New Cult of Darkness

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In regard to Reisman and Schwartz's work, I merely put it to you that you should not avoid bringing their works to light merely because they are central ARI figure heads. Do you think they are doing a good job---their arguments, that is?

1. Reisman was excommunicated from ARI years ago. I have no idea why he is being called a "central ARI figure head." I like most of the things I have read by him so far.

In the 1990 essay on environmentalism, The Toxicity of Environmentalism, I don't think he is interested in swaying those in doubt, but instead in presenting a case in typical Objectivist style of blaming everything on philosophical corruption and damning the targeted group (in this case, the environmentalists) as evil man-haters. I find that approach to be extremely oversimplified and I do not predict that it will be very influential in changing anyone's mind on a substantial scale (as in fact is was not).

I don't know enough about the leaders of the environmental movement to know whether environmentalism is nothing more than the sour grapes of failed socialism, as Reisman proposed. It is an interesting theory to look into. There might be something to this, but I can't shake the perception of oversimplification again.

Here is what he proposes as a solution (from the article):

The principle of noncooperation with the environmental movement, of the most radical differentiation from it, must be followed in order to avoid the kind of disastrous consequences brought about earlier in this century by people in Russia and Germany who began as basically innocent and with good intentions.

I disagree with this, which is why I am proposing a new approach. There were strong groups of people in Russia and Germany who made "the most radical differentiation from" the rising powers at the time. What they did simply didn't work against the group-think. You fight group-think with a call for independent thinking, not with more group-think of a different flavor.

Reisman almost presented one hell of a good idea for action by independent thinkers with the following:

This brings me back to the possibly truly good objectives that have been mixed in with environmentalism, such as the desire for greater cleanliness and health. If one wants to advocate such objectives without aiding the potential mass murderers in the environmental movement in achieving their goals, one must first of all accept unreservedly the values of human reason, science, technology, and industrial civilization, and never attack those values. They are the indispensable foundation for achieving greater cleanliness and better health and longer life.

Unfortunately, that business about mass murderers makes an otherwise excellent idea turn sour for convincing people. If that line had read something like the following, it would have been a stirring call to action.

"If one wants to advocate such objectives and actually achieve them instead of talk about them, one must first of all accept unreservedly the values of human reason, science, technology, and industrial civilization, and never attack those values."

Note that there is no us. No them. No sacrifice or belittling of greater cleanliness or health in exchange for the glories of the smokestack (which is the type of thing where Objectivism is dismissed outright by liberals as lunacy). No scapegoat or devil to destroy. Only rational values to be achieved and how to go about achieving them. That is what makes the real difference in convincing independent minds among groups. It is not good for convincing whole tribes or lynch mobs, though. Tribes and lynch mobs need devils and scapegoats to act as a collective.

Actually, a rational approach to achieving values is the only way to permanently pull the teeth out of tribes and lynch mobs. You don't fight one tribe with another if you are fighting for reason. You fight for the independent minds among the tribes and mobs. And you don't tell them what to think, either. You tell them to think for themselves first, second, third, fourth and fifth. Then you point out a few very obvious errors without stooping to scapegoating rhetoric. Once you point out a correct way in simple terms, the independent mind goes forth by itself.

This works and it is devastating to little Hitlers.

2. Everything I have read by Peter Schwartz up to now is saturated with an "us against them" type of tribalism that I detest in the extreme, and some conclusions I vehemently disagree with (especially that mess against libertarianism, but there are others). He does not speak to me or for me and I do not want to waste my time discussing him.

3. I have already presented an example on another thread (the one on Gore's film) of how to argue the case with laypeople in a gross blunder Gore made. I will prepare it properly later instead of giving an outline like I did.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael, I do find the level-headed temperament you try to bring to intellectual arguments rather laudable, really I do. Yes, yes, one can grow tired of the brim-stone-and-fire that comes from any opposing group---whatever merits or demerits either possess. But don’t let that blind you to the nature of this movement, whatever its smiley façade they exhibit. No, the approach is not “extremely oversimplified” it is right on target. You are giving the environmental moment way too much credence.

Let’s put it in a nutshell: Environmentalism -- in terms of fundamentals -- is a religion. And an evil one at that, and I don’t find a problem with calling an ace an ace. And more: It is far more potentially vicious than Islamic fundamentalism. To quote Ed:

“Through short-sightedness, sloppy thinking, emotional indulgence and even a deep malice, many environmentalists today -- especially in their approach to global warming -- are perpetuating an ethos of darkness. Consider the harm of their symbolic acts, to say nothing of the policies many of them advocate.”

This is to say that environmentalism is evil. It is evil because its proponents frequently claim that nature has some sort of intrinsic value and they use this assertion to springboard junk science into the media—and Gore, as a standard-issued Green—is no exception. The Green fanatics don’t hesitate to employ direct (or indirect) violence to achieve their ends. Do you want some details regarding this?

Now, I spoke of Environmentalism’s ‘fundamental ideas”—and, for clarity’s sake, they are: Environmentalism is a religion (far, far from being science) whose ontology is “one-world” whose epistemology is intrinsicist--whose ethics is erecting nature as the highest value--and whose politics is using aggression (not omitting physical violence) to subordinate human activities to nature. Under these core ideas, individual rights and capitalism is dead. This is not an “oversimplification", Michael, this is a direct target of identifying and isolating essential characteristics.

However, I do find myself sympathetic to your looking down on “scapegoating rhetoric”—even though the so-called scapegoated are guilty as hell, but it is the identification of environmentalism’s core ideas that needs to be exposed and understood. Cognition is the order for the day, not lynching. (Leave actual criminal activities to the proper authorities, the intellectuals should focus their attention on ideas).

-Victor

Edited April 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I disagree in general terms, but not on a small scale. I have seen some of the radical human-hating positions in some of the ring-leaders of the environmentalist movement. (I did not see it in Al Gore despite some serious growing disagreements I have. Apparently I am not the only one. Michael Chricton did not see it either and fully disagrees with him. Other intelligent people also seem to think as I do.)

I have not seen any frothing human-hating in any of the normal people I have talked to who generally agree with environmentalism, either. On the contrary, most people just want to clean up the smog and toxic wastes and live a good healthy life.

Even the guy who sold me the book An Inconvenient Truth thinks that smog has to be cleaned up, but likes his modern conveniences. He seemed to like people, too, not hate them. With a small amount of conversation, I managed to get him thinking in a different direction. Maybe this will be one less vote for the stifling legislation that is coming. What was my concession and "fence-sitting"? I simply agreed with him that smog was a bad thing. And it is. Heh. Some fence.

Like this guy, there are literally millions out there. I would have lost his interest if I had ranted and railed against Gore and the environmentalists. (Well, I did mention possible windfall profits to be had by certain politicians and even oil companies if oil were abruptly changed for ethanol, instead of gradually as will inevitably and naturally happen. This seemed to be a more convincing argument for him than saying the politicians hate mankind and life in general because poor philosophy makes them evil scum.)

I don't particularly care to convince the ring-leaders. They are most likely beyond convincing anyway. I do care about convincing the normal people, at least the ones who will listen (which is the majority).

I have seen with my own eyes normal people simply shut down listening once they identify a person as a hater of environmentalism in the rhetoric that I am criticizing. They simply stop thinking about what the person is saying.

Once that happens, no amount of graphs, reason, facts or figures turns their minds back on. This is reality. Just look around and you see it everywhere. So what is the point of preaching about the Evil Ones and "us against them" if no one is listening but the choir?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

I have not seen any frothing human-hating in any of the normal people I have talked to who generally agree with environmentalism, either. On the contrary, most people just want to clean up the smog and toxic wastes and live a good healthy life.

Even the guy who sold me the book An Inconvenient Truth thinks that smog has to be cleaned up, but likes his modern conveniences. He seemed to like people, too, not hate them. With a small amount of conversation, I managed to get him thinking in a different direction. Maybe this will be one less vote for the stifling legislation that is coming. What was my concession and "fence-sitting"? I simply agreed with him that smog was a bad thing. And it is. Heh. Some fence.

Like this guy, there are literally millions out there.

Michael

Michael,

In “The New Left” [now The New Primitive], Rand analyzed the morality at work in environmentalism, and the environmental movement has made leaps and bounds since Rand’s time. But she was bang on right in her analysis. The mainstream environmental movement is clearly and consistently committed to its agenda and this will have fatal consequences for millions, (it has already) and its “intellectual leaders” should be judged even more severely than those street thug environmentalists who openly commit arson and mayhem. You have not seen any frothing human-hating types? Well, open your eyes because they're out there---and it is the “common man” that may regard them as “misguide idealists”—but idealists no less. That’s the point.

Yes, it is true that many people hold a “benign view of environmentalism” as Schwartz observed. Most people merely regard it as a “salutary force”—a global sanitation department. Of course, this is a dangerously plane estimation. But you and I do know better. (Well, I do anyway). So I don’t know what relevance is attached to citing this—for it’s an ideology’s core ideas that will win out at the end of the day - once accepted.

And now that I think about it, who are the candidates that could be “scapegoated”—as horrible as that is meant to sound. Would it be the Environmental Liberation Front (ELF) that claimed responsibility for acts of arson across the country, thereby becoming another group in a string of environmental groups to be media spotlighted? They have burnt business and torched private homes, but let’s not scapegoat them now. Far be it that some sort of injustice should be committed against these groups and their violent actions and explicitly anti-social ideologies. And let us not employ any rhetoric against Ted Kaczynski' and his wonderful manifesto ---A Declaration of War--Killing People to Save Animals and the Environment.

Finally, let’s take a gander at Gore himself, who considers himself incapable of choosing between people and trees. Consider this little gem from his "Earth in the Balance": “It seems an easy choice—sacrifice the tree for a human life—until one learns that trees must be destroyed for each patient treated…suddenly we must confront some tough questions.”

Yeah. You see, this becomes problematic for him. Here is the kind of fence sitting that just does not jive.

-Victor

Edited April 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

[M]ost people just want to clean up the smog and toxic wastes and live a good healthy life.

Even the guy who sold me the book An Inconvenient Truth thinks that smog has to be cleaned up, but likes his modern conveniences. He seemed to like people, too, not hate them. With a small amount of conversation, I managed to get him thinking in a different direction. Maybe this will be one less vote for the stifling legislation that is coming.

Did you manage to get him thinking in the direction that smog/toxic wastes/cleaning up the environment IS NOT what the issue of reputed anthropogenic global warming is about? The issue is CO2. Granted, CO2 is produced in burning fossil fuels -- and pollution is also, more so with some fossil fuels, especially coal, than with others. But it's the CO2 not the pollutants which is supposedly driving AGW.

That's one of the sneaky aspects of the Gore film: its making it look, visually, with his pictures of belching smoke stacks and in other ways, as if environmental pollution is what he's talking about (plus his explicit references to carbon dioxide pollution).

Explaining gently to people that the issue of CO2 and that of pollution are being mixed up as if they were one when they aren't is a good approach to take, an approach which can be understood by persons who haven't much science background.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm disappointed in the -tone- this thread has taken in recent posts:

Victor, Ellen, and Michael are not using outright insult toward each other, but sort of a hostile, cutting, sarcastic tone in 'rebutting' each other.

It's not very edifying or helpful. Or worth reading. (And, no, it doesn't matter who 'started it').

Where did I employ a "hostile, cutting, sarcastic" tone -- except in my comment about Victor's not being deterred from expatiating by having described the Gore film inaccurately?

For the most part I've been talking to Elizabeth and Dragonfly about issues pertaining to Atlas Shrugged, its merits, lacks, and extent of influence.

Ellen

___

[John Dailey]

~ For any 'religion', there are the advocating/evangelistic-leaders, and, there are the followers. Clearly, for the followers, it (whatever the subject, deistic-oriented or not) is a 'religion.'

~ For the leaders, flip a coin, and, the 'higher' in the hierarchy you go, the less likely it's a religion more than a power-tool to manipulate the followers.

~ This applies to 'environmentalists' as much as to Fundamentalists of any officially established 'religion' or of...well...pick your 'philosophy'-of-life (!) importance of belief/activism. Keep in mind that by 'environmentalist', I'm definitely not including those who merely accept the worth of the idea of 'recycling.' Such aren't even followers, they're merely accepters of what surfacely sounds like a 'good idea.' Let's exclude them from my concern here.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Addendum:

~ It's the leaders who are the real problem; not the 'followers' (until they can be cajoled/manipulated into being 'activists' that is.)

~ Environmentalists' (I'll include hypocritical PETA here) leaders make me think of Mr. Smith in THE MATRIX, complaining to captured Morpheus about the nature of humans as Smith sees the universe he feels (?) stuck in: "You're a virus."

~ They've all practically said such themselves. What more need be analyzed about the worth of such actual virusi to human lives? They are all threateningly dangerous, since from within, at least as much as 9-11 repeater-wannabes are coming from without.

LLAP

J:D

[Ellen Stuttle]

Victor,

I disagree in general terms, but not on a small scale. I have seen some of the radical human-hating positions in some of the ring-leaders of the environmentalist movement. (I did not see it in Al Gore despite some serious growing disagreements I have. Apparently I am not the only one. Michael Chricton did not see it either and fully disagrees with him. Other intelligent people also seem to think as I do.)

Michael,

To repeat this in different words, in case you haven't understood this from what I've said previously about Gore. I do not see any "radical human-hating" in him. What I think of Al Gore is that he's a political maneuverer from his early days and that he has an eye to the main chance of his personal fame and fortunes. I think he has access to quite enough scientific material to know better than what he's presenting. But I do not think he's presenting the view that humans are a blight on the earth. His pitch is trying to protect this precious earth for subsequent generations. Why Michael Crichton -- note the correct spelling? -- likes him, I don't understand; I don't know Michael Crichton.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

John,

To view modern culture, one would get a sense that "the environment" is the latest object of worship by many fanatical followers (or even mild true-believers). Although, most committed environmentalists would declare to be too sophisticated to be following some ancient pagan or animistic religion.

The new "progressive environmentalism” is simply a re-packaging of the old pantheistic premises --combined with a much more dangerous angenda of public policy proposals than earlier versions of environmentalism. It is getting worse from when Rand wrote her essays--much worse. Ask yourself why.

-Victor

Edited April 12, 2007 by Victor Pross

[John Dailey]

Vic:

~ I don't need to ask myself "Why?" since I consider your response merely an 'addendum' to MINE.

~ Ellen brought up the idea of Gore being merely a 'political maneuverer.' I totally agree.

~ Being a political-maneuverer is all that Gore's clearly conscious about staying focused on. He's found the 'environmentalist' msg a place to work from, and, thereby, the 'environmentalist' leaders to work on...in getting support from...and their 'followers' (as well as 'acceptors')...in manipulating (emotionally 'persuading', that is) with the politically-useful 'alarmist' msg by making clear use of a sensationalistic-oriented media transmitting his intended concerns to the populace at large...for the pure sake of convincing all that *he* can save the world from their careless killing of it.

LLAP

J:D

[Victor Pross]

Vic:

~ I don't need to ask myself "Why?" since I consider your response merely an 'addendum' to MINE.

~ Ellen brought up the idea of Gore being merely a 'political maneuverer.' I totally agree.

~ Being a political-maneuverer is all that Gore's clearly conscious about staying focused on. He's found the 'environmentalist' msg a place to work from, and, thereby, the 'environmentalist' leaders to work on...in getting support from...and their 'followers' (as well as 'acceptors')...in manipulating (emotionally 'persuading', that is) with the politically-useful 'alarmist' msg by making clear use of a sensationalistic-oriented media transmitting his intended concerns to the populace at large...for the pure sake of convincing all that *he* can save the world from their careless killing of it.

LLAP

J:D

I agree, John. It was really a rhetorical question. You're on the money.

-Victor

[studiodekadent]

It really is all very clear. If there ever was—in fact—an evil anti-human ideology, Environmentalism wins it hands down. Why? It is the idea of “intrinsic value.” Nature, the Environmentalist leaders persist, has "intrinsic value”---to be venerated for its own sake, regardless of any benefit to human beings. Man is to be barred from using nature for his own ends. Since nature allegedly has “value in itself” (does this notion reek of Kant?) any human action which changes the environment is necessarily pegged as debauched. And take note: In the environmentalists' worship of "Nature”---man's nature is omitted. How nice.

Environmentalist intrinsic value comes, not from Kant, but from G E Moore. His "method of isolation" drives their "beautiful world" thought experiment by which they allege intrinsic value. So their stupidity is not Kantian, although it is a form of intrinsicist deontology. Kant and the environmentalists have very different moral epistemology: Kant says the good thing to do is done out of duty to a principle that is logically universalizable, wheras the green nuts say that the good thing to do is to preserve that which has intrinsic value determined by what is basically moral intuitionism.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Did you manage to get him thinking in the direction that smog/toxic wastes/cleaning up the environment IS NOT what the issue of reputed anthropogenic global warming is about? The issue is CO2.

Ellen,

Actually I did.

Michael

[Mike Hardy]

Ellen Stuttle wrote: "So often people who become Objectivists at least go through a phase of developing characteristics which make them a trial to be around. "

I took the liberty of guessing some reasons for saying that, including:

(2) They think they're heroes like John Galt and Howard Roark, already complete and perfect.

Ellen answered:

Yes, reason #2 has a lot to do with it, the imitatio Galti.

This alludes to the phrase imitatio Christi and so I thought: At least members of that religion don't (usually!) think they're already complete and perfect like their hero. Does that mean we're proposting a point in favor of the Augustinian theory of original sin? :shocked: -- Mike Hardy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(Recently I saw #1 and something approaching #2 operating in some doofus with whom I exchanged some views back and forth for a while on Diana Hsieh's site. But he was probably about 60 years old, so I guess some don't outgrow it. He said that every concept must be referred to by just _one_ word, never a multiple-word phrase, and if I thought otherwise then my epistemology is so different from his that it was impossible for us to communicate. He cited Ayn Rand's _Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology_ as a source of that proposition. I asked if Ayn Rand's concept of "conceptual common denominator" was not in fact a _concept_ that she introduced in that book, denoted by a three-word phrase. I also cited her concept of "sense of life", referred to by a three-word phrase. He went away without answering and was never seen again.)

Mike,

I just followed this. The guy retracted his comments, said he learned and apologized because you were correct.

