Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes

Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.

Comparing climate change skeptics to residents in Tennessee who refused to pay a $75 fee, resulting in firemen sitting back and watching their houses burn down, Zwick rants that anyone who actively questions global warming propaganda should face the same treatment.

“We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices,” writes Zwick, adding, “They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”

Link

The face of the global warming (hoax) crowd. Eco-fascist

While I do not agree at all with Steve Zwick’s article, to be fair he never actually said he wanted to burn down the houses of those who disagree.

Just some nonsensical drivel about “making them pay” for the “effects of climate change”.

Nothing new from liberals there.

So, their answer to global warming is to burn down the houses of anyone who oppose them? I assume they would be using no-heat and no-carbon emitting fire, correct?

Yes, that’s what I heard. Go with green fire.

The logical conclusion of Mr. Zwick’s thinking would be that his house would need to be burned down since he is advocating some major air pollution [burning down houses] which is far worse then just being skeptical of climate change.

So we would need some copper thrown into the mix?

Wait a second.

Won’t the fire result in CO2 emission as well as any number of other toxins released into the atmosphere?

Hypocrites.

They need to find an environmentally friendly way to carry out their misdeeds

Click the link, and read the original article…he never once said he wanted to burn down anyone’s house.

He still is saying some highly inflammatory things that may just inspire some lunatic to do something terrible. I’m not advocating censorship, but that’s the truth.

And folks say it’s the conservatives who need to tone it down? They should look in the mirror.

Nice guy. :rolleyes::mad:

But I agree with others.

Nothing surprising here.

And he IS saying inflammatory things.

Sheesh.:blush::shrug:

Ooooh! Polemics! I’ll bert that Christ Matthews has that old tingle in his leg again!

Alarmist for sure, ridiculous in my opinion.

But liberals wanting those who disagree with them to pay…nothing new here.

That’s what I thought after I posted my response. “Now, what turns green when it burns?”

Quote from the article:

Let’s take a page from those Tennessee firemen we heard about a few times last year – the ones who stood idly by as houses burned to the ground because their owners had refused to pay a measly $75 fee.

We can apply this same logic to climate change.

We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.

You are right.

Dear Mother Earth, aka Mother Nature, aka Gaia, aka Al Gore’s goddess, please forgive them. Whatever happened to acid rain back in the 80’s? I wonder what’s coming up once people get bored hearing about global warming.

If you are a member of a Church which faces problems explaining its historical and current attitude to science, you do not help (‘give scandal’, to use the Catholic term) when you, as a Catholic, deride a scientific process of analysis of climate change.

I think that’s fair: you don’t agree with me and I respect that, but I think letting your house burn if a fire happens is a great idea. A household of 4 consumes a whole lot of resources that would be better managed by people who embrace the global warming hoax. Here, scientists who disagree with global warming are personas non gratas in institutions of higher learning. Propaganda and sectarian ideologies stifle opposition, that’s how they operate.

You need to learn real history if you are going to make outrageous claims like that. History is on our side. Learn it! Love it! Live it!

If it’s a scientific process, why is dissension forbidden, do you see debates anywhere or rather the same slogan being pushed down our throats?

As others have pointed out the man isn’t advocating burning down anyone’s house, but rather refraining from helping these people when they face catastrophic consequences from Global Warming.

Of course, even apart from the obvious lack of charity the scenario is rather absurd. Even if the Global Warming alarmists are right that there is something to be worried about here, the people to suffer significantly will be poor farmers in regions that become more arid, island nations, etc. The sorts of leaders of Global Warming Skepticism that he’s referring to aren’t likely to suffer at all from the consequences, unless through things like higher food prices, or maybe having to sell that summer house on the beach for less than they bought it for.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.