‘Skeptical Science’, Shouting, and Joe Romm’s integrity – a test

Washington DC USA

Climate activist Joe Romm at a 350.org rally in Washington DC (Photo credit: 350.org)

Over at Climate Progress, the alarmist organ of the Center for American Progress, Joe Romm is fond of citing an offhand remark from this WUWT story as “proof” of my alleged evilness.

“Scientists” Pull a Snow Job on Reporters in Teleconference

The offending phrase that gets Romm all riled up?

Forbes supports our position. A number of alarmists have been organized to team up on the comment section to defend the undefensible. Please add your voice of support to shout them down in the comments section.

Problem is, I never wrote that update paragraph at the top of the article, Joe D’Aleo did.

Joe Romm has cited the “shout them down” phrase in his references to WUWT and my name no less than 13 times in his blogs:

False Balance Lives: In Worst Climate Story Of The Year, PBS Channels Fox News

MIT Climate Scientist’s Wife Threatened in a “Frenzy of Hate” and Cyberbullying Fomented by Deniers

Hot Dog Bites Skeptical Man: Koch-Funded Berkeley Temperature Study Does “Confirm the Reality of Global Warming”

Climate Secret: NSF Quietly Closes Out Inspector General Investigation with Complete Vindication of Michael Mann

Comment here on comments and the new design

Scientific American & Lemonick pull a Charlie Sheen — or a Richard Muller, which is much the same

Yes, the false accusation that Gore was exaggerating came from none other than Roger Pielke, Jr.

What kind of media analysis could possibly conclude the Washington Post covered climate well in 2009?

Berkeley temperature team explains attack on its initial findings by WattsUpWithThat was pure fabrication

Bombshell 1: Climate science deniers claim to have full access to Berkeley temperature study work-product — and are now working with the Berkeley team!

Deniers finally concede that “the rate of atmospheric CO2 growth has been increasing.”

Inhofe, Horner, McIntyre and Watts fabricate another phony “despicable smear” against Michael Mann

Anthony Watts urges WattsUpWithThat readers to disrupt Forbes blog: “shout them down in the comments section”

Last week, I finally had enough of his shenanigans and emailed him, and he made a change to the most recent story for which I thank him, but the other stories remain unchanged. He also suggested in his reply email that I make a note on the blog entry that it is D’Aleo’s words, not mine, and I’ve done that.

Also last week it was revealed that Joe Romm had concerns over accuracy of the blog posts at Skeptical Science: Skeptical Science gets Romm-Bombed

Romm wrote to John Cook, and Cook summarized in their secret offline forum :

“Just got this email from Joe Romm: You must do more post vetting. More errors are creeping into posts and it will start making people like me wary of using them.” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], December 2, 2011

So in that spirit of accuracy, I would think that Joe would want to go back and correct his 12 other mistakes on that “shout them down” phrase he is so fond of using. We’ll see.

But here’s a test to see just how much integrity he has. You see it seems there has in fact been a coordinated effort on the part of Skeptical Science to do exactly what Joe Romm accuses WUWT of doing. Here’s some of that dialog as posted by PopularTechnology.net:

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

“I posted over at Politico just recently. Hey, we can tag team it a bit if you like, use time zone differences.” – Glenn Tamblyn [Skeptical Science], February 10, 2011

I think this is a highly effective method of dealing with various blogs and online articles where these discussions pop up. Flag them, discuss them and then send in the troops to hammer down what are usually just a couple of very vocal people. It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this. If we can coordinate better and grow the “team of crushers” then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

“Rob, Your post is music to my ears. I’ve been advocating the need to create a “crusher crew” for quite some time. I was not however able to get much traction on it with fellow environmental activists here in South Carolina or nationally. Like you, I spend (much to my wife’s chagrin) many hours each day posting comments on articles. One of haunts was the USA Today website [...] The bottom line, would you be willing to patrol articles posted on the USA Today website?” – John Hartz [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

This started a new forum discussion entitled, “Crusher Crew“.

“Badgersouth and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated “Crusher Crew” where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

May I suggest first on our list as being the *#1 Science Blog* “Watts up with that”? They get a few people come there to engage from time to time but rarely a coordinated effort.” – Robert W. [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

“I think it might be better to start out with smaller fish. Build a community and a team. Find some methods and strategies that work. Then start moving up the denier food chain with our targets set on WUWT. I could see this expanding into a broad team of 100 or more people (outside the scope of this SkS forum of course). [...] We just need to raise our collective voices to drown them out. I would venture to guess that most people here know of 4 or 5 regulars on comments sections that would be interested in coordinating their efforts. I know probably 10 or 20 people who would like to help with this.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

This eco-strike squad was highly endorsed by John Cook,

The Rapid Response Network would be a good way to coordinate this kind of activity, identifying new articles, logging responses, supporting each other. Can i suggest if a group engage in this, that they use the RRN as beta testers to he’ll me develop and refine the system?” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

References:
From the Skeptical Science “leak”: Interesting stuff about generating and marketing “The Consensus Project” (Tom Nelson, March 23, 2012)
Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online (Skeptical Science, March 25, 2011)

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

I had to chuckle at this admission:

May I suggest first on our list as being the *#1 Science Blog* “Watts up with that”? They get a few people come there to engage from time to time but rarely a coordinated effort.”

Even more hilarious, is this comment left by Skeptical Science author and moderator on Romm’s first essay where he bring the “shout them down” issue up:

Rob Honeycutt says:

I think Anthony Watts relishes his position as a climate thug.

Given the evidence cited above for his own behavior, that’s a classic case of projection by Honeycutt if I’ve ever seen one.

So now the integrity test for Joe Romm is: will you condemn Skeptical Science for actual organized behavior of the same kind that you condemn me of from an off-the cuff comment made by a guest blogger?

So, as it turns out Joe D’Aleo was right, there is an organized effort “…to team up on the comment section to defend the undefensible.“. Maybe he didn’t phrase the call to action well, but all D’Aleo was doing is urging people to exercise their right to free speech if they choose to disagree. There’s no organized effort. I’ve received no complaints from Forbes or any other online venue.

We’ll see how Mr. Romm handles this integrity test when it comes to pointing out the “drown them out” calls of his own misbehaving friends. If he has any integrity he’ll condemn the Skeptical Science organized practice in the same way he has condemned WUWT and me for that offhand remark by D’Aleo.

Ball’s in your court Joe.

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

UPDATE: Joe D’Aleo responds in comments:

Joe D’Aleo says:

Guilty as charged. I posted that in frustration after many attempts by me and others to post comments refuting obviously flawed claims on numerous blogs that were blocked by moderators. That site, like WUWT was not restrictive, which I encouraged people to respond to. Obviously if readers did not agree with me, they would not /should not do so.

Many times after failing to have my comments appear on some blogs and sites, I have resorted to sending an email with facts, charts and diagrams to the author to try and educate them. SInce you can’t do that in comments and a picture says a thousand words, it may be more effective, but my guess is that they just discard.

Downside then is my argument is never seen by the knee jerk commenters with their litanys…”obviously shills for big oil”, ” 97% of scientists agree”, “deniers are anti-science” , “it is far worse than we ever thought”, “the climate is nearing the tipping point”, “deniers don’t care about the air and water”……that fill the comment section.

Any comments that get through ignore the facts I present and attack my integrity, reasons for not believing, and intelligence. They go ad hominem.

As more soylent green says so well, since this i not a scientific debate and never was is “shout them” down really inappropriate?

By the way a skeptic was invited to give a talk in New England on natural factors and a professor organized a group to come in and disrupt the talk – not wait for the Q&A session after with tough questions but to try and make it impossible for the speaker to present his case. I experienced that kind of resistance twice in talks in Vermont where a group tried to convince the museum to cancel my talk and the second when a talk at a college was constantly interrupted with challenges ironically to pictures of bad climate sites. The person involved kept insisting these were not real sites. It was in the early days of surfacestations.org and I used stations from Anthony, Roger Pielke Sr. and the late John Daly.

About these ads

93 thoughts on “‘Skeptical Science’, Shouting, and Joe Romm’s integrity – a test

  1. So the ‘team’ is alive and going from blog to blog ‘crushing’ dissenting voices.
    Sounds familiar to another climate team according to those pesky leaked emails.
    I wonder what the Vice Chancellors, Directors and public sponsors of the ‘team’ would think about these anti-democratic and anti-free speech tactics being propogated in their name?

  2. They might well think that such activities help sustain the flow of grants and are therefore to be tacitly encouraged?

  3. “Ball’s in your court Joe.’

    The ball will pass Joe by because Joe has the wrong kind of Racket in his hands.

  4. “Ball’s in your court Joe.”

    When Joe holds Court he is involved with a Racket Influenceing Climate Organizations (RICO), you can’t pay ball with that kind of Racket.

  5. Psychologists call it projection. That’s when someone looks at their own failings and, instead of acknowledging them, they accuse others of their own shortcomings.

  6. Oh, dear. Sad, sad, sad…

    “I spend (much to my wife’s chagrin) many hours each day posting comments on articles.”

    “It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this.”

    Aren’t they interested in getting to the next level in D&D anymore? Maybe they could clean up their homes before their mothers find out what a mess they’ve made of her basement.

    The mercy of it is these idiots couldn’t organise a hit squad if their grants depended on it, poor things. Bless.

  7. Nobody really cares what Joe Romm, John Cook or these other eco-zealots say. I suspect your readership come here to read interesting science articles not to learn about antics of the wackos out there on ineffectual blogs. Of course, perhaps I only speak for myself so just two cents.

    I do however think it important what Huff Post, Guardian, BBC, NY Times etc write, as I suspect the media have a bigger influence on the thinking of ordinary citizens but these ineffectual and disreputable blogs only ever preach to the choir.

  8. Joe Romm is living proof that climate change is increasing species diversification. He is one of many example of a new species of primate, homo moronicus, which although it is closely related to homo sapiens it lacks much of its cognitive capacity.

  9. What I find interesting in their admission that they “spend hours daily” trawling for posts they want to crush. Who pays them? How are they earning a living? Or are they like many of the Greenpeace “foot soldiers” elsewhere – living on Social Security benefits?

  10. Could very well backfire, because if that crew starts showing up here they might very well just get a real education and switch……….

  11. Given the way government and public concern for AGW is dropping like a brick down a well, perhaps they should rename their “Crusher Crew” the “Volkssturm”.

  12. Anthony. I admire your good-natured response to these attempts to darken your reputation and end reasoned push-back at climate-alarmism, but when I encounter sentiments like this “. . raise our collective voices to drown them out ” . . . it’s hard for me to smile patiently at the mis-guided opposition.
    It makes my stomach turn.

  13. Oh, man, maybe the kids fom Skeptical Science can get together as th’ Klimate Krusher Krew. They could have cute uniforms & awesome symbols for their various subdivisions with lots of things like propellers in circles (to symbolise the Power of Wind!) or sweet looking lightning bolts (to symbolize Static Electricity!) or skulls (to symboliçe the Necessary Reductions in Population!). they could use ALL CAPS to show how serious they are about KLIMATE! & when they have meetings, mom can bring down Doritos® & Mtn. Dew® (& can you boys please not use the clothes iron to reheat your pizza? I’ll go down to Goodwill & pick you up a microwave for the basement.).

  14. Thanks dbc, projection, that’s the word that accurately fits so many cases over the last few years when dealing with AGW proponents, they get confused, frustrated, and then here it comes every time. I was having quite a time finding the proper word for it, seems to be one of their favorite tactics.

  15. I think Joe Romm’s got a point. I’m sure Joe Aleo meant “refute them with scientific arguments”, but “shout them down” is what came out. This isn’t doing anybody any good, whichever “side” is doing it. Apparently Anthony said something horribly incorrect on PBS the other day. I’d love to learn what he said that was incorrect, and what the correct information is! All I hear is that he shouldn’t have been allowed to speak at all. I don’t expect a “civil dialogue” to develop at this point – too much fun to “shout them down and hurl insults. Pity.

  16. Is this all they can find to hang their collective hat on? One phrase that Anthony never even said? Desperate much?

  17. “Nobody really cares what Joe Romm, John Cook or these other eco-zealots say. I suspect your readership come here to read interesting science articles not to learn about antics of the wackos out there on ineffectual blogs. Of course, perhaps I only speak for myself so just two cents.”

    Disagree. Not only are their machinations and rationalizations and projections as fascinating as they are disturbing, Anthony does us all a service by calling them out on their conduct. Half the time I honestly think they don’t realize the depth of their own hypocrisy (which gets us back to (“projection”).

  18. The rank hypocrisy of the environuts (and the Left generally), is simply breath-taking.

    I believe that we might be seeeing the long-awaited commencement of the collective head-exploding (and not in a 350.org sense, either).

    Good times, good times!

  19. [...] Given the evidence cited above for his own behavior, that’s a classic case of projection by Honeycutt if I’ve ever seen one. [...]

    It seems, to me at least, that we should have stopped treating these individuals as adults a long time ago. It isn’t just projection. They are classic doom mongers – changing the bill board as the date for the latest ‘end of the world’ event passes. Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption …

    ‘Deniers’ are simply those who don’t ‘believe’ as they do. There is no ‘science’ behind it other than whatever ‘paper’ seems to promote their world view at the time.

    In short, you waste too much of your valuable time promoting these fools. Were it not for WUWT and other ‘denier’ blogs promoting Joe’s rants, SKSBS and Lewsers internet survey news – they would have a dozen people discussing their latest tablet from the mountain.

    Starve them of publicity and they will wither on the vine.

  20. Unfortunately no matter who happens to be right and who happens to be wrong when this whole thing is over the true loser will be the scientific reputation. I’m not so silly as to think that the side that wins has to be the moral side. In a debate that is as dirty as this it will be won mostly by personal attacks, media exposure and by being loud. The science will be a distant second when it comes to convincing citizens and politicians who to believe.

    The only profession that will potentially suffer as much as scientists will be the journalists involved. Politicians are expected to be slimy and partisan but, for some reason North American’s maintain this idea that journalists and scientists can be objective.

  21. More than a little sick of the “anti-science” trash-talk. We’re anti-corruption. Unless they’re trying to say that corruption (and just plain poorly-thought-out proofs) are *good* science, in which case they should say so openly.

    And by corruption I’m referring to the dependence on grant money which itself depends on specific kinds of results. I’m also referring to the “club” of climate scientists who protect each other and attack everyone else, evidenced by the “hacked” e-mails and the various exposes of figures like Gleick and Mann and the leaks and open postings at SS. And don’t forget the open politicization of science leading not just to bad science but to open excuses for bad science (Post-Normal Science being a recent talking point in that area, also see continued defense of “An Inconvenient Truth” despite numerous errors).

    Science: Whatever the insiders say it is.
    Anti-science: Actually checking the numbers.

    We’re told that cherry-picked trees, ignored UHI, and heavily-adjusting numbers from often dubious sites are “overwhelming” and we should shut up.

    No.

  22. Or we could always concentrate on reporting (and doing) sound, rigorous empirical science, and leave the name-calling and other childish jackassery to the usual array of climate clowns. I’m not interested in “engaging” with blinkered zealots who think that model outputs are more important than observed data, and incapable of understanding logical reasoning even if they are capable of reading a thermometer.

    The IPCC states that temperature responses should “scale linearly” with forcings, and argues that the single most important forcing is anthropogenic GHG emissions (of which CO2 is, in their view, far and away the most important). Those are testable scientific statements taken verbatim from the AR4 WG1 report. The implication is that there is a causal, positive linear correlation between delta CO2 and delta T, or in other words, that the average global temperature should scale linearly with anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In layman’s terms, this means that when human CO2 emissions go up, temperature should go up, and when human CO2 emissions drop, temperature should drop as well.

    I don’t dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that, ceteris paribus, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations should positively impact atmospheric temperatures. But the key words is ‘should’, because according to observations it doesn’t work that way. Insofar as we can tell from temperature records (to the extent that these are reliable) and (reliable) proxies, it never has. Global temperatures are at present stable despite skyrocketing CO2 emissions and aggregate CO2 concentration. There is no statistically significant correlation between delta T and delta CO2 over any time frame for which records or proxies exist – except for the Law Dome and other ice core data over the past MY or so, and in those records delta T clearly and demonstrably precedes delta CO2. This tells us that if there is indeed a causal linkage between the two phenomena, it points in the direction opposite to that posited by the IPCC. The AGW hypothesis as posited by the IPCC, et al., is therefore falsified by observed data. Theories that do not, or cannot be modified to, explain observations are by definition falsified and any credible scientist would junk them and start over. In fact, no credible scientist would craft an hypothesis that doesn’t BEGIN by explaining observed data, and making testable predictions about what ought to happen (and we all know what happened to the predictions made by the IPCC on the basis of their hypothesis).

    The probable reason for the disconnect, of course, is that ceteris is never paribus. CO2, while undeniably a GHG, is very much a bit player in the atmosphere and the larger global temperature game, a long way behind that big ball of fusion in the sky and all of the myriad things it does to our little planet. Pointing to CO2 as the be-all and end-all of temperature drivers is like looking at the corpse of a motorist ejected from a car at two hundred kph face-first into a bridge abutment, shouting, “Look! He had a hangnail when he died!”, and on the basis of this correlation instituting a massive, world-wide campaign to stamp out the scourge of hangnails. Pay no attention to the big concrete block.

    That’s the scientific argument. Here’s the policy argument. The data demonstrate that there is no causal correlation between delta CO2 and delta T, meaning that T is independent of CO2 (or that it is nonlinearly linked to CO2, which from a policy perspective amounts to the same thing). Thus it is not possible to alter T in a desired direction by altering CO2. The fact that there is no linear correlation between the two phenomena means that there is no logical basis for policies aimed at controlling T by controlling CO2, because there is thus far no evidence that we have any idea at all how they fit together, if they even do. And yet, politicians are still talking about taxing carbon as if this will cool the planet. It won’t – but it will certainly cause bureaucracies to expand, and generate revenues to support those expanding bureaucracies. And it will (further) bankrupt whole societies, while serving as a source of endless amusement to the large number of carbon-belching states that do not have the west’s best interests at heart.

    Anyone incapable of understanding these simple concepts is not worth your/our time. They can “crush away” as much as they like; the natural world doesn’t care. Nor do I. You can’t reason somebody out of a position they weren’t reasoned into, and frankly it’s a waste of energy to try.

    Especially when you haven’t seen all the Gangnam Style parodies yet! I recommend this one:

    Now, wasn’t that more fun than der crushing und der shtomping?

  23. They are losing the argument AND they know it AND they do not like one little bit AND they are lashing out in the only way someone who has lost the argument can,its the urge to lash out in anger. The great thing about the truth is that it can be temporarily stifled and suppressed and trampled on but its triumph is an almost physical law and those who tell the truth can be ignored and then laughed at then attacked but in the end they will be listened to. It cannot be stopped any more than time can be stopped, its as inevitable as the coming dawn. The lesson is tell the truth even if it seems to hurt in the short term, search for the truth and never stop looking and never stop asking the awkward questions and never mindlessly follow the herd. How do you know you have won the argument? When the other guy loses it. The sceptics are winning.

  24. Also, they’re not going to have a moment of introspection comparing their open plan to “gang up” on us with our supposed plan to “gang up” on them (sorry, I never got the e-mail, guys!), for the same reason they keep making excuses for Gleick and he’s, last I heard, back in the field now.

  25. The creation of a “Crusher Crew” is wrong for two reasons. First, it is basically “astroturfing;” the attempt to look like “grass roots majority” when you are not. Second, it attempts to silence differing views, not with reason and clearly stated points, but rather with noise of great volume.

    One joy of WUWT is the simple fact I learn a lot. I get to see several sides of an issue. I often am corrected, and have my mistakes pointed out, and I have discovered this does not make me “smaller,” but broadens my mind and in fact makes me “bigger.”

    It is only when a person is primarily concerned with their own ego (and the money and power attached to such egotism,) that vanity drives them to halt all further discussion. As always, selfishness leads to smallness. Narrowness. Short-sightedness. Investing in policy sure to lead to poverty and pain. Etc.

    End of Sunday sermon.

  26. Message for Joe Romm:

    Why do you have to “shout them down”?
    If you have sound arguments, reasoned debate will carry far more weight.

  27. I expect that Joe Romm will not say anything against Skeptical Science. For people like Joe, morality is secondary to the noble cause. His side can do no wrong no matter how wrong his side is.

  28. Anyone else notice that right after SkepSci regular Tom Curtis demolished Lewandowski’s junk science, he disappeared from that site? Of course the mere fact that I noticed this “proves” that I believe in conspiracies, that the moon landing was faked and that AGW is a “hoax”.

  29. “If we can coordinate better and grow the “team of crushers” then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

    “Or, hey, why don’t we all just convert to Radical Islam? Mecca is the center of the world!”

  30. I haven’t see any evidence of the “crusher” team anywhere.. do they exist?

    Where are they on this thread..?

    I think the trouble for them, is that when they do poke their nose in, they get well and truly slapped, because open debate is encouraged on WUWT, and open debate is the VERY LAST THING that they want.

  31. “I’ve been advocating the need to create a “crusher crew” for quite some time. I was not however able to get much traction on it with fellow environmental activists here in South Carolina or nationally.”

    I think that deep down, they feel insecure in their scientific knowledge to be able to effectively “reason us down.” They know they have to resort to falacious reasoning – appeal to authority – ad hominem – etc.

  32. Sean says:
    September 30, 2012 at 11:50 am

    Joe Romm is living proof that climate change is increasing species diversification. He is one of many example of a new species of primate, homo moronicus, which although it is closely related to homo sapiens it lacks much of its cognitive capacity.

    yet another effect of global warming!

  33. “He also suggested in his reply email that I make a note on the blog entry that it is D’Aleo’s words, not mine, and I’ve done that.”

    I’ve suggested for over three years that the names of guest-thread authors be made more prominent, to avoid this sort of mis-attribution, which still regularly occurs, especially because WordPress automatically inserts “posted by Anthony Watts” near the top of these guest threads. I.e., they should be in large type, centered, and boldfaced–and maybe capitalized for good measure.

    REPLY: I have an account setup now for “guest blogger” which handles the issue. – Anthony

  34. AndyG55 says:
    September 30, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    “I haven’t see any evidence of the “crusher” team anywhere.. do they exist?”

    For a while Rob Honeycutt and Dana Nuticelli appeared in tandem on notrickszone. At the time I didn’t know that Honeycutt was an SkS admin. Well, after a while and more or less heated debates they left.

    It might have been one of the raids of the Crusher Crew. But they didn’t say “WE ARE THE CRUSHER CREW… HERE TO CRUSH YOU” or something. They gotta work on that.

  35. “shout them down” is the only way they can respond today, as the “science” that has been cited (over & over) will not withstand the scrutiny in the manner which science over the last century has been normally subjected. Try as hard as they can at science publications, it must be coupled with lots of colorful hand waving, and drama, because in the final analysis, there is just no signal there to indicate warming has deviated one bit from the historical pattern since the last ice age and they know it. Talk about denial. The natural noise in the “air” obliterates any so called signal and they have been successfully called on it numerous times. So the only thing left is to ignore the message and shoot the messenger. Shoot- is very close to the spelling of “shout” and I have a feeling of what their real preferences would be.

  36. So they’ve launched the “If you can’t dazzle them brillance, baffle them with bullsh*t” campaign. (BBS for short)
    Question: Did this come from the super-secret section of SkS that was accidentally left open to the public? The one where they talked about needing to form a conspiracy?

    REPLY: Yep, one and the same – Anthony

  37. OpenMind says: “Could very well backfire, because if that crew starts showing up here they might very well just get a real education and switch……….”

