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.
This puts Monbiot far beneath those he criticises.
@DavidRoseUK, who Monbiot blames for the Iraq war, however, explained himself and the nature of journalism.
Monbiot doesn't acknowledge Rose's honest reflection and discussion of his mistakes.
But where is Monbiot's violent moralisation against Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch -- and other cowardly war mongers? And where is their reflection?
Unrepentant blowhards double down, of course, and traduce their critics as 'genocide-deniers', 'Saddam/Assad apologists', and of course, 'far-right white-supremacists'. That is what it means to be *consistently* against UK foreign policy and warmongering, you see.
Hence, lacking self-awareness, as Monbiot vacillates, he sees others changing their position.
And it is precisely their commitments to principles that upsets him. Those principles *must* be evil, right?
Says Monbiot, "Nigel Lawson was the George Osborne of his generation, devastating public services and inflicting massive, unnecessary pain on the poor."
Unemployment was at 3 million when Lawson arrived at #11. But by 1989, unemployment had halved.
What a terrible bastard.
Monbiot cannot explain Lawson's economic policies in anything other than the stark moral terms. He is no better able to explain Matt Ridley's role in Northern Rock, either. But with a series of popular and imaginative natural science books behind Ridley...
... Perhaps Monbiot's ire is simple jealousy. I don't agree with all of @mattwridley's bio-metaphysics ('ideas having sex'). But that doesn't mean that his arguments are not a deeply challenging, innovate, interesting and worthwhile. They surely are....
But what's Monbiot's theory of innovation? How does he place the human at the centre of our own history, as it as made?
"Ours is a struggle against ourselves", he says. It was all for nought. We were better off in the caves.
And Bjorn Lomborg's sins, of course, are not even in challenging the core tenets of the new religion, but merely examining their consequences, by asking what, if we wanted to do the most good in the world, what would it be -- mitigation or something else.
Heresy. That's all.
Lomborg is one of those men who has "helped push us towards catastrophe", says Monbiot. "Wait a second", says Lomborg...
As the chart shows -- and it should be remembered that it would be even more substantial if it took account of population growth -- it requires a huge leap of faith to stay with the "catastrophe" narrative after the benefit of a historical perspective.
Monbiot's 'catastrophe' narrative really is an article of faith. Bad faith. Literally faith... It has been disproved, but he adheres to it in the face of facts.
It is an article of faith that allows him to moralise about Lawson, Rose, Lomborg, Ridley and Hitchens.
And of course, against the late Christopher Booker.
What did they all show?
An unwillingness to take official narratives at face value. An unwillingness to be swept along by orthodoxy. A desire to discover truths for themselves.
And that makes George so very, very angry.
• • •
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.
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'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.