Perverse, conflicted ethical systems – then and now

Note from Anthony: This opinion piece covers a very ugly subject. I gave it careful consideration before I decided to run it. One of the considerations I made is how many times “climate justice” proponents have said and spread terrible things about me, as well as others who stand up to the green tyranny that has pervaded society. As ugly as these comparisons obviously are, had I not experienced some of the hatred and death wishes personally, I’d think it was over the top. Just ask Marc Morano about hate speech and death wishes.

Foreword by Paul Dreissen

Nazi ethics were hopelessly and perversely conflicted and schizophrenic. People obviously occupied a lower niche than animals on the Nazi “moral and ethical” hierarchy – and millions of innocent people were sent to their deaths.

Sadly, the more rabid elements of modern environmentalism have similar “ethics” – and play a major role in perpetuating poverty, disease, misery, malnutrition and early death in poor countries. Ironically, in the name of “keeping fossil fuels in the ground” to “save the planet” from “dangerous manmade climate change,” radical green policies would also destroy the very habitats and wildlife they claim to care so deeply about.

Perverse, conflicted ethical systems

Radical environmentalists put people last, and destroy habitats and wildlife to end fossil fuels

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

Third Reich Forest Minister Hermann Goering was an avid hiker and ecologist who once sent a man to a concentration camp for cutting up a frog for fish bait. In 1933 he and other Nazi Party leaders enacted anti-vivisection laws to stop what he called “unbearable torture and suffering in animal experiments.”

Intensely hostile to capitalism, the Nazis controlled all industries and envisioned large-scale wind turbine projects that would generate “huge amounts of cheap energy” and create millions of German jobs.

But as Luftwaffe commander, Goering planned and directed the 1939 terror bombing of Warsaw and the final obliteration of the city’s Jewish ghetto. Thousands were slaughtered, and survivors were sent to the Treblinka concentration camp, under “the final solution” that he helped mastermind – to send millions of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, “mentally deficient burdens” and other “sub-humans” to ovens and mass graves.

About the most charitable thing one can say about Nazi ethics is that they were perversely conflicted and schizophrenic. People clearly occupied a lower niche than animals on their “moral and ethical” hierarchy.

Sadly, the same observations apply to the more rabid elements of modern environmentalism. Ironically, in the name of “keeping fossil fuels in the ground” to “save the planet” from “dangerous manmade climate change” and other imagined calamities, radical greens also demand actions that would ultimately destroy the very habitats and wildlife they claim to love.

Their own words underscore their attitudes. Here are some examples.

“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically.” (Earth First! activist Judy Bari) “Loggers losing their jobs because of spotted owl legislation is no different than people being out of work after the furnaces of Dachau shut down.” (Friends of the Earth founder David Brower)

People have become “a cancer … a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” (National Park Service scientist David Graber) “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” (Prince Philip of England)

“Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals president Ingrid Newkirk) “Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.” (Newkirk again)

Banning DDT in Sri Lanka might well unleash a malaria epidemic, but “so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any.” Besides, in the United States, DDT substitutes “only kill farm workers, and most of them are Mexicans and Negroes.” (Environmental Defense Fund scientist Charles Wurster)

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” (Paul Ehrlich, who in 1968 predicted mass starvation and a collapse of civilization by the 1980s)

“It’s much cheaper for everybody in Africa to have electricity where they need it,” from little solar panels “on their huts.” (Actor Ed Begley, Jr.) People in developing countries “simply cannot expect to have the material lifestyle of the average American.” (Friends of the Earth president Brent Blackwelder)

These attitudes, policies and demands prevail today. Radical greens still advance the same irrational, intolerant views about pesticides to control insect-borne diseases; genetically modified crops to feed more people from less acreage with less water; and access to abundant, reliable, affordable energy required to power modern industrialized societies in Africa, Asia and other less developed regions.

The world’s poorest families still live unnecessarily squalid, miserable, diseased, malnourished, short lives. Billions still don’t even have electricity, clean water, light bulbs or a tiny refrigerator.

It’s awful enough that they were born into these places and conditions, and must endure corrupt, kleptocratic dictators. It is intolerable that their hopes and dreams are also stymied by unelected, unaccountable eco-imperialist activists and bureaucrats, who prance, preen and profess their commitment to “marginalized” people – but care about them only if they are “threatened” by capitalism or climate change. Not surprisingly, they brazenly ignore their own callous roles in this injustice.

The world’s dark-skinned people remain at the bottom of the environmentalist ethical hierarchy – with millions dying every year from preventable diseases of poverty, perpetuated by callous environmentalists. Developed country loggers, miners, factory workers, ranchers, pensioners and poor minorities are not much higher up; farmers also get short shrift, unless they grow corn, soybeans or canola for biofuels.

The battle over fossil fuels has recently entered other dangerous territory, as “protesters” launch campaigns reminiscent of radicals putting spikes in trees so that sawmill blades would explode and injure workers – while comrades bombed GMO and animal testing labs, meat packing plants and even houses.

Their targets now are oil and natural gas transport systems – as a prelude to more rampant destruction – as Putin aides and cronies assist and finance other groups that are trying to block US energy production.

A new cadre of Earth Liberation Front anarchists has taken to closing the valves on pipelines – sabotage that could result in pipeline ruptures, oil spills, explosions, injuries and deaths. In one case, the “valve turners” called the Keystone pipeline operations center just minutes before closing the valve, causing the valve wheel and ground below the saboteurs’ feet to shake. They could have caused a disaster.

If caught, arrested and prosecuted, these extremists invoke the “necessity defense” – asserting that they were compelled to break the law, in order to prevent a greater harm: manmade climate cataclysms.

The eco-terror groups have issued a “Decisive Ecological Warfare” manifesto, urging like-minded criminal elements to commit sabotage against pipelines, transmission lines, oil tankers and refineries. As in the past, the militants want “more moderate” environmental groups to support the “necessity” defense, acts of sabotage, and the use of eco-terrorism to “disrupt and dismantle industrial civilization” and “remove the ability of the powerful to exploit the marginalized and destroy the planet.”

They want more “mainstream” pressure groups to promote the notion that sabotage is acceptable and normal where Earth’s future is at stake. Environmentalists have already persuaded Western institutions not to support pesticide use, fossil fuel power plant construction and other modern technologies in poor, disease-ridden, energy-deprived countries – so maybe this lunacy no longer so farfetched.

Several states have passed “critical infrastructure protection” bills, assessing criminal penalties on terrorists and organizations that conspire to trespass on or damage essential infrastructure sites. The bills also hold parties responsible for any resultant damages to property or persons; they should also penalize foundations and other financiers of eco-terror. All 50 states and Congress should enact similar bills.

The asserted justifications that drive perverse, conflicted environmentalist ethics are based on ideologies, assertions and computer models that label humans, capitalism and modern technologies as existential threats to our planet. They have given rise to a $1.5-trillion-per-year Climate Industrial Complex that is determined to expand its revenues and control people’s lives, livelihoods and living standards – while redistributing wealth mostly to those who would be in power and those who would keep them in power, while sending just enough to the world’s poorest families to improve their lives slightly at the margins.

Ironically, in the process, eco-activists will inflict far more damage on environmental values than do the technologies they despise. Their “solutions” to alleged ecological “problems” will turn billions of acres into wind and solar farms, biofuel plantations, hydroelectric projects, and mines for materials needed for wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and other “clean, green, renewable” energy alternatives.

The twentieth century revealed how thin the veneer of humanity, civilization and ethics can be, when propaganda, fear-mongering, hatred and emotions take over. We need to muster enough science, intellectual rigor and freedom of speech to prevent more deaths in the name of “environmental justice.”

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of books and articles on energy and environmental policy.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The article is well worth reading but I have to admit that it is somewhat distracting- here in the uk anyway, to have the article interspersed with two adverts for a erection pill with an explicit title and graphics. If there was anyway to prevent ads like this I would suggest they are avoided.


Use ‘Ghostery’ …it cut adverts, stops trackers & lots more.

I don’t mind adverts, it’s a fair price to “pay” for free quality content. Perhaps I have misunderstood the demographic of this site?!

Other ad-blockers are available.
I use uBlock Origin.


I just use the good ol’ HOSTS file in windows and add the offending domain – works a treat.


Wolsten, adverts are usually based on your own browser history predominantly, not just current content. Almost everyone will get different adverts.


As a site publisher myself, I sympathize with Anthony and the need for whatever trickle of money comes from “network” ads. If you’re blocking the ads on his site, are you also contributing somehow to the content he provides, through donations of some sort? Perhaps you are, but if you’re not, how do you think he supports himself and this site, that you’re free to read and comment on? There are endless arguments on either side of “implicit contracts”, etc, but if you’re blocking ads here, what are you doing to support this site that you apparently care enough about to read and comment upon?
And to the person down thread who claimed Anthony personally inserted the Q-Lav ads: I have no way of knowing whether he did so or not, but I’ve personally been seeing Q-Lav ads all *over* the internet. Once upon a time (about a year ago), I searched for and bought a Japanese bidet/toilet seat. (Don’t scoff until you’ve given them a longer-term trial yourself 😉 I suspect I’m now forever marked as a prospect for a Q-Lav portable bidet, but it seems they’re casting an *extremely* wide net. I infer from this that they must have a very sizable profit margin, or that their conversion rate from ads to orders is very good. Whatever the case, I just smile at their absurd, ungainly-seeming ad graphics and return my attention to the site. (Seriously, they think that those product photos are going to encourage people to buy them? Eewww… 😉

Richard Stevens

Dear Wolsten , an internet search for “ad blocker” & a little research on the best ones will help you, plenty out there.

Yeah, and what is the “QLav”, for “Fresh, Personal Hygiene”? I’m afraid to open it up, because there will probably be an ad on all my friend’s pages that says, “Becky likes QLav!!!”

that one is only on this site, so I’m not sure about how these ads work because I never get that one on any other site, but this one the Q-lav is always up. weird.


For those of you who don’t know, the QLav item in the sidebar is not a normal internet ad. It is therefore totally unrelated to browsing history and is not removed by ad blockers. It was placed there many months ago by Anthony Watts to promote the product of a friend, as he noted at the time. As the owner of this site, he has a right to do so and I think WUWT is a terrifically interesting and useful effort by Anthony. I make a point of reading every post here and often the comments as well.
I believe the product is a portable combination female douche device and unisex bidet. While I am all in favour of personal hygiene, I, for one, long ago tired of looking at the item and the image which I find some what unpleasant to repetitively view so I simply reduce the width of the window which causes the QLav item and all the rest of the sidebar to drop to the bottom of the page where I don’t have to look at it unless I so choose.


wolsten, we do not see the same adverts. The ones you see are based on your recorded internet use. I won’t go on but refer you to the current outrage over the abuses of trust committed against users of Google, Facebook et al by these modern equivalents of the yellow press of the pre-war period. Remember “you provide the story – I will provide the war” . (William Randolph Hearst).
See The Pointman Blog for the gory details.


So that must mean that the ads, directed at your typical reader of the ATTP and Hotwhopper blogs, for example, wil thenl be those featuring depilatories–(authoritative Doctor’s voice) “‘Specially formulated’ to reduce even the most stubborn and luxurious ‘hirsute-palm’ growths, to a mere “five o’clock shadow” stubble, barely discernible in the low-light conditions of most basements.”? So am I understandin’ what you’re sayin’ here, “2di”?…huh?…Oh yeah!…depilatory ads and ads for zit-ointments too–that makes sense. I mean, like, “the other” is such a bunch of disgusting, little creep-outs!

Non Nomen

In Germany it is an ad about renting a solar roof, starting at 48€/month.
Funny, eh?


I get those too in the UK. It shows that the algorithm will troll the sceptical websites for punters who show any interest in the subject! At this level one result from 10k hits will yield a profit.The internet is the cheapest form of advertising ever.

Non Nomen

If I just knew that Anthony gets his due share of that profit I’d rather not use an AdBlocker, but as long as I have to assume that the adversaries are making profit it’s AdBlock, here I come.

R. Shearer

Mine is an ad for male sex organ size reduction surgery.

Non Nomen

It must be awkward for Alarmists to find out that Skeptics have organs of a size that reduction might be considered, because all the Alarmists will ever get are offers for manual suction pumps.


ROTFL > R. Shearer

I have Avis ads.
The ads are user targeted. Based on information they’ve compiled about your internet connection in Facebook, Google and other data harvesting sites.


That doesn’t explain why I almost always get cheap-looking ads for Asian dating sites when I visit Pierre Gosselin’s excellent site! They keep cropping up despite my attempts to delete them…yuk!

Ernest Bush

If you are using a Mac, AdBlock is effective and it is supported by voluntary contributions.

Gary Kerkin

Off topic, but interesting none-the-less. Purify works extremely well with Safari on both MacOS and iOS. However, recently some sites have responded noting that I use an ad-blocker and requesting that I “white list” them. One went so far as to effectively block me from the site. Does anyone know just how much sites get in return for allowing advertising?


“However, recently some sites have responded noting that I use an ad-blocker and requesting that I “white list” them. One went so far as to effectively block me from the site.”
Gary, I use Mozilla Firefox as a browser, and use an add-on called “NoScript” which blocks just about eveything on any webpage, unless you specifically allow it. It’s really handy. I don’t see any ads when I come to WUWT other than the ones on the margin of the page, like the QLav.


I really, really hate to be the one to tell you this, but targeted advertising isn’t based on site demographics, it’s based on personal browsing history.

@Merovign: “targeted advertising isn’t based on site demographics, it’s based on personal browsing history”. I usually keep uBlock Origin on even for WUWT because some of these advertisers go completely over the top and render reading of the site impossible, When I turned it off, I got a “network security” device.advert. Part of my recent browsing history has been to do with network failures. The problem I had was caused by old copper services literally rotting in the ground, and the only gizmo that can solve that is wifi. More interesting was an advert for paisley shirts. I did a brief, one-off search on paisley materials and patterns, so I could respond to someone’s joke: “where’s your paisley waistcoat”. (They used to be common among architects for some reason). For some interests, safer to do your searches in a private window or on a non-recording search engine.


See above. I have no browsing history that should lead to dating sites!


Annie</B? – they're just using their predictive algorithms and drawing assumption.. kinda like slimate scientists do 😉
I'll bet if I looked up boxes, ribbons and tuna I'd be seeing catfood ads, I guess no one else gifts people with tins of tuna 🙁


wolsetn,the type of adverts you find on websites usually reflect previous searches you have made. just sayin….

Ads you see can be targeted based on demographics, the site you are visiting, the sites you have visited, your interests, your location, apps you have downloaded, searches you have done, your expected interests, based on your email address, or they can just be random. I set up digital marketing campaigns almost daily.


sorry to differ. I,m female and not interested in ladies of the night.My browsing tells nothing related to these women. In Firefox I can see which advertisers have cookies on the site. Use the settings function on your Android or Google device look for cookies like adnxs block them!

I don’t even look at the ads. I block them out, even though I was the advertising manager for 2 companies.

michael hart

Wolsten, as others have pointed out, the adverts tend to targeted directly at you by the algorithms, not necessarily at the site’s visitors.
Personally, I also generally tolerate adverts that are not too intrusive. I even play around to see what I can do to Google’s algorithm. (While I do visit some sites I shouldn’t be proud of, it can be a source of entertainment.)
I once searched for X-ray Spectrophotometers, for reasons of genuine scientific curiosity, and then started getting adverts for “see-through” underwear. That is the true state of the art today in AI (artificial intelligence). If Google can’t afford better software, no one else can. And they have good reasons to want the best. The robots won’t be taking over for a while yet.


the thrust of the article is fine. it’s just that when you mock demagoguery it ruins your play when you pull the same tricks you’re railing against. poor dead babies… meh…
here’s a bumper sticker you can see frequently in the bay area:
“The more i know of people- the more i love my dog”
when Goering said it, it was “the more i know of people, the more i love my dog, Benno”
(not sure if his puppy was named big ben to mock little benito mussolini or not…)


oops- sorry, that was goebbels to whom that quote is attributed
hard to keep the nazis straight these days…


Google algorithms deciding what ads are displayed on certain topics….. They’ll blame your search history cookies and habits, but it’s really Google’s ad matching to topic algorithms.
Anyway, download AdBlock. It works well.

Replying to all – in my defense and at the risk of protesting too much – this is the first time I have seen an ad like this hence the comment. Thanks also for the ad blocker advice but as I explained I don’t think it unreasonable to view/ignore ads in return for the content provided. If we all block ads it’s probable that sites like this would not exist or have to move to a subscription model.


Browser based ad blockers work, but I prefer the pi-hole. It provides the ad blocking for every device on your home network without having to install blockers on every device/browser. It just works. For me, it removes the in-line ads here, but leaves those in the right hand column. So I still se ads for the Q-lav … whatever that is.


“..article interspersed with two adverts for a erection pill with an explicit title and graphics.”
I didn’t get those ads. Maybe the ads reflect the viewer’s browsing history these days. I buy jewellery on line so I keep getting jewellery ads.
Frightening article. Only certain and severe penalties will stop the cowards and mob attackers

Janet L Chennault

Ha! Maybe that was an ‘enhancement’ to the article. Visual reinforcement of the generative impulses of humankind.
Jan, did not see those ads


wolsten You can use an ad blocker.
Ads provide revenue to keep the site going and to keep Anthony fed.
I get different ads from what you are getting.

Tom Anderson

God bless us all! Talk about evading the issue, this mindless chatter about commercials is little less than turning one’s back on a crime of violence in progress. It is spineless cowardice. Driessen’s article is the last of many I have seen among the neglected volumes of research published on the close interrelation of socialist and Nazi degradation of fellow human beings. Why is it that even brought face to face with unbearable evil, people can duck and keep their consciences clear? What happened and is happening was and is a moral outrage. I won’t say more in this vein except to remind everyone that the 100 million who died began because good people did, said, nothing!


Well to get back onto the discussion about ethics, we have a criminal that is currently visiting New Zealand, and our somewhat foolish government is fawning at her feet!
That is currently we have dear Hilary Clinton, (claimed to be named after NZ’s own Edmund Hilary except the chronology is incorrect), being hosted by our somewhat foolish Prime Minister and government with fees at an event organized in Auckland by The Growth Faculty with ticket prices starting at NZ$195 ($135) and soaring to $595 ($415) for special seats
What can I say?
God Defend New Zealand?


A good wake up call.
Thanks for posting it.

J Mac

I’ll ‘second that’!
A sincere Thank You (!) to Paul Dreissen for having the courage to write this up and submit it to WUWT and to Anthony Watts for publishing it here!
We must learn the lessons from this ugly history is we are to ward against them recurring today.

Leonard Lane

Thank you Paul Dreissen, timely and important post.
And if anyone thinks it cannot happen here think again. An FBI & DOJ so stricken with partisan politics and the same tactics you describe, “insurance policy”, etc. trying to prevent a presidential candidate from being elected, then attempting a “soft coup” after he was elected. And a Special Counsel who orders predawn raids to kick the doors down by armed agents is something I never thought I would see in America. And no one knows how it all will end.
My point is we know from history what the National Socialist Workers Party did in Germany, the Communists in the USSR, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, etc., and the leftist greens in much of the West. Now, America’s left party has us on the brink. I pray we make it through this crisis with an intact Republic.

J Mac posted above:
“A sincere Thank You (!) to Paul Dreissen for having the courage to write this up and submit it to WUWT and to Anthony Watts for publishing it here!”
I agree with this article by Paul Dreissen.
I’ve posted stronger stuff here on wattsup:
I agree with this IMPORTANT NEW report from the GWPF.
The Greens are the great killers of our age, rivaling Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot, the great killers of the 20th Century.
One example of this criminal Green malfeasance is the banning of DDT from 1972 to 2002, which greatly increased deaths from malaria in the tropics, especially among children under 5 – a global-scale holocaust based on false environmental alarmism.
A more recent example is global warming hysteria and the war against cheap, reliable, abundant energy, which is the lifeblood of society.
I wrote the following in 2015:
Nevertheless, Lomborg is correct in his conclusion – that we need to fight poverty and energy starvation in Africa through the use of sensible energy solutions including fossil fuels – this is a much higher priority than green energy schemes, which are not green and provide little useful energy.
Regards, Allan
Press Release 04/05/18
New Report:
Efforts to decarbonise will kill millions in poor countries
London 4 May 2018. A new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds that climate and green energy policies promoted by development organisations will cause millions of preventable deaths in the developing world.
The report, by eminent epidemiologist Mikko Paunio, says that international bodies and NGOs are trying to prevent poor countries from expanding their use of conventional fuels and have abandoned the so-called “energy ladder” — the gradual shift to cleaner types of fuel that underpinned the clean up of air quality in industrialised nations.
As Dr Paunio explains, this will have devastating consequences:
“Indoor air pollution from domestic fires kills millions every year. But instead of helping poor people to climb the energy ladder and clean the air in their communities, the poorest people are being given gimmicks like cookstoves, which make little difference to air quality, and solar panels, which are little more than a joke.”
What is worse, the greens inside and outside the development community are blaming air pollution on power stations, industry and cars, as a way to prevent any shift to industrial power production. As Dr Paunio makes clear, most air pollution in poor countries is in fact caused by burning low-quality biofuels and coal in domestic stoves:
“Trying to blame power stations for indoor air pollution might make greens feel they are saving the planet, but the reality is that they are allowing millions of deaths from air pollution to continue. The body count is going to rival that of the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.”
200 Million At Risk
Domestic combustion of solid (bio)fuels is by far the number one global pollution problem. 4.3 million deaths annually are directly attributable to indoor air pollution (IAP) according to the World Health Organization.
Domestic combustion of solid biofuels kills almost six million people per year when its effects on ambient air quality are also taken into consideration.
The so called ‘energy ladder’ was introduced as a way of understanding how deaths from IAP might be prevented. The energy ladder seeks to reproduce the experience of rich countries, where households moved away from biofuels and were increasingly connected to electric grids or district heating systems, solving the IAP problem for good.
However, ever-growing resistance from the environmental movement has removed this beneficial approach from the development agenda. Environmentalists fear that by taking steps upwards on the energy ladder, from dirty solid fuels such as cow dung or crop residues, and towards use of electricity, poor countries would become wealthier and so increase their energy use and their carbon intensity. They have managed to persuade all important multilateral development bodies and the WHO to drop the energy ladder entirely. Instead, they are now coercing the poorest countries to adopt utopian energy policies based on renewables. The result is that combatting IAP in, say, sub-Saharan Africa, is becoming impossible.
Aggressive decarbonization is now high on the political agenda. Contrary to the widely disseminated claims of important global actors, this will not solve the problem of IAP. Moreover, it will hamper the expansion of electric grids, which is a critical prerequisite for delivering adequate water supplies, without which it will be impossible to reproduce the public health miracle experienced in the rich countries.
These ‘ambitious’ global climate mitigation policies leave environmental health problems amongst the poor unaddressed and will result in the loss of over 200 million lives by 2050. They are also unlikely – even in theory – to prevent the 250,000 annual deaths that the WHO speculates will be attributable to climate change between 2030 and 2050: high-quality IPCC-linked research has recently shown that solid biomass combustion actually increases CO2 emissions, at least over the next 100 years, compared to fossil fuels.
Full paper (pdf): Kicking Away The Energy Ladder: How environmentalism destroys hope for the poorest

More on this subject:
The self-styled “Progressives”, the US Democrats, the Canadian Liberals and NDP, the British Labour Party and the Greens worldwide are pawns of the extreme left and have been so since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Here is some history:
“Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.”
Source: “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”, by Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace (1994).
Many of these imbeciles don’t even know it, but they are following a covert Marxist agenda intended to damage our economies, cloaked in phony green rhetoric.
Marxism made simple:
The Groucho Marxists are the leaders – they want power for its own sake at any cost, and typically are sociopaths or psychopaths. The great killers of recent history, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot. etc. were of this odious ilk – first they get power, then they implement their crazy schemes that do not work and too often kill everyone who opposes them.
The Harpo Marxists are the followers – the “sheeple” – these are people of less-than-average intelligence who are easily duped and follow the Groucho’s until it is too late, their rights are lost and their society destroyed. They are attracted to simplistic concepts that “feel good” but rarely “do good”.
George Carlin said: “You know how stupid the average person is, right? Well, half of them are stupider than that!”
One can easily identify many members of these two groups in the global warming debate – and none of them are ”climate skeptics”.
Need more evidence? Read the quotations at
Just a few examples:
“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
– David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First!
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies


Mr. Driessen did a good wake-up call here. And I appreciate Anthony Watts’ quandary in deciding to publish it. But no one, anywhere, has ever answered the one question that I have frequently asked:
Who died and told these gasbags they are gods?
What in the blue-eyed world has Prince Phillip, for instance, ever done besides play polo and shoot deer and parade himself in a uniform? He wants to come back as a virus that will wipe out the human race? Who gives a flying fart in space what he thinks? NOT ME.
Most of these people are so detached from the real world that they really do deserve to have their own planet, or better yet, complete and permanent isolation from the rest of the human species until they’ve kicked the bucket. I would personally prefer that.
It is very unfortunate that anyone listens to their pathetic attempts to let us know how superior they are to the rest of us when they aren’t. So who died and made them God?


The Duke of Edinburgh was an excellent serving officer in the British Navy actually Sara. He gave up a promising career and has been a wonderful support to HM The Queen and I always did love his ‘foot in mouth’ comments. Having said that, I was appalled by his comments about virus/population and I am also appalled by the way other members of the Royal family are going overboard on CAGW.


Not to take anything away from Philip’s naval service, actually his last promotion was because he had married the heiress apparent to the throne. Despite a good war service record, he probably wouldn’t even have been retained in the postwar RN but for his royal connections. His sisters were married to N@zis and his mom an embarrassing religious schizo.
And look what a miserable mess he and Liz made of raising their dysfunctional kids, each warped in his or her own unique way. Hard to pull that off!


They Royals are back in the self promotion business again, plus them and Brit gov declaring war on cotton buds and expecting all Commonwealth countries to do the same.
Those rstbags are all pyshing tyranny in league with ths greenies, I suspecf the think democracy being on the nose may give them a consolidated role in power again.
The sooner we give that lot the heave-ho the better.

Tom Halla

A good reminder, Mr Driessen. Fanatics are fanatics, and it often matters very little what they are fanatic about.


Yeah, psychos will find a way.

Not going to read the entire article, maybe after a few beers. My only response at this point is the alarmists that claim they want to die to save the planet, guns are available, partake. If this in violation of the rules please delete.




benben, never the less, we still like you.


Martin, having known some of this ilk. I met none that actually wanted to die to save the planet. They prefer that anyone opposing their views die. Like most such groups, from National Socialism and Communism to radical environmental groups they believe they are some kind of very special elite, better, superior to the rest of us. I can see a day when they indeed take up arms. There are already groups that plant bombs so firearms are only a baby step away. Remember that prior to 9-11-2001 the national security assessment on terror listed radical environmental groups as the number one problem facing the country.

Bryan A

Much like the “Master Race” viewed their perceived “Degenerate Races” in the late 1930s as something needing elimination

Ernest Bush

This is why we have the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. It provides protection for the rest of the Bill of Rights, should the federal government become to odious.


The Second Amendment also serves as a deterrent to foreign enemies. Any thought of invading the United States would have to take the number of weapons available to Americans, and their willingness and ability to use them into account.

“eco-activists will inflict far more damage on environmental values
than do the technologies they despise.”
In the 1970s environmentalists saw pollution
and did something about it.
When those problems were under control
they needed a new crisis for attention and money.
They tried the hole in the ozone layer, acid rain and global cooling.
They didn’t get enough people excited.
Global warming seemed to catch on
— a new boogeyman — invisible — actually harmless,
but that’s not the scary runaway warming fairy tale they created.
With their new boogeyman getting almost all their attention,
few environmentalists care about real pollution,
which is horrible in China, India and other Asian nations.
Air pollution from China actually reaches the US left coast,
and probably explains why people living in California
lose one IQ point every year.
Unfortunately, it seems that environmental activist organizations
are far more interested in getting funding and power … and
global warming does that for them, so they don’t care about
real pollution in Asia ( fighting that would be hard work and expensive.
Demonizing CO2, by making scary unprovable claims is easy ).
My climate change blog:


Richard, you are giving the modern environmental movement way too much credit. While it is true that the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act passed in 1972, the Clean Air Act passed in 1963, all were long debated and had been in the works for several sessions of Congress. What the modern environmental movement has done is played off those acts, taken credit when little credit was due them. You are right however they love to have a good crisis. Yet we really do not hear much about China and India from environmentalists. E.g., China buys most of the endangered species animal parts poached in the world but how often in the USA do you hear about it when enviro groups are raising money.

Well stated! +100

Non Nomen

Many things have been in the pipe by then already, but we should give credit to the early environmentalists that they accelerated things considerably. In China, environmentalism seems to be considered a sort of religion and is hence definitely not wanted but persecuted. Not a good idea either.


If it is true that Californians are losing one IQ point per year (which I very, strongly doubt) it probably has more to do with their government an it’s assault on quality education than anything the Chinese might be doing.
PS: If Californians are losing 1 point per year despite being thousands of miles away, then the Chinese must be losing 20 to 30 points per year since they are at the source. (If that makes no sense, then try re-examining your initial claim.)

J Mac

It is possible that, with the flux of intelligent people leaving California, the average IQ of the state may indeed be dropping.

Your comment following my California joke
deletes from the ultra high quality of my humor.
Of course Californians are not losing one IQ point a year.
They are losing one-half point a year.
But one-half point was not funny.
So I exaggerated.
Is that a crime?


In California it may be.

Alan Tomalty

The environmentalists have succeeeded in 5 very big scams. DDT ( which is harmless), ozone hole ( was always there), intermittent renewable energy (can never work on a national basis, even though the Germans are sure trying hard), CAGW( biggest scam in history), and being against GM foods (which are in fact harmless).

All Correct Alan T. Thank you Sir.


This article is completely insane. Anthony, you should be ashamed for posting this kind of stuff. Most of my family perished in the Holocaust. I can’t believe WUWT has sunk to these depths. Terrible, just terrible.

Ben Ben
The article is unusual but is relevant.
It is never insane to remember the pain / death inflicted on people
by strong central governments based on fake science,
from the starvation caused by Lysenkoism fake science
to the death camps justified by the fake science of eugenics.
The strong German government and government scientists
managed to convince many Germans that eugenics
was ‘consensus science’, and Hit-ler later used that junk science
to justify killing nine million civilians.
We now need to think about governments using climate change junk science
to control energy use, and the demonization of climate change skeptics
and conservatives, that has been happening for decades.
We have already had proposals to fine, dismiss from their jobs, or
even arrest, “climate deniers”.

Non Nomen

The strong German government and government scientists
managed to convince many Germans that eugenics
was ‘consensus science’, and Hitler later used that junk science
to justify killing nine million civilians.

Please look it up here and draw your own conclusions:
I’ll leave it with that.


odd that one of the first things wiki mentions is it was the ‘progressive’ era……

Non Nomen
I don’t take WikiPedia seriously.
It is a leftist-biased website where the majority rules.
I stand by my conclusions in my original post.
If you have objections, please state them directly.
I will never let WikiPedia change my mind on
any subject that could have a political spin.
A most important fact about eugenics is that after WWII,
you couldn’t find anyone who admitted believing
that fake science in the past !
I have tried to edit Wikipedia in the past
— over ten years ago — on a subject I had
over 40 years of experience with —
(I’m an audiophile).
I found my comments — all clear, concise and
not even controversial …
were all deleted within 24 hours by “The Majority”
WikiPedia is fine for looking up
the cast of Leave it to Beaver


so did a few of mine, and I am very pleased Anthony HAS posted this article, because the precursor that fed the Nazi atrocities was the eugenics programs and the proto-green ideologies of the authoritarian left – which also claimed a unified consensus on their “science”.

Sweet Old Bob

The truth hurts ? You approve of tactics that killed ” most of my family ” ….?
Really ?


…and yet, for some strange reason……you seem to be on their side

One of the great mysteries of my life is that
most of my Jewish friends vote Democrat,
even though progressives despise Israel,
even one of the three who moved to the US
from Israel.

Clyde Spencer

OK, we understand that you don’t approve. However, shaking your virtual finger and attempting to shame Anthony doesn’t carry much weight with me. How about composing a reasoned, objective response to the article showing just why it is bad. Some quotes and links might help in making your case.

Bryan A

Apparently you missed the point of the article which is to fairly compare the statements of modern environmentalists and the tactics they employ to those of the WWII powers that inflicted the very harm on your family you alluded to


Benben, did you actually read the piece? I once traveled with two Holocaust survivors on a scientific delegation. We talked often on the trip. Both were very, very liberal. What was odd is they really knew very little about how National Socialism rose to power in Germany and just how utterly bizarre the morals and ethics of the Nazis were long before coming to power. All they knew about was the end result which they had faced. Today many of these young radicals screaming that anyone not agreeing with them are Nazis and fascist don’t know that Nazism and Fascism are just a form of socialism that differed very little from Soviet Communism or Maoism. I can easily see if these young radicals came to power they would resort to similar behaviors we saw in the 20th Century in socialism. I have been told that folks like me should be sent to a “re-education camps.” Also known as concentration camps, Gulags, enlightenment farms, etc.

Jim Gorman

I have had the same with a couple of folks that insist that being fascist is the same as being conservative, i.e. right wing. When you ask them to to look up the definitions they find conservatives are for small government and freedom of the individual, both anathema to fascists who want to control and hold power over everyone. When they look up socialist they find out liberals are socialists who want government to control everything by having a huge government.
Now I know it is substantially more complicated than that, but the basics apply. The sad thing is that liberals will tell you that they know government doesn’t do a good job, but will insist that can be corrected!


They have been taught that all good things flow from government. So to them, since fascists are bad, they must be conservative. No appeal to facts will ever touch an opinion that is emotionally based.


Anthony did a lot of thinking before he ran the article.
The opinions of the rabid environmentalists are just as vile as those of Goering and company. What they are preaching is worse than genocide. If they had their way, humanity would be reduced to a few stone age tribes. They don’t care what suffering their policies would produce. I really don’t know who else I would compare them to. Who would you suggest?


“Who else would you compare them to?”
Pol Pot.


@ benben.
What brought you to this website ?
Simple question…harder answer ?


Climate alarmists have killed millions already, just in the EU alone.
Scale Britain up to the EU population and multiply by the number of years of the “renewable” insanity. Forty thousand in the UK scales to 450,000 in the EU (or more, since more live in the cold north than sunnier south), times ten years climate craziness yields 4.5 million excess deaths sacrificed on the altar of the Green Religion. If 20 years, then nine million.


Please explain where the author is wrong. Just being upset isn’t sufficient to prove that.

He is not going to answer, because there is not a shred of factual evidence against this very fair article. Fanatical environmentalists are totalitarians; therefore, no better then any other totalitarians. It is a pity that our Western society still allows them to act with impunity.

Reg Nelson

You must more be even more upset when the climate change propagandists use the word “denier”, deliberately invoking images of the Holocaust deniers to further their cause. I know I am outraged by their disrespect for history and those who have suffered atrocities..


ben ben, if that is true with regard to your family you have my sympathy (if it is true, given the usual means justify the ends methods employed by many alarmists and eco zealots i am sorry but i have my doubts) but you are missing the entire point of the essay. it warns of the possibility of similar happenings under a different name.

Richard Patton

Please read “Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism” by Robert Zubrin and you will see the connection.


benben’s “This article is completely insane…”
A very curious comment–a figurative debris-field of outrage and maledictions and provocative indignation, in orbit about the hyper-sensitive declaration: “Most of my family perished in the Holocaust.”
And, of course, benben, your comment is a repugnant, intellectually-dishonest, “STFU”, rhetorical spike-strip, utterly lacking in substance. . But since you’ve chosen to exploit your family’s tragic losses in the Holocaust, for no purpose, discernible to me, other than to score a cheap-shot, debating-point advantage, I’d like to explore the matter, just a little bit more.
However, let me first make it absolutely clear that I do not “deny” the Holocaust, and that I regard the Holocaust to be a monstrous crime against humanity. Indeed, it is a source of pride to me that my father voluntarily put his life on the line to fight Nazis in order to rid the world of their Satanic ideology, and their evil, eugenics designs on humanity. And, let me add, that you and your family, benben, have my deepest sympathies for the unspeakable horrors they or those they loved must have surely suffered in the Holocaust.
So, benben, just what was your family’s Holocaust history, in terms of any “Judenrat” collaboration; possible production of war materiel of benefit to the Nazi war machine that was arrayed against young men like my father; and/or participation in armed, heroic uprisings like that mounted in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943?
Did your family’s Holocaust survivors, benben, regret that they did not arm themselves so that they could defend themselves against their would-be Nazi murderers? Alternatively, did those surviving family members who voluntarily gave up their guns at the Nazi demand that they disarm, regret that they did so?
When mention was made of Stalin’s Holodomor, Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”, and Pol Pot’s “Killing Fields”, did any of your family members, who survived the Holocaust, note that before Communist leaders committed their mass murders, they first disarmed those they planned to liquidate, just as Hitler disarmed Jews before unleashing his “final solution”? .
Finally, benben, when our betters begin talking population reduction (see the quotes in the topside post), does your family’s Holocaust experience prompt you, on the basis of the “precautionary principle”, of course, to recommend to us proto-cull-fodder “deplorables” any prudent actions, that we might take, on the remote chance that “things” just might go “South” some day?

Alan Tomalty

You should have put the sarc symbol BenBen


benben, what does ‘Never Forget’ mean to you? Here’s one person’s take:

We are reminding the rest of the world that they cannot forget the Holocaust. We are not reminding them so that they should mourn with us. We can’t expect that kind of empathy from the rest of the world. We are reminding the world about the Holocaust so that it should never happen again – to anyone else. link

What does “First they came …” mean to you?
When we see something about to happen, we should remember, and we should say something. It is entirely appropriate to say, ‘It happened before and it can happen again.’

Sorry benben but I’m not buying your rhetoric.
The Greens are the great killers of our age – scarcely better than Mao, Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot.
The Greens’ banning of DDT killed tens of millions from malaria, mostly kids 4 and under – just babies for Christ’s sake.
The Greens’ deceitful fight against fossil fuels just increases Excess Winter Deaths, which target the elderly and the poor, and total about 2 million souls per year worldwide.
I have friends who are Jewish WW2 Holocaust survivors – I knew one of them for two decades before he told me his story – his name is Charlie and he is getting very old – I guess he thought it was time to share his experience. He was German and his family moved to France in the 1930’s. France was conquered by the Germans. Charlie’s family was hidden in a French monastery and then by a French farm family for the duration of WW2. His brother went out one day and was caught and never seen again.
History is a long series of extreme brutalities – ancient wars were anything but kind – cities were leveled, men were slaughtered and women and children were enslaved – that was the way of the world. It is still that way in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa.
The only solution is Rule of Law, and sane energy policies that raise the standard of living of everyone in the Developing World – something the Greens strongly oppose. In my opinion, Greens should go to hell.

