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)
Has this not happened already, with a gunman attacking the Discovery Channel HQ? That seems to have been missed.
Does George Monbiot know where any of us live? Fortunately I've never been an airline executive, but it is worrying that George is one of the active fringe of people deploying violent rhetoric against those with whom they disagree, so any of us could be in George's sights.
Fair point, Ross, for James Lee went beyond words and kidnapped three people and threatened them with destruction, with metallic canisters strapped to his chest - before being shot by police. Very sadly, Jared Lee Loughner was a great deal worse, killing six innocents in the process - and this does make it far worse - of terrorising an open meeting between a democratically elected representative and her constituents.
And of course Damian Carrington is right that any and all death threats, however unlikely they are to be carried out, deserve to be utterly condemned. And Andrew is quite right to ask questions of George Monbiot's extreme language in this context.
Isn't that all there is to be said here? We have all repudiated violence in accepting the limits of representative democracy. No issue is bigger than that. End of story.
I rather thought the 10:10 video found violence the way to go. When you have a planet to save, you care not for democracy, freedom, other people's rights, scientific truth, common sense, civility, reason, etc etc. 'Just Do It' is the banner some of them deploy. That speaks to me of unquestioning obedience, the sine qua non of totalitarian regimes, and the path to a great deal of misery and destruction in the 20th century.
How many "violent actions" were encouraged by a number of police agent provocateur?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/10/environmental-activists-inquiry-undercover-officer
Labourgraph also has the story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8250564/Call-for-inquiry-after-undercover-policeman-turns-against-the-Met.html
I've lost count of the number of times I've had to complain about a post on the Guardian comment is free website. Whenever there is a climate change/environmentalist post it brings out the New World order/commie totalitarians. It's a short pause before they start talking about firing squads, show trials and prison camps for climate ‘deniers’.
The worrying thing is that I don't think they're joking.
David Suzuki: "What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act."
John Shade: the No Pressure video for 10/10 tried to send up violence. In other words, we're not like this, this is not what we believe in. That was the 'joke'. It was a very bad joke, I think we all agree, indeed the whole world including almost all believers in CAGW very quickly came to that conclusion.
That is different from what Loughner did in Tucson on Saturday. He actually carried out this kind of violence on his supposed enemies (including as it turned out a Republican judge who had just gone out of his way to greet his Democrat friend) - until a very brave woman who'd already been shot took the initiative in stopping him - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12147334. And then the men followed!
I do find the quote from Monbiot horrifying. Why drown an airline executive? They are only serving a need that many of us in the world have to travel, in a free economy. Why not drown all of us that ever use an airplane? Is the Guardian man willing to go first?
Even that last sentence could be taken by some as a threat. It isn't. I would never take the initiative in such a matter, not in a thousand years. But that's the problem with extreme language, it leads you very quickly into such hateful cul-de-sacs.
The other point I hear you make is that, as understood by many, dangerous anthropogenic global warming many not stopped by democracies. I think that is a genuine issue, something I discussed with a guy from Friends of the Earth at the wine bar after Steve McIntyre's participation in the Guardian debate on Climategate in London in July. To his credit he took my point that reducing global emissions to the point some people (I assume including him) think is necessary may not be possible if we keep democracy - and he clearly opted to keep democracy. Not everyone is so clear about that, as Stuck-Record says. And that does, potentially, lead to violence.
It's not easy, it's not pretty but it's the world we live in. Having said which, a good deal of thankfulness for the peace and security we've enjoyed since 1945 is also I think in order as we face up to it.
BBC News channel at 2pm referred to the shootings in somewhere that sounded like "Tuckson".
They also referred a few weeks ago to someone dying from "pewmonia".
Where do they get these morons?
From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: FYI
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=793&filename=1177534709.txt
"...every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."
This is an astonishing statement, First there is the tenuous and very unlikely connection between high-water in Bangladesh and air travel, then there's the choice of miscreant. Maybe the airline customers?
Why does the Guardian keep this guy on their rolls?
i understand, possibly incorrectly, that one of the underlying tenets of the Anti-Defamation League is that the social acceptability of vicious discriminatory rhetoric can raise the headroom of acceptable activities to include physical assault and even state crimes against a group. If that is true as I think it is, then these aggressive statements do have an effect.
