Sometimes you just have to laugh. One of my blog spawn (a not so anonymous academic at a “respected institution of higher learning”) decided to have a go at our post: Despicable climate ugliness courtesy of Lawrence Torcello – assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology
Yet in his typical ivory tower enabled myopia, his case gets weakened by yet another (not so) anonymous coward who’s hoping for my perp walk to The Hague:
But the Nazis were only small potatoes – they merely murdered millions. But right now, today, we are witnessing the murder-in-slow-motion of at least a billion people. A crime perpetrated primarily through the use of a concerted propaganda campaign. Can anyone explain to me how it was proper to prosecute Goebbels, yet the Koch brothers and the former head of Exxon Mobil should not be similarly prosecuted?
And yes, I believe Anthony Watts should be frogmarched to The Hague as well. No question, in my mind. In fact, I find the idea of a defense of his actions ethically reprehensible.
That comment was written by “gingerbaker” who just happens to be easy to find, since the link in his comment to his photo website and photo store is public information.
So, Bill Forsyth who I believe is “Ginger Baker”, you are welcome to tell me to my face right here, that exercising my constitutional free speech right to an opinion on climate is worthy of a war crimes style trial.
UPDATE: Speaking of musical connections (“Ginger Baker” is the drummer in Cream) maybe we can piggyback this trial onto the other first amendment trial, the Mann-Steyn Steamroller
For you scooter riding youngsters, who don’t get the joke, see this.
UPDATE2: Since the academic host of “and then theres hatespeech physics” decided that he’d better disappear the comment, once word got out he was being criticized for it, I offer this helpful screencap:
UPDATE3: Brandon Schollenberger looks at the larger universe of stupid surrounding that comment and the website, saying Stupidity is the real offense.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How classy do you think it is to compare skeptics to N*z*s
About as classy as Roy Spencer, but surely covered by the first amendment. Publishing someone’s address and WHOIS on the front page of your blog, not so classy. Classless.
Bragging about it? Well, even less classy. Watts had better hope that no problems arise from his post from overzealous and over enthusiastic anonymous admirers. Better to think things through.
James Ard says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:34 am
“I got a tweet favorited by Jack Bruce the other day..”
James, d’ya think you could tweet the real (74 years-old!!!!) Ginger Baker and let him know what his namesake is saying. Perhaps GB (real) will have something to say about the abuse of his name – which i am sure is copyrighted.
About as classy as Roy Spencer,
hmmm, now what set him off.
[SNIP -you’ve had your say about our host, and that ugliness is uncalled for – move on -mod]
Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:21 am
__________________
Kudos for publishing your stupid remarks via your own name, rather than just being another anonymous troll, using logical fallacy in support of your argument. Since you chose only a personal attack as your modus operandi, we are left to understand that YOU agree with the words of “gingerbaker” and his ilk.
Thomas Lee…You are backing a losing horse; an empty argument; there’s nothing in it; a cause that has ‘no proof’ (Patrick Moore said that!). But if I tell you that you will no doubt rebut it – you can even refute me, I don’t care. That’s OK. It makes you a ‘Hollow Cause Denier’.
What is less obvious is that all of their arguments re: prosecution can be reflected back at them. It could be argued that the Greens are criminally negligent do to their “cynically” promoting very expensive measures that result in nothing. The money spent or lost is then not available for other economic endeavours such as helping the 3rd world raise their populations out of poverty.
Every dollar spent or lost on reducing CO2 is a dollar that could have been spent reducing poverty.
Alternatively every dollar spent or lost on reducing CO2 is a dollar that could have been spent on reducing or mitigating habitat destruction.
Instead they campaign for measures that reduce our ability overall to adapt (because we will have less money to spend to do it) and in many cases increase habitat destruction (e.g. biofuels.)
Makes you wonder what fruitcake came up with this line that was acted upon, GInger baker by chance.
“I think what would be a good idea is to make an advert about deniers and show them being blown up”
“Bulkhead 50 says:
March 19, 2014 at 10:48 am
Ginger Baker reference also leads to the fact that he was also the drummer for the group Blind Faith. They only had one album, which, in fact, went to number one. The distinction of that album is that it was the first, and probably only, album that hit number one without any of the songs on the album ever breaking the Top 100.”
Something about that album rang a bell – googled it, and yep, the album probably sold out because of its cover (reminds me of a lot of classical records, the fancier the cover, the worse the recording inside….).
