On 20th May, 2009, Monbiot had an article at Guardian Environment entitled Price of doing nothing costs the earth with the sub heading
MIT scientists forecast a global temperature rise of 5.2o C by 2100 – but climate change deniers reject models devised by the world’s finest minds. So what do they suggest instead… seaweed?
Here are comments number 11 -15
Hamlet4 (20 May 2009 2:10PM
@George
Thats not science – its a computer model trying and failing to describe a immensely complicated chaotic system. Please read up on the butterfly theory to find out HOW wrong such models can be over time. The 90 % confidence levels for forecasts over 90 years is simply absurd. Rubbish in – Rubbish out.
Hamlet4 (20 May 2009 2:18PM)@Monbiot
OK, all those of you who reject modelling, answer the question: what would you use instead?
nr 1 – How about using your brain, not your political belief system.
nr 2 – Try and build models that explain the present stagnation in temperature, sea-level rise and increase in ice-extent, instead of just pretending its not happening.
nr 3 – Emphasize the limitations of such models, instead of using them trying to create fear and thereby grants.
scunnered52 (20 May 2009 2:29PM)
George the only person you are scaring is your self. All climate model projections are currently in serious error because they over-estimate “climate sensitivity”; and that’s due in main to what the modellers don’t know. I would recommend you undertake to create your own climate model. Here is DIY course on how to do so…
geoffchambers (20 May 2009 2:38PM)
At the end of the article … is this:
“This work was supported in part by grants from … foundation sponsors of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change”.
And who are these industrial sponsors? Why, Exxon, BP, Shell, Total, among others. This is research funded by Big Oil money. Can this be right?
Monbiot (20 May 2009 2:44PM)
Hamelt4: [sic]
You appear to be suggesting that the MIT team is guided by political beliefs and is using this model to create fear and harvest grants. Perhaps you would care to provide some evidence?
Monbiot denied the accusation that the models were used to “create fear and thereby grants” but deflected Hamlet4’s demand to Monbiot to “us[e] your brain, not your political belief system” onto the MIT group, which Hamlet4 hadn’t mentioned (though I had). Clearly, Monbiot was rattled, because 11 minutes later, he was back with this comment:
Monbiot (20 May 2009 2:55PM)
scunnered52:
Of all the posters on these threads, you are the one who looks to me most like an astroturfer: in other words someone posing as an independent citizen while being paid by organisations which have an interest in the outcome. Is my suspicion correct? How about providing a verifiable identity to lay this concern to rest?
Now look at scunnered52’s intelligent comment above and try to spot why Monbiot should accuse him of being an astroturfer. Odd, isn’t it?
Half an hour later, a puzzled Hamlet4 replied to Monbiot’s non sequitur of a question, with a comment that finished:
Try and THINK Monbiot – do you really believe that these models are producing accurate descriptions of our climate 90 years from now ???.
scunnered52 and Hamlet4 then disappeared, and I went off on another tack:
geoffchambers (20 May 2009 3:35PM)
George asks whether we should use computer models or seaweed for predicting future climate change. Research conducted by the International Institute of Forecasters on the accuracy of forecasting suggests that predictions made by the general public are usually more accurate than those made by experts. This is because the man in the street tends to believe things will probably continue much as they have in the past, while your expert tends to follow the spaghetti off the edge of his graphs into the wide blue yonder. So the correct answer is: seaweed.
I then came back to the subject of research financed by Big Oil:
geoffchambers (20 May 2009 4:36PM)
thesnufkin at 4.10pm complains we denialists are giving him nothing to get his teeth into. How about this? Monbiot’s new estimate for temperature rise in 2100 comes from what he describes as “the world’s most sophisticated models devised by the world’s finest minds”. And who are these world’s finest minds? They’re the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Their site lists them all in democratic alphabetical order. Most of them are foreign exchange students in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Urban Planning, Engineering etc. Bright people Im sure, but when it comes to forecasting “the end of life as we know it”, (George’s expression) no more reliable than your average Jehovah’s Witness. And they are financed by Exxon, Shell, Total and BP – which is fine by me, but I wonder what George thinks about it?
geoffchambers (20 May 2009 10:28PM)
Filster at 10.04pm is still attacking the fossil fuel lobby, while Monbiot has moved on. The source for the alarmist prediction in this article is research financed by precisely the fossil fuel lobby which Monbiot so often decries. See the last paragraph of the MIT News article to which Monbiot links for special thanks to Exxon, Shell, BP and Total.
By next day the discussion had moved on to discussion of Mann and the attitude of the Chinese. Then gpwayne, (whose interventions have been retroactively graced with a “C for Contributor” since an article he recently wrote for the Guardian) joined in:
gpwayne (21 May 2009 5:59AM)
What fucking rubbish Geoff. You should be ashamed of yourself for writing such childish, stupid crap.
Apparently I was blogging under moderation at this time, because in my reply to gpwayne is this:
geoffchambers (21 May 2009 9:08AM
Hi. Nice to hear from you again. I’ve been away, under moderation for insulting Guardian readers, and sneaking in a couple of words in Chinese to a comment.
I’m surprised you didn’t know about Mann’s censored data file. It’s been much discussed by McIntyre and others, though possibly not on Guardian Environment.
I admire your reasoning: if the Chinese believe it, it must be true. I suppose the appeal to authority works best if the authorities you are appealing to are themselves authoritarian.
Don’t feel you have to reply. Blogging under moderation is like breakdancing with a ball and chain round your ankle, or arguing with a heavy stutter.
I tried to interest my interlocutors in Monbiot’s newfound enthusiasm for research financed by Big Oil, to no avail:
geoffchambers (21 May 2009 10:08AM)
thesnufkin at 9.37am asks what was in Mann’s file marked censored data. Peer reviewed tree-ring data, stalactite data, Finnish varves, I expect. But it wouldnt matter if it was full of old socks, would it? The point is he inadvertently handed a file named Censored Data to McIntyre. It’s not a conspiracy theory, simply an odd fact. Like the fact that Monbiot is expressing absolute faith in the results of research financed by Exxon.
geoffchambers (21 May 2009 10:57AM)
to gpwayne at 10.19am. You ask why China does this and that. How would I know? It all looks like perfectly sensible international diplomacy to me. You dont see the Chinese ambassador to the Vatican lecturing the Pope on dialectical materialism, but that doesnt mean that Beijing has gone Catholic.
And why ask me who censored Mann’s data? No-one. Its just the name on a file which Mann inadvertently sent to McIntyre. Read about it at ClimateAudit if youre interested.
While we are in rhetorical question mode, what do you think about Monbiot’s newfound faith in research funded by Exxon?
And just at this point, 20 hours after his last intervention, Monbiot turned up. So what did he think about China’s environmental policy, Mann’s censored file, or Exxon’s financing of his favourite alarmist climate model? Nothing.
Monbiot (21 May 2009 11:01AM)
Still no response from scunnered52. Interesting.
I got one decent response to my question though:
thesnufkin (21 May 2009 11:04AM)
If the work is sound it doesn’t matter who pays. The Renaissance was largely funded by the Borgias, but the art was still good.
I tried again:
geoffchambers (21 May 2009 11:43AM)
Since Monbiot has turned up, perhaps he would like to say how he feels about plugging data from research funded by Exxon?
But Monbiot was gone, never to be seen again on this thread. But the fun wasn’t over:
thesnufkin (21 May 2009 12:03PM)
scunnered52 has turned up!
And indeed, the blogger Monbiot had accused, without the slightest evidence, of being an astroturfer, had been busy at another part of Guardian environment, posting six times at :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/may/19/vaclav-klaus
The last five posts followed Monbiot’s accusation. Two have been deleted. Another two repeat, with different examples and links, the basic message of his first comment, which was posted before the comment which provoked Monbiot’s unfounded accusation:
scunnered52 (20 May 2009 10:22AM)
Who benefits from Cap-and-Trade? In the US it has been calculated that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program could generate up to $300 billion a year in PROFITS! With so much money at stake it is little wonder that those advocating eco-business attack sceptics. The Greens are just as greedy as you average oil billionaire.
Having spotted scunnered52’s reappearance on the Vaclav Klaus thread, thesnufkin piled in:
thesnufkin (21 May 2009 12:01PM)
scunnered52 Do you fancy replying to george monbiot’s allegation that you’re just an astroturfer? We’re all waiting.
scunnered52 (21 May 2009 1:01PM)
Did I actually get under old George’s skin that much … and I didn’t even know. LOL. Yes, my secret is out I am astroturfer – sponsored by Neeps&Tatties – a duplicitous grassroots organisation that acts as front for a secret group of empiricalists who have invested heavily in plastic macs and thermal long-johns. It is not in our interests to have people believe in global warming.
I’ve said too much already, but I trust you Snufkin not to pass this information on.
scunnered52’s next two comments have been deleted but he comes back one last time to denounce green greed.
scunnered52 (22 May 2009 9:30AM)
Climate Alarmism = BIG Profits. Knowing that relationship helps you understand the motives of Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, Exxon, etc. Monbiot and company are just serving the vested interests of corporations. The Greens are just as greedy as your average billionaire.
So Monbiot, was accusing a sceptic commenter, who had already denounced the involvement of big business and oil billionaires in climate change policy, of being paid by big business.
Scunnered52 continued commenting wittily on climate matters until August 2009, when his comments stop. His user page is still up, indicating that he has not been banned.
Meanwhile, I had transferred my questioning of the morality of praising research funded by Big Oil to the Vaclav Klaus article, where Environment Editor John Vidal had been criticising Klaus’s sceptical book because it was financed by Exxon
geoffchambers (21 May 2009 5:10PM)
No answer to my question about big oil money, so I’ll rephrase it and try again:
Why is it ok for Vidal and Monbiot to quote approvingly from research funded by Exxon, but not ok for President Klaus to have his book sponsored by a think tank funded by Exxon?
No answer from Vidal, but thesnufkin replied, and I responded:
geoffchambers (21 May 2009 10:37PM)
to thesnufkin at 10.17pm
..which comes down to: “it’s ok for Exxon to fund good stuff, but not bad stuff”.
I can accept that, but the problem is, John Vidal can’t, because his whole article hinges on the argument: “if its funded by Exxon, it must be suspect”. Which is quite amusing, given that back in March he was praising the same Exxon-funded research which Monbiot attributes to the world’s finest minds…
Some other good sceptics joined in, including our own BobFJ, and the thread came to the usual unsatisfactory conclusion. Which is where the matter rested, until Monbiot reopened the debate on astroturfing a few months later with an article on the need for censorship at CiF.
At least this story demonstrates that Monbiot and Vidal don’t always have things their own way at CiF, and we commenters may sometimes influence policy at Guardian Environment.
The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change were introduced to Guardian readers in March 2009 with three fanfare articles – one by themselves, one by Vidal, and one by Monbiot. They were described proudly as members of the Guardian Environment Network. They were next quoted in the May 2009 article analysed above. They haven’t been heard of since.
TonyB and geoffchambers
I see that TonyB has supplied another link to the same NIPCC report I cited.
Sorry for repetition.
Max
Hi Max
Thanks for the extra links, as I say a lot of the Heartland material is very good. However I very rarely see anyone referencing it?
Is it the source? Is it the way it is laid out? Has it not been marketed very well?
tonyb
Max
I clicked on the goopgle source you linked to and then clicked on sea levels. He makes exactly the same comments as we have-so he must be right :) Overall, its a very good piece
It reinforces my earlier point that a great deal of the material is already out there, it needs to be sourced and promoted in an appropriate manner minus any emotive language (sorry Max, I won’t be offering you the lead author post :) )
Now, we can point out this stuff to Peter until we are blue in the face, but if he refuses to even read it let alone pass any intelligent comment, it makes it difficult to have any impact on such closed minds as his.
This is why I think the target audience needs to be selected and we don’t try to convert those who don’t intend to be converted even if a glacier should flatten their house.
Tonyb
TonyB
Speaking of “glaciers flattening houses”, the snow line is still moving down the mountains around us and is getting perilously close at less than 1000 meters elevation.
Skiers will be delighted with this early onset of winter, but serious climatologists, such as Peter, will fret that this is yet another warning signal that we are approaching tipping points, which will lead to irreversible deleterious changes in our climate system resulting in extinction of species and serious changes for human society, unless we immediately submit to a global carbon tax.
Max
TonyB
You ask why the NIPCC report has not gotten the PR and MSM ballyhooing that it’s predecessor, the IPCC AR4 report did.
It has nothing to do with the “science” of either.
Can it be TonyN’s “convenient network” and several tens of billions of dollars at work?
Or can it be the lack of a trillion dollar potential carbon tax in the offing?
I’d say it’s real simple: follow the money trail.
Max
Max
Of course I agree that the IPCC report has been ‘marketed’ better. However that doesnt explain why sceptics haven’t used the NIPCC report to counter the IPCC claims when blogging.
tonyb
The Heartland Institute is perceived to be a bunch of right wing American loonies. Credibility – zero.
E Smith
Credibility = zero (at least in the UK or, let’s say, outside North America)
What the “credibility” is in its home market may be another story.
At any rate the NIPCC report (which was not written by, but only “published” by Heartland) is well written and research as far as the “science” is concerned.
Max
E Smith and Max
i agree that Heartland has very little credibility outside of its Heart land. Its a shame that the NIPCC are so closely asociated with them because its undoubtedly a good report.
However I have yet to hear from anyone who has actually linked to them. I don’t because of this association.
tonyb
I’m Spartacus !
See the many videos, and political comment, and a link to the NIPCC 2009 Report, at this website:
! The Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science !
! Where Hokum Climate Science is exposed as Fraudulent !
Tonyb #48
Your outline of how the site would be set up is very impressive, but I repeat that a non-scientist like me would be of little use. I can spot logical nonsense in some of the warmist stuff, but there is no way that I could judge the quality of scientific articles. No doubt there are many here and at Bishop Hill who could, since the comments threads are teeming with engineers and scientists. I’m sure articles on the relevant blogs detailing what the site would do, and how it would differ from other sites, would elicit a lot of interest.
I do agree about keeping out unnecessary controversial statements. I have no idea of the quality of Monckton’s science, but his hectoring tone and the embarassing quotes he’s provided for Monbiot and others make him a bit of a liability to the sceptic cause.
My ideal would be something like an expanded version of Joanne Nova’s Skeptic’s Handbook, but that’”s not exactly serious peer-reviewed stuff, at least in its presentation.
Geoff #61
I would be interested in your thoughts on the NIPCC link and whether or not you ever use it-if not why not. Its a good piece of work but I think its credibility is fatally flawed by its origins. I wonder what Brute thinks?
For this reason I think people such as Monckton-who undoubtedly does some good things-needs to be kept at arms length.
tonyb
Tonyb #62
No I haven’t read the NIPCC report, though I looked at it when it first came out. It’s obviously serious and authoritative, and in a normal world, any environmental journalist would consult it along with the IPCC report, compare and contrast, and come to his own conclusions.
(In marketing terms, the PDF format is a nuisance, since you can’t cut and paste or bookmark easily, as you can with blog articles).
