Climate change?->Global warming?->Anthropogenic?

Great site !!! Thanks for the links… :)

See you…

I followed the ping-back here and read the Chomsky piece on consent. He’s always pretty interesting, but I don’t know quite what to make of him. On the one hand, his analysis is great; on the other hand he seems like a bit of a crank and a typical intellectual elitist. When he talks about “dulling people’s minds with TV,” etc., I think, “How much does this guy know about regular people and their minds?” The “Joe Sixpacks” he mentions… Makes me think about Pascal’s take on this issue:

http://iamyouasheisme.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/pascal_and_the_crowd/

Regarding “consent” and AGW, I think the NYTimes and other media giants are a bit out of their league when it comes to this issue. Certainly the Times is trying to manufacture consent, with their endless editorial repetition and uninsightful reporting on the debate. It seems to me though that they are not so good at it as they are with political issues: they just don’t understand the field and the culture well enough. They come off sounding stupid to anyone who looks into it.

My guess, my hope, is that the release of these emails and documents has so angered a lot of real scientists - people who are often quite prickly about observing the rules of their game - that there will be a ripple effect outwards from their community. They know unscientific practice when they see it, and I suspect that there are many - I know a few - whose attitude has been, “Oh, those guys… I have to get on with my work…” who will now be more ornery and difficult. Not likely that academic organizations will be able to publish manifestos on consensus without consulting their membership. The lustre is definitely going to fade from the IPCC imprimatur.

That’s my hope anyway.

My juxtaposition of Chomsky with Gore was a bit of irony really. I have little truck with Chomsky, but he is considered something of a god where I live, particularly amongst the same crowd for whom climate change is something of an unquestionable religion.

Mind you, Chomsky has done one thing I think perceptive - after an interview with Foucault in 1972, reproduced in the book Reflexive Waters, he described Foucault as the most amoral person he had ever met (The Passion of Michel Foucault). This was not a compliment, and neither it should have been, given Foucault’s recommendation for large scale inter-class killing. (More of the same in Power/Knowledge.)

I have a small connection with academia, and one thing I can say about the inhabitants of that world is that there is a great deal of adherence to orthodoxy, even with the most compelling evidence that there is a problem with that orthodoxy. Nevertheless, my hope is the same as yours.

Interesting comment on Foucault and Chomsky. I’d like to dig up that interview. Reminds me of B. Russell, whom I like a lot, suggesting a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the USSR. Or Sartre’s ravings about the USA. Or, for that matter, Merleau Ponty’s intellectual squirming in Humanism and Terror. Mark Lilla tried to get at this in Reckless Minds, but I think he is too close to the phenomenon to make much sense of it - I found the book pretty weak.

As one who when a boy who responded to the query of my 9th grade teacher, “What do you want to be?” with a resounding, “An intellectual!” I have a morbid fascination with the subject of sharp minds gone off the rails.

I wrote a brief review of a book, The Power of Maps, by Denis Wood, that is an interesting take on cartography, heavily influenced by Foucault and that ilk. The book is a nice corrective to the silly notion that maps are just the facts, and nothing more, but my basic problem with it was that the authors were OBSESSED with power. Not in a healthy, intellectual way, either. Everything is a dark conspiracy by those who have it against those who don’t. I’m sure you know the drill.

Thanks for pinging my blog!