My sympathies, Ben. My father died in uniform fighting the same blot on the human race.
But always remember this quote of Santayana’s: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” If we ignore the events of the 1930s and 1940s or attempt to censor them because they are too painful or for fear of offending those affected by them then we play into the hands of those who deny they happened and (worse) into the hands of those who choose to deny they happened to pursue their own agenda.
If we refuse to acknowledge wrongs publicly how are we to combat them when they appear again in modern guise? The description of the modern environmentalist as a “watermelon” — green on the outside, red on the inside — only tells part of the story. “Green on the outside, nazi on the inside” would be just as accurate since naziism and environmentalism were indistinguishable in 1930s Germany.
Whether the modern environmentalist is fascist or communist is irrelevant since there is virtually nothing that separates them. “Two cheeks of the same @rse”, to use a Scottish expression. The philiosophy is totalitarian; the aim is control and suppression; the concern for the genuine welfare of the environment is long gone!
We betray the legacy of those who genuinely cared for and understood the environment and worked (and those who still work) to maintain it and nurture it by calling Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth or WWF or any of the other so-called environmental so-called charities “environmentalist”. They are ruthless, power-seeking control freaks with concern for nothing and nobody but themselves.


BenBen – the radical Green Movement today are the Modern Nazi Part. Shame on you if you have joined up with it. People who say “never again” should know that the Green Movement must be stopped, or it WILL happen again.


Environmentalism has co opted Conservatism and Socialism/Marxism has co opted both. It’s a means to an end …. unfortunately history has proven that ‘end’ is chaos for mankind. You would think with Venezuela as the latest poster child for Socialism/Marxism the people would understand. Many do but fall victim to the incessant propaganda being spewed. But after all it’s only all a “conspiracy theory”. Right?

Al Montgomery

This should be mandatory reading in schools to counterbalance the one sided information students get now. Sadly it won’t be and it will be up to me and others who think clearly to educate children so they are not duped in future.

David L. Hagen

Destroy the people to save the planet!
That is the cruel evil policy pushed by today’s “green” power.
The prophet Isaiah accurately foretold:

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter

Isaiah 5:20
Recognize the dark evil power behind those entrapped by its lies. Paul explained:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 6:12

Gunga Din

(I’d add a bunch more but I don’t want to wear out my keyboard.)


This piece is awful short. Also only covers one of the 3 main socialist success stories of the last 100 years. Environmentalism has always been a smoke screen for massively expending government for the sake of gaining more and more control over the people. In the end its all about the eugenics. You must control the population so only the “approved” people with the “approved” “ideals” can do anything. They are of course the “correct” people and thus no matter what happens those people must be in charge and treated as gods.

You’re so right. Articles revealing blatant evil and reality inversion might become a regular category, kept neatly separated from other categories.


Look up “The Kalergi Plan” and get a deeper view of the leftist strategy.

Richard Patton

Your link is just another anti-semitic piece of garbage. It does not belong here.

John Harmsworth

“Socialist success stories”. The oxymoron to top all oxymorons!


Stalin and the Russian Socialists believed in Lysenkoist genetics, under which elimination of dissenters for several generations would result in a tame populace that would obey all diktats. This was, of course, wishful thinking. Agricultural practices based on Lysenkoist genetics were a factor in the starvation of up to 30,000,000 people in Russia and China.
I’ve studied Nazism and Socialism for my lectures, and they are essentially congruent. The only reason that Hitler didn’t like Marx was that Marx was a Jew. Other than that, Hitler believed in Marxist principles. It is a fiction that Nazism and Socialism are in any way “Right” and “Left.” There is no distance between them; they’re as close as beads on a bracelet.
There is outrageous irony in people saying, “Never again,” and then voting for a party that promotes an all-powerful state, and for candidates that believe the end justifies the means. Hitler’s government passed 1000 new regulations per week. Businesses could not open if they were deemed “unnecessary” by Nazi bureaucrats. (ref. A. A. Samaan, in H. H. Laughlin, American Scientist, Nazi Collaborator.)
BenBen’s rant is so inappropriate and so inconsistent with the post’s content. I can’t believe he actually read the post before responding negatively, but he would have been against whatever is posted here, regardless.

“Liberal Fascism – The Secret History of the Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning”, by Jonah Goldberg.
The reason the communists and the fascists hate each other so much is that they are competitors in the same market flogging essentially the same product! This book should be compulsory reading for every student of politics

John Bills

….and without exception they all vote democrat
I can see the loons doing that….what I will never understand is people, that by all rights seem to have their faculties….. vote democrat and are not the least bit embarrassed to admit it

Clyde Spencer

“If caught, arrested and prosecuted, these extremists invoke the “necessity defense” – asserting that they were compelled to break the law, in order to prevent a greater harm: manmade climate cataclysms.”
A solution that I hope Solomon would approve of is to place these anarchists on life probation, and if their beliefs should be proven wrong in the future, have their probation immediately revoked and be incarcerated for a long term. It might give them pause over their actions knowing that they might still have to account for their actions.

seriously, can we please stop labeling these people anarchists? sheesh. It doesn’t matter if they think they are, or you think they are, or everyone thinks they are; if they do not understand and acknowledge natural law principles, and in extension the non-agression principle, then they are simply not anarchists. It just doesn’t work that way. You can try to fit a round peg into a square hole all you want but that doesn’t change reality.
An- (without) archon (rulers)
An-archon-y, it should be said, simply means without external rulers. I.E., Self-governance. Do these crackpots sound like they understand that? They are stealing and trespassing on property of others, which is clearly unacceptable. It all boils down to theft.. so,no; they don’t.
They are violent fascists/socialists/communists masquerading around as “anarchists” to once again reinforce the need for government in the minds of the weak. So please, stop insulting people such as myself who understand and adhere to the Natural Moral Law Principles of non-violence. It is unwelcome and egregiously incorrect.


For those who may not have watched the series, queue up “Hunger Games.” Now the makers of the film thought that they were tearing down Capitalism, but watching who does what, one can clearly see the “Deep State” well represented by Donald Sutherland. Note too that they try to use makeup to give him a “Founding Father” appearance. Ironic isn’t it that the 2016 election produced a result that many are unwilling to accept.

Jeff Mitchell

Wouldn’t the people who supported him be called Snow flakes? Donald Sutherland is President Snow in the movies. As usual, the books were better,


Whatever might be the case with the movies, the books IMO don’t attack capitalism so much as America’s current political class.
Hunger Games trilogy author Suzanne Collins is an Air Force brat who attended college in AL and IN before earning an MFA from NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts. Being a media type living in NYC, I suppose she’s a Democrat, but don’t know. Maybe she’s even anti-capitalist, but has made around $100 million writing for TV and especially children’s and young adult books.

You mention apprehension to post this article. I read on and see the quote by David Brower, and think immediately about how no one wanted to talk about the elimination of Jews and political dissidents during, or after the war. These things simply must be said.


It seems the “re-incarnated virus” has gone viral. After all, the WWF was founded by Prince Philip (Virus), Prince Bernhard (SS intelligence), and Sir Julian Huxley (Eugenics).
An ancient oligarchical tradition of subjugation and genocide well documented by Homer and Hesiod , posted here :
It was clear to many in power that Hitler’s Nazis targeted first the chronically ill – Aktion T4, only then the Holocaust, and planned after that all of Christianity. Martin Heidegger, their “theoretician” , whitewashed by his mistress Hannah Arendt later, was Hitler’s ghostwriter, defended today as a “philosopher”.
How about this : Emmanuel Faye professeur de philosophie moderne et contemporaine à l’Université de Rouen Normandie : Arendt et Heidegger : extermination nazie et destruction de la pensée
Extermination and destruction of thought go hand in hand. The target, Jews, because they carried the flame of European humanist thought, to be extinguished however.
WUWT does note the destruction of thought itself – there is the reason.
But one name is missing from the list – the Mephistopheles of the 20th Century, Lord Bertrand Russell. Just one read of “The impact of Science on Society” shows the direct overlap with Heidegger’s destruction of thought.
Global Warming is simply Russell’s “snow is black or any shade of grey depending on cost”. Notice the AGW arguments in this mirror.
Another name missing – Emmanuel Kant – the “Robespierre of the human spirit”, as great poet and philosopher Heinrich Heine well knew.
Heidegger, Kant (Edgar Allan Poe’s “Can’t”), Russell, all revered in Uni’s Depts.


Climatism is a religion, It shouldn’t be a surprise that they fantasize about violence, all repressive religions encourage such behaviour

Ed Zuiderwijk

The ‘necessity’ defense only works until those attacked start applying it themselves.

I suspect that armed guards at vulnerable sections of said pipelines would be able to use the “necessity defense” if need be.


I have a hardback copy of Richard Overy’s Interrogations: The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands, 1945. Interviews with Goering, et al, while awaiting tribunal at Nuremburg. In their own words (through German interpreters), you get glimpses of the crooked hearts and minds and twisted priorities of some very evil men.


yeah…and then?
the usa gave a heap of em new names identities and relocated them TO usa to work in mil areas
operation paperclip..

J. M. Davidson

” To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he is doing is good.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn. This is amplified by the positive feelings of belonging to a group, against the strong negative feelings associated with being rejected by a group.


J.M. Thanks for the quote. I had that posted on my door at one time but some how it slipped my mind.


The gas chambers weren’t only designed for efficiency … they were designed to allow the operators an easier rationalization that they weren’t directly responsible.
A good number of the german military service that were at the forefront of the extermination attempt had to be reassigned because they couldn’t keep it up. They didn’t believe that what they were doing was good, and the death and guilt got to them over time, and they had to be reassigned before they completely lost it.
To do evil, a person must first of all believe there won’t be a price (or not care about the cost).

