On the climate, the holocaust, denial, billboards, and all that

Over at Climate Depot, Marc Morano wonders why Andrew Revkin is calling attention to an article linking Holocaust denial to “climate denial”. He writes:

What’s up with NYT’s Revkin? He touts essay: ‘A look at denial, from Holocaust to climate fight’ by a survivor of Bergen-Belsen & a warmist physics prof. at Brooklyn College Read the Full Article

Is featuring an essay linking Holocaust denial to climate ‘denial’, worthy of a shout out on Revkin’s blog? Excerpt: ‘Denying the Holocaust today, with all the available factual information, requires denying of all of history… But most of our history is based on flimsier evidence, and climate change deniers like to say that using scientific ‘theories’ to explain climate change is not really ‘proof.’

In an email exchange prior to Morano’s post, I wrote:

It seems to me that Mr. Revkin is cementing his approval of comparisons between holocaust deniers, and “climate deniers”. That will be the topic of my post on the issue, unless Andy has an alternate credible explanation. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt until I hear from him.

Revkin “on the run in Asia” as he put it, responded:

I thought it worth noting this post because the writer is a rare breed — a physicist and environmental studies professor and also a survivor of the Holocaust. That gives him the right to explore this terrain, whatever you or I think of his conclusion.

Tumblr is an efficient means of posting the equivalent of a Tweet. I did not endorse his views.

In fact, I agree that most such comparisons are flawed. Back in 2007, before I switched to the Op-Ed side of The Times, I wrote Climate, Coal and Crematoria on Dot Earth to question one such effort by James Hansen.

Tomkiewicz also illustrates the normal nature of the deep divisions among physicists — even Nobelists in physics — on evidence for disruptive greenhouse-driven climate change. Feel free to debate him on the merits of his thesis.

I also mentioned in the email exchange that Mr. Revkin had made some prior reference to Nazi Germany, which I asked him about some months back, but never posted about it. Today seemed like a good time to do so.

By policy, I don’t normally allow Nazi photos/discussion on my blog, being very proactive about Godwin’s Law, but this requires an exception.  Screen cap below.

Revkin gives a Tumblr repost (akin to a Twitter re-tweet):*

Ordinary people. The courage to say no.

The photo was taken in Hamburg in 1936, during the celebrations for the launch of a ship. In the crowd, one person refuses to raise his arm to give the Nazi salute. The man was August Landmesser. He had already been in trouble with the authorities, having been sentenced to two years hard labor for marrying a Jewish woman.

We know little else about August Landmesser, except that he had two children. By pure chance, one of his children recognized her father in this photo when it was published in a German newspaper in 1991. How proud she must have been in that moment.

(via inspirement)

And writes: I enjoy things like this immensely.*

(*Both of these sentences were clarified from the original post I made to separate Revkin’s words from the Tumblr repost – Anthony)

Yet, Mr. Revkin, in his capacity as journalist, was quite possibly the first reporter to “confirm” authenticity of the Heartland Leak Documents, including the faked one, seems to not grasp how this world view of his is ironic in the context of his daily reporting.

I asked Revkin on Feb 17th what he thought about that photo:

Do you see any irony in your position?

And he replied:

Irony in relation to my position on climate science as it relates to my position on someone standing up to political terror and tyranny?

I said “yes” and he replied:

To you, who’s the climate equivalent of the guy standing with his hands down?

If you’re going to propose/imply that I’m an apologist for alarmism, I’d have to reject that and ask you to point to a pattern in my coverage of the science that shows this.

I’ve been pretty quick to question anyone trying to cast climate science as a “party loyalty” kind of issue.

This may be relevant. Here’s my response on the fairness question (climategate v. denialgate) and the Dan Rather issue.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/documents-appear-to-reveal-broad-effort-to-amplify-climate-uncertainty/?comments#permid=97:1

As for the “…who’s the climate equivalent of the guy standing with his hands down? ” question posed by Revkin, I see it this way: I think climate change skeptics see themselves as that man, I see myself as that man. Likewise, many AGW advocates see themselves as that man, standing up for the Earth and thus is borne the clash of ideals.

Like August Landmesser’s brave stance, I believe climate skeptics are “Ordinary people. [with] the courage to say no.” and by saying no, we are being trashed, reviled, and libeled in the media and paid propaganda blogs (like DeSmog, Romm’s Climate Progress, and Grist) for doing so.

The mindless regurgitation of the fabrications in the Heartland faked document without even checking authenticity first, showed just what sort of mindset we are fighting in the media, and it seems to me that what Mr. Revkin “enjoys” seeing as being a brave person in one historical venue, he views as a nuisance in others. Here’s why. He tweeted this a week later, just after DeSmog blog launched their assault on the Heartland Institute and climate skeptics worldwide.

My irony meter pegged, the needle broke off, flew out, and embedded itself into the wall of my office when I read that, because of Revkin’s post about August Landmesser just a week earlier.

The be absolutely clear, so that opportunists don’t try to spin this around, I don’t view pro AGW people as “Nazi’s” and nobody should ascribe any such opinion to me.

Quite the contrary, I simply view them as people with a rigid worldview that I and millions of others (according to recent polls) disagree with based on our review of the available science.

But, since Mr. Revkin opened this door in the context of recent events, I felt it important to bring it to light. It is also important to review who brought the comparisons of holocaust denial and climate skepticism together, a mainstream journalist, columnist Ellen Goodman, is credited with popularizing the usage in 2007. Here, she makes a clear unambiguous connection:

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

There’s more than enough climate ugliness to go around on both sides, and what is it doing? Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. said this of it last May, describing the tactics of his opponent Joe Romm:

…[it is] making enemies out of friends and opponents out of fellow travelers.

In my view, the same can be said about the recent billboard fiasco.

I also want to reiterate that Heartland made a huge misstep and blunder with their recent billboard campaign, and that while it is technically true that “unabomber” Ted Kaczynski  did in fact write about his concerns about greenhouse gases in his manifesto (I checked), the method of messaging chosen by Heartland was just plain dumb, ugly, and counterproductive in my view. From what I gather, their intent was to use the same tactics that have been employed by alarmists against skeptics, to illustrate how these ugly tactics are used. But, when you sink to using the same tactics as your opponent, you give away any moral advantage you might have, and I think Heartland did that. I’ve made some mistakes like that myself. The best you can do is to apologize, learn from them, and never repeat them.  When you are bombarded with hateful messaging almost 24/7, sometimes you make a mistake in your reply. Heartland made a mistake, a big one. I think Vaclav Klaus summed it up pretty well. From the Guardian:

Václav Klaus, the Czech president and prominent climate sceptic, has condemned a controversial billboard campaign used by a rightwing US thinktank to advertise the forthcoming conference at which he is scheduled to give the keynote speech. However, his spokesman said Klaus will not join other speakers who have pulled out in protest and says he still intends to proceed with the engagement.

I agree with his position in condemning the billboard campaign, as well as his decision to go to the conference. After careful consideration, I will attend as well.

As we witnessed yesterday with the Romm/Pielke Jr. blowup, the tactic they are employing now is to “divide and conquer”, using the disgust many have over the billboard fiasco as a wedge issue.

Solidarity is therefore needed more than ever, which is part of why I’ve decided to attend the conference. But, in my opinion, we also need an alternate venue, because trying to give the science discussions and the political rhetoric some degree of separation is impossible in such a convention environment. As Ross McKitrick demonstrated in his rebuttal so well, scientists don’t like mixing with ugly political rhetoric, and political activists often don’t like the logic and restraint that scientists have. There was bound to be a clash of ideals at some point.

Some folks have suggested that this episode marks “the end of climate skepticsm if Heartland fails”. What they don’t realize is that Heartland was never the “headquarters” for climate skepticism, only an occasional facilitator for a bringing together a widely diverse set of people.  Even if Heartland were to disappear tomorrow, climate skepticism is now a mainstream issue, it will continue. As confirmed by many polls, there are millions of people who are skeptical of the issue like we are here on WUWT. That isn’t going away any time soon.

Note to commenters: This thread will have an exceptionally low tolerance level for off color or attack commentary. Be on your very best behavior.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
gnomish

revkin produced the deck of cards featuring most wanted climate deniers, didn’t he?
saying ‘no’ is what’s needed, of course – but we have a whole generation of girls who can’t.
meaning it is a whole different ball game. saying it takes a calorie or two to clench the diaphragm – nothing more.
meaning it – that’s what gets you up against the wall because the real non.negotiable NO is not spoken from a mouth or a pen.
REPLY: George Monbiot produced that, not Revkin – Anthony

Mike M

“Like August Landmesser’s brave stance, I believe climate skeptics are “Ordinary people. [with] the courage to say no.” and by saying no, we are being trashed, reviled, and libeled in the media and paid propaganda blogs (like DeSmog, Romm’s Climate Progress, and Grist) for doing so.”
Exactly. The whole modus operandi of the rise of the Nazi party revolved around belittling, demeaning, or otherwise publicly insulting any individual who dared to speak out against their policies and, most importantly in addition – LABELING THEM as enemies of Germany. Foot meet shoe….

Steve from Rockwood

The man in the photo had courage that we can only pretend to understand. Comparing a person unwilling to yield to Nazi rule in 1936 to anything in climate science is insulting. Why people bring up Nazis and the Holocaust for anything – other than perhaps another holocaust – is beyond me. We just shouldn’t be blogging about it. Period.

Mike M

(Note to moderators… if you expect comments about an entry that contains references to ‘naahtzees’ then you are going to have to make some robot exceptions. My comment was disappeared.)

I think it would be interesting to study exactly how the path was laid to take people to the point of actually believing the absurd idea that questioning a scientific theory could be equated with denying the death and suffering of 6million people!. It’s been done so cleverly and with such orchestration it has the look of a smooth ad campaign. Where did it come from?

DirkH

gnomish says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:42 pm
“revkin produced the deck of cards featuring most wanted climate deniers, didn’t he?”
No, that was Moonbat.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10

Doug Proctor

Free thinking doesn’t come for free. Common sense isn’t common. It is more pleasant and safer to be within rather than outside the herd.
Groupthink is powerful and insidious. When I look at the junk arnaments and art I acquired over the past 30 years, each purchase a “personal” choice, but each so like what my neighbours have, I understand how easily you can be infected with the mass message.

oxyartes

Somehow they disqualified themself totally. So no reasons to shout around and get angry (a logical first reaction).

Stephen Wilde

Many of the most vocal so called ‘denialists’ are weather and climate enthusiasts, both amateur and professional. many with a lifetime of observational experience.
It is no accident that most experienced meteorologists see nothing unusual in recent weather and climate phenomena.
It is that experience which leads them to be sceptical about the CO2 based theory until such time as it is adequately supported by empirical evidence.
That evidence has to demonstrate causation and not mere correlation over a period of time which is just a blink of an eye in terms of the historical record.
Most alarmists are quite intelligent in some respects. The difficulties arise with people who both (a) perceive greenhouse emissions as ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ or threatening in some way and (b) have a personality type which effectively blocks out any science that they don’t want to hear.
I think the best way of communicating with those that have (a) but not (b) is to be factual, frank, but not aggressive. I doubt that we can do much to persuade people with both (a) and (b).

Ally E.

“Even if Heartland were to disappear tomorrow, climate skepticism is now a mainstream issue, it will continue. As confirmed by many polls, there are millions of people who are skeptical of the issue like we are here on WUWT. That isn’t going away any time soon.”
*
This whole article is so very true. The divide and conquer tactic is just that, a tactic. We are too diverse and too well into the subject to ever lose our way again and go back into that mire of ignorance. Once the blinkers are off, they are off. Once a person sees the political use of alarmism, they can’t go back to pretending it’s about climate.
Yes, mistakes are made, we are after all, human. Best to ignore what the other side is trying to dredge up in their defence, or for our demise, and carry on dealing with what is important. Let’s see those in power working for Catastrophic Global Domination soundly VOTED OUT. Only then will we see real progress to get thinking, learning, science and economics back on track.

Tom in indy

Anthony,
I agree with your position. I want to point out how thoroughly the the mainstream media has brainwashed the public. I would ask your readers to go back and read the Goodman quote. How many of you subliminally linked “man made” to the term global warming? I am afraid that the vast majority of Americans automatically link those two terms. Orwell would be not be shocked.

Graeme W

Steve from Rockwood says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:53 pm
The man in the photo had courage that we can only pretend to understand. Comparing a person unwilling to yield to Nazi rule in 1936 to anything in climate science is insulting. Why people bring up Nazis and the Holocaust for anything – other than perhaps another holocaust – is beyond me. We just shouldn’t be blogging about it. Period.

