A day ago, it looked as if Malcolm Turnbull could survive at least long enough to implement his deal with Labor, a deal that would deliver a drastically weakened emissions trading scheme with massive overcompensation of every possible big business interest. It would be marvellous to report that a popular uprising against rent-seeking lobby groups changed all this. But, in fact, Turnbull’s leadership has been rendered untenable by a Liberal Party base, and commentariat, that has entered a state of collective insanity in which the most absurd conspiracy theories are taken as a starting point for reasoning. Over time on this blog, I’ve seen even seemingly sensible commenters of a libertarian or conservative cast of mind succumb to this tribalist lunacy. The handful who have resisted (hi, Tokyo Tom) are increasingly regarded as “beyond the pale”.
From delusional beliefs on climate science follow equally delusional beliefs on political strategy, symbolised by the 37 votes for a Kevin Andrews spill yesterday and by the apparent certainty that, assuming Turnbull holds his ground, a majority of Liberals will vote for the delusionist candidate, Tony Abbott
Amazingly, even the editorialist at the Oz, whose columnists have uniformly promoted delusional conspiracy theories recognises the hopelessness of such a stance. as the Oz says
In truth, there is nowhere for Coalition members to go on this issue, other than to support the amended and improved bill and claim as their work the concessions they have wrung from the government. The introduction of a cap-and-trade ETS has been bipartisan policy for more than two years and it is supreme folly for rebels within the Liberals to believe they can go to an election as the destroyers, rather than the enablers, of such a scheme.
There may be room for the Nationals to argue against an ETS in the bush, but it is politically naive to think that voters in the inner-city areas of Melbourne and Sydney would welcome such regressive policies from their MPs. How exactly would Mr Abbott, for example, propose campaigning on this issue in seats such as North Sydney and Wentworth, where Liberal voters are determined to see action on climate change? Having a bob each way on the issue will not go down well with voters who have followed the debate and who expect, as Mr Turnbull says, responsible political parties to take responsible action
There is no reasoning with lunatics, and my attempts to do so have gone nowhere. At this point, we just have to hope that they will remain, as they are at present, in the minority, and that they can be kept as far as possible from political power.
There’s no guarantee that sanity will prevail. As the conman in Huckleberry Finn says ‘Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?” But, as I recall, he ends up tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
John Quiggin 
Is not what is happening in the liberal party, an excellent example of what is known in military circles as “blowback”? The denialists, having sown their nonsense and doubt, have scored a perfect hit on their own party, destroying its electoral chances for years. And now HM Queen has stepped in for action. So where do those ultra-loyalist right-wing nuts go now? Was the script for this written by the Monty Python team?
To some extent this is my opinion also. It is absolutely impossible to engage in constructive dialogue with these people, for the reason that they have expended a great deal of time and effort to put themselves well beyond the reach of rational argument.
But I also worry about completely disengaging and just hoping they don’t grow in numbers. Denialism is clearly a very attractive position for many people. They don’t want to face uncomfortable facts – they would much prefer if these things were not true. And there’s a well-funded noise machine out there to give them ready-made contrarian opinions, so they don’t have to go to the trouble of reasoning out their own views. Not having to think + getting to ignore any reality they don’t like = irresistible temptation for many folk.
I do think we should not be conversing with them as though they present a credible alternative position, for the very same reason that historians don’t engage holocaust deniers, and biologists don’t engage creationists, in this manner: it would present the appearance, to undecided but tempted people, that you can be taken seriously by adopting a delusional stance. Ridicule is more likely to be useful. It signals to the undecided that there is a cost to adopting a delusional belief system, namely, a loss of esteem and respect.
Having said this, it bothers me very greatly that there is so little we can do to persuade people to think straight. A failure to stem the tide of self-interested irrationalism is likely to doom us all.
@Sarah Palin Fan
I agree with a prior remark here. Maybe it is time we stopped engaging with the troll denialists and obstructionists to progress like the one I here address. I propose the new code to everyone else
DNEDDT
It stands for do not engage denialist delusionist trolls.
Enough is enough. It is time we stopped the conversation and let them go off and nurse their idiocy their own time.
Grumpy now. Very grumpy.
This current Federal Opposition are pack of ignoramuses worse than Joh and the “Nash-a-nulls” at the height of their lunacy. Who would have thought it possible? It’s hilarious rather than tragic because as JQ says it actually gifts the country some chance of getting a better CPRS sooner.
In some ways I think the “split” in the Liberals is more about evidence based policy vs belief based policy (to be very polite) than it is about climate change. Climate change is just the trigger. It galls me that Abbott and co are presenting themselves as standing on principle and much of the press is swallowing this. What they are standing on is their perceived right to operate without principle. We now see the ugliness of the Howard regime, its bald faced selfishness and ruthlessness. For this right-wing club, truth and objectively where only tools that could be used (but less so than lies and stereotypes) to gain personal political advantage (which was dressed up as political strategy for the cause of Liberalism). They are bereft of morals, compassion and now it seems, common sense. The issue of climate change demands a rational approach. It requires, almost by definition, an evidence based approach. It is little wonder that Abbott, Minchin and co are fighting with all they have got. They are actually fighting for survival because the world in which the politics of lies and fear kept them in power is shifting. They sense this but can’t respond any other way than they are doing. There’s nothing else in the tool box.
@PeterMc
says “We now see the ugliness of the Howard regime, its bald faced selfishness and ruthlessness.”
Exactly. Thats why we shouldnt give people on the very same mission a right of reply. I have had enough, more than enough of the bald faced selfishness being paraded before us as some sort of hideous deformed ideal to which we should all bow down, worship and aspire to….
They can go jump IMHO. But my HO counts for many IMHOs out there….let them (the bastardry in the LP) go there to a DD at their own peril. Just do it. We, the oppsition, will slaughter you and the blood of your B******t will run in the streets of your defeat.
I hope they are wiped off the face of the planet… and flushed down the broken down remnants of the nearest public utility.
Im still in very inflated grumpy mode. This isnt pretty, I admit, but just try me – any one of you neoliberal idiots… including you… “Sarah Palin fan”.
Where have you been all my life?
What a glorious being is Alice.
Alice, I am not 100% sure what a troll is but I’m pretty sure I’m not one.
I have posted on blogs less than ten times in my life and all except once was on this blog.
I read JQ at least twice a week because I think this is a great blog.
I originally came here some years back because I saw JQ quoted as saying with respect to global warming “The science is settled”
He never convinced me, but I come regularly and I like his style and the comments.
I never had the urge to comment.
Today I have to comment because the situation has become ridiculous.
The blogosphere has erupted on AGW. One week.
All JQ can say is “The lunatics have taken over the asylum”
“The liberals are a lunatic fringe”
I feel obliged to ask who is in denial?
Just tell me this one question…did not that bastard Howard use our income tac dollars in a television ad campaign to scare the c**p out of everyone about nterest rates ( the bastard did it and used up a small fortune).
Well I dont mind one bit Rudd using the same tactics on climate change. Freaking well go for it.
Show the huge icesheets collapsing into the sea. Show the pollution everywhere. Show the crap plastics in the ocean. Show the crops falling over. Show anything. There is more than enough shock footage out there already. Use it. Show it. Use my my income tax to shame these bastards, and shame them and shame them into their own political graves with my full permission.
Just do it.
@Philomena
I dont know where Ive been…Im just lost, given up hope on decent untainted government in this country, and pissed off like a lot of people over this climate change issue, and other b*ll. they want to peddle while they collect their donations.
I saw Rudd speak once and he has let me down compared to his rhetoric. Macklin has gone strange compared to her rhetoric and let me down , Gillard has gone strange compared to her rhetoric over workchoices and let me down.
Who the hell got to them? Who is really running the show here? I say we lift the requirement for public liability insurance, let speakers speak in the domain again and we might actually get politicians we want. Not these fully funded fully co-erced mouthpieces for big business in this country.
Any of you libertarians or rightwing fruitloops out there…dont even try me. Im pissed off enough at current govts and dont need your lunatic remedies, of no remedies at all, on top. In fact Im not speaking to you so dont bother with the usual BS respose – That post above was right. No engagement. None. DNEDDT.
I think that Alice’s expectations have not been met.
To put it mildly.
I wont say “join the real world” or “mugged by reality” because I dont want to be labelled as “collateral damage”
Alice
maybe you should read Rudd’s recent speech on climate change. I thought it was good. See:
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1167
According to Turnbull he has Hockey’s support thank the lord. Then if either Turnbull or Hockey assume the leadership…its time they hunted down and erasde forever the backstabber Minchin (firstly) and that dope Abbott (for lettimg Minchin inflate his ego like a dimwit puppet).
The LP need to do the right thing and just move on (and keep trying to do the right thing rather than just win govt and secure their own shabby ambitious positions like Abott is trying pathetically to do – dead man walking).
Its so simple. Its (the solution is) staring them in the face. Its amazing how clear political strategy is from the outside….
@rog
Huh?
PeterMc, come next Tuesday Turnbull must give the neo-conservative illywackers a good dressing down for the numbskulls are literary destroying Australia’s reputation on the international scene. Bloody drongos.
What is a Troll exactly then?
I tried to post explaining why I didn’t think I was one but it got cut.
No my comment didn’t get cut, sorry. Iam an amateur.
Michael of Summer Hill :
there’s plenty of competition internationally for being a bloody drongo – just look at the Republicans!
@PeterMc
Peter – speeches are one thing but you and I both know, after the libs mauled it, chewed it and regurgitated it as a pile of whatever on the kerb, the ETS legislation is now a half baked ineffectual dud. I dont blame Rudd for this (poor bastard had to sign a deal with fruit loops) but I blame Gillard for half baked promises on workchoices and Macklin for oppressive welfare changes.
Whats the hell is going on? How hard could it be exactly to unwind the lying rodents changes? Thats what they are there for. Enough with the easy easy slowly slowly …just get on with it and undo it (all of it). Thats what they (Lab) got voted in on a clear (crystal) mandate to do – erase JH and consign him to the dustbin of history. Forever. Do it cleanly. Dont compromise. No prisoners. Whats wrong with that?. They got their votes. The electorate wants the goods.
PeterMc, I know what you mean but not all Republicans are lunatics when it comes to global warming & climate change ie Schwarzenegger.
SPF, god bless her, is a tyro. This is a wondrous thing and god willing she’ll not fail to come forward with her contribution.
A Troll is an individual who deliberately disrupts threads with abuse, filibustering and general nuisancing, rather than a person who wants to discuss issues in good faith and they are the bane of blogsites. People only interested in getting their personal agendas up, angry cranks and so forth.
It is true that some of us are a bit more irritable than usual with both sides of politics; the last few weeks have antagonised us, because we (largely) think they should get on with what they’re supposed to do, given that we pay them a fat wage to concern themselves with issues that face this country, rather than wasting time stabbing each other in the back, plotting, feuding, scheming and drama queening.
Would like to know your take on the thread topic; never be afraid to say what you think just because the debate seems a bit robust. You go for it,
like Alice does.!
@Sarah Palin Fan
Thats completely obvious by your name. Do a wiki on troll and dont act as dumb as Sarah Palin and try to get away with it here.
@paul walter
OK Paul – give the troll carte blanche but you will be sorry!
@paul walter
Paul – it was also you and that Macklin quote that inflated me today (Im keeping within one fraction of an inch of a violation – because I am not yet using expletives) – but Ive had enough of trolls. The only reason I can be so mean is because I actually mean what I say.
The Pallid (Palin) admirers just cant compete with honesty and sincerity. You should know that. I dont fall for this “oh I am amateur” bs. Its like “oooh help me – I dont know why my car has a flat tyre”.
Paul – be generous and open minded then and lets see what it reveals later.
Alice
Our parents toil’d to make a home ā
Hard grubbin ’twas an’ clearin’ ā
They wasn’t crowded much with lords
When they was pioneering.
But now that we have made the land
A garden full of promise,
Old Greed must crook ‘is dirty hand
And come ter take it from us.
So we must fly a rebel flag,
As others did before us,
And we must sing a rebel song
And join in rebel chorus.
We’ll make the tyrants feel the sting
O’ those that they would throttle;
They needn’t say the fault is ours
If blood should stain the wattle!
Henry Lawson
My apologies again. I checked Wiki.
someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
I thought a troll was a sort of cruising disruptive planted “other side ” pugulist to everybody on the blogmeisters side.
I admit I was , for the last two days, trying to attract attention to what I consider JQ’s denial of the happenings in the blogosphere with the science and the politics this week.
On consideration, my behaviour was within the definition of troll.
I apologise for that.
I think I said what wanted to anyway.
And now I realise I could have done it better. And not been a troll.
A couple of observations.
Firstly I like the title of the thread. Very apt in some ways.
But its a little misleading because these lunatics are, at least officially, not in control of the asylum.
They had control of it for 11 plus years until 2 years ago.
Essentially the same people, with a few minor variations in personnel.
In fact part of the reason why are they misbehaving so badly at the moment is that they are no longer occupying the managerial offices.
Remember, they are the same mob who were, past tense, in charge for 11+ years.
Terrifying thought isn’t it?
What we went through!
Secondly, Alice.
Well said.
In general and particularly #17 above.
I find this is an interesting point. I read somewhere sometime that the three key ingredients of a politician are a gregarious personality, a chunk of idealism, and sizable ego. Two of three aren’t enough. You need to get people to commit to you, you need to have some ideas to inspire (yourself and) others, and you need an powerful underlying assumption that you’re right and things will be better if it’s done your way not someone else’s.
Evidence-based policy is an anathema to this Political Ego, it makes the protagonist redundant. Science transcends the individual scientist who creates it: in the end, it is the evidence that speaks. The humility of science feels like humiliation to the Political Ego and is resisted, like death perhaps.
I’m not sure what can be done about this. Ideally, the idea that a few untutored politicians aided by handful of aging journos could possibly beat a massive peer-reviewed scientific effort would be seen as some kind of obviously crazy mysticism, but that hasn’t happened. Maybe a bit more contemptuous laughter is the way forward…
@Jim Birch
Jim, some good points, you get the dilemma but I think your taking it too far. There is a lot of evidence based policy being done everyday, its just the contentious stuff that makes the headlines. I don’t think its necessarily an anathema to politicians. The problem for the conservatives is that the key things that define their world view can no longer be sustained with belief alone. For them science is only relevant (in terms of world view) when it can make you a better mouse trap (or bomb) but what we need now is science leading and defining our world view. The “spillers” though are not struggling with this so much as the fact that these changes threaten their means of political persuasion. Their brand of political smoke and mirrors just isn’t working anymore. At this stage their still madly polishing the mirrors and blowing out more smoke but at some point they will realise that no-ones taking them seriously anymore. Besides its not surprising that the denialists would get desperate in the lead up to Copenhagen when its starting to emerge that some serious negotiations are about to take place.
@Alice
Well if you read Rudd’s speech you’ll see that he largely agrees with you. There is however the small matter that “we” elected a non progressive senate and that is precisely why the can’t “get on with it” as you say.
I was trying to hunt down just how many FOI “request” thingies the CRU were getting. Gavin Schmidt said in a response to a post on RealClimate that they had received more than 100 (sorry, no direct link, but search for “100” at a guess). Another source, albeit an uncorroborated source states that they received 58 FOIs in 5 days! In fact, that is so jaw-dropping that once my toe stops hurting, I will add another two !! Apparently this 58 in 5 days had a bit to do with words like “vexatious” popping up. In Oz we have the notion of a “serial pest”, typically someone who almost compulsively turns up at major events, eg Tennis or Test Cricket, and disrupts the game by running on to the field, etc. People have been arrested and convicted for being a serial pest. Anyone organising 58 FOIs in 5 days would be looking at trouble if they did that here in Oz š
Now the 58 FOIs in 5 days is probably what gave the game away as to who was behind it. A look over at a certain website, by a person whose surname doesn’t not start with an “M”, reveals how they just happened to let all and sundry know he was going to do an FOI, and here you are. Seems that some bloggers decided all by themselves (Hah!) to also do FOIs. If you don’t know who I mean by M, then you are incredibly fortunate.
@Alice
Obama’s team have told climate scientists that findings must be “grounded in political reality” whilst scientists argue that “political reality must be grounded in physical reality”
@rog
Rog, if this silly conspiracy theory were true, why is that Bush’s attempts to control science (and he tried hard) failed so miserably.
rog@#29 said:
Any evidence for this? His science advisor is a Nobel Prize winner and prominent advocate of climate change mitigation.
President Obama’s main political problem is an overload of political problems inherited from President Nimrod. The gigantic back-log of Republican mess has forced Obama into a janitor’s role in most cases, spending most of his time pumping the bilges just to keep the ship afloat.
So Green issues tend to be put on the back-burner. In MAR 09 I argued that Obama’s priorities were priorities “enlarging the welfare state and reducing the warfare/wealthfare state”. I am afraid that the saving the “worldfare” state has to take last preference to the concerns of the wealthfare, welfare and warfare states.
But eventually the pain of climate change will force the US to take action, probably too little too late. At least the PRC, who suffer more immediate damage, seem to be waking up.
Richard Feynyman
@Donald Oats
Actually, Donald, I always liked Peter Hoare.
Donalds – if they routinely published their data and methods they would not suffer so many FOI requests. Where their data is subject to copyright they ought to provide sufficient description of where the raw data comes from (ie what version and from where should you request if you want the same data) how it was subsequently filtered and manipulated to arrive at particular conclusions. There should be sufficent details such that others can fully reproduce charts and the like. Saying I got the data from XYZ isn’t sufficient to allow others to reproduce your results.
JPSobel gets it right in this comment at RealClimate:-
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1994#comment-145144
@Donald Oats
Don…M? M…M..M & Ms mmm..I dont know?.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Terje – thats nonsense ” if they routinely published their data and methods they would not suffer so many FOI requests.”
That volume of FOIs is a concerted organised deliberate planned snowstorm of FOIs on CRU. A disgusting media frenzied whip up of delusionist rednecks who have probably never seen an FOI request form before in their lives.
A media and blogosphere incited pack attack and nothing more.
Alice – so it’s a conspiracy then. Who is behind the conspiracy. Is it the Institute of Delusionist Rednecks?
@Sarah Palin Fan
I’m confident I have never used the phrase “the science is settled”. According to this essay, there are no known examples of its use, except in the context of delusionist attacks. It is, in fact, yet another fabrication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/The_science_is_settled
Compare “politically correct”.
Talking of trolls, Ken N’s comments come across to me as those of a “concern troll”. See denfs 2 and 3
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll
Ken’s alleged concerns about partisanship, choice of language etc might be better applied at, say, Catallaxy.
@jquiggin
Noticed also JQ. The appearance of “patrician style considered authority” in the comments dont hide the intent. Thats why I havent bothered to respond to any of them.
An interesting poll. Especially question 2.
Click to access 945513-galaxy-poll.pdf
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Its not even a conspiracy Terje. Its a whipped up disorganised rabble of disgruntled rednecks. You can incite mad crowds Terje and thats all it is. To give it the label of conspiracy is more apt for institutions like Hearland. What they do is a conspiracy to mislead and deceive people. There is quite a difference.
You know damn well what I mean about CRU receiving 158 FOI requests in one week so dont give me that garbarge about “if they published their data they wouldnt get so many”. Its a blogosphere media incited snowstorm of FOIs on a decent scientific organisation and scientists worldwide who are quietly going about their business, by utterly decrepit lunatics. Shame Terje. The madness of crowds.
@Alice McIntyre.
@Alice Just to correct you, the claim is 58, not 158.
Regards, Don.
@jquiggin
JQ I don’t believe I am or have ever been a troll of any colour or shape.
I raised your misuse of language because I am concerned about mental illness and the way it is dealt with in the media and I am a supporter of SANE.
I had hoped that if I drew your attention to the matter you would find a less offensive metaphor for the LP debacle. But as it seems you are not interested in SANE’s suggestions, there is no point in going on.
ken you are in dange of seriously alienating a relatively well educated and sympathetic section of the commun ity when you refust to consider and respond adequately to points raised concerning your claim.
If you are only going to grumble and try to pickholes rather than engage in a meaningful way with people, you jeopardie your own cause thru obstinacy.
This seems to be at odds with your earlier comment where you said “volume of FOIs is a concerted organised deliberate planned snowstorm”.
So is it “organised” or “disorganised”. Is it just “rabble” or is it “concerted”.
As to the redneck reference I’m not sure what to make of it. It is clearly a perjorative term but what the heck do you mean by it?
Ken N, I’m not referring only to this comment, but to the whole tenor of your commentary here. Last post, it was an accusation of political partisanship (for a party I rarely vote for, as it happens). Before that, something similar regarding my position as an academic. From now on, please confine your comments to substantive points, rather than concerns of this kind.