The sanctioned punishment of climate skeptics becomes more than just a few aberrant ideas, and is following some historical parallels
First, I loathe having to write essays like this, but I think it is necessary given the hostile social climate now seen to be emerging.
Yesterday, WUWT highlighted the NYT cartoon depicting killing “deniers” for having a different opinion, today I want to highlight Naomi Orekses and Suzanne Goldenberg, who seem seem to like the idea of having climate “deniers” arrested under RICO act for thought collusion, all under the approving eye of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard.
Watch the video: The RICO quote is about 1:12:30 in the video. Note that none of the panelists blinks an eye at the suggestion. They are all smiling after Oreskes finishes.
From the description of the video:
The science is clear: drastic global climate change due to human activities threatens our planet. Yet, a well-funded international campaign continues to deny the scientific consensus, foment public doubt and oppose action. The media—especially social media—have helped fuel false controversy and climate skepticism. How can climate change communication be improved?
Panel discussion with:
Suzanne Goldberg, U.S. Environment Correspondent, The Guardian
Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science, Harvard University
Dr. Peter Frumhoff, Director of Science & Policy, Union of Concerned Scientists
Moderated by:
Cristine Russell, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs’ Environment and Natural Resources Program
Introduction by:
Henry Lee, Director, Belfer Center’s Environment and Natural Resources Program
February 13, 2014
Of course, no prominent climate skeptics were invited to give a counterpoint, though WUWT does make an appearance.
An actual quote from Goldenberg in the video at 2:50
“I don’t know what CAGW was”
This makes me wonder just how competent she is to write about the topic. The irony is completed full circle though. At 2:20 she claims WUWT “actually isn’t about science” while our “best science blog” banners are projected near her head and while highlighting Justin Gillis, tell us again about “the Bigger Picture” (an opinion piece) and A relationship between Sea Ice Anomalies, SSTs, and the ENSO? (a science piece).
At least we know they are reading WUWT.
Goldenberg won’t cover the topics we cover, simply because she isn’t capable and is in the employ of a newspaper (the Guardian) with a clear goal to push only one viewpoint about climate. And, her objectivity, now that she runs in this circle of friends, is blown out of the water.
Oreskes, who authored the book Merchants of Doubt, seems to think that climate skeptics are little more than paid shills, deserving of criminal status, while Goldenberg works tirelessly to create strawmen houses out of the thinnest of research, which she publishes in the Guardian. She also follows the Oreskes mindset in thinking that we all must be on somebody’s payroll and that we are all part of a “secret network” of well funded climate resistance.
Lately, this sort of hateful and distorted thinking is getting a bit worrisome as statistician William Briggs observes:
=========================================================
RICO-style prosecution. For what tangible crime? Well, heresy.
(Has to be heresy. The amount of money I have extorted from my skepticism hovers between nada and nil.)
This put me in mind of a passage from from Dawn to Decadence by the indispensable Jacques Barzun (pp 271-272):
The smallest divergence from the absolute is grave error and wickedness. From there it is a short step to declaring war on the misbelievers. When faith is both intellectual and visceral, the overwhelming justification is that heresy imperils other souls. If the erring sheep will not recant, he or she becomes a source of error in others….[P]ersecution is a health measure that stops the spread of an infectious disease—all the more necessary that souls matter more than bodies.
Even though not all admit this, their actions prove that souls are more important than bodies. Thought crimes are in many senses worse than physical crimes; they excite more comment and are more difficult to be forgiven for. Perhaps the worst crime is to be accused of racism (the charges needn’t be, and frequently are not, true; the accusation makes the charge true enough). It is now a thought crime to speak out against sodomy (and to say you personally are a participant is a matter of media celebration).
Barzun said that sins against political correctness “so far” have only been punished by “opprobrium, loss of employment, and virtual exclusion from the profession.” (I can confirm these.) Barzun said, “any form of persecution implies an amazing belief in the power of ideas, indeed of mere words casually spoken.”
The Enlightened, who simper when calling each other “free thinkers”, in one of their favorite myths tell us how they left the crime of heresy behind. The word has been forgotten, maybe, but not the idea.
Stalin sent his victims to the firing squad for the crime of “counter-revolution”, not heresy. Being repulsed by sodomy is not heresy, it is “homophobic”. Believing in God and practicing that belief is not heresy, but “fundamentalism.” Cautioning that affirmative action may cause the pains the program is meant to alleviate isn’t heresy, but “racism.” Saying that unskillful Climate models which routinely bust their predictions should not be trusted is not heresy, but is “anti-science.”
Boy, has Science come up in the world to be a personage one can sin against.
=========================================================
And AlexJC notes in Der Ewige “Denier” on the NYT cartoon depicting killing “deniers” that a pattern is emerging.
=========================================================
Some commentators on WUWT have likened this little scene to Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda in the 1930s, and I’m inclined to agree. There’s a pertinent article, called “Defining the Enemy” on the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
One crucial factor in creating a cohesive group is to define who is excluded from membership. Nazi propagandists contributed to the regime’s policies by publicly identifying groups for exclusion, inciting hatred or cultivating indifference, and justifying their pariah status to the populace.
There’s a picture you can find online of the “stereotypical Jew”, which was drawn by Nazi cartoonist Philipp “Fips” Rupprecht and published in the newspaper Der Stürmer sometime before the end of World War II. Although different in some respects to the “stereotypical Denier” in the NYT, there are a number of similarities. Both subjects are male, well-dressed, rather plump and well-fed and standing with their chests slightly thrust out. Both have distinctive noses – the Jew has a large hooked nose and the Denier has one that is more reminiscent of a pig’s snout. Both are smoking a cigar, which is clearly the mark of an evil plutocrat anywhere, Jewish or otherwise. The similarities are quite unsettling.
=========================================================
Indeed, they are, and worse yet, few if any, in the general science community seem to have the courage to stand up and say anything about these people and the actions they do and/or suggest as being inappropriate or antithetical to science.
Roy Spencer is the exception for scientists who have decided to speak out against this hate and smear, and has decided to fight back by labeling anyone who calls him a “climate denier” as a “climate Nazi”. I’m not sure how effective or useful that will be, but clearly he’s reached a tipping point. He adds:
A couple people in comments have questioned my use of “Nazi”, which might be considered over the top. Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause — I think it is very appropriate. Again, I didn’t start the name-calling.
The parallels with what occurred in pre-WWII Germany seem to be emerging with the constant smearing of climate skeptics for the purpose of social isolation, and now Oreskes is calling for members of this group to be charged with crimes under RICO. This isn’t new, we’ve heard these calls for climate skeptics to be arrested before, such as Grist’s David Roberts who proposed Nuremberg style trials for climate skeptics, but lately it seems to be picking up speed.
We even have people in the same climate clique playing virtual dress up as Nazis, such as we’ve learned recently from the “Skeptical Science” forum showing proprietor John Cook in full Nazi uniform in the image seen at right. There were several Nazi images depicting SkS.
And, there’s the call for removing dissenting opinion from the press, such as from “Forecast the Facts” (a funded NGO that attacks media)
“Brad Johnson (@ClimateBrad), the editor of HillHeat.com and a former Think Progress staffer, boasted on Twitter that 110,000 people had urged the newspaper “to stop publishing climate lies” like the Krauthammer piece.”
We’ve already seen one prominent newspaper refuse to publish letters from climate skeptics with others following suit.
What is most troubling to me is that Oreskes and Goldenberg appear to be of Jewish descent (as does Dr. Michael Mann) and yet they all seem blind to the pattern of behavior they are engaging in and advocating; the social isolation and prosecution of climate skeptics which seems so reminiscent of the ugliness in times past. I honestly don’t understand how they can’t see what they are doing to silence climate skeptics is so very wrong.
It does seem true, that those who don’t learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
From my viewpoint, the only way to combat this ugliness is with taking a stand. These tactics must be called out when they are used. I urge readers to write thoughtful and factual letters, guest commentary where accepted, and blog posts, countering such smear whenever appropriate.
