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.
Scottish Skeptic,
That is how I’ve always seen it. The extreme Left accuses the Right of wanting total control. But as always, the Left is engaging in misdirection, because the extreme Left [and Leftists in general] want totalitarianism. The Left has no faith in the free market or in limited government. And of course, Hitler was a Leftist.
Strange people the leftists are they not? I have never once met an amoral right winger but I have met many amoral leftists. If you believe the ends justify the means then you are without doubt a leftist, if you believe that morals can be suspended if the outcome of that suspension is deemed to be good then you are without doubt a leftist, if you believe that an elite directed collectivism is more important than individual freedom then you are a leftist. There have been many deniers over the centuries and it has been a mechanism for the advancement of the human race, without it we would still be serfs in the fields owned by the church and barons, there would have been no industrial revolution for it was the deniers of the time that rebelled against the consensus, the world as we know it today would be a very different place without those deniers and rebels and visionaries, those courageous pathfinders who dared to spit in the face of the consensus of the time. Science itself has only moved forward in the face of howling opposition from the entrenched consensus.
Leftism, socialism, Marxism is the dogma of the authoritarian self appointed elite, they lead and we follow, they decide and we obey and anyone daring to question this arrangement becomes their(and by extension societys, its where the term enemy of the people comes from) enemies. There are many leftists who truly believe that they know better than you how you should live your life, they believe in the subjugation of the will of the individual and replacing it with the will of the masses, as decided and expressed and controlled by the self appointed elite of course. The leftists believe that the ordinary individual is a child to be guided, indoctrinated, disciplined and controlled at every stage of the individuals life.
To be a denier and enemy of the consensus is probably one of the greatest compliments and gifts a human being could ever hope for, we have moved the world on, dragged it kicking and screaming into the modern age, fought against the ignorant entrenched consensus. We have saved the world from despots and dictators, protected the weak against the strong and fought for liberty and freedom above all else. Leftist authoritarianism gave us Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Chavez and Castro and Hitler. I am proud to be a denier, I, as humble as I am, follow in the exalted footsteps trodden by worlds greatest and most noble heroes who were to a man/woman the deniers of their age.
Again we see the liberal artistic demonizing of those who do not fit the cloth of their aggressive zealotry. Must be a hold over from a genetic mutant who feels the uncontrollable urge to blindly thin the herds of humanity. We will see how it plays out. I suspect the first shot has been fired, as it were.
D Matteson says:
June 9, 2011 at 7:57 am
“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.
==============================================================================.
National Socialists of course they were. Is there now or was there then a large distinction between Stalin and Hitler?
“There is no actual scientific debate you see. There are just left-wingers and right-wingers following their different natures.”
Don’t fall for the wrong dichotomy left/right. It’s authoritarian against libertarian. Yes, the authoritarians are at the moment represented mostly by left-leaning governments, but that is a coincidence.
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.”
Actually, what someone who persisted in ignorance like a brat would get from Leif is total silence.
fdf says:
June 9, 2011 at 6:33 am
“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 that is the only genuine charity that exists or will ever exist. I would change “based out of the church” to “done in imitation of Christ.” I am not diminishing the role of the church. Everything it does should be in imitation of Christ. All in all, a brilliant statement on charity.
This kind of attack represents fundamental prejudice, both political and personal. The profound evil advocated by Mr. Glover and similar must not be tolerated, lest it fester and grow to the malignant levels see in the concentration death camps of the socialist democracy of WWII Germany. It can’t be ‘debated’. It has to be confronted. Directly. Personally. And Physically.
Re Roger Knights’ broken-hockey-stick tattoo for proud “deniers,” I see that Steve Milloy at JunkScience.com is offering $500 for the best picture of a real or drawn-on denier tattoo. Seriously. Open for submissions until July 16th.
Iren says:
June 9, 2011 at 5:39 am
That camel story was actually carried by one of the major Australian papers as a genuine way to earn carbon credits.
I think it’s about time we required envronmentalists to ‘save the planet’ by not having any pets.
That would sort the men out from the boys.
Actually makes me consider getting a tattoo.
Richard Glover said he received 2,400 emails and 99% (or was it 90%?) of the writers wanted to kill him. He said he is apparently getting RSI from hitting the “delete” button.
I must say I was quite outraged by the piece when I first read it a couple days ago. You neglected to mention that he suggested a possible avenue to do away with “deniers”:
“On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling – ”climate change stopped in the year 1998” is one of their more boneheaded beliefs – their mouths will be above water. If not …”
So I did something which I have never done before, write to an editor of a newspaper (maybe I am becoming a cranky old git /shrug):
Dear Editor,
I was alerted to a story which you published online at the following address:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-dangers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html#ixzz1OQ1Upj12
In it the author, Richard Glover, suggests that bodily harm and even death would be appropriate for anyone skeptical of hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, to wit:
“Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”
and
“Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling – ”climate change stopped in the year 1998” is one of their more boneheaded beliefs – their mouths will be above water. If not …”
Even the author recognises that the first line conjures the horrors of Nazi Germany and the associated mass killing of several minority groups by that regime. Yet you see fit to publish this as a recipe to deal with citizens who make the point that the purported veracity of global warming models pushed by the IPCC, mainstream media, and current minority Government are not all what they seem. Somehow it is acceptable to suggest that this innocuous position be met with bodily harm and possibly death?
In light of the recent media alarm about the alleged death threats against ANU academics, it would seem that the SMH does not get the message. Publishing messages indicating that harm and even death are acceptable means to deal with any group of individuals is completely unacceptable. I am thankful that I do not share ancestry with those persecuted in Nazi Germany or the story would have been all the more disturbing.
Sincerely,
Mike Wilson
—————————-
To their credit they did respond:
Dear Mike,
Recently you contacted ReaderLink. The following outlines The Herald’s response:
Fairfax Media apologises for the delay in responding to your email Richard Glover has requested we forward the following statement:
I’m very sorry you felt my piece on global warming made light of the suffering of Jewish people during the Holocaust. Of course, this was not my intention.
I was trying to express the frustration felt by some towards those who deny climate change. Part of the frustration is that one imagines in twenty years time, when the effects are more obvious, this group may forget their role in preventing timely action. Thus I suggested a series of ridiculous ways of making them stand witness to their beliefs, with each of these ways dismissed in turn as absurd. One method was dismissed as being too reminiscent of Hitler, another as being absurdly evil.
My intention was to underline to the reader that I wasn’t seriously proposing these methods, but was suggesting them as a mark of frustration with the idea that people could prevent action but then pretend they hadn’t.
That said, I accept that you found the analogy inappropriate and I certainly apologise to you for causing offence.
best wishes
Richard glover
Your comments were also forwarded to our senior editors.
Your interest in Herald Publications is appreciated and has provided us with valuable feedback.
Please quote ******** if you wish to contact ReaderLink again.
Regards,
Ben & Peter
——————–
Theo Goodwin says:
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.
I generally don’t say much about this, but what most people call “Paganism” around here is more like modern neo-paganism. The more traditional pagans that I know generally agree that ‘Gaia’ (to use the common name) is a LOT more powerful than anything WE can accomplish – and that Gaia will be here long after we’re gone (and probably won’t miss us one bit).
Moderators:
I just posted a comment for the second time, and I’m not seeing it showing as ‘awaiting moderation’ or anything. For reference, it was in regard to Pagans & neo-paganism. There is nothing to indicate whether it whether it went through or not.
New posting system perhaps a bit buggy?
[Very buggy. WordPress overreached. Your comment rescued & posted. ~dbs, mod.]
At 1:25 PM on 9 June, Rosie Young reported:
Jeez, that few?
@Bulldust
And… as always, when one of these cretins sling inflammatory statements all they have to do is say “I was misunderstood” or issue a feeble “apology.” Their statements still stands out in the public eye. Until one of these idiots gets clocked or dipped into a bucket of tar and a bag of feathers, this garbage will continue.
