'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' — 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'


By Marc Morano

A public appeal has been issued by an influential U.S. website asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S. The anonymous posting, dated June 2, 2009, referred to dissenters of man-made global warming fears as “greedy bastards” who use “bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool” to “distort data.”

The Talking Points Memo article continues: “So when the right wing f***tards 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?”

Read the rest at Climate Depot.

50 Responses to 'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' — 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'

  1. Neil F. June 10, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    This does not suprise me, at all. I’ve been wondering when something like this would surface. It is basically a statement to freighten us into shutting up. And it will fail.
    This is all part of the growing fear that alarmists have that nothing will be done to “save the planet”. And time is not on their side. Mainly because the longer they wait the more the public is realizing that the global warming alarmism is unfounded, mainly because THE EARTH ISN’T WARMING. And people are beginning to notice.

  2. Paul Wenum June 10, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    “Make my day”. I would love to see you at my doorstep!

    This is what they teach in our institiutes of higher education? 1938 all over again.

    Anything to get the “average person afraid.” Fear is good, it make’s me “focused.”

  3. Rob N. Hood June 11, 2009 at 8:05 am #

    Is this article ridiculously anecdotal and gratuitously inflammatory? Nah!

  4. bgates June 11, 2009 at 8:48 am #

    Neil, you are so correct my friend! IMHO, when gas prices hit $200 per barrel (approx. $5-$6 per gallon) we will see something that we never thought we would in our life. Civil War! We will see American troops patrolling our neighborhoods in armored vehicles killing US citizens. We will see violence like we’ve never seen before. This will all start because of the Global Climate Scam. Once the Liberals ram-rod Cap N Trade through the senate we will start to see the signs. American Mfg companies will either close down or go overseas (because no one will tell India or China to adopt Cap n Trade). We will see unemployment around 20%, soup lines and corporate office complexes turned into homeless shelters. I hope I’m wrong but I predicted this on Nov. 5th, 2008. I have all my friends now convinced this may happen because they see the massive inflation that is going to hit us next year and the unemployment rate creeping up every month.

  5. Rob N. Hood June 11, 2009 at 9:43 am #

    Those damn Liberals! Maybe they should all be lined up and…??!!

  6. Neil F. June 11, 2009 at 8:51 pm #

    I’m not as pessamistic. I heard today that the cap and trade bill is in trouble. I heard Jason Lewis mention it in the first hour of his 6/11 show.
    You can find that here: http://www.ktlkfm.com/cc-common/podcast.html
    once it updates.
    Also, I had some correspondence with Dr. Tim Ball. If you’re not familiar with him, he is one of the scientists featured on the Friends of Science video found here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/
    What he wrote to me, I posted in my comments here: http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?p=286#comments
    He doesn’t think the cap and trade bill will pass, just as congress did not ratify the Kyoto Protocols.
    And though $200 a barrel of oil is a possibility, I don’t think there will be a civil war, at least I hope not.

  7. Neil F. June 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm #

    Hey, sorry I have to correct myself. What I heard about the cap and trade bill being in trouble was not today’s Jason Lewis show. It was yesterday’s 6/10 2nd hour in an interview with Ok. Senator Jim Inhofe.
    It can be found here: http://www.ktlkfm.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=jasonlewis.xml
    But be aware that for some reason they have the 6/11 podcasts marked as 6/10.
    But the pertainant remarks can be heard between 7:00 and 8:00 minutes into the podcast. But the whole interview is definately worth listening to.

  8. Colin Wilkinson June 12, 2009 at 9:47 am #

    Minnesotans for Limited Government will be hosting a Free Market Ecolgy picnic at the Shoreview community center pavalion.4580 Victoria St N
    Shoreview, MN 55126. The picnic is Sat. June 20 from Noon to 4. All are invited, experts and friend of Freedom will be there to speak and educate.

  9. Robert Hudd June 12, 2009 at 11:38 am #

    Happy now, Paul?

    “If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy a long time ago.” — George Porter (1920 -) British chemist. The Observer, ‘Sayings of the Week,’ 26, Aug. 1973.

  10. Rob N. Hood June 13, 2009 at 11:37 am #

    Well, isn’t that what the article is implying, but the other way around? Why would you indicate the opposite as being a “boobish” statement? Is it beause Right-Wing groups are peace-loving and hardly ever violent? I don’t get it. Do you really think it’s fair to imply a normally peaceful group such as “Liberals” are somehow connected to some weirdo that makes a violent threat? I would only connect a group to such a person if there was a direct link. There are wackos on both ends of the political spectrum. And correct me if I’m wrong but at this time in history there are many many more potentially violent right-wing groups in this country, and so focusing on something as anecdotal as this is unnecessarily inflammatory, in my humble opinion.

  11. Neil F. June 13, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

    I do agree wholeheartedly that there are wackos on both ends of the spectrum.
    But show me any instance where anybody on the right has suggested anything like this about people who promote the theory of AGP. Only in your imagination can you turn it around and use it as an argument.
    Now if you were talking about abortion, that may be a different story.
    I personally think abortion is murder, but I do not condone the killings of doctors and the bombings of clinics that perform abrtions. I don’t believe that is the answer.
    But we are not talking about abortion, we are talking about the theory of AGP. And in that context no one is calling for the deaths of James Hanson, or members of the IPCC from the right. So in that context your statement is boobish, because it is not supported by any facts, just like all of your other arguments.

  12. Neil F. June 13, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    Now I get it. You are actually referring to the DHS right-wing extremism report. Yes the one that was issued to law enforcement agencies across the country that said veterans, and other right-wing groups, are potential recruits for terrorist attacks against the U.S.
    Well I don’t know if you heard what Janet Napolitano said about it when she pulled it. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/14/report-citing-vet-extremism-is-pulled/
    So there you go believing everything you read again. Who is the sucker?

  13. Rob N. Hood June 13, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    So let’s get this straight- you mock me for having to point out the well-recognized FACT that Right-wing extremists are CURRENTLY MORE OF an issue in this country due to their threats AND willingness to use violence, and actually have- and you say I’m a sucker for believing an official report about it, not to mention the REALITY of it on the news almost daily. And yet you are not refuting or even questioning this non-story about ONE anonymous POSTER, who may or may not have actually posted what is reported, and even if it was- IT’S ONE NUTJOB POSTING ANONYMOUSLY- FOR ALL ANJYONE KNOWS S/HE IS A RIGHT-WINGER TRYING TO STIR UP EMOTIONS. And you call me a sucker?? Wow.

  14. Neil F. June 13, 2009 at 8:54 pm #

    Read it!
    Other than this report, what source do you have for the “well documented facts” that you’re talking about? Hmm? None, that’s what.
    That’s because it is baseless and fraudulant. And, just like global warming, you want to believe its true.
    So just like your other claims I have to just say PROVE IT! But all you will do is come back with other baseless accusations.
    PROVE IT!!!

  15. Neil F. June 13, 2009 at 9:06 pm #

    On the news almost daily? PROVE IT!
    “CURRENTLY MORE OF an issue in this country due to their threats AND willingness to use violence, and actually have- ”
    When and where? PROVE IT!
    You can’t prove it, and I’ll tell you why you can’t. Because it’s all in your perception of reality, your subjective reality, which is not credible to my subjective reality. And that is because I require evidence. Evidence that you can’t submit because it doesn’t exist. Otherwise you would.
    Why don’t you shut me up Rob? Give me some proof of what you say and I will never question you again.

  16. Rob N. Hood June 13, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    Neil, settle down. It’s just right-wing kooks. I’m not calling you a right-wing kook. Why so sensitive? The old guy who killed the black security guard at the DC Holocaust Museum- he (was) right-wing. The guy that killed the Late-Term abortion doctor- he’s right-wing. Sorry, but this is FACT. There’s a established uptick of right-wing extremist activity ever since Obama was elected. That in and of itself is/was predictable. You are in denial guy.

