Sunday 10 October 2010

Thou Shalt Not Challenge The Green Theocracy

Yesterday, based on the tobacco control template, I predicted the future for Henry Lewis, the disillusioned, climate sceptic physicist.

Lewis will be ostracised, his name blackened, his previous work dismissed as eccentricity, his future work dismissed as funded by oil companies. He will be expunged from the scientific community and threats of similar treatment will be issued to all who dare to commission him.
That's what happens when you disrespect a cult. You become a heretic, and therefore a non-person. To be derided and ignored.

Via Counting Cats, we see that the press will be similarly treated if they ask unapproved questions of the green hierarchy.

Yep, seen that before too. Unbelievers are not to be allowed freedom of speech for fear of the theocracy being challenged by debate.

'Cos, let's face it, when your arguments are rooted in sand, the last thing you want to do is openly discuss them.


bnzss said...

Honestly, I thought 'The Age of Stupid' was a film about how stupid climate alarmists are.

Oh wait, it kind of is...

Ian R Thorpe said...

Well put Dick but as you say the zealots will only gang up on Lewis and try to undermine his life's work.

I go head to head with a bunch at an American site. Despite my always making clear that I believe we have climate realated problems though the cause and therefore the solution is not clear I am dismissed as a 'climated denier' (has anyone ever denied there is a climate?) and from there as a young earth creationist and then in a single bound they decide I'm an anti - abortionist who wants to have sex with Sarah Palin. (To be honest I'd rather SP than Barack Obama who gets the climate zealots all worked up but my favourite fantasy is Charity from Emmerdale)

And having responded in that manner they then accuse me of being irrational and a conspiracy theorist.

Great fun isn't it.

Dick Puddlecote said...

BenS: You could be right. The human race 'extinct by 2055'? That's certifiable.

Ian: Yep, the same method of guilt by association is also used regularly towards those who challenge tobacco control consensus. In fact, there's an example today in the Observer comments.

See here.

Why debate when a sweeping generalised smear will do? It shows their deep lack of credible evidence for their chosen stance that they should instantly default to such tactics.

When they actually begin to argue the points raised by sceptics, then it might be time to think that they may have a case. Not before.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Same old same old.

The Global Warmenists don't want anybody else to fly, but fly themselves in order to help 'send the message'; the NIMBYs don't want anybody else to build a house in order to 'preserve the Hallowed Green Belt for future generations' but all live in houses themselves.