 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Q&A: Could These Comments From the National Review Be Directed at Climate Skeptics Here?
Question by gcnp58: Could these comments from the National Review be directed at climate skeptics here?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTMzMTY2ZmU2ZGY1YzQ3N2Q0MWY4M2M4OTMyZGRjMjY=
National Review Online
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Article: Liberty and Tyranny and Epistemic Closure
Author: Jim Manzi
…………
Jim Z: Just for reference, Irving Kristol, who is considered the founder of the neocon movement, called himself a neo-conservative. So did Norman Podhoretz. Your contention that it was applied to the neocons by others as a slur is absurd.
Best answer:
Answer by Portland-Joe
Yes, and the warmists as well.
Skeptics:
– Some refuse to consider the difference between climate and weather.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnCn__oTxUpRQs6zWfcLsaX_5nNG;_ylv=3?qid=20100425155256AAr9vJa
– Some fail to notice in the Phil Jones BBC interview that Jones still believes that the current warming is abnormal, and anthropogenic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
– Some fail to notice the recent lack of correlation between sun spot numbers and warming.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoHDA.F59VifjepLkSi8VoEjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20090909083132AAy8XIi
– Some fail to notice the problems involved with using nuclear power as “clean” energy.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqasHoDoLlmwHInt3l23as0jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20100208103907AAKJkQP
Warmers:
– Some think that questioning scientists is antiscience.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjswkHiU8J0cAqEFgbs6jNkjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20091207090512AAY1a1X
– Some base their faith on consensus rather than data analysis.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al50dYNClYt9ZQu6Q9J6E8MjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20100313001126AAZ0a1F
– Some fail to notice that Phil Jones admitted that the whole statistical basis of the global warming “crisis” that warming is abnormal, and temperatures are not unprecedented, does not exist, and is simply his opinion.
– Some refuse to acknowledge that CO2 is good for plants, and not a plant toxin.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al9prbm.b_OnX7DncD27NM_ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100223182538AA4OvK7&show=7#profile-info-Yk1asOK4aa
Edit @Paul B:
Discussion with conservatives is probably not as futile as you think. Just do not expect them to change their positions all at once.
Edit @Dana:
“demanded that their political leaders do so”
I certainly did not choose Jim Inhofe to be the skeptic political leader, nor am I in any position to make any demands of him. How do you feel about Al Gore?
Edit @Jim Z:
“called neo-conservatives which was meant to conjur up Nazi similarities but that negative conotation didn’t stick.”
When did it unstick?
Edit2 @Jim Z:
Most people I know consider the neocons to be both Socialists http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008100309
and Nazis. http://writing.colostate.edu/gallery/talkingback/v3.1/downing.htm
Edit3 @Jim Z:
“Clearly they are conservative”
Not in a fiscal sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
<BR%20/>Tags: Climate, Here, National, Could, Review, From <BR%20/>
Good for you for reading National review or was it linked in some blog because it was critical of Mark Levin. He probably was referring to conservative skeptics. There are many elitists who are quite liberal in the classical meaning but just fell away from the democrat party. Many are called neo-conservatives which was meant to conjur up Nazi similarities but that negative conotation didn’t stick. I am currently reading an excellent book by Jonah Goldberg who was referenced in the article. Manzi is a knat compared to Levin. I was going to check and see if he was a journalist. His degree is in International Relations therefore his opinion on AGW doesn’t have much sway with me regarless of his belief in his own expertise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Manzi
I read Liberty and Tyranny and it was an astonishingly well written book. Levin is extremely smart. They don’t nickname him the great one for nothing. Manzi can believe what ever he likes. He will be proven to be on the wrong side of history on this one IMO. I know Levin talked about AGW briefly in his book but I don’t even recall exactly what he said. It wasn’t the focus of the book. I know he is skeptical and he was correct to point out that it was based on poltics. He isn’t a scientist. He is a constitutional lawyer.
Dana should read Liberty and Tyranny. He would learn something but I suspect he would resemble the demon possessed Regan as the Exorcists sprayed holy water and mumbled latin prayers.
Regarding the origin of Neocon, I was simply repeating what Jonah Goldberg wrote. I suspect he is correct. Irving’s son is called a neo-conservative as well. So what? I dont’ think he minds being called a Neo-conservative either. What it really has become to mean in common usage is jewish conservative and it is generally used derisively by the wacko left. That was particularly obvious during Bush’s term or didn’t you notice.
Portland, my point is that to most people, Neoconservative doesn’t conjur up Nazi comparisons. It was a failed attempt. The left often attempts to compare conservatives to Nazi’s inspite of them being National SOCIALISTS.
Note: Portland. Clearly they are conservative. They talk about the origins of neocons here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
They don’t mention its comparisons to Nazis but is consistent with Goldberg’s contention.
