THE Greens consider themselves morally and intellectually superior.
****************
Earlier posts in this series can be found here. The word ‘Greens’ refers to a group with unique characteristics as one might use the word ‘fishermen’ or ‘Moslem’.
Reader Interactions
Comments
Trackbacks
-
[…] quest to define the greens, Jennifer ‘Dian Fossey’ Marohasy this week discovers that “THE Greens consider themselves morally and intellectually superior.” Color me shocked. Shocked, I tell […]
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Ha ha! Take that you smugly superior Greens!
We all know that climate skeptics are actually morally and intellectually superior – it’s been scientifically proven!
Here I was thinking it was the fishermen who thought themselves intellectually and morally superior.
Hmm.. or maybe the Moslems.
I wonder what unique characteristics the Greens group has – in the sense that no other group has them?
Mmm, a question Slim; do you think humans should encroach on pristine nature at all? A corollary; do the interests of humanity, that is, what is best for humanity, diverge from keeping nature as pristine as possible?
The superiority of the green advocates comes from an assumption that nature is superior or better than humanity; since greens are alligned to the natural path they must be superior to less natural or unnatural people.
“THE Greens consider themselves morally and intellectually superior” does not make sense when you consider that most people are a bit Green. It would be easier to define AGW sceptics because they have mostly arrived at their position by a well defined journey. They believe so they can understand. Whereas of course most greens get to their position by understanding so they can believe.
Slim wrote:
“I wonder what unique characteristics the Greens group has – in the sense that no other group has them?”
I can’t generalize about Greens everywhere in the world, but I’ve known quite a few here in the U.S. Merkin Greens have a greater propensity than the general population for accepting the opinions of scientific mavens. In contrast, most Merkins see the economy as the biggest issue of the day, and the CO2 Monster is low on the totem pole.
Most Merkins–Green or otherwise, ‘educated’ or otherwise–are scientifically illiterate, and don’t have the necessary background to see through the AGW codswallop. In this particular case, Merkin anti-intellectuals got it right, in spite of themselves.
I should add that the apparent support of our political leaders for the anti-carbon religion does not reflect the views of most Merkins.
In answer to cohenite – there are a lot of assumptions and interpolations involved in your rhetorical questions. But nevertheless:
a. depends
b. depends
As to the last assertion – WTF? Where did you get that from? That sure is some twisted and painful ‘logic’.
“Merkin Greens have a greater propensity than…”
I’m sorry, that is not a unique characteristic – it’s a tendency (and do you have evidence for that?)
I think this sums up the ‘Greens’ pretty well:
That’s the problem with greens. Not unique, just also rans.
Get up your nose like green mucus.
Cough them up like green phlegm or sputum.
Out of your gut like green bile.
I’d rather put peas up my nose or beens in my ears.
But lovely people, individually.
Hunter, Goode one!
Turns Bazza’s theory on its head.
They do have the unique characteristic of claiming they can solve non existent problems caused by sceptics condemning: Bangladeshis to treading water indefinitely, polar bears and coral to extinction etc. etc.
I somehow suspect that when it came to the crunch, they would always manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
the Assault on Reason cliffnotes;
“Why is no one willing to talk about the 7 billion alpha predators on this planet? The human population was under 1 billion people for our entire history until 200 years ago. Fossil fuels, vegan diets – none of that matter if our population keeps up its current rate of growth. ”
the Assault on Reason even shorter;
“Too many Apes.”
Courtesy of the (assAlterNet.
“They think about the future, so you don’t have too.”
No, I made that catch phrase up. What they wrote themselves is even better.
“AlterNet is a key player in the echo chamber of progressive ideas and vision. “ – taken directly from the Alternet About page.
Bazza –
What’s your evidence for “most people are a bit Green”? And how do you define “Green”?
Having lived many years in Indonesia, Madagascar and Kenya, I would disagree. The majority of people in these countries (in particular the people I stayed with in remote villages in Madagascar when working as a field biologist, and the people I stayed with in Indonesia backpacking or working as an interpreter for the Asian Development Bank) would share very little in common with the “Greens”.
A big difference would be their approach to nature and the concepts of equality and fairness. Also, in rural Madagascar there was a strong sense that local communities are best off when foreigners don’t interfer or give advice.
The Greens are essentially utopians.
Jennifer,
I’d like to see a new thread as a counterpoint to Defining the Greens: Defining the Skeptics. It’d be interesting to see the news articles that were pivotal in shaping the views of the other AGW Disasterism bah-humbugs on this board. cohenite has blazed the trail with the top 10 and the 10 worst scientific papers on the subject. What say you?
