George Monbiot is probably a pretty nice guy when you get him off the subject of global warming/climate change. Probably.*
Today in the Grauniad he writes yet another article attacking those who dare not to conform, except this time he takes a slightly different angle in that he attacks certain demographics. He also centres the debate upon himself in a wonderful piece of egotism to which I can only tip my godly hat, "My fiercest opponents on global warming".
The main cut and thrust of the article is that he is not a happy bunny with 'the people', who are daring not to believe what they are told on the subject of global warming. In fact he is really rather upset, whilst staring out of the window at his organic rabbits, that the number of dissenters is growing according to a number of surveys. Collective gasp people**.
He goes on to blame, a shocker this, the right wing media and websites, including blogs. Presumably for daring to have free expression and debate. He even says "these books and websites cater to a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs", I know the feeling, although he is obviously not talking about this awesome blog* and its awesome readers*.
Yes, free speech and the ability of doubt are wrong, because the scientific evidence is so strong that only a moron would argue against it. Well, this is an intelligent blog* for intelligent people* and we'll have no morons here. Oh, hang on "Plenty of intelligent people have also declared themselves sceptics", nice little caveat there George m'boy. I quite liked this though:
Had he [Clive James] bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies – climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the other
It's that simple, scientists versus bloggers. Right wing bloggers at that. And the over 65s even more so because that is the age group that dares rise up and say 'Mmmm, really?'. It's okay though, they'll be dead soon and the last of the free thinkers will be gone. That's stupid people, intelligent people and old people. Not many left is there?
His conclusion is along these lines. As we get older we become fearful of death and the evidence of climate change is a reminder of mortality. So the oldies react more and more against the evidence.
Now this is clearly deranged, lefty bollocks*.
The basic human behavioural trait he so easily ignores is that the more control is exerted, the more people rebel. The tighter the fist the more slips through the fingers. That is precisely what is going on* and he simply doesn't get it.
Global warming is a divided subject with many more coming down on the side of it is happening then the other. I myself say it is. But the whole other part of the argument is if it is man-made or not. Some people say it isn't happening and so it cannot be man made, others like myself say it is happening and but it isn't man made. I then wrestle with myself over my views, because that is what you do when you form an opinion.
I have a view. I'm not a climate scientist anymore than I'm a many things, but I have a view all the same. However, I am also not deluded enough to deny that a fair amount of influence on that view is my wish not be told what to do.
I accept many scientific things on evidence that I can readily see but am not an expert on. Such as evolution, or medicines. What these experts, in the main anyway, are not trying to do though is control my very life.
If I choose not to believe in evolution and instead put my faith in an invisible deity that likes leaving cryptic and conflicting messages in various books that it itself does not write, or even update, then I can. I will be told I'm a loon, which I would be*, but my life would carry on. If I decided that cannabis should be Class B and not Class C, I would be a loon and Gordon Brown.
But if I decide that I have some quibbles about who is at fault about the climate, I am attacked and castigated. In fact the people who want me to believe what they believe go beyond debating with me and telling me I'm wrong, which would be fine, they actually force their will upon me. My taxes are changed, my travel is dictated, the very political system is geared against me.
I recycle almost religiously, but I do so because I don't believe in waste and do believe in reusing the resources we already have. I will walk whenever I can rather than get the bus because I don't see the point of getting public transport when I don't have to. I buy fairtrade when I can because I believe in the principle. I turn off every light and plug I'm not using, the only thing I have gas for is the boiler and the house is fully insulated. In fact, thinking about it earlier today, I am possibly the 'greenest' person I know.
But I do not do any of these things from a position of saving the planet because of man made climate change. Something I am very cynical about. I don't even do any of these things because of the taxes or expenses, I do it because I don't like waste or people getting a raw deal.
So people like Monbiot have zero effect on me in terms of how I live my life other than make me incredibly suspicious of their motives for trying to make me do what they want me to do. No doubt I am not the only one*.
So George, get a grip. Open your eyes and understand that the more you tell people to do something, like a child they will do the opposite. It's nothing to do with being old, or being right wing, or being a blogger, or even being a bald Australian ex-pat. It's you and your acolytes taking over every facet of people's lives that makes them suspicious.
*This is an opinion. It is not fact and is not absolute. It is an opinion formed in my mind that is readily open to being debated with. Opinions are good. Opinions are what we need more of in this controlled state. Opinions lead to debate and debate is what leads to resolution and understanding. Now, let's all sing the opinion song...
**This is not an order. Please note the lack of a gun to your head making you gasp. If you wish to gasp as an individual or as a group, please feel free to do so.
14 comments:
Good blog, KB.*
Aside from the 'fair-trade' bit.*
* see blog
Excellent stuff, KB. I can particularly identify with this.
"But I do not do any of these things from a position of saving the planet because of man made climate change. Something I am very cynical about. I don't even do any of these things because of the taxes or expenses, I do it because I don't like waste or people getting a raw deal."
I have found myself being far less assiduous in recent months/years though, for the reasons you point out. Beating me with a climate stick doesn't make me feel enamoured with the whole process, so that chucking a newspaper or bottle in the black bag is a delight after reading pillocks like Monbiot.
Just as the alcohol limits ads make me thirsty, and like I have been known to reach for the Golden V when an NHS quit smoking ad pops up.
AGW is not some academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment.
The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science) is that we should take action to decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.
Let's take a bookie's eye view of the matter.
Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out (unlikely as that may be) that IPCC view is wrong? Well, we will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and renewable energy manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty. Not bad, but that's not all. We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas, and reduced the acidification of the oceans. And addressed our energy security problems. And increased prosperity in hot countries. Not bad, not bad at all.
Say on the other hand, we go the way of the denialists/skeptics, and it turns out, as per all reasonable expectations, that they are wrong? We will have problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, acidified oceans, acid rain, fuel poverty, unemployment, poverty, civil unrest and finally, massive, catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. With massive migration caused by environmental collapse. Not good.
Any sensible punters would put their money on decarbonising the global economy.
Unison membership is in decline.
Sorry, wrong blog.
I hold the opinion that George Monbiot owns too many corduroy jackets...and that he is a dick.
Good post btw.
Fuck me! Someone called the cavalry.
"AGW is not some academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment."
Love the way you gemmied the kiddies in there, Doc.
All valid points, but care to discuss the perverse methods being used by climate change proponents instead of continuing to talk down to those who disagree with you?
As in ...
"Any sensible punters ..."
Because anyone who doesn't agree is less than sensible, yes?
Why don't you just fuck off and think up an inclusive strategy instead of the condescending, dictatorial one you fucknuts currently use.
Which was kinda the point of the article. Or did that escape your arrogant, self-satisfied attention?
{lobs another magazine in the bin}
You're right, Mr Puddlecoat, that was an inflammatory use of the word "sensible". Thank you for pointing it out. I apologise.
I should have said "Investors who wish to make a reasonably safe return on income are advised on balance of the probabilities to invest their money and energy in decarbonising the economy".
Is that acceptable?
Thanks for the comments *blush*
Doc (like the pic btw). Although I completey understand what youare saying and in many ways agree, it is the methods of the movement that are wrong.
I beleive in removing oil from the economy and being sufficient through various home based sources such as nuclear and tidal etc. I am very much pro-hydrogen fuel cell. But I am these things because I don't want to be politically and economically reliant on other states, many of which have their own agendas in the 21st century.
That is the angle to take.
The Green movement is one and the same with the Left, and the tools and methods are the same. That is, state control. X needs to be achieved in this finite time, the only option is to make people do what is needed, much like war.
It is that very methodology, not to mention the tone of the argument, that makes people incredibly suspicious.
I beleive in evolution because a very nice man explained all the facts in a very academic and sensible way. I have issues with the man made aspects of global warming because a complete tosser screams at me in a paper and says that I must believe. People like Monbiot are totally destroying your argument.
I fail to see how increasing the price of fuel with "green" taxes will take anyone OUT of fuel poverty...
Kevin
I am glad to hear that you also wish to decarbonise. There are many reasons to do so, and fuel security, both now and in the future, is a good reason.
"The Green movement is one and the same with the Left, and the tools and methods are the same. That is, state control".
If by Left, you mean a recognition that humans are social animals, then I have to plead guilty as charged. But we are communitarian rather than Statists in our approach to social cooperation.
I cannot answer for George, but I try to stick to bringing argument against argument, rather than against the person. Having said that, I have to admit to having deployed the prostatic argument on my blog.
Perfection eludes humans.
Have a nice day, or if you prefer not to, feel at liberty to have exactly the kind of day you choose.
Boatang and Demetriou warmly welcomes Doc Richard to this site. Thank you for dropping by, and it's great to have intelligent input into discussion from someone who has achieved things in the sphere of the libertarian left.
We want to give air time to all libertarians and we think the libertarian left has been shunted out and left out in the cold by certain hardline wings in blog land...hardliners who seem to think they have a monopoly on the philosophy which is clearly rude, arrogant and dismissive.
Those anarcho-capitalists know who they are.
regards, JD
JD
Thank you for that very kind welcome. I feel a bit flattered.
What achievements were you referring to? I've never thought of myself as having achieved much.
re: political placement, I once asked a friend, a young member of some sub-marxist exclusive groupuscule whether he thought Greens were of the Left.
"Nah. Your'e liberal middle class liberals".
That's how he saw us. Some Libertarians tend to see Greens as part of the Dangerous Left. see some deep socialists as not so much dangerous as ..er..a bit boring.
And so on.
We should all worry less about ideological differences and more about things we agree on.
We have major aims in common.
Civil Liberties (Theft of) for starters.
Democracy, need for radical Parliamentary Reform?
Reassert in Law the Right of Peaceful Assembly?
What else?
Cheers
R
On the other hand DicRichard,
you'll cripple our country paying for 'alternative energy' which is FAR more expensive than coal/gas/oil.
If it was cheaper (and sufficiently reliable) Gorgy wouldn't have to rig markets with climate taxes, would he?
Have you checked out the actual efficiency of wind power in Denmark? The country with loads of windmills, but still needs all its old coal/oil etc to be available when the wind isn't suitable.
And while we're shooting our economic legs off, we're giving money to india and china, who're busy building coal fired stations as quickly as possible. And nuclear subs, and space programs.
With CO2 going up .5% per year (apparently), where's the global warming since '97?
Regarding Plane stupid's plain stupid advert, why is the Polar bear population rising, along with the size and depth of the ice?
So, to summarise, fuck your lefty bullshit (especially carbon allowances) based on fucked climatology (clearly not a science).
Go take a look at the Bishop Hill blog - blind ignorance is not acceptable when you're trying to kill off our economy.
Civil liberties - great, we get to agree on something (though greenies only seem to be _actually_ interested in freedoms they believe in (destruction of property), everyone else's freedom can go fuck itself).
Post a Comment