Another call to arrest climate "deniers"

They believe people should be punished for being climate skeptics
They believe people should be punished for being climate skeptics.

Adam Weinstein, of the Gawker, has added his voice to the growing list of greens, who demand a brutal authoritarian response to the vexing problem of people who have a different opinion.

According to Weinstein;

Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.

This is an argument that’s just being discussed seriously in some circles. It was laid out earlier this month, with all the appropriate caveats, by Lawrence Torcello, a philosophy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Read More:

Weinstein bases his claim that man made climate change “kills a lot of people” on a WHO page, which estimates that 150,000 people per annum are dying because of climate related extreme weather and other problems, such as crop failure.

However, this claim simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Even the IPCC has failed to establish a link between CO2 and extreme weather. In addition, the rise in CO2 has so far been strongly beneficial for crop yields – satellites have detected a substantial greening of the planet, thanks largely to the fertilisation effect of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

In recent years we have all seen a worrying surge of hate speech against climate skeptics, and a disturbing level of political acquiescence in the face of murderous fantasy and intolerance. These incidents include a government sponsored celebration of climate murder in a theatre production, MSM cartoons celebrating political violence, more cartoons, proposals for soviet style forced “reeducation”, calls for the death penalty, calls for “deniers” to be jailed, wishes for divine retribution against “deniers”, the gruesome 10:10 video fantasy about murdering the children of “deniers”, and prominent environmentalist David Suzuki’s repeated calls for “deniers” to be jailed, here, and here. There have been far too many threats against the liberty and lives of ordinary people, whose crime against humanity is to believe that 18 years with no change in global temperature, might be an indication that the climate “crisis” has been exaggerated.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 7, 2015 9:05 am

“We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths.” I could not agree more!!!! And this is just one example:

Wee Liam
Reply to  Francisco
April 7, 2015 9:35 am


Reply to  Wee Liam
April 7, 2015 11:46 am

Hillary Clinton is a witch. Moderator — feel free to delete my post — I just had to say that – it just came out.

Reply to  Wee Liam
April 7, 2015 12:16 pm

@ littlepeaks
Please forgive my suspicions, here, littlepeaks, but are you, by any chance, a hive-plant provocateur?–the very same HIllary-bot operative, maybe even, who pulled-off that “Iron my shirt!”, false-flag PR-stunt, we all remember so fondly?

Reply to  Wee Liam
April 7, 2015 12:22 pm

@ mike — Not me. Sorry — I had to look that one up on the internet.

Reply to  Wee Liam
April 7, 2015 1:02 pm

@ littlepeaks
Yr. “Not me. Sorry–had to look that one up on the internet.”
C’mon, littlepeaks, your hive-tool “denial” is exactly what one of Hillary’s flying-monkeys would say, when caught out, right?
On the other hand, I do find your claim that you had to look up the “shirt” business on the internet to be credible, since I estimate that it’s very likely, littlepeaks, that you’re a brainwashed-lefty, dumb-kid, recent college-graduate, burdened with a crushing student-loan debt, and just discovering that a sense of entitlement, lousy work attitude, and a useless degree from some goof-off, party-time institution of “higher learning” ill equips you for much of any employment, other than that of an unpaid Hillary-troll, which, in turn, means that you are probably not of an age to personally recall many of Hillary’s little “adventures” from the past.
Don’t worry, though, littlepeaks, at some point–probably real soon–you’ll suddenly, one-day, wake up and be outraged at how academia’s parasite, “Hive Bozo” youth-masters manipulated, exploited, and abused your vulnerable adolescent mind and naive idealism. And then, you’ll proceed to get your act together, and move on to build a wholesome and productive life you can be proud of. That’s the usual progression, at least.
Fellow “Good Guy” lovers of liberty and ethical science!–look for more of this “misogyny”-baiting sort of thing, as HIllary’s campaign really gets rolling. Call it out when you see it!

Reply to  Wee Liam
April 10, 2015 7:40 pm

Maurice Strong first, please.

Reply to  Francisco
April 7, 2015 9:58 am

What about the millions who have died because DDT was banned? Or the thousands who die every year because the greenies have made heat too expensive?

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 10:55 am

The point I would make, that rabid “green” policies kill.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 11:01 am

The DDT story is a myth.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 11:12 am

– DDT is not banned for use against malaria, in contrast to many other insecticides, actually
– Resistance to DDT became a serious problem even before the ban for agricultural use and is now widespread
– Resistance to chloroquine and sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine, two affordable and effective early antimalarial drugs, undermined the second line of attack on malaria
– Realizing these difficulties, the WHO gave up on its goal of eradicating malaria as early as 1969, that is, 3 years before the ban of DDT for agricultural use

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 11:35 am

The WHO lifted it’s ban on DDT in 2006, accepting that it’s use in homes would save lives. It is not a myth that DDT was banned, it was. It is a myth that agricultural use has increased mosquitos immunity to DDT.
The green movement is busy trying to eradicate a crime against humanity committed by the ban on DDT while simultaneously trying to ban Golden Rice with the same shameful disregard for the suffering of fellow human beings.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 11:52 am

DDT was never banned for use against malaria. It was subject to the Stockholm protocol, which stipulated that such use be declared. In contrast, dieldrin and some other organochlorides are actually banned under the same protocol.
Exactly to what extent the agricultural use of DDT negatively impacted the application against malaria is difficult to determine without doubt. However, the categorical assertion that no negative impact occurred is implausible.
This has exactly nothing to do with CO2 or genetically modified rice, or with being left or right. CAGW is a crock, Frankenfood is a crock, and the DDT myth is a crock, too.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 12:08 pm

Responding to Palmer, the USA did ban DDT, and otherwise, many many nations did curtail its use and indeed banned it within their own countries
For example, with South africa:
Shortly after South Africa had discontinued its use of DDT and replaced it with synthetic pyrethroid insecticides, a highly efficient malaria vector, Anopheles funestus (which had been completely eradicated from the country in the 1970s), reappeared. Within just a few years, the incidence of malaria nationwide increased more than tenfold (from 6,000 cases in 1995, to 62,000 cases in 2000). Desperate to scale back this re-emerging crisis, the South African government resumed its use of DDT in 2001 (disregarding UN warnings against such a course of action), and within months the malaria rate dropped by four-fifths.

NC Brian
Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 12:10 pm

Those of you who believe the DDT story is a myth should go back and read the story in the denier rag ,National Geographic, on Malaria. They put the unneeded death toll at 35 million children. they also said the evidence against DDT was very weak. They also said that once DDT has been reinstated in a very limited usage, the death rate has declined substantially.
Hitler only killed 6 million in his death camps.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 1:29 pm

Michael Palmer:
I do not know where you get your misconceptions, and no that web site is not proof!
I am old enough to remember when and how DDT was banned.
No matter what purpose you wanted DDT for, you could not find a supplier. Reason; the sale and use of DDT was made illegal!
Malaria is only one of the several diseases easily spread by mosquitos.

Ton T
Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 2:31 pm

Very little in this world is literally banned. Banned in the common means regulations that make use extremely difficult to nearly impossible. DDT was banned in any sense that law views a defacto government ban.
People who say it wasn’t banned are deceitful people with bad parents who never learned that there are forms of lying beyond lies of comission.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 3:16 pm

Solving the malaria crisis is not a matter of just spraying enough DDT. If it were, there would be very little malaria by now in India, where DDT has been in continuous use for many decades. As a result, DDT resistance there is now nearly universal. The main cause of the resurgence of malaria – since the 1970s, the case numbers have remained higher in most afflicted countries than they were in the 60s – is the combination of insect resistance to DDT and other insecticides, as well as the resistance of malaria parasites to antimalarial drugs.
The loony right perpetuates the DDT myth for the same reason that the loony left perpetuates the CAGW myth – not because it is true, but because it is effective propaganda, ammunition. In reality, neither side is guilty of genocide, so you could all just as well chuck the histrionics and treat each other like humans again. Imagine that.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 5:15 pm

Redmond Weissenberger says:
…the USA did ban DDT
Really? I’d like to buy some. Where do I get it? Home Depot?
And Michael Palmer: your link would have more credibility if it didn’t go straight to your own opinion paper.
DDT was widely banned, as any cursory search will show. Furthermore, the odious Rachel Carson was very instrumental in getting it banned. And it is not ineffective because a resistance has been built up. Quite the contrary: DDT-infused sleeping nets are very effective.
If DDT isn’t banned, then why can’t we go out and buy it? I really would like to have some on hand for garden use.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 5:42 pm

dbstealey … my own opinion paper inot only clearly declares intent and authorship upfront, it also lists 16 references from the scientific literature. These are, of course, listed at the bottom, so one would have to scroll down to see them. Too much to ask of you, obviously — which does not surprise me.
If you want to buy some DDT, please contact Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. For details on what uses of DDT are banned or permitted, please refer to the Stockholm protocol — one of the reference listed in my untrustworthy opinion paper.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 5:59 pm

I have recently had need for serious pest control and looked into this extensively. DDT is actually not thoroughly banned, but the regulations on its use are an effective ban. It is not legal for retail sale or for personal or commercial use in the US. It IS, however, legal for the purpose of vector control. Good luck actually getting any outside of a major infestation.
This exception appears to be relatively new, as it was not legal even for vector control during the medfly crisis in California that I lived through in high school. They had to use malathion instead.
Apparently it remains legal to manufacture, provided your sales are to the government or to one of a small handful of countries that use it.
So, while perhaps not an ACTUAL ban, an effective ban, which really amounts to the same thing. The argument that it isn’t banned is a matter of semantics. If gunpowder were illegal to manufacture or possess, you could argue that guns were not banned, but it ends up having the same result.
Your point is quite valid – if it’s not banned (whether officially or effectively), where can I buy some? (And for my part, that is a real question – I could use some)

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 6:13 pm

Tony — in the context of malaria control, it is not relevant whether DDT is banned in the U.S. The U.S. have not had a problem with malaria in many years, and they have plenty of effective alternatives at their disposal. If anything, the example of the U.S. shows that maintenance of malaria control is feasible without DDT, although DDT certainly played a key role in the initial eradication program.
Under the Stockholm protocol, countries can declare their intention to use DDT for malaria control and are then obligated to report on this use. Several malaria-afflicted countries continue to use DDT under this clause.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 6:56 pm

Oh, goody, now I can go and buy some DDT at the corner Hindustan Insecticide Limited!
Do I have to go to the Hindustan aisle in Home Depot to pick some up? Or maybe they can FedEx a can of it my way. Funny, Amazon doesn’t carry the stuff. But they have just about everything else.
On a serious note, just do a search using the keywords: “DDT, ban”, and you will find out how many countries have made it impossible to get — including the USA. And why do we need a “protocol” to control something so beneficial, and with so little (if any) downside?
DDT is impossible for the average citizen to get. And why? I recall a guy a long time ago bragging that he ate a spoonful of DDT every day to show how harmless it is to animals and people. DDT was one of the greatest benefits to humanity, ever. But the do-gooder contingent, the same people who demonize “carbon”, got it banned. Why? I notice that cigarettes and liquor are still available anywhere.
Always ask yourself: Cui bono? That will eventually get you to the real answer.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 7:37 pm

db — the U.S. have no malaria, so whether or not DDT is for sale there is of no consequence to malaria control. The same goes for many other countries. On the other hand, many of those countries that do have malaria continue to use DDT in compliance with the Stockholm protocol.
One benefit of controlling DDT is that its permitted use is limited to insect vector control, as opposed to agriculture. Had this selective ban been instituted sooner, it might have slowed the emergence of insect resistance, although by how much is of course anyone’s guess. The situation somewhat resembles the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry, which has been linked to the propagation of antibiotic resistance in human bacterial pathogens — but here, too, the empirical data available leaves much to be desired.
I have looked into the DDT story in the same spirit that I looked into CAGW — trying to understand the relevant science as best I could. I found that known effects on the environment and on human health do not provide substantial reasons to ban the limited, indoor use of DDT against malaria, and that DDT remains a legitimate option in malaria control. On the other hand, considering the whole picture, the past and current limited restrictions on its use are not a major cause of the current deplorable state of malaria control. It is all laid out in my paper, with references. Go read it, or go read something else if you prefer, but don’t expect to be taken seriously for posting such lazy and inane stuff as you did above.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 7:59 pm

No, DDT was not banned in many countries, but the manufacture of it WAS banned, as well as its use, in the countries where it was manufactured. If it’s not made, it’s a rather moot point if it is not officially banned.
Those who claim DDT would not eliminate malaria need to address the results in the one country where it WAS used until malaria was wiped out – the USA. And DDT was used extensively on crops in the US, tons and tons and tons of it, including, and especially, in the deep, mosquitoe plagued South. Where are the DDT-resistant, malaria-carrying mosquitoes in the US?
As far as the paper linked in this thread, it gives short-shrift to the entire continent of Africa because DDT was banned, er, “manufacture discountinued”, in the industrialized countries before they had a chance to implement eradication programs. Just how do mosquitoes become resistant on a continent that never used the pesticide? Clearly, they don’t.
The application of DDT in Africa would have saved millions of lives before mosquitoes had a chance to produce large numbers resistant to DDT. If they were as fortunate as the US, they still might be virtually malaria-free.
So of course the lack of use of DDT cost millions of lives. You have to reject everything that has happened in history to deny that.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 8:04 pm

Correction: discontinued, not discountinued.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 8:13 pm

jtom, DDT has been widely used in Africa as well, just not as widely and systematically as in India. You are right that my paper does not go into any detail about Africa; the reason is that the picture is quite heterogeneous, since Africa is not a single country, and moreover the data situation is even worse than in India; and even in India, the estimated and the reported case numbers differ by a factor of 20.
Another problem is that the abundance of insect vectors and the prevalence of malaria in humans in many African countries is so high that eradication never appeared feasible at all, and accordingly has never been seriously attempted, not even in the days when DDT and chloroquine could be counted on to be effective. Remember that the WHO officially abandoned their global eradication effort and restated their goal as mitigation in 1969, that is, three years before the initial ban on the agricultural use of DDT. By this time, insect resistance was well advanced, including in Africa.
Like India, several African countries continue to use DDT for malaria control.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 8:52 pm

Clearly, you don’t see the self-contridiction in writing, “While data availability for Africa is limited, resistance is quite common there as well.” The mosquitos in Africa exhibit more of a tolerance to DDT than those in other areas, but are not necessarily resistant. More application of DDT is required, and it must be targeted. That’s why malaria rates in African countries TODAY have seen malaria rates plummet when DDT was reintroduced using appropriate methods.
The fact remains, and has been demonstrated many times in many countries, that malaria decrease when DDT is used, increases when its use is halted, and decreases when its use is resumed. If you don’t want to deal with those facts, then that is your right.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 9:27 pm

For Michael Palmer and his pernicious claim that DDT was not banned in the USA;
DDT Ban Takes Effect
[EPA press release – December 31, 1972]
The general use of the pesticide DDT will no longer be legal in the United States after today, ending nearly three decades of application during which time the once-popular chemical was used to control insect pests on crop and forest lands, around homes and gardens, and for industrial and commercial purposes.
An end to the continued domestic usage of the pesticide was decreed on June 14, 1972, when William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued an order finally cancelling nearly all remaining Federal registrations of DDT products. Public health, quarantine, and a few minor crop uses were excepted, as well as export of the material.
The effective date of the EPA June cancellation action was delayed until the end of this year to permit an orderly transition to substitute pesticides, including the joint development with the U.S. Department of Agriculture of a special program to instruct farmers on safe use of substitutes.
The cancellation decision culminated three years of intensive governmental inquiries into the uses of DDT. As a result of this examination, Ruckelshaus said he was convinced that the continued massive use of DDT posed unacceptable risks to the environment and potential harm to human health.
Major legal challenges to the EPA cancellation of DDT are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The courts have not ruled as yet in either of these suits brought by pesticide manufacturers.
DDT was developed as the first of the modern insecticides early in World War II. It was initially used with great effect to combat malaria, typhus, and the other insect-borne human diseases among both military and civilian populations.
A persistent, broad-spectrum compound often termed the “miracle” pesticide, DDT came into wide agricultural and commercial usage in this country in the late 1940s. During the past 30 years, approximately 675,000 tons have been applied domestically. The peak year for use in the United States was 1959 when nearly 80 million pounds were applied. From that high point, usage declined steadily to about 13 million pounds in 1971, most of it applied to cotton.
The decline was attributed to a number of factors including increased insect resistance, development of more effective alternative pesticides, growing public and user concern over adverse environmental side effects–and governmental restriction on DDT use since 1969.
Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
[ / ]

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 10:14 pm

Michael Palmer:
Repeated endlessly does not make your premise or opinion fact. Which you yourself already claimed.

“…Solving the malaria crisis is not a matter of just spraying enough DDT…”

Remember, you are amongst many who were alive during the time, not only of DDT use, but of mankind’s war on mosquito transmitted diseases.
There are a number of mosquito transmitted illnesses, many that are very lethal.
When or while an area seeks to eradicate a vector mosquito, general spraying is not very effective. A number of ground troops are mobilized that seek every pocket, puddle, pond, backwater or tree bole harboring stagnant water. DDT is applied directly to that stagnant water, both as a soluble and as an oil to fully coat the water surface.
This is done several to many times. When illnesses cease transmission is when the local agencies consider that an area might be clear.
Michael Palmer, you really need to dig up the government pamphlets that were issued delineating how to best eradicate vector transmitters.
Oh, Malaria is not unknown in the Americas, nor is it an illness restricted to the tropics.

Reply to  MarkW
April 8, 2015 4:49 am

ROM and AtheoK, you are putting words in my mouth. As I have stated earlier, the current availability of DDT in the U.S. is not relevant to malaria control, since the U.S. has no more malaria. If you feel deprived of fundamental rights just because you can’t get the very one insecticide you fancy, take solace in your right to buy automatic weapons – maybe shooting the bugs will help you to get over yourselves.
I don’t deny that DDT was instrumental in eliminating malaria in many countries around the world. I’m happy it was invented, and I don’t see any reason for not continuing to use it where insect resistance has not yet rendered it useless. The point is, such use is acknowledged as legitimate under the Stockholm convention, it remains feasible, since DDT is still commercially available, and it is ongoing in several malaria-afflicted countries. If it is not used as widely as it should, this has more to do with inertia of the authorities than with international regulations.
Regarding JTOM’s objection regarding data availability and DDT resistance in Africa: The data are good enough to state that DDT resistance is common, but they are not good enough to construct a map such as that given for India in my paper (taken from a scientific paper by Indian authors).

Reply to  MarkW
April 8, 2015 6:04 am

Please tell me where in my statement I said anything about malaria control.
I’m aware that this is a major portion of the discussion here, but DDT can be used for other purposes.
I have an insect problem with insects that are resistant to practically all known pesticides – EXCEPT DDT. But I can’t obtain the one pesticide that WILL eliminate the problem, because it is not legal for me to purchase.
Seems a lot like a ban to me.

Reply to  MarkW
April 8, 2015 6:50 am

TonyG, this thread begun with a reiteration of the phony story that a ban on DDT use against malaria has caused tens of millions in avoidable casualties. All my responses focus on this theme.
I did not connect your name with malaria control – in fact, I did not reply to you at all, precisely because you were not commenting on malaria, and the issue that you brought up is not relevant to the main theme.

John Robinson
Reply to  MarkW
April 8, 2015 7:29 am

In 1968 two researchers, Drs. Joseph J. Hickey and Daniel W. Anderson, reported that high concentrations of DDT were found in the eggs of wild raptor populations. The two concluded that increased eggshell fragility in peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and ospreys was due to DDT exposure. Dr. Joel Bitman and associates at the U.S. Department of Agriculture likewise determined that Japanese quail fed DDT produced eggs with thinner shells and lower calcium content. Bitman’s research was published in Science. Bitman and coworkers demonstrated eggshell thinning with DDT by reducing calcium levels to 0.56 percent from the normal 2.5 percent. This work was exposed as anti-DDT propaganda by other scientists in the field after obtaining the data from his research.
Bitman continued his work for another year. Instead of the calcium-deficient diets, however, he fed the quail 2.7 percent calcium in their food. The shells they produced were not thinned at all by the DDT. Unfortunately, the editor of Science refused to publish the results of that later research. Editor Philip Abelson had already told Dr. Thomas Jukes of the University of California in Berkeley that “Science would never publish anything that was not antagonistic toward DDT”. Bitman therefore had to publish the results of his legitimate feeding experiments in an obscure specialty poultry journal. As a result many readers of Science continued to believe that DDT could cause birds to lay thin-shelled eggs.
I am aware of the fact that resorting to anecdote is intellectually suspect. to which I will reply that at some point a collection of anecdotes on the same subject becomes a dataset subject to statistical analysis.

Reply to  MarkW
April 8, 2015 8:46 am

Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring and specifically targeted DDT. This book led to her testifying in the senate where she stated that DDT should be ELIMINATED. Based mainly on her book and testimony, this led to a ban in the US of DDT. Which is fine, we had already eradicated malaria and we did have other pesticides in our arsenal, as we no longer had to worry about malaria. But her book went worldwide and led to a push from environmental groups to eliminate DDT worldwide. So even though there was no worldwide ban at the time, DDT was very hard to acquire, and the problem with that is that DDT is the most effective insecticide against malaria vectors. African nations didn’t have the luxury of eradicating malaria as we did, but African nations also rely on foreign aid and much of the foreign aid refused to pay for DDT, so many nations went to other pesticides, which in turn upped malaria after a downswing.
When the worldwide ban was being discussed in 1999, which led to the Stockholm Convention, DDT was put on a restricted use and production. Environmental groups pushed for a total ban on DDT. That led to this:
“More than 350 of the world’s leading experts in malaria have signed an open letter of protest against plans for a global ban on the pesticide DDT, which they say will lead to millions more people dying in the developing world from the disease. The 371 doctors, health economists and scientists, who include three Nobel laureates, warn of the consequences if the United Nations Environment Programme outlaws DDT along with a range of other pesticides known as persistent organic pollutants in a treaty to be negotiated next week….But specialists in the disease say cases and deaths have already risen since DDT was outlawed in the western world in the 70s, in turn putting pressure on developing countries not to use it.”
DDT was then banned worldwide by 2007, except for vector use in third-world countries based on the scientists’ input. What makes DDT the agent of choice is it’s spatial repellency (which was discovered in 1940) and malaria experts around the world say until we have a better option, DDT is the only viable option, as even mosquitoes that have acquired resistance to DDT, don’t go near anything sprayed with DDT, (such as inside homes) thus giving a barrier to the people.
The WHO has now recommended DDT to be used as the number 1 agent against the transmission of malaria, as other options have failed.
So to sum it up, Carson’s testimony and the activist community of enviromentalists pushed for elimination of DDT without thought of how it would affect third-world countries thus this pressure led foreign donors to refuse to pay for DDT for vector use thus African countries had to use less effective pesticides thus increasing the incidence of malaria and deaths.

Reply to  MarkW
April 8, 2015 9:10 am

kristy — what is missing from the picture you paint is the issue of DDT resistance. Where it is not prevalent, DDT is indeed the agent of choice. However, this problem is real. Even in the very first WHO-directed campaign, dieldrin was already included as a fallback option in order to deal with DDT resistance, which had first been observed as early as 1946. Ironically, dieldrin has been totally banned by the Stockholm protocol, while DDT has not, although the case against the limited use of dieldrin is no stronger than that against DDT.
The resistance of insects to DDT, and that of malaria parasites to chloroquine and sulfadoxine / pyrimethamine, had reached such proportions by 1969 that the WHO altogether abandoned its officially stated goal to eradicate malaria. This was three years before the ban of DDT in the U.S.

Reply to  MarkW
April 8, 2015 9:24 am

Michael Palmer,
Everything confers resistance eventually. So that argument doesn’t hold water.
You also say:
…the U.S. have no malaria, so whether or not DDT is for sale there is of no consequence to malaria control.
Strawman argument. There are lots of products available that are not necessary for certain things. The question is: why is DDT unavailable to the average citizen? As explained above, I would like to have it to use in my garden if I want to.
Since there is no danger to birds, people or animals, and since much more dangerous products are available, please give us a reasonable rationale why DDT cannot be bought at Home Depot, just like many similar (and probably more dangerous) products are?

Reply to  MarkW
April 8, 2015 9:53 am

Michael….What is missing from the picture you paint is the issue of the power of DDTs spatial resiliency.
DDT is still one of the most effective chemicals in preventing malaria transmission inside houses. Its powerful spatial repellent action prevents or slows the selection of resistance in mosquitoes [2]. DDT is the only chemical recommended for malaria control that often stops mosquitoes from entering houses and thus transmitting disease. A recent article by Nicole Achee and others, published in Malaria Journal, gives further evidence of the importance of spatial repellency in vector control and the need to develop new active ingredients with characteristics other than toxicity [3].
The modern arsenal of public health insecticides is antiquated and limited to just 12 insecticides, most belonging to one class (pyrethroids). Due to increased reliance on pyrethroids in malaria control and increasing insecticide resistance among mosquito populations, the WHO Global Malaria Programme (GMP) recently released the Global Plan for Insecticide Resistance Management in malaria vectors (GPIRM) [4]. One of the five pillars of the Plan is the development of new and innovative vector control tools. However, there is a dearth of public funding in the search for new public health insecticides. Aside from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC), no new public investment of any significance has been made in this area.
Lack of funding and political emphasis is probably due to two major factors. Influential environmentalist groups, such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Global Environment Facility (GEF), and several non-governmental organizations are waging successful and aggressive advocacy campaigns to eliminate the insecticide DDT and move away from use of all insecticides by making false claims about the effectiveness of non-insecticidal malaria control [5]. Their efforts have translated into almost no popular advocacy, or advocacy targeted at policy-makers, for insecticide development.
This isn’t about resistance, but environmentalists wanting to totally ban the only effective means we have to help spread the transmission of malaria.
Here’s a quote from 1999 from Clifton Curtis of the WWF in 1999:
“DDT is such a potent chemical that as long as it is used anywhere in the world, nobody is safe”, said Clifton Curtis. He even brought up that polar bears aren’t safe from DDT….sound familiar?

Carolyn Brannon
Reply to  MarkW
April 12, 2015 10:47 am

[Snip. We do not discuss Chemtrails here. Please see site Policy. ~mod.]

george e. smith
Reply to  Francisco
April 7, 2015 10:46 am

Well Do you have a facsimile of the death certificate of any deceased person, for whom the competent medically diagnosed cause of death was “Climate Change.”
If not then I suggest that you should stop lying to people yourself.

Reply to  george e. smith
April 8, 2015 1:24 am

Careful here. Don’t give ideas. The death toll for tobacco has been fattened for years with spurious death certificates.

Reply to  george e. smith
April 8, 2015 5:28 am

Brute is right about spurious death certificates.
When my mother died of heart failure at the age of 91, her doctor put down “Smoking” as the cause of death.
The only thing was, she had quit smoking some 65 years earlier…

george e. smith
Reply to  Francisco
April 7, 2015 10:57 am

And for the record, I do not now, nor have I ever, nor do I ever intend to in the future, deny climate change.
While not an authority on the subject, I am not aware of any instance in which the climate repeated a path previously taken, at some earlier time. Well of course any such earlier time would presumably be at least one 30 year climate cycle time previous to any purported repeat performance.
A repeat performance would be a new data set for which all of the entries do not differ from those of an earlier replica of the climate, as documented by credible recorders of climate data that are used to assert anomalous climate changes due to anthropogenes; by an amount greater than the statistical uncertainty of such climate records.

Reply to  Francisco
April 7, 2015 1:53 pm

Well, based on a few comments – beware trolls.
Not sure if rational debate resumes later.
It may do . . . . . . . . . .

Reply to  Francisco
April 8, 2015 11:53 am

We also have laws against sedition

Reply to  Francisco
April 11, 2015 10:04 am

Michael Palmer, thank you for admitting you are not honest. You wrote: “…one of the reference listed in my untrustworthy opinion paper.”

Reply to  Francisco
April 11, 2015 10:25 am

While I am firmly convinced that global warming exist and it is man made; I am totally against censoring or punishing those who believe differently.
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” Thomas Jefferson

Reply to  Francisco
April 11, 2015 7:46 pm

In the USA, we have laws on the book (Called the Constitution of the United States) which guarantees, in part, the right to free speech. Whether you agree or disagree and for what ever reason, those who disagree on any topic have that right here in the USA! The only things you can not do are yell ‘fire in a crowded theater’, which could lead to injury or death OR call for the overthrow of the United States Government. Live with it!!!

The patriot
Reply to  Francisco
April 12, 2015 6:38 am

I focused more on the line ” it’s time to punish the climate change liars” I agree whole heartedly! These fools lying about climate change are causing a lot of people to lose their jobs, shutting down industries and making the price of energy go through the roof! Arrest them all, starting with Al Gore and Obama!

April 7, 2015 9:09 am

“We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths.” So, if Weinstein’s lies contribute to some ecofascist with severe mental issues murder a so-called denier, we have laws to punish him? Good to know.

Reply to  Nylo
April 7, 2015 10:44 am

Indeed yes, once nature proves the alarmists to be wrong it could be open season on alarmists in civil court.

Carolyn Brannon
Reply to  RWturner
April 12, 2015 11:03 am

RWturner, all any of these alarmists need to do is go out on someone’s property that has a tree over 150 years old and cut the tree down. Then saw a slice off the butt of the tree to get a good view of the growth rings. Check these rings and they can see where we have had droughts and rainy seasons throughout time.
My son has a tree removal business and he showed me how the growth rings in any older tree will show that we have had seasonal wet and dry spells throughout time.
[Snip. We do not discuss Chemtrails here. Please see site Policy. ~mod.]

April 7, 2015 9:11 am

So, are they saying the president and all leaders of the world should be executed for not making an executive order or dictate to end all man made CO2 generating activities?
That may sound right to some…eh Gavin?

parochial old windbag
April 7, 2015 9:12 am

This is what the internet has turned us into. If you disagree with me, if you will not bake me a gay cake, first step is forced conversion, followed by execution. No mercy to those who don’t understand the basic physics.

Reply to  parochial old windbag
April 7, 2015 9:25 am

Sadly, I agree.
The vitriol spewed by alarmists against anyone questioning the content of articles and blogs related to Man Made Catastrophic Climate Change in the Guardian is becoming frightengly jihadist.

Reply to  Old'un
April 7, 2015 9:28 am

Whoops: ‘frighteningly’

Reply to  Old'un
April 7, 2015 10:15 am

‘frightengly’ is good. Try ‘gang aft frightengly’.
‘I do not like frightengly green’

Reply to  Old'un
April 7, 2015 10:37 am

And right now they have a article asking if they can ‘learn’ from religion about how to sell their lessons of climate doom. Now that is truly ironic given they already act like a religion and they deny they behaving this way.

Reply to  Old'un
April 7, 2015 10:46 am

If they study whether there is anything to learn from religious indoctrination they will surely find out that they have already exercised these techniques, or then again maybe they will find something unprecedented.

Reply to  Old'un
April 11, 2015 10:08 am

You forgot to put the “in” in frighteningly.

Reply to  parochial old windbag
April 7, 2015 10:03 am

The desire of those on the left to exterminate anyone who disagrees with predates the internet by many decades.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 10:45 am

What are some specific examples of this?

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 10:48 am

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot.
Is that sufficient?

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 11:03 am

Let’s see, Chris, how about the Soviets, the Chinese under Mao, Cambodia (the Killing Fields), Nazi Germany, Cuba, and those are just in the 20th century. Venezuela is heading there today as it’s been imprisoning dissidents at an increasing rate. I figure executions are coming in the near future.

Pat Frank
Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 11:19 am

Chris: the Soviet Union, about 40 million murdered; communist China, about 80 million murdered; Communist Cambodia, about 2 million murdered; Castro’s Cuba, about 20,000 murdered; North Vietnam prior to 1960, about 75,000 murdered; and so on. All political murders.
All those regimes were uncritically supported by western progressives, all the while those murders were committed and afterward as well. Che Gevara was a psychopathic murderer and sadist and is still lionized by the progressive left.
Even Germany was hailed as a socialist triumph and supported by the progressive left, until the falling out with the Soviet Union.
Understand, I have no love for the religious right, either. Those of us who eschew the embrace of ideology and the seduction of the pervasive two-valued political logic, left and right, have been disenfranchised.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 3:25 pm

DCE,I too think the mass killings will start soon in Venezuela. Once other peoples money runs out those in the socialist paradise have to resort to killing to keep the restless hordes at bay.

Paul Mackey
Reply to  parochial old windbag
April 7, 2015 10:20 am

Are you referring to the case in Belfast? Where the government is punishing a bakery for not baking a gay cake that also would have been guilty of copyright abuse? Funny how some laws need to be strictly enforced and others totally ignored, even on the same cake……

Reply to  parochial old windbag
April 7, 2015 11:09 am

naw that’s business as usual for retrogressives. this predates the internet.

Reply to  parochial old windbag
April 7, 2015 11:54 am

The scary part is, they have those dictators as real world examples of what can be done.
Everything goes to extremes. We are not nearly at an extreme yet.

Reply to  dbstealey
April 7, 2015 9:17 pm

I likely won’t live long enough to see this, but an interesting (?) dynamic has begun, and getting to the end result will be in history books for as long as Man exists.
Those on the progressive left (yes, CAGW is a tool of that group, even if some do not believe in it) are in a concerted effort to control not just our actions, but our thoughts. They are like great white sharks circling around us, wanting to take apart the economy, redistribute wealth, and do away with the military.
What they don’t seem to appreciate is that 30 or 40 percent of the world are Orcas, following a religion that requires the extermination or subjugation of non-believers. That religion is totally incompatible with the tenets of the progressive left, and they don’t give a second thought to climate, redistribution of wealth, or economics, whatsoever, and they are VERY militaristic. Their first order of business were they to gain control, would be the extermination of many of the subgroups of the progressive left.
If the great whites defeat us and weaken the world economically and militarily, the orcas will dine on them virtually unopposed. Either we take it all, or the orcas. There is no path to victory for the great whites.

April 7, 2015 9:16 am

Isn’t it about time to compile a list of these incidents of hate speech?

Reply to  Gary
April 11, 2015 10:15 am

It has likely already been done. Google it, I’m too busy right now to find it for you.

Peter Miller
April 7, 2015 9:17 am

The guy is a second rate fruit cake, just ignore him.

Reply to  Peter Miller
April 7, 2015 9:26 am

Yes, he is a fruit cake, but the rhetoric of hate will turn into action of hate if left to simply ignoring. History repeats over and over with “fruit cakes” following like good little soldiers the tyrannical leadership over a cliff.

Reply to  Peter Miller
April 7, 2015 10:04 am

That’s what they said about Stalin and Hitler.

Reply to  Peter Miller
April 7, 2015 10:35 am

So was Hitler.

Reply to  Tim
April 8, 2015 2:40 pm


April 7, 2015 9:18 am

It is indicative of the importance the true believers place on our position.
On the one hand they ridicule and traduce us as “flat Earthers”, “science deniers” and we are in the pay of “Big Oil” or “Big Coal” and so on. They claim we are few and that 97% of some group or other simply know that our carbon dioxide is warming the planet dangerously and that virtually all scientists say we should stop burning stuff as quickly as is humanly possible. They claim we are so stupid and wilfully ignorant as to need locking up yet they won’t enter into a decent debate with us so that the world can better understand our position compared with theirs.
On the other hand they seem to think that we have immense power over the elected governments around the world. So much so that we have forced them to ignore the plaintive warnings of the eco-activists. What is it, I wonder, that makes us so scary?
I notice that the way the alarmists are now dealing with the “pause”, “hiatus”, “plateau” etc. is just to deny it actually exists. This is notwithstanding the 56, 65, 71 ??? papers that attempt to explain it coming from the activist side of things. That this equivalent of sticking ones fingers solidly in our ears and singing la-la-la is rather telling regarding just how confident they are in their robust science.
This is very nuanced science that has been seized by political forces to advance their agenda be it economic or ecological. That someone like Mr Weinstein can advocate we be locked up is typical of those who have faith without knowledge.

Reply to  Keitho
April 7, 2015 10:49 am

I liken the recent desperation on part of the activists to Hitler’s Battle of the Bulge.

Reply to  Keitho
April 7, 2015 3:50 pm

For a goodly measure of “stupid and willfully ignorant”, check out the real David Suzuki, who was mentioned in the article above as also calling for the arrest of various politicians and scientists. This is a truly stunning tour de force of leftist jackassery:

Reply to  Menicholas
April 7, 2015 3:54 pm

I should have skipped the “leftist” label. Apologies.
Ignorance is ignorance, no matter the political stripe it wears.

Reply to  Menicholas
April 7, 2015 7:57 pm

Thank you MeNicholas. I didn’t see this Q and A as I prefer my BP not to go too high! Hypocrisy and ignorance make a dangerous combination.

April 7, 2015 9:19 am

josef goebbels would be proud of those people.
Who needs democracy when you can have cruel tyranny to push through perverted thinking.

Non Nomen
Reply to  ConfusedPhoton
April 7, 2015 10:46 am

No, he wouldn’t. He didn’t like communist Bunglers at all.

Reply to  Non Nomen
April 7, 2015 11:13 pm

Hitler admired the communists for their resolve. He and Stalin were buddies. Nazis visited Moscow and had various deals with the bolshevics going on. Friendship went downhill only in 1941.

April 7, 2015 9:20 am

Haven’t we been here before?
“Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; and so no doubt at all remains on these points.”
“Malleus Malleficarum” published in 1484, in which Witches were blamed for climate disruption, calamity and crop failures.
And note that “no doubt at all remains on these points”, is actually what they said about that particular delusion.
After, many years of witch burning, the Little Ice Age, and the related low-temperature weather disturbance came to an end.
Something for which we should all be very thankful.
So, one must assume that the program of arrest torture and death was effective.
Indeed, just as planned. And just as the renewables revolution will eventually be held to be responsible for the notable lack of global warming in 2100.
More weather persecution and related delusion from the LIA, here. It’s a joy to behold:

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
April 7, 2015 1:41 pm

I bet the remaining witches were also happy to see nature return to a more normal. {humor}

Pamela Gray
Reply to  goldminor
April 7, 2015 6:35 pm

Why, yes.

Jason Calley
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
April 11, 2015 8:24 am

“After, many years of witch burning, the Little Ice Age, and the related low-temperature weather disturbance came to an end.”
Obvious proof that the witch-burning was successful… 🙂

Reply to  Jason Calley
April 16, 2015 2:35 am

Obvious proof, indeed.
My thoughts exactly.
Thankfully, the people of the LIA were thinking ahead and putting in place policies that would allow us, their ingrate descendants to live in a warmer witch-free world.
The least that we can do, is make a similar gesture for our own children’s children.
Something self-defeating, so that the people of the future can marvel at our lack of prescience and our total lack of insight into our own psychological limitations. 🙂

Eustace Cranch
April 7, 2015 9:22 am

Moral bullies, like most bullies, are cowards. They fear a debate on the merits. They throw rocks from behind the skirts of State.
…this whole ridiculous, insane, paranoid, sanctimonious, bullying, freak-out has me despairing for the country… Everywhere you look there are moral bullies utterly uninterested in conversation, introspection, or persuasion who are instead hell-bent on grinding down people they don’t like to make themselves feel good.
-Jonah Goldberg

Reply to  Eustace Cranch
April 9, 2015 6:06 am

“Everywhere you look there are moral bullies utterly uninterested in conversation, introspection, or persuasion who are instead hell-bent on grinding down people they don’t like to make themselves feel good.”
Gawker Media described in one sentence.

April 7, 2015 9:22 am

If we are going to go after those whose lies contribute to the death of others, we should start with the lies that have contributed to the ban of DDT and who still oppose its use (even in a judicious and environmentally appropriate manner) today:

Reply to  Odin2
April 7, 2015 9:33 am

And the lies about the WMDs

Reply to  climatologist
April 7, 2015 10:06 am

There were no lies about WMDs.

Reply to  climatologist
April 7, 2015 10:25 am

See Judith Miller on Patrick Fitzgerald.

Reply to  climatologist
April 7, 2015 10:52 am

Huffington Post.
Nuff said.
No there were no lies, all of the western intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had both chemical and nuclear programs.
In the aftermath of the war, evidence of both programs were found. Mostly mothballed, but ready to be restarted as soon as the sanctions were lifted, which leftists like Miller were demanding in the months before the war.

george e. smith
Reply to  climatologist
April 7, 2015 11:04 am

April 7, 2015 at 10:06 am
There were no lies about WMDs……”””””
Well I can’t agree with your statement. The view that WMDs and WMD programs existed was NOT limited to “western” intelligence agencies.
All the “other intelligence agencies” also believed they existed, and their evidence was more convincing, since they tended to be the suppliers of such.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  climatologist
April 7, 2015 10:17 pm

The French were selling nuclear tech to Sadam in the years before the first Gulf War. They were building a nuclear power station for him.
During the Iran – Iraq 10 year war, both sides threw chemical weapons at each other.
Where is the lie?

Reply to  climatologist
April 8, 2015 3:13 pm

george e. smith
April 7, 2015 at 11:04 am

I will have to do some digging for the sources now (its been 10 years since I was reading about this), but the western intelligences services did not just “believe” Saddam had WMD capacity, they knew he did. The capacity came from the west when Saddam was the west’s bulwark against Iran and Shiite expansion. At the times of Gulf I and II he had already employed chemical weapons against both the Iranian “army” and against the Kurds. The western intelligence organizations had no choice but to assume those weapons were still in play.
What would really be interesting to read is the classified traffic between the Iraqi government and the western powers before Gulf II. Saddam almost certainly thought he was fairly safe because the west really did not want an unstable Iraq with an indeterminate political and religious line up (the situation at present in fact). Iraq was a buffer between Iran and the other Arab states to the west and south. Not many people really appreciate how very, very strange George W’s redirection of US military effort away from Afghanistan to Iraq really was.

Reply to  Odin2
April 7, 2015 11:16 am

Even if DDT is 100% safe for vertebrates I still have some reservations for using it to purposely attempt to eradicate entire species of insects, even if they are nuisances and spread disease. Mosquitoes are important pollinators and big parts of the food chain after all. I agree that it should be brought back but it should be used with this in mind.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  RWturner
April 7, 2015 1:05 pm

“Mosquitos are important pollinators???”
Absurd claim.
Mosquitos have 3 roles in the ecosystems they inhabit.
1) their waterborne laval stage puts them in the food chain between unicellular algae and microbes they feed on, and the small fish, mayfly nymphs, and tadpoles that then feed on lavae.
2)the flying stage we hate, they become a foodsource for bats some birds.
3) the diseases they transmit have for 100’s of millions of years acted as a population. control on everything from birds (and likey dinosaur relatives), and mammals.
Mosquitos have no role as pollinators. They evolved in an ecosystem niche as bloodfeeders and a role long before flowering plants evolved and turned to wind and insect pollination for sexual reproduction.

Reply to  RWturner
April 7, 2015 4:03 pm

1) Disagree
2) Wrong
3) Disagree. Wipe them out to the last one. We can adapt to a world without them.

Reply to  RWturner
April 7, 2015 4:04 pm

Comment above is @ RWturner.

Reply to  RWturner
April 7, 2015 4:26 pm

“it should be brought back”
Turns out it never really went away. Even here in the US, the CDC found as recently as 2005 that nearly all blood samples tested contained DDT and it’s metabolites and breakdown products.

Reply to  RWturner
April 7, 2015 6:49 pm

I live on the eastern side of Vancouver Island (where the Spring weather Is Fantastic, this year).
We have liberal (not that kind of liberal) rainfall. We have extensive marshland. We have short rivers that flow furiously and dwindle to a trickle. We don’t have many mosquitoes.
Why not?
We have a few, and all summer long, you can find larvae in puddles and tires, but they just never amount to much.
The assertion that mosquitoes are nectar-feeders is very familiar and I don’t dispute it at all.
I see no evidence that they are an irreplaceable pollinator, although date palms and bougainvilleas may be absent for lack of mosquitoes.
As for the sanctity of species; does one bemoan the ‘never existed’ status of culiseta frustrans (I invented it) as one would the contrived extinction of anopheles stephensi? Why doesn’t everyone run around long-faced bemoaning the fact that there are only 574 species of some genus, when more would be better?
No, we’re only bummed when one disappears, even though we’d never heard of it before, much less seen it.

Reply to  RWturner
April 7, 2015 6:53 pm

1) DDT isn’t used to kill misquitos, it’s an irritant to them causing them to go elsewhere.
2) Misquitos play no role in polination.
3) Off the top of my head I can only think of one or two things that eat misquitos, and they aren’t a major portion of their diet.
4) Is there anything you know that is actually correct?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  RWturner
April 8, 2015 12:07 am

To MarkW.
DDT is quite lethal to many insects that haven’t evolved resistance. In Africa where it is still primarily used, the walls are whitewash painted, then sprayed with DDT.
A curious behavior of mosquitos is that after gorging on a bloodmeal, they prefer landing on light colored vertical surfaces and excreting (pissing if you prefer) most of the water from their blood meal to concentrate and greatly lighten their flying load. It is there they pickup a lethal dose of DDT, and die before feeding again or laying eggs. The DDT on walls limits its environmental release by exploiting this habit of mosquitos.
As for an “irritant” you may be thinking of DEET, a common ingredient in insect repellants. DEET blocks many insects olfactory receptor cell ion channels preventing them from smelling, which is extremely important to mosquitos. Unable to smell when they near a DEET treated skin or surface, they fly away trying to get away from the DEET source.

Reply to  Odin2
April 7, 2015 11:19 am

Endless repetition doesn’t make this true. The DDT ban story is a myth.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
April 7, 2015 1:34 pm

You are correct Michael, but only about endless repetition doesn’t make it true.
DDT was banned! There are many of us who remember when it was banned.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
April 7, 2015 2:50 pm

We’re getting side-tracked, this thread is about climate ugliness and hate speech against those who dare question the non-science of climatology and their messages of doom.

Dave N
Reply to  Michael Palmer
April 7, 2015 5:51 pm

“There are many of us who remember when it was banned”
Including governments and environmental groups that heralded the bans as a success (and vehemently defend them as being “just”). It seems very odd that they would do that if it didn’t actually happen. Should they be labeled as “d*niers”?

Reply to  Michael Palmer
April 7, 2015 6:30 pm

Dr.Palmer, thank you for linking your paper (internet report). My take-hoe is, had we hit malaria in all affected regions with inside-dwellings semiannual DDT sprayings, but not used DDT as a large-scale crops insecticide, and had we concurrently used chloroquinone to treat infected malaria victims, we could have eradicated malaria as effectively as we eradicated smallpox. But for some reason, we, er, the UN WHO, failed to fully test malaria-susceptible populations in India and Ceylon, and treat the infected, combined with our allowance of widespread outdoor spraying of DDT, which could never eradicate Aenopheles mosquitos, but did enable the mosquitoes to Darwinian-select those which harbored insecticide resistance genes to massively reproduce, combined with UN WHO’s neglect of Africa, resulted in chloroquine and DDT resistance.
The eradication of malaria from the US and southern Europe didn’t require the UN. When the UN got involved, the effort was an ultimate “fail”, because WHO did the worst thing: creating drug and insecticide resistance by implementing politically-calculated, not science-driven misguided measures.
You’ve presented an excellent argument for science-thinking people to reject the UN IPCC’s universal governmental control of fossil-fuel usage as the “solution” to climate change. They totally screwed up malaria extinction, they clenched defeat from the jaws of victory. And now, with modern fossil fuel energy providing the potential for worldwide prosperity, “It’s no good.” Just like nuclear energy was “no good”. Poverty, starvation, reduction of human population by 80-90% is good. That’s sustainable.

April 7, 2015 9:22 am

How many Eco-fascists would be on that list to be “punished” if we were to consider the lives lost from the lies about DDT… Hmmm i think they would all start back pedaling pretty quick

Reply to  sheepdog5
April 7, 2015 9:23 am

Odin2 beat me to it .. I’m a slow typer

Reply to  sheepdog5
April 7, 2015 10:17 am

Well, you know what they say about great minds …….. 🙂

Reply to  sheepdog5
April 7, 2015 10:49 am

They say that great minds are slow typers?

April 7, 2015 9:22 am

Ten minutes of fame times 10 thousand greenish brown shirts is a lot of noise.

April 7, 2015 9:23 am

Well, there are laws regarding making life threats. If I were threatened by the likes of Gore et al, and this lunatic, there would be a sheriff knocking on their door.

Reply to  highflight56433
April 7, 2015 9:24 pm

The law does not apply to them.

April 7, 2015 9:25 am

Giving voice to some hack blogger on Gawker isn’t really doing anybody any good.

April 7, 2015 9:32 am

>Weinstein bases his claim that man made climate change “kills a lot of people” on a WHO page, which
>estimates that 150,000 people per annum are dying because of climate related extreme weather and other
>problems, such as crop failure.
I wish them a lot of luck trying to arrest God for creating weather and climate.

April 7, 2015 9:37 am

Jail those who wants to jail people because of their opinions!

Reply to  slabadang
April 7, 2015 10:07 am

Is that your opinion?

Reply to  slabadang
April 7, 2015 10:33 am

Just what I was thinking!!!
I’ve no time for intolerant and violent people.
They should all be rounded up and shot.

John Greenfraud
April 7, 2015 9:37 am

How exactly does someone ‘deny’ future events that have not yet occurred? Wouldn’t that be an ‘unbeliever’ or a ‘heretic’?

Reply to  John Greenfraud
April 7, 2015 4:47 pm

Notice that there is no call to punish people who, by their actions, add more than their fair share of the noxious poison, CO2, to the air we all share.
In other words, they (the warmista hypocrites) can spew as much venom and CO2 as they want with no worry.
It is disagreement that is to be punished

April 7, 2015 9:43 am


Reply to  John
April 7, 2015 4:28 pm

I’m going to look on the bright side. Shortly I may face an accomodation problem. Jail may be a palatable option. (But I’ll bring my own soap 😰)

April 7, 2015 9:43 am

the WHO 10,000 figure has long been shown to be nonsense, as was the GHF’s 300,000 climate change deaths.. The 300,000 CC deaths was quoted by Franny Armstrong, in her Guardian interview for the 10:10 ‘No Pressure’ Video..
The GHF figures were also nonsense….
I wonder if these guys would be considered ‘deniers’ for saying so…
“Nevertheless, interest in potential links between climate change and possible changes in climate variability and extremes continues to mount. Some claims have been made linking an apparent increase in the severity of weather-related disasters to climate change, with high-profile claims being made such as ‘Climatic disasters are on the increase as the world warms up’ (Oxfam, 2007) and ‘every year climate change leaves over 300,000 people dead, 325 million people seriously affected, and economic losses of $US125 billion’ (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009).
These statements appear to unsubstantiated by rigorous science.
For example, the Global Humanitarian Forum (2009). conclusion was based on a simplistic attribution methodology which compares the rate of increase in weather-related disasters to non-weather disasters (such as earthquakes), notes a steeper rate of increase in weather-related disasters and assumes that this is due to anthropogenic climate change. However, this is based on 25 years of data from 1980 to 2005, a somewhat short period when dealing with changes in return periods and magnitudes of extreme events, and also does not distinguish between anthropogenic climate change and natural climate variability, which may be significant, especially locally. Such claims, therefore, do not appear to provide robust evidence of changes in climate variability.
(Betts is Prof Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office, IPCC AR4 & AR5 lead author)
‘unsubstantiated by rigorous science”

April 7, 2015 9:44 am

How many will die from the global economy being rolled back to the age of sticks and stones?

Reply to  Max Photon
April 7, 2015 10:08 am

I find it fascinating how the same people who go on and on about their being too many people on the planet, want to make it a crime to take a position that they claim will result in people getting killed.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 11:26 am


Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 4:51 pm

Yes, indeedy. The warmistas are getting very upset that the world is not catastrophically warming on their preferred timetable.
Death and chains, though, to anyone who professes to be glad about this lack of catastrophe, or who points out that they had I wrong to begin with by predicting it.

April 7, 2015 9:44 am

should be the WHO, 150,000 figure — not 10,000

April 7, 2015 9:45 am

What a despicable rant!!! There are many climatologists including myself that strongly believe that human kind has only contributed little towards climate change. The debate should of course continue and we will find soon that it is the Sun that is main reason for climate changes on Earth shame on you Dr. Suzuki Rod Chilton

JoAnn Chateau
April 7, 2015 9:47 am

I have wondered why responsible parties are not charged with crimes against humanity and the Earth. I suppose it is not easy to discern who is most responsible.
But maybe we can outlaw the fossil fuel industry! I wouldn’t feel sorry for them. They have had decades to realize their product was becoming obsolete. They have had decades to develop renewable energy systems (and make tons of money).
But the fossil fuel industry did not do that. It wasn’t easy enough.
You see, if one company had become an innovator, then the other companies would have also been forced to compete on innovations and forward-thinking. That would have required hard work, applied intelligence, and the will to compete and win.

Reply to  JoAnn Chateau
April 7, 2015 11:24 am

sorry but it’s not a matter of one company becoming an innovator. Anyone can do that and start a company. you’ll notice this has not happened. there are several possibilities for this. 1) the technology doesn’t exist to be able to accomplish the innovations. 2) it’s physically impossible to do so because your assumptions are wrong about fossil fuel. 3) young people have been trained to be zombies and not think for themselves and assume corporations are somehow evil.

Reply to  JoAnn Chateau
April 7, 2015 11:53 am

People such as yourself have been investing billions in other people’s money on these renewable fuel scams for decades.
The reason why we choose to remain with fossil fuels is that nothing else comes close to it in terms of cost or convenience.
It isn’t enough to just “be an innovator”, you have to invent a product that is superior to anything that is already on the market.
I find it fascinating that your first response to the fact that the oil companies haven’t done the impossible, is to consider banning them.

Reply to  JoAnn Chateau
April 7, 2015 11:59 am

Why don’t you do it, JoAnn, and make tons of money?

Reply to  mkelly
April 7, 2015 3:39 pm

Or better yet JoAnn, Why don’t you personally never use fossil fuels or anything made from them?
Put your money where your mouth is and lead by example. If they’re so bad how can you live with your daily decisions to keep them in business?
You hypocrites are priceless.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  JoAnn Chateau
April 7, 2015 12:17 pm

Joann Chateau
It seems now that the fossil fuel industry will be the main suppliers of world wide energy for at least the next 150 years. That is not “becoming obsolete”. The hearse driving your great granddaughter to her grave will operate on gasoline.
Renewable energy has huge costs that are now hidden by government subsidies. If fossil fuel were eliminated tomorrow and immediately replaced by totally perfected renewable systems (an impossibility but lets dream) the price of everything in the world would double. The cost of a house would double. The cost of the clothes on your back would double. The cost of your food would double. Immediately half the world could no longer afford to put food on the table. Mass starvation would occur. Renewable energy is extremely costly. Fossil fuels are cheap. Cheap energy enhances lives. Costly renewable energy would kill hundreds of millions of people.
Innovation ultimately derives from the pursuit of science which is the pursuit of factual knowledge. The science is not there to implement your silly little dreams. In fact the science says that the types of renewable energies you advocate can never be a replacement for fossil fuels. That is what the science says.
Now if you want to be innovative why don’t you invent some new type of renewable energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. Something no one has ever thought of before. Common put your head to it. You seem a person with a vivid imagination.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  JoAnn Chateau
April 7, 2015 12:40 pm

No, JoAnn, that’s really not it. Fossil fuel is quite simply the most energetic, most easily transported, and most versatile energy source available. There really is no “renewable” competitor which comes close to being able to substitute for it.

george e. smith
Reply to  JoAnn Chateau
April 7, 2015 2:22 pm

Why not mortgage your house, and invest the money in those money making renewable energy companies. If you do that, then my fellow taxpayers and I will not have to foot the bill for that foolishness.
The reason that profit making companies have not invested in renewable energy systems, is that it costs tons of money, and doesn’t make any money.
If it made money, you wouldn’t be able to stop companies from doing it.

Jim Reedy
Reply to  JoAnn Chateau
April 7, 2015 9:07 pm

Like the people who decided growing food to convert into fuel, thereby doubling the price of staples, leading directly to the death by starvation of how many? And the increased poverty of how many? (all perfectly foreseeable) Every solution turns out to be a non solution is what I see…

Reply to  JoAnn Chateau
April 7, 2015 11:16 pm

JoAnn Chateau
April 7, 2015 at 9:47 am
“I have wondered why responsible parties are not charged with crimes against humanity and the Earth. I suppose it is not easy to discern who is most responsible.”
Molon Labe, Frau Chateau, Molon Labe.

Owen in GA
Reply to  JoAnn Chateau
April 8, 2015 5:33 am

I do hope you forgot your /sarc tag, because that was one of the least informed comments I have read on any blog in a long time.
1. The energy companies are always researching new technologies. None have panned out so far.
2. All the companies innovate all the time. They squeeze out higher efficiencies and new products daily.
3. If you think they are not working hard or aren’t continuously competing with each other, you have never been around anyone in the industry.

April 7, 2015 9:54 am

They’d have us all become cogs in the State Machine.

April 7, 2015 9:55 am

Now that the leftists are getting a taste of power, their true nature is coming to the fore.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 9:58 am

The night of the long knives cometh. .

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
April 8, 2015 3:19 pm

Say “Krystallnacht” instead.

April 7, 2015 9:55 am

To be honest, all I had to see was ‘…of the Gawker’ and I knew there wasn’t any credibility to the rant…

April 7, 2015 9:57 am

It’s time again to bring out Dr Baliunas and her talk on weather cooking:

Maybe Adam Weinstein, of the Gawker should be made to listen to this talk….

April 7, 2015 9:57 am

As everyone knows, prior to 1950, there was never any extreme weather and crops never failed.
Therefore everything bad that happens today is the result of too much CO2.
(Do I really need the /sarc tag?)

April 7, 2015 10:04 am

Only 73 years ago,in 1942, there was an “endlosung” for the outgroup. those who were vilified as the evil enemy.
Mankind will probably never get rid of these basic instincts, creating enemies to slaughter and hence becoming a hero.

Reply to  Andre
April 7, 2015 10:19 am

Ever again.

Vince Causey
April 7, 2015 10:09 am

More and more sounding like West Ukrainian nationalists – Death to deniers!

April 7, 2015 10:09 am

Bring it Adam.

Reply to  Gregory
April 7, 2015 10:18 am

Just remember… these are they same people who want to take your guns, so when they ‘cleansing’ starts you will be defenseless.

April 7, 2015 10:18 am

According to Weinstein;
Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.
One of the reasons for this is that WE did not enforce those laws when greenie corn ethanol raised the price of food so much as to cause the “Arab Spring” food riots, which killed tens of thousands of people.
I doubt the statute of limitations has run out.

Met Tech
April 7, 2015 10:20 am

What you need to know about the extremist rhetoric comes from ancient Greek myths. Check out the goddess of Chaos, Eris, and in particular the short little stories about her “children.” You guys need to understand the history of “always winning an argument” by any means – sophistry- before you can start defending yourselves.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Met Tech
April 7, 2015 3:32 pm

It is not a debate in which the best arguer wins. There is actually a need for scientific data to win this type of argument if truth is considered an important part of it. This is where the zealots are failing (nature isn’t cooperating). But, an alternative to debate and empirical science is the Pinochet proof of what is right or wrong. This is what this thread is dealing with. Convincing them is out of the question.

Met Tech
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 8, 2015 12:34 pm

Please don’t take any of this personally. Sorry, you must have facts on your side, you must have the scientific method on your side; yes, of course you do, however you must know when, what, or how to argue, or not, against demagoguery and the ancient mob. The same characters are named by the Greek myths, and they are relevant still, because they are from the birth of democracy. Their tactics are well recorded. Purists are not going to win this argument, you will have to leave it up to the warriors to make your point in bloody terms if necessary.
You are too far above the frey, too good to know what rhetorical methods are being used against your arguments. I have spent much of my time with scientists, I know damn well your desire for purity. Tut tutting is not enough.
However, as Kuhn mentioned, or Popper even, there are many in science who will fight against having ANY dominant paradigm challenged. They will cover up that one dissenter’s counter evidence because losing the argument otherwise has no financial rewards. Some of you believe you must be Marxist simply because some fool labeled him a scientist.
Sorry, not only do you need the advanced calculus, you need to pay attention in all your classes. It is ironic that those who attended rhetoric classes instead, are now the ones who dominate the discussion in order to maintain that dominant paradigm.
Sorry if this seems harsh fellahs, but I was raised by a nuclear physicist myself and therefore can appreciate how wrong your attitude toward “philosophy” really is. In public affairs, there are not a few rules or principles to work with, as there are in physical science. If you are not careful, you’ll be over your heads for the rest of your careers. Kuhn, is better known that Popper, you better read both in particular Popper’s “Enemies of the Open Society.”
Wouldn’t you like to know the names and history of these enemies of freedom? So you think today’s leftists came out of no where too? Yes….in fact “rhetoric” does matter because right now, ignorance of the method dooms purists to failure. Your facts, well they don’t count, but your presentation does instead. So, if it might not be your job to stand up and fight against this menace either, if so, then pipe down and stand back, because you have obviously NOT read enough to see the wider public arena in which the sophists will otherwise continue to dominate.

April 7, 2015 10:20 am

The anti-gmo crowd and greens that keep Golden Rice off the market should be the first arrested, prosecuted and made to serve time or the people that they condemn to blindness or death. For years these people have kept this gmo rice off the market and consigned millions of poor people to blindness or death all to keep their smug view that gmo’s are evil. Their actions should be viewed more harshly than any climate denier as the harm the anti-gmo crowd causes is quantifiable and proven while their claims of deaths due due to climate change are much more nebulous and unproven.

April 7, 2015 10:23 am

Once upon a time, the alarmists dominated the argument and it was enough to belittle the skeptics. As the facts go against them and they lose control of the argument, their support among the public erodes. As their dominant position declines, expect them to get ever more shrill in their desperation to stop the debate before they lose it entirely.

April 7, 2015 10:27 am

If you think they’d restrict themselves to merely arresting climate contrarians, you’d be wrong.

Why climate hawks need to prepare their arsenals
Last updated on 1 April 2015, 5:13 pm
Is it time to think about using force to prevent nations and groups from contributing to climate change?

I was hoping, given the date, that this was an “Onion” style joke. But I don’t think it is.

Met Tech
April 7, 2015 10:27 am

I’ve had almost thirty five years experience as a policy analyst which is nothing more than applied ethics. Here’s a link to a professional philosopher’s assessment of the sophistry movement.
Unless you can spoil the leftist arguments, by turning the rules of rhetoric against them, you’ll be doomed no matter how rigorous your counter evidence might be.
Unfortunately, this all goes back to public school English classes and then goes all the way up into the journalism schools. Fortunately there are lots of professional critics from whom you can learn to crush the so called consensus.

Jeff L
April 7, 2015 10:29 am

Under this frame of logic, anyone who emits CO2 is a co-conspirator to murder and should be jailed. Wait…. That would be everyone !
What a bunch of idiots

Reply to  Jeff L
April 7, 2015 10:58 am

The rules put forth by leftists, were never intended to be applied to the leftists.

April 7, 2015 10:31 am

Has anyone called the FBI……to check that agency’s global warming statement.

Paul Nottingham
April 7, 2015 10:32 am

I can name people who have died because of the cold. Can he name people who have died because of global warming?

Tom J
April 7, 2015 10:33 am

This is a tweet from Lawrence Torcello. A quick Google search unearthed it, perhaps from a steaming cesspool but more likely from a maggot encrusted turd. Anyway, here is the copied and pasted tweet:
“The whole world is breaking the law by ignoring climate change.”
Got that? Let us try to use our imaginations to conjure up precisely how the whole world – the whole world – can be in violation of the law.
Hi, my name’s TomJ and I wish to turn myself in for violating a world law. And, I’m willing to accept my punishment for violating this world law. Um, but you’ve violated it too. So, do I guard you during your prison sentence? Or, do you guard me? Is it a capital offense? It is? Ok, who executes who? Do I execute you first? It’s simultaneous execution? Um, I really think the best way to do this is for me to execute you first, but honest, you can execute me afterwards.
And, thus we encounter a world law in practice.

Reply to  Tom J
April 7, 2015 12:16 pm

I think I have figured out a way for simultaneous execution. The 2 guilty subjects stand on opposing ends of an elevated see-saw with ropes around their neck. The one who wants to execute the other first just jumps off. LOL

April 7, 2015 10:34 am

Another suggestion: Cut off all government funding to any school or organization which permits an employee or representative to call for punishment of different opinions without terminating his/her employment. ie, no more funds.

April 7, 2015 10:37 am

For those who think this is a fringe blog, or a fringe idea with little chance of occurring – you are wrong. This is a growing sentiment. It is already being acted on in colleges, where students are thrown out for ‘crimes’ no worse than disagreeing with the professor. People are being jailed worldwide for nothing more than stating an opinion.
Read the comments if you want to see what people think. Although there are some opposing the proposal, the sheer hatred expressed there is overwhelming.
It’s going to get a lot worse.

April 7, 2015 10:39 am

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

The CAGW alarmists are in the position of someone falsely shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater. It’s pretty clear that they intend to cause panic. Let’s jail the alarmists. “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”

April 7, 2015 10:40 am

The WHO estimates are critically discussed here.
An article which is worth reading in full, but in summary it explains that people are not potted plants. Who knew? Not the WHO, apparently…
“Firstly, it uses climate model results that have been shown to run at least
three times hotter than empirical reality (0.15◦C vs 0.04◦C per decade, respectively), despite using 27% lower greenhouse gas forcing.
Secondly, it ignores the fact that people and societies are not potted plants;
that they will actually take steps to reduce, if not nullify, real or perceived
threats to their life, limb and well-being.”

Harry Passfield
April 7, 2015 10:46 am

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

George Santayana
I’m stuck for a noun…N@zis?

Reply to  Harry Passfield
April 7, 2015 11:36 am

try retrogressives – for over a century, these evil know it alls have called themselves progressives – but they are the opposite of that, regardless of what ‘ism they claim to adhere to.

Reply to  cba
April 7, 2015 4:33 pm

…. and for “liberal” you can substitute “totalitarian” or more accurately, since it ain’t gonna happen “totalitarian wannabe”.

Reply to  cba
April 7, 2015 5:11 pm

Yes. And just as in every modern totalitarian revolution, the ‘fellow travelers’ and ‘useful fools’ will be either permanently detained in camps, or exterminated. Because, you see, some of them still have a trace of conscience. That gets in the way of the truly ambitious ones.
So the totally immoral ones will be the most ruthless, as always. They will take power by force, and they will dispense with all the useful idiots who stupidly believed they were making the world a better place — by hook or by crook. All they’re doing by disregarding free speech now is paving the way ti their own demise. Unfortunately, they will take plenty of good people down with them.
Khruzchev bragged that during a Politburo meeting he pulled out his pistol and shot to death someone who was criticizing him. Which of the eco-greens are willing to do anything like that? The ones who won’t will be liquidated, leaving the worst of the worst. As Niccollo Machiavelli wrote:
Men ar bad unless compelled to be good.
Who in the New World Order will ‘compel’ the most evil people in society to obey the law? This isn’t the French Revolution, where Robespierre gets his comeuppance by the mob. Now, like in Cambodia, Red China, the Soviet Union, and other modern revolutions, computers, the secret police, and the military will crush all dissent. Easily.
The middle of the road folks will be swept aside in any putsch, and climate alarmists will be treated no differently than honest skeptics. Something to think about for useful fools like Michael Mann, Adam Weinstein, and David Suzuki.

April 7, 2015 10:56 am

Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make MAD!
This guy is MAD as a Hatter.
Religious fanatics always preach hate and death toward those that question their position of faith. pg

Mike Maguire
April 7, 2015 11:01 am

Fascinating that people can be so completely brainwashed to believe the complete opposite of the reality and interpret all new information in a way that reinforces the brainwash, while completely disregarding/rejecting authentic science that irrefutably shows their belief is wrong.
The increase in CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm, has rescued life on this planet from dangerously low levels of that beneficial gas, yet, the propaganda has convinced people that this is pollution.
The modest global warming thus far has been mostly beneficial to life on this planet.
Only on global climate models based on a busted theory does the warming become a problem.
Despite 18 years of the warming having stalled out, the earth greening up(more food for most creatures) and extreme weather from many measures being less, a large faction of humans are unable to see it in front of them.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Mike Maguire
April 7, 2015 1:51 pm

I couldn’t agree more!
And: Is it not strange that left leaning eco-zealots, which still hate the Catholic Church for burning Giordano Bruno because he proclaimed a different opinion than the accepted religious consensus of his time, would like to persecute and oppress modern “Giordano Brunos” who don’t share the “infallible” beliefs of the current and more and more totalitarian eco-religion?
Why don’t they see their ridiculous inconsistency ???

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
April 7, 2015 8:54 pm

Total Cognitive Dissonance !

April 7, 2015 11:03 am
April 7, 2015 11:03 am

Tying two WUWT posts from today together, it would be humorous to see Freeman Dyson present himself to Adam Weinstein for arrest.

Paul Courtney
Reply to  Scott
April 7, 2015 12:32 pm

Mr. Weinstein better get busy, also on the list to be arrested is Andrew Weaver, who not only (allegedly) denies CO2 causes current severe weather, he sues (and wins) for libel if the Nat’l Post says otherwise. Somebody better call his office.

April 7, 2015 11:06 am

If anyone is killing people today it is the AGW fanatics blocking investment in coal powered electricity generation in Africa, freezing old people via fuel poverty and damaging the health of residents near wind farms with noise.

April 7, 2015 11:06 am

If anyone is killing people today it is the AGW fanatics blocking investment in coal powered electricity generation in Africa, freezing old people via fuel poverty and damaging the health of residents near wind farms with noise.

April 7, 2015 11:21 am

Yet another control freak, authoritarian, smarter than the rest of us a&@hole.

April 7, 2015 11:25 am

Fear-mongering over global warming has taken lives. A 7-month-old baby survived alone for three days with a bullet wound in its chest beside the bodies of its parents and brother, who died in an apparent suicide pact brought on by the couple’s terror of global warming:

April 7, 2015 11:30 am

CAGW is, and always will be, a leftist tool to increase government power, control and funding to leftist regimes.
A strong case can be made that CAGW is the central component behind: the implementation of Agenda 21, and also as a means to conduct wealth redistribution on a global scale. CO2 taxes and carbon credits were also supposed to be the primary source of funding for a world government organization.
As the CAGW hypothesis continues its rapid collapse, leftists are becoming increasing desperate to push through as much of their agenda as possible before CAGW is laughed and eye-rolled into obscurity.
Since the science and empirical evidence are making CAGW completely untenable, the only means available to leftists to keep this failed hypothesis alive is to create an atmosphere of fear and hate against those trying to expose the absurdity and failure of CAGW as a means of censoring the truth.
The good news is that it’s far too late such silly tactics to work and the Internet is far too big to control.
A recent Gallop poll shows that only 13% of conservatives still believe CAGW is a problem and other polls put CAGW dead last in ranked social and economic issues, which means CAGW is already too discredited to revived.
Just let leftists make fools of themselves for calling for death, jail and reeducation camps to rstional humans that don’t think CAGW is threat to the planet.

April 7, 2015 11:32 am

The effective intellectual antidote against this old** Weinstein venom is to laugh at him while applying extreme ridicule with prejudice***.
** old . . . the link in Eric Worrall’s lead post is to a March 2014 article by Adam Weinstein online article at the Gawker site.
*** I refer to ‘with prejudice’ only in the sense that Weinstein has, with his old article, shown his intellectual bankruptcy so his future intellectual claims should be treated as intellectually damaged goods as a default setting by cautious thinkers.
DISCLAIMER: I do not imply in any way any reference to the old CIA term ‘with extreme prejudice’.

April 7, 2015 11:37 am

Recently ‘Pointman’ stated on his blog (of the same name) that (I paraphrase) ‘alarmists had lost the climate argument and their reaction on the way down was not going to be pretty’.
This is probably the sort of thing he meant.

April 7, 2015 11:38 am

This is an argument that’s just being discussed seriously in some circles.

Circle-jerk of philosophers. No happy endings there.
True believers condemn you to hell for an eternity, fundamentalists try to kill you, sociopaths try to find legal ways to kill you.
I correct myself, circle-jerk of sociopaths. Still no happy endings though.

April 7, 2015 11:45 am

Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
The “authoritarian Left,” Gaea Division, strikes again.

April 7, 2015 12:07 pm

It saddens me greatly that, when I read the ludicrous bile spewed by the warmistas, even I am consumed with rage against the hypocrisy and double standards. It should not be like this.

Reply to  Admad
April 7, 2015 7:42 pm

As they say south of the border… X-L-N-T!

April 7, 2015 12:08 pm

In these climate wars, perhaps activist who refuse to debate could be court-martialed for desertion.

April 7, 2015 12:08 pm

New Inquisition?

April 7, 2015 12:09 pm

So everyone who worked for or spoke in favor of the banning of DDT should be charged with the murder of 30 million Africans? This is not just an unverifiable hypothesis, this is history with cause and effect established.
Let the public executions begin!!

Political Junkie
April 7, 2015 12:10 pm

Insights on DDT ban by Patrick Moore
I have attached the short section on DDT from my upcoming book ”Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout”. Of course Monbiot is quibbling with the word “worldwide” and demanding to know what ”international instrument” was involved. It was actually a “de facto” worldwide ban, adopted nationally by all the industrialized nations but most importantly included in the policies of WHO and USAID. Developing countries were refused international assistance by these agencies unless they banned DDT. Thus the skyrocketing of malaria in Africa. Directly attributable to “anti-DDT campaigners’. It was 2004 when WWF and Greenpeace finally relented, after 4 years of negotiation of the Stockholm Convention, and then after considerable shaming and brow-beating. Now they claim to have been for it all along.
Cheers, Patrick Moore

April 7, 2015 12:17 pm

The intolerant ramblings of fanatics are easily mistaken for the blustering of fools until the day the fools gain real power and make good on their psychotic threats.

April 7, 2015 12:22 pm

Thanks, Eric. It’s good to feel noticed, even when it is in a negative way.
Nature has them in a tight spot.

Mac the Knife
April 7, 2015 12:24 pm

Hmmmm – fascists really do repeat history, don’t they?

Bruce Cobb
April 7, 2015 12:29 pm

It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.

Yes, and we skeptics/climate realists know who they are.

April 7, 2015 12:57 pm

Weinstein’s article makes one ask a question. Why are supporters (like Weinstein) of gov’t endorsed climate change exaggerations motivated to advocate silencing by gov’t force those who have successfully used independent critical applied reasoning to expose the climate change exaggerations?
One is inclined to answer something like ‘Well, duh.’
I find a more indirect line of thought as a possible way to answer my above question. It is possible the answer for their motivation for advocating forced silence is that they have a fundamental hatred of all independent critical applied reasoning.

April 7, 2015 1:01 pm

I myself am into the track to CO2 hoax was a hoax – as many earn Multum with pennies on.

Alan McIntire
April 7, 2015 1:31 pm

Right out of the King James version of fundamentalist CAGW.
From 1 John, Chapter 2 verse 22:
“Who is a liar but he that denieth CAGW? He is antichrist, that denieth CAGW”

Doug Hamilton
April 7, 2015 1:33 pm

Before they start picking us off one by one, lets all identify ourselves clearly and openly as defiant skeptics. Let’s call their bluff, somehow. But how?

Ian Macdonald
April 7, 2015 1:39 pm

The hypocrisy of this is that many so-called ‘green’ activities are being allowed to take place regardless of their being illegal:
Picketing power stations.
Piracy on oilrigs. (OK, the Russians have a bit more sense than us)
Illegal telesales calls selling solar panels. (Now THE No1 nuisance call source)
Cyclists riding on pavements, shooting red lights etc.
Government ministers with conflicting business interests. (Yeo, Davey, etc)
If anyone else did these things they’d be fined, ticketed, sacked or in some cases locked up.

Nick Stokes
April 7, 2015 1:47 pm

“Another call to arrest climate “deniers””
I see that Weinstein’s article was published more than a year ago. Did you only just notice?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2015 3:12 pm

Shame on you Nick for making small the egregious assault on freedom of speech and inquiry. Why don’t you say something about all the others. The way I identify a zealot among the certainly significant number that are honest in their belief in CAGW is that the zealot is 100% supportive of the meme, no matter how extreme the and uncivilized the behavior of your fellows against dissenters. They look for support from the devil himself if it is available.
The zealot says something to marginalize the incident or he stays away. I can count on one hand the number of your persuasion who have stepped forward and criticized one of their own for over the top behavior. The one that comes to mind is George Monbiot’s outrage at the revelations of climategate. This guy is a journalist who believed you wholeheartedly and had the decency to express his disappointment and anger. You are scientist, I’m led to believe, you are far below this journalist on the moral ladder. Tell me you expressed shock at the behavior, too. I’m sure I would have seen that. It would have topped a few posts if it were so.
Ironically, one reason your bunch is losing the battle and getting evermore testy is probably largely because you have marginalized yourselves by supporting or remaining silent when this stuff happens. Tell me your beliefs haven’t changed an iota regardless of the fine work of many sceptics. Tell me it’s normal for a science to be spouting essentially the same stuff (climate sensitivity for example – oh they broadened the range but kept the impossible 4.5C top). Tell me you have no doubts despite a “pause” that has lasted as long as the warm period we were supposed to have been agonizing over. Ah, what’s the use.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2015 5:45 pm

I smell a red herring. Did Nick Stokes just get here?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2015 6:47 pm

Nick…that’s the kind of comment I would expect from someone who doesn’t have a good working knowledge of his own family history. I have traced my family histories back to the 1600’s (which explains a lot about why I look like a leprechaun). Guess how long it took a letter, written and mailed from Independence just before the wagon train took off for Oregon, to reach the Eastern Seaboard to tell the family they were heading out on the Oregon Trail. You my friend, are clearly thinking that the world must provide information seconds after it is penned. Otherwise something is wrong with either the writer or the recipient. I judge your comment as silly. A very silly comment.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2015 7:28 pm

Year-old news is stale to anyone that heard it a year ago, but, Nick, it seems apparent that it’s news to you, too.
If you had omitted your final “Did you only just notice?” your comment would be an interesting observation.
It looks to me that you have a little attitude, there, so why not explain why the oldness of the story is significant?
Is it that Weinstein retracted his piece? Now, he thinks we’re cool?
Do you think WUWT has sat on this hot item, awaiting the perfect moment?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2015 9:49 pm

Pamela Gray,
“someone who doesn’t have a good working knowledge of his own family history”
Where do you get that from? I have a very good knowledge of my family history.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2015 11:22 pm

Nick Stokes
April 7, 2015 at 1:47 pm
““Another call to arrest climate “deniers””
I see that Weinstein’s article was published more than a year ago. Did you only just notice?”
Have you any evidence that the Leftists have changed in the meantime?

tom s
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2015 11:19 am

And your point? Do you believe CO2 causes asthma….in the First Family?

Gary Pearse
April 7, 2015 2:39 pm

Perhaps someone is up for writing a socio-psychology paper on an understanding of the process of arriving at the situation that German and Soviet citizens came to find themselves in in the mid and early 20th Century using the “early” development information of this thread. What we see in this is a desensitizing of citizenry to accept barbarism as a tool for control. George Santayana (famous American sociologist) had a theory that social framework is organic and that one sector of the matrix ultimately affects all parts. A simple example is that breakdown in traditional aspects of culture is soon reflected in art (say) going from representative to unstructured/abstract, spiritual matters (decay of the spiritual) etc. World wars, of course, traumatize social norms and “disease” follows. Note the suicide bombings and now the weekly beheadings by Muslim extremists (now part of social media) and the call for climate sceptics to be blown up ( video), to be beheaded, to be put in detention camps…..
Climate zealots have given us an insight into how civilized people can be transformed. What we see from this frenzied group is not something to laugh and poke fun at. We indeed “be few and they be many” to (roughly) quote a Greenpeace official (Green and peace have nothing to do with this org anymore). If they believe their 97% nonsense, we should be the 3% they ignore. How can it be that we of the three are such a threat to the many? Recall, that the Soviet Union and the Third Reich didn’t tolerate the 3% either.
I suppose the biggest problem in such a study is, despite perhaps the most fertile ground for psychological and sociological studies in over half a century staring them in the face, there are no uncorrupted professionals in the field left to do this.

Met Tech
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 8, 2015 12:57 pm

You really don’t have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, many historians and philosophers have taught the rest of us enough of the story. What needs to be done instead, is to start reading outside your field because we’re getting tired of being ignored, thus my harsh assessment, and waiting around for purists to get with the program is a sure way to lose even the science much less humanity. Don’t whine: MOCK THEIR INCONSISTENCIES RELENTLESSLY! It really does not need a new view, many social scientists have made the connection already. Your comments are revealing and highly disappointing too because you are not willing to acknowledge anything outside your own expertise. You will fail like that. I’ve seen it happen elsewhere, and it is sincerely disappointing to learn how much has been ignored from social sciences and philosophers both which would have ended this so called debate twenty freaking years ago!!!! You don’t have time to reinvent the wheel. Reinventing the wheel, while the rest of us are carrying on, in spite of your ignorance, is a form of cowardice. I understand completely that by now most of you are very narrowly defined, and that you have selective vision because of your studies, but I also know how that will blind someone, even the most highly regarded, to the reality of the public value system. Bye!

April 7, 2015 2:47 pm

I am issuing a call to arrest anyone who does not know what a person’s rights are under the US Constitution.

Reply to  Menicholas
April 7, 2015 9:28 pm

Naw, don’t arrest them. Just don’t let them VOTE!

April 7, 2015 2:54 pm

Earth calling Weinstein, arresting people who refuse to believe a fairy-tale does not make it come true. That you have such a demented opinion merely shows how weak you morons on the far-left really are. Go ahead and try to arrest me, make my day Tinker-bell.

April 7, 2015 2:57 pm

Clearly Adam Weinstein is completely ignorant of the history of science. They locked up Galileo for denying what the 99% “consensus” of existing “scientists” had to say about the fundamental “settled science” of astronomy that the Sun rotated around the Earth, but the Earth continued to rotate around the sun anyway.
A few of the other scientists who correctly bucked the 99% consensus and thereby revolutionized their respective sciences were, Louis Pasteur, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Alfred Wegener, Antoine Lavoisier, Robert T. Bakker, and Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall. Fortunately for humanity, though, psychotic mass murders like Adam Weinstein weren’t put in charge of slaughtering scientific heretics during those times.
Adam Weinstein should try reading “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn and he MIGHT realize that the history of science is nothing BUT the 99% consensus of WRONG scientists being overturned by the 1% minority with truth on their side.

Tom J
April 7, 2015 3:20 pm

Earlier I wrote a useless comment concerning the following useless comment from a tweet by Lawrence Torcello:
“The whole world is breaking the law by ignoring climate change.”
Well, I figured just one useless comment by myself today was insufficient so I feel compelled to make two. You see, while it seems bizarre to believe the whole, entire, complete world could actually break a law I’ve come to realize the whole world is indeed breaking the law. It’s just not a law about climate change. We are all breaking a little known but worldwide law that obligates all of us to kill zombies. Has anybody reading this killed a zombie today? No, I didn’t think so. I’ll bet most people don’t even know how. But, if you paid more attention to Hollywood you’d know how. You gotta’ get them in the head. A good pick ax swing or 357 Magnum bullet to the head does trick.
Now, I know what you’re all thinking. The foregoing is utter crap; zombies don’t exist. But I can assure you, they exist every bit as much as melting glaciers in the Himalayas or going extinct polar bears. I know the next question too, “Show me one.” To which I’ll answer, “You’ve all seen them in movies, and that’s just as valid a reality as those photos that show steam from cooling towers as putrid smoke, or those clips that show advancing glaciers plopping into the sea as if they’re melting glaciers.” And, I know the next question, “Well then, show me some coroners reports showing how many people have been eaten or killed by zombies.” And, to that I will answer, “I can show you more coroners reports about people who have died at the hands of zombies than I can show you coroners reports that list global warming as cause of death.”
Ok, folks. For the good of humanity, and to uphold world law, it’s time to start defending against those flesh eating zombies.

April 7, 2015 3:35 pm

Once the philosophers start commenting on Man Made Global Warming it’s time to break out the clown cars and rooty-toot horns!!
When people start quoting philosophers as authorities, it only means that they’ve abandoned all hope of winning an argument on logical and rational grounds.

Reply to  Shoshin
April 7, 2015 5:16 pm

“clown cars and rooty-toot horns”
A thousand thanks for the best belly laugh all week!

Met Tech
Reply to  Shoshin
April 8, 2015 12:04 pm

Yes, of course some philosophers understand the concept of -rhetoric- and how the leftists can “win arguments always.” That’s their expertise: how to argue!! But, go ahead and lose all debate via your obvious arrogance. Ever wonder why officials won’t listen to YOU? Because you have NOT listened to historians, philosophers, etc., or the mathematician actually who just recently brought up the greek goddess of chaos. It was brought up in the context of this Climate Change debate Shoshin. The idiots who cannot understand that damn facts, or the scientific process, are NOT ENOUGH given who you must argue against. You are the ones who say, hey look at that, these other people don’t use facts but just lie and lie.
Hey, you know what pal, other people have recognized those OTHER PEOPLE for thousands of years. But you are so much more sophisticated these days aren’t you? Then, you go home wondering how you can win against sophists with your damn noses in the air….oh sure, ignoring the fact that philosophers are talking about the methods…of winning arguments over much more than just your very narrow subject expertise for the last few thousand years. IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT: THE MEANS AND METHODS TO WIN, ARE FROM OUTSIDE YOUR EXPERTISE. It only takes a few minutes of reading to know what the rest of us, including some mathematicians in fact Shoshin, know what it takes to always win an argument and it ain’t science pal! My own favorite is Karl Popper, a philosopher of science in fact, who ripped up the sophists in his own generation and who’s barely mentioned today. Pity that we have to forget these kinds of expertise; because your own is failing the debate..

April 7, 2015 3:37 pm

I would hazard a guess that the myriad warmist/Greenist policies will lead to many more deaths… shortages as a result of bio fuels. Deaths as a result of increased energy costs. And many, many more.
History has shown us that warm is good and cold is bad. So get your collective heads out of your collective rear ends and stop spouting your inane drivel.

April 7, 2015 3:56 pm

I agree that those who lie about climate change that results in harm to people should be brought before a court of law. The first one would be Al Gore followed by Michael Mann, then William Holdren-climate liars all!

Stuart jones
April 7, 2015 4:03 pm

Bring it on
Then we would have a debate in open court
they would have to prove that the climate caused the deaths
they would have to prove beyond doubt that CO2 was tha cause
one case and the whole thing will fall flat
bring it on

Reply to  Stuart jones
April 7, 2015 5:18 pm

Good point. Maybe someone should volunteer to be arrested. Or turn themselves in?

April 7, 2015 6:47 pm

“Willful, profiteering public deniers of climate change can compare themselves to Galileo all they want, pretending that they’re voices of sanity in a cruel wilderness. But Galileo had science on his side. He had a telescope aimed at the cosmos. Climate deniers have their heads jammed in the sand… or in a barrel of money.”
Galileo did have science on his side, so did Kepler, a heliocentric model of weather and climate. The willful denial and profiteering is made strictly by those who terrify and tithe the innocent on the basis of a geocentric canon of climate that never had a place in science. The contemporary Papal excommunication, and pleas for punishment are little different to 399 years ago when Galileo was put under house arrest. Though this time the matter has massive consequences for us all.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  ulriclyons
April 8, 2015 7:05 am

Ulric, don’t forget Galileo was only exonerated by John Paul II in 1979! This must have been a comfort for his family.

April 7, 2015 6:56 pm

“Sieg Heil” is the correct thing to say now, I guess. Right?

April 7, 2015 7:03 pm

While all the indignant uproar is fun to read, this Adam Weinstein is clearly a left-wing bit player on an obscure blog trying his best to be outrageous:

. . . I’m talking about public persons and organizations and corporations for whom denying a fundamental scientific fact is profitable, who encourage the acceleration of an anti-environment course of unregulated consumption and production that, frankly, will screw my son and your children and whatever progeny they manage to have.
Those malcontents must be punished and stopped.

It’s also over a year old. I have to ask why Eric Worrall dragged this stinking dreck out of the Internet sewer and spread it out for WUWT readers to fulminate over. I suppose it’s useful to further document the totalitarian mindset of the Climate Nazis, but at this point it’s hardly news. The problem isn’t Adam Weinstein; it’s the Puppet President and his handlers, who are intent upon turning the United States of America in a third-world basket case with insane ‘climate’ rules and regulations. We’ve got to turn our attention to getting these miscreants, fools, Marxist fellow-travelers, neo-Luddites out of office and to righting the course of the nation. And while we’re at it, we can clean the ‘climate-change’ crap out of climatology and put real science back on the pedestal where it belongs.
/Mr Lynn

Reply to  L. E. Joiner
April 7, 2015 7:38 pm

“I have to ask why Eric Worrall dragged this stinking dreck out of the Internet sewer and spread it out for WUWT readers to fulminate over.”
I think you answered your own question.

April 7, 2015 7:45 pm

Marvh says:
“Sieg Heil” is the correct thing to say now, I guess. Right?
Nope. Instead, be this guy:

April 7, 2015 8:39 pm

All these stupid wetlands (swamps) various govts keep building does not bode well for future outbreaks of mosquito borne illnesses.

April 7, 2015 8:52 pm

I would that they leave the US and settle in some freedom loving land like North Korea where never is heard a dissenting word. Meanwhile the foundation of the US is to be able to express a well founded opinion, unlike the people who are calling for criminal penalties based on what I can see is either flawed data or just outright fraud. Much like Bernie calling for the imprisoning of auditors for finding out he was a scam artist.
But then communists are always unable to accept anything other than if it leads to their objective. Let’s decapitate anybody who is not like us!!!

April 7, 2015 9:34 pm

It looks like CAGW believers are resorting to the Peter Pan method of science. For global warming to resume, all that is needed is for all of us to close our eyes and repeat, “I believe! I believe!”

April 8, 2015 5:14 am

It appears Weinstein is unfamiliar with Matthew 7:1. Imagine that.

April 8, 2015 5:17 am

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

It is important to speak up.
In general, all that is required for evil intentions to prevail is for good people to be passive. Calling for government action against people is almost always evil.

David Cage
April 8, 2015 5:35 am

I am not a denier. I am an accuser who accuses climate scientists of either incompetence or outright fraud.
Not even faith is beyond question except by the most ignorant bigot. In fact the church my daughter goes to had this as a sermon as to why questioned belief is better than mindless acceptance.
I was taught that science stands or falls by the accuracy of its predictions. As such it is always subject to a single question. Were the predictions 100% accurate compared to the results from certified accurate measurements? To be beyond further questioning the answer has to be YES.
Since we have a range of possibilities the potential error in prediction is at the very least equal to that range either side of the band. Since we have corrections on recent data the error in that data again has a suspect range equal to the required adjustments. When they talk about record temperatures but use only data since 1800 again they are either inept or fraudulent. either the data is valisd or it is not accurate to make any statements of rises based on that data.
The greens aka cabbage brains only say climate change kills. We have proof beyond question that climate taxation of energy kills NOW and has done every year since it was introduced.

April 8, 2015 10:11 am
April 8, 2015 1:35 pm

“Adam Weinstein, of the Gawker, has added his voice to the growing list of greens, who demand a brutal authoritarian response to the vexing problem of people who have a different opinion.”
Welcome to the club:
Note that: ‘Must be made’. Nowadays, if you dissent from the liberal ‘consensus’ you must ‘be made’ to change your opinion. In the UK we have re-education for people who dissent:
Not quite, yet, North Korean-style re-education but we’re working on it.

April 8, 2015 3:16 pm

As the first big move by the EPA the banning of DDT was carried out expressly in the face of the overwhelming “consensus” scientific opinion at the time. It was alleged that EPA chairman Rucklehaus didn’t even bother to read the transcript of the hearings before congress prior to issuing his decree. There was considerable noise made about flawed experimental results from environmentalists getting into “peer reviewed” literature, particularly at Nature and Science. This certainly had a major impact on DDTs use as a vector control worldwide and people perished needlessly as a result (M Palmer I have no idea why you wish to name these events a myth makes me think your whole purpose here is as a straw dog). Another fellow was asking about naming circumstances where “progressives” killed the opposition. I wish to point out especially the Pol Pot era in Cambodia. That was a perfect enviorno/socialist society and to be it’s persecuted enemy all that was required was that you could read. Folks with eye glasses could be summarily executed for knowing how read on that evidence alone!
Pol Pot found a home as an observer at the UN and, after being deposed, in China where the UN would not chase him if they ever got that business about being a war criminal figured out.

Reply to  fossilsage
April 8, 2015 8:47 pm

“Lobotomy, lobotomy, lobotomy, lobotomy!
DDT did a job on me
Now I am a real sickie
Guess I’ll have to break the news
That I got no mind to lose
All the girls are in love with me
I’m a teenage lobotomy
Slugs and snails are after me
DDT keeps me happy
Now I guess I’ll have to tell ’em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I’m a teenage lobotomy
Lobotomy, lobotomy, lobotomy, lobotomy!
DDT did a job on me
Now I am a real sickie
Guess I’ll have to break the news
That I got no mind to lose
All the girls are in love with me
I’m a teenage lobotomy”

Richard T.
Reply to  fossilsage
April 11, 2015 10:37 am

We must remember that the EPA was not the result of the activities of the Liberal Lefties from the 1960s but a creation of the Nixon Administration. After Nixon signed off on the elimination of the Military Draft in 73, many on the Left were convinced that Nixon had experienced a Liberal Conversion but many of his Left Leaning Programs have survived to become a major source of constant division within our society. Much of it coming from the river of junk science that has spilled out of private universities committed to private sources of funding like the Koch family who promotes a toxic agenda that only emboldens their specific view. Those in the scientific community who refuse to bend the facts to further this agenda are exposed as blasphemers and cast into the pit reserved for deniers !

Reply to  Richard T.
April 11, 2015 11:19 am

Richard T.

Much of it coming from the river of junk science that has spilled out of private universities committed to private sources of funding like the Koch family who promotes a toxic agenda that only emboldens their specific view. Those in the scientific community who refuse to bend the facts to further this agenda are exposed as blasphemers and cast into the pit reserved for deniers !

You missed your /sarchasm at the end there. You know, that gaping whole between a liberal and the real world.
By the way, if $25,000.00 one time paid to a scientist by the Koch brothers buys a “toxic agenda” … How many self-selected so-called “scientists” can you buy for Big Government, Big Academia and Big Finance for 90 billion dollars in Big Government money paid in just the last three years?
See, there is no such “river of junk science” pouring from “private universities” with “private sources of funding” as you seem to believe. And those so-called “private universities” are fully in bed with their private, public, and anonymous grant money to produce and propagate the CAGW religion that their Government demands.

April 8, 2015 3:58 pm

” A different opinion.” is only a problem if it is right ..

April 8, 2015 4:19 pm

Has there ever been an instance when political authority and a fervent ideology completely embraced that has not resulted in human blood sacrifice?

April 9, 2015 6:50 am

“Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more.”
Hi Eric, just a quick note to point out that the thing that generally kills people is called mortality. It’s apparently incurable, so any green heroes out there pretending to have a sure-fire cure via imprisoning skeptics can probably be safely discounted. Don’t know who the AGW ratbags will imprison for the mortality snafu though, but that’s the crux of it mate. Cheers.

April 10, 2015 2:06 pm

As Marshall saw when his funding was threatened and he nearly lost his University job because everyone in the field declared that bacteria couldn’t be a cause of peptic ulcers. After going to the lunatic lengths of infecting himself and using antibiotics to cure himself he was (of course) later awarded a Nobel Prize. Science is ALL about testing others’ theories and funding for that process should always be available.