Frogmarch….how about Gingerboy goes to “Frogstar B”? See if he does as well as Zaphod Beeblebrox …probably has about the same ego, so who knows…
Ironic that gingersnap also worries about billions of people being killed by CAGW, but isn’t that what the watermelon elites want? OH, I guess they want to be able to determine the means of extinction.
Well, when the warmists resort to ever-increasing ad-hominem attacks, it’s obvious that the are losing…hopefully they’ll learn how to do real science, and be skeptical about folks who don’t “show their work”.
And it appears ginger&co. are doing the very thing they accuse skeptics of: by saying H. and G. were not that bad, they are becoming “deniers” themselves…total disrepect for folks who have been through hell…
Yes, billions will die by 2100…….
@chris B – I will bet over 7 billion die by 2100.
Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:39 am
Spencer was responding to CACA adherents’ comparison of skeptics to Holocaust deniers. The CACA crowd started this slide down a slippery slope, including advocating murder.
It may be that that the greens will be responsible when world war III breaks out because we can’t supply Europe with energy because of their war on co2. Maybe Putin could have been stopped if we had any leverage with energy exports.
See there is a glimmer of awareness percolating into the damp minds of these activists, the political agenda, UN IPCC has set in motion actions that have and will caused unnecessary misery and death worldwide.
The projection of their inner darkness, upon all who question, is a clear indication that the likes of pseudo Ginger Baker, does know what he aids and abets.
So these kind are self exposed, not as much stupid and innocent, as deeply disturbed and malignant.
Funnily enough, there may well come Nuenberg style trials, as the cost of this obscene mass insanity has cost more than a war.
@rabbit at 9:47 am
There is, in other words, a subtle but distinct totalitarian undercurrent.
I disagree.
I find nothing subtle about it. 😉
Jeff says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:48 am
Something about that album rang a bell – googled it, and yep, the album probably sold out because of its cover (reminds me of a lot of classical records, the fancier the cover, the worse the recording inside….).
____________________________
The Blind Faith album cover was decidedly plain and the album sold well because the music inside was very good. Ginger Baker was also a founding member of Cream and was considered one of the premier drummers of that era (or any era, for that matter.)
– – – – – – –
Chris B,
Let’s do crude math.
(the average number of deaths per year using data over the period of last 30 years) x (2100 – 2014) = D
Is D billions?
John
@John Whitman – there is an easier way. Number of souls on the planet = 7 billion (roughly). Average life span = 70 years (a bit high but we will allow for an increase). Number of years until 2100 = 86.
Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
March 19, 2014 at 10:44 am
“how about all those who have already died because they cannot afford heating
If you cannot afford heating in a world filled with carbon and hydrocarbons then you are probably burning those hydrocarbons instead of making products out of them. Learn some physics.”
Thomas:
I know economics is a difficult subject so let me try a different tact. I live in Arizona. It gets really hot here in the summer. Every year we have a few people die because they can’t afford to run their air conditioning. Due to regulations from Obama’s EPA several coal-fired generating stations have been shut down and more are scheduled for shut down. This has resulted in power costs rising ~20% with further increases on the way. Is it not logical to assume that this will result in more people who can’t afford to run their AC? … and by logical extension… more deaths? So I can make a well founded claim that AGW proponents and their policies will kill people. Should I be frog marched to the Hague?
The concern troll Thomas pretends to be concerned about our host’s supposed “classlessness” and the possible over-zealous actions of “anonymous admirers” (who apparently would have to also have the brains of a turnip to not be able to figure out who “gingerbaker” really is”).
I’d turn that around, though. What of the hordes of mindless, clueless true believers out there who, upon seeing that skeptics are now to be considered as far, far worse than n@zis, indeed, far worse than even Hitler himself would now take the law into their own hands? So what if they went to jail? They’d be martyrs, having saved “billions” of people. Perhaps the authorities should be alerted about this “gingerbaker” fellow.
I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying that something is wrong with being poor or using carbon and hydrocarbons to stay warm?
Treating these anal orifices with laughter and derision is entirely appropriate, but it has the possibility of minimizing the persistent and pernicious damage this mindless climate hysteria has inflicted,and will inflict in the future, on the whole world. The people pushing this alarmism act as if they are, unintentionally or intentionally, completely ignorant of the basic economic principle of “opportunity costs” i.e. in a world of finite resources the cost one pays in opportunities one can’t pursue if one chooses to invest in something else and how that cost expands exponentially when what you choose to invest in is entirely unproductive.
