The first story that caught my eye was at the beginning of June when the White House announced that McCartney would be awarded the George Gershwin Award by the Library of Congress. Wow, I thought, he sure deserves that. I mean, few people have had the effect on popular music that he has had, both individually and as a member of the Beatles. So then, the day after the award ceremony and performance for the President and his guests, the story comes out that McCartney said this:

“It’s a fantastic honor (for) the Gershwin family to give me this incredible award and for me to be awarded it by the Library of Congress. And in fact, after the last eight years, it’s great to have a president who knows what a library is,” McCartney said, drawing cheers from the audience.

Now, at first blush, this didn’t surprise me much. After all, McCartney was not only a big part of the liberal drug and peace protest culture of the Sixties, he was a leader of that group. Its no surprise that a far left celebrity like him would think or feel this way. However, upon reflection it started to bother me. I mean, here was this foreigner welcomed as a guest and honoree to a non-political event in our nation’s capital to be honored with an award. What right did he have to inject politics into a ceremony like this? Especially being that he isn’t even a citizen of this country? To me, it smacked of a unusually high lack of class and respect for his hosts, a lack of class I had not formerly associated with him.

The next story that caught my attention was this one:

The Beatles legend said: “Sadly we need disasters like this to show people. Some people don’t believe in climate warming – like those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.

“But the facts indicate that there’s something going on and we’ve got to be aware of it if we want our kids to inherit a decent world, not a complete nightmare of a planet – clean, renewable energy is for starters.”

In truth, the facts show that something may or may not be happening, and exactly what that something is nobody knows. The smartest people on the planet cannot decide what the facts prove or disprove, so forgive me if I don’t think some celebrity who didn’t even finish high school should be commenting on something he clearly has no understanding of whatsoever.

Oh, as far as comparing Global Warming to the Holocaust, he should call me when he can demonstrate that Global Warming has killed 6 million people from a single ethnicity maliciously. Having lived in Europe most of his life, can he really be this ignorant and cavalier about the slaughter of Jews by the Nazis? After all, pictures, artifacts, and first-hand accounts of the Holocaust abound; there is absolutely no doubt that the Holocaust happened. Global Warming, on the other hand, has produced no dead victims, no destruction on anything like a measurable scale, and lacks any sort of credible, undeniable physical proof of its existence. In fact, its just a scientific theory which has yet to be proven. Quite a bit different from the Holocaust, wouldn’t you say? Certainly, at this stage of the game, there is more than enough reason to doubt the existence of Global Warming without having to endure mental midgets like McCartney equating you to a Holocaust denier.

So, to sum up: Mr. McCartney, thanks for all of the great music and inspiration over these many years. However, you should really learn how to be gracious to people who are honoring you, and you should really learn to shut your freaking mouth when you have no clue what you’re talking about.

A peer-reviewed study on the affect of humans on the global climate has shown that over 80% of climate changes over the ladder half of the 20th Century can be attributed to nature. Further, the study found that human activity has little affect on the climate.

Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.

The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.

“The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely” says corresponding author de Freitas.

“We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”

Can someone drag the Gorebot away from the McDonald’s long enough to break the news to him? Carbon off-sets? A scam. Cap-n-Tax? Another scam based upon fraud. One can only hope that the Obamassiah will come to his senses and kill his economy-killing Cap-n-Tax proposal. I’m not hopeful that he will, because I think he’s had too much of the environmental lobby’s Kool-Aid to be able to think clearly on this matter.

Climate Change Bill: Obama worships at the feet of the Global Warming lobby, so his enthusiasm for this bill isn’t surprising.

President Obama pushed urgently Thursday for passage of legislation to confront global warming, billing it as a job-creating machine rather than the costly “job killer” Republicans denounced and telephoning wavering Democrats on the eve of what could be a historic House vote.

Speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House, Obama said Washington must not miss the opportunity to work on cleaning the air and at the same time creating new “green” energy jobs. He called the measure “a jobs bill” and said the country for far too long has been too reliant on energy from fossil fuels.

Speaking in the Rose Garden at the White House, Obama said Washington must not miss the opportunity to work on cleaning the air, creating new “green” energy jobs and moving the nation away from its reliance on fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.

The White House appeared concerned that momentum for the bill was slipping, though White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that when it came time for a House showdown, “I’d bet on the president.”

Democratic leaders scurried to line up enough votes to get the bill passed. They enlisted former Vice President Al Gore, the most prominent U.S. voice on the urgency of addressing climate change, to make phone calls to wary lawmakers — including some who believe the House bill was too weak rather than too strong.

House Republicans for weeks have maintained a drumbeat against the legislation, calling it a massive energy tax on every American and a “job killer” because it will force higher prices on electricity, gasoline and other energy sources as the economy shifts from cheaper fossil fuels, or as companies and utilities are forced to buy pollution allowances.

The Republicans are right. Hell, even Obama admits that the cost of electricity, under this plan, will skyrocket:

Cap and Trade, more appropriately called Cap and Tax, will increase the cost of energy for every person in the country, regardless of income. This means, of course, that when Obama says he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the population, he is lying; He’s just replacing the tax increase with a “fee.” The result is the same: Your family will be worse off if this bill passes.

Also, those great new “green” energy jobs Obama keeps talking about? None of them will materialize in a sufficient number until one of these types of alternative energy becomes practical to use. That isn’t solar, that isn’t wind, that isn’t Ethanol, that isn’t anything you can name right now or for the next generation. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear are the proven and safe ways to produce energy in America right now, and to discard them just because you want to use the shiny, new technology is foolish and stupid. Yes, continue to develop the new energy technologies, but for God’s sake don’t tie the country’s economic health to them until they’re developed enough to be practical.

Health Care Bill: With this one piece of legislation, the Obama Administration will not only destroy the number one health care system in the world today, it will also drive the world’s richest economy into bankruptcy.

WASHINGTON (AP) – A bipartisan group of senators at work on health care reported progress Thursday in holding the cost of legislation to their $1 trillion target, but Republicans quickly added there was no agreement on even the outlines of a bill. “We have options that would enable us to write a $1 trillion bill, fully paid for,” Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters.

His comments came one week after analysts set the cost of earlier proposals at $1.6 trillion over 10 years.

The Montana Democrat provided no details, but others have said the changes made in recent days would lower the cost of government subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance, as well as pare back a planned 10-year series of rate increases for doctors serving Medicare patients.

Only $1 Trillion dollars! Of course, he says this without providing any details on just how they have “fully paid for” the cost. You and I both know that the way they will pay the cost will be to ration health care to the very sick and the elderly, as well as tell doctors what they are allowed to charge and earn. Also, since this new “public option” will not have to generate a profit, the private insurance companies will be forced out of business and every single American will be forced to get their insurance through the government. Oh yeah, don’t forget that this bill contains a specific provision that exempts members of Congress and the President from having to participate in this program. That’s right; they’re saying it is the best plan out there, but it isn’t good enough for them. Not only that, but they also want to tax your health benefits to help pay for this boondoggle — unless you’re a union member.

It could very well be that by the end of the summer the United States of America you find yourself living in will bear little, if any, resemblance to the country you grew up in. Buck up, Comrade! You can do it!

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Once again, we see the typical liberal reaction to people who have the gall to disagree with them. I wonder, is this guy also going to drag the over 31,000 scientists who disagree with him into court?

It is fairly obvious to anyone who is paying attention that, despite what the Goracle says, there is no scientific consensus on global warming or its causes. In fact, since when was scientific fact ever proven by a “consensus”? A fact is not a fact just because a group of people say it is. A fact is a fact because it can be proven repeatedly no matter who is conducting the inquiry.  In the case of global warming, you have more of an agenda-driven propaganda drive than anythng else. Environmental Wackos like Gore and Hansen hate the oil companies and the large profits they make, so they start telling everybody that if we continue to use oil and gasoline that the planet is going die and everybody will die with it. Then, the scams practically create themselves: carbon credits, ethanol, flouresent light bulbs, and on and on.

Its funny, but a lot of liberals spend a lot of their time calling conservatives fascist, but I have yet to see a conservative advocate the prosecution of someone just because they didn’t agree with him.

With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea.

…

“This is not something that’s going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular,” said Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, lumping Bush with McCain, accused them of staging a “cynical campaign ploy” that won’t help lower energy prices.

“Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem,” Reid said. “The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world’s oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil.”

For the past several years, people on both sides of the aisle have been complaining that this country is far too dependant on foreign sources of energy. So, how can we reduce this dependence? Simple: we produce more energy domestically. What is one way we can start doing that now? We can start allowing the oil companies to conduct oil exploration on the Continental Shelf and in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Also, we can allow the oil companies to build more refineries to use this oil to produce gasoline and other products.

There is, of course, one problem with this: The Democrats and thier Environmental-Wacko special interests won’t allow the oil companies to build new refineries or explore for more domestic oil. Why? Because they think exploring ANWR is going to kill all of the Caribu and exploring offshore areas will destroy the beaches. Finally, there is one big reason the Democrats do not want to allow drilling in these areas: they want to keep gasoline prices high until after the 2008 Presidential Election so that they can use this issue to show that Republicans haven’t done anything about it. Yes, they think that their political agenda is more important than actually doing something to solve the problem. I guess that this is supposed to be the big “change” that Obama is all about.

ANWR consists of well over 19 million acres of land. Underneath this land it is estimated that there are billions and billions of barrels of recoverable oil. This is oil we could use, if only Congressional Democrats would look beyond their own self-interest. Instead, Democrats just complain about how the big oil companies are only pushing this to get even more rich than they already are. This country needs energy, and all the Democrats care about is that someone will make some money out of the deal for going and getting it. How much sense does that make? Are they supposed to do it for free? Do Democrats know that this country is based upon capitalism?

If you ask a Democrat what they would suggest to relieve the problem, they tell you that we need to develop new sources of energy and that we should conserve more. Let’s take a look at these ideas:

• Developing New Sources of Energy:  Well, this certainly would be nice. However, it would take at least 10 to 12 years before any newly developed source of energy would be able to replace fossil fuels. First, this new source of energy would have to be discovered and developed into something which is at least as efficient and plentiful as gasoline. Next, the infrastructure of the country would have to be modified to use this new energy source. Do you know how many pieces of infrastructure currently use gasoline and petroleum products? Do you know how much it would cost, and how long it would take, to either replace or modify all of these infrastructure components to use this new energy source? This is impractical at best.
• Conserve More Energy: Again, this is a good idea, but it will hardly resolve this crisis. Look at this example: California is the state which conserves the most energy each year. I mean, they’ve got people recycling everything, they have water restrictions, energy restrictions, you name it, they conserve it. So, what does all of this conservation amount to? Every summer for the past few years California has rolling brownouts due to lack of available energy. In fact, one year it got so bad they recalled the Governor. There is absolutely no way the US can conserve its way out of an energy shortage.

So, would opening up AMWR and the Continental Shelf for oil exploration and drilling put an immediate end to our problems? Of course not. It would take a few years before the infrastructure was in place so that we could start pumping the oil out of the ground. However, even if we had this oil now, it is likely we couldn’t do much with it because Congress refuses to allow oil companies to build more refineries. Remember, you not only have to get the oil, you have to make it into something we can use. The refineries in the US are almost always running at full capacity. Remember when Katrina hit and a couple of refineries in the Gulf were put out of commission? Prices skyrocketed because production of gasoline was greatly impaired for a short period of time. Needless to say, if the US had more refinery capacity, we could produce more energy. However, Democrats and their Environmentalist-Wacko friends don’t want that because oil companies will make money by increasing their refining capacity, and they’re (oil companies) just too evil to allow that.

Even the Obamessiah thinks like this. I thought he was well-educated? Hasn’t he heard of the Law of Supply and Demand as it applies to prices? I’ve never taken a single economics class, but even I know that if you want the price of a certain commodity to fall, you increase the amount of that commodity which is available on the market. In this light, how can they sit there and say “we can’t drill our way out of this?”

If Obama gets elected, two years from now we’ll all be sitting around remembering the good ol’ days when gas was only $4.15 a gallon.

Say what you will about the looming catastrophe facing the world as the pace of global heating and polar melting accelerates. There is a silver lining.

…

So what we see is that huge swaths of conservative America are set to face a biblical deluge in a few more presidential cycles.

…

So the future political map of America is likely to look as different as the much shrunken geographical map, with much of the so-called “red” state region either gone or depopulated.

There is a poetic justice to this of course. It is conservatives who are giving us the candidates who steadfastly refuse to have the nation take steps that could slow the pace of climate change, so it is appropriate that they should bear the brunt of its impact.

The important thing is that we, on the higher ground both actually and figuratively, need to remember that, when they begin their historic migration from their doomed regions, we not give them the keys to the city. They certainly should be offered assistance in their time of need, but we need to keep a firm grip on our political systems, making sure that these guilty throngs who allowed the world to go to hell are gerrymandered into political impotence in their new homes.

So, as demonstrated by the paragraphs above, liberals reveal that which is most important to them – the acquisition and retention of political power. The party of the tolerant, the compassionate, the party that feels your pain, cares less about the impact of Global Warming on the planet than it cares about the impact of Global Warming on their political power. Of course, this whole diatribe was written by a man who thinks there are legal grounds to impeach President Bush, so it isn’t really surprising that he concentrates on the liberal utopia he dreams will appear if Global Warming turns out to be real (and that is a real big if).

And what of the Baltimore Chronicle? How “objective” is the journalism practiced by this website? Well, let’s look at the titles of some of the other Editorial content:

• Creeping Fascism: History’s Lessons – a nice article which makes comparisons between Nazi Germany and America under the Bush Administration.
• Military Evangelism Deeper, Wider Than First Thought – a “report” that finds the Christian Right has infiltrated the military and is creating another Taliban.
• Power of the People Moves Corporate Media to Do the Right Thing – tells how three Democrat Congressmen put pressure on three newspapers to force them to print an editorial calling for the impeachment of Vice-President Cheney.

Hmmm, the answer is: not very objective at all. Turns out that this website is just another house organ of the left-wing extremist section of the Democrat Party. Here is how they describe themselves:

Why We Publish: Increasingly, so-called ‘American’ corporations have gained manipulative control over the mainstream news (a.k.a. “corporate media”), the political parties, and our local and national governments. They do it so corporate interests are served over the public’s interests, as Michael Moore’s documentary “SiCKO” shows so well. The Baltimore Chronicle seeks to aid U.S. Democracy by publishing important omitted or distorted facts and viewpoints to counter the manipulated mainstream news.

So, as it turns out, the publishers of this site have a political agenda . Fine. Most political sites do, and give them credit for stating right up front that they are coming from a certain viewpoint. Our job, as consumers of information on the Internet, is to recognize whether or not the information on this site is reliable and factual. As you can read above, these people claim that corporations have taken control of the political parties and news media and are using the media to further their agendas. Let’s look at that for a moment. As far as I can remember, television networks, including the news divisions, have always been owned by corporations (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox News, etc.) as have most newspapers (Hearst Corporation, News Corporation, Tribune Corporation). Are these people claiming that the corporations which own these properties never used to have control of the content these media outlets put out, but have recently rested this control from whomever had it before? Are they serious?

As you head into the voting booth next November, keep this kind of stuff in mind. There are lots of people who share these points of view, and unfortunately they are allowed to vote. Also, I have no doubt that many of them vote a lot more than once.

The new study found that temperature rises had a significant impact on the number of pre-schoolers presenting to emergency departments for fever and gastroenteritis.

The two-year study at a major children’s hospital showed that for every five-degree rise in temperature two more children under six years old were admitted with fever to that hospital.

The University of Sydney research is the first to make a solid link between climate changes and childhood illness.

Okay, now look at how this all progresses:

• Two-year study done at one hospital;
• Study uses only pre-school children;
• The only admissions used were for fever or gastroenteritis;
• Therefore a solid link now exists between Global Warming and childhood illness.

You see the stretch they’re making? I never took any kind of statistics class in college, but even I know that this is a very flawed conclusion they have come up with here. If you read a little further, you begin to see how this “study” came up with its conclusions:

The study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Health Research, analysed several different climate factors, including UV index, rainfall and humidity, collected from the Bureau of Meteorology in 2001 and 2002.

The International Journal of Environmental Health Research is a part of the International Federation of Environmental Health which made this policy statement in June of 2006:

There is now widespread agreement amongst climate scientists that the earth is warming. It is well-known that human activity such as burning fossil fuels causes emission of CO2 and other gasses to the atmosphere. Other gasses such as Chlorofluorocarbons (mainly caused by industrial activities), Methane CH4 (mainly caused by natural bacterial activity in wetlands, including rice fields, and by burning biomass) and N2O (mainly caused by burning fossil fuels) are even more potent in terms of climate change, compared to CO2.

In other words, they’re already on the Global Warming Bandwagon. Do you realize how easy it is to do a research study when you start with the results in hand?

If you read to the end of the article, you get to this nugget of information:

He said it was still unclear whether the heat directly triggered the illnesses or whether other heat-related problems, like pollution, were responsible.

So, at the end of this study, they don’t know definitively what caused the kids’ fevers, but they do know that it is because of Global Warming. This is what happens when science and scientists settle for consensus rather than definitive fact. True science is based upon verifiable facts derived from the results of repeated and repeatable experiments. These people who claim Global Warming is a world crisis make this statement based upon “widespread agreement” among scientists who are just as biased as the rest of us.

It is well known that many climatologists do not believe that Global Warming is a looming crisis, but rather that the Earth’s climate is going through a natural warming/cooling cycle which has been happening for years. So, since the environmental wackos could not convince everyone to tow the “we’re doomed” line, they now say that they know Global Warming is a crisis because there is “widespread agreement.” They don’t base their position on facts, they just base it on the fact that some climatologists agree that there is a problem.

I think that before you cripple the economy of the greatest country on the planet, you’d better have a lot more that a consensus of a group of like-minded climatologists.

Consider just a few examples of the measures people will have to accept: First and foremost the notion of steady economic growth – every year an increase in the world’s GDP, as The Wentworth Group of Scientists and the Stern Review envisage – will have to go into reverse. We in the affluent world will have to accept substantial reductions in our standard of living to allow space for the poor, mainly in Africa, to improve their nutrition and health status.

To achieve this, income and wealth distribution within our societies will have to become much more equal. The higher up the tree one is, the greater the sacrifice one will have to make.

Stringent measures will have to be put in place to reduce water consumption, particularly in countries like Australia where water is a scarce commodity. Using potable water to cool industrial processes and as wash-water will have to stop, and this includes air-conditioning equipment in large buildings, power station cooling towers, paper mills, dairying and agriculture, etc, etc.

That’s right — in order to solve the “overconsumption/overpopulation” problem, this guy says that anyone who has worked hard all their life to make a success of themselves will have to give it all up to poor people who have done nothing to merit it. Those countries that encourage and allow people to succeed and raise their standard of living will have to reduce their standard of living so people in poor countries can have a better standard of living. They don’t have to do anything to earn this; they just get it because they’re poor.

Contrary to a recent forecast that the world’s fleet of fossil-fuel-burning motor vehicles will triple over the next 50 years, the fleet will have to be reduced to no more than about 10% of the present number.

Perhaps water meters that turn off automatically after a household’s daily ration of water has been consumed will be fitted to every house.

Meat will be rationed to no more than, say, 200 grams per person per week.

…

And private property rights will be severely curtailed to prevent landowners from engaging in environmentally- damaging behaviours. And many, many more such infringements on what we now regard as our rights will have to be accepted.

Now, according to this wacko, your car will probably be taken away from you, you won’t be allowed to use the amount of water you want, and you’ll almost never get to eat meat again. Finally, he wants to deprive you of your private property rights and take away all that you and your family have worked and sacrificed for.

Remember, this guy isn’t talking about putting all of this to a vote — he wants it to be forced upon the world’s population by some entity which he fails to address.

Next, read about how he wants to reduce the world population:

The most humane way to achieve a reduction in the human population would be for people to voluntarily stop breeding, but this would never happen. The urge to procreate and the innate belief that people have the inalienable right, if not the duty, to have children is too strong to be suppressed, just to save the planet.

One small, but appropriate, token gesture would be to ban immediately all forms of assisted conception, including the use of donated sperm or ova. The fact that relatively affluent couples, or single women who cannot achieve pregnancy by good old-fashioned copulation, or even choose not to do so, can demand the use of expensive medical technology to satisfy their ‘need’ for parenthood is unacceptable in a hugely overpopulated world.

The next most human way to reduce the population might be to put something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile. Perhaps a virus that would knock out the genes that produce certain hormones necessary for conception.

The world’s most affluent populations should be targeted first. According to the 2006 Living Planet Report, the six populations that have the biggest per capita ecological footprint live in the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Finland, Canada, Kuwait, and Australia.

You read that correctly. Reid thinks that “some entity” should start putting drugs in the water supplies of six countries to make the population incapable of reproducing. He also wants to prevent couples from being able to pursue assisted conception simply because these couples tend to be affluent. Are you starting to see the pattern here?

Now take a look at how he would handle health care:

A triage approach will be necessary so that scarce medical resources go to those who can contribute most to the long-term viability of the planet. Consequently, many middle-aged-to-elderly people will die uncomfortable deaths. Not every problem is solveable.

He wants to deny health care to the middle-aged and elderly based upon their future contributions to his environmental movement. People like me, who need dialysis, would simply be left to die because I didn’t agree with his environmental policies. Had enough of this idiot yet?

Finally, just in case you question whether or not this guy is a liberal:

The precepts of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam represent the quintessential perversion of the human mind. They must be abandoned and the notion of the sanctity of human life must be subjugated to the greater sanctity of all life on Earth.

The standard leftist dogma that religion is bad and that the sanctity of human life must be subjugated to whatever they say is more important. Its the same argument that they use to push the harvesting of embryonic stem cells. It really is easy to plan for the murder of millions of people if you just convince yourself that human life isn’t that special.

Reid’s plans dictate that the world’s population be reduced from approximately 6 billion to no more than 2 billion or 3 billion as quickly as possible. He talks about eliminating 3 billion to 4 billion people like it was a science project or something. Beyond that, he wants to make sure that people in the United States are among the first to be eliminated. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Can anyone say al Qaida?

By far the scariest part of all of this is this: People like Reid are seen as mainstream thinkers in the environmental movement. They don’t question his facts or his ideas; they simply assume that they are correct. They are seen as wise academics and invited to speak on talk shows and colleges across the world. Young people listen intently and are influenced by them because they are presented to them as experts whose “facts” can not be disputed. Of course, no one with an opposing point of view is ever presented.

Remember that people on the left call this progressive!

A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, for his October 11th global warming edition of “Moyers on America” titled “Is God Green?” have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming.

Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”

Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Now, to be fair to the Gore-bot and Moyers, they haven’t commented on this writer’s idea one way or the other. However, you have to wonder how this type of thinking came to represent the “best and the brightest” of the environmental movement.

Turns out that there are people in the environmental movement who want to classify people who doubt the existence of global warming the same as people who doubt the existence of the Holocaust. Yes, that Holocaust.

Whoever thought that serious commentators would want it made illegal to have a row about the weather? One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial’. ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial’, she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming…Holocaust’.

The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around.

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, there is concrete evidence and eyewitness testimony to prove that the Holocaust happened, while scientists are divided about even the existence of global warming. Attempting to classify these two types of people as the same could only be the idea of a truly warped and non-functional brain. It is an insult to those who lived through, or died, in the Holocaust, and the environmental movement as a whole should be ashamed of promoting such an idea.

Of course, liberals have been playing the moral equivalence game for years now, so I don’t know why all of this surprises me. Remember, in a liberal’s world, no culture is bad (except for the U.S.) and there is no definition of right or wrong, just what feels good to you. In a belief system that ignores morals altogether, I guess equating people who doubt the effects of something which hasn’t even been proven to exist with people who killed millions of innocent people is par for the course. After all, the same people (liberals) who backed and re-elected a man who was proven to have cheated on his wife and was also accused of raping several other women are the same people who claim they stand for women’s rights (liberals).

There is a real arrogance in the demeanor of these wackos, and that is what makes them so dangerous. They state as fact that which has yet to be proven, and then propose punishment for anyone who disagrees. I guess the liberals have yet to get a new playbook.