CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Sorry M.T, I was more making a general statement (and one I have made many times before) rather than being critical of your point of view.

But I would argue that rather than 'globalism', at least as we know it today, being a push to bring about a communist or 'Marxist' style global governance, that it is instead just the natural extension of the North European/American Neoliberal economic model, which I am sure you would agree, is the antithesis of all that perceived to be 'communistic', and as one David Harvey once contended "The dominance of Neoliberalism as the contemporary economic regime is the successful attempt by the rich and powerful to restore class power".

I think you can see where I might be coming from.

Well, two things, first of all, my comment was somewhat across the board as a reaction to several different things I had read, it wasn't meant to be a direct response to your post. When I read your post I merely thought, knowing Oneiric3, he has a more detailed view that we'll get around to discussing later, although just as a one-off statement I guess I would take an Oxford union style "opposed" position and argue my somewhat different p.o.v. (which I will later perhaps).

I was really thinking more of those other posters who keep telling me that I am over-reacting to the potential of climate change as a political danger, and those people seem to saying "just common sense, come along now old fellow, give up your car and turn down your thermostat, you can huddle with your dog perhaps if we don't also take him away."

(this is next year by the way)

Will think about your characterization of globalism and respond in a while. It's complicated and I am sure your views have evolved to something a bit more complicated than just what you said there too.

So here's a more detailed response to Oneiric3 and his description of globalism.

I think he's describing an earlier form of globalism, the George Bush (the elder) "new world order" type of globalism that sought to extend a North American style of governance (and by implication the cultural and economic values of North America) already more or less shared in most of Europe and eastern Asia, into all other parts of the world. It was the neo-con fallacy that led to Iraq, the idea that if we just exposed people to a value system that worked for us, it would work for them too (overlooking how our value system was developed through a complex interaction with our belief structures and philosophical history that might not apply in the nations to be approached as new clients).

Another fatal flaw was always going to be the detail that Americans would remain in charge. The Japanese analogy was sometimes held out (look, it worked there, they hated us and waged bloody war on us, now we can't find better friends) but of course there was a different dynamic at play there, first of all, a society not that different from ours fell into a form of totalitarianism and did bad things in the world, but then so did Germany, and there was always a road back from that. Anyway, not to dwell on the globalism of the 1990s but that was definitely how it started and so I have no quarrel with Oneiric's description as applied to that.

And that form of globalism still exists. Some might carelessly say Trump is its latest embodiment, but actually the forces of that sort of globalism are mainly centre-left in American politics, like the departed Senator John McCain who gave Obama every chance to become president, or John Bolton whom Trump employed briefly, or perhaps some of Trump's advisors too, but not his voting base. The American centre-right who used to bark loudly when neo-cons called for a mass howling have seen the error of engagement (in the form of multiple tragedies) with those who do not wish for it, and have become isolationist. This is no longer a faction that supports either the old form of globalism or what I would call the newer form of it, which I argue is a leftist phenomenon.

The newer form of globalism is politically correct ideology of all kinds, so it defines an elite to be academic since it is only college professors who can be trusted to get all the opinions right (and change them when pressured to do so by always newly arriving client groups). Globalism is a bit of a circus of things most people don't believe in private but realize they must support in public or face the wrath of a thousand scolds ranging from their deranged in laws to their p.c. workmates and their own kids newly brainwashed in school. And if that doesn't work, the moderators from various science forums.

Globalism is the concept that people are too stupid to know what is good for them, so Smart People (with smart cars, smart phones, smart dogs and smart everything) will fan out from a central location and help them, like missionaries in Africa might have done once upon a time. In terms of climate change, people are too dumb to distinguish climate from weather. I will help you out with that. Climate is whatever verifies climate change. Weather is everything else.

So all kidding aside, maybe we are just identifying two different forms of globalism. The form that has me concerned seems like a communistic ideology, although it has become very fashionable in conservative circles to call it fascist simply because it seems a bit more outwardly similar to Hitler's version than Stalin's version. You'll agree that in many ways, fascism is not really an extreme form of conservatism but a rival version of socialism, it says so right on the label (National Socialist Workers Party). It differed from communism in that it had a more overtly racial basis (with communism this was somewhat repressed), it was open to a consumer economy and some private enterprise, and its elites were more business oriented than academic. Many of its policies were similar to Soviet communism, some were quite different. But globalism (my later version at least) seems to be more similar to communism than fascism, it is certainly not racially based except in the reverse sense of being "anything but white is preferable" and it is atheistic (Nazis blurred the lines between their ideology and more traditional Christian belief, the hard liners developed their own religious cults, but the state officially tolerated non-dissenting forms of Christian worship).

If we just look at who are the loudest voices for globalism in each country, it is always the political left, with the centre-right taking a go-slow or pretend-you-don't-see-them approach and further to the right alternatives rising up in direct protest against globalism. In the recent Canadian election, the centre-left Liberals took a relatively pro-globalist stand but tried to portray themselves as go-slow and keep the economy ticking regardless. It backfired on them and they lost what little support they had in western Canada. The further left NDP (similar to Britain's Labour) took a very aggressive globalist approach, ran a good campaign but failed to advance in seats held. The Greens took the approach that they were Greta's only hope for survival, and got their usual fringe vote of about 4%. On the political right, the mainstream Conservative Party tried also to affect a mildly pro-globalist position while hitting as hard as they dared (not very hard) against it, and failed to unseat a very weak and unpopular government which is now attempting to govern by temporary coalitions. This left the field open for a UKIP style party, which came into existence, but as many voters knew that shifting votes would return a majority Liberal government, this new party got a smaller vote total than its actual base of support. But Canada is a relatively left-wing society which is unlikely to go as far to the political right as our neighbours to the south sometimes do.

Another "tell" that globalism is left-wing is that it mirrors the United Nations and the concept of equality of nations, a concept which seems rather ridiculous when you have some nations of billions or hundreds of millions of people, and some of thousands. But then it is just one more step to define every group of indigenous people as a "nation" and you get into all sorts of destabilizing action against economic development. So on the ground, globalism is directly opposed to consumerism. A healthy life might involve more of a balance perhaps, I am by no means some rampant materialist, I live quite a simple existence. But that's my choice, I get nervous when people start lecturing their neighbours that they need to live "like we do" to "save the earth." The globalist movement is very much the same as the environmental movement nowadays, so I don't really see how it can be seen as a tool of large international corporations. Perhaps it's the other way round, the large international corporations have seen the writing on the wall and are going along with the globalists hoping that if they bow down at the altar, they won't be attacked. We shall see if that saves them or not in a later phase. And make no mistake, there will be a later phase. All this energy is being directed towards a goal. I don't go as far as some in saying that it is centrally directed (by the likes of Soros, big bankers, etc). Sometimes an ideology has enough internal power that it can run from multiple centres of power without one central authority. There is no Big Globalist that you can bomb into submission like a Hitler or a Stalin. Defeating any one of them just spreads the power back around the network.

My point is that globalism as actually practised in politics and academic life is a leftist coalition of interest groups all with the same general theme, this is what smart people want and you deplorables need to accept it or shut up and stop bothering us as we do the difficult work of fixing your mess.

Which would be fine if they were right, but what if the Plan is actually to make a far bigger mess that nobody can fix? This is my inclination, to believe that in this case our self-appointed superiors have it figured out wrong, as they probably do on mass immigration and sexual matters, but all dissent is to be silenced because ... you know what I will say .. The Party Knows Best.

Is the Party communist or fascist? (it only exists as a sort of unifying principle of all sorts of nominally independent entities that have some internal rivalries, like Hillary vs Bernie sideshows). Does it have to be one or the other. Perhaps a successful modern totalitarian movement would draw on strengths of both of those past examples. Or one might take this view -- many in the progressive movement admire the PRC. Our own PM in Canada was quoted as saying that he wished he had the powers of the Chinese government (we are glad he does not, the fact that he has any power is too much really). Many in academic life nowadays see no real harm in the way China organizes its society and wish they had that sort of power in their societies. Same thing -- the elites rose to the top and told the helpless peasants what to do for their own good. That impulse is pretty strong, it can be conditioned from an early age by teachers and in some cases families, "you'll amount to something" turns into "you'll control things around you because you should."

Climate change is a perfect tool for this ideology. What could be better for the spread of a Marxist utopia than a voluntary turn away from free enterprise and unlimited mobility, to a contained urban life in a little rabbit warren where you can grow your own food, tune in the One Network, and learn what Smart People are meant to think?

You're saving the planet (I would add for Christ's sake but actually it's probably the opposite).

And I do see spiritual parallels in all this. "A mass deception will come upon the world, all who believe will take the mark of the beast, and without it, there will be no work." We were warned this sort of thing was coming. If you don't want a religious warning, then take it from George Orwell. I don't think he had either left or right in his sights when he described his (quite accurate) nightmare visions of future society, but merely unlimited power unrestrained by reason or opposition.

That's my answer anyway. Your turn.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Never mind that.

All these climate scientists are out rating and validating each others' scientific research papers through peer reviews.

I have a huge problem with that and it is not discussed enough if at all.

It is absurd and against all objectivity expected of any scientific field. It's actually a scandal but there are no proper controls on it.

Agreed on all of that.

It will be a long road back for our science. The operational meteorology part is fine, most of those people are not really heavily engaged in the climate science aspects and if I can fault them at all, it would be for not doing their due diligence.

Warning signs are numerous. Climate science educates and recruits more like a social science. I'm sure the people going into it are not to blame, but you tend to get people who have no actual interest in the weather or science for that matter, they are more interested in the environment and in social issues. I've met some of these recent graduates. They have no real aptitude for science as I would understand science. This is more like a belief structure that anyone can easily master (we've screwed up the atmosphere). Then everything is based upon that foundation. Any attempt to discuss actual facts or past climate details is shunned because the new belief structure is all-knowing, how can other facts possibly affect it?

They take the same view of past climate as the professors of a religious institution would take of witchcraft perhaps. Not to be tolerated on their patch.

So it's what is impolitely termed a "circle jerk" where everyone knows everything and all other opinion is worthless. This is fine for a science that has actual equations and provable lab experiments. For a body of mere opinions like climate science, it is over-reach on a colossal scale. And it is quite typical of social sciences, all of which have over-reached and presented us with the stinking mess that is progressive thought of the present time.

What if it's all just lies?

Last thought for a late night here, obviously this thread has moved into areas that are somewhat far removed from the basic topic announced, and I hope we are not driving people away. Some people freak out when there is vigorous argument in an internet thread. Better that than doing a tenner with three other people who never spoke out.

But the politics of this is inseparable from the science, because the main task at the moment for anyone interested in climate change is to formulate the right response. I continue to think the current political response is a bad one that (whether by accident or design) is feeding into a globalist world view that will reduce personal freedom, prosperity and mobility. If that's what you want for your own future, fine, my libertarian side says go for it. But not in some way that will coerce me or my fellow citizens into joining as unwilling recruits.

Just catching up after a fairly long day out (the monthly conversion of income to supplies where one trip in this lousy weather is all we need to face) -- what a good little snowflake I have become -- small carbon footprint even went on the bus.

My political thesis was the usual free flow and yes, if it were to be a final draft I would need to add in some better explanatory ideas. You mentioned John Bolton, to my mind he's in the sort of Uniparty neo-con leftover entity that you say would pass as centre-right in your politics. God help you if Hillary Clinton for example is right of your political centre, she is well to the left of American public opinion (although not the body politic, and here's the rub, the body politic is way to the left of the mass of public opinion and driving that further left in the same way that the education system is designed to do for children attending public schools). But I can see also how you can picture the neo-cons as quite far to the right. I think that was where they started out. In some ways it's the legacy of arch-conservatives like William F. Buckley (who would probably be quite aghast at the end results), a world view that American capitalism and free enterprise are the best hope for humanity. This tends to be set against any number of alternatives, none of which have actually done all that well for themselves.

Personally, I take a rather pessimistic view of such things as social engineering of any kind, so whether you want to label it right or left is not that relevant to my desire to remain out of the reach of any of it. There is probably a good model of how people can co-exist and that I believe requires a libertarian approach. I don't see the classic libertarian world view as right or left so much as "small" or "large" with respect to government. The smaller the government, and the more locally based where you have a choice, the more freedom is likely to remain with the individual.

