William Hogarth Election Celebration
This post is in response to a number of comments made by regular contributors to Harmless Sky on the Tory Environmentalism – is everybody listening? thread. Here, Here, Here, Here.
Geoff Chambers says, ‘There’s a fascinating debate to be had on the effect of the current global warming catastrophe on British politics and media coverage …’ And of course he’s right.
We’re approaching the first general election that is likely to bring about a change of government in over a decade, and the previously remorseless march of AGW alarmism is beginning to falter, so how could it be otherwise? It would be difficult to get a cigarette paper between the three main party’s policies on this subject, but opinion polls constantly show that the politician’s apparent certainty is not shared by the electorate. Something has to give.
Geoff then goes on to consider the role of politics on this blog, assuming that this area of discussion is entirely off limits. That is not the case.
What the blog rules actually say is:
Politics:
It certainly isn’t possible to discuss climate, the countryside and landscapes without straying into this minefield, although I wish that this was not so. Please try to be reasonably moderate in your utterances and avoid party politics altogether. There are plenty of other blogs that deal with such matters.
This is an un-moderated blog, but when I do occasionally step in editorially, it is almost always because discussion of a political aspect of climate change has drifted on to other unrelated political issues, got heated, and ended up a long way from the subject matter that Harmless Sky is intended to cover.
I have particularly requested that contributors should avoid party politics as there are few people who can conduct a party-political debate objectively, and a rough-house that creates much heat and very little light usually ensues. This kind of thing may be fun for those directly involved, but it tends to be tedious if you have to read it, and I do have to read it.
For at least the next six months (assuming that the election takes place in May) I’m prepared, in fact eager, to see comments drawing attention to any differences that may emerge in the various parties’ policies relating to climate change, or any other environmental issues for that matter. However that does not mean that discussion of the Labour Party’s latest green initiative will be allowed to become a knock-down-drag-out fight over the relative economic competence of the main parties, or whether the prime minister is attempting to subvert democracy. And I am all too familiar with the trick of rounding off a five paragraph rant about foreign policy with a spurious reference to alternative energy. Such efforts are likely to be snipped in toto.
You have been warned.
That said, I would not be surprised if the coming election campaign provides the opportunity for the blogosphere to really come of age. Time strapped journalists rely more and more heavily on recycling press releases without proper investigation, or consideration of the motives of those who provide them. This is leaving huge gaps in the spectrum of news and opinion that the MSM covers, and the range of opinions that it considers. There is so much that concerns people that rarely, if ever, receives any attention. Sometimes I think that large parts of the press are now like disk jockey’s who have become used to just reaching out to a carousel for the next disc , but never wonder when the contents of the carousel was last updated. We seem to hear the same old tunes over and over again.
As a result, there is an emerging trend towards the new web-based media influencing the news agenda. Just ask yourself whether Climategate could have happened without the blogosphere? Or whether the utter futility of the Copenhagen summit would have become apparent so quickly without there being an alternative to the deceptively up-beat spin flooding from governments and organisations that had most to lose as a result of its failure.
Geoff also says:
I’ve often felt the rough and tumble of blog discussions reproduces the long-lost art of political all-in wrestling, of the kind you see in Hogarth’s illustrations of 18th century election campaigns. The point wouldn’t be to score party political points, but to get some heat into the discussion …..
This conjures up an intriguing image, but I doubt whether he really thinks that political persuasion with the aid of a cudgel would reinvigorate political life. On the other hand, it does seem likely that this election will be very different from those since 1997, and there may be copious amounts of metaphorical Hogarthian blood on the carpet before the campaign is over.
There seem to have been two distinct types of election in recent history. Firstly, there are those where the electorate hardly seem to be interested in the outcome because they expect the status quo to be maintained regardless of who wins. Such elections are characterised by unremarkable political leaders and a desire to see no more than a minor touch on the helm of the ship of state. Then there are elections that take place when the whole nation is galvanised by the possibility of a major change in the fundamental priorities that determine public policy. The elections of 1948, 1963, 1987, and 1997 are examples. It seems possible that, in due course, 2010 will join their ranks, but in this case there may be one very important difference: important issues that concern the public may not being addressed at all. Blogs can help to prevent this happening.
In another post, I mentioned an article by Matthew d’Ancona that castigated the political classes, and all parties, for arrogantly failing to engage with the public and acknowledge their views because they are inconvenient. The examples he chose were the MP’s expenses scandal and global warming. The days when MP’s could afford to ignore what is discussed on blogs is over, and the large proportion of new members that will be elected this year are far more likely to be aware of this than those who they will be replacing.
Just a year or two ago, bloggers endlessly discussed what was in the MSM, but had little impact on the news agenda. There was little or no sign that mainstream journalists and editors were interested in what bloggers said or did. As each month goes by the influence of the blogosphere is increasing because more and more of the public are seeking news and opinion on the internet rather than on paper, television or the radio. The MSM now have to compete for the audience not just among themselves, but with a whole new world of output.
In a blog post on the BBC website, Andrew Neil – as experienced a journalist as you can expect to find – has drawn attention to this point. His extremely hard hitting round-up of all the tribulations that have beset the once cosy and complacent world of mainstream climate science since the release of the CRU emails includes this obsevation:
The bloggers, too easily dismissed in the past, have set the pace with some real scoops — and some of the mainstream media is now rushing to catch up.
Wise editors understand what their readers want, either instinctively or by spending money on market research. Looking at where the heavy blog traffic is to be found can be much cheaper than commissioning opinion polls and focus groups. In the case of climate change, the mere number of web sites that deal with this subject from a sceptical point of view, and the traffic they get, must tell them something. They will also be aware that when they publish articles about global warming on their own websites, a large proportion of the comments they receive are sceptical.
Opinion polls show that the UK public rank concern about global warming very low in their list of priorities, but when it comes to policies that will lead to higher fuel bills, increased taxation, despoliation of the countryside, restrictions on travel and massive payments to the developing nations that is a very different matter. The public are very interested in these issues.
It is unlikely, if Matthew d’Ancona is right and politicians are so immersed in their own bubble that they have become divorced from the electorate, that climate change will play any greater role in the UK general election campaign than it has in recent by-elections, council elections and European elections unless somethng happens to dispel their complacency. If there is an outcry in the MSM against expensive proposals that will supposedly avert climate change, that would be something the main political parties would be unable to ignore.
Geoff is probably right, a rumbustious and widely populist outcry on the net could have an effect, not directly, but as a result of the message that it would send to the MSM, and if they fall into line then there is no way that politicians will be able to duck these inconvenient issues.
If Geoff’s dream of a truly Hogarthian election campaign comes true, I would not want to be part of it, but relying on the same period in history, there is a very obvious parallel that can be drawn between the 18th century pamphleteers and bloggers. In both cases radical voices became audible because concerned individuals were able to mobilise cheap means of mass communications to spread their views. And there is another similarity. Their pamphleteers ideas only spread because their publications were passed hand-to-hand, in much the same way that information on the net goes viral and spreads by links from site to site.
Although the notion of a rumbustious, rough and tumble 18th century style election campaign might have its charms, it would be unwise to take this analogy too far. Radical politics in the 18th century culminated in the French Revolution.
Now, where’s that guillotine?
The text below gives a far better summary of the Tea Party principles that the few cherry-picked protest signs you cited (71).
http://www.kansas.com/2010/02/14/1180750/tea-party-focuses-on-principles.html
The last sentence makes it fairly clear that this is not a movement organized by the right wing of the Republican party, but rather a grass-roots groundswell that is independent of the established political parties.
This is interesting to me, because a large and growing number of Swiss citizens hold many of the same principles. There is also the fear that the Federal government is trying to take over more and more of the responsibilities of the Cantonal and Local governments. These ideas are easier to express at the ballot box in Switzerland than in the USA, because of the direct referendum process, which is limited in the USA to the state level in a few states. But then Switzerland is a tiny country with a multi-party system, so the absolute concentration of power in a few hands is less of a problem than in the USA. Nevertheless, there are indications that something like a “tea party” movement might take hold in Switzerland, as well.
I have read that similar sentiments are held by many people in the UK, although I have not heard of a “movement” there.
I personally think these movements are a good thing to limit the centralized concentration of power in an “elitist” government that thinks it “knows better what is good for the people than they themselves do”. For Tony’s benefit (to get this back on topic), this includes the obsession with the non-problem of AGW.
Max
PeterM
To the contents of the NIPCC report you had nothing to comment, but to its authorship you wrote (70):
Wrong, Peter. The authors were:
Warren Anderson (USA), J. Scott Armstrong (USA), Dennis Avery (USA), Franco Battaglia (Italy), Robert Carter (Australia), Piers Corbyn (UK), Richard Courtney (UK), Joseph d’Aleo (USA), Don Easterbrook (USA), Fred Goldberg (Sweden), Vincent Gray (New Zealand), William Gray (USA), Kesten Green (Australia), Kenneth Haapala (USA), David Hagen (USA),
Klaus Heiss (Austria), Craig Idso (USA), Zbigniew Jaworowski (Poland), Olavi Karner (Estonia), Richard Alan Keen (USA), Madhav Khandekar (Canada), William Kininmonth (Australia), Hans Labohm (Netherlands), Anthony Lupo (USA), Howard Maccabee (USA), H. Michael Mogil (USA), Christopher Monckton (UK), Lubos Motl (Czech Republic), Stephen Murgatroyd (Canada), Nicola Scafetta (USA), Harrison Schmitt (USA), Tom Segalstad (Norway), S. Fred Singer (USA), George Taylor (USA), Dick Thoenes (Netherlands), Anton Uriarte (Spain), Gerd Weber (Germany)
Of these 37 individuals, 20 are scientists in a climate related field, 3 are meteorologists and 7 are scientists in another field related to a specific section of the report.
Discuss the contents if you can, Peter, rather than falling into the silly trap of trying to discredit the authors and then getting it all wrong anyway.
Max
Peter M, like Geoff I have a more left-wing background – in fact (when in the UK) I voted Labour every time until recently, except once voting LibDem for tactical reasons. My father was an old-school Labour supporter, who believed that they stood up for the working class and for the underdogs, and this very much influenced me in my student years and beyond.
Surprisingly it is only since 2005/2006 that I’ve been looking for least-worst alternatives, having been slow to wake up to the fact that New Labour and the EU have been sending us, year by year, down the slippery path towards being a much more undemocratic, secretive, spendthrift and authoritarian society (I won’t go on about it here, as much of this would be OT.)
What I would say is if any one of the three main parties in the UK reinvented themselves and started to take a very critical look at AGW (and Greenery in general), reviewed the UK’s position re EU membership, took a pragmatic stance re energy (asking the question “How can we continue to keep the lights on?” rather than “How can we meet our carbon emissions targets?”) and did more to actually represent the public rather than endlessly try to shape our opinions – then I would definitely consider voting for them, whether they were left or right of centre.
Max,
You seem reluctant to disclose the full facts with regards to the NIPCC, the Heartland Institute and Fred Singer. Maybe I should have said “published” rather than “written”:
“The 2008 NIPCC document titled Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel of Climate Change,[49] published by The Heartland Institute,[50] was released in February-March 2008. Singer served as General Editor and also holds the copyright.”
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#NIPCC
I’d just suggest a Google image search of “Tea Party Protests”. You’ll see many posters where Barack Obama is compared to Hitler. If I was cherry picking I’d certainly have included some of them. It would be fair enough to protest at policies which have been implemented which weren’t in Obama’s manifesto, such as the escalation of the Afghan war , but the Tea Party protesters have nothing to say about that. But they do have plenty to say about health reform which was in the manifesto.
The tea party protesters are a essentially a bunch of disaffected white people who are most aggrieved that the Black and Latino communities have had the temerity to vote in someone like Obama.
Do you mean like this banner Pete?
Do you mean like this banner Pete?
Or maybe this Tea Party participant Pete?
PeterM
The NIPCC report was written by a group of scientists, most of whom were in a climate related field, as I pointed out.
The fact that the Heartland Institute published it or that Fred Singer was among the authors is not that relevant.
What is relevant is its content. It is a solid critique of the IPCC report, pointing out several weaknesses in that report and in some of its conclusions. Read it and comment on the content, not on the identity of the publisher or one of the authors.
To your second point you opined:
Do you seriously think that I am stupid enough to believe that statement? Come on, Peter, use your brain. Labeling the “tea party” members as “racists” is totally absurd.
As to comparing Obama with Hitler, that is also a ridiculous statement.
Try to remain objective and factual when you discuss things, Peter, and leave out the uninformed polemic BS.
From what I have read, the US “tea party” movement is a non-partisan grass-roots movement that is opposed to an ever-increasing and more powerful central government, espousing personal freedom versus government control (read the article I posted for the basic philosophy behind this movement). Similar sentiments exist in Switzerland, where this has not yet officially become a movement.
In the US the movement started during the Bush administration and has grown stronger after Obama became president. Both Bush and Obama were supporters of “big government”, although Obama is carrying this to even greater extremes than his predecessor.
It has very little to do with our topic here, although most “tea party” members probably oppose the “cap ‘n tax” bill, which is being justified by the increasingly questionable AGW premise. But then, the “tea party” members are not the only the only ones who oppose a direct or indirect carbon tax, in the USA as well as elsewhere.
Max
Brute,
I think the point you are making is that both political extremes tend to go overboard at times in comparing anyone they don’t like with Hitler. I wouldn’t disagree with your observation.
Max,
The Tea party movement has crossed the pond , so it would seem.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100027834/brighton-tea-party-packed-out/
It’s led by that well known ‘moderate’ Daniel Hannan. I wouldn’t agree with him being compared with Hitler either. What annoys me most about him is his plagiarism.
Pete,
I’ve been reluctant to comment here as in my mind, this is a British electoral page/thread/subject. Being an American, I’ve felt that it really isn’t my place to comment. I don’t know an awful lot about the intricacies of the British political system so I’ve chosen to keep out of it……… but what strikes me as odd is that you generalize all tea party members as crackpots. When I highlight crackpots at the other end of the political spectrum you seem to somehow justify the Leftist (carrying Bush/Hitler banners) as the “extreme” and not representative of the mainstream.
If only you’d provide that sort of latitude to your political opposite!
I would think that even you’d have to admit that the AGW “cause” has taken some serious public relations hits lately………that out of a sense of intellectual honesty you would concede that the predictions/statements made by the Warmists were somewhat “inflated” (to be generous).
I’ve noticed that when you begin to lose ground in any aspect of the debate, you switch to analyzing the political motivations (of your opponents) or simply change the subject entirely.
Yes, I have differing philosophical views on many aspects than you. Hell, we may even agree on specific political points……But in this particular area (AGW) I believe that your pride simply will not allow you to concede that you’ve been duped by unscrupulous politicians and self serving activist scientists.
Whether it’s pride, or you truly believe that government or a small group of politicians should have the right to dictate to a majority how they conduct their lives/choose to spend their finances, I don’t know………What I do know is that the evidence against the theory of AGW /”Climate Change” continues to mount no matter what side of the political spectrum you are viewing it from.
I happen to be a “Tea Party Activist” (no surprise to you I’m sure). I’ve been to a couple of events………There aren’t dues, secret handshakes, initiation rites or membership cards. I saw no racism, sexism, homosexual hatred or any other type of bigotry. I saw a few “edgy” signs……but in a crowd that large, I’d expect a wide variety of opinions.
There are many “Black” and “Latino” participants at tea party rallies. While they don’t outnumber “whites”, they do participate. Why must you Leftists constantly make judgments of others based upon skin color?
Curious…………
I’m by no means a spokesman, but I believe the majority of “Tea Party Activists” are ordinary people that are sick and tired of being lectured to by an elitist group of self serving career politicians that are not representing the views of the people. These politicians are bleeding us dry with over-taxation, regulation, out of control spending, special interest pandering and colossal growth of government. Our freedoms and liberties are being incrementally marginalized.
