More like this
What deniers of climate change are really denying
Griffin, Palin and others show the sort of narcissism seen in small children, says The First Post's psychoanalyst
In a speech in the European parliament last month, Nick Griffin, leader of the ultra-right British National party, referred to the scientists and politicians who are urging international controls to curb the effects of climate change as "cranks". Griffin, who is now one of the MEPs representing the European Union at Copenhagen, went on to state that "an Orwellian consensus" had been reached, "based not on scientific agreement, but on bullying censorship and fraudulent statistics".
What Griffin claims is almost exactly the opposite of the truth. While there is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is happening and that we are actively influencing it for the worse, there is no scientific agreement to the contrary. The bullying censorship he refers to has taken place in the lab break-ins and computer hacking used to acquire selective evidence, which is then taken out of context to support the deniers' argument.
In short, Griffin and his followers are vilifying their opponents by tarnishing them with what is in effect their own desire to distort the truth in order to support their own political agenda.
The supporters of climate change are now also tagged as the "new Reds". In the same speech, Griffin said: "The anti-western intellectual cranks of the left suffered a collective breakdown when communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology... But the heretics will have a voice in Copenhagen and the truth will out. Climate change is being used to impose an anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao."
This is the rhetoric of the Cold War. The "anti-western intellectual cranks" need to be eradicated and the purity of the western state preserved. Not surprisingly, this accords with Griffin's hard-line anti-immigration policy. The threat to self-preservation is seen to be coming from the "intellectuals" who want, in the minds of Griffin and others, to establish a totalitarian state that has complete control over the individual.
Control is the key issue for the deniers of climate change control over the way we live and how we use the world's resources. Sarah Palin, another denier of the evidence for climate change, has ironically called for better scientific evidence: evidence that she hopes will counter the findings that we have now and demonstrate that the restrictions being urged on our use of energy are merely a means of political control rather than based on any reality of damage limitation.
Palin, like other politicians who deny climate change, is anxious because she sees the debate about climate change as not only having global implications but as conferring power over the future of our lives. And she is right.
Climate change threatens our narcissistic omnipotence. Deniers do not want anyone else telling them they can't drive large cars or run two refrigerators. They want to hold on to the belief that not only does mother earth have unlimited resources but that these resources should remain entirely within their control.
This is a mentality resembling the narcissism of small children who want to hold onto their illusion of omnipotence and control over mother. Any threat to their position is experienced as a narcissistic wound that is tolerable only to the extent that their attachment to mother is relatively secure.
This is part of normal early development that we all go through. Narcissism at this stage is a necessary defence against the actual vulnerability of the infant that could otherwise be overwhelming. It also serves to protect the child from anxiety about separation and loss. In our minds, it is a state of being-at-one with mother and the world. As we grow up, the limitations of reality inevitably challenge our omnipotence and we learn how to accept external restrictions along with our own vulnerability and ultimate death.
The deniers of climate change represent a part of our world psyche that is desperately trying to maintain the narcissistic illusion that we can continue to plunder the world's resources without any consequences: in other words, that mother's breast is there for the taking.
However, as the world breast begins to dry up, the anxiety about loss, vulnerability and our own destructiveness becomes increasingly hard to bear. One way to control anxiety is to deny reality. Reality itself becomes the enemy that challenges this narcissistic hegemony and must be attacked accordingly. The need to maintain control then turns into paranoia.
While scientists are being accused of conspiring to distort the truth in order to wrest control over others, this is precisely what the deniers of climate change are doing. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Just gone back to this thread to find that it's still going! And Marku wonders at the significance of warming waters releasing CO2 - well, old chap, I understood that CO2, or "carbon", in the atmosphere was what all the fuss was about, what with all the talk at No-Hopenhagen of reducing carbon emissions etc.
So if the release of "carbon" is just a by-product of warming, as you confirm, then something else must be causing the warming - perhaps it's just a natural phenomenon!
Peter Simmons you say - "Right, come on wankers, your turn. Got a scientific argument any of you? Got anything except innuendo, smear, insinuation or astrology to offer? Thought not."
Sorry - this just shows that your entire diatribe was total Innuendo, smear and insinuation, thus destroying whatever your case might have been!
What rot.
Communist / Fascist / Repressive regimes of the last century have always used psychiatry as an attack dog to smear their opponents, claiming people who disagree with them are "mentally ill" and need to be "rehabilitated". What a shame to see it happening in the supposedly free west.
Pete...Pete..., calm down now you'll give yourself a coronary. Surely when I met you having a drink, the other week you were a denier.
Have you got your tongue firmly in your cheek?. If so I for one salute you, wind up these jerks who have no more idea of what is happening than do I or you or do the many intelligent scientists lined up on either side of the debate or perhaps more accurately the shouting match.
Anyway, just out of interest have you read Dr Roy Spencers blog?
Colin Kendall:
As far as I am aware no climatologist has ever used 'polar bear number data' in order to make the case for AGW, so you haven't made much of a point have you (Al Gore is not a climatologist but a politician, pretty much an irrelevant target in a scientific debate) As for the CRU out-of-context emails, despite the enormous trumpeting, I have yet to see anything that suggests that the individuals concerned believe that they are perpetrating a hoax. Perhaps you could pick out a couple of the ones which you consider most damning for our perusal.
When losing an argument, the first tactic to employ is to change the subject of the argument. Failing that, the next trick is to attack the motives of your opponents. Such an attack is more effective when directed against particularly odious individuals in the opposition and garnished with a liberal helping of psychobabble.
The average global temperature since the middle of the nineteenth century has increased by 0.8 degrees C (although the tree ring data do not show this).
All known eleven computer models predict that as the sea surface temperature increases, the earthâ??s heat would be trapped, and this has led to the warming fear. However, using recently available satellite real data, rather than computerized modeling, it is now OBSERVED that as the earth gets warmer, the heat escaping to outer space actually increases, allowing the earthâ??s heat to escape and to avoid being trapped (Lindzen and Choi in Geophys. Res. Letts., Aug. 26, 2009). In fact, therefore, these new hard data indicate that future global warming will be less than one-sixth that predicted, namely about half a degree centigrade over the next one or two centuries, a small increase less than that which occurred since the middle of the 19th century.
Philip Seeman, University of Toronto, Canada
What a specious load of egregious and arrogant codswallop! no wonder the scientific community is wary of 'trick-cyclists'.
My scepticism of Man-made global warming, as opposed to global climate change, is not based on any kind of pseudo religious conviction but is very firmly based on two things - my reading of a range of scientific publications which are not book-store glossies, and on the growing revelations of dishonest and deceitful practices by the CRU and associated scientists over a long period of time.
Google 'climategate' and pick a range of websites, both pro and anti AGW, which give a range of real and fictitious evidence for and against anthropogenic global warming, and make an intelligent choice for yourselves. To get readers started, chase up the facts about the numbers of Polar Bears now and 50 years ago. Hint: Al Gore tells porkies!
Neil MacGowan - your comments are incredibly offensive to people such as I who have, through a childhood accident in my case, sight in one eye only.
Carruthers:
I think it only fair to tell you that your little tidbit about CO2 levels rising after the emergence from an ice age are not going to shake the foundations of climate science. Water soluble gases such as CO2 and oxygen are more soluble in cold water than in warm water. When the water warms, a proportion of the dissolved gases end up in the atmosphere. This is exceedingly basic stuff, not at all mysterious, anomalous or remarkable. In fact no scientist of any competence could fail to predict it in advance.
Aside from 'proving' that that ice age was not ended by rising CO2 levels (something that no climatologist has ever claimed, in fact I don't remember that particular claim being made about any ice age, ever) I fail to see that any point has been made at all. Perhaps you could explain why you think that it is significant
This is crude stuff that is really little more than left wing propaganda/porn that attempts to bully those who have other opinions. Its made all the more shameless by the fact that the science is very much not settled.
