We should have seen it coming

climate-inquisition

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.”

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

Advertisements

154 thoughts on “We should have seen it coming

      • garymount October 25, 2017 at 7:22 am

        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.

      • “HotScot October 25, 2017 at 9:28 am
        Bob boder
        Don’t be silly. Can you imagine the charge in court. “The defendant disagreed with the AGW hypothesis”.”

        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.

    • “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.

  1. 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.

      • paqyfelyc October 25, 2017 at 12:03 pm

        He also points out the people support is best acquired through fear, lies, and scapegoating, better than from love.

        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.’

    • 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?

    • 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.

  2. 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.

      • “Enkl October 25, 2017 at 8:24 am
        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.

      • “Enkl October 25, 2017 at 2:10 pm
        @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.”

        “Enkl October 25, 2017 at 2:10 pm
        I think you misunderstood my comment.
        I regard myself as on the political right, although not the extreme.”

        Your opinion, which caters to your preference of “central” while you vilify claimed “extremes”.

        “Enkl October 25, 2017 at 2:10 pm
        I was just sharing general observations from my perspective of the correlation between tolerance and politics.”

        Personal views and personal opinions; which lack veracity nut are heavily burdened by personal bias.

        “Enkl October 25, 2017 at 2:10 pm
        From that I guessed that @Phoenix44 is center-right.”

        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?

        “Enkl October 25, 2017 at 2:10 pm
        Nor is any claim of moral superiority implied.”

        Then, besides assigning another commenter into a ‘type’ bucket, what is the purpose of the following vague generalist condemnation statement?

        “Enkl October 25, 2017 at 7:59 am
        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.”

        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.

        “Enkl October 25, 2017 at 2:10 pm
        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.”

        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!!

      • “wws October 25, 2017 at 7:52 am
        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!

      • 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?

    • 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.

      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.”

      • 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. “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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

    • SCUM never get invited to diversity parties, and never get a friendly reception when they crash one.
      (Straight Conservative Uncolored Males)

  8. 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.

      • 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.

    • The kind of lives being lived by the masses in NK, is the goal the alarmist movement desires for the rest of us.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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!

  13. Can everyone now understand the real reason our Founding Fathers thankfully wrote the 2nd Amendment?

      • 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.

  14. Under that kind of thinking we should jail everyone who smokes and/or offers you a drink. This intolerance is madness.

  15. If you put all the politicians who don’t believe in science in jail, how will warmists get their funding?

  16. 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.

  17. 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:

  18. Skeptical Science – the “science website” – SS frequently post articles masquerating as science with serious and obvious flaws, easily detected by layman. Yet they defend the absurdity zealously to a point the would embarass a normal scientific literate person.

    A recent post at Skeptical science had a survey showing 80% of americans would be willing to pay an additional tax to combate the “pollution that causes global warming “

    • A common phenomenon among people being polled, provide an answer that will make them feel good about themselves or provide an answer that they feel is socially appropriate.

      To see how accurate their response really is, there should be a follow up question; something along the lines of: “How much money will you dig out of your pocket right now to fight pollutiont hat causes global warming?” This usually results in a complete change of opinion.

    • LOL
      no need of a survey to know that
      ~0% of americans (or any nation, for what it’s matters) would be willing to pay an additional tax to combate someone else pollution. ~100% of americans think the charge should be on the polluter, not them.
      So, this only means that 20% of americans are NOT ready to pay some tax for their own pollution, instead of stopping to pollute, and are even ready to admit it at some polling office. We still don’t know how many the 80% are really ready to pay for their pollution, or fake it bacause it obviously doesn’t paint them good.

      • Missing from this discussion is the fact that the issue being debated is CO2, which isn’t “pollution” AT ALL. If you “believe” it IS “pollution,” then you might do us all the service to stop breathing.

  19. What next, I wonder? Perhaps they’ll be burning any science books that they find offensive, and demanding that citizens prove their eco-credentials going back two or three generations to establish their eco-purity.

      • They already do, after a fashion. IQ is a relative scale where 100 is “average”. If too many test significantly above or below, the scale is adjusted to establish a new average.

  20. I still would like the Royal Society – and all scientists for that matter – to adhere to its motto “Nullius in Verba” (Take nobody’s word for it).

  21. I note that the BBC has apologised for comments made by Lord Lawson on their ‘Today’ program. It appears that Lord Lawson made heretical statements that temperatures had not changed much if not fallen slightly over the past 10 yeears, according to ‘Official’ figures and that the IPCC had confirmed that there had been no increase in extreme weather events.
    It appears that these lies are beyond the pale, required an official apology, stating that it is clear from NASA land-ocean temperatures that the temperatures have gone up by 0.3 C in the past decade and 97% of climate change scientists believe that climate warming trends are extremely likely due to human activities according to NASA. Even Professor Peter Stott was trotted out to make comment that “Meticulous observations across the world show clearly that average global temperatures have increased over the past decade, with the three warmest years on record occurring over the last decade.”
    So it appears that the NOAA was not producing dodgy sea surface temperatures and that its head Thomas Karl has been unfairly impugned. Also, the selective culling of land temperature recording stations to bias warmer readings is also unfair, even thought when exposed and challenged, the Australian Bureau of Meteorolgy simply stated that it was following ‘ world’s best practice’. So that is okay as well, I suppose. Well, the Minister responsible for the Bureau in Australia certainly thinks so as he has defended the Bureau and refused requests for an independent audit of the Bureau.
    It is thanks to WUWT and a couple of other similar sites, that does focus on the science of the matter, that I am better informed. My thanks to the contributors and commenters for this education.

  22. And another thing … Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis said this about free speech and witch hunts in Whitney v. California (1927, 274 U.S. 357, 376),

    “Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”

    Free speech absolutely must include ridicule, preposterous ideas, and what people hate. In fact, Oliver Wendell Holmes singled out, as especially protected, “not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

  23. jorgekafkazar On a re-read of your comment I just noticed that you would need to insert “never” before the word accept in your translation to explain what I intended. Thanks again for your advice, Patrick

  24. Some green cult group is getting a bunch of children to bring a legal action against EU governments for not doing enough to ensure cleaner air. This illustrates that the green blob simply has no restraint or decency in arguing its case but will exploit anyone and anything to promote its lies to frighten and intimidate any opposition. We are seeing an intolerant and ignorant religion at work and the burning of heretic books and people will undoubtedly follow if the eco-fascists have their way.
    The ever more absurd David Attenborough was interviewed on BBC TV this week promoting his latest Series about the world’s oceans. In the interview he actually claimed that in the last ten years events were such that the number of sceptics questioning global warming had dwindled.
    We are left with the choice of deciding whether he is being deliberately disingenuous or just stupid.
    A choice that reflects rather badly on him and the increasingly odious corporation who funds his personal bubble.

    • You can be absolutely sure that the CAGW bandwagon has had its day when the BBC boards it. It’s the kiss of death.

  25. the irony of course is that they themselves are also guilty, if anyone is, unless they live in a grass hut somewhere and eat only coconuts.

  26. At this as what to do with science?
    Well frankly nothing at all , however it makes sense form a religions or political fanatics view point.
    We have often seen how those labeled ‘heretic’ are attacked with far more venom than goes into dealing with the unbelievers when it comes to AGW.
    Stray from the ‘true path ‘ of the faith by a inch and the attack dogs will be on you to make sure you ‘repent your sins ‘

  27. So, is the saying now, “Climate doesn’t kill people. People kill people.”

    Every time there is a hurricane, then, let’s lock up some people. Never mind preventative measures like better structural planning, more conscientious site selection for population development, emergency planning, etc. Just make life easy and blame it all on people.

    Scapegoat much, climate catastrophists?

  28. All it takes is a special prosecutor; he will invent some crimes and charges even if there is nothing on the books for climate change denialism.

    • It’s been said that there are many laws on the books, many them contradictory, and even more vaguely defined.
      As a result it is physically impossible to go through the day without breaking at least one law.
      This is the true power of the special prosecutor, they have an unlimited budget and a limited target, they hunt and dig until they find something that they can use to justify their budget and existence.

  29. It is evident that those who believe in AGW are certain that they are right. Indeed, their certainty is at the level of a moral certitude.

    Assume, for the sake of argument, that at some point in the future it were to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that carbon dioxide is not a significant contributor to global warming. Would these individuals have the moral integrity to advocate for their own imprisonment for the ‘crime’ of being wrong? I think not! What this suggests is that those of the CAGW cult, who are advocating punishment for disagreeing with the supposed consensus, are not deep thinkers. They may even be intelligence-challenged. Again, they earn individual ridicule when they speak without thinking.

    • Interestingly I do come across some people who give the initial appearance that they believe in AGW but because they are intelligent, some are University Professors, they are very careful in exactly what they say. They try to avoid making scientific statements that are easily spottable as false by their peers and skirt around stuff and use misdirection. What they say looks like pro AGW rantings but does not contain too many downright scientific bits of BS. My conclusion is that they actually really do know that the AGW theory is a crock of shite but they have to give the appearance of going along with it FOR THE MOMENT. These are the ones I like to watch, I expect they will flip to the other side when it becomes in their rational self interest to do so.
      Maybe one or 2 who are coming up to retirement might have the “cojones” to flip once their meal ticket does not depend upon compliance. I live in hope!

  30. Please – where are those Holier-than-thou types who are so offended by the comparison of Greenies to Fascists?

  31. From my pedestal on the edge of all of this, I take the stance that what is being argued is an opinion with which people either agree or disagree.
    In the USA, we have the right state an opinion publicly. We also have the right to disagree with it, and publicly, too. It is not a crime. It is simply a difference of opinion.
    However, when someone is so hellbent on silencing an opinion or point of view that is completely different from someone else’s, my reaction is always this: FOLLOW THE MONEY.
    Algore gets paid far more than he’s worth to run his ignorant mouth about anything, including the climate. Eric Idle is an actor who has nothing really important to say and is probably desperate for attention, as is true of all those other wankers in his line of work.
    I consider anyone saying or even implying that someone should be executed for having a difference of opinion from these people to be making a threat of violence towards me, and towards anyone else whose opinion differs from theirs. I could, therefore, sue the basterds, including Algore, into the ground.
    However, if their real concern is that carbon levels in the atmosphere pose such a threat to the planet’s welfare, there is a solution: they cant get their buccal and anal orifices sewn shut permanently. And their noses, too. You all do know that people produce mass quantities of methane that is a major pollutant, don’t you? Especially after eating beans, of course, which. while a healthy protein, compounds the problem enormously. And methane is a carbon-based molecule, as you probably already know.
    This is all about money, the potential loss of mass quantities of grants cash funding, and loss of attention from those of us who think they are all quite ridiculous. But if we do not let them speak, and record their threats and crazypants notions, they become far more dangerous to our existence than they are as long as they can run their silly mouths in public. They more they rattle on, the less convincing they become. If they were suppressed, as they wish to do to the rest of us, they would represent a pressure cooker. Not a good thing. No, exposure to the light of day, counterarguments and fact-checks galore, and equal amounts of rebuttal and ridicule are better weapons to bring into this from the other side of the fence.
    This is all about money. It has never been anything else. When Loretta Lynch made the egregious mistake of starting to investigate climate skeptics (whatever that is) under the RICO Act, and was informed that the RICO Act should be applied instead to the greedy, money-sucking jackass at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, I was compelled to write a rather long article for another blog about NOT going medieval on my ass.
    If these climate bozos want to turn a difference of opinion into a crime, they have a long, hard row to hoe to do so. They are fanatics at their worst, and morons at the very least, being led by an even bigger moron whose greed is exceeded only by the size of his useless, ignorant ego.
    Let’s just leave the light on for the clowns, shall we?

  32. What many people don’t know about the Kennedy’s is that most of their family wealth was derived from bootleg alcohol in the prohibition years. So calling someone “criminal” is a bit much.

    • Patrick MJD – at 5:07 pm

      That was pretty much common knowledge during the 1960 election. The story was the FDR tipped off Joe Kennedy so he could have boat loads of liquor just off shore when the repeal of Prohibition was put into effect.

  33. Data acquisition is an engineering function not a scientific one so put scientists who do not accept engineers assessments in jail instead. After all it takes only a day or at most a week’s worth of climate scientist’s funding to prove their data acquisition is probably not accurate to even two degrees let alone fractions of a degree.

    • Today’s article on the behavior of the BBC, after all a very influential and old news organization speaks volumes about the behavior of the AGW cult as an ancient religion. There is even the Vatican more openly in church cases. In Germany, too, terms such as “Klimaleugner” are increasingly appearing in broadcasts, and this in a country that has the term “Holocaust Leugner” as a criminal offense. At the moment, a major media campaign is under way to discredit all the skeptics of the cause of man as a reason for climate change. During the last hurricane series, a spokesman for the second German television (ZDF), with a morose voice, vibrating with emotion, was not too bad to ask all “Klimaleugner” in the face of the hurricanes to rethink. Almost like the Republican senator in the CNN, who, with a dripping in his voice, read his php against Trump, still tweaking himself, even though he read from the paper. But in his many Papers, there did not appear any real case of a Trump error . All he put forward was an emotional gesture. What great actors there are in this world! Talents, of which even Hollywood knew nothing.

  34. I found Ross King had posted this over on the ‘IMF head’ thread…

    “When The Revolution comes (and come it will) the heads of the Ancien Regime will roll, as they did in the French Revolution. Put Lagarde in the tumbrils, along with Gore, Mann, Jones and gang, Obama, Pachauri, and the rest of the disseminators of unproven Science as if it were Proven and Settled.
    P.S. Add the authors of the egregious 97% report … they should go first under the guillotine.”

    so, if its bad to call for climate skeptics to be put in jail, is it OK to guillotine those advocating climate science?

    Really, the same standard needs to apply to all in this debate – nobody should be calling for anyone with a different view on the science to be jailed, or sliced.

    • Right, but who is “Ross King” and who is “BBC” and the State-Telvision “ZDF” and other people in front of the public?. That is a big difference. The fact that there is also a reaction from “Otto Normalverbaucher” Ross King does not need to be astonished as a reaction to the behavior in the AGW cult with decades of agitation. Already with Hansens 1980 began this.

      • 37 years of agitation and than came a Trump out. Bad, very bad for the AGW-Cult. But not surprising.

    • The difference is, the skeptics aren’t lying or deceiving at the cost of lives and livelihoods. The climate fascists are.

    • Water is the regulator of the climates temperature. Human activity has been adding to water vapor (twice as fast as caused by feedback) but eventually increased clouds will stop the warming and global cooling will prevail. CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

Comments are closed.