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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony
What we have here at this time is a repeat of what is being played out in the presidential campaign, which is to throw as much crap at the wall as possible, as long as possible, to keep the real issues from being discussed.
We MUST NOT GET DISTRACTED by these things as they are willful efforts to goad, inflame, and reduce the argument to a he said he said level.
“…………….climate change deniers……………”
What??? Are they trying to link us with those Nasties???
Hey, two can play this game. Check these out. 😉
“Fascist Ecology: The “Green Wing” of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents”
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/Staudenmaier.html
“Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience”
http://books.google.gm/books/about/Ecofascism.html?id=GWTY0gLjwbAC&redir_esc=y
And finally I hate climate change deniers. The climate has always and will always change.
Whenever I see that personalities and insults are the topics and substance of climate change discussion, I open my “Climate, History and the Modern World” by Dr. H. H. Lamb, open it to one of its many pages I’ve highlighted, and wonder what keeps the “natural climate deniers” going. Today I’m looking at a chart on page 142 of “Changes in the height of the upper tree line in two areas in the White Mountains, California and in the Alps in Switzerland and Austria (From work by V. C. La Marche and V. Markgraf)” for the last 6,000 years. The charts show tree lines were much higher than present (meaning it was warmer) for the entire 6,000-year period, and in recent periods both charts clearly show the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. These trees don’t lie, and they don’t need their rings measured and interpreted as to temperature, moisture, changes in solar exposure, fertilization, &etc. It’s quite simple, really, If a certain type of tree once grew 100 meters above where they now grow, it was warmer then than now. If a certain type of tree once grew 200 to 400 kilometers north of where they grow now, it was warmer then than now. The evidence of the trees’ former habitat is easily determined by stumps and other woody artifacts, which then leads to the comparative ease of determining when they were there through carbon dating. If trees can no longer live somewhere because of changing conditions, they won’t, and have no choice in the matter.
Concerning tree rings, and in particular bristle-cone pines in the White Mountains of California, Professor V. C. La Marche at the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research at my alma mater, University of Arizona, Tucson, has constructed a chart indicating variations of summer warmth and/or its seasonal duration covering the past 5,500 years (see page 141 of Lamb). Unlike Mann’s and others’ studies involving these upper-tree line bristle-cone pines, La Marche’s study shows great variation over the 5,500-year period, with six warming and cooling periods including a very prominent Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, with current warming beginning over 200 years ago.
This is science. It clearly shows that current warming is not unprecedented, but in fact is normal if a bit cooler than previous periods of warming. It also lends great weight to the argument that denying that climate change is normal and has occurred without the aid of humans – or of CO2 instigation, since the AGW believers posit that atmospheric CO2 was stable for this entire period of significant warming and cooling – is supported by a robust body of scientific evidence, far superior to the thin, short time period, model driven body of science that finds an insignificant trace gas rules climate change.
Only true believers, real zealots, not scientists, could hang onto their beliefs against such overwhelming evidence.
I am one of those who denies that man is causing any kind of climate change. I do not deny that the Holocaust took place. I have pictures of Malthausen taken when it was liberated. These pictures were taken by my wife’s great-uncle. His unit was the first to reach that camp.
Now, whereas I have real proof of the Holocaust, where is Revkin’s proof of man causing climate change. All he has is the word of charlatans like Mann, Phil Jones and all the other so-called “climate scientists” whose work has been, and continues to be, discredited. To date, none of the dire alarmist predictions have materialized.
Jay Davis
When I was very young I lived in a neutral country. The madness in Europe was very far away. At first educated individuals that did not like to toe line started to appear. Then Jews that were rejected by the USA and other countries started to appear. Then escapees from the Shoa (holocaust) started to appear, bearing many scars and telling of many sad and cruel things (not all Jews).
After the war many of the perpetrators started to appear (not all from Germany). . The victims by that time spoke the local language and had established themselves in commerce. The perpetrators could only find employment with the victims, as they were the only ones who could speak their language. The perpetrators kept their heads down and worked at being invisible model citizens, as they were being hunted.
I spoke to some of the perpetrators back then, since I could speak their language. They spoke to me candidly. The majority had hardened opinions and felt they had been betrayed. They had no remorse whatsoever for what they had participated in. These days I expect no better from fanatics that have been defeated or are going to be defeated.
I was talking to my Mother on the phone the other day about those times. We both concluded the present situation has the smell and feel of the 1930’s.
Must admit I only read half of this. Anthony, you are really starting to ramble and you need to get a bit of focus into your posts.
Even if warmism was true, how does that justify things like ethanol and wind turbines which obviousy waste energy? Those who believe in warmism also believe in unlimited government borrowing. Coincidence?
It strikes me that the agenda is being set by those who are framing a powerful and denigrating metaphor (see George Lakoff) or cliche (see Jonah Goldberg). My preference is to push back hard and force them to push their metaphor/cliche to the point where its baselessness or baseness is clear. This is, I believe, what Monckton succeeded in doing in the St. Andrews debate, RJP jr tried with Romm and what Anthony has done with Revkin. Sometimes the success of this approach is clear and immediate, while most of the time it is the sense of doing the right thing as did the man in the picture. Keep doing the right thing Anthony.
Braddles,
For some focus, see otsar’s post above yours. Pay special attention to the last sentence.
My father spent the Second World War at the pointy end of the conflict (ie. “We keep driving until the enemy shoots at us. Then we know he is there”: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Louise_Dragoon_Guards).
He said that he encountered two types of German solders during the Second World War, Wehrmacht and Waffen. The Wehrmacht were solders, like themselves, proud Germans fighting with their country. The others, Waffen were ideologically driven followers of an idea without merit and a cause without end.
In the beginning the Wehrmacht were the more dangerous opponent, towards the end the Waffen became nearly manic in their encounters as their truth of ideological superiority conflicted with the reality on the ground.
I expect like all ideologically driven followers of an idea without merit and a cause without end, the leaders and devotees of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming will (have) became nearly manic in their encounters as their truth of ideological superiority as conflicted with the reality on the ground. They will not surrender in the face of the evidence around them because they have nothing they want to go back to, no normal life, the cause is their propose, and without it they are nothing.
I expect that the rhetoric from the leaders and devotees of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming will descend further in to the gutter as the reality of the measurements from nature continue to conflict with their truth of ideological superiority. We can only hope that their action remain retorical.
Exceptionally well said Anthony.
I applaud your decision to go to the Heartland Conference. A mistake was made. If this was a close friend, would you condemn his actions or condemn his person? I accept my friends, warts and all because we are all human and therefore make mistakes. It is when the mistakes are made repeatedly and viscously that I reconsider.
Also you are correct. opponents always love to find a wedge to use for divide and conquer. I hope others will read your words and reconsider their decision not to attend.
majormike1 says:
May 10, 2012 at 5:48 pm
” It’s quite simple, really, If a certain type of tree once grew 100 meters above where they now grow, it was warmer then than now. If a certain type of tree once grew 200 to 400 kilometers north of where they grow now, it was warmer then than now. The evidence of the trees’ former habitat is easily determined by stumps and other woody artifacts, which then leads to the comparative ease of determining when they were there through carbon dating. If trees can no longer live somewhere because of changing conditions, they won’t, and have no choice in the matter.”
It’s not quite so simple. It takes a long time for tree habitat to develop. The increase in temperature that has taken place since 1975 is so rapid that the treeline has not had sufficient time to move.
If science were so simple, there wouldn’t be a need to have scientists make a subject like tree rings their life’s work, and the science that was developed by 1982, would not have to be improved upon.
Opinions of this nature make me skeptical of about the level of knowledge of self styled AGW “skeptics”.
Obviously you are ignorant of the monumental works of Dr. H. H. Lamb, such as “Climatic History and the Future,” and “Climate, History and the Modern World.” Dr. Lamb used hundreds – thousands – of science studies from all disciplines touching climate, and my excerpts you object to are from several of the most imminent researchers in the field, and I cited them in my comment. You, like most natural climate change deniers, are therefore ignorant of much climate research.
