Comment of the week

UPDATE: As is typical with alarmism, some people with a dislike for me and WUWT are spreading rumors on other blogs that these are my words, not of a commenter. And that I’m calling people on those blogs “cockroaches”. Not true. Of course they don’t take time to read the comments, they only run off and spread what they perceive at first, so I’m elevating yet another comment. In my response in comments here, I made it clear what this comment from Alexander Feht is about:

Anthony reply: It is an apt metaphor, one that caught attention of a lot of people prior to it being elevated, and you are reading way too much into it. He sees the USSR politics and Socialism as that. Do I think cockroaches accurately describes people I and many other here disagree with, no. Is it a metaphor for the instruments and actions that oppose freedom, tolerance, and open discourse, yes. Of course it doesn’t matter what I answer, some people will happily run off and distort it. In fact they already are.

===========================================================

This may or may not become a new weekly feature, but I thought this comment was worth elevating to post status:

Alexander Feht says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:18 pm

I completely understand, why Christopher Monckton felt a need to make an example of a typical reprehensible representative of modern Academia. People like Christopher Monckton make me hope again that not everything is lost yet under the Moon.

And yet… I spent first half of my life battling liars and cockroaches in the former USSR. I would win against any individual liar or cockroach, no sweat. But year after year after year, I was getting more and more convinced that I didn’t want to die in this battle, overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of my enemies.

So. I live in a quiet valley now, in Colorado Rockies. Grass is green, air is fresh, sky is huge. But what is this constant swish and rustle coming from the East Coast and from the Left Coast? I know this sound well! There is no escape from the battle: cockroaches are coming.

He adds in comments:

I am completely embarrassed by all this attention.
My heartfelt thanks to Mr. Watts and all the commentators.

The only thing I would like to add:

I’ve noticed that many comments on WUWT (and in other places) are based on the unshaken assumption that the existing framework of democracy, including the established peer-review and other mechanisms in Academia, would somehow, even if only in a long run, fix our worst problems, and extricate the good name of science from the rotten mire it has found itself in today.

The question is obvious:

How the same framework and the same mechanisms that resulted in today’s lamentable situation, are going to have a healing effect?

In other words, are you sure that we have at hand something to populate the house with, after we would have “cleaned the house”? Where are Mozarts, Darwins, Teslas and Rembrandts in our cherished established institutions? And, most importantly, what fundamental (and, preferably, bloodless) changes in our society are necessary to bring Mozarts, Darwins, Teslas and Rembrandts up, and to bring Bushes, Obamas, Blairs and Prince-Charleses down into oblivion? That is the question.

About these ads

130 thoughts on “Comment of the week

  1. Good choice for the 1st Comment of the Week, Anthony.

    With a worldwide readership here at WUWT, some will cheer and some will jeer at your comment, but that was one very powerful comment, Mr. Feht. It’s a sobering reminder that CAGW isn’t necessarily all about CAGW.

  2. Yes, that is definitely the comment of the week and then some. I could not agree more.

  3. Quite a shame they banned DDT and not cockroaches.

    I’m sorry Anthony but what is the added value of this? No news value, nothing to debate. Just the personal story of one of the readers. I’ve read some OT comments here that are much quotewurthier / food for thought.
    But thats just my humble opinion.

  4. Too depressing, and makes me glad I’m 49 and on the back end of things. Very glad I was born when I was, though a decade earlier would have been nice. Really, REALLY glad I wasn’t born a decade later.

  5. Ah yes, Darkness at Noon…

    Better perhaps to watch Milos Forman’s excellent film The Fireman’s Ball, the last film he made before leaving The People’s Paradise. If there’s one thing the cockroaches do not understand, it’s humour. While this masterpiece is forever banned in the country of its inception, it remains accessible to the free. For now.

  6. The desire for “something for nothing” and no regard for the consequences is the food of the cockroaches.

  7. And what does the automated Google ad producer do when confronted with this post? It produces adverts for cockroach suppression – of course. Isn’t capitalism wonderful?

    Nice sentiments.

  8. When I first saw this comment I was contemplating a comment referring to it.

    I have noted that the most outspoken critics of the way this debate has developed have lived under dictatorial regimes & they have highlighted the similarities between those regimes & the way green politics is headed in that direction

    DaveE.

  9. I have to disagree with Richard. I read that comment not 20 minutes ago and I thought it was great. Thanks, Anthony for highlighting it.

  10. There is no place to escape this debate, no place the cockroaches will not infest and corrupt and therefore, we are ALL of us obligated to take up arms against those those who spit in the eye of truth and reason… Well said.

    Thanks for posting this, Anthony.

  11. Richard – “just my humble opinion” – don’t think so! Just one opinion in thousands is more like it.

  12. Richard @11:04
    Watts Up With That?
    Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology and recent news by Anthony Watts.

  13. Snow today in the Canadian Rockies. I am sure glad the mountains are not
    over crowded with people.
    Most of our polution from heat to air and water is done in the cities.
    Cockroaches are hard to eliminate.

  14. I think the Surface Stations Website should be updated at least annually. Only a couple of days to go.

    REPLY: Big update being planned just prior to the release of our paper. After having NCDC “borrow” our own work before it was even done, against my objections, I’m not going to give them anything to build on further until the paper is out. -A

  15. Richard says:
    July 15, 2010 at 11:04 am

    His blog, his rules. Alexander lives in the Rockies, perhaps a Galt’s Gulch can be started there!

  16. The comments of Alexander Feht may not speak to everyone, but they certainly speak to me. I like his metaphor and understand how he is feeling.
    Something is happening out there and it is making me feel very uncomfortable and more importantly, “impotent”

  17. Jefferson said something to the extent that liberty demands eternal vigilance. He understood cockroaches too.

  18. Very nice comment. I really liked the feel of it. Powerful, but understated. Like very good literature. Quoting the movie Galaxy Quest: “Never give up! Never surrender!”

  19. Sobering thoughts from Alexander.l

    The last few years I have been wondering if we have hit the high point of western civilisation with regards to freedoms, health, wealth, individuality and the ability to savour new experiences through travel. The world seems to be crowding in on all the things we have taken for granted for the last few decades and the golden age seems to be passing.

    tonyb

  20. Mr Feht does us all a great service by reminding us what life can be like under totalitarian regimes. And, yes, we’ll be going that way ourseves if we’re not really careful.

  21. Thanks for elevating Alexander Feht’s powerful comment to a full post.

    It’s all the more chilling when you realize that there is an entire generation of Americans for whom the Soviet Union is just a paragraph in their school history books.

    And by the way, the cockroaches are not just on the coasts. There are plenty in Chicago, though some have joined their colleagues in Washington, DC.

    /Mr Lynn

  22. Great idea, Anthony, and a great comment from Alexander to kick it off. Given the traffic WUWT generates and the number of comments posted every day, let alone every week, it’s good to have a little gem plucked out of the torrent. Perhaps a link back to original post where the quote came from to put it in context?

  23. Alexander and Anthony:
    Thank you, thank you for saying this in print. I’ve devoted my life and my (tiny) fortune to help give mankind the option of someday being able to leave this planet. If we can’t stop communism here, we may be able to start new frontiers.

  24. The battle continues, complete with the usual ups and downs. But,overall, things continue to improve at (in historical terms) lightning speed.

    No, nothing is perfect. As Heinlein once put it, even the best soup usually has a fly in it.

    But all we have to do to feel good is to appreciate the overall reality.

  25. I am completely embarrassed by all this attention.
    My heartfelt thanks to Mr. Watts and all the commentators.

    The only thing I would like to add:

    I’ve noticed that many comments on WUWT (and in other places) are based on the unshaken assumption that the existing framework of democracy, including the established peer-review and other mechanisms in Academia, would somehow, even if only in a long run, fix our worst problems, and extricate the good name of science from the rotten mire it has found itself in today.

    The question is obvious:

    How the same framework and the same mechanisms that resulted in today’s lamentable situation, are going to have a healing effect?

    In other words, are you sure that we have at hand something to populate the house with, after we would have “cleaned the house”? Where are Mozarts, Darwins, Teslas and Rembrandts in our cherished established institutions? And, most importantly, what fundamental (and, preferably, bloodless) changes in our society are necessary to bring Mozarts, Darwins, Teslas and Rembrandts up, and to bring Bushes, Obamas, Blairs and Prince-Charleses down into oblivion? That is the question.

  26. Like Robert of Ottowa I have had a very similar moment of clarity over the last year. I used to be fascinated by the history of the phenomenon in which seemingly reasonable and metropolitan civilizations could literally lose their minds within a generation or two.

    Looking back at the last 20 years I finally caught myself saying “Oh… that’s how.”

  27. Anthony.

    The value of this comment to me anyway, is the underlying realisation that the real force behind all this AGW nonsense is not the (now) unmasked pseudoscience but those who wish to control the lives of everyone on the planet. Think the EU and the men in Brussels. It has echoes in the US and elsewhere too. This has been alluded to and even sometimes detailed here by many commentators. It certainly explains to me the deafening silence of the MSM on any questioning of this ‘science’.

    So it’s a good selection IMO.

    Doug

  28. Alexander’s metaphor is brilliant. Perhaps you should start a new blog, Anthony, devoted to keeping the cockroaches at bay.
    A small group of pioneers in the UK are making a start.
    Here is the URL: http://www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/
    The AGW scam pales into insignificance in comparison with the fractional banking scam, in its effect on the sheeple.
    AGW is non-existent, but financial crises are very definitely man-made, and a remedy is at hand. It is not rocket science, just common sense.
    Best regards, and keep up the good work!
    PJM

  29. Mr. Feht must have felt alone, but there are many now. Only when the younger generations are brought by us to the point where they can clearly see what is happening within our governments with this alarmist global warming will the realists win and these alarming and thievery thoughts be sent back to the abyss from whence they came.

  30. So the system is getting infested with bugs. And not just any ordinary bugs. Cockroaches, oh my.
    We will have to continue to validate them out.
    “Is not end of world: End of World is big mushroom cloud”

  31. Alexander,

    You are not in this fight alone and this is not the USSR…. yet. As we continue stepping on the cockroaches (They make such a pleasant crackling sound under foot!), we must also clearly provide information and substantiating data illustrating the fallacies of AGW to our many friends that are undecided about it. The tides have turned against the AGW crowd, because their arrogance and deceits are continually highlighted and catalogued by Mssr. Watts, McIntyre, and many others. They and the many knowledgeable and credentialed folks that post data analyses for open discussion are providing the ammunition we citizens need to truthfully refute the ill founded presentations by the AGW proponents.

    Please Alexander, be of good cheer and confidence that this is a fight we can and will win. As Mama Cass Elliot observed in song “… and the darkest hour is just before dawn!” Be assured my friend, the light from the sun of honest science is rising anew … and the AGW cockroaches are running for cover. Step forward with confidence!

    Invictus Maneo!

  32. Alexander,

    I continue to work among the cockroaches. I am eagerly awaiting the day that I can escape to surf, sand, and sun. When I was a youngster, academia in the USA was not dominated by cockroaches. Professors took pride in being open-minded and critical. Also, they taught and fostered open-mindedness and a critical attitude in many ways. The beginning of the end was the institutionalization of radical feminism. When someone publishes her twentieth book in support of the thesis that there is in nature something called “maleness” and it is the root of all evil, you know that open-mindedness and a critical attitude are officially on the Dean’s ash pile. We see exactly the same thing in Climategate, a small group of so-called scientists who declare themselves the authority in all matters pertaining to their science and who impose that authority through the peer review process. That is total corruption or “merde,” as the Portuguese so poetically say. As for the IPCC, that is just the UN trying to get in on the action.

  33. Why is this worth elevating? I thought you “didn’t have a dog in this fight” and now you’re posting a comment that paints not only Abraham’s behavior as reprehensible but suggests that reprehensible behavior is typical of modern Academia?

    Also, it’s clear this poster (and you, by way of calling positive attention to his statements) don’t think too highly of those of us who choose to live on the coasts, but I can assure you there are plenty of us who do our best to be honest and chase the facts instead of following the mob as it hoists a new “hero” on its shoulders.

  34. So sad and so true, cockroaches and rats can survive even under the worst of conditions. They will be in control when the humans have been overwhelmed and suffocated under a mountain of bull crap.

    I hate to say it, but the real humans are doomed to be overtaken by the vermin decepticons. The end is not appealing in the least.

  35. Good selection Anthony.

    Those who would imprison others have used our open society, commitment to free speech, and democratic elections against us. AGW is but one Trojan horse. There are many.

    This enemy is very cunning and persistent. When I first heard the phrase “axis of evil” I thought it was an exaggeration. No more.

    This site has served a powerful service to our country and all Western Societies, by standing for what we believe in, and in good measure, turning the tide of opinion.

    There is still a chance for truth to prevail. Thank you so very much.

  36. Well, if you say so, Alexander, but I personally think you have insulted cockroaches everywhere. I would not elevate the people you refer to up to the level of cockroaches.

  37. “They came for the Jews and because I was not a Jew I did not speak up…”
    “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”

    It’s my belief that the universe has a higher power at work keeping the balance/imbalance so that there is always pressure on people to stand up for their truth, as well as freedom for people to choose how they want to respond. I recognize the wisdom of famous quotes because I’ve battled the same processes myself. I know, from my forebears’ momentous words, that life then had challenges just as formidable as those we face today, just different – of course – since they solved many of their contemporary issues.

    I love the words of Christopher Fry:

    Thank God our Time is now when wrong
    Comes up to face us everywhere,
    Never to leave us till we take
    The longest stride of soul men ever took.
    Affairs are now soul size,
    The enterprise
    Is exploration into God.
    Where are you making for? It takes
    So many thousand years to wake
    But will you wake for pity’s sake?

    Well, Science can be part of the toolkit needed for that exploration. Can’t it? What’s to stop Scientific Method applied to our inner worlds of feelings, concern, anxiety, for which Feht creates the icon of “cockroaches”? Isn’t that already being developed as Psychology? And there are very similar icons to “cockroach” in the Book of Revelation… which interested Newton even more than the foundations of Science for which he is more generally known.

  38. This is important.
    As Feht says, what built it maintains it.
    It is now time to rediscover a morality of life- a morality that is consistent with human nature- and make it very explicit.
    The renaissances always begin to fail when nobody can properly define ‘good’ in absolute terms.
    That’s your real battleground. You win self ownership and dignity or get taken on that field.

  39. “Well, if you say so, Alexander, but I personally think you have insulted cockroaches everywhere.”

    Cal Barndoorfer was obviously quite insulted. I’m just sayin’.

  40. @ Harold , John M and others.

    Like i said its only my opinion. If yours differs so be it, don’t hate me for mine.
    As Clint Eastwood once said “Opinions are like assholes; Everyone has got one.”
    But like i said : I read some comments that made me do some online searches, read articles, think more and ask more about certain topics then this comment.
    I’m sorry but i’m a big fan of theories with facts and data.

    regards

    Richard

  41. Alexander, you’re on my hero list.

    Before us stands yesterday.

    “…It would hardly be a waste of time if sometimes even the most advanced students in the cognitive sciences were to pay a visit to their ancestors. It is frequently claimed in American philosophy departments that, in order to be a philosopher, it is not necessary to revisit the history of philosophy. It is like the claim that one can become a painter without having ever seen a single work by Raphael, or a writer without having ever read the classics. Such things are theoretically possible; but the ‘primitive’ artist, condemned to an ignorance of the past, is always recognizable as such and rightly labeled as naive. It is only when we consider past projects revealed as utopian or as failures that we are apprised of the dangers and possibilities for failure for our allegedly new projects. The study of the deeds of our ancestors is thus more than an atiquarian pastime, it is an immunological precaution.”

    Umberto Eco [The Search for the Perfect Language]

  42. Alexander Feht says: July 15, 2010 at 12:01 pm
    …Where are Mozarts, Darwins, Teslas and Rembrandts in our cherished established institutions?

    Oh, Alexander, there are Mozarts Darwins Teslas and Rembrandts around today, just not in the same niches as before, because genius – filled with spirit – bubbles out ever new, in new places that always need new discovery. I have a whole library full of them. Try Secrets of the Soil. Or the work of Emoto or Schauberger on water. Or The Field by Lynne Mc Taggart. To take the scientists first. What the Renaissance was then, the “New Age” is today, at its best. Much of the real genius is sidelined by the authorities as “pseudoscience” because it challenges current paradigms of “Reality” with phenomena that are right under our noses, easy to see, replicate, check. But with the Internet and modern facilities the work is totally available. Academia has always had a somewhat bunker mentality – and with the Internet, this will eventually tend to put Academia out of business. IMHO.

  43. Excellent post. I suggest Richard read “The Road to Serfdom”, a book from the ’40s that spoke to that generation since they had just lost millions, fighting the result of the rise of the cockroaches. They are always so unhappy the our inconvenient constitution restricts what they can do to us. They scurry about in the dark eating at the threads of our liberty, running for cover trying to avoid getting stepped on when the light of truth gets turned their way, i.e. the CRUtape Letters. Unfortunately, the battle never ends.

    The road to serfdom is an easy one. The road to freedom is not.
    “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence,” George Washington presciently warned. “It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
    Not something to be put into the hands of unwise men.

  44. #
    #
    Cal Barndorfer says:
    July 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Reply to Cal

    Cal I think the sentiment and concern strikes a chord with many, not because of any hatred of academia as such, but more with what we see as the agenda issues. The long standing UN bid for huge sums of money and power under different pretext and issues, the backers and players who stand to gain and cause others to sell their soul to an ideal.