What struck me about the whole exchange was how condescending he had been to you throughout (even going so far as to sarcastically apologize for presuming "that you know and agree with Objectivist epistemology" and suggest that you should either study Rand's theory of concepts or stop fooling people into thinking you did), how he had to be corrected by people he apparently thought were more respectable than you (meaning that knowledge was not at issue, but where it came from was far more important), and, of course, a simple apology was impossible. He had to give everyone a lesson on what an apology is so he could highlight what a good guy he was and how wonderful and moral his actions now were. (These folks are always on stage in their minds, so they have to take a bow.)

Still, an apology over there? I think you made history, dude.

Michael

[Mike Hardy]

Mike,

I just followed this. The guy retracted his comments, said he learned and apologized because you were correct.

What struck me about the whole exchange was how condescending he had been to you throughout (even going so far as to sarcastically apologize for presuming "that you know and agree with Objectivist epistemology" and suggest that you should either study Rand's theory of concepts or stop fooling people into thinking you did), how he had to be corrected by people he apparently thought were more respectable than you (meaning that knowledge was not at issue, but where it came from was far more important), and, of course, a simple apology was impossible. He had to give everyone a lesson on what an apology is so he could highlight what a good guy he was and how wonderful and moral his actions now were. (These folks are always on stage in their minds, so they have to take a bow.)

Still, an apology over there? I think you made history, dude.

Michael

I had not seen this until you pointed it out---thanks! -- Mike Hardy

PS: I rather doubt this qualifies as "history" except in that that it's been recorded, maybe permanently.

[Victor Pross]

MSK, you wrote: “I have not seen any frothing human-hating in any of the normal people I have talked to who generally agree with environmentalism, either. On the contrary, most people just want to clean up the smog and toxic wastes and live a good healthy life.

And I responded: “Yes, it is true that many people hold a “benign view of environmentalism” as Schwartz observed. Most people merely regard it as a “salutary force”—a global sanitation department. Of course, this is a dangerously plane estimation. But you and I do know better. (Well, I do anyway). So I don’t know what relevance is attached to citing this—for it’s an ideology’s core ideas that will win out at the end of the day - once accepted.”

The benign earth loving well-intentioned people speak:

Did you see the youtube? Yeah, that was fun. :no:

What the discussion needs to focus on is NOT the common lay person’s impression of what environmentalism is about. It’s the movement’s intellectuals who are guilty as hell, and the ideas they espouse is what needs to be examined.

As thinking people (yes, I mean you post reader) you, who actually takes the time to examine a culture’s dominate ideas. So let's do it here.

Environmentalism’s ‘fundamental ideas” must be stressed: Environmentalism is a religion whose ontology is “one-world” --whose epistemology is intrinsicist--whose ethics is erecting nature as the highest value--and whose politics is using enmity to subordinate human activities (reason) to nature. Under these core ideas, individual rights and capitalism is dead. This is not an “oversimplification"---this is a direct target of identifying and isolating essential characteristics.

What I would like to discuss is not graphs or charts—(forget Gore's bullshit film) but rather what I call the movement’s “fundamental ideas” as identified above. Is there agreement and any further elaborations?

-Victor

Edited April 13, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

[What] I would like to discuss is not graphs or charts—(forget Gore's bullshit film) but rather what I call the movement’s “fundamental ideas” as identified above. Is there agreement and any further elaborations?

No, Victor, at least not from me. MSK -- though I've been plenty irritated with him for his lecturing me as if I were some kind of O'ist representative -- is right in his belief that what's needed in addressing "just folks" is knowledge not rhetoric. And, no, "forget[ting] Gore's bullshit film" won't do with "just folks" who have seen it and have been scared by that movie into believing that sea levels are rising, hurricanes are intensifying, Polar bears are dying, insect plagues are increasing... doom's day is upon us if we don't take action now. Knowledge, calmly stated, not rhetoric is what's needed if you want to have any effect beyond receiving some rounds of applause from the Objectivst choir.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Knowledge, calmly stated, not rhetoric is what's needed if you want to have any effect beyond receiving some rounds of applause from the Objectivst choir.

Yes, I agree. Did I say anything else? Ellen, always in contrarian mode. :poke: It seems that the word rhetoric is enjoying considerable vogue these days, and done so in such a way that by merely accusing someone of engaging in it is, I would think is the intention, is suppose to be a substitute for either making an argument against someone’s stated position--or substantiating one’s own. Ellen, what on earth is wrong with a discussion of environmentalist's core ideas, the very crux underlying its fundamental premises? Knowledge, yes--a knowledge of the movement's ideas. That's right, I agree.

-Victor

P.S.

