The Merchants of Smear

The sanctioned punishment of climate skeptics becomes more than just a few aberrant ideas, and is following some historical parallels

First, I loathe having to write essays like this, but I think it is necessary given the hostile social climate now seen to be emerging.

Yesterday, WUWT highlighted the NYT cartoon depicting killing “deniers” for having a different opinion, today I want to highlight Naomi Orekses and Suzanne Goldenberg, who seem seem to like the idea of having climate “deniers” arrested under RICO act for thought collusion, all under the approving eye of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard.

Watch the video:  The RICO quote is about 1:12:30 in the video. Note that none of the panelists blinks an eye at the suggestion. They are all smiling after Oreskes finishes.

From the description of the video:

The science is clear: drastic global climate change due to human activities threatens our planet. Yet, a well-funded international campaign continues to deny the scientific consensus, foment public doubt and oppose action. The media—especially social media—have helped fuel false controversy and climate skepticism. How can climate change communication be improved?

Panel discussion with:
Suzanne Goldberg, U.S. Environment Correspondent, The Guardian
Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science, Harvard University
Dr. Peter Frumhoff, Director of Science & Policy, Union of Concerned Scientists

Moderated by:
Cristine Russell, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs’ Environment and Natural Resources Program

Introduction by:
Henry Lee, Director, Belfer Center’s Environment and Natural Resources Program

February 13, 2014

Of course, no prominent climate skeptics were invited to give a counterpoint, though WUWT does make an appearance.

An actual quote from Goldenberg in the video at 2:50

“I don’t know what CAGW was”

This makes me wonder just how competent she is to write about the topic. The irony is completed full circle though. At 2:20 she claims WUWT “actually isn’t about science” while our “best science blog” banners are projected near her head and while highlighting Justin Gillis, tell us again about “the Bigger Picture” (an opinion piece) and A relationship between Sea Ice Anomalies, SSTs, and the ENSO? (a science piece).

At least we know they are reading WUWT.

Goldenberg won’t cover the topics we cover, simply because she isn’t capable and is in the employ of a newspaper (the Guardian) with a clear goal to push only one viewpoint about climate. And, her objectivity, now that she runs in this circle of friends, is blown out of the water.

Oreskes, who authored the book Merchants of Doubt, seems to think that climate skeptics are little more than paid shills, deserving of criminal status, while Goldenberg works tirelessly to create strawmen houses out of the thinnest of research, which she publishes in the Guardian. She also follows the Oreskes mindset in thinking that we all must be on somebody’s payroll and that we are all part of a “secret network” of well funded climate resistance.

Lately, this sort of hateful and distorted thinking is getting a bit worrisome as statistician William Briggs observes:

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

RICO-style prosecution. For what tangible crime? Well, heresy.

(Has to be heresy. The amount of money I have extorted from my skepticism hovers between nada and nil.)

This put me in mind of a passage from from Dawn to Decadence by the indispensable Jacques Barzun (pp 271-272):

The smallest divergence from the absolute is grave error and wickedness. From there it is a short step to declaring war on the misbelievers. When faith is both intellectual and visceral, the overwhelming justification is that heresy imperils other souls. If the erring sheep will not recant, he or she becomes a source of error in others….[P]ersecution is a health measure that stops the spread of an infectious disease—all the more necessary that souls matter more than bodies.

Even though not all admit this, their actions prove that souls are more important than bodies. Thought crimes are in many senses worse than physical crimes; they excite more comment and are more difficult to be forgiven for. Perhaps the worst crime is to be accused of racism (the charges needn’t be, and frequently are not, true; the accusation makes the charge true enough). It is now a thought crime to speak out against sodomy (and to say you personally are a participant is a matter of media celebration).

Barzun said that sins against political correctness “so far” have only been punished by “opprobrium, loss of employment, and virtual exclusion from the profession.” (I can confirm these.) Barzun said, “any form of persecution implies an amazing belief in the power of ideas, indeed of mere words casually spoken.”

The Enlightened, who simper when calling each other “free thinkers”, in one of their favorite myths tell us how they left the crime of heresy behind. The word has been forgotten, maybe, but not the idea.

Stalin sent his victims to the firing squad for the crime of “counter-revolution”, not heresy. Being repulsed by sodomy is not heresy, it is “homophobic”. Believing in God and practicing that belief is not heresy, but “fundamentalism.” Cautioning that affirmative action may cause the pains the program is meant to alleviate isn’t heresy, but “racism.” Saying that unskillful Climate models which routinely bust their predictions should not be trusted is not heresy, but is “anti-science.”

Boy, has Science come up in the world to be a personage one can sin against.

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

And AlexJC notes in Der Ewige “Denier” on the NYT cartoon depicting killing “deniers” that a pattern is emerging.

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

Some commentators on WUWT have likened this little scene to Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda in the 1930s, and I’m inclined to agree. There’s a pertinent article, called “Defining the Enemy” on the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

One crucial factor in creating a cohesive group is to define who is excluded from membership. Nazi propagandists contributed to the regime’s policies by publicly identifying groups for exclusion, inciting hatred or cultivating indifference, and justifying their pariah status to the populace.

There’s a picture you can find online of the “stereotypical Jew”, which was drawn by Nazi cartoonist Philipp “Fips” Rupprecht and published in the newspaper Der Stürmer sometime before the end of World War II. Although different in some respects to the “stereotypical Denier” in the NYT, there are a number of similarities. Both subjects are male, well-dressed, rather plump and well-fed and standing with their chests slightly thrust out. Both have distinctive noses – the Jew has a large hooked nose and the Denier has one that is more reminiscent of a pig’s snout. Both are smoking a cigar, which is clearly the mark of an evil plutocrat anywhere, Jewish or otherwise. The similarities are quite unsettling.

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

Indeed, they are, and worse yet, few if any, in the general science community seem to have the courage to stand up and say anything about these people and the actions they do and/or suggest as being inappropriate or antithetical to science.

Roy Spencer is the exception for scientists who have decided to speak out against this hate and smear, and has decided to fight back by labeling anyone who calls him a “climate denier” as a “climate Nazi”. I’m not sure how effective or useful that will be, but clearly he’s reached a tipping point. He adds:

A couple people in comments have questioned my use of “Nazi”, which might be considered over the top. Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause — I think it is very appropriate. Again, I didn’t start the name-calling.

Caption on photo “Reichsfuhrer J. Cook” Source: Skepticalscience.com forum

The parallels with what occurred in pre-WWII Germany seem to be emerging with the constant smearing of climate skeptics for the purpose of social isolation, and now Oreskes is calling for members of this group to be charged with crimes under RICO. This isn’t new, we’ve heard these calls for climate skeptics to be arrested before, such as Grist’s David Roberts who proposed Nuremberg style trials for climate skeptics, but lately it seems to be picking up speed.

We even have people in the same climate clique playing virtual dress up as Nazis, such as we’ve learned recently from the “Skeptical Science” forum showing proprietor John Cook in full Nazi uniform in the image seen at right. There were several Nazi images depicting SkS.

And, there’s the call for removing dissenting opinion from the press, such as from “Forecast the Facts” (a funded NGO that attacks media)

“Brad Johnson (@ClimateBrad), the editor of HillHeat.com and a former Think Progress staffer, boasted on Twitter that 110,000 people had urged the newspaper “to stop publishing climate lies” like the Krauthammer piece.”

Source:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/heating-up-climate-change-advocates-try-to-silence-krauthammer/

We’ve already seen one prominent newspaper refuse to publish letters from climate skeptics with others following suit.

What is most troubling to me is that Oreskes and Goldenberg appear to be of Jewish descent (as does Dr. Michael Mann) and yet they all seem blind to the pattern of behavior they are engaging in and advocating; the social isolation and prosecution of climate skeptics which seems so reminiscent of the ugliness in times past. I honestly don’t understand how they can’t see what they are doing to silence climate skeptics is so very wrong.

It does seem true, that those who don’t learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.

From my viewpoint, the only way to combat this ugliness is with taking a stand. These tactics must be called out when they are used. I urge readers to write thoughtful and factual letters, guest commentary where accepted, and blog posts, countering such smear whenever appropriate.

MODERATION NOTE: Comments will be heavily scrutinized, keep it civil.

About these ads

410 thoughts on “The Merchants of Smear

  1. Why is John Cook, a cartoonist with no technical background, running a website called ‘skeptical science’?

  2. … a well-funded international campaign continues to deny the scientific consensus …

    Someone needs to push them into disclosing an authoritative source for that statement with names and amounts.

  3. RaiderDingo says:

    February 24, 2014 at 9:23 am

    Why is John Cook, a cartoonist with no technical background, running a website called ‘skeptical science’?

    Well, one should be skeptical of the “science” presented there, so the website is appropriately named.

    On the other hand, who better than a cartoonist to host a website that presents a cartoon appearance of proper science?

  4. Cass Sunstein, in 2008, published an article, “Conspiracy Theories.”
    In this, he holds a discussion of what might government do to address those who hold and share conspiracy theories.

    The answer “nothing” comes to mind. But that is not good enough for Sunstein, who was Obama’s Regulatory Czar for a while, Cass has quite high ambitions for the rest of us, with all of that “Nudge” of our behaviors, and the re-writing of “The Partial Constitution.”

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

    Cass discusses options including getting government flunkies to “infiltrate” the community that sustains any conspiracy theory, and weaken the level of credulity amongst the true believers by sharing some level of skepticism and doubt amongst fellow travelers.

    I have a difficult time believing I am seeing all of this in front of my eyes. I think this is what scares many of us: the parallel with na zi ger many, where evil just crept in small step by small step, and you were socially ostracized for not toe-ing the party line, and all the while the end game was always pre-determined: control society from the top-down.

  5. Eh, it’s still a step up from the New York Times, now advocating for the murder of “Climate Change Deniers.”

  6. “From my viewpoint, the only way to combat this ugliness is with taking a stand.”

    One might be able to “turn the other cheek” if it was simply personal attacks against the “non-believers”, but, importantly, it is a concerted attack with the purpose of silencing the “non-believers”.


  7. “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    – Mahatma Gandhi

    It looks like we are fully into the fighting stage at this point.

  8. Congratulations on a good essay.

    Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science, Harvard University was actually the person who tipped me over to start to really question the AGW theories. It was a presentation she gave on The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Science Show – I think in January 2012. During her presentation she used the term “the science is settled” several times. This repetition and the high pitched political manner in which it was delivered something that made me question her motives. I rank it as one of the worst ever presentations I have heard on the Science show.

    Since then I have done my own investigations and concluded that I am not a climate change denier, but a person who seeks out the truth. Unfortunately everywhere I have looked I have discovered mis-interpretations, stretches of the truth, but most importantly a lack of scientific integrity.

    Now the debate seems to have been taken to a new low level with nonsense statements about eliminating so called climate deniers driven by people who should know better, but are obviously concerned for some reason about losing a political debate. I have yet to me a fully fledged “climate denier” if such a person exists. What I have meet are people who are genuinely conceded about the whole climate debate and are seeking out the truth.

    Anthony keep up the good work and do not let free speech be squashed in the USA.

  9. Too Funny!

    Fraud is a RICO predicate offence.

    Fraud is a false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

    They can start the Climate RICO trials with all those that have performed Mike’s Nature trick.

  10. Something to keep in mind. Often when a movement goes to rhetoric this extreme it is not really aimed at their opponents. It is really aimed at keeping their own base of supporters on board the movement. If they sense that their base of support is flagging, ideological groups will often get very extreme in their portrayal of their opposition in order to discourage their own supporters from listening to what those people have to say. A common example might be the rhetoric that the Democratic Party in the US uses against women and minorities who are to the right of center and might run for political office as a Republican. Such people are called horrible names, belittled, held up for ridicule and the reason isn’t so much to attack those people per se as it is to send a message to women and minorities in their own base of support that if they listen to those people and adopt their positions, then all those names and horrible things will apply to them, as well. It is basically psychological motivation using social pressure. You get a group of people saying horrible things about an opposition group and that then makes it harder for people within that group to change their position

    This is an indication of desperation and an acknowledgement that they risk losing their own base of support. They are manipulating their support base emotionally. The last thing in the world they would want is for the general public at large to see these sorts of things being said because they know it is over the top and they would be forced to back down from such statements. They are designed to be seen by and distributed among the people who are already on board with them to keep them there. It is rhetoric for the “true believers”. The best weapon we have against this sort of thing is sunlight as you are doing here. Expose them for the manipulative weasels they really are and make them take ownership, in public, of their words. It isn’t really designed to sway anyone’s opinion who might be on the fence or on the other side as over the top rhetoric like that doesn’t work on more thoughtful people who might be on the fence. In fact, it is likely to further alienate more thoughtful people from them. This is designed to elicit a very emotional reaction from the people already in their camp and keep them there.

    They’re scared.

  11. Plus cela change……. In 1964, running for election as President, Barry Goldwater said: ” Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice:” and: ” Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Fortunately the electorate did not agree with him. We must hope that people now will show the same common sense, but they must be kept informed. Keep up the good work WUWT!

  12. This is pretty scary stuff. The only solution is to stand up to it, with respect, clear language, clear ideas, and refusing to engage in trash talk responses.

  13. ” Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice:” and: ” Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Fortunately the electorate did not agree with him.

    Well I didn’t then but I do now. I’d like to be able to speak freely. And I think extremism in defense of that Liberty is no vice.

  14. Ok, does anyone have any good links to sources that counter the false big oil funds skeptics/deniers thing? I know I’ve seen good information on this but I can’t find it now. :P

  15. Don’t they know that it is by their actions that we know them? This sort of thing is what initially made me skeptical. Then I began examining their “science” and found it very weak. The more I looked, the more problems I found. Their facade is crumbling, and they are desperately trying to shore it up. They dare not take the questions into a court of law. That is just a bluff. No case will ever survive the discovery process.

  16. This would have Goldenberg lining up on the side of the Nazis. I wonder what Albert E. would think?

  17. the co2ers are hoping people will fall into their trap and respond to THEIR narrative and work within their defining of the problem. Its a big mistake to distract the debate away from evidence to name calling.

    All you have to do is ask any co2er why they accept and promote predictions from unvalidated models? if models cannot ‘model’ known climate how can they predict future climate? All you will get is evasion which will demonstrate they have no answer.

  18. I’ve been laughed at for predicting this burst of authoritarianism and repression might ultimately involve violence. When people passionately believe a group of wackos bent on destroying the earth (life as we know it….the 6th extinction), there’s not much they’re not capable of…

  19. I think that Godwin’s law is quite pernicious because it tries to silence the use of a very important example from history. Those that can’t learn from mistakes are likely to repeat them.

  20. CAGW demonstrates yet again that it is a religion, every bit as aggressive as our friends from the Religion of Permanent Offense. Now that they have identified heretics / infidels, it appears that they are readying the levers of power to “reeducate” us all. Good luck with that. And I thought that those same guys were falling over themselves to ensure a separation of Church and State. Apparently not when the Church (of Manmade Global Warming) is State funded and chartered. Cheers -

  21. I could say that if I am a paid shill then my remuneration has gone adrift somewhere.

    But this sort of story is getting more common and more nasty and the only encouraging thing is that the warmists seem to be getting more and more desperate.

    (I see that my spellchecker doesn’t like the word “warmist”)

  22. For a journalist. Goldenburg doesn’t read very well. I simply can not believe that she is an Environment Corespondent and isn’t familiar with the acronym CAGW? Really? I do appreciate the hat tip, though, to my essay on a very poor Justin Gillis item in the NY Times. Of course, if she had actually read the essay, she would had realized that the wasn’t political at all, that was just a hook to get people reading…I wonder if that is indicative of the depth of her understanding of the whole topic?

    She seems really a two-pole, binary type of person. It is very US (the Correct View, the Truth) and Them (the deniers, the liars, the shills).

  23. MikeN: “The Jew has no cigar.”

    I’ve now found a website which has a number of illustrations by Philipp Rupprecht which he drew for a children’s colouring book in 1934, apparently, and which shows several caricatures of Jewish financiers looking as though they are puffing away at cigars:

    http://germanpropaganda.org/literature-for-children/

    In the Nazis’ eyes, it seems the Jews were the well-funded “merchants of doubt” of their time.

  24. science is about what you can demonstrate not what names you call people. The co2ers cannot demonstrate their hypothesis that there is a co2 deathstar coming to kill us all so the fall into name calling.

    As they get more desperate the name calling will get worse [imagine a hockeystick graph of abuse lol]. No need to respond to it.just keep asking them why they promote predictions from unvalidated models.

  25. Having defended him to some extent on a recent thread, it would be interesting indeed to see what Mr Revkin’s thoughts on this sort of thing might be.

    At the moment it would be “safe” to say that opinion’s like Ms Oreskes’ are in the minority and, probably, not taken all that seriously by mainstream supporters of AGW. But Anthony is quite right that there are pplenty of historical precedents for such thoughts taking root if they go unchallenged.

    Sadly, as the object of the ideas, skeptics are ill placed to ridicule these suggestions into the oblivion they deserve. To be successful, free speech must be defended by those who disagree with what’s being said but support the right to say it.

    So does Mr Revkin agree that scpetics should be silenced, by force or by law? Assuming he has half the integrity I accused him of in the other thread I find that unlikely. If, on the other hand, he finds such mutterings troubling then integrity would demand that he raises his prominent voice against them. He doesn’t have to agree with sceptical opinion to do this, only to find the mere suggestion of forced suppression of free speech abhorrent.

    What of it, Mr Revkin? Can we look forward to you sparing a few column inches to publicly denounce “scientific” totalitarianism as roundly as you would no doubt denounce the same politically?

  26. It is a sad commentary on the intellectual zeitgeist of many of our great universities when someone of Oreskes limited capacity for independant data based critical thinking and penchant for propaganda can be employed as a Professor.
    We see similar politically correct scientific and communications departments and groups at Yale and Columbia.

  27. Watch the video: The RICO quote is about 1:12:30 in the video. Note that none of the panelists blinks an eye at the suggestion. They are all smiling after Oreskes finishes.

    I skipped around that video some yesterday, all three were smiling nearly all the time, it seemed a self-satisfied sort of smile between friends rebuilding their common worldview.

    I don’t know when the video was made, but apparently it was snowing outside at the time, so their worldview likely needed some rebuilding.

  28. Interesting that some folks here get a free pass to make accusations at the person rather than the comments rather than move on or just observe. By doing so, the victims are left to defend themselves in what ever logic they muster. But the personal attacks continue. Then it becomes trash talk with ever increasing intensity.

  29. OK this is right time right place : Proving the opposition are being devious & manilpulative by being devious & manipulative ?
    – If the mythical bigoil funded skeptics want to smear warmists for something what would they do ?
    Perhaps they would go to a large public science event Q&A where most of the questions are from scientists, and they would fortuously have one of the questions being on that, giving them the opportunity to hype it up for 5 minutes and get it broadcast.
    – So imagine they wanted to portray the warmists as “devious & manipulative” that would be the question.
    Now got to Fridays broadcast of the ABC Australia of the Naked Scientists Q&A at the AAAS (Science Conference)

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/nakedscientists/

    (also on the NS website from the week before)
    26min 30s There is this question from “Science Journalist” Joel Werner

    “Climate deniers often use the tools of propaganda to further their campaigns, should science be embracing these similar tools ?”

    (which entices the UK science minister on the panel to denannounce these “deniers ?”)
    …Nothing wrong with that question except Joel Werner is an Australian who has just moved to NYC as a freelance, is still on the books as an ABC (Oz) journalist & his progs are still going out there.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/joel-werner/2915416 (perhaps on 1 year leave of absence)
    And until very recently was working with a MEMBER OF THE PANEL in ABC programs it’s head of science broadcasting Robyn Williams a climate fanatic who has big fantasies about Big Oil Funded deniers.
    Robyn then had the opportunity to mention one of his favourite books by Naomi Oreskes !
    (I also wonder : did “freelancer” Joel pay for the AAAS trip himself or did ABC chip in in some way ?)
    NS forum has warmists already discussing that show http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=50453

    – How strangley fortuitous that as they collected the questions from the audience and stacked them randomly that a question written by Joel came to the right position. I respect Naked Scientists so much, but this damages their credibility. And the public would have had a different impression if they had had the courtesy to mention that Robyn and Joel know each other (I presume quite well since they share the same religiousity for climate alarmisn)
    I’m sure they would deny anything was wrong, but to me “it is consistant with” a scenario where the question was planted.
    Cos if that scenario were true, that would be an attempt to smear your opposition as being “devious & manipulative” by being devious & manipulative themselves…And that really does seem consistant with the normal PROJECTION which is the fingerprint of alarmist activists.

  30. It’s incredible, Roy Spencer comes out and calls them Nazis, I think this is wrong of him but when you read this, by gad i can imagine talks around the table in 1930’s Germany.

    “Yesterday, WUWT highlighted the NYT cartoon depicting killing “deniers” for having a different opinion, today I want to highlight Naomi Orekses and Suzanne Goldenberg, who seem seem to like the idea of having climate “deniers” arrested under RICO act for thought collusion”,

  31. The final, violent, flailing gasps of a dying belief system. Their venom and spite are palpable.
    I am loving it! Onward fellow skeptics, we are winning!

  32. I really do think these people live in a sort of alternate reality. They seem to be totally unaware of the many things that have occurred in the past couple of decades to tarnish their bright shiny theory. They constantly reiterate their belief in a huge, heavily funded climate denial lobby, despite the fact that blogs like WUWT are always going begging for funds.

    It’s not that they still believe in CAGW. Good on them for that. I like stiff-necked people. One should be hard to convince. It’s that they really don’t know that there is anything to debate.

  33. The childish socialists say it’s all about diversity but in the end, it’s NEVER about diversity of thought.

    FerdinandAkin says:
    February 24, 2014 at 9:43 am
    ——
    For all of us, never forget “…, then you win”.

    M Simon says:
    February 24, 2014 at 9:55 am
    ——
    Who was the only white person on the steps just behind MLK when he made his I Have a Dream speech? I voted for him and he’s still one of my heroes.

  34. milodonharlani says:
    February 24, 2014 at 10:20 am

    Advocating CACA has been very very good for Oreskes. Last year she moved from UCSD to Harvard.
    _______________________
    Yes, and Harvard is her appropriate home. Like other Ivy League schools, Harvard’s main purpose has become the “education” of elite students for a lifetime of managerial posts in the US government bureaucracy. The whole thrust behind global climate change advocacy has been to increase government (elites) control over the masses.
    Oreskes at Harvard is a perfect fit.

  35. I’m with Roy Spencer on this because they prove their Climate Nazi credentials just by resorting to “climate consensus” tactics without a shred of wit to realize how anti-science they really are.

  36. I find this deeply troubling most of all because, during my lifetime, the politically correct agendas have invariably triumphed over data/analysis/logic. And, so far, that has held true for AGW too. The warmists have successfully converted academia, the mainstream media, government agencies, our schools, numerous scientific and professional bodies and more.

    It is well past the point where the momentum can be easily overcome. I fear AGW is about as well established as the Nazi doctrine in the 1930’s. Just think about what it took to stop that train!

  37. It, to this day, evades me how someone can photoshop themselves or their cohorts in Nazi garb, adorn them with a title reminiscent of a Nazi apparatchik, and yet fail (or refuse) to recognize how similar and disgusting their antics are. They will truly say and do anything to keep the spotlight on the dissidents, all the while repeating that which they, as supposedly “enlightened” individuals, claim they are firmly against.

  38. Dr Norman Page says:
    February 24, 2014 at 10:13 am

    It is a sad commentary on the intellectual zeitgeist of many of our great universities when someone of Oreskes limited capacity for independant data based critical thinking and penchant for propaganda can be employed as a Professor.
    We see similar politically correct scientific and communications departments and groups at Yale and Columbia.
    _____________________
    It is precisely because of her propaganda that she has been made a professor at Harvard.

  39. highflight56433:

    Your despicable hypocrisy is again displayed by your post at February 24, 2014 at 10:17 am which says

    Interesting that some folks here get a free pass to make accusations at the person rather than the comments rather than move on or just observe. By doing so, the victims are left to defend themselves in what ever logic they muster. But the personal attacks continue. Then it becomes trash talk with ever increasing intensity.

    Only yesterday on another WUWT thread (mentioned in the above article) you said here

    “Look at history, the socialists are responsible for the death of 262,000,000 people in the last 110 years. See: Death by government:”

    and attempted to justify that lie by listing murders of people by governments of all political types.

    As I said in that thread here

    When any group is demonised the result is always horrific. Religious beliefs, political beliefs, racial characteristics, caste, social status, and ethnicity have all been used as excuse for such demonization. This thread is about such demonization of AGW-sceptics, and the ultra-right is using it to demonise “socialists”. I am trying to defend against horror.

    You have still not withdrawn that lie and apologised for it.

    As your post I am answering demonstrates, your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your dishonesty.

    Richard

  40. the bible ‘fell’ as a historical model because it did not match the evidence so there was no need to believe its predictions.

    the climate models that say there is a co2 deathstar coming to kill us ‘fell’ because it does not match the observed readings so there is no need to believe it predictions.

    so why people getting worked up? :)

  41. Jeepers. Oreskes thinks that aligning on a panel with someone from the Guardian and someone from UCS is a good idea? She’s far less intelligent than I’ve given her credit for.

  42. highflight56433 Feb 24 10:17am : I’m puzzled by your statement “Interesting that some folks here get a free pass to make accusations at the person rather than the comments rather than move on or just observe. By doing so, the victims are left to defend themselves in what ever logic they muster. But the personal attacks continue. Then it becomes trash talk with ever increasing intensity.“. It appears to be nonsense – or maybe I am misunderstanding “here“. Please can you explain what you mean, with examples.

  43. Mods:

    There is a strange formatting error towards the end of my post at February 24, 2014 at 10:36 am which is stuck in moderation. If you can, please correct this obvious formatting problem when you recover it.

    Thanking you in anticipation.

    Richard

  44. Well you skeptics are on your own, in this; I’m quite convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that climate changes, and so does weather.

    I’m also convinced that I had nothing to do with it.

    But as for the “science” of climate; well I’m also convinced beyond any doubt, that they have it wrong.

    Well the experimental observations (real facts) do not follow ANY of the computer models (science); ergo, by definition the science is wrong. And since that is demonstrably true for the history of the past; where the facts are already known, it is surely true, for the history of the future, where the facts are as yet unknown.

    As for Dr. Naomi Oreskes, and Suzanne Goldberg, “climate change communication can be improved”, by getting the science correct, before declaring that the sky is falling.

    Is foaming at the mouth a symptom of rabies; or is it just excessive use of toothpaste ??

  45. Science writer and blogger Dave Appell added Michael Mann to the argument for outlawing skepticism:

    “I don’t know. Donald Brown, the philosopher at Penn State who has been writing about the ethics of climate change for well over a decade — I interviewed him in the early 2000s — thinks they are perhaps guilty of crimes against humanity. / Are they? Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes? / I think so. You can’t simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. / I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade. / When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe.” – Dave Appell

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-charlesh-problem.html

  46. Re that AAAS Q&A question “Climate deniers often use the tools of propaganda to further their campaigns, should science be embracing these similar tools ”
    They might say they think it was a perfectly reasonable question that inspired an interesting discussion I disagree
    – 1. They should have screened the word “denier” as it is a loaded UNSCIENTIFIC word
    – 2. It was a smear rather than a valid question, because it failed to give any evidence of the heavy assumptions
    – Those were strong assumptions it made
    1 that skeptics use propaganda
    2 and the other side have not started to
    … we know well from Climategate emails and 28Gate and the Futerra PR agency that came up with the “rules of the game” report telling the UK gov to push the “science is settled meme”.
    What I would call the beyond-sci-activists seem to use propaganda techniques much more thn skeptics

  47. cnxtim says:
    February 24, 2014 at 9:28 am

    Time for a dose of Bob Dylan…
    ‘The Idiot Wind’, perhaps?

