Climate scepticism - the new blasphemy

The parallels between climate hysteria and a fundamentalist religion become ever more clearer, with yet more calls for those who disagree with the "consensus" to be punished, in the same way that blasphemers and heretics were burned at the stake in the Middle Ages. Is this really science we are talking about here, in the 21st century?

No, the culture of climate alarmism isn't science, at least not as I was taught to understand it. It is a faith-based system in which believers invest huge amounts of emotional energy, and they are unable to cope with those who do not subscribe to it, therefore advocating punishment for dissenters. I am beginning to wonder if the Enlightenment ever happened.

From Marc Morano's Climate Depot:

The Talking Points Memo article continues: “So when the right wing f***tards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn't we start punishing them now?"

A public appeal has been issued by an influential U.S. website asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S. The anonymous posting, dated June 2, 2009, referred to dissenters of man-made global warming fears as “greedy bastards” who use “bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool” to “distort data.”

The article also claims the “vast majority” of scientists agree that man-made warming “can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.”

Did you lose count of the number of ad hominems in that short extract, like I did? If the alarmists' cause is so strong, why does it require punishment for dissenters? Why can't the claims stand on their merits? If the sceptics are just "right wing f***tards" then their arguments should be easily debunked, shouldn't they?

And while we're talking about apportioning blame, then by analogy we should have trials for those (mainly environmentalists) who successfully advocated restrictions on the use of DDT, which has resulted in literally millions of preventable deaths from malaria - and these are real deaths, not the flaky computer-modelled deaths of climate alarmism.

The longer this ugly spectacle continues, and the more such comments we hear about "climate blasphemy" and its punishment, the more we damage the public reputation of science today, and the more we desecrate the great scientific advancements of the past and the memory of those who made them.

Marc also provides a handy reference of all similar threats to sceptics, including James Hansen's famous call for trials of sceptics as "high crimes against humanity."

Read it here.