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

The other thing that really got me thinking was seeing the sort of people that would appear on television, proselyting about the coming tragedy that it would imminently become too late to prevent. Whether from charities, pressure groups or the UN, I knew I had heard their strident and political use of language, and their determination to be part of the Great Crusade to Save the World before. These were the CND campaigners, class war agitators and useful fools for communism in a new guise. I suddenly realised that after the end of the Cold War, rather than slinking off in embarrassed fashion to do something useful, they had latched onto a new cause. The suggested remedies I heard them espouse were always socialist in approach, requiring the installation of supra-national bodies, always taking a top-down approach and furiously spending other peoples’ money. They were clearly eager participants in an endless bureaucratic jamboree.

Now don’t get me wrong: a scientific theory is correct or not regardless of who supports it. But recognising the most vocal proponents of CAGW for what they were set alarm bells ringing, and made me want to investigate further…

Jonathan Abbott writes on WUWT about his personal path to C(atastrophic) A(nthropogenic) G(lobal) W(arming) skepticism.

Aside from the slightly odd word “proselyting” … snap.

A few commenters here have expressed boredom about this whole climate thing, and a lot of people certainly are very bored indeed with the climate alarmists. But when you consider how much power and money are still being diverted into arrangements based on climate alarmism being true, by people for whom the science still seems to be settled like it was 1999, it would surely be a big mistake to stop discussing these matters now. This would be the equivalent, during the Cold War (an earlier huge argument to which Abbott rightly compares the climate debate), of reading someone like Von Mises explaining in about 1950 that communism is economically irrational and hence in the long run doomed, and saying, right, we can forget about that then. Communism still had many decades of damage to do. And it didn’t just fall. It was also pushed. Climate alarmism is the same now. The damage it will do has, arguably, only just begun. Just how much damage climate alarmism ends up doing depends on how much it continues to be challenged.

15 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Mr Ed

    We should always challenge the fanatics who hate freedom. By their friends shall ye know them!

    We should also remember Indonesian General, whom I believe was reported to have said in 1965, ‘Do not shoot the Communists’.

    However, I believe that he qualified this remark by stating ‘Bullets are too good for them, use knives!”.

    It may be that there Is not always time, or the opportunity for rational debate, which is unfortunate.

  • Michael Staab

    Statists depend on a perpetual state of war, or other diversions, such as CAGW, to diminish other perspectives and control the dialogue. As such, opposition is often seen as those “fragmented malcontents”, with no common values shared.
    The issue at stake, from the perspective of the statists, is collectivism. Individual sovereignty, individualism in nearly every manner is expected to be subsumed to the collective. Nations are not an exception to the statist ideology. They too must conform.
    There really is only one solution to many of our self caused wounds, and that is the free market.
    How does one engage in the free market in this world?

    I believe the changes necessary for such a world are resisted, ridiculed, and feared by those satisfied with the status quo. Freedom and liberty are not for the weak, or those of the parasitical sort, or especially those who would not permit you to have any choice but theirs.

    Al Gore is to the climate what those like Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson are to race relations; total dissonance, yet so effective as a means of persuasion for those less than informed. But CAGW alarmists, like Gore, are not satisfied with voluntary responses; they demand action now, even as their ideas disintegrate when examined scientifically. What do they gain from all this? You think wealth means anything to Gore? Power?

    How can any honest observer not note that since the fall of the USSR, the “environmentalists” have formed from those still with affections with all that the USSR represented?

  • Julie near Chicago

    Brian, your point cannot be stated often nor loudly enough. Example: The fervor with which the American Campus has doubled down on its efforts to bully, dragoon, and draw-and-quarter fellow students who attempt to present the anti-CAGW case. Last spring Stanley Kurtz wrote about the goings-on at either Vassar or Wellesley (forget which), and somebody else ditto on the other one, IIRC. Nor were these isolated examples.

    CAGW may be no longer at the forefront of the the People’s Consciousness, but it’s alive and screeching amongst the Intelleckshualls and their understudies. Egged on, of course, by control freaks and fearmongers of all librul and lefter persuasions.

  • razorbacker


    What is the problem with that? That is what growing religious movements do. I see more points of similarity than points of difference when looking at religious fanatics and environmental fanatics.

    They both take data and torture the data until it confesses to ‘intent to kill’.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Let’s not get carried away, razorbacker. SOME “growing religious movements” proselytize*, but not all of them. For instance, I and a small number of my acquaintances have been converted to worship of a head of lettuce named Ralph, but we are not particularly trying to attract (still less to manufacture) adherents. will grant you the Cult of CAGW, however. *g*

    *”Proselyting” — I’d taken it for granted that that’s a simple typo. Though come to think of it, people do seem to have gotten into the habit of vandalising English in the most ignorant ways — for example, by failing to grasp how one forms a verb from a noun or an adjective. For instance, people say “legitimize.” Wrong: The root is “legitimate,” and the proper verb form is “legitimatize.” Remember, we say “concretize,” meaning “to make ‘concrete’,” not “concrize.” (Not that I think much of that particular term.) We say “realize,” “to make real,” not — what, “reize”? Perhaps Mr. Abbott really does think the word is “proselyting” rather than “proselytizing.” Sigh … I hope not.