That our national (US) Fountain of Ignorance, Mrs. Palin, should want us to believe that her advertisement targeting opposition candidates in the 2002 election for "elimination" using cross-hairs of the sort found in telescopic rifle sights was innocent beggars belief. That few, if any, of the better established politicians who share her political positions disowned this ad also speaks loudly. We have a real problem.
I don't believe in throttling free speech beyond punishing "yelling fire in a crowded theatre." But if people who contemplate or imply physical threats in their public utterances are not criticized for them, we are likely to see more of the events of the last few days.
It is certainly true that the mentally defective will produce a number of assaults every year, but it's the focus of these that worries me. We cannot prevent random violent acts, but we might better keep them unfocused.
Like it or not, we need our politicians and we need to be able to interact with them without the separation of armored glass.
Whoops, make that the 2010 election.
The 1010 folks and so many of the warmists don't necessarily promote individual violence; they promote forcible coercion by governments and unelected supra-national entities.
Which, if they were to get their way, would be immeasurably worse than the occasional lone loon.
I differ on two things, Richard:
1. I got not the slightest impression that the 10:10 was 'sending-up' violence. Destroying children for the inactions of their parents, destroying adults for hesitation or reluctance to toe the line, was, ay my most charitable, a means for the film-makers to state just how important they saw the situation, and how intolerant they were of any opposition, no matter how muted. This was extreme zealotry at work.
2. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is or will be a threat. It is, I think, universally recognised that we are far from being able to model the climate in any way that would allow forecasts that would show skill over persistence or the extrapolation of previous trends or patterns. The models are not fit to serve as a guide for action, and especially not precipitate actions that could severely weaken our ability to respond to whatever extreme weather the future holds for us. The models are of some value amongst experts to illustrate to one another some aspects of thoeretical conjectures, such as the conjecture of CO2 being a major drive of climate, and of their being an associated strong positive feedback mechanism. But it is grossly irresponsible, to the point of not even being appropriate behaviour for adults, to take the resulting outputs and trumpet them in the public square as grounds for major policy decisions. The climate, as we have seen in the past few winters, is variable, and has so far not complied with simple trajectories consistent with the dire model 'projections'. There has been no tropospheric hotspot found. Real temperature records show a wide range of behaviours, some show cooling, some warming, some nothing much on average. Records such as the CET show past periods of more rapid warming, and of higher temperatures, as well as lower. The much vaunted threat of dangerous sea-level rises underway, and of more and harsher hurricane acitivity being already with us, have also not been supported by observations.
There is a great deal of clamour, exaggeration, and fear in the climate debate. Some commentators, such as Monbiot, seem genuinely terrified by the visions they have painted for themselves, and used to reinforce their political predispositions. I have some sympathy for them - it can't be very nice to think such thoughts, and see so little (proportionate) action. But I have to say, they look to me like people in a state of irrational panic, a panic which has distorted their common decency and led to such things as wishing to execute airline executives by drowning, or school children by detonation.
I thought these guys were statisticians?
What are the odds, chief?
Astro-Sobbing is attempting to gain political advantage from public shock and grief over a random act of violence by linking it to political opponents.
cf Astroturfing
"...That is different from what Loughner did in Tucson on Saturday. He actually carried out this kind of violence on his supposed enemies (including as it turned out a Republican judge who had just gone out of his way to greet his Democrat friend)..."
I wouldn't rule out quite yet the possibility that the judge was Loughner's primary target. So far, we have only Ass Press's assertion that the judge "just happened" to stop by and say hello. Ass Press is a notoriously biased left-wing news source and I take nothing they say at face value. I'd check the judge's cellphone for a text message saying "stop by and see me on your way in--Gabrielle"
o/t but there's an interesting looking Horizon on at the moment - (UK) BBC2. Miller of Armstrong and Miller (an ex-physicist) is investigating what 1 deg K means after being buttonholed by a friend who said climate change couldn't be measured.
I know it's OT for this blog, but since you brought it up, what's your feeling about "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun" ( Barack Obama at a Democratic fundraiser in June 2008)?
Incidentally, the idea of putting target symbols on a map of vulnerable rival constituencies was pioneered in the Democratic campaign handbook for the same election.
Loughner is a stoner with a satanic altar in his backyard and who posted at the notorious lefty extremist site 'The Daily Kos'.
His Youtube channel (which I saw yesterday) is psychotic drivel about 'conscience (sic) dreaming' .
IOW, he was a typical 22 year old lefty loser who figured he could make a name for hisself. He was a right wing fanatic in the same way that Hansen is a resonable kind man who promotes civil discourse. ;^).
j ferguson,
Blaiming Palin's use of a commmon metaphor in politics (targeting some candidate for defeat) led to this is crap.
the DNC in more than a few elections have published maps with bulls eyes on districts 'targeted' for republican defeat.
Falling for the lefty bs line that this guy 1) was a hard core right winger and 2) was inpsired by talk radio/Palin/ etc. is an insult to intelligence and requires ignoring reality.
I think you should apologize for it, quite frankly.
Guys, guys, nothing wrong with target - common usage - it's the crosshairs on the map. And if the Dems did it, it's just as bad. The bringing a knife to the fight "quote" is not what he said although what he did say had both words.
I've been trying to comment on Carrington's article, using the following passage from Theodore Kaczynski's violent, anti-human, anti-technology manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future:
My comment has been deleted three times, as have my requests for the moderator to explain what rules my comments have breached. More interestingly, there is no trace of the comments, as there usually is for comment that have been removed -- 'This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.'
I wonder if the problem is that Kaczynski's prose is just too similar to the Guardian's.
John, thanks for the calmly spoken reply.
I agree that 10:10 was such bad comedy that it was hard for us sceptics to imagine it as comedy. But I went to prep school (Papplewick in Ascot) with Richard Curtis and at least aged 13 he wasn't a murderous type, nor has he come across that way when I've met him since. And he made comments to quite decent effect after the video was withdrawn. I know it's now passed into sceptic folklore as clear-cut incitement to murder and I think it was extremely unwise because it could be taken that way by the unstable on either side of the debate. But it wasn't incitement to murder and it was hastily withdrawn when that was widely inferred. I entirely agree with Josh's use of the red button in cartoons - completely fair game - but it wasn't straightforward.
On CO2 I'm sure I'm completely with you. But in the last year especially I've been trying to put myself in the shoes of those who see the science differently. If there was a need to reduce man's global CO2 emissions considerably - on a precautionary basis - is that really going to happen in a world where many of the biggest emitters are democracies? And of course with China and India (however you classify them politically) racing to catch up. I can't see greenhouse emission reduction happening globally without also reducing democracy almost to zero. At that point the cure seems far worse than the disease to me - and it did I thought to the the Friends of the Earth guy I was speaking to in July, as it did to James Lovelock when he raised it in the Guardian. But that all depends on the seriousness of the disease. Instead of mowing people like Lovelock down when they raise such things perhaps we should go the extra mile and talk it out, all the way. Perhaps the human race has been led into a situation that is extremely tragic and that needs to be faced as such.
I admit that I'm influenced in saying this by Fritz Kunkel the psychologist - who talked about facing your fears head on, rather than suppressing them because that always leads to disaster (the doghouse, as he called it). He was a contemporary of Hitler who was also injured in the First World War. Kunkel had always wanted to be a surgeon but he lay on the battlefield with his right arm blown off he knew his future was changed! At that moment, rather unlike Hitler, he had a vision of all humanity and felt overwhelming love for it. He went on to talk a lot more sense than Freud and Jung in my book. Anyhow, I may be digressing! But I think the issue of fear is at the heart of things - and of course of so much human violence.
Not true, the quote is correct..
Several contemperaneous sources give the exact quote as:-
At a fundraiser in Philadelphia where he was flanked by PA governor Ed Rendell, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter, and Sen. Bob Casey, Barack Obama said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
I think you should apologise now.
hunter,
go back and read what I wrote. I know I may not be holding dementia at bay much longer, but I continue to think that an environment where metaphors for violence are in everyday usage in connection with political persuasions will be an environment where the out-of-kilter will pick politicians to attack. If people were saying these things about dentists than dentists would have to watch out.
It may also be that being prominent is sufficient to attract the crazed gunman in which case my theory may be weak.
,
I have no idea what the gunman's politics were nor did I suggest or imply it. And btw, none of this has prevented me from being a good shot with rifle and pistol.
j ferguson,
Obamas' quote was confirmed at the time in 2008. For example
"“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia..."
Bryce,
Accuracy of quote accepted. Significance challenged "If they bring a knife...." but point taken.
Greenpeace: We are many they are few and we know where they live.
http://sppiblog.org/news/greenpeace-to-global-warming-skeptics-%E2%80%9Cwe-know-where-you-live%E2%80%9D
and Guys I'm not apologizing. Had I said what you think I said, then i would, but I didn't and I thought I was pretty clear.
well
guidio fawkes must be lucky - as must a lot of blogs during the last year of the brown (mis-)adminstration of the UK - 'telescopic' target images abounded with assorted politicians and self styled 'elite' in the cross hairs super-imposed over some photo.
but then we now live in a country where someone's 'tweet' of frustration was also taken at (idiotic) face value; instead of the reasonable assumption that having being considerably inconvenienced by incompetence; a throw away comment was not only natural - but probably beneficial.
I have my own thoughts about those who protest about things like this - mainly that those who complain really do not understand the difference between allegorical comments and intent; after all if 10:10 really was meant to be funny then those who proclaim it so should have absolutely no problem with any one else using similar exaggeration. Or is this just another example of the 'we are right - you are wrong' mentality of many political activists ?
Richard Drake the 10:10 video had to go throw a whole series of meetings , and the production process and they be ok’d to air, and throughout all of that no one working on it thought it was a bad idea . You only have see the initial reaction from 10:10 to see what the mindset that required, when the tired to blame the viewers and they tried to worm their way out of it. To this day it’s clear some of them think they done nothing wrong at all and it’s the public which is blame. No need make excuses for them.
As for Carrington article no mention at all of threats from the warmest camp and his been taken to task for that , but the irony of having CIF’s number two environmental attack dog in Leo on board , who is happy to indulge in insulting and demonising AGW sceptics in his own right, seems to have passed them right by.
j ferguson:
Me neither. What I said earlier is that he attacked his 'supposed enemies', including a Republican judge, whom he killed, and a Democratic congresswoman, who is very lucky to survive a bullet through the brain.
hunter:
Implying the 'typical 22 year old lefty loser' goes out on killing sprees? I do understand the concern, slightly, that this was already being spun as the action of a 22 year-old right-wing loser. But Jared Loughner surely stepped out from such puny categories when he became a multiple murderer. That was the choice that mattered. We shouldn't play politics with this at all, except to make the much deeper point that the whole of our democratic system and rule of law exists to protect the vulnerable from such terrible acts. Whatever brand of confused ideology the person concerned was struggling with, it makes no difference.
J ferguson
You said - "The bringing a knife to the fight "quote" is not what he said although what he did say had both words."
Two of us pointed out that my original quote was exactly what he said.
You then said - "Accuracy of quote accepted. Significance challenged "If they bring a knife...." but point taken."
Followed by - "I'm not apologizing. Had I said what you think I said, then i would, but I didn't and I thought I was pretty clear."
Seems to me you know you were wrong but you don't want to apologise - so you're trying to muddy the waters.
@ Ben Pile
Is it because you are pasting a good chunk of text?
A lot of us have moderation 'experiences' with the Guardian this type of thing doesn't stop with the Guardian. Welcome to the fold.
KnR: Of course there were numerous meetings and I thought the initial attempts at apology were dreadful. However the video was withdrawn quickly, which shows that there is some conscience left somewhere. And I found Curtis' own words more convincing:
He clearly doesn't take the sceptical position seriously and that is the challenge. Unless he and influencers like him do we won't make progress. That's where I'm up to with this now. There's no point trying to persuade Curtis and his trusted friends he's a closet murderer. We have to go back once again to the arguments, about the science and the policy. Frustrating but true.
Richard Drake,
Fool that I am, I had thought I was talking about a political environment where unusually violent metaphors are being used much more frequently - say compared to 30 years ago. I do know that it got pretty rough here in the US in the thirties. And someone did take a shot at Franklin Roosevelt. I certainly agree that it isn't only the right side of the aisle. The left here does the same thing (feel better hunter?). And it could well be that conservatives feel they are being singled out by the inevitably liberal press as the bad guys and they shouldn't be. The glaring example that I used, though, was not untypical of the rhetoric issuing forth from the politician I named.
My point was that if people are talking about these kind things even metaphorically, the effect is the same thing that the Anti-Defamation League worries about. I'd like to see a senior politician in the party of the person going a bit overboard chiding them for it. I'd like to see the Guardian print a brief note that Monbiot's recommendations for the disposition of airline executives does not comport with the paper's policies.
@ Shub -- no.... they completely removed my subsequent posts where I make the point more concisely, not even leaving the usual notice of deletion. Full context at http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/01/the-immoderate-moderator-comment-is-not-free.html
foxgoose, my waters were already muddy. the problem is with the metaphors. not the politics. On the other hand, if you are a Palin supporter, than this clearly is so far o/t that it would be improper here. I do apologize for mentioning her, although I thought it an excellent example in the same vein as the Mobiot quote.
Ben Pile has entered the hallowed halls. At his blog he notes the now-familar ominous message:
Foxgoose et al - I suspect Obama's he-pulls-a-knife quote originates from Brian de Palma's otherwise forgettable 1987 film 'The Untouchables' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ScvAJG51V4
And Richard Drake - the 10:10 film was serious. Seriously.
Phil D
Is there any proof Loughner had an opinion on climate change? Left wing, right wing? More of a wing nut than anything else.
The Republicans are going to be embarassed if it does turn out he's mostly one of theirs.
When it comes to violence directed at climate scientists, they ain't seen nuttin yet. The Guardianistas have no idea how angry the public are going to get as the pain of climate policies bite deeper.
Phil D, of course the 10:10 film was serious. It was also attempted comedy, comedy that attempted to make a serious point. As such it was misconceived and quickly withdrawn. So what are you insisting on beyond that? That someone I used to know has turned murdererous at heart? Or what?
Richard Drake the 10:10 video was not some Youtube video knocked up by some loon in their bedroom, it was a professional piece of work that which was designed to send a massage. There had to be several steps when people gathered and said it was fine Curtis included , it was his idea, his production, his vision. He is therefore ones of ones most reasonable, but he seems still to be trying to find ways in which its others fault for not ‘getting it’ .
Meanwhile over that Carrington’s article the warmests are now trying to link AGW sceptics to Nazis and creationists in their usual attempt to demonize people , ironic considering what the article is about.
Speaking of lunatics, here's a comment on Tim Blairs blog referencing the flood deaths yesterday in Queensland
Blair adds afterwards, [Roger, a charming leftist, is usually banned here. In this case, given recent disputes over compassion and civility in political discussion, his comment will stand as an example - Tim]
10:10 quickly moved from propaganda that backfired on CAGW to propaganda for sceptics - pretty effective for while. But there comes a point where it also backfires on us, if we use it inappropriately. Such as raise it in the context of a real mass killing. That is totally out of order. Get some perspective - think of the real people grieving right now. And pipe down about a mere video withdrawn three months ago.
There's a useful report from Mark Mardell on the BBC now, including this:
"Back off and let us heal" seems exactly right. Something perhaps the blogosphere has yet to learn how to do.
The symbol that Palin used on her map is a common symbol that is used entirely outside the context of shooting. For example, it is the standard location marker that has always been used on Doppler Radar. In the USA, that means that the symbol appears on each television or internet broadcast of a weather report showing a Doppler Radar scan. In the USA, that means 100% of broadcasts.
Damian Carrington is quoted as follows:
"Could that tip the balance between thought and action in the mind of an unstable individual? It's a worryingly plausible thought."
Nonsense. Complete rubbish. It seems very clear that the shooter will prove to be a paranoid schizophrenic. People suffering from that disorder care nothing about what other people say; rather, they care about the voices that we know to be coming from their own consciousness. In the case of anyone suffering from a serious mental disorder, it is impossible for a stranger to know how his words might influence the sufferer's behavior. Upon a first meeting with such a person, it is all but impossible to predict how one's words might affect him. This fact leaves those who would censor speech or behavior because it might upset the mentally ill in a very peculiar position. They hold that we should censor ourselves in order to control something that is altogether unpredictable. The unpredictable cannot be controlled.