Monday
Apr272015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The morality of the green academic
Apr 27, 2015 Climate: WG3 Ethics Greens A few days ago, I mentioned Professor Corey Bradshaw, the University of Adelaide academic who was being extremely vocal in his attempts to get Bjorn Lomborg defunded and ostracised.
I was blocked by Professor Bradshaw soon after my post appeared, but I gather that he is still hard at work demonstrating his willingness to sacrifice other people's careers to his own political imperatives:
Last week I was asked to exam a @uwanews PhD thesis. After the #LomborgDebacle wp.me/phhT4-4rC, I refuse. Apologies to the student.
What a lot of collateral damage the environmentalist academic can tolerate!
Update on Apr 27, 2015 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Reader Comments (52)
It's called a tantrum.
Toys - out of the pram.
Not the sort of behaviour I would associate with academia.
As I said in a different context the other day, "ah, diddums!"
They reallly are precious these academics aren't they? Large brains: small minds.
That kind of behaviour should be reported to his head of school, so that he can be given a bit of a talking to. Silly prat.
Hopefully they can now rest assured that they need not ask him again.
Do Green Academics in Australia have exemption from anti discrimination legislation?
Or is it their natural right, enshrined in their own selfrighteousness?
"A few days ago, I mentioned Professor Corey Bradshaw, "
Is that right Bish? I thought it was another foaming-at-the-mouth academictivist?
Which Vivienne Westwood are you on about? Vivienne Westwood the fashion designer or Vivienne Westwood the fracking expert?
Clovis, 10:6 pm; "Not the sort of behaviour I would associate with academia."
It's pretty common behaviour in my experience.
It's no tantrum. Greenies are saving the world and nothing is beneath them. Nothing. Like an army of ATTPs, they have ultimately no morals to speak of, because of course world saving trumps everything, including every human being.
A curious response. The good professor seems to be saying that if Establishment A has a Department B whose premise offends the Green Ideal, then he'll boycott.
You mention he's from the U of Adelaide. A cursory glance at their research divisions shows they host the "Australian School of Petroleum." One presumes their motto is not "Keep It In The Ground."
If someone knows of any rational explanation for the psychology of the Good Green, I'd love to hear it.
There's now a transcript of Vivienne Westwood, here:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/2015/20150427_ll
As well as denouncing "all government people" for being "all agents, criminal agents of the banks" who are syphoning our wealth "off to the banks, the faceless evil behind the whole financial system", Viv says:
Somehow, she links the upcoming extinction of the human race to the results of this year's general election, but I'm not sure I follow her reasoning, exactly.
Viv does seem to have a thing about David Cameron's dead son, as she also mentioned him during a similar anti-fracking stunt at the end of last year:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/2014/20141218_vw
These two Australian academics seem to think that the lack of the sort of 'action' they wish for indicates a problem with democracy.
Vivienne Westwood, the Queen of designed in obsolescence, and disposable fashion, has overestimated the relevance, of her uselessness.
These people are so consumed with the emotional need to appear more noble, and wiser than the rest of us, that any rational impulses they have get left at the starting gate.
All their intellectual energy is taken up with the need to defend the Right Position, rendering them utterly useless in any sphere but academia (where you don't actually need to do anything but sound clever).
From last link the author of the polemic has "no interest in discussing it......too much to think about right now." Well innit typical. These hypocrites have no mind of their own - they need to visit sKs or rc to find the accepted parrot-like response to tricky questions. All they are sure of is that they can't possibly be wrong because they hadn't given it a moments thought in the first place; someone much cleverer and greener than themselves has already issued condemnation and that's all the consideration their tiny minds need in order to to spread more hate. Meh!
Absolutely atrocious! Appalling behaviour from an academic.
The only good thing I can think of is that the PhD student has done well to avoid having this Bradshaw examine their thesis as one can only wonder at what he would bring to the examination. As an academic examining Masters and PhD theses, you have to put away your own ideas and opinions and mark a students work on its own merit. Something which this person has clearly shown an inability to do.
Sadly, all Australian universities have been colonised by people like those mentioned above. It is all part of the Great March Through the Institutions.
As in the UK, the number of "universities" has greatly expanded over the last few decades, with a consequent watering down of quality. It is easy to find an academic to agree with any proposition whatsoever, if you are a lazy journalist (but I repeat myself).
There are still outposts of academic rigour and excellence, especially in the hard sciences and mathematics. But they are numerically overwhelmed by the rest, due to the need to provide easy courses for people who would never have got near a university a few decades ago. We now have "degrees" in things like hospitality and sport, not to mention dozens of variants of psychology and sociology. They are complete junk.
I do wonder if some sort of uber-university model will emerge from all this, as the product differentiation once provided by a degree from a good university is almost gone.
If memory serves, we produce thousands & thousands of "degree" qualified students each year, but there are only around 25,000 degree qualified jobs created in said year! As someone said before, "What's the most frequent question a graduate asks someone? "Would you like fries with that?".
Science evolves. We are witnessing a birth of a green science, with new standards - both scientific and moral. The green science improves upon science the same way a straitjacket improves upon a jacket.
+1 George
Being politically correct is a wonderful thing; it makes you think you can pick up a turd by the clean end and not dirty your hands.
g
Dame Vivienne Westwood is, IMHO, in the grips of dementia. I am apalled by the junk she spouts, and seriously concerned that some of her fellow Greens appear to take her seriously.
Am I the only one who is starting to believe that being "Green" also means being a sociopath?
It is worth reading the statement from UWA. It includes this
And this
Lomborg’s role is not to impose his ideas on those who have different, and likely more advanced, ideas than his own. It is about bringing leading experts in their field together. Lomborg would not have kept his organisation going in Denmark for the last ten years if he brought people in, only to smuggle (what are alleged to be) his inferior ideas through.
Personally I think it is a great idea in principle to look at getting some of the greatest minds in the world to debate issues, and come up with solutions that get maximum benefit from limited resources. I might dispute the choices, but it is bound to be far better than some spin doctor, or even worse an anonymous blogger who does not understand economics, deciding what the priorities should be.
Kevin Marshall. Just the two of you so far? :)
OK, it's your blog, but I wouldn't encourage him so much. He likes the attention.
BitterandTwisted:
"Am I the only one who is starting to believe that being "Green" also means being a sociopath?"
No, you're just a little bit late to the party.
Greens Hate People
re:geronimo april 28 4:14 am
"Greens Hate People"
But, but, Soylent Green IS People!
I'm confused. Why does the School of Animal Biology feel entitled to weigh in on appointments in the Business school? Do the MBAs get the same privilege re appointments in Biology?
Green party is funded with 'unclean' money from Vince's solar/wind mafia subsidies and Viv Westwood's tax avoided income
\\UPDATE: A Green Party spokesman tells Guido:
“I’m not going to comment but I would distance us from any sort of sentiment like that.”//
..yep but don't seemed to be bothered about DISTANCING themselves from her MONEY or the free PR
They're cult followers, no better than the Scientology loons.
With so much blogging about how much you support people in the 'Third World' Bish, I'm surprised not to see a post of the DEC Appeal for Nepal or could it be that you use the people of the 'Third World' to promote your agenda???
Steve,
At least he isn't depriving them of (cheap) energy and clean drinking water. . .
In the meantime Steve the hypocrite, cowardly posting anonymously, has just made use of dead Nepalese people to feed his hunger for a cheap attack and promote his agenda.
http://www.dec.org.uk/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social%20media&utm_campaign=A017&utm_content=TweetsNepal/
Johanna,
"Sadly, all Australian universities have been colonised by people like those mentioned above."
Indeed but they have been targeted by the network. Look here at what is happening at Melbourne University, where Potsdam's Schellnhuber has been insinuating his staff into the campus and inventing yet another new Institute.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2015/04/german-greenshirts-parachute-parkville/
Or there is Jean Palutikof at Griffiths University who was formerly a Director at CRU.
http://www.nccarf.edu.au/nccarf/contacts-list
"Jean is Director of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), based at Griffith University. Prior to joining NCCARF, she was based at the Met Office, UK, where she managed the production of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report for Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability).
She is former Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences, and Director of the Climatic Research Unit, at the University of East Anglia, UK, where she worked from 1979 to 2004.
Look at how the propaganda is being introduced into the schools:
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/04/get-em-young-make-em-green/
Watch this slick video for Paris: http://tinyurl.com/n89e6vj
Greens don't hate people - they just don't think too hard before they give an opinion as it's so easy to just repeat the opinion of someone else who they assume has thought harder than they did. Projecting those with alternative views as either stupid or immoral saves them having to waste time dealing with obviously wrong notions; wrong because they came from the hated business-friendly side of society.
To them it's all so simple - just stop using fossil fuels; we have the technology so clearly the only reason we have not done this so far is because of fossil fuel pushers keeping us addicted to their product. While in that reality distortion zone they can easily imagine they are doing the Africans a big favour by denying them from being addicted too and hence propel them straight to renewables nirvana without any complex transition.
Nice one, TinyCO2.
I guess it is still possible he may say that shrill cAGW alarmism should be run out of town, without let or hindrance.
But I doubt it.
Further to Ms Westwood's thoroughly tasteless comment, I add the following 'brainless' utterences by her in the recent past re 'climate change'....
'We're all gonna fry....'
'No-one will be able to live south of Paris...'
Ahhh.... bless....
The Greens' Natalie Bennett was on Breakfast tv yesterday morning, with a particularly nasty case of loss of voice (due to spouting too many lies, probably).
She struggled through the interview, and at the end Bill Turnbull valiantly offered: 'Hope your voice gets better..'
Nah, Bill - it will always be a particularly grating version of 'Strine....
Woops, wrong thread for that comment. It was intended for the one about the Pope's Encyclical. And yet, it is not out of place on this thread.
@JamesG: I just love the language of the econuts, it's all so cleverly contrived & manipulated. 20+ years ago they were at it on Panorama telling us the oil was going to run out completely by now. Oh how wrong they were & are only they will never admit it. Our "addiction" (nice deliberate manipulating & controlling link to a drugs/alcohol habit) will remain for many years to come, unfortunately for them, of necessity!
Thanks, michael hart, and yes, it does fit both threads. One of he similarities between religion and green is the lack of real care for people. The cause is always more important than the individual but the cause will never be met without the sum of the individuals. They're both about working against human nature rather than with it. Although they're masters of promoting jealousy as a way to garner support.
That Oz guy Darren denies the accusation:
Do you have a direct quote or other reference.@Steve Our thoughts are with all people who are struggling today whether they be in Nepal or in developing countries cooking over a dangerous smokey wood fire cos they don't have access to gas.*
- What we do today is not as powerful or useful as what we could have done for people over the previous years.
- Take Taiwan, there will be sometime in the future another large earthquake or flooding event in countries like Taiwan, Singapore or South Korea. However their governments will be in a far better state to deal with the situation and start rescuing people. You know why ?
..That Samsung phone many of your neighbours have, those Seagate diskdrives, that Giant brand bicycle and Taiwan branded Tennis racquets ..All that biz & trade means taxes are paid and infrastructure exists on the ground to deal with disasters.
*" responsible for 800 000 to 2.4 million premature deaths each year" (Smith, Mehta and Maeusezahl-Feuz, 2004).
Mark Pawelek, he almost certainly didn't say he wanted to deny Africans clean water but he disagrees with Lomborg over his priorities putting water first. I'm sure both of them would advocate magically being able to address all needs at the same time but life doesn't work that way. Either he needs to have the courage of his convictions and say ‘I think acting on AGW (however ineffectively) is more important than providing, water, energy and industry to the poor’ and see how his ideas go down or he needs to stop calling for another to be fired for putting forward his version.
Michael Hart (Apr 28, 2015 at 2:24 AM. You say of my dialog with ATTP
It might be only me left now, but I would encourage ATTP to return. I think we should critically engage with the other side, and that is what has happened. In contrast with the here at Bishop Hill, ATTP's two comments are much fuller. I would encourage people to compare and contrast the arguments of us both.
I think ATTP might have been shown the door after one too many insults.
Interesting. An academic who obviously isn't, and a jerk that obviously is - a jerk, that is. The "academic" should be given a permanent holiday, and the jerk, well, you can't do much for people like that - there is no smart pill and no known drug creates intelligence. I could understand someone saying something like "you are misinterpreting what I said, but don't have the time right now to amplify," but to stand pat and show stupid and stubborn in the face of a not necessarily fair comment even though it is honest, well, borders on what it sounds like - stonewalling stupidity.
"With so much blogging about how much you support people in the 'Third World' Bish, I'm surprised not to see a post of the DEC Appeal for Nepal or could it be that you use the people of the 'Third World' to promote your agenda???"
Steve, you've made it pretty obvious who it is that does this sort of thing. (!!!)