“[T]here is an awful lot of evidence against anthropogenic climate change too (not least the fact that, despite rapidly accelerating CO2 output, there has been no warming for ten years. In fact, if you take 1998 into account, the severe drop after that year would indicate a cooling trend).”

Erm, that is categorically NOT evidence of a “cooling trend”. All the deniers have done is take as a reference point the year with the largest spike in mean global temperatures - 1998 - and started their dishonest trends from there. 1998 just happened to be the year which recorded the largest El Nino in a century.

To keep pushing this battered argument proves the Bishop right.”
BenM

Umm… Ben, if you take 2000 as a reference point you still see a cooling. And the original point was that there should have been a huge WARMING. Where is it?

Of course, if it is ‘dishonest’ to ask these questions I apologise. But does it make me far worse than Fritzl for just wanting to know why we should close our entire civilisation down?

The impression I get is that I am told ’science’ proves that Global Warming exists, but that it has now been proved, and mustn’t be questioned. In my book, that is not science.

Interestingly, from what I can see, ALL the original ‘proofs’ of Global Warming are beginning to crumble. The ‘hockey-stick’ maths is now comprehensively disproven, and even the base data on which all of this hypothesis is founded is now looking dodgy. See http://www.surfacestations.org/ . So perhaps calling people names is the only defence left for the Global Warming believers?

Getting back (slightly) nearer to the point here, is that comparing people to Nazis, without a great deal of evidence (ie exclusing parties led by someone who has spent a great deal of his life denying the existence of the Holocaust) is a childish and wanky debating tactic, whether used by the left or by the right. I think the left probably used to be more guilty of it (think Young Ones Rick shouting “Fascist!”), but it seems the right appear to be the main abusers these days, on pseudo-libertarian grounds. And as dsquared says, it -is- pseudo (Robert Nozick et al are the only ones principled to take libertarianism to its true - barmy - logical conclusions)

Geting back nearer the point still, Justin has nailed a very key truth - that those who glory in their own offensiveness (”gloriously politially incorrect” blah de yawning blah) are very often those quickest to have their own delicate little flower sensitivities offended. Fuck these rancid bullies. Up the arse with a rusty tent-pole.

@Sunny: No. That doesn’t wash. a) The logo blatantly did look like a swastika and b) right-wing bloggers made a lot of hay out of it because it was an astounding case of incompetence and was very funny indeed.

It has nothing to do with the standard of political debate, which I think is harmed much more by pseuds and wilful deceivers than by straight-talking political bloggers with a sense of humour.

It also has, I repeat from my previous comment, nothing whatsoever to do with religion. A swastika that appears in a political context is inevitably going to evoke thoughts of Nazis, not Hindus.

That’s not my point. My point is that imagery is about intention. Not only did that logo look nothing like the Swastika, but making a big big deal about it and then crowing about it like kids in candy shop is exactly why the level of political debate is so shite in this country. If they’re not making a big deal about Hindu swastikas, what is the point of making a big deal about some symbol that has some vague resemblance. Does it achieve anything? Is there any point to it?

Furthermore, the second (weakly significant) principal component is the laissez-faire/collective one on economics - vastly the most significant one-dimensional scale is one which Chris called “The Axis of UKIP”, which combines attitudes to crime and punishment, sexual morality, immigration and Europe versus America. In other words, to be frank, a one-dimensional scale of left(nice) ———————-right(nasty) describes the data really pretty well.

And that, by the way, is the reason, from actual science, why the debating point about the Nazis being socialists is bollocks. As Alex Harrowell said quite recently, “But I am a Libertarian!” is about as convincing in most cases as “But I am a lady!” - genuine principled libertarians do exist, but they’re about as common as genuine transexuals.

That said, socialism is evil.

There as an industry out there allied to casting doubt wherever it can.

This is an interesting read, I think:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_manufacture_of_uncertainty

“[T]here is an awful lot of evidence against anthropogenic climate change too (not least the fact that, despite rapidly accelerating CO2 output, there has been no warming for ten years. In fact, if you take 1998 into account, the severe drop after that year would indicate a cooling trend).”

Erm, that is categorically NOT evidence of a “cooling trend”. All the deniers have done is take as a reference point the year with the largest spike in mean global temperatures - 1998 - and started their dishonest trends from there. 1998 just happened to be the year which recorded the largest El Nino in a century.

To keep pushing this battered argument proves the Bishop right.

Either my proposed 1D scale or the Political Compass’ 2D scale are a vast improvement on the rule-of-thumb a lot of people I have the misfortune to butt heads with on the blogs seem to be using, i.e. left(nice)——————right(nasty).

