This is an interesting hot take, since it was Democrats here in the U.S. who justified the slave trade. And slavery. And Jim Crow. And all the other things. And being hardcore climate cultists, who have decided to be as loopy as possible. As Eric Worrell writes “The Guardian is outdoing itself reaching for ridiculous hyperbole, to try to make us care”
Climate change deniers are as slippery as those who justified the slave trade
Global warming sceptics should be hiding in corners. But still some defend the indefensible
No one seems as defeated as the global warming “deniers†who dominated rightwing thinking a decade ago. Like late 18th-century opponents of abolishing the slave trade, Lord Lawson and the claque of Conservative cranks who filled the comment pages of the Tory press are remembered today as dangerous fools – assuming they are remembered at all.
The billions of dollars spent by the fossil fuel industry on propaganda and its acceptance by know-nothing elements on the right caused incalculable damage. They might have followed Margaret Thatcher, who warned in 1989 of C02 emissions leading to climate change “more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have knownâ€. The desire of business to protect profits and the vanity of politicians and pundits, who saw themselves as dissidents fighting the consensus rather than fanatics enabling destruction, helped to waste two decades of valuable time.
Every argument they advanced has been disproved, as much by the experience of everyday life as science. Journalists are advised: “If someone says it is raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the window and find out which is true.†The world only had to look at the weather outside to know who was trying to fool it.
We’re in hiding? That’s new to me. Defeated? We aren’t the ones demanding to shut down the climate cult viewpoints on TV and in the media. What arguments have been disproved? For one thing, science would demand that the Warmists prove that this warm period is completely different from all the other Holocene ones.
The comparison isn’t harsh. One day, the attack on climate science will be seen as shocking as the defence of human bondage. Indeed, that day should have long passed. They are overwhelmingly old men or, in the case of Lawson, a very old man. They grew up in a 20th century where the carbon economy was natural: the way the world was and would always be. Slavery was equally natural to the plantation owners and slave traders of Georgian Britain. It had always existed, everywhere on Earth.
Interesting, since the entire purpose of the Cult of Climastrology is to make people beholden and controlled by The Government. Can we call it ‘climate change’ slavery? Because government would run your life. Worrell goes on to say about climate cult screedists Nick Cohen
Nick walks on roads and pavements made of asphalt or tarmac, a form of long chain polymer plastic derived from crude oil (see picture above), likely heats his home in winter, using you guessed it, and eats food transported by fossil fuel powered vehicles to refrigerated supermarket shelves of plastic, glass and metal, whose temperature and humidity controlled indoor environment is only possible thanks to fossil fuel goodness. (snip regarding other things that rely on/made with fossil fuels)
And I’m pretty sure you didn’t write your Guardian article on Roman papyrus, using a bird feather quill pen dipped in oak gall ink. Even if against the odds you did, the people who digitally published your article and who maintain the Guardian website certainly used a lot of high tech fossil fuel derived plastic, silicon and refined metal, not to mention fossil fuel electricity to keep their web servers running 24×7.
Pretty much. And how does Nick’s article help? He’s preaching to the unhinged, moonbat, climate cultist base, who rarely make changes in their own lives. Does Nick think this will entice skeptics to change their minds?
