Slaughter Your Second and nth Children, Jewish-Chinese People

February 2, 2010

Endorphin-addled confused-person Glenn Beck suggests here (without saying as much) that the climate change movement is akin to Chairman Mao Tse Haman demanding that the future children of all people on the earth be minced to shreds in the malicious air Cuisinarts that are now popping up around many unpopulated areas in the American west. He is correct.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Be sure to paint your door post with the blood of kung pao lamb.



  1. Related to these last two posts, maybe you or some of the other readers can help me:

    Why are folks so angry about climate change science, and the climate change movement? I can see some reasons: perhaps some strident anti-intellectualism, or, if one is conservative enough, maybe it signals impending big gov’t regulations, or maybe it represents the progress of industry thwarted (I’ve heard these arguments from relatives), but surely that’s not all there is to it.

    And yet, even though I know a few climate change haters, and have heard their (odd and confabulatory) reasons, I can’t wrap my brain around the vehemence and persistence of their denial. Can anyone drop some wisdom on me?

  2. From my end, this will more or less be speculation, and it’ll border on the hasty generalization, so take it for what it’s worth.

    At base, I understand this issue as partly about individual freedom and the role of government in securing or threatening that freedom. I suspect that many people who are skeptical of climate science are probably more skeptical of government meddling, and attacking the science just seems like the most direct route to halt such government meddling. If they can show, for instance, that the science is all wrong, then the prescriptions that it instigates — namely, a reaction to climate change — will be impotent.

    Of course, that’s not the only route for them, so you’ll see people who are skeptical of non-market-based solutions to climate change too; or skeptical of mitigation efforts all around.

    Again, this is a mighty hasty generalization, and there are certainly some in the contrarian community who are contrarians for completely irrational reasons — maybe they have some sort of goofy epistemology or something — and there are others in the contrarian community who are contrarians for putatively rational reasons — maybe they subscribe to an overly stringent theory of truth.

    Not sure if that answers your question, but those are my two pennies.

  3. That helps. I gather that there is no one answer to the question – with an issue like this, I wouldn’t expect there to be. I’m sure some are simply afraid at the forecasts of climate change, and without reflection go immediately into denial because it makes the future seem safer somehow.

    But I think it helps one (namely, me) understand how the debates get framed to understand that there are political (and I suspect sub-culture identity-driven) undercurrents driving denial.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: