The New Face of “Hitler Youth”HomeGlobal Warming Lunacy by ATWadmin December 11, 2009 17 1 min 13 yrs Here is the link showing “hitler youth” shutting down free speech ensuring that the AGW debate is over. And below is a video of the “hitler youth” oblivious as to why anyone would call them “hitler youth.” Click to rate this post![Total: 0 Average: 0] Global Warming Lunacy Post navigation Previous postNext post 17 thoughts on “The New Face of “Hitler Youth”” What is it with this man’s eyes?He puts Marty Feldman in the shade with those peepers! Thyroid problem maybe He calls those kids "Hitler Youth" because, he says, "they are killing millions in the Third World"! (after trying to deny it first, of course) Hard to believe anyone even in that camp could be such a creep. JM your post makes me think you are a lefty. If you cant win the debate, shut it down or smear your opponents. Lord Monckton has every right to be angry. Can you imagine if a load of ‘flat-earthers’ invaded a pro-global warming meeting? No doubt these rich kids canoed all the way over from America to produce zero carbon footprint. Are they too thick to realise that actually all this nonsense is making very rich people even richer (Gore)? Yes, Noel, I agree. The young environmentalist warmists who shut down speech and then claim the science is "settled" really are creepy. Noel, "Hard to believe anyone even in that camp could be such a creep." Yes, Monckton is quite the loon and fantasist. IIRC private eye has called him on some of his claims about himself He is comedy gold though and worth looking into. Also some good parodies about:http://hot-topic.co.nz/mycroft-monckton-makes-mischief/ The chicanery practiced by the alarmists is becoming clearer by the day. "Settled science" — what a joke! Of course these young ideologues have to shut down debate – the science is nowhere near being settled. As one of the CRU emails rightly pointed out — it is "travesty" — yes, travesty — that the recent warming trend cannot be explained by those who claim the science is settled. I don’t doubt that some in the warmist camp will be successfully prosecuted for fraud (some day soon, I hope.) Frank O’Dwyer – That’s Monckton vindicated then. Ian Hislop is a known hardcore AGW nutter. Having Private Eye on your sceptic case is a badge of honour. Lord Monckton expains it nicley here :- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto >>the recent warming trend cannot be explained << But wait a minute, Patty, you have been saying here repeatedly that there is NO warming trend!. (As does the chap you promote here "There has been no warming over the past 15 years, and you know it!". Can you not get even this central part of your argument straight? By the way, do you also think these kids "are responsible for the death through starvation of millions in the third world" and for this reason deserve to be called Hitler Youth, as the goon above does? Pete, "That’s Monckton vindicated then." It would take a lot more than that to vindicate Monckton. Patty, "I don’t doubt that some in the warmist camp will be successfully prosecuted for fraud" Of course you don’t doubt it – you’re not really a sceptic. And if deniers were prosecuted for fraud you’d probably claim it was an attack on freedom of speech. So really this is just about the criminalisation of science. I know what you’re thinking. “Is climate change really happening?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being greenhouse gases are the most powerful forcing we know, and the best science predicts disaster ahead, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? Noel: My central argument has never been about the science of global warming. I have repeatedly said that I am not a scientist. Peter and others have often taken me to task for my unwillingness to debate the science. My central argument is that AGW is a political movement – not science – and as such, there has been an effort to shut down genuine science debate through strong arm tactics – intimidation, name calling, professional shunning, cut-off of funding – I do not think the warmists are "honest" brokers here. This was obvious to me when those rejecting the AGW central arguments were called "deniers" an attempt to link honest scientific disagreement with the Holocaust. I have since been vindicated with the CRU emails one of which directly addresses the cooling trend saying that it is "travesty" that those in the warming camp can’t explain it. There is also the computer code, revealing dishonest manipulation, collusion and an attempt to defraud the public. CRU’s raw data is no longer even available, preventing any re creation of their studies. This is the most blatant science malpractice you can imagine. The warmist’s argument now is that AGW exists even if the scientific foundation on which the theory is based is polluted. This is basically a "fake but accurate" argument. It’s not science, but wishful thinking by those with way too much at stake. >>The warmist’s argument now is that AGW exists even if the scientific foundation on which the theory is based is polluted.<< There’s no contradiction there. There is, however, a contradiction in claiming that there is no global warming and that there is global warming but it is not caused by man. Noel, the contradiction is that it hasn’t been warming recently, despite CO2 emissions and the warmist camp can’t explain this. Also, the Middle Ages warming period was warmer than today – without the CO2 emissions – another thing they can’t adequately explain. The fact that the raw data for the recent temperature data has been "disappeared" makes any derivative number schedules moot. It is not science to blame the "denier" for the inadequacies of the science. The theory isn’t holding up, they know it, and now they are blaming everything but the science. In 3rd grade science, you would just change/modify the hypothesis. But too much power, money, prestige now rides on this. >>Noel, the contradiction is that it hasn’t been warming recently<< Patty, I meant that it isn’t a contradiction to say that AGW exists and that the "scientific foundation on which the theory is based is polluted". The latter of course isn’t the case, but it would still not be a contradiction to believe the scientific basis for the theory is nonsense while still believing there is AGW. Patty, "This was obvious to me when those rejecting the AGW central arguments were called "deniers" an attempt to link honest scientific disagreement with the Holocaust." Just as Beyonce attempted to link herself to the Holocaust when she sang "survivor". Noel, "There is, however, a contradiction in claiming that there is no global warming and that there is global warming but it is not caused by man." Yep. And also in claiming that the same data that they say show cooling have been fudged to show warming. And the biggest contradiction of all is to claim to be ‘sceptics’ while accepting the above contradictions and more like credulous children. Comments are closed.