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
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.
I like that Marc made his book to look like an issue of National Geographic. It’s an implicit poke in their eye.
God Bless the “Godfather of Skeptics” He gave us a book you cant refuse
LOL…………………. “Bestseller”
LOL, as compared to your offering, which is “bupkis”.
Wake me up when it goes from 80 to 30 on Amazon.
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.
Don’t forget the Australian Government sponsored play “Kill Climate Deniers”
http://griffintheatre.com.au/
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.
Should be Climate Depot not Climate Deport
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.
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/
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.
Sites that censor comments are pathetic.
All sites censor—everyone of them in some way or another. I have never found any site that allowed all comments.
This was legit. The only thing that flagged it was the word “Hitler”. oooo ahhhhh
H*tler
zerohedge doesn’t or if they do then they just don’t give a flying you know what about any subject.
Usenet doesn’t censor.
alt.cimate-change.skeptics anyone?
It’s not censored, it’s moderated.
Unless the post violates one of the published site policies, it will eventually be published.
You see what flagged it? That’s BS!
If you can’t talk about history, you can’t talk about SH*T!
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.
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!”?
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.
Thanks for making the ‘cutting room floor’ chapter available. It amply documents point 3 of Booker’s Climate Groupthink thesis.
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.)
“…like everyone here ready to lynch ya, none of us believe in your so called ‘mass-hysteria’ either.”
“We got the rope…”
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.