Meanwhile I would not be one of those who might view Trump as fascist or "like Hitler" although he may function as somewhat of an autocrat, I think in part that's because he came into politics as a relatively successful entrepreneur and so is used to giving orders rather than working in any sort of team format, and also in part he has good reason not to trust a lot of the advice he might get from the existing bureaucracy because of its deeper ties to the Uniparty. If that's not a term in common usage in Ireland, Uniparty is a catch-all description of swamp politics quite deeply rooted in America now (and also a concept that seems to apply in Canada) where you have party labels and superficial disagreements on details but really only the one statist approach to all matters and an agreement not to touch sacred cows of political correctness. Mitt Romney for example is a nominal opponent of the Democrats but his vote can almost always be counted upon to join theirs. Trump has shaken this up by openly going after the swamp or Uniparty and it has forced his adopted party (he used to hobnob with the Clintons back in the oughts) to take a less obvious Uniparty stand although they just can't help themselves in most cases. So while these are mostly politicians you would describe as centre-right, they are as good as the likes of AOC (and considerably less dangerous to moneyed interests) for the globalists. Why turn things over to some crazed radical when some trusted old hands with country club manners will essentially govern in the same way only with much less alarming rhetoric?

As to comments I made about the origins of National Socialism, I have no doubt that Hitler manipulated right-wing democratic voting support by undermining the parties on the right between 1925 and 1933, and getting onto the good side of the autocratic Hindenburg. So he did build up his party's support from the political right and with appeals to anti-communism, patriotism and in later stages anti-Semitism. No argument about any of that. But even so I don't view Hitler's fascism as just conservatism gone to an extreme which is I believe the orthodox academic view of it. I view it, like Mussolini (who was a communist and switched sides) as just an aberrant form of socialism carefully designed to appeal to the masses whose natural inclinations are usually centre-right in the absence of any organized indoctrination to the left. It was a cynical strategy of saying, "look the communists are about to take over this weak and wimpy state, let's give them a thrashing and yet at the same time, let's use what works in their model to obtain the absolute power we need to prevent anyone from displacing us." Stalin had ten years head start on Hitler in creating a monolithic state based on a cult of personality (another dynamic which is neither left nor right). There were no obvious examples of a successful right-wing state to emulate, so anything that appeared to Hitler to be workable pretty much had to come from either Moscow or Rome where his buddy, the former communist propagandist, was in charge.

But it is an irony I think that fascism only succeeds if conservatism is weak and ineffectual, because then, the natural political impulse where people want conservative values to prevail over dangerous alternatives can only be satisfied by some stronger approach and unfortunately that stronger approach will tend to bring in worse problems than those originally identified for combatting. If there had been a democratic conservative leader of the calibre of Reagan or Thatcher in Germany around 1930, then Hitler likely would have been a footnote of history, the guy who sat in a corner of the Reichstag for a few years spouting unpopular and dangerous ideas while Germany calmly moved back into prosperity. Then there would have been no second world war unless perhaps that leader and perhaps Churchill (who might then never have risen to power because no crisis would have required his strength) might have forced the USSR into a war of containment. I don't know if perhaps the one good thing about Hitler was that his actions prevented any full-scale war between the "west" and the Soviet Union at a time after they might have nuclear weapons. There again, would there even be nuclear weapons? The urgency of ending the Pacific portion of the war brought them into existence. Without the war, Einstein and other scientists would have stayed in Germany, American nuclear technology might never have amounted to much, perhaps no nuclear weapons would ever have been developed.

Maybe I will post about a world where there is no climate science and people in the profession get along with me. Now there's a fantasy for you.

Oriel, I have no idea what you are saying there, Newton was of course correct in his assertion. Surely you don't think that planets sometimes move in an actual retrograde direction? They only appear to do so. You seem to have reversed the logic of the advances from Copernicus to Newton and beyond. The advances explain the formerly puzzling aspects of a geocentric system. The heliocentric system explains why we used to need those bizarre loops within loops to explain observed positions, and no longer do need them.

Are you saying we should go back to the geocentric model of the universe? I don't want NASA spacecraft landing on my street now.