Why are so many climate fanatics so hostile to democracy?
There is a sensible answer. There are historical, logical and political reasons why certain perspectives take certain positions WRT to the environment and climate. But Bob wont hear them.
That's largely owed to the fact that one of the most ideologically-blinkered camps in the debate is his own -- the CCCEP and Grantham Institute.
A simple thought experiment first. Can we imagine someone with a remotely sceptical outlook being given a home at any of the CCCEP/Grantham centres?
No. The condition of funding presupposes research is directed at supporting the cause. The 'P' in CCCEP is 'Policy'.
No. The condition of funding presupposes research is directed at supporting the cause. The 'P' in CCCEP is 'Policy'.
In fact, the CCCEP was established under the ESRC, Chaired by Adair Turner precisely to support the Committee on Climate Change, which Turner then chaired when it was created by the Climate Change Act. Meanwhile, of course, Stern took the chair of the CCCEP.
Many 'research' organisations are simply political apparatus, which is why we see them staffed so incestuously by a cabal of climate aristocrats. Debate is anathema to them, because they don't need to debate to secure their established positions.
Academe's eschewing of debate and its increasing proximity to 'governance' speaks to the transformation of politics, academia, science... never mind a 'changing climate'. This is why some notable scientists have become outspoken, they enjoy privileges for no good reason.
I say 'notable'. But they are not notable for their science. They think they are Einsteins, but they are Little Fingers.
Court politics (and GOT references) aside, what *is* the reason people who believe in the market might take a more sceptical view of climate change?
1. It was not always thus. One of the few key early green texts -- The Tragedy of the Commons -- argued for the privatisation of all common property. Garret Hardin also argued for the regulation of fertility and the denial of aid/famine relief.
2. Using the same logic as Hardin's TotC, greens seemingly of a more leftist bent have argued for the *abolition* of all private property. "Science" it seems, is politically fickle.
3. That (nominally) left and right movements have seemingly been able to use the same 'science' to advance their claims suggests that something other than 'science' is going on to cause the greening of political tendencies.
4. One answer to these historical changes is the hollowing out of their political perspectives: they search for a new basis to legitimise themselves and their outlook as their moral and political authority diminishes.
5. This has implications for the left and right. If you believe that society is closely dependent on Nature's Providence for its survival, then it follows that you will cower in the face of science which claims to have detected minute changes in temperature.
6. If, however, you believe that the endurance of human society is predicated on cooperation, either through the market (the right view) or through some form of collectivity (crudely, the left view), then it follows that climate change doom saying isn't quite so troubling.
7. It does not take an abundance of research to observe that much of the left and right (and centre, for that matter) have lost faith in what gave them their geometric position.
8. Taking a step further back, it seems obvious that political tendencies that have been evacuated of their content, naturally grow cynical of the public, and tend to withdraw from the principles of democracy and debate: there is nothing to contest.
9. What remains is a vapid compact. Furthermore, confident perspectives will appear as existential threat to such a coalition. This explains Ward's hostility.
10. 'Science' is a fig leaf for green ideology such as Ward's. He will claim it supports his view, and that his critics are 'deniers'. But he can not meaningfully identify what it is that is 'denied', and how what is denied leads necessary to his desired 'policy' outcome.
11. So he is forced instead to cast even relatively centrist political ideas as 'extreme' in the hope that he can frame the debate (such as it is) as one between 'science' and 'ideology' to avoid scrutiny of his own.
12. But we can see Ward's position is ideological, manifestly. It (though not he) has built new political institutions, it has reconfigured the relationships between government, the public, academia, and other institutions. It has established political priorities.
13. Those transformations are far-reaching, and their effects are yet to be fully experienced in the West. Worse, they have occurred far above and beyond democratic control.
14. Never mind 'is climate change happening'. The question to ask is, what is the difference between an undemocratic movement building political institutions and making policy in opposition to people's interests beyond democratic control, and any other totalitarian ideology?
15. To ask that question is to be a 'denier'. To see that that question should precede your evaluation of green 'scientific' claims will make you a 'denier'.
