Bizarre: Anti-Defamation League apparently gives a green light to defamation of climate skeptics by comparing them to Holocaust Deniers

UPDATE: 2/27 6:30AM PST It seems the person making the attack, Shelley Rose, is part of a climate activist group, see below.

UPDATE: 2/27 2:50PM PST, The ADL Atlanta website has deleted comments on the issue, and has closed the press release to further comments. See below.

Boy, this is ugly, and I hope this boils down to simply an error in judgement by a lower tier administrator because this is like some bizzaro-world episode; on one hand the Anti-Defamation League is coming down against the “…type of comparison diminishes and trivializes the Holocaust.“, while on another they are giving a “get out of jail free card” to the people who have repeatedly done that very thing over several years.

Two telephone calls and two emails today requesting comment from ADL’s Southeast Interim Regional Director Shelly Rose have gone unanswered. She’s aware of my calls. I asked for her directly, gave my name and affiliation, and after a pause on hold her assistant asked if it would be OK to “send you to voice mail”. Ms Rose did provide a copy of the press release below, after I queried the main organization in New York after receiving a tip about this release, but found no evidence of its existence on the ADL Press Center website. The press release below still isn’t on the website as of this writing at 6:15PM EST well after close of business there. All of my requests were done during normal business hours for both the Atlanta and NYC office.

I have to wonder if the main organization is endorsing this press release, or if this is some regional director who went rogue.

Here is the press release. 

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

ADL_logo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Shelley Rose (404) 262-3470 work; 678-938-1399 cell

srose@adl.org

ADL Condemns Spencer’s Nazi Analogy

February 25, 2014,  Atlanta, Georgia … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today denounced remarks by University of Alabama – Huntsville professor Roy Spencer who wrote on his blog that those who refer to him as a climate change “denier” should be called “global warming Nazis” and that they 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.”

He also claims those who advocate for policies to slow global warming are “like the Nazis” in that they are fascist and anti-capitalist. The post is also accompanied by an image of a swastika.

Shelley Rose, ADL Southeast Interim Regional Director issued the following statement:

University of Alabama Professor Roy Spencer’s analogy of proponents of global warming to Nazis is outrageous and deeply offensive.  This analogy is just the latest example of a troubling epidemic of comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust.

It has become too common to use comparisons to the Holocaust and Nazi imagery to attack people with opposing views, whether the issue is global warming, immigration or stem-cell research.

The six million Jewish victims and millions of other victims of Hitler deserve better.  Their deaths should not be used for political points or sloganeering.  This type of comparison diminishes and trivializes the Holocaust. There is no place for it in civil discussions.

Shelley Rose |Interim Regional Director

Anti-Defamation League | 3490 Piedmont Road; Suite 610 | Atlanta, Georgia 30305

Phone: 404-262-3470 I Fax: 404-262-3548 I Cell: 678-938-1399 I srose@adl.org

ADL website I our blog I facebook I twitter I youtube I pinterest I google+ I linkedin

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

I queried Ms Rose for a comment on the last paragraph, asking:

Wouldn’t that also apply to the use of “denier” to denigrate people, including Dr. Spencer. whose research has nothing to do with the holocaust or denial of it?

I also asked her to comment on the “green light” as a working title, asking if it was an accurate representation of their position. It was clear to me from the lack of response to two emails and two telephone calls was ” no comment”.

From their website, apparently slurs in major league football rate higher in concern than comparing climate skeptics to holocaust deniers for the purpose of denigration:

ADL Welcomes NFL’s Willingness to Address Hate Speech

The League welcomed reports that the NFL is considering how to discourage the use of offensive slurs during the course of games and said that “the question of how to address offensive speech and the best ways to counter it on playing fields and in locker rooms is an important conversation.”

And that’s why I think this is bizarre. The selective hypocrisy is stunning. I’m hoping the main office in New York will come to their senses and disavow the press release from the “Interim Regional Director”. Surely they must see the ugly conundrum they’ve manufactured for themselves.

Dr. Roy Spencer responds:

Hypocrisy at the Anti-Defamation League?

He asks exactly what I was thinking; where was ADL all these years when such ugly and hateful comparisons were being made:

Ms. Rose, where was your organization when journalists, politicians, and even some scientists, chose to call us skeptics “deniers”?

We don’t deny either “global warming” or “climate change”. Yet, we are called “deniers”. Ms. Rose, do you have any inkling why the term “denier” (which is a lie) might be used against us, rather than the term “skeptic” (which is accurate)? I think you know why.

I’d really like to know how ADL can turn a blind eye the use of “denier” for the purpose of denigration while at the same time calling out a victim of the denigration for fighting back after years of abuse.

There’s also a newspaper article about it:

UAH climate expert Roy Spencer calls critics ‘global warming Nazis'; Anti-Defamation League objects

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/02/uah_climate_expert_roy_spencer.html

UPDATE: The PR is now posted on the Atlanta ADL website here

http://atlanta.adl.org/news/adl-condemns-spencers-nazi-analogy/

Comments are allowed there. Be civil if you leave comments please.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that this person simply doesn’t know the history, and committed a terrible error in judgment.

UPDATE2: 2/27 6:30AM PST It seems the person making the attack, Shelly Rose, is part of a climate activist group, see photo and caption.

Shelly_rose_stepitup

The caption reads:

Congregations Caring for the Climate – Atlanta, GA

Bill Witherspoon, from Congregation Bet Haverim writes: This was taken Friday evening before Erev Shabbat Services. We had about three times this many for services eventually, but these were the ones who arrived in time for the photo. As part of our second week of the Omer to Honor the Earth, Shelley Rose (third from right, just right of our Torah scrolls) gave the d’var (sermon) on acting with awareness that we all breathe the same air, and Tovah Melaver (second from right) led a breathing meditation.

April 13, 2007

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stepitup2007/464126698/

You can read all about this organization at http://stepitup2007.org

Of note is the list of “Friends and Allies” which reads like a who’s who in climate activism.

This whole episode makes a lot more sense now.

UPDATE3: 2/27 2:50PM PST, The ADL Atlanta website has deleted many comments on the issue, and has closed the press release to further comments. About an hour ago, I noted 90 comments were posted, now it is down to 50. See below.

ADL_website_delete

Meanwhile I’ve drafted and sent a letter by email and by fax to ADL National Director, ABRAHAM H. FOXMAN asking if ADL plans to comment on the issue, and to ask id they plan to apply their condemnation equally, along with examples of what climate skeptics have been subjected to over the years. I think they simply have been caught unaware in a conundrum created by their Atlanta Interim Director.

I ask that if anyone makes communications with this organization, please be factual and respectful – Anthony

 

 

About these ads

448 thoughts on “Bizarre: Anti-Defamation League apparently gives a green light to defamation of climate skeptics by comparing them to Holocaust Deniers

  1. It sure is getting out of control with these warmists. Nazis and USSR communists did the same thing… Obama and others are calling us names…

  2. ADL is a Communist organization first and foremost. All of their posturing and condemnations are a part of a Communist agenda. So this really isn’t bizarre at all.

  3. Spencer was a bad if justified move , as for Anti-Defamation League well its selective plenty of defamation statements are made against people like AGW sceptics without them showing any concern .
    rule one its not the nature of victim nor the nature of their plight that matters , what matters is the nature of who can be blamed.
    In case you ever wonder how the left can show such great ‘concern’ for one group of people but none for others even if their situation is worse ,. or how they can suddenly take people from being ‘victims ‘ that have to be helped to people they care nothing about , rule one is the reason.

  4. responding to the denier word is the mistake imo. they call people names on purpose to provoke a response and so move the debate away from THE EVIDENCE.

  5. Upon what foundation do organizations such as ADL base their moral convictions?

    I suspect there is a Common Core shared with adherents of the CAGW ideology.

  6. The games begin, these righteous citizens will, in their blindness, now proceed to defend the indefensible.
    If they had any ethics, they would have objected to the holocaust smears some years back.
    Especially the use of denier by public officials and public figures.
    Now they just portray themselves as pompous asses.

  7. [snip – we aren’t going to get into that historical debate here, please stick to the topic at hand -mod]

  8. PMQs: Our witchfinder-general, aka Ed Miliband, wants to burn climate change deniers at the stake

    The long-fingered witchfinder-general began the inquisition quietly. This was one of those weeks in which the Labour whips had thrown the switch in their office to Wall of Noise: Off. There was no mistaking the menace in the young inquisitor’s questions, however. Monsignor Miliband brushed aside the defence by the heretic of his spending on flood defences as “phoney”. He demanded to know “the truth” about climate change. The defendant, who had been calling himself the Prime Minister, tried to change the subject. He accused the inquisitor’s assistant, Ed Balls, of carrying out a “zero-based spending review”. This is a kind of papal indulgence that allows anyone under interrogation to refuse to answer questions.

    Unfortunately for the defendant, who declared bravely that he would be Prime Minister for all of five years, the inquisitor foiled this attempt to close the windows into a man’s soul. Monsignor Miliband asked the defendant to “set out for his party and the country his views” on climate change.

    A sudden change came over the suspected heretic. “Man-made climate change is one of the most serious threats for this country,” he recited, with a great show of passion. Monsignor Clegg, supposedly the friend of the defendant in the papal court, nodded slowly and deliberately.

    “Excellent, excellent,” said the inquisitor. “We’re getting somewhere.”

    Now that the defendant had confessed, the next stage in the interrogation was to get him to name his fellow heretics. “There are people in the most important positions,” said Miliband, who do not “believe” in man-made climate change. He put the names of two suspects to the defendant, referring to them by their code names in the organisation. The Environment Secretary and the Energy Minister, he said, and he quoted sermons they had delivered that his spies had reported back to him. Everyone in the court knew who he meant. Owen Paterson and Michael Fallon. They had failed to recite the holy catholic and apostolic creed of environmentalism. They had to be cast into the fire eternal unless they, too, could be persuaded to confess.

    It is no use leaving it up the consciences of individuals as to “whether you have to believe in man-made climate change” or not. “We cannot have doubt and confusion,” said the inquisitor-general. These people are “climate change deniers”.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/pmqs-our-witchfindergeneral-aka-ed-miliband-wants-to-burn-climate-change-deniers-at-the-stake-9155037.html

    Edward Samuel Miliband
    He is the first Jewish leader of the British Labour Party.

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

    David Cameron: man-made climate change is one of the ‘greatest’ threats to UK

    Man-made climate change is one of the greatest threats to the UK and the rest of the world, David Cameron has said.
    The Prime Minister risked a backlash from climate-sceptic Conservative ministers and MPs by insisting that humans are responsible for climate change

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10662654/David-Cameron-man-made-climate-change-is-one-of-the-greatest-threats-to-UK.html

  9. Is this the first time the ADL has weighed in on the “climate change” discussion? If so, to not have a balanced condemnation of the use of both “Denier” and “Nazi” seems out of place.

  10. With the wintery weather that they have had in Atlanta this year, you’d think that there wouldn’t be that many true AWG believers left in that city. But I guess Ms. Rose is holding down the fort. I’ll bet that news release will never see the light of day once NYC headquarters gives it some thought Anthony.

  11. If the Anti Defamation League objects to a skeptic comparing the global warming movement to the Nazis, it should equally object to the use of the term “denier” for global warming skeptics, an obvious attempt by the global warming believers to tar the skeptics with the same brush the establishment uses against “holocaust deniers” (in some countries, by imprisoning them).

    But a defender of freedom should not be appealing to one of freedom’s foremost opponents. Greenpeace’s opposition to freedom of speech for “climate change deniers” is in the same category as the ADL’s opposition to the same thing for “holocaust deniers”. The fact that Anthony (and most readers here, including me) happen to agree with the first bunch of “deniers”, and not the last, is beside the point. Freedom isn’t just for people you agree with.

  12. Bullies like the ADL are too cowardly to go after the popular kids because they have powerful friends. Instead, they go after the nerds and outcasts who are safer bets. But occasionally they misjudge and make the mistake of picking on someone with lots of protective friends. This is one of those times.

  13. “The six million Jewish victims and millions of other victims of Hitler deserve better. Their deaths should not be used for political points or sloganeering. This type of comparison diminishes and trivializes the Holocaust. There is no place for it in civil discussions.”

    HUH?! Calling people ‘Nazis’ denigrates Nazi victims?

  14. [snip – a bit over the top -mod] Or they may just be a pack of morons who have lost track of the founder’s goals. No matter – Time for them to review their charter and vision statement or to admit their mission is a fraud.

  15. As a Jew, I’ve considered donating to the ADL, but they’re not a good organization IMHO. It doesn’t surprise me a bit that they would stand up for those who denigrate climate skeptics as “deniers.” I will be happily surprised if their national office overrules this regional decision.

  16. Where was the ADL when Cook and his warmist buddies over at SS were putting on their Gestapo fashion show?

    Evidently, calling someone who engages in Nazi roleplay a “Nazi” is worse than being someone that fantasizes at being a Nazi. Bizarre indeed.

  17. Every organization that was set up for public benefit or as an altruistic measure has been attacked, infiltrated and taken over to varying extent by the left.
    If you look at the pronouncements of older established charities these days they could all have been written (and often HAVE BEEN written) by lazy superficial Marxists.
    Any exceptions to this rule?

  18. It’s obvious that the ADL has become an organization that serves no useful purpose. I’m not so sure that it ever did, or why an anti-defamation organization would be so completey focused on the Halocaust. Perhaps it time to remove the “anti” component from their name – they seem to have morphed into what they supposedly were against for the past half century. There is a strong tendency for an organization (actually,its officials) to keep the thing going, regardless. The NAACP
    is in the same predicament. Meantime, might want to correct the ADL’s obvious ignorance about exactly what skeptics generally believe. They seem pretty clueless at this point. Perhaps their mental leaders have already departed for want of something to do

  19. For those who don’t think Dr. Spencer’s comparing the CAGW/Global Warming/Climate Change advocates to the Nazis is appropriate, I suggest you reread your history about Hitler’s rise to power.

  20. heysuess says:
    February 26, 2014 at 3:48 pm
    HUH?! Calling people ‘Nazis’ denigrates Nazi victims?

    Don’t know about that, but even suggesting they “seem like” Nazis without actually saying they are Nazis will get your post snipped. See above or see here if it gets snipped in this context, too. And I’m not suggesting there is over-moderation. It really is a hot button term even when soft pedaled, and great care is needed in these times to avoid the hate speech Naz.., er, net nannies.

    [Reply: Sometimes there IS over-moderation. ~another mod.]

  21. jauntycyclist says at February 26, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    they only use the word denier because they cannot use the term ‘counter revolutionary’.

    I highlight this because it is perceptive and spot on right.

    The use of the Holocaust as a description of your enemies intent should be very rare. It shouldn’t be cheapened by ubiquity. As most people that anyone disagrees with are just relatively wrong – not that bad.

    Yet there is a selective judgement against those who are not “moving forward”. The Revolution must be defended for the greater good, don’t you know.
    And that is why the ADL have lost perspective.

  22. Interim Regional Director

    Not for very long (interim that is); some ‘interimships’ can be shorter than others …

    (Bolding mine above)

    .

  23. That press release is pretty much boiler plate material used when anyone makes an innapropriate comparison to the Holocaust. It is pretty much verbatim. I disagree strongly with the ADL position in this case. In their defense however, their entire existence revolves around a very narrow discourse regarding the Holocaust. I seriously doubt that they have anything but a vague knowledge of the climate debate in general, and none at all of the manner in which the deni*r term has been used to discredit skeptics.

    Educating them on the other hand will be as much of a challenge as it would with any other group for whom the climate debate exists only on the edges of their consciousness.

  24. The ADL, they seem to protect their own ilk. But is this not what humans and in fact all life does?

    We skeptics defend lives and the environment in our way. We don’t want human population control to hypothetically avoid a possible warming of the Earth.
    We tend to fear cooling more than warming.
    We look at real data and use models as computational devices that intend to show what we programed them to show. This gets so complicated and oversimplified that they mostly fail.
    Models do not produce real data; when working well, they help us look at the data in meaningful ways.

    And yes, the Earth warmed about 1°C from 1910 to 2002, but we think it was mostly from natural causes.

    We know that CO2 in the atmosphere warms the surface of the Earth. We know CO2 content is increasing, but we don’t know the causes. We think climate sensitivity is less than 2°C.

    We know that around 2001 the warming stopped, but we don’t know the causes.
    And we know the whole thing is possibly too complicated to know well enough to model long-range.

  25. Louis says February 26, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    Bullies like the ADL are too cowardly to go after the popular kids …

    Brings one’s thoughts to the local constabulary who will ‘write tickets’ (nowadays decidedly for revenue purposes) on the generally harmless public, but will not clamp down on the ‘rolling nuisances’ (gang-bangers) that can be heard ‘booming’ through walls and over nearby TV and/or radio audio; it is the weak and easily intimidated they ‘prey’ on, not those who might give them some measure of stiff opposition …

    .

  26. The problem is that the connection with “holocaust denial” is implied, when the word “denier” is used, whereas calling someone a “Nazi”, even if qualified by adjectives, is explicit.

    However, I think describing some (a small hardcore group) warmists as Nazis is entirely appropriate but certainly not all as Rose claimed Spencer did. But I can understand Spencer’s anger. This “denier” label has been used for years and has been adopted by obtuse or deliberately manipulative mainstream media. It is the kind of word-game (rename and “reframe the narrative”) that “progressives” have been playing for years.

    I have my suspicions about who started and promoted this meme. I would like to trace it back to its origin.

    As for the ADL, it is a shadow of a once admirable organization.

  27. At some point we need to go beyond the excellent science and discourse which ordinarily is presented here as Anthony, Roy, and Willis have recently. If you ever get a chance to go to the Holocost Museum in Berlin you will find reference to hundreds of individuals who stood up to Nazi tyranny with ‘locical’ arguments only to end up dead. Time to get some attention by comparing this most recent effort.at minimizing and persecuting a group of valuable individuals to Nazism, which it is. Time to continue posting this latest effort here!
    Respectfully
    Eric

  28. This looks to be a result of something like this: some helpful nasty little soul sends Ms Rose excerpts from Roy Spencer’s piece…not the part where he complains about skeptics being labelled deniers and denialists and how this slur intentionally reeks to high heaven with shades of Holocaust denial…thus might justify returning fire with the Nazi charge (which I personally do not think is ever ever justified in fact).

    I suspect Anthony’s query either pointed to the full Spencer article or prompted Rose to seek it out, and now has her and her organization in the quandary Watts suggests. This is the most likely scenario, IMHO.

    Time will tell.

  29. Lew Skannen says February 26, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Any exceptions to this rule?

    Nope, can’t offhand think of .. wait – CWD – Community Waste Disposal – the garbage pickup folks here in del norte central Tejas are still fairly focused on their original goal and purposes. They may be the ONLY exception …

    Don’t know if there is any ‘organized crime’ influence either.

    /mild sarc
    .

  30. Dr Roy appears to have hit a sore spot.
    It has got their attention at any rate.
    “Global warming Nazis” it is then…

  31. The ADL is a very one-sided polemic organization with a narrow self interested agenda. They want to reserve the word “Nazi” for their own discretionary use. Their opinion (Abraham Foxman’s I think) is no moral sign post for social discourse in general. They have one agenda. The defense of jews, which is ok with me and they have every right to do so. They are hardly competent or interested in applying an even hand wrt attacks on groups other than those within their sphere of concern. Their opinion on this matter needs to be consider through an appropriate filter.

    Nazis were equal opportunity murderers, of Jews, Polish Nationals, Catholics, Russians, Gypsys, physically deformed people, the mentally “subnormal”, etc etc etc. Had they not been stopped, the death toll would have been 10 X worse.

    Humanity as a whole has inherited the right to condemn the tactics of the German National Socialists and defend ourselves from people and groups who employ thier corrosive methods. There are modern Nazis. The ADL , as a consequence of their self-interested position regarding AGW-Nazi-esque tactics, has damaged their own credibility. No Mr Foxman. You don’t have the final word on this.

    First they came for the Conservatives,
    and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t a Conservative.
    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t a Jew.
    Then they came for the Liberals,
    and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t a Liberal.
    Then they came for the Catholics,
    and I didn’t speak up,
    because I was a Protestant.
    Then they came for me,
    and by that time there was no one
    left to speak up for me.

  32. Anthony – If I can be of service in explaining the matter to the ADL, please feel free to call on me. Also, I recommend you provide them with links to issues around the use of the term in this debate for their education, but one story in particular. That is in regard to the musicologist who called for skeptics to be placed in re-education camps and to be potentially exterminated if they cannot be re-educated. That is a meme which the ADL will recognize immediately for what it is. The meme, the way the skeptic community reacted to it, and the general intent of the denier smear need to be made plain to them.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/23/beyond-bizarre-university-of-graz-music-professor-calls-for-skeptic-death-sentences/

  33. While it is odd that they didn’t care about the ‘denier’ lable for the last few years, it is very understandable that they reacted to the “Global warming Nazis” lable. Dr Roy should have expected this.
    I wonder if he did expect this and was hoping it could be used to force the issue?

  34. Found it on the Atlanta region website here: http://atlanta.adl.org/

    – – – – – – – –
    NEWS

    ADL Condemns Spencer’s Nazi Analogy

    The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today denounced remarks by University of Alabama – Huntsville professor Roy Spencer who wrote on his blog that those who refer to him as a climate change “denier” should be called “global warming Nazis” and that they “are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did…
    – – – – – – – –

    The “Read more” link leads here:

    . . http://atlanta.adl.org/news/adl-condemns-spencers-nazi-analogy/

    No ‘comments’ on the above webpage yet either.

    .

  35. Well, Shelley Rose, ADL Southeast Interim Regional Director, in the name of the Atlanta branch of the organization has apparently joined the ranks of climate parasites.

    Unless she swiftly condemns Mark Lynas, George Monbiot, Margo Kingston and their ilk as well. See: The garden of good and evil.

    British journalist Mark Lynas wrote: “I put (climate change denial) in a similar category to Holocaust denial — except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.” In Nuremberg-style trials, one presumes.

    Guardian columnist and author George Monbiot wrote: “Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and unacceptable as Holocaust denial.”

    Closer to home, Margo Kingston wrote: “David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.”

    And there are more, many more of this will-o’-the-wisp kind since then. Ms. Shelley Rose can no longer claim she was not warned. In fact I am a bit baffled it is the first time she has crashed into this issue. Is she living on another planet, or what?

    Widespread use of the foul fallacy, Reductio ad Hitlerum in the climate debate “diminishes and trivializes the Holocaust” indeed, which is intolerable. The fact it was almost exclusively used by climate parasites so far, does not make it any better. I am not happy with Dr. Roy Spencer’s unprecedented move either, but if it was instrumental in giving center stage to this abominable practice and forces ADL to take a stand against it in no uncertain terms, it was a venial hack, I’d say.

  36. Shelley Rose needs to get to the roots of the problem ASAP. This is no analogy, it’s the real thing. Click and read about the green roots of the Nasti Party.

    http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

    University of Alabama Professor Roy Spencer’s analogy of proponents of global warming to Nazis is outrageous and deeply offensive.

    If it is “outrageous and deeply offensive” then please take a look back at the CAGW debate and see the number of times the use of the word “denier” has been used? Do you think the people who use this word are NOT using an analogy of sceptics of dangerous global warming to Nazis? Wake up and smell the coffee maaaam.

  37. KNR says:
    February 26, 2014 at 3:25 pm
    Spencer was a bad if justified move
    ==========
    I don’t agree. Dr. Spencer’s move has brought the issue into the light where it belongs. We need more scientists of Roy’s stature to stand up.

    Plain and simple the term Climate Nazis has struck a chord. Every time you hear the term “Denier”, call the speaker a Climate Nazis. They will quickly stop calling you a Denier.

    The only way to defeat a bully is to stand up to them. So long as people think they can use the term “Denier” with impunity they will. The time to stop this is now.

    Stand up and support Roy! Tell every person that uses the term Climate Denier that they are a Climate Nazis. Within 3 months the term Denier will be dead.

  38. If you are worried about offending people by calling them a Climate Nazis, don’t. Simply say:

    People that use the term “Climate Denier” are “Climate Nazis”.

    In that way you have not called them a name. If they object, simply say:

    I didn’t call you a Nazis. I said People that use the term “Climate Denier” are “Climate Nazis”.

  39. Any effort at quelling descent through gate-keeping or name calling should be first and foremost the business of the anti-defamation league. It is the stilled voice and head turned away that hurts humanity, not name calling. They should call themselves the anti-gate-keeping league if they really want to be useful. I have some names to give them as a start.

  40. jauntycyclist says:
    February 26, 2014 at 5:01 pm
    why name call when you have the evidence?
    =============
    the problem is bullying. repeated use of a derogatory term is a form of bullying. you cannot stop a bully through reason.

  41. The six million Jewish victims and millions of other victims of Hitler deserve better.

    Yes they certainly do. So why does the ADL turn a blind eye when sceptics are called “DENIERS”! Some sceptics are in fact Jewish and some are non-Jewish but who lost family members fighting the Nazis. Please start by cleansing your souls of hypocrisy because “The six million Jewish victims and millions of other victims of Hitler deserve better.”

  42. Eric Ellison says:
    February 26, 2014 at 4:30 pm
    If you ever get a chance to go to the Holocost Museum in Berlin you will find reference to hundreds of individuals who stood up to Nazi tyranny with ‘locical’ arguments only to end up dead.
    ================
    you cannot stop a bully through reason.

  43. Thank-you Brent for the Steyn link. As a Jew , I am not happy with the opportunism of Foxman. and the ADL. I think they are more interested in tainting “right-wingers” than they are in fighting anti-semites. Many of my fellow Jews are more interested in supporting “liberal” causes than anything else. As Steyn points out almost all anti-semitism is from the left today. I guess they can raise more money by attacking the imaginary ( for the most part ) right. Their boy Obama will support the Jews. /sarc off

  44. its really not bizarre. I see the use of “denier” all over the place in reference to any one skeptical about any model or prediction. unfortunately it has become ok to to this. I support dr spencer for trying to show people how offensive this is. I feel offended when I here denier. but I agree neither should be used.

  45. Renminbi- good post.Unfortunately all those Jewish liberals are deluded by the propaganda they have grown up with. The left is the home of the worst kind of nastiness, and is really just another form of deadly cultural virus.

  46. Regardless of the ADL’s inconsistencies in apportioning blame (e.g., what about “soup nazi” or “grammar nazi”?), and regardless of its likely leftist orientation, I think it is right to object to Spencer’s “Climate nazi” counter-attack.

    And I disagree with Spencer, Anth_ny and others here that “denier” can be equated to implying “Holocaust denier.” I think we’re being over-sensitive. In the accuser’s minds’ we’re “in denial” of the obvious facts and their implications. There’s no other word they could use to get that concept across.

    REPLY: It’s pretty darn clear to me what it means, this essay in 2007 really injected it into the common usage.

    I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007 “No change in political climate” on the Wayback Machine here

    I think you need to reconsider your thinking. – Anthony

  47. Lol – hello ADL. By all means do publish your “scientific” climate studies – I could use the laughs. Regards to calling guys like me Holocaust Deniers when disputing man made climate change – nothing we haven’t been called before. Never changed one opinion on this side, and never will. You see we have the truth on our side – what exactly do you have on your side? Lies and smears. It seems that places you on the same side of the Holocaust deniers, doesn’t it! They live on smears and lies as well.

  48. The purpose of bullying is to create an negative emotional response in the victim. Thus, the use of the word “Denier” is a form of bullying. You cannot defeat bullying by reason, because reason does nothing to eliminate the emotional response.

    The only way to defeat a bully is to generate an negative emotional response in the bully. If this response is stronger than the pleasure the bully achieves by bullying you, the bullying will stop.

    Plain and simple. To defeat a bully, create a strong negative emotional response in the bully. Dr Spencer is absolutely correct in the path he has chosen.

  49. Referring to Nazis and the holocaust is the third rail of public relations. To use these references brings those of us with skeptical, inquiring, scientific minds down to the same level as those who seek to discredit us rather than debate facts. I’m very disappointed in Professor Spencer and think he should apologize for careless and insensitive choice of words. Shut up and stick to the
    science

  50. Jimbo says:
    February 26, 2014 at 5:30 pm
    Some sceptics are in fact Jewish and some are non-Jewish but who lost family members fighting the Nazis.
    ===========
    A great many skeptics lost family members fighting the Nazis. I am one of them. I grew up very much in the shadow of those that died in the war and I expect many on this site did as well. To be called a Denier because of what we Believe is exactly why our died families fighting against the Nazis. So that people would be free to believe whatever they chose to believe.

  51. And this should surprise anyone? NOW gave the green light to Clinton to abuse women. They no longer represent their cause, they are merely fronts for the left.

  52. Alarmists are Holocaust deniers insofar as they deny or ignore the deaths and suffering caused by policies attempting to control carbon dioxide. It is the alarmists who parallel the deniers of the Jewish Holocaust, not skeptics. The Anti-Defamation League had better rethink its position, because of it sanctions alarmists it becomes a cabal of Holocaust deniers itself.

  53. brent says February 26, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    Hath Not a Jew Eyes?

    http://www.steynonline.com/6101/hath-not-a-jew-eyes

    A scary, and prescient 5th and 4th to-the-last pair of sentences; for their numbers are increasing and noticeably disproportionate to the ‘native’ population(s):

    The groups who perpetrate this violence come from a minority community – larger than the Jews but not yet larger than everyone else. They are telling you what they will do when they have the numbers to do it.

    Bolding mine.

    .

  54. The ADL and the climate alarm movement are both philosophically left-wing, so it’s natural for them to stay in lockstep.

    “No enemies to the left”
    – A. Kerensky

  55. Did the ADL chastise Jerry Seinfeld or Larry David or Jason Alexander’s use of “Soup Nazi”?

    I have eyes in my head to see and a brain to understand this obscene charade from ADL.

  56. ferdberple says:
    February 26, 2014 at 5:50 pm
    The only way to defeat a bully is to generate an negative emotional response in the bully. If this response is stronger than the pleasure the bully achieves by bullying you, the bullying will stop.

    Plain and simple. To defeat a bully, create a strong negative emotional response in the bully. Dr Spencer is absolutely correct in the path he has chosen.
    ——————-

    ….. not to mention the liberal (ha ha) use of the term “climate parasite”, no caps.

    The totalitarian wannabes really don’t like this one, but it ain’t going away.

  57. COPY OF MY LETTER TO THE ADL

    Dear Shelley,

    I write this letter as a Jew, and as a long-time skeptic of the scientific rigor and integrity attached to the study of climate science. As such, I have been subjected for many years to the insulting and libelous use of the Holocaust-derived term ‘Denier’ to describe anyone with the temerity to question the results, methodology and scientific validity of global warming claims. This ad hominem calumny is hurled daily at hundreds of scientifically sophisticated individuals, including Dr. Spencer, who are conducting independent climate research as well as ongoing efforts to replicate published scientific findings.

    Individuals with unimpeachable integrity and profound scientific ability have thus been categorically equated with skinheads, neo-Nazi fascists, racists and bigots. The ADL has never objected to this usage or its pernicious effect on scientific debate. The ‘Denier’ tag is the cherry topping on an avalanche of falsehoods and personal insults leveled against climate change skeptics that sweep across hundreds of coordinated global warming press outlets, blogs and web-sites. There can be only one explanation for these continuous demeaning smears and use of delegitimizing labels–a systematic efforts to eliminate all dissenting voices and stifle open debate of rising scientific uncertainty. Dr. Spencer in particular has been a target for many stigmatizing attacks, as the satellite global temperature records maintained by his University of Alabama-Huntsville Department have shown increasing divergence from predicted warming and challenge the underpinnings of climate change theory*.

    While I personally wish Dr. Spencer had used more temperate language, his response is raised in the context of being continuously labeled with Nazi terminology in order to diminish his scientific reputation. You might imagine the bitterness and frustration of his circumstances. Even a brief overview of the global warming movement would reveal a disturbing number of totalitarian hallmarks and tendencies. I share his deep concerns that climate science has been hijacked by a closed circle of self-referential academics and politicians who are rushing towards catastrophic policy fiats against the backdrop of accelerating scientific uncertainty. The ADL has a role to play in supporting civility by formally objecting to the use of the ‘Denier’ smear against scientists and individuals engaged in legitimate, scientific, skeptical debate on an issue of enormous social magnitude.

    Sincerely,

    Howard S. Wiseman

  58. Also – doesn’t alarmist use of the term “denier” constitute hate speech?
    Calling alarmists deniers as I have done is not, because we have the evidence to prove they are, and it relates specifically to unnecessary deaths caused by public policies – exactly like the Nazis’.
    Dr. Spencer couldn’t be more right – the people he thus accuses are behaving like Nazis. Thank heavens he has had the courage and the mojo to step up and call those people what they are.

  59. rogerknights says:
    February 26, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    Regardless of the ADL’s inconsistencies in apportioning blame (e.g., what about “soup nazi” or “grammar nazi”?), and regardless of its likely leftist orientation, I think it is right to object to Spencer’s “Climate nazi” counter-attack.

    And I disagree with Spencer, Anth_ny and others here that “denier” can be equated to implying “Holocaust denier.” I think we’re being over-sensitive. In the accuser’s minds’ we’re “in denial” of the obvious facts and their implications. There’s no other word they could use to get that concept across.

    Would contrarians do? Also please take your blinkers off and smell the coffee Arabica.

    “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future”. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007

    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/

    AND

    Even so — and because of its resonance with Holocaust denial — the term “denier” can be used to describe those who trivially reject the existence and threat of global warming.

    I use that analogy with great hesitation, but given what’s at stake — the future of humankind rests on quick and uniform international action — it illustrates the immorality and potential damage of climate change denial.
    The Age – Peter Christoff July 9, 2007

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/climate-change-is-another-grim-tale-to-be-treated-with-respect/2007/07/08/1183833338608.html

    AND

    Mark Hoofnagle
    The comparison between climate denialists and other denialists should come from the fact that they argue the exact same way, and it should end there. Holocaust denial and climate change denial share many features, as does evolution denialism,

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Deniers-of-global-warming-harm-us-1243264.php

    Are your blinkers off yet? Naivety is a dangerous thing for any sceptic of CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

  60. While I am not Jewish, I have eaten at Moishe’s Steakhouse in Montreal (the pickles and coleslaw are ridiculous). Therefore I feel compelled to point out that everyone is using the “Nazi card” these days to the extent that it has become a pointless comparison. I’m waiting for a group of skin-heads in Germany to launch a “take back the Nazi” campaign.

    I would also point out that if you write an editorial that condemns the use of Nazi or comparisons to the Holocaust you are also obligated to condemn the use of the word “denier”, stop comparing skeptics to doctors promoting smoking and actively promote the debate of climate science.

    As an aside, when I was a young man working at a tombstone company we would regularly erect monuments in the Jewish cemetery. It was more difficult and a little unsettling (compared to the typical Christian cemetery) because the Jewish bodies were placed in wooden boxes and not in concrete. After several years the boxes would rot and much of the ground around the body would be caved in leaving a decent view of the underground. It was tough dragging a 600 lb stone across that ground.

    On one delivery we arrived at the cemetery only to find swastikas painted on the gates and several monuments knocked over. A few people were inside attempting to reset the stones (not easy without the right tools). We spent a few hours fixing the fallen stones and then set about putting up the new ones we had brought. When we were done (as always) we pulled out our lunches and started to play frisbee. A man walked over and asked “is it appropriate to do that in a cemetery”? I replied “we haven’t had any complaints so far”.

  61. Millions died fighting the Nazis so we can be free to say and write what we want within the law. Warmists want to do away with these rights for sceptics because they are certain they are smarter and they are right. What if they are WRONG???? The surface temperature standstill points to less warming than previously feared for 2100. IPCC report after IPCC report keeps LOWERING the projections. WHY????

    Below is a comment on Roy Spencer’s blog.

    Chuck L says:
    February 26, 2014 at 4:19 PM
    I am Jewish and am embarrassed and appalled at the gross hypocrisy of the ADL. As Dr. Spencer says, they said nothing when global warming believers started calling skeptics “deniers,” they said nothing when Nuremberg-type trials were and are demanded for skeptics, and they said nothing when the proprietors of Skeptical Science photoshopped pictures of themselves on to Nazi storm-trooper uniforms. As one who gives to Jewish and non-Jewish charities, I promise that ADL will never again be a recipient of future charitable contributions from me.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/hypocrisy-at-the-anti-defamation-league/#comment-106279

  62. I have written to this lady as follows:
    Attn Shelley Rose, ADL Southeast Interim Regional Director.
    From Queensland, Australia.
    Dear Ms Rose,
    I have seen a post on Wattsupwiththat.com which has highlighted your selective condemnation of Dr Roy Spencer for his use of the term Nazi in describing proponents of the global warming theory, (that human induced Carbon dioxide is warming the planet), WHO HAVE ABUSED HIM.
    I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you are ignorant of the long history of personal abuse of Dr Spencer, and all the rest of us, who question this theory, calling us “deniers” which is a clear reference to the Holocaust and people who deny that it took place.
    However as someone who is high in this organisation, if ignorance is your excuse, that is to be condemned in you as incompetence. I am writing to the head of this organisation and asking for you to be demoted for incompetence.
    I may not live in your country, but I, and the rest of the free world, have a vested interest in US organisations that portray themselves as being for the common good. I expect you to be even handed in your condemnation of denigrating terms.
    However, in calling the global warming brigade Nazis, I fail to see that this in any way actually is akin to denying the Holocaust. They are two separate issues, which you are linking together.
    Is it now an offence to liken someone who is jack-booting over freedom a Nazi? To me it is an accurate portrayal. The attempt to shut down all debate and the way Dr Spencer and other well respected scientists who query this theory have been abused, demoted and some of them, lost their jobs (think David Bellamy and the BBC in Britain, Patrick Moore founder of Greenpeace, and many others), is absolutely disgraceful. Nowhere has your voice been raised, or that of your organisation, until Dr Spencer has finally had enough, and hit back, and then you kick the victim!!!!!

    I, and many other people who are fighting back, will remember your name, and your organisation, not in flattering terms in future. Yours truly, ….

  63. I find this whole situation unfortunate, but necessary.

    The leftist use of derogatory terms has gone on far too long unchallenged. While I think better path was available, I stand by Dr. Spencer and his choice to not take it anymore and stand up for himself.

    Let the scrum begin.

    Frankly, considering the socialist nature of just about all climate activists, I think a better name would have been “Climonistas”. Derived from the Sandinistas (socialist coalition) who took over Nicaragua in 1979.

  64. as people have pointed out, the references to CAGW sceptics as “deniers” has OFTEN explicitly related the word to “holocaust deniers”. like “climate deniers”, it has evolved to simply “deniers” over time. ADL said NOTHING.

    bbc had several people discuss this last nite. only the israeli they spoke to thought it was funny. the others interviewed couldn’t believe Jerusalem Post would put this pic on their website with no context. merkel has been in israel with most of her cabinet for talks, and did not even meet with palestinians.

    26 Feb: Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu casts ‘Hitler moustache’ shadow on German Chancellor Angela Merkel
    A photographer who took a shot of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu inadvertently giving German Chancellor Angela Merkel a “Hitler-style” moustache has apologized.
    Jerusalem Post photographer Marc Israel Sellem took a picture of the two leaders at a press conference Monday. The picture showed Mr. Netanyahu pointing, but his finger casts a shadow onto Ms. Merkel’s upper lip.
    The Jerusalem Post briefly put the photo on its website. Although the editors soon reconsidered and took the photo down, it became an immediate viral sensation on Facebook and Twitter and was reprinted hundreds of times.
    “When I saw the photo on my computer, I thought that it was unique and funny. It was not my intention to insult Merkel in any way or to make any kind of Nazi connotation with the photo,” Mr. Sellem said in the Jerusalem Post…
    Germany is perhaps Israel’s closest ally in Europe and some 30,000 Israelis today live in Berlin.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/26/israels-benjamin-netanyahu-casts-hitler-moustache-shadow-on-german-chancellor-angela-merkel/

  65. Jimbo says February 26, 2014 at 5:30 pm
    Some sceptics are in fact Jewish and some are non-Jewish but who lost family members fighting the Nazis.
    ===========
    ferdberple says February 26, 2014 at 6:02 pm
    A great many skeptics lost family members fighting the Nazis.

    Hear hear. Some uncles (both Mom and Dad’s side) came back from the war (WWII) and one, whose first name I now carry as my middle name, did not. Dad was aboard a carrier during that conflict to boot, a carrier launched in 1942 christened as the USS Essex.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Essex_(CV-9)

    .

  66. rogerknights says:
    February 26, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    “In the accuser’s minds’ we’re “in denial” of the obvious facts and their implications. There’s no other word they could use to get that concept across.”

    Contrarian? Skeptic? Dissenter? Heck, here’s a whole page full.

    It is very clearly a very mean and infantile slur. Somewhat akin to children playing the old game of “I’m not touching you”, as their hands hover in front of their tormentee’s face. “Oh, I’m just saying you’re in denial (snicker, snicker)”. Jackasses.

  67. Nothing has quite such a hypocritical stink as selective moral outrage. Using the platform of the ADL to make contrived associations with the Holocaust is what in fact “diminishes and trivialises the Holocaust”.

    “The six million Jewish victims and millions of other victims of Hitler deserve better” than an organisation trying to hitch its cart to the CAGW bandwagon with an outburst of cultivated indignation.

  68. Al Gore’s book “Earth In The Balance” (1992) has a passage about Nazi Germany and how the world was slow to react and accept what was happening in Germany and he then goes on to compare AGW to the holocaust. From page 177

    Now warnings of a different sort signal an environmental holocaust without precedent. But where is the moral alertness that might make us more sensitive to the new pattern of environmental change? Once again, world leaders waffle, hoping the danger will dissipate. Yet today, the evidence of an ecological Kristallnacht is as clear as the sound of glass shattering in Berlin. We are still reluctant to believe that our worst nightmares of global ecological collapse could come true.

  69. As all here know all too well, the vicious smears against all who dissent in any way from Global Warming Hysteria has been going on for many years. Have we ever seen the ADL or any similar lefty activist groups object to the “denier” tag used for so long to smear skeptics and dissenters?

    Here’s just one example of a leading columnist working to smear and marginalize all critics of any aspect of the Global Warming Hysteria.

    Prominent columnist Ellen Goodman, writing in the Boston Globe in 2007:

    “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”

    http://newsbusters.org/node/10730

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070214041353/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/

    [the link to Goodman’s original Boston Globe column is in the article linked above, but requires purchase from the Boston Globe archives, which I do not care to fund]

  70. If Warmists get their way many millions will die. If it’s more than the victims of the Nazis then whey will blame the sceptics. Fuel poverty = death. Don’t let them fool you with emotional talk and guilt. They don’t feel guilty about condemning millions of the world’s poor to fuel poverty with their carbon schemes and private, personal investments in CAGW. They follow the money and could not give a damn. Don’t be taken in as most of them a vicious hypocrites.

  71. ferdberple says:
    Dr. Spencer’s move has brought the issue into the light where it belongs. We need more scientists of Roy’s stature to stand up.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yes, out in the open for all to see and think about.

  72. The ADL is going to object to gratuitous misuse of the term “Nazi”, even if there is s legitimate point to be made. It should, by all rights, oppose the abuse of the term “denier”, but there are two problems here:

    First, there genuinely are some people who would not believe in CAGW even if evidence clearly supported it. Those have to be distinguished from regular skeptics who simply hold climate science to the same standard as the rest of science and find current theories wanting. I have not seen a better term for them.

    Second, that use of the term is now commonplace, and complaints were not brought to, or were not considered, by the ADL before it became common. It would now take a full-blown campaign for the ADL to legitimately take a stand against it, and launching one would be a policy-level decision, way above Shelly Rose’s authority. I doubt that her failure to reply is due to an unpalatable stance that she would prefer not to have in writing. It’s probably because she can’t give the appropriate reply without word from ADL leadership.

  73. “Huntsville professor Roy Spencer who wrote on his blog that those who refer to him as a climate change “denier” should be called “global warming Nazis” and that they “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.”

    Yes, well, this was just asking for trouble. I understand Spencer’s frustration, but this is just unwise as hell. He comes off like a raving lunatic in the eyes of those whose minds we hope to change. Let them sound like the loons and screwballs. They’re so good at it.

    Not smart.

  74. The concerned cliche are losing their minds.
    This selective umbrage from the “Anti Defamation League” is classic nanny statism, their pets, shills and useful idiots are losing the argument
    Now mummies coming to the rescue of her poor wee bully.
    The wheels are off their trolly, the semblance to the Black Knight of Monty Python fame grows every day.
    I wonder how much of the fear, hostility and desperation from these pompous nitwits is due to classic progressives methodology.
    Over the last decades these progressive cliches have shut down civic discourse.
    Their standard procedure at public meeting are, control the script.Control the chair.
    Shout down any dissent.Slander,yell, mob the mike, whatever it takes to control the microphone.
    Normal people stop talking to these types.
    But then the fun begins, having silenced any questioning , they seem to believe silence equals consent.
    I am not kidding, they really seem to believe this.
    So for them the public must support their belief, because the public says nothing.
    Then when we vote them out, refuse their stupid ideas at referendum, they are surprised, hurt even.
    But it is always the same song, they say if we were better educated, we would agree with them.
    If only, they had “communicated” better.

    I believe you can’t fix this kind of stupid.

  75. pat says February 26, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    A photographer who took a shot of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu inadvertently giving German Chancellor Angela Merkel a “Hitler-style” moustache has apologized.

    In the days of the 4×5 Graflex (or the 2 1/4 inch even) film cameras (think: large, 1940’s-50’s newspaperman cameras!), I could buy this pat. But not today. Not even 20 years ago when motorized drives for 35mm format cameras and LARGE capacity camera backs were plentiful. Point I’m making, is, that photo/image was selected for that exact purpose … so, did you think the ‘reading public’ really ‘bought’ that story? (An attempt to sell the fiction that one and only ONE photograph was taken by that photographer during that time at that ceremony?)

    BTW, it had to have been the grapics editor or editor-in-charge who gave the go-ahead in the use of that image, unless that was a One-Horse operation or website …

    Old ‘newspaperman camera’ – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graflex

    .

  76. re: Ric Werme says February 26, 2014 at 7:00 pm
    I left a couple comments …

    Well-done Ric. They were showing up as of half an hour ago.

    .

  77. RaiderDingo says: “A group called ‘anti defamation’ gives the green light for defamation.” The ADL has been doing this since its foundation. It co-operated with the South African government to spy on anti-apartheid campaigners, tars all critics of Israel with the brush of anti-semitism, and has always, since its foundation, supported slandering Americans by exaggerating anti-semitism and other forms of prejudice… like I said, it’s surprising that Anthony has illusions in it.

  78. Now I understand the debate about the word ‘denier’. Never thought about the word from an ADL viewpoint before – it’s painfully clear to me now why the word has no place in this debate.

  79. Anthony, I would agree with part of your assessment. Ignorance of history is indeed possible.

    Bad judgment however, is usually driven by a preconception or agenda.

  80. We have politicians in our highest government positions labelling skeptical Phd scientists with impeccable credentials as “flat earthers”,”shoddy scientists”, “deniers”, and “idealogues.” They surely must realize that they are using the same hate tactics that the Nazis used in the thirties and early forties to persecute and defame highly qualified and exceedingly competent scientists. If they had a shred of decency, our government fuhrers and the ADL would apologize and change their ways. I never thought I would see this happen in the U.S., and I have lost a considerable amount of respect that I once (naively) had for these politicians.

    A recent example of such hate tactics exposed by WUWT:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/20/a-must-read-why-secretary-of-state-john-kerry-is-flat-wrong-on-climate-change/

  81. pokerguy says:
    February 26, 2014 at 7:37 pm
    Yes, well, this was just asking for trouble.
    ================
    Neville Chamberlain used the same excuse. Peace in our time. His solution: Appease the Nazi Bully. The result: Millions dead.

    Anyone that thinks a Bully will respond positively to appeasement does not understand bullying and has never learned how to defeat bullies, except to run away. Sooner or later there is nowhere to run.

  82. In reply to:
    Jeff in Calgary says:
    February 26, 2014 at 5:03 pm
    Is it just me? I didn’t see anywhere in the press reliese that “gave the green light” for anything. Only the Red light for Dr Roy’s labling of warmies.

    William:
    The anti-defamation league remained silent when the term ‘denier’ has applied to the so called ‘skeptics’ (we are not skeptical, observational evidence and analysis does not support the dangerous warming paradigm, that is a fact, not skepticism) Silence is implicit consent.

    Spencer’s point is that the green scams and the proposed world carbon tax is anti development and will have a significant negative impact on the living standards in all countries, particularly developing countries. The greens scams and a world carbon tax would result in a significant increase in poverty.

    Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yield and reduce growing times. CO2 is not a poison. If there is not a dangerous warming problem the world is wasting trillions of dollars on green scams which do not significantly reduce total CO2 (nuclear power is the only energy source that significant reduce CO2 emissions) but do result in a tripling or quadrupling of energy costs.

  83. G. E. Pease says:
    February 26, 2014 at 7:57 pm

    We have politicians in our highest government positions labelling skeptical Phd scientists with impeccable credentials as “flat earthers”,”shoddy scientists”, “deniers”, and “idealogues.”

    ..and elsewhere as in every corner. It’s the modern standard.

  84. G. E. Pease says:
    February 26, 2014 at 7:57 pm
    We have politicians in our highest government positions … using the same hate tactics that the Nazis used in the thirties and early forties
    ==============
    No doubt they have studied Nazi methodology. Star Trek (Patterns of Force) deals with this topic. Using Nazi techniques in the belief they can accomplish good. The belief that evil in a good purpose will accomplish good.

