Time was when it was easy to see where climate change denialism was coming from - corporate astroturf and the big biz of energy politics refracted through the media and the political sphere. What’s been puzzling me for some time is why there’s still a relentless drum beat of (increasingly nonsensical) climate change denialist posts coming from the likes of “Australia’s most talked about columnist”, Andrew Bolt. When he’s not in a tizz about those pervs in the yartz, Bolta repeats and repeats and repeats the climate change denialist message. Sometimes this is valorised as being a “contrarian”, a line we also get from folks like Keith Windschuttle - as if stupidity were one of the Great Western Virtues. But it’s not obvious at all to see - beyond the “bash the Greens and teh left” angle - why this mob think this stuff still has legs.
It strikes me that maybe there’s a cultural cause here - and I reckon Elizabeth Farrelly (in an article with which I otherwise have a lot of problems) might be onto something:
Green consciousness, meanwhile, has sucked the heroism from the cowboy ethos, which depends on an oppositional, rather than nurturing, view of nature.
Funny how some of the climate change denialists like posting pictures of big fast cars so much?
Forget views about nature what we are seeing here is politics-the political Right searching for the next big narrative theme designed to suck the capacity for reasoned action out of popular movements. Purposive reasoned action cannot be allowed to take popular hold, hence hysterical irrational rants, designed to mine resentments and mobilise idiocy sufficient to ensure nothing much happens until the powerful work out what to do next..Bolt is the perfect example of the irrelevance of the ‘fool/knave’ distinction in ensuring the success of this endeavour.
Bolt is a pretty unintelligent stirrer, Kim, who may or may not be influential. TV people pick him up, either because he’s annoying, or because they want to push a non too subtle Liberal party line (like the Today Show). Unintelligent, because he has no perception of how idiotic or bullying he sounds. One would hope he turns more people off than on.
I’m a skeptic.
I think the body of knowlegde we don’t yet know is substantially higher than that which we do. I don’t believe the knowledge-we-do-know is enough to build good policy on. I don’t believe in the precautionary principle.
Answer me this? What causes El Nino? What causes Pacific Decadal Oscillation? Why has the globe not warmed in 10 years? I don’t want an hypothesis. I wan’t simple cause-and-effect. It can’t be provided.
Climate is a complex system which we don’t fully understand.
I think the politics of this is pretty obvious, but what I’m interested in is the cultural reasons why it might resonate (or why the Bolts of this world think it might resonate). That’s why I think it’s interesting to consider climate change denialism as a gendered phenomenon.
Craig -
Since you’re clearly clueless, I would suggest you look here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php. Item 13 on the list addresses the “It hasn’t warmed in 10 years” line.
“That’s why I think it’s interesting to consider climate change denialism as a gendered phenomenon.”
Can you elaborate on that point?
Sure, steve. It’s implicit in the quote from Farrelly and from the article (though environmentalism isn’t central to what she’s writing about). What I’m wondering about is the association between masculinity and the conquest of nature - and whether a more “feminised” and “nurturing” approach to the natural world is in some senses threatening to those climate change deniers who populate the popular press.
I think discussing climate change and gendered attitudes to environmentalism discussed in the framework of Farrelly’s writing is of limited use. I only started reading her articles relatively recently, and I agreed with her view that we need a thorough re-think of our consumption and way of life if we are to survive. However, her last few have been increasingly out there, to the point where she’s shaping up as Australia’s Camille Paglia (who she refers to approvingly at the end of this unbelievably awful piece.)
Sorry for threadjack - I’ve just been shaking my head in the last few days trying to figure her out!
Kim,
While I think there’s something in the idea that male=dominant=dominion over the earth type thinking amongst the denialists, I reckon there’s a stronger correlation:
It’s the correlation between cornered idiocy and denialism. Bolta’s been doing it for so long, to back down now would be humiliating.