We’re being strangled and it makes me wonder what the point is of paying taxes? The more money they take from us, the more money they spend with no end in sight. If I choose to go into debt and meet my payment schedule, I can see that the principle is declining…that at some point, the debt will be repaid………but with politicians, they continue to borrow money, increase taxes and increase spending………it’s the Mother of all Ponzi schemes and people (even in the UK) are beginning to speak up and take notice.
Your defense of career politicians raiding the public treasury is astonishing.
I’m reminded of a book I’ve read regarding Nicolae & Elena Ceausescu. At their trial, Elena Ceausescu admonished her interrogators, proclaiming “Such Impudence!” “I am a member and chairwoman of the Academy of Sciences! You cannot talk to me in such a way!”
She said this just before they took her outside and shot her………
Her attitude is indicative of many government bureaucrats these days. I believe that we’ll see many of these arrogant, self serving politicians meet their political end this election season (through the ballot box).
Brute,
you ask “Why must you Leftists constantly make judgments of others based upon skin color?”
Its just an observation. I’ve looked at quite a few crowd scenes from tea-party rallies and it is hard to spot more than a couple of faces who aren’t ethnically white.
You’d know better than me but I would say that the politics, and culture, of Latino, and the Black community too is typically quite different. In the case of the Latino community, you’ll find they’ll bring the politics of the original homelands with them. That means they could be what you might descibe as far left or far right. Even if they are of the right they’ll still be different. I doubt they’ll have the same emotional attachment to the US constitution as you guys for a start.
You’ll either have to get used to it, and get over it, or overthrow the government forcibly!
Barack Obama is not being criticised for what he has promised to do but failed, and which would be fair enough, but for doing exactly what he said he would do! Particularly on health care reform. Its not just an attack on Barack Obama, its an attack on the right of any president to implement his election manifesto. A large number of white middle class voters, in collaboration with what might be described a disadvantaged section of white sub working class types, don’t want to allow him any right at all.
PS You write “Your defense of career politicians raiding the public treasury is astonishing.” I think you must be confusing me with someone else.
So?
You’re asserting that their politics are different because of the color of their skin?
I know many Conservative Latino and Black people………I know many “Blacks” and “Latinos” who are (shiver) Born Again Christians. In fact, I’d say the majority of “people of color” are religiously faithful…..it doesn’t get much more Conservative than that.
You certainly know a lot about the American electorate from 15,000 miles away.
You reaffirm the Elitist Liberal attitude that all white people are racists and all “Blacks” and “Latinos” are poor helpless victims and that you (as a “concerned”, “enlightened” white man) must somehow “come to the rescue”.
I’ve got news for you Pete……..”Blacks” & “Latinos” don’t want or need your pity or your “assistance”. They are proud, capable people and have survived the rigors of society (countless societies) for thousands of years without the input of dopey, dreamy, do-gooder Liberal white people.
A slight correction to my previous comment…(Emphasis bold).
Could it be possible that they are escaping their former political system?
Wow, the window into the mindset of a Liberal’s world view is frightening. The condescension concerning “classic” minorities and the assumption and generalizations ………grouping and categorizing individuals based on skin pigmentation………do you hear yourself Pete?
PeterM
It appears, as you write (85) that the tea party philosophy (if not the movement) has actually “crossed the pond” to the UK.
Brute has given us some direct insight on this movement in the USA.
In the article you cited, Danial Hannan apparently “believes that the EU is making its constituent nations poorer, less democratic and less free”.
That is precisely why the Swiss voters decided to pass on EU membership (despite pressure from the federal government to do so at the time).
The current move to give the (non-elected) UN executive power to tax and regulate is just a further step in giving up some of the basic democratic freedoms, regardless of whether this is allegedly being done to “save the planet” by regulating carbon emissions.
It appears to me that Christopher Monckton (and the “tea party” activists) have got it right on this point.
Max
Brute,
This ‘color of their skin’ argument is really quite outdated. There is a lot more to cultural differences than that.
