Climate of Fear – I am an intellectual blasphemer

Global Warming Hysterikernas inkvisition och försök att tysta ALLA som inte håller med (”debatten är över, det finns inget att diskutera”) slår åt alla håll. Ett typexempel på detta är den vänster radikale journalisten Alexander Cockburn som behandlas som en spetälsk för att han säger att det finns inga som helst bevis för att den lilla uppvärmning vi nu ser skulle vara orsakad av människorna.

Är det inte fantastiskt hur intoleranta dessa s.k. vetenskapsmän och våra politiker är i denna ”upplysningens” tid. 

Det påminner inte så lite om jesuitorden som hade som sin främsta uppgift att motarbeta reformationen och dess utbredning. Men nu är det ingen påve som är anförare utan Al Gore/IPCC som leder detta sorglustiga spektakel.

Där massmedia och politiker beredvilligt ställer sig i inkvisitionens tjänst. Det är beklämmande att skåda!

I själva verket verkar inte så mycket ha hänt de senaste 500 åren då det gäller debatt och vetenskap. Då var det katolska kyrkan som ”energiskt” förföljde och förtryckte reformationen. Idag är det Global Warming Hysterikerna som är deras värdiga efterträdare i sina tappra försök att bekämpa ”irrläror”.

Se även mina tidigare inlägg: Mera upproriska och omoraliska vetenskapsmän, Upproret växer – Nya omoraliska vetenskapsmän!, Över 400 omoraliska vetenskapsmän!, Omoraliskt att tänka självständigt!, Al Gores Science Fiction and His Climate of Fear, Climate of Fear – 5! Etc.

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/4357

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Friday 25 January 2008
I am an intellectual blasphemer
When Alexander Cockburn, author of the forthcoming book A Short History of Fear, dared to question the climate change consensus, he was punished by a tsunami of self-righteous fury. It is time for a free and open ‘battle of ideas’, he says.
Alexander Cockburn

While the world’s climate is on a warming trend, there is zero evidence that the rise in CO2 levels has anthropogenic origins. For daring to say this I have been treated as if I have committed intellectual blasphemy.

In magazine articles and essays I have described in fairly considerable detail, with input from the scientist Martin Hertzberg, that you can account for the current warming by a number of well-known factors – to do with the elliptical course of the Earth in its relationship to the sun, the axis of the Earth in the current period, and possibly the influence of solar flares. There have been similar warming cycles in the past, such as the medieval warming period, when the warming levels were considerably higher than they are now.

Yet from left to right, the warming that is occurring today is taken as being man-made, and many have made it into the central plank of their political campaigns. For reasons I find very hard to fathom, the environmental left movement has bought very heavily into the fantasy about anthropogenic global warming and the fantasy that humans can prevent or turn back the warming cycle.

This turn to climate catastrophism is tied into the decline of the left, and the decline of the left’s optimistic vision of altering the economic nature of things through a political programme. The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice.

This is a fantasy. In truth, environmental catastrophism will, in fact it already has, play into the hands of sinister-as-always corporate interests. The nuclear industry is benefiting immeasurably from the current catastrophism. Last year, for example, the American nuclear regulatory commission speeded up its process of licensing; there is an imminent wave of nuclear plant building. Many in the nuclear industry see in the story about CO2 causing climate change an opportunity to recover from the adverse publicity of Chernobyl.

More generally, climate catastrophism is leading to a re-emphasis of the powers of the advanced industrial world, through its various trade mechanisms, to penalise Third World countries. For example, the Indians have just produced an extremely cheap car called the Tata Nano, which will enable poorer Indians to get about more easily without having to load their entire family on to a bicycle. Greens have already attacked the car, and it won’t take long for the WTO and the advanced powers to start punishing India with a lot of missionary-style nonsense about its carbon emissions and so on.

The politics of climate change also has potential impacts on farmers. Third World farmers who don’t use seed strains or agricultural procedures that are sanctioned by the international AG corporations and major multilateral institutions and banks controlled by the Western powers will be sabotaged by attacks on their ‘excessive carbon footprint’. The environmental catastrophism peddled by many who claim to be progressive is strengthening the hand of corporate interests over ordinary people.

Here in the West, the so-called ‘war on global warming’ is reminiscent of medieval madness. You can now buy Indulgences to offset your carbon guilt. If you fly, you give an extra 10 quid to British Airways; BA hands it on to some non-profit carbon-offsetting company which sticks the money in its pocket and goes off for lunch. This kind of behaviour is demented.

What is sinister about environmental catastrophism is that it diverts attention from hundreds and hundreds of serious environmental concerns that can be dealt with – starting, perhaps, with the emission of nitrous oxides from power plants. Here, in California, if you drive upstate you can see the pollution all up the Central Valley from Los Angeles, a lot of it caused, ironically, by the sulphuric acid droplets from catalytic converters! The problem is that 20 or 30 years ago, the politicians didn’t want to take on the power companies, so they fixed their sights on penalising motorists who are less able to fight back. Decade after decade, power plants have been given a pass on the emissions from their smoke stacks while measures to force citizens to change their behaviour are brought in.

Emissions from power plants are something that could be dealt with now. You don’t need to have a world programme called ‘Kyoto‘ to fix something like that. The Kyoto Accord must be one of the most reactionary political manifestos in the history of the world; it represents a horrible privileging of the advanced industrial powers over developing nations.

The marriage of environmental catastrophism and corporate interests is best captured in the figure of Al Gore. As a politician, he came to public light as a shill for two immense power schemes in the state of Tennessee: the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Oak Ridge Nuclear Laboratory. Gore is not, as he claims, a non-partisan green; he is influenced very much by his background. His arguments, many of which are based on grotesque science and shrill predictions, seem to me to be part of a political and corporate outlook.

In today’s political climate, it has become fairly dangerous for a young scientist or professor to step up and say: ‘This is all nonsense.’ It is increasingly difficult to challenge the global warming consensus, on either a scientific or a political level. Academies can be incredibly cowardly institutions, and if one of their employees was to question the discussion of climate change he or she would be pulled to one side and told: ‘You’re threatening our funding and reputation – do you really want to do that?’ I don’t think we should underestimate the impact that kind of informal pressure can have on people’s willingness to think thoroughly and speak openly.

One way in which critics are silenced is through the accusation that they are ignoring ‘peer-reviewed science’. Yet oftentimes, peer review is a nonsense. As anyone who has ever put his nose inside a university will know, peer review is usually a mode of excluding the unexpected, the unpredictable and the unrespectable, and forming a mutually back-scratching circle. The history of peer review and how it developed is not a pretty sight. Through the process of peer review, of certain papers being nodded through by experts and other papers being given a red cross, the controllers of the major scientific journals can include what they like and exclude what they don’t like. Peer review is frequently a way of controlling debate, even curtailing it. Many people who fall back on peer-reviewed science seem afraid to have out the intellectual argument.

Since I started writing essays challenging the global warming consensus, and seeking to put forward critical alternative arguments, I have felt almost witch-hunted. There has been an hysterical reaction. One individual, who was once on the board of the Sierra Club, has suggested I should be criminally prosecuted. I wrote a series of articles on climate change issues for the Nation, which elicited a level of hysterical outrage and affront that I found to be astounding – and I have a fairly thick skin, having been in the business of making unpopular arguments for many, many years.

There was a shocking intensity to their self-righteous fury, as if I had transgressed a moral as well as an intellectual boundary and committed blasphemy. I sometimes think to myself, ‘Boy, I’m glad I didn’t live in the 1450s’, because I would be out in the main square with a pile of wood around my ankles. I really feel that; it is remarkable how quickly the hysterical reaction takes hold and rains down upon those who question the consensus.

This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer; of the summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring. There is a witch-hunting element in climate catastrophism. That is clear in the use of the word ‘denier’ to label those who question claims about anthropogenic climate change. ‘Climate change denier’ is, of course, meant to evoke the figure of the Holocaust denier. This was contrived to demonise sceptics. The past few years show clearly how mass moral panics and intellectual panics become engendered.

In my forthcoming book, A Short History of Fear, I explore the link between fearmongering and climate catastrophism. For example, alarmism about population explosion is being revisited through the climate issue. Population alarmism goes back as far as Malthus, of course; and in the environmental movement there has always been a very sinister strain of Malthusianism. This is particularly the case in the US where there has never been as great a socialist challenge as there was in Europe. I suspect, however, that even in Europe, what remains of socialism has itself turned into a degraded Malthusian outlook. It seems clear to me that climate catastrophism represents a new form of the politics of fear.

I think people have had enough of peer-reviewed science and experts telling them what they can and cannot think and say about climate change. Climate catastrophism, the impact it is having on people’s lives and on debate, can only really be challenged through rigorous open discussion and through a ‘battle of ideas’, as the conference I spoke at in London last year described it. I hope my book is a salvo in that battle.

Alexander Cockburn was talking to Brendan O’Neill. Cockburn is co-editor of Counterpunch and a syndicated national columnist whose work appears regularly in the Nation, the New York Free Press, and the Los Angeles Times, among others. He spoke at the Battle of Ideas conference in London in October 2007. His new book, A Short History of Fear, will be published in March. The publisher has provided the following taster:

The idea that things are always getting worse, that Armageddon – in one form or another – is just around the corner, has been a common refrain since the very beginnings of Western culture. And, more often than not, the forces allegedly sending us to hell in a proverbial hand basket are shadowy conspiracies whose features are as murky as their nefarious power is supposedly all-encompassing.

