Prosecute the heretics! is the new cry from the high priests of global warming. Climate “deniers”, they say, are no better than mobsters, good fellas who are extorting the climate, toughs who put the muscle on temperatures.
How? Never mind. What’s important is that characters like Yours Truly who are skeptical of claims of doom should go to jail and in a hurry before our ideas contaminate the innocent.
Nobody expects the scientific inquisition. But they should have.
Our modern day would-be Torquemada is Naomi Oreskes, who has made her career by counting the number of articles in various publications which take positions she finds agreeable, and then telling those counts to a world which never asked for them. This would be harmless and a typical waste of money except that Oreskes, like journalists who cover politicians, is under the impression that because she writes about scientists, what she says has scientific importance. Scientists, against like politicians, flattered by the attention, never correct her delusion.
Did you ever notice that most of the cries of “climate apocalypse” come from non-climatologists?
Never mind. Start at 1:12:30 in the video “Crossing the 2014 Climate Divide: Scientists, Skeptics & the Media”, a panel of supreme self-importance of which Oreskes was a member.
You heard right. RICO-style prosecution. For what tangible crime? Well, heresy.
(Has to be heresy. The amount of money I have extorted from my skepticism hovers between nada and nil.)
This put me in mind of a passage from from Dawn to Decadence by the indispensable Jacques Barzun (pp 271-272):
The smallest divergence from the absolute is grave error and wickedness. From there it is a short step to declaring war on the misbelievers. When faith is both intellectual and visceral, the overwhelming justification is that heresy imperils other souls. If the erring sheep will not recant, he or she becomes a source of error in others….[P]ersecution is a health measure that stops the spread of an infectious disease—all the more necessary that souls matter more than bodies.
Even though not all admit this, their actions prove that souls are more important than bodies. Thought crimes are in many senses worse than physical crimes; they excite more comment and are more difficult to be forgiven for. Perhaps the worst crime is to be accused of racism (the charges needn’t be, and frequently are not, true; the accusation makes the charge true enough). It is now a thought crime to speak out against sodomy (and to say you personally are a participant is a matter of media celebration).
Barzun said that sins against political correctness “so far” have only been punished by “opprobrium, loss of employment, and virtual exclusion from the profession.” (I can confirm these.) Barzun said, “any form of persecution implies an amazing belief in the power of ideas, indeed of mere words casually spoken.”
The Enlightened, who simper when calling each other “free thinkers”, in one of their favorite myths tell us how they left the crime of heresy behind. The word has been forgotten, maybe, but not the idea.
Stalin sent his victims to the firing squad for the crime of “counter-revolution”, not heresy. Being repulsed by sodomy is not heresy, it is “homophobic”. Believing in God and practicing that belief is not heresy, but “fundamentalism.” Cautioning that affirmative action may cause the pains the program is meant to alleviate isn’t heresy, but “racism.” Saying that unskillful Climate models which routinely bust their predictions should not be trusted is not heresy, but is “anti-science.”
Boy, has Science come up in the world to be a personage one can sin against.
Want evidence of thought crimes? Write a letter to the campus newspaper saying the Women’s Studies department should be disbanded and its members quietly retired. Or recommend the Office of Diversity (many colleges have several such offices, not just one) be dissolved. If you survive, you will form a perfect understanding of heresy.
Those who preach tolerance can tolerate anything except tolerance.
Update I stupidly forgot that the New York Times doesn’t want to prosecute but to kill global warming skeptics. With icicles.
Update Apropos, in a roundabout way. Group Preferences: Opiate of the Intellectuals.
Update “Nuremberg-style trials must be held for senior corporate (including corporate media) and political executives responsible for crimes against humanity and planet that almost defy belief. They must be held to account for their crimes.” link
Thanks to Tom Nelson (@tan123) and Willie Soon for alerting us to this latest silliness.