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.
There is nothing wrong with being certain that you’re right.
It’s when you acquire the power to do something about it that the trouble starts.
It bothers me to see so much emotional involement in an exchange about “name calling”. I think we should ignore the name callers and their insults. Don’t stoop to their level. It is distracting and fails to advance a discussion of the issues between us; is there man-made climate change and if so is it significant and what are it’s causes and how do we correct them. I love reading the science on this site. Anthony has developed an amazing network of contributors.
“”””” 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. “””””
Steve, I am including your full post here ONLY to emphasize it. It is simply NOT ACCEPTABLE to use that era of inhumane horror, as an analog of ANYTHING ELSE, no matter what; and anyone who does so, should be roundly condemned.
That is also true of any special interest group seeking special treatment (in the USA at least) to present the American Black Slavery history, as an analog of their own disgruntlement.
I had a higher opinion of Andy Revkin, prior to this outrage. Now I simply have no respect for the man, or his views about ANYTHING.
coyote says:
May 10, 2012 at 2:48 pm
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 [sic] is wrong to use the Holocaust Denier charge against environmentalists and Malthusians: http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-new-holocaust-deniers/
Zubrin examines the policies inspired by “environmentalists” and Malthusians and the actual deaths and damage they caused — globally — in the past and continue to cause today on a scale that exceeds that of the Holocaust. For the most part, those of you on the Left either deny what’s being done or dismiss it as being irrelevant in light of the Grand Scheme of Things, so Zubrin’s use of the term, and he explained why he used it, is both valid and appropriate.
Your grade for this thread is:
English Comprehension — Fail;
World History — Fail;
Current Events — Fail;
Logic — Fail.
Well, I just posted this over at the good professor’s blog:
[snip. Repeated d-word violation. ~dbs, mod.]
As someone in the middle ground on this debate I find all name calling rather self-defeating. I like to visit blogs on “both sides” of the debate – something I recommend to everyone.
That tapped I find I just can’t read articles on DesmogBlog (or anywhere Mr Mooney operates) because of the endless use of “denier” and the overt political posturing there. The same for RealClimate (or anywhere Mann operates) or loads of other places. I also find Morano’s operation full of shouty articles laiden with name calling such as “alarmist” or even socialist – a real turn off.
I suppose a lot of this is based on the geography – i.e. the US. I don’t really have an opinion on Obama or a vote for or against him – I’ve generally given up on politicians and like 68% of my fellow UK citizens decided not to bother voting last week. From what I’ve seen of US politicians I probably wouldn’t bother there either, or in France or Greece or Spain – they are all useless, powerless and self-serving.
This debate should be about the climate and the science surrounding it and whether we can trust that science and what it might be telling us about the future – which is not a lot beyond the weather for the next week or so from what I’ve seen so far but I’m hoping things improve with open source science and skeptical outlooks.
As for you going to the HI conference it’s you choice. I find them an odd bunch from what I have read – simply a bunch of guys over-egging their own influence and importance, their kind exist on all sides of all fences the world over. Bishop Hill has published stuff via the GWPF, which IMHO means that his valuable points are lost in the never ending debate about them keeping their funders confidential. They have a right and a reason to do that, but it generates smoke and heat instead of light.
I predict the Desmogblogs of the world will start to post a shouty article about how you are linked financially to them for your (very valuable and worthwhile) climate stats project. I’ll ignore them and look forward to the project going live.
As for the author of the article linked maybe he should reconsider the idea that there might be a part 2.
Mr. REvkin should read, what Jim hansen wrote in 1999 about sceptics in science and learn from it. Than he will never use such an ugly comparison.
The choice of similes and metaphors made by a speaker or writer reveals at least as much, maybe more, about the intellectual environment of that person as it does about the situation under discussion. It is notable that the alarmist camp continually harps on about “deniers”, showing that, at a deep level, they regard disagreement with their own “holy truth” as positioning the “offenders” in the blackest, nastiest hole they can imagine, filled with seventy years’ obsession with evil.
Compare the usual similes used by those of us with a more open acceptance of the world. We refer to alarmists running around like Chicken Little, or refer to the Emperor’s New Clothes, or whatever … kids’ stuff. Yeah, Chicken Little and the Emperor were pretty stupid, but by referencng them we’re not claiming that alarmists are espousing nameless dark evils even though there is ample real-world evidence of the unpleasant global fascism motivating the AGW story. We (mostly) just laugh at the foolishness of those who wish to recreate science in their own image, and get on with discussing the (real) science. That’s a heck of a difference.
I think you’re right to attend. Tell HI they went too far, but let’s not get distracted by a bit of ill-advised bad taste – any more than we do when the warmist camp come out with it.
“I don’t view pro AGW people as “Nazi’s” and nobody should ascribe any such opinion to me.”
I understand what you are saying Anthony, but sometimes when I see guys like Prof. Mann, Peter Gleick, Joe Romm, and similar others behave the way they behave, my temptation is simply to say: if the shoe fits, wear it.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 10, 2012 at 2:02 pm (Edit)
———————————————-
As a consequence of my , many, debates with ordinary alarmists I have come to the conclusion that their stance is not based on any science per se , but rather on ” the ends justify the means”.
They believe that he consequences of reducing man made CO2 will be a cleaner, safer happier planet populated by lots of charismatic mega fauna. They are happy to accept that CO2 may be a BS story but cutting it out or back will lead to an environmental Nirvana.
I point out that anything built upon a fundamental lie can only result in ultimate failure. They don’t care much for that hypothesis.
Excellent post Anthony; it took concentration as it was complex. BTW I am keeping that photo, it is a gem.
[snip. D-word violation. ~dbs, mod.]
Good words, Willis. You speak for me and I’m sure for many of us here as well. Even if you had to use an inner city neologism…”angrifies” 🙂
climate change deniers like to say that using scientific ‘theories’ to explain climate change is not really ‘proof.’
The real problem for the Warmists is their preferred theory, known as the Forcings Model, doesn’t explain observed climate changes, despite increasing desperate and ad hoc attempts to make it do so; missing heat in the deep oceans, non-existent sulphate cooling, which I debunked in another thread today, +ve water vapor feedbacks when they are -ve, etc.
One thing that clearly differentiates Warmists from ‘climate deniers’, is the former have a generally poorer grasp of what science is and how it works than the latter.
The person who wrote the quote above clearly doesn’t understand what science is, and is merely parroting a garbled rehash of what they have been told but didn’t understand. What I call a Goreism, after the master of parroting garbled rehashes of things he didn’t understand.
Gary Hladik says:
Quote:
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. 🙂
Unquote
Look, some people eat, sleep and drink Holocaust. They have whatever reasons for doing that. The vast majority of us have other things to think about, the hard evidence being that most conversations with ordinary people do not veer off onto the subject ‘Holocaust’.
This is a climate blog, not a Holocasust remembrance site, and I am tired of seeing the pathetic, horrified knee-jerk repsonses of Watts and others to the word ‘denier’.
Now if you want to talk about a real Holocaust, talk about the bombing of German civilians by the Allies and their rape and murder by the Soviet armies.
But don’t do it here, since this a climate blog.
[Reply: Using the d-word is simply a Policy violation. Posts that use it as a pejorative will be snipped. ~dbs, mod.]
Old Grumpy says:May 10, 2012 at 9:21 pm
There is nothing wrong with being certain that you’re right.
It’s when you acquire the power to do something about it that the trouble starts.
True. It was the grandmothers and mothers <WHO SPOKE OUT in Argentina, because they did NOT have their children. An entirely different position to be in than those stating they do not wish their children or grandchildren to be [‘living to face the consequences of CAGW’]. And the American Association for the Advancement for Science supported a group of young Argentinians (many of the older scientists were either complicit or frightened) in the forensic work of identifying mass graves and bodies. cf Clyde Snow et al http://shr.aaas.org/about/history/
As wiki explains Disappearances work on two levels: not only do they silence opponents and critics who have disappeared, but they also create uncertainty and fear in the wider community, silencing others who would oppose and criticise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desaparecidos
The pjmedia article (@Tuttle) and the Spectator are clear examples of silencing questions, silencing the public or commentators and the dreadful results had in the poor application of science.
Science or starvation http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7821543/science-or-starvation.thtml
At the end of the month, a group of protestors plan to descend upon a field in Hertfordshire and ‘decontaminate’ (i.e. destroy) a field of genetically modified wheat. The activists, from an organisation called Take the Flour Back, claim to be saving Britain from a deadly menace. In reality, they are threatening not only to undo decades of publicly funded research but destroy one of the best hopes we have of avoiding catastrophic famines.
Those opposing transgenic technology have been given an easy ride by the media for the past 20 years. …..
In Norwich, another group of scientists, at the John Innes Centre, is developing a strain of wheat that is resistant to a stem-rust fungus which is sweeping the Horn of Africa and into southwest Asia, and which could cause 200 million deaths if it reaches Punjab. The scientists would love to be able to test this wheat in the field — but, thanks to campaigns by the likes of Greenpeace, nearly all African governments have forbidden transgenic plants to cross their borders……………..
In Switzerland, a deeply humane and now extremely angry scientist called Ingo Potrykus, who in a sane world would be clutching a Nobel Prize, has devoted his life to the creation of a new variety of ‘golden rice’ that, unlike the natural variety, is rich in vitamin A. Deficiency in this vitamin is thought to cause 400 million cases of malnutrition, two million deaths and 500,000 cases of child blindness every year. Thanks to the success of anti-GM campaigns, the introduction of golden rice has been delayed by more than a decade.
Sorry, to be clearer …
The pjmedia article (@Tuttle) and the Spectator [article below] are clear examples of [how] silencing questions, silencing the public or commentators and the dreadful results had in the poor application of science.
Science or starvation http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7821543/science-or-starvation.thtml
When eugenics finally earned its place in the dustbin of history those academic and political progressives who strongly backed simply pretended they never did in the first place. We can see, from the perspective offered by history, that much of what eugenics believers claimed was progressive and scientific was merely ethno-centric and racist. As AGW moves towards its inevitable place in the dustbin, its true believers will go through the same editing of their official positions. This holocaust survivor has conflated things and either deliberately or by omission fibbed about the science and those who disagree with the AGW consensus. He is trading off of his experience to claim a moral ground the AGW movement has never had and never will have.
When one examines the other causes so many AGW true believers embrace, it is clear that they have no better motives than their social mania predecessors did.
It would be a mistake to throw Heartland under the bus. Alarmists have no shame, no regrets and no apologies (think 10:10) so a billboard was offensive to them?? So we quit??
Anthony,
I looks like there is a reasonable chance I will attend my first HI ICCC next week if some family business does not block attendence. It will be my first interaction with HI. I think the HI billboard use debate will make discussion at ICCC-7 have more valuable.
HI’s philosophically underpinnings are an area that I would like to look at during the conference as well as HI’s participation in Climate science discourse. I think HI political positions are of derivatory importance.
It is only after my discussions with HI at ICCC-7 will I do a final evaluation of HI’s billboard usage. I want their story from a face-to-face discussion. I am not currently negative about HI’s recent PR.
John
The purpose of linking “holocaust denial’ with ‘climate denial’ is to achieve several things.
First, is to force the accused to defend his motives, ethics, morality, anything but his facts.
Second, is to bring the accused into contact with the force of the taboo, to be shown, scrooge like, the ghosts of past and future, that will haunt him, in that world where he becomes beyond the pale.
To be subjected to such vituperation is simply a sign that your facts are real and your position is dangerous to the name caller.
@Mr. D.Imwit:
A better resolution photo (uncropped, or at least, less cropped) may be found at this link.
http://twentytwowords.com/2012/02/13/a-lone-dockworker-refuses-to-raise-his-hand-in-the-nazi-salute-1936/
Besides Mr Landmesser, (who was undoubtedly a man of considerable moral courage), I count 5 people who do not salute. 3 are in uniform 🙂 Many are hamming for the camera. One is ‘saluting’ while knocking down the cap of the man in front of him. I make no comment as to the veracity of the photo.
Sorry for the typos and the grammar flubs in my above comment. My flimsy excuse is the comment was done on my iPhone while in a car. : )
John
It seems to me that people who shout the loudest are the ones to loose out the most, the mere accusation of holocaust denier denotes perhaps there is something to hide and when some environmentalists degree the same accusation are they then too hiding. So why are these comparisons put together. If science or history were so conclusive there would be no need for such classroom mud slinging.
Oh, the irony, it hurts. Holocaust survivor Micha Tomkiewicz uses the same tactics as Joseph Goebbels in a pathetic attempt to prop up the endangered CAGW Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. And Revkin goes along with that? For shame.