Global Warming Deniers Are The Same As Holocaust Deniers, Except Maybe WAY WORSE

Guardian columnist Nick Cohen this weekend delivered an earful on global warming and skeptics of global warming policy and positions, doubling down on comparisons of so-called “deniers” to Nazis.

And please, can I have no emails from bed-wetting kidults blubbing that you can’t call us “global warming deniers ” because “denier” makes us sound like “Holocaust deniers”, and that means you are comparing us to Nazis? The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz. No other word will do.

Anyone who watches or reads the news has heard lately the scolding on using such analogies – a lecture we get treated to periodically by lefties, who are the group most likely to use them anyway – which suggest that people who say such things are despicable and ignorant and insensitive and host of other adjectives too numerous to list here. In light of this vehement, well-staked out and zero-tolerance position, you can understandably expect that their reaction to this will be nothing short of absolutely nothing.

The ironies and hypocrisies involved in an article like this, and the reaction such articles routinely receive, are as breathtaking in scope as the totality of the universe. Exaggeration? Only if you’re a Nazi.

In his column, the eminently reasonable writer ponders the mystery of what exactly it will take for nations and governments to submit to the drastic, life-altering, economy-crashing prescriptions doom-saying enviro cowards like himself have so foot-stompingly proffered. Like so may of his particular political persuasion, he cannot fathom how it is that the likes of we low-born scientific neanderthals manage to continue to thwart uncritical and grateful acceptance of all that he and his climate prognostication brethren deem appropriate. That every knee has yet to bow to the IPCC and every tongue yet to confess their warming transgressions is an utter and confounding mystery.

James Dellingpole, writing at Breitbart-London, has a suggestion for answering this riddle:

You will never persuade countries to accept huge reductions in their living standards until you have made an irrefutable scientific and economic case for doing so.

The scientific case is looking shakier by the minute: if there has been no global warming since 1997, why should we stake our faith in all those doomsday computer models which failed to predict this “pause”?

The economic case is non-existent. By the time – if it ever does – catastrophic global warming makes its presence known in the future, our descendants will all be considerably richer than we are and therefore have more than enough money spare to take whatever remedial actions are necessary.

Cohen states in his column that “when the glib talk about the ‘scientific debate on global warming’, they either don’t know or will not accept that there is no scientific debate.” I debate this. OK, that was glib. But it is the preposterous trick of the warming faithful that is truly superficial and thoughtless. They can easily claim there is no debate, because any scientist who attempts it is simply labeled a non-scientist and dismissed out of hand. There is no scientific debate because anyone debating it is not scientific. Neat trick.

There is, of course, rampant debate, even among those who believe in man-made global warming. Debate as to the extent, debate as to the timeline, debate as to the consequences. And of course, rigidly researched and scientifically sound dissent has been offered over and over and over to little impact. Because unlike true scientists, global warmers do not wish to test their hypotheses, or even consider alternatives. They simply know what is so, and facts be damned. It will be a cold day in hell, to trade on the debate’s central themes, before they change their minds.

I’m trying to think of a group in history that has been equally intransigent. A group that has been likewise unmoved by protestation, unmotivated by other points of view, and as merciless in silencing opposition. Some kind of really rigid group, rallied around a central cause or theme, that simply will not tolerate deviation or dissent. Some uniform entity, some oppressive regime. Oh if I could only think of one.

Oh well, lets just agree that Nick is getting a tad overwrought and that he ought to be a little more open and less nipple-sore over people not sharing his point of view and leave it at that shall we? Wouldn’t want to exaggerate.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.