Thursday
Apr232015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill For the environmentalist, lies are a way of life
Apr 23, 2015 Climate: Sceptics Ethics Greens Global warming is real - it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world.
Bjorn Lomborg on climate change
Now take a look at what environmentalists and lefties have to say. The tsunami of lies is quite, quite extraordinary:
And this is just a fraction of the "top tweets". The torrent of dishonesty has to be seen to be believed. It's as if lying was simply the chosen tactic of the green movement. For them it's a way of life.
Reader Comments (70)
Scum is green.
Given the amount spent by the state on anti-bullying education in all it's forms, it's amazing that this bullying happens without an outcry. For that is what it is, just vicious directed and premeditated bullying aimed at shutting up anyone who disagrees. In this case there are two targets, Lomborg and Abbott. Both are a threat to the 'establishment' and so must be shouted down.
Now, there are Lies, white lies, and, Green lies.
Certainly highly abusive and certainly very far from the truth. But I am not sure this is lying so much as simple ignorance coupled with an instinctive, deeply ingrained nastiness.
While I agree with most of what is written here, using the word 'lefties' looks a lot worse than 'denier' because it pigeonholes the site and reduces its credibility to near zero.
Back in the days when I had political views, I was an anti socialist libertarian .
This is the natural outcome of enforcing orthodoxy. An ever decreasing circle of true believers.
As with so many political issues these days, emotion has taken over from reason. The people who twitted seem full of hatred, and it is the same with any attempt to have a debate over economics. Simple incontrovertible facts are resolutely ignored and abuse and vituperation are all that is heard. It is very worrying. And the media who could restore some sanity prefer "passionate" declarations and denunciations rather than cool reasoning.
For two who could not
give a…care less about it, those mega-mouths do seem to spend a lot of time… erm, caring about it. Why?Whichever way you look at it – lying or ignorance – it is obvious that it is out-and-out bullying, something that should not be tolerated in any field, let alone science.
smiffy
I tend to agree with you. For all that experience shows that this sort of mendacity appears to have a leftist slant most of the time, there is nothing to be gained by trying to pin it onto one particular political viewpoint.
The opposition to Lomborg comes from the environmental activist movement which may (or may not) be overwhelmingly leftist and if it is which of those two characteristics (activism and leftism) is cause and which effect could itself be a fruitful area of research.
But Lomborg is the immediate target of the environmentalist not the the leftist side of the brain and by conflating or confusing the two we do make ourselves less credible.
There is more than enough ammunition in those tweets to convince those prepared to listen of the outright mendacity, not to mention ignorance and stupidity, in the environmental movement. Let's not wander off down side streets, eh.
Let's see the numbers. The University of Western Australia is minus one Lewandowsky and plus one Lonborg.
That looks like a 'buy' signal.
=================
Would a full page advert in the Guardian featuring the Lomborg quote and all of the ensuing vituperation do any good?
No, I thought not.
But doncha realise? The Green movement is a resurrected form of fascism, from which it emerged, so adopts the same tactics of identifying a new race of untermenschen.
The only decision it has not yet made is whether it will go the route to full-blown Lysenkoism with an EUSSR from the Urals to the Atlantic, or will keep within it's German roots and blacklist dissenters so they can't work in professional jobs, a new form of McArthyism.
V.I. Lenin: "Truth is a bourgeois construct". And all socialists of whatever kind are infected by Marxist-Leninism. When Wilson famously said Labour owed more to methodism than Marx he was, of course, lying.
The Guardian is pushing a Queensland Uni' course to 'demolish' global warming denial. Interesting choice of word, demolish, because it raises the question why a group should be so desperate to attack the '3%' who fall out of the '97% consensus'?
They're a furious, angry bunch, alarmists. And to them, truth is a very renewable resource.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/21/university-offering-free-online-course-to-demolish-climate-denial
"The people who twitted seem full of hatred"
Considering that "Hate Crime" is now the number one target of our wonderful police force, do you suppose they would take action against Twitterers if the UK government had done the same thing?
NCC 1701E
I completely agree. Any contact with the Green movement will reveal its hatred for the masses and fascist roots, the complete opposite of left wing socialism. Despite the fantasy populist politics of the current Green Party and its delusional followers .
''
Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism
As a follow up (and addressing the substance of the thread) I repeat that we have plenty of ammunition.
Since Lomborg is known in most reputable circles as what might be described as a "lukewarmer" (ie, it's happening but there's no need to panic) these tweeters (never was the word 'twat' more appropriate!) are simply demonstrating that global warming has nothing to do with science and everything to do with .... fill in the gaps, because no two of these idiots has the same agenda, those that have an agenda at all.
For some it's over-population, for some it's the urge to "get back to nature", for some it's fear ( "the scientists" say and they must be right because they're scientists and fi we don't do what they say we're all going to die), for some, almost certainly, it's the trough. For all of them any deviation from the Book of the Prophet Mann or the Gospel of the IPCC is outright heresy.
It's a cult and these fools are providing the evidence of it.
I think the Green movement may have just 'jumped the shark'.
This is why I feel sorry for those who call themselves 'lukewarmers' (I'm talking about the label, not a position) trying to distance themselves from the 'deniers' and prevent themselves from being called names.
They would take us back to the Stone Age. Is there anything more reactionary than that?
But in the fantasy world we're living in I fear you may be a bit premature. It will happen but there have already been a lot of false dawns.
The stupidity and abuse of the Green types just knows no bounds. Rather sad more than anything else.
@esmiff MJ Yes I agree, we should be careful not to oversimplify.
We skeptics have a full colour complex view
whereas the alarmist activists side typically have the simplistic black/white (or black/green) perspective hence the kneejerk responses filled with hate
... they are the modern Alf Garnett's
e.g. better say "For MANY environmentalists, lies are a way of life"
"what
environmentalists and leftiestypical Twitter Eco-warriors have to say "Bishop, I think the title is rather unfair because not all environmentalists are as extreme as the examples you present.
Moreover, as I believe I care just as much (if not more) about the environment as these zealots, I don't think they should even be classed as 'environmentalists'... maybe the term 'enviro-zealots' would be more appropriate?
DO GOOD vs FEEL GOOD - Smart development Goals
"The new center is a good opportunity to support an informed debate about how we ensure that projects-both in developing countries and in developed countries-makes as much benefit as possible. Resources are limited and there are plenty of challenges. Therefore, our goal is to identify the projects that can do most good."
...Are the quoted activists really against this ?
australiaconsensus.com is the center's website
- Jo Nova's has updated her April 18 story "The Education Union calls for Pyne’s resignation, because apparently an elected government can’t just fund things, especially not foreigners:"
- Also Andrew Bolt will soon have an informed response I guess
Meanwhile Laframboise has a new story about the UN faking a Climate News story
just looking at Twitter ..Australia maybe running out of mud soon
I told you so -- in September 2012, for example, or even in November 2011.
I look forward to the fruits of the 4 million. Evidently many others don't. Their vituperation in advance of any study suggests not bullying but a worry that their 'right-on' position/religion could be under attack.
One constant feature of warmism is that good news is bad and looking for good news is abhorrent.
I don't trust Lomborg (he's been playing the field so far) so it's a case of the unthinkable in pursuit of the inedible for me but it will be interesting to watch the relentless pursuit. The real problem is that the left have the BBC, the Guardian, the Universities, the WaPo, New York Times, ABC Australia, the IPCC, the U.N. the EU, the present US administration etc. Coup maestro. They've got plants in the right wing parties and their hands up the trousers of right wing politicians all over Europe. The best plan has to be to fight these entities not their legions of disturbed minions. The minions, granted, are disgusting but they're not the ones taking us down the pan.
BTW where does the funding from Dana's : University of Queensland "Making Sense of Climate Science Denial" degrees come from ?
- "UWA academic fascist Sarah Dunlop wants everyone to conform to her world view or else."
yes that about sums up the extremist's attitude and Her article in the SMH
Cheshirered,
The course at UQ is offered by John Cook, naturally. He recently published a piece taking issue with Richard Tol's critique of the 97% paper. Interesting was the fact that he was absolutely taken apart by the commentators (I confess to piling on) who overwhelmingly pointed to the logical fallacies Cook committed — the most obvious being argumentum ad populum.
Bernard Levin called these types 'single-issue fanatics'. If it wasn't global warming it would be globalisation or deforestation or overpopulation. After global warming it'll be ocean acidification. Anything at all to demonise the consumerist society that they fully participate in but blame nameless, faceless capitalism for anyway - because it's trendy and full of opportunities for being smug without actually being any more green than their neighbours.
At no point will they even consider that that economic growth should solve most of these overly-hyped issues - as Lomberg did - because for them the quest for growth absolutely must be the root problem. CO2 emission is a very convenient peg to hang their existing prejudices and hypocrisy.
Of course many of those of a right-wing persuasion are every bit as blinkered and deliberately dim on other issues. Wouldn't it be better if there were no political parties, just independents and folk didn't feel the need to be led like sheep by failed dogmatists and shamen rather than using their brain once in a while?
JamesG
I could have written that myself so you'll not be surprised that I agree with every word except that 'left' and 'right' aren't (in my opinion) any longer helpful. Levin, for example, would consider himself 'left'. More useful to think of fanaticism and the need for a belief system in the absence of traditional religious belief as something that calls to a certain mindset.
Not exclusive to either "side".
thousands of angry Tweets *no substance * none explaining anything (it's telling almost zero are retweeted)
- suprisingly none mention the $$millions the gov spent on Australia's biggest failed 'climate predictor' Tim Flannery
- collectively those tweeters have more anger energy that today's entire UK Windfarm generation
I wonder what the BBC greenies are saying. Only this morning there was a piece on ticks. All went well, sensible reporting and warning us of Weil's* disease, then I think increasing numbers was mentioned. This led to the now normal BBC warning about global warming. It was then that I switched off.
[*Lyme Disease? Weil's Disease is from rats' urine. BH]
Lomborg is not even get paid for this , the actual university gets most of the money , and the person who is doing most of the bitching, because he lost is cushion number , was picking a six figure salary from the tax payers for part time job and all he achieved was the production of total BS,
And it is all to be expected after all religions always save their most extreme hate for those they label 'heretics' so they merely following normal pratice for the religions fanatics they shown themselves to be time and again.
The level of vitriol from the green left is a magnificent endorsement for the initiative.
I thought they all would have been in a good mood after celebrating Vladimir Lenin's birthday.
For those complaining about the reference to "lefties" in this article, please note that this is an attack on the Australian Prime Minister by left-wing twits as much as it is an attack on Lomborg by eco-twits. The Bish has referred to environmentalists AND lefties in his comment and as such you are quite wrong in your criticism.
Although many people (probably including His Grace) feel that the CAGW movement is a water melon, in this case it is simply a stick with which to beat a Liberal (= Conservtive in Australia) Prime Minister.
@ Peter Stroud: Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't bother to watch it as I assumed there would be some tenuous link to AGW. The Club of Rome are largely responsible for this unholy mess. They're the ones who siezed upon Global Warming as a device to achieve their aim of a Global Government. They are essentially a group of rotating (membership that is not them personally) left-leaning expoliticos, philiosiphers, & the like, who think they know, correction, know what's good for everyone else, which is essentially them telling everyone else how to live their lives, it was to all intents & purpose the very godsend they needed, no longer was there an uphill battle to persuade everyone that socialism in general was a good thing, they saving the planet instead. Only many of us can see through it, especailly when they attack anyone who dares speak out against their views.
They have an army millions strong of useful idiots all with chips-on-shoulders! Earth Day they claim is to celebrate globally the arrival of Spring, conveniently forgetting, (rather like the Wet Office picking & choosing their start & end dates for Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn, etc. to suit the alarmist message, e.g. the recent wet winter last year claimed to be the wettest evvaa, with a winter end date picked at the end of Feb 25th I think it was) that Spring used to be an astronomical event in my day). Personally my "politics" are centre-left/centre-right, yet I work in the free-enterprise system self-employed, but I am no socialist. Are "Tony" & Bill still members of the CoR? I dare say they have links to the current membership!
Rob
That thought did actually cross my mind when I wrote my original comment but in a sense I don't really care what they say about Abbot. He's just another politician (certainly as far as we are concerned on this side of the equator).
The fact that the enviro-nuts can kill two birds with one soggy rice pudding is a bonus for them. I was trying to suggest (in support of smiffy) that we avoid linking lefties and enviro-nuts to the extent that we can be accused of the sort of mindless bigotry that we are trying to combat.
@ Peter Stroud: The seasons that we all are familiar with are "astronomical" seasons. "Meteorological " seasons are whole months (3 months long) and defined differently.
The astronomical seasons that people are most familiar with begin and end on the solstices and equinoxes (which normally occur around Mar 21, June 21, Sept 22, and Dec 22). But, since the dates of the solstices and equinoxes vary slightly from year to year (because the earth takes about 365 1/4 days to go around the sun), meteorologists use whole months to define the “meteorological” seasons. The three normally coldest months in the Northern Hemisphere are December, January, and February, and are called “meteorological winter”. The three normally warmest months are June, July, and August, and are called “meteorological summer”. “Meteorological spring” includes the months of March, April, and May, and “meteorological autumn” includes the months of September, October, and November.
Very interesting report on SUSTAINABILITY here http://www.nas.org/articles/sustainability_higher_educations_new_fundamentalism1
Extract:
"As an ideology, sustainability takes aim at economic and political liberty. Sustainability pictures
economic liberty as a combination of strip mining, industrial waste, and rampant pollution. It pictures
political liberty as people voting to enjoy the present, heedless of what it will cost future generations.
Sustainability’s alternative to economic liberty is a regime of far-reaching regulation that controls virtually
every aspect of energy, industry, personal consumption, waste, food, and transportation. Sustainability’s
alternative to political liberty is control vested in agencies and panels run by experts insulated from
elections or other expressions of popular will.
...
The goal of the sustainability movement is radical transformation of the relation between humanity and
nature. To this end, it seeks extreme forms of conservation of natural resources; the virtual elimination
of extraction of energy from fossil fuels; a drastic retreat from the forms of mass consumption that are
characteristic of the modern world ever since the Industrial Revolution; fundamental redistribution of the
world’s wealth from richer to poorer countries; the end to industrial development in the underdeveloped
parts of the world; and a return wherever possible to subsistence and near-subsistence standards of
living."
bill:
Do you have a citation for that?
Mike fowle
Imcompletley agree with you. The quality of debate I this country on a whole range of issues is absolutely awful and of a woeful quality. On many issues of economics, politics, science, irrational illogical and emotive arguments are used and never do they seem to be adequately held to account by those working in the media. In fact I've come to the conclusion that the quality of the minds working in journalism is really rather low, as they are continuously either utterly ignorant or very poorly informed on the subjects they are discussing that they nearly always fail to hold people to account when they contrive irrational arguments.
Much of this problems stems from some newspaper morphing into irrational views papers, which tony Blair derided. The Independent newspaper headed there some time ago, and the Guardian newspaper has rapidly become increasingly incoherent and irrational in the views it expresses.
The people tweeting those outright lies made me very angry, and I'm largely apolitical (I probably won't vote in May). Being truthful and objective should be the first port of call for a journalist, but sadly many of them appear to be activists masquerading as journalists. It really has to change, as issues like climate change need to be discussed objectively, so that society in the UK ( and the world) can decide what level of risk they are prepared to accept with respect to climate change. At the moment an informed debate cannot be had because of the lies coming forth from one side of the debate, who let's face it, are at one extreme end of the IPCC's predictions. People at the other end, or people who want to point out that there is actually a range of outcomes from benign to catastrophe are silenced and called deniers. Absolutely pathetic.
Fair point and well drawn, as per Mr. Jackson.
If I may, I'll switch it around, from Andrews blog post how many of those above posters, indeed how many of those the beholden to the green religion here in Britain or, for that matter in the USA would vote for, in order:
i. Prime Minister, Tony Abbot in Australia,
ii. Presidential candidates; Ron Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio,
iii. UKIP or suitable libertarian-ish party, here in Britain?
In the UK, other than UKIP all the alternatives are of a hue of red, it just depends on what tint you prefer. Hard left Socialism, Statism, crony corporatism - the green agenda combines and rolls them all into one amorphous green jelly.
By their colours shall ye know them.
However, it must be recorded, that, all generalizations are faulty and no man should be prejudged, pigeonholed until he freely exhibits his political predilections and therein we have the biggest problem for a bewildered electorate - the political crossdressing of all the Westminster claque, all done by design from a Brussels blueprint and it equals elective dictatorship.
But in the outset, did the UK ever experience true democracy? Until such time as we realign, separate the legislature from the executive and make most decisions at local level - back to small is beautiful [the shires] - we never will.
Thanks abc. But please do vote.
I disagree with Dave Salt. It has been my experience that most people who would self identify as being Green or and Environmentalist are either willing to accept any tactic to advance their agenda or willfully ignorant of such tactics being used.
As i've commented before, there was good reason for our scrubbing any reference to environmental from the program material we use at the science education non-profit I work with. The term carries far too much baggage, most of it of the garbage variety.
I must disagree with Mike Jackson about the leftie thing, and support the Bish.
Those of you who do not live in Australia are probably unaware of the bitter culture wars that have been sparked by the election of the relatively (but not very) conservative Abbott government. The Greens and the tiny rump of old style socialists are in a permanent state of outrage, especially on Twitter, about the mere existence of this government, and Labor trails happily in their wake.
The previous Labor government wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on failed green schemes and plunged the Budget deeply into deficit. Not a peep. But when Abbott allocates a measly $4m to a project which includes a lukewarmer, they go into meltdown.
I was catching up on reading a conservative/libertarian blog on this subject (Catallaxy Files) earlier, and quite a few commenters said that while to project itself seems OK, they would still prefer that the money be kept in the kitty because of the state of the Budget. I disagree. There is a massive culture war going on, with the ABC and much of the MSM infested with left wing greenies who do not hesitate to lie for their cause. Calling Lomborg or anyone else who deviates a poofteenth from the party line a "denier" is absolutely par for the course.
We need to fight back, not shut our eyes and hope they will go away.
johanna
I'm not trying to dictate the Australians' approach. I do understand (perhaps not fully, obviously) the tribulations that you have been going through in the last few years, being a regular reader at JoNova's blog.
As far as the UK is concerned concentrating on the enviro-nut aspect rather than the leftie aspect (since the two are not synonymous for all there tends to be an overlap) would in my view be more constructive and less likely to lead to the situation smiffy was talking about where we get dismissed as just another bunch as bigoted as those we seek to criticise.
What the situation may be after the coming election I couldn't say. It may be that a Conservative government with a healthy majority (unlikely) will come to its senses and "do an Abbot" (also unlikely). But meanwhile, unlike the situation in Australia, all the mainstream parties are signed up to the AGW meme so calling all the cheerleaders lefties is not going to get us over here much further forward.
Things in your neck of the woods are a bit different.
Fair points, Mike. But the atmosphere here is rather different than in the UK. The Abbott government is treated the way UKIP is in Britain - constantly under attack from the left and misrepresented shamelessly in the MSM at every opportunity.
A couple of dozen swampie protesters against some government policy or other are front page news and the headline story on the ABC. Yesterday, a Greens senator tried to blame Abbott for the tragic death of 900 asylum seekers in the Med, FGS. That is what we are up against.
If Environmentalism is the most important issue that trumps all others for someone then... link their behaviour to environmentalism. Yet you link it to being on the left.
If other issues sway someone to the left does that mean they must also be a green zealot? Not logically. Green issues are way down the list of priorities for most people.
But saying you can't be a lefty and not be a green zealot is a natural recruitment ground for green zealots - remember Green issues are way down the list of priorities for most people. Signing up for the Green thing isn't big compared to the real issues, for most people.
So don't do it. Don't say you can't be a lefty and not be a green zealot.
Unless your desire to fight the reds under then bed is so great that you are willing to lose the fight for scientific integrity.