‘In a few years, self-defence is going to be made a valid defence for patricide, so Rose’s children will have this article to present in their defence at the trial’ – comment on Guardian website
The fundamentalists of Islamic State will not permit any deviation from the path of pure faith, no matter how small. They will even attack their own if they believe they are not sufficiently devout. Unless you accept every single tenet of their religion, you are a heretic, and deserve punishment or death.
So it is with the climate jihadists, who require adherents of the global warming faith to subscribe to all facets of the alarmist dogma without question. Failure to do so will result in charges of heresy, followed by threats and ad hominem attacks.
In this case, the target is Daily Mail journalist, David Rose, who has had threats and other unpleasantness aimed his way, thanks in part to the hatred whipped up by one of the Skeptical Science goons, Dana Nuccitelli (what a surprise – not):
I’ve never supported the British National Party or the Ku Klux Klan. I’ve never belonged to the Paedophile Information Exchange, or denied the Holocaust, or made a penny from the banking crash.
But if you read The Guardian newspaper’s website, you might think otherwise. A commentator on it urged my own children to murder me.
He did so because of one of the many stories I’ve written for this newspaper about climate change. I first reported on the subject nearly six years ago: my article was about the ‘climategate’ scandal, where leaked emails showed university scientists were trying to cover up data that suggested their claim the world is hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years may be wrong.
Ever since then, I have been labelled a ‘climate change denier’ – a phrase which, since I happen to be Jewish, has particularly unfortunate connotations for me.
And this is despite the fact I believe the world IS warming, and that carbon dioxide produced by mankind IS a greenhouse gas, and IS partly responsible for higher temperatures – and have repeatedly said so.
On the other hand, I also think that the imminence of the threat posed by global warming has been exaggerated – chiefly because the grimmer computer projections haven’t been reflected by what’s been happening recently to temperatures in the real world.
I do believe we should invest in new ways of generating energy, and I hate belching smoke stacks and vast open-cast coal mines as much as anyone who cares about the environment.
But I also think current ‘renewable’ sources such as wind and ‘biomass’ are ruinously expensive and totally futile. They will never be able to achieve their stated goal of slowing the rate of warming and are not worth the billions being paid by UK consumers to subsidise them.
Some would say this makes me a ‘lukewarmer’ – the jargon for someone who is neither a ‘warmist’ or a ‘denier’. But true believers don’t recognise such distinctions: to them, anyone who disagrees with their version of the truth is a denier, pure and simple. The result: vitriol directed my way, the like of which I have never experienced in 34 years as a journalist. (source)
This illustrates the fundamentalist nature of climate alarmism perfectly – Rose acknowledges the existence of global warming, and humanity’s part in causing it [like the ACM author – Ed] but because he dares question issues such as the economic sense of hopeless renewables or the imposition of energy taxes, that would incidentally hit the poorest on our planet the hardest, he is therefore a ‘denier’.
Whilst acknowledging the suffering that Rose must have endured for simply voicing an opinion, this kind of behaviour by the fundamentalists may, however, have a positive side in the fight against both climate alarmism and the global jihad. Attacking their own side will (hopefully) act as a wake up call to others who have for too long acted as the passive enablers for these dangerous ideologies.
As with all quasi-religions such as climate alarmism, the obvious giveaway is the emotionally charged hatred for those who dare disagree. If this were just a simple scientific argument, there would be no need for such threats, but, like the jihadists of Islamic State, the alarmists are in thrall to a belief system which will bring them both wealth and power, and which cannot and must not be questioned.