Housekeeping
How difficult, how exquisitely difficult it is to know where to begin. Anyone who has had the time or disposition to read the comments that readers have submitted to these pages over the last three weeks or so will be aware of a number of issues that need addressing.
Firstly and most crucially: how do Terry Pratchett readers eat soup?
We’ll answer that vital point momentarily, as they say here in the US. I do enjoy hearing American waiters using that word; as you enter a restaurant they might say, “I’ll be with you momentarily”. They are usually righter than they know: a fleeting vision that flickers before your eyes and then is gone. I suppose ‘in a moment’ takes too long to say in their busy lives and ‘presently’ is English English to the point of being more or less flagrantly homosexual, so ‘momentarily’ it is.
MomentARily of course rather than the English MOment’rily. Anyhoo … other things:
Do I know how to spell ‘Whoa’? Clearly not. Thanks for the spanky botty from one sensitive commentator, fully deserved.
Back to the boiling question of the moment – Pratchett fans and their soup-stylings.
Let me quote the ‘offending’ sentence from the first Guardian ‘Dork Talk’ article reproduced on this site: ‘Nor does it [being deeply dippy about all things digital] mean I read Terry Pratchett, breathe only through my mouth and bring my head slightly too close to the bowl when I eat soup.’
Now, in what possible world does that mean Terry Pratchett readers bring their heads slightly too close to the bowl when they eat soup? In what universe (whether supported by turtles, elephants or badminton rackets) does it follow from the above that I, Stephen Fry, do not like, reverence or appreciate Terry Pratchett and his works? By what black arts can it further be construed that I believe Pratchett’s books to be useless, his readers stupid and his whole world contemptible? My use of the conjunction ‘and’ rather than ‘or’ might just allow some to make that construction, but surely they can see they would be entirely wrong to do so?
I was addressing the whole issue of stereotyping here: being a device geek doesn’t make one a predictably anoraky nerd, I (thought I) was saying. You can’t make assumptions, that was the message. I could just have easily written: ‘Being deeply dippy about Terry Pratchett doesn’t mean I love digital devices, breathe only through my mouth and bring my head closer … etc’. Don’t you see that, you silly little Pratcheteers? C’mon now. Don’t be so insecure. Just be grateful I didn’t include the lines about halitosis, scurfy shoulders and bottle-end spectacles.As references to the public image of dorks, he hastens to add, not as observations on Pratchett fans. Phew! Talk about sensitive…
As for the books themselves. I suppose I ought to come clean. I’ve never read one. Not a one. I have a friend whose opinion I respect. He tells me they’re actually damned good, so I’ll probably get round to it. I’d like Captain Nimes, apparently. (I am suspicious though of character names I am unsure how to pronounce: Nimes rhymes with reams or rhymes with rhymes?) But why haven’t I read one, you wonder? What claim do I have to call myself a rounded human being (aside from pointing to my swelling tummy – thanks, American food – obliged to you, high fructose corn syrup) if I have not bothered to glance at so much as one of the works of this astoundingly popular author? Good point. I think it’s the fans really. So insecure. Such strange ways of tackling soup. And my dear the breath!
*ducks*
Another apology: I used the phrase “paint a scenario” which enraged one reader (or perhaps delighted that reader, because it afforded them the opportunity to give me a damned good ticking off in public) – I bow my head in meek submission.
Back to America. Aside from my enjoyment of the way waiters here say ‘I’ll be with you momentarily’, I’m also fond of a phrasal mannerism common amongst shop assistants, or clerks as I suppose they should be called. Suppose you go up to the till with no more than a stick of chewing gum. You hand over the money and he or she will invariably hand back your change and a till receipt with these words, “Okay, you’re all set.” As if they’ve just kitted you out for some perilous adventure up the Amazon or across the Himalayas. Inoculations, visas, anti-malarials, stout boots? Okay, you’re all set. I do love it. Hurrah for being all set. Hurrah for America.
As NeilHoskins pointed out, here’s Stephen getting “overheated” with an astrologer:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uDhxcIaC23k
Mmmm…. that’s not the one I’m thinking of. IIRC, the one I remember featured more of Mr Fry and the word “bollocks” rather a lot.
Ah, so sorry then. I would like to see that one!
If it’s the same one I remember then the phrase I recall was “specious bullshit”. But then my memory is utterly appalling and not to be trusted.
Hmm…. I would love to see how some of our more pompous politicians (err is there such a thing as a non pompous one) reacted to having their beloved policies described as “arse gravy”.
I am more interested in the style of dinner conversation than GW so that tells you all you need to know about my type; denial is very comfortable on occasions.
†To a Briton pointing out that something is nonsense, rubbish, tosh or logically impossible in its own terms is not an attack on the person saying it – it’s often no more than a salvo in what one hopes might become an enjoyable intellectual tussle.”
Many is the time that I have mooted an opinion here in the UK, only to be told that it is arrant nonsense, & I have felt hurt. A self-contradictory statement I will unpack, but the zeal of those who try to convince me that they are right never ceases to amaze me, and rarely alters what I think even if I become less willing to verbalize it.
I like a healthy debate, but I am clearly far too sensitive for these Isles & shall rethink my geography immediately, I had no idea that just by living here I had to accept my opinions being dismissed by others.
Glad to see that the ‘fire-in-the-belly’ to debate people has not been lost (or has it been stirred as a result of stopping smoking?). All the best for your mammoth trip around the States; I look forward to the resulting documentary.
I’m glad you make clear that most of your contacts with Americans have been favourable (as have mine) but if you’re down in Florida soon please drop in on the folks at Polk County as I’m sure you’re one of the most able people on the planet to explain that an understanding of evolution in their High School science curriculum will not hurt them (they’re trying to oppose its introduction into the Florida State Science standards). On second thoughts don’t stop there; having experienced the level of willful ignorance displayed on their public forums, as a homosexual Brit you may not survive.
Oh the memory this blessed blessary brought back of evenings spent trying to engage Americans in debate on any subject! I remember the increasing irritation one feels when the “opposing” party merely states their point of view – so there – and is unwilling or incapable of arguing their point or, indeed, questioning yours.
In the European soul this seems to evoke a need to provoke the unwilling debater into engaging in discussions which, for reasons I cannot begin to understand, invariably leads to no more than a accusation of being patronising or offensive on the American’s side and in extreme cases can lead to a threat of violence.
I came to the conclusion that your “average” American suffers from a sense of inferiority, which may seem odd, as they are programmed to believe that there is no better place on earth than the US of A – you try and debate THIS point at your peril. However, they appear to be very sensible of the fact that their education system has left all but the few incapable of giving any cultural or historical perspective to the argument, which, they fear, could leave them sadly exposed and embarrassed, because for an American a debate is no end in itself, it is something that must be won.
This in turn makes me feel that, whilst I can forgive anyone for being ill educated, I cannot forgive the vast majority of Americans their total lack of curiosity. Surely, it is curiosity that makes us want to engage in discussions – curiosity to learn about differences in opinion on any given subject.
As to global warming, I have no idea whether it is man made of if indeed it exists at all. As a person without faith, I have long since decided that my aim in life is to do as little damage as possible, whether to my fellow creatures or the earth. I remember thinking, when I was a child and the first colour pictures of our planet became available from space, how very beautiful it was. Why on earth – pardon the pun – should I want to spoil it any more than I have to? Whilst I hear demands for recycling, a reduction in travel and the use of energy saving lightbulbs, I have yet to hear anyone who is honest enough to question consumerism.
As for myself, I have done my bit for the planet by not having any children. Just my rather modest carbon footprint and no more after that.
[...] you have a lot of time on your hands, you can also read Stephen Fry’s post on different types of people’s reactions to global warming, and why people who aren’t [...]
Thank you for making the time in your busy schedule to write another interesting blessay to respond to our posts. Portland OR is my adopted city, so I do get a bit overzealous when touting its virtues.
I’m sorry to hear about your frustrating argument with Jim. Having worked in customer service for seven years, I’ve had my fair share of heated discussions and mis-communications. I’ve spent hours flagellating myself over what I could have said or done differently. The best way I’ve learned to handle this is to understand what upset me in the first place so that I avoid it in the future. Not that I always can, but I do try. I hope that makes sense and doesn’t sound preachy.
Congratulations on the Emmy. I really enjoyed Secret Life of the Manic Depressive. My mother and two of my friends are bi-polar, and your documentary has given me a better understanding of what they struggle with every day.
I’m all set. Sadly, at this exact moment I can’t think of any of those endearing British-isms that make me chortle a little on the inside whenever I hear them. Oh well.
The windswept shot looks as if your modelling ”Dashing Men’s Underwear and Thongs”.
sorry, I seemed to have strayed from the severity of the subject in hand…but, to be honest (and I know this viewpoint is weak-minded and overtly ignorant) Global Warming is void in my mind. I have a scant mental capacity for this, and have an inadequate knowledge to uphold an arguement based on the issue.
I also find Al Gore, who loves abit of this, to be a little TOO ”Nobby Nobleman = American Dad” for my deposits of affection.
Fryfile thanks for the link
And Blumber thanks for the giggle, I say dashing men’s underwear and thongs now I wont be able to look at that particular photo without giggling… honestly ttsss but I do agree with you on Gore…
Dear Mr. Stephen Fry,
Oh my. I didn’t have much time to read this last night, so I printed the post to read whenever I had free time. It came out to 10 pages long. Christ!
… “created my own Ben and Jerry’s ice-cream flavour”… Hahaha. The only thing that ran through my mind when I read that was ‘I wonder if it’s fruity’. I’ve never read a Pratchett book either, although I was close to borrowing it from the library once.
You seem to be having fun in America. I have not been to many places in the States, so there aren’t any particular things I can recommend. Travelling is always a fun thing though.
I haven’t much to say about Global Warming. I still leave my lights on and I don’t think there are any recycling programs in my country (I could be wrong) but I guess I’ve done a few small things. I buy recycled products and I use one of those energy-saving light bulbs. I do believe Global Warming is true (it sounds like a religion…) but I might be a bastard for not doing that much to help.
Heated debates are always healthy. (Heh)
My friend’s father is part of the IPCC. It’s a small world we live in.
And judging by the smirking grin on your face in the second photo, it appears as if you’ve slipped that thong off to reveal to some lucky star your ding-a-ling.
No blushing.
Just joshing.
P.s. glad Mr.Robertas has decided to humor me by playing up to my juvenile, petulant banter.
It seems to me that type C break into two categories:
C1: those who are non-committal because they really don’t think they know enough to make a choice.
C2: those who are non-committal because they dislike/fear the need for change. These types are really type ‘A’s in denial. They can be detected by the aggressiveness of their neutrality: it’s used to keep the C1s in line (typical stance: How can *you* make a decision when *we* don’t know enough? Even the scientists can’t agree! This last being a favourite ploy to use on people who like to have certainty in their lives).
Gentleman ‘Jim’ definitely sounds like a ‘C2′. ‘Baz’ is possibly another (departing in high dudgeon being another trait)
(Disclaimer: I’d call myself a ‘B’)
Anyway, Stephen. I’m enjoying the Blessays, and I hope you enjoy the rest of the tour (pay no attention to that thespian troupe who are tagging along behind playing ‘Patience’ in your wake…)
I have to admit I must be one of those who’s reading comprehension is somewhat lacking.
