It appears that civil discourse on climate science may soon not be possible, as folks like this are discussing use of violence against those who do not support the religion of catastrophic man-made global warming.
These are words to contemplate as we head into a 2008 without any significant action taken by the US government (to say nothing of other countries) on climate change. We are in critical battle for this planet, and we need to think seriously about doing whatever it takes to stop the actions which are destroying the land and seas…and contributing to snowballing (or, more appropriately, snow-melting) climate collapse. Are petitions, lobby days, call-ins, protests, and nonviolent civil disobedience enough?
I hear Galileo had the same problem. By the way, I certainly found it entertaining that the author signs his call to violence against people who do not share the same science as he "in good heart."
(via Tom Nelson)
Does Ted Kennedy support “wildeyes” on the windmills?
The marxists have always been lovers of violence to achieve their ends. Just ask Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or Castro.
Look I disagree with all of you quite strongly here on Global Warming. However, before you write us off as either marxists (which if you knew my personal history would be quite obviously laughable) or violent, please read the comments that responded to that post and my response here: Violence Begats Violence
“begets”, surely?
Nothing like a typo at 4am ;-). Ah well. Thanks for the catch.
Excuse me, but is not economic violence “violence,” or doesn’t that count anymore? (Now that’s laughable…)
Oh, wait, I know, because this Marxist who can’t spell thinks more action against a fake crisis is necessary, we all need to surrender our internal combustion engines, refrigerators, and (no doubt) guns.
You want a fight, Dick? Come get one, jerkoff…