Global-Warming Debate 'Will Determine Who Lives and Who Dies'

I spotted this story at JammieWearingFool.

JWF begins:

Debate? What debate? The science is settled, of course. We know global warming is a religion to these people, but now they're in the business of playing God and getting to decide who lives and who dies?

"People think that science is certain," he says with a hint of derision.

"We can't know what is going to happen. There will always be scientific uncertainty."

It is a moral matter, not a scientific one, Donald says, that requires us to take such drastic action now, even though the proof of actual damage remains hard to come by.

He is asked whether there is anything unethical revealed in the recent e-mails where fellow advocate-scientists discussed manipulating data and suppressing information that undermined their lucrative global-warming beliefs.

"On that I am agnostic," Donald says.

As far as he is concerned, he says with rising anger about the general indifference about climate change, the global-warming debate "will determine who lives and who dies."

The one thing that bothers me about this story the most is that "Donald" is the name that the original reporter, Charles Hurt, gave to protect his source: the "east coast university professor serving as panelist" at the Climate summit.

However, the line attributed to his highly esteemedness: the global-warming debate "will determine who lives and who dies" This sounds remarkably similar to Obama's "We are God's partners in matters of life and death," doesn't it?

As it fits within the entire spectrum of our globalist übermenschen who believe that the god of survivability must be served with -- what's the number?  -- six billion human beings being prevented from breathing, I think my readers want to know what I think of this story.

Pascal (the derivative) says: When told an übermensch says, or is only reported to have said, something worrisome, it's prudent to believe it and to prepare accordingly.