New
Inquisition: Punish climate-change 'deniers' Calls
for punitive action against those who refuse to buy environmental agenda
In the wake of Al Gore’s recent speech to the South by Southwest Festival in Austin, Texas,
attention is being focused on the increasing trend among global warming
activists to want to punish those who disagree with the concept of a manmade
climate change.
“We need to put a price on carbon to
accelerate these market trends,” Gore told
the attendees, referring to a proposed federal
cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies which exceed their
carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on
denial in politics.”
Gore was merely echoing a growing worldwide movement to not
merely dismiss, but to actively seek out and penalize, those with opposing
opinions on the issue.
Environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lamented that
there were no current laws on the books to punish global-warming skeptics.
“I wish there were a law you could
punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish those
politicians under,” he said in a September 2014 interview
with Climate Depot.
Nor is Kennedy the first to want to prosecute those who
argue against the “consensus” of manmade climate change.
“Those denialists should face jail.
They should face fines,” wrote Adam Weinstein, staff writer with Gawker.com. “They should face lawsuits from the classes of people
whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics. … [I]f
you are actively trying to deny people the tools they need to inform
themselves, to protect themselves against a scientifically proven threat to
life and limb, you shouldn’t be part of the debate. You should be punished for
your self-serving malice.”
On May 19, 2014, “PBS’ ‘Moyers &
Company’ played a clip of scientist, David Suzuki, calling for politicians
skeptical of man-made climate change to ‘be thrown in the slammer,’” reported NewsBusters. “[One] day later, a tweet by well-known alarmist Michael
Mann suggested that skepticism could be a ‘crime against humanity.’ As least
far back as 2006, and as recently as March 2014, liberal journalists and
radical scientists have advocated punishing people who doubt catastrophic,
man-made climate change.”
As Gore’s speech confirms, activists are still calling for
punitive measures against skeptics. Some have termed this trend the New
Inquisition.
An extreme example came in 2012 from
Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, who called
for the death
penalty as “an appropriate punishment for
influential GW deniers” because “they are already causing the deaths of
hundreds of millions of future people.”
“I don’t think that mass murderers of the usual kind …
should face the death penalty,” wrote Parncutt on his personal pages at the
University of Graz website. “Nor do I think tobacco denialists are guilty
enough to warrant the death penalty, in spite of the enormous number of deaths
that resulted more or less directly from tobacco denialism. GW is different.
With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this
reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW
deniers. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people
whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths.”
Parncutt later retracted the
statement and removed it from the university website. To its credit, the
university said it was “shocked and appalled by the article and rejects its
arguments entirely,” and issued
an apology.
Militant climate change alarmists are backed by the
mainstream media, most educational institutions (K-12 through university level)
and powerful lobbies in Congress. These formidable allies control most
prevailing information disseminated to the public, and use smear tactics to
silence dissent. Critics of manmade climate change face professional and
personal slander that can affect careers, funding and reputations.
“The climate activists are frustrated,” Marc Morano, former
staff of U.S. Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee and founder of
the skeptical blog Climate Depot, said in an interview with WND. “The global
warming activists think they can achieve victory if they silence their critics.
When anyone challenges their assumptions, conclusions or claims, they want to
silence, intimidate, bully and eliminate their opposition.”
Smears can become ugly. Morano
points to dozens
of documented cases where global-warming skeptics have
been linked
with Holocaust deniers.
“CEOs of energy companies are being accused of crimes
against humanity,” he said. “This is the atmosphere we’re dealing with. Climate
activists are attempting to silence the voice of prominent scientists who
dissent on global warming; and if they can’t silence them, they attempt to
discredit them.”
Global-warming skeptics may be
denied funding, or their professional credentials are questioned if they don’t
fall in line with the alleged consensus. On Feb. 24, University of Colorado
climate expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. became
the subject of investigation when U.S. Rep.
Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., ranking member of the House of Representatives
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, sent a letter to the president
of the university.
“I know with complete certainty that
this investigation is a politically motivated ‘witch hunt’ designed to
intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name,” wrote
Pielke. “[T]he congressman and his staff,
along with compliant journalists, are busy characterizing me in public as a
‘climate skeptic’ opposed to action on climate change. This, of course, is a
lie. I have written a book calling for a carbon tax, I have publicly supported
President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations, and I have just published
another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with
respect to disasters and climate change. All of this is public record, so the
smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic
research.”
Pielke’s crime was to testify before the Senate that it is
“incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of
greenhouse gases.”
“Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any
wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none,” wrote
Pielke. “He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is
based on peer-reviewed research funded by the U.S. taxpayer, and which also
happens to be the consensus of the IPCC. … The incessant attacks and smears are
effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from
climate issues.”
“A U.N. climate panel lead author’s own investigation found
that the 97 percent number is literally ‘pulled from thin air,’” he said. “If
you look at the numbers, what you see is 97 percent of scientific studies don’t
challenge global warming for the simple reason they’re not addressing the issue
at all. But these scientists still become part of the ‘consensus.’ It’s an
exercise in group-think and self-reinforcement.”
Climate-change activists often attempt to smear skeptics by
tying their opponents’ interests to big oil or other boogeymen. However a hard
look at funding numbers reveals global warming critics usually survive on a
shoestring, whereas climate-change proponents have massive budgets through
foundation grants, U.N. funding, support from international organizations and
other support structures.
“There is a big new 92-page minority
staff Senate report on ‘the billionaires club’ that funnels money through
labyrinthine mechanisms and sophisticated tax loopholes to conceal the source
of the funding,” reports JoNova. “[A] dominant organization in this movement is Sea Change
Foundation, a private California foundation, which relies on funding from a
foreign company with undisclosed donors. In turn, Sea Change funnels tens of
millions of dollars to other large but discreet foundations and prominent
environmental activists who strive to control both policy and politics.”
“The real question,” noted Morano, “is how a small
disorganized group of skeptics scattered around the world managed to derail and
inflict so much damage to the well-organized and well-funded global warming
activists. The fact is, they’re afraid. They’re afraid the skeptics will derail
their objectives.”
These objectives are the U.N. Climate Treaty, the EPA
climate regulations and to a lesser extent the 2016 elections.
“The activists are trying to bully Republicans into silence
whenever they dare to challenge the so-called consensus,” said Morano. “If a
Republican makes any statement not in line with Al Gore or the U.N., they’re
attacked in the media and portrayed as buffoons. Climate activists know from
history that intimidation is a very effective tool. Climate activists also know
that if a Republican wins the presidency in 2016, any potential U.N. Climate
Treaty and the EPA climate regulations may face dismantling.”
Source: http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/new-inquisition-punish-climate-change-deniers/
Comments: Quit the UN and send it to
Brussells. Close the EPA and send it to the states.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party
Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment