Conservatives must raise Cain at public events, using Alinsky’s rules!

The climate change movement has managed to closely associate themselves with the left of the political spectrum, producing a huge boost for their campaigns. Afterall, the majority of mainstream media are left of center and so this results in climate alarmists having a massive unpaid communications arm supporting their crusade.

But most "progressives" fail to realize that following the climate catastrophists' agenda results in outcomes that violate causes leftists hold dear, or at least want us to believe they hold dear. This would include support for social justice and environmental protection, issues I dealt with in parts one and two of this three-part series ("To Win the Climate Debate, We Must Use The Same Tools That Were Used To Defeat Science and Common Sense," Jan 20 and "Catch the left violating their own "book of rules" in the climate debate," Feb 4). And, by pointing this out to them in front of public forums, we are employing Saul Alinsky's rule #4 from "Rules for Radicals – A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals," which is as follows:

Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

Two other ideas the left have historically championed and would be loath to admit they no longer support are:

• Rejection of absolutism (truth) and authority (consensus)
• Tolerance of alternative lifestyles & opinions

Demonstrating, very publicly, that following the climate alarmist agenda works against both of these ideals would also be an effective application of Alinsky's rule #4. It will also help sway well-intentioned leftists, at least those who are not also climate change fanatics, to distance themselves from the climate scare.

Historically, liberals have tended to reject absolute authority and often ridiculed conservatives for being inflexible about morals, politics and even science. For example, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was supported by the German left, while those on the right opposed it, believing it threatened their cultural worldview (which, ultimately, it did). In fact, the assertion that science discovers truths about nature, not merely opinions based on empirical evidence that is always subject to interpretation, led to the 'science wars' of the late 20th century. In that conflict the intellectual left were the sceptics of the idea that we could have absolute knowledge in science. To learn more about this, watch the superb course "Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It" by Dr. Steven L. Goldman, the Andrew W. Mellon Distinguished Professor in the Humanities at Lehigh University in Chicago.

But this expected approach - relativism and scepticism from liberals and absolutism from conservatives - has been turned upside down in the climate debate. While right-wingers call for open debate about the causes of climate change, the left generally consider such discussion intolerable and behave as if we know the future of climate decades in advance, a position that is indefensible, scientifically and philosophically.

So, climate campaigners try to shut down debate about the causes of climate change, regarding it as a Pandora's Box they desperately want to keep firmly shut. Why else would they steadfastly refuse invitations from climate realist scientists to engage in public debates? If the public regularly heard about the vast uncertainty in climate change science, arguably the most complex science ever tackled, their patience for the $1.27 trillion USD devoted in 2022/2023 to climate finance would quickly evaporate. So, instead, most of the left ignore the thousands of well-qualified experts who do not support the scare (for example, see World Climate Declaration There is no climate emergency) and enthusiastically support the confident, but nonsensical, climate change forecasts of people like United Nations Secretary General António Guterres and former vice-president Al Gore with his An Inconvenient Truth. We must regularly call them on this, pointing out that it violates one of the left's fundamental axioms.

So, we need to bring up forcefully in public sessions, the fact that unquestioning acceptance of 'truth' in science-in the sense of fulfilling Plato's definition that truth is universal, necessary and certain, characteristics impossible in science-has impeded human progress throughout history. For example, when the Greco-Egyptian writer Claudius Ptolemy proposed his Earth-centered system, he did not say it was physical astronomy, a true description of how the universe actually worked. He promoted it as mathematical astronomy, a model that worked well for astronomical observations, astrology and creating calendars.

It was the ultra-conservative Catholic Church that, relying on a literal interpretation of the Bible, specifically Joshua 10:12-14, promoted the Ptolemaic system as truth to be questioned at one's peril. Here is that Biblical passage:

Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: Sun, stand still over Gibeon; and Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had revenge upon their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord heeded a voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.