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.
The more that *policy* failures are blamed on climate change (the Katrina Fallacy), the more natural disasters will claim human lives.
It shifts the emphasis of public debate away from politicians, governments, planners and engineers, to the public, which must be constrained.
There is no such thing as a natural disaster from extreme weather.
They are all policy failures, or failures of engineering and maintenance (e.g. Katrina in NO).
They are made symbols of climate change by the very people who pretend that the fault is your behaviour.
A block of apartments falls down... Climate change.
Floods in Europe... Climate change.
Wildfires destroy houses... Climate change.
Each a prima facie case of bad policy, bad planning, or bad engineering. But each posited within minutes as a prima facie case of climate change.
It is *ideology* that makes the leap of faith, away from what is known and can be known and discovered and proven, to what can only be imagined, and never proved, never known, and never discovered.
The climate change story has gone around the world before even the bodies have been pulled from the wreckage. Ecstatic idiot green pundits pore over the footage. "SEE -- IT'S CLIMATE BREAKDOWN!!!"
"But Ben, these things are happening much more often!"
They aren't. A century ago, you would be unlikely to have heard about a block of apartments collapsing in the USA, or floods in Europe.
Nobody was recording databases of disasters a century ago. Even if you did hear about some remote village being swept into the sea in a short paragraph in a paper, you would not internalise the story, to make it part of your political worldview, the way people do today.
• • •
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'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.
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.