In answering my dear friends queries on the implication of basing climate scepticism on falsehoods, I quoted a fictional guru. When I first heard him say these lines, I remember at the time (and I was sitting next to my dear friend in Manuka cinema in 1976) "but what does that mean"? I have a habit of over analysing fictions which purport to wisdom, Dr Who being a case in point, and so why not do it on this blog, so my dear friend will have no trouble getting me certified when my time comes.
Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?
When making sure I had the text right (which is wrong in most places; I had to go the Youttube ultimately to confirm), I found that this quote is discussed at length in many blogs. The common thought is that the answer was meant to be "The fool who follows", but on second consideration the answer is far more complex.
I think the meaning in the movie was that the first fool was an unconcious fool; he was on some damn fool quest and there was on very long odds daring to take on the Empire. The second fool, by implication, should know better, and perhaps is consciously making a foolish choice, so is more foolish. If the ends justify the means, Obi Wan was no fool. He became more powerful than Darth Vader could possibly imagine, and was able to guide and inspire the rebellion in ways the old man would not, even, in the end, to rescue the soul of his dear friend, Anikin. The fools who followed (discounting droids) also greatly benefitted with ascent to knighthood (Luke) and royalty (Han). Both struggled with the "follow the fool" and resisted it briefly, before returned to the quest, even at a time when success seemed unlikely.
Did Benjamin Franklin qualify as a fool thinking that 13 disunited, vascillating colonies could take on the might of the British empire? What about the fools who followed him? Many paid the ultimate price, most were probably no better off under the new administration. Undoubtedly their descendants (and the political world as a whole) were the true beneficiaries. Is that foolish, to overthrow an order so as to chase a dream? What would a wise man have done in the situation? Honestly I can't say - maybe have a bet both ways.
Let's head to the current era, where we have a fool for a Prime Minister. Ignoring the best advice of leading economists around the world, he unwound a cap and trade system that was reducing carbon emisions. His argument: it was a tax that clobbered the economy. He firmly believes that not responding to long term threat is wise, and that facts and science are mere politics that he can defeat. A true fool, and like Obi Wan, one who cannot be dissuaded from his damded fool quest.
What of those who follow him. I argue that as the borders of Australia are open (to departures in any event), we are all "the fools who follow him". Is there any wisdom in overthrowing an order to chase a dream? In this case, certainly not. Science is free and globalised so Tony can't stop the growth of knowledge. His foolish will be his downfall as he finds he is increasingly isolated in a world that takes science seriously. In a sense, we fools can wait. Wisdom will return at the next election, or perhaps the one after. (Does anyone else think that his interest in Australia returning to military involvement in the middle east might e a ploy to maintain a sense of fear and uncertainty that workds in the favour of governments in elections?)
Let me dare to be hugely controversial now and look at the Catholic Church's review of the family. Certainly, the current view of a "regular family", even though the terms are modern, are very ancient. However, they would only have ever applied to the wealthy. The poor made do with the little they had, and I imagine were very pragmatic in acknowledging where the next meal came from. The wealth of the industrial revolution changed this and the "regular family" became the norm for a century or so. The challenges and opportuities of the modern times has seen it decline again, the here Pope Francis jumps in an calls a Synod for later this year to see what can be done to better include irregular families in the life of the Church.
Only a fool would take on this traditional a teaching, even as pope. And yet, the Chruch does not brook dissent, so we are the fools who follow him. Is it wise to be a fool (and follow meekly) in this case, or should we change the order to chase a dream? He looks young enough to be with us for a while yet, so waiting for a change will see us wait for a long time. Certainly I expect him to be Pope long after the scrapping of Tony Abbott, and the reintroduction of science to Australian government.
If you strike me down,
I shall become more powerful
that you can possibly imagine
Who really started the use of the term "nazi" in climate debate. It may actually have been the alarmists, not Lord Monckton.
As global-warming alarmists become increasingly deranged in their attacks on experts and critics who reject their controversial and increasingly discredited theory, at least one of the world’s leading climate scientists has finally had enough. Dr. Roy Spencer {Not Lord Monckton] who served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA, published a scathing rebuke of the alarmists and their “extremist” rhetoric.
Referring to the alarmists as “global warming Nazis,” Dr. Spencer warned that their “pseudo-scientific ramblings” and support for fascist-style “radical policies” literally threaten the lives of millions of people — especially the poor.
What appears to have set off Spencer — a Ph.D. in meteorology and principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville — are the ever-more vicious and absurd tactics of extreme global-warming theorists.
In a February 20 piece on his website headlined “Time to push back against the global warming Nazis,” the climate expert notes that “somebody” pushed his button. “When politicians and scientists started calling people like me ‘deniers,’ they crossed the line,” he wrote.
As countless other experts, scientists, and analysts have also noted, Spencer said that the warmists [not Lord Monckton] were trying to equate skeptics of global warming theories — those who do not see climate change as man-made or a serious problem — with those who deny that Hitler’s National Socialist (Nazi) regime exterminated millions of Jews.
“Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison,” Spencer wrote. “It’s time to push back.”
In response, Spencer said, he is going to start calling them “global warming Nazis.” There are very good reasons for the comparison, too, he added.
“The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation ... all so that the masses would support their radical policies,” he said. “Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.”
According to Dr. Spencer, whose latest post has already attracted the fury of “global warming Nazis,” the alarmists are just as guilty as a person who yells “fire!” in a crowded theater when there is actually no fire. “Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process,” he explained.
“Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race),” Spencer added.
The attack on science in the name of dubious global-warming theories, also ruffled Dr. Spencer’s feathers. “Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree ... even getting journal editors to resign,” he wrote.
Indeed, as the world learned during ClimateGate and ClimateGate II, leading so-called “climate scientists” were exposed in leaked e-mails doing precisely what Spencer describes — and more. In addition to being caught trying to silence scientific viewpoints, the warmists, many of whom contributed to the United Nations’ alarmist and discredited reports, were exposed fudging data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures and even conspiring to break the law.
There are many more reasons why the vicious warming-theorists resemble the National Socialists, too. “Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist,” Spencer said. “They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.”
As many publications and analysts have documented, the warmists’ hatred of energy and prosperity is deeply ingrained.
Spencer made clear that those who believe in finding new forms of energy are not the problem. “I’m instead talking about the extremists. They are the ones who are sure they are right, and who are bent on forcing their views upon everyone else,” he said. “Unfortunately, the extremists are usually the only ones you hear from in the media, because they scream the loudest and make the most outrageous claims.”
As countless real scientists and experts have also done, Spencer blasted the bogus invocation of “consensus” in the debate. “This authoritarianism tends to happen with an over-educated elite class,” he added. “I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I’m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.”
Spencer, who pointed out that he did not start the fight, concluded by saying that as long as the warming-theorist extremists continue to call those who disagree with their theory “deniers,” he will keep calling them “global warming Nazis.”
In the comments of his blog, several people wondered whether the term Nazi might be over the top. In a follow-up note, he disagreed. “Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause — I think it is very appropriate,” Spencer said. “Again, I didn’t start the name-calling.”
"name calling" is what seems to happen to poor old Lord Monckton all the time.
Posted by: Paul | Tuesday, 09 September 2014 at 03:14 PM
You refer to the picture of Tony Abbott? It is not mine: http://aussiememes.com.au/meme/When-I-was-jvb4qo. And anyway, the treaty permits a single mention of Climate Change in blogs that do not count against the limit.
Posted by: PythonMagus | Tuesday, 09 September 2014 at 02:38 PM
I have made no mention of anthropogenic climate change, climate skepticism or The 3rd Viscount of Benchley anywhere in this article. Surely you do claim that a discussion of foolishness can only apply to climate skeptics? Surely you welcome the opportunity to compare some fools to Obi Wan?
Where is your answer? Who is more foolish?
Posted by: PythonMagus | Monday, 08 September 2014 at 08:57 AM
This is your October entry disguised as Star Wars!
Posted by: Paul | Monday, 08 September 2014 at 08:34 AM