Journalist feels the wrath of climate jihadists

‘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

Climate jihadists on the rampage

Climate jihadists on the rampage

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.


  1. Yes, what he said, I agree completely, for these Lunatic then its just a pity that none of their predictions have even looked close to coming true. Nothing they say is supported by the facts of what the Earth is actually doing. They don’t seem to be able to explain that. N

  2. Considering the fact that the earth has been a mass of volcanic molten rock during its formation, and has cooled considerably since, any changes over millions of years from hot and dry to freezing cold ice ages, are simply cyclic and inevitably will lead to further cooling over millions of years, until eventually, the earth is uninhabitable. It cannot get hotter than it ever was. It may warm a tiny bit over each century, but eventually, that trend will reverse, and when it does, we will be wishing for a bit of global warming Now, don’t ask me for data on this, I just can’t be bothered entering into discussions.

  3. Think about this basic principle: Energy is not created nor destroyed. The only external energy source the earth has, is the sun. But it has always had that, so it is a constant. However, space is the coldest place humans can describe, and as heat travels to a colder surface, energy in the form of heat can be leached off slowly into space Hence, gradual cooling over eons. The question is, do the earth’s energy losses exceed it energy input from the sun? Is the earth endothermic, or is it exothermic?

    • I don’t know how you can claim “space is the coldest place humans can describe” !

      The space we live in is certainly not “cold”.

      As far as Mars the solar radiation is ~589 Watts per square metre and capable of heating an object that absorbs significant quantities of this to about 46 degrees C – an extreme temperature here on Earth !

      People need to stop making ridiculous claims like “space is cold” ! It isn’t where we live – AND – space is basically a vacuum devoid of mass and as such has no physical properties like hot or cold at all.

      The energy from the Sun is NOT a constant. It varies ~6.9 % over a year from ~1321 to 1412 Watts per square metre.

      These values will possibly remain constant but changes in the tilt of the axis have enormous ramifications as they alter the area of the Earth’s surface subject to long periods with little to no solar radiation allowing cooling to lower values than would be the case otherwise. An Earth with zero axial tilt would likely be warmer than today – there would certainly be less snow or ice.

      The 1412 occurs during the southern hemisphere summer presently – if it occurred during the northern hemisphere summer temperatures would likely be significantly warmer than today due to less temperature moderating effect of oceans – the northern hemisphere has a much larger land area. We are lucky that most of the tropics is ocean – evaporation of water is the most powerful temperature moderating effect in our climate.

      Put an empty pan on a hot stove and it will soon be glowing red hot – fill the same pan with water and it will never exceed 100 degrees C.

      Anyone who thinks the solar radiation isn’t capable of inducing much higher temperatures than we observe on Earth is simply deluded. It heats the Moon’s equatorial surfaces to over 120 degrees C every day – imagine that power reaching the Earth’s surfaces !

      Luckily it doesn’t due to atmospheric absorption of the UV and IR from the Sun, water evaporates with little increase in temperature and our land surfaces have a higher albedo and thermal capacity than the Moon plus an atmosphere to convect heat away.

      6.9% change in “radiative forcing” due to the orbit is way larger than any claimed anthropogenic CO2 forcing.

      I simply cannot believe all of these factors are ignored in favour of 0.04% of the atmosphere – it is absurd !

  4. Welcome back from your WEB.

  5. I never cease being amazed at how stupid real zealot alarmists are.

    There is absolutely no evidence that global warming or climate change is anything other than natural and – dare I say it – beneficial.

    Food production is up despite all the negative claims !

    Real pollution is down – except in China which could and must do better !

    There are no extra-ordinary weather events !

    So to save humanity from a non-existent crisis the zealots insist that we need to shut down “fossil” fuel use as soon as possible to prevent a potential increase in temperatures over the next hundred years.

    Imagine the modern world with most of the population urbanised without “fossil” fuel supplied energy !

    Within weeks we would be returned to the worst of the dark ages – starvation, filth and disease rampant and millions dying.

    No food supply, no modern transport, no clean water, no sewage treatment.

    The advocates are simply too stupid to believe.

    • Rosco commented : ”There is absolutely no evidence that global warming or climate change is anything other than natural and – dare I say it – beneficial”

      Rosco – those ”zealots” .have done a good job on the ignorant; when they succeed to con them that: the phony ”global warming” AND ”climatic changes” are one and the same thing!… Rosco: Brazil and Sahara have same amount of CO2, BUT completely different climates – because H2O regulates the climate, not CO2

      Therefore: saving more stormwater inland Australia -> would improve the ”climate” unfortunately; for many ”skeptics” like you: the climate in Sydney and Simpson desert is the same = they made you a collateral damage…

  6. Rosco commented ”People need to stop making ridiculous claims like “space is cold” ! It isn’t”

    Rosco, you couldn’t be more wrong!!! If you stick a thermometer ”outside the space station, in the shadow of it” – thermometer will tell you that: ”the temp in that ”cold vacuum” is -90C (-130F) = YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG!

    In that ”cold vacuum” the radiation can ”produce” heat – BUT: because in the orbit the earth is traveling there are no objects to intercept radiation – the ” space / cold vacuum” is very, very cold!!!

    Also: that cold vacuum constantly penetrates into the upper atmosphere – on 10km altitude above the tropics is colder than on Antarctic! b] if you open the door on a plane at 10km altitude – that ”cold vacuum” will vacuum half of the air out of your lungs, same as a vacuum cleaner – on 25km altitude is more ”cold vacuum” than air. You guys have to start readjusting to the reality!!!

  7. Rathnakumar says:

    Interesting analogy between Islamic extremism and Climate alarmism!

%d bloggers like this: