Scientists & Rulers Responsible For Nitwits Killing Themselves Over Climate Anxiety

Remember back in April when Boulderite Wynn Bruce, 50, set himself on fire to show how much he cared about "climate change"?

Yes, sir. He walked up the steps of the Supreme Court and doused himself with (presumably) organic gluten-free hemp-based moonshine, and flicked his Bic for the last time---poof---the smoke from his charred remains contributing to the greenhouse gases which drove him mad.

Now this Bruce was a fool, doing a foolish thing in service to a foolish idea. The ultimate responsibility for his self-murder belongs to him. But the proximate responsibility belongs to the midwit scientists, manic activists, and prevaricating rulers who helped convince Bruce that there was a "climate emergency."

These awful people are also pegged, the Guardian reminds us, in the self-immolation of David Buckel, 60, a "civil rights" lawyer, who gasolined himself in 2018. He "left a two-page note emailed to media outlets minutes before his death stating that 'my early death by fossil fuel reflects what we are doing to ourselves.'"

Which it isn't.

Incidentally, it's my guess these misled men flamed out instead of choosing something less painful like hanging, because hanging would have involved nooses, and nooses are "racist."

In describing the crispy climate critters, the paper said the "duo were vegetarians and dutifully did their recycling." Which seems to me a setup for a joke, but I have been unable to think of the punchline. Maybe you can have a go.

Paper continues:

...research has shown that half of people between 16 and 25 years old believe the Earth may be doomed, while three-quarters feel anxiety when they think or hear about climate change. Some speak openly of not wanting to bring children into a hotter, harsher world.

Living in climate truth is like living in a nightmare. It’s absolutely horrible and I can understand why the vast majority of Americans don’t do it,” said Margaret Klein Salamon, a clinical psychologist turned climate activist.

There are two crucial inferences here. The first is that people's idiot fear is taken as evidence that there is, indeed, a "climate emergency." How else could so many people turn weepingly wimpy about the weather unless there was something important happening!

This is, of course, exactly backwards. How is it that anybody can suffer anxiety, depression, or worse, by fretting about future forecasts when even a casual glance out their own weather windows should prove to them there is nothing of interest happening?

That they do suffer must therefore have an exterior cause. And that cause is, inter alia, Margaret Klein Salamon, "a clinical psychologist turned climate activist."

This woman is an idiot. Not in the clinical sense---I wouldn't dare attempt any sort of clinical diagnosis of her mental maladies. I speak colloquially. Idiot, a person who speaks authoritatively, using devices such as nonsensical hyperbolic exaggeration, about matters in which she is ignorant.

The weather a nightmare? Since any check of records confirms the weather is not a nightmare, she must be describing her perfervid fantasies. Perhaps she is simply lying for effect. Or maybe she is just simple.

Whatever the explanation, you have an idiot clinical psychologist, it appears, adding to the angst of her patients by speaking nonsense to them.

But while that mistake is down to her, the nonsense she imbibed was not her creation. That is the fault of the scientists. Who hear these stories, as we do, and decide to either cheer on the lunacy because they agree with it, or they remain silent because they benefit from the madness.

The former sin, that of belief, is small, or no sin at all in weak-minded scientists. They were trained to push certain theories, and push them they do, not only not questioning them, but not understanding how to question them. The cadre of crude thinkers used to be a minor part of science, and harmless. But because (as we have often discussed) of the Expansion Team Effect, they are now a pestilence.

Unlike the good doctor above, I can back this metaphor with observational evidence. In 2014 one estimate</a> of the number of "science" papers published annually was 1.8 million. By 2017, this was 2.5 million. Here's a graph showing the skyrocketing number (cuts off midway 2019).

This is not progress, and can't be. Do you think genuine new important ideas come that fast? Indeed, some prominent scientists decry the rise of "zombie science" and the deleterious effect it has. Publishing at these levels is like shoving more crap through a stuck drain hoping it will unstick it.

Even so, it is the silence of the good scientists that is the sin. These men know that the imaginations of activists, and the preposterous exaggerations of rulers, are just that: fantasy and fiction. But they remain silent anyway, either because of cowardice or because silence benefits them.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Visit wmbriggs.com.