Deltoid

Okay, I got one: what drives the idiocy we see in the post below? Is it primarily ideological bull-headedness ("I don't want to admit I'm wrong, and that the leftist environmentalist panty-waists are right."), or is it primarily mercenary ("I'm being paid to obfuscate this shit."), or primarily both? Also, kudos to Tim for consistently knocking them down, but this seems to me like fighting a punching dummy. The thing will always get up, and you're just going to tire yourself out. How do you win?

Posted by: saurabh | July 6, 2008 9:51 PM

Kent, you forgot to mention that Al Gore is fat!

Posted by: ChrisC | July 7, 2008 12:11 AM

Saurabh, your post at #1 was wickedly enticing and deliciously prescient, and I had money on it with my friend Wyvern that kent would be the one to stick his head in the noose and fulfill your prophecy. And he did it straight up too...

Thank you kent, I knew that I could trust you.

And z's analysis is merciless. All-in-all, I don't think that even Ben Elton could have scripted posts 1-4 better. I almost laughed my arse off.

Thanks guys for the comic relief - and the fiver.

Posted by: Bernard J. | July 7, 2008 12:32 AM

It was just a token - after all, I couldn't rob a mate, could I?

Posted by: Bernard J. | July 7, 2008 2:10 AM

The underlying motivation of the denialists is quite simple.

They are fascists.

Refer to Umberto Eco's fascist checklist (Eco of course had first-hand experience of Fascism growing up in Mussolini-era Italy)

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

"The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition."

... "2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.

Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

1. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values."

"5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

1. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority." ... "8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."

You know, like that fat bastard Al Gore

"12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons -- doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

1. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view -- one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten" parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism."

The typical "skeptic" who posts here is a middle class or lower middle class white Australian or American who also scapegoats minorities for social problems (read Lance or Ben on how most of America's problems are caased by blacks); idolises the use of force on the individual level (as characterised by, for example, support for a latitudinous reading of the US 2nd Amendment and on an international level as indicated by their support for the Iraq War. They embrace conspiracy theories regarding the IPCC and are genuinely convinced that a few weeks reading the comments on climateaudit qualify them as climate scientists.

I'm sure this post will produce outraged responses along the lines of "I don't support "X" therefore you're wrong about me." Fascism was always a broad Church - Franco's embrace of the Catholic Church contrasts with Nazi Germany's ambivalent attitude towards Christianity; Goering and Speer were appalled by Hitler's antisemitism (albeit primarily for pragmatic rather than moral reasons); Ernst roehm and the other leaders of the SA were liquidated because their anti-capitalist attitudes clashed with Hitler's desire to ally with the German industrialists.

What matters is the general pattern:

Authoritarianism

Anti-intellecualism;

majoritarianism (hostility to ethnic, religious and other minorities)

the cult of violence;

Ultranationalism and xenophobia

Distrust for democracy (usually dressed up these days in libertarian clap-trap about the evils of government)

Belief in conspiracy thoeries; and

A sense of persecution and ill-traeatment (usually these days once again dressed upon as libertarianism and clap-trap about the evils of multiculturalism; railing about anti-Americanism and so on.)

I should also point out that being a Fascists doesn't make you a bad person. One of my closest friund's fathers served in the Wehrmacht. He's a charming crusty old gentleman (in the best sense of the world) who loves his grandchildren; spends lots of time volunteering for various community groups - and still wishes Hitler had won.

Nor are fascists necessarily foolish - historically after all Ezra Pound, Werner Von Braun; Carl Jung and many other highly intelligent people were supporters of fascism.

So when I say that most "skeptics" are in fact fascists I simply offer a diagnosis not a moral condemnation.

Posted by: Ian Gould | July 7, 2008 3:28 AM

I have an asexual selection theory of troll evolution. As the more rational trolls give up, the terrain will be occupied by the more deluded. There is no end-point: the troll you always have with you. The question for the rest of us is when it stops being worthwhile paying attention to them. I suggest this will be when MSM outlets with a large general readership, like the WSJ, The Australian, and the (London) Telegraph stop giving space to climate delusionists.

Posted by: James Wimberley | July 7, 2008 7:33 AM

I reckon there are two factors driving climate change denial.

One is obviously the money. A vast amount of the organized denial is known to be funded by lobbyists, from books to "astroturf" campaign groups to junkscience.com.

The second is that I think people have a kind of fascination with conspiracy theories. Every time a major event or issue crops up, conspiracy theories are never far behind - like it's part of the human condition. Why is that? I did a review of a paper on the psychology of conspiracy theorists a while back, and I tend to agree with them that it's a question of preserving your belief system. Once people choose to believe something, they will do anything to avoid confronting any failures in that belief system.

Then of course there's the interplay between the two - lobbyists are able to exploit people's tendency to like conspiracy theories, which may be what we see on websites like The Register.

Posted by: Martin | July 7, 2008 7:55 AM

Let me guess: Kilo's talking about these guys.

"New climate alliance"? "Climate revolution"? Bleh. Old is the new old.

News release: Farm lobbies abandon farmers. The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused the big farming lobby groups, government departments, politicians and Ministers representing agriculture of ignoring science and abandoning farmers to unjustified carbon taxation.

Oh noes, farm lobbies are abandoning farmers, and the real people looking after the farmers are... a bunch of think-tankers affiliated with Lavoisier Institute conspiracy theorists!

Now I guess they just need someone to pull a Milloy on the farmers and farm lobbies. Hijack Invest in the farms and tell the farmers what they, deep in their heart, ought to want.

Posted by: bi -- IJI | July 7, 2008 9:04 AM

I suggest this will be when MSM outlets with a large general readership, like the WSJ, The Australian, and the (London) Telegraph stop giving space to climate delusionists.

You seem to think these MSM outlets 'give space' to trolls. In fact, their business model depends entirely on drawing attention to themselves. They have a long history of relying on controversy - that is, anger - to draw to them the attention they desire. These MSM outlets are trolls.

Posted by: llewelly | July 7, 2008 9:45 AM

15 - Wow:

Much of this carbon then gets transferred to the bones and flesh of the growing human population

All this time the solution to global warming is staring us in the face - have more babies! We all just need to have children at the rate of a few tons per year and that pesky CO2 problem is solved. Or maybe we should stop seeing obesity as a problem.

Posted by: Vagueofgodalming | July 7, 2008 11:46 AM

@Barton and Ian: I think the problem with the debate you two are starting is that you're lumping all deniers together, when in fact they come from all over the political spectrum. You can't try to define them as aligned to a particular movement or wing of politics unless you're going to define what, exactly, you mean by a denier.

@James and Llewelly: MSM is just generally lazy. Most of the stuff they print or show comes pre-packaged by lobbyists or PR people as a press-release or a video clip. They take all the stuff they receive, pick out the exciting stuff, and pretty much print it as if, changing a few words to make it look more original. Having said that, in some cases, like the weird stuff going on at The Register, perhaps something more is going on. At any rate, the problem in a lot of areas is not that the media are anti-science, but that the woo-people and campaign groups are much better at getting themselves heard than most scientists and rationalists are.

Posted by: Martin | July 7, 2008 11:51 AM

Changing the topic... I once got in trouble here for supporting the swift-boating of Kerry, and apparently rightly so, at least partly. Now Col. Bud Day is being treated very poorly by the media for being a swift-boat vet, when in fact he never was. He never did criticize Kerry's military record, and the comments in this article at CNN seem to indicate that folks don't know this.

In fact, Day publicly stated that Kerry's military record and decorations were not legitimate targets of criticism. What Day was critical of was Kerry's behavior after he left the service, his testimony before congress (which was apparently full of lies that tarnished the military) and his disgraceful throwing of someone else's medals. These are legitimate criticisms, but Day is being attacked as a swift-vet, which he was not.

Posted by: ben | July 7, 2008 3:39 PM

Jody: yes, I think so.

As I see it, all Ian has done is suggest that one syndrome (fascism) looks very like another (denialism). He may be right, but that doesn't really explain anything.

Personally, I think Magpie's on the right track. I'd add that some people, rather than wanting to save the world, want their voice to be perceived to have status, and become shrill when there isn't instant respect.

Posted by: Vagueofgodalming | July 7, 2008 5:10 PM

The basic problem with Ian's approach is that the terms he uses cover - by his own admission - such a broad spectrum of humanity that any overlap is meaningless.

Some are racist, some aren't. Some are right wing, some are left wing. Some are fascist, some are liberal. Some are religious, some are atheist. The only thing they all have in common is their denialism.

Posted by: Martin | July 7, 2008 7:04 PM

"If you had been lucid while reading my posts instead of drinking cheap port or snorting crystal meth, or whatever substance has rotted your brain, you would know that I am married to a black woman, an African woman in fact, you ass."

I'm perfectly aware of that fact - you screamed it repeatedly in your extended anti-Canadian and anti-European rant on Pharyngula - which was mostly about how those countries all thought they were so superior to the US when they had no idea it was to maintain any sort of civilisation in a country plagued by ethnic minorities.

Posted by: Ian Gould | July 7, 2008 8:13 PM

A minor correction: Lance's rant was on "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" not Pharyngula.

Other high points included pronouncing Canada inferior to America because it had a smaller military (military power of course being the only indicator of a nation's worth) and gloated over Europe's supposed imminent demise at the hands of the Muslim hordes.

But, obviously, it's grossly unfair to describe you as an adherent of a world view marked by extreme nationalism; militarism and xenophobia.

Posted by: Ian Gould | July 7, 2008 8:37 PM

"His AGW denialism is cut from the same cloth as his denial of the Stalinist genocide (published in a series of Nation articles in the early 1990's)."

I think you have Cockburn's personal psychology correct, but I don't think it's quite fair to say he denied Stalin's genocide. There's been a nasty little debate over the scale (not exactly unheard of in the study of atrocities). IIRC, he cited those who went for the lower estimates but even the lower estimates have Stalin responsible for millions of deaths. There's also a quarrel about whether Stalin deliberately starved the Ukrainians or "only" instituted an insane economic policy that caused millions to starve.

Posted by: Donald Johnson | July 7, 2008 11:56 PM

"Hundreds of thousands" --- Depends on what he meant. That was a reasonable estimate for the number of executions (not the total number of excess deaths, which would include starvation deaths) in the 1930's. The number recorded for the Great Terror in 1937-1938 in the Soviet archives is about 700,000, and that was much much larger than before or after, at least during the 30's. Throw in prison deaths and one is in the low millions, however. And then there are the starvation deaths, which are in the millions--I don't think Cockburn denied those. All of this is controversial, of course, with some saying that the archival numbers are too low, and I'm not going to to take a position on it.

Posted by: Donald Johnson | July 8, 2008 1:12 AM

Changing the topic... I once got in trouble here for supporting the swift-boating of Kerry, and apparently rightly so, at least partly. Now Col. Bud Day is being treated very poorly by the media for being a swift-boat vet, when in fact he never was.

No, he's being treated poorly for having joined the political pressure group, The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, not for being a swift boat vet.

There's a difference, Ben. You didn't need to be "for Truth" in order to join. Nor, as surprising as I imagine this is for you, did you have to actually be a "swift boat vet". Do you really think they were able to raise all that money by restricting membership so severely?

He never did criticize Kerry's military record, and the comments in this article at CNN seem to indicate that folks don't know this.

He joined an organization that was created for the purpose of criticizing Kerry's military record, indeed, worse - it was created in order to convince people that his military record was fraudulent.

He's on record, afterwards, stating that all the group did was to "reveal the truth".

Sorry, no free revisionist history ride for this guy.

Now, do you believe that being a fighter jock and POW somehow, alone, qualifies a person to be President? Wouldn't you agree that being President might require some other skills?

Posted by: dhogaza | July 8, 2008 2:47 AM

My local paper filed a story in their on-line addition tonight while I was reading the speculation about AGW denialism. I'd been checking to see if there was any information on the kid's condition, as I had news of the incident from his grand uncle who was on the way to be with his sister, the boy's grandmother at the hospital. He had no word on the boy's condition. The Uncle said he understood that the boy had been playing chicken with another boy in traffic, and local TV news seems to have creditably reported this about the same time as the paper filed the story.

This report read: "Traffic has reopened ... following an accident that sent a 12-year-old boy to a hospital with severe head injuries, according to [local] police. Witnesses told police the boy ran out into traffic at about 4:50 p.m., [a] police spokeswoman ... said. A 2003 Mazda sedan struck the boy, she said. The boy, who was not named, was unconscious and had labored breathing when he was taken to a local hospital and listed in critical condition, she said."

In its entirety, the second comment in the response thread attached to the story reads, "the kid is most likely [sic] a liberal... hope he learned a lesson."

While surely there is reasoned questioning and genuine skepticism out there, by far the bulk of denial that I see in responses to climate change reporting in that same paper, falls directly inline with what I've just related.

I'm in quite a "red" state of the US, with many, many around here espousing a highly libertarian credo, and continually hear bits and snatches of the sneeringly delivere "they can't predict the weather, etc., etc." that pervades AM radio. Any thought that tribalism is waning in the west is an illusion. As far as I can judge, it's growing.

Posted by: WhiteBeard | July 8, 2008 3:21 AM

Ian Gould,

Your posts are so inaccurate and slanderous that you had to correct the first one with the second. I notice you didn't bother to quote any of my comments from my exchanges on Ed Brayton's blog, though no doubt you would have done so out of context. Brayton praised Canada as "...being a lot more enlightened..." than the US. While Canada is a fine place it is hardly "a lot" more enlightened than the US.

