Skeptical Science takes ‘creepy’ to a whole new level

People send me stuff.

Yesterday Skeptical Science owner John Cook announced to the world that he thought Willis’s open letter to the new editor of Science was “creepy” and “sexist”.

Cook_creepy

As is typical with the Skeptical Science kidz, it’s just projection. How much? You have no idea. But it turns out that when you scratch the surface of the SkS Forum, where the principals and moderators talk amongst themselves (seemingly unaware of others watching) you discover what creepy really is. For a supposed site about “climate science” it sure does look a lot like “high school climate science”.

Get a load of the pictures from the SkS forum website sent to me today. A friend of WUWT writes:

(Note: I’m leaving the author of this email private, lest he become another Photoshop victim. Note that all the links are in the open, there’s no hack or mole action going on here. BTW, each word highlighted below is a separate link to an image. – Anthony)

I found something I thought you might be interested in while looking to see what is publicly viewable on the new SkS forum’s website (www.sksforum.org).  Little is, but there happens to be a viewable images directory that has a subdirectory, [http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded].  This directory has some… interesting images.

One [http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/WeAreSkeptics.jpg] has several the heads of several skeptics photoshopped onto people from a movie about the 300 Spartans (300, perhaps?).  I assume it was an attempt at humorously painting skeptics as few in number and dogmatic.

But the most interesting ones defy explanation at the moment.  There are a number of images where the head of Dana Nuccitelli or John Cook appear to have been photoshopped onto images of [http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/herrscooterboy.jpg]
[http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/herrtankboy2.jpg]

It’s possible these images were taken from somewhere else and uploaded, but that seems unlikely as a couple of them show signs of further photoshopping done to improve them.  To see what I mean, compare this image to this one.
Combined with the fact there are a number of similarly photoshopped images done to flatter Nuccitelli, it seems almost certain SkS members have photoshopped images of SkS members as Nazi soldiers.  I can’t think of a single sensible reason they would do that.

I don’t think they dream of being Nazis, and I can’t imagine it was particularly fun to make those images.  It’s possible they made these with the idea of a false flag operation in mind, but that seems ridiculous.  It’s not more absurd than Peter Gleick’s behavior was, but it’s hard to believe anyone would consider doing that (especially on a forum which has been exposed once before).

[NOTE: Brandon Shollenberger decided that he didn't care that his name was attached to the above, hence this update. - Anthony]

You have to wonder what motivates them to take the time do things like this, especially when they claim that global warming is accelerating, and there is precious little time left before we all roast.

SkS Kidz will be kids I suppose.

I haven’t looked this good since high school:

WeAreSkeptics

L-R: Watts, Monckton, Delingpole.

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

UPDATE: 10:35 PDT About three hours later It seems that somebody at SkS has been embarrassed that they’ve been caught out, and they have comically simply moved the “user_uploaded” folder to one with a seemingly random (Ric Werme says: “Hey, a11g0n3 is leet-speak for allgone. Oh Lord, there be idiots over there.”) name:  [http://www.sksforum.org//images/a11g0n3/]

Sks_allgone

Of course that breaks all the links in the story above.

Only problem is, it’s still open to the public there. All images are still visible: [http://www.sksforum.org//images/a11g0n3/]

Surely they know that the Internet has a permanent memory and all these images still exist elsewhere in folders that people have scraped from the original by now?

Amateur hour cover up tactics. – Anthony

UPDATE2: 11:07AM PDT It seems that they’ve taken down the “leet speak” folder as well, no matter, they still all exist in many places, and I’ll add a gallery shortly.  -Anthony

UPDATE3: 11:19AM PDT here is a few of the images referenced above in the story and in comments. I also have a screen cap of the original folder listing at SkS which I’ll upload tonight when I get home.

skstroopers_marked timemachineboy3 timemachineboy1 ScooterBoy_Prawn osullivanpenguin WeAreSkeptics tol timemachineboy4 Monkeys herrtankboy2 herrtankboy herrscooterboy2

herrscooterboy 1_herrcook11_Tol1 12_Tol2 graphcomaprisonsks_attacks

UPDATE4: 5:31PM PDT, As promised earlier in UPDATE3 here is a PDF capture of the file listing from the original SkS forum snapped at 829AM PDT today.

Index of _images_user_uploaded (PDF)

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

 

About these ads

310 thoughts on “Skeptical Science takes ‘creepy’ to a whole new level

  1. Photo shop me! Use the gal who starred in the 200 Zillion BC flick with the fur bikini. Perfect flat earther portrayal I think. A bit far from reality but then so are the CO2 models.

  2. Not been to SkS but I thought the tone of Willis’s letter was a bit off. Ridiculing it as sexist seemed viable. Anything to distract from the substance, I suppose.

    Not been to Thermopylae either but it looks a bit queer. I’m guessing the idea is that the 97% so overwhelm the few Spartans that we sceptics will be overrun.
    Of course, if they knew their history then they might worry about taking to the sea as their refuge from the pause in warming problem.

    Nazi images proliferate on the internet. It’s a strange place. There are so many that it’s reasonable to assume that someone has probably built a bot to photshop them autmoatically. That’s probably what happened to SkS.

  3. Pam:

    From your earlier missive of “lithe and curved” I flat-out deny you – or that other fur-bikini-clad young lady – is anythong near a flat-earther!!!!!

  4. Am I imagining things, or are the warmists eggings-on becoming exponentially infantile? From the AGU ‘statement’ to Mann’s almost psycho paranoia, they all seem to be falling off the rails of sanity at an increasing rate.

  5. LOL!

    A little more photo-shopping and now each of you can have a twitter avatar with
    “My abs can crack walnuts, You argument is invalid”

  6. @ Mike Bromley the Kurd

    Well – it was predicted that as the wheels came off the “AGW = catastrophe Alarmism” then those with a more religious belief would start to lose the plot.

    History tells us this is the likely scenario.

    I would say that they are “falling off the rails at an “Alarming” rate”.

    And this is more predictable than the climate.

  7. Anthony, that looks like you photoshopped onto ‘300’ film image which has been criticized for having Nazi overtones, made in the style of Hitler’s filmaker Leni Riefenstahl’s ‘Triumph of the Will’.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC23Ak03.html

    Now that aside, let’s look at what drives Skeptical Science or SS for short. ;)

    John Cook – Skeptical Science – 3 August 2010
    “….my faith and my situation are my own. But hopefully for those curious, you understand more clearly the driving force behind Skeptical Science.”

  8. For a crowd that espouses peace, love, and a nice planet for everyone, what would explain the image titled “osullivanpenguin”? These guys really have that much free time to waste on creating such violent imagery?

  9. Not just creepy, it reminds of Peter Graves in Airplane! Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison? Joey, do you like movies about Gladiators? Joey, do you like to Photoshop yourself into movies you don’t belong?

  10. Excellent pic of you gentlemen. Shows how little these people know and understand (and not only about science). They’ve forgotten that the Spartans (and the others with them) were standing up for freedom against the autocracy and domination of the Persian king of kings.

    μολὼν λαβέ

  11. Those aren’t real pictures of you guys?

    Could have fooled me!!! I really thought that was the way you looked. . . .and dressed. . . . . ;-) !!!

  12. Sorry, I also found Willis’s article to be creepy and sexist.

    I agreed with the content, but if you read the comments here on WUWT by supportive regulars, you will find references to the less appropriate bits.

  13. RichieP says: August 6, 2013 at 8:29 am “They’ve forgotten that the Spartans (and the others with them) were standing up for freedom against the autocracy and domination of the Persian king of kings. μολὼν λαβέ” Well said. MOLON LABE Lord of Flies We live in interesting times.

  14. I was struck by skstroopers_marked.jpg, and by the amount of effort they put into the comparison of climate change with the attack on Hiroshima, 68 years ago today.

  15. Oh dear, models dressed in bikinis. As if dressing up the code wasn’t enough. Rack-elle Squelch.

  16. Yes, I think it was “1 Million BC” with Raquel Welch.(wow!) I was about 12yo when I saw it. As I recall she didn’t have any lines. No one did. Only grunts. Impressionable as I was,that flick changed me. I really wanted to be caveman
    Not so much anymore.

  17. With regard to the Nazi images and “I can’t think of a single sensible reason they would do that.”

    Being charitable it could be evidence of self-depricating humour over the abbreviation sometimes used for their site – SS.

  18. Examine this and then tell me that anyone cannot figure out where schemes to burn food, and transport woodchip pellets around the planet are hatched.

  19. I think they do you a favour here Anthony. Print it out. Show it to your wife and say that this is your new body. Then make sure to put the light out before you crawl into bed. ;-)

  20. Aw, c’mon Anthony, can’t we have some more interesting science articles. The fact that the SkS crowd are basically a bunch of pre-pubescent boys playing around with their computers is nothing new, and, frankly, it’s really boring.
    Regarding Willis’ letter, it was a tad lengthy. Also, he probably should not have made any comments, including the flattering ones, about her gender. Unfortunately, we live in an era where gentility has been reframed into sexism by the PC masses. And there is no point in us getting into that argument, which only distracts from the one we really want to engage in.
    BTW, I love you guys. I think you’re great.

  21. Not to be picky, but “Nazi soldiers” is not correct, since the German soldiers depicted are not apparently members of the Waffen SS, to judge from their insignia. The Nazi Party was pretty exclusive, actually. These guys should be identified as either German soldier of WWII, members of the Heer (Army) or Wehrmacht (armed forces). I once heard that master plagiarist and idiot
    Stephen Ambrose refer to the German Army as “the Nazi Army.” Generally the ordinary German soldiers despised the Waffen SS soldiers, and that included non-Waffen German generals.

  22. I think that the modified NAZI images were done to portray themselves as bad dudes that don’t take any guff from their enemies (so-called “deniers” ironically). They imagine themselves destroying their enemies in a war of annihilation with little or no mercy shown. Impotent lefties have many violent fantasies of redemptive violence.

  23. SKS Thinking Explained == McNutt a woman, skeptics have no valid basis for complaint, so the stated complaints must be just a facade for underlying _____.*

    What else could it be.

    * In this case, “Sexism.” Just identify the target of the criticism using various descriptive attributes that identify race, gender, religion, ethnic background, social background, etc.**

    ** If the target is a white male of European ancestry (see Mann, Michael), go to Plan B — Claim defamation of character or threat of bodily harm instead.

  24. ***
    I don’t think they dream of being Nazis, and I can’t imagine it was particularly fun to make those images. It’s possible they made these with the idea of a false flag operation in mind, but that seems ridiculous.
    ***

    Seems the only reasonable explanation. Plant the pics somewhere & accuse skeptics of it. Certainly in their realm of Glick-style operations.

  25. It is definitely a creepy week when I’m in agreement with both Mosher and Cook. Probably climate change is making me angry. /snark

  26. They see themselves under attack.
    [http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/sks_attacks.jpg]
    [http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/sks_attacks_impact.gif]
    Just like Nazi Germany.
    They want to save the world.
    Just like Nazi Germany.
    Nazi Germany wanted to save the world from the jews.
    SkS wants to save the world from climate deniers.

    That would be my explanation for the weird and very bad Nazi photoshops.
    Maybe a warmist troll could confirm or deny this explanation?

  27. Global warming is still happening when you tilt the instrumental record a bit to the left.
    [http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/graphcomaprison.jpg]

    WHY do they do this???? They don’t seem to believe it themselves.

  28. Ironically, the “sexist” part was actually referring to the possibility of men around her not giving her the whole truth. I thought it was unnecessary, but certainly not sexist.

  29. Anthony I think you should have a caption contest :-)
    “Alarmists don’t like it stuck up em” Bubble out of James Delingpole’s mouth (Apologies to Dad’s Army)

  30. Who cares about SS really? A climate page with a picture on the front page of a few penguins checking out a plant growing out of ice is a clear indication of the fantasy world they live in.

  31. Caleb says:
    August 6, 2013 at 9:43 am
    “Bizarre.
    Had to be a false flag idea.
    Even if they were that sick, they’d not be public about it….would they?”

    Cook is such a bad webmaster that he forgot to protect that folder.

  32. I think Kenji should complain to SkS that they didn’t Photoshop him into it too. They’re already barking mad. They’ll understand him.

  33. DirkH says:
    August 6, 2013 at 9:46 am
    “Cook is such a bad webmaster that he forgot to protect that folder.”

    To be specific: to protect it from viewing via a web browser. You will not be able to upload anything without knowing ftp user account and password, though. So without hacking, no “false flag” is possible.

  34. Pamela Gray says:
    August 6, 2013 at 8:12 am

    Photo shop me! Use the gal who starred in the 200 Zillion BC flick with the fur bikini. Perfect flat earther portrayal I think. A bit far from reality but then so are the CO2 models.

    That was one of the One Million BC movies. There was one in the ’40s, with Carol Landis and another, with Raquel Welch, in the ’60s. They constitute the most recent evidence of dinosaurs in geological history, other than in Professor Challenger’s papers.

  35. “Cook is such a bad webmaster that he forgot to protect that folder.”

    He wouldn’t be the first warmist to leave ‘censored’ data out in plain sight.

    Have you ever noticed how cyber-unsophisticated so many of these ‘scientists’ are?

  36. Pamela Gray says:
    August 6, 2013 at 8:12 am

    Photo shop me! Use the gal who starred in the 200 Zillion BC flick with the fur bikini. Perfect flat earther portrayal I think. A bit far from reality but then so are the CO2 models.
    ===========================================
    You mean you don’t really look like Raquel??? I’d always imagined ……… Yum!!!!

    As to those paranoid delusional creepys…. well, yes. This is consistent with their actions and words.

  37. arthur4563 says:
    August 6, 2013 at 9:06 am

    As the world learned when Reagan visited the Bitburg cemetery, after 1943 the Waffen SS drafted conscripts, so its troops’ situation thereafter resembled that of Wehrmacht soldiers.

    Maybe Skeptical Science think of themselves as climate change storm troopers (SA) rather than the SS perpetrators of the Holocaust. It is, as has been noted, weirdly twisted that they would envision themselves in WWII German military uniforms of any kind, given their “denier” slur.

  38. OldWeirdHarold says:
    August 6, 2013 at 10:02 am
    “Have you ever noticed how cyber-unsophisticated so many of these ‘scientists’ are?”

    Sure. I have also seen a lot of FORTRAN source code written by professors. They usually insist one removes the comments so as to not disturb the reading flow.

  39. milodonharlani says:
    August 6, 2013 at 10:05 am
    “Maybe Skeptical Science think of themselves as climate change storm troopers (SA) rather than the SS perpetrators of the Holocaust.”

    The SA was the security for Hitler’s election campaign. Simple thugs, not soldiers. The only thing they stormed were halls where communists held a speech – before Hitler’s election; there were no communist congregations after that.

    The “brownshirts”. Later exterminated, the survivors put into the Wehrmacht.
    The pictured guys look like Wehrmacht soldiers, which were mostly conscripts.

  40. … and all reappeared in “/images/a11g0n3″

    REPLY: right, the link is: [http://www.sksforum.org//images/a11g0n3/]

    -Anthony

  41. I am starting to understand why the pro-AGW crowd stating calling skeptics “deniers”. It’s not that we ( I like to include myself) are denying that climate changes, but we are in the way of what they want. We are denying them the wealth and riches they believe they deserve. They are the plundering armies, and the real skeptics are the 300 who are in their way. The plundering hordes are so angry that even with all the Marxists, environmentalists, revisionists, and the like on their side they are not able to win the fight. That is why they resort to the false flags, the lies, and the character assassinations. That is why it is important to keep fighting the good fight.

    Thank you Anthony. You should print up that image in high quality and post it on your office wall. You are in their heads, rent-free.

  42. “… and all reappeared in “/images/a11g0n3″

    – So they have! Good god how incompetent can you get? Move the images to another directory in the same publicly accessible root directory and still expect them not to be found? I didn’t even bother to check that possibility because I made the idiot assumption that no one would be that stupid, especially after being caught.

  43. It would appear from the group photo that you guys really intimidate… !
    …. Their subconscious is getting the better of them.

  44. …it seems almost certain SkS members have photoshopped images of SkS members as Nazi soldiers. I can’t think of a single sensible reason they would do that.”

    The term “bat crap crazy” comes to mind…

  45. Remember when The Guardian that was unexpectedly positive toward skepticism and this site. For those of us that get in comment tussles with those parroting warmist talking points, there was a commenter that kept referring to skepticalscience dot com, and a skeptic had an outstanding response (I liked the terminology he used, which I’ll make bold), a comment in which ‘Rob’ later had a kind of gibbering ineffectual counter response:

    “Rob – can’t you see that trying to hijack a constructive dialogue with a link to your climate activist site is just the sort of behaviour that caused this ugly polarised debate in the first place. Try and take in what Warren [Guardian author] is saying and realise that activist dogma is the absolute antithesis of the scientific method.

  46. It’s telling that the Skepkidz chose to focus on the most extraneous elements of Willis’ article (calling a woman good looking isn’t sexist IMO) and completely ignore the factual guts. Here is the money quote:

    …once you convince people that your causes are more important to you than your science, that’s it for your authority regarding the science. You either get to have activism, or you get scientific authority.

    This applies to science as well as journalism. Neither institution has come close to fulfilling its obligation to the public.

  47. Ric Werme says:
    August 6, 2013 at 10:38 am
    “Hey, a11g0n3 is leet-speak for allgone. Oh Lord, there be idiots over there.”

    He wanted to call it “recycle bin” first but then he tried to be original.
    My-oh-my.

  48. None of this surprises me. The increasingly ill-named SkepticalScience site draws a motley crew of neurotic extremists to it as surely as a flame attracts flying creatures of the night.
    One of those night-creatures is Dana Nuccitelli who now pens an environment blog for the mighty Guardian newspaper in which he habitually spews out vitriol at those who dare question the ‘coming of the loud’
    His blogs attract a lot of interest, not all of it welcome, and despite heavy censorship of posts he can’t (yet?) control the ‘Recommend’ button.
    ‘Contrarian’ posts regularly attract many, more votes than those who share his views.
    He is learning, however, and his most recent post is attracting a much greater number of recommends, and earlier, from those of his ilk than previously.
    Perhaps he’s sent out a rallying call to his supporters to do battle with those pesky ‘contrarian Recommenders!
    In this post he is aided and abetted by one of his buddies, Andrew Dessler, whose work is featured regularly at the SkS site. Together they turn their baleful gaze upon Dr Tamsin Edwards NAS (Not a Sceptic) who had the temerity to bring a bit of respect and reason (and in a Guardian blog to boot)to the climate debate.
    This extract from Dessler’s diatribe may confer a flavour of the post.
    (Dr Edwards writes:)
    “”much climate skepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence.” She certainly may believe this, but it’s wrong.”

    For those of those with a strong stomach here’s the link:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/06/climate-change-scientists-moral-obligation

    Anyone who likes clicking that ‘irritating’ Recommend button, to show support for those whose views you agree with, is welcome to join me over there.
    If you believe in ‘One Mouse, One Vote’ then exercise that right (Script Kiddies are NOT welcome)

  49. Eric Simpson says:
    August 6, 2013 at 10:38 am
    “response (I liked the terminology he used, which I’ll make bold), a comment in which ‘Rob’ later had a kind of gibbering ineffectual counter response:”

    Rob sounds like Rob Honeycutt, a pal of Nuccitelli, maker of purses in California. Diana and he once appeared in tandem on notrickszone to break our resistance with clever warmist rethoric.

  50. If Willis’ letter was “creepy and sexist,” it is only because the PC Police have declared it so. No ordinary American accepts the views of the politically correct. Those views are pushed upon on us by the Leftists among our ruling class who wish fervently that ordinary Americans could be replaced with other more malleable folk. Doubt what I say? Then answer one question. Why does every college in the US, no matter how small or insignificant, have a Diversity Dean funded by the taxpayer dime?

  51. I got most of the images before the two folders were cleansed.

    For me most interesting were two groups of images, bars*.jpg and figure*.jpg. Both sets of charts go up to 2011. The first set shows that around 30% of authors took ‘no position’ on AGW. The second set shows that when abstracts are analysed only 30% of authors ‘endorse’ AGW. These seem to contradict the 97% claim.

  52. Who cares what these poisonous little reptiles think? Just deny them the oxygen of publicity.

  53. Anthony:

    I would not put up a gallery.

    Keep tracking their attempts to hide the images. It is more revealing.

  54. milodonharlani:

    Maybe Skeptical Science think of themselves as climate change storm troopers (SA) rather than the SS perpetrators of the Holocaust. It is, as has been noted, weirdly twisted that they would envision themselves in WWII German military uniforms of any kind, given their “denier” slur.

    Interestingly, there was a picture at this link:

    http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/skstroopers_marked.jpg

    But unfortunately, the link is broken now. Hopefully somebody scraped all the images and will upload them. In the meantime, the name of this picture will have to suffice.

    REPLY: it is added now to the images at the end of the post, refresh to see – Anthony

  55. RoyFOMR says:
    August 6, 2013 at 10:55 am
    —————-
    Just my opinion, and as always I acknowledge I could be dead wrong:
    I’m not wasting my time engaging on blogs by Nuticelli and Abrahams. Those guys will openly state the skeptic opinion should be ignored and minimized as far as possible. Assuming the Guardian is interested in a lively discussion with lots of comments, they’re going to have to post more blog articles by people who invite discussion if they want my participation.
    Let Dana and Abrahams have their echo chamber, I say.

  56. skstroopers_marked and herrcook and scooterboy1 2 & 3 are just puzzling beyond belief. however, why ever they were created, why oh why would they have those handing around

  57. The dudes at SKS probably pictured themselves as Climate Nazis–similar to “grammar Nazis”–trying to get rid of those pesky Climate Deniers.

    Too bad their silliness has managed to expose themselves as being anything but skeptical.

  58. Ron Manley;
    The second set shows that when abstracts are analysed only 30% of authors ‘endorse’ AGW. These seem to contradict the 97% claim.
    >>>>

    Those would be VERY interesting to see!

  59. Mark Bofill August 6, 2013 at 11:17 am
    I always enjoy and learn from your CIF (Comment Is Free in the Guardian) replies and appreciate that you’re a braver man than me for going into the Donkey’s Den and penning your thoughts.
    The more that people suspend their distaste, go to those blogs and see your always respectful and sensible comments and compare them with the subsequent spittle-flecked responses of some, the better.
    It was the ill-temper and intolerance in such places that first piqued my interest. I owe my journey from being a mild believer into a confirmed climate sceptic. I owe these people a huge debt of gratitude.
    Clicking the ‘Recommend’ button may be a meaningless gesture but it has a purpose or at least it has for me.
    Firstly, it allows me to show my appreciation for those whose opinion strike a positive chord and, secondly, it annoys the Dickens out of some of the wild-eyed denizens who squat, and blog, there!

  60. thisisgettingtiresome says:
    August 6, 2013 at 11:33 am
    “Creepy is more a state of mind and one of those strange words more appreciated by those to whom it applies. Boring being another such”

    You’re right. Wrong word. Totalitarian is much better.

  61. Self projection? First we had Nuccitelli taking oil money and now these Nazi ‘denier’ images. What next, tobacco? Oh wait, I covered that before with Al Gore when he chopped, shredded and sold tobacco. What about coal? Are CRU took cash from power generation companies. What about dung?

  62. Willis sexist, creepy? I had to check. There are a lot of guys who can’t help themselves, and have to make irrelevant remarks about a good-looking woman. Initially I carelessly thought that that’s what Willis had done. But it’s not the case–writing to Marcia McNutt Willis mentioned her looks as a possible factor making it difficult for her to get honest feedback about her ideas or actions. And since his letter is ostensibly aimed at giving her advice on improving the magazine Science, his comments are quite relevant.

    That said, I wouldn’t have gone there. No matter how relevant the remarks, in our adversarial culture not only would Willis’s opponents not get his point, the would deliberately refuse to see his point because of the wonderful opportunity to call him names. It’s not always prudent to say everything that’s true.

  63. RoyFOMR –
    Thanks. :) Yeah, I’ll engage if the blog article is reasonable or by someone reasonable like Tasmin Edwards or Warren Pearce.

    The more that people suspend their distaste, go to those blogs and see your always respectful and sensible comments and compare them with the subsequent spittle-flecked responses of some, the better.

    Well, that was my theory anyways. I knew nobody there was going to be persuaded about much of anything, but I hoped that maybe demonstrating decent conduct and good faith in discussion might count for something with some readers.
    I do approve comments over there, but I still suspect engaging people who actively campaign to have discussion with skeptics halted is a mistake.
    Regards

  64. But surely all good Climate Scientists leave their ‘dirty laundry’ in a folder called “Censored back to 1400AD”…

  65. I think that all of this is just intended to pump up their #s over at Sks. They would love to get in a pissing match with us. I honestly believe that is why so many “alarmist” bloggers post here with their names as a link to their blogs. I don’t ever click the link to their sites.

    Tom

  66. Step aside Billy Blanks, Beach Body and Bob Greene. There’s a new program in town: The Warrior Body.

  67. I’m thinking that since these are “user_uploaded” files that one or more skeptics have loaded what appear to be “politically incorrect” (relative to the SKS site) pics there for a little fun. If this is the case, then Cook & Co. probably should review these files more often for content.

    REPLY:
    No Skeptic I know of would make these. I sure wouldn’t. besides, you have to be a member of the SkS club to be able to participate in that closed forum, and they don’t allow skeptics there. This is why it was theorized to be the beginning of a “false flag” operation. – Anthony

  68. Since the 300 are credited with saving western civilization I would suppose being photoshopped into that group would in fact be a high honor. I bet they are more like the guy King Leonidas told go guard the goat passage. Come back carrying your shield or on it.

  69. RoyFOMR says at August 6, 2013 at 10:55 am…
    Dana’s viewpoint wasn’t as unjustified as usual. Perhaps that was Dessler’s influence. He was talking about politics and the influence of scientists on the debate. That isn’t factual (it is opinion) and I was happy to engage with him.
    Go and look, unless I’ve been censored already.

    Yet, the first reply to me was (I quote) “Shut up you. You don’t even know what climate change is.

    It was deleted after a while as too embarrassing. Most of my recommends probably came out of sympathy.

    And the worse thing is he’s right.
    Unlike him I don’t have absolute faith that I know what the next climate change will be.

  70. Jimbo says August 6, 2013 at 8:26 am

    Anthony, that looks like you photoshopped onto ’300′ film image which has been criticized for having Nazi overtones, made in the style of Hitler’s filmaker Leni Riefenstahl’s ‘Triumph of the Will’.

    If they want to play that dirty political game let them.
    Up the ante, nerd-style.

    The last scene of Star Wars Episode IV (A New Hope) is a scene for scene remake of ‘Triumph of the Wlll’… with better music courtesy of John Williams.
    Even the size of the squares that the crowds form, as the trio advance, is the same.

    Let them claim that Watts and Monckton are Luke Skywalker and Han Solo… it will be too ludicrous for words; just laughter.

    Mockery is the right approach to alarmists.

  71. Putting the skeptics in the place of the Spartans as an effort to put down the skeptics is a nice demonstration of historical illiteracy [on] the part of the SkS goon squad.
    As others here have pointed out, the battle depicted in “300”, Thermopylae, is generally recognized as one of the turning points in the emergence of the West as a positive force civilization.
    More and more often the AGW promoters and true believers come across as ignorant boors.
    As to the alleged sexism of Willis……pc whining is the main refuge of ‘progressive’ losers.

  72. I get it.

    The persians were pissed at the Greeks for warming the earth because it was over one degree warmer then today and the evidence is obvious in those pics you guys couldn’t put full suits of armor on you would burn up.

  73. Pamela Gray says:
    August 6, 2013 at 8:12 am

    Photo shop me! Use the gal who starred in the 200 Zillion BC flick with the fur bikini….

    Done! ;)

  74. Mark Bofill says at August 6, 2013 at 11:17 am

    Just my opinion, and as always I acknowledge I could be dead wrong:
    I’m not wasting my time engaging on blogs by Nuticelli and Abrahams. Those guys will openly state the skeptic opinion should be ignored and minimized as far as possible. Assuming the Guardian is interested in a lively discussion with lots of comments, they’re going to have to post more blog articles by people who invite discussion if they want my participation.
    Let Dana and Abrahams have their echo chamber, I say.

    Three reasons I respectfully disagree:

    1) Most viewers of the page are lurkers who want to see the debate. If there is none then they will move on and their prejudices will be patted down. But any counter-argument will be novel to many viewers. And knowledge, innovative ideas, thinking even, is good.

    2) The Guardian needs advertising revenue to continue, Echo chambers die. For the health of Western democracy a left-wing broadsheet is required. Playing on their turf (or our turf if you are a lefty like me) is of value to democracy.

    3) Censorship of responses will be noted by the editors. The 97% blog has a different moderation policy to the rest of the Guardian website. If it seems to work then it will spread. And spread beyond the Guardian. There is a veru good reason to challenge the moderation policy by making it look unreasonable. And that reason is: It is unreasonable.

    The Guardian Environment website is important enough to be worth fighting for.
    Let us not be craven.

  75. M Courtney says:
    August 6, 2013 at 12:52 pm
    ————————
    Re (1) : I agree, but:
    Re (2) : I agree, and this is why I won’t engage with Nuticelli or Abrahams. If the editors have any brains, they’ll see that blog posters who invite discussion with skeptics are the ones who get the good discussions.
    Re (3) : Reinforces my point Re (2), I will not help Nuticelli or Abrahams blog successfully by serving as the token opposition.

    There’s fighting, and then there’s fighting. I try to choose terrain that favors me.
    :)
    Best regards.

  76. M Courtney says:
    August 6, 2013 at 12:52 pm
    I looked at, and enjoyed, your posts on the Dana thread (Yup, they’re still there for the present)
    Your three reasons for persevering with the Guardian Blogs are very well put and make sense to me.
    If you could only persuade Mark to join in (alongside TLITB and others) on Dana’s blog then that can only enrich the debate and may help open eyes.

  77. Sadly, I find myself agreeing with John Cook. If there is any “projection” going on, it was from Eschenbach with his odd paragraph about McNutt’s attractiveness and his postulating that “particularly men” hadn’t rebutted McNutt and told her the “unvarnished truth” in years. Weird. Most of the rest of Eschenbach’s essay was filled with good information but he wandered at times into unseemly personal lecturing of McNutt that struck me as a reflection of his personal issues, perhaps. Unfortunate, coming from someone who has posted highly informative essays here. We’re all (hopefully) allowed the odd rant here and there. An apology to McNutt is in order, I think.

  78. Brandon Shollenberger says:
    August 6, 2013 at 11:16 am

    “Herr Cook” as a Reichsfuehrer is beyond bizarre. What are these guys thinking?

    Thanks to Anthony for preserving these disturbing, disturbed images for posterity before they were made to disappear.

  79. The fact that a flattering image has been chosen for the Herr Cook pic, and all the uniform insignia have been lovingly replaced by the Skeptical Science blog logos – make me think this is neither a sceptic product nor a false-flag attempt.

    Incredibly – I think this is how some of these guys see themselves or their leaders.

    No doubt, if this is just my “recursive fury” kicking in – John or Dana will be along in a minute to explain what a fool I am.

    If not, I think this is definitely a case for that pre-eminent paragon of climate psychology – Professor Lew!

  80. M Courtney

    Don’t get your three points. All those reasons are good reasons to keep all opinions open for discussion. The point was they do not. So, why do they ban alternate opinions that doesn’t fit the narrative?

  81. “REPLY: No Skeptic I know of would make these. I sure wouldn’t. besides, you have to be a member of the SkS club to be able to participate in that closed forum, and they don’t allow skeptics there. This is why it was theorized to be the beginning of a “false flag” operation. – Anthony”

    Ah! That makes sense! Material to be planted on skeptic blogs, hoping that we’ll hand them around or something; giggling at stupid Herr Cook.

    I wonder whether we have destroyed their real invasion fleet or only a decoy. These are no military-grade photoshops; and the bumbling reaction of the webmaster was a bit too incompetent.

    They must have a second server containing the real arsenal.

  82. to get guardiam comments reinstated i wrote to the mods, tweeted the guardian, guardian science, guardian eco, dana and emailed just about everybody at the guardian

    shouldn’t be that way, but they won’t stop me commenting

  83. There’s an awful lot of girly-men here who don’t seem to understand what Willis actually said.

    Men treat women differently than they do other men. It doesn’t always boil down to looks but often to “mother syndrome”.

    We all know a fellow who is a “ladies man’. A man who always gravitates to the company of a woman. Does this comment make me look fat? Rachel wants to know.

  84. { KevinM says:
    August 6, 2013 at 8:34 am
    Sorry, I also found Willis’s article to be creepy and sexist.

    I agreed with the content, but if you read the comments here on WUWT by supportive regulars, you will find references to the less appropriate bits. }

    But he’s getting the wider publicity he prophesied. Cut the man a break.

  85. Hmm…not one CAGW proponent troll who joined in to ridicule SkS. By golly you can do what ever craziness you want if you are on the CAGW supporters list. I’m waiting for Real Climate to photo shop themselves into Huns or Mongol warriors. This might be a new disease that wasn’t possible to get before the invention of the internet.

  86. Riki says “Aw, c’mon Anthony, can’t we have some more interesting science articles. The fact that the SkS crowd are basically a bunch of pre-pubescent boys playing around with their computers is nothing new, and, frankly, it’s really boring.
    Regarding Willis’ letter, it was a tad lengthy. Also, he probably should not have made any comments, including the flattering ones, about her gender. Unfortunately, we live in an era where gentility has been reframed into sexism by the PC masses. And there is no point in us getting into that argument, which only distracts from the one we really want to engage in.
    BTW, I love you guys. I think you’re great.”

    I agree. Even tongue-in-cheek diversions detract from the validity of this site and the dialogue it is attempting to elevate. Leave the humor to the comments or other blogs. This site is providing an enormous public service, and as such is an attractive target to those espousing policy over science. Don’t give them any ammunition. And, like Riki, I love this site. Thank you for it.

  87. I don’t get the “Willlis was sexist” bit at all.

    He addressed her with courtesy, care and respect – but as a man talking to an attractive & very successful woman. Is that “sexist” in progressive circles?

    Maybe I’m just too old to get it, but IMHO progressives had better be careful they don’t become extinct due to lack of heterosexual activity.

  88. It is long been known that when Warmists are cornered on any issue of substance, or are put in a position where they simply cannot win the argument that they immediately latch on to anything they can use as the basis for an attack…I’ve been ridiculed for my punctuation on occasion!
    Having said that, Willis was definitely ‘off on one’ during his piece on Mc Nutt, you could tell he was enjoying it just a little too much. He should watch out for that.
    But having said THAT, the word ‘creepy’ was surely invented for John Cook.

  89. Foxgoose says:
    August 6, 2013 at 1:50 pm
    “Maybe I’m just too old to get it, but IMHO progressives had better be careful they don’t become extinct due to lack of heterosexual activity.”

    They reproduce asexually; through brainwashing other people’s kids using other people’s money (planned since The Republic by Plato).

  90. Well those images from SkS are just stupid, and their computer incompetence is amusing. On the other hand the words “creepy” and “sexist” were used by several people here regarding Willis’ open letter, so there’s a bit pot calling the kettle black going on here.

  91. Herr Drillbit will not be amused that these photo’s got out. A dodgy consensus, working for a major player in the fossil fuel industry and now this ? I often come across Nuccitelli online banging on about “communicating the message”, but somehow I don’t think the message he is sending is actually the one he intended.

  92. clipe says:
    August 6, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    “mother syndrome”.

    That’s not the correct phrase I was looking for.

  93. imho Willis should not have commented on her looks – he wouldn’t have said the same thing about a man would he?

  94. clipe says:
    August 6, 2013 at 12:50 pm

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 6, 2013 at 8:12 am

    Photo shop me! Use the gal who starred in the 200 Zillion BC flick with the fur bikini….

    Done! ;)

    Far from being off-topic The 10E6 BC documentary provides evidence that the earth was considerably warmer back then — people only needed minimal clothing to be comfortable in any season. Good thing too, considering how drafty caves can be.

    And if you want a fur bikini, you can still get one — all while being environmentally conscious. Actually, it looks like you have to get the bikini a separates, starting with these .

  95. Someone at SkS took the time to remove the original Nazi symbols from the original 1936 SS Nuremburg rally, and replace them with Skeptical Scence logo..