  48. Dear Anthony,

    Kudos (again) for your courage.

    The totalitarian philosophy/ideology is indeed a grave danger to all people. That lesson has been driven home by history in the most horrific ways.

    Yet totalitarianism has not gone away. Obviously.

    So what can decent, freedom-loving people do? Number one, talk about it. Don’t be silenced. Speak truth to power.

    If it walks like a Nazi, and talks like a Nazi, and acts like a Nazi, then it is our duty to humanity to point out that it is, in fact, a Nazi.

  49. In fact, I would suggest going deep into the various communities that push this “carbon pollution” agenda and start exposing more of their stuff to the general public. This will likely cause them even further embarrassment in having to defend over the top rhetoric. Their first reaction will likely to circle the wagons, go on witch hunts to discover “infiltrators”, and closely vet members of these various extremist communities and their own reaction will be their undoing as they make themselves less accessible and visible to the general public. I am reminded of an independent film journalist in the US who has taken hidden cameras inside various political operations in the US (most recently in Texas) and exposed their blatant law-breaking behavior. Their reaction to his previous work was not to stop the illegal activity, but to try to more closely filter out people who they suspect might be working with him. Their suspicion turned inward and they began isolating themselves. All they had to do was simply stop breaking the law and they could be as open as they wish and would have nothing at all to fear from anyone looking at their operations from the inside but their very reaction exposes them for what they are. They didn’t want to stop the illegal behaviors, they wanted to make it harder to get caught at it.

    I would imagine the reaction to exposure of some of the internal workings and meetings of these people would get a similar result. Rather than take a more balanced and realistic approach, they would be more careful in insulating their echo chamber. It would be interesting to take the same approach with environmental groups that Project Veritas has taken with political groups. Attend meetings, get involved with various projects, expose the goings on to the general public and let them be seen for what they really are. Sunlight works great for this stuff.

  50. unlike the 20th century, we now have a form of media that lends to instant communication. Texting, email, twitter, and other digital media should provide some quicker education to the masses than having to wait for revolutionaries or foreigners to come to the rescue. But, sleep with one eye open. There is fury in those hearts that will in generations to come keep dwindling away at your freedom of speech. In a blink of an eye, this media could be unplugged. You know it, I know it.

    The mud gets tossed onto the wall, then they(the same people we are contesting) see what sticks. Then more mud. It is the head line people remember, not the facts that follow.

  51. Mike Jonas:

    re your post at February 24, 2014 at 10:39 am.

    He was called-out on an untrue smear he made in another WUWT thread yesterday. He has yet to correct the matter which is explained with links so you can see for yourself in my post which is stuck in moderation.

    His post you query is saying that he thinks it right to smear entire groups – as Oreskes does in the above video – but considers himself to be a “victim” for being subjected to demands for him to withdraw his falsehoods.

    Richard

  52. Once again I call on the skeptic community to find a way to fund a valid survey from a respected polling firm, of credentialed scientists as to their position on CAGW….We must bust the 97 percent myth once and for all.

    Want to win this argument? That’s the place to start. All the fancy philosophy of science arguments about the danger of consensus building no matter how valid, are ineffective.

  53. Anthony:

    I would prefer more science and more research and a lot less politics and name calling.

    I support your approach and thank you for the thoughtful post.

    Also, thanks to Dr. Roy Spencer for being one of the people to bring this issue out of hiding — again.

  54. I’ll bet that the first comment to this new post at WUWT occurred well within one hour twelve minutes and thirty seconds from the time this post first appeared. That means that the commenter didn’t listen through the entire length of the video.

    And you know what? Neither did I.

  55. It always fascinates me how those warmists can make any comment or insult, or say whatever they want but when it’s returned, like in the case of the SKS hysteria, just demonstrates their complete hypocrisy. They have no convincing arguments left, so now they want to use FORCE to get their way. “Fascists” really does not even come anywhere near describing that mentality.

    Here is a poster I produced today that describes the situation well.

    http://whatmenaresayingaboutwomen.com/?attachment_id=6452

  56. Is climate change a scientific fact, YES. Is man caused climate change “AKA Global Warming” a scientific fact, NO.
    Before we start to arrest people for their thoughts, would it be to much to ask the AGW crowd to put some scientific proof on the table. AGW is mere speculation, it has not passed enough test to be call a theory or hypothesis.
    Great picture would be a empty desk top with a sign on the front, “Scientific Proof of Man Made Climate Change”.
    Science in the world has gone the way of the free press, toe the political line or be called out as a heretic or now a criminal. I hate to see the NAZI tactic applied to any group or anyone, but in this case the shoe seems to fit.
    Luckily I am at the age where I will be returning my evil carbon storage unit back to the planet soon. I would say God help the children but not sure what name the Church of Global Warming Scientology will use for their god, maybe “GORE” it rolls off the tongue smoothly.

  57. Pretty extraordinary comments in the video. I agree that some of this is presented to keep the base in line, as well as provide them a little red meat. However, the message can’t be delivered in the manner shown without true belief. It is disturbing and, sadly, not surprising given the ideologies of far too many in the CAGW camp. For me, I have the courage of my convictions and will rest deeply in that knowledge. Interesting times.

  58. More from intolerant zealots who cannot win the argument using rational commentary despite having the bulk of the world’s governments, NGO’s and corporate arms behind them. The reason for this failure is down to the fact that these exaggerated claims are not backed up by real life observations. Factor in the frequent revelations that illustrate how the warnings are constructed around poor reasoning and the selective manipulation of data then it is easy to see why CAGW fanatics keep shooting themselves in the foot..

    I also take issue with the well funded campaign tag. Who amongst the leading advocates of genuine science, by that I mean those seeking verifiable evidence for these claims, are getting rich. While there are a few standout figures in academia and the media who might earn well, there is little doubt that in the main the effort to unravel the truth is down to unpaid individual industry with the limited assistance of small donations from interested readers.

    The fact is that these those who are trying to steer policy towards ends that can only deprive much of the mankind of a better future are in essence haters of humanity. The tactics they use are not only reminiscent of past authoritarians who readily adopt measures applicable to totalitarians, but they do so thinking it will benefit them as they will be the ones in control. They should not be so careless of our hard won freedoms and liberty, for what they bring about might well turn out to bite them as well.

  59. There come a point where someone lying in bed asks themselves what they would have done if they were alive in Germany in 1933. Would they have sacraficed their freedom and perhaps their life to try to prevent what they now know happened? Are they sure, really sure, that they see the same thing starting? What happens if everyone is not willing to wait for the ‘them’ to come and get the ‘me’?

  60. These people as well as most in the AGW crowd view science the same way they view politics and fail to distinguish between the two. To them everything is political, truth is relative. Scientific methodology is difficult to understand.

  61. All these demands to ‘punish’ those who do not agree with their deeply flawed doctrine, and watching the precipitation here on Mid Vancouver Island, leads me to paraphrase Louis MacNiece from the last stanza of his poem ‘Bagpipe Music';

    The snow is falling hour by hour
    The snow will fall forever,
    Arrest all sceptics if you will,
    But that won’t stop the weather.

  62. Oreskes and Goldberg are having the same conversation, in a slightly different context, that Yanukovych’s top aides and security men were having last week.

    “Well of course we can round up any protesters! And if they don’t obey, we’ll shoot them!”

    Didn’t quite work out the way they thought it would – and the same sort of thing is happening in the climate debate. When a fragile, fanatical regime finally fails, it crumbles into dust overnight.

  63. Fabi says:
    February 24, 2014 at 10:49 am
    Pretty extraordinary comments in the video. I agree that some of this is presented to keep the base in line, as well as provide them a little red meat. However, the message can’t be delivered in the manner shown without true belief.

    It can be delivered in this manner if there is a more cynical agenda at play. If the “carbon pollution” agenda is being used as a lever to implement a broader sociopolitical agenda, they can say anything with a straight face and feigned sincerity as it is that overarching broader agenda that really has their hearts and minds. If they can convince people using this issue, it gives they buy-in to take more active control over micromanaging the economic activity of entire nations. I don’t think this is *about* CO2 as if it were really about CO2 there would be a massive push to switch to nuclear power. This is about *using* CO2 to get people to support a more centrally dictated global policy agenda.

  64. years ago i used to go on demos and what i noticed was those with the best tunes kinda won the day as people gravitated to them while those groups chanting nasty hate slogans ended up getting smaller and smaller as most people are not really that bitter and twisted.

  65. I honestly don’t understand how they can’t see what they are doing to silence climate skeptics is so very wrong.

    It is quite easy. They think that they are saving the world and thus any and all means at their disposal are justified if the end is saving the world.

    The more they do it, the more they are justified in going farther. No rational German in 1921 would have supported the holocaust, but by 1938 the windows were shattered…..

  66. Desperation sets in and that is when these people could be the most dangerous. Serge Galam was right. Watch out!

  67. Many year ago when the BBC did science programs about science rather than propaganda there was a very interesting ‘Horizon’ program.

    One part was about the experiment to see how far people would go if directed by authority figures – men in white coats – to test the ‘just following orders’ defence. It involved giving increasingly strong electrical to a subject [an actor in a cubicle]. The subject was described as having a heart condition. One man gave the ‘subject’ lethal doses even after the subject stopped responding with cries of pain! Admittedly he was very highly stressed and looked like having a heart attack himself.

    However it is the other part of the program which comes to mind. This experiment had a group of actors in a room along with a member of the public, the subject. During the conversation all the actors agreed that one of them was the tallest, even though he obviously wasn’t. Initially the subject gave objections but eventually he went along with them.

    The point being is that we are social animals and most want to ‘belong’. By controlling the media many will accept what is continually repeated as being ‘true’. The clever part is to omit the ‘man-made’ prefix. Global Warming and Climate Change has happened, but the implication often is that the ‘deniers’ believe it hasn’t, rather than the fact that we are just questioning whether any of it is due to Man’s influence.

    It is interesting to note how many Australians accepted man-made climate change as being ‘true’ :

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/australia-more-skeptics-than-believers-and-few-really-care-about-climate-change/

  68. Agreed, crosspatch – and my true believer assessment encompasses the possibility of ulterior motives. I also concur with your statement about the embrace of nuclear power – their stance, re: same, is irreconcilable with their stated concerns about CO2.

  69. It seems to me that a true scientist would want skeptical treatment of his work. That is the way to either find flaws or confirm his approach. The fact that the warmists do not want skeptical examination tells me a lot.

  70. No need to repeat Ghandi’s quote here. It is clear the tide is turning and panic is setting in in some quarters.

    Thanks for a great site that is having a world wide impact. I have added a great deal to what I learned about climate over 50 years ago. The thing that saddens me is amount of “environmental” studies in today’s education system that are based on anthropomorphism rather than good sound basis in biology, microbiology, geography, geology, chemistry, physics and atmospheric sciences. One upon a time we learned of those things in school. Computer models have taken over and sadly, the students think the models represent reality. Unfortunately, they are someone else’s predetermined version of reality with all the disagreeable bits “disappeared”.

  71. Over 40 years ago I read Alexandr Solzhenitsyn “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” – now I’m reading “Gulag Archipelago (1917-1956)” – As scary and as insidious as the Nazis – lasted decades – and everyone including the victims (almost) were convinced it was just and justice! (and was started in the Halcyon Days of Lenin…Stalin and Lysenko were about a decade later. (Collective Farms were under the gun for famines because they MIS-applied Lysenko theories)

  72. I want to know when I start getting paid for questioning CAGW. I haven’t seen the first penny, so I have to drive a cargo-van for a living. It’s not a new van either– about 16 years old and approaching half a million miles. One would think some of the loot I’m supposed to be raking in could go to a newer vehicle.

    Fact is, a lot of this CAGW stuff comes across as more “religion” than “science”. In many religions, we are taught that questioning the stuff handed down from on high is blasphemy and must not be done. Science, on the other hand, depends on not taking stuff at face value, but rather asking questions and following facts to get to the right solutions. “Thou shalt not question CAGW” sounds pretty religious to me.

  73. Tom J says:
    February 24, 2014 at 10:46 am

    I’ll bet that the first comment to this new post at WUWT occurred well within one hour twelve minutes and thirty seconds from the time this post first appeared. That means that the commenter didn’t listen through the entire length of the video.

    Or it means people saw it elsewhere, e.g. http://notrickszone.com/2014/02/23/alarmist-desperation-reaches-new-high-naomi-oreskes-says-rico-style-prosecution-could-be-significant-to-shut-down-skeptics/

    If no one commented before seeing the _entire_ video we would have had to read some Cartoons by Josh to regain our sanity enough to post something.

  74. crosspatch says:
    February 24, 2014 at 9:50 am

    Something to keep in mind. Often when a movement goes to rhetoric this extreme it is not really aimed at their opponents. It is really aimed at keeping their own base of supporters on board the movement. If they sense that their base of support is flagging, ideological groups will often get very extreme in their portrayal of their opposition in order to discourage their own supporters from listening to what those people have to say. …

    All very well, but the intent is to radicalize their “support.” This leads ultimately to the Unabomber, Krystallnacht, bombed abortion clinics, bombed syangogues, folks in concical white hoods marching with torches, book burnings, cultural “revolutions,” great leaps “forward,” the disappeared, gulags, jet liners used as weapons, etc. The behaviour is independent of political “wing.” It relies on absolutist thought and an insistence that there is a “correct” way to think, whether that way be political, religious, or apparently, “scientific.”

  75. Several aspects of this need to be discussed. I do this not from a partisan viewpoint but in taking a lifelong look at politics and certain aspects of the means of influencing people.

    First you need to come to terms with the fact that H. sapiens is a very good single variable processing unit. In its perhaps simplest form think of good vs. bad. It took us almost a million years (perhaps much more) to go from chipping a single cutting edge on rocks to cutting two, setting off the Acheulean tool period, which we continued up to and well beyond when we learned how to cook metals out of rocks.

    A few years ago we were introduced to this:

    “We show how the prevailing majority opinion in a population can be rapidly reversed by a small fraction p of randomly distributed committed agents who consistently proselytize the opposing opinion and are immune to influence. Specifically, we show that when the committed fraction grows beyond a critical value pc ≈ 10%, there is a dramatic decrease in the time Tc taken for the entire population to adopt the committed opinion.

    “Commonly used models for this process include the threshold model [8] and the Bass model [9]. A key feature in both these models is that once an individual adopts the new state, his state remains unchanged at all subsequent times.”

    http://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.84.011130

    So we now know that we are much better at processing a single variable than we are multiple ones, and that once a population reaches a critical value of just 10% believing a single idea, then the entire population can be switched over to that idea in very short shrift.

    Now let’s examine another aspect of ourselves. For lack of knowledge of any formal designation I call this one Reverse Pretzel Logic (RPL). In my lifetime, my first exposure to this came in the Nixon administration and the Watergate scandal. From Wikipedia on the “Smoking Gun” tape:

    “President Nixon had denied any involvement in the scandal, He claimed there were no political motivations in his instructions to the CIA, and claimed he had no knowledge before March 21, 1973, of involvement by senior campaign officials such as John Mitchell. The contents of this tape persuaded Nixon’s own lawyers, Fred Buzhardt and James St. Clair, that “The tape proved that the President had lied to the nation, to his closest aides, and to his own lawyers – for more than two years.”[46] The tape, which was referred to as a “smoking gun” by Barber Conable, proved that Nixon had been involved in the coverup from the beginning.”

    RPL involves the ability to hear a thing of controversy and come to the realization that the reverse of what was promoted is most likely to be the truth of the matter. In other words, listen carefully to what has been said, reverse it, and see if it does not stand the test of time.

    Recent examples of the eeffectiveness of RPL as a personal operating system might be:

    “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” Yes, you did.

    “”major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” May 2, 2003, deck of the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln by President Bush II. That was before the “surge”, which would have to qualify in anyone’s addled brain as a “major combat operation”. Starting to get it?

    “If you like your current healthplan, you can keep it. Period. No one is going to take that away from you.” And the reverse of that would would be what we have been seeing recently.

    On Super Sunday we learned from Obama himself regarding the IRS “scandal” “Not even mass corruption — not even a smidgen of corruption.” Which, when RPL’d, means the IRS has been totally corrupted.

    Susan Rice on Meet The Press yesterday said ““But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. And I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.” Run “patently false” through your new RPL processor and it comes out “patently true.”

    What you need to understand is that whenever a definitive statement is made these days, the opposite is likely to be the truth of the matter. But the most interesting thing of all is why so few of us seem to get this plain and simple truth.

    This rather simple psychological conundrum is actually the basis for the single most valuable commodity in all of human existence to date: flexible ethics. See Enron, Madoff et al etc. The final question each of us should ask ourselves before plunking down on, well anything, is how vulnerable are we to flexible ethics?

  76. @ Andy
    Thanks for the link.

    “as people who said “so much for global warming” and similar comments were punched in the face.” — NewYorker (The Borowitz Report)

    This fantasy is brought to you by people holding on to a belief system faced with hard truths that are incompatible with that belief system.

    As a Christian that does understand evolution I often find myself in discussions/debates/arguments about evolution. A lot of people have been programmed to believe that either evolution is true or creation is true, that they are mutually exclusive. Communicating the evidence for evolution is pointless until this false dilemma has been neutralized. Emotions override rational thought and they just want to punch me in the face for challenging their belief system with undeniable truths. It’s the same thing with the warmists. The facts don’t matter. They believe in a future of ruin and the wickedness of humanity. Their religion revolves around there being too many people ravaging a delicate planet. CAGW has become the primary doctrine of this religion therefore any detraction from CAGW is an attack on their personal belief system. Global warming simply must be real, primarily caused by human activity, and dangerous. That’s why any evidence for any warming, human contribution, or inconvenience immediately morphs into proof of CAGW and why any “snide remark” about it being cold inconsistently with global warming theory is met with such vehemence.

  77. highflight56433 says:
    February 24, 2014 at 10:17 am

    Interesting that some folks here get a free pass to make accusations at the person rather than the comments rather than move on or just observe. By doing so, the victims are left to defend themselves in what ever logic they muster. But the personal attacks continue. Then it becomes trash talk with ever increasing intensity.

    Obscure and yet vague. What are you talking about.

  78. @Jim Davidson-I have a hard time figuring out how the hell it is fortunate that the American electorate disagreed with an obviously true statement, indeed perhaps the most beautifully expressed political truism in history.

    I also have a hard time figuring out how it is fortunate, that we are now stuck with a massive welfare state bequeathed to us by Lyndon Johnson. One which is driving our entire nation to backruptcy.

    And I very much doubt that anyone who died in Vietnam considered it fortunate.

    But no, go ahead and call one of the few politicians ever to fight for liberty the same as these people. I’ve got news for you-these are the people Goldwater was fighting against.

  79. The parallels with what occurred in pre-WWII Germany seem to be emerging with the constant smearing of climate skeptics for the purpose of social isolation, and now Oreskes is calling for members of this group to be charged with crimes under RICO. This isn’t new, we’ve heard these calls for climate skeptics to be arrested before, such as Grist’s David Roberts who proposed Nuremberg style trials for climate skeptics, but lately it seems to be picking up speed.”

    The parallel is even much stronger than you present it as.

    Hitlers Germany didn’t just use similar tactics, they also targeted similar issues. They was extremely ‘green’ when he was able to use the environmentalists concerns to his advantage. Many of his early laws were of the ‘save the environment’ kind and targeted everything from land use to pollution, while he was always quite concerned with population levels. It gained him a lot of support amongst the people, and allowed him to seize Government control for a lot of areas.

    The environment minded eventually came to realize they had been used, but at that point it was too late.

  80. “Climate parasites” seems to be an apt description. Without a care as to all the harm that they’re doing to their host, they have evolved to open the blood supply more and more over time, allowing them to feed and multiply.

    Efforts to dislodge them seem to make them redouble their efforts and cling ever tighter, increasing the harm done.

    Like most parasitic infections, they will either win, leaving their host weakened and enslaved; or they will be purged.

    I’d normally be a lot more optimistic about humanity’s chances, but it’s managed to infect the leader of the free world and only a few T-cells seem to have woken up.

  81. @crosspatch at 10:44am
    In fact, I would suggest going deep into the various communities that push this “carbon pollution” agenda and start exposing more of their stuff to the general public.

    An alternative is to wake up someone deep in the communities.

    “That plain little turtle below in the stack,
    That plain little turtle whose name was just Mack,
    Decided he’d taken enough. And he had
    And that plain little lad got a little bit mad
    And that plain little Mack did a plain little thing
    He burped! And his burp shook the throne of the king!

    But there is a moral of this story and it is simply that anyone can make a difference and their action can bring about change.
    – quote from Dr. Seuss – Yertle, the Turtle – 1958
    from http://thechildrenswar.blogspot.com/2013/03/yertle-turtle-by-dr-seuss.html

    Most of us believe ClimateGate was an inside job from someone who “burped.”
    Edward Snowden made quite a burp.
    There are plain little lads who have been lied to for years. If a few get a little bit mad, they can burp and shake the thrown of the king.

  82. Duster:

    I copy your comment at February 24, 2014 at 11:19 am because it is too important for it to be missed so a repeat presentation may be noticed by some who may have overlooked it.

    You say
    All very well, but the intent is to radicalize their “support.” This leads ultimately to the Unabomber, Krystallnacht, bombed abortion clinics, bombed syangogues, folks in concical white hoods marching with torches, book burnings, cultural “revolutions,” great leaps “forward,” the disappeared, gulags, jet liners used as weapons, etc. The behaviour is independent of political “wing.” It relies on absolutist thought and an insistence that there is a “correct” way to think, whether that way be political, religious, or apparently, “scientific.”

    Yes! And that is why such hate speech needs to be opposed whomever it is aimed at whether we agree with them or not.

    Richard

  83. In a previous generation if a tenured scientist at a place like MIT uttered such language he/she would have found themselves unemployed or teaching algebra at the local Community College.

  84. A vocal/visual campaign should be immediately initiated with posters, placards, patches, etc., with the following message imprinted upon said and politicized in the media and throughout the populace.

    Reject the CAGW Inquisition
    of the
    Natural Sciences

    If you value your life, liberty and Religious freedom

  85. I would have bet one of the requirements to be met under the RICO statue involves money actually changing hands. However with the current lawless administration and the spineless Supreme Court, statutory requirements are not an effective barrier to creative prosecution. Remember, he has a pen and a phone …

    “So let it be written; so let it be done”

  86. They have much of the world brainwashed……….even to the point so that they can tell that world that record cold is the result of global warming……….and the world will believe.

    Or that heavy snowstorms and blizzards are caused by global warming……….and the world will believe.

    Or that the first widespread severe drought in the US Cornbelt in 24 years, is the result of global warming…….. and the world will ignore the 24 years of the best growing weather in history and believe it.

    Or that the law of photosynthesis and key role of CO2, which is causing massive benefits to our biosphere and contributing greatly to record world food production doesn’t matter…….and the world believes it.

    Or that Super Storm Sandy was unprecedented and caused by global warming……..an the world believed it.

    Once you have the world believing, you have millions of brains that will readily accept your propaganda because of what you have convinced them of. They have accomplished this task well. The biggest problem is scientists presenting authentic empircal data from the real world over the past decade+ that contradicts the brainwashed position which threatens to expose their position and reveal the truth.

    Who will the loyal followers of CAGW believe? Their high priests of climate science and government that they have faith in or the evil skeptics………errrr, I mean deniers?

    The marketing strategy is simple. Destroy us by crafting a negative, even evil image as being anti science or pro pollution or bribed mouth pieces.

    Anybody that believes in CAGW that reads this post for instance will think I am one of them and am making all this up to try to sabotage the efforts of so many good people trying to save the planet.

    My intent is only to be honest about what I see as an operational meteorologist for 32 years, studying this field closely the past 12 years. I get no money. I have adjusted my position slowly during that period based entirely on what the scientific evidence shows.
    If the planet started warming catastrophically like global climate models have predicted, I would incorporate that into my view and adjust accordingly…………………..not ignore it and look for reasons to explain why the catastrophic warming fits well into what my view was a few years ago.

    Climate science is rapidly evolving as we have learned a tremendous amount over the last decade. The ones trying to lead the way with new understanding of how the atmosphere, oceans, land, magnetic fields, sun and other factors work together are being vilified for doing so.

    They are trying to silence us because the new information/knowlege does not line up with the belief system of the party in control. The party in control decided a long time ago that humans burning fossil fuels is the dominant factor and the “science is settled” and “debate is over”.

    Rather than relying entirely on legit science and authentic real world evidence/data to prove that we are wrong and their theory is right, the objective is to destroy our reputation and credibility and silence us.

  87. Climate change realists should take heart. The desperation of these people is an excellent barometer of just how badly they are losing the debate (which, of course, doesn’t exist).

    If you’re an alarmist, it’s time to consider retirement or a new career.

  88. I consider this type of behavior definitive oppression. The only way to combat such is to organize, focus efforts and implement a full frontal assault. I would offer the thought once again relating to organizing the masses. Who would stand shoulder to shoulder against the perveyors of failed conjecture and their self appointed omnipotence.

    I put forth the rally cry once again for the formal formation of the “Union of Concerned Citizens, Scientists, and Businesses” or the like.

    Everything has a starting point!

    Could this be the start of the Renaissance or even revolution in climate science?

    I think it is fair to say we certainly need one!

  89. denniswingo says:
    February 24, 2014 at 10:58 am
    It is quite easy. They think that they are saving the world and thus any and all means at their disposal are justified if the end is saving the world.

    Some of them do believe that, for sure. But some of them really aren’t all that invested in the “saving the world” thing. Many of them just want to be liked by the “cool kids” and so they hang out where the cool kids hang out, pick up the shibboleths of the cool kids, learn all the “correct” ways to use the “correct” buzzwords in order to be accepted by the social group they want to be noticed by. This applies mostly to the young college age crowd but also applies to some of the more guilty-feeling affluent ones who want to do something that on the surface shows some repentance for their crime of being well-off. They want to be one of the “good” rich people and not one of the “bad” rich people so they have to participate in the “correct” communities, or whatever, in order to show they aren’t heartless plutocrats … or something. Many of their most ardent supporters have other “issues” at work that is driving their support. It certainly isn’t logic, it is very much emotionally driven, in my personal opinion.

  90. If their lack of intellectual rigour wasn’t bad enough their easy embrace of a police state mentality should appall us all. We all need to reiterate until we are blue in the face the one big overwhelming and irrefutable fact; the models have all failed. Every last one of them.

    Let them deny that.

  91. Carol Costello did a piece on CNN this morning that says, among other things, the “Deniers” are funded by $568 million dollars annually. She was rather vague about who was doing the funding other than saying the various fossil fuel related industries were involved. I’m still waiting for my check.

    This whole climate change campaign strikes me as having more of a communist flavor to it rather than a fascist taste.

  92. @Bob Fox at 9:59 am
    I think that Godwin’s law is quite pernicious because it tries to silence the use of a very important example from history.

    You are right. But Godwin Rule is ” a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. “Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust”, Godwin has written.[11]Wikipedia

  93. Well I actually listened to reporter Suzanne Goldberg’s complete political speech. I say political, because she cited not a single item of scientific evidence or data in her entire speech; which was mostly an anti-republican (in Congress) and anti-conservative diatribe, unsupported by any fact of any kind.

    For the record, I am neither a Republican, nor a conservative; and in the interest of fairness, I am not a Democrat, or a liberal either. And no I don’t belong to any fringe groups either.

    For the record, I have current paid up membership in the Optical Society of America, which is one of the founding parties of The American Institute of Physics, which is an organization of scientists. Just this morning, I received a written invitation to apply for senior membership status, because of “my stature in that field.” Well maybe they are trying to raise money.

    I am also a fully paid up member in good standing, of SPIE ; the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, with some 17,000 members world wide; a scientific organization.

