NY Times Advocates Murder Of “Climate Change Deniers”

Remember, the NY Times and other media outlets freaked out over Sarah Palin’s “bullseyes” (via Watts Up With That?)

Blown up

As I wrote the other day “Let’s not forget, Warmists have called for “deniers” to be jailed (and here. Here. Lots more where they came from) and executed (also the first jail link. And here. And more). These are intollerant, anti-science fascists, against freedom of thought and belief that doesn’t jibe with their own beliefs. Yet, interestingly, they themselves will not live the life of their beliefs.”

Anthony Watts writes

Admittedly, this is a lame attempt at humor/satire, something we are all well familiar with applying here at WUWT. But, imagine if the tables were turned, and the cartoon depicted global warming alarmists such as Mike Mann or James Hansen in the same role? Our friends would have a collective cow. Yet, somehow, somebody at the New York Times thinks it is acceptable to suggest “dispatching” a whole class of people that hold a different viewpoint from them.

In Warmist world, this is the height of humor.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

36 Comments

Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-23 20:08:34

It was unfunny, inappropriate and the NYT’s should remove it and apologize.

 
Comment by Jack be nimble
2014-02-24 12:48:41

Most conservatives know that climate change is real. Please don’t lump us all together with the crazy anti-science Tea Party.

 
Comment by Trish Mac
2014-02-24 13:50:17

Crazy anti-science Tea Party? Well Jack-be, don’t lump everyone in the Tea Party into ANY single group of thought. It’s not as simple as that and you obviously don’t know Tea Partiers. Most of the Tea Party folks I am involved with, believe that climate change is real, it’s really a matter of whether it can be managed by mere humans.
And they above all the others we respect the environment. What did Occupy WS do? They fouled the very spaces they took up. Not one Tea Party left the space they used fouled up.

 
Comment by david7134
2014-02-24 14:42:17

Jack,
Would you care to articulate what the Tea Party stands for? Would you also look up the education of most Tea Party members. A Harvard prof did that recently and was embarrassed to find out that the science IQ of the Tea Party members is above normal.

 
Comment by jan freed
2014-02-24 19:25:46

What isn’t funny is that the deniers/contrarians/misleaders/skeptics (your choice) are actually complicit in the delay that kills hundreds of thousands per year. And you bridle at a cartoon??

The World Health Organization (respected and non-partisan (est. 1946 by 61 countries, including ours) estimates disease from climate change alone kills 140,000+ per year, 88% of them children.

 
Comment by William Teach
2014-02-24 20:12:32

They can estimate to their hearts content, but the weather and climatic conditions have always killed life. Doesn’t mean it’s anthropogenic.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-24 21:27:01

respected and non-partisan

Now THAT’S funny.

 
Comment by Jl
2014-02-24 21:48:49

In JF’s world the UN is probably non-partisan as well.

 
Comment by Jan freed
2014-02-24 22:29:23

I see you are a seeker after the truth. As I am.

For myself, I just cannot dismiss the views of virtually all climate scientists in the world as worthless when it is based on their expertise and the evidence. That’s part of why i am concerned.

I’m sure you care about your family, and wouldn’t want to put them in harms way, now or in the future. I am frankly concerned that what the experts say could well be true, because I want the future for them to be a bright one, with all the blessings we now enjoy.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-25 01:02:24

I see you are a seeker after the truth. As I am.

To be frank, it is difficult to see you as a “seeker after the truth” when you say the WHO is respected and non-partisan. For example, in their *(in)famous report on health care around the world, the WHO gave points to countries whose governments paid or subsidized health care. The greater the percentage of payment, the higher the WHO ranked the country for that particular category. The problem is that whether a government pays for health care is policy decision. The fact that the WHO ranked and rewarded the countries that paid for health care showed they WHO had a bias toward a specific policy.

(We also won’t get into the fact that the report used different recording methods and data sets.)

The point is that the WHO is not objective and highly partisan.

For myself, I just cannot dismiss the views of virtually all climate scientists in the world as worthless when it is based on their expertise and the evidence.

As a “seeker after the truth,” I am sure you are aware that the claim just made sounds suspiciously like “97% of scientists agree on AGW.”

That is factually false.

The earth’s climate is changing as it always has been. There is never a period in the history of this third rock from the sun where the climate has been stagnate. Climate scientists agree the earth’s climate is changing. Roughly 5% have said that it is due to AGW. In fact, many scientists – including some who worked on the IPCC reports – have pulled their names from the report because the IPCC made conclusions that were not scientifically supported and were contrary to the underlying data and peer reviewed papers.

The problem is that you won’t get the truth from a lot of sources, including the main stream media. You won’t get the truth from a lot of the members of the warmist cults. You won’t get the truth from some of the people who say the earth is not warming.

However, from what you have said so far, it seems that you have based your opinions on some ideas and statements that are not truthful.

 
Comment by Trish Mac
2014-02-25 08:16:09

Well done Git. “The problem is that you won’t get the truth from a lot of sources, including the main stream media. You won’t get the truth from a lot of the members of the warmist cults. You won’t get the truth from some of the people who say the earth is not warming.”
And I would add, that you will not get the truth from most politicians and other celebrities who stand to profit from in some way, the advancement of climate change regulations. The regulations that will harm regular folks like us by the tax on energy and the spike that will occur to the price of food and other goods that will occur from the skyrocketing energy costs, but will not effect them or the way they live their lives, ever.
So who then wants to see people put in “harm’s way”? Certainly I do not want to.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-25 08:42:37

g2,

“The point is that the WHO is not objective and highly partisan.”

Your evidence was that WHO included the degree of government subsidies of healthcare as a positive criterion in their rankings. It certainly wasn’t the only criterion nor the most important, plus it correlates positively with health care quality. It may seem like a tautology but it’s not. Whether all your citizens have access to high-quality affordable healthcare seems like a reasonable criterion. If your healthcare system costs twice as much per person as the average of all other advanced nations your system might be downgraded. White conservatives in the US base their judgment on whether they personably receive employer subsidized (actually gov’t subsidized by tax breaks to the employer) insurance, and if they do they assume the system is great. But the unemployed, the underemployed, minimum wage workers, the disabled and the elderly require healthcare as well. That’s not partisanship, that’s common sense. By your measure, Medicare and Medicaid should be negative criteria.

“Climate scientists agree the earth’s climate is changing. Roughly 5% have said that it is due to AGW.”

You correctly criticize the 97% (although you made a debate leap when you attributed it to Jan Freed who didn’t say it – tearing down something they didn’t say)- but then you state that only 5% of climate scientists think the current warming is due to AGW. Puh-leze. Show your work. You called a statement false – that most climate scientists agree that human-produced CO2 is causing warming – then didn’t document your own far more outrageous claim!

Your comment was laden with weasel words and phrases:

“used different recording methods and data sets”

“many scientists…”

“lot of sources…”

“some of the people…”

“some ideas and statements…”

Finally, your contention that the Earth’s climate has changed before is not relevant to the current warming, which is caused by CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. For the last 5000 years the Earth had slowly cooled 0.5 degrees C, but since 1850 it has warmed 0.8 degrees C. See? Cooled 0.5 C in 5000 years, yet took only 150 years to warm 0.8 C. Why is the Earth rapidly warming? Is it the sun? No. Is it volcanoes? No. Cosmic rays? No. Change in the Earth’s orbit or rotation? No. Something we don’t know yet or even magic or gods or the self-healing of Gaia? Maybe. CO2? Most likely.

Will it continue to warm? Most likely. Will life on Earth adjust to this sudden shock to the system? Eventually.

 
Comment by Jan freed
2014-02-25 09:30:48

Count me in on this one Mac. No one wants more unnecessary taxes. There should be no tax on citizens for the damage done by fossil fuels (A Harvard study estimates coal’s hidden costs to be $300-$500 billion/year. Citation on request).

However,we can clean the air if carbon industries are charged a pollution fee (not a tax, government doesn’t keep it).

