Krauthammer’s “Climate Change” Piece Exposes The Fascism Of The Warmists

Prick a Warmist and a Fascist will bleed. Here’s Howard Kurtz

Heating up: Climate change advocates try to silence Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer says it right up front in his Washington Post column: “I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier.”

He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist otherwise are engaged in “a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate.”

How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammer’s column on Friday.

Their response to opinions they disagree with is to suppress the speech. (snip)

Instead, these folks believe that censorship is preferable. Why engage Krauthammer when they might just be able to employ pressure tactics to silence him? And what’s the difference between this and shouting down a speaker at a town hall?

Krauthammer told me the petition-signers “showed up just in time to make precisely the point I made in the column.”

This is just the result of “settle science” talking points. Warmists, like most on the Left, do not want discourse unless it agrees 100% with them.

When it comes to free speech, he says, “they don’t even hide it anymore. Now they proudly want certain arguments banished from discourse. The next step is book burning. So the question of the day is: Can you light a Kindle?

Sorry, Charles, it’s not the next step: it’s already here.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 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:



Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-25 17:44:20

Poor Krauthammer. No place to get his lies out except FOX News and the Washington Post. lol

Engage Krauthammer? Engage him in what? I say let him speak. Let him type. He says nothing smarter than the Pirate or any other skeptic – repeating the same non-scientific cant of distractions. Sandy, Air Force One, tornadoes, pause – he DID leave out climategate.

Did you read the silly essay he wrote, the one that had people worried? It offered nothing new; it recycled the same old crap that we hear from skeptics.

Krauthammer, a former physician, even misinterprets the breast mammography study, leaving out critical information.

He even denies being a denier.

Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-25 18:06:22

There ya go.

Jeffery does not want honest debate and supports silencing anyone with whom he disagrees.

Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-25 18:47:10


Do you have reading comprehension problems? Many communities have remedial programs for adults.

Did you read where I wrote: “I say let him speak. Let him type.”

Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-25 20:18:32

And apparently you cannot read your own comments, Jeffery:

Engage Krauthammer? Engage him in what?

You don’t want to engage people who disagree with you.

And a charge of a lack of comprehension coming from you is laughable.

Comment by jl
2014-02-25 20:27:39

Jeffery, of course, doesn’t really refute anything Krauthammer said. Surprise! You know he’s desperate when he brings up some mammogram study.

Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-25 21:25:41


Letting someone speak and type their swill is different than engaging them in debate. Absolutely, he should be allowed, even encouraged to spread his lies.

But engage him? It would be like engaging you guys. It’s a waste of time. Refute what? Krauthammer uses the same refuted non-arguments you guys use. Nothing new.

There is no evidence that a denier will accept. You have made up your collective minds independent of any evidence.

Comment by Jl
2014-02-25 21:33:29

“There is no evidence a denier will accept.” That’s a good one J, because with your cult there’s no evidence that will deny AGW.

Comment by gitarcarver
2014-02-25 22:54:53

“You have made up your collective minds because of the evidence.”


Fixed that for you.

Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-25 23:09:33

g2 and jl,

What evidence would persuade you that AGW is real? That’s rhetorical.

Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-25 23:10:59

g2 and jl,

What are the top 3 pieces of evidence that persuade you that the theory of AGW is false?

Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-26 08:09:25

Liberals are not upset that cons disagree but that you lie. Repeatedly. I understand their frustration.

Climate realists are upset that they have won the scientific debate but are losing the political debate.

I personally believe sunlight is the best disinfectant which is why I correct right wing lies time and again. Don’t suppress, just expose to light.

