Friends, prepare yourselves for this stunning collection of logic, green thinking, and simple unvarnished, outright hatred. Should we be thinking about getting ourselves off to secure locations in light of this? /sarc
Simon from Australian Climate Madness makes note of this from the Herald Sun, which is complicit (and editorially bankrupt) in printing this article from Jill Singer.
First, some stunning logic rationalization about the shame merits of lying to get to office:
Prime Minister Julia Gillard, as has been widely noted, misled our nation by declaring she wouldn’t introduce such a tax. The worst that can be said is that she lied. The best that can be said is that she lied because we can’t deal with the truth.
O-kaaaayyy……but this really takes the cake.
I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.
You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.
That’s some seriously ugly thinking lady.
I suppose Ms. Singer is justifying these thoughts as many do on the grounds of that favorite of noble cause corruption: save the planet. I’ll bet she thinks she’s being clever, even if harsh and naziesque.
Sorry, another angry green beat you to it years ago and I have dibs on it. It all started simply, when she called me a “WMD” for discussing my doubts about AGW:
===============================================================
Take some responsibility
Chico Enterprise-Record
Article Launched: 05/22/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
Anthony Watts seems to be a poster boy for right-wing ideology. This isn’t a distinction that one should be proud of considering the so-called “right” seem to be wrong on almost every issue. Even after hundreds of the world’s top scientists have documented that global warming has in fact been caused by the actions of man, he states that this is not true, that it is a natural occurrence. Just looking at Chico’s polluted skies tells me otherwise.
It seems that Republicans in general have a hard time taking responsibility for anything. The war in Iraq, brought to you by the lies of this illegitimate administration has been a horrendous mistake costing the lives of over 4,000 Americans if you include private contractors and over 650,000 Iraqi civilians. Most Republicans still believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I’ve come to believe that Republicans, especially people like Anthony Watts, are the WMDs.
— Sherri Quammen, Chico
==============================================================
My response on my blog: (since I didn’t think it merited a letter to the editor response)
Fine Me
My friends at coffee this morning got a huge laugh out of Chico Peace and Justice Center member Sherri Quammen’s claim in a vitriol filled letter to the editor that I’m the “real WMD”.
For somebody who professes “peace and justice”, she sure seems to have a lot of anger to vent. She’s sent letters to all three newspapers, the ER, Chico Beat, and you’ll see the same letter come Thursday at the Chico News and Review I’m sure. Lately, the message of “peace on earth” seems to have lost the accessory clause of “goodwill towards men”. Though its hard to tell through her rant just what she dislikes about me most, it appears that my views and research into climate change must be the main factor.
I sent her a nice note last week, offering to meet and get acquainted over coffee or tea someday, (since we’ve never met) after the letter appeared in the Chico Beat, so far no response.
But that’s OK, being a public person, criticism comes with the territory. It’s an occupational hazard. I guess I should be honored that my threat level has been elevated. Poor Al Gore takes all sorts of flak daily.
Sooo….since I’ve been labeled a WMD, I think that I’ll have to look over my shoulder a lot to make sure I’m not being followed by police officers intent on giving me a ticket in case I go off in the Chico city limits. That’s a $500 fine you know.
To make it easier for people to spot me, I think I’ll get a T-shirt that says simply “BOOM”.
=================================================================
And to that blog post, this is how she responded (emphasis mine):
Chico Enterprise-Record (Chico, CA)
July 1, 2007 Don’t deny the obvious
Author: Chico Enterprise-Record Section: Letters To The Editor
On his blog site, Anthony Watts states that my remarks in a letter to the editor did not seem that “peaceful” and since I am involved with the Peace and Justice Center I should display a “goodwill to man.” He’s right about the fact that I am upset about the current state of our nation under the corporate crooks in the White House and how it’s affecting our planet, because unlike him, I am paying attention.
Watts seems to enjoy researching this mysterious phenomenon called “global warming” that could bring not only human but all existence on this planet to extinction. So here’s a little research Watts can try at home. First, park his (most likely very large) car or SUV in his garage. Then close the door and start the engine. Sit there for a few hours and then (if he is still able) he can make an entry on his blog contemplating the effects of car exhaust on people in enclosed areas (like our atmosphere).
Why is it so important for this man and others like him to try and refute the obvious, shunning all responsibility for something that we are obviously responsible for? That is why I have labeled Watts a “WMD” which, especially in his case, could also stand for “weapon of mass deception.” — Sherri Quammen, Chico
==================================================================
I didn’t bother responding to that letter.
Yeah I got the early dibs on angry irrational people suggesting I kill myself. It is such shame for eco-conscious people everywhere that this sort of ugliness continues to be represented by their brethren virtually identically today.
Andrew Bolt says that Lashing at sceptics does science no favour.
For the citizens of Australia who think that newspaper journalists should not be advocating the death of their neighbors simply because they have a different view on global warming, here is where you can complain, on her editorial page:
Jill Singer THE “debate” over a carbon tax in Australia has become high farce. It’s time for the game-playing to stop – on both sides of politics.
And also to the editor of the Herald Sun to demand an apology:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/help/contactus
I ask anyone lodging such a complaint to be respectful and don’t escalate. Stick to the issue at hand.
okay. Well that is ugly logic. re: room filled carbon monoxide
Its akin to telling someone who has a glass of red wine a day at dinner to drink 20 litres of ethanol a day instead, just to see how damaging alcohol can be.
Nick Stokes says: June 21, 2011 at 10:19 pm
“Not cold in Melbourne, where Murdoch’s Herald-Sun is located. Ave max for June so far 15.5C, compared with longterm average of 14C.”
So What!
For the month of June, Adelaide’s Average Max is 0.0 degrees (the same) away from the long term average.
For the month of June, Brisbane’s Average Max is -1.4 degrees (Less) than the long term average.
So your point is exactly, What?
Not sure where to post this so:
“Tory MEPs defy David Cameron over greenhouse gas targets”
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 June 2011 20.50 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/21/greenhouse-gas-targets-eu-vote?commentpage=2#start-of-comments
Anthony. Didn’t The Mad Dhog have the same advice for us all a few years ago? Singer is in “good” company…
I recommend the book “Ecofascism”. It is about the roots of the green movement. It existed throughout the 20th century and was part of the “Soil and Blood”, anti-industrial age, anti-Christian, anti-people, anti foreigner movements in Europe. The hateful sentiments of gasing people is not always an idle wish.
“Nick Stokes says:
June 22, 2011 at 2:16 am”
Canberra suffered it’s coldest May in 78 years this year. Darwin suffered through it’s coldest Autumn QUATER in recent DECADES.
Mentioned earlier but felt it necessary to state The Herals Sun has as one columnist, Andrew Bolt and another in Terry McCrann. Bolt has the best and most popular blog in Australia and is a conservative and sceptic. McCrann is a columnist writing about the economy, also a sceptic and very astute when it comes to the financial implications of a CO2 tax. The government and left wingers hate both Bolt and McCrann. The Herald Sun and the Australian at least give the public a glimpse that all is not right with both Gillard and her climate tax. Most other papers and broadcasters are firmly in the government camp. The media are very much out of step with the public. In a recent 150000 internet poll (I know it’s not scientific), 88% voted for a plebiscite on the tax. Gillards government is running 41% to the oppositions 59% 2 party preferred. She’s dead in the water but is too thick to admit it and no one seems brave enough to tell her to drop the tax.
So let’s offer to put all the true believers like Singer and Glover and the rest of them in one of those Eden project type places and let them live off whatever they can grow in the greenhouse. They can have as much water as they like and keep the temperature at whatever level they believe is the ‘correct’ temperature for the planet, but evil carbon dioxide levels will be kept below 150 parts per million.
Oh, and when they start to keel over we’ll remove the bodies. Don’t want any nasty carbon polluting paradise, do we.
“I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of…carbon dioxide”
Sure, I’d be happy to do that. I’d be prepared to “put my strong views to the test”. We’re always being told by Greens that 400ppm is too high, and 600ppm CO2 is way too high concentration, so 800ppm CO2 must be a very high concentration. I’m happy to put my ‘strong view’ to the test that 800ppm CO2 is benign, and indeed beneficial, by suffering exposure to 1000ppm for 24 hours.
Unfortunately for silly Ms Singer, putting the view to the rest will merely validate the ‘strong view’ that a doubling of CO2 from present levels is a perfectly benign atmosphere for humans to breathe.
This emphasis on saving ‘the planet’ is a really ugly one. Deep green don’t seem to talk about ‘the world’ because the world includes humans, but ‘the planet’ seems to be everything except humans, as if humans are some kind of parasite on ‘the planet’. Saving ‘the planet’ is anti-human, anti-God, self-loathing rhetoric. They think it would be a vast improvement for ‘the planet’ if we should all top ourselves and allow ‘the planet’ to revert to a chaotic wilderness.
The stupidity of our PM is only exceeded by the stupidity of its taxpayers. Here’s the results of a poll to the following question, posted on an Australian climbing forum, Chockstone:
“Our government may soon ask you whether you want more taxes. Do you really want a carbon tax ?
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/tony-abbott-moves-for-plebiscite-on-carbon-tax/story-e6frfku0-1226078264738
The amount of the new tax hasn’t yet been fixed but estimates are that it will bring in around $11,000,000,000 per annum. It is hoped that the Oz carbon tax will reduce global temperatures by 0.0007 degrees by 2050 (based on IPCC claims). What better way to spend money to help our environment ?
Yes. Tax me please. I love taxes. 80%
No. Are you nuts ? 20%
Total 52 votes ”
It’s a tiny sample but given a choice of how to spend half a trillion dollars (give or take a few billion) by 2050, these idiots would rather ATTEMPT to cool the earth by 0.0007 degrees, despite the possibility of another LIA. Half a trillion dollars is enough to fund NASA’s budget for 25 years or to carry out a wealth of social and environmental tasks.
The proposal for the plebiscite was initiated by the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, a Rhodes scholar, who is smart enough to describe man caused global warming as “absolute crap”. Hopefully one day soon, Abbott and the Liberals will replace Gillard and the Greens she is trying to bribe with her carbon tax.
This reminds me of Pachauris who said that sceptics should rub asbestos over their faces. He also said something about ‘flat-earthers’ and ‘voodoo’ science.
Why are gullible Warmists so angry and full of hate?
[Asbestos facial rub http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/260c9290-10d7-11df-975e-00144feab49a.html
Like most liberals, Ms Singer appears to have problems with the concept that the dose makes the poison.
She correctly notes that high levels of CO2 will kill you, and then assumes that this is proof positive that low levels are dangerous as well.
She also has problems seperating different forms of pollution. She seems to feel that the fact that Chico skies are polluted proves that CO2 is a problem.
Beyond that her level of hatred would be astounding if you didn’t already know that she is a liberal. The one defining characteristic of most modern liberals is the level of vitriolic hatred they feel towards anyone who disagrees with them, and worse, stops them. They have convinced themselves that they are trying to save the world, which means that anyone who opposes them is evil.
Imagine anyone who thinks for a living declaring that lying for a good cause is not only justified, but noble.
Well, I left this comment:
——-
Jill – your suggestion that anybody holding a different view to you should gas (poison and kill) themselves is similar to that of your colleague, Richard Glover, who thinks such people should be tattooed. Perhaps it’s time to go back and look at the history of the Nazis, and other similar oppressive regimes. You do yourself and your profession a terrible disservice with an attitude that will tolerate no dissent, no other views, and which incidentally won’t consider any of the opposing science. And speaking of opposing, non-CAGW science, there is actually a great deal of it. Doesn’t get much of a mention when the media is fuelled along by people like you who will tolerate nothing at all that does not meet with the world-view-of-the-week. But seriously, gassing dissenters? Perhaps you should consider a more moderate first step: Re-education camps. Or perhaps it’s easier to just kill off the intellectuals. After all, the Nazis, Vietnam, Uganda… such wonderful upstanding examples. They’d have some other ideas you could consider as well.
———
I wonder if they will actually publish it.
Further to Judy at 3:05, here’s Staudenmaier’s rather (IMO) chilling essay..
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
…..did you ever wonder why Hitler and a lot of his general’s were vegetarians/vegans right up to the very end.
A question for Jill – Does your mother know where you are and/or what you’re doing?
This could be an attempt to drum up some hate mail, hopefully threatening I suppose. I don’t read the HUN and have never heard of Singer so ‘Meh’, as they say. Our government is getting really desperate though and at the moment with the primary vote polls having them just above the oblivion mark of 30% things could get really interesting.
I am sorry but I have hard time taking this lightly.
These people are becoming more and more violent, though verbally for now, and there is nothing amusing about it.
Frankly, it seems it is only time before some “extreme” person will take this kind of talking one step further, in the name of the “holy scripts of the Warmists” and we will all cease to laugh.
See the case of the abortion clinics.
Rick Bradford says:
June 22, 2011 at 2:03 am
This episode spilled over into Wikipedia. Singer’s page received the following addition.
> In 2011, Singer advocated that people sceptical of the link between Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming be gassed with Carbon Monoxide.
The paragraph has now been removed.
The paragraph has been reinstated, witha “citation needed”. I’d link to the article, but can’t see how to edit the page. If anyone has editing rights, I think the citation should be: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/sideshow-around-carbon-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212
It is pointless to continue to try to be rational to an irrational person. You have to understand where the hate comes from. Frustration and guilt. Just think what these poor people are going through every day (the one’s who think we are killing the planet). They wake up in the morning to a modern civilization they detest. They have to work for a living (which is “killing the planet”) They have families of their own who will go on to doing modern civilization which will “kill the planet”. Everything they do, see, encounter is “killing the planet”. They have to be very frustrated people, they must have guilt that runs deep. Hence the need to lash out. Anthony is easier to attack than for these people to get into reality.
Videodrone says:
June 21, 2011 at 8:04 pm
L Nettles,
I prefer my C02 from a barley – yeast reaction (and its byproducts)
works wonders
Not if the UK “Nanny” state has its way (at least for some of us).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13863196
Ms Singer seems to be another passenger on the “Death to Skeptics” train.
How refreshing that one doesn’t see any similar rhetoric directed at warmists from the skeptic side. 🙂
HIgh CO2 levels in the blood cause a panic reaction. I suggest that she immerse her head in a bag and then run argon into it. As we know, argon is not a “global warming gas” and makes up about 1% of our atmosphere. She would only have to increase the concentration percentage by a factor of 99. I am of course kidding. I wish her a long life and a return to sanity. A course in chemistry and physics would help her. Radiative transfer and fluid dynamics would be a plus.
ScientistForTruth says: June 22, 2011 at 3:52 am
This emphasis on saving ‘the planet’ is a really ugly one. Deep green don’t seem to talk about ‘the world’ because the world includes humans, but ‘the planet’ seems to be everything except humans, as if humans are some kind of parasite on ‘the planet’. Saving ‘the planet’ is anti-human, anti-God, self-loathing rhetoric. They think it would be a vast improvement for ‘the planet’ if we should all top ourselves and allow ‘the planet’ to revert to a chaotic wilderness.
I personally think a lot of this is latent penis envy. Let’s start with the basics humans produce CO2. Therefore the obvious solution to reducing CO2 is to reduce the number of humans? So let’s see just how many greens propose population reduction as the prime way of reducing CO2 emissions?
Zilch? So what do they propose instead … what is the target of their anger? It is those gaz guzzling cars, those aeroplanes, engineering, industry.
Let’s ask a stupid question: between the two solutions:
1. Less women having children.
2. Less cars, industry = less engineers, less jobs, less of all the “macho” society …
Which is characteristically “MALE” … which would a feminist suffering from penis envy unduly attack?
How come the solution to CO2 is always to attack the present “macho” society, … to make us all suffer today so that just as many brats can be born, whereas the obvious solution is to have fewer brats so that no one alive suffers (except those who have children as a hobby) and we all continue to have the same fossil fuel consumption/person, but there is just less people to do that consumption? Sexist or what?
And let’s examine this further. What do they call … “mother earth” … is it “Male” or “female”? What would happen if you called it “father earth”, or worse “brother earth”? Let’s consider all the noxious emissions, the burps and farts of brother earth; brother earth … the boozy friend of MANkind, but nevertheless a restless friend who is quick to anger a boiling ball of lava with a thin veneer of crust upon which we all stand until brother earth decides to scratch himself and we all fall over allowing the earth to return to its former “chaotic wilderness”.
Brother earth? Mother earth? What’s the difference?
Hum…. Seems to me that a deal ought to be offered to Jill Singer. If she completes the experiment specified below with no problems breathing, she converts and admits that a doubling of CO2 wouldn’t harm the earth. If she has troubles breathing, then we convert and admit that a doubling of CO2 is a serious problem.
A little back of the envelope calcs to determine just how long an average sized woman would need to breath in a sealed space (full of normal atmosphere of course) the size of an average 2 car garage to raise the CO2 levels by a conservatively high 400 ppm – e.g., a little more than the equivalent of doubling CO2 in our atmosphere. (Would be fun to know just how long that would be, but I don’t recall the l/m CO2 offhand, or have the garage size handy & not inclined to look it up right now) Then Ms. Singer must close herself in such a garage, and breath for the allotted time period. End of experiment. Did she note any increased breathing problems? We could be snarky and also ask if she notes any increase in temperature, but of course that wouldn’t be reasonable.
Note: Hyperventilating or breathing problems from panic over the LACK of breathing problems during the experiment which would require her to admit error and convert to the skeptic’s stance does not count as a breathing problem during the experiment.
When reason and logic fail, there is just one other way to make your point: by using physical force. This is the reason you see so many proponents of CAGW suggesting that those who are skeptical (and it seems they think we are all Republicans) do the rest of the world a “favor.”
It is plain to see that the CAGW position is not purely a left-wing view, but an anti-reason and ultimately an anti-science view. Those who believe we have to “save the planet” have no other option than to suggest the use of force to impose their belief since reason and logic fail in supporting their ideology. What Ms. Quammen suggests (and others, thinking 10:10 video here) is a more primitive form of force. The rest of the CAGW crowd simply suggest the more sublime (and legal) form of force known as government.
As Ayn Rand said; “faith and force are corollaries”. When you ask someone to take something on faith and they are not inclined to believe (because you haven’t made your point logically), you will always ultimately have to resort to the use of force. This is why when CAGW proponents resort to suggesting the use of force (physical force or government regulation) they have lost the argument.
… and of course, what is the quintessential horror of those suffering “LPE”? It is a horror of the … how do I put this? The rise … the growth … the phallus. They reject what they cannot themselves have, they hate others for enjoying what they themselves cannot participate in and therefore respond by zealous condemnation of those who can.