Servant of the Wank

“global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem.”

Wow, he actually got one thing right in the piece!

But … but … Lubos Motl loves Vaclav Klaus, and Lubos Motl is a string theorist. He can’t be wrong.

Why, sir, have you sent my world crashing down around my ears?

And right up to date with the NASA administrator dude who claims it’s “arrogant” to worry about global warming because future generations might like it. I assume that a PR firm actually wrote most of this and Klaus put his name to it. Classy.

Henry, I believe you’ve been saving up that Wankh image for just such an occasion…

Trust me, they still make them like that.

Great Vance ref.

Mr. Henry,

Somewhat off-topic, but have you wondered about how one would go about translating Jack Vance ? It doesn’t seem possible.

P.S., Hooray for Vaclav Klaus ! This greenery really is the return of the communists, only this time they aren’t under an obligation to show any benefits for human beings – one must suffer for the sake of the environment, and like it ! Its the same kind of power-mad personalities behind it.

Why does Klaus keep getting elected?

Since Mr. Klaus and his supporters in this thread manage to avoid proffering any single argument of substance concerning the actual scientific nitty-gritty of climate change, I guess it’s fair to go off on a bit of a tangent.

Mr. Klaus is not an uncommon occurrence in the countries of the former communist block. Just before the collapse of the regime, they were tenured social scientists, benefiting from the relative leniency afforded by the ailing communist apparatus to write lengthy papers on the combination of the insights of Marxism with some elements of the market economy, or revisiting St. Augustine as a subversive liminal figure on the threshold of nascent European feudalism, or what have you. Only after the Berlin wall had fallen did they crawl out of the woodwork to tell everybody WHAT. VICTIMS. THEY. HAD. BEEN.

His attacks on communism when he’s touring the West (the accolades he used to get in his salad days are becoming rarer, BTW) are particularly rich if one considers that, as a bona fide demagogue, he has not been averse to making conciliatory gestures towards communist die-hards when politicking at home. No wonder that he is keen to identify new Big Threats like the EU, tree huggers, etc.

The Wankh, indeed.

His “libertarian” nationalism is basically a reaction to the views of his bête noire, the other Vaclav, Havel, whom he is known to envy and detest.

BTW, that picture of a Wankh is all screwy. They are mandarin-like amphibians, sitting around and chiming unfathomably. And yes, the Planet-of-Adventure series is teh shiznit. The scholar of popular culture can certainly do worse than study all the “archetypes” of the Alien/Other contained therein. My personal favourites are the Green Chasch. Nothing beats a bunch of telepathic barbarians with fuck-all swords who are so tough that even their technologically advanced cousins fear them.

Perhaps someone should tell him that Maggie Thatcher got worried about it in the last phase of her premiership. After all, his career has been based on the principle of being “The European It’s OK To Like If You’re a Tory”..

VK’s second last bullet: Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction.

All is not only for the best in the best of all possible worlds, it will continue to be so.

Oh well, I was ranting a bit and I’m a soft-core troll i.e. I often blow smoke out of my arse. I was young at the time (13) and Romanian (I still am), so I’ll defer to your superior knowledge. The figure of the turncoat academic does exist, however.

And the fact remains that he has made liberal use of broad-brush attacks and borderline slanderous rhetoric against people who suffered under communism far more than he did. And the fact remains that he has made conciliatory gestures towards the “base” of supporters of the old regime.

And maybe it’s just me, but his brand of “libertarianism” does not strike me as too credible, given his corrupt antics and the rabid nationalist streak that runs through it.

And he’s generally a cunt with a chip on his shoulder and an inferiority complex who tries, basically, too fucking hard. How many “books” i.e. compendia of his speeches has he churned out?

And this article is fluffy, Panglossian, grandstanding ham-handed crap. Very in character.

So yeah, I stick my foot in my mouth every so often. Changes the verdict on Mr. Klaus not one bit.

Incidentally, I was told the apocriphal details about Mr. Klaus’s Werdegang by a good friend of mine, a very nice lad from Slovakia who’d studied medicine in Prague.

He did not precisely ooze sympathy for the Czech establishment as a whole, and Klaus is a polarizing figure…

On translating Vance: into Swedish; into Dutch; into French.

There was an interesting article about Vaclav Klaus, based on an interview with Vaclav Havel, in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books: Vaclav vs Vaclav (May 10 edition). It shows Klaus in a very bad light indeed, though Havel clearly has a fair degree of animosity towards him so it needs reading with some care.

Jack Vance is the best unrecognised author on the planet (this one, Old Earth, that is. I am sure he’s well-read throughout the Spray)

–CA, 99th

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years?

Oops. There goes the lucrative US speaking tour…

I’d love to see Henry’s Sociology of Jack Vance post…

An entertaining, bifurcated thread, this. It seems to have developed into a Jack Vance appreciation on one hand and a head shaking over the delusional VK (perhaps Alexander Coburn can arrange for his US tour. What a great comic duo that would make.). Stir in a handfull of trolls…

Most of Vance has been translated into French, as they have long held him in high regard, nearly on a plane with Jerry Lewis. Better than the usual illustrations poor Mr. Vance gets stuck with by well meaning fans. Mostly dreadful. Other than a handfull of superb Jack Gaughan covers and Richard Powers for the first three Demon Princes novels,he has been poorly served.

Vance, in my experience (40+ years) is an acquired taste. Henry is correct, imho, as to his prose style. Even a desultory, throw-away Vance is fun to read for that very reason. Vance plots also tend to just end.Now you know where the Sopranos got it.

Btw, some of us are old enough to remember the full page ad in the Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction signed by several dozen authors, denouncing the war in Viet Nam. It inspired a counter ad several issues later that waved the flag in support of the war. This ad was signed, by and large, by second and third tier (again, my humble opinion)writers—from a writing stand point—with the exceptions of R.A. Lafferty and Jack Vance. I always chalked it up to contrariness as much as conviction as to the merits of the particular conflict.

This doesn’t speak well of Klaus’s cast of mind. It’s just a crude attempt to fit global warming into the Procrustean bed of sub-Hayekian antisocialist rhetoric. So environmentalism is nothing but a “substitute ideology” for socialism, a response to the failure of “explicit” socialism, so all the old analysis can be applied without modification. Global warming isn’t taking place because if it were the response it would call for would be subject to all the criticisms of socialist planning. And the scientific consensus is false because scientists’ motives are venal, for reasons like those described in Hayek’s essay on the intellectuals & socialism.

Well, a post above says “Anybody who has been around for a while and has experienced the last decade or so in Europe knows something big is happening.” I think this is precisely what Klaus is talking about. Interpreting a hurricane or a warm summer as global warming is as nonsensical as claiming we’ll soon have 24 hours of daylight every day because, since December, the days have kept getting longer.

The science is rather clear: nearly .6 degrees celsius in temperature increases, a good part of which caused by human activity, since 1800. There’s some evidence that this will begin increasing faster in the 21st century due to increased CO2 emissions and bans on ozone-killing coolants. Global sea levels have been rising a millimeter or so per year, with little evidence of increase during the 20th century. Little evidence that “extreme weather” on the whole will increase, though certainly increases (and decreases) in weather patterns in various areas. Good evidence that the “Tuvalu sinking” story is one of beach erosion, not rising tides.

This isn’t to say that global warming isn’t a problem, but simply to note that the level of knowledge and the overblown rhetoric is just as strong (perhaps stronger) on the do-nothing side than on the denialist side. Further, Vaclav is completely right when he says that many environmentalists do not see decreases in economic growth rates as a problem.

Please, no more of the “man, it’s hot out, let’s do something about global warming”, can we?

(Interesting note: though the *expected* temperature change in global warming is large, the change that has occurred so far is not nearly enough to cause major problems in Europe. Three times in the last 400 years, we’ve seen deviations near 1 degree celsius in Europe – the so-called Little Ice Ages.)

Cure:

True, true. There´s the “do-nothing” side and the “denialist” side. And the “it´s all written in the Revelation of St. John” side. And together they are the Republican side of the aisle.

Well, a post above says “Anybody who has been around for a while and has experienced the last decade or so in Europe knows something big is happening.” I think this is precisely what Klaus is talking about. Interpreting a hurricane or a warm summer as global warming is as nonsensical as claiming we’ll soon have 24 hours of daylight every day because, since December, the days have kept getting longer.

If you´re trying to say that your mention of the odd warm summer and Klaus´s “exceptionally warm“ winters manage to capture, even remotely, the level of sophistication of the models used by climatologists and the depth of the data available to them, then I think we have a new rhetorical figure in our hands. The term “straw man” doesn´t do it justice. A towering wicker man it is, casting over the blasted landscape the glow of its burning entrails.

With, you know, toddlers born of Michael Crichton´s fertile mind as sacrificial victims.

There´s an obvious point in Klaus´s tirade, and it´s not the one you´re struggling to tease out of it. It´s the conjuration of a daemon, and the enumeration of his daemonic attributes: hysteria, irrationality, tyranny, arrogance, hatred of the free human spirit and its bright future, insidiousness, pervasiveness. Reread the piece, he takes pains to get the ritual right and he´s an enthusiastic chap.

My impression, for what it´s worth (and that would be, at the current Euro exchange rate…lemme see…two shits, give or take)? The scientific consensus is bound to evolve, and it´s not unthinkable that things prove more easily manageable than we currently think.

But there is a consensus, and it is possible to wilfully ignore or obfuscate it. And that´s what the whole “controversy” essentially comes down to, no?

he said “the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent”

this is a meaningless statement.
..which temp scale is used?

every temperature scale is arbitrary. to cite a relative increase without specifying which scale was used shows a certain level of ignorance. just give the magnitude of the increase (AND include the temperature units).

Innocenti Illjes:

This doesn’t speak well of Klaus’s cast of mind. It’s just a crude attempt to fit global warming into the Procrustean bed of sub-Hayekian antisocialist rhetoric.

Very true. The emphasis, though, should be on the sub bit of the sub-Hayekian discourse.

The man is essentially a mouth-breathing ideologue. His “column” is not quite so much about preaching to the choir as about vomiting beer upon the most enthusiastic sections of one’s audience, during a skinhead concert.

Man, I’m all about poetic misprision, am I not?

Is there any difference between Klaus and Julian Simon/Bjorn Lomborg position ? ( plus they all have economics background ). I cannot tell any difference .

Well, rascally Lomborg may be a bit of hack, but there is more meat to the bones of his argument than what Klaus is displaying here. “An exceptionally warm winter or 0.6% temperature increase in a century is nothing next to hundreds of millions of years” is pretty much all our statesman has to offer in the way of “science”, isn’t it? Oh, and don’t forget the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages were hot. Remember when that Habsburg bastard, Rudolf, bumped off our PÅ™emysl Ottokar?

“An exceptionally warm winter or 0.6% temperature increase in a century is nothing next to hundreds of millions of years” is pretty much all our statesman has to offer in the way of “science”, isn’t it?”

No I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding. Klaus just like Lomborg is making the point — not a bad one — that in the debate about climate change you get different picture if you take a long term view of the changes.

This is actually a trade mark Lomborg move.

Now you’ve done it, mate. You’ve fed the troll. And the troll grows, and grows, and grows. Why worry about climate change when Godzilla Godfrey will SQUASH YOU DEAD? ?

No I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding.

Hey, my influence is showing. One day, all comments in the blogosphere will be drafted in the famed Glorious Godfrey style.

I’m so proud.

So proud.

Klaus just like Lomborg is making the point—not a bad one—that in the debate about climate change you get different picture if you take a long term view of the changes.

You see, there’s not much to misunderstand about VK’s little philippic. Consequently, I’d say that the probability of a misunderstanding is rather small.

Our man is saying:

” Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).”

For somebody who is supposed to ask for the rescue of science and reason from the clammy embrace, blood-caked clutches and drooling maw of environmentalism, the prez is certainly making sure he sounds ambiguous. The scope of the answer to his own rhetorical question (about the “long-term view” you’re going on about) ranges from “it’s just business as usual” to “heck, at least it doesn’t look like life on the planet is going to end, or anything”. Oh, and he skirts the issue of how much of that indeterminate amount of temperature change is man-made.

In other words, if I may appropriate Metternich, his “point” is a resounding nothing.

As every horror movie fan knows, the repressed never quite goes away. Throughout the piece, the prez grudgingly admits that something will have to be done about those temperature changes:

“The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.”

and

” Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.”

On the one hand, he’s saying that in the long run the miracle markets (TM) and the Perry Rhodanesque technologies that are just around the corner will sort everything out. On the other hand, he reminds us of the fact that the tree-huggers are just a bunch of Luddites. And, sneaky git that he is, after making sure that we’ve run out of hands, he hedges his bets by mentioning “the institutions” and “the countries” i.e. the state. ZOMG pass me the salts. Let’s not forget, the prez is an obnoxious prick and a demagogue, not an idiot.

Note as well that, again, he doesn’t explore the causes of those “mild” temperature changes. All we know is that he has simply dismissed the anthropogenic hypothesis as “arrogant”. He doesn’t seem to want to belabour the point much, which is strange for such an –apparently– excitable fellow.

You see, I have an interesting family. My elder brother is a naturalized US citizen, kin and kith, blood of my blood etc., and a bit of fundie arsehole winger too. He’s at any rate more forthright than the prez. He told me once that “the atmospheric results (sic) of planes are in the big picture no more important than my farts”. At least that’s a thesis one can falsify.

BTW, I’m not precisely too far to the left on economic matters. Just sayin’.

Let’s be honest. It doesn’t take the nose of a Chasch (another Jack Vance reference) to realize that the only thing that’s clear and unequivocal about Klaus’s rant is that THE! HIPPIES! ARE! OUT! TO! GET! US! (again).

And since it’s good to shave with Occam’s Razor, I’ll assume that that’s the actual point of his piece.

This is actually a trade mark Lomborg move.

Klaus is like Batman. He has learnt his moves from the best.

Still, his martial artistry is not yet quite up to the standard of his alleged mentor, no siree. We’re talking about a pro, in the field of climate skulduggery.
…

Really, let’s give it a rest. He’s your prez, you don’t find him as ghastly as many foreign observers do.

I mean, I know where we’re coming from here. I also hail from an ex-communist country and I’ve spent many years in Spain, where they’ve had to deal with not entirely dissimilar issues, to wit:

it is in no way strange for a young democracy that has suffered for decades under a dictatorship to succumb to the guiles of a charismatic cunt prone to displays of demagoguery.

Time to move on, I guess?

“Same issue IIRC – I have it in the loft. 1968.
I wouldn’t call Heinlein “second or third tier”.

Luck you, a collectors item. As a penniless hippie in the U-district, I couldn’t afford it but the Id Bookstore displayed it in the window quite prominently. I am pretty sure that the counter ad was an issue or two later. Heinlein is a fraught case. Someone once referred to the John Birch Society not being conservative enough for him. Some Heinlein I still like, especially the so-called juveniles. Some late Heinlein is, to be charitable, embarrassing. But from a pure writing standpoint—style, grace, verve,etc—second rate at best.

58: Or, alternatively, Cugel falls into that category of “too clever by half.”