But, David, consistency has never been one of the strong points of the professional punditariat. I wouldn’t expect Bolta to change his line, but he could stop talking about it. He could, for instance, haunt photography openings constantly to report first hand on the luvvies and their degeneracy. Lots of free grog into the bargain!
Helen, as I said, I’m not convinced by Farrelly’s argument generally or that article in particular but that particular quote did jump out at me and started me thinking about whether there might be a link between gender and attitudes towards climate change. I think there is something in the association between “taking care” and femininity and driving fast and shredding the earth and a certain masculinity - not in some essentialist way - but as a real cultural phenomenon.
While I do think that the conquest of nature is a part of the debate, I don’t think its the primary underlying factor, rather:
- It’s a subconscious attempt to justify not having to make the personal changes that are necessary - don’t drive cars, use less energy etc etc.
- It’s also similar to the smoker trying to justify their ‘choice’ despite evidence suggesting its not all that good for them.
I would also question Chris’s assertion that he/she doesn’t agree with precautionary principle, despite that fact that he/she probably uses a similar version when taking out life insurance or health insurance.
oh and how do expect to find ’simple cause and effect’ for a ‘complex system’….
Well, I think there’s no simple “cause and effect” for climate change denialism, either.
How related is that to the associations between cars, masculinity, space and the cult of the pioneer?
Paging glen…
Yeah!
Why do some people boast that they left school at the end of year 10, as if ignorance or unintelligence was a matter for pride? Belittling the academy in favour of ‘common sense’ has long been a favourite means for the insecure to ward off the frightening chaos of unpredictable change.
“What I’m wondering about is the association between masculinity and the conquest of nature …”
I don’t want to sound antagonistic but that type of suggestion sounds womyn’s studies groupthink.
Surely cultural relationships with the environment have much more to do with the economic base of a society- or means of production if you like. For instance most hunter-gatherer societies could be described as patriarchal yet they generally have an affinity with and respect for nature. A more oppositional view commenced when we started to cultivate plants; unwanted animals became pests and unwanted plants became weeds. Nature had to be tamed. With industrialization nature became a “resource” to be exploited for timber, fossil fuels etc..
Now that we are arguably post-industrial, many of us - both male and female- once again have some affinity with nature. As an illustration- conservation groups tend to have roughly equal male and female membership numbers.
Of course other factors are involved, but I believe means of production is central to the issue whereas gender is peripheral at best.
Hah! Reminds me of all those arguments between “socialist feminists” and the rest of us - “determined by the economy in the last instance” etc. My view, steve, would be that material factors are the substrate and culture does its work on top of them. Since gender relations are fairly central to most aspects of our social imagination, I doubt that “gender is peripheral at best” - unexamined or marginalised not being the same as “peripheral”.
David,
The link you provided makes the statement that the long term trend is up (They are using a rolling long-term average). 1998 (or 1934 some say) is still the hottest year on record. The globe is no hotter today than it was in 1998.
1998 was a hot year because of El Nino. But nobody knows what causes El-Nino.
PS: Stick to the facts and don’t become an abusive Green Fascinisto!!! You’re better than that.
PPS: I’m not a denialist. I just don’t see the weight of expert opinion as a substitute for proof.
When our relationship to nature comes up I’m always reminded of a schema devised by Florence Kluckhohn in an article Dominant and variant value orientations. She identified five common human problems which arise inevitably out of the human situation. She states the problems in the form of questions, viz
As an anthroplogist she find three answers, sted in her words:
These are value orientations which condition how we see the world and act in relation to it.
For the first, think earthquakes, hurricanes etc.
For the last, think our techno civilisation.
For the second, think green philosophies, and for example traditional peoples like the kalahari Bushmen.
She, in her original article at least, expressed no preference. She says that in a society one version may predominate, but all are necessary. Within any society for the maintenance of any society variant value orientations “are not only permitted but actually required.”
I don’t know whether I go with her there, in fact I don’t.
From another starting point, you can start with the enlightenment values of liberty, equality, fraternity. I see our attitude to the biosphere and indeed to the physical world that is part of it (enter Gaia, if you like, but as a metaphor for the interdependence of the animate and inanimate environment) as an extension of the fraternity/solidarity concept. As such I see it as intrinsically of the Left, which I think still has some essential meaning, not just as a positional concept, as Mark avers (if I understand him).
You can google Kluckhohn if you want, but it’s all gone to pot compared with her original article, even the centre that bears her name.
[Edited to add. I’m for the second of Kluckhohn’s variants, unless that wasn’t clear.]
Craig, it’s disappointing to have that business come up again. The 1934 thing related to the land surface temperature in the United States.
The usual temperature quoted is a land/ocean global average.
I’m not a denialist. I just don’t see the weight of expert opinion as a substitute for proof.
Well at least you concede where the weight of expert opinion in fact is, unlike the manufactured “lets teach the debate” line we hear from the Molloys and Bolts of this world.
The weight of expert opinion is that the planets describe regular ellipses around the sun. I bet no-one has proven that to you, but I bet you also believe it. Experts - even massed experts - are not infallible, but unless we have strong evidence to the contrary we usually accept they’re much more likely to be right than non-experts (let alone paid Exxon shills and “contrarian” tabloid columnists).
The expert opinion that “the planets describe regular ellipses around the sun” has stood the test of experience and time, so I’m happy to accept it.
paged
The debate needs to move beyond simple gendered binaries of masculine::feminine, development::nature, etc. to look at the synergistic character of automobility, environmental issues and the complex of social institutions that most people have to engage with everyday.
The fast cars=masculine=climate denialism=dominating nature ethos is a straw man for a rhetorical move to shut down critique on both sides of the environmental divide.
From what I can figure out, most resources are wasted in the disjunct between ecologically-sound expectations of mobility and the lived practicality of participating as a fully vested citizen in various social institutions (school, shopping, workplace, leisure). The practice of everyday life lived when participating properly in all these social institutions can not be sustained for most of the population while holding onto pre-environmentalist expectations of mobility. Automobility is not aligned with ‘choice’ but ‘freedom’, in the GWB sense of delivering ‘freedom’ to Iraq, but on a suburban scale, ‘freedom’ then becomes wrought as ‘choice’ in certain circumstances.
The clearest example of what I am talking about is the question of time management. Sure part of this is the capitlist time of the factory or corporation, or the intensive time of the enterprise, but it is also the temporality of school, shopping, traffic, etc. While the male partner of the suburban (petite bourgeois) family unit is off at work, the female partner is running around doing ‘errands’. The desire for a fast car, perhaps ownership of a fast car for a few and actually driving a fast car fast for even less people, is frankly irrelevent compared to the everyday expenditure of resources by the suburban family trying to live the necessary practical reality of the various social institutions. Automobility makes this necessity feel like a ‘freedom’ because you move yourself (and your kids, shopping, etc).
Bolt is tapping into this belief that suburban life is currently about lived ‘freedom’ by valorising the stupidity of people like Jeremy Clarkson. Clarkson thumbs his nose at any attempt to curtail his enjoyment. The world is seen to be a resource for his own superego gratification (the world — built and natural — as feminised). I am really starting to dislike Clarkson. Top Gear was always for bourgeois tosspots, but I just dismissed him as a mildly charming clown, not as one of Bolt’s heroes.
should be:
can not be sustained for most of the population while holding onto environmentalist expectations of mobility
Well Kim, if someone wants to argue “gender” is a central issue then they need to explain why hunter-gatherer societies that were inherently patriarchal generally had more of a “nurturing” than an “oppositional” relationship with the environment. (Mind you the extent of that nurturing is usually overplayed but this isn’t the place to discuss it).
The gender theorists also need to explain why men and women in our post-industrial societies are equally likely to be members of environmental groups.