MODERATION NOTE: Comments will be heavily scrutinized, keep it civil.
Dr. Roy Spencer in the Daily Mail in the UK 2 hours ago.
“Are YOU a ‘global warming Nazi’? People who label sceptics ‘deniers’ will kill more people than the Holocaust, claims scientist”
“Dr Spencer believe that people who label those against human-induced global warming ‘climate deniers’ will ‘kill far more people than the Nazis ever did.’”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2566659/Are-global-warming-Nazi-People-label-sceptics-deniers-kill-MORE-people-Holocaust-claims-scientist.html
I still think the Soviet Lysenkoism is the more accurate model of what’s happening than Nazi anti-semitism
Henry Crun says:
February 24, 2014 at 12:02 pm
“Is this the point in history when the Church of Climatology establishes its own Inquisition?”
———————————————————————
Nobody expects the Inquisition…
I have a vested interest in the debate- my bills get paid by making megawatts.
30 plus years in the power/energy biz and I’m getting damned tired of pointing out facts to alarmists who won’t listen, schools that won’t educate, politicians that won’t question, idiots that call themselves experts, consultants that have never considered and a whole lot of lemmings that are being led down a path to peril.
Thank you Anthony for this site.
Now, how do we get organized, exposed, broadcasted, highlighted and taken seriously enough by the masses so the pressure on the political decision makers becomes intense enough to become enough of an issue to them that they simply must listen?
@albertalad 4:56
Notice the same thing.
Oddly most people who remain sceptical or uninvolved in climatology are hard working constructive types, nice people if you have respect and handy with all kinds of tools.
The persons most vocal, passionate about doom, by magic gas, over population and or resource depletion, have a commonality.Mechanically incompetent, detached from nature and usually middle management or government employee.(If they have a job).
Educated far beyond their capability,most do not like the right of private citizens to own firearms either.
For these unhandy parasites, to embrace violent solutions to their angst,is stunning.
So amazingly out of touch with reality.
Their entire “right to abuse the productive” hinges on our good sense and forbearance.
On our attachment to law, order and the benefits of civil discourse.
Yet the first thing they tried was deny us a debate.
Deliberately shutting down civic discourse, with name calling and slander.
Now they want to deny us life.
I wonder if a single one of these climate zealots, gives a seconds thought to the side effect of bill C68?
It is now estimated that Canada has more cached guns and ammunition than at any time in its short history.Those estimated 21 million long guns, that wound up as <2million registered weapons.
Seems our progressive comrades specialize in own goals.
After playing Tiny TIm's; The Ice Caps are melting.
I would hit them with AC/DC shot down in flames.
But hey, when you are unemployable by choice, whats a social parasite gonna do? Besides attack those who feed it?
Wow! Suzanne. Appalling speaking capabilities. Head in the sand speaking and “conservative” black balling. Downplaying communism but speaking like a communist. But she has one thing right. It isn’t about science. Hmm. Anthony and the rest of us are on the “fringe”. But many of us have a strong science background. Her references to Sochi and the Vancouver Olympic games are incredible grandstanding. Using the snow fall for the Vancouver Olympics is pretty funny given the amount of snow they usually have … and the two feet of snow that has fallen on BC this weekend. Don’t these people even read any science or weather reports? I guess I am a member of a fringe group. Did she write about the “ship of fools” I wonder. As for funding, I wonder if she (and Oreskes) has/have looked at Tides, Packard, Rockefeller, et al. Why the tobacco industry as a target? Interesting how they link tobacco with people that do not hold their opinions. Interesting that they are proposing CENSORSHIP.
Listen to the “adjectives” Suzanne uses to denigrate the people with which she does not share a common belief system. It is pretty interesting she makes a joke about Fox News using the words “Fair and Balanced” but somehow she only mentions one side of a multi-faceted issue.
Interestingly though, she is getting the message but she wants to point out the names of who disagrees with her. She is promoting her own position. She says that skeptics represent the “Last gasp of a dying empire” and “These people are losing”. I wonder why then, they even needed to produce this video?
