Guest post by Alec Rawls
Richard “bonehead” Glover, radio talker and 20 year columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, dares to be outrageously conventional:
Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
There is no actual scientific debate you see. There are just left-wingers and right-wingers following their different natures. “People on the left instinctively believe in communal action,” says Glover, so they were instinctively receptive when the science showed communal action to be necessary.
Conservatives in contrast are by nature selfish, or “bloody minded” as Glover puts it (alluding, one presumes, to Tennyson’s “nature red in tooth and claw”). Consequently, conservatives instinctively disbelieve any scientific analysis that demands anything of them.
Glover means no offense of course. Conservatives can’t help their amoral natures. But what if they had no way to escape recrimination from the grandchildren whose interests they refuse to account? That’s the ticket. Brand ’em with their denial of science. Unable to escape accountability, they will be forced to consider the consequences of their actions.
Don’t you lesser beings get it? Glover’s not just a semi-sincere Nazi wanna-be: he’s a brilliant social scientist! By this simple mechanism, the bloody-mindedness of those nasty conservatives could be overcome!
Just one problem with Glover’s theory. Us “deniers” have been tattooing our names all over the internet for years, and funny thing, we want the next generation to know how we have been fighting for them:
“Deniers” care about their children?
“But how can this be?” The Grinch pondered and scratched. “If they cared for their tots, wouldn’t they act just like me, and put all their faith in the IPCC?”
Glover’s brain, say the Aussies, grew three sizes that day. “Crikey,” it dawned, “they must mean what they say!”
They’ve looked at the science. They know it’s a crock. That carbon was framed, and energy is the rock.
The moral of the story?
A tattooed blunder, in pixels or ink, will often be a curse. Take it far enough to impoverish the world, and I’ve got just one more verse:
New York Representative Anthony Weiner insists that opposition to CO2 cap-and-trade supports terrorism by sending more money to terror-supporting oil states. At the same time, he has voted down-the-line against the development of domestic fossil resources. Truly the lowest of the low, so I tattooed him. Forcibly.
See Mr. Glover? I’m not completely unsympathetic.
Will Glover have me on his radio show? I’m sending him a request. As you might guess, his analysis is completely fact-free. Does he even know that there is a solar theory of 20th century warming, or the implications for climate if this theory is correct, now that the sun has dropped into a quiet cycle? I’d like to put him some information, and he sounds game enough. We’ll see.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mr Glover’s attempt at ‘balance’ in the second half of the article contains this stereotyping:
People on the left instinctively believe in communal action, the role of government and the efficacy of international agencies such as the UN. They were always going to believe in climate change; it’s the sort of problem that can best be solved using the tools they most enjoy using.
The right tended to be sceptical about climate change from the start and for exactly the same reasons. It’s the sort of problem that requires global, communal action, with governments setting rules. It is a problem that requires tools they instinctively dislike using.
Hmmm. Then he goes on to say:
These initial responses to global warming, on both sides, were understandable. But there’s a point in any debate where what you want to believe comes up against what you know to be true; where ideology yields to reality.
Facts that don’t fit one’s world view can be difficult to see
Indeedy.
Glover doesn’t bother replying to emails, so there’s no point in trying to illuminate him.
“People on the left instinctively believe in communal action, the role of government and the efficacy of international agencies such as the UN”
A good laugh in the morning goes a long way
When on 6 June I was appraised of Mr. Glover’s opinion piece, I actually sat down and wrote him an e-mail. Might as well reproduce it here.
—
Mr. Glover:
I’m an American citizen who had been directed to your column in The Sydney Morning Herald for June 6, 2011, and I’m writing to tell you that your offering was properly appreciated, particularly where you had written:
From this, I infer that you are decidedly “on the left,” that you’re working “instinctively” on the basis of your belief in “communal action,” and that you have very little (or no) grounding in scientific method or the principles of scientific research, else you would not have blithely assumed that the dismissal of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis could be based upon strictly un-political objective criteria.
Just as a great many people “on the right” consider civil government to be an inadequate and, indeed, dangerously destructive vehicle for addressing any function outside the management of deadly force employed as retaliation against violent aggressors (both foreign and domestic) for objectively valid reasons which you “instinctively” fail to understand, so too is there reason for their rejection of the AGW conjecture which transcends both “ideology” and whatever you conceive they might “instinctively dislike.”
I would advise you in future to avoid trusting what you “instinctively” believe about both human nature and global climate change.
In the latter, you’ve been spectacularly suckered by charlatans posing as scientists, who have failed for several decades to present their preposterous suppositions with any support whatsoever. To quote an article written by physicist Jeff Glassman in December 2007:
In the former case, even jestingly proposing that those who differ with you in your “instinctively” held belief in the AGW fraud be “forcibly tattooed on their bodies” or otherwise treated to violent aggression constitutes the utterance of fighting words.
I understand that your position on this issue is a matter of religious belief for you, and not the result of organized and intelligent thought on your part.
This notwithstanding, however, you should be aware that your fanatical, violently aggressive sociopathic disposition is extremely dangerous both to yourself and to the newspaper for which you work.
The difference between you and a god-besotted Islamist fanatic embarked upon murderous jihad with a diaperful of Semtex sure as hell ain’t much from the perspective of anybody with any respect for individual human rights.
But, of course, there’s nobody with any respect for individual human rights “on the left,” is there?
—
No response as yet. Think I should expect any?
Aye, the stereotyping further complicates things. I’m a left winger – with a strong does of libertarianism thrown in (not uncommon!) . . . and most of the left wingers I know are sceptics on AGW. As a means of reading off people’s views and attitudes, position on the political spectrum isn’t too reliable. From a reading of the gospels you’d expect Christians and socialists to be quite similar in their political position, yet the right wing of US politics has a very strong Christian component, many of whose members condemn any kind of communal action as socialist or “liberal”! Nor can support for or scepticism of AGW be put down to IQ as there are both idiots and very clever people on both sides.
You can only get this kind of idiotic comment from someone who already consumes more than their fair share of fossil fuels so that they personally don’t have to worry about rising gas and oil prices.
Here in Scotland the debate has already moved on. Of course no politician has come out to admit they were wrong, but:
– everyone is outraged by yet another gas hike
– everyone is reeling after the continuous and escalating price of petrol … which is doubly ironic because Scottish oil has been propping up the English (not Scottish) economy for the last few years.
– and we’ve had …. another … YES ANOTHER failed “BBQ summer forecast from the met office. Honestly I had to light a fire last night because I was so cold.
And now, suddenly we are starting to hear a newline from the politicians: “renewables … essential for our energy diversification plan”. You see, it’s nothing to do with global warming, the “REASON” we wasted all that money was because of the wonderful foresight of our politicians predicting that we would need to diversify away from fossil fuel (NOT!)
Of course, there’s no sign yet of doing away with the £50+ that we are all spending on this renewable scam.
tallbloke, I’m sure he thinks he is writing about “deniers” in the second bit. Little does he realise he is writing about his blinkered mates.
“Climate change is more remote than terror but a more profound threat to the future of the children and the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren I hope all of you have.” – Bill Clinton
“Global warming is one of the most serious environmental and economic threats of our generation. Failure to act is not an option.” – Eliot Spizer
Maybe we should have all of the “climate scientists” read the first chapter of any freshman science class that shows the difference between hypothesis and theory in that one has evidence which models are not since they just spit out a more detailed hypothesis. If after all of that they still refuse to use the scientist’s first tool of logic, we can all get tattooed up with our opinions.
There was an expression on a prog a short while ago & it seems appropriate (snip at will) & I adapt it accordingly. A character said, after an unpleasant encounter, “when you look up arsehole in the dictionnary, it will
say “See Richard Glover”! “
Glover’s brain, say the Aussies, grew three sizes that day. 3 x 0 is still 0
Not all Aussies are true believers….
The Repairman
Here in the land of OZ, on ABC (public funded TV) there is a duo called John Clark and Bryan Dawe who do a weekly prime-time spot.
Their typical pattern is to pretend to be a politician or two and bat questions back and forward.
(SCENE: Front door of BRYAN’s home. Door bell rings. BRYAN answers door. It is JOHN.)
John: G’day. I’m here about the climate.
Bryan: What climate?
John: Your climate. Our climate. THE climate. I’m here to fix it.
Bryan: What’s wrong with it?
John: It’s buggered. Absolutely buggered.
Bryan: No it isn’t. I was using it this morning.
John: What for?
Bryan: For drying the washing out the back.
John: Spoken like a true layperson! What you have just witnessed was not the working of an healthy climate, but a clear manifestation of catastrophic global warming! Scientists warn that if current trends continue, solar drying of your clothing will cause it to be not only dried, but pressed and lightly toasted as well!
Bryan: You know what?
John: What?
Bryan: I don’t believe you.
John: You have to believe me!
Bryan: Why?
John: The IPCC, the climate science, the models…
Bryan: What about the models?
John: They’re excellent models. Very robust.
Bryan: What makes you say that?
John: They all reach the same conclusion – they agree with each other.
Bryan: They don’t happen to use the same input numbers, perchance?
John: There is a level of collaborative effort, yes.
Bryan: And they all use atmospheric CO2 level as a major input?
John: Of course.
Bryan: Why’s that?
John: Because atmospheric CO2 level is a significant driver of global climate.
Bryan: So what do all of these “robust” models conclude?
John: That atmospheric CO2 level is a significant driver of global climate.
Bryan: Funny that. You know what?
John: What?
Bryan: I don’t believe you.
John: But the climate record! The long term climate record!
Bryan: Which goes back how far?
John: As early as 1850 – the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
Bryan: Even though global temperatures have gone down, as well as up, during that period?
John: The downward cycles were simply the earth’s natural variation.
Bryan: But the upward cycles are global warming?
John: Absolutely.
Bryan: No chance that the upward cycles aren’t natural variation as well?
John: Of course not! They wouldn’t be man-made then, would they? And anyway, the trend for the last 150 years clearly shows a long term warming trend, interspersed by some decades of cooling.
Bryan: Sort of expected, really.
John: Che?
Bryan: Sort of expected. If you’re coming out of a little ice age, then you expect things to be warming up. Otherwise you’d still be in the little ice age, wouldn’t you?
John: I think you’ll find that the little ice age (LIA) did not, in fact, occur. Plus, it was only a localised event of a strictly transient nature. The peer-reviewed literature clearly demonstrates a stable global climate up to the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Bryan: You mean the hockey stick? Don’t make me laugh!
John: This is no laughing matter, my good man. The peer-reviewed literature clearly shows that temperature was benign and stable until the intervention of mankind.
Bryan: You mean YOUR peer review literature? As reviewed by people who are paid to agree with it? As discussed in the Climategate© emails? As distinct from the geological, sociological, archeological, oceanographic and historical evidence to the contrary?
John: That comment was not very helpful.
Bryan: Suit yourself, but I still don’t believe you.
John: What about the rising sea levels? You can’t deny the rising sea levels. Scientists believe that sea levels around the globe are rising due to the effect of the melting ice caps.
Bryan: Of course. And they’ve been rising for about 8000 years – just after the end of the last major ice age. Haven’t noticed anyone taking a walk from Russia to Alaska lately, have you?
John: The Barents Sea would be a bit of a problem, no.
Bryan: That’s because rising sea levels covered the land bridge a few thousand years ago. Well before SUV’s became fashionable, you’d agree? Looks like natural variation to me.
John: I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Bryan: You’re a loony!
John: No, I’m a Climate Scientist. And if you don’t believe me, just look at all the catastrophic climate events over the last 20 years. The droughts. The heat waves. The glaciers. The snowstorms. The floods. Can’t you believe your own eyes?
Bryan: So global warming causes droughts? AND floods? Heatwaves AND snowstorms?
John: The floods and snowstorms were only weather events, of course.
Bryan: Just like the decline or plateauing of the global temperatures these last 10-15 years, I suppose?
John: You are being very unreasonable – I can see this conversation is not going to take us anywhere. The science is settled, the debate is over. I think it better if I left now, without fixing your climate.
Bryan: OK, but before you go I’ll just give you a demonstration of the Carbon Tax.
John: Jolly decent of you.
Bryan: Care to show me your wallet?
John: Sure. [Pulls out wallet from pocket.]
Bryan: Now, I’d like you to open your wallet, close your eyes and think nice thoughts about Gaia.
John: OK. [JOHN holds out wallet, smiling blissfully. BRYAN helps himself to the cash.]
Bryan: Thank you for saving the planet. [Shuts door.] And I still don’t believe you!
The left versus right argument is pointless hot air.
The real debate is between rational evidence based decisions and mass hysteria.
The mass hysteria group includes the Nazis, Eugenic human cleansing, forced euthanasia, drastic measures to cut the world human population.
The Nazis used to tattoo their SS “superhuman” troops.
This was rather inconvenient for them when the “subhuman” Red Army caught up with them.
I kind of like this idea. I’ll get a tattoo proclaiming myself an AGW skeptic and wear it proudly as a symbol of standing by the science for the good of my generation and the generations that follow me. Provided that Mr. Glover gets a tattoo proclaiming himself as a proponent of massive debt to fund huge communal prgrams for the good of this generation and the generations that follow him.
100 years from now may our great great grandchildren meet to compare tattoos. My descendants will point at the temperature record and take some pride in the fact they are descendants of someone who stood up for the science. Mr Glover’s will point to the major tax deductions on their pay checks and take some pride in the fact that they are the descendants of someone who spent their money before they were even born while yelping about people like me not caring about future generations.
I’m betting also that Mr Glovers descendants will declare themselves the winners in some bizarre twisted fashion that seems almost sensible until you actually read the words.
Being accused of bloody-mindedness is to be accused of being stubborn. Glover is, what we say in certain parts of the UK blogosphere, a twunt. It isn’t a compliment.
Glover has a history of leeching off the public purse. Socialism’s great when you are the one that profits!
see…http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2011/01/leech.html
Don Keiller says:
June 9, 2011 at 1:21 am
Don,
That was actually a spoof of Dawe and Clarke by a charatacter called “Speedy” at Jo Nova’s place.
The best comment I’ve seen about Richard Glover’s proposal was ” I’ll let him tattoo me if I get to do some large caliber body piercing on him first”.
I’d be happy to be tattooed – at least if at some stage, I’m proved wrong and AGW is scientifically proven to be a serious threat, I’d be happy to admit I was wrong and that SCIENCE came through in the end. At the moment, science isn’t even in the back seat of the runaway train called ‘AGW Theory’ – but the train keeps rolling, with the kaboose of ‘science’ unhitched and tootling along far far behind, being pushed by a few of us skeptics! (cartoon there for Josh methinks?)
“When Fascism comes to the US it will be in the guise of anti-Fascism”
Attributed to Huey Long in 1935 by various writers in 1938-1943
Hence: beware those who shout Nazi or Fascist or, I add, “AGW Denier”. It takes one to know one.
@ur momisugly Scottish sceptic. What is trebly ironic is that the Barnett formula has been propping up the Scottish economy for more than a few years.
as long as Glover has a AGW Loony tattoo on his forehead.
so when it all blows over we can easily recognise the idiots and avoid them for any positions requiring mental facilities.
if I approved of Tats personally I WOULD happily wear the Sceptic tag.
as it is- its the first time I have ever used a car sticker- as a member of the Climate Sceptics Party in aus.
Uh-oh, Alec Rawls tried saying the Sun was responsible. Now Leif Svalgaard will drop by with his tattooing needles to permanently chastise such ignorance. “It’s NOT the Sun, stupid!” on Alec’s forearm should be a sufficient rebuke.
☺
It’s incredible really the way the two percent who own everything have enlisted the aid of the very people who should be their greatest threat by turning what will be a just another bubble for the lords of usury into a green religion..
I’m not sure I believe Glover is that gullible or green though.
The latest from Australia. Kill a camel and save the planet – next stop people. Face palm.
Maybe this is’nt such a bad idea, given the lefts’ penchant for historical revisionism. I could wear that tat with pride. Who is this twerp? How do I get hold of him?