    Original(or very similar):

    http://www.lookandlearn.com/history-images/XD169226/Massed-ranks-of-the-SS-at-the-Nuremberg-Rally-1936

    They did such a good job of it, ie greyscaled, etc, it almost looked original!

    Then actually naming an adulterated 1936 Nuremburg rally SKStrooper_marked is just utterly juvenile.

    Scrawling an arrow to Hitler, and labelling John Cook is almost trivial in comparison (effort wise)

    Whatever the reason, these images were there, however they got there, the fact that the kept them is truly odd.

    Dana’s Scooterboy, and tankboy pictures, makes you wonder exactly why the Guardian have given him a 97% consensus column.Dana photo shopped as Dr Who is comically tragic

    I wonder which original photo, they modified to make John Cook’s HerrCook photo

    by the way, It’s James Delingpole’s birthday today, and his brother said on twitter the photo of him (and you, Monckton) as Spartans, made his day..

  96. I can’t wait to hear what their explanation is for all these creative art shenanigans. Will we see the return of the limited hang-out yet again? Whatever they say, I bet it will include blaming “deniers” in some form.

  97. Foxgoose says:
    August 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Strange though the SS crews’ behavior may be, I have to agree with your explanation.

    But even if they do see themselves as on a military campaign, why chose a temporarily victorious but ultimately defeated army associated with systematic mass murder of civilians in death camps? Why not dress themselves up in Allied uniforms? Even the much-calumniated US strategic Air Forces & British Bomber Command are less excoriated than the armed forces of the Nazi regime.

  98. ” DirkH says: ………
    They reproduce asexually; through brainwashing other people’s kids using other people’s money (planned since The Republic by Plato).”

    Now you owe me a new keyboard too.

  99. Lauren R says:

    “An apology to McNutt is in order, I think.”

    Really? I think not.

    An apology is due from the new Editor to the subscribers of Science for pushing an unscientific agenda. For propagandizing science. For repeating a narrative that has no verifiable, testable scientific evidence to support it.

    Don’t hold your breath, though. McNutt was chosen only after close scrutiny. There is no way she is going to do honest science. If the selection committee had the slightest doubt regarding that, they would have chosen someone more reliable.

  100. “Pamela Gray says: August 6, 2013 at 8:12 am

    Photo shop me! Use the gal who starred in the 200 Zillion BC flick with the fur bikini. Perfect flat earther portrayal I think. A bit far from reality but then so are the CO2 models.”

    Wasn’t that originally ‘elvish’ and ‘tiny’ or something similar? Why the abrupt longing for the ancient ‘cave woman’ fashion look? You could worry us.

  101. Mark Bofill says at August 6, 2013 at 1:06 pm…
    Points 2 and 3: Fair enough. You speak as an officer. Your strategy is arguably correct.

    But I am a mere infantryman in the blog wars. My role is to walk into the minefield wherever the battle is.
    Will that encourage the laying of more minefields? I hope not. Please do mock and scorn those who try to lay those traps. Attack that idea. Don’t fear such patheticism, guide it.

    But, at my level, I will fight for this land (the lefty-wing broadsheet discussion space.

    You should do what you think you should.
    I will respect that.

  102. Ox AO says at August 6, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    Don’t get your three points. All those reasons are good reasons to keep all opinions open for discussion. The point was they do not. So, why do they ban alternate opinions that doesn’t fit the narrative?

    Yes, I see what you mean.

    At best I am hitting my head against a brick wall.
    At worst I am being manipulated as a pet ‘feral sceptic’.

    But…
    The Guardian is not a publication of a political party. It is not the Morning Star.
    The Guardian is the lefty-wing broadsheet of the Anglosphere.

    It is worth fighting for its right to survive for the benefit of democracy and the vibrancy of philosophy.

    And the owners know that. They don’t own it as a cash-cow. Believe me. Research the Guardian’s finances for yourself if you want to challenge that.

    The censorship on the 97% blog is a threat to democracy. And it is virulent. It must be crushed now, before it become the internet norm.

    Even though confronting it on ‘away ground’ makes you look like a pillock when you inevitably lose.
    It’s worth it, in my opinion.

  103. M Courtney says:
    August 6, 2013 at 2:44 pm
    “But…
    The Guardian is not a publication of a political party. It is not the Morning Star.
    The Guardian is the lefty-wing broadsheet of the Anglosphere.”

    I agree. The Fabian Society is not a party. They are the bosses of two parties. (The Labour Party and the Tories)

  104. MangoChutney says:
    August 6, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    imho Willis should not have commented on her looks – he wouldn’t have said the same thing about a man would he?

    Please pay attention to the lesson.

  105. No doubt the pictures of the NAZI’s are just preparation for the political left’s next big Enviro-Innovation, burning people as fuel.

  106. Minor formatting oversight. :o

    M Courtney says:
    August 6, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    …Even though confronting it on ‘away ground’ makes you look like a pillock when you inevitably lose.
    It’s worth it, in my opinion.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I’ve got no problem with getting torn up because I’m arguing on ‘away ground’. I’ve got a problem with the results, when arguing a winning position gets censored into looking like you had no rebuttal to some trivial point. When I speak, there’s a purpose I’m trying to accomplish by communicating, and an opposite purpose is served if part of what I’m saying is censored out. I don’t see the point in talking on forums where the rules of engagement essentially guarantee I can’t accomplish any of my objectives by talking, but instead help people accomplish objectives I disapprove of.
    I feel for you since you obviously care about the Guardian. But for me, the bottom line is that I don’t run the Guardian. If they make poor decisions about environmental / climate change blog authority, them’s the breaks I guess.
    Anyways, good luck regardless and best regards.

    [Should the earlier (improperly formatted) item be deleted then? Mod]

  107. I went ahead and posted a few comments to the Guardian article along with M Courtney.

    Does anyone have a link to a good article about how the AGW “Team” or other “climate scientists” have repeatedly increased the interval of no warming or declining temps “necessary” to be “significant?” I’d like to post something that way also (and have it for future reference), but wound up just using recollection… I’m sure I’ve seen something that way even here on WUWT, but I’m not finding it so far – thanks in advance for links or help on this one.

  108. patrioticduo says:
    August 6, 2013 at 2:19 pm
    I can’t wait to hear what their explanation is for all these creative art shenanigans. Will we see the return of the limited hang-out yet again? Whatever they say, I bet it will include blaming “deniers” in some form.
    ————————————————————————————————————
    It would be reasonable that it could be a skeptic having some fun with the SKS files since they are for “user_upload”. However, that also might ruin most of the fun here, so let’s not think about that. It would also indicate that they don’t review these files for content often enough.

  109. Rational Db8:

    At August 6, 2013 at 3:20 pm you ask

    Does anyone have a link to a good article about how the AGW “Team” or other “climate scientists” have repeatedly increased the interval of no warming or declining temps “necessary” to be “significant?”

    Go to the ‘Search’ facility on the WUWT Home Page.
    Enter: temperature adjustments
    Select the article(s) you want from the resulting list of links.

    I hope that helps.

    Richard

  110. SasjaL says: August 6, 2013 at 10:13 am
    “Sorry to say, but Cook’s avatar looks quite creepy …”

    He’s even more of a creep in real life !

  111. Rational Db8 says:
    August 6, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    Maybe not an exhaustive list of changing periods of warming “pause” periods for significance, but a start:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/03/the-science-is-settled-no-warming

    To which list included in the above link must be added this capper:

    “The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last ‘30 to 40 years at least’ to break the long-term global warming trend.” – The Australian, Feb 22 2013

    Since the globe has been warming since about 1700, most of the time without benefit of rising CO2, & is now cooling despite still higher GHG concentrations, maybe he’s right about the “long-term”, but certainly not compared to the warming of c. 1977-96, which resembled that of the 1920s to 40s.

  112. Regarding SKS and the Grauniad (I’m sorry that’s the Guardian for non-UK readers):
    Just before the Copenhagen summit, the Eco column produced an article saying that “there might have been a short pause in temperature but in the next 5 years it was going to rise faster than ever unless …. ”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study?INTCMP=SRCH&commentpage=1

    and a 9 metre sea level rise ….

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/16/ipcc-sea-level-rise-temperatures?INTCMP=SRCH

    The interesting thing is that the gang of true believing commenters are still here today, commenting with all the outrage and moral certitude that they can muster on the 97% thread.

    Is there such a thing as learning from experience or does this simply show that the lunatic fringe remains the lunatic finge? Should we care?

    The only problem is that the Guardian is main source for the BBC.

  113. @ richardscourtney says: August 6, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    Thanks for the reply Richard. I’m not really looking for data problems/temperature adjustments, but the claims by AGW promoting scientists that X number of years must go by without warming before AGW itself is discredited… I think the first claim of that nature was either 10 or 12 years pause or decline necessary, then they upped it to 15, then to 17, and now higher… So I was hoping to find an article documenting those wildly different claims and when they occurred, showing how the AGW “climate scientists” keep moving the goalposts as soon as the actual temperature measurements come close to passing their earlier time period of significance type claims.

    @ milodonharlani says: August 6, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    Thank you! That one comes pretty close. I think there was an even earlier, shorter time frame originally claimed, but your article is right along the lines I’m looking for. I’ll go post it to the Guardian.

    If anyone else runs across more this way, please still post your link & thanks in advance!

  114. I keep coming back to the idea some of these pictures were meant to end up somewhere where they would have mislead speculatiors as to their authorship.

  115. BFL says:
    August 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm
    “It would be reasonable that it could be a skeptic having some fun with the SKS files since they are for “user_upload”. ”

    Everyone here knows Sks for years now. Many of us have communicated with Diana, Rob or Herr Cook. Don’t you think we would know if there were a possibility to upload files?

  116. And BFL; you probably don’t know; but as a webmaster you upload your files wither with an ftp or with a web frontend. Both of them are always protected with username and password. You want to avoid that a guy you don’t know, say your friendly government, plants some kiddiepr0n on your web server to have an excuse to shut you down and throw you in a cage like they just did with that TOR guy. You will share the password only with people you trust.

    So now you know.

  117. Rational Db8 says:
    August 6, 2013 at 3:20 pm
    “Does anyone have a link to a good article about how the AGW “Team” or other “climate scientists” have repeatedly increased the interval of no warming or declining temps “necessary” to be “significant?” ”

    Hansen era
    Hansen cools down the 19th century MAY 2012 blink comparator

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/more-data-corruption-from-giss/#comment-90722

    Post hansen era
    GISS unter Gavin post Hansen, the fraud continues

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/really-giss-dishonesty-continues-in-post-hansen-era/

  118. Even if the Sks photos turn out to be some bizarre self planted lewandowsky inspired ‘research’ to stir the pot. 2 things. Delingpole,Watts and Monckton get a fantastically funny framed photo of themselves as the spartans. Xmas cards, calendars and the Josh version shoukd be funny.And if a bit of psychology research, ( as was mentioned as a possibilty – false flag- in the main wuwt article above) everyone only wanted to believe it, because the SkS guys come across as that juvenile in the first place!!! Definitely juvenile not sinister, in my mind

    Or some hacker planted them to make them look like juvenile kids. A hacker would had to have permission to make directories and move files. Or msybe an insider. Who knows or cares, lets wsit and see what happens next

    Has anybody asked John Cook what is going on yet?

    or they are what one or 2 of the SKS crowd do for fun..Popcorn tommorrow

    Who knows. I have no idea what is going on, but domebody took some effort withthe photos. Ie the cap badges.

    Imagine if it were some ill conceived psychology research, who on earth would allow their own image to be manipulated to show themsekves as John and Dana are depicted. So by that logic it can’t be research. Either a hacker, or someone there is crazy enough to make those photos of John and Dana?

    But I have no idea what is going on, , just guesses (look up Johann Hari, for bizarre behaviour on the internet, that you could not make up, as an example)

    Whatever the explanation is it is surely going to be interesting.

    Just when things were getting boring.

  119. Bad reply, Watts.

    First of all, the McNutt thingy was a bit of a fckup. Not sexist but weird on some levels. Second, it is foolish to answer Cook’s delusion with a back slap. Many of us are here precisely because we don’t fall for misdirection. You had to do nothing more than post Cook’s tweet if you wanted to expose his intellectual deficits. Instead, you committed folly.

  120. Note how the warmistas conflate one cause with another. Somehow, to argue about climate science with a female scientist makes you SEXIST! Proof that the warmistas are driven by a political agenda, rather than science.

  121. The most interesting question to me is why the Skeptical[-less] Science site’s leader (Cook) and the insider clique projected themselves and their critics (the skeptics) the way they did in the images contained originally in their site’s subdirectory ‘user_uploaded’?

    Consider this scenario as an explanation. They were just having what they considered phantasy fun in making and using the images. In history there have been groups whose phantasy images were subsequently implemented in horrific ways. It is in my view that it is too early to conclude the leader (John Cook) and his insider clique at the Skeptical[-less] Science site will follow a path toward advocating the implementation of their ‘fun’ phantasy images. However, it is rather reasonable to keep a keen public awareness on any further signs of developments in their weird fun phantasies.

    SEPARATE SUBJECT => As to the question of whether it is worthwhile going to Cook’s Skeptical[-less] Science site to debate. I recommend it is infinitely more effective to create independent venue dialogs that they (the denizens of Cook’s Skeptical[-less] Science site) cannot avoid participating in. : ). Then the playing field could be monitored much more objectively than @ Cook’s radically censored and manipulated blog.

    John

  122. DirkH says:
    August 6, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    And BFL; you probably don’t know; but as a webmaster you upload your files wither with an ftp or with a web frontend. Both of them are always protected with username and password. You want to avoid that a guy you don’t know, say your friendly government, plants some kiddiepr0n on your web server to have an excuse to shut you down and throw you in a cage like they just did with that TOR guy. You will share the password only with people you trust.

    So now you know.
    ———————————————————————————————————-
    Sure enough, but it wouldn’t make sense, would it, that Cook and trusted company would allow that content in an SKS file on purpose. So perhaps an inside ringer or a hacker but still (probably) a skeptic (maybe even converted by Watts). For a good conspiracy: the Climate Gate leaker. Of course it’s always more fun to assume that Cook and Co. and/or friends are really that Batsh*t crazy.

  123. [Should the earlier (improperly formatted) item be deleted then? Mod]

    Yes, please. Thank you.

  124. R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

    Just a little bit? Just a little bit?

    {apologies to Aretha Franklin}

    I premise that Cook’s Skeptical[-less] Science site will not come to be respected by the currently growing legion of independents in science and in the general public who have significant critical arguments and work against the main positions held by Cook’s Skeptical[-less] Science site.

    Forget respect. What can happen, in my view, is what happened to the RC site. That is, Cook’s Skeptical[-less] Science site continues to become increasingly an irrelevant backwater compared to the vigorous / open / independent dialog on climate science.

    Anthony – thanks for your wonderful open, independent and vigorously supported venue.

    John

  125. I looked at SkS, once, a couple of years ago.
    A commenter suggested that J Curry was still angry that The Mann stood her up, some time in the past. Talk about CREEPY.

  126. Dana is pictured posing with Jo Grant (Katy Manning) who caused a bit of a stir by posing nude and in some instances Daleks were involved.

    Sexist? Creepy? Irony?

    (I won’t link to the pics but I’m sure serious researchers can find them ;) )

  127. Eschenbach’s open letter may be creepy and sexist by a politically incorrect definition but it is at the writers discretion to provide the impact that he feels necessary and Willis is very good at that. I routinely tire of the “tried and true” formulas for this kind of effort and wish that more editorials would follow in his footsteps as after all variety is the spice of life. It’s a real shame that so many have the appearance of embarrassment from such a successful emotive effort. I can only say that when I see Willis put something into words, that I can’t stop reading until I am finished. The true sign of an original and inspirational author.

  128. For those claiming “German, not Nazi”. The Uniform used for Cook’s image has a badge on the left breast pocket: that was where the Nazi party membership badge was worn.

  129. To me this is not a big deal.

    Each side does it. For instance the Hitler’s last days movie “Downfall”. A famous meme – w 100s of parodies. I think I have seen 3 or 4 where warmists are mocked as Hitler.

    Don’t get me wrong, I am not a relativist – I don’t think the humor works equally.

    plus Monkton’s got some serious abs there. Wow! I never knew he was so studly.

  130. I haven’t read all 170+ comments, so apologies if someone already mentioned this.

    It seems that the original abbreviation for SkS is more appropriate than we thought. Megalomania, narcissism, and brainwashing seem the order of the day.

  131. Yesterday Skeptical Science owner John Cook announced to the world that he thought Willis’s open letter to the new editor of Science was “creepy” and “sexist”.

    At least one of the female commenters here did, and not just female. That part didn’t bother me so much (although I got their point). I certainly thought it was hastily written and overly emotional and personal.

    And several people here thought that.

  132. John Cook,

    If you want creepy read your own ‘Fury’ paper plus the ‘Moon’ paper it was based on. Willis’s open letter (which I thought was just representative American persona at large) does not register on the creepy scale comparatively.

    John Cook, please come play outside with us. We guarantee enlightenment.

    John

  133. Jimbo Aug 6 8:28 am

    “Skeptical Science or SS for short”

    Haha — rolling on the floor

    Eugene WR Gallun

  134. SkS is a hang out for Napoleon Dynamite types. People who can kill you in 101 different ways with their bare hands – they got the list on the internet. Also see Gareth on The Office.

  135. If Willis’ letter was “creepy and sexist,” it is only because the PC Police have declared it so.

    Nonsense.

    I couldn’t care less if a guy asks a girl back to his place to see his etchings, as long as he’s willing to take no for an answer. However, combining a harsh series of criticisms with compliments about someone’s appearance is a bit odd and, at a minimum, very predictably open to misinterpretation.

    Would a woman (or man for that matter) have criticised Einstein’s scientific understandings and biases in a public letter and in it comment about how good looking he is? How “Alpha” he is, having hung out with Marilyn Monroe and all?

    I mean, she could do that, but it would appear unprofessional and beg the question of what that was about, wouldn’t it?

  136. Christoff Dollis;
    Would a woman (or man for that matter) have criticised Einstein’s scientific understandings and biases in a public letter and in it comment about how good looking he is?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Oh gimme a break. Men are genetically programmed to NOT piss women off. The more attractive they are, the stronger the genetic imperative. That includes not telling them they are wrong, even when they ARE wrong. Which was Willis’ point, politically incorrect or not, poorly worded or not.

  137. Men are genetically programmed to NOT piss women off. The more attractive they are, the stronger the genetic imperative. That includes not telling them they are wrong, even when they ARE wrong.

    I do not suffer from this particular malady. ;)

    However, somehow you missed my point. It had nothing to do with how badly worded (and unedited) the open letter might have been. My point was about the combination of harsh insults in an open letter about science with compliments on someone’s appearance.

    Believe me, I also do not suffer from the malady of reticence in mentioning to a lady what I enjoy about her appearance if the mood hits me. I just can’t see working it into this type of letter.

  138. I’m sure I could write an open letter intended to a wide audience filled with things I don’t like about Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Sarah Palin. But if I added the post script, “P.S. You’re hot,” it wouldn’t really support my broader message, now would it?

    It also depends where you say it. For the record, I think both women above are fine looking. But this is just a random comment on a blog as opposed to a headlining article on the world’s most-read climate website. And I’m not actually combining harsh critique with commentary on their hair.

  139. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Wllis writing – “you are extremely well educated, strong, strikingly good looking, and a wickedly-smart woman by all accounts ”

    The only creepy aspect is how some prudes are attempting to twist it into a “Casus Belli”

    I’m willing to donate $10 so we can send smelling salts to Lauren R., John Cook and Christoph.

  140. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Wllis writing – “you are extremely well educated, strong, strikingly good looking, and a wickedly-smart woman by all accounts ”

    Very professional. Totally par for the course in scientific discourse especially when criticising someone.

    /sarc

    Even if not sexist, it’s incredibly condescending. In much the same way that criticising a male scientist in an open letter and complimenting his biceps and quad development would be.

  141. James Strom says:
    August 6, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    Willis sexist, creepy? I had to check. There are a lot of guys who can’t help themselves, and have to make irrelevant remarks about a good-looking woman. Initially I carelessly thought that that’s what Willis had done. But it’s not the case–writing to Marcia McNutt Willis mentioned her looks as a possible factor making it difficult for her to get honest feedback about her ideas or actions. And since his letter is ostensibly aimed at giving her advice on improving the magazine Science, his comments are quite relevant.

    That said, I wouldn’t have gone there. No matter how relevant the remarks, in our adversarial culture not only would Willis’s opponents not get his point, the would deliberately refuse to see his point because of the wonderful opportunity to call him names. It’s not always prudent to say everything that’s true.

    OK, that is a fair counterpoint.

  142. Jeff Alberts [August 6, 2013 at 7:19 pm] says:

    I haven’t read all 170+ comments, so apologies if someone already mentioned this.

    It seems that the original abbreviation for SkS is more appropriate than we thought. Megalomania, narcissism, and brainwashing seem the order of the day.

    Well I personally agree with you about those two letters being a perfect acronym for those knuckleheads. But it should be made clear that Anthony long ago decided to NOT allow that here in the comments, and it is his website operated under his name, and that’s good enough for me. I’ll use that term at other sites but not here in deference to him since it is his site and reputation he needs to protect.

    In hindsight it looks like he was correct in that decision because of the tendency for so many non-critical thinkers to associate the comments with the site itself as if it is an extension of the beliefs of the site owner. That is fallacious thinking, shallow to the core and in fact is doubly painful because since Anthony does not use that two-letter abbreviation himself he has gone way above and beyond the call of duty to keep the comments clean by frowning upon it. In effect he has laid a trap for them and they walked right into it associating top him something he definitely does not support.

    If the climate kooks at SkS really want to know what’s in the mind of commenters everywhere all they need to do is stop censoring their own forums and simply ask for critical comments of what we think of them.

  143. Sticking to dry technical debate in serious conversations is important. Willis added color commentary to his serious letter, thus harming its tone in my opinion. But when photoshopping or cartooning is the name of the game, all bets are off. That includes me. This tiny Irish in-denial nerd wants a tall, stacked, small waisted Rachael Welsh body. If that kind of fun makes me sexist, gimme a card so I can get into the club.

  144. Pamela Gray says:
    August 6, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    > If that kind of fun makes me sexist, gimme a card so I can get into the club.

    You don’t need a card to get into our club!

  145. arthur4563 says: “Not to be picky, but “Nazi soldiers” is not correct…Generally the ordinary German soldiers despised the Waffen SS soldiers, and that included non-Waffen German generals.”

    True, Arthur. The German armed forces ordinarily used the military salute, as opposed to the Nazi “Heil Five” version. (There were later exceptions at some formal occasions.) Here’s a picture of the captain of the Graf Spee, Hans Langsdorff, attending the on-shore funeral of crew members killed in the battle. Note his salute, the sour expression on the Nazi behind him, and the priests giving the full Nazi salute!

    Here is Admiral Günther Lütjens giving the big AH a military salute to his face in public:

  146. The only creepy aspect is how some prudes are attempting to twist it into a “Casus Belli”

    The inappropriate choice of words was a setup for the take down that followed. He lectured her saying her attributes could doom her to the mushroom syndrome where she is kept in the dark and fed night soil by those she depends on for information, and that she may suffer this completely unaware. Short of calling her a ditsy airhead blond and making a bobble head “ding dong” motion but not by much.

    The offense was that Willis presumed she needed to be told any of this by a south seas islander scuba-diving, ex-cowboy, yachting fisherman turned self-taught climate wonk with millions of page hits to attest to his writing prowess and popularity. I imagine him making big eyes, talking slowly like Al Gore, and making air quotes with his fingers as described in another thread had this exchange taken place mano a mano. And rather than backing off, he’s back hoeing, digging deeper, and growing the circle of offended ladies as he goes. He’s Uncle Bob when he’s challenged. That’s not going to work out well in the long run but he doesn’t care and I don’t care. And what the hell what all that stereotyping about his Irish wife? He would flat fail any corporate behavioral guidelines I’ve lived with for the last 40 years. Casus belli? Hardly, but inappropriate? Oh hell yes. There is another story about what happens when you give a cowboy enough rope…

  147. Christoff Dollis;
    I do not suffer from this particular malady. ;)
    >>>>>>>>>

    Yeah right. Either you are lying to yourself or (no offense intended) you are coming out of the closet. Men are what evolution has made us.

  148. Probably these images are on the SkS server for the same reason they are now on the WUWT server.

    Just a thought.

  149. Christoph Dollis says:
    August 6, 2013 at 10:20 pm
    You so don’t know me, David.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Don’t need to. If you are some sort of exception to the rule, well heh, I’ll take your word for it, you can claim to be anything you want. But for the majority of men, telling a woman she is wrong isn’t how we are wired.

  150. davidmhoffer – well, in a professional environment, it is not wise to tell anyone, male or female, that they are “wrong” in such blunt terms. There are respectful ways of pointing out errors, and as someone who had to manage a bunch of sometimes tetchy and arrogant policy analysts for many years, I had to learn how to do it.

    I can assure you, though, that my male bosses had no hesitation in returning work they were not happy with for a rewrite, no matter who the author was. They didn’t write “you’re wrong!” on it, they just let me know what changes they wanted made. Why would they risk their own credibility by submitting something to the Minister that they were not satisfied with just because they thought the author was kinda cute? It doesn’t work like that in the rigorous and demanding environments that I was employed in. And, the author (whoever it was) learned from that experience, if they were smart and wanted to get ahead.

    BTW, you should try being a female boss and telling a cocky young male subordinate that his work is less than perfect sometime. To say that this sometimes encounters stiff resistance is putting it mildly.

  151. “davidmhoffer says:

    August 6, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    But for the majority of men, telling a woman she is wrong isn’t how we are wired.”

    I’ve been on the receiving end of venomous looks, shrieks, gestures, slaps, punches and words both at the professional and personal levels several times when I have told a woman, justifiably, she was wrong. Wired for it or not, wrong is wrong. Don’t sugar coat the truth!

  152. Rational Db8:

    At August 6, 2013 at 4:23 pm you say to me

    @ richardscourtney says: August 6, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    Thanks for the reply Richard. I’m not really looking for data problems/temperature adjustments, but the claims by AGW promoting scientists that X number of years must go by without warming before AGW itself is discredited… I think the first claim of that nature was either 10 or 12 years pause or decline necessary, then they upped it to 15, then to 17, and now higher… So I was hoping to find an article documenting those wildly different claims and when they occurred, showing how the AGW “climate scientists” keep moving the goalposts as soon as the actual temperature measurements come close to passing their earlier time period of significance type claims.

    Sorry that I misunderstood your question.

    Here is a link to a post I made on WUWT which addresses what I now understand to be your question.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/monckton-on-his-smashing-u-n-wall-of-silence-on-lack-of-warming-and-censure/#comment-1167407

    I hope this answer is starting to provide what you want.

    Richard

  153. I see that the genii at SkS have managed to make the directory non-browsable.

    So they have returned all the images to the orginal location, so the original links to the images work again, but not to the directory.

  154. “Jack Cowper says:

    August 7, 2013 at 12:19 am

    Dana is more like Worzel Gummidge than Dr Who.”

    And Worzel would put on his sensible head when talking about the science of climate change, unlike Dana.

  155. Wow if that is meant to be used against the evil ‘D’ wrongdoers then well SKVD ? soz SKS are really dumb ! the lads on the picture will probably love it and have it framed for the office !

  156. “I can’t think of a single sensible reason they would do that.”

    Spoilt high school brats don’t need a sensible reason, just something that keeps their mind off girls and the activities that go with it.

  157. SandyInLimousin says:
    August 7, 2013 at 12:18 am

    Johanna
    It’s the same for grey beards with cocky youngsters of any sex.
    ———————————
    Sandy, are you suggesting that I have a beard, let alone a grey one? :)

    Actually, I was in my mid 30s when I began doing that job. But, I suppose I seemed ancient to the whippersnapper fresh graduates that I had to lick into shape! And yes, some of the female graduates were just as cocky. But I noticed that some (not all, by any means) of the guys either mistook me for their mother, or resented being pulled into line by a female boss.

    The workplace is a minefield of sexual politics. IMO, the best way to handle it is to be absolutely professional – and that includes being fair and respectful, but firm, in correcting your subordinates.

  158. steveta_uk:

    I see that the genii at SkS have managed to make the directory non-browsable.

    So they have returned all the images to the orginal location, so the original links to the images work again, but not to the directory.

    Priceless!

  159. Re. Photo of Watts, Monckton and Delingpole, I have to say that it is a bit worrying. I mean whoever photoshopped this obviously lies awake at night thinking of said three gents in tight leather underwear and little else! And the spears, what does that say? Yuk, no offence to Watts, Monckton and Delingpole but I am off to bleach that image from my mind.

    All that Nazi stuff? Do they dress up like this when they meet up in their rooms and the grown ups are out? All very very strange!

  160. Since the images were put back, just with the directory no longer listed, you can see all the images if you have the links. I saved an HTML copy of the page when I visited it, and it has every link. If you download it and open it up in your browser, you can click any of them.

    I don’t know if they’ll leave the directory/files up, but as long as they do, that’ll let you easily navigate to them.

  161. Question. If somebody photoshops their face onto a Nazi soldier, is it still wrong to call them a Nazi?

    I don’t think Godwin’s Law applies once you start dressing up as a Nazi.

  162. Brandon Shollenberger says:
    August 7, 2013 at 4:40 am

    > Since the images were put back, just with the directory no longer listed, you can see all the images if you have the links.

    You may be seeing images from your cache. I see from a close-to-the-protocol perspective:

    $ wget http://www.sksforum.org/images/
    –2013-08-07 09:59:45– http://www.sksforum.org/images/
    Resolving http://www.sksforum.org (www.sksforum.org)… 184.154.120.211
    Connecting to http://www.sksforum.org (www.sksforum.org)|184.154.120.211|:80… connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response… 403 Forbidden
    2013-08-07 09:59:45 ERROR 403: Forbidden.

    $ wget http://www.sksforum.org/images/a11g0n3/sks_attacks.jpg
    –2013-08-07 10:04:14– http://www.sksforum.org/images/a11g0n3/sks_attacks.jpg
    Resolving http://www.sksforum.org (www.sksforum.org)… 184.154.120.211
    Connecting to http://www.sksforum.org (www.sksforum.org)|184.154.120.211|:80… connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response… 404 Not Found
    2013-08-07 10:04:15 ERROR 404: Not Found.

    So they’ve blocked the ability to read directories and moved the files elsewhere.

  163. Ric Werme:

    You may be seeing images from your cache.

    I was going off the information provided by steveta_uk. He said the images were back. I didn’t verify that for myself. It’s possible he was wrong. It’s also possible they were back for a little while then moved again.

  164. I really like to concentrate on sticking to a site (here) that espouses science and truth so I have not visited this SKS site or whatever it is. It is mostly due to lack of time for mindless browsing. Am I to take that the site is run by climate alrmists that portend to be climate skeptics to make skeptics be crazy, nazi, gooballs (or whatever)?

  165. In future stories about SkS can we show that portrait of “Herr Cook” and caption it with “Skeptical Science founder John Cook (Source: SkepticalScience.com)”?

    REPLY: No. – Anthony

  166. Rational Db8 says:
    August 6, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    You’re welcome. If there were an originally shorter time frame, you could probably find it in the WUWT archives.

    Re. many comments on Nazis, maybe the SS narcissists prefer German uniforms since burning mass-murdered people is more acceptable (or even beneficial, to reduce “popullution”) to them than those “climate criminals” in the Allied air forces who released tons of carbon dioxide by burning cities.

  167. philjordan: Wasn’t it Prince Harry that thought dressing in a Nazi Uniform was funny as well?

    Same as Mel Brooks. Did you see the video of Hitler figure skating on ice?

  168. Nazi role play in fantasy does seem a very common feature of all kinds of things. We’ve had an MP who resigned for going to a stag party where he dressed up as a nazi. Prince Harry went to a party dressed up as a Nazi. An F1 administrator was stitched up by the NOTW for consorting with ladies of the night who gave discipline to nazis. There’s something rebellious for some, outrageous for others, disciplinarian for yet others.

    Political smearing using nazi allegories would be just about the quickest way to get sacked as a media advisor for a political party. If there really is someone out there with nazi views, far better to let them come out with them of their own accord: they’ll hang themselves in most countries of the world in professional terms when they do. If you have to do that, it really does show you’re desperate. Most of the public are getting tired of ‘all politicians should be the pope’, so serial affairs, even children outside wedlock haven’t eliminate Boris Johnson just yet.They’re a bit more peppery about fiddling expenses and rather hot on hypocrisy. So a rabid Greenpeace supporter driving a gas guzzler would be manna from heaven. A skeptic’s harder to get, since there’s less to pin onto them directly. Best to steer clear of oil funding or tobacco funding unless you have complete editorial control on all publications, publicity and media stunts though.

  169. @ RoyFOMR says: August 6, 2013 at 10:55 am

    For those of those with a strong stomach here’s the link:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/06/climate-change-scientists-moral-obligation

    Anyone who likes clicking that ‘irritating’ Recommend button, to show support for those whose views you agree with, is welcome to join me over there. If you believe in ‘One Mouse, One Vote’ then exercise that right (Script Kiddies are NOT welcome)

    The Guardian did heavy pruning of the comments last night and this morning – including removing three long posts of mine listing all the various eminent scientists who are in fact skeptics – they removed those without trace, after having left them in place for several days. I guess those had gotten too many positive votes, and too clearly proved that there is no 97% consensus.

    And now suddenly I’m on “pre-moderation” which is apparently the “about to be banned” status – even though none of my posts violated their comment standards. It’s clearly a very unabashedly rigged game over there.

  170. @ davidmhoffer says: August 6, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    But for the majority of men, telling a woman she is wrong isn’t how we are wired.

    In my experience as a woman working in a very male dominated, highly technical scientific/engineering field (nuclear), that certainly hasn’t been the case – and they don’t mind doing it in a very public fashion either and often far more so than they would towards other men. What’s worse, after they incorrectly claim you are in error, if you go on to show clearly that you in fact were correct (no matter how politely you do so), those men get very ticked off about it even though they were the ones who erred (or perhaps because they were the ones who erred).

  171. @ richardscourtney says: August 7, 2013 at 12:04 am

    Thank you Richard! Yes, that’s exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, with solid references such as the NOAA quote you used.

  172. Rational Db8 says:
    August 7, 2013 at 9:53 am

    And now suddenly I’m on “pre-moderation” which is apparently the “about to be banned” status – even though none of my posts violated their comment standards. It’s clearly a very unabashedly rigged game over there.

    Yup. Don’t reward them giving you a chance to play on a crooked playing field by playing. Hold out for decent conditions, or take your conversation elsewhere.

  173. I don’t think most people like being told they’re wrong.

    My experience is telling a woman she’s wrong (in a social, not a professional sense, although it can be necessary there too of course if an organisation is to meet its goals) usually gets her attention and earns you points in the end. She may never agree with you, but she respects the fact that you’re not sucking up to her like most every other man is. I think most men are just too gutless with women.

    Now there is a certain type of person who falls to pieces when being told they’re wrong, but I don’t think most women are this way in particular.

  174. Are you in pre-moderation status, Db8? Sometimes a particular word will trigger moderation. For example, this comment of mine just a few moments ago was moderated, but most aren’t.

    Perhaps you are being pre-moderated however. I’ll say that I’ve enjoyed seeing your perspective and while I don’t always agree, you bring important counterpoints and experience to the conversation.

    Unfortunately, there does tend to be too much of a blind echo effect from several commenters from time to time, but I suppose that’s just how it goes.

  175. Wow … does this represent an SkS “Shark” jumping moment or what?

    “Jumping the shark” – from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark :

    Jumping the shark is an idiom created by Jon Hein that was used to describe the moment in the evolution of television show when it begins a decline in quality that is beyond recovery, which is usually a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show in which the writers use some type of “gimmick” in a desperate attempt to keep viewers’ interest.

    .

  176. I have put several comments on the Grauniad 97% article linking to this post. They were all removed as the did not conform to the standards of the site.

    Actually, since most of the commenters have a thought disorder and some have de la Tourette’s syndrome, who cares?

  177. Christoph Dollis says:
    August 7, 2013 at 10:14 am
    Nazi role play in fantasy does seem a very common feature of all kinds of things.
    Yeah, a Jewish girl I know likes it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    OK, you’ve exceeded “creepy” by several orders of magnitude and gone to straight sick.

  178. I find the 300 image very appropriate as it is indicating the extreme minority (300) standing against the vast majority (The Evil Xerxes and his [Persian] Army) But which of the 3 is Leonidas
    Monkton perhaps

  179. All,
    Your “personal experiences” with the matter are immaterial because you have no control to compare against. You can’t say if your experience in a given situation would be worse, better, or the same if the genetic imperative did not exist. It isn’t a black and white issue.

    To get some sense of this requires reading of studies that look at the issue via a variety of techniques to isolate the effect. Sorry, my reading of same is 20 years ago, I have neither links nor references to offer up, but the effect is real, much diminished in some circumstances (life or death decisions for example) and much pronounced in others.

    I find it odd that this has become a central piece of the discussion, because Willis’ transgression in his article is hardly in the same league as being portrayed (by the hand of another or by oneself as the case may be) as a Nazi.

  180. Charlie Chaplin’s portrayal stands the test of time as the best of the mockingly best. Panning Hitler and his SS is by no means lifting them up as paragons of moral virtue and righteousness.

    That said, and knowing history’s final comment on the real Hitler and his troops, as well as the German armed forces of the day, dressing yourself up for real or in photoshopped garb to highlight your supposed prowess as troopers for a cause is laughable!

  181. they didn’t photo shop a still of the heros in the ‘300’ movie… (Watts, Delingpole, Monckton)

    They photo shopped a still of the ‘heros’ in parody of 300 movie, entitled ‘Meet the Spartans’

    thus perhaps thinking, this is how the sceptics think themselves as heros, but in reality just meet the spartans.

    Is that a thin bit of reasoning (and yes, It hurts trying to work out what were they thinking!)..

    well John Cook (Skeptical Science owner and founder) did spend 16 years doing cartoon pardodies of sci fi and fantasy movies.
    his website was called Sev Wide Web (wayback time only now)

    http://web.archive.org/web/20101231044327/http://www.sev.com.au/

    Parodies were ‘Sev Trek, Sev Wars, etc, it’s even got a wiki page by an ex Sev discussion board member…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sev_Wide_Web

  182. BFL says:
    August 6, 2013 at 5:45 pm
    “Sure enough, but it wouldn’t make sense, would it, that Cook and trusted company would allow that content in an SKS file on purpose. So perhaps an inside ringer or a hacker but still (probably) a skeptic (maybe even converted by Watts). For a good conspiracy: the Climate Gate leaker. Of course it’s always more fun to assume that Cook and Co. and/or friends are really that Batsh*t crazy.”

    As I said, it does make sense if they planned to plant their material on skeptics blogs in the hope that they hand it around. After which Diana and Herr John could have played the victim card.
    Planting material is a run of the mill dialectic operation; governments do it all the time to have a pretense to take down operations they don’t like; google “TOR FBI” for the most recent example.
    Looks a little better than outright breaking their own laws; google “Liberty Dollar” for an example of that.
    So when you’re a dissident, and climate skeptics in the west are; you take extra care.
    But Nucci and Cook don’t have enough brains to understand that; so they thought it might just work.

  183. DirkH says:
    August 7, 2013 at 1:12 pm
    ——————–
    Could be.
    Or could be the whole thing was intended to come to light to generate counterfactual nefarious conspiracy ideation and serve as fodder for another study.
    Or is that what they wanted me to think?
    Yeah, I’m paranoid. Doesn’t mean Lewandowsky isn’t out to get me though.

  184. johanna says August 6, 2013 at 11:20 pm

    BTW, you should try being a female boss and telling a cocky young male subordinate that his work is less than perfect sometime. To say that this sometimes encounters stiff resistance is putting it mildly.

    The usual opportunity for doing so being ‘the annual employee review'; one wonders how the more cocky enjoy these ‘sessions’ which befell more than just a few of us? So much more enjoyable is the simple ‘life’ of a contractor (literally: a contract hire) where there isn’t this need to establish ego and look good in front of management for the next step in the process beyond the review (i.e. the “KPA” or Key Personnel Assessment) where the actual money is ‘handed out’ (the stage where management decides where/who gets the raises and the promotions.)

    .

  185. Jim, saving it up till the performance review is bad management practice. It’s like training puppies – you have to give immediate feedback (positive and negative) for good results.

    I loathed PRs as much as my staff did, and we mainly used it as a way of planning the next year’s work and training objectives. Quite often, the would ask me what they could do better, but only in extreme cases did I ever use those sessions as a way of raking over their shortcomings.

  186. Anthony nice rippling pectorals you have there. I’m impressed, with those you should be able to crush any opponent with a mere flex of your arm.

    Oh and anyone who found Willis’ open letter creepy needs their head examined.

  187. Delingpole will have a field day with this story, can’t wait for his take on it.

  188. Nice One:

    re your post at August 7, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    The only things “creepy” about your having posted that link are that anyone would want to make such a sexually deviant photoshop construction and that a creep would want to link to it.

    Richard

  189. I hardly ever write commentary, nevertheless I
    looked through quite a number of reviews here at Skeptical Science takes creepy to a whole
    new level | Watts Up With That? and had a couple of important questions for you if you wouldn’t mind. Could it possibly be just me or do quite a few of the remarks look as if they could be generated from really dumb people? And, if you’re article writing on some supplemental webpages,
    I wish to stay in touch with you. Could you put up a list of
    all of the social media sites such as your linkedin user profile,
    Facebook site or twitter feed?

  190. Natasha:

    At August 8, 2013 at 12:14 am you ask concerning posts in this thread

    Could it possibly be just me or do quite a few of the remarks look as if they could be generated from really dumb people?

    It is just you.

    Things always seem “dumb” when you lack the intelligence and/or wit to understand them.

    Richard

  191. Jonathan Jones:

    Thankyou very much indeed for your post to me at August 8, 2013 at 4:03 am.

    Yes, You are right! Thankyou.

    And I add a warning that others should avoid the link and avoid providing the personal invitation the spam robot requested.

    I wonder if the expected new WUWT system would be able to prevent such devices posting on WUWT.

    Richard

  192. Well, I admire their honesty in ‘coming out’ and what legal activity they partake in behind their own doors is no concern of mine (including their Gladiator, Nazi and Megolamania fetish).

    Perhaps a discreet email (with a link to a therapist) requesting they keep their Gladiator and Nazi uniform fetish pictures to their own homes and bedrooms wouldn’t go amiss.

    Somehow ‘sick’ just doesn’t cut it.

    SkS (SS) who knew?

  193. AlexS:

    Neither Nazis nor Communists are socialists. Only a Nazi could be deluded into thinking they were.

    Richard

  194. richardscourtney says:
    August 8, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    Neither Nazis nor Communists are socialists. Only a Nazi could be deluded into thinking they were.

    Richard,

    I’ve always held you in the highest respect, still do, for your obvious brains and integrity. Since it seems extremely implausible to me that a man of you intelligence and character could possibly mean by the term ‘socialist’ the same thing I mean when I say ‘socialist’, I’ve always shrugged this difference off. Actually, I’ve wished for the opportunity to discuss this with you on some more appropriate forum, so I could come to understand your perspective, I’ve never thought WUWT was the appropriate forum for this.
    I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I don’t think I’m a Nazi, and I can’t say I understand the distinction you are making. I would prefer to believe that I am ignorant from your perspective, and I have evidence that leads me to believe that I don’t understand what you mean when you use the word socialism, but regardless; I don’t understand the distinction and I don’t think that makes me a Nazi.

    As always, very best regards sir.

    Mark

  195. Although my comments above regarding a Gladiator and Nazi uniform fetish and megalomania were made ‘tongue in cheek’ can anyone think of a logical explanation why they would photoshop pictures of themselves onto Nazi uniforms?

    All they need in addition to prove the megalomania is a few mad scientist and doctor members……oh……..now they’re busted!

  196. @richardscourtney, I see the blending of Joanne Nova and our likely future PM, Tony Abbott as he famously paraded about one day. The sexual slant is of your own making. Say more about you than it does about me.

  197. @DirkH says:
    August 7, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    Wow! Your conspiracy theory is much better than mine. Congrats!
    Juvenile is as juvenile does.
    /Sarc

  198. richardscourtney says:
    August 8, 2013 at 1:50 pm
    AlexS:

    Neither Nazis nor Communists are socialists. Only a Nazi could be deluded into thinking they were.

    It’s a spectrum disorder.

  199. Merovign:

    re your post at August 8, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1385050

    Yes, I think you must be right when you say

    It’s a spectrum disorder.

    On WUWT American right-wingers
    * have repeatedly claimed H1tler was left-wing (yes, really, they have),
    * have asserted that socialists are communists and naz1s (when socialism, communism, and naz11ism are each mutually exclusive),
    * have accused me of being “an excuser of Stalin”,
    * have repeatedly – including on this thread – said I and all other socialists are naz1s and communists.

    Each of these claims and assertions is so wrong as to be silly. Taken together they show such a distorted world-view that it amounts to insanity.

    Indeed, in this thread we have an example of me and other socialists being called Naz1s and communists with the name-callers taking offence when I replied, “No, you are”.

    The name-callers obviously fail to recognise that the gross misrepresentation and insult is at least equally untrue and offensive when they make it against socialist and I make it against them. Indeed, it can be said to be more offensive when addressed against socialists because Naz1s attempted to exterminate socialists: the name-callers would not dare to make the same assertion about Jews whom the Naz1s subjected to the same treatment as socialists.

    Richard

  200. Richard,

    On WUWT American right-wingers
    * have repeatedly claimed H1tler was left-wing (yes, really, they have),
    * have asserted that socialists are communists and naz1s (when socialism, communism, and naz11ism are each mutually exclusive),
    * have accused me of being “an excuser of Stalin”,
    * have repeatedly – including on this thread – said I and all other socialists are naz1s and communists.

    I do not assert that socialists are communists or Nazis. I do not accuse you of being an excuser of Stalin. I do not suggest that you are either a Nazi or a communist.

    However, I must again protest that I do not believe it is insane not to understand whatever perspective you proceed from. Let me ignore the issues surrounding the term ‘left wing’, as my working definition has been based on inference from popular usage and is quite possibly without reasonable basis. Instead, let’s examine the source of my confusion regarding the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ (I apologize for using Wikipedia as my source. I got up to look for my old copy of ‘the Communist Manifesto’ and can’t locate it. Still, if memory serves I don’t think it misrepresents what Marx wrote, so from the Wikipedia article on Communism, paragraph three):

    According to Marxist theory, higher-phase communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to access abundance to final goods, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals.[5][6] Marxist theory holds that the lower-phase of communism, colloquially referred to as socialism, being the new society established after the overthrow of capitalism, is a transitional stage in human social evolution and will give rise to a fully communist society, in which remuneration and the division of labor are no longer present.

    Obviously, socialism and communism are not identical, and anyone suggesting otherwise should examine the terms more closely. However, according to Karl Marx they are related. Socialism according to Marx is a transitional stage precursor to communism.

    I understand that it is entirely possible that you disagree with these distinctions and or definitions laid down by Marxist theory. I will not venture to say you are incorrect. However, once again, I will suggest that it is not unreasonable that people do not understand the distinctions you are making. Merely because they are good clear crystal to you does not mean they are comprehensible to people in general, right wing Americans in particular.

    Best regards.

  201. Mark Bofill:

    I am replying to your post at August 9, 2013 at 11:23 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1385628

    Thankyou for your enquiring message which is a stark contrast to the abusive and offensive posts often directed at me when this subject occurs on WUWT.

    I am willing to discuss the matter here in this thread which is about people who using photoshop to pretend a political position . Hence, this is a thread where discussion of political philosophies is not far off-topic.

    I think your final paragraph discusses the crux of the matter. It says

    I understand that it is entirely possible that you disagree with these distinctions and or definitions laid down by Marxist theory. I will not venture to say you are incorrect. However, once again, I will suggest that it is not unreasonable that people do not understand the distinctions you are making. Merely because they are good clear crystal to you does not mean they are comprehensible to people in general, right wing Americans in particular.

    OK. You make a good point so I will try to excplain.

    Marx attempted to describe certain political philosophies, and he was plain wrong to suggest that socialism is a stage on the way to communism.

    A decade ago David Wojik and I had a debate about socialism in a series of editions of a right-wing American publication. (Incidentally, David and I are both AGW sceptics).

    David is a right-wing American libertarian and he IS a Marxist.
    I am a left-wing British socialist and I am NOT a Marxist.
    The initial response of the readership was great confusion concerning what we had written.

    Marx attempted to describe political philosophies with simplified descriptions. He summarised the tenet of socialism as being
    “From each according to ability and to each according to need”.
    This is a reasonable summary because it provides an ability to clearly state the basic tenets of other political philosophies.

    For example, the basic tenet of communism can be expressed as being
    “From all according to ability and to all according to need”.

    And the basic tenet of fascism can be expressed as being
    “From the State according to government decision and to all according to government desire”.

    It is important to note that socialism predates Marx who published Das Kapital in 1867.

    Socialism began with the Tolpuddle Martyrs who founded a “Friendly Society” in the Dorset village of Tolpuddle in the 1820s. The Martyrs were a group of Methodist lay preachers who objected to cuts in the subsistence pay of agricultural workers. They established a “Friendly Society” (a fore-runner of modern trade unions) and organised a strike against the pay cuts using the slogan,
    “Christ said the labourer is worthy of his hire”.
    For this they were deported to Australia.

    Their Methodist Chapel in Tolpuddle is now a museum of their struggle and an annual rally is held in Tolpuddle when socialists from around the world assemble to celebrate them. Wicki provides a reasonable account of the Tolpuddle Martyrs at

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolpuddle_Martyrs

    It is often said that “socialism owes more to Methodism than to Marx”, and this is certainly true.

    Although there are no formal links between Methodism and any political party, Methodists continue to be influential in the UK’s socialist Labour Party. For example, in 1997 the Methodist Synod had elected Paul Boateng as the Vice President of the Methodist Conference (i.e. the governing body of the Methodist Church in England and Wales) and he was a Member of the Executive Committee of the Labour Party. The Labour Party won the 1997 General Election so Tony Blair became Prime Minister and appointed Boateng to a Government Cabinet Office hence Boateng had to stand down as Methodist Vice-President.

    The principles of socialism are adopted from Methodist Christianity so it should not surprise that socialism adopts a care for individuals (Methodists hold to a doctrine of individual salvation). Indeed, socialism is an extreme form of individualism in that it insists society should meet the unique needs of each individual as far as is possible while expecting each individual to contribute to society.

    It is this form of individualism which Karl Marx summarised as being “From each according to ability and to each according to need”. This individualism is the antithesis of communism which attempts to treat everyone in the same way (but does not).

    Marx had an economic theory which is known as Marxism. Some socialists are Marxist but most are not.

    Importantly, Marx concluded that his economic ideas predicted collectiveism to be an inevitable outcome of industrialised society. From this he predicted that the societal nature of socialism would induce socialists to ‘evolve’ into communists. It is clear that his conclusion and his prediction have proven to be wrong.

    Socialism attempts to provide the needs of individuals. I have learned from comments in WUWT threads that some Americans fail to discern the difference between “needs” and “desires”. This failure is strange because most infants learn that difference from their parents whatever the politics of those parents.

    A need is something which assists the development of a person. A desire is something a person wants for personal gratification. Maximising the development of all individuals benefits everyone in a society and the society as a whole. A socialist society attempts to provide needs to each of its members and leaves the fulfilment of desires to the members.

    For example, a young person may show intellectual capability for higher education (e.g. by passing exams). A socialist society attempts to provide the young person with what he needs to obtain the education. This may be in the form of a financial loan or grant. But money may not be the need – or not the only need – the young person requires. Perhaps his parents are infirm and he provides care for them. In this case, society attempts to provide the care for his parents which can release him to conduct his studies. Hence, society obtains education of all its most able potential students.

    Typically, an educated person obtains higher paid employment than an uneducated person. People with high incomes can afford to pay more in taxes than low paid people. In other words, people with large incomes have more ability to pay taxes so society takes more in taxes from them to meet the costs of providing the needs of e.g. poor students.

    This is NOT transferring wealth from the rich to the poor. It is assessing individual needs and abilities.

    Socialism does NOT have equalisation of wealth, power and/or prestige as objectives. On the contrary, socialism has the objective of treating each person on the basis of his or her needs and abilities.

    For example, when the Queen (and the Royal Family) were in difficulties during the Dianna Affair it was the socialist Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who came to her aid. Every individual’s needs are important be he/she rich, poor, powerful, weak, healthy or infirm.

    However, not all needs can be met and not all contributions according to ability can be obtained.

    The first problem is cost. The state of the economy sets limits on activities. Hence, the first priority of a socialist government has to be growth of the economy. And it is self-defeating to fulfil needs to a degree such that economic growth is inhibited: fewer needs will be met from a smaller economy. Similarly, taking too much tax from the rich is self-defeating. The rich emigrate if too highly taxed and, thus, society loses its most productive individuals.

    The next problem is competing needs. For example, business people require minimal costs so they need freedom to operate their businesses as they desire. But disabled people need access to business premises if they are to seek employment. Should business people be allowed to operate in premises without wheelchair access to obtain their need for low costs? Or should their premises all be fitted with wheelchair access which would meet the need of disabled people to compete for jobs?

    The latter example demonstrates the importance of voting to socialism. Democratic votes enable society as a whole to elect politicians whose manifestos state the balance of needs they would implement.

    And politicians need fair elections. Hence, socialists set limits to the expenditure each politician may spend on electioneering. Hence, everybody has an equal chance of informing the electorate of their election campaign and objectives.

    I hope this brief explanation provides sufficient introduction to the origins, principles, and conduct of socialism.

    Richard

  202. Richard,

    Thank you very much for your response. I can’t yet say that I even know whether or not this answers all of my questions, but as you say, it appears to be a good introduction to your views. I appreciate your time and effort in clarifying the matter, and I’ll certainly spend some time re-reading and thinking through what you’ve said.

    Mark

  203. richardscourtney says:….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thank you for clarifying your position. All the confusion is why I prefer to label myself ‘A Civilized Human’

    When you look at the Republicans (often called the “Religious Right’) you find Republican states are more generous.

    Red states – Republican-voting states – are more generous than blue states – Democratic-voting states.
    Based on a study of the 2008 data from the Internal Revenue Service of taxpayers,…

    The study found that middle-class Americans (households with earned income between $50,000 and $75,000) were more generous than households that earned $100,000 or more.

    A key factor in charitable giving was religion.

    “Religion has a big influence on giving patterns,” said the Chronicle. “Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not.”

    http://www.ethicsdaily.com/republican-states-give-more-to-charity-than-democratic-states-cms-19923

    By your definitions, one could almost conclude Democrats, being in favor of Big Government, are more ‘Fascist’ and Middle class Republicans, being more generous are more ‘Socialist’ and doesn’t that muddy the heck out of the waters.

    I do have one nit to pick. You say

    Socialism began with the Tolpuddle Martyrs who founded a “Friendly Society” in the Dorset village of Tolpuddle in the 1820s.

    However that is not true. Socialism as you describe it grew out of Christian Altruism. And can bee seen at work her in the America with the pilgrims coming to America and and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21.

    According to the governor of the colony, William Bradford,

    In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

    ….After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

    This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

    This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

    To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

    Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

    Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was “plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure.” He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, “we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”
    link

    If we go back to the bible, Jesus says:

    Deuteronomy 15:7-11

    “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart…”

    However I prefer the Chinese Proverb:
    “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

    That is why when my husband and I are entertaining children we emphasize the importance of LEARNING. I am happy to say that some of ‘our kids’ have actually come back years later to thank us for changing their lives by making them realize poverty is a mindset and the key out is education. And also to remind them learning is not just university but also trades like electrician or plumbing, or carpentry or auto mechanics, something academia never bothers to mention.

  204. Gail Combs says:
    August 12, 2013 at 7:33 am

    richardscourtney says:….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Utopian socialism began as a French philosophical movement, which spread to Britain. Aristocrat Henri de Saint-Simon coined the term “socialism” c. 1817, & Charles Fourier developed a sometimes unintentionally hilarious plan for putting the philosophy into practice.

    But the cockamamie crackpot scheme can’t be tarred as totally French. Welsh industrialist & social reformer Robert Owen from 1825 actually tried to create socialist communities in the UK & US. So IMO socialism predates Tolpuddle, which does of course figure in the history of trade unionism.

    Saint-Simon had fought at Yorktown, but ineptly attempted suicide when socialism failed to catch on. (Through his collaborator Comte he indirectly influenced Durkheim, an early sociologist & student of suicide.) His last work was “New Christianity”.

    Gail is right that communitarianism didn’t last long in colonial America, as a matter of survival. Stealing from the indigenous people of Virginia & Massachusetts did not improve relations with the “naturals”. Socialism is based upon theft, as those with ability rarely contribute everything they produce voluntarily. So for communities larger & more closely related than a family it has never worked & can never work, although states with great natural resources or a pool of suckers from whom to borrow can muddle along for a while.

  205. The team at Skeptical Science has been discussed in the context of the Third Reich on several occasions which they have noted on their website. http://bit.ly/15v3adY This could explain but not justify or forgive their creepy and ugly behavior.

  206. richardscourtney says:
    August 9, 2013 at 12:45 am
    “The name-callers obviously fail to recognise that the gross misrepresentation and insult is at least equally untrue and offensive when they make it against socialist and I make it against them. Indeed, it can be said to be more offensive when addressed against socialists because Naz1s attempted to exterminate socialists”

    When one tribe of nutcases tries to exterminate another tribe of nutcases, does this make one of them right (wing)?

    Non sequitor.

    Lenin&Trotzky toppled a social democrat government in St Petersburg. Does that make them right wing?

  207. Gail Combs and milodonharlani:

    Thankyou for your posts at August 12, 2013 at 7:33 am and August 12, 2013 at 8:29 am, respectively
    i.e. the respective posts at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387615

    and

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387638

    Firstly, I am grateful that you both – like Mark Bofill – have expressed rational opinions and not abuse. We can learn from each other by honestly stating our agreements and disagreements. But nobody can learn from the mud-slinging which has typified previous discussions of this subject on WUWT.

    And I intend no offence by replying to both of you in this one post. I do this for clarity because you each focus on the same point; viz. whether socialism originated with the Tolpuddle Martyrs or predates them.

    I agree there are examples of attempts at communism prior to the Tolpuddle Martyrs. Indeed, the earliest account of which I am aware is in the Bible (Acts 4:32-5:12), and that failed attempt was two millennia ago.

    The problem you both identify with all those failed attempts at communism was their utopian nature which assumed communism was a practical possibility. But it is a utopian delusion to pretend people do not have personal desires, greed and a propensity to ‘game’ any system. The American example of “the pilgrims coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21” provides a very clear illustration of why such early attempts failed. I find it interesting that their experience is a direct analogue of the failure of the Biblical example nearly two millennia earlier when those “pilgrims” claimed to know the Bible.

    However, in my post

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1385725

    I was NOT discussing communism in any of its forms. I was discussing socialism, and as I said

    socialism is an extreme form of individualism in that it insists society should meet the unique needs of each individual as far as is possible while expecting each individual to contribute to society.

    It is this form of individualism which Karl Marx summarised as being “From each according to ability and to each according to need”. This individualism is the antithesis of communism which attempts to treat everyone in the same way (but does not).

    Of course, various forms of communism still exist; e.g. in Cuba, Vietnam and China. But – in my opinion – they are not purely communist. None of them is socialist, and none of them attempts to be socialist; indeed, they each claim to have developed beyond socialism in their endeavour to be communist.

    So, I stand by my contention that socialism originates with the Tolpuddle Martyrs.

    I know of no socialist society which has failed (although different versions of socialism have differed in their success).

    Additionally,I dispute the assertion of milodonharlani which says

    Socialism is based upon theft, as those with ability rarely contribute everything they produce voluntarily.

    If they gained what they have (e.g. their opportunities and/or education) from society then they are the thieves if they refuse to repay some of what they owe to society. Thieves rarely voluntarily repay what they owe.

    Richard

  208. philjourdan:

    I objected to the obscene post from Dirk H at August 12, 2013 at 10:18 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387679

    which replied to my having pointed out that Naz1s attempted to exterminate socialists by his saying

    When one tribe of nutcases tries to exterminate another tribe of nutcases, does this make one of them right (wing)?

    Non sequitor.

    You have replied asking

    #1 – How is it offensive?

    Calling socialists “nut cases” is abusive and untrue.
    And it is obscene to imply that attempted genocide of socialists (or any others) is inconsequential.
    Needing to have that explained demonstrates a dangerous lack of moral compass.

    Also, the non sequitor is in the question. I pointed out that it is silly and offensive to claim socialists are Naz1s when the Naz1s tried to exterminate socialists. Naz1s are right wing because they claim some people are entitled to more rights than others. Their attempted genocides are one example of this.

    And Dirk H asked

    Lenin&Trotzky toppled a social democrat government in St Petersburg. Does that make them right wing?

    You have replied asking

    #2 – Do you disagree with his example? if so, please explain.

    His “example” is daft. It has no meaning and/or rational. Governments are often toppled by opponents but that says nothing about the political philosopies of those who topple governments.

    I disagree with all nonsense and “his example” is ludicrous nonsense.

    Richard

    • With all due respect Richard, calling socialists “nut cases” is not always offensive. Unless you think that by calling yourself a socialist you are immune from stupid actions and words. I hold the opposing view. What you call yourself does not exempt you from being a “nut case”.

      Second, he was clearly demonstrating that the mere “attacking” of one political class does not exempt you from being in that class. He pointed out Lenin/Trotsky, but could just have easily pointed out Trotsky/Stalin (and don’t forget China’s gang of 4). In both cases, socialists attacked and killed socialists. The example is very appropriate. And if your total summation that the Nazis were right wing because “some were more equal”, I direct you again to George Orwell (1984), the old Soviet Union, and the current North Korea. We can debate it if you like, but to dismiss it out of hand is disingenuous.

      I have yet to see any right wing manifesto that dictates some people are more equal than others. So while that plank of the Nazi platform is not in and of itself left wing, I would need some evidence that it is right wing. Monarchical yes. But I do not see Prince Charles as a right winger.

  209. Richard and others – I care little about the finer points of any particular definition of right, left, Nazi or Communist, and would rather see this discussion taken off line. I abhor totalitarian regimes such as those named here. There are bad people out there, some of whom will try to kill me, while others will simply try to take away the small amount of wealth that I have accumulated using illegal or legal means. Said regimes simply added the overtly violent taking of lives, to the appropriation of citizens’ assets. The current problems are, in my opinion, the bribing of voters with their own money, and the terrorizing of all citizens by NGOs with money from megalomaniac tycoons, populist wimp governments and useful idiots at large. Be afraid of them!

  210. mark fraser:

    re your post at August 12, 2013 at 10:59 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387750

    addressed to me and others.

    For the record, I strongly agree with you.

    However, I am answering questions put to me by people who clearly do not understand totalitarianism can be imposed by adherents to any political philosophy. Totalitarianism is a great evil. Furthermore, some of the questioners think totalitarianism is only imposed by adherents to certain political philosophies: that thought leads to the Serbian experience.

    In my opinion, AGW is a tool being used by persons who seek to obtain totalitarianism.

    Richard

    • @Richard:

      Furthermore, some of the questioners think totalitarianism is only imposed by adherents to certain political philosophies

      I do not see anyone trying to link totalitarianism with any particular political philosophy. I see many assigning some blame to one or the other, but not all.

  211. richardscourtney says: @ August 12, 2013 at 10:03 am
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    From what I have read, the scoundrels, thieves and empire builders thrive on chaos and intentionally steal a word with positive connotations and apply it to themselves in order to give themselves access to the ‘moral high ground’ From what you are saying this seems to be the case with the ‘Classic Socialist’ and why I use the term a ‘Civilized Human’ instead. (If you are not civilized then you are not concerned about your neighbors and the rest of your society that is you apply the law of the jungle.)

    E. M. Smith touches on this propensity of the scoundrels and thieves to rebrand themselves.

    I Am A Liberal
    I’m about 2/3 of the way through “The Road To Serfdom” by F.A. von Hayak edited by Bruce Caldwell….

    Amazon Listing

    To say it is “A Good Book” would be to call The Mona Lisa a “Good Painting”……

    A Question Of Words

    One of the topics covered in the forward is the distinction between a Classical Liberal and the Progressive recast in sheep’s clothing as a Social Liberal and how, especially in the USA, these two are substantially exact opposites. In the USA, “Liberal” has been “found out” as being essentially “code words” for ‘Closet Socialist’, so much so that some “Liberals” have begun calling themselves “Progressives” again. They had originally run from Progressive after it got a bit of a bad name. But like most rebrandings of a poor product, it only works so long, and they are back to the need to ‘rebrand’. But I digress…

    So, a Classical Liberal was all for Liberty. Free markets, individual rights. All that good stuff. As I understand it, that definition still holds in places like the UK and Australia. (Probably everywhere outside the USA?). Inside the USA, Social Liberal has become shortened to “Liberal” with all that this implies for the confounding of understanding when reading any economic history from prior to about 1950….

    Hopefully this discussion will get everyone to pause and think about what these labels actually mean and whether they actually apply since in may cases they mean the opposite of what you thought they meant at least to the person you are discussing or to whom you are talking.

    Ain’t propaganda great?

    Me? I am sticking with Civilized Human since I don’t like any of the labels.

  212. Gail Combs:

    Your post at August 12, 2013 at 11:46 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387800

    begins by saying to me

    From what I have read, the scoundrels, thieves and empire builders thrive on chaos and intentionally steal a word with positive connotations and apply it to themselves in order to give themselves access to the ‘moral high ground’

    Yes.
    People who want to hide their true nature claim to be other than they are. And that is why a ‘Rule of Thumb’ is that any country with “Democratic” or “Socialist” in its title is not democratic or socialist.

    Richard

  213. richardscourtney says:
    August 12, 2013 at 10:03 am

    Additionally,I dispute the assertion of milodonharlani which says

    Socialism is based upon theft, as those with ability rarely contribute everything they produce voluntarily.

    If they gained what they have (e.g. their opportunities and/or education) from society then they are the thieves if they refuse to repay some of what they owe to society. Thieves rarely voluntarily repay what they owe.

    —————————

    What is “society”, to your mind? Is it civil society, or government, the Leviathan?

    If people who work & create benefited from programs funded by the charity or enforced taxes, then surely their own taxes repay that “debt”. Those who owe a debt to “society” are they who take more than they give, although capable of doing more. A society rewarding sloth & criminality is doomed.

    User taxes, sales taxes, ie taxing consumption rather than work, & tariffs instead income or wealth taxes provide for public needs while promoting beneficial behavior. No government regime is smart enough or altruistic enough to make decisions for large, complex economies with tens to hundreds of millions of people. Only the market can do that, through the economic decisions of everyone. Economic freedom is the flip side of political freedom. Governments are composed of people, hence inherently self-serving & blundering at best but more often actively evil.

    Socialism requires other people’s money to fund the programs which statists wish to impose. Giving other people “free” stuff is not only immoral but sure eventually to fail. The welfare states of the world are running out of OPM. Those which haven’t failed yet are sure to sooner rather than later.

    Socialism is fundamentally no different from communism or fascism, however methods of control may vary. Both rest upon coercion & ultimately require turning whole nation-states into the functional equivalent of prisons.

    What works is encouraging productive behavior, which generates wealth to be taxed or given as charity for the benefit of the few people who really can’t help themselves. Nations should not presume to do what their provinces can do better; provinces should not do what local governments ought; local governments should not do what communities can do better; communities should not do what private charitable organization ought, & private groups shouldn’t do what families & individuals ought.

    In this way both public virtue & economic growth are related, although of course the only way to create wealth is through harnessing private “greed”.

    What would you call the socialism that IYO began at Tolpuddle? Cooperative? Owen was already doing that on a much larger scale.

  214. richardscourtney says: @ August 12, 2013 at 10:44 am

    ….Also, the non sequitor is in the question. I pointed out that it is silly and offensive to claim socialists are Naz1s when the Naz1s tried to exterminate socialists. Naz1s are right wing because they claim some people are entitled to more rights than others. Their attempted genocides are one example of this.…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I am not sure I would classify Naz1s as right wing especially since they had the support of the Fabian Socialists in the UK. On the other hand I wouldn’t call the Fabian Socialists, socialist by your definition either.

    Again I rather step out of the box all together and define governments by one criteria. Those where the individual has natural or God given rights and agrees to form a government and ALLOWS the government to make laws on their behalf. The other types of governments are based on the principle that the Government grants individuals ‘privileges’ that it can remove at any time and the needs of the community as a whole (read the government leaders) trump the rights of an individual.

    The second type of government is often thought of as Communist, Fascist, Corporatism, religious Theocracy and ‘Socialist’ at least in the USA. This is from the twisting of the meaning of words.

    For example Mother Jones did an interview with Dwayne Andreas, then CEO of Archer Daniels Midland Co.

    …. Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”

    It might seem odd that a man with personal assets well into nine figures would be so quick to hoist the red flag of socialism over the American heartland. But Andreas is essentially right. Agriculture is the last industry where the U.S. government so routinely sets prices and determines production levels, a complex arena in which doing business often has more to do with influencing legislation than with responding to supply and demand. Prospering in this environment is ADM’s forte…..

    For all ADM’s size, the question now is not whether the government can survive without ADM but whether ADM can survive without the government. Three subsidies that the company relies…

    The first subsidy is the Agriculture Department’s corn-price support program….

    Of more benefit to ADM is the Agriculture Department’s sugar program. The program runs like a mini-OPEC: setting prices, limiting production, and forcing Americans to spend $1.4 billion per year more for sugar, according to the General Accounting Office….

    The third subsidy that ADM depends on is the 54-cent-per-gallon tax credit the federal government allows to refiners of the corn-derived ethanol used in auto fuel. For this subsidy, the federal government pays $3.5 billion over five years. Since ADM makes 60 percent of all the ethanol in the country, the government is essentially contributing $2.1 billion to ADM’s bottom line. No other subsidy in the federal government’s box of goodies is so concentrated in the hands of a single company…..

    The grease–or perhaps oleo–that helps keep these kinds of programs going is the money Andreas, his family, his company, and his company’s subsidiaries provide politicians who have influence over agricultural policy.

    Perhaps America’s champion all-time campaign contributor is Dwayne Orville Andreas.

    Both Mother Jones and Andreas call the government/ADM back-scratching ‘Socialism.’ I would call it Corporate-Government Collusion or perhaps Corporatism and even that word morphs in meaning. This is especially true since the large corporations via the Government-industry revolving door run the bureaucracies that are supposed to police them so it is tough to tell where the corporations ends and the government begins. Therefore it is a heck of a lot easier to point out the actions than to label them correctly.

    For example: Corporatism

    Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies are known as corporations (not necessarily the business model known as a ‘corporation’, though such businesses are not excluded from the definition either). Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When the political and economic power of a country rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place….

    Corporatism is also used to describe a condition of corporate-dominated globalization. Points enumerated by users of the term in this sense include the prevalence of very large, multinational corporations that freely move operations around the world in response to corporate, rather than public, needs; the push by the corporate world to introduce legislation and treaties which would restrict the abilities of individual nations to restrict corporate activity; and similar measures to allow corporations to sue nations over “restrictive” policies, such as a nation’s environmental regulations that would restrict corporate activities.

    In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying including many non-business groups, unions, membership organizations, and non-profits. While these groups have no official membership in any legislative body, they can often wield considerable power over law-makers. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act.
    Many critics of free market theories, such as George Orwell, have argued that corporatism (in the sense of an economic system dominated by massive corporations) is the natural result of free market capitalism.

    Critics of capitalism often argue that any form of capitalism would eventually devolve into corporatism, due to the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. A permutation of this term is corporate globalism. John Ralston Saul argues that most Western societies are best described as corporatist states, run by a small elite of professional and interest groups, that exclude political participation from the citizenry.

    Other critics say that they are pro-capitalist, but anti-corporatist. They support capitalism but only when corporate power is separated from state power. These critics can be from both the right and the left….

    http://corporatism.askdefine.com/

    ARRRRrrggh! ~ No wonder that purists like my husband want to tear their hair out when words are used incorrectly.

  215. mark fraser says:
    August 12, 2013 at 10:59 am

    Richard and others – I care little about the finer points of any particular definition of right, left, Nazi or Communist, and would rather see this discussion taken off line…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Words have meaning and can hurt. They are also used to manipulate people. Since WUWT gets labeled ‘Right-wing nuts’ or ‘Anti-environmentalists’ or ‘Anti-science’ more often than not clarification is needed. Often those who think of themselves as ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ or ‘Capitalist’ or “Socialist’ have a heck of a lot more in common than they think and it is about time we figured that out.

    Those labels are intentionally used by the thieving manipulators and their puppets to divide men of good will so a bit of clarification is in order.

    In a post a month or so ago when someone was calling WUWT a nest of ‘Right-wing nuts’ or something to that effect, I mentioned Richard was a socialist and the detractor of WUWT jumped down my throat saying I was lying…. Oh to have had this discussion to link to then.

  216. milodonharlani:

    I am replying to your post at August 12, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387831

    You ask me

    What is “society”, to your mind? Is it civil society, or government, the Leviathan?

    I do not know what you mean by “the Leviathan” so I cannot answer that. However, a “society” can be a family, a golf club, a trade union, or many other groups of people.

    In the context of this discussion, society is a nation state or a locality subject to a local government.

    You say to me

    If people who work & create benefited from programs funded by the charity or enforced taxes, then surely their own taxes repay that “debt”. Those who owe a debt to “society” are they who take more than they give, although capable of doing more. A society rewarding sloth & criminality is doomed.

    Yes, I said that in my post addressed to Mark Bofill at August 9, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1385725

    And I there explained that socialism works because it recognises these factors and attempts to address them. I was not discussing communism so I did not mention that these factors form the basic reason why communism fails.

    You say

    User taxes, sales taxes, ie taxing consumption rather than work, & tariffs instead income or wealth taxes provide for public needs while promoting beneficial behavior. No government regime is smart enough or altruistic enough to make decisions for large, complex economies with tens to hundreds of millions of people. Only the market can do that, through the economic decisions of everyone. Economic freedom is the flip side of political freedom.

    Mostly, yes, and I said that, too. But you add

    Governments are composed of people, hence inherently self-serving & blundering at best but more often actively evil.

    I disagree that “Governments are composed of people, hence inherently self-serving & blundering at best but more often actively evil.” Some people so some governments are “inherently self-serving & blundering at best but more often actively evil”, but most are not.

    You have my sympathy if most people you know are “actively evil”: do you work in a high security prison?

    You falsely assert

    Socialism requires other people’s money to fund the programs which statists wish to impose.

    NO! Read what I wrote.

    And you add

    Giving other people “free” stuff is not only immoral but sure eventually to fail. The welfare states of the world are running out of OPM. Those which haven’t failed yet are sure to sooner rather than later.

    That displays a complete misunderstanding.
    Investing in the development of each individual in society is NOT “Giving other people “free” stuff”. It is maximising the benefit of living in the society for each and every member of the society.
    No socialist society has “failed” and – excluding external intervention such as military invasion – there is no reason to think any will fail.

    Failure to develop the individuals who comprise society leads to societal collapse; e.g. Detroit.

    You then make a set of ridiculous assertions saying

    Socialism is fundamentally no different from communism or fascism, however methods of control may vary. Both rest upon coercion & ultimately require turning whole nation-states into the functional equivalent of prisons.

    Each and every statement in that quotation is plain wrong. And the equation of socialism with communism and fascism is not only untrue but it is also gratuitously offensive

    Perhaps it is not surprising that the assertion about “the functional equivalent of prisons” comes from someone in the USA (a land where people like to think they are free) and is addressed to someone in the UK (a land where people are free).

    You then say

    What works is encouraging productive behavior, which generates wealth to be taxed or given as charity for the benefit of the few people who really can’t help themselves. Nations should not presume to do what their provinces can do better; provinces should not do what local governments ought; local governments should not do what communities can do better; communities should not do what private charitable organization ought, & private groups shouldn’t do what families & individuals ought. In this way both public virtue & economic growth are related

    Of course “encouraging productive behaviour” is important and so is enabling productive behaviour. This is why socialism is both successful for a nation as a whole and beneficial to all its members. You seem to think it is beneficial to fail to develop the most able to be productive; e.g. by depriving them of education unless they have rich families. It is not.

    And charity is good. Socialism does not prevent and does not inhibit it. But socialism attempts to meet the needs of everyone whether or not they obtain charity.

    Many families and individuals do not do what you think they “ought”. Indeed, your wishful thinking is the same utopian mistake which makes communism impractical.

    You continue saying

    , although of course the only way to create wealth is through harnessing private “greed”.

    Yes, and that is why socialists encourage capitalism while avoiding the wishful thinking of relying on people doing what you think they “ought”.

    What would you call the socialism that IYO began at Tolpuddle? Cooperative? Owen was already doing that on a much larger scale.

    I call it what it is; i.e. socialism.

    And your assertion about Owen is mistaken.

    Richard

  217. Gail Combs:

    Thankyou for your post addressed to me at August 12, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387860

    It states your views of “corporatism” most of which I agree.

    I hope you will understand and forgive my failure to discuss your post which clearly presents your view. There are so many points and questions being addressed to me that I am forced to be selective and to only answer posts I think contain fundamental misunderstandings.

    Richard

  218. philjourdan:

    I am replying to your posts addressed to me at August 12, 2013 at 1:00 pm and August 12, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387863

    And

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387876

    You begin by saying to me

    With all due respect Richard, calling socialists “nut cases” is not always offensive. Unless you think that by calling yourself a socialist you are immune from stupid actions and words. I hold the opposing view. What you call yourself does not exempt you from being a “nut case”.

    So, you give me “all due respect” by implying I am a “nut case”!

    I suggest you would benefit from learning the basics of ‘how to make friends and influence people’.

    You continue saying

    Second, he was clearly demonstrating that the mere “attacking” of one political class does not exempt you from being in that class.

    No!
    At August 12, 2013 at 9:34 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387679

    DirkH wrote concerning the genocide of socialists by Naz1s

    When one tribe of nutcases tries to exterminate another tribe of nutcases, does this make one of them right (wing)?

    Clearly, he was saying all socialists are “nut cases” and NOT saying – as you assert – that some socialists may be “nut cases”.

    That is mud-slinging which has no place in rational discourse. And you fail in your feeble attempt to excuse it.

    You continue in similar vein by writing

    He pointed out Lenin/Trotsky, but could just have easily pointed out Trotsky/Stalin (and don’t forget China’s gang of 4). In both cases, socialists attacked and killed socialists. The example is very appropriate. And if your total summation that the Nazis were right wing because “some were more equal”, I direct you again to George Orwell (1984), the old Soviet Union, and the current North Korea. We can debate it if you like, but to dismiss it out of hand is disingenuous.

    Diingenuous!?
    You have the gall to call me disingenuous when you began your post by pretending DirkH wrote other than he did!?

    Your assertion that communists (Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and theGang of 4) were socialists is completely disingenuous. THEY WERE COMMUNISTS.

    And those communists killed each other, but so what? It has no relation to what I wrote; viz.

    Naz1s are right wing because they claim some people are entitled to more rights than others. Their attempted genocides are one example of this.

    And your disingenuous behaviour continues with your following statement; i.e.

    I have yet to see any right wing manifesto that dictates some people are more equal than others. So while that plank of the Nazi platform is not in and of itself left wing, I would need some evidence that it is right wing. Monarchical yes. But I do not see Prince Charles as a right winger.

    Of course no manifesto states the core belief of its presenter. What is that supposed to prove?

    An assertion that, for example,
    ‘rich people are entitled to better education than poor people’
    is inherently right-wing because it “dictates some people are more equal than others” in terms of their right to education.

    However, a claim that
    ‘everybody should be entitled to the education they need’
    is left-wing because it asserts equal educational rights.

    And a decision that
    ‘people who want to pay for additional education should be allowed to’
    is middle-ground because it says nothing about equality of educational rights.

    Your claim that Nat1s are “left wing” is daft. They are at the ultra-right: they do not even agree that everyone has a right to live!

    And, yes, HRH Charles is right wing; he is heir to the throne and has not rescinded his right to wear the Crown. If – as you say – you cannot see that then you need to go to Specsavers.

    Finally, you say

    I do not see anyone trying to link totalitarianism with any particular political philosophy. I see many assigning some blame to one or the other, but not all.

    I answer that by asking you to parse it for yourself. It contradicts itself.

    Richard

    • Richard, you are losing a lot of respect. I am not here to win friends or even influence people. However I went out of my way NOT to call you a nut case (nor even to imply that all socialists are nut cases). Apparently your lack of understanding is causing you to get insulted, when there is no insult there. YOu are personalizing every statement. That is your perogative.

      And yes, I called you disingenious. If that is the worst you have ever been called, you should feel fortunate. Somehow I doubt you will.

      No one is calling you a nut case. A “tribe of” anything attacking another tribe of the same are nut cases. Dirk was very correct on that. Did anyone accuse you of attacking your own kind? Again, your personalization of what is written is not the fault of the writer (since you do it with so many), but perhaps the fault lies with you.

      I see no reason to continue a discussion with someone who is going to internalize every statement, as an afront to themselves. You are more than free to be offended by whatever imagined slight you see. But you are not free to accuse others of perpetuating your delusions.

      At least you the honesty to deny your earlier allegations of right wing. Your ignorance of that subject is understandable given your extensive knowledge of the Climate. But there is no sin in saying you do not know it all. Indeed, those who pretend to know it all, know the least.

      As for Prince Charles (I am American so I can say shove the HRH – no one is royal here), he is about as left wing nut as you can get. The difference between a Monarchy and socialism is only who is in charge. Both clearly are about SOMEONE running the whole shooting match. Right wing is about letting you run your own life without having some prince or fool dictate what you can and cannot do. Which is what socialism is all about.

      Good day sir. You are just too paranoid to discuss any matter rationally.

      • As a skeptical American, I value Richard’s comments about the pscience of climate: clear, evidence-backed, arguments offer sound guidance. His history and philosophy assertions demonstrate that each of us suffers from blind spots.
        I reside in a tropical Socialist-paradise, long-accustomed to grants from first-world States. This dependency produced the unsurprising, rather, inevitable, lack of responsibility, personal and communal. New ‘developing’ status has reduced the guilt-ridden basket of goodies: this Central American group of tribes faces immense challenges. Decades of ‘proving’ their status as worthy of assistance produced a cant, a jargon of victim-hood. Language, education, development, politics: all are debased. 2014 elections offer over a dozen choices among parties; alliances appear to shift, daily.
        I adore this place. I abhor the damage inflicted over half-a-century of Socialism. Almost no home gardens; less than a quarter of staple foods produced in-country; first-world demand for bananas, coffee, and pineapples imposes mono-culture’s hazards; English-competent youth find steady call-center employment.

        Richard, please continue your contributions to climate considerations.
        Please examine your positions and definitions in politics and history; much of what you claim is plainly wrong, without evidence, often mere recitations of self-serving political smoke and mirrors.

  219. Gail Combs:

    My last note to you was genuine. A long post I have subsequently sent is in moderation.

    Richard

  220. richardscourtney says:
    August 12, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    Many families and individuals do not do what you think they “ought”. Indeed, your wishful thinking is the same utopian mistake which makes communism impractical.

    —————————–

    A free market system encourages people to do what they ought by rewarding productive behavior. Ought in this case means done with the most productive result while also preserving liberty. Statism can only punish good behavior & reward bad.

    It’s as far from wishful thinking as possible. Socialism is based upon the wishful thinking that humans are different from our nature.

    Communism is not just impractical, but evil. So is the sort of socialism you advocate, ultimately.

    The Tolpuddle Martyrs were an agricultural trade union. I don’t know what aspect of their Friendly Society you find socialistic, except as perhaps any organization in restraint of trade could be so considered. I also don’t know why you don’t find Owen’s societies to fit your concept of socialism. Maybe because they’re not statist?

    Thanks for clarifying your view of “society”. As I thought, you conceive of it as state-run. The majority of people in government may not be evil themselves, humans too can end up doing bad while imagining they’re doing good. Telling other people what to do & wanting to keep your growing your budget every year are enough gateway to evil. Dogs revert to wolves when they pack up.

    The American Founding Fathers’ study of history led them to the right conclusion that government needed to be limited & restrained by a system of checks & balances because the state, while sometimes necessary, is always inclined to evil.

    When the welfare states of Europe can no longer beg, borrow, steal other peoples’ money or print funny money, the end will be ugly. Maybe more like Argentina than Zimbabwe, but not pretty in any case. The US is hurrying down the same path to doom.

    I wonder just in what ways you imagine Britain freer than the US, although we’re rapidly joining you in abject serfdom. The slaves must rejoice in their chains.

  221. milodonharlani:

    I am replying to your post at August 12, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387927

    It is nearing midnight here so this will be my last reply for some time. Sorry.

    You say

    A free market system encourages people to do what they ought by rewarding productive behavior. Ought in this case means done with the most productive result while also preserving liberty. Statism can only punish good behavior & reward bad.

    No country has – or can have – a truly free market.
    Please read the post by Gail Combs at August 12, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387860

    She there provides a short but clear explanation of excessive market distortion in the US.

    But, yes, free markets do encourage productivity, and that is one reason why socialists favour free markets. Indeed, free markets are a need of business people so socialism demands an attempt to provide them. However, socialists admit that many factors inhibit free markets, so socialists try to address those factors with a view to avoiding or minimising problems e.g. of the kind described by Gail Combs.

    Your definition of “liberty” may differ from mine. I consider liberty to be freedom from constraints and not license to deprive others of their rights. It is a desirable objective that is encouraged by the practice of socialism which attempts to meet the needs of every individual so far as is possible.

    I do not know what you mean by “statism”: perhaps it is the Rule Of Law?
    If so, then you are plain wrong when you assert that it “can only punish good behavior & reward bad”: the Rule Of Law exists to do exactly the opposite.

    You continue by saying of a “free market system”

    It’s as far from wishful thinking as possible. Socialism is based upon the wishful thinking that humans are different from our nature.

    Well, perhaps that is true where you are, but here on planet Earth the opposite is true. On this planet there is no possibility of a truly free market (hoping for one IS wishful thinking) and socialism addresses the individual needs of people so – in its every activity – takes account of their nature.

    I agree that

    Communism is not just impractical, but evil.

    This is because communism tries to treat everyone as being the same when they are not.
    But you assert

    So is the sort of socialism you advocate, ultimately.

    That is a grossly offensive and unsubstantiated insult which says much about you and nothing about socialism.

    You say

    The Tolpuddle Martyrs were an agricultural trade union. I don’t know what aspect of their Friendly Society you find socialistic, except as perhaps any organization in restraint of trade could be so considered. I also don’t know why you don’t find Owen’s societies to fit your concept of socialism. Maybe because they’re not statist?

    The Tolpuddle Martyrs founded their Friendly Society (a fore-runner of modern trade unions) because of their socialist principles. And their devising of those principles is why they are the origin of socialism.

    I fail to understand why you think Owen had those principles, and you do not say why you think he did.

    Also, as I said, I don’t know what you mean by “statist”.

    You demonstrate your lack of ability at reading comprehension when you write

    Thanks for clarifying your view of “society”. As I thought, you conceive of it as state-run.

    Say what!?
    I wrote

    a “society” can be a family, a golf club, a trade union, or many other groups of people.

    In the context of this discussion, society is a nation state or a locality subject to a local government

    What is there about “In the context of this discussion” that you do not understand?
    We are talking about political systems which are operated by governments.
    It seems you are arguing for anarchism.

    Indeed, you follow that with this rant which seems to be a call for anarchism.

    The majority of people in government may not be evil themselves, humans too can end up doing bad while imagining they’re doing good. Telling other people what to do & wanting to keep your growing your budget every year are enough gateway to evil. Dogs revert to wolves when they pack up.

    A country without a government will collapse. We are discussing which principles should apply to government activity. You seem to be claiming there should be no government activity.

    You say

    The American Founding Fathers’ study of history led them to the right conclusion that government needed to be limited & restrained by a system of checks & balances because the state, while sometimes necessary, is always inclined to evil.

    “Always”? I doubt they thought that. But they rightly recognised that government activity requires constraints.

    Socialism is one such constraint and the US Constitution is another. But government is ALWAYS and CONSTANTLY “necessary”: government is not only “sometimes” necessary. Again, you seem to have a yearning for anarchism.

    And you follow that nonsense with this silly rant

    When the welfare states of Europe can no longer beg, borrow, steal other peoples’ money or print funny money, the end will be ugly. Maybe more like Argentina than Zimbabwe, but not pretty in any case. The US is hurrying down the same path to doom.

    The “welfare states of Europe” (and elsewhere) do not “beg, borrow, steal other peoples’ money”. I wonder how you obtained such a strange idea. People who are having their money stolen do not vote for the thieves to remain in office.

    All civilisations fall eventually, but your prediction seems very improbable. Indeed, the economy of the quasi-communist China is growing more than the US economy. And few socialist countries have economies which are growing at a dissimilar rate to the US economy.

    You conclude with this laughable twaddle

    I wonder just in what ways you imagine Britain freer than the US, although we’re rapidly joining you in abject serfdom. The slaves must rejoice in their chains.

    We Brits enjoy our chains and row the galleys for fun /sarc.

    In fact, we are freed by our rights to education, housing and healthcare of which Americans are deprived.

    Richard

  222. richardscourtney says:
    August 12, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    Gail Combs…
    It states your views of “corporatism” most of which I agree.

    I hope you will understand and forgive my failure to discuss your post….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No problem. I have not made a study of philosophy so I am following the rest of your comments and that of others with interest.

    The differences in viewpoints, much of which is influenced by what we have heard and read is fascinating.

    I would like to point out that the ‘Progressives’ or whatever they choose to call themselves have done a great deal of damage to my country under the name of ‘Socialism’ If you have read any of what Robin has written or some of what I have written there has been a very successful attack on our education system by Fabian Socialist John Dewey such that by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.” and In 2000, 28 percent of all freshmen entering a degree-granting institution required remedial coursework. Heck my state in desperation past a law that kids had to learn handwriting and how to do the multiplication tables!

    These may be wolves hiding under the sheepskin of socialism as their coat of arms suggests but they have smeared the name of socialism good and proper.

  223. richardscourtney says:
    August 12, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    I neglected to reply to your question if I worked in a prison. No, but I have worked in the public, for & non-profit private sectors. As the public sector has flourished, impoverishing the productive private sector, government workers have gotten worse in every way. Dealing with stultifying bureaucracy is a huge drain on economic growth.

    While no country yet has enjoyed an unlimited free market system, those state which most encourage the ideal are most productive & enrich the lives of their citizens. Some socialists states have managed artificially to maintain high living standards, but without reform they’re doomed to go the way of Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal & Ireland. Smaller economies can be bailed out by their bigger neighbors or trading partners, but there is not enough money in the world to bail out France, too, which is now headed down the same path. So far Britain & Germany have managed their affairs better, but the EU may drag them down with the PIIGS.

    Welfare states destroy humanity by making people dependent victims instead of free citizens. Your idea of rights differs from mine, but I would note that despite our public schools (not in the UK sense of the term) doing the best they can to ruin our educational system, the US still has a higher share of college grads than most if not all European countries. (Haven’t checked the latest statistics, but our high number of older grads is being eroded by fewer among the disincentivized young. I note that some European countries are now backing away from “free” university tuition.)

    Housing & healthcare are also better in the US, by any meaningful measure, although there again we’re trying to ruin good things. While some changes would be good, they have nothing to do with socialism.

    Detroit is a perfect example of what socialism has wrought, as are our Indian Reservations.

    Maybe it comes down to our view of human nature. Many people do enjoy working hard & being creative. But a great many also are content to do nothing but amuse themselves at others’ expense. That’s why a productive system requires incentives. For at least tens of millions in this country, only fear of starving will motivate them to work. Same for every other country in which I’ve studied, lived & worked, including your own. Unlimited unemployment “insurance” becomes welfare, which is destructive & no way to love your fellow human. You wouldn’t want your kids on the dole indefinitely, so why would you want others trapped in multi-generational cycles of poverty, despair, pointlessness & crime?

    Statism to me means what it originally intended in French, ie belief that government should control economic & social policy more & private institutions & individuals less, or not at all.

    I’m sorry you’re offended by equating your vision of socialism with communism & Nazism, but this is one instance in which invoking Stalin & Hitler are justified. State control is simply a matter of degree. Only the rickety barrier of a constitution founded on the rights to life, liberty & property (Locke; “pursuit of happiness”, Jefferson) stands between the banal perpetrators of mass-murder in national & international socialist regimes & the creeping level of control & surveillance in Western European socialism & what’s happening in the US.

    You make my point that you imagine the government giving you the “rights” to education, housing & healthcare make you free. Having no choice isn’t freedom. Having control over your own life is, & being at liberty to participate as fully as possible in power. You’re free to row the galley wherever the White Hall pilot directs & at the pace the drummers set. Here, if our officials don’t abide by the fundamental law of the land, we have the liberty & ability to defend our rights.

    I’m not optimistic that such legal barriers will hold. The perspicacious prophecy of Tocqueville & insightful predictions of Schumpeter (crony capitalism cozy with statism) are sadly coming true. When a majority can vote itself the wealth of the minority, democracy become dictatorship, aided & abetted by tyrannical administrative apparatus set up by freely elected, putative representatives of the people.

    But maybe the world will wake up & start turning around off the path to serfdom & disastrous debacle.

  224. milodonharlani,
    May I suggest you watch this presentation to at a Tea Party Meeting by a dyed in the wool California socialist on UN Agenda 21 or read what she has to say in the essay THE POST SUSTAINABLE FUTURE. She also shows not all socialist are communists and not all are statists. (It was a bit of a surprise to me.)

    I am a capitalist but I feel that if we don’t quit the “Lets you and he fight” that our mutual enemies keep stirring up and open up some genuine lines of communication then TPTB will win.

    Thanks to the internet I am seeing much more awareness of the political maneuvering behind the scenes than I saw five years ago. This is in ordinary people I chat with in the grocery store or at the burger place and this gives me hope.

  225. Gail Combs says:
    August 12, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    I’m for finding common ground with a wide range of stripes of opinion, including communists who don’t want to murder kulaks. I’m familiar with variety of socialism, having studied it in college & grad school & counting many socialists among my friends. I went to grad school in England. A communist friend of mine said he thought that if the British could vote on it, they would still have a death penalty, too. That may have changed over the decades.

    My beef is that utopian socialists are few & far between these days, outside hippie communes, so that pretty much leaves statists. And once you start down that road, there’s nothing stopping the slide into fascism or communism. Having studied, lived or worked on most of the continents, I’ve seen this descent happen over & over again, always to the detriment of the people supposed to benefit.

    The British parliament can do whatever it wants, as the House of Lords no longer functions as a supreme court ruling on the fundamental law of the land, unchangeable except by constitutional amendment. The parties are increasingly in effect one government party, which picks its own candidates from among the elect, as it were, making a mockery of elections. The administrative apparatus is even less accountable to its subjects, no longer citizens, in telling them what to do & not do.

    Nor in much of Europe is there a really free press any more, which increasingly applies to the US as well. Those who sacrifice too much liberty for security end up with neither.

    And I’m sorry, but the Tolpuddle strikers wanted ten shillings per week instead of six, not public ownership of the means of production, nor even necessarily land reform. Richard may have read more of their words than I, but I haven’t found the word “socialism” in their vocabulary, although they did speak of liberty, the rights freely to assemble, associate, petition, speak & agitate. Neither, IIRC did the Webbs, Fabian socialist historians of British trade unionism, find evidence of their commitment to any brand of socialism, unless so vague as to be meaningless. I might be wrong about that, too, since it has been so long. If so, I’d welcome correction.

    So I’m glad to make common cause on any number of issues with people of different opinions on other questions, as with Richard in combating CACCA. I do, as I said, apologize for offending him. I don’t take offense at his laughable twaddle or anything else.

    Just don’t ask me to surrender any more of my liberties, to include worrying about what I say on the phone or in emails or have in my luggage, or go along to get along & get ahead (like mainstream Republicans). Those who sacrifice too much freedom for security end up with neither. I was willing to risk my life to cover my buddies in Afghanistan, but not my liberty. I know there are socialists who consider themselves libertarian, but they’re not connecting the dots, IMO, between big government in economics with social & political freedom.

  226. milodonharlani says:
    August 12, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    ….Maybe it comes down to our view of human nature. Many people do enjoy working hard & being creative. But a great many also are content to do nothing but amuse themselves at others’ expense. That’s why a productive system requires incentives….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    A productive system does not require incentives, it just needs the government to get the hell out of the way! Red tape is strangling the small business person much to the delight of Big Business. Farming was the last ‘Unregulated business’ and that door just got slammed shut.

    When I was a kid you had babysitters, house keepers, kids mowing lawns, handy men, garages and all sorts of small businesses with very little red tape to worry about. Now you need a G.D. licence to be a baby sitter! Something I did as a 13 year old. Heck they government is even going after kids lemonade stands link Grannies homemade pie at the local church bake sale, link and even regulates kiddie bounce houses.

    You have to have a lawyer, an accountant and a business degree now a days to go into a small business, so who is going to bother? 80% of small businesses close within two years, not because they do not make money but because it is just too much hassle. (I have the link somewhere for that)

  227. milodonharlani:

    My previous replies to you have quoted each of your statements and commented on them.

    At this point I do not intend to do that.
    You and I have clearly presented our views for others to read, understand and consider. Further such debate would be an ‘Angels On A Pin’ discussion.

    I now write to make three points which highlight what I think are the significant differences between us.

    Firstly, if people want to know my views as a socialist then they can read them above or ask me for any needed clarification of points.

    Nobody should take your misrepresentations of my views as being other than expression of your (several) misunderstandings and prejudices.

    Secondly, some of your misunderstandings and prejudices are grossly offensive.
    You say those misunderstandings and prejudices are based on your belief that people are “inherently evil”, and you say that belief is based on your experience. I am sorry you have had such a sad life and I regret that I cannot help to improve your future life.

    Importantly,your misunderstandings and prejudices are severe. For example, you assert to me

    I’m sorry you’re offended by equating your vision of socialism with communism & Naz1sm, but this is one instance in which invoking Stalin & H1tler are justified.

    Of course I am “offended”. Your slur is untrue, insulting and ridiculous.
    It says much about your distorted world-view and nothing about socialism (n.b. NOT [my] “vision of socialism”).

    Your distorted world-view is demonstrated in many ways. For example, your repeated assertion that socialism derives from France, NO! Socialism arose in Southern England as an alternative to the revolutionary horrors of Republicanism which had happened across the channel in France. Indeed, the consideration of all needs and abilities which socialism requires is the major reason why the UK retained the British monarchy while republicans in France and communists in Russia executed theirs: and this while the pressures on the poor and middle class were greater in the UK because the UK devised the Industrial Revolution.

    Thirdly, I agree with Gail Combs when she writes to you at August 12, 2013 at 11:32 pm saying

    A productive system does not require incentives, it just needs the government to get the hell out of the way!

    Her need to say this again demonstrates your distorted world view. Business people seek business success. They do not need “incentives” to do what they want to do.

    The Rule Of Law (which you seem to dislike) can protect application of peoples’ abilities (e.g. by punishing business fr@ud) or inhibit people in applying their abilities (e.g. by stifling business people with ‘red tape’). Socialists recognise the needs and abilities of everybody including business people. Hence, socialists try to protect everyone from limitations on meeting their needs and fulfilling their abilities.

    You seem to think that ‘wishing away’ bureaucracy is achievable. But it is not achievable because bureaucracies (e.g. legal systems) are inevitable in the imposition of the Rule Of Law. Socialism recognises the needs of all (including business people) so attempts to control the acquisition of power by bureaucrats: you merely arm-wave about how bureaucrats should not exist.

    And this emphasises the importance of voting to socialism (which I explained to Mark Bofill). The EU is an unelected bureaucracy operated by unelected bureaucrats who continue to expand their powers. This is a form of fascism and is a denial of socialism. This problem can only be corrected by imposition of democracy as required by socialism.

    Richard

  228. richardscourtney says:

    ….The EU is an unelected bureaucracy operated by unelected bureaucrats who continue to expand their powers. This is a form of fascism and is a denial of socialism. This problem can only be corrected by imposition of democracy as required by socialism…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I will nit pick with you there. Unelected bureaucrats and the pseudo- elections we have in the USA and Europe are strongly aided and abetted by the capture of the media by the political/ruling class. This allows them to ‘pre-select’ the ‘Winner’

    The second problem is Democracy.
    “A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.” ~ George Bernard Shaw

    That is why the USA was originally set-up as a Republic with the Senate representing the interest of the individual states. (State legislatures selected senators) This was done to prevent the Federal government from grabbing too much power based on James Madison’s advice that the best way to protect against tyrannical governments was to balance the ambitions of one branch against those of a corresponding branch. Unfortunately this was changed to direct election of senators in 1913. The Seventeenth Amendment restates the first paragraph of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution and provides for the election of senators by replacing the phrase “chosen by the Legislature thereof” with “elected by the people thereof.” 1913 was the same year the USA got saddled with the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th amendment was ratified establishing Congress’s right to impose a Federal income tax. (Enough to make one think the number 13 is a jinx )

    This is the face of (Fabian) socialism that Milodonharlani and I find so abhorrent.

    “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”
    Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable
    and Co., 1934), p. 296.
    Source

    (It is interesting to note I had four links to that quote now I get ‘page not found’ or this drivel )

    The link between the Fabian Socialists and the Eugenics movement is documented even in the Guardian. Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left’s closet: Socialism’s one-time interest in eugenics is dismissed as an accident of history. But the truth is far more unpalatable

    Given this discussion the following passage may be of interest:

    The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/munzen.html
    “…During the 1920’s and most of the 1930’s Münzenberg played a leading role in the Comintern, Lenin’s front for world-wide co-ordination of the left under Russian control. Under Münzenberg’s direction, hundreds of groups, committees and publications cynically used and manipulated the devout radicals of the West…. Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism. The descendents of the ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ are still hard at work in our universities and colleges. Every year a new cohort of impressionable students join groups like the Anti-Naz1 League believing them to be benign opponents of oppression

    It is no wonder the ‘Definitions’ are all mucked-up. Münzenberg was a master propagandist.

  229. And just in case you thought the USA was ‘Free” (Remember our 1st amendment rights to freedom of Speech, of the Press, Petition, Assembly and Religion.)

    Dr. Spencer got a taste of what our rulers think of freedom of religion. Now it seems the state capital of the Live Free or Die state, New Hampshire wants a ‘Tank’ to protect them against ‘Domestic Terrorists’ New Hampshire City Requests a Tank [Armored vehicle] to Deal with “Domestic Terrorist” Groups Like Occupy Wall Street and Libertarians

    …. an application to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seeking more than $250,000 to purchase an armored police vehicle, the capital city of New Hampshire specified the local branch of the Occupy movement and the Free State Project, an effort to recruit “liberty-loving people” to relocate to the Granite State, as potential sources of terrorist action.

    “The State of New Hampshire’s experience with terrorism slants primarily towards the domestic type,” the filing reads. “We are fortunate that our State has not been victimized from a mass casualty event from an international terrorism strike however on the domestic front, the threat is real and here. Groups such as the Sovereign Citizens, Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire are active and present daily challenges.”

    The application was obtained by the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union (NHCLU) through a public records request, and is one of more than 250 filed by the American Civil Liberties Unionto track what it sees as the increasing militarization of police departments throughout the country….

    This goes right along with the “Anti-Occupy” law ends American’s right to protest

    …Thanks to almost zero media coverage, few of us know about a law passed this past March, severely limiting our right to protest. The silence may have been due to the lack of controversy in bringing the bill to law: Only three of our federal elected officials voted against the bill’s passage. Yes, Republicans and Democrats agreed on something almost 100%….

    The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees us the rights of free speech and assembly. A fundamental purpose of our free speech guarantee is to invite dispute. Protests can and have been the catalyst for positive change. Thus while we despise that protestors can burn our flag as protected political speech, and we hate that Neo-Nazis can march down our streets, we recognize the rights of these groups to do what they do and we send our troops across the world to fight for these rights.

    Last year’s “occupy movement” scared the government. On March 8, President Obama signed a law that makes protesting more difficult and more criminal. The law is titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, and it passed unanimously in the Senate and with only three “no” votes in the House. It was called the “Trepass Bill” by Congress and the “anti-Occupy law” by everyone else who commented.

    The law “improves” public grounds by forcing people – protestors – elsewhere. It amends an older law that made it a federal crime to “willfully and knowingly” enter a restricted space. Now you will be found guilty of this offense if you simply “knowingly” enter a restricted area, even if you did not know it was illegal to do so. The Department of Homeland Security can designate an event as one of “national significance,” making protests or demonstrations near the event illegal.

    The law makes it punishable by up to ten years in jail to protest anywhere the Secret Service “is or will be temporarily visiting,” or anywhere they might be guarding someone. Does the name Secret tell you anything about your chances of knowing where they are? The law allows for conviction if you are “disorderly or disruptive,” or if you “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.” You can no longer heckle or “boo” at a political candidate’s speech, as that would be disruptive….

    It would seem our ‘Elite’ Rulers are getting uneasy about losing control of the masses. Interesting that the ACLU, Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party now all have a ‘Common Cause’

  230. philjourdan

    re your diatribe at August 13, 2013 at 5:53 am.

    Your claim that I am “paranoid” is as delusional as the rest of your irrational, illogical and offensive comments in this thread.

    And it may come as a surprise to you, but I could not care less if I am losing the “respect” of an anonymous, disingenuous and offensive boor posting on a blog.

    Richard

    • @Richard – enough of your childishness. I said I did not care if I lost ‘friends’ as you warned me what was going to happen.

      I suggest you would benefit from learning the basics of ‘how to make friends and influence people’.

      If speaking the truth makes me lose ‘friends’, so be it. I have not insulted you yet, nor will I. Nor will I worry about your petty insults.

      I will respect your statements on Climate. Not on economic or political matters. You want to make everything personal. So be it. That only makes you narcissistic. It does not make you right.

  231. Gail Combs:

    At August 13, 2013 at 5:31 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1388406

    you comment on my having said

    ….The EU is an unelected bureaucracy operated by unelected bureaucrats who continue to expand their powers. This is a form of fascism and is a denial of socialism. This problem can only be corrected by imposition of democracy as required by socialism…..

    by replying

    I will nit pick with you there. Unelected bureaucrats and the pseudo- elections we have in the USA and Europe are strongly aided and abetted by the capture of the media by the political/ruling class. This allows them to ‘pre-select’ the ‘Winner’, …

    I concede your point and I do not have an answer to it.

    I remind that the issue of ‘the richest getting the biggest campaign’ is addressed in socialist countries by limiting expenditure on elections by each person standing in the election. This limits advertising in the press but does not limit the press. But it would be a dangerous undertaking to put any limit on the press reporting and commenting on elections and election candidates.

    So, as i said, I don’t have a suggestion for dealing with the problem you mention. Sorry.

    Richard

  232. John R T:

    Thankyou for your post addressed to me at August 13, 2013 at 8:19 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1388494

    It clearly states your view which disagrees with my views. Good.

    However, your final paragraph is plain wrong. I have attempted to state my views as clearly as I could, and I have recited nothing (although I have provided links to supporting information). That you disagree with my views does not make my views “self-serving”, and my views are certainly NOT “smoke and mirrors”.

    Richard

  233. philjourdan:

    re your post at August 13, 2013 at 10:39 am.

    I reply only in hope of trying to help you.

    Read your own words.
    I am not “disingenuous”, not a “Naz1″, not a “communist”, not a “nut case”, and not “paranoid”.

    You say you do not understand that calling me those things is insulting.

    As I previously said, you really, really do need to learn the basics of ‘how to make friends and influence people.”

    For the benefit of onlookers I state that I will ignore any further posts from you.
    Others have questioned me and disagreed with me (some strongly). But you and DirkH have only provided abuse in this discussion. I see no reason to lower myself by treating such abuse with other than contempt, so I shall ignore any more of it.

    Richard

  234. In discussions of the word ‘racist’ I trot out my own definition: “If someone else’s race is important to you, then YOU are the racist.” I see now a similar definition of ‘sexist’ is needed. Since Willis *never* brings up the new Editor’s gender (indeed, Willis never even resorts to ad hominem attacks), but evidently it is important to Cook, I say: “Mr. Cook, if someone else’s gender is important to you, then YOU are the sexist.”

Comments are closed.