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*
Some thoughts on the persistance of climate change denialism:
1. Commentators like Bolt, Blair, Windschuttle, etc., have a small but fiercely loyal and resolute core audience who need their daily, weekly or monthly chocolate fix on the issue (apologies to chocolate lovers) and will never stop coming back for more.
2. The presence of a small but noisy gaggle of greenhouse denialist tragics serves the purposes of those elements of the fossil fuel lobby and other vested interests who are averse to really effective action on global warming but want to position themselves to oppose it and/or propose distractions and half-a-loaf measures from an ostensibly “moderate” and “mainstream” position which counterposes itself to both the “extremist” denialists on one side and the “extremists” on the other side who want major cuts in emissions.
3. For a certain kind of person (e.g. Peter Walsh) acceptance of the reality of climate change means accepting that a group of people who one deeply dislikes and disapproves of are right and have been right for a long about something important which one has been wrong about for a long time. It means eating crow – uncooked, feathers, feet, beak, gizzards and all.
4. The same psychology which causes some people to join the Spartacist League and remain members for over 30 years.
“Or maybe cultivating confusion and polarising the debate are the real motives.”
Ah peterc, a man(?) after my own heart. Macca’s soft Hansonism is the method employed to ensure he is ‘in touch with the ordinary, sensible folk’. His native and complete stupidity, is of course, entirely ‘natural’ and no artifice is required in demonstrating that he is as dopey as most of the people who are suckered in to the ‘grey nomad porn’ that AAO represents. Entirely unsuitable for anyone whose hangover produces more grumpiness than usual, when confronted with banality as proof of sincerity, above all artifice and entirely bereft of any PoV except that of the confected shared ‘Ossiness’ of it all. Oh mi god I feel ill even thinking about it.
The same psychology which causes some people to join the Spartacist League and remain members for over 30 years.
That’s more pathology than psychology. Is there any such person or are you just making this up?
Having now perused some of the literature of the gender analysis crew I now conclude that most of it is about as vacuous as the race analysis that was popular in the 19th century: http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-09.htm
Gender analysis, like race analysis, is best understood as an inevitable- if unpleasant- ideological manifestation of an historical epoch. That is, race analysis coincided with the age of European imperialism in the same way that gender analysis now coincides with greater female equality.
It is perhaps also worth noting that a woman, namely Jennifer Marohasy, is possibly Australia’s most influential anti-AGW spruiker as far as the right-intelligentsia is concerned. She has a rapport with “Australia’s most controversial newspaper pundit”, Andrew Bolt and may well be the source of some of the ideas to be found in his newspaper columns. Ditto for other right wing newspaper columnists. Jen Marohasy is of course the Institute of Public Affairs environment director and runs a blog: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
I can’t prove that there is such a person but in December 2002, at an anti-war rally in Melbourne, I did encounter a person selling Australasian Spartacist who had been a member since at least 1976, so it’s not implausible that he’s still in there.
Folks, before you hang all the witches in your quest to rid yourself of those who hold opinions that differ to yours (persish the thought)….I actually don’t think anyone is denying climate change.
The denial is based more around if it a natural change or a human induced change, hence they are more AGW deniers, that for the most part seem to be incongruence on climate change.
Warm or no warm, I’m not interested in a low-energy lifestyle. (Not being a sociopath, if it can be done with low CO2 emissions, I’m not against that.)
A few non-negotiables are: overseas travel, electronic geegaws, aircon, warm incandescent lights, hot and strong showers (beware the $20 ‘water check’ trickery!) and whatever food I fancy year-round.
I don’t get the impression that this is a minority position. Is there any evidence that a useful percentage of any 1st world population can be converted to make genuine reductions?
So I guess after the 1st argument is won: “Yes it is happening,” the really heartbreaking bit for greens (we all suspect crypto-socialists
) is the next argument: “the only thing I’m willing to do about it is to put aluminium foil all over the place. ’cause, like, i’m not going to completely upend the economic system (and incidentally my quality of life) for this thing.”
By focusing on the ‘denialists’, I think we miss the fact that those already convinced of the imminent apocalypse aren’t necessarily on the boat for the whole “re-making of the world” agenda either.
Gee, thanks for that, steve.
Translation: feminism has now achieved all its ends and can now fade away. And, of course, there are no social or cultural differences in masculine and feminine behaviour.
Yet you’re not an anti-feminist, you say?
The charming comparison with 19th century racism I suppose came from where?
“Translation: feminism has now achieved all its ends and can now fade away. And, of course, there are no social or cultural differences in masculine and feminine behaviour.
Yet you’re not an anti-feminist, you say?”
I suggest you read this post by Ken Parish: http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/06/04/unjustified-presumptuous-and-downright-irritating/#comments
Obviously and very clearly I’m saying that sex differences and gender constructions ought be studied in a more empirical and less hysterically partisan, divisive and untestable manner. Beatrice Faust did a great job of it in “Women, Sex and Pornography”, a book that has very much influenced my thinking.
Now I guess I can once again look forward to you denouncing me as a positivist.
No, I’m not denoucing you, steve, I’m asking you to be a tad more self-reflexive. You may like, for instance, to reflect on why you choose the words “divisive” and “hysterically” to refer to gender analysis. If anything’s repeating a gendered set of assumptions, that is. You may not be conscious of that, but your choice of words is anything but neutral.
consumer said:
At least some of those are possible now. eg warm-coloured lighting is doable
with flourescents – in a way those freebie flouros they give away that give out a very white light do more harm than good as they put people off using fluoros.
I agree about the hot-strong showers
But if you have gray water recycling and the water ends up using used usefully as well as using solar hot water then I think you’re doing as well if not better comapred to someone who does neither but has short cooler showers.
Re: aircon – I think what most people are after is a comfortable environment rather than explicitly an airconditioned one. And a well designed home can go a long way to achieving that so at least you’ll need to use a/c significantly less. It would really help if the big home builders offered well designed houses (they can still be huge if thats what people want!) because at the moment you have to go the individually designed route which a lot more expensive. Am going through the pain of trying to get a solar passive designed house at the moment, and its not cheap.
Steve Munn said:
“Gender analysis, like race analysis, is best understood as an inevitable- if unpleasant- ideological manifestation of an historical epoch. That is, race analysis coincided with the age of European imperialism in the same way that gender analysis now coincides with greater female equality.”
As opposed to a non-historical epoch? Steve, race-analysis as a “science” was definitely related to European imperialism but it was also closely linked to social-darwinism, the Eugenics movement, the study of historical linguistics and archaeology and the rise of scientism as a form of logical postivism. To purely equate race analysis with imperialism is simplistic and intellectually lazy. Prussia certainly wasn’t an imperialist power to the same extent as Britain, France etc, yet most of the “science” of race analysis was developed by Prussian thinkers.
To analogously equate gender analysis with gender equality is classic post hoc ergo propter hoc. It seems to me that both gender analysis and the fight for gender equality seem to have had a symbiotic rather than a parasitic relationship. The study of gender enhanced and refined the fight for women’s rights, simultaneously the fight for women’s rights created a space for the study of gender on respectable, rigorous grounds. To say that gender analysis was fueled solely by the women’s rights movement ignores the intellectual currents particularly in France and across continental Europe studying capitalism, sexuality, power etc…
By the way, pointing to the existence of female denier (”look, see there is one!”)in my mind reinforces rather than weakens Kim’s suspicions regarding the link between denialism and gender.
“If anything’s repeating a gendered set of assumptions, that is. You may not be conscious of that, but your choice of words is anything but neutral.”
I deliberately chose the word “hysterical” because I knew you’d run with it. By golly you’re predictable.
Whatevs, dude. It would never occur to you to use it except as a provocation, I suppose? And you get your jollies from provoking others to respond on the subject of gender? And you like “winning” blog arguments, do you?
You’re digging your own hole a bit deeper with every comment, my friend.
“It would never occur to you to use it except as a provocation, I suppose? And you get your jollies from provoking others to respond on the subject of gender? And you like “winning” blog arguments, do you?”
You really do need to read KP’s piece: http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/06/04/unjustified-presumptuous-and-downright-irritating/
Your preference for personal attacks rather than substantive argument is somewhat disturbing.
But back to Farrelly:
“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.”
Is this scholarship or flatulent ranting? Let’s change a few words and think about it:
“Of course, since reproductive science, like weapon science, is largely [Negroid] driven, you might argue that [Negroids] have rendered themselves – and this debate – unnecessary by waging war on nature, the planet and each other. That we’re now ready for the [Aryan] century – that it’s fair, and it’s time.”
Both versions are of course ugly, hysterical and divisive.
Bored now.
This from wiki is funny:
“Rossi Braidotti has criticized gender studies as: “the take-over of the feminist agenda by studies on masculinity, which results in transferring funding from feminist faculty positions to other kinds of positions. There have been cases…of positions advertised as ‘gender studies’ being given away to the ‘bright boys’. Some of the competitive take-over has to do with gay studies. Of special significance in this discussion is the role of the mainstream publisher Routledge who, in our opinion, is responsible for promoting gender as a way of deradicalizing the feminist agenda, re-marketing masculinity and gay male identity instead.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_studies
As a demonstration of my lack of bias in these matters, I regard “queer studies” as being just as suspect as “gender studies”. Both these crowds seem more interested in outdoing everyone else in radicalism rather than genuinely enhancing our understanding of ourselves.
Enjoying your dialogue with yourself, steve?
Wikipedia’s reliability in this matter might be undermined by the fact that Rossi Braidotti is actually Rosi.
Ps – gender analysis is not the same thing as Gender Studies, but you may need to extend your research horizons somewhat beyond Wikipedia to find out why.
Steve, can you back up the claim you’ve made twice that men are as likely as women to be members of environmental groups? I don’t have any stats but I’ve always understood that women make up the majority of the membership of most environmental groups.
When it comes to your second numbered point I think there is a bit of slight of hand. Yes women are more likely to vote conservative (in Australia) but that is largely an artefact of the greater number of women over the age of 65 (at that age most people are conservative voting). Green and Democrat voters are consistently more likely to be women than men, although admittedly not by much.
More broadly on Kim’s point, I can’t see how one can watch Clarkson et al in action and not see there being a macho element to Greenhouse denial and anti-environmentalism in general.
The more interesting question is how big a factor is this compared to all the other driving forces, some of them mentioned on this thread? I’m not convinced its a particularly large factor compared to the straightforward hatred of the left (certainly what is driving Divine and Albrechtson) as well as a 4-year-old “I want I want and if I can’t get it I’ll throw a temper tantrum”. But I certainly think its worth exploring further.
Two ad hominen attacks in a row, Kim. You outdo yourself.
I think it says a lot that I’ve been entirely polite on this thread but sustained half a dozen ad hominen attacks by the site moderators.
Derailing the climate change denialism thread – why now?
Well, I’d like to thank consumer for some refreshing honesty – and I think consumer has revealed where a big chunk of the anti AGW-anxiety might be coming from. People have concluded (wrongly) that the nasty hippies are going to take their toys away, so therefore they must oppose the science of AGW.
So to answer Kim’s original question – why now? – it’s due to a conflating of purposes: the scientific and the lifestyle.
It’s the same kind of motivation as drives intelligent design or creationist teaching. If you believe that evolutionary theory carries some kind of theological implication about God’s existence (it doesn’t), and belief in God is very important to you, then it’s open to you to conclude (wrongly) that you must therefore oppose the well-founded science of evolutionary theory and promote the theology of intelligent design so you can feel secure in your world-view.
And if you believe the hippies are coming to turn off your lights, then it’s open to you to conclude (wrongly) that you must oppose the science of AGW and promote the denialist position, and so prop up the false belief that your luxurious lifestyle is secure for all time. In fact, it’s probably less secure the longer we go on ignoring environmental science and alternative energy forms:
So it’s about fear of lifestyle change – not a serious scientific dispute. Quite childish and totally unnecessary. I haven’t seen the IPCC calling for any of these fate-worse-than-death consumer changes. In fact, if we can find some non-carbon intensive energy forms, there’s no reason to think that such first-world luxuries couldn’t be extended across the whole world. Wouldn’t that be nice? You can come out from under the bed, now.
Consumer, this may come as a shock, but the hippy scientists who are all in the pocket of Big Green – well, they like international travel and electronic geegaws even more than you do! And they’re interested in a future where more people can have more of them, more often, with less environmental damage. How do you like them apples?
While I agree that the greener-than-thou and the new-age-food-fascists can be tiresome, it’s ridiculous – and hysterical, stephen – to seek to discredit the science because you don’t like fluoros.
Steve, give it up man… you’re never going to win this debate on this blog! I have sympathy with the point your trying to make…. bringing gender into a debate on environmentalism is bizarre…. but forget it.
I also agree with the point Consumer is making above…. it’s possible not to worry about climate change without being a denialist. If the weight of scientific opinion is that CO2 is causing the planet to heat up then who am I to say they’re wrong. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree that we need to do anything about it. The climate has been changing forever (ice age anyone)…. I’m sure we’ll adapt. If you can come up with products/services that reduce CO2 but also make my life better then sign me up. If you just want to use climate change as an excuse to get all wowserist and ask me to stop driving cars, flying and cut back on my energy usage then forget it. I hold out great hope that climate change will prompt some bright spark to invent a new energy source that can keep me consuming.
steve, you’re a sensitive petal, aren’t you? I’d hardly characterise what’s been said to you as any sort of attack. (NB – you’ve been calling people “petal” so I’m sure that won’t be taken the wrong way.) Your claim, though, does have the effect of turning the thread into a debate about you and your opinion.
Thanks, Feral and Mercurius, for your contributions.
Actually it is perhaps also worth noting that Rosi Braidotti dismissal of gay males as “bright boys” is reflected in the similarly snearing attitude of various others in the gender studies industry, for example Sheila Jeffreys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Jeffreys
It is intriguing that anti-gay male homophobia has become acceptable within gender studies at the same time that so many of our conservatives, Andrew Bolt for example, are flouting their gay tolerance.
It may well be worth noting Steve. Just as it may be worth noting that the Fountains of Wayne song Amity Gardens is named after a real place.
But not in a thread that was once, long ago, supposed to be about climate change denialism!
Indeed. And I’m not responsible for what Rosi Braidotti might say, hivemind notwithstanding. And you might like to check the archives here for what I’ve had to say wrt Ms Jeffreys. Whatever you’re trying to insinuate, steve, basically comes down to guilt by association – when the only association is that you don’t like feminists and want to toss around accusations of homophobia. And you bleat about ad hominems!
And what Mercurius said!
“It is intriguing that anti-gay male homophobia has become acceptable within gender studies”
I call bullshit on this. The example of Braidotti doesn’t really support your point either because: a) Braidotti is talking about the institutional transition from women’s studies to gender studies and suggesting that something is lost for feminism when one replaces the other – she is not talking about sexuality; and b) Braidotti is a feminist philosopher who does not, and has never, identified herself as practicing ‘gender studies’. Just because her work is read in some gender studies departments does not mean she represents the ‘industry’ (to borrow your term). Your willingness to recontextualise a few half-truths to suit your agenda is positively Windschuttlian.
OK, many thanks to Mercurius (with help from the technologists) for sorting it out without my needing to do anything different. ( If I understand #109. ) I will go shopping tonight with a clear conscience.
So then I’m left with some uncertainty as to why it is so important to convince every last reprobate, if the recognition of AGW entails no action by non-technologists.
Perhaps a way to convince last holdouts that AGW is happening is if we also spread the good news about how it is all solveable without compulsion. Some would feel honour-bound to oppose compulsion, [=defend freedom]
by whatever means, including having a very high bar on being convinced by the science.
consumer, if you want to study ice sheet disintegration empirically, the best of luck. It will take many thousands of years and could involve adjusting to 75 metres of sea level rise along the way. 25 metres inundates about a billion people.
Kim says:
“… when the only association is that you don’t like feminists”
I don’t like extremists who promote hatred. Feminists are otherwise lovely.
Yeah, that’s why I disliked John Howard so much.
How’s this for utterly gorgeous, once again from Rosi Braidotti:
“The body is the simultaneity of opposite effects. Capitalism, schizophrenia, that form of orchestrated schizophrenia, all that I needs to be thought, but to think in terms of ‘simulateity of opposite effects’ means that ons has to become slightly schizophrenic oneself, and because our general culture has been training us to think in a linear, rational, transparent manner following the fetishism of clarity and linearity, we are in terrible trouble. ” http://www.cargoweb.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=128
She’s complaining about the blinking “fetishism of clarity” in a paragraph that is as opaque as bathtub of Murray River water. Doesn’t it occur to these people to think that unless you say something coherent and intelligible you aren’t actually communicating?
But Rosi must think this is some of her best work because she links to it from her homepage!
Needless to say, Rosi describes herself as a distinguished Professor of the Humanities.
“Doesn’t it occur to these people to think that unless you say something coherent and intelligible you aren’t actually communicating?”
I understand it. Braidotti is “actually communicating” to me, so your point is what exactly? That you don’t understand it? That you find it opaque? That doesn’t say a great deal about Braidotti at all.
Good on you Klaus. You can now join Braidotti’s brave and noble crusade against the “fetishism of clarity”.
I wonder why nobody ever quotes passages from analytical philosophy in this totally decontextualised way?
“According to the nature of truth-operations, in the same way as out of elementary propositions arise their truth-functions, from truth-functions arises a new one. Every truth-operation creates from truth-functions of elementary propositions, another truth-function of elementary propositions i.e. a proposition. The result of every truth-operation on the results of truth-operations on elementary propositions is also the result of one truth-operation on elementary propositions.”
Didn’t it occur to Wittgenstein to think that unless you say something coherent and intelligible you aren’t actually communicating?
Not sure Wittgenstein was the best example you could have chosen, Klaus …
How so, David? My point is simply that out of the context of his argument – and without defining the terms – Wittgenstein is also opaque. If you don’t already use terms like ‘truth-operation’, ‘truth-function’ or ‘proposition’, this paragraph is virtually meaningless.
Of course if you happen to have read Wittgenstein, this is not the case.
So now the thread isn’t about climate change denialism at all, but steve munn’s dislikes? What does the comments policy say again about turning a thread into a self-indulgent discussion of your own opinions?
Sorry Mark, feel free to remove the off-topic comments from me.
Oh well, if he’s carrying on his personal crusade, it may as well be answered, but I’m just saying steve munn is way out of order.
Mark I don’t think so. If you see where Steve started he was reacting to this fairly odd line from Kim -
“That’s why I think it’s interesting to consider climate change denialism as a gendered phenomenon.”
Climate change is a big boofy blokey problem? Nurturing ‘mother’ nature v’s ‘macho’ petrol heads?
Oh dear.
Oh dear why?
Steve’s welcome to disagree with me – as are you – but going off on some tangent of bashing everything in academia he doesn’t like isn’t making an argument.
OK, I’m on a Roosevelt kick now…but it’s taken me to some relevant places…
It seems he can be thrown forward as the original public-political embodiment of the ‘cowboy ethos’. He wasn’t a true cowboy (born and bred on the land/performing a somewhat shitty underpaid job you’re more or less stuck in) but neither are our leading climate change denialists.
Yet he was also a renowned conservationist who placed huge tracts of US land under public protection.
“In utilizing and conserving the natural resources of the Nation, the one characteristic more essential than any other is foresight…The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life.”
Address to the National Editorial Association,
Jamestown, Virginia, June 10, 1907
Though it’s important to note, at the time there was a very strong perception a man overly concerned with environmentalism was being ’sentimental’ (fulfilling a woman’s ‘natural’ role), so to avoid this Roosevelt and others began to build their arguments on economic grounds.
‘Political Hermaphrodites’: GENDER AND ENVIRONMENTAL REFORM IN PROGRESSIVE AMERICA, Adam Rome is definitely worth a read.
This represented something of a turning point for environmentalism – and similar arguments are made for climate change action today – ‘economic grounds’ is one of those key components that bring the debate out of the exclusive and principled realm of the ‘greenie’ and into more ‘serious manly’ territory, and has probably been a decisive factor in the shift in public acceptance the last 5-10 years.
But ‘economic grounds’ is a million miles away from ‘cowboy ethos’.
And if what consumer @ 94 states is correct – and what most men (as much as women) don’t want to forgo is their ‘electronic geegaws, aircon, warm incandescent lights, hot and strong showers…and whatever food I fancy year-round.’ – the irony would be these are all creature-comforts. Not the kind of thing our ‘cowboy’ would be too concerned about. You’d think he’d even welcome a return to a ‘rougher’ existence.
Any adherence to the ‘cowboy ethos’ (as opposed to being a real cowboy) is myth fulfilment, and for most men (including our city-dwelling leading climate change denialists) is a very part-time, pick-and-choose your moments, pursuit.
Does environmentalism make it harder to go camping/hunting/fishing/the footy of a weekend/ritually celebrate the ‘cowboy ethos’? No more than having a big screen plasma tv and deciding to stay home and watch it instead.
Does environmentalism make it harder to own and drive a large fast car? No more than the reality of rising fuel costs/the impracticality of driving and parking in the city/having to trade it in to afford a mortgage.
And as glen @ 23 says, Clarkson wants his enjoyment – and (from Clarkson’s own mouth) the freedom to drive his large fast car so he can get home via the freeway to his wife and kids quicker and more smoothly of an evening – which hardly conform to the notion of the ‘cowboy’ who achieves ‘manhood through pain’ and wouldn’t see his family for weeks at a time, if he indeed had a family to see.
Environmentalism doesn’t defeat the ‘cowboy ethos’.
Civilisation does – the necessity of being ‘oppositional to nature’ has been reduced in inverse proportion to itself.
I would argue men might still require some ‘manliness’ or ‘manly substance’ to their debate – economic grounds etc.
But I’d also argue – that if there is a degree of ‘cowboy ethos’ in climate change denialists’ reasoning:
1) no wonder they’re taken for entertaining fools (like Clarkson).
2) keep it very very submerged (like Bolt/Blair etc), so as not to be taken for extreme hypocrites (like Clarkson).
In the first case, yes – it can be argued you are attempting to appeal climate change denial to the apparently latent ‘cowboy’ in yourself and ‘all men’.
In the second, I don’t think so – and we usually find the debate squarely back on political and economic turf (again, arguably masculine but not in ‘oppositional to nature’, ‘cowboy ethos’ terms).
Though of course, the first case might still appeal to purveyors of the second case – and/or be thrown in from time to time for some extra perceived potential political support…
Some links to Roosevelt’s development of his cowboy image…
Manliness & Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-1917, Gail Bederman – Chapter 5: Theodore Roosevelt: Manhood, Nation and “Civilization”
Rough Rider in the White House: Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Desire, Sarah Watts
“Steve’s welcome to disagree with me – as are you – but going off on some tangent of bashing everything in academia he doesn’t like isn’t making an argument.”
Please try to keep a sense of proportion, Kim. I did no such thing and you know it.
Mark clearly said the line of thinking you are following, which you describe as “gendered phenomenons”, is not within the reach of science and accordingly is not amenable to a testable hypotheses. I’m suggesting this may be because gendered phenomenons can’t be grasped by those who have succumbed to what Braidotti describes as the “fetish of clarity”.
Steve, this post is about climate change denialists like the Bolter. I don’t think anyone is interested in your tangent to unrelated topics. Fetish indeed.
@ Kim “…why this mob think this stuff still has legs.”
I am what you might call a climate change ‘denier’.
That is not a very good description of my views but there are only two camps, believers and deniers, and I’m certainly not a believer.
I have posted a few times on Bolt’s blog, although I am probably preaching to the converted there.
Bolt’s politics are interesting and reflective of many Australian’s views.
I can’t say I agree with all of his ideas, but then again I should not have to before I post there.
I do agree with his AGW stance.
I just can’t swallow some of the alarmist, model generated rubbish that is being published and spoken about by AGW advocates.
I can’t speak for Bolt but perhaps if I tell you of some of my concerns, you might get some insight as to why “this stuff still has legs”.
That I do not accept the current hysteria says nothing about my attitude to the profligate conspicuous consumption that our society seems besotted with.
I advocate moderation in all things, “nothing in excess”, as Thomas famously says.
I also support efforts to clean up urban atmospheric pollution, but that involves oxides of sulphur and nitrogen and oxygen (ozone could be described as an oxide of oxygen), rather than CO2.
I will leave aside the chemistry and physics for now and tell you something of my philosophical objections to AGW…
In this age of rampant dispensationalist heresy, we all have to agree that change is required if we are to “save” ourselves and our children and our world, (our responsibilities have widened somewhat in recent times).
Used to be that we only had to look to our own souls, but since the word ecology appeared, we realize that we are all connected and, it seems, stand or fall together.
If we do not change then we will be responsible for the demise of ourselves and others.
Fair enough, but what do we change and how do we achieve it.
Do we change ourselves? I’d say yes to that.
Do we change others? No, that is foolish and futile.
Give them good example and the opportunity to change but leave it at that.
God may have given Moses the ten commandments but he didn’t give him a whip to enforce his advice, he left it to us to make up our own minds.
Once we decide we know what is good for others we have fallen into the void of dualism.
By this I mean that we have identified “the way” to our salvation.
Providing we follow the advice of the priests of this cult we will be admitted to all that is good and true by the gatekeepers of opinion and life will be sweet, choose to go a different way and you invite your social, economic, cultural and spirtual doom.
We have found the true path, the recipe, the secret etc.
However this tragic error can never be true.
The AGW panic seems, to me, to be just such a dualistic trap.
“Nowhere in the whole creation
Do I see beings that observe
Within their lives that moderation
Nature’s ruler wished them always to preserve.
Have any done so? Not a one.
For better or for worse, that never will be done.”
-La Fontaine
And I know the Greeks said it before Thomas.
Right – Moses exhorting the Levites to a frenzy so that they killed 3,000 Israelites who had worshipped the golden calf was so much gentler and non-coercive than getting a whip out.
The rest of your argument is about as well grounded in close reading of the various relevant texts as that statement was.
“ozone could be described as an oxide of oxygen”
“I will leave aside the chemistry and physics for now…”
Excellent idea.
“…and tell you something of my philosophical objections to AGW…”
Actually, on second thoughts… bring back the oxygen oxide.
@ 138 FDB. “Actually, on second thoughts… bring back the oxygen oxide.”
Well, the issue is debatable.
It all has to do with the positive and negative aspects of the element and how those aspects are distributed.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080311222459AAmz4LZ
For a summary of my physical and chemical objections, see this extensively endorsed discussion.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
The IPCC claims the collective wisdom of 2500 seers, petition project claims 31,072.
Something doesn’t add up.
So is Yahoo! Answers more or less authoritative than Wikipedia?
That petition is a joke. They let anyone with even a mere bachelor of science degree sign it, and they don’t require that the signer has even worked as a scientist. Do you know how many Americans qualify? According the National Science Foundation, 15.7 million Americans have at least one degree in a science and engineering field, which puts those 31000 in perspective: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c3/c3h.htm
If I were an American, I could sign it — I’ve got an MSc (and have never had a paid job as a scientist). But I wouldn’t. Which proves nothing either way, because science doesn’t work by signing petitions.
See also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/
Oh sorry, that number from the NSF was actually the number of American workers with science and engineering degrees. Including retirees and the unemployed, the total number with such degrees would be somewhat higher — plus there’s the fact that some of the signers are dead (like Edward Teller, whose signature is on the front page).
Paul -\
A little like Marxist-Leninists and the market economy, the apparatus of liberal (bourgeois) democracy et al.
What is it about red fucking Ferraris. Every grand prix week-end every well to do Italianaustralian has to park his or her Ferrari on Lygon St. The whole street is one long red Ferrari. Except the rugged individualist with the yellow one (they’re keeping an eye on that one).
>
Any one of you guys ever think about getting a Maserati? That’s class. And make it midnight blue!
>
And Philip Adams needs to shut-up now, for ever.
Kim
We unreservedly embrace a more “feminised” and “nurturing” approach. So repeat:
1. There is no such thing as society
2. Aboriginal welfare payments must be quarantined.
3. The Lady is not for turning.
Greenfield, you are truly a bore’s boor.
Helen
You would do well to avoid discussion of Camille Paglia. You are WAY out your depth.
True FBD. He even makes Mr Strocchi vaguely interesting in comparison. And it doesn’t matter which moniker he posts under, his contibutions stick out like the proverbial…
You know what? I just lost all interest in climate denialists.
I urge you all to do the same.
Yes, even true FDB!
“his contibutions stick out like the proverbial…”
Yarr, hound’s harbles they be.
Alright, I’m just going to abandon this extra gravatar. Sorry mini-me, you were too confusing.
All JG wants is attention of course, and I’ve gone and fallen into his trap again.
Hey everyone! Did you hear the one about the thing which had nothing to do with John Greenfield? How interesting and worth everyone’s time was that?
Ecofeminism has been around since 1974.
Not advocatin’; not denyin’; just sayin’. Some of it is persuasive, some of it is a stretch too far, all of it is thought-provoking. The Australian Val Plumwood is a particularly impressive theorist and writer in this field.
It is, to use what I think was Mark’s phrase, an exploration of ideas and as such susceptible neither of proof nor of disproof, calls for either of which are merely evidence of a very basic act of category confusion.
Kim made a paradox: consistency has never been one of the strong points of the professional punditariat. I wouldn’t expect Bolta to change his line.
.
I like a paradox. It’s true too. That’s how agitprop works in these Post-Human times; we’re willing to distort, dismantle and discard everything except our ill-thought out opinions on a subject. Mr Bolt is Melbourne’s leading light of the trade that’s arisen of this activity.
.
Yet he’s regarded as respectable by most..
.
My fave Bolta riff is when he bags Michael Moore. The old shitfight between well-used stovetop appliances. A’ways good for a larf, that.
Can You Tell A Greenfield From A Cold Steel Rail?
.
Yes, John is human. Interesting feature of humans that we begin to compare other humans, who differ from us in some significant way, with inanimate objects.
.
Pink Floyd ‘ey. I’ll pay the wit if not the spirit.
“Yes, John is human.”
No your lying.
EVIDENCE!!!
“…The Australian Val Plumwood is a particularly impressive theorist and writer in this field.”
Sadly, she is no more, PC
Yes, I know, and I agree that it is extremely sad — though she might have said that the extra years she had after the crocodile episode were all gravy anyway. I meant ‘is’ in the sense that her work endures, as in ‘Shakespeare is Teh Bomb’.
So that’s what the definition of ‘is’ is.
A few years ago, I tutored first year engineers in physics. They were happy to believe in lots of things, but not in Einsteins theory of special relativity. The particular bit they didn’t like was the idea that they couldn’t travel faster than the speed of light – that galaxies far far away were places they would never get to. Anyway my take on it is that the denialists hate the idea of being limited. The idea that you can’t just burn fossil fuel willy-nilly is what bugs them. This dislike of limits has been great for the human race thus far, and maybe it will keep working for us in the future, but it may also be time for us to grow up.