Apparently, being uncertain about climate certainty is a crime worth jail time
What a week this has been. In preparation for the release of the IPCC Working Group II report, hate speech against climate skeptics seems to have ramped up and turned into a week-long unreality show. The proprietors and cheerleaders of the Climate Certainty Channel™ seem to be ever more sure of impending doom caused by (take your pick) global warming – climate change – climate disruption. Here is a summary of the feature programs this past week.
First, priming the pump, just about two weeks ago, we started out with this: Despicable climate ugliness courtesy of Lawrence Torcello – assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology where he rationalized for climate “deniers” to be jailed.
Monckton followed up with a letter: Monckton’s letter to the Rochester Institute of Technology regarding Assistant Professor Lawrence Torcello
Of course, according to the David Suzuki funded Hoggan PR firm “DeSmog Blog” we are all just a bunch of angry lunatic fringe types for suggesting we take an exception to being jailed…that, and they say we completely misread the intent of Torcello’s essay, which is somehow philosophical: Exclusive: Climate Change Philosopher A Target Of Abusive Hate Campaign:
Under the headline “US Philosophy Professor: Jail ‘Denialist’ Climate Scientists For Criminal Negligence“ Delingpole wrote Torcello had argued “scientists who don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put in prison”.
“This was a blatant misrepresentation of my article,” says Torcello
Then on March 19th, it was Anders and his wottsupwiththat spawn blog now changed to andthentheresphysics blog (which is a change in name only), he still allows hate speech: Quote of the Week – get your war crimes trial tickets now!
Apparently, I’m to be “frog marched” to The Hague for war crimes like trials all for having the temerity to have an opinion about not wanting to be jailed for having a skeptical opinion about climate.
Meanwhile, back at Bar-X Hate Ranch, another fan of the Climate Certainty Channel™ embraces Torcello’s essay, and decides to turn the volume up to 11:
In “Arrest Climate Change Deniers,” Gawker writer Adam Weinstein has such gems as:
This is an argument that’s just being discussed seriously in some circles. It was laid out earlier this month, with all the appropriate caveats, by Lawrence Torcello, a philosophy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology.
“…with all the appropriate caveats,” Well, that makes it OK then! /sarc He adds:
We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars. . .
Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics. . . Those people are criminally negligent.
So far, not a peep from the standard bearers of climate morals at DeSmog or “andthentheresphyics” about Weinstein taking Torcello’s idea and running with it.
Some reactions to Adam Weinstein’s call for jail time:
Climatistas Double Down on Stupid (Powerline)
Another Fool Calls For My Arrest: Or, Adam Weinstein Slips A Nut (William Briggs)
But wait, it gets better, the clergy steps in and provides their sanction, but just not the one we expect:
Rowan Williams warns of climate catastrophe
The former Archbishop of Canterbury argues that Western lifestyles bear the responsibility for causing climate change in world’s poorest regions
While the “chaos [of the flood] came as a shock to many”, other countries in the developing world such as Bangladesh and Kenya among others had suffered far worse catastrophes caused by climate change over many years.
Dr Williams goes on to attack global warming sceptics and climate change deniers. “There are of course some who doubt the role of human agency in creating and responding to climate change, and who argue that we should direct our efforts solely to adapting to changes that are inevitable, rather than modifying our behaviour,” says Dr Williams.
A clergyman OK with the Telegraph using the hateful term “deniers”? oof!
In other hate-related news, the left went ballistic on Nate Silver for allowing Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. to write. Fabius Maximus has a summary
The Left stages a two minute hate on Nate Silver, Roger Pielke Jr (& me)
Summary: This week many on the Left served a banquet of snark on Nate Silver and his new 538 website for the sin of posting an article by Roger Pielke Jr (Prof Environmental Studies, U CO-Boulder). An article well-supported in the climate studies literature, and consistent with the work of the IPCC (they conceal these things from their followers; least they ruin the narrative). These posts demonstrate the ineffectual tactics that have drained away the Left’s support during the past 3 decades, and after 25 years of work produced no gains in their highest-profile public policy initiative. See other posts in this series, listed below.
It seems the left was arguing more about the fact that Pielke was allowed a place to speak, than what he planned to write about climate at http://fivethirtyeight.com/ It reminded me of the uproar over my interview on PBS News Hour, where they went ballistic because I had somehow violated their perceived inner sanctum, not so much because of what I said.
Predictably, editor Nate Silver caved to pressure, and he’s now back in the good graces of the proprietors of the Climate Certainty Channel™.
And, the Anti-Defamation League is still silent:
The silence of the Anti Defamation League suggests they endorse defamation of climate skeptics
So while we wait for the next IPCC report to come out, let’s consider climate certainty and uncertainty. This graph sums it up nicely.
The boxes represent the statements of certainty from IPCC reports over time. As reality (measurements) diverge from models, becoming more uncertain, the certainty of the IPCC gets stronger, and the hateful rhetoric ramps up to match the mean.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



Hmmm, does that mean that it is time for Mann, Hansen, Jones, and all those other guys to make their perp walks?
Hitler Youth comes to mind….Monckton mentioned them at the Copenhagen travel expenses and do nothing much event. I mean fill in your lengthy travel expense form event.
They might arrest you, but I doubt you’d recovered from that. So where are we are with the dumb clucks on the panic Climate topic…oh arrest me!
How, exactly, does one arrest the climate itself? That should be a neat trick.
Perhaps it is time to punish those who use bogus pictures of steam to imply something else as a scare tactic to the uniformed.
Context will be their defence.
Just like all their failure to convince taxpayers is due to communication.
I like the Climate Certainty Channel.
Channelling for the Cult of Calamitous Climate?
The shrillness and venom of these lovelies communications is priceless.
So many of them are channelling the Mann-erisms and ethic of Gleick to convince their wavering flock.
More 10-10 videos coming up.
Buy Popcorn.
More hate speech this week including a “taxonomy of denial” flow chart claiming that Svensmark “invents physics”, Dr. Judith Curry “knows nothing”, Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Singer, Happer, McIntyre refuse to “believe” in CAGW, and that Lomborg, Pielke, and Tol have “false beliefs”
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XwcA-mJDJVk/UzeNwyxtJrI/AAAAAAAACXQ/OPtOjEctXKg/s1600/FlowChart.JPG
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/03/belief.html
from “Eli Rabett”, which is the pseudonym of Joshua Halpern, a failed, egomaniacal chem prof at Howard University, rated “poor” by his unfortunate students:
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=543236
Halpern’s self description at Rabett Run:
“Eli Rabett is a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny, a chair election from retirement, at a wanna be research university that has a lot to be proud of but has swallowed the Kool-Aid. The students are naive but great and the administrators vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional. His colleagues are smart, but they have a curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they occasionally heed his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.”
Rejoice, Anthony, by their own words they reveal that they see you as a very powerful man. Cool!
Since it is Sunday…
“The wicked plot against the righteous
and gnash their teeth at them;
but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
for he knows their day is coming.”
Psalm 37:12, 13.
Yes, they are “wicked,” for they use l1es and dece1t to promote their anti-humanity, Enviroprofiteering.
Burn the
ChristiansuhwitchesuhJewsclimate deniers!Embrace the hate! It brought them nothing and nothing will bring them.
Well, okay, but make sure Jame Dellingpole is there to cover it. And Josh too!
We’ll take up a collection for your return flight, assuming you get one.
Time for a timely re-play. #(:))
For all the Truth in Science HEROES out there —
BART … DELLINGPOLE … DENOVA … GRAY … SALBY… SOON … WATTS …
I Need a Hero — Avengers (Bonnie Tyler)
The angry snarls of your enemies are SWEET music for they tell us that
YOU — ARE — WINNING!
THANK YOU!!
Gratefully,
Janice
I love the graph with the divergent lines being more and more confident, that says it all. I wonder where they think that all these people are dying of climate change.
I’m happy to be taken to court as a “denier”.
I have said from day one that the climate changes naturally. Mankinds effect on the climate is overstated and CO2 is not a major climate forcing.
There you go, in black and white.
Now the first person to take me to court has to produce one thing, and one thing only.
Scientific proof that mankind’s CO2 emissions are forcing changes. Not “97% certain” not “reasonable certain”. Solid, scientific proof which is undeniable. Then you can bang me up for as long as you like.
Science fact put man on the moon, not “science” opinion. In thirty plus years of “global warming / climate change” you would have though that the definitive proof would have been found given what’s at stake??
This is becoming exhausting. Can’t we just get along? 🙁
Rage will be even greater since beginning of April will not be too warm in the North America.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z70_nh_f240.gif
“It reminded me of the uproar over my interview on PBS News Hour, where they went ballistic because I had somehow violated their perceived inner sanctum, not so much because of what I said.”
Those that throw a hissy fit are not the small warmist cult members but the Kapos; they need to make sure that the small cult members never get information not sanctioned by the cult leaders.
When you discover a remaining cult member in the wild, just pity him for his still believing in the MSM. They hate that because it forces them to seek out better information which invariably undermines their programming. “Where did you get THAT from, oh I see, the MSM, oh poor little you, you’re STILL believing that? My, my…”
PaulH says:
March 30, 2014 at 10:22 am
“This is becoming exhausting. Can’t we just get along? :-(”
When you’re getting a lot of Flak it means you’re over the target.
Looks like it was about 1981 when the average of the models last agreed with the “real” data.
If they have to open a media outlet called “Certainty Channel” they are aknowledging that it’s not certain.
I doubt it fools anyone, any more that the state-run newpaper in the Soviet Union being called Pravda ( “truth” in russian ) did.
Doesn’t this climate change uproar seem analogous to scientists in the medieval ages being persecuted because they went against the religious consenus that the earth was the centre of the universe? How dare they propose the earth went around the sun!
My take on how the science is “settled.” Coral reefs, sea level rise, warming in the next 100 years, volcanic effects, wind energy reduces CO2 emissions, and more.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/climate-science-is-not-settled.html
We can fling that term “denier,” which slanderously attempts to link skeptics to Holocaust denial, right back in their faces: carbon taxes killed 33,000 Britons from cold in 2013, and the ethanol program has killed at least 2 million from malnutrition and starvation. Global warming alarmists are the facilitators – and deniers – of a Holocaust that is going on right now.
Global warming alarmism: the new Holocaust!
Rowan Williams knows that in winter (in the UK) churches have to be heated to encourage the congregation to attend, to help fill the coffers.
Of course, this uses fossil fuels and electric power.
He’s a hypocrite.
So d*niers should be rounded up and arrested.
Didn’t something like that happen in Germany not really so long ago?
Didn’t some coin the “d*nier” label to equate those who question fortune telling tree rings with those who say that event in Germany never happened?
Now they want to repeat what they happened?
Is the ADL aware of this?
I have posted this elsewhere in regard to the Gawker piece by Weinstein: This is where unchecked progressivism and leftist thinking ultimately gets to. Lock people up for what they think. We saw this practiced on a massive scale in the 20th century, and yet it lives on. If you look at his temperature chart, which I don’t dispute, you can see a warming trend from 1900 to 1940 that is almost identical to the one from 1970 to 2000. What exactly was supposed to have caused that? Prior to 1940 man made CO2 emissions were de minimis. Now we have a complete lack of warming in the past 15 years which all of the vaunted climate models failed to predict. And we are supposed to prosecute people for having the temerity to question climate change orthodoxy. This is insane.