This essay makes excellent points. For instance it is true that the attitudes of many climate hysterians resemble those of NAZIs:
Also, the climate movement’s tortured ethics and concentration on Propaganda and Public Enlightenment is reminiscent of the NAZIs.
Also, the environmental damage caused by climate hysteria is, indeed, enormous. Just here in the United States we already have about 50 million acres devoted to raising Roundup-ready monoculture corn, to make ethanol, to mix into motor fuel, to reduce fossil fuel use, to “fight climate change.” That’s more than the combined land area of the nine smallest States in the USA.
But I have two small nits to pick.
First, it would be very useful if the list of insane environmentalist quotes in this essay included hyperlinked sources/citations for each quote.
Second, I think this statement near the end of the essay is a slight exaggeration:
“…Their ‘solutions’ to alleged ecological ‘problems’ will turn billions of acres into wind and solar farms, biofuel plantations, hydroelectric projects, and mines for materials…”
“Billions” (plural) means at least 2 billion. The entire land surface of the Earth (excepting the parts covered by ice) is only about 33 billion acres. 2 billion would be more than 6% of that.
“Hundreds of millions of acres” would be accurate. I don’t think “billions of acres” is. It’s at least arguable.


If they want to actually produce all the energy needed to run society using wind and solar, than billions is what they will need. Remember most of the best sites have already been converted.

This article is well stated, and needed to be said.

Thanks, Anthonly. Let me refer to a previous post of mine, “How Environmental Organizations are Ruining The Environment“. From that article:comment image
Figure 1. Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy …

Must be an older picture, Willis—Doubt that there is that much vegetation on the Haiti side these days.

Crispin in Waterloo

Don’t guess, check. Haiti is moving towards the achievement already attained by Rwanda: growing enough wood commercially (on privately controlled land) to supply the cooking needs of charcoal stove users. There is a law in Haiti that permits people to cut trees if they have raised them and want to sell them for fuelwood or charcoal. The problem in Haiti, and other countries like Chad etc, is that the charcoal trade is all but illegal so it is controlled by crooked political elites, not private businesses and the communities with access to land.
At present there is some progress in Haiti. Rwanda is far ahead because there is a more stable/honest government. It has already been a years now that Rwanda has supplied all the charcoal from private trees, and that was accomplished by two things: better stoves (a small contributor) and much better charcoal production techniques (a major contributor).
There is a lot Haiti can do to help itself, including trading with the Republic next door. At the moment charcoal trade is illegal across the border so it is active and controlled by crooks with ties to government. Legalising it would eat into the their profits. A lot of things wrong environmentally are the result of making normal business illegal so only certain people can be engaged in it. In Chad the charcoal mafia was run by the President’s wife and she used her influence to keep it illegal. For 4 years it was not, and it thrived and became sustainable immediately. Communities benefited. Her business suffered. In Haiti things are similar, except that trees grow a lot faster there.

Clyde Spencer

While you picture is dramatic, I don’t think that this particular picture is really representative of the border. I went out to Google Earth and followed the Haiti/DR border at high magnification from north to south. There are perhaps slightly more instances where the Haiti side is more denuded than the DR side. However, there are examples of the opposite, and also examples of no discernible differences across the border. In many instances, the topography seems to have an influence. That is, southern and northern slopes often have different vegetation. Steep mountains on the DR side are unsuitable for agriculture. In other instances it may well be the result of geology controlling what will grow. Certainly, your picture does not represent the entirety of the border. I’m not sure that we are getting the whole story.

Clyde Spencer May 6, 2018 at 1:51 pm

Certainly, your picture does not represent the entirety of the border.

Never said it did …

Clyde Spencer May 6, 2018 at 1:51 pm

While you picture is dramatic, I don’t think that this particular picture is really representative of the border. I went out to Google Earth and followed the Haiti/DR border at high magnification from north to south. There are perhaps slightly more instances where the Haiti side is more denuded than the DR side. However, there are examples of the opposite, and also examples of no discernible differences across the border.

The Haiti-DR border is about 260 km long. Here is about 120 km of that, just under half …comment image
You can see the difference all along that section.
So yes, I’d agree with you that my first photo doesn’t represent the entirety of the border … but it certainly represents a lot of the border.

Clyde Spencer

A question that you might want to ask is, “How was the border defined?” I suspect that much of it, as is often the case, was determined by topography. That is, an abrupt change in slope, a river or stream (which will sometimes follow a fault), a ridge-top where the slopes have different aspects (and therefore different insolation and orographic precipitation) are common boundaries employed for political purposes. You raise an interesting hypothesis, but I don’t think that the evidence is compelling.


Typical of environmental snapshots, no sign there of China’s Plans $4.7 Billion Renovation of the Haitian Capital, or of Obama’s death warrant stopping the USACE reconstruction after the effects of the January 2010 earthquake that killed 250,000 people, injured tens of thousands more, and wiped out what little infrastructure existed.

bonbon, there’s also no sign there of the Haitian cholera epidemic, or of their horrendous sanitation issues, or of the Haitian murder rate, or the pathetic shantytowns … so freakin’ what? It’s just a picture used to illustrate one particular problem, and you want it to include everything happening in Haiti?
Not gonna ever happen. Sorry, but you are overestimating what one single photo can show …


The cholera epidemic was caused by the UN’s lame attempt to “help” after the earthquake. The outbreak was caused by Nepalese troops sent to “aid” the poor Haitians. Cholera wasn’t among Haiti’s many problems before the quake. The “international community” made things worse.

great shot,, amazing contrast


Humans are not necessarily bad for the environment. Given the right conditions, humans are the environment’s best friend.

Since I was born and brought up in England, I spent my formative years in a land with great beauty and a rich ecology which is almost entirely man-made. The natural ecology of England was uninterrupted and rather boring forest. Humans replaced the forest with an artificial landscape of grassland and moorland, fields and farms, with a much richer variety of plant and animal species. Quite recently, only about a thousand years ago, we introduced rabbits, a non-native species which had a profound effect on the ecology. Rabbits opened glades in the forest where flowering plants now flourish. There is no wilderness in England, and yet there is plenty of room for wild-flowers and birds and butterflies as well as a high density of humans. Perhaps that is why I am a humanist.  Freeman Dyson

The area where I live is as close to an Earthly Paradise as you can get. The environment is well cared for; there are lots of plants, animals, birds, reptiles, and insects.
If we bring the whole world up to Western standards, people will quit breeding and the population will stabilize or decrease. The citizens of the newly affluent countries will demand environmental protections. The world will be better in every way.
Things are getting better. link We should celebrate that and we should push back against the forces of darkness who want to see humanity obliterated from the face of the planet.


Rats, coyotes and deer surely thank humans for remaking North America to their liking.

For a web site that prohibits the use of the term “d-e-.-i-e-r” to publish this article is the epitome of hypocrisy.


And yet the N@zis were indeed environmentalists and eugenicists, just like today’s Green Meanies, who want to reduce human population in order to “save” Nature. As in the great Garbo movie “Ninotchka”, they want fewer but better people, which of course includes themselves.
This movement advocates voluntary depopulation, but others of a like mind are more violent.


….the article I read was calling the greens out for their epitome of hypocrisy

Jeff Mitchell

Felix, the people who put up the 10:10 No Pressure video did withdraw it. But the internet is forever as others put up their own copies of it. I watched it on the day before it was officially released. I think I got pointed to it by WUWT, but my memory is fuzzy. Here it is, still on youtube.


“Exploding schoolkid climate d@niers video no longer available:”
I hope there are copys available to show the depths they’ll sink to.


Thanks! The link to YouTube from within that article showed that it had been withdrawn due to graphic violence. Probably just an excuse. I hope your link stays up.

If it doesn’t, search for a9wAXraNIPQ
If that doesn’t work, then contact me. I downloaded and saved a copy.

Coeur de Lion May 6, 2018 at 12:14 pm

For a web site that prohibits the use of the term “d-e-.-i-e-r” to publish this article is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Say what? I don’t understand how posting this is hypocritical in the slightest.

I can’t believe you are that clueless Willis…….I suggest you investigate the connotations behind the prohibited label, then re-read this article. Once you’ve done that get back to me.

One one hand, it’s perfectly OK to equate “greenies” to the abhorrent political movement in Germany circa 1940’s…….but unacceptable to equate skeptical folks to white supremacist skinhead types that reject (de Nile) science with the noted connotation to rejecting the murder of millions during said 1940’s.


Coeur de Lion May 6, 2018 at 1:51 pm
That’s for the obvious reason that no such connection exists in the case of skinheads.

Felix and Willis, two peas in a pod.


Coeur de Lion May 6, 2018 at 1:59 pm
Please show how it’s possible to equate skeptics, who are more scientifically literate than alarmists, with “anti-science”, “white supremacist skinheads”.
OTOH, the comparison of N@zi nature-lovers but people-killers is entirely warranted and valid, based upon their identical beliefs.

“skeptics, who are more scientifically literate than alarmists”
Other than waving your hands in the air, do you have any evidence to backup this assertion?… some sort of citation?


THe links between the greenies and the abhorent movie were proven in the article.
There is no connection between skeptics and skinheads.
In reality, it is the greenies who continue to act like skinheads


Coeur is a true student of Goebbels, he tells a big lie and then demands that other disprove it.

MarkW proves he is clueless posting: “There is no connection between skeptics and skinheads.”
MarkW needs to find out why the specific label “dee-nigh-err” is prohibited on this site.


Coeur de Lion May 6, 2018 at 2:13 pm
No hand waving at all. I deal in facts. I’m surprised that you missed this and similar studies:
Also, the more distinguished a scientist is, the more likely to doubt the consensus lie. For instance, Lindzen, Happer, Giaever, Dyson and the late great Father of Climatology Bryson and Father of Hurricanology Gray. By contrast, Mann, Hansen, Schmidt and Trenberth are third raters who couldn’t cut it in real science.
Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change alarmism is anti-scientific.


Coeur like most alarmists, believes that by declaring something he has proven he is right.

1) Felix, the study you cite does not show that skeptics are more scientifically literate than alarmists. From the abstract: “This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest” That study deals with public perception, not with scientific literacy.

2) “Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change” is not science, there is no “catastrophic” in the AGW hypothesis.


