Tom Nelson reports on some disturbed thinking – From an epic rant by warmist David Appell:
“Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes? I think so”
Quark Soup by David Appell: The CharlesH Problem
But CharlesH, this idiot, this — I’m sorry — this fucking idiot who sits home and probably watches America’s [sic] Idol in the evening, who has probably never read a science paper in his life, really, truly, somehow honestly thinks he knows better than all the professional, study-deep-into-the-night, sweat-the-data, devote-their-lives scientists about all this.
What can you possibly say about such a person? This person — CharlesH — now threatens civilization.
Think about that — ignorance from Tea Party types in rural Utah threatens the well-being of the entire human race.
…
I don’t know. Donald Brown, the philosopher at Penn State who has been writing about the ethics of climate change for well over a decade — I interviewed him in the early 2000s — thinks they are perhaps guilty of crimes against humanity.
Are they? Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes?
I think so. You can simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.
I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade.
When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe.
…It’s obvious (barely) they’re not smart enough to be so evil…
…
None of them has much of a science background, if any. I mean, please.
And CharlesH, who clearly knows no science either.
But on the shoulders of these idiots, fools, and incoherent minds our future seems to turn, if only just a bit, if only in the blogosphere. And they are probably proud of this, somehow.
…
But them, still, I think: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 5 molecules per 10,000 trap more heat than 4 per 10,000, or even three.
On that small divide, our future lies. One molecule out of 10,000.
…
I’ll be flying home tomorrow…
I just hope I can get my WiFi to work again. It always seems like a crapshoot, and frankly, I don’t even know if I remember the password.
Apparently Mr. Appell doesn’t note that I’ve stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas on national television and said it has an effect.
There’s also a transcript here
I think the real crime Mr. Appell thinks I’m guilty of is existing, having an opinion, and daring to write about it.
If anyone is a neighbor of David Appell, this might be fun:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wonder what else he has that he would like me to “deny”?
David Appel says on Quark Soup;
Perhaps we need a decade of true suffering — I mean REAL hardship — to break them of their idiocy. I’m just barely old enough to perhaps die in such a decade, but if that’s what it really takes….
and:
I’ll be flying home tomorrow…
Prepared to die for the cause during the next decade but not travel in more carbon friendly manner now. He really takes this “problem” seriously, doesn’t he.
From David Appell’s blog, quoted above by Jimbo.
I refrain from being pedantic here on proper English as many posters are not native English speakers, despite which their English is vastly superior to my meagre knowledge of any other language. However, I will indulge in this case because the offending mis-speaker is David Appell.
The snippet “Paul knew disaster was eminent …” is a rather common blunder. There are three words pronounced essentially alike but with different meanings:
eminent: famous, respected; possessing some special positive quality: “Samuel Elliot Morrison was an eminet naval historian”. See here .
immanent: inherent within or naturally part of something, for example “cognition is an immanent act of mind”. See here .
imminent: about to happen, immediately pending. “With no federal budget passed, the US faces an imminent fiscal crisis”. See here .
The snippet above should read “Paul knew disaster was imminent …”. Or maybe Paul was just basking in his own self of importance. For if a disaster could ever be said to be eminent, Paul Erlich would fit the description.
Yours for English pedantry.
Please don’t give these idiots any more publicity. To claim that climate change is not happening flies in the face of everything science and common sense is telling us. However, repeating his words just makes it twice as hard to convince people because some people will read it, go check him out, and then have doubts about what the real truth is.
@Appell
> …they are perhaps guilty of crimes against humanity.
He sounds like the autocrats in the past who advocated prison for those who dared to speak out against “accepted” beliefs:
“In 1940, he [Lysenko] became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR’s Academy of Sciences, and Lysenko’s anti-Mendelian doctrines were further secured in Soviet science and education by the exercise of political influence and power. Scientific dissent from Lysenko’s theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948, and for the next several years, opponents were purged from held positions, and many imprisoned.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
The question I have is who here has denied the climate is changing? A show of hands, anyone?
To Mr. Appell, please find one quote on this blog from any poster that says they don’t think the climate is changing!
We do however question as to why and what is causing it.
Please, do yourself and all of us a favor and watch Anthony’s PBS interview, but this time, do it sober!!
Quite the flounce.
I enjoyed some of the comments over there and felt compelled to join in with this (posted here in case it’s snipped from there).
“David, would you be able to clarify what you mean by “the nearly unprecedented rate of change…”?
Seems to fall under the same broad category as ‘nearly pregnant’. The rate of change either in unprecedented, or, as appears to be the case, is not unprecedented.
Thanks in advance.”
David Appell says: “Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes? I think so. You can simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade.”
So part of the predicate for being guilty of a climate crime is what, … intelligence, wisdom, knowledge. Just how would such laws be constructed and enforced? How would a jury (or perhaps merely an inquisition) determine how to interprete such a law and what would the necessary evidence be to support a conviction.
