Charlie Hebdo, Climate Skepticism & Free Speech

Climate Extremism & The Chilling Effect On Free Speech

From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser

At the end of that process, some Global Warming deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives. — Professor Richard Parncutt, University of Graz, Austria, 25 October 2012

As I read the grim headlines from Paris, I was reminded of another encounter in another European city, Berlin, specifically at the Opernplatz where the Nazis staged one of their most infamous book burnings in 1933. One of the authors whose works they incinerated was the great German poet, Heinrich Heine, whose epigraph now lines a memorial marking this historically ominous event: “That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people as well.” And where they drive out and kill Jews, they will ultimately drive out and kill you, too. –James Kirchick, The Daily Beast, 10 January 2015

The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around. Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. Brendan O’Neill, Spiked, 6 October 2006

I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes. –Mark Lynas, 19 May 2006

In the climate wars, those that use pejorative names for people that they disagree with are the equivalents of racists and anti-semites, and deserve opprobrium and disrespect. It is very sad, not to mention bad for science, to see scientists engaging in this behavior. We need to open up the public debate about climate change, and get rid of the tyranny of political ‘correctness’ in the climate debate that is being enforced by a handful of self-appointed and readily-offended fools. –Judith Curry, Climate Etc, 11 January 2015

As George Bernard Shaw said, “All great truths begin as blasphemies”. In the West in the past, it was the Christian God that was protected by a censorious forcefield. Now it’s climate-change orthodoxy, the ideology of multiculturalism, Islamo-sensitivities, gay marriage… These days, speaking ill of any of those new gods could earn you a metaphorical lashing from the mob, or expulsion from polite society, or possibly a prison sentence. –Brendan O’Neill, The Australian, 10 January 2014

A globally-renowned climate scientist has been forced to step down from a think-tank after he was subjected to ‘Mc-Carthy’-style pressure from scientists around the world. Professor Lennart Bengtsson, 79, a leading academic from the University of Reading, left the high-profile Global Warming Policy Foundation as a result of the threats, which he described as ‘virtually unbearable’. In his resignation letter, published on the think-tank’s website, he wrote: ‘If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.” –Willis Robinson, Daily Mail, 15 May 2014

Science regresses if it becomes intolerant of criticism. At the beginning of her reign, Queen Elizabeth I of England spoke words of tolerance in an age of religious strife, declaring that she had no intention of making windows into men’s souls. Unlike religion, science is not a matter of the heart or of belief. It exists only in what can be demonstrated. In their persecution of an aged colleague who stepped out of line and their call for scientists to be subject to a faith test, 21st-century climate scientists have shown less tolerance than a 16th-century monarch. There is something rotten in the state of climate science. –Rupert Darwall, National Review, 15 May 2014

Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should “shut up” and instead repeat the Government line on the issue, according to MPs. The BBC should also give less airtime to climate sceptics and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them, according to the Commons Science and Technology Committee. Andrew Miller, the committee’s Labour chairman, said that appearances on radio and television by climate sceptics such as Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be accompanied by “health warnings”. –Ben Webster, The Times, 2 April 2014

The danger comes instead from self-censorship. Which BBC editor now is going to invite Lord Lawson or even Prof Bob Carter on to their programmes in the certain knowledge that they are likely to be criticised and perhaps have time-consuming complaints upheld against them? As Lord Lawson argues, surely correctly, he has, in effect, been banned by the BBC. It is an easy thing to judge. Let’s see when he next appears in the climate change context. There will, of course, be no edict. He will just never ever be invited to take part in any BBC programme on the issue. –Raymond Snoddy, MediaTel, 9 July 2014

The BBC has effectively banned Lord Lawson, the former chancellor (and former editor of this magazine) from appearing on its programmes to debate climate change, unless he is introduced with a statement discrediting his views. When people try to close down debate rather than engage with it, there is a pretty clear conclusion to be drawn: they lack confidence in their own case. —The Spectator, 12 July 2014

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 12, 2015 6:22 am

A religious message from And a Limerick
On this little movie I’ll hold my applause,
exploding of children just for “a good cause”,
for it lowers the bar,
have we now sunk this far?
It’s freedom of speech, the establishment clause.

January 12, 2015 6:24 am

When we talk of silencing our enemies– by death if necessary– we are no longer talking of scientific debate— which is supposed to be about testing theories– we are talking religion which cannot stand opposition to its “gods”. “Death to the infidels” is the cry not of the scientist, but of the radical priest.
Climate change “denier”, still wondering when he gets his fair share of the oil money that is supposedly being paid out for “denying”.

Reply to  mjmsprt40
January 12, 2015 9:23 am

Excellent statement mjmsprt40. Your statement says it all in a few words.

Reply to  mjmsprt40
January 12, 2015 3:41 pm

In climate related reporting, the words ‘deny’ and ‘doubt’ are the negative words the media prefer to use instead of ‘question’ and ‘debate’. It’s all about slanting your perception before you process the content via the tone of the presentation.

January 12, 2015 6:29 am

This is not about free speech or censorship….
this is people that believe in a religion….forcing their religion on the world

Reply to  Latitude
January 12, 2015 6:39 am

Can I say they are also forcing their brand of Islamic on Muslims.

Why Muslims Hate Terrorism More
…But we don’t see that. What do we see? ISIS slaughtering Muslims on a daily basis. ISIS is also despicably attacking Christians and of course the Yazidis, but the reality is that over the past five years, close to 90 percent of the victims of these “Islamic” terrorists are Muslims. ISIS even killed a Muslim professor in Iraq who publicly opposed the group’s persecution of Christians. Denounce them? I need to be protected from them….

11 December 2014
More than 5,000 people, mostly civilians and overwhelmingly Muslims, were killed in jihadi attacks in November, according to a study documenting the toll of Islamist violence worldwide.

Silver ralph
Reply to  Jimbo
January 12, 2015 9:32 am

Jimbo. Can I say they are also forcing their brand of Islamic on Muslims.
Jimbo, it is not ‘THEIR brand’ it is ‘THE brand’ (although the brand did split into two in the 7th century). If you don’t believe me, then read the K for yourself. Try chapter nine, for starters, it will open your eyes.
All of this mayhem stems from the instructions contained in the K. Yes, every … and every …. and every …. that has been committed by ISIS and others is all there in black and white.
The media will not let you know this, but I can assure you that at least half of the K is composed of …., ….. and ….. of unbelievers. As to why the media (and authorities) will not allow these quotes to be printed and continue to say the K is a book of peace, is another matter entirely.

Reply to  Jimbo
January 12, 2015 10:00 am

Silver ralph, believe it or not I am well aware of the atrocities committed in the early days of Islam. Beheadings, looting of caravans et. al. I am also aware of Saladin and Richard the Lion Heart and their very ‘kind’ treatment of people. I know where you are coming from, I am not ignorant of atrocities left, right and centre. My main point (as I HOPE you will acknowledge) is that MOST of the victims of the beheadings and atrocities today in the middle east are MUSLIM.
People must avoid letting their biases get in the way of facts – wherever those facts come from.

Reply to  Jimbo
January 12, 2015 10:21 am

Silver ralph, PS I have read chapter 9 and the “the verse of the sword” et al. I know what it says. And you are right that the media SHOULD make themselves aware of what they are trying to talk about. Therefore, it should tell you what you need to know about ISIS – MOST of their victims are Muslims not pagans! Not a minor point. My feelings are for innocent Christians, Jews, Muslims and all other human beings against this kind of barbarism.
At around the time of the Paris massacre (17 dead) there was another massacre of 2,000 Muslims and Christians in Northern Nigeria by Boka Haram. World leaders are expected in Northern Nigeria soon, holding hands, and the like.

Reply to  Jimbo
January 12, 2015 1:12 pm

Silver Ralph, There few if any religions regardless of primary text that do not have one or more profoundly intolerant adherent groups who purport to know the “real” true meaning of the given holy book. It is not a behaviour limited to Islam and anyone who has read western history knows that. Nor are the atrocious behaviours indulged in under the guise of “the truth” any different. Further, as Anthony’s quoted passages show, such intolerance is not limited to “religious” stances, unless you broaden the term to included non-spiritual stances such political affiliations and purportedly scientific opinions. The reality is that the preferred “prey” of ISIS are Muslims, the preferred “prey” of the Inquisition were nominal Catholics, the preferred “prey” of the AGW faithful – given the opportunity – would be AGW sceptics. It is not pretty but the reality is that “convictions,” as Shea and Wilson wrote, “make convicts.”

george e. smith
Reply to  Jimbo
January 12, 2015 4:34 pm

The Older of the two brothers, who it is alleged (without proof), blew up a number of people; all (presumably innocent collateral damage victims; and who was himself (allegedly) killed without a trial, in the Boston Marathon “anomaly”, was named by his mother; Tamerlan. A variant of Tamerlane; itself a bastardization of “Timor the Lame”, who was one of the great heroes of the religion of peace; a missionary you might say.
Is it any wonder that Obama and his disciples want to get at your children and grandchildren before they are even potty trained, so they can be educated in the proper way to live their life, and support the cause; whatever that cause the tyrants want it to be.
Now if you choose to name your child “Cain”, or the romantic nonsense Marco Polo equivalent of Cain; then don’t be surprised when it is your turn to endure the wrath that you fostered.
I do believe that Timor, or Timur, is the name of the mystery prince, who solved Turandot’s three riddles, and put a presumably peaceful end to her alternative to roasting marshmallows or chestnuts over the fire, for amusement.
All the same, I do hope that Sony Corp, can find a screen writer with more common sense, and also some actors with common sense, who have more imagination when it comes to writing or acting “comedy.”

Silver ralph
Reply to  Jimbo
January 13, 2015 7:45 am

You are dividing the argument, for no reason. It matters not that more Muslims are subject to Muslim violence and terrorism than other religions. What matter to the world, is that this violence and terror is being conceived and nurtured by Islam. Name me any violence that does not involve Islam…..
And regards the Crusades, please don’t be sucked into the PC narrative. The Crusades were organised to liberate the Christian lands of the East from Muslim subjugation. Yes, the majority population in alll these nations was still Christian, Jewish and Sabaean at this time – allbeit with oppressive Muslim overlords. That is why the majority of cities, like Antioch and Edessa, welcomed the Crusaders in as liberators.

William Abbott
Reply to  Latitude
January 12, 2015 8:55 am

You will not engage anyone in thoughtful debate making statements like; “AGW is a religion” Trying to silence your adversary is not innately religious. Lots of ugly history shows us how widespread the tendency is. The religious precept; “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” would solve the problem.

Reply to  William Abbott
January 12, 2015 11:10 am

But Mr Abbott, it if has feathers, and waddles like a duck, and quacks…

Reply to  William Abbott
January 12, 2015 11:15 am

William Abbott, does it indeed walk like a duck? Does it quack?

Guardian – 25 August 2010
“Why would a solar physicist embrace the non-rationality of religion?”
John Cook, who runs, says his faith drives him. But what does religion give him that science doesn’t?……But Cook’s second, self-professed, stimulus took me by surprise.
I’m a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25″, he wrote. “… I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable.””
John Cook – Skeptical Science – 3 August 2010
“….my faith and my situation are my own. But hopefully for those curious, you understand more clearly the driving force behind Skeptical Science.”
Guardian – 3 November 2009
Judge rules activist’s beliefs on climate change akin to religion
“Tim Nicholson entitled to protection for his beliefs, and his claim over dismissal will now be heard by a tribunal…….In his written judgment, Mr Justice Burton outlined five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination…..• It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available…..”
BBC – 25 January 2010
Using religious language to fight global warming
“If the case for tackling climate change is backed by science, why do so many green campaigners rely on the language of religion?“……The theologian and environmentalist Martin Palmer is also troubled by the green movement’s reliance on visions of hell as a way of converting people to their cause…..”Now they are playing with some of the most powerful emotional triggers in Western culture. They’ve adopted the language and imagery of a millenarian cult.”
For Palmer, who is a United Nations adviser on climate change and religion,….”
Church of England – 22 February 2012
“Leaders representing most of the UK’s mainstream churches have today called for repentance over the prevailing ‘shrug-culture’ towards climate change.”

Robert B
Reply to  William Abbott
January 12, 2015 1:37 pm

Jimbo, it has feathers, walks and quacks like a duck because its the brainchild of shallow people who studied religion. The latter always started as a way to brainwash people into a more civil mindset and then was always hijacked for personal gain. The former began to be used for personal gain right from the beginning.

george e. smith
Reply to  William Abbott
January 12, 2015 4:38 pm

I don’t see anything even vaguely religious about the “Golden Rule.”
Just seems like plain common sense to me.

Owen in GA
Reply to  William Abbott
January 12, 2015 5:42 pm

“Do unto others …” is part of the civil code of Hamarabi (1750BC). Though it was not stated in those words. It was the basis of much civil law including the proportionality of sentences. It has been found in almost every culture as the standard one should use to interact with other individuals in society. It seems to be divorced of the concept of religion though it was adopted by most religions as a way to tame society. It is simple wisdom, observed by someone lost in the mist of time, that societies break down into petty squabbles and major bloodshed if human thought does not extend beyond the self, and recognize that the other is similar in wants and needs to the self.
I know that was a pedantic rant over something small, but it has always been a pet peeve of mine that all wisdom gets ascribed to religion – even when evidence suggests it started outside of it. (This coming from a fairly religious guy)

Reply to  William Abbott
January 12, 2015 7:08 pm

Jesus Christ said it: I’m bringing you the news: the Golden Rule is not common sense or intuitive. Intuition tells us to do unto others as they have done unto us. Common sense is you look out after your interests. The Golden rule tells you to treat someone else’s interests as if they were your own.
It is phrased very differently in the Code of Hammurabi.
Muslims are not familiar with the golden rule – it is not in the Koran. (even though they are undoubtedly religious)

Reply to  William Abbott
January 12, 2015 8:13 pm

Yes, willybamboo, it’s common sense to look out for yourself, and one thing you can do to encourage your fellow humans to be nice to you is to be nice to them.
Most of the other critters on Earth have had that much common sense for a very long time, and, considering that people were chattering among themselves for millennia before any putative prophets showed up, it’s not a stretch to think that the patent on the golden rule was long expired by the time Pompey marched into Galilee.

Reply to  William Abbott
January 12, 2015 8:50 pm

I somehow overlooked the comment from Owen in GA and wound up echoing it.
I especially appreciate your last paragraph, and,as a very non-religious person had despaired of seeing that acknowledged by believers.

george e. smith
Reply to  William Abbott
January 13, 2015 7:20 am

Well mother Nature’s rule is “the survival of the fittest.” Anything that aids in the survival of the unfit, wastes resources, and drives the system in the direction of non-survival.
It was thinking human beings who rejected that rule, and decided to take the risk of supporting the survival of those whom MN would discard.
Probably has something to do with that other thing; “Man does not live by bread alone.” Also a non religious common sense concept.
A lot of “blind people” are simply wonderful organists. Well if you don’t like organ music, you wouldn’t care about that.
The golden rule; wherever it comes from is a good way to look after your own interests.
Oh let me guess; you are one of these folks who believes that if you leave everyone else alone, that they will leave you alone.
Go make friends with your local ISIS chapter.

Reply to  William Abbott
January 13, 2015 9:13 am

Climate alarmism is called The Church of Global Warming because nothing falsifies their faith. The “pause” is now over 18 years long and we still hear that “deniers” will cause droughts and famines, etc. etc.
They are frustrated people. Nothing they say gets their message across. This is because Mother Nature herself is the leading denier. Murder would not do the trick, either. It is too easy to find out what the phrase “climate optimum” meant before all the alarmism. Or other facts. Most people have just lost interest.
Yet something IS going on: chemical and burning based agriculture, and dams, are killing so many of the Earth’s organisms that carbon dioxide is sharply rising. CO2 is what carbon-based life forms turn into when they decay. A little of the CO2 surely comes from all the fossils we burn, but that is not the real story and is a good thing, fertilizing the Earth.
My current favorite book (I am half-done reading it) is “Cows Save The Planet,” by Judith D. Schwartz (2013). It has a little of the alarmist nonsense in it, but mostly it is fact-based science. It is defensible unlike the CAGW scare story. And it gives positive constructive things people can do to enhance the Earth, instead of a prescription to drop dead and stop industry.
The effort to attack “deniers” reminds me of the story of Galileo. Killing him did no good because he was right. It also reminds me of the Flat Earthers–considerably crazier than either alarmists/deniers, or Copernicus and detractors, yet who cares? The evidence for a round Earth is beyond overwhelming and convinces almost everyone.
Things like “Cows Save the Planet” can restore sanity. If it does that, it just might restore the original glorious definition of “science,” too.

Reply to  William Abbott
January 13, 2015 11:19 am

Religion can be a powerful motivator. That’s why it is often usurped by politics. It would be foolish for power-hungry tyrants not to. But that is not the fault of religion. It is the fault of those who twist it for their own use and power. Their hypocrisy makes it clear they only pretend to believe the religion they misuse. I don’t know which is worse, uncritically accepting the corrupted religion political leaders try to foist on us, or uncritically throwing the baby out with the bath water by rejecting all religion because some have acted falsely and done evil in its name.

Reply to  Latitude
January 12, 2015 4:50 pm

January 12, 2015 at 6:39 am
Can I say they are also forcing their brand of Islamic on Muslims.
Of course they are Jim…..ISIS is doing this in Muslim countries
Boko is killing Christians, because there are Christians there……
If ISIS was in Mississippi…they would be killing southern Baptists
“”ISIS is also despicably attacking Christians and of course the Yazidis, but the reality is that over the past five years, close to 90 percent of the victims of these “Islamic” terrorists are Muslims””
That’s because where ISIS is… 90% Muslim

Owen in GA
Reply to  Latitude
January 12, 2015 7:40 pm

If ISIS was in Mississippi, they wouldn’t last long! They’d take fire back better than they gave.

Reply to  Latitude
January 13, 2015 2:20 am

Boko is killing Christians, because there are Christians there……

I rinse and repeat. Using some of your own words: Boko is killing Christians, AND MUSLIMS because there are Christians AND MUSLIMS there…… If there were Jews there they too would be killed no doubt.

Reply to  Latitude
January 13, 2015 2:25 am

That’s because where ISIS is… 90% Muslim

That is a holy Jihad??? You make my point. ISIS is not about religion – it is something else and seems to attract rejects from around the world. Some have spent time inside for one reason or another.

Reply to  Latitude
January 13, 2015 6:17 am

Then Jim I don’t see your point…..

January 12, 2015 6:31 am

Other proposed treatments for sceptics: [click].

January 12, 2015 6:36 am
January 12, 2015 6:43 am

All of this has destroyed climate science. It is very sad watching this. I grew up at places like Kitt Peak in Arizona, playing in the giant solar observatory there, for example, listening to scientists talk about theories and information.
I grew up predicting weather for myself via knowing how sun spots, volcanoes, distance from the sun, etc. all interact and it is fairly easy to predict future weather (that is, for a month in advance) via this.
But now the warmists are trying to disconnect everything! All the accumulated science knowledge of the past is being eradicated! They systematically try to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and previous warm cycles like the Minoan cycle. They are trying to get rid of the 1930’s warm cycle, etc.
They are now working on denying that sun spot activity means warmer climate! I am furious about this. It is insane. And these same vandals want to make any of us objecting to this mess, to shut up due to fear.

Evan Jones
Reply to  emsnews
January 12, 2015 4:54 pm

The MWP can take care of itself. It’s demonstrable via interdisciplinary means, anyway (history, literature, archaeology, etc.).
What has destroyed climate science is stuff like the destruction (loss?) of raw historical datasets used to create HadCRUt.

Reply to  emsnews
January 13, 2015 9:22 am

I, too, am upset at the 180 on the definition of “science.”
This is happening because we are right and they are wrong. Nobody likes to be wrong.
Instead of trying to convince them they are wrong, look at the data in “Cows Save the Planet” (reviewed above) and get your local idiots doing something constructive that they can truly feel good about. It will help them be right in a way they can be enthusiastic about. It is also likely to restore the original definition of science because this method of investigation will help them again.

January 12, 2015 6:46 am

Well done.the climate obsessed are in their own way as destructive of civil society as any other fanatics in history. They appear to be constrained only be their lack of resources.

January 12, 2015 6:48 am

And the French brought us; Political Correctness! The “chooks” are coming home to roost!

January 12, 2015 6:55 am

Political Correctness is socially inspired censorship. It is the enemy of Free Speech; a right that took thousands of years to obtain, but only a single generation to lose.

Reply to  ferdberple
January 12, 2015 1:22 pm

The problem with free speech in many folks minds is that it doesn’t guarantee an audience. There is an unwritten right not to listen, nor is it required that an utterance be taken seriously merely because someone became infatuated with the sound of the wind between their ears. One reality about free speech is that it is rarely worth hearing.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Duster
January 12, 2015 4:56 pm

One reality about free speech is that it is rarely worth hearing.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Duster
January 12, 2015 7:42 pm

evanmjones: I heard it as: “The reality of free speech is that you get what you pay for”

January 12, 2015 6:57 am

The real tragedy of the events in France is that Europe has already caved in to the anti-free speech agitators. After the Charlie Hebdo attacks it was proposed that all newspapers in Europe should carry the Mohammed cartons the next day. Only one German paper did – and that got firebombed. The rest of the press bravely decided not to…. [and before you ask No, I wouldn’t either]
Politicians who have already repressed much of free-speech in Europe held a march instead; a huge political gesture attended by representatives of freedom loving countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
There is a lovely talk on free-speech at Bishop Hill that is well worth 20 mins of anyone’s time (unless you are religious).

Reply to  MikeB
January 12, 2015 8:16 am

Absolutely brilliant, a very clear thinker.

Reply to  MikeB
January 12, 2015 8:27 am

The POWERLINE blog carried them. POWERLINE was the same blog that uncovered the forgeries that were presented by Dan Rather, and used to disparage President Bush’s military record: conveniently before the election. This episode later came to be known as Rathergate. Powerline carried the cartoons, however they were in French. Perhaps we could get John Kerry to translate them for us.

January 12, 2015 7:03 am

ultimately every idea is offensive to someone someplace. if we censor ideas because they are offensive, then we will in the end be powerless to speak up against evil.

Reply to  ferdberple
January 12, 2015 8:32 am

The irrepressible siren, Mae West, was once asked which one she would choose if confronted with the choice between two evils. In her indomitable style she replied that she would pick the one she hadn’t tried yet.

Alan the Brit
January 12, 2015 7:12 am

As I have said before, one has to ask the question, what kind of person wants to frighten & intimidate another? They used to be called bullies back in the day!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
January 12, 2015 10:19 am

Leftists, aka bullies.
Seriously, it’s what they do. Try saying one negative word to a large group of union protesters, all wearing the same protest tshirt. I did it. It was ultra-funny, all the yelling, cussing and threats I got back from them. I literally laughed at how worked up they got. I don’t recommend this for most people…

Evan Jones
Reply to  Eric Sincere
January 12, 2015 5:13 pm

Sometimes I feel like puncturing one of those inflatable “union rats” one sees around New York.
I note that the union protesters are not inviting the “oppressed employees” into their unions, or trying to organize them. They are protesting that the business does not hire from the union (i.e., them).
Yet I have to remind myself that doing such a thing would be lowering myself further than the rat. After all, if expression that offends me is not to be allowed (and defended), then there is no freedom.

January 12, 2015 7:37 am

Reblogged this on mjmsprt40, sez me. and commented:
Still waiting, where’s the oil money I am supposed to get for “denying”?

Evan Jones
Reply to  mjmsprt40
January 14, 2015 3:48 pm

Lower oil prices if the likes of you and me win out? Also ~40 years of life expectancy for those who would get electricity. That’s the “oil money” we will get.

January 12, 2015 7:43 am

Speaking as one who posts here only under “Permanent Double-Secret Probation” – because I’m apparently entirely too effective at excoriating the progtard willful ignorance and arrogant stupidity wholly congruent with the great gaudy “man-made global climate change” fraud, thereby cutting to the bone in excision of the politics behind this proposterous bogosity – I’m just delighted to read complaints about “Liberal” fascist fighting words voiced in efforts to obliterate dissenting voices in public fora.
Bearing in mind what these bastids want – avidly! – to do with us heretics, we must be ever-so-polite and tender in dealing with them, mustn’t we?

You see, I come from a dimension, called reality, where words mean what they mean and words are used to convey information from one mind to another. The Loathers, as best I can tell, come from a different and horrible alien dimension where words mean precisely what they do not mean, and words are used as emotional indicators only, leaving the listener with the task of discovering what it is that the irrelevant stream of false-to-facts and logically-disconnected statements actually refer to.
I am exaggerating, but only a little. They are not from another dimension, but the Loathers are from a different moral framework. My moral code says dishonesty is wrong, both in thought and deed, and to be illogical is wrong, both formally and morally. Their moral code says reality is wrong, and that any statements conforming to reality are viciously cruel and unforgivable. They cannot actually come out and say what it is that provokes their tears and their ire, because to do so would be to refer to the thing that they cannot name. So they have to take some other thing, only tangentially related, and complain about that.
— John C. Wright

January 12, 2015 7:54 am

Godwin’s Law runs rampant in climate alarmism

Reply to  Bolshevictim
January 12, 2015 11:12 am

As does Fen’s Law:
The Left believes none of the things they lecture us about.

George Tetley
January 12, 2015 8:15 am

Hello God,
can you hear me/us? could you give us a miracle or two, you know like you use to do all the time,, hello, hello, oh, you must be asleep, help, this world is coming off its tracks!!!

Evan Jones
Reply to  George Tetley
January 12, 2015 5:24 pm

Well, yeah. But that’s a sword that cuts both ways.
History demonstrates that scoundrels abound on either side of anything.

January 12, 2015 9:01 am

We have denial of free speech in the west but it’s not when the BBC won’t have our guy on to make a point.
It’s also not when citizens take umbrage at opinions expressed publicly.
The impetus for repression of contrarian views may well come from the people but it’s only when it’s on the statute books that the state has switched from defending the individual to punishing him. Depriving protection, obviously, can constitute punishment, too.
Hate laws are a toe-hold for intolerance in our legal structure.
Our quarrel with Islam is much broader than freedom of speech, it’s freedom of just about everything.

Evan Jones
Reply to  mebbe
January 12, 2015 5:26 pm

Biggest issue: women.

Reply to  Evan Jones
January 12, 2015 9:41 pm

Yup, I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole lunacy arose from an abhorrence of cuckoldry and a failure to grow a funny bone.

January 12, 2015 9:15 am

Yes AGW is a religion. Like all religions, you can not use logic, science, common sense or even hard cold bold facts to sway acolytes.
I am becoming more and more aghast how everybody seems to think they can reason with acolytes and expect some sort of enlighted kumbayah outcome. Acolytes can not be reasoned with, consider these points, have you ever reasoned with a communist and got them to understand not just what communism really is (as defined by Marx), but how it can ever work economically? The same can be said about fascists, just read the history of Europe in the last 100 years. Try arguing to a white-supremist rascist that non-white people are just as human as white people are, you think you are going to get anywhere? Try arguing to an Islamic fundamentalist that there is nothing wrong with people not believing in a religion that is not one of the those of The Book (i.e., The Bible) or Koran, you think you are going to get him to accept atheists?
What is the point of trying to argue with acolytes! Politicians will use any group of acolytes where they see benefit for their own greedy ambitions, or to cover their incompetent actions. Acolytes do not need science, truth or facts. They believe in things because that’s what they want in their worldview. This is where the problem lies, the worldview. The acolytes of Global Warming are from two fronts; those that would have no academic future and therefore no livelihood and so invent/cheat/lie/steal to fraudulently take tax payer money (i.e. grants) to satisfy their self serving ends, these are the mischieveous acolytes of greed, and then there are the acolytes of communism who do not want anybody else to have things they can not have and want everybody to give up their higher standards of livings and revert back to the Stone Age, these are the misanthropic acolytes for atavism. You can not argue to a happy ending with these people.
These greedy and atavistic people do not care about a world view that is prepared to accept the challenges and problems that nature and the future, will throw our way. They want everybody else to give them a lifestyle and world view where they are viewed as gods and we the rest of us must keep them, exalt them, and obey them. Take a good look at who these people are. Consider, infamous Mann and his hockey stick, his data and work have now been totally and inextricably discredited, Gore and his CO2 and Temperature forcing relation, have now been shown comprehensibly to be false, and we can go on and on. Yet politicians continue their evil, the same scientists who have elicit funding and grants promoting Global Warming still keep their jobs and positions, and what does everybody do here? Show another story or article on how foolish the next “so and so” is.
How many years must go on, no, how many decades must go on, before what must be done is done. As a scientist myself, I have been talking about this issue for years, and every body just turns their back on it, why? We have standards in engineering, where you can’t sell anything on the market that could endanger somebody’s life. I think it is about time to put some standards into Science, and that they are policed as effectively as those in engineering and the transgressors are punished. The problem is that we do have standards in the scientific community, but nobody does anything to enforce them. Being in science myself, I have read too many false statements and questionable data, and as the years pass by, its getting much worse. We need to subject science and scientific papers especially to a higher standards, furthermore, when transgressions occur, they should be dealt with harshly.
You can argue all you like with all these people who have some theory in something or another, in fact, as theories go, they come a dime a dozen now days. What are we going to do, fund every wacko and loonie theory out there? Governments are failing our scientific institutions, there is no question about that. But what makes it worse, is that the scientific community is failing itself, we need to police ourselves better. On the path we are on right now, we will soon have to come to the point were we are going to have to face the public, once they get tired with all the “false dawns or sunsets” that have been voiced and all the money that is wasted. Eventually, the questions will have to be asked.
Ladies and gentlemen of science, we have rotten apples in our community. These rotten apples do not care about science, they only care about their own careers or desire to bring the advancement of humanity to a halt. Science is about learning about Nature and the Universe, not about social engineering. We, as scientists, are bestowed with the opportunity to advance our understanding of the real world, invent the tools that the real world can use, and create the opportunities for human society to seek out its destiny and leave our ever humble beginnings to history. Social engineering is something that the public must decide via the ballot. I implore you all who have read this commentary, to stop this needless and futile arguing with a group of acolytes who should not even be in our community. It is time to change the discussion, from spending endless hours of showing how the acolytes lie and cheat, to getting rid of them. Many of these people have committed out right fiscal fraud, out right scientific fraud, out right publication fraud. If we allow these people to stay in science, we will have a greater threat to face in the future….The Public. How long do you think the public is going put up with this before they think, that we, even the honest and good scientists deserve the same outcome as the rotten acolytes? If we can’t police our own community…then it will be done for us…and that never ends well for anyone.

Walt Allensworth
Reply to  Dorian
January 12, 2015 11:58 am


Evan Jones
Reply to  Dorian
January 12, 2015 5:37 pm

The way one does it is to drag the issue, kicking and screaming, to the realm of science. Then duke it out using data and mathematics. All one needs to do is remember that the known facts are your friends, and that is an inestimable advantage.
Science is the dog. Politics is just the brightly colored tail. Let the politicians pigpile. That’s what they do. This debate is going to be resolved in the field, the labs, and the journals, not the funny papers.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Dorian
January 14, 2015 9:49 am

Wow. Thanks Dorian for clearly stating what needs to be said. I am in complete agreement with you. I agree that arguing with adults that have formed their views isn’t likely to be successful. My biggest concern is that our children whose minds are easily swayed, are being targeted in our public schools, TV, movies and churches. Yes I said churches. For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone can believe in iinvisible beings that control the world and do such a poor job of it. I could do much better if I had a tiny bit of power that the invisible beings that live in the sky are said to have.

Eric Johnson
January 12, 2015 9:24 am

I think of a comment I once ran across, can’t remember the source–“If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man there is something wrong with you!”

Reply to  Eric Johnson
January 12, 2015 11:07 am


Reply to  Eric Johnson
January 12, 2015 11:17 am

Eric Johnson,
Is this what you’re looking for? :
1. Government is force

2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others

3. Bad ideas should not be forced on others

4. Liberty is necessary for the difference between good ideas and bad ideas to be revealed

You could pay $100,000 for an Econ education and never learn the above.
u r welcome.☺

January 12, 2015 9:26 am

Please watch around the 2:50 mark.

Reply to  Kenny
January 12, 2015 10:56 am

She (Lizz Winstead) took on the wrong “deal with with sacred cows” (sic) by including “zealots from climate deniers”, especially since (observationally) these shoes fit the AGW crowd like the skin of an eel. Obviously just another fanatic that changes the data to fit her distorted concept of the facts. Amazing how these people can even consider themselves logical or intelligent.

Reply to  BFL
January 12, 2015 1:28 pm

The inherent problem is zealots. It doesn’t matter what they are zealous about. There is no such thing as a good zealot, not even if they are zealots about a “rightful cause.” Zealotry does not know bounds.

Jim Reedy
Reply to  BFL
January 12, 2015 6:28 pm

Zealots a quite happy to kill you to save you

Reply to  Kenny
January 12, 2015 12:10 pm

She could not help being stupid even when trying to express an intelligent thought.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Kenny
January 14, 2015 3:56 pm

“Climate denial” is a “sacred cow”? Ugh.

David L. Hagen
January 12, 2015 9:45 am

Freedom or Tyranny?
Where is freedom when minions imitate their masters saying “Off with their heads”!
The Charlie Hebdo Jihadists were explicitly following the pattern set by their prophet. See Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society
Having seen 100 years religious war, the Founders of the United States of America required that their Constitution MUST include a Bill of Rights beginning with:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The politically correct climate police are diametrically eliminating these freedoms, as well as destroying the foundations of science.
Uphold our unalienable rights to believe according to conscience, and to speak out and practice those beliefs, and speak for our children, the poor and those oppressed.

george e. smith
Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 12, 2015 4:47 pm

Isn’t it funny, that just a coupla dozen words following the above words of wisdom, suddenly the “right of the people” has degenerated to become the right of a “well regulated militia.” Doesn’t say just who is going to “well regulate” whom; but you can bet it isn’t “the people”.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
January 12, 2015 4:51 pm

And the two French Policemen, who went out to arrest the AK47 and RPG armed “misdemeaniks”, rode to their predictable outcome, on their bicycles, sans any sort of weaponry at all.
But I did say they were French Policemen.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  george e. smith
January 12, 2015 6:14 pm

george e. smith
An assertion without evidence carries no scientific value.
The militia I have read about have their own internal command and regulation. e.g., see Militia chain of command

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
January 13, 2015 7:37 am

David L. Hagen
January 12, 2015 at 6:14 pm
george e. smith
An assertion without evidence carries no scientific value…..””””
I hope you didn’t think I was saying anything about science.
On that subject though, an assertion without contrarian evidence, might be a pretty good clue.
And as to your second point.
Article II of the Bill of Rights, says: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Doesn’t say anything about the right of a well regulated militia.
You need to ditch your dictionary, and get out your English grammar book, so you can see that that gobbledegook about a militia, in no way alters the meaning of the words above I put in quotes.
What if I substituted the following:
The sun rising in the east, being necessary for a warm day at the beach in a free State, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Means EXACTLY the same thing, just gives another of many possible reasons why “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
And if that does not ensure the right of the people to defend themselves; then Article IX of the BofR surely does. Yes the very same people who “peaceably assemble.”

January 12, 2015 9:48 am

Does this request for freedom to publish whatever theories you like also apply to WUWT (and others) – will we now see articles (or even just comments) from:
iron sun believers,
flat earthers,
Haarp radiation believers
Chemtrail believers.
Will all those warmists WUWT banned (perhaps just for commenting too frequently) be allowed to post again?
[No. .mod]
[Reply: Read the site Policy. There are a few rules here. If those rules are too onerous, there are millions of alternative blogs where you can post. Also, commenters are not arbitrarily banned; and there are relatively few on that list. Follow site Policy and you will not be banned for expresing a different point of view. For the handful that have been banned — we have to draw the line somewhere, or it will become a free for all.
~ mod.]
Reply – Think of it this way. A blog may be public, but it is, in a very real sense, a conversation, one with rules. One can be excluded from a conversation without violating anyone’s rights. One can be driven from a conversation if one is considered (rightly or wrongly) to have violated even unspoken rules. In this case, you have it easy; the rules are a matter of written record. ~ Evan

Reply to  sergeiMK
January 12, 2015 10:46 am

WUWT does not receive compulsory fees like the BBC, or taxes like NPR. This is a private blog.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Zeke
January 12, 2015 5:56 pm

Yet both of those examples are highly censored. On both of those sites, if the thrust of opinion on an article goes against the party line then the comments are summarily suspended without a word as to why. WUWT will simply pile on with facts until the opposing views are thoroughly explored and weighed on their scientific merits. Only when people violate policy do we see bans, and then only after several warnings for all but the worst offenders.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Zeke
January 14, 2015 4:00 am

The Declaration was using the term “rights” in an extremely general sense. But when the Bill of Rights was written, explicitly not initially included in the Constitution, those rights had to be enumerated and defined. That is where the pedal hits the metal. (What you wind up with is either Liberty, or it is not.)

Reply to  Zeke
January 14, 2015 5:33 am

January 14, 2015 at 4:00 am
Some rights were enumerated. IX and X make that clear.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  sergeiMK
January 12, 2015 11:00 am

Such individuals are perfectly free to publish their own blogs, and more than a few do. Freedom of speech/right to publish doesn’t mean they get unfettered use of someone else’s soapbox.

Reply to  sergeiMK
January 12, 2015 11:11 am

I am aware of why there are limits to free speech. There is no unlimited free speech on WUWT (see the house rules). There are libel and slander laws in most western societies for good reason. If you want to talk about chemtrails and slay dragons you can – on your own blog.
Keeping out sceptics from much of the media — this is unreasonable. So far the sceptics appear to be right about ‘dangerous warming’ – there hasn’t been any in over 18 years and a raft of papers over the past year have dialled down climate sensitivity. The IPCC’s projections of surface temps fail time and again. Sea level is not accelerating. Global sea ice anomaly is just above ‘normal’.

Reply to  sergeiMK
January 12, 2015 11:17 am

Yes, and freedom of association does not mean I have to associate with you. (:
I find the difference between civil rights in the Amendments of the Constitution to be turned on their head by Human Rights. Human Rights are so often an excuse for compulsory participation: the right to a free public education becomes the forceful attendance of public schools, or for the use of nationalized curricula.
The “right” to renewable energy works in the same direction. “Neutrality “forces radio shows to say things they do not want to say.
And so on.
In short, in reality, and in history, human rights are covers for forced participation in very bad State policies.

Reply to  Zeke
January 12, 2015 11:25 am

I find the difference betweencivil rights in the Amendments of the Constitution are turned on their head by Human Rights. Human Rights are so often an excuse for compulsory participation: the right to a free public education becomes the forceful attendance of public schools, or for the compulsory use of nationalized curricula.
The “right” to renewable energy works in the same direction. “Neutrality “ or the “right” to hear “both sides” of an argument forces radio shows to say things they do not want to say. thanks

Reply to  Zeke
January 12, 2015 11:31 am

Rights are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And there aren’t very many of those. I don’t see “human rights” as a category listed anywhere in there.

Reply to  Zeke
January 12, 2015 12:07 pm

dbstealey says, “Rights are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And there aren’t very many of those. I don’t see “human rights” as a category listed anywhere in there.”
In the broader conversation about free speech, I thought it would be helpful to contrast the meaning of free speech/rights in the Constitution under the American model, and free speech/rights in European Union or under the UN, under the Human Rights model. After all, we do not all live under the same laws. Nor do we want to.

george e. smith
Reply to  Zeke
January 12, 2015 4:59 pm

Well Zeke their aren’t any rights granted or guaranteed in “The Constitution.”
American’s “rights” are asserted as self evident in “The Declaration of Independence.”
In the Constitution the Government is TOLD that they may pass laws, limiting some of those rights “In order to form a more perfect Union.” Avoid anarchy if you will.
So the Constitution only curtails certain pre-existing “rights” by telling the government what they can and cannot do. It also tells them some things that they MUST do; such as protect ALL of the several States (57 by last count) against INVASION. See Article IV, section 4.

Reply to  george e. smith
January 12, 2015 5:20 pm

George E Smith, I did not say the individual rights are in the Constitution; I said the Amendments of the Constitution.
Our rights listed in the Amendments are not meant to be limited to the list. All rights not enumerated in the Amendments “are retained to the states and to the people.” See the IXth and Xth Amendments.
There were objections to the Amendments because it was argued that if they did not make an exhuastive list of rights, this could be misconstrued to be limiting rights to the ones included in the Amendments. James Madison won the argument, saying that “half a loaf is better than no loaf,” and he added the ninth and tenth to address the rights retained to the people and the states, even if not listed.
Moreover, most of the states reiterate all of the Amendments, with more specific language.

Reply to  george e. smith
January 12, 2015 6:29 pm

Okay george e smith, get your spectacles, because dbstealy said that, not me. And he wasn’t being literal. So you can have your Constitutional “gotcha” too. 🙂 😀

Reply to  Zeke
January 12, 2015 5:08 pm

george e smith probably knows more about the Constitution than the average American. One thing that is routinely forgotten are States rights; we are the United STATES, not the Big Federal Gov’t.
The States may censor if they want. They can have an official State religion if they want. States can do lots of things that the federal government may not do, per the Constitution.
But since the 10th Amendment has beed ignored, they do what they want. The courts were supposed to keep them in line, but they didn’t. Look at the giant mess they’ve created.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Zeke
January 12, 2015 6:02 pm

American’s “rights” are asserted as self evident in “The Declaration of Independence.”
What the Declaration said was self evident was Liberty. The rights actually had to be carefully enumerated, defined, adopted, and (for better and worse), are continually subject to reinterpretation.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Zeke
January 12, 2015 6:17 pm

The constitution does not bestow rights on people; it tells the central government what it may not do! The constitution is a wonderful document when one understands the society for which it was written. In this society of the founders, all power lies within the individual. The individual is responsible for solving his own problems. For those things that are bigger than one man may solve, he is to offer himself to and accept aid from his family. Thus 90% of problems are solved within the individual and family structure. For those things that are larger than the family can overcome, one offers oneself up to the community and accepts aid of the community. This should solve half of the remaining problems. Again one offers oneself up to the county then the state to bring the total solved problems to 97%. Then the central government gets to solve that last 3% that deals with relations with other states and relations with foreign powers. Each one of these spheres of influence should have less impact on the person’s day to day life than the one closer to the individual, leaving almost no impact for the federal government at all.
With that understanding, many at the constitutional convention did not see the need for a “Bill of Rights”, because it was understood that the new federal government had almost no impact on a person’s day to day life. Once the Bill of Rights was written, the 9th and 10th amendments were worded to assure that the federal government would never take more power unto themselves. That lasted until the Wilson administration and the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments which shifted power away from the states and into an ever growing central government’s hands. The destruction was pretty much completed in the FDR administration with a series of court rulings that should have had the founders’ graves churned up for all the rolling over in the graves.

george e. smith
Reply to  Zeke
January 13, 2015 8:03 am

January 12, 2015 at 6:02 pm
American’s “rights” are asserted as self evident in “The Declaration of Independence.”
What the Declaration said was self evident was Liberty. The rights actually had to be carefully enumerated, defined, adopted, ……”””””
January 12, 2015 at 5:20 pm
George E Smith, I did not say the individual rights are in the Constitution; I said the Amendments of the Constitution. ……”””””
Well Zeke, I never said you did say that.
And for Evanmjones; sheer balderdash ! The Declaration says “….among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (maybe it was property once)…”
I assume you do know what ” among ” means; or ” amongst ” as well.
e.g. evanmjones and george e. smith (dbstealey too are “AMONG” the 7 odd billion people on planet earth.
The Declaration does not limit our rights in any way; it asserts ALL of them belong to us.
The Constitution can only take them away.
For example the word “life” appears only three times in the Constitution. Well nowhere at all in the original Constitution itself, but three times in the Bill of Rights and the later amendments.
If my memory serves me, it appears once in the BofR article 5, and then twice in the 14th amendment. Well I’ll let you check that.
In the fifth amendment it says something like…”shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law….” or close to that.
Seems to me, that right there, the Federal Government is given the ability to make laws that could deprive one of life , liberty or property, with “due process”.
So rather than guaranteeing a “right to life”, the Constitution in the fifth amendment contains the machinery to take that away.
And the 14th amendment in similar words grants the same flexibility to the States.
So much for the “Constitutional right to life.” The Constitution ONLY mentions taking it away.

Reply to  Zeke
January 14, 2015 5:36 am

January 12, 2015 at 11:31 am
Could you list all the rights enumerated in the IXth and Xth Amendments?

Reply to  Zeke
January 14, 2015 10:44 am

Inre: deprived of life, liberty or property without due process
Due process includes:
1. there must be an indictment from a grand jury for a felony
2. the accused shall have the right to a speedy trial
3. the accused shall have the right to a public trial
4. you have a right to witnesses on your behalf
5. the accused has the right to appear and defend in person and with counsel
6. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
7. you also have a right to a local trial with a jury of peers
I took this from a state Constitution because we happened to be reading this right now.
The deprivation of life in some cases does mean we do have capital punishment.
All of these guarantees are obviously written by people well used to the abuses of royalty and despotic gov’ts.
This is why it is so astonishing that the DoJ under AG Holder attempted to gain a private court which would grant rulings against websites and shut them down for intellectual property violations, etc.. It is also problematic that the IRS has now powers over property etc. for taxes, and that this is used to enforce Obamacare and prosecute non-profits – ie political organizations.

Reply to  Zeke
January 14, 2015 11:23 am

M Simon,
Why bother? It’s all online.
George Smith says:
evanmjones and george e. smith (dbstealey too are “AMONG” the 7 odd billion people on planet earth
Good thing George didn’t say, “the 7 billion odd people…”☺

Reply to  Zeke
January 17, 2015 4:22 am

January 14, 2015 at 11:23 am
Obviously you know nothing of the Constitution. But I will help. Read the IXth and Xth Amendments. We have far more rights that those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

January 12, 2015 10:10 am

Unfortunately, the warming zealots are at that stage of childhood development termed ‘middle childhood’, that stage between about 8 and 12/13 when boys and girls do more things in single sex activities and less together before the big brain remodelling to come which transforms them from minors into sentient, independent thinkers.
That period is characterised by very tribal behaviour, affiliation to sports teams, gangs etc etc. Anyone who has been to English football grounds will know the form of behaviours displayed. Us vs them, true believers, huge sanctions for ‘traitors’ etc etc. It’s not pretty, but if you know it’s only about football and there is no threat to life and limb (mercifully that has been the case since our grounds were turned into places for human beings rather than carcasses for slaughter). Much of the behaviour is irrational, teams are serenaded with songs usually only strictly applicable to a subset of seasons (calling a side struggling in the bottom half of the league ‘by far the greatest team, the world has ever seen’ is a common event at football!) but there are certain tenets you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO QUESTION (like hating, yes really really hating the local rivals and their fans – I have always found hating to be an unhealthy occurrence, but well-remunerated UK journalists have written on more than one occasion that if you can’t hate Spurs you are not an Arsenal fan and you should get lost and support Man Utd or Liverpool instead) and if you do you may wish you hadn’t.
Of course, the atmosphere at football grounds is immeasurably ratcheted up with 50,000 people displaying such characterists. Indeed the only and only Roy Keane, iconic and iconoclastic captain of Man Utd for many years of their most successful campaigns, contemptuously referred to the well-heeled corporate visitors as ‘the prawn sandwich brigade’, suggesting that they were far too effete, polite and librarian like to be a true supporter of Man Utd.
Whether such atmospheres are so conducive to the more serious matters of climate science, I tend to doubt. But there we are. Defending the indefensible is often the lot of football fans if they wish to display overt loyalty to their struggling sides. Sadly, that is where climate science is currently and we can but hope that some brain remodelling amongst vast swathes of the relevant communities of ‘scientists’, ‘journalists’, ‘bloggers’, ‘pressure groups’ and ‘funders’ takes place over the next decade and a half.

Reply to  rtj1211
January 12, 2015 11:05 am

At least football fans don’t claim to be science “professionals” like the climastrologists, indeed they act intellectually more like “pro”-wrestling fans.

January 12, 2015 10:21 am

sergeiMK says:
January 12, 2015 at 9:48 am
Does this request for freedom to publish whatever theories you like also apply to WUWT (and others) – will we now see articles (or even just comments) from:
iron sun believers,
flat earthers,
Haarp radiation believers
Chemtrail believers.
Will all those warmists WUWT banned (perhaps just for commenting too frequently) be allowed to post again?
[No. .mod]
No freedom of speech here then!
[Wrong. The site Policy lays out the rules. If you cannot abide Anthony’s rules, there are literally millions of alternatives. Most folks have no complaints. ~mod.]

Theo Barker
Reply to  sergeiMK
January 12, 2015 1:01 pm

The Constitution of the United States of America provides protections for ownership of private property (i.e. 3rd Ammendment, supported by the 2nd Ammendment). WUWT is private property to which you are allowed to visit. If you do not abide by the publicly stated rules of the property owner, then you are trespassing (i.e. committing a crime). QED.

Reply to  Theo Barker
January 12, 2015 2:34 pm

SergeiMK, this statement by Theo Barker is not accurate.
No one has ever been convicted of “trespassing private property” for attempting to comment on another person’s blog post. Blogs are set up so that comments are approved before being published. Not approving a comment is the decision of the individual blogger.

Theo Barker
Reply to  Zeke
January 13, 2015 6:11 am

The point is that it is private property, and therefore subject to the property owner.

Reply to  sergeiMK
January 12, 2015 1:36 pm

What you don’t understand is what “free speech” means. It means you are free to express an opinion. However, the constitution does not require anyone to listen your or anyone else’s opinion. The internet provides an infinite supply of soapboxes for those so inclined, but nowhere is it stated that one must share the soapbox. WUWT is Anthony’s soapbox. Anyone is free to start their own blog and utter absolutely anything (almost) if they are not satisfied with the available conditions.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  sergeiMK
January 12, 2015 2:08 pm

sergeiMK (January 12, 2015 at 10:21 am): “No freedom of speech here then!”
What an ungrateful little troll!
Anthony Watts, a private citizen, pays for this blog out of his own pocket. He has no legal or moral obligation to do so, yet provides this forum anyway, for his own reasons, giving thousands of posters a soapbox they would otherwise not have. Since he pays the piper, so to speak, he calls the tune. SergeiMK has no more legal or moral right to demand that Anthony publish certain articles than I have to walk into a publisher like Random House and demand they publish my book for free.
No doubt SergeiMK, if/when he provides his own blog at his own expense, will publish everything submitted to it, including spam, profanity, pornographic stories, jihadist tracts, “proofs” of “intelligent design”, religious screeds, sleigh-er nonsense, etc. I wish him well, but I probably won’t visit. Just as I have (or should have) the right to free speech, I also have (or should have) the right to ignore crap.

Gunga Din
Reply to  sergeiMK
January 12, 2015 2:12 pm

This is Anthony’s “living room”. He’s never called for or promoted physical harm being done to those who disagree with him. He’s never called for the Government to bring the hammer down on those who honestly disagree with him.

Will all those warmists WUWT banned (perhaps just for commenting too frequently) be allowed to post again?

Why don’t you name a few that were banned for simply “commenting too frequently”.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 12, 2015 7:34 pm

I’d like to add that Anthony is much more … accepting? … gracious? … open? … lenient? (I can’t find the right word but that word is NOT censoring.) about what he has allowed in his living room than what some other sites have been.
(He also appreciates humor.)

January 12, 2015 10:23 am

AGW has nothing to do with religion. AGW is a subcomponent of the Anthropocene Age scientific paradigm. In this paradigm, all human activities trigger “tipping points” on a “fragile earth.”
This environmental scientific paradigm shift took place in the 1960’s, which is when 10,000 chemicals began to be investigated for the sole purpose of convicting them of being guilty carcinogens or of harm to the atmosphere. In this scientific paradigm, if high doses could be found to be harmful, then environmental exposure must be reduced to zero. That is the science.
I remind you that even vitamin A and hormones produced by the body can kill you in high doses.
It is not surprising that the Anthropocene Age paradigm has now fingered carbon dioxide from power generation, methane from cattle, nitrous oxide from crops, and various refrigerants, etc. as harmful to the environment. Even plowing fields and driving on dusty roads has become a target of NASA spy satellites and scientific warnings about tipping points in the fragile global environment.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Zeke
January 12, 2015 7:39 pm

In this scientific paradigm, if high doses could be found to be harmful, then environmental exposure must be reduced to zero. That is the science.

Please forgive me for a slight editorial tweek:
“In this scientific paradigm, if high doses could be found to be harmful, then environmental exposure must be reduced to zero. That is their science.

Reply to  Zeke
January 13, 2015 5:03 am

Exactly. AGW is part of a scientific paradigm. Several people on this thread do not like religion and do not like the AGW hypothesis. They see similarities in the thinking of the adherents of both and declare AGW a religion. Which is pretty pathetic because it obviously is not. Yes its disturbing scientific method can be perverted into a false epistemology – but don’t go blathering on about AGW quacking like a duck and being a religion.

Reply to  willybamboo
January 13, 2015 6:07 am

[snip – ugly pointless comment with overtones of racism, keep it up and you’ll find yourself banned – Anthony]

Reply to  willybamboo
January 14, 2015 6:17 am

What would prove AGW incorrect? If nothing then AGW is more religious than scientific.

