How Academics Link Climate Scepticism With the ‘Far-Right’
It is very sad, isn’t it, that anyone who is critical or sceptical of so-called climate science is labelled ‘far-Right’. Well. So be it. I think that part of our job, now, is always to draw attention to the language being used – the language of ‘far-Right’ – and to point out the following:
- I am opposed to/critical of/sceptical about climate science
- You say I am on the ‘far-Right’
- Fair enough, but are you aware that your labelling me as ‘far-Right’ is an attempt to insinuate that my position is only political
- So, first, contemplate the possibility that your position is political too
- Second, contemplate the possibility that you are trying to legitimate your arguable position by making it seem central and mainstream
- Third, can we talk about the science, er, honestly?
- No, that’s what I thought.
I was provoked to reflect on this by finding myself cited in an interesting academic document. Every now and then, I receive a notification to tell me that my work has been cited. This time, oddly, I found that my work was cited by Article 11840 in a journal called Politics and Governance. Here is the entire 306 page edifice. And here is the relevant article:
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Ask them what they mean by “far right”. In fact ask them to explain their view of the entire political spectrum as they see it, from “far left” to “far right” and points in between, in all cases giving clear examples of policies that they consider to belong to each category, along with examples from history and the present day of governments and parties that fall into each category, and why – ideally citing real examples of actions or clearly stated policies (not just just rhetoric or “how someone comes across”). I bet anyone a box of Smarties that you’ll struggle to find anyone bandying the term “far right” about who is able to do this. If they are unable or unwilling, they can be told to STFU.
They don’t do explanation as it involves using ones brain.
Their primary trait is laziness.
Their secondary trait being so desperate for attention that they will believe and spout any bollux someone tells them and put any bollux into their bodies as well.
One thing the government achieved with the whole stupid covid stuff (besides bankrupting the country) was that anybody with more than 2 functioning brain cells stopped believing anything they were told by so called authority figures.
In that sense they did us a favour.
Agreed. It was a massive shock to my system.
Before I’d thought we were run by mere incompetence.
I now realise it’s a combination of incompetence, malevolence and a huge dose of group-think.
Once seen it’s impossible to unsee.
Do all that and then stand well clear to avoid being hit with debris as their head explodes.
Probably. I would guess there are two categories – one are true believers with muddled heads who actually think you are “far right” if you are a “climate denier”, without really knowing what they mean. Then there are the grifters and manipulators who cynically use the term as a smear in an attempt to shut down debate.
This assumes that their goal is to discuss politics rationally. But it isn’t because their political goals and the ways they’re supposed to be accomplished are part of the marching orders for these people. There’s no point in discussion what is non-negotiable. They seek to market it. And this, they do in the same way marketing always works. People who want to sell Hamburgers create posters with a picture of a Hamburger on them and the word TASTY! (or similar) written on top of it. The idea behind this is that people subconsciously associated Hamburger and tasty because they see it all the time. And the next time they pass a burger joint, their brain produces “TASTY!” as part of remembering the association and thus, they go an buy one (heavily simplified, but that’s the general idea). People who want to sell climate protection policies (this is already a content-free marketing term) paint pictures of people they call climate deniers and label them FAR RIGHT! This is supposed to work in the exact same way: Whoever fell for it is supposed to remember FAR RIGHT! when he encounters anything which seems critical of climate protection policies and thus, shy away… Read more »
I would agree with all of that.
Where my approach may be applicable is in the context of a debate taking place in the view of some “neutrals”, some of whom may be prompted to think about the whole thing a bit more clearly.
My guess for the answer in such a situation would be: You’re only seeking to sow doubt about the term far right to camouflage that that’s you.
Debating sophists is nothing but doing intellectual push-ups for the sake of it, as the head teacher of my former secondary school used to say.
I’m not debating sophists with the aim of persuading them of anything – just to expose what appear to me to be their weak arguments to others who don’t yet have a firm opinion on the subject.
I’d prefer replying something more intellectual to this, specifically, paraphrasing the final passage from Schopenhauer’s Eristische Dialektik but that’s beyond my ability to render German texts adequately in English. Because of this, I have to recourse to something much more blunt:
Don’t discuss with idiots because they’ll first drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
The term “far right” has become a casual throw away line used simply to dismiss another person’s views as irrelevant. Its use is so much easier than engaging in a detailed disucssion in the same way as using “denier” (climate, science and any other political topic you care to imagine), “fascist” and Kremlin bot (orc, propagandist, shil, fanboy) are used to marginalise other political discussions.
At least I have never been called a Guardianista!
They cannot “just admit there is a scientific agreement”, because this is “Official Science”, not “Science”. It is science in support of Public Policy (Net Zero, Sustainable Development)
But what they are doing by name calling any who dare to question the official science and climate change orthodoxy as “far right” is inadvertently admitting that this is really all about politics, not science. Because in real science you question EVERYTHING
Name-calling occurs when no evidence-based, intellectual argument can by developed to answer those who question, challenge, dissent.
That is so because they do not have the mental acuity required, and can only speak in slogans, pejoratives, and appeal to higher authority invoking “consensus” and “experts”.
Yep——-Can you imagine name calling people for their views on Black Holes? Calling them all “black hole deniers” and “far right black hole Nazi’s”
What is needed is a definition of “Far Right” which has become a portmanteau for anyone who challenges “The Science” and dissents from what Governments, “experts”, activist groups, The Blob, the BBC, says and dares to ask questions and ask for evidence.
Far Right by implication means “Fascist”, “Nazi” both of which are rooted in Marxist-Socialism and are Far Left, and of course “racists” are Far Right.
The Far Right is ubiquitous yet unseen. Whither its council of elders, its HQ, how does one apply for membership?
Far Right by implication means “Fascist”, “Nazi” both of which are rooted in Marxist-Socialism
The Nazis sometimes referred to themselves as socialists because they wanted to emphasize that they weren’t Marxists, Marxism being the political ideology the original socialists eventually adopted. Hitler’s idea of that was that Marxism was a political ideology supposed to accomplish disintegration of European culture and society specifically created by the Jew Karl Marx for this very purpose to further the Jewish goal of eventually conquering and dominating all of the world.
[source for this: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 420, Marxismus gegen Rasse und Persönlichkeit¹]
¹ Marxism as existential threat to race and character.
incorrect, not just sometimes. Hitler INSISTED he was left-wing, a socialist:
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” – Adolf Hitler, May 1, 1927.
http://www.discouragecriminals.net/nazi/
This is not incorrect but a direct paraphrase from Mein Kampf. Hitler was positively obsessed with fighting against Marxisms which he framed into the anti-semitism he had been brought up with. He was also opposed to liberalism but everybody on the right of German politics in the 1920s was. To these people, liberalism was just the softer part of the left-wing political agenda which had destroyed the German empire. In modern parlance, one would call it center-left.
That the center-left of hundred years ago has successfully eliminated everything politically to the right of it doesn’t turn their enemies into Marxists. In fact, they’ve never ever done anything against Marxism but gladly handed about half of the world to Stalin as thank-you for services provided, namely, millions of Russians and Ukrainians used as allied cannon-fodder during the second world war.
Hiter’s idea would have been that you are a Marxist-lite and he would have been quite correct with that.
Politics: how to get a population to vote for tyranny whilst believing it’s democracy and that they are really in charge, by bribery via a redistributive tax system, fear-mongering, State-dependency and brainwashing.
Climatism: a vehicle – a Church – for grifters, fraudsters, charlatans, third-rate scientists, misanthropes and Neo-Pagans who worship the gods of Nature.
In passing, it is fair to say that they acknowledge assistance in writing from Grammarly and ChatGPT Which – in plain English – means this ‘AI’ generated text the prompters (not authors) hope will be useful for their political agenda. Or even shorter: Computer-generated BS. Which obviously explains totally bizarre statements like For the anti‐climate camp, rejecting climate protection measures is closely tied to perceiving them as a threat to one’s identity. The gibberish-o-mat obviously got some of its internal signals crossed there and linked the wrong keywords. I object to the fact that my monthly elecricity bill is almos £190 (for December) because I remember a time when it was less £300 for the whole winter quartal (and I though that was a lot of money paid for electricity back then). But not because I perceive that as threat to my identity, but as politically motivated assault on my bank account of no practical use for me. Likewise, protecting the climate only from developed countries’ CO₂ but not from developing countries’ CO₂ despite that’s much more doesn’t make any sense if the problem is really CO₂. But I don’t perceive this as threat to my identity, either, just as… Read more »
Would it be much better if they were on the side of the Bloggers against the Activists? Answer: No. It would be worse. Who would want people who write like that claiming to agree with him and be on his side?