But it does reveal the underlying political nature of the AGW project, so you are doing some service.
Even if you knew nothing about this topic, the fact that you'd find yourself allied with (i) a yankee-doodle redneck retard who enjoys shooting polar bears for fun (ii) a one-eyed neonazi KKK-ally convicted for race-hate crimes, and (iii) the chinless Upper-Class Twit of the Year "Lord Monckton" would surely guide most sensible people away from the Nutter's Nook that is the Denier's camp. These are people who think that there's no problem with rising ocean-levels, because the spare water will just drop off the edge of the earth, and fall onto the dragons who sleep underneath it.
Word has it Peter Simmons was the leak at UEA !
Is this the Peter Simons of UoEA. So far he hasn't denied it. Is Al Gore a highly qaulified scientist? He's made a science of making money alright, I'm suprised dear Peter even gives him the time of day. Then all credibility went out the window at Copenhagen, when guess who got up to speak. Robert Mugabe of all people! Why wasn't he arrested as a criminal? The pathetic little murderer just wants more of our money, is all. This whole thing is about money and nothing else. These little countries have a dagger at the heart of the civilised world and liberal guilt will make sure they get to stick it in deep while they continue to cut down their forests.If you have any money left after this, spend it before they do, but not on anything that uses fuel,or was made using fuel, you wont be able to afford it. Oh Dear, no more Range Rovers !It also means nothing to eat, because everything you eat has fuel input.These politicians you will notice are very happy being generous with your tax money. And Alan Scott is right...thank Peter Simmons . I wonder how he treats his students?
Peter Simmons and Holly Cox - in your reference to wonderfulforhisage. On the contrary, you exemplify what is wrong with climate alarmism. You have no evidence whatsoever that CRU was broken into and the emails hacked - that could only be found as the outcome of an investigation. The fact that the emails are on the internet isn't evidence of such things. They could more easily have been put there by a whistleblower. You just want to make up causes and effects that suit your preconceptions. Exactly the sort of fakery that has been going on at CRU.
Afternoon Peter, good to see that you're keeping up with the debate at "No-Hopenhagen"! To repeat previous comments, nobody is denying anything about climate change, as the climate has constantly changed for thousands (millions?) of years without our help, and will go on doing so - again without our help.
There is certainly a case for husbanding scarce fuel and other resources on the grounds of pollution, economy and plain good housekeeping, but when we hear that CO2 levels follow temperature rises, rather than precede and thus cause them, then it does rather indicate that CO2 is not the global warming culprit that it is made out to be. Perhaps the real elephant in the room is over-population...? (and third world, at that)
Anyway it appears that little, if any, agreement will be reached by this collection of disparate characters in Scandinavia this week - apart from our illustrious leader pledging GBP1.5B for a "Maldives mortgage" (if he can borrow the deposit).
Mr Simmonds, a little aggressive aren't we?
"the deniers are all of limited intelligence ....their pathetically ignorant way.......right wingnuts who are the vociferous deniers...so many are Americans - badly educated in religious schools..many of them are ev9lutionists as well, doubtless a few even think the Earth is flat.....they are a cult by any estimation.....the pig ignorant...naked apes..the new barbarians attacking the gates of civilisation...wankers."
"Got a scientific argument any of you?"
Have we just seen yours?
Were they your files at UEA that were hacked into ?
All I asked was for evidence of a specific break-in and hacking. I'd seen speculation that the email leaks might have come from a whislteblowing inside source. I fail to see (Peter Simmons 12:47) how the evidence of a break-in or a hacking can be 'in the files which were available over the net'. As it happens I'm not a denier. I haven't made my mind up either way and could be persuaded to be a warmist were irrefutable evidence available.
Holly Cox 12:55, I wonder if you are aware that Galileo was persecuted by the Roman Inquisition for daring to suggest that the Earth goes round the Sun and not vice versa. Your somewhat intemperate remarks brought this to mind. Tlo be fair to the Inquisition they did believe that the 'science had been settled'. I happen to believe that 'settled science' is an oxymoron.