Apology from the moron not accepted.
ewwwwww
jim hogg says: “Aye, the stereotyping further complicates things. I’m a left winger – with a strong does of libertarianism thrown in (not uncommon!)…”
Far too uncommon, unfortunately, Jim.
“. . . 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….”
You have an unusual set of acquaintances, I’d say, Jim.
“From a reading of the gospels you’d expect Christians and socialists to be quite similar in their political position,..”
Actually, the early Christians experimented with communal living. It was a total failure and resulted in St. Paul’s statement: “Let those who do not work, not eat.”
“…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”!
Most Christians read the Bible and that statement of St. Paul’s.
…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.”
Well, yes, but I suspect the idiots are overrepresented on the AGW side.
Nice job Alec, really good. You’ve inspired some great comments too. It’s amazing what comes from the AGW cult. Naming the undesirables as ‘deniers’. Strike One. Tattoo the undesirables. Strike Two. No to mention 10:10 ‘No Pressure’. I wonder what will they do for an encore. These people are unhinged raving psychotics in waiting. Were they ever given absolute power the result would be positively devastating. Oh wait, we’ve already seen that a few times during the 20th century. Perhaps now some of the bed-wetters will get off the sidelines and understand why many of us are fighting this green socialist neo-communism so relentlessly. And yes, sometimes that includes calling them out by their true name.
That is a much better description than the right/left wing. I’ve always said that if Nazis were Right Wing and Stalin were Left Wing, that I simply won’t get on that airplane. What I like to do personally is make a liberal socialist explain exactly what they mean when they call me a right-winger. Invariably the result is that to them, right-wing means anything NOT left-wing. In reality they are communist true-believers even more than actual communists in the old empire.
Awesome, positively awesome. Every word. Kudos!
Only to western academics. And they have brainwashed millions of westerners through our school systems along the way. It should never have been allowed to happen.
What’s the old saying? ‘The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist‘. Well the devil had many associates. Enablers. Fellow Travelers. Let’s just hope that between Obamacare in the USA and AGW worldwide that the over-reach will blow away the camouflage, clarify the battle-lines and let us finish them off before it is too late.
And of course Hilter & his brand of “Socialists” were also envirnmentalists, although their attitude to being envirnmentally friendly took strange paths of wanton brutallity, mass murder, & destruction, unrecognised by those econuts of today!
Check out Glover’s Wikipedia page… It’s been up for a few days now…. I’m kinda proud of that….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Glover_(radio_presenter)
Glover is not using the term “Communal” the right way. When he says Communal Action, he’s referring to serfdom. He’s saying, “trust what one group tells you to do, and do it; fall in line.”
—>That is serfdom.
Communal action is when individuals reach the same conclusion and act as one because they all recognize the value in their community actions. The Amish in America do not group together and raise a new barn for their neighbor because some council or single leader tells them to, they all lend a hand because they recognize the value for their community.
At 5:16 AM on 10 June, Harpo writes:
Well, in addition to misspelling “accused,” you failed to enter the title of the article that drew the attention of the honest, intelligent, skeptical world to this “Liberal” fascist schmuck (“Bone-headed beliefs bound to end in death by drowning “), or to provide direct reference to the article by Web address (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/boneheaded-beliefs-bound-to-end-in-death-by-drowning-20110602-1fh3g.html), which failures I would encourage you to amend.
Might also be worthwhile to quote on that Wiki-bloody-pedia page the full text of Glover’s “Oopsie!” message, now present in very bold print at the bottom of that Sydney Morning Herald Web page, and perhaps cite some source or other about the nature of the feedback the newspaper has received on Glover’s exposure of his authoritarian jerk-off fantasy.
Is it as few as 90% of respondents who have threatened to kill him? Darn. I’d thought that more Australians would’ve evinced the presence of backbones. .
Richard Glover’s response:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-climate-change-wave-of-hate-20110609-1ftix.html