There are some real kooks out there, thankfully they are on the side that wants us all to freeze to death, like those unfortunate lost explorers she cites. Jonova has it covered in this hilarious expose of their religious bent: Murdered on the Arctic by climate deniers (or Greenpeace maybe?)
Two Dutch Arctic Ice researchers were sadly presumed lost last week. You, silly fool, may have thought it was an unfortunate accident in a dangerous profession. Not so, according to “Schatzie” they were viciously murdered by an unlikely cohort of Obama and at least 24 named “climate change deniers”. While “motive”, “means” and “opportunity” are a little thin on — premeditated intent is surely there: skeptics benefit from the PR storm about researchers dying on thin ice… oh wait. […]
I had to pass her my name so she can add it to the rest of her ‘Jihadi’-like hit list of targets. I added a comment to add myself, amongst a number of others, including some distinguished names, requesting they too be added to the list.
The Arctic is hot, she says? Like Greenland here?:
They’ve now been telling us for nearly a hundred years that we are all going to drown, yet the ice is still there, and even thicker now:
In 1947, science said that Arctic melt would drown us all. […]
Yes, climate change is natural, and follows solar cycles. (No, that’s not ‘solar powered bicycles “Schatzie”)
Dr John Ray at Greenie Watch analyses her logic (or ‘illogic’), here:
I suppose I should join a lot of my fellow skeptics by having a laugh at dear little “Schatzie” (Yiddish for little treasure) who wrote the hymn below. It passionately celebrates faith — faith in global warming. No knowledge of actual climate facts or interest in climate data is evident.
Her logic is a bit hard to follow but she seems to be saying that Arctic explorers would not have to explore so hard if everybody accepted the global warming gospel. So when Arctic explorers die, that is the responsibility of climate skeptics, who undermine faith in global warming.
I am of course sad to hear of the missing Dutchmen but no evidence that they were motivated by a desire to refute climate skeptics is offered. And the possibility that explorers explore because they like to explore is also not mentioned.
She has certainly not considered the possibility that the big money showered on climate research as a result of the warming scare might have been responsible for the upsurge in climate “research” generally, and the research being done by the dead Dutchmen in particular.
And as far as loss of human lives is concerned, has she considered the number of people who died because they have been denied access to reliable, affordable electricity and other modern technologies? –- thanks largely to the Big Green factions Schatzie extols. That loss of life would be far greater by many orders of magnitude than what even she could possibly attribute to us wicked skeptics.
She is actually a good example of an old axiom in logic which says that if your premises are faulty your conclusions are likely to be absurd. Her unquestioning faith in the tenets of global warming has certainly led to an absurd conclusion in this case. Talking facts to her would clearly be pissing into the wind