[H+] = 10 nM in seawater

Comment by Jl
2014-02-26 10:15:46

J-A direct cause-effect between CO2 and warming. What you have now is only a computer model saying that this should happen, but it’s not. A computer model is only an assertion, not evidence. But beyond that, it gets even more interesting. Then you’d have to show how much of the warming, if any, is from man and not natural. From what I’ve seen, humans are only responsible for about 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Then, you’d have to show that strangling the economy would have any effect, seeing as countries like China are building new coal plants all the time ( while there’s no warming). And somehow, as least for me because I think it’s crucial, is explain why ( if all the above were true) that adaptability (obviously high on the evolutionary scale), is never factored in the alarmists “predictions”? Now, please answer my question. Why is Michael Mann not releasing his data behind his hockey stick theory? If the science is settled, why not settle it a little more and be done with it? As you know J, there can be only one reason why he’s not.

Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-26 12:16:08


Thanks for answering.

Can we deal with one issue at a time? I find skeptics like to bury the lede in a flurry of distractions. They have many minor objections, none that can withstand careful scrutiny, but that’s the goal, to distract and confuse, not to elucidate. They are political arguments, not scientific ones.

What would a direct cause-effect between CO2 and warming look like to you?

Comment by david7134
2014-02-26 15:54:49

Don’t feed the troll. He knows nothing about science. He is likely one of the Dems that answered that the earth does not rotate around the sun.

Comment by david7134
2014-02-26 17:12:56

You do realize that Krauthammer was a card carrying liberal until he found the truth? But don’t worry, you would never be able to even be in the same room with someone as intelligent as the man.

Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-26 19:10:19

I did not know that Dr. Krauthammer was formerly a card carrying liberal. Most intelligent and educated people are liberal but can shift to conservatism if they develop organic brain disease or suffer a life-altering event, e.g., being mugged by Black, 9-11, infatuation with a charismatic (Reagan?), election of a Black President. Clearly, some people switch from liberal to conservative once they “make it”. They feel the conservative movement will help them keep the spoils of their hard work and good fortune (e.g., lottery winners tend to become more conservative after they win).

My work often puts me in the same room with men and women as intelligent as Dr. Krauthammer – CEOs, Professors, even the occasional Nobel Laureate. I can occasionally hold my own.

Comment by jl
2014-02-26 20:57:36

J- It would have real world evidence instead of a computer assertion. But Co2 goes up, temps. go up is not “evidence” that CO2 is the cause. There’s obviously more we don’t know about the climate than we do know. The “model” predicted almost straight line warming, which it is not doing. Co2, as a green house gas was supposed to heat the atmosphere. That’s not happening as predicted. The
“hiding in the oceans or blown by trade winds” theories didn’t come into existence till the warming stopped. Ask yourself this- if the warming continued, as you assert, then there’d be no wild stories about oceans or volcanoes or trade winds, now would there? It would just be, look- it’s still warming as we predicted. Another way to look at is: What proof do you have that the earth wouldn’t have continued to warm during this period without mankind? How would you prove that, especially since we’ve been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850? Or, what makes this period different than the MWP? And if so, how do you know?

Comment by steve c
Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-27 07:41:13

“steve c”,

So you suspect I’m a British agent living in Missouri for 60 yrs engaged by my handlers to smear William Teach online? Sorry to disappoint, but I do this for fun, not profit.

Comment by Jeffery
2014-02-27 08:07:31

The computer models predict a broad range of surface warming. Only the simplest model would predict that surface warming increases in lockstep with atmospheric CO2, and you could run that model with straightedge and a pencil. The climate is not so simple. The models from the IPCC and the models that Dr. Spencer misleads you with take into account not just CO2, but the sun, ocean currents, albedo, volcanoes, ice melt, positive feedbacks etc.

You are incorrect when you assert climate researchers have only recently begun to look at ocean currents and Trade winds.

The warming did not and has not stopped.

How can I prove that the warming would not have occurred without man’s influence? One can’t, of course. But understand that the overall temperature of the Earth does not change by magic, but by physical processes, such as changes in the energy received from the sun, changes in the Earth’s orbit, changes in greenhouse gases or changes in volcanic activity.

This warm period is different from the MWP by being 1) much warmer and 2) with a much higher CO2 level (the highest in 400,000 years).

The unprecedented rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 is not “natural” but results from human’s burning fossil fuels.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6367 access attempts in the last 7 days.