Because The EcoModernist Manifesto is both logical and reasonable in its approach to dealing with climate change, it is anathema to the Konsensus Alarmists that split off from logic and reason long ago.
It’s actually quite good and if you haven’t read it I encourage you to do so. Think of it as the counter example to the more recent papal encyclical. Where the encyclical is mysterious, the manifeto is logical. Lots of other yin/yang comparisons could be made.
One of the central themes of the Manifesto is that as we progress, we have less of an impact on nature–they call it ‘decoupling.’ But noting technological progress has been a force for good makes the Konsensus’ heads explode–they demand that we turn back the clock on progress and regress to simpler times, specifically before the inventions of democracy and the middle class. Useless fripperies.
So the Konsensus Alarmists, well represented by Eli Rabett of Rabett Run, are in attack mode. Like well-organized hatchet jobs they have done in the past against skeptical scientists, they employ innuendo, bitter sarcasm and a conscious misreading of what their opponents write and say in an effort to first discredit their opponents, then deligitimize their very participation in the debate.
Konsensus Alarmists are the political faction that hide behind the very real consensus of scientists who tell us that global warming is real, in good part man-made and something we need to address. Konsensus Alarmists are a very different group of people, trumpeting the findings of decades ago regarding the potential for climate damage and studiously ignoring all findings since then that show sensitivity as being lower, sea level rise as more moderate, weather being quite similar to weather of previous eras, coral reefs being more resilient, etc.
They did it with Roger Pielke Sr., and enjoyed it so much they did it to Pielke’s son. They did it with Judith Curry. They did it with Richard Lindzen and with Freeman Dyson. They did it with Steve McIntyre. They did it with Lucia Liljegren.
The Alarmist Konsensus more recently has tarred President Obama with the epithet ‘denier’ and accused NY Times blogger Andrew Revkin of sleeping with the enemy. No deviation from ideological purity will be tolerated–President Obama has done more to combat climate change than anyone in recent memory, spending political capital as well as hard-earned taxpayer dollars to do so. Andrew Revkin was one of the first reporters to focus on climate change and has done so brilliantly for decades. But the slur ‘denier’ has never had anything to do with denying climate change. It has always and only been about ‘denying’ that the Alarmist Konsensus policy proposals were the only way to deal with it.
The EcoModernist Manifesto does incorporate both recent science and recent economics in charting a path that supports the continuing development of the emerging countries while accepting the need for the developed countries to take actions that will both mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
So naturally Eli Rabett calls it a return to industrial Marxism, comparing it to what Mao did in China and Stalin did in Russia. This is projection of the most classic variety–Rabett has employed Stalinistic tactics in his writings for years, demanding ideological purity and ruthless in his work in stamping out any deviation.
As he has done when inveighing against other more moderate views on climate policy (Rabett is lauded by his circle of Konsensus pietists for his attacks on The Breakthrough Institute, The Hartwell Paper, as well as on both Pielkes and more), Rabett reaches for a political insult first and then happily begins to make stuff up to justify it.
Rabett scribbles “Ecomodernism postulates movement of population to large cities, industrialization of agriculture and the isolation of areas for nature. It is not that we do not know where that vision leads, and we even have examples today of nations that are essentially single cities such as Singapore and Qatar moving in that direction.”
Perhaps Rabett has been too busy hunting witches to notice that the global trend towards urbanization pre-dates the Ecomodernist Manifesto by several decades: They don’t ‘postulate’ it, they recognize it and note the possibilities this trend offers for returning vast tracts of land to nature.
Of course, Rabett then makes the obligatory jump through the hula hoop of illogic, the leap of bad faith, writing “The reliance of the ecomodernist city state on complex technologies requires strong central control to keep the machine running, leaving little room for individuality.”
And that’s it. That’s why the EcoModernists are secretly pushing for a Marxist world. So for his fellow Lysenkoists, Rabett’s point is characterized quite neatly. It is only the rest of the world that notices that he is writing functionally as would a moron.
1. The world’s population is moving to the cities
2. The EcoModernist manifesto notes this and suggests it is an opportunity to return land to nature.
3. Rabett says that big cities require central control (I guess he has never been to London or Taipei, which have thrived without central control)
4. Because Rabett says that big cities require central control, The EcoModernist Manifesto is endorsing industrial Marxism.
Sane people look at this and say that Rabett has pulled the accusation out of his hat. Or somewhere else.