One of the fascinating threads of reaction to the politicization of climate change is on the hard left. One of the better known proponents of this view is Alexander Cockburn, a Scot with a socialist father, who grew up in Ireland and moved to America, and has worked as a journalist for numerous leftist publications. He describes himself as a muckraker with all the right enemies.

He has an unusual combination of positions since he opposed the wars of recent decades and the "global warming myth", as he sees it. Dissidents Against Dogma. [via Catallarchy]

We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. The claque endorsing what is now dignified as "the mainstream theory" of global warming stretches all the way from radical greens through Al Gore to George W. Bush, who signed on at the end of May. The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism by the weight of the global emergency. Amid the collapse of genuinely radical politics, they have seen it as the alarm clock prompting a new Great New Spiritual Awakening.

Alas for their illusions. Capitalism is ingesting global warming as happily as a python swallowing a piglet. The press, which thrives on fearmongering, promotes the nonexistent threat as vigorously as it did the imminence of Soviet attack during the cold war, in concert with the arms industry. There's money to be made, and so, as Talleyrand said, "Enrich yourselves!"

He has a point. It's business and politics as usual, but more so. He takes some less credible stances too.

The marquee slogan in the new cold war on global warming is that the scientific consensus is virtually unanimous. This is utterly false. The overwhelming majority of climate computer modelers, the beneficiaries of the $2 billion-a-year global warming grant industry, certainly believe in it but not necessarily most real climate scientists-people qualified in atmospheric physics, climatology and meteorology.

It's true, the modelers have interest. That alone doesn't make them wrong. And while there are some dissidents among "real climate scientists", they are not the majority. The ones he quotes in the article are mostly the usual suspects, a handful of vocal opponents who have views that may not be wrong, but that are not obviously right. Denis Rancourt, an environmental science researcher and professor of physics, provides an even more politicized take on the matter:

"We need to get political, beyond corporate-controlled shadow governments and co-opted political parties. We need to take charge more than we need to recycle. Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass. Nobody else cares about global warming. . ."

It's true that those in poverty, with no education or prospects, have more pressing concerns. That doesn't make the concerns of middle class soft-left wrong. They are obviously indulging themselves, wallowing in false fear and impotent outrage, etc. etc., as they do about everything. Still, those in poverty may have increased suffering if there is any substance to the myth.

It seems to me that the viciousness of the hard left's criticism of the middle is an attempt to get more attention. It's a ratings war. Their "product" has lost mind share in recent years and they are struggling to regain their former markets. As sometimes happens this puts them in a similar position to some of the right, not allies precisely but singing some of the same hymns, from different hymnals, and so unintentionally supporting one another.

It's necessary to untangle the science from the politics to get a useful view of the situation. The politics doesn't go away, and can't be ignored, but it doesn't help one understand reality. This is exceedingly difficult since purely political organizations such as the UN and IPCC dominate discourse and enforce a sort of Sharia that dissuades scientists from making candid, and thus career limiting, remarks about their concerns and doubts. Experiments are not funded, papers are not written, knowledge is not advanced unless it conforms to predetermined views. This isn't absolute of course, but it is a strong pressure.

So, I expect it will take quite a while for us to gain better understanding of these issues. Political and business interests will contend for prizes and delay progress. Patience is required in this as in so many things.