“Seasons are changing” Yes they are. I have 150+ years of oral history in my family. We lost crops and livestock to drought, hail, rain, snow, frost, heat, people moved, changed our practices to the changing climate – 80 to 100 years ago. These people are so lacking familial memories of the land.
IPCC – they didn’t study “if” humans were causing climate change, their mandate was to determine what to do about human caused climate change having already decided that there was a human influence. (“Discernible influence on the climate” – of course but so what and how much? – the missing question.)
Oreskes is very scary. 100% certain that GHG’s are the problem. The debate is over. Why then, are we still debating? Why then, are there no undeniable proofs?
Someone could write a book on the statements made in this video. Time will tell.
Heartland comments aside, this is actually a pretty frightening video and Frumhoff is the most frightening of all.
Interesting, this is not at all about science but managing journalism and promotion of a particular dogma and how to promote it.
Given the size of the audience (25 – 30?) and the size of the room, it would appear that this session was staged to be presented on the Internet for promotion of an ideology.
Say it like you mean it and people will believe you. Would you believe these people? No hope for the human race (silly web sites)
“a well-funded international campaign continues to deny the scientific consensus”
—
I get the impression that these people see science, not as a continual process of learning and discovery, but as a democratic process decided by a one-time consensus that can never be falsified. In this scientific democracy of theirs, those who disagree with them don’t get to vote but still have to accept the outcome and pay the taxes. As long as they control the vote, totalitarians love democracy because It gives them the illusion of legitimacy while still allowing them to do whatever they want. The fact that these people have never actually held a vote to determine a consensus proves that an “illusion” of legitimacy is all they’re really concerned about.
dbstealey,
You are so right and so is bushbunny in that they are purile.
But the authors went to killing people as a solution, not a pie in the face, or the quintessential PC vs Mac back and forth, they went dark and creepy, consistent with the stated tone from the left wing Harvard panel, socialist David Suzuki etc etc where there is scheming to jail, impoverish and kill, we AGW skeptics.
I wish I was more creative. Alas… I am not.
The opposite of socialism is libertarianism.
In a libertarian society individuals are free to succeed and free to fail.
Individuals are responsible for all that they do or say. They are free.
Socialist hives contain no free men. except perhaps for the despots at the top.
Anyone here that touts socialism, denies history.
Paul Westhaver,
I agree. As I wrote above: “These people have been feathering their nests based on the climate scare, and they will react viciously given the chance. If we don’t fight back — each in his/her own way — then they will keep ratcheting up their responses until there is real violence. History is replete with examples. Either we fight back, or we will be the victims.”
If there is money floating around for “deniers”, I want some.
The American Thinker’s article on the Cartoon killing of a Climate skeptic…
Note: Google has listed the American Thinker as a virus attack site, which I highly doubt. I suspect it is URL vandalism of some sort.
Here is the link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/ny_times_publishes_cartoon_about_killing_global_warming_deniers.html
Passive, silent scientists are complicit in all of this along with their political representatives, the academies.
Here’s a hero: “Nobel laureate resigns from American Physical Society to protest the organization’s stance on global warming.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/14/nobel-laureate-resigns-from-american-physical-society-to-protest-the-organizations-stance-on-global-warming/
Thanks, Anthony. Good article.
I am with Dr. Spencer. “Climate Nazis”, is appropriate. I think some are more likely “Climate Fascists” than “Climate Nazis” if the control purpose dominated over the extermination purpose.
It’s about that well funded group “promoting global warming”:
Me thinks they protest too much.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/24/OFA-Chief-Delivers-50-000-Speech-to-Big-Oil-While-Battling-Climate-Change
We should send people to the moon, people to mars and send probes to the outer planets, explore the heavens, I’ll go!
dbstealey,
I also agree with you. and you too
RobRoy…
I present the dilemma of the wrong assertion of moral equivalence.
It is not rational to juxtapose two opposing views as simple alternatives with equal merits, just opposing in direction. Consider extremes for sake of the argument Good and Evil.
Evil does not deserve the attribute of equivalence to Good. Evil is not a different POV of Good. That is absurd. Evil is Evil.
In fact, it can be rationally argued that we must strive for the absolute good and fight like heck against evil.
It is then a simple extrapolation that there are Good Ideas and Evil Ideas. They also have no moral equivalence. It can be rationally argued that we must strive to advance absolutely good ideas and fight like heck against objectively evil ideas.
Since there are objectively bad (evil) ideas, it makes perfect sense that we wage war against those ideas. In fact, we are obligated to do so.
Green Socialism, in my view, is an objectively evil idea. Socialism in general is an objectively evil system. Moral relativists would argue that there is no right and no wrong so there can’t be and objective evil.
I believe that natural law should be the test and any human idea that works against natural law is against nature and therefore intrinsically evil. Killing is at the top of evil ideas. Socialism always uses killing people as a means of control. So socialism, is objectively evil as empirically evidenced through history and as stated by its proponents.
If one is willing to accept that killing people is acceptable then one is on unsound moral ground.
There is no moral equivalence between socialism, the idea of megadeath and an open limited-government free market pluralistic society.
To put the two ideas at the same level, in my mind is like comparing objective good against objective evil. There is no comparison.
Advocating, imprisoning, fining, and killing people for expression of ideas, is evil.
Our criticism of, and fight against, evil is just. It is not equivalent to the conspiring killers, who are literally planning our deaths. There is no moral equivalence.
In the summary, there’s a quote:
The them and us argument is then used so that the spectators can choose sides. Antagonism and destruction of “them” is encourages by the “us”.
But other than the arbitrary grouping by one trait of individuals, there is usually little difference between “them and “us”.
Infidels vs believers. “The church” would have us believe that those to be despised share all the worst traits of the other individuals of the group.
The “social sciences” are “helping” the general public to stereotype the population. To discriminate. To be prejudiced. To become bigots.
But as often happens, many believers aren’t the bigots that “the church” would like and are converted infidels and indeed heretics once they see the lack of substance behind the belief and the costs of those beliefs.
highflight56433 says:
February 24, 2014 at 5:42 pm
“Amazing… Yep, nice stuff. 🙂 ”
_________________________
“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”
I had the misfortune to listen to an episode of Living on Earth on the local Public Radio Station tonight. The first part was an in-depth quote Sec. Kerry’s Feb. 18 Indonesia speech:
Transcript found here: http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.html?programID=14-P13-00008
Kerry was bad enough, but in full smear mode was the following from “Behind the Headlines” block.
CURWOOD (host): Let’s take a few minutes and a spade now to dig beyond the headlines with Peter Dykstra. He’s publisher of DailyClimate.org and Environmental Health News – that’s EHN.org.
……
DYKSTRA: Here’s something else Secretary Kerry touched on. He quoted President Obama, who last year compared climate deniers to the “Flat Earth Society.” And you know actually I have a little problem with that, comparing climate deniers to Flat Earthers, because last year, there was a reporter named Alex Seitz-Wald. He’s from Slate.com. He actually tracked down the President of the Flat Earth Society, Daniel Shenton…
CURWOOD: Wait a second here, Peter. There really is a Flat Earth Society?
DYKSTRA: Of course there’s a Flat Earth Society, Steve, what’s the matter with you? Their website says the Flat Earth Society is also accepting new members now, by the way, and yes, they really do think the Earth is flat. But their President, Daniel Shenton, said he accepts the notion that fossil fuel burning is warming the earth.
CURWOOD: So even the Flat Earth Society believes in global warming?
DYKSTRA: Not quite, because President Shenton made it clear that he was speaking for himself, not for the entire Flat Earth membership. But you can say that the leading proponent of Flat Earth Theory has figured out that CO2 warms the planet, whatever shape our planet may actually be.
CURWOOD: And – elsewhere on the globe, if in fact it is a globe?
On the plus side, If the President of the Flat Earth Society believes in global warming, I’m happy to remain a full fledged scientific skeptic.