Many people come to Australia from all over the world with many different skin colours. But, even white Europeans don’t become ‘instant Aussies’ in the sense that they acquire an instant liking for meat pies, barbequed food, beer, rugby and cricket! That’s just not the way it works.
There are large cultural differences between Europeans too. The UK and the USA both have a common language, the people look the same, except that the Poms are a bit slimmer :-), but they are very different countries, with different histories, and that has nothing to do with the skin colour of the inhabitants.
Brute said;
“I’m reminded of a book I’ve read regarding Nicolae & Elena Ceausescu. At their trial, Elena Ceausescu admonished her interrogators, proclaiming “Such Impudence!” “I am a member and chairwoman of the Academy of Sciences! You cannot talk to me in such a way!”
I actually met this pair and you never saw such a arrogant and ignorant couple who believed absolutely that they knew best.
Tonyb
This review of the Parliamentary Select Committee’s hearing into the leaked CRU emails (Climategate hits Westminster: MPs spring a surprise) is, I suggest, relevant to this discussion. The hearing began by giving the two sceptics invited to give evidence quite a hard time. In true Peter Martin style, the Committee thought it important to query the financial backing of the the Global Warming Policy Foundation – an organisation founded by the two witnesses, Nigel Lawson and Benny Peiser. But, as the hearing progressed, the Committee’s attitude changed markedly and they proceeded to give Phil Jones, the UEA team and Muir Russell (heading the UEA’s internal enquiry) a much harder time.
The attack on Lawson/Peiser was led by Tim Boswell, one of the few Conservative MPs on the Committee. The Committee’s change of heart was led by Labour MP, Graham Stringer – the only scientist on the Committee.
Robin
Interesting. Seems I detected the sound of tables turning.
Max
TonyB and Brute
I never met Ceau?escu in person, but I saw the gruesome Christmas Day military trial of him and his wife (in a schoolroom, I believe) and the execution behind the building on TV at the time.
During his regime, I had to visit Romania a few times. On one trip I had to go to the Cimpina oilfields, just north of Ploie?ti, together with an enhanced oil recovery expert. We started to leave Bucharest for the roughly one-hour trip, when suddenly our driver stopped and pulled over. All traffic in Bucharest was stopped for around 45 minutes to allow Ceau?escu to leave town undisturbed for an excursion.
He, his wife and in particular his murderous security police, were feared and hated by everyone.
Max
Sounds like a few “Academy of Sciences” members I’ve heard on the news lately………I suspect these self proclaimed “intellectuals” move in packs………for example……
Gore still hot on his doomsday rhetoric
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/03/gore_still_hot_on_his_doomsday_rhetoric/
Geoff Chambers recently said “No, we climate change deniers are all not all right wing Tory, UKIP and possibly BNP types.”
That’s funny, because in a UK context, I’d say that’s exactly what you are. The US deniers would be Right Wing Republicans with Tea Party sympathies I’d say too.
Geoff has come closest to saying he’s a natural Labour supporter without saying he’s actually going to vote for them.
Since the Labour Party in the UK have won the last few elections and the Lib Dems have consistently done well, presumably they do get a few votes here and there. But not, it would seem, from you lot! So why the howls of outrage when I point this out?
Peter, re your #99 I’ve voted Labour a number of times in the past, as per my #78. But this year, maybe not (!)
We don’t appear to have much choice here in the UK, as you may have realised. On the face of it, whichever way we vote, the winner, whoever it may be, will be a party committed to EU membership, carbon emissions targets and various other windmill-tilting measures.
I say “on the face of it” because given the circumstances (possible low turnout in the polls due to the expenses scandals, possibility of a hung Parliament and the looming reality of economic awfulness) we may be entering unknown territory after May 2010. This time around seems different to previous occasions.
I find myself in broad agreement with Peter Geany (#73) when he says that the traditional left/right categories are outdated. A future political movement or party which committed itself to finding practical measures to keep the lights burning, rolling back the intrusive State/EU super-state and taking a hard, sceptical look at AGW, is one that I might well support, whether they called themselves “left” or “right”.