It is I think, comparatively rare for a senior political figure to describe equally senior members of their own party as “fruit loops” and “f…wits”, going on to observe that “They don’t know how crazy they look, because crazy people never do”.
But that was exactly the reaction to last Monday’s Four Corner’s program in which Liberal Party Senate Leader Nick Minchin and others went on camera to spout delusionist conspiracy theories of the type Kevin Rudd had pre-emptively denounced only two days previously (i guess he had an idea what was going to be on Four Corners). Minchin described the scientific consensus view that human activity is driving climate change as the result of a communist plot, saying
For the extreme Left it provides the opportunity to do what they’ve always wanted to do, to sort of deindustrialise the Western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the Left, and … they embraced environmentalism as their new religion.
This is, of course, standard stuff on the political right – I had a string of people pointing me to the latest silly talking point in which a British unfair dismissal case was supposed to prove that global warming is a religion – but it was a big mistake to say it on Four Corners.
The real problem though is that Nick Minchin is not, in the ordinary sense of the term, a fruit loop or f…wit. Rather, he is a sharp and effective political operator, who doesn’t worry much about ideas and therefore takes his beliefs from the environment in which he moves. In the current state of the right that means his ideas on climate change, like those of most of the people with whom he mixes, are deeply delusional. So thoroughly embedded are delusionist assumptions and information sources on the right that, within the given cultural milieu, any psychologically normal person must necessarily, in exactly the same way as any psychologically normal member of an isolated tribal culture would accept the standard myths of that culture. The delusionist message is propounded by a parallel-universe of “scientists” (a handful of whom have relevant scientific qualifications), think tanks and bloggers, and continually reinforced by the distribution of talking points like the unfair dismissal case mentioned above.
This is bad enough as applied to climate change, which is one of the big problems facing the world. But the problem goes far beyond this, extending, for example to economic policy issues. It is unsurprising that advocates of market liberalism would like to downplay the implications of the global financial crisis for the theoretical foundations of their position such as the efficient markets hypothesis, and it ought to be possible to make a case that the current crisis does not provide sufficient evidence to abandon the EMH. But, thanks to the rightwing talking points machine, no one much feels the need to make such a case. Instead we get absurd claims that the near-collapse of global capitalism was brought about by the Community Reinvestment Act, a minor piece of 1970s legislation aimed at ensuring fair access to bank loans for credit-worthy borrowers in poor neighborhoods. This claim, silly on its face, has been comprehensively refuted, but people I would otherwise regard as sensible continue to put it forward.
And of course, the talking points machine was seen in full force before and during the Iraq war. The lionization of someone like Arthur Chrenkoff, who argued throughout 2003, 2004 and 2005 that the view of events in Iraq presented by the mainstream media was excessively gloomy and pessimistic (!) and presented a “Good News from Iraq” to explain how well things were going, was a typical instance. Chrenkoff ended up working for Liberal Senator Brett Mason, who is, unsurprisingly a prominent climate delusionist.
The fact is that the political right, at least in the US and among those sections of Australian opinion that take their lead from the US, has become utterly unhinged from reality, to the point where anyone who relies on rightwing sources for information is bound to be deluded. Even where individual pieces of evidence may be factually correct, they are selected to support delusional claims such as those cited above, with the often overwhelming evidence to the contrary being disregarded.
This raises an interesting question for those of my readers inclined to conservative or libertarian views but disinclined to joining the fruit loops. How should such a person form their views on current issues. My answer is that the only option is to ignore entirely everything written on “their” side of the debate and confine attention to factual evidence presented by reputable official and scientific sources and to critical analysis of the arguments of the “left:. Perhaps if enough people did this, they would be able to form the nucleus of a body of thought which would reclaim the ground once occupied by sane conservatives. But, at present, there is no sign of this happening.
John Quiggin 
I dont know about your summarisation of Minchin being a sharp and effective politician. I watched him on the ABC last week for 5 minutes or less….and I thought he was a fruit loop…definitely….either that or he is sticking to a side of liberal policies he thinks is a winner. Bad choice …and therefore Minchin is probably one of the last fruit loops who will fall.
