Just Punishment for Those Who Call For Death For Climate Change Denial!
Start building the scaffolds.
Climate activists have called for the deaths of critics of the failed theory of devastating man-made global warming. They’ve urged harsh punishment for those who support climate realism. They prescribed jail time for scientists who admit uncertainty in global temperature forecasts! Others have demanded non-conforming scientists be penalized for giving their professional opinion!
Hey — if our betters are allowed to call for torches and pitchforks against their enemies, then by golly, so am I. Fair’s fair.
Hang ’em High
First to the scaffold should be the angry prune and one-time funnyman Eric Idle. He tweeted, “I think that denying climate change is a crime against humanity. And they should be held accountable in a World Court.”
I think that denying climate change is a crime against humanity. And they should be held accountable in a World Court.
— Eric Idle (@EricIdle) March 15, 2017
When summarily found guilty, the perpetrators, he said, should be “put down gently.” As should anybody who tells such lousy jokes.
Mounting their last steps with Idle will be the editors of The Nation, who published the article “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us: The victims of Hurricane Harvey have a murderer — and it’s not the storm.” The author claims that not acting to his satisfaction against “climate change” is equivalent to “premeditated murder” and should be punished as such. Murder is a capital crime. As should be the rape of logic.
We’re near to over-straining our nooses, which must be saved for the evilest wrongdoers. This is why it’s best that Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce meet his Maker by firing squad. Pierce said, “Climate denial already is a synonym for mass murder.” And we know the fate of mass murderers. That same end should be meted out to writers at celebrity tittle-tattle magazines who pretend to understand physics.
Even though it may seem a good idea, not all sins against Truth are punishable by death. Incarceration and punitive fines have their place. Thus it’s off to the hoosegow for Brian Merchant, a writer at The Outline responsible for the negligent piece, “Climate Change Denial Should Be A Crime: In the wake of Harvey, it’s time to treat science denial as gross negligence — and hold those who do the denying accountable.”
Merchant said hurricane Harvey is “what climate change looks like.” No, it’s what a rare hurricane looks like. If anything, “climate change” is causing a decrease in hurricanes and tropical storms, as hurricane scientist Ryan Maue showed us.
Now almost 50-years of global hurricane data. No trends in frequency in number of named storms or those that reach hurricane-force pic.twitter.com/BUZKLp7b6x
— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) September 13, 2017
For Merchant’s gross criminal ignorance of verifiable truths, he should be put away for five to eight years, with no time off for good behavior.
The bloated New York Times Paul “Spend Spend Spend” Krugman called climate “denial” “treason against the planet.” He should be placed in public stocks next to any large vegetable market, until such time as he recants or shaves off that scraggly beard.
What punishment does Bill Nye deserve for his misdeeds, so numerous and notorious that they need not be recounted? He should be made to watch the episode of Bill Nye Saves The World until he agrees to retire forever from public view.
The case of the sovereign nation of Canada is the hardest. We have official word that a branch of their government, the Competition Bureau, is investigating three organizations for the non-crime of “climate denial.” One of the groups is the Heartland Institute, which has its headquarters in Chicago (a group which I have a loose affiliation with).
Though it’s not always acknowledged, Chicago is in the United States. Canada’s encroachment upon US territory, albeit once removed, could be considered an act of war. A few of our lighter missiles launched into Ottawa might be just what it takes to wipe the permanent grin off the face of Justin Trudeau.
Finally, an example of the lightest, but still necessary, penalty. Franciscan Friar Ramon “Ramoncito” Razon framed his foolishness in the form of a question, and not a declarative sentence. So he should pay a fine not lower than $1,500 and be appointed urinal colonel at the Holy Name Province for a period of no less than six weeks for his query, “Why is climate change denial not yet a crime?”
For the record, no one has ever denied that earth’s climate has changed.
If you find this — obvious satire — troubling, what about the literal calls for execution and imprisonment by those on the other side of the debate?