Climate Ugliness goes nuclear

Re several posts:
“Analogy is a poor way to reason. The only trouble is, it is all we have.” I can’t remember who wrote or said that, but it is true.
A computer model is an analogy. A mathematical model is an analogy. A scientific formula is an analogy. All of mathematical science is analogies. All thought and communication about “reality” is at best similes (analogies). We model semiconductors using fractionally charged “holes”, because it is more convenient. We speak of “heat flow” in solids and use formulas consistent with fluids long after caloric has been abandoned. Nothing actually flows. Light waves aren’t; there’s nothing to wave. It is more a periodic transform between states, that can sometimes be conveniently modeled in some respects as a wave.
Anyone familiar with the history of science will know of the many, frequently over simplified, analogies used to suggest results. Very frequently it is much easier to derive a formula or calculate something if one has a good idea of what it should be by analogy. That is especially true in actually doing new science, not just following a cook book (another analogy). The same is true in preliminary checking of experiments, observations, and calculations. And, we’re back to Immanuel Kant’s “ding und sich”, and other philosophers almost ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Please no comments about “almost ad infinitum”.
What this thread is about is skeptics being considered delusional and to be considered dangerous lunatics as are pedophiles, promoters of asbestos as healthful to asthmatics, and smoking crack as normal and healthy for teenagers, by Robyn Williams and Stephan Lewandowsky on ABC (Australia) National Radio, “The Science Show”. We are talking about ABC’s acceptance of this defamation as unobjectionable. We are also talking about the seemingly general acceptance of ideas like this by climate catastrophists, the mainstream media, and governments.
Please note there were no qualifiers involved. (I read and listened to the entire thing.) Skeptics of anthropogenic climate catastrophe were directly compared to that degree of absence of connection with reality. This and the connection of anthropogenic climate catastrophe skepticism with Republicans (U. S.), and the extreme right were IMO the main import of the piece; not “similar to”, “something like”, “at an extreme could be considered”, “except”; but actually are delusional and dangerous lunatics.
Please note “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data . . .” [emphasis added] The only thing Mann was accused of was molesting and torturing data. The full statement was about the protection granted him being like that granted Sandusky, as has been stated repeatedly here.
In neither case did anyone write or say Mann or climate catastrophism skeptics were pedophiles, nor was this implied. Anyone who claimed otherwise about Mann should retract and apologize. A cursory reading or hearing of either could give a different impression, especially to someone of extreme emotional views on either side, but not by anyone intelligent and intellectually honest enough to actually pay attention to what was said and written. Anthropogenic climate catastrophe skeptics were directly stated to be delusional and directly compared to offensive and dangerous forms of this.
I deplore the extreme language and ad hominem arguments sometimes used by skeptics on this blog and others. I deplore the extreme language and ad hominem arguments sometimes used by climate catastrophists, and their applying epithets such as “den**rs”
Unless and until anthropogenic climate change advocates decry this type of offensive defamation, they are revealed as intellectually dishonest and ethically and morally accessories to it. Aren’t academics and intellectuals supposed to support minority rights and freedom of speech? Aren’t scientists supposed to support free and open inquiry? In both cases that is what they say. Isn’t the IPCC required by its charter to present a minority report? In each case, what do they do?
I do not take such language as used on ABC personally nor very seriously. However, the analogy pointed out by several here to previous suppressions of free speech and minorities must be given full consideration. “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” So, if there is somewhere you don’t want to go, don’t take the first step; if you already have, turn around. The climate catastrophists have long since taken far more than that first step, and do not seem to show any reluctance to take more and more to suppress dissent, free and open inquiry, and evidence contrary to their views.