[ Update: Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) appears to be echoing Krugman. See: Waxman: GOP ‘Rooting Against Country’ Because Of Global Warming Vote ]
New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman has charged that Congressmen who do not subscribe to his view of a man-made global warming “crisis” are guilty of “treason against the planet.” Krugman also rebuked the “irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial.” The House of Representatives narrowly passed the climate bill last week. (Krugman’s sentiments about skeptics are not isolated. See: ‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’ – June 3, 2009)
“As I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet,” Krugman wrote in the New York Times on June 28, 2009. [Editor’s Note: Nice smear Mr. Krugman. Your use of the term “denier” has an intentional “Holocaust Denial” connotation to it. See: Professor Roger Pielke, Jr.: ‘The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier’ & Also See: Huff. Post: ‘Great ironies of our age is that skepticism of global warming is treated with greater respect than, say, Holocaust denial’ – June 26, 2009]
“We’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?” Krugman explained.
“Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is,” Krugman wrote. [Editor’s Note: Krugman is a full blown “climate astrologist” — someone who reads a prediction of 100 years from now and believes it as fact and irrefutable evidence of a climate catastrophe. (see Climate Depot report on “Climate Astrology” here.) Krugman cites the scientifically ridiculed MIT model predictions as “proof” of a climate crisis. For a full rebuttal of Krugman’s climate model “evidence” see here: Forecast Pioneers: MIT’s unscientific, catastrophic climate forecast: MIT modellers violated 49 principles of forecasting – June 16, 2009 – Also see: Even Computer Models Now Defying Predictions of Doom! New study ‘concludes global average sea level rise UNLIKELY to exceed one meter by 2100’ & U.S. Senate Report: 700 Plus Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Warming Claims – March 2009 ]
Krugman continued: “Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual? Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.”
Treason? Immoral? Unforgivable? What is the punishment for such transgressions Mr. Krugman?
The answer to this question is readily available from Krugman’s climate fear soul mates.
‘Execute’ Skeptics! Krugman’s sentiment joined by fellow climate fear promoters
In June 2009, a public appeal was issued on 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 Talking Points Memo article continues: “So when the right wing fucktards 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?” (For full story see: ‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’ – June 3, 2009)
After all the attention drawn to it by Climate Depot, the Talking Points Memo article was later pulled and the website published a retraction and apology, but the sentiment was stark and unequivocal and has significant company among climate fear promoters.
On June 5, 2009, Joe Romm of Climate Progress defended a posting on his website warning that climate skeptics would be strangled in bed for rejecting the view that we face a man-made climate crisis. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” warned the message posted on Climate Progress.
Romm, a former Clinton Administration official, pulled the comments after Climate Depot drew attention to them. “The original was clearly not a threat but a prediction — albeit one that I certainly do not agree with. Since some people misread it, I am editing it,” Romm wrote.
Climate Depot Editor’s Note:
Paul Krugman’s demonization of those skeptical of man-made climate fears and The Talking Points Memo appeal to execute skeptics is not unique. As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory and environmental activists are growing increasingly desperate. Looming Question: If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the “debate is over” and the science is “settled”, why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?
Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:
NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”
In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
A 2008 report found that ‘climate blasphemy’ is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.
In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to ‘shut down’ climate skeptic’s testimony at hearing.
Below are many more examples of the threats, name calling and intimidation skeptics have faced in recent times.
June 27, 2009 – UK Telegraph: NO DISSENT ALLOWED: Polar bear expert Mitch Taylor barred from conference over ‘extremely unhelpful’ skeptical global warming view – Excerpt: ‘Attendance voted down by members because of his views on global warming’ — Research revealed bear ‘numbers are higher than they were 30 years ago’
June 29, 2009: Carbongate: ‘Suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore decline in global temps and other inconvenient truths’ (See here, here and here as well for more on Obama’s EPA censoring climate science.)
July 8, 2009 – Canada’s National Post: Hypocrisy: Bush’s EPA vs. Obama’s EPA: Excerpt: In 2003, when a U. S. Environmental Protection Agency study claiming recent climate change was “likely mostly due to human activities,” was edited by Bush administration officials to tone done such definitive language, activists, networks and newspapers screamed of a conspiracy by the White House and oil companies to suppress the truth. But when evidence arose in 2009 that the EPA had killed an internal report claiming that much had changed in the past year and that a reassessment of climate predictions was needed, there was barely a media peep. Instead, EPA climate analyst Alan Carlin was told his conclusions would have “a very negative impact on our office.” … To quote a vocal critic of the Bush administration, “real scientists aren’t afraid of opposing views.”
November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” Yvo de Boer’s comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.
September 29. 2007: VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: ‘I was told that I could not speak in public’ Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. “I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist,” Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. “It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.” (LINK)
Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor (February 8, 2007) Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change…So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.
Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor (May 2, 2007) Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?
October 28, 2008: License to dissent: ‘Internet should be nationalized as a public utility’ to combat global warming skepticism – Australian Herald Sun – Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options: There is clearly a need for research into the ways in which climate skepticism online is free to contest scientific fact. But there is enough here already to put forward some of the ideas in circulation. One of the founders of the Internet Vint Cerf, and lead for Google’s Internet for Everyone project, made a recent suggestion that the Internet should be nationalized as a public utility. As tech policy blogger Jim Harper argues, “giving power over the Internet to well-heeled interests and self-interested politicians” is, and I quote, “a bad idea.” Or in the UK every new online publication could be required to register with the recently announced Internet watchdog…
Excerpt: FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.
Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.”
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007) Excerpt: The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.