Coeur de Lion May 6, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Please read the whole study. To reach its conclusion, it relied on surveys of public scientific knowledge and their opinion on scientific issues. Climate skeptics scored higher than CAGW believers.
And, yes, the consensus is that “climate change” is dangerous. No doubt this fact has been pointed out to you before.
As should be obvious. Were man-made global warming neutral or a good thing, why should anyone care about it and use it to justify wasting trillions of dollars to remedy it? Arrhenius and Callendar thought it beneficial.

Felix commits the grave error of equating “climate science literacy” with “scientific literacy”

Often known as “moving the goal posts.

Please show evidence of the assertion that “skeptics, who are more scientifically literate than alarmists”


You’re trying to move the goalposts, having been shown too lazy to check for such studies on your own. They’re well known to WUWT readers.
The Nature paper surveyed general scientific literacy, not just on climatology. But of what is relevant to this discussion is knowledge of disciplines relating to “climate science”.

Thank you Felix: ” surveys of public scientific knowledge”
Like I posted above, the survey was about public perception, not literacy.

Secondly you show you lack knowledge of basic science. Science does not bestow the attribute “dangerous” on anything. There is no numerical measure of “dangerous-ness.” Science will not tell you if a proton is “dangerous.” Science will not tell you if a specific rock strata is “dangerous. ” This applies to AGW. Science cannot tell you if AGW is dangerous.


Coeur de Lion May 6, 2018 at 3:09 pm
Please read the Nature paper before commenting on what you imagine it says.
You display scientific illiteracy by d@nying that climate science literature, which you must not have read, is rife with catastrophic and dangerous scenarios. It’s the whole basis of the corrupt enterprise, which has so distorted science. It’s all about “tipping points”, “runaway global warming and climate change” and the dangers and threats of this or that catastrophic consequence of GW and CC. I don’t know how you could have missed it.
Cook and Orestes’ survey of scientific papers was the basis of their bogus conclusion that 97% of relevant scientists agree with the hypothesis that climate is warming, that it’s our fault and that it’s dangerous, hence radical measures are called for.

Felix, the Nature paper does not show what you think it shows. Take the title of the article: “The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks”

The independent variable in the study is scientific/numerical literacy.

The dependent variable is polarizing impact.
You are trying to assert that ones polarized position (skeptic/alarmist) determines literacy.
Your interpretation of the result is 180 degrees out of whack.


It should be obvious that I’m doing just the opposite. I show that skeptics arrive at their view of “climate change” thanks to their superior knowledge of science. We know enough to call BS on the sc@m of man-made climate change so dangerous that we must quit burning fossil fuels and squander trillions on hugely inferior “renewables”.

Felix, you have confused the independent and dependent variables in that study. The study does not address: any “superior knowledge of science”


Once again, Coeur tries to re-write history. He is such a good student of Goebbels.
There most definitely is a Catastrophic portion to the AGW myth. In fact if there were no catastrophic portion, there would be no need to have done anything to oppose it.
Have you forgotten all the talk of tipping points, and points of no return. (Most of which were passed long ago.)


Coeur de Lion May 6, 2018 at 3:31 pm
As I keep asking you, please read the Nature article and subsequent studies comparing the scientific knowledge and understanding of skeptics and alarmist believers in the general public. We win. Hands down.
Yes, and IMO Coeur de Lion knows it. Most of the “climate science” literature just assumes manmade global warming, then imagines what that would mean for various possible dire consequences in every realm imaginable. That’s why third rate academics love “climate change” so much. It makes their lives easy, if pointless and useless and their “research” worse than worthless.
It’s also an excuse to get your research funded. If you want to study ground squirrels, then hang a “climate change” angle on your proposal. This is how Cook was able to conjure up a bogus 97% consensus, based upon “scientific” papers.

Coeur de Lion wrote, “there is no “catastrophic” in the AGW hypothesis.”
Please tell that to Dr. James Hansen, author of Storms of My Grand­chil­dren: The Truth About the Com­ing Cli­mate Cata­strophe and Our Last Chance to Save Human­ity. He seems not to have gotten the memo.
Mother nature got the memo,[2][3][4][5] but Hansen and his ilk obviously didn’t.


Interesting. Telling lies about skeptics is the moral equivalent to telling the truth about environmentalists.

A couple more quotes to think on
Christine Stewart Canadian Minister of the environment at Kyoto, who said: said’ No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…..climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.’
Christiana Figueres ex UN Environment ‘chief’ said “… we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution”.

J Mac

The sturm und drang of the more main stream socialist environmental pressure groups empower and embolden their violent Sturmabteilung (‘Storm Trooper’) cadres, the fascist brown shirt enforcers of environmental ‘superior philosophy’. Given the ‘differences without distinction’ between the organization of the modern environmentalist movement and the socialist democrats of pre-WWII Germany that brought Hitler to power, is there any surprise when modern ‘environmentalists’ call for the imprisonment of ‘morally or mentally deficient skeptics’?
ex.: RFK wants to jail energy CEOs
Will the gates into these environmental prisons be over-arched with ‘Environmentalism Arbeit Macht Frei’??


There is man, the destroyer, the user, the taker; but there is also “gardener man,” – the kind of man that improves where ever he is.


It seems the “re-incarnated virus” has gone viral. After all, the WWF was founded by Prince Philip (Virus), Prince Bernhard (SS intelligence), and Sir Julian Huxley (Eugenics).
An ancient oligarchical tradition of subjugation and genocide well documented by Homer and Hesiod , posted here :
It was clear to many in power that Hitler’s Nazis targeted first the chronically ill – Aktion T4, only then the Holocaust, and planned after that all of Christ-ianity. Martin Heidegger, their “theoretician” , whitewashed by his mistress Hannah Arendt later, was Hitler’s ghostwriter, defended today as a “philosopher”.
How about this : Emmanuel Faye professeur de philosophie moderne et contemporaine à l’Université de Rouen Normandie : Arendt et Heidegger : extermination nazie et destruction de la pensée
Extermination and destruction of thought go hand in hand. The target, Jews, because they carried the flame of European humanist thought, to be extinguished however.
WUWT does note the destruction of thought itself – there is the reason.
But one name is missing from the list – the Mephistopheles of the 20th Century, Lord Bertrand Russell. Just one read of “The impact of Science on Society” shows the direct overlap with Heidegger’s destruction of thought.
Global Warming is simply Russell’s “snow is black or any shade of grey depending on cost”. Notice the AGW arguments in this mirror.
Another name missing – Emmanuel Kant – the “Robespierre of the human spirit”, as great poet and philosopher Heinrich Heine well knew.
Heidegger, Kant (Edgar Allan Poe’s “Can’t”), Russell, all revered in Uni’s Depts.


Hey Mods, what is triggering that?

NZ Willy

Not to mention the obvious points that Hitler was vegetarian and that Nazi art glorified women — they were portrayed literally on pedestals.

J Mac

How about a little ironic ‘positivity’, as counterweight to the troubling topic of the article above?
Shock Study: Climate Skeptics More ‘Eco-Friendly’ than Climate Alarmists
“Michael Hall, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, led a team of researchers in a yearlong longitudinal study of 600 Americans who “regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures” and published the results of their study in The Journal of Environmental Psychology.”
“The results of the study contradicted the intuitive assumption that people most concerned about climate change would be the most likely to engage in eco-friendly behavior, revealing instead that the contrary is true. There is an inverse correlation between climate-change concern and environmentally beneficial action.”
link to paywalled paper:

Jim Heath

Great article. I can see why people get so passionate about both sides of the argument. Do you believe we are “just another animal” on the Planet? Or privileged above all others? Seems to me as the top predator we should be intelligent enough to care for others. But alas it doesn’t appear so.


We are caring for the others.


Interestingly enough, more “top predators” in the world, namely hunters and fishers, who label themselves Conservationists rather than Environmentalists, do more to preserve forests, clean streams, and wetlands, and the animals, fish, and birds that live there, than Environmentalists will ever do. They are actually concerned with preserving a natural resource and the responsible use of it. Most Environmentalists are mostly about virtue signalling and rabid anti-capitalism dressed up as concern for the environment.


Severian, I was raised in the conservation tradition, the most successful environmental movement in history. The accomplishments of the modern environmental movement pale in comparison. The difference, the conservation movement know that humans have made mistakes but also recognize humans also are the solution. The modern environmental movement sees humans as a disease that needs to be wipe from the face of the earth. To them humans, especially capitalists, are more evil than the devil himself. They hate looking at data the clearly shows otherwise.

Core of this radical environmentalism might be the “Mother Earth” concept.
Nobody will call the bricks of his house or his computer or his bike “mother” .
The earth is not a mother but our nest and also our lumberyard.
There is simply no choice, to live means to exploit the earth.
Environmental organisations once coined the mother earth idea with the result that every believer has to live in deep sin. Climate change is now regarded as the revenge of mother earth.


It is very easy to get a copy of the real Bible.


served in germany (us army) in late 1980’s, at that time still many ww2 citizens around. they also said that the eco laws were extreme and a tree was considered more important that a human.
and believe me, anytime a vehicle did tree damage the US paid for it in spades including the expected generations of trees the org tree would have spawned.


Germans loved it whenever a US tank ran over their gardens. Big bucks!


yup, big bucks still not as expensive as forestry damage was though

Non Nomen

What you experienced then is still common practice, fueled by more and more pseudo-greens living in cloudcuckooland. Even today, the words ‘ecological’ or ‘sustainable’ still trigger the complete shutdown of common sense.


true however they make less $$ from us army as drawdowns have taken most of the tracked/field forces out of there.


Encountering severe icing, need lower.

I don’t think pro-hydroelectric power generation ideology is part of the eco-frauds’ mentality.


Is the Lead referring to Norman O. Brown, who would become famous in the 1960’s by combining Marcuse’s “Eros and Civilization” hedonism theory with Wilhelm Reich’s orgone therapy to popularize “polymorphous perversity”? Marcuse’s “life-style” has indeed become the meme. Reich claimed Nazism was caused by monogamy.

