Two wrongs still don’t make it right

In the aftermath of the Oslo and Utoya mass murders the vicious and juvenile leftist attempt to smear anyone who is right of centre, by highlighting any political position that appears to have been shared by Anders Breivik, continues apace.

It was only a matter of time before some activist would dig through Breivik’s ‘manifesto’ to see if he held any views on climate change.  They have, and he did. Consequently, because Breivik is a ‘climate change denier’ believes that global warming is an eco-Marxist plot ‘to create a world government’ using the ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming scam’, anyone who shares that view is, by definition, in league with the evil, homocidal maniac.  In fact, the piece cross posted onto apportions responsibility for Breivik’s views on the subject on ‘climate denial pundits’:

Inspired by climate denial pundits, right-wing Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik railed against global warming “enviro-communism” in his manifesto.

You can almost feel the author itching to make a connection between ‘deniers’ and the murderous attack itself.  The man who wrote this warped article is one Brad Johnson, editor of an electronic, Joe Romm cheerleading rag called ‘ThinkProgress Green‘. His hatred of anyone who dares question the hypothesis to which he subscribes is evident by the inflammatory rhetoric he employs throughout his labour of ego. Clearly the irony of this is lost on him, probably due to his mypoic, tribal, quasi-religous observance to left wing orthodoxy.  He kindly spells out his vested interests in leftist campaign groups to show where he is coming from:

Johnson is one of those big government loving, politicised, rent seeking ‘scientists’ who is so threatened by anyone highlighting flaws in the hypothesis he is wedded to he tries to invalidate them by labelling them climate change ‘deniers’.  He is completely wrong.

The issue is not whether the climate is changing, but what the cause is and to what extent mankind has any influence over it.  So vicious is Johnson’s assault it has prompted a remarkable comment from a somewhat unexpected quarter:

Ouch. While trying to draw parallels between a mass murderer and those who dispute the narrative on climate change, in a crass attempt to shame them into silence on the subject lest they be labelled Breivik sympathisers or allies, the distasteful Johnson has managed to fall foul of one of the people he would reasonably be expected to idolise.

However, in his comment, Richard Betts states that the ‘actual scientific evidence [for man made climate change] is pretty good’.  The problem with this assertion by Betts is that, like Johnson, he is completely wrong.

The ‘evidence’ for man made climate change that exists today is utterly flawed, fact.   There is still no proof whatsoever of causation, fact. The climate models upon which the whole climate change industry is based have singularly failed to predict the hiatus in warming over the last 15 years and as the Climategate emails made clear, the politicised scientists irresponsibly and cynically pushing the hypothesis as fact can’t account for the lack of warming, fact.  Therefore the claim that mankind is to blame for the observed warming over the decades remains nothing more than a theory. Fact.

Johnson’s piece is the latest in what will be a long line of similar hatchet jobs that seek to make right thinking people feel guilty for their views and opinions.  Over at EU Referendum, Richard ruminates on this with an excellent piece that puts matters into context and shows up the shallow nature of those seeking to exploit the situation for political gain.

Now is not the time to be cowed into silence. The only person responsible for the actions of Anders Breivik is Anders Breivik.  Just because he shared some of the views of a large number of other people on a number of issues does not make the views wrong.  What was wrong was his reaction to them.  Opponents of big government, the EU, climate change orthodoxy, et all have nothing to be ashamed of.  Keep presenting evidence that exposes failings in the narrative that misleads the public.

There is more tosh in the same mould here.

12 Responses to “Two wrongs still don’t make it right”

  1. 1 Span Ows 26/07/2011 at 7:58 pm

    Correct me if I’m wrong but…follow the link where he talks of Monckton calling them Nazis you get a follow-up link under the video to Bolt in the Aussie Herald, he says:

    “Monckton is right to warn against the surrender to argument-by-authority. He is right to warn against the surrender of sovereignty to international bodies claiming to work for “the planet”.

    But he’s gone too far in this deeply personal attack and an apology is in order.”

    Then there’s an update:

    Monckton apologises:

    “Let me begin with an unreserved apology….”

    Then bolt continues:

    “But Labor and the media try to convict Tony Abbott through guilt by association, in a transparent attempt to shut down and delegitimise debate:

    “We live in witch-hunting times, and your freedom to speak and dissent is under serious threat… “

    So, he agrees but thinks he was rude, I wonder if dopey progressgreen has read it!

  2. 2 Climate Change Con...... 26/07/2011 at 8:09 pm

    Strange that the left didn’t go into the usual hysterics when mass murderer Charles Manson spoke out in support of man made global warming…

    “Charles Manson speaks out on climate change”,people,news,charles-manson-speaks-out-on-climate-change

    Charles Manson has spoken out on climate change – apparently – saying there will be “no weather” if we do not stop “doing bad things to the atmosphere”. The notorious murderer, whose cult The Family killed eight people – including Roman Polanski’s pregnant wife Sharon Tate – in the summer of 1969, was speaking to Spanish Vanity Fair from his prison in California…….

  3. 3 jameshigham 26/07/2011 at 8:10 pm

    All a little too pat this, isn’t it? Godsend for the left.

  4. 4 aurelian 26/07/2011 at 8:39 pm

    A fine summation in your final paragraph, AM.
    It’s what a man does that counts, and motives are immaterial.
    Punish the acts, but not the thoughts.

  5. 5 Martin Brumby 26/07/2011 at 9:04 pm

    First Class post, AM.

    And superb link from Climate Change Con……!

    One to save and use! I’ve no doubt that ‘Brad Johnson’ will not be the only weapons grade nitwit to try this smear.

  6. 6 DaveK 27/07/2011 at 12:04 am


    I have seen posts from Richard Betts on sites such as WUWT or Bishop Hill (I think) and he does talk some sense and is not an alarmist.

    If you read such sites, man having an effect on climate change is not totally disputed, such things as agricultural changes and deforestation do have local effects.

    What the majority of sceptics do object to is the catastrophic prophesies that the cult try to foist on the world to promote the political agenda.

    Personally I think farmers should be banned – who else can buy 6 tons of fertiliser? Has he got links to Countryfile?

  7. 7 Alan the Brit 27/07/2011 at 9:47 am

    Just a thought. If one was to take the likes of, say,Tony Blair, Ed Milliband, Nick Clegg, David Cameron, in fact any latter day politico, they could easily be described by sycophants in the claque & clique, as charming, intelligent, witty, thoughtful, kind, caring, concerned. Accolades such as these were used by many to describe one Adolf Hilter (an animal lover of sorts) upon meeting him for the first time! Does this mean all the aforementioned are therefore Nazis by default? I think not, but the smear technique is the same.

  8. 8 Barry Woods 27/07/2011 at 10:51 am

    Was Richard Betts comment in the Think Progress article….

    If It was they appear to have deleted it………

  9. 9 Barry Woods 27/07/2011 at 11:14 am

    actually comment is at GRist, whole article crossposted there..

  10. 10 Jose 27/07/2011 at 4:38 pm

    Just sent the following to Brad:


    I was rather disgusted to see you link AGW scepticism with the atrocities in Norway. Just because one pyscopath makes a twisted connection to the fallacies of the AGW hypothesis does not mean in any way that you can imply all sceptics are un-hinged maniacs.

    Charles Manson recently came out in support of the AGW hypothesis. Does this mean I could accuse people such as yourself of being leaders of a murderous cult? Definitely not. However, I will try and engage you in a rational debate about the questionable science of the AGW hypothesis.

    Just as the admirably noble Christopher Monckton apologised fully for his unacceptable ‘nazi’ jibes, I believe you should apologise for your comments. If you refuse to offer such an apology, then I can only presume you have little or no self-respect.

    Andy Wilkins

    BTW I notice you like to call sceptics such as myself ‘deniers’. This upsets a lot of sceptics because of the word’s connection to ‘Holocaust Deniers’. Therefore, I wish you would stop using the word.
    (Personally, I couldn’t give a sh*t what you call me.)

  11. 11 RobertH 28/07/2011 at 1:39 pm

    Jose correctly refers to AGW hypothesis, not theory. In scientific parlance, as opposed to its colloquial use, a theory has been validated by experimental observation, which AGW has not. This makes it a useful barbed remark to use against believer scientists.

  1. 1 The Fairfacts Media Show » Blog Archive » Breivik was no Christian!! Trackback on 27/07/2011 at 5:54 pm
Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: