When All Else Fails, Invoke the Holocaust

These global warmers are quite the amusing bunch, although I'd laugh a lot more if they weren't so dangerous to our economic health. A while back we had the respected armchair climatologist Ellen Goodman comparing those who question the climate change junk science with Holocaust deniers.

Today the Holocaust analogy again rears its ugly head, this time coming from a Sudanese official ironically enough, considering what's happened in Darfur over the years.

Behold the latest idiocy.

A NEGOTIATOR from Sudan has likened industrial powers' plans to fight climate change to the Holocaust as passions flared over a deal in Copenhagen.

Sudanese official Lumumba Stanislas Dia-ping, who chairs the Group of 77 and China bloc of 130 poor nations, angrily denounced a US-led draft agreement on climate change during an all-night session.

The pact "is a solution based on values, the very same values in our opinion that funnelled six million people in Europe into furnaces," Dia-ping said.

Dia-ping is known for strong statements and declared the draft deal the worst in the history of climate negotiations.

The draft "asked Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries," he said.

Delegates from a number of Western countries quickly took to the floor to denounce the Sudanese delegate's references as offensive.

Ed Miliband, Britain's climate minister, condemned the "disgusting comparison" which he said "should offend people across this conference whatever background they come from".

I must say msot of those "across this conference" offend me considering their refusal to even listen to opposing viewpoints. Be that as it may, invoking the Holocaust no matter what side of the debate you're on only trivializes the actual Holocaust itself and offers nothing to the current debate.

The great global warming hoaxer of our time isn't exactly beneath the Holocaust analogy, either.

If you question the severity of the climate threat, or argue that how humanity should handle it is up for debate, you are likely to be called a ‘climate change denier’. One green went so far as to advocate Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for those who question anthropogenic climate change. Another commentator wrote: ‘I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.’

So, contesting the irrefutable evidence that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis is put on a par with questioning events that have not even happened yet. To demand that policies which affect our everyday lives should be put up for critical inquiry and debate is likened to falsifying history.

In his Oxford speech, Gore admitted that it is difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change is as urgent as the threat from Hitler was in the 1930s. Yes, that’s because the majority of sensible people can tell the difference between the manageable challenges posed by changes to the environment and the global havoc wreaked by the Second World War, the rise of fascism, and the Nazis’ attempt to annihilate the Jews.