Quote of the week – dirty rotten scoundrels edition

qotw_croppedOver the weekend Dr. Roger Pielke Junior let it be known on his Twitter feed that he’s had it up to his “keester” with certain climate activists, especially the ones that are harassing a former associate of his, simply because that person IS a former associate.

It’s pretty ugly and it underscores how climate zealotry has gotten out of control. I myself have been at the receiving end of some of this to the point where I have had to increase security at my home and at my business.

I’ve also had to increase my personal security due to the fact that on occasion, due to the fact that I’m a well known local person and recognizable due to my exposure on radio and television, I am occasionally accosted in public over my stance on climate. But my issues pale in comparison to what Dr. Pielke writes of.

And this is what I consider to be the quote of the week:

When I think of “obsessed and malicious” in the context of “climate scientists”, this image immediately sprang to mind. This was from AGU 2013, where a session about “climate scientists under attack” was mainly just a big whiny gripe about FOIA requests.

Legal_attack_panel

L-R Naomi Oreskes, Jeff Ruch (PEER), Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Andrew Dessler, Ben Santer. Photo taken at AGU Fall meeting, 2013 by Anthony Watts

The irony of this photo is that one of the people on that panel has been launching lawsuits against climate skeptics, yet I don’t know of a single climate skeptic that has launched a lawsuit against any climate scientist, other than a countersuit to force the issue into court, rather than let it be drug out for years as some sort of slow motion financial punishment.

The other irony was that sitting in the front row listening to how these folks tell their stories of how they have been so “horribly abused” by climate skeptics questioning their science,  the “climate antichrist” (me) sat there quietly and listened, not disrupting, being careful not to appear threatening in any way. I asked no questions, and left the meeting quietly.

In addition to the regular attacks that we get daily of climate skeptics just being stupid, paid for shills, etc. we occasionally get wild claims that climate skeptics should be put on trial, imprisoned, or even killed. There is also an undercurrent of climate ugliness that pervades in social media. I’m not talking about the obvious rants such as climate skeptics are shills for “big oil”, I’m talking about when unscrupulous people bring your family into it.

There’s just no excuse for this sort of stuff:

venema_tweet

I have blurred out the name which happens to be the name of “Goddard’s” son. I’m not going to add to the damage by allowing the name here.

Thankfully, upon being challenged on this ugliness, Mr. Venema apologized and retracted his Tweet; he says it was a re-tweet, but even if it was, re-tweeting something so obviously ugly and stupid puts his motivation into question.

The whole episode is odd, because on one hand Mr. Venema is preaching for tolerance and restraint, and more civil scientific discourse, and then we have an “off the rails” moment like this coming from him.

We all have our moments where our judgment lapses, but this suggests to me that the inner id of some climate activist folks is saying that they know better than we do how to live our lives and raise our children, which is often more the characteristics of a religion, than a science.

Maybe this inner conflict is why some climate activists play dress up Nazis, though, it isn’t always so ugly, sometimes they dress up as superheroes.

 

 

About these ads

111 thoughts on “Quote of the week – dirty rotten scoundrels edition

  1. Was it James Delingpole who said: “For you ze warm is over!”? It was brilliant whoever it was. No – it was one of his commenters – sorry – I can’t remember who.

  2. If the world was warming, everything would be all cozy for the AGWers. Their backs are up against the wall because their theory is not be validated by the climate. Some will act like rats who are cornerd – most won’t because they are not rats.

  3. If you truly believe that the future of humanity is in the balance, that if you fail the world may be destroyed, there is no crime which is beyond contemplation. Any act, no matter how heinous, pales into insignificance compared to the deaths of billions of people.

    A crisis is a moral slippery slope.

  4. Modern science is religion. It’s called scientism. Been like that for quite a while now. No bigger mythology than the dispassionate scientist following the evidence wherever it leads. Sorry but there is nothing more trenchant and pigheaded than current scientific orthodoxy. Don’t believe it? Then question it and see what happens. But it looks like you already have. There you go. Human beings defending their turf. That is older than any theory or religion.

  5. It is a social/psychological phenomena reminiscent of religious zealotry. People actually (and strongly) feel their belief system warrants attacking any threat. Sure it’s immoral, but the desperation felt by the perpetrator justifies it in their mind. What I find odd is that such a shaky hypothesis can inspire such devotion.

  6. I often think of the saying “Jesus, save me from your followers”. The fact that it is appropriate here shows that this is not a scientific issue. One thing I’ve noticed in life is that those who preach tolerance are the most intolerant of all. Not coincidentally much of the intolerance comes from elitists and leftists and their causes.

  7. Anthony writes: “I myself have been at the receiving end of some of this to the point where I have had to increase security at my home and at my business.”

    And for those wondering, that explains why I’m so closed-mouthed about who I am, where I live, etc.

  8. Below is a pithy statement that accurately captures the sad state of “science” and government

    “If we continue to allow our governments to slop the troughs nothing will change.”

  9. Outing Goddard’s son is just horrible. This is one of the many reasons that Steven Goddard should have remained Steven Goddard.

    A. Watts says they will come after your business. They will come after you personally. They will come after your family. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. says they will even come after your students and associates.

    I can tell you that the man who is moral and ethical will do the right thing even if he could do wrong and get away with it. A moral man will do what is right even when no one is looking. We have very few “scientists” in the climate field who meet that standard in my view and experience.

    Hopefully all of this should tell us that when you are wondering if you should blame incompetence or malice for the widespread data mishandling that you should look to malice first every time. The alarmists are not worthy of any respect in any matter. Look at Hansen’s testimony before congress and the cutting off the AC in the summer in D.C. to aid his alarmist BS that started all this. Can anyone call that moral? And now we know that the historical temperature data records are all lies.

    And they want to execute us!

  10. Keith says:
    June 30, 2014 at 8:22 am

    Thanks for reminding us of this piece of genius too:

    “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”

    I definitely remember the: “For you ze warm is over!” comment on James Delingpole . I seem to remember James’ reply was something like: “Damn your eyes! I should have thought of that!”

  11. “we occasionally get wild claims that climate skeptics should be put on trial, imprisoned, or even killed. “… So the term ‘denier’ didn’t have any thing to do with the holocaust? And the hundreds if not thousands of comments were just figments of imaginations? Or that I was just sick, or exhibiting juvenile behavior by rebelling, not accepting authority? Nobody ever said that skeptics should be tried for crimes for the billions of people who will die in the future if they didn’t support the immediate implementation of laws, treaty and cap n trade for the elimination of co2? They never said that? It was just a wild claim? … And they have the nerve to say, I’m delusional? Are these people living in reality? Of course all of that was said. That’s not a wild claim. It was really scary being a skeptic in 2004.

  12. Paul in Sweden says:
    June 30, 2014 at 8:10 am

    “If we continue to allow our governments to slop the troughs nothing will change.”

    Sad – but true. Fortunately, democracy allows us to get rid of bad government. Unfortunately, in the UK at least, the opposition is well in on the scam too. Also unfortunately, in the UK at least, the education system has been dumbed down for a generation and a half and the only thing people care about these days is utter crap like “Britain’s Got Talent” and frickin’ reality TV shows…

  13. “Mr. Venema … says it was a re-tweet”

    Not it wasn’t. If it was, Twitter would have marked it so and there would be a RT at the start of the tweet. So at best, he copied and pasted it from another tweet which requires actual work to do rather than just click the re-tweet button. This means he did more than just re-tweet something to highlight it.

  14. Goood that you’ve done what I advised you to, be careful.

    That’s a key reason I keep my residential address hidden to all but tpeople I trust will keep it confidential. I use a private mailbox for most mail. Government lists such as for voting are a security risk.

    Of course in the US you can easily get a concealed-weapong permit.

  15. Listening to this silly argument about climate change by mankind is driving me ratty. The sun’s rays may heat a gas in the atmosphere but that heat will not be transferred into the ocean it will be stopped cold by surface tension. The rejection of heat is total. You can not heat water through its surface therefore there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas and no such thing as AGW Try heating water through its surface using a heat gun no can do. The irony of the situation is that if you want to heat water through the surface, the only way to do it is to float something metal on the surface and then apply the heat because the floating object cancels thesurface tension and the water accepts the heat. The sun’s rays enter the ocean but no additional heat goes in. The whole argument is a nonsense. I’m sure somebody will say that surface tension blocking heat violates the second law of thermodynamics, tough, you can’t heat water through the surface.

  16. LogosWrench says:
    June 30, 2014 at 8:06 am

    Modern science is religion. It’s called scientism. Been like that for quite a while now. No bigger mythology than the dispassionate scientist following the evidence wherever it leads. Sorry but there is nothing more trenchant and pigheaded than current scientific orthodoxy.

    A lab coat is the (would-be) emperor’s new clothing.

  17. Keith Sketchley says:
    June 30, 2014 at 8:54 am

    “Of course in the US you can easily get a concealed-weapong permit.”

    Only about half the states make it “easy” to get and use a concealed weapon permit. Only leftwing nutters can easily get carry permits in states like cali and nj or areas like wash, dc

  18. [Victor Venema] may have a psychological problem. Re-Tweeting someones venomous tweet without thinking might come from his normally repressed subconscious beliefs IMO that’s why some people get violent after consuming alcohol, whereas others get sleepy.

    [there's no need for name calling here, Anthony]

  19. I’m currently reading Gary Taube’s book Good Calories, Bad Calories, and it’s amazing how closely the ‘low fat is a heart healthy diet’ scam parallels the climate change church. Not based on real science, no definitive studies that prove the connection, government funding for low fat preachers but not for anyone who have difference conclusions, etc.

    I think the real answer is to get government out of science, and our food, altogether.

  20. Steve Goddard posted the tweet unedited. Since Venema was the one having the conversation (tweet session) with Goddard, it does not look like a retweet.

    And it serves to validate Pointman’s narrative of his abusiveness.

  21. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Fortunately, democracy allows us to get rid of bad government.

    It may be worse than that. Bureaucracy has taken over government. We can’t vote them out. And their numbers are so large that they are a significant voting block, so they get pay packets out of all proportion to what they produce. Priorities have gotten so skewed that bureaucrats’ pay comes first, and the potholes are only filled, bridges repaired, and schools fixed when gov’t comes to the ‘rescue’ by raising taxes. The media doesn’t seem to report on any of that very much. That’s because most of the mainstream media is pretty far to the Left, and thus approves of Big Government:

    It seems like every time we see evidence of the left’s hateful worldview, we learn it’s a hoax. Remember when KFC demanded a disfigured girl leave their restaurant because she scared the customers? That never happened either. How many times have we found “Faggot” and “Nigger” scrawled on a wall only to discover later it was done by the same non-hetero-normative person of color who claimed to be a victim? Is there anyone in the country who isn’t convinced every journalist outside of Fox is in the tank for Obama? [source]

    How do you fix that problem? I see it only getting worse; because the sheep haven’t been sheared enough. There is more taxpayer loot to be had.

  22. It will get worse as their cherished dreams of re-making the world dissolve as the late warming trend fades into the past. Skeptics will increasingly become targets of viciousness as the frustration of the alarmists turns to hatred.

  23. “Never trust anyone who is trying to please their god or save the world, since their ends can justify any means” Anonymous

  24. I think WUWT was surprised at the uprising to defend Goddardposition re USCHN data. He never really read what was REALLY going on.These are NOT nice people (re the debate), and probably cannot afford to be nice because a lot of their income and families depends on this scam continuing.USCHN will not concede EVER It will definitely die a slow death. We need tough people to deal with a tough situation. It does sort of remind me of Chamberlain (Anthony) and then Churchill (Goddard) dealing with Hitler (AGW) JUST JOKING!
    ie we need more Churchills.

  25. Anything is possible says:
    June 30, 2014 at 9:33 am

    And Willis wonders why a lot of posters prefer to remain anonymous…….

    Not true in the slightest. I have posted more than once that there are a number of very valid reasons why people might write anonymously, ranging from personal security to job and family concerns, holding of public office, etc.

    My point has been that if you post anonymously, you perforce lose some things, like the ownership of your own words, or any claim to the value of your education or your work, or the ability to criticize the historical actions of others. If you are concealing your own life history, you have no right to attack the history of others.

    You also lose any responsibility for what you say, “Anything”. For example, you can hurl vile imprecations at someone today, change your alias, and show up tomorrow as someone else. I can’t do that. As a result, I always, always heavily discount any non-scientific statements made by anonymous posters, like … well, like this post. Mr. Anything is free to make a false accusation against me with no quotes and no backup, because he can walk away from it tomorrow.

    As a result, Mr. Anything’s opinion is weightless. If he doesn’t think enough of his words to sign them, if he has other considerations that are more important to him, that’s fine, he’s free to be anonymous … but in that case, why should we put much weight on his words?

    Like I said, it’s fine to post anonymously, plenty of valid reasons. But you need to realize that when you post anonymously, you lose credibility because you are avoiding responsibility for what you say.

    w.

  26. I initially became skeptical of Global Warming (the name in vogue at the time) precisely due to the behavior of so many of the mainstream climate “scientists.” There are no, or precious few, other fields of science where this sort of behavior – neither the research nor the personal behavior – would be tolerated for even a moment.

    Theories are called into doubt every day, but only in climate science do we see this sort of thing. The mainstream media is only too happy to repeat claims that even a trivial grant from an oil company completely destroys all credibility of anyone or any research that casts any doubt on CAGW, yet this isn’t even noticed or is completely ignored by the same people. Anyone who doesn’t believe there are vested interests of the highest order at stake on the other side should explain why we only see this behavior in climate “science.”

    It boggles the mind how anyone could take seriously, let alone trust, the research of a “scientist” that behaves like this – particularly those same “scientists” that throw the scientific method out the window before, during, and after such behavior. If someone lowers themselves to this level in their personal behavior, why would anyone believe that they would hold their research to a higher level? It doesn’t follow.

  27. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 30, 2014 at 10:24 am
    “you perforce lose some things, like the ownership of your own words, or any claim to the value of your education or your work, or the ability to criticize the historical actions of others.”

    Translated:

    You lose the ability to use some of the best logical fallacies we “scientists” have invented over the years to con stupid ppl into taking our position.

    In a real science debate one loses nothing by remaining anonymous other then maybe having to fight with the huge section of corrupt “scientists” that will take credit for your work.

  28. heh should read

    “In a real science debate one loses [b]nothing[/b] by remaining anonymous other[..]

    [Fixed, and I agree completely with the sentiment. In science, all that matters are the ideas. -w.]

  29. This bullying behavior will never stop until someone stands up to the bullies themselves. How many times this year has someone been abused in such a manner that they had to take action to compensate for such?

    These bullies have free reign until someone presses charges against them for the crimes they commit. Out their names and let the public see who they really are.

    Start here>

    http://www.stopbullying.gov/

  30. “Thankfully, upon being challenged on this ugliness, Mr. Venema apologized and retracted his Tweet; he says it was a re-tweet, but even if it was, re-tweeting something so obviously ugly and stupid puts his motivation into question.”

    This kind of comment is just another form “we know where you live” threatening behaviour. It’s an incitement to others to start burning crosses outside your door, “retracting” a tweet changes nothing.

    Just one more reason why some people use pseudos on-line. Goddard probably wishes he’d remained Goddard.

  31. Eric Worrall says: “If you truly believe that the future of humanity is in the balance, that if you fail the world may be destroyed, there is no crime which is beyond contemplation. Any act, no matter how heinous, pales into insignificance compared to the deaths of billions of people. A crisis is a moral slippery slope.”

    Hitler did not think he was evil; he thought of himself as a great messiah whose destiny was to save Germany. He was NOT insane. When he wasn’t giving speeches, he could sound perfectly rational. The outcome was WWII, the Holocaust, and all the documented and undocumented evil perpetrated by his Nazi bureaucracy. A crisis is a slippery slope only if you believe the end justifies the means.

  32. Eliza says:
    We need tough people to deal with a tough situation. It does sort of remind me of Chamberlain (Anthony) and then Churchill (Goddard) dealing with Hitler (AGW) JUST JOKING!
    =====
    I think of Anthony more as John McCain or Lindsey Graham – conservative and strong when people are paying attention but liberal and compromising 80-90% of the time.

  33. Willis: “As a result, Mr. Anything’s opinion is weightless. ”

    All “opinions” in the blogosphere are worthless, fart’s in an exponentially expanding hurricane of hot air.

    The value of a scientific idea, backed up by facts and data stands on it’s on merit.

    I like your argument of self-regulation in the tropics by tropical storms not because it was presented the _real_ Willis Eschenbach who has “skin” in it, but because I think the facts back it up.

    I like Tisdale’s pointing out that El Nino / La Nina is not a symmetrical oscillation and thus can be a _cause_ of inter-decadal variability, not because some untrained guy with rudimentary data processing capabilities suggested it using a “real” name, but because I think the argument has merit, _despite_ the author’s personal history.

    I put those two points as two major contributions I’ve seen in the years I’ve following this site.

    I would give both the same weight if they were presented by Jaques Shit or tonyX , because I assess them on their content not on the renown of the author.

  34. Eric Worrall at 7:57 am
    “If you truly believe that the future of humanity is in the balance, that if you fail the world may be destroyed, there is no crime which is beyond contemplation. Any act, no matter how heinous, pales into insignificance compared to the deaths of billions of people.”

    If the warmists truly believe in CAGW, that the evidence is unmistakeable, then they cannot excuse the hiding of methods and data. I moment I began to pay attention to global warming and the science behind it, I found the scientists were hiding both methods and data. I said fraud.

    If I had honestly found what I thought was a dangerous problem I would be showing the data and methods with everyone, saying “Please look at this.” If shown I was wrong, I would be grateful. Thank goodness I was wrong. If ignored, I would be asking for ideas on what else I could do to prove the point. I cannot conceive of failure to disclose the data. I am justified in saying that those who cry wolf and then hide the data are frauds. If they were right, then they are putting billions of peoples lives in danger by hiding the data and delaying the acceptance of the problem.

  35. It was wrong to use the name of Steven Goddard’s son on twitter, I have deleted that tweet and I have apologized for that.

    I should not have mentioned the name of Steve Goddard’s son, but the above post is not a complete picture of what happened. He was enormously rude in a large number of tweets, “intellectually challenged”, “talking brownshirt trash”, “ass kicking to improve your behavior”, “scumbags rationalize their cowardice”, “a severely defective personality”, “You are indeed a world class coward. I will bet you have difficulty looking at yourself in the mirror”

    As a consequence I asked him if he thought to be a good example for his son. I happened to know the name of his son. After the Heartland Institute published their speaker list, which mentioned that Steven Goddard was Tony Heller, I googled his name and one of the top hits was his YouTube channel, with a video of the graduation ceremony of his son.

    In response Goddard published my photo and address and allowed a comment that people should visit me there:

    hannuko says: “I wonder are there any readers of this blog in Bonn? Somebody should go visit him at the university and explain that threatening children (or threatening anyone) is not a proper behavour and living far away from your target is not something that justifies this.”

    I hope that Goddard will remove that post and apologize, like I did, and will leave it up to the reader to judge who behaved worse.

  36. Greg says:
    June 30, 2014 at 11:11 am

    Thank you, Sir. I was contemplating my response to Willis, but you said it better than I ever could.

  37. By the way, it was not a retweet and I did not claim it to be a retweet. I have retweeted one of the many ugly tweets of Steven Goddard and ironically commented that that should not be seen as endorsement.

    • @Victor V – Yea, not too many people as stupid as you as to publicly threaten someone else’s children. Hence, why I doubted it was a retweet by you.

  38. I prefer to remain anonymous for the safety of those loonies who would seek me out to do harm. I don’t want anyone to get hurt, don’t want to clean up the mess, and I don’t want to deal with the paperwork :o)

  39. We should all keep in mind what being a vocal global warming skeptic can mean to your personal as well as professional life.

    I am not sure I could withstand being subjected to these kinds of attitudes and threats.

    This is what a commenter on Steven Goddard’s site had to say about Goddard’s last experience:

    A reminder for those who question how rough it is out there:

    Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition. Following a papal trial in which he was found guilty of heresy, Galileo was placed under house arrest and his movements restricted by the Pope. From 1634 onward he stayed at his country house at Arcetri, outside of Florence. He went completely blind in 1638.

    Those who support the CAGW scare are acting eerily similar to those who participated in Galileo’s trial:

    NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.”

    RFK, Jr. called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

    Former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be “strangled in their beds”.

    Eco-magazine Grist called for “Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics”.

    Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.”

    The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

    The U.N.’s top climate official, Yvo de Boer: “ignoring (catastrophic anthropologic global )warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’”.

    U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears

    Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI): “It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America.”

    UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland: “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.”

    And, finally:

    Dr. Tim Ball, a former professor of climatology discusses the heavy price paid by scientists who publicly question the CAGW dogma: “I’ve often thought if I had to do it again I wouldn’t do it,” he said. “Until you have experienced, like some are having with the IRS attacking them in the U.S., you cannot relate to other people exactly what it’s like when you are sitting in your little condo and you’ve spent all of your savings on legal fees. And (when there’s) a knock on the door at 4 o’clock on a Friday and your wife starts crying because she’s afraid it’s the sheriff delivering a legal summons. People have no idea what that’s like. I’m not sure that I would do it again. I’m almost at the point where if the world wants to be fooled, let it be fooled. I’m not going to fight for it again.

    I am not smart enough to know if Tony’s work on the temperature record will end up being totally valid, partially valid, of major or minor importance, but I support his efforts, and he knows it.

    I do know that the illusion of Catastrophic Anthropologic Global Warming, which is only supported by computer models that have been shown to be critically flawed, whose core assumptions have been shown to be invalid, needs to be questioned.

  40. Twitter usually notifies you if you were mentioned in a tweet (and you have that kind of notification turned on), if it was a retweet then Mr Goddard may well have received a notification about the original tweet so he would have an indication as to the veracity of Venema’s claim.

    Alternatively, it was a direct message sent to Venema, in which case the phrasing is “peculiar” unless the text was edited before “re-tweeting”.

    Alternative 2, it was a retweet of what was in his head, then he had second thoughts about it.

    The disturbing family member reference is, um, disturbing.

  41. They want to play dirty, play dirty back!! Dr Pielke Junior should Name and Shame THEM!! publicly??

  42. V V,
    You seem to have earned your reputation in many places and many times from what I understand.
    But it is good to offer at least some civility and at least a perfunctory apology.
    As to the comparisons of AGW fanatics and CO2 obsessives with political disasters of the early 20th century…..if a shoe fits and all of that. You might consider it as an opportunity for a teachable moment.

  43. Greg says:
    June 30, 2014 at 11:11 am

    Willis:

    “As a result, Mr. Anything’s opinion is weightless. ”

    All “opinions” in the blogosphere are worthless, fart’s in an exponentially expanding hurricane of hot air.

    While that might be true on your planet, I’m sorry you value your own opinion and those of others so lightly.

    It’s not true in the slightest on my planet. There are many people who comment here whose opinions on a host of subjects I find to be very worthwhile and valuable.

    w.

  44. I know that there are a few here who have gripes about Victor Venema. And occasionally he may have his off the rails moments. I know he has taken some potshots at Anthony I consider to be unfair. But he is no worse than most and better than some. At least he advocates rapprochement. I can say that he has always treated me courteously, even though I am given to taking unseemly swipes at his own work regarding homogenization (which he helped test).

  45. Brian R says:
    June 30, 2014 at 9:40 am
    It can’t be said that only one side has cornered the market on intolerance.

    But it can be said that only one side is demanding that the world surrender its liberty, prosperity, lifestyle and, in all too many cases, literal lives to catastrophic projections of a “climate science” based on rampant statistical jiggery-pokery, computer models which have never demonstrated the least bit of predictive skill, and the pronouncements of climate advocates and NGOs who are accumulating wealth beyond the dreams of avarice from the looming panic that they themselves have generated, while simultaneously generating personal carbon footprints larger than towns and cities.

    Then, if you have the patience to sift through their epic plans to “solve” this “crisis” ,which doesn’t really appear to exist, you will find, somewhere in the fineprint back pages, that even if we stipulate to all their BS, and everyone on the planet, except for they and their cronies of course, carried out their obligations to the letter for the duration, the situation that would result would be so insignificantly different from what would obtain if we did absolutely nothing about the Demon Carbon that we are decades away from having an adequate technology to even measure it.

    I’m sure you thought your attempt to create an aphorism of moral equivalence was quite clever, but it really was seriously lame

  46. This is not surprising, the left has alway taken their views to extremes, they have killed millions when they are unimpeded. To them the end alway justify the means. After all they are saving the world, country, or creating social utopia in their eyes. Even when the extreme left flies off the rails the middle left never apologize, or will admit they were wrong.

  47. There’s intense precedent for going after kids in how long time skeptical publisher of Access To Energy, Art Robinson, with three kids in graduate programs for nuclear engineering had their appointments attacked after Art ran for congress:

    http://oregonstateoutrage.squarespace.com/home/2011/3/18/please-help-osu-moves-to-stop-joshua-robinsons-phd-work.html

    “Reese told Joshua that he, Reese, had revoked Joshua’s privilege to pass through the control room and revoked Joshua’s privilege to work in or even be present in the reactor bay where his apparatus is located.”

  48. Thank you Even Jones, I appreciate that, especially coming from you.

    You and the other people working on the surface stations put in a lot of work to come up with new arguments. That is a reason in itself to look at the results seriously. (I wish we had similar projects elsewhere.) It is interesting to try to understand the results. New interesting arguments make it easier to stay civil. Responding to a string of old arguments or pure hostility in a friendly manner is harder. Twitter is a fast medium, it invites to make mistakes and scientists are also normal humans.

    I am sorry about the above incident, especially as I had the feeling that WUWT was becoming more friendly since Anthony Watts asked people to show their best side.

  49. I saw/read the twitter exchange Venema writes about above. Clearly it was a rude exchange. When things get heated up you occasionally lose control. That is my guess as to what happened. But that is no excuse for what was done.

    Much of our personal information is available online. If I participate in the climate debate with my real name, is it right for some one to use it to search for information about family members – which would also be available online freely – and use that information against me, even rhetorically? I don’t think so.

  50. Eric Worrall says:
    June 30, 2014 at 7:57 am

    If you truly believe that the future of humanity is in the balance, that if you fail the world may be destroyed, there is no crime which is beyond contemplation. Any act, no matter how heinous, pales into insignificance compared to the deaths of billions of people.

    A crisis is a moral slippery slope.

    “Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false.” ― Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays

  51. “The whole episode is odd, because on one hand Mr. Venema is preaching for tolerance and restraint, and more civil scientific discourse, and then we have an “off the rails” moment like this coming from him.”
    ================================================
    In a nutshell – the Liberal Left preach tolerance and at the same time are hugely intolerant of those who have views other than theirs. Rank. Venema and his likes are vile to behave in such a way, just vile.

  52. RP Jr says “I learned this weekend of a senior climate scientist harassing one of my former students – just because of that fact. WTF?”

    Mr Pielke, you have to name and shame. It’s no good here saying “a senior climate scientist”. Name him/her. There is nothing as cleansing as bright sunlight.

    As a general point, the AGW machine is ugly, well-funded and ruthless. Yet honest principled people such as RP Jr are not playing the same game. I’m not saying that sceptics of whatever flavour should get down and dirty and fling mud like they do, but on the other hand it’s no good saying “a senior climate scientist” because the Queensberry rules prevent you from anything else.

    Name names so this can be stopped.

  53. Keith Sketchley says:
    June 30, 2014 at 8:54

    Of course in the US you can easily get a concealed-weapong permit.
    _______________

    Actually, I believe Anthony resides in a state where that is not a possibility.

  54. “Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false.”

    Can we add a corollary? How about:

    “No one is a scientist who has a policy of lambasting people who are skeptical of his favorite theory when that theory obviously has not been confirmed by the evidence.”

  55. “Anything is possible says:
    June 30, 2014 at 9:33 am
    And Willis wonders why a lot of posters prefer to remain anonymous…….

    Brian R says:
    June 30, 2014 at 9:40 am
    It can’t be said that only one side has cornered the market on intolerance.”

    It takes (me) great willpower to refrain from replying in kind with insults when someone calls me a liar or worse. I find that posting my real name
    acts as a control, keeping me from making ad hominem attacks in kind, and embarrassing myself.

  56. @ Keith Sketchley says:
    June 30, 2014 at 8:54 am

    Of course in the US you can easily get a concealed-weapong permit.

    Nice theory you have there. Clearly you don’t live in the People’s Republic of Maryland…

  57. May I suggest as an occasional reader that contributors should identify their expertise as this will have a bearing on their viewpoint. I notice that Naomi Oreskes initial contribution to the 97% of scientist claim came from someone qualified in the History of Science. My own part time interest concerns past climates of the Holocene in Europe. So my qualification is in Prehistoric Archaeology. Edinburgh ( the first climate scientist I came across was F E Zeuner of the Institute of Archaeology, London University). If we don’t know peoples’ academic background we cannot assess their credibility. So from this you can see I don’t know much about climate science but I can assess credibility to an extent.

  58. Greg says: “I like Tisdale’s pointing out that El Nino / La Nina is not a symmetrical oscillation and thus can be a _cause_ of inter-decadal variability, not because some untrained guy with rudimentary data processing capabilities suggested it using a “real” name, but because I think the argument has merit, _despite_ the author’s personal history.”

    I give Bob Tisdale credit not only because “because I think the argument has merit” but because he does have a background in Engineering in fluid dynamics. The very discipline that qualifies him to investigate ENSO. Please don’t refer to people as untrained unless you are certain that is the case.

    Once again Bob, if I’m wrong please correct me.

  59. Tell me Venema what would you do if you had the power to get it your way?
    I don’t believe for one minute that your excuse is real.
    Green is the colour of your kind.

  60. I also add that I respect Bob’s combative, but still courteous style of responding to critics.

  61. Eric Worrall says:
    June 30, 2014 at 7:57 am

    If you truly believe that the future of humanity is in the balance, that if you fail the world may be destroyed, there is no crime which is beyond contemplation. Any act, no matter how heinous, pales into insignificance compared to the deaths of billions of people.

    A crisis is a moral slippery slope.
    ______________________
    Your words are disgusting. “Truly believe” is intellectually shallow and logically weak. You people who espouse “the end justifies the means” place yourselves above ethics and moral code to get what you want. You have closed ranks with history’s worse despots.

  62. By a very strange coincidence, I’ve been looking at videos concerning witch-hunts. The name changes according to the time, but the general characteristic of the witch-hunt remains. In the early 1600s, they were looking for, trying and hanging witches. In the McCarthy era (1950s) exchange “witches” for “communists” but the other details tend to remain. In recent decades, getting accused as a child-molester made you as good as one, which made it a favorite charge in divorce/custody battles. Today, “climate skeptic” seems to fill the bill. Get yourself called a “climate skeptic” and the idea is that you drag your knuckles on the ground, grunt, pound the ground with sticks and generally are still in the dark ages as concerns climate science– while the warmists tell us that unless we act NOW, Godzilla will sack New York. (Seems the big lizard got tired of sacking Tokyo.)

    Nothing really changes except the calendar date. Different day, same witch-hunt only with different witches.

  63. In a short word what this is all about is Tribalism. We have the CAGW Tribe against the anti CAGW Tribe. The major problem is that they are not playing by the same rules. Hey why play with rules in the first place? Do we call it civilized tribalism? You have the people looking in who belong to neither tribe but unknowingly effected by the different tribal rulings. EG Carbon Tax.People here cite religious wars but that is also tribalism. Gang wars were called turf wars but was all about tribalism. People have a sense of belonging when they belong to a tribe and they feel loss when they are booted out. Tribe members will defend each other to the death. The anti CAGW tribe must learn to fight back because it is winner take all.

  64. Quite the rogue’s gallery in that photo, Anthony:
    Naomi: 97% agree with me
    Mikey: I’ll sue the other 3%
    Ben: I’ll punch them out.
    Kevin: Let’s re-define peer review so they all agree.
    That’s the Gang of Four. The other two I don’t know much about.
    Anthony, how was it basking in their presence?

  65. Alan Robertson: Eric was referring to others and how they think, i.e., “to the true believers it is this way.” While it is disgusting that such ideological beliefs exist, his beliefs are not what he was referring to, IIRC.

    Mark

  66. “Hitler did not think he was evil …”

    I don’t know of anyone who thinks himself evil merely for the sake of being evil. That’s cartoon villain stuff. Of course, Hitler did not think himself evil, anymore than Roosevelt thought himself evil for the internment of Americans with Japanese last names, or for his pre- Pearl Harbor modus operandi of treating anyone who wasn’t utterly committed to his holy war against fascism as a crypto-Nazi.

    “… he thought of himself as a great messiah whose destiny was to save Germany.”

    But for the belief on the part of the German people themselves that they needed saving, that is, that they were profoundly, even existentially, threatened, Hitler would have been as failed a politician as he was an artist. Hitler’s mind left him only toward the end. His little talk to his general staff on the eve of the Invasion of Poland showed him to be as clearheaded as a man can be.

    “He was NOT insane. When he wasn’t giving speeches, he could sound perfectly rational …”

    I’m tempted to say “He *was* perfectly rational.” As Chesterton says, “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. He is the man who has lost everything except his reason. The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable;” Or one might say, “unfalsifiable.”

    “In the McCarthy era (1950s) exchange “witches” for “communists” but the other details tend to remain.”

    Except that there actually were communists to be found. And they were real. And communists. We knew only the half of it, until the Venona Transcripts came out.

  67. Alan Robertson says:
    June 30, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    He isn’t proposing evil. He’s saying that the CAGW crowd will do evil things because they think the future of the world itself is in danger. It is they who are proposing that the end justifies the means. Eric is just making that observation.

  68. @dbstealey

    “Priorities have gotten so skewed that bureaucrats’ pay comes first, and the potholes are only filled, bridges repaired, and schools fixed when gov’t comes to the ‘rescue’ by raising taxes.”

    But if they filled the potholes, repaired the bridges and fixed the schools first, what would they use to justify raising taxes?

  69. Having a science degree is useful, but a lot of academic research and the archaeological record pertaining to archaeology and palaeoanthropology, (That have units in the humanities and science degrees) that I have plus a GCA in Ancient history, does consider climatic conditions that have forced various stages of evolution and adaptation. One can’t ignore it. One of the catch phrases used by one of my lecturers, the late Professor Mike Morwood, was ‘Human’s propose and nature deposes’ and that still stands today with all our advanced technology. One of the concerns was we could be faced with a catastrophic event, such as Yellowstone Park sits over one of the biggest magma reserves on the planet. It has erupted every 600 k years and it is 620,000 years since the last one. Or an asteroid colliding with earth. And it is a fact that during the last ice age, there was more seismic activity and volcanic eruptions on the islands of Japan and SE Asia than there is today. So – with the suns orbit always changing, it might be a good idea if we knew where it was during the last glacial period as it lasted longer than the present interstadial or interglacial. Because it won’t be pleasant. I still think of the hidden agendas of climate alarmists, if I know this a mere mortal, and a probable knowledge we have more chance of getting extremely colder, why are they going to great lengths to take the opposite point of view to the point of insulting and terrorising skeptics. Seems illogical to a point they are afraid of something, and it goes deeper than just their credibility and funding?

  70. Victor Venema says:
    June 30, 2014 at 11:45 am

    In response Goddard published my photo and address and allowed a comment that people should visit me there:

    hannuko says: “I wonder are there any readers of this blog in Bonn? Somebody should go visit him at the university and explain that threatening children (or threatening anyone) is not a proper behavour and living far away from your target is not something that justifies this.”

    I hope that Goddard will remove that post and apologize, like I did, and will leave it up to the reader to judge who behaved worse.

    One aspect of the time I spent on USENET (something vaguely like a free-for-all blogosphere) was that people who engaged in “flame wars” and hit back harder than they got hit really seemed to have pretty unhappy lives. Positive feedback and all that. Things don’t work out all that well if someone who tried to defuse situations gets in a discussion with a flamer, I’m sort of in that position in a couple things over at Steve’s blog. Put two defusers together and you’ll fall asleep reading the first reply.

    So there needs to be some level of spice, but gotta be kept calm enough by both parties so there’s some information exchange, not just invective. At the very worst, keep it personal, don’t drag wives, children, employers, coworkers, etc.

    Other good things:

    1) Cooling off periods
    If someone posts something really insulting, don’t reply right away. Other people besides you will see it as an unwarranted attack, you don’t need to defend right away. Besides, you might come up with a great zinger if you keep it in the back of your mind.

    2) Let them have the last word
    A lot of conversations drag on for far too long because each combatant can’t imagine not having the last word. If you’ve said all there is to say, don’t bother to reply to one of his posts. It probably doesn’t add to the conversation, and anyone who comes across it in the future will give up halfway through.

    3) Similarly, don’t feed the trolls
    In fact, one of the most insulting things you can do to an opponent in a war of words is to ignore him. He’ll keep coming back to see your response, and the lack of one will eat away at him for days. With luck it will leave a sour enough taste he’ll go away himself.

  71. alexwade says:
    June 30, 2014 at 8:26 am

    +1

    often think of the saying “Jesus, save me from your followers”. The fact that it is appropriate here shows that this is not a scientific issue. One thing I’ve noticed in life is that those who preach tolerance are the most intolerant of all. Not coincidentally much of the intolerance comes from elitists and leftists and their causes.

  72. We already know who behaved worse, you went for his children. WTF is wrong with you people that you’re so fixate on being able to get to we skeptics’ families for disagreeing with your wacko religion of fake science and f r a u d u l e n t misrepresentations of everything, and everyone, you touch?

    In the Electronic Engineering fields we don’t have to hide who we are from each other.

    This is you. This is the way you people who believe in this scam, act consistently.

    All of you come pretending to be messengers of a great light yet your works are the works of cynicism and error after compounding error.

    You’re in perfect company with the believers in your fake science religion that leaves you all so bewildered you can’t remember the Ideal Gas Law forbids your story of magical gas.

    It’s just pathetic that you’re all to a man this way and it’s past creepy, it’s simply telling we find you dressing pictures of each other up in German Wehrmacht photographs from WWII.

    Every instance of creepy blinded revulsive behavior exudes from you people like a stench, and I personally don’t think it’s one single iota an “unfortunate incident” except that the blogger you tried to harass snitched you off immediately to the public as I saw one Canadian professor do,

    when he was contacted by a prominent warmer who believes in your kind of “debate” tactics and threatened to contact the Professor’s boss to stop the Professor from ridiculing the warmer’s faked claims of certainty global warming was real.

    I think everyone dealing with any of you should keep full documentation of everything you do.

    Victor Venema says:
    June 30, 2014 at 11:45 am
    I hope that Goddard will remove that post and apologize, like I did, and will leave it up to the reader to judge who behaved worse.

  73. Ah, doesn’t it warm your heart to know that warmist scientists care for the family relationships of skeptics.

  74. The new Klan assembles under the sign of a hockey-schtick and their bible is the IPCC reports. They may win a battle, but they will never win their war against truth. I’d love to help pushing their hokey schtick into the abyss of oblivion…

  75. I wonder if VV realizes that when apologizing, sincerity is lost once blame is placed on the person the apology is directed toward. And besides… “Mommy!!! That bad man was soooo wude! Let’s tell the world who he and his children are so they will never be wude again!” Despicable. I hope this is not an example of how you teach YOUR children to behave; if so, I feel sorry for them.

    Mark

  76. Thirty years from now, say c. AD 2040, not one of these deviant Screwtapes will ever admit that over decades, grant-mongering catastrophism was their stock-in-trade. We note especially that not a single junior climate-careerist has ever –not one, not ever– dared voice a counter-conjecture “speaking truth to power”.

    When climate deviants’ current chivvying, dishonest, pecculating cohort finally reaches that Big Anti-Cyclone in the Sky, long-term consumers of this drivel will find that, lo! like Rene Blondlot, Trofim Lysenko, J.B. Rhine and Immanuel Velikovsky, their gaudy schtick is a grotesque embarrassment.

    Like aging Auschwitz guards, the less said about such creeps and thugs, the better.

  77. MattS says:
    June 30, 2014 at 8:11 pm
    @dbstealey

    “Priorities have gotten so skewed that bureaucrats’ pay comes first, and the potholes are only filled, bridges repaired, and schools fixed when gov’t comes to the ‘rescue’ by raising taxes.”

    But if they filled the potholes, repaired the bridges and fixed the schools first, what would they use to justify raising taxes?
    ————————————————————-
    Bureaucrat’s well deserved pay increases?
    cn

  78. Doug S says:
    June 30, 2014 at 10:44 pm
    alexwade says:
    June 30, 2014 at 8:26 am

    +1

    often think of the saying “Jesus, save me from your followers”. The fact that it is appropriate here shows that this is not a scientific issue. One thing I’ve noticed in life is that those who preach tolerance are the most intolerant of all. Not coincidentally much of the intolerance comes from elitists and leftists and their causes.
    ————————————
    Did you mean Allah or maybe Al Gore, save me from your followers?
    I don’t know of any christians, quakers or atheists etc, threatening and promoting chopping off your head or otherwise causing you harm because they don’t like the fact you disagree with them.
    cn

  79. There are valid reasons for anonymity in online commentary. “Common Sense” written by Thomas Paine in late 1775 was published anonymously. That does not invalidate the value of the text.

  80. Damn, I just wrote a very long comment and received the message “Sorry, this comment cannot be posted”.

    I recently participated in a history of science workshop at which Naomi O. gave a reading from her new work of apocalyptic fiction (literally). I will spare you my literary criticism. A colleague recused him or herself from the reading because this individual did not want his or her body language to betray the lack of regard in which he or she held Oreskes, who has sold out on the principles undergirding the history and philosophy of science. I later found that this individual had been outed (by another, mischievous, colleague) as a catastrophic climate change skeptic to a very eminent science historian. Sadly, this cost my colleague this individual’s esteem and friendship.

    I would suffer a similar fate with regards to my closest colleagues.

    This is why, Willis, I chose to post here anonymously, and why, sadly, I keep my views to myself except to a few chosen colleagues. Sadly, I don’t see this situation coming to an end before I retire (at least a decade from now) owing to the money riding on the CAGW narrative. I thought the scam would be over by now thanks to Climategate and the inaccuracy of CAGW temperature projections, but too few people – especially academics – are willing to break from the herd, think for themselves, or critically investigate an issue they broadly sympathize with owing to their political inclinations.

  81. MattS says:

    But if they filled the potholes, repaired the bridges and fixed the schools first, what would they use to justify raising taxes?

    Taxes are too high already. Between state and federal I pay around 41% income tax. I receive far less than that in services or benefits. How can anyone justify tax rates that high?

    When President Reagan cut taxes to a maximum 28%, the economy boomed for the next twenty years. Now the economy is stagnating, and there is no indication it will improve by very much. Can you see the connection?

  82. vigilantfish says:
    July 1, 2014 at 8:51 am

    Damn, I just wrote a very long comment and received the message “Sorry, this comment cannot be posted”.

    It’s a recent WordPress glitch, I’ve been getting it too, in fact I just got it on this comment. Copy the comment, reload the page, and try again.

    w.

  83. dbstealey says:
    July 1, 2014 at 9:34 am

    MattS says:

    But if they filled the potholes, repaired the bridges and fixed the schools first, what would they use to justify raising taxes?

    Taxes are too high already. Between state and federal I pay around 41% income tax. I receive far less than that in services or benefits. How can anyone justify tax rates that high?

    When President Reagan cut taxes to a maximum 28%, the economy boomed for the next twenty years. Now the economy is stagnating, and there is no indication it will improve by very much. Can you see the connection?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Oops, I left off the /sarc tag.

  84. Many years ago on the Guardian Unlimited talkboard, I injudiciously released enough personal information that a certain Inks was able to work out my identity and location, post it on the GU talkboard, and observe that someone ought to “sort me out”.

    A complaint to the Guardian led to the expected result, of course – nothing whatsoever.

    So it is my considered opinion that anyone who reveals their ID on the Internet is injudicious at best.

    Also, I consider that introducing the identity of someone’s child specifically by name into an acrimonious discussion is utterly beyond the pale, and entirely inexcusable under any circumstances whatsoever, and could be construed as a threat of the vilest kind.

    No wonder the Warmists are losing the battle for hearts and minds – not to mention the science – when they feel they have to resort to such tactics.

  85. Mmmm. I think you-all ought to lay off Dr. Venema. He is not the problem the others are. He may even prove part of the solution. I’d rather engage him in terms of the science. Discussing the surface station paper with him has been an interesting and productive experience. He has never insulted or talked down to me, or told me to “read a book”. He has made me think outside the box — to my advantage. I think, in his case especially, we ought to engage rather than condemn.

    Besides, it was refreshing for me (though perhaps a little frustrating for him) to discuss homogenization vis a vis USHCN. He is willing to discuss it, which is more than you can say for some, lord knows. And that’s what I want — to be able to discuss these things with folks I disagree with who are actually in on the stats.

    This blog has a reputation for being more tolerant than most others on the subject of AGW (on either side). I enjoin you to further that reputation.

    I hear a lot about all this being a war. I am a military historian. This is not a war. This is an argument.

  86. Thanks.

    I cannot (or will not) speak for the others. But, in all the important ways, Victor is alright.

  87. Given the type and number of threats, and the evident fear instilled to maintain omerta about all things skeptical, it is not unreasonable to talk about a climate mafia. They perpetrate fraud, act with common purpose and gain huge amounts of money by trumping up public fears. That deserves investigation under the RICO statute and perhaps others as it involves transport of illicit gain across State lines.

  88. It was in poor taste, but I simply do not see any threat, here. He regrets having done so, which is (a lot) more than you can say for certain others. This is an extremely volatile debate, and aberrations can and will occur. I think you-all are picking on the wrong guy.

  89. Victor Venema says:
    June 30, 2014 at 11:45 am

    This is one reason why I stay away from Twitter. Aside from being a likely time sink, the restriction to a small number of characters encourages ‘one-liners’, whether attempts at clever jokes or fortune-cookie observations. In the heat of controversy, these can quickly turn to insults and vulgarity. If you are going to do verbal battle, do it armed with reason, logic, and complete sentences. With Twitter, you are just sniping at each other.

    /Mr Lynn (never really anonymous, if anyone cared to look)

  90. Jimmy Haigh. says:
    June 30, 2014 at 7:49 am
    “Was it James Delingpole who said: “For you ze warm is over!”? It was brilliant whoever it was. No – it was one of his commenters – sorry – I can’t remember who.”

    Jimmy, it was a commenter called phantomsby.

  91. Thanks to those who have spoken towards moderation. And to those who might have posted harshly, but had second thoughts and didn’t.

    Most of the half dozen listed above are probably beyond any reasonable hope (until and unless they choose to be otherwise). But anyone who puts out his hand — even if he has made occasional posts that are not unlike some of the posts I’ve seen in this very thread — does not deserve to have it struck down.

    Besides, VV is someone I can actually correspond with about what is going on with homogenization. And I think he is actually interested in the surface stations project for its own sake. And unlike certain NOAA personnel who shall remain nameless, he does not wish it would simply go away. (Or doesn’t allow himself to, which is commendable, and just as good.)

    But he wants to know we are not drawing obviously (or not so obviously) incorrect conclusions or if we have left anything important out. And what the limits of our findings are. And what exactly we actually have found. And so he should. And I need to know what form the criticism will take, and I cannot tell you how important that is. For that to occur, there must be a bridge for civil communication.

Comments are closed.