Husband Of Climate Cult Member Who Set Himself On Fire Speaks Out

In the not so distant past, he would have said he was disturbed, and had worried about what the doomsday subject matter was doing to him. Because setting yourself on fire is not rational. Not compos mentis. It’s pure batshit crazy. Instead, we get

Husband of environmentalist who set fire to himself urges others to seize climate action: ‘Choose to live’

On an overcast Friday last month in the nation’s capital, Wynn Alan Bruce stood before the US Supreme Court and set himself on fire. Mr Bruce’s death, on the annual observance of Earth Day, aimed to bring attention to the climate crisis, some of his family and friends later said.

For Terry Kaelber, the stranger’s death struck him “in the gut”.

Four years ago, Mr Kaelber’s husband David Buckel, a renowned lawyer turned environmentalist and expert composter, set fire to himself in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park.

“My gut reaction was I don’t think the Supreme Court would care,” Mr Kaelber told The Independent, during a phone interview last week. “Our institutions have become so disconnected from our humanness. And here is a cry out from this man to try to shake us out of our stupor that’s causing us to not look up, and see what’s in front of us.”

He continued: “But, for anyone who’s considering this, I really believe you would have more of an impact if you and one hundred of your friends chained yourselves to the gates of the Supreme Court than burning yourself up alive. You can continue to do that day after day, try to stop what’s going on and cause people to, in fact, look up.”

Well, that’s weird. The Independent reached out to someone who did not know the nutter climate cultists who recently did this because the guy had a husband who was also a nutter four years ago.

And, really, Warmists would have more of an impact if they practiced what they preached, rather than trying to force their cult beliefs on Everyone Else.

Mr Kaelber urged people not to give into feelings of despair around the climate crisis.

“Believe in your own power, don’t surrender to feeling like you have no impact,” he said. “Impact comes from banding together with your community, your family, going out onto the streets [and] asking people to really think about what’s going on.

Except, that’s what the climate cult pushes: pure doomsday. Stop asking people to think about the coming climate apocalypse, and make your own life carbon neutral.

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

10 Responses to “Husband Of Climate Cult Member Who Set Himself On Fire Speaks Out”

  1. Dana says:

    Simply the fact that Mr Bruce had a ‘husband’ is indicative of him not being right in the head. As a great American philosopher once said:

    How can a guy look at another guy’s hairy ass and find love there?

    Oh, wait, I got that wrong: it was previous self-immolator David Buckel who had the ‘husband.’ Mr Bruce had suffered a traumatic brain injury in 1989.

    Self-immolation has been a past form of protest, including by Buddhist monks during the Vietnam war, but it has frequently not worked out well. Eventually the Buddhists got the war in Vietnam ended, because as one of my professors said, the Communists were more willing to die for their country than we were willing to keep killing them, but the result was a Communist state. Vietnam is primarily capitalist now, economically speaking, because socialism and communism just flat don’t work, but it remains a repressive, one-party state.

    Mr Bruce’s protest was in favor of what the Buddhist monks got: a dictatorial state to impose what he thought would be a greater good, a state in which people’s choices were strictly limited by the government, in this case due to global warming climate change quackery. He used his right to protest to support a future government in which protest would not be allowed.

    • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

      That entire crew sounds nuckin futs to me.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      On that, former Pentecostal preacher Sam Kinison and I agree. Ironically, Mr Kinison also died by fire in his Trans Am!!

      But what setting one’s self on fire accomplishes is… nothing. No one cares. It’s a very ineffective form of protest.

      “I’m so committed to this I’m setting myself of fire.”

      “Uh, what? Why?”

      The Burning Man was protesting that we were not moving fast enough on global warming. He was right, but no one cares!

      Connunists like Mx Dana have stopped arguing the facts of global warming (if they ever did) and now argue that transitioning from fossil fuel use is Nazism/Fascism/communism combined!! Sure, sure, the world should have taken global warming seriously decades ago and taxed fossil fuel use for its negative externalities, but what are ya gonna do. The Earth is drumpfed up its duhSantis now.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Kinison didn’t die in a fire, dipshit.
        Rimjob can’t even get that right.

        Bwaha! Lolgf

  2. James Lewis says:

    Dearest Elwood:

    You’re babbling again…..

    “The Burning Man was protesting that we were not moving fast enough on global warming. He was right, but no one cares!”

    Because no one knows what, if or why. And using hoaxed up “studies” that produce no reliable forecasts is not the way to get and hold attention.

    “The most important thing to remember about climate models which are used to project future global warming is that they were “tuned” with the assumption I started this article with: that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.

