“(I) suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW (global warming) deniers.” — Richard Parncutt, professor at the University of Graz, Austria, 2012
Some environmentalists would like to kill people like you and me. That is because we question whether the planet is getting warmer. Consider Professor Richard Parncutt. While he is opposed to the death penalty, he believes no punishment is too harsh for those that reject global warming. The good news is that Parncutt teaches music for a living, so we probably don’t have to tuck a pistol beneath our pillow at night.
That is not to say that Parncutt and global warming ideologues are not dangerous. This is especially the case when their theories are trumped by facts. So it is after a recent scientific report that shows the Arctic ice cap grew by almost 1 million square miles last year. That is an area one-third larger than Alaska and a 60 percent increase in just a year.
It turns out that global temperatures have not been getting warmer since 1997. The British newspaper The Mail On Sunday reported in March that there is a “90 per cent certainty” that the predictions made for global warming will not happen.
Imagine the conundrum the Greens face. Soon, there may be no videos of polar bear cubs drowning as they swim beside their mothers to ice packs too far into the distance. Soon, there may be no impending warnings of how the Artic is about to disappear. Soon, there may no longer be any urgency in giving money and power to a stupid idea whose time has passed.
Just six years ago, the BBC broadcast projections that global warming would turn Artic ice into seawater by no later than this summer. Instead, the Northwest Passage, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, has had one of the thickest ice packs in decades. It has become so cold that more than 20 yachts of the ultra-wealthy, some of whom probably give money to Greenpeace, are ice-bound. Call it karma or call it an inconvenient truth; the world is not heating up. That is dire news for the people behind a boondoggle that has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with achieving wealth and power.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Consider this graph below that shows the trend of falling temperatures:
“This summer, the U.S. has experienced the fewest number of 100 degree readings in a century,” wrote Steven Goddard for Real Science. The five hottest summers were 1930, 1934, 1936, 1954 and 1980.
Temperatures were hotter back when my grandfather was homesteading with horses rather than a truck and tractor. Temperatures were hotter when the Chinese traveled paths by rickshaw and traversed water on junks. Temperatures were hotter when the number of cars on the road could be measured in the thousands rather than in the hundreds of millions.
Yet every time I write about climate change I get comments that call me either an idiot or a member of the Flat Earth Society. So, please, for the environmentalists reading, let me ask two questions:
- As America struggles with its economic recovery, what are the President’s plans to force other nations to reduce their massive carbon output? Together, China, India and Russia emit almost twice as much carbon as the United States. Canada, with all the “dirty oil sands,” emits less than 10 percent as much carbon as the United States.
- If Barack Obama is committed to the electric car, has he considered how America is going to power millions of them? Electricity isn’t created out of thin air, and it is inefficient in delivering energy to an end-source. Has Obama even considered how much coal and oil are going to be burned so that Americans can charge their automobiles every night?
These are real questions I have yet to hear any answers on from the President or his environmental loyalists. Regardless of such questions, American Greens won’t budge an inch. Any evidence contrary to their beliefs only brings angry name calling. No wonder the massive increase in the size of Artic ice caps and cooling global temperatures has driven some into a heated tizzy.
Better Green Than Guillotined
Some environmentalists are claiming that the civil war in Syria may be the result of global warming. Last week, National Review Online wrote this headline: “Global Warming, the Real Cause of the Syrian Civil War?”
Francesco Femia has identified in a new culprit in the Syrian civil war: climate change. … Femia, co-founder of the Center for Climate and Security, argues that climate change created a “powder keg” in the country, creating the conditions that made the civil war more likely.
According to Femia, climate change had caused a massive drought in Syria that, coupled with the Assad regime’s resource mismanagement, created a “large-scale environmental and human disaster.” He believes the crisis led to massive migration into urban areas, which were already hard-pressed economically, sparking large-scale civil unrest. This unrest eventually became a civil war.
Femia argues that the country is embroiled in a bloody civil war because it has been dry and dusty in Syria. (Who would have thought?) Does that sound crazy? It’s no crazier than Obama and the Robespierre-like environmentalists that support his environmental policies.
A contributor to The Washington Times Communities, in a post entitled “Obama Doctrine: He could even attack nations over climate change,” suggested that Obama might attack those he deems responsible for global warming, including Syria.
Secretary of State John Kerry is goose-stepping beside the President on the climate change mandate. In May, Kerry said there will be hell to pay if global warming is not stopped:
[A]n issue like environment/global climate change just leaps out at me as a profoundly important issue for future generations. If they’re breathing bad air, if there isn’t enough water, if the water’s bad, disease, all of these things become major threats, not to mention the fact that if we don’t respond adequately to the challenge of global climate change over the course of these next years, there will be people fighting wars over water and over land and agricultural land and other kinds of things.
Kerry is echoing what former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said in 2012, when he declared that environmental threats are threats to America’s national security.
It is the prosecution of a war and the persecution of people that don’t accept global warming. An active (and I believe insane) writer for Grist, David Roberts, went on record in 2006 saying that people — like us, I suppose — who deny global warming should be tried and presumably hung the way senior members of the Nazi Party were in 1946.
“When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg,” Roberts wrote.
If he wants to put us on trial for killing the planet, I want a lawyer who will ask: “Where are the bodies?” As far as I can see, the only bodies are in the Mideast; and they are stacked high because of Obama’s foreign intervention in the region. It is ironic that the real reason people are fighting and dying in places like Syria, Egypt and Libya is because they have oil or they are at the gateway to greater Arabia, which has oil.
There is another irony. High crimes and killing seem to fall on the shoulders of Obama, the best friend the Greens ever had in the Oval Office. With regard to Obama and his National Security Agency, we very well may want pistols beneath our pillows at night.
Yours in good times and bad,