Global warming advocates call for the prosecution of scientists who disagree with them

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Fascists: Twenty global warming scientists have written a public letter to President Obama demanding he prosecute those who challenge their claim that humans are causing the climate to warm.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.

The very fact that these global warming scientists find it necessary to demand their opponents be prosecuted proves that their claims are invalid. If they had the facts on their side, there would be no need for them to call for the government to prosecute and possibly imprison those who disagree with them. They could simply cite the facts, using a willing press to spread the news, and the opposition of this small minority of skeptics would make little difference. The public would pay the skeptics no mind.

The public however is not stupid and has been following this story with great interest. They might not be convinced that the skeptics are right, but the public is also very doubtful about the claims of the global warming advocates. Instead, the public is aware that the science of the climate is very uncertain, and that more facts are required before they will be convinced about anything.

What this letter does prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that many important members of the global warming community are downright fascists, and do not believe in freedom and the first amendment.


  • Cotour

    They equate “global warming” with the tobacco industry and how that industry purposefully obfuscated health related issues related to their product. Like it or not (and you know how I feel about “global warming”) it is a reasonable strategy to present to leadership, especially when leadership is headed up by a lawyer, and the public.

    This will all pale in comparison if Bernie Sanders becomes president though, he proposes 18 TRILLION dollars in additional government spending. Nothing will matter if this extreme lean to the left is allowed by the people to continue.

  • Cotour

    And then you find Drudge contrasting the first story with this story:

    The public is inundated with emotional and contrary “information” on both sides and that is where leadership must take a leading roll in steering things. But when leadership is basically a Marxist / Leftist who can you reasonably trust to make reasonable decisions?

    Even in a default mode of decision making a Marxist / Leftist can not be trusted to make a reasonable decision at the level we are talking about.

  • Noah Peal

    Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (There is no salvation outside the [climate warmist] church).

  • D.K. Williams

    Another example of the Left trying to shread the Bill of Rights.

  • Edward

    This also demonstrates that climate science is less science and more politics.

    The “scientists” are unable to demonstrate that their hypothesis is correct, so they turn to politics and politicians to make it come true by government fiat.

    It reminds me of the (fallacious) story of the state legislature that passed legislation to make pi exactly equal to 3, so that it would be easier to use. Although it never passed the Indiana Senate, an actual bill was seriously considered to make it possible to “square the circle,” based upon one Indiana man’s statement that he found a solution.

    The story (both the myth and the truth) shows that politicians can get such a false sense of power that they believe that they can change the way that nature works. It took an outside mathematician to point out that politicians “lacked the power to define mathematical truth.”

    We once again seem to have citizens trying to convince government to define natural truth — after they were unable to scientifically prove their beliefs — and those citizens are willing to send those who disagree with them (deniers) to an American Gulag — maybe even after a mere troika.

    It is more than likely that most or all of the signatories to the letter hopped into their cars and drove home after the signing. They do not truly believe what they advocate, otherwise they would stop using powered transportation; air conditioners and heaters; all forms of cooking, lighting, and washing; and even clean, running water (which also requires a lot of power).

  • Cotour

    The perception of urgency supported by the obvious logic of their theory and how it “should” work gives them their power and authority. They will ask for forgiveness later if it turns out they are wrong.

  • Edward

    They will never ask for forgiveness, and they will never admit to being wrong.

    Already, they are making excusesfor the “pause” in global warming.

    They can’t admit that they were wrong about global temperature being driven by CO2 levels — which continue to climb, unlike the temperature — or that they were wrong about the cause of recent global warming being humans (if it isn’t CO2, then it isn’t humans either), or that the temperature stopped climbing at the same time that the US was meeting the Kyoto Accords levels. We are saved from global warming, but they won’t admit that, either.

    Instead, they want to prosecute anyone who suggests that global warming is not caused by human activity.

    They sure as [ahem] can’t admit that Kyoto solved the problem, as it was supposed to do (of course it didn’t, because people weren’t the “problem”), because without the problem they have no reason to take control of our lives and force us to stop using fossil fuels, starting and growing our businesses, or increasing our prosperity. Of course, being good environmentalists, *they* get to continue using fossil fuels and cetera, because they are well aware that what they say is a lie. To them, the truth is inconvenient.

  • Greg the Geologist

    Declare that pi is equal to 3? I don’t think that’s the job of the legislature. You’d need the Supreme Court for that.

  • Edward

    Ah, but the Indiana legislature did this in 1897, back before government of the people, by the people, for the people, perished from the earth. (I’m glad that Lincoln did not see this happen to his beloved country.)

    On the other hand, government at every level has gotten pretty cocky, these days, but We the People still have some sort of say, at least in local-level government:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *