Making things up about Jeb Bush

I’m no fan of the Bush family. I couldn’t believe it when those dumb Americans voted for W, then did it again 4 years later. Now apparently his brother Jeb is going to stand for President. Those Yanks must be so glad they got rid of hereditary monarchy.

But to climate activists, it seems that Jeb Bush is so evil that misrepresenting what he said is perfectly acceptable, and normal standards of integrity don’t apply.

Here’s what Bush said, according to Reuters

“Look, first of all, the climate is changing. I don’t think the science is clear what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It’s convoluted. And for the people to say the science is decided on, this is just really arrogant, to be honest with you.”

“It’s this intellectual arrogance that now you can’t even have a conversation about it. The climate is changing, and we need to adapt to that reality.”

Now here’s how the climate propaganda brigade reported what he said. First up, Mat Hope, Associate Editor at NatureClimate with a focus on social sciences.

A double misrepresentation – Bush didn’t refer to scientists, nor did he he say talking about climate science was arrogant. When challenged on this, Hope claimed that it was “fair paraphrasing” and that his tweet was an “analysis” of what Bush had said.

Not quite as bad, climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said

Here he’s making an unjustified presumption – there’s no evidence he was talking about climate scientists. In fact “The science is settled” tends to be a claim made by journalists and politicians, not scientists. Since Bush is a politician, he’s probably talking about Obama.

Then there was the ubiquitous Bob Ward,

Quite was is meant to be “denial” in Bush’s statement isn’t clear.

Finally, HuffPost writer Kate Sheppard says

Bizarrely, she quotes Bush in her article, so anyone reading it can see that her tweet and the headline of her HuffPo article are, in the words of one of the climategate emails, “not especially honest”.

Tangentially related to this, and following up from the previous post on why the election opinion polls were wrong, there’s an interesting article in the Times Higher by an academic, Diana Beech, who confesses to the sin of voting Conservative. She says she was a floating voter but was driven to the right by the “self-righteous and intolerant nature of the comments I saw from colleagues on my Facebook feed”. She goes on to say “The belligerence of the Left’s intelligentsia in the social media sphere – at least in my circles – left no room for the balanced, honest debate which could have ultimately brought undecided voters into the fold.”

Climate communication experts could perhaps benefit from reading this and giving some thought to how this might work in the case of public opinion on climate change, where the belligerence and intolerance of the activist left is just as bad, if not worse. It’s unlikely that Hope, Oppenheimer, Ward and Sheppard will take any notice.

10 thoughts on “Making things up about Jeb Bush

  1. Surely there are enough honest people who care about other people on the Left that this sort of HuffPost garbage will cost them support and votes.
    Jeb Bush chose his words very carefully, and I agree with his analysis to a large degree. He made 2 or 3 good points and any open-minded person would understand exactly what he meant. The ideologues are getting a bit desperate on the subject. Obama went so far as to confuse natural subsistence of the land at Norfolk with sea-level rise.

  2. More people needed like Mr Moore above and yourself, Paul – who haven’t been sucked down the red hole of identity politics and so can avoid being triggered by any whiff of, whatever it actually means, ‘right-wingery’. It’s true when SJWs talk about the concept of triggering, because really they’re talking about themselves and their own complete inability to keep it together in the face of a slightly critical point of view.

  3. If Jeb Bush is misguided then surely someone could shown where he is wrong. For instance if somebody at least estimate the proportion of recent warming is human caused, and substantiate that claim it would be a start. Not a precise figure like 125%, but maybe a range of 115-135%.
    Jeb Bush’s other mistake was to say we should adapt to climate change. The climate consensus says the only policy to mitigate. This is the “truth” that Bush implicitly denies.

  4. Judith Curry says:

    “Jeb gets it exactly right. There are two broad hypotheses for recent climate change: human causes and natural causes (with numerous sub-hypotheses contained within). The climate debate is dominated by the premature carving in stone of a theory that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change.”

  5. You win all the journalism awards and get promoted by pushing CAP’s agenda while hiding behind by such nonsense as “fair paraphrasing”. It is how a eugenics promoting political hack with a degree in English ends up becoming a Washington Post science columnist. The incentive is in political propaganda not honest journalism.

  6. The Left in the UK was something that grew out of the unions and was meant to represent the working man. These days most working people are worried about taxes and fuel prices and the prosperity of the company they work for. The Left is no longer speaking for them when they want more immigration, more money for the poor (often those new citizens) and more taxes on energy to save, principally, other places. They represent a wealthy elite, who enjoy giving other people’s money away and indulging in their pet concerns. Historically at war with companies, the evil capitalist elite, the Left damages the lives of those that it is supposed to represent. Equally, while many flat living, public transport using, urbanites can afford to worry about the planet, the rural voters have energy bills to think about. Labour’s new supporters in places like the BBC are happy to demand higher standards because they know that their employer can afford it. Labour’s traditional members know that if they demand too much, their company will just fold and the work will go somewhere cheaper, like China. Businesses are divided between the highly lucrative that can easily afford energy as one of it’s lower costs and can be located in cities, and those businesses that use high levels of energy and almost all are located in poorer, more industrial areas. I think the US is not dissimilar.

    So why is this relevant? Since the Left was born out of the working classes they have an inbuilt feeling that they’re the underdog and using street fighting is acceptable. The evil, rich members of the Right, deserve anything and everything thrown at them. It bothers them not at all that they’re no longer the poor and down trodden but as populated with billionaires and bankers as the other side. In fact, left wing councils are amongst the most wealthy in the country and at the same time get far more taxes spend on them than areas that traditionally vote to the right. At the same time the Right falls into the same rut. They tend to think it’s crass and unfair to use underhand tactics because they’re the side with the advantage. Sure, the Tories and to a greater extent the Republicans can fight dirty too but it’s much less common.

    AGW is the ultimate left wing cause. It comes principally from the same champagne socialists that no longer share anything in common with the old Left. They use the same tactics they use in their politics. Scratch any warmist and you’ll find someone who thinks they are or have been a victim of the rich. Look at Brand. How many millions does he need to make before he stops thinking of himself as working class?

    Of course the Left and Warmists have a dilemma. The Left seeks to raise us out of poverty and austerity, but reducing CO2 sends us back the other way. They manage this dichotomy by never asking or answering the question ‘how much is enough?’ They have no minimum lifestyle in mind that a person might aspire to. Where the money or in this case the low CO2 energy is going to come from is an old left wing fudge that they have been ignoring since their inception. The rich people are keeping it for themselves. Greedy sods.

    So when they blithely lie about Jeb Bush, it’s ok because they’re fighting for the poor and the planet, whether they want them to or not. There are no limits or taboos because they think they are a workers revolution. It’s the kind of self delusion there’s no arguing with because even questioning their position is evidence that you’re representing evil, moustache twirling, mill owners (or the Koch Brothers) and should be ignored and/or vilified.

    Sorry that was so long.

  7. Hi Ian sent a belated message. My only rule is people tidy up the mess I make of the English language. I’d say it was my second tongue because I’m fluent in jibberish 🙂 The phrase “edited for clarity” would cover it.

  8. Ian, indeed, that’s a great rant from TinyCO2 (which I think partly inspired my next post on the “Angry Intolerant Left”). I think it’s important to distinguish between the traditional left, concerned with directly improving the lives of the poor working class, and the modern authoritarian self-righteous middle-class Guardianist left.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s