Now, the question is why did the FT publish these two positive reviews?
[...]
It's difficult to say at this point. I guess future will tell.
For sure there seems a "veneer" approach, yet it makes me think of the C's on overlapping camps (not those words exactly - think it was more in line with circles). Without searching the exact words, they are overlapping and yet at odds with each other in terms of outcomes, and when to pull the trigger (or not to pull any trigger). We see that camp A did just that this past spring under the guise of covid, under the already established programmed mechanism of AGW, and the changes they can enforce. Camp A (
here described by CJ Hopkins as 'GloboCap') may result in camp B having further losses (obvious this has/is happening), and camp B (not perfect) does not appreciate it, a camp with their own ideas - and perhaps some shared societal ideas of a better nature. Then there is the possibility of a camp C that may yet align with camp B, and both may be closer to the people.
Reading old history from three hundred years ago, the printing presses operated to attack or defend differing positions (of course this has been a constant); in the interests of political/economic camps, and sometimes it was done in creative ways against those with wishful thinking aligned against the people, and carefully done over time with a final chapter outside their initial 'veneer' (to use your word again) that people could no longer ignore having captured their sensibilities (also factoring their wallets and stomachs). Back then, the oligarchs survived or they were semi-defeated by the pen, the tower and bars - and worse, with the traditional public's loud voices taking over the charge. With the way things are going, camp A will have a harder time defending their AGW leaning Tower of Pisa, let alone their covid-fizzle that anyone who can read a graph can see, and then there are their designs for our electronic bondage (perhaps the capstone of their tunnel vision of utopia) that appeals to some, rejected by many. Thus, they can only enforce for so long (while causing a lot of damage in the interim) until the pendulum again moves the other way. Unfortunately, the stack is loaded, and a lot of powerful people have taken a knee.
Looking back into history, and one might think it does not change, it is not just one or the other in camps, there are the anti-oligarch oligarchs, the anti-imperialist imperialists (or monarchists et cetera). One might say there are anti-banker bankers, the anti-democrat democrats, the anti-republican republicans, just as there are the anti-journalist journalists and anti-globalist globalists caught where they are, so nothing is ever clear or settled - jockeying for positions in their overlapping and opposite ways - switching alliances (both STS and STO driven).
One never knows what can happen.
Back to polar bears in the FT article you quote, Pierre, noted Bjorn Lomborg in his book had said:
“If we want to protect [polar bears], rather than dramatically reducing carbon dioxide emissions to try to tweak temperatures over many decades with a clearly uncertain impact . . . our first step should be to stop shooting them”.
Can appreciate him dispelling one fallacy of the AGW crowd, yet he inserts another that does not make much sense in terms of the population reference (the reality of the arctic) and stopping the hunting of them, which is limited anyway, with the exception of the Inuit who do not harvest for food and clothing and who have quotas and may face
deductions for when they kill them in self-defense (that is a problem for them - attacks on their communities from growing poplar bear populations):
For management purposes, there are 19 subpopulations of polar bears across the circumpolar world. Of those, 12 subpopulations are located mostly in Nunavut, though some overlap with other jurisdictions.
[...]
Charlie Inuaraq called on NTI and the GN to promote Inuit knowledge of polar bear management, saying news reports should include the perspectives of Inuit as well as scientists.
“Put the news out about what we do,” he said. “It’s misleading.”
He called it “bothersome” to have researchers come into his community for short periods of time, and then dictate to residents how many bears can be hunted.
“They take their research over our traditional knowledge,” he said.
Qikiqtarjuaq HTO representative Loasie Alikalaqtuq said Inuit subsistence hunting is a right.
“It’s what I eat and what I use for clothing,” he said.
“But we pay respect to the animals,” he said. “The polar bear is an intelligent, complicated, thinking species.”
It will be interesting to see who, if any, follows suit in the publishing world and the strength of their direction. Perhaps these cracks will open up to more balance, yet at this point some shocking outside intervention will be required before people start to take real notice.
