Ugly: "Why climate denial should be a criminal offence"

Christopher Smith writes in WUWT Tips and Notes:

Dr Jarrod Gilbert: Why climate denial should be a criminal offence


Dr. Jarrod Gilbert

5:00 AM Tuesday Jul 26, 2016

New Zealand Social Scientist Dr Jarrod Gilbert is calling for the Crime of Climate Change Denial to be adopted.

There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change. The scientific consensus is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud. Denial has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested. The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.

Since the 1960s, it has been known that heat-trapping gasses were increasing in the earth’s atmosphere, but no one knew to what effect. In 1979, a study found “no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible”. Since then scientists have been seeking to prove it, and the results are in.

Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities. The American Association for the Advancement of Science compared it to the consensus linking smoking to cancer. The debate is over, yet doubt continues.


Using the “meta studies” of 97% consensus as his applicable research, this truly original thinker, investigator, capable observer both impartial and unbiased, has unleashed his completely reverent. timely and accurate assessment of his media fed diet of Apocalyptic climate change. Heaven forbid Nasa would ever make a mistake, falsify data or misrepresent and adjust 176 years of impartial data observations to suit its own data modelling efforts.

I’m ashamed to be a Kiwi when I read articles like this …. and I despair for the scientific method….


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Pete Wilson

I saw this on the Herald site today, as usual no comment section, just this fascist and his hateful bile. How low have we sunk when this sort of garbage is offered up as a meaningful contribution to any debate (over or not).
The MSM in New Zealand is as bad as anywhere in this regard.. Shame!


Sad how the REAL denialists are those pushing the CAGW meme. Would being caught in their own snare be considered honorable or just plain stupid?

It cannot be emphasized enough: the only true climate change deniers in this issue are those demanding the climate to be reset back to a point arbitrarily chosen from around 150 years ago …. and that the climate be forbidden to change from that point from now on.


Climelot: Climelot
I know it sounds a bit bizarre
But in Climelot: Climelot
That’s how conditions are . .
In short, there’s simply not a more congenial spot
For happily ever after in than here in Climelot !

Pete @ 2:37 am: Re: ” as usual no comment section”. I have noticed that as well, it seems to have become standard practice by the MSM that is becoming the norm. ‘My way or the highway” . To me it is the saddest thing that is happening to the whole human race. This type of clamping down of the population is actually very frightening to me. Other people have noticed that there also seems to be a movement to slowly exclude our generation ( the seemingly last one to get an education rather than indoctrination). I have noticed that as well. Comments?

Lucius von Steinkaninchen

Fortunately for us, the Internet is *way* bigger than the comment section of a newspaper/news site. Every time that I see that sort of CAGW “news” popping up in free social media, were comments *are* allowed, usually reason prevails and most people point it for what it is a modern times inquisition using fascist techniques.

We must resist and call their bluff at every turn. This Gilbert character is a real nut being paid to push the position of the far-left goons. If he doesn’t play ball he will be replaced by somewhere who will – still, he is selling his soul to the forces of darkness.


He is a prime example of the worst the human race has produced over however long it has been that people have been able to string thoughts and emotions together. Their ilk as brought so much misery to the world that only a giant meteor strike might approach it.


The comments section under Herald stories, especially climate stories, used to be fun. And part of the fun was seeing, over a period of somewhere up to ten years, the twin developments of the warmists steadily losing ground and their arguments becoming more shrill and less scientific. At some time over the past year or two an editorial decision must have been made that comments were destroying the narrative; the percentage of posters who agreed with the thrust of each story was diminishing to the point where an approval rate in double digits was rarely achieved — and then only because the guy who signed himself Gandalf was contributing at a rate that indicated he was pretty much a fulltime keyboard warrior.
No news organ, leaning left or right, is going to continue providing a platform for contrary views. It simply makes no sense.
So, I consider the Herald’s withdrawal of comments on virtually all news and opinion pieces to be a battle won in the Climate Wars.

george e. smith

It should be a criminal offence to call Social Studies a science..


I hope you intended no pun in your comment above as I don’t ever remember a truer statement.
Jarrod Gilbert is a nut case and no scientist. Those like him seem suffer from severe clinical ‘projection’ which may be treatable with long term psychiatric counseling. Another possibility/probability is that he is perpetuating a global level fraud and the treatment would be considerably different for such a criminal offense.

John Harmsworth

It’s certainly intellectually offensive. Dr. Jerrod Gilbert H.A. (Horses Ass). From a “discipline?” wherein over 60% of peer reviewed papers cannot be replicated, presumes to place himself in judgement of both science and law that is beyond his intellectual grasp. All hail Emperor Jerrod! Doesn’t he know he has no clothes?

alan neil ditchfield

Alan Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, collected clippings of weird things written by post-modern thinkers about hard science, especially those who use abstruse mathematical terms to make their text incomprehensible, and be mistaken as profound. He grew weary of nonsense about a science described as white, male and Eurocentric. He came to the conclusion that there is no such thing called a social science, because anything goes. He submitted his opinion to experimental test.
That a prestigious sociology journal would publish an essay full of outrageous statements, from a scientific point of view, provided it was:
Well written and of learned appearance;
Attuned to the prejudices of the editor.
Sokal’s essay announced the discovery of Quantum Gravity, the synthesis in a superior plane of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, which supersedes both. He had done it with the dialectical logic of social sciences that did away with the outworn formal logic and systematic experiment, still in use and unduly so. The implications of quantum gravity are so revolutionary that the article had been rejected for publication in peer-reviewed journals of physics, and this was the reason for the request for publication in Social Text, a periodical known for an open mind.
The article had nonsense galore, immediately perceptible as a joke by an engineering student. The essay favored mathematics free from the constraints of the rules of arithmetic and stood against the teaching of the geometry of Euclid, an instrument of domination of the working class. There was anti-feminist prejudice in fluid mechanics. All would be relative. The number pi( 3.1416), the speed of light, c, and the constant of gravitation, G, accepted as constants in a given epoch, would change in another social context. [For pi=4, would circles become squares and planets cubes?]
None of this was invented by Sokal; all the nonsense was extracted from what was stated by post-modernist thinkers about hard science and is supported by more than one hundred citations.
Sokal’s essay Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity was published “Social Text” #46/47, pp. 217-252 (1996).
In another publication, at the same time, Sokal explained what he had done and regretted that a silent tide of irrationality threatened institutions of higher learning to dictate, from a blind and intolerant pulpit, what is right to do, say and think.
France is home to scientists like Descartes, Pascal, Fermat, D’Alembert, Delambre, Fourier, Lagrange, Monge, Poisson, Laplace, Cauchy, Galois, Poincaré, Benoit Mandelbrot. Then came Post-modernists with the semantics of a Lewis Carroll character: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”. It leads to proficiency in: Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, Derision, in the strange world of Alice in Wonderland.
Sokal’s essay is available on Internet at: .

You would reach far more people by writing a letter to the editor. Articles like this are sometimes published to draw mail. Your letter would be more likely to be published if either (a) you are a subscriber, or (b) you have credentials in climate science or social studies. If the paper received multiple letters, so much the better.


I’ve found Letters to the Editor to be a waste of time. Most who read them are usually in a politically opinionated “my mind’s made up” group seeking an argument. Those who need enlightenment only read the sports page and the comics.
Besides, most politically correct newspapers will not print any CAGW skepticism.


Actually the U.S is a stride ahead of NZ. No known media value in more than half a century. The informed read, watch MSM to discover which lies they need to background themselves about. Hat tip to Gore for the ‘Net.

I too am a New Zealander utterly ashamed of my origins. I would welcome this clown to try to arrest me. No doubt he would vigorously defend THIS


As an NZer I too am ashamed. I am hoping to get a “letter to the Editor” published – but don’t hold out too much hope. This is about “the Cause”, it is no longer a matter of science, but we all knew that many years ago.


Jackboot Jarrod does have a blog in which he revisits his tosh. No comments there at this time. Or no comments that he wants to publish! What a nutball.

Freddy Eagle

I did not know till now IKEA bookshelves came with a ladder! Must get me one for my new selfie.


The NZ Fourth Estate, as ever keen to demonstrate the traitorous betrayal of their societal role. Therein resides the claim of criminal offense.

Robert of Ottawa

The article starts: Dr Jarrod Gilbert is a sociologist …
‘Nuff said. The question is why he says this now.


The name Dr Jarrod Gilbert is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.
Thanks for your contribution to the advancement of science doc.

Tom in Florida

Move over John Kerry, you may have met your match.

John Harmsworth

Trying to get a grant probably. Hardly looks employable to me, but might do for government work.


Absolutely correct. I believe he simply realized little late how much money there is in climate propaganda and he wants a piece of the action. Being a sociologist, he lacks the internal consistency checks that a physicist would apply, at least to thoughts he expresses in public.


Made it as far as the first six words in the NZ article: Dr Jarrod Gilbert is a sociologist . . .
It was late. Had to grab some sleep.

Photo of a fat healthy polar bear on an ice flow makes the irony even richer.

I wondered if somebody had to show him how to open the book he was holding.


This AGW indoctrinated trougher with his “heat trapping gases” and “smokers” meme, is certainly going to get an email from me. Obviously guzzled too much Koolaid.


Yes, it was the ‘heat trapping gases’ bit that caught my ire. What a blathering idiot. Obviously with his superior intellect, he would have no problem debating the issue on WUWT with all the mindless fools.
(The last sentence was sarcasm by the way)

Doubleplus ungood crimethink?


When I read his statement, “there is no greater crime” I immediately thought of V for Vendetta. It is ironic how Hollywood portrays fascism as right-wing when it is clearly the method of the liberal agenda.
In this case, “deny” is not equated to proof. “Deny” is equated to consensus. Thus, the “greatest crime” is to think for oneself.
To further his argument, he then states that “intelligence” is indicated by accepting the consensus. Anyone who analyzes the evidence and does not submit to the unproven consensus is a “mindless fool”.
George Orwell is wagging his finger with a bold “I told you so!!”


Beyond that, nobody denies that climate changes.
What the debate is about is first, how much is it changing, and secondly how much of that change is man responsible for.


I thought there was a third question too, how much should be invested in Mann Made Global Warming ™ without bankrupting Western Civilisation.

Rod Everson

mailman: And a fourth: Is the forecasted warming, should it occur, even bad for humanity and the earth? The answer is certainly not obvious.


mailman, I thought bankrupting western civilization was the goal?


Beyond that, nobody denies that climate changes.
What the debate is about is first, how much is it changing, and secondly how much of that change is man responsible for.”
and thirdly, what to do to Be Prepared for whatever change happens (bigger storm sewers? more trees? smaller cities? better insulated buildings for both warm or cool change? etc).


One has to say there is a unique opportunity for the Climate Realist equivalent of Nelson Mandela to one day electrify the world with a court case so profound, so compelling and so pure in the way that the defendant takes to pieces the credentials of the Judge, the Prosecutors, the Established media and the law enforcement professions by speaking unpalatable truth not solely to power, but to 12 Good People and True who will hopefully still be legally charged with sitting as a jury in a duly constituted Court of Law………
‘I want to apply for Your Worship’s recusal from this case. I challenge the right of this court to hear my case on two grounds.
Firstly, I challenge it because I fear that I will not be given a fair and proper trial. Secondly, I consider myself neither legally nor morally bound to obey laws made by a parliament in which I have no representation.
In a political trial such as this one, which involves a clash of the aspirations of the African people and those of whites, the country’s courts, as presently constituted, cannot be impartial and fair.
In such cases, whites are interested parties. To have a white judicial officer presiding, however high his esteem, and however strong his sense of fairness and justice, is to make whites judges in their own case.
It is improper and against the elementary principles of justice to entrust whites with cases involving the denial by them of basic human rights to the African people.
What sort of justice is this that enables the aggrieved to sit in judgement over those against whom they have laid a charge?
A judiciary controlled entirely by whites and enforcing laws enacted by a white parliament in which Africans have no representation – laws which in most cases are passed in the face of unanimous opposition from Africans -‘
I’m sure a little changing of a few words in there and climate realists will get the gist of what I am talking about…….


Had a law professor who said you can sue a “ham-sandwich” if you wanted to.


Gather “information” on something, some individual, some organization, some company and build a case.

John Harmsworth

Cool idea! All I ever really want is the ham anyway! That and seeing the look on bread’s face.


Don’t you know that Nelson Mandela was a mass-murdering communist who never apologized for any of the victims he had brutally slaughtered? the only reason he sought reconciliation is because his patron, the Soviet Union, collapsed around the time he came to power.
The Statist Collectivists have not only lied about Climate Change, they lie about EVERYTHING – including Mandela’s record. If one is skeptical about the CAGW hypothesis one should also be skeptical about everything the Left lionizes – and it turns out Mandela is the beneficiary of Leftist propaganda that does not match his actual record. If he apologized for any of his victims he might be left off, but he was completely unrepentant.
See Stefan Molyneaux’s “The Truth About Nelson Mandela”, and there are also great exposes of the perpetual cadger Karl Marx, the psychopathic Che Guevara, and the deceptive Ghandi.
“The Truth About Nelson Mandela ”

Please stop repeating the false memes of the Collectivists. Mandela was an unrepentant mass murderer – the lives of his victims matter !
“The Truth About” Series with Stefan Molyneux

Roy Taylor

What is this idiot going to say in 5 years when they have all changed their minds?


they will say “The efforts that they made resulted in the blunting of the climate catastrophe that would have occurred, AND the sustainable practices that have been implemented because of the lessened reliance on fossil fuels were worth it.”
They will rationalize their beliefs and actions until they die (or retire on a government pension).


Look at how many still believe that banning CFCs saved the ozone layer.

John Harmsworth

After they’ve sacrificed the world economy on the alter of Climate , they will blame the world’s desperation on Capitalism and tell us that Socialism is the only path to salvation. That and free money. Free money is always available.


Years ago their cover would have been, “I never said that.” Now they’re stuck with, “My words were misinterpreted.”

“Taken out of context,” is what they’ll say.


There are lots of options.
– Some of them never repent.
– Some of them deny ever thinking about criminalizing dissent
– Some of them continue their fascist ideas with different targets
– Some of them change their mind, but new fascists always appear
The idea that quantification of an antropogenic greenhouse effect could be written to a lawbook as a some kind of god that cannot be questioned, is far-fetched but definitely both stupid and dangerous.

Alex Jenkins

I’m really starting to despair for the scientific tradition, with the way we’re going. From the “AGs united for clean power with Loretta Lynch and the rest of them, and Al Gore, to this. Is it going to actually be put in place? It looks somewhat likely, given the leaders we have at the moment, and from what I can see, we could actually be put in gulags, mental institutes or prison for holding certain beliefs in the near future. I wonder what we could do to at least try and stem the tide to where we are heading.


This would be funny if these lunatics weren’t so deadly serious.
However… the “greater crime being perpetuated on future generations” is these idiots running up huge debt to fight a war against an illusory foe, destroying the landscape to build useless windmills, and shutting down all of the most effective methods of power generation, and distracting our civilization from the real, armed, warring enemy.
History will not be kind to these despicable alarmists. I intend to make sure of that.

Geoff Sherrington

Perpetrated not perpetuated.
Perpetrate – Carry out or commit (a harmful, illegal, or immoral action)
Perpetuate – Make (something) continue indefinitely


Hey don’t be too hard on him, he’s only a sociologist after all !!

Quick to judge, are we? If you look at the relative positions of the “r” and “u” in relation to the homerow letters “f” and “j” on the qwerty keyboard, all one need do is use the right index finger rather than the left index finger and the word perpetrate becomes perpetuate. Perhaps not “illiterate”, but a simple typo. Happens to me regularly as I age. Chill out, Geoffy!

There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change.
Passing on government debt for future generations to pay has to be a contender for greatest “crime being [perpetrated] on future generations.”

Harry Passfield

Then again, Geoff: “Perpetuate – Make (something) continue indefinitely” – the criminal insanity being visited on us and our descendants by the Green blob could be said to be perpetuated. 🙂

Chris Riley

To me tis looks more like a spelcheck, a feature that is gud at turning a misspelled word into a rong word dat is spelled correctly. boy im glad i dont hafe that prollum.

Jan Christoffersen

I think he means it is being extended to future generations. So, his usage is correct but the article is dreadful drivel nonetheless.

Michael Jankowski

You can perpetrate a crime ON someone…which is his exact wording and context.
Perpetuating denial ON future generations makes no sense.
First usage below is wrong…second is correct.
“..There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change. The scientific consensus is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud…”

James J Strom

Word similarity plus lack of curiosity. It’s not a typo, since you hear people offering the same confusion in speech. On the bright side maybe Gilbert should relax. If the “error” has been perpetuated there’s nothing to be done about it.


“…all one need do is use the right index finger rather than the left index finger…”
As a potentially perpetual perpetrator of a thought crime, I’m inclined to use other fingers in response to my persecutors proposed prosecution . .


For the record, I just copied and pasted the sentence.

Geoff Sherrington

Code Tech
That is what I understood.
The illiterates are the original writers. Did not mean it otherwise.
Cheers. Geoff


Ah, yes…. Long live the logical fallacies of argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam, with just a touch of post hoc ergo propter hoc to give it a nice robust flavor…
A recipe for disaster..
NASA’s motto used to be: “In God we trust.. Everyone else, send data”…
Of course this old NASA motto is no longer Politically Correct, so it’s been adjusted to: In government funding we trust. Everyone else, send model projections…

Not Oscar, just a grouch

You see, you confuse these people when you use difficult words such as “fallacies.” With their low-voltage intellects, they probably think you’re talking about their genitals.


Dr Jarrod Gilbert, the perfect puppet for the climate inquisition.

Frederick Michael

No one expects the inquisition.


Do you deny, or have you ever denied an IPCC truth (TM) on climate change, its attribution or mitigation policies?

Michael C. Roberts

No one expects the SPANISH Inquisition!
(h/t Monty Python’s Flying Circus…)

Just watched this had forgotten how exquisitely (or is that inquisitely?) funny this is……


FOr Goodness sake.
New Zealand was where the first challenge to data in court occurred. The warmists refused to turn up to defend it once the sceptics evidence was given.
New Zealand also was exposed as the warmist cartel tried to get a man sacked from University for not kowtowing to them. They failed there also.
New Zealand also was where a court rejected a Pacific Islander’s facetious claim as being a climate change refugee.
Yet this climate advocate is trying to get sceptics jailed? He must like losing in court or he is some sort of educated simpleton.


… or an uneducated simpleton.
“The name Dr Jarrod Gilbert is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool” as they say in NZ.


I don’t know, I kind of like the phrase ‘educated simpleton’. It neatly sums up my opinion of 97% of academia today.

“uneducated simpleton” “mindless fool”
As are so many in the fields of sociology, psychology, and law that have brought about destructive ideologies and practices that are undermining our cultural stability. I fear for my grandchildren.

Alan Wilkinson

The article is ignorant, abusive drivel but the headline is even worse. Even the writer has disowned it entirely. A disgrace to journalism, basic intelligence and decency. The MSM digs its own grave.

They won’t need a grave. Like scifi golems of film, they’ll just go up on in a puff of smoke and disappear.

Rod Everson

Anthony, If Mr. Wilkinson is correct and the writer of the article has lodged an objection to the headline, you should definitely update the article to include his objection. Upon re-reading the text of the article, the writer did not call for making skepticism a “criminal offense.” Rather, he stated that there is “no greater crime” than skepticism. There is a difference. He’s using hyperbole. He’s not calling for legislation to criminalize skepticism, as the headline writer implied.

John Harmsworth

There is a magical point where stupidity becomes dangerous. This idiot crossed the line.

He used the word “crime” three times in his article and “criminal” once – and ended with a reference to the law – then complained the damning headline went too far?
He’s a professional sociologist.
What did he think the headline writers would do with an essay that begins: “There is no greater crime being perpetuated…”? That is also irrational.

Mark - Helsinki

“He’s a professional “pseudo-intellectual””
Fixed that for you SJ, love your work by the way.

James Allison

The problem people such as Dr Jarrod Gilbert have is they think that doubters of the validity of the climate models and ‘evidence’ are made up of a small fringe section of society. Thus easily attacked and denigrated. The best course of action would be to demonstrate by email to Dr Jarrod Gilbert that he is mistaken.

Joe Crawford

“The problem people such as Dr Jerrod Gilbert have is” … the hollow space between their ears. Even if presented with a decent education there is nothing there to absorb it.

Words fail me.

Pop Piasa

Dr Gilbert’s logic fails him.

Mark - Helsinki

The fact he has a doctorate shows there is inherent failures in academia

Eugene WR Gallun

Mark-Helsinki — John Cook The Books is working towards his doctorate. — Eugene WR Gallun

Mark - Helsinki

Lol Jarrod, I tried to have a rational discussion with the guy. even in his friend social science and his concept of denial.
His replies
Jarrod Gilbert ‏@JarrodGilbertNZ 29m29 minutes ago
@Logic_Argue I found the answers to such questions in the Matrix. Only the first one, though. I thought they were rubbish after that.

Jarrod Gilbert ‏@JarrodGilbertNZ 34m34 minutes ago
@Logic_Argue C I’m a terrible cook. I mean really bad. Embarrassing, really. Even simple things like eggs.
Jarrod Gilbert ‏@JarrodGilbertNZ 38m38 minutes ago
@Logic_Argue And I’m asking to pull off one of your ears. That’s not unfair either. You have two of them!
Jarrod Gilbert ‏@JarrodGilbertNZ 41m41 minutes ago
@Logic_Argue Just because I want to tap your eye with your ear doesn’t mean I will block you. I mean, where would my manners be?
Finally he ran away
Jarrod Gilbert ‏@JarrodGilbertNZ 30m30 minutes ago
@Logic_Argue Anyhoo, great talking with you but best I get some sleep now. Too many maniacs, not enough time in the day. You know how it is.
except he didnt
Jarrod Gilbert ‏@JarrodGilbertNZ 46m46 minutes ago
Jarrod Gilbert Retweeted Jarrod Gilbert
Sometimes I like to think creativity trumps reason.
Yes this loon is poisoning young minds all at tax payers expense

Mark - Helsinki

even in his field*


He’s outstanding in his field.
And someone needs to go get him before it starts raining.

Mark - Helsinki

+1 marko, niiiiiice 😀

Eugene WR Gallun

MarkW — Takes a few seconds to get it. Doesn’t know enough to come in out of the rain. — Eugene WR Gallun


Mark W:
He’s admitted he lives in NZ. It’s winter in NZ. It’s stopped raining—barely—for only a few short intervals over the last two months. That photo must be at least four months old. That’s when it was fine and dry.


Please, stop picking at the poor man. All he’s suggesting is that you should be locked you for not agreeing with him. Try to remember he was once human, as human as you and I.

John Harmsworth

If you knew him as a kid, you might not feel that way!

Not owned by Fairfax is it? Or The Guardian,
going bust?

Mark - Helsinki

The guardian like twitter is appealing to the ideologues to try stay relevant.

Trying to go broke, while Evangelizing about coal and gas and … silly stuff

Frederik Michiels

i always find it amusing when they use the word “deniers”: Like if we would “deny the climate is changing”.
i have bad news for them: almost every CAGW sceptic does say the climate is changing, but got the big picture right: earth’s climate is always changing, it did so in the past, will do it in the future, it will go up, but also will go down. CO2 can’t be “the mother of all drivers”, it’s far to insignificant compared to water vapor.
ice core data also shows that what we see now is peanuts and perfectly normal compared to what earth can throw at us.

Eustace Cranch

You have to understand that the warmist definition of “climate change” is CAGW. Never mind what the actual words mean. Therefore, being skeptical of CAGW = denying “climate change.”
They will ALWAYS twist the words so you can’t win.


To many environmentalists, any change to nature, if it is caused by man, is by definition evil and most be fought, no matter the cost.

Michael Jankowski

“Denier” is a rhetorical device meant to associate skeptics with Holocaust deniers. You may laugh, but it leaves an impression on some.


My Oxford English Dictionary has a single meaning for “denier and it’s:
One who denies a religion.
That’s it.
’nuff said.


I looked this guy up on the university website. His field of research is “Gangs”, Murder, Justice & Injustice and Criminal recidivism and desistance.
I’m ashamed the The Press, who regularly publishes un-documented and therefore fictional articles about climate change could stoop this low.
Strangely enough I have an example of the Herald’s fiction and my efforrts to enquire of the source of one of their previous articles on my website.

Harry Passfield

It seems that ‘AAAS’ now stands for ‘Antipodean Association for the Advancement of Stoopid’


No, it stands for : where did you get your proof of CAGW? I pulled it out of [my] AAAS.

It is good that Dr Jarrod Gilbert does not “Climat-weibing” – his Red Guards, because we would have made a revolution of climate (such as Cultural Revolution – with the same result).
I’m kidding?
How much will cost us “fighting” against climate change (eg. CCS, wind turbines – aviation radars, etc.)?
For example “political correctness” (the Syrian refuges) costs, some EU countries, hundreds dead.
The Science, dear “Dr”, is not a democracy – does not create the majority by “voting” (although here the alarmist CAGW majority is very, very questionable).

George Lawson

Only a ‘mindless fool’ like Dr? Gilbert, would call the thousands of expert scientists who disagree with his theory, ‘mindless fools’. Gilbert should be stripped of his academic qualifications through treating his fellow scientist and others who disagree with him so disgracefully. It is clear that he has great difficulty in getting his theories accepted through sound argument, and still supports the ridiculous 97 per cent. falsehood.


treating his fellow scientist and others who disagree

I am a chemist and I do not consider sociologists to be fellow scientists by any stretch of the imagination. This guy is just one example why.

Mark - Helsinki

After my interlude with Jarrod this happened on Twitter
“Your account has been locked.”

Vlad the Impaler

Best thing that has ever happened to you.

Mark - Helsinki

Yep I logged a ticket asking Twitter to not just block me but delete my acc 😀

Bruce Cobb

There is no greater crime being perpetuated on…”
In addition to his extreme failures in logic, and total demagoguery, Jarrod is a language retard. You can’t perpetuate on, you can only perpetrate on.

The noble quest of chaging the weather by collecting carbon taxes needs these idiots.


Aren’t these carbon taxes really “sin” taxes ?

Miles Fortis

No, the best analogy is the “indulgences” that were bought from the Church in the late 15th/early 16th century that drove Martin Luther to nail his Theses on that church door.


IMHO Dr Gilbert should not be prosecuted for his Illogical arguments. What catastrophe awaits us when this mindless drivel comes from the mouths of “social scientists”? Does no-one speak out about this undemocratic nonsense? It continues to poison civilized society. Perhaps he should withdraw from civilization as we know it and return to the caves of prehistoric man.
I certainly hope he doesn’t continue to use any carbon-based energy to support his lifestyle – now that would be unethical for a “social scientist” who thinks like he does.


There are rarely any consequences for spouting this type of nonsense (in fact, doing so often results in more attention and approval from the brain-damaged) because any publicity is good publicity. The parents have left the house and the children are in charge.


He shouldn’t be prosecuted for his crimes against humanity. No, the insane should never be punished. But he should be locked up in a safe place where he can’t harm anybody anymore.

This loony alarmist Gilbert said:

The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.

Well, if that’s all they are, what’s he so upset about..? If they’re only ‘mindless fools’, surely they pose no threat to anyone? Hmmmm….
Unbelievable – it just gets worse by the hour!
What I cannot understand is how anyone even listens to these lunatics, let alone publishes their sick and twisted ideology and HATE propaganda in a once respected newspaper such as the NZ Herald.
They are the true criminals by their very own lefty SJW ‘hate and vilification’ criteria.

John Harmsworth

Even a mindless fool is Einstein’s smarter cousin to this guy!


Yes indeed! If anyone is to be prosecuted, then these people for using “hate speech”and promoting irrationality!

Timo Soren

“No greater crime is being perpetrated on future generations than” allowing this guy an audience of young minds, unless of course, he is allowed to have children.


He forgot to define ‘climate change denial.’
Anyone here who denies that climate changes, raise your hand…
Okay. I didn’t see any hands raised. Dr. Gilbert must be talking about the hockey stick handle believers.

This one pairs well with Dr. Ball’s article over the weekend. Clearly this person is a title with no intelligence behind it. But I am sure regimes of the past would love his ignorane. Like Stalinist Russia and Lysenkoism.


The old phrase, “useful idiots” comes to mind, phil. They go to the glue factory when they are no longer useful.


His last words are likely to be, “If only the Führer knew what was happening!”

Alan the Brit

“The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.”
Well, I guess it takes one to know one,as they say!

Yes, the NZ media has sunk to a new low. As a Kiwi I feel rather ashamed and fear greatly for our youth. I penned the following reply to the NZ Herald…but I doubt they will publish it as they stopped printing my letters 3 years ago:
“Jarrod Gilbert could not be more wrong…the greatest “crime being perpetuated on future generations” is not by climate skeptics but rather by those academics, media, NGOs and the UN who perpetuate the global warming myth. It is they who should be tried for a “criminal offense” against humanity. If one fraction of the millions spent by the 40,000 parasites at the last IPCC talkfest in Paris had been spent drilling water wells in Africa instead, millions of lives could be saved in a few years.
As a sociologist apparently Gilbert feels he knows more that the thousands of scientists who are actually brave enough to stand up to the media hype. Could he please provide even one scientific fact to show that manmade CO2 has been anything but beneficial for this planet and the plants that grow thereon.”

John Harmsworth

Well done!


Try the religious version:
There is no greater ‘apostasy’ being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny ‘religious truth’. The ‘God-given truth’ is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to perpetuate a ‘devilish deception’. ‘Unbelief’ has become a yardstick by which ‘morality and faith’ can be tested. The term ‘heretic’ is now interchangeable with the term ‘immoral sinner’.
Since the 1960s, it has been known that heat-trapping gasses were increasing in the earth’s atmosphere, but no one knew to what effect. In 1979, a study found “no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible”. Since then ‘religious scholars’ have been seeking to prove it, and the results are in.
Meta studies show that 97 per cent of ‘published clerics’ agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities. The ‘Global Association for the Advancement of Faith’ compared it to the consensus linking ‘sin to damnation’. The debate is over, yet doubt continues.

John Harmsworth


Steve T

Words fail me. But then would anyone really expect a social scientist to have a clue about the scientific method?
Trapped by believing what he’s told – not checking and looking for any counter argument and then making his own mind up. Perhaps that’s the problem – no mind of his own.
Take care, these people walk among us.

By his own logic then, advocating foolish positions in other areas of public policy must be criminalized. We could start by the proof offered by Dr. Ludwig von Mises that a socialist economy was literally impossible because it destroys essential price information and thus destroys the ability of participants to make rational economic decisions. We could move from there to social policy in the US that has destroyed the black family structure such that over 70% of black children grow to adulthood without a father in the home and that black males commit murder at a rate of 8x that of white males. Then there is the now-popular idea that the economy can be stimulated by printing and borrowing near-infinite amounts of debt that pays for crony capitalism and government “benefits”.
But who gets to decide what is foolish and what is rational? The very concept that foolish positions must be criminalized implies that elites install themselves as the arbiters of truth. Let us return to a “science” that tells us the earth is flat and the sun orbits around it.

John Harmsworth

Hey Buck! Care to run for office? Might be hard to find a party that questions these notions as much as you do, but I’d vote for you!

Gerald Machnee

Now there is the crime of 97 percent.

‘Denial has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested. The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.’
Judging by the principle literature in support of a psychological phenomenon ‘denialism’, which is of a poor standard, there is in fact no such concept shown to exist:


Well, ‘climate deniers’ do put national security at risk – that’s the US Navy view:


And back in 2004 they predicted that by 2020 the world would be gripped by climate induced nuclear war and multiple major European cities would be submerged by rising seas.
Get back to me once their last prediction pans out.

Bruce Cobb

Rear Adm. Jonathan White, the Navy’s chief oceanographer and head of its climate-change task force, is one of the most knowledgeable people in the military about what’s actually happening on our rapidly heating planet. Whenever another officer or a congressperson corners White and presses him about why he spends so much time thinking about climate change, he doesn’t even try to explain thermal expansion of the oceans or ice dynamics in the Arctic. “I just take them down to Norfolk,” White says. “When you see what’s going on down there, it gives you a sense of what climate change means to the Navy — and to America. And you can see why we’re concerned.”

Either he’s a total moron, a liar, or a bit of both. What is happening there is due primarily to subsidence and landfill settling. Plus, I would love to hear him explain about “thermal expansion of the oceans” or “ice dynamics in the Arctic”. It would be a laugh riot, guaranteed.

Exactly. GangGreen has infiltrated everywhere that matters, government, media, education systems. Their propaganda should be working and it did for quite some time, but it’s breaking apart now and very obviously. The people have turned against them. That’s what they can’t understand. All that effort and it’s not working anymore.

John Harmsworth

Somehow, I bet it requires bigger Navy budgets.

A Military man is the epitome of an Establishment puppet.

What a mindless fool, a so-called “sociologist” blundering into the climate debate from a position of such ignorance.
He seems a bit confused. Trying to back out of the headline he says
Jarrod Gilbert ‏@JarrodGilbertNZ 9h
To whom it may concern,
NO I don’t want to criminalise climate change denial.
[f word redacted]
but that’s contradicting what he wrote in the article: “It ought be seen as a crime.”

Mark - Helsinki

I tried to engage on his terms and he still fled the scene, after telling me he’d like to chop off one of my ears and poke me in the eye with it lol


Never engage cretinous intellectual coward slimeballs like Gilbert on their own terms.

Mark - Helsinki

meh, I dont mind, I got him to show his true colours, that alone was worth it, it’s being RTd over twitter now 🙂

John Harmsworth

Threats involving body parts don’t mean much from somebody who doesn’t know his ass from his elbow.


Looks like the prisons are gonna be rather full soon then, best book a room quick.


Anyone who continues to use the bogus ‘97%’ figure advertises their ignorance and activism to the world. Ignore.

Steve (Paris)

Unless I’m misreading his blog his primary interest is in motorcycle gang culture.
Srsly, how does one go from there to ‘denial of CAGW is thoughtcrime’?

I bet money is involved.


As blogger J.Gilbert dared to question gang crime data (9/2/16). Seems he should be turning himself in to a gulag for questioning settled science.

A good example of why no one should pay attention to a social scientist.
His first error is in quoting a fraudulent claim about consensus.
His major error is in assuming that anyone who is skeptical of the actions of the alarmists
believes that humans have caused no global warming – I know of no skeptical scientists who believe that one. The man doesn’t even understand the basic facts or issues in the debate.
Another problem is his apparent belief that global warming is occurring – in this case he is the one in denial.
Another problem is his belief that the global warming that is occuring will be harmful
and that emissions will not be reduced by economic reasons – cheaper molten salt reactors that
produce zero emissions.
This is why I laugh anytime a social scientist makes any claim – even claims that are relevant to
his science. He clearly is not qualified to make any statements about climate science.


In my close up experience, if you scratch intellectual veneer of far too many academics, you find hateful bigots who use sciencey and educated words to push their ironically anti-intellectual, intolerant and harmful ideas. Dr. Gilbert literally has not one fact to offer in his bizarre hate-on for those who dare disagree with him. Gilbert is at best a trained parrot, saying things he has heard repeated over and over until he can echo them with an nearly authentic sound. But on close listening he is apparently doing so with no actual intelligence required. Certainly he accomplishes his noisy squawk without need for ethics or morality.


He is a social scientist not a real hard science scientist. So what do you expect from him. He has no idea how to handle actual real hard science and things it is all squishy and subject to what the crowd thinks not what the data thinks.

Paul Westhaver

Take note of who the fascists are. They feel empowered and invincible. You will know them by what they say and do. So never never forget. The pendulum has passed its inflection point and is swinging away from the CAGW extremists. A new dawn is coming.

YES. Well said. Much better than my many attempts. +1000


Extremism comes out of an extensive environment of hate speech and often protected by free speech and other freedoms in the early phases. Pakistani Madrasas come to mind as modern day examples.

Does anybody deny that the climate changes?


Phillip Bratby July 26, 2016 at 7:39 am
“Does anybody deny that the climate changes?”
I already took a poll on that (above), Phillip.
Nobody here raised their hand.


“There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change.”…
“Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities.”
Yep we noticed the social scientist pea and thimble trick there and it’s been done to death doc. Do keep up. It’s been extreme weather for quite a while now but they tell me coral bleaching is all the go at the moment.


I recently wrote a piece on the subject.
Google: Denier Pride Bob Hoye
Maybe it could be posted in this forum?


There’s a “Submit story” button at the top of the page on the site toolbar. Have a look there for more information.


Thanks–I submitted it last week “Denier Pride”