Larry,
Will do – ‘Defining the Skeptics’. Good idea.
Perhaps SJT or Jeremy C would like to help me get started with a submission?
And I have your post on that dog that chewed the handle – just waiting for the right opportunity. I haven’t forgotten.
Let’s see – defining the sceptics – right wing, geologist, economist, retired, conspiracy theorist, wrong, evil, … LOL !
Luke,
You would be surprised how many are not ‘right wing’ – Steve McIntyre is openly a lefty, and I know many others privately – like most retired academics – are very much from the left of centre. But you, Luke, assume skeptic = right wing. And wrong.
But they do believe, like the Greens, that they are ‘morally and intellectually’ superior – for the most part anyway. So, a reasonable generalisation.
Just filing this here:
As I thought about what to write – I wanted to post without throwing too many jabs at the right. I hope I have succeeded in that endeavor – it was not easy. There are many things that separate the views of progressives from the views of conservatives (and especially neo-conservatives). But one thing I think our side does much better is admit when we’re wrong. I don’t remember the last time someone on the right offered a sincere apology for some of the vile viewpoints they project onto our World. I’m not talking about offering a half hearted generically written apology when a sponser threatens to pull out due to public outrage – but an honest “You know what – I was wrong” apology. It would honestly make me listen to their viewpoint more if I knew they were introspective enough to question their own views and admit when they’ve made a mistake. I’ve taken this experience as an opportunity to do just that. I have concluded that although I think I’m right in my progressive World view – I can always do more homework and look at the true facts – and maybe examine the views of the other side for validity before I completely make up my mind. If anyone takes anything from this retraction – I hope it’s that.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/crazedandconfused/2009/06/ashamed-of-myself—a-formal-r.php
The Tasmanian greens have always considered themselves above the unwashed herd of politicians; this from their own “The rest of the world is WATCHING”
” It is this ideological and tactical sophistication that merits the international attention that is focused on the Tasmanian Green movement
And there can be no doubt that such attention exists. In any one year Bob Brown receives many invitations to speak and visit overseas.
Lively exchanges of news and ideas take place between Tasmanian Greens and Greens elsewhere. Green luminaries are attracted to Tasmania: they all come, some of them several times — Porritt, Kelly, Ehrlich, Suzuki, Lovins, Naess, Devall, Bellamy, and on the list goes.
The Wilderness Society has a shelf of publications about itself, mostly by overseas authors, and mostly by authors who felt that, from parts distant, they had sufficient access to the requisite information not to need to make actual contact with the society.”
Jennifer,
I read that post and if he had left out the jibe about being better at apologising than the right, I think it would have been better and a lot more sincere.
I could conclude from his piece (if I had the mind to) amongst other things, that the left can’t even do a proper apology without putting the boot in along the way!
Capitalism is essentially exploitative.
Jennifer, you ask “Bazza – What’s your evidence for “most people are a bit Green”? And how do you define “Green”?”. Q1. Majority opinion over five continents over two decades, a bit the way you gather evidence. Q2 It is your job it seems to defile and define the greens, but in general it is about being sustainable and humble “Neither power nor wealth, only art and science will endure.” (T Brahe). And how did you feel “in rural Madagascar there was a strong sense that local communities are best off when foreigners don’t interfere or give advice” when that was ultimately why you were there. Where they trying to politely tell you something.?
And it was a bit ambiguous about “A big difference would be their approach to nature and the concepts of equality and fairness”. I assume you meant the Greens were a bit more into equity issues and the failure of economics to handle externalities. Anyway, why did you not address my central point instead of quibbling.It was: “It would be easier to define AGW sceptics because they have mostly arrived at their position by a well defined journey. They believe so they can understand. Whereas of course most greens get to their position by understanding so they can believe”. Which is of course how your remote villages evolved their world view.
“THE Greens consider themselves morally and intellectually superior” ……….. To whom?!?
Jennifer,
In response to your suggestion of a submission about Defining the sceptics…….. whom do you mean and from what direction? I think the best place to start is by writing on sentence beginning with, “sceptics are ……..” and let it flow from there.
Another way to do it is a ‘Just-A-Minute’ parody, i.e. no repetition, hesitation or deviation.
John Quiggin’s Taxonomy of Delusion could be an interesting place to start the Defining Skeptics series:
* Tribalists
* Ideologists
* Hacks
* Irresponsible contrarian
* Emeritus disease
Perhaps a guest post?
