The climate Gulag archipelago

Climate alarmism, like all leftist propaganda, has turned virulent among its many followers.  It has been widely chronicled how the Gang Green – the radical environmental Nazis pushing climate change to establish an international order – has threatened nonbelievers or at least fantasized about horrible things being done to those who simply do not agree with their marginal and rather manipulated science.  We've had professors calling for the death penalty for climate change "denial," and we've had calls for Nuremberg-style trials for "deniers."  They have tried to call those who do not believe in global warming insane.  Even NASA scientist James Hansen called for trials of "deniers," a blood libel term designed to evoke visions of neo-Nazis.

Well, here's another one for you.  Over at Quadrant, Tony Thomas has unearthed a 2008 fantasy document from Forum for the Future, a hard-left Green infection posing as a non-profit group. 

Their dream?  A gulag archipelago for climate change-deniers.

The Kerguelen islands are horridly cold and windy specks near the Antarctic, populated by a few score of French scientists and several thousand sheep.  But to a leading British green group, Forum for the Future, it has enormous potential as an internationally[] run penal colony for global warming s[k]eptics.

The [f]orum's founder-director is Jonathon Porritt, 67, Eton- and Oxford-bred [c]hancellor of Keele University, adviser to Prince Charles, and Green Party activist.  The Forum's fancy for Kerguelen can be found in its 76-page report "Climate Futures – Responses to Climate Change in 2030," written in conjunction with Hewlett-Packard, a company [that] should know better.  This scenario, one of five, involves the naughty world delaying the reduction of emissions, for which we must all suffer.

It isn't good enough for these green fascists to win the argument; they must punish those who disagree with them, and in as severe a fashion as Stalin did.

The report further states:

Expensive, state-funded information campaigns reinforce the need for changes to lifestyles and aim to keep the mandate for state intervention strong.  Inevitably parallels are drawn between this and the authoritarian state propaganda of the twentieth century.

"Climate crime" is a social faux pas everywhere, but in some countries it is a crime to publicly question the existence of anthropogenic climate change or to propose actions that could in some way contribute to climate change.

It is very rare to come across dissenting voices with any real power, but resistance to overly strong state intervention is occasionally violent.  The media in some countries [have] been permitted to discuss whether the single focus on resolving climate change means that other equally important or inter-linked issues are being ignored.

So it is fine for government to conduct propaganda to enforce the Official Truth.  The Soviets had a word for that: "pravda."

The report continues:

[I]n some countries a licen[s]e is now required to have children and these are awarded according to a points system. Climate-friendly behavio[]r means points[.]

So we must have a breeding license, and to acquire one, we must be good little boys and girls, obedient to our masters.

This appears to be an astonishingly radical, revolutionary document, yet it is not outside the mainstream – some of the names of those who backed this are surprising.

The list includes Kimberly-Clark, Unilever, the Shell Foundation, Target, and a host of others.

The point here is to illustrate the totalitarian mindset of these people.  They can't let reality speak for itself; they have to silence those who point out that they have been wrong on many occasions.  Like Herod imprisoning and then murdering John the Baptist, these people will do anything to shut the mouths of those trying to stop their dreams – dreams that, experience suggests, will become nightmares to the majority if enacted.

Liberals – and that includes the environmentalists – are juveniles.  They think like pre-adults, reason like pre-adults.  And when confronted with the reality that their juvenile thinking does not comport with the way things work, their answer is as juvenile: to shut mouths and punish those who disagree with them.

To dream of the murder or exile of an opponent is the ultimate in childish thinking.  These people do not belong anywhere near the mechanisms of power.

Hat tip: Paul Driessen

Read more from Tim and friends at The Aviary www.tbirdnow.mee.nu.

Climate alarmism, like all leftist propaganda, has turned virulent among its many followers.  It has been widely chronicled how the Gang Green – the radical environmental Nazis pushing climate change to establish an international order – has threatened nonbelievers or at least fantasized about horrible things being done to those who simply do not agree with their marginal and rather manipulated science.  We've had professors calling for the death penalty for climate change "denial," and we've had calls for Nuremberg-style trials for "deniers."  They have tried to call those who do not believe in global warming insane.  Even NASA scientist James Hansen called for trials of "deniers," a blood libel term designed to evoke visions of neo-Nazis.

Well, here's another one for you.  Over at Quadrant, Tony Thomas has unearthed a 2008 fantasy document from Forum for the Future, a hard-left Green infection posing as a non-profit group. 

Their dream?  A gulag archipelago for climate change-deniers.

The Kerguelen islands are horridly cold and windy specks near the Antarctic, populated by a few score of French scientists and several thousand sheep.  But to a leading British green group, Forum for the Future, it has enormous potential as an internationally[] run penal colony for global warming s[k]eptics.

The [f]orum's founder-director is Jonathon Porritt, 67, Eton- and Oxford-bred [c]hancellor of Keele University, adviser to Prince Charles, and Green Party activist.  The Forum's fancy for Kerguelen can be found in its 76-page report "Climate Futures – Responses to Climate Change in 2030," written in conjunction with Hewlett-Packard, a company [that] should know better.  This scenario, one of five, involves the naughty world delaying the reduction of emissions, for which we must all suffer.

It isn't good enough for these green fascists to win the argument; they must punish those who disagree with them, and in as severe a fashion as Stalin did.

The report further states:

Expensive, state-funded information campaigns reinforce the need for changes to lifestyles and aim to keep the mandate for state intervention strong.  Inevitably parallels are drawn between this and the authoritarian state propaganda of the twentieth century.

"Climate crime" is a social faux pas everywhere, but in some countries it is a crime to publicly question the existence of anthropogenic climate change or to propose actions that could in some way contribute to climate change.

It is very rare to come across dissenting voices with any real power, but resistance to overly strong state intervention is occasionally violent.  The media in some countries [have] been permitted to discuss whether the single focus on resolving climate change means that other equally important or inter-linked issues are being ignored.

So it is fine for government to conduct propaganda to enforce the Official Truth.  The Soviets had a word for that: "pravda."

The report continues:

[I]n some countries a licen[s]e is now required to have children and these are awarded according to a points system. Climate-friendly behavio[]r means points[.]

So we must have a breeding license, and to acquire one, we must be good little boys and girls, obedient to our masters.

This appears to be an astonishingly radical, revolutionary document, yet it is not outside the mainstream – some of the names of those who backed this are surprising.

The list includes Kimberly-Clark, Unilever, the Shell Foundation, Target, and a host of others.

The point here is to illustrate the totalitarian mindset of these people.  They can't let reality speak for itself; they have to silence those who point out that they have been wrong on many occasions.  Like Herod imprisoning and then murdering John the Baptist, these people will do anything to shut the mouths of those trying to stop their dreams – dreams that, experience suggests, will become nightmares to the majority if enacted.

Liberals – and that includes the environmentalists – are juveniles.  They think like pre-adults, reason like pre-adults.  And when confronted with the reality that their juvenile thinking does not comport with the way things work, their answer is as juvenile: to shut mouths and punish those who disagree with them.

To dream of the murder or exile of an opponent is the ultimate in childish thinking.  These people do not belong anywhere near the mechanisms of power.

Hat tip: Paul Driessen

Read more from Tim and friends at The Aviary www.tbirdnow.mee.nu.