NY Times: Climate Deniers Have “an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s”

13 Sep, 2015 by William Teach

Print this article Font size -16+

Have we finally reached Peak Warmist, where the Cult of Climastrology has utterly and completely jumped the shark? Well, now that you ask, no. In most other parts of life, the answer would be a resounding “yes”, but, we are talking about the CoC, and there will always be something nuttier and/or more offensive around the corner. Here’s Timothy Snyder in the Sunday Review

The Next Genocide

BEFORE he fired the shot, the Einsatzgruppe commander lifted the Jewish child in the air and said, “You must die so that we can live.” As the killing proceeded, other Germans rationalized the murder of Jewish children in the same way: them or us.

Today we think of the Nazi Final Solution as some dark apex of high technology. It was in fact the killing of human beings at close range during a war for resources. The war that brought Jews under German control was fought because Hitler believed that Germany needed more land and food to survive and maintain its standard of living — and that Jews, and their ideas, posed a threat to his violent expansionist program.

Two things. High technology? Not quite what I think of in the extermination of 6 million Jews, not too mention all the other groups slaughtered by Hitler and his minions. Nor do most people.

Second, resources? A very weird rewrite of history. Only in Warmist World would we get that disgusting and off-base (did I mention disgusting?) rationale, but, that’s because it is meant to fit into a Narrative

The Holocaust may seem a distant horror whose lessons have already been learned. But sadly, the anxieties of our own era could once again give rise to scapegoats and imagined enemies, while contemporary environmental stresses could encourage new variations on Hitler’s ideas, especially in countries anxious about feeding their growing populations or maintaining a rising standard of living.

This is all caused by “climate change”, of course!

The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science. Hitler’s alternative to science was the idea of Lebensraum. Germany needed an Eastern European empire because only conquest, and not agricultural technology, offered the hope of feeding the German people. In Hitler’s “Second Book,” which was composed in 1928 and not published until after his death, he insisted that hunger would outstrip crop improvements and that all “the scientific methods of land management” had already failed.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, that does sure seem like notions that have been pushed for quite some time by wacko enviroweenies and the Cult of Climastrology, do they not?

Climate change threatens to provoke a new ecological panic. So far, poor people in Africa and the Middle East have borne the brunt of the suffering.

The mass murder of at least 500,000 Rwandans in 1994 followed a decline in agricultural production for several years before. Hutus killed Tutsis not only out of ethnic hatred, but to take their land, as many genocidaires later admitted.

Again, another rewrite of history, attempting to link it to climate change causing agricultural problems. The UN Human Rights Commission, along with everyone not bat guano insane, disagrees.

The risk is that a developed country able to project military power could, like Hitler’s Germany, fall into ecological panic, and take drastic steps to protect its existing standard of living.

Huh. If that happened, it would be Left wing Warmists taking those drastic steps.

And here we go

Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.

And there you have it: if you follow the Scientific Method, if you want scientists to be honest, if you want them to follow long established scientific principles, if you have a problem with falsified/adjusted data, if you want to see the raw data, well, hey, you are almost Hitler!

Even though Hitler shared most of the same views and political ideology as today’s Progressives.

Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced. Will we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies, or allow a wave of ecological panic to spread across the world?

Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past.

So, if you refuse to join the CoC, you’re the ghost of Hitler. This is all about shutting down debate, demonizing one’s opponents in the most horrific manner. Someone else did that back in the 1930’s and 1940’s. I wonder who?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.