This month marks 18 years and four months since the world last experienced any warming.
It also marks eight years and 11 months since author Mark Lynas floated the idea of international criminal tribunals for climate change ‘deniers’, saying: “I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.”
Or two years and six months since Professor Richard Parncutt said that climate change ‘deniers’ should be executed, writing: “In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers.
“I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases. […] Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion. […] GW deniers fall into a completely different category.
“I don’t want to be a saint. I would just like my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the human race in general, to enjoy the world that I have enjoyed, as much as I have enjoyed it. And to achieve that goal I think it is justified for a few heads to roll.”
Just as the global temperature shows no signs of warming, so advocates of man made global warming show no signs of thinking that perhaps, just maybe, those with a different opinion ought to be allowed to live freely.
“Let’s make a clear distinction here: I’m not talking about the man on the street who thinks Rush Limbaugh is right, and climate change is a socialist United Nations conspiracy foisted by a Muslim U.S. president on an unwitting public to erode its civil liberties,” he says.
“You all know that man. That man is an idiot. He is too stupid to do anything other than choke the earth’s atmosphere a little more with his Mr. Pibb burps and his F-150’s gassy exhaust. Few of us believers in climate change can do much more—or less—than he can.
“Nor am I talking about simple skeptics, particularly the scientists who must constantly hypo-test our existing assumptions about the world in order to check their accuracy. That is part and parcel of the important public policy discussion about what we do next.”
No, Mr Weinstein is talking about “Rush and his multi-million-dollar ilk in the disinformation business,” rich people, presumably men, who use their power and wealth to “deny people the tools they need to inform themselves, to protect themselves against a scientifically proven threat to life and limb,” because they (the deniers) “have their heads jammed in the sand… or in a barrel of money.”
Those people, he would like to see arrested, punished, and stopped. “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics,” he insists.
He bases his opinion on a claim by the World Health Organisation that 150,000 people a year die thanks to climate change. But Eric Worrall, writing at Watts Up With That points out that “this claim simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.”
Worrall highlights the fact that even the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, which has been leading the way on climate hysteria since 1990, “has failed to establish a link between CO2 and extreme weather.”
Moreover, the increases in CO2 that have taken place have actually been beneficial to the human inhabitants of earth. Crop yields have risen and satellites have recorded a greening of the planet in the order of 1.5 percent a year thanks to the fertilisation effect of higher CO2 levels.
“In recent years we have all seen a worrying surge of hate speech against climate septics, and a disturbing level of political acquiescence in the face of murderous fantasy and intolerance,” Worrall concludes.
“There have been far too many threats against the liberty and lives of ordinary people, whose crime against humanity is to believe that 18 years with no change in global temperature, might be an indication that the climate “crisis” has been exaggerated.”