Standing alone on the bridge.

ManOnBridge 01

It’s at this time of year I run or at least have some fun pretending to manage the Climate Prat of the Year award. It’s become a chance for everyone to have a good laugh at the excesses of assorted climate maniacs. As far as I know, it’s the only award voted on and decided by the skeptic posse.

There’s a light, anarchic feel to it as people have gotten into the swing of it. It’s the sort of asymmetrical, contrarian, out of left field move I’m partial to. Instead of solemnly presenting a fellow skeptic with an award, we present an alarmist with one. Instead of coming with a tidy bit of bunce as a reward, it comes with absolutely nothing but shame and ignominy. Instead of winning recognition as a righteous ecowarrior, you get it for being a complete climate prat.

Like all skeptic bloggers, I don’t have the advantages of fat, well-heeled sponsors, generous grants, a bulging war chest or support staff – there’s only poor old me on my ownsome but I like to think I’m kinda cute. Sure, a little bit ditzy at times, but still kinda cute in a winsome way.

Anyway, all those missing advantages are just tangible resources and in the tradition of always working with what you’ve actually got to hand, which in our case is nothing much of anything, the Pratties deploys an intangible but deadly weapon only we seem to possess – a sense of humour.

I really like reading the witty and sometimes heartfelt comments posted by the readers during the competition and enjoy writing the two blog pieces it necessarily entails; the kickoff and final result articles. I say enjoy writing them because in my experience of all the different types of article you can write, humour is by far and away the toughest. Imagination, content, cadence, delivery – all have to be perfect and one clunky word in the wrong position can derail a whole paragraph.

It’s an unforgiving gig. You either make them laugh or you don’t, it takes to the air and flies or it crashes to the ground and burns. A string of strained, polite titters eventually trailing off into silence is a disaster. I wouldn’t be unique in that opinion. Witness the number of heavyweight straight actors who will always point out the comedian they love, admire and usually can’t wait to do an imitation of them at the drop of a hat.

You can strut around the stage doing your best Prince of Denmark effort and people afterward having an after theatre off Shaftesbury avenue meal can have a good meaty discussion of whether it was brilliant or not and there are lots of places for your ego to hide, but stand up on stage before hundreds of people trying to make them laugh and running the risk of being greeted by nothing but complete silence is only for the truly brave. You succeeded or you didn’t – and it all happens that very moment in public and under the glare of the spotlight.

The Pratties came about at the end of what was not a good year for skeptics but should have been a better one, and you could sense it in the blogosphere in the run up to that Christmas.

To digress, I once watched an interview of an elderly gentleman who was a USMC veteran of the battle for the island of Guadalcanal in the Pacific. What was supposed to be a few week’s easy rollup of the Japanese garrison became three months of pure hell on Earth. He told a story about sitting down with his exhausted comrades, leaning with their backs against the side of a stone causeway. All of a sudden, a Japanese soldier appeared out of nowhere atop of it and suicided by pulling the pin on a grenade he was clutching to his stomach.

It blew him in two and the trousers off the bottom half, which spun up into the air and landed naked arse up hanging over the knees of a terrified marine. “Jesus, Mary and Joseph, am I that badly hit?” he screamed in horror, staring at what he thought was his own ass just inches from his nose.

For the next ten minutes, a whole squad of US marines were what’s termed combat ineffective as they laughed uncontrollably in the midst of what was arguably the most brutal battle of the whole Pacific campaign.

That’s the practical value of humour and in a milder but equivalent sense, the origin of the Pratties. Sometimes when things are pretty grim, we really just need a laugh, no matter whether it’s rough, silly or even perhaps tasteless.

Scanning through a year’s worth of this and other blogs for some prats I could have some fun with in the kickoff article, I couldn’t help but notice it’s been an unusually vicious year if you were even a mild-mannered warmist working in the field, never mind a full-blown skeptic. The monster is slowly expiring but in a lot of ways, we’ve moved well into the anger phase of its spiral down to political extinction.

A lot of people have been ganged up on by anonymous cabals of nothing more than vicious thugs hiding safely in supposedly respectable organisations. People have lost posts, tenure, jobs and even been forced out of climate research altogether. As I read through it all, it made me progressively more angry and the thought occurred that instead of the Pratties, I should be running the Climate Bastard of the Year award.

On reflection, that wouldn’t be a good idea at this time, because by automatically but understandably coming out in support of the victims of the aforesaid bastards, we are actually intensifying the pressure on them and without their permission. The very real danger for them is that they become a football kicked around in the no-man’s-land of the climate wars for a week or two with consequences that last a lot longer than that. Of course, some of these McCarthyite purges of climate science become public knowledge and are therefore eligible for fair comment by the skeptic community.

Even then, I believe skeptic commentary should bear in mind that we are dealing with what is essentially a fundamentalist creed and woe betide any individual showing even the smallest divergence from any of its central tenets, especially if they become a cause célèbre for the skeptic blogosphere. The alarmists are a venal and unforgiving bunch. If the individual gives us the nod, I’ll be riding to their support with the rest of the cavalry, but apart from open scandals, that’s the only time I saddle up in such events.

At the end of the day, we are actually dealing with someone’s career and livelihood, and have no innate right to ride roughshod through that for our own purposes. We’re better than that and should have the forbearance to leave that arrogant level of violent intolerance to the alarmists.

After a couple of decades in the fight, we’ve hung on in through the bad old days and are not just still in it, but are finally gaining substantial ground. We’ve got some real rather than cardboard heroes in our ranks. Pick a reputation you like or a person; Lindzen, Moore, Steyn, Vahrenholt, Ridley, Soon, Montford, Curry, Bellamy, Nova, Dyson, Watts, Bengtsson and Verdier, to name but a few. In the case of Verdier, there does seem to be some push back by ordinary people in reaction to his dismissal, which is actually overshadowing the coverage of COP21 in the French media.

Mostly, they’ve all been long ago excommunicated by the church of climatology and are being shunned by the church elders. They each fall somewhere along the spectrum of doubt in the absolute teachings of the one true church, but such nuances of dissent are irrelevant to the latter-day Torquemadas of the climate inquisition – they’ve all been branded heretics and are treated accordingly by the church.

I do not agree with all of their positions on various issues nor sometimes with the efficacy of their suggested ways forward. Those are merely differences of degree but what is beyond doubt is that they’ve all put their head above the parapet and attracted some ferocious fire. One way or another, they’ve all paid a price in career, grants, money, advancement and social exclusion from what used to be some of their peer groupings. All that damage, and for no substantial benefit.

As always, the real question to ask is why.

Dependent on their chosen field of endeavour, I’m sure you’d get slightly different answers but I think the common reason is a refusal to accept on nothing more than faith things which they can plainly see are nonsense. Individually, they might believe in saints and angels, the tooth fairy, Father Christmas and love at first sight, but when it comes to their discipline, a very definite line is drawn between how you’d like things to work and how they actually do. They cannot swallow what amounts to dogma that runs against the facts, no matter how popular it is with the madding crowd.

Simply insisting something is true in the face of evidence to the contrary will not make it so. Neither will bullying, but intimidating dissenters into silence is the acceptable fall back position of alarmists, but some people refuse to be cowed.

They won’t recant and they simply won’t go away.

You have to pay respect to such people for not only refusing to compromise the integrity of their profession, but also for being prepared to stand up in public and endure the outrageous slings and arrows of some powerful and pretty vile individuals. They are a select band, a band of brothers and sisters.

Much as I value them, there is another and much bigger group out there, who are not what could be termed celebrity skeptics, and they are my personal heroes. I know them and move among them keeping my peace.

They have even less of a support network, if any at all, and yet they resist. Their names are not known and probably never will be, their battles are ones of silent fortitude against overwhelming odds and commence every morning at the start of each working day. They can’t win, they know that, but they resist anyway as they’re slowly driven backwards.

They are akin to lone warriors holding back the armies of unreason by finding choke points to slow it down. A narrow pass, the only fordable point on a great river or the only bridge over a deep chasm. They stand and fight a delaying action for as long as possible against the advancing hordes before being forced to make the necessary retreat back to their next position.

The abiding hope they have is that somewhere behind them, time is being bought to form an army of reason which is capable of taking on the barbarian hordes.

They are the warriors without a name, who every day make a solitary stand on a bridge somewhere.

There’s nobody out there running a Climate Hero of the Year award, and there should be, but in the absence of it, this article is an acknowledgement of you.

©Pointman

Related articles by Pointman:

I may have signed my actual death warrant.

It’s not rocket science, it’s a matter of conscience.

The Age of Unenlightenment.

The difficult kind.

Click for a list of other articles.

Comments
21 Responses to “Standing alone on the bridge.”
  1. johnrmcd says:

    Pointman,
    There is a piece of music, written in French, and sung (both in French and English) by Leonard Cohen (assisted by a sexy voiced French/French Canadian lass). The name, in English, is The Partisan.
    Your mini-essay brought it immediately to mind.

  2. Old Rooster says:

    “The final test of truth is ridicule. Very few dogmas have ever faced it and survived. Huxley laughed the devils out of the Gadarene swine. Not the laws of the United States but the mother-in-law joke brought the Mormons to surrender. Not the horror of it but the absurdity of it killed the doctrine of infant damnation. But the razor edge of ridicule is turned by the tough hide of truth. How loudly the barber-surgeons laughed at Huxley—and how vainly! What clown ever brought down the house like Galileo? Or Columbus? Or Darwin? . . . They are laughing at Nietzsche yet . . .”

    HL Mencken: “On Truth” in Damn! A Book of Calumny (1918), p. 53

  3. One of your very best articles, Pointman. Thanks.

  4. mike fowle says:

    Indeed, well said, as usual. I do wonder sometimes why alarmists who comment on blogs or on newspaper articles on line are so often simply obnoxious.

    • Geoff Sherrington says:

      And the women are so bloody.
      Repulsive to imagine a cross-breeding raid to mix the gene pool, old style, taking even their horses let alone the female breeders.
      Ever seen a photo of the 20ish Angela Merkel with her tank repellent friendly smile? Lost her studded boot on the way to the ball.
      Geoff.

    • Clive Hoskin says:

      Their comments are obnoxious because they are from a “Lefty”

  5. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Tablet dropped ugly from the end of line one.

  6. Pointman says:

    Yeah well, the original comment and the follow up were both pretty ugly TBF.

    Pointman

  7. Kevin Lohse says:

    “That’s the practical value of humour and in a milder but equivalent sense, the origin of the Pratties. Sometimes when things are pretty grim, we really just need a laugh, no matter whether it’s rough, silly or even perhaps tasteless.” That’s squaddie humour, Pointy, and only those of us who have been there can understand it.

  8. Graeme No.3 says:

    The slightest deviation from the dogma leads to abuse and casting out of the heretic. Just look at Bjorn Lomborg, hardly a sceptic in that he accepts the projections of the IPCC yet for doubting the efficiency of useless and expensive symbolic “action” is violently set upon whenever and wherever he appears. 2 australian “universities” rejected the idea of their holy turf being used, not by him but by people who might at some future date appear in the same room as him.
    Such fanaticism may seem irresistible at first, but carries with it the seeds of its own destruction. With every believer striving to be “holier than thou” the rise of schisms are inevitable.

    Anecdotal: Allied prisoner of the communists during the Korean war was subjected to propaganda by one of the policing officials. Instead of accepting or rejecting the dogmatic line he pointed at the nearest similar official within earshot and said “but Comrade … told me the opposite yesterday”. The 2 officials took off in a race to be the first to denounce the other for deviationism.
    Just a thought that promoting disagreements amongst the gullible but fanatical will direct their energies to the more desirable aim of destroying themselves.

  9. Blackswan says:

    Pointman,

    Thank you for so beautifully acknowledging the unsung efforts of Realists who fight the good fight every day.

    Frankly, I’d be happier with the Climate Bastardry Awards because some bastards are just too dangerous to be flippantly ridiculed as a Prat.

    Oh Bummer would head that list.

    The Founding Fathers must have foreseen an Oh Bummer on their horizon and limited the Presidency to two terms to limit the damage that a subversive can do to the Republic. Let’s hope their Constitution can be salvaged out of the economic and social wreckage he’s leaving behind him.

    On the other hand, nobody could describe Tim Flannery as anything other than a Prat … a palaeontologist who wrote a thesis on dinosaur scat. It’s impossible to pick up anything he says or does by the clean end.

    The Pratties are a great annual event – looking forward to the results.

  10. Graeme No.3 says:

    Pointy,
    while you’ve had fun running this contest I should mention the darker side.
    Ever since his minders decided that Prince Wingnutti should not be allowed to handle any tool sharper than his mind, HRH has been besotted with the subject of Climate Change. One day you could answer your doorbell to find 2 Beefeaters with axes.
    As for POTUS, there is no evidence that he has any sense of proportion, common or otherwise. At the very least you could be subjected to a tax audit looking for those vast sums flowing into your coffers from Big Oil. You and I know that would involve a horde of public servants travelling to exotic locations such as the Seychelles or the Cayman Islands but not in the hurricane season. Nor would you want to go to other places such Switzerland or Austria in the skiing season. Of course there report will be issued the day after he leaves office saying it couldn’t find anything but was sure it was happening – sort of like an IPCC Report. If POTUS becomes frustrated by the lack of evidence he is likely to order a drone strike, although given the erratic nature of his foreign policy this is likely to destroy a vegetable plot at Highgate farm.
    As for Montana Wildhack I must have missed David Attenborough’s documentary as I didn’t realise there were hacks in Montana, let alone feral ones. Anyway what does a hack look like? I imagine a stubborn, long eared not particularly intelligent animal that brays a lot. If you spy one in your front garden take a firm line – I suggest the 12 bore.
    Nor am I keen on the Pope, although suggestions that he can have you struck by a bolt from heaven have been disproved for hundreds of years now. But don’t step in front of the PopeMobile.
    That leaves poor Peter. You do realise, don’t you, that if Wadhams doesn’t win a bit of fame that he will claim it as proof that the sceptics are all out to do him down.

  11. dadodeaf says:

    But some celebrity skeptics worth celebrating – though a truly sad account of protecting legislative “decorum”.

    http://www.steynonline.com/7351/markey-mark

  12. Another Ian says:

    Pointman

    Thanks for that.

    From one of the background nodes in this stouch

  13. mc says:

    Entertaining and encouraging, thanks Pointman.

  14. farmerbraun says:

    Some of you may recall that , “back in the day” , someone used to regularly post “Now is not the time to give up”.

    It never will be.

  15. Stargazer says:

    A Merry Christmas to one and all. Please take a quiet moment to reflect on the goodness we celebrate this time of year. Let the battle wait just a little.

  16. bushkid says:

    Very hard to pick between the first three nominations. Any one would be a worthy recipient.

    Heartfelt thanks to Pointman for another year of pointed and pithy posts, and for coordinating the POTY awards. A happy Christmas to you and your loved ones, and may 2016 see a little more progress and a lot more satire and healthy ridicule of what would be humorous if it wasn’t so serious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: