«
»

Denying the global warming "deniers"

Posted 25 Jul 2008 in global warming, intolerance, political correctness

I gotta get this out of my system, allow me this indulgence and then I promise to move on.

This week has been very eye-opening for me. And not just from the standpoint that a dispute caused me to investigate a subject more deeply. Although I do relish the opportunity to examine and learn, I don’t have the time nor interest to waste in endless arguments.

After reading through and deciding to post a couple stories about Viscount Monckton’s controversial article questioning anthropogenic global warming (i.e. how much mankind is contributing to the climate change), I was treated to many vitriolic comments which seemed to take offense at the mere mention of skepticism. Apparently, we plebes are not allowed to doubt His Holiness Al Gore nor the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) upon whose findings he based his error-laden shockumentary, An Inconvenient Truth. I have heard that scientists with dissenting opinions were regularly intimidated into silence by global warming’s true believers, I just didn’t expect to receive that kind of treatment myself because (news flash) I’m no scientist.

Turns out I’m not alone in incurring the ire of the alarmists. Brendan O’Neill has written a couple of articles about the disturbing nature of this very thing. From “Greens Are the Enemies of Liberty“:

Environmentalists are innately hostile to freedom of speech. Last month James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate change scientists, said the CEOs of oil companies should be tried for crimes against humanity and nature. They have been “putting out misinformation”, he said, and “I think that’s a crime”. This follows green writer Mark Lynas’s insistence that there should be “international criminal tribunals” for climate change deniers, who will be “partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths”. They will “have to answer for their crimes”, he says. The American eco-magazine Grist recently published an article on deniers that called for “war crimes trials for these bastards… some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

From “Global Warming: The Chilling Effect on Free Speech”:

For all the talk of simply preserving the facts against climate change deniers, there is increasingly a pernicious moralism and authoritarianism in the attempts to silence certain individuals and groups. This is clear from the use of the term ‘climate change denier’, which, as Charles Jones argued, is an attempt to assign any ‘doubters’ with ‘the same moral repugnance one associates with Holocaust denial.’
…
There is something deeply repugnant in marshalling the Holocaust in this way, both to berate climate change deniers and also as a convenient snapshot of what is to come if the planet continues to get warmer. First, the evidence is irrefutable that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis; that is an historical event that has been thoroughly investigated, interrogated and proven beyond reasonable doubt… There is no such proof or evidence (how could there be?) that global warming will cause a similar calamity. Second, it is, yet again, a cynical attempt to close down debate. The H-word is uttered as a kind of moral absolute that no one could possibly question. We are all against what happened during the first Holocaust, so we will be against the ‘next Holocaust’, too, right? And if not – if you do not take seriously the coming ‘global warming Holocaust’ – then you are clearly wicked, the equivalent of the David Irvings of this world, someone who should possibly even be locked up or certainly tried at a future date. At least laws against Holocaust denial (which, as a supporter of free speech, I am opposed to) chastise individuals for lying about a known and proven event; by contrast, the turning of climate change denial into a taboo raps people on the knuckles for questioning events, or alleged events, that have not even occurred yet.
…
Effectively, campaigners and officials are using scientific facts – over which there is still disagreement – to shut down what ought to be a political debate about what humans need and want. This is the worst of it. Whatever side you take in the climate change clash of facts, this undermining of debate should be a cause of concern.

In his article, “The Green Inquisition”, Björn Lomborg offers a more level-headed approach:

Because of climate panic, our attempts to mitigate climate change have provoked an unmitigated disaster. We will waste hundreds of billions of dollars, worsen global warming, and dramatically increase starvation. We have to stop being scared silly, stop pursuing stupid policies, and start investing in smart long-term R&D. Accusations of “crimes against humanity” must cease. Indeed, the real offense is the alarmism that closes minds to the best ways to respond to climate change.

Based on this week’s contentious exchange in the comments section, let me see if I have it straight on what’s “allowed” when it comes to debating global warming with its zealots.

  • Only approved university or national science sites can be cited by skeptics (unless one agrees with the “consensus”, in which case it’s permissible to quote from leftist sites like The WE that push anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda as well as endorsing out-of-body experiences and astral projection, ’cause that’s real science!)

  • Never, EVER question Al Gore. He only uses alarmist rhetoric because that’s what is necessary to break through the “muck and confusion” slung by people who don’t agree with his agenda. (Nevermind that Gore’s proposals are what cause skeptics to speak up and ask for temperance and patience in the first place)

  • Discussion of natural variance, solar influence, or anything other than focusing on man’s culpability in climate change = denial of global warming

  • Input by skeptics is bad because it is “seriously confusing the general public & hindering policies which need to be implemented to deal with climate change.” Intrusive governmental control is needed, and free speech must be silenced for the greater good. If you’re not a scientist, or you don’t agree with “the consensus,” just shut up.

Snarky humor aside, it seriously concerns me that the global warming issue is considered off the table for discussion (for a look at what I’ve had to say on climate change, click here for a collections of posts I’ve made on the topic). Even among scientists with multiple degrees and decades of study in their various fields, there is substantial disagreement over the evidence. And when people call for heavy-handed seizure of power and subsequent abridgment of liberty by government based upon questionable conclusions, it should throw up red flags. Reasonable people ought to be free to voice skepticism and debate the various facts and conclusions without fear of an eco-witch hunt.

Posted by FullMetalPatriot
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT

Leave A Comment