Such a position has worked for years but it no longer works. Environemtalism and its most radical reincarnation, global warming alarmism, is gradually regaining the status of a fringe movement promoted by the lunatics. Mooney has clearly not noticed the difference yet.
In a recent article,
In the Climate Debate, The Misunderstanding Is Mutual (Mooney's article plus fiery debate),he has complained about a panel discussion at the Sixth Heartland Climate Conference. Around 57:00, panelists Marc Morano, Chris Horner, and Alan Carlin (no, it's not Noam Chomsky) confirm the suggestions from the audience that the primary driver behind the climate movement is an attempt to reorganize the society, a new green version of socialism or communism or anti-capitalism.
A few years ago, such a Mooney could be attacked by climate realists who would explain him why it's obviously true that the climate alarmists are like watermelons - green on the surface but red (Marxist) inside. That would lead to repetitive confrontations with no apparent winner.
However, we're in 2011 so what happened was more creative. ;-) What was that?
Well, Chris Mooney has been attacked by the climate warmists. Horner is obviously right and Mooney is betraying the most degenerated version of Marxism that drives almost all of his readers to his "The Intersection" website.
Commenters "1985" and "William Furr" immediately came to complain about would-be green people like Mooney who don't admit that capitalism absolutely has to be destroyed and the economic growth has to be sent deeply into the red numbers as soon as possible.
Mooney cried in comment #3 for the first time. Did they come to prove Horner right? Well, they don't have to prove him right. Everyone knows that Horner is right. Mooney has over 2,000 daily visitors to his blog that doesn't boast any scientific content - and it can't because Mooney has no clue about science - so try to ask a simple question, Chris, what drives over 2,000 people to this pure trash that you're posting on the Internet?
Well, yes, they're the hard core of the environmentalist movement who are eager to read any garbage as long as it licks the a*s of the environmentalist movement. They're the "Deep Greens" as they called themselves. I didn't know the term but it's apparently how the most radical part of the green movement is calling itself.
It wasn't just "1985" and "William Furr" who complained about Mooney's lack of will to fight against capitalism - which should be the primary goal of the climate alarmism. "Boris" in #4 argued that the "best" minds in the AGW business have claimed that a goal of the AGW hysteria is to redistribute wealth. :-)
"William Furr" returned in #5 and said that Mooney isn't the kind of great minds who want to hobble economies and redistribute wealth. Instead, Mooney is the kind of opportunist who wants to eat a cake and have it, too. Very true. ;-) "William Furr" and "1985" came to explain that it's not possible to have a cake and eat it, too.
In #6, Mooney cried for the second time. He still believes that the new green Marxism isn't the main force behind the AGW alarmism but he is already "willing to be convinced otherwise". :-)
In #7, "Eric the Leaf" promotes the book "End of Growth" to his (probable) soulmates "1985" and "William Furr".
In #8, Mooney cries for the third time. In his opinion, admitting that the AGW movement is about the liquidation of growth has been a losing card for the liberals and one of the reasons behind the "conservative counter-revolution in the U.S." (oops!).
In #9, "1985" says that the laws of physics dictate something else (destruction of the world economy) than what is politically feasible and Mooney is missing this key point. In #10, "William Furr" says that doing not enough is equivalent to doing nothing. That's why Mooney is equivalent to a denier, a point that will be repeated many times.
In #11, Mooney claims that both physical and political laws are important for the reality and it's a bad idea to misunderstand either. Very true - the only problem is that Mooney misunderstands both. A few more exchanges between "1985" and Mooney follow.
A new player enters the arena in #16. Dr Michael Tobis who is "in it for the gold", says that they have to prove that Horner is right and the destruction of the world economy has nothing to do with ideology - only its preservation is purely ideological. He insists that the greens who are eating roots and sleeping on the trees have to be presented as the most un-ideological, mainstream people. The average American family can't be scaled to the whole world so a revolution is needed, we learn. But it's not about ideology! It's just a non-ideological revolution meant to remove everything that the mankind has ever built.
In #17, "1985" criticizes Mooney for understating the gap between physics and politically feasiable things - i.e. understating the urgent need for a revolution that circumvents all standard political channels. In #18, Mooney supports Tobis' opinion that the black should be presented as white and vice versa. "Incredibly well stated, Michael."
In #19, a new participant, "Nullius in Verba", divides the Greens to Green-lite, Green, and Deep Green. He has no doubts that the latter group exists and has "explicitly anti-Capitalist, redistributive, 'climate justice' sorts of authoritarian/totalitarian policy ideas." It's more radical than communism that wanted to preserve - and expand - technology.
In #20, "1985" attacks Tobis because the point is to liquidate capitalism while Tobis wants to allow this monster to retain the status of a sacred cow. According to #21 by "1985", "Nullius in Verba" is missing the point, too. There is nothing totalitarian about controlling the people's carbon cycle and preventing them from breathing out. Instead, it is necessary to preserve life. Just to be sure that there is no disagreement between these greens, Nullius in Verba agrees in #22 that they agree about the long-term goals - a complete control over the people's behavior. They just differ in the strategies how to achieve this holy goal.
In #23, "Michael Tobis" labels "1985" as a gift to his opponents. Tobis even dares to think that the growth and capitalism belong together and have done miracles for many. In #24, the next thing that "1985" expects from "Nullius" is to say that Julian Simon was correct. I eagerly expect it, too!
According to "M Burke" in #25, capitalism may save the planet by providing us with fuel-efficient cars and light bulbs. :-)
In #26, "TTT" figures out that this thread is an "epic OWNGOAL". He is ashamed, as an environmentalism. I would also be ashamed if I were an environmentalist - from the very first moment. He unsuccessfully tries to mock Chris Horner and says that the "infinite growth is impossible" but that's less important than to "poke and mock the freaks".
In #27, "Brian D" says that capitalism doesn't work because it ignores "externalities" such as CO2 so it has to be "given signals".
In #28, Mooney cries again. He agrees it's an owngoal and he is tired of it.
In #29, "Nullius" says that the tragedy of the commons is about the lack, and not excess, of the markets. Things have to be privatized and the tragedy is over.
In #31, "DirkH" who is apparently a skeptic smiles that Mooney wanted to separate the fight against the growth from environmentalism and he has been returned back to the reality by his would-be soulmates. Go get him boys, he's befouling Gaia. :-) Dirk loves warmists fighting with each other, and so do I.
Mooney cries in #32 for the fifth time and agrees that Dirk is right and the warmists are losers. Depressing.
In #33, "Brian D" protests: privatization can't avoid the tragedy of commons because the real commons like CO2 in the atmosphere can't be owned by anyone.
According to "1985" in #34, the most selfish thing is to self-sacrifice and co-operate (with the green world government). People just haven't understood yet that this is the happiest form of greed. And your humble correspondent is afraid that they will not understand it. In #35, "1985" says that the lost battle doesn't matter because small victories doesn't matter because their required goal is so huge. ;-) Mooney says that these discussions provide more ammunition for the denialists - so what? Unless every single human on Earth is completely controlled by the radical green machine, there's no chance, anyway. :-) The comment #36 by "1985" says that the point of the tragedy of commons is not to think about it or try to solve it, but just to have a talking point to spread propaganda about ecology, so "1985" criticizes "Nullius" for his attempt to think how the tragedy of the commons was solved in England - another clear heresy. In #37, he says that the judgement day is not in the year infinity but in this century and people should have been getting ready for the Armageddon for 50 years.
In #38, "Nullius" recommends Mooney, who understood that he was a sore loser, to cure the situation easily. Just admit that you're not on the same side as the Deep Greens! You oppose them as much as you do oppose the Republicans. ("Nullius" recommends Mooney a career suicide if not a physical one.) "Nullius" himself would love to be explained some things because he finds green attitudes to all meaningful questions a mystery. "Nullius" isn't quite optimistic about the privatization of the atmosphere so he proposes a "climate change bond", something that allows you to make profit whenever the climate changes. I would surely buy it - to make a profit every day! :-)
A new participant, "PDA" in #39, says that it's not an owngoal because there's just one anti-capitalist person on this thread. "PDA" predicts that they will lose every single argument in the future because there won't be a 100% unity between them - if the unity is needed, and be sure that for totalitarian movements such as the AGW alarmism, it's badly needed, I add.
In #40, "1985" accuses Tobis of considering capitalism to be a sacred cow. I guess that the super hard core Marxist Tobis isn't used to this kind of criticism. ;-) In #41, "1985" criticizes "climate change bonds" because when the sea level rises by 1 meter, several and maybe infinitely many meters are already in the pipeline, so capitalism doesn't work, and if you thought it does, the physical laws describing the oceans have to be rewritten.
In #42, "William T" believes that "1985" is in a minority and he is a troll.
In #43, "Nullius" agrees that if the sea level rises by 1 meter, infinitely many meters are already in the pipeline. Why would "Nullius" dare to heretically disagree with this self-evident axiomatic dogma? The climate change bond would already know about the Armageddon in advance.
"Brian D" has a long comment #44 that I didn't understand but he surely wants to say that the ICCC conference is not science-based.
"Johnny" in #45 says that the resources are infinite - we may switch. Nature has solved all other growth problems, too. "Nullius" in #46 defends signals sent to the market. Both of these positions are disagreed by "PDA" in #47 - the previous comments are just beliefs, he says. Instead, one should parrot that the infinite growth is impossible because this approach has already been useful - by brainwashing millions of greens into a pile of mindless zombies.
"Gofigure" in #48 promotes a recommended skeptical literature. In #49, "TTT" uses a quote by "Nullius" to show that "Nullius" is also a Marxist - more detached from reality than the other Marxists. In #50, "Nullius" tries to denounce Marxism.
Rod Taylor in #51 says that Kevin Drum and other liberals (including far left economist DeLong) publicly admitted that the carbon fees were just another tax and the rightwingers were thought to be stupid enough not to see through the tricks. ;-) Well, Drum et al. have been proved wrong.
In #52, Mooney would love to agree that "1985" is in a minority but he realizes that this is not what readers of the thread will conclude - because it's preposterous. The green movement is overflooded with unhinged Marxists of the "1985" type. In #53, "1985" responds to another comment: roughly speaking, who is not a Marxist contradicts the laws of physics.
A fun discussion. Here is the most important lesson for Mooney to learn from his comrade "1985":
In that sense, and I again, I am sorry and very sad to say it, the difference between you [Mooney] and the denialists is smaller than the difference between you and the people who actually get it. If you do not understand that growth has to stop and be reversed immediately (and why), despite all your writings on the subject, you are actually in the same kind of denial that the people you write about are.Via Tom Nelson