Realist - according to Meriam Webster’s dictionary at the exact moment of this writing, is defined as:
A person who recognizes what is real or possible in a particular situation : one who accepts and deals with things as they really are
A person (such as a writer or painter) who adheres to a style of realism by representing things in a way faithful to nature or to real life.
“Realist” in quotes, means an entirely different thing.
Actually we’d argue its definition superscedes that of any dictionary.
Why? Because a Noble Anointed Professor of the History of Science kind of sort of says so.
Naomi Oreskes, is such a professor knows her stuff.
She’s also an Expert™ in the history of science surrounding the domain of climate change itself or more specifially, the denial of it.
Perhaps her most famous book is one she coauthored with Erik Conway called Merchants of Doubt, which was not only picked turned into a documentary but the most recent edition of the book included a new introduction written by Noble Profit Saint of the The Science™ (and inventor of the internet) Al Gore.
Oreskes and Conway recently released their latest book, “The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loath Government and Love the Free Market” too.
So yeah, she basically is better than you and me in any day. The Data prove this.
Because her job title has the magic word, Science, in it, that allows her to publish as well over on Scientific American. Her newest piece “We Can’t Solve Our Climate Problems without Removing Their Main Cause: Fossil-Fuel Emissions” revolves heavily around the “realists.”
The subheadline reads: “Realists” argue that climate plans need to accommodate oil and gas, but that only perpetuates the climate crisis.
She opens with a story from last year about her attendence as a panelist on session discussing climate change. One of the panelists declared (her words) that we needed to be “realistic” by acknowledigng that part of solving the climate crisis will require acceptance that oil and gas usage aren’t going anywhere for the forseeable future.
It’s difficult to tell whether that person actually used the word realistic or not, without without the quotes, but the word or its derivites is repeated often though the piece.
She reminds the reader that the oil and gas industry say similar things. She insists, “the oil and gas industry makes this argument all the time, of course, but lately I’ve heard it from scientists such as the person at that meeting.”
The hyperlink marking the text oil and gas industry links to an article published by The Guardian called “The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing.” The article, backed by that publication’s charity arm The Guardian.Org, chronicles more or less the thesis of her book Merchants of Doubt but says nothing about the claims the scientist made in the panel. She neglects too to state a conflict of interest too: that' she co-wrote that Guardian piece. Strange that someone who dedicated large parts of her career to the thesis that a cabal of an industry lies and deceives the public does the same sort of thing here. Textbook narcissistic projection.
She then lamants that even some enviromentalists accept the “bridge fuel” status of natual gas - and if she were being intellectually honest earlier, that’s likely what the scientist on the panel was arguing for too - not for her oil and gas advertising thesis. She laments that this is all wrong since any and all uses of the combusion of oil, gas, and coal, plus other environmental issues such as dedorestation and animal agriculrue are cauing the climate crisis. She diverts back to realistic (without the quotes) asserting that one cannot be realistic in thinking that a problem can be solved by continueing the use of the things that caused it. A classic thought-stopping rhetorical trick.
Realistic hasn’t just been a bugaboo word for her now. Year ago, she says, she gave a commencement at a college graduation. The title: “Don’t Be Realistic.”
Well at least it’s not a repeat of “Oh the Places You Will Go.” She asserted that pleas for “realism” are not calls to aknowlege the constrants of the real world but instead to deflect and discourage thinking about a world that differs from the status quo. So with this, she demands, any calls for realism (the one without quotes, yes it’s getting confusing) is simply a calling for no action and resisst change.
This line of thinking mirrors the “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” rhetorical trap pushed by the Warmongers in the early 2000s and the Kendian, “you’re either racist or anti-racist, there is no not-racist” line of thinking pushed today by the so-called “anti-racists Progressives.”
It’s of course no surprise, at least to us, that Oresekes, actually takes us to race.
Uh, and slavery.
Nowhere previously in the piece did she bring up the United States - earlier her scope was on global problem being caused by issues happening all around the globe and with people from all around the world proporting to solve or not solve it. But here she tries to link her deceptive worldview of realism, to the moment of the founding of the United States - the 1776 one, not the 1619 one. (to her credit) She asserts that those who opposed abolition during the Constitutional Convention were insisting that such a task wasnn’t, you guessed it: realisic. (no quotes)
The Noble historian of The Science’s non-original message is then interrupted by YouYube video. The video is batshit absurd. Probably worth its own piece.
YouTube kindly provides us with a Ministry of Truth overlay. “This is from a medical journal: Learn how health sources are defined by the WHO.” The video is hosted on the account of Scientific American which last time we checked wasn’t a medical journal, in fact they’ve gone far down the woke hell hole that they cannot even figure out what biological sex is.
Oreskes continues to four score and some change years later to the era of Lincoln the controversy around freeing the slaves. She of course projects that the opponents of this were arguing such a task wasn’t realistic. She concedes they sort of had a point because these individuals (or more specfically, their descendents) really weren’t entirely free until the 1960s. Not entirely wrong. But as always, there was a catch there too. That dreaded R word was invoked, allegedly, (she fails to cite sources) becuase some suggested that MLK, who in her view was apparently the only Civil Rights icon from the era, was pushing “too hard” for Civil Rights.
Just to recap, here’s where we stand:
If you argue that the use of oil and gas will be needed temporarily as society weens off of them for alternative solutions for climate change you are essentually the same as:
Someone with an oil and gas company who denied climate change in those company’s marketing materials.
Somoene who argued against the abolution of slaves during the founding years of the United States.
Someone who argued against emancipating slaves in the 1860s.
And someone who opposed the Civil Rights era reforms.
Where does Oreskes take us next? Back to climate change.
This time, despite all her issues with the word realistic, she adds a modifier: truly.
And then asserts that deep decarbonizarion is the truly realistic solution to climate change. As with most climate catastrophist doomsday cultists, she demands this be started immediately to cut emissions in half by 2030 to meet the Super Scientific 1.5 degree target. It’s mostly wind and solar of course, but with some hydro, biomass, and existing nuclear on the side. She also demands a lot of other fantasies, which of course require heaps of fiat money be sent to those such as cronies in fiat academia.
She closes inverting realism again, this time with the modifer conventional realism - which is her term for remaining on the status quo. Delusionally, she states the claim from the fossil fuel industry that we cannot live without its products and that humans have thrived before without them.
As always with these people who insist that everybody else completely abandon the use of the stubstances that have lead to human flourishing should do us all a favor and set an example.
The next time Naomi and her squad are ill or wounded give them a choice between medical procedures from 1790 vs 2023. As a teeny-tiny thought experiment let's posit that she has a twisted bowel. Or a compound fracture of the femur. Or a serious laceration from a rusty scythe while she was sharpening it during haying. In what era would you rather have these unfortunate medical traumas? When I have visited various settler displays or mock villages I am always drawn to the "medical practice". A quick look around at what was available to treat the above afflictions is curious and horrifying - that is, if there was any treatment protocol. Odds are you would die in your bed. Sobbing when not screaming. Is this what she is actually promoting? No hydrocarbons no modern medicine.
What a way to walk through the world! It must be quite a burden to be on the “right side of history” in every single instance.
I’m guessing she doesn’t buy the thesis that fossil fuels finally gave us the excess primary energy to end slavery in the west? That would be too inconvenient to think about.