Will Says; But Will The Warmers Take Note — Or Just Make Noise

Timon of Phlius, ancient Greek Skeptic philoso...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

George Will, serving as an op-ed writer on the Washington Post’s web presence has written a piece wherein he quotes a noted professor of politics at Bard College and Yale.  Of course, he also offers ample servings of his opinion.  I like Will and most of his commentary, but perhaps I’m to  apt to follow someone who does not follow all the  “warmers”  dogma.  If I still have “warmer” friends they might cringe when they see this post.  Maybe they’ll just saunter on … or not.  To get back to Will and his article, let’s look at this:

The collapsing crusade for legislation to combat climate change raises a question: Has ever a political movement made so little of so many advantages? Its implosion has continued since “the Cluster of Copenhagen, when world leaders assembled for the single most unproductive and chaotic global gathering ever held.” So says Walter Russell Mead, who has an explanation: Bambi became Godzilla.

I believe the climate change issue has been slapped on the head until some of its followers are dizzy, or perhaps dopey.  Not because, there is not climate change, but because “warmers”  have attempted to lay the cause for climate change and global warming in the main on humans.  To top their anthropological blame, I and others believe they failed miserably when they attempted  to explain away the East Anglia information obtained from hacked emails. Of course, there have been investigations which purport to absolve some of the actors in the controversy.  One blog reporting on the matter of some investigations will be found here. On to Will’s piece and his report on the mentioned professor’s assertions:

… Mead, a professor of politics at Bard College and Yale, notes that “the greenest president in American history had the largest congressional majority of any president since Lyndon Johnson,” but the environmentalists’ legislation foundered because they got “on the wrong side of doubt.”

And, further:

Environmentalists, Mead argues, have forgotten their origins, which were in skeptical “reaction against Big Science, Big Government and Experts.” Environmentalists once were intellectual cousins of economic libertarians who heed the arguments of Friedrich Hayek and other students of spontaneous order — in society or nature. Such libertarians caution against trying to impose big, simple plans on complex systems. They warn that governmental interventions in such systems inevitably have large unintended, because [sic] unforeseeable, consequences.

What Mr. Mead seems to say is the modern-day environmentalists (evios) have not only missed the boat, but were not even on the dock of public opinion and they allied themselves with big government factions.  I can remember when government programs were held at arm’s length, and insulted by the Mr. Cleans and Ms. Greens of the evios factions, some going so far as to break into nuclear facilities.  Now it seems the evios have the attention of every government in the world and the only groups protesting big government, aside from conservatives, are the anarchists.  No alliance existing or wanted between the two, I’d have to say.

Mead indicates that Americans were impressed by the government of World War II‘s ability to organize to conduct and win that war.  According to Mead American citizens carried their impression and enthusiasm to their support of “urban renewal” and “model cities.”   But, Mead says, “Back then environmentalism was skepticism.”

Mead stays on the trail to focusing on who is to blame for the climate change proponents’ failure to convince and it turns out (in Mead’s opinion) it is not the skeptic screamers.  But, to paraphrase Pogo, “They has met the enemy, and they is them.”  Them being the “warmers,” themselves.  As an aside, if you follow the link, you can see the first Earth Day poster and Pogo’s actual quote.  To get back,  to Mead and his beliefs, let’s quote the article again:

It was akin to the dissent of Jane Jacobs, author of the 1961 book “The Death and Life of Great American Cities.” She argued that ambitious social engineers such as New York’s Robert Moses were, by their ten-thumbed interventions in complex organisms such as cities, disrupting social ecosystems. The apotheosis of technocratic experts such as McGeorge Bundy and Robert McNamara gave us “nation-building” in conjunction with a war of attrition — the crucial metric supposedly was body counts — in a Southeast Asian peasant society. Over time, Mead says, “experts lost their mystique”:

“An increasingly skeptical public started to notice that ‘experts’ weren’t angels descending immaculately from heaven bearing infallible revelations from God. They were fallible human beings with mortgages to pay and funds to raise. They disagreed with one another and they colluded with their friends and supporters like everyone else.”

How can we argue,  or why would we want to argue with Professor Mead, especially with the paragraph just above?  Scientists, who desired more followers and more money were no different in their core beings than any other  persons who sought to gain influence, support and yes … money.  Since there is little, if any, evidence to suggest the climate scientists and their ilk of today are extra-ordinarily honest, we can only say that some fit the description.  Mead has more to say about the forgoing and what he says hits the target, but I want to jump forward to the last two paragraphs of Will’s article because I believe they  crumple the stuff of imperial, i.e., king-like folks who sell tiger stripe remover:

“It proposes big economic and social interventions and denies that unintended consequences and new information could vitiate the power of its recommendations. It knows what is good for us, and its knowledge is backed up by the awesome power and majesty of the peer review process. The political, cultural, business and scientific establishments stand firmly behind global warming today — just as they once stood firmly behind Robert Moses, urban renewal and big dams. They tell us it’s a sin to question the consensus, the sign of bad moral character to doubt. Bambi, look in the mirror. You will see Godzilla looking back.”

Mead, who says that he is a skeptic about climate policy rather than climate science, says that the environmental movement has “become the voice of the establishment, of the tenured, of the technocrats.” This is the wrong thing to be in “Recovery Summer” while the nation wonders about the whereabouts of the robust recovery the experts forecast.

You can read the entire article here.  As always, a flap of the cap to the folks who originated the information.  In this case, The Washington Post and George F. Will.