As to this:
“My view, steve, would be that material factors are the substrate and culture does its work on top of them ” - I would argue a complex two way flow of causation.
derrida derida. A circle is just a special case of an elipse… that’s it. (BTW the earth is not spherical either.) Suggest a course in basic geometry.
It appears to me that the denialist problem stems from deep cultural roots. Judeo Christians and “men of the book” are brought up to believe that they have “dominion over the earth and all the shit on it” or something like that. What a fantasy,but it is a very powerful one and it informs what passes for a mind in the likes of Bolt and co.
Interestingly, it even came through the enlightenment more or less intact and has even infested the feeble brain of Trotsky and his followers who want to “terraform” the globe.
Huggy
Glen seems to be, or aspires to be, an expert! As I read his post, I pondered the relevance of “gender binaries” and “suburban (petite bourgeois) family units”. I realised that at least I understand Jeremy Clarkson, and by aspiring to be like him, I may at least get laid.
I’m not sure about that - witness the success of the Mazda 3 and the Zoom Zoom campaign… that is, I’m not convinced that it’s at all easy to separate utility from the other social elements of automobility.
Craig, if Jeremy Clarkson’s what you’re into, I suggest reading a venting road-enthusiastic superego who at least knew how to express himself. Makes Top Gear sound like the wank it is.
I think assumed @ 1 is spot on and there’s no beyond the “bash the Greens and the left”
Bolt has been pushing his left-fascist/enviro-fascist barrows for years.
Herald-Sun, July 21, 2003
Enacting Climate Change regulations means an increase in state control - hence ‘the Left’ must really really want it to happen, and that’s why they’re making this whole thing up - it’s an international conspiracy, don’t you know.
As for Farrelly - endless list form supposing on psycho vs somatic, all to conclude with:
“Could it be, then, that a contributor to male infertility is our failure - or refusal - to construct a convincing model of male goodness?”
I’m glad she clearly knew what she wanted to say when she began writing. Or is this just grab-bag of latest books she’s read child-in-the-kitchen type stuff?
Craig -
One of the (increasing number of) things that peeves me is the fact that, in nearly all spheres of human knowledge (eg, engineering, physics, chemistry), we are all quite happy to accept that the consensus of expert opinion is correct, or at least reasonably close. It’s only with global warming (and evolution) that so many poorly-informed (or actively dishonest) people disagree violently with the experts. The reason seems to be that these two areas of science have been politicised by the right.
Yeah, the (only) best bit was Helen Mirren telling Clarkson what a wanker he is. At least that’s what I thought she said, as it was beeped out by the SBS or BBC thought police.
You have only to observe the behaviour of a large number of drivers to realise there’s a lot more to driving a vehicle than mere utility.
More like the name of Aimee Mann’s record label.
Craig,
It is worth reading some of the very well reasoned and researched posts by real bone fide experts at realclimate.org to get some appreciation for how smart, thorough and meticulous some of these climate scientists are. e.g.
A precis of research into a very cold period mid 6th century; a look at the usefulness of the usage of the Thames Barrier as a signal of climate change; and particularly relevant, a discussion of the anomalously warm start to the Northern Hemisphere winter in 2006/2007.
So when they say that it is easily shown from basic physics that increasing CO2 will warm the planet (without some substantial and as yet unobserved mitigating factor) it is worthwhile taking notice.
Glen:
In otherwords, Jeremy Clarkson believes in what I call the Super Strong Anthropic Principal. Namely, that “the Universe must have those properties which allow Jeremy Clarkson to develop within it at some stage in its history, and therefore he can do whatever he damn well pleases.”
That argument is bunk.
At one point the overwhelming weight of expert opinion was that the Earth was flat, and cholera was caused by the miasma.
Until sufficient evidence to the contrary was presented … by experts no less.
People, back on topic please!
Thanks, dk.au
People can take climate change “skepticism” around to Bolta’s blog if they like.
