Matt Patterson: Eco Crowd Growing Desperate—and Dangerous

The climate scaremongers are losing the public relations battle on global warming—and it’s driving them absolutely batty.

Take eco-warrior Steve Zwick. Writing for FORBES Zwick calls on so-called “climate deniers” to be treated like war criminals:

Let’s take a page from those Tennessee firemen we heard about a few times last year—the ones who stood idly by as houses burned to the ground because their owners had refused to pay a measly $75 fee. We can apply this same logic to climate change.

We know who the active denialists are—not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay.  Let’s let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands.  Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.  They broke the climate.  Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?

Notice that arguments contrary to what Zwick believes are not honest differences of opinion—they are “lies.” Those who disagree with him are not merely mistaken, they are malevolent. They are not worthy of being converted to his point of view via honest debate; they deserve only to have their homes razed.

This is fascism, pure and simple, and it is more and more a feature of environmentalist rhetoric.

Cooler Heads


9 responses to “Matt Patterson: Eco Crowd Growing Desperate—and Dangerous

  1. Those who understand the actual meaning of the term ‘fascism’ have long known that global warming etc. is fascism.

    • Strong, autocratic central control of privately
      owned businesses.

      What do you see in “global warming etc.”
      that is fascist?

      I see the U.S. government using global
      warming as an excuse to over regulate
      American business. But they have been
      over regulating American business for
      over 40 years. I say the fascism preceded
      the global warming fad.

    • Ben of Houston

      GC has a point. You need to be careful about what you say, because when you invoke the great evil, people are quick to reject you outright.

  2. At its worst its Fascism, at its best it appears to be Communitarianism. Both fail across the board.

    Speaking of desperate, I just ran across some Eco-Nuts who hyjacked a domain name and, get this, an author’s proper name to hide dissent related to Agenda 21 in US ICLEI programs.

    This is pitiful:
    “Yes, some jerk has taken that domain name and is directing people to Obama and Sustainability websites. The world is full of creeps like that and what can I say but that I’m sorry I didn’t think of it myself.

    It didn’t occur to me that someone would also want to buy my own name as a domain name.

    That’s the breaks.”


  3. Zwick should start marketing Green armbands with various environmentalist logos in anticipation of this “Kristallnacht” (/sarc).

  4. Maybe we should keep track of all those eco freaks who keep peddling psudo-science. We should then tax them to reclaim all the gov funds we spent on reducing CO2 when the globe doesn’t warm or Someone proves that it is not CO2.

  5. First off, it was not the decision of those firefighters to let a house burn. That was a decision made by the bureaucrats (i.e. supposedly super intelligent people who are sure they know what is best for the masses) and the firemen were obeying their orders from above.

    That kind of changes the complexion of his argument, doesn’t it? A more accurate description of the events would have been, “After several failed votes for tax based fire protection, county commissioners directed firefighters not to fight any fire on property where the owner had not paid yearly dues. There were, however, instructed to stand by and ensure the fire did not extend to other properties.

    This simply highlights his inability to fully grasp a subject before making pronouncements. Academic laziness.

  6. Ben of Houston

    I disagree with the main point of the example. If you do not pay for a service, you don’t get the service. Just as you cannot buy auto insurance after you have had a wreck, you cannot ask the fire department to save your home after you refused to pay their service. That scenario has happened in the past and will happen again. The policy is clear and consistent, as I learned as a child. The fire fighters get the people out (their moral duty) and prevent the fire from spreading (their civic duty), but they do not risk their lives or work to save the possessions of those who do not pay for their services.

    Of course, that’s a primary difference in philosophy between liberals and conservatives (and the reason most fire departments are publicly owned, to prevent this moral quandary). The liberals feel that it is a moral duty to support others, while the conservatives feel that it is a moral duty for people to support themselves. Oversimplification, true, but not inaccurate

  7. This is standard operating procedure for the left. Intolerance and suppression are a code for the left to live by.

    Bring back individuality and the right to be me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s