See Bishop Hill today: Mike Haseler’s survey of sceptics.
RICO trials?
The discovery process should be WONDERFUL!
I watched the first 10 minutes of the video, featuring the journalist Suzanne Goldberg. My notes record my observations that she:
* frequently uses the terms “science” and “scientific.” .
*claims that the debate is between the “scientists” and right leaning politicians.
*claims that these politicians “deny the science behind climate change.”
* claims it to be inappropriate for a journalist to have to abide by the “fairness doctrine” as climate denial is logically illegitimate.
In logical form, Goldberg’s argument is an equivocation, that is, an argument in which one or more terms change meaning change in the midst of this argument. Here the terms that change meaning are “science” and “scientific.”
“Science” has at least the meanings of “demonstrable knowledge” and “the process that is operated by people calling themselves ‘scientists’.” By switching back and forth between these two meanings, Goldberg is able to conclude that the opponents of a left-leaning policy on global warming oppose “science.”
.
By logical rule, though, one cannot draw a proper conclusion from an equivocation. Goldberg’s conclusion, then, is logically illegitimate.
When “progressive” politicians begin to sense that they are starting to loose control of the political agenda and in order to shut up the opposition, they start to attack the character of the opposition spokespersons. If that doesn’t work, then they try to get the skeptics into court by a lawsuit or by making false charges of violating the law. When this fails to shut them up, they change the laws so that the actions of the opposition become unlawful. In the midst of these changes ordinary people become more and more fearful that they will become victims of the political regime. Thus, the development of these political tactics is probably best characterized as fascist. Global warming (climate change) has reached a stage far beyond debate to one of using character assignation and the courts to silence the opposition. One could interpret this as a sign that the pro-warming politicians fear that they are loosing the battle for control or maybe it means that the politicians now plan to pass laws that will shut the opposition up. What really scares me is that there is considerable evidence presented daily in the mainstream news that this is their current plan to save the “progressive” political agendas with or without the support of congress and the courts. Once the writing of laws to control opinion has started, there is no going back to democratic rule as long as the fascist regime is still in control.
I only watched a couple of minutes of that long video. It was appalling enough to listen to one of those women describing WUWT as just “political” with a little pretend science, and then not know the acronym ‘CAGW’. Clearly she doesn’t read WUWT, and probably wouldn’t understand most of it if she did. Had she tried, she would have quickly learned that the WUWT commentariat is populated largely by scientists, engineers, and meteorologists. There is plenty of scientific talk, much of it over my head, and doubtless even farther over hers.
This is clearly a panel of well-paid academic camp followers of the Warmists, who have no idea of how science is conducted, nor of the intricacies of climatology. They start from the presumption that anthropogenic “climate change” is unquestionable, and that the political and economic prescriptions of the Climate Parasites must be implemented at all costs. From that basis of True Belief they quickly conclude that these noble ends justify almost any means. It won’t take long before those means become ever more extreme. Heretics (“d*nialists”) must be silenced, of course. That is always the end goal of True Believers (cf. Eric Hoffer).
Fortunately, we still live in a democratic Republic, and even the Puppet President and his handlers won’t dare to try and prevent the next election. A Republican Senate will help keep this dreadful administration in check, and maybe by 2016 we can elect a President who will help the Congress rein in the EPA, turn the Climate Parasites out on their ears, and leave the academic camp followers holding conferences to which nobody comes. We can hope, and we can work toward that end.
/Mr Lynn
I’m rereading Tom Clancy’s novel. “Rainbow Six.” Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” is also appropriate at this time.
dbstealey says:
February 24, 2014 at 7:17 pm
“I agree. As I wrote above: “These people have been feathering their nests based on the climate scare, and they will react viciously given the chance. If we don’t fight back — each in his/her own way — then they will keep ratcheting up their responses until there is real violence. History is replete with examples. Either we fight back, or we will be the victims.”
Nah, impossible; you’re just making stuff up! Would never happen…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/james-lee-discovery-demands_n_702506.html