EXCLUSIVE: An "ugly" chapter that didn't make the Bestseller Book: The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change

Marc Morano of Climate Deport has given me exclusive publication of this special chapter, that is not included in the book. It details all of the comparisons to Holocaust deniers and RICO and death threats, etc. against climate skeptics. He writes:

I think it is one of my favorite chapters, but the book was too long to include it.

Excerpts:


The Earth does not have a fever. Scientific evidence simply doesn’t support the belief that man-made climate change is a catastrophic threat to the planet. And unreliable climate models are poor substitutes for actual data.

Then why don’t more scientists buck the “consensus”? The answer is simple. Anyone who questions the climate change scare is attacked and threatened. As more and more scientists speak out, dissenting from the climate change orthodoxy, the attacks against them have increased.

Climate campaigners seem to think: If you can’t counter the message, silence the messenger. From smears to intimidation to name-calling to lawsuits and threats of criminal prosecution, climate activists are leaving no stone unturned. Activists—and “reporters” for theoretically objective media outlets— have targeted skeptical scientists.

Many climate activists find the idea of jailing skeptics appealing. In 2014, the warmist Gawker website urged, “Arrest Climate-Change Deniers”; said “Those denialists should face jail”; called global warming skeptics “Criminally negligent”; and argued, “It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.”

Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be “thrown in jail”: “I really believe that people like the former prime minister of Canada should be thrown in jail for wilful blindness,” Suzuki said in 2016. In 2017, climate activist John Gilkison at EV World accused me of “crimes against humanity” for “retarding any meaning action to mitigate climate change.” A list of those who dissented on man-made climate change, including my old boss Senator James Inhofe, were slated for a 2029 “trial.”

One climate activist predicted that skeptics will be lynched. “As climate impacts continue to become clearer to the general populace, fossil fuel executives, and climate misinformers who have played a part in this catastrophe, may some time soon prefer a safe jail cell to the torches and pitchforks that are coming their way,” wrote Peter Sinclair of the climate fear–promoting website Climate Denial Crock of the Week.

On June 5, 2009, former Clinton administration official Joe Romm of Climate Progress defended a posting on his website warning that climate skeptics would be strangled in bed for rejecting the view that we face a man-made climate crisis. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” he warned.


You can read the entire chapter here, free: Morano-PIG-Climate-Change-Bonus-Chapter (PDF)

The book has now climbed to #80 on Amazon as of this writing, maybe it will climb higher.

Available on Amazon here

Advertisements

112 thoughts on “EXCLUSIVE: An "ugly" chapter that didn't make the Bestseller Book: The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change

  1. “I think it is one of my favorite chapters, but the book was too long to include it.”
    Glad Marc wisely chose you to spread it around. Perhaps in future printings of the book, a link to WUWT can be included, directing readers to this chapter.
    A neat added “bonus!!!”

      • If there were billions of dollars of graft in pretending the Earth was flat, there would certainly be leeches aplenty wanting to destroy you for pointing out their scam.

      • As climate impacts continue to become clearer to the general populace, …

        I keep seeing that being expressed, but what impacts? The only impacts I’ve noticed is that there is more gloom & doom being reported by media. I haven’t seen any impacts. Have you?

    • I’d just like to point out that these extremists don’t speak for all those who favor AGW theory.

      • The small amount of calming voice like yours shows that there is a relatively small amount of people willing to say that.
        Worse, I can’t imagine renowned alarmists like professor Michael E. Mann saying that aloud. The political polarization is at that level. I couldn’t imagine Obama or Rodham Clinton calling out this behaviour. Ignoring is tolerating.
        The word of the day is a march to Huntsville, University of Alabama, with pitchforks, or guns, for that matter, and while calling for gun regulation, ignoring the threats against skeptical scientists like Christy.

      • Kristi, a gentle reminder. All the noise is about the C supposedly caused by too much AGW. Itbis possible thenthink there might be some AGW (since CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas, but no C. And itbis not (yet) possible to say how much AGW because of natural variation. See my guest post ‘Why Models Run Hot’ for a simple version, or guest post ‘The trouble with Models’ for a long version, of the inescapable facts on why the climate model ‘projections cannot be right or reliable.

      • Kristi, I’m sorry for what I’m about to say, but I really feel like it needs to be said, and that you need to internalize it.
        First, this is about CAGW only, not AGW as you keep insisting. Second, the cult of CAGW is what we skeptics are talking about, not some silly science about AGW boiling off the oceans, which has always been ridiculous and with which no sane scientist thinks will happen. You are IN a cult. That is not up for debate. Congratulations on not being a fully committed, full-fledged cult member. But you are a fringe member. Please recall that when the Jonestown cult swallowed the poisoned purple kool-aid and almost a thousand people died of suicide in Guyana, they also had to murder some of their own people, including some who were reluctant to drink, and a few on the tarmac of the runway where Congressman Leo Ryan was murdered, who were there because they were seeking to escape with him on his plane. And little people like you (and me) are expendable to your cult’s leadership. That’s what we’re talking about here. This is a struggle for power and control, of huge amounts of money, of control of the entire industrialized world’s energy. That’s exactly why Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Sen. Whitehouse are saying stupid fascist things like if you’re not with us, you must die. This is why people in your coalition were inspired to make the 10:10 No Pressure video “joke.” A mass movement around these ideas is not dissimilar to is how Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot got started and why they could feel justified in unleashing unspeakable horror on their own populations. Turning fossil fuel based economies green is Holodomor and the killing fields in spades. In short, we must never let these idiots shut off fossil fuels, and especially not for the idiotic reason of stopping a scarce and necessary commodity (plant food, CO2) from entering the atmosphere.
        I’m really sorry you got a degree in ecology. Its not the best timing for you. But you still appear to be a person of integrity. Get out while you can, before you’re tainted by your chosen profession.

        • Mickey,
          You should turn that speech into a video.
          “Dear Global Warming Cult Members–Get out before it’s too late….”
          Very well done.

      • An extremist is someone who holds onto his/her beliefs after Kristi has carefully explained what an idiot they are.

      • Kristi, the problem with favoring a theory is that it gives rise to confirmation bias, to looking for “tests” that confirm expectations. This problem far from being limited to climate science. but normally you don’t see the massive disconnect between empirical reality and theory. Geologically, the very best efforts to estimate the chemical composition of the atmosphere over geological time falsified the gloomy consequences forecast for AGW effects. Whether AGW is real or not, it will not, in fact cannot be catastrophic. At its highest levels geochemical estimates place atmospheric CO2 levels at 26 times present (1950) levels in the early Phanerozoic (around 500 MYA), and again at about 10 times modern levels in the middle Mesozoic. Between those two peaks levels actually dropped to about modern levels at the end of the Permian. At no time did a “runaway” greenhouse effects take off, though the Permian DID end in an ice age. That means that there is no reasonable chance of a runaway effect due to human interference. If a runaway effect did not occur in the past, it cannot occur now. The other side of the coin is the possible correlation between very low atmospheric carbon and extinction events. I would suggest reading Joy K. Ward, “Evolution and Growth of Plants in a Low CO2 World. Paleontological evidence supports the idea that one of the chief drivers of plant evolution was low atmospheric CO2 (and “low” here means modern (as “now” not 1950) levels and lower. CO2 levels have been declining steadily (in geological terms) since the mid-Mesozoic. Plants have been attempting to deal with that since at least that time, with the emergence of CAMS and C4 plants one important adaptation. Grasses for example appeared only 20 MYA, which is absurdly recent.

  2. The reason people like CBS News anchor Scott Pelley compare global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers is not to claim certainty about the future.
    How can it be? There is always some uncertainty about the future.
    The reason people like CBS News anchor Scott Pelley compare global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers is to claim uncertainty about the past.
    We can see that the Holocaust happened. We have witnesses in the form of survivor accounts and the remains of places like Auschwitz. This is an inconvenient truth for those who want to deny it happened.
    We cannot see remains of AGW. There are no witnesses of tomorrow. This is a very convenient truth for those want to claim the Holocaust is only as real as the future.
    But we know it happened. And we won’t let them pretend that there is doubt.

    • I’ve argued the same thing about how the Left wants to compare past historical events to denying something in the future, that of course hasn’t happened yet.
      The same with the Moon Landing. Historical fact. Plenty of people including of the astronauts who went there know it happened and were there from start to finish of Apollo. We have lunar rock and soil samples. Pictures and recordings that could not even begin to have been faked even with best late-1960’s technology. To deny moon landings by Apollo is irrational.
      But the Left still tries to equate Climate Change denial with Moon landing denial The Left believing in Climate Change catastrophe is akin to believing the religious nut guy on the street corner with a sandwich board proclaiming “The End in Near.”
      http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/09/The-End-Pelosi-NRD-600-wLogog.jpg
      The irrational ones are the Left and their climate religion.

      • Cartoon doesn’t really work though. If the Democrats and sundry truly psycho leftists around the Western world have their way then it literally is “the end of civilization”.

    • I am a climate skeptic from Poland. When the discussion about denial of the Holocaust begins, I have to speak. Nobody in my country denies the holocaust. He denies attributing it to the Poles as a whole. Recommends a short historical film, this is not a lie.

      I’m not lover of new government of Poland.

      • May God smile on Poland.
        The war for Poland is not over; the enemy is at the gates,and they have come from the east. The rest of Europe has surrendered without firing a shot; the West betrayed Poland once. It is doing it again.
        But I pray Poland continues its resistance, and prevails.

      • I am half-Jewish, and have relatives who died in the Holocaust in Poland. I am deeply offended by those who compare Holocaust denial to skepticism about an unproved scientific theory. When I was growing up in England in the 1950’s my parents hired a Polish painter, Stan, who escaped from a German POW camp by swimming across Lake Geneva. Stan brought his kids with him as his helpers to our house. My mother asked him why. His answer, “They eat, so they work.” Thank you for your video, focus, and I have nothing but admiration for the Polish people.

    • Sure – they learned that anything can go viral and often does. There is nothing very exceptional about the creation of lynch mobs. What’s the difference between a willing lynch mob and an army trotting off to reclaim lands taken ‘from us’ 500 years ago? One has the force of law. Even the UN agrees that wars are still legal.
      Now that we have free speech advocates demanding that it is a right to be reserved for particular opinions, anything can be lynched, from fake news climate to fake news witches. I find it remarkable that Gawker would post this:
      “It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.”
      Well, that’s the whole point of exposing the flim-flam, isn’t it! But Gawker doesn’t, apparently, see itself as a pack of climate-change liars. They issue public calls to violence reasonably secure in the knowledge that real scientists with a dose of common sense about climate won’t make similar calls to target Gawkers because real scientists are civilized. Mobs, not so much.
      This is the mob in action at Queens University, Ontario against someone who isn’t nearly politically correct enough to be accorded any free speech rights:
      https://globalnews.ca/news/4066542/woman-arrested-window-damaged-following-protest-at-queens-over-controversial-lecture/

      • Much of the trouble at universities began during the nineteen sixties. Instead of suspending students, university administrators just lets this go on.
        Administrators caved in.

      • Barbara March 7, 2018 at 5:26 pm
        … Administrators caved in.

        There aren’t a lot of people more craven than university administrators. Let’s just say that students can get away with blatant fraud as long as they hire the right shyster lawyer. That said, I was heartened when I heard about the University of Chicago policy of free speech. link The last time I felt that way was when S.I. Hayakawa “pulled the wires out from the loud speakers on a protesters’ van at an outdoor rally.”

      • Yeah, but commieBob, from your wiki link, Hayakawa eventually, as Barbara says, just caved in to them.

      • Barbara: “Much of the trouble at universities began in the nineteen sixties. Instead of suspending students, university administrators just lets [sic] this go on.”
        Except in the nineteen sixties there were legitimate issues like civil rights and a crazy war in Vietnam. The idea that universities are little islands unto themselves, divorced from the rest of society, and subject to their own laws, is the root of political correctness. If students violate laws, they can be arrested, as can any other citizen. The university should care nothing about this, and have no internal discipline. If the student flunks out because he was in jail or cared more about demonstrating than going to class, that’s his hard luck. That’s actually the way it was in the 1960’s, when we had free speech in universities, and nobody gave a FF if what they said offended anybody else’s sensitivities.

    • When I was a kid, everyone knew about the Salem Witch Trials. Everyone knew about lynch mobs. We were taught the value of due process. We were taught that it is better that ten guilty men go free than to unjustly imprison one innocent person. We were taught that our ways were superior to those of the totalitarian communist countries.
      <br
      Those lessons, and any sense of fair play and justice are gone. What these people are doing is no different than what the KKK used to do. It's a different flavor but it's still Strange Fruit.

  3. I admit… I know nothing about publishing a book….but how can a book be too long?
    ….just make a bigger book
    Anywho, kudos to Marc for letting Anthony show it to all of us!

    • The cost of printed books, especially print on demand books like this, increases proportionally based on the page count. This obviously isn’t an issue with eBooks. The current page count is 200 pages. This chapter is 34 pages, so it would increase the page count by 15%.

  4. All the while the most rabid climate activists keep on using fossil fuels like everyone else.

  5. With people like Joe Romm in this world I wish we all had something equivalent to the US 2nd amendment.

    • Maybe I should clarify – to protect ourselves from people he incites to attack us in our homes.

      • You should also be aware of Amendments the Constitution doesn’t have. Like one prohibiting commerce in certain plants and their derivatives.

      • Back before judges decided that the constitution was merely a list of suggestions, they knew that they needed an amendment to ban the sale of alcohol.
        In the modern world, we understand that no matter what the government wants to do, an excuse for it can be found under either the commerce or general welfare clause.
        We also know that the role of judges is not to decide if something a law is constitutional or not, they are now charged with deciding what decision will bring society closer to perfection, and ruling in that manner.

      • The right of gun ownership would not change if the 2nd amendment were not present. The 2nd amendment just makes explicit a right retained by the people.
        The constitution does not list our rights. It specifies which of our rights or powers are rendered to the government in the interests of an orderly society. Those rights not so rendered are retained.
        Nowhere are is the intrinsic right to an armed self constitutionally surrendered to the government.

      • I agree that the ‘Bill of Rights’ did not grant us those rights spoken of in the first ten ‘Amendments’ (To the Constitution) and anticipated further ones. To me, what was done was to generate the need for super majorities, within a society of people who have the right of self governance. Those are limits on what a mere majority can force others to abide, as I understand the form of Governance our Founders established.
        (Amazing stuff we inherit, simply amazing to me)

      • Wickard vs Filburn 1942. Drove a monster truck through the constitution and we have been paying the price since.

      • Don’t forget the First. I’ve always liked the pair of the First and Fifth Amendments. One allows you to say what you want (no soap box or audience guaranteed), while the other allows you to keep your mouth shut. Together, they fully protect what goes on in your head.

  6. What psychosis-ridden people would even suggest such things? Do they think THEY are immune to such treatment? To even suggest such things is a clear indication of pure hatred that has no reasonable source to it.
    What does this vile, heinous and irrational hatred stem from ? What drives it? These people clearly indicate that they are willing to attack you for merely existing.
    Do they NOT realize that Robespierre met the same fate he inflicted on the people he hated?
    I think that chapter should have been included, not excised, from that book. There is NO such thing as “too long”. But thanks for posting the link to it.
    Clearly, we must all be vigilant.

  7. I accept climate change as inevitably as I accept weather change.
    I accept the holocaust as a matter of historical record.
    How can I be branded a ‘denialist in either context?
    What I don’t believe is that climate change is catastrophic. Inevitable, yes, but not catastrophic.
    Successful men have historically built fortresses on top of hills as a defence against many foes.
    Contemporary mankind has profited from estuary settlements, with scant regard to defence, whatever the threat may be.
    If they lose property thanks to climate change, however caused, perhaps they might consider defendable hilltop residences as vital once again.
    Sh*t runs downhill.
    So endeth the lesson.

    • There is a reason why IT runs downhill.
      Never forget you are living in a very strong force field, it influences more things than you might imagine.

    • I believe that future climate will prove to be the worst catastrophe to occur on the planet since human beings have been present but it will be the onset of an intolerably cold climate that will cause the catastrophe, not a warming climate. The reason it will be the worst catastrophe since humans first set foot on the planet will be because there are so many billions more of us now than there were even during the little ice age and certainly far fewer present during the last glaciation period. R. I. P., y’all.

    • Yes, sh*t flows down hill but fresh water must be pumped uphill, and sieges were successful. 😉
      you’ll need a well and a postern gate.

    • I accept that climate change can and has been reasonably catastrophic.
      I just don’t accept that it is man made. Or happening to a huge extent now.

    • HotScot, the Williamsburg, Virginia settlers (early 1600s) sailing into Chesapeake Bay knew to look for a sheltered spot away from the coast & well above the water level. Apparently they were smarter than today’s developers.

  8. Warning! – the activists should not confuse the meekness (and relative politeness thus far), of the ‘skeptics’ and ‘deniers’ with that of weakness. This could be a most unfortunate and shortsighted oversight on their part.
    Were their threats ever to be realized, the reaction I would contend, would be fast, and harsh.
    History, in this regard, should be best left on the pages of a book, and not toyed with now.

    • Jordan Peterson, the U of T clinical psychologist, has an interesting take on the phrase, “The meek shall inherit the earth.” In one of his youtube videos he says that meek, as used, originally meant something like, “a person who has a sword and knows how to use it but chooses to keep it sheathed”.
      Sorry, I could not immediately find the video clip as it is probably in one of his longer lectures. I much prefer this connotation to our current view of meek being synonymous with wimp.

  9. For those who cannot grow a pair and speak out I recommend staying quiet and pretend to agree with them BUT please gather evidence from the inside. Every little bit will help in the future. Emails should all be saved to your own HDD. When The Resistance finally wins this evidence will be essential.

    • Conventional hard drives don’t last. Solid state drives, flash drives are better. Encrypt your archives using Igor Pavlov’s 7Z and a strong password. Safe deposit box?

      • Conventional hard drives don’t last. Solid state drives, flash drives are better.

        None of the above are suitable for long term archiving. Tapes are still the best option. SSD’s (solid state drives) and flash drives are not exactly the same thing. Flash memory stores data as trapped charge that leaks over time. USB drives will have longer retention than SSD’s while retention time for both will be reduced with increasing use and temperature.
        Conventional hard drives magnetic media will retain the data longer than SSD and USB flash devices. The drawback for mechanical drives is if you set them on the shelf for 10 years there is a good chance they won’t spin up. On the plus side the data will still be there and for a modest fee can be recovered.
        As tape storage is not likely in most peoples budget the most economical path is to transfer the data every 5 years or so and update formats that have become obsolete. If using USB drives copy the data out and write it back (this will refresh the trapped charge).

      • Actually its been hard work getting solid state drives to equal the lifetimes of spinning rust drives.
        USB style pen drives are not meant for a lot of use either.
        Both are up around the 1-10 year mark depending on how you use them.
        The only reasonably secure strategy is to run the data mirrored on at least two disks, of any sort, and keep on replacing the drives as they go.

  10. Legal court, not the court of public opinion, is the way to silence people like this. I’m still waiting for the first “Climate Change” trial to take place.

  11. So…..What happens with people who see things that are not really there? This is getting really spooky.

  12. Righteous indignation and calls to violence against the unbelievers are always a part of any fervent religious movement. The true believer knows that they speak the truth, their truth is undeniable despite any facts, and all attempts to undermine the truth must be countered with threats of violence.
    It seems this is just human nature as it has occurred throughout our known history. The fact that the practitioners cannot see themselves for what they are is also just human nature. Many people assume that modern humans have somehow gotten past their superstitious nature, but they have not and likely never will – they have just transformed their superstitions into new “End of the World” scenarios. Sinners are now Carbon Deniers (whatever the heck that means).
    My guess is that only time will kill off this weird new Climatology movement – as predictions continue to fail and attempts to manipulate data go from obvious to ridiculous to bizarre, more and more people will simply migrate to some other newfound unsupported but popular belief. Rational people will feel this is a victory, but actually rational people cannot win a war of this nature – the war simply moves on to a new battlefield. With luck, this new battlefield will not be of such great consequence and can be (more safely) ignored.

    • Climate Change is just the new Hellfire and Brimstone religion for people who tell themselves they’re too smart to fall for a hellfire and brimstone religion. “REPENT YE O REPENT YE, YE EVILDOERS, OR YE SHALL ALL PERISH IN FLAME!!!! AND YE MUST GIVE ALL OF YOUR WORLDLY GOODS TO THE KEEPERS OF THE HOLY ORDER TO PROVE THAT YE ARE WORTHY OF SALVATION, YE WICKED ONES! REPENT YE O REPENT YE!!!”
      it’s the same old game as always.

      • Global warming in a sense predicts the end of the world in fire. Where have I heard that before?

    • Robert ,
      “Righteous indignation and calls to violence against the unbelievers are always a part of any fervent religious movement.”
      Being willing to suffer a gruesome death at the hands of unbelievers, seems to me to indicate significant fervor in a “religious movement” . . and “love thy neighbor as thyself” as a central commandment seems a far cry from calling for violence. And then there’s that “science” undertaking, by intellectuals of a religious movement, which again seems a bit “out of character” in terms of the “always” picture you seem to paint there . . Just sayin’, brother . . ; )

  13. I think many of these guys suffer the inability to consider and evaluate the ole saying:
    Be aware, really aware, of what you really wish for, as in the end of the day that is all you get, as per the request of it all.”
    good luck to any one with that wish…
    cheers

  14. The climate change industry (Big Climate) depends on a small cadre of well-placed and reasonably coordinated actors. The master plan is simple enough not to require much advanced planning. There is a fat paperback called The Spike that explains how to do it. It describes how the Soviet Union got people into key editorial positions at the New York Times and other publications. Their task is not go generate propaganda as such, but to spike (kill) any story that supports an unwelcome narrative. The CIA bragged that they had cooperators in all the major news media in the USA including (specifically) CNN.
    The shouting and shaming and threatening and calls to murder are a variation on this theme – the end goal is to prevent a second or third opinion getting oxygen, not to demonstrate any solid evidence.
    The manipulation of the journals is particularly obvious. It only takes a few pretended-irates to get a volunteer editor separated from his chair. The Climategate emails show in detail how it was done, successfully, which was enough to encourager les autres. It is a chapter taken from The Spike.
    The Spike, by the way, was itself an East Bloc propaganda effort to sell the claim that the US had chemical weapons on their cruise missiles in Europe. It used the ‘reveal’ that the Spike was real and how it worked and where. Then, having got the trust of the reader, inserted a chapter written in a different style, by someone else, with a different vocabulary, with typos, to push the claims about bio-weapons or some such.
    We are surrounded by such misdirection and the only way to address it is the independent investigation of truth, ponder it, then do what you think is right, damn the blogs.

    • Crispin,
      Haven’t seen The Spike before. However, if you’re interested in examinations of how covert influence operations can manipulate opinion, and ultimately culture, you may want to take a look at:
      http://www.willingaccomplices.com
      The Comintern’s genius of covert influence, Willi Muenzenberg, ran a devastating influence operation against American culture. He targeted the media (think Walter Duranty of the NY TImes), Hollywood, and education/academia.
      The beauty of such operations is that, when done right, as Muenzenberg did, they never end. You create the message, and wrap it in seductive holier-than-thou attitudes, and it goes on forever.
      The fake “Climate Crusade” against American capitalism is just the latest in the permutations of Muenzenberg’s messages designed to destroy Normal-America.

