I always love it when someone suggests that death is the appropriate punishment for disagreement with their most dearly held beliefs. Whether we are talking about Muslims, Animal Rights idiots, or run of the mill liberals like those who engaged in acts of terrorism at the 2008 Republican convention (and others who were stopped), it betrays a combination of fanaticism about their cause and insecurity about its correctness that would be hysterically funny if it were not so morally repugnant. So I've had a nervous chuckle or two over this idiot who apparently wields some authority over at Daily Kos, and his lack of tolerance for dissenters on his pet cause.

Right about here I'd like to insert a symbolic suggestion about how climate change skeptics might best serve their fellow man in the future Soylent Green world they're eagerly foisting on the rest of us. I'd like to, but the Examiner Overlords feel this would be in bad taste, no pun intended, so you'll have to use your imagination.

Actually, that isn't what he originally posted -- his editors yanked the original, which read as follows.

If only the Soylent Corporation were publicly traded, or better still, if only [global warming skeptic Steve] Milloy and his buddies could check into one of the company's lovely medical suites for a short nature movie and a glass of wine.

Yeah, that's right -- if you dare to disagree with him on this issue, you deserve death.

Of course, he has a right to say something so stupid and so morally reprehensible. After all, it is still a free country (though the Obama goons are working to make it less so every day). After all, he didn't -- quite -- make a threat against us, and even if it were read as a threat it would be so generalized as to be legally unactionable despite its moral bankruptcy.

But the reality is that he's got it quite wrong -- in fact, completely ass-backwards. It is not those of us who question the impact of humanity on global climate who need to commit suicide. Rather, it is those who believe in anthropomorphic global warming and the need to reduce the human population who have a moral obligation to off themselves for the good of the planet.

Now hear me out, and consider the logic of that statement.

You have a group of people who argue that there are too many human beings making too much of an impact on the planet, and that the current population is unsustainable. To save the planet, they tell us, we need to reduce that impact -- ultimately only possible by reducing the population. Well, there is a quick and easy way of doing so, if one is not a hypocrite -- and that is leadership by example. By their own admission, THEY are a part of the problem and that problem needs to be solved now. By taking action jointly and singly, they can reduce the population of the planet by a billion or two overnight, and do so by nobly martyring themselves on behalf of the planet. What's more, in doing so they demonstrate their moral superiority over the rest of us by making the ultimate sacrifice for the planet and all its inhabitants of every species.

The only fly in the ointment is that folks like Steven Andrew and the rest of the global warming cultists are flaming hypocrites who would prefer to take away the personal autonomy of the rest of humanity to accomplish their goals rather than exercising their own personal autonomy to do so. So until I hear of Heaven's Gate style "evacuations" of the planet by large groups of believers in anthropomorphic global warming, I'll simply continue to view them with the contempt they deserve because of their unwillingness to put everything on the line to save the planet.