I never "screamed" the fact that I am married to a black African woman I merely mentioned it (along with the fact that my mother and half of my relatives are Europeans) when another leftist dimwit accused me of being a xenophobic racist.

I made no physical threat, direct or implied. I would like to meet you face to face to answer your idiotic tripe in real time. Also it is my experience that mouthy little cowards shrivel when they have to make their accusations in person.

I wouldn't cross the street to talk to you but if you want to meet me I teach at Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis. Call the math or physics department and ask to speak to Lance.

Posted by: Lance | July 8, 2008 10:45 AM

James Haughton asks:

It's been a while since there's been any news/developments on the Iraqi death count measurement situation. Have there been any new publications? Or did everyone get bored?

Not me!

1) See my blog for some updates on the topic. I am still looking for feedback on this post. "Summary: Using the same assumptions for L2 and IFHS (no adjustments for underreporting or for clusters that could not be visited) generates estimates that differ by more than a factor of 8: 601,000 to 72,000." Comments welcome! I also have some other posts up and plan to be adding more, including more transcripts.

2) I have organized a panel at the Joint Statistical Meeting in Denver next month. All Deltoid readers are welcome. I think that the most interesting paper at the panel will be from M. Ali (one of the IFHS authors) on their estimate of non-violent mortality. Les Roberts likes to (falsely) claim that IFHS and L2 are in agreement (more or less) on total mortality, even if the disagree on violent mortality. I suspect that Roberts will not be able to make that claim for much longer.

3) See this post for the most recent relevant publication in the scientific literature that I am aware of.

Posted by: David Kane | July 8, 2008 12:31 PM

David Kane:

I am still looking for feedback on this post. [...]

I have organized a panel at the Joint Statistical Meeting in Denver next month. All Deltoid readers are welcome.

Ahahahahaha. Once more David Kane hasn't been able to get any brainful comments from Michelle Malkin's side. That's why he keeps coming here to beg for attention.

Posted by: bi -- IJI | July 8, 2008 12:52 PM

Now, you didn't answer my question. Do you believe that being a fighter jock and POW isn't by itself particularly relevant to the job of President of the United States?

By themselves, being a fighter jock and POW are somewhat relevant to the job of being President. Serving in the military is relevant if you are going to later take a job as Commander in Chief. But more important than having "simply" been a fighter pilot and POW is a person's performance in those rolls. McCain has certainly established his character as an American with substantial courage and a patriot. Things that Barack Obama, much as he may posses those qualities, has not demonstrated them to the same degree.

That said, McCain's qualifications have more to do with his time as a United States Senator, which is somewhat more significant in most regards than that of his opponent.

Posted by: ben | July 8, 2008 1:01 PM

bi--IJI, (I must have missed the reason you added IJI.)

While I thank you for at least not calling me a fascist or a racist I would point out that many evangelical Christians have woven AGW into their worldview and they probably are more afraid of communism, as a group, than any other demographic in America.

I have heard plenty of AGW proponents offer market based proposals to "solve" the problem. I just don't think it is a problem. While your use of the word "inactivist" is less insulting than the despicable term "denialist" it still misses the point. I am no more an "inactivist" for AGW mitigation than for water fluoridation mitigation.

I see both as non-threats to humanity that require no action, since neither is a "problem".

I have demonstrated with local environmental groups outside our local waste water treatment plant to protest the city of Indianapolis shirking federal water pollution regulations and I am a member of the Hoosier Heartland RC&D Association, a local forest protection organization, so I am hardly an anarchist that is ideologically opposed to sensible environmental restrictions.

If I thought the science supported CO2 mitigation I would be for regulating CO2. I don't think the science does support the idea that we face dire consequences from burning fossil fuels and thus I am opposed to mitigation efforts that cannot be justified for other rational reasons such as cost savings and lessening dependence on foreign supplies of petroleum that help fund repressive regimes and parties hostile to the US and many other countries around the world.

I know that puffing up the case for AGW and looking down your nose at unbelievers is the official reason for the existence of Deltoid, but it really gets tiresome after a while. I enjoy discussing the scientific issues and even the related political issues with people of all points of view but when it descends into name-calling and character assassination you have to wonder, what exactly are the motives of the people involved.

Posted by: Lance | July 8, 2008 2:50 PM

I know that puffing up the case for AGW and looking down your nose at unbelievers is the official reason for the existence of Deltoid, but it really gets tiresome after a while.

This coming from our resident liar-in-chief ...

Posted by: dhogaza | July 8, 2008 2:54 PM

Ah dhogaza,

Leave it to you to answer a post critical of name-calling with, yes that's right, name-calling.

At least you are consistent.

Posted by: Lance | July 8, 2008 3:33 PM