We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day

Over the years in which climate change has been discussed in the media, there have been continual suggestions that it will be of benefit to gardeners – allowing us to grow fruit and vegetable crops that enjoy the continental climate, but fail to thrive in a traditional British summer. As those warm summer days have failed to materialise, and look increasing unlikely, I am eyeing up my new allotment with a view to planting crops that will enjoy our cool climate.

– The opening paragraph of a piece by Emma Cooper entitled Crops for a cool climate, quoted by the ever alert Bishop Hill.

The truth about Global Warming (that there has not been any lately) is starting seriously to circulate.

Eventually, when enough of it has been laid end to end, weather is climate.

8 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Slartibartfarst

    Eventually, when enough of it has been laid end to end, weather is climate.

    I would tend to agree, but whether it is a non sequitur, it could highlight the nonsense that abounds in eco-Fascism.
    Speaking as a long-time environmentalist, it annoys me no end how organisations exhibiting Totalitarian Fascistic religio-political ideology (including, for example, GreenPeace, World Wildlife Federation, IPCC) have hijacked enviromentalism and the English language.
    They have turned ordinary words into ambiguous terms – clichés – with little real meaning.
    It has got so bad now that you can’t even safely say that “weather is climate” without running the risk of someone trying to ram their definition of the terms down your throat, so as to make what you said untrue. And the next day they will change their definition – shift the goalposts, so to speak – because it suits their line of argument.
    “Food security” is a good one – this in an age of abundance. I read the other day that we have apparently reached “peak agricultural land use” because our agricultural productivity has become so efficient that we will not need to use so much land to grow stuff.

    Try asking some of these people to explain what one of their most-used clichés – “sustainability” – means, then sit back and get ready for some entertainment.

  • Yeah, Slarti got it right.

    Preparation for a post agw scare world are already well in place. ‘Sustainability’ is a word which can justify any policy the scaremongers wish to pursue.

  • Timbo

    Yes all well and good. However, I fail to see signs of an about face on the most stupid policies put in place in the name of this lunacy; global warming, climate change, all man-made natch.

  • Harry Stotle

    I always thought that ‘sustainability’ was the greeny version of the catholic christian ‘leap of faith’ concept, ie it’s their get out of jail card.

  • jdm

    Preparation for a post agw scare world are already well in place.

    If you haven’t seen it, Zombie from PJMedia has a fascinating piece related to this and reveals the new term: Climate Chaos. Covers all directions the weather might take like Climate Change does, but with the pejorative of chaos to make it quite clear Just How Serious this issue is.

  • Paul Marks

    Assuming the science behind man made globel warming is true – what Slartibartfast says is correct. Scientific environmentalism has been used for a political agenda that (for example with its anti nuclear power jehad) will only make things worse.

    However is it true?

    Surely the core of Brian’s position is that it is NOT true.

    I have always asumed that it is only the Humanities and Social Sciences parts of universities (and so on) that are controlled by lying scumbags – and that the physical sciences parts are under the control of serious scholars seeking to the truth.

    But is this just because I know a bit about the Humanities and “Social Sciences” – whereas I know nothing about the physical sciences (having given up the study of such things when I was 16 years of age).

    Perhaps all the parts of universities (and so on) are under the control of lying scumbags.

  • That Global Warming is proving to be such a non-event is not something that the climate catastrophists are finding it easy to step away from. They invested too much effort convincing everyone that Global Warming was definitely going to happen, and very soon, for them to be able to say, oh, we really meant Climate Change, Climate Chaos, blah blah. Like the lady quoted here says, they spent years blathering away about how wine would be grown in the north of England, tropical fruit in the south, and so on. Changing what they say they are prophesying, as they now have, is a blatant admission of earlier error. Simply, these people know a hell of a lot less about the climate than they said they did.

    And since they were wrong about Global Warming, and are now admitting it, why should we bother ourselves with what they now say about Climate Change, Climate Chaos, or whatever is their latest climate reformulation? They proved themselves to be guilty of wishful thinking then (to put it no more strongly). The burden of proof is now entirely on them to demonstrate that they have changed their ways. Since they have not changed their ways, only their story, this is proving rather hard for them to do.

    I agree with pessimists who say that merely winning the argument is not enough, although those pessimists who say that winning the argument has achieved nothing are utterly wrong. There are now countless institutions and rackets littering the world which will probably never be entirely done away with, but which should now, as much as can be contrived, be done away with. There are, now that this argument is being won, many political jobs that should now be done.

    Political jobs like showing up the disgusting Yeo for the corrupt liar that he is (see Guido). But the fact that such jobs are now being undertaken, by such people as the mainstream media no less, is compelling evidence that the argument about wrecking the world’s economy to avert man-made climate catastrophe is being lost by the climate catastrophists.

  • SC

    I notice she’s actually a believer: “I believe that Climate Change is real, and that humans are responsible for the upward trend in global temperatures.” Who then desperately tries to rationalize this conflict: “However, the science shows us that climate change doesn’t mean it’s going to be uniformly warmer everywhere – here in the UK we’re probably in for less settled weather patterns, and I believe there’s a risk it will get colder if the gulf stream switches off. Having said that, I am not a climate scientist and as a gardener I am just trying to pick crops that have the best chance of success, like everyone else.”