    Stephen Schneider:
    Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

  85. I am confident that my right to the freedom of speech enables me to call any people nazis when they appear to prepare legislation that would cause the deaths of millions of people. I may be right and I may be wrong, but I am allowed to talk about it. US political correctness is insane at best.

  86. This is absurd. The use of the term “Nazi” in no way diminishes the plight of the Jews in the second world war. This term is used all the time: ‘Grammar Nazi’, ‘Policy Nazi’, etc. All it really denotes is someone who is emphatic and completely unwilling to compromise.

    The use of the work “Denier”, used as an obvious oblique reference to Holocaust Deniers, plainly is, however.

  87. Jimbo says:
    February 26, 2014 at 6:31 pm

    Millions died fighting the Nazis so we can be free to say and write what we want within the law. Warmists want to do away with these rights for sceptics because they are certain they are smarter and they are right.

    It is not a function of right or wrong. It is a function of practice and ideology. Climate hysteria is but the avenue of choice with which to put upon the masses their will.

  88. Jer0me says:
    February 26, 2014 at 8:24 pm
    All it really denotes is someone who is emphatic and completely unwilling to compromise.
    ========
    Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. One republican, one Democrat. What made them great Presidents was their ability to compromise to get a deal done. Giving up what was not important to them, in order to get what was. In this way they united House and Senate, regardless of party affiliations.

    The US remains a house divided unable to compromise. “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. Abraham Lincoln.

  89. My comment:

    Hi, I don’t think it was particularly helpful for Dr. Spencer to say what he did, but to condemn his comments without considering the context is unfair. The context is an organized campaign of denigration and yes – defamation – of those who are skeptical on the issue of catastrophic man-made global warming. It is a fact that we still cannot predict the weather for 10 days with great accuracy, so it is not unreasonable at all to be skeptical of the accuracy of some of the predictions provided by climate scientists about the next decades, or the next hundred years, especially since nearly all of their predictions are generated by computer models only.

    Deniers, denialists, shills, anti-science – these are examples of how skeptics are routinely characterized. It doesn’t seem right at all that the ADL would remain silent while these derogatory and dehumanizing terms are used, but suddenly take action when someone like Dr. Spencer, who has been repeatedly called such names, fights back. He is a human being, and has a right to defend himself.

    It’s also worth mentioning that dehumanizing terms WERE used by the Nazis to pave the way for their horrible abuses, so although as I said, Dr. Spencer’s comments were unhelpful, they were not completely off the mark either.

  90. @fredberple;
    What evidence do you have that what is important to Global Waming Nazis is shared by us Deniers? I can’t think of a single item on that list. It’s going to come down to Survival, which many prominent GWNs have disavowed.

  91. “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. Abraham Lincoln.

    One should also consider that this is their goal. ??

  92. Paul Westhaver “Agenda is the defense of Jews.” Really ? I am reminded of the scripted interviews of Ahmadinejad which essentially confused the viewer into thinking the interviewer’s questions fairly represented the interviewee’s views…rather than his actual statements. I am much more persuaded by the idea that the idea is to limit conversation and control dialogue by putting certain concepts outside the pale…such as a look at actual history and certifiable documentation. Why ? Well..this goes dark Mar 3…but I have written up ideas which suggest projection as the agenda : accuse others of your own malfeasance. http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/blog/2013/03/24/denier

  93. Well, I’m far more cynical. Abe Foxman is retiring this June or July. He was brilliant at finding anti-semites under every sentence and within each industry leading to multo-buckets of donor dough to justify his half-a-million+ salary, and keep their new 8-story building in DC operating. Where’s the most donor dough now? Climate Change!!! The new director can hit the deck running without Foxman’s skill and still keep the org alive.

  94. Bob Burns says:
    February 26, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    Did the ADL have any comment on Hansen and his use of the term “death trains” ?

    Put death trains into the WUWT search box. There are several posts that come up.

    Several years ago I made a comment that something in James Hansen’s past must have influenced his odd and disgusting use of “death trains” and I think it is every bit as repugnant. Shelley Rose and the ADL members need to be aware of this history. If Roy’s blast at the warmist group brings this about – great!

  95. I’ve been coming across this BDS thing the past few weeks. I was compelled to do a lot of research on the subject. My first question now is; How is it that most people in the USA are probably the last people on Earth to find out about this Anti-Apartheid Israel movement? It’s so massively huge. Did you know there is this Israeli Apartheid Week 2014 UK and US: February 24-March 2?

    http://www.bdsmovement.net/

    Israel is also battling this Zionism Unsettled: A Congregational Study Guide thing as well.

    http://www.israelpalestinemissionnetwork.org/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256

    It looks like Israel is dealing with this thing from every direction. Their PR damage control campaign alone looks like it will bankrupt the country. But with this BDS thing going on, it looks like Israel will never recover economically. It’s just too huge.

    Israeli Apartheid Week 2014 Trailer

    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0KONygMEg8 ]

  96. Jim –

    i’m with you. not for one minute do i believe there was anything INADVERTENT about that photo of Merkel. the German person being interviewed by BBC last night said no-one in Germany is laughing, because Merkel has been depicted with Hitler moustache by protesters ever sence German taxpayers had to bail out bankrupt EU countries:

    April 2013: Deutsche Welle: Merkel as Hitler?
    Angela Merkel is increasingly being depicted as a Nazi in other EU countries – as a new Hitler. Does that mean that Europe’s political culture has failed?
    It all began in Greece. About three years ago, angry Athenians took to the streets in protest, and one of their banners showed German Chancellor Angela Merkel in an SS uniform. Since then, there has been no end to the Nazi comparisons. Merkel’s strict austerity measures in the euro crisis cemented Germany’s power in Europe in the eyes of many protesters, reminding them of the occupation during the Second World War…
    Other European countries have also dusted off their Nazi imagery since the crisis has made itself ever more strongly felt – such as Cyprus, which was spared from German occupation. When small savers began to fear that even they would have to pay for the bank bailout, angry protesters wore Merkel masks with Hitler mustaches. Their banners read, “Nazi Germany still alive.” And in Spain, an economics professor recently wrote in the country’s largest daily newspaper that Merkel had, “like Hitler, declared war on the rest of Europe, this time to secure [the Germans] economic space.” Even though the editors later withdrew the article, it shows that the climate is poisoned…
    According to the Greek writer Petros Markaris, “The Germans are seen as a schoolmaster, and not only in Greece.” But, writing in a German newspaper, he was also not short of criticism for his own country: “Almost all Balkan peoples see themselves as innocent victims,” while the Germans “are proud of their accomplishments and want the rest of the Europeans, especially the Southerners, to imitate them.”…

    http://www.dw.de/merkel-as-hitler/a-16753456

    Dr.Spencer was right to expess himself as he did.

  97. Brian H says:
    February 26, 2014 at 8:51 pm
    @fredberple;
    What evidence do you have that what is important to Global Waming Nazis is shared by us Deniers?
    ==============
    My baffle is gabbed by your question.

  98. I fully expect this comment to get snipped.

    [snip – and you were right, best left unsaid for now -mod]

    I say this as one who supports Israel in their plight in the Middle East with all my heart and mind.

  99. As an Israeli and a Jew, I find the mere existance fo the ADL annoying and unnecessary.
    I also beleive the “missing” attention to the “D” word on their side is just a form of ignorance – but that does not change the fact they are “forgetting” the origin of Spencer’s words. They just had to read his whole post to realize why he wrote it.

  100. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, my personal rabbi because everyone needs a rabbi, has nothing kind to say about the ADL and Abe Foxman, and for good reason. But he seems to believe they can be salvaged. Lapin is also stridently critical of the so-called self-hating Jews. Don’t complain to me – he’s happy to address the issue. My brother who is Jewish and I who am atheist, have found a lot of agreement in what Lapin says.

  101. Millions of potential skeptics retain naive trust in contemporary scientific organizations based on centuries of noble contributions to civilization. Raising a ruckus is required to alert them that they themselves are being pointedly criticized for smearing their smartest propellor head neighbors as equivalent to Holocaust deniers. The demographic of most skeptics simply lacks normal adult testosterone levels and this has enabled the bullying to be effective, I’m afraid. Thank goodness for Spenser since he’s so far one of the *only* insiders with enough scientific authority to really fight back, verbally, and get any attention at all. That the alarmists are losing means they will attempt a damage control soft landing. Don’t give it to them. A vast potential remains in the generation of young adults who have been indoctrinated by such easy to debunk propaganda as Al Gore and friends have dictated in schools. Understand that this wedge issue for which we skeptics hold all the good cards is such a deeply invested in issue that with only a bit more fighting effort, the entire tyrannically inclined left wing of politics, mass media, and academia become the real fall guys, not just a few rogue “scientists.” Cultural revolutions, more or less peaceful, happen throughout human history. Roy Spencer just refused to sit at the back of the bus. Judith Curry has stopped fence sitting too. They deserve our support, not passivist condemnation, as we enter a pivot point in human history, a culture war between good and evil.

  102. I was trashed last time I appealed for moderation. I said take the high road and was told I was a silly defeatist wimp. So be it. Roy, I feel you are far to important, a quality professional. Please drop the use of that ugly N word.

  103. stan stendera says:
    February 26, 2014 at 10:13 pm

    I fully expect this comment to get snipped.

    It would be a dilution of effort and would finally result in failure to attempt to take on every cause. One is most effective when one stays focused on an area of passion. The ADL has an area of passion (and some very misguided views) and I’ve no doubt the bulk of rank and file supporters of the ADL agree with all decent people regarding your points but they haven’t the budget to cover it all. We as individuals and groups become useless when we try beyond our means to feed all the poor, for example. When we feed well those whom we can but fail to feed all we have still done good, and have left rewarding work for others to do. I also think we don’t attach enough conditions on what we provide, but that’s a whole ‘nuther topic.

  104. A year or so ago, I also complained to the ACLU about continued use of Denier against skeptics. I explained in my letter that it’s use trivialized the suffering of 6 million Jews and another 6 million non-Jews who died under the Nazis.

    Not surprisingly (to me) I got zero response – not a note saying that I was over-reacting – but dead silence.

    To me, this makes the ACLU just one more group that is using a name which lies about what the organization really stands for. Their requests to me for monetary help go right into the garbage where they belong.

  105. The UN Quietly Wages War on Religion

    Calgarian Hermina Dykxhoorn, president of the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, has seen the UN executive at work. Over the last decade, she has been a pro-family lobbyist at UN conferences in Beijing, Istanbul, Rome and other venues.

    “At the 1996 Istanbul Conference, the director general of the World Health Organization (then Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima) told a press conference that `the three great monotheistic religions are not compatible with the New World Order’,” Dykxhoorn, a Christian Reformed Protestant, recalled. “I heard him say it. And when you’re a member of one of those monotheistic religions, it’s rather chilling.”

    But the UN Secretariat isn’t opposed to all religion, she said. “They don’t mind Hindus and Buddhists, because they’ve got more flexible moral codes. And they love the Bahai’s because Bahai’s are big on world government. But they don’t like Orthodox Judaism, Christianity or Islam—any religion with an absolute moral code is an obstacle to them.”

    UN executives appear to be particularly tolerant of “Gaia” or “earth religion,” ancient paganism in a new guise. Dykxhoorn has seen Gaia religion material distributed in UN offices, and spokesmen for the London- based Gaia Foundation hold their press conferences in normally off-limits UN press rooms. “Gaia is the ancient Greek name for the Earth Goddess,” says the Gaia Foundation’s Web site. “This Goddess, in common with female deities of other early religions, was at once gentle, feminine and nurturing, but also ruthlessly cruel to any that failed to live in harmony with the planet.”

    Dykxhoorn said, “They’re against the three great mono-theisms, because those religions stress the sanctity of life and the sanctity of the family.”

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2001/aug/010820a

    In terms of Judeo-Christian ethics, that commandment about “Not Killing” is rather essential. You will not find such a prohibition under the bio-centric “Earth Charter”
    Think about what that portends.

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/11/responsible-conduct-in-the-global-research-enterprise/#comment-378892

    The New Divinity
    By Julian Huxley FRS

    Hardtalk – James Lovelock – Population reduction (max 1 billion)

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/31/open-thread-weekend-30/#comment-373005

    Michael Ruse’s arguments are worth scrutinizing and digesting

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/15/week-in-review-13/#comment-456530

  106. For the mods and dp who apparently saw my post. I feel that if I don’t get snipped once in a while I’m not being effective. No hard feelings mods.
    PS: It’s been a looong time since I was snipped.

    [The mods prefer to snip no one. But, if your instincts indicate you will get snipped… Yes, you will likely get snipped. Mod]

  107. “Global Warming Nazis” is correct enough but a bit cumbersome. personally I think “Carbon Nazi” is a neater label.. .

  108. If you don’t know about the Seinfeld “Soup Nazi,” this is for you:

    It is a very common Internet meme. For instance, a google search for “grammar nazi” yields over 600,000 hits:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=%22grammar+nazi%22

    Here’s what KnowYourMeme says about Grammar Nazis:

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/grammar-nazi

    …and Soup Nazis:

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/no-soup-for-you-soup-nazi

    …and here’s an article about Smoking Nazis:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/blogs/over-the-rainbow/3968013/Are-you-a-Smoking-Nazi

    When is the ADL going to denounce all these people? All these examples preceded Dr. Spencer’s use of the meme. Why was he, and he alone, singled out for ADL denouncement?

  109. I disagree with your final hope that it’s a low-level misjudgement.

    You just need to look across the issues to see that this kind of behaviour is endemic to the UK/US sphere.

    If you look at warfare, whenever UK/US troops are sent in, there’s purportedly a good reason for it and the troops always behave well. In the far less frequent occasions when the Russians go in anywhere, they are ‘bent on global domination’. A cursory examination of geographies of invasions, frequencies of invasions and deaths caused show that it is the West that is bloodthirsty and imperialistic, not Russia, who is merely defending its borders. The same can be said when protestors overthrow governments. If they are funded by the CIA it’s ‘for freedom’, if US-supported dictators are overthrown, they are ‘communists’, or ‘terrorists’ or whatever. Just look at Ukraine, where the Eastern half of the country is ethnically Russian, tied through history to Russia but may well be told, against their will, that they must submit to the Western Ukrainians’ different views. That’s acceptable collateral damage, but the Falkland Islanders needed ‘Mrs Thatcher to liberate them from the evil Argentines’. It’s not very consistent, is it??

    Then you can look at housing. If local councils, state legislatures etc can raise finance more cheaply, will run community housing on a non-profit basis, then simple common sense says that those people living in those houses will have more spare cash to spend in the local economy than if a private developer raises cash more expensively and makes a profit charging higher rents. But anyone who says this in the UK is branded ‘a socialist, a communist, a hater of free markets’. I’m not a hater of free markets, I’m a hater of those who wish to reduce overall health of economies for private greed. There are times when the private sector does things best, other times when they don’t. But there is no consistency of attitude.

    You can say similar with banking. All the mutuals (you call them thrifts) were destroyed in the 1980s and 1990s in the name of ‘capitalism’. The cost of obtaining a mortgage went up, a few ‘carpet baggers’ made money telling depositors to demutualise and the bastion of frugal, conservative, fiscally sound local lending went up in smoke. Just to make a few buccaneering yobbos a bit richer.

    It’s a far wider question than just climate science, this intrinsic bias, you know. I won’t even get into the feminist agenda, religion or other areas of rabid prejudice.

  110. It’s a fair point: – why do we assume that the N*z* word is offensive to climate change believers?

    They seem to revel in the association. Here are some examples:
    Hansen’s Death Trains
    The Guardian claiming that the Holocaust in the past is as certain to have happened as the disasters from AGW in the future – clear case of Holocaust denial in every Environment comments section.
    And how SkS see themselves.

  111. I stick to my opinion that we should take ‘denier’ as a nom des gueux, we should be proud of. We could even use it in names of our websites, e.g. Climate Denier’s News. Time is at our side. Someone who used the term in a scientific article and really meant it, has the problem of a shame forever, a problem we don’t have.

  112. Mods!!
    Sometimes I just want to make the comment even if it gets no further then you mods. I usually am careful to put certain words in those comments which alert you guys. I was under the impression that snip was such a word. I will be more careful in the future.
    Again no hard feelings. When I get my panties in a wad is when I get snipped when I don’t think I deserve it. Which is why I almost never visit the warmist sites.

  113. In spite of the intent of some of the rabid warmists to insinuate a Holocaust connection, I believe that they constitute only 10% of the users of the word. Most of them, like that CNN hostess the other day (Carol something), only intend to imply “invincibly ignorant” or “willfully blind.” They most likely have read some piece on “How to Talk to a Denier” and think it’s made an unanswerable case that it is perverse not to accept.

    I remember back in the day, before Holocaust denial was in the news, “being in denial” and “being a denier” were terms that were applied to alcoholics and members of their families. This term originated in psychoanalysis and that’s where it is still “coming from” today. IMO.

  114. Can’t we just settle on Climate Eugenicists? That should be ok for everybody; leftist hero economist Keynes was after all president of the Eugenics sociecty; and Obama science czar Holdren detailed his eugenicist approach in his 1970’s bestseller EcoScience. And the WWF was founded by eugenicist Julian Huxley.

  115. I’ve made the following comment at ADL (includes some useful references/quotes)

    http://atlanta.adl.org/news/adl-condemns-spencers-nazi-analogy/#comment-1262678665

    YES, the victims of the holocaust deserve better, which is why, the equating of climate sceptics to being the moral equivalent of holocaust deniers, is so distasteful and it has been going on for over a decade.

    Sceptics have been equated to holocaust deniers for years. Spencer is pushing back and is not referencing Jew[s], but the conduct of the NAzi’s who suppressed(killed)all political opposition and freedom of thought (book burning, remember)

    The Guardian explained 4 years ago:

    “We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to “climate change deniers” in favour of, perhaps, “climate sceptics”.

    The editor of our environment website explains: “The former has nasty connotations with Holocaust denial and tends to polarise debate.” – Guardian

    http://www.theguardian.com/com

    Here are some very high profile examples, in the international media, by journalists and activists and politicians calling sceptics names (equating them to somebody as low as a holocaust denier)

    Hari 2005:
    “The climate-change deniers are rapidly ending up with as much intellectual credibility as creationists and Flat Earthers. Indeed, given that 25,000 people died in Europe in the 2003 heatwave caused by anthropogenic climate change, given that the genocide unfolding in Darfur has been exacerbated by the stresses of climate change, given that Bangladesh may disappear beneath the rising seas in the next century, they are nudging close to having the moral credibility of Holocaust deniers. They are denying the reality of a force that – unless we change the way we live pretty fast – will kill millions.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/o

    2006: monbiot “Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm

    2006: Lynas “I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put this in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it”.

    http://web.archive.org/web/200

    2007: fed Ellen Goodman : “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”

    http://web.archive.org/web/200

    then there are others saying ‘climate treason’, and others saying ‘Nuremburg trial’ for climate – and I’m sure very many other USA, examples could be found (in the main stream media (Hari, Independent, Monbiot – Guardian) very politicized and a huge deterrent to speak up at all.

    2008 – Grist Climate Nuremburg (quoting monbiot)

    http://grist.org/article/the-d

    2008: Hansen -Crime Against humanity:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi

    2009: Krugman – Guilty of treason

    http://www.alternet.org/story/

    20011- Chris Huhne – UK Minsiter Enrrgy & Climate Change– “Defying climate deal like appeasing Hitler-

    http://www.reuters.com/article

    The Guardian Newspaper wrote 4 years ago, about the linkage of ‘climate deniers’ with ‘holocaust deniers’..

    shame nobody spoke out against all the above at the ADL

  116. Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

    Having spent the last hour reading every comment (some quite vociferous), I cannot be alone in admitting that I am reasonably comfortable with someone calling me a denier. In fact I am proud to be a denier.

    For me, it is far more important to believe in our cause, vis-à-vis; that the miniscule amount of anthropogenic CO2 in our atmosphere cannot cause our world to heat up to unprecedented levels or influence natural climate. End of story. Similarly, the same pride applies to personal religious belief in so much as ‘they’ choose to call me an agnostic – simply because I believe in something which is different to what the Christian church and the bible tells me. But I do not completely deny that there is an ‘existence’ of some kind, because if I did, then I would be an atheist.

    So maybe, I’m a climate atheist. Whatever.

    Perhaps, let’s face it, we are all becoming over-sensitive with what ever ‘name calling’ the melodramatic warming fraternity throw at us – and appreciate that there a far more offensive terms we could be called like “F..k..g Climate W..k.r”. It’s only when bricks start coming through our windows will I help protect our pride and go and kick someone’s ass – starting by asking every climate atheist to grab a fire extinguisher, empty it completely of all the manufactured CO2 and ask the high priests of the warming faith if they observe any changes to the earth’s climate. We’ll save the lemonade, inflatable life vests, beer and sodium bicarbonate for next week. Ok?

    Have fun.

    GeeJam

  117. ref [something] nazi

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/grammar-nazi

    Notable Derivatives
    As more and more people began embracing the term “Grammar Nazi,” the once taboo word “Nazi” became associated with fanaticism in general, spawning several derivative compound nouns in which it is used as a suffix to denote overzealousness.

    Music Nazi: A person who believes that his or her music is better than everyone else’s and thus entitled to decide who is a poser and who isn’t.[29]
    Network Nazi: A person, usually male, who runs the Office IT in a ruthless fashion.[30]
    Facebook Nazi: A person who goes out of one’s way to report suggestive and offensive material posted by others on Facebook.[31]
    Health Nazi: A person who constantly provides one’s own opinions on dieting, exercise, and weight loss in an arrogant and pushy manner.[33]
    Food Nazi: A person who insists on dictating what others should call themselves based upon their diets.[34]
    Wikipedia Nazi: A Wikipedia editor who subscribes to a ridiculously strict set of standards and frequently removes well-written articles submitted by others.[35]

    Door Nazi: A retail business employee who checks your receipt upon leaving the store.[36]
    Heat Nazi: A person who micromanages the home thermostat in order to maintain a budget-friendly temperature of 65 Fahrenheit degrees or less.[37]
    Language Nazi: A person who is culturally-intolerant and complains when someone speaks in a language other than one’s own.[38]
    Computer Nazi: A school faculty member in control of the computer lab who sets strict limits on what you can use or what you can bring into the room.[39]
    Enviro Nazi: An environmentalist who habitually shames others for their lack of dedication.[32]
    Forum Nazi: An Internet forum moderator who takes it upon oneself to remove posts without any forewarning or explanation.[41]

  118. Mark Steyn: Tiptoeing on ever-thinner eggshells
    Instead, the relentless propagandizing grows ever more heavy-handed: The tolerance enforcers will not tolerate dissent; the diversity celebrators demand a ruthless homogeneity. Much of the progressive agenda – on marriage, immigration, and much else – involves not winning the argument but ruling any debate out of bounds

    http://tinyurl.com/cfmnxon

  119. The legacy of Julian Huxley – ‘Evolutionary Studies’ edited by M. Keynes and G. Ainsworth

    JULIAN HUXLEY was born in 1887 and he died in 1975. From the end of the First World War through to the early 1960s, he enjoyed a formidable reputation as an evolutionary biologist, a science writer and broadcaster, and as something of a political activist. His creed was humanism, while his medium was the Eugenics Society and, for a time, UNESCO.

    With incredible energy, he helped to found the World Wildlife Fund, IUCN, the Ecological Society and the Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour. He received numerous awards and other honours for his services to science and to society. For example, he gained prizes for popularising science, for writing English verse, and for contributions to planned parenthood, conservation and evolutionary biology.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12617155.100

    The New Divinity
    By Julian Huxley FRS

    Hardtalk – James Lovelock – Population reduction (max 1 billion)

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/31/open-thread-weekend-30/#comment-373005

  120. 1. The word “Denier”insinuates that someone is denying the Holocaust;Spencer does not .
    2.The Nazis wanted to destroy Christianity and replace it with a new religion.
    3. The Nazis developed an adoration for “Nature” and a denigration for industry and urban living.
    4.. There was a movement in Germany which supported or perhaps one should say idolised a back to Nature attitude which was rapidly absorbed by the Nazis.
    5. If one looks at Hitler’s worship of nature, dislike of industry and capitalism; the various groups and philosophies which fantasised about a back to Nature living which originated in Germany from the late 19C; which grew rapidly after the WW1 and which influenced and were absorbed by the Nazis ; then I would say Spencer was correct.
    6. The word Nazis comes National Socialist and many members were former communists. The Nazis also supported groups such as which grew up around Rudolf Steiner.
    7. There is good argument that the roots of the Nazi movement lay in the German Romanticism of the mid 19C which rejected capitalism and intellectual movements which developed in cities such as Viennna. Jews lived in cities , not the countryside : therefore the rural idyll also rejected Jewish influence.
    8. The fact that Nazis absorbed former members of the communist parties and Neo Pagan Nature loving rural fanatics and suppressed dissent which is similar to what has happened since the late 1960s. Many members of violent communist groups such as Baider Meinhof and R2 have joined the Green movement. In, the UK Monbiot who comes from a Conservative background and Lord Melchett have joined the Green movement. Many of the post 1960s hippies have joined the Green Movement( similar to the back to nature groups of 1920s and 1930s Germany who were absorbed by the Nazis). Many socialists , such as Ken Livingstone , former Mayor London have aligned themselves with the Green Movement.
    9. Like the the Nazis of the 1920s, many of the Green Movement lack the engineering and applied science skills to solve the World’s problems.

  121. The ADL is right.
    calling deniers deniers has nothing to do with comparing them to holocaust deniers. the word denier is and never was exclusive to holocaust denial. there are many forms of denial.
    AGW denial is merely one form of denial. and as asceptic myself, i simply cannot call people that are in denial about climatology sceptics. they are clearly not. they are deniers.

    [Reply: It was tempting to just delete your intolerant, hate-filled comment because it clearly violates this site’s Policy page. But maybe it’s better to let other readers deal with you. —mod.]

    • @ Aanthanur DC
      And should someone call you a bung hole, that would just be descriptive?

      Your comment reeks of ignorance. You do not even have a conception of what is being denied. But you do know the pejorative power of insulting words, so you use them to intimidate others you do not agree with. And the reason you do is because you do not know how, nor do you have the knowledge, to debate them honestly.

      So we can honestly say you are dishonest, Both in your use of the term, and in your posting.

  122. ADL are a bunch of scum bags. Don’t take any notice of them. Their main purpose is to stifle criticism of Israel by linking any criticism of Israel to criticism of Jews and to punish congressmen who do not support increased funding for Israel or who object the Israel’s treatment of its victims or who do sell out the American people in favor of Israel and the huge campaign funding which comes from the multitude of Jewish interest groups in the US.

    In any event, Israel is the Jewish state and they do only allow Jews to move their (make Aliya) and most Jews do support the state of Israel as being the Jewish state. Ergo, it may actually be somewhat legitimate to blame the actions of Israel on Jewish people in general. [snip] I mean, can a group of people act badly as a general group and escape criticism of the group? Jewish people are always quick to grab *credit* for anything any Jewish person of note ever did in the past. Usually Einstein and Intel and claiming that Israel invented cell phones. But they are not so keen to take responsibility for the negative behavior of their group in general.

  123. I think some Warmists are afraid that the term “Climate Nazis” might stick. I won’t use it because I don’t want to end up in spam all the time, but Climate Nazis is what they are. If they had their way (as some of them have made clear) we would be blown up, stabbed in the heart, put on trial, executed, face smeared in asbestos and so on. Is this the language of people who are certain of their science? Their voodoo science is doomed by observations which explains the desperation.

    PS it has little to do with science now. It’s now about getting their policies and structures in place before the voices of dissent grow louder (see the temperature hiatus, increased NH winter snow extent trend since mid 196os, Antarctic extent trending up since 1979, Arctic volume and extent up 50% in 2013 etc).

  124. Aanthanur DC,

    You really don’t understand, do you?

    Scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists, which would leave you out – if you were a scientist] know that CO2 has a minuscule effect. But that aside, what, exactly, are skeptics supposed to be denying?

    Or are you such a miserable person that you call people inappropriate names for no other reason, except to feed your hatred?

  125. Jimbo says:
    February 27, 2014 at 3:46 am

    “…but Climate Nazis is what they are.”

    Discredited Climate Nazis will give us an even better leg up. Make it so.

  126. Aanthanur DC, You have all the traits: spittle flecked anger at those who disagree with you, smugness, ignorance (in abundance), shallowness, unoriginality. I think what people like you miss is your “good ol’ days” when you could call certain people ni**er without fear of consequence.

  127. Not surprising.

    The ADL defends the truth of the Holocaust against unbelievers, alarmists do the same for CO2 hysteria.

  128. The midterms are coming, and the lefties are in a fighting mood obviously. I think we’re going to see a lot of this behavior over the next 6 months or so, as they openly demonize the right.

  129. • Professor Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an atmospheric scientist
    • He is Jewish.
    • His father fled Nazi Germany.
    • He was a contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 IPCC 2nd Assessment.
    • He worked on Chapter 7 of 2001 IPCC Working Group 1
    • He is an AGW skeptic.

    There are other examples of how easy it is to point out inconvenient facts to the ADL. Zero out of 10 – must try harder.

  130. The ADL is right.
    calling deniers deniers has nothing to do with comparing them to holocaust deniers. the word denier is and never was exclusive to holocaust denial. there are many forms of denial.

    Let me assist you with your reading difficulties. Click and read all my references. I wait for your reply as you did use the word “NOTHING”.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/bizzare-anti-defamation-league-apparently-gives-a-green-light-to-defamation-of-climate-skeptics-by-comparing-them-to-holocaust-deniers/#comment-1577619

  131. To add a useful English word like ‘denier’ to a list of taboo words to be used only in a hushed, religious way is outrageous and should be laughed at by anybody who has his head screwed on right.

    If a tiny group of people want to revel in their holocaust religion, let them, but do not expect the other 99.99 percent of us to bow and scrape to them and their bizarre cult.

  132. re: dbstealey says February 26, 2014 at 11:24 pm

    Thanks to Ric Werme for the link to the newspaper.

    Pls check the chronology in the thread above for who ‘landed’ that link first …

    Just sayin. (If the wheel doesn’t squeak it’ll never see the grease.)

    Note also who first ‘found’ the webpage where the press release was posted (and no h/t!). Maybe if I posted as Gail Combs’ long-lost brother I could get the h/t … eh?

    .

  133. @DirkH says:
    February 27, 2014 at 1:58 am

    Dirk,
    You’ve made an important distinction. After WWII, one great perceptual problem involved in effect giving the impression that the filth and horror of the Eugenics movement was some sort of specifically and uniquely German/Nazi problem.
    This of course was completely untrue. Eugenics was the creed of the elites all over the Western World pre WWII..
    In effect the Eugenicists on the winning side absolved themselves of blame which left them free to rebrand themselves as the human hating environmentalist elite we have today
    Bio-Ethics IMO is the New Eugenics. And whereas the Eugenics movement is now recognised as having targeted part of the human race, Bio-Ethics is going Full-Monty, and targeting the “Human Race As A Whole”.

    Global Warming as Faith

    http://blog.heartland.org/2013/08/global-warming-as-faith/

    The environmental elite regard the mass of humanity as vermin, despoiling divine Gaia.

  134. Something on Fox News the other day that some of the warmist-handlers had issued orders to push CAGW “deniers”, prb’ly to deflect attention from the O’bumbler’s negative issues. The media/NGOs have quickly responded in lockstep.

  135. the ADL attempts to squash free speech often when it doesn’t agree with them, sort of like what a political party in germany in the 30’s did.
    if a nazi comparison is valid then its valid and doesn’t demean holocaust victims.
    forbidding people to use comparisons hurts them more than it helps them. it also tends to blur the political happenings back then and risk them happening again.

  136. dbstealey says:
    February 26, 2014 at 11:24 pm

    > Thanks to Ric Werme for the link to the newspaper. There are plenty of good responses posted there.

    Better thanks go to _Jim’s 4:59 pm comment. I just reposted the URL to increase the chances of it being seen.

    The story was up before 0900 EST. I imagine there’s a fair amount of talk at the office now. I’ll be mightily unimpressed if they don’t react, and even more unimpressed if they react the wrong way.

  137. One problem here is that people who experienced WW2 are almost all gone (last holocaust survivor passed last week, for example), and those who learned anything useful about WW2 are aging. To the current generation, WW2 doesn’t matter. Nazis don’t matter. All they are is grainy black and white people wearing funny uniforms and speaking in horrible fake German accents.

    A picturesque description like “death trains” won’t have the same sting to a 25 year old as it does to a 70 year old. While I was born in the 60s, I still grew up with a steady diet of WW2 movies, Hogan’s Heroes, and more than one teacher who fought in the war.I still vividly remember the day our school janitor was brought into our elementary school classroom to tell us about what he experienced. He wept when they played “White Cliffs of Dover”.

    So a part of this is generational. Calling someone a Nazi is more reminiscent to a younger age of either Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi or the Grammar Nazis we see in all online forums or facebook groups, and will not summon vivid images of an entire country bent on world domination, by force, and elimination of Jews, Gypsies, and various other identifiable groups via wholesale murder by government sanctioned jackbooted thugs.

    The thing is, this mostly renders the ADL’s claims completely moot. Nazis are no longer the horror that they were. In fact, they are perceived in an almost cartoonish light. S&M fanatics will often own a Nazi uniform style leather outfit, neo-white-power groups will fly a Swastika without really understanding the history and meaning of it, and my age group will always see them as Col. Klink and Sgt. Shultz.

    To me, any group that endorses the use of public mocking, wishes their ideological opponents could be slaughtered in particularly gruesome ways, thinks it would be good to consider anyone who disagrees with them as mentally ill and subject to institutionalization, or fantasizes about how wonderful the world will be once they are in control and have eliminated their perceived enemy is acting as the Nazis did. There were many times in the rise of Nazism that they could have been stopped or critically wounded by strong opposition. The people who are doing the same must also be stopped before they gain the kind of power they crave and are actively attempting to gain.

  138. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 27, 2014 at 3:30 am

    “the (sic) word denier is and never was exclusive to holocaust denial. there (sic) are many forms of denial.”

    You are in denial as to the connotation of the word within the context of Climate debate. If you read the Ellen Goodman piece referenced above that was the genesis of the Climate context connotation, you will have the opportunity to accept the reality.

  139. Organizing for Action

    http://ofa.barackobama.com/climate-deniers/#/

    Call Out the Climate Change Deniers

    Climate change is real, it’s caused largely by human activities, and it poses significant risks for our health. Some members of Congress disagree with this simple, scientifically proven fact. We need to work to curb climate change, and a big step is to raise our voices to change the conversation in Washington. Call these deniers out. Hold them accountable. Ask them if they will admit climate change is a problem.

  140. The Climate Liars ARE fascists. If the truth hurts, so-be-it. They’ll destroy our democracy if they get the chance. I’m happy Dr. Spencer called a spade a spade. I’m tired of the climate realists sitting back and taking abuse from people who are as immoral as any World War 2 fascist.

  141. The Nazis were fascists and therefore anti-capitalists. But you can’t point that out. The new rules are that the term Nazis may only be applied to anyone who is not on the left-wing of American politics. You must never point out that the Nazis, as fascists, were socialists, championed the state over the individual, that the Nazis were anti-religion, anti-traditional family and were seeking a “new world order.”

    Nope all that is verboten. I think these rules are clearly explained in the new College Student Handbooks and the AP Style Guide.

  142. It appears that Ms. Rose’s particular brand of activism is not limited to warm-mongering attacks on “deniers” under her “Interim Regional Director” ADL banner. She apparently dabbles in a little old fashioned progressive political “education” as well. From Georgia Public Broadcasting…

    Praying Under Friday Night Lights

    Monday morning will find members of the House judiciary committee vetting a bill that could instigate another round of culture wars.

    The bill is sponsored by Rep. Dusty Hightower, a Carrollton Republican, and would give public school students more opportunity and more permission to make religious prayer part of school events.

    It has some bi-partisan support as Rep. Stacey Evans, an Atlanta Democrat, is a co-sponsor. But it also inevitably has broad opposition from groups such as the Anti-Defamation League.

    Shelley Rose with the ADL’s Southeastern office in Atlanta said the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings that limit prayer in public schools, and she said the current bill would be unconstitutional under those precedents.

    She said expanding prayer in taxpayer-funded schools is problematic because “it’s a setting where students are required to be.” She also said in some cases the prayer would be broadcast “over a school public address system” or at football games that many consider an integral part of school life.

    “Students are not required to go to football games but it is such a part of the school that if you have one student giving a prayer, other students become a captive audience,” she said. “It makes it appear the school is sponsoring and authorizing it.”

    Prayer in Schools And Maybe Schools In Court

    But more than opposing the bill, ADL will be at the Capitol Monday morning to do some educating.

    “We’ll try to educate lawmakers about what the possible repercussions might be for them and for local schools that could be opening themselves up to litigation,” she said.

    GPB News, Sun., February 16, 2014

  143. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 27, 2014 at 3:30 am

    “AGW denial is merely one form of denial. and as asceptic myself, i simply cannot call people that are in denial about climatology sceptics. they are clearly not. they are deniers.”

    You are not a sceptic, you are a Believer: you “believe in” the Truth of CO2CAGW hypotheses which have a 100% prediction failure record and are therefore falsified=scientifically false. Thus these “hypotheses” have now become Dogma for anyone who still uses them, especially in that they no longer relate to the scientific/empirical world. Whether you will also remain a denier in that respect is up to you.

  144. From Pop Tech:

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptical-science-smear-skeptics-as.html

    Skeptical Science: Smear Skeptics as Holocaust Deniers

    In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums “hacked” and the contents posted online. In a forum thread titled “Advice on engaging the public”, John Cook posts enthusiastically, “Here is an excellent email from Greg Craven…”

    Here’s my two cents on engaging the public:

    The biggest obstacles you need to understand are that the public doesn’t understand the nature of science, …they aren’t rational decision-makers, […]

    Be aware that the press is very defensive about being called “liberal” by the heartland. So they will always give a denier equal weight under the guise of “We just report and let the reader make their own decision.” The hell they do. Ask “When the press does a story on the Holocaust, do they give equal time to the revisionists?”

    ———————-

    I’ll add a bit more of Craven’s thoughts to John Cook below:

    ———————–

    Ask “When the press does a story on the Holocaust, do they give equal time to the revisionists? When they do a story on spacecraft or astronomy, do they give equal time to the flat-earthers? When they do a story on the extinction of the dinosaurs, do they give equal time to the Nessie fans?” Call them on it. In your interviews–trying to avoid making your interviewer defensive and thus not publish your point–point out that it’s their job to evaluate what is credible and what’s not, and only give a small acknowledgement to the less credible stuff.

    Be willing to sacrifice precision in the interest of brevity. The assumption that the press is looking for the truth is completely incorrect. What the press is looking for is a story they can tell, with a hook–and, if they can get it–something provocative (like a manufactured controversy). I know it grates, but give sound bites:
    “This level of agreement in science is unprecedented.” As you can see from the effectiveness of the denial machine, a striking statement– even a wrong one–becomes truth to the public, even if carefully taken apart later. The unengaged majority only hears sound bites and headlines. They NEVER read the careful and thorough rebuttal. They’re simply too busy with life to do any research. Especially since they’ve heard environmental doomsday stories their whole life, and we’re still here, right? So start taking a page from the opposition–not in their dishonesty, but in their mode of communicating.

    Some specific talking points:

    Re: Climategate. Acknowledge that cries of “It was quoted out of context!” always strike the listener as weak excuses of guilty parties because it’s always in the context of politicians, and the public distrust politicians. Therefore the public distrusts anyone who sounds like one. Instead, highlight how the unprecedented agreement in science about human-caused climate change (avoid fancy-schmancy words like “anthropogenic” because of the anti-intellectual sentiment out there) cannot be undone by a few emails, papers, signatures, or papers.

    Re: “It’s a natural cycle.” (Now the most common denier position. If you have any doubt about how serious the public debate issue is, remind yourself that Bjorn Lomborg’s “Cool It” is now in theatres.) GHG nature of CO2 is well-established physics for the last 100 years. If you want to demonstrate it’s wrong, it will take a revolution in the laws of physics, with thousands of peer-reviewed studies. Stolen emails, thousands of signatures from non-specialists, or a dissenting scientist or two can’t do that.

    Re: “How can we predict the climate when we can’t even predict the weather a few days in advance?” At the beach, no one can predict exactly where the wave five minutes from now will break. But we can predict with great confidence the moment of the high tide 3 months from now. It’s about noise vs. trend, chaotic systems vs. the basic laws of physics.

    Ask the rhetorical question “What would it take to convince you? What would you need to see?” If the answer is “No single statement from a scientist dismiss AGW,” then even if it’s true, you’ll never get such statement, because science always has some dissenters, even about the most established conclusions! That’s just the nature of science. So waiting around for unanimity is a lost hope. Pragmatically, got to go with “This is good enough to go on.”

    All the major national academies of science in the world, as well as most all significant scientific professional organizations, have issued official statements saying essentially the same thing:
    1) Climate change is real.
    2) It’s largely caused by us now.
    3) It’s going to be bad, not good.
    4) We’d better do something about it fast.
    In the couple instances when the executive committee issued a skeptical statement, the membership rebelled, until the executive committee changed it to be non-committal. There are really only three options for explaining that.
    1) All those scientists, whose entire careers have been devoted to understanding the physical world, have got it so horribly wrong that they’re not even in the ballpark. [Question for you scientists–is there any example in modern science where there’s been this much evidence along so many lines, and turned out to be wrong? Highlight the rarity of that. -GC].
    2) All those scientists are perpetrating a giant hoax to gain control and wealth, a hoax a hundred times larger in scale and complexity than any other in the history of the world.
    3) The general conclusions of all those scientists (the weather is going to get more wacky, the seas will rise, and all sorts of systems– from growing seasons to insect cycles–will be disrupted) are about as certain as we can get about how anything will behave, including predicting the tides. #1 is unprecedented, and#2 is so unprecedented that it can’t be dismissed because of a few emails or scientists behaving poorly. Which leaves the third.

    ALL science is inherently tentative and uncertain. Nothing can ever be proven for certain. We haven’t even proven the Law of Gravity yet– we’re still running experiments to test it (Gravity Probe B)! The best we can do is amass large amounts of consistent evidence from multiple directions and calculations, and say “This is good enough to go on.”

    This isn’t a talking point, but perhaps it will serve as motivation to get more scientists out into the fray. I’ve long said that the American public will only be convinced of the urgency of the climate change threat when they see large amounts of climate researchers quit their jobs and move to New Zealand to homestead, preparing for the worst. The CCRT and the AGU 700 aren’t quite that, but they are a tremendous (and long overdue) development. But we need more.

    What we really really need is a mirror of the denial machine that Prof. Oreskes so capably details: an established network of blogs, organizations, spokespeople, press-releasers, and media contacts so that when an issue pops up, the rapid-response team pounds out the most effective talking points, and then gets them out into the network, exploiting the exponential nature of address book pointing to address book, to spread a consistent message. The CCRT can be the source of the talking points, but the distribution network needs to be established beforehand. This is largely why the deniers are so much more influential than the scientists. It’s time to take a page from their playbook and come out fighting.

    Public opinion has nothing to do with rationality or reality. Like it or not, it’s determined by emotion and perception. We need to stop thrashing against the tide, and instead start riding it. We are losing the great unengaged majority more and more each day. That is where the war will be one or lost.

    You will have a greater impact if you spend your time convincing scientists to enter the fray, rather than trying to influence individuals of the public.

    So let’s muster an army.

  145. On the Friends of Science facebook page, someone posted that my father (Dr. Tim Ball) was a “child abuser”. I kindly pointed out that I was one of Dr. Ball’s children, and that he had never abused my brother or myself. In fact, he was the best father anyone could hope for, and put a happy face. :)

    I was raised in a home filled with science and wonder about our incredible world. The moderator removed the libellous statement, and I stated that I wished it to be left in the thread (they removed it). It shows clearly the mindset of those who want to silence us. It also shows clearly that they have zero defence. They know it, and we are coming like a juggernaut now.

    They fling poop like primates. I say let them, and I thank Anthony and the mods for leaving Aanthanur DC’s post intact.

  146. Further to the Friends of Science facebook page; there are a number of alarmists that keep flooding the posts with all the usual spin (apparently they have all the time in the world to do this). The moderator is overwhelmed as I am sure he/she can not monitor full time. I post as much as I can, but it would be helpful if anyone has the time to keep an eye. If you are on facebook, “like” the Friends of Science page, as it is a good forum that tries to keep it civil and moderates similar to WUWT? moderation style. Give it a perusal !!

  147. Social dysfunctions like AGW corrupt every area of thought and work.
    ADL’s mission is being hijacked by a climate kook using her position to act out on her climate obsession.

  148. I’ve been to that congregation. They’re definitely lefty oriented and so, without knowing her personally, it’s no surprise that she’s a master of hypocrisy. Others there are rabidly anti-Republican, anti-right, etc., etc. Very few people like that apply a principle even-handedly and condemn without fear or favor when it’s warranted. They wait for their own ox to be gored before noticing the offense and reacting, but still don’t acknowledge the previous offense. The press release is a shining example of that.

  149. An impressive find. And I agreed with everything.

    http://motls.blogspot.co.il/2014/02/gestapo-like-adl-raid-on-roy-spencer.html?m=1

    (I chose a more appropriate national domain suffix.)

    Unfortunately, not just the ADL but the bulk of universities, corporations, institutions, organizations, movements, NGOs, mainstream parties etc. are peppered with similar prickly “Roses” who are in a clear minority but thanks to their excessive activity, whose concentration has exceeded the critical mass needed to make the life of pretty much all skeptics harder.

  150. Here she is Anthony.
    Shelley Rose with her photo

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/shelley-rose/3a/305/70a

    Congregations Caring for the Climate – Atlanta, GA
    Bill Witherspoon, from Congregation Bet Haverim writes: This was taken Friday evening before Erev Shabbat Services. We had about three times this many for services eventually, but these were the ones who arrived in time for the photo. As part of our second week of the Omer to Honor the Earth, Shelley Rose (third from right, just right of our Torah scrolls) gave the d’var (sermon) on acting with awareness that we all breathe the same air, and Tovah Melaver (second from right) led a breathing meditation

    Congregations Caring for the Climate - Atlanta, GA

  151. { We had about three times this many for services eventually, but these were the ones who arrived in time for the photo. }

    Real popular group…..
    36 people in Atlanta. Someone work out that percentage…

  152. Shelly Rose is a feminist. Everything else stems from there.
    Feminists are impervious to almost all substances, except maybe bricks of logic. And they operate mostly in substance-free environments, so naturally – “climate” is next.

  153. There aren’t many true deniers of the entire scam, in the world.

    Most people are Luke Warmers: they believe the whole spiel they just don’t see anything wrong with it.

    A Luke Warmer is a Warmer who isn’t alarmed. He’s skeptical of the claim of alarm, but he believes almost the whole thing.

    A denier says the first word to the last was faked computer model research and that not a single word of it will hold up to experimental check.

  154. Wow. So now what?

    What do you do when a so-called anti- nazi jew puts on a eco-nazi uniform and starts goosestepping and pushing eco-fascism. And we’re not supposed to say anything.

    This is a weird world full to the brim with BS!

  155. Amazing breakdown and accurate historical references to climate change “denial” as it pertains to historical events. Crowd sourced information from all corners of the internet, quickly assembled in one accurate blog post on WUWT. This entire post and comment section should be referenced in the congressional record for valid content.

    I am simply amaze at what the Watts Up With That community can put together at a moments notice. If only government worked so efficiently, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in.

  156. Am I being deleted outright? WTF? I was on topic, I was not harsh. What gives?

    [no, but sometimes posting comments simply fails or comment gets sucked into spam filter based on words, phrases, links – chill, Anthony ]

  157. While I feel Global Warming Nazis, gives these narcissistic wanna bees way more credibility than they have earned, Dr Spencer has scored a major hit.
    The parasitic bullies are tripping over their tongues.
    This dummie from ADL rushing out to protect her poor wee cause, has scored a own goal of major proportion.
    Where have you been baby?
    If this is what you do, monitor society for defamation, why have you blessed, by omission, the likes of Presidents, Vice Presidents, Senators, Congress critters, UN functionaries…??
    So are the staff at the ADL incompetent? Or just Biased?
    So sad about your funding, but why contribute to an organization so inept?
    It is over.
    Cause, the great cause was the creation of persons willing to lie, smear and steal for their faith.
    Intolerant, Eco-Nasties, clad in their certainty, conviction and smugness.
    Ain’t that as shame. shot down in flames..
    The terror that is causing these vile outburst from the Cult of Calamitous Climate, is easily understood.
    Having been absolutely intolerant in their zeal, having abused and alienated the public, they have no climb down plan, hop escape.
    Too many slow to anger, but now seriously annoyed persons such as myself, now wait with that question.
    Answer yes or no, Have you stopped beating your wife?
    As with CAGW,being willing to ignore all empirical measurements and human history, are you a fool? Or are you a bandit?

  158. hillarious, the replays to my posts clearly show that there are no sceptics here, only deniers.
    and how was my post hatefilled? i don’t hate deniers. they play no role outside the internet. maybe in the US. but where i am from, people accept scientific theories that are so well supported by the evidence.
    real sceptics are not suposed to deny anything, they are suposed to question stuff, but also to adjust their opinion based on the evidencepresented. something the AGW deniers do not do.
    Sceptics are those that are only convinced by evidence and try to not hold any beliefs without supporting evidence.

    but on every single scientific topic, there is a small part of the popuation that is in denial about it, be it Evolution, Heliocentrism, HIV/Aids etc etc. and on the topic of climatolog, you guys are the small part pf the population in denial :)

    but it doesn’t matter anymore. the debate is over. the world population convinced. the deniers lost. like it always is when people deny science. they loose.

    • @Aanthanur DC – I guess that makes you the denier. You are the only one here denying science. Talking points are not science. Consensus is not science. You have defined yourself.

  159. As I recall what I was told in the 60s and 70s, in the 1930s there was a worldwide depression/recession with an inflation rate that hit Germany especially hard as they were recovering from and hit hardest for their part in WWI. There was a lie being told that Jewish Banking, Jewish Industries and Jewish Businesses (nevermind WorldWide recessions/depressions occurred about every 20 years since “the World Got Small”). The NAZIs had the solution. Exterminate a relatively minor part of society.

    So because the “Global Temperatures” have been rising for the past 50 years (similarly to the previous 50 years and largely since the Little Ice Age). The “Global Warming NAZIs” have the solution. Exterminate a relatively minor part of the climate system. (Oh yeah! A nod to Patrick…ban Chlorine while you’re at it.

    Is that too simple of an analogy? Is anyone offended?

  160. If you apply for a disability claim from an insurance company or, especially, the government, you have to PROVE you have been injured, REPEATEDLY. The insurance companies and government do not just “take your word for it” and never question you again. Israel SOLD the Holocaust for Political Leverage and Monetary Reparations, Israel itself opened the Holocaust up to questioning when they SOLD it. Israel FEARS the TRUTH about the holoCOST because the MONEY would dry up, or WORSE have to be RETURNED.
    The WHOLE POINT of the 1st Amendment is to protect the RIGHT of People to QUESTION…

  161. M Courtney says:
    February 26, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    jauntycyclist says at February 26, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    they only use the word denier because they cannot use the term ‘counter revolutionary’.

    I highlight this because it is perceptive and spot on right.

    Yet there is a selective judgement against those who are not “moving forward”. The Revolution must be defended for the greater good, don’t you know.

    True. It should also be pointed out that “counter-revolutionary” sounds too clinical and doesn’t convey the required intensity of class hatred. That’s why competent, self-respecting Maoists call the enemies of the Revolution “imperialist running dogs”.

    For expert usage see here:

    http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wh/215/HongKong.html
    International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)

  162. ” Aanthanur DC says:
    February 27, 2014 at 9:30 am
    like it always is when people deny science. they loose. ”

    Well,
    I think you might be the one with marbles a bit “loose”……

  163. Aanthanur DC says “and how was my post hatefilled?”

    Simple: you are a name-caller. The proof is right above, in your comment. Name-calling is what haters do.

    You also say:

    “Sceptics are those that are only convinced by evidence and try to not hold any beliefs without supporting evidence.”

    You claim to be a skeptic. So here is a challenge for you: post any measurable, testable scientific evidence that you can, showing that human emissions are the cause of global warming.

    It is typical of your crowd that they never answer questions or accept challenges. I think you are just another internet troll who fits that category. Prove me wrong — if you can.

  164. “Tim Clark says:
    February 27, 2014 at 10:02 am
    ” Aanthanur DC says:
    February 27, 2014 at 9:30 am
    like it always is when people deny science. they loose. ”

    Well,
    I think you might be the one with marbles a bit “loose”……”

    I hate it – you beat me to it :-)

  165. I regard myself as a heretic in the climate wars, so being called a denier is passe.
    But if it helps, I steadfastly deny Judges 15:4 * and, for the record, I deny the Exodus too.

    “The six million Jewish victims and millions of other victims of Hitler deserve better. Their deaths should not be used for political points or sloganeering…
    I should think that particular bus left 70 years ago.

    A Jew, a drunk, and another Mann walk into a bar.
    The drunk asks the barman if they can run a tab, the barman politely says “No”.
    The other Mann asks the the barman if they can run a a tab, the bar replies testily “No!”
    The Jew then asks the barman, “Can we run a tab?”
    The barman explodes, “who are you, some gang of ask-a-nazis?”
    The Jew replies plaintively “No sir, I’m Sephardic.”

  166. According to the ADL it’s not ok to defame members of their group, but’s justified to defame those with whom they disagree. Wow.

  167. The activistas are on the run.
    I suppose it was Gandhi who said:
    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
    Some roses don’t smell well at all. They just spread foul odor.

  168. Fortunately AantarthurDC is not merely a bigoted shallow coward, but he/it is wrong in the claim that skeptics of climate obsesion are winning. Australia, Canada, Germany, are all backing away from the faux science of climate catastrophe.
    Even the UK is reassessing their commitment to the waste of AGW pushed ideas.
    And every day more real scientsts step forward to point how climate catastrophism as embraced by Aa is wrong.
    And of course mother nature, still, sublimiely continues to ignore the ever more shrill imprecations of climate kooks like AantarthurDC.
    So all the troll has left is to call us ‘deniers’, which is just his code word for ‘ni**er’.
    So spew on, you shallow trollish ignorant liar.

  169. Sooo, in the end things are quite clear.

    She had a full historical knowledge of events.

    She had a clear preconception as part of multiple extensive activist agenda’s.

    The only thing missing is a law suit (perhaps a SuperGirl suit) and a tweeted appology.

    I wonder if Super Mandia will let her borrow his waders for a photo op? LOL!

  170. Aanthanur DC,

    Your claim,

    calling deniers deniers has nothing to do with comparing them to holocaust deniers.

    is demonstrably false. The earliest reference I can easily find is this.

    From Breaking down political, psychological barriers to global warming action as far back as Feb 2007:

    I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one group denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

    The term doesn’t phase me. I doubt it bothers very many of those who’ve been openly skeptical of AGW for long. At this point, when I think about it at all I take it as a merit badge. If I’m saying something people such as yourself would respond to with ‘denier’, I’m doing something right. :)

    Your subsequent remark,

    but it doesn’t matter anymore. the debate is over. the world population convinced.

    clearly demonstrates that you are concerned with what a majority of people believe. This is called politics. Here at WUWT, we are interested in questions of scientific fact, which is not influenced in the least by majority opinion.

    But thanks for stopping by. I enjoy the occasional chance to enlighten undergraduate political science majors.

  171. @Barry Woods says:
    February 27, 2014 at 7:08 am
    You are jsut a nicer version of AntarthurDC. You dismiss the evidence that significant claims about a dire climate are wrong, You ignore the the recent IPCC report, you assume that the policy demands of the AGW community are viable, and still rely on consensus, not critical thinking.
    Frankly your messianic/crusader pov is more harmful than cranks like the troll pestering this thread. You might actually take yourself seriously.

  172. Aanthanur DC says: February 27, 2014 at 9:30 am
    but it doesn’t matter anymore. the debate is over. the world population convinced. the deniers lost. like it always is when people deny science. they loose.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    it’s really all you have – these appeals to consensus and authority, as you likely don’t understand the science and all of the data is against you. So you run around screaming and pointing denier, denier like a school kid…..or you rely on the consensus crutch like Adam Sandler’s Water Boy. Or Forest Gump. Momma Says!

    I recommend remedial school for you. Here’s a start.

    Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace
    Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight. February 25, 2014
    “Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/confessions-of-a-greenpeace-droput-to-the-u-s-senate-on-climate-change/#more-103850

    An Open Letter to CNN’s Carol Costello on ‘Why are we still debating climate change?’

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/an-open-letter-to-cnns-carol-costello-on-why-are-we-still-debating-climate-change/

  173. dbstealey said:
    “So here is a challenge for you: post any measurable, testable scientific evidence that you can, showing that human emissions are the cause of global warming.”

    You must be joking db. You won’t get anything because he doesn’t know anything. In fact, I predict his response will be an appeal to authority, something along the lines “all reputable scientists agree. . . ”

    How do I know? Because if he knew anything at all about the science, he would immediately have seen the irony in his comment.

  174. I like the photograph of the activist group.
    They really love nature. Look at the beautifull scenery behind them. Aah, nature! So lovely behind that double glass keeping the A/C relief from 90deg Georgia weather inside…

  175. Let’s show the world how many deniers sceptics are around: let’s all wear a badge in crisp yellow and black letters:
    „Here comes a proud sceptic“.
    I can hear the alarmistas howl like mad already…

  176. So lovely behind that double glass keeping the A/C relief from 90deg Georgia weather inside…
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Great observation. Without power for heat, clothes and shelter, most of us would be moving to more temperate latitudes, or else die. Oops, I suppose the later is the point for some of these haters of people and all things human.

  177. The Nazi’s were ugly, hate-filled people with a bizarre, but politically saleable mix of left-wing (the “socialist” part) and right-wing (the “nationalist” part) ideology. But they were not really dangerous till they had control of the government, with its monopoly on violence. Then the great horrors began.

    The Warmists are not Nazi’s, yet their danger to us could rival or surpass the Nazi’s if their most extreme elements were to control a majority of the world’s largest governments.

    The Warmists anti-economic policies, their “humans are a virus preying on the Earth’s ecosystem” ideologies have already lead to death by starvation for many (the conversion of corn to biofuel making food scarce in the weakest parts of the world) according to some analyses. Taken to the extreme that some Warmists would take us to, much of the world’s human population would have no freedom, no food, and no hope of any life other than the Hobbesian life—-nasty, brutish, and short.

    Inflammatory arguments rarely win arguments, however, and the argument that there is a relevant comparison of Warmists to Nazis, even though true, probably should be kept among friends.

  178. Wow. Just went to the ADL site and left my comments. The only pro-GAGW comment so far is by “CB” a well known troll. All the other comments are politely but bluntly chastising the ADL for being so ignorant and hypocritical.

  179. [snip – I just don’t think this needs to be said here in quite that way, which will likely be misinterpreted. I suggest a rephrase. – Anthony]

  180. Ok Anthony, how about Spike Milligan playing one (a Traffic Warden one), and being dealt with by Peter Sellers and Ringo Starr?

  181. Aanthanur,

    You know, you got me thinking about it now. Denier? I’m not just a denier, I’m a dirty-no-good-gosh-darn denier. The sort your liberal arts college professor might have warned you about. Know why?

    I’m an engineer.

    See, it’s not that I know more about climate science (or science in general) than the climate scientists, I don’t. It’s not that my maths are better than theirs, they aren’t. It’s not that I’m smarter than those guys, or more dedicated, or more virtuous. I’m not.

    The thing is, the buck stops with me and thousands of guys just like me. We’re the poor shmoes who have to put those be-a-utiful abstract scientific findings to use in practical applications. We have to apply the theories to get actual, concrete results. And it’s our necks when we’re wrong.

    Want an elevator? Hey, no problem, we can do that. The theories say F=MA and A due to gravity is 9.8 M/s^2, and that the mechanical advantage I can get out of pulleys depends on the number of loops, and that if I compute the standard deviation of a sufficient number of observations I can predict the behavior of my system to whatever confidence is required for my application, and dozens apon dozens of others. And Behold! When I implement a design depending on the theories properly, the darn thing works! Would you look at that, the darn thing works! Still amazes me every time.

    But along comes climate science. And these scientists tell me we’re going to see .2C warming per decade for the next couple of decades, and we’d see .1C warming even if all forcings were held at year 2000 constants. And … that’s not what we see.

    Uh-oh.

    As an engineer I can’t accept that. What I call ‘science’ has as one of it’s primary characteristic that it works; it describes things or processes in reality. I can depend on it for consistent, predictable results. Further, I depend on it to tell me when I’m in dangerous waters, to let me know when it’s impossible to be sure of getting consistent predictable results. It doesn’t matter how politically expedient it might seem to some to accept a consensus statement as science, as an engineer I don’t have that luxury, because I depend on science to help me actually make things work. Because it’s my butt if things don’t work.

    Anyway, thanks for giving me the opportunity to expound on this. :)

  182. On Comparing Global Warming Denial to Holocaust Denial
    Dennis Prager, 2007

    In her last column, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . . ”

    … If questioning global warming is on “a par” with questioning the Holocaust, how bad can questioning the Holocaust really be? The same holds true with regard to Nazism and the George Soros statement. Claiming that America in the Iraq War is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany in World War II trivializes the unparalleled evil of the Nazis. …

    Much more. It is worth a read if not a bookmark.

  183. Folks,
    Just a few points:
    Ms. Rose works for a regional ADL office. Regional offices are not actively managed by the national office. The national didn’t know about this press release before it was issued. If they had they would have quashed it. Rose used the ADL’s resources to promote her own outside political interests – bad judgment at the least and she should be fired for it.
    The ADL has no position on the climate debate, nor should it – it is outside the organization’s mission. However, the ADL should long since have publically condemned the use of the term “denier” in this context. Not doing so was hypocritical and motivated purely by an instinct for self-preservation. After all, most ADL supporters are liberals and big supporters of the current administration’s climate policies. Now the ADL has no choice but to address it (in some fashion). Should be an interesting high wire act.
    I will be calling my regional office and the national tomorrow, and I will cancel my membership if they don’t do the right thing (retracting their criticism of Roy Spencer and/or condemning ALL the Holocaust language being used in this debate, and ALL of the people, including our President who continue to use it.
    I have noticed with disappointment (but not surprise) that SOME of you are using this matter to make anti-Jewish and anti-Israel remarks.
    Well, we Jews do take care of our own, and we never back down from a good fight. So, say it to my face and I’ll be happy to meet you outside and re-arrange your attitude. Otherwise, keep it to yourself.

  184. The ADL have just closed their comments thread. And there I was answering back to someone who said.

    How likely do you think it is that polar ice caps will be able to withstand levels of CO₂ as high as they are today if you understand that they have never done this before in Earth’s history?

    http://atlanta.adl.org/news/adl-condemns-spencers-nazi-analogy/#comment-1263567273

    I REPLIED

    YOU A WRONG
    “Abstract
    Thomas J. Crowley et al
    Late Ordovician glaciation under high atmospheric CO2: A coupled model analysis”.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999PA900021/abstract

    I have more peer reviewed references if you want but what about a blog post from the ultra Warmists at SkS?

    “At this time, CO2 levels were very high, around 5600 parts per million (in contrast, current CO2 levels are 389 parts per million). However, glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician,”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm

    http://atlanta.adl.org/news/adl-condemns-spencers-nazi-analogy/

  185. Hopefully someone has the wherewithal to archive the comments at the ADL website. Comments have been closed and posts have been disappeared for reasons unknown. I’m not confident of the shelf life for the remainder.

  186. Oh bummer, they deleted my comments, both highly rated (largely by virtue of being early comments).

    It looks like they’re going through the whole list deleting (slowly) as they go. Or maybe they’ve headed home for the day….

    I might have a copy in a WWW window at home.

  187. I just went over to ADL to make a comment but it appears this is no longer an option. I bet they’ve never had that many comments on a post before

  188. I called the number for the ADL here in Atlanta today and got an intelligent and courteous young man. In talking with him it became apparent that the ADL folks had no clue about the ongoing controversy about alarmist using Deniers against skeptics. He promised to follow up. We shall see.

  189. Riki says:
    February 27, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    Ms. Rose works for a regional ADL office. Regional offices are not actively managed by the national office. The national didn’t know about this press release before it was issued. If they had they would have quashed it. Rose used the ADL’s resources to promote her own outside political interests – bad judgment at the least and she should be fired for it.

    That’s pretty much what I assumed, though I noted Ms. Rose was stating the ADL position in her press release, not the “Atlanta (or southeast) chapter of the ADL”. I figured if national hadn’t heard about it, who was I to try to stop a train wreck from being a really big train wreck before they took notice.

    At least the history will live on here, WUWT never forgets.

  190. Riki

    Thank you for posting and I welcome that you will cancel your membership if the issue is not addressed. Good luck.

  191. The counter-facts and arguments are gaining traction and so the Warmists like ADL are increasingly resorting to Argumentum ad Hominem to cover up their shame and embarrassment.

  192. What I find very interesting is that the only remaining comments that are not actively condemning the release are at the bottom of a whole thread of deleted comments.

    • @MattS et. al. – What I find surprising is when I commented initially, there were about 80 comments. Now there are only 50 (mine apparently survived the cut). There are some “Comment was deleted”, but no where near enough to account for the missing 30+

  193. I just looked at the comments on the ADL site (at http://atlanta.adl.org/news/adl-condemns-spencers-nazi-analogy/), and many, if not most comments, are venomously scathing of the published ADL position of this issue.

    So kudos to them for not ‘censoring’ the blowback on this issue.

    Of course, shame on them for not being on top of this ‘Denier’ name calling earlier.

    And shame on them for not jumping in and cleaning up this mess quickly.

    I’ll be checking back every couple of days to see if they print a “mea culpa” over this apparent
    politically biased hypocrisy.

  194. hswiseman says:
    February 26, 2014 at 6:18 pm

    Well composed, sober and to the point. A splendid reply Howard.

  195. Jim Bo says:
    February 27, 2014 at 7:01 am

    Shelley Rose with the ADL’s Southeastern office in Atlanta said the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings that limit prayer in public schools, and she said the current bill would be unconstitutional under those precedents.

    ==================================================================
    Many groups that started as a noble cause have been infiltrated and subverted. It would seem the ADL has an opportunity to nip an infiltrator in the butt …er… bud.
    (Of course, unless………………)

  196. My comment that quoted climate sceptics being equated to ‘holocaust denier’s by journalists, activists and politicians has been deleted by ADL

    Why… would the ADL do that, surely they would like to confront the issue (and people) that trivialises the holocaust by using it to marginalise ‘climate sceptics’

    my deleted ADL comment, is reproduced in full here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/bizzare-anti-defamation-league-apparently-gives-a-green-light-to-defamation-of-climate-skeptics-by-comparing-them-to-holocaust-deniers/#comment-1577831

  197. I went to comment on ADL Atlanta site, but now closed to comments, so I will post mine here:

    Dear Ms. Rose, if I may start by saying I admire and agree with the mission statement and stated purpose of the ADL which I have copied below for readers who do not have the time to look it up.

    “About the Anti-Defamation League
    The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry in the U.S. and abroad through information, education, legislation, and advocacy. ADL serves as a resource for government, media, law enforcement, educators and the public.
    MISSION STATEMENT
    The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.
    ADL Charter October 1913″

    I initially took the view that your response to the unfortunate comments of University of Alabama – Huntsville Professor Roy Spencer had been ill informed, particularly with regard to the fact that Dr. Spencer’s comments were taken out of context in that they were a response to constant, over several years, unjust and unfair discrimination and ridicule against him and other climate skeptics for expressing his view and professional opinion on ‘climate change’.

    The ridicule has included being dehumanized by using terms such as ‘climate change denier’ but not only in some silly sense that he may ‘deny climate change’ but also with comments suggesting that skeptics are the same as ‘holocaust deniers’ and should face ‘Nuremberg type trials and should face the death penalty for their view’.

    I changed my opinion in that I now take the view that you were not ill informed when I re-read the first paragraph of your response,

    “wrote on his blog that those who refer to him as a climate change “denier” should be called “global warming Nazi”,

    and the fourth paragraph,

    ‘University of Alabama-Huntsville Professor Roy Spencer’s analogy of proponents of global warming to Nazis is outrageous and deeply offensive.”

    So, firstly you were aware that his blog post was in response to being termed a ‘denier’ and secondly are you saying it is okay to link skeptics to Nazis but if it is ‘proponents of global warming’ only then do you find it “outrageous and deeply offensive”?

    I am not aware that the ADL has ever condemned proponents of global warming for dehumanizing skeptics by linking them to ‘holocaust deniers’, what I have been made aware of is that you Shelley Rose are the member of a climate activist group!

    Do you not think that you should have declared your bias or conflict of interest?

    All you have done is demonstrate your intolerance toward skeptics or those who hold different opinions from yourself (termed bigotry), you have failed in your stated purpose of ‘fighting all forms of bigotry’ let alone your mission statement,
    “Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.”
    I also fail to see how Dr. Spencer’s comments were in any way anti-Semitic or defamed the Jewish people? He was pointing out that dehumanizing skeptics by linking them to ‘holocaust deniers’ and suggesting they should be put to death was a similar tactic used by Nazis.
    Also, where you state

    “Their deaths should not be used for political points or sloganeering”.

    Is that not what you are doing by commenting on Dr. Spencer without declaring your bias as a member of a climate activist group?

  198. MSM are as much to blame as the CAGW zealots, by constanly using the various denier terms & failing to clarify that sceptics do not deny CLIMATE, CLIMATE CHANGE or even a degree of AGW. dr. spencer’s article is looking like a game-changer & MSM might regret their continuing use of the various denier terms, despite being asked politely to stop doing so many, many times.

    in fact, MSM actually upped the ante – 16 instances of denial/deniers/denialism etc in this recent one…& that’s before u get to the comments!

    19 Feb: NYT: Andrew C. Revkin: A Look at the ‘Shills,’ ‘Skeptics’ and ‘Hobbyists’ Lumped Together in Climate Denialism

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/a-look-at-the-shills-skeptics-and-hobbyists-lumped-together-in-climate-denialism/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Climate%20Change&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0

  199. Walter Allensworth, the deletion of comments doesn’t obviously have a pattern other than it starts at the top. The oldest? The most popular? Perhaps someone started deleting all of them and then had second thoughts?

  200. Oh good, I still had a window from about 1100 EST. My comments were:

    ricwerme • a day ago

    Where was the ADL when skeptics started to be called “climate change deniers”? Where was the ADL when James Hansen, when he was the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Science, referred to freight trains carrying coal as “death trains”? You are criticising someone who has been unfairly hounded and denigrated for much of his professional career merely because he works with data that shows climate change is less significant and less due to CO2 than those in power think. Next time, please do a little research before you react.

    Feel free to come to the climate change debate and help get it back to healthy discourse instead of name calling it has fallen to today.
    65

    ricwerme • 21 hours ago

    BTW, while we’re on Nazi links, you might want to thank the WUWT blog for exposing how the Skeptical Science blog’s principals photoshopped themselves on images of Nazi leaders. I don’t know if the public shaming has changed any attitudes, but at least it will make them more careful in the future. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/201
    53

  201. Jim –

    funny MSM claims the Merkel moustache pic is a “unique” picture. note the differences – there are at least two “inadvertent” shots:

    Merkel Moustache #1
    Later, when Sellem was sorting the photos on his computer, he noticed the image of Merkel, thought it was a unique picture, and included it in his email of photographs that go to the editors of the Post and its sister publication in Hebrew, The Post.
    One of their online editors immediately saw the unique photo of Merkel and placed it on the Post’s website.

    http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotlight/EXCLUSIVE-A-photo-is-worth-1000-tweets-343557

    Merkel Moustache #2

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/germanys-angela-merkel-gets-hitler-moustache-from-benjamin-netanyahu-in-unfortunate-photo/story-fnjwnhzf-1226837795741

  202. Deleted a great many comments, including mine which were polite and factual, one being upvoted so manty times that it appeared near the top when sorted by ‘best’.

    Comments now closed, dissention being deleted. I shall be draughting my own civil, but strongly-worded letter to the head of this organisation to demand answers as to why this debacle has happened and why there has been no apology given the strong consensus ( I might guess 97% if i were so witty ) of opinion that it was a very poor move indeed. Shame on them.

  203. Oh carp. Spelling mistakes noted. Oh wordpress my kingdom for an edit option in the first few minutes of posting. I blame the Chardonnay

  204. I just sent the following to the ADL

    I find the following item by Shelley Rose of the Atlanta ADL repugnant and insulting.

    see: http://atlanta.adl.org/news/adl-condemns-spencers-nazi-analogy/

    Dr. Spencer and millions of CAGW Skeptics, including myself, have been verbally attacked and likened to “Holocaust Deniers” for years by the panderers of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Where was the ADL when this was happening?

    Then when one highly reputed scientist pushed back, the ADL was quick to selectively pounce.

    This is the ultimate in hypocrisy by the ADL. With this action the ADL is contributing to the continued defamation of millions of people.

    This is terrible press for you.

    A retraction of this piece, and apology to CAGW skeptics everywhere for not stepping up on their behalf would go a long way toward repairing the damage to the ADL that Shelley Rose has done.

    Sincerely,
    -Walter Allensworth

  205. John Farnham (@opit) says:
    February 26, 2014 at 8:59 pm

    Paul Westhaver “Agenda is the defense of Jews.” Really ?
    ————————————————————————-
    Yup. And they should be freely allow to say whatever they want in support of their views.
    The other side to the coin is that I demand freedom, unreservedly.

    Members of my family fought in WWII, in Britain, France, Belgium and Holland, liberated prisoners in camps. All were my uncles. They told me with their own mouths what they saw, where they went, what they did. I have a pretty good record of what happened.

  206. @Aanthanur DC says:
    February 27, 2014 at 9:30 am

    There are indeed different connotations that can be given to the word denier.
    When I refer to myself as a CAGW Denier, I mean it in the same sense as Richard Lindzen discusses at the end of this video

    http://www.viddler.com/v/79d667f3

    He notes that terminological confusion starts with the word sceptic. He says whenever he is asked if he is a sceptic, he replies to the extent possible he is a Denier.
    Allowing oneself to be called a sceptic implies that there was some valid apriori case for alarm about which one has doubts. There wasn’t even a valid apriori case for alarm!
    The CAGW alarmism agenda was a Big Lie from the start IMO.
    And the alarmists tactics are those of the Big Liars.
    They have amped up the rhetoric/propaganda steadily since the agenda went public in about 1988-1990.
    I’m glad that people are starting to awaken to their tactics, and are calling them out on their demonization of realists as akin to Holocaust Deniers

    All the Best
    brent

    I’ve watched this propaganda backwagon steamroll for a long time

  207. I have to wonder if the main organization is endorsing this press release, or if this is some regional director who went rogue.

    No point in wondering. Time to go over Shelley Rose’s head. If she is repurposing the hard earned reputation of the ADL to score points for her extracurricular interests, her superiors will want to know.

  208. Seems my comment was deleted from the original site also.

    Something doesn’t make sense here.

    All I did was direct them to to the rebutal of their article from the root source of such and suggested they reconsider their position based upon history.

    Yep, seems that the analytics are drawing in the web profiles (as determined by others) in total through the decision tree.

    Watch out for that drone strike!

    More than meets the keyboard goin on folks……..

  209. Jimbo says:
    February 27, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    “The ADL have just closed their comments thread. And there I was answering back to someone who said.

    How likely do you think it is that polar ice caps will be able to withstand levels of CO₂ as high as they are today if you understand that they have never done this before in Earth’s history?


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Is this your first encounter with “CB” … that well-known internetz climate expert? He’s been posing that same question for years, now. The guy’s nuts.

    I was attempting to challenge him, too, in my own amateurish way … again. (We’ve tangled before.) They deleted five of my comments … left a couple of them up, last I checked, for no apparent reason. They also deleted most of “CBs” comments, too. I agree with whoever postulated that somebody started to delete all the comments, then quit for some reason.

    I’m going to check out your links to see if they help me the next time I encounter him. I wasn’t sure there was any answer … I thought the question was illogical.

    One example from CB: He once tried to explain why the ice was not melting in Antarctica. He said it’s because Antarctica is at the bottom of the world and faces away from the sun!

    Did I mention … he’s nuts?

    A few hours ago, I received notification that “CB” is now following me on Disqus. I have no idea what that means or if I can make him ‘unfollow.’ I hope he’s not stalking me … he is decidedly unstable.

    His comment was off-topic, anyway, since the discussion was not about the validity of the CO2 CAGW theory. The discussion was about the name-calling involved in the debate.

    • @teapartygeezer – We have both tangled with the automaton in the past. Usually after inundating him with links to studies showing he is wrong, he merely slinks away.

      Automatons are designed to spew the filth, not defend the stupidity of their statements.

    • @TeaPartyGeezer – #2 – Following means you have a troll (I have several). He will follow you around trying to trip you up to assuage the fact that you annihilated him on the Antarctic stupidity. Unfortunately, there is no way to force him to “unfollow” you. Eventually, when they get tired, they stop trolling you.

      Just think of it as a badge of honor. Who would want to “follow” him?

  210. As of this hour, 2/28/14 00:00 EST,
    They have deleted at least the first 31 comments.
    Currently there are 35 first level comments remaining with about 7 replies.
    That accounts for 73 comments and I know at one time in the early afternoon there were over 90.

    I copied the first 31, and some may be partial saves with a “see more”.
    I have copied everything that remains.
    The posters I have (some more than once) (listing only the top level posts, not replies)
    ricwerme (2), Ben D, Lubos Motl, Michael Goad, goldminor, tomdesabla1, Jack Brown, Mogumbo Gono, Jim Clarke, OssQss, NikFromNYC, Dave Burton, Shrub (2), chadke, EWorrall, Max Hugoson, MangoChutney (3), Russell Cook, Craig, TinyCO2, Phillip2, BarryWoods(2), Jon Jermey, CFI (2), Joe Horner, John B, Steven Hoffer, Justin Boston, See – owe to Rich, Carbonicus, HeaterGuy, Ben Vincent, AGW_Skeptic, Mister Lackey, Denier, BigFurHat, 17 Year Pause, Sorrow, PhilJourdan, MNHawk, realheadline,
    [that is the end of my first copy, and most were civil and well written and deleted.]
    [start of second copy, some are dups of 1st, but order is changed.]
    Bruce, BarryWoods, See – owe to Rich, CFI, MNHawk, Heater Guy, Carbonicus, Mister Lackey, Sorrow, AGW_Skeptic, Denier, Ben Vincent, 17 Year Pause, BigFurHat, aaron, Simon Fraser, PhilJourdan, Ferdinand Engelbeen, edzuiderwijk, realheadline, HeaterGuy, DaBilk, jwalsh, Shrub, jwalsh, Hlaford, Magrathea78, Peppykiwi, Tom, Ron Turner, TR M, earwig42, Gail Combs, Simon_in_London, amstocks82

  211. [snip – I don’t have to be insulted by your choice of words, and I choose not to publish your comment as is. Your are welcome to resubmit it, provided you lose the insulting words, and provide something of substance other than insults and “because” – Feel free to be as upset as you wish – Anthony]

  212. 27 Feb: Wall St. Journal: Pete Du Pont: Global Warming Heats Up

    The public could use an honest debate.

    Global warming is back. Not actual global warming, as the decade-long trend of little to no increase in temperatures continues. But the topic of global warming is back in the news. From Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent climate comments in Jakarta to the White House’s 2014 “year of action” plan on carbon emissions, global warming has garnered more ink and pixels than we’ve seen in a while.

    It’s an open question whether this renewed emphasis reflects sincere concern about global warming or is just the Obama administration playing to part of its base prior to the midterm elections. Either way, the White House and the eco-left must be disappointed by polls that continue to show Americans do not share their sense of urgency. Even though many believe some warming exists and is at least partly anthropogenic, the vast majority consider it a low priority…

    The warming alarmists might earn more support if they acted less like they had something to hide and actually allowed open debate. Perhaps they could respond to their critics rationally instead of reflexively branding them heretics, suitable for whatever is the modern university and research center equivalent of burning at the stake. Real science does not fear those who challenge it, does not work to have challengers’ articles banned from science journals, and does not compare skeptics to Holocaust deniers or, as Mr. Kerry did in Jakarta, members of the “Flat Earth Society.” …

    A movement with confidence in its scientific theories would be able to admit there are many climate factors beyond carbon dioxide that are not yet well understood, and that some climate models have been shown to be unreliable. Such a movement would not downplay or whitewash leaked emails evincing the possibility of massaged data. When it criticizes its skeptics as hired guns of the fossil-fuel industry who are influenced by money, it would be willing to acknowledge that it thrives on government and private funding that would shrink if its research did not continue to say warming is here and getting worse. And there would be more confessions such as Al Gore’s belated acknowledgment that his support for ethanol was misguided…

    All that might not be easy, but what comes next would be downright difficult. The alarmists must admit that every policy decision involves an equation and that polices directed at reducing carbon emissions come with costs. Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, just issued a study that points to European Union climate polices (renewable energy subsidies and mandates, as well as a carbon cap-and-trade scheme) as a significant reason the 27 EU nations pay on average more than twice what we pay in the U.S. per residential kilowatt-hour of electricity, with Germany paying three times as much. Following such policies in the U.S. would shrink our economy as it would cost more not just to run our homes, but to power our offices and factories and operate our schools and hospitals. It’s fine if the alarmists feel these higher costs and the impact on jobs and our economy are worth bearing, but they need to admit these negative impacts and justify them to the public…

    Finally, the alarmists must admit that it is not certain their policies would significantly reduce the rising temperatures they predict. They need to admit that, for some of them, their policy prescriptions are really about control of our economy. Many want government control of the energy sector because they ideologically prefer it to free markets. Some want to stifle economic growth in America in a foolish and counterproductive attempt at achieving global economic equality…

    The alarmists need to acknowledge their policies would sentence more of our world’s poor to poverty, disease and premature death.
    To be sure, the science is not settled. The alarmists may be correct about projected warming. They may be correct that the costs of their proposed policies would be worth it if those policies avoid some of the negative impacts of that projected warming. If they truly feel they are right, they have an even greater responsibility to drop their insular and defensive attitude and debate these issues openly.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304709904579408950141040072?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304709904579408950141040072.html

  213. very telling Anthony, very telling. take a look at the choice of words from you followers here….

    as i said, hypocricity.

    you people accuse 1000’s of scientists of doing lousy research, spreading propaganda and lies.
    but oh noo i keep calling you people deniers…. so no publishing of my comment.
    how about contrarian? is that acceptable to you?
    as i said, i will not use sceptics. because that is not what you are.

    so my dear not accepters of AGW. the evidence has been provided. the vast majority of experts , all major scientific institutions and all top universities around the globe are convinced by the evidence.

    but just like creationists do not accept the fossil record nor the DNA sequencing as evidence. so you do not accept the evidence. so what use is it to post the evidence again as i was challenged to do? its like posting the analysis of the human chromosm 2 , the fused chromosom that proves without a doubt that we are related to modern apes.
    it will not make a difference. i know already that you do not accept the evidence.

    and yes i appeal to authority , the authority of experts, wich is very valid. you on the other hand here have apealed to false authority, like Moore. that is a falacy.

    • @Aanthanur DC – You will not use “skeptic” because to do so would destroy your juvenile rant and force you to admit that insult is all you have. You set up strawmen, with no sourcing or basis in reality, and then proceed to destroy them (perceptionally since you offered no support). But you do not address a single person or statement here to back up your childish insults.

      I must agree with the consensus. You are nothing more than a troll.

  214. “I don’t think they understand how rabid the environmentalists are. They DO want to incarcerate and kill us.”

    and somehow that post is not offending? Anthony? did you just miss it or is your bias blinding you so much?

  215. I see they deleted mine also. Here it is though, alive and well…
    “”Your byline is stated as ” Imagine a World Without Hate”. Yet you do not seem to recognize what has been happening in dialogues taking place at different media site blogs around the globe in discussions that are related to climate change. There has been an escalating scale of attack against anyone who voices an opinion that goes against the catastrophic global warming agenda. Recently the level of attack has escalated to some calling for imprisonment or worse for those who disagree with their belief system of CAGW. Does the ADL stand with those people and what they would like to see done to those who disagree with their beliefs? There is no question in my mind that the hard core inner group of acolytes, who spend their days spewing hate speech continually at sceptics, have the impetus in their heart to inflict harm on the perceived enemy, which are those who are sceptical of their beliefs regarding causes of changes in the climate. Actually the term ‘Climate Change Gestapo’ would be more fitting for those types, as they are the hard core adherents to this belief system. Many of them do not have the ability to understand the science under discussion as it is. However they have chosen sides, and absent the ability to debate they resort to hateful or denigrating comments against sceptics. It is in this light that I see no problem with Dr Spencer’s article and the views that he has expressed. I am thus surprised to hear of your reaction to this issue.

    My great grandfather had the foresight to leave Poland with his family prior to the rise of Hitler. He tried to talk his cousins and relatives to join him, but they did not believe his words. There were only several survivors from those who did not heed his words that survived that which came to pass.””

  216. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 1:05 am

    “I don’t think they understand how rabid the environmentalists are. They DO want to incarcerate and kill us.”

    and somehow that post is not offending? Anthony? did you just miss it or is your bias blinding you so much?
    ————————————————————————————-
    It is the truth. Do you find the truth offensive?

  217. Aanthanur DC says:
    Various posts

    ========================
    Why should I, or anyone else, take any notice of anything you have to say? You are, in the true sense of the word, illiterate. You cannot spell, do not understand the rules of grammar and cannot parse a sentence. You do not even understand the proper function of capital letters.

    Btw, I’m not talking about typos here. Typos can happen to anyone; I don’t doubt that someone, somewhere will find plenty in my occasional posts. You, on the other hand, massacre the language on an industrial scale so I have no doubt that you do exactly the same with your “science”.

  218. Mr Green Genes

    why should anyone take notice of what you say? oh right, most don’t :)

    and yes my english is lousy… enlish is not one of the languages used in my country.

  219. “I have no doubt that you do exactly the same with your “science””

    that would imply the 1000’s of scientists around the world do that also. and somehow theonly real science on climatology can be found here?

    as i take the position the vast majority of scientists working in the relevant fields take, this is a rather strange accusation.
    you seem to imply that all those universities and scientific institutions around the world are massacring science.

    sounds like a huge conspiracy. or are they all just incompetent and ignorant?

  220. Aanthanur DC says:

    hypocricity… i keep calling you people deniers… enlish… And so on. One or two mistakes is understandable, but Aanthanur’s comments are filled with similar errors. It’s hard to take him seriously. No wonder his mind has been colonized by the alarmist propaganda machine; he can’t think for himself. Instead, he just parrots what he’s been told. Aanthanur sounds like a moron, or a third-grader. Maybe both. If not, why doesn’t he use spell check, and grammar check?

    I note that Aanthanur will never debate facts. He relies on assertion. His comments are based on simple-minded emotion — which is comfortable, but it is certainly not science.

    Aanthanur responds to this comment: “I don’t think they understand how rabid the environmentalists are. They DO want to incarcerate and kill us.”

    With this nonsense:

    and somehow that post is not offending?

    Grow up, Aanthanur, and quit being a crybaby. Look at the WUWT archives, and you will see that many in the alarmist crowd do in fact advocate murdering scientific skeptics, for nothing more than having a different point of view. Watch the 10-10 videos and others, you will see.

    Aanthanur says: the evidence has been provided. the vast majority of experts , all major scientific institutions and all top universities around the globe are convinced by the evidence.

    But Aanthanur never posts any evidence. How can skeptics debate baseless assertions?

    Aanthanur is simply a hater. He needs to quit wasting skeptics’ time with his always-wrong assertions. Aanthanur is using this forum to express his juvenile hatred of people he cannot understand. If it were not for his hate, what would Aanthanur have?

  221. To bring people like that withering rose down to normal I do propose a
    Climate Sceptics Day
    or call it CSD (pun intended) to be held on February 12th each year. On that day in 1979 the first World Climate Conference assembled in Switzerland. And that might well be considered the starting point.
    It shall remind the sheeple all over the world that
    scepticism is more scientific than consensus.

  222. teapartygeezer says:
    February 27, 2014 at 9:24 pm
    …..Is this your first encounter with “CB” … that well-known internetz climate expert? He’s been posing that same question for years, now. The guy’s nuts. …..

    I’m going to check out your links to see if they help me the next time I encounter him. I wasn’t sure there was any answer … I thought the question….

    Here is a useful list to show CB next time he tells you

    How likely do you think it is that polar ice caps will be able to withstand levels of CO₂ as high as they are today if you understand that they have never done this before in Earth’s history?

    ______
    Abstract
    Thomas J. Crowley et al
    Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very high (14X) CO2 levels
    The most dramatic exception to this correlation involves the Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation, which occurred at a time when CO2 levels may have been much greater than present (14–16X?)….
    DOI: 10.1029/94JD02521

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/94JD02521/abstract

    —————–

    Abstract
    Pascale F. Poussart et al
    Late Ordovician glaciation under high atmospheric CO2: A coupled model analysis
    The analysis of the geologic record has revealed a question concerning how the Late Ordovician glaciation could have occurred simultaneously with high CO2 levels (10–18x)….
    DOI:10.1029/1999PA900021

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999PA900021/abstract

    —————–

    Abstract
    Thomas J. Crowley
    Toward reconciliation of Late Ordovician (∼440 Ma) glaciation with very high CO2 levels
    Although Phanerozoic glaciations usually coincided with times of estimated low atmospheric CO2, the Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation is a significant exception. CO2 levels during that time may have been as much as 10 times greater than present….
    DOI: 10.1029/91JD02449
    onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/91JD02449/abstract
    —————–

    Abstract
    Hubertus Fischer et al
    Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
    High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations;…
    Science 12 March 1999: Vol. 283 no. 5408 pp. 1712-1714
    DOI: 10.1126/science.283.5408.1712

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1712.short

  223. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 1:05 am

    “I don’t think they understand how rabid the environmentalists are. They DO want to incarcerate and kill us.”

    and somehow that post is not offending? Anthony? did you just miss it or is your bias blinding you so much?

    Take your blinkers off!

    Prof Richard Parncutt
    [Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz]
    If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.http://www.webcitation.org/6D8yy8NUJ

    More executions for sceptics

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/06/03/execute-skeptics-shock-call-to-action-at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers-shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now/

  224. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 12:31 am
    …..and yes i appeal to authority , the authority of experts, wich is very valid. you on the other hand here have apealed to false authority, like Moore. that is a falacy.

    Do you know about how science works. Authority does not mean a thing. One of the oldest scientific institutions has a motto.

    The Royal Society’s motto ‘Nullius in verba’ roughly translates as ‘take nobody’s word for it’. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

    That experiment is happening now in our atmosphere with our ever rising co2. Global surface temperature has grounded to a halt. Observers of this or any other experiment would now be scratching their heads and waiting to see if this continues. The longer it continues the more likely we will have to throw away our original hypothesis.

    PS Please look at the temperature projections of the IPCC from their first report to the last. You will notice that after each report the projections to 2100 go down. That is a troubling sign for the IPCC authority is it not?

  225. Aanthanur DC, what are you trying to achieve? Make sceptics more determined to be sceptical? You come to sceptic central and throw insults. You ignore the site host. You try to tell others what to do in a language you are not familiar with, which indicates you are at the least naïve and at the worst, as dumb as your writing comes across. Why would anyone listen to you?

    And no, your side has not won a single thing until CO2 starts to level off. So it seems you can’t distinguish between wishes and real world evidence either. Another reason to ignore you.

  226. teapartygeezer says:
    February 27, 2014 at 9:24 pm
    “Did I mention … he’s nuts?

    A few hours ago, I received notification that “CB” is now following me on Disqus. I have no idea what that means or if I can make him ‘unfollow.’ I hope he’s not stalking me … he is decidedly unstable.”

    Disqus is the service provider enabling comment discussion on many sites. If you click on their “privacy policy” there should be a link to alter your privacy settings, or hopefully to unsubscribe?

    Good luck
    Richard (Hot under the collar)

  227. As I said, the evidence has been presented. you do not accept it. so there is no use in posting it. you know what the scientific community and pretty much the rest of the world accepts as supporting evidence, you do not accept that. so what use is it to post it?
    its like posting the evidence for evolution to creationists. it has not convinced them in the past nor will it when you post it again and again.

    and I do not hold the position I hold merely because the experts say it is as they say. no because I looked at the evidence they presented and I got convinced by it. my argument is rather that when people say I know nothing about science , they claim basicly the same about the vast majority of experts on climatology.

    and no I don’t think the climate projections bring the science in any trouble.
    because even thous the SAT has flattened and not risen as was expected. the world as a whole has still kept warming up, wich can be seen clearly in the OHC for example. or in the ice mass loss that was measured. those are also parts of the planet.

    and yes , the experiment is happening right now, and the evidence so far shows, AGW was indeed correct. increased CO2 from human activity does indeed warm up the planet do to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

    but only looking at the SAT and ignoring the rest is intellectually dishonest and very unsceptical.

    and there might be people that want to kill the AGW not accepters. I have never and will never advocate anything of the sort. nor is that the stated goal of any environmental group I know of. sure one can then claim yeah not stated, its their secret agenda, but that is conspiracy theory land.. and I doubt people with sceptical thinking skills would go there :) or would you?

  228. “You come to sceptic central ”

    nope. this is not a sceptics central. at max an AGW “sceptics” central.
    you maybe should go visit one of the many real sceptics forums on the net. they often also have a section dealing with AGW. and there you can see how real sceptics deal with this topic.

    its completely different from here. you seem to have mistaken [snip] with scepticism.

  229. “. Aanthanur sounds like a moron, or a third-grader. Maybe both. ”

    and this post does not “clearly violates this site’s Policy ” ?

    no im not crying , just pointing out hypocricy.

  230. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 2:09 am

    Mr Green Genes

    why should anyone take notice of what you say? oh right, most don’t :)
    ===================
    The difference between us is that I don’t post on here so that people can take any notice of what I say. I do it for amusement, interest and also to ask questions of some of the many experts in various fields who regularly appear. Therefore I don’t really care if most people don’t take any notice of me.

    Oh, and btw, almost every language on earth starts sentences with capital letters and uses punctuation so my point about your illiteracy stands.

  231. Aanthanur DC
    “As I said, the evidence has been presented. you do not accept it. so there is no use in posting it.”

    I put it to you that the reason you refuse to post it has nothing to do with the fact that it has been presented already, but rather that you don’t know what it is and/or don’t understand it. That is why you cannot enter into debate and argument, because you are an ignoramus.

    However, here are a few things to get you started:
    1) Global temperatures have been higher in the past without catastrophic consequences.
    2) CO2 levels in the past have been above 1000, 2000 and even 4000 ppm without catastrophic consequences.
    3) Global temperatures have in the past declined while CO2 levels have increased
    4) Both the holocene optimum and medieval warm periods were warmer than today.
    5) Climate models were unable to account for the current stasis in global warming.
    6) Cloud and water vapour feedbacks have a low level of scientific understanding (IPPC).
    7) Without understanding cloud and water vapour feedbacks it is a false assertion to claim high and dangerous levels of future warming.

    Go ahead and prove me wrong by debating some of these points..

  232. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 4:26 am

    and no I don’t think the climate projections bring the science in any trouble.
    because even thous the SAT has flattened and not risen as was expected. the world as a whole has still kept warming up, wich can be seen clearly in the OHC for example. or in the ice mass loss that was measured. those are also parts of the planet.

    and yes , the experiment is happening right now, and the evidence so far shows, AGW was indeed correct. increased CO2 from human activity does indeed warm up the planet do to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

    but only looking at the SAT and ignoring the rest is intellectually dishonest and very unsceptical.

    Please explain the “enhanced greenhouse effect.” and how it continues to warm the planet? Please tell me which is the most important greenhouse gas in our atmosphere?

  233. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 4:30 am

    “You come to sceptic central ”

    nope. this is not a sceptics central. at max an AGW “sceptics” central.
    you maybe should go visit one of the many real sceptics forums on the net. they often also have a section dealing with AGW. and there you can see how real sceptics deal with this topic….

    Why has the IPCC’s projections been constantly lowered in its 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th reports? Could it be that it’s just not going to get as warm as they thought in 2100? Have you ever thought that you might be wrong? What if you are wrong, will you come back here to apologize? Right now you cannot tell sceptics they are wrong because we don’t know where global temperatures will be in 2050. You talk of ignoring global surface temperatures. Before the prolonged temperature hiatus they kept pointing to the surface temperatures and made projections. Why now go deep sea diving? That is the intellectual dishonesty you should also be looking at.

  234. The first fourteen of the comments on the ADL site, all of which which the ADL deleted, are captured along with their press release in this archive:

    http://archive.is/3DLfj

    This is the current version:

    http://archive.is/6lfyX

    I regret not archiving anything in-between.

    BTW, those are archive.is archive links. The new archive.is site has some very nice features. One is that, unlike WebCite and archive.org, both of which I also like a lot, archive.is manages to capture Disqus comments along with the page.

    Also, archive.is adds some clever javascript to the archived page, so that if you select some text on the archived page, the URL in your browser address bar instantly changes into a URL which links directly to the selected text, like this:
    http://archive.is/6lfyX#selection-5239.0-5311.33

    It’s kind of like CiteBite or the defunct AwesomeHighlighter, except that you can link to any part of the page you wish!

    If you want, by tweaking the URL to make the start and end of the selected range identical, you can link to any point on the page without selecting anything, like this:
    http://archive.is/6lfyX#selection-5239.0-5239.0

    Is that cool, or what?!?

    BTW, that URL links to Barry Woods’ comment, in which he re-posted some of my deleted material about the “Seinfeld Soup Nazi” Internet meme, after the ADL deleted it but before they closed comments. Thank you, Barry!

  235. ~sigh~
    Insane, I know, but there are days I honestly miss Jan Perlwitz around here. At least he put up a good fight.

  236. Spencer’s approach on the issue, his reference to the holocaust and the National Socialist party of early 20th century Germany, has pro and con points.

    But I like the approach of Lindzen much better wrt ‘denier’ usage in climate discourse. I interpret his thinking to mean we should deny the validity of the unscientific exaggeration of the IPCC centric biased view. We should be proud to be called deniers in that context.

    I am a proud denier by that interpretation. : )

    John

  237. Aaranthur ( I have my own idea as to what “DC” stands for), has set about to prove Ant’ny’s post correct. He has done so with fine form. Congratulations is in order. WTG Aaranthur!!

  238. Hi Guys,
    Just got off the phone with some young kid in the ADL national office (212-885-7700). He was quite rude. He wanted to know how much I give to the ADL, and I had to give him a lecture on how inappropriate that question was. He did not take down my information. Now I need to try and get a supervisor on the line.
    Conversely, the young woman who answered Shelley Rose’s line was very polite. However, it’s clear that the folks at ADL feel they have already had way too much response on this.
    I do recommend calling the national and Shelley Rose’s office if you have the time, just to get your complaint logged in. They keep statistics on the responses they get.
    Still may have to cancel my membership. I hope Abe Foxman has a migraine by now.

  239. Hot under the collar says:
    February 28, 2014 at 4:20 am
    ——————————————–
    I like Disqus. Especially for the way that they allow you to see each and every comment made, which the is placed in your personal library. I wish that WordPress had a similar function. As for the following concept, I have stalkers who have been following me for the last several years. A good example just happened 2 days ago. I was at CNS reading a post. I had also opened 3 other posts to read. This is from using Disqus that they are able to do this. I can even sense this as in the case of miss McDaniels from 2 days ago. I went to my Disqus dashboard and saw her name and that she had just left 3 comments in reply to me. I knew right away that I was going to see the ” I earned x dollars comment’. When I looked there was a fresh comment by some woman, avatar showing a big breasted beauty, who said ” I earned x amount by………’. I flagged her comment. Then I went on to the next page. Once again there she was with the same advert, which I also flagged. The 3rd page she left an actual comment related to the post. This has been happening for some time now. It is their way of letting me know that they are listening and following me. All 3 of her comments came in at the same time after I had opened the pages, but before I started reading. Then when I clicked on a new post she was no longer there. I also see that after I leave a comment at different websites, a person will come along shortly after and leave an advert underneath my comment. That is life in the climate change circle. This all started when I angered the warmists at newsvine with my devastating ‘how can co2 be the main driver of the warming when for the last x years temps have gone sideways, despite the huge increase of global output for co2?’. This was in 2010, if I remember right. In the last year or so, the msnbc fanatics started alluding to me as Darth Vader and gone over to the dark side, plus similar remarks related to my being evil and so on. Recently, I permanently gave up going to msnbc. It isn’t worth the bother, and I have more important things to do with my time. Now I am making good use of my time by reading here and a few other spots to spark my mind, and make full use of the gift that I was given.

  240. philjourdan says:
    February 28, 2014 at 8:53 am

    . . .

    I must agree with the consensus. You are nothing more than a troll.

    – – – – – – – –

    philjourdan,

    I am not of your consensus. I think namecalling by saying someone is a troll is counterproductive to valuable discourse.

    I offer instead to describe the nature of commenters like ‘Aanthanur DC’. I often describe them in terms such as auto-aggressive anonymous authoritarians (AAAAs).

    It gets to the point of their actions. Using the word ‘troll’ is meaningless in most cases.

    John

    • @john Whitman – I agree Troll is over used. However, when someone comes in and starts throwing around inflammatory rhetoric for the sole purpose of disrupting the discussion at hand because they cannot refute the facts presented, THAT is a troll. And Art is a troll. he not only threw the pejoratives around, but he also denied every fact (sourced) presented to him. He added nothing.

  241. Aanthanur DC says:

    As I said, the evidence has been presented. you do not accept it. so there is no use in posting it.

    The fact is, you have never posted any scientific evidence. None whatsoever.

    But that doesn’t mean you can’t start now. So go ahead, post any and all scientific evidence you can find that you believe supports anything you say.

    Just keep in mind that scientific ‘evidence’ is not computer model output, nor does scientific evidence consist of peer reviewed papers. Evidence is raw data, and empirical observations.

    So go ahead, post whatever evidence you can. Anything else is just propaganda, or your personal religious belief.

  242. philjourdan says:
    February 28, 2014 at 10:42 am

    @john Whitman – I agree Troll is over used. However, when someone comes in and starts throwing around inflammatory rhetoric for the sole purpose of disrupting the discussion at hand because they cannot refute the facts presented, THAT is a troll. And Art is a troll. he not only threw the pejoratives around, but he also denied every fact (sourced) presented to him. He added nothing.

    – – – – – – – –

    philjourdan,

    I agree with your description of him/her, but not the troll namecalling.

    You have implied in your description of him/her the following. He/she is automatically over aggressive in actively and dogmatically pushing a settled science line. He/she maintains the existence of some authority which he/she withholds specifying because it is a consensus which needs no debate, so is authoritarian. He/she is anonymous. THEREFORE: AAAA (auto-aggressive anonymous authoritarian). : )

    Take care.

    John

  243. I have been in contact with the National ADL office about this matter. Frankly, whoever I talked to blew me off.

  244. This is not going away, Anthony should open a new thread on this.

    Have you guys seen no tricks zone on this.

  245. @ Vince Causey
    1) Global temperatures have been higher in the past without catastrophic consequences.

    oh when were they higher? how large was the human population back then? how did the regions look where food was grown for some 7 billion people? how did the coastal metropoles handle it?

    2) CO2 levels in the past have been above 1000, 2000 and even 4000 ppm without catastrophic consequences.

    again, how did the human population adapt to this ? how many humans were around then?

    and how do you define catastrophic concequences?

    3) Global temperatures have in the past declined while CO2 levels have increased

    so? temperatures fell in the past while solar activity rose. what is your point?

    4) Both the holocene optimum and medieval warm periods were warmer than today.
    can you show me any global or hemispherical reconstruction that would show the MWP as warmer than today?

    and so what? again, what is your point? the usual argument it was warmer without us so we cant be the ause?
    that is faulty logic. there were forest fires in the pas when no huan was around yet, that does in no way mean humans cannot cause forest fires.

    5) Climate models were unable to account for the current stasis in global warming.

    there is no stasis in global warming , we see the SAT rise slower than expected. but global warming is not in stasis, sadly. take a look at the OHC. the oceans are the place were most of the AGW excess heat goes to.

    6) Cloud and water vapour feedbacks have a low level of scientific understanding (IPPC).
    7) Without understanding cloud and water vapour feedbacks it is a false assertion to claim high and dangerous levels of future warming.

    low level of scientific understanding is not the same as , “Without understanding cloud and water vapour feedbacks”

    we still don’t know how smoking exactly causes cancer. yet we know enough about it to warn people from the deanger of smoking.

    same with climatology, sure we do not fully understand the clymate system yet. but we understand it well enough to take action based on this knowledge. the risk of not mitigating AGw is too big.

  246. dbstealey

    i never claimed that i have presented the evidence here. the evidence has been presented in the scientific literature, in the IPCC reports for example. i am aware that you do not accept that evidence, that is why i see no use in posting it here. i assume you have looked at the evidence.
    or are you like many creationists that never looked at the evidence for Evolution yet still reject it ?

    i assumed readers and posters @ WUWT are well aware of the evidence. but sure if you do not know what the scientific community and the public in general accepted as supporting evidence, i can provide you some links.

    • And then he trots out the inevitable evolution crap trap. Yup! Still the troll (or the AAAA) – Evidence? What evidence. We don’t need no steenkeen evidence!

  247. philjourdan

    so those two nutters represent the enviromentalists? so can i pick any AGW non accepter that sends deathdreaths or posts on his blog that we should hang climatologists and conclude that is what the AGW non accepters want?

    weak argument.

    • @Aanthanur – Straw man. The CHALLENGE was the threats. I showed you 3 (there is a limit on links before hitting moderation). I PROVED it to you (as did DB). So suck it up. And shut up. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary. Which so far you have been long on wind, and short on evidence.

  248. Aanthanur DC,

    I’ll take issue with two of your remarks,

    we still don’t know how smoking exactly causes cancer. yet we know enough about it to warn people from the deanger of smoking.

    Indeed. We know this because of the empirical data. If the empirical data supported the mainstream scientific claims, these claims would be far more persuasive.

    You can pretend that the pause fits in with mainstream climate science. It didn’t though, as recently as AR4. AR4 WGI SPM projected a .2C rise per decade over the next couple of decades, and a .1C rise per decade even if forcings were held to year 2000 levels. Climate scientists didn’t suddenly discover after 2007 that the ocean is an important factor to consider in projecting atmospheric temps, sorry.

    the risk of not mitigating AGw is too big.

    Do you understand the cost of mitigation? Not just in dollars, in human life? There is no policy choice without risk. Given this, policy makers should at minimum do no harm. The cost of mitigation, the damage in terms of human life, will not be trivial. When electricity is scarcer or more expensive, poorer people die.

  249. Jimbo

    i would say because models got better and better, our understanding of the climate system and climate sensitivity got better.

    and sure it came to mind that i might be wrong , or the scientists might be wrong. but the chance that they are all wrong is rather unlikely. its a complex system science. knowledge from many different fields and experts flows into it.

    but sure, they could be wrong. could you be wrong?

  250. Mark Bofill

    well the data does support AGW. would be strange that the majority of experts would stick to something not supprted or even contradicted by the data.

    i have said several times that SAT did not rise as expected. in what way is that pretending ” that the pause fits in with mainstream climate science”

    would they have expected it , they would hardly reaserch wha caused the stagnation in SAT.

    i also agree that the media but also scientists have concentrated too much on SAT and did not talk much about the oceans for example. that was a huge failure in comunicating the science properly. i don’t think that is dishonesty. it was just an assumption that the SAT is a good indicator, we learned otherwise. now we know we need to look at the planet as a whole and not only at a tiny part.

    but i also said , the stagnation in SAT does not mean AGW is not happening.

    • @Aanthanur – the data supports the null hypothesis. So far, no one, not even Mann has been able to use it to support AGW. They have ALLEGED it does. However allegations are not facts.

      Science 101. Learn it.

  251. Mark Bofill

    forgot your last and important point. yes we need to be carefull in mitigation policy. we need to help those that cannot afford alternatives etc. a CO2 tax for example could become problematic for poor people. and i don’t think poor countries have to contribute to the mitigation. i can fully understand them choosing the cheapest form of energy, no matter the concequences. but actually the poor nations are not the problem. its the first world. and we can afford the mitigation, and there is no reason not to. ans lucky most countries atleast started taking action.

  252. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    @ Vince Causey
    1) Global temperatures have been higher in the past without catastrophic consequences.

    oh when were they higher?………

    Abstract
    Rapid global warming of 5° to 10°C during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) coincided with major turnover in vertebrate faunas,…..

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5750/993.short

    Aanthanur, I have asked before and I will ask again, please provide me with 3 peer reviewed papers that provide evidence that man’s greenhouse gases was responsible for the warming after the late 1970s? This is a simple request after decades of global warming research and billions in funding.

  253. aanthanur,

    that was a huge failure in comunicating the science properly. i don’t think that is dishonesty.

    Actually, that’s another interesting discussion Tasmin Edwards is conducting right now, <a href=http://blogs.plos.org/models/pause-for-thought/ here.

    I agree with many things Tasmin has to say, but I’m not sure it’s enough to say ‘failure in communicating the science clearly’ and leave it at that.

  254. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    Jimbo

    i would say because models got better and better, our understanding of the climate system and climate sensitivity got better.

    and sure it came to mind that i might be wrong , or the scientists might be wrong. but the chance that they are all wrong is rather unlikely. its a complex system science. knowledge from many different fields and experts flows into it.

    but sure, they could be wrong. could you be wrong?

    I could be wrong to be sceptical, but what’s wrong with being sceptical? It does not matter whether a sceptic is right or wrong. A sceptic does NOT have to provide any evidence, the onus is for those making the new claims of man’s greenhouse gases over natural climate variation.

    and sure it came to mind that i might be wrong , or the scientists might be wrong. but the chance that they are all wrong is rather unlikely. its a complex system science. knowledge from many different fields and experts flows into it.

    That is why you should not nail your flag to the mast. Here is a cautionary tale about consensus.

    Nobel Prize in Chemistry for dogged work on ‘impossible’ quasicrystals
    Daniel Shechtman, who has won the chemistry Nobel for discovering quasicrystals, was initially lambasted for ‘bringing disgrace’ on his research group…..

    “His discovery was extremely controversial. In the course of defending his findings, he was asked to leave his research group,” the Nobel committee at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said in a statement……

    He recalled how Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and a double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening “crusade” against him. After telling Shechtman to go back and read a crystallography textbook, the head of his research group asked him to leave for “bringing disgrace” on the team. “I felt rejected,” Shachtman said….

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/05/nobel-prize-chemistry-work-quasicrystals

    In science all that matters is ONE person who is right, not ONE THOUSAND people who are wrong.

    • @Aanthanur – I take it you have no clue what is opinion and what is data? You were asked for proof. You provided links to opinion pieces that do not necessarily support your supposition.

      major fail.

  255. DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    Jimbo
    major turnover in vertebrate faunas… ?

    Yes but I met your challenge to show a warmer Earth in the past.. ;) There were palm trees in the Arctic as well as crocodiles. Life generally loves the warmth apparently.

    Here is the full abstract followed by a few more to show that TROPICAL rainforests did not suffer but THRIVED! Oh gosh.

    “Rapid global warming of 5° to 10°C during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) coincided with major turnover in vertebrate faunas, but previous studies have found little floral change. Plant fossils discovered in Wyoming, United States, show that PETM floras were a mixture of native and migrant lineages and that plant range shifts were large and rapid (occurring within 10,000 years). Floral composition and leaf shape and size suggest that climate warmed by ∼5°C during the PETM and that precipitation was low early in the event and increased later. Floral response to warming and/or increased atmospheric CO2 during the PETM was comparable in rate and magnitude to that seen in postglacial floras and to the predicted effects of anthropogenic carbon release and climate change on future vegetation. “

    Here are some other terrible effects of the PETM. ;)

    Abstract
    Carlos Jaramillo et. al – Science – 12 November 2010
    Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation
    Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago) event. We investigated the tropical forest response to this rapid warming by evaluating the palynological record of three stratigraphic sections in eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1193833
    —————-
    Abstract
    Carlos Jaramillo & Andrés Cárdenas – Annual Reviews – May 2013
    Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
    Global Warming and Neotropical Rainforests: A Historical Perspective

    There is concern over the future of the tropical rainforest (TRF) in the face of global warming. Will TRFs collapse? The fossil record can inform us about that. Our compilation of 5,998 empirical estimates of temperature over the past 120 Ma indicates that tropics have warmed as much as 7°C during both the mid-Cretaceous and the Paleogene. We analyzed the paleobotanical record of South America during the Paleogene and found that the TRF did not expand toward temperate latitudes during global warm events, even though temperatures were appropriate for doing so, suggesting that solar insolation can be a constraint on the distribution of the tropical biome. Rather, a novel biome, adapted to temperate latitudes with warm winters, developed south of the tropical zone. The TRF did not collapse during past warmings; on the contrary, its diversity increased. The increase in temperature seems to be a major driver in promoting diversity.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105403

  256. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    Jimbo

    you seem not to know what scepticism actually is. its not simply fence sitting.

    I am sceptical of the IPCC’s surface temperature projections to the year 2100. The evidence so far is not good at all for your side.

  257. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 1:26 pm :

    Are you so obtuse as to think that all of your links has never been discussed before on WUWT?
    You need to wake up.

  258. Aanthanur,

    that was a huge failure in comunicating the science properly. i don’t think that is dishonesty.

    Since you mention this, why do you think this failure in communicating the science properly occured? I’ve got this question in the comment queue for Tasmin but it hasn’t made it out of moderation yet.

    But I’m mightily curious. I mean, my elementary school kid writes a report and it fails to communicate the essential points properly. Ok, he’s 10, he was probably thinking about legos or something while writing the report. But the IPCC? Years of work, review, drafts, etc. I might agree that they failed to communicate the science properly, but I’ve yet to hear anybody touch the question of why.

    I’d think that’d be important, to avoid repeating the problem.

  259. philjourdan

    no i merely pointed out that the AGW non accepting side seems to be allowed to hurl every insult at me as they like without moderation. yet i was warned for merely using the D word.

    and those links do actually not back up the claim that was made. just a few enviromentalists (if they even are) that say something stupid does not let one conclude everyone else that is enviromentalists wants the same. and he acused the enviromentalists in general.

    • @Aanthanur – And you are a liar. Quote:

      “I don’t think they understand how rabid the environmentalists are. They DO want to incarcerate and kill us.”

      and somehow that post is not offending?

      Of which you were told facts are not offending. They are facts, to which you denied the facts. dbstealey and I then proved the statement you quoted is indeed a fact.

      Stop lying. You are getting too desperate. You have been proven wrong. Suck it up like a man.

  260. David Ball

    LOL…. as i said already, i assumed the readers here know the evidence and do not accept it.
    i was fully aware that you know that evidence. that was why i first didnt even want to post the evidence, because i know how useless it is. but i got asked over and over again.

    so no, i am not that naive…..

    • Evidence is a strange thing Arty. 100 people have evidence against them on a murder. yet only one committed it. There is evidence that CO2 has no impact on climate. As skeptics we take the evidence and look for more, we look for proof. You quoted opinions as facts. They are not even evidence. There is no finger print of CO2 in any of those links. There are only ALLEGATIONS.

      Jimbo sucker punched you. There are many allegations, there is no proof. And you fell for it. You pulled 3 links from your favorite alarmist website without reading any of them and tried to trot them out as proof. They only proved you have no clue what you are talking about.

  261. Aaranthanur, there in lies the rub. You did not post any evidence. You may not be naïve, but you clearly have no understanding of what it is that you posted.

  262. Shh, Jimbo quit mentioning how the IPCC projected warming is getting lower. By my calculations, in 2 more ARs the IPCC will be estimating warming on par with the ‘deniers’ of the NIPCC. For that matter, the IPCC’s latest is already estimating warming in levels that would have gotten the IPCC labeled as being anti-science when 2AR came out.

  263. David Ball

    i know very well what i posted.
    1 shows the increased greenhouse effect measured from space.
    and the other show that the increase in Co2 concentrations is mainly human caused.

  264. philjourdan

    1. they do not represent the enviromentalists. so you cannot conclude what those nutters say is what all enviromentalists want.

    2. and even if correct, the D word was also used correctly. its just as factual.

    but again if the stement was true or not was not my point, i wondered if such a general accusation is alowed here. and sure it is aslong it comes from a non warmist/alarmist.

    • @Arty –

      #1 – They do. Apparently you did not check the links. That is fault #1
      #2 – No it does not. Because no one is denying science. But that is your pejorative of choice.

      The fact is you LIED. You are a liar. You accused a writer of using pejoratives. You were given MULTIPLE links (I gave you 3, dbstealey gave you several, one that linked to many such threats). Now YOU are denying those links. So who is the D word now?

      only you.

  265. philjourdan

    i actually did read them. an i do think it is evidence. but as i said, its useless to post it.

    i know that from debating creationists. the reactions are identical.
    thats not evidence ,they just claim its evidence… etc etc….
    same old same old.

    • @Aanthanur – Ah, another red herring! Creationists! Has anyone but YOU talked about creationism? Nope. Since you have not read the source, lied about reading the source, you throw a red herring out hoping to side track the issue!

      I am afraid that calling you a liar is not accurate. You are now proving yourself to be a liar and a fraud.

      Either read the links and admit you were wrong, or continue to double down on your lying and fraud. The choice is yours. But I suspect you have already made your choice. And it is a dishonest one.

      And if you can read, post some evidence. We are all still waiting.

  266. Mark Bofill

    well in the full reports it is clear enough, it is just the short versions we heard about in the media and also from scientists that put too much weight on SAT. in the media the OCeans temperature changes were very seldom mentioned if at all. but in the reports, even the first one, it was pointed out clearly that sea level rise for example is mainly do to thermal expansion, thus the oceans are warming up. and that was made even clearer in later reports. but most people do not read those monsters of reports.

  267. philjourdan

    no i have not lied at all, what the heck are you talking about?

    and no those people do not represent enviromentalists in general, heck nobody does. not greenpeace or any other organisations let alone small groups or single persons…..
    or would you tink its OK to claim the AGW non accepters do think enviromentalists are like the hitler youth because Monckton once said so?

    • @Aanthanur DC

      philjourdan

      no i have not lied at all, what the heck are you talking about?

      Art, I am tolerant of your English since you claim ESL. However, I am not tolerant of blatant and outright lying. I QUOTED your lie to you. If you are having trouble reading the quoted part (the indent, see in the comment? That is a letter by letter copy of part of one of your posts), use Google Translator.

      You are a bad liar.

  268. and i never denied the links. it would be denial if i claimed, no those people never said this. or no this video is not from enviromentalists. i did no such thing.

    what i do deny is your claim that they represent the enviromentalists in general. if that makes me a denier, so be it :) call me denire, i don’0t care, i don’t associate this with holocaust denial.

    • @Aanthanur DC – You do not associate with? You are the band leader for them! Google the credentials of the authors of each threat against skeptics.

      Then go back and read your own post! The Post said ‘environmentalists’. It did not say “every” and it did not say ‘the leaders”. it said simply “environmentalists”. If you cannot understand written English, find a translator.

      But stop lying.

  269. Riki says:
    February 28, 2014 at 9:14 am

    > Hi Guys,
    > Just got off the phone with some young kid in the ADL national office

    Thanks for trying to get the comments back on track….

    I get the sense that the Atlanta office is a bit shellshocked and that the national office hasn’t figured out what it should say publicly.

    It looks like the grunt doing the deletions finally got back to the task and deleted the remaining comments.

  270. Anthony, Moderators, Please, please BAN the thread hijacker Annthanur.

    [Reply: Good suggestion. ~mod.]

  271. The derogatory use of the term “denier” as an inference to holocaust denial is libelous slander. It is a blatant misrepresentation of what we believe in. It is about time legal action is taken on this slander. It might teach them a lesson. My dad went through the Holocaust and he is well and truly a skeptic. He shared his experiences with me since I was a little kid-well before the notion of Holocaust denial even started. You would have to think -why would someone just make these stories up when they never told traditional scary bedtime stories. Mum did not discuss too much of her harrowing experiences. Luckily, dad can write(one of those rare right-wing academics), so the full story is in print, but not in general circulation.The Holocaust certainly occurred, so any conspiracy theory that starts out plausibly then starts with the denial and calling everyone they do not like an Ashkenazi Jew I can dismiss as deliberate hate material. Obviously, I am a climate skeptic, but a Holocaust denier I am not. Looks like the ADL needs to be brought to task for defamation. How ironic that in reality, they ARE the defamation league.Roy Spencer is absolutely dead on the money with his comments.

  272. Nuts, daveburton didn’t snag an archive of my comment there about the ADL not apparently being concerned about the application of the phrase “crimes against humanity” to skeptic climate scientists…… but of course now we are seeing the far more troubling problem of the ADL getting caught in the same tactic as various AGW believers who feel a need to ‘hide a decline’ when things don’t go in the direction they want.

  273. Walter Allensworth says:
    February 27, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    So kudos to them for not ‘censoring’ the blowback on this issue.

    So much for that, Walter.

    Of course, shame on them for not being on top of this ‘Denier’ name calling earlier.

    And shame on them for not jumping in and cleaning up this mess quickly.

    I was hoping for something from Steyn. He’d have a field day with this.

  274. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Jimbo

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

    http://bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

    in combination with this

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/iso-sio/iso-sio.html

    Firstly you provide no abstract or explanation. Not cool, forcing me to have to find out your point. I could dismiss them out of hand as you fail to do either. The first link does not tell me what caused most of the warming since the late 1970s. The IPCC says that most of the warming since 1950 is extremely likely to have been caused by man.

    It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century…

    Did you notice no mention of greenhouse gases????

    Your second paper says

    Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning

    It does not tell me that man’s greenhouse gases was the dominant cause of the warming since the late 1970s.

    Your third ‘paper’ is not a paper and is not actually the third paper as I asked for 3 peer reviewed papers.

    Can you see that your position is not as certain as you once believed. This is why there is a debate, the debate is not over, the science is not settled. I suggest you keep investigating.

  275. I had hoped the ADL might do the right thing. Now they resorted to deleting comments and sticking there heads in the sand, maybe they have been taking advice from Cook & Dana at (Non) Skeptical Science. It’s a pity. Thank you again to Riki, I am in the UK but appreciate what you are doing.

    Jack

  276. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    Jimbo

    you meant this Royal Society?

    http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

    :)

    I am not new to this game Aanthanur . I am aware of the Royal Society’s ‘position’. If you use your reason you will realize that their motto and their position cannot exist within the same organisation. :) Their motto tells them to resist the position of authority and base their ideas on experimentation. For the atmosphere that would be the experiment (our relentless co2 output) compared to observations. The IPCCs 2nd report made certain projections, the current observations show they failed. That is the way it work my friend. I didn’t tell the IPCC what to project, I didn’t tell the Earth what it’s surface temperature should be today.

    Now check this out and think about it in an honest manner.

    Real Climate – December 2007

    Daniel Klein asks at #57:

    “OK, simply to clarify what I’ve heard from you.
    (1) If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding
    (2) In general, any year’s global temperature that is “on trend” should be exceeded within 5 years (when size of trend exceeds “weather noise”)
    (3) Any ten-year period or more with no increasing trend in global average temperature is reason for worry about state of understandings
    I am curious as to whether there are other simple variables that can be looked at unambiguously in terms of their behaviour over coming years that might allow for such explicit quantitative tests of understanding?”
    ————
    [Response: 1) yes, 2) probably, I’d need to do some checking, 3) No. There is no iron rule of climate that says that any ten year period must have a positive trend. The expectation of any particular time period depends on the forcings that are going on. If there is a big volcanic event, then the expectation is that there will be a cooling, if GHGs are increasing, then we expect a warming etc. The point of any comparison is to compare the modelled expectation with reality – right now, the modelled expectation is for trends in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 deg/decade and so that’s the target. In any other period it depends on what the forcings are. – gavin]

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding/

  277. Jimbo

    if you want evidence for what the IPCC says, you should read the IPCC report.
    the quantifications of the forcings make it very clear that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause.

    my links did show that the greenhouse effect got stronger since the 70’s. and the second paper actually shows where this additional CO2 is coming from.

    that you would not accept it comes as no suprise to me. i expected that, that is why i said before, there is no use in posting it. and i was right.

    and no, i dont see how what you say changes anything.

    i accept the evidence. i think it supports AGW very well. and i have seen nothing that would convince me that something else could have caused the warming. just like the majority of experts around the world.

  278. btw, in the mid 20th century, when solar activity rose to its highest levels, we had global cooling, does that mean the sun has no effect on our climate?

    if not, why do you asume this with CO2?

    i always found this a very weak argument. but pls explain.

  279. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    Jimbo

    i would say because models got better and better, our understanding of the climate system and climate sensitivity got better…..

    And as the models ‘got better and better’ the IPCC kept lowering its global surface temperature projections for 2100 report after report, getting closer and closer to the sceptics point of view. You are on a self-defeating trip my friend. Take a break in a cafe and stretch your legs.

  280. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    ” The expectation of any particular time period depends on the forcings that are going on”

    exactly. and not only forcings, also the distribution of heat within the system.

    But why did you not address his reply to the first question. because

    If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding

    It was not exceeded and Gavin said he would be worried.

    Explain your “distribution of heat within the system” please?

  281. Wow, now the ADL has deleted all the comments.

    Russell Cook (@questionAGW) wrote, “Nuts, daveburton didn’t snag an archive of my comment there about the ADL not apparently being concerned about the application of the phrase “crimes against humanity” to skeptic climate scientists…”

    No, but fortunately the Yahoo search engine had a cashed copy, which I’ve saved here:

    http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/adl-condemns-spencers-nazi-analogy.html

    It has about 64 comments, including your excellent one.

  282. Aanthanur DC, can you explain for me the main cause of the global surface temperature rise between 1910 to 1940?

    See these temperature graphs for reference.

    Also can you explain the main cause of the huge warming in the Arctic between 1920 to 1940? I will provide you with reference links after this comment.

  283. Wow, the troll is still spouting off. Encounters with things like it (the troll) do give me pause. Gratitude, as WFB espoused. So I give thanks that I was not publically educated in the cesspool that passes for education in the united states, nor will any of my children or nieces/nephews and progeny.

  284. Aanthanur, maybe I missed it but I asked you to tell me what was the most important greenhouse gas in our atmosphere? Please answer the question. Thanks.

  285. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    what is there to adress? sure, its clear that we do not fully understand the system, and especially as something happened that was not expected, the stagnation of SAT. and they are clearly worried about the understanding, and are working hard to understand what is going on.
    but non of that contradicts AGW.

    AGW is real. Man’s greenhouse gases have warmed the planet some since 1950, but there is NO EVIDENCE that man’s greenhouse gases were responsible for most of the warming since 1950 or since the late 1970s. Did you see the last IPCC statement that referred to man’s activities and not gases. In their previous reports they referred to our gases. Why the omission now?

  286. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    what do you mean with most important?

    What greenhouse gas is responsible for most of the warming in our atmosphere?

  287. Jimbo,
    It (the troll) is incapable of any rational argument much less discussing basic science.

    Let’s resolve to ignore it, the troll.

    It’s hard as it’s entertaining to crush such creatures with facts and reason but the troll in its own stupid world is beyond understanding. But you know that :)

    In these instances I miss Richard Courtney.

  288. Aanthanur DC since you have to ask me “what do you mean with most important [greenhouse gas]?” then I guess you are just getting started. May you enjoy your new journey into CAGW scepticism. ;)

    IPCC – Climate Change 2007: Working Group I
    Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. “

    Aanthanur, I may be going to another thread or to bed right now. I just hope you spend more time exploring the issues and less time defending a difficult position.

    PS As I write this I am using candle light because our electricity supply has gone out again. It has been doing this regularly in this part of the Third World. Energy is important to me so I hope you can understand my reluctance to have less of it while climate campaigners like Al Gore and maybe yourself are unaffected. It’s enough to make many people very, very angry at what is going on. I do sincerely hope you take on board by condition.

  289. Jimbo, but now i ask a question.

    you seem to think not rising SAT while CO2 is rising means CO2 has little influence on the global temperature.

    do you conclude the same when global temperatures fell while solar activity rose? do you also conclude from that, the sun has little influence on global temperature?

  290. At Jimbo and WUWT community

    Let’s shut this troll down.

    No more responses to it….

    We are censored everywhere and most warmest threads deny our participation.

    We allow the troll to speak but don’t engage with it….

    Roll, troll…..

  291. Anathanur,

    funny , i stoped using the D word, i try to answer all questions posed to me. yet i keep getting called troll ….. why because i do not agree with you on AGW?

    Don’t let it faze you. :)

    Dissent is good. I like having somebody to argue with. Sure, it’s not very productive or entertaining to have a conversation with somebody who comes in with attack mode on, as you appeared to, and who violates Anthony’s house rules, but if we’re past that then I hope you stick around.

  292. Aanthanur DC says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/bizzare-anti-defamation-league-apparently-gives-a-green-light-to-defamation-of-climate-skeptics-by-comparing-them-to-holocaust-deniers/#comment-1579391

    I am aware of all that you mention. You are obviously new here. The IPCC’s first report was in 1990. This is not a new theme.

    Abstract
    1987
    The flux of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere in 1980 due to changes in land use: geographic distribution of the global flux
    Recent analyses of land-use change in the tropical regions and in the temperate and boreal regions of the earth were combined to yield a global estimate of 1.0 – 2.6 times 1015 g C for the net release of carbon to the atmosphere in 1980 from changes in land use. Deforestation in the tropics accounted for nearly all of the flux; the net release of carbon from temperate and boreal regions was only 0.1 times 1015 g C. The average global value of 1.8 times 1015 g C in 1980 was distributed geographically among tropical countries and other regions on the basis of deforestation rates and carbon stocks.

    The net release of carbon from changes in land use worldwide is inconsistent with the results of geochemical models of the carbon cycle. The discrepancy is smaller than in previous analyses, but is large enough to exceed the errors of the analysis. Possible explanations for the discrepancy include the possibility of a net accumulation of carbon in undisturbed ecosystems as a result of CO2 fertilization or changes in climate. Even if the terms of the global carbon equation were to appear balanced at present, current knowledge is insufficient to predict whether terrestrial ecosystems will act as a positive or negative feedback on the anticipated CO2-caused global warming.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.1987.tb00277.x/abstract

  293. Jimbo. i answered that right before you posted, i knew that , nothing new. we could go into detail.

    watervapor has a huge disadvantage, its dependent on the Air temperature. so watervapor on itself does not change much. and it has a very short live time.
    CO2 is air temperature independent and has a very long airborn lifetime.

    and as i said, i do not expect the 3rd world to take any action. its the first world countries that caused the problem, we are the ones with the huge per capita CO2 footprint, not the 3rd world.

    i spend more than 10 years on AGW. i read alot of scientific papers on this topic. and get non of my info about it from the mainstream media.
    but i will spend surely more time exploring this . i find it a very interesting and very important topic.

    but as you did not know about land use change, i recoomend that you spend a bit more time reading scientific studies and less time on WUWT :)

    have a good night.

  294. As I write this I am using candle light because our electricity supply has gone out again.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    That’s a start. Better yet you would have had no electricity your whole life and then be stricken by a killer virus after price Phillip, World Wildlife Fund President, is reincarnated per his expressed wish and desire as a non cellular killer human pathogen.

  295. Can I suggest everyone stops feeding “Aanthanur DC” and ignore, it has just filled the whole thread up with boring irrelevance – probably by design.

    I appreciate some people are attempting sensible discussion but communication is supposed to be a two way process, if you ‘don’t go out much’ and attempt to read through the comments most of it is total drivel, you will probably get more satisfaction discussing it with a 2 year old.

  296. Jimbo

    then why did you claim “Did you see the last IPCC statement that referred to man’s activities and not gases. In their previous reports they referred to our gases. Why the omission now?”

    and

    “They wanted to sneak in land use changes that’s why.”

    and now you claim you knew already. so you lied about the IPCC sneaking it in? or had you forgoten it?
    it was already in the very first report. can you explain?

    and im new here posting, but not reading, i come here since more than 2 years to read some articles. and to learn the arguments i will face soon :) but yeah sure not as often as you do.

  297. Hot under the collar says: February 28, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    Can I suggest everyone stops feeding “Aanthanur DC” and ignore, it has just filled the whole thread up with boring irrelevance – probably by design.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Exactly, let’s not feed the troll.

  298. I’m a solid supporter of Jews and Israeli and always will be….and I am a supporter 0f African Americans. Yet, I’ll have to lump the ADL in with the NAACP – just another hypocritical self serving pressure group

  299. Mark Bofill says:February 28, 2014 at 4:16 pm
    I like having somebody to argue with.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    We need a better class of trolls…..

  300. ananthur says:

    “i spend more than 10 years on AGW. i read alot of scientific papers on this topic…”

    It has done you no good.

    First, you credulously accept the so-called ‘authority’ of the IPCC. Apparently you are unaware that the IPCC has gotten about 40% of it’s own information from the WWF — an NGO/QUANGO that is nothing but a leftist propaganda outlet.

    Next, you say, “…as you did not know about land use change…”.

    What you don’t seem to know is that WUWT is the original source of land use change concerning the UHI effect. Since you didn’t know that, we can assume you are simply ignorant, as most people are who get their misinformation from nonsense blogs like SkS. To get up to speed on the topic — something you desperately need to do — I suggest you use the search function here, and type in “UHI”. You can also start here. Your ignorance is curable — if you really want to cure it.

    Finally, your problem is this: despite repeated requests, you have never posted any measurable, testable scientific evidence showing that human emissions are the cause of any global warming. The reason is simple: because there is no such scientific evidence. It does not exist. So where does that leave you?

    It leaves you all alone, spouting nonsense. If something is not measurable, it is hardly science. Is it? No. Rather, it is conjecture, or opinion, or belief, or baseless assertion. You are guilty of all those.

    You can easily show that I am wrong: simply post measurable, testable scientific evidence showing that X amount of additional CO2 causes Y temperature increase.

    But you are incapable of posting any such evidence, because no such scientific evidence exists. The entire “carbon” scare is only a belief-based conjecture. The only measurable, testable relationship between CO2 and temperature shows that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2 — not vice-versa.

    Your entire belief system is based on unscientific nonsense. That is why you get no respect here. You are just another internet fool whose mind has been colonized by the “carbon” scare.

    So prove me wrong, if you can, and in the only way you can: post verifiable, measureable scientific evidence proving that CO2 causes global warming. Keep it in mind that scientific evidence is raw, verifiable data, and empirical [real world] observations. It is not peer revieweed papers, or the IPCC/WWF propaganda, or computer model GIGO output. Evidence is measurable data.

    So have at it, junior. Prove me wrong. Otherwise, you fit the description ^here^.

  301. That is why you get no respect here. You are just another internet fool whose mind has been colonized by the “carbon” scare.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Science is way above these cretins. Funny in undergrad these trolls were taking remedial math and English or majoring in psychology, sociology and the like. Now they are clamoring for an increase in the minimum wage to $10 dollars/hr…ooooh.

  302. Please people, stop feeding the 4-A (AAAA)! ; p
    Hey Aanthanur DC, you some how figured out how to use the shift key to capitalize your user name, but cant seem to use it in your posts. For a person who doesn’t speak English you sure can kick out numerous posts in 5 minute intervals….hmm.

    I’m a proud “denier”, but I prefer NON- believer, of your religion!

  303. “Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 1:44 pm
    David Ball”

    “i know very well what i posted.
    1 shows the increased greenhouse effect measured from space.
    and the other show that the increase in Co2 concentrations is mainly human caused.”

    Like I said, zero understanding. My links completely undermine your links and you claim “conspiracy theory” even though others have published work that support this post. You have been bested by many posters on here (especially Jimbo).

    There is no identifiable human signal in any of what you posted. You only want it to be so.

    Peace. Out.

  304. You can easily show that I am wrong: simply post measurable, testable scientific evidence showing that X amount of additional CO2 causes Y temperature increase.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Well, that’s fun what don’t you just ask the guy to prove the null hypothesis. :)

  305. Richard D,

    I couldn’t in good conscience ask junior to do that, because a hypothesis can’t be proven, only falsified. But so far, no one has falsified the Null Hypothesis.

    But I would be happy if he posted measurable evidence showing that ∆CO2 caused ∆T, because I would learn something. ☺

    I just don’t think he can do it. Because I think any effect from CO2 is simply too small to measure, using current technology.

  306. @ dbstealy,

    I hate statistics and engineers…. :)

    [The mods appreciate your smile as you said that. 8<) Mod]

  307. “What you don’t seem to know is that WUWT is the original source of land use change concerning the UHI effect. ”

    i did indeed not know that, as i didn’t know that WUWT exists since 1810.

  308. Over 20 quotes that the ADL ignores,
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The first order of business for :non profits” like the ADL and NAACP is to pay its staff and executives well. And then support fellow travelers…

  309. i did indeed not know that, as i didn’t know that WUWT exists since 1810.

    Ok, this is getting stupid. I’m dropping thread.

  310. The ADL chooses causes according to it’s own heart and agenda. This includes the so-called Jewish Holocaust [TM], homosexuality, pedophilia and the anthropomorphic global warming hoax. At first glance the list seems disparate but the connection is simple. They all have Banksters behind them.

  311. Aanthanur DC says:
    February 28, 2014 at 6:03 pm

    explain, how am i irrational?
    ========================================

    much of the data on land use and UHI comes from work done by the host of this blog documenting micro climate effects on temperature recording stations.

  312. I’m a bit surprised to see how many of you [still] cling to the discredited Global Warming hoax. People for God’s sake get out a little, go do a bit of open minded research. Lately a number of things have happened to end this hoax and send many of its perpetrators to prison for fraud. It’s over guys, it only seems to be still real because the media hasn;t let go of it yet. That is because of who is behind the media. The data was all fraudulent, the models have failed, the people who mounted law suites against them have won and law suites by Warmists have failed. I tell you wake up! Even with the current corrupt paradigm where few big criminals have anything to fear, the Warmist gang are headed for major trouble. You’re following a dead horse which is why it feels like you’re getting nowhere. Yes the climate is changing, only a cretin would deny it but there isn’t any particular action of men unless it is deliberate engineering which is involved. The climate has always been changing and evidence shows it may be entering a cooling phase and that should have you worried. Warming by a few degrees = good; cooling by a few degrees = bad. That’s the facts.

  313. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore testified before a Senate committee this week that any link between human emissions and global warming is dubious at best: “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.” He added, “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.”

    In keeping with the new ADL sheriff’s methods who has made your cause his own, I suppose former warmists like Patrick Moore shall be referred to as “Self Hating Warmists” rather than an actual [snip]?

  314. Take away is ADL was an important organization with serious purpose. Now it’s just a mendacious pressure group.

  315. [The mods appreciate your smile as you said that. 8<) Mod]

    Mods, I was pre med and 15 going on 16 years old in general physics in summer school at university. ….engineers…..everywhere,,, Please God help me ….:)

  316. Jim Bo wrote, “Poptech says: ‘Over 20 quotes that the ADL ignores, Skeptics Smeared As Holocaust Deniers, ADL Silent
    Wow. Just wow! What a helluva blockbuster post. Thanks for the link…and well done to the folks at Popular Technology.net. That post is Drudgeworthy.”

    Yep. But that’s just what PopTech does. Have you seen these?

    1970s Global Cooling Alarmism (100 articles from the 1970s about the threat of global cooling):

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

    1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    If anyone is deserving of the title, “Official Archivist of the Climate Rationalism Movement,”, it is Andrew and his team at Popular Technology.

  317. Yep. But that’s just what PopTech does
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    He’s a wingnut who should have been banned from WUWT for his seriously unhinged attacks on Willis E. here at WUWT. He has neither the education or credentials to be taken seriously.

  318. Poptech says: February 28, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    Skeptics Smeared As Holocaust Deniers,
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    You have nerve poptech …what about your smears of Willis on your blog?

    What exactly are your qualifications eg, education and experience?

  319. @daveburton February 28, 2014 at 3:40 pm Many thanks to you for saving that Yahoo cache! Despite knowing better on snagging screencaptures with other AGW folks I’ve jousted with (e.g. a prominent foundation illustrated here http://ow.ly/tmCgT ), I thought the ADL was above deleting comments, so I didn’t bother to get one.

  320. Well, Richard, I’m sadder now than I was before I read your comment.

    I didn’t know what you were talking about. In fact, I hadn’t realized that PopTech & Willis quarreled, but Google found it for me.

    It’s a shame. Neither of them is perfect, or infallible, of course, but I greatly admire both of them.

    Willis is a careful, original thinker, and a marvelous writer. I’ve argued with him, respectfully, myself, but he is always interesting, and always worth reading. He reminds me a bit of Feynman.

    Andrew is a wonderfully methodical and thorough archivist of climate-related information. His various lists are indispensable resources to anyone interested in climate skepticism. It is disconcerting that he showed a striking lack of patience in his argument with Willis, since it obviously required a huge amount of patience to catalog the information in his lists.

    Both Willis and Andrew have contributed greatly to the field of climatology, each in his own way. I wish they were friends.

  321. Richard D. name something factually inaccurate in my post and I will correct it. Believe it or not I have nothing personal against Willis, my problem was with those I was arguing with about Willis. You seemed to miss something, Willis has extensive experience in the Peace Corps and a degree in Psychology, both of which could be exploited to good effect. How many alarmists have worked in the Peace Corps? How many alarmists when they try to do “psychological” studies actually understand the subject matter?

    As I have stated many time, I am employed as a computer analyst.

    Jimbo, four more quotes added, including Monbiot.

  322. dbstealey says:
    February 28, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    ananthur says:

    “i spend more than 10 years on AGW. i read alot of scientific papers on this topic…”

    It has done you no good.

    Thank you dbstealey for responding as I had already promised I would no longer respond to him/her on this thread. Thanks for pointing out the gray literature the IPCC uses after he/she advised me to read more scientific literature. Thank you for informing he/she on WUWT consistently pointing our land use changes over the years. You nicely finish off with this challenge:

    You can easily show that I am wrong: simply post measurable, testable scientific evidence showing that X amount of additional CO2 causes Y temperature increase.

    How much has always been the question, not does it cause some warming. Our friend should realise that this is the very CRUX of the issue.

    IPCC AR5
    It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

    Why not –

    It is extremely likely that human emissions of greenhouse gases has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

    Now let me enjoy my soft drink which has been gassified by ‘human influence’.

  323. UPDATE:

    Not only are comments now closed on ADL Atlanta press release, but all of the comments have been removed.

    Mods may want to consider adding another update to this story.

  324. “Both Willis and Andrew have contributed greatly to the field of climatology”

    Hillarious, you people actually believe that?

    REPLY: Something really hilarious (note your spelling) are the comments you make via the link in your fake name https://plus.google.com/102857839404861866501/posts

    At least Willis has the courage to use his real name, you, not so much. Other than complaining about others views and some snarky commentary under the cover of anonymity, what have you produced? Anything of substance? – Anthony

  325. AGW_Skeptic says:
    March 1, 2014 at 4:21 am

    Mods may want to consider adding another update to this story.

    …and let me echo the prior suggestion, with apologies in advance to all who may have contributed, that all troll-inspired, off-topic threads (including my response here) be removed post-haste. As I compose reply #425 to this topic, it is currently inundated with unrelated troll droppings and responses. Anyone coming late to this controversy will already be inclined to quickly depart.

    Mods…clean it out…please.

  326. Anthony
    i am not the one that claims to have contributed to climatology.

    REPLY:
    So other than snark and griping, you’ve contributed nothing. Thanks for clarifying that. I note in your reply on a previous thread you still insist on insulting me even though I suggested you resubmit your comment sans those insults. Therefore, since you won’t adhere to WUWT site policy, you’ve earned a place in the permanent troll bin. – Anthony

  327. [snip -using secondary identities to get around moderation is called sockpuppetry Mr. Kuhn, aka “Aanthanur DC” – 2nd policy violation, so you’re banned – Anthony]

  328. Aanthanur DC:

    EVERYONE here believes in AGW it is the catastrophic part of CAGW that most of us believe is fake.

    Oh man PopTech those are some nasty quotes. (We are in denial?)
    “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”
    – Richard Glover, The Sydney Morning Herald (2011)

    Sounds more painful then the yellow “jude” to me

    [snip – a bit over the top -mod]

  329. Richard D:

    Willis E is a good man i don’t always agree with him either.
    Banning people for not agreeing with WUWT opinion pieces would make us just as bad as the so called Anti-Defamation league wouldn’t it?

  330. Wow Poptech that is an amazing list of quotes from Marxist Nazi’s.

    “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”
    – Richard Glover, The Sydney Morning Herald (2011)

    Sounds more painful then then the yellow “jude” star to me.

    Aanthanur DC
    Bad news for you. NOT ONE person here, NOT a single person on WUWT is in denial with AGW. It is the Catastrophic part of CAGW that we have a problem with. At least try to understand the difference.

  331. From Moderator: [snip – a bit over the top -mod]

    My opinion or the quote? sorry? did I miss something?

    Thank you

    + + +

    (Some moderators are more censorship prone than others. -mod)

  332. OX AO, thanks …up to 33 now, thanks to James Powell.

    Can’t wait for Anthony’s article on Monday, massive hypocrisy at the ADL.

  333. AGW_Skeptic says:
    March 1, 2014 at 4:21 am

    UPDATE:
    ——————————
    Now if we could just convince then to remove the article, then everyone would be somewhat happy/er.

    On another note, did anyone notice how the troll would slip in and out of using poor English? I noticed what seemed like a style of manipulation in his writing. I thought of saying something the other day, but I didn’t expect him to last too long around here.

  334. WSJ 2/28/2014, Business, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr
    Jenkins: Personal Score-Settling Is the New Climate Agenda
    The cause of global carbon regulation may be lost, but enemies still can be punished.

    My comment, #52:
    Jenkins: \\ The New York Times runs a cartoon of a climate “denier” being stabbed with an icicle.
    Indeed, a rational case for action on cost-benefit grounds is challenging to make at all….. After 35 years, it’s time to accept that adaptation is the way ahead. The problems of climate change, whatever its causes, are the same old human problems of poverty, disease and natural hazards like floods, storms and droughts. The best hope on offer is the continued accumulation of human wealth and knowledge. //

    Mr. Jenkins, be prepared to have the word “Denier” tattooed on your forehead.

    “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.” – Richard Glover, The Sydney Morning Herald (2011)
    See this and 30+ quotes from leading climate change activists at: [1] that DEFAME scientists, engineers, and economists who dare to question the sensibility of a ruinous “worldwide socio-engineering project.”

    “Deniers” as in “Holocaust Deniers”. You would think that an organization like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) might object to the cheapening of the Holocaust by its use in ad hominem attacks in scientific matters.

    “It has become too common to use comparisons to the Holocaust and Nazi imagery to attack people with opposing views. whether the issue is global warming, immigration or stem-cell research.” – Shelly Rose, ADL This was not in regard to epidemic use of “denier” over the past eight years. No. The Anti-Defamation League last week denounced a scientist, defamed for years as a “denier”, pushing back on his accusers as “global warming Nazis”. {2}[3]

    The ADL posted their denouncement on their website.[via 3]. In the course of 18 hours, approximately 90 comments were contributed, most well written, civil, but in disagreement to the ADL’s one-sided denouncement while keeping mum on use of “Holocaust Denier” for years. Rather than defend their own ADL statement, the ADL chose to close the comment window and delete 50, later ALL 90 comments. Imagine the ADL, in full view of the internet archive, holding its own web page comment bonfire. Shame on them.

    [1] http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html
    [2] http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/
    [3] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/bizzare-anti-defamation-league-apparently-gives-a-green-light-to-defamation-of-climate-skeptics-by-comparing-them-to-holocaust-deniers/

  335. Poptech on March 1, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    OX AO, thanks …up to 33 now, thanks to James Powell.

    Can’t wait for Anthony’s article on Monday, massive hypocrisy at the ADL.

    – – – – – – –

    Poptech,

    I think with your efforts there will be no stone left unturned.

    Nice to see you leading by great example. : )

    John

  336. Poptech on March 1, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    OX AO, thanks …up to 33 now, thanks to James Powell.

    Can’t wait for Anthony’s article on Monday, massive hypocrisy at the ADL.

    Poptech,

    I think with your efforts there will be no stone left unturned.

    Nice to see you leading by great example. : )

    John

  337. John, there appears to be many more of these comments than I initially estimated and believe there are many more left to find, even when I take a break from looking. As of now there are definitely enough to make the point with Gore, Craven, Monbiot, Powell and Pachauri being well known alarmists.

Comments are closed.