Facebook Twitter Google+ Shout YouTube SoundCloud RSS

Gawker says: ‘Arrest Climate-Change Deniers’, But Where Would We Put Them?

21st Century Wire says…

Reality has proven to be a formidable obstacle for the global warming crowd.

This past winter saw a slight adjustment to the climatist propaganda media scheduling. With successive record-breaking cold freezes in recent years, and with climatists themselves becoming the subject of ridicule, the warmists have made a strategic PR decision to hold back most of their climate hysteria stories… until the weather actually gets warmer in the spring.

Even though interest in their church is beginning to wane, like any decent cult, the church of ‘climate change’ will always retain a core of true believers – so long as the donations and federal grants are trickling in anyway.

More than ever, as it falls further and further into irrelevance, the warmist agenda is getting more and more desperate – opting for more radical policies, and also targeting their enemies. Case and point: safe liberal online hang-out, Gawker, published this latest howler by its provocateur Adam Weinstein (photo, left), who is demanding that ‘Climate-Change Deniers Be Arrested’.

Weinstein remarked, “Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths.”

He adds,”It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.”

Weinstein’s highly irrational rationale is somewhat disturbing, and also disingenuous.

He then screamed that, “Man-made climate change happens.” Really? How exactly does it happen? Unfortunately, and even with all the hype and fear-mongering, no one has yet proven that man-made CO2-induced global warming climate change has caused any ‘extreme weather events’, or sea level rises – let alone, that any deaths were caused by it.  Just because you heard President Obama mention it, does not mean it actually exists.

Just to clarify what should be the boundaries of this great debate, the term “global warming” was first introduced by climatists following a meeting by the Club of Rome in 1991 – and this specifically refers to man-made (anthropogenic) global warming by result of man-made CO2 emissions. In order to widen its catchment area in terms of regularly occurring weather events (hurricane, tornado, floods, droughts, and even heavy snow), climatists later adapted ‘global warming’ into the catch-all term they now use, which is called “climate change”, which is much more elastic and less limiting than old global warming. With ‘climate change’, liberal activists can use free association to build their cases, which is more fun for them. They have that wonderful, child-like glint in their eyes, and they need the whole process of understanding climate to be fun and not so complex in terms of critical thinking, less restrictive – no boundaries. How fun.

Climate campaigners are a funny bunch who will believe anything that supports their political science, but will instantly dismiss anything which challenges it. Consequently, they tend to cherry pick most of their arguments. According to radical climatists, the earth’s climate history only started circa 2005 (if you ask them about anything before that, they tend to get upset) when Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth was released. Climatists also become aggressive and irrational when faced with questions of what caused the sub-tropical Dinosaur Era, the Ice Age, and the Medieval Warming Period. Like we said, reality has always been a problem for the climate jihad.

One obvious nugget of reality which has eluded many a climate cult follower, is the fact that global cooling poses a far greater threat to humanity than any form of global warming.

One of the dangers with radical Green Fascism is not just sociopathic, or the irrational arguments made by aspiring think tank fellows like Adam Weinstein, but the obvious intolerance to any other empirical observations, or data which exists outside of the IPCC’s elite clique of political green gravy train grant winners. It’s as if the climatist movement exists in its own vacuum of reality, and repeating only what can be heard in the climatist echo chamber.

Few climatists actually realise that the whole global warming movement was based on computer-modeled projects, or computer guesses – of what could happen in 50 to 200 years time, all based on data inputs which are now highly questionable in light of the Climategate scandal.

Weinstein seems to take umbrage to the critics of Climategate’s chief perpetrator, Dr Michael Mann (photo, left), claiming that Mann has somehow been vindicated because of a Judge’s recent libel ruling against the National Review magazine for comparing Mann’s data fiddling – to Penn State pedophile Jerry Sandusky’s diddling of young boys.

Although he sued and won on the pedophile comparison point, he cannot escape the fact that he’s disgraced himself long ago – Mann, the IPCC’s golden goose, was exposed in the leaked emails during the 2009 Climategate scandal where he and colleagues were caught ‘hiding the decline’ in global temperatures by omitting certain climate data in order to better support his own thesis – an embarrassing graph shaped like a ‘Hockey Stick’.

Mann’s creative data representation claim showed a vertical rise in earth temperature which was the main basis for much of hundreds of billions in wasted public and private funds (and carbon off-set projects which didn’t exist) and the no-holds-barred fear mongering which swept through media, education and porous grey matter of politicians in recent years. Mann played a key role in unleashing the global warming hysteria, but he is only one of many other academics who are paid handsomely to generate research which supports the IPCC’s case for man-made, CO2-induced global warming.

Mann and other promoters of global warming theory, cannot hide from this fact: the earth’s average global temperature has gone flat, and dropped in some cases – over the last 17 years. That’s always been a major problem for radical climatists.

Despite all the billions being poured in by governments to “prove” that anthropogenic global warming exists, there is no actual “consensus” by the world’s scientists like Weinstein and others claim. Any claim like Al Gore’s, that “the science is settled” is simply a poor lie designed to manufacture a consensus – and shut down any debate, or future research that might derail the big green climate gravy train which mas made so many millionaires over the last decade.

Weinstein made a number of incredible claims in his Gawker article, including a sort of ‘death estimate’ from climate change (and try not to laugh):

“Attempts to deceive the public on climate change, and to consequently block any public policy to tackle it, contribute to roughly 150,000 deaths a year already”.

Interesting. If climate change can be construed as anything by extremists like Weinstein, then perhaps his death toll could be inflated, to a few million or more. Why not? He’ll say whatever he wants. Anything goes when you are forming your arguments around a modern day mythology.

The worst culprits of course, are bloggers like Weinstein, who seem to transform into self-styled science PhD’s in a flash just before their copy deadline. The inflated confidence, and the over-reliance on contrived scientific speculation of which green journos themselves know little about the provenance of the claims made – makes for the train wreck which the Reverend Al Gore’s Church of Climatology truly is.

The fact that Gawker’s Weinstein wants to round-up what he refers to as ‘climate deniers’ who probably number in the tens of millions in the US alone, begs the question: where will Mr. Weinstein lock-up all of his new prosecutions – in concentration camps? If they are all guilty of murder, as Weinstein states in his article, then should they all be executed instead? No, maybe not, because that would be genocide, based on political differences (yes, the issue of climate change is 100% political). Hmmm, what does that remind us of?

What passes for intellectual discourse on Gawker these days is anyone’s guess, as Weinstein’s angry undergraduate rant – padded out with lots of colourful statistical  graphs that don’t actually prove that anthropogenic global warming exists, seems like it would be more at home in an old edition of the Weather Underground.

What’s even more shocking than Weinstein’s psychopathy, is if Gawker actually paid him to write his nutty piece.

READ MORE CLIMATE NEWS: 21st Century Wire Climate Files

21wire

21wire

We are a North American and European-based, grass-roots, independent blog offering geopolitical news and media analysis, working with an array of volunteer contributors who write and help to analyse news and opinion from around the world.
21wire

@21WIRE

We're covering news you won't necessarily find in the mainstream, and things which regularly confuse career politicians, FOX and CNN watchers... #SundayWire
RT @milesoftruth: Tucker Carlson vs. New York Times' public editor ht @PLCROSSTALK @21WIRE #msm #media https://t.co/mEY8l7V9Jg - 2 hours ago
21wire