First They Came For The Scientists….

Mike Lorrey looks at the PNAS skeptics paper and some historical issues related to it. – Anthony

Photo by: Jean-Philippe Charbonnier, first published in Réalités in January 1955 - click for more

My primary area of accomplishment in life, other than virtual worlds development, is in political activism. Despite my technical training, I am a very political animal, having helped Killington, Vermont vote to secede from that state in protest of excessive taxation, and having organized the effort to eminent domain the New Hampshire vacation estates of Supreme Court Justices Souter and Breyer after the Kelo decision, as political theater to “encourage” the two political parties these gentlemen hailed from to support my state constitutional amendment to restrict eminent domain.

I was a founding member of the Free State Project, yes, one of *those* libertarians, guilty as charged. I’ve managed the election campaigns of both libertarians and republicans, and treat politics as a sport or quest to improve our country’s “more perfect union” with principles couched in pragmatic use of political theater and holding petty fascists to their own standards. I’ve studied the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers extensively, as well as their Enlightenment forebears, and a lot of the little known history of this country. I’ve also studied the history of various flavors of tyranny, in particular the various modern flavors, communism, fascism, islamism, and especially liberalist majoritarian tyranny.

So it is from this perspective that I approached the global warming issue, observing the players and how they act, trying to tease out their hidden agendas, if there are any. Originally I believed the dogma. I founded a company in Seattle focusing on energy conservation safety lighting, inventing new lighting products that were highly rated by the EPA’s Greenlights program. I was once the poster boy of Al Gore’s reinventing government campaign, getting government agencies to buy my new technology despite not having prior issued paperwork, etc. Eventually I was given access by the energy department to a lot of material that exposed to me how screwed up the energy conservation business is, and I started to challenge claims about global warming orthodoxy. I saw how Al Gore, in the early Clinton administration, sabotaged the proposed carbon tax, turning it into a BTU tax, so that coal produced by his home state of Tennessee would not be the most highly taxed energy source. So I questioned more, and was cast out by the ruling party from golden boy status. So I questioned global warming a lot more, online, publicly.

This caused a certain degree of conflict within my family. As some of you know, my cousin is a professional climatologist. When he was still working on his doctorate, certain persons of influence attempted to threaten his academic career before it really got started in order to coerce me into removing statements I’d made about global warming from certain influential email lists. This was in the 2000-2001 timeframe, so I got a pretty early taste of the sort of “tricks” that the high inquistors of the Church of Global Warming would pursue in order to enforce their orthodoxy against heretics like myself, and when I acted offended, about my first amendment rights, I was made to look like the bad guy.

This is why this recent essay about modern political correctness being merely a form of social marxism developed during WWI by a group of renegade marxists who sought to use Freudism to spread marxism through society struck a chord with me. It illuminated a lot of what I’d been thinking over the past years, and perfectly explains why the AGW alarmists behave the way they do. The witch hunts, the character assasination, the Alinsky method du jour. The Hockey Team is a Marxist organization, not in the traditional economic sense (though their prescription for “saving the planet” is extensively marxist) but in how they operate toward their opponents. This is not unusual, though. It has become standard practice in academia to engage in persecution of dissidents from orthodoxy.

This fact is illustrated quite clearly in the new National Academy of Scientists Blacklist of Climate “Deniers” this is the list that is online, referenced by the PNAS paper trying to make skeptics into media untouchables. At first glance, its pretty amusing that the author of this list ranks skeptics by the number of references in the published record to their FOURTH published paper, with the claim that anybody who has only published a few papers, even if they are “big papers” is clearly a lightweight. As if Einstein wasn’t immediately a rock star when he published his first paper on Special Relativity, eh?

Maybe I’m an ignorant heathen, but it seems to me that someone who can’t get their most important ideas on the same subject, with sufficient proof to convince the entire world of the truth of their writing, published in a few papers, is simply regurgitating the same old tired pap and really isn’t intelligent enough to have even one “big paper” in their lives. But I may be wrong. However, the ranking this guy does seems to rank a lot of the best skeptics at the top: Pielke, Jr., Dyson, Lindzen, Tipler, etc. It seems to me, though, that the number of cites should be divided by the number of years since their PhD to give an idea of their relative productivity in their field… However, when you shift the ranking to go on the cites of climate related papers, you get a more impressive list:

68: Roger A Pielke Sr, FAGU

446: James J O’Brien, FAGU

1649: Kirill Y Kondratyev

747: John R Christy

710: Reid A Bryson

278: Sherwood Idso

1562: Robert C Balling

1410: Patrick J Michaels

136: Richard Lindzen, FAGU

1198: G Cornelis van Kooten

1686: Sultan Hameed

954: Willie H Soon

1503: S Frederick Singer, FAGU

625: Petr Chylek, FAGU

1024: James A Moore

500: Roy W Spencer

1230: Nils-Axel Moerner

1651: George Taylor

These are the top 15. Sure, they don’t have NAMES like Dyson or Tipler, but we all know who most of these guys are from their climate work that tends to debunk the AGW garbage, and which tends to get published, and cited by others. I’ll try to post a link to the excel file I made from scraping the PNAS blacklist.

