‘..the hysterics demand that “climate change deniers” be punished, even killed, and the call extends from the spittle-flecked fanatics to the usually sober New York Times (see below). Christopher Monckton, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, has compiled a valuable list of those calling for the abrogation of free speech and punishment of dissidents..
Here is his list:
Climate Nazis
2005: Margo Kingston, in Australia’s Daily Briefing, said: “Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.”
2006: Bill McGuire, at University College, London, said: “We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And, to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference.”
2006: The Grist.com website called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. The article was later retracted.
2006: Heidi Cullen featured Dave Roberts, who said online, “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.” The remark was not later retracted.
2006: Mark Lynas, a “green” columnist, wrote: “I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.”
2006: Spiked Online reported that when a correspondent for the American current affairs show 60 Minutes was asked why his various feature programmes on global warming did not include the views of global warming sceptics, he replied: “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”
2007: Ellen Goodman, in the Boston Globe, said: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”
2007: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics, saying: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” The penalty for treason is death.
2007: Yvo de Boer, secretary general of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible”.
2007: Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a UN special climate envoy, said: “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.
2008: Dr James Hansen of NASA demanded that skeptics be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.
2008: David Suzuki, a Canadian environmentalist, said government leaders skeptical of global warming should be “thrown into jail”.
2008: Alex Lockwood, a British journalism professor, said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.
2009: A writer at Talking Points Memo said global warming “deniers” should be executed or jailed. He later retracted this remark.


2010: James Lovelock, inventor of the “Gaia hypothesis”, told The Guardian: “I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
2010: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Penn State University, declared that skeptics, who had caused “a 25-year delay in acting to stop climate change”, may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.
2010: A video from the “10:10 campaign” showed climate skeptic children being blown up by their teacher in class, and their classmates were spattered with their blood and guts.
2011: An Australian journalist said climate skeptics should be “branded” with cattle-irons to mark them out from the rest of the population.
2011: Another Australian journalist said skeptics should be “gassed”.
2012: Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz, Austria, recommended the death penalty for skeptics. He later withdrew.
2012: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Widener University School of Law, again declared that skeptics may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.
2014: Dr Lawrence Torcello, assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote that people who disagreed with him should be sent to jail.
2014: During a February cold snap, the New York Times ran a cartoon headed “Self-Destructing Sabers for Dispatching Climate-Change Deniers” and showing a climate skeptic being stabbed with an icicle
2014: The gawker.com website said: “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.”
2014: The host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show promoted Soviet-style re-education for climate skeptic politicians by conducting an on-air poll on the question “Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”
2015: Katie Herzog at Grist.com on 16 January wrote: “If this planet is to survive the scourge that is humanity, we all have to stop reproducing. Yes, all of us. In that spirit, I propose we … sterilize every human male on his 10th birthday.”
2015: Comment on the webpage of the Brisbane Times about a category 5 cyclone along the Queensland coast on 19/20 February: “These type of weather events could happen further south in future and be more intense with global warming … if anyone has to suffer out of this one I hope it is a climate change denier, if anyone.” Downloaded from http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cyclone-marcia-live-coverage-20150219-13iuaw.html.
2015: The Australian Capital Territory’s Arts Fund gave $18,793 “to assist with costs of the creative development of a new theatre work, Kill Climate Deniers”.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/punishing_climate_change_deniers.html#ixzz3XDUjFGly
This is what they want for deniers.
https://youtu.be/FS5CH-Xc0co
But don’t think they will stop after killing the deniers. Deniers are just the first ones on a long list.
“Deniers are just the first ones on a long list.”
Prezactly given that the latest plans call for no more than 100 million people tolerated on this planet.
Some people want depopulation of at least 80% of the people. Some say we should only have 500 million people. So this is their way of saying we are useless to their plans.
Compulsory vaccinations just a thought
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/vaccination-to-be-backed-by-welfare-sanctions/story-fn59nokw-1227300267462?nk=2759ef428ae8d4b5622276b82eef402a
Coincidentally these are the same people behind the no Cash society.
The drive to a cashless society is supported by the UN Capital Development Fund’s Better Than Cash Alliance which aims to accelerate the shift to electronic payments, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, MasterCard and Visa among others.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/11/welcome-sweden-electronic-money-not-so-funny
http://economia.icaew.com/opinion/december-2013/bill-gates-the-emerging-worlds-vaccine-pioneers
If the link works, it will show what the true intentions of the vaccines are. And on the comments section, their’s someone denying his message. Caught with his pants down, so someone makes up stuff to defend Gates.
https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QyCkwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ted.com%2Ftalks%2Fbill_gates%3Flanguage%3Den&ei=8dosVY3eK6fAmAWe4YHgCw&usg=AFQjCNGFY5gYkigQesRj-KE34BbPJ2JnFg&sig2=hsNQON1uFBA2wqjQGQni7Q
Please ignore last link. Hopefully this one will work as intended.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064
Yes that was the right link, and by the way, Bill Gates father in some way or another was a eugenicist or was involved in planned parenthood, which is all about keeping the population low, and getting rid of those of least value in regards to ability to earn.