So would I, steve, but I thought I’d put the argument in Marxist terms - since that was the basis of what you were saying.
Since no-one has been able to construct an argument that demonstrates how gender manifests itself as a causal factor in the hour I’ve been outside vigorously planting natives on my acreage, I’m left with no choice other than to conclude such theorising is bunk.
But I’m always happy to be proved wrong
Kim,
So skepticism isn’t allowed at LP?
Spot on, Jacques. Sun Tzu can illuminate the nature of any conflict.
Craig
Educated scepticism is always welcome, any time.
It the ‘if-it’s-not-black-and-white-I-don’t-believe-it’ attitude that makes you look like a dill.
Sure - it’s complex stuff, but if you’re not prepared to do a bit of reading then you’re probably better off not poking your head over the parapet.
I don’t really understand quantum mechanics either, but that doesn’t mean I argue against it because it suits my agenda.
What rubbish.
Your statement implies the skeptics don’t understand what you are saying.
The real situation is that they understand perfectly well what you are saying - they just don’t agree with you.
It’s symptomatic of all ideologues. There is always an attitude that if people don’t agree then it is simply because they don’t understand, it could never be that they understand perfectly, but just don’t agree.
‘real situation’, ‘perfectly well’, ‘just don’t agree with you’, ‘all ideologues’, ‘always an attitude’, ’simply because’, ‘it could never be [sarc]’
yeesh Stephen, you might want remove some rhetorical blankets - you’re overheating.
Obviously the topic of this thread is not the reality or otherwise of climate change as such.
steve, I think you’re holding cultural analysis up to a standard of causality which is outside its domain. How would you “prove” this hypothesis? The fact that it can’t be demonstrated according to a positivist notion of causality doesn’t mean it lacks any validity.
44
Thanks for coming Stephen Lloyd, but my point that disagreeing without resorting to evidence still stands. Being too stupid or lazy doesn’t make it go away.
You’ll find that most people who hold weight on the issue are unlikely to be ideologues - ideology doesn’t count for much in science.
I’d like to understand what Craig is sceptical about but there is plenty of noise with little content.
I think you’re flat out wrong in insinuating that there’s an assumption of a lack of understanding. Your response implies there’s no right to question why someone believes anything.
Interesting idea in an on-line debate.
Craig @ 27: “I realised that at least I understand Jeremy Clarkson, and by aspiring to be like him, I may at least get laid.”
omg, dude… Yes, I am an expert. And, yes, one day you may get ‘laid’, but it certainly won’t be by aspiring for Clarksonhood and using words like ‘laid’. lol.
Fmark @ 34, nice!
Kim
Back to the original article.
I reckon there might be a bit less in the gender and just a bit more in the polarity of belief with a smattering of selfishness thrown in.
Do we ask why some blokes are Ford lovers and others are Holden? There’s little point because they’re hardly going to change.
There’s more of a gender effect in the area of changing one’s mind perhaps?
Which sort of leads back to the point David made at 9, maybe not for the Bolters, but more the general population.
Some of you may be interested in reading a review of Goldberg’s ‘Liberal Fascism’ in Quadrant.
I don’t agree with Warby on many points - but man I’m glad even Quadrant decided to push Goldberg out on a limb.
But not Bolt and his brigade. They love the stuff and it gets mentioned at least once a week.
“steve, I think you’re holding cultural analysis up to a standard of causality which is outside its domain. How would you “prove” this hypothesis?”
Well at the very least you should construct a cogent argument to support such a contention rather than churn out the same tired old metaphors about masculinity and femininity. Metaphors are not arguments and they definitely aren’t hypotheses. Never have been never will be.
I thought Lenski & Lenski’s approach in “An Introduction to Macrosociology” was very good on some of the broad brush stroke issues in sociology.
Having said all that please don’t think I’m saying gender is a peripheral issue in understanding human behaviour- it isn’t.
Repetition works.
>
The purprose of the rhetoric is not to win the scientific war. I’ve never been able to decide whether Bolt is a cynical manipulator or a true believer. In either event he’s a mouthpiece for reactionary conservatism. I suspect that, like Intelligent Design, it’s a cultural strategy to keep the middle class luvvies seperate from the workers. When science tells us things people don’t want to believe they’ll often go into denial and follow anyone that can string a decent sounding sentence together in aid of that.
>
Thus some bloke drives a truck and reads the Herald-Sun who would be be inclined to demand immediate action if he knew the whole story gets a bit of it and reads Bolt ’cause he likes the way he puts it up the yuppies. Hence he won’t vote Green, hestitates to vote Labor and there you go…
>
Like the theory of evolution the climate change hypothesis has most of the evidence in favour of it. Like evolution, climate change has anomalies, data gaps and different arguments viz how these are to be explained. Bolt, like Ann Coulter, exploits these and takes a strong self-righteous stance. This impresses people more than someone who’ll go into the complexities respectfully.
>
This is a problem in democratic polities.
>
Still let’s indulge in a little cynical speculation. Ask who Bolt’s benefactors are. And also why they wouldn’t want the population to know the full story about climate change; why they’d want a chunk to intensify their obtuse doubt.
“whether a more “feminised” and “nurturing” approach to the natural world”
Except Mother Nature is a ruthless force able to destroy without an iota of remorse or compassion.
You might want to re-think the gender point since Mother Nature is one hell of a bitch whenever She decides to rattle, shake and quake the Earth; Her fire burns all living things.
It’s like when we take a shower. We’re scrubbing the bacteria off. Down to a comfortable level.
steve, I’m not sure that you’ve quite grasped my point. If we were to trace all the significations which have been attached to “nature”, we’d have to do so by a humanistic form of enquiry - primarily textual and historical in form. It’s worth doing, but obviously we can’t do it in blog posts - that’s the point of tossing out thoughts and ideas for discussion. It seems to me one of the downsides of the blogosphere that people assume that posts are some sort of definitive statement rather than an invitation to explore ideas - the latter, I think, in many cases would be a more productive use of our time rather than holding some sort of evidentiary contest!
“Hi, I’m Troy McLure! You may remember me from such documentaries as “Man vs Nature: The Struggle Continues…”
Elizabeth Farrelly sez:
“In politics too - excepting the NSW parliamentary thug pit - men have begun to show feminine traits - niceness, consultation, committee-mindedness.”
“Of course, since reproductive science, like weapon science, is largely male driven, you might argue that men have rendered themselves - and this debate - unnecessary by waging war on nature, the planet and each other. That we’re now ready for the female century - that it’s fair, and it’s time.”
What makes this serious social commentary rather than blatant man-bashing sexism?
Imagine making such bizarre and sweeping comments about black people or Muslims and getting away with it. By crikey, if Elizabeth isn’t married she might like a date with Graeme Bird as they are practically two sides of the same peanut.
Exactly!
How many metaphors refer to the “conquest” or “mastery” of nature - or its domestication and taming? All this goes back a very long way.
It would also be interesting to trace the way fear works in all this.
Crossed - was responding to Leinad at 57.
steve, what’s your point? The post was clear in expressing disagreement with much of Farrelly’s argument, and just using that quote as a starting point for thinking about these questions.
I think your anti-feminism is showing. Not that Elizabeth Farrelly is exactly constructing a feminist argument anyway.
Can we stick to the topic please?
“I think your anti-feminism is showing. ”
Rubbish. I’m pro-feminist. I support 12 months paid maternity leave, equality of opportunity, would like to see a woman PM, etc… I also despise male activist groups as much as the anti-male feminists.
“Can we stick to the topic please?”
