Climate change is a full-blown religious crusade. News organizations, church leaders, schools, corporations, and governments all insist something dangerous is underway, and that vigorous responses are necessary.
Anyone who dares challenge this doctrine is a heretic. In other eras, religious heretics were burned at the stake.
Today, climate skeptics often remain in the closet. Some have been bullied into play acting, into mouthing what they secretly believe to be untrue in order to retain their jobs or their government grants.
It’s accurate, therefore, to describe climate skeptics as a minority – swimming against the tide, surrounded on all sides by a worldview to which they conscientiously object.
Independent thinkers don’t require society’s approval. But there’s a difference between an environment that is non-supportive and one in which vilification flows like a river from the pages of the New York Times.
Members of other minority communities – be they religious, ethnic, racial, or sexual – are usually accorded tolerance and respect. Yet late last year, Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, called climate skeptics depraved in his Times column.
He declined to use the term ‘skeptic,’ choosing instead an emotionally-laden smear.
Calling someone a ‘climate change denier’ is a deliberate attempt to link doubt over wholly unproven predictions about the future to people who dispute historically documented mass murder. (Ellen Goodman, another famous newspaper columnist, made this explicit a decade ago when she declared that “global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”)
Krugman insists “there are almost no good-faith climate-change deniers” – just people motivated by “greed, opportunism, and ego.”
What rubbish. He has no possible way of diagnosing at a distance the motives of any human being, never mind the thousands of diverse individuals across the globe who dissent publicly and the multitudes more who do so privately.
In 2009, this man similarly accused climate skeptics of “treason against the planet.” In 2013, he said they deserved to be punished in the afterlife for their “almost inconceivable sin.”
This is extreme prejudice. This is outright bigotry. This is a grown adult stamping his foot and bellowing that people who disagree with him are immoral villains.
In other contexts, we make a point of treating minorities with courtesy. But it remains open season on people who think humanity has more pressing problems than climate change, who draw different conclusions from the available scientific evidence, who’ve concluded that science is being abused by political operatives, or who’ve noticed that many similar eco-apocalyptic predictions have failed to materialize.
To be a climate skeptic is to belong to a despised minority, one that respectable people think it’s OK to demonize.
Read more at Big Pic News
When someone tells me a subject is “settled science” I just automatically assume the person knows nothing about the subject or science in general. Krugman fits that to a T.
There is a reason that some climate alarmists have adopted the tactics of suppression. It is the same reason the Nazis, Soviet Union, and chairman Mao Did. They know their ideals crumble in fair debate.
The last US election showed that the climate change skeptics are not in the minority. To be fair, many who voted against the environmental ballot measures might believe that there is a climate change problem but not bad enough to justify the proposed costs that the environmentalists want. In that way, they are in league with those of us who know it is a fraud.
For years liberals of been defining words to help their agendas. The word “homophobia” says that anyone who disagrees with them on that subject has a disease. Using “denier” as in holocaust denier is the exact same word game.
Krugman is a useful idiot.
Why should anyone wonder what an economist has to say about climate? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even an incorrect one. let Krugman be stupid in public; it’s his reputation on the line, if he chooses to discredit himself among intelligent and knowledgable people.
The climate skeptics and anyone who questions, disputes or (like me) rejects the global warming scam are hardly a minority. Most people I know seem to have doubts about the climate scare campaign and those who have studied geology and earth history just shake their heads that these claims still persist. I, for one, will continue to reject global warming and the claims about human causation of climate change, even if it becomes illegal to do so. I dare the authorities to enact rules, policies or laws that decare it wrong to be on the correct side of a public issue. Were that ever to happen, then I will know that my country has truly gone off the deep end.
Krugman had gravel, not marbles. He was never right.
Sounds to me like Paul Krugman has lost all his marbles He is sounding like James Lovelock preaching this Gaia nonsense like it was back in the Pluague Days and blaming witches and this Betraying the Planet poppycock Just from what assylum has the Loonie Tunes wank escape from?
The climate mob’s modus operendi has been effective, raising million$ that gets reinvested in more activism and lawsuits.
Where they fail is at the ballot box. Voters need to be convinced that carbon taxes would prevent an inevitable apocalypse. That has not been the case.
So they target corporations. The mayor of Whistler’s recent gaffe is just the tip of the spear. More of these tactics are on the way, funded by rich liberals.
Brian is correct, we cannot change the weather. We can adapt, if necessary. That’s where money should be spent.
it,s called weather and there is no way mankind can change it !! it should be called a globalist money grab!!