The entire list is essentially made from the names of any scientist who has ever signed a letter, petition, or public advertisement expressing doubt about the AGW orthodoxy, IPCC, or the Hockey Team. SO the list really ISN’T about whether their science is for or against the AGW orthodoxy, the list is meant to intimidate and damage the reputations of anybody who has dared to publicly question the absolutist “we have a consensus” political games being played by those who are intentionally politicising climate science to pursue their leftist agenda. This is classic Alinsky tactics. There is no valid scientific purpose for this PNAS paper or this blacklist. It is a political showboating that is going on under the guise of “science”.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
jcrabb

The Leipzig declaration and Oregon petition also make public the views of Scientists on Global warming, are they also ‘Communist black lists’?
REPLY: I signed the Leipzig declaration. -A

Darren Parker

I’ll give you $100 if you can post this at forums.treehugger.com and not have it censored. The censorship over there is unbeleivable. No wonder we can’t make headway when they won’t even publish opinion pieces. I dare you!

Andrew W

It’s staggering that people can be so blinkered by their ideology that they’re incapable of recognizing that they’re practicing exactly what they condemn others of doing.

Dave Springer

I remember the effort to take the SCJ’s fancy vacation homes under the eminent domain laws they found to be constitutional. Brilliant. Way to make an example out of them. I was way heated up at the thought that a city could come along and forcibly take my property from me and give it another private party who would use it to “better serve” the community. That’s SO abhorrent and SO against the strong private property rights enumerated in the constitution. If if I hadn’t seen the USSC decision with my own eyes I wouldn’t have believed that could possibly get five votes in favor of it.

Oh my, it’s commentary like this that makes me embarrassed to be a climate change skeptic. Your site does a fine job of disseminating scientific criticism of the AGW position, but when your posts tackle politics, not to mention the commenters, you veer off into self-aggrandizing, self-pitying, victimology. I find your continuous allusions to the the Nazi Holocaust increasing distasteful. The critics of AGW are not having their lives threatened, they are not, the vast majority of them anyway, being tossed out of their jobs, they are not being hunted down and imprisoned, and they are not likely to be anytime in the forseeable future. Get real.
AGW is an intellectual fad with routes in romantic environmentalism, and it suffers from all the pitfalls of close-minded groupthink, besides having some advocates who have really caught on to how to work the media. It is not the black boot of the one party state coming down on your windpipe.
Statements such as this:
[REPLY: Thanks for pointing that out, I made an edit to the story earlier, at pub time, but somehow it didn’t take or I made a mistake. Fixed, thanks -A]

Kevin

“…(though their prescription for “saving the planet” is extensively marxist)…”
I think Fascist is the more accurate label as Marxism seeks state ownership whereas Fascism seeks to buttress private cartels. Mussolini stated that Fascism and Corporatism are synonymous and it is quite apparent that the AGW agenda which is the vanguard of the Environmental movement seeks to alter the laws of a given State to control the flow of energy. Of course Environmentalism has always been an Oligarchical position for which Reactionary Conservatism and Fascism are the cloaks used to advance the agenda.
Junk science should not be debunked by junk sociology IMO.

jcrabb,
The difference is that Leipzig and OISM are voluntary; the scientists decide for themselves if they want to be included or not.
But the PNAS list is an official blacklist endorsed by a quasi-governmental organization. The list is entirely political in nature, arbitrarily assigning names based only on someone’s perception [“My table lists all the names I’ve found who have signed any of the open letters or declarations expressing skepticism of the IPCC’s findings…”], and not allowing for any recourse if a listed scientist objects. [Note also that the blacklist compiler is a believer in Astrology.]
This blacklist is no different than Richard Nixon’s “Enemies List,” put together by the Nixon White House and specifically designed to destroy careers.
Fortunately for those Nixon blacklisted, Watergate intervened.

