The outrageously arrogant and patronising article in today’s SMH (“Grim reaper's role in climate change denial”, 28/11/2009) had at least one redeeming feature; it brought a smile to my face.
Monbiot’s claim that “any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science” supports the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, even if it were true, would still be a comedy gem. The leaked emails of the AGW propagandists have already made plain their intention to “redefine what the peer review literature is” in the event that some ill-advised journal wavers from the party line.
Our columnist then goes on to pillory Clive James as “purveying trite received wisdom.” James’ crime, it appears, is to exhort his readers to be sceptical. To use rational and logical thought and to remember that “any theory must fit the facts, and the facts can't be altered to suit the theory.” I can see why Monbiot is disturbed by this heresy.
Monbiot’s ad-hominem attacks don’t end there however. He dismisses Ian Plimer’s carefully argued “Heaven and Earth” (and presumably all 2000 scientific references) as a “concatenation of gibberish” and any supporters that Plimer may enjoy are simply “suckers.”
Monbiot’s crowning achievement though is his complete dismissal of the arguments of anybody over the age of 65. The syllogism is a little difficult to follow at times, but I think I can do it justice as follows;
- People over 65 are less likely to believe the AGW propaganda.
- Therefore we must explain why people over 65 are wrong.
- Ernest Becker proposed a theory of “Vital lies” that people tell themselves to give their life meaning.
- The Journal “Ecology and Society” published an article (Dickinson) suggesting that news about AGW makes people think about death.
- Old people (presumably the over 65s?) are closer to death
- Old people must think about death even more
- Therefore old people a Global Warming Deniers.
If you are thinking “huh?” at this point, you are not alone.
I’ll note here that desperate attempts to give the impression that he made the connection himself notwithstanding, Monbiot lifted the Becker connection directly from Dickinson. Kudos must go to Monbiot for actually reading the article. I'll quote one sentence here, selected at random. This is only one sentence - apparently Dickinson's conservation efforts have extended to full-stops;
"The proximate psychological mechanisms that form the basis of the ideas presented here neither conflict with nor support hypotheses at the ultimate, evolutionary level of analysis, at which the experience of and defenses against existential terror can be viewed either as costly byproducts of the evolution of consciousness (Landau et al. 2006) or, more plausibly, as products of selection resulting from the advantages of ideologically based within-group cooperation and extra-group competition (Hardin 1968, Hauert et al. 2002, 2006, Wilson 2006)."
I’ll also note that the vision for the Journal Ecology and Society states that they “view humanity and nature as co-evolving systems that interact within the bounds of the biosphere at various temporal and spatial scales and across scales.”
I’ll finish here by proposing an alternative reason for the increased propensity of global warming scepticism in the over 65s. Perhaps they are old enough to recall the impending “peak oil” disasters that were being touted in to 70s? Perhaps they recall the global cooling disaster that loomed at around the same time? Perhaps they recall the “domino effect” that would quickly follow the fall of Vietnam to communism? Perhaps these doddering fogies that have managed to hobble their way past the age of 65 recall that we were to witness a procession of exploding nuclear power plants? Perhaps they recall that we were back to the dark ages when Y2K destroyed all our computers? Perhaps, in short, they’ve seen it all before?
Perhaps they recognise the FUD strategy (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) when they see it?
I’ll close noting that Monbiot turns 47 next January. Presumably he will only be holding forth for another 18 years. Presumably, after that, his views will be rendered invalid by his impending death.