This isnt a joke or a political play anymore (which is what Minchin is hoping – he has an easier life that way – to not have to convince the intellectually slow amongst us who take a while to convince). Enough people know already what climate change delusionism is about.
The message of climate science denialism is out there and is recognised for what it is.
Minchin is not a fool. He is just holding out for doing less work than more .
Deliberate violation of comments policy deleted. You are permanently banned.
Sean G, you obviously missed that seminal 4 Corners episode. Wasn’t just Minchin, but a whole bunch of that faction, currently engaged in an ideological struggle with more rational elements remaining in the Liberal party and twenty first century civilisation.
Turnbull and others have tried to drag the coalition into the twentieth century (from the nineteenth), since the moment Howard left- remember Minchin and Abbott undercutting Turnbull’s first attempt for the leadership, which drifted instead to Nelson.
No, the Hansonist faction can’t even work with the liberals anymore, its all or nothing for the evangelist types and if that means giving up the next election to put in place a De Maistrean theocratic form of government bound to be rejected by a modern public, then carry on they can, like dutiful Gadarene swine heading for the abyss.
Not that Labor has been much better when it comes to the right factions weeding out secularists in favour of bush baptist types-probably why they can’t take ecology seriously, either. But that’s another story.
For the record JQ, that British court case merely held that what one did in response to the science was a matter of ethical conviction comnparable to a religious beleif, rather than the science itself.
I share your view on Minchin. He is no fruit loop. Rather, he is a disingenuous political operator aiming to protect the interests of the big polluters who stand behind his party and more generally, he aims to advance his own cultural agenda, which is threatened by the more regulatory environment that an ETS serves up.
There is some evidence that the delusionists are making headway, as apparently 60% of the British are now mistaken on the causes of climate change, if polls are to be believed. Some of this may reflect the unpopularity of British Labour of course, but still, the fact that so many are deluded does show that the tactics of the Big Lie and culture war/gish gallop/populism can work, if mapped onto the popular press.
John,
It seems strange to suggest that libertarians are subject to biases that cause them to misinterpret the evidence is such a way that the case for government intervention is reduced, but to deny that you and other social democrats may have similar biases (perhaps about the magnitude of the problem, or the efficiency of government solutions).
As for the quality of the left-wing media, I take it you haven’t been reading The Age’s editorials on parrallel book importation. The argument that these rules have no impact on Australian book prices is the intelectual equivilant of the argument that human greenhouse gas emissions have no impact on the climate. Even the language is similar: it’s just a theory, etc. I think you’re being a little bit selective.
@SeanG
Do you have the same attitude to university scientists as you seem to have towards university economic professors? If you do, then perhaps your rather – ahem – strong negative opinion, bluntly expressed, is a clue as to why you are rather sceptical of climate science and the whole AGW thing.
I hope that’s not the case, so prove me wrong.
I have right-leaning tendencies and I say you’re dead right (no pun intended). The behaviour seen on 4 Corners was beyond a joke. I still can’t see how, just because an individual has pro-market views, that such a person must deny the science. The only explanation I can think of is that conservatives are afraid of change. Indeed, delusion appears to be their safe haven. But not everyone on the right has such views, so I think it’s unfair to brand the entire ideological camp in this way.
[…] – John Quiggin’s latest post touches on some of […]
While we are on the subject of d?l?dere. The ‘consensus’ of the majority of the scientific community, is not science John and you are being ‘deluded’ by a majority of the scientific community, who tell you that it is.
So why don’t you” confine attention to factual evidence”. JQ ‘consensus’ is not “factual evidence”.
A ‘fact’ you are in denial about John is that if Australia cut emissions by 100%, carbon will still continue to increase in the atmosphere by 1.5 ppm per year regardless. (so stick your pissy ETS into my link)
You and your kind are “fruit loops”. The greens are the new reds and if you are not careful people like me (middle Australian ) will bring back a Truman style purge.
Fran Barlow, I would have concurred with you until watching that 4 Corners, esp them operating as shopfront for big business.
But the whining zealotry expressed thru comments by some interviewed that they are beyongd mere lucre- they are also reactionary modernist, eg, they hate fear and feeluncomfortablein the current age, and the fear drives a sort of psychosis.
I thought Minchin a shrewd operator, too.
I accept he has loyalty to his Hansonist following- he willlead thembackinto the wildner ness, as the rationalists in the coalition will become dominant, in the wake of an election defeat created by ideologivally driven obstructionists.
Which is not to say that, Turnbull, Pyne, McFarlane etc are any more likeable than Andrews or Fiorravanti Wells, or the eco rationalist hardheads of the ALP right, who currently have a strong grip on power thanks to the coalitions self indulgence. lackof patience and self discipline since the 2007 defeat.
ooooh, a Truman style purge!! scary stuff.
Let me assure you Tony G, you do NOT represent middle Australia.
I eat fruit loops for breakfast.
Curiously enough, Minchin et al seem to think that he does.
Minchin’s problem is that he can’t see the wilderness for the, uh, wilderness.
Political wilderness, that it, in case that’s not obvious to our cognitively challenged resident wing-nuts.
“the near-collapse of global capitalism”
LOL 🙂
“absurd claims … the Community Reinvestment Act ”
The CRA is the weakest argument of those who say the government had a role in the GFC. You gain little by attacking it.
The climate change denialists are zombies of a kind. They are the thought undead. They walk, they talk, but real thinking ceased a long time ago. Just like other zombies, they tend to congregate in groups.
Pity is that there are a number of them who have been throwing grit in the works at senior levels in the public service to stop anything effective being done about climate change. While they are in the public service, they don’t let people know their nutty denialist ideas publically. Publically they are very careful, but they are working vigorously against anything being done. They are the Kim Philbys and Donald Blunts of climate change policy. Until you have actually seen them, it is difficult for a rational person to believe they could even exist.
@SeanG
Does this mean that you don’t respect yourself? Or is this another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Freelander, stay where you are!
I wouldn’t reserve my anger just for Minchin and cronies. The latest CPRS change to half-exclude farming should make it clear the scheme is now fudged up beyond all recognition. If Rudd preens and poses at the Copenhagen conference I think I might burst a blood vessel. Remember the ETS was supposed to start July 2009, Australia remains one of the world’s biggest carbon pushers via coal exports and we have the highest per capita emissions. The Opposition did not block the renewable energy target (which cannot now be achieved) or cut solar subsidies. At least Minchin is not breaking any election promise.
@Hermit
In political terms climate change politics is the gift that keeps on giving for the ALP, so why you’d be throwing the Opposition a bone to get the watered-down measures passed, in the process giving the public the impression of weakness in the face of Turnbull is hard to fathom. Surely the way to drive the wedge is to insist that the coalition is not negotiating in good faith, describe all their proposals as unworkable on economic and environmental grounds and go to Copenhagen with scope to grandstand about what you will do after the next election once the deniers are defeated.
As a matter of practice of course, this measure doesn’t make the CPRS any worse, since
a) it is already innocuous
b) agriculture wasn’t in until 2015 AND
c) in 2015 they’d almost certainly have decided it was too hard to include anyway, bearing in mind that they think it too hard now even when their position is impregnable.
In essence, what they’ve given the Opposition is early announcement of what they’d have yielded in less favourable circumstances in 2015. And let’s face it, if you’re going to porkbarrell the major polluters, you might as well porkbarrell the not so major ones too.
It’s disappointing of course, but this means that the question of what to do with transport and forestry is now even more important than it was before. It will be really important that agriculture pays the full cost of all energy inputs and all landclearing, but doubtless they will go to water there too.
I’ve already begun apologising to the next generation for the failures of mine and begging off responsibility.
All politicians should take off their ideological blinkers, reject tribalism and become informed on the issues. I think John’s analysis of Minchin is accurate.
Remarks by Tony Abbott suggest that egotism also dominates good sense on occasion. Abbott argued that if the government wanted to pass the CPRS that the opposition should be treated with ‘politeness.’ This seems to me a screwy basis for deciding one’s position on climate change.
I’ve been reading Abbott’s book “Batttlelines” and I get the same impressions. Appeals to a generally anti-environmentalist tribal view and an ego-based lack of depth. On climate change Abbott cites Plimer, notes that recent winters in North America and Europe have been cold and argues that the credentials of the Green movement are suspect because they do not endorse nuclear power. None of this deals with the central issues associated with climate change. It is discouraging.
All politicians should take off their ideological blinkers, reject tribalism and become informed on the issues. I think John’s analysis of Minchin is accurate.
Remarks by Tony Abbott suggest that egotism also dominates good sense on occasion. Abbott argued that if the government wanted to pass the CPRS that the opposition should be treated with ‘politeness.’ This seems to me a screwy basis for deciding one’s position on climate change.
I’ve been reading Abbott’s book “Battlelines” and I get the same impressions. Appeals to a generally anti-environmentalist tribal view and an ego-based lack of depth. On climate change Abbott cites Plimer, notes that recent winters in North America and Europe have been cold and argues that the credentials of the Green movement are suspect because they do not endorse nuclear power. None of this deals with the central issues associated with climate change. It is discouraging.
@Jarrah
Reread the post. I specifically stated that there were better arguments to be made. I merely pointed out that many rightwingers who should know better endorsed the CRA talking point, and none (AFAIK) refuted it.
As regards near-collapse of capitalism, I’m relying on the claims made by Goldman Sachs and its representatives in the US Treasury and Fed. They said the system was on the verge of collapse in September 2008, and who I am I to gainsay them.
Tony might think that his climate change denial is a religious obligation because Pell has long been another vocal denier. One argument you sometimes here is “The arrogance of man thinking he could have such an impact on God’s creation.”
@haroldsun
Of course, everyone is prone to wishful thinking and bad arguments. The problem is when it becomes institutionalised and immune to refutation, as has now happened on the right.
On the parallel imports issue, what’s really striking is how exercised the free-market lobby has become on such a fourth-order issue, and not for the first time (see, for example, waterfront reform). They are stuck on the policy agenda of the 1970s and 1980s, focusing on symbolic trivia and with nothing to offer in response to the spectacular failure of the deregulated (or to be more precise, weakly controlled but publicly guaranteed) financial system that was a central element of that agenda.
Hmmmm, Freelander, as a Catholic myself I think it’s only fair to point out that there is no single Catholic policy on the whole climate change issue. Neither rejecting AGW nor accepting it is a de fide issue for Catholics. The present Pope has made some public statements regarding the matter that would not, I imagine, altogether please Minchin:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/2421247/Pope-Benedict-XVI-urges-pilgrims-to-fight-climate-change-and-reject-consumerism.html
Anybody know what Minchin’s religion (if any) is? I certainly don’t know.
@jquiggin
I reread the post. Regarding the GFC, I cannot see any specific statement that there are better arguments to be made. Perhaps you were going to state that, but it got lost in editing?
As for refutation, when people band together to oppose an argument, and some of their cohort resort to poor tactics, typically the rest will not point this out, in order to avoid diluting their message or casting doubt on the rest of their reasons that are solid. You can see this in the climate change debate. When was the last time you refuted Flannery’s hyperbole that is “silly on its face”, for example?
Re near collapse of capitalism, AFAIK they were talking about the ‘collapse’ (meaning severe damage, but not annihilation) of the banking sector. And what did you expect lobbyists for the banking sector to say when pushing for public money to help them out?