John Robertson

Funny how history repeats.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Fancy title, interesting concept, yet those selling it are the same kind.
After 30 years of listening to these same persons wail,abuse and occurs to me that it is impossible to parody such mass hysteria.
Looking at some of the more well known activists, they are characters who would be unbelievable if created in a work of fiction.
The cult certainty of “The Science” is a deadpan mockery of themselves, yet they march on.
Imaging ones self as the last hero of the environment calls for no humility, reflection is for those who doubt.
As noted by many,true evil arrises from that conviction you are 100% correct and thus righteous in the carrying out of the “necessary actions” to save the world for all.
Which is how fools rush in where angels fear to tread., unbound by doubt or uncertainty the “enlightened ones”are going to save us..even if they kill us and 3/4 of other life on this planet.
The “solutions” of course are always the same.
Keep the poor poor, cripple national economies and control everything.
Eugenics never was abandoned by our Progressive Comrades.
And slavery is in their words, a fitting use for the “Unpersons”.


At the risk of annoying philistines, how could Heinrich Heine with his “The Romantic School” correctly foresee Hitler 100 years before, calling Robespierre-et-al a coffee-shop in comparison?


Yep, lets insult the audience, then ask a rhetorical question.


It is appropriate to write and publish this article.
Over the past 2,000 years, every great experiment in authoritarian government ran until the leaders granted themselves the privilege of state murder. Each had an inspiring banner,
As Rome was corrupted by an ambitious bureaucracy to a murderous police state the banner was the “Genius of the Emperor”.
In the 1500s, under the “Infallibility of the Pope” and the “Divine right of kings” the Church was corrupted to a murderous police state.
Of course, Communists were out to create the “Perfect Man”, for the Nazis it was the “Perfect” race and land space.
Today’s authoritarians are out to set the temperature of the nearest planet to “Perfect”.
For this, they have even enlisted the “Infallibility of the Pope”. Despite lingering scientific embarrassment from 400 years ago.
The major trend scares me–to the core–and deserves widespread criticism.
Bob Hoye

David Walton

Hang in there Anthony. We love your courage, your honesty, your honorable respect for and love of science and the scientific method and your splendid behavior in the face of hate-filled politically motivated detractors and pure evil. Don’t let these vile people destroy science and turn it into just another despicable political beast from hell. Fight on.

Some people seem upset by this comparison. The comparison isn’t a literal one, for the greens aren’t building gas chambers and forcing the masses into them. The point is, they do talk about it.
As is oft said, history repeats itself. Those who do not learn from history, are condemned to repeat it (~ Stantayana). The problem being that if there are enough of those, the rest of us are condemned to repeat it with them. Fascism for the “greater good”, 8 million ruthlessly exterminated. Russian Communism, 20 million more for the common good. Pol Pot, millions more. Chinese Communism, 10’s of millions, all for the common good.
Sarajevo in 1984 was home to the Winter Olympics, the very symbol of global peace and friendly competition. Not many years later, it was the scene of ethnic cleansing. When descent into chaos, hate and evil happens, it happens frighteningly fast.
Which is why this comparison is appropriate. A constant reminder of what we can so easily become is the best way to guard against becoming that very thing. It isn’t the last step on the road to h*ll that we must guard against. It is the first one.

If I may…
1. Greenpeace a few years ago posted some vile content about what should be done to skeptics on their site. They got a major backlash, much of it from readers on this site alerted to it by Anth_ny. The backed down, fast,
2. There was a professor at a major university in Vienna who posted on the university web site that skeptics should be placed in re-education camps, and if that failed, to dispose of them. Anth_ny exposed it and thanks to the backlash, much of it from this site, the offensive material was removed.
3. 350.or posted a hate filled video that among other things depicted young children being murdered out of hand for questioning CAGW. That content was removed after a storm of protest, much of it from readers at this site.
These are the first steps down a slippery slope. Fight them at the first step because by the time the last one comes, it is too late.


Not to mention book burning. The Church of Climate Change is indeed fundamentally N@zi in its mindset.


i hope people take heed of this post david. call them out every single time.


David, appreciate that Nazi Germany didn’t happen overnight. It was well over two decades in the making with a lot of help by people and governments in total denial about the evils. You are correct with your quote about those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat. Yet it was not said once, it has been said many times throughout history almost always to be ignored, as it is today, by people that see history as not worth learning, just not important. The ethnic cleansing in the Balkans started a very long time ago when Ottoman Turks would come there each year, remove healthy male children from Orthodox Christian families, take them back to Istanbul, force convert them to Islam and then either castrate them for use a bureaucrats or make them elite troops for the Sultan. Remember the Ottoman Empire, the last caliphate, lasted until the end of the Great War. Then Tito had kept revenge in check since WWII. Some times we get on the path to hell well down the road, yet we must understand when the first step was taken. We do that only through the study of history.

Jim Gorman

It’s not ignored, it is rationalized by the “end (great good) justifies the (any and all) means.

Non Nomen

If the tanks need R&R they’d better go somewhere else. Either you respect private property or hefty compensation is due. It is the same mentality all around the world.


It’s hard to maneuver a 70-ton vehicle precisely enough to avoid a one yard-wide strip at the side of a road.


Especially when the driver’s vision is limited and even with the commander and gunner’s heads out of the turret, they too can’t see much close to the vehicle.


Indeed. Tanks are vehicles expressly designed to go over and/or through obstacles, not to navigate around them.


A Leopard helping make a woodland-owners’ year!

Non Nomen

The gross weight comes close and not very much above 60 metric tons. Of course I do accept driving errors if learners are in the driving seat. But a professional ought to be able to steer such a vehicle with greater precision than 1 ft onto the RR flatcars. BTW, we were talking about “in the garden” and not just about a steamrollered fence. Not a nice view to see carrots, onions and beans smashed in the garden instead of the stew. My grandma would have gone berserk.

This could have been written more convincingly without the tired reference to the Nazi’s and their madness — using them as a foil in the comparison weakens rather than strengthens the argument.
That many of the pro-Environment and anti-Corporate movements are also misanthropic anti-Human campaigns with little regard for the poor and needy has been obvious since the 1960s. There are many more quotes that could have been given that would turn the stomach of the average person.

OMG there are nazis everywhere.


Yes, the environmentalist movement is loaded with their moral equivalents.


Well Mosh this is the most balked tangential comment section I’ve read on wuwt. References to Hitler etal., always produce this. The post’s purpose would have been just as effective without the recourse to Nazis to give it some zingers.
A debunking and exposition of this “Decisive Ecological Warfare” manifesto would have made more sense than preaching to the converted about greenie extremism.
Which gets its’ misanthropic brew from here:


It’s funny when you think about it. What causes of mass suffering do we have in history other than people who think other people are in the way of a (nearly) perfect world, and in what proportion?
Because it seems that’s what’s behind the pretty much every human mass destruction. I mean, that and revenge, though the latter is awfully similar to the former.
This doesn’t mean people should strive for the better, but should be terribly clear whether their motive is improvement or resentment.

William Astley

I do not like this never ending fight, that gets meaner and meaner, and more and more ridiculous.
People want to immigrate, from undeveloped countries to developed countries as life is very hard without cheap reliable energy and stable honest governments that work, construct and maintain roads, maintain rule of law and so on. They have neither.
We should be helping the undeveloped countries rather than fighting about open borders which is forced chaos that makes our country more like the undeveloped country.
This problem (climate wars) is different as it is tied to hard science. The hard science does not support CAGW, it barely supports AGW.
Based on Germany’s experience the super forced solution for the none CAGW problem (solar and wind) does not work, regardless of how much we spend on it.
Germany is the richest of the EU countries. The Germans are now taking steps to stop subsides for solar and wind because that scheme does not work (German CO2 emissions stopped dropping even though more solar and wind was installed) and the German people will not pay more for their electricity.
If this was a normal problem, someone on the other side, would have the courage, to explain using basic engineering and the amount spent vs benefits achieved for Germany why solar and wind are absolutely limited, do not work.

Peter O'Brien

I was intrigued by the claim that Dr Charles Wurster once sad that DDT substitutes only kill farm workers and most of them are mexicans or negroes. That sounds incredible to me. I have done a quick google search on this but can only find references wherein he is ‘repoetted to have once said’ and most of these references are by Paul Dreissen himself. If anyone can point me to an authoritative source for this quote I’d be very grateful

DeLoss McKnight

Peter, that quote did not pass my B/S test either. I also googled it and found nothing but articles repeating the quote in the last few days. If he had really said that, it would have made national news and he would have been excoriated, ostracized and shunned. I don’t argue the main thrust of this article that today’s environmentalists ignore many of the costs of their solutions to our problems, but I don’t think we are helped by what I can only believe is a false quotation.
I would also remind everyone that comparing your opponent to Hitler/Nazis is a failure tactic for persuasion. It means you’ve already lost the argument and are stooping to ad hominem/false generalization attacks. See how well the “Trump is Hitler” meme as an example.

This article would be much more useful if the list of insane environmentalist quotes included hyperlinked sources/citations for each quote.
It is good to have a healthy BS detector, but even the quotes that pass that test aren’t “usable” unless they can be verified. (Not usable by me, anyhow.)

“Falsehood is never so false as when it is very nearly true.”
– Gilbert K. Chesterton

I did some googling, and it appears that the source for the Wurster statement was a 1969 luncheon speech by estranged Environmental Defense Fund co-founder Victor John Yannacone, Jr.:


I’ll play.


“… People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them… –Environmental Defense Fund scientist Charles Wurster
Apparently, Thanos was not the first to come up with the idea of solving the problems of overpopulation, hunger, and suffering by killing off half the population. All he did was expand the idea to include the entire universe. I wonder how many extreme environmentalists consider Thanos to be the hero, instead of the villain, of the Infinity Wars movie. He does what they can only dream of.


Thank you, Paul Driessen, for telling it like it is.
For anyone who is interested in more background information on the subject at hand, I would like to recommend:
Very unsettling, for Greens, that is. Yet very clarifying for everyone else, imho.