“Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.” — A line from the Terminator movie
I’m sharing this blogpost published by the Pointman. The article talks about the importance of knowing your enemy, which the blogger identified as “the climate activist”.
The blogger clearly understands that there are various types of man-made global warming believers. The pure or extreme climate activists, according to him, are “the ones who won’t dissemble and are too arrogant to tone down their true opinions”.
I agree with what the blogger said that we can learn something about these climate activists, particularly the moderates ones, by studying them– by understanding their thought processes– and by knowing what actually motivates them.
However, I must haste to distinguish the climate activists from the climate globalists and profiteers. The climate activists are strongly motivated by environmentalist or green ideology. They have this misplaced, dogmatic sense of self-righteousness because they fanatically believe they’re trying to save the environment or the planet against destructive human activities (e.g., fossil fuel burning, industrialization, mining, oil exploration, among many others). The extreme types believe that humans must leave the environment or nature untouched.
The climate globalists, on the other hand, are political ideologues who are motivated by political power and ideology. Examples of climate globalists are the United Nations and European Union politicians and global planners who see the potential of the anthropgenic global warming issue in imposing or pushing their globalist agenda (e.g., carbon taxes, worldwide environmental regulations, cap and trade programs, etc.) Their ultimate goal is global governance and worldwide political power.
Meanwhile, the climate profiteers are global cronies who economically benefit from global warming programs, green projects and environmental policies through subsidies, direct government grants, loans, funding, and protection. There are two types of climate profiteers– 1) the corporate climate cronies, and 2) the subsidized, funded climate scientists (e.g., those involved in the Climategate scandal).
When dealing with a pure free range specimen of a climate activist, the best thing to do is to take a different approach and simply pose some questions.
I strongly agree with this approach. I also tend to believe that extreme climate activists use the same script and rely on almost the same information and strategy. Thus, the Pointman‘s advice is to “think of it as a rhetorical variation of the Socratic method”. That is, just like what they do in law school.
The ultimate purpose of the Socratic method of questioning is not just to understand what motivates them, but most importantly to know what they actually want. What is it that they really want and advocate?
From the blog:
Given that the wind doesn’t blow all the time nor the sun shine every day, we obviously need some sort of backup generation capacity. Would building coal-fired plants fitted with carbon capture technology be acceptable to you? The answer to that is no, because it wouldn’t stop the death trains rolling. Okay, how about nuclear? Oh my God, definitely not, thousands died of radiation at Fukushima. How about using an inherently safer technology like Thorium reactors? No, still no, no nuclear under any circumstances.
How about using shale gas, isn’t it much cleaner than coal? No way, because of the earthquake risk. But if we don’t use shale gas, won’t all of our heavy manufacturing just relocate to countries like America, where they’re exploiting shale gas and energy prices have now dropped to one-third of ours? No rational answer because they don’t do basic economics, never mind business.
But what will we do for power when you’ve closed down all the coal and nuclear plants? No problem, by then we’ll already have switched over to renewables.
But renewables don’t seem to be working. After a decade of subsidies, most governments seem to be giving up and cutting back on supporting them. Aren’t they just too expensive? Only at the moment but as the efficiencies of volume production kick in, they’ll become much cheaper than conventional power sources. But after a decade of subsidising them, shouldn’t they be cheaper already? No, such a fundamental infrastructure change takes time.
Okay, but even if renewables do get cheaper, won’t doing things like growing biofuel crops instead of staple crops inevitably push up the price of basic foods for the poor? No answer.
The blogger added:
But surely forcing the poor, vulnerable and elderly into fuel poverty will cause real hardship, never mind some of them needlessly freezing to death over winter? That can’t be bringing about a brave new world, can it? Yes it will. I’m afraid they’re just hardships we have to be hard-hearted enough to take, in order to bring about a greater good. We’re saving the Earth here, and making it fit for billions yet to be born into a better and more equal world. It’s merely the logical consequence of the Precautionary Principle.
How can it be right to deny poor farmers in the developing world access to GM crops that are disease and drought resistant? Surely more of them would survive such natural disasters? Again, they’re just part of the price we must pay not to interfere with nature. But we’ve always selected the best seeds to gradually improve crops, how’s GM any different? It’s biotechnology, therefore it’s evil. But wouldn’t using disease resistant GM crops cut down on having to use insecticides? No.
Okay, how about at least letting them have unhindered access to DDT, to eliminate Malaria like we did in the developed world half a century ago? Wouldn’t that save millions of lives? No, there’s other things we can do that don’t damage the environment. What things? Mosquito nets. But even if they could afford nets, how are they supposed to go about their lives inside a net? No answer. But we eliminated Malaria in the developed world using DDT, and as far as I can see, we’ve actually got a better environment that the developing world. How did that harm our environment? We saved various birds like eagles going extinct. Is that the same eagles that the windmills are chopping up? No answer.
You may read the rest of this excellent blog article here.