Death Threats And Tattoos: Climate Frenzy Update

Concentration Camps To Re-educate Deniers Next?

It’s time to make public examples of those that disagree with reporter, and non-science-educated Richard Glover’s view of climate change. He would have skeptics “forcibly tattooed on their bodies.” Says the man, whom I’m willing to bet would not be able to explain a Lagrangian to save his life,

Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ”Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?”

Glover never says what form this cattle brand should take. Yellow and pink stars having already had their day, and the Mark of the Beast yet to come, I suggest a likeness of Alfred Wegener, a man who stood against the—strike that: the—consensus of his day, only to see his views vindicated in time.

Our would-be Australian comic Glover admits that “maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy.” Only a “bit”, my dear?

As an alternative to imitating the Gestapo, he next suggests forcing his opponents “to buy property on low-lying islands”. He has the idea that this land “will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise”. As a duly elected officer of the Climate Skeptics Conspiracy, I accept this suggestion as binding, with just two provisos. The first is that our bids face no competition from other land speculators. Fair’s fair, after all.

To own a hunk of Hawaii—oceanfront Hawaii! A fraction of Fiji! Tracts of Tahitian Beaches! Imagine the views from the Virgins! White sands, palm trees, rum by the gallon! All at rock bottom prices, practically given away to those who refuse to heed the Chicken Littles of their day. You have yourself a deal, Glover, old man.

As long as you accept proviso two, designed to make the bet equitable. Writing in the June, 2011 New Criterion, Joseph Tartakovsky reviews the life of James Wilson, one of America’s founding fathers. Wilson, said, Tarakovsky

mocks timidity about new legislation by recalling that the Locrians required a citizen who wished to propose a law to appear before the assembly with a cord around his neck and explain his reasons; if they were found wanting, he was promptly hanged.

We’ll buy the land, but you and your nervous brethren must immediately slip nooses around your necks so that if, say, in five years our beaches still exist, we can hang you from the nearest Bunya Bunya tree. I suggest1 that it would be unmanly—that is to say, womanly—of you to cavil with this bet.

Death Threats For Climate Scientists

Death Threats!Some Australian climate scientists have received death threats, over which Boing Boing inaptly calls “social media.”

These scientists are not enjoying threats because of their scientific activities, but because of their political activism. Seems a good many researchers are agitating for a new “carbon tax” to battle something called “carbon pollution.” It’s not clear what this is, but it must be euphemistic because of course carbon is the exact opposite of a pollutant.

But let’s not lose focus. Threats of death! Do meek men in lab coats who sport ill-considered facial hair and who sincerely believe they are “saving” their planet deserve to be told, “Shut up or die”? They do not.

I have investigated the matter and can say with certitude that the Climate Skeptic Conspiracy is not responsible for issuing intimidations via Twitter, Facebook, or any other media. We do not take in half-wits as members, and it is from this appalling group the threats originate.

I admit to jealousy: I have never received a death threat. That is to say, not since my days as a military man, where I heard with some regularity variants of the phrase, “Briggs, you ——-. I’m gonna kill you!” And there was the incident where a sheriff, with whose son I had a tussle back in high school, drug me into his car and pointed his pistol at my nose and asked politely to distance myself from his spawn.

I suppose I should count the time, just last week, when a guy tried to muscle his car past me on 59th street, where I was crossing on foot. We exchanged words, but traffic forced him to drive on. Which he did, but only around the block, where he found me on 60th, and where we expressed views that most courts of law would interpret as threats of a mortal nature.

It is better said that I never received death threats for my political views. I am still hopeful.

——————————————————————————————–

1I emailed Glover with this offer.

18 Comments

  1. I’m sort of going along with a “concentration camps for reporters” meme, myself, mostly because they’ve lost the ability to differentiate between advocacy and journalism. So it’s for their own protection, actually.

    One might logically believe it essential for a journalist’s professional survival to appreciate the difference, but apparently with Glover and his ilk one would be wrong. Is there a tattoo for that?

  2. This seems like an excellent opportunity to develop a beachfront property futures market so that believers and skeptics can put their money on the table and prove what they really believe.

    I think I might buy a 2025 contract for a Malibu beach house if the price was right 😉

  3. I suggest a modest amendment to 49er’s proposal, to wit: while interned (for their own safety of course) the internees/reporters would be forced to study some mathematical discipline. Variational calculus and Lagrangian mechanics could be a reasonable sophomore or junior year goal, but I would not rule out differential geometry or functional analysis or even statistics (frequentist or Bayesian, your choice). They would, at some point, have to be let loose I suppose, but with a sufficiently rigorous training program they would no longer be reporters upon release but competent applied mathematicians.

  4. Note that “belief” vs. “denier” is the issue….NOT….if one is actually behaving what is considered “reasonable.” The mere fact that being a “denier” is such a vile thing that one’s belief must be changed, or, one must be excommunicated in some manner is/are indicative of a religion.

    This is no different, from my observation, of certain fundamentalist Christians I’ve observed (some daily, in close proximity). Many of these are the most selfish, inconsiderate, even thieving (from the coffee fund), etc. numbnuts around…but…when they find that each other is a [particular variety of] “Christian” they find each other to be wonderful upstanding members of society. …unlike those “nonbelievers” and “deniers” (this term is used against atheists too) who might actually be very nice, considerate, generous (even self-sacrificing), etc. who, when their invisible belief/non-belief becomes known suddenly become vile.

    Unlike the old days, religion has evolved to be more of an expression of belief rather than about introspective self improvement along certain lines as it was for well over a millenia.

    That same mindset has infected Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption adherents — which likewise put primacy on one’s “belief” over one’s actions.

    This pattern is readily apparent throughout our society in many areas — where one’s stated values & beliefs are accepted by a sizeable part of the masses and stated values trump all behavior, however hypocritical the disconnect is.

  5. One of Twain’s articles was on the cute things kids say in school. In one example for the definition of Republican the answer was “A sinner mentioned in the Bible”. Twain added the footnote “Also in Democratic newspapers”.

    Things haven’t changed.

  6. I woulld be willing to wear a tattoo of my CO2 footprint if Al Gore, Kate Blanchette, Nancy Pelosi, etc are also willing. What’s good for the goose……..right. So Pelosi had a 1400 ton/year footprint while passing cap and trade. Wouldn’t it have been nive for Americans who could look into a mirror at their own 10 to 20 ton/year tattoo and then watch Pelosi on TV with 1400 on her forehead pitching cap and trade? How about Obama flying pizza from Chicago to DC for a party and flying AF1 to take Michelle on a date? His # has to be close to Pelosi. Gore? Between all his homes and private jetting he has to be in top 1/10 of1% of CO2 emitters. Wouldn’t his movie AIT have been much better with some huge CO2 emissions # on his forehead?

    The more I think about it the more I think a CO2 emissions tattoo might have merit.

  7. Doug M, I’ll give Mr. Briggs one! No need to use an alias.

    You, !@#$ Mr. Birggs, you are a fricking Bayesian who attacks p-values incessantly. If you ever fracking do that again, watch out! I know I am smaller in size, but I do own a Nerf gun, a unique weapon. And I know what you look like.

    There is no doubt that Nerf guns can kill. Just think… otherwise…why would they be verboten on many university campuses?!

    There. You’ve got a death threat, albeit a bad one. Aren’t all death threats bad, anyway?

  8. Sir,
    If you continue to post a picture of a kangaroo with a bottle of Budweiser,
    I am sure some Aussie will eventually get around to a death threat.
    But not until they finish a few more Toohey’s Olds.

  9. Thanks, Matt, for that link. Further reading there lead to a threat made by a believer [to a denier] that if the argument continued he would be forced to “be precise” in his attacks. OMG. That is so scary. One dreads arguing against any adversary going so far as to be “precise”.

  10. How about a scarlet letter for the climate loons: “A” for Alarmist. This way they will not need to carry signs announcing the end of the world.

  11. “I’m willing to bet would not be able to explain a Lagrangian to save his life,”

    I’ll see you and raise you. I’m willing to bet he never had a math or physics course in his life. Arithmetic doesn’t count as math.

  12. Turns out that the whole death threats story was a beat-up:

    CLAIMS prominent climate change scientists had recently received death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five years ago.

    Only two of ANU’s climate change scientists allegedly received death threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an offhand remark made in person 12 months ago.

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/carbon-death-threats-go-cold/story-e6freuzr-1226071996499

  13. If we “have” to inhabit those “lowlands” I would also require (if they are so sure Greenland and Antarctica are melting) they should have to move to the areas where our glaciers are reported to be melting and temperate climates are soon to appear.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *