Doomed Planet

Burn, Climate Witches, Burn

Much to the regret of the warmist establishment, its grant-lapping minions and the rent-seeking camp followers who have made our electricity amongst the world’s dearest, witches and heretics are no longer tossed on a pyre. These days, it is reputations and careers that are incinerated

witches IIThe Little Ice age was quite severe in Europe from 1550- 1700. After the prosperity and plenty of the medieval warm period, the LIA led to impoverishment, crop failure, starvation and a resurgence in witch burnings. Every misfortune was an excuse to accuse someone of being a witch working under the direction of Satan. Many of these accusations were the result of some calamity caused by an extreme weather event.

For example, in 1626 a hailstorm struck Germany and dropped a metre of hail. Two days later an Arctic front descended on Europe. Rivers froze, grapes on the vine ‘exploded’ and rye and barley crops were destroyed. Then came a severe frost the likes of which had not been seen for 500 years. Because all of this was so unusual it was determined to be ‘unnatural’ and there arose a cry that sorcerers and witches must be responsible and must be punished. Around 5000 were burnt in Germany alone.

It is estimated that across Europe there were at least 50,000 executions during this period, all carried out with the blessing of the educated and privileged. It was dangerous to be a sceptic because those who dissented from the hysteria were inevitably themselves accused of sorcery subject to the same punishments. Thus was any debate stifled.

weyerjean bodinLegal philosopher Jean Bodin (left) in 1580 insisted that witchcraft was the most terrible problem facing humankind. Bodin championed the international attack against sceptics, such as physician Johann Weyer (right), who tried to bring some scientific rationality to the discussion by pointing out that “confessions” obtained through torture were both worthless and immoral. In response, Bodin accused Weyer of witchcraft.  Sceptics had to be wrenched out of society, he thundered, with any country tolerating them certain to be struck by plagues, famines and wars.

Sound familiar? If the modern parallels escape you, let us compare the dark past with what has happened over the last 30 years. And if James Cook University’s disgraceful shunning of Professor Peter Ridd comes to mind, so much the better.

  • Every perceived extreme weather event is attributed the evil CO2 causing global warming which causes the climate to go totally berserk and, of course, it’s those evil white capitalistic CO2 spewing industries which are the devil’s servants.
  • Global warming-caused climate change is the most terrible problem facing mankind.
  • Sceptical of the two points above? Well you must be one of those “climate denier”. Burning at the stake is no longer permitted, but being marginalized, ostracized and harassed is perfectly okay.
  •  The scientific method of observation — hypothesis, develop testable predictions, gather data to test predictions, refine, alter or reject hypothesis — is not applicable to global warming “fact”. The “science is settled”, don’t you know, so no debate will be tolerated. Just send more grants, please, so warmists can continue to “prove” something they insist is already beyond dispute. As Macquarie University assures prospective students, the thriving field of climate-change validation opens up “career prospects and further research opportunities”.

Like the witch accusers of the Little Ice Age, warmists call every hurricane, tornado, fire, drought, flood, storm, etc., clear evidence of CO2-induced climate change. However, there is a mountain of evidence to show that extreme weather events have not increased over the past fifty-or-so years.

Astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, who would have been burned in those former days of ignorance, fear and vindictive misplaced righteousness, talks of superstition’s tyranny then and now:

Those who reject history’s lessons are, as they say, forever condemned to repeat them.

7 comments
  • ChrisPer

    Soo… if a skeptic weighs the same as a duck… 97% consensus…

  • ianl

    > … However, there is a mountain of evidence to show that extreme weather events have not increased over the past fifty-or-so years”

    The alarmists deal with this uncomfortable fact (150 years, actually) in the usual dishonest manner: goalposts are moved constantly, ad nauseum. In this case the “new” goalpost is increased intensity of events, not frequency. The metrics of intensity are subject to constant shifty imprecision to avoid awkward questioning. Wind speeds in cyclonic activity ? Increasing, of course. Never mind how, where, when this is known.

    The current US Environment Secretary wishes to make public all scientific evidence considered in various EPA and other rulings. The current court case, just started, in which BP is the nominal defendant against accusations of witchcraft (ie. causing serious climatic harm by exploring for, finding and mining oil and gaseous hydrocarbons) holds interest in the process described in the US as discovery.

    Cassandra suggests that both of these attempts to visit sunlight upon the hidden depths of the evil magic gas will be stonewalled.

  • Tricone

    I believe certain cities in the USA are suing several oil companies over climate change.

    https://www.ft.com/content/4de8e4fc-f62b-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1a00

    They may not succeed in doing anything except squander Other People’s Money and harassing the oil companies, but that probably counts as a successv to these clowns.

    They should bear in mind when Googling these issues and posting about them on Facebook, that Exxon is the world’s biggest taxpayer, thus funding many public employees and welfare/subsidy recipients, and Google and Facebook are. .. well, not among the big taxpayers.

    • en passant

      If I were an oil company I would level a ‘Special Fee’ on oil & gas supplied to those suing me. Alternatively, I would just not supply them with a product they regard as toxically dangerou and something they clearly do not want.

  • [email protected]

    Well written Peter Rees.
    I note the LIA did have very real climate change (though not anthropogenic) to muster their angst . We rightly mock their ignorance. Modern climate change is barely percievable, if at all. We use vast resources just to attempt to detect it. Then squander vast resources to attempt to placate it via wealth distribution to the lowest common denominator. There is little doubt in my mind this is a political not scientific endeavor.

  • peter prenavon

    I like the contradiction, we live in a universe. the universe is constantly changing, why would not the climate in less than a billionth of it change?
    The question is “We should fear no change in earth atmosphere” we have solar flares, we have magnetic variations within our earth and solar system, stars come and go, and the green flat earthier insist the earth must stand still

  • Andrewurban

    “The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals.”- from ‘Why scientists disagree about global warming’ by Bob Carter et al, 2015.

Post a comment