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 IEA) have declined the Guardian’s invitation to delete books, reject their polemical assertions, and are publishing this piece in response. We regard their inquiry and improper suggestion as both an attempt to mislead their readers, and as strong evidence of a growing and dangerous trend in public discourse on climate change to stifle debate, delegitimise dissent, and wilfully confuse matters of science with matters of policy, by denying uncertainty and trade-offs.

Andy Mayer

12 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Julie near Chicago

    So, the IEA has an “unbalanced slant,” does it? Interesting. I wonder what a balanced slant would be.

    Being not a fan of the Glorious Grauniad, I haven’t much to say about Mr. Mayer’s piece except that it sounds pretty much on the money. I enjoy the quote in the posting, especially the nicely sardonic beginning:

    “(The IEA) have declined the Guardian’s invitation to delete books….”

    And I like the remark of the commenter who says, to put it in my own words, that the rag has been printing bilge for years.

    Full disclosure: The IEA has already earned my readiness to believe it might have some useful info and ideas here and there, because a few years back it invited Richard (Epstein) to give his opinion on M. Piketty’s then-recent book on Capitalism in the 21st Century or some such. (He did not give the work unbridled enthusiasm.)

    If you missed it, his lecture is on video at


    and other sites also, such as UT. About 25 min., IIRC.

  • Mr Ed

    From the OP

    We find their approach ideological, and entirely unworthy of the paper’s proud history of inquiry and fair treatment of opponents.

    IEA destroying its own credibility there, call scum “scum” and list their wrongs.

    And when have they denied that there are climates (pl.)?

  • IEA destroying its own credibility there, call scum “scum” and list their wrongs.

    I dunno. I was hearing a large chunk of sarcasm myself, but then again “Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

  • Mr James Ironside

    I expect the Grauniad staff does think it has a proud history of inquiry and fair treatment of opponents.
    Obviously fair treatment of the opposition in their minds is everyone either agreeing with them or pretending they do.
    Then calling for a Stalinesque solution to any hold outs.

    I like to think about winning the Euro-millions.

    We are dreamers both freedom lover and would be tyrant.

  • Darrell

    ‘Climate change’ isn’t science, it’s 21st Century religious hysteria. Ms. Thunderberg is a tiresome Joan of Arc (and yes, I misspelled her name on purpose). A hundred years ago these nutjobs would have been rolling on the floor, handling snakes and speaking in tongues.

  • Stonyground

    The real fruitcakes have jumped the shark by giving us all twelve years to live. Just eleven years to go now. What are they going to do when time runs out? Everybody on Earth will be a “climate denier” due to them not being dead.

    Meanwhile, the more moderate climate alarmists are being proved wrong with every passing day as well. They have been making failed predictions for almost thirty years now and more and more people are starting to notice that they are always wrong.

  • Itellyounothing

    There are failed climate change predictions in newspapers back a hundred years…

  • Stonyground

    Ah, but this time around the science is settled you see. So if you don’t believe you must be anti science just like a flat earther.

  • Fraser Orr

    Honestly, I think the comments here entirely miss the point. Entirely miss how shocking this is. You don’t need to be a climate denier to be shocked by this. Anyone who cannot hear the echos of book burning under the Nazis is frankly tone deaf. And that it should be a newspaper that makes this request — an organization that should live and breathe on the idea of the free, unfettered dissemination of ideas just makes it all the more shocking.

    Nonetheless, I have a rule: the more someone shouts down, bans or silences an opposing idea, the more likely it is to have some merit.

  • Nullius in Verba

    “Honestly, I think the comments here entirely miss the point. Entirely miss how shocking this is.”

    It was shocking 20 years ago. But after 20 years of trying to silence the climate sceptics, it’s not a surprise any more. The surprise for me is that anyone is still surprised by it.

    But like I said before, we went through the whole circus last decade. They came, they tried to shout down and drive out any opposition, they got thoroughly discredited and disappeared. Now they’re back again, acting like nobody remembered the last time.

    Is it just the new generation educated during those years have finally got out of school? Or is something else going on?

  • Itellyounothing

    Smacks of last hurrah before some clever buzzard solves the problem….

  • Paul Marks

    The Guardian newspaper, and the international “liberal” elite generally, are in favour of censorship and general tyranny.

    In other news – water is wet.