    • Crispin in Waterloo but really in Naryn,
      I must say, I always enjoy your thoughtful comments, and I usually learn something as a bonus. I had never heard of “The Spike” before, so did a quick search and found a reference to a book by Arnaud de Borchgrave published in 1980, which is I think the book you were referring to. My search also brought up a link to a short story by Orwell called “the Spike” published in 1931. I love finding these little off-topic discursions and thought you and others might too. Spoiler alert, it has nothing to do with global warming. 🙂
      http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/spike/english/e_spike

  15. It seems that if the accusation is that we should be punished for “lying” about climate change (actually telling an unwanted truth), then a similar list of lies and liars supporting CAGW should draw the same punishment. Countless claims about unrealistic outcomes are driving decisions that can result in the deaths of thousands of people that can’t afford to heat their home. How can that be legal? If these misrepresentations make it into the official government record, and falsification of the database, I think there are federal laws that make it a felony.

  16. As a minority turns into a majority, they turn from persecuted to prosecutors. It happened to the early Christians for example. All the virtues of the persecuted quickly disappear.

  17. “Joe Romm of Climate Progress defended a posting on his website warning that climate skeptics would be strangled in bed for rejecting the view that we face a man-made climate crisis.”

    And I’ve read that many in Hollywood will pay far above the minimum wage for that kind of activity. Why should climate skeptics be expected to give it away for free?

  18. I have no right to disagree with someone? Since when is having a different opinion punishable by death? Oh, right, I forgot…since the Romans drove the Jews out of Judea. Since the Crusaders fought the Muslims in the Holy Land (several times). Since the Muslims conquered a large part of Spain (and the Spanish took it back again). Since the York Massacre of 1190 in England, where the city’s Jews committed suicide rather than allowing themselves to be killed by rioting Christians. Since the Edict of Expulsion was decreed by King Edward I of England in July of 1290, expelling all Jews from the Kingdom of England. Since the Inquisition, and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492. Moving ahead 450 years, since the World Wars I and II, since the partition of India and Pakistan, since Josef Stalin, since Mao Zedong, since Pol Pot, since the Hutus and the Tutsis, since Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, since ISIS…
    Nothing has changed, obviously, in more than 2,000 years, and the Left now is just as stupid, vapid, idiotic and obsessed with the — yes! — religion of climate change as all the other idiotic humans have been about other religions since time immemorial. What a pathetic species we are!

    • Dear Careercharisma,
      Everything you say is true, but….there is one salient fact you have overlooked.
      Despite it all, we are still here.
      Nature has ensured that the truth is irrelevant: What counts primarily is that we survive long enough to procreate.
      If lies and untruths and hatred of strangers helps, by creating cohesive social units, then it…helps!
      Leftism is successful because it succeeds in propagating itself.
      If it destroys the host like a mind parasite, then ultimately that will be its demise.
      Whenever Leftism DOES succeed in taking over a country, it destroys it.

  19. I like that Marc made his book to look like an issue of National Geographic. It’s an implicit poke in their eye.

      • So only #123 out of how many millions of offerings on Amazon? I get 300,000 results for books released in the last 90 days alone. The best answer I could find in a hurry was about 32.8 million total, but that data was from four years ago. I wouldn’t have a problem with an athlete who was better than 99.9996% of their competition calling themselves one of the “best”. It certainly isn’t an accomplishment I’m in a position to scoff at.

  20. This left out chapter from Marc Morano’s book reminds me that I should get a book or DVD about the Salem Witch Hunts in Massachusetts in 1692. I have some money left on a B&N gift card.
    In my mind, mass hysteria and groupthink is every bit as much in evidence today with climate alarmism as it was in Salem in 1692….maybe even more so today. Just hop on board the mass hysteria bandwagon and ride it down the road. The mainstream media seems especially susceptible to this. Don’t bother thinking for yourself. Leaves me wondering how much we humans really have evolved psychologically in 300+ years.
    Twenty innocent people were dead when the witch hunts finally ended in 1693.

    • I think “even more so” is definitely the case. Without mass communication, there’s no way people of the past could have achieved the levels of mass hysteria that we witness today. Just a few short centuries ago, the vast majority of people in the world would never even have heard about events that now dominate the news cycle for weeks . The constant inundation of doom and gloom from the “if it bleeds, it leads” crowd must have some measurable psychological impact when contrasted against people in the past who rarely had opportunity to concern themselves with goings on outside their local area. Social media has only exacerbated the effect of a populace largely informed by headlines and hearsay alone.
      Well beyond the realm of climate alarmism, all sociopolitical issues seem to be taken from a default position that the Earth is a terrible place full of terrible people and it’s only getting worse. It’s not just climate skepticism or even “lukewarmism’ that is actively opposed, but optimism itself in all its forms. It’s astounding how hard people will fight to cling to their depressing, defeatist views if you try to spread good news in any form. Sometimes I wonder if, on an instinctual level, human beings just have difficulty accepting peace and happiness after so many millennia of selectively breeding the over-cautious and borderline paranoid back when the world really was cold, dark, and terrifying, when a cut foot could lead to a slow, painful death, a late frost could starve an entire village, and that snapping twig in the undergrowth might actually be a monster that wants to eat you.

  21. I have never taken these Alarmist threats of jailings and violence and death seriously. I still don’t. I think these are the last gasps of desperate people. But I’m ready if some threat were to show its ugly head, just like a Boy Scout: Always prepared. 🙂
    Instead of threatening people, the Alarmists should produce a little evidence of CAGW and then all the skeptics will come over to their side. Until then, as always, skeptics will say no evidence has been presented.
    Nothing is stopping you Alarmists from producing the CAGW evidence. Don’t blame skeptics because you don’t have any. It’s not our fault you don’t have evidence. All skeptics are doing is pointing out the lack of proof. And the Alarmists have no reply other than to threaten violence.

    • I do take them seriously. One of the most scary persons I ever encountered was a mouth foaming spittle flecked animal rights protester chanting ‘Murderers! Murderers!’.
      They drove a listed company off the markets and out of Britain in the end.
      Huntingdon Life Sciences.

      The Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign is based in the UK and US, and has aimed to close the company down since 1999. According to its website, the campaign’s methods are restricted to non-violent direct action, as well as lobbying and demonstrations. It targets not only HLS itself, but any company, institution, or person allegedly doing business with the laboratory, whether as clients, suppliers, or even disposal and cleaning services, and the employees of those companies.
      Despite its stated non-violent position, SHAC members have been convicted of crimes of violence against HLS employees. On 25 October 2010 five SHAC members received prison sentences for threatening HLS staff. SHAC has also been accused of encouraging arson and violent assault. An HLS director was assaulted in front of his child. HLS managing director Brian Cass was sent a mousetrap primed with razor blades, and in February 2001 was attacked by three men armed with pickaxe handles and CS gas.Another businessman with links to HLS was attacked and knocked unconscious adjacent to a barn his assailants had set alight.
      Both SHAC and Animal Liberation Front activists have engaged in harassment and intimidation, including issuing hoax bomb threats and death threats. The Daily Mail cites as an example the sending of 500 letters to the neighbours of a company manager who did business with HLS; the letter contained an unsupported allegation that the man was a paedophile, with police having to inform all 500 households that the allegations were false.
      In 2008 seven of SHAC’s senior members were described by prosecutors as “some of the key figures in the Animal Liberation Front” and found guilty of conspiracy to blackmail HLS.
      Effect of campaign
      The campaign against HLS led to its share price crashing, the Royal Bank of Scotland closing its bank account, and the British government arranging for the Bank of England to give them an account.The company’s share price, worth around £300 in the 1990s fell to £1.75 in January 2001, stabilizing at 3 pence by mid-2001.In 2000, HLS was dropped from the New York Stock Exchange because of its market capitalization had fallen below NYSE limits.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntingdon_Life_Sciences
      No, I take these peole very very seriously indeed. The capacity of the Left for mindless violence based on a moral position has been there ever since the French Revolution, and has been embodied in every Purge in the Soviet and other communist states, and reached a zenith in the Holocaust. The real holocaust deniers are those who deny that in fact National Socialism was a party of the Left. It’s anti-communist stance was merely a nationalistic reaction to having someone else’s idea of socialism imposed.
      Racism is part of the Left’s agenda, and of the world view they perpetuate.
      Where you or I simply see a human being, the Left sees a victim, or an oppressor, a racist, or a victim of racism, a sexist pig or a sexually abused victim. There is no middle ground.
      The brilliance of the Left has been to accustom people to viewing everything through the spectacles of conflict and hatred. The trick is to get them to accept the world view that the world is indeed full of just two sorts of people, the oppressors and the oppressed, and then get you to pick sides.
      Leftism is a process of continual (armed) struggle against the status quo, a perpetual revolution against established standards, until anarchy results. This is inbuilt into Marxism. The theory holds that once everything is destroyed, something better will take its place. Why this has never ever happened in the past is never addressed.
      In the 1950s, I lived through McCarthyism. In Europe we thought America was being a wee bit hysterical.
      50 years later, I am thinking that maybe McCarthy was right.

      • Leo,
        Welcome to reality! It’s harsh and scary, but it’s the only reality we’ve got!
        You “lived through the McCarthyism of the 50s?” Really? What do you think you “lived through?” It was a vicious struggle for the survival of America–fought by forces determined to destroy Normal-America on one side, and Joe McCarthy on the other. It was fought on the information warfare battlefield. Much as the same battlefield is the site of much of our struggles today against the same forces determined to destroy our culture.
        Yes, now, 50 years later, you’ve hit on the truth! McCarthy was right. His only mistake was to misunderstand the power of the covert influence payload the Comintern planted in our culture.
        The late Stan Evans published the best overview of the PC clique’s denigration of McCarthy.
        Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies
        It’s on Amazon.
        Stan picks apart the lies told by McCarthy’s enemies, and exposes the truth of McCarthy’s efforts to expose the enemies within our government.
        Here’s an excellent interview with Stan, in which he provides detail and context to his research:
        http://humanevents.com/2007/11/19/m-stanton-evans-reveals-the-truth-about-mccarthy/

  22. Another dirty trick from the alarmist play book is to brand their opponents as conspiracy theorists. Not only does it discredit the target, it usually shuts down debate.

  23. Climate “denial” is a no sh*t subject. Everyone knows it’s BS. Holohoax “denial” is much more complex. And you people will NEVER figure it out.

  24. If the cyclical scientists are correct and we descend into 2 decades of cold I’m wondering what we should be asking for from Romm et al who think killing those with different views is acceptable?
    Should we ask for apologies? Refunds of carbon taxes paid? Them to be charged for incitement? Or should we maturely muster all the humility, humanity, good will we can and say: “Nah nah, I told you so!”?

  25. As well as wanting to criminalize ‘deniers’, they also try to ‘pathologicalise’ – all dressed up in peer reviewed scientism(sic) papers published in gate-kept CAGW friendly outlets.

  26. Thanks for making the ‘cutting room floor’ chapter available. It amply documents point 3 of Booker’s Climate Groupthink thesis.

  27. This may be one of my posts that may be bounced for being too political, but here goes:
    I believe few skeptics would object to denouncing climate change as “politics masquerading as science.” Christopher Monckton, James Delingpole, Rupert Darwall, and to some extent Tim Ball have gone further and observed that it is a repetition of old fashioned collectivist or socialist power politics. The close resemblance of today’s career catastrophists to Nazis, fascists, or Communists should come as no surprise. But, supposing this to be a credible analogy, it only underlines a very serious shortcoming among skeptics who may fail to know that today’s neo-collectivist-totalitarian theory, policy, and practice have been well enough studied and documented to be entirely predictable to students of the form. But worse, the failure to fully recognize all that collectivism stands for leaves its opponents, if innocent of the game, in the dark and at a serious disadvantage. It is very worth knowing what is in store for nonbelievers and why.
    Beyond the insights of Monckton, Delingpole, Darwall and Ball there is a 75-year-old study, “The Road to Serfdom,” by a Nobel Prize winning economist, himself a disillusioned socialist, Friedrich A. Hayek. He pointed out in Chapter 10 of the book that the most critical thing to understand about establishing socialism is its need for absolute power. To the strict collectivist, power is itself the goal. Never mind “equality” and all the other cover ups. Hayek observes that to succeed, collectivists must assert a power over individual lives of a magnitude never before known, and the degree of their success depends on how completely they achieve that power. Take a look again at Venezuela.
    This leading principle has corollaries. Socialist morality dictates that anything in the way of absolute power must be summarily disposed of. It is the old idea of ends justifying means. And it is not very funny up close, Marc Marano, et al. So collectivism’s contempt for truth based on observed and validated evidence demands that it subvert of ordinary scientific inquiry in favor of “official,” politically-correct “truth.” That especially applies to climate science, which must engage wide public concurrence and compliance. In the past such demands have been for Nazi or Communist physics or mathematics, and that seemed to need a lot of book burning. A reading of Hayek should make abundantly clear that nothing has changed from the old bunch to this one.
    I apologize for for belaboring this point, but it underlies the problem. Nowhere outside this several-generation-old economics paper is there a more exhaustive insight into politics today, including, “the resistance,” antifa, identity campaigning, and far left groupthink in general. I recommend plowing through a great deal of abstruse but very incisive academic prose to read “The Road to Serfdom” and finally see what is now going on. (If Marc Marano reads this, Craig Rucker knows my email, and I have a pdf sentence-by-sentence contemporary rewrite of Hayek for the asking.)

  28. “…like everyone here ready to lynch ya, none of us believe in your so called ‘mass-hysteria’ either.”
    “We got the rope…”

  29. It was probably an editorially sound decision to cut the chapter on catastrophists’ threats. The leading value of a book like Marc Marano’s is to persuade the undecided. You can’t do that very well by outrage and vituperation. It is best to come across as cool headed and straight-arrow, without a wicked bone in your body. Let the other side be the witch burners. Also, a lot of people are so invested in the climate tussle one way or another, that it doesn’t take much to get them excited, and that would only get in the way of cool (and irreverent) persuasion.
    It was the same in France over the Dreyfus affair. The French Dreyfusards and their opponents had nearly pitched battles over guilt or innocence. When new evidence was introduced a few years later in a second trial, the defense attorney was shot, almost fatally, and his defense only got Dreyfus a reduced sentence and restoration to his army rank. Only when the matter had cooled over 20 years or so, did a third tribunal exonerate Dreyfus of all charges. By then nobody cared. In fact, Dreyfus’s principle response was that he had been around long enough that he ought to be getting a promotion.
    So, let’s hold the ranting among ourselves, just so we don’t forget the real dangers lurking in fanaticism.

Comments are closed.