Saving the planet...even if it means setting yourself on fire

On April 14, a man set himself on fire in Brooklyn's Prospect Park.  His suicide was fired with fossil fuel, as was his stated intent in protest of climate change.  According to his suicide note, the man lamented, "My early death by fossil fuel reflects what we are doing to ourselves."

What should society take from this man's messy and tragic death?

U.N. officials who admit that so-called climate change is about ending capitalism, not protecting the environment, will take nothing.

UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy, it is not.  [It is actually about how] we redistribute de facto the world's wealth."

For such global officials, the quest is revolution, for which anything and anyone are dispensable.  The earnest masses, among them those willing to slander and persecute any climate change "denier," may pause for a moment.  But so convinced are they of human environmental perfidy that I doubt that anything would move them off their pedestal.

But what of the researchers who call themselves "climate scientists" and who provide the scientific cover for globalist revolutionaries and earnest zealots?  What do the researchers say to the family and friends of the self-immolated man?  Would they consider the sacrificial lamb's final action appropriate to their claims?

Let's ask the computer modelers why they think any computer code can reflect natural reality, even if it somehow incorporated every nonlinear relationship and higher-order interaction in a system as complex as our atmosphere.  The models do not.  Knowing, as they should, that contrary evidence is cause for rejection of theory, why do the modelers cling to theory when the most relevant data (from satellite and weather balloons) fail to validate model predictions?

Let's ask the government agencies about their repeated unexplained changes to surface temperature data so that successive datasets come to resemble an increasing warming trend.  Such is not seen in the atmosphere itself.  Why are the agencies fudging the data?

The suicidal man was extreme but not alone.  If only skeptics could have spoken directly to him.  They might have reassured him that they appreciate that climate does change.  How else to explain the ice ages long before man came on the scene?  Nor, might they have offered, do skeptics question that humans have some effect on our atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.  The problem with climate alarm is that there seems to be no possibility of detecting the human signal among the noise of natural climate change.  And if one cannot tell the difference between man-made and natural climate change, skeptics can reasonably ask why society should destroy the energy underpinnings of the industrial age that have so advanced the human condition.

We could have had this conversation, and it might have averted senseless loss of life.  Today I ask the "climate scientists" how they like their work.  Are they satisfied with their role in the greatest perversion of the scientific method since Lysenko?

If you experience technical problems, please write to