    This is an arbitrary and illogical assumption. The climate system is an example of a “nonlinear dynamical system”, which means it can change all by itself. For example, slow changes in the rate of vertical overturning of the world’s oceans can cause global warming (or global cooling) with no “external forcing” of the climate system whatsoever.

    Instead, the climate models are “tuned” to not produce natural climate change. If a 100-year run of the model produces change, the model is adjusted to removed the “drift”.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Our Dearest James,

      No one cares if some guy burns himself up.

      The majority of Americans are concerned about global warming.

      Repeating the same material from Dr Spencer is not convincing.

      The scientific theory of global warming predicted that the Earth’s surface would warm.

      Guess what? Ice sheets can’t read.

      Even consistent science deniers like Teach and some other commenters admit they were wrong in denying that the Earth was warming. Now they argue that it’s just normal warming that happens all the time – no worries, mate – CO2 don’t mean nothin’. Every now and then they get suckered in by a La Nina or volcano and shout that it’s cooling!

      Climate models are not making the Earth warm or the ice melt, unless you’re arguing that the heat generated by computers is what is being measured.

      Arguing about the models seems to be a distraction. Models predict warming. Guess what? Ice sheets can’t read.

      • Jl says:

        So the global warming theory also predicted the summer Arctic ice sheet would be melted by now. The “theory”also predicted extreme weather would get worse. The theory didn’t predict the recent hiatus in warming, nor did it predict the last 6 years of cooling. All these prediction were either made, or missed, by models. The models have consistently over-predicted the amount of warming, keeping in mind the fact that warming doesn’t equal agw warming. “From Dr. Spencer isn’t convincing”. Simply saying “isn’t convincing” does nothing to convince us he was wrong. “Arguing about the models seems to be a distraction”. What’s distracting is having the models being consistent wrong. “It predicted the earth’s surface would warm”. Wow-tough job, seeing as there were only 3 choices-warm, cool, or stay the same. How do they do it?

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          No. The theory of global warming predicted the Earth would warm from all the CO2 added to and retained in the atmosphere.

          The theory does not predict day to day or even year to year temperatures because there exist other factors that influence the more acute temperatures. For example, El Ninos, La Ninas and volcanoes also influence short term surface temperatures. The models cannot tell you the exact temperature in Jan 2040 but can predict the average temperature around that time. But you know that.

          The Earth is warming consistent with the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.

          The models predicted warming and it’s warming. Do you feel your 6 year plateau is the beginning of a cooling phase? Is it a coincidence that your “6 year pause” started in 2016, the warmest year in recorded history? LOL.

          Remember the 18 year pause that wasn’t? It was no coincidence that your 18 year pause began in 1998, that until 2016 was the warmest year in recorded history. LOL. 2016 was 0.4 °C warmer than 1998. LOL.

          What the models predict is the total incoming solar radiation and the outgoing infrared, and how much atmospheric CO2 slows the outgo.

          • Jl says:

            “The theory predicted..”Yes, predicted out of 3 choices -tough job, especially coming out of a little ice age. “Beginning of a cooling phase..” Would have given wait and see. But the “theory” said the temp would keep rising. It didn’t. “The pause that didn’t exist”. But the pause did exist. “2016 was warmer than 1998”. And 2021 was cooler than 2016

          • Hurricane Elwood P. Dowd says:

            And “frigid” 2021 was much warmer than “sweltering” 1998.

            You are back to denying that it’s warming!

            over the past 30 years (including the “frigid” 2021):

            Gistemp: 0.210 ±0.055 °C/decade
            Berkeley: 0.208 ±0.046 °C/decade
            HadCrut: 0.198 ±0.057 °C/decade
            RSS (sat): 0.232 ±0.079 °C/decade
            UAH (sat): 0.140 ±0.079 °C/decade (Dr Spencer’s)

            Mean: 0.198 ±0.063 °C/decade, translates to 0.6°C increase since 1990.

            We suspect you did not run your own calculations. The way science deniers determine their temperature rise “pauses” is to pick a current low and work backwards to a past high. Voila. A “pause”. LOL.

            The previous “pause” only existed if science deniers included 1998 El Nino warming as the “starting”, point ending on 2015. If you plotted 1999 to 2016, no pause, LOL.

            If you include 2016 you find a slight decrease since 2016 was a strong El Nino* year. Yet from 2017 to now the Earth has slightly warmed!! From 2018 to now it warmed! From 2019 to now it cooled! From 2020 to now it cooled! From 2021 to now it warmed again!! The Earth has warmed the past 10 years!! And this is why actual scientists don’t worry about short term trends.

            *El Nino: An El Niño condition occurs when surface water in the equatorial Pacific becomes warmer than average and east winds blow weaker than normal resulting in an increase in surface temperatures globally.

Pirate's Cove