John Gray was tending towards despair a few years ago, but has now fallen. He not so much mourns what he considers the death of liberalism as revels in it, owning the libs or whatever. He is probably aiming at the wise-elder-statesman or -philosopher type of approach, but I think he is more an old man mumbling into his beer bemoaning the young folks and their ways.
His analysis of the death is weak; indeed he largely simply assumes it. Because to him it is so obvious; but since I'm not willing to grant him so much, most of the rest falls apart for me. At least the bits I've read; I won't claim to have got far into it; I stopped around the Russia / China analysis.
But the "frame" he has chosen is Hobbes, and I can't dislike that, though I do dislike the use he makes of Hobbes and the interpretation he uses (and he thinks too much of Malthus). As to Hobbes on international relations, the answer is clear: without the Civil Sword to hold men in awe there is no peace, no compacts, and the concept of injustice does not apply.
Towards the start there are some quotes from John Aubrey's brief live of Hobbes. I like:
He had read much, if one considers his long life; but his contemplation was much more than his reading. He was wont to say that if he had read as much as other men, he should have known no more than other men.
There is a lesson in that for all of us. And for those who favour in-person debate:
He would say that he did not care to give, neither was he adroit at, a present answer to a serious query: he had as lief they should have expected an extemporary solution to an arithmetical problem, for he turned and winded and compounded in philosophy, politics, etc, as if he had been at analytical work. He always avoided, as much as he could, to conclude hastily.
Refs
* Liberalism’s obituarist: John Gray extends his dark critique of the modern world. Note the nice JCWBC framing though I don't think he is current there.
* A multitude of possibly unsatisfying answers to "why is it suddenly so hot?".
* Economists are not engaged enough with the IPCC says Ilan Noy, but "Economics is a purely quantitative discipline" is Shirley bollox.
8 comments:
I haven't got much to add to your take on Gray-sin, tho' I think you've nailed it with 'mumbling into his beer'.
I'd just read J Kennedy's post on the recent temp anomolies when I noticed you linked to it. It's very good. I'd say excellent but it was marred by the unnecessary swipes at looney contrarians. I thought RPJ had an equally good take on the matter - from a different perspective. And happily, for the sake of balance, he takes a few unnecessary swipes at some looney alarmists.
I hadn't seen RP Jr's take. But I have now. Yes, it seems reasonable.
I think I'd emphasise the lack of predictive ability rather more. Or even in-retrospect "predictability". Not knowing why Sept is so warm is embarrassing. I don't think the septics will believe "oh look its worse than we thought, we should worry more" instead they'll hear "oh we understand it less than we thought, therefore your predictions are less reliable, therefore we should worry less".
I'm retiring next year and I've been wondering if I should get back into the blogging game. It doesn't seem as if the players or the state of play have changed a lot. Maybe you and I have mellowed a tad, WMC. I dunno.
This kerfuffle about September's one-of-a-kindness seems so familiar that it makes me wonder. If nobody's learning from the few sane consensus bloggers--and if nobody's learning from the few sane bloggers on the other side of the fence--then why are we all doing this?
I visit ATTP, Real Climate, Timmy and Watts Up With That every day and their posts could easily be from 2015, although Worstall seems to have withdrawn from the climate discussion. RP Jr. seems sane. Zeke seems sane. Is anybody paying attention to either?
Ah, you trigger some thoughts I've been having on this subject, I will reward you and indulge me with a post on that, this evening. Stay tuned!
Suggesting that people with an extreme view use oodles of motivated reasoning and dollops of confirmation bias is like saying the sky is often blue. And of course it applies equally to both extremes of the climate debate, not just the Watties etc. Someone who thinks there's an emergency because humans are influencing the climate will continue to hold that view no matter what evidence, data, or new information arrives. If we find we're on a lower-than RCP4.5 trajectory the response will be "Are we still having an influence on the climate?...So there's still an emergency!!" That's why I don't have much time for extreme partisans of any stripe.
Who knows what this months anomalies will look like in a decade or two. I suspect that JK may be right in that it will all be eminently explicable. But I'd add that it could even be that Hansen is right and the rate of warming is going to greatly increase.
Tom mentioned Zeke and I've noticed him heading (quite rapidly) in the opposite direction to P Brown (who used to be a fully paid up member of the "We urgently need to communicate the seriousness of climate change" gang). PB now sounds like RPJ, pointing out how many of the climate communicators are exaggerating, if not outright lying, and has ended up at the BTI. Passing him and heading the other way (and leaving the BTI) is Zeke who unfathomably has got into bed with arch-alarmist Dessler. I agree with Tom that Z has seemed saner than most over the years but the oddness is characterised by the focus of Dessler's latest rant - the BTI - which Z only left about a year ago!
Funnily enough I visit Timmy's on a regular basis, and generally like his climate stuff, despite his commenters being mostly real nutters. A mirror image of some of the hysterics at ATTP's. Looneys, the lot of them!
More on temp anomalies: while some are at least prepared to admit "we don't really know" there are others who aren't, regretably, and are pretending they are explained.
If you're not a reader of Marginal Revolution, you may have missed that Tyler is going to have a 'conversation' with your pessimistic subject. Can't say I'm champing at the bit over the prospect but I'll probably skim through the transcript.
I'm not a regular at MR, though I've found all the stuff there that people have pointed me at interesting. You're seeing What should I ask John Gray?. Hmmm... what would I ask? I think that the answer is I wouldn't bother, because the chances of getting a worthwhile answer are too low, but it would be something around his weird assumption that liberalism is dead and failed (or if I was being cruel, it would be "are you so hard up, for cash or attention, that you really think pasting some undistinugished NS columns into a book is a good idea?").
But I'd like to ask something better; Gray is almost good; he has many of the correct ideas; sadly he fails at the end.
Post a Comment