Who They Really Are
Timothy Birdnow
Jonah Goldberg finds a gem; an environmental writer in Australia calls for tattooing "Climate Change Deniars" on their forearms!
From Richard Glover in the Sydney Morning Herald:
"Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
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?’’'
End excerpt.
A commenter from Down Under says Glover is always tongue-in-cheek, but what does this tell us about his fundamental assumptions, about his heart? He isn't the first Gang Greenous fellow to call for such things. And the facts on the ground don't matter a damn to him; there has been no statistical warming since 1995 (not 1998 as he says) and sea levels actually fell last year. (That doesn't matter; sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, as is to be expected.) There is no tropical tropospheric warming. The oceans aren't warming. We do not have a real net loss of ice worldwide. We don't have increasing levels of precipitation. We don't have reduced numbers of polar bears. We don't have climate refugees as predicted by the IPCC. We don't have any of the things that AGW theory predicts.
Shoot, the climate models failed to predict current conditions when programmed with past ones.
This is and will remain a theory based on virtual reality, with a preplanned outcome. It's wish fulfillment for those who hate western civilization and want to see us punished for our sins. That, and the gargantuan amounts of money to be made in the fundamental restructuring of society makes a man like Glover completely ignore reality and says the sky is falling when it remains as it always was. And it makes him create schadenfreudic fantasies of tattooing people, of staking them to the ground so they drown, of forcing SUFFERING on those who disagree with them. Why? If it really is about what is the best path for people, do the liberals devolve to fantasies of torture and murder, of dreams of Nazi vengence?
It says what is in their hearts. The "deniars" argue the facts, argue that this does not square with reality. The "deniars" want what is best for people, want people to be able to live comfortably, with enough to eat, enough to drink, with affordable goods. The Gang Green wants something quite different for the public at large - a world controlled, shrunken, impoverished. Some seek this out of personal spite, others because they believe it virtuous to be poor and hungry and uncomfortable. Most feel (not think) that the West having means the non-West has not, and the only remedy is to redistribute wealth. How? By punishing the generation of wealth.
Only a mean, spiteful people would fantasize about Nazi-like actions against those who honestly disagree with them. They impute their own motives on their opponents, a concept called projection. It is THEY who want to starve old people and give polluted waters to children, not us. Mr. Glover's "tongue in cheek" essay shows us who they really are.
Jonah Goldberg finds a gem; an environmental writer in Australia calls for tattooing "Climate Change Deniars" on their forearms!
From Richard Glover in the Sydney Morning Herald:
"Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
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?’’'
End excerpt.
A commenter from Down Under says Glover is always tongue-in-cheek, but what does this tell us about his fundamental assumptions, about his heart? He isn't the first Gang Greenous fellow to call for such things. And the facts on the ground don't matter a damn to him; there has been no statistical warming since 1995 (not 1998 as he says) and sea levels actually fell last year. (That doesn't matter; sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, as is to be expected.) There is no tropical tropospheric warming. The oceans aren't warming. We do not have a real net loss of ice worldwide. We don't have increasing levels of precipitation. We don't have reduced numbers of polar bears. We don't have climate refugees as predicted by the IPCC. We don't have any of the things that AGW theory predicts.
Shoot, the climate models failed to predict current conditions when programmed with past ones.
This is and will remain a theory based on virtual reality, with a preplanned outcome. It's wish fulfillment for those who hate western civilization and want to see us punished for our sins. That, and the gargantuan amounts of money to be made in the fundamental restructuring of society makes a man like Glover completely ignore reality and says the sky is falling when it remains as it always was. And it makes him create schadenfreudic fantasies of tattooing people, of staking them to the ground so they drown, of forcing SUFFERING on those who disagree with them. Why? If it really is about what is the best path for people, do the liberals devolve to fantasies of torture and murder, of dreams of Nazi vengence?
It says what is in their hearts. The "deniars" argue the facts, argue that this does not square with reality. The "deniars" want what is best for people, want people to be able to live comfortably, with enough to eat, enough to drink, with affordable goods. The Gang Green wants something quite different for the public at large - a world controlled, shrunken, impoverished. Some seek this out of personal spite, others because they believe it virtuous to be poor and hungry and uncomfortable. Most feel (not think) that the West having means the non-West has not, and the only remedy is to redistribute wealth. How? By punishing the generation of wealth.
Only a mean, spiteful people would fantasize about Nazi-like actions against those who honestly disagree with them. They impute their own motives on their opponents, a concept called projection. It is THEY who want to starve old people and give polluted waters to children, not us. Mr. Glover's "tongue in cheek" essay shows us who they really are.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home