The best story I’ve seen that illustrates this principle is from the Wikipedia entry on Berkshire-Hathaway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway
“…In 1962, Warren Buffett began buying stock in Berkshire Hathaway after noticing a pattern in the price direction of its stock whenever the company closed a mill. Eventually, Buffett acknowledged that the textile business was waning and the company’s financial situation was not going to improve. In 1964, Stanton made an oral tender offer of $111⁄2 per share for the company to buy back Buffett’s shares. Buffett agreed to the deal. A few weeks later, Warren Buffett received the tender offer in writing, but the tender offer was for only $113⁄8. Buffett later admitted that this lower, undercutting offer made him angry.[7] Instead of selling at the slightly lower price, Buffett decided to buy more of the stock to take control of the company and fire Stanton (which he did). However, this put Buffett in a situation where he was now majority owner of a textile business that was failing….
In 2010, Buffett claimed that purchasing Berkshire Hathaway was the biggest investment mistake he had ever made, and claimed that it had denied him compounded investment returns of about $200 billion over the subsequent 45 years.[7] Buffett claimed that had he invested that money directly in insurance businesses instead of buying out Berkshire Hathaway (due to what he perceived as a slight by an individual), those investments would have paid off several hundredfold.”
Although the entry suggests Buffet’s losses were in the neighborhood of several hundredfold the numbers suggest something more like several thousandfold between what he paid for B-H and $200 billion. Given that the world has diverted what is by now several $trillion into worthless research, extremely burdensome yet futile regulations, massive subsidies for wind and solar for the privilege of paying much higher energy costs, salaries and travel expenses for armies of climate bureaucrats flying to various garden spots across the planet to collectively harangue the rest of us about our profligate ways, etc., and that the run to the end of the century is nearly double Mr. Buffet’s tenure at B-H, the compounded “opportunity cost” of this CAGW misadventure will be almost incalculably large. The world in 2100 is liable to be poorer by 1 to several million dollars for each and every one of its billions of inhabitants.
Given that wealth is the largest determinant of a society’s ability to respond to the vagaries and variabilities of the environment, nothing that could possibly be accomplished by what we have sacrificed and are demanded to sacrifice in the future will come close to balancing the loss of wealth this complete misallocation of resources will engender, especially since, as even its most ardent supporters admit, the effect on the climate of all of it is likely to be too small to be even measurable.
Don’t worry Eschenbach, we have our eyes on you and your pathetic ‘science’ that might explain the lack of doom that we are living through presently.
We have your approximate area code, we have Sociologists, Psychologists Film Directors and scantily clad ‘pop stars’ on standby. Your ‘logic’ will not survive Eschenbach.
As for Anthony – Well they will probably ‘transfer’ you via The UK. We have armed, rebellious, ‘sceptics’ on standby ready to rescue you from The EU. Putin himself said that he would provide ‘big beefy paratroopers’ to help the cause.
So, no worries. Whack Jobs of the World Unite and Take Over
Here’s an outtake from Blind Faith‘s first public concert, Hyde Park, 1969…
Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
[About people who cannot afford heating]:
If you cannot afford heating in a world filled with carbon and hydrocarbons then you are probably burning those hydrocarbons instead of making products out of them. Learn some physics.
Elf, they’re not talking about people in your upscale neighborhood.
One-third of the earth’s population subsists on $2 a day or less. The rise in harmless CO2 is keeping many of those poop people alive, not that you give a damn about them. Those folks can’t afford money for heating — not that there is any evidence that the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 is the cause of any measurable global warming. There isn’t.
After seeing your scurrilous comments, it is clear you are an unhappy reprobate, with nothing positive to contribute. [And the moderator should leave the Elf’s comments. Commentators here can deal with his ilk with no problem. Same with ‘Magma’, who appears to have been born unhappy.]
“Ginger Baker” needs to brush up on his history as well as more modern times. For anyone who is interested here are a few examples fascists and green ideology.
@Rabbit, Stephen
The totalitarian tendencies of the greens are clear for all to see … except the greens itself. I occasionally point out to them that putting people in prison / excluding them from the vote / excluding them from debate / barring them from elected office / firing them / re-education them for their political opinion is not something we do in a democracy, and they seem genuinely shocked that I call them anti-democratic.