Ok. The well established facts are these:
(1) men are as likely as women to be involved in environmental groups;
(2) women vote conservative as much if not more than men according to most surveys;
(3) a clear and often demonstrated link exists between means of production and envirocentricity in the manner I outlined earlier
Hence the gender theory is falsified in the appropriate Popperian manner.
There’s more under heaven than is contemplated in Popperian philosophy!
There’s actually a significant logical problem with “falsification” anyway, but that would be to go off topic.
You don’t understand that things can be coded masculine or feminine? That it’s not just about counting numbers of men and women? I’m surprised, then, that you understand the terms of the argument you claim to refute because if you were actually consistent you wouldn’t accept its premises.
“I’m surprised, then, that you understand the terms of the argument you claim to refute because if you were actually consistent you wouldn’t accept its premises.”
As I’ve already indicated, no argument that could reasonably be construed as a hypothesis was ever put up by either Kim or Elizabeth Farrelly. Nonetheless the points I raise must have some bearing on any coherent and intelligible gender based argument.
(I’m also aware that Popperian theory isn’t without its problems.)
Anyway, that’s it from me. G’night
Perhaps the phrase “Mother Earth” might be a starting point? I’m surprised it needs spelling out. Perhaps I muddied the waters by using the term “hypothesis”?
Interesting to observe the sorts of resistances (dare I say denialism?) that even raising this as a possibility provokes.
Oh, I see we’ve had a link from Tim Blair.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/interesting_its_fascinating/
Taking time out from posting pictures of gas guzzling red cars, I guess.
And in the comments thread, happily combining feminist-hating with climate change denialism (with the obligatory references to teh evils of Islam, of course).
Heh!
lol, Sokal.
So, sooo 1997…
Sorry to spoil the fun, Leinad, but I deleted the Sokal comment as being off topic.
I am, of course, delighted to welcome any Tim Blair readers to this thread - not least because they’re contributing to our advertising revenue. Maybe a few more Tim links can push us above 4 grand a month in June?
It was a peevish Orwell-snob “Postmodernism, what tosh! Butterflys and Wheels told me it was bollocks” dig at Kim’s ‘gendered perception of climate’ hypothesis, so there was tiny shred of relevance there (and a lol-tacular flamewar(potentially)).
Except that gender analysis isn’t science or particularly postmodern, of course. No doubt those who are so concerned with scientific truth know that, and the comment was just a postmodern parodic play.
Phil Adams’ Ferrari?
I’m not sure - does Tim post photos of it?
Red cars are much more gas guzzling than any other colour. It’s the symbolism.
Also, a car at 60kph is faster than a motorbike at 60kph.
I’d have thought that Phillip Adams would have had a black Ferrari. Would that still make him a blokey bloke, or do they have to be red?
C’mon, the dude has 100ft ‘Cool Dad’ billboards growing out of his beard, there was no other option.
What sort of car did Paddy McGuinness drive?
Car?
He flew.
Al Gore has a big house, I hear. And he’s overweight!
And he still flies in jets! Truly it is a vast conspiracy to create a technocratic scientist overclass.
On that note, there is a strong climate change denialist - troofer axis…
Yes, I think the wild west hunting, logging etc folk do adopt a persona that is very male-centric and often quite puerile. Its like they switch their intelligence off and just repeat mantras about “them being wrong (about climate change)” etc.
Macca on Autralia all over puts out a more subtle version of Bolt rabid message. I think they do believe it. He voiced an opinion about Al Gore’s movie and motive then said he hadn’t seen the movie and wouldn’t.
Or maybe they just enjoy “battling against the dominant paradigm”?
Or maybe cultivating confusion and polarising the debate are the real motives.
As a woman with a red car not sure to make of the red car masculine thesis, also not convinced that auto love (!) is the exclusive province of the masculine as many women love the freedom provided by the car. Feel that the feminist ideal is intrinsically wrapped in the freedoms that modern consumer society provides.
