A Thread of Words

Over several years of debate (if we may call it in this way), I came in contact with a number of people who can be defined as “trolls” or “deniers”. Most of them (including Mr. Sorgenti) believe (genuinely, I think) that you can use the methods of the political debate to arrive to a conclusion on a complex and difficult scientific field such as climate science; and they resent being shortly dismissed by scientists. Scientists know how much work and study is needed to understand climate science and resent what they saw as superficiality and approximation in the debate. The result is the kind of clash we saw on the SCI blog. It was, if you like, a clash of epistemologies: rhetoric against the scientific method.

Because when people like Louie Gohmert speak of a “personal relationship with their God,” what they’re describing is an abusive relationship with a crazy person.

The “relationship” they describe is exactly, exactly, like living with an unpredictable control freak prone to fits of rage and violence, the kind where you hide the bruises and make excuses and hope that someday the son of a bitch will stop knocking you around if you can just find a way to please him.

That’s the religion Louie Gohmert believes in.

Our earth needs constant concern and attention. Each of us has a personal responsibility to care for creation, this precious gift which God has entrusted to us. This means, on the one hand, that nature is at our disposal, to enjoy and use properly. Yet it also means that we are not its masters. Stewards, but not masters. We need to love and respect nature, but “instead we are often guided by the pride of dominating, possessing, manipulating, exploiting; we do not ‘preserve’ the earth, we do not respect it, we do not consider it as a freely-given gift to look after.

It’s difficult to imagine how Republicans can be competitive in 2016 with a “defend the wealthy and push down the middle class” message. As one prominent conservative thinker recently wrote, “Republicans are likely to lose the 2016 presidential election” if the GOP is once again positioned as the water carrier for its wealthy donors and doesn’t embrace a pro-middle class set of policies that addresses the serious drop in middle-class spending power that has occurred since President Reagan first experimented with trickle-down policies in the 1980s.

While you’re at it, you might as well “officially announce” that you’re a little teapot, short and stout. Hey, remember when the Tea Party supported a guaranteed income for all Americans? Oh right, they would call that communism. But MLK supported it. Remember when the Tea Party said that America is an imperialist nation that invades other countries without justification and steals their resources? Oh right, they would consider anyone who said such a thing an anti-American traitor. But MLK said that. Oh, but he’d be a tea partier, of course. After all, “Wild Bill” has “officially announced” it and therefore it must be true, right?