I agree, except that it’s too late by a few years. All we can do is to try to be rational and dispassionate about it, learn lessons from that history, but try not to sink in the quagmire.

johanna

Welcome to politics in the raw. I say this as someone who has been close to (but not in, thankfully) politics for a long time.
It’s ugly, unedifying, and a long way from where you started when you began WUWT all those years ago. I imagine that the election fever has heightened and polarised the tensions – and that will continue for the next few months. If you think that things are crazy now, wait till a few weeks out from the vote.
As a fellow human being who has had to survive political storms, please listen when I say that you need to stay as far away as possible from the crap that is flying around. This disgusting episode is just the beginning.
You may need to toughen up your moderation, because shills and hucksters from both sides will be crawling over every blog. Given the strong US bias in your readers, you may wish to institute a temporary amendment to your site policy – say till the end of November – about political squabbles.
This shabby episode is just the first of many to come. As a veteran of several changes of government, my advice is to disengage as far as possible from the political battlefields – bearing in mind that many people will try to engage you and infuriate you for their own advantage.
This would be a good opportunity to spend a lot of time and effort on the Surfacestations project Mark II, and other projects that you have been meaning to get to.
When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. There is no upside for you in being drawn into the political maelstrom, which is going to intensify over the next few months.
Stay well, and look after your family, not to mention distinguished Union of Concerned Scientists member, Kenji Watts, whose views I have so far agreed with 100%.

theduke

I wonder if Tomkiewicz thinks that Richard Lindzen is a “denier.” And if he would call him that to his face.
For background, here’s what Rabbet, in typical insensitive fashion, had to say about that:

“. . . And since we’re on a related subject, there’s the issue of Richard Lindzen claiming to be offended by the term climate denier because he claims to be a Holocaust survivor. His claim is based on the fact that his Jewish parents emigrated from Germany in 1938, and he was born in 1940. Even the broadest-accepted definition of Holocaust survivor would only include his parents, not him (and many would not include his parents, although they undoubtedly faced severe persecution). Actual Holocaust survivors would have good reason to be offended by Lindzen.

The fact is that if Lindzen’s parents had not fled Germany, Lindzen could himself have died in a concentration camp along with his parents. Rabbet seems to think he has no right to be offended. The fact is that everyone should be offended by the epithet and everyone who uses it should be ashamed.
As for Tomkiewicz, you’d think that someone who actually spent time in a death camp would be a little more careful in formulating analogies.

Self-righteous hypocrisy — the warmistas equate CAGW skepticism with Holocaust deniers while they deny the existence of the ongoing holocausts their own policies have created.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-new-holocaust-deniers/?singlepage=true

CB

“I simply view them as people with a rigid worldview…”
Yes. They want socialism imposed on everybody. And they will adopt any convenient excuse in support of it. In support of their Beloved Dream they are hardend serial liars.
Then, as in China and Russia, they can finally make Christianity illegal, and Atheism the Gov Religion. And if you get in their way, they will kill you. Yay. But deep, deep, deep down, they are just regular folks, and we must talk to them and love them, and make them see we should all just try and get along.
The unsaved will never have to face the White Throne, so this will likely never come to pass, but I would dearly like to see you try and sell this dog-excrement to the Living God, face to Face. Then again, the vast majority of self-styled ‘Christians’ are in fact practioners of Ghandi-love-Christianity, so I’ll still have that too look forward to.

Hmm, so if I were a rape victim, it would be OK for me to call Revkin a rapist? Does this make a lick of sense?
REPLY: No, your comment does not. – Anthony

Follow the Money

“Some folks have suggested that this episode marks “the end of climate skepticsm if Heartland fails”
They’re evolving, looking for a face-saving exit. Revkin replacing his cool with high indignation is a real good sign of that. They want this story to end with a “win,” now, they know IPCC 5AR will not be it. Apparently the New York Times article blaming Lindzen for everything was big fail, so now they’re hanging their hat on Heartland’s libertarians??
Their problem is the gravy train science won’t give up. The scientists need big feedbacks to keep the funding coming in. No crisis, no money. They will only get angrier and keeping wishing for some kind of knock out blow satisfactory to their limited world. Pinning all denial on one scientist or institute is a soothing trope. It is a defense mechanism, which denies weighing science, and most importantly, manages to save their self-appointed position of intellectual superiority and sensitivity.
I’m surprised Revkin joined them full out. Maybe he’s just having a bad week. Or maybe the Justice Department is ignoring Holder (or someone) and investigating political uses of “educational” funding to promote “climate change” awareness?

Follow the Money

“Yes. They want socialism imposed on everybody”
Socialism? Really? When has “socialism” become corportism and economic fascism. Sure, there are some small minority of the warmista brigades who are control freaks, kind of like the kinds that served as cadres for the Marxist cults, but they are not the MONEY.

By the way, if making parallels to Holocaust Deniers is wrong and unproductive, then lets call the foul both ways. While I am sympathetic to many of his underlying points, Robert ZUrbin is wrong to use the Holocaust Denier charge against environmentalists and Malthusians: http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-new-holocaust-deniers/

aharris

I only wish this was about saving the planet. Unfortunately, this has become about political power and control wrapped up a climate disaster. We cede control to the “right” people in order to let them save us from ourselves. Unfortunately, the world isn’t playing along in a variety of ways, and it’s only going to nastier as this becomes more apparent. You win by dehumanizing your opponents.

Dr. Dave

I could be wrong, but I’m almost certain I heard “denial” of AGW by any scientist compared to Holocaust denial much earlier than 2007. I think it would have been sometime in 2002 or 2003. I was watching a History channel, Discovery channel, TLC, etc. “scientific” program on global warming. At the time I had not formed any firm opinions. I only remember bits and pieces. There was a cartoon explanation of the greenhouse effect. The talking head described man’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere in tons and emphasized how it’s nearly impossible for humans to wrap their heads around a number that big. Blah, blah, blah…but right towards the end of the program there were vehement attacks against those dastardly non-believers. This guy then compared anyone who doubts the immutable “truth” of AGW to Holocaust deniers. This struck home with me as it seemed so over the top.
I pretty much ignored the AGW issue until 2005 when I started reading about it and investing the issue on my own. I think Patrick Michaels published Meltdown in 2004 and I read it in 2005/6. I could be wrong but I think even Dr. Michaels mentioned the “denier” pejorative in that book. I have a gut feeling that this meme predates 2007.
REPLY: It very well may, but its limited use in discussion circles changed to mainstream with Goodman’s widely syndicated article. That’s when the term “got legs” in journo parlance. – Anthony

It’s not very complicated and the labels don’t bother me. It is only because the conversation so often drifts away from science that we get bogged down in these discussions. I am a skeptic because I question what I am told till I see evidence it is true (or not). I am a denier because I deny that something is true simply because someone with a degree, a reputation or authority says it’s so. No published evidence convinces me that anthropogenic carbon emissions are causing or likely to cause climate instability and dangerous global warming. I wouldn’t mind the world a bit warmer and with a bit more CO2 because the prevalence of evidence suggests it will be a better place not just for people but for all life.I may be proven wrong or my views may become the mainstream. I remain certain that truth floats. Mistakes and lies can only tread water.

Joe Zarg

I have almost zero interest in 67 year-old wartime atrocities, and I do not have a knee-jerk
response that somehow connects words like ‘denier’ with that old wartime nastiness.
I wish our site owner would not writhe in pain every time some idiot calls his opponent a ‘denier’, or at least realize that most of us could not care less about the ‘holocaust’, and stop peddling it here.
[REPLY: The question always was “Could it happen here?” Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Learn to care more. -REP]

JPeden

oxyartes says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Somehow they disqualified themself totally. So no reasons to shout around and get angry (a logical first reaction).
For sure, but despite its disqualifying “science” and tactics, “mainstream” Climate Science persists to this day!

Revkin—–Quite the contrary, I simply view them as people with a rigid worldview that I and millions of others (according to recent polls) disagree with based on our review of the available science.
JK———-What science? I have been looking for actual proof that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming.
Andy,
please give us a brief refresher on the ACTUAL evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. And we both know that correlation is not proof of causation, that weather is extremely variable with little ice ages and Medieval, Roman, and Egyptian warm periods being warmer than today, that Al Gore’s ice cores actually show temperature leading CO2 by about 800 years and that Al’s hockey stick was fatally flawed by misapplied math, inappropriate splicing of data and a hidden decline.
Thanks
JK

johanna

theduke says:
May 10, 2012 at 2:16 pm
I wonder if Tomkiewicz thinks that Richard Lindzen is a “denier.” And if he would call him that to his face.
For background, here’s what Rabbet, in typical insensitive fashion, had to say about that:
“. . . And since we’re on a related subject, there’s the issue of Richard Lindzen claiming to be offended by the term climate denier because he claims to be a Holocaust survivor. His claim is based on the fact that his Jewish parents emigrated from Germany in 1938, and he was born in 1940. Even the broadest-accepted definition of Holocaust survivor would only include his parents, not him (and many would not include his parents, although they undoubtedly faced severe persecution). Actual Holocaust survivors would have good reason to be offended by Lindzen.
The fact is that if Lindzen’s parents had not fled Germany, Lindzen could himself have died in a concentration camp along with his parents. Rabbet seems to think he has no right to be offended. The fact is that everyone should be offended by the epithet and everyone who uses it should be ashamed.
————————————————————————–
I am gobsmacked about that story about Lindzen – and no, I’m not Jewish, but my family suffered greatly in Europe during WWII and if that suggestion was made about the few lucky ones who got away, they would be horrified. It is like saying to a survivor of the Titanic – oh, you’re not a real survivor, because you got into a lifeboat as opposed to being plucked from the sea.
Still, I think it would be a mistake for WUWT to become a clearing-house for personal disputes, especially during an election campaign in the US.

I guess my earlier comment may have been unclear, and perhaps my logic is tortured here, but Revkin’s argument seemed to be that the fact of being a victim of the Holocaust allows the author a pass, in fact, even respect, in calling skeptics Holocast deniers. To me, this is no different than saying a climate scientist who was a rape victim would get respect from the NY Times for calling skeptics rapists.

IAmDigitap

[snip, I’m sorry I read this several times, and just didn’t see any way to sort relevant points from rant, do over. – Anthony]

Gunga Din

johanna says:
May 10, 2012 at 2:15 pm
You may need to toughen up your moderation, because shills and hucksters from both sides will be crawling over every blog. Given the strong US bias in your readers, you may wish to institute a temporary amendment to your site policy – say till the end of November – about political squabbles.
This shabby episode is just the first of many to come. As a veteran of several changes of government, my advice is to disengage as far as possible from the political battlefields – bearing in mind that many people will try to engage you and infuriate you for their own advantage.
================================================================
Not bad advice. But who you vote for will impact whether or not the government will be beating us up with a hockey stick. Yes, limit stuff about heathcare etc. but allow climate related political post.

richardscourtney

Anthony:
I thank you for raising this issue.
Before making the substantive point of my post, I observe that you report Revkin as having said;
“In fact, I agree that most such comparisons are flawed.”
OK, if he thinks the comparison of climate-realists with holocaust deniers is “flawed” then hypocritical sliming is the only possible reason for his having posted the article which makes that comparison.
But my substantive point is that the smear is self-defeating. I know this for a certain fact because the smear was made in the debate at St Andrews University which I, Morner and Monckton won.
The debate was on Wednesday 4 March 2009 and the debated motion was
“This House Believes Global Warming is a Global Crisis”
My account of that debate can be read at
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938
In that account I report;
“Robinson’s response was very angry. He seemed to think attacking the opposition speakers would provide a victory for the motion. Almost his entire speech was attempted defamation of the opposition speakers. Within seconds of starting to speak he had accused them of being “like supporters of the Nazis in 1930s Germany” (my family lost everything in the blitz so I did not take kindly to that).” etc.
and
“Norminton then spoke to conclude the case for the proponents of the motion.”
“He said he was not a scientist so he had to accept the word of scientists about global warming and scientists agree that gl obal warming is real and man-made. He said, the speakers on the opposition side were “not scientists”. Lord Monckton interjected that “Courtney and Morner are”. And Norminton replied, “So was Mengele.” Monckton raised a Point of Order demanding withdrawal of the remark. Norminton lacked the wit to withdraw and move on, so he refused to withdraw. Monckton persisted pressing the Point of Order and Norminton continued to refuse to withdraw. Only moments before Morner had made himself the lecturer the students would most like to have, and support for Norminton drained away as he insisted that Morner was akin to a murderer operating in a Nazi concentration camp. Norminton continued by saying the threat of global warming was real, and it was killing polar bears, but it is not clear that anybody was listening to him.”
The result of those tactics is worth mentioning. As my account reports;
“Prior to the debate the opponents of the motion had expected to lose the vote because the students have been exposed to a lifetime (i.e. their short lifetime) of pro-AGW propaganda. We consoled ourselves with the certainty that we would win the arguments because opponents of AGW have all the facts on our side. But in the event we won both. The motion was defeated when put to the vote.”
Richard

jimash1

Its very offensive and extremely typical .
They want an explosive response.
Then they will do the “but we are only telling the truth, that’s what you are” defense.
This can cause even more explosive response.
It is supposed to at one blow infuriate and dismiss. And it is tiresome and offensive and finding some old guy who is an actual survivor to repeat it for them is just tagging new rungs to the bottom of the ladder marked “Craven”.

Paul in Sweden

Every time I see a holocaust reference with regards to the CAGW issue I struggle to recall the metric that statistically estimated the slight rise in the per ton price of rice to starvation & poverty.
Real or not, the policies implemented in the name of CAGW is literally killing people.

Area Man

One hopes you will be careful not to become too aligned with and/or associated with Heartland. Their past behavior and tone tend to indicate an organization that is “right for the wrong reasons”. Expect more behavior/tactics which are at odds with your sense of propriety. It’s doubtful that they really “get it” or ever will. Just my 2 cents.

kramer

Even if Heartland were to disappear tomorrow, climate skepticism is now a mainstream issue, it will continue.
I hardly ever visited the Heartland website. And I was a skeptic long before I ever heard of the Heartland Institute. Kyoto was the impetus that eventually led me to be a skeptic.

I was going to leave a response in this thread but I regret that my present level of vituperation precludes my writing any further than to say that I consider the warmists to be one of the most socially destructive groups to have emerged for many a long year.
I dare not write further lest I be snipped.

u.k.(us)

Joe Zarg says:
May 10, 2012 at 2:53 pm
===========
An easy remedy for your condition:
Don’t visit WUWT.

OK S.

The so-called “Godwin’s Law” should probably apply to all ad hominem attacks.
However, there was a real political thinker named Godwin. From the preface to William Godwin’s “Enquiry Concerning Political Justice”:

But it is the property of truth to be fearless, and to prove victorious over every adversary. It requires no great degree of fortitude, to look with indifference upon the false fire of the moment, and to foresee the calm period of reason which will succeed.

http://archive.org/stream/enquiryconcernin1796godw2#page/n11/mode/2up
Even so, it seems to take great fortitude (and hard work) to stay the course. Thanks WUWT, CA, and all.
OK S.

mfo

This is adverse conditioning propaganda. Fanatics are trying to indoctrinate the minds of uninformed people with the lie that healthy rational thinking is associated with something which is mindless evil. Anyone with an iota of common sense can see this is not just wrong but the vile and deceitful manipulation of public opinion. I think it’s a good thing to expose Revkin and accept that Heartland made a mistake.

BarryW

What amazes me is the lack of perspective people like Revkin have. We’ve had Club of Rome’s natural resource exhaustion, Erlich’s Population Bomb, and Sagan’s Nuclear Winter. All were framed with a “we must do something” and if you disagree they bring out the “you’re a denialist” retoric and evil or stupid or both. All were duds. Of course, this time it’s different. They are constantly searching for the key to allow the intelligentsia (themselves) to run the world the way they think it should be run for our own good. I’m afraid the CAWG extremist are going to get violent since the demonization of the opposition is the first step. Germany in the 1920/30s is only one example.

Maus

Mike_M: “Exactly. The whole modus operandi of the rise of the Nazi party revolved around belittling, demeaning, or otherwise publicly insulting any individual who dared to speak out against their policies and, most importantly in addition – LABELING THEM as enemies of Germany. Foot meet shoe….”
Otherwise known as: Everyday life. It’s an unavoidable consequence of what happens when people have opinions and group up with people with similar opinions to their own. “Wrong thinkers” are out to destroy the tribe.
What makes the Holocaust peculiar is introducing the government to ‘solve’ the problem of people that think differently than the tribe. Lest it be forgotten the Nazi problem with the Jews was not that they had a religion. It was that it was considered that Jews thought differently, behaved differently, and had a different morality than the German tribe. That these differences were parasitic at best, and would destroy the tribe at worst. And so the only solution was to have the government Do Something™ about people that thought, or possibly thought, differently than the tribe.
But then, it’s not that peculiar at all. As can be seen in everything from the Spanish Inquisition, to the US Internment camps, to Jim Crow, to the Kulaks and various failed communitarian attempts at Utopia. Any time the government comes in to enforce tribal groupthink by law, the Holocaust is there.
Being called out as, or compared to, a Holocaust Denier is as immaterial as it is irrelevant. Right up until those putting forward the ad hominems start demanding the government do something about those people that hold different opinions. Jewish opinions perhaps. But members of the wrong tribe regardless.

“I also want to reiterate that Heartland made a huge misstep and blunder with their recent billboard campaign…..”
I disagree, and that hasn’t been my experience. As I do interact on some alarmist places, its what I do when I’m bored ….. 😉
I found the billboard campaign led to opportunities to discuss that very issue and make appropriate comparisons. What’s important to remember, is that the people we engage with on the other side of the spectrum are not very likely to change their minds on this issue. But, it is the anonymous reader who is your target audience. The anonymous reader at an alarmist site already has been told we are the worst sort of human beings since Adolf. This has occurred since the skeptic presence in the blogasphere. In this regard, HI didn’t damage the skeptic’s perceived reputation by any measure. But, what it did allow for was the exposure of the hypocrisy and duplicity of most alarmists. And Revkin’s article does the same.
Personally, I think HI’s comparison was apt. I think the damage these lunatics have done and advocate doing is incalculable. And, if any of them were half as smart as they believe they are, one must come to the conclusion the damage they are inflicting is intentional. So, they engage in a bit of projection? NBD, that’s what scumbags totalitarian Malthusian Marxists do. Given the chance, they’d make Pot and Stalin look like choir boys.
Hate to provoke and run, but I’ve got to check the calculus and trig of some spheres on a plane. 🙂

I think the Skeptical side was doing better when we patiently kept asserting the scientific inadequacy of Warmism and the shonky practices of Warmist scientists and institutions.
It now appears that the Warmist PR attack machine has dragged us into an unwinnable low level conflict where we are forced to go as ‘low’ as them.
Scientifically we’ve got the high ground, they’re the ones who sound hysterical and fanatical, now that their project is at the point of collapse the are squealing extra loudly, it’s a very unappealing sound and it’s turning off the public…let’s leave then to their own devices…they crave doom and destruction and will seek it out for themselves.

Old England

Revkin seems to espouse the Goebbels principle so beloved of climate alarmists.

Follow the Money

“I hardly ever visited the Heartland website. And I was a skeptic long before I ever heard of the Heartland Institute.”
They’re looking for an out. They are getting angrier. They aren’t blaming “Fox News” or the Ayn Rand-types of whatever anymore. They will take any small target. I earlier thought the NYTimes article claiming Lindzen was the source and last bastion of skepticism was a bizarre outlier. No, it is just on current thought-symptom from the warmistas who are heavily engaged with media discourse on “climate change.” They will only get angrier and angrier. They will not say, “oh, think I should alter my views a little.” Ideologues are arrogant. The reason they target “Heartland” is because that is a name in the news.
I suspect the upcoming election has compelled them to engage more people about their views, and they are getting push-back. They know positive feedbacks is dead. They want this debate “over” with them feeling on top.

LearDog

The thing about Heartland is – their conferences are a RESPONSE to the pal review and bullying tactics of the Team.
Let me pose a question: if scientific debate were working in a full, honest and open way – would Heartland’s mission exist?

Nick in vancouver

Joe Zarg, the Nazis in Greece just got their first member of Parliament elected. Neo nazis are on the ballot in France and Italy too. Hitler started with the ballot box and was elected to parliament before engineering his chancellorship. Economic chaos fed the hysteria and a manufactured threat was the oxygen that fed the Nazis’ fire. Sounds familiar? World War 2 was more than a “little nastiness”. You have alot of reading to do, I suggest Martin Gilberts’ Second World War. It has all the “nastiness” meticulously researched and referenced. Undeniable.

Our friend Kim left this for me….. I think it’s very appropriate in this regard…… http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-new-holocaust-deniers/?singlepage=true

u.k.(us)

James Sexton says:
May 10, 2012 at 3:49 pm
“Hate to provoke and run, but I’ve got to check the calculus and trig of some spheres on a plane. :-)”
================
Who doesn’t, the provoked will be waiting for your return.

Gary Hladik

‘As for the “…who’s the climate equivalent of the guy standing with his hands down?” question posed by Revkin, I see it this way: I think climate change skeptics see themselves as that man, I see myself as that man.’
Well, if the man were jumping up and down screaming “The emperor has no clothes!”, then yes. Although he risks less (so far), Anthony certainly isn’t sitting quietly.
Joe Zarg says (May 10, 2012 at 2:53 pm): “I wish our site owner would not writhe in pain every time some idiot calls his opponent a ‘denier’, or at least realize that most of us could not care less about the ‘holocaust’, and stop peddling it here.”
As a habitual skeptic, I must doubt Joe’s claim until he presents hard evidence; so far the count is actually two (Anthony plus yours truly) to one against him. 🙂