Charles Krauthammer thinks that “climate change” (the political concept as opposed to the natural phenomenon) is like a religious myth.

“It’s the oldest superstition around,” he said on Fox News this week. “It was in the Old Testament, it’s in the rain dance of Native Americans: if you sin, the skies will not cooperate.”

Krauthammer is right, of course, as he so often is. But what I think we should focus our attention on – for it tells us far more about the nature of the climate debate and the liberal-left generally – is the response his remarks have had from Huffington Post readers. I’ve divided them up into categories.

1. The Straw Man

“Screw facts, when we have ideology, and racism to keep us warm..”

Whether Krauthammer is a racist ideologue or not (I very much doubt he’s the first) has no bearing on whether he is right or wrong about climate change.

2. The Cheap Shot

“If he smiled, his face would break.”

“That face is a cement mask.”

Yes. Krauthammer has been paralysed since an accident in his college days. Maybe that would explain why he doesn’t smirk and dance in the way some of his HuffPo fans might prefer.

3. The Libelous Smear

“Dear Chuckie:

Your check is in the mail. Thanks a lot!

Signed:

The Koch Brothers, Exxon Mobile, Chevron Texaco”

For the liberal-left these names are like manna from heaven, like Kwaanza come early. Merely to invoke them is to win the argument instantly, without any need to use logic or facts. (Apparently).

4. Credentialism

Again I ask what Degree does Krauthammer have that qualifies him to deny the truth of what Scientists are telling us. Where are his educational credentials in climate?

Wow! You thought this such a killer question you felt compelled to ask it twice? Seriously? The climate debate is about economics, atmospheric physics, oceanography, palaeo-climatology, geology, archaeology, geography, meteorology and many other disciplines beside. There is no simple field of “climate” and even if there were it wouldn’t guarantee you knew all the answers. In any case, as MIT’s Richard Lindzen noted recently, climate science is for second-raters. The clever ones do maths, physics, chemistry…

5. Projection

“Sure, who needs facts and numbers when you can just makeshitup?”

You mean, just like all the grant-troughing Warmist scientists are shown doing in the Climategate emails?

6. Appeal To Authority

“Climate science is based on evidence so it is very different from religion.”
“Climate change denial has no evidence so it is similar to religion in that respect.”

“From The American Association for the Advancement of Science:
‘Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field. Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4? F over the last 100 years.'”

Yes it sounds impressive, but the problem here is that the American Association for the Advancement of Science – like so many once-distinguished institutions from the National Academy of Sciences to the Royal Society to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation – has been hijacked by political activists riding the green gravy train. There’s an easy way to prove it in this instance: that citation of the “97%” claim. This figure has been so roundly debunked on so many occasions, it’s a bit like Hamas citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to prove there’s a global Jewish conspiracy – or, more absurdly still, like the IPCC quoting Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick. In short: just because an organisation has a fancy-sounding name doesn’t automatically make it an arbiter of unquestionable truth.

7. Holier Than Thou

“Maybe because we care about the earth that we leave our children and grandchildren, Your idea is just give up and let the billionaires kill more of us with earth, air, and water pollution. Great idea.”

Because, of course, only the green liberal-left cares about the planet and future generations. Everyone on the right just wants to destroy everything, because they don’t have any children or grandchildren – let alone feelings – themselves. Apparently.

8. Eco Fascist

“I wish people pushing this denier garbage could be held criminally liable for the damage they are helping to perpetuate.”

And you’re not the only one, sir. So too does this assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology – and with similarly dubious cause.

9. If you’re going to act superior, maybe you should consider learning to spell first?

“Your first hurculean [sic] task is understanding the difference between weather and climate. Get back to us then, please.”

10. Concern Troll

“Krauthammer has regressed from intelligent commentator to ideological hack. His columns have become increasingly vitriolic over the years and mostly opinion rather than fact based. Sad.”

“No, I’m not just an identikit liberal-lefty who automatically loathes anything a right-wing commentator writes. See how I’m displaying my open-mindedness here? See the gravitas I acquire by demonstrating my more-in-sorrow-than-anger lofty dispassion? Simply by stating that I once used to think of Krauthammer as an ‘intelligent commentator’,  I’m showing you that my opinion on his total wrongness on climate change is double extra valid with cherries on top…”