Reply to  M Simon
January 14, 2015 3:09 pm

How do CAGW supporters ‘know’ they are right? How do they know what they believe is true? Is there authority ‘revealing’ truth to them? Or do they look for the missing heat so they can measure it? Do they count tree rings? Do they measure SST?
They practice very bad science. No null hypothesis. Too many statistics. They don’t every seem to acknowledge the theory remains unproven. But they are not hearing voices or reading scripture. They have no prophets who speak for God. Ptolemy’s geocentric model was wrong and Ptolemy was into astrology, but the Ptolemaic system is scientific.
In my opinion Islam is a deeply flawed religion. But we all agree it is a religion. I hope nobody is confused and thinks Islam is science.
Just because some idea is widely believed and it is false doesn’t make it a religion. Scientists constantly balk at drawing broad conclusions when someone proves something is false. Because Global warming is about the future, it is bound to always be bad, flawed, science because science can’t say anything specific about the future. … and almost nothing about the past. Science is a very narrow way of knowing things.
The hubris of certainty is not an exclusive characteristic of the religious.

Theo Barker
Reply to  Zeke
January 13, 2015 6:32 am

Zeke, I appreciate most of your comments. However, I must disagree with your assertion that it is “science”. As an engineer and skeptic of all religions, I assert it is a religion that calls itself science.

Reply to  Theo Barker
January 13, 2015 10:19 am

First a quick anecdote – Peter Hitchens, the brother of Christopher Hitchens, said that communism in Russia had become a “religion” under Stalin. How many of us agree that that is an act of sheer self-deception? Or was Stalinism a religion as well?
I have demonstrated the origins of the Anthropocene Age and it is clearly a scientific paradigm, and it has broad agreement across all of the journals, unions, academics, and societies. The practitioners and experts control the questions that are asked, the tools to be used, which data is significant, and how to interpret the data. That is why NASA sends up spacecraft now called ECOSTRESS and CATS and OCO-2 – because this scientific paradigm is asking what harmful effects any and all human activity have on the environment. The Anthropocene Age scientific paradigm and its subcomponent, AGW, are perfect illustrations of Kuhn’s paradigm shift.
Now back to the Hitchens’ anecdote. I do not think that it is very helpful to misattribute this Anthropocene Age science to religion. I suggest in fact this is a fair bit of self-deception. What would be more instructive is to be honest about the real history of science. In the 1900’s, governments and scientists destroyed agriculture in China during the Great Leap, in Russia under Lysenko, and Germany sought to use eugenics/population control using genetic science. All of these are pages in the history of both engineers and scientists.

Theo Barker
Reply to  Zeke
January 13, 2015 10:45 am

Zeke, by your assertions that Anthropocene Age as science then you must also include Intelligent Design in the body of science, in my view. If you exclude one then you must exclude both.
Personally I see both as hypotheses lacking in compelling evidence.

Theo Barker
Reply to  Zeke
January 13, 2015 10:56 am

Zeke, re: Eugenics/Lysenko/Great Leap participants: These are cases where most likely fear of an absolute ruler lead otherwise rational individuals to pursue courses of action that they would not in a free and open society. Their “science” was bent to the will of the rulers, and either through conscious or subconscious means chose to live with the cognitive dissonance of their actions.

Reply to  Theo Barker
January 13, 2015 10:28 am

Correction: Obviously it was Christopher Hitchens who said that. “My brother Christopher suggests that Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union was in fact a religious state. The specifically anti-religious character of the Soviet system under Stalin makes such a claim nonsensical.” ~Peter Hitchens

Theo Barker
Reply to  Zeke
January 13, 2015 10:41 am

Zeke, If you buy Peter Hutchins assertions over Christopher Hutchins assertions, then Islam in a Caliphate is not a religion, since it seeks to destroy religions (that are not Islam).
IMO, Zeke, your definition of religion is a bit narrow. My definition includes any system of beliefs that contains assertions (as opposed to hypotheses) not supportable by current observational data / technology.

Reply to  Theo Barker
January 13, 2015 10:36 am

Communism & CACA are kindred belief systems, arguably religious in nature & both profoundly anti-scientific despite billing themselves as founded in science.

Theo Barker
Reply to  milodonharlani
January 13, 2015 11:01 am

Correction: Hitchens not Hutchens

Reply to  Theo Barker
January 13, 2015 12:23 pm

Science and religion are both epistemologies: Ways of knowing things. Religious knowledge comes from revelation. God speaks, prophets speak, scriptures speak, and they reveal things and you listen and gain religious knowledge (epistemologically speaking). In other words you know it is true because God told you it was true.
Scientific method also reveals truth. You conduct experiments, you measure things, you observe the results of your experiments and your measurements, and you know certain things are true. Most people don’t realize how narrow (epistemologically speaking) scientific knowledge is. In other words there are a lot of expansive conclusions drawn from the science method that the experiments and measurements don’t justify. An honest scientist says, “I don’t know” often. Especially dealing with something as complex as atmosphere and climate. You have many dishonest scientists.
So epistemologically speaking, CAGW is not a religion. It is very bad science. If you assert it is a religion you are asserting something that is not true.

Reply to  willybamboo
January 13, 2015 12:32 pm

And may I remind scientists that any time grand social engineering experiments and policies based on scientific theories are carried out, you are obligated to observe, acknowledge, and publish the results.
In the case of Lysenkoism, Great Leap destruction of agriculture, failed renewables, and eugenics/population control, these were all carried out in the 1900’s. Now decide if the intellectuals, activists, scientists and engineers got the results they wanted from these scientific paradigm shifts.
This transformism of scientific failures into “religion” looks like Alchemy to me.

Reply to  Theo Barker
January 13, 2015 2:47 pm

If belief trumps evidence it is a religion. If belief fills in for no evidence it is a religion. I personally have faith in a “higher power” but I am wise enough to know that there is no evidence that I have found that would convince me on a rational basis that such a power exists. I have actually experienced “The Force”. But that is not evidence. If a billion people say the same – it is still not evidence.

January 12, 2015 10:46 am

Speaking of freedom of speech have a listen to Richard Muller…
Richard Muller: I Was wrong on Climate Change.

Reply to  Martin
January 12, 2015 1:45 pm

Wow – was he on drugs? Or did a really juicy financial incentive help him out?

Reply to  Martin
January 12, 2015 10:26 pm

Just posted this over at the YouTube site in response to this. Dr. Muller is certainly welcome to his scientific opinion, but despite what sounds like a great deal of good work, his conclusions seem to be surprisingly trivially based. Here’s the full response:
“I still haven’t seen any comments about the first question (how Professor Muller explains MVP and RWP). He has analyzed over 200 years of records, (since the planet came out of the Little Ice Age), and it has warmed since then. I don’t think anybody serious denies that. Most skeptics point out, quite rightly, that the rate is well less than the IPCC sensitivity to CO2 increases predicts in their models. Whether or not the last 18 years of hiatus is significant or not is still unknown IMO – we’ll know in another 12 years or so. What is significant is that there are 20+ years of rapid warming, and 20+ years of cooling over the last 200 years that are not correlated to CO2, and it’s not clear what the professor’s answer for that is either. The fact that in some data sources (and only some) 2014 is the warmest year, is some what tempered by the fact that is such by a few hundredths of a degree C as compared to the hottest year some 16 years ago. If warming continues at that rate, we’ll have less than a 0.125C increase in 100 years – I truly hope for more.
I also feel that Muller’s “straw man” description of skeptic’s claims of an warming explanation trivializes the science behind alternative explanations for warming and cooling cycles – I don’t know any serious scientific skeptics who say it’s just “random” variation. Most cite AMO and PDO cycles, and other major ocean influences, cloud cover variance, among other alternatives. Most serious skeptics also point out that AGW theory, particularly the CAGW proponents, cite CO2 forcing of water vapor as the only way that a mildly influencing GHG like CO2 could really cause large temperature swings. Correlation with warming or not, there doesn’t seem to be much science I’ve seen proving that link, and without it, the current estimates of <2K/century of warming in the face of progressive CO2 increases seems realistic, or perhaps even aggressive, given the increases over the past 100 years or so, rendering much of the current panic, and the destructive solutions (destructive to the 3rd world at least) to be moot.
Finally, remember that some warming is good, even very good, and CO2 increases, once the CAGW alarmism is finally disproven, will be very good as well. We're unlikely to feed a growing global population without its positive impact on plant and crop growth, and more arid climates will be opened to new agriculture by CO2's positive effect on transpiration.. The notion that CO2 is pollution is just political nonsense – should we reduce oxygen levels because too much causes rust? If you want to challenge the CO2 pollution notion, just get a job in a greenhouse, where you'll spend all day at 1000PPM+ vs. 400 PPM outside in the open air. Any claims by OSHA that greenhouse companies are poisoning their workers?
Let's all calm down and let the science talk. I don't argue with Proff. Muller's data, I'm sure he is a competent and ethical guy. I do argue with his "the curve fit says it has to be CO2" on a less than 300 year record which everybody agrees was a warming period, and for most of which, CO2 could not have been a factor. "
Comments welcome,

Reply to  Taylor
January 13, 2015 5:39 am

looking at the ice cores, for hundreds of thousands of year the interglacial warming ALWAYS start when CO2 is low. And the cooling of the interglacials back to ice age conditions always starts when CO2 is high.
The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this information is that high CO2 leads to cooling, and low CO2 leads to warming. There is zero information in the ice cores to suggest the reverse.

January 12, 2015 10:48 am

Reblogged this on a simple man of God and commented:
My blog is about the Christian religion, religion being the set of beliefs we live by. Sometimes I write about other religions so that we can all be aware of what others believe, and maybe we can dialogue better with others.
That is why I share this post from Watts Up With That. When scientific theory turns into a religious belief, it becomes dangerous.

January 12, 2015 11:11 am

As George Bernard Shaw said, “All great truths begin as blasphemies”. In the West in the past, it was the Christian God that was protected by a censorious forcefield. Now it’s climate-change orthodoxy, the ideology of multiculturalism, Islamo-sensitivities, gay marriage… These days, speaking ill of any of those new gods could earn you a metaphorical lashing from the mob, or expulsion from polite society, or possibly a prison sentence. –Brendan O’Neill, The Australian, 10 January 2014

He (O’Neill) only identified a few other areas, but this has never been about ‘climate change’ alone. It is an ongoing theme crossing many ‘borders’.
I have a view, and instead of debating my view openly and perhaps changing my view as a result, I am forced take ‘a side’ from which I can never move. In ‘Politics’ that is normal but when this same poison leaks into ‘Science’? Where else does one turn? (assuming one is science based!)

January 12, 2015 11:13 am

Cold weather meets Islamic extremism.
The Guardian (my most trusted source of news on everything/sarc) has an article on a “Saudi cleric [who has] issued a fatwa on snowman”.
The last line of the piece reads “Snow has covered upland areas of Tabuk province near Saudi Arabia’s border with Jordan for the third consecutive year as cold weather swept across the Middle East”. WUWT?

January 12, 2015 11:42 am

What is the fundamental cause that allows forcing intolerance of ideas on a topic instead of embracing open exchange (marketplace) of ideas on a topic?
I suggest the cause is a preference for repressing reasoning’s processes on a topic. So what causes a preference for repressing reasoning’s processes on a topic? The cause is explicitly choosing to avoid focusing on a topic and then wanting to extend that to others in society by wanting to stop them from focusing on a topic.

January 12, 2015 11:45 am

‘At the end of that process, some Global Warming deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified … Professor Richard Parncutt, University of Graz, Austria’
Heyo Mr. Parncutt. Strange though this may sound I truly hope you are the one to execute me. You see, I have this nagging suspicion that you don’t have a clue as to which end of an AK47 the bullet comes out of. (Aw, what the heck, it’s not just a nagging suspicion, I’m downright certain of it.) So, I would say there’s a good 50% chance you wouldn’t end up executing me; you’d end up executing yourself. (Funny how that tends to happen to people who wish ill will upon others.) And, if you actually have the gun pointing in the right direction I’ll bet there’s less than a one in four chance that you could even hit the broad side of a barn. So, in light of these considerations I would say dear Parncutt that perhaps you should shut up before you go around spouting stupid, immature, flea ridden, self absorbed, and vicious nonsense.

Walt Allensworth
January 12, 2015 11:51 am

Fortunately, CAGW doesn’t even make the top 20 concerns in the US, according to Gallup.
Perhaps because it’s hard to get concerned when the earth has not warmed in 18 years and 3 months?

January 12, 2015 1:16 pm

I was hoping this wouldn’t happen. I know the article isn’t comparing the events in Paris to how climate sceptics are treated but we shouldn’t be even discussing this. Yes, sceptics find it DIFFICULT to get their arguments across but we don’t have crazed enviroMENTALISTS shooting us – yet. It is many order of magnitude worse than that. Sceptics have always had more dignity than the alarmists let’s not lose our heads. What we deal with causes frustration not death!

Reply to  cd
January 12, 2015 1:48 pm

It’s a question of perspective. The warmists have claimed that they get “death threats” from the skeptics. Of course, phrases like “it will be a great day in Science when the last of you warmists finally die off” are now defined as “death threats”, whereas “all the skeptics should be killed” is seen as a logical way of dealing with the problem.

January 12, 2015 2:13 pm

Long time reader first time poster. Had a question I’ve been wanting to ask of people at this site for a long time. I’ve noticed a lot recently that climate change skeptics seem to always be lumped in with young earth creationists or evolution deniers. Sometimes it even seems like climate change skeptics are in favor of this grouping. So my question to anyone interested in answering is have you noticed the same thing? And do you think this could be a reason skeptics lose credibility in the eyes of the science community?

Reply to  jkl
January 12, 2015 6:42 pm

At 2:13 PM on 12 January, jkl had posted:

I’ve noticed a lot recently that climate change skeptics seem to always be lumped in with young earth creationists or evolution deniers. Sometimes it even seems like climate change skeptics are in favor of this grouping. So my question to anyone interested in answering is have you noticed the same thing? And do you think this could be a reason skeptics lose credibility in the eyes of the science community?

Curious. I have not noted such a tendency – among those of us properly scrupulous in our skeptical regard of the great gaudy anthropogenic global warming fraud – to embrace the religious whackjobbery of the creationists or the equally insensate cement-headedness of those who receive the notion of natural selection as an assault upon their equally ghostly pet bigotries.
In fact, I find reliable prevalence among climate realists – who abjure the preposterous presumption that a trace anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide (itself a trace atmospheric gas component) could possibly effect significant global average temperature increases – considered contempt for other supernaturalists.
Just where the hell d’you claim to have seen any of us “climate change skeptics” cuddle up with – or even behave politely toward – those godstruck friggin’ idiots?
Hm. You seem overly enamored of “the science community” as such.
Not scientific method, but the “community.”
Getting a tingle down your leg when you read the word “consensus”?

“…[intelligent design] is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.”
— John E. Jones III (Kitzmiller Case, 2005)

Just as intelligent design is a threshold question between nonscience and conjectures, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a threshold question between conjectures and hypotheses. AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge. Does this sound familiar? Is the Consensus patterned after the Council of Trent? As a matter of science, as opposed to a matter of belief, the AGW conjecture is gathering more contradictory evidence than supporting. The layman can test it and understand its failings by applying just the few principles outlined here.
AGW fails the test because it is proclaimed by a consensus. Science places no value on such a vote. A unanimous opinion, much less a consensus, is insufficient. Science advances one scientist at a time, and we honor their names. It advances one model at a time. When the article gets around to saying ‘most scientists believe…,’ it’s time to go back to the comics section. Science relies instead on models that make factual predictions that are or might be validated.
AGW fails on the first order scientific principles outlined here because it does not fit all the data. The consensus relies on models initialized after the start of the Industrial era, which then try to trace out a future climate. Science demands that a climate model reproduce the climate data first. These models don’t fit the first-, second-, or third-order events that characterize the history of Earth’s climate. They don’t reproduce the Ice Ages, the Glacial epochs, or even the rather recent Little Ice Age. The models don’t even have characteristics similar to these profound events, much less have the timing right. Since the start of the Industrial era, Earth has been warming in recovery from these three events. The consensus initializes its models to be in equilibrium, not warming.
And there’s much, much more.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a crippled conjecture, doomed just by these principles of science never to advance to a hypothesis. Its fate would be sealed by a minimally scientifically literate public.
— Jeff Glassman (December 2007)

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
— Michael Crichton

Owen in GA
Reply to  jkl
January 12, 2015 6:58 pm

This happens because our opponents, being bereft of ideas (or data to support them), throw whatever epithets that they think will impugn our reputations. You see for most of them it isn’t about the science, but about “winning” the political battle in the long con. Not all of the AGW proponents are in on the con, but the ones who are, are up to their necks at the public trough. The others work from other people’s notes and try to make sense of the science as seen through the all-powerful CO2 filter. They also get caught up in tribalism and project those feelings onto us. The very worst ones aren’t even physical scientists themselves.
The problem is that the skeptics are not a monolithic block. We do have a few cuckoo birds over here too. Luckily, most of them listen to others when the science is being explained. We have a diverse group that came to the realization that something wasn’t right with the story we were being fed, but did so from many different directions. I personally came to it from a combination of History and long study of circuitry. Mann’s hockey stick eliminated an awful lot of known history, from the little ice age to the medieval warm period, to the dust bowl of the 1930s. That caused my credibility meter to peg off-scale fraud. The next thing was folks describing a climate with runaway tipping points that seemed to indicate overcritical positive feedbacks in a closed gain circuit – something I knew to be unstable in rather short periods of time. This contradicted everything I studied of chaos mathematics in college and again pegged my credibility meter. Others came to the skeptical side from their Geological experiences – these tend to be disregarded by the AGW camp as being in the “pay of big energy” since most of them made their living in the petrochemical and mining industries. Personally I listen to everything these folks say – their livelihood has depended on being right about what is under the ground and being able to figure out how it got there. Others became skeptics because the statistical methods didn’t make sense. These tended to come from an economics or other statistical background and when they say a distribution doesn’t pass the smell test, I believe them. The last group that I think of is the engineers. This group tends to attack the models. They know what it means to validate against reality and understand that no model is ever reality; we can only hope it models the parameters important to a simple process of interest. The ideal that one can predict an initial condition critical chaotic system with unknown feedbacks to any degree of certainty out 100 years is a ridiculousness to the engineers and I am with them on that.
As to “why the skeptics lose credibility in the eyes of the science community”, that is more a function of the tribalism that exists in the politics of the situation. In many cases, the individuals know their hypotheses have problems but can not stand the idea that the gravy train might come to an end.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

Theo Barker
Reply to  Owen in GA
January 13, 2015 11:10 am

+ 10
Well stated, Owen

Mac the Knife
Reply to  jkl
January 12, 2015 8:12 pm

The ‘science community’ is well represented on the WUWT site. A high percentage of participants here have physics, engineering, chemistry, etc. ‘science’ degrees. The extremists in the man made climate change cadres push the meme that anyone who questions their streeeeeetched science claims is a ‘skeptic’ and has lost credibility with the ‘science community’. That is a propaganda technique called ‘band wagon’ appeal; a baseless assertion that ‘everyone that matters agrees with us’ and you should also, unless you want to be labeled a flat earther skeptic as well. In truth, the climate extremists only represent a small slice of climate scientists… and an even smaller slice of the full spectrum science community.
Don’t buy in to the false assertions and propaganda. Don’t ‘drink the koolaid’.

Reply to  Mac the Knife
January 13, 2015 12:32 pm

Appreciate all the responses! I was more just curious than anything, not trying to be accusing or inflammatory. In a vast oversimplification of the issue I probably fall closer to “pro-AGW” side than where most of the posters on this site are just from my limited reading. And I do see a fair amount of over zealousness (which I think leads to some deceitful arguments or tactics) from both sides which I think hurts the debate a lot in the short term.
I did not realize that “scientific community” was a controversial phrase, that’s merely how I refer to research scientists.

John F. Hultquist
January 12, 2015 2:15 pm

Occasions such as this – free speech discussions – always go off the rails. What hasn’t been said yet (unless I missed it) is that in the USA the idea of “free speech” is strongly tied to the Federal, and now too, state governments in the sense of what they cannot restrict.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So most of the discussion (above) is just folks talking at ya!

Mac the Knife
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 12, 2015 9:29 pm

Thanks John!
Nice to hear from someone returning to first principles. I’d like to hear your perspectives on how we should confront those who would murder to avenge their perception of slights to a ‘prophet’ from 570AD.
My perspective: We must have the personal courage to confront them and overwhelm them. Let’s start in a simple way. Let’s print and post the Hedbo cartoons on every bulletin board, power pole, picket fence and Imam’s door across our nation. Those who froth and foam at the mouth excessively can be treated to remedial education in the 1st Amendment and the laws and traditions of the USA. They must be encouraged to embrace our culture. Our culture is a ‘melting pot’, where all cultures that respect and embrace our Constitution and our Laws are welcome. Embrace our principles, laws, work ethic, and cheerful derision of anyone we think is ‘too full of themselves’. Get with ‘melting’ into our culture, if you want to stay here. It’s time to firmly reassert that requirement for all immigrants that hope to attain citizenship.
If they won’t embrace our principles of individual freedoms and rights, deny them citizenship and send them elsewhere. If they try to circumvent the system by ‘overstaying their visas’ or illegally crossing the borders, deport them. Change our ‘citizenship by birth right’ laws to exclude citizenship for children born to illegal aliens. Enact a nationwide verification system for legal status of all job seekers in the US and hold employers responsible for verifying all employees legal status. Finally, reform our immigration policies to a merit based system and end the current system that rewards criminals who come here and steal the identities of US citizens to gain employment and social welfare benefits.

george e. smith
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2015 3:00 pm

Notice John that it says “Congress shall make no law……” but it doesn’t say anything about the sovereign States making laws, for their States that the Congress would not be able to make for everybody. But the sovereignty of the States has gotten swallowed up.
And that about …..” respecting an establishment of religion “…. too often that part about ….”or prohibiting the free exercise thereof “… gets brushed aside.
Zealots of the “Atheists United” stripe seem to ignore the heck out of that. They have the freedom to mind their own damn business, and allow those who wish to have their “free exercise”…do so.
And just for the record, I’m not any kind of an “ist” ; well if you don’t count “physic”ist”.

James Abbott
January 12, 2015 3:27 pm

I did think that WUWT was supposed to be:
“The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”
and that at least some worthy scientific debate might be found here.
But these recent Paris inspired postings have shown just how much the majority of the climate sceptic community (or at least the part of it on WUWT) is off the wall, conspiracy-theorist and anti-science.
The Paris stuff comes on the back of bizarre claims from Lord M, posted on WUWT, about the UK being in the grip of Marxist eduction, leading to parliament being of the same ilk – when the reality is that the largest party in the Commons is the Tories and the largest group in the House of Lords is the Tories. Lord M is welcome to try and find any Marxists in that lot.
This latest thread, weaving in the horrors of Paris, Nazism, AGW = religion, death sentences on sceptics and more besides is just bolt on, gold plated, delusion.
Having contributed to this site on and off for some time, I don’t intend to any more. There is so little science being discussed, its not worth a moment longer. WUWT, the GWPF and similar are simply a vortex of self-reinforcing belief. Religion anyone ?

Owen in GA
Reply to  James Abbott
January 12, 2015 7:15 pm

The Tories of today are not the Tories of old. They are far to the left of where they started and we are all the poorer for it.
WE did not proclaim that those that don’t agree with us should be imprisoned or executed – that rhetorical leap has always been by mostly bit players on the CAGW side. (Some of us may have lamented with the old observation that the progress in science has occurred one obituary at a time, but that isn’t wishing ill on the person, just tiring of certain paradigms dominating the debate until their champions expire of long natural causes.)
You, sirrah, are a deluded fool if you think that TALK of imprisoning and killing ones opponents in a scientific debate cannot become reality if those people so speaking come to power. History is replete with such occurrences. If you are offended that such as we may bring these words back to the fore so that they will not be forgotten then SO BE IT. You chose to post and show yourself the fool.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  James Abbott
January 12, 2015 7:26 pm

Religion anyone ?
No, religion is science that is “settled”. Religion is “scientists”, the media and politicians trying to suppress free speech and an open debate about a science that has abandoned the scientific method. The whole 97% argument is nothing more than using beliefs to justify an unjustifiable science.
Climate Science has a track record of being wrong, horribly wrong, for more than two decades. Only the naive, uneducated, those that make their livelihood from it, or politically motivated, faith based, feel good believers still cling to it.
Remove the politics from it, and focus solely on the science, and an objective, honest person would conclude that our understanding the earth’s climate is primitive, at best, at this point in time, which is fine. What isn’t fine is wasting billions of dollars on an unproven theory, and unnecessarily lowering the standard of living for millions.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  James Abbott
January 12, 2015 7:54 pm

Hey James- Nice flounce!

Reply to  James Abbott
January 12, 2015 9:21 pm

Bye James

Reply to  James Abbott
January 13, 2015 10:18 am

James, you were disappointed in a WUWT thread not having a lot of science in the comments. But that particular article was not about the science at all. It was about politics of fanaticism, including death threats against those bringing up too many of the really inconvenient truths.
I do not read every WUWT article. I am more interested in some subjects than others. You will find an amazing amount of real scientific data about climate on WUWT. It appears that those articles are the ones you are interested in. Stick to those, then.

Reply to  James Abbott
January 14, 2015 12:10 pm

17 dead in Paris. Islamic terrorists claiming responsibility. Where is the conspiracy?
In your delusions?

Martin Hodgkins
January 12, 2015 5:22 pm

I am a climate change denier and am proud of it. I think there should be a web site where we can all register our names as objectors proudly so that in the future we can show our grandchildren that we were not as stupid as the rest of them.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Martin Hodgkins
January 12, 2015 7:24 pm

That would be a mighty peculiar thing to sign up for! All together now – The ONE THING THAT NEVER CHANGES ABOUT CLIMATE IS THAT IT IS ALWAYS CHANGING!!!! To sign up to some petition or other that says that one denies climate change is to tell posterity that one is a highly ill-educated fool.
Other than that, I understand what you meant to say, but it was poorly stated. If you said you were a CAGW denier, I’d be right there with you. Of course, the troubling part of that moniker “denier” is that the CAGW faithful intended it to be construed as in the same category as “holocaust denier” and was an attempt to win the argument by giving those who have not studied the situation an uneasy feeling about associating with it.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Owen in GA
January 12, 2015 7:34 pm

I seem to have hit the “D” word too often and got stuck in moderation limbo…

January 12, 2015 5:59 pm

James Abbott says, on this twelfth day of January 2015:
Having contributed to this site on and off for some time, I don’t intend to any more.
We’ll see about that. ☺ 

johann wundersamer
January 12, 2015 8:26 pm

only reality deniers
will think of anything like
‘climate denier’ for a reasonable approach.
Regards – Hans

johann wundersamer
Reply to  johann wundersamer
January 13, 2015 1:53 pm

– to clarify –
only reality deniers
will adress one as
‘climate denier’
esteeming a reasonable approach.
Thanks – Hans

January 12, 2015 8:31 pm

So now gay marriage is being lumped with climate orthodoxy? What’s up with that? Science shows that homosexuality is somewhat common among warm blooded animals, which indicates strongly that it’s natural for some humans to be romantically and sexually attracted to ones of their own genders. I don’t want lawmakers telling me that I can’t marry someone I am in love with, and get Social Security survivor benefits and a bunch of other benefits that straight people get from marrying. Or that humans have a special responsibility among warm blooded animals to refrain from falling in love with or having sex with someone of the same gender.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 12, 2015 9:07 pm

Did you read the article? The “lumping” was done by The Australian, not by people questioning the CO2 doom mongering.
it was a Strawman argument, based on bigoted stereotypes.

george e. smith
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 13, 2015 1:42 pm

“””””….. having sex with someone of the same gender……””””
Seems like an oxymoron to me.
Now I am familiar with the Pololo Worm, that lives in the Florida Keys. It’s a hermaphrodite, so it can and does have sex with itself. (pretty much every year around May /June, at the time of the highest Spring Tide. The debauchery goes on all the way from the Dry Tortugas, up past Miami, like it was the path of an eclipse. Then half of them (it) heads out to sea on the surface, all heading on a 150 degree compass heading, never to be seen again (except out to sea).
But I have no problem with anyone who doesn’t care to engage in “sex”. It’s what they do instead, that puzzles me.

January 12, 2015 9:53 pm

The desire for murder is not unusual. Some years back Newt Gingrich proposed death for the sale of two ounces of pot. This past year he promoted a measure in California that not only decriminalized pot but also heroin. Occasionally people wake up to the error of their ways and do a 180.

January 12, 2015 10:41 pm

I think the quoted actions in the original post represent a very slippery slope for the CAGW crowd. By the same theory some are citing (for example the Mark Lynas quote), if Rachel Carson was still alive, could she be hauled into court for the death of millions of children in Africa, who didn’t get the value of DDT, as our own USA population did? Would Paul Erlich be liable for the terribly wrong predictions he’s made over the years, which, if followed, would have been horribly destructive?
Freedom of speech is granted with the assumption that free people will recognize nonsense and reject it. When dogma must be believed, and the government forces acceptance of one class of ideas (notice I did not say actions), and not another, then we don’t have freedom, we have tyranny, and that is a two-edged sword. There is no guarantee that the folks you like, and who agree with you, will be in power. If i were in the CAGW camp, I would be glad not to have to face the consequences of my opinions, just in case (as most of us believe) that I am profoundly wrong.

Mike McMillan
January 12, 2015 11:34 pm

“…The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives. — Professor Richard Parncutt, University of Graz, Austria, 25 October 2012”
Saving the lives of people who haven’t been born. Hmmm.

January 13, 2015 1:49 pm

In keeping with the spirit of ‘freedom of speech’ here is a link to a piece on Mohammed’s image
I post this only for those who will not be offended and enjoy freedom, for all others look away now!

January 13, 2015 8:34 pm

At least 4 people who’ve been banned here, and one on moderation:
So much for free speech, huh?
[Nope. No free speech here. (Anthony pays for all of it.) .mod]

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
January 14, 2015 4:32 pm

Well you see, what you have to do is imagine you were invited into the living room of a neighbor.
Social graces (if you have any) suggest you await your next move.
If it turns out to be mushrooms, acid and an orgy, then maybe you go with it.
If it ain’t , probably not a good idea to suggest it.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
January 16, 2015 10:18 am

Apple, free speech is from GOVERNMENT intervention. So when did they elect Anth0ny Emperor for life?
Not too many marbles in your bag.

January 13, 2015 11:40 pm

“[Nope. No free speech here. (Anthony pays for all of it.) .mod”
Exactly why you’re hypocrites.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
January 16, 2015 10:19 am

No, hypocrites are clowns who stalk children when they lose arguments. Still stalking apple?

January 14, 2015 7:38 am

Here is a list of those forced from their institutions due to global warming thugism
George Taylor – Oregon State Climatologist
Sallie Baliunas – Harvard University
Pat Michaels – University of Virginia
Murry Salby – Macquarie University, Australia
Caleb Rossiter – Institute for Policy Studies, USA
Nickolas Drapela, PhD – Oregon State University
Henrik Møller – Aalborg University, Denmark

January 14, 2015 7:42 am

Recently sent to a friend who wrote an article critical of global warming alarmism:
You will know you have truly “arrived” when you receive your first death threat from the enviro-nuts. Dr. Tim Ball has received several. I feel somewhat slighted because I only received rather lame one – more than a decade ago.
Warmist violence has been minor – one scientist friend had the family dog killed, an oil industry colleague had his house fire-bombed – as was the Calgary Petroleum Club.
I was concerned that violence would ramp up as the warmists became more desperate – fortunately this has not happened (yet).
I did recommend many years ago that my friends take certain precautions – lock your office entrances, vary your routes home, etc. I still think this is prudent.
Environmental extremism appeals to the uneducated and the feeble-minded – fortunately most of these people are too lazy to take serious action.
Best regards, Allan

January 14, 2015 10:41 am

“Science regresses if it becomes intolerant of criticism.”
I hope the global warming ‘denier’ movement supports this as a principle.
see Ben Stein’s ‘Expelled’ for a parallel minority suffering intolerance under a ‘consensus’ that has been ruling far longer and is firmly established to be feared. My guess is some here will draw the line based on personal ideology, worldview, and self-preservation rather than on a principle, but I hope not.

Reply to  groovyman67
January 14, 2015 11:19 am

Je suis Charlie
Don’t for get this class of zealots! Only this one can bring down agriculture, energy, and personal transportation with his half-baked science.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights