Tattoo the skeptics

Saw this gem linked in the headlines at HotAir.  And no, this isn’t satire or sarcasm.

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.

Reasonable. Yeah, sure. Let’s give everyone who favors empirical evidence the Mark of Cain.  What’s unreasonable about that?

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.

A bit?  Really? You think?

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?

To quote Tuning Spork, “I don’t think a “centimetre” is what you think it is.”

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.

Not ideal, but apparently it’s on the table.

You just know that in 20 years’ time, when the costs of our inaction are clear, the climate deniers will become climate-denial-deniers.

20 years? Who, besides Al “Sex Poodle” Gore is claiming anything is going to happen within twenty years?

The right tended to be sceptical about climate change from the start and for exactly the same reasons. It’s the sort of problem that requires global, communal action, with governments setting rules. It is a problem that requires tools they instinctively dislike using.

Tools like tattoo machines and poles in the ocean?  What’s not to like?

The tool we’ll use is a carbon tax that seeks to subtly redirect some of our choices.

Oh look, another useless environmental boondoggle.  What a surprise.  As a bonus, he’s picked one that actually increases CO2 production rather than decreases it.  In a global marketplace, carbon taxes are worse than useless.  We know this thanks to those poor saps in places like the UK who already have sabotaged their economies with carbon taxes.  All it has done is shift production from their country to places like China.  More net CO2 is produced not only because of less efficient means of production, but also because of the need to transport the goods from great distances.  All carbon taxes ‘accomplish’ is the redistribution of wealth, which is why socialists are so enthusiastic about them.

The title of this article by Richard Glover is “The dangers of bone-headed beliefs.”  First “Splattergate” and now this?  Even if the science was on their side (which it isn’t) there is no way we could trust these people with any amount of power.

I am reminded of another article, from a few months back: German Physicist Slams Climate Science, Says “Climate Politics Is Grand Déjà Vu Of Communist East Germany”

What is happening with regards to the climate hypothesis today is that profound and far-reaching conclusions are being based on pure suspicions. That’s religion, and not science. There are also many other well-founded hypotheses on climate dynamics that allow completely other conclusions to be drawn. But strangely, they are being massively suppressed – simply because they don’t accommodate the political concept of rescuing the planet. That’s propaganda, manipulation, suppression of the freedom of expression and demagoguery. As ‘an educated citizen of former communist East Germany’, I’m experiencing grand déjà-vu.

I can imagine how he got that impression.