So, if developing nations — after we’ve paid them climate reparations — start building coal-powered plants that allow citizens to enjoy modern conveniences like affordable electricity, cars, and air conditioning, and ignore those theoretical strictures on emissions that they signed on to in Paris, shouldn’t the U.S. consider invading? Should we not, at the very least, bomb them into compliance, as we do ISIS? Or perhaps we should sanction them and destroy their economies as we tried to do with Iran and South Africa? If countries that shelter and fund terrorists fear lethal force from world powers, why would climate-change deniers and propagators be immune from retribution if their sins are, in the aggregate, even worse?

Reductio ad absurdum you say? I say at some point your actions have to catch up with the rhetoric. Democrats have turned global warming into an issue that’s without comparison in contemporary American political history. This is literally a fight to save the world. Liberals like to accuse conservatives of selfishly ignoring the plight of the poor and minorities. Now, they can just accuse conservatives of killing everyone.

And because so many Americans are stubborn (they must hate the world, for some reason), the bloodcurdling rhetoric ratchets up. Every day a new calamity emerges. Pierce, who reflects some of the ugliest inclinations of liberals these days, recently argued that: “At this point, if you deny climate change, you are a traitor to your species.”