Well said, Polsonby, there are a lot of people who are so conditioned by the "system" that they are incapable of looking at the problem from an independent point of view. Most so-called "deniers" accept that the climate is changing, like it has always changed, but not for the reasons that the "controllers" want us to believe. It is almost as if they want to revert to the "mother earth" godess of our stone age past, instead of clearly examining the facts, and we do have plenty of time to do that, but we will all come to the conclusion that there is nothing we can do to stop climate change. The "believers" seem to have forgotten the 2yk scam or the ozone layer scenario or more recently the swine fool flu.
You are a bunch of fucking nutters, honestly. Why is climate change a religious issue? It's a shit theory backed by inadequate evidence, and yet you blindly swallow the whole lot. How can you support actions that will doom generations to disease and poverty without allowing debate? Science only works when theories are tested, but none of you are interested in examining the evidence, which is scanty and flawed. Have any of you even read the IPCC reports? Have you looked into the studies they reference? They are a joke. The climate is changing, as it has always done, but there is no reason so far to think that humans are changing it. While pricks like Simmons are frothing over their keyboards hurling abuse in every direction, children are dying right now. Rising sea levels are not the enemy; preventable diseases and starvation kills them. You are being sold a lie, and you should be asking yourself why.
Marvellous how these people - both sides - think the best argument is to decry their opponents' intelligence, knowledge, awareness etc. Used to be called intellectual snobbery; or attacking the person indicates failure to comprehend and be able to respond to rational argument.
A plague on you all, changers, deniers, deniers of deniers etc. You are so damn boring.
Wonderfulforhisage is a perfect example of the limited intelligence and lack of general knowledge and awareness that is all too common in climate change deniers.
wonderfulforhisage - where have you been? Off planet I assume, or are you non British and barely aware of the rest of the world? Since you ask: the break in to the computers of UEA [University of East Anglia] Climatic Research Unit, files and emails were hacked. The evidence is in the files which were hacked being available over the net. And the police are investigating the criminal act. OK?
"The bullying censorship he refers to has taken place in the lab break-ins and computer hacking used to acquire selective evidence". May I ask which break-ins and hacking you are referring to and also what evidence you have of said break-ins and hacking.
It's good First Post allows opposite views to be viewed but this statement goes both ways.
"One way to control anxiety is to deny reality. Reality itself becomes the enemy that challenges this narcissistic hegemony and must be attacked accordingly. The need to maintain control then turns into paranoia. "
Which side in the debate is feeling so defensive it needs to use the word paranoia as a weapon?
Anyway it doesn't matter if CO2 causes global warming or not. The world economy is now in such a deep slide CO2 production levels are bound to go well below any environmentaiists dream.
Unless gold comes back as money.
Astute and to the point. One thing lacking is the fact that the deniers are all of limited intelligence, although Coline touches on this with the anti-intellectualism inherent in a denial of the work of tens of thousands of highly qualified scientists. The argument rests on all these professionals [something few of the deniers are] being implicated in a huge conspiracy to defraud, since all they can think of is grants that scientists get to carry our research. We'll have them along here soon, pratting on in their pathetically ignorant way about Al Gore doubtless, since most of them are too young to realise that Al Gore is a late convert and a politician, some of the more ignorant think he dreamed up the 'scam'. It is the extreme, addled, right wingnuts who are the vociferous deniers, which is why so many are Americans - badly educated in religious schools, many of them are ev9lutionists as well, doubtless a few even think the Earth is flat, since the sun revolves round the Earth as anyone with eyes can see. They are a cult by any estimation, constantly attempting to bolster each other's faith in their chosen dogma, science and scientists are constantly derided by the pig ignorant who just don't want to give up one little bit of their unsustainable, selfish, greedy lifestyles, naked apes in all their stupidity. They are the new barbarians attacking the gates of civilisation, knowledge, reason and responsibility. Right, come on wankers, your turn. Got a scientific argument any of you? Got anything except innuendo, smear, insinuation or astrology to offer? Thought not.