Yes RobertV, the Rockefellers, gave a big cheque to start up the United Nations, have shares in the Federal Reserve, and are stockholders to pharmaceuticals which includes vaccinations. And these people are pushing these things on us.
Fluoride and Reproductive Problems
Fluoride given to animals at high doses destroys the male reproductive system. Fluoride damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility in a number of species (Kour 1980; Chinoy 1989; Chinoy 1991; Susheela 1991; Chinoy 1994; Kumar 1994; Narayana 1994a,b; Zhao 1995; Elbetieha 2000; Ghosh 2002; Zakrzewska 2002).
A U.S. epidemiological study showed increased rates of infertility among couples living in areas with 3 ppm or more fluoride in the water (Freni 1994). Two studies showed reduced level of circulating testosterone in males living in high fluoride areas (Susheela 1996; Barot 1998). A study of fluoride-exposed workers reported a “subclinical reproductive effect” (Ortiz-Perez 2003).
http://www.cheeseslave.com/top-10-dangers-of-fluoride/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_in_Australia
http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/fluoridation
If only we could trust government the world would be a better place to live.
http://real-agenda.com/2011/04/01/fluoride-is-a-toxic-industrial-waste-product/
Fluoride is actually toxic waste from the aluminium, phosphoric acid and phosphate fertilizer industries. Millions of tons of fluoride are produced each year.
Up until the 1930’s, fluoride was discharged directly into the air and waterways, causing great damage. Lawsuits were mounting as more and more victims learned that their problems were caused by fluoride poisoning. The industry’s response was to change the public’s perception of fluoride.
Many ‘scientific’ studies were presented to convince the public that fluoride was safe. Lucrative positions were created for ‘research’ and ‘education’ with the express purpose of promoting the use of fluoride in toothpaste and in drinking water. Instead of paying millions for disposal of this toxic waste, fluoride was now being sold to toothpaste and water companies!
One of the last places in Queensland that didn’t have it in the tap water was surveyed.
“Do you want it?”
A resounding “NO” came out from the community.
“Tough cookies. You’re getting it anyway”, was the answer.
I pump my water before it has a chance to be poisoned, and now when I drink mains water I get sick. When I shower in it I get a rash.
If you really want to dose yourself with Fluorine,sit down and have a nice cup of Tea.
It’s a plot, I tells ya!
According to a book I have, fluoride, is the waste product of aluminium cans. And that if coca-cola dumps it, they have to pay for their effect on the environment. So guess what, they dump it into us. Question, if I boil my water, will that take the fluoride out?
Sorry, Robertv has just stated a lot of what I’ve just said. But the question remains, if I boil it, will it take out the fluoride.
Well Robertv, it looks like this is a perfect way to depopulate us. Oh, and their was a time when the king or queen was responsible to God. If they didn’t keep with God, they didn’t last long. But the system we have in place, doesn’t put God at the top. It puts big corporations at the top. That’s why these governments can’t be trusted, they aren’t serving God.
Thanks for finding this listing KG. This fits in with all that I’ve been predicting.
No man, and no lesser god, has the right to decide who may live and who may die in the same manner that herds of animals are kept in check.
The difference between life affirming religions and all the other belief systems is this central message.
Our secular world, guided by alleged supermen, has been indoctrinating the whole globe with the notion that the world is endangered by it being burdened by too many people.
It does not see that human intelligence is our greatest resource.
It sees greater and lesser lights.
It decides who is better and who is worse.
Its influence has redirected society’s concerns: from discouraging people from harming themselves and others into encouraging the human to explore wherever he feels inclined.
It tries to belittle or obscure histories that warn of consequences from poor or risky choices.
It shrugs at NAMBLA and is angered by the Boy Scouts.
It decides who should be saved and who should not be.
It decides whom to come to the aid of and whom should be abandoned.
Who is innocent and who is not becomes one of being deemed so by those who play god, not by anything unthreatening the subjugated creature chooses to do or not do.
Those who believe in the God of Creation clearly pose an obstacle to those who see themselves in competition with Him. Proclaiming: “Since no such God exists, who will do the providing? No. NO. Stand aside. Let us brilliant ones, unencumbered by an outdated morality, take on the role of God. Someone must!”
These two religious paradigms are incompatible. The conflict is now escalating.
Whether or not one believes in Him, one must understand that those who are in competition with the idea of Him need to eradicate the idea of Him so as to make it easier to eradicate him.
Spot-on, Pascal!
Amen. Couldn’t say it better.
It’s these powers that control the patents office and withhold world-altering technology, then tell us all there’s simply not enough of anything to go around.
Engineered shortages.
Engineered conflict.
Engineered genocide for the rebellious.
Wombat, according to my research the club of rome are the people responsible for telling people how little resources are available. And they are the people pushing depopulation. In my 1970s economic book with included readings their was an article written by the club of rome saying we’d run out of oil by 2,000.
And Henry Wallich who later became a federal reserve governor even said that the club of rome came from Thomas Malthus. Malthus was the guy who said we should limit the amount of children you can have. Now Wallich was the guy who said, the solution is to allow countries to be rich, cause rich countries can afford to clean up their own mess. So I find it incredible that this very guy worked for the Federal Reserve as a governor a few years later. And he was an inflation hawk. He was from Germany, and didn’t want a repeat. I find that interesting. Something tells me the elite wouldn’t want these books in circulation. What do you think they’ll do when they find out I have this book.
What Pascal said,only I refer to those people as “Evil do-gooders “.
Ask yourself this,who should we fear most,someone who is occasionally wrong,but admits it,or someone who insists they are always right and therefore knows better than we how to run our lives.
When they insist on how I must behave that is when I aim to misbehave
Come a day there won’t be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all.
Or if you prefer;
There is no news. There is only the truth of the signal. What I see. And, there’s the puppet theater the Parliament jesters foist on the somnambulant public.
Your “evil do-gooders” reminded me of C.S.Lewis’ observation (from The Abolition of Man no less!):
“Come a day there won’t be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all.”
I figured somebody would get the reference
Extra points if you know which much older movie used a similar line
“It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.”
Damn right!
As I read that I have images of orange jump-suits in mind. But I suppose that trademark has been taken by another totalitarian cult. Mind you ISIS and ICCP are both acronyms of four letters starting with “I”.
NZ’s own Martyn Bradbury said this a while ago…
“As our denial becomes more and more farcical, the protest response to that should become more and more radical. Scratching large cars with coins” Martyn Bradbury
I told him he was Fuck-all and sent him this…
https://r1016132.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/global-warming-establishment-threaten-to-burn-heritics-at-the-stake-without-trial/
I don’t think he liked it
I can just imagine those che-shirted milquetoasts turning up at the bottom of my driveway with torches and pitchforks.
And there I am, sitting on the porch with my Enfield.
“Oh crap, I forgot”, says the leader.
“I got 600 rounds of .303 that’s two for each of ya”
Dutch government taken to court on climate change
Campaigners in the Netherlands are taking the government to court for allegedly failing to protect its citizens from climate change.
The class action lawsuit, involving almost 900 citizens, aims to force the government to cut emissions faster.
The first hearing opened in the Hague on Tuesday.
It is said to be the first time in Europe that citizens have tried to hold a state responsible for alleged inaction on climate change.
It is also believed to be the first case in the world in which human rights are used – alongside domestic law – as a legal basis to protect citizens against climate change.
The campaigners, led by the Urgenda Foundation, want the judges to compel the Dutch government to reduce its carbon emissions to 40% below 1990s levels by 2020.
The activists also want the court to declare that global warming of more than 2C will lead to a violation of fundamental human rights worldwide.
Among the plaintiffs is Joos Ockels, wife of the late astronaut Wubbo Ockels, along with DJ Gregor Salto and Nasa climate scientist Prof James Hansen.
“Everybody is waiting for the government to take action but the government has done so little. If the case succeeds, they will be forced to take action,” Salto told the UK’s Guardian newspaper.
The EU has pledged to cut emissions by 40% by 2030, while the US promised last month to reduce its carbon emissions 26-28% by 2025.
However, analysts say the pledges being made ahead of a global deal in Paris in December are not strong enough to stop temperatures rising above the internationally agreed maximum of 2C.
The 2C target was acknowledged at the UN climate convention (UNFCCC) in 2009 as the threshold of dangerous climate change, which scientists say is largely caused by the use of fossil fuels.
Sceptics say the threat from climate change is exaggerated.
Commentators say it remains to be seen whether the Dutch court is able and willing to rule on an issue that is still the subject of scientific debate.
However, Jaap Spier, Advocate-General to the Dutch Supreme Court, was quoted by the newspaper Trouw earlier in April saying that courts could force countries to adopt “effective climate policies”.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32300214
Because judges are such impartial, competent scientists…..