Weathermen- and others- who dare to question accepted climate change gospel have been disappearing like clothes at a nudist camp. Philippe Verdier, a popular (though now former) French weather reporter, recently announced via an online video that he had received a letter of dismissal. He stated, “My book, ‘Climate Investigation,’ was published one month ago. It got me banned from the airwaves.” Verdier was put “on leave” from the TV station back on October 12th. He told RTL radio station shortly thereafter, “I received this letter this morning and decided to open it in front of you because it concerns everybody in the name of freedom of expression and freedom of information. I put myself in the path of COP21, which is a bulldozer, and this is the result.”
Verdier decided to write the book after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius met with television meteorologists and asked them to highlight climate change issues in their broadcasts prior to the summit. “I was horrified by this speech,” he confided to the French magazine Les Inrockuptibles. His book accuses state-funded climate change scientists of having been manipulated and politicized and asserts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) knowingly publishes misleading data and has “blatantly erased” data contradicting their conclusions. Moreover, Verdier points out that there are “a great many positive consequences to global warming,” such as lower consumption of fuel used for heating and fewer cold-related deaths in winter. “I am being punished for exercising my freedom of expression,” he told RTL. Mr. Verdier asserts that the UN, through its climate agenda, “Wants to make us perpetual victims of fear.” He charges top climatologists with “taking the world hostage.” He believes there is a conspiracy of interests linking government, NGO’s, science, mainstream media, and religion. He was put on indefinite “forced holiday.” Unions at France Television have called for him to be fired.
Quentin Letts is a British journalist and theater critic who writes for several popular British newspapers. Earlier this year he made what he termed “a jaunty little Radio 4 programme called ‘What’s The Point Of The Met Office?’” which he intended to be light and amusing fair. In the program he had fun with the U.K.’s national public weather service and its views on global warming. This triggered a lobbying campaign by environmental activists and the program was summarily removed from the BBC’s iPlayer playback facility. To quote part of a line from a beloved Monty Python sketch, it has “simply ceased to be.”
Former Democratic congressional candidate and progressive American University statistician Dr. Caleb Rossiter had the unmitigated gall to say that belief in climate catastrophe is “simply not logical.” He wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal describing man-made global warming as an “unproved science.” Two days later, the Institute for Policy Studies sent him an e-mail, sacking him.
A month prior to Rossiter’s dismissal, Swedish meteorologist and climatologist Lennart Bengtsson was essentially forced to resign from the Global Warming Policy Foundation after being told his views on climate change were “incorrect.”
Mark Steyn, one of this author’s favorite scribes, was forbidden by court injunction to write for the National Review after challenging a certain professor’s “hockey stick graph” depiction of global warming.
Feel a chill yet? You should.
The climate change crowd changed after a New York City debate held in 2007 in which the skeptics annihilated the believer’s arguments and claims. This event/occurrence was dutifully ignored by the mainstream media and as a result almost no one took note. Ironically, these two facts in concert with each other prompted the believers to decide that their best course of action was to simply declare that the debate was over, that there is no debate…man-caused climate change was a fact of life.
And then they got intolerant. And shrill…crazy…and violent, spewing the vilest of hate speech and shedding logic, reason… their minds. The Gawker website suggested that authorities should “jail deniers.” Some called for Nuremberg-style trials. Others claimed that Deniers were committing “terracide.” (The killing of planet Earth). A June, 2009, Talking Points Memo website post asked, “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” (Italics/emphasis mine). The post continued, “So when the right wing f--ktards 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?” Yes, screw the rule of law and the tired old bromide, “innocent until proven guilty.” What have they ever done for mankind?
By that literally insane “reasoning” we should just incarcerate or execute all Muslims now before they prove to be terrorists. What if the climate ignores their fondest hopes and feral wishes and doesn’t warm up in the near future? What if, instead, global cooling sets in again like climatologists were certain was the case in the 1970’s? (What if we had just jailed or executed all global cooling deniers then?!). Will they say, “Oops,” or not even care as they believe they are higher powers exempt from accountability? And, “f--ktard?” Really? Short for f--king retard? I thought that was a politically incorrect term. But it is obvious that the pathetic, hypocritical, literarily-challenged morons exempt themselves from accountability for “hate-speech,” as a quick glance at the comments on any given political website makes clear.
And then, in June of 2009, a member of Climate Progress defended a post on his website warning that climate change skeptics would be strangled in their beds 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,” read the post.
These climate change NAZIS are, ultimately, in a sense, equally as dangerous as Islamic terrorists. They accost and accuse innocent people and “offer” them the same choices as radical Islamists…convert, be imprisoned or heavily taxed, or be killed.
I have often expounded here on my climate change views, so I hope I don’t become the victim of such outrageous hatred and have people who want to silence me-
Post a Comment