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.
Richard Courtney, the labels are so mangled now that up is down.
A good example would be John Stuart Mill, a well written man of the mid 1800s.
A liberal of his age, what would we label him now.
These labels are tools to block thought and encourage infighting.
Action speaks far louder.
Our modern progressives, what are they? They seem to lie by default, I compare their effect on civil society to rust.
Rust being very progressive.
Socialist is an awful broad spectrum, every community organization is socialist by definition.
So is any church that provided charity.
Canada is a socialist society.
So fighting with those who blame socialists for all our ills is pointless.
Most who accuse have 3 fingers pointing their way.
Each has their own mental picture of this beast, I can’t read minds.
But the current activities of those who would govern us, are writ plain.
The cost of their help has long exceeded any benefit they offer.
Those bandits and foolish officers they seek to sell us protection from, are they.
This is the comedy of a common language, we speak words, but use individual imagery to make sense of the meaning.
I give you an example; Bread; What picture do you see?
I was raised on home baked brick bread.
Sorry not lecturing, just wandering,
Science demands we define our terms, otherwise discovery is impossible.
Politics seems to be about evading definition.
I do agree, singling out scapegoats, with an all encompassing label, is the tool of those who desire to conquer through division.
I agree with Pat. Isn’t the irony of stabbing a “climate change denier” with an icicle a fairly clear criticism of the warmist brigade? I think it’s funny.
David G:
Having had several people claim that H1tler and Mussol1ni were not left wing, at February 24, 2014 at 11:14 am you say
Incredible!
The degree of historical revisionism by the ultra-right is truly amazing.
And at February 24, 2014 at 11:16 am you add
Quite so. The ultra-right likes small government: indeed, that is why they are on the right. But the desires of those in power were all the direction needed to control whatever needed to be controlled at every point throughout society: you see, there was this organisation called the Gestapo …
Richard
john robertson:
Thankyou for your post at February 24, 2014 at 12:22 pm which includes
There is much wisdom in your “wandering”.
As you say, definitions do matter and that is why I am enraged by those who attempt to redefine evil-doers from the past as being party to those whom it is desired to scapegoat in the present.
We need to object to such scapegoating whomever it is aimed at whether we agree with them or not: first they came for …
Richard
richardscourtney says (February 24, 2014 at 1:02 am): “I am willing to accept the definitions of right and left provided by wicki because they are the generally accepted definitions…”
Thanks for the reference, Richard. That explains your reply to Kate (and others).
I’m not so sure about the “generally accepted” part, however. Though it claims “general consensus”, the article cites only 4 limited-scope references for the “left” and only 1 for the “right”. The rest of the article illustrates in some detail how fluid the terms “left” and “right” have been historically and in contemporary usage. And as we’ve seen in this thread,not all commenters agree with the “consensus”. Perhaps we can get get John Cook to do another survey. 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/
“Consensus” or not, I fail to understand a “political spectrum” that puts both “anarchists” and “communists” on one side of center (what could they possibly have in common?), with monarchists (!), libertarians–excuse me, “right”-libertarians (?)–and National Socialists on the other. In the article, I was unable to discern just what is being measured on this one-dimensional axis, i.e. what increases as one moves right and decreases as one moves left. Richard, can you help me out here, either with an explanation or a reference?
Thinking more about the problem, it seemed to me that we would need at least two axes in order to separate out the more “libertarian” vs “totalitarian” varieties of “left” and “right” ideologies. Lo and behold, the wiki article references just such a graph, the so-called “Nolan Chart”, which would seem to be a considerable improvement on the oversimplified left/right spectrum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart
Hmm. I’ll have to look into this Nolan thingy some more…
It is with some trepedation that I comment on this right vs. left quagmire.
Here is what I see:
Civil society vs. uncivil: socieities where rule of law, and limits on what laws do vs. uncivil socieites where the tools of governemnt are used to suppress dissent. Uncivil socieites tolerate kleptocratic leadership, as we have seen in North Korea, 1930’s Germany, apparently in Ukraine, most certainly in Venezuela and Zimbabwe. In “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” , a comprehensive pre-PC history of that horrible period of history, one of the major themes is that Hitler’s regime was fueled in no small part by the theft of assets from its political opponents/victims. That standard- the one of degree state thieving and suppressionis allowed to fester- is more meaningful than ‘left or right’.
Once your political views have lead to the conclusion “.. and therefore, I must Kill my Enemies!” it is time to go back through your working to find the error. I accept there will be rare cases where this is impossible. The present example isn’t one of them.
Dear Mr. Richard S. Courtney,
Well Mr. Richard S. Courtney, a pronounced socialist. It certainly figures in as you make your way through the comments demonizing who you disagree with, all while pretending to be educated. An educated well learned person would recognize and loath the evils of socialism and would certainly never so impolitely castigate as freely as you do.
Just as the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church so proclaimed socialism to be as evil as evil can get. “You understand, venerable brethren, that We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists (which you and your friends here proclaim to be), communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning—the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.”
May I repeat; Mr. Richard M. Courtney and your socialist defenders: I do not apologize. Do everyone here a favor and end your egotistical preoccupation with yourself. Your exploitation and false superiority are not attracting any friends. Some folks here might make a case that you and your friends are not welcome on our soil. We have a saying about knowing your enemy. I recall Pb poisoning may have led to your country’s embarrassing defeat. Then the very freedom you despise saved you from the socialism you now embrace. I imagine some people might think you and your friends are an insult to humanity.
Cheers! The icicles are melting!
One of the reasons I find Mr. Courtney a great ally in the climate change debate is specifically for the fact that his political views differ from many skeptics. So I find no reason to attack him for it, we can agree to disagree here and focus on climate alarmism. He should be embraced and not attacked for such intellectual honesty on the climate change issue.
@Tomfromgermany –
I think you are mistaken in saying that the ideals of socialism and Nazism are fundamentally different. What you refer to that is different is the rhetoric surrounding them, which in either case is to manipulate people into submitting to the collective will, which in every case is the rulers’ will. The effects are the same, including plenty of racism under socialism – witness Stalin’s genocide of any number of ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union. Not only this, but Soviet Russia in practice had a small crony capitalist elite, the nomenklatura, very similar to the Krupps and I.G. Farbens of Nazi Germany. And don’t forget, the Nazis regularly and happily sang these words from Beethoven’s Ode to Joy: “Alle Menschen werden Brueder/Wo dein sanfter Fluegel weilt”.
There is no substantive difference between Nazism and Bolshevism/Communism in practice; moreover, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere here at WUWT, the ideological origins of Nazism, including its anti-Semitism, originated with Marxian doctrine – for Anton Drexler, the founder of the NSDAP, the Jews were Germany’s bourgeois class enemy.
“Poptech says:
February 24, 2014 at 3:35 pm
One of the reasons I find Mr. Courtney a great ally in the climate change debate is specifically for the fact that his political views differ from many skeptics. So I find no reason to attack him for it, we can agree to disagree here and focus on climate alarmism. He should be embraced and not attacked for such intellectual honesty on the climate change issue.”
[trimmed. Mod]
highflight56433,
Your comment is both idiotic and juvenile.
@Hunter 2:13
thank you, that is the truth of it.
Matters not what label the bandits cloak themselves in, their destructive behaviour always identifies their true nature.
The do-gooder is always here to help you; out of your freedom and property.
No, no, you folks have it all wrong: the cartoon is “edgy”.
@Doug Proctor, you wrote “GW is a falsely presented prediction of calamity on a planetary scale based on current human industrial activity, which purpose it is to deindustrialize and deconsumerizee the modern world while limiting the industrial and, hence, consumerist growth on the non-First World countries. ”
Don’t forget that those pushing GW will profit personally from it. To me that is evidence enough to betray their motivation.
@ur momisugly Chad Wozniak
Which of the “Nomenklatura” that was in power during the Stalin years was still around at the time of the collapse? Who of them managed to get his or her position firmly attached to his family? Nazism is based on and has its ultimate justification in a racist society. When they sang “Alle Menschen werde Brüder,…” they only had their own race in mind. By the way: How often, in which circumstances and by whom would this song have been sung? To my knowledge the nazi system took great care to alter even the texts of operas so that the performance befitted their system.
You can go on and blend communism, marxism, socailism, nazism, and whatever you want to blend. It just does not make sense. You will not understand either system if you look at them through your tainted spectacles. If you willfully brush aside differences by denounicing them as merely superficial and propagendistic – well then you enter the realm of wishful thinking. How do you want to assess ideologies if not by the claims they make? How do you want to assess policies and strategies if nor by the theories upon which they are based and the consequences they have? To the nazi all evel on earth was caused by the jews. They spoke of “jewish marxist capitalists”. If Nazism in your view “originated” in Marxism, then you can also claim it “originated” in christianity. What sense does that make? The mad painter gathered all sorts of ideas and willfully brought them together. For the Nazis there were even “jewish marxist capitalists”, they phantasiced of a “jewish communist capitalist” conspiracy to destroy Germany…
The SS men who ran the KZ, the doctors and “scientists” who undertook the experiments – they all sang christmas chorals. So what?
I will not continue this exchange any more, as it seems to be an attempt to highjack the thread.
I fully agree with hunter and James McClellan – and all others who favour sanity over fanatism, reason over hate, humanity over ideology.
Chill people. The joke is on warmists. This is a hilarious satirical cartoon that captures the zeal of prominent warmists very well. The irony is that that denier is making the point that there would not be so many icicles if GW were not a hoax. For this obvious statement the heretic was dispatched.
Brilliant!
I see they are portraying the “climate denier” as a fat cat businessman.
Another one of their built in biases.
@tomfromgermany –
I stand by my comments. A further thought: Marxism itself is inherently racist, in its doctrine of the class struggle, because in almost every society on Earth, social strata and classes coincide to some extent with race and ethnicity. And this is borne out in both Soviet Communism and German Nazism – which again, let us not forget, originated in Marxist thinking, however far it later distanced itself rhetorically from that.
richardscourtney says: February 24, 2014 at 10:54 am
Dream on …! Uncomfortable history of all times “improved” by ignoring or falsify – common left rhetoric … (Same tactics used by snake oil salesmen in climate science – Mann, Al Gore, Hansen, Suzuki etc …)
“Mark and two Cats says:
February 24, 2014 at 8:45 am
Ice crystal nacht”
Brief and brilliant – what we are seeing here, sadly, is the CAGW camp’s (kamp . sorry) echo of “Kristallnacht”.
It doesn’t matter what “ism” or “ology” or “igarchy” is behind the CAGW madness – the point is, they are intent on taking OUR (and our descendants’) money, and making it THEIRS. We should be less worried about isms and more worried about isn’ts, as in, the money I had yesterday in my wallet (bank account, what-have-you) ISN’T there anymore, as it went to pay for the environmental taxes (EEG tax on EU electricity, local tax on that (!), etc.,etc.).
This is a question of greed. We need to fight that, not each other. Have a look at the UN and WEF sites (www.weforum.com, for instance) and see what they have planned for us this year….we’re just rats in a maze to them…and they’d look at that as an insult to the rats….
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser” – Socrates
– – – – – – – – – –
Paul Westhaver & highflight56433,
I am late to a wonderful thread party that was largely initiated by you in those first comments by you.
I fundamentally agree with all of your many many comments IF a more fundamental conceptual distinction is made regarding ‘socialism’ as opposed to individualism.
The more fundamental distinction wrt socialism is the concept of ‘collectivism’. Collectivism places the greatest value in a society on putting individual resources and the individual lives themselves into a subservient role. All socialism is collectivist, and all collectivism is socialist. But, collectivism is not essentially a political concept, as socialism is, it has some elements of a moral concept. It is a moral concept in that it says to value one thing (groups) over another (an individual). Here is the thing to watch out for in the discussion you have carried out, if collectivism is given as the moral basis of a government action then it does not matter what the government calls itself or says in its self-serving PR, it IS SOCIALIST.
The CAGW agenda is using collectivist moral values to achieve all of its ends. Look for collectivist moral arguments in CAGW, there are many, then you have clearer evidence of one-for-one correspondence of CAGW activity with socialism.
Thanks again for your thread dialog. I wish I could have been ‘live’ in it.
John