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.
If anyone is going to litigate, it should be Ginger Baker suing Forsyth for defamation and impersonation of a superb jazz drummer. (Baker does not consider himself a rock drummer, by the way)
What an insult to Ginger Baker, rhythm king and all round cool dude.
Ginger Barker more like!
We are doing infinitely more than you and your ilk. YOU are promoting mass starvation through your misguided “carbon” scare.
By ‘we’ I assume you mean ‘you’. You didn’t answer the question. According to the OP, it’s already happening, since the claim was that people are desperate for jobs, food and water. I simply want to know what is the problem that this is already happening. Things sounds pretty dire already.
If you’ve got these kinds of problems that the OP indicates, then you need to own up to them.
Nice to see my comment below that statement to be honest. I spent much of yesterday arguing on the previous thread, rather [eloquently] I think that climate sciences communications problems was caused by climate science [itself] and not so called ‘skeptics’ before I got put in moderation.
Never insulted anyone, held my own in arguments. Then got put on moderation. Basically [because] I was making a logical coherent argument that climate science so called communication s problem was entirely of its owns making,
I don’t respect Bill Forsyth’s right to anonymously advocate war crime type trials for people like me.
So it’s the first amendment that you have a problem with. Well lucky for you there are well defined procedures in the constitution to change it more to your liking. I don’t recall him using your name.
@Tom Elf – Please reference, chapter and verse, the location in the constitution that talks about anonymous. Be specific.
Otherwise, I would suggest you withdraw your lie.
– – – – – – – –
steve mcdonald,
‘gingerbaker’ { who may be someone called Bill Forsyth } probably plays old WWII movies and documentaries backwards so he can enjoy seeing the Allies retreating into the English Channel at Normandy.
John
It could be a sort of race memory on the part of the far left that causes these outbursts. We know the Communists have sought cover under the Green Umbrella and they might have seen a chance for revenge for the McCarthyism of the early 1950’s. Think how wonderful it would be for their egos if they could host their very own House Un-American Activities Committee and persecute all those nasty right wingers that so upset them. Sweet revenge indeed. (Of course they would also be saving the planet….(sarc))
Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:59 pm
“By ‘we’ I assume you mean ‘you’. You didn’t answer the question. According to the OP, it’s already happening, since the claim was that people are desperate for jobs, food and water. I simply want to know what is the problem that this is already happening. Things sounds pretty dire already.”
You seem to be in dire need of real world data.
http://www.gapminder.org
Things are improving everywhere. People were always desperate for clean water and sufficient food. It’s just that less of them are desperate than in the past.
Ivor Ward says:
March 19, 2014 at 2:16 pm
“Think how wonderful it would be for their egos if they could host their very own House Un-American Activities Committee and persecute all those nasty right wingers that so upset them.”
They do. They call it the IRS.
The Elf says:
By ‘we’ I assume you mean ‘you’.
No, I mean ‘we’. As in scientific skeptics of manmade global warming.
WE know the “carbon” scare is bunkum. Do you?
New reports by TWC-The Weather Channel feed the nonsense.
Look at the smokestack pics.
http://www.weather.com/video/co2-levels-already-more-this-year-45811?collid=/news/science/nature
And this one? Adequate words are not available.
http://www.weather.com/video/could-earth-fail-us-45809?collid=/news/science/nature
If you don’t respond to the trolls, they get frustrated and leave. C’mon people.
Ivor Ward says:
We know the Communists have sought cover under the Green Umbrella…
Very true. When the Berlin Wall came down, all the communists in academia {in other words, most of academia} migrated straight into the enviro movement. Now they promote their ulterior motive from under the green [camouflage] of ‘saving the planet’.
[BTW, I miss your old screen name. I just read Captains Courageous again.]
less of them are desperate than in the past.
I would have thought that with hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon then none of them would be desperate, especially for such simple things as jobs, food and water. Clearly something has gone wrong, whatever could it be? You don’t seem to be able to enlighten me on that subject.
No, I mean ‘we’.
That tells me everything I need to know about ‘you’. Thanks.
What about this scenario?
phase 1: some breakthrough happens and governments everywhere abandon CAGW. Seeming victory.
phase 2: As coal plants are going back online in the West to great publicity, by happenstance the largest hurricane ever hits the USA. it’s a monster .. fear and panic ensues. CAGW arises again, this time at a a medieval level … With a McCarthy-like demogogue leading, the skeptics trials begin.
Mumbles McGuirk says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Hitler’s direct criminal responsibility for the deaths of millions is well documented. Stalin’s body count is not as well established. Estimates range as high as 25 million (last time I checked). In both cases deaths caused by military operations are excluded, or both counts would be higher. Mao’s body count is harder even than Stalin’s to estimate — our access to records is not as good among other reasons. But I think billions is way too high.
The law (mainline Western law as known and practiced in England and her former colonies) makes important distinctions between:
accidental death — no criminal liability
excusable homicide — shouldn’t have happened, but understandable in the circumstances
negligent death — no criminal intent, but failure to take reasonable & customary care
justifiable homicide — self defense or defense of other innocent persons when there is no other option.
mainslaughter — callous disregard of human life. Sort of negligence on steroids.
murder — intentional killing. This is further broken down into pre-meditated and not.
As long as we’re talking about who should be put in prison we should at least reference established legal doctrines distinguishing different levels of responsibility and guilt.
The primary dividing line is the presence of Mens Rea, or criminal intent (literally evil mind). If you intend to cause extreme harm, including death — either at the outset or in the heat of the moment, then the act moves up the criminal scale to murder. If not, then it is judged as some level of negligence.
So we have some judgements to make regarding Stalin: were the deaths caused by the collapse of agriculture in the Ukraine criminal or merely negligent? Both cases can be argued; certainly Stalin dismissed any reports of suffering resulting from his policies and his underlings were much too fearful for their own safety to raise objections, if indeed any occurred to them. Certainly Stalin was not shy about ordering people killed, but it is also true he really believed imposing Communist doctrine would improve the lot of the average person. You might even say he was certain.
Same issue with Mao. Did he really want to starve all those people during the “Great Leap Forward”? I don’t think so, but into the vacuum created by incompetence and negligence he poured ample amounts of ideology and the result was lots of bodies. We really don’t know how many, but I’m pretty sure “billions” is way wide of the mark.
So back to the discussion at hand. The GingerBakers of the word act as if their knowledge of actions and consequences is absolutely certain — to the point where different opinions must be criminal. This is a good indication of the decline in education, particularly history. I don’t care what your political leanings are, if you read enough history you can’t escape the conclusion that the real world is almost always more complicated than we believe. Everyone makes mistakes, often because judgement is clouded by personal involvement. It seems what we have in GingerBaker an others is the immaturity and impatience of teenagers persisting well into their middle years. They are so certain and seem to have so little awareness of just what philosophical company they keep. Cromwell’s plea:
does not appear to make any impression on that crowd.
I honestly don’t know whether the world will become warmer or colder in the decades ahead, and I don’t believe anyone else does either. There have certainly been people here who expressed confidence, in some cases bordering on certainty, that we are entering another mini ice age. But I haven’t heard anyone claim we need to spend trillions of dollars immediately creating vast orbiting solar mirrors (or any other ambitious scheme) to stave off the soon-to-be advancing glaciers.
Some things we simply cannot know with any certainty. I submit the climate and its suitability for continued human life 100 years from now is one of them. It is both pointless and just plain wrong to criminalize any particular crystal ball vision on a topic dominated by uncertainty. Global economic collapse due to uncontrolled government spending is far more likely and much closer in time than any imagined climate catastrophe. Especially if we have to build prisons for all the heretics who don’t accept The Truth as given by GingerBaker.
Thomas Lee Elifritz:
I write to provide a correction to an error of fact in your post at March 19, 2014 at 2:43 pm.
In response to dbstealey using “we” as a collective noun for AGW-sceptics, you say,
“That tells me everything I need to know about ‘you’. Thanks.”
Sorry, but it only tells you dbstealey is one of many sceptics of AGW.
However, your claim that it “tells {you} all {you} need to know about {him}” informs everybody you are a self-opinionated bigot.
Perhaps you would be willing to reconsider your bigoted views for the benefit of yourself: nobody else is interested in them. They are as daft as the comments from other trolls who are using this thread to assert that far-right is extreme left.
Richard
Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
March 19, 2014 at 2:02 pm
I know it’s difficult for brain dead thugs such as yourself to grasp simple concepts that normal men and women don’t need explained. I’ll walk you through it slowly and I’ll try to use small words.
I am ~not~ the government of the United States. There’s a difference between what I respect and what Congress respects in the laws it passes. While the First Amendment restricts the laws Congress can pass, it does not restrict what I need or need not respect. It does not mean that I intend to legally restrict the cockroach Forsyth’s anonymous free speech when I say that I do not respect his right to anonymously advocate war crime type trials. He is free to do so, and I would have the law no other way. If you understood principles (which I will get to in a moment below), you would already understand this.
Not being the government of the United States, we at WUWT are free to deduce his identity if he is careless, and we are free to announce it.
This is what I meant by not respecting his right to anonymously advocate war crime type trials for people like me, moron.
It irritates me that scum such as yourself come here to support naked thuggery and intimidation citing the Constitution. How dare you. Do you dream of a world where people can not express views that are contrary to mainstream? Where those you disagree with are ‘frogmarched’ to war crimes trials? And you cite the Bill of Rights in defense of this atrocity. Both obscene and profane.
I’m sure you’d prefer that, thug, for nobody to stand up unless they are attacked by name. See, another thing that thugs like you often have a difficult time grasping are principles. It’s why I supplied my own name, and why I stated that anybody coming for Watts because of his blogging comes for me. Incidentally, it’s why thuggery doesn’t much work in this country, because honest men have principles and stand together. But I’m not fool enough to think I can teach you what principles are or why they matter in a blog comment.
I’ve wasted enough of my valuable time addressing you, thug. Piss off.
So, they say (excerpt):
…..”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.”
=====================
Why not place him in front of a Senate Subcommittee and see what he has to say.
It seems at this point, the Hague, might be wildly optimistic.
BTW, what exactly constitutes a “frogmarch”.
Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
March 19, 2014 at 2:43 pm
“Clearly something has gone wrong, whatever could it be? You don’t seem to be able to enlighten me on that subject.”
You can lead a leftard to gapminder, but you can’t make him use it.
My Mother always insisted that playing the drums too loud affects one’s brain.
“So it’s the first amendment that you have a problem with. Well lucky for you there are well defined procedures in the constitution to change it more to your liking. I don’t recall him using your name.”
The first amendment doesn’t guarantee anonymity. In fact, people are assumed to stand behind what they say, which is the reason the first amendment exists in the first place. If you just want to print a screed on a bunch of post-it-notes and leave them around town in the dead of night no one will know who’s voicing the opinion, so no protection is needed.
The first amendment also doesn’t mean you get to say anything you want and no one can criticize it, or hold it up to ridicule. You might actually want to read it.
3X2 says …
Whack jobs of the world were on show last weekend in Australia: http://pindanpost.com/2014/03/19/showcase-for-the-incoherent-impotent-muddle-the-left-finds-itself/
That looks like Lee there, and Bill. Thomas too …
The truth is of course, that it is the Warmistas who are guilty of crimes against humanity, for the use of disinformation and outright lies, forcing energy prices up, and causing energy poverty, suffering, and death among poorer peoples. Absolutely nothing good has or ever will come from their actions, since they aren’t based on science, much less common sense.
Whether or not they will ever be held accountable is questionable. Perhaps some of the more notorious liars and scamsters might spend time behind bars. Some of the rest, if they have a shred of humanity left might actually feel ashamed of what they’ve done.
Now, here is something for the Anti-Defamation League to condemn as soon as practicable. Should they fail to do so, their stance is becoming more dubious by the minute.