Enabling Environmentalist Terrorists

Nothing much to add to this headline: "Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law." Excuse me while I go vomit. R.I.P., property rights.

Here's appeasement for you. Greenpeace once again shows its true nihilistic colors -- and they get away with it.

Of course, appeasement's your only option when you've already conceded the moral argument. In this case the moral argument behind the Greenpeace thuggery is: humans destroy the environment, and must be destroyed in turn.

Our altruistic culture has already bought the anti-humanitarian principle that man's way of life -- that he must alter the environment to suit his needs or he will die -- is immoral. Greenpeace is just being consistent.

But here's the pièce de la résistance. James Hansen, the poster child for every environmentalist that wants to piggy back on the (squandered) prestige of NASA, was a witness for the defense. He defended Greenpeace.

During the eight-day trial, the world's leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa [sic], who had flown from American [sic] to give evidence, appealed to the Prime Minister personally to "take a leadership role" in cancelling the plan and scrapping the idea of a coal-fired future for Britain. Last December he wrote to Mr Brown with a similar appeal. At the trial, he called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men.

Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that missions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.

Hansen has now officially made it his position that he supports vandalism and terrorism as a supplement to argument for his position on global warming.

(Via Overlawyered.)