Things That Liberals Like – Part II

June 6, 2011
By

Tattoos. Liberals like tattoos.

Not Miami Ink or LA Ink sort of tattoos but brand “climate deniers” like the Nazis branded the Jews kind of tattoos. Just a little tidbit from the Sydney Morning Herald by Robert Glover,  broadcaster, Sydney Morning Herald columnist, avowed global warmist and apparent tattoo aficionado.

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?”

On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling – ”climate change stopped in the year 1998” is one of their more boneheaded beliefs – their mouths will be above water. If not …

OK, maybe the desire to see the painful, thrashing death of one’s opponents is not ideal. But, my God, these people are frustrating. You just know that in 20 years’ time, when the costs of our inaction are clear, the climate deniers will become climate-denial-deniers. ”Who me? Oh, no, I always believed in it. Yes, it’s hard to understand why people back then were so daft. It’s so much more costly to stop it now.”

That’s why the tattoo has its appeal.

Now far a little dash of false equivalency so his idea seems so “fair”:

Not that the other side isn’t frustrating. There’s a type of green zealot who appears to relish climate change. Every rise in sea levels is noted excitedly. Every cyclone is applauded and claimed as a noisy, deadly witness for their side.

Based on the content of the column, wouldn’t Mr. Glover seem to qualify as a “green zealot who appears to relish climate change” ?

Global climate change isn’t science, it is a pagan religion.

Want common sense on global climate change? Go to Roy Spencer’s website. Dr. Spencer is a legit Ph.D. climatologist and a former NASA scientist. He puts forth one of the most common sense explanations of climate change that I have seen. Find it here.

But I’m an elitist – what do I know?

85 Responses to Things That Liberals Like – Part II

  1. Gerry Owen on June 6, 2011 at 9:32 am

    Utahprez-

    I didn’t think anyone from the South who works in the oil biz and probably eats BBQ with their fingers could ever be an elitist.

    At least, that was my impression…..

  2. anonymous un-RINO on June 6, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Well, this is probably progress for the envirowhacko kooks.

    A while back, they wanted to just blow up everybody who didn’t believe the global warming kookiness. But they’ve relaxed a bit, and just want to tattoo them all now. So at least they’re no longer genocidal, inshallah.

  3. Steve on June 6, 2011 at 9:51 am

    I suspect many would volunteer for a “climate denier” tatto so long as liberals are forced to tattoo a giant “L” on their foreheads.

    Think of the advantages

  4. )))McJobs((( on June 6, 2011 at 10:19 am

    Like I said in the other thread, Libs aren’t about liking, they’re about anger and hating as Glover clearly demonstrates.

  5. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 10:23 am

    Dr. Spencer is a legit Ph.D. climatologist and a former NASA scientist.

    Conservatives reliably tout scientific qualifications like, “legit PhD climatologist and a former NASA scientist” when the person shares their view, but belittle similar qualifications in that vast majority of “legit PhD climatologist or NASA scientists ” that don’t share their view.

  6. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Global climate change isn’t science, it is a pagan religion.

    More accurately, the weight of scientific evidence increasingly supports the validity of global climate change, such that denial increasingly borders on religious fervor.

  7. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 10:29 am

    Liberals like tattoos…brand “climate deniers” like the Nazis branded the Jews kind of tattoos.

    Uh, you might reread the post, he was actually arguing the opposite:

    “On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy.”

    But you purposefully twisted it.

    Why?

  8. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 10:33 am

    The pagan religion of the denialists includes death threats:

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/climate-of-fear-scientists-face-death-threats/2185089.aspx

    “More than 30 researchers across Australia ranging from ecologists and environmental policy experts to meteorologists and atmospheric physicists told The Canberra Times they are receiving a stream of abusive emails threatening violence, sexual assault, public smear campaigns and attacks on family members.”

  9. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Legit as opposed to a layman like you.

    I’m not a “denier” I believe that we are warming, I just don’t buy the anthropogenic part.

    I’ll quote from the CRU at the University of East Anglia website and the IPCC report of 2007:

    “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns”

    You don’t use words like “most likely” if you have proof.

    Spencer, like a lot of us heretics, doesn’t deny that there is warming – he just points out that there are other potential causes that the IPCC and other “climate experts” have never considered. The only thing that they set out to prove was that humans caused it.

    Guess what? If you don’t look for other reasons, you sure won’t find them – but everybody but the Luddites “just know” that is is manmade, right? Bullshit. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, correlation is NOT causation. Every real scientist, engineer and statistician knows that.

  10. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Go look at this chart at the epicenter of global climate hysteria, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia here in the UK: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

    The massive warming shown is 0.47 degrees C/0.846 degrees F. TOTAL global average air temperature. If the statistical model isn’t accurate to at least +/- 0.5 degrees C, the change is within the margin of error.

    If the chart was calibrated in 0.5 degree increments, the line is straight.

    There is a reason that they only go back 150 years – if the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period are included, the “warming” is nothing but a blip…an inconvenient truth – no industry or SUVs in either of those periods.

    See it here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/

  11. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 11:01 am

    You don’t use words like “most likely” if you have proof.

    The phrase wasn’t “most likely”, it was “very likely”.

    The phrase “very likely” refers to statistical likelihood.

    If your oncologist tells you that it is “very likely” that you have pancreatic cancer, then by your argument you will say “bullshit”, right?

  12. Thingumbobesquire on June 6, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Sadly, these folks are already imposing death with their take down of true scientific progress and research. In Germany they ban nuclear energy one day, and the next get a terrible, mutated killer strain of e coli from “organic” farming. The inspirer of the ecological stormtroopers, the WWF’s Prince Phillip has avowed his desire to be reincarnated as a deadly virus in order to eliminate “excess population.” Remember the ecofascists’ faux pas when they produced this video?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g&feature=player_detailpage

  13. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 11:01 am

    You haven’t walked back your statement that liberals want to tattoo people like the Nazis did.

    Why haven’t you?

  14. KansasCity on June 6, 2011 at 11:14 am

    terrible, mutated killer strain of e coli from “organic” farming.

    Spread of pathogenic E. coli is often associated with sprouts. To say that “organic” farming promotes E. coli mutagenesis is a bit far-fetched.

  15. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 11:22 am

    “On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy.”

    “That’s why the tattoo has its appeal.”

    The author says that it is too Nazi like and yet follows by saying, “Hey, know what? It’s still cool with me.”

    Reading comprehension…it’s FUNdamental.

    Or in some cases, just mental.

  16. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 11:25 am

    But does “very likely” mean “yes, it is absolute?” No it doesn’t. It means that there is still doubt that the condition exists.

    If someone says that it is “very likely” to rain tomorrow and it doesn’t, does the prediction still stand as accurate – no, it doesn’t. It was wrong.

  17. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 11:29 am

    Gerry – I drink beer from a can and eat fried chicken with my bare hands, too. I’m about as far from elite as you can get and still have human DNA.

  18. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    The author says that it is too Nazi like and yet follows by saying, “Hey, know what? It’s still cool with me.”

    Except, the author didn’t say that. The inference is yours, with the intent to smear.

    Reading comprehension is FUNdamental.

  19. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    If says that it is “very likely” to rain tomorrow…

    …will YOU make plans to paint your house?

    No, you will not.

  20. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    I’m about as far from elite as you can get and still have human DNA.

    The term “elite” was manufactured by conservatives. Conservatives also use the term “class warfare”, without realizing that smearing with the word “elite” is class warfare.

  21. Utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Does “That’s why the tattoo has its appeal” mean something different in your world?

    That isn’t an inference, it is a direct quote.

    He says that the tattoo idea is Nazi like, calls it off and proceeds to spend the rest of the column explaining why it is a good idea.

    I didn’t write the word “Nazi” in his column, he did.

  22. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    I might not paint the house but I also won’t burn it down because I’m afraid of the rain.

    It still doesn’t make the prediction the it will “likely” rain true.

  23. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Sorry. Class warfare is pitting one class against the other for some sort of gain. Identifying someone as part of a class isn’t class warfare.

  24. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    I didn’t write the word “Nazi” in his column, he did.

    But he didn’t smear himself, you did.

    You didn’t have to smear him, but you did.

    It is pretty clear that he is distinguishing his tattoo from the Nazis.

  25. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    I might not paint the house but I also won’t burn it down because I’m afraid of the rain.

    Ah, moving the goal post, good.

  26. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Identifying someone as part of a class isn’t class warfare.

    Coining the word “elite” with the intention of warfare is.

  27. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Keep spinning. Again, he used the word “Nazi” in his article indicating that he was comparing the act of tattooing unfavorably to what the Nazi’s did. He then proceeds to substitute the tattoo idea, one which he says is too much like the Nazis to contemplate, with another “punishment”. He then tosses that idea as not severe enough and goes back to approve the tattoo idea, one that he has already admitted was “a bit Nazi-creepy”. He never states that the tatoo he describes as “Nazi” shouldn’t be done, he just states that it is “creepy”. Where in the column does he reject the idea? He doesn’t.

    “That’s why the tattoo has its appeal.”

    I didn’t move the goalpost, I stated what I wouldn’t do for fear of rain. The “goalpost” is whether “likely” means certitude, which it does not.

    Likely: adjective: 1. Possessing or displaying the qualities or characteristics that make something probable: They are likely to become angry with him.
    2. Within the realm of credibility; plausible: not a very likely excuse.
    3. Apparently appropriate or suitable: There were several likely candidates for the job.
    4. Apt to achieve success or yield a desired outcome; promising: a likely topic for investigation.
    5. Attractive; pleasant: found a likely spot under a shady tree for the picnic.

    I didn’t use the term “elite” to threaten warfare, I used it as an descriptive noun to describe, i.e.- a group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, esp. because of their power, talent, or wealth.

  28. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Where in the column does he reject the idea? He doesn’t.

    He rejects a Nazi-creepy tattoo.

    He doesn’t reject a tattoo.

    He just rejects a Nazi-creepy tattoo.

    Can you understand that?

    Speaking of spin, not only do you smear the author, but you smear “liberals” by associating them with the author.

    Nice propaganda work. Would it be too creepy to compare you to Goebbels?

  29. anonymous un-RINO on June 6, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    Give it up, troll. Your nazi envirowhacko buddy wants to tattoo people who disagree with him.

    You’re looking like an idiot yammering on about this nazi moron.

    You should stop.

  30. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    Likely: adjective:

    You missed my post where I said that “very likely” was being used as a statistical term.

    Google:

    “Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the
    IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties”

    And look at Table 4.

    Now tell me if it is “very likely” that you will be “very worried” if your doctor tells you that it is “very likely” that you have pancreatic cancer.

  31. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    Your nazi envirowhacko buddy wants to tattoo people who disagree with him.

    Goebbels would be proud of you too!

  32. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Still doesn’t change what he wrote. Still doesn’t change the fact that he compared the act of a tattoo “along the arm” the to the Nazis, clearly indicating that he knew exactly the analogy he was making. Still doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t say that it was a bad idea, just that it was “creepy”. Still doesn’t change the fact that he never describes another methodology or location of the tattoo, leaving the reader to conclude that when he then approved of the tattoo, he was approving of his earlier suggestion.

    That’s not spin – that is the author’s own words. Perhaps he should have chosen more accurate words if he meant something else.

    That’s OK, though, pretty good cover that you are doing. Trying to blame me for his words and branding me a Nazi propagandist like Goebbels when I just quoted the author.

  33. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Still doesn’t change the fact that he never describes another methodology or location of the tattoo

    Wrong, he mentions tattoo across the CHEST. He then says that tattoo on the ARM would be creepy.

    Reading it again.

    Trying to blame me for his words

    Wrong. I am blaming you for your interpretation with the intent to smear. By comparing you to Goebbels I am simply playing YOUR game. Have a clue.

  34. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    “Reading it again” should be “Read it again”, as in “You should read it again.”

  35. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    “Very likely” is not a statistical term, it is an interpretive term describing a statistical condition of a degree of uncertainty.

    Statisticians deal in hard terms like degree of certainty at a specific confidence intervals.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_Interval

    “Likely” is a qualitative, not a quantitative, term – sort of like substituting emotion for fact as in “I feel it is true, therefore it is true”, not “It is true because of objective proof”.

  36. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    leaving the reader to conclude that when he then approved of the tattoo, he was approving of his earlier suggestion.

    Or a tattoo on the chest, which doesn’t bear the Nazi inference.

  37. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Now, you are inferring.

  38. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Statisticians deal in hard terms like degree of certainty at a specific confidence intervals.

    But, I JUST gave you the link to the IPCC official version of the definition of “very likely”. You cited an IPCC quote, recall?

    Seriously, you can’t ever man up, can you?

  39. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    Now, you are inferring.

    Uh, no.

    “Just something along their arm or across their chest…On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy.”

    “Inferring” would be to assume that tattoo on the chest is also creepy. He doesn’t say that.

    “Inferring” is for you to assume that when he mentions tattoo again it refers to the arm.

    Just man up, utahprez.

  40. anonymous un-RINO on June 6, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Troll, dude, seriously, give it up. You don’t have to die on the envirowhacko nazi hill. It ain’t that big a thing.

    The guy’s a nazi envirowhacko, and wants to tattoo his opposition. Just shut up and accept that. He has, apparently.

  41. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    No matter what the IPCC says, it doesn’t make “very likely” equal “certainty”.

    By including the option of a chest tattoo does not exclude the arm tattoo, he only states that it is “Nazi creepy”.

    What is apparent is that both you and the author are ignorant enough about history to understand that the first Nazi tattoos on the Jewish victims were not on the arm but on left side of the chest.

    “Originally, a special metal stamp, holding interchangeable numbers made up of needles approximately one centimeter long was used. This allowed the whole serial number to be punched at one blow onto the prisoner’s left upper chest. Ink was then rubbed into the bleeding wound.

    When the metal stamp method proved impractical, a single-needle device was introduced, which pierced the outlines of the serial-number digits onto the skin. The site of the tattoo was changed to the outer side of the left forearm. However, prisoners from several transports in 1943 had their numbers tattooed on the inner side of their left upper forearms. Tattooing was generally performed during registration when each prisoner was assigned a camp serial number. Since prisoners sent directly to the gas chambers were never issued numbers, they were never tattooed.”

    From the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007056

    Want to keep playing, smart ass?

  42. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    What is apparent that you and the author are ignorant enough about history to understand is that the first Nazi tattoos on the Jewish victims were not on the arm but on left side of the chest.

    So now you are arguing that liberals want to tattoo like Nazis…except that they don’t realize this desire because they are ignorant about history.

    Want to keep playing, smart ass?

  43. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    “Just something along their arm or across their chest” would appear to both be Nazi like tattoos.

  44. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    I’m not arguing that, the author directly states it. You quoted him. I can’t help it if both of you are ignorant of history when making flippant historical comparisons.

  45. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    No matter what the IPCC says, it doesn’t make “very likely” equal “certainty”.

    No, it means >90% certainty.

    And my argument is that if your doctor says that you have greater than 90% certainty of having pancreatic cancer…then you might not place be posting on your blog about that one doctor that is telling you that you just have gas.

  46. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    I’m not arguing that, the author directly states it.

    The author appears to think that tattoos on chests are not associated with Nazis, but you are smearing him and liberals because you know that some tattoos were on the chest.

    Grow up.

  47. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    would appear to both be Nazi like tattoos.

    To you, but the author seems to think that only tattoos on the arm are associated with Nazis. You are smearing him for something that he does not know. Nice.

  48. Paul on June 6, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    utahprez, go to Google Images and type “Nazi tattoos on Jews”.

    Many, many images of concentration camp survivors showing tattoos…on their arms.

    None on their chests.

    This is why people associate the numbers with arms and not chests.

    Wanna keep playing, smart ass?

  49. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    90% does not equal 100%. Actually, it indicates a 10% possibility for error.

    I don’t know what the author knows or doesn’t know. Neither do you. I do know he references tattoos on the arms and chest and then singles out “Nazi creepy” tattoos on the arms.

    I do know that the Nazi’s tattooed on the wrist, the inner arm and the chest. I don’t know whether he knows that the Nazi’s tattooed on the chest but I don’t know that he doesn’t. Perhaps he should have done a little more research.

    I’ll also point out again that he states that he states approval in this: “That’s why the tattoo has its appeal” without specific exclusion of either location. The conclusion that I drew is legitimate.

    Unfortunately, I have allowed myself to be drawn into an argument over semantics and allowed it to overshadow that being tattooed because of a political position or a belief is reprehensible in any context, chest, arm or any body part.

  50. utahprez on June 6, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    Yes, I do. So the Holocaust Museum isn’t an acceptable source? Google images are?

    Desperate, aren’t we?

    A practice was established to tattoo the inmate identification numbers. Initially, in Auschwitz, the camp numbers were sewn on the clothes. With the increased death rate it became difficult to identify corpses, since clothes were removed from corpses. Therefore the medical personnel started to write the numbers on the corpses’ chests with indelible ink. Difficulties increased in 1941 when Soviet POWs came in masses, and the first few thousand tattoos were applied to them. This was done with a special stamp with the numbers to be tattooed composed of needles. The tattoo was applied to the upper left part of the breast. In March 1942, the same method was used in Birkenau.

    Metal stamps turned out to be impractical, and later numbers were tattoed with a single needle on the left forearm.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_in_Nazi_camps

Leave a Reply

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