Enter renegade journalist Alexander Cockburn to illuminate the darkest corners of our collective cultural unconscious. In his usual, take-no-prisoners-style, he battles an impressive collection of fearmongers and the irrationalities they espouse.

Likening the soul-saving Indulgences sold by the medieval Catholic Church to today’s carbon credits, Cockburn traces his subject through the ages, showing how fear is used to distract us from real problems and real solutions. Skewering doomsters on both the left and right, A Short History of Fear tackles: 9/11 conspiracy theories; the twentieth-century witch craze of ‘satanic abuse’; eugenics; the Kennedy assassination, Pearl Harbor, and other ‘inside jobs’; terrorism; the ‘Great Fear’ of the eighteenth century; today’s eleventh-hour predictions of planetary decline; and much more. Scathing, often hilarious, and always insightful, this is Cockburn at the top of his controversial game.

A Short History of Fear, by Alexander Cockburn is published by AK Press. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK)). reprinted from: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/4357/

Annonser

Etiketter: , , ,

4 svar to “Climate of Fear – I am an intellectual blasphemer”

  1. Ingen hädare Says:

    Klimatskräcken –
    Vem är en medeltida hädare (= blasphemer)

    När man läser detta internationella inlägg i miljödebatten inser man bl.a. 4 hemska realiteter.

    1. Miljöhysterin styrs och underblåses av en internationell vänsterrörelse

    2. Regeringar i välmående länder utnyttjar miljöhysterin i egna syften liksom de internationella företagen

    3. Miljöhysterin ger pengar, skatteintäkter, makt, röster, nya politiska plattformar och stora bidrag till vissa organisationer och karriärmöjligheter och inkomster för enskilda personer

    4. Regering och opposition liksom svenska massmedia har bildat en ohelig allians för att undvika all öppen och vetenskaplig debatt om miljöhysterin av själviska skäl för att utnyttja det svenska folket för egna syften

    Citat ur artikeln: (markeringarna är mina men texten är författarens)

    _______________________________


    This turn to climate catastrophism is tied into the

    decline of the left,

    and the decline of the left’s optimistic vision of altering the

    economic nature

    of things through a

    political programme.

    The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of

    social and environmental justice.

    This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer; of the summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring. There is a

    witch-hunting element in climate catastrophism.

    That is clear in the use of the word ‘denier’ to label those who question claims about anthropogenic climate change.

    ‘Climate change denier’

    is, of course, meant to evoke the figure of the Holocaust denier. This was contrived to

    demonise sceptics.

    The past few years show clearly how mass moral panics and intellectual panics become engendered.

    Slutcit.
    ______________________________

    Jag föreslår nu alla som är seriösa att ta den tid det tar att läsa denna artikel in extenso. Om ni då inte har fått blodad tand att läsa mer skulle jag bli förvånad. Inser ni inte vad som sägs här skulle man kunna stämpla er som vänsterfanatiker, extremhöger, politiker eller internationell företagare. Men om intressets väckts för att lära mer, börja då med att kolla vad som finns under hänvisningarna i denna blogg och fortsätt sedan med att leta på Internet. Ni kommer att bli skrämda över all okunskap och manipulering som är grunden för mijöhysterin.

    Skälv anser jag mig inte vara en hädare när jag påstår att miljöhysterin är ovetenskaplig och att hela frågan om global warming är fullständigt nonsens.

    Ingen hädare.
    I’m not a blasphemer !
    Jag lever inte på medeltiden !

  2. Miljöbluffen Says:

    ÄNTLIGEN en tidning som rapporterar att ett väderförhållande INTE har med den s.k. miljöhysterin Global Warming att göra. Läs Aftonbladet i dag 2008-01-31 som rapportera om annalkande svåra stormar över delar av Sverige.

    En sansad journalist som lyssnat på en vetenskapligt kunnig specialist. En journalist som trots ledande frågor inte manipulerat in sina egna åsikter i svaren och texten. Gratulerar!

    Aftonbladet kan om man fortsätter att behandla miljöfrågorna vetenskapligt bli nästa kandidat till Fredspriset eller åtminstone komma att kunna ta åt sig äran av att ha fört upp miljöhysterin till en debatt i Sverige?

    Läs och begrunda:

    http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article1740329.ab

  3. Global Warming Mass Hysteria at it’s peak - scaremongering is the name of the game « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Omoraliskt att tänka självständigt!,  Al Gores Science Fiction and His Climate of Fear,  Climate of Fear – I am an intellectual blasphemer,  Climate of Fear – 5!,  Climate of Fear – 4!,  Al Gore and his climate of fear!,  Climate […]

  4. There will be no more warming for the foreseeable future. « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Omoraliskt att tänka självständigt!,  Al Gores Science Fiction and His Climate of Fear,  Climate of Fear – I am an intellectual blasphemer,  Climate of Fear – 5!,  Climate of Fear – 4!,  Al Gore and his climate of fear!,  Climate […]

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Google-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: