The Global Warming Thought Police Want Climate Skeptics In ‘Jail’
Guest opinion by Kerry Jackson
Conform or else! That’s the message of the global warming alarmists. Those who don’t buy into the man-made climate change narrative should be prosecuted as criminals.
“Put officials who reject science in jail,” someone named Brad Johnson who says he’s executive director of something called Climate Hawks Vote tweeted last month.
At roughly the same time, Mark Hertsgaard typed a screed in The Nation which ran under the headline:
“Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us: The victims of Hurricane Harvey have a murderer — and it’s not the storm.”
“How long,” Hertsgaard asked, “before we hold the ultimate authors of such climate catastrophes accountable for the miseries they inflict?”
And then there’s Bill Nye, the Junk Science Guy, who hasn’t been able to cover up his apparent desire to see “criminal investigations” against those ignoring his truth. It’s not hard to see through him, though. He dissembles like a politician but his appetite is clear.
The urge to prosecute and imprison those who don’t believe as they have been commanded to is not a new wrinkle among the alarmist tribe. Three years ago, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., sounding like, well, a Kennedy, said the Koch brothers “should be in jail, I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals.”
“Do I think the Koch brothers should be tried for reckless endangerment? Absolutely, that is a criminal offence and they ought to be serving time for it.”
The Kochs’ crime? Selling energy resources to willing buyers and funding organizations that have reservations about the climate change story we’re constantly being told.
Of course Kennedy’s wild man rant isn’t new either. The history of mankind is marked with incidents of one group forcing its beliefs on another at the point of the sword — and more lately at the strike of a U.S. passenger jet.
Kennedy, Johnson, Hertsgaard and others probably don’t see themselves as runaway zealots. But what zealot has ever recognized his or her own fanaticism?
Maybe the worst case of zealotry from one who refuses to see his own intolerance is British funnyman Eric Idle, who tweeted earlier this year that the skeptics who hold their position due to “stupidity and ignorance” should be punished “humanely. Put down gently.” Idle, we can’t forget, was part of Monty Python’s Flying Circus, which was responsible the famous line: “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf_Y4MbUCLY
Sadly, that line just isn’t as funny anymore. All the air went out of it when one of the team members who co-wrote and acted in the skit decided to support a modern inquisition led by climate radicals. We should have seen it coming.
Original article published in Investors Business Daily
See more of Kerry Jackson’s articles here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not worth worrying about.
Until they come for you?
I want them to come for me. They would be sorry.
An individual cannot resist ‘them’. Just ask anyone who had the misfortune to be raised in the former Soviet Union. Ask them about Lubyanka. Thought crimes were punished harshly. People who might have eventually become a problem were eliminated before they even knew they were going to cause mischief. Ask them if they know about the show trials.
If ‘they’ come for you, you will be sorry.
Everyone knows about Lubyanka with Russia
Hilter also set science back in Germany, with his believe that only the Aryian race was smart enough to produce any science. That step only pretty much destroyed germany’s ability to develop the A Bomb.
Bob boder
Don’t be silly. Can you imagine the charge in court. “The defendant disagreed with the AGW hypothesis”.
Judge: So did the defendant assault anyone, did he swear at anyone? Did he threaten anyone? Did he even swear at anyone?
Prosecutor: No M’Lud
Judge: So what did he do, precisely?
Prosecutor: He asked for an explanation as to why the only observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet is greening.
Judge: That’s it? He asked a question? Are you going to prosecute me for asking you what he said?
The whole concept is ridiculous and not worth wasting time on. A bit of our own sceptical hysteria.
If they start down that path CAGW will get smashed the general public simply will not tolerate people being prosecuted for belief. It’s so obvious how slippery that slope is and how close to a dictatorship or totalitarian state there would be massive protests and uprisings.
Specious.
Demeaning ad hominem.
Condescending
All fiction, no reality, ignores history..
A ruse that sure echoes the pacifist responses to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.
Typical.
“there would be massive protests and uprisings.” … you bet, the kind of massive protests and uprisings that happened against Maccarthysm…
Of course they would never sue because of your belief. They would sue for for supporting climate terrorism, or whatever similar nonsense. Soviet union didn’t invent witch’s hunt and scapegoating.
LdB, I’m tempted to agree with you. Unfortunately history is full of examples of people doing just that.
Maybe we should imprison those with as many kids as that Kennedy. Aren’t that many offspring wasting resources? Wouldn’t it have been better he aborted some to save the earth? He is also the one who made kissy-face with the Venezuela strongman a few years ago. I think any rational person would do well to just nod at him and then dismiss him.
wrong: each country (town) needs a minimum population count to select a good team of football players.
“Put officials who reject science in jail,”
That would be the climate ‘scientists’ then
so it really isn’t worth worrying about.
HotScot: With all due respect, they WILL do it, the very second that they can.
Then they will pat themselves on the back as heroes, holding the moral high ground, and be lionized in the press.
Never doubt it for one second.
Joel Snider
Please, don’t be ridiculous. You sound like a hysterical climate change alarmist.
HS, nothing ridiculous.
Just look at the world around.
That very thing happens over and over again.
Long time I wondered why heretics were killed in history.
But recently it became clear: religious statements become true by consensus.
Inquisition is back. Can there be more proof for climate alarmism being religion?
I went to a performance of The Crucible at my daughter’s high school the other evening and it was crystal clear to me that its current relevence was general Political Correctness and CAGW Conformism. The loopy, self referenced judgementalism was the same and the naked personal self interest in dragging others down to the point of execution was jst the same. Forget about the meek inheriting the earth, under those sort of circumstances its the arrogant and the opportunistic who get the lot, ‘cos they just hang/burn the rest.
‘They’ get power and wealth but the wheels fall off. A tyrant can hold power for his lifetime but the regime eventually collapses. Machiavelli points out that a nation must have the support of the people to survive.
He also points out the people support is best acquired through fear, lies, and scapegoating, better than from love.
‘A tyrant can hold power for his lifetime but the regime eventually collapses.’
Unfortunately, that doesn’t do a hell of a lot of good for people who share that lifetime.
In addition to The Prince, Machiavelli wrote the Discourses.
The Prince is about how to keep power if you are a prince. It pretty much describes everything Saddam Hussein did.
The Discourses, on the other hand, is wisdom gained by studying Roman history. Machiavelli points out that the best form of government is a republic, not a principality. The citizens of a republic feel that it is theirs and will fight to the death to protect it. The citizens of a principality, on the other hand, probably value their own skins more than they value their allegiance to the prince.
If you’re a manager, the Discourses is the book to read.
Yes, Miller’s hokey old play is a standard in our left-wing groves of academia. But as you say, it is much more relevant to today’s atmosphere of PC lunacy. This irony is often lost on academics.
Yea, and just like religion which, dare I say is based solely on faith, belief in catastrophic man-made climate change is also becoming (if not always was!) more based on faith rather than science and in lots of cases just plain common sense. The common sense aspect being that hurricanes have always been with us eons before the burning of fossil fuels as well as countless other natural climatic events.
This situation so saddens me that I just cannot fail to be pessimistic that the warmist camp will likely never accept the natural order of a changing climate, regardless of the evidence, but continue to blame mankind’s irresponsible impact. In most conversations I have with people who hold this view, they express a complete conviction that we are damaging the planet and brook no alternative views – they seem to truly believe that man must be responsible and, just like belief in a religion, any opposing view can only be considered heresy. Thus this article is no surprise to me!!
Assuming that the general media as well as almost all governments continue to perpetuate CAGW I feel alternative views, and indeed evidence, will just be ignored. Truly scary, scary, scary, scary, scary……………
“…I just cannot fail to be pessimistic that the warmist camp will likely never accept the natural order of a changing climate…” A quadruple negative! Possibly a record! “cannot fail” = succeed; “be pessimistic + the will never” = optimistic they will. Translation: I succeed in being optimistic they will accept the natural order of a changing climate. Is that what you intended?
“they express a complete conviction that we are damaging the planet and brook no alternative views – they seem to truly believe that man must be responsible”
In many cases they are assuaging their own (unearned, “planet-killing”) guilt by assigning blame outwards towards convenient targets. What’s that old quote – ‘It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.’
this is the musical number
I wasn’t expecting that…
I was, but that is primarily because the whole of this Fossil Fool episode in history has been just like a fusion of 100 different Python sketches.
It’s alive!!!
I’m a tad confused. The video looks like they’re taking the piss out of AGW proponents, but go the 1010global.org site and that’s not what it looks like. Anyone know what’s the story? Have they actually/finally devised a device that can make the skeptical explode and are celebrating it publicly?
Pressure ! Brilliant, hope you have all read the papers on it by Nikolov and Zeller.
Very funny, I Googled variants of [ Nikolof Zeller and 10:10 No pressure ] to find out they haven’t said boo about the short produced by
https://1010uk.org/
Here’s the ever reliable Wikipedia on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pressure_(film)
I think it’s telling that the climatist makers of those sketches didn’t realize how they’d be received until the video was ready to be released.
Which is interesting. Provided that the makers don’t actually enjoy blowing peoples’ heads off, it would mean that they somehow thought this was an acceptable method of dealing with dissenters, “for the greater good”. Timewarp is nothing compared to mindwarp.
While intolerance of opposition goes both ways, the left uses censorship and intimidation, whereas the right uses ridicule. This applies not just to environmental policy.
Where does intolerance go both ways? So far, I only knew intolerance from the AGW scene. Give examples where this intolerance goes both ways. The AGW cult is inherently an intolerant religion and could reach the waters of Islam. However, there are not only people who, like Jesus, offer the other cheek to the cheater. There are more and more opposites these days. See also in parts the choice trumps. One must not confuse action and reaction.
Some climate scientists and some commenters on this site cop a lot of ad-hominem ridicule. The underlying motive is to discourage participation, which is intolerant.
So let me get this straight…
“Ridicule” which amounts to challenging someone’s scientific conclusions and perhaps calling them a moron for doing it wrong and bragging about it…is now the same as demanding that someone be jailed or otherwise prosecuted for their lack of belief in that same scientific conclusion…?
Okay then.
The right have tolerated the left’s insanity for decades, and that’s what’s got us into this mess.
Ditto, it’s time we quit tip toeing around these bullies. They have a mental illness that is destructive and they have to be confronted or they will finish the job of ruining literally everything.
Not at all. I welcome opposition in science – without it, there is no science.
And the same in economics and thought. Positions MUST be challenged all the time. All I ask is that they are challenged honestly and without personal animosity and moralising.
Challenge Newton, challenge Darwin, challenge Einstein, and please, please someone challenge quantum mechanics, because that makes no sense!
All ideas should be open to respectful opposition, even religious ideas. What I observe, however, those in the political center are most tolerant, whereas those on the extremes are scarcely so, and the left has far more outliers than the right. I infer from your comment that you think of yourself as being on the political right, but are much closer to center than to the extreme.
+++ :<)
From your statement:
You claim moral superiority. A claim, unproven.
You then afflict another commenter with your personal bias and assumptions.
i.e. you do not know, but you assume the worst.
Proven, zero moral superiority.
Baseless, specious insults.
no need to challenge quantum mechanics, from the very beginning its discoverers knew and said themselves it made no sense. So, just never forget the sentence
“we know this makes no sense, but although we have no clue why, everything happen as if…”
that comes with each and every quantum mechanics proposition.
@ATheoK
I think you misunderstood my comment.
I regard myself as on the political right, although not the extreme.
I was just sharing general observations from my perspective of the correlation between tolerance and politics.
From that I guessed that @Phoenix44 is center-right.
I do not regard that, nor did I intend it as an insult.
Nor is any claim of moral superiority implied.
Morality is a different category and dependent on matters not under discussion here.
For example, many place higher moral value on belief/zeal than tolerance.
Your opinion, which caters to your preference of “central” while you vilify claimed “extremes”.
Personal views and personal opinions; which lack veracity nut are heavily burdened by personal bias.
Why post publicly, your personal opinionated guess about another person?
Are you claiming your “guess” was just a clumsy attempt to be chummy?
“Enkl October 25, 2017 at 8:24 am
What I observe, however, those in the political center are most tolerant, whereas those on the extremes are scarcely so, and the left has far more outliers than the right. I infer from your comment that you think of yourself as being on the political right, but are much closer to center than to the extreme.
That is called a backhanded compliment in many quarters.
I do not regard that, nor did I intend it as an insult.”
Blindness towards one’s actions and words?
Then, besides assigning another commenter into a ‘type’ bucket, what is the purpose of the following vague generalist condemnation statement?
That constitutes a judgmental swipe at all commenters on this site while inferring you are impartial and able to make this judgment.
You claim, by sitting in judgment and this accusation, “moral superiority”.
NB; your moral superiority claim carries forth to where your personal opinion judges a person’s character, political leaning and extremity of that political leaning.
Another personal opinion judgement of yours.
That is misdirection and another of your personal opinions.
“Moral superiority” is falsely reframed as “morality”, which you immediately dismiss.
Then you wander off into more personal opinions while including belief, zeal and tolerance. None of which were discussed; until you include them.
Not being a member of either right or left I can tell you that no matter how many arguements I have had with someone on the right it’s always over when the arguements over. Same for some on the left but there are quite a few who go from being friendly to treating you like you are morally evil as soon as they find out you don’t agree with them.
Well obviously, as any good Leftist will tell you, they were FORCED to do that once you “outed” yourself as a crypto-alt-rightist by constantly “triggering” them.
Crypto-alt-rightists are much much worse than ordinary alt rightists because they work so hard into trying to trick nice leftists into thinking they are just ordinary people. And then the triggering starts! Nasty statements like “don’t you think there are two sides to any argument?” and “do you really think that only one side has a monopoly on the truth?”
No honest leftists could ever fail to react to obvious alt-right canards like those. Any who say them are Evil! Evil we say! BURN THE HERETICS!!
Snicker!
Good parody wws!
Sorry but that is just not true. For every one so called conservative protest against some leftist action, there have been 20 leftist violent protest, well funded by billionaires and supported by the pseudo intellectual elite. Leftists speakers do not get shouted down on modern university campus but students with Make America Great hats or T-shirts get attacked. Appreciate that it is not only CAGW that the Leftist “alarmists” have turned into a religion but a whole litany of false narratives. All of this “orthodoxy” comes right out of the Marxist, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Saul Alinsky handbooks. Che Guevara preached that if a society/ country is not ready for socialist revolution then it is the duty of every good socialists to make it so by any means possible. The game is all about power not about CAGW. Power is far more intoxicating than money. Power can make you rich yet even with huge amounts of money one might not be able to buy the power one desires.
Ridicule is not intolerance. Say what ever you, stupid as it may be. Just leave me free to ridicule to my heart’s content. It’s called equality. You have the right to be stupid and prove it by what you utter and I have the right to ridicule. Where is the intolerance except in the desire you have to force me not to speak? Newspeak is all around us!
…whatever you like, …
One might say that ridicule is earned, whereas censorship is imposed.
Censorship and witch hunts: if you want the definitive link, George Bernard Shaw called assassination the extreme form of censorship.
“Ridicule is the best test of truth,” Lord Chesterfield observed four centuries ago. Equating ridicule to censorship only exposes a liar or ignoramus who fears exposure — the Emperor with no clothes.
How about a little lesson in speech? Here’s what we learned in the more enlightened 1950s:
Ideally, free speech allows, or should allow, expression of nearly everything, no matter how preposterous (or even hateful!), subject to the airing of every opposing expression to keep the colloquium free and balanced, open and informative.
John Milton’s Areopagetica stated this in the 17th Century and it still underpins the philosophy of open expression and exchange of every idea. “Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?” (Ironically, as the Commonwealth’s censor under Cromwell, Milton fell far short of that mark.)
Oliver Wendell Holmes set a broad definition of permitted speech in his dissent in United States v. Schwimmer (1928), 279 U.S. 644, 653:
“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
Voltaire is credited with saying: “I do not approve of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Limits on speech should be vanishingly remote. A familiar, often abused limit is against falsely crying “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Justice Louis Brandeis’s concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927) 274 U.S. 357, 377, sensibly restricted this limitation:
“… no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion.” And pertinently: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
“Only an emergency,” he stressed, “can justify repression.”
More remote than that limitation, there is only Karl Popper’s ultimate paradox of tolerance:
“Unlimited toler¬ance,” he feared, “must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant and are not prepared to defend … against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. … As long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.”
And here is his critical limit: “But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.”: (Karl Popper, The open society and its enemies.)
End note: Justice Brandeis succinctly dismissed witch hunts in Whitney with, “Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” (Page 376.)
So what are you, a witch hunter or an acolyte of irrational fears?
Enkl. As far as I’m concerned, everyone is free to live the way they see best, as long as they allow others the same freedom in return.
Are censorship and intimidation caused by ridicule e.g. to refuse calls for help? Or could it be the other way around e.g. when expectations are knowingly stretched beyond reasonable? Based on evidence provided with cAGW and environmental policy in general, I’m inclined to think the latter is more likely. You raise a good point on the need for vigilance also with other policies.
Harry S. Truman, the last if not only great Democrat, said, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
Enkle,
A general statement isn’t a supportable citation.
Or am I also “ad hominem” you?
ridicule is only intolerant to those with a lack of a sense of humor.
If you deserve, it, tough luck.
Equating ridicule to censorship and intimidation is a ridicules moral equivalence.
Maybe the true believers are the ones who should be in jail. http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimatologists/Articles/2017/10/23/The_Weinstein_Of_Climate_Science/index.html
Bobby Kennedy Jr is the same dimwit who proclaimed during Katrina that we would see “many many more and more powerful hurricanes in the years ahead.” Now, as we all know, Katrina travelled across the supposedly “warm Atlantic” but was a weak Cat 1 as it passed the Florida keys. It then happened to travel the same path as the circulating warm currents that travel between the CArribean and the Gulf of Mexico and blew up into a big storm before striking the coast. Obviously global warming of the Atlantic played no part in that hurricane’s strength. Apparently 12 years of very few and weak hurricanes didn’t affect his beliefs. Now THAT is what’s we call a religious, not scientific, belief. Now he is trying to hype Harvey as a killer. But Harvey was nothing compared to Camille, 1969, which travelled a thousand miles inland – came ashore as a Cat 5 with 200MPH Plus max wind gusts and killed over 500 people, as I recall. Harvey killed less than a dozen, as I recall, and was confined to a relatively small area. In any trial, assuming one could find some criminal law that skeptics are breaking, it would be a whole lot easier demonstrating a lack of scientific evidence to support the doomsday scenarios put forth by such as Mann and Gore. I honestly don’t believe these “throw them in jail” folks have a clue about either the law or the science. Nothing else, sans senility (Gore), can explain such incomprehensible behavior.
In 1971 I drove across the southern US states. I had only just arrived in the US and couldn’t understand why, along the coast near Mobile, there were streets neatly laid out with curbs, sidewalks and fire hydrants, but no houses. None. A few miles later the fishing vessel standing upright several hundred feet from the beach gave me the answer. Yes, Camille was a very big deal.
Camille was definitely worse than anything seen since and many storms suffered before her.
CACA spewers must d@ny history to try to maintain their lies.
I could almost (but not quite) buy Eric Idle’s position that skeptics who hold their position due to “stupidity and ignorance” should be “punished humanely… put down gently”. I have a low tolerance for stupidity and ignorance at the best of times myself. But I notice he didn’t say anything about what should be done with skeptics who hold their position due to intelligence and diligent investigation of the facts 🙂
Steve, there is nothing wrong with ignorance. We are all ignorant in many areas and about many things. It’s incompetence that to me is intolerable. Incompetence is when someone doesn’t admit to their own ignorance. Now as far as stupidity, there’s no fix for that. I’m afraid that’s just innate in some people and requires either tolerance or avoidance.
The unskilled may be trained. The ignorant, taught. The misguided, advised. But for the foolish, I fear no remedy exists. Like a man with an incurable disease, we can only let the affiction run its course and hope the patient survives to find a little wisdom.
+1, DN. I agree.
The real sin isn’t ignorance and stupidity, but willful ignorance and hypocrisy.
This isn’t new. The Watermelons have been making these kinds of threats for years.
“Put officials who reject science in jail” – it is not about a third-rate science. It is about money. Alarmists prefer taxpayer’s money to Al Gore’s money.
The problem with this form of non scientific ranting is that it produces advocacy groups who then try and curtail any true science or research on climate science, or advocate that society as consumers are bad and must be punished with carbon taxes. Or worse, small groups of anarchists or lone wolf executioners who think they have licence to dispatch anyone who then has been deemed a deni@r.
While skeptics may mock the warmists, you don’t hear too often that they advocate the jailing of CAGW academia, only that truthful science and facts should decide the issue. In the end, of course, it will be the long term climate that has the final say of human impact on the climate. If the models don’t hold up to 2030 predictions, or this Pause in any significant warming over the last 20 years just caries on or temps start dropping, then at some point Science has to re-evaulate its position to align with the facts.
Sounds like hate crime, and not being of the right demographic to be included in the diversity category (diversity of thought and opinion also isn’t included in ‘diversity’) , it is worrying. It shows we really haven’t come as far as we think. Forget about medieval times or the Dark Ages – I’m thinking the days of the Neanderthal.
If you have to lie and fiddle and threaten, brainwash our children, co-opt the media, deNye publishing space to critics, hide your data, throw out contradictory empirical data, bribe poor countries, prevent “unhelpful” speakers from addressing university audiences, to concoct and proliferate your ‘science’ and have it accepted by all, you surely aren’t sitting with aces in the hole with your theory.
Why is it necessary to go through all this? Why do you need 100% acceptance (jailing dissenters). If the 3% of scientists are idiots, so what. Einstein was essentially one against the entire world of scientists. He simply waited until observations of effects predicted by theory came to pass. I’m sure one 10,000th of one percent of the human population have no clue what to make of general relativity, but this causes no angst.
Clearly there is a pill of a different kind, too bitter to swallow for free thinkers, that is the main issue beneath the climate change diversion (same root as ‘diversity!) and the reason why the science is so slipshod.
“Why is it necessary to go through all this?”
Because truth always wins in the end. For those whose position is based on lies, the only way to survive is to eliminate those who speak the truth.
The truth may win in the end, but a lot of lives get destroyed along the way.
SCUM never get invited to diversity parties, and never get a friendly reception when they crash one.
(Straight Conservative Uncolored Males)
It’s still funny.
Oh, I think this is all going to be coming to an end. These zealots have been riding a train that derailed and slammed into a station last November. The traction motors stripped the wheel gears and fried. The couplers have all been crushed and are now useless smashed metal. Some of the passengers in Hollywood and D.C. have recognized it and are hopping off and getting going just as the not-so-tough get going before the going gets tough. The other passengers still buzzing from the formerly droning diesels think the train’s still moving. It’s not.
The flawed station that derailed it they constructed themselves and attempted to reinforce it with a ludicrous investigation. This investigation, we now see, has whipped around like a snake. We now know that Russian collusion illusion, brought to life as a charge of sensation concerning a titillation by urination allegation, was bought and paid for by the investigators themselves.
Thomas Paine would be proud.
That only applies in part of the US Federal govt.
In the EU, UK, China and India it is business as usual – build renewables to combat AGW
for example:
Italy just announced a ban on coal after 2025
The Saudis announced a huge new city to be powered entirely by solar and wind
Hope you’re around at that time and remember to verify that actually those happen, Griff. You might be surprised.
And burning wood pellets from clear cut forests by the shipload from other continents as imports.
Griff, can you please take care of accuracy. Italy has a proposed a plan and has sent it to the grid operator to check it is feasible.
https://www.reuters.com/article/italy-energy-idAFS8N1KP009.
The rate Italy changes government it could all change next week or the grid operator could have problems.
Got it:
1.) The Italian government has announced a proposal to phase out coal-fired power plants by 2025.
2.) “We have asked (grid company) Terna to identify the infrastructure needed,” Minister Carlo Calenda said in a parliamentary hearing on the document.
Accuracy Griff it matters.
Southeast Asia Oil And Coal Consumption Growing Rapidly Until 2040, IEA Report Date: 10/25/17 Reuters
Oil usage in the region will expand to around 6.6 million barrels per day by 2040 from 4.7 million bpd now, with the number of road vehicles increasing by two-thirds to around 62 million, the agency said in a report. It did not make any forecasts beyond 2040.
https://www.thegwpf.com/southeast-asia-oil-and-coal-consumption-growing-rapidly-until-2040-iea-report/
British Government Accused Of Underestimating Cost Of Wind Energy: 10/25/17 Utility Week
The government has been accused of underestimating the subsidy costs in the recent Contracts for Difference (CfD) by almost 50 per cent. A briefing note by Aurora Energy Research claims the government’s methodology for forecasting future subsidy payments appears to underestimate the likely cost by almost £80 million a year.
https://www.thegwpf.com/british-government-accused-of-underestimating-costs-of-wind-energy/
Griff does need to be locked away, but there are other institutions more fitting to cope with his issues.
Some places will actually try to help him face actually reality. Big task for them.
“ban on coal [later, when i am dead]” is admission that the ban has no rightful reason, just political agenda.
I mean, either you have enough reason to ban, and you ban right now, or you don’t, and you don’t ban at all.
And if you pretend to care about your children, you dont pass them the burden of stopping using something, you do it yourself right now.
Actually, they ban because coal is already out of the market, gas is cheaper, so nobody cares and that cost nothing, while it is good in virtue signaling.
By the way in a rule of law (aka “western”) country, you don’t ban or put extra charge on using a product itself, you make sure that the user take care of the waste. If Italy was some day a western country, it isn’t anymore. I am unsure if any western country remain nowadays (Obama’s USA wasn’t for sure; Not sure if Trump’s will be Great Again).
Doncha know, the plans of politicians trump reality.
Especially plans that won’t be enacted for decades.
++++
Conform or else is also the dogma of the NK regime.
The kind of lives being lived by the masses in NK, is the goal the alarmist movement desires for the rest of us.
I’m all in with this. Provided we can also put in jail all the people “denying” science in other areas too.
GMOs, pesticides, genetic bases for behavior, fracking – if you think they are bad/wrong, go to jail.
Crystal healing, homeopathy, traditional medicine – if you think any of that works, off to jail.
Marxism, communism, socialism and any of the other debunked economic isms – a very long time in jail as they killed tens of millions, unlike the recent hurricanes.
How about putting in jail anyone who claims there are more than two genders? Science says there are only two.
Ask any good leftist that, when he brings up anti-science. Watch his head explode.
The shrillness from alarmists is escalating. Not by coincidence with COP23 coming up next month. UN officials will be sounding off like IMF director: Lagarde said that “we will be toasted, roasted and grilled” if the world fails to take “critical decisions” on climate change.
Unfortunately the last tango was not in Paris, another dance is scheduled for Bonn.
I would be more than happy to see those who reject science go to jail and to repay the £trillions wasted on trying to reduce the 0.04% of CO2 in our atmosphere which does not make one jot of difference to our climate. Politics, not science and certainly not common sense are the drivers of this farce and our politicians should be ashamed of themselves for being unable to see through it.
Three years ago, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., sounding like, well, a Kennedy, said the Koch brothers “should be in jail, I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals.”
Good thing that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. never reached his late father’s position as Attorney General of the United States, appointed by his brother the President! The Koch brothers could be in real trouble if he did!
Of course, Kennedy’s mention of imprisonment at The Hague shows his ignorance of any international court’s ability to actually enforce anything. How long did it take The Hague to convict the Serbian murderer Slobodan Milosevic, who was guilty of thousands more crimes than the Koch brothers ever committed (zero)?
From what I remember, brother Bobby was the smart one in the crowd. It’s a shame Jr. didn’t inherit any of his daddy’s intelligenc or common sense.
Steve Zell
October 25, 2017 at 7:46 am
“How long did it take The Hague to convict the Serbian murderer Slobodan Milosevic, who was guilty of thousands more crimes than the Koch brothers ever committed (zero)?”
————————-
I think actually, Slobodan Milosevic “escaped” conviction…….in that particular count I think Hague failed…..regardless of the obvious guilt.
Strange, but that is how I recall the case ended…….no conviction…or maybe perhaps, my recall of it is not correct!
Can everyone now understand the real reason our Founding Fathers thankfully wrote the 2nd Amendment?
Yep… as someone said earlier on this site, to guarantee the 1st.
And all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Old Joe Kennedy, like his spawn, was the scum of the earth. Below the scum. He raped his slightly mentally retarded daughter, then when she complained, tossed her into a nunnery for life, with the guardian nuns paid off.
Under that kind of thinking we should jail everyone who smokes and/or offers you a drink. This intolerance is madness.
Or sells you a car – 1000’s die in those things every year /sarc
Well in part of Britain they are withholding medical procedures for smokers. Costs too much to keep them alive doncha know (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/nhs-provokes-fury-indefinite-surgery-ban-smokers-obese/)
If you put all the politicians who don’t believe in science in jail, how will warmists get their funding?
OMG how ludicrous! These people are insane!
This “persecute those who think differently than you ” mindset must be nested deep in the human psyche as it never seems to stop emerging in different ways through history. This is just the latest example. Not surprising.
Reblogged this on ajmarciniak and commented:
Conform or else! That’s the message of the global warming alarmists. Those who don’t buy into the man-made climate change narrative should be prosecuted as criminals.
“Put officials who reject science in jail,” someone named Brad Johnson who says he’s executive director of something called Climate Hawks Vote tweeted last month.
At roughly the same time, Mark Hertsgaard typed a screed in The Nation which ran under the headline: