Climate Change Cultists Are Nasty Anti-Humanist

Climate change cultists are nasty people.

Neither rational nor humanist.

It's amazing how many articles I read where people daring to challenge climate change orthodoxy (in all its magnificent manipulations and bull shit) are often told to die. The less violent will simply charge you're in the back pocket of big business or some other gibberish.

And the worst offenders aren't on blogs.


They lurk in the comments section of mainstream places like The Washington Post and New York Times.

Don't you dare ever challenge them.

Sorta like Tesla cultists.

It's impossible to reason with them.

Mostly because, as noted, we're in a Dark Age.

See, a Dark Age isn't a period where everything turns literally black. It manifests itself in, well, stuff like discussions where one side merely looks to silence another; to censor and even imprison.

Interesting because they're always telling us how humanist they are. Which they aren't. They're just little fascists pretending 'science is settled'.

That's their shtick. Believe in something, call it settled and squash all opposition. Never does it enter their pompous minds they could be wrong. Never does it occur to this arrogant little anti-humanist Luddites their whole prevailing models and calculations could be off. Nor can they accept that when manipulation and falsification takes place and endless streams of failed apocalyptic predictions (you know, like when Al Gore said England would drown by 2000 or thereabouts), it's only normal skeptics will point to credibility.

As we ought to.

But you can't do this with such aggressive, unthinking minds.

Folly of man indeed.

This whole thing, in the latest saga of Witches versus the people, about Democrat AG's going after Exxon is nothing but that - a witch hunt; an exercise in pant shitting stupidity; a shakedown.

It's not unreasonable to figure like how government shakes down Big Tabacky they have a live one with with oil companies.

In a nutshell, they're chasing ghosts in hope of an 'a-ha' moment. Only, they're less on a path to finding criminals and crooks and more on eventually imprisoning scientists who don't share the prevailing climate change view.

Crazy? Tell that to the scientists in Italy who are doing time for failing to predict earthquakes.

THAT'S what you idiots who blindingly support this crap are setting yourselves up for.

There's more than enough valid literature questioning whether man is solely at fault and it's enough to make pause the path we're on - which isn't a good one. It's not a stretch to be at a point where we do imprison people only to find out - oh, oh - maybe man wasn't at fault after all!

Anyway. I got this from Reason's comments:

    "There are three different allegations to date that I know of:
    Allegation 1: Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was dangerous and tried to cover it up from their shareholders. Reality according to the documents - Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and were concerned it might be dangerous. They funded development of some early primitive GCM's that showed it might be a problem, it might not. There is no evidence they tried to manipulate the GCM's to make CO2 benign and plenty of evidence that they did not. As the IPCC became ever more politicized they withdrew gradually from funding research. Their warnings to shareholders were based on IPCC summaries.
    So that allegation collapsed
    Allegation 2: Exxon knew recently that they would probably be unable to pump all the oil reserved they had, due to the Paris Accord. Thus valuing these stranded assets above 0 was misleading to shareholders about the value of the company.
    Exxon's response: We can't predict what politicians will do, but governments closing off oil fields has been happening ever since the oil industry started, and we warn investors that we operate at a risk of governments shutting down components of our business.
    That allegation has collapsed

  • Allegation 3: The recent collapse of oil prices has had companies writing down the value of their oil reserves. Exxon has not joined the pack. Ergo Exxon is misleading investors into thinking they are worth more than they actually are.
    Exxon's response: We conservatively value our oil reserves ($65 per barrell IIRC). These valuations are consistent with the expected price of oil a few years out (true last I checked). Ergo we didn't write them down because we didn't write them up when oil prices were high.
    I expect that Schneiderman is desperately searching for something, anything(!) to pin on Exxon in an effort to claim they misled shareholders.
    Because his original plan - to unearth documents that Al Gore's crowd could use to leverage a version of the Tobacco settlement that would provide Al Gore's empire of anti-fossil fuel activist orgs a steady source of income is in tatters. At this point he is tryign to save himself, because he's pretty much in Nifong territory and he knows it."

The way I see it, if you're not asking enough questions and just accepting, then you're not doing your job. 

Now if you don't mind, I have to go cash my Exxon check before I do left-wing nut cases a favor and die.


Long story short.

Climate change cultists present 'global warming because man. Act now or die. Because consensus.'

Sound minds say, 'Oh. Okay. Let me look into this because sounds important.'

Sound increasingly informed mind starts to see troubling and contradictory information begins to ask questions about methodology, interpretation of data etc.

Climate change cultists have a chance to respond in healthy exchange of ideas since they presented the argument. They do for a while.

Sound mind gives way to skeptical query as responses not standing up to scrutiny.

Climate change go on attack demanding censorship and imprisonment because how dare they be challenged.

And this is where we fucking are. A politicized mess where too much money and reputations are staked in climate change.

It's not about earth and it's not about you. Al Gore couldn't care less about either. Understand?

Ask and be skeptical. 



  1. Isn't the change in overall global climate a combination of the results of the effects of unnatural alteration of the natural landscape by humans, alongside the introduction of air and chemical pollution, both alongside ongoing natural changes and centuries-long patterns that were and still are already set to transpire irrespective of the presence/absence of any additional unnatural environmental alterations caused by humans?

    1. P.S: We don't need to "save the planet". It'll continue on with or without us.
      It's ourselves we'll be needing to save.

    2. Someone needs reorientation. Dare not question with such reason, dear Tal. Or else they'll drive you under ground.


Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.