    They make their presenses known here on occassion, spouting the usual nonsense.

    Switching is not in their natures. There could be a mile of ice on their heads and they’d still blame carbon dioxide.

  38. I made mention of this on Weatherzone “Interesting News Items” and “Artic sea ice” threads 4 days ago and the collective trolls had a mild spam spasm when they where exposed. Hasn’t slowed them down much but at least we now have proof of who and what they are and can treat them accordingly.

  39. “All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a movement are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

    It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

    For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

    Source anyone? (Interesting intelligence behind this.)

  40. Max Hugoson,

    Here’s an easy way to source documents: I cut ‘n’ pasted your last paragraph into a search engine, with quotation marks around it. Lots of hits.

  41. 3×2 says (September 30, 2012 at 12:48 pm)
    “Starve them of publicity and they will wither on the vine.”
    —————–
    Wish it were true.

    Unfortunately, one can draw another conclusion from the words that amused me in a comment earlier.

    “It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this.”

    They have to spend hours looking for sceptic views?! Odd for them (they know where we live!), but not for the generality of folks who attend the MSM and the mainstream.

    That is why WUWT is so valuable.

  42. Apart from anything else, these postings confirm that the Warmistas are a political cabal. Remember, these people are paid by others to do this; follow the money.

  43. I don’t have a source for you Max. But, the Big Lie is, I believe, based upon constant repetition, rather than credulity.

  44. Bernard Shaw writing about censorship stated that it existed to prevent people challenging current conceptions, ideas and institutions. Progress according to Shaw means challenging current ideas and replacing the institutions which promote such ideas. In short, the essence of progress is the removal of censorship. The greenshirt internet thugs wish to censor anyone who disagrees with their belief in the infallibility of their belief.

    The doctrine if indefectibility easily applies to CAGW:
    “Although the individual scientists do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim the science of catastrophic climate change infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and while teaching authentically on the matter of catastrophic climate change, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in a conference, they are teachers and judges of catastrophic climate change for the universal consensus. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith.”

    There are none so blind etc….

  45. Charles Gerard Nelson says:
    September 30, 2012 at 2:45 pm
    I think this business about crushing dissenting voices is quite amusing.
    In the real hallowed halls of Warmism (Guardian, Australian ABC) dissenting voices are quite simply banned!
    ================================================================
    But they can control them. Blogs on the internet are another story. “Freedom of the press”. When that was written there were multiple independent papers across what was to become the United States. Over time they were bought up and became subordinate to the groups that owned them. The same thing happened after radio and TV came along. Control loosened a bit with cable TV (i.e. Fox News) but not completely. Enter the internet and blogs. There will be efforts to silence the blogs that go against “the grain”. If that fails, there will be efforts to control them, regulations perhaps like “the fairness doctrine” that attempted to shut down talk radio. The climate has become a lever some use to achieve a political objective. There will be resistance.

  46. By the way I laughed when I saw the photo. Notwithstanding using a child as propaganda it is a classic example of failing to check the background before allowing yourself to be photographed.

  47. Joe Romm has no integrity. He was screaming bloody murder over the Heartland billboard that depicted the Unibomber, while at the same time his site was running an article that compared so-called “deniers” with the Norwegian children’s camp mass murderer, Brevik (I’m not sure of this spelling). And didn’t he send all his commenters over to PBS to comment on Anthony’s appearance? They came across as totalitarian dogma zombies. Their public statements really help the realist side of the debate over climate policy, IMO.

  48. I think Joe and his breed are basically cowards, as are all AGW bletheren.

    They are happy to sit on their insignificant blogs, and delete any contrary opinion, feeding misinformation to their minitude of readers, but are nearly always too cowardly to openly engage in debate.

    Pucillanimous Gits.

  49. The phrase ‘Crusher Crew’ reveals exactly where they are coming from! These are the people who wish to crush truth, science, argument and logic which will destroy their lies.

  50. Why do you bother with this guy. Every time he opens his mouth simply show him this:

    and then listen as he goes ballistic trying to distort the fact that the global temperature is not repsonding to co2, had responded to the flips in the PDO and amo when they warmed and is starting back the other way since they added their heat and that was that. As soon as the AMO flips, it goes back to where it was in the 1970s ( hopefully no lower since because of the energy policy we have we are in enough trouble)

    . As they say a picture is worth a thousand words

  51. OpenMind

    Could very well backfire, because if that crew starts showing up here they might very well just get a real education and switch……….

    You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t arrive at through reason in the first place.

  52. Gunga Din says:
    September 30, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    “…Enter the internet and blogs. There will be efforts to silence the blogs that go against “the grain”. If that fails, there will be efforts to control them…”

    And the tool is now in place… while no one was watching.

    When we get to Section 5.2, however, there’s this interesting tidbit: “The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: … satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate.” In short, while it’s stressed that the government must have its own secure networks in place, the Executive Office reserves the right to do whatever it likes with commercial and private networks

    http://www.extremetech.com/computing/132585-us-president-issues-executive-order-that-gives-him-control-of-the-internet

  53. Sort of a backhanded compliment, really. Aside from the interesting and thought-provoking articles, WUWT is a go-to site for me because of the open-mindedness of the site’s moderators. A lot of dissenting and varied opinion is allowed, even encouraged. The “Krusher Krews” wouldn’t even discuss carpet bombing WUWT and other skeptical sites if they were run like the echo chambers the warmistas frequent. On those, there are far too many incidents of “disappeared” comments that disagree with the alarmist dogma, even on government-run (I’m calling a spade a spade here) sites like RC.

  54. Well, you have to be able to post. Skeptical Science won’t even allow posts of published literature when it disagrees with their ideas.

    That type of blog is not a discussion.

    And the few posters that frequent SS are prob over 50 miles from home as they are all experts……right?

  55. Crusher Crew? Rapid Response Team? Ain’t adolescence a jolly time though?
    Their voices should start changing any day now.

  56. Caleb says: “…It is only when a person is primarily concerned with their own ego that vanity drives them to halt all further discussion. As always, selfishness leads to smallness.”

    You’ve put your finger on the core issue. It’s self-will run riot on an unprecedented scale. They mask their malignant narcissism with Messianic pretensions, a new generation of vipers.

  57. Regarding “The Big Lie” quote used by Max Hugoson (September 30, 2012 at 2:27 pm), Wilipedia cites:
    “Title: Mein Kampf; Author: Adolf Hitler (1889-1945); Translated into English by James Murphy (died 1946).”
    as the source.

  58. Re: Max Hugoson @ September 30, 2012 at 2:27 pm:
    The authour of the quotation is a famous german private – A.H1tler – in his famous book “Me1n Kampf”. My source? Wikipedia.

    [Hope that foils the spam filter.]

  59. They’ll probably realise soon that it was all a bad dream (nightmare, ‘the crusher in the night’).

    Old English maere ‘goblin, incubus.’ The word was nigt-mare in 1300, and it referred to an evil female spirit afflicting sleepers with a feeling of suffocation. By 1350, it was nytmare and in 1440 it was nyghte mare. Nightmare was used to describe ‘a bad dream caused by an incubus’ in the 16th century, and by 1829 it was used to describe ‘a bad dream’ in general.

  60. It’s not these jackasses we need to worry about. It’s the politicians who have listened to them and got their pointy teeth firmly fixed into a new way of taxing hell out of us all, while claiming “97%” and all the other BS they emit. Once we can lever a few of them out, then just maybe we’ll begin to get some … dare I say it, “Progress”, but it ain’t gonna be easy.

  61. ‘Skeptical Science’, Shouting, and Joe Romm’s integrity – a test

    Reminder to those that think Romm could possibly have a problem with this …

    James Carville and Paul Begala were members of the Clinton Administration. They organized a rapid respose team to astroturf media outlets and talk radio with daily talking points through faxes, phone calls and TV interviews. They pioneered the modern age of propaganda.

    Joe Romm was a member of the Clinton Administration.

    You figure out the rest.

    • @Blade
      Oh, please. If anyone could be considered a pioneer of modern media in the way you’re implying, that would be Roger Ailes.
      And Limbaugh has been spewing on radio since the middle of the Reagan administration.
      You may not like or agree with Begala, Carville and Romm but that’s no excuse to falsely imply that they somehow invented propaganda

  62. Dave says:

    September 30, 2012 at 11:34 am

    I’m sure William Connolley will be willing to help them out.

    ………………………………………

    Like you Dave I am equally sure this “projectionist” will be only too willing!

    As for the alarmists activities in this area – I signed up for the “Sceptical Blog Alerts” – and very useful it has proved to be.

    Not only underlining in my own view that the Alarmists can be a truly poisenous and reprehensible bunch of clowns – but providing me with a sourse of interesting articles.

    How nice of them to shoot themselves in the foot on my behalf.

  63. Since we’re engaging in a PR battle and not a scientific debate, is ‘shout them down’ really inappropriate?

  64. “Crusher crew”, not “Debate crew”. So sure are they of their manifest destiny. Hubris was at the heart of most ancient Greek tragedies….

  65. Jeremy says:
    Nobody really cares what Joe Romm, John Cook or these other eco-zealots say….

    I do however think it important what Huff Post, Guardian, BBC, NY Times etc write, as I suspect the media have a bigger influence on the thinking of ordinary citizens but these ineffectual and disreputable blogs only ever preach to the choir.

    I think the problem is that those media outlets are listening to Romm, Cook, & others.

  66. Guilty as charged. I posted that in frustration after many attempts by me and others to post comments refuting obviously flawed claims on numerous blogs that were blocked by moderators. That site, like WUWT was not restrictive, which I encouraged people to respond to. Obviously if readers did not agree with me, they would not /should not do so.

    Many times after failing to have my comments appear on some blogs and sites, I have resorted to sending an email with facts, charts and diagrams to the author to try and educate them. SInce you can’t do that in comments and a picture says a thousand words, it may be more effective, but my guess is that they just discard.

    Downside then is my argument is never seen by the knee jerk commenters with their litanys…”obviously shills for big oil”, ” 97% of scientists agree”, “deniers are anti-science” , “it is far worse than we ever thought”, “the climate is nearing the tipping point”, “deniers don’t care about the air and water”……that fill the comment section.

    Any comments that get through ignore the facts I present and attack my integrity, reasons for not believing, and intelligence. They go ad hominem.

    As more soylent green says so well, since this i not a scientific debate and never was is “shout them” down really inappropriate?

    By the way a skeptic was invited to give a talk in New England on natural factors and a professor organized a group to come in and disrupt the talk – not wait for the Q&A session after with tough questions but to try and make it impossible for the speaker to present his case. I experienced that kind of resistance twice in talks in Vermont where a group tried to convince the museum to cancel my talk and the second when a talk at a college was constantly interrupted with challenges ironically to pictures of bad climate sites. The person involved kept insisting these were not real sites. It was in the early days of surfacestations.org and I used stations from Anthony, Roger Pielke Sr. and the late John Daly.

  67. I’m sorry, but I just can’t stop laughing at “Badgersouth.” I keep imagining a dialogue something like this:

    Badgersouth: This is Badgersouth. I have active commentary engagement of a class 3 denialist. Requesting comment mission at this url.
    BurpingFox: Ah, roger, Badgersouth. This is BurpingFox. I have your url and am in active reverse lookup of the denialist posting. Posts away!
    Badgersouth: Good hit! Good hit, BurpingFox! Post for effect!

    I’m sorry, but I just can’t take anyone named Badgersouth seriously. I can’t.

  68. The 350 org appears to be based on the popular fiction that the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is exponentially accelerating. All the scientific data that I have found seems to indicate that the effect is logarithmic. Even the worst case predictions by the IPCC rate this effect at 3.3 degrees C per full doubling of the amount in the atmosphere (*not* doubling of the amount added by man) and the MODTRAN program developed by the Air Force, which calculates the raw effect based on the narrow-band, absorption line spectra data, gives a result more on the order of one degree C per full doubling.

    At this time, it is questionable whether there really is enough economically recoverable, combustible carbon left in the ground to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-petroleum exploitation levels.

    Of course, if they called themselves the 560 org, they might not have anything to worry about.

  69. Seems to me that those scientific illiterates at sks are jealous of the success of this site and can only scream and scream and scream like spoilt little children that have lost their toys. Keep on showing them who is the daddy!

  70. D Marshall [October 1, 2012 at 8:18 pm] says:

    “Oh, please. If anyone could be considered a pioneer of modern media in the way you’re implying, that would be Roger Ailes. And Limbaugh has been spewing on radio since the middle of the Reagan administration. You may not like or agree with Begala, Carville and Romm but that’s no excuse to falsely imply that they somehow invented propaganda”

    You again? Still a hopeless leftist I see. Get your facts straight. First off, Rush went on the air syndicated nationally in August 1988 ( I heard the first show ), not “in the middle” of the Reagan administration. Prior to that he was one of thousands of local talk show hosts. Secondly, Limbaugh is a commentator, he broadcasts his opinion which is shared by many millions. It is not, and cannot be propaganda, as that is associated with the ruling class, in this case government. Thirdly, I did not “falsely imply that they somehow invented propaganda”. I said they “They pioneered the modern age of propaganda.” This is exactly what they did. An operation run either out of the White House, or with the blessing of same. So as usual, everything I said was unimpeachable truth, everything you said was mischaracterizations. This is the stock and trade of you leftist progressivists. Truth is like sunlight to you vampires.

    I know you have a hard-on for Roger Ailes, being involved with Fox News and such, but that is your personal mental illness you’ll have to deal with between you and your shrink. While you are busy dealing with that issue, be sure to address one of your other leaps into insanity …

    DMarshall [November 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm] says:

    “Whoever this FOIA clown is, he’s a cowardly scumbag. Compared to him, Julian Assange, at his worst, is a saint.”

    Assange published USA taxpayer funded national secrets and should be dangling from the business end of the hangman’s noose, FOIA leaked taxpayer funded data being kept secret from the taxpayers by climate scientologists. Seek help.

  71. Spector says:
    October 2, 2012 at 9:44 am

    The 350 org

    Of course, if they called themselves the 560 org, they might not have anything to worry about.

    560 would be nice. Double that again and it would be better! Not for the negligible warming, just for the agricultural boom times it would create (while conserving water resources).

Comments are closed.