UPDATE: 2/27 6:30AM PST It seems the person making the attack, Shelley Rose, is part of a climate activist group, see below.
UPDATE: 2/27 2:50PM PST, The ADL Atlanta website has deleted comments on the issue, and has closed the press release to further comments. See below.
Boy, this is ugly, and I hope this boils down to simply an error in judgement by a lower tier administrator because this is like some bizzaro-world episode; on one hand the Anti-Defamation League is coming down against the “…type of comparison diminishes and trivializes the Holocaust.“, while on another they are giving a “get out of jail free card” to the people who have repeatedly done that very thing over several years.
Two telephone calls and two emails today requesting comment from ADL’s Southeast Interim Regional Director Shelly Rose have gone unanswered. She’s aware of my calls. I asked for her directly, gave my name and affiliation, and after a pause on hold her assistant asked if it would be OK to “send you to voice mail”. Ms Rose did provide a copy of the press release below, after I queried the main organization in New York after receiving a tip about this release, but found no evidence of its existence on the ADL Press Center website. The press release below still isn’t on the website as of this writing at 6:15PM EST well after close of business there. All of my requests were done during normal business hours for both the Atlanta and NYC office.
I have to wonder if the main organization is endorsing this press release, or if this is some regional director who went rogue.
Here is the press release.
==============================================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Shelley Rose (404) 262-3470 work; 678-938-1399 cell
ADL Condemns Spencer’s Nazi Analogy
February 25, 2014, Atlanta, Georgia … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today denounced remarks by University of Alabama – Huntsville professor Roy Spencer who wrote on his blog that those who refer to him as a climate change “denier” should be called “global warming Nazis” and that they “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.”
He also claims those who advocate for policies to slow global warming are “like the Nazis” in that they are fascist and anti-capitalist. The post is also accompanied by an image of a swastika.
Shelley Rose, ADL Southeast Interim Regional Director issued the following statement:
University of Alabama Professor Roy Spencer’s analogy of proponents of global warming to Nazis is outrageous and deeply offensive. This analogy is just the latest example of a troubling epidemic of comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust.
It has become too common to use comparisons to the Holocaust and Nazi imagery to attack people with opposing views, whether the issue is global warming, immigration or stem-cell research.
The six million Jewish victims and millions of other victims of Hitler deserve better. Their deaths should not be used for political points or sloganeering. This type of comparison diminishes and trivializes the Holocaust. There is no place for it in civil discussions.
Shelley Rose |Interim Regional Director
Anti-Defamation League | 3490 Piedmont Road; Suite 610 | Atlanta, Georgia 30305
Phone: 404-262-3470 I Fax: 404-262-3548 I Cell: 678-938-1399 I srose@adl.org
ADL website I our blog I facebook I twitter I youtube I pinterest I google+ I linkedin
==============================================================
I queried Ms Rose for a comment on the last paragraph, asking:
Wouldn’t that also apply to the use of “denier” to denigrate people, including Dr. Spencer. whose research has nothing to do with the holocaust or denial of it?
I also asked her to comment on the “green light” as a working title, asking if it was an accurate representation of their position. It was clear to me from the lack of response to two emails and two telephone calls was ” no comment”.
From their website, apparently slurs in major league football rate higher in concern than comparing climate skeptics to holocaust deniers for the purpose of denigration:
ADL Welcomes NFL’s Willingness to Address Hate Speech
The League welcomed reports that the NFL is considering how to discourage the use of offensive slurs during the course of games and said that “the question of how to address offensive speech and the best ways to counter it on playing fields and in locker rooms is an important conversation.”
And that’s why I think this is bizarre. The selective hypocrisy is stunning. I’m hoping the main office in New York will come to their senses and disavow the press release from the “Interim Regional Director”. Surely they must see the ugly conundrum they’ve manufactured for themselves.
Dr. Roy Spencer responds:
Hypocrisy at the Anti-Defamation League?
He asks exactly what I was thinking; where was ADL all these years when such ugly and hateful comparisons were being made:
Ms. Rose, where was your organization when journalists, politicians, and even some scientists, chose to call us skeptics “deniers”?
We don’t deny either “global warming” or “climate change”. Yet, we are called “deniers”. Ms. Rose, do you have any inkling why the term “denier” (which is a lie) might be used against us, rather than the term “skeptic” (which is accurate)? I think you know why.
I’d really like to know how ADL can turn a blind eye the use of “denier” for the purpose of denigration while at the same time calling out a victim of the denigration for fighting back after years of abuse.
There’s also a newspaper article about it:
UAH climate expert Roy Spencer calls critics ‘global warming Nazis’; Anti-Defamation League objects
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/02/uah_climate_expert_roy_spencer.html
UPDATE: The PR is now posted on the Atlanta ADL website here
http://atlanta.adl.org/news/adl-condemns-spencers-nazi-analogy/
Comments are allowed there. Be civil if you leave comments please.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that this person simply doesn’t know the history, and committed a terrible error in judgment.
UPDATE2: 2/27 6:30AM PST It seems the person making the attack, Shelly Rose, is part of a climate activist group, see photo and caption.
The caption reads:
Congregations Caring for the Climate – Atlanta, GA
Bill Witherspoon, from Congregation Bet Haverim writes: This was taken Friday evening before Erev Shabbat Services. We had about three times this many for services eventually, but these were the ones who arrived in time for the photo. As part of our second week of the Omer to Honor the Earth, Shelley Rose (third from right, just right of our Torah scrolls) gave the d’var (sermon) on acting with awareness that we all breathe the same air, and Tovah Melaver (second from right) led a breathing meditation.
April 13, 2007
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stepitup2007/464126698/
You can read all about this organization at http://stepitup2007.org
Of note is the list of “Friends and Allies” which reads like a who’s who in climate activism.
This whole episode makes a lot more sense now.
UPDATE3: 2/27 2:50PM PST, The ADL Atlanta website has deleted many comments on the issue, and has closed the press release to further comments. About an hour ago, I noted 90 comments were posted, now it is down to 50. See below.
Meanwhile I’ve drafted and sent a letter by email and by fax to ADL National Director, ABRAHAM H. FOXMAN asking if ADL plans to comment on the issue, and to ask id they plan to apply their condemnation equally, along with examples of what climate skeptics have been subjected to over the years. I think they simply have been caught unaware in a conundrum created by their Atlanta Interim Director.
I ask that if anyone makes communications with this organization, please be factual and respectful – Anthony
Aanthanur DC says:
As I said, the evidence has been presented. you do not accept it. so there is no use in posting it.
The fact is, you have never posted any scientific evidence. None whatsoever.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t start now. So go ahead, post any and all scientific evidence you can find that you believe supports anything you say.
Just keep in mind that scientific ‘evidence’ is not computer model output, nor does scientific evidence consist of peer reviewed papers. Evidence is raw data, and empirical observations.
So go ahead, post whatever evidence you can. Anything else is just propaganda, or your personal religious belief.
– – – – – – – –
philjourdan,
I agree with your description of him/her, but not the troll namecalling.
You have implied in your description of him/her the following. He/she is automatically over aggressive in actively and dogmatically pushing a settled science line. He/she maintains the existence of some authority which he/she withholds specifying because it is a consensus which needs no debate, so is authoritarian. He/she is anonymous. THEREFORE: AAAA (auto-aggressive anonymous authoritarian). : )
Take care.
John
@John Whitman – Well, I do like your AAAA better. Perhaps it will catch on and replace the “troll” label.
I have been in contact with the National ADL office about this matter. Frankly, whoever I talked to blew me off.
This is not going away, Anthony should open a new thread on this.
Have you guys seen no tricks zone on this.
@ur momisugly Vince Causey
1) Global temperatures have been higher in the past without catastrophic consequences.
oh when were they higher? how large was the human population back then? how did the regions look where food was grown for some 7 billion people? how did the coastal metropoles handle it?
2) CO2 levels in the past have been above 1000, 2000 and even 4000 ppm without catastrophic consequences.
again, how did the human population adapt to this ? how many humans were around then?
and how do you define catastrophic concequences?
3) Global temperatures have in the past declined while CO2 levels have increased
so? temperatures fell in the past while solar activity rose. what is your point?
4) Both the holocene optimum and medieval warm periods were warmer than today.
can you show me any global or hemispherical reconstruction that would show the MWP as warmer than today?
and so what? again, what is your point? the usual argument it was warmer without us so we cant be the ause?
that is faulty logic. there were forest fires in the pas when no huan was around yet, that does in no way mean humans cannot cause forest fires.
5) Climate models were unable to account for the current stasis in global warming.
there is no stasis in global warming , we see the SAT rise slower than expected. but global warming is not in stasis, sadly. take a look at the OHC. the oceans are the place were most of the AGW excess heat goes to.
6) Cloud and water vapour feedbacks have a low level of scientific understanding (IPPC).
7) Without understanding cloud and water vapour feedbacks it is a false assertion to claim high and dangerous levels of future warming.
low level of scientific understanding is not the same as , “Without understanding cloud and water vapour feedbacks”
we still don’t know how smoking exactly causes cancer. yet we know enough about it to warn people from the deanger of smoking.
same with climatology, sure we do not fully understand the clymate system yet. but we understand it well enough to take action based on this knowledge. the risk of not mitigating AGw is too big.
dbstealey
i never claimed that i have presented the evidence here. the evidence has been presented in the scientific literature, in the IPCC reports for example. i am aware that you do not accept that evidence, that is why i see no use in posting it here. i assume you have looked at the evidence.
or are you like many creationists that never looked at the evidence for Evolution yet still reject it ?
i assumed readers and posters @ur momisugly WUWT are well aware of the evidence. but sure if you do not know what the scientific community and the public in general accepted as supporting evidence, i can provide you some links.
And then he trots out the inevitable evolution crap trap. Yup! Still the troll (or the AAAA) – Evidence? What evidence. We don’t need no steenkeen evidence!
philjourdan
so those two nutters represent the enviromentalists? so can i pick any AGW non accepter that sends deathdreaths or posts on his blog that we should hang climatologists and conclude that is what the AGW non accepters want?
weak argument.
@Aanthanur – Straw man. The CHALLENGE was the threats. I showed you 3 (there is a limit on links before hitting moderation). I PROVED it to you (as did DB). So suck it up. And shut up. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary. Which so far you have been long on wind, and short on evidence.
Aanthanur DC,
I’ll take issue with two of your remarks,
Indeed. We know this because of the empirical data. If the empirical data supported the mainstream scientific claims, these claims would be far more persuasive.
You can pretend that the pause fits in with mainstream climate science. It didn’t though, as recently as AR4. AR4 WGI SPM projected a .2C rise per decade over the next couple of decades, and a .1C rise per decade even if forcings were held to year 2000 levels. Climate scientists didn’t suddenly discover after 2007 that the ocean is an important factor to consider in projecting atmospheric temps, sorry.
Do you understand the cost of mitigation? Not just in dollars, in human life? There is no policy choice without risk. Given this, policy makers should at minimum do no harm. The cost of mitigation, the damage in terms of human life, will not be trivial. When electricity is scarcer or more expensive, poorer people die.
stan stendera,
I agree with you, but since it is Friday eve already, I will have to start up fresh on Monday.
Jimbo
i would say because models got better and better, our understanding of the climate system and climate sensitivity got better.
and sure it came to mind that i might be wrong , or the scientists might be wrong. but the chance that they are all wrong is rather unlikely. its a complex system science. knowledge from many different fields and experts flows into it.
but sure, they could be wrong. could you be wrong?
Mark Bofill
well the data does support AGW. would be strange that the majority of experts would stick to something not supprted or even contradicted by the data.
i have said several times that SAT did not rise as expected. in what way is that pretending ” that the pause fits in with mainstream climate science”
would they have expected it , they would hardly reaserch wha caused the stagnation in SAT.
i also agree that the media but also scientists have concentrated too much on SAT and did not talk much about the oceans for example. that was a huge failure in comunicating the science properly. i don’t think that is dishonesty. it was just an assumption that the SAT is a good indicator, we learned otherwise. now we know we need to look at the planet as a whole and not only at a tiny part.
but i also said , the stagnation in SAT does not mean AGW is not happening.
@Aanthanur – the data supports the null hypothesis. So far, no one, not even Mann has been able to use it to support AGW. They have ALLEGED it does. However allegations are not facts.
Science 101. Learn it.
Mark Bofill
forgot your last and important point. yes we need to be carefull in mitigation policy. we need to help those that cannot afford alternatives etc. a CO2 tax for example could become problematic for poor people. and i don’t think poor countries have to contribute to the mitigation. i can fully understand them choosing the cheapest form of energy, no matter the concequences. but actually the poor nations are not the problem. its the first world. and we can afford the mitigation, and there is no reason not to. ans lucky most countries atleast started taking action.
Aanthanur, I have asked before and I will ask again, please provide me with 3 peer reviewed papers that provide evidence that man’s greenhouse gases was responsible for the warming after the late 1970s? This is a simple request after decades of global warming research and billions in funding.
Aanthanur, will you answer my last request?
aanthanur,
Actually, that’s another interesting discussion Tasmin Edwards is conducting right now, <a href=http://blogs.plos.org/models/pause-for-thought/ here.
I agree with many things Tasmin has to say, but I’m not sure it’s enough to say ‘failure in communicating the science clearly’ and leave it at that.
Jimbo
you meant this Royal Society?
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
🙂
Lol. oops, hosed my comment. I must’ve forgot the terminate or something.
Jimbo
major turnover in vertebrate faunas… ?
yes i will fullfill your request after this post.
I could be wrong to be sceptical, but what’s wrong with being sceptical? It does not matter whether a sceptic is right or wrong. A sceptic does NOT have to provide any evidence, the onus is for those making the new claims of man’s greenhouse gases over natural climate variation.
That is why you should not nail your flag to the mast. Here is a cautionary tale about consensus.
In science all that matters is ONE person who is right, not ONE THOUSAND people who are wrong.
Jimbo
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
in combination with this
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/iso-sio/iso-sio.html
@Aanthanur – I take it you have no clue what is opinion and what is data? You were asked for proof. You provided links to opinion pieces that do not necessarily support your supposition.
major fail.
Jimbo
you seem not to know what scepticism actually is. its not simply fence sitting.
Yes but I met your challenge to show a warmer Earth in the past.. 😉 There were palm trees in the Arctic as well as crocodiles. Life generally loves the warmth apparently.
Here is the full abstract followed by a few more to show that TROPICAL rainforests did not suffer but THRIVED! Oh gosh.
Here are some other terrible effects of the PETM. 😉
I am sceptical of the IPCC’s surface temperature projections to the year 2100. The evidence so far is not good at all for your side.
Aanthanur DC says:
February 28, 2014 at 1:26 pm :
Are you so obtuse as to think that all of your links has never been discussed before on WUWT?
You need to wake up.
Aanthanur,
Since you mention this, why do you think this failure in communicating the science properly occured? I’ve got this question in the comment queue for Tasmin but it hasn’t made it out of moderation yet.
But I’m mightily curious. I mean, my elementary school kid writes a report and it fails to communicate the essential points properly. Ok, he’s 10, he was probably thinking about legos or something while writing the report. But the IPCC? Years of work, review, drafts, etc. I might agree that they failed to communicate the science properly, but I’ve yet to hear anybody touch the question of why.
I’d think that’d be important, to avoid repeating the problem.