Not Evil, Just Wrong?
The Church of Gaia
| December 12, 2009
| Tim
That's the title of a warming-sceptical documentary Phelim McAleer has written about global-warmingists. According to Big Government:
He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate — where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of Britain's Climate Research Unit, has temporarily stood down pending an investigation into the scandal.
Professor Schneider, who is a senior member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he would not comment on emails that may have been incomplete or edited.
During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider's assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer's question.
However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider's assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.
The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room.
McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider's behaviour.
Um, so if using force to shut down questions and censor film footage isn't evil, when do we get into that territory? Do we actually have to go to prosecution, imprisonment, or murder for such behavior to count as "evil" — or is merely displaying totalitarian impulses enough?
I usually agree with you, and I hope I'm not twisting your words, but how is it that y
Austin: Too bad your comment was truncated — sounded like a good challenge getting started there.
To just guess (feel free to clarify if you meant something entirely different): I could see how someone might think "evil" above is a bit strong. What does "evil" mean?
Some use "evil" to mean "having bad intentions". I don't think that's even a useful metric: How do I know if even the Nazis had bad intentions? Perhaps many or even most of them thought they were, ultimately, accomplishing "good"? I doubt few of them woke up and said: "I'm going to try to make the universe a worse place today."
Other seem to think of "evil" as meaning "capable of direct, extreme harm" — such as, say, a serial killer. If that's what someone thinks evil means, then I'd agree the behavior above doesn't rise to that level. But I don't think most "evil" really does, anyway: look at the USSR. Who in government had the mentality of a serial killer? And yet a great amount of oppression, corruption, and persecution occurred.
In contrast, I see "evil" as something within reach of us all. Something, at times, banal or even attractive, rather than a Clive Barker creation. The desire to silence one's opposition using force is, it seems to me, the most basic totalitarian impulse.
A person acting honestly isn't afraid to show the evidence for their position. Yet Al Gore — and a number of those corresponding in the released e-mails — clearly didn't want a light shown on their work, evidence, and behavior.
Al Gore won't debate. His only answer is that we haven't time to debate — a policy which promises to radically affect billions of lives? In "Inconvient Truth" he purposefully separated the carbon graph from temperature — lest his audience see that CO2 levels follow temperature.
The CRU staff deleted the original, unaltered global data rather than let their peers examine it. They did the same with work requested by FIA requests. They admitted to telling a journalist a critic was simply wrong, while admitting among themselves the critic had picked up on a trick they pulled earlier.
The title "Not Evil, Just Wrong" implies that if you're just sincerely mistaken, you're only wrong. The behavior above is not at all reflective of those who believe, sincerely and honestly, in the strength of their own position and evidence. According to the title itself, such behavior must then fall into its other category.
How do I know if even the Nazis had bad intentions?
Didn't they argue for restoration of Germany's colonies, among other things? They didn't make that argument based on the benefit which would accrue to said colonies.
I mean, I agree that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Perhaps Mann et. al were being evil. Perhaps not. I don't know. But sometimes it seems possible to demonstrate bad intentions; arguments based on the desire for personal power despite pain caused to others and without violation of some established standards of consent that apply equally to all people (so a business would not have to feel bad for outcompeting a rival.)
Didn't they argue for restoration of Germany's colonies, among other things? They didn't make that argument based on the benefit which would accrue to said colonies.
Agreed. I suspect many Germans really thought the Jews were some kind of threat. Certainly a lot of Europeans believed that.
... sometimes it seems possible to demonstrate bad intentions; arguments based on the desire for personal power...
I agree. I guess I should have put it better: While bad intentions put one in the running for behaving evil-ish, good intentions don't necessarily guarantee otherwise.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Are Negative Numbers Possible? |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Not Wrong, Just Evil? »
|
I usually agree with you, and I hope I'm not twisting your words, but how is it that y
Posted by: Austin on December 12, 2009 07:30 PM