Maybe Minchin is taking a bet that the public’s interest in dealing with climate change is likely to erode over time. Rigorous science by nature is often not accessible (in an intellectual sense) to the public and most scientists are not likely to take strong political positions or even bother countering the delusionalists. Contemplating changing ones lifestyle is also uncomfortable and frightening for a lot of people. There is also a lot of confusing about what action can be taken. That is why even a hobbled, half-arsed ETS is better than nothing in my opinion because it will help get people used to thinking in different ways about consumption and efficiency. That is what delusionalists fear most because it will be self reinforcing.
Freelander, another very famous crazy socialist, the one who led the The National Socialist German Workers’ Party to oblivion, thought his actions were a “religious obligation”. Neo Reds (The Greens and The ALP Left) and that crazy Austrian Fenian seem to have more in common than you think.
The interesting thing about Minchin is, as far as I can tell, he hasn’t worked in the private sector for any length of time. He went straight from university to the Liberal Party then into the Senate.
Its amazing the number of ‘free market’ advocates who have spent their entire lives earning huge government salaries, and wouldn’t know a ‘free market’ if it bit them.
Commrades
“confine attention to factual evidence presented by reputable official and scientific sources and to critical analysis of the arguments of the “left:.”
Sieg Heil
Fran – I think your observation @4 points to happy coincidence for the right. They have linked an unpopular government with denialists claims and assert like Planet Janet, that the greens are conspiring with other unknowns to usurp the comfortable middle class reality of money unlimited and consumerism for ever.
Jarah @26
You’re absolutely on the money here. The ends totally justify the means, survival of the corporate giants has no morality attached.
Tony G nails it again. AGW is all false, and the stupid morons who insisted on dying in the record heatwaves in Melbourne this year are just trying to trick us.
These gutless cowards saw their chance, and deliberately snuffed it in the record breaking heat, just to trick us as part of their world-socialist-conspiracy.
As the fires ravage, and the blood and corpses mount, I turn and salute Tony G on not getting sucked in to thinking that any of this has anything to do with AGW.
The other great thing is the incredible feedback due the deniers! In 10 years with the results in people are going to say ‘hey look at this climate. Where are those deniers – I want to give them feedback about it!’.
Tony G,
in your rush to the Godwin, you missed the meaning of that sentence which was to engage in critical analysis of the arguments made by the left.
Even though JQ’s sentence may have been a little ambiguous, I’d put that down to another example of cultural construction overcoming the capacity for critical analysis.
Oh hallelujah. Sean G ejected.
“Comrades” “Seig heil”
C’mon, make up your mind, is he (are we) a communist or a fascist? Geez you’re all over the shop on this one.
@Jarrah
Maybe you missed
“it ought to be possible to make a case that the current crisis does not provide sufficient evidence to abandon the EMH.”
On criticising silly arguments on “my” side of the debate, here’s my reaction to Jeremy Rifkin and David Suzuki
https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2004/04/26/fakes-and-fakirs/
Another problem is that the political and economic debates are still being framed by left vs right. I believe a growing number of people probably don’t fall neatly into either of these old paradigms. How many people work in large unionised factories or run businesses which experience what they perceive as extortion from unions? The politics of the Liberal and Labor parties are going to be increasingly confused with ever smaller numbers of true believers on both sides and more swinging voters in the next generation. It’s a pity we are still lumbered with these parties and their time-warped cold war era supporters. I accept the science and think it’s prudent to mitigate climate change, but I also believe in markets and price signals and the ability of the market to incentivise innovative solutions. The tradegy is that a generation of idealogues is holding progress to ransom with the culture wars whilst other economies have unleashed solutions already. Australia will just be relegated to importing the solutions.
One of the surprises for me from the Four Corners report was the shift in attitude from Ian MacFarlane from arch sceptic to grudging acceptance of the science and his scepticism towards the feasibility of industrial scale Carbon Capture and Storage.
During the Howard government he was Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources from Nov 2001 to Dec 2007. While his views were reflective of those of Department, he gave the impression that he was a reflexive/ideological climate change sceptic along the lines of Nick Minchin and Cory Bernardi. Freed from ministerial briefing notes, he appears to have altered his views. It’s a pity that Carbon Capture isn’t as easy to do as Ministerial Capture.
“As the fires ravage, and the blood and corpses mount, I turn and salute Tony G on not getting sucked in to thinking that any of this has anything to do with AGW.”
Thats right it has to do with the scum that places the life of trees over and above that of humans. Please place fuel no closer than 3 metres from your house so that it burns better and no backburning please as I prefer the smell of burnt flesh.
“C’mon, make up your mind, is he (are we) a communist or a fascist? Geez you’re all over the shop on this one.”
Well you work it out Wilful,
“confine attention to factual evidence presented by reputable official and scientific sources and to critical analysis of the arguments of the “left:.”
And close your mind like our friend above from the Politburo wants.
How true! A great example, is that source of policy truth, the Productivity Commission. For many in that place, it is straight from a publicly funded education at university, to a publicly funded life extolling the virtues of a private market they have no real knowledge of. All they seem to know is that every problem is magically solved in the unfettered market. With such a cloistered existence, they know little about the many imaginative ways that humans have invented to make money at the expense of efficiency and the general public good.
So definitely a communist then. Glad we’ve got that sorted.
What a dill. I suspect that your knowledge of Victoria’s Native Vegetation Retention Framework, controlled buring regime, and patterns of settlements are as far away from reality as your understanding of the science behind anthropogenic climate change.
Freelander has written: “With such a cloistered existence, they know little about the many imaginative ways that humans have invented to make money at the expense of efficiency and the general public good.”
This is broadly true, but there is one government-controlled workforce sector which seems to have no appeal to them at all. That is the government-controlled workforce sector whose members run the risk of getting killed by glory-hungry Viet Cong guerrillas (as in 1965-72) or glory-hungry Afghan guerrillas (as in, like, now).
It occurred to me recently that John Howard, who despite his deafness seems to be a pretty healthy sort of chap, was of exactly the right age to serve militarily in Vietnam against the communists whom he (rightly) deplored. Did he volunteer to defend his country in uniform? Funnily enough he did not. Nor did his (only slightly younger) old mate Gerard Henderson. (BTW, I was eligible neither on fitness grounds nor on age grounds. When Vietnam ended I was all of 11 years old, and later turned out to be physically unfit for service anyway.)
@robert
But Howard was only too happy to send others to die for, what seems to me to have been, no other purpose than providing opportunities for him to appear statemanlike on the media. Many in the public like a good war, as long as they are not the ones fighting it and the ‘homeland’, that is they, are safe. Look at the Falklands. Thatcher did well out of that one.
Freelander, while Thatcher did well politically out of the Falklands, the alternative, to allow some petty despots to take over a bit of your land despite strong opposition from the actual locals, was not conscionable.
Still, alls well that ends well, it was a major failure for the Generals, who subsequently lost power.
Britian must retain its empire, such as it is.
No, Britain must defend the rights of its citizens.
On the politics, I imagine that the scenario that Rudd is trying for – one that leaves him on the verge of being incapacitated by uncontrollable drooling – is that the Wong/McFarlane talks come up with a compromise that Turnbull has to take to the party room, which rejects it by a large majority. The bill goes to the house, Turnbull and McFarlane and a few other Liberals vote with the government but the bulk of the party doesn’t, and Turnbull either steps down to let Minchin or Abbot become leader, is bounced to let Minchin or Abbot become leader, or goes to the election as a weakling who can’t speak for his party. All of these outcomes result in Labor winning a thumping majority and the right coming to power in the Liberal party, and thus explain the actions of both Rudd and Minchin.
And the near-neutering of the bill isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
@wilful
Throughout its empire on which the sun never sets.
@ChrisB
says “Turnbull either steps down to let Minchin or Abbot become leader, is bounced to let Minchin or Abbot become leader”
Chris you paint an apocalypse now scenario…