Monbiot is forced to make statements like these because he cannot defend any of his claims in any form of debate.
He's a weak, vain, cowardly and nasty man, whose only talent is passing himself off as a thinker -- a talent he acquired by virtue of the institutions of the British class system.
It is testament to the British public school that it can gift such confidence to such nonentities.
Monbiot simply hates people who disagree.
He is thus forced to escalate his description of their crimes each time he writes about them.
He never develops his understanding of their arguments -- such as actually reading them. Neither does he encourage it in his readers.
It *ought* to be the product of such an education that a man with such privileges as Monbiot has enjoyed is able to say that he can understand how another perspective was arrived at.
But there is only one dimension to Monbiot's moralising.
We can be sure he does read his critics, but not to understand them. Nor even to barely improve his argument.
In that episode, Monbiot tried to invent a bad environmentalism and a good environmentalism.
It would put Michael More on the bad side, following his expose of the green energy industry. This was 'far right' and 'white supremacist' environmentalism, said Monbiot.
But in creating such a division, Monbiot would, if he was at all intellectually honest, have included David Attenborough with Michael More -- he being far more fascistic in his population-environmentalism. Ditto, he must include the Guardian and Paul Ehrlich.
But quite frankly, I've never encountered a committed environmentalist who has sufficient stuff between the ears to understand a contradiction in their own argument, let alone the honesty required to admit to it, take responsibility for it, and reflect on it.
It's not just bad faith. Environmentalism is a bad religion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Watch Myles Allen waffle on @thecoastguy's show about "loading the dice", to try to explain the flooding in Germany and link it to climate change. (Followed by a very decent studio discussion.)
The 'scientific' method is called 'Attribution'.
This method of 'attribution' is discussed here (which you've probably already seen).
It is not science. It adds nothing to our understanding of the climate. It is literally intended only to construct political messages, and for use in climate lawfare.
"Loading the dice" is a terrible analogy because it does nothing to explain the policy failure. Pseudo-scientists like Myles Allen in fact want to fix the dice, to urge even worse policies. The promise that climate change mitigation will produce fewer floods is a lie.
It is the Katrina fallacy, again, which lets idiot hacks like George Monbiot blame the deaths in Germany on journalists he dislikes -- to use them as moral blackmail against criticism. Ideology in motion.
It's easy to see why. @ClarkeMicah (and Spiked for that matter) are the far more able and consistent critics of Western foreign policy and warmongering.
When Hitchens and Spiked have pointed out the flaws and self-serving nature of the putative casus belli, Monbiot calls these critics 'apologists' for dictators' crimes. This has two causes.
1. Monbiot's moral universe is rendered in stark black and white, and nothing between.
2. The stark moral categories that divide Monbiot's moral universe into unimpeachable good and irredeemable evil cause him to be bound by and to trip over his own arguments.
It's a demand from a party that is ripping itself apart because its "leadership" cannot decide whether or not there are two sexes, and what the rational basis for the claim is.
Moreover, it's a party that previously decided it needed two leaders: one for boys, one for girls.
Maybe it needs 150 leaders: one for each scientifically, objectively-defined "gender".
That would make its leadership 150 times bigger than its representation in Parliament, which is 0.15% of MPs.