Am I mistaken or are most of the posters to this thread male? Also perhaps not typical of your average aussie bloke? It is my view that most of what drives your typical bloke is fear, of the unknown, the opinions of other blokes, of being alone, so is it any wonder that the response to this big and scary news that everything must be reexamined against a new criteria for survival is denial. Bolt is just a scared little bloke making other scared blokes more comfortable.
Bolt believes what he says. He is very influential. And I do think there is a slight male bias in it. The right to drive a big car wherever and whenever I goddamn well feel like is more male than female. I’m an arsehole. Yeah, yeah.
But the real motive is recalcitrant politics even if expressed in Herald Sun language of the V8 male. That’s the rhetorical hook.
Fundamental denialism is key; hatred and suspicion of greens and reflexive homage to the perceived values of Big Business is important too.
( I actually think most of us are in denial, not just Andrew Bolt. Most of us pretend we are concerned - really we expect we can just go on as before.)
“Al Gore has a big house, I hear. And he’s overweight!”
Well he has man boobs, which may make him more nurturing.
Am I on the right track?
Blasted insomnia.
Ordinarily i’d agree with you, but the majority of people engaging in the climate debate (from both sides) are ideologues, even the scientists. I have a hard time beleiving Tim Flannery approaches his research open to the idea that it could turn up ambiguous or even non-supportive results.
He may very well, but his engagement with the issue does not leave room for people to take him to be impartial in the debate, which I beleive scientists should be.
The Blair/Bolt clique definitely engage in their own special kind of loony, but when they make fun of Tim Flannery making statements about Perth becoming a ghost city, he deserves it. It’s obviously just plain loony, and should be identified as such, sooner.
So I don’t agree with your statement, the people most cited in the debate are often the ones who have made names for themselves on their own side of the debate, which more often than not makes them a good candidate for being an ideologue.
*shrugs*
Maybe because both anti-intellectualism and sticking to one’s guns are coded as masculine.
A manly man stands in opposition to stuff to define his manly manity, and so wouldn’t give any ground to the effeminate elites; nor would he “flip-flop”, or admit he wasn’t an ultimate authority.
And I’m falling sleep. Night all.
That’s right, Stephen Lloyd, cities never become defunct. It’s a basic first principle we should always defiantly cling to. We do not need to bring reason to defend positions which are naturally ordained.
Some possible reasons:
1.The flying monkeys are bored and despondent and need a prophecy of doom to motivate them. Nothing lends spice to life like the threat of imminent disaster. Since none of their other prophecies of doom have come true, they need to believe that life as we know it will end if people decide to reduce carbon emissions: The troops are leaving Iraq, but we haven’t been overrun by Saddam’s WMD or human shredders, like they said we would. The Sorry is out of the way and we haven’t been inundated with Aboriginal land-grabs for our backyards, like they said we would. Kyoto is signed and we haven’t all be returned to the stone age, like they said we would. The Pacific Solution is history and we haven’t been flooded with boat people, like they said we would. The Libs are out of power everywhere and the economy is still meandering on its way…despite all the prophecies of doom, nothing has come to pass.
2. Some hippies beat them up when they were children?
3. They wanna wanna want some attention. ‘Cos WAAAAAHH!
4. An intense personal dislike of tofu.
5. Because there is a global conspiracy directed by Big Green (a front for the Elders of Zion) that has totally co-opted and corrupted the CSIRO, Bureau of Metereology, NASA, the IPCC, the UN, the world’s leading scientific academies, every national science board, and tens of thousands of scientists. It has also corrupted Shell, BP, Caltex, Toyota and Exxon into investing billions of dollars in renewable energy, biofuels, hybrid and hydrogen-powered cars.
If it weren’t for the heroic work of a few latter-day Galileos who risk being burnt at the stake and who toil thanklessly in the utter obscurity of national talk shows, syndicated columns, book launches and blogs, this nefarious Big Green conspiracy would go unchecked!
*cue heroic chords*