  17. Neil F. June 14, 2009 at 1:48 am #

    You know you’re right about the guy that killed the late-term abortion doctor. It’s kind of iffy about Von Braun though (the holocaust museum shooter). From what I have read about him, he was a 9/11 “truther” who believed there was a government conspiracy to cause 9/11. He hated Bush and McCain, and, obviously, hated Jews. I wouldn’t exactly call those right-wing positions.
    But again, back to what this about. Anthropogenic Global Warming. I have already conceeded about the extreme position of some on the far right on the abortion issue, and that I disagree with murdering anybody for any reason. What this is about is you suggesting that we line up liberals and shoot them because they belive in AGW. My point is that nowhere has anybody suggested anything of the sort…. except for you, and the blogger that has alledgedly called for deniers to be executed.
    If you think it’s a made up story, fine. That would be an honest opinion. Why don’t you just say that?
    I guess to put it in terms you understand, I feel like you did when I tried to lump you in with anarchists when you suggest that people like me are like the nutcases that shoot abortion doctors, and security guards in the back. Remember, I actually agreed with you that there are nutcases on both ends of the spectrum. I am talking about the AGW issue. OK?

  18. Neil F. June 14, 2009 at 2:13 am #

    I just want to say that door swings in either direction.
    This is from the executive summary of this report from the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Safeguards and Security Washington, DC
    “Citizens in the United States have a right to their beliefs and to express those beliefs even if they advocate creating a new nation within the boundaries of the United States. However, recent history proves there is always a possibility that a few extremists may be attracted to these causes, left and right, who decide to use terrorist tactics to achieve their goals. The challenge to law enforcement and security is not to interfere with the rights of individuals to express their beliefs while also providing a means for the early identification of extremists who are planning criminal actions.”

    I’m guilty of it too. So let’s try to keep our comments on topic. I get tired of these things degenerating into an idealogical pissing contest. Don’t you?

  19. Rob N. Hood June 14, 2009 at 8:04 am #

    Some progress with you not being 100% strident. I never suggested you were a violent right-wing extremist. So get off that. But to continue to deny that the far right is more of a concern in this country at this time is dishonest at best, or deluded at worst. THAT was the issue we were discussing. AND I was being IRONIC and SARCASTIC when I said- line up the Liberals. It’s fair to say many right-wing extemists have said that, will say that, and won’t ever stop saying that. That’s all. You’re too defensive when is comes to anything “right-wing” because that is what you are. Note: I did not say you were an extremist, or a militant, or anything like that. Stop putting words in my mouth. You still haven’t addressed my legitimate questions to you about your “AGW” beliefs that people, i.e. Liberals and Climate Change believers are out to destroy this country. Your words not mine. For what purpose do you think that would serve exactly? You need to answer this otherwise ALL of your previous posts are suspect and incomplete.

  20. Rob N. Hood June 14, 2009 at 9:52 am #

    by Mark Karlin

    In more than 9 years, nothing has been as profoundly wounding to me since 9/11 as yesterday’s act of domestic terrorism at the Holocaust Museum — its location so tragically symbolic.

    Like most Liberals we welcomed the election of Barack Obama as a return to America’s Constitutional, pro-democracy roots — and as a step into a future filled with promise and opportunity, not the destruction, tyranny and lies of the Bush Administration.

    But what none of us expected is that the right-wing media shills and their corporate owners would unleash what is becoming an armed rebellion of white males against our governnment: the likes of FOX, Limbaugh, Savage and the whole treasonous crew has lit the match — with a wink and a nod — of the long, historic White Power movement, while inciting the displaced and confused anger of the more casually involved white male who sees the economy and his “entitlement of race and gender” slipping away from him.

    Make no mistake about it, these are perhaps the first skirmishes in a right-wing media convergence with the White Power movement and the official military ordinance lobby for both of them — the NRA.

    Yesterday’s domestic terrorism act was not just another murder in America’s shooting gallery; it was the clearest sign in a series of recent shooting deaths that the right wing is going to use the White Power movement as its foot soldiers in leading this nation into bloody attacks, assassinations, and chaos — out of which the white Christian nation will “triumph.” If all of this sounds a bit familiar, it’s because the notion of racial and political purity and power is a horror that we have lived through before.

    How quickly our euphoria has faded. We thought that we would be facing vibrant public policy debates over healthcare and civil liberties, and now we have to prepare for a war on the “lone wolves,” the militia movement, and the pernicious, treason-inciting talk show hosts of the right wing.

    If you are wondering what you can do at this moment of helplessness, you can read “Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream,” by White Power specialist Leonard Zeskind. Just published this spring, it exhaustively and compellingly reveals (672 pages) what we are up against — and it may be a challenge far more daunting than dealing with al Qaeda, because the right wing of the Republican Party is unleashing this movement through their media puppets.

  21. Neil F. June 14, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

    If that’s what you believe, that’s what you believe. I am no longer going to get into a fruitless pissing contest with you over this bullcrap. And it is complete and utter bullcrap.

  22. Neil F. June 14, 2009 at 4:08 pm #

    “The anti-Jew rhetoric in this country today comes from the American left and from the circle of people that are close to Barack Obama. We do not need lectures from those people on the left. It is they, ladies and gentlemen, who have a lot to answer for. It is they who are fomenting racial and religious tension in this country. This nutjob, this guy that pulled the trigger yesterday, has more in common with the marchers and protesters we see at left-wing rallies.”

  23. Rob N. Hood June 14, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    Ok, so you won’t answer my question two posts above even though it gets to the heart of the matter completely. I will answer it for you, but not yet. You have previously participated in this “pissing contest” as you now call it. I see it as an honest debate. Gee, I guess you’ve been just wasting (pissing away) your valuable time- why bother to post anything if you really aren’t trying to convince anyone who is skeptical and questioning of your logic/reasoning?

    If anyone needed more evidence that we are slowly but surely moving toward fascism this is it. The brutal assassination of George Tiller has been in the offing for decades according to some observers. Scott Roeder is not some disgruntled, jobless worker on a rampage; he is a calculated and fanatical killer who is ideologically motivated. Roeder had long been a member of right wing, extremist anti-government groups. Membership in such groups is quickly growing and the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified 926 separate hate groups in the US in 2008, a 50% increase over 2000. A recent report by The National Council of La Raza claims that these groups have a collective membership of about 45 million people or 15% of the US population!!

    The 1990 Hate Crimes Statistics Act obliged the FBI and thousands of law enforcement agencies to create a hate crime data base and make annual reports; since that time the FBI has tended to report on average 6,000 to 8,000 hate crimes a year. Civil rights organizations believe such crimes to be vastly under reported by the FBI; a more realistic estimate ranges from 25,000 to even 50,000 a year!! Expect to see more of the ever increasing violent hate crimes. And no, the GOP isn’t shy about stirring them up.

    Out of desperation the GOP is moving further and further to the right. They seemingly have little realistic choice other than to disband and form a new party…? US society is polarized. The middle class is disappearing. The Dems are being pushed only slightly further “left” by progressives, a growing number of new Dem Party members. Obama doesn’t seem to be listening to them and insists on being a centrist Clinton-style Democrat.

    On the GOP side they pretend at times to be moving to the center to keep young people, the few minorities they do have, much of the business community and middle class skilled workers. The reason they pretend they are moving to the center is because that would alienate the much larger traditional base of the GOP, the hard core conservatives.

    More and more people are abandoning the GOP. They are too religious for the free spirited Libertarians and too old and white for the rest. To take up the slack they are looking further and further right. These people are not the usual crowd. Those beginning to appear at the GOP’s door looking for leadership are far right anti-semitic conspiracy mongers, career racists who argue for a connection between race and IQ, extreme warmongers and even Neo-Nazis. It is no accident that Ron Paul received a $500.00 donation from Nazi Website, Stormfront and that Paul is the favored candidate of all such people.

  24. Rob N. Hood June 14, 2009 at 4:20 pm #

    Oh no- you didnt’ just post something from Rush, the pill-popper- Limbaugh… Ok, then game over. You win, sort of. If you believe ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING from that lying traitor, well, you’re correct- we have nothing more to discuss or debate. I thought your true colors would come out eventually. I’ve been more honest than you all along. See ya, don’t wanta be ya- Dittohead.

  25. Neil F. June 14, 2009 at 5:41 pm #

    Oh, yes, I did. And I got the reaction that I was going for.
    Just who is showing their true colors? And what about the answer to my questions about the rich elite that are controlling us that you completely sidestepped?
    And how dare you get indignant when I post something from Limbaugh. He’s not nearly half as incendiary than the Leftist garbage lies that you post. You believe you are being honest but your head is full of Left wing bull. You are so married to your beliefs that I bet you never once clicked on a link that I posted. You’re so arrogant you probably dismissed them out of hand without even looking.
    And I do believe what Limbaugh says. Like I said, I listen to him every day. As though you’d need that as an excuse to dismiss what I say. That is so disngenuous of you rob. You’ve dismissed everything that I have said from day one. And don’t even try to deny that.
    who is talking about preparing for war?
    “How quickly our euphoria has faded. We thought that we would be facing vibrant public policy debates over healthcare and civil liberties, and now we have to prepare for a war on the “lone wolves,” the militia movement, and the pernicious, treason-inciting talk show hosts of the right wing.”
    That’s your Mark Karlin talkin. And who the hell is in the militia movement that has any credibility with anyone? It’s made up! I don’t give a rat’s rear end what the SPLC says about it. It’s a lie to get people like you to think just what you are thinking now.
    Oh, and that’s so rational and open minded of you to say “the pill popping Rush Limbaugh”. I thought that you Liberals considered addicts to be victims. Espescially people who become addicted to a prescribed medication. Or is that only a selective consideration for people who have the same views that you do? Like there is no one in your life that has an addiction problem? You can get off that high horse right now buddy boy.
    What exactly did you hope to accomplish here? Am I supposed to cry now that you don’t want to play? Man If I’d known you would’ve reacted this way, I would’ve posted something from him long ago. In fact, if it repels you so strongly, I think I just might post something from him every day!
    So go. Go wrap yourself in your left wing propaganda. And when you come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with us right wing nuts is to line us up and shoot us. You will find out then what the second amendment of the constitution is all about. Come see me.

  26. Neil F. June 14, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    “There is an “election” — and I say election in quotes — in Iran today. The turnout, we hear, is astronomically high. It is so high that they had to extend voting by a full hour. President Mahmoud — listen to this from the government-run media, Reuters: “A representative of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the conservative president was ahead in Friday’s presidential vote.” Note, the conservative president, the conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Why, yeah, there’s no difference between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ronald Reagan. There’s no difference whatsoever. They’re both conservatives. Anyway, this whole election is a farce. Anybody with half a brain knows that the mullahs run the show. No matter who the president is, the mullahs run the show. The mullahs are the ones that are making decisions on whether to nuke up, go weapons or what have you, make no mistake about it.”
    -Rush Limbaugh

  27. Neil F. June 14, 2009 at 5:55 pm #

    “More and more Democrats are ready to vote against Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s climate change bill, according to a congressional committee chairman who opposes his leader.”

  28. Neil F. June 14, 2009 at 6:08 pm #

    Let’s see how the new savior, I mean, President is doing. Shall we?

    “NEW YORK (AP) – The Federal Reserve announced a $1.2 trillion plan three months ago designed to push down mortgage rates and breathe life into the housing market.

    But this and other big government spending programs are turning out to have the opposite effect. Rates for mortgages and U.S. Treasury debt are now marching higher as nervous bond investors fret about a resurgence of inflation.”

    How’s that for change you can believe in?

  29. Rob N. Hood June 14, 2009 at 6:19 pm #

    Nice threat you made above. Very nice. True colors, you hypocritical freak.

  30. Neil F. June 14, 2009 at 8:38 pm #

    Threat? You think I’m threatening you? How is saying that when you or your ilk come to get me I will defend myself a threat? Or should I just say Ok, come and shoot me? You’re the one that’s threatening by posting that dribble from Mark Karlin about “now we have to prepare for a war on the “lone wolves,” the militia movement, and the pernicious, treason-inciting talk show hosts of the right wing.”
    The origin of this discussion is a left-wing blogger thinking that skeptics of AGW should be executed. Then you try to turn it around and say that it’s the right-wing that is the threat.
    You are out of your mind. Out of one side of your face you attack the right as a bunch of lunatics that threaten terrorist acts, then out of the other side of your face you say “I never suggested you were a violent right-wing extremist.”
    But that is exactly what you are doing every time you post that left-wing bullcrap. Why would you post that if not to express what you think about Conservatives and others on the right? My veiws fall to the right, therfore, you ARE talking about me.
    This forum is about global warming, yet you contunually drift to politics and try to base that as an answer to skepticism about global warming.
    And you think thats reasonable. I don’t.
    And what sets you off? I didn’t answer a question that you said I have to answer. What do you think I sit all day at the computer? I do other things you know. You had already posted the Mark Karlin bullcrap by the time I got around to reading your post demanding your answer.
    I’ll tell you what. I’ll give you an answer when you give me an answer about the rich elite that control us. Who, and how?
    I’m waiting.

  31. Neil F. June 14, 2009 at 10:48 pm #

    Holy crap Rob!
    I have been looking into the answer to your question. I was never really focused on the conspiracy angle, and I always “felt” that there was a hidden agenda.
    But what I have found astounds me because it actually answers the question that I put to you about who the rich elites that control us are.

    “The common enemy of humanity is man.
    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
    with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
    water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
    dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
    changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
    The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

    “While researching for these articles, and during my academic studies, I have come across many references to the The Club of Rome (CoR), and reports produced by them. Initially I assumed that they were just another high-level environmental think-tank and dismissed the conspiracy theories found on many websites claiming that the CoR is a group of global elitists attempting to impose some kind of one world government.”

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
    industrialized civilizations collapse?
    Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
    – Maurice Strong,
    founder of the UN Environment Programme

    So you think I’m crazy? I challenge you to read all of the pages on that site. Then read this.

    It’s a lot of reading, I know, but it does handily outline the basis for a global warming conspiracy. And, it also answers my question about who the rich elites are that are controlling our lives.
    You know, I feel kinda like a boob myself now after reading most of this. It really seems to me now that what you and I have been doing here is exactly what they want us to do. We have been pitted against each other. They want us to argue, and fight, so we will be distracted from what they are doing. These people are not stupid, and they are playing us both like a stratavarius. So I am done.

  32. Paul Wenum June 15, 2009 at 9:46 pm #

    Gentlemen, Am I missing something? It is about “global warming/cooling” and how it effects us, if it truly does. Myself, Rob (whatever your “real name is) and you Neil. Both off subject. Let the people that watch/listen to the left media that calls President Obama “God,” and yes, he is OUR President and I hope he does well, spew their hate filled rhetoric. The average person will hopefully see the effects of our elected officials actions. All I know from what I have read/ researched is there is a very big element of doubt that it is man made. This is the “core” of all our disagreements/arguments. Nothing more, nothing less. Let’s hope truth prevails. That’s all I have to say about it. Let’s get back to the case at hand.

  33. Neil F. June 16, 2009 at 7:06 pm #

    Fear not, I am done arguing. If you look at my last post you will see that I have discovered something that has completely blown my mind. I am currently looking into things and connections that explain a great deal about many things that are tied together, including global warming. I will be back, but I have a lot more reading to do. I also need to gather my thoughts and pin down just what I think about all of this.

  34. Paul Wenum June 16, 2009 at 9:19 pm #

    Neil, I trust your judgment. One thing I like is that you investigate, look at both sides and state your true feelings. It is apparent, like me and others that you don’t simply read “People” magazine as an “informative Source” nor let any other authors without facts bias your true opinions. Keep me posted.

  35. Robert N. Hudd June 17, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

    For once I have to agree with Neil. (!) We have, I think, thought a little deeper than you, Paul, and realize that there is an agenda, besides just the surface issue. What we disagree about is who benefits, and why. The why is easier than the who. The why is… money and power. It is like a drug to people and the ones that have it will do anything to keep it, and only want more of it. The who… well, I am going to read what Neil posted above, but in the end I’m afraid that he and I will probably continue to disagree on that. And get off the name thing, lots of people post psuedonyms on the Net; even Neil doesn’t post his last name, and I don’t care that he doesn’t. Anyone who wants that privacy can have it. Dan doesn’t care so you shouldn’t either.

  36. Neil F. June 18, 2009 at 1:06 am #

    I just took a moment to read the entire post at the beginning of this thread. It not only documents the anomynous blogger’s call to jail and/or execute climate skeptics, it also lists many instances of threats, intimidation, and censorship of climate skeptics.
    I am saddened by this because there has not been an open debate on this subject for a long time, if ever.
    I believe this to be the case because if it were an open, honest debate about global warming, the advocates of this theory would be handily trounced.
    When you take the evidence, and I mean solid scientific facts and recorded observations, the global warming theory crumbles into dust.
    But, this has never been about a scientific theory. This has always been about a method to bring about a reorganization of the sociological structure of the world, with the goal of a one world government under the united nations in control.
    I have been a total fool, arguing about facts and about what computer models are good for. None of that matters, not even a little.
    The global warming fight is just one front in a larger war. And yes, it is a war. It is a war between elitist earth worshipers who believe the earth is a living organism, that see humanity as a cancer, that want to reorganize the world in their vision of how it should be. Against the rest of us who want to live in freedom, travel where we want when and how we want, worship our God as we were brought up to believe, live where we want to live, and, oh yeah….LIVE.
    Yes, that’s correct, live as in be alive. Because for this new world order to be sustainable the population of the world will need to be culled to somewhere between 500 million to a billion total population. That means that 5.7 to 6.2 BILLION people are going to have to “sacrifice themselves” for the sake of Mother Earth. And I don’t think I’m going to be on the short list.
    Now of course you probably think I’m nuts. But I have had my eyes opened by reading this: http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
    Just read it, and then tell me I’m nuts.

  37. Rob N. Hood June 18, 2009 at 8:22 am #

    The best propaganda is that which attacks the other side as the true conspiricy. They take many actual details of the other side’s agenda, whether factual or not, and turn it around 180 degrees. Then they throw in some completely made up crap, just to make it sound as bad as possible. It is a simple but very effective technique. Neil, you’re simply believing what you want to believe.

    You and I (and many many other people) know we are being screwed. But we disagree in who is screwing us, and why. We disagree on that because it seems humans are programed one way or the other- meaning we tend to see the world from one persepctive or the other (in this country the terms are Liberal/Conservative), partially because it makes things a bit simpler to differentiate. I believe that people like us will never change their minds, because our brains work a bit differently, for whatever reason. It is my theory that we all use one side of our brain more than the other. And it is a fact that both sides of the brain function differently, or to put it another way, have different functions, mostly regarding the way we think and process emotions.

    I’ve read your posted “Agenda 21” and the other post above, and I feel even more certain that I’ve been right all along and you are wrong. What you fail to acknowledge is who currently has the most power in the world today and why. The why is fossil fuels, and military spending. Much money has been made via these two things. AND they go hand in hand. You cannot use today’s military hardware without Oil. Plain and simple. War/Military is big business (the biggest), always has been, but due to the high cost of modern military equipment it is even more so. Eisenhower warned the American poeple about this when he was leaving office. In my opinion he was the last good Republican president we have had, and probably will have. And that is because Republicans (and increasingly many more Democrats) are reliant upon big buisness (read military) to keep them in power. Oil is ultimately the most essential military weapon.

    These weathy and powerful people are very very worried (as they should be) that they will lose power as the world weans itself off (not completely) fossil fuels. They know it is inevitable, but they will hang onto their power as long as then can. It is only natural that they do so. AND they have the world’s most powerful military industrial complex on thier side.

    I’m done trying to teach you poeple anything.

  38. Neil F. June 18, 2009 at 9:18 pm #

    I owe you an apology. Really, I do, I mean it.
    I have been going over some of the recent posts on other stories here, and I read the article that you posted by Gatto about the international banks. I missed that one. So I apologise for demanding that you show me some evidence about that, when you already did.
    I am no longer going to jump back and forth between stories. It leads to me missing things and me making statements out of context. You already think I’m an idiot, and I don’t want want to fuel that perception. So, I am only going to post my thoughts on the current articles only.
    You just go on being you.
    I’m no longer going to get sucked in to socio-political arguments that, though I have opinions about, are not the purpose of this website. From now on, for me, it’s global warming scam all the time. Have fun!!!

  39. Neil F. June 18, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    “The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around.”

  40. Paul Wenum June 18, 2009 at 11:49 pm #

    Neil well said, however remember, I’m not a “deep thinker” like Rob said. No, I’m Just a simple man with, I hope, common sense. Thanks again Neil.

  41. Neil F. June 19, 2009 at 7:25 am #

    You’re welcome.
    I think it is interesting how Rob has been able to distract me from the purpose of this site. There is no argument about the science involved in the global warming hypothesis, there is only attacks on ideaology. He chooses his statements carefully, and uses only the most insulting and incendiary points of view to throw off the discussion.
    I don’t like to be manipulated. But Rob has successfully manipulated me, and drawn me into arguments about ideaology.
    I am now wondering if he does it for kicks, or if he is acting under the direction of a larger group whos purpose is to disrupt sites such as this one.
    Well, either way, I’m out of that game. From now on I am here to talk about global warming, and the global warming scam. Period.
    And on that note I just want to say that when observations do not coincide with predictions, it generally means the predictions are wrong.
    Well, the predictions made by global warming fearmongers have not materialized. So it is logical to conclude that the prdictions were wrong.
    So I suppose what Rob will post next is an article titled something like “Study shows that Conservatives are knuckle-dragging-mouth-breathers!”

  42. Neil F. June 19, 2009 at 11:14 am #

    “From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination,” the researchers wrote in an article, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” recently published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin.

    Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.

    The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

    Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material – which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups – yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.

    The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought – the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

    The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.

    Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism – an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

    Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.

    This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an “elegant and unifying explanation” for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people’s attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.

    The researchers’ analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed “more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism,” Sulloway said.

    While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.

    As for conservatives’ penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals’ general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives’ opposing position.

    The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that “does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled.”

    They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.

    “In many cases, including mass politics, ‘liberal’ traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty,” the researchers wrote.

    This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

    The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser.

    “For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability,” he said.

    Glaser acknowledged that the team’s exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.

    The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

    Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

    Although they concluded that conservatives are less “integratively complex” than others are, Glaser said, “it doesn’t mean that they’re simple-minded.”

    Conservatives don’t feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. “They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm,” Glaser said.

    He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, “I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right.” And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, “Look, my job isn’t to nuance.”

  43. Rob N. Hood June 19, 2009 at 11:38 am #

    “Oderint dum metuant” – Let them hate, provided they fear. — Motto of Emperor Tiberius

    The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of a person, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at?

    We have lost much in this country, a sense of community, caring, duty to one’s fellow human beings . . . this was something understood years ago, (before Nixon) today it’s completely disappeared . . . the Bush GOP’s way is every man, woman, and child for themselves . . . if you are out of job, clothing, medicine, food, too damn bad. They couldn’t care less, and they don’t want anyone else to care either. They don’t want US government to take responsibility for the people of this nation. They want us Americans to get used to debt, death, and destruction. We don’t have to wonder what our forefathers would have to say today. They would be saying plenty, and it wouldn’t be pretty.

    This appears to be the bottom for America folks. It’s the same reason we do not have a true oppositional political party that works for the majority of the American people. They have healthcare, and they are all multimillionaires, and none of the Bush GOP has ever served in US military, but were quick to vote for the hell on earth that Bush gave to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, along with some Democrats. These members of the GOP in Congress aren’t hurting, yet, they are still getting paid for doing a contemptible, mean, and loathsome job for the American people, and again, along with some Democrats.

  44. Lone Wolf June 19, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    The last 2 posts demonstrate a need for a fairytale czar.

  45. Neil F. June 19, 2009 at 6:11 pm #

    Hey, my last post got edited probably for length. Dan you should have cut some of that claptrap off the end, and left my first paragraphs. I only posted that article because it bashes conservatives. Sort of a jab at Rob, as in it looked like something he would post.
    What got taken out that preceeded it was “Here Rob I beat you to it”.
    I actually didn’t realize how long it was until I posted it. Sorry Dan.
    Lone Wolf’s little interjection there is hillarious.
    On to the next post!

  46. Dan McGrath June 19, 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    Actually, it was a personal comment that led to the editing. I almost deleted the whole thing due to length, but decided to be merciful this time.

  47. Neil F. June 20, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    You should have deleted the whole thing then, because that article is not my view. But, I don’t really care anymore. From now on I’m sticking with the climate science, or lack thereof, and the global climate scam. I get sucked into Rob’s game too easily.

  48. Eric S. June 29, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    Uh, that was an article about an anomymous posting on a website. On the bell curve of marginal conspiracy theorist web site editorial restraint this site is pretty far to the left.

  49. Rob N. Hood July 2, 2009 at 3:52 pm #

    Sometimes the truth is hard to recognize and accept. In fact it often is. Your job as a human with the big brain God gave us is to use it, to accept ugly truths and fix them. Otherwise what good is all that grey matter?

  50. Paul Wenum July 16, 2009 at 8:57 pm #

    Let’s get back to “Global Warming facts or folly.” IT, pending legislation to totally control of our lives is on the doorstep! People must understand the consequences and how it will affect our families AND our Countries future, not China or Russia, long term. Get back on point and let this dribble go. Later.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.