paying them for energy they are not producing ( correction our hydro bills keep going up to pay for phantom energy ) these windmill have a life span of approx 20 years the cost to take them down will be horrendous and the thing is the farmers that rent out the land will have to pay for the removal the greenies are so bloody stupid all these windmills and solar panel are made from oil by products reckon if you open there heads they would be full of foam
The whole bloody world is going crazy
David, the period is your freind. Use it. ^¿^
I’m not even disagreeing with you, that was just a massive run on double paragraph.
No, it was brilliant and needs no editing.
” Naomi Klein will speak at Melbourne writers festival on 29 and 30 August and the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, Sydney on 5 September.”
Will she able to sail there in time?
At the risk of making a sweeping generalization, she’ll probably take her broom.
Good idea. Easier to grasp at straws.
Now you know its ‘different’ when they do the very thing that attack others for doing .
Urban populations vote democrat and are seeking to have the government, their employer or whomever take care of them. Rural and small town folks not so much. Densly populated areas have climates much more effected by the population than do rural areas. Urban areas are much more propagandized by AGW sources than rural areas such as left wing newspapers, tv and radio. They want gun control, higher minimum wages, open borders, etc because they are told to want them. Global warming alarmism or climate change or whatever it is now called fits their world view. Rural folks, not so much.
You could cut and paste that article into The Onion, and it would be funny. What’s not funny is that idiots like Klein are given serious consideration.
What a surprise! Australia, Canada, the US, and the UK are all countries expected to pay trillions in climate reparations. Why would other countries that expect to receive a windfall from climate change come out openly against the idea?
We are insufficiently subservient to the authority of our betters.
Simple as that.
That’s exactly what King George said about 245 years ago.
Isn´t the human brain amazing, those who have kept the “frontier mentality” has also kept the inquisitiveness alive, whereas those who have wandered off to the “mental frontier” always seems to despise the inquisitive mind of others to the point they have to try belittle them, or do they feel belittled themselves because they have lost their own inquisitive mind and is now no more than an echo chamber.
To paraphrase Ms. Klein: You’ve got to have a hive mentality to buy this load.
An active and fanatical libcultist throwing yet another piece of half-baked pseudo-scientific spaghetti against the wall to see if it will – FINALLY! – Stick.
I suggest you don’t hold your breath, Naomi, waiting for any more of you and your fellow libcultists imaginative musings to have any effect on the little peeps. They are much quicker to see through the various libcult scams than you would ever want to believe.
This is what happens in Russia when they catch ‘charlatans’.
http://tass.ru/en/russia/815065
Russians use the acronym TASS – Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union. They are looking both backward and forward.
USSR = CIS — ( Commie-wealth of Independent Soviets). V. Putin is their Premier.
Sounds like a frustrated authoritarian, and we’ve seen plenty of examples of the fruits of authoritarianism during the twentieth century.
There is a nice German proverb “Maul halten und weiter dienen” – shut up and keep marching. It is not customary in Germany, or Russia, or China, or Japan, to challenge authorities – including IPCC. Ms Klein would never dream of challenging National Socialism.
Individual freedom vs the collective. Sad that the collective is so easily swayed. Ms. Klein should know better.
Talking about the origins of denialism is one of hundreds of ways the believers employ to avoid talking about the fact that they cannot explain why they believe what they believe.
I would suggest further research in non-English speaking locales, like maybe Damascus, Calcutta, Lahore, Dhaka, Quetta, Mecca, and Tripoli. Let us know what you find.
Maybe sceptics are just more able to calculate the human impact on climate change? Given a 3% increase per year and 5% of anthropogenic influence on the global CO2 concentration of 0.04%, a total CO2 emission stop of Germany’s ~3%, for example, would have an impact of just 0.000018%!
That’s why “Warmists” are always fiddling with “Gigatons”, – sounds much bigger than one hundred thousandth of a percentage!
Please correct me,if I’m wrong!
People. Sheeple. Take your pick. The wolves dine on Sheeple.
Personally I don’t think my “colonial settler mentality” is the reason why I distrust the works by IPCC. The reason why I do not trust IPCC is that IPPC operates totally in breach with the modern scientific method; Popper´s empirical method,
Here is the method put simply:
1 A hypothesis is proposed. This is not justified and is tentative.
2 Testable predictions are deduced from the hypothesis and previously accepted statements.
3 We observe whether the predictions are true.
4 If the predictions are false, we conclude the theory is false.
5 If the predictions are true, that doesn’t show the theory is true, or even probably true. All we can say is that the theory has so far passed the tests of it.
Personally, I find the following quotes from “The logic of scientific discovery» by the master mind Karl Popper particularly essential:
—
“A scientist, whether theorist or experimenter, puts forward statements, or systems of statements, and tests them step by step. In the field of the empirical sciences, more particularly, he constructs hypotheses, or systems of theories, and tests them against experience by observation and experiment.”
“The .. empirical method .. stands directly opposed to all attempts to operate with the ideas of inductive logic. It might be described as the theory of the deductive method of testing, or as the view that a hypothesis can only be empirically tested.”
“I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation. In other words: …. it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.”
“it is still impossible, for various reasons, that any theoretical system should ever be conclusively falsified. For it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible”
“the empirical method shall be characterized as a method that excludes precisely those ways of evading falsification which … are logically possible. According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but … exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.”
“All this glaringly contradicts the program of expressing, in terms of a ‘probability of hypotheses’, the degree of reliability which we have to ascribe to a hypothesis in view of supporting or undermining evidence.”
—
Expressing, in terms of a ‘probability of hypotheses’, the degree of reliability to a hypothesis in view of supporting or undermining evidence is exactly what IPCC largely does in their work. They even invented qualitative terms to express level of confidence and degree of agreement. (ref. Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties).
“The degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement» (Contribution from working group I to the fifth assessment report from IPCC.
And they failed to notice the only significant international guideline on quantitative expression of uncertainty. (Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement)
An most important , I see very few sign of deduction and exposure to falsification – in every conceivable way the system to be tested.
“The Logic of Scientific Discovery” It is well worth a read. The first part of the book is easy reading and enlightening on Popper´s empirical method. I think that scientific minds will find it soothing.
( http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf )
—
I wonder which consequences Naomi Klein has deducted from her hypotheses, and how she has tested them. Naomi Klein demonstrates that she is not endorsing the modern scientific method. I also think Naomi Klein has demonstrated that: inductive reasoning is no more scientific than making a baby, it can be more or less sophisticated – but it isn´t science.
Unfortunately, for Warren, the “conclusions of Science” are subject to “change”. Too damn funny, it’s (the change) almost certain.
Sail on, Captain Obvious.
Since about 1990 I would hazard the UK to be a principle center for Climate Alarmism.
However, ‘Frontier’ is a term used in this ‘paper’ as a pejorative. If we consider the the Roman Optimum times, then certainly UK (and all mentioned, even most of Europe, are ‘Frontier’). If we consider Ethiopia at about 2.4 million years ago, then all of Eurasia, the Americas and Polynesia are ‘Frontier’.
So the point of the ‘paper’ is to ‘put-down’ non-Europeans, making Europeans the preferred racial distinction of high value.
Welcome to the 21st Century Race War.
Ha ha
Well yes Europeans aren’t immune to nationality or race baiting. The European media and the left American media has been telling Europeans they are enlightened compared to Americans for a while now. You will notice that this will be added with Americans are stupid or our politics are outdated. This is the same as the bait minority races inside the US itself. it has worked for the most part to promote socialism.. that is why they continue it. it has very little basis in reality.
When the hell did the UK become ‘frontier’?
Back when the Celts inhabited Great Britain?
When did the UK become ‘frontier’? During the Roman warm period, I guess – about the time Hadrian’s Wall was built. If NK lived then, she would no doubt be telling the Emperor to curb the emissions from burning out the locals. But then, the Roman warming didn’t last ‘coz climate change intervened….
“The rest of Europe has a keener sense of boundaries – they’ve lived against the limits of nature for longer.”
Maybe the rest of Europe can come up with a Schlieffen Plan or Maginot Line to defend themselves against Climate Change AKA AGW?