Bazza “Majority opinion over five continents over two decades, a bit the way you gather evidence” isn’t an answer. That’s an evasion.
What, are you running for Prime Minister?
“it is about being sustainable and humble”
By humble you mean like insisting that if only every person on Earth follows your stringent list of personal hygene, this will miraculously control the weather, causing snow to only fall between July and September, ensuring the rains will never cause nasty flooding, restricting them to filling reservoirs then shutting down like a good puppy, and the summer sun will only kiss raisins, never beat down, bake, or stifle?
Is that the sort of humble you are talking about?
Sustainable – what a farce. Limited resources – what a con job. You know how many resources the planet has lost since the beginning of time?
Should be easy to figure out. There was the Veneras, the Pioneers, the two Voyagers, the Apollo’s 11 through 17, Magellen, Cassini, and Ulysses. Oh and a handful of missions to Mars and Venus that I can’t recall the names of of hand. That’s it.
Everything else is still here.
All the rest of the stuff you think has been used up – still here.
In fact it is damn near impossible to get rid of resources on a closed system like our planet.
You might as well lobby to ration air.
Slim you posted the “progressive’s list” by mistake.
No need to thank me. The fact I caught it in time before you went to the trouble working it into a post is all the thanks I need.
Well, now that we have an overwhelming number of Greens eager to initiate the Defining the Skeptics series, my response is: Gentlemen, start your engines! I’m assuming that Jennifer is still willing to wave the checkered flag at the finish line. Starters’ pistol optional. Or is that a different sporting event? 😛
Bazza,
Point of clarificaiton: I wasn’t in Madagascar to give advice or interfer – I was there for three years to collect a few insects now lodged in the British Museum of Natural History.
And I have often remarked on the extent to which ‘Greens’ think they have an obligation to interfer globally while subsistent fishers and farmers have a very strong sense that it would be best if everyone moslty minded their own business.
The contrast is extreme.
Larry,
Contributors can start posting for the new series here (and I will lift and repost to a new thread) – or they can email me directly. Nothing received so far.
“Capitalism is essentially exploitative.”
How stupid have you got to be to believe that?
Do you really think that if our demands were supplied by the state that we would be within cooee of our present SOL?
I consider myself a small time capitalist [self employed, run my own show, pay my taxes] and the only times I made a profit is when I supplied a good or a service at or below the existing market price.
And the only time I could get the where-with-all to produce that good or service was to pay at or above the existing market price.
Work it out, dummy!
How exploitative is that?
Drongo – yes, by any formal analysis, capitalism is exploitative. Do a little research. Why it is so is subject to various theories and opinions, but there is no doubt that capitalism is exploitative, especially so by the time we’re dealing with global corporations and deregulated markets.
Your small business activities hardly make you a capitalist.
And no, just because I point out that Capitalism is exploitative does not mean that I suggest our demands be supplied by the state – I think that’s just projecting your ’50s communist paranoia.
“Your small business activities hardly make you a capitalist.”
You wouldn’t have any idea, with your post modernist logic.
You are as convincing as Kevin’s “Fiscal Conservatism”.
Ahhh jeez. How many of you were even alive in the 50’s? Show of hands?
Recycling the McCarthy. See! Another never ending resource, albeit one I wish NASA had shot to the Moon.
Capitalism is the most non exploitative system yet devised. It was Capitalism or rather the abrogation of capitalism which allowed segregation in America. It was by government edict that Africans couldn’t ride in the first class train car. To the capitalist railroad owner the blackman’s money was just as green as a white’s. Left up to him he would prefer charging everyone equally for the first class ticket. If say the Georgia rail decided they want to discriminate, in a capitalist system his competitor will cheer him on, while providing the service his bigoted counterpart forbade.
It’s the abrogation of capitalism which we are fighting here (some of us are).
For what else can you call it but the negation of free enterprise when people are forced to buy a twisty General Electric light bulb at $7 when there are incandescent bulbs which do a better job selling for $2?
The only way green ideology will ever fly is by force of government. That’s because the Greens are selling crap. Windmills are crap.
Photovoltaics are crap.
How do we know this? Because if they weren’t expensive non functioning, or as Slim likes to term it exploitative crap, people would already use them, without government coersion, subsidies, stimulus packages, or ETS.
If capitalists are the exploiters, how come it’s the greens twisting my lightbulb?
Well said, James! And the bastards will twist till we’re all screwed!