    Podden the digression. I was just thinking that perhaps I see a field for extending the Ralphian liturgy. We could, if not prosely, then at least acolyze selected members, thus appointing them as acolytes who might bear Ralph about upon his bed of dressing, where appropriate, or even when complete undressed. I must give this more thought. Perhaps after a few beers.

  • Nick (nice-guy) Gray

    Wouldn’t a head of lettuce favour environmentalists? Leaf well enough alone, Julie! Lettuce not go overboard here, just cos-cos Ralph says nothing controversial!

  • Rich Rostrom

    Massachusetts v. EPA, in which a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA not only could but must regulate CO2 emissions, without Congress ever having granted thst power or decided on that policy, remains the law of the land.

    Obama hsa declared a “war on coal” which has shut down coal-fired generating stations at a cost of many billion $.

    Australia’s carbon tax remains; though the Labour may now have pledged to repeal it, they pledged not to enact it in the first place.

    The war is far from over.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Nick-n-g, of course Ralph says nothing controversial — he’s quite tightly wrapped and does not require so much as a Bibb to keep from drivelling on himself.

    Did you know that our beloved Head Lettuce was discovered growing as a weed (!!!) by the ancient Egyptians? That was before Cæsar tried to make a salad out of him. But Ralph was as a berg of ice, and his heart yielded not to the knife. Though a thousand islands sat temptingly waiting in a lake of Gallic Dressing, Ralph romained unbreached, undressed, and unsaladed.

    . . .

    By the way, that was an excellent catch, Nick. I’m still giggling. 😉

  • Nick (nice-guy) Gray

    Thanks, Julie. I’ve always wanted to be known as a wit, and my friends assure me that I’m already halfway there. Those who laugh at my brains soon find that there is nothing to laugh at!

  • Julie near Chicago

    LOL! That’s really excellent, Mr. Gray. Plum will be green with envy. Meanwhile, I wonder if Mr. Fields has had more trouble with that bucket.


  • Jonathan Abbott

    It’s just a typo. I usually take pride in the quality of my written English. *blushes*

  • TDK

    It’s worth reminding ourselves that AGW is only one part of the Environmental movement. They are concurrently promoting alarmism about population, sustainability, recycling, mass extinctions, GM crops, food miles, pollution etc.

    The common theme is anti-humanism and all issues, even contradictory ones, spring from the same source. We can slay the demon of the day, but it will always be replaced by others until the underlying philosophy is tackled. The fact is, to be concerned about say Food Miles is to show you are “nice”, and the argument rarely gets beyond that.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Jonathan, I did figure it for a typo. I myself rein down bukest of tiepoes uopon the populace hear and farr. And I always miss a few, even after careful prufreeding.

    It just reminded me to get in my daily licks on my hobby-horse (one of many, I’m afraid), that’s all. I have been distressed by the clear lack of familiarity with our Native Tongue that so many of us Americans, at least, display. Another is not knowing how to form the words for “makers” or “students” from the names of their fields. An “internist” would, properly, be one who studies (or makes *g*) interns. A “ceramist” makes or studies “cerams.” At least we still know the word is “physicist” and not “physist.”

    It was a very good article. Thanks. :>))

  • Tedd


    Not to take away from your point, which I think is otherwise good, but “legitimate” is also a verb. There’s actually no need for “legitimatize.”

  • Julie near Chicago

    Tedd, thankyou thankyou thankyou for understanding! You’re right about “legitimate” (v.t.), although it always sounds wrong to me.

    However, I see that Webster’s 1913 Edition online gives all three as forms of the verb meaning “to make legitimate.” (1828 gives only “legitimate.”) Further checking shows that the earliest example of “legitimatize” given by the print 1971 Ed. of the OED is dated 1791; earliest example of “legitimize” is dated 1848. For “legitimate” (v.t.), its Def. 2 earliest example in Def. 2 is dated 1531.

    Of course I am never in error about anything, but if I were, this might be such a circumstance. *blush*

    I see that only the online Compact OED recognizes “ceramicist”; but neither it nor either early Webster’s recognizes “ceramist,” although several (“modern”) online dictionaries do. (I usually consult the dictionaries through onelook.com.)

    Strangely enough, my print Compact OED recognizes “ceramist” but not “ceramicist”! However, it does specify that “ceramist” is formed from “ceramic + ist.” First in its list of examples is an 1855 translation into English from Italian.

    Apologies to all for going so far off-topic, but it was necessary to correct my error, and also to check on the “ceramist/ceramicist” issue and report the results, since they don’t entirely support my position.