Guest essay by Brandon Shollenberger
Global warming proponents support genocide. That may seem hard to believe, but remember, they’ve said it’d be right to blow up dams and burn cities to the ground:
Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage. If carried out willingly and on a sufficiently large scale, this process would require dismantling many of the key components of civilization; no person would be foolish enough to cut off their own limbs unless they were suffering from some kind of psychotic delusion, and no civilization would be willing to remove many of the pillars of its own existence. Looking from the outside, though, a civilization hacking off its own extremities would seem like exactly the right thing to do.
That view is not from some fringe element global warming proponents shun. James Hansen, arguably the most influential member of the cause, supported the book that statement was written in. Hansen has also suggested “coal trains will be death trains” and GHGs could “destroy much of the fabric of life.” Supporting genocide is incredibly extreme, but clearly extreme is acceptable to them.
But supporting genocide? That’s hard to believe. I’d need some strong data to make me even consider the idea. That’s why I collected some. (Note: several climate blogs were used, including WUWT here – Anthony)
Using the approach of Lewandowsky et al, I created a survey (copy here) which got 5,697 responses (two of which I filtered out for being incomplete). Three items on the survey were:
You believe global warming is a [sic] real.
You believe global warming poses a serious threat.
You believe genocide is…
Respondents were asked to rate their level of disagreement/agreement (1-5) on the first two. For the third, they rated bad/good (1-5).
I found statistically significant correlations (at the 99.99% level) for all pairings of these items:
As you can see, people who say global warming is real but not a serious threat are more likely to oppose genocide. On the other hand, people who say global warming is a serious threat are more likely to support genocide. The effect isn’t large, but it is statistically significant. There’s more. The survey also included the item:
You have never been wrong.
The effect is small but statistically significant at the 99.99% level. Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with believing one has never been wrong. Believing you are fallible correlates with merely believing global warming is real. Combine these two findings, and we get:
- Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with believing you are never wrong.
- Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with supporting genocide.
Therefore, global warming proponents believe they are never wrong, even when supporting genocide.
Quick note, Stephan Lewandowsky built upon correlation matrices like mine by using factor analysis and structural-equation modeling (SEM). These cannot change observed patterns; they can only tease out additional ones. I am not replicating those steps.
Caveat: The results are obviously nonsense. However, they were gotten from the same methodology used by Lewandowsky and others. More to come…
Richard, there are rabid idiots among both “true believers” and skeptics. The aren’t all as knowledgeable and open-minded as you. Yeah, if we ban political cranks, we might first have to define and identify same. And to agree on the definitions and identities. Um, you and I might fit, for different reasons. I don’t, for example, like the positions expressed in the words of Al Franken, Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Al Gore, Neil Young and David Suzuki, whom I consider to be far more dangerous to the health and well-being of the present and future generations of my family and frends than, for example, Gail.
M Courtney says:
January 15, 2014 at 6:45 am
“Most people who I disagree with on the subject of Global Warming I will agree with on the subject of genocide or the moon landings or the Elvis Presley’s CIA hit-squad. Because everyone agrees with that.”
That’s because Leftists have a different word for genocide that they use when they like it. It is “revolution”.
I’m past calling these people warmists or even alarmists. I now consider them Hystericals who have lost all capability of rational thought.
mrmethane:
I completely agree with your post at January 15, 2014 at 11:41 am.
I quote it in full so it is clear what I am agreeing
I am not, I have not and I do not advocating that ” we ban political cranks”.
I am call for exactly the opposite.
I say this is a science site. People of good faith can interact here whatever their politics, religion and philosophy.
But such interaction is inhibited when threads on this site are used to proselytise religious and/or political ideas.
Indeed, people are driven away by attacks on their religion and/or their politics.
Also, such attacks enable propagandists to pretend that WUWT is a political or religious ‘front’.
Importantly, it is untrue that AGW is a left-wing idea. You mention Gail who has very different politics from me but we are united in our opposition to AGW because Gail understands that AGW is a useful tool adopted by totalitarian idealogues from across the entire political spectrum.
Do lefties such as me and e.g. Jo Nova have to stop opposing AGW because right-wing nutters claim we must be right-wing to oppose AGW? Please remember that almost all right-wing politicians in Europe promote AGW.
All I ask is that we deal with the issues and stop WUWT from being used to promote political and/or religious views especially when the promotion takes the form of attacks on sections of the WUWT community. That does not require banning anybody.
Richard
Now here’s a thing. I believe that man made climate does not exist. I loathe Hansen. He’s a self publicist who a few years ago was warning of the next ice age. Then he said the streets of Manhattan would be flooded due to catastrophic global warming. He jumps ship faster than people on the Titanic.
I am not a warmist. But I do not subscribe to the opinion observed in this thread from WUWT
Read it here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/05/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/#comment-1527575
Therefore, does it follow that the motive for man made climate change cannot be over population?
Surely it must be something else.
Furthermore, Richard says this:
All I ask is that we deal with the issues and stop WUWT from being used to promote political and/or religious views especially when the promotion takes the form of attacks on sections of the WUWT community. That does not require banning anybody.
Richard
Yet, this, along with Alan Robertson’s views suggest something quite different. Judge for yourself from the thread I have just linked to.
Okay guys, can we cut the off-topic talk? Some diversion is okay (and perhaps inevitable), but this is getting silly.
Well, Richard is suggesting that people refrain from making personal attacks on people based on religious / political beliefs.
I don’t believe in man made climate change at all. However, the motives to me are unclear. I have responded to a thread, which I have linked to above, which is full of religious motives, for which Richard and Alan Robertson take the lion’s share of responsibility for. If Richard wishes to make generalised statements about what people should or shouldn’t do then I might suggest he adheres to his own values. I have subject to a tirade of abuse from the both of them. Both have misconstrued any comments I have made and turned them into a personal attack. I feel it is appropriate to highlight it here given his comments. And generally, the 2 threads do have a connection. Chris.
A very ingenious experiment, my congratulations! A proper Reductio ad absurdum! I think you should seek to have this published as a comment on Lewandowsky’s ridiculous paper.
Kon Dealer says:
January 15, 2014 at 8:02 am
“I love the weasel words “ecological unloading”
Watermelon speak for mass murder.”
Yes, just like “sustainable solution”
WUWT policy has already been committed to writing here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
Gail Combs says:
January 15, 2014 at 9:54 am
Gail, it is worse than you probably imagine. Take a look at this:
http://vhemt.org/
It is the home page of the “Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.”
Very disappointed to hear they’re still hanging around.
This is a fraught subject all round.
I (absolutely and of course) do NOT support the concept of genocide. It’s a little sad that one even has to put in such a disclaimer.
but….I would need convincing that there could not be any tolerable upper limit to the numbers of ANY species including our own…
I am of course prepared to hear arguments to the contrary
Chris:
At January 15, 2014 at 1:09 pm you assert
That is an outrageous falsehood! Withdraw that remark and apologise!
Indeed, the assertions of beliefs were all yours. In that thread I wrote to you saying
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/05/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/#comment-1528440
Richard
jones:
At January 15, 2014 at 1:38 pm
OK. Read this
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/05/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/#comment-1526318
Richard
Jones:
In addition, I offer you this
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/05/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/#comment-1526403
Richard
Richardscourtney – I would prefer if people do wish to read it that they read from where I have linked to so that people can observe how both you and Alan have turned an observation by me into serious allegations against me; both of you suggesting that I am supporting mass execution and genocide. The posts from both of you are full of religious connotations. I am happy to be judged on what I have said – are you? If you wish to make ‘holier than thou’ assertions of how people should conduct themselves I would suggest you adhere to that yourself. Otherwise you will end up with egg on your face. Count yourself lucky that I don’t hold both of you to account for your slanderous insinuations.
Sorry good folk of WUWT but this needs to be highlighted.
Chris:
Your post at January 15, 2014 at 2:12 pm does not withdraw your lie and repeats it!
APOLOGISE
Richard
Don’t forget the 10:10 videos, one of which had the warmistas blowing up school children in the name of save-the-planet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR73mcZW7B4
Chris says:
January 15, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Richardscourtney – I would prefer if people do wish to read it that they read from where I have linked to so that people can observe how both you and Alan have turned an observation by me into serious allegations against me; both of you suggesting that I am supporting mass execution and genocide.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The specific connection made by both Alan and Richard was if you believe the earth is over populated you then have to take that idea to the logical conclusion. Even if YOU do not take it to the logical conclusion you are promoting the programs of those who do and thereby give them legitimacy.
The logical conclusion is either mass execution and genocide OR as I chipped in a totalitarian government like the “Planetary Regime” suggested by Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdern.
Since you have consistently rejected any and all suggestions that over-population is not a problem at this time, that the world fertility rate is close to replacement and increasing the standard of living and other factors are already taking care of the problem, the above two choices are what is left even though you refuse to face the logical conclusion of your beliefs.
Chris says:
January 15, 2014 at 1:09 pm
___
Chris,
You are saying things about me which are not true. Your action does not surprise me, as I’ve already seen you in action, in another thread.
Gail Combs says:
January 15, 2014 at 3:45 pm
“Since you have consistently rejected any and all suggestions that over-population is not a problem at this time, that the world fertility rate is close to replacement and increasing the standard of living and other factors are already taking care of the problem, the above two choices are what is left even though you refuse to face the logical conclusion of your beliefs.”
===============
There are only 2 choices ?,… is that what you just said ?
If so, you don’t know us.
Chris says:
January 15, 2014 at 2:12 pm
___________________
Bring it on, you anonymous troll.
u.k.(us) says: @ur momisugly January 15, 2014 at 4:13 pm
There are only 2 choices ?,… is that what you just said ?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No what I said is that Chris had already rejected all the other choices given him in the long discussion in Dr Ball’s thread and those were the two choices left for someone who believed the world is over populated.
Seriously guys? Are you trolling, or are you really so petty and self-centered you’d sabotage a good thread with this drivel?