Warmists getting angrier

As their computer models fail and their predictions of doom fail to materialize, the warmist cult is employing more and more extreme language to denounce those who disagree with their cant. The UK Mail on Sunday provides a vivid example from the experience of its journalist David Rose.

I've never supported the British National Party or the Ku Klux Klan. I've never belonged to the Paedophile Information Exchange, or denied the Holocaust, or made a penny from the banking crash. 

But if you read The Guardian newspaper's website, you might think otherwise. A commentator on it urged my own children to murder me.

He did so because of one of the many stories I've written for this newspaper about climate change. I first reported on the subject nearly six years ago: my article was about the 'climategate' scandal, where leaked emails showed university scientists were trying to cover up data that suggested their claim the world is hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years may be wrong.

Ever since then, I have been labelled a 'climate change denier' – a phrase which, since I happen to be Jewish, has particularly unfortunate connotations for me. 

And this is despite the fact I believe the world IS warming, and that carbon dioxide produced by mankind IS a greenhouse gas, and IS partly responsible for higher temperatures – and have repeatedly said so.

On the other hand, I also think that the imminence of the threat posed by global warming has been exaggerated – chiefly because the grimmer computer projections haven't been reflected by what's been happening recently to temperatures in the real world. 

One of the characteristics of cults is that their greatest fury is reserved for dissidents within, the moderates who generally agree, but who deviate from the official line. They are the greatest threat because they appeal to fellow cultists.

Rose offers a worthwhile chronicle of tosme of the other extreme language being employed by the cult. For example:

Language only barely less extreme is now common. In the US, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has written that anyone who denies global warming must be 'punished in the afterlife… this kind of denial is an almost inconceivable sin'.

Observer columnist Nick Cohen says he is sick of hearing climate sceptics whinge that being called 'deniers' equates them with those who deny the Holocaust: 'The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz. No other word will do.'

Mr. Cohen is not to be trusted on any subject if he thinks this way. Historic fact is not the same thing as computer models, and that is all that the warmists have, along with a track record of fantasy predictions that have not come true.

This is a remarkable and dangerous age, one in which violent rhetoric is employed by people entrenched in various powerful establishments. Worrisome does not begin to describe it.

Read the whole thing. As usual with the Daily Mail, there are great pictures.

As their computer models fail and their predictions of doom fail to materialize, the warmist cult is employing more and more extreme language to denounce those who disagree with their cant. The UK Mail on Sunday provides a vivid example from the experience of its journalist David Rose.

I've never supported the British National Party or the Ku Klux Klan. I've never belonged to the Paedophile Information Exchange, or denied the Holocaust, or made a penny from the banking crash. 

But if you read The Guardian newspaper's website, you might think otherwise. A commentator on it urged my own children to murder me.

He did so because of one of the many stories I've written for this newspaper about climate change. I first reported on the subject nearly six years ago: my article was about the 'climategate' scandal, where leaked emails showed university scientists were trying to cover up data that suggested their claim the world is hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years may be wrong.

Ever since then, I have been labelled a 'climate change denier' – a phrase which, since I happen to be Jewish, has particularly unfortunate connotations for me. 

And this is despite the fact I believe the world IS warming, and that carbon dioxide produced by mankind IS a greenhouse gas, and IS partly responsible for higher temperatures – and have repeatedly said so.

On the other hand, I also think that the imminence of the threat posed by global warming has been exaggerated – chiefly because the grimmer computer projections haven't been reflected by what's been happening recently to temperatures in the real world. 

One of the characteristics of cults is that their greatest fury is reserved for dissidents within, the moderates who generally agree, but who deviate from the official line. They are the greatest threat because they appeal to fellow cultists.

Rose offers a worthwhile chronicle of tosme of the other extreme language being employed by the cult. For example:

Language only barely less extreme is now common. In the US, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has written that anyone who denies global warming must be 'punished in the afterlife… this kind of denial is an almost inconceivable sin'.

Observer columnist Nick Cohen says he is sick of hearing climate sceptics whinge that being called 'deniers' equates them with those who deny the Holocaust: 'The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz. No other word will do.'

Mr. Cohen is not to be trusted on any subject if he thinks this way. Historic fact is not the same thing as computer models, and that is all that the warmists have, along with a track record of fantasy predictions that have not come true.

This is a remarkable and dangerous age, one in which violent rhetoric is employed by people entrenched in various powerful establishments. Worrisome does not begin to describe it.

Read the whole thing. As usual with the Daily Mail, there are great pictures.