Silly Nazi hijinks: let's tattoo deniers "for the grandchildren"

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:

AlecTattoo

“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:

Photobucket

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

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.

Dr A Burns

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:

Is it possible to get the politics out of the climate-change debate? The first step might be to acknowledge the way ideology informs attitudes to climate change on both sides.
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.
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.

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:

AGW fails on the first order scientific principles outlined here because it does not fit all the data. The consensus relies on models initialized after the start of the Industrial era, which then try to trace out a future climate. Science demands that a climate model reproduce the climate data first. These models don’t fit the first-, second-, or third-order events that characterize the history of Earth’s climate. They don’t reproduce the Ice Ages, the Glacial epochs, or even the rather recent Little Ice Age. The models don’t even have characteristics similar to these profound events, much less have the timing right. Since the start of the Industrial era, Earth has been warming in recovery from these three events. The consensus initializes its models to be in equilibrium, not warming.

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?

jim hogg

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.

Lawrie Ayres

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

M D Bergeron

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.

Alan the Brit

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”! “

gerard

Glover’s brain, say the Aussies, grew three sizes that day. 3 x 0 is still 0

Don Keiller

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!

Bryan

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.

MarcH

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”.

Kev-in-Uk

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?)

Ed Zuiderwijk

“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.

Grumpy Old Man UK

@ Scottish sceptic. What is trebly ironic is that the Barnett formula has been propping up the Scottish economy for more than a few years.

amicus curiae

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.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

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.

Paul R

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.

Chris Thixton

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?

RockyRoad

Ann Coulter’s new book Demonic is an excellent expose` of the Left, of which Richard Glover is a sordid part :
The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. The Democratic Party activates mobs, depends on mobs, coddles mobs, publicizes and celebrates mobs—it is the mob. Sweeping in its scope and relentless in its argument, Demonic explains the peculiarities of liberals as standard groupthink behavior. To understand mobs is to understand liberals.
In her most provocative book to date, Ann Coulter argues that liberals exhibit all the psychological characteristics of a mob, for instance:
Liberal Groupthink: “The same mob mentality that leads otherwise law-abiding people to hurl rocks at cops also leads otherwise intelligent people to refuse to believe anything they haven’t heard on NPR.”
Liberal Schemes: “No matter how mad the plan is—Fraternité, the ‘New Soviet Man,’ the Master Race, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Building a New Society, ObamaCare—a mob will believe it.”
Liberal Enemies: “Instead of ‘counterrevolutionaries,’ liberals’ opponents are called ‘haters,’ ‘those who seek to divide us,’ ‘tea baggers,’ and ‘right-wing hate groups.’ Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals ‘liberals’—and that makes them testy.”
Liberal Justice: “In the world of the liberal, as in t
he world of Robespierre, there are no crimes, only criminals.”
Liberal Violence: “If Charles Manson’s followers hadn’t killed Roman Polanski’s wife, Sharon Tate, Clinton would have pardoned him, too, and he’d probably be teaching at Northwestern University.”
Citing the father of mob psychology, Gustave Le Bon, Coulter catalogs the Left’s mob behaviors: the creation of messiahs, the fear of scientific innovation, the mythmaking, the preference for images over words, the lack of morals, and the casual embrace of contradictory ideas.
Coulter traces the history of the liberal mob to the French Revolution and Robespierre’s revolutionaries (delineating a clear distinction from America’s founding fathers), who simply proclaimed that they were exercising the “general will” before slaughtering their fellow citizens “for the good of mankind.”
Similarly, as Coulter demonstrates, liberal mobs, from student radicals to white-trash racists to anti-war and pro-ObamaCare fanatics today, have consistently used violence to implement their idea of the “general will.”
This is not the American tradition; it is the tradition of Stalin, of Hitler, of the guillotine—and the tradition of the American Left.
As the heirs of the French Revolution, Democrats have a history that consists of pandering to mobs, time and again, while Republicans, heirs to the American Revolution, have regularly stood for peaceable order.
Hoping to muddy this horrifying truth, liberals slanderously accuse conservatives of their own crimes—assassination plots, conspiracy theorizing, political violence, embrace of the Ku Klux Klan. Coulter shows that the truth is the opposite: Political violence—mob violence—is always a Democratic affair.
Surveying two centuries of mob movements, Coulter demonstrates that the mob is always destructive. And yet, she argues, beginning with the civil rights movement in the sixties, Americans have lost their natural, inherited aversion to mobs. Indeed, most Americans have no idea what they are even dealing with.
Only by recognizing the mobs and their demonic nature can America begin to defend itself.

This is one of those “agreed-on lies” that fuel our modern world even more than petroleum.
Both sides agree that AGW belief correlates with communal or socialist or statist ideas. They use different words to express the idea, and they disagree on whether this is a good thing, but they agree on the false “fact”.
The TRUE FACT is that AGW belief belongs to Wall Street, and governments go along with it to obey Wall Street.
Simple proof in this year’s political zoo: Mitt Romney. In the usual terms of the Left, Romney is a “right-winger”, but he’s above all else a Wall Streeter. As such his social and political interests require him to firmly support the Carbon Cult along with all the other elements of the Modern Apocalypse. (Diversity, Free Trade, Biodiversity, etc.)

kzb

It’s very unfortunate how they’ve got AGW skeptics labelled as “right wing”. How did this happen?
I’m not right wing – I want the next generation to have JOBS -not DEBT to the financial-political-media elite.

Kelvin Vaughan

He’s living in the past. We don’t need to tatoo people, just look it up on the WWW.

Geoff Sherrington

We used to have an unpopular manager who was nicknamed “The Count with the silent ‘o'”. That’s about as far as my bad-mouthing goes, short of lapsing into episodes of Monty Pyton burned into my brain.

It’s ok. The man has a right to his opinion… even if his opinion is that only he and those that agree with him have a right to an opinion.

Iren

I have never thought of my homeland as a haven for lunatics but we certainly have our share and they all seem to be coming out of the woodworks at the same time. It makes me feel ashamed. That camel story was actually carried by one of the major Australian papers as a genuine way to earn carbon credits. Apparently, murder for profit is the latest green mantra. And yes, Zorro, you do have to wonder how far down the list we are. After all, we breathe too!

Theo Goodwin

The link between Nazism/Fascism and Paganism is remarkably strong. Deny Gaia or the sky god CO2 and you will have your evil ways burned into your skin, no doubt at a communal sunrise meeting culminating in an orgy. It must be quite exhilarating to be a self-appointed Pagan Priest, especially in the halls of academe.

Keith G

Wow! That sure took the veil off my eyes. Last time a rant of Mr. Glover’s was posted, it was so over the top that I was dead sure it was nothing but quirky humor. People told me I was wrong. Turns out, they were right. Same thing with that silly “I’m a climate scientist” rap video. Surely had to be self-deprecating irony. Because NO adult could be that lame for real and then actually post a video of it publicly……Well, let me admit that I need to recalibrate my sarcasm/irony/dry humor detectors because they are getting false positives!!!
As for this non-sense about tattooing people with their beliefs (and dis-beliefs), I just hope that this guy is an outlier. Fanatics are not healthy for themselves and those they influence, and I just thank the Good Lord that I live in a democracy where someone of that ill-will and anger marginalize themselves through their free speech. It also makes me feel so sorry for those born into societies that are not built to cope constructively with differences. Anyone with such revulsion in them for someone who is different than them is someone that I can not understand.

Simon Wood

Yes fine, provided all those on the other side of the debate get their “beliefs” tattooed on their bodies too. And then when our grandchildren grow up, they get to flog whoever was wrong. That about fits the tone of the article, no?

Tom in Florida

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 9, 2011 at 2:59 am
“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 is my impression that Dr S only insists that changes in TSI are too small to be shown as climate drivers and that any other proposal about the Sun lacks proven mechanisms for the claimed influences on our climate. I would be highly disappointed if, after any of those proposals met his requirements of proof, he would not gladly acknowledge them.

Oxonpool

@Scottish Sceptic. To add to Grumpy Old Man UK, a further irony is that it’s the English economy which has just bailed out two big Scottish banks.

Jim Hogg says: “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”!”
This statement strikes me as similar to the misunderstanding the author of the article is talking about. Communal action is NOT centralization of power in the government. Nor is “charity” the War on Poverty. There is no point in scripture where Jesus or any of the writers say “Rome isn’t nearly powerful enough to accomplish good stuff. So we need to cede much more power to Rome and have them take a lot more from us in taxes using the threat of sending soldiers with shields and swords, Then the wise people who run Rome will be able to do good things with that money and power.” That is what Jesus might have said were he a socialist. Or he might have said: “I will lead you to war against Rome. We will set up our own powerful government that will take lots of money and do wise stuff with it.” That was the zealot’s vision of the Messiah’s role. Jesus refused it and went to the cross alone.
The charity and communal action Jesus and the early Christians speak about is private charity and voluntary community action based out of the church. And in fact, the numbers are quite clear that the right wing Christians you refer to today engage, far more than other groups, in private charity and voluntary community action, including that action based out of the church. The private charity is on top of the taxes paid to “Rome.”
So the dividing line is not between those who believe in communal action and charity (good left wingers) and those who do not (bad right wing Christians). It is between those who believe in the centralization of power to coerce communal action and charity and those who believe such centralization of power is, of itself, a bad thing.
Replace “charity” with “stewardship over the environment” and you have the basic concept of the article.

Roger Knights

I’ve come up with an unambiguous, striking, and clever tattoo (or T-shirt, button, or coffee cup) for us scorcher-scam scoffers:
A pair of upraised, chain-shackled hands decisively snapping a hockey stick (with its blade upturned at the right).
It is based on the well-known (to many warmists) logo of the War Resisters League, in which the upraised hands are snapping a rifle.
A large, easily readable caption around the perimeter of the button would read, “Gore Resisters’ League.”

In response to an earlier version of my suggestion that I posted on WUWT (which had a weaker slogan, a too-small typeface, and lacked the chain), a kindly blogger named S. Weasel created an image that came close to my vision, here: http://sweasel.com/archives/6403 (then hit page-down twice). I made a couple of comments on that thread about the design..
I hope someone here will enhance his version in the way I’ve advocated—then I might take it to a tattoo artist and “get it on.” (He’d blow it up on a copier and use it as a tattoo-template.)

James Sexton

kzb says:
June 9, 2011 at 4:50 am
It’s very unfortunate how they’ve got AGW skeptics labelled as “right wing”. How did this happen?
I’m not right wing – I want the next generation to have JOBS -not DEBT to the financial-political-media elite.
===================================================================================
Today, that makes you a right-wing [nut], teabagging, anti-science, loon, and more likely, because of your extreme statements, also a God believing racist!
I wish I could tell you that was a joke, but it isn’t.

Owen

The global warming cult is on the verge of becoming violent if you ask me. I can see them forming terrorist groups and assassinating so-called deniers. The more REAL science destroys their religious beliefs, the more unhinged they become. Environmentalism has become a political movement, it has nothing to so with facts or logic or science any longer, if it ever did.. It’s all about a group of fanatics imposing their will upon everyone else, by any means possible.
I’m proud to be a denier !

I find Glover’s invocation of soviet-aligned communism sympathies among the left most apposite to the current situation.
I am not sure that the horrors of Soviet totalitarianism “were obvious to anyone who cared to look from at least the early 1930s” — when touring UK intellectuals were famously fooled. But they certainly were after 1956, although not only due to Hungary, as Glover suggests, but also due to other reports of the purges, and Khrushchev’s stunning “Cult of Personality” speech. And it might be true, as Glover states, that for most of the left, that blindness ended, dramatically at this time. But not for all. Not among the intelligentsia at least.
The communist party of France, that nearly won power in the late 60s, with strongest support among academics and intellectuals, was soviet aligned. In fact, in the 1960s and 1970s many social science academics in France, the UK and Australian were members or supporters of soviet-aligned communism. So what has happened to them? Did they ever confess their error in sympathizing with such horror? Has the ‘tattoo’ of this sympathy been bad for their careers?
Casual observation says no. And many like Terry Eagleton and Stuart MacIntyre have moved on to successful careers in the academic establishment. They rode one wave of an academic trend, to the next wave (the new left), and then beyond to land them in a position for advancement up the line. And I suspect that this is what will happen with Climate Change scientists.
Casualties like Phil Jones will be an exception. Most of the rest will be able to leverage into a new stage of their career. Why is this important? It is not that they miss the recrimination that is their just desert. Leaving any consideration of guilt and retribution aside, what is important is that it looks like the risk of joining the Climate Change bandwagon is low while the advantages are monumentally obvious. What the error of left wing sympathy towards totalitarianism suggests is that there is little incentive to hold back against the momentum of sort of corruption within state-instituted science.

Latitude

If the left is successful in inciting riots and civil unrest……
….it gives them an excuse to tighten down on everyone more
Pass more laws “for the good and protection”……………
That’s the way communism works………………….

Richard S Courtney

I would wear the tattoo of my AGW-denier number on my wrist with pride.
Richard

paul revere

jim hogg says:
June 9, 2011 at 12:45 am
“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”! ”
The gospels have nothing to do with the right or left positions rather it has to do with where we are relative to God’s position. The gospels are not political at all and to read politics into the gospels is to miss the point.
For one to read the gospels and change their political position on something is a different matter all together. The right wing has a strong Christian component for a good reason. The reason “why” is what you don’t understand. Try not just looking at a reading but read the gospels as a whole and you just might understand.

dp

The greatest gift to the free world from the land of Oz is for them to cripple their economy by pursuing the goal to prevent a tiny, almost unmeasurable amount of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. It will give our hand wringing socialists something to weep over and presents to them another 3rd world government to shuttle under their benevolent group-think wings, and our manufacturing, not strapped with this impossible dream, will provide for them the mechanical essentials needed for comfortable living. Paid for by US tax payers, of course.
For this to happen on our end it does mean, of course, that Obama has to go in 2012, or we’ll be in the same punt as Oz, storm tossed, heading for the shoals of failure, as benevolent leftists from China arrive to shuttle us all under their wings.

James Sexton says: & kzb says: June 9, 2011 at 4:50 am
It’s very unfortunate how they’ve got AGW skeptics labelled as “right wing”.
I’ve often thought that “right” and “left” become pretty meaningless at the extremes. What I mean, is that if you go far enough to the “left”, you often become indistinguishable those on the right going the other way. Basically, it seems to me that when take to extreme politics is more of a circle, whereby at the far distance from “common sense” lies a region of “total national-social eco-fascist nonsense: the extreme use of force and mass coercion to create a world where we are all equally repressed by the machinery of the state. (except the few elite who run it all)

D Matteson

“The left versus right argument is pointless hot air. “
I do not believe this.
Another theory is that the political spectrum is not a straight line, it’s a circle. This means that as a persons political belief goes far enough to the left it comes out on the right.
I have heard from reliable sources that in 1940 when Nazi troops marched into Paris they were cheered on by the communists.

I’m not so opposed to the idea. I look forward to being proven right.

Latitude

jim hogg says:
June 9, 2011 at 12:45 am
. From a reading of the gospels you’d expect Christians and socialists to be quite similar in their political position
=====================================================================================
Jim, I can’t think of any two things that could be more different.
Christians have faith in God…..
Socialists have faith in government
Christians believe that God runs the show…
.and socialists believe certain men run the show