Racist, Sexist, Anti-Scientific, Mentally Retarded Idiotic Morons…Then You’re Likely A Republican, A Climate Denier, or Both.

The BBC conspires not only to keep climate change critics off the air but to smear, undermine and denigrate them and their views as much as possible, going so far as to claim they are in need of psychiatric help.

However when you look at the outbursts from, and the extreme views of, many climate ‘believer’ advocates you might begin to wonder just who it is that might be in need of some form of help.

There is a massive ‘industry’ devoted to communicating the ‘Truth’ about global warming….much of that at first driven by the BBC’s Roger Harrabin along with his side kick Dr Joe Smith in the famous CMEP seminars.  The ‘Science’ has been sidelined now…the policy is to accept it…and the new project is to make the Public believe…not the science but the ‘fact’ global warming is man made.

Every BBC programme is now on standby to push that message in any way possible.

Part of that is as I said to destroy the credibility and authority of any ‘Sceptic’….but Roger Pielke, Professor of Environmental Studies  says ‘... for climate science, experts (pro AGW scientists) being activists can actually lessen their credibility.’

Seems that’s not the case for the BBC.

When you read the below you might wonder when the BBC will start to think perhaps these scientists aren’t perhaps the disinterested scientific parties they proclaim to be and are prepared to say and do anything to make sure only their views are heard.

And let’s not forget the infamous Michael Mann, he of the dodgy ‘Hockey Stick’ graph and Climategate fame.

Remember as you read that Paul Ehrlich has just been elected to be a member of the Royal Society…is he really the sort of person that is held up as an example to the rest of us?

This post has its origins in a post by Bishop Hill about scientist Paul Ehrlich.

As an aside have a look at the Royal Society’s website and see who has been recently elected to become ‘Fellows’ under the Presidency of Sir Paul Nurse (Another BBC favourite climate fanatic):

Paul Ehrlich….a biologist but fanatical climate change advocate.

Ralph Cicerone….the scientist who ‘turned’ David Attenborough and made him believe.

Steve Jones…..another fanatical climate change advocate….his new stature might raise a few eyebrows as he admitted himself that he was washed up as a scientist…and only rescued from obscurity by the BBC….a debt which he has amply repaid.
It is curious that the RS say that it is his contribution as a ‘communicator’ on science that has caught their eye…and yet it is Jones who demands the BBC silence all those who have differing views on climate to those of the ‘Consensus’.  Ironic no?

Makes you wonder what the real reasons for making them Fellows of the RS were.

The Royal Society’s motto?
Nullius in verba, Latin for “Take nobody’s word for it”

Bishop Hill casts an eye over Ehrlich’s Twitter comments and suggests that they go beyond reasoned or rational….you might think Ehrlich could be dangerous if given a free hand as he dismisses climate sceptics as mentally retarded morons and idiots, sexist, racist, anti-scientific or worse…Republican….or Murdoch…‘murdering our grandkids for profit’:

Paul R. Ehrlich ?@PaulREhrlich
#Climate disruption. Remember this when denier morons claim snow proves no warming. Just the opposite. #greed. http://bit.ly/Xiwu7G

Paul R. Ehrlich ?@PaulREhrlich
#Overpopulation and idiocy — more on the WSJ’s latest moron. Right wing struggling to find even dumber “analysts” http://bit.ly/WxTdva
Paul R. Ehrlich ?@PaulREhrlich
WSJ gibbing idiocy on #population http://on.wsj.com/Ytfg6p  no accident. Part of Murdoch empire’s attempt to murder our grandkids for profit.

Paul R. Ehrlich ?@PaulREhrlich
#Population. Julian Simon proved by example long ago the ultimate resource, which will never be exhausted, is morons http://on.wsj.com/VBAmmd

Paul R. Ehrlich ?@PaulREhrlich
Interesting article on treatment of mentally ill from journal targeted at the mentally retarded http://on.wsj.com/11QT6v1

 

…and look at this exchange just so you know how else he categorizes you if you don’t agree with him:

Paul R. Ehrlich ?@PaulREhrlich
O [Obama] must use bully pulpit against climate-denier, racist, sexist, plutocratic, anti-science, anti-education, Republicans http://politi.co/WgLym1

Barry Woods ?@BarryJWoods
why use this language not helping I get called a denier,but am not republican, nor anti-sci, nor racist, nor sexist, etc,etc @PaulREhrlich

Paul R. Ehrlich ?@PaulREhrlich
@BarryJWoods Sorry — it’s increasingly a package, but obviously not everyone fits. Are you a denier or a sceptic — and why?

 

So  ….if you’re a ‘ climate-denier, or racist, sexist, plutocratic, anti-science, anti-education, Republicans ‘……. Ehrlich clumps them all together: ‘it’s increasingly a package’.

Going back to his Tweets on the WSJ, why might Ehrlich hate what’s being written in the WSJ?  Could it be he has a personal grudge after he (and the scientific consensus of the time) was shown to be entirely wrong about population growth and takes badly to criticism?:

‘The fall in the birth rate is a largely voluntary phenomenon. It has happened just as fast in countries with no coercive population policy as it has in China, with its Draconian two-child law. The demands for coercion that were common in the 1970s—”Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?” wrote Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich and John Holdren in 1977—seem embarrassing in retrospect.
Birth rates have gone down because of prosperity, not poverty.’

Or this one:

‘On the eve of that decade, Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich opened his best-selling book “The Population Bomb” with this sunny declaration: “The battle to feed all humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Of course, nothing of the kind happened.‘

Ehrlich is an advocate not just for Climate change but, as you read above, for population control:

‘Some precautionary steps that should be considered include
moving as rapidly as possible to humanely reduce the human population size.’

‘Humanely’…that’s good.

Here he reveals what is going on when the BBC invites in psychologists to pass judgement on climate sceptics and denounce them as in need of psychiatric treatment…..a collaboration of different scientific spheres aimed at attacking those who dissent:

‘We know that simply informing people of the scientific consensus on a serious problem does not ordinarily produce rapid changes in institutional or individual behaviour…..there is a need for natural scientists to collaborate with social scientists, especially those who study the dynamics of social movements. Such collaborations could develop ways to stimulate a significant increase in popular support for decisive and immediate action on the predicament.
Without significant pressure from the public demanding action, we fear there is little chance of changing course fast enough to forestall disaster.’

David Attenborough also thinks along Ehrlich’s  lines on population:
‘He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth.
“We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now,” he told the Radio Times.’

And look here is another scientist who advocates population control…you might remember him as the man who called for climate sceptics to be executed…but he also went on to suggest the Pope also be similarly executed (all completely and remarkably unreported by the BBC I believe):

Richard Parncutt : last updated 25 October 2012

‘In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers.
I wish to claim that it is generally ok to kill someone in order to save one million people. Similarly, the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability be traced to their personal actions.

That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms.
There is a clear causal relationship between the Vatican’s continuing active discouragement of the use of condoms and the spread of AIDS, especially in Africa. We are talking about millions of deaths, so according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death. ‘

Do you see a common theme here…climate change and population control….and extreme measures to ‘solve’ the problem.

Think that all through a little…consider Ehrlich’s views on climate and population, and Parncutt’s….then consider what Bertrand Russell said about selectively reducing the population:

“We may perhaps assume that, if people grow less superstitious, government will acquire the right to sterilize those who are not considered desirable as parents. This power will be used, at first, to diminish imbecility, a most desirable object. But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized…..the matter would of course be in the hands of State officials, presumably elderly medical men. Whether they would really be preferable to Nature I do not feel sure. I suspect that they would breed a subservient population, convenient to rulers but incapable of initiative.”

 

Sounds familiar…opposition to the consensus proves imbecility…or idiocy…or sexism, racism or Republicanism and needs treatment.

And not just those with undesirable physical or mental attributes but those who dissent from the conventional thought of the day will be eradicated.

It’s not a great leap from what Ehrlich suggests, in particular the manner of his expressing his views, which might lead you to think you would not want to give him or his ilk the power of life and death.  Such fanatical views only lead one place however ‘well intentioned’.

We have too much consumption among the rich and too little among the poor. That implies that terrible thing that we are going to have to do which is to somehow redistribute access to resources away the rich to the poor.

What other ‘terrible things’ might be considered to shape the world to his, and the BBC’s liking?

 

 

Good that the BBC considers those who think that there might be a different explanation for global warming are unfit to comment.