I am charged a fee when I dump my old fridge in a city landfill, right?. Same thing for a fee on coal, for example, when it dumps mercury, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, particulates, coal ash, CO2 etc. into our nation’s air and streams.

These fees are returned to citizens, as a monthly check or as lower taxes.

Energy prices will go up for sure. But, that check in the mail, like a refund, would more than compensate for that.

Any examples? In BC, under this plan, emissions have gone down, pollution has gone down, fees lower income taxes. There economy is one of the strongest in Canada.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-25 14:49:25

It certainly wasn’t the only criterion nor the most important, plus it correlates positively with health care quality.

So you admit that whether a country followed a subjective policy the WHO approved of was part of the alleged objective study on health care.

Thanks for proving my point. The WHO is baised.

(although you made a debate leap when you attributed it to Jan Freed who didn’t say it – tearing down something they didn’t say)

Trouble reading again Jeffery?

It is amazing the number of times that you attack people for stuff they didn’t say. Now you are accusing me of attacking someone for something they didn’t say even though I never claimed they did.

You called a statement false – that most climate scientists agree that human-produced CO2 is causing warming – then didn’t document your own far more outrageous claim!

Once again, you seem to have issues with reading. My entire post never mentions CO2 yet you seem to think it did.

You want to keep sticking to your position as how people who respond to things that aren’t said are somehow “making a leap debate” and “tearing down something they didn’t say?”

Or do you want to do the adult thing and admit you do and did what you accuse others of doing?

Your comment was laden with weasel words and phrases:

You mean truthful statements are “weasel words and phrases?” How interesting.

Finally, your contention that the Earth’s climate has changed before is not relevant to the current warming,

You mean the earth has never warmed in its past?

Boy, talk about being a science denier.

It is impossible to hold a rational debate with those who decry the very tactics they use, decry the data they use when it shows what they do not want it to show, and cannot read.

But then again, you aren’t interested in a debate, are you? You aren’t interested in proving or showing anything. You just want people to bow down at the alter of AGW because you and your cultists buddies say we should.

 
Comment by jan freed
2014-02-25 16:44:50

Git;
Of course, you are free to declare any source biased, but slander undermines the credibility of the slanderer, not the target of the slander.

You attacked WHO for claiming 140,000 climate deaths/year.
Yet, similar data was described by authors with real qualifications.

They state

“Climate change is increasing the global burden of disease and in the year 2000 was responsible for > 150,000 deaths worldwide. Of this disease burden, 88% fell upon children..”

in Environ Health Perspect. 2011 March; 119(3): 291–298.

“Global Climate Change and Children’s Health: Threats and Strategies for Prevention’

Perry E. Sheffield1 and Philip J. Landrigan2
1 Department of Preventive Medicine and Pediatrics and
2 Children’s Environmental Health Center, Department of Preventive Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA

The American Academy of Pediatrics has similar warnings about climate change and its disastrous effects on children’s health. I’m sure you won’t look that up, though. You wish to remain in your ideological cocoon, I bet.http://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/smiley_emoticons_2thumbs.gif

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-25 17:04:32

Jan,

You attacked WHO for claiming 140,000 climate deaths/year.

I am sorry, but you have a comprehension issue here.

I did not attacked the WHO for their claim, but rather attacked your demonstrably false statement that the WHO is “reputable and unbiased.”

They are neither.

Now, since you believe that climate change affects health issues, is it your contention that climate has never changed in the history of the earth? If that is the case, has not climate change affected health issues all this time? Or is it your contention that climate change only affects people now?

If you believe this, please tell us what is the optimum temperature for the earth?

 
Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-25 17:59:13

g2,

Let me make this so simple that even you can understand.

Do you have a citation to support your claim that “roughly 5%” of climate scientists agree that AGW is causing climate change?

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-25 18:04:43

Jeffery,

Let me make this as simple as I can so even you can understand:

You made some claims that were demonstrable false within this thread. As soon as you acknowledge and apologize for that, we can talk.

Otherwise, I have cited the evidence before on this site. It is not my fault that you continue to ignore those facts which you don’t like.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-25 18:54:42

g2,

Deflect and distract. Do we have to fact-check your every sentence?

You made a specific claim, that “roughly 5%” of climate scientists support the idea that AGW causes climate change and when called on it, you run and hide.

Readers must assume you made it up.

By all means, call me out on anything I type and I’ll defend it.

 
Comment by jan freed
2014-02-25 18:59:07

So the claims of WHO stands. Did you look up the statement of the American Association of Pediatrics to confirm?

Do those added deaths bother you at all?

And you have not yet demonstrated the great evils of WHO, with a citation. Just talk. Fair enough.

Climate has changed in the past. So say the scientists. Duh.

We are changing it now.. Sort of like, lung cancer happened before and to non-smokers. Smoking increases the rate.

Optimum temperature is NOT +2 dec C, which is a ‘recipe for disaster’ OT is lower than that, for humans any way..

And, partly because of the $billion denial factory (are you a loyal worker in that factory?) we may top out at +4 degrees C, unless we are serious about our children’s well being.

I’m not talkin’ about a fun trip to Disneyland; I mean really serious, like not taking stupid chances.

 
Comment by jan freed
2014-02-25 19:14:22

Jeffrey,

Every single second CO2 traps the energy equal to 4 Hiroshima atom bombs, added to land, water, and air.

When I reply to deniers, as you do, I think about the terrible delays and what they cost us, each second. We do not have time to educate the entire nation, especially the dedicated deniers.

I am a member of Citizens Climate Lobby. We support a revenue neutral pollution fee on all carbon sources. In BC it lowered emissions significantly and also lowered income taxes, when fees were rebated.

Perhaps you could join a local chapter. Citizensclimatelobby.org

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-25 20:04:43

By all means, call me out on anything I type and I’ll defend it.

You have been called out on many things and failed to defend it. Our conversation on separation of powers is a good example. In fact, your response is typically “I don’t have to answer questions” and “I’ll debate the way I want.”

As I said, the citation was given in a thread that you participated in and you ignored it.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-25 20:12:46

Jan,

So the claims of WHO stands.

No. The claim of the WHO fits their bias. That is the point.

And you have not yet demonstrated the great evils of WHO, with a citation. Just talk. Fair enough.

I’m sorry, what am I supposed to document? Even your pal Jeffery acknowledged the WHO had a bias in their health report by giving higher scores to government paying for health care.

But here is one of many articles and sources documenting the WHO’s bias in their health care report:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/whom-are-they-kidding

And, partly because of the $billion denial factory (are you a loyal worker in that factory?) we may top out at +4 degrees C, unless we are serious about our children’s well being.

What were you saying about “slander affecting the slanderer more?”

Once again, another AGW’er shows they are hypocritical and cannot understand basic logic.

 
Comment by Trish Mac
2014-02-26 08:03:57

Wow, this sure took on a life of its own.
I just thought that I’d add my last two cents by saying that I love The WHO. Their album Tommy was awesome and they were my very first concert; never have I been to a concert since where the band destroyed their instruments and the stage so classically.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/

 
Comment by Jack be nimble
2014-02-26 22:55:40

Jan,

There is no point arguing with this guy. It’s people like this who make the Republican party look like an absolute joke. Not everyone is a scientist, but everyone can look at a chart and read a graph.

Yes, the planet is naturally warming AND Humans are contributing to those CO2 levels. Everyone knows this.

It’s really tough to get any new blood interested in the Republican party because they’ll be mocked and made fun of for being uneducated, sort of like how I’m sure people take screen shots of Jeffry’s comments and post them on Facebook to make fun of the dummies.

The downfall of conservatives are all the morons our party has attracted.

Keep fighting the good fight, keep educating them Jan.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-27 00:58:07

Jack,

Not everyone is a scientist, but everyone can look at a chart and read a graph.

And others can look at the underlying data and conclusions. If you are so shallow that you rely on pictures, may I suggest that you are not exactly an expert on what is “scientific.”

Everyone knows this.

Except for a growing number of scientists who are starting to realize that the data is faulty and so the conclusions are faulty.

The downfall of conservatives are all the morons our party has attracted.

Or the “low information voter” such as you.

Have a great day.

 
Comment by jan freed
2014-02-27 07:22:28

Git: You are “All hat, no cattle.” Where are your citations? You have dodged every question asked in this thread, going on zombie attack mode, like clockwork.

 
Comment by jan freed
2014-02-27 07:32:06

Thanks.
I wonder what makes a guy like Git and those like him want to ignore the massive threat of a climate abyss, when there is such an enormous risk to all of us.

He is complicit in denying the blessings he himself has enjoyed – to us and especially to many future generations as well.

Is it money? Is it hubris? Is it twisted loyalty, and if so, to what or to whom?

I’m all for being a “seeker of truth” but Git is not such a one. The guy has an ax to grind.

 
Comment by Trish Mac
2014-02-27 08:38:57

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/#ixzz2uODargFK

It is truly amazing that Jan et al can make broad statements about climate change, that have not been proven, yet they can call us all sorts of names for choosing the conservative approach of let’s see what shakes out before we leap off a bridge.
And, the truth that eludes them is, that we all believe in climate change. What we disagree upon is how we can do anything to change the natural changes, and scientists each and every day are changing their minds about it too. I think climate abyss is a tad dramatic. Al Gore would be proud.
You don’t know Git, nor any of us regulars for that matter. Making the observation that he has an ax to grind is presumptuous at best.

 
Comment by jan freed
2014-02-27 10:56:22

I will not be held responsible for your attitude or for your self-destructive convictions.

Scientists have not failed to produce evidence, but you have failed to comprehend it.

We have been warned by those best qualified (um… not bloggers on this site) to do so – the world’s scientific academies, the Nobel Laureates; and it is virtually unanimous.

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Even if there was only a 5% (even 1 %)chance their warnings were accurate, our leaders should have stepped up. But, many are thoughtless, giddy creatures, concerned only for their careers.

The denial industry has spent over 500 million dollars/year encouraging indifference to our plight. Together it spells, “wait and see”. Their detritus, called “skepticism” is everywhere to be seen. Old Joe Goebbles would be proud.

We have also been warned by a measured increase in weather extremes, the melting of the Arctic (far greater than ice gained) and almost all glaciers, the acidification of the ocean. What the hell are we waiting for?

It is already too late for much of our coastlines, our crops, and many of earth’s species. Why? We are at 400ppm CO2; in geologic past that led to to an eventual 82 foot rise in sea level. A problem? Simply Google: “sea level rise map” to find graphics of what that would do to our coastline and the total flooding of our largest cities.

It is beyond sad, beyond tragic; our precious earth and much of its life is in the balance.

Will we go all the way towards extinction? Perhaps. We are on track for at least 11-14 deg F, or 4+ deg C increase, 5 times current distortions.

Of course, you will complain about any and all of these statements.

Have a nice day.

 
Comment by Trish Mac
2014-02-27 11:07:30

I am so terribly sorry that you feel that way. I don’t envy you worrying so much.
I do wish that I had been a recipient of all that denial money. It is hard to locate that in any market place, media outlet etc. And it wouldn’t come close to the money spent on pushing the Global warming extremism. That which CAN be seen in every market/business/TV ads/TV documentaries/National Geo/talk shows/late night shows/every single politician on the left/churches/etc.

Will we go the way of extinction? It is certainly a possibility, even a probability that in the Earth’s future, we may be a thing of the past. I expect that one day Yellowstone, or another huge caldera will erupt, and like the dino’s before us, we will be slowly eliminated.(or quickly depending on where you live and the way the wind blows) Or we will get hit by a meteor that Bruce Willis cannot blow up first, and that too will have a devastating effect on the planet which may result in the elimination of man.

What I do not see is the seas rising catastrophically, as you apparently are convinced they will. But hey, I could be wrong. In which case I may indeed have beachfront property one day!

 
Comment by jan freed
2014-02-27 11:42:50

It just hit me. There is another motivation for being a denier: the Oedipal complex!!

Under the spell of the Oedipal complex the son wishes to kill the father, then displace him and “love” the mother.

So, the deniers try to dismiss, discredit, attack and “kill” the experts (as the authority, the father) so they may “possess” the mother (Nature).

Remember Oedipus put out his own eyes? This exactly compares with a denier’s continued refusal to “see” the evidence. They keep asking, “Where is the evidence?”

It all makes sense!

 
Comment by Jack be nimble
2014-02-27 12:28:24

In all honesty the deniers are probably just liberals who troll conservative sites for reactions. I refuse to believe a country I served is this stupid.

Good luck Jan, I’ll come back when the trolls leave.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-worlds-top-scientists-take-action-now-on-climate-change-2014-2

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-27 15:09:04

jan,

Git: You are “All hat, no cattle.” Where are your citations?

What it is with you and not being able to read? See my comment at 2014-02-25 20:12:46.

This is not the first time in this thread that you have shown an inability to read and comprehend what is being said. At some point in time, one must question whether you are deliberately obtuse, or functionally illiterate.

Now if you are talking about Jeffery’s demand for a citation, I have given it before multiple times. It is not up to me to repeat things over and over because people of your ilk refuse to read.

Oh, and by the way, since you seem to say that people who don’t answer questions must be some sort of bogus cattleperson, may I suggest you re-read my comment at 2014-02-25 17:04:32 ?

You have dodged every question asked in this thread, going on zombie attack mode, like clockwork.

Really?

Let’s see… it was not I who said that those who disagree with you must work for the oil companies or the “denial industry” (whatever that is. God forbid that people actually think without being told what to think.) Then you make some ridiculous claim based upon your ridiculous understanding of psychology. And your citations that anyone in this thread actually believes as you claim or is part of a group that you claim? None.

So please, if you are going to make claims against people that they are going on a “zombie attack mode,” may I suggest that you look at your own actions first.

I will not be held responsible for your attitude or for your self-destructive convictions.

But should I hold you for your irresponsible comments, actions, attacks and convictions? For example, this year because of attitudes like your, an estimated 24,000 people will die in Great Britain because of a lack of fuel for heating. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478114/Fuel-poverty-Britain-24k-die-winter-rising-energy-prices.html ) So while you quote a report on deaths due to warming, the deaths in Great Britain are laid directly at your feet because of the policies you and those of your ilk put in place.

With all due respect, you aren’t a “seeker of truth.” You are a empty vessel who soaks up what others tell you. Your debating skills expose you as one who demands things of others that you will not do yourself. Your lack of comprehension and reading skills demonstrate that you only know what you are told, not what you have investigated.

There is a truth to be sought, but you are not on that path.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-27 17:05:07

Jan and Jack,

This article in Forbes articulates at least part of the position that people who are skeptics have with your certainty and clinging to the dogma of AGW:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2014/02/26/the-thought-experiment-that-first-made-me-a-climate-skeptic/

It is important to note that Meyer is not an outright climate change denier nor is he a person that believes that the science is “settled” as people on the AGW side try and foist on the rest of us.

There is legitimate debate and discussion to be held and questions that need to be addressed.

Despite your desperation to paint those who have questions as “science deniers,” “zombies,” or “working for some energy conglomerate,” you’ll find that many of the people here have legitimate questions that you don’t have either the ability to answer or are unwilling to address.

Despite what you think, there are a lot of smart, scientific people who disagree with your catastrophic view of climate change. What should be more distressing to you is that the basis of our disagreement is the very science and statements you use. Too many times we see you making statements and then refusing to acknowledge the meanings and implications of those statements and instead resort to name calling and trying to discredit the messenger rather than address the message.

If you don’t believe me, re-read this thread.

 
2014-02-28 20:20:07

Heya i’m for the first time here. I came across this board and I find It
truly useful & it helped me out a lot. I hope to give
something back and aid others like you helped me.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9048 access attempts in the last 7 days.