Despicable Me

I recently mentioned Pentti Linkola, the Finnish environmentalist advocating killing off six billion humans, with nuclear war, engineered plague, or similar means. He seriously advocates a dictatorship and expresses admiration for Hitler and the Hitler Youth.

A commenter described him as “a nutcase” — but I don’t think he is. For one thing, he is respected in Finland, not just in the environmental movement but evidently in the media as well. They interview him, treating him with respect. One interviewer was clearly delighted to have Linkola autograph her copy of one of his books — and her conversation makes it clear that she knows of the “controversial” proposals in his “good books.” He’s wrong — horribly, painfully wrong — but he is quite sane. He’s simply followed almost to the logical conclusion what the current catastrophic global warming advocates: “preserving the planet” at the cost of humans.  The “logical conclusion” of this position is the one occupied by the Vehement movement, VHEMT. The “voluntary human extinction” folks, still going strong after all these years, a bit like communists selling their goods to customers. (Ayers’s book is a popular sale item sold by communists at “occupy” and union protests.)Here’s another one, again not laughed off the stage: Elizabeth Moon wants to make certain that no one on the planet can be anonymous, and that we each have microchips implanted in us for tracking. Why would this proposal, so very protective of the government at the cost of people, be considered necessary?  Because people can be a threat.

I am one of those threats. I propose that the modest amount of warming we might see from CO2 will be a net positive, just as the extra CO2 itself helps plants and feeds a billion people now. In short, I do not see our production of CO2 to be a catastrophe: this trace gas is every bit as necessary for Earth life as oxygen, but we have 500 times as much oxygen in the air as CO2. Reducing this ratio to, say, 300 to 1 is only going to benefit plants.

The ice age will come back soon enough. But my position, my suggestion that we need to examine carefully the bad science used to support calls of a catastrophe, makes me dangerous. Despicable. And I am guilty, according to the conversation in a climate panel at Penn State this week, guilty of “a new crime against humanity.”  I do “pretty evil stuff” according to the video. Are they “cranks”?  Perhaps, in one sense. But they are media darlings, highly respected, and they are professors passing their mindsets on to impressionable youth. Just like the professor advocating, on national TV, to “exterminate all white people” was not laughed off the stage, but respected.

One of the “climate ethics” professors was Michael Mann, still fighting this week to keep the methods and data behind the Hockey Stick from becoming public.

In the video, he accuses “one side” of making up facts. Amusingly, he didn’t exactly say that it was the skeptic side — almost as if he expected to have to defend this statement in court. In any event, the skeptics like Steve McIntyre are straightforward, honest, and publish their methods (including source code and the tools to run it on any system) as well as the data. Mann and his fellow core climate scientists spent much time in the Climategate emails scheming with each other on how to prevent the source data from falling into the wrong hands.

Some of them have probably convinced themselves that they are the good guys. Others are aware of their complicity in bad science, which comes out from time to time in those emails. Not that they would say this publicly!

But back to skeptics like me, and especially like Steve McIntyre and a number of others who are doing serious work attempting to replicate the stated experimental results of others, as well as doing their own, original research. We are all criminals, in the minds of many at the core of the climate movement.  This view is shared by Al Gore, by James Hansen, rather cynically by George Soros, and evidently by hundreds of others, in various positions of power and influence. There is a ClimateCriminals website to bring my sort of people “to justice.” (A sad aspect of this is that by denying Africa access to cheap, fossil fueled electricity, the “greens” are responsible for millions of deaths already.)

This notion that skeptics (who want most of all to see the science done transparently) are “climate criminals” is not a rare, crank notion; the term currently gets 13 million hits on Google.  This is all part of an ecofascism movement, and anti-capitalist (and usually anti-US) movement. Professing to destroy or cripple the developed world to help the developing world they would actually only produce widespread misery for others, and the deaths of millions. For some, of course, this is the good news.

But they call me despicable.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle