UPDATE: As is typical with alarmism, some people with a dislike for me and WUWT are spreading rumors on other blogs that these are my words, not of a commenter. And that I’m calling people on those blogs “cockroaches”. Not true. Of course they don’t take time to read the comments, they only run off and spread what they perceive at first, so I’m elevating yet another comment. In my response in comments here, I made it clear what this comment from Alexander Feht is about:
Anthony reply: It is an apt metaphor, one that caught attention of a lot of people prior to it being elevated, and you are reading way too much into it. He sees the USSR politics and Socialism as that. Do I think cockroaches accurately describes people I and many other here disagree with, no. Is it a metaphor for the instruments and actions that oppose freedom, tolerance, and open discourse, yes. Of course it doesn’t matter what I answer, some people will happily run off and distort it. In fact they already are.
===========================================================
This may or may not become a new weekly feature, but I thought this comment was worth elevating to post status:
Alexander Feht says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:18 pm
I completely understand, why Christopher Monckton felt a need to make an example of a typical reprehensible representative of modern Academia. People like Christopher Monckton make me hope again that not everything is lost yet under the Moon.
And yet… I spent first half of my life battling liars and cockroaches in the former USSR. I would win against any individual liar or cockroach, no sweat. But year after year after year, I was getting more and more convinced that I didn’t want to die in this battle, overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of my enemies.
So. I live in a quiet valley now, in Colorado Rockies. Grass is green, air is fresh, sky is huge. But what is this constant swish and rustle coming from the East Coast and from the Left Coast? I know this sound well! There is no escape from the battle: cockroaches are coming.
He adds in comments:
I am completely embarrassed by all this attention.
My heartfelt thanks to Mr. Watts and all the commentators.
The only thing I would like to add:
I’ve noticed that many comments on WUWT (and in other places) are based on the unshaken assumption that the existing framework of democracy, including the established peer-review and other mechanisms in Academia, would somehow, even if only in a long run, fix our worst problems, and extricate the good name of science from the rotten mire it has found itself in today.
The question is obvious:
How the same framework and the same mechanisms that resulted in today’s lamentable situation, are going to have a healing effect?
In other words, are you sure that we have at hand something to populate the house with, after we would have “cleaned the house”? Where are Mozarts, Darwins, Teslas and Rembrandts in our cherished established institutions? And, most importantly, what fundamental (and, preferably, bloodless) changes in our society are necessary to bring Mozarts, Darwins, Teslas and Rembrandts up, and to bring Bushes, Obamas, Blairs and Prince-Charleses down into oblivion? That is the question.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have sympathy for Mr Feht’s view. In the UK the cockroaches now infest every corner of life, intervening in peoples’ lives to save them from themselves, because the state knows best.
We even have our own royal one in the heir to the throne. In a speech to hundreds of business leaders in London on Thursday he accused climate change sceptics of using “pseudo science” and “intimidation” to stop the world from addressing catastrophic global warming (from the front page of Friday’s Daily Telegraph – I couldn’t find a reference link on-line).
He continued “It has been profoundly depressing to witness the way the so-called climate sceptics are apparently able to intimidate all sorts of people from adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse”.
It is good to know we sceptics are so powerful.
I’m afraid I’ve lost patience with Monckton – and he’s an acquaintance of mine.
For heaven’s sake, if you can dish it out, then take it. The blogosphere is a bare-knuckle environment, and his hypocrisy in this case (saying Abraham’s face resembles an overcooked prawn when he has strenuously objected to being called swivel-eyed, for example) makes him a poor standard-bearer.
HotRod,
I never had much time for Lord Monkton, anyway, but people here do not seem to realise what they are supporting.
Abraham called him out on certain points. The correct response was for Lord Monckton to approach each citation of Abraham and check that his reading of their work was the correct. Instead of that, he posted over 400 questions, most of them “when did you stop beating you wife” variety, plus some personal abuse (“overcooked prawn”). Monckton has been quoted as calling U. St. Thomas a “Bible College” (what’s wrong with a Bible College?), calling its director “creepy”, and suggesting that the Bishop of the diocese was too busy with pedophilia allegations to address his correspondence.
These may go down well in the UK, or with a certain type of American anti-Catholic, but I think American Catholics will not be pleased, especially the Board and funders of the University of St. Thomas. Now, if Lord Monckton wants to sue, he has loaded his case with such personal invective that he is wide open to a counter suit.
A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client – Lord Monckton seems to have decided to be his own legal adviser and has a fool for a lawyer. He is not worthy, in my opinion, of the support he is receiving here. He has no case to go to court. But that is for everyone to decide.
[snip – we aren’t going to steer the issue of into a political war simply because some people wish it ~mod]
Reading ALL of the posts above show Alexander Feht’s comment strikes a sensitive nerve.
We appear to be very aware of a problem in society. Alluding to cockroaches may not
have helped but it does not diminish the problem.
@ur momisugly toby
Your comment “Instead of that, he posted over 400 questions, most of them “when did you stop beating you wife” variety” – care to back it up with any examples? Because as far as I can see, your analogy only works for the original piece by Abrahams (i.e. it was full of strawmen and misrepresentations). Monckton merely responded specifically to Abraham’s alleged slanders, so it is hardly a case of “when did you stop beating your wife.” But, I’d be interested in you giving some examples, and explaining how the analogy works. Or are you saying that your analogy applies to each and every one of the 400 rebuttals? And finally, why do you presume that Monckton doesn’t have a legal advisor?
Anthony, you sidestepped Fred Windsor’s point. He didn’t ask why you don’t worry about every comment, he asked why you chose *this* one to be promoted to the front page. I *think* you’re saying you promoted it because it’s popular elsewhere on the web. OK then. But it would be good to know your view: do you think it’s OK, or constructive, to compare people you don’t agree with to cockroaches?
The vast majority of commenters here have no problem with this: I counted just over 20 happily echoing the idea of, presumably, people like me as a cockroach infestation. Two people pointed out that it’s, at the very least, insulting to those of us who don’t agree with you.
If you think it’s OK to consider people who don’t agree with you as cockroaches, I think that kind of ends our chances for civil discussion here, doesn’t it?
So would you mind telling us: do you think it’s OK to compare people you don’t agree with to cockroaches? An answer involving either the word “yes” or “no” would be great.
REPLY: Ask him. It is an apt metaphor, one that caught attention of a lot of people prior to it being elevated, and you are reading way too much into it. He sees the USSR politics and Socialism as that. Do I think cockroaches accurately describes people I and many other here disagree with, no. Is it a metaphor for the instruments and actions that oppose freedom, tolerance, and open discourse, yes. Of course it doesn’t matter what I answer, some people will happily run off and distort it. In fact they already are. So this will be my last word on it.
I suspect your only interest here is so that you can go blog about it on your blog, citing the usual fake outrages, while ignoring the fact that I (and many others who dare speak out on the climate issue) am metaphorically compared with or outright labeled far worse every day, all over the blogosphere. For example, one commenter (taunter Ben) compared me directly to a “rat” yesterday on another blog. No metaphors there, just simple hate.
But nobody tries to pin them down. Carry on.
– Anthony
Keith G says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Lucy Skywalker ( @ur momisugly July 15, 2010 at 12:54 pm) has introduced two quotations. I recognise them both. The first was:
“They came for the Jews and because I was not a Jew I did not speak up…”
“All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”….
This begs the question: in the face of risk to life and liberty (or, as in the case of AGW, a less onerous risk to reputation and income) why logic propels one to swim against the tide, to speak up at all? For ego? Surely not! To fight in a holy crusade against AGW protagonists? No, such thinking is not proper.
Siding with Socrates, the only rational reason why I can think of as to why anyone should wish to stand up and protest against the taking of the Jews (and thereby put life and liberty at risk) – or to enter into the fray in the AGW debate (and put mere reputation and income at risk) – is simply this: having thought for oneself, one knows such a thing to be wrong; and one cannot live with oneself if one says and does nothing.
____________________________________________________________________
NO, NO, Keith. You have it all wrong, Deniers do it because they are paid big bucks by the oil companies! Where is my check. /sarc
Given Greenpeace was helped out of obscurity by Maurice Strong (big oil) and the Rockefeller Foundation (Standard Oil money) and the Shell Oil CRU connection shown in the e-mails, this harping on the fairy tale that deniers are funded by Big Oil is really laughable.
Here is the Father of the environmental movement, Al Gore’s good buddy, chair of the first Earth Summit and the Rio Summit, Maurice Strong from WIKI no less.
“…Strong had his start as a petroleum entrepreneur and became president of Power Corporation until 1966. In the early 1970s he was Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and then became the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme. He returned to Canada to become Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada from 1976 to 1978. He headed Ontario Hydro, one of North Americas largest power utilities, was national President and Chairman of the Extension Committee of the World Alliance of YMCAs,…”
The guy orchestrating the whole CAGW campaign for decades is a top oil exec! Compare that to the only dirt Greenpeace could find. A mild ad for a half million asking CAGW be regarded as a theory instead of as fact and that among others donors the Heartland Institute received some funding from Exon. Meanwhile Greenpeace has been takes Standard Oil money EVERY YEAR for years!
Pot meet Kettle.
#
#
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:59 pm
just a suggestion:
please remove Darwin from the list and replace it with a name much kinder toward humanity, say, Einstein.
__________________________________________
Darwin should stand because of the blatant fudging of the Darwin temp data, but do add Einstein in front of him. ( I like the double zing of using Darwin)
The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
Would You Like Your Temperature Data Homogenized, or Pasteurized?: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/would-you-like-your-temperature-data-homogenized-or-pasteurized/
Darwin Zero Before and After: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/
@David UK,
I cannot believe that a half-decent legal advisor would have allowed Lord Monckton to go on a taped TV programme and call the University of St. Thomas a “half-a*sed Catholic Bible College”. That type of Anglo snobbery may play well in English upper-class and elitist circles, but this is in America. If he was hoping for a sympathetic response from the College Board, or the funders, or even the student body, I would say that chance has now gone. He compounded his mistake with several other own goals, such as snide references to Fr. Dease and even the local Catholic Bishop.
Monckton seemed to be full of sound and fury, and Jones led him on, possibly thinking he was doing him a favour (but it made for good TV!). All he has done is expose himself to a damaging countersuit, should he go to law, as the University lawyers have now reminded him (in a roundabout way). He should have remembered that “revenge is a dish best eaten cold”, and I think the job of a good legal adviser would have been to remind him of that.
To me, Monckton comes across as a windy blusterer. Whatever, he now has no real recourse now except to continue an unproductive campaign on the Internet, which will probably end in failure.
I have frequented this blog on-and-off for the best part of a year now and have often been given cause to question my strongly held beliefs that AGW is genuine. For that I am grateful.
The site and some of its regular contributors and commentors have, in short, helped me to educate myself beyond a level I would have reached without them. For that too I am grateful.
The result, however (after weighing up the evidence from this site, the ‘hard’ science and other blogs), has strengthened my convictions that AGW is real and worthy of our great concern. For this also, I am grateful.
Unfortunately, the last few weeks have become intolerable.
That Anthony (and his supporters) cannot see beyond the foolish posturings of Lord Monckton and has actively supported his spiteful call-to-arms in an attempt to stifle academic debate goes beyond the pale. This has all fallen into a potentially litigious and fund-wasting charade of “he said it first” and a Peewee Hermanesque “I know you are, but what am I”.
What do you all think it will achieve?
Will it change nature?
Will it change the ‘fact’ or the ‘non-fact’ of AGW?
Will it advance your cause or enhance the science?
Will it convince even one person (like me) who has listened hard to your arguments to see the value in them?
Or, alternatively, will it alienate people (like me) and even some more firmly on ‘your side’, who will recognize this for what it is – an attempt at censorship, at stifling the debate and silencing alternative ideas and views?
This latest tirade, where commentors are gleefully comparing the alternative ‘team’ to cockroaches, and wishing, even demanding, that they be crushed is, frankly, disgusting.
Did Professor Abraham ‘start it’?
Maybe Lord Monckton ‘started it’?
Personally, I don’t care. This does not advance the argument one iota and contributes nothing to the science or the discussion. It is a display in intolerance, tribalism, or barbarism, and I think Anthony and many of his commentors should be ashamed.
I, for one, will not be returning to this site. You have lost at least one ‘visitor’ and I strongly suspect I won’t be the last.
Maybe you will all chirp “Good riddance”, but seriously, you could have convinced me if you weren’t so gleefully spiteful. Even Lord Monckton could have convinced me if he had provided direct answers to some of Professor Abraham’s criticisms, rather than answering not with a question, but with hundreds of questions and demands for what amounts to punitive damages (how much did Professor Abraham deserve for the “overcooked prawn” remark? How much does Father Dease deserve for being called a “creep of a President”).
This type of mob mentality and controversy may improve Anthony’s ‘hits’, but it will not sway the opposition. In fact, it will lose you the argument more swiftly than otherwise.
Dan Olner et al.,
It’s not a matter of “agreement” or “disagreement.”
It’s not about a difference of opinions any more.
It’s not about words, it’s about deeds.
It’s a matter of tyranny and resistance.
When people telling the factual truth are being methodically and collectively persecuted, silenced, and excluded by the clique of government-supported human parasites that overwhelmed all the media and all public institutions, shamelessly faking and manipulating data, routinely abusing their powers and prerogatives, and wasting society’s resources, time, and livelihoods on fake quasi-religious beliefs displacing and crowding out reality-based science everywhere on the planet, it’s not a fair, balanced, and equal “debate” any more.
YES, these people are parasites, and fully deserve to stand trial as embezzlers and fraudsters.
The language police are out in force, wringing their hands. Oh, the travesty.
On the upside, despite their primitive origins, cockroaches are highly adaptable, and survive high radiation levels.
Adrian says:
“Unfortunately, the last few weeks have become intolerable.”
Well then, by all means go back home to RC. While you’re there, ask them why they heavily censor skeptical comments. Even a comment as mild as yours would be censored there, if it was perceived to be critical of their CAGW agenda.
Michael Mann runs RC. Ask him why he feels the need to only allow pro-AGW comments through moderation, and censor the rest. Your comment won’t be posted, but at least it will be read by Mann or Schmidt. Tell them “Hi” from the #1 science site.
Adrian, Smokey:
It’s difficult for me also to come back from seeing Watts promote both Monckton and this commenter to a prominent position: one demanding a presentation be taken down, the other declaring his enemies ‘parasites’ (I’m resisting the urge to confirm Godwin’s Law at this point!)
I suspect Adrian, like me, reads RC and other blogs and, perhaps, like me, tries to keep a toe in blogs like WUWT. Some place for civil discussion with people of differing views would be good, but – short an explanation from Watts on his choice of recent postings – I can see why Adrian feels he won’t be returning.
There are other ‘skeptical’ blogs that place a premium on civility and reasoned argument, I see. E.g. http://scienceofdoom.com/about/ Any other suggestions?
Dan Olner,
You misrepresent the situation by saying that Anthony Watts “promotes” Lord Monckton. Monckton’s response was published well after Abraham put his drive-by attack on line. Anthony made it clear that he doesn’t have a dog in this fight. He is providing equal time, and a forum that realclimate would never allow.
What you actually want is the censorship of Lord Monckton. Run along to RC, you’ll get plenty of of your coveted censorship there.
May I also point out that it is the climate alarmist gang that wants to make Lord Monckton the Sarah Palin of climate discourse? That ad hominem cheerleading was instigated and is encouraged by partisan political blogs like RealClimate and tamino. Sorry you can’t see that.
I’m so thrilled that someone responded to my comment before I pack up for the weekend, sign off from WUWT permanently, and head for home (yes, OMG, I am doing this from work).
Smokey above…the sound of someone utterly missing the point; but thanks for reinforcing it anyway.
Run along, Adrian. Enjoy your comfy echo chamber, where you don’t have to think, only parrot.
Dan Olner says:
July 16, 2010 at 8:48 am
(I’m resisting the urge to confirm Godwin’s Law at this point!)
___________________________________________
Good thing you’ve resisted, Dan, for incontinence in this case would be laughable.
For real intolerance and insults, please, see pro-AGW/pro-ACC sites.
Smokey, I mean ‘promote’ as in ‘put at the top of the blog’. Sorry, bad choice of word.
I don’t think Monckton should be censored. I do think choosing to host his demand for the removal of Abraham’s presentation means that the hoster is indicating support for that. I think that’s pretty low, and is going to alienate reasonable people on all sides of this debate, as it has done Adrian. Responding with “yah boo, orf ya go to yer darlin warmist blog yer big unthinkin’ pansy” is hardly likely to help.
I’m just wondering if/when Watts might come out and say what he thinks. a) does he support Monckton’s demands for the removal of Abraham’s presentation? b) does he agree that anyone who argues human-induced climate change is a real and serious problem are “cockroaches”?
Alexander: “For real intolerance and insults, please, see pro-AGW/pro-ACC sites.”
I’m sure they happen on all sites, but I don’t tolerate insults wherever they are. Out of interest, do you agree with Monckton that Abraham’s responses were an “unprovoked personal attack?” I’ve looked through them, all I can see are responses to points of fact. Am I missing something?
I’m just wondering if you think Abraham was in some way intolerant towards Monckton, in the way you’re suggesting ‘pro-AGW’ sites are to skeptics?
Dan Olner says:
July 16, 2010 at 9:37 am
Smokey, I mean…
(…)
I’m just wondering if/when Watts might come out and say what he thinks. a) does he support Monckton’s demands for the removal of Abraham’s presentation? b) does he agree that anyone who argues human-induced climate change is a real and serious problem are “cockroaches”?
——-We’ll not know until that happens, right?. However, are you suggesting A. Watts edits everything that appears here? That would be basically what RealClimate does. I’ve seen where he’s more tolerant than that. (I’ve posted a few things on RealClimate and never seen them appear. Never. And none were ad hom attacks; no, they were just honest questions that would have made them open their eyes to climate alternatives other than CO2.)
Atlas Shrugged anyone? Another soul from the USSR that can see what’s coming.
I would love to move to Colorado but will probably stay here in Virginia, trying to swat cockroaches.
“However, are you suggesting A. Watts edits everything that appears here?”
Not at all – just to hear from him what he thinks about those two issues.
Alexander Feht has seen up close where the political agenda behind CAGW leads. He as the rest of us can see the “science is not settled” there is not a “consensus” and the media is censored propaganda.
With luck the worst case scenarios will not happen.
1. A totalitarian “global governance” implementing Agenda 21
Here is the link to the full text of it: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml
AGENDA 21 FOR DUMMIES
NWO / CLUB OF ROME DEPOPULATION & AGENDA 21
2. a descent into a full blown Ice age.
Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes
“….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial.” Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
The difference between peak warmth and deepest cold was around 55Wm-2;
The current value, being only 13Wm-2 above the value at the depth of the ice age, is almost all the way back to ‘cold conditions’; it may be that only stored ocean heat is keeping us out of an ice age (for now).
The bought and paid for media has ignored both of these. Worse the international grain traders have talked the politicians into abolishing grain reserves and the enviro types have kept nuclear power technology from progressing. If both of these worst case scenarios happen we are looking at only a small percentage of the world’s population surviving and that is only if an all out nuclear war is not touched off over the scramble for resources.
Perhaps that is why the people of western civilization are being tricked by A massive campaign… launched … to de-develop the United States