    Then there are the spinners and politicians that try to keep Mr and Mrs average citizen as dumb puppets to be manipulated, deals are done behind closed doors, laws are implemented by stealth and regulation, rather than open debate on the issues in a democratic and ethical way.

    The longer you live, and just when you think you have found the perfect place, you find intrusions, people who demand a better than equal part of your little bit of paradise and then proceed to change your world to suit themselves and you can see before your eyes that paradise disintegrating and you feel powerless to do anything about it, you are told how you must think, and of course never question or speak up or risk being branded as some terrible bigot, racist, or worse.

    Fortunately I have the wonderful thought, that humans have the ability to overcome anything when they are well informed.

    In general, society goes through evolutionary stages as values change and children determine to provide better for their children. So you have commune children that were raised to share everything and own nothing, who become the go getter’s of the next generation. They want all the consumer trappings to provide their children with what they didn’t have as children, and they can, because they have the choice.

    Scientists have the choice to make a difference and stand up and be counted and if some scientists have slipped on their ethics in this generation, I am sure that the next will demand different expectations and stricter standards, in that thought, yes I am optimistic.

    I’m sure that as far as academia and science, I see signs of recognition that a few have let the side down, but annoyance that all are being tainted in the process. That will change as more in Science and Academia join Professor Judith Curry in engaging your perception of the enemy or opposition that have invaded/shaken your piece of reason and paradise, be optimistic please!!

  45. Re the Monckton-Abraham online confrontation, I just saw the following posted over at Climate Progress (apologies if this info has been given before):

    Andy Gunther says:
    July 15, 2010 at 10:28 am

    Joe (and all):

    I sent an email in support of John Abraham to St. Thomas University and he responded with a request that indications of support for his efforts to debunk Monckton be sent to Dr Susan Alexander (slalexander@stthomas.edu), who is managing the University’s response to Monckton. You should follow up on what is happening with Abraham, and I encourage all CP readers to send in a message of support for him to his institution.

  46. The instructive thing is: The USSR is gone.

    One man didn’t kill it, and it didn’t die quickly; but it died.

    This is like serving in the Army. You give it your best for 3, or 4 years, and then turn the fight over to the next Good Guy. Don’t let it eat you alive. [snip] Time, and numbers, are on “our” side.

  47. This is an argument between human beings. It is not taking place in a dictatorship, or in a place with secret police. An academic and a non-academic have had a public exchange of disagreement. The discourse, in fact, has been reasonably civilised, the worst term I have read is “creep”. No one has died, no one has been tortured, no one has gone to jail. Get a grip, people.

    For one side to call the other “cockroaches” is to bring the debate to a new low. It is even sadder to see such terms of abuse being given promenance and applause. This cotinually heightening of the rhetoric of hatred will not come to a good end.

    Let me remind you of an other country where one side called the other “cockroaches”. It is still called Rwanda.

  48. Jeff M says June 15 “Never surrender”. Movie Galaxy Quest dates to 1999. A much better inspiration follows:

    Sir Winston Churchill
    Speech before Commons (June 4, 1940)

    “We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God’s good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old.”

  49. Richard: July 15, 2010 at 11:04 am
    No news value, nothing to debate. Just the personal story of one of the readers. I’ve read some OT comments here that are much quotewurthier / food for thought.

    No news value, but worth it as a reminder. Infinitely worth it as a reminder.

    A friend of mine once said, “…at least, when I was in the Soviet Union, I had a choice and a hope – work hard to get myself into the States. What do I do now?? ”

    We need to insure her question has a *good* answer…

  50. @ nofate July 15, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    Offcourse i know what happened during WOII, my father survived a prisoncamp ( two actually ) But my point was why select a Godwinn as a quote of the week.
    Like i said earlier take something that adds a novum to this forum, a new insight, some fuel for the fire. My point that there is nothing to debate about this post i allready lost by now but still my idea of a post that gives new information on current themes or a OT that brings new interesting arguments to light would had my preference. But like i said: I’m only one of the commentators. Or like Harold said : Just one voice in thousands.

  51. Excuse me for not commenting further untill tomorrow but its 23:59 here and i’m going to bed. Expect any ( if wanted ) comments tomorrow.
    I wish you all goodnight.

  52. Liars and Cockroaches do seem to be everywhere. Where do they come from? I think “they” are the root of The Problem. Where do they come from? Perhaps the Body Snatchers have invaded the world?

  53. “David A. Evans says:
    July 15, 2010 at 11:24 am

    I have noted that the most outspoken critics of the way this debate has developed have lived under dictatorial regimes & they have highlighted the similarities between those regimes & the way green politics is headed in that direction”

    What are you talking about, “headed in that direction?” Green politics is COMING from that direction; it’s ALWAYS been just a thinly disguised Marxism.

    When I first read Akexander’s comment in the original thread, I was reminded of a comment I had been audience to, during a conversation between two of my work colleagues in the pub, prior to the relatively recent UK elections. Up to that point they had barely met, and didn’t know each other well. One of them, a lovely girl but completely sold on Green ideology, casually suggested to the other colleague that she should vote Green. The response: “I’d rather stab myself than vote Green.” This was a gut response, said abruptly, without consideration for appropriate decorum, and was of course not to be taken literally. But I understood where she was coming from, because I knew where she came from: the former East German Democratic Republic.

  54. Alexander, apologies for exporting roaches your way, but here in California we’re already knee deep in ‘em and running out of room (and money to throw away)…

  55. Many moons ago, living in a city merely 180 miles north of the “Mason Dixon” line, a land not quite “southern”, but possessed of the dark soil completely loved by the “German Cockroach”, I was told by my “exterminator” (like the sound of that) to go out in the early spring…walking very carefully in the early morning (3 or 4 AM) with a powerful flashlight in my hand. To walk close to my house on the sidewalk, and then SUDDENLY turn on the flashlight.

    I did, my exterminator was quite correct. The ground (grass) was BLACK, completely covered in COCKROACHES! (Ugh.)

    But within SECONDS they burrowed away and dissappeared. ALAS, it is the “Light of Day” (info, truth, debate, information) which makes “Human Cockroaches” do the same thing. Unfortunately, unless something “exterminates” them (can be a term for a variety of means, even using a Ray-gun on them..of the Ronald brand!), they too merely “burrow under the sand” to come out later when they feel they can do their dirty work, unopposed!

    Max

  56. Theo Goodwin says:
    July 15, 2010 at 12:37 pm:

    “That is total corruption or ‘merde,’ as the Portuguese so poetically say.” The Portugese say “merda.” The French who, btw, get approximately 80% of their electric power from nuclear, say “merde.”

  57. Anthony
    Of all the hundreds of comments on your blog and the one you consider worth elevating to post status compares people with whom you disagree, with cockroaches. I disagree with many of the views expressed on you website although I read it regularly, does this make me a cockroach in your view?

    REPLY: Puhleeze. Does the fact that I elevate an interesting comment that many people liked make your twist of logic true? Does the fact that I allow dissenting comments make me in agreement with them? It was getting a lot of external web traction at other blogs before I elevated it. Given that, I felt it worth elevating it. If it offends you, confounds you, irritates you or causes you to make great illogical leaps of logic, so be it. BTW according to the counter, we have 390,331 comments on WUWT as of this writing. If I worried about them all, and their ramifications for what people might think about me I’d go insane. -A

  58. I have a lot of faith in the American people and come November- out comes the raid and perhaps the beginning of the end of “cockroaches.” And , I agree with a previous comment about the coast thing. There is an infestation just about everywhere-not just on the coasts.

  59. KenB writes:

    “Scientists have the choice to make a difference and stand up and be counted and if some scientists have slipped on their ethics in this generation, I am sure that the next will demand different expectations and stricter standards, in that thought, yes I am optimistic.”

    Do you really believe that someone will stand up to the feminist studies departments? If so, why haven’t they stood up. There is not one article out of a feminist studies department that has been published in a serious academic journal. All of their work is in newly created journals edited by radical feminists. Yet the president of Harvard is a radical feminist. Why did no one stand up? Who will stand up? Why has academia permitted the creation of universities within universities? Why are there rogue departments and institutes that answer to no one but themselves?

    I take feminist studies department as my example because that case is so very clear. But much of the same goes on elsewhere. CRU/UEA is just one among many such “research units,” or whatever you want to call them, that answer to no one and spend their time in advocacy rather than science. And that is a good thing for them because their attempts at science are dreadful. Before discovering CRU/UEA, I would never have believed that a science professor would assert that model runs count as evidence or data in science. I believe that only a fool would make such an assertion. Yet Climategaters have just been given a thorough whitewash and continue to control the IPCC process. Aren’t you scared?

  60. @KenB

    I appreciate your comments and agree with much of what you said. I think one of the most important issues you raise is this: “Fortunately I have the wonderful thought, that humans have the ability to overcome anything when they are well informed.”

    If a person is referring to those they believe to be uninformed as ‘cockroaches’, than that person is part of the problem.

    [not interested in drawing out the argument - A]

  61. Alexander asks:

    “How the same framework and the same mechanisms that resulted in today’s lamentable situation, are going to have a healing effect?”

    In academia generally, remove all policies based on Affirmative Action and Diversity Initiatives. Fire all Diversity Deans. Permit academic departments to sink or swim on the basis of their graduates. If feminist studies departments were required to justify their existence by appeal to the number of their majors and graduates, they would vanish, except of course from the hard core enclaves of the coasts.

    As regards science in academia, require that all applications for promotion, research grants, and all other items be accompanied with a description of the scientist’s research and a description of the particular theories that guide his research. Require that research and theories be submitted for review to other scientists who have been critical of the research or theories. Require that all reviews be managed by the Dean of Faculty rather than the reviewee’s department.

    The thrust of these two proposals is to peal away the accretions from the radicalism of the Sixties and the Careerism of the Eighties. Once these accretions are stripped away, academic science and academia at large might return to first rate scholarship and research.

    Contrary to Pennsylvania State University, grant funds brought to the university by the applicant are not to be considered in applications for promotion.

    What matters is the integrity of the scholarship, not its popularity or appeal to funding agencies.

  62. Fred windsor Anthony says:
    July 15, 2010 at 3:33 pm
    BTW according to the counter, we have 390,331 comments on WUWT as of this writing.

    Which counter is that? The URL for this comment is http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/comment-of-the-week/#comment-431338 so I figured WUWT must have 431338 comments. Should we start a search for them? Are they traipsing around the net having a grand time of a tour? Do comments decrement as they disappear when you clean Tips & Notes?

    REPLY: Total comments – SPAM (and we get thousands for Viagra, MLM’s, etc) = total approved comments The indexer only knows pings, not ping quality.

  63. Alexander Feht with his familiarity with cockroaches see them more clearly than most in North America.

    The sound of the cockroaches:

    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.” – written by Obama’s Science Adviser, Holden with Paul Ehrlich (1973)

    “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong

    Make no mistake the economic collapse we are now seeing was planned years ago.

    You Americans are so gullible! We don’t have to invade you! We will destroy you from within without firing a shot! We will bury you by the billions! We spoon feed you socialism until your Communists and don’t even know it! We assist your elected leaders in giving you small doses of Socialism until you suddenly awake to find you have Communism. the day will come when your grandchildren will live under communism! Nikita Khrushchev

  64. Lucy Skywalker ( @ July 15, 2010 at 12:54 pm) has introduced two quotations. I recognise them both. The first was:

    “They came for the Jews and because I was not a Jew I did not speak up…”

    This quotation contains the hidden logic sequence: ‘I saw them come for the Jews; I knew that it was wrong for them take the Jews; but because of a fear for my own life and liberty, I did nothing; so, I remained silent; but in remaining silent I also knew that it was wrong for me to remain silent as I watched them take the Jews.’

    Hence, Lucy’s second quotation:

    “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”

    This begs the question: in the face of risk to life and liberty (or, as in the case of AGW, a less onerous risk to reputation and income) why logic propels one to swim against the tide, to speak up at all? For ego? Surely not! To fight in a holy crusade against AGW protagonists? No, such thinking is not proper.

    Siding with Socrates, the only rational reason why I can think of as to why anyone should wish to stand up and protest against the taking of the Jews (and thereby put life and liberty at risk) – or to enter into the fray in the AGW debate (and put mere reputation and income at risk) – is simply this: having thought for oneself, one knows such a thing to be wrong; and one cannot live with oneself if one says and does nothing.

  65. Ric Werme says:
    July 15, 2010 at 6:14 pm
    ==================
    Are you complaining?
    Without your hit it would be one less.

  66. u.k.(us) says:
    July 15, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    Ric Werme says:
    July 15, 2010 at 6:14 pm
    ==================
    Are you complaining?

    Not at all – mostly curious, partly researching. While I haven’t done anything about collecting or indexing comments yet, I might. So far I’ve only been working with titles, months, categories, and web page markup. See http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/

  67. just a suggestion:

    please remove Darwin from the list and replace it with a name much kinder toward humanity, say, Einstein.

  68. “Siding with Socrates, the only rational reason why I can think of as to why anyone should wish to stand up and protest against the taking of the Jews (and thereby put life and liberty at risk) – or to enter into the fray in the AGW debate (and put mere reputation and income at risk) – is simply this: having thought for oneself, one knows such a thing to be wrong; and one cannot live with oneself if one says and does nothing.”

    You can get a lot more direct than that-
    The practice of good mental hygeine is very like brushing and flossing your teeth.
    Do you want to keep your teeth from rotting out?

  69. Charmed you found a Russian to identify an “example of a typical reprehensible representative of modern Academia.” and ask “Where are Mozarts, Darwins, Teslas and Rembrandts in our cherished established institutions?” and wonder “How the same framework and the same mechanisms that resulted in today’s lamentable situation, are going to have a healing effect?”

    Newtons, Darwins, and Einsteins seem to come along every couple hundred years or so. Mozarts, perhaps, every 500 years or so. Teslas every 50 years or so. Rembrandts whenever a productive artist is identified and promoted through a market. Are we overdue?

    What is today’s lamentable situation? What needs to be healed? Science is still discovering new relationships in the world. As Newton, Darwin, and Einstein all noticed, not all were happy at the time they presented their views. Such is life.
    Reprehensible academia? LOL. Nice try.

    The “mechanism” is the scientific method. If you have another method in mind, please identify it. I sympathize if the scientific method does not produce what you wanted or expected. I have been in that situation, myself.

  70. Eudoxus,

    In a face-to-face conversation you would never make such comments, or, if you were careless enough to make them, you would be apologizing in two minutes. In anonymous safety of electronic communication any fool can make any statement (as in “What is today’s lamentable situation? What needs to be healed?”), and get away with it.

    I could analyze every sentence of your comment and show, where and how you are inexcusably wrong. But would it be worth my time? I have been working 12 hours today, and must work at least 3 or 4 hours. Nah, I don’t think so. Good night.

  71. I have sympathy for Mr Feht’s view. In the UK the cockroaches now infest every corner of life, intervening in peoples’ lives to save them from themselves, because the state knows best.

    We even have our own royal one in the heir to the throne. In a speech to hundreds of business leaders in London on Thursday he accused climate change sceptics of using “pseudo science” and “intimidation” to stop the world from addressing catastrophic global warming (from the front page of Friday’s Daily Telegraph – I couldn’t find a reference link on-line).

    He continued “It has been profoundly depressing to witness the way the so-called climate sceptics are apparently able to intimidate all sorts of people from adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse”.

    It is good to know we sceptics are so powerful.

  72. I’m afraid I’ve lost patience with Monckton – and he’s an acquaintance of mine.

    For heaven’s sake, if you can dish it out, then take it. The blogosphere is a bare-knuckle environment, and his hypocrisy in this case (saying Abraham’s face resembles an overcooked prawn when he has strenuously objected to being called swivel-eyed, for example) makes him a poor standard-bearer.

  73. HotRod,

    I never had much time for Lord Monkton, anyway, but people here do not seem to realise what they are supporting.

    Abraham called him out on certain points. The correct response was for Lord Monckton to approach each citation of Abraham and check that his reading of their work was the correct. Instead of that, he posted over 400 questions, most of them “when did you stop beating you wife” variety, plus some personal abuse (“overcooked prawn”). Monckton has been quoted as calling U. St. Thomas a “Bible College” (what’s wrong with a Bible College?), calling its director “creepy”, and suggesting that the Bishop of the diocese was too busy with pedophilia allegations to address his correspondence.

    These may go down well in the UK, or with a certain type of American anti-Catholic, but I think American Catholics will not be pleased, especially the Board and funders of the University of St. Thomas. Now, if Lord Monckton wants to sue, he has loaded his case with such personal invective that he is wide open to a counter suit.

    A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client – Lord Monckton seems to have decided to be his own legal adviser and has a fool for a lawyer. He is not worthy, in my opinion, of the support he is receiving here. He has no case to go to court. But that is for everyone to decide.

  74. [snip - we aren't going to steer the issue of into a political war simply because some people wish it ~mod]

  75. Reading ALL of the posts above show Alexander Feht’s comment strikes a sensitive nerve.
    We appear to be very aware of a problem in society. Alluding to cockroaches may not
    have helped but it does not diminish the problem.

  76. @ toby

    Your comment “Instead of that, he posted over 400 questions, most of them “when did you stop beating you wife” variety” – care to back it up with any examples? Because as far as I can see, your analogy only works for the original piece by Abrahams (i.e. it was full of strawmen and misrepresentations). Monckton merely responded specifically to Abraham’s alleged slanders, so it is hardly a case of “when did you stop beating your wife.” But, I’d be interested in you giving some examples, and explaining how the analogy works. Or are you saying that your analogy applies to each and every one of the 400 rebuttals? And finally, why do you presume that Monckton doesn’t have a legal advisor?

  77. Anthony, you sidestepped Fred Windsor’s point. He didn’t ask why you don’t worry about every comment, he asked why you chose *this* one to be promoted to the front page. I *think* you’re saying you promoted it because it’s popular elsewhere on the web. OK then. But it would be good to know your view: do you think it’s OK, or constructive, to compare people you don’t agree with to cockroaches?

    The vast majority of commenters here have no problem with this: I counted just over 20 happily echoing the idea of, presumably, people like me as a cockroach infestation. Two people pointed out that it’s, at the very least, insulting to those of us who don’t agree with you.

    If you think it’s OK to consider people who don’t agree with you as cockroaches, I think that kind of ends our chances for civil discussion here, doesn’t it?

    So would you mind telling us: do you think it’s OK to compare people you don’t agree with to cockroaches? An answer involving either the word “yes” or “no” would be great.

    REPLY: Ask him. It is an apt metaphor, one that caught attention of a lot of people prior to it being elevated, and you are reading way too much into it. He sees the USSR politics and Socialism as that. Do I think cockroaches accurately describes people I and many other here disagree with, no. Is it a metaphor for the instruments and actions that oppose freedom, tolerance, and open discourse, yes. Of course it doesn’t matter what I answer, some people will happily run off and distort it. In fact they already are. So this will be my last word on it.

    I suspect your only interest here is so that you can go blog about it on your blog, citing the usual fake outrages, while ignoring the fact that I (and many others who dare speak out on the climate issue) am metaphorically compared with or outright labeled far worse every day, all over the blogosphere. For example, one commenter (taunter Ben) compared me directly to a “rat” yesterday on another blog. No metaphors there, just simple hate.

    But nobody tries to pin them down. Carry on.

    – Anthony

  78. Keith G says:
    July 15, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    Lucy Skywalker ( @ July 15, 2010 at 12:54 pm) has introduced two quotations. I recognise them both. The first was:

    “They came for the Jews and because I was not a Jew I did not speak up…”

    “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”….

    This begs the question: in the face of risk to life and liberty (or, as in the case of AGW, a less onerous risk to reputation and income) why logic propels one to swim against the tide, to speak up at all? For ego? Surely not! To fight in a holy crusade against AGW protagonists? No, such thinking is not proper.

    Siding with Socrates, the only rational reason why I can think of as to why anyone should wish to stand up and protest against the taking of the Jews (and thereby put life and liberty at risk) – or to enter into the fray in the AGW debate (and put mere reputation and income at risk) – is simply this: having thought for oneself, one knows such a thing to be wrong; and one cannot live with oneself if one says and does nothing.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    NO, NO, Keith. You have it all wrong, Deniers do it because they are paid big bucks by the oil companies! Where is my check. /sarc

    Given Greenpeace was helped out of obscurity by Maurice Strong (big oil) and the Rockefeller Foundation (Standard Oil money) and the Shell Oil CRU connection shown in the e-mails, this harping on the fairy tale that deniers are funded by Big Oil is really laughable.

    Here is the Father of the environmental movement, Al Gore’s good buddy, chair of the first Earth Summit and the Rio Summit, Maurice Strong from WIKI no less.

    “…Strong had his start as a petroleum entrepreneur and became president of Power Corporation until 1966. In the early 1970s he was Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and then became the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme. He returned to Canada to become Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada from 1976 to 1978. He headed Ontario Hydro, one of North Americas largest power utilities, was national President and Chairman of the Extension Committee of the World Alliance of YMCAs,…”

    The guy orchestrating the whole CAGW campaign for decades is a top oil exec! Compare that to the only dirt Greenpeace could find. A mild ad for a half million asking CAGW be regarded as a theory instead of as fact and that among others donors the Heartland Institute received some funding from Exon. Meanwhile Greenpeace has been takes Standard Oil money EVERY YEAR for years!

    Pot meet Kettle.

  79. #
    #
    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 15, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    just a suggestion:

    please remove Darwin from the list and replace it with a name much kinder toward humanity, say, Einstein.
    __________________________________________
    Darwin should stand because of the blatant fudging of the Darwin temp data, but do add Einstein in front of him. ( I like the double zing of using Darwin)

    The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

    Would You Like Your Temperature Data Homogenized, or Pasteurized?: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/would-you-like-your-temperature-data-homogenized-or-pasteurized/

    Darwin Zero Before and After: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/

  80. @David UK,

    I cannot believe that a half-decent legal advisor would have allowed Lord Monckton to go on a taped TV programme and call the University of St. Thomas a “half-a*sed Catholic Bible College”. That type of Anglo snobbery may play well in English upper-class and elitist circles, but this is in America. If he was hoping for a sympathetic response from the College Board, or the funders, or even the student body, I would say that chance has now gone. He compounded his mistake with several other own goals, such as snide references to Fr. Dease and even the local Catholic Bishop.

    Monckton seemed to be full of sound and fury, and Jones led him on, possibly thinking he was doing him a favour (but it made for good TV!). All he has done is expose himself to a damaging countersuit, should he go to law, as the University lawyers have now reminded him (in a roundabout way). He should have remembered that “revenge is a dish best eaten cold”, and I think the job of a good legal adviser would have been to remind him of that.

    To me, Monckton comes across as a windy blusterer. Whatever, he now has no real recourse now except to continue an unproductive campaign on the Internet, which will probably end in failure.

  81. I have frequented this blog on-and-off for the best part of a year now and have often been given cause to question my strongly held beliefs that AGW is genuine. For that I am grateful.

    The site and some of its regular contributors and commentors have, in short, helped me to educate myself beyond a level I would have reached without them. For that too I am grateful.

    The result, however (after weighing up the evidence from this site, the ‘hard’ science and other blogs), has strengthened my convictions that AGW is real and worthy of our great concern. For this also, I am grateful.

    Unfortunately, the last few weeks have become intolerable.

    That Anthony (and his supporters) cannot see beyond the foolish posturings of Lord Monckton and has actively supported his spiteful call-to-arms in an attempt to stifle academic debate goes beyond the pale. This has all fallen into a potentially litigious and fund-wasting charade of “he said it first” and a Peewee Hermanesque “I know you are, but what am I”.

    What do you all think it will achieve?
    Will it change nature?
    Will it change the ‘fact’ or the ‘non-fact’ of AGW?
    Will it advance your cause or enhance the science?
    Will it convince even one person (like me) who has listened hard to your arguments to see the value in them?
    Or, alternatively, will it alienate people (like me) and even some more firmly on ‘your side’, who will recognize this for what it is – an attempt at censorship, at stifling the debate and silencing alternative ideas and views?

    This latest tirade, where commentors are gleefully comparing the alternative ‘team’ to cockroaches, and wishing, even demanding, that they be crushed is, frankly, disgusting.

    Did Professor Abraham ‘start it’?
    Maybe Lord Monckton ‘started it’?

    Personally, I don’t care. This does not advance the argument one iota and contributes nothing to the science or the discussion. It is a display in intolerance, tribalism, or barbarism, and I think Anthony and many of his commentors should be ashamed.
    I, for one, will not be returning to this site. You have lost at least one ‘visitor’ and I strongly suspect I won’t be the last.

    Maybe you will all chirp “Good riddance”, but seriously, you could have convinced me if you weren’t so gleefully spiteful. Even Lord Monckton could have convinced me if he had provided direct answers to some of Professor Abraham’s criticisms, rather than answering not with a question, but with hundreds of questions and demands for what amounts to punitive damages (how much did Professor Abraham deserve for the “overcooked prawn” remark? How much does Father Dease deserve for being called a “creep of a President”).

    This type of mob mentality and controversy may improve Anthony’s ‘hits’, but it will not sway the opposition. In fact, it will lose you the argument more swiftly than otherwise.

  82. Dan Olner et al.,

    It’s not a matter of “agreement” or “disagreement.”
    It’s not about a difference of opinions any more.
    It’s not about words, it’s about deeds.
    It’s a matter of tyranny and resistance.

    When people telling the factual truth are being methodically and collectively persecuted, silenced, and excluded by the clique of government-supported human parasites that overwhelmed all the media and all public institutions, shamelessly faking and manipulating data, routinely abusing their powers and prerogatives, and wasting society’s resources, time, and livelihoods on fake quasi-religious beliefs displacing and crowding out reality-based science everywhere on the planet, it’s not a fair, balanced, and equal “debate” any more.

    YES, these people are parasites, and fully deserve to stand trial as embezzlers and fraudsters.

  83. The language police are out in force, wringing their hands. Oh, the travesty.

    On the upside, despite their primitive origins, cockroaches are highly adaptable, and survive high radiation levels.

  84. Adrian says:

    “Unfortunately, the last few weeks have become intolerable.”

    Well then, by all means go back home to RC. While you’re there, ask them why they heavily censor skeptical comments. Even a comment as mild as yours would be censored there, if it was perceived to be critical of their CAGW agenda.

    Michael Mann runs RC. Ask him why he feels the need to only allow pro-AGW comments through moderation, and censor the rest. Your comment won’t be posted, but at least it will be read by Mann or Schmidt. Tell them “Hi” from the #1 science site.

  85. Adrian, Smokey:

    It’s difficult for me also to come back from seeing Watts promote both Monckton and this commenter to a prominent position: one demanding a presentation be taken down, the other declaring his enemies ‘parasites’ (I’m resisting the urge to confirm Godwin’s Law at this point!)

    I suspect Adrian, like me, reads RC and other blogs and, perhaps, like me, tries to keep a toe in blogs like WUWT. Some place for civil discussion with people of differing views would be good, but – short an explanation from Watts on his choice of recent postings – I can see why Adrian feels he won’t be returning.

    There are other ‘skeptical’ blogs that place a premium on civility and reasoned argument, I see. E.g. http://scienceofdoom.com/about/ Any other suggestions?

  86. Dan Olner,

    You misrepresent the situation by saying that Anthony Watts “promotes” Lord Monckton. Monckton’s response was published well after Abraham put his drive-by attack on line. Anthony made it clear that he doesn’t have a dog in this fight. He is providing equal time, and a forum that realclimate would never allow.

    What you actually want is the censorship of Lord Monckton. Run along to RC, you’ll get plenty of of your coveted censorship there.

    May I also point out that it is the climate alarmist gang that wants to make Lord Monckton the Sarah Palin of climate discourse? That ad hominem cheerleading was instigated and is encouraged by partisan political blogs like RealClimate and tamino. Sorry you can’t see that.

  87. I’m so thrilled that someone responded to my comment before I pack up for the weekend, sign off from WUWT permanently, and head for home (yes, OMG, I am doing this from work).
    Smokey above…the sound of someone utterly missing the point; but thanks for reinforcing it anyway.

  88. Run along, Adrian. Enjoy your comfy echo chamber, where you don’t have to think, only parrot.

  89. Dan Olner says:
    July 16, 2010 at 8:48 am

    (I’m resisting the urge to confirm Godwin’s Law at this point!)
    ___________________________________________
    Good thing you’ve resisted, Dan, for incontinence in this case would be laughable.
    For real intolerance and insults, please, see pro-AGW/pro-ACC sites.

  90. Smokey, I mean ‘promote’ as in ‘put at the top of the blog’. Sorry, bad choice of word.

    I don’t think Monckton should be censored. I do think choosing to host his demand for the removal of Abraham’s presentation means that the hoster is indicating support for that. I think that’s pretty low, and is going to alienate reasonable people on all sides of this debate, as it has done Adrian. Responding with “yah boo, orf ya go to yer darlin warmist blog yer big unthinkin’ pansy” is hardly likely to help.

    I’m just wondering if/when Watts might come out and say what he thinks. a) does he support Monckton’s demands for the removal of Abraham’s presentation? b) does he agree that anyone who argues human-induced climate change is a real and serious problem are “cockroaches”?

  91. Alexander: “For real intolerance and insults, please, see pro-AGW/pro-ACC sites.”

    I’m sure they happen on all sites, but I don’t tolerate insults wherever they are. Out of interest, do you agree with Monckton that Abraham’s responses were an “unprovoked personal attack?” I’ve looked through them, all I can see are responses to points of fact. Am I missing something?

    I’m just wondering if you think Abraham was in some way intolerant towards Monckton, in the way you’re suggesting ‘pro-AGW’ sites are to skeptics?

  92. Dan Olner says:
    July 16, 2010 at 9:37 am
    Smokey, I mean…
    (…)
    I’m just wondering if/when Watts might come out and say what he thinks. a) does he support Monckton’s demands for the removal of Abraham’s presentation? b) does he agree that anyone who argues human-induced climate change is a real and serious problem are “cockroaches”?
    ——-We’ll not know until that happens, right?. However, are you suggesting A. Watts edits everything that appears here? That would be basically what RealClimate does. I’ve seen where he’s more tolerant than that. (I’ve posted a few things on RealClimate and never seen them appear. Never. And none were ad hom attacks; no, they were just honest questions that would have made them open their eyes to climate alternatives other than CO2.)

  93. Atlas Shrugged anyone? Another soul from the USSR that can see what’s coming.

    I would love to move to Colorado but will probably stay here in Virginia, trying to swat cockroaches.

  94. “However, are you suggesting A. Watts edits everything that appears here?”

    Not at all – just to hear from him what he thinks about those two issues.

  95. Alexander Feht has seen up close where the political agenda behind CAGW leads. He as the rest of us can see the “science is not settled” there is not a “consensus” and the media is censored propaganda.

    With luck the worst case scenarios will not happen.
    1. A totalitarian “global governance” implementing Agenda 21
    Here is the link to the full text of it: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

    AGENDA 21 FOR DUMMIES

    NWO / CLUB OF ROME DEPOPULATION & AGENDA 21

    2. a descent into a full blown Ice age.

    Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes

    “….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial.” Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception

    The difference between peak warmth and deepest cold was around 55Wm-2;
    The current value, being only 13Wm-2 above the value at the depth of the ice age, is almost all the way back to ‘cold conditions’; it may be that only stored ocean heat is keeping us out of an ice age (for now).

    The bought and paid for media has ignored both of these. Worse the international grain traders have talked the politicians into abolishing grain reserves and the enviro types have kept nuclear power technology from progressing. If both of these worst case scenarios happen we are looking at only a small percentage of the world’s population surviving and that is only if an all out nuclear war is not touched off over the scramble for resources.

    Perhaps that is why the people of western civilization are being tricked by A massive campaign… launched … to de-develop the United States

  96. Adrian
    If you are still around.
    Two things drew me and still draws me here: a comparison of the level of ad hom attacks on each side (Amazon Books is a pretty neutral ground for comparison) and a comparison of the level of checkable, reliable and pertinent science. And what I miss from you is comments about the science itself, which is the real issue. Scientific understanding is what Monckton has in spades. But you have to do your homework. Click on my name and scroll down to “Heart of the controversy”. He wrote such a long piece – to show he does understand, correctly, all the many details for which he has often been condemned -it’s not just Abraham wrongly accusing him. You have to compare Monckton’s level of rudeness with the composite of rudeness he has received. To say nothing of the abuse of Science which Abraham represents.

  97. I think that, in the context of mutual accusations of incivility, one point should be painfully clear:

    In most countries of the world, despite the will of the majority of population, by fraud and abuse of powers, proponents of “anthropogenic climate change” are holding the government’s gun pointed at our heads and make as pay for their unsubstantiated cause.

    Being the initiators of real violence, they lack any and all authority to claim innocence in court, saying nothing of “civility” in public forums.

    For those who need short and blunt explanations, I repeat:

    If you hold a gun and make me give you money (for whatever reason) by threatening to imprison me or to kill me if I resist, THIS IS NOT A DEBATE, THIS IS ROBBERY.

  98. (Housekeeping: This thread should be about Alexander Feht’s comment. Can you please, moderators, transfer all the Monckton comments to a Monckton thread? Thanks.

    Nice try, though – to try to obscure a deep issue like Alexander’s comment, on which people should be responding for days or weeks – with a “did he, didn’t he” Monckton point designed to terminate the thread in a few hours).

    I didn’t come here to debate cockroaches, but to respond to Alexander’s comment:

    Dear Alexander,

    Kudos, first, to Anthony for picking your idea out.

    I have noticed – and agreed with – your comments several times before. This time, you are exceptional, even by your own standards. And your second comment is even better than your first.

    I share your insight that democracy – as practiced today – doesn’t work. It turns good people against each other – “liberals” versus “conservatives”, for example. And it has corrupted science, too.

    I see that many, even at WUWT, seem convinced that the future is bad. I disagree; if only on the ground that pessimists are always right.

    I think we need to focus on the basics. What is right, and what is wrong? Morality – what is it? What is freedom? What is justice? What is government for? What is honesty? What is equality? What is science?

    The WUWT readership have more brain cells focused on today’s problems than have ever been assembled before. So, I expect the new Socrates, the new Beethovens, the new Einsteins, Edisons and Whittles, to follow. And the cockroaches will – eventually – snip themselves. Or should that be [snip] themselves?

    Alexander, Anthony, well done, and thank you.

  99. Neil says:
    July 16, 2010 at 11:22 am
    “What is right, and what is wrong? Morality – what is it? What is freedom? What is justice? What is government for? What is honesty? What is equality? What is science?”
    ________________________________________________
    Difficult questions, all. Yes, we must find answers to these questions, and re-arrange our society according to our new, painfully acquired and informed understanding (some of us could even humbly propose some solutions, though I am sure they wouldn’t be easy to understand and implement).

    However, the burning problem is that, while we are mulling over these undoubtedly important philosophical questions, fraudsters and thieves are having their heyday.

    How you imagine this process, practically?
    Suppose I will go to Mr. Putin and tell him: “People are different, Vlad! The same laws and requirements are inapplicable to all individual people and minority groups. They should have a possibility to opt out from any programs and functions they don’t want to participate in, and they should not be required to pay for such programs and functions. Really free society should be a society without mandatory taxation, without coercion, working on the basis of voluntary donations for specific causes, with opt-out opportunities for all…”

    Putin:
    - Huh? Hey, who let this nutcase in here? Deal with him, now!
    [snip]

  100. Alexander Fehr,

    With all due respect, you are a few light years over the top. What “real violence” are you talking about? Who has been beaten up, tortured or mutilated?

    “In most countries of the world, despite the will of the majority of population, by fraud and abuse of powers, proponents of “anthropogenic climate change” are holding the government’s gun pointed at our heads and make as pay for their unsubstantiated cause.

    Being the initiators of real violence, they lack any and all authority to claim innocence in court, saying nothing of “civility” in public forums.”

    What “robbery” are you talking about? If you think the government is wrong, then get yourself or someone else elected to change it. That is the democratic way, not to adopt heated and overwrought speech like “cockroaches”, “real violence” and “ROBBERY”.

    You should be know from the history of your former country: overwrought and violent speech identifiying objects of hatred (like “kulaks” or “class enemies”) has a way of taking on a life of its own, and leading to dreadful consequences.

  101. In a reply to Dan Olner, Anthony writes:

    “Do I think cockroaches accurately describes people I and many other here disagree with, no. Is it a metaphor for the instruments and actions that oppose freedom, tolerance, and open discourse, yes.”

    Right on the money, Anthony. As for myself, I am not in disagreement with the Al Gores and the Michael Manns of the world; rather, I am in fear that my life will be taken from me by them. Now, does that adequately explain the use of “cockroach?”

  102. Alexander Feht: “In most countries of the world, despite the will of the majority of population, by fraud and abuse of powers, proponents of “anthropogenic climate change” are holding the government’s gun pointed at our heads and make as pay for their unsubstantiated cause.”

    I don’t think this metaphor is correct in the case of democratic societies, where decision-making is representative and takes place according to lawful procedures.

    “Yes, we must find answers to these questions, and re-arrange our society according to our new, painfully acquired and informed understanding…”

    And this is the issue. Who are the “we” who are going to do the re-arranging? There are few ways to distribute political power: place it in the hands of the one, the few or the many. In a democratic society, the “we” is the many.

    In practice, power in any system tends to move in favour if one set of interests for a time, then swings back to another set of interests. Sometimes the various interests can compromise.

    If there’s a better way of handling polticial power than the imperfect democracies we have at present, we should explore them. But to date I haven’t seen anything persuasive.

  103. From the comments here there are several people who feel that the world should be a shiny happy place where we all “just get along”. Unfortunately the world, and by extension people, do not work that way.

    IMHO The term cockroach in this context does not refer so much to any individual but rather to a group of people and a group think that is becoming less and less merely annoying and more and more oppressive. It is an excellent metaphor to describe their behavior. To ignore this elephant in the room, simply because the elephant was referred to as a cockroach, is to do so at your peril.

    To paraphrase Shakespeare, a rose by any other name would still stink out loud.

  104. Frequently encountered sentiment among the young and not so young:
    “If you think the government is wrong, then get yourself or someone else elected to change it. That is the democratic way…”

    Aha. If only pigs would fly.

  105. Excellent comment.

    As someone said earlier, this site pulls in many hits and this comment is worthy of attention. If we can get this message into the newspapers and onto the radio we might be onto something. Squish ‘em!

  106. I have consulted the birds around my birdfeeder and they have twittered:

    Anthony you have had a brilliant idea! A comment of the week!!! Brilliant!?!?:

    For myself my new goal is to be the comment of the week. Given the commenters here it will be a hard contest to win. Many other commenters are probably thinking the same as I am. What it will motivate me to do is more carefully research my comments and their literary qualities. I suspect you will see even better comments then you already have [the best in the blogsphere].

  107. toby says:
    July 16, 2010 at 2:27 am

    Abraham called him out on certain points. The correct response was for Lord Monckton to approach each citation of Abraham and check that his reading of their work was the correct.

    He did so.

    Instead of that, he posted over 400 questions, …

    First, a criticism can be framed as a question, E.g., after a rebuttal, a sentence or paragraph might conclude, “Would you not now concede that you were wrong to say yada yada?” There’s no substantive distinction between a rejoinder and one packaged in a question, merely a formal one. The format is undoubtedly the result of Monckton’s intention to convey to Abraham that these are the sort of questions (finely grained, in order to grind fine) that a litigator would pose to him on the witness stand.

    Second, he has just posted an 11-page Foreword that condenses his grievances and avoids the “question-posing” format, so “instead” doesn’t apply now.

    … most of them “when did you stop beating you wife” variety, …

    Nonsense. A few of them could be characterized that way. (And usually after providing grounds for suspecting that a wife-beating had occurred.)

    … plus some personal abuse (“overcooked prawn”).

    Nonsense. That was in a separate, earlier document, and he has now apologized for it.

  108. heh – no, morality is simple.
    morality is the science of choice.
    where there is no choice, it’s not a matter of morality.
    choices must be made on the basis of some standard of value.
    the standard of value for a human being is his own life as a human being.
    not as a milk cow
    not as a slave
    not as a dog
    Man is not to be sacrificed on any altar – society’s or deity’s.
    Self sacrifice is not a virtue; it is suicide.
    Reason is man’s basic tool of survival. Negation of reason is not debate; it is suicide.
    Reason can not be coerced – it is a choice.
    It is the moral choice of a human being.
    Good is that which is consistent with human nature – you better damn well define it correctly.
    Evil is that which contradicts it.
    Black & white and simple enough for a 4 year old – and I know some.
    If you have found it a chore, blame your parents if you like, but to reach any age beyond adolescence without having defined your own nature and identified the standard of values – THAT IS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM.
    The problem is an attempt to deny what is.
    You can’t – but you can die trying.
    Therefore, discover morality, finally, after such a long period of default.
    And it’s not enough to know it- you have to know you know it and it has to be spoken in the street as a commonplace: I own me. You own you. We respect that.
    When that common knowledge has ceased to be spoken a renaissance degenerates into – what you see – the reward of the morality you have been practicing – a morality of self sacrifice and of sacrificial others. It’s what you should have expected had your parents raised you intelligently.

  109. The western world has for some time been practicing a morality of death.
    You have sacrificed profit to subsidy, justice to equality, principle to legal writ, authority replaced merit and ultimately PC – reason was sacrificed to sentiment.

    The consequences were part of the bargain. The free lunch was you.

  110. Roger Knights said:
    “toby said:

    Abraham called him out on certain points. The correct response was for Lord Monckton to approach each citation of Abraham and check that his reading of their work was the correct. ”

    It was clear from Abraham’s earlier rubuttal that some of the scientists had never heard of Lord Monckton, none of the others had any contact with him. It took Abrahams 8 months to get a response from each scientist involved. So Monckton did all that in a few weeks? In fact, it is clear that he STILL has not contacted the scientists who wrote the papers he used, and is relying on bluff and bluster to stampede Abraham and the University into conceding to his ludricrous demands.

    His loutish comments on the University of St. Thomas, Father Dease and the local Bishop have destroyed his own case. Belated apologies are of little use. People may see a noble aristocrat in Lord Monckton; I see only an elitest bully, who expects lesser mortals (“commoners”) to defer to him. It was a bad day for climate skeptics when they made him one of their leaders. As a person who accepts AGW, I always thought Monkcton’s superficial understanding of science could not for ever be disguised by his brilliant rhetoric.

  111. “Alexander Feht says:
    July 16, 2010 at 3:04 pm
    Frequently encountered sentiment among the young and not so young:
    “If you think the government is wrong, then get yourself or someone else elected to change it. That is the democratic way…”

    Aha. If only pigs would fly.”

    Well, Alexander, if you cannot carry a democratic election, then your fulminations about “real violence”, “ROBBERY” and “cockroaches” are just empty bluster to egg on a minority. If you reject democratic elections, perhaps you should spell out just exactly what your political agenda is?

  112. toby,

    If it weren’t for ad hominem personal attacks, you wouldn’t have anything to say. Would you?

  113. Anthony says: “Do I think cockroaches accurately describes people I and many other here disagree with, no. Is it a metaphor for the instruments and actions that oppose freedom, tolerance, and open discourse, yes. ”

    Fair enough. That being so, would you agree that Monckton asking for Abraham’s presentation being taken down is (how do I use the metaphor here?) ‘cockroaches’? Or is there some reason why that demand still comes under the heading of “freedom, tolerance and open discourse?”

    REPLY: If you’ll read my initial introduction on Monckton, you’ll see I prefaced it with “I don’t have a dog in this fight”. I stand by that. I’m giving the man a forum, since Abraham has had quite a large forum on other websites. Note I’ve not said anything about his presentation either. And when are you going try to pin down some of those other people I alluded to in my first response, or have you not found it in entirety yet? -Anthony

  114. Dear Smokey,

    I reject your accusation. I have made no personally abusive attacks on anybody (e.g. “overcooked prawn”, “creep”).

    “Ad hominem”, of course, is a stock rejoinder when you have no response to a legitimate argument.

  115. toby,

    Sorry, wrong. Ad hominem means making the issue the man rather than the science. Abraham started it, and you are continuing it ["elitist bully," "superficial understanding of science ," "bluff and bluster," etc.]. If it weren’t for ad hominem personal attacks, you wouldn’t have anything to say. Would you?

    Compare your own characterizations of Monckton with your giving a free pass to Abraham [Abraham's "rebuttal" vs Monckton's "loutish comments"].

    And if you actually believe that Lord Monckton has only a ‘superficial understanding of science,’ you belong in the fool’s cage with HRH Prince Charles.

  116. Perhaps some lyrics might be appropriate here:

    Limits of the infinite
    Have never been defined
    A spirit lies in atrophy
    In a state to late to unwind
    Trophies on the back shelves
    Procreating all our race

    Ideals of our fantasies
    On which all things are based
    Collecting every prospect
    Running through your tests
    With manikin expressions
    They end up like the rest
    In glass booths they’re wired
    With needles in their flesh

    They’re pickled for posterity
    And eternally refreshed
    So link yourself to others
    Talk yourself to sleep
    It’s all so superficial
    No use for you to weep

    It strikes me that most regulars on here don’t even half-grasp Peak Oil, let alone climate change.

    “So link yourself to others
    Talk yourself to sleep”

    That’s up to you if it’s what you want to do. My view is to mitigate & adapt wherever possible, and triage is somewhere that must be a last resort, but believe you me, Monckton is the one who is talking you to sleep. History will be his judge – it always is. It will judge Anthony too. For good or for bad. We will, sadly, the way things are going, have to see.

    I will leave you with a question:

    Were we worth saving, as a species?

    Cheers – John

  117. Anthony,

    Prominently featuring a comment as headpost is of course seen as some kind of endorsement on your part. This commenter compares those he disagrees with with cockroaches, a term with a history connected to attempted ethnic cleansing in Africa. Is it wrong to call somebody a denier and ok to call someone a cockroach? The defense that no connection with ethnic cleansing was meant is identical to the defense that no connection with the holocaust was meant. Why is it ok in once case and not the other?

    Prominently featuring Monkton’s letter on your high traffic blog, in which he asks support for his intimidation tactics is of course seen as some kind of endorsement of Monckton’s efforts.

    His calls amount to censorship of opposing viewpoints, something which you clearly dislike. Is it suddenly ok when it goes into the other direction?

    REPLY: Asked and answered above. Also have a look at Abraham’s written response letter, should Monckton be denied the same right to rebuttal? Abraham’s point of view got thousands of views at many websites prior to Monckton’s rebuttal. For the record I disagree with both men on several points. But providing a forum is my choice. Sorry if you don’t like it. Note that for fairness, I also provided link to Abraham’s rebuttal. – Anthony

  118. Smokey: “Ad hominem means making the issue the man rather than the science.”

    Which was exactly Monckton’s initial outburst against Abraham, which Monckton subsequently, and wisely, retracted, but then went on to compound the offence.

    “Abraham started it, and you are continuing it ["elitist bully,"..."bluff and bluster," etc.].”

    Wrong, Smokey. Those are called “judgements” about Monckton, and they accurately describe his behaviour. He is attempting to bully his opponent into submision. That is the antithesis of free speech.

    My guess is that much of Monckton’s ire can be traced to the fact that Abraham is not a big name, and Monckton is incensed that a lowly assistant professor would have the gall to challenge him.

    Unfortunately for Monckton, his call for support has met with a muted response from his supporters. He has made a bad move, and now needs to reconsider his options.

  119. Brendan H,

    Wrong again. Abraham threw the first punch, now all of his lickspittles are hand-wrining over the fact that he got hit back. And Abraham still tiptoes around in his Ivory Tower, afraid to come out and face a real man.

    Your self-righteous con word ‘judgements’ is completely inappropriate. Who elected you, or Abraham, to pass judgment? How about if I pass judgment on you? Will you turn the other cheek?

    The correct term is ad hominem..

    Self-righteousness is a loud din raised to drown the voice of guilt within us.
    Eric Hoffer, The True Believer

    Abraham pulled the trigger unprovoked. So all the bleating about what has happened since then should be properly dealt with here.

  120. Smokey: “Who elected you, or Abraham, to pass judgment?”

    No election needed. Abraham judged the quality of Monckton’s presentation. Happens. It’s called debate, and debate is all about making judgements.

    “So all the bleating about what has happened since then…”

    What has happened is that Monckton was critiqued. In response he ran around in circles squealing about the injustice of it all and tried to shut down the debate with threats and intimidation.

    His actions were contrary to the spirit of free enquiry, a stain on his character, and a testament to his poor judgement.

    Fortunately for climate scepticism, many sceptics have kept their distance from Monckton’s childish tantruns, and can see clearly that his attempts to shut down opposing views and threaten critics are counter-productive and potentially damaging to their cause.

  121. Theo Goodwin says:
    July 15, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    Alexander,

    I continue to work among the cockroaches. I am eagerly awaiting the day that I can escape to surf, sand, and sun. When I was a youngster, academia in the USA was not dominated by cockroaches. Professors took pride in being open-minded and critical. Also, they taught and fostered open-mindedness and a critical attitude in many ways. The beginning of the end was the institutionalization of radical feminism. When someone publishes her twentieth book in support of the thesis that there is in nature something called “maleness” and it is the root of all evil, you know that open-mindedness and a critical attitude are officially on the Dean’s ash pile. We see exactly the same thing in Climategate, a small group of so-called scientists who declare themselves the authority in all matters pertaining to their science and who impose that authority through the peer review process. That is total corruption or “merde,” as the Portuguese so poetically say. As for the IPCC, that is just the UN trying to get in on the action.

    I think you are making the usual mistake : correlation is not causation. That the feminist movement became strong during the time where the academe became completely dependent into centralized government funding decisions is a good correlation.
    The causation goes the other way.

    I have posted about this before here. I started my academic career back in 1962 as a graduate student in Greece and watched the deterioration of funding decisions through the years.

    Of course government funded the academic institutions. But the funding was given directly to the institutions. They requested every year a budget, and usually most of it was approved, and the judges were elected representatives sitting on committees, not peers or other scientists. Then the institutions had internal reviews of research necessities and distributed the funds within.

    Second step came when funds became available from the “development budget”. There, if one had the right political connections and push/respect one could get a lot of money for a project to kick start an activity outside the institutional budgeting. It happened in my field in 1966 when prof Ypsilantis, one of those involved in the discovery of the antiproton , wanted to work in Greece and he was given enough of a budget to set up a high energy group in Greece working with CERN. It was pure political influence, no peer review or bureaucrats, I think even the queen at the time was involved. Note here that the power distribution was haphazard, no centralized bureaucrats deciding on projects.

    Then came the EU and the format of centralized bureaucracy. It completely took away the power of decisions on research from the institutes and turned it into a power structure in the ministry with committees etc funding individuals and projects . The bureaucrats controlling the flow of decisions and committees were usually not so successful PhD holders in various disciplines who got a job in the administration.

    This had three effects.
    a) Hierarchy within the academe was destroyed, because young brash researchers/professors could get a lot more funding than the ones with high academic standing.
    b) The institutes were taking cuts and became hooked to the extra money ( Mann et al) these young brash academics brought.
    c) the most important, research could be centrally controlled and guided, as we see that it happened with the AGW wagon of fools.

    When research decisions were being taken independently by different institutions in the country, the randomization of the process assured good academic competition.
    It is not an efficient way to use the money for a business, but in research where serendipity plays a huge role the variety of decision processes is very important.

    This was lost more and more during the years , when EU funding became dominant and the whole of Europe is being orchestrated from a central menagerie of decision takers on what research is funded.

    I believe the situation in the US is similar.

    The feminist movement support is just an example of the centralized decision making dominance , because of the money , which of course is the root of all evil :) .

    Also the power. The more centralized are decisions, the more the power, and that attracts not the best of researchers to the centralized decision making process, because researchers search for truth, not power.

    I think a first step out of this one way street is to start funding institutions and let them decide how and what research to support. It will break the chorus.

Comments are closed.