Sunday, November 08, 2009 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Andrew Brown: it's justified to burn the heretics

When we compare the climate alarmists to the religious bigots in the Middle Ages, we often exaggerate. At least we think so. I admit that whenever I make a similar analogy, it's partly meant as a joke, as a caricature of their behavior.

However, we may simply be wrong.

Andrew Brown, a blogger at The Guardian, wrote something that indicates that the comparison could be more than just a vague analogy: an exact equivalence:

We're doomed without a green religion
He writes that "the justification for burning heretics was perfectly simple: dissent threatened the survival of society." Brown criticizes the Western infidels for treating individual morality as a "dogma".

Oh, that nasty Enlightenment, the rise of the blasphemous heretics. ;-)

He argues that a green religion is badly needed and the future will be great when people will be burning the heretics again because all of them actually believe that it's the right thing. "Should that happen, the denialists, who claim that it is all a religion, will for once be telling the truth, and when they do that, they'll have lost. I just hope it doesn't happen too late."

Wow. ;-)

Well, I thought that the civilized world we have known in the 20th century was based on individual morality and the values of the people who used to be heretics. And it actually did survive. Mr Brown doesn't want to see this "detail".

How does he justify his desire to return the world into the Dark Ages? Well, without such a powerful green religion, he "cannot ensure the survival of [his] grandchildren." A religious bigot like himself can indeed believe so.

But an obvious question arises: wouldn't the world without all the people - "grandchildren" - who are genetically linked to this stunning religious bigot a much better place to live? How can we ensure that our grandchildren won't be arrested or burned at stake by the possible human trash that has been or that will be created by the likes of Andrew Brown? Is it really safe to allow similar people to live, despite their plans to transform the world that they are so stunning explicit about?

If global warming helped to eliminate these people [it unfortunately doesn't], we would have a reason to try to create such warming [which is indeed hard to do artificially]. I am afraid that the threat represented by bigots of Brown's caliber can't be avoided by our influence on the climate which is negligible. We will have to go after their necks.

And that's the memo.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (1) :


reader Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar said...

I think that Mr. Andrew Brown has taken leave of his senses, that is the politest way that I can put it.
This is worrying but not a surprise, the puerile way the AGW/Alarmist crowd conduct themselves leaves much to be desired.
Science has long ago been abandoned by the warmist believers, because science does not back up their claims.
"Oh!" they say,
"but the consensus says....."
This is plainly wrong, because the consensus is on the anti side now.
All the main struts have been debunked, the 'hockey stick' is broken, the climate temperatures are not rising in harmony with the computer models, the Arctic Ocean sea ice is recovering and the Antarctic ice sheet is growing.
These facts cannot be refuted ergo the argument is being lost.
Return to ad hominen attacks and vilifying all doubters/deniers/real scientists.
The only people who now should be convinced are the daft politicians and lets face it, the problem was always a political one and nothing to do with the science.