Denying The Mountains Of Evidence By Deniers

 

There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who “love Nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man has spoiled ‘Nature.’” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of “Nature” — but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers’ purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the Naturist reveals his hatred for his own race — i.e., his own self-hatred.

In the case of “Naturists” such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. – Robert A. Heinlein

I pulled that quote from the comment section of a PJ media article, by a commentator called, “Rusty Bill”.  Anthony recently had a post “On the climate, the holocaust, denial, billboards, and all that”.  It does a nice job of tying seemingly separate issues into related talking points.  For instance, the Heartland Institute’s recent billboard campaign and the more recent illogical smear attempt at tying climate science skeptics to holocaust deniers.  I disagree that HI’s campaign was a mistake.  I think it was necessary.  If the words “deniers” and “holocaust” are to be bandied about, let’s place them exactly where they need to be in this discussion. 

Most skeptic veterans of the climate wars have been scarred by numerous and constant slurs and hate speech.  The opponents in the discussion engage in projection so much one can come to the reasonable conclusion that these people own no mirrors.  The most common slur to climate skeptics is to be called a “denier”.  This label intentionally evokes imagery of Nazi holocaust denying.  Again, this is a form of projection.  I’ve yet to see a proposed solution to the imaginary problem of global warming which didn’t include a totalitarian approach.  They invent evidence and when us skeptics point out the absurdities of said evidence, we’re called deniers. stefanthedenier reminded me of a site which isn’t referenced nearly enough in the climate discussion, the warm list.  This site documents much of the mountain of evidence we skeptics deny.  For instance, National Geographic, has an article declaring the impending doom of our primates because of global warming-induced indigestion.  Yep, that’s peer reviewed scientific literature found in science journal Animal BehaviourI’ve documented other absurd bits of this imaginary “mountain of evidence” we skeptics deny as proof of anything but utter stupidity on the part of alarmists.

This brings us back to the larger issue beyond climate considerations.  When we inspect the end results of this neo-environmentalism we see a common theme.  Misanthropy. They hide behind sophist thoughts expressed by people such as Malthus and Paul Ehrlich and pretend to be concerned for humanity while advocating policies that result in killing women, children, and men.  They restrict quality of life improvements among developing nations and applaud the efforts to cripple our economies at home. 

kim2ooo pointed me to the PJmedia post and observes that it fits very nicely with my By their fruit you will recognize them post, in which we chronicle the murder and displacement of people in pursuit of policies enacted for climate change advocacy.  An excerpt from the article…..

When I brought up the issue of race- or caste-targeted forced sterilization programs instituted in Peru, India, and many other Third World countries with USAID and World Bank funds, the host chose to deal with the matter by pooh-poohing the existence of these atrocities.

I was shocked. These programs are not secret, and their horrors have received some, if less-than-deserved, coverage in the mainstream media. Indeed, the members of the Fujimori government were brought to trial and convicted of genocide for their enforcement of such policies. Yet here was this liberal gentleman, supposedly an anti-racist and feminist, a self-proclaimed defender of the poor and the helpless, shrugging off massive violations of human rights and extraordinary crimes directed against women, infants, and people of color. In amazement I blurted out, “This is a holocaust, and you should not be denying it!”

Then it hit me. I was dealing with a holocaust denier.

You see, this is the difference between skeptics and alarmist (deniers).  Skeptics, such as most of the readers here, inspect, read, and weigh the “science” of climate catastrophe.  And, we find it lacking.  If you’ll excuse the play, the “science” itself gives us climate indigestion.  But, when one asks a climate alarmist to inspect not only the science they tout, but also the results of their advocacy, they typically simply refuse.  And, so we spend $billions in true Quixotic form, impoverishing millions and severely restricting our abilities to provide true help to developing nations and help for the impoverished at home. 

For the imbecilic people who will refuse to use a search engine for examples of infanticide and the like in pursuit of Malthusian ideas, here are just two examples documenting such horrific and contemptible acts.  http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html  and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281722,00.html  there are many, many more examples. 

This entry was posted in Climate, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Denying The Mountains Of Evidence By Deniers

  1. Me says:

    This is some of your best work so far, or I think so.

  2. miked1947 says:

    Sorry James:
    I do not analyse the “Scientific” anything they produce. I do analyze the stuff they regurgitate and call it science. But science it is not. For science you need a testable Hypothesis.
    I copied this as a point:
    A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning “to put under” or “to suppose”.[1] For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.
    I found this claim in WIKI! PFA that they do not understand that climate shit is not even a testable hypothesis. NOT Science in any way.
    This is the main thing about the Chicken Little Brigade that has kept me going after their regurgitated hog slop.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s