The Heartland Institute’s Donald Kendal, Jim Lakely, Justin Haskins, and Chris Talgo present episode 391 of the In The Tank Podcast. Is it just me, or is the climate alarmist rhetoric getting crazier? A new paper from Harvard Environmental Law Review makes the case that oil companies should be charged with homicide due to the supposed effects of the climate change.
The ITT crew talks about this paper, the recently released IPCC report and more climate-alarmist-related topics.
OPENING CHIT CHAT – NEW TROUBLING POLL RESULTS WSJ/NORC Poll March 2023 https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/do… Chris Talgo in Townhall – The Deliberate Deterioration of American Values https://townhall.com/columnists/chris…
PRIMARY TOPIC – CLIMATE PAPER CALLS FOR HOMICIDE CHARGES FOR OIL COMPANIES The Guardian – New climate paper calls for charging big US oil firms with homicide https://www.theguardian.com/environme…
Prof. Richard Parncutt: Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers? https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/…
Washington Free Beacon – One Billion Gretas: Biden Admin Pledges Taxpayer Cash To Support Young Climate Activists Abroad https://freebeacon.com/biden-administ…
Fox News – John Kerry rushes to defense of climate activist leaders who use private jets https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john…
Washington Post – Why climate ‘doomers’ are replacing climate ‘deniers’ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climat…
LIVE HERE:
“Jump the shark” came immediately to mind.
“Is it just me, or is the climate alarmist rhetoric getting crazier?”
can’t top Al Gore’s “the oceans are boiling”- though they may try
Noam Chomsky’s “…going to destroy all life on Earth*…” is definitely a contender for most over-the-top comment.
Coming from one who urged his readers to never believe what they are told in the media, but always check for yourself*, that is seriously ironic.
If I’m not mistaken, Hansen was the first to say the oceans would boil.
Gore said the oceans are boiling.
(Probably from the heat of the “millions of degrees at the Earth’s core” leaking through from Earth’s CO2-weakened crust under the oceans.)
Gore used the present tense. He didn’t use the future tense.
A real CliSy scientist wouldn’t be that careless!
“Harvard Environmental Law Review makes the case that oil companies should be charged with homicide”
like I keep saying, the craziest climate alarmist place isn’t CA or NY or Germany or the UK or Australia – it’s Woke-achusetts
it’s the “islamic state” of climate alarmism
Putting the batshit in “crazy” 24/7.
That is deeply offensive to islamic state or any such terrorists to be associated with the batshit eco-nazis crazies. As homicidal as they are, at least they don’t see the oceans boiling and seas rising dangerously right now.
If these idiots keep making people’s lives miserable, they may find some real grounds for homicide charges.
The slope of the line on a graph of per capita energy usage versus life expectancy is positive.
If this lawsuit goes through, then I want a countersuit filed against everyone that suppresses the development and distribution of fossil fuels into the third world.
THOSE people are responsible for a lot of deaths. Since their actions were deliberate, I guess we should append the description to be called homicide.
The EU bureaucrats that suppress the distribution of GMO crops to starving peoples should also face their own charges.
*** Or, this is all a terribly bad and misguided idea!
pillageidiot, Per my post, today, the fraudsters may well be acting proactively: We better sue big oil before a lawsuit is filed against big climate. “Big Climate Knew” (catastrophic was all BS) may have some resonance.
Yes!!! It’s the eco-nazis that are causing harm and slandering productive and necessary industries and the people who work therein.
The eco-nazis should be sued into the stone-age conditions they are trying to foist on everyone else.
“Homicide Charges For Oil Companies”I never liked team projects or debates because sometimes teammates say things like…
Everyone knows the best offense is a good defense, The fraudsters are beginning to realize that their pretending to believe that CO2 is the climate control knob has a downside. A few papers have been able to survive the IPCC and liberal universities efforts to stifle debate to keep the grant money coming. There hasn’t been a climate crisis the past 40 years, and there isn’t evidence there is going to be one in the next 80 years. The Crying wolf strategy has run its course.
I’ve never subscribed to the suggestion that 350 ppm ATM CO2 was OK, but 700 ppm was an existential threat or that 1.0C of warming by 2100 was OK, but 1.5C would be catastrophic. 97% of.PhD climate scientists surely agree. Their pretending otherwise is becoming “problematic”. They’re running scared IMHO.
It is desperation as they KNOW their climate racket is failing as I see firsthand in a couple of forums I commonly visit where the warmest/alarmist’s postings are worse and worse by the year after myself and a few others destroy their absurd posts with hard evidence and more they get angry about it.
The post by Eschenbach Where is the Climate Emergency? drives them mad with evasive attacks against the author and this blog but treat the CONTENT with complete indifference because they can’t counter any of it.
The “Climate Homicide” paper is NOT, NOT, NOT published at the Harvard Law Review! Read or re-read the assortment of online articles about it and you will see statements like “this paper will be published next spring in the Harvard Environmental Law Review.” Next spring. In 2024 — if, and only if the board members of Harvard Law Review ultimately approve it. The downloadable PDF for the 70 page paper is a draft version, clearly marked as such, and I’ve discovered it has already been altered in some way after its big March 20th news announcement of it, as the footnotes numbering of it is out-of-sequence in the current “March 24” version compared to what was available on March 20th.
The huge faults within it on several fronts, along with the dicey people it cites for particular authoritative assertions, may render it unacceptable for publication! The question that needs to be asked is why and how this draft version got out to the Clima-Change™ Propaganda press when it should not be any sort of news for another full year.
Ask them how much petroleum products they themselves have used over their lifetimes…
… directly, in terms of electricity, car fuel, travel etc
and indirectly as products delivered or produced using petroleum products.
Useless to ask them to count how much they use when obviously they are awful at math, considering how bad climate science research is.