I’ve read and quite enjoyed a lot of Pratchett’s books, although I wouldn’t necessarily call myself a “fan” as such. And I made no comment on your statement in your Dork Talk introduction. But on my first read of it, it [i]did[/i] appear to me you were saying being an aficionado of electronic gizmos doesn’t imply that you are any of these other rather ridiculous things (Pratchett fan, mouth-breather or weird soup eater) and you wished to disassociate yourself from them. However, I re-read the sentence again and formed the conclusion you were pointing to some of your particular idiosyncrasies but stating that no relationship should be assumed between them and your “geeky†nature.
Now, however, I see you are saying you are not, in fact, a Pratchett fan. And I find myself still a little confused as to exactly what you were saying. Are you suggesting there is a certain degree of correlation between dorkiness and reading of Pratchett or not? (I understand and agree that you are saying one should not automatically be implied from the other, even if there does tend to be a correlation). So were you pointing out that these things may well be related but should not simply be assumed, or did you simply pluck 3 completely random traits out of the air that bore no relation to being a geek, just to demonstrate that no correlation should be implied. (And no, the fact that the latter 2 items are clearly unrelated does not provide the answer. Your point may have been that even though there is a degree of correlation between computer/electronic device use and being a Pratchett fan, such a thing should not be automatically assumed any more than the other two should. You could equally have stated “being dippy about all things digital doesn’t automatically mean I play RPG’s, button then zip or eat pancakes on Wednesdays. The first [i]is[/i] definitely related, the other two definitely are not, but none of them should be automatically assumed).
And personally, I’m not really sure if there is a correlation between being a fan of electronics and a fan of Terry Pratchett or not. My gut feel would be that the “computer literate†tend to be from the more educated segments of society and thus would have a tendency to read more in general than the average person. So I suspect more computer geeks read Terry Pratchett than do, say, soccer hooligans.
On the topic of Global Warming, I’m afraid I’m a severe pragmatist. While I’m completely uncertain as to whether there’s much we can do to halt or reverse the condition, I am absolutely certain there’s nothing I can do personally that will have any impact. Whether or not I recycle affects absolutely nothing. Yes… I understand the “if everybody says that and everybody does nothing…†arguments. But I’m not “everybodyâ€. I’m just little old me and nothing I do will make one iota of difference. I [i]do[/i] recycle, though, and I [i]do[/i] use compact fluorescent light bulbs in the lights that get used often in my house. But I don’t ride a bike to work, I drive my car. And I don’t seek out the items in the supermarket that have the least impact on the environment. And I probably only recycle because my council made it easy by supplying a separate rubbish bin for recyclables and my use of energy saving light bulbs is probably motivated at least in part by the savings to my electricity bill.
[...] bit more exuberant than Americans are used to and the engagement turned uglier than it should have. This blessay doesn’t detail the argument, but Fry makes some observations about differences between us Americans and the English. I found it [...]
I noticed your Pratchett comment the other day, but opted to believe that you didn’t mean all Pratchett fans automatically behaved in that manner or anything. I have to admit, since I am one of the organizers of the first North American Discworld Convention (http://www.nadwcon.org), I would probably be considered a *pretty big* Pratchett fan, but I’ve never thought of myself as *too* dorky.
To be honest, it’s been hard to find other Pratchett fans here in the U.S., though he’s really picked up in the last few years. So for Americans, at least, I don’t think there is really a stereotype for fans yet. But the ones I’ve come in contact with so far seem to be pretty cool. As is the man himself.
I do think you would enjoy the books. I’d recommend Guards! Guards! as a starting point. Captain Vimes (Nimes was close!) is one of the main characters in that one.
[...] Stephen Fry has recently begun to blog. He made a big splash in geeky circles with his first post, which was all about smartphones. His posts tend to be quite lengthy, but if you’ve got the time, it’s worth bookmarking his site. Here’s something that caught my attention: [...]
I’ll admit, I followed a link over here on a lark from a friend’s blog, but now that I’ve read this ‘blessay’, as you apparently call them, I’ll likely be back.
It is not, necessarily, that I agree with all of your theories. To be truthful, as an American and one of those who does not believe that global warming can be fully ascribed to our doing, I disagree with many of your thoughts.
But the skill with which you posit those thoughts, and the clarity with which they come through, intrigues and delights me in a great many ways. You are quite well-written, and it is no small surprise that you are both a writer and involved in film. Quite fascinating, indeed, and I would only have wished the chance to have such a dinner debate to prove that not all of those in America have experienced our legendary ‘dumbing-down’ process.
All of that being said, allow me to put through my few meager opinions:
1) The earth has been around far, far longer than the industrial age if you follow an evolutionary bent, and if you follow a religious bent, it’s still been around far longer than this short industrial age. Weather patterns change over time, and that is very well known… while we may be going through a warming phase currently, there was a period of time not so many hundreds of years back known as the ‘little Ice Age’, during which I’ve heard that the Thames froze over for a good length of time (a month or more?), and during which much of the northern half of the United States was equally frozen, and people died throughout much of the northern hemisphere. It was deemed to have been caused by tidal shifts by science. While I will take a moment to state simply that I am no scientist, there are alternative options that may be part and parcel of the concept of global warming, above and beyond our own wasteful habits… and we must remain equally cognizant of those as of our own responsibility.
2) I will say that in the Americas, we have two major factions: those who are horribly lazy about their environment, and those who are overexuberant about taking care of it. Americans, on the whole, tend to split into ‘for’ and ‘against’ categories on virtually any topic, and those who are ‘for’ the environmental changes needed here are extremists, but those who are ‘against’ it are equally extreme in their own regard. My belief is that there is little to no middle ground in the good old US of A, due to our own tendency to polarize to clusters of people with whom we agree, and that there is a very definitive lack of debate that does not involve anger… and to me, that’s a shameful cultural trait on our part. But it also means that it may be at least a part of your difficulty in having your dinnertable discussion, and that it is not uncommon to find in every walk of life.
3) In the end, it matters little to none who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’, although we Americans are quite insistent about being in the right. In the end, as other people have suggested, what matters is finding solutions. And to find a solution, one must at least find a cause, so that they can apply cause and effect principles of study to come up with those solutions. Currently, the prospective solutions involve hybrid cars and recycling, among other things. But these are small-scale things. Yes, in a larger context, those things do add up… but the average American is no more likely to find a solution as they are likely to eradicate global warming singlehandedly. And I suspect that frustrates people, as everyone wants to be the hero, the person who is known as the spearhead that took out the global warming issue. To some, that means that they are unlikely to leap up and take the bait to begin effectively doing their part. To others, it means that they rail incessantly that there is no problem, or that there is one, but they speak a little too loudly to cover over their own shortcomings. We all have them, but we rarely want to admit them.
(And if it isn’t already obvious, I write in stream-of-consciousness. My apologies.)
What these three things basically say, in a much less verbose fashion, is this: it doesn’t matter what we believe, whether it’s for or against. What matters is what’s done. Will it ‘fix’ things? Maybe, maybe not. But in the meantime, it does no harm. Will Americans be the ones to fix it? Perhaps once we come out of our polarized shells and actually learn to speak like decent creatures instead of just throwing epithets at the other camp of opinion, we can help more… but I don’t believe it’s something that we alone can fix, no matter how many of us would like to… if it’s repairable at all, and not just a quirk of Mother Nature.
But I do express my sincere sympathy for having found hideous dinner conversation in the form of a person who could not decide which side of a debate he wanted to stand on, and hope that not all of us here in the States show such horrid behavior during your journeys here.
I also would like to state that, whether or not we’re willing as individuals to learn more, the United States is becoming more ecologically conscious as a whole through the global warming debate. Hopefully, irregardless of what is accurate in regards to that debate, it will at least help in some way to educate our ‘dumbed-down masses’ that I hear about on TV. I can say that it has helped us here in Southern California to be forced into more environmental consciousness, as our greatly-lessened levels of smog show. Perhaps that’ll become more mainstream throughout the country over time, and indeed, throughout the world.
Someone mentioned “Good Omens”. This is easily Pratchett’s best book; whether this is because it is co-written with Neil Gaiman, or because it’s a stand-alone book set in the real world (roughly) rather than the Discworld, I don’t know. But it is enormous fun and I think Mr Fry would appreciate it.
‘If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice’
(‘Free will’ by the Canadian band, ‘Rush’)
Thank you for this incisive and sensible blessay.
I think people who are GW deniers are actually feeling rather guilty that they’ve maybe done something ‘bad’ ie contributed to GW, and can’t stand someone else being right. It’s a shame, because those of us who think ‘well, doing something to attempt to reverse or slow it down can’t hurt can it?’ don’t want to be right over someone else’s wrong, we just want a bit of responsibility from gas-guzzling wasters!
Having ‘free will’ brings responsibilities.
As for the likelihood that aliens would be hostile: Would you walk over a million miles barefoot to somewhere you’d only dreamt about, just to hit someone you’d never met before? Not very likely is it? The co-operative, benevolent, mammoth effort that would go into travel over such vast distances of space would make a hostile purpose completely pointless. Read ‘Contact’ by Carl Sagan.
Great read, and it’s nice to see a mention of West Virginia! As an English born, American resident, Scottish university student, it was very encouraging to see that I’m not the only one who meets statements like Al Gore being “a piece of shit” in dinnertime chats with some. It’s frustrating, because I’ll be sitting down having a nice meal and someone will say their favourite Hillary Clinton joke (usually about her being a witch) and then expecting everyone else to agree that, yes, “she is a bitch and we hate her.”
Worse than statements like these are the fact that I’m not even allowed to point out how ridiculous the speaker sounds! It’s like taking a jab at someone’s face right after explaining that retaliation is immature.
So thanks for pointing this out the conversational conventions and again for mentioning the mountain state!
I’d like to throw another element into this confusing stew. I just finished a day’s work (in Blighty) sorting out an almighty cockup with customers (also in Blighty). Whose cockup it was is still unclear, but we just spent the day talking to each other perfectly calmly, trying to figure out what exactly has happened and what is going to be done about it. From my experiences with conducting business with Americans, there would have been much shouting, tears, and acrimony.
Could this possibly (or am I just showing my own prejudices?) be extrapolated to explain their tendency to try to resolve problems with bombs rather than debate?
Dear Mr Fry,
Your blessays are always such a joy to read! Thanks a lot for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.
Congratulations on winning an Emmy! At long last! SLOTMD should be broadcast in countries other than the UK and the USA as well in order to raise people´s awareness and help lift the stigma attached to bipolarity.
Do you ever miss England ? If so, I know the feeling…
Greetings from Vienna (A)
[...] friendly!) I like that they call themselves “Bacontrepreneurs” I tend to agree with Mr. Fry’s assessment about Americans (as opposed to folks in the UK) and debate. Just because I disagree with you, [...]
To Jeff Walsh – The Great Global Warming Swindle is a foetid pile of dingoes kidneys. Seriously. There were numerous egregious errors, ommissions and distortions of the science in that ‘documentary’. Whoever it was at Channel 4 who commissioned it should be ashamed of themselves.
Regarding Baz’s mention of the survey of research papers, it would have been nice if he had included an actual cite so that the rest of us could check it out for ourselves. If he was still around I’d ask him for it straight, but since he’s decided to bow out I’ll just have to take my best guess – which is that he’s probably referring to the survey of papers done by Klaus-Martin Schulte earlier in the year.
Some pertinent facts about this piece of work:
1) It is intended as an update to the (in)famous Oreskes literature survey that was published in [i]Science[/i] in 2004.
2) The Schulte survey hasn’t actually been published yet – it has been submitted to a journal called Energy and Environment which is (how shall I put it?) not especially well regarded. I’ve not found any news as to whether it has been accepted for publication.
3) All of the info about it in the public sphere derives from a journalistic piece Viscount Monckton put out in July; this then got picked up by a couple of James Inhofe’s water-carriers and spammed across the sceptic echo-chamber in August (I’m guessing that this is how Baz heard about it).
4) Finally I think it is relevant to point out that Oreskes is a historian of science with a specialism in earth sciences, so she was well fitted for the task she undertook. On the other hand, Schulte is a medical researcher specialising in endocrine surgery so he’s very much out of his realm of professional expertise with regard to this topic.
Given (2) and (3) above it is very difficult to conduct a proper evaluation of the merit of this survey, however Oreskes has responded to what has been publicly asserted about it (you can find her response at http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_responds_to_schulte.php).
Doubtless once the survey is actually published there will be more substantive commendation and/or criticism of the actual research. However I will point out that a previous effort in this vein by Benny Peiser did not do well (he started off claiming to have found 34 contrarian papers in the sample Oreskes used for her paper, but on critical examination this number dropped to one). I wouldn’t be surprised if something similar happened to Schulte’s list once it makes it into the light of day.
Turning to the way Baz was using the claimed results of this survey upthread however, I think he has made a grave error in interpretation. To reiterate, it is claimed that the papers in Schulte’s survey break down as: explicitly endorse 7%, implicitly endorse 38%, neutral 48% and explicitly reject 6%, and Baz was claiming that this meant that the science was 45/54 split on the topic and that therefore claims of a consensus by the IPCC et al are a sham.
Sadly for Baz, that’s not the way that science works. If large numbers of papers are neutral or silent on a well known conjecture/hypothesis/theory in their area of science, then this almost always means that topic is uncontentious and [i]the neutrals should be regarded as evidence that a consensus exists[/i]. This was a point that Oreskes made in her original paper and has reiterated since – if the topic is regarded as a settled matter by scientists they will take it as read and focus their energies (and wordcount) on the meat of their paper, whatever that is. Thus you don’t get to do a search of molecular biology journals, find that three quarters of them make no mention whatsoever of evolution and conclude that a majority of molecular biologists disagree with evolutionary theory. The same goes for plate tectonics, AGW, gravitation or any number of other scientific ‘truths’.
Back in 2004, Oreskes was suprised and slightly disappointed to find a large proportion of the papers she surveyed were neutral, as she had hoped to locate the point at which the consensus had crystalised. Instead what she found was that the scientific consensus was already well established by the start of her survey period (1992).
Regards
Luke
Stephen,
I completely agree with “JIM” who called Gore “piece of shit”. It was an expression of contempt and that is the exact feeling that i have for pretenders like him.
By the way, i am from India and have been living and working in the US for the last seven years – so before any one here can rubbish away my comments as something that is spewed out by “the ignorant Yank”, please hold your fire.
I could not believe the contempt that Gore has, when i first came here – afterall he could have been the next Prez if not for the Florida fuckup. But this “global warming” debate did make me realize why he gets bashed.
Read this newstory about how the Gore household spends 30,000$ on electricity every year.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659
Thats the amount of money that many Americans earn in a YEAR. !!
When you go around the world bloviating about the way the planet is going to come to an end if we dont act on global warming but cannot get your own damned self to practice a little energy conservation at your own damned home, you not only rose my respect – you also lose your credibility.This goes beyond hypocrisy. This goes to prove that you dont really believe in what you say !!
If global warming is indeed happening and it is indeed the most pressing issue of the day, then ACT like it. If you cant get to save the electric consumtption in your home and go jet skiing around the world, you dont get respect from any discerning person in this world.
In fact it is because of people like “JIM” we are even having a debate about whether global warming is indeed happening. Otherwise every inconvenient fact that proves that “global warming” is a sure thing will be run rough shod. He takes the right approach when he says that he does not know for sure that it is indeed happening. He is how ever open to being proved wrong which is the key.
Also, lets assume that it is indeed happening – what are the solutions to the problem ?? shall we shut down industrial activity so that we control emissions even at the risk of causing a shortage of jobs ?? What pisses off every “non believer” is that the global warming alarmists have no friggin idea in hell , how much it is going to cost to “control” global warming. There are costs associated with every thing that you do.
How do you rope China and India into this ?? The two fastest growing economies rely a lot on fossil fuel ( China more than India). When we try to move to nuclear power, we immediately see a hue and cry from the same environmentalists about how dangerous and harmful nuclear activites are. What the hell are we supposed to do ?? Alternative energy has not picked up simply because it is nowwhere ready for mass provision/distribution of energy.
The funniest part of this whole debate is when Stephen says ” even if global warming is not really true, we would not have done anything bad by trying to “control it”.
Really ?? How do you control something that you are not even sure exists in the first place ?? What’s next ?? I dont believe in ghosts but if in case they do really exist, let me warn my children about it ?? At what costs ??Even at the cost of making them a little irrational ??
Let me give you a little tip about Americans, Stephen. They dont like people who want to sound important and bring an element of alarmism to an issue without getting their facts right. They dont like people who sit back and point out problems without offering solutions about them. Without thinking through about the solutions to deal with problems. Without understanding that solutions to certain problems can be worse than the problems themselves.
Also, your condescending attitude towards Americans who dont want to indulge in verbal sparring with you is almost too difficult to miss. Could it be possible that JIM saw you as a guest with whom he didnt want to pick up a fight ?? Could it be possible that Americans have some quaint notions about not being rude to their guests?? People have strong opinions about the issues of the day. But they also seem to have a sense of decency which you Brits would do well to learn from.
I laughed my ass off after reading Neil Hoskins comments. Sir, i am sorry but you do fit the stereotype of a know it all Euro snob who casts a condescding eye on his cousins across the Atlantic.. Did you even read what Mr Fry wrote ?? He said that Americans try not to have contentious debates and you come back and say that Americans would rather avoid those confrontations and rather go on to BIGGER ones ?? It does not make a whole lot of sense does it ??
If you want to understand how Americans think and deal with the issues of the day, you need more than the time Mr.Fry is taking to do his work for British TV. You need to live , work and breathe here . If you cannot, please stop passing judgement on people, you hardly know. AT least that’s one kind of cooling down that we can all agree to !
I know for a fact that Gore drives a 4×4 and clocks up more air miles than easyJet. How about that for an inconvenient truth?
I met him once in a branch of Halifax, but he spoke with a french accent. Funny how people are different from what they are on the tele.
Cheers for the blogging fry. Ps. can we have more pictures?
Frabjous blessay, again.
Stephen, don’t apologise for getting heated about this. It’s a rational thing to do, and whilst the US dinner-table etiquette may not be that of Hampstead, there is a process of changing minds and hearts that is needed if our global society is to respond to the challenge of climate change; slaying bilious Jaberwockies requires both passion as well as calm rationality.
An assertion; one of the reasons the US has taken so long to wake up to the CC agenda US has been the preponderance of pre-enlightenment mindsets, which politicians like Bush (among others) appeal to and encourage. It is notable (no, priceless) that one of the bloggers here cites Margaret Thatcher as the font and origin of the CC debate saying it was a political response to the need to break the power of coal and the NU (that’s so risible my stomach hurts “blame Scargill”, fantastic). Point to note blogger: Mrs T (no fan I) was a scientist before a politician. When presented with the evidence (in some detail) she was able to quickly see what the numbers meant.
I’d go so far to say that’s a significant difference between the way policy is made in Europe and the US. We (specifically the UK) have a political and administrative culture of seeking “evidence based policy”; we’ve not traditionally done things because they are the right thing to do to extend or project a national image or way of life, rather because it is the right thing to do given the evidence and choices available. So the US goes in for a lot of very loud flag waving, tuba playing, hail to the chiefing, linked to invocations of founding fathers etc (and today is Thanksgiving) and we don’t (which is why a lot of Blair grated I think). Its why when we went to War in Iraq, the argument had to be politically presented as 45minute threat, not regime change. And when there was no evidence, why it was such a political betrayal.
There is this constant negotiation across the enlightenment divide; people don’t like rationality if it challenges their preconceptions. However, I think you let the Cs off too lightly in your blessay saying numbers are a fools game. We are no longer in the 19th century; the reason doctors don’t believe disease is caused through smell is as a result of intensive investigation, peer review and Popperian attempts to disprove theory in order to make it robust. We’ve not only honed our technical knowledge of science, but the processes of deriving that knowledge, which started to come to maturity with the enlightenment. Does the same logic apply, say, to the naysayers use of modern medicine for their private life? Vis, I’m not a doctor, I don’t have all the knowledge, so I’m not going to trust those who wear the white coats and have the qualifications who say I need a transfusion, thanks. Almost certainly not. So how come they’ll say that about CC?
Penultimate thought. We don’t do God in UK politics. But by Jingo they do in the US. Much of the mobilisation around climate change in the states appears to come from a stewardship angle (a God-given role to husband -yes that’s intentional- the planet). Look at Arnie’s language on this (and your friend Jim should read what the Governator is saying…). They haven’t had the UK Treasury’s Stern Review over there to put the crisp economic case, which challenges the reader not only through their environmental values, but their pockets. Rather, the strongest political appeals have been to use the argument of national (and less so global) responsibility, for this generation, and crucially again for future generations. Its a political appeal to exceptionalism of American political culture “we are different, we are chosen, we must take our responsibilities seriously”.
In answer to your last paragraph, yes, we will have the courage to vote for the action necessary; and, hold the front page, so will the US. Look at what is happening across the States. The big Metropolitan areas are signing up to measures way more progressive than the Federal government. California is leading the States (and it alone, of course, is the sixth largest economy in the world). The pace of action will accelerate as the impacts become cleared to the laity as well as the initiated. And whilst the mobilisation may be through pre-enlightenment language and rhetoric, they’ll get there in the end. There is no other choice.
So we’ll all do our bit, and as well as those things you said above, you’ll get around to asking someone to put in the solar panels, the wind turbine and convert the Taxi to LPG or another low-carbon fuel. And you won’t be any more useless than anyone else, cos over the next 5 to 10 years, we’ll all being doing it.
While I agree with (and was greatly entertained by) more or less everything you say, I’m a bit uncertain about this:
“no self-respecting human being is going to be recruited to a cause whose spokesmen are as self-righteous religious zealots, making impossible demands all at once on fallible human beings”
The sad fact is that people are recruited by actual self-righteous religious zealots all the time. Perhaps we might elect to define those people as non-self-respecting, but it would be a decidely tendentious position.
“Doing nothing risks everything and gains comparatively little, doing something risks comparatively little and gains the whole world.”
What a beautiful and meaningful thought; it refers to so much more than the issue of global warming. My eyes filled with tears when I read it, but then I am overly sentimental.
I suppose I’m somewhere between camps A and C, I definitely believe the Earth is warming up. I can see the evidence in the city, even the street, where I live; the last time we had snow that covered more than my toes I was 7 years old, I’m now 24. However, I’m unsure whether the change is totally down to human beings, or if Gaia has naturally hit the menopause. Climate change, and the media obsession with it, appears to have happened so suddenly I can’t quite bring myself to stop being (as the British are wont to be) overly cynical about the urgency required.
Nevertheless, I more than see your point, and like you, I’m a bit crap at implementing green action, but I try to do my bit. And I could do more, but don’t you often think that it’s just too much damn effort, or it never seems enough? I’m not wealthy enough to take this whole organic, local, green living, solar panelled housing thing to it’s extreme, and I must confess poverty is probably the only reason I don’t own a car. Also, my time is often consumed with the whole messy business of just trying to stay alive. And yet, excuses just won’t wash will they, not when the tide is creeping in and the sky is fallling down. I suppose the issue will seem rather more urgent to me when I have kids and consider ‘THE FUTURE’. I can’t stomach the whole, “what’s the point if nobody else is doing anything” argument though. If we treated every issue in life like that, then the world would be a horrible place.
Anyway, another fine blessay Stephen, and I’m very excited to hear that you’re writing a book.
It can be as much fun to have a good over-heat as it can be to have a great conversation.
There are two bigger issues for me in the whole global warming debate. Firstly, should we do anything about it even if it’s man made, since life thrives on change. The fact is that if we try to put back change, it will likely snap forward like an elastic band sooner or later in any case.
The second issue is pretty straight forward and is that the coming generations will look at ours as one which squandered a huge proportion of the earth’s accessible resources. I come from Iceland where 80% of energy used is renewable, a sort of Kuwait in the renewable energy world. The fact is that sooner than many people realise the debate will be moot as oil / gas, and even coal prices will continue to escalate and they become less competitive sources of energy which in turn will force the global economy to be much more sustainable.
So maybe if we do nothing, the unsustainable carbon resources will be used up sooner and things will even out faster (and be a bit more dynamic as a result).
Nice bit of argumentation – just for you philosophy nerds out there, the kind of argument Stephen made (that is the type C being functionally the same as type B) is precisely the same argument made by no less than William James in his classic essay on religious belief: “The Will to Believe” which is readily available on the net. If you are an agnostic, you are functionally atheist in that you end up living as though no god exists. So the only real choices are believer or non-believer — no fence sitters allowed since as James argues, they are ultimately cowards — moreover, James also suggests that to sit on the fence in an agnostic way is ultimately to lose out on the many possible positives which religious belief can support (he was of course well aware of the many perils it can also support — but these perils are also possible outcomes of non-belief, whereas religious goods are rather uniquely the outcome of religious beliefs. n.b. these are James’ arguments, not necessarily mine
[...] Stephen Fry » Blog Archive » Getting Overheated “Americans are not raised in a tradition of debate and that the adversarial ferocity common around a dinner table in Britain is more or less unheard of in America” [...]
@Isildore
“I know for a fact that Gore drives a 4×4 and clocks up more air miles than easyJet. How about that for an inconvenient truth?”
Can you read?
I’ve found a lot of the comments here pretty depressing this time. I feel like we’re still arguing the points that were being made back in the 1960s by Greenpeace. Meanwhile the USA, Canada and Russia are fighting over who has control of the newly opened North West Passage. A case of doublethink, perhaps.
More depressing still. On the Democratic debate the other day I saw no mention of the environment or energy policy, but enormous debate about whether ‘illegal aliens’ should be able to have driving licences.
siva, i dont’ want to speak for Mr. Fry here, but I have to rebutt these statements. (full disclosure, I’m an american) I hate to burst your bubble (actually that’s a total lie, I dont hate it and in fact relish it) but JIM did start off by saying Al gore was a shit. That fact alone leads me to believe that he wasn’t not seeing Mr. Fry as a guest who he didn’t want to pick a fight with as you surmised because if he did, he wouldn’t have started off the conversation with such crude language. His language instead was inflammatory as he was looking for a fight and being quite rude if you ask me. I personally dont care for such language at the dinner table.
So to answer all your above questions that started with “could it be possible…” to quote Mr. Fry if I may “the short answer is No, the long answer is Fuck no. (huh, I guess I dont mind crude language afterall)
Dear Stephen,
This would be rather thrilling to have you for dinner and start a conversationnal storm about some weighing world’s issue.
I am so glad my parents once put me into one of these carbon-producing planes and sent me to Randolph, VT to learn English as an exchange student so that now I can fully appreciate these mind-clearing, strongly-positive, enthusiasming and witty “blessays”.
Looking forward to your next one!
Sapientia.
PS: coming from Pascal’s original country, I am glad to observe that in spite of your wit, vanity of language (so perniciously efficient these days) is not your battle horse.
Siva said:
“Let me give you a little tip about Americans, Stephen. They dont like people who want to sound important and bring an element of alarmism to an issue without getting their facts right. They dont like people who sit back and point out problems without offering solutions about them. Without thinking through about the solutions to deal with problems. Without understanding that solutions to certain problems can be worse than the problems themselves.
Also, your condescending attitude towards Americans who dont want to indulge in verbal sparring with you is almost too difficult to miss. Could it be possible that JIM saw you as a guest with whom he didnt want to pick up a fight ?? Could it be possible that Americans have some quaint notions about not being rude to their guests?? People have strong opinions about the issues of the day. But they also seem to have a sense of decency which you Brits would do well to learn from.”
Bull. Jim is used to speaking his thoughts, and having others agree with him. He doesn’t know how to respond when someone questions his opinions. The fact that he was unable to engage in a spirited discussion without becoming angry is all the proof that you need.
I am tired of my fellow Americans posturing like we know it all. Stephen is absolutely right when he says that most Americans don’t like discussions. I love politics, but when the topic comes up, the response of most friends and family is generally apathy or anger. It’s too bad. We would be better off if we were more interested in global warming than in watching reality TV.
Very, very interesting Stephen.
I didn’t realise that calamity was so perilously imminent – thank you for drawing this to my attention.
Slightly off topic, I know – and only posted here and not on dork talk because I may need the help of soem of the other cognoscenti who congregate here – but can I put a question to the general readership?
Is there such a thing as a weblert – or blerting? You know – I blert, U blert, We blert… Or have I just invented it?
I’m thinking along the lines of a blog that works more as a text message than a diary – hence the ‘lert’ bit. One post that gets changed everyday, rather than a sequence of daily entries that build up into an unwieldy bulbous whale of digits floating pointlessly thougfh cyber space. That sort of thing. Probably old hat knowing me – I only found out the other day that a bit was something to do with a computer and not something you shoved into the mouth of a horse. (It *is* something to do with a computer, isn’t it??)
Grateful to anyone who can help and, once again, thanks for the heads up about planetary extinction…
Bob
@ Siva
That’s a very interesting post, Siva, and appears to introduce another possibility: that the tendency to react with aggression rather than rational debate, is due to a simple inability to understand the arguments being made. Fascinating.
Another correspondent has highlighted that Pascal’s Wager fails because of the a priori probability of the existence of God. A similar observation (also based in probability) is that Pascal only addressed the consequences of angering the christian god, and ignored the equally devastating possibilities of angering the muslim god, the jewish god, any of the panoply of hindu gods, the mormon god, the jehovah’s witness god, the russian orthodox god and so on. So one could become a carefully observant catholic at Pascal’s instigation and still find oneself unfortunately doomed.
And so, beware! If we accept Pascal’s Wager and become reluctant environmentalists in order to save human society, we may find an equally terrible fate (asteroid impact, nuclear fallout, super-volcanoes, flu pandemics) waiting to knock us off our smug asses.
I am, of course, a smug environmentalist, but too liberal to take my own side in an argument.
One thing to add regarding the British vs American cultural differences over dinner-table arguments –
According to John Steinbeck, Americans once had a similar appetite for arguments, but have long since lost it. In his book “Travels With Charley”, in which he drives cross country to “rediscover” America, he describes his astonishment at how difficult it was to get a good discussion going with people he met along the way. In his youth, apparently, it was a much different story – you could get into the fiercest table-pounding arguments over politics, and at the end of the day it was nothing personal. By around 1960 (when he made the trip), that had disappeared.
Just a thought.
And in the interest of full disclosure, I’m an American. And I was just visiting my family in East Tennessee a couple of weeks ago, so looks as though we just missed each other so to speak), depending on how old that picture is.
rvcx argues that we should be looking for solutions not arguing about the problem. Maybe unilaterally reducing emissions is like putting out a fire with a thimble, but does that mean we should just break out the weenies and have a barbeque until the fire engine comes along.
The fewer emissions the longer we have to find solutions. And if that makes life harder for everyone then at least it’s a prod in the buttocks to find those solutions.
Indecently I loved the picture of Tweedle Dee and his invisible brother in the Gt Smoky Mountains National Park.
[...] is why it’s such a joy to read Stephen Fry’s blog. If you ask pretty much anyone to name one person who can be relied upon to use correct English – [...]
Stephen,
I’ll disregard your misgivings about the blessay. I found it most useful in its present form. I’m quite used to encountering such sloppiness (if I’m being charitable) myself on this and other subjects, usually with the same person. I too cannot get the bit out of my teeth once it has been firmly lodged.
The blessay helped clarify my own views on the subject and a simplification in terms of potential consequences in this case is always welcome as I believe it concludes the argument. I hope to employ this myself in the future and no doubt I’ll get my chance.
The worst thing that you, or any of us, could do after such a confrontation would be to shy away from future entanglements of this nature.
BTW I did enjoy your reference to the use of the word “presently” as being “English to the point of being flagrantly homosexual”. Superb.
Greetings to all. I’m new. Hi. I’m thrilled to see Stephen Fry’s blessays (what a great word! Stephen and Shakespeare, eh?) I’m just an American Housewife in Ohio. That will explain the following.
I took my husband to work this morning with no intention of committing my personal unpardonable sin of “Black Friday” shopping. Temptation came in the guise of a sale on pre-lit Christmas trees. I succumbed. I drove a long way to stand in a long line to write a check for more items than I ever intended to purchase and carried out two large plastic bags of items I will use once a year. Quel(le) waste!
Anyway, I was struck by the debate in this blessay. We’ve all been there. I know a lot of “Jims”, and, God love ‘em, they are very difficult to converse with. I’m amazed at how close-minded we tend to be. Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, whatever – we are so intent on being right that our ears are impervious to even the rational opinions of the other side. Why is it so difficult for us to say, “I’m wrong” or “I should study this and reconsider my views”?
I find it difficult to put myself in any of the three categories, by the way. This is primarily because my worldview is very different. I understand the world to be created by God, and that our role as human beings is to care for it and make it prosper. In other words, caring for the part of the world entrusted to me is a given. Perhaps you will all find that my part of the world is too small for you, but I can only care for so much at a time.
Sir Stephen (haven’t you been knighted yet?), have you plans to visit Ohio soon? Amish country is quite charming, and we have a light dusting of snow in my area here outside of Cleveland. There is a B&B in Painesville (my town) that boasts of ghosts and the Underground Railroad. I cannot vouch for the ghosts, but it is a fact that The Rider Inn was used as a stop on the Underground Railroad. Just a thought.
Blessings on the blessays!
Hm… my first comment did not post. According to the sovereignty of God, I assume that means you were not meant to read it!
Greetings (again). This is my first time here – hi, everyone.
I’ll be brief, this time.
Sir Stephen, please come to Northeastern Ohio. We have a B&B here in Painesville that boasts of ghosts – and it was a stop on the Underground Railroad. And if you’re in the mood for debate, my husband (whose mother was a Brit, and father an American) will be very eager to oblige! I will be content to keep the wine flowing
.
Anyone else care to join us?
[...] conversation. Disagreement and energetic debate appears to leave a loud smell in the air. Stephen Fry digg_url=”http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/?p=5602″; digg_skin = [...]
Of course americans BELIEVE in climate change. All new religions found an ideal soil there. Gaia worshippers cannot fail to do so.