Your countering with ‘you’re equating trades unionists/Rotarians with fascists’ doesn’t wash. I’m talking about political power, not individuals with similar worldviews forming a voluntary collective. If you can’t tell the difference that’s your problem.

[i]SunnyH[/i]: [i]“Oh gimme a break, please. the Hindus have used the genuine swastika in this country for years - I wonder which dimwit is going to start calling them Nazis and have it banned”[/i]

Ridiculous. The context this logo was used in was political (it was the logo of a ‘Progressive Governance Summit’, and nothing whatsoever to do with Hinduism (or religion in general). Plus, I’d wager that far more people across the UK associate the swastika with the Nazis before they think of the Hindu connection.

> Whether you consider them to be actually socialist is another matter

It’s not another matter. It’s the only important matter if you’re making a socialist = Nazis comparison, in seriousness. (If it’s just a gag to wind up lefties, then go for it. I’m neither a socialist nor a national socialist, so I’m unlikely to be offended either way.)

I mean you wouldn’t take seriously the suggestion that ‘Work Makes You Free’, nor that the DPRK was in fact Democratic, so why on earth just because a party calls itself ‘Nationalsocialist’ (not really National Socialist, though German can make those sorts of semantic distinctions tricky), you think that’s something worth believing (a fact of history),I have no idea.

They’re unlikely to realise the error of their ways even if you present them with all the evidence, and there is plenty of it.

I’m not going to get into this argument again (mainly because time will prove me correct) but here is an awful lot of evidence against anthropogenic climate change too (not least the fact that, despite rapidly accelerating CO2 output, there has been no warming for ten years. In fact, if you take 1998 into account, the severe drop after that year would indicate a cooling trend).

However, as with all scientific theories, scepticism is the correct attitude to have. That is how science advances: no theory can be proved, only disproved (see Karl Popper’s Theory of Empirical Falsifiability).

DK

P.S. It’s a silly article, but I’ve replied to Justin over at his place.

I’m not even going to bother getting into the Nazi/socialist debate, except to say that the fact that Nazi is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, trans. National Socialist German Workers’ Party, is a fact of history.

Whether you consider them to be actually socialist is another matter, but there are certainly similarities between some policies. I would say, however, that what the Nazis shared with e.g. Communists was authoritarianism.

> The basic idea is that a more useful one-dimensional political scale than “left-wing——-right wing” would be “collectivist——-individualist”.

Yes, that really is basic. What next, trades unionists, Rotarians and National Trusters all = fascists?

I don’t think it would take much digging, either, to find out that National Socialism was somewhat more sectarian than collectivist. But there’s probably a short book in this one… and I’m too busy, far happier thinking you’re all just joking. Then you don’t sound so silly.

I agree, of course. But sometimes abuse is also necessary, and sometimes you have to shout when the evidence simply doesn’t convince the deniers.

Their own hypocrisy, as Justin has illustrated nicely, just shows how lame the debate has become already.

BenSix: But what merit is there to command and noise?

Well, there is in certain cases. Especially if you want to raise a point that not many are paying attention to. In fact, the climate change consensus is being somewhat pulled in the other way precisely because these nutjobs are screaming “conspiracy” so hard (ignore the fact they scream that all the time anyway). The point is, properly directed anger can have an impact. LGF, Malkin, Coulter, Kos, etc all know this and have used it. I’ll come back to this theme another time.

QT:
a genuine observation of the similarity of a Labour logo with a swastika

Oh gimme a break, please. the Hindus have used the genuine swastika in this country for years - I wonder which dimwit is going to start calling them Nazis and have it banned. The whole thing is some party political willy-waving.

planeshift:
It was clearly an absurd comparrison. Fritzl only screwed his family and cellar refurbishment specialists, climate change deniers will screw several low lying cities and countries.

Love it.

Well, the Political Compass here puts Hitler on the right side of the spectrum, and I believe he was quite a high-up in the National Socialst party.

The basic idea is that a more useful one-dimensional political scale than “left-wing——-right wing” would be “collectivist——-individualist”.

If you see viewpoints on the latter spectrum, it’d follow that authoritarian socialism and fascism would both occur on the left side of the spectrum.

If you look at the Political Compass, you’ll see that the people responsible for that two-dimensional visual representation of political viewpoints would concur with me.

Really? What point do you think that it’s making? Other than that you obviously know nothing beyond the banale about either socialism or national socialism, I’m struggling to think of one.

I assumed “socialism = national socialism” was just a joke. A bit like that “Democratic People’s Republic of …” thing. Nobody could be *that* credulous, could they?