ecomyths

Saturday, March 31, 2007

World peace?

There can be no sustainability without peace. Oh, we can achieve some environmental successes and economic prosperity, but ultimately, there can be no sustainable future for the human race without world peace, without social sustainability.

In the immediate future, the prospects for world peace are intimately linked to the ongoing war on terror, events in the Middle East and some form of resolution between Islam and Christianity as competing faiths. In this respect, this post and the linked speech by Bernard Lewis are insightful starting points for reflection and consideration. Embedded within this discussion are our constructs of governance, the role of religion, freedom and our abilities to not only comprehend differences in cultures but realize that in the words of Walsch, "what differentiates us, does not have to divide us".

Follow up: the earlier post has elicited numerous comments and this excellent, subsequent posting with a link to an article written by an Islamic scholar and former terrorist. Once more we see the role that ideology plays in people's acceptance and rejection of opinion, often without stopping to first consider the relative merits of the position presented.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Education: the final frontier

Two recent films: one common topic -- educational dogma and the cessation of academic freedom.

Education should be about bringing knowledge out, not about indoctrination. The choice begins at kindergarten: it is the choice between giving a student a blank sheet of paper and some colours and asking them to create, versus giving them a pre-defined outline and having them follow directions on how to colour the blanks correctly, with the correct colours, within the correct lines. It is the difference between developing students who can think for themselves, creatively and those who know only how to memorize what they have been told, to follow directions and to mimic their trainers in criticising what they reject as outside their correct perspective. It is the difference between teaching and training.

Political correctness is not just about an axiomatic dogma, reinforcing a prescribed ideology: it is primarily about invoking a mindset of dependency, orthodoxy and fear that makes its citizenry compliant, complacent and constrained within the dominant constructs of the ordained "correct" ideology. Education is the primary tool by which elites oppress the citizenry. This was vividly shown to us in Nazi Germany, in Stalinist Russia and in novels such as Orwell's 1984. It is being shown to us again in the guise of ideological environmentalism and the propagation of ecomyths. And, most sadly, the central vehicle by which this fraud is being perpetrated is our institutions of "higher learning".

The two films linked above illustrate the various ways in which higher education has been supplanted by political correct training: there is no learning, only the transference of prescribed opinions.

Think I exaggerate? Ask a university student or recent graduate about any contemporary public policy issue. Follow up their answer with this question: "why do you think that?" and see how far the discussion progresses. They know on a superficial level what the "correct" answers are to everything, but as to why, and the basis for their belief -- well, doesn't everyone, you know, well like, everyone knows that...don't they? And anyway, it must be true, everyone says it....

Friday, March 23, 2007

Keep politics out of science and vice versa

So the follow up to my post below on environmentalism as dogma and ideology closer to religion than science, it this excellent post by Brendan O'Neill on the interplay between science and politics manifest in the AGW ecomyth. He suggests the real problem is that science is being actively use to frame politics and that its mis-use in this fashion does a disservice to us, to science and to the political process. Hopefully, his reasoned comments will provide an area of agreement for all viewpoints: the ideological high ground needs to be clarified and cultivated.

Sadly, I deal all too often with academics who show no cognition that the political use of their science is either a problem or an ideological activity. There will be no consensus on the morality of the politicization of science if scientists fail to acknowledge their complicity in its corruption and their recognition that the ends do not justify the means. (I'm sure I stated this on other posts: it seems to be a recurrent theme concerning ecomyth propagation).

The religion of environmentalism

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a fraud. It also is the pre-dominant meta-narrative for today's ecomyths. AGW is a fraud because:

There is no clear science that shows global temperatures to have increased to unprecedented levels.
There is no causal link for human activity being a trigger in observed temperature changes.
Any benefits of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are being ignored in the hysteria surrounding possible costs/impacts that increased levels may incur, and;
It is unclear if present levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented or even harmful.

So why is AGW being so heavily hyped? Mostly because environmentalism exists today almost exclusively as an opposing ideology to free-market capitalism. As Czech President Vaclav Klaus puts it, "communism has been replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism".

How did saving the environment become such a pernicious, political movement?

It happened in large part because today's generation has only known environmental responsibility. Students today have never not known sustainability as a guiding mantra: they get it, they are aware and mostly quite environmental conscious. All the environmental protests and awareness raising issues of the Woodstock generation have now been addressed, largely rectified and are part of the very political mainstream old school environmentalists wanted to fight. Old school environmentalism is now centralist public policy, embraced by all political parties and the electorate.

So really today, there is no more need for increasing awareness: no need for full-time advocacy, protests nor media stunts. The entire repertoire of environmentalism is passé. We get it. Environmental groups can disband and their members go home.

So, what is needed? Because problems still exist don't they? Certainly they do, but they are none of them problems that can not be fixed by the correct application of existing technology and political will. The answers are so obvious they could be incorporated as a version of the TV show Jeopardy:

So indoor air pollution in Africa: clean cooking fuels and light -- uh, let me see, "what is electricity Alex!"
Dysentery: "that would be plumbing for $400, Alex".
Systemic poverty: that would be free market capitalism, democracy, land reform, micro-loans and social justice.

Ah, but you say, these aren't easy to institute. Correct. Implementation of sustainability is where the rubber meets the road. It is hard, context specific and requires commitment and hard-work. And getting one's hands dirty.

Eeww! Can't I make posters, march, and protest and blame some big corporation instead? Can't I stay a long, long time at university and complain in a sophisticated post-modernists frame about over-consumption, globalization, corporatism, capitalism and Americanism?

Well you could, but you'd need a really good issue. One with no hope of any answer, no practical political solutions, no policies that any rational government would actually impose on its economy -- you know an issue where you could invoke the full precautionary principle, one with obscure, nascent science -- irrefutable really -- one where you could whip up a religious fervour with dogmatism, alarmism, beliefs and a really good media program. Be good if you could seduce an obscure group of scientists, elevate them into their 15 minutes of fame, bribe them with research funds -- be good for them, keep our organizations going and we could wrap the whole thing into a holistic global governance kind of thing using the UN -- those cats love a good scam, years of conferences and boy, those guys really know how to avoid any meaningful implementation of anything!

Yep, all in all, this whole AGW thing is perfect: no chance of ever fixing it. Any alternatives are voided by incessant repetition of the basic mantra -- and look, while everyone knows things are so much better, guilt is such an easy emotion to dump on the collective. And, get this, anyone who calls us on it we can just marginalise, vilify and call "denier" -- yes, really evoke some emotional rhetoric for this baby. Meanwhile, we won't ever actually have to do anything! Perfect. Now all we need is some ex-political hacks desperate for an issue to get them back into the spotlight....

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

EU farm socialism further exposed

Ah, there's no insanity quite like government-authorized insanity. Latest example? Under the European Union's common agricultural policy, people are making money by classifying their land as a "farm" and then receiving the rather generous subsidies the EU provides, not to farm -- not they would/could, not being farmers in the first place.

I have friends who farm: I can't wait to tell them how its really done...

Development: the new media event for celebrities

African development has been on the periphery of everyone's front page for ever it seems...until now, with celebrities seemingly tripping over themselves to tell both Westerners and Africans themselves how they can develop sustainably. The usual prescription is environmentally friendly, with low carbon impact and low intensity: i.e. not too different to the non-industrialized, no electricity, poverty they presently "enjoy". Climate friendly but still impoverished, and with high levels of mortality from respiratory diseases and dysentery -- both problems fixed by such radical technological advances as electricity and plumbing, otherwise referred to as development born of free-market capitalism.

Perhaps the most high-profile example has been Bob Geldorf, who managed to resurrect his public profile by assuming the role of organizer of Live Aid and last year's high-profile campaign to impart guilt to westerners over the status of African poverty: sorry, to "raise awareness" of their situation.

However, as this story shows, Geldorf's exhortations and personal promises have fallen a long ways short of practical implementation: another case of encouraging awareness, making headlines and ignoring the hard graft of actual development.

Environmentalists have become the leading exponents of Marxist ideology. In the name of the environment, Africans are being told they should avoid the perils of capitalism, over-consumption and industrialization. Instead, they are informed that they will be happier if they retain their cultural traditions, their close to the land lifestyles, and resist succumbing to the malaise of western-style development: global warming.

Sadly, I wish I was exaggerating. But in the past few months articles expressing the very views I seek to parody have been expressed as serious academic and political suggestions for sustainable African development.

Oh, yes: better check to see if your diamond has Leo's seal of approval. A celebrity for every dogma.

Monday, March 19, 2007

UK (C4) Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle - Google Video

Here is the link to the Great Global Warming Swindle which is now available on Google video.

To me this is one of the best illustrations of the power of the internet: rather than wait and hope that the film may get shown on your local television network, the internet allows an instant viewing and download.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Post-normal science and climate change

Here are two excellent posts by Melanie Phillips on the new tenor of the climate debate. Finally, advocates of AGW are admitting that the discussion is not being framed by conventional, empirical scientific method, but instead by post-normal science, driven by belief, values and ideology. And, finally, the popular media is beginning to question the motives and rationale for such post-normal science. This comes quickly on the heels of the results of the big debate in New York between three leading promoters of AGW and three prominent skeptics, which clearly favoured the skeptics -- not just because of their debating skill but because the pro-AGW team committed two fatal errors:

they failed to advance any scientific facts to substantiate their frequent assertions of absolute truth, and
they attempted to mislead the audience by mis-stating and/or lying about third-party statements which could be verified for their accuracy later.

On these grounds, the AGW team were tried and found to be wanting.

Finally, opposition to the imposition of the AGW thesis is moving beyond the ad hominem attacks and slurs. Give enough journalists enough studies to review and the mainstream public will finally get to read what specialist bloggers have been writing about for the past few years. The next stage will be the refusal of a highly-rated political candidate to wrap themselves in this particular shade of post-normal green and instead invoke the need for policy to be based on real science and for environmental policy to tackle real issues and not ecomyths advocated by ideologues.

vacation

Just returned from a week's vacation in Orlando. Completely unplugged for the week: sat around the pool, visited the theme parks, mini-golfed and squired the Smith girls around just about every shopping outlet in Orlando -- teenage girls have an infinite capacity for shopping with Dad's money.

Being unplugged was refreshing, although I missed the sports updates, how the Raptors are doing and the latest English soccer scores: but as for everything else, a week's inattention just goes to show how issues persist week to week and that a week without me standing vanguard did little to change the prospects for the global future.

The week allowed me to recharge and focus. I alternate between intense passion for tackling the stupidity I see in the world and a more dispassionate resignation that the majority seems quite comfortable with what they know and are used to (incompetence, self-aggrandisement and political pomposity) rather than any ideologically derived choice and thought.

Sitting around the pool allowed me to indulge in reading Heinlein's stunning novel Time Enough for Love, which is fictional in so many spheres but social and political commentary in so many others. I find it highly inspirational and full of pithy insights such as:

Never try to outstubborn a cat
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
Deductive logic is tautological; there is no way to get new truth out of it, and it manipulates false statements as readily as true ones...Inductive logic is much more difficult -- but can produce new truths.
A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain.
An elephant: a mouse built to government specifications.

Would that more academics, journalists, politicians and commentators could imbue their work with such truths, humour and engagement, rather than the earnest, self-serving and jargon-infested tedium most seem bent on inflicting on the world.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle

The climate change debate keeps changing media but the elements remain the same. Here is the link to the Channel 4 counterpoint to Gore's Inconvenient Truth. Not sure if there are plans to air the broadcast on this side of the Atlantic or not, but the website does give a synopsis of the documentary and its scope. At least for those of us who have not seen The Great Global Warming Swindle, the link will allow us some traction on the discussion it is generating.

At the same time as Channel 4 was airing The Great Global Warming Swindle, the BBC News website environment correspondent Richard Black initiated contact with a list of climate skeptics in order to write a more fully nuanced discussion about their ideas and concerns regarding climate change. His request for respondents to fill out a questionnaire met with mixed reactions: some of those contacted do not see themselves as AGW skeptics at all (their concern is with the IPCC system and issues of process as they relate to science and policy), others were reluctant to respond having being badly mis-characterized in previous media encounters and some (like myself) responded. What became immediately apparent from this exercise is that skeptics are not a homogeneous, organized nor corporately sponsored collective. Instead, they are a group of individuals with questions for which answers have either been absent, unconvincing or simply unknown, all of which cast doubt on any climate theory's claim to certitude. This in turn translates for many into a general dislike for any process that seeks to enforce that theory as a pervasive dogma onto society in the name of science rather than ideology. Skeptics are not anti-environment: they are anti-environmentalism, ideological hegemony and hypocrisy.

It will be interesting to see when and what appears on the BBC News website and how well it does indeed capture the nuances of the ongoing reluctance to accept the IPCC prescribed view of reality.

In the meantime, it appears the producer of the Global Warming Swindle, Martin Durkin, is receiving the full-court press from the ever-intolerant environmentalist lobby, which seems to operate on the premise of smear first,last and always, in preference to engage, discuss and dialogue.

The more fanatical an ideology the less democratic it becomes: extremism in all stripes becomes totalitarian -- something Orwell warned off and a lesson eco-activists ignore often as for them the "end justifies the means". Blissfully, human history stands as a loving testament to the utter infallibility of this proposition. The means are always much more significant than the ends.