XX USC XXXX It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly state that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Isn’t this all just a little bit too much like blaspheming by drawing naked pictures of Mohammed and publishing them? I think there are some real First Amendement issues with Mr. Appell’s diatribe.
I think this letter well illustrates how misinformed some members of the warmist camp are about what the sceptics are really saying or questioning in the area of global warming. The sceptics have never denied that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas , only that it is not a pollutant . It is ssential for life to exist on our planet. It was the same case with Muller as well when he claimed that he now believes in global warming . The issue was not that sceptics denied the existence of global warming but what is the prime cause of the warming , what impact if did humans have on climate and how the temperatures were being measured . If it is a crime to speak up about obvious errors in climate science as this letter writer wrongly suggests , then it can be argued by his logic that is also a crime to present false ,unreliable and misleading science and climate predictions to the public especially when using public money.. Since supposedly 97% of climate scientists support global warming claiming man to be the prime or exclusive cause and since temperatures have not risen the last 15 years as predicted by them and many other science predictions that never materialized, it could be a very large and well suported class action case on behalf of the people of this globe against bad climate science .
Part of the pattern that tries to paint AGW sceptics as not wrong but mad or in the case bad .
It’s a beat up. Both sides are throwing out accusations and casting aspersions on the other.
For example, Joanne Nova published an epic rant at http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/david-archibald-global-warming-is-a-litmus-test-for-our-politicians/. Excerpts include:
Dante said that the darkest recesses of hell are reserved for those who remain neutral at a time of great moral crisis. That time is now, and most of our major companies have condemned themselves to the darkest recesses by their inaction and silence. Then there are those who do worse than that, and actively connive against the Australian people.
“On the 24th of March, the Prime Minister herself provided us with a list of the names of these companies. These are companies who, instead of contributing to greater wealth for all, would rather feed on the shrunken carcass of an enfeebled Australian economy. I will now read the Prime Minister’s list of conniving companies.”
“These are the companies that wish ill on you and your children. They would sell the Australian people into the slavery and oppression of the carbon tax so that they can get their own snouts deeper into the trough. It is your patriotic duty to avoid these companies as much as you can. Withhold the blessing of your custom. If you need petrol, and it is a choice between Shell and some other brand, for Australia’s sake, for your children’s sake, for God’s sake, choose the other brand.
If any of these companies don’t actually support a carbon-constrained economy, they have yet to make the effort to correct that misperception. By their silence, they are complicit. Make no mistake, the carbon tax they wish upon us will devastate the Australian economy. A couple of months ago, a minister of the Federal Government visited the steelworks in Port Kembla and cheerfully, tearlessly considered its closure.
This government is quite happy to sacrifice our greatest industrial enterprise on the altar of this bizarre cult of carbon. These people are remorseless killers of whole industries, and whole communities. Once industries like steel and cement are gone from our shores, no amount of wishing or hoping or endless tears will bring them back again. Skills that have been passed down generations will be lost forever. And in a few short years, Sydney will start having blackouts because nobody will build a new power station while the carbon tax stalks the land.”
So we have the realist side talking about:
Remorseless killers
Complicit…will devastate
darkest recess of hell
connive against people
feed on the shrunken carcass
darkest recess of hell
Both sides should stop publishing this tripe. By rebroadcasting it, WUWT is giving it air. Joanne Nova never should have published that other diatribe, but she is a notorious David Archibald, bootlicker.
Charles H, whoever you are, R E S P E C T!
You obviously have the patience of a saint.
The Australian treasurer has said that the greatest danger to world prosperity is elements of the Republican party in the US.
REPLY: And many people in the United States think that that the greatest danger to world prosperity is academics that don’t have a clue how the world works (or have done work) outside the University, telling us how to live – Anthony
Actual screen shot I took in January, ’11 ….. made for a funny wall post anyway.
I’ll admit it made me jump when I saw it. Took about two seconds to realize what was going on.
http://i725.photobucket.com/albums/ww254/KLHilde/Untitled_zps1c8f8722.jpg
This is what’s great about freedom of speech! We get to hear rants like this from the self anointed experts who claim to walk a higher moral plane, thus crushing their own credibility.
(Oh, and my WiFi SSD names come from “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”)
Bec Abbott says:
September 21, 2012 at 6:02 am
“So we have the realist side talking about:
Remorseless killers”
Respect! Do you work for MSNBC? That was a masterpiece in ripping stuff out of context; but you have one thing to learn, stop citing the source, then you’re perfect. She said
“These people are remorseless killers of whole industries, and whole communities. ”
So… Killers… not of people, but of industries, which makes a little bit of a difference, dont you think so. And given the coal mine closures in Virginia etc., perfectly fine description.
Furthermore, you, on your high pedestal, finish your own diatribe with
” she is a notorious David Archibald, bootlicker.”.
MAYBE it is a little too telling of your own intentions that you stoop to such verbal lows yourself, Mr. Judge. Your pretence of objectivity starts to fall apart there.
Owen sez:
“I think those who try to medicalize or criminalize dissent ae dangerous, and should be kept away from power or sharp objects. If they are in the United States, they need a good course on the first amendment, because as much as they try to deny it, we are free to think what we want, but when they try to impose their “beliefs” on the rest of us by extra-constitutional means, that is what the second amendment to the US Constitution was for! Threats to life and liberty should be taken seriously by all.”
Having been involved in democratic party politics for decades, I know these people. That is why I recognize that they have gone off the rails.
Harvard professor Cass Sunstein recently concluded his stint as Regulatory Czar. He published a paper in 2008 on “Conspiracy Theories.” You can go look this up. In this paper, he considers various avenues the govt might take to combat “conspiracy theories,” such as there is no AGW.
People, we need to realize that this is total “1984:” the govt decides what is OK for you to think.
And speaking of the Constitution, Sunstein has also written a book called “The Partial Consitution.” Go order a used copy – they are cheap.
In this, he argues that the Constitution needs to be significantly re-written.
You think I am kidding.
He is not the only one with this idea. The elitist totalitarians are really worried that it is a problem to allow people to think for themselves.
Here is a prominent, undisguised website, based on book of same name, where their concerns over the Constitution are aired:
http://constitution2020.org/
Here is another:
http://www.acslaw.org/publications/books/keeping-faith-with-the-constitution
Liu is on California’s Supreme Court, and may be short-list for U.S. Supreme Court, depending on whether we decide to vote for these tyrants or not.
Here is their rhetoric: they somehow discern what the original authors of the Constitution believed; they note that times have changed; they note that the Constitution fits the old days but not the current day; they decide that a group of lawyers from elitist liberal law school need to get together to rewrite the Constitution to get it back to what the Founding Fathers believed, according to their interpretation.
They note that since society has changed, the Constitution has ended up favoring extreme right wing people who want to cling to their guns and religion.
Yes, the enemy is everyday people.
In the U.S., how many people hold a believe in a recognized, organized religion? A lot.
How many people own guns?
A lot.
In the rarified world, those people are the enemy.
This is the mythological BAD GUY against whom Appel rants.
The apocalyptic cult needs a good/evil bad guy.
Wha? the bad guy is my neighbor? My whole neighborhood? The tea Party?
Coulda fooled me.
I am not a Tea Partier, but my vision of America can accomodate them, I am not ready for the jackboots to lock them up.
My America can handle marxists and those who want to rewrite the Constitution.
Let’s just be up-front about it.
If you are unaware that there is a major political movement to rewrite the Constitution, go check out these noted sources.
IMHO, David Appell is appallingly rude and completely out of touch with reality.
The only reason he deserves his comments and views published is to show up his incompetence and his desperation.
“Crimes against humanity” “Climate Crimes” !!!!!! Geeeeez!
” idiots, fools, and incoherent minds” ???? Maybe the shoe is on the other foot?
You can tell a lot about someone from the friends they keep. You can sometimes tell even more from the enemies they make. I hope to have enemies like Appel some day.
Jonova’s rant is obviously a political tract, perfectly within the bounds and traditions of impassioned political discourse, and beautifully done.
This is in stark contrast to the reflexive, dogmatic, blind lashing-out by ideological Warmists against anyone who would dare question the sacred catechism of “Climate Change,” [née “Global Warming”], which is the topic of this thread.
One is an argument over policy. The other is fanatical intolerance of heresy. One is the healthy exercise of free speech. The other is exactly the opposite. “Guilty of climate crimes”? Remember the Witch Trials. The Climate ideologues would return us to pre-Enlightenment days, turning the word ‘science’ on its head, establishing a priesthood promulgating unassailable doctrine.
When you are asked, “Do you believe in climate change?” be afraid. Science is not about belief; religion is.
/Mr Lynn
thecomfortablynumb says:
September 21, 2012 at 4:45 am:
“To claim that climate change is not happening flies in the face of everything science and common sense is telling us.”
========================================================
Thecomfortablynumb, maybe your common sense needs some enhancement. Because not everything scientists say is science. It is, probably, in most cases, but there have been some exceptions throughout the history, and “climate science” is one of them.
There is zero difference between the rioting in the Muslim lands – ostensibly due to a laughably bad film clip, and the verbal riot caused by Anthony’s appearance on PBS. The same ill-informed, intolerant zealotry is behind both, just wearing a different facade.
Out of the line of fire, it’s amusing. One side knows they broker no criticism, the other side is “pure” and works out of concern for the human race… In the line of fire, not so much difference if either gets in real power positions.
“John Brookes says:
September 21, 2012 at 6:26 am”
And our besterest Aussie economist Swannie…is voted WORLD besterest economist by the EU. I mean, isn’t that funny?