Bishop Hill Mooney on Climategate
Jan 16, 2011 Climate: other Chris Mooney gave a talk yesterday at the Science Online Conference. Apparently a large group of science communicators who are worried about global warming flew in from other countries to hear the great communicator talk about Climategate ;-). I discovered the talk too late to pick up the live stream, but we can get a feel for what was said by some of the twittering that went on. Chris Rowan's seems the most detailed account.
1. Now in session about climategate, or 'antiscience lies and the lying liars who tell them'
2. Chris Mooney on how 'climate' of scientific ignorance in which the scandal broke provided fertile ground for it to grow in.
3. Mooney admits grudging admiration for Mark Morano (in terms of his effectiveness at communicating his agenda)
4. Interesting: '6 Americas of global warming' chart shows that doubtful/dismissive are a hardly a majority. But they *are* very loud.
5. Mooney wants 'deadly ninjas of science communication' - to abseil down the through the windows of the Fox News building, perhaps?
6. Q being posed by @JoshRosenau: are climate denialists the new creationists? If so, we're screwed.
7. 'It's a knife fight', says Tom Peterson. I'd argue that we're considering picking up a knife while other side researching nukes.
The talk of ninjas and knife fights is interesting in the current atmosphere. (Tom Peterson is a scientist at NCDC. SOme may know him for his work on urban heat island effect).
Reader Comments (110)
BBD
re Ben Pile.
Again, I am only pointing at elements of the environmental movement. It has become mainstream and the vast majority of its adherents don't have a clue about any kind of philosophy. Americans for example generally have no idea there is such a thing as right wing anti capitalism.
However, the inherent, regressive conservatism remains. and we know that the poorest will e worst affected by fuel rise increases. I go back to Heartfield's analysis of deliberately created scarcity.
E smith
What I have said repeatedly here is that environmentalism is too atomised for you to argue that it is entirely and directly descended from a 'tradition' of fascist 'thought'. This is also prof. Kellow's and Ben Pile's view.
The Goldsmiths of this world do not represent all of environmentalism, just an aspect of it. I maintain that you are over-stating your case.
What is a common characteristic of environmentalism is the mix of anti-humanism (neo-Malthusianism) and elitism. I see these tendencies as inherent in the mindset rather than inherited from existing political structures.
Anyway, I think I've said all I can face saying on the subject for this evening. Thank you for an interesting exchange.
P.S.
I was a specifically anti socialist anarchist in my youth.
BBD
Thanks for the debate and thanks for giving me the last word :-)
You and Ben Pile are confusing modern corporate funded environmentalism created in the last 10-15 years thanks to Enron and co. with the real environmental movement. You are also ignoring the fct that I partially agree with Pile, although I don't have the same respect for his opinions you do.
The Environmental Defense Fund has a revenue of 100 million dollars a year. They got that from banks and insurance companies. Not Nazis.
Hi BBD
The left's attempts at amateur psychiatry, based on what they've read in wikipedia, are simply an attempt to dignify an insult with a veneer of authority. There's no case in reason that one can argue with. If you disagree with the left, you're simply delusional, and you deserve to be ignored because mentally you're not a complete human being. That's the heart and point of the attack.
This is not the same as advancing a reasoned case for why environmentalism is in many ways an allotrope of fascism, and hence deserving of the term "ecofascism". The latter argument is from logic, with which anyone with better logic on hand is at liberty to disagree.
I welcome challenge. It seems to me to be a wholly tenable position. In both instances of fascism the attitude is "do as you're told, by me, for the greater good". To point this out is not simply a vicious and empty insult, like "you're a loony (because you disagree with me") or "you're a denier (because I hate you for disagreeing with me and so I want to equate you with David Irving, the most legitimately hateable public figure I can think of"). It's a view that can be reached logically and thus potentially overturned the same way.
J4R
My original point was that ‘environmentalism’ was neither socialist nor fascist. Here you ascribe one unpleasant characteristic of the mindset to the Left…
And then go on to illustrate aspects of the extreme Right:
Finally arguing that logic demonstrates your case:
But on the face of it you appear to agree with me that ‘environmentalism’ encompasses malign influences from the extremes of both Left and Right.
I’m confused.
Back in the beginning of December when Phil Plait over at Bad Astronomy posted:
Congrats to new AGU Board member Chris Mooney!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/12/05/congrats-to-new-agu-board-member-chris-mooney/
...a surprising number of the regular BA posters went for pitch forks and torches. It seems even dyed-in-the-wool CAGW evangelists are not pleased with Chris Mooney, the great science communicator.
Socialism works until it runs out of other peoples money.
In a subtractive sense, I think environmentalism's resilience is down to the impossibility of locating the movement as either leftwing or rightwing. It therefore resists any attempts at dismissal through the pigeonholing of its beliefs. However, we can see that it shares with both the extreme left and right a vision of the world as utopian ideal (against which the present is measured - as always - as hopelessly wanting). The difference here being that both left and right had plausible (and often compelling) descriptions of the world and the systematic changes needed to reach their desired goal, whereas the environmentalist has abandoned these in favour of inconsistent (yet persistent) wishful thinking. Actively avoiding any intellectual location is part of environmentalism's armoury as well as its broad and enduring appeal.
Rebel
But elitism always ensures the decision-makers are comfortable.
Peter S
Essentially, yes.
'Peter S'
In my view, environmentalism is a right wing , anti capitalist movement apart from in America. America has no public tradition of right wing anti capitalism. All opposition to capitalism has come from the left. In the 1970s, lunatic academics like Erlich predicted apocalypse. I am struggling to think of a left wing American politician. There must be one.
Two of the most famous American celebrity environmentalists of the 1960s, Neil Young and his close friend Charles Manson are definitely on the right. Manson joined up with the American Nazi Party and Young endorsed Ronald Reagan.
BBD
Sad but true
"I respectfully put it to you, that those who talk about socialists here, have very little idea what struggles and sacrifices that people made so that you could freely go to the school of your choice, receive free health care, not be judged by your accent solely, or even have the disposable income that allows luxuries of a computer and the time to use them."
With respect: ...
I can't go to the school of my choice - that's why there are people pretending to be Catholic just so they can escape the godawful inner city comprehensive dump they'd be forced into otherwise.
Health care isn't free. (Unless you think doctors and nurses don't - or shouldn't - get paid?) What you mean is, you can make somebody else pay for it.
Free markets are blind to accents - equality of opportunity makes a profit. (Although not all Capitalists believe in free markets. See Bastiat's Sophisms.) But just try to get by at a socialist gathering with a posh public school accent...
Disposable income and the cheapness of computers are more obviously a product of Capitalism than Socialism. Unless you've bought a state-made government computer lately...
But enough of arguing amongst ourselves. Not all the green/AGW community is eco-fascist, and it doesn't enhance credibility to claim that it is. Some specific aspects, like Pentti Linkola, or "The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy" or the population-control Malthusians going back to Ehrlich and Holdren are unarguably eco-fascist, and they make a more influential contribution to the philosophy of the mainstream green activist than they'll admit. But a lot of it isn't, and it isn't simply a disguise. Like most social movements, Green is an amalgam of many different social movements and philosophies, from Romanticism to Protestant guilt via the naturalistic fallacy, vegetarianism, animal rights, 60s liberalism, New Age mysticism, and pervasive scientific ignorance.
The anti-Capitalist element is just one bit of the mix, and while a significant one - especially for the more activist fringe elements - it would be a mistake to concentrate on it to the exclusion of all else. For one thing, you'll only convince people it's dangerous if they're people who already don't like Communism (or any of its soft and fluffy aliases), which is preaching to the choir to some degree on Green issues. A lot of people confuse good intentions with good, so pointing out strands of Communist thinking in the Green agenda is not persuasive, unless you're willing to fight on two fronts. For another, it polarises the debate, turning it into a question of political sides instead of science and economics.
I am reading a lot of hand waving and waffle that environmental politics is both left and right wing. What I haven't read is one single aspect of environmental politics that is left wing. Left wing is essentially the ownership of the means production by the people for the benefit of the people. I am willing to accept any aspect of green politics that will benefit the masses (at the bottom) preferentially.
Let me say that I don't expect to get a valid reply.
To paraphrase Jimmy Reid, the left wing firebrand who led the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders sit-in, but who mellowed considerably with age. "People tend to view communism and fascism as the extreme ends of a linear spectrum. But, in reality, the spectrum is circular, not linear, with the two competing ideologies being essentially the same".
@laogai... posh accents with socialists? Interesting, I think if look back at the social history of the labour movement in the UK some of the most "incorruptible" socialists have had some of the poshest accents. But a digression...
People can rewrite the social history of this country if they want too, but the UK was, and still is too some extent, a class driven society. I was born in Toxteth, Liverpool. Lived in Merseyside until I was 12. My progression to Partner of a big six (then) global ccountancy firm was achieved mainly outside the UK where my residual accent made little impact. To most I was just 'English'.
You can imagine perhaps, within that world, I met any number of public school educated adults. On the whole they were just usually harmlessly dim. Sometimes (quite frequently) they were sanctimonious and/or supercilious assholes.
The point?
Well the decline of this country post-war has often been laid at the door of the labour movement. However, those public school types whom I have met, where also the middle and senior management of those same companies where labour unrest was rife. Not forgetting their domination of the civil service.
Accent was a sign of class, and class defined this country for much of the 20th century.
I am guessing that a fair percentage of the contributors and reviewers of this site had comprehensive education and true free university entrance during the 1960's and 1970's. It was then seeds were sown to make accents less important in this country.
@E Smith,
"Left wing is essentially the ownership of the means production by the people for the benefit of the people. I am willing to accept any aspect of green politics that will benefit the masses (at the bottom) preferentially."
A practical aspect of the left wing as we've seen it over the 20th century is authoritarianism. The big state knowing best, managing all aspects of life and thinking it can control markets. What we saw was "the workers" or "the masses" turned into a grotesque abstract by ruling cliques which actually cared nothing for them.
I'd say green politics fits in very well with authoritarianism, the big state, hypocritical ruling cliques, the idea that markets can be controlled and reducing the original aims to an abstract, hence the ready comparison with previous attempts to establish communist regimes.
"Right wing" has become confused with nationalism and authoritarianism, whereas I'd say it more properly means libertarianism and free market economics.
I hold no brief for Lenin but at least he believed in building power stations. The deep Greens want to shut them down.
http://sovietposter.blogspot.com/2007_10_07_archive.html
The issue I have with the left wing is that all their accomplishments happened 70 or 80 years ago and, judging by the example of far less left-wing countries, such as America, Singapore and Hong Kong, would all have happened anyway. I can't for the life of me think of any major issue the left has been right about in the last 30 years. Every Labour government has left office with public debt and unemployment higher than what they inherited. They are always a disaster.
I agree with the left's position on things like gay rights, but only in the sense that I don't think the state has any business holding a view on such matters anyway, so should default to ignoring such human differences.
What is leftist about environmentalism is the authoritarianism, the intrusion, and the delighted seizing on something new to tax and some new pretext to impoverish groups they hate, because fundamentally, they'd rather we were equally poor than unequal.
A lot of fascists of the 1930s arrived there from socialism (Mosley was a Labour minister and Mussolini was previously a socialist). Eugenics was the left's big idea in the 1930s like environmentalism is now. I'm seriously struggling to see how there is any significant right-wing presence in environmentalism. Conservatives don't think we should dismantle the economy to save the planet - their view would be "save it for whom?" Ecofascists don't seem to think this needs considering.
@Nullius
Great point about putting Mooney in charge of com...
Sorry cosmic, there is absolutely nothing left wing or progressive about environmentalism. Those at the bottom will be worse off. In fact modern environmental politics has nothing to do with the state part from the administration of a multi trillion dollar corporate scam by a state owned by big busines.
Brian E
Jimmy Reid didn't mature, he sold out to television to avoid having to work like all the recent working class heroes - Sheridan, Hatton, (Ron) Brown, Carty(Linwood) and Galloway.
Yes, communism and Nazism were authoritarian. There the resemblance ends.
E Smith wrote:
"Yes, communism and Nazism were authoritarian. There the resemblance ends."
I disagree, Please watch the documentary "The Soviet Story". (2008)
http://www.archive.org/details/TheSovietStory
From The Economist review:
"The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems."
The political and moral underpinnings of environmentalists, IMHO, are revealed by their proposed solutions to the problems as they define them. (The same is true of Nazis and Communists.) Based on their proposals for a zero carbon world, Gary Haq and his SEI colleagues are authoritarian, anti-democratic, anti-individual, delusional fantasists. Whether one identifies them as right wing or left wing seems to me to make little difference.
Last year I had an extended debate at WUWT (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/26/attention-codgers-get-with-the-program/) regarding the proposals of one Gary Haq from SEI, a supposed policy think tank attached to the University of York, based on this report - http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/towards-zero-carbon-vision-uk-transport-2010.pdf.
My position is close to Peter S's above - plus the strong conviction that environmental utopians, like most utopians, are frighteningly naive and ill-informed as to the nature of our economy and polity.
E Smith,
Sorry cosmic, there is absolutely nothing left wing or progressive about environmentalism. Those at the bottom will be worse off. In fact modern environmental politics has nothing to do with the state part from the administration of a multi trillion dollar corporate scam by a state owned by big busines."
If you want to define left wing as all those bits of left wing thought which are benign and well intentioned and ignore the fact that practically it's always lead to totalitarianism and the big state, that's up to you. It's a rarified definition not many would agree with
"Progressive" in politics seems to mean "good in some necessarily poorly defined way".
Businesses have certainly had a hand in lobbying governments to enact environmental measures which suit them, but the idea that all this came solely from businesses pressuring governments to enact legislation in their interest, falls very short. For instance, the Large Combustion Plant Directive and the Landfill Directives which came from the EU. There's no question that much of this is politically inspired and I say it appeals to the left precisely because it invites top down, big state solutions including creating many government jobs.
I find John Ray's summary of fascism pretty convincing:
'"Fascism" is a term that was originally coined by the Italian dictator Mussolini to describe his adaptation of Marxism to the conditions of Italy after World War I. Lenin in Russia made somewhat different adaptations of Marxism to the conditions in Russia during the same period and his adaptations came to be called Marxism/Leninism. Mussolini stayed closer to Marx in that he felt that Italy had to go through a capitalist stage before it could reach socialism whereas Lenin attempted to push Russia straight from semi-feudalism into socialism. Mussolini's principal modification of Marxism was his rejection of the notion of class war, something that put him decisively at odds with Lenin's "Reds".
If the term "Fascism" means anything of itself it means "Groupism" -- as the fasci of Italy at the time were simply groups of political activists. The fasces of ancient Roman times were of course the bundles of rods carried by the lictors to symbolize the great strength of the organized Roman people. The idea again was that people were stronger in groups than as individuals.
Mussolini's ideas and system were very influential and he had many imitators -- not the least of which was Adolf Hitler -- and some even survived World War II -- such as Peron and Chiang Kai Shek. I have set out at length elsewhere what Mussolini's Italian Fascism was all about so I will simply summarize here by saying that Fascism was a nationalist form of extreme socialism whereas Trotskyism was/is a internationalist form of extreme socialism -- with Leninism being somewhere in between.'
'extreme socialism' sounds about right to me as a description, and one that also applies, imho, to the views of some of the eco-zealots around today. I am also of the view that 'socialism' caused more grief and damage to progress in the 20th century than any other single idea, and indeed probably in the entire history of humanity. See the USSR, WWII, and Mao's China for the major examples of socialism at work.
My missing link, so to speak: http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-roots-of-fascism-american.html
E smith
Looks like lots of people disagree with you.
BBD
"Looks like lots of people disagree with you."
Yes, without addressing the issue. There is absolutely nothing progressive of left wing about environmental politics. That statement still stands as I predicted. Progressive means it benefits the poor. No one mentioned that because environmental politics isn't progressive, it's regressive. It will damage the poor most.
Cap and Trade WSJ
Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing "polluters," not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity -- in this case the right to emit carbon -- and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag -- now Mr. Obama's budget director -- told Congress last year that "Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program."
Hit hardest would be the "95% of working families" Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat "unless you use energy." Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html
The authoritarian angle is irrelevant because both extremes were authoritarian.
I expected to find a right wing audience in BH and other such places. Never mind.
E Smith
At the outset I argued that environmentalism encompasses aspects of the Left and the Right but cannot correctly be classified as either.
You have variously mis-interpreted this and continue to do so. For example:
When did I ever say that? Where?
A little earlier you were up to the same thing, deliberately setting up a straw man:
Let’s consider this. If we are talking about theoretical Marxism, which we are not, then you might just squeak by. But since we are really talking about the Left in action we are referencing Stalin and Mao and their successors and imitators.
What they created was of course totalitiarianism.
Then, perhaps imagining that we are all to stupid to notice, you go for the punch-line:
That’s because the question has been crudely rigged. And besides, it leaves you as the judge of what is, and is not, ‘valid’.
A little later, we get this gem:
Since both systems are necessarily and fundamentally totalitarian, the similarities between the two are profound. The above statement is about as wrong as it is possible to be.
You then actually manage to make it worse by adding later:
I am forced to conclude that you are not by any means the political expert you believe yourself to be. The final pair of statements quoted above is conclusive in this respect.
E smith:
Why? And what exactly do you think you have found instead?
I'm sure others will be curious too.
BBD
I think we will have to agree you are very confused .
I made the statement.
"There is absolutely nothing progressive or left wing about environmental politics."
No one has contradicted that. That is the question at hand. Please address that.
As for BH posters, mainstream coroporate politics claims AGW is of the left, so one might expect anti agw individuals to be of the right. That seems to be the general trend here as far as I can see. Not universally.
E smith
You have not made a substantive reply to my previous comment. When you have done so, we can continue.
BBD
I see that you misread 'never mind'. I didn't mean that my expectations were disappointed, merely that a right wing audience was what I expected and that seems to be the case
Sorry - I am referring to the last but one comment (final on previous page)
"You have not made a substantive reply to my previous comment. When you have done so, we can continue"
I have been posting at the Guardian for years and never had this kind of confusion. Not once. Please sort out your own confusion.
There is nothing inherently authoritarian about left wing politics, Barack Obama is considered left wing in America. So is Billary Clinton and Joe Biden, even JFK .
For anyone who understands simple English. I made the statement.
"There is absolutely nothing progressive or left wing about environmental politics."
If anyone disagrees, please say so. Forget authoritarianism, it's totally irrelevant.
E Smith
Here is the comment you are attempting not to respond to. I have emboldened the parts that you need to address. Note that one of them is your mis-representation of what I actually said.
==================================
At the outset I argued that environmentalism encompasses aspects of the Left and the Right but cannot correctly be classified as either.
You have variously mis-interpreted this and continue to do so. For example:
When did I ever say that? Where?
A little earlier you were up to the same thing, deliberately setting up a straw man:
Let’s consider this. If we are talking about theoretical Marxism, which we are not, then you might just squeak by. But since we are really talking about the Left in action we are referencing Stalin and Mao and their successors and imitators.
What they created was of course totalitiarianism.
Then, perhaps imagining that we are all to stupid to notice, you go for the punch-line:
That’s because the question has been crudely rigged. And besides, it leaves you as the judge of what is, and is not, ‘valid’.
A little later, we get this gem:
Since both systems are necessarily and fundamentally totalitarian, the similarities between the two are profound. The above statement is about as wrong as it is possible to be.
You then actually manage to make it worse by adding later:
I am forced to conclude that you are not by any means the political expert you believe yourself to be. The final pair of statements quoted above is definitive in this respect.
E Smith:
IMO you are creating problems for yourself by conflating terms that already have multiple meanings.
I agree with your statement that environmentalist adversely impact the poor, ergo it is not "progressive".
OTOH the majority of evironmental activists in the US do self-identify with liberals, progressives and the left wing (as those terms are generally understood). Most are also elitist, authoritarian, illiberal and champion policies that are wildly detached from the real world.
