Bob’s influence on the magazine’s founder was not inconsiderable: Jann Wenner began his career as a music critic under the pseudonym Mr. Jones (taken from Dylan’s song 'Ballad of a Thin Man'), and named his magazine after Dylan’s 'Like a Rolling Stone', the song Rolling Stone ranked #1 on their 500 Greatest Songs of All Time list. So Wenner took the honour of interviewing Dylan himself and did his best to get him into the swing of the auspicious anniversary by asking him the no-brainer question about global warming … but things didn’t quite go according to plan ...
Wenner: What do you think of the historical moment we’re in today? We seem to be hell-bent on destruction. Do you worry about global warming?By contrast, Paul McArtney was just as wet as you'd expect.
Dylan: In what sense do you mean.
Wenner: Bob, come on.
Dylan: No, you come on. In what sense do you mean that?
Wenner: We seem to be hell-bent on destruction. Do you worry about global warming?
Dylan: Where’s the global warming? It’s freezing here.
Wenner: It seems a pretty frightening outlook.
Dylan: I think what you’re driving at, though, is we expect politicians to solve all our problems. I don’t expect politicians to solve anybody’s problems.
Wenner: Who is going to solve them?
Dylan: Our own selves. We’ve got to take the world by the horns and solve our own problems. The world owes us nothing, each and every one of us, the world owes us not one single thing. Politicians or whoever.
RightWingBob has more on 'libertarian Bob', including an amusing note that Gore referenced Bob in his own Rolling Stone interview (just as wrongly as Wenner as it turns out), and the suggestion from John Berlau that growing celebrity scepticism might be a signal that "global warming hysteria has jumped the shark."
Dylan’s latest statement may signal that in the global warming debate, the times are changing. Even independent-minded celebrities are now questioning the establishment media orthodoxy that the debate over global warming and its effects are all but over. In a phrase familiar to those who study pop culture, it appears that the global warming scare may have “jumped the shark.”
22 comments:
Shorter PC: I'm so desperate to believe that climate change has jumped the shark that I'll even slip in the old "the plural of anecdote is data" fallacy. What do you mean, it's not?
As you are aware PC, I'm paid by the global warming cabal to state this opinion, but I don't feel that this Berlau guy has made a strong case!
He claims Dylan's tepid feelings on global warming signal an end to global warming 'hysteria'. Quite how this is extrapolated is a bit hazy, as the other celebrities quoted are talking about the way Live Earth worked (and to be fair, it has copped a lot of criticism, as has Gore's general approach).
On reflection, the opinion of one guy as fleetingly expressed in one interview should be taken for what it is, not what some would like it to be. I will watch with interest however, and see if interest in this silly 'global warming' malarkey blows away with the next storm.
Fingers crossed!
DenMT
Eddie, as I've said to you before the readers here (with one or two significant exceptions) are intelligent enough not to need your smarmy Readers Digest bowdlerisations, which if I might say are becoming increasingly shrill.
I read yesterday that they interviewed James Hetfield after Live Earth, and he basically, in so many words, admitted he didn't agree with the concert and was doing it for the publicity/money! Possibly the only honest man there.
den
As usualy the case wid you- all feelings and empty opinising. Doncha hav anything better?
Oh well, at least ya not squeeling on wid yer ideas of representin' everyone agin.
Empty hollow man...
Cleetus
'Cleetus', I'm dreadfully sorry to have hurt your feelings to the extent it seems I have regarding your 'yokel' persona, and in the interest of not boring everyone to death with some sort of internet flame war, unreservedly apologise for any offence caused at what must be a carefully constructed and devilishly ironic, clever characterisation. You just go over my head, I'm afraid...
As to the call that global warming 'hysteria' has 'jumped the shark,' I stand behind my original comment. It seems (using the power of Google) that a whole slew of right-wing sites have latched on to Dylan's comments and this Berlau guy's subsequent analysis that this is the beginning of the end for global warming in the public consciousness.
A moment's reflection would unearth the reality that in fact the weight of evidence is fairly thin on the ground. Indeed, Dylan himself has always been known for being careful about what he says on political topics du jour. Once a few more heavy hitters come out and say they have been convinced that AGW is a big have, and we should be investing in Hummer shares, maybe Berlau can talk it up a bit more. Currently, it's not GW 'jumping the shark,' it's Berlau clearly 'jumping the gun'!
DenMT
DenMT
He has a point. You have been submitting solely your own opinions and feelings. They lack substance and relevance to the matter.
----==----
Some years back a series of challenges were published in the All Island Times News-sheet by M Vatu. Space prevents reproducing the entire article. He started along the lines below.
1/. Prove the Earth's climate is warming
2/. Prove it is not a natural cylical occurance
3/. Prove that CO2 is the cause
4/. prove that Man's industrial activities are the source of the CO2 that is causing the climate to warm.
5/. Prove that the consequences are necessarily harmful to Man
6/. Prove that it is necessary and good for all men to be colectivised under a central state employing threat, force and coercion in order to "solve" the problem (this would be akin to proving communism is good for man).
He also stated that provision of these proofs would be necessary prior to accepting environmentalists and climate doom-sayers as telling the truth. Something about how it is upon he who asserts the positive that the burden of proof falls.
Never forget his lessons.
Who'd have thought a teacher from a remote Polynesian village would have been able to defeat all the climate cultists with such simple challenges?
Hitman
Speaking of Bob Dylan- at least he knowns better than the purveyors of climate porn. He seems a thoughtful man. There's a lesson in that.
Hitman
I fall asleep every time I hear a Bob Dylan's song. Definitely not funky enough to keep me awake.
Ah, I get it, when celebrities get on the AGW "bandwagon" they're busy-body do-gooders and have their heads way up there asses, but as soon as one comes out against it (assuming he really is against it) "He seems a thoughtful man."
"6/. Prove that it is necessary and good for all men to be colectivised under a central state employing threat, force and coercion in order to "solve" the problem (this would be akin to proving communism is good for man)."
Pseudo-libertarian Bullshit, cracking down on emissions is about the PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Turning this into any other kind of debate is a bit like saying, "I can can walk through your property, as long as I don't damage anything and as long you don't see me, even if you specifically tell me not to."
Stop defending the rights of industry to breach the property rights of others.
"1/. Prove the Earth's climate is warming"
Done, not even the staunchest denier can say it isn't, unless they're full of crap.
"2/. Prove it is not a natural cylical occurance"
Irrelevant. All "natural cyclical occurances" Have measurable causalities.
"3/. Prove that CO2 is the cause"
The current warming trend cannot be explained without the inclusion of C02. Don't take my word on it, go find out for yourself, I suggest starting off at
http://www.realclimate.org/
"4/. prove that Man's industrial activities are the source of the CO2 that is causing the climate to warm."
We are the source of the current levels of CO2. Yet another fact not even denialists can dispute without a serious distortion of the facts. However small a percentage it is, the effect is cumulative.
5/. Prove that the consequences are necessarily harmful to Man
Now the mans asking people to predict the future beyond a shadow of a doubt, impossible for anyone. However, there has been sufficient theoretical modeling to be more than just a little bit concerned about the possibilities. Certainly it's an extreme view to think that no person will be harmed by man-made climate change.
All this is anecdotal obviously, but the thing is; if you wanted more than that you could go out and get it. People who refuse to accept that there is a problem are either stupid or willfully ignorant.j
"Ah, I get it, when celebrities get on the AGW "bandwagon" they're busy-body do-gooders and have their heads way up there asses, but as soon as one comes out against it (assuming he really is against it) "He seems a thoughtful man."
Ah, actually David you don't get it. You don't get it at all.
I happen to like Bob's career long refusal to play everyone else's game. Too many people forget that the hippy-loving 'Times They Are A'Changing' album was recorded long before hippies were invented, and b the time they were Bob had long ago moved on.
"Judas!" said the 'Albert Hall' heckler when he thought Bob had betrayed the 'movement.' "I don't believe you," said Bob in response. "Play fucking loud."
I love the attitude.
Alright, fair enough, the attitude is similar to a favourite of mine actually.
"keep your eyes open, soft spoken changes nothing", a line from Skinny Puppy's 1989 song Worlock. A band that has also been heckled for expanding past their original electro-industrial sound, and "betraying their roots".
Liking the attitude and believing the meaning the commentary on this interview implies however, are two different things.
david s
Well, thanks for your post.
To meet the Vatu challenges I reproduced and posted the other day (I'm searching for the original article so I can paste up his actual challenges as written- bear with me while I find it), what is required is supply of proofs. Now what is not asked for is froth, opinion, smear or more climate porn.
6/. aming the demands of a challenge of proof, as you did, does does not meet the standard required of a proof. He does not ask for a name or a smear. What he intended was a serious consideration of whether centralised big government regimes of tax, energy rationing, regulation and expropriation of property (and/or the control thereof) was good for Man.
In essence what these things represent is the opposition and destruction of individual private property rights. It is not possible to protect such individual rights by refusing to recognise them.
Using dissimilar situations as analogy (walking through property without permission) does not make the case. You are not talking about the same situation and are making a different point from what was requested.
Recently the careless use of analogy was comented on by a poster here not so long ago. I admit surprise at how common this technique is locally. Since moving here from Australia it has been very noticable to me how often New Zealanders will argue something quite different from the essential point of a debate and then claim magic analogy and somehow that makes their argument work out. It doesn't.
1/. A proof was required. Smearing a person who disagrees with your contention is absurd. Not a proof.
Had you considered that there are atmospheric researchers and scientists who think that the Earth's climate has been entering a cooling cycle since 1998?
Are all who discagree with you "full of crap"? Understand that name calling does your case no good at all. It is not up to the standard of a proof.
2/. What you are trying to say here? Anyway what you assert is not a proof. An opinion was not what was called for.
3/. Assertion. Not a proof. You have not addresed the challenge. note your underlying assumption (still unproved).
4/. Assertion. Baseless opinion again. Not proof.
5/. Interesting reponse. Need you be reminded that you are still a very long way from providing a proof?
Very interesting that you would support the shackling of all men under a centralist regime of tax, forcible coercions, property expropriation, compulsory regulation of behaviour, cnetral control, threats, weird schemes and cronyism etc. and yet you have no idea about the future yourself. One would have thought that prior to imposing such severe limitiations on all men there would need be specific knowledge. Obvioulsy in the case of the climate porn industry the answer is no. Assertion is suffucient. Theoretical assertion is enough to demand enslavements. This is a terrible precedent to admit.
Remember that the burden of proof falls on he who asserts the positive. It is up to those who claim the weather is going to get really, really bad to prove their contention. Further they must also prove that it is right and proper that all men be forced by government coercion to be collectivised in order to "solve" the problem.
You provide a passionate rant with no substance and not a little smearing and name calling. It's a common strategy, but name calling and smears are not what was necessary to meet the test of proof.
So my turn now. My opinion is that the teacher did not have smears or name calling in mind when he put the challenge. He was not after yet more climate porn pimping. Not good enough!
Hitman
Actually, there are other criteria for assigning the burden of proof. One is someone who challenges the status quo. Man made climate change has been accepted by the majority. You are the one putting forward a controversial idea.
I have no interest in convincing random people on the internet about whether climate change is affected by industry's emissions. Like I said, those who do not understand this fact are willfully ignorant.
Questions should always be asked, but the question "what global warming?" is not an intelligent question. Questioning whether the current strategy is the best way to counter the problem is an intelligent question to ask.
"In essence what these things represent is the opposition and destruction of individual private property rights. It is not possible to protect such individual rights by refusing to recognise them."
I was illustrating that since emissions do impact on the lives of individuals, they must not be left to the market alone to sort out. Libertarians provide structure for the centralisation of the military and justice system, protection of the atmosphere should be another aim of the government. This is essential to individual liberty as well as the well fare of the collective. I am aware that this would have to be "hardwired" into any libertarian constitution, but then, I don't know why that would be a problem since you do not advocate complete anarchy.
The left is working in the best way they know how to counter climate change, the right is not. It is vitally important that this issue is de-politicised and that both sides start working on the problem. The debate about whether man-made climate change is real is over, you missed the boat, and I don't care if you don't believe me. The knowledge is out there. People like myself are tired of trying to explaining it, and tired of countering all the bullshit arguments, like the ones detailed in that travesty of pseudo-libertarian propaganda, "The Great Global Swindle". It is no surprise to me at all that environmental activists shut down debate at any opportunity.
"Physicists don't have to fight a kind of rear-guard action against yapping terriers of ignorance the way biologists do" - Richard Dawkins, when talking about Intelligent design advocates, A phrase that could easily be assigned to many of those that deny man made climate change.
The debate about whether man-made climate change is real is over, you missed the boat...
Thank the financial Gods the sceptics/denialists haven't realised this.
david s
You need to get counselling to cure that climate porn addiction you’ve got there.
You write: “Actually, there are other criteria for assigning the burden of proof. One is someone who challenges the status quo.”
Not correct. The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on he who asserts the positive. It’s a basic rule of philosophy you seem to be quite unable to comprehend. You are well out of your depth.
Look and read. The status quo does not determine where the burden falls. It is a matter of who made the positive assertion. For example, if I were to claim you are a child molester and a sexual deviant murderer, the truth of that claim does not stand or fall by whether the contributors to the forum agree with me or not. It does not matter if the status quo on this forum was that you are indeed considered to be those terrible things. It does not matter if the status quo amongst all the people I whisper my assertion to is that David is a pervert deviant. What would determine the fact of the matter (that is, the truth or reality) is whether or not I could provide the proof to back the claim when challenged.