Curiousgeorge

That’s a good write-up, there Mr Lorrey. I hope people take the time to understand their opponents – not so much to smear them for their motives, but to understand their modus operandi.
Otherwise you just make sincere arguments and leave perplexed everytime.

Arno Arrak

It took a lot of work to compile the list: as a Word file it is 63 pages long. The warmists are into this vendetta thing. Bjorn Lomborg was the first victim when he came out with his Skeptical Environmentalist. They established a web site that minutely criticized every page of his book. When he wrote another one they actually published a counter-book to tear it apart, page by page. NAS is now into it on a mass scale, apparently intent on selecting candidates for a Gulag. Or is it for an auto-da-fe? If I were a member I would simply resign. This organization is no longer interested in promoting science, just enforcing their own doctrines and stealing research money.

DW Horne

The NAS has always been an old boy network; however, it was (and I emphasize, was) a great honor to be elected to the Academy. If I were a member, I would resign in protest and I think all true scientists who are academy members should resign.
This sort of behavior reminds me of the school-yard bully who threatens to take his ball and go home because he the rules of the game don’t apply to him.

Fred2

“It’s staggering that people can be so blinkered by their ideology that they’re incapable of recognizing that they’re practicing exactly what they condemn others of doing.”
They aren’t blinkered. It’s deliberate.

DW Horne

Funny a commenter would say ”It is not the black boot of the one party state coming down on your windpipe. ” with the present administration threatening to keep its boot on the throat of the BP CEO.

Graeme Rodaughan

Andrew W says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:25 pm
It’s staggering that people can be so blinkered by their ideology that they’re incapable of recognizing that they’re practicing exactly what they condemn others of doing.

It is also possible that there are no such blinkers, and that they are engaging in these tactics with full awareness. They simply don’t care about being fair, – but in winning.

Mike G

@ lichanos
I hope you’re right. I’m not so optimistic. Perhaps I read to many of the comments on news articles and blogs and have too good a feel for what the 45% who support Obama think about the other 55% of us and think about the institutions the founding fathers established. I should stop taking that pulse because too much more of it is likely to stop mine.

villabolo

“It illuminated a lot of what I’d been thinking over the past years, and perfectly explains why the AGW alarmists behave the way they do. The witch hunts, the character assasination, the Alinsky method du jour. The Hockey Team is a Marxist organization, not in the traditional economic sense (though their prescription for “saving the planet” is extensively marxist) but in how they operate toward their opponents.”
*********************************
Andrew W says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:25 pm
It’s staggering that people can be so blinkered by their ideology that they’re incapable of recognizing that they’re practicing exactly what they condemn others of doing.
*********************************
VILLABOLO:
Mirror, mirror on the wall.
——-
US Senate’s top climate sceptic accused of waging ‘McCarthyite witch-hunt’
James Inhofe calls for criminal investigation of climate scientists as senators prepare proposal that would ditch cap and trade
[–SNIP–]
Senate Panel Holds Hearing on Climate Change : James Inhofe The Republican James Inhofe during the Senate Environment and Public Works hearing on global climate change. . . .
The US Congress’s most ardent global warming sceptic is being accused of turning the row over climate science into a McCarthyite witch-hunt by calling for a criminal investigation of scientists.
Climate scientists say Senator James Inhofe’s call for a criminal investigation into American as well as British scientists who worked on the UN climate body’s report or had communications with East Anglia’s climate research unit represents an attempt to silence debate on the eve of new proposals for a climate change law.
Inhofe’s document ends by naming 17 “key players” in the controversy about CRU’s stolen emails, including the Britons Phil Jones and Keith Briffa.
“I think this is like a drag net, just to try and catch everyone whose name happens to be on this list. It’s guilt by association and I thought those days were over 50 years ago,” said Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University, who is on the list of 17 scientists. “It looks like a McCarthyite tactic: pull in anyone who had anything to do with anyone because they happened to converse with some by email, and threaten them with criminal activity.”
Inhofe is also accused of further fuelling a spike in hate mail and politically motivated freedom of information requests in the three months since the emails of climate scientists were stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.
Rick Piltz, a former official in the US government climate science programme who now runs the Climate Science Watch website, said Inhofe and others were getting in the way of scientific work. “Scientists who are working in federal labs are being subjected to inquisitions coming from Congress,” he said. “There is no question that this is an orchestrated campaign to intimidate scientists.”
Michael Mann, a scientist at Penn State University who is on Inhofe’s list of 17, said that he had seen a sharp rise in hostile email since November.
“Some of the emails make thinly veiled threats of violence against me and even my family, and law enforcement authorities have been made aware of the matter,” he told the Guardian.
He said the attacks appeared to be a co-ordinated effort. “Some of them look cut-and-paste.”
A university investigation largely cleared Mann of misconduct for his connection to the East Anglia controversy. However, a rightwing group in Pennsylvania are demanding further action.
Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at Nasa’s Goddard Institute who is also on the list of 17, said he had seen an increase in freedom of information act requests. “In my previous six years I dealt with one FoIA request. In the last three months, we have had to deal with I think eight,” he said. “These FoIAs are fishing expeditions for potentially embarrassing content but they are not FoIA requests for scientific information.”
He said Inhofe’s call for a criminal investigation created an atmosphere of intimidation. “The idea very clearly is to let it be known that should you be a scientist who speaks out in public then you will be intimidated, you will be harassed, and you will be threatened,” he said. “The idea very clearly is to put a chilling effect on scientists speaking out in public and to tell others to keep their heads down. That kind of intimidation is very reminiscent of other periods in US history where people abused their position.”
Other scientists on Inhofe’s list of 17 admitted they were disturbed by the threat of criminal prosecution.
“I am worried about it, I have to say,” said Raymond Bradley, director of the climate science research centre at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who is also on the list of 17. “You can understand that this powerful person is using the power of his office to intimidate people and to harass people and you wonder whether you should have legal counsel. It is a very intimidating thing and that is the point.”
Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican on the Senate’s environment and public works committee, released a document last week suggesting scientists be investigated for breaking three laws and four government regulations.
[–SNIP–]
But climate scientists say the report takes the campaign to a new level by threatening criminal prosecution. The report calls for the inspector generals of all US government agencies touching on the environment to investigate the scientists as a first step to possible prosecution.
“The minority staff of the Senate committee on environment and public works believe the scientists involved violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws,” the report says.
A spokesman for Inhofe rejected the charges of a witch-hunt. But he said a criminal investigation was warranted and that it should not necessarily be limited to the 17 “key players”.
“We are not saying that there are 17 scientists we should be calling criminals,” said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Inhofe. “I’m not putting a number on 17.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/inhofe-climate-mccarthyite

savethesharks

lichanos says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:30 pm
“Oh my, it’s commentary like this that makes me embarrassed to be a climate change skeptic.”
“AGW is an intellectual fad with routes in romantic environmentalism, and it suffers from all the pitfalls of close-minded groupthink, besides having some advocates who have really caught on to how to work the media.”
“It is not the black boot of the one party state coming down on your windpipe.”
==========================================
Embarrassed? Really?
Maybe you should then check your “skepticism.” [GREAT post, Mike!]
And the dominant reason there is currently no big black boot on your larynx is because people like the author of the post DARE to stand up against it.
How is that self-aggrandizing? Give me a break.
Sure, Michael Mann or Al Gore or not necessarily evil dictators…but they ARE contributing to a larger system that becomes its own behemoth….larger than them…that takes on a life of its own.
Big Government, Big Academia, Big Corporacracy….they ALL have that in common.
[The power therefrom…is only greater in the whole…because the sum of its parts consists of many mindless individuals.]
I am sure there are plenty of decent people that work at the EPA but that doesn’t mean that the EPA has not lost its marbles when it comes to CO2.
Your legalistic [and rather shallow] interpretation of this brilliant post is not significant, other than it has caused me to react enough to set the record straight.
I do not agree at all with your assumption and you are definitely tossing out the the baby and the bathwater….as well as the tub, the plumbing, and half the house.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Mooloo

I find your continuous allusions to the the Nazi Holocaust increasing distasteful.
Well, so would I. If there were any!
The critics of AGW are not having their lives threatened, they are not, the vast majority of them anyway, being tossed out of their jobs, they are not being hunted down and imprisoned, and they are not likely to be anytime in the forseeable future. Get real.
Ho, ho! Unless it’s the Gulag it doesn’t count then? We could perhaps submit you to a range of ad hominens, threats and taunts and you would brush them off as mere trifles? I think not.
My favourite example of the pressure exerted on sceptics came with the Amazing Randi posted suggesting that he was a trifle sceptical of the extreme claims of AGW not long back. The sheer weight of criticism that came down – and his scepticism was very mild – was incredible. He ended up recanting, just to shut down the heat. (I bet he did a “and yet it moves” under his breath though).
So an icon of the sceptic movement cannot afford to be sceptical! It would be funny, if it were not sad.

RoyFOMR

Lord Oxburgh did pontificate
that nothng wrong was done!
Then good old Penn joined in the fight
to clear its favourite son.
Now Russel Muir has taken sides
and struck out with his cosh.
Another repeat, it has been said, of establishment peer whitewash
Now you may not believe me,
you may think that I’m a liar
But i’ll ask you this one question
whose side are you on?
The fish-fried or the fish frier?
When Juries are picked by the accused and the cries of the plaintiffs are dismissed as inadmissabke, then Climatology, like despicable one one crimes becomes unprovable!

The link with academic Marxism is spot-on.
It is Marxism as a science — the neo-marxism of Social Science academia — that legitimates this approach to science; that is, science-as-activism and science provided with permission to promote ad hom assessment of scientific opinion attacks due to economic class of speaker etc. Their methodology was an open attack on the normal bourgeois science ethics and protocol that have always tried to dampen these tendencies to stray from a discussion of the evidence.
The linked essay by Lind explains well the dark side to the new marxism of the Frankfurt school etc…but it might be a bit hard to follow for the uninitiated.
In this essay the affinity of Environmental Science culture with Marxism is explained in terms of Post-Normal Science (of Ravetz) and especially with reference to Mike Hulme’s use of it.
Finally, I think Lichanos (above) is right to ask us to keep the level of persecution in perspective – e.g., the black list was not made by state institution.

Dave McK

Graeme Rodaughan says:
They simply don’t care about being fair, – but in winning.
You got it. Ethics are for hobbling the sheep. Butchering sheep requires none and fewer than that is even better. One just wants the sheep to not struggle. Bleating is fine.
I bet the Westborough Baptist crew could do a brilliant vid on their take of ‘the suffering of science’. Omg… that’s too funny to contemplate!

savethesharks

villabolo says:
July 7, 2010 at 7:28 pm
‘Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at Nasa’s Goddard Institute who is also on the list of 17, said he had seen an increase in freedom of information act requests. “In my previous six years I dealt with one FoIA request. In the last three months, we have had to deal with I think eight,” he said. “These FoIAs are fishing expeditions for potentially embarrassing content but they are not FoIA requests for scientific information.”’
======================================
Well of course this “public servant” on the taxpayer dole…is going to say this!
Wah wah wahh.
Poor NASA. They have to deal with so many FOI requests.
Sniffle sniffle.
James and Gavin, and other publicly funded scientists-turned-politicians…until you get off the public dole and work in a private venture….you’d better believe you are obligated to be under a 24-hour microscope!!
I know that makes you nervous because of what’s at stake: the millions and millions and millions of heard-earned taxpayer dollars that you have been able to divert toward a dying myth….but hell that’s the risk…
…when you use other people’s money!
Wah wah wah.
Eight FOI requests in a few months!
It’s OK….I understand, Dear….being removed from taking real world observations and doing science the old way….that such stress is too much for the air-conditioned, model-fantasy, smooth-handed “ideal”world in which you live.
Bless your heart, Gavin.
Let me pass you the recycled, green tissues.
Chris
Norfolk, VA

Deanster

What you’ve described is the “Fabianism”. Unlike the Communists, who took you by force, the Fabians strive to take you over from within. The three pillars of influece that must be taken are 1) the Media, 2) the Education Elite, and 3) the Courts.
It is indisputable that the AGW crowd is operating through the Fabian model. The Media is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the agenda. The University system is nothing more than an “expert” witness to the agenda, and will exonerate any wrong doing associated with the agenda [just look at the “investigations” that have involved UEA and Mann]. Lastly, the Courts have been complicit in allowing the EPA to usurp powers of authority that are not designated to it in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the American Public is too involved with the latest Iphone or Ipad to notice or care that their individaul freedoms and liberties are very slowly being dissolved.

H.R.

Andrew W says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:25 pm
“It’s staggering that people can be so blinkered by their ideology that they’re incapable of recognizing that they’re practicing exactly what they condemn others of doing.
In a war, both sides insist that their opponents are evil incarnate and that “God is on our side.”
The CAGW war is being fought on three fronts; “religion” (sheer belief), politics (how can we use this to increase our power and influence), and science (there are many honest brokers trying to figure out the climate despite the requisite AGW or CC mention in every paper).
Go ahead, ask either side who is evil incarnate and who has science (or ‘god’) on their side.

berniel:
“…the black list was not made by state institution.”
The NAS is supported by the State. This odious blacklist is now official dogma.
I had posted a [very polite] comment on the site of the maker of the PNAS blacklist. It never appeared. Further, his blogroll lists the sites that he reads. WUWT is missing – yet he responds specifically to WUWT posts.
Defenders of this situation, have at it. I look forward to your defense of this official PNAS blacklist.

Gneiss

This is black-helicopters paranoia, folks. And as usual, not a trace of true skepticism in sight.

Dave Springer says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:30 pm
> I remember the effort to take the SCJ’s fancy vacation homes under the eminent domain laws they found to be constitutional. Brilliant.
It started with the proposal to take Souter’s home and turn it into the Lost Liberty Hotel. (With an ice cream parlor to be named Just Desserts.)
Have you seen Souter’s home? It was no fancy vacation house, see old and new at
http://www.bergproperties.com/blog/retired-supreme-court-associate-justice-david-souter-pays-510k-for-a-new-3500-square-foot-house-in-hopkinton-nh/
Somehow Wikipedia tolerates the story, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel
One good thing out of all of it was that it helped firm up limits on eminent domain in New Hampshire and other states.

Steve in SC

Getting close to the time we will be able to fight fire with fire.
Wonder how the warmies will feel when they have zero funding.
The current administration spent it all.

harry

Sorry if this was pointed out on an earlier thread, but I thought it worth pointing to the irony that this PNAS paper did not pass normal peer review. It is marked as ‘contributed’, meaning that the senior author, as a member of the NAS simply sent the manuscript to two colleagues, then submitted it to PNAS together with their ‘reviews’ for publication. This is very far from peer review in the biological sciences where reviewers are selected by an editor and offer anonymous (and frequently tough) criticisms. Whether PNAS should retain this route for publication is a different discussion but its amusing that this particular paper, seeking to measure the reputation of other scientists, should be slipped into the literature through a backdoor.

savethesharks

Mike Lorrey says:
July 7, 2010 at 7:56 pm
=======================
Saved that for future reference. Extremely well said.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks

Gneiss says:
July 7, 2010 at 8:00 pm
This is black-helicopters paranoia, folks. And as usual, not a trace of true skepticism in sight.
=====================================
Uh huh. And did you ever think that your hand-waving is even remotely better?
You won’t address what is being said, because you can’t. You don’t know, so you dismiss.
And as usual, not a trace of truth-seeking from one of the Believers.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

jcrabb

Smokey
The paper is a compilation of the voluntary signatures to open letters or declarations expressing skepticism of the IPCC’s findings and how often papers published by said people are cited, there is nothing arbitary about it.
All this paper does is put the voluntary letters and declarations contrary to AGW in one place, hardly a Machiavellian exercise, except for maybe a lazy Machiavelli who can’t be bothered to look up things on the net for themselves.

Evan Jones

Inhofe is also accused of further fuelling a spike in hate mail and politically motivated freedom of information requests in the three months since the emails of climate scientists were stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.
Yes, that’s so outrageous because FOI requests should only come from those who agree with you. [insert emoticon indicating mordant sarcasm]

rbateman

We don’t have a single black boot on the neck Party, but we do have a Good Cop/Bad Cop political agenda that has been at work for decades.
That is why there is a Tea Party. AGW isn’t an end, it’s a means to an end: the ultimate pickpocket followed by chains and debtors prison.

Boris

Ha…I knew the mass exonerations of Mann and Jones would push WUWT toward the nuttery right. Kind of like the way the 911 Commission report made truthers even crazier.
REPLY: Boris, you’ve been saying terrible things about me and this blog from day 1, it wouldn’t matter what we published, you’d find a way to make some smart-assed comment out of it. It is your MO -A

Layne Blanchard

lichanos says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:30 pm
You apparently haven’t investigated this issue well enough yet. There have been threats, both direct and veiled.
More importantly, we today have some of the most powerful individuals in the world tightening the noose around America’s energy throat because they are members of this cult. These individuals are too powerful (and too corrupt) to ignore. Renewable energy isn’t the goal. Denial of energy is the goal…. Along with denial of water and land on which to grow food.
This has happened throughout history.
Our country is being systematically strangled for energy. The FDA is so obstructionist, they won’t let skimmers suck up 99% of the gulf oil because 1% might be returned in the discharge. This is psychotic. Members of this cult are devoid of rational thought.
And
villabolo says:
July 7, 2010 at 7:28 pm
The difference between these two sides : Inhofe vs AGW establishment (which includes most members of Congress, The President, Most of Europe, Academia, and the EPA) is that his attack is defensive. Inhofe is not the big dog here. The US DOJ is on the CAGW side!
But hopefully, if we take the house this year, he can get some real teeth. Exposing the FRAUD of CAGW is absolutely necessary to stop this dangerous cult. The courts must be used because the CAGW “scientists” are political activists enjoying cover from the ruling party. This is the only way to get the facts into the open. I have no pity for those who would destroy this country. They should be prosecuted.

jcrabb says at 8:25 pm [ … ]
You have it wrong. The PNAS blacklist names political undesirables. Rather, people should be free to offer their opinions unimpeded by political correctness. Blacklists like the PNAS list do not allow that. They are the equivalent of the Supreme Soviet Politburo.
It is reprehensible that a free society should accept the blacklisting of those with a different scientific point of view.
Why do you and Boris defend the PNAS blacklist?

lichanos said [on persecution of dissidents by environmentalists]:
“It is not the black boot of the one party state coming down on your windpipe.”
It is. In the USA, both parties are green. In the UK, all three parties are green.
There is one party in any modern Western state, and it is green.
Not to mention that the green banner of Al Gore’s religion merges seamlessly with the green banner of the fundamentalist Islam. Jews, take note.

James Sexton

lichanos says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:30 pm
“Oh my, it’s commentary like this that makes me embarrassed to be a climate change skeptic.”
And then goes on to say how the AGW movement isn’t the worst form of socialism nor the worst form of fascism, but later bemoans the misguided environmentalists. lichanos, correct me if I’m wrong on summarizing your statement.
That said, given the multinational response, the laws that have already been passed, and the world leaders demand for more to be done, I’d say reality differs. If the Hansens, Manns, Jones’ of this world are bright enough to be given weight to their opinions, then they can’t possibly be oblivious to the laws which are being passed at their behest. Viewing the laws that have been passed, which most of us live under, I can’t understand how you don’t see the totalitarianism in the said laws. The world’s demand and necessity of energy and the subsequent throttling of said energy can’t be expressed in any other way other than oppression. The proposed and/or implementation of taxing industrial entities for the byproduct of production can be seen as nothing other than a tax on capitalism. Please define socialism again, because I can’t see how that doesn’t meet the criteria. The intrusion of personal liberties in response to this alleged catastrophe hasn’t been seen in a few decades, yet, foretold by Orwell. Today, in-home displays, which can communicate, via the ZigBee protocol, with the various appliances in your home has been implemented. By implemented, I mean control when your appliances can be used or not. In what manner do you choose to rationalize away the totalitarian implications of such an vile act? How do you not throw this at the feet of the “AGW” crowd and the complicit various powers? By various powers, I mean, government and quasi governmental entities, such as utilities. You may take offense of the communism and fascism references if you will, but that simply denies the reality the rest of us are living today.
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s azz if this globe is warming or not. Likely, (with a confidence factor of 60%) 90% of the rest of the world feels the same way. Yet, we have intrusive laws being passed. We have restrictive power use being supplied. We have punitive damages being assessed to productive corporations for no other reason than to continue to be productive they require more energy.
Yeh, no socialism there, no fascism there, no totalitarianism there. It’s just some tree huggers out of skelter. I’m very glad there are some that understand the world isn’t always made of people just misguided, but there are, indeed, people of evil intent.

Günther Kirschbaum

a group of renegade marxists who sought to use Fruedism to spread marxism through society
What is ‘Fruedism’?

April E. Coggins

Note to lefties: It is your side that has politicized everything. We can’t even eat or breath in peace without the word “unsustainable” and “man is destroying the world” thrown at us. Get over yourselves. I don’t know what you are doing to your environment, but my little piece of the world is better than ever.

savethesharks

Layne Blanchard says:
July 7, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Our country is being systematically strangled for energy. The FDA is so obstructionist, they won’t let skimmers suck up 99% of the gulf oil because 1% might be returned in the discharge. This is psychotic. Members of this cult are devoid of rational thought.
============================
Very well said.
Chris
Norfolk, VA

Bill Illis

It would be nice if the debate changed to WHAT is right or wrong versus WHO is right or wrong.
I don’t think the debate is settled yet so the focus should be on what is factually accurate. By moving the debate to WHO, you are skipping the step where the science proves 3.0C per doubling is accurate. You are assuming it is and that makes the WHO question a “political” one rather than a “scientific” one.

James Sexton

“We have punitive damages being assessed to productive corporations for no other reason than to continue to be productive they require more energy.”
OK, yeh, that was probably fragmented too much.
We have punitive damages being assessed to productive corporations for no other reason thanthey wish to continue to be productiveand they require more energy to be productive.……….for the people that can’t read between the lines.

KenB

villabolo says:
July 7, 2010 at 7:28 pm
“It illuminated a lot of what I’d been thinking over the past years, and perfectly explains why the AGW alarmists behave the way they do. The witch hunts, the character assasination, the Alinsky method du jour. The Hockey Team is a Marxist organization, not in the traditional economic sense (though their prescription for “saving the planet” is extensively marxist) but in how they operate toward their opponents.
Villabolo
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. Seems those that attack, conveniently choose to “not remember” the carefully crafted attacks on the most qualified Climatologists/scientists who dared to question the orthodoxy of AGW or raised objection to the scary prediction, the questionable results of climate models that were peddled as scientific truth. Easy then to snipe and email each other to plant destructors in the way of any article that didn’t toe the line of CAGW. How many times did we get scientific consensus rammed down our throat and if we dared to quote any authorative scientist in support of the sceptics, The he’s an Effin liar, worked for big tobacco, paid by big oil and all this being fed out from those convenient cabal of insider government paid, academic protected, taxpayer funded towers of evil – yep they have convenient as well as short memories, the epithets hurled, the ad hominem attacks. It was nasty then from the warmist eletist side, and when the tide turns against their shoddy version of science, its the same old spite and nasty black balling to defend their right to plunder the public purse WITHOUT QUESTION from academics, science, under dictatorial protection.
Hmmn not surprising that the tide of public opinion has turned as even the much ignored and detested start to understand how badly the have been conned, and they are weeping and whining – I just say with a smile – who are the real deniers now!!
Thanks for the article, thought provoking and timely as they struggle to pull their jackboots on – its hard with underpants around ankles!! (and their fingers in their ears)

villabolo

Layne Blanchard says:
July 7, 2010 at 9:09 pm
But hopefully, if we take the house this year, he can get some real teeth. Exposing the FRAUD of CAGW is absolutely necessary to stop this dangerous cult. The courts must be used because the CAGW “scientists” are political activists enjoying cover from the ruling party. This is the only way to get the facts into the open. I have no pity for those who would destroy this country. They should be prosecuted.
VILLABOLO:
Forever the bully pretending to be the victim. Can’t you smell the oil all over yourself?
***********
“Those who bring ruin on their families will inherit only wind, and the fool will be servant to the wise.”–Proverbs 11:29 Today’s New International Version

Tim Neilson

“The critics of AGW are not having their lives threatened, they are not, the vast majority of them anyway, being tossed out of their jobs, …”
Oh, well that’s all right then. Only a minority of them are being tossed out of their jobs. Why didn’t someone say so? Nothing to worry about at all.

April E. Coggins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud
http://www.the-family-doctor.com/the-family-doctor/f/freudism.htm
Whatever. It’s abstract, generalizations applied to individuals. It’s upside down on its first outing. Freud was insanely wrong.

To those who want to take politics out of this debate: the simple truth is you can’t because if you take away the politics from the global warming scam, all you have is a small bit of apparent warming of no concern to anyone.
So whilst I do not particularly agree with the specific analysis above, I do agree that understanding the politics of the global warming scam is fundamental to understanding the causes and power base of this scam.
I used to be a member of the Green party in Scotland, I was even selected to stand for the Scottish Parliament with an outside chance of getting in. However when I looked at many of the activists I found they were far far more interested in what I’d call pink-socialism than in green conservation.
But eco-activism has been a god send for the left, creating a whole new group of people who are willing to support parties of the left who would traditionally have voted for parties on the right. Indeed, the voters who are most likely to vote “green” tend to be professional classes (old ABs) who would otherwise tend to vote for the right.
But to be honest, I could equally make comments about the right. In Scotland, the biggest winners from the huge government created subsidy toward wind have been land owners and commercial wind farm developers. I could easily make the case that this whole global warming scam is conspiracy of the right dreamt up by rich landowners to such money from left leaning politicians.
And don’t be smug if you are a middle leaning “liberal”, because I could just as easily put forward a liberal intelligentsia conspiracy to get government to pay for airy fairy academic rubbish for the traditional “sit on the fence” academics of this world.
The truth is that this scam is supported by a rainbow alliance include left leaning greens, right leaning land-owners and centrist academics. And that is one hell of an alliance: the left with its ability to mobilise the populace, the right with its money and the centrist who have been able to control the academic research agenda.