02 October 2009

Nature's Pre-Copenhagen Book Club

Nature asked Mike Hulme, Tony Juniper, Mark Lynas, Oliver Morton, Ron Oxburgh, Rajendra K. Pachauri, Roger Pielke, Jr., Andrew Revkin & Joseph Romm for a recommendation for a single book to read leading up to Copenhagen, and then to provide a capsule review of that book. You can see what resulted here and offer your own thoughts at the Nature Climate Feedback blog.

7 comments:

Andrew said...

Hulme-Left, Juniper-Left, Lynas-Idiot, Morton (despite sharing a name with Oliver Hazard Perry Throck Morton)-No apparent relevance what so ever, Oxburgh-"No offense, but Geologists only study rocks", Pachauri-Moron, You-Left, Revkin-NYT, Romm-Far Left....

Where oh where is Nature's sense of political balance? Oh, yeah.

markbahner said...

Yes, one might think Nature would offer even the mildest pretense of balance (e.g., Patrick Michaels?). But obviously not.

I can't say I'm even the least bit surprised.

Eric said...

I want to reinforce previous posts by observing that exactly half of the authors and commentators are British.

Roger's original link.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0910/full/climate.2009.102.html


Andrew

Many British environmentalist are from the ruling class including Prince Charles, Prince Philip, Viscount Porrtt, Lord Melchitt, Oliver and Sir Crispin Tickell, George Monbiot, Zak Goldsmith and David de Rothschild. None of them are left wing.

George Monbiot's father was vice chairman of the right wing conservative party and a supporter of Margaret Thatcher. Monbiot has said he is neither socialist or anarchist despite his anti capitalist stance. The Nazis were virulently anti capitalist too.


Oliver Tickell is in the list of authors. His father is Sir Crispin Tickell, who was British ambassador to the UN and persuaded Margaret Thatcher to be the first senior politician to back global warming in a speech to the UN. He gave George Monbiot a paid position at Oxford University in order to pursue his activism. It's a class thing.

The Tickells are closely related to the Huxley family including eugenicist Julan, nobel prize winner Andrew and the literary genius Aldous who wrote Brave New World. Eugenics is also a class thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Tickell


The underlying commonality between the American 'left' and the British elite is anti capitalism. They have their money in banking, invested in Kyoto and Copenhagen free India and China.

As a former aquaintance of the Scottish Green Party leadership (girlfriend was one of them)who were almost exclusively academics, I perceived they were driven as much by a contempt of the masses and the mass market as a love of the environment.

Many leftists are the same. They hate the uneducated right wing working classes.

Andrew said...

"Many British environmentalist are from the ruling class including Prince Charles, Prince Philip, Viscount Porrtt, Lord Melchitt, Oliver and Sir Crispin Tickell, George Monbiot, Zak Goldsmith and David de Rothschild. None of them are left wing."

Huh? Why? Because aristocrats are, a priori, not left wing?

"George Monbiot's father was vice chairman of the right wing conservative party and a supporter of Margaret Thatcher."

Yes, and Albert Gore Senior voted against the Civil Rights Act.

"Monbiot has said he is neither socialist or anarchist despite his anti capitalist stance."

Anti-capitalist...but not socialist. Okay, that's surely not left wing at all. Not.

"The Nazis were virulently anti capitalist too."

The National Socialist German Worker's Party was anti-capitalist? You don't say! So? They were virulently left-wing.

"
Oliver Tickell is in the list of authors. His father is Sir Crispin Tickell, who was British ambassador to the UN and persuaded Margaret Thatcher to be the first senior politician to back global warming in a speech to the UN. He gave George Monbiot a paid position at Oxford University in order to pursue his activism. It's a class thing."

In point of fact, Thatcher's support of AGW alarm was not connected to "class" at all, but a Machiavellian ploy to crush the coal miners union, which had the British in a vice-grip.

"The underlying commonality between the American 'left' and the British elite is anti capitalism."

Now I see the problem. I define left wing as anti-capitalism (actually anti-Lockeism). What is your idea of left wing and how exactly can one be anti-capitalist and not left wing?

"Many leftists are the same. They hate the uneducated right wing working classes."

So please explain to me why Unions are one of the largest left constituencies, given the "right wing" nature of them (presumably they are considered right wing because working class people are stupid?)


I don't think anyone has ever been foolish enough to lecture a right wing ideologue like me about what right and left are.

Eric said...

Andrew

None of these aristocrats are left wing and I doubt you will find many nowadays. Gore senior was a democrat, however I wouldn't call either Gore left wing as they were both fronts for Occidental Oil.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/gore.htm

Monbiot's father was one of the infamous men in grey suits who ran the Conservative Party, his mother was also a Conservative right wing politician as was her father. They were descended from French aristocracy and Monbiot went to one of the most exclusive schools in England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot

The Nazis were by definition right wing fascists and extreme environmentalists. Much more than Greenpeace etc. I know that right wing Americans see that differently for obvious reasons (see paragraphs below).

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/greennazis.htm


The crushing of the National Union of Mineworkers was indeed a class issue. It's leader Arthur Scargill is an extreme socialist, deputy leader Mick McGahey was a life long member of the Communist Party. In Britain, politics and class were inseparable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_McGahey

** I define left wing as anti-capitalism **

You are a right wing American. Everyone else would call the Nazis right wing being nationalistic, militaristic, racist, anti union and anti communist. Hitler came to prominence by trying to overthrow a left wing government in Bavaria. They put left wing leaders in concentration camps almost immediately on coming to power, banned unions and worked in partnership with big business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch


Aren't American unions more Cosa Nostra then Bolshevik ?


*** I don't think anyone has ever been foolish enough to lecture a right wing ideologue like me about what right and left are. ****


The definition of left wing(from Marx) is simply that workers control the means of production (through state control). When I was at school (Britain 1970s) coal, gas, steel, health, bus, rail, airlines, telecoms, television, steel and much of the vehicle industry were state run. Now I think it is more privatised than the USA (apart from health). Most of my school mates were members of extreme socialist groups like the SWP or the Communist Party, Euro Communists, Militant etc. I was a left leaning anarchist (because I hated control freak socialists) and a fifth column member of the Labour Party.

I am a fairly extreme Global Warming denier.

Eric said...

I'd like to add that the Nazis were against international capitalism in particular which they identified with Jewish finance and they said played countries against each other.

They believed industry should be privately owned but serve the nation (Reich) more than the owners. Large companies like Kruupp, IG Farben, IBM, GM, Ford, Alcoa, Du Pont and Standard Oil continued as normal.

http://knol.google.com/k/spiros-kakos/allies-trading-with-hitler-economic/2jszrulazj6wq/22#

The long term aim of individuals like Hesse, Darre and Himmler was the complete end of industrialisation within Germany. Hitler wanted to use 'inferior races' to make industrial goods for Germans, hence the Polish work camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau .

http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

ourchangingclimate said...

Roger, it sounds like these two books (Hulme and Scott) make a similar case (at least in part); would you agree? Namely that the focus should better be on short term specific actions rather than on all-encompassing long term emission reductions. Interestingly, Hansen doesn’t have much trust in long term emission reduction agreements either (based on his presentations, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/). It’s also the message I hear from the policy studies dept over here.

Hulme (as per Revkin):
“Hulme's argument bolsters predictions by long-time observers of climate diplomacy that a grand agreement is less achievable than a set of specific deals on particular issues.”

Scott (as per Pielke):
“Unrealistic commitments to targets and timetables for emissions reductions under an ever more complex superstructure of international bureaucracy cannot succeed.”

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.