Climate Change Free Speech Prohibited at DailyKos

Guest essay by Russell Cook

kos_logoUpon seeing DailyKos’ 5/12/15 hit piece against prolific climate issue editorial writer Tom Harris, it reminded me of DailyKos’ hit against me just one day after my WUWT guest post detailing who was behind the smear of Dr Willie Soon. While the folks at DailyKos do all they can outside of their organization to portray critics of catastrophic human-induced global warming as corrupt, the one thing they excel at is suppressing dissent within their walls.

Witness the manner in which they did everything they could to prevent Harris’ rebuttal to the hit piece against him from appearing online at DailyKos, captured in screencaptures at Harris’ web site. When Harris was barred from posting comments at the hit piece against him, he asked others, including me, if we could comment on his behalf, suggesting that if we met the same blocked result, that we could protest to DailyKos’ HelpDesk just as he did. Sure enough, I signed up, attempted to comment but was blocked, and my questions about that appear as comments 17/18 at that HelpDesk link.

On 5/14/15, having not been banned as a DailyKos registered user, I thought I’d try my own experiment of placing a diary entry online there. Here’s a screencapture of the diary post in its entirety, and an archive link I immediately made after submitting the post, showing that its intro was viewable to the general public and not just logged-in users. But mere minutes after that, this screencapture shows that I as a registered user was not even permitted to view my own diary entry. Not long after that, as seen in the current link for my diary post, it all vanished.
For those interested in what was so critical to erase from all view, my diary post is verbatim below.

Meteorologist does “Psycho Analysis of A Climate Skeptic” – something he spaced out, though
Way back in 2009, Dan Satterfield, Chief Meteorologist for WHNT TV (CBS) in Huntsville Alabama, deftly explained at his web page why people like me belong to a “cult of deniers”.
Under his blog heading “Psycho Analysis of A Climate Skeptic”, he offers (boldface emphasis mine) this:

..let’s look at someone who has been convinced that doing something about climate change means a significant change in their lifestyle, wealth, or ability to drive their favorite vehicle. Understand here, that there is overwhelming evidence that this is not likely the case, but let’s assume our “someone” believes it wholeheartedly.
So, what’s most likely to happen when someone who believes this, encounters someone who says climate science is all wrong? They can choose to believe them, and not have to battle with their conscience about being selfish, or they can believe the nearly unanimous opinion of climate scientists that we are heading for a catastrophe.

Toward the end, Satterfield says:

…If I can introduce a reader to real science before they fall into the junk science cult, they will see very quickly how silly the material is on these sites. Perhaps the only way to convince the cult of deniers, is to convince them that their initial assumtion [sic] that doing something about climate change will require a dramatic change in lifestyle is wrong!

All this time I thought I was a guy who couldn’t get straight answers to simple questions, like those in my GelbspanFiles.com blog. But now it is crystal clear to me – among all the other sacrificial green things I do, I drive a 32mpg+ little car, I’ve been a recycler for decades, my utilities bill is so small it makes people gasp in envy, I turn on my A/C wen the temp goes above……… wait for it…………. 86° F, I harvest rainwater and grow tree saplings, and read at night under dim 60 watt bulbs.  And I am petrified with the idea that to do my part to save the planet, I must retreat to the stone age!!

NOT. How about, Mr. Satterfield and all you other folks subscribing to that unsupportable talking point about ‘greedy deniers’, that you try this on for size: think of me as the Fox Mulder character from the X-Files TV series / movie, who wanted so desperately to believe in UFOs. Give me some kind, any kind of irrefutable proof showing big industry-inspired / industry-bought errors in the skeptics’ peer reviewed published reports, please hit me over the head with undeniable evidence of the lies skeptic scientists have told and what motivated them to do such shameful acts that are so easily exposed, please, please, please stagger me with point-by-point dissections of all these skeptic scientists’ junk science along with what precisely makes it junk and what evidence there is showing that junk was scripted and approved by industry executives.
If not for me, do this for your own self-preservation. Otherwise, if you keep putting all your eggs in two baskets – skeptics are all corrupted by illicit funding / ‘deniers’ fear change – you will have no position to retreat to when both of those are blown to smithereens. Don’t think of that as a hopeless prospect, though, look at it as one more among other reasons for an exercise in introspection that could very well open up a bright future for you that you’ve had your eyes closed to all this time.

Perhaps best encapsulating the entire situation of not only what goes on at the DailyKos, but also within the larger global warming believer community, was a pair of assertions in comment #20 at the HelpDesk page on Harris’ protest:

Comments that seem to “disappear” are not deleted. They can still be seen by trusted users. They just cannot be seen by people who are not trusted users. […] free speech does not apply.

In other words, Obey. Or risk being labeled ‘untrusted.’

Ranging from early efforts in the ’90s to brand skeptic scientists as ‘industry-corrupted’, to the infamous Phil Jones lineWhy should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?“, to what we see today, can there be a more damaging way to undermine core scientific claims about catastrophic human-induced global warming than efforts to suppress all criticism of those claims by any means possible?

Advertisements

181 thoughts on “Climate Change Free Speech Prohibited at DailyKos

    • Read Kirsten Powers’ book, “The Silencing, How the Left is Killing Free Speech.” (Kirsten herself is a Democrat.)

      • I thought Democrats were left and Republicans were right
        Or is it Republicans are right and Democrats are wrong

      • One by One, all fair-minded people are realizing that Kos is the online face of Fascism in the world today.

      • This is very typical of the Left wing loonies. They shout about their “rights” to say what they want but they certainly have no difficulty whatsoever removing the rights of others to have a differing opinion.

        I came across similar in the old UK Indymedia sites – the Bristol Indymedia in particular.

        Comments were deleted and proved to be deleted (the are not very bright when it comes things like audit trails) despite their saying that comments that broke their “rules” were NOT deleted but “hidden”.

        These people would not know or recognise the Truth if it was biting them in the arse.

        What WE have to do – is to keep biting.

        It is obvious they do not like this and get angry with those that force reality upon them.

        And whilst that is a good thing generally – it is good for them specifically as it is part of their growing up process which has been obviously delayed.

      • She might be an honest democrat. The questions is how long those will last. A democrat or ‘as a democrat’?

      • Just a few years after being his parties VP candidate, Leiberman was driven out of the party for the sin of not agreeing with the Kos kids on a single issue, the Iraq war.
        Despite the fact that he had a long history as one of the most liberal Democrats in Washington, he failed the purity test.

      • Back in the 1960s, left wingers were always for free speech as they spoke out and demonstrated against the Vietnam War. But as they grew older and assumed power, they implemented political correctness, and did not grant the same freedom to speak out to the right wingers.

        Consequently, right wingers in the U.S. are now more liberal in their approach to freedom of speech, and liberals are more conservative in their approach to freedom of speech.

      • “I thought Democrats were left and Republicans were right”

        No, Democrats are far right (well to the right of British Conservatives), and Republicans are even further right.

      • RoHa,

        That’s how you folks see it. But in America, the Republican Party is a little left of center, and the Democrat Party is far to the left of the Republican Party.

        But the Democrat rank-and-file who call the shots are far to the left of the Democrat Party, and the Republican rank-and-file (who usually don’t call the shots) are to the right of the Republican Party.

        This is almost as confusing as UK politics. But not quite. ☺

  1. Meh, I’d never bother with DailyKos, they’ve been close-minded on many other topics in the past.

    • The real description of the “KOS” is only one letter wrong instead of K it should have P

    • The girl in the video has her head up her assets. A blog that allows comments implicitly implies that the comments received will be printed — unless they violate certain listed rules already made known to the readership and continually restated to inform people new to the site.

      Censorship comes about by the act of deleting comments that are not in violation of listed rules but displease the blog owners.

      If the blog had a stated policy of not printing anything that the owners of the blog do not like then there is no censorship since they have informed those who wish to comment of how comments are selected and rejected.

      Warmists blogs do not openly state that only comments pleasing to the blog owners will be published therefore they are practicing censorship when they delete such comments.

      They need only post that dissenting viewpoints will not be published to cease to be repulsive censors.

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • If Obama were to announce tomorrow that from now on, no news detrimental to the Democrats will be published in the US, then it wouldn’t be censorship?
        Openly declaring that you will not permit certain types of posts is still censorship. It’s just open censorship.
        Since KOS is a private concern, they have every right to censor anything they want.
        Similarly, we have every right to criticize policies that we don’t like, even if those policies are legal.

      • MarkW

        There is a difference between government censorship and private censorship. The constitution and laws protect us from the former and allow the later.

        i would equate the issue with the right of businesses to refuse service to any one they chose. Both a blog and a business can refuse to serve those they find repugnant.. Christian run bakeries don’t have to make gay wedding cakes. But after the first cake refusal they need to post a sign.

        And I have no difficulty with a business posting a sign saying “We don’t serve blacks” or with climate blogs stating “We don’t post denialists” — just so long as they are upfront about their policy. The freedoms of racists and intellectual degenerates must be preserved if we are to preserve our own freedom of association.

        Blogs that do not openly state their policy appear to be an open storefront door and customers arrive expecting equal treatment — if nothing is posted otherwise. When hidden rules are then applied censorship occurs.

        Yikes — i can’t finish this! I have an appointment i almost forgot about!

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • The girl in the video has her head on straight.

        While there may be an expectation of “whatever”, there’s nothing making the fulfillment of any expectations by website visitors as being some ironclad promise. Owner has the right to refuse service; at least in free societies.

        It’s like going to a free outdoor concert, you may have hopes and expectations about the quality of the bands that will be playing, but you might just as easily be disappointed. Perhaps you may then decide to skip future productions from the particular event promoters.

        Such is how it works with a privately owned website. Unless you have a contract, you get what you are served by the proprietors, nothing more, nothing less. You don’t have to like it or respect it, but one thing it is not is free speech infringement, only the government can commit that violation.

        People tell other people to STFU all the time and sometimes can do so by deleting or blocking a user or comments, that is free speech: the right to say go away, this is my soap box!

        DailyKOS is a stomping ground for jerks, but it’s not rare these days. Every traipse on over to Wikipedia these days? if any place had the promise of expectations written all over it, it would be Wikipedia, and yet there it is in all its consensual circle-jerk glory.

      • I think we’re conflating censorship with the 1st amendment: Government is not (should not be) allowed to censor due to the 1A, Private entities are always allowed to censor.

        The concert analogy is pretty bad as you are describing enjoyment of the free event, not participation in the free event.

        Government has found willing courts to allow all sorts of censorship and direct violation of the constitution. Clear violation IMHO.
        Website posting agreements aren’t legally binding (though a pay site could open the door for civil damages if they violate their own policies to their paying members). Posts that are removed with or without notice are completely fine for 1A including when they don’t note it in their TOS.

        They’ll exist because, echo chambers.

  2. The Daily Kos only believes in freedom of speech if they agree with it politically. So instead of liberty, they promote fascism. The Huffinton Post and Yahool News seem to be of the same “Speech Police” ilk. A little U.S. Constitution anyone?

    • Yes, it is a fascist echo chamber site that doesn’t allow even the slightest deviation from ‘group think.’ Years ago when an election didn’t go liberal, they were all whining about why this happened so I suggested Daily Kos stop demonizing voters and act somewhat friendlier.

      Banned instantly! With posters screaming foul mouthed abuse at this daring suggestion and talking hot about how much they hated American voters in general and how they wished to replace them with illegal aliens.

    • Here is Macaulay in 1843 on the subject of bigotry.
      “The doctrine which, from the very first origin of religious dissensions, has been held by bigots of all sects, when condensed into a few words and stripped of rhetorical disguise, is simply this: I am in the right, and you are in the wrong. When you are the stronger, you ought to tolerate me, for it is your duty to tolerate truth; but when I am the stronger, I shall persecute you, for it is my duty to persecute error.”

      By that perhaps archaic definition, contemporary liberals are among the most bigoted, of bigot-ty, bigots.

    • The Constitution isn’t applicable….it states “Congress shall pass no law”. That simple phrase also takes censorship off the table. Government is the only entity that can censor, in private enterprise its nothing