Yes, that's right, scaring the crap out of people is the intention of that movie, and all of done with an ominous tone of foreboding inevitable doom—total destruction--and all because of man’s activities, i.e., living by reason. That is the type of evil we are discussing.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

[blah, blah] That is the type of evil we are discussing.

Victor, speak for yourself about what "we" are discussing.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MSK -- though I've been plenty irritated with him for his lecturing me as if I were some kind of O'ist representative -- is right in his belief that what's needed in addressing "just folks" is knowledge not rhetoric.

Ellen,

I didn't mean to give the impression that you were some kind of Objectivist representative (and, God forbid, one of those superficial ones who is blind to the obvious while filtering everything through Objectivist jargon). What I tried to convey was that simply trashing Gore or flooding a person with scientific information overload were not good techniques of persuasion. The other side also trashes opponents and floods people with scientific conclusions and figures.

When a non-expert (like me) looks at things like credentials to establish some kind of standard, trying to make some sense out of all the hostility, he sees people on both sides with excellent credentials.

Because of the constant trashing technique by the experts I confided in, my mental image of Gore's film—prior to seeing it—had been that it was poorly put together and not persuasive at all, except for Nazi or Soviet-like propaganda that was easy to spot and see through. I was shocked at the high level of how Gore built up his logical case and I saw that the simple trashing of him was misleading. I suddenly became interested in checking premises all over the place because I lost my confidence in the information I had been receiving.

I figured that if I had received that impact on seeing the film, others would get it, too. That is serious and the impact is very real. So a new approach was needed.

I came to the conclusion that science is not settled on the issue of global warming all by myself, after skimming over literally gobs of material. I have seen this conclusion elsewhere at times, but it more often than not gets lost in the finger-pointing and hostility. In my opinion, this is the most important message of all to stave off the passing of hyper-regulatory laws: science is not settled on the issue of global warming.

I am very pleased to see some of the things I had been thinking about are presented extremely well in State of Fear.

(btw - I knew how to spell Crichton's name and even know how to pronounce it: not short "i" as in ik-ton or ichhh-ton, but long "i" and silent "ch," pronouncing it as as in frighten. I made a typo or mental lapse where you caught me. I had written Crichton's name many times correctly before that. But wait a minute... Did I or didn't I? Dayaamm! I'll have to look now to see if they are correct because you have planted doubt in my heart. The bad news is that I am normally a terrible speller and would die of shame without a spell checker. )

I think some of the simple things in State of Fear need to be applied to critiques of the Gore's film. I will present, very briefly, one here and more when I finish reading it.

But here is the type of thing I have been trying to get on the table. Hopefully, it will be clear in this example. Although the following point was made in fictional form, I think Crichton even went too far in presenting 4 errors at the outset. It almost blew the impact of the main point. The situation is that the main character, Evans, a lawyer, stated to an office assistant that "everybody knows what global warming is" and this prompted a discussion with another lawyer, Balder, who suddenly appeared. After a smooth transition, there is the following exchange. Balder is the one asking and Evans is the one responding. State of Fear, pp. 80-81 of the hardcover edition:

"We ask everybody who comes here. We're trying to get a feel for the general state of knowledge. What's global warming?"

"Global warming is the heating up of the earth from burning fossil fuels."

"Actually, that is not correct."

"It's not?"

"Not even close. Perhaps you'd try again."

Evans paused. It was obvious he was being interrogated by a fussy and precise legal mind. He knew the type only too well, from law school. He thought for a moment, choosing his words carefully. "Global warming is, uh, the heating up of the surface of the earth from the excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is produced by burning fossil fuels."

"Again, not correct."

"Why not?"

"Several reasons. At a minimum, I count four errors in the statement you just made."

"I don't understand," Evans said. "My statement—that's what global warming is."

"In fact, it is not." Balder's tone was crisp, authoritative. "Global warming is a theory—"

"—hardly a theory, anymore—"

"No, it is a theory," Balder said.

The point here is that the general population thinks global warming is a fact akin to "the earth is getting hotter and will never cool off again." They do not know that it is a theory and only a theory about weather. As a matter of fact, they don't realize that this theory has several parts. All they think is that the world is literally going to burn—like hell burns—after time passes and we are witnessing the descent into hell right now.

I think Crichton could have emphasized this theory point even more strongly, but he watered it down by continuing Balder's explanation:

"Believe me, I wish it were otherwise. But in fact, global warming is the theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere because of the so-called 'greenhouse effect.'"

Here, without proper preparation, the layperson's mind starts going into a coma. Crichton provided some preparation (not enough, in my opinion) and even had Evans get mad by perceiving this as nitpicking and told he doesn't know what he is talking about. In fiction, this was a good treatment, I suppose.

In a critique of Gore's film for laypeople, however, it cannot be glossed over. There are places in Gore's film where he mentions that global warming is a theory and others where he tries to put it over as a fact. There are even places where he is extremely clear that there are too many causes to attribute global warming to one thing only, thus almost implying that it is a theory. If I remember correctly, there is an image graph near the end giving slices of contributing factors, and the slices are many and relatively thin. He has the slices pull out one-by-one with animation.

So it would be extremely useful (and quite devastating) to point and say, "Look, even Gore says global warming is only a theory—right here..." and then quote him. Time after time. There is an abundant number of places in the film that can be used for this (if I remember correctly), so it is easy to do. After you do that, then you can point to the places where he presents global warming as a fact and ask, "Is it?" or something to that effect, and say, "He doesn't think so at that other place."

Note that simply claiming global warming is a theory and doing what I am suggesting are not different in terms of fact, but very different in terms of approach. The first way presumes that laypeople are open to reason from an objective default mentality, that all they need to do is hear a fact and they will be convinced. The second presumes that a preconception is installed in their minds, that they believe in it as if it were a fact, and that it must be focused on at the root to rip it out, especially if it can be pulled out using the very people who put it there. Only then is the way clear for reason.

Once that becomes established in people's minds, once they have seen that a theory is at stake and not a fact, it becomes very legitimate to question anyone, regardless of religious conviction, social conviction or philosophy, as to the appropriateness of making laws based on undecided theories and not facts. This will be heard by—and convince—far more people than something like "Gore is a used car salesman," or presenting a mountain of scientific reports to sift through.

There are several basic points of this nature that need this kind of treatment. Is this extremely elementary and so simplistic it hurts? It certainly is. But the more complex stuff washes over people's heads like water off a duck's back if these elementary considerations are not properly presented. This is where I believe Gore is winning. He gets his elementary ideas in place with a very strong and logical presentation. The rest follows naturally.

I made a more thorough explanation right now of one point only so you can see where my head is at. My intention is far from preaching to you or anybody, and I am certainly no expert on global warming—actually my whole problem stemmed from my lack of knowledge and accepting the views of others. I am especially not setting you up as believing in things you do not believe in.

My focus is on trying to get a correct approach from the bottom up, not only to the communication (which is crucial), but to the logical construction of the presentation itself and even on how to check the underlying premises. In my judgment, what I have encountered as attempts at persuasion (and even explanation) have fared very poorly in this respect.

I hope that helps with understanding what I have been getting at. As to you, well... you know how highly I think of you.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

I didn't mean to give the impression that you were some kind of Objectivist representative (and, God forbid, one of those superficial ones who is blind to the obvious while filtering everything through Objectivist jargon). What I tried to convey was that simply trashing Gore or flooding a person with scientific information overload were not good techniques of persuasion. The other side also trashes opponents and floods people with scientific conclusions and figures.

think of you.

Michael

Michael,

I must say take exception to your characterization of “superficial Objectivists” who “filter everything through Objectivist jargon”—if I am correct in my assumption that you are insinuating me. Once again, as I had told you way back regarding my atheism, my hostility toward the Environmentalist movement is not Rand spawned--but even if it were, so what? As it stands, though, this is an area where I have done a great deal of reading and thinking about on my own; it is a subject I happen to find very interesting.

As you admit, it is an area that you are not too familiar with, so I would be more than happy to bring to your attention a small handful of books that are—if this makes you feel more secure in the information you are receiving—totally unrelated material to Objectivism. Whew! :turned:

This is, without a doubt, an excellent reading list. The books approach the subject not only scientifically, but philosophically. Each book, in its own way, seeks to disperse many of the alarmist claims that have been raised in the popular media, by vigilant appraisal of the scientific evidence.

Environmentalism Overkill, by Dixy Lee Ray.

Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns, by Jay H. Lehr (This is an excellent, excellent book).

Science Under Siege, by William Morrow.

Toxic Terror, Elizabeth M. Whelan.

One more thing. When you posted your initial thread regarding Gore’s film, you will recall that you were rushed by a bevy of perplexed people--this including the usually friendly (towards you) Christian and then followed up by Steve and Jim—each pointing out in one way or another, the danger and venomous nature of the Environmentalist movement to you. You found yourself on the defensive. And while I respect your independent spirit, your truly admirable “I want to see things through my own eyes”— I hardly see the issue as one where the underlying philosophy of environmentalism is not clear, (especially to someone like you who has a philosophically attuned mind). And so that is why, I think, some hot buttons where pushed. Yes, yes, this is a hot button issue, not only to the aforementioned individuals, but to me as well. But that does not mean that I am “biased” to the facts, let alone seeing it threw a filtered “Objectivist bias.” (Whatever that is).

-Victor

Edited April 14, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

Thanks for your post #121. That accomplishes a great deal toward mollifying me. ;-) I don't want to belabor the sequence of what happened, but I would like to say just a little more about how I experienced the replies I was getting from you. I felt that all I'd done was to offer you a couple leads to acquiring some of the scientific background with relative ease, and next thing I knew I was having the sins of "our side" -- whatever you see those sins as being and by whomever perpetrated -- loaded onto my shoulders. As if I'd become the proverbial scapegoat carrying the burden of collective wrongdoing.

In retrospect I can see that probably what I did which triggered you was to tell that little tidbit about Gore's tectonics story. I certainly wouldn't have told that had I had any anticipation of how you'd react. Only in hindsight did I come to realize how large a difference of context there is between your knowledge of the scientific ins and outs and mine. You've mentioned for instance that you had thought "global warming" meant the actual planet -- the globe -- the object earth heating up. I on the other hand am coming from a context in which I've been hearing for some years nitty-gritty, and often advanced-level, scientific details of the disputes. Thus the tectonics story was an amusement from my standpoint. At the time of my post, I was still chuckling over Dick Lindzen's pointing out that Gore's highschool teacher was behind the times if the incident really did happen in one of Gore's highschool classes. Neither Larry nor I had thought of that (though we did both think of Gore's analogy being a misuse).

Meanwhile, you were still in a sort of state of shock because you'd only recently seen the film and what you'd experienced of Gore's presentation was nothing like what you'd been led to expect. By whom, I'm still unclear. That is, I don't know where you acquired your expectations. Apparently you'd read accounts of the movie -- in Objectist literature? -- which made it sound, quoting you, "poorly put together and not persuasive at all, except for Nazi or Soviet-like propaganda that was easy to spot and see through." I agree with you that the way Gore presents himself is nothing like you'd expect from such a description. His emotional tone is even low-key, as if he's rather weary, tired, discouraged, having thought -- as he tells it -- years ago that people would heed the warnings and having plugged patiently along, giving his slide show in city after city, trying to get people to listen. And I think he seemed very convincingly sincere. (Although I don't think he is sincere, my conclusion isn't based on his manner in the movie; I didn't detect signs of insincerity in the way he came across.)

I also agree that the movie is very well done, and is persuasive, in the sense that it carries one along and seems implacably convincing. However, you initially threw me off, and some others too, as to what you meant because you kept indicating that it was well done scientifically. On that I can't agree: I consider it a well-done appearance of presenting science, a virtuoso display of tricks (like a magician pulling rabbit after rabbit out of a hat in full view), tricks which require knowledge of the subject to notice -- and which even then, if one isn't paying careful attention, could slide by. As I told you, the first time Larry and I saw it, we both had to keep making an effort to tick off inner couterpoints as the thing progressed. As the credits began playing at the end, we looked at each other, shaking our heads as if to shake off the spell, and commented that, oh, wow, it was a movie which was going to be terribly difficult to counteract.

I further agree with you that the way to counteract isn't to mount a soapbox but instead to construct a case starting at however basic a level your audience requires. As I've told you, I personally haven't engaged much in talking to "just folks" about the issues. I get into conversations here and there when the subject comes up spontaneously, and I adjust what I say according to indications of the background knowledge of whomever I'm talking with. But I haven't made any systematized attempt to think of how to go about a ground-floor-up presentation. I thought the approach you indicated in your post was a good one, if starting at that basic a level.

What I still feel unclear about, though, is just whom you have in mind as your examples of how not to go about it. You've said that you find the Swindle movie too strident. I haven't yet seen that whole movie, just snatches of it one of the times Larry was playing it on his computer. From what I saw and what he said, the movie sounded to me like something which would be a good counteractive to mid-and-up knowledge-level persons. I see nothing wrong with gearing a presentation to those who already have a basic grasp of the issues. You wouldn't say that scientists shouldn't talk to one another at their level because most "laypeople" couldn't follow their arguments, so I don't see why you'd object to a movie geared to a more-general but still knowledgeable audience. In other words, I don't think that a presumption of some background is of itself a flaw.

What other particular examples you might be talking about, I don't know. (I'm speaking here of sources available outside of O'ist listland, sources for the world at large. I figure that most of what's said by sources within O'ist listland isn't read anyway by "just folks.")

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I must say take exception to your characterization of “superficial Objectivists” who “filter everything through Objectivist jargon”—if I am correct in my assumption that you are insinuating me.

Victor,

I was not insinuating you. (It only occurred to me just now that you would think that because of the friction between you and Ellen and I was addressing her.) I find your approach flawed and you certainly can get jargon-heavy, but your manner is different. (And you do suffer from an excess of zeal at times.) Let's say I have many more expectations for you to get it right than the ones I was referring to.

Michael