Over the weekend, Rob Lyons published his interview/review of Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed. sp!ked is of course the bane of the EuroLeft for its persistent savaging of the campaigns to infantilize the continental masses through Nanny Statism.
The work of sp!ked writers was invaluable in my efforts to detail the Green Left’s excesses in the U.K. — for example, in the terrorizing of schoolchildren, such that large percentages report sleeplessness because of the catastrophic climate future that’s being washed into their brains. Or the demand by Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett that the media cease to allow the views of global warming skeptics into their news coverage – because we are just like Islamic terrorists. And the increasing calls that this issue is simply too important to be left to democracy, that we must suspend such arcane notions — just for this issue, mind you — and allow some unaccountable, very learned, and very well-meaning types to tell us what to do.
Here is an excerpt from Lyons’ piece:
Whether Horner is right or wrong about what makes our climate tick is, in many ways, immaterial. What matters is that even raising questions about the veracity of the popular presentation of the problem now attracts the label ‘denier’. The term has sinister parallels to ‘Holocaust denier’; some commentators have even called for ‘deniers’ and their alleged supporters to be prosecuted. For example, at a congressional hearing in June this year, the daddy of climate alarmism, NASA’s James Hansen, declared: ‘CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.’ Indeed, Horner himself has featured on a ‘Field Guide to Climate Criminals’ circulated by Greenpeace…
Those who seek to claim that a business-as-usual increase in greenhouse gas emissions will lead to planetary disaster like to declare that ‘the science is settled’. But on every aspect of the science, economics and politics of climate change, there are huge uncertainties and major debates still to be had. That’s why a desire to close down debate should worry us all, and why Horner’s litany of skewed science, explicit and implicit censorship and scaremongering should be required reading for those whose only experience of the debate has been An Inconvenient Truth and the mainstream, doom-laden coverage about how the end is nigh.