Minds Have Become So Rotted By Global Warming They Listen To Naomi Klein

Artist's conception of Naomi Klein making her most reasoned argument.
Artist’s conception of Naomi Klein making her most reasoned argument.

Two weeks Northern Michigan vacation and I still can’t escape.

Anti-capitalist activist, Vatican invitee, non-scientist, and authoress of extremist political tracts Naomi Klein said global warming will make Australia “meaner”.

I do not joke nor jest. She said, “You see that in Australia where the treatment of migrants is a profound moral crisis. It’s clear that as sea levels rise that this mean streak and open racism is going to become more extreme — climate change is an accelerant to all those other issues.”

These are statements of such profound stupidity that I’m rather taken aback. I want to be nice, to be charitable, to find something redeeming in Klein. Brother, this is as nice as I can get. An increase in meanness. What’s next? Headlines blaring “Global Warming Causes Cooties”?

That The Guardian, the paper in which these remarks fell, took them seriously, is not surprising. That paper is willing to say anything to advance its agenda. For them, the ends justify the means—an inherently evil position.

Now we skeptics often joke about this, but apparently it’s true. A environmentalist fanatic can say whatever they want about global warming and it will be taken not only seriously by the bien pensant but as proved true just for the stating.

This isn’t science, it isn’t even religion. To say it is gross superstition is an understatement. Nothing short of crazed monomania can be the explanation. Klein is so incensed that people are largely free to make their own economic decisions, decisions she feels (not thinks) would be better made by her and her confreres, that she is willing to emit streams of preposterousities (you heard me: preposterousities), knowing the resulting puddles will be lapped up eagerly by her ideological followers.

Klein’s trick is to say something mind-numbingly stupid, perhaps even something that she herself doesn’t believe, and then wait for her friends in the media to parrot it, and in the process cover the statement with a layer of reportorial seriousness.

The sane are then forced to counter the idiocy by saying things like, “Global warming can’t cause ‘meanness’ because meanness can’t possible be related to temperatures”. But engaging in that very scientific act merely reinforces the error among the vulgar and ideologically blinded, who are like that dog in the Far Side cartoon who while listening to a stream of words from his owner only hears his name. The ignorant will only hear “global warming”, “meanness”, etc.

On the other hand, if you do what I am now doing you will be accused by the ignorant of being—wait for it—mean. And told you haven’t answered the charges.

What a circus! Science and truth have been left so far behind in the dust that I’m not even sure a majority of our populace would recognize it.


  1. These are statements of such profound stupidity …

    The stupid … it burns!

    Wait! Global Warming causes stupid!

    So they say we’re stupid … we say they’re stupid

    You’ve just proved Global Warming for them! Now stop it!

    I want to be nice, to be charitable, to find something redeeming

    Be nice … be charitable … find something redeeming … it’s grace

    Please, let’s all choose to disprove Global Warming

  2. Sylvia Burwell already said (in regards to the need to act on global warming) “Because the only thing your kids should be afraid of catching in the backyard is cooties.” She did not specifically indicate whether cooties would increase, decrease or remain the same as the climate warmed. She only said global warming was bad and we have to stop it now.

  3. Well when you start with a subjective premise it’s easy to pile on more assorted crapula and defend it. Ms. Klein’s opinions are formed in the lower intestines and excreted wholly formed. They tend to be messy and require considerable clean up, reeking of the garbage that has gone into their formation.

  4. Thank you for this wonderfully informative blog. Whether you know it or not, you are performing an indispensable public service.

    Thank you for your enlightening observations.

  5. Yes, it is disturbing than she would not simply be a laughing stock (or ignored) for saying such things. But then again, people will still vote for Hillary or Bill after all of their self serving shenanigans.

  6. Everything the AGW zealots have predicted has failed to come true but the zealots still believe. The empirical evidence doesn’t matter and it is explained away. Like the hiatus in global warming. The earth isn’t warming right now because the warmth is hiding.

  7. While I don’t see much point in analyzing people who are not very bright nor, apparently, very stable, such as Klein, I found Dr Brigg’s remark that consequentialism is inherently evil, interesting. One of the problems I have observed with the Left as it becomes more extreme, is that they are not interested in consequences. Let’s shut down the energy sector because it’s the ‘right’ thing to do, and let’s not consider what the consequences would be, as consequences are not moral. In that respect Dr Brigg’s and Naomi Klein are apparently on the same page. Klein will not consider the consequences of her wishes because she sees responsibility for consequences as irrelevant to her morality. The Guardian publishes what it publishes not because the end justifies the means. I doubt they are especially Machiavellian. They publish the nonsense they publish because they are dogmatists.

  8. Interesting that she raises the issue of the treatment of “migrants.” I assume she means people arriving informally by boat, aka “boat people.” One might say there was a hideous policy experiment in Australia.

    Up to 2007 we had strict border security laws that dissuaded people from arriving by boat. Then Labor (left) came to power and proclaimed that off-shore processing of refugees was immoral, or suchlike, and loosened the relavent legislation. What we saw then was a hockey stick of increasing boat people arrivals. See graph here:


    The tragedy was that over 1,000 never made it to Australia and died at sea. The Liberals (right, at least by Australian standards) then got back into power and reversed the legislation (not exactly, but essentially achieved the same effect). The boats slowed to a trickle and were being intercepted and turned back. The associated loss of life at sea has plummeted, perhaps stopped altogether.

    Since then the number of refugees in detention awaiting processing has dropped rapidly as the influx has stopped. Australia still brings in tens of thousands through the formal channels, which were displaced in the Labor days by informal arrivals.

    Sorry, what is the moral crisis again? open borders and deaths at sea versus formal intake programs from abroad and stronger border protection? So Naomi thinks deaths at sea were preferable? That’s the great thing about the bleeding-heart “thinkers”, they never take responsibility for the unintended consequences of their thought bubbles.

    If there was an easy solution to the issue of boat refugees, I think we’d all be implementing it already, but the debate is not improved by muddle-headed emotionality.

  9. I see little more than sexist ad hominem and srawmaning in your remarks.

    “Global warming can’t cause ‘meanness’ because meanness can’t possible be related to temperatures”.

    Strawman. She never said that rising temps cause meanness. She said that the effects of climate change are an accelerant to social issues. Why? because changes in climate, particularly rising sea levels, cause mass migration. The massive migration of people from areas affected by climate change incite a reactionary response in the people who feel they are being invaded or overrun by migrants. It is exactly for this reason that the Pentagon cites global warming as a major US security concern.

  10. Brenda: Mass migration is the one of the biggest lies in global warming. The ocean rises less than 1 inch per year. One inch. People will not move in mass numbers (How many houses set 1 inch from water’s edge?). There are no climate refugees. Al Gore LIED.

    The Pentagon sites this as a security concern because Obama demanded it based on Obama’s personal agenda, not science. There is no concern–just lies to disrupt society and make people forget Iran is getting a nuclear weapon and ISIS is coming after America. Seas rising an inch a year sounds idiotic in comparison.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *