NY Times: Climate Deniers Have “an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s”

Have we finally reached Peak Warmist, where the Cult of Climastrology has utterly and completely jumped the shark? Well, now that you ask, no. In most other parts of life, the answer would be a resounding “yes”, but, we are talking about the CoC, and there will always be something nuttier and/or more offensive around the corner. Here’s Timothy Snyder in the Sunday Review

The Next Genocide

BEFORE he fired the shot, the Einsatzgruppe commander lifted the Jewish child in the air and said, “You must die so that we can live.” As the killing proceeded, other Germans rationalized the murder of Jewish children in the same way: them or us.

Today we think of the Nazi Final Solution as some dark apex of high technology. It was in fact the killing of human beings at close range during a war for resources. The war that brought Jews under German control was fought because Hitler believed that Germany needed more land and food to survive and maintain its standard of living — and that Jews, and their ideas, posed a threat to his violent expansionist program.

Two things. High technology? Not quite what I think of in the extermination of 6 million Jews, not too mention all the other groups slaughtered by Hitler and his minions. Nor do most people.

Second, resources? A very weird rewrite of history. Only in Warmist World would we get that disgusting and off-base (did I mention disgusting?) rationale, but, that’s because it is meant to fit into a Narrative

The Holocaust may seem a distant horror whose lessons have already been learned. But sadly, the anxieties of our own era could once again give rise to scapegoats and imagined enemies, while contemporary environmental stresses could encourage new variations on Hitler’s ideas, especially in countries anxious about feeding their growing populations or maintaining a rising standard of living.

This is all caused by “climate change”, of course!

The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science. Hitler’s alternative to science was the idea of Lebensraum. Germany needed an Eastern European empire because only conquest, and not agricultural technology, offered the hope of feeding the German people. In Hitler’s “Second Book,” which was composed in 1928 and not published until after his death, he insisted that hunger would outstrip crop improvements and that all “the scientific methods of land management” had already failed.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, that does sure seem like notions that have been pushed for quite some time by wacko enviroweenies and the Cult of Climastrology, do they not?

Climate change threatens to provoke a new ecological panic. So far, poor people in Africa and the Middle East have borne the brunt of the suffering.

The mass murder of at least 500,000 Rwandans in 1994 followed a decline in agricultural production for several years before. Hutus killed Tutsis not only out of ethnic hatred, but to take their land, as many genocidaires later admitted.

Again, another rewrite of history, attempting to link it to climate change causing agricultural problems. The UN Human Rights Commission, along with everyone not bat guano insane, disagrees.

The risk is that a developed country able to project military power could, like Hitler’s Germany, fall into ecological panic, and take drastic steps to protect its existing standard of living.

Huh. If that happened, it would be Left wing Warmists taking those drastic steps.

And here we go

Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.

And there you have it: if you follow the Scientific Method, if you want scientists to be honest, if you want them to follow long established scientific principles, if you have a problem with falsified/adjusted data, if you want to see the raw data, well, hey, you are almost Hitler!

Even though Hitler shared most of the same views and political ideology as today’s Progressives.

Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced. Will we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies, or allow a wave of ecological panic to spread across the world?

Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past.

So, if you refuse to join the CoC, you’re the ghost of Hitler. This is all about shutting down debate, demonizing one’s opponents in the most horrific manner. Someone else did that back in the 1930’s and 1940’s. I wonder who?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

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

12 Responses to “NY Times: Climate Deniers Have “an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s””

  1. Dana says:

    It’s a typical debating technique — from the right as well as the left — that if you want to run down your opponents’ ideas, you compare them to Adolf Hitler’s. The not-so-subtle difference is that it isn’t the ideas of the left which are comparable der Führer’s, but their policy proposals on how to achieve their goals which are fascist.

    That is the fundamental problem for the left: individual liberty and freedom are simply incompatible with the notion that the needs of the many take precedence over the rights of the individual. If you don’t happen to believe that global warming is an oncoming disaster, well, you can believe anything you want, but the left will use the power of government to compel compliance anyway. If you don’t happen to accept same-sex “marriage” as good and wholesome and normal, well, you can continue to believe that if you wish, but if two homosexuals demand service for their “wedding,” and you happen to be in that business, you damned well have to go along with it.

    Socialism, communism, whatever form leftist ideas happen to take, are all about compulsion.

  2. Jeffery says:


    You are not compelled to marry a man. However, you are no longer allowed to discriminate against gay men or women in public accommodations, this includes public officials refusing to obey the law and treat gays equally under the law.

    All laws and policies strike a balance between the individual and the social fabric. Vaccination policies, wars, zoning laws, speed limits, environmental protection, safety equipment requirements, hunting and fishing regulations, building codes, education requirements, insurance requirements, drug laws, torts, taxation and on and on and on… in fact, it’s hard to think of an issue in a civilized society where there is not a conflict between individual desires and the common good.

    Why can’t I store radioactive waste in my backyard? Why can’t young Pedro make a nice living selling crack? Why can’t Sandra sell sex acts to men? Why can’t Widget, Inc., dump its benzene byproducts into the Tranquil River? Why can’t Reverend Joyce fleece her flock? (Sorry, she can, no laws against that). Is it fair that Mr. Johnson can’t send his 11 yr old son Billy off to work at the shirt factory? Why can’t I shoot the squirrels in my garden?

    Why are pharmaceutical companies forced to get FDA approval before selling a drug? Couldn’t they just sell it – and if it doesn’t work or if it kills citizens – people will just stop buying it – the market at work.

    We get it. You disagree with some policies and you invent an imaginary high road to support your criticisms.

  3. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    You are not compelled to marry a man. However, you are no longer allowed to discriminate against gay men or women in public accommodations, this includes public officials refusing to obey the law and treat gays equally under the law.

    If I was a baker, I would be perfectly happy to sell cupcakes or birthday cakes to homosexuals, because simply feeding people does not imply that I agree with their lifestyle. I would not, however, participate in any way in any cockamamie homosexual “wedding” ceremony, because that would imply agreement. You are trying to say that we must agree with people’s lifestyles and behavior as well as simply not poison them, and I don’t see that as being reasonable at all.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    You are not compelled to marry a man. However, you are no longer allowed to discriminate against gay men or women in public accommodations, this includes public officials refusing to obey the law and treat gays equally under the law.

    Neither is the government allowed to force speech such as the creation of works of art, specialized cakes, tee-shirts, etc, but that is exactly what is happening in the country.

    Secondly, I presume that Jeffery is babbling about Davis not issuing marriage licenses. First, there is no discrimination because she stopped issuing all marriage licenses. Secondly, the Courts have ruled that when it comes to matters of conscience, employers must allow for a reasonable accommodation to the employee.

    The judge in the Davis case refused to allow any accommodation (such as allowing other people to sign the license) and instead chose to punish Davis for her thoughts and beliefs.

    In essence Jeffery and people of his ilk think that will of “society” as defined by judges and others outweigh the individual rights of individuals. They have obviously never read any of the foundational documents of the country.

  5. Phil Taylor says:

    For the record, NAZI stands for (national socialistst party.)
    Hitlers genius was blending the the already existing fervent nationalism of the German people with socialist philosophy.

    Therefore, they promoted in many cases the surrender of individual rights for the good of the fatherland, or state.

    It is true that a rewrite of history makes the cause of WWII a struggle for resources, but the main cause was that Hitler and his supporters were unhappy with the treaty agreed to that ended WWI. They felt that the previous German government capitulated too soon. The German governmet at the time saw the writing on the wall after the U.S entered the conflict and sought to end the war with as much concessions as they could knowing that the more they lost the fewer concessions they would get.

    A very successful rewrite of history is that many interpret the word NAZI with right wing politics. The Western left was very successfull to distanced them selves from NAZISM after the war. The same goes for Fascist. Both words now are used to accuse someone of Draconian politics. However, if you think about it, it is often used to describe someone that is trying to restrict somone elses rights or privilages.

  6. jl says:

    New York Times writer uncomfortably close to being a total moron. He can’t debate the facts, so he compares his opponents to Hitler. Must have went to the Columbia School of Journalism.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Kim Davis was not jailed for her beliefs but for contempt of a legitimate court order. If you don’t like the US system you can change it by democratic means, for example, pass a Constitutional amendment allowing Americans to disobey court orders. In the meantime the anarchists are sending right-wing Oath Keepers to KY to shoot police if they try to arrest Davis if she continues to ignore the court order.

    If she cannot perform her duties, even with reasonable accommodation, she should resign. If not she should by impeached and removed. In the interim the office must abide by the court order and obey the law.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Ms. Davis lives and works in a society where same-sex marriage is legal. Her job is to make certain couples have their paperwork in order for getting a marriage license, which challenges her “deeply held” religious beliefs for same-sex couples, just not enough for her to give up her $80,000/yr sinecure.

  9. Monday morning links

    Like many really dumb ideas, this one started in San Francisco. In 2007, San Francisco banned disposable plastic grocery bags. Basic science quiz Personal trainers sweat as Washington, D.C., readies new rules The Weariness of the Whiners – The cult

  10. gibson says:

    That’s a complete inversion of reality. The Nazis were in love with science. Their plan was to create a master race and rule world with superior military and industrial technology. The only thing they denied was the existence of morality, ethics and basic humanity.

  11. Bill says:

    Want to see who most closely agrees with Hitler?
    Go to any forum and disagree with the Cult of Climastrology Members.

    Won’t be long before the death threats start. It’s actually kind of fun to read all the creative ways the Cult of Climastrology will come up for kiling off us Evil Deniers.

  12. Ed says:

    A typical liberal response…devoid of any common sense and intellectually lazy.

Pirate's Cove