[Manzana]

The hard left still exists but it's given up on it's 19th century social-economic arguments for why it should be given power. Marxist takes on everything have a very archaic feel. Instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat (through it's representative vangard the party and the farsighted intellectuals)there is the dictatorship of the environmentally enlightened.

Back in 1907 the left argued that there were critical problems with the exploitation of labor. Were they right? Sure.There were real problems and injustices and still are. Did that mean it was necessary to turn over power to the Left- not really. Most occasions it happened worked out rather poorly. There was also a much larger group of people just actively interested in the problems in a practical way, not as an excuse to take power. In many cases those people were manipulated or used by elements of the ideological, power seeking left.

I think "environmentalism" in general and "global warming" in particular serve the same function in modern politics. Most people are just practically interested in the problems. A comparatively small but quite influential collection of activists are focused on these issues as a road to power. One litmus test for me is: is the person or organization horrified by discussion of technical solutions? Technical solutions to environmental/climate issues are like Unions, Social Security, Unemployment pay, were in the early 20th century. The hard left was horrified because these practical "patchwork" measures reduced the intensity of the crisis and the chance for revolution and taking power.

What is the real agenda of an advocate of global warming? It depends on what policy they support. There are lots of good arguments that global climate is changing and lots of good counterarguments that that's what climate has always done for better or worse. There is a reasonable case that human activities have produced global warming. I just read an old piece by John Von Neumann from the 50's basically just incidentally tossing it off as though it was quite obvious even then. His mention of it is utterly politically neutral. The real issue is SO THEN WHAT? Suppose the rise in greenhouse gases has in fact produced warming. What policies does that suggest? It's like OK, so the proletariat is oppressed and impoverished, what should we do about it?

The arguments about the details and theories are so intense because they set the stage for this policy question.

You don't need really good climate modeling to show that there is some correlation between greenhouse gases and other human activities (like agriculture) and climate.

You do need really good climate modeling to predict with any confidence what the results of policy changes will be. That's the problem. There may well be a rough concensus that something is going on. There is also a rough concensus that we don't know enough to accurately calculate cost-benefit for most major expensive policy initiatives.

Does that leave room for discussion? Sure. There are lots of relatively cheap policy changes and many possible new techical fixes. As long as cost and uncertainty are given consideration there is a practical debate.

IS GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX? Is like IS THE OPPRESSION OF THE WORKING CLASS A HOAX? It's a straw man set up to attack anyone who questions the enlightened left. The use of "Denial" is a great bit of polemical wordsmithing. It evokes Holocaust denial (now associated with the islamic radicals) and addiction interventions. It's one of the best I've seen since the Right came up with calling "estate taxes" the "death tax". The change in one word totally distorted the public perception of the issue and almost single-handedly reversed the polling numbers.

There is the hint in this of someone in the background amusing himself laying out the re-education camps and figuring the budgets for barbed wire and guard dogs. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.