It’s only us oldies that can still remember the fundamentals.
What it takes to be a capitalist are good ideas, good systems and good, honest effort.
It’s still the magic formula but govts don’t know how to promote it any more.
Too much big govt, bureaucratic bum covering and blithering.
Here is a good link to consider in due respect
http://www.elections2009-results.eu/index.html
No more Greens for another 4 or 5 years.
It seems no movement which is not sincerely scientifically based will progress among the electorates.
You can see that the right has gained in light of the present world economic crisis.
Now this is scientific. Its the “survival of the fittest”!
slim, your comments on this thread have been extremely disappointing; they are nothing more than platitudes, slogans and provocations, in other words you are trollising. I have asked you to respond to 2 essential questions about the greens and you resorted to puerile dissembling and insult. The idea that greens regard nature as superior to humanity is beyond doubt yet no avowed green on this site or elsewhere admits to that; this is deceitful and hypocritical and one of the reasons I regard the greens as dishonest, something that greens are only too willing to admit;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_licence_to_tell_warming_lies/#commentsmore
The fact that greens are willing to lie and prevaricate to get their ‘message’ across is convincing evidence that greens regard themselves as morally and intellectually superior; you don’t lie to people you regard as your equals or fellow travellers.
So, Slim, would you lie for the ’cause’?
Whoa! I must have touched some hot buttons there. Whatever you do don’t criticise capitalism (which is not the same thing as free enterprise)! Maybe that’s what it’s about. The Greens are the new enemy of Capitalism. Utopianism vs Exploitation.
This whole series characterising The Greens as some kind of distinct evil entity devoid of all worthy character is as ridiculous as anti-Jewish progaganda in 1930s Germany. Yeah, I know, Godwin’s Law, but in this case it’s true.
As I’ve said before, this kind of crap may make the inmates feel self-satisfied and righteous, but it does nothing to advance whatever scientific causes Jennifer is advocating. Hysterical and definitely unscientific.
As I’ve said before, this kind of crap may make the inmates feel self-satisfied and righteous, but it does nothing to advance whatever scientific causes Jennifer is advocating. Hysterical and definitely unscientific.
So for once I’m on topic.
Jennifer, my apologies for presuming your role in Madagascar. My stereotypic responses only work about half the time but I am never sure in advance which half. Anyway your learning there that “subsistent fishers and farmers have a very strong sense that it would be best if everyone moslty minded their own business” is the crux. Define mostly and you have got it in one.
Slim wrote:
“Capitalism is essentially exploitative.”
There was a famous cartoon from a few decades ago. A tour Guide in the old Soviet Union was comparing Communism with the economic systems of the U.S. and other Westernized countries.
In America, man exploits man. Here it’s the exact opposite.
Slim;
You haven’t touched any hot buttons. Your logic is that of a retarded mongoose and your theories are simply stupid. Put them all together and your entire thesis is actually worse than moronic, however I’m not surprised seeing it’s coming from you- the anti-Einstein.
This whole series characterising The Greens as some kind of distinct evil entity devoid of all worthy character is as ridiculous as anti-Jewish progaganda in 1930s Germany. Yeah, I know, Godwin’s Law, but in this case it’s true.
As I’ve said before, this kind of crap may make the inmates feel self-satisfied and righteous, but it does nothing to advance whatever scientific causes Jennifer is advocating. Hysterical and definitely unscientific.
Well it’s true only in so far as the Greens actually are a very exploitative party as they pry on the weak minded with little cognitive abilities. I would certainly place you in the grouping.
cohenite wrote:
“The fact that greens are willing to lie and prevaricate to get their ‘message’ across is convincing evidence that greens regard themselves as morally and intellectually superior; you don’t lie to people you regard as your equals or fellow travellers.”
Agreed. And good link BTW. Although the quote from Ms Kopacz may be shocking to those who haven’t been around the block a few times, it actually understates the case. One reason that many people are in denial about the possibility of climate change fraud is that they aren’t acquainted with mundane examples of scientific and mathematical dishonesty in other areas.
I have a strong interest in Junk Science in the Mainstream. And it’s much more than climatology. However the examples aren’t really new. Some have been grandfathered into conventional scientific wisdom. One outrageous example garnered its 15 minutes of fame, and then rode off into the sunset, with precious little discussion.
If Jennifer likes the idea, I volunteer to do a few pieces for a new JSITM series. I still don’t know how to get around that email glitch; so I’d have to tentatively park the postings in the same place as the dog story.