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.
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.
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.
The Climatists are fascists at heart. Democracy is a threat to them.
Lets have IQ tests and see who is the smartest.
How will Eric Idle fare in these tests ? If he has low IQ then he must be put down, gently.
They will adjust the IQ tests.
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.
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).
Lord Chesterfield (1694-1773) observed that “ridicule is the best test of truth.”
jorgekafkazar Appreciate the grammatical lesson, thanks.
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.
Just to inform you further -both Lawson and the GWPF admitted what Lawson said was wrong…
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nigel-lawson-climate-change-sceptics-global-temperatures-fall-false-claim-warming-gwpf-bbc-radio-4-a7894686.html
nope, they corrected a minor mistake, as good faith people do. And they did well, even though Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev owned, libdem supporting, “the independent” paint them black for this.
No chance you ever do the same, you will resist any inconvenient truth perinde ac cadaver, won’t you?
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.”
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
commieBob
CommieBob must be on Al Gore’s payroll or his end windfall team.
You’re not from around here, are you?
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.
350.org was sponsering the same type of lawsuit, using the children in Eugene, Oregon.
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.
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 ‘
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?
If these are the radical clerics of climate change enforcement then Gore is the Kaiser.
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.
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!
Please – where are those Holier-than-thou types who are so offended by the comparison of Greenies to Fascists?
Here in Canada, the Federal Competition Bureau, an arm of our federal governmen,t has been pushed by our warmest government to investigate and harass deniers. Fortunately it was leaked and they didn’t press charges. Here’s one of many links http://edmontonsun.com/2017/08/29/competition-bureau-drops-investigation-into-climate-change-denier-billboards-ads/wcm/3fe707b8-1ade-438b-8559-585139203725
Belief in AGW caused by CO2 = denying science of thermalization, Maxwell-Boltzmann molecule energy distribution & quantum mechanics. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
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?
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.
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.
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.