why do you keep writing about religio-social phenomena? Which hunts do exist in today’s Africa, but you are the first one to tie them to climate change…

Whitch hunt in the classical sense that you are alluding at here, and that the Simpson cartoon is depicting is a phenomenon roughly restriced to 16-17th century Europe.

There is of course a more general phenomenon of lynching/pogroms, that are present throughout human history in times where society is in decay. I think it is very difficult to imagine this in 20 009 B.C, though,since these phenomena is not usually found in hunter/gatherer societies.

Climate change always has impact on human society. Economical impact, but also political. And psychological too.

As people are forced to adapt (they hate adaptation), they are stressed. And they need to vent their anger.

It is psychologically valid, I think.

BTW, I am just quoting the research. See the referenced scientific surveys.

Mm… you’re right. Climate change might well be a very painful experience that brings out the worst in mankind.

But this is not exactly what you write.

You write that the environmentalist movement is whitch-hunting the sceptics… in something much more deliberate than a psychological responce to a society falling apart.

As I wrote… Oster’s paper deals with “classic” which-hunt, situated in Europe between 13th and 18th century. (The main period is in the 17th century).

Miguels deals with witch-hunt as a response to a society suffering economically from climate change. It is quite a misuse of his paper, that would rather suppose the statement that climate change is something that must stop, to draw the conclusion that environmentalists behave like impoverished Tanzanian peasants.

By the way, where do you see all these references to Gaia among the environmentalists posts?

Miguel’s paper is hardly a misuse. It just confirms that any climate change leads people to search for a scapegoat.

Just like when a flood flooded the subway in Prague, a discussion started, “who is to blame”. Nobody said “the rain is to blame”. They wanted to find some person (with a name and a face), who caused “insufficient prevention measures”.

P.S.: I have not noticed any Gaians in this blogging competition. But Gaia is one of the streams of environmentalism (deep ecology), isn’t it? Let me explain in a parable: Imagine you have a holy forest. The tribe worships it. No tree can be cut down. It is environmentalist approach. Western approach is to cut the trees down and make furniture out of it.

Exploit or worship? That is the question.

Exploit or worship? That is the question.

Earth to Vitezslav: It’s a bit more complicated than that.

First the moon. Now the witches. Vitezslav, you are the most entertaining blogger in this competition!!!

First of all - there is a difference between bad weather and changing climate. In the case of the Tanzanian farmers, it is a belief that a which causes bad weather, and that if she is removed the weather will go back to normal.

From there you go on to saying that environmentalists which-hunt sceptics. No. We do not believe that sceptics have changed the weather. We do not believe that the climate would go back to normal if the sceptics were gone, so you are not scape goats, though I know very well that you’d like to be.

And… again you are careless with the historical data. This kind of phenomena occur in a certain kind of society - prerequities are religious believes strenghtened to fanatism through poverty and a generally shared sentiment of the dismemberment of society.

Any society in 20 009 BC would:

a) not have the kind of monoteistic religious beliefs that can be turned into fanatism

b) not have the kind of organized society that can be dismembered.

Deep ecology is one stream of thinking yes, but I don’t think it is very influential at all. Especially not in the tech-savvy green tech/climate change discussions.

Hemant, you were probably just ironic, but thanks anyway.

Daniel, I did not say environmentalists are hunting skeptics. I wrote it is a hunt against the technical wizards. Skeptics are are only like heretics, who refuse to join the witch hunt.

The Miguel paper, shows, that witch-hunts are NOT limited only on monotheist cultures:

Quote: “Witchcraft beliefs are strong in ethnically Sukuma western Tanzania, where a large proportion of the population follows traditional religions and have never adopted Christianity or Islam”.

So it is rather a general human pattern.

I say: we would be now searching for a scapegoat of climate change even if no industrial revolution eve occurred!!

About western Tanzania, you are right. What I meant is that these people are not untouched by “western civilisation”. They are integrated in a post-colonial economy far distanced from a hunter/gatherer culture, no matter what religion they adopt.

It is a human pattern to look for scape goats, but not to put the blame on individuals within the community. This behavior is the essence of a whitch hunt.

You put the blame for earth’s changing temperature on the sun, we on co2.  In which way are we more into scape goat thinking?

Sorry, but I see no references to “technical wizards” in your texts. But I read this: “A sceptic frowns: “But isn’t it just a natural phenomenon? Rising solar activity always causes increase in temperatures.” The crowd of environmentalists drag the sceptic out of the room and then they continue”

And again… no one says that the weather is an individual’s fault, and if this individual is removed everything will be fine. I don’t think it would help the climate to burn some “wizard” on a stake. Who are these wizards, by the way?

Consider a real witch hunt case…  if the villagers chose to put the blame on co2, in stead of putting it on a woman, it would be an awful lot better, don’t you think?  Or is that the same to you?

Daniel, I think I wrote quite clearly who is the modern climatic witch. To quote myself(sic):

“Who is the modern equivalent to such “witch”? A scientist and his technology. As A.C. Clarke put it: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is undistinguishable from magic.”

The greens now think, that if we get rid of some high-carbon technology (invented by the technical wizards), the weather will be fine again.

Just like in the past people hoped, the weather will be fine again, if they get rid of the witch and her magic potions.

You wrote:  “if the villagers chose to put the blame on co2, in stead of putting it on a woman, it would be an awful lot better, don’t you think?” .... But they do not put the blame on CO2. They put the blame on technology, sciece, capitalists and Europeans.

They put the blame on some persons. Instead on inanimate Sun.

Hm… so ANY scientist is a witch according to us? I don’t think so. Again, take a look at various environmentalists postings. They are filled with references to science as practiced in universities - you might think that this science is wrong, but not that environmentalists are anti-science.

Moreover, Clarke’s definition of science as magic is… wrong. There is nothing secret about what is thought in a university. The mere essence of universities is exactly that the knowledge is open for anyone who can read - as opposed to guild knowledge or patented knowledge.

Science also understands the world in a completely different way than magic does, looking for a natural CAUSE, not for an INTENT. (For example, the reason the apple falls to the ground is gravity, not that anyone wants it to fall.)

No, no, no. We do not put the blame on “the blame on technology, science, capitalists and Europeans”. “We” think: “What makes the climate change is the increased amount of co2 in the atmosphere.”

“We” don’t think that any person is responsible for this. Read for example George Monbiot, who has clearly stated that the problem of fighting climate change is that we can not fight an enemy, but must also “fight” our own life styles. I also consume fossile fuels, which is exactly as big a problem as when a climate sceptic does it.

The truth is this - we put “the blame” on certain patterns of consumption. But to blame a certain consumption, the structure of society or anything like this is very far from scape goat thinking. The whole point of scape goats is to take society’s sins, and put it on one person. It can not be abstracted to co2 or “patterns of consumption”.

Do you think the people who burn(ed) witches saw that the fault was not in the with but in the society’s behavior?

Are you aware of these distortions you make? Why do you do them?

I am not making any distortions. And why do you misinterpret my article?

I say this: The Greens put blame on technical miracles created by the technical wizards (inventors, scientists). They put blame on the machines (consuming fossil fuels, breathing out CO2), which are like magic to most people. Most people do not understand, how the machines work (and are unable to repair or build them) - it is like a magic to them.

Isaac Assimov called this distrust towards technology “Frankenstein complex”.

Your distortion is this: you take a specific historical phenomenon, witch hunt, and apply it outside of its context (20 009 BC, on environmentalists), in order to forward your own personal agena. This is a very serious disrespect towards the people, men and mostly women, who actually suffer from the REAL historical phenomenon that is just a rethorical gimmick to you.

Do you really think that not understanding magic, and not understanding science, is the same thing? What kind of definition of “magic” and “science” are you using then? Do you mean that everything someone doesn’t understand is magic?

I don’t know how to fix my computer if it works. But I still don’t regard it as “magic” if a repair shop fixes it. I simply presumes that he has read a few books I didn’t read. What you must understand is that magic is not equal to not understanding - it is a different way of interpreting reality.

Notably, you are the one that needs to introduce the connection between scientists and wizards, in order for your argument to stick together.

AS I have said, most environmentalist have nothing against technology per se, and there is a lot of worship of novel technologies among the environmentalists.

Some environmentalists may deserve the epitet “sceptical” towards technology. But it is hardly because it is something they think they will never understand. It is rather so that they think that they DO understand it, and can see that it brings bad things. This might be wrong, but it is not a magical undrstanding of the world.

WHo are you accusing for the witch-hunt, actually? “environmentalists”, or “most people”?

Isn’t it ironic… just a few days after this feeble attempt to compare climatology and environmentalism to a witch hunt… “climategate” kicks off in a complete and absolutely hysterical witch hunt on poor Mann?