Monday, January 09, 2023

In which the pond refuses to argue with the Caterist ...

 


Over the weekend, when the Beeb decided to run a hagiography about a recently deceased member of Hitler Youth, the pond switched over to RN and caught up on a repeated of David Rutledge's The Philosopher's Zone, with the episode dedicated to conspiracy theories, and the  related ideas of Charles Blattberg, a prof in Montreal (the episode's here with a link to Blattberg's paper).

Blattberg had a simple proposal for how to deal with conspiracy theorists. 

Don't argue with them, don't try to refute them, don't lead with facts and figures, don't try to sway them. That just says they deserve to be taken seriously, and in many cases,  just hardens the conspiracists into a rock-like shell of irrational thinking. 

Instead mock them, make fun of them, or translated into Australian argot, send them up shitless.

It was a vast relief to the pond, and Blattberg mentioned Curb Your Enthusiasm, a pond favourite, as a way forward when dealing with anti-semitism. Enough said. Who else could confuse a survivor of the Holocaust with a survivor of the eponymous TV show?

The pond has sometimes wondered about its juvenile tendency to use nicknames and to refuse to engage or debate or argue with the reptiles, but doing any of that only suggests that their delusions should be taken seriously. 

Intuitively the pond had hit on the right - Blattberg approved - response. Mock them, marvel at their stupidity, hopefully induce a few cackles, or even the occasional gale of laughter.

This being the only way to deal with the loony tunes and maroons at the lizard Oz, the pond looked forward to its Monday encounter with the reptiles with renewed confidence. 

The pond had no hope that Major Mitchell would break his holydays to make an appearance - enough already with the revolving line of editors at the lizard Oz, as noted by a pond correspondent - but there'd always be another reptile, as with the lesser member of the Kelly gang ...






Joe's no "Ned" but the pond is sure he meant to scribble "the approach taken to the voice in the lizard Oz is a case study of how the politics of the blame game works in Murdochian media."

So Joe immediately earned a red card and the pond moved on to surveying the rest of the dismal second eleven scene this morning ...






The pond has absolutely no idea why Jimbo would head behind the paywall, so that idle punters only get to read his thoughts if they kick in a few shekels to the chairman's coffers, and in any case whatever he's scribbled was immediately undercut by his companion, the wretched Caterist (the lizard Oz editorialist and a """ offered the usual holyday makeweights, but enough of all that).

So it was on to the Caterist as the only offering this day, because whenever thinking of climate science, you should immediately turn to a master of the movement of floodwaters in quarries ... right?






Uh huh. First impressions? Naturally the pond was drawn to the illustration, because it didn't feature a snap of a coal-fired power station, satanic windmills, solar panels, or the nuking of the country. So the reptiles are making a weird sort of progression ...

As for the rest, recall that the pond isn't going to ague with the Caterist, blathering on about catastrophists and eco-pessimists and all the rest of the stock in trade of the full-blown climate denialist ...

Just remember that back in 2019 the chairman himself said "there are no climate change deniers around I can assure you" and then in 2021 came this, here ...

Many Americans know that Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch, is home to some of the most vocal climate change deniers in the U.S.
For years, conservative host Laura Ingraham has said climate change was based on scientific fraud and that global warming was a lie.
But recently, Vice News reported that Murdoch’s company News Corporation has documented its own internal carbon footprint since 2006 and has privately sought to take a leadership role on climate change.
And just last month, the company’s arm in Australia debuted an editorial campaign in its tabloids, playing up the need for the world to cut emissions by 2050. The coverage is a sharp turn for the Murdoch outlets, which for years have been peddlers of climate denial.
But critics aren't convinced Murdoch has turned a new leaf.
Gabi Mocatta has been keeping tabs on the News Corp campaign called Mission Zero. She's a research fellow in climate change communication at the University of Tasmania and a lecturer in journalism at Deakin University in Melbourne in Australia.
Mission Zero focuses on climate change and economic benefits for Australia. Stories from News Corp-owned tabloids now champion the need to get to net zero by 2050 and argue decarbonization won’t be as expensive as they previously reported. Articles hype up how these moves will bolster thousands of more jobs for Australians.
“That's a big turnabout, but that's just scratching the surface,” Mocatta says. “There's a bit more to dig into and analyze.”
For years, News Corp entities, whether digital, print or broadcast, have often spewed an anti-action message on climate change. Similar to Ingraham in the U.S., Sky News Australia broadcasters and their guests have called those pushing for climate change action “loons,” “hysterics” and “a cult of the elite” who have “children brainwashed.”
The new campaign isn’t necessarily swaying from the norm, she says, but rather going from “climate denialism” to pushing “climate delay.”

Sorry folks at WBUR, sorry Jimbo, we're back to full-blown climate science denialism, courtesy the expert in the movement of flood waters in quarries ...


 





So here's the thing, speaking of capering Caterist clowns and the need for comedy ...

Note that reference to one "David" Epstein. Should anyone go searching for "Davo", they'd have a desperate time of it ... but if they went in search of Alex Epstein, they might have a better result, that's if you were searching for someone who had a BA in philosophy and so considered himself a philosopher - or at least Caterist, something of a sociologist himself, does - and who is deep in the pockets of coal ...







So much for the Chairman's bullshit, and there's the company you keep Jimbo, and there's a huge amount more at Alex "Davo" Epstein's DeSmog listing here, way too rich for the pond to cover ... 

As you can always expect from the Caterist, he landed on a live one ... for "Davo" really is an extremely active trollm and full-blown devotee of the mango Mussolini and his deeds, per this sample ...









And so on and on and on, from this "Davo" Epstein, BA in philosophy from Duke University ...

Meanwhile, the splash at the top of the digital page of the lizard Oz this morning? Comfort in climate paradise ...









And the feature story with photo in the middle of the tree killer edition? More comfort in climate paradise ...







The worst flooding that Western Australia has ever seen, so they say, and meanwhile, How climate change is affecting what's on the shelves at your local supermarket ...

And there you have it ... the Caterist notion of a liveable planet ... and so for a final trolling ...





Did the pond say "and there you have it"?

Never mind, and there you have it, a man without any scientific qualifications but a degree in sociology, quoting a man without any scientific qualifications but a degree in philosophy and expertise in trousering money from the Koch brothers ... and meanwhile the chairman says there's no climate science denialism to see in his rags, and Jimbo apparently hasn't the first clue about the company he keeps ...

And that's why the pond will never bother arguing, and only regrets that this day the immortal Rowe decided to send up another clown car shitless ... though at least the lesser member of the Kelly gang set the scene for him ...








And in lieu of a reptile bonus, here's a few more cartoons celebrating where the GOP has landed ...

If you translate the mutilations and comedy across to climate science, it'll all make sense ...











13 comments:

  1. "the pond isn't going to argue with the Caterist" Very sensible indeed, DP, but some of us just can't quite aspire to that ideal ... yet. So:

    "Five hours later, cool air was pumping through the Rose Ward." Yes, and that could simply never have happened with renewables, could it. Because after all, there is dunkelflaute, isn't there.

    So then: "Before airconditioning, deaths from prostration or sunstroke were common." And do we all remember when the reptiles were pushing their line about 'getting warmer is good, cold kills more every year than heat' ? So, ignoring 50,000 (or more) thousands of years of people living in Australia without airconditioning, we get: "In the sweaty, un-airconditioned first four decades of the last century..." Ok, so what about the 11 decades since the boats landed in Sydney harbour, what happened then ?

    And what has happened throughout the entire 190,000 (at least) years of human existence to a species that evolved in the wilds of warmish Africa ?

    So then we get to the true idiocy of these climate denialists that Murdoch assures us aren't anywhere: "Far from making the world 'unlivable', as the eco-pessimists fear, ultra-cost-effective fossil fuel energy has transformed a harsh, unyielding continent into an unnaturally liveable place."

    Yep, no point arguing with any of that, is there. So how does one "send them up shitless" in response to utter nonsense like that ?

    Just for a bit of history though, I would like to point out that for the first 3 or 4 decades of my life hardly anybody had "airconditioning" and for at least the first two decades of my life we (me and dad) didn't even have a fridge - we did get a big ice block delivered regularly for our ice-chest though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just for the record (because we are not debating with the Cater) - ‘Indigenous Australians . . . . were forced to devote much of their time to protecting themselves from the dangerous forces of nature and procuring mediocre nourishment.’ simply demonstrates that the Cater knows nothing of which he writes in this case.

    In the state in which indigenous Australians (those who can trace their settlement of this land back around 60 000 years) lived when those interfering whitefellas started spreading across this land of Girtby - much of their time each day was spent taking it easy. Some of that time might have been spent in making ‘weapons’ for hunting, while women could be extracting fibres from various plants to make nets and baskets - but only to the extent that they needed such accessories. There was no need to make a large surplus of artefacts for ‘trade’ so they could afford to send the kids to a private school - teaching happened all through the day.

    And the Caters should only be able to eat as well as hunter/gatherers in Arnhem land did in my time in the NT in the 60-70s. There are many documented studies which analyse the components of yearly food intake, and the energy expended in getting that. Hint - remarkably little effort produced a diet with ample basic constituents, and high levels of vitamins and other micro-nutrients. You can still find, and marvel at the size of, shell middens along the northern coast, where these people partook of premium seafood.

    The diet tended to become ‘mediocre’ when whitefellas on the mission from another god enticed the indigenous to settle, in much larger numbers than they were accustomed to (well, all denominations had to report on the harvest of souls to their superiors, and the well-meaning folk back in Europe who were funding them). As missions grew in size, local lands could not sustain the ‘gatherer’ part of food acquisition, so missionaries steadily converted their inhabitants to consume large quantities of bread and jam and other bakery items, and tea with sugar, and sugar, and sugar. So, physiologies not adapted to that diet produced obesity and diabetes, which triggered so many consequent problems of health and fitness.

    But, of course, none of that fits with the Cater’s sociology - the consistent and inevitable ‘improvement’ of the human condition as we strive to produce ever more ‘goods’ to confirm our mastery of creation, with nary a care for how future generations of our kind might be able to maintain that trend. One might have thought that a truly inquiring sociologist would wonder how the generations after the 21st century might assess the lack of planning and decision of our time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this stuff falls into the category of "not even wrong", a gish gallop of things believed without evidence then compounded by faulty reasoning. It doesn't even occur to him that a sedentary lifestyle with layer on layer of specialisation is just one form of social organisation.

      Interestingly, there's plenty of evidence of spectacular collapses of this type of society, hunter gatherers, on the other hand, just get up and move.

      Delete
    2. It's interesting just what is or isn't categorised as "not even wrong". In Cater's case, since everything he writes is just plain doesn't have a clue wrong, it's hard to categorise anything of his as in the "not even ..." category.

      Delete
    3. Sheesh, Chadders, too much logic. Did you get a BA in philosophy? Just as well you're not debating him, the pond will accept all you scribbled as top notch ridicule, with bonus satirical flourishes ...

      Delete
    4. Befuddled - I am happy to go along with your 'not even wrong' classification, but also happy to accept Dorothy's nomination of my words as 'top notch ridicule', because what the Cater writes simply does not fit into any known school of logic, and what he says on 'Sky' barely fits into any known language.

      Delete
    5. A book on how to live in the world: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn https://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-Novel-Daniel-Quinn/dp/0553375407/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2FTVDU68PAI2C&keywords=ishmael&qid=1673259135&s=books&sprefix=ishmael%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C291&sr=1-1

      Delete
  3. Indeed, the Cater knows nothing of which he writes - the qualifier "in this case" being entirely superfluous. And your analysis of the Aussie Abos is quite correct, and of course much the same could be said for many 'early' peoples. The human race didn't get to go from a handful or two to millions and eventually billions by being unable to adequately feed itself along the way.

    But surely we all wonder how the Denisovans got on without tractor, mechanical plows and large-scale trucks, don't we. But then they did, like the Neanderthals, die out, didn't they.

    But here's one thing that tthe Cater, and others of his ilk, are ignorant of: the behaviour of a feedback loop. So that the very simple concept that if we keep on increasing the amount of 'ultra cost-efective fossil fuels' that we consume, then the temperature of the Earth will keep rising so that we have to keep burning more fossil fuels just to power our airconditioners so we can stay alive. So long as we don't have to go outside to drive our tractors and plows to grow our food, of course.

    But fear not, our English brethren are right on to this:

    More maths? Rishi Sunak’s calculation doesn’t add up
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/08/more-maths-rishi-sunaks-calculation-doesnt-add-up

    Of course Sunak's calculation adds up: the more maths people are taught, the more they will understand feed-back loops. Won't they ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By golly, GB, the Caterist can be relied upon to set you off on a feedback loop, but what else when confronted by a dickhead endlessly looping dickheadery?

      Delete
  4. Yes there's not much use arguing with the Caterist. I scoured the web to find any info re five children who died in Adelaide of heatstroke in 1939 and found zilch. Of course he doesn't provide any references for this statement so he probably made it up like a good little Murdoch hack. That leaves me no alternative but to "send him up shitless" as DP suggests...


    Nicky The Carbon Copy Paperboy

    "Fossils fuels ain't all bad!"
    Yelled Cater the lad
    Spruiking carbon for all he was worth
    "It's the cheapest fuel source
    Provided of course
    You discount the cost to the earth!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :) ³ He's probably distorting figures arising from the heatwave experienced mid-January 1939 in many parts of the country ...

      https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/229480283 in a completely clueless way.

      It's a wonder why he didn't follow it with a line saying that cherry picking weather events is bad science practised by climate catastrophists ...

      Delete
  5. There is a view that the best way to deal with conspiracy theorists and the like is not to argue with them, but to get them to argue and defend their position. Eventually they will be stymied by their own thinking. NC is a case in point.

    There was the claim that: “We have nothing else in our kitbag to replace the energy-dense transportable, available and reliable resource of solid, liquid and gaseous carbon upon which modernity was built.” Yet in the very next paragraph, we are told we have the nuclear option available, which will produce no emissions. Nuclear also presents some problems in transport. OK. There are nuclear powered subs, but electric cars would surely not be used by NC or Epstein!

    NC criticises others for “catastrophism”, while he apparently agrees with Epstein that all will be rooned unless we keep using fossil fuels; there will be no fertilisers, farming will cease as a result, people will starve and die of cold or heat, prosperity will be lost and there will be catastrophic loss of life. According to Epstein and Cater’s form of logic, we should still be using typewriters, steam engines and the old wood fires, because that’s what helped humans advance to modernity.

    As climate change advances, I envisage NC sitting in this taxpayer-funded Menzies Institute with his fossil-fuelled air-conditioning / heating blasting, unperturbed about those working outdoors without any form of air-conditioning/ heating as the temperatures rise or plummet outside. Oh, and don’t mention fires or …floods…!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Calling them "conspiracy theorists" is annoying: they are simply "conspiracy believers" - any and all conspiracies even when they contradict each other.

      I have seen it said that the best way to handle conspiracy believers is to just ask them innocent questions that they will feel impelled to try to answer. And in doing so, expose their own absurdity to themselves. Fortunately I don't associate much with real 'believers' these days (other than the Pond's reptiles), so I've never been able to give that "theory" a run.

      Delete

Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.