My exposure on Facebook these days is restrained; just a few minutes when I get to work each morning, during which I must publish whatever I’ve put onto a flash drive the night before, and also answer the serious comments and questions from my friends on previous threads.

This morning, a statement from an old mate on climate change challenged me. This friend seldom uses FB, and had clearly not been following the development of ideas from the earliest stages of the debate. The post was so basic, so go-directly-to-jail that I was stymied. What to do? I wasn’t having difficulty because I had no facts readily at hand, but rather because there were so many!

Regurgitating the whole story from the beginning was out of the question. Ignoring the post would have been rude to a dear friend. This dilemma has ridden on my back the entire day, and now it’s time for me to sleep. But I am compelled to say something first because it such an important principle.

I don’t have to retell the story or trot out all the evidence for the umpteenth time. Both pro- and anti-AGW stances are moral defences of a belief paradigm, shaped by which of one’s moral receptors is being pinged by the overall “feel” or “taste” or ‘smell” of the climate change issue. All the evidence is out there, just a Google click away. But remember, we are beholden to the Google Effect, all of us.

It occurs to me that in an expression of Left-Right conflict, which is what climate change really is, the net result of arguing the case in abbreviated snaps of online chat will just lose me friends, and convince not one person whose elephant leans the other way.

The AGW model is a political construct, managed and shaped by the IPCC and its sponsors and provosts; the IPCC is an agency of the United Nations; the United Nations is a left wing phenomenon, part of the globalisation tide which tries by all means fair and foul to erase the territorial imperative and national identities, and establish itself as a kind of consensual world government.

If we listen to the intelligentsia, the universities and their academics, the poets, the painters, politicians desperately seeking votes, and Hollywood celebrities on their glittering podia, we are all too easily seduced by the strident moral flavour they bring to their arguments. They are people gifted with expression after all. And what’s more, they are going to save the world. DiCaprio and Affleck are going to redesign society for our benefit.

These artless, clueless showbiz heroes think that their time has come, but the news broadcasts are piddling on their batteries, I’m afraid. Cloaked in progressively-cut moral suits, they have held sway for decades. What they refuse to countenance is that nature works in cycles, and we are part of nature. It is a primary polarity in our societies, a pendulum that balances the vocal moral Left with the restless moral Right.

What is happening now in the world is straight out of the Socks dream – people are moving back into line with their instincts and realising, at last, that one man’s moral is another man’s poison. The shackle of liberal idealism is breaking, falling away, and we, the ones who lived this history, are rubbing our eyes and wondering what comes next.

All this gives me hope and grim satisfaction; for many of my friends it’s a nightmare. What is clear now is that the world doesn’t need me on a soap box trying to convince anyone that reverting to our deeper selves is a good thing. Nature will have her way no matter what I do, and I think many of us will be left bleeding in the Great Google War.

Amen. So be it.

2 comments on “Climate Morals Tuesday 13 December 2016

  1. Steve Garcia

    Hilton, you don’t yet count me a friend, but on so many scientific issues we dovetail well.

    Though I am a political liberal of the first order, I am 100% against the IPCC and the politicization that has been done in the name of so-called global warming – just as you are. I don’t see politics as being part of the right-wrong discussion. The science is bad; the science is weak, and all they have is verbiage and laying guilt on people. But WE don’t have to.

    I grieve that you couch it all in political angles – suckered into the warmists’ modus operandi – and leave out all the science, where the IPCC falls apart. There is n need to bring in all the right wing attack dog mentality about liberals trying to take over the world. Honest, they aren’t. Maybe in your county you find the odd straggler. Overall, liberals are trying to solve real-world problems with – hopefully – real-world solutions – like Clean Air Acts and Safety regulations and banking regulations to address abuses by conservatives run amok in their greed. It was the right-wingers Hitler and Mussolini, along with the conservatives and racists in Japan who all took the world into World War II. It was a liberal mindset that tried after the war to redirect nations into more cooperation among nations instead of xenophobia.

    Cooperation and problem solving is – so very clear in the USA here – all the liberals are about. Civil Rights, 14th Amendment, FDA, SEC, EPA, OSHA, various Cabinet level departments, Brown v Board of Education. Every one of those addressed real and painful wrongs. If they happen to fall into identifying some things as problems that AREN’T, such as the global warming fiasco, that comes with the territory; sometimes you get it wrong – and the colution is not to dismantle the government.but to simply correct errors within larger hoped-for solutions. On somethins as scientific as global warming, the first order of business os to correct the “settled science” crap. It’s not settled one iota.

    Keep being aware that this is a tried and true liberal saying global warming is bollocks. So was the ozone hole. But there is no reason to argue blanket generalities and turn it into a “They want to take over the world!” bollocks mindset on the OTHER side.

    Calm DOWN. And please don’t be like the trailer trash in the USA that thinks that because of this one super-close election that the right has magically become all-knowing and 100% correct in thinking this is some worldwide justification for all things right wing tin foil hat. The UN isn’t there to take over the world – and never was – except in the minds of paranoids on the right. The UN was there to work on cooperation between national governments, so that the world could address serious injury to people, such as when SOME countries had megalomaniacs at the helm. Dude, the UN is there to HELP. Cooperation and helping is in NO WAY taking over the world, no matter HOW many times conservatives say it. Saying it a million times doesn’t make it true.

    I am so much on your side in the science arena. But when you write something like the above, you make me want to slide to the far end of the bench and say, “Hey, folks! I don’t know him!”

    But you’ve got such a GOOD and ADMIRABLE scientific mind!

    Maybe politics isn’t your forte?

    1. Hilton Ratcliffe

      Hahaha, mate (see, we are friends) you are welcome to your opinions and welcome to slide along the bench when I speak my mind.
      Really, all I can suggest is you read The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. It may help you to understand my point of view if nothing else.
      “I hope we can get to the point in this country where we can disagree civilly based on the same set of facts.” – Barack Obama

Leave a reply

required

Captcha * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.