Forbes contributor: people who dispute manmade global warming must be punished
Daniel S. writes:
Once again demonstrating the malevolence and totalitarian nature of the so-called environmentalist movement, which is little more than green Marxism, yet another global warming fanatic, Steve Zwick, writing at Forbes magazine (again we see the nexus between the establishment media and the most radical forms of leftism), has called for those who oppose the false cult of man-made global warming be forced to “pay.” According to Zwick, the so-called “denialists” (i.e. rational opponents of green Marxism) should be placed under government surveillance, have their healthy land confiscated, be forced onto “submerged islands,” have their private property destroyed, and have food withheld from them.When I read Daniel’s e-mail about Zwick’s article, I couldn’t believe that such a thing had been published in the pro-business, libertarian-leaning Forbes. To my astonishment, it had been—another illustration of my theme of recent months that liberalism has shifted into hyper-drive. Here is what Zwick says:
We know who the active denialists are—not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.“They broke the climate.” Human beings, who have absolutely no control over the climate of planet earth, or even the tiniest demonstrated influence over the climate of planet earth, “broke” the climate of planet earth, and must be punished for it. This is like saying that white people, who have absolutely no control over the IQ and other dispositions of blacks, are responsible for endemic black dysfunction and must be punished for it. What is the source of such madness? It is liberalism. Liberalism rejects the idea of a larger world which forms us and of which we are a part. It tells us that we are radically autonomous beings who create our own reality and our own values. But the liberal belief in man as the god of his own world doesn’t stop there. Since man creates his world in the good sense of the word, therefore he also creates his world in the bad sense of the word. Any bad things that exist, such as global warming or racial inequality of abilities, must be the result of human agency—of an evil human agency.
Further, we should remember that the warmists on whose behalf Zwick speaks are not doing anything more to save the climate than are the “denialists” whom he wants to punish. All the warmists have done is put forth wild and totally unworkable proposals, which, even if they were workable, could not make any appreciable difference in the climate. So what Zwick wants to punish the “denialists” for is not is not that they have somehow uniquely caused global warming, but that they disagree with the warmists’ dishonest and discredited theory as to the causes of global warming, and dispute the warmists’ proposals of how to stop global warming—proposals, principally Cap and Trade, which would accomplish nothing but break the world economy while enriching the friends of the politicians who passed them.
Under liberalism, the human will is supreme. Therefore the reason Zwick hates the denialists and wants to punish them, dispossess them, and crush them, is that they stand in the way of his will, of the will of all warmists. Under liberalism, those who resist the will of the liberals must be destroyed.
An Indian living in the West writes:
That Forbes article you linked to is showing a kind of desperation among the AGW crowd that is making them write such nonsense. They have lost their minds.LA writes:
I think the description of one’s adversaries as “desperate” is overdone. Everyone today constantly calls the other side “desperate.” Democrats, whatever the issue is, call Republicans “desperate.” Republicans, whatever the issue is, call Democrats “desperate.” I don’t buy it, especially with regard to the left.Nile McCoy writes:
In the case of the whether the left is desperate or gaining ground, I look back to the issues of the 1990s in the United States body politic. The left was unafraid to heavily push gun control was huge, partial birth abortion, but they were afraid to push their environmental extremism agenda. Now they run away both locally and nationally from gun control, they don’t try to defend partial abortion in specific (the issue is now obfuscated by trying to redefine personhood), and their environmental extremism agenda was simply in its infancy compared to where it is today.James P. writes:
I don’t read Forbes, but I find it interesting that Forbes has become such a bastion of Leftism as indicated recently; a Forbes author led the charge against Derbyshire, and now another Forbes author is pushing AGW.Ken Hechtman writes:
“Desperate” is a strong word. But you can certainly hear a tone of frustration coming from environmentalists today that wasn’t there when global warming first surfaced as an issue in the late 1980s.LA replies:
I’m surprised that Mr. Hechtman would make an argument so easy to shoot down. An ideological movement such as AGW is like an army, with generals, officers, and foot soldiers. The soldiers aren’t privy to the information possessed by the generals. A fraud being conducted by the leaders of the AWG movement is not going to be recognized and understood by the rank and file; they’re just repeating the arguments they’ve heard from the leaders. So the fact that the rank and file don’t know about the fraudulent nature of many of the key AWG statements, far from indicating that the charge of fraud is false, is exactly what one would expect in the case of such a fraud.Ken Hechtman replies to LA:
Yes and anyone who runs away from the helicopters is VC and anyone who stands his ground is well-disciplined VC. You credit the left with a level of discipline it hasn’t had in at least 60 years. The Communist Party was a military hierarchy. The New Left is an unruly mob. It’s not capable of keeping a secret that big for that long.LA replies:
Perhaps my analogy was not well chosen. The point of the analogy was not to suggest military-style discipline or secrecy in the AGW movement, but simply a difference of expertise and knowledge. The leaders, the people who are generating the AWG data, ideas, and arguments, know what they are doing, and are aware of their own deceits. The regular warmists believe what the leaders tell them, just as the general public does—or, rather, used to, until the lies and falsehoods began to be revealed.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 22, 2012 09:14 PM | Send