Yes, Brookings, supporter of LBJ, Clinton, Obama and Obamacare, scourge of Reagan and his tax cuts, and Bush or any politician with a R after their name, is “neoliberal,” not “‘leftist’ liberal.” (Guess what Brookings’ position is on globalclimatewarmingchange?)
Because central planning stops being central planning when you change its name.
While reading Dennett’s four rules, I thought I was reading Dale Carnegie’s 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. I don’t doubt Carnegie stole or adapted them from someone else himself.
SnorIII diverts with a petty partisan irrelevancy, ignores the critique and parts with an ad pipinem. Keep ‘em comin’ Snorp, you’re looking stellar.
================
Gary
I was trying to get Snorple to explain what he/she thought with some specifics. I am not sure what to make of your comment.
We are watching you, you will die
The world’s conscience, and cop on the beat, has lately been a coalition of the functioning democracies. This state of affairs will likely persist.
==================
As we know only all too well, Gavin Schmidt prefers a conversation he can control. That’s what he’s hired to do, and he’s boring.
==================
Actually, the title of this post is “How to Criticize with Kindness.” Not “How to Come to Truth.” and perhaps you might have noticed that by “kumbaya parade” i was referring to the comments on this thread.
The article discussing the Dennett book, quoted above, says this of his method “Dennett points out this is actually a sound psychological strategy that accomplishes one key thing: It transforms your opponent into a more receptive audience for your criticism or dissent, which in turn helps advance the discussion.”
A “psychological strategy,” the key objective of which is to make your “opponent” “more receptive” to your arguments. But that’s not rhetoric.
rhet·o·ric
noun \ˈre-tə-rik\
: the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people
Yer a funny guy.
Jim D: Regarding what Steyn really meant, maybe other recent articles by him will make it clearer.
As you pointed out, those articles were subsequent to the law suit, and Steyn was able to substantiate his pejoratives via reference to Mann’s court filings and other commentaries.
thisisnotgoodtogo commendably cites “[James Hansen's analysis of usufruct property rights in the global climate-commons]“
Thank you, thisisnotgoodtogo, for this illuminating conservative-minded comment! .
Observation Rational conservatives and science-respecting liberals share good reasons to deplore the Marshall Institute’s gross trampling upon usufruct property rights.
Further information Hansen’s on-line essay The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla (2007) provides an in-depth analysis of the social, scientific, economic, and moral elements of usufruct property rights.
Conclusion Conservatives and liberals alike can find common ground in Hansen’s thoughtful property-rights essay.
Good on `yah, thisisnotgoodtogo! Good on `yah, James Hansen!
Rob Starkey,
You should make that I mis-threaded it. It was a response to Snorple himself. :-)
Keep laughing, WHT.
Jos. displays an active curiosity for anecdote.
==========
Yes he did. Benjamin Franklin.
Joseph,
“…can you give an example of an important issue that you changed your mind on?”
Sure.
1) I originally believed it was best to alternate between conservative and progressive governments. Conservatives seemed better at creating wealth, and progressives at redistributing it. I learned over time that the second proposition was dead wrong, and became a full conservative, rather than a “moderate.”
2) I was an agnostic for about 25 years, after a “Catholic” university education, and later became a conservative Catholic. I was born and raised a Catholic, so I changed my mind twice on that topic. Once at 19, and once about 25 years later.
3) I was initially receptive to claims that anthropogenic releases could become a problem in the near future, until I learned the source of the arguments, looked at their policy agenda, and looked at the consensus scientists’ own comments about what they didn’t know.
That’s three, as an adult. How about you give me one example for yourself?
•RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
•RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
•RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
•RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
•RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
•RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
•RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
•RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
•RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
•RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
•RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
•RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
I offer a more realistic set of strategies – pre interweb but ideal for the blogospheric battle fields of the climate war. It is the latest manifestation of a hundred year old culture war. There are two side. A cohort that is perhaps 5% of western populations – they are connected – sometimes powerful individuals – who have an agenda of transforming societies and economies in some utopian (perhaps dystopian) fantasy. We know this because they say so.
Then there is the rest of us. Most people find the statements linked to morally repugnant – the comments raise the specter of an unimaginable 21st century holocaust. It always puts me in mind of Hayek. ‘From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.’ They require catastrophe to justify societal transformation and so catastrophe becomes the core belief in some infinite regression. The science of uncertainty and complexity is anathema. They require complete faith and sonorous proclamations.
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
Fundamentally it is not about science or truth but of the triumph of a worldview forged in the groupthink hothouse of blogospheric echo chambers. The memes are practiced and then the culture warriors venture out to regurgitate them. The Allinsky rules are so much a part of progressive thinking that they are second nature. They emerge organically from the groupthink dynamic. There is no getting past it except as reality challenges the groupthink memes.
They are noisy extremists who are a little more than an annoyance. They impede progress on emissions because their goal is transformation of economies and societies – which everyone rightly rejects – rather than practical and pragmatic multi-gas strategies and technological innovation consistent with critical economic and social development. They then whine about the consumer society via their ipad.
The rational response is to frame an alternative vision to dystopian fantasies. Perhaps a shining city of man.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/13/week-in-review-22/#comment-628301
.
Oh, yeah? Well he stole it from some thus even poorer Richard.
=======
Ben’s dead, Jim. But wait, it’s alive!
============
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