I don’t agree that its credibility is fatally flawed by its origins. To accept that would be to accept Monbiot’s logic that anything published by Heartland must be wrong because of their support for passive smoking research; Monckton must be wrong because he once told a fib about being a member of the House of Lords; and Bellamy must be wrong because he’s old and has a straggly beard. I find Monckton embarrassing because he’s obstreperous, which gives the likes of Monbiot a handy stick to beat us with, but if his science is good, bring him on.
I find the subject of what we sceptics read and believe, and why, very interesting. I wonder whether it deserves its own thread, or is best discussed off-line. I’ll ask TonyN to pass on my email address, since I lost yours and changed mine when my computer bust.
@geoffchambers – you remarked
Geoff, there is an HTML version index here:
http://www.heartland.org/ClimateChangeReconsidered/aboutReport.html
See the chapters list at the left hand side.
Click each link to see a Chapter Summary, where useful text can be copied and pasted in the usual manner. Each sub-section is however still in .PDF format. Still you can copy text from PDF files, by highlight and do [Ctrl-C] method. This clipboarded text can then be pasted in the usual manner.
—-
Actually Monckton’s father, Lord Gilbert, regularly attended the House of Lords, having succeeded to the Viscountcy in 1965, speaking on rural affairs and the armed forces, and indeed Lord Christopher did inherit the family peerage in 2006, however due to reform of the House of Lords, only a small proportion of hereditary peers can now sit, and are subject to election by ballot from among their numbers. At this moment in time, Lord Monckton is elegible to stand, but was unsucessful last time in being elected. So then it is not so straightforward as his detractors would have us all believe.
—-
Monckton in fact is a qualified and practised statistical analyst and mathematician, though he spent a good many years as a journalist. He is the inventor of the formidable “Eternity Puzzle”, and has a number of patents under his belt. It is a fact that he did act in his professional analytical capacity for former British PM, Margaret Thatcher, and has researched the entire subject of Climate Change Alarmism in great depth.
His practically photographic memory and almost perfect recall, enables him to speak with disturbing authority (for the alarmists), on so many varied subjects. What individuals don’t always realise however, is that he is quoting from peer-reviewed scientific papers that he has read and committed to memory, and not only that but he fully understands the workings of the complex scientific and mathematical formulae contained therein.
As Monckton himself usually says, check these facts for yourselves, and usually gives a reference for people to do so.
See also the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, for which Monckton acts in an official capacity, and where his written dissertations, and many other things can also be found (in HTML & PDF formats)….
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
In many ways that website is better for general reading and quotes, and the “Climate Change Reconsidered” Book, PDF, or whatever should probably be considered as a detailed scientific reference manual.
8)
Geoffchambers
The ‘who do we trust’ as related to people organisations and information would make an interestng thread and be very revealing.
I agree about the pdf format which certainly limits the best use of the NIPCC document.
Its good stuff but Heartland has no resonance with me as a source, not because of Tobacco or anything its just an organisation I feel uncomfortable with. By association the NIPCC also becomes flawed goods.
I think Monvkton has good science but limited credibility and again I feel unconfortable with him as a spokesperson. This would all be good stuff for a thread as I think it would be useful to know who ‘we’ and the ‘other’ side would respond to.
tonyb
Thanks Axel #64 for those links. Apologies if I was unfair to Monckton. The fact that Monbiot repeats his charges against Monckton every chance he gets leads me to believe some must be true, otherwise Monckton would have issued a writ. Frankly, I don’t care. It’s a tactic Monbiot uses with everyone in order to avoid discussing the science.
The SPPI site is much better organised than the last time I looked at it, and I shall explore it in detail.
Is Monbiot any more of a “climate scientist” than Monckton?
I hardly believe so.
Max
Monckton is far more knowlegable on climate change than Monbiot. Unfortunately Monckton has a rather patronising manner which doesn’t come over too well on TV or radio but apparently he is sensational when giving a lecture.
Monbiot was on TV earlier this week and I’m afraid he just comes over as a self satisfied pompous prig who doesn’t know half as much as he thinks he does.
Whatever side of the fence I was on I wouldn’t want either to be my spokesman.
Having said that, climate science seems to attract a bunch of misfits. I wouldn’t trust Al Gore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones or James Hansen as far as I could throw them.
On our side you could add Lawson to Monckton as people who could irritate for England.
Strange that this branch of science seems to attract few genuinely charismatic people- I suppose academia and show business dont mix very well. The only one I’ve seen who had charisma and show business skills was Dr Ian Stewart who hosted the BBC’s ‘Climate wars.’ He was very much a warmist but a nice person.
tonyb
Tonyb I met and chatted to Monckton for 40 minutes or so before Ian Plimers Spectator Lecture. I found him genuine and very helpful. His knowledge was encyclopaedic. He didn’t mind us asking all sorts of questions and didn’t come across the way he appears on television. Certainly his public appearances are all show. My view is that we should be grateful that he is able to do what he does and concentrate on the content.
I’m an engineer and very used to giving direct answers to questions. This doesn’t always please the questioner. It’s well known that the most successful engineers call a spade a spade and don’t suffer fools. They are more often than not difficult and tetchy for their managers to handle and I’m no eception. It’s the nature of the beast. It’s why we have PR people and politicians. Unfortunately in our media savvy world we are pushing aside those with knowledge in favour of those with presentation. Those with knowledge often overcompensate and come over grating some people’s sensibilities. Maybe to some Monckton is one such person.
Monbiot however is not knowledgeable in the same way as Monckton so we find him odious for pretending to be so. I’m not sure I share your views on Nigel Lawson. Again he comes over as someone with bundles of knowledge and we should concentrate more on the content. But I would say that as I’m an engineer
E Smith says:
October 21st, 2010 at 12:00 pm
.The Heartland Institute is perceived to be a bunch of right wing American loonies. Credibility – zero.
I’m not sure one should judge a book by the perceptions of its publisher. (Nor a conference by the perceptions of its sponsor, for that matter!)
Consider the case of Prof. Richard J. Evans, Cambridge historian and an expert witness at the 2000 “Irving vs Penguin Books & Deborah Lipstadt” libel trial (see http://www.hdot.org for details)
After the trial (which Irving spectacularly lost), Evans published much of his research in a book: “Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial”. The publisher on my side of the pond (I’m Canadian, eh?!) was “Basic Books”.
But, as Richard Cohen reported in the Guardian, Evans had trouble getting published in his home and native land:
“If it had been left to the mainstream, the British would never have been able to read Evans’s learned and compelling account of the scandal which was freely available in the rest of the world. Fortunately, Verso, a tiny house run by Tariq Ali and other old Trots, stepped in. It will do what Heinemann should have done 18 months ago and publish the damn thing.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jun/16/politicalcolumnists.comment1
And while I’m here … O/T but I believe of inerest, readers may want to consider:
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/move-over-ipcc-here-comes-ipbes/
and
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/of-cops-mops-and-a-global-battle-of-duelling-doomsayers/
hro001
As it happens I read that book and it had the incredible effect of turning me into a holocaust sceptic. I picked it up from the library on some holocaust anniversary having had no previous interest in the subject. Evans was paid a lot of money to give evidence at the trial.
It is worth remembering that back in the days of intellectual freedom, left wing Jewish intellectal Noam Chomsky was a holocaust denier. That is the prtoblem today, academics cannot express a contrary opinion (eg. climate).
I no longer take an interest in the subject because it is full of nasty right wing scum like Irving. My anti nazi qualifications are clear from my own website.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/greennazis.htm
Alan Dershowitz
He also tried to dispute the fact that he had authorized an essay he had written in defense of Robert Faurisson to be used as the forward to Faurisson’s book about Holocaust denial, but again had to back down. Chomsky took the position that he had no interest in revisionist literature before Faurisson had written the book. When confronted by Robert Nozick, a distinguished philosophy professor who recalled discussing revisionist literature with him well before the Faurisson book, Chomsky first berated Nozick for disclosing a private conversation and then he shoved him contemptuously in front of numerous witnesses.
http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N25/col25dersh.25c.html
E Smith says:
October 23rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm
My understanding of the legal/justice system is that expert witnesses (of which Evans was the primary one for the defense) are not expected to write their reports out of the goodness of their hearts! IOW it is common practice that they be suitably compensated for their work. In this instance, Evans conducted two years of research in preparing his evidence submitted at the trial.
I’m not sure why or how the validity of Evans’ findings regarding Irving’s pseudo-historical claptrap should be called into question.
And don’t forget it was Irving who was attempting to silence Lipstadt, a critic of his work. Not vice versa. Consequently I’m not sure that your analogy to climate actually holds.
As for Chomsky … well, I’ve never counted myself amongst his fans. He’s not an historian; his area of expertise is linguistics. The expression “shoemaker, stick to thy lathe” comes to mind whenever I’ve encountered his rhetoric.
E Smith,
I now think that you may have bee right when you wrote “Paganism was the adopted religion of Nazi Germany ”
Apparently, the song “Gimme that old time religion” was of German origin and first sung to the tune of the Horst Wessel Song.
The first lines went I believe. “Gimme that old time religion … if it was good enough for Wodin, it is good enough for me”.
ESmith
Surely the first rule of discussion is to try and gauge the effect of what you say on others. I’ve read the same Monbiot articles as you, seen the same questioning of democracy and free speech coming from academics and intellectuals, the same semi-veiled threats from commenters at CiF, and the same photos of smiling brainwashed schoolkids in identical green t-shirts chanting green slogans on green blogs. The conclusions one can draw are obvious. This phenomenon requires careful analysis and discussion. Calling people fascists simply halts discussion in its tracks. Your careful accumulation of evidence would be invaluable in such a discussion.
I don’t understand the relevace of the Chomsky – Faurisson – Dershowitz controversy.
ESmith,
It does sound like good advice “to try and gauge the effect of what you say on others.” But sometimes. I must admit, I just think “what a dic**ead” and just wind the guy up!
All,
You might want to be careful when trying to engage in constructive dialogue with a primary school teacher. OK – she’s got the kids to colour in pictures of the Empire State Building or the Houses of Parliament half submerged with rising seas. Or maybe its a few starving polar bears stranded on ever dwindling ice floes but is calling her an “ecofascist” going to get you anywhere?
I seem to remember being told that in Medieval times, in cities like London, it was quite usual for occupants of households to empty their personal waste into the streets. It probably paid to keep as far away from open windows as possible.
I can imagine that when some Medieval environmentalist type would have perhaps suggested that the City Government should build sewers and channel the waste out to sea in a slightly more hygenic fashion he might have been told that he too was an ecofascist! Or that he had some vested interest in picking up Government contracts and so line his pockets. Or, that it was all a scam to allow the city burghers to impose yet higher taxes on the already overtaxed occupants of the city and, anyway, there was absolutely no proof that turds in the street were any sort of health risk whatsoever.
The scientists of the day would perhaps have noticed a correlation between deaths from cholera and the depth of the shit in the streets! But our sceptic would have argued that there might have been at one time but it had reached a peak in 1598 and although the depth of waste had continued to increase, deaths had actually fallen slightly over the next decade, which would have proved conclusively that the two were totally unrelated.
Our medieval sceptic may have gone on to say that this was all the thin end of the wedge and that, if this was all allowed to go ahead, there would come a time when people wouldn’t be allowed to spit on the floor, or have smokey chimneys, or sell meat which had more than a permissible number of maggots to the pound. I doubt he’d have ever foreseen that we would have ever have to follow our dogs around with plastic bags over our hands, or not be allowed to smoke in pubs!