Just one time period to consider: the Younger Dryas of about 10,000 years ago, when temperature changed much more and much more rapidly than now. This was followed by the roughly 4,000 years of the Holocene Climate Optimum, with higher temperatures and lower atmospheric CO2 than present. Dr. Lamb shows two charts of tree-line changes covering over 6,000 to the present time, and both show it was much warmer than now during and following the Holocene Climate Optimum, that there has been significant cooling the past 4,000 years, that there was a Medieval Warm Period which was warmer than present, and that there was a Little Ice Age that we have been recovering from for about the last 300 years.
Speaking of climate without knowledge of Lamb is like discussing theater without knowing of Shakespeare.
Do some homework, Eric.
I am astounded by this query: “To you, who’s the climate equivalent of the guy standing with his hands down?” Really? Mr. Revkin doesn’t know who that might be or thinks somehow that it might be him or other AGW theory proponents?!? How does one possibly come to hold that view? (I am utterly shocked! And then to go on to somehow presume or infer that this allegorical observation regarding this individual and global warming skeptics must ergo include the accusation that AGW proponents are then to be construed as the equivalent of Nazis? Get out! You do not really think that, do you? I can only speak for myself but can honestly say that the thought never, ever, crossed my mind. It informs the debate to realize that both sides might envision themselves as the individual willing to publically state his minority opinion in the face of overwhelming counter-opinion though it’s difficult for me to appreciate that AGW theory could in any way shape or form be considered as anything other than the prevailing, world-wide majority opinion at this point in time – even though the strength of that opinion has indeed, and rightly so, been weakened recently).
There is only one answer that I can fathom – Mr. Revkin and others sharing his mindset are truly blinded by the “science.” They view the entire issue through a defining lens that says no matter what, at the end of the day the threat of anthropogenic carbon dioxide driven catastrophic global warming is a real and growing threat (let’s call it what they think it is, rather than use the obfuscating terms like climate change, climate disruption, climate weirding, etc.). The protagonists of the theory don’t seem to be at all open to the idea or to even be able to truly consider the possibility that they might be wrong, no matter how completely the underpinnings of their basis of belief seem to be (to me anyway) discredited (e.g. the Hockeystick). Wow. I had hoped we were dealing with rationale open-minded thinkers and could eventully win them over with logic and reason. Apparently not. There are more powerful psychologies at work. This is going to be tougher than I thought.
Eric Adler,
Try to pay attention. Hubert Lamb was referring to the past 6,000 years, not to the small fraction of a degree of [natural] warming since the mid-70’s; warming that took place mainly at night, in the higher latitudes, and in winter [and which may have already run its course].
There is no way that could cause the tree line to move 200 – 400 km in only three decades. If you’re going to argue the climate alarmist position, at least try to sound rational. And lost the quotation marks around the word skeptic. It makes you sound even more lunatic than usual.
RE: otsar says:
May 10, 2012 at 5:58 pm “….I was talking to my Mother on the phone the other day about those times. We both concluded the present situation has the smell and feel of the 1930′s.”
Well said. I wasn’t alive back then but do study history, and I have the same discomfort.
There is no relevance to this mob photo. Revkin is way off base. Let him compare his issue to a school dispute over M&M’s.
Why is Revkin relevant? He rationalizes his views as being central to cognizant thought about the issue of AGW, but his views rely upon only a small subset of oppositional thought. In other words, he digests 7/8 of his intellectual diet from the most aggressive pro AGW posts and disses the remaining posts from the 1/8.
Anthony,
I thank you for rebuking Heartland right off the bat for their billboard. I also thank you for being a voice urging moderation, while at the same time pressing relentlessly for the Truth.
It is very difficult to be both moderate and relentless. However it seems the only way.
Anthony Watts says:
May 10, 2012 at 5:14 pm
@ur momisugly Ross Brisbane “I will NOT raise my arm to any mob mentality. It is good that we are both like that in many ways.”
I think that needs some clarification, I can read that both ways.
Replay:
I carefully considered your article you posted. Believe me Anthony, sometimes you DO DRAW a good line in the sand. You have done things and accepted things on this site that in hindsight you stated could have better been handled.
What I am trying to say: There comes a time whatever your opinion of Global Warming – you do not give into saluting any mob generated fever pitch taking place and opinion. This applies to both sides of this debate. Hat off to you.
Saw the title, cringed a little and made myself take a quick peek. I’ll sit this one out…too close for comfort for me… but I salute you for your guts and sensitivity, and commend you on your handling, Anthony. B’shalom.
Here’s a new term I like: “indignigentsia.”
And the rain falls on fascists and fools, as well as the wise, equally.
Why do they call us deniers? It is not to persuade anybody, ad-hom insults cannot do that. It is intended to promote hatred. It is intended to make it impossible for skeptic views to get balanced coverage in the media; the media does not give terrorists and criminals that opportunity. It is intended to shut down any discussion and shut out skeptics and call out the Brown Shirts.
The enforcement of the mob or group-think mentality is the key thing to see here, and the question of how did this happen in Germany in the thirties is a very good one. (Note that it was not just Germany, VIPs from the US and the UK and others were also believers.) This BBC article says that “Hitler […] was, a fanatic. One who made his views no secret, and yet won massive support from his fellow countrymen”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17923208
rossbrisbane says:
May 10, 2012 at 5:04 pm
I am a climate change supporter.
====================================================
Thanks, Ross, you gave me a good laugh on an otherwise depressing thread!
I’m glad to know you are a “supporter” of “climate change”….. so the more change the merrier, or what??
As for me I’m a big supporter of “climate” — I think it’s great that our planet earth has a climate, one that humans have lived in for tens of thousands of years. Whether to support or oppose any particular “climate change”….. well that would all depend upon the details, wouldn’t it??
When I first spoke out against the work of Climate Scientists, it was over a small matter. I felt Hansen had no business “adjusting” raw data, because I knew a bit about going out to look at a thermometer in bad weather, and admired the men who had done so for over a century. I knew that in the old days the thermometers were not close to the building, nor could they be read within the building via an underground connection. Men had to go out in rotten weather and take an hourly reading. (If some fudged the records a time or two, you can hardly blame them, and likely they made a good guess.) They likely squinted at a thermometer in lashing wind while holding a flashlight or even a lantern, and did a good job of guessing the reading to the nearest degree. There was no thought of getting a reading down to a tenth of a degree. The fact Hansen, years after the fact, decades after the fact, even more than a century after the fact, seemed to feel he could peer over the shoulders of these men and say, “Actually that thermometer doesn’t say thirty-three. It says thirty-two-point-one,” struck me as patently absurd. So I said so.
Wow! Was I ever surprised by the backlash I got! Before, when I stood up to authority, I was always accused of being a hippy, leftist, pinko and even a communist. Now I was suddenly even worse. I was a…..(oh, the shame)…..CONSERVATIVE!!!!
Well, I tell you, I’ve never been so offended in all my life! Them’s fightin’ words, in my book.
After all, all I have ever stood for is freedom. When they said I should go to school, I played hooky. When they forced me to sit in classrooms, I looked out the window. When the teacher closed the blinds, I found a way out, for I got sent to the principle. Conservative? Me?
I also was called a “denier,” but that is old hat, when you are an outlaw schoolboy. You see, when you are too much like Huckleberry Finn, the school sends you to a psychiatrist, and you learn all sorts of stuff about “denial.”
If you want to understand the roots of people who use the word “denier,” you need to go back and study psychology, especially the Freudian sort, employed in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
Fortunately they didn’t drug healthy, freedom-loving schoolboys, back then, and I got out of the experience with this awareness:
Psychologists are psuedoscientist non-doctors who call themselves doctors, but can’t make anyone better.
This helps you understand that Climate Scientists are pseudoscientific non-weathermen who call themselves weathermen, but can’t forecast.
Above all, keep your sense of humor. Read Winston Churchill’s speeches of the 1930’s. Rather than a “denier” he was called a “war-monger,” when he tried to warn people about H—-, but he responded to the insults with wit that can make you laugh, even 70 years later, despite the darkness of that time and those days.
bsk says: “…Now, go make more fun of Hansen’s complete lack of integrity and incredible bias – factually.”
Hansen’s behavior is not due to a lack of integrity. It is far more consistent with a belief that he is a sort of messiah, chosen to save the world from the dangers of CO2 and consumerism.