Is it something about the name ‘Naomi?’

Let us start by praising some of the ‘good’ Naomis. Naomi Campbell the model. Naomi Nishida, the actress. Naomi Judd, the singer.

Hopefully having convinced you that I’m not allergic to the name, let us now ponder the coincidence that finds two of the most strident and annoying activists currently on the world stage sharing the same name.

I refer, of course, to Naomi Oreskes and Naomi Klein.

I have discussed my problems with Ms. Oreskes before–see here, here and here. She is not a scientist–she is a ‘science historian’, and she is busy rewriting the history of climate change and the conversation surrounding it. She teams up with people like the charlatan Lewandowsky and Eric Conway to come up with bizarrely unscientific sci-fi scenarios, contorted reasoning on why deniers are infiltrating the minds of scientists, etc.

She’s a bad actress, unlike this Naomi.

Today we will focus on Naomi Klein, as she is interviewed by Al Jazeera (no relation to Al Gore, Al Hirt or Al Capone).

The title of the article is ‘Is Capitalism Driving Climate Change?‘ (The short answer is no. Increasing population, development (much of which is happening in anti-capitalist countries, and growth in GDP all contribute to climate change. Capitalism is no worse than communism in that respect.)

The article starts with a bold assertion: “Scientists say the world is in the midst of a “climate emergency”.” It does not provide a quote, citation or anything to back that up. A search on Google News using the term returns 262,000 results and many NGOs, weblogs and commentators do say much the same thing. But I could not find one scientist doing so.

Anyway, on to Ms. Klein. “The idea that we can deal with climate change within the confines of our current system is exactly what we’ve been trying for two decades, and it’s failed miserably,” Klein says.  “If we want to avoid climate change, we need system change,” the author adds.

This is called hijacking. Ms. Klein has been trying to boot capitalism off the globe since she started writing. She is simply using climate change as a front. As Wikipedia notes, “Naomi Klein (born May 8, 1970) is a Canadian author, social activist, and filmmaker known for her political analyses and criticism of corporate globalization and of corporate capitalism.[2]”  

Ms. Klein is not a scientist (neither am I) and does not discuss the science (recent posts will show that it is heavy going for me as well). Like me, she is focused on policy.

However, I care about climate change, getting the science right and about policy possibilities focused on the people who need help with the weather now and the climate in the future.

Klein is just piggy-backing on a popular issue that appeals to the demographic she’s been trying to reach with her other books (No Logo, This Changes Everything and The Shock Doctrine). Her 2014 book This Changes Everything is just another tirade against capitalism with green camouflage. She took her cue from capitalist companies that adopted green mission statements and other accoutrements of environmentally friendly organizations, but she cares just as little about climate change as most of them.

Evidence of that can be found on, where she writes, “For me, the road to This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate begins in a very specific time and place. The time was exactly ten years ago. The place was New Orleans, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.”

Somebody should tell her that Katrina had nothing to do with current climate change. It was a run of the mill Cat 3 hurricane that landed in the wrong place at the wrong time. That she would use it as inspiration for her books is hilarious. In a not-really-laughing sort of way.

Ms. Klein posts an entire section from her book The Shock Doctrine underneath that preface. It’s quite long.

It doesn’t mention climate change.

Naomi Klein doesn’t understand the issue.

I am a leftist. (I think Barack Obama is too centrist, much to the amusement of many of my readers.) I have problems with capitalism being subject to corporate capture and being able to resist needed regulations.  But I try to keep most of that under wraps when talking about climate change, as the economic system driving a country’s economy shows no correlation to their emissions or attempts to control them.

If Naomi Klein could find an angle in used tires to further her attacks on capitalism, she would write a book about it.

This Naomi is perhaps most famous for her Joan of Arc-based character in the 1917 movie Womanhood, the Glory of the Nation.


I like her a lot better.


10 responses to “Is it something about the name ‘Naomi?’

  1. What Karl Marx and the communists did not get: people need jobs to get rich, and most people are not selfstarting entrepeneurs. Fighting capitalism is like killing the goose with the golden eggs. Fighting capitalism causes poverty: see north korea vs. south korea as the living example.

  2. I have a photo of Naomi Campbell partying with Paris Hilton and Fidel Castro’s son. I assume those two were paid a huge sum to hang around with the guy and peddle the Cuban party scene.

    Naomi Kleein is a communist, but communism sure seems to be rising out of the Soviet Union’s ashes. Who knows, maybe in 50 years the White House will be located on Karl Marx Avenue, the Statue of Liberty will be replaced with a 200 foot tall Fidel Castro bust, and the USA population will be mostly Mexicans who march in evenly spaced squadrons chanting “Fatherland, Socialism, or Death”

    • “Piggybacking” is what unoriginal, derivative intellectual parasites do instead of thinking for themselves. And since the Naomi’s in question have become wealthy while being parasites, they are also hypocritical parasites.

  3. “Piggybacking” is what unoriginal, derivative intellectual parasites do instead of thinking for themselves. And since the Naomi’s in question have become wealthy while being parasites, they are also hypocritical parasites.

  4. I don’t get it. Since when were any other political doctrines kinder to the environment than capitalism? The Soviet Union was an environmental catastrophe. Perhaps North Korea is the gold standard?

  5. Tom,

    “But I could not find one scientist doing so.”

    Right. The thing a lot of skeptics don’t get is that there is a lot of good sound science being done by honest, capable scientists. But it gets distorted on the way to the public. The real corruption in climate change is not the scientists (there are exceptions, like Michael Mann), but in the politics.

    I hate being wrong, so I appreciate it when people point out errors so that I can avoid them in the future. On the assumption that you might be the same, you wrote: “… Katrina … was a run of the mill Cat 3 hurricane that landed in the wrong place at the wrong time.” There was nothing run of the mill about Katrina. It was an exceptionally strong category 5 storm (top 5 all time for the Atlantic, if memory serves). It was also a very large storm, leading to a very large storm surge; it is the storm surge that does the damage. Yes, it weakened as it made land fall, but the storm surge was still there and took out much of New Orleans. You are, of course, correct that it has nothing to do with climate change.

    • Mike M.,
      You make some good points. However. Katrina, when it came ashore, was a Cat. 3 storm.
      Surge is only indirectly linked to windspeed.
      Its surge was not that different from Camille or other storms in the Mississippi sound strike zone.
      It was large, but only unusual under the lens of climate hype.
      The damage to New Orleans was not done directly by the storm surge, but by the collapse of badly built levies along Lake Pontchartrain. The water flooding New Orleans was not salt water.

      • Hunter,

        You wrote: “Surge is only indirectly linked to windspeed.”
        Yes, which is why Katrina dropping to category 3 as it came ashore is not the important thing.

        According to your first link “Storm surge flooding of 25 to 28 feet above normal tide level occurred along portions of the Mississippi coast” and your second “When the storm surge (as high as 9 meters in some places) arrived, it overwhelmed many of the city’s unstable levees and drainage canals.” Those are extraordinary storm surges.

        You wrote: “The damage to New Orleans was not done directly by the storm surge, but by the collapse of badly built levies along Lake Pontchartrain.”
        The collapse of the levies was due to their being over-topped by the storm surge. See second quote above and, from your first link “The surge overtopped and breached levees in the New Orleans metropolitan area, resulting in the inundation of much of the city and its eastern suburbs.”

        Camille was actually one of the few storms that was stronger than Katrina. But it was small, had less of a storm surge and was not as damaging (though still awful). See

    • The most precise description of her ever.

      I would like to point out, however, that researching crap just makes it stink more.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s