Tuesday, 15 December 2009

The return of the street-level anti-capitalists

We haven’t seen this level of irrationality since . . . Seattle, probably.

But come ye to Copenhagen, currently warmist central, where protesters protest about capitalism & global warming by planning to invade the very conference that promises to shut down capitalism in the name of global warming, and whose methods of debate are as peremptory as theirs.

And some people claim warmists are somehow the apostles of reason?

Contrast the nihilism with the gentlemanly street-level politeness of Christopher Monckton in the face of snotty-nosed braindead goon squad, and ask yourself who genuinely favours reason?


  1. And some people claim warmists are somehow the apostles of reason?

    They do, and to be honest, it's hard to blame them when the MSM and publications like New Scientist keep on producing apologist articles like this. To the average reader, the points made actually seem reasonable, and it just gets tiresome attempting to constantly refute them.

    As I've said before, I reckon we have our strategy wrong here. If they wish to have a false reality, let it be so. We should be arguing a different tack.

    1. Assume AGW *does* exist. Bad science or not, let's just stop getting hung up on this point. Register our protest at the irrational approach and move on.
    2. Point out that it's just one of a million potential ways our climate could change to a point where it's less than optimal for our species, and it's one of the slowest and least drastic.
    3. Continue to advocate for market solutions to climate stability, and ensure they apply to all climate change scenarios, not just those supposedly caused by humans. Continue to resist and decry all attempts at government coercion as a solution to the problem.

    This doesn't require us to abandon our principle, just to accept that others will choose to deny reality (or at least, not seek to discover it before passing judgement).

    To me, it's not the *cause* of the climate change that's the problem. That's a side argument. It's getting through to the "somebody do something" crowd that coercion isn't the answer.

  2. Good point Greig.

    After all, what human do best is adapt to living in sub-optimal conditions.

    It always amuses me that people are worried about those living in low-lying areas drowning if sea levels rise.
    Um, they might just move to higher ground.

    So if the climate changes, then we have to change where we live on the planet and what crops are grown in certain areas. We will have time to make these changes.


  3. Grieg

    You write: "Assume AGW *does* exist."

    If you do that, then you have surrendered to the illogical. Once that is conceded it becomes very difficult to defend your remaining points by arguing rationally and from logic. After all, why accept rationality and logic? You've already assumed the illogical "exists". And now, the barbarians are inside the city gates!

    Moral of the story is to never, ever compromise with the irrational or the illogical.


  4. LGM: Perhaps I worded it badly. I don't mean accept that AGW is true. I mean allow them to believe that, and say "fine, we'll still disagree, but you can have your ball" and then we get on with promoting market solutions, or rational methods to adapt to the change.

    What I'm trying to get at is remove AGW from the debate. It shouldn't matter if humans are causing climate change or not. At some point, solar conditions will change, debris from an interstellar event will block solar radiation, or *something else entirely outside our control* will change the climate. THAT is what we should be dealing with. AGW is just a drop in the bucket, so spending our time debating with people who have a vested interest in proving it to be true doesn't make sense to me.

    How about instead of "assume it's true", say "show it to be completely immaterial in the grand scheme of things"?

    Oh dear, the captcha is "authingi" - self descriptive!

  5. I agree Greig. One has to work within the political framework that exists, or be forever banished to shuffling about unnoticed on the outskirts.

    IMO the worst thing is the moral hazard that comes with giving money to corrupt third world govts. Look where aid to Africa has gotten them. What makes this crowd think things will be any different? The money will disappear into despots back pockets.

    BTW being a betting person I am betting 2010 will be hotter than 1998 ;-)

  6. No, nicely worded Greig, but I'd have to disagree.

    This (AGW) is I think, the last stand of the anti-human green political movement, and I think after Climategate they're on the ropes. There is undoubtedly much that's wrong with our consumerist behaviour, and the greens have exploited consumerist guilt to their advantage. And of course, they've had money and the media on their side all the way. But to change tack now would be to let them off the hook, to persevere and amplify our protest will eventually consign the green left to the garbage, where green/left socialism belongs.

  7. So, peaceful environmentalist protestors are 'Hitler Youth' and braindead goons?

    But link author Paul Watson accuses Al Gore event staff of treating his climate change denier mates badly, so he suggests collective punishment should be dished out to a different group of greenies (the Monckton demonstrators) - sounds like your link-buddy Watson is fond of the Nazi tactics, huh?

    Your link reveals the only people into violence appear to be your climate denier mates:

    "See, we need our own security guards to shoot little asswipes like this with beanbags and sound weapons. Who’s got blueprints? Where’s our underground bunker?" [Capt Picard - commenter]

    "The way to determine the validity of protesters is whether they are clubbed or violate the sanctity of the event with impunity." [Jim Shores - commenter]


  8. I think after Climategate they're on the ropes.

    That's just it though. They're not. They just sniff and say "there's other data", or "climategate is blown out of proportion and taken out of context". I firmly believe we can not win this debate, simply because those we are attempting to argue with are not open to reason. Hence my suggestion to abandon this line of attack. Lefties are often intellectual types who consider themselves smarter than others. With that self-image comes pride and an unwillingness to back down. To convince them, you'd have to have absolute evidence that they are wrong, or prove a negative. We can't do that, so I see continuing to try as a pointless exercise, akin to trying to convince christians that without proof, their god-worship is just another pointless cult.

    I feel we'd be better off fighting them on the "what we should do about it" front, hammering home the point (which can not be denied) that human life is fragile and at the whim of the larger universe, so we should be looking at technology which protects us from climate change, rather than attempting to stop just one of a large set of ways climate change could come about. Of course, that won't be an easier argument either. If they accept it, we'll get: "oh my god, you're RIGHT! We need a WORLD GOVERNMENT to address this issue right now!"

    Lefties can be so damn depressing sometimes.

  9. Also Ruth, I'm not sure working within the existing political framework is what I'm advocating here, as I consider that political framework fucked beyond all hope of repair. It's that fact which convinced me to join the libz. I'm just suggesting that some battles can't be won, and we should focus on the war. I understand that to people like LGM and perhaps PC, that might seem ideologically impure, but I'm not suggesting abandoning any of our principles, simply recognising that we might not be able to convince others of the merits of those principles in this instance so let's move on and change tack.

  10. To the person who doesn't leave a name:

    It is not "peaceful" to bfeak up someone else's meeting with infantile slogans, to throw bricks through windows, or to threaten invasion of the very conference that is trying to deliver the very anti-industrial package that you and your "Hitler Youth" mates are after.

    My link reveals precisely what it says it delivers, whatever foam-at-the-mouth commenters there might say.

  11. Greig,

    I've posted several articles on how the "action" that is always called for is government action to ban private action; pointing out that socialism and central planning fail at seventeen degrees, just as they will at nineteen; arguing that people should be free to recognise real price signals and adapt to changing conditions; that the time needed to adapt (if even the scariest scenarios were true) is long enough in any case to make plans; that even if the scariest stories were true the cost to human life of shutting down the world's industry is far, far greater than any cost of not doing so, and therefore a cost to be borne.

    I've argued all that, but for some reason those posts and press releases just don't get noticed.

    Funny that.

  12. There is no such thing as a peaceful environmental protestor.

    These chaps deliberately cause trouble and damage other chaps property for fun; they also seek to abolish advancement for mankind and return the World to the 18th Century.

    A good machine gunning is what these brats require (which would be a case of doing Gods work!)

    Elijah :)

  13. "A good machine gunning is what these brats require . . . "

    Elijah, If you can't talk sense, then please don't talk at all.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.