Warmists Are Very Concerned Over How History Will Judge Deniers Or Something

Well, this is a new one, as written by Warmist Steve Olson in the USA Today, which uses vast amounts of carbon pollution spewing energy and fossil fuels to publish on the Internet and the paper version

The coming reckoning on climate change
Deniers risk both the planet and ending up in history with allies of slavery and colonialism

The campaigns to remove the names of 19th century racists and colonialists from buildings and monuments raise a troubling question for today’s political and business leaders: How will history judge those who would consign future generations to a world severely damaged by climate change?

I’m guessing history will say “thank goodness some people stood for science and reason, rather than accepting a restriction of freedom from politically motivated junk science. And, hey, what’s with all the ‘climate change’ believers refusing to practice what they preach?”

If any issue is as morally fraught today as slavery and colonialism were in the 19th century, it is climate change. Scientists have been warning for more than three decades that continued release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will lead to catastrophic changes in the earth’s climate and ecosystems. Yet humans are now releasing about twice as much carbon from fossil fuels as in 1980.

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 “Warmists Are Very Concerned Over How History Will Judge Deniers Or Something”

  1. Dana says:

    I turn 63 on Earth Day, so I am fairly sure that, if Mr Olson’s warnings about me being judged by history do come true, I won’t be around to care.

  2. JGlanton says:

    Is there any modern conservative person or movement that the left has not compared to hitler or slaveholders? Because I can’t think of one.

    I don’t like to associate s AGW skepticism with political conservatism because I view it more as a scientific ethics issue. Maybe it’s conservative in that skeptical scientists believe in conserving the scientific method and integrity of their discipline. It’s the left that has done the labeling, name-calling, and equating with unpopular (to them) political parties.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Why would you care about what history thinks? You’ll be long dead and no one will even remember you existed. No one will give a shit about you.

    If the future unfolds as we climate realists expect, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren will wonder what the fuck we were thinking. But just as no one remembers the names of the slave traders of the past, the cigarette executives, no one will remember the science deniers like you who ignorantly stood against progress, the environment and the future.

    We often ask what fuels ignorance. The truth is that ignorance is its own reward.

    So no, as much as you’d like the notoriety, pipsqueaks such as you will be consigned to the ignored dustbin of history. There are no Hitlers of denialism. In 2100, the history “books” may mention that a band of know-nothing conservatives slowed progress; for simplicities sake they’ll blame it on the fossil-fuel industries’ protection of their profits, which is a large part of the truth. President Hillary Obama (Barack Obama’s great-granddaughter – named after the President who reversed America’s slide to third world conservatism) will reassure us that the Deniers were not cruel, but just ignorant and afraid. The remnants of those people, the so-called “feral gunnite” cult of Kentucky, all descendants of Donald Trump, banded together in the mid 2050s, and now (2100) likely number in only the low thousands. They still practice the ritual burning of coal to heat their shelters on the ceremonial “Day of Winter” (January 7), hoard gasoline to power their antique Dodge Ram trucks, and shoot at wind turbines with their rifles.

    We should all be concerned about the futures of our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren, and not our own self-aggrandizement.

  4. Dana says:

    Isn’t Jeffrey somehow involved in the pharmaceutical industry? From his latest rant I’ve got to wonder if he hasn’t been dipping into the recreational pharmaceuticals! 🙂

  5. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    If the future unfolds as we climate realists expect,

    If? So you are admitting that it is possible that the future won’t work out the way you expect! 🙂 Why, then, do you insist that we impoverish ourselves now to avoid a future you don’t know will occur?

  6. david7134 says:

    dana,
    After observing jeff for some time, I have come to the medical conclusion that he is nuttier than a fruit cake. Don’t waste time responding to him, it only feeds his delusions.

  7. drowningpuppies says:

    After observing jeff for some time, I have come to the medical conclusion that he is nuttier than a fruit cake. Don’t waste time responding to him, it only feeds his delusions.

    But you have to admit the little nutty guy is amusing.

  8. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Why would you care about what history thinks? You’ll be long dead and no one will even remember you existed. No one will give a shit about you.

    From the movie Troy:

    “If you stay in Larisa……you will find peace. You will find a wonderful woman. You will have sons and daughters, and they will have children. And they will love you. When you are gone, they will remember you. But when your children are dead and their children after them… …your name will be lost. If you go to Troy……glory will be yours. They will write stories about your victories for thousands of years. The world will remember your name. But if you go to Troy……you will never come home. For your glory walks hand in hand with your doom. And I shall never see you again.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAjD_rZMbgo

  9. jl says:

    They must be getting even more desperate if they’re worried about how history will judge climate hoax deniers. They can’t tell the future as far as climate is concerned, as we’ve seen, so no reason to think they’ll be any better at this astrology prediction.

  10. Jeffery says:

    dana typed:

    If? So you are admitting that it is possible that the future won’t work out the way you expect! 🙂 Why, then, do you insist that we impoverish ourselves now to avoid a future you don’t know will occur?

    Yes! It is possible you Deniers are right! But not probable. Scientists who know about such things put the probability of continued rapid warming (with a business as usual scenario) at 95%.

    What’s the probability of your house burning down this year? 0.01%? Yet, most folks still purchase homeowners insurance. Yet Deniers won’t insure against a 95% risk!?!

    impoverish ourselves

    This is a common lie fomented by Deniers once it was clear that 1)Earth was rapidly warming and 2)CO2 was the cause. Remember Stage 3 Denialism? There is absolutely no reason to think that the gradual transition from coal, oil and gas will “impoverish ourselves” (although it might continue to hurt the fossil fuel industries). When western society transitioned from horse power to horsepower, buggy whip manufacturers, buggy manufacturers and harness manufacturers felt the brunt, but roadbuilders, auto makers, mechanics, farmers, truckers etc all benefited.

    Read the article from VP Gore.

  11. Jeffery says:

    dana (or any resident denier),

    What probability do you place on the possibility of continued warming?

    The scientists say 95%. Are you certain the probability is 0?

  12. drowningpuppies says:

    that 1)Earth was rapidly warming and 2)CO2 was the cause.

    -the little nutty guy who exaggerates often and still cannot provide direct scientific proof for his assumptions

Bad Behavior has blocked 11528 access attempts in the last 7 days.