catastrophism Climate Change English Politics

Climate Supremacists Cannot Tolerate Any Dissent

I have just stumbled into two examples of all that is wrong with Climate Supremacists’ mindset of impending doom by climate change/global warming: their absolute inability to tolerate any form of dissent, however mild.

First, have a look at Bill McKibben’s review of Bjorn Lomborg’s new book “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming” (The New York Review of Books, October 11, 2007).

McKibben’s review is a series of invectives against Lomborg, with ample space dedicated to denigratory remarks and the one, solitary invite to visit to read anything positive about the Danish author.

I simply cannot remember any article of comparable vitriol on the NYRB during the past 2 years at least. Evidently McKibben holds some grudge against Lomborg: from the former’s remarks, it is apparent that the issue is Lomborg’s questioning of the received wisdom of having to be very, very worried about the evolution of the world’s climate.

It is important to note that Lomborg believes in the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Alas, he commits the radical sin of trying to think for himself, of pointing out there are other issues to tackle, and (the shock! the horror!) of having received “right-wing support“.

For all of the above, Lomborg’s work cannot simply be reviewed by McKibben: it has to be demolished along with its author’s reputation, over and over again in sentence after sentence.


The second example is an inadvertently hilarious piece by Roger Harrabin, BBC Environment Analyst (“The heat and light in global warming“, BBC News Website, October 11, 2007).

After a long analysis on all that is wrong with people that don’t think it appropriate for the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” to be shown to youngsters in schools, Harrabin remarks about his own experience after asking an inconvenient question to Al Gore:

“…after the interview [Al Gore] and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of climate-sceptic traitor.”

Once again, Harrabin is a firm believer that AGW is happening, and he even shows all signs of worry for the future: still, the one time he tries to think for himself, immediately he’s considered a “traitor”.

Will Roger Harrabin ever connect the dots, and understand that Al Gore’s message on climate is an ideological, all-encompassing, freedoms-destroying credo that cannot leave any space whatsover to any dissent? Some hope!


It is a constant of history that leaders have been able to curtail freedoms in the name of public safety and a brighter future.

As Climate Supremacists ominously follow those earlier examples, stopping their dictatorial attitudes is the duty of every libertarian and of anybody that takes liberty into consideration.

9 replies on “Climate Supremacists Cannot Tolerate Any Dissent”

Al Gore can’t and won’t debate anyone on glo-bull warming because he knows it’s all a scam and a money grab to make himself a multi-billionaire

As a retired physicist, though not a climatologist, I too have never experienced the utterly irrational behaviour of some AGW alarmists. Their personal attacks on any dissenter however well qualified is only surpassed by the dishonesty of some of their number. Michael Mann’s disgraceful dishonesty over the hockey stick methodology and data, and James Hansen clearly adjusting GISS temperature values in exactly the opposite manner to what would be expected to counter urbanisation, thus exagerating global warming, are not acceptable for any reputable scientist especially in the public sector.

Dr Pachauri’s completely unsupported statement that global temperatures are increasing faster than ever expected is such an obvious bending of the facts as to be almost humorous. And his suggestion that we should all become vegetarians, as he is, to reduce methane emissions is almost hilarious bearing in mind that he is a Hindu and there are millions of sacred cows living in India.

However, I fear we will never get the doctrine doubted by our politicians all the while they can use it to impose their wills on the electorate.

This is exactly what got me interested to study this subject. I’ve never seen a scientific subject treated so facistically!! It convinces me this is a political movement, not scientific.

I saw your comment on the Al Gore blog site for the IHT and New York Times run by Libby Rosenthal. GOod post. Curious, have you ever heard of my idea of polar cities, and what do you think of the idea?

email me at danbloom GMAIL

Polar cities should be in active construction within 50 years. These
SPR’s, sustainable polar retreats, in other words, will function
primarily to house potential survivors of catastrophic global warming
events in the far distant future, perhaps by the year 2300 or so. It’s
good to be prepared, according to the U.N. Homelands Security Office
in Oslo, and these polar cities, situated in both polar regions of the
planet, will be capable of handling up to 2 million people — human
breeding pairs and their families — to ensure the continuation of our
species. After the Earth’s temperatures cool enough to permit
resettlement of the planet’s temperate and tropiocal regions again,
the polar cities will become historical oddities and turned into
musuems, according to the UN office. Learn more online, just google
“polar cities” or check the Wikipedia entry for them.

Leave a Reply to Why They Hate Lomborg « The Unbearable Nakedness of Climate Change Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.