What you are mixing up in your head is proof and social metaphysics. They are different things. Try to understand that. Social metaphysics is not a means you can rely on to establish proof.
Social metaphysics is the situation when the truth of realilty or facts of reality are claimed as determined by majority opinion. “One Frenchman can be wrong but 15 million Frenchmen can’t be.” Or more commonly, “One man can be wrong but democracy can’t be.” So we go counting heads (regardless of what’s in them) in the mystical belief that a crowd has the power to define fact simply by being a crowd. Stupid idea.
You write, “Man made climate change has been accepted by the majority.”
This is an example of an assertion; an assertion you’d likely be unable to prove as it is probably incorrect anyway. What majority? Who says? Putting that aside for the moment, even if it were a correct and true statement, it is not a proof. It is therefore irrelevant to meeting the teacher’s challenge. It is an example of social metaphysics. Do you understand? Can you see your error yet?
You write, “You are the one putting forward a controversial idea.”
No, actually. Wrong again you are. The burden of proof test is basic. Nothing new there. Not even my idea. Not the teacher's idea originally either. Been around for generations of thinkers.
Now then, even if I were putting forward a controversial idea, so what? What of it? Is that a measure of validity? The presence of controversy is not a valid method to establish the value of an idea or its correspondence with reality. Such an approach is shallow and banal. Go back to reading gossip magazines if that’s really your Worldview.
You wrote: “I was illustrating that since emissions do impact on the lives of individuals, they must not be left to the market alone to sort out.”
This is another example of baseless assertion. Prove your statement. You have failed to so far. Go back and take a look at the proofs the teacher asks for again. In essence you repeated exactly the assertions he challenges you to prove. Note that repetition is not proof. Look, even if you recited and wrote your porn a million times that does not prove it. Got that?
I note your sentiment that markets (in other words freely acting individuals with property, liberty and values of their own) must be centrally governed, forced to behave according to your collectivist plans. Compulsion. Control. You seem to have a fetish with that.
You still need to prove your position (assertions) is valid and correct. I’m betting you are not up to the challenge. It’s already defeated you…
As for the rest of your diatribe, it’s just assertion and cant- baseless all of it. Look, liberty is not a product of the whim of a powerful centralist government controlling people’s lives by coercion and force and fraud. You can’t regulate a way to Liberty by enslavement of those you claim to liberate. You can’t keep trying to slime your way around that issue by calling totalitarianism “Liberty” or by calling the abrogation of individual property rights a defence of property. That’s just muddle headed and it is not honest.
If you think you can bang on & on about climate porn and how you and your pimp mates should govern other people’s lives, think again. You’re going to get challenged more frequently. You may get tired of being challenged but you should expect to be required to explain your lust to govern everyone else & tell them how to live their lives. When you can't explain it (which you haven't been able to here and likely won't be able to in future) you should go away and leave everyone else alone to live free.
Silence the lies. Expose the climate porn industry.
Hitman
BTW do you still hit women and children?
"I note your sentiment that markets (in other words freely acting individuals with property, liberty and values of their own) must be centrally governed, forced to behave according to your collectivist plans. Compulsion. Control. You seem to have a fetish with that."
You have expanded my meaning well beyond intent. I never said that the markets must be centrally governed. I said the market was unable to control emissions. The atmosphere is a commodity that cannot be divided, any plans to privatise it are folly because it would create an unbreakable monopoly. It is incompatible with a free market.
I had no idea that proposing the enforcement of individual property rights and the protection of individuals from the initiation of force would be considered a "collectivist plan" on a libertarian blog.
Of course, you have generated this misrepresentation because of your dogmatic belief that man-made climate change is a massive conspiracy. It kind of reminds me of the argument fundamentalist Christians make about allowing homosexuals the right to marry. The argument that they're "destroying" the institution of marriage by giving them the right to choose.
david s
That's just more baseless assertion from you. You can't just keep repeating this nonsense and expect anyone to accept it without proof. You have failed the challenge.
For a start, if the market is unable to "control emission" as you claim, then the alternative is to control the market. You are obviously uncomfortable when this is pointed out. Yet that's the choice. Liberty or collectivism. you appear to be a follower of collectivism.
Further, if you want to collectivise the atmosphere you need to show with proofs, the reasoning behind your demand. It's obvious you can't do it and it's dishonest to keep pretending that your collectivisation schemes are in any way the protection of individual rights or the promotion of Liberty.
You write: "I had no idea that proposing the enforcement of individual property rights and the protection of individuals from the initiation of force would be considered a "collectivist plan" on a libertarian blog."
You are being very deceptive here. Rhetoric and apologetics do not make proof. Stop attempting to smear. It doesn't work. What you need is substance and that you have yet to provide. Read and learn.
I wrote:
"Look, liberty is not a product of the whim of a powerful centralist government controlling people’s lives by coercion and force and fraud. You can’t regulate a way to Liberty by enslavement of those you claim to liberate. You can’t keep trying to slime your way around that issue by calling totalitarianism “Liberty” or by calling the abrogation of individual property rights a defence of property."
And that is different from what you asserted.
What this means is feeble attempts to use climate porn as a justification for government coercion, fraud and initiations of force do not hold.
If you want to claim that one party has damaged property of another you must show this has actually occurred in reality. You are required to prove that the action of one party is the cause of damage to the other. What is not valid is to assert "damage" and then destroy individual property rights (all individual rights actually) by application of coercive force, then claim you are doing this to uphold Liberty and individual rights. "We must destroy the village to save it." Yeah right.
In brief your argument boils down to two assertions:
1/. Man's activities are changing the climate.
2/. Man must be regulated and controlled in order to save the climate. In other words he must be collectivised.
Classic climate porn.
Both assertions require you to prove them and that is the key issue that remains. Can you provide the proofs for any of your assertions? The answer is obviously, "No." Clearly, you are unable to make proof. Therefore your assertions can be dismissed without further consideration.
Hitman
PS so you still do hit women and children?
"The answer is obviously, "No." Clearly, you are unable to make proof. "
No, that isn't clear, that is subjective opinion.
Should I need to prove that the earth is round? Or that humans need oxygen to breath? Or that time is relative to the observer? Or that matter is comprised of atoms? Or that Co2 is a greenhouse gas? Or that greenhouse gases retain heat in the atmosphere? Or that humans have increased Co2 levels in the atmosphere to levels that have never been witnessed by humans?
The answer is.. no
The burden of proof does not always apply to the person stating the positive.
There is no consensus on AGW in much the same way that there is no consensus on evolution. The principles are sound, they are objective, scientific fact. The debate is in the details. Scientists are unwilling to commit to assigning specific events to AGW because no specific event can be attributed to it at this time. The variables are too complex to get that specific. What has been proven is that man is affecting the environment globally.
It is irresponsible to continue to allow industry to affect the atmosphere that they do not have sovereign over. It is a breach of property rights, even if no specific damage can be assigned to it.
david s
You say: "No, that isn't clear, that is subjective opinion."
On the evidence provided you have been unable to show any proof for your assertions. That is not a subjective opinion, it's a fact. But the challenge is still there for you to attempt to meet. Provide proof. That's all you have been challenged to do. Go on, try.
You wrote: "Should I need to prove that the earth is round? Or that humans need oxygen to breath? Or that time is relative to the observer? Or that matter is comprised of atoms? Or that Co2 is a greenhouse gas? Or that greenhouse gases retain heat in the atmosphere? Or that humans have increased Co2 levels in the atmosphere to levels that have never been witnessed by humans?"
Were you asked for any of this? No, you were not. Go back and read what the challenge of proof actually was.
Here it is reproduced:
"1/. Prove the Earth's climate is warming
2/. Prove it is not a natural cylical occurance
3/. Prove that CO2 is the cause
4/. prove that Man's industrial activities are the source of the CO2 that is causing the climate to warm.
5/. Prove that the consequences are necessarily harmful to Man
6/. Prove that it is necessary and good for all men to be colectivised under a central state employing threat, force and coercion in order to "solve" the problem (this would be akin to proving communism is good for man)."
As stated the burden of proof falls on you. Get on with it!
Hitman
"It is irresponsible to continue to allow industry to affect the atmosphere that they do not have sovereign over. It is a breach of property rights, even if no specific damage can be assigned to it."
A similar thing could be argued in respect of David's breath. CO2! He's not soverign over the atmosphere so he shouldn't be exhaling his stinking breath into it!
Same goes for ANY product or by-product he disposes of into the atmosphere.
Guess he'd soon be dead if we applied his arguments.
Little Green Man
A similar thing could be argued in respect of David's breath. CO2! He's not soverign over the atmosphere so he shouldn't be exhaling his stinking breath into it!
Same goes for ANY product or by-product he disposes of into the atmosphere.
Guess he'd soon be dead if we applied his arguments.
Very good argument.
Post a Comment