Essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Climedown – “Its time”: Speaking on GB News, British environmentalist Jim Dale demanded criminalisation of public climate denial.
Andrew Doyle clashes with environmentalist demanding climate denial is criminalised: ‘Tyranny by stealth!’
By Ben Chapman
Published: 13/05/2024 – 09:57Jim Dale likened climate denial to flat earth conspiracy theories
- Andrew Doyle and Jim Dale clashed over whether climate denial should be criminalised
- JOIN THE DEBATE – Should climate denial be illegal? COMMENT NOW
Andrew Doyle became embroiled in a feisty free speech row with environmentalist Jim Dale as the latter demanded climate denial is criminalised.
Speaking on GB News, Dale likened climate denial to flat earth conspiracy theories, arguing they are too dangerous for public discourse.
Andrew took a differing perspective on the matter, asking what Dale expects to achieve by silencing climate change sceptics.
…
“Denial is factually wrong and it pollutes the political discourse.
“It puts certain politicians in certain spins. They don’t necessarily know about the climatology or the meteorology that’s involved.
“Therefore, they go off on a tangent or sit on a fence like Rishi Sunak, and we end up going nowhere fast when we have to act.”
…
Read more: https://www.gbnews.com/news/andrew-doyle-environmentalist-climate-denial-tyranny-latest
I watched the video of the interview. According to environmentalist Jim Dale, climate skeptics would still be allowed to talk to family and friends, “nobody would kick in the door”, but would face criminal sanctions if they “pollute” people by voicing their opinion in public.
Jim Dale refused to specify exactly what sanctions should be applied to deniers – he said that should be up to politicians like Labour Party leader Keir Starmer.
Asked for an example of how climate denial could be suppressed with criminal sanctions, Jim Dale suggested it would be like how racism has been driven from public discourse. Britain has harsh anti-hate speech laws.
Andrew Doyle tried to get Jim Dale to admit there might be a few issues with banning disagreement, he cited the example of how the Covid Lab leak theory was vigorously suppressed. For a long time Facebook and Google deleted accounts and silenced public posts which speculated that Covid was an escaped lab virus. Then Fauci made continued censorship untenable, by publicly admitting a lab leak was a possibility. Facebook hilariously tried to justify their censorship of lab leak theories by explaining why it is up to people like Fauci to decide what public opinions are acceptable.
However environmentalist Jim Dale refused to concede the possibility that people who claim we are currently experiencing a climate crisis might be wrong.
The reality of climate change is that the Earth is currently experiencing a very cold period by geological standards.
We are currently living in the Quaternary ice age, a severe cold period which started two and a half million years ago, and continues to the present day.
The Quaternary is one of only five great glaciation periods which have been detected in the geological record – the others are the Huronian (2.2 billion years ago), Cryogenian (720-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-420 million years ago), late Paleozoic (360-255 million years ago), and the Quaternary Ice Age, our current period of extreme cold.
Think about that – during more than 2 billion years of geological history, only 5 great cold periods have been identified, and we are currently living in one of those periods. The last time the Earth was this cold for a sustained period was 255 million years ago.
Given the geological evidence is that we are living in a significant period of extreme cold, how can today’s temperatures possibly qualify as a global warming emergency?
Yet an opinion such as I just provided, a simple statement of fact, would likely be illegal under Jim Dale’s climate denial rules. Under Dale’s proposed rules, myself or anyone who retweets this article could go to jail or lose their house, merely for suggesting that people living in the middle of an ice age should be more concerned about glaciers than beach weather.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What should be illegal is for climate alarmists to use fossil fuels, as Jim Dale does every day, every day, every day, every day….what a HYPOCRITE!!
but then we’d miss the fun of pointing and laughing at the hypocrisy 🙂
Up to the point where they acquire the power to actually start jailing those who oppose them.
Mr. W: And Mr. Dale looks like the type who would fly on a private jet to testify against some “denialist”.
STORY TIP
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/what-media-wont-tell-you-about-energy-transition?utm_source=multiple-personal-recommendations-email&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true
That is what actually should have happened a long time ago! Those charlatans should be laughed out of town! The facts are easy enough!
One “trick” they try to pull often is to merge everything in one “manmade-globale-warming-climate-change-natrual-disasters” when in fact every topic needs to be adddresssed individually ..
personally, I think we do not know how much warming is man made, let alone how that miht affect any climate…
It’s perjury in my book.
Perjury only happens when someone takes an oath to tell the truth in a court of law, then gets caught speaking a deliberate falsehood. When a quack talks like a duck, it’s not perjury. It’s not even false. It’s natural.
That’s why I said “IN MY BOOK”.
To expand on that curt reply …
I call it “authoritative misrepresentation” and it applies to everything — used car peddlers, politicians making official speeches, and lies about the climate told at government hearings to wheedle money, and even in interviews like this. The guy is pretending to be an authority; very well, back up your fine words by taking responsibility for saying them.
Claim to be telling the truth? Back it up by standing by your claims. Don’t want to be held accountable? Then you’ve admitted you were not speaking authoritatively; you were perhaps not lying, maybe you were guessing, or repeating things you do not know yourself. Whichever it is, ‘fess up!
Stop taking lawyers as know-it-all experts. Stop letting them define language. Perjury is authoritative misrepresentation, lies told as if by an authority.
Besides, find me someone who denies that climate changes, who? Where? Nobody does.
With “climate” having been redefined by the World Meteorological Organization to be only 30 years’ worth of weather it changes every day.
Sure sounds fascist to me. Just like Adolph and round up the undesirables.
I really doubt Jim Dale actually knows any “climate science” beyond the sort of Baltimore Catechism dogmas the Green Blob endlessly repeats. Would noting Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick is a product of cherry picking and an algorithm that makes hockey sticks from red noise be sufficiently heretical to demand burning at the stake?
I think Andrew Doyle handled the interview really well, he tried ever so gently to coax Jim into using his brain, but it was a hopeless struggle.
Hard to use what you haven’t got.
Jim’s brain, is in two halves.
In the left half, nothing is right.
And in the right half, there’s nothing left.
That is because he was talking to a whack job!
He’s a pretend weatherman with no qualifications, who pedals wildly wrong sensationalist forecasts to the media.
Great headline…. until you realise we are talking about Jim Dale.
Now, personally, I’d never heard of the Expert Witness Agency until now. He is credited there as: Official Qualifications: Meteorological & Oceanographical Observer.
Blow that trumpet, baby
“I am perceived as being very knowledgeable within my industry, covering weather & climate stories across the U.K. and the rest of the world”
https://newa.expert/expert-members/mr-jim-n-r-dale/
Yeah right. What puzzles me is how this oxygen thief survives; and why it is that GB News gives a lunatic charlatan the time of day.
That is the real mystery here.
GB News gives Dale time on air in order to expose him for what he is. Good strategy.
I’m not convinced, I remember what GBN did with Mark Stein
His real problem is he is a believer! but there is a lie in the center of his belief
To the best of my knowledge, the only people who are not “meteorological observers”, are the basement dwellers who don’t even have windows.
Indeed
You mean our resident trolls?
“What puzzles me is how this oxygen thief survives”
_________________________________________
Not sure what you mean by oxygen thief, but just remember when “they” want to sequester CO2 it’s also going to sequester oxygen.
Somebody pointed that out here on WUWT a few days ago. Now, in the grand scheme of things that would be equivalent to spitting in the ocean, which would be the same as trying to control the climate by reducing CO2 emissions.
An Oxygen thief…. utilises the oxygen of publicity”
“I am perceived as being very knowledgeable within my industry…“
Heh the expression on Jeff Daniel’s face almost makes him look like Robin Williams.
He gets publicity because he preaches a story some people in power want preached.
“Expert Witness Agency” — otherwise known as ‘Rentagob’.
It is the climate catastrophists that need to be criminalised as their calls for immediate action on emissions reduction would collapse the economy thereby ending any chance of funding future infrastructure change.
The call for so-called climate catastrophy deniers to be criminalised is classic groupthink , whereby the chosen concensus has to be protected at all costs, and shows how the catastrophists claims to be following the science is just bogus.
This is in direct contrast to the normal scientific pathway in which challenging commonly held beliefs is an essential part of science evolution.
Say, I’ve got a swell idea! Let’s everybody send everybody else to jail for Wrongthink, Groupthink, Thoughtcrime, or any other kind of thought. Only True Believers shall reign.
The country that led the world into the Industrial Revolution, that enabled peasants to crawl out of their pathetic mud huts and attain some hope for a better life, that the rest of the world emulated for a couple of centuries, shall continue to commit economic suicide. Stranger things have happened.
For anyone left who’s interested in math, the United Kingdom emits something like 1.3% of the world’s anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2). Even if the CO2 control knob of climate theory were true — which is HIGHLY unlikely — nothing the U.K. does or doesn’t do would show up on a global pie chart.
But what the heck? Economic suicide sets a fine example for others, SURER to be emulated than the march to modernity, knowledge, invention, and prosperity. The whole world will yet again follow the British example backwards into the new Dark Ages. With glee.
NOT.
No, NO speech needs to be criminalized. The problem is government, period, encouraging the charlatans to come begging for more of that sweet sweet taxpayer funding.
You get more of what you subsidize, and when you subsidize marginal students, you need to subsidize marginal researchers in marginal fields to ensure marginal colleges get their full ration of those sweet sweet student loans backed by taxes.
The marginalization of marginal quackery can’t come soon enough to satisfy me.
And BAILOUTS. 🤬
Hi Eric,
As luck would have it I’ve been debating that very topic on X (formerly Twitter) over the last couple of days.
I’ll pose the same question here as I did over there:
Rather than a qualified environmentalist, his history is in meteorological data logging leading into being a professional climate catastrophist.
His webpage even claims credit for being an Association for Personal Injury Lawyers expert witness, which is a paid for acreditation.
I don’t know why he gets used by GB news , I suspect just to provide a contrary nonsensical view of climate catstrophy to wind people up.
Like a lot of catastrophists they’ve found a way to make a living from their doom-mongering.
We’re having a Public Inquiry into the “Post Office Horizon Scandal”. Worth researching for anyone who hasn’t heard much about it.
Basically a faulty IT system that for 2 decades the Post Office claimed was bug free and had no remote access. It wasn’t and it had.
What is relevant here is that the PO expert witness worked for the supplier Fujitsu. In English Law, Scots Law is similar, there is a duty of disclosure. Disclosure to the defence and prosecution is equally important. So if you have knowledge of or learn something which will help the other side’s case you must give them all the information.
The expert in this case knew about bugs and access and didn’t tell the defence. 900+ were found guilty of theft on evidence from the computer system and some jailed.
The Expert Witness is keeping a low profile at the moment. IMO his defence will be he wasn’t properly briefed. He could be in serious trouble.
I hope this charlatan, Jim Dale, is properly briefed on his responsibilities and duties and discloses all the issues.
When facts and argument fail to win over the people do what all totalitarian regimes do, lock up those who do not comply with the ‘official’ agenda and message.
The destruction of society via removal of freedoms, especially freedom of speech knows no limit ask any survivor of Pol Pot.
Sadly here in the UK, the next administration to be elected later this year will be a hard left wing quasi Marxist regime with Ed Miliband playing a high profile role demanding ‘action’ on climate change. He was the architect of the 2008 Climate Change Act and later added to by Theresa May i.e. Net Zero legislation tacked onto it. This enabling bill ensured Parliament was never given a vote, on Net Zero.
That is how totalitarians like to do things.
“Ed Miliband playing a high profile role demanding ‘action’ on climate change. He was the architect of the 2008 Climate Change Act”
No;
Bryony Worthington, (now Baroness Worthington) of Friends of the Earth, was the lead author in the team which drafted the UK’s 2008 Climate Change Act.
Miliband was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, when the disastrous 2008 Climate Change Act was introduced by Lord Rooker & Hilary Benn MP. Miliband had very little input to the bill.
Except that he was Secretary of State at the time. The buck stops with him.
This is actually a very positive sign. The very fact that the Jim Dales of this World are trying to criminalise anti-CAGW speech shows they have abandoned any hope of convincing us with their arguments.
I hope you’re correct, but I’m not optimistic. Criminalizing speech has worked pretty well for lots of regimes over millennia. The “free world” is an historical anomaly, and may turn out to be a blip.
And today we have “hate speech” as a crime.
(What ever happened to “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”?)
That’s why we have the 1st Amendment in the US and back it up with the 2nd Amendment. Our Founders didn’t like the British way of doing business.
Unfortunately hate speech prosecution is a very real and ugly thing in the US.
“This is actually a very positive sign. The very fact that the Jim Dales of this World are trying to criminalise anti-CAGW speech shows they have abandoned any hope of convincing us with their” DELUSIONS
Fixed it for you.
Great point! They never actually had any arguments.
Graemethecat, I agree with you. For more than three decades, the public in the industrialized world has been bombarded non-stop with relentless propaganda regarding global warming. The media, all of it, was in on the act. Virtually all political parties have been infiltrated and corrupted. The elite have got into the act via noxious organizations like WEF. Hollywood has been heavily involved with this fraud through abominations like Day After Tomorrow, An Inconvenient Truth. The cause has been massively supported by the world’s billionaires.
And through all this, and so much more, the public remains grimly unconvinced by the relentless drumbeat of propaganda. Global warming isn’t even on the public’s list of environmental issues, which includes things like clean water, clean air, sewage reduction, disease reduction. This is indeed the concession speech of, “we can’t persuade you, therefore we are going to herd you into the concentration camps.”
It should be noted that the National Socialist German Workers Party never bothered with persuasion. They just went straight to building Auschwitz and a host of similar institutions.So demanding incarceration for opponents is the de facto concession speech that the AGW kult has lost the debate.
If an hypothesis cannot be confirmed by experiment or by observation then it is wrong. – Richard Feynman.
Those who work in computing know that models are not real, very rarely reflect experiment or observation in more than a few respects and need great care in use. Sadly, not one important climate model has ever proved to be correct. That is why not one serious and important climate forecast has ever proved to be correct from glacier loss, sea level rise, polar bear numbers and coral regeneration. That is why the two big polluters – India and China – are responsible for much climate ‘pollution’. The rest of the world might as well abandon any sort of pollutant control, it would make no difference. Yet we see most nations’ economies being beggared by the Paris Agreement and we see (for example) the Maldives using their Paris money to build five new airports at near- beach level. How then can anyone who claims to be a scientist not endorse the need always to look at all sides of a problem. Astronomy and Particle Physics adhere to these principles but climate scientists appear to make decisions on the basis that there is some small consensus. Get it straight: Consensus science is wrong science.. Interestingly, only the Trump Administration has supported RedTeam/Blue Team research. One wonders why.
If a hypothesis cannot be confirmed by experiment or by observation then it is wrong. – Richard Feynman.
What if the hypothesized affect is too small to be measured by any available instruments?
Then it is of no practical significance.
Not true. Many aspects of reality that can be measured only recently in human history have long had very real consequences, being part of reality.
It is true in the context of MarkW’s comment.
“What if the hypothesized affect is too small to be measured by any available instruments?“
_______________________________________________________
Then it wouldn’t be an issue.
Science is about understanding the universe around us by measuring various phenomenon which can be observed by some means. Science is empirical only. It is not metaphysical. If it cannot be observed then it is not scientific and does not exist.
The quantum aspects of the universe are a very recent human discovery but have always been an effective part of reality.
Then the hypothesis should not be assumed to be true and spend trillions based on that assumption.
(And the actual data shouldn’t be fiddled with to make the hypothesis appear to be true.)
Criminal trials of alleged deniers would, given anything resembling a competent defense, result in the lack of evidence for catastrophic global climate change from manmade carbon dioxide emissions becoming an undeniable and indelible matter of public record.
You put too much trust in the “justice” system, my friend. And you’re in California!
Reread the Swiss case.
In New York, a former president is charged with influencing the 2016 presidential election through bookkeeping irregularities committed in 2017. Yes, for influencing the election after the fact.
It is even more curious than that.
The checks were written by an admin who testified she did it based on invoices and sent them to Trump because they were to be drafted against his personal, not corporate bank account. She would send boxloads at a time. When returned, the bookkeeper made the ledger entries.
In March 2017, Cohen sent a request for status of his payment against his retainer. $35K.
So, the ledger said retainer. Cohen said retainer. The law is about business records but the people handling the checks say it was personal, not corporate.
Then the S.D. lawyer pointed out that it was a “consideration” associate with the NDA, not hush money and that Trump was concerned about the impact on his wife and family.
Anyone else see a reason to keep going?
No business records falsified. No corporate funds involved. NDAs are not crimes. DOJ and FEC decided it did not violate election laws back in that time frame.
The law for the business fraud hit statute of limitations over 5 years ago.
Prosecutor came from Biden’s DOJ. Judge was elected on a platform to get Trump.
Fascinating to see such corruption of the judicial system.
Actually on par with the corruption of science by IPCC, UN, etc.
Have you heard of the practice of “taking judicial notice”? In the worse cases, a court declares one side of an issue to be true. Then no argument or evidence to the contrary is allowed. This protects the heart felt beliefs, or those beliefs necessary to a powerful interest, to remain intact. Of course this process is sometimes used for legitimate purposes such as derailing debate and time loss on really obvious observations such as that the sun rises once per 24 hours.
Such suppression might work in the UK- it would never work in the perpetually anarchic US- with people from everywhere with all sorts of opinions- which was understood even back 2.5 centuries ago, with the 1st amendment.
Of course it might be tried in some states, like NY, CA, CT, VT and of course Wokeachusetts where there is essentially zero resistance to this crazy cult of global catastrophe.
As a Wokeachusetts resident, I can confirm your closing sentence. “Maybe we’re not all gonna fry and die soon,” has less credence than a doubter of Puritan predestination did 400 years ago.
They’re likely warming up the bonfires for the climate witches as we speak.
This state is nasty. I was a consulting forester for 50 years and constantly challenging state forestry policies. As a result, the forester license board investigated me twice- not for malfeasance in my work but for daring to challenge the system. Both times I had the ACLU pounce on the state and the state backed off. The rest of the forestry profession knuckled under and don’t challenge policies- especially climate policies. The only other one who did- died last summer.
Also, I suggest always say you’re from Wokeachusetts- use that term all the time. I want it to catch on- so I can say I coined a term. 🙂
And I thought Jim Dale was only a comedy actor in the Carry On films !!
I guess we can still laugh at this Jim Dale, but he comes across as a deeply unpleasant person (like many eco-loons)
He was funny, Ha Ha
This one’s funny peculiar
That particular Jim Dale was a brilliant comedian.
The Jim Dale mentioned in this article is an obnoxious, loathsome, clueless, ill-educated moron with absolutely zero redeeming facets of normal humanity or morality.
History, which never repeats exactly but often rhymes, teaches us that there are two phases to the phenomenon loosely labelled as either “censorship” or “authoritarianism”.
1) Draw a line.
2) Move the line … repeatedly …
– – – – – –
One of the things the Founding Fathers got right was making “freedom of speech” part of the First Amendment.
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” — George Washington
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom [ / freeness ] of speech.” — Benjamin Franklin
“Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed in the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty.” — Patrick Henry
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” — Thomas Jefferson
– – – – – –
“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.” — Voltaire
At first glance it would appear that Jim Dale is well aware that he is incapable of fulfilling the first part of this quote, and so seeks to “deny” that particular privilege to other people .
Personally speaking, I would much rather be considered a “Climate Denier” than a “Free Speech Denier” (AKA “Censor”).
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are two entirely different things. As we have seen over the past couple of decades, in many supposedly free countries, the “press” has been entirely corrupted in authoritarian directions.
But I agree with all the rest of your post here.
Control the information available to people to make decisions and you control the people.
Has anyone checked his bank account recently???
Oooooh! He’s not in the pockets of Big Wind, is he?
Flat Earthers are just about the most harmless cranks on the planet. The only ones they hurt is themselves, and then only if they want to be a navigator or aerospace engineer, and then only if it interferes with their actual work. If an airline pilot is a flat earther but follows his GPS and other navigation instruments, it doesn’t matter how he rationalizes that and twists it into conformity with a flat earth.
Until he gets it in his head that he’s going to go see what’s over that wall of ice at the rim, regardless of flight plan and the wishes of his passengers.
Anyone dangerous like that would be dangerous regardless of being a flat earther.
Mr. Repair: That struck me too, nobody ever considered jailing a flat-earther, did they? He’s scoring an “own goal” with such a dumb analogy, any listener will think, “throw a flat-earther in jail? Let him buy his own baloney!”
To what financial or political control interests do “flat-earthers” pose a danger? Crossing those lines are the only times there are real consequences.
The whole of AGW-cultism is based on Flat-Earth calculations, a non-rotating one, with no atmospheric air movement. Arrhenius started it.. and they haven’t progressed since then.
By very definition, anyone “believing” the climate scam, is a Flat-Earther.
They’re already kicking in the door to caution you and put you down for a “non-crime hate incident” if you correctly point out that a man, pretending to be a woman, is a man. Why would they stop for pointing out all the flaws related to climate ideology?
Story tip: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/14/drax-power-ships-controversial-biomass-fuel-trees/
Can’t wait to see the old steam ferries, ocean liners and riverboats coming back into service. Everything old is new again…
I am not a climate denier. The climate has always changed but it is NOT caused by man.
NET ZERO FOLLY
As most self respecting scientists know, man-made carbon dioxide has virtually no effect on the climate. It is a good gas essential to animals and plant life. Provided dirty emissions are cleaned up, we should be using our substantial store of fossil fuels while we develop a mix of alternatives including nuclear power to generate energy. There is no climate crisis, it has always changed and we have always adapted to it. In the Ordovician ice age atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were 4000 ppm and have been 15 times higher than now. There was no industrial revolution then to be the cause . The present quantity of man-made carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with water vapour or clouds which comprise a vast majority of green-house gases. Man has no control over the climate. Statistically we are overdue a period of cooling.The sun and our distance from it have by far the most effect. Most importantly, the Net-Zero (carbon dioxide) Policy will not do anything to change it. Countries like China, Russia and India are sensibly ignoring this and using their fossil fuels. They will be delighted at how the west is letting the power elites, mainstream media and government implement this Policy and the World Order Agenda 21, to needlessly impoverish us as well as causing great hardship and suffering
I am not a climate denier. I am a skeptic. I ask questions. I am pragmatic. I look at all sides and make my own decisions.
The climate has always change, but it is NOT primarily caused by man or CO2.
CO2 changes the thermal resistance of air, the specific heat of air, and affects transmission of a narrow band of IR. CO2 does not create energy. CO2 does not trap heat. The CO2 IR band is opaque because of scattering. CO2 has a trivial, but non-zero effect on energy transfers in the atmosphere and does, in an infinitesimal manner, affect climate.
Man has altered the environment. Big hydro dams. Massive cities. Deforestation. Blacktop. Mining. Real pollution. All of those have a minor, nearly trivial affect on climate.
The greatest effect man has on the climate is the amount of heat released during thermal steam piston generation of electricity and the use of electricity. 65% of the heat released by the fuel directly enters the environment. Electricity is govern by I^2R. It is a minor percent compared to the sun, but measurable quantity.
Anyone trying to silence people, regardless of issue, is committing a crime against humanity.
i prefer the term Climate Realist.
It is a minor percent compared to the sun, but measurable quantity.
If you mean the energy itself, true. If you mean the effect on climate or weather, human use of energy is too tiny to have any effect except in the immediate vicinity of the activity (e.g. keeping your living warm enough). Total human energy use for all purposes over a year is estimated to be less than solar input in two hours, every two hours of every day of every year.
When you can’t win the debate, silence the opposition.
Near the end of the discussion, Dale won’t give Doyle a straight answer about what punishment should be inflicted upon “deniers.” Dale is so dogmatic and unyielding, I expected him to say, “Well, burning deniers at the stake MIGHT suffice. It just might. . . especially if public viewers can hear the deniers scream and beg for mercy. . . but that would emit CO2, now, wouldn’t it? So I guess we’ll just have to hang ’em. That’s a low emission solution to ThoughtCrime.” (Wink, wink.)
He had to avoid answering the question. Even an idiot like Dale had to be aware that he was treading into territory last explored by National Socialism.
Climate change denial (pro-CAGW) – No. Climate change skepticism (anti-CAGW) – Yes.
I sense he’s been drinking too much beer and needs to be banished to Iceland to dry up with his mates-
Scientists are using a giant vacuum in Iceland to suck CO2 out the air (msn.com)
As I noted recently, there is benefit in selection of an example of corrupted science then using it, with criminal sanctions, to establish a high level, international structure to correct and punish knowing scientific deceit. Prof Ed Calabrese has researched the LNT theory, an important example that could be a test case. It is now up to senior scientists to group and start the process.
Geoff S
Since the financial, and political control, benefits of LNT are huge, a successful attack within this century has a vanishing small possibility.
What is it about socialists and their eagerness to criminalize any dissent from their agenda?
Socialism means anything relevant to the individual must be controlled by the state. This is why socialism is anti-family, opposed to religion, opposed to free expression. Socialism always builds walls to keep its population captive and controlled. The perfect socialism was envisaged by Plato’s Republic, Thomas More’s Utopia or Marx’s republic of the proletariat. Every one of these, freedom has been completely dispensed with. The value of individuals is zero.
Hence, free expression and any possible dissent is the very first thing to be imposed by all socialisms. All benefits to the individual must come from the state as sole supplier and therefore controller of all individuals everywhere.
Why not send such climate activists in a psychiatric clinic as it’s known that most activists are victim of at least one of five mental illness.
I can understand Jim’s emotional viewpoint from uneducated people who really care about the environment.
But at some point, people should start to realize that if the mainstream view cannot effectively counter skeptic arguments and persuade the majority after almost 4 decades, it probably has more to do with the validity of the mainstream perspective.
Why is it that many everyday, ordinary people you talk to about the subject are skeptical and don’t buy it?
Most care so little for the environment that any damage to the environment, no matter how large, is irrelevant in comparison to their “climate” goals
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
The plan is to shut down dissent for any issue that the government supports. This is communism it is purest.
Dissent is necessary for a free and open discussion of any and all topics of any political and scientific significance.
Perhaps it might word better replacing communism with totalitarianism or tyranny or similar. It seems to go well beyond communism.
These are all socialisms. The methodology of socialism is to:
There is no significant difference between National Socialism and Marxist Socialism. The Nationalists target the Jews; the Marxists target the bourgeoisie. But the methods are identical.
For the AGW cult, the target is anyone using or consuming fossil fuels. They have begun to discuss openly the need to cull the human population.
1, 2, and 3 applies to most, if not all, tribal conflicts, such as many seen in Africa during the 20th century. I doubt if any ideas of socialism, communism, or fascism, entered into the struggles in any way. Also true of most ethnic cleansing, even is cases such as Tibet by an openly communistic force.