Bishop Hill Watermelons
Feb 16, 2012 Books Climate: Sceptics 
I try to keep anger out of my writing as much as possible - my USP is slightly detached, slightly amused, try to be civil. (That said, it's hard not to slip into angry mode occasionally, and there are still some moments of fury in the draft of the new book that may or may not make the final cut.)
James Delingpole isn't like me. His USP is angry; furious; appalled, disgusted, but he does it in such a funny way that you really have to be very green not to be amused by his way with words.
In his new book, Watermelons, he asks us to:
Imagine that organic food, sustainability, biofuels and the WWF were far more harmful to the world and its inhabitants than GM food, industry, oil and Exxon Mobil...
This is a provocative argument, to the extent that it contradicts much received wisdom, but there is surely a strong case to be made that Delingpole is not mistaken. (More on this later today).
The watermelons hypothesis is not without its detractors, even on the sceptic side of the global warming debate - Ben Pile in particular has pointed to Margaret Thatcher's involvement in the early days of the global warming scare as falsifying the idea, and also observes that the debate does not divide on left-right lines. I see his point, but I must say that my observations of environmentalists suggests that left-wing ideology is an important factor in many greens' thinking.
Watermelons will give a you a feel for some of this and will also take you on a rip-roaring ride through Climategate in Delingpole's inimitable style. Oh yes, and you'll have fun on the way.
Reader Comments (72)
Morpork. A couple of points. I hope that I'm not posting too much here.
On the establishment of the IPCC, I don't think we should ignore the international context. The drive for supranational institutions to deal with environmental issues had already begun. Another female European PM -- Gro Harlem Brundtland -- wrote her report Our Common Future for the UN World Commission on Environment and Development between '83-7, which outlines the concept of 'sustainability'. If you look at Thatcher's speech to the Royal Society in '88, she refers to, and supports the Brundtland report's findings: "The Government espouses the concept of sustainable economic development". Thatcher was not naive about what supranational environmental politics was about -- we know that Tickell had been badgering her about them. Perhaps, with time, she may have come to see what it was about, and said 'No. No. No', to it, too. But that is not the point.
I am not interested in Thatcher-bashing (nor Thatcher worship). I don't care for speculation about her character, counter-factuals, her changes of mind, or whodunnits. What is interesting is why governments throughout the west, social-democratic left and moderate conservative, as well as radical movements across the spectrum, simultaneously began to embrace this form of politics, and being completely incapable of challenging it. It wasn't just Thatcher, and it wasn't as if the world was at her command. I don't think that can be explained easily, in terms of 'scientific evidence', the role of individual politicians, or simple political categories. How did this consensus form?
You mention post-normal science in passing. Let me try a similar idea. What about post-normal politics? Post-normal science applies when "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent". Ditto, we can see that the alarmist political argument makes the same claims -- especially at the time in question. Facts were uncertain, which explains the role of the precautionary principle. The stakes were certainly alleged to be high, and decisions urgent - hence there was a drive to establish an international response to locate the evidence and form an agreement about policies. But aren't those sorts of claims the ones that demand that we abandon normal politics -- where we get to interrogate the ideas that inform policy-making, and chose? My argument is that the suspension of normal politics suited all establishment politicians of the era, left, right and centre. They had lost contact with the public. They sought institutions above democracy, not as part of some conspiracy, or sympathy with the left, but because there was nowhere else for them to go.
Russell (not Bertrand) on mathematical topology @Feb 16, 2012 at 5:09 PM –
When Euler published his paper on the solution of the Konigsberg bridge problem it was apparent he knew he was dealing with a different type of geometry where distance was not relevant.
This is generally considered to mark the foundation of geometric topology where mathematics was freed from being a subject about measurement.
Climate Science has a lot in common – it’s about the models and not the measurements (especially if they don’t conform).
Cosmic - I think I'd pretty much agree with that, apart from it being economically right. You see you are slipping into it now. I see nothing economically or otherwise right, about government mandated bogus demand, companies which are effectively part of the state, and privatised profits and socialised losses.
It's interesting that putative left and right alike made the same point about the socialisation of risk and privatisation of profit. I think it's managerialism: it's merely trying to avoid crisis. It can't be truly liberal (in the real sense of the word) and let the banks crash. And yet it can't fully intervene. Ultimately, the managerialists need to sustain the possibility of crisis -- it is their raison d'etre. As I said; it's a compromise, and a point of departure from the politics of the previous era.
I still maintain that environmentalism is a thing which appeals naturally to the left, requiring a big state solution and removing choice.
Was the right always synonymous with choice? Or with tradition, as per in the Assembly? Perhaps the right is not synonymous with 'conservatism'. Marx said that "The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." It certainly seems that the left wasn't always big on the state. I don't think that there's anything 'naturally' appealing to the historical left, or right about the state. Their relationships with the state are, shall we say, 'promiscuous', if they are tangible categories. Maybe it's a case of love-hate.
Damn. I didn't want to get into a debate about the watermelon theory.
Ben Pile said:
You mention post-normal science in passing. Let me try a similar idea. What about post-normal politics? Post-normal science applies when "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent". Ditto, we can see that the alarmist political argument makes the same claims -- especially at the time in question. Facts were uncertain, which explains the role of the precautionary principle. The stakes were certainly alleged to be high, and decisions urgent - hence there was a drive to establish an international response to locate the evidence and form an agreement about policies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trouble is, there is no such thing as 'post normal science' - there is only science. Similarly, there is no 'post normal politics' - just politics.
The hubris of contemporary scientists who claim that we are the first generation to face potentially dangerous situations where there is uncertainty and stakes are high is ludicrous. Arguably, almost every previous generation had less to work with in this regard, when faced with wars, epidemics, natural disasters, famine etc. The same goes for politicians.
Dressing up political decisions by saying they are based on 'post normal science', or vice versa, is just sloppy thinking and/or ex post facto justification. This line of argument should be hunted down and killed at every opportunity.
It is perfectly reasonable to say that in the absence of perfect knowledge (ie always) a judgement call is being made. But the prostitution of science and its conflation with politics should be called out for what it is.
Ben,
It offends the sensibilities of both. The left dislike personal profit and the right more or less take the stance that you should stand or fall by your merits. It all smacks of the worst of all worlds.
The left was certainly not always big on the state as in the early days there were few differences between the anarchists and the Marxists but as things developed the Marxists had the more applicable view which rapidly became authoritarian and divorced from principles. The USSR wasn't really communist or a worker's paradise. However, as it's developed, the left are generally big on the state.
As for the Right, you have to distinguish between UK Conservatism (of which Ma Thatcher was a radical departure) and a radical right wing view which is perfectly happy to see people come to grief in all sorts of ways if they have no more sense. I'd say Conservatism was not opposed to the views of the Labour Party but wanted to see them imposed with safeguards for their own. This was more or less managed as the two came together.
And anyway the Right can be defined in many ways, for instance I don't see US Christian fundamentalists as right wing so much as conservative and disturbingly irrational, although often sound on many particular points. Nationalism isn't necessarily right wing either. The right is even more loosely defined than the left.
Yes, I think we are drifting off into a new sort of politics or non-politics without realising it, and I think it's very dangerous. It seems to me that it's not likely to be like Star Trek world where earthly politics is a sorted process which is so smoothly running it hardly deserves mention and we have to boldly go to other bits of the universe for a bit of fun. It's more likely to be something completely unworkable where we go back to an earlier age and are forced to relearn lessons.
Ben,
It offends the sensibilities of both. The left dislike personal profit and the right more or less take the stance that you should stand or fall by your merits. It all smacks of the worst of all worlds.
The left was certainly not always big on the state as in the early days there were few differences between the anarchists and the Marxists but as things developed the Marxists had the more applicable view which rapidly became authoritarian and divorced from principles. The USSR wasn't really communist or a worker's paradise. However, as it's developed, the left are generally big on the state.
As for the Right, you have to distinguish between UK Conservatism (of which Ma Thatcher was a radical departure) and a radical right wing view which is perfectly happy to see people come to grief in all sorts of ways if they have no more sense. I'd say Conservatism was not opposed to the views of the Labour Party but wanted to see them imposed with safeguards for their own. This was more or less managed as the two came together.
And anyway the Right can be defined in many ways, for instance I don't see US Christian fundamentalists as right wing so much as conservative and disturbingly irrational, although often sound on many particular points. Nationalism isn't necessarily right wing either. The right is even more loosely defined than the left.
Yes, I think we are drifting off into a new sort of politics or non-politics without realising it, and I think it's very dangerous. It seems to me that it's not likely to be like Star Trek world where earthly politics is a sorted process which is so smoothly running it hardly deserves mention and we have to boldly go to other bits of the universe for a bit of fun. It's more likely to be something completely unworkable where we go back to an earlier age and are forced to relearn lessons.
Ben,
It offends the sensibilities of both. The left dislike personal profit and the right more or less take the stance that you should stand or fall by your merits. It all smacks of the worst of all worlds.
The left was certainly not always big on the state as in the early days there were few differences between the anarchists and the Marxists but as things developed the Marxists had the more applicable view which rapidly became authoritarian and divorced from principles. The USSR wasn't really communist or a worker's paradise. However, as it's developed, the left are generally big on the state.
As for the Right, you have to distinguish between UK Conservatism (of which Ma Thatcher was a radical departure) and a radical right wing view which is perfectly happy to see people come to grief in all sorts of ways if they have no more sense. I'd say Conservatism was not opposed to the views of the Labour Party but wanted to see them imposed with safeguards for their own. This was more or less managed as the two came together.
And anyway the Right can be defined in many ways, for instance I don't see US Christian fundamentalists as right wing so much as conservative and disturbingly irrational, although often sound on many particular points. Nationalism isn't necessarily right wing either. The right is even more loosely defined than the left.
Yes, I think we are drifting off into a new sort of politics or non-politics without realising it, and I think it's very dangerous. It seems to me that it's not likely to be like Star Trek world where earthly politics is a sorted process which is so smoothly running it hardly deserves mention and we have to boldly go to other bits of the universe for a bit of fun. It's more likely to be something completely unworkable where we go back to an earlier age and are forced to relearn lessons.
Dunno where the two extra posts came from, sorry about that.
Bish,
Can you delete them and this?
Mr Booker
Thanks for that link. And, as long-running Eye reader, for everything else! I'm devouring the last bits of 'The First 50 years'. Magic.
I happen to think Delingpole's hypothesis is entirely correct, and in point of fact obviously so.
I bought Watermelons some time ago, for my Kindle. I loved it. When read in conjunction with some of the other well written books on the subject (scientific, and and not-so scientific) out there (like The Hockeystick Illusion, and books by Donna Laframboise, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Nigel Lawson, Booker/Richard North and others), it's not difficult to see the vast degree of co-ordinated (and un-co-ordinated) fraud which is being perpertrated by the purveyors of the green ideology, and their adherents.
Watermelons is a brilliant addition to the armoury of common sense.
cosmic on Feb 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM
"We see a state sector which can be increased but never decreased and we see all sorts of other things like companies which are really part of the government and so therefore not subject to normal commercial disciplines."
A good description of Greece as described, a little later, by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard @ 9:02PM GMT on 16 Feb 2012, in the Telegraph:
"The regime of drastic cuts has tipped the [Greek] economy into a violent downward spiral. They thought that private industry would muddle through as the state went through the austerity mincer. What the EU-IMF "Troika" did not fully understand is how many firms were really part of the state in disguise."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9087653/Just-as-Greece-complies-at-last-Europe-pulls-the-plug.html
And Greece is not the only country with this 'configuration'.
Gixxer - same here! I just wish that Booker could persuade the Editor (and Mrs Ed) to take his AGW blinkers off.
Interesting. I wonder how many people who read this blog are also Eye readers? I have been, pretty much non-stop, for 30 years.
This has been an interesting discussion. While I share the sentiments about the outmoded terms "left" and "right", current day politics cannot be understood without looking at the transition from Nation State to Market State described by Philip Bobbitt.
At the core of that transition is the transfer of financial responsibility in key areas (including education and retirement incomes) from the State ("welfare state") to households. What is on view in Greece, Italy, etc today are the consequences of not facing up to that transition. It requires changes in the role of the State (state services) and of politicians. All political programs have to be viewed through their impact on households which politicians have new fiduciary responsibilities to protect. Managerialism is simply a requirement for greater competence in economic management and the protection of household wealth and advancement (with a modest safety net but the suppression of support for old single interest groups).
Environmentalism emerged by the 1980s and before this transition began. Its policy failures (decarbonisation, etc) are to the economic disadvantage of the household sector and will have to be abandoned. So the scientific arguments have to be looked at more critically (which is beginning to happen). And all the cross-subsidies of green energy will need to be unwound, as Lord Lawson is busy explaining to the UK Conservative Party. I simply hope this change will not be too drawn out; the longer it lasts, the greater the costs.
Badgering politicians fallen into intellectual decrepitude into the endorsement of senseless policies is a disturbing coda in the climate wars.
Booker should be ashamed, and the Eye incensed- this seems a shoo in for Street of Shame
Roger longstaff says...
Pete H,
I completely agree!
The CAGW fraud is about dodgy science that promotes money making scams. Conflating this with other areas, and the wider aspects of left/right politics, muddies the issues and leaves the protagonists open to attack."
===========================================
I wish the CAGW fraud was about dodgy science, but I am afraid it is about polotics. Why is Hilary Clinton now hinting about heading up the IMF, after November, and at the same time newly promoting CAGW? Consider these Quotes
The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full compliment of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
I see only politics, "science" is the cover.
David,
I accept that politics is important in all of this, however, in my thesis politicians are the "useful idiots", who were persuaded by a win - win scenario in which they could look all green and cuddly by "saving the planet" and at the same time access an endless source of revenue from green taxes.
How did they get to this position? I think that they were initially mislead by genuine scientific concerns that humanity could adversly effect the climate with anthropogenic CO2. However, this was rapidly taken up by a combination of corrupt and third rate academics, who realised that by procaliming everything was "worse than we thought" and "we're all going to fry" they could access more and more grants. The beauty of this was that all predictions came from GIGO computer models, that could neither be validated nor verified.
Then came the money men. They realised that all of this could give them the greatest scam in history, with the ultimate aim of selling fresh air in carbon exchanges. For this they needed the politicians, who legislated on carbon targets, set up the IPCC, introduced solar FITs, subsidised windmills, etc, etc. So the whole fraud became circular and self-perpetuating.
The trouble is, the oceans did not rise, the ice caps did not melt and temperatures flatlined. The global economy is in meltdown due to another (mortgage backed securities) scam, the money men can not sell their fresh air and the "climate change scientists" are under attack from all sides. And the politicians? When was the last time you heard one talking about catastrophic climate change? They are just quietly moving on. Many are realising that CAGW is just as ruinous as the mortgage-backed securities scam.
So you are right - politics is important, but only as part of a circular and self-perpetuating fraud.
I know that there are some who preach "no surrender, no prisoners, no mercy", but I think we should just let the whole thing quietly die. As I said before, game over, thanks for playing.
Roger,
The problem is that a huge machine of an essentially political nature (about money and power) has been constructed on the back of CAGW and there are good reasons why it will attempt to preserve itself. This may be either by continuing to beat the CAGW drum, or changing the subject to sustainability or biodiversity and changing the names of the organisations involved.
Unfortunately, I don't believe it is game over and it will die quietly.
The Large Combustion Plant Directive was produced to deal with the acid rain scare of the 70s. It wasn't dismantled when the scare was over, it sat there. It's come in very handy for CAGW.
Cosmic,
You make a good point - we still live with enduring consequences of some of these scams. Another example could be the "ozone hole scare" that led to CFCs being banned. As far as I know they still are banned, even though the politicians have moved on and the science has been shown to be at best highly questionable, and at worst complete nonsense.
As far as CAGW is concerned, although I think that it is dying a natural death it would be politic to send a clear message to government that it has been completely discredited, for example by repealing the Climate Change Act:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2035
Thanks Roger, I do hope you are correct. One thing I like about Jeff's blog is if the post is about politics, then it tends to stay on that, if it is about the science, it generaly stays focused on that..
Cheers
David
Thank you so much for those quotes. Very telling, and potentially very useful.