Surprise: Yet Another Warmist Calls For Climate Skepticism To Be A Crime

I wonder, should it be a crime to call for all sorts of anthropogenic climate change measures and laws to fail to practice what they preach? Should it be a crime for members of the Cult of Climastrology to call for measures on Other People? Should it be a crime for a Warmist to use fossil fuels in their own lives? Na. But they sure want to criminalize what they consider Wrongthink (via Anthony Watts)

Dr Jarrod Gilbert: Why climate denial should be a criminal offence

There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change. The scientific consensus is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud. Denial has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested. The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.

Fraud, huh? Aping the latest duckspeak from the Cult of Climastrology.

Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities. The American Association for the Advancement of Science compared it to the consensus linking smoking to cancer. The debate is over, yet doubt continues.

Trotting out 97% consensus is fraud, since the studies are frauds. Plus, consensus is not science.

The worst of these problems will impact more greatly on generations to come, but to ignore them now is as unconscionable as it is selfish. It ought be seen as a crime.

Of course, the writer, Dr Jarrod Gilbert, who practices that deep science disciple of “sociology”, isn’t fool enough to delve into specific criminal penalties

One way in which everyday crime can be discouraged is to ensure that “capable guardians” are around to deter criminal activity. When it comes to climate change, the capable guardians are educated members of the public who counteract the deniers.

You know what he really wanted to write was to stick skeptics in jail or re-education camps. Or kill them. Many Warmists have thought that murder for Wrongthink is a great idea.

There may be differing opinions on what policies to pursue, but those who deny that climate change exists ought be shouted down like the charlatans that they are. Or better yet, looked upon with pitiful contempt and completely ignored.

Merriam-Webster defines charlatan as “a person who falsely pretends to know or be something in order to deceive people.” Dictionary.com goes with “a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack.” Would not a person who says there is a Big Problem but refuses to change their own life to match the solutions they recommend be implemented by governmental force be a charlatan? Yes.

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

3 Responses to “Surprise: Yet Another Warmist Calls For Climate Skepticism To Be A Crime”

  1. Dana says:

    Two points:

    1 – Freedom of speech does not mean the same thing in New Zealand as it does here, so it is unsurprising that a Kiwi would think that there could be limitations on speech, and criminal penalties attached to certain speech. ‘Hate speech’ is a criminal offense, but is rarely prosecuted, because the Attorney General must consent.

    2 – Dr Gilbert wrote that climate change denial “ought be seen as a crime,” but he did not specifically advocate passing legislation to make it a crime. I suppose that it could be seen as some sort of offense under existing statutes in New Zealand.

    That said, this is just more evidence that the left, who used to be the strongest advocates for unlimited freedom of speech, have now become a fascist left, insistent upon their positions to the point that they truly believe disagreement is more than just disagreement, but is somehow criminal, and some way ought to be found to lock up the dissenters.

  2. Hoagie says:

    That said, this is just more evidence that the left, who used to be the strongest advocates for unlimited freedom of speech, have now become a fascist left,

    I don’t recall any time the left was a advocate of any such thing unless it pertained only to themselves. Who and when was this advocacy? In Socialist Germany? The Soviet Union? N. Korea? Or when the DNC forbade Casey from speaking because he was anti abortion? Certainly not on today’s college campus’s, just ask Milo. The only time the left is for free speech is when they are speaking.

  3. Dana says:

    I remember that time, Hoag, back when I was in college.