Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Guardian author Rebecca Solnit wonders whether the white supremacist terrorists who massacred 50 unarmed Muslims in Christchurch chose last Friday to distract attention from the Climate Change Student Strike.
Why climate action is the antithesis of white supremacy
Tue 19 Mar 2019 22.58 AEDT
Behind the urgency of climate action is the understanding that everything is connected; behind white supremacy is an ideology of separation.
As the news of the Christchurch mosque massacre broke and I scoured the news, I came across a map showing that the Friday morning climate strike in Christchurch was close to the bloodbath. I felt terrible for the young people who showed up with hope and idealism, wondered whether the killer or killers chose this particular day to undermine the impact of this global climate action. It was a shocking pairing and also a perfectly coherent one, a clash of opposing ideologies. Behind the urgency of climate action is the understanding that everything is connected; behind white supremacy is an ideology of separation.
Of separation as the idea that human beings are divided into races, and those in one race have nothing in common with those in others. Of separation as the idea that though white people have overrun the globe, nonwhite people should stay out of Europe, North America, and now even New Zealand and Australia, two places where white settlers came relatively recently to already inhabited places – as a fantasy of resegregating the world. Of a lot of ideas and ideals of masculinity taken to a monstrous extreme – as ideas of disconnection, of taking matters into your own hands, of feeling no empathy and exhibiting no kindness, of asserting yourself as having the right to dominate others even unto death. And of course, of guns as the symbols and instruments of this self-definition.Climate change is based on science. But if you delve into it deeply enough it is a kind of mysticism without mystification, a recognition of the beautiful interconnection of all life and the systems – weather, water, soil, seasons, ocean pH – on which that life depends. It acknowledges that everything is connected, that to dig up the carbon that plants so helpfully sequestered in the ground over eons and burn it so that returns to the sky as carbon dioxide changes the climate, and that this changed climate isn’t just warmer, it’s more chaotic, in ways that break these elegant patterns and relationships. That chaos is a kind of violence – the violence of hurricanes, wildfires, new temperature extremes, broken weather patterns, droughts, extinctions, famines. Which is why climate action has been and must be nonviolent. It is a movement to protect life.
…I asked Hoda Baraka, who is both Muslim and 350.org’s global communications director, how it all looked to her in the wake of the climate strike and the massacre, and she said “In a world being driven by fear, we are constantly being pitted against the very things that make this world livable. Whether it’s people being pitted against each other, even though there is no life without human connection, love and empathy. Or fear pitting us against the very planet that sustains us, even though there is no life on a dead planet. This is why fighting against climate change is the equivalent of fighting against hatred. A world that thrives is one where both people and planet are seen for their inextricable value and connectedness.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/19/why-youll-never-meet-a-white-supremacist-who-cares-about-climate-change
Rebecca, using the blood of murdered innocents to promote your climate ideology is nothing short of obscene, a new low even for the climate movement.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Time for some serious e-mails to the editor in chief. Disgraceful but not unsurprising.
May not have been a coincidence.
Not sure the shooter is very smart, but he could have possibly assumed that the police etc may have been busy keeping the peace during the march.
Cheers
Roger
The fact he want’s to represent himself, you may be right. The fact he is a self proclaimed eco-fascist lends me to believe he thinks he can get away with murder on a technicality; Saving the planet!
And, I read, the NZ “justice” system want to try him for murder not terrorism. And I am sure you know the “justice” system in NZ is a bit of a joke. If tried, and convicted of murder, he could receive 50 life sentences. And in NZ, those sentences would be served concurrently, unlike the US. So, for example, sentenced to 25 years per-murder. That is 50 x 25 years in the US, just 25 in NZ. But, add insult to injury, BECAUSE of the way the “justice” system works in NZ, he could serve only 12 years.
In the US, we would have activist calling for Cristchurch be renamed Mohammadmosque.
what makes you think some idiot wont start a campaign to do just that?
Depending on where he’s sent to serve his time, his chances of surviving a year may be poor.
Patrick MJD are you a New Zealander. It doesn’t seem like it, because what you say about a possible sentence is completely wrong. Most legal experts have so far said that if convicted the perpetrator will get ‘life without parole!’ That is he will die in prison.
The only ‘joke’ here is your ignorance of the New Zealand legal system!
Ian Cooper .
I am a New Zealander and this disgusting piece of filth who acted alone and slaughtered 50 innocent people should be given the death sentence for what he has done.
He is a terrorist and he has declared war on New Zealand.
Patrick is quite right ,he will get 50 murder charges against him but will only serve one life sentence of 25 years without parole.
But unfortunately in 25 years time there will be a clamor for him to be paroled if he has survived prison life.
Thanks for that Ian. Yes, I am a NZ citizen. The fact lawyers can keep re-taking the bar exam in NZ suggests otherwise. One thing you do have right, it’s a legal system hence my use of quotes around the word justice. Plenty of examples where a sentence is handed down and only half the time is served.
No. He is almost certain to get a life sentence without parole whether he is charged with one or fifty murders. Shorter sentences are only given when there is a hope for reform. We don’t think that the aim of revenge and retribution, which the US “justice” system is based on, is the right way to go. Western countries used to use the term “penitentiaries” rather than prisons, and this reflected the idea that reform and rehabilitation should be one of the main aims of a justice system. And isn’t it just plain stupid to give sentences that last more than a lifetime?
Note that our cops, who do not usually carry firearms, were able to capture the Australian shooter without any injury to him, themselves, or bystanders within a few minutes of the incident being reported. How does that compare with the US?
The massacre, conducted by one Australian, had nothing to do with the climate change march – such events are almost always peaceful in NZ and require little police supervision. Most kids who didn’t attend school that day didn’t attend the march either – they bunked off!
In the US, we have more hope that one of the potential victims is armed and shoots back to deflect or stop the attack !
The US “justice” system is about making money! And that is all it does.
Friday is the main day of the week for muslim worship. I think it’s been reported that this terrorist was aware of this and chose it for the larger numbers at the main prayer time. Solnit doest even know the first thing about Muslim worship
I’m surprised she’s smart enough to breathe. She’s obviously desperate for a story and either made it up on her own or her boss said “I don’t care.. This is The Guardian. Make something up about climate or whatever fer chrissake! Just fill the columns with stuff..”.
Many times I wish breathing was more of an intellectual challenge as I am sure most of us would be better off for it.
Your ‘editor assignment’ assessment is entirely plausible. She probably writes for the “Climate Change Desk” group and when the big story happened she was assigned to cover the ‘climate change angle’ and this was the best she could come up with.
To give the story this much interest is more than it deserves. It is a throw away filler piece best suited for wrapping dead fish or lining the bird cage floor.
That is the comment I was going to make. The guy who perpetrated this was very cold and calculating. If you wanted to kill the maximum number of Muslims in the shortest possible time you go to a busy mosque on a Friday, not pick them off one by one in the street.
It was a horrible and calculated act and the author of the Guardian piece must be so climate obsessed they have lost all common sense
tonyb
There’s no point, Patrick. The great days of the old Manchester Guardian, when its pages were illuminated by gifted writers such as Harry Whewell, James Cameron and Jack Trevor Storey, are long gone. As is the humour that brought us spoof holiday supplements to the island of Sans Serif (with its capital Bodoni) in the early 70s. The Guardian has sadly become a humourless socialist rag where any departure from the party line is not to be tolerated.
Writing to the editor will achieve nothing as it will not elicit an intelligent and balanced response. Take a look at some of the amazingly ignorant comments posted by warmists at the end of its bonkers articles about CAGW. It is like reading the views of an alien species. Save your breath. There is nothing that can be done for the Guardian or the hate-filled ignoramuses that inhabit its comments section. They are part of a tradition where logic, enquiry and open-mindedness has been replaced by political dogmatism and the triumph of ‘belief’ over fact.
Back in the day, when I was a young journalist, I was proud to have a letter published in the Guardian (it was just the print edition, of course, back then). Today, I would not waste my time and intellect on corresponding with the closed-mind propaganda sheet that this once fine newspaper has become. And neither should you.
You are right about the Guardian’s present journalistic condition. But its worth also noting why this has come about.
The important underlying change is that it moved from being a news organization which reports the news, to being an activist organization which seeks to bring about some policies.
When it took this step, under Rushbridger, its news coverage immediate became contaminated by the policy agenda. So the reporting became highly selective, and the columnists unanimously support the activist agenda, and the reporting itself became untrustworthy.
The activist agenda is the ill assorted set generally favored on the far left. Not the social democratic left, the old Labour Party, but the fringe well-off liberal-left of academia and the media.
You cannot any more trust anything in the Guardian about a large and increasing range of subjects, climate, alternative energy, the EU, the grooming and child abuse scandals, the Health Service, Trump and Russia, transgenderism, diet and veganism, immigration, Islam, security…. there are more that don’t immediately spring to mind.
The classic of omission was that it simply failed to report on the Rochdale grooming and child abuse scandal, because those involved were in one of the favored ethnic and religious groups. Not only is it not reliable when it does report, its coverage also deliberately omits inconvenient stories.
Think about the implications for its reporting if a news organization sets itself the goal of influencing a US Presidential Election (as in the Clark County affair). Of getting fossil fuel extraction stopped and ‘leaving it in the ground’. Of facilitating Snowden’s clandestine flight to Russia, complete with his trove of purloined files.
This used to be a newspaper. What they have turned it into is the newsletter of a collection of activists. Its now no more a news reporting organization than Pravda was.
The Guardian’s conduct in the run-up to the Rotherham scandal in August 2014 was even more reprehensible than you say. The paper ran several articles playing the “Islamophobia” card and quite deliberately downplaying or obfuscating the magnitude of the child abuse. It’s a despicable publication.
yup
and the alt media who kept reporting on it for quite some time trying to get the perpetrators brought to justice?
are the ones that get sledged..and this week some got offlined BY aus n Nz big brotherism, because of comments with links (that had already been broken pretty quickly.)
fbk and others got the get out of jaill free pass card..
You forgot to mention Neville Cardus. Very few writers could string words together like he did. Now we are stuck with idiots like George Monbiot writing activist nonsense. There is nothing in the Guardian worth reading these days.
Agree. A little while back I used to ‘play in the sand pit’ of comments but stopped when I realised the articles on climate were a bait and capture game. I believe they were there to increase readership and subscriptions, reveal the demonically possessed deniers 😉, push the propoganda of anthropogenically caused warming and give the trolls a job. I no longer read The Guardian, it’s a toe-rag!
One of the most racist actions humans have embarked on is the myth of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming which is used as support for policies that deny the poorest people on this planet the opportunity to duplicate the great successes of the western developed nations which have greatly reduced hunger, conflict, infant mortality, subjugation of women, lack of eduction and lack of economic opportunities. Racism is being a wealthy, healthy European and telling poor, hungry Africans and Indians to forgo development in favor of self sacrifice in the name of a mythical Gaia, when no observational evidence suggests the mild warming we have had in 170 years is anything but beneficial to the biosphere and people who inhabit this planet. Tying white supremasists to denial of climate change is a classic liberal diversion to distract from the fact that democrats and socialists created and promoted much of the fabric of racism with movements such as eugenics, and the fascist socialist government programs of Italy and Nazi Germany. Racism and xenophobia were also epidemic in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Communist China under Mao.
While radical enrivonmentalists and far left socialists (often the same people) want us to adopt policies that will remake successful nations in the image of the broken shard of a country that is Venezuela, more rational individuals know that the elimination of racism and other evils that plague humanity requires development, opportunity and wealth for all.
“Rebecca Solnit is a board member of Oil Change International as well as a Guardian columnist. Her latest book is Call them by their true names”
Lets make sure no-one buys her book.
Considering his manifesto railed against climate change and he considered himself an eco-fascist, the link isn’t ‘climate denial.’ Quite the opposite in that he supported violence to implement things like the GND.
Yes of course but that does not matter to the deconstructionists at the Grauniad, its just a mere factual detail to be sliced, diced and de/reconstructed or ignored as suits the circumstance.
Correct. His manifesto is culled from the Guardian Environmental blog.
His ravings about “population control” is about “climate change” – those are his own words.
The Guardian is desperately trying to shift the blame away from its own propaganda.
In his manifesto Tarrant describes himself as an “eco-fascist” concerned about global warming.
Exactly. He repeatedly cited environmentalist talking points and explicitly said he hates non-whites because they’re overpopulating the earth.
The Guardian is unbelievable. His environmental manifesto is the same tripe you read in the Guardian every day, and yet not only do they fail to acknowledge this, or even ignore it, they pretend he was actually opposed to the environmental movement.
The point everyone calling this stain on humanity a ‘White’ seem to ignore is that he identifies China as the nation he most admires.
Lot of ‘White’ people in China apparently.
The man is a Left. He is a proud and out Eco Fascist. The only variations between him and just about every main stream Left is his closed borders belief and the fact that even Left Wing idiots aren’t moronic enough to carry out mass murder.
The usual subjects are busy declaring that this guy is right wing.
He loved Trump. That’s a start.
And… he was keen to cite Trumps racist attitudes as motivation for him. But it’s also true he was one screwed up man. A terrorist who too the lives of 50 innocent people. Have to say the New Zealand prime minister has been a wonderful leader through all this. Strong but at the same time compassionate.
Simon, I am sorry, but you are spouting BS.
John, Simon is here for the purpose of disinformation. He is free to make a fool of himself.
BS is less pernicious.
John Dilks
Be specific which part is BS?
Simon, sorry to inform you that there are sceptics present. Anything you assert that cannot be supported by evidence is automatically BS until proven otherwise.
He loved Trump? All I’ve heard is that he liked Trump for his “white nationalism”, but definitely not as a policymaker or leader.
That’s bad enough isn’t it. Trumps racism fuelled this guys fire.
Desperate. If not puerile.
50 people were killed in cold blood by this nut case. Why can’t the Guardian call it for what it is?
They diminish the enormity of the travesty, perhaps even excuse it, by even mentioning climate change in the same breath. On a par with the nutter’s manifesto.
The left never misses a chance to use any event to further the cause, even if it is a lie.
You could switch that and say the same about the right. How are they any different?
‘I wondered whether the killer or killers chose this particular day to undermine the impact of this global climate action. It was a shocking pairing and also a perfectly coherent one …”.
========================================
On the contrary, it’s a connection that only the warped mind of a fanatic could dream up.
BTW Rebecca may not realize that Islam is not a race and that at least 26% of New Zealanders are of non-European or mixed descent.
“At the latest census in 2013, 74.0 percent identified as European, 14.9 percent, as Māori, 11.8 percent as Asian, 7.4 percent as Pacific peoples, and 1.2 percent as Middle-Eastern, Latin American, and African (Wiki)”.
I support the comment
“Rebecca, using the blood of murdered innocents to promote your climate ideology is nothing short of obscene…”
Gee, they rightfully jump into the breach when violence by Muslim extremists, African American blacks, Latino or Asian gangs is generalized as a racial characteristic, yet they have no compunction about smearing all white men because some violent extremists of that race commits a horrific crime.
“Of a lot of ideas and ideals of masculinity taken to a monstrous extreme –”
This after a diatribe about white people intruding all over the world. She touched all the world of white troublemakers except she left out the usual “old white men” category. That I guess needs a rest now and again.
The main thesis of this being a climate denier action is new. The looming worry of the clime syndicate is not just that theyve come to understand that nothing is going to be done – even Germany, Denmark and UK are backing out, not just Eastern Europe, USA and more and more in the developing world – but that “climate” appears not to be warming frightfully despite desperate jiggering of data. They want action desperately because if the climate doesnt become dangerous with business as usual, they will be seen to have been horribly wrong and guilty of wasting trillions, damaging the world economy, killing off the poor, and cluttering the land and seascape with useless renewables derelicts. Yeah, they want to spray sulphates into the stratosphere, not to save the planet, which doesnt need saving , but to save their @ur momisugly$$eS and their wastrel employment.
Thank you, Eric, for this post. I only hope that I live long enough to see the pendulum swing back in the direction of rational thinking.
Anybody who uses the words “climate denial” has got to be seriously short of brain cells.
Absolutely….. I get sick of people denying the climate. It’s “climate science denial.”
More accurately, it’s catastrophic climate change denial.
Actually that’s a fair description of the few climate scientists on this side of the debate. None of them deny mans influence in the warming. But there are some here who even deny that and they are climate science deniers.
simon, Man’s influence in the warming has not yet been proven.
Simon , you know well enough that what you wrote was pure disinformation. “climate science denial ” is a nonsense phrase that is used in NewsSpeak in the republic of Oceania.
“simon, Man’s influence in the warming has not yet been proven.”
OK so you fall into the catagory of climate science denier. Well done.
Find me a climate scientist who agrees with you… just one name. On either side of the fence. One who says man has nothing to do with the warming. Till then you are spouting BS or ignorance. Take your pick.
Simon there are a lot of eminent scientists who do the correct job of science, even on this quasi religious topic of anthropogenically caused climate change (CO2) by questioning the science. Here are only a small number but if you want you can find increasing numbers of them. BTW if you dig into the John Cook ‘research’ you will find his methods, process and his conclusions false. He’s the guy who claimed 97% of scientists agree that catastrophic climate change is anthrop. caused.
So here are some names of those who question the claims of A.C.G.W.: Dr Judith Curry, Prof. Freeman Dyson,Dr. Ivar Giaever, Prof.Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Richard Bellamy, Piers Corbyn,Prof. Steve Koonin, Prof.Nils-Axel Mörner, Dr Garth Paltridge…I haven’t time to do more. But 31,484 scientists signed the Oregon Petition (see here:http://www.petitionproject.org) If you are really interested in science and the preservation of intelligent inquiry go do some reading. Nothing in science is 100% certain except that there is evidence indicating a repeatable predictable outcome. If someone says it is 100% certain then they haven’t looked at all the evidence. Climate is incredibly complex and no-one has the full measure of its processes. Why are birds dropping from the sky in huge numbers, why mass fish die offs, why are seals and whales getting sunburned, why are transformers spontaneously exploding, why has the northernmost jet stream split, why are plasma events increasing,why are glaciers now growing, why is the sun quiet, why is there so much flooding, why are clouds nucleating, why is the magnetosphere weakening, why are the magnetic poles moving so erratically, why why why? So many questions unanswerable by current scientific understanding. It is not tin foil hat-ism to question, it is man’s nature to be curious enough to ask. It is the empirical process. In reply to the article conflating the murderer with climate denialists well, it is a disgrace, a proof of the work of propagandists so dominant in the media these days.
Let us be absolutely precise – it is ” imminent catastrophic anthropomorphic (sic) climate change denialist white supremacy”.
Right Simon?
farmerbraun
I think your tin hat has fallen off.
I wouldn’t say imminent, more …. likely. And the catastrophic part will depend where you live. Bangladesh has some seriously issues not too far away. Other parts of the planet it might be 100 years. Some parts may be fine.
farmerbraun
Still waiting for you to name one scientist who denies man is having an influence on the warming. Just one ?
Which is equally brainless because science is a method of obtaining results . Perhaps you know more about denial than you do about science or climate.
Oh yeah …. she is the “literary award winner” who wrote this dung heap of unmitigated hate and … ‘separation’ …
https://lithub.com/rebecca-solnit-the-loneliness-of-donald-trump/
And she apparently hates white people, nearly as much as she hates President Trump. I cannot imagine what word she substitutes for “deplorable”. But being the “literary award winner” she is … I am sure she’ll think of something even more hateful and unhinged.
We’re lectured about how “divided” America has become. How ‘separated’ we’ve become. Trump is the blame ‘they’ claim. But how anyone can read such a nasty, nonsensical, racist screed such as this mental patient’s prose … and not immediately recognize the true dank origin of our divisiveness … well … then you are part of the problem. Right along with Rebecca Solnit
Solnit ist ein Spätzünder wie Hermann Hesse, Kerouac, Krakuer-
Wanderlust: A History of Walking by Rebecca Solnit – Goodreads
https://www.goodreads.com › book › show
rebecca solnit wanderlust von http://www.goodreads.com
Wandering by Hermann Hesse Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer On the Road by Jack Kerouac Wanderlust by Rebecca Solnit The Old …
Fehlt eigentlich nur Adalbert Stifter: Nachsommer, Bergkristall…..
Very Green, reactionary, slow in thinking and feeling.
Reminds on Himmler – civil profession
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=LvyUXO_KLrHprgSb8rmACg&q=Himmler%2C+++profession&oq=Himmler%2C+++profession&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
_____________________________________________________
And she needed from ’66 to ’84 to learn HER profession – exemplaric for greens?
Anyway – she’s got readers, ( as on that thread ), earns of money and attention.
With that she’s satisfied.
Hermann Hesse – die Türen der Erkenntnis / The Doors of Perception:
https://youtu.be/yj5WvpkYHz0
97% of MSM journalists agree.
This disgusting article of The Guardian is a perfect example of the intrinsic paradox of the First Amendment :
– indeed, it allows some Eco-Nazis psychopaths to deliberately confuse contrariant scientists with terrorists and to ask to stop those scientists from speaking out, or worse, to put them in concentration camps.
I’m sure Europeans stopped being concerned about colour several decades ago.
What is of concern is the influx of bad behavior and irrational thought.
I live on the other side from the road of a 3rd mosque which was not hit but may have been on the madman’s list.
Police standing guard with big guns.
We have been through a lot with the earthquakes and now this.
I never thought that someone would even try to link the murders with climate change denial.
As Eric Worrall says
“Rebecca, using the blood of murdered innocents to promote your climate ideology is nothing short of obscene, a new low even for the climate movement.
Has anyone pointed out to the Grauniad author that the self-styled ecowarrior chose to shoot up the mosques on a Friday….. because that’s when they collect for prayers….?!
Her logic connecting it with a children’s parade is as tenuous as their arguments for AGW.
If that is not racism… nothing is.
In this great era of newspeak it´s not racism because there cannot be racism to white old men. It´s one way ticket today. Only white old men can be racists. It´s sad, but it´s true.
“They” are twisting the language, like they twist climate history. Everything means everything now, except what the old white man says. It`s never politically correct, but it´s always somehow racist.
Wellcome to the brawe new world! It allows articles like that. There´s no shame at all. Shame is not a word anymore.
I had not heard of Rebecca Solnit until today, that was indeed a blessing. How on Earth such people get to be paid for writing hate filled racist rubbish is perhaps the greatest mystery of our modern world. Then again the Guardian has made a business out of it, despite losing money they go on doing it, strange!
I hear from a commentator on Zero Hedge that the massacre WAS linked to Climate Change. Apparently the perpetrator was worried about Global Warming and overpopulation – his web site showed him to be an eco-fascist.
Can’t be confirmed, because all data on the topic is censored.
“The Great Replacement” manifesto is still around on a few sites. One of them is
https://katana17.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/the-great-replacement-manifesto-of-new-zealand-mosque-shooter-mar-2019/
I’m a bit wary about taking anything he said at face value, he might have been trolling – he admits several times he wants to stir up conflict.
Are we sure he isn’t a mental health suffering lone wolf of undefined ethic background and unknown motivation?
/bittersweetirony
The deeper problem here is that popular culture in the west has both normalised terror attacks as a ‘perpetual irritant’ that kills relatively few people, demonised all discussion that opposes the official mantra as Hate Speech and made increased calls for casual violence as an acceptable solution for problems.
Remember, this is the same culture that were happy to ask for a 15 year old boy to be punched in the face for smirking.
So what do you get? You get a society that is no longer really shocked by mass murder (I heard my first Christchurch joke 3 days ago), where one that arrests Hate Speech but makes social heroes of people who commit acts of casual violence provided the Elite approve of the target.
Now tell me this is actually the best environment for a person who feels they need their voice heard in public?
Significant sections of the public have been happily calling for violence in the name of their Elite approved causes. Now one of their own has gone off script and suddenly it is STILL not their fault.
The Great Replacement- (Manifesto put forward by the ChristChurch shooter)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3735591/posts
https://media.8ch.net/file_store/d9017cfda86a09390ffcea09766374fbe270c20d7ac5e53c0d895de8d6a97231.pdf
I think the Guardian is dying tho’when I read it occasionally there are some jolly interesting opeds and well written . But I guess it is killing itself.
Eric, you are always posting articles based on something the Guardian has said…
If it annoys you so much, just stop reading it?
griff,
If the articles on this website annoy you so much, just stop reading them?
Griff did try to disengage from this site and actually went “cold turkey” for , oh about 2 months, before he returned.
I suspect that the alarmist sites he had turned to were not only comparatively sparsely attended , but made up of such inane ecobabble that even Griff , decent chap that he(she?) is basically, was put off and came back to take part in the (largely) civilised and scientifically literate conversations to be found here.
Apologised to Susan Crockford yet? She’s over on the Polar Bear thread.
griff
You annoy us so much, could you just stop it?
Why exactly are you here Griff all you do is post blatant lies which you always get caught on?
Are you that desperate to hide the nonsense the Guardian prints?
Julie near Chicago
March 20, 2019 at 1:18 am
Moderators:
If this is a link to the shooters manifesto I, as a Kiwi, would be grateful if you could delete it. Every time it is viewed it increases its ranking and thus helps it spread or pop up. There’s no need to encourage this idiot orhis followers. Thanks.
Exactly, Alastair – starve the sod of the oxygen which he graves.
As another New Zealander AND Christchurch resident, any reference to anything specific about this guy, should be viewed as hate speech and not even a chance to be made available to the public.
I might suggest that the article by Rebecca be considered in the same light – hate speech.
But, sadly, I have to grant her at least,the right to have her views and to write them as she sees fit.
As her boss, maybe I wouldn’t be so lenient – now, who is her boss, and what standard do they hold for such matters?
Oh – right – do forgive me being so naive.
Naive? Pffffft.
David Hood, I disagree with the use of the term “Hate Speech”. That is one of those terms that is easily used to limit speech to what you agree with and only what you believe in. It should never be used as it serves no useful purpose.
No, Alastair! I am Christchurch born, but I would oppose censoring this (or, indeed, the Unabomber’s manifesto). To do this would simply allow those like this vile author to make false statements without accountability or correction. We should, indeed must, know that they are both eco-fascists.
Would you suppress the information of the green Nazi state? That they had an organic garden at Dachau? That current Greens here in Australia are both opposed to population growth and so in favour of of accepting asylum seekers arriving on the boats of people smugglers that they prejudge their cases positively and call them refugees without their claim to that status being tested (and advance of those that have met the requirements but are stuck in UNHCR camps and awaiting resettlement)?
History is important – if sometimes painful.
At the same time so much is being reported that is unfactual about the New Zealand shooter to support various folks’ talking points and platforms that it would be good if people can look themselves and see what was really said.
I am sure it is just whacky ramblings but the mere fact he mentioned Trump got all the media in the US saying Trump caused it and it because of Trumps racism.
Even Chelsea Clinton (Daughter of Pres. Bill and SOS Hillary Clinton) was accused of causing the killings because she made comments against antisemitism. (sarc – Heaven forbid Jews should be treated same as anybody else.) Somehow defending Jews against hate and attacks is now anti Islamic – which shouldn’t be the case.
It’s not censoring, it’s giving it the worth it deserves. Nil.
The guy is totalitarian on the axis from libertarian to totalitarian. On the axis from conservative to radical, he’s radical. He’s radical totalitarian, which is in the Mao-Stalin-Hitl3r-Bader-Meinhof sector. Nothing to do with us engineers wondering how would you pretend save the world with a solar panel which makes net emissions larger, not smaller.
But most importantly, he has some of the same psycho features as a known Norwegian dimmie. He feels no human feelings and belongs to an institution forever. I don’t know what one usually gets for 50 murders in NZ, but this guy needs to be permanently locked up has a seriously dangerous person.
What’s bad is that there will be attacks against Christians / atheists which are motivated by this senseless brutal attack against innocent people in a distant country. And the Guradian columnist I refuse to comment. She’s below that.
all of you advocating for censorship are equally deplorable as the modern left – justify your reasons to ease the pain of hypocrisy, but it matters not. You are still totalitarians.
i see youu point
however
how is stopping people reading what the lunatic uses for his reasons, benefiting society?
the logic or rather lack of it is important
seeing how he and probably others think and what induced that behavior is of some import.
he appears to have been very mid eu influenced which is odd, the music and cyrillic childish writing on bullet cases and guns etc.
for someone who was so detailed in planning that seems at odds
but then Im not a shrink.
his defence will be silenced /banned from the public of course
just like the Tassie chaps were.
it does no one any service to deny them hearing why someone went batshit.
personally allowing them airtime and then ridicule or picking it to bits analytically would be of more use
She includes in her article that ‘plants had helpfully sequestered CO2 that we are now releasing back into the atmosphere ‘ .
What was the level of CO2 in the atmosphere before the plants sequestered it?
The climate at that time must have been OK for the plants to survive and grow.
When they had sequestered all that amount of CO2, did the level of CO2 fall so much that plant growth was inhibited?
Of course, all the oxygen in the Earth’s was once combined with other elements chiefly hydrogen but also carbon because it is highly reactive. The primitive atmosphere of the Earth had nitrogen at about the same concentration as now because it is relatively inert and carbon dioxide at about the same concentration as it is now. The evolution of plants and photosynthesis changed the CO2 into carbon plant material and gaseous oxygen AGW is simply not a problem for the following reasons:
1) The current concentration of CO2 is 400ppm as opposed to 200,000ppm in the distant past
2) Photosynthesis can only occur between the temperatures of 0 – 40 Celsius and is optimal at 15 Celsius (coincidentally or most probably not), this is the average temperature of the planet I would guess it was the same then
3) Although the Sun was 30% cooler in the distant past, plants evolved and photosynthesised despite concentrations of CO2 being 500 times higher than they are now.
4) CO2 is a greenhouse gas because its molecules absorb infra-red radiation but it only absorbs certain wavelengths that are a tiny percentage of the infra-red band. One the photon is absorbed it is re-emitted at a different wavelength and so escapes into space.
5) Because the photon is absorbed only once it is absorbed by the first CO2 molecule it encounters. Any other CO2 molecules in the same trajectory are irrelevant. The height at which 99+% is absorbed is about 20 feet. In the primaeval atmosphere, it would have been about three inches if humans had been around they would have had warm feet and ankles!
Returning to the topic; The Guardian (also known as the Gruniard due to its multitude of spelling mistakes) is a dreadful newspaper and very intellectually Left as opposed to the Mirror which is Left without any intellectual content whatsoever.
I thought hate speech was banned?
I live in Christchurch (all my life) and will continue to do so.
The journalist is I would suggest, filled with hate, and this is revealed in the article.
I am not sure if I should feel sorry for her, or contempt, but I am leaning toward the latter.
People of her ilk are filled with venom, and being such, can only spew forth this sort of dribble.
We may not have a perfect world, not even here in little old Christchurch, but it is to me and many others, a lovely place in which to live and be surrounded by people of many (all) kinds and beliefs.
People filled with hate and dislike for their fellow man/woman/country or foreigner, are not welcome.
So Rebecca, make Christchurch a better place, and stay away.
Hate speech is defined as anything a leftist disagrees with.
So by definition, nothing a leftist says can be hate speech.
No David in New Zealand we meet face to face and discuss things. You seem to like division and exclusion, possibly exclusivity also.
She includes in her article that ‘plants had helpfully sequestered CO2 that we are now releasing back into the atmosphere ‘ .
What was the level of CO2 in the atmosphere before the plants sequestered it?
The climate at that time must have been OK for the plants to survive and grow.
When they had sequestered all that amount of CO2, did the level of CO2 fall so much that plant growth was inhibited?
If we burn all the fossil fuel, will the CO2 level return to the level before the plants started sequestering it?
What was that level?