Bishop Hill Damian on lunatics
Jan 10, 2011 Climate: Sceptics Greens Media Damian Carrington is discussing violence over at the GuardianEco blog, inspired (if that is the right word) by events in Arizona. His point is that there are lots of threats of violence around the fringes of the climate debate, and he refers to emails that were apparently sent to Stephen Schneider and Leo Hickman.
Damian is right of course, but I do wonder if he is going to raise the subject of George Monbiot too, the great man having opined thusly?
...every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.
As Damian puts it,
So it's clear that even in issues such as climate change there is an active fringe of people deploying violent rhetoric and hate mail against those with whom they disagree. Could that tip the balance between thought and action in the mind of an unstable individual? It's a worryingly plausible thought.
I find it hard to disagree.
Bishop Hill
On second thoughts, I don't think I've got this quite right. See update here.
Reader Comments (81)
Theo Goodwin
It sounds as though encouraged self--filtering the stuff that gets loose in public to protect ourselves from paranoid-schizophrenics would be a waste of time, and would have been unlikely to protect the people in Tucson from the person who I suspect you've well described. But that's for the instant case.
Surely toning down the rhetoric might save someone from the occasional easily influenced potentially violent type? I'd really bought into the theory that what was within the realm of social acceptability should such apparent acceptability include extreme language could be extreme action. Do you think this is unsupportable?
I'd like to buy a beer to the agent-provocateur that got James Hansen hand-cuffed twice.
Theo Goodwin, the symbol is also what you get to identify lat-lon points on Google Earth, but it is also what you see more or less looking through a telescopic rifle sight - sans the ranging pips. I continue to believe that the use of those indicators on Palin's map was a bit of "cute" graphics in line with her other rhetoric. But of course it had nothing at all to do with the Tucson attack.
Carringtons article is rubbish. As Theo said, Loughner is clearly just a paranoid schizophrenic. All the usual loony conspiracies and intellectualised nonsense, plus a marijuana habit. There is zero evidence that he was influenced in any way by anything Palin, the Tea Party, the GOP or any other politician or pundit has ever said, (of either the Right or the Left). A few acquaintances say he was "leftist" or "very liberal", but even that was several years ago and he had become "very reclusive" since then.
No code of conduct about political utterances will ever make a difference to the insane.
j freguson,
There was nothing at all wrong with either the DNC or the Republicans, or Palin using the terms of hunting in targeting opposition for defeat. So you are correct, they are both equally bad: not at all.
I am sorry you buy into the Palin-is-dumb mantra. I do not like her as a candidate, but I do not kid myself that she is stupid.
If you think that metaphors cause problems, I think you should go think a bit more on this.
What creates problems is not metaphor. It is reality.
And the reality is that a stoner psycho spoiled well to do lefty hack putz murdered a federal Judge, an innocent child, four other innocent people and severely wounded a Congress woman.
The reality is that talk radio, Sara Palin and the blogosphere had zip to do with this.
I am tired of people like you thinking it is all some magic combination of words that got this Daily Kos poster to decide to shoot a bunch of people.
Loughner's favorite books were apparently Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. Not likely he is American Right Wing although the left has been trying to make Right Wing mean Fascist here like it does in EU land!! American moderate would be to the right of Fascist.
The Judge has now been reported to have talked to the Senator's aids about talking to the Senator about the need for more Judges due to the increased border enforcement in the Arizona area. The Senator was a strong border advocate although I believe she was soft on those already in the country.
Richard Drake,
"And of course with China and India (however you classify them politically) racing to catch up."
India might be trying to catch up but China has already surpassed the US and is pulling away!!
J. Ferguson,
based on Loughner's reading habits, are you suggesting that we start burning books also??
Hunter's point about metaphors is spot on. If war and gun metaphors had any relation to criminal violence then athletes would be the primary violators. They aren't. Drugs, alcohol and absent fathers are the primary cause of violence.
Glen Renolds put it well,
"To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?"
Isn't congresswoman Giffords to blame for the shooting? Why didn't she answer Loughner's(the shooter) question he asked at a town hall meeting?
"What is government if words have no meaning?
Just as relevant as any scary metaphor. None
Reality check. At the height of anti-nuclear protest I was often in print in national newspapers here in Oz. I once managed a remote pilot plant with some workers who did not like uranium. One time, all 4 car wheels had the bolts loosened (but it was an amateur job picked up before disaster); another time, the wiring on the headlights was 'adjusted' so that they failed on a nearby steep mountain road at night; then, on return to the metropolis, we had to call police when a bomb-like device was left on our BBQ table; then the car handbrake was released so it rolled down the drive and smashed into the home. There were several phone calls with murder threats, most to my wife when I was away on business. My friend and corporate solicitor was fired upon when he worked one night in his city office (they missed). For two years I was a public face to contact in liaison with enforcement officers in a matter where two people were missing believed murdered.
It's a bit hard to make up stories like this when you can see the bullet hole.
So, if people ask me if 10:10 was harmless satire, my reaction is that the trials should have ended by now and the guilty should be in custody. Ditto those psychpaths who put belief in their view of the future of humanity into terms of violence.
Visitors to this blog come through as nice, kind people. But, do keep in mind that there are plenty of sick people out there. May you never meet them.
Surprising no-one has mentioned our beloved new MP and leader of the Green Party Caroline Lucas.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1169862/Air-travel-bad-stabbing-person-street-says-MEP.html
Of course she wasn't advocating stabbing a person in the street. But the moral equivalence claimed is as offensive as it is worrying.
I have also pointed out in the past the possible future outcome of (a) the fashionable pretence that extreme weather events in the third world (e.g. floods in Pakistan) have been caused by "Global Warming", coupled with (b) talk of "The West" refusing to "pay their Climate Debts".
The seeds of the next big terrorism movement?
But I am also reminded of Hitchcock's reaction when he was allegedly interviewed after a crazed knifer was revealed as having gone to the cinema some time before to see "Psycho". I can't find the actual quote but it was along the lines: 'how many people had watched "Psycho" and NOT gone out and knifed anyone. And was the journalist sure that the murderer wouldn't have done he same if he'd watched another film?'
In the context of extreme rhetoric pushing people to extreme actions wasn't there a couple who killed themselves and their kids (in the last year or so) because they couldn't stand to bring them up in a world which was dangerously warming.
Will Monbiot et al admit their blood is on their hands when the AGW scam has been shown up for what it is?
Nial.
People like Monbiot and Palin are two sides of the same looney coin.
For that quote in a national newspaper should not Monbiot be facing charges under the various bits of terrorist/violence/hate speech legislation in force in the UK? It is far worse than the Doncaster Airport Twitter case. Has anyone thought of making a complaint to the Met?
Lets not forget the way that CiF is moderated and the part that plays in skewing the debate and the tone of the debate.
Ultra warmists are less likely to have comments removed on CiF than those from the broad spectrum of scepticism.
Those ultra-warmists who persist in making extreme comments are less likely to have their CiF accounts stopped than those who are even moderately sceptical.
In effect the partisan nature of CiF moderation is not only skewing a legitimate debate on CAGW it is actually promoting extremism of those ultra-warmists who believe in taking direct action not just against organisations but also against individuals.
It is worth noting that the Guardian supports the campaign to prosecute individuals in the International Criminal Court for the supposed act of Ecocide that covers aspects such as earthquakes, floods, mining, logging, pollution, chemical release, resource depletion, etc - in effect an endless and subjective list of eco-criminality.
Such a campaign creates targets and calls for direct action. How easy is it then in such a ferbile atmosphere for individuals to become judge, jury and prosecution?
Thank you for that quote, chucker (Jan 11, 2011 at 6:25 AM).
It is well known that those who lose an argument and feel themselves cornered, will resort to physical abuse. Examples from private lives abound.
Thus the violent phrases we encounter when talking with AGW proponents show clearly the regard themselves as having lost. The same is true for any political debate.
Sadly, there is a short step from speech to deed, for some people. Where this step is sanctioned, e.g. by Monbiot, or executed, e.g. in various Greenpeace 'activities', there will then be those who will feel free to do violence to others themselves.
I have never forgotten what a Quaker lady (no, I'm not a quaker!) said to me, a few decades ago, in another context: 'if we want to achieve peace, we have to stop using war-like words ourselves. So we do not 'fight' for peace, we work for it.'
In this sense - it behoves us well to watch what we say, and not reply even to Monbiot and his ilk in the way they speak.
I rarely visit the Guardian having acquired a number of Purple Hearts there but what looks like an appeal for reasoned discussion rapidly deteriates into people shouting "Denier" and some sophystry of what that means exactly. Amusingly, the tone of the discussion is set by Carrington himself. ie Let's have a civilised discussion starting as long as you agree Global Warming is caused by mankind.
Pointman
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/
Senter.
As Carrington himself demonstrates with his words CAGW is not a reasonable faith. It obligates the faithful to search out and attack the unfaithful.
Quote, Mark Twain, "We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.
hunter, I think words are very important and do suggest the parameters for our collective behavior. At my advanced age, I can still distinguish between "ignorance" the word I employed in my first remarks, and "stupidity" which I did not use. I agree with you that Palin is not stupid.
Advocating that people think some more about how they phrase their discomfort with the views of their political opponents seemed a worthy thought.
Kuhnkat, how could you ever imagine I would burn books - any books?
It would be nice if what one writes could be read for what it says, not seen as an expression symptomatic of a whole lot of unfocused caterwauling that " seems" the same.
Viv Evans, thank you. you said it so much better than I.
Re Geoff Sherrington
Well said, and things could have been worse. In France, in 1982, Chaim Nissim, a Swiss Green MP allegedly fired 5 RPGs at the Superphoenix reactor under construction. He said
I know that is might sound odd to consider rockets as a non-violent mean of action. However, we took every imaginable precaution to be certain that no worker was at risk of being hit, therefore we commited a non-violent attack.
I'm personally unconvinced that using multiple anti-tank weapons against property is 'non-violent' but it shows the strange kind of logic and reasoning used by extremists. The same is shown on the wiki talk pages for their 'eco-terrorism' article, eg
The use of "ecoterror" is by centrists, right-wingers, and the FBI. It is inherently POV. It can be discussed, but as a propaganda term.
When activists attack scientists with parcel bombs, or commit arson attacks against their homes or businesses or sabotage their vehichles, eco-terrorist sounds a perfectly reasonable description. They seem to believe that the end justifies the means and their cause is greater than other people's rights to go about their lawful business. This isn't helped by the rhetoric used by people like Gore or Hansen when they call for more direct action, or use emotive language comparing coal company execs to concentration camp officers, or Monbiot's suggestion of drowning airline execs.
The hate-speakers may not really mean it, but problem is there are people in the world who'll take that kind of language as a call to arms to commit more violence. They're saving humanity, saving the planet, saving the grand children and they're told they don't have much time to do it. So we get more violence. The media seem to like that because fear sells and they get more dramatic copy. Calm, reasoned debate doesn't sell as well as terrorists inside a power station.
and Re TinyCO2
I hope there's no violence, but it's a risk when people are threatened, or losing jobs due to 'green' policies. As Viv says, violence is for those who've lost the debate and I'd much rather see the fear mongering climate scientists beaten with evidence, logic, reason and virtual hockey sticks rather than real ones. So far we seem to be winning the debate on those grounds, but that just means the believers are getting more desperate, hence their struggle to find new ways to 'mind bomb' climate dogma to counter rising scepticism. If that includes more calls for direct action, then hopefully the authorities will take action against the speakers for encouraging terrorism.
J ferguson,
when you suggest that people's words are dangerous and inflammatory how can you leave out books?? Our treasure in our libraries and data bases includes inflammatory rhetoric that dwarfs anything being currently tossed around in American or British dialogue. To tone down the dialogue is to censor the literature that gives us our perspective on the world!!!
Kuhnkat, of course you're correct here, and I suppose the most effective 'troublemakers" are well read, but those who read such book are likely small in numbers. And even so, I'm comfortable with books being out there that I would find appalling. I read Mein Kampf many years ago and concluded that few others did at the time. It was all there. But actions and verbal speech seem to be where the parameters for political activity come from and being a free speech addict and a hater of prior restraint, I can only hope that people will think about what other ways what they say might be construed.
"Violence is for those who have lost the debate". If only this were true. How many Civil Rights movements have mutated in Terrorism or guerilla warfare. Where a grievience of a significant portion of the populace can find no peaceful expression or is suppressed, violence will ensue.
Pointman
Re Kuhnkat
That's being done. See plans to rewrite Mark Twain and not due to his anti-golf stance. The book's not being used in schools because it contains hate speech, or perhaps it should be used in schools to show how society has changed and become more tolerant. Or less tolerant if you look at attempts to ban sceptics or deniers their right to free speech, as demonstrated frequently over on CiF. Or use twisted rhetoric, like this-
The anonymous nature of those contributing to these threads and the venom that gets generated when you point out that some of the posters confuse their opinions with the facts, leads me to conclude that the relatively small number of completely unhinged posters that survive the moderation system for more than 24 hours would very probably attack some of the warmists, were they to be given the chance.
From Pitt, the welder formerly known as cannaman who frequently calls for sceptical voices to be silenced over at the Grauniad. Over in Tucson, a politician was shot along with many other people for apparently not answering a question, even though the politician was trying to involve more people in the democratic process.
Here, we've already censored some literature, rightly or wrongly. Hate speech and terrorist literature can be illegal under our Terrorism Act. Most famous is probably the Anarchist's Cookbook, which is just a book, so not inherently dangerous. If people start putting it's ideas into practice, then that becomes more dangerous. The same with the Unabomber's manifesto. If people want to go live in the woods, fine, let them. Don't send me bombs or burn homes or businesses because I don't agree with your lifestyle choice, yet some greens seem to agree with the Unabomber's neo-luddite manifesto even though the things he objected to allow them to speak. Words aren't dangerous, it's how people interpret and act on them that can be, and most of the violence thus far has been by the greens.
The Grauniad praises the actions of the terrorists who tried to close down power stations. Something you're unlikely to see is any article explaining what would have happened if they'd succeeded in doing so for say, 1-3 months. But they weren't really terrorists because their cause was just. Most terrorists probably feel the same way. Gore called for more direct action like that, and probably thinks it's justified, if perhaps simply to boost his profits.
Like pointman says though, take away people's rights to free speech or expression, marginalise them and dehumanise them then don't be too suprised at the consequences.
j ferguson,
You are full of it.
I find your persistent need for censorship to be tiresome and annoying.
You are not going to get to select word useage lists for approved communications.
So stuff it.
The vile shooter is a pathetic schizophrenic who needs to be put down but will now likely get treated well for life.
And, thanks to the sleaze ball Sheriff, he may actually get off, since that idiot sheriff has compromoised the case by, in his cheap political hackery, offering the perfect defense- the sheriff himself saying that Rush Limbaugh and sara Palin, not the shooter, are responsible.
I don't know if you are American or not, but this facistic need you exhibit frankly disgusts me.
Debate?? Kto kogo is the only issue that the left cares to debate.
hunter, I'm sorry you're so unhappy with me. How many times do I have to say that I favor people, especially politicians giving a little more thought to what they say in public? If I support almost limitless free speech as I suggested somewhere above and condemn prior restraint, doesn't that sound like I'm not thinking about censorship?
btw, do you know what "prior restraint" means in the context of free speech?
I do not want censorship of any kind. Which doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to say that some of our politicians have said some astonishingly incendiary things in public which I think can incite crazies. Whether the present example was so incited is moot. I don't know how we'd ever know. How can you be so certain he wasn't?
Sorry to have offended you so.
Richard Drake wrote:
I doubt that one has to be a skeptic (or sceptic) to find the comedic element conspicuous by its absence in the 10:10 video. And I'm not so sure that anyone (including corporate and organizational "sponsors" who withdrew their support) denounced the video because of its "incitement to murder". The message I drew from the video is that it's OK to marginalize, denigrate - and/or punish - those whose views diverge from the climatically correct.
The purported intended "humour" was an explanation proffered very much after the fact. Armstrong's own E-mail gloating about the Guardian coverage - and urging that recipients forward to friends and "pretend Facebook friends" so that the video would "go viral" - made absolutely no mention of "humour" (or any facsimile thereof).
That which I found most disturbing about the whole 10:10 débacle, was the response of the child-actor who played Philip: he declared that he was "very happy to get blown up to save the world".
IMHO, the world does not need any child "role models" who see virtue in eco-jihadism. I just hope and pray that there aren't any think-alikes lurking in the wings, itching for their chance to "get blown up to save the world".
"IOW, he was a typical 22 year old lefty loser who figured he could make a name for hisself."
Spot on. Lefty or not, he committed this act because he is a loser who wanted to make a name for himself. As a society, we need to recognize this, and stop our co-dependent relationship with these pathetic SOBs.
The pervert that killed innocent people in AZ did so for one reason, and it wasnt Sarah Palin or Keith Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. He killed people because we as a society promised to generously compensate him for doing it, and we are currently making good on that promise.
We have struck a deal with the incompetant, pathetic losers of our nation: If you will agree to act out and kill a few people, we will make you a celebrity. We will put your face on the front page of every newspaper. We will put video and sound bite footage of you on every television station, 24/7. We will make your name known to 300 million people in this country, and as a bonus a bunch of foreigners will have it on their lips as well. We will read your suicide note, publish your manifesto, play your video rants, and draw attention to your Facebook page. This is literally several hundred million dollars of free publicity, and we will give it to you. We will call you cool names like ‘Lone Wolf’. Hundreds of millions of people you have never met will discuss what you have done and your impact on their lives. You will be IMPORTANT. And all you have to do is kill a few people in public.
This is a standing offer, and many have taken us up on it. Many more will, until we wise up and stop paying people to commit mass murder.
We need to stop publicising these assholes.
No more photos.
No more names.
No more manifestos.
No more respect.
We need to refer to them, unnnamed, as the impotent perverts that they are. We need to demonstrate that their pathetic lives and incoherent motivations remain too irrelevant to warrant any notice. They are nothing more than dog shit on the boot heel of humanity, and they all need to know that killing people will only change that status for the worse.
Until we do that, they will keep killing us.
Sarah Palin's response is I think well-judged - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12174448
hro001: I agree with your concerns about the video. The only point I have been making - not that extreme a point I would have thought - is that it wasn't deliberate incitement to murder. Extreme language is an issue when something as terrible as this real-life, multiple murder occurs. I strongly felt, and still feel, that we should bear that in mind on this thread.