SubscribeThe main point, though, is that the fuss over the global cooling chapter in Levitt and Dubner’s new book is the first occasion, I think, where the refutation of specific errors has taken a back seat (partly because, in this case, it’s so easy) to an attack on contrarianism, as such. The general point is that contrarianism is a cheap way of allowing ideological hacks to think of themselves as fearless, independent thinkers, while never thinking (in fact reinforcing) the status quo.
I think from a standpoint of pure rhetoric the key issue here is that you need to correctly identify the status quo. If your position is that we should allow people polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses to continue doing so unchecked, then you’re reenforcing the status quo. That’s fine. Sometimes the status quo is right. Sometimes all the money and political expediency and the overwhelming biases of the political system are on the right side. But still, if you take up the side of the status quo and join forces with the politically and economically powerful, you don’t get to don the mask of the bold truth-teller willing to speak out against ingrained prejudice.That's something I've noticed as well, that people often get well positioned in society by being "counterintuitive" in a way where they are actually defending the rich and powerful, the elites against their obvious (indeed, intuitive) shortcomings.
"Carbon dioxide is the right villain," says Caldeira, "insofar as inanimate objects can be villains."But the rest is just his resume and bio.
Its plans to break up Ontario Hydro's monopoly and end support for nuclear power were endorsed in 1984 by the leaders of the Ontario Liberal Party and the Ontario New Democratic Party, the two opposition parties at that time. Later, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, led by Mike Harris, formally adopted Energy Probe's positions in its Common Sense Revolution. Under this model, the grid would be operated as a separate regulated entity while the generating units would operate in a competitive marketplace.That is a complicated question though, because anybody who looks at the cityscape arround Queen's Park can clearly see that Ontario Hydro was out of control.
Yeah, he draws sweeping conclusions and can be more than a little breathless where it's probably not deserved, but he does a decent job pointing to research and researchers where you can find out more if you decide you're interested in diving into the topic with a higher degree of rigor.Gladwell's problem is this: he tends to gather interesting research, explain it carefully to readers, and then spend three chapters explaining some fascinating Grand Theory Of How Things Work that is only anecdotally connected to the research he just explained. The Tipping Point was particularly bad in that regard. He opened on section with a story about the inexplicable explosion of Hush Puppy shoes in hipster circles, and discussed how it gave the brand a new lease on life. But how did it actually happen? How, he asked, can we better understand things like this?
I wish I could remember which brilliant acquaintance of mine asked whether climate change deniers were doing the rational thing by speculating in under-priced coastal land.i thought the 'status quo' was there was no climate change so wouldn't land be correctly priced under the no climate change assumption.
The science is real and scary, as far as we can tell. But the movement is a religion, and that kind of creeps me out. I have made my peace with it, as I wholly agree with its goals, but I don't really like it.Aren't people with that kind of attitude that you reflect the sort of people who Leavitt and the WSJ editorial page is sort of appealing to in order to make converts? Basically the people who might under normal circumstances accept the reality of human-caused climate change but are looking for another "tribal identity" that will accept them. And there is another "tribal identity" for those people: it's called climate change denialism! And it's conservative! And populated by rich people! And you get to hate hippies! And people will think you're oh-so-transgressive and contrarian!
- what's I'm responding to here is Levitt and Dubner's characterization of the climate change movement as a religion, which is exactly the feeling that bothers me about it,I'm really at a loss to figure out how one could categorize claimate change researchers, findings by the IPCC, and advocates of lowering carbon emissions through various mechanisms (eg, cap & trade) as "a religion." Do you have any specific examples?
Example: the C-word exhibition at the Arnolfini in Bristol, which I saw the other day. It was - and I say this as someone with a strong green streak - absolutely insufferably self-righteous, mixing up attacks on air travel and car use with attacks on medical innovationSo on one hand, you have the American Enterprise Institute, Chamber of Commerce, spokespeople for the RNC, and right-wing talk radio personalities with millions of listeners on the "fanatics denying the reality of climate change with quasi-religious fervor." And on the other hand you have some guys who got an art exhibition in Bristol on the "fanatics overreacting to the reality of climate change."
Diogenes/deanc - don't get me wrong, I don't think that the artist/activists should be stopped, are everywhere or are as much of a threat as the well-funded denier lobby. I'm just saying that they do exist.Fair enough, you're right. But there is a big temptation to make a false equivalence between some artists somewhere and a well-funded corporate lobby and talking points machines actively lying about the reality of climate change. It's tempting to want to position yourself as "the reasonable person" between two "extremes," but in this case they're in no way equivalent.
« Older "This is a novel born out of the intersection of t... | Enrico Caruso Remastered.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Legalistic quibbling about who said what in an email isn’t going to help Dubner and Levitt here: in this crucial chapter, there’s an average of one statement per page that’s either flatly untrue or deeply misleading.
posted by Vectorcon Systems at 8:32 PM on October 18 [9 favorites]