For me, whether they are actually left or right does not matter. It is their authoritarianism and statism that concerns me. Thus, I am with BBD and, therefore, have no idea why you would assert that their authoritarianism is irrelevant.
I think we all understand that left wing / progressive means benefiting those at the bottom.
The reason I put the Marxist defintion in at the start is that there may be Americans present who believe income tax is a communist plot (or whatever) . I regretted doing it immediately, but there was no choice.
Progressive means benefitting the poor, regressive benefits the rich. Income tax is progressive, carbon trading (and a carbon tax) are regressive because poor people pay a higher percentage of their income for fuel, as the WSJ article explained.
I think you you need to distinguish 'intentions' and 'results', E Smith. I think you attribute good and noble 'intentions' to the left, while others are appalled at their 'results'. Hence the squabble.
E. Smith
Karl Marx wrote:
"The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way "
(Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1853)
"They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust"
(Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 42, No1, 1981)
For many 'at the bottom' this meant death.
John Shade:
From my point of view, you are on target. I would add, however, that there is a culpability if one keeps trying to do something that has repeatedly negative and disasterous consequences. Scandinavia may be the apparent exceptions that prove the rule.
To the victor the spoils and the chance to rewrite history in its favour...
but...
The troubles of the 20th were not due to fascism or communism or socialism...
They were due to the ignorance of the masses. And the ability for that ignorance to kill effectively. And for that enormous level of killing to be socially acceptable...
BBD
You seem to be a man of a literal mindset who sees everything in black and white.
To everyone else. I don't care about socialism or communism. That's why I have kept out of those discussions. I will observe that Marx wrote Das Kapital in the British Library while under the explicit and publicly stated protection of the British government. Engels was also protected by the British.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Marx_and_Engels
E smith
As I said earlier, nobody agrees with you (see above).
You suggest I am of a literal, binary mindset, but do not see evidence for this in what I have written on this thread.
You still have made no substantive response to my comment at 6:27PM above.
"OTOH the majority of evironmental activists in the US do self-identify with liberals, progressives and the left wing (as those terms are generally understood). "
We know that. It's because the corporate media are hiding the fact that AGW is the biggest corporate scam in history and trying to pretend it's being done to help the people.
"For me, whether they are actually left or right does not matter. It is their authoritarianism and statism that concerns me"
There is almost no statism in AGW. Carbon trading is a 99% corporate operation administered by corporate lackey politicians like Obama and Cameron. The American state is nothing more than an enabler for big business.
As a former anarchist, I hate socialism, but I also have utter contempt for corporate scum like Obama, Bush, Palin etc.
BBD
"You still have made no substantive response to my comment at 6:27PM above"
That's because it doesn't make enough sense for me to address
"I think we all understand that left wing / progressive means benefiting those at the bottom."
Left wing means benefiting those at the bottom at the expense of those at the top. Right wing means benefiting those at the bottom and at the top, with those at the top quite frequently being the ones who got a larger share. The Left is about wealth redistribution, the Right about wealth creation. The Left want equality of outcome, the Right want equality of opportunity. The Left believe the rich get rich at the expense of the poor, the Right believe the rich get rich because they create more wealth and more benefit to society (including to the poor) than the poor. The Left believe taxes and regulations are required to balance the rich's exploitation of the poor, the Right believe that taxes and regulations hobble the creation of wealth that benefit all of society, including (and in some ways, especially) the poor. Both Left and Right sympathise with the poor (the 'deserving poor' at least), and understand that whatever is wrong with society, the poor always bear the brunt of it. And each side thinks the other side is the source of many of those problems.
Both sides want to end poverty. Both sides seek to benefit those at the bottom. They just differ on what they think is the right way to achieve it.
[Note, all of the above is a gross simplification. There are many different sorts of left-wingers and right-wingers, and sometimes people are objecting to the practices of only one particular faction of the other side, rather than all of them generally. For example, there are free-market capitalists and protectionist capitalists. A lot of the criticisms of the Right only apply to the latter, but both get tarred with the same brush. For those not familiar with the difference, you could read Bastiat's Sophisms of the Protectionists. (It's free!) There are a few ideas in it that I think even the Left-inclined might appreciate.]