    Other than those, I belong to nothing; well I do have lifetime membership in the University of Auckland Society. (Aumni Association)

    But back to M(r)s Goldberg. It seemed that the root of her message, was her dismay that the “legacy media” ; her words for “late news items on dead tree” has been supplanted by more open and available communication media, that no longer has the power of censorship by editorial veto power, that once controlled what the people were allowed to be told.

    Sorry Suzanne; you are one with the American Eastern elk; or more likely the dodo. But if you actually told the people some science, rather than say you could see Siberia from some Aleut village in Alaska, you might find redemption.

    By the way, when you were there in Alaska listening to the plight of those villagers; did it occur to you to explain to them, that the reason they are being flooded by sea level rise, is claimed by YOU and climate change scientists to be their use of fossil fuel burning snow mobiles instead of clean green free renewable energy, traditional sleds, and their use of stored chemical energy fire arms to shoot whales, instead of their traditional spears. Why didn’t YOU tell them the cause of their plight, or did that not occur to you, while seeking some story sensationalism.

    But anyhow, thanks for the free publicity for the WUWT readership; is it now a 97% consensus that this is the top #1 SCIENCE NEWS information medium in the world ??

    I just couldn’t get past the first ten seconds of Dr. Professor Oreske’s speech.

    I did note the professional introductions to Susanne, Naomi, and Peter, at the start; right chummy it was; very professional, and kinda scientifically rigorous.

  94. What would you expect from a cause created primarily by public relations firms?
    Projection of their vile fantasies is the one thing these people do well.
    As much as I enjoy snark, lets not get sucked too deeply into these poor peoples psychosis.
    The wheels have fallen off this buggy, the sky refuses to fall, the planet will not warm.
    As the cycle of northern weather continues into the cool phase, desperation has developed at the Cult of Calamitous Climate.
    The words of their oracle was the gas shall spread, the planet shall warm, it is written in the holy gospel of the computer models.
    Doom will fall upon us all.
    Salvation is only to be found in damning the magic gas.
    Now their Howard Camping moment is upon them, whither the warming?
    They have returned to the gospel, reinterpreted the holy script of their computer modelling, the world has not obeyed the scripture, hence the world must be wrong.
    But the eyeballs of the faithful have been lashed with icy rain, their fingers frozen by record cold, fuel bills of an unprecedented cost rain down upon them.
    This can only be the work of their antichrist, that sullen nonbeliever.
    Only disbelief could cause such a disconnect, for if the disbelief spreads to the faithful, the high priests will be driven from the temple,cast down to work for a living with the common folk.
    Sarc/on/off.?
    Human nature has not changed, confidence men always seek a free lunch, the higher they rise, the harder they fall.
    The priceless projection of these persons, who are on the record as knowingly promoting the cause, wishing RICO prosecutions upon their imaginary enemies.
    Been gazing into their abyss again have they?

    Point is name calling is pretty much redundant, what could I label these fools and bandits, that they have not already revealed themselves to be?

  95. When the messenger is the one instigating up the hate, they are no longer the messenger, they are the hateful propagandist.
    Actions that should not be applied to the messenger may be applied to the hateful propagandist.

  96. Andrew30 says:
    February 24, 2014 at 10:50 am
    “There come a point where someone lying in bed asks themselves what they would have done if they were alive in Germany in 1933. Would they have sacraficed their freedom and perhaps their life to try to prevent what they now know happened? ….”

    A few young people tried to make a difference

  97. I substituted ‘Warmists’ for ‘State’ but it seems to fit well!

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the Warmists can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the Warmists to use all of their power to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the Warmists.” – Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Nazi Propaganda

  98. Not exactly on topic, but not exactly irrelevant either:

    Met Office storm final briefing – good, bad and ugly

    Picked up by Bishophill and GWPF today, has generated quite a lot of interest, especially about the Met Offices extremely flexible view on sea levels. The copy of the report I had said this:

    Sea level along the English Channel has already risen by about 12cm in the last 100 years. With the warming we are already committed to over the next few decades, a further 11-16cm of sea level rise is likely by 2030. This equates to 23-27cm (9-101⁄2 inches) of total sea level rise since 1900.

    I said this:

    12 cm in 100 years translates to 1.2 mm per year of sea level rise along the English channel over the past 100 years. The Met Office is now suggesting that this is going to accelerate to 13.5 cm (median) in the next 16 years giving a rate of 8.4 mm per year until 2030. This represents an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise of 700% that is forecast to start happening tomorrow! This must surely be total drivel (Figure 3).

    But then found out that Dr Ruth Dixon had already challenged the figures resulting in a new report being issued that said this:

    Sea level along the English Channel has already risen during the 20th century due to ocean warming and melting of glaciers. With the warming we are already committed to over the next few decades, a further overall 11-16cm of sea level rise is likely by 2030, relative to 1990, of which at least two-thirds will be due to the effects of climate change.

    I think the actual rate of increase after subtracting isostasy is about 0.6 mm / year.

    Beware, both copies of the report are at large.
    PS where do we go to get plugged into all this money? :-)

  99. Most of this is laughable but not all. When you forget the lessons of history, you are doomed to repeat mistakes. Free speech is a precious thing but not a right. It needs to be defended. But so called scientists should be at the forefront of this debate. They are not by and large. Lysenkoism is alive and kicking.

  100. Anthony,
    Thank you.

    Perhaps I am just a really old (68) Simple Red Neck, but I see it to be worse than you have outlined. Progressives have been in love with violent revolution since 1918. E.g. Bill Ayers is one of HIS closest advisors and HIS administration is enamored by the likes of Castro, Chavez/Maduro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Stalin. HE and Hillary sold out the democratically elected government in Honduras to support a “wanna-be dictator-for-life” to curry favor with Chaves. They sold out some of our most loyal allies in East Europe to curry favor with Putin, i.e. Hillary’s “Reset” with Russia.

    (I capitalize HIS name because, for the left and as Barbara Walters said: we thought he was our Messiah.)

    Pray for our country.
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

    PS: The most famous politician to smoke a cigar was Winston Churchill; the second most was Bill Clinton. Although, Bill wasn’t known for SMOAKING them. I wonder if that use was more carcinogenic to the hapless bystanders than second hand smoke. An Inquiring mind wants to know!)

  101. Just to be picky, are you sure that is a Nazi uniform? I don’t see any obvious Nazi symbols – swastikas, German eagles, skulls, lightning flashes, etc. It is captioned ‘Reichfuhrer SS’, but from a Google image search I can’t find any such uniform for that rank. And the birds on the cap badge look suspiciously like penguins – not a bird traditionally associated with the Third Reich.

    REPLY: If you’ll go to http://skepticalscience.com and look at their logo in the header, you’ll see they’ve substituted those logos into the place where SS and swastikas previously existed on the uniform.

    For another example, compare this SkS doctored image here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/skstroopers_marked.jpg

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

    and note the logo changes via Photoshop techniques. – Anthony

  102. The Left frequently falsely accuse others of doing what they themselves are actually doing. By accusing others, they seek to protect themselves from the same charge. It should be possible to pivot 180° and charge them with the same thing. They are the ones actually doing whatever evil thing is being charged. We and the public need to understand, the tactic actually signals what they are doing. If they are caught in their own trap, maybe they’ll stop using the tactic. Thus, it may be the proper tactic is not to become defensive when charged by the Left, but to immediately attack them vigorously with exactly the same charge.

  103. alexjc38 says:
    February 24, 2014 at 10:02 am
    MikeN: “The Jew has no cigar.”

    I’ve now found a website which has a number of illustrations by Philipp Rupprecht which he drew for a children’s colouring book in 1934, apparently, and which shows several caricatures of Jewish financiers looking as though they are puffing away at cigars:

    http://germanpropaganda.org/literature-for-children/

    In the Nazis’ eyes, it seems the Jews were the well-funded “merchants of doubt” of their time.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    Thanks for the link Alexjc.
    I am old enough to remember similar treatment of the Japanese in the years following WW2, even extending to children’s cartoons. Very sad stuff, IMO.

    Henry.

  104. the inability to solve an imaginary non existent problem is likely to lead to anxiety perhaps ending in hysteria? How can you get rid of something that doesn’t exist?

    I think the current ‘A co2 deathstar is coming!’ could make a good film in the style of Airplane!

  105. Interesting post, informative and timely.

    What I see is overwhelming desperation as the facts on the ground go against them. Even with massive, wholesale data manipulation by the temperature keeping government agencies we still see no rise in temperatures for almost two decades — even a decline if one looks at raw data and not the “adjusted” stuff they call data. But temperatures should be increasing dramatically given the huge rise in CO2 over the last 20 years if their ‘theory’ of CO2 being the driver of climate was correct.

    I have seen similar attempts to shut down debate in other areas. I am a radical libertarian follower of the late Murray Rothbard, so I have been called everything you can think of by all sides of the political spectrum. Little changes.

    No one takes action against anyone who says the earth is not round or who claim they see unicorns because people love to make fun of them and want them to make a fool of themselves in public. It is only when the outsiders start to mount credible arguments that the entrencted government loving minions of orthodoxy want to start using the power of the state to help them “win” the argument.

    The cold and snowy winters after we were told that CAGW would put an end to the snow is doing more to damage the other side than anything this blog or any of us could do. They are desperate because Mother Nature can be one mean B*tch.

  106. When you look at the shrillness and rabidity of Oreske and the others, it becomes obvious that there must be an AWFUL lot of money at stake. One of the prime funders being George Soros, who was described way back in 1994 by the LA Times (not exactly a conservative bastion):

    It seems that Soros believes he was anointed by God. “I fancied myself as some kind of god …” he once wrote. “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”
    When asked by Britain’s Independent newspaper to elaborate on that passage, Soros said, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”
    (source: http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/04/opinion/oe-ehrenfeld4 )

    A more recent opinion (2010) also has details about Soros’ world-changing ambitions:

    http://www.wnd.com/2010/12/243169/

    e.g.
    “Soros’ donation to Media Matters suggests that intimidating journalists who dare to question his vision is now a top priority,” the report said. “Come down on the wrong side of an issue and risk being labeled ignorant or evil by the smear website.”

    Media matters to the warmists, as evidenced by their behaviour. Unfortunate that science (and us) don’t….

  107. 7. Tactics

    “Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. … Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.” p.126

    Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):

    1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

    2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat…. [and] the collapse of communication.

    3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

    4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

    5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

    6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

    7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time….”

    8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”

    9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

    10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”

    11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… every positive has its negative.”

    12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

    13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

    “…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

    “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (pps.127-134)
    Pick a target and ridicule and polarize them.

  108. Hoser says:
    February 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm
    The Left frequently falsely accuse others of doing what they themselves are actually doing. By accusing others, they seek to protect themselves from the same charge.

    Absolutely, I see that all the time and have brought that up on several occasions over many years. Also, their policies often are exactly 180 degrees opposite from what they are sold to the people as being. “Renewable” energy policies in Germany that were sold as reducing CO2 emissions have actually increased those emissions and resulted in burning of more, not less, coal. It goes to their social policies as well. Policies that are sold as easing the disparity of income between richest and poorest actually make it worse. Policies that are sold as allowing a pathway out of poverty actually do the opposite and prevent their working out of it through a series of “benefit cliffs” where if they make a small improvement in their situation they face a much larger loss in the cutoff of a large benefit (rent subsidy, for example). Any attempt to put programs in place that ACTUALLY would provide a way to reduce income disparity or provide a way to work out of poverty is attacked as “mean spirited”. At least in the US, the political left is light years beyond George Orwell. Nobody hurts more people though the generations than they do. It is really so sad.

  109. Oh well, comment vanished into the web.
    The projectile projecting is getting insanely funny.
    Home goal after home goal.
    The vile ravings of these people is going to hit a crescendo soon.
    Let us not get sucked into these poor people psychosis.
    While we can come up with pithy descriptors of this unwholesome behaviour, why bother.
    Just hold up the mike and camera and let them go.
    No sane person, could invent such characters.
    No rational person can listen to such ravings without cringing inside.
    Best to leave these lovelies talking amongst themselves.
    However, they are prone to violent acting out, at this stage of their pain.
    So do be on guard.

  110. Alinsky’s rules for radicals:
    1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
    2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
    3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
    4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
    5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
    6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
    7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
    8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
    9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
    10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
    11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
    12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
    13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

    It would seem as though the Alarmist’s have cherry-picked some of these rules to fit their agenda.

  111. Both Naomi Oreskes and Suzanne Goldenberg are feminists, which boils down to a hate movement.

    There are numerous similarities between feminism and consensus climacteric movement, though hate narrative is a new addition to the latter.

    A famous scientist Al Gore also employed a feminist for his campaign that did not turn too well, see http://www.salon.com/1999/11/01/wolf/

    Match made in CAGW hell.

  112. I have no idea what Oreskes is talking about with regard to RICO violations by those she labels deniers and I can’t actually think of anything concrete that those she labels deniers are doing that would violate the RICO statute.

    On the other hand one could make a case that the EPA violating its own policy and working in secret with NGOs using false ID to mislead the public would be a better example of racketeering than anything that those she labels deniers have done.

  113. “The smallest divergence from the absolute is grave error and wickedness. From there it is a short step to declaring war on the misbelievers. When faith is both intellectual and visceral, the overwhelming justification is that heresy imperils other souls. If the erring sheep will not recant, he or she becomes a source of error in others….[P]ersecution is a health measure that stops the spread of an infectious disease—all the more necessary that souls matter more than bodies.”

    Yes. Because orthodoxy, orthodox narrative to be more precise, is the ‘DNA’ of the cultural entity, be that entity an extreme political system, a religion, or in this case CAGW. Scepticism (or indeed narratives from competing cultural entities) represents a threat to the accurate propagation of that DNA, so is indeed a disease from the PoV of the cultural entity. If narrative divergence gets too large, there won’t be enough coherence to maintain the cultural entity and it may crash, losing it’s grip on millions of adherents and enormous infra-structure. Via iterative selection of memes that hit our psychological hot-buttons (there is no sentient or agential adgenda), ‘immersed’ adherents are rewarded with satisfying brain chemicals for reinforcing orthodoxy and suppressing diversion. The only difference between an agressive cultural entity of this type, and a benign one, is whether it happens to be in relative equilibrium with its hosts and with competeting entities.

  114. Another scary quote from the LA TImes article describes the megalomaniacal (megalomanniacal?) world these folks live in:

    ‘In his book, “Soros on Soros,” he says: “I do not accept the rules imposed by others…. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” Clearly, Soros considers himself to be someone who is able to determine when the “normal rules” should and shouldn’t apply.’

    The air must be a bit thin up there…..

  115. Kudos to Anthony for saying what needs to be said.

    I agree with crosspatch above, when he says, “They’re scared.”

    The problem is that scared people with power are very dangerous. The alarmist crowd is well aware that most reader comments in various forums now lean heavily toward skepticsm of catastrophic AGW and the “carbon” scare. They are ratcheting up their game because they are clearly losing public support, and they know it. They are dangerous because they hold the levers of power, even though they are clearly in the minority.

    These people also go out of their way to bar any input from credible scientific skeptics, such as M.I.T.’s Prof. Richard Lindzen, who flatly contradicts their climate alarmism:

    The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.

    Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public; the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.

    Lindzen shows that the current climate is very benign, and provides some history:

    Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages, and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in hundred-thousand year cycles for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present, despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced, to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

    Since we don’t fully understand the climate, it is preposterous to assume that Oreskes and the others know more than Prof Lindzen, who continues:

    For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans, where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface, provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

    Lindzen’s statement negates all of the climate alarmism being promoted by these “merchants of smear”. There is nothing happening that is either unusual, or unprecedented. What we are observing is simply natural climate variability. In fact, we have been living in a “Goldilocks” climate since the mid-1800’s.

    The danger comes from telling the truth to power. These people have been feathering their nests based on the climate scare, and they will react viciously given the chance. If we don’t fight back — each in his/her own way — then they will keep ratcheting up their responses until there is real violence. History is replete with examples. Either we fight back, or we will be the victims.

  116. Timetochooseagain, I’m pretty sure Jim Davidson meant to type unfortunately. Nobody would come on here and contend moderation in the pursuit of justice is a good thing.

  117. “Khwarizmi says:
    February 24, 2014 at 12:49 pm
    Yesterdays cartoon was a SKEPTIC cartoon not a warmist one.
    Pretending otherwise doesn’t make it so.”

    Problem is, if most of the people (I won’t say 97 percent ….) who view the cartoon see it as, er, skewering skeptics, if the cartoonist intended it to mock warmists, then he missed his mark. FAIL.

  118. I, as a German, would strongly recommend that Roy Spencer not use the “climate nazi” term.
    Not out of some kind of sensibility for the past but for a completely different reason – you see; Germany today has as its founding myth being against fascism. So the “Nazi” is the eternal scapegoat in all debates here. You really don’t have to deviate far from the party line to be called one. For instance, being against the Euro might suffice. Because somewhere in some Euro country some Nazi is against the Euro, you must be one as well etc. And as all our journalists are pretty left wing, including the state broadcasters, we hear the warning of mythical Nazis day in day out, and five Hitler documentaries a day.

    So please don’t use the word where it’s not applicable; it just gets lame so fast.

  119. Khwarizmi says:
    February 24, 2014 at 12:49 pm
    “Yesterdays cartoon was a SKEPTIC cartoon not a warmist one.
    Pretending otherwise doesn’t make it so.”

    Stereotyping skeptics as Monopoly millionaires smoking cigars? If you or the cartoonist think that’s funny or a good depiction of climate skeptics… For me it looked like typical “Kochtopus” style NYT agitprop.

    Maybe the cartoonist just tries to crawl into the NYT’s backside to keep the job. Well, Judas, if he’s a skeptic.

  120. All of this is why the Mann lawsuits are so important to defeat. I love that Steyn has countersued on freedom of speech grounds. I don’t know if you can do that in Canada, but it would probably be nice if Ball could do it in his case as well.

    I wonder if Lord Deben is reading this posting and comments. I hope so. His call for a more civil debate would be welcome if he started by directing towards Oreske and other of her ilk. He should call these folks out for their behavior. Unfortunately, there are so many of them it would be a full time job.

    I hope that Anthony has sent a copy of this posting to Lord Deben. He needs to read it.

  121. They keep saying “The science is clear: drastic global climate change due to human activities threatens our planet.” yet I’m a scientist and have followed the studies since the mid 1980’s and to me, it’s not clear at all. What’s clear is the climate is incredibly complex and we have very little understanding of the vast majority of it.

    So what evidence do they have, that I haven’t seen, to be so darn sure of themselves?

  122. People like MM get funded by a university which in turn is funded by the government. An example of making fun of this whilst making a point is to do a Monty Python skit eg “I’m a Lumberjack” and turning it into a song where he fleeces money from the public.
    I’m a scientist and I don’t care
    I take you’re money and I fleece you bare.

    This type of stuff has to be put out there for example you tube and publicized.

  123. @James Ard-I don’t think anyone anywhere should really be thinking moderation in the pursuit of justice is a good thing. But a lot of people do think so. So I don’t know that I can assume that was just a typo. I’d certainly hope so.

  124. “DirkH says:
    February 24, 2014 at 1:01 pm”

    Yep, it’s amazing how the left is about all that’s left….not much difference, if any, between Spiegel, Stern, and Focus; and when Focus quotes Bild….oh my….I guess I’d say an out-of-focus picture of a star in the mirror….

    How about Carbon critters? Warmist weenies? Chicken Littles (the sky is falling….)?
    Weathermelons…False Profits of Doom?

  125. Godwin’s law and “Nazis”
    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. ..
    No “law” should require calling it something else.

  126. The truly frightening thing about the 10-10 snuff flick was not the gory simulated murder of children in front of their classmates. It’s the fact that of the several dozen people involved in making the video, not one stood up and said, “What we’re doing here is hideously sick.” They all thought it was “just a joke–very funny.” These people have been emotionally readied to light the ovens.

  127. The notorious AGW proponents are now witnessing their faith, reputation, career and life’s work go down the drain. They have pushed their uncompromising stance so forcefully that the inevitable is likely to qualify as extreme, awful fate. This would explain the anger – the second of the five stages of grief by Kübler-Ross. But no worries, the next stages will be more productive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model

  128. Extraordinary for someone in such a position of responsibility to make threats and incite people to persecute others. It is irresponsible and foolish for Oreskes to threaten people for no other reason than she disagrees with their constitutional freedom to have a different point of view. It is especially dangerous to do it from her post at a university where her inflammatory language could potentially put students and staff at risk from any idiot who takes offence. Parents of students at her university should be concerned.

    It is appalling that those who appear to be of Jewish descent could so quickly forget that their ancestors were violently persecuted throughout their history. That they are so easily able to persecute others for not accepting their beliefs is a betrayal of the welcome the United States gave all those who escaped from fascist genocide.

    Concerning Mann, I understand (though this could be wrong) that his grandfather, Max, emigrated from Russia and found refuge in the United States. He was apparently a physician who set up a private practice in Philadelphia.

    https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1971-27809-32846-4?cc=2000219&wc=M9QX-M51:n1790760009

  129. DirkH, that’s why I used the term…because it IS applicable….for several reasons. If it doesn’t play well in Germany (which I expected anyway) that’s OK by me.

    Just because others have overused the term doesn’t mean it never fits. And I probably would have restrained myself from using it, if not for being accused so many times for being as evil as a Holocaust denier.

    Yes, they know just what they are doing when they call us “deniers”. It is NOT a generic term.

  130. Oreskes and company would seem to be more vulnerable to RICO prosecution than any skeptic; not to mention obtaining government funding under false pretenses – and conspiracy to violate the civil rights of skeptics.

    Hitler and Giebbels would have been proud.

  131. I remember towards the end of the Soviet Union’s tenure, some of its dissidents spoke out for the “right to be wrong,” the right to be mistaken in one’s opinion, the right to hold erroneous views (erroneous in the state’s view). It sounded, and ought still to sound, like something controversial only in a dictatorship, not in a free country.

    But I can’t help feeling that the current nasty talk involves an effort to bait or distract.

  132. Dear Mr. Duster,

    In the light of Anthony’s post on smearing people, your question regarding my post refers to Mr. Courtney who is of the mind to make personal attacks on the character of others. He is of the belief that labeling a person wins the day. And Mr. Courtney continues down his path of character assassination even though the obvious truth is staring him in the face. To answer your question, yesterday there was this post (typically I would just move on, but Mr. Courtney insists on dragging me through a sewer) :

    START
    Paul Westhaver says:
    February 23, 2014 at 9:31 am

    Anthony,

    I am sure you are well aware now that your pantomimed death is not an aspiration from the greenies alone.

    I maintain that the culture of death, largely overlaps with the green movement and as such influences the green movement at an operational level. The culture of death comes from left political wing.

    The green death culture, the socialists, have no qualms about lying to achieve a political and social end nor do the have any qualms about killing to achieve their goals.

    Look at history, the socialists are responsible for the death of 262,000,000 people in the last 110 years. See: Death by government::

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

    This cartoon should be taken very seriously by Anthony et al because this web site (WUWT) is not just about asserting true science and wonder, it is a major thorn in the side and obstacle to very evil forces that mean to have their way, come what may, even it that involves killing Mr Watts.

    If you wait long enough, evil murder-oriented leftists will always show their true natures. This cartoon is just an example of what is really on the mind of the left. If they could get away with it, they would kill us all. It has happened in the past and it is happening now and it will happen again. It always starts from a socialist government and their supporters asserting some phony leftist ideal. This time it is Earth God. It always ends with mass-murder. Cambodia,, China, Germany, Ukraine etc… 262,000,000 dead at the hands of the socialist left.

    Today Anthony is a cartoon vampire in the New Your Times. Tomorrow he is an obituary.
    END

    From which I took the link and posted this so all could see the links basic content:
    highflight56433 says:
    February 23, 2014 at 12:33 pm

    “Look at history, the socialists are responsible for the death of 262,000,000 people in the last 110 years. See: Death by government:”

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

    JUST IN CASE YOU NEED A GOOD VISUAL OF THE NUMBERS

    1. 169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]

    I BACKGROUND

    2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
    3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide

    II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS

    4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
    5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
    6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
    7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

    III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS

    8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
    9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
    10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
    11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
    12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
    13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
    14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse

    IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS

    15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
    16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
    17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia

    I do not see it as a joke. It is as many here have said. History will repeat. The list of what they think has become what they say. Soon it will be what they do. Go stand in those places listed above and think of the number of full football stadiums of souls wasted.

    Be vigilant.
    END

    However, Mr. Courtney took some offense. Here is his post:

    START
    richardscourtney says:
    February 23, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    highflight56433:

    Your post at February 23, 2014 at 12:33 pm is yet another example of an anonymous ultra-right troll trying to pretend that anything they don’t like is “socialist”.

    Totalitarians come from all parts of the political spectrum. Your list is of murderous totalitarian governments. For example, any list is plain daft when – as yours – it claims to be of “socialists” and includes e.g. “Feudal Russia”.

    Russia
    END

    And from there Mr. Courtney went to a new level:
    START
    richardscourtney says:
    February 23, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    highflight56433:

    You compound your offensive, untrue and silly post at February 23, 2014 at 12:33 pm by your childish excuse for that troll;ing which you provide in your post at February 23, 2014 at 1:21 pm.

    YOU POSTED THAT LIST TO THIS THREAD. AND YOU MADE THE LIE THAT IT WAS A LIST OF “SOCIALIST” GOVERNMENTS.
    It does not matter where you obtained the list. And it does not matter if anyone else had made ther lie before: you have made the infantile excuse that “Little Johny did it first”.

    I really despise anonymous trolls!

    Richard
    END

    Mr. Courtney continues his personal attack with:
    START
    richardscourtney says:
    February 23, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    highflight56433:

    This thread is about hate against a group being expressed in a cartoon.

    Your posts expressed similar untrue demonisation of another group; i.e. socialists.

    How dare you accuse me of “hate” in your post at February 23, 2014 at 2:00 pm!?
    You expressed the hate and I objected – and object – to it.

    I am angry at your hateful, unprovoked and untrue attack.

    As I said, murderous totalitatarian governments are from across the political spectrum. Indeed, your list demonstrates that. But you lie that only “socialists” do such evil things.

    Allowing hateful lies such as yours against any group enables H1tlerianism. Indeed, such lies are H1tlerianism. You are nasty, very nasty.

    But you say “Bye” before apologising for your behaviour.

    Richard
    END

    However, Mr. Westhaver stepped in to explain to Mr. Courtney the error has slipped in to:
    START
    Paul Westhaver says:
    February 23, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    M Courtney,

    I defined the group at 9:31 am after Roy Spenser at 8:06 am.

    Climate alarm-ism is well-known to be wealth redistribution scam…that is axiomatic.

    In fact, to say that AGW is socialism borders on a tautology. You don’t actually have to say it anymore.
    END

    Thus, my post that there are individuals HERE that make personal slanderous attacks on others, similar to what we get from CAGW warmistas, hence creating the necessity to defend yourself. Which I did. Nicely. Less the name calling.

    Now this post from which being civil seems to escape Mr. Courtney.

  133. Socialists are people who embrace using aggression, coercion and violence to force their will on others, so this isn’t surprising at all.

  134. DirkH says: “I, as a German, would strongly recommend that Roy Spencer not use the “climate nazi” term.”
    I agree, they should use a more country specific term.
    For example in Germany they should use:

    National Socialist German Climate Workers’ Party

    It describes the devotees perfectly

  135. Suzanne Goldberg, a journalist of a British newspaper, is talking with casually aristocratic airs as if she was a US politician. I am British and find this embarrassing – like the Guardian’s attempt to influence the Iowa vote during the Bush – Gore election. Are there any Americans who find this offensive?

    There is a large pile of journalists who need to understand that they are not elected and that their grabs for political power always undermine democracy. They need to ask themselves how much they care about democracy and, if they don’t, what does this make them?

  136. Looking at the jet-setting doomsayers of the WEF and UN climate change charlatans, we have:

    http://figueres-unfccc.net/2014/01/21/climate-change-issues-key-at-annual-world-economic-forum-wef-in-davos/

    “Climate change is taking centrer stage in Davos in 2014. A record 23 sessions, indeed fully one third of this year’s WEF are being devoted to how the world can transition to a low carbon economy and keep a global temperature rise within safety zones for billions of people.”

    ….

    One of the comments made about as much sense as Figueres’s nattering, to wit:

    Harrison says: (January 28, 2014 at 6:14 pm )

    Decide the breed of dog you want to cultivate. They may
    also thump to get attention, which might mean they want outt of
    the cage to play and be with the family. Find
    Indian astrology wikth horoscope and live astrological prediction , aries horoscope,
    daily, monthly, yearly analysis of birth charrt and individual prediction of all planet with gemstone.


    (Harrison hears a who….)
    …..

    In the spirit of “follow the money”, digging deeper on this website and the WEF website (www.weforum.org) is a real eye-opener (actually, sickening…)…

    … from her Bio:
    “Ms. Figueres holds a Masters Degree in Anthropology from the London School of Economics and a certificate in Organizational Development from Georgetown University. She was born in San José, Costa Rica in 1956 and has two daughters.”

    perhaps Ms.Figueres should spend more time digging for facts (and science) and less time digging in other people’s wallets….what unmitigated Hubris – what is she going to do, stare at the (invisible) CO2 and shout “Peace, be still” ???

    Then again, Soros fancies himself as the creator…

  137. The thing I have never understood about any of this: If I have a theory that is going to revolutionize science, I will be proud enough of it to put it forward to withstand all scrutiny. If it survives the ravages, poking, and prodding of the skeptical people whose previous theory I supplant then then I go down in history as another Newton or Einstein. If it doesn’t, I should be the one to publicize the failing and show where it fell down. Ethics requires it; the advancement of science demands it! In the end we are all just contributors to the human understanding of the universe, and we make each others ideas stronger.

    I’ve never understood the attitude of those involved in climate science. Of course I want your data to find something wrong with it. Of course I want your methodology so I can find something wrong with it. Of course I will test your ideas as I would expect you to test mine. That is how science advances.

  138. This is happening in every area of society not just climate. Everyone who works for a large company for example knows that expressing any opinion once regarded as self evident and common sense can get you fired. Someone once asked a pertinent question for times such as these. “How do you talk to a generation that listens with its eyes and thinks with its feelings?”
    Good question.

  139. Anthony,

    I am 100% agreement with this essay. It seemed like quite a venting and a long needed one I suspect.

    There is no hyperbole here and your references to the socialist tyrants, Stalin, and the German National Socialists is exactly on mark. It is happening now, and here in the USA of all places. The knives are being sharpened.

    You are correct with the fundamental thread, that free speech is under attack and the people perpetrating the attack are those who have the most to lose should free speech be obsoleted.

    I hope I have the courage of Bonhoffer and Von Hildebrand who were hunted by the German National Socialists.

    Hooray Anthony…. HIP HIP Hooray!

  140. Naomi Oreskes looks as attractive as a rabid feminist flying off on a broom. John kerry? John Holdren? The Obama administration exales the sulfurous fumes of a rackteer influenced corrupt organization.

  141. I fear this will continue to get worse, and at some point, someone will act on all this. I fear even more that it will not be condemned when it happens.

    Merchants of smear? More like merchants of hate.

    Just finished “Fallen Angels”. Seems almost prescient…

  142. FerdinandAkin says:
    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
    – Mahatma Gandhi
    It looks like we are fully into the fighting stage at this point.

    Problem is, Gandhi was relying on the civilized world to condemn ‘them’. That’s how you won.

  143. Science writer and blogger Dave Appell added Michael Mann to the argument for outlawing skepticism:

    “I don’t know. Donald Brown, the philosopher at Penn State who has been writing about the ethics of climate change for well over a decade — I interviewed him in the early 2000s — thinks they are perhaps guilty of crimes against humanity. / Are they? Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes? / I think so. You can’t simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. / I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade. / When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe.” – Dave Appell

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-charlesh-problem.html

    Here is David’s problem, and why some many thing the science is settled.

    You can’t simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.

    I don’t, I suspect most here don’t claim it’s not a greenhouse gas.
    What I do claim is:
    1)That there’s no evidence in surface station records that the increase in Co2 changed how quickly the planet cools. Ergo, whatever caused the surface temps to go up wasn’t due to Co2.
    2)That models based on Co2 being the main control knob are wrong.
    3)That CAGW is heavily supported by various Green groups, that it was the “Killer App” they were looking for to finaly get a cause that had some teeth to it.

    One of these days warmists will actually get this, and figure out they’ve been played as fools.

    Oh, and if someone wants to pay me to do what I’ve spent years working on for free, please email me.

  144. richard wrote, “It’s incredible, Roy Spencer comes out and calls them Nazis, I think this is wrong of him but…”
    KirkH agrees, writing, “I, as a German, would strongly recommend that Roy Spencer not use the ‘climate nazi’ term.”

    But, actually, Roy Spencer did not call them “Nazis.” He called them “Climate Nazis,” which is a very different thing. It’s a literary reference to the famous Seinfeld “Soup Nazi,” as explained at Language Log.

    The misunderstanding is understandable for DirkH, since he’s probably never seen Seinfeld. But, richard, I think you’re an American, right? As an American, you’re expected to have a passing familiarity with Seinfeld. So No soup for you!!!

  145. Just like Travesty Trenberth, Oreskes is seeing her entire career so far being exposed as a pile of shit. Typical pissant human response – screw the rest of the world.

    Welcome to the internet age you Trofim Lysenko wannabes.

    (Your Josef Stalin equivalent is John Kerry, hee hee hee)

  146. Richard Courtney, in a previous thread you said,

    “The ultra-right governments of H1tler and Mussolini killed millions.
    And please don’t start the nonsense of black is white and right is left.”

    How can you be so smart and dumb and naive at the same time. I’ll say no more. Your hopeless. Or may your definition of socialism is unique.

    I merely use the normally accepted understandings of political left and right whereas you pretend that is “dumb” by using neo-fasc1st misrepresentations.

    I used to have a modicum of respect for you. You label my comment daft and suggests I represent neofasc1ism. I am a libertarian in the vane that Hayek was. So cut your highfalutin, socialist, elite snobbery. Schmuck.

  147. highflight56433:

    re your daft post at February 24, 2014 at 1:41 pm.

    You have yet again posted your inflammatory lies and this time on an additional thread.

    It is NOT a “personal attack” to demand that a liar retracts his lies and apologises.

    Retract and apologise.

    Richard

  148. stewgreen says –

    “.. Fridays broadcast of the ABC Australia of the Naked Scientists Q&A at the AAAS (Science Conference)
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/nakedscientists/
    26min 30s There is this question from “Science Journalist” Joel Werner”

    first, i can’t find a podcast on the ABC Naked Scientists’ website, or anywhere else on ABC for this program. maybe it was there at some point, but not now? i heard the program on ABC, but didn’t take in the name of the person asking the question.

    therefore, thanx for posting the name Joel Werner, which i’ve now confirmed by listening to the 26mins30secs section of the program from the link below. I’ve been posting excerpts from a transcript i found on Cambridge University/BBC Naked Scientists website, which identifies the person asking the “climate deniers” (whatever that is) question as a Joel Veness (btw there is a Joel Veness, formerly UNSW, now Uni of Alberta, a Google scholar studying Reinforcement Learning, but i don’t know how this name ended up in the transcript, which is only available on the Cambridge website, or even if it was referring to this particular guy). THAT IT WAS ABC/BBC’s JOEL WERNER – THAT MAKES SENSE.

    14 Feb: Cambridge Uni/Naked Scientists: Naked at the AAAS
    Joel – Joel Veness, science journalist. Like most good ideas at this conference, this question came from some spirited drinks we had after the session yesterday. Climate deniers often use the tools of propaganda to further their campaign. Should science be embracing these similar tools?

    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/naked-scientists/show/20140214-1/nocache/1/?cHash=7cc4c94970a73724aa3bd0a2037b8257&tx_nakscishow_pi1%5Btranscript%5D=1

    the “stun gun” remarks by taxpayer-funded ABC’s Chris Smith & Robyn Williams is what shocked me most:

    But I think what has been shown Naomi Oreskes who was at San Diego and is now at Harvard in her book “Merchants of Doubt”. As Marc said, what one side is using is rational argument and trying to get the information over and it’s complex. When there’s something that knocks their ideas, they write a 20-page article which is published in one of the journal which their mates read and on the other side, the people who are knocking climate science are using all the techniques of advertising, of propaganda and the sowing of doubt. Naomi Oreskes is sighting the tobacco companies who, for 40 years or more were trying to say that cigarettes may be okay. There is doubt about the science. So, it’s unequal and I think it’s time the scientists really got up, didn’t use propaganda, but use short, sharp sentences and fought equally.
    ***Chris Smith, ABC – And stun guns might help as well.
    Robyn Williams, ABC – Yes…

  149. Bob:

    re your post at February 24, 2014 at 2:14 pm.

    It may come as a surprise to you but I could not care less that I don’t have the respect of a neo-naz1. Actually, I would be concerned if I had it.

    Demonising those who don’t share your unpleasant views is typical of Naz1s.

    Richard

  150. @dbstaley –
    Extraordinarily well said, kudos and more kudos for your comments (and Anthony’s). We are indeed dealing with scared people who have no regard for the rights of others, especially those who disagree with their meme. I agree that these people are capable of violence, and that capability, in my opinion, extends all the way to the top of a government that refuses to back off from the AGW meme in the least and harbors an individual who shows clear signs of the sort of personality found in history’s great mega-mass murderers.
    @DirkH –
    As a sometime scholar of the American Revolution (Ph.D., American History, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1970), I undertook an extensive study of the thought processes of not only our own Founding Fathers, but also those of the leaders of other revolutions, including Nazi Germany’s. And I can assure you that Dr. Spencer is spot on in his characterization of AGW extremists as Nazis – their thought processes mirror those of the Nazi leaders with frightening precision. Even Obama’s demeanor and behavior starkly mimics Hitler’s – everything from the savage attacks on political opponents to the obsessive secrecy to the utter disregard of law and constitution, even to the “I don’t know about that” airhead persona.

  151. Mark:

    A February 24, 2014 at 1:42 pm you lie

    Socialists are people who embrace using aggression, coercion and violence to force their will on others, so this isn’t surprising at all.

    NO! I don’t!

    Withdraw your offensive lie and apologise.

    Richard

  152. Anthony,

    Occassionally the posts on this site are misses, but mostly they are hits. This one is an absolute bullseye.

    The only correct response to “hate speach” is to use facts, logic and rational arguments. These tools have not been available to the alarmists since the beginning. They are now drawing deep into their own zealotry because they have nowhere else to go.

  153. Anthony, the whole discourse appears to have left science behind and replaced it with the religion of Settled Science. Please don’t take the bait from the alarmists because then you are fighting on their non-science, rhetorical home turf.

    I am waging the battle to defend the integrity of science which outside of climatology seems to be relatively unharmed and on solid ground. The alarmists don’t stand a chance there, and those scientists who side with the alarmists ought to examine their understanding of science. Those who apply a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method to the observed data and compare it to models should be able to see that there is a disconnect. And that rudimentary understanding of the scientific method should lead the dispassionate amateur to the conclusion that the models and by extension the CAGW hypothesis is WRONG.

    No need for terms like ‘deniers’ and ‘Nazis’ when we are using the scientific method.

  154. Friends:

    Our host has provided an excellent article about pro-AGW zealots attempting to demonise those who refuse to accept their dogma.

    Some members of the ultra-right are using it as excuse to demonise socialists.
    Does anybody fail to see the irony of this?

    As I said above
    When any group is demonised the result is always horrific. Religious beliefs, political beliefs, racial characteristics, caste, social status, and ethnicity have all been used as excuse for such demonization. This thread is about such demonization of AGW-sceptics, and the ultra-right is using it to demonise “socialists”. I am trying to defend against horror.

    Richard

  155. Not only the RICO prosecutions, but the carbon tax – a killer, literally, for low-income people (33,000 dead from hypothermia, in the UK last year.

  156. Well, I see that Mod kindly removed, an errant interloping question from the end of my post above.
    Purely accidental, as I was talking on the phone to my tenant down by Fresno, as to what to do about the mangy coyote outside my gate, and I typed it by accident, rather than asking him the question. Good catch there mod.

    But as to Suzanne Goldberg’s U-tube speech; I’m fully supportive of her right of free speech; at least we have that here in America.

    But when you take up the mantle of advocacy, which is your right, you have to ditch the woollen fleece of impartial “journalism.”

    You wail of the decline of “legacy media”, while embracing a non peer reviewed open alternative like U-tube to publicise your point.

    As a historical note of note, it is just one week and 609 years, since the death of Tamerlane; that romantic hero of a bygone Camelot; of Marco Polo, and Tashkent, and Samarkand.

    Actually a contortion of Timur the Lame, he really had a way with dissidents. Oddly, Timur was also the incognito Prince of Puccini’s Turandot; one of the real operas.

    But it was the Princess Turandot, who was in the beheading business; not Timur. I guess she was a man hater too.

    And not coincidently, the older of the two Boston marathon bombers, was named Tamerlane, by his mother; no doubt one who knew her history.

    But not all the news is bad.

    I didn’t stay till the end; about 67 laps to go, but I see Dale Earnhardt Junior did win the 6hrs rain delayed (climate change) Daytona 500 last night; so there !

  157. In order for the German National Socialists to get away with the implementation of Mein Kamph’s “Final Solution” they implemented a number of strategies to marginalize and demonize the German Jewish population. Lesser known was the internment of Catholics also who represented a group who could not be guaranteed to go along with the extermination of the Jews. (See Maximilian Kolbe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe)

    Note the German Propaganda Artwork making the Jews into subhuman “parasites”.

    Anthony Watts is now a parasite as declared by today’s green socialists. What has changed in the nature of humanity in 60 years? Nothing. These people will persecute Mr Watts, me, and anyone else who gets in the way of their march towards the collective.

    The AGW argument, the whole green agenda, is a canard. The objective is wealth redistribution. Anthony has interrupted their abuse of science as a means to their diabolical end. For that he will be dealt with. I wager that with this disclosure by the NWT, you will see many more renderings with Watts in various stages of suffering and ridicule.

  158. @richardscourtney –
    Since socialists rather fall into the same category as AGW extremists, they can legitimately be characterized in the same terms. You can’t get around the history, or the 220,000,00 dead by socialism, any more than the AGW people can be excused for the new Holocaust they are bringing on with the policies they advocate.

  159. When the history of these times is studied and written in the decades ahead, there will be whole chapters devoted to the terrible legacy of needless suffering of many millions, the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands, a toll that is far from over and yet to be totaled and the wanton destruction of untold wealth and treasure that a handful of psuedo climate scientists from GISS, CRU and the NCDC, the epi-centers of global climate research have inflicted and imposed on the world over the last two decades.
    This together with their quite deliberate and Stalinistic Lysenkoism approach to any opposition or questioning of their science by any scientist or science editor who dared to question their claims will seen by future generations as the beginnings of the destruction of public respect for science at every level and a despicable blot upon climate science and the science of these times, a blot that will now never to be erased.
    All deliberately created by the lGISS and CRU Lysenkoists of climate research with their arrogant and hubristic beliefs in their own personal scientific infallibility exemplified by their quite deliberate corruption and distortion of the science and the data to achieve and implement their own personal ideological beliefs.
    Together with corrupted and totally cynical use of the public respect for science to try and implement and enforce the imposition of their personal climate catastrophe ideologies and beliefs onto the global citizenry.

    History will cast those climate lysenkoists into the dark void of totally failed science there to join all those equally corrupt scientific practitioners of the past who also indulged themselves in the deliberate corrupting of science and it’s basic principles at an immense and needless cost to the peoples of this Earth.
    History will class those GISS and CRU scientists as amongst the greatest creators of utterly needless human suffering and deaths and ultimately the destroyers of the public’s trust in science.

  160. @richardscourtney –

    BTW, I for one am NOT ultra right – I’m a 60s liberal who, with the change of meaning nowadays of “liberal” to its opposite, “reactionary,” finds himself in the company of other classical liberals whom some call “conservatives” without having ever changed my fundamental philosophy of life and politics. And yes, I believe AGW extremists deserve to be demonized, for the unalloyed evil they represent

    The REAL ultra right today is the wealthy leftist reactionaries/”liberals” pushing inhumane ideas long discredited, like socialism. Draw your own conclusions form this comment.

  161. Richard, “Some members of the ultra-right are using it as excuse to demonise socialists.
    Does anybody fail to see the irony of this?”

    You seem to have some kind of hang-up with the phrase, right-wing. Stop it, you have no idea how sophomoric you sound. I certainly am not “demonizing” socialists. I just chose not to respect your opinion any longer. Get over it, putz.

  162. stewgreen – Joel Werner is in Andrew Luck-Baker’s (Chris Turney Fiasco) chair at the Beeb.

    BBC: Discovery – (Link to podcasts for all four Joel Werner programs on Saving the Oceans):
    24 Feb: Part Four: How combining traditional Aboriginal teachings with cutting edge science is helping to preserve Australia’s unique marine reef ecology.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/discovery

    descriptions from individual prog pages:

    3 Feb: BBC Discovery: Saving the Oceans – Part One
    In the first programme Joel Werner visits Kiribati – an isolated Pacific island group threatened by rising sea levels…

    10 Feb: BBC Discovery: Saving the Oceans – Part Two
    The second episode in our four-part series Saving the Ocean in which we look at the impact of climate change, overfishing and pollution on ocean environments, and examine the scientific solutions to some of those issues. Presented by Joel Werner from the Australian broadcaster ABC Radio National…

    17 Feb: BBC Discovery: Saving the Oceans – Part Three
    Presented by Joel Werner from the Australian broadcaster ABC Radio National…
    And he hears how undersea volcanic activity near Papua New Guinea is providing clues about the future direction of ocean climate change.

  163. I would suggest the sudden intensification is at least partially due to the latest White House push on climate policy. I would suggest there is a well oiled network of administration and green affiliated groups as well as Soros funded and the like who coordinate their message (Journolist?) and disseminate propaganda with the purpose of implementing policy.

    The fact that so called mainstream media organizations try to sell consensus as science should tell us that rational thinking is not a factor and they are trying to win some vague majorities hearts and minds by manipulating them.

  164. richardscourtney on February 24, 2014 a 2:31 pm

    Friends:Our host has provided an excellent article about pro-AGW zealots attempting to demonise those wo refuse to accept their dogma.
    Some members of the ultra-right are using it as excuse to demonise socialists.Does anybody fail to see the irony of this?

    You act as though we have not specifically been told Socialism is the solution to CAGW.

    You also ignore the tactics being used by the CAGW pushers (which go much farther than just “demonizing”) are those generally seen almost exclusively (and excessively) in Communist/Socialist/Progressive situations.

    You talk of irony…

    Now, does that mean every CAGW pusher is a Socialist? …no, of course not, that is foolish. But I suspect we would find most all Communists/Socialists/Progressives are CAGW pushers (well, outside a few who might have a power/finance interest which is specifically threatened by the ways CAGW pushers are attempting to control the world)

  165. Chad Wozniak,

    Regarding the deaths due to cold…. ain’t that the truth! And the socialists want to increase the tax burden via a consumption tax called “Carbon Tax”.

    In this Animal Farm world, up is down and down is up and people are dying.

  166. The ‘-ism’ at heart of this problem is fascism. Something easily understood and well-defined. It is the enemy of liberty and is the best analog to the CAGW’s tactics.

    May we please dispense with the other political harangues? A circular firing squad will not help good science…

  167. Maybe there should be an ‘extremely liked’ button to click on at times. I better go dust off my heretic hat. It has sat in the closet for some time now.

  168. Extending the logic of their position, we contrarians should get rewarded if it turns out we were right. (And, perhaps, THEY should be brought up on charges.)

  169. From the “If one walks like a duck and quacks like a duck” …

    There is a group of people who do not believe that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. (Thanks to the Petition Project)

    This group would like further discussions, debates, data sharing, and a continuing exchange of facts, observational data and methodologies.

    This first group walks like science skeptics and talks like science skeptics.

    So, if they walk and talk in such a manner, then by their deeds so will they be known.

    There is another group of people who believe that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

    This group is limiting (the science is settled) any sort of discussion, debate, data sharing, or exchange of facts, observational data and methodologies.

    This group walks like Nazis and talks like Nazis.

    So, if they walk and talk in such a manner, then by their deeds so will they be known.

    So it is written, so it shall be.

  170. I have emailed my well-funded international campaign provider on several occasions, but they keep on sending me the same reply;

    “[Your] cheque is in the mail”.

  171. richardscourtney says:
    February 24, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    When any group is demonised the result is always horrific. Religious beliefs, political beliefs, racial characteristics, caste, social status, and ethnicity have all been used as excuse for such demonization. This thread is about such demonization of AGW-sceptics, and the ultra-right is using it to demonise “socialists”. I am trying to defend against horror.
    ——————————————————————–

    Permit me to stand beside you as you do so, Sir, for ’tis a noble defence you mount.

    Remember, people, whether applied to race, disabilities or politics, this was a warning not a “how-to”:

  172. Another parallel is that social conditions and disharmony bear a similarity to the time period of the pre war era in Germany. It was because of that setting of discord and economic distress that Hitler was able to step in and gradually gain the level of power that he needed to impose his next steps.

  173. Gee who knew that the national socialists (NAZI’s) were a bunch of national socialists.. I tend to go with the Russian definition of Fascist.. But then again look who is talking..

    Nazi science selling the Aryan dream.. Liberal science selling the green dream.. Its all the same shit of telling people what they want to hear and throwing a scapegoat on the floor for a little cohesive entertainment..

    Its good for the digestion and it costs absolutely nothing, providing your not the one on the floor..

  174. LamontT says:
    February 24, 2014 at 9:56 am
    Ok, does anyone have any good links to sources that counter the false big oil funds skeptics/deniers thing? I know I’ve seen good information on this but I can’t find it now. :P

    Here’s some indirect evidence: For a list of 20-plus things that would be happening (but aren’t) if climate contrarians were actually well-organized and well-funded, see my WUWT guest-thread, “Notes from Skull Island” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/

  175. The “virtual Nazi dressup” was probably (I haven’t bother to go there) a satirical reaction to Roy Spencer. The situation is bad, but we need to be careful not to make it worse than it actually is.

  176. On the topic of scared people in power.
    The people most obsessive about controlling their world and everyone in it, are just that, scared of life.
    Hence their desire for control over all the rest of us.
    Their fear colours their world, hence the vile expectations they have of other people.
    So our comedy and tragedy is that these small frightened creatures have lusted after power, they have been elected, appointed and anointed to various levels of governance and found themselves lacking.
    They know their own motives and dishonest acts, their projection of their weak and vicious nature upon the rest of the citizenry makes them cling desperately to power.
    For their replacements will reveal their secrets….

    Perhaps we should offer them amnesty, providing they accept exile to a carbon free paradise of my choosing.
    The rats are cornered, soon they will turn on each other.
    Give them room.
    Do not laugh out loud yet.

  177. Climate Fascist
    I prefer the term “Climate fascist” for those imposing their ideas on everyone else, with little regard for science, uncertainties, and caring for the poor.
    See the Merriam-Webster definition of facism:

    a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
    : very harsh control or authority

    With President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry imposing regulations and funding to mitigate projected global warming catastrophies and the EPA enforcing them by diktat, the Obama Administration is definitely becoming climate fascist – they ignore evidence that > 95% of 34 year projections by current models are hotter than real temperatures - aka “wrong”.

  178. I must credit Al Gore for tipping me to the “denier side.”

    First, I’ve got to say that I voted for Al Gore (in 1988). This is a guy that I REALLY believed in.

    I’m a conservationist and was really buying in to the whole clean/green way.

    I went to see “An Inconvenient Truth” and much of it set off alarm bells in my head.

    Can this really be true?

    So I started doing research on my own and pretty soon in because abundantly clear that the science was anything but settled, and the emperor had no clothes.

    The most egregious misdirection in AIT was Gore implying that CO2 drove temperature over the last 800,000 years. I’m a physicist and familiar with the concept of correlation and causation. When I uncovered that in fact temperature LEADS CO2 levels by approximately 800 years it was a watershed moment.

    I was shocked and dismayed that this man who I had nearly cherished would fabricate such a monstrosity as AIT and sell it lock, stock, and barrel to an ignorant public.

    Soon my shock and dismay simply turned to anger. Was he outright lying to me? Was he outright lying to everyone? And he got a Nobel Prize for this?

    Eventually I found material on the internet that confirmed the, lets call them ‘scientific errors’ (one might call them intentional lies) in AIT. These were not little points. These where huge GLARING points. These were MAIN points of his argument. These could not be by accident. This had to be a very careful fabrication.

    Like the site here: http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenient-truth/

    There are dozens, perhaps hundred more just like it.

    How could the debate be over when there were so many fabrications and half-truths in AIT?

    In a country that reveres free speech how can we allow the suppression of ideas not in-line with those in power?

    Is this no-longer the United States of America?

    At this point it almost doesn’t even matter if Gore is right or wrong about CAGW.

    How can we let this fascism stand? The ends do not justify the means!

    This cannot stand, or our country is lost. It will go the same way it went for Germany in 1939.

  179. So I watched the video and I had to scroll back and check the date of the video because I thought I was listening to something from 10 years ago. Wow, they are stuck in a serious time warp.

    Solar companies are defunct, carbon tax exchanges have closed, and the warming stopped 17 years ago. This has to have come from the White House.

    This whole panel was itself, propaganda to complain about criticism of their march towards socialism.

    Seems to me they are trying to develop a think tank ( from the audience) to create a legal team to prosecute Anthony Watts et al for… something.

    Anthony, time to start a fund for a legal defense. You are public enemy #1.

  180. While the battle against these CAGW Merchants of Smear feels Sysiphian at times, their tactics are generally predictable and as well, they have no honour.
    The struggle continues.

  181. Neither fossil fuels use nor carbon dioxide affect climate. Carbon dioxide IS NOT a ‘greenhouse gas”. CO2 is in perfect equilibrium in the environment. A high-school sophomore can compute a mass balance for carbon dioxide using credible public information sources. Do your homework!

    We can use as much fossil fuels as we please without having any effect on climate. Anthropogenic global warming is a textbook mania, based on falsehoods. The media continues to feed the mania by promoting false assumptions. We can use as much fossil fuels as we please without having any effect on climate. Regulating or limiting human CO2 emissions is a colossal waste of money and effort.

    While carbon dioxide may show nominal greenhouse properties in the lab, it has no adverse effect on climate. Changes in atmospheric ambient CO2 are the result of natural temperature changes caused by other forces, likely the solar Maunder cycle. A warmer temperature results in a higher equilibrium CO2 content. Cooler weather means less ambient CO2.

    96.8% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources. The earth reabsorbs 99.9985% of CO2 emitted from all natural and human sources. The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 11 minutes. It goes into seawater, where it is quickly converted to carbonate rock, where it will remain for tens of millions of years.

    Limestone, for example = CaCO3. An acre of oysters or coral can form more than ten tons of carbonate rock in a single growing season. The carbonate formation process is voracious and robust, and will consume all the carbon dioxide that humans can generate.

  182. At times, ‘history’ was written by those who were the perps to begin with. That history was known to be false or embellished with falsehoods and no one dared speak about it. At times it even be made illegal to do so with penalties ranging from being burned at the stake, thrown in icy water, imprisoned or various other things.

    Time has a way of shedding light on the truth. That is scientific fact.

  183. “Joe says:
    February 24, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    richardscourtney says:
    February 24, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    When any group is demonised the result is always horrific. Religious beliefs, political beliefs, racial characteristics, caste, social status, and ethnicity have all been used as excuse for such demonization. This thread is about such demonization of AGW-sceptics, and the ultra-right is using it to demonise “socialists”. I am trying to defend against horror.
    ——————————————————————–

    “Permit me to stand beside you as you do so, Sir, for ’tis a noble defence you mount.”

    Socialists are the enemy. That has been exhaustively demonstrated. So by Mr Richard S. Courtney, an admitted socialist, you can not be a Christian and a socialist. He and his followers are also enemies of the our state. Our confederacy of states does not include socialism. The fact that it exists does not make it constitutional nor does it mean we agree to it’s existence.

    • highflight56433 says:
      you can not be a Christian and a socialist.

      Can I not be either? (or, Can I be neither?)

  184. Lets get back to reality. Present science and have a good time making fun of the warmists. Please.

  185. Walter Allensworth says:

    February 24, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    I must credit Al Gore for tipping me to the “denier side.”

    Pretty much me too.

    Once one recognizes the lies, half-truths, deceptions, and fabrications of the CAGW crowd, there is only one path to follow.

  186. Public contacts for those responsible
    Following are public posted contacts for those responsible for the above program. Please be civil and professional.

    Harvard Kennedy School:
    “Teaching at Harvard Kennedy School is different. HKS is a professional school. It emphasizes teaching how to solve problems over how to describe them.”

    The Belfer Center:

    The Belfer Center is the hub of the Harvard Kennedy School’s research, teaching, and training in international security affairs, environmental and resource issues, and science and technology policy. . . The Center has a dual mission: (1) to provide leadership in advancing policy-relevant knowledge about the most important challenges of international security and other critical issues where science, technology, environmental policy, and international affairs intersect; and (2) to prepare future generations of leaders for these arenas.

    The seminar was organized by (Christine) Russell, in conjunction with her HKS class, IGA-451M “The Media, Energy and Environment,” and by ENRP Assistant Director Amanda Sardonis.

    Christine Russell
    Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy
    Phone: 617-496-4140; Fax: 617-496-0606
    Email:
    Christine_Russell@ksg.harvard.edu
    John F. Kennedy School of Government
    Mailbox 134
    79 JFK Street
    Cambridge, MA 02138

    Amanda Sardonis
    Assistant Director, Environment and Natural Resources Program
    Belfer Center
    Telephone: 617-495-1351; Fax: 617-495-1635
    Email: amanda_sardonis@harvard.edu
    Belfer 315
    79 John F. Kennedy St.
    Cambridge, MA, 02138

    Dr. Naomi Oreskes
    Professor of the History of Science
    Email: oreskes@fas.harvard.edu
    Phone: (617) 495-3480
    The Department of The History of Science
    Harvard University
    Science Center 371
    Cambridge, MA 02138

    Oversight is provided by:
    Henry Lee
    Director, Environment and Natural Resources Program
    Telephone: (617) 495-1350; Fax: (617) 495-1635
    Email: henry_lee@harvard.edu
    Belfer Center Environment and Natural Resources Program
    Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
    John F. Kennedy School of Government
    79 JFK St., Cambridge, MA 02138
    Tel: 617-495-1400    Fax: 617-495-8963

    http://www.belfercenter.org

    Mr. Lee spent nine years in Massachusetts state government as Director of the State’s Energy Office and Special Assistant to the Governor for environmental policy. . . .he has worked with private and public organizations, including the InterAmerican Development Bank, the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, the State of Sao Paulo, the U.S. Departments of Energy and Interior, the National Research Council, the Intercontinental Energy Corporation, General Electric, and the U.S. EPA. His recent research interests focus on energy and transportation, the geopolitics of energy, China’s energy policy, and public infrastructure projects in developing countries. Mr. Lee is the author of recent papers on China’s oil initiatives in the Middle East and Africa, the economic viability of electric vehicles, as well as case studies on tariffs to promote solar energy, Iceland’s green energy agenda, and Liberia’s electricity sector.

    Contact – Academic Dean
    Iris Bohnet, Academic Dean
    Professor of Public Policy
    E-mail: iris_bohnet@harvard.edu
    Phone: 617-495-5605 Fax: 617-496-0811
    Kennedy School of Government,
    Mailbox 20, 79 JFK Street,
    Cambridge, MA 02138-5801
    Academic Dean’s Office

    The Academic Dean oversees all the major academic operations of the school including curriculum, workloads, and faculty budgets, as well as overseeing operations of the Faculty Steering Committee. . . .Academic Dean Iris Bohnet is Professor of Public Policy and the director of the Women and Public Policy Program at the Harvard Kennedy School. She is also an associate director of the Harvard Decision Science Laboratory, vice-chair of the Program on Negotiation, and the faculty chair of the executive program “Global Leadership and Public Policy for the 21st Century” for the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders. She serves on the boards of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (HEID), Geneva, the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, and numerous academic journals. She is a member of the Global Agenda Council on Women’s Empowerment of the World Economic Forum.

    A behavioral economist combining insights from economics and psychology, her research focuses on questions of trust and decision-making, often with a gender or cross-cultural perspective

    Dean’s Office

    As Dean, Ellwood sets the strategic direction of the Kennedy School and leads its efforts to advance the public interest.

    David T. Ellwood
    Dean, Harvard Kennedy School
    Scott M. Black Professor of Political Economy
    Phone: 617-495-1122; Fax: 617-495-9118
    Email: david_ellwood@Harvard.Edu
    John F. Kennedy School of Government
    Mailbox 3
    79 JFK Street
    Cambridge, MA 02138

    Recognized as one of the nation’s leading scholars on poverty and welfare, Ellwood’s work has been credited with significantly influencing public policy in the United States and abroad. A labor economist who also specializes in family change, low pay and unemployment, his most recent research focuses on the changing structure of American families. Ellwood is the author of . . .Welfare Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform, . . .Poor Support: Poverty in the American Family

  187. It’s a pity they don’t have the intelligence to engage in proper scientific debate, Instead of resorting to incitement of hatred and a ‘call to arms.’ They are trying to promote the idea that it is okay to cause actual bodily harm to anyone who disagrees with their party line. That a climate sceptic is a lesser being and therefore, a legitimate target, even perhaps to the point of murder. I’m sure there is something criminal about that, and should be prosecuted in a court of law.
    If what they have to say about our climate is so rock solid and undeniable, then they should be encouraging open debate at every possibility. When you know you are right, you want every opportunity to prove it not shy away from it. And, if you’re not so sure and confident of your assertions, then maybe you should at least listen to others telling you there is something wrong with your proposals.
    It seems to be said more and more lately, that the cracks are widening in the warmists’ camp. Despite all the negative media coverage that dominates our screens and newspapers, the ordinary people, who would not necessarily follow the debate in depth, are not being fooled by the worn out and tired propaganda. Quite frankly, they are fed up with the nonsense. At least this is what my experience is.
    Many Thanks Mr.W. for this wonderful site and the opportunity to exchange views and gain knowledge.

  188. “How can climate change communication be improved?”
    Simple. Study Joseph Goebbels. Remember, it’s not about what is true, it’s about what people believe to be true. Be ruthless with those who dare to disagree.
    You’ll do fine.

  189. As the CAGW house of cards collapses the warmists become more and more hostile toward skeptics. But their hostility is misplaced because the skeptics didn’t knock their house down, global temperatures did.

  190. richardscourtney on February 24, 2014 a 2:31 pm

    Friends:Our host has provided an excellent article about pro-AGW zealots attempting to demonise those wo refuse to accept their dogma.
    Some members of the ultra-right are using it as excuse to demonise socialists.Does anybody fail to see the irony of this?
    ++++++++++++++++++++
    Richard,
    Just so you know, in the USA, the Socialists and the Communists and their fellow travelers of the Left are the groups pushing the CAGW agenda. Any American raising his/her voice against what they see as the Green Statists, is not necessarily an Ultra Rightist. I’m not even sure what that term means. With very little exception, the entire media in the USA is of the Left. Who are the actual movers and shakers behind the scenes? Who are the puppet masters, the men behind the curtain?

  191. They never think about what should be the first question.

    Is the theory right?

    Skeptics ask themselves the first question first.

    The warmers go out of their way to avoid even thinking about it and rush to their own personal solution to the problem first (which covers way more “solutions” than just reducing GHGs).

  192. Fabi says:
    February 24, 2014 at 4:21 pm
    These personal attacks on Richard S. Courtney are disgraceful. Please stop.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Seconded.

  193. TonyG says:
    February 24, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    highflight56433 says:
    you can not be a Christian and a socialist.

    Can I not be either? (or, Can I be neither?)

    A line in an indiana Jones flick comes to mind… :)

    • Can I not be either? (or, Can I be neither?)
      highflight56433 says:
      A line in an indiana Jones flick comes to mind… :)

      Care to be more specific? Perhaps provide a more direct answer?

  194. Ric Werme
    says:
    February 24, 2014 at 11:13 am
    Tom J says:
    February 24, 2014 at 10:46 am

    Ric Werme, I was trying to be funny with my comment but perhaps I failed. I listened to the stupid video long enough for them to compare the conflict between the skeptics and the CAGW alarmists to that between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That’s when I realized the 3 panelists were not only clueless about science, but about the entire spectrum of human relations and politics. In fact, I think they’re clueless about everything imaginable in life. I can guarantee you that if Israel never existed the Middle East would still not be a peaceful playground of soaring doves and dainty fluttering butterflies.

    Anyway, by that point I thought I, and everybody else, could’ve listened to quite more than enough to be able to form a comment.

  195. davidmhoffer says:
    February 24, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    Fabi says:
    February 24, 2014 at 4:21 pm
    These personal attacks on Richard S. Courtney are disgraceful. Please stop.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Seconded.
    ___________________
    Yep.

  196. Those people really are getting close to the edge at which civil discourse simply breaks down.

    They are knowingly employing Nazi tactics (smearing, intimidation and attempted thought repression). The next step will be physical intimidation and violence. (The sight of those masked eco-thugs standing with their torches on the lawn of a law-abiding pipeline executive a couple of weeks ago was one of the ugliest and most un-American displays I’ve seen in the last 40 years. Anyone with any sense knows what that kind of thing can lead to.)

    Dr. Spencer is right: they really are “Global Warming Nazis.” Fortunately, we in the U.S. have something the German people lacked in the 1930s. It’s called the Second Amendment.

  197. I read a lot of angst on here. From my understanding it is the AGW believers who fear us. Who fear the truth. They see the writing on the wall with the rapid demise of Obama into lamb duck status, with the 2014 elections just over the horizon, their utopian dreams are going up in smoke. Their entire thrust has ended in utter failure. They’re merely lashing out making themselves even more irrelevant. All they had left was the XL pipeline. Which too has passed into irrelevance with rail shipping. Once they (AGW) were a force – now we rarely see them anymore as they once were. The Obama regime is on its final legs and looks a lot like other middle east regimes crumbling into dust. How appropriate!

  198. History will record this as the start of Dark Ages II. The difference being it is consuming the World, not just Europe. I see very little that distinguishes us from that period.

  199. I used the acronym CAGW on another site, relating to public transport. I was queried and gave the full title. A person on the site must have looked up “CAGW” on Google and was directed to a missive dealing with CAGW on Rational Wiki, which was then posted.

    Now that is really a smear. But I am not certain if it is intended as a smear or intended to be funny – I incline a bit to “humour” (very badly done) when I checked on the Rational Wiki view of Australia – which was indeed humorous.

    The site listed “Cranks”, which it defined. I am pleased to announce that it did not include Anthony Watts, though it did include an “Alan Watt”.

  200. There is an element of acceleration in the conflicts of human societies. What starts our slowly grows steadily more rapidly until the acceleration can no longer be sustained; a crisis point is reached. At this crisis point the elements of rage turn against the more moderate elements which, in hindsight are actually quite extreme. The master-eating-its children spectacle, however, causes a widespread shock, in which passion for becomes passion against.

    The French Revolution, the anti-Darwin public stance, the Communists-under-every-bed frenzies all followed this pattern of winding up and melting down. The European AND North American witchcraft persecution did the same: when your son, daughter, neighbour and friends are now identified with the Devil, you cannot help but rethink the whole deal.

    Oreskes, Suzuki, McKibben and others speak to a confirmed choir. As Jim Jones demonstrated, when passion and exclusion are the mainstays of holding your group together, the passions and vehemence of exclusion have to rise to keep the program moving. It is human nature creating drama in a drama-squelching world.

    I would like to think that a crisis point will be met without violence, but the way things are going, I see a Greenpeace Warrior ending, except that in this case the establishment is the warmist liberal and the enemy is the conservative skeptic.

  201. In the not too distant past I had a signature I used on one forum I visited a lot which said:

    “Global warming the next Inquisition”

    At the time it was mostly a joke but I have come to feel that I was closer to the mark than I realized.
    For those who are uncomfortable with breaching Godwin’s law and mentioning fascism and Nazi like behavior, an equally appropriate analogy is the Inquisition.

    These people are basically saying that if you do not adhere to the “dogma of global warming”, you are a “heretic” and they are now beginning to openly suggest the proper punishment to absolve you of your sins, and hopefully convert you back to the “faith”, or as the following quote suggests they figure you are beyond salvation but they wish to make your fate sufficiently horrific so that others of the unwashed masses will be dissuaded from following your path of inquiry and asking those embarrassing questions of the high priests of the Church of Global Warming.

    The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: … quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: “… for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.”

    We are the heretics and witches of the modern era in their eyes and they see no fault in following that logical path to its inevitable conclusion.

  202. Great post. I have faith in the American people and our system of government to correct those who overreach. Its a big country and very hard to get your fist around. Their extremism on full display will cost them the game as it should.

  203. “How can climate change communication be improved?”

    Telling the truth would be a good start. If that doesn’t work, it will be easy enough to go back to telling lies about everything to do with the climate.

  204. These people can’t stand the idea that someone might have a different opinion than them even if their opinion is crap, so they have to invent some sort of conspiracy to explain why it is that ordinary people can’t see what they, the enlightened ones, can clearly see. In the Australian vernacular “they are so up themselves they are coming out the top!”

  205. Fabi says:
    February 24, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    These personal attacks on Richard S. Courtney are disgraceful. Please stop.

    Alan Robertson says:
    February 24, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 24, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    Fabi says:
    February 24, 2014 at 4:21 pm
    These personal attacks on Richard S. Courtney are disgraceful. Please stop.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Seconded.
    ___________________
    Yep.

    Amazing. Let’s just take a look at the smear words and personal attacks used by Mr. Richard S. Courtney, the same who stated ” Indeed, I am a socialist” to describe and attack his opponents that you folks support:
    “anonymous trolls”
    “deranged”
    “childish”
    “anonymous ultra-right troll”
    “liar”
    “another example of an anonymous ultra-right troll trying to pretend that anything they don’t like is “socialist”.”
    “…any list is plain daft when – as yours…”
    “I really despise anonymous trolls!”
    “You are nasty, very nasty.”
    “ultra-right loonies who have been posting in this thread.”
    “your daft post”
    “your appalling ignorance ”
    “a coward’s shield”
    “your post displays similar ignorance”
    “Liars like you”
    “There are naïve fools like you”

    Yep, nice stuff. :)

  206. What a bunch! “…it becomes harder to solve without a massacre”. Team climate moron, really is breaking new ground!

  207. Hey this cartoon just represents post-constitutional American values in the USSA…

    Don’t tell the founding fathers that the American dream is dead, killed by the progressives.

  208. Here are a few links from SELF-Descibed Green _Socialists or ECO Socialists. in their own words.

    Not that any of this is a big surprise to any conscious creature, here they are notwithstanding:

    ECOSOCIALIST MAIFESTO

    http://www.cnsjournal.org/manifesto.html

    Wiki’s ECO_Socialism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism

    http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-is-ecosocialism.html

    http://www.redflag.org.uk/frontline/frJune08/ecosoc2.html

    Here is a video showing the killing child skeptics (remember 10-10)?

    Ha? ha? ha????

    Another video of ECO Socialists advocating jailing or executing “skeptics”
    see up to 7:00

  209. highflight56433,

    Facts are stubborn things aren’t they.
    Don’t worry. People can read just fine.

  210. Peter Frumhoff asserted that even Conservatives in California’s central valley voted overwhelmingly to prevent overturn of the California carbon initiative.

    For those non-Californians, the “central valley” is ground zero for the cal. agri-business. Nobody there going to vote against government subsidized ethanol corn. They get almost free water, so why not get paid for growing ethanol.

    And I pay to for some of that almost free water, but get not a drop of it. I have to pump my own water, which is millions of years old.

  211. These people pointing an accusing finger at sceptics, should realise that when pointing a finger. three of your own fingers are pointing at yourself.

    I read here that it is projection from these people and what they accuse sceptics of is what they are doing. Thus it should be thrown back in their face and they accused of the same crimes.

    Noted also is that the eco-nazis have no sense of humour, or a twisted sense that makes no sense. Thus their achilles heal is satire directed at them, this seems to put them in a state of demented shrillness that alienates more people from their cause. People like Josh cause them personal conniptions.

    The time has come to throw their crap back in their faces.

  212. Punish skeptics? Michael Mann and Prof. Andrew Weaver just lost their libel suits against Prof Tim Ball because they refused to disclose their meta data!

    Now the door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy as well as multi million dollar countersuits against these two fraudsters.

    • Richard S. Courtney, please take a time out for 24 hours. That goes for the people attacking him as well.- Anthony

  213. richardscourtney says:
    February 24, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    ….Some members of the ultra-right are using it as excuse to demonise socialists.
    Does anybody fail to see the irony of this?

    No. Green is the new Red.

  214. And I see it really is Suzanne Goldenburg , and not Goldburg; my apologies for misspelling. And yes she did write on the “Palestine Problem” and she alludes to that in her climate forum speech.

    One wonders, just who were the (very small) handful of dupes listening to this distinguished panel.

    And Anthony, you do have a typing dylsexia in your spelling of Prof Oreskes’ name at the top.

  215. It’s Suzanne Goldenberg not Goldberg

    http://www.theguardian.com/profile/suzannegoldenberg

    Not your fault Anthony: the captions at the start of the video are incorrect.
    ——————-
    When confronted with the acronym CAGW, Goldenberg flusters:

    I don’t know what CAGW was. Eh, climate, eh something global warming. I don’t know what that acronym. I’d have to get that.

    She and no-one else in the room knew what CAGW stood for. A Google site search of WUWT for “CAGW” yields 12,000 results.

    Yet she claims.

    I know these groups pretty well. Because it’s part of my job to cover them.

    She doesn’t see any problem with calling skeptics “deniers”. Doesn’t view it as prejudicial. Doesn’t see the connection with “holocaust denial”.

    It’s really, really all about the politics. And it’s perpetrated by a fringe element in the politics. And yet this creates problems for journalists to a great degree. I mean there’s a false balance issue, I find. That we take our traditional journalistic ways of covering things. And think that you have to get two, you know, equal time to both voices. That creates a problem. But there are other problems I think that even have to do with how you, what you call these people. We’ve had agonizing debates at the Guardian about them. Do we call these people climate change deniers. I mean they deny the existence of climate change. But if you do that, these people come back at you and say ‘Well you’re accusing me of being a holocaust denier’. You know, we weren’t talking about the holocaust. So then we thought maybe we should call you climate skeptics, but actually these people have already made up their minds about stuff. They’re not skeptical. This isn’t a skeptical period[?] of inquiry. So that also becomes a problematic.

    She and Oreskes claim to be “attacked” but her definition of being attacked is to be called a “warmist” or “alarmist”.

    And very often reporters are attacked, I mean, almost, sort of, refexively when they write a story that talks about climate change. So for example, I am routinely referred to as “warmist” Suzanne Goldberg because I believe in global warming. And I am followed on Twitter by people who disagree with everything I say, but they want to just circulate it see what I say and then call me an “alarmist”, and circulate it.

    Goldenberg and Oreskes live in a bubble. They do not have a clue.

  216. One solid thing one can cling to is that the real ideology of CAGW is the very one that has been tried disastrously and failed over and over in the last 100yrs (one could say was falsified at enormous cost in human life and misuse and destruction of enormous resources). It never was about science with the destroyers of western free enterprise and freedom itself- the very bright and cynical socialist elitists Maurice Strong, Soros and really few others who know what is really going on – being the eminence grises behind this great fraud. It, too, will fail without a doubt and it has already cost more than its predecessors.

    The real shame that will overwhelm the scientific proponents of CAGW will be when they discover that they have been used as useful idiots, unaware of the the cynical purpose they have served and been handsomely paid for. Most of these Drs. of science were innocent naive modest talents, who, through their usefulness to a cause they weren’t even aware of, attracted funding, were given awards and rock star status that the ring masters knew would be irresistible. Note that it is not even scientists but rather ideological sociologists, historians, political scientists and politicians who are the officers in this campaign (like Oreskes, Goldberg, the UN types, and the like). The 100s of millions of ordinary folk are none of these but the destroyer-ideologues know how to scare, and manipulate these to their purpose.

    I have wondered for some decades why in the world an unabashedly anti-American organization like the UN hasn’t been defunded by the US at least. Agenda 21, UNEP and the IPCC are Maurice Strong inventions and are now like viruses (sold as motherhood ideas) inserted into the affairs of governments – federal and state and now beginning to foment. Cut the dollars off and root out the cancer. If the US could do this, probably Germany, eastern European countries and maybe Canada under its conservative government might follow (although I won’t hold my breath for the latter). The rest of the old EU seems to need more flagellation before they would be likely to consider such a step. Maybe keep just the original UN which was a diplomatic meeting place to avoid wars.

  217. Further on Ms SG, she evidently has substantial credentials on the reporting of wars; particularly ones involving the USA, or the middle east. Fine and dandy; everyone specializes.

    She has written a book in which she single handedly appoints Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the Presidency of the United States. That might be tipping her hand as to her political biases; also well and good,

    So when will we read the definitive Goldenberg journalistic expose, of just where Hillary Clinton was, and what she was doing, when that 3AM phone call arrived on Sept 11 2012 from Benghazi ??

    Despite her portfolio, she appears to have NO scientific credentials of any kind. Better stick to the wars I think.

    So who would likely be her science advisors, since her own science credentials would seem to be as ethereal as atmospheric CO2; somebody has to be paying her for this witch hunt.

  218. Paul Westhaver,

    That video is just sour grapes. Grist was in the Weblog Awards contest, running against WUWT for the “Best Science & Technology” award.

    WUWT won. Grist lost.

  219. Richard, “Demonising those who don’t share your unpleasant views is typical of Nazis.”

    And to think you fashion yourself as an intellectual. I merely called you what you call yourself, namely a socialist. Because I disagree with your political leanings you call up your innate mendaciousness and call me a Nazi. Feel superior now, eh Richard. Grow up and get help for your anger issues. Then apologize for your outright lies.

  220. These videos are purile. But they must give warmists a sense of retribution for criticism of their politics and lack of scientific fact. I just think we should do another in response, something of the nature of ‘…there is no one so blind as those that won’t see’ with a big blizzard blowing in the background and someone saying ‘Gee it is hot today, climate change’.

  221. Dr. Roy Spencer in the Daily Mail in the UK 2 hours ago.

    “Are YOU a ‘global warming Nazi’? People who label sceptics ‘deniers’ will kill more people than the Holocaust, claims scientist”

    “Dr Spencer believe that people who label those against human-induced global warming ‘climate deniers’ will ‘kill far more people than the Nazis ever did.’”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2566659/Are-global-warming-Nazi-People-label-sceptics-deniers-kill-MORE-people-Holocaust-claims-scientist.html

  222. I still think the Soviet Lysenkoism is the more accurate model of what’s happening than Nazi anti-semitism

  223. Henry Crun says:
    February 24, 2014 at 12:02 pm
    “Is this the point in history when the Church of Climatology establishes its own Inquisition?”
    ———————————————————————

    Nobody expects the Inquisition…

    I have a vested interest in the debate- my bills get paid by making megawatts.

    30 plus years in the power/energy biz and I’m getting damned tired of pointing out facts to alarmists who won’t listen, schools that won’t educate, politicians that won’t question, idiots that call themselves experts, consultants that have never considered and a whole lot of lemmings that are being led down a path to peril.
    Thank you Anthony for this site.
    Now, how do we get organized, exposed, broadcasted, highlighted and taken seriously enough by the masses so the pressure on the political decision makers becomes intense enough to become enough of an issue to them that they simply must listen?

  224. @albertalad 4:56
    Notice the same thing.
    Oddly most people who remain sceptical or uninvolved in climatology are hard working constructive types, nice people if you have respect and handy with all kinds of tools.
    The persons most vocal, passionate about doom, by magic gas, over population and or resource depletion, have a commonality.Mechanically incompetent, detached from nature and usually middle management or government employee.(If they have a job).
    Educated far beyond their capability,most do not like the right of private citizens to own firearms either.
    For these unhandy parasites, to embrace violent solutions to their angst,is stunning.
    So amazingly out of touch with reality.
    Their entire “right to abuse the productive” hinges on our good sense and forbearance.
    On our attachment to law, order and the benefits of civil discourse.
    Yet the first thing they tried was deny us a debate.
    Deliberately shutting down civic discourse, with name calling and slander.
    Now they want to deny us life.
    I wonder if a single one of these climate zealots, gives a seconds thought to the side effect of bill C68?
    It is now estimated that Canada has more cached guns and ammunition than at any time in its short history.Those estimated 21 million long guns, that wound up as <2million registered weapons.
    Seems our progressive comrades specialize in own goals.
    After playing Tiny TIm's; The Ice Caps are melting.
    I would hit them with AC/DC shot down in flames.
    But hey, when you are unemployable by choice, whats a social parasite gonna do? Besides attack those who feed it?

  225. Wow! Suzanne. Appalling speaking capabilities. Head in the sand speaking and “conservative” black balling. Downplaying communism but speaking like a communist. But she has one thing right. It isn’t about science. Hmm. Anthony and the rest of us are on the “fringe”. But many of us have a strong science background. Her references to Sochi and the Vancouver Olympic games are incredible grandstanding. Using the snow fall for the Vancouver Olympics is pretty funny given the amount of snow they usually have … and the two feet of snow that has fallen on BC this weekend. Don’t these people even read any science or weather reports? I guess I am a member of a fringe group. Did she write about the “ship of fools” I wonder. As for funding, I wonder if she (and Oreskes) has/have looked at Tides, Packard, Rockefeller, et al. Why the tobacco industry as a target? Interesting how they link tobacco with people that do not hold their opinions. Interesting that they are proposing CENSORSHIP.

    Listen to the “adjectives” Suzanne uses to denigrate the people with which she does not share a common belief system. It is pretty interesting she makes a joke about Fox News using the words “Fair and Balanced” but somehow she only mentions one side of a multi-faceted issue.

    Interestingly though, she is getting the message but she wants to point out the names of who disagrees with her. She is promoting her own position. She says that skeptics represent the “Last gasp of a dying empire” and “These people are losing”. I wonder why then, they even needed to produce this video?

    “Seasons are changing” Yes they are. I have 150+ years of oral history in my family. We lost crops and livestock to drought, hail, rain, snow, frost, heat, people moved, changed our practices to the changing climate – 80 to 100 years ago. These people are so lacking familial memories of the land.

    IPCC – they didn’t study “if” humans were causing climate change, their mandate was to determine what to do about human caused climate change having already decided that there was a human influence. (“Discernible influence on the climate” – of course but so what and how much? – the missing question.)

    Oreskes is very scary. 100% certain that GHG’s are the problem. The debate is over. Why then, are we still debating? Why then, are there no undeniable proofs?

    Someone could write a book on the statements made in this video. Time will tell.

    Heartland comments aside, this is actually a pretty frightening video and Frumhoff is the most frightening of all.

    Interesting, this is not at all about science but managing journalism and promotion of a particular dogma and how to promote it.

    Given the size of the audience (25 – 30?) and the size of the room, it would appear that this session was staged to be presented on the Internet for promotion of an ideology.

    Say it like you mean it and people will believe you. Would you believe these people? No hope for the human race (silly web sites)

  226. “a well-funded international campaign continues to deny the scientific consensus”

    I get the impression that these people see science, not as a continual process of learning and discovery, but as a democratic process decided by a one-time consensus that can never be falsified. In this scientific democracy of theirs, those who disagree with them don’t get to vote but still have to accept the outcome and pay the taxes. As long as they control the vote, totalitarians love democracy because It gives them the illusion of legitimacy while still allowing them to do whatever they want. The fact that these people have never actually held a vote to determine a consensus proves that an “illusion” of legitimacy is all they’re really concerned about.

  227. dbstealey,

    You are so right and so is bushbunny in that they are purile.

    But the authors went to killing people as a solution, not a pie in the face, or the quintessential PC vs Mac back and forth, they went dark and creepy, consistent with the stated tone from the left wing Harvard panel, socialist David Suzuki etc etc where there is scheming to jail, impoverish and kill, we AGW skeptics.

    I wish I was more creative. Alas… I am not.

  228. The opposite of socialism is libertarianism.
    In a libertarian society individuals are free to succeed and free to fail.
    Individuals are responsible for all that they do or say. They are free.
    Socialist hives contain no free men. except perhaps for the despots at the top.

    Anyone here that touts socialism, denies history.

  229. Paul Westhaver,

    I agree. As I wrote above: “These people have been feathering their nests based on the climate scare, and they will react viciously given the chance. If we don’t fight back — each in his/her own way — then they will keep ratcheting up their responses until there is real violence. History is replete with examples. Either we fight back, or we will be the victims.”

  230. Thanks, Anthony. Good article.
    I am with Dr. Spencer. “Climate Nazis”, is appropriate. I think some are more likely “Climate Fascists” than “Climate Nazis” if the control purpose dominated over the extermination purpose.

  231. We should send people to the moon, people to mars and send probes to the outer planets, explore the heavens, I’ll go!

  232. dbstealey,

    I also agree with you. and you too

    RobRoy…

    I present the dilemma of the wrong assertion of moral equivalence.
    It is not rational to juxtapose two opposing views as simple alternatives with equal merits, just opposing in direction. Consider extremes for sake of the argument Good and Evil.

    Evil does not deserve the attribute of equivalence to Good. Evil is not a different POV of Good. That is absurd. Evil is Evil.

    In fact, it can be rationally argued that we must strive for the absolute good and fight like heck against evil.

    It is then a simple extrapolation that there are Good Ideas and Evil Ideas. They also have no moral equivalence. It can be rationally argued that we must strive to advance absolutely good ideas and fight like heck against objectively evil ideas.

    Since there are objectively bad (evil) ideas, it makes perfect sense that we wage war against those ideas. In fact, we are obligated to do so.

    Green Socialism, in my view, is an objectively evil idea. Socialism in general is an objectively evil system. Moral relativists would argue that there is no right and no wrong so there can’t be and objective evil.

    I believe that natural law should be the test and any human idea that works against natural law is against nature and therefore intrinsically evil. Killing is at the top of evil ideas. Socialism always uses killing people as a means of control. So socialism, is objectively evil as empirically evidenced through history and as stated by its proponents.

    If one is willing to accept that killing people is acceptable then one is on unsound moral ground.

    There is no moral equivalence between socialism, the idea of megadeath and an open limited-government free market pluralistic society.

    To put the two ideas at the same level, in my mind is like comparing objective good against objective evil. There is no comparison.

    Advocating, imprisoning, fining, and killing people for expression of ideas, is evil.

    Our criticism of, and fight against, evil is just. It is not equivalent to the conspiring killers, who are literally planning our deaths. There is no moral equivalence.

  233. In the summary, there’s a quote:

    One crucial factor in creating a cohesive group is to define who is excluded from membership. Nazi propagandists contributed to the regime’s policies by publicly identifying groups for exclusion, inciting hatred or cultivating indifference, and justifying their pariah status to the populace.

    The them and us argument is then used so that the spectators can choose sides. Antagonism and destruction of “them” is encourages by the “us”.

    But other than the arbitrary grouping by one trait of individuals, there is usually little difference between “them and “us”.

    Infidels vs believers. “The church” would have us believe that those to be despised share all the worst traits of the other individuals of the group.

    The “social sciences” are “helping” the general public to stereotype the population. To discriminate. To be prejudiced. To become bigots.

    But as often happens, many believers aren’t the bigots that “the church” would like and are converted infidels and indeed heretics once they see the lack of substance behind the belief and the costs of those beliefs.

  234. highflight56433 says:
    February 24, 2014 at 5:42 pm

    “Amazing… Yep, nice stuff. :) ”
    _________________________
    “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”

  235. I had the misfortune to listen to an episode of Living on Earth on the local Public Radio Station tonight. The first part was an in-depth quote Sec. Kerry’s Feb. 18 Indonesia speech:

    Climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.

    Transcript found here: http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.html?programID=14-P13-00008

    Kerry was bad enough, but in full smear mode was the following from “Behind the Headlines” block.

    CURWOOD (host): Let’s take a few minutes and a spade now to dig beyond the headlines with Peter Dykstra. He’s publisher of DailyClimate.org and Environmental Health News – that’s EHN.org.
    ……
    DYKSTRA: Here’s something else Secretary Kerry touched on. He quoted President Obama, who last year compared climate deniers to the “Flat Earth Society.” And you know actually I have a little problem with that, comparing climate deniers to Flat Earthers, because last year, there was a reporter named Alex Seitz-Wald. He’s from Slate.com. He actually tracked down the President of the Flat Earth Society, Daniel Shenton…
    CURWOOD: Wait a second here, Peter. There really is a Flat Earth Society?
    DYKSTRA: Of course there’s a Flat Earth Society, Steve, what’s the matter with you? Their website says the Flat Earth Society is also accepting new members now, by the way, and yes, they really do think the Earth is flat. But their President, Daniel Shenton, said he accepts the notion that fossil fuel burning is warming the earth.
    CURWOOD: So even the Flat Earth Society believes in global warming?
    DYKSTRA: Not quite, because President Shenton made it clear that he was speaking for himself, not for the entire Flat Earth membership. But you can say that the leading proponent of Flat Earth Theory has figured out that CO2 warms the planet, whatever shape our planet may actually be.
    CURWOOD: And – elsewhere on the globe, if in fact it is a globe?

    On the plus side, If the President of the Flat Earth Society believes in global warming, I’m happy to remain a full fledged scientific skeptic.
    See Bishop Hill today: Mike Haseler’s survey of sceptics.

  236. I watched the first 10 minutes of the video, featuring the journalist Suzanne Goldberg. My notes record my observations that she:
    * frequently uses the terms “science” and “scientific.” .
    *claims that the debate is between the “scientists” and right leaning politicians.
    *claims that these politicians “deny the science behind climate change.”
    * claims it to be inappropriate for a journalist to have to abide by the “fairness doctrine” as climate denial is logically illegitimate.

    In logical form, Goldberg’s argument is an equivocation, that is, an argument in which one or more terms change meaning change in the midst of this argument. Here the terms that change meaning are “science” and “scientific.”

    “Science” has at least the meanings of “demonstrable knowledge” and “the process that is operated by people calling themselves ‘scientists’.” By switching back and forth between these two meanings, Goldberg is able to conclude that the opponents of a left-leaning policy on global warming oppose “science.”
    .
    By logical rule, though, one cannot draw a proper conclusion from an equivocation. Goldberg’s conclusion, then, is logically illegitimate.

  237. When “progressive” politicians begin to sense that they are starting to loose control of the political agenda and in order to shut up the opposition, they start to attack the character of the opposition spokespersons. If that doesn’t work, then they try to get the skeptics into court by a lawsuit or by making false charges of violating the law. When this fails to shut them up, they change the laws so that the actions of the opposition become unlawful. In the midst of these changes ordinary people become more and more fearful that they will become victims of the political regime. Thus, the development of these political tactics is probably best characterized as fascist. Global warming (climate change) has reached a stage far beyond debate to one of using character assignation and the courts to silence the opposition. One could interpret this as a sign that the pro-warming politicians fear that they are loosing the battle for control or maybe it means that the politicians now plan to pass laws that will shut the opposition up. What really scares me is that there is considerable evidence presented daily in the mainstream news that this is their current plan to save the “progressive” political agendas with or without the support of congress and the courts. Once the writing of laws to control opinion has started, there is no going back to democratic rule as long as the fascist regime is still in control.

  238. I only watched a couple of minutes of that long video. It was appalling enough to listen to one of those women describing WUWT as just “political” with a little pretend science, and then not know the acronym ‘CAGW’. Clearly she doesn’t read WUWT, and probably wouldn’t understand most of it if she did. Had she tried, she would have quickly learned that the WUWT commentariat is populated largely by scientists, engineers, and meteorologists. There is plenty of scientific talk, much of it over my head, and doubtless even farther over hers.

    This is clearly a panel of well-paid academic camp followers of the Warmists, who have no idea of how science is conducted, nor of the intricacies of climatology. They start from the presumption that anthropogenic “climate change” is unquestionable, and that the political and economic prescriptions of the Climate Parasites must be implemented at all costs. From that basis of True Belief they quickly conclude that these noble ends justify almost any means. It won’t take long before those means become ever more extreme. Heretics (“d*nialists”) must be silenced, of course. That is always the end goal of True Believers (cf. Eric Hoffer).

    Fortunately, we still live in a democratic Republic, and even the Puppet President and his handlers won’t dare to try and prevent the next election. A Republican Senate will help keep this dreadful administration in check, and maybe by 2016 we can elect a President who will help the Congress rein in the EPA, turn the Climate Parasites out on their ears, and leave the academic camp followers holding conferences to which nobody comes. We can hope, and we can work toward that end.

    /Mr Lynn

  239. dbstealey says:
    February 24, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    “I agree. As I wrote above: “These people have been feathering their nests based on the climate scare, and they will react viciously given the chance. If we don’t fight back — each in his/her own way — then they will keep ratcheting up their responses until there is real violence. History is replete with examples. Either we fight back, or we will be the victims.”

    Nah, impossible; you’re just making stuff up! Would never happen…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/james-lee-discovery-demands_n_702506.html

  240. I said:
    “Yesterdays cartoon was a SKEPTIC cartoon not a warmist one.
    Pretending otherwise doesn’t make it so.”

    DirkH replied, February 24, 2014 at 1:09 pm:
    Stereotyping skeptics as Monopoly millionaires smoking cigars?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    That’s your colorful interpretation of a relatively bland image.
    But look at the facial expressions:

    I see a viscious psychopath stabbing an inconvenient skeptic when he attempts to ask a reasonable question. I see astonishment on the face of the skeptic.

    The cartoon is about an administration desperately trying to get rid of all the inconvenient icicles while the economy burns. U.S Dept. of Commerce: 2014 Icicle Surplus – it’s right there in the title.
    If it had been a warmist cartoon, the icicles would not be in “surplus,” and the skeptic would be portrayed as insane rather than inconvenient.
    Think about it – don’t just look.

  241. Michael Kennedy says:
    February 24, 2014 at 9:01 pm
    I’m rereading Tom Clancy’s novel. “Rainbow Six.” Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” is also appropriate at this time.

    I’ve known about State of Fear for a long time, but just recently got around to reading it. It’s a terrific page-turner, and a movie script just waiting to be cast. Isn’t it time for producer with deep pockets to turn it into a major motion picture? I can’t think of anything that would drive the Climate Parasites crazier than Crichton brought back to life!

    /Mr Lynn

  242. I’ve been watching these conversations for years, and the level of vitriol is starting to disturb me. The ‘joke’ about killing people doesn’t strike is as particularly funny.

    Somehow we’ve gotten stuck in a pattern of conversation that seems to be edging towards a violent confrontation.

    I’d rather change the conversation entirely before people start getting hurt.

    Suppose we take the entire subject of climate and science out of the realm of politics, and restore it to its proper place as scientific inquiry.

    For example, we’ve been working on a solution for cheap energy. Such solutions take open minds, a willingness to ask hard questions, and courage to face those hard questions from others. Projects like ours could help move us to science, and away from politics.

    For our information. we’ve put together a short paper covering the physics, which is at http://www.thermawatts.com/the-atec-concept.html.

    Detailed test results on prototype units are here: http://www.thermawatts.com/atec-test-results.html. The test results document runs about 70 pages (including pretty pictures), and should include everything needed to replicate it. The raw test data is all shared on the same page.

  243. Given that Dr. Spencer is actually in the trenches, doing the science to get at the facts; and given that he has stood up and represented the viewpoint of many of us, in what were little more than cake crumbs thrown to the masses at Barbara Boxer’s Senate hearings, rather than extensive debates on the real state of the science. I think Roy has endured the label of “climate denier” more than most of us.

    So I think he has the right to give his antonym, the words he chooses as a fitting match to what they label him.

    I personally stay away from that word, as I was just a little too close to that world episode for comfort; although thankfully geographically remote, and not personally involved. But I saw what it did to all peoples.

    So as far as I am concerned Roy’s choice of label, is fine with me; though I will bite my tongue.

  244. ” Paul Westhaver says:
    February 24, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    highflight56433,

    “Facts are stubborn things aren’t they.
    Don’t worry. People can read just fine.”

    Much appreciated. ;)

  245. I just want to say thank you, Anthony, for your moderate and reasoned approach to this kind of threatening speech – you deal with these things sensitively and you never allow people to respond in kind in the comments – that was also very apparent in the recent post about the NYT cartoon, and is very apparent here in this article.
    Regarding the first comment above – I too am a cartoonist with little in the way of a technical background*. But I’m cartooning on the skeptic side. I hope that’s okay!
    This is my cartoon about the topic:

    http://itsnotclimatescience.com/0034.html

    May I also make this point – there are prominent Jews who are climate skeptics too – such as Ben Stein (who well might lose his credibility with many readers of WUWT for being an intelligent design advocate).

    (*Mind you I did trigonometry, advanced algebra, physics, chemistry in my leaving exams, I do have qualifications in teaching computer science although my main degree was in music, my thesis in musical composition included a piece of music that was computer generated for which I did the programming myself, and I did statistics as part of a postgraduate education degree… )

  246. Chad Wozniak:

    At February 24, 2014 at 2:44 pm you post these evil and vicious lies

    @richardscourtney –
    Since socialists rather fall into the same category as AGW extremists, they can legitimately be characterized in the same terms. You can’t get around the history, or the 220,000,00 dead by socialism, any more than the AGW people can be excused for the new Holocaust they are bringing on with the policies they advocate.

    NO! There is NO basis in which “socialists rather fall into the same category as AGW extremists,”
    That is a lie.

    NO! There are not “220,000,00 dead by socialism”. That is a lie which applies all deaths by all government actions and assigns them to “socialism”.

    Withdraw your evil lies and apologise.

    Strewth! American neo-naz1s like you are disgusting.

    Richard

  247. Friends:

    The evil and pernicious liar posting as highflight56433 adds these lies and smears at February 24, 2014 at 4:03 pm.

    Socialists are the enemy. That has been exhaustively demonstrated. So by Mr Richard S. Courtney, an admitted socialist, you can not be a Christian and a socialist. He and his followers are also enemies of the our state. Our confederacy of states does not include socialism. The fact that it exists does not make it constitutional nor does it mean we agree to it’s existence.

    “Socialists are the enemy” of neo-naz1s. So, we are the enemy of highflight56433.

    “You can not be a Christian and a socialist”? As an Accredited Methodist Preacher operating in the Falmouth and Gwenap Circuit, I refute that lie. And I think my congregation on Sunday would be astonished at such a lie.

    I am not an “enemy of [his] state” but I am an enemy of his evil state of mind which uses lies and smears to promote hate and fear.

    Richard

  248. Anth0ny:

    I have just seen your instruction for me to take a time out. My two very recent posts were made before I saw it. I will now take it although I note that the liars have not taken a time out.

    I place on record that I there is NOT an equivalence between
    (a) the lies and smears of me (and the billions who share my political views)
    and
    (b) my refutations of the evil liars making those lies and smears.

    Without some constraint of the extremists it becomes counter-productive for me to contribute to blogs. I left the blogs of Jo Nova and Judith Curry because such concerted attacks were disrupting the blogs.

    Richard

  249. tiki886 says: February 24, 2014 at 5:59 pm

    [...] Michael Mann and Prof. Andrew Weaver just lost their libel suits against Prof Tim Ball because they refused to disclose their meta data!

    Sorry, but this is absolutely false. It was initiated a few days ago,by someone by the name of O’Sullivan who has long been known to be extremely economical with the truth. – particularly when he’s opining on Mann’s (and Weaver’s) frivolous libel lawsuits.

    This is not the first time that O’Sullivan has (very wrongly) made such an unsubstantiated claim. Nor, I suspect, will it be the last.

    In this instance, O’Sullivant seems to have conflated Steyn’s recently announced countersuit against Mann with Mann’s suit against Ball. The latter of which (as Steve McIntyre has recently confirmed via direct inquiry to Ball) is still alive and well and lingering in the limbo of the British Columbia court system.

    When asked for a link to evidence of this heretofore unheralded “dropped case”, O’Sullivan provided none. Although he pretended to, by pointing to Andrew Montford’s thread at BH regarding Steyn’s countersuit!

    The moral of this story is: Not unlike anything that might emanate from Mann’s keyboard (or that of his defenders), one should always seek independent verification of that which emanates from O’Sullivan’s.

    On a continuum of reliability –> unreliability, Mann and O’Sullivan (whose self-promotion antics and commitment to truth in posting, to my mind, equal those of faux-historian, David Irving) are definitely at the very far end (if not beyond the scale) of “unreliability”.

    This being the case, tiki886, since you provided no source or link, perhaps you and your mouse could retrace your steps and advise your original source accordngly, so that further propagation of this falsehood can be stopped!

    Thanks.

  250. Bernd Felsche says:
    February 24, 2014 at 8:01 pm

    …But other than the arbitrary grouping by one trait of individuals, there is usually little difference between “them and “us”. …

    I don’t think that is true at all.

    In relation to Climate Nazis, The grouping that they choose when forming their group is neither arbitrary nor by way of a single trait. I think it is a conscious self aligning/affirming process whereby people of like mind self identify as, as Roy called them, Climate Nazis.

    Compared to “us” as you put it, there is a world of difference. I would put the differences not at the biological level, but at cultural, political, experiential, financial and age among other attributes. No Koomby-ya from me thanks.

    Now because we “US” observe and recognize that these people self-affiliate and we are intelligent enough to recognize that they fall into an identifiable set of groups, that does not mean you can simply dismiss our recognition of their self-affiliation as arbitrary grouping for our convenience.

    The same applies the other way as well. I self identify as skeptic of AGW. I do so for a number of non arbitrary reasons.

    Further, they in their use of cartoon are not arbitrary or narrow minded. They know who and what we are in our affiliations and organizational complexities.

    No. I am afraid that the world is far more clever than the model you suggest.

    There is also a big difference in what these Climate Nazis are doing, saying and planning. They are thinking, planning, joking about, harboring the desire to, kill people like A Watts and me. That make them, the climate Nazis, fundamentally distinct from A Watts and me and every other AGW skeptic I know. We wish no harm to any of them. Just that would shut up.

    This is a serious subject. It ain’t checkers.

  251. This article has generated much in the way of serious, intelligent and relevant comment.

    Anthony is to be congratulated on his impressive contribution to our important endeavors to make the public aware of the realities of the “climate change” scene.

    The crux of this publicly stated suggestion that “deniers” deserve legal penalties, although absurd for all the reasons made clear from other commentors, not only exists but is allowed to remain unchallenged in the media except on alternative internet media.
    Unchallenged just as is the complete disregard for traditional science, the denial of facts, truth and the lack of impartiality of the CAGW fraternity, its supporters and marketers.
    In contrast to their ridiculous and obvious nonsense about funding, the reality is exactly the reverse. Yet how easily they corrupt the public with such garbage.

    The fact remains that there is only a relatively small proportion of the total population who appear to have a grasp of reality.
    More importantly, the force(s) behind the climate change movement, which we know to be politically motivated, are abundantly funded and motivated. (Soros’ involvement is sufficient to verify that).

    We should therefore be genuinely afraid of any suggestions of legal controls against our free speech status. Their agenda is so important to them that they will not give in to the possibility of our becoming anything more that a minor irritation.
    No matter what we say, think or do, the chances of achieving rationality in this “debate” are small. The chances of achieving a satisfactory outcome in the real world similarly challenged.
    We are up against a formidable opposition.

  252. I don’t know if anyone caught it, but around 00:13:50 she said no body from the skeptic community wants to debate the science with other scientists, Isn’t it really the other way around? Also, I have watched scientific debates between both sides and skeptics win the debates with a vote by the audience/panel. I’ve seen some ties as well, but the Climate Nazies have yet to come away with a clean win.

  253. There is no moral equivalence between a kidnapper who puts a child in a storage shed and locks them there and a Sheriff who apprehends the kidnapper and locks him in a cell.

    One is committing a crime, the other is upholding a law based on a system of justice.

    Several cartoonists and video makers have made publications showing the death of AGW skeptics. They are committing a moral crime. When we defend ourselves from that crime by calling them out and putting their crimes into the light of day we are not guilty of any moral crime as well. That is patently absurd. This notion that there is some kind of tit-for-tat going on is intellectually false.

    Roy Spencer is well with his right to define and expose the jack-booted thugs who have threatened him for what they are.

  254. Roy Spencer says:
    February 24, 2014 at 1:32 pm
    “DirkH, that’s why I used the term…because it IS applicable….for several reasons. If it doesn’t play well in Germany (which I expected anyway) that’s OK by me.
    Just because others have overused the term doesn’t mean it never fits. And I probably would have restrained myself from using it, if not for being accused so many times for being as evil as a Holocaust denier.”

    Thanks for answering. Well, you gotta know what you do. I still think as a rethorical tool it’s overused and too shrill and too blunt at the same time. The left will use the opportunity to characterize you as a nutcase who’s lost it. Yes I know, they use hyperbolic language all the time; but they are 100% hypocritical and use language as a weapon all the time. You can’t win against them with weaponizing language; that is THEIR area of expertise. You can only win with rational thinking – that is THEIR weakness.

  255. [Please, let's all calm down and accept Anthony's timeout. It's not fair for one side to keep this going when the other can't respond. ~ mod.]

  256. Brandon Sheffield says:

    I don’t know if anyone caught it, but around 00:13:50 she said no body from the skeptic community wants to debate the science with other scientists. Isn’t it really the other way around?

    Yes, it is. These cliate alarmists/propagandists always run and hide out from any fair, moderated debate.

    The reason is pretty obvious: they consistently lose debates because they have no credible science to support their beliefs.

  257. Hmm, it seems like my comment about a smear page Mann tweeted a link to went straight to moderation. No wonder, with the kind of language I quoted. But you should have a look at it anyway, it’s quite revealing how low standards he is willing to accept if it’s for “the cause”!

  258. There is no doubt that those that would make freedom of thought and expression a crime err. To those that would counter this unwarranted attack on hard-won civil liberties, I can suggest only that they batter their foe with facts, smite them with logic, disarm them with rhetorical simplicity, and charm them with humility.

  259. “What is most troubling to me is that Oreskes and Goldenberg appear to be of Jewish descent (as does Dr. Michael Mann) and yet they all seem blind to the pattern of behavior they are engaging in and advocating”.

    Troubling indeed, but to me no surprise. Jewish intellectuals of 1930ies New York in particular were among the most fervent supporters of that other psuedo science: Eugenics, totally oblivious to where, when taken to its logical consequences by an evil ideology, it would leed.

  260. Suzanne Goldenberg is the one who blamed global warming for the ‘melting’ of the Newtok permafrost in an Alaskan community. I pointed out the issue of ‘Thermokarst Slumping’ caused by human disturbance of the top layer of soil etc. I told here she was mistaken as they became refugeess in 1959, when they were forced to settle there. They also claimed that this community were “America’s first climate refugees”. I pointed out drastic Holocene climate changes in the USA such as persistent drought lasting over 100 years which meant she must be wrong anyway.

    If Canada is still part of the America then she is wrong again.

    The West Australian – 24 November 1954
    Canada Will Shift Arctic Dwellers
    Canada’s largest Arctic community, threatened with sinking through melting permafrost terrain at Aklavik, 70 miles south of the Arctic Ocean, will be moved to a new location.

    Ho ho.

  261. It is interesting that in the comments of an article titled “The Merchants of Smear”,

    Merchants of Smear raise their ugly heads and attack long-standing WUWT posters.

    In another topic I wrote (with slight variation):

    From the “If one walks like a duck and quacks like a duck” …

    There is a group of people who do not believe that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. (Thanks to the Petition Project)

    This group would like further discussions, debates, data sharing, and a continuing exchange of facts, observational data and methodologies.

    This first group walks like science skeptics and talks like science skeptics.

    So, if they walk and talk in such a manner, then by their deeds so will they be known.

    There is another group of people who believe that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

    This group is limiting (the science is settled) any sort of discussion, debate, data sharing, or exchange of facts, observational data and methodologies.

    This group walks like “Merchants of Smear” and talks like “Merchants of Smear”.

    So, if they walk and talk in such a manner, then by their deeds so will they be known.

    So it is written, so it shall be.

  262. richardscourtney says:
    February 24, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    Our host has provided an excellent article about pro-AGW zealots attempting to demonise those who refuse to accept their dogma.

    Some members of the ultra-right are using it as excuse to demonise socialists.
    Does anybody fail to see the irony of this?

    —————-

    Richard, give it up, there is no irony for one to see. It is of my opinion that you are trying to force others to change their opinions of a specific entity simply because their opinions differ drastically with your nurtured cultural beliefs.

    The fact is that the liberal socialists (in the US) are “part and parcel” and directly aligned with and highly supportive of all things being claimed by the other proponents of CAGW.

    And my reason for saying that is explained in the following commentary which I authored 2 or 3 years ago. So please read said ……. and hopefully you will comprehend why “The Devil made them do it”, to wit:
    ——————————

    Me thinks one will get a more sound and realistic perspective if they honestly look at the “roots” of human caused CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    And to do that they have to look at the three (3) distinctly different groups of people who “have a BIG dog in the CO2 fight”, and it is of my opinion …… that all of them, for their own personal reasons, have been desperately trying to convince the public that:

    1. Increasing Global Warming is “right as rain” and will destroy life on earth if not kept in check;

    2. The cause of AGW is the “greenhouse” gas CO2 that is increasing in the atmosphere;

    3. Human activities are the cause of CO2 increasing in the atmosphere;

    And the three (3) groups are, to wit:

    Group #1: Government funded Climate Scientists – This group has expended years n’ years and hundreds of millions of government funds researching the effects of Greenhouse Gases and to justify past expenditures and their future existence they were forced to provide a PJE (Proof of Job Existence) for public approval …. and thus their “proof(s)” are their claimed “increasing average temperatures”.

    Group #2: Opportunists wanting “part of the action” – with so much “free” taxpayer money being distributed indiscriminately they seized upon the opportunity to “jump on the Global Warming bandwagon” anywhere they could get “hold” so as to get their share of said tax dollars and used the “claimed proofs” attested to by the aforementioned Climate Scientists to justify their actions.

    Group #3: Environmentalists and liberal socialists – when Group #1 and Group #2 got CO2 declared an “air contaminent” and the primary cause of AGW ……. it was a Godsend for Group #3 and they also “jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon” and cited the “claims” of Group #1 and Group #2 for the explicit purpose of furthering their agenda of “shutting down” all Capitalism and Capitalists ventures they could by claiming they contribute to the increase in atmospheric CO2 quantities.

    Given the above, is there any question as to why there is a “concensus of opinion” among the three (3) above Groups that ….. CO2 causes AGW?

  263. highflight56433 says:
    February 24, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    Socialists are the enemy. That has been exhaustively demonstrated. So by Mr Richard S. Courtney, an admitted socialist, you can not be a Christian and a socialist. He and his followers are also enemies of the our state. Our confederacy of states does not include socialism. The fact that it exists does not make it constitutional nor does it mean we agree to it’s existence.
    ————————————————————————————————————-

    So it’s “The Land of the Free as long as you agree with us” according to you.

    Anyone else see the irony there given the thread this is in?

  264. Joe says:
    February 25, 2014 at 6:52 am

    So it’s “The Land of the Free as long as you agree with us” according to you.
    Anyone else see the irony there given the thread this is in?

    I see the irony of people desperately trying to whitewash and redefine socialism as anything other than its actual fruits of the last 100+ years; going as far as to imply socialism has somehow not resulted in unbelievably massive amounts of deaths, and attempting to discredit and slander people here who voiced concern over said fruits.

    What’s next, anyone who believes socialism results in the destruction of not only peoples liberties, but also often their lives, should be prosecuted for their skepticism of the soundness that supposedly is socialism? Maybe a cartoon depicting ways to dispel evil socialism deniers? Or should we just not allow socialism deniers a voice in public forums? (I apologize for having to ask, but please understand that all three and much, much more are generally applied to deniers of socialism in socialist countries.)

  265. Thanks Anth_ny. This issue does indeed need to be fully exposed. The thought processes of these people are frightening. Salaries paid by taxpayers/governments/NGOs is the common thread.

  266. DS says:
    February 25, 2014 at 7:34 am

    Joe says:
    February 25, 2014 at 6:52 am

    So it’s “The Land of the Free as long as you agree with us” according to you.
    Anyone else see the irony there given the thread this is in?
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
    I see the irony of people desperately trying to whitewash and redefine socialism as anything other than its actual fruits of the last 100+ years; going as far as to imply socialism has somehow not resulted in unbelievably massive amounts of deaths, and attempting to discredit and slander people here who voiced concern over said fruits.
    ————————————————————————————————————

    In case it’s slipped your notice, I haven’t “attempt[ed] to discredit and slander” anyone either here or anywhere else.

    Yet, I’ve been branded “the enemy”, “enemy of our state” and, by association, responsible for “unbelievably massive amounts of deaths”. I’ve also been accused of “attempting to discredit and slander” people (see my first paragraph).

    I’m socialist. I make no bones about that, and I have no reason to pretend otherwise in a free world. As a socialist, I do [i]not[/i] equate capitalists with the old Barns who kept their peasants in slavery and took their pick of betrothed virgins before their wedding night. Because doing so would only show ignorance and prejudice.

    Nor do I equate all right-wing parties with certain Godwin-invoking figures. Who, incidentally, were [i]not[/i] socialist – just using it in your party name doesn’t make it so. If it did, the Green party would be comprised of Martians!

    I happen to know a great number of left-leaning people who are higly sceptical of AGW but won’t engage in the debate because of the personal abuse they see being routinely meted out against political views which they, rightly, see as nothing whatsoever to do with science.

    The foul and viscious opinions expressed by AGW supporters that have prompted this thread are nothing to do with socialism, or liberalism, or monster-rabing-loonyism. They’re entirely to do with obnoxious people gaining some level of public exposure and using it to press their own prejudices. Just as McCarthy did in ’60s America and just as all who allow the climate debate to be derailed into “socialist / antisocialist” slanging matches are doing today.

  267. Samuel C Cogar is exactly on target. It is the socialist taxation and redistribution of my wealth that feeds such a monster.

  268. Joe says:
    February 25, 2014 at 8:09 am

    “In case it’s slipped your notice, I haven’t “attempt[ed] to discredit and slander” anyone either here or anywhere else.”

    When you attempt to align yourself with someone who has, you would logically be perceived as endorsing their actions.

    “I make no bones about that, and I have no reason to pretend otherwise in a free world.”

    Exactly! That is what others have tried to express. There is very little to no real threat for Socialists in a Libertarian environment – the same can not be said in reverse though; hence the conversation

    “Who, incidentally, were [i]not[/i] socialist – just using it in your party name doesn’t make it so.”

    Hitler would likely disagree with your excuses for him
    “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
    (although, I will note and accept, he did backtrack that quite a bit after the instant backlash such statements caused him. I guess that leaves it as a judgement call. That is, which is the more logical belief attributed to the individual; that which he initially expressed and named his political party after, or that which he attempted to claim after the initial backlash for expressing such thoughts?)

    “The foul and viscious opinions expressed by AGW supporters that have prompted this thread are nothing to do with socialism”

    Except, again, we have specifically been told Socialism is the ultimate solution to CAGW.

    Meanwhile, here people are merely expressing the similarities of the attacks being waged against “deniers” and the attacks waged by the same Hitler I quoted above, plus similar Socialist Governments from all over the world once they have gained a little bit of power for themselves and feel their power is threatened by free expression. These tactics are always used to stop dissidence in such environments, just as they are being used today by the AGW crowd.

    I am not sure why people making a very logical connection is somehow so horrible in your eyes (or at least people who you choose to align yourself with.) If you are upset such a connection can be made, then your issue should be with the Socialists who make such a connection possible. If you don’t agree a connection can be made… well, the evidence does not seem to be on your side and one could logically come to the conclusion you are acting just as the CAGW pushers do – that is, blatantly ignoring that which you desperately don’t want to hear in an attempt to hold onto what you want to believe

  269. Mods:

    At February 24, 2014 at 6:13 pm our host wrote

    Richard S. Courtney, please take a time out for 24 hours. That goes for the people attacking him as well.- Anth0ny

    I am breaching that request with this post to register my umbrage that while I try to fulfill that request the Merchants of Smear posting as Samuel C Cogar and highflight56433 are continuing their actions without redress.

    Richard

    REPLY: yet Richard, twice before I’ve asked you to take time outs because of food fights erupting on threads related to your commentary. Perhaps a review of your commenting style might be in order so as to not make yourself the center of contention? – Anthony

  270. I’m not sure what the point is about the similarity between Nazi propaganda and some of the climate change nonsense. The Nazis’ Jewish capitalist imagery bears some resemblance to the anti-white-man prejudices of the greens, but that’s because they took it from the left in the first place, and added their own racial bias (they took the classic ‘fat cat with cigar’ image and made him Jewish). Some of the modern green left have the same prejudices as the pre-WWII communists, and that’s why their propaganda is more similar to Stalinism than Nazism. So it’s no good saying Oreskes and Goldenberg should know better because they’re Jewish.

  271. DS says:
    February 25, 2014 at 9:36 am
    [too much to quote]
    ———————————————————————————————————————

    The thing is, DS, we’re not being told that socialism is the answer. At least, not here in the UK and certainly not by anyone except capitalists concerned that their slice of the pie might get moved to some other (nouveau) capitalist.

    I see no sign whatsoever of any party – not even the (so called) socialists in Labour – here suggesting that we should do the sensible thing in response to the growing heat and light crisis and move at least the generation back into Public hands.

    We’re a small island, we don’t have the room or the population to justify 3 or 4 companies “competing” (read: colluding) to generate our relatively small power needs., yet we’re fully committed to allowing (foreign) private companies do so. Our next nuclear station is slated to be built by a private consortium of the French and Chinese ffs – how exactly does that fit any definition of socialism? It smacks of purely capitalist selling of a captive market to the highest bidder, regardless of what’s best for the peasants.

    We also have schemes where those who are wealthy enough to own their own homes and invest in solar or similar technology get paid for their excess off the bills of those less fortunate. The poor over here are usually on pre-payment meters, where they pay more in standing charges and per unit for the privelige of paying before they use the stuff and also pay a premium to cover the cost of the buy-in schemes for the rich. That is what’s happening in the name of AGW and I defy you do honestly say it’s socialism!

    What we are being told is that Big Oil and Big Coal are bad, and should be replaced by (privately owned) Big Solar, Big Nuclear and Big Wind. If these new “Bigs” ever materialise they will not be socialist ventures!. So, no, the world isn’t being told that socialism is the answer. America may be told that by those who stand to lose out, but America isn’t (last time I checked) “the world”.

    Meanwhile, it may have escaped your notice that the world’s only remaining big socialist power is ignoring the climate issue completely and steaming ahead with whatever power keeps it competetive.

    Western capitalism is a dog-eat-dog world. If people are foolish enough to believe that the new Dogs are in any way “socialist” just cos they wave a green flag and get some misguided hippies to cheer them on then they deserve to get bitten.

    The “socialism” aspect of AGW is nothing but a convenient (if somewhat transparent) distraction from the real issues. Fall for it and be distracted at your peril.

    • Joe:
      We also have schemes where those who are wealthy enough to own their own homes and invest in solar or similar technology get paid for their excess off the bills of those less fortunate. The poor over here are usually on pre-payment meters, where they pay more in standing charges and per unit for the privelige of paying before they use the stuff and also pay a premium to cover the cost of the buy-in schemes for the rich. That is what’s happening in the name of AGW and I defy you do honestly say it’s socialism!

      It’s also not capitalism. There are no captive markets under capitalism. What you describe is a bastardized system where corporations and wealthy individuals influence government for their own ends. Anyone who considers himself a capitalist would reject such a system just as much as socialism.

  272. NO, richardscourtney, I will NOT apologize for telling the truth about socialism and AGW and what they have in common. You can take that and shove it. If you don’t like what I said, tough shit! You are NOT going to silence me, nor is any other socialist. *I* am on the moral high ground here, not you. How revealing your authoritarianism and antilibertarianism is – and how typical of socialists.

  273. Enough already.
    This thread diverting over the definition of socialism has to stop.
    It is possible that the label does not mean to them, what you assume the person using it means.
    This is the divide and conquer game, get people fighting over labels, not substance.
    The people who lust for power over others, who must rule us all or dissolve into panic, use every cloak available.
    If religion ruled our civic discourse, they would be the most pious.
    As science was the modern standard, they presented themselves as scientists.
    If experts are respected, they will dress up as “most expert”.
    If consensus has power, they will be the most consensual.
    Up thread @clipe 3:46pm E.M.Smiths reply to Bain, sums up the smear campaign and why it fails.
    They are falling from grace, in their own faith.
    Shrill voiced attempts at self justification have to happen, the fall away from true belief seems to follow a pattern.
    While I caution all to beware senseless violence from the conflicted, the trick is to remain kind, gentle even in your critiquing of the cause.
    Humour does more damage to the rigid zealot, than any amount of confrontation and abuse.
    Dr Spencer, while rightly angered has fallen for the bait.
    They are not Nazis, they are just wanna bees,abuse is confidence building for the humourless and self haters.
    Eco-Nasties is a term I am coming to enjoy, mocks the child, chides them and refuses to take their dark fantasy seriously.
    Falling into the pain, anger and vileness these concerned, saviours of the planet, wallow in is to give them credibility they have not earned.
    These pathetic human failures dreaming about rounding me and mine up and executing us for climate crimes…
    I hear them, but I do not fear them.
    Rather I say flatter them, encourage this outpouring.
    For the public does recognize madness, while they may chose to defer to the experts on climate.
    As spokespersons who destroy what they claim to promote, could any of the visitors here have invented better characters?

  274. Beautifully put, John. Kind of the point I was trying to make but, like others, I allowed myself to get diverted into arguing irrelevancies.

    I’m suitably chastised, and thank you.

  275. FerdinandAkin says:
    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
    – Mahatma Gandhi

    It looks like we are fully into the fighting stage at this point.

    You should know something about Gandhi, there was a reason he won, and it wasn’t this tactic. He was using tactics originally described (sort of) by one Jesus Christ, and using it to gain freedom from a country that at least nominally believed in him. The result was that their conscience was pricked, and, since they were a democratic country, they were able to do something about it I once read a story where Nazi Germany overran India, and was apposed by Gandhi. He stages non-cooperation, and they sent in soldiers into every 20th persons house and dragged out and killed the children, just as they did in their occupied territories (which stayed remarkably quiet or else). Then they sent a Moslem to kill him, just as actually happened later. Germany, after all, was not a democracy anymore, and was run by someone who privately called himself “the perfect pagan”, whatever he might tell his people. Gandhi’s tactic might work for freedom from England, not Germany.

    Also, Gandhi worship is ignorance. Later in life, he decided between Christianity and Hinduism, he went Hindu. He imposed rules, for instance, on his son, to give up all desires, including sex with his wife. The constant rules keeping drove his son crazy and he died of drink. Also, Gandhi believed he could make peace with the Moslems, the result, a big war, a lot of random religious violence, and Gandhi realized just before he was assassinated that people were not as naturally and universally good as he had believed.

    If they are ruthless enough when they fight, and they can fool enough of the people enough of the time, THEY win. They won in Germany, Russia, China, Italy, Japan, and in numerous countries today.

    People get the kind of government they deserve, and they get it good and hard.

  276. Joe says:
    February 25, 2014 at 10:14 am

    I am not going to address your personal thoughts as to how great socialism supposedly is; there will never be agreement there. You are free to have such thoughts, no matter how incorrect I see them as. That has no baring on the conversation (which is, the motives and tactics of the CAGW crowd)

    I will address a few select quotes though

    “The thing is, DS, we’re not being told that socialism is the answer. At least, not here in the UK and certainly not by anyone except capitalists concerned that their slice of the pie might get moved to some other (nouveau) capitalist.”

    http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/ecological-crisis-capitalism.html

    Or would you rather I quote Figueres about how beneficial the communist system in China is in addressing Climate Change, instead of the “very detrimental” system in places such as the US?

    “What we are being told is that Big Oil and Big Coal are bad, and should be replaced by (privately owned) Big Solar, Big Nuclear and Big Wind.”

    Privately owned by (generally) whom, exactly? Or maybe a better way to phrase that question would be move it forward and ask, would those people still be in a similar (or better) public position if the political systems above them became Socialist overnight?

    And while privately owned, how are they funded? And how are those funds acquired again – by choice or force?

    “Western capitalism is a dog-eat-dog world”

    That sounds a lot like Darwinism. Inconveniently, the laws of nature are quite difficult to dictate or corral without gaining absolute control of everything though, aren’t they?

    There is a reason statements such as “Communism/Socialism works great absent people” exist

    “Meanwhile, it may have escaped your notice that the world’s only remaining big socialist power is ignoring the climate issue completely and steaming ahead with whatever power keeps it competetive.”

    You will have to help me here; which one is it that doesn’t profess desires to have the world address Climate Change?

    ” If people are foolish enough to believe that the new Dogs are in any way “socialist” just cos they wave a green flag and get some misguided hippies to cheer them on then they deserve to get bitten.”

    People choose to believe it because of their actions and tactics. There is a well established pattern of gaining power for socialism thru such ways. Again, Hitler did it; hence the entire conversation.

    But let’s just advance the conversation a bit and ask – why do you think the CAGW crowd (the ones with power, that is) is so committed to it despite all logic and reason if not for expanded Government control over the population of the world? This entire campaign attacks both cheap energy and food supply – that makes up 2 of the 3 things desperately needed for the survival of populations. (Well, free ones at least; controlled ones would just be given what it was deemed they deserve by the controlling body.) They know that, yet they turn blinders to what they don’t want to hear and accept while instead continuing to push forward with this agenda why exactly?

  277. richardscourtney says:
    February 25, 2014 at 9:42 am

    And DS is doing it, too.

    Don’t bring me into your issue, I am merely replying to Joe

    Or is civil conversation on the topic presented no longer allowed, and I just somehow missed the memo?

  278. Maybe Dr. Roy’s approach has something in it: one talks about “denier” then the other answers with “global warming nazi” with the explanation:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/

    Howevere the calling names does not invite to a scientific debate. Calling skeptics “deniers” is shutting the debate from the very beggining. Is this what the CAGW crowd intends? And only this?

    Zerohedge has an interesting post about trolling – calling names being a conversation destroyer, shutting down the thinking ability:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-02-25/why-trolls-start-flame-wars-swearing-and-name-calling-shut-down-ability-think

    Then the decision is not taken rationally based on judgement but based on feelings: one wants to be with the “good people”, to be doing good, not like those evil “deniers”, fossil fuel shills and so on.

    Legatus says:
    February 25, 2014 at 12:41 pm

    FerdinandAkin says:
    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
    – Mahatma Gandhi

    It looks like we are fully into the fighting stage at this point.

    You should know something about Gandhi, there was a reason he won, and it wasn’t this tactic. He was using tactics originally described (sort of) by one Jesus Christ, and using it to gain freedom from a country that at least nominally believed in him. The result was that their conscience was pricked, and, since they were a democratic country, they were able to do something about it I once read a story where Nazi Germany overran India, and was apposed by Gandhi…..

    Indeed Legatus, as you say, it works only in a democratic country, it would not have worked under a dictator, maybe this is why some greens are so disappointed with the democratic process, and like those in the video ask for shutting down the voices they do not want to be heard? None of the ….. persons speaking to shutting in the video has any knowledge of the science they are talking about, isn’t this funny?

    “The science is clear: drastic global climate change due to human activities threatens our planet.”
    These Ҥ$$%%%&(!) have not even bothered to spend a minute trying to understand what skeptics say about models?

    They have not listened one second but know it is a well-funded international campaing!
    “Yet, a well-funded international campaign continues to deny the scientific consensus”
    Science by consensus!!:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/monckton-honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/global-warming-in-a-few-slides.php

    How can climate change communication be improved?
    Well certainly not through persecution of the skeptics for heresy, that does not improve communication.The science explains it by itself, if one understand science, what this group there in the video unfortunately does not show it does…

    There was no debate, the science is far from being settled, CO_2 is at the moment only greening the planet, nothing else, warming has stalled since 17 years, even with all the adjustments, with “them” guarding the data the models are a failure.

  279. john robertson says:
    February 25, 2014 at 11:58 am
    Enough already.
    This thread diverting over the definition of socialism has to stop.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Right on….

    I believe scientists of all political persuasions across disciplines are honor bound to stand up for truth and academic freedom by opposing this cancer that permeates not only their realm but also government, academia, media, religious institutions and private enterprise.

  280. Anth0ny:

    You gave a 24 hour time out to me and those attacking me. Halfway through that time out I asked that I be treated with parity because the attacks had continued while I was honouring the ruling. You have replied

    REPLY: yet Richard, twice before I’ve asked you to take time outs because of food fights erupting on threads related to your commentary. Perhaps a review of your commenting style might be in order so as to not make yourself the center of contention? – Anth0ny

    No. This started because highflight56433 made untrue smears of socialists on the other thread and carried them to this thread. Not content with that, he made a very personal attack of my religion. And he was supported by a group of other ultra-right extremists.

    So, I was subjected to off-topic attacks of my political and my religious beliefs.

    You responded to my attempts to defend myself by giving me and my assailants a time out, and halfway through the time out I made the request which you have answered. Your reply ignores my request and blames my “commenting style” for the unprovoked, untrue and off-topic attacks which have subsequently continued.

    OK. There is only one possible meaning of that response to my request. This is your blog and I have no desire to intrude. But I point out that when I left WUWT before I left with as little fuss as possible, and I only returned because of pressure from several people. This time I leave in fulfillment of your publicly expressed desire, and it being your blog the desires of others are not relevant.

    Richard

    REPLY:
    Asking you to leave is not the same as a time out. I didn’t ask you to leave permanently. I can’t police everything and everybody, but like it or not, your comments have a habit of provoking food fights and it costs me time. So if you’d rather leave than self review, that’s your choice. – Anthony

  281. All this nonsense about socialism is rightly being requested by the moderator and Anthony to please cease.Yet it continues.
    You are insulting Anthony and abusing his blog, “not to mention” also annoying genuine commentors.

  282. I’ve just gotten home from work and…..hmmm.

    Richard Courtney – you create your own problems.

    1. You seem unable to discuss socialism is any rational way.

    2. People are not going to kowtow to your world view of socialism. Period.

    3. Socialism and CAGW are linked at the hip. The items and comments at WUWT reflect that reality. As long as you deny clear reality, you will be very, very unhappy at WUWT or Jo Nova’s or etc, etc.

  283. Ken McMurtrie,

    I went to the web site linked through your Name above.

    The title of the top post on your web site is:

    “Climate Alarmists Push Chinese Communism, Population Control”
    Posted on February 25, 2014 by Ken McMurtrie
    So..?

  284. Anthony,

    I know that this posting of yours is a small burden and it has generated a lot of heat on the AGW-Socialism association. I hope your patience does not wear out on this issue.

    I believe, sincerely in my soul, that inside this single narrow debate is the essence of the divide that creates the whole climate change industry. Some people are tired of it but see withing the mudslinging people are refining their thoughts and creating quite a voluminous record for you,

    It is worthwhile. Your essay was dead-on. We have to be able to speak our minds. That is the only way we can comfort each other in light of the constant assault from the AGW mob.

    Please hang in there.

  285. When we defend ourselves from that crime by calling them out and putting their crimes into the light of day we are not guilty of any moral crime as well.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Well said and I totally agree. I’m hopeful that scientists will step forward to lead the debate as they have the greatest expertise AND standing to be heard and believed. They have a duty to people in general and their disciplines to do the right thing – follow the evidence. So I applaud Dr. Spencer in stepping forward and sticking his neck out even though I’m uncomfortable with the specific term he’s using. Whatever, the more zealous devotees of the church of CAGW simply must be opposed everywhere.

  286. I was libeled by a senior lecturer of the UNE (NSW) as a climate change denier and also a holocaust denier and a JFK assassination denier. I was a graduate student at the time, and objected strongly but the University did nothing as he stated this at a public meeting and my name was not specifically mentioned. Needless to say it was about some history data I had found out that contradicted his and another’s book on the subject. They reacted badly when my findings were published in the local paper and other papers after they attacked me. Her book did not sell well of course, and my marks didn’t improve but I passed eventually. Neither come I find a supervisor to actually take me on, some blankly refused because I was going to contradict one of their owns research. So much for open debate in universities. Even a documentary I have been part of has yet to be released, and I feel an injunction has been served.

  287. Anthony.
    If I may,
    otherwise snip.
    Richard Courtney.
    Please stick around and stick to the CAGW.
    You have valuable knowledge.
    On socialism, you are being played for your passion.
    Not just this post, go back and see, you respond and the chumming gets worse.
    But those baiting you seem to have little to add to the topic actually under discussion.
    The term seems to be so nebulous now, that socialist has a dozen different meaning in each country.
    It is probable you are being irritated by the curse of common language, different culture.

  288. There is an environmental RICO suit, but it’s against an eco-activist lawyer.

    Donziger won a $18 billion judgement in Ecuador against Chevron. There was obvious fraud, so Chevron filed a civil RICO suit against Donziger in US court. Trial closed in Dec, awaiting judgement. Donziger may be disbarred over this.

    Chevron has a web site presenting their case: http://www.theamazonpost.com/the-fraudulent-case-against-chevron-in-ecuador. Google “Chevron Donziger” and limit results to December, business magazines have covered the trial.

  289. @ Paul Westhaver
    You say “so?”
    So do I. The conclusion of that article (copied below) shows it to be about the IPCC hierarchy’s motivations and methods. Chinese socialism is irrelevant. (Oh No, now I’ve used that word myself)

    ““In reality, the UN’s climate theories have been exposed as wildly inaccurate — to put it mildly. The real challenges facing this generation include out-of-control lying governments, tyrants, starvation, mass-murder, human rights abuses, international outfits and establishment shills determined to enslave humanity under various pretexts, genocide, and more. Climate, of course, has always changed, and almost certainly will continue to change as long as the Earth exists. What does not change is the zealous determination of maniacs, politicians, and bureaucrats to empower themselves and their cronies at the expense of the people they misrule.””

    Anyway, I thought we were to get back onto the “Skeptics Smear” thread.

    Aside: I see now they have got onto another unrelated thread – tobacco. WTF?

  290. @Jo0h Davidson –

    I am personally physical disproof of your claim that second-hand smoke doesn’t cause cancer. I grew up in houses where 100 to 150 cigarettes were smoked every day, but never smoked in all my life. In 2007 I was diagnosed with leukemia, which happens to be commonly associated with heavy second-hand smoke exposure in childhood – and the cancer may not show up for 40, 50, even 60 years after the exposure. My doctors were unequivocal that this was the cause of my leukemia, which can be definitely identified by the genetics of the cancer cells as being specific to exposure in childhood, not adulthood. My doctors described for me at least a dozen other cases like mine.

  291. john robertson says:
    Richard Courtney.
    Please stick around and stick to the CAGW.
    You have valuable knowledge.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I very much agree.

  292. john robertson says:
    February 25, 2014 at 7:48 pm
    Richard Courtney.
    Please stick around and stick to the CAGW.
    You have valuable knowledge.

    I agree. And simply ignore any one that you perceive to be a troll.

  293. wbrozek,

    But he can’t or won’t do that.

    When he takes factual comments (that he doesn’t like) and screams Liar! or Ultra Right Wing and issues endless demands for apologies – there’s a serious problem there.

  294. I was floored by this caption on the Nazi like photo. “Reichsfuhrer J. Cook”
    Seriously, what’s wrong with these people?

  295. Anth0ny:

    If you want rid of me from your blog then that is fine: it is your blog.

    I have ceased commenting in your blog, but I write in self defence because your response to my ceasing to comment (at February 25, 2014 at 3:57 pm) is misleading.

    You imposed a time-out on both those who had been making untrue and off-topic attacks of me and on me because I had tried to defend myself. But the only named person given a timeout was me and the scurrilous attacks of me continued so I requested parity.

    You refused that parity and claimed the attacks are my fault because of my “commenting style”. But I was on a time out so was not using any “commenting style” and was asking for protection from the attacks which the timeout was forbidding me to answer!

    I said there was only one possible interpretation of that and said I would cease commenting on your blog. Your response to that says

    REPLY: Asking you to leave is not the same as a time out. I didn’t ask you to leave permanently. I can’t police everything and everybody, but like it or not, your comments have a habit of provoking food fights and it costs me time. So if you’d rather leave than self review, that’s your choice. – Anthony

    It is true that you did not EXPLICITLY ask me to leave.

    But it is a clear statement of your desire that you want me to leave (because my presence “costs [you] time”) especially when you allow untrue attacks of me while refusing a right of reply and asserting that I am to blame for the attacks.

    Also, your assertion that my “comments have a habit of provoking food fights” is untrue. My presence causes that.

    The American ultra-right for WUWT to have what they see as political purity so wish to drive out anybody who does not accept their political beliefs. In the case in question the affair was started by highflight56433 (who claims – probably untruthfully – that you support his anonymity) when he posted the lie that socialists have murdered 260,000,000 people: the lie is especially egregious when many of those he listed as murdered were socialists killed by Naz1s.

    You don’t want my comments on your blog because my presence induces “food fights” from people so right-wing that they claim H1tler was left-wing! OK. I have ceased commenting.

    But it is disingenuous to pretend that you did not make your desire for me to leave your blog very clear. And anybody who knows me would recognise what I would do when you indicated that.

    Richard

    PS Please note that the attacks of me in this thread were not trivial; e.g. I and all socialists are party to being a Naz1, I am among “the enemy”, it is impossible for me to be a Christian because I am a socialist, etc..

    I made no responses which were more severe than the lies directed at me.
    Indeed, I pointed out that the ultra-right are Naz1s and not the left. I am only the “enemy” of Nazis. The Methodist Church of England and Wales applies Our Discipline on me and all other Preachers it Accredits, so the assertion that I cannot be a Christian is a denial of Methodist Custom and Practice. etc.

  296. It all seems reminiscent of the recently “Snowden” leaked document “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations”:

    -Inject all sorts of false material onto the internet” and “to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable”

    -Discredit and humiliate the target, including a) “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), b) fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and c) posting “negative information” on different forums.

    -One of the tactics is known as “honey trap”, which involves luring people into compromising situations using sex.

    We have already seen the first ones … so, if the alarmists keep getting desperate, things may escalate into a “sex scandal”. So, be careful with honey traps. He, he.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/

  297. Fernando says:
    February 26, 2014 at 2:10 am

    [...]
    We have already seen the first ones … so, if the alarmists keep getting desperate, things may escalate into a “sex scandal”. So, be careful with honey traps. He, he.
    —————————————————————————————————————-

    It’s a tough decision, but reqest permission to “take one for the cause”.

    Purely to protect those higher in our well-organised machine, of course :)

  298. Richard Courtney, I was one of the commentors who spoke of your socialism, but not before you referred to yourself as a socialist. I told you I was a classical liberal in the vain of Hayek and you called me a right wing Naz1 and referred to my comment as daft. That was highly offensive. I happen to think you provide very sage comments on the climate change issue and wish you would stay. I would be helpful to keep your political comments in check, however. To Heyekians, any political stance, such as socialism, Marxism, communism, that represses individual freedoms, becomes a flashpoint. I apologize for participating in the provocation. Cheers.

  299. I think a step back and some self-reflection may be in order for all of us: “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”

  300. I think skeptics need an umbrella organisation. For example, the GWPF in the UK has more influence than just Lord Lawson on his own. The initial core would be all the current bloggers – I would want to see broad support so that would include Sky Dragons and others who you might not fully agree with. Ideally it would also include politicians or other people of influence [and hopefully money!] It should also be as multinational as possible.

    Finance is always an issue. To see whether the idea would float then you could try crowdfunding. People may be more willing to fund an organisation than an individual. There must be some wealthy skeptics who can be approached. I think it would attract a lot of volunteers. Continued funding could be done by subscriptions and donations.

    I think the website should be relatively low key and aimed mostly at people who are ‘skeptical curious’ rather than committed skeptics. So a fixed page would be ‘why are people skeptical’. It could be a general source of information. How pro-CAGW organisations are funded, who makes money from CAGW, BBC bias [history and corrections to their programs][plus other media organisations], how many advocates are ‘do as I say, not as I do’!

    Other areas are how CAGW harms lives. Obviously energy costs, impact on Africa, school ‘education’, retribution for expressing skeptical views, etc. Also effects on wildlife.

    Probably no comments section, just a reference site.

    If very successful it could establish a ‘fighting fund’ to help stop legal bullying.

    Individuals can be picked off one by one, but an organisation would give strength and resilience.

  301. Anthony,

    I sympathize with urge to take a stand to this sort of social ostracizing. It is certainly required in some form. Another unsettling aspect of this is that every form of “taking a stand” seems to be incorporated into identifying someone for pariah status. It only serves to mark you out more. It doesn’t expose the behavior and methods of those ostracizing you it just confirms your pariah status for resisting it.

    I’ve been contemplating this for a while now and unfortunately have no answers. Nonetheless, this aspect of the problem seems to be their greatest achievement. The group they are defining and marking out is silenced because everything they say means only one thing to the casual observer. This is why evidence is irrelevant.

  302. Ken McMurtrie says:
    February 25, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    @ Paul Westhaver
    You say “so?”
    So do I. ….

    Ok Ken. I happen to agree with your entire post on the matter. I have no challenge at all to the substance of your blog either. It quite like it.

    Cheers.

  303. Joe says:
    February 25, 2014 at 10:14 am

    We’re a small island, we don’t have the room or the population to justify 3 or 4 companies “competing” (read: colluding) to generate our relatively small power needs.,
    —————–

    Joe, there is always room for competition in a “free” society.

    And that is exactly why the divorce rate is so high in some countries.

    There is a big difference between ….. 3 or 4 companies competing for ”government approval and licensing” to be the sole provider of electrical power to all the people …. and …. 3 or 4 companies competing with one another to provide the best, most reliable and least costly electrical power to the population.

    Except for maybe Iceland, electricity costs don’t get any cheaper than they are here, to wit:

    http://villageoffrankfortny.org/content/Departments/View/1

  304. Chad Wozniak says:
    February 25, 2014 at 8:43 pm

    I am personally physical disproof of your claim that second-hand smoke doesn’t cause cancer.
    —————–

    Yup, but I am personally (70+ years) physical disproof of your nurtured pseudo-science beliefs about cigarette smoke. Carcinogenic cigarette smoke and CAGW are “two peas in a pod” with both being “Cash Cows” and their claimed ill effects being based solely on associations, correlations, estimations, insinuations, percentageations, tripe and/or piffle ……. and thus there is no actual, factual, repeatable scientific evidence or proofs to support said “junk science” claims.

    The public is now being deluded into believing the “ill effects” of CAGW ….. just like it was deluded into believing the “ill effects” of cigarette smoke that had its beginning in November 1977 when the American Cancer Society launched its Great American Smokeout campaign. Thus, the history of “deluding the masses” is again trying to repeat itself via the claims of CAGW, …. and it will, …. if the “voices” of reason, factual science and common sense are “silenced” by their opponents.

  305. Samuel C Cogar says:
    February 26, 2014 at 7:55 am

    Joe says:
    February 25, 2014 at 10:14 am

    “We’re a small island, we don’t have the room or the population to justify 3 or 4 companies “competing” (read: colluding) to generate our relatively small power needs., ”
    —————–

    Joe, there is always room for competition in a “free” society.

    And that is exactly why the divorce rate is so high in some countries.

    There is a big difference between ….. 3 or 4 companies competing for ”government approval and licensing” to be the sole provider of electrical power to all the people …. and …. 3 or 4 companies competing with one another to provide the best, most reliable and least costly electrical power to the population.

    Except for maybe Iceland, electricity costs don’t get any cheaper than they are here, to wit:

    http://villageoffrankfortny.org/content/Departments/View/1

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    Samuel,

    As I said, I’m wiling to concede competition in supply to the consumer, but that’s not the same as generation. In the link you give, the Village of Frankfort have their own substation, but they don’t claim to have their own generation capacity.

    Building power stations is expensive, and they benefit massively from economies of scale – a single station able to power 100000 homes will always be cheaper per unit of power than running small local generation. With a 60 million or so population, spread over less area than the top 10 US states, the UK just doesn’t have enough demand to support genuine competition in generation.

  306. Gail Combs says:
    February 26, 2014 at 9:09 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/24/the-merchants-of-smear/#comment-1577148

    ============================================================
    Thanks for that.
    I hope Richard doesn’t stay away.
    From what he has said in other comments on other threads he’s no more in favor of a Totalitarian/Authoritarian Government that stems from “socialism” than I am of the Totalitarian/Authoritarian Government that is rising from the US Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. I’m not proud of slavery or Wounded Knee or Waco or ….. the NSA, Holden, the EPA and Obama.
    I’m not sure what “socialism” means to him but I suspect he sees it as a way to take care of people just as I see US Constitution with The Bill of Rights as a way to protect the rights of The People. I do not support “socialism” but I do not question Richard’s motives.
    Here on this blog the thrust is to keep the science honest so it can’t be used as a club (a Hockey Stick?) to beat people into submission under a Totalitarian/Authoritarian Government from whatever political philosophy it sprang. Richard is a valuable ally.
    PS Regarding “you can’t be a socialist and a Christian”, there’s not a person alive (or dead) that “can be a Christian” based on what they themselves are or were. That’s based on what He was and whether or not you accept it.
    (To any lurking NSAers, I won’t be responding to anything aimed at the “PS”.8-)

  307. A link to the Charles Krauthammer Feb 20, 2014 Washington Post column that generated demands it not be run. The Myth of Settled Science Some snippets:

    “The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really?
    There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. ….

    But even worse than the pretense of settledness is the cynical attribution of any politically convenient natural disaster to climate change, a clever term that allows you to attribute anything — warming and cooling, drought and flood — to man’s sinful carbon burning….

    Hurricanes: … in all of 2012, only a single hurricane made U.S. landfall .
    And 2013 saw the fewest Atlantic hurricanes in 30 years.
    In fact, in the last half-century, one-third fewer major hurricanes have hit the United States than in the previous half-century.

    Tornados: Yet last year saw the fewest in a quarter-century.
    And the last 30 years … has seen a 30 percent decrease in … (F3 and above) versus the previous 30 years.

    None of this is dispositive. It doesn’t settle the issue. But that’s the point. It mocks the very notion of settled science, which is nothing but a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate.

  308. If this is the You tube of the merchants of smear, why are there not any comments yet? Has anyone commented? They say there have been 3,001 views.

    Crossing the 2014 Climate Divide: Scientists, Skeptics & the Media

  309. Peter West says: @ February 24, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    The “virtual Nazi dressup” was probably (I haven’t bother to go there) a satirical reaction to Roy Spencer. The situation is bad, but we need to be careful not to make it worse than it actually is.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    You have that backwards. The Naz1 dress-up was WELL BEFORE Roy Spencer’s comment.

  310. I came across this column today and I thought – yes indeed, a berserk reaction!

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/

    ……”Leftist readers may by now be seething. Whenever I touch on this subject, it elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology. Well, chaps, maybe now you know how we conservatives feel when you loosely associate Nazism with “the Right”.”

  311. Joe says: @ February 25, 2014 at 10:14 am

    .The thing is, DS, we’re not being told that socialism is the answer. At least, not here in the UK and certainly not by anyone except capitalists concerned that their slice of the pie might get moved to some other (nouveau) capitalist….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I am sorry Joe but you are incorrect.
    From WUWT:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-120/

    UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming
    By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Jan 15, 2014

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un-climate-chief-communism-is-best-to-fight-global-warming/

    >>>>>>>
    How about calling a moratorium on the Socialist/Capitalist stuff?

    I think we all can agree that H1tler and Stal!n and others were totalitarian Monsters. Such Monsters use what ever sheepskin is available to cover the wolf. In earlier times it was often religion.

    As Dr. R.J. Rummel, author of Death by Govenment said:

    After eight-years and almost daily reading and recording of men, women, and children by the tens of millions being tortured or beaten to death, hung, shot, and buried alive, burned or starved to death, stabbed or chopped into pieces, and murdered in all the other ways creative and imaginative human beings can devise, I have never been so happy to conclude a project. I have not found it easy to read time and time again about the horrors innocent people have been forced to suffer. What has kept me at this was the belief, as preliminary research seemed to suggest, that there was a positive solution to all this killing and a clear course of political action and policy to end it. And the results verify this. The problem is Power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.

  312. TonyG says: @ February 25, 2014 at 11:27 am

    ….It’s also not capitalism. There are no captive markets under capitalism. What you describe is a bastardized system where corporations and wealthy individuals influence government for their own ends. Anyone who considers himself a capitalist would reject such a system just as much as socialism.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Correct. It is sometimes called Neo-corporatism or sometimes “Third Way”

    SEE: Corporatism and the Ghost of the Third Way

    For what it is worth, ‘Capitalism’ died a hundred years ago.

  313. Robert in Calgary says:
    February 26, 2014 at 5:11 pm
    I came across this column today and I thought – yes indeed, a berserk reaction!

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/

    Yes, that would seem to account for of the rather frantic name-calling in this thread. It is complicated that the topic of the lead post concerns overt threats by Establishment types to criminalize heretical views on “climate change”; no matter which political ilk these types belong to, they are at least comfortable with Statist solutions to what they perceive as a problem, and most uncomfortable with free speech and individual freedom.

    Whether these Statists are ‘socialist’ or ‘fascist’ or some other ‘-ist’ seems to me beside the point; they are on the side of tyranny, not freedom, and that is all that matters.

    Whatever Richard Courtney labels himself, I doubt he takes the side of tyranny. And his contributions to this blog on the subjects of climate and energy, those that I have read, have been astute and important.

    Vis-a-vis the Climate Parasites, it is important to maintain a united front against those who would shut down debate altogether. So let’s eschew intra-necine labels and stick to the facts, both of the science and the need for skeptics to be heard, and heard loudly.

    /Mr Lynn

    • Mr Lynn
      Whether these Statists are ‘socialist’ or ‘fascist’ or some other ‘-ist’ seems to me beside the point; they are on the side of tyranny, not freedom, and that is all that matters.

      I think that is something we can all agree on.

  314. Gail Combs says:
    How about calling a moratorium on the Socialist/Capitalist stuff?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I heartily agree….and very well said also Mr. Lynn. Thanks.

    Note to Richard Courtney. You’re missed by those of us who appreciate your scientific expertise. Please don’t stay away for long!

  315. Well this thread seems to have gotten way off track, and drifted far from the original “learned” critique of the WUWT blog, that has repeatedly been dubbed as the world’s most viewed website and climate change; by three giants of the science and journalistic reporting fields.

    To get a distinguished Harvard University Professor of The History of Science, and Director of both Science, and Policy of the renowned Union of Concerned Scientists, as well a celebrated international reporter on matters of world import, to present a lecture on WUWT, and its influence is a major accomplishment; and indicates the importance accorded to WUWT.

    Now I had only ten years of formal education in science; well more correctly in Physics, along with a smattering of chemistry, before embarking on more than half a century, of application of that to industry.

    In all that time, I never took a single class or lecture on “The History of Science.”

    How can one spend over 60 years in the field of learning science, and not acquire a deep connection to the history of that discipline. To study science IS to simply follow it’s history.

    So, if I were the parents of a science student at the Harvard University, for whom I was being charged top dollar, to get a purportedly reputable education in science; I would be rather put out, if any of my money got wasted, on a soft enterprise like teaching a history of science; rather than teaching the science itself.

    Well I see this lecture was not too well attended, even with three distinguished panelists, and I would surmise that, this number would exceed the number who might actually take the history course itself. The other two speakers, must surely have drawn additional attendees .

    So just how many students are there who take Professor Oreskes course ??

    I did a quite small stint in academia, myself, before departing for industry; a limited course on Optics, and Atomic Physics. It was a quite popular course; as I recall, I had 200 students in the class, so I had to do it in two shifts. Maybe I should have simply taught the history of science, and had a more manageable work load. Well industry was far more fun, and rewarding too.

    If any WUWT readers, have an interest in the history of science, I could suggest a much cheaper approach, than taking Prof. Oreskes’ course.

    I would particularly recommend this, to those of you who like Gail Combs, seem to be veritable information sponges; and just soak stuff up.

    For about $10.95 plus applicable taxes, from Amazon, and like sources, buy yourself a small book, called ; “Thirty Years that Shook Physics.” authored by George Gamow, who was right there, when all this stuff went down.

    If you never took a physics lecture in your life, you can read this book.

    Anyone who can follow a recipe, to make a cake from scratch, or can change the spark plugs, or brake pads on your car, can easily read this book. I’m quite sure that anyone who can milk a cow, or shear a sheep, can read this book; and I bet you get more out of it than you would get from Harvard Professor Oreskes’ history course.

    Oh I’m sure she is a good lecturer, and good at her subject; but for $11, this book is a far better deal.

    No I get no royalties for telling you this; I was NOT there when the fat hit the shin, so to speak.

    Enjoy it, Gamow, is a great writer.

    ["Fat hit the shin" ?? 8<) The mods admit they have they never seen that variation of flying boney nutrients before. Mod]

  316. Gunga Din, Mr Lynn and Richard D:

    I have ceased participating in WUWT. Whatever guests in a house may think, it is impolite and improper to enter the house when its owner does not want you there.

    However, I am ‘gate-crashing the party’ by ‘calling through the door’ with this one post as a method to draw attention to points already made on WUWT pertaining to specific points you make about me personally.

    Mr Lyn says

    Whatever Richard Courtney labels himself, I doubt he takes the side of tyranny.

    I am against tyranny in all its forms. I take the side of humanity as I repeatedly said in this thread; e.g. at February 24, 2014 at 2:31 pm where I wrote

    Our host has provided an excellent article about pro-AGW zealots attempting to demonise those who refuse to accept their dogma.
    Some members of the ultra-right are using it as excuse to demonise socialists.
    Does anybody fail to see the irony of this?
    As I said above
    When any group is demonised the result is always horrific. Religious beliefs, political beliefs, racial characteristics, caste, social status, and ethnicity have all been used as excuse for such demonization. This thread is about such demonization of AGW-sceptics, and the ultra-right is using it to demonise “socialists”. I am trying to defend against horror.

    I call myself many things because they are what I am; e.g. a man who attempts to be a Christian, a father, a brother, a socialist, a material scientist, a campaigner for good scientific standards, etc..

    My political views were debated on WUWT in a thread where the debate began with Mark Bofill asking me a question here.

    Since then, I have always attempted – repeatedly, and on many occasions – to avoid discussion of my political views on WUWT by referring people to that debate.

    But in this and the previous thread it was repeatedly attempted to assert that all governments which kill people are socialist. Indeed, it was claimed that Tsarist Russia was “socialist” because it killed people! And in this thread at February 24, 2014 at 1:42 pm Mark wrote :

    Socialists are people who embrace using aggression, coercion and violence to force their will on others, so this isn’t surprising at all.

    A more clear demonstration of demonization is hard to imagine.

    And some others noticed what was happening in this thread. For example, the post from Alan Robertson at February 24, 2014 at 4:51 pm says

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 24, 2014 at 4:45 pm
    Fabi says:
    February 24, 2014 at 4:21 pm
    These personal attacks on Richard S. Courtney are disgraceful. Please stop.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Seconded.
    ___________________
    Yep.

    But the attacks increased and our host adopted a partisan response by giving me a time out while allowing the attacks to continue then – when I objected to this one-sidedness – he said (February 26, 2014 at 1:01 am) the problem is my “commenting style” which I had to amend because he said (at February 25, 2014 at 3:57 pm) it was “costing [him] time”. His actual words being

    Asking you to leave is not the same as a time out. I didn’t ask you to leave permanently. I can’t police everything and everybody, but like it or not, your comments have a habit of provoking food fights and it costs me time. So if you’d rather leave than self review, that’s your choice.

    Clearly, my “commenting style” (i.e. who and what I am) is not welcome here because it unduly consumes our host’s time. The only way I can become welcome is to “self review” by rejecting my socialist principles which I will not do.

    So, I have explained my views and why I have withdrawn from participation in WUWT.

    I wish WUWT, Anth0ny, and all WUWT participants every good wish. The AGW-scare is beaten and it is important to constrain the effects of the scare as it dies.

    Richard

    REPLY: Clearly Mr. Courtney missed the fact that I gave a unilateral time-out.

    Anthony Watts says:
    February 24, 2014 at 6:13 pm

    Richard S. Courtney, please take a time out for 24 hours. That goes for the people attacking him as well.- Anthony

    But my observation stands; he does tend to get into too many food fights with commenters best ignored, and I’ve had to give unilateral time-outs to him and participants before. I could spend 24/7 on WUWT in such arguments and I’d never get another thing done. My view of this problem, also communicated to him privately, can be summed up as “Discretion is the better part of valor”. So, rather than simply take my suggestions in comments to chill out for 24 hours, and privately in email to tone it down a bit so that he doesn’t continue getting into these food fights that require intervention, he’s taking his ball and going home.

    He’s mistaken in his own viewpoint about not being wanted here and being asked to leave, but being mistaken is his right, and I wish him well – Anthony

  317. Joe says:
    February 26, 2014 at 11:28 am

    In the link you give, the Village of Frankfort have their own substation, but they don’t claim to have their own generation capacity.
    ——————

    Joe,
    I suggest you read that cited link again. … http://villageoffrankfortny.org/content/Departments/View/1

    If NOT their own “generating capacity” why would they explicity state: “Today, we have upgraded the same substation to handle four (4) times the capacity.”

    Joe, I lived in that area for almost 20 years and I know for a fact that the Village owns and operates the power generating facility.

    And Joe, how about Frankfort, Indiana? Read this and weep.
    ————–

    City Light and Power Plant, Frankfort, Indiana
    Customer Charge per month $4.00

    First 500 KWH per month 5.8636¢ per KWH
    Next 1000 KWH per month 4.6085¢ per KWH
    Over 1500 KWH per month 3.7496¢ per KWH

    http://www.fmu-in.com/fmuweb/clp/clprates.htm

  318. @Richard Courtney 2:16
    Sorry to hear that Sir.
    I note your comment that CAGW is over.
    Have been feeling the same way for last few months, kind of irritated the faithful haven’t realized they be zombies.
    Kind of feeling my addiction to WUWT,almost as a climate prom
    I almost feel sorry for my local planet saviours, formerly so loud, certain and intolerant.
    However they tried to facilitate the robbery of us all,
    “Surrender your wealth, intelligence and freedom”, to save the world from my delusion?.
    Sometimes I feel you do not give the rest of us enough time or credit, the lack of challenge to some of the odd commentary is not agreement, some I see as subtle trolling, some not so subtle, but choose to let it lie as they reveal themselves soon enough.
    Give us time we do recognize ugliness and smear.
    Also I believe you have been fighting this nonsense for far longer than most of the visitors here, have even been aware the war was on.
    Patience with fools is not infinite, but hell I bought the AGW crud at first.
    On that label thing, my father was as you are a self avowed socialist.
    As he served in Italy and Holland fighting the madness from germany, it obviously was not a shared definition.Labels are made to cover and cloak, most of us are just normal folk.
    Please do not give up on this yet, the mopping up will require those persons with an actuate sense of the history and evolution of this mass psychosis.
    However remain in good health and cheer, as you can tell from comments above many can see the shape through the noise and value your contribution.

  319. Richard S. Courtney, I’ve read your sincere post of this morning as well as the thoughts of our host. I freely admit I’m selfish in writing this post. I feel strongly that you would be doing me personally and the WUWT community, as well as the many, many non technical readers who visit here an invaluable service by staying. You bring a unique logical style and British viewpoint, as well as expert scientific experience to these threads. You are a serious man and a good guy. Please consider putting aside the serious unpleasantness on this thread for greater good of educating and opposing what’s truly unpleasant and really just plain evil – the hijacking of science by ideologues and zealots. All the best whatever you decide, but please consider. Thanks.

  320. The comparison to heresy is apt as is the comparison to Nazi and Stalinist regimes. Another comparison that should be made is to Islam, where perhaps the skeptics will be treated like Dhimmi – required to admit the supremacy of climate cooling/warming/changing and free to speak their minds, but only in private where others can’t hear and subject to a special tax.

    Somehow, I don’t believe the high priests of climate change will be that generous.

  321. Richard D:

    I have withdrawn from posting to WUWT so I have thought long and hard about whether to reply to your kind post addressed to me at February 27, 2014 at 11:51 am. Indeed, that time of consideration is why it has taken me so long before providing this reply.

    Anth0ny has said I can post to here but my posts unduly consume his time. Hence, I have withdrawn from WUWT, but your post is so generous that I think it requires an answer. I think I can best reply with an anecdote.

    In the mid 1990s there was a Conference on the science of what was then called global warming. The Conference was held in Bonn, Germany, and was organised jointly by the European Academy of Sciences and also the Europaishe Akademie fur Umweltfragen whose President, the late Helmut Metzner, was also the President of the Conference.

    The Conference was to start on the Monday and a meeting of Speakers was to be held on the previous afternoon so many of us had arrived on the Saturday and had Sunday morning free.

    Helmut and I went for a walk beside the river. It was a cold but sunny morning and we walked beside the river discussing scientific issues pertaining to climate prediction when we came across a short length of damaged wall with an engraved plate on it. I asked Helmut to translate for me the words engraved on the plate.

    Helmut explained that the piece of wall was all that remained of the local synagogue on the morning following Kristallnacht. It was now the place of an annual remembrance service by local Jews.

    I said I was thrilled to come across this memorial because in my country the day of our walk was Remembrance Sunday when we remembered and honoured all who had suffered, died or fought in wars. And Remembrance Sunday is important to me because I am a pacifist. He asked me to describe it, which I did, and he said such events were not permitted in Germany for fear that they would be distorted by SS reunions.

    I said I regretted this. Many people have suffered in wars and nobody should be judged on who or what they were long, long ago. (In recent years I conducted Remembrance Sunday Services at Mabe which were attended by a venerable gentleman who had been a member of the Waffen SS: he died two years ago.)

    My family lost everything in the blitz. Remembrance Sunday is a time to reflect on the past and to honour those who suffered so we can be reminded of mistakes that should never be repeated.

    Helmut said he was a submariner in WW2. He had wanted to study Art History at university but had been called-up to join the navy. His U-boat attacked the convoys undertaking the horrific ‘Murmansk Run’. As the Russians advanced westward his submarine retreated west until it was stranded in port with no fuel. He and the rest of the crew then waited for the Russians to arrive and were in great fear. But when they were found by the Russians they were told to go home because the Russians were busy advancing towards Berlin to bother with captive submariners.

    But Helmut did not go home. He set off on foot with nothing but the clothes he wore and headed for Leipzig across demolished Germany. Upon arrival he found the university and asked to study Art History. The few professors who were there said the university was demolished. They could not teach him Art History, but they could start to teach him Theoretical Physics because they had a blackboard, chalk and their knowledge. So he agreed to study that.

    Thus began the education that transformed the young submariner into Herr Dr Professor Helmut Metzner; a great theoretical physicist.

    Having shared our anecdotes of war, for some minutes Helmut and I stared at the piece of broken wall in silence while we each reflected on what it represented. We then continued our walk. It was the best Remembrance Sunday of my life.

    Helmut’s walk across the ruins of Europe towards what he could not know he would become has often been used as a sermon illustration by me. Tomorrow is Transfiguration Sunday, and I will use it again.

    As this thread has demonstrated, there are still people who desire imposition of their views on others. The AGW-scare derives from that desire, and there are people of all political persuasions who claim they know what makes them smile and everybody must be made to smile like them ‘or else’.

    And this thread also demonstrates that my presence in the WUWT community enables the forces of tyranny to promote their vile ideas within WUWT. Hence, whether or not my presence consumes too much of Anth0ny’s time, I have withdrawn my presence.

    Richard

  322. I have no problem with global warming alarmists, now known as climate change alarmists, discussing their theories. It would be helpful if they distinguished between fact and theory, and admitted what they do not know (eg., why the Medieval warm period). It would be even more helpful if they stopped “adjusting” the facts (read: distorting data) and engaging in gross hyperbole. But if they want to push their agenda without actual factual support, so be it – the free marketplace of ideas will sort it out.

    I have a real problem with their attempt to censors contrary views.

    And so should everyone else.

  323. I have been snubbed by our local Sustainable Living Association as I have commented to some of the members, I do not support clean energy nor do I believe CO2 warms the planet as it is cooling. But I am a great supporter of sustainable living. Well I did offer my help in a parade, and as I have a Diploma in Organic Agriculture I reckon I can speak with authority. So I expected their retort, LOL. I bet they will grunt when the government squashes the carbon tax. Don’t worry they are waiting for the new senate to come in on July 1st, and with the WA senate having to have another election, some must be worried.

  324. TonyG says:
    February 25, 2014 at 5:59 am
    Can I not be either? (or, Can I be neither?)
    highflight56433 says:
    A line in an indiana Jones flick comes to mind… :)

    Care to be more specific? Perhaps provide a more direct answer?
    ————————————————————————————–

    Gladly: There are many choices….”you must choose wisely”

  325. First of all , I would like to state that I am a global warming denier , there , I’ve said it!
    Given the lengths, breads and depths of the Oceans, the enormity of Earths atmosphere,. The absolute failure of anybody to collect reasonable evidence over the past 100, 1000, 10,000, years (I could go on but that would be boring. ) to show that we are now in some sort of critical condition (CAGW) is nonsensical. We are the result of a sublimely beneficial Troposphere and our impact on that is zero.. ok ,maybe , 0.002% ( that is, in my rough calculation of man made CO2 contributes ) .Now given that there is zero x zero proof that CO2 on its own is harmful (to what exactly?) and may cause global warming ,again zero proof, especially if you consider the 15/16/17, year hiatus , then why is this discussion continuing?
    The simple fact is that nobody can measure the warmth of the globe, unless you have “thermometers ” covering every square cubic kilometer of planet Earth’s Atmosphere on a synchronised basis , you also need to make comparatives to ground temperature , on an hourly basis and the vast sinkhole of heat that is the Oceans.There is no objective way to achieve this result. In the interim ,models may show exceptional deviations from the norm , but since these deviations have stopped for a long time now well apart from it seeming a bit colder, then the models MUST be ignored.
    I suppose ,like fashion, models get older , a bit more creaky and must be replaced .

Comments are closed.