No question. The article’s premise is applying this principle:
“Conservative domestic policy would be in better shape if conservative magazines and conservative columnists were more willing to call out Republican politicians (and, to a lesser extent, conservative entertainers) for offering bromides instead of substance, and for pandering instead of grappling with real policy questions.”
Manzi then applies the principle to some book (a bestseller apparently – sorry, I don’t keep up with right-wing literature) ‘Liberty and Tyranny’, which has a chapter on global warming. Manzi finds that the book “does not present a reasoned overview of the global warming debate; it doesn’t even present a reasoned argument for a specific point of view, other than that of willful ignorance. This section of the book is an almost perfect example of epistemic closure.”
The exact same could be said of deniers on this site. They make arguments which are not based on facts or scientific data or evidence. They ignore the obvious rebuttals to their arguments, even when answerers to their ‘questions’ provide them directly.
And they would certainly be in better shape if they offered arguments of substance, or at least demanded that their political leaders do so, instead of celebrating and rewarding lies and ignorance. If you oppose a carbon cap and trade system, then oppose a carbon cap and trade system. Come up with an alternative solution. Or if you really think the climate isn’t very sensitive to CO2 and/or temperature changes, then make that argument and support it with scientific evidence.
But don’t spout off garbage like ‘they predicted an ice age in the ’70s’ and ‘are Martians driving SUVs too?’ and ‘there’s been no statistically significant warming for 14 years’ and jim’s favorite, ‘it’s warming because it used to be cooler’. Making ignorant and factually wrong arguments doesn’t make you look good. It doesn’t add to your credibility. It just makes you into a laughingstock who serious people don’t take seriously. And then you complain when you’re not taken seriously – guess what? It’s your own fault for making arguments you know, or darn well should know are dumb.
You might fool people with these arguments in the near-term, because most people don’t know better. But sooner or later people will learn, because the planet won’t stop warming and the climate won’t stop changing just because you can’t distinguish between weather and climate. You’re wrong, and eventually if you keep being wrong when you should know better, it will come back to bite you.
The Republican Party will not benefit in the long-run from becoming the anti-science AGW denial party that a certain faction of its members are trying to warp it into. You can only tell so many lies, steal and misrepresent so many emails, and conjur up so many conspiracies before people start to see through your smoke and mirrors.
I’m glad to say I’d never even heard of the book being reviewed. It seems to be an example of the kind of ideologically driven twaddle that goes down great in the States, but even Conservatives laugh at in Britain.
However, having checked out your link and looked up the reviews, it seems to confirm my thesis that global warming denialism has become an identifying dogma for American conservatives, and that discussion is futile.
for info ; focus on: http://www.sos-environment.co.cc
Willful ignorance? Describes just about anybody. Could be a “scientist” that tweaks data to fit an agenda. Could be an engineer conditioned to respond negatively to any new proposal. I’ll bet you don’t think you are willfully ignorant. The Germans in 1930′s didn’t think it was them that were willfully ignorant. Some still don’t. Americans and Australians that have fought the Global Warming bandwagon, you think are willfully ignorant? Because of a few years of skewed temperatures and a UN report that purports a catastrophe? I am ignorant of a lot of things, but you must know everything.
It’s pretty hard to answer your question without reading the book. That of course doesn’t stop some people from gleefully agreeing with that review since it falls into line with their beliefs. I’ll bet they (and probably you) would agree with any negative review of a skeptical book without actually reading it.
However, I can say those comments certainly reflect the view of a true believer, that much I can tell. This is one of the most telling comments: “He simply moves on to criticisms of proposed solutions. This is wingnuttery.” I’m not sure what those “proposed solutions” are but discussing policy and examining alternatives like mitigation to warming as opposed to CO2 reduction certainly is not wingnuttery.
I’ve watched the rise of this anti-global warming narrative in talk radio over the last few years. It has made me lose my faith in humanity that so many people can be so easily blinded by dogmatic ideology that they won’t even allow themselves to absorb basic facts. Guys like Levin, Beck and Rush are still trying to convince their viewers that ice is increasing at the North pole. I am convinced that these guys have only the faintest skin deep knowledge about global warming and have purposely kept themselves away from details they know ruin their favorite arguments. It still puzzles me whether any of them know they are completely full of it but do it anyways, but the passion they exude about their baseless opinions is impressive.
Yes and the film Not To Hot to Not Handle could explain the cooling trend in the 1970′s.
Other comments could be found in the film Century of Self which explains the scepticism.
Also in contammination of the water supply by oil drilling by Texas oil companies like Exxon-Mobil .
or Texaco. Or I should say companies in Texas and Alabama.
The film Power of Night Mares by the BBC further explains the mind set of people on here.
The film Blue Gold could provide a refutation.