As always a great read!

The parallels between climate hysteria and a fundamentalist religion become ever more clearer, with yet more calls for those who disagree with the “consensus” to be punished, in the same way that blasphemers and heretics were burned at the stake in the Middle Ages. Is this really science we are talking about here, in the 21st century?

No, the culture of climate alarmism isn’t science, at least not as I was taught to understand it. It is a faith-based system in which believers invest huge amounts of emotional energy, and they are unable to cope with those who do not subscribe to it, therefore advocating punishment for dissenters. I am beginning to wonder if the Enlightenment ever happened.

From Marc Morano’s Climate Depot:

The Talking Points Memo article continues: “So when the right wing f***tards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?“

A public appeal has been issued by an influential U.S. website asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S. The anonymous posting, dated June 2, 2009, referred to dissenters of man-made global warming fears as “greedy bastards” who use “bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool” to “distort data.”

The article also claims the “vast majority” of scientists agree that man-made warming “can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.”

Did you lose count of the number of ad hominems in that short extract, like I did? If the alarmists’ cause is so strong, why does it require punishment for dissenters? Why can’t the claims stand on their merits? If the sceptics are just “right wing f***tards” then their arguments should be easily debunked, shouldn’t they?

And while we’re talking about apportioning blame, then by analogy we should have trials for those (mainly environmentalists) who successfully advocated restrictions on the use of DDT, which has resulted in literally millions of preventable deaths from malaria – and these are real deaths, not the flaky computer-modelled deaths of climate alarmism.

The longer this ugly spectacle continues, and the more such comments we hear about “climate blasphemy” and its punishment, the more we damage the public reputation of science today, and the more we desecrate the great scientific advancements of the past and the memory of those who made them.

Marc also provides a handy reference of all similar threats to sceptics, including James Hansen’s famous call for trials of sceptics as “high crimes against humanity.”

Read it here.

Of course we haven’t, because the alarmists are scared of debate. Here’s a perfect example of what happens when people get an opportunity to hear the other side of the climate debate:

The Victorian MP, who branded the Greens “fanatical” believers in climate change, yesterday spent 45 minutes drilling White House climate change adviser Dr Joseph Aldy on the subject during his self-funded trip to Washington DC.

“I wouldn’t call myself a sceptic or an extremist,” Fielding said after the meeting.

“The Greens are in the extreme camp and like any fanatical group, they’re locked into ideology,” he said.

“I’m an engineer so when someone asks what is my view, I look at both sides and like many Australians, I’ve gone along accepting that one side of the story is the complete story,” he said.
…
“So far I don’t think there’s been a real debate about the science,” Fielding said.

No wonder Fairfax and the ABC are reluctant to depart from the alarmist editorial agenda – people might actually start thinking for themselves. Good on you, Senator.

UPDATE: Just to demonstrate the swing in Senator Fielding’s views, he actually won an ACM ICOTD Gong back in February – how times change!

Andrew Bolt comments here.

Read it here.

A deeply unappealing character at the best of times, it’s really no surprise that Michael Moore is a climate alarmist of the worst kind. Speaking in the wake of General Motors’ bankruptcy in the US, and demonstrating heartfelt concern for the thousands of employees likely to be out of work as a result:

“The products built in the factories of GM, Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming and the melting of our polar icecaps.”

Yet another worthy winner. That reminds me – I need to take our weapon of mass destruction in for an oil change…

Read it here.

Rather than engage in debate about the actual causes of climate change, alarmists around the world resort to the ad hominem attack, as Greg Combet has done, branding the Opposition as “climate change sceptics”, as if that’s some term of abuse:

“But of course climate change sceptics are the sorts of people we see in the Liberal Party and certainly in the National Party,” he told ABC television.

“They are the ones who are advancing scepticism about the fact that we have climate change to deal with.

“That is where the fundamental problem lies in the Australian parliament, in the coalition and in the Liberal and National Parties specifically.”

To Greg and Rudd and Wong, the debate’s over, science is settled – nothing to see here. The only thing left for them is name-calling. That’s the level of debate we have about a piece of legislation that will cost our economy billions…

Read it here.

This guy, a researcher at Warwick University, UK, has found a way to reduce drag on aircraft wings, and then plays the “climate change” joker:

“The truth is we’re not exactly sure why this technology reduces drag but with the pressure of climate change we can’t afford to wait around to find out.”

Another worthy winner of the ACM ICOTD Gong [cue applause, and Al Gore-type Nobel prize acceptance speech… on second thoughts, maybe not – Ed].

Read it here.

Question: does Malcolm Turnbull really think (a) that CO2 causes global warming [er, surely “climate change”? – Ed], and (b) that an ETS in Australia will actually make a difference to global climate, or he is just scared of being labelled a “denier” and is therefore going along with it to be popular? Whatever the reason, it is climate madness from the Opposition.

LIBERAL leader Malcolm Turnbull says he has “no doubt” that Australia will get an emissions trading scheme.

And he has fired a shot across the bows of his Coalition colleagues the Nationals and climate change sceptics in his own party, warning voters will expect Australia “to follow suit as part of an effective global agreement” if the US develops an ETS of its own.
…
The Liberal leader yesterday strongly signalled his support, saying: “I’ve got no doubt we have an emissions trading scheme in Australia.”

Unlike Rudd (who unfortunately comes across as not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and therefore hardly surprising that he, like Obama, has been taken in by the spin and political posturing of the IPCC), Turnbull should be able to spot the falsehoods being peddled as facts, and instead of following meekly behind Rudd and Wong, should be asking the government very difficult questions about why they are going headfirst into bankrupting the economy for absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

The Nationals are the only party with any sanity left in the Australian climate debate.

Read it here.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone, sadly. Following the Goracle’s example, where those preaching the Word are not bound by the Word themselves:

A BRUMBY Government department responsible for protecting the environment and combating climate change has accumulated enough air kilometres to send staff to the moon and back more than six times.
…
Despite its website declaring the DSE [Department of Sustainability and Environment] to be “the driving force behind finding new ways of doing things so that Victorians can reduce their impact on the environment and live more sustainably”, its staff were frequent flyers with 2,591,648km of air travel.

That is more than 1021km an employee.

So the loud and clear message from this kind of story is that it’s only the rest of us that have to worry about saving the planet, not those safely aboard the climate change gravy train.

Read it here.

You will recall on 26 May, I compared the ETS to the dead parrot in the Monty Python skit (“ETS not dead, just pining for the fjords“). Seems the Canberra Times have “coincidentally” come up with the same idea three days later, complete with cartoon…

The political debate on emissions trading is a bit like Monty Python’s ”Dead Parrot” sketch. The hapless customer (John Cleese) complains that his recently purchased Norwegian blue has joined the choir invisible, shuffled off its mortal coil, its metabolic processes are history. The pet shopkeeper (Michael Palin) disagrees. The bird is merely resting, stunned, tired after a prolonged squawk or perhaps pining for the fjords.

Coincidence? You decide. Ironic, really, considering the Canberra Times is one of the most alarmist media organisations in Australia (part of Fairfax) – surely they don’t read a “denier” blog like ACM? An email to the Canberra Times seeking clarification has been sent.

Read it here.

From The Australian, referring to Greg Combet’s thinly veiled threat to business to pressure the opposition into supporting the ETS (see here):

For all the Government’s hot air about saving the planet, Mr Combet is playing coldly calculated politics.

So very true.

Read it all here.