8 thoughts on “Krauthammer: ‘Impeachable’ if Obama Actually Prosecutes Climate Skeptics s”

  1. Krauthammer’s right and it right that the left has won the semantics debate, and, in winning, has won every single social issue. Semantics isn’t “just semantics.” Climate change is very much like Marxism’s inversion of prophecy and history. Marx’s analysis of the “inevitable” breakdown of “capitalism” is taken as fact, when it is mere projection. Then “reactionaries” on the “wrong side of history” take “politically incorrect” views and acts against the purported “fact” of “history,” communism, which is, in fact, mere “prophecy.” It’s complete intellectual perversion, like the mass hysteria of “catastrophic anthropomorphic climate change.” Hysteria whose purpose is to avoid real issues.

  2. I unsuccessfully tried to avoid this dangerous turn of events by recommending forgiveness [See sentence in the abstract in bold italics] for those who deceived the public for seventy years (1946-2016) about the Sun’s source of energy:


    But the return of modern science to the time of Galileo’s arrest is now a 21st Century reality:


    I am in private contact with a few leaders of the US scientific community to see if we can work together to get NAS and RS members to receive and publicly refute or endorse the experimental evidence that contradicts AGW claims:


    I may ask Nature’s editor (Philip Campbell) to send the above paper out for review and public comment. It was not submitted to Nature because the editor refused to publish (or send out for review) an earlier paper affirmatively answering Peter Toth’s question [1], “Is the Sun a pulsar?”


    1. Peter Toth, “Is the Sun a pulsar?” Nature 270, 159-160 (1977):

  3. The assertion that “Skeptics deny climate” is fallacious political hyperbole.
    Asserting that Skeptics deny science is nonsense.
    Failure to acknowledge that CO2 is required for all life on earth is science ignorance.
    Failure to discover that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is science incompetence.
    Changing measured data to corroborate an agenda is science malpractice.

  4. How many times has the right used the “I” word whenever talking about Obama?
    He should change his middle name from Hussein to Impeach and sign it so it looks like a middle finger.

  5. Dan, we absolutely do “deny climate”, as defined in Newspeak. In the circles where Newspeak is the only communication medium, the word “climate” means “man-made climate change”. They are just too lazy to say it all, and because the word is never used in any other sense, they don’t see it as ambiguous.

    It only sounds like nonsense if interpreted as common English.

  6. Gene, I was referring to ‘climate’ being short for ‘climate change’. I completely agree with you when the words ‘man-made’ are included. In fact my research documented at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com provides compelling evidence humans have no significant effect on climate. (97% match with measured average global temperature without any consideration of CO2. Considering CO2 only improves the match by 0.1%)

  7. Climate changes. It always has and always will.
    To deny this climate change is sheer stupidity.

    It would be a miracle if climate didn’t change.

    The sheeple can observe that climate changes. So they wholeheartedly support the concept of climate change. And so they should.
    But if we call it Anthropogenic Climate Change, they might not be so readily duped.

    It’s essential to start winning the argument by adding “MAN MADE” to Climate Change.

Comments are closed.