So, as WUWT readers well know, I have a different opinion about global warming.
Do you think the New York Times should endorse stabbing me (and others with similar opinions) through the heart like a vampire because I hold that opinion? See panel #4 “self destructing sabers for dispatching climate-change deniers”.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/see-something-say.html?_r=2
Admittedly, this is a lame attempt at humor/satire, something we are all well familiar with applying here at WUWT. But, imagine if the tables were turned, and the cartoon depicted global warming alarmists such as Mike Mann or James Hansen in the same role? Our friends would have a collective cow. Yet, somehow, somebody at the New York Times thinks it is acceptable to suggest “dispatching” a whole class of people that hold a different viewpoint from them.
I’m waiting on I have a comment from NYT’s Andrew Revkin, who was the subject of a post yesterday, as to what he thinks about this in his own newspaper.
For the record, I don’t think global warming is a “hoax”, but it certainly has been oversold.
h/t to Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com
UPDATE: Andrew Revkin sends this comment via email:
I find the final panel in this cartoon on uses for surplus icicles to be the antithesis of humor. But some artists, like some bloggers, seem to thrive on edge pushing. Andres Serrano (“Immersion: Piss Cross”) comes to mind. There are many others. We are quite a species.
UPDATE2: Revkin has added some additional thoughts at his tumblr blog:
It’s worth saying more. This cartoon is right up there with the “pretty edgy” 2010 climate-campaign video showing a teacher blowing up students who didn’t sign on to cut their carbon footprints.
Both are great attention getters, and were utterly stupid if the goal was do accomplish anything other than inflaming and dividing people on an important issue. And that would be a reprehensible goal.
An honest question for you climate scientists of both persuasions. Can someone please provide one PRACTICAL enhancement of the human condition that has emanated from the BILLIONS already spent on this climate scientist research/discipline? I’m serious. Name just one.
David M. Hoffer: Although not a citizen of the USA myself, you may want to recall: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You may also want to remember that the USA is the ONLY democracy that is founded on this principle. No other democracy in the world has anything that comes even close. As far as I am aware, all other democracies in the world have individual rights conferred by the state. The same state also puts limits on these rights. If you want to play with facts, do some digging. Pick a democracy. And read that country’s constitution. For Russia, Egypt, Iran, Turkey etc. etc., again, do some digging yourself and keep a sceptical eye on the supposed facts. The last time Russia was a democracy was when? Really? Do you really think the “oprichnik” really left the reins of power in the hands of “the people”?
Could this, your own words, apply to you, instead: “You’re seeing the facts that fit your world view and just pretending (to yourself I am guessing) that facts to the contrary don’t exist.” (8:37pm)
Joe Prins;
David M. Hoffer: Although not a citizen of the USA myself
Neither am I. You unwittingly made my point for me btw, but I see no reason to attempt explaining it to you.
SasjaL says:
February 23, 2014 at 6:26 pm
Richard Courtney,
Here we go …
* “Socialism” and “Communism” are the children of Karl Marx.
**************************************************************************************************88
Socialism was around long before Karl Marx. When Karl Marx was young a socialist by the name of Owen who was a wealthy business man set up a socialist society in America. It failed after 2 years. The Pilgrims who settled America were socialist and they nearly starved themselves to death. Even Plato’s Republic advocated a form of socialism.
Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto which was a form of socialism but where the State would control Capital and distribute wealth amongst the workers. As we know from history this did not work. Marx also advocated violence so that the whole world would become communist and then his idea of Utopia would come into existence. Violence is used to subdue those who do not toe the communist doctrine.
Meanwhile fascism is a right wing idea where you still have capitalism of sorts. This is where large corporations control the economics but in turn these corporations are controlled by government. That way if these corporations don’t toe the government line then they will be given away to another corporation. This happens in the US of A today and Russia and various other countries. Adolph was not against capitalism and that is why he is seen as right wing the same with Muss.
Totalitarian regimes can be left wing or right wing. Heck they can be dictatorships or Monarchies Tribalism is a type of totalitarian regime (Just ask Mugabe in Zimbabwe).
The interesting aspect is where left and right came from. It was in France when those that supported the monarch would stand on the right and those who wanted change would stand on the left. These days the right are those who support individuality and the left collectivism.
David M Hoffer: Must be the Michael Mann doctrine. Have this hockey stick, will not divulge any data nor facts. Absolutely great argument.
Joe Prins;
The assertion was made that all dictatorship in the last 110 years emerged from socialism. I refuted it with several examples. Someone yaps about Egypt never having been a democracy. Ok fine, it went from dictatorship to pseudo democracy to theocracy to dictatorship, no socialism in the mix. Then you whine that Russia wasn’t a democracy. If you want to use that as a measuring stick, it was never socialist either, it went from czarist monarchy to dictatorship with a brief experiment in communism in between which was even briefer than the brief experiment after communism with democracy which then turned into dictatorship. If you want to erase the brief experiment with democracy from the pages of history for its brevity, then you must erase the brief experiment with communism as well.
Further, I provided examples. Africa is rife with dictatorships that did not evolve from socialism, and so is the middle east. Jordan, Syria, Qatar, UEA, Saud Arabia, Iran, none of them spawned by socialism.
Then there’s he claim that only the US confers the kinds of rights on people that their constitution does. Laughable. I used that quote because it sums up liberal democracies fairly well, and you can argue until the cows come home that those words don’t exist in other countries, the fact is that in principle liberal democracies are very similar.
The argument was that all dictatorships in the last 110 years emerged from socialism, and that idea is so utterly absurd that it bother me a great deal that anyone would try and defend it.
Joe Prins;
David M Hoffer: Must be the Michael Mann doctrine. Have this hockey stick, will not divulge any data nor facts. Absolutely great argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I provided facts and examples which argued against, inadvertently proving my point. Do you expect me to systematically document the roots of all dictatorships over the last 110 years to satisfy your craving for data and facts? A few examples that make the point are insufficient? The argument is ludicrous on its face as anyone with even a passing knowledge of modern history knows. Having been provided with the facts, the best you can do is claim I provide none?
LOL.
Joe Prins,
I was busy but thanks for your correction of david mhoffer’s attempt at wit concealed as knowledge wherein he confused a quote from a President as the Declaration of Independence.
And Steve B, fantastic and funny.
Remember folks, it is the green socialists who are out to kill you. After they dumb down your kids, devalue your savings , steal your property, take your children, take your money, then tell you not to pray. Then they will take your lives.
Paul Westhaver;
I was busy but thanks for your correction of david mhoffer’s attempt at wit concealed as knowledge wherein he confused a quote from a President as the Declaration of Independence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I attributed it to neither and confused it with neither. It is a quote that sums up nicely the manner in which liberal democracies conduct their affairs,
I love the New York Times! They make our case for us, making sure this gets wide distribution.
Upon further examination it is offensive. The NYT’s needs to apologize and admit gw alarmism is a hoax so we can move on to efficiency for real reasons like being cheap or not wanting countries that hate us to profit.
the answer is stop looking, reading, purchasing , the printed media . internet news papers,GOV’T propaganda news ,ABC BBC and you will be back to normal
Mike Smith says:
February 23, 2014 at 7:27 pm
“Since we skeptics are in such a small (100-97 = 3%) minority, surely we deserve special protected status just like other “minorities”?”
The Left has an answer for that: “The intolerant deserve no tolerance.” So, as we are concentrated evil in their eyes, and won’t tolerate Greenpeace, Mann, WWF, McKibben going on their merry thievish ways, we deserve no tolerance. See how that works?
Gary Hladik:
Thankyou for one of the few helpful comments. It is at February 23, 2014 at 4:55 pm.
You say
Yes. Indeed, you summarise my objections to the ultra-right loonies who have been posting in this thread. They label as “socialist” anything they don’t like.
This labelling is a normal tactic of the ultra-right: in times past they labelled as “Jewish” anything they didn’t like.
History shows there have been totalitarian governments of all political kinds. Indeed, this argument started because an anonymous right-wing (or pretending to be right-wing) troll posted a list of totalitarian governments and made a ludicrous assertion that they are all “socialist”.
I am willing to accept the definitions of right and left provided by wicki because they are the generally accepted definitions; i.e.
Richard
andrewmharding:
You have posted your view of the execrable Margaret Thatcher at February 23, 2014 at 5:17 pm and I have posted my view of her. Discussion of those different views would be off-topic here.
However, Thatcher started the AGW scare for reasons of personal political advantage and she dropped it when it had fulfilled its usefulness to her.
Richard
I thought it was a little dig at all those AGW/Climate Change supporters, who would like to kill, torture, imprison those they disagree with, but fortunately the law stops them, and the facts have and will continue to prove them wrong …
Bob, NikFromNYC, Kate Forney, highflight56433, Chad Wozniak, DirkH and john Robertson:
I am replying to all of you in this one post to avoid need for duplication and to avoid thread bombing..
Bob, your daft post at February 23, 2014 at 4:58 pm asks me:
I merely use the normally accepted understandings of political left and right whereas you pretend that is “dumb” by using neo-fasc1st misrepresentations.
I accept the definitions of right and left described by wicki because they are the generally accepted definitions; i.e.
NikFromNYC, at February 23, 2014 at 4:59 pm you ask
Yes, of course, because it was and neo-naz11ism is. Only neonaz1 propaganda pretends otherwise.
Kate Forney, I am glad that at February 23, 2014 at 5:13 pm you agree with me when I say
You mis-state my “terminology”. I use the generally accepted terminology as described in the wicki account I have quoted and linked above in this post.
Chad Wozniak, your post at February 23, 2014 at 5:36 pm introduces your own terminology to make ‘angels on a pin’ distinctions between the three most infamous fasc1sts in history. Your personal definitions are not likely to convince anybody and only serve to confuse (deliberately?).
DirkH at February 23, 2014 at 5:40 pm you ask me
Your question yet again displays your appalling ignorance of both history and politics.
Temushin (aka Genghis Khan) was a right-wing mass murderer who predated Karl Marx by several centuries. If you search the web you will be able to find much information on both these characters.
john Robertson, I agree much of what you say in your post at February 23, 2014 at 6:07 pm. However, I do not agree that this argument is “meaningless”.
When any group is demonised the result is always horrific. Religious beliefs, political beliefs, racial characteristics, caste, social status, and ethnicity have all been used as excuse for such demonization. This thread is about such demonization of AGW-sceptics, and the ultra-right is using it to demonise “socialists”. I am trying to defend against horror.
highflight56433, I see that you have continued your egregious behaviour and lies in your post at February 23, 2014 at 5:33 pm.
You say
YOU made the “accusations”, not me. I objected to them.
YOU provided the off-topic quotation which provides the lie that “socialists are responsible for the death of 262,000,000 people”.
But you repeat your lie saying
Choosing to quote in this forum the lie of some other without reservation is REPEATING THE LIE IN THIS FORUM.
Claiming you did not make the lie in this forum is another of your lies. But lies are a stock-in-trade for anonymous trolls like you. Indeed, your choice of anonymity provides a coward’s shield over which you throw your lies.
You lied. You have not withdrawn the lie. Withdraw the lie and apologise
Richard
SasjaL:
re your post at February 23, 2014 at 6:26 pm.
Socialism predates Marx by decades. Indeed, I am a socialist bit I am not a Marxist.
The remainder of your post displays similar ignorance.
Richard
ferdberple:
I am copying your wise post at February 23, 2014 at 9:16 pm to ensure that any who missed it get another chance to read it.
You rightly say
The most dangerous person on the planet is one that is convinced they are right, and are acting in the name of a noble cause. there is no crime they will not commit in the name of their cause.
Richard
Revkin regularly highlights the so called humor of cartoonist Marc Roberts at his blog. I don’t get it. If Nature worship leads to a hatred for ones fellow man it’s a pointless pursuit.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/more-antarctic-ice-loss-and-a-co2toon/
It’s pretty adolescent.
Anyone who trusts wiki for accurate information is in trouble.
Johan i Kanada:
At February 24, 2014 at 4:01 am you say
True. And I don’t.
I wrote
Do you not agree they are “the generally accepted definitions” and if so, why?
Or are you trying to ‘muddy the waters’.
Richard
Paul Westhaver says:
February 23, 2014 at 11:19 pm
Remember folks, it is the green socialists who are out to kill you.
=============
I worry much more about the people that are trying to save me.
Politics is but a choice between terrorists.
Most politicians and political leaders are fear mongers using terrorism.
Fear and terror are their politics and main weapons.
One must look to the Libertarian Party to find liberty.
Socialism and communism do not work…never have….never will.
cn