I guess the strictures against “hate speech” don’t apply to the climatistas, or at least about their invective against climate skeptics. In our “Picks” section we linked David Rose’s Daily Mail column about the death threats he’s received for being environmentally incorrect (though Rose is, like Matt Ridley and several others, a “lukewarmer”—a category that the climatistas will not acknowledge or tolerate):
Some would say this makes me a ‘lukewarmer’ – the jargon for someone who is neither a ‘warmist’ or a ‘denier’. But true believers don’t recognise such distinctions: to them, anyone who disagrees with their version of the truth is a denier, pure and simple. The result: vitriol directed my way, the like of which I have never experienced in 34 years as a journalist. Lately, it’s become worse.
The remark about my children killing me was made some months ago, after The Guardian published one of several critiques of my work by its climate activist blogger, Dana Nuccitelli. One of the online commenters posted: ‘In a few years, self-defence is going to be made a valid defence for parricide [killing one’s own father], so Rose’s children will have this article to present in their defence at the trial.’
Climate economist Richard Tol, who normally is all about numbers and serious economic analysis, wrote a few days ago about the increasing radicalization of the climatistas:
Every movement has its nutters. Climate warriors have long ago stopped being civil. But we seem to be entering a new level of radicalisation.
The Buddhas of Bamiyan were blown up by the Taliban in 2001. In 2014, Greenpeace activists damaged the Nazca Lines. Greenpeace has often broken the law, but their actions have always been directed against those who harm the environment. They appealed to a moral authority higher than the legal ones. Nazca, however, was wanton vandalism. And it was not a solo action. Twenty people trampled over ancient heritage. The Greenpeace media team happily beamed pictures across the world. And when it emerged that the world was not amused, Greenpeace’ response was closer to damage control and cover-up than remorse and cooperation with the Peru government.
In January 2015, a Greenpeace activist called for the beheading of a member of the House of Lords on the website of the Guardian. When challenged, he repeated the call, and again. People who questioned the wisdom of these remarks were attacked or banned. The Guardian actively moderates its comments, but even though Gary Evans’ calls to behead Matt Ridley caused a bit of a stir, it took the editors 32 hours to realize that death threats against political opponents is not really how we like to do things in Britain nowadays. (The Guardian has since worked hard to try to erase the past.) As if on cue, Natalie Bennett, Green Party leader, called for the decriminalisation of belonging to a violent terror group.
He goes on at the end of this post to include six reader-supplied examples of green calls for violent jihad, like this one:
An environmental activist faces jail for putting the lives of police officers in danger by successfully setting up a home-made trap designed to take patrol cars out of action.
Emma Sheppard brought three cars to a juddering stop by puncturing their tyres with the crude “stinger” device made of plywood and nails that she had positioned outside a police station near Bristol on New Year’s Eve.
Then there were the calls from a Greenpeacer for Matt Ridley to be beheaded:
A climate change advocate, believed to be a Greenpeace activist and Guardian contributor, has called for the beheading of so-called “climate change deniers”, arguing the world would be a better place without them. The comments are merely the latest in a long history of warmists advocating the killing of people who question global warming dogma.
On January 21st, in it’s ‘Climate Consensus – the 97%’ section, the Guardian published an article entitled “Matt Ridley wants to gamble the Earth’s future because he won’t learn from the past”, which was illustrated with a fake, but nonetheless rather gruesome image of a severed head.
The article drew hundreds of comments, including one from ‘Bluecloud’ on the day the article was posted, reading “Should that not be Ridley’s severed head in the photo?”
Further down he added “We would actually solve a great deal of the world’s problems by chopping off everyone’s heads.
“Why are you deniers so touchy? Mere calls for a beheading evolve [sic] such a strong response in you people.
“Ask yourself a simple question: Would the world be a better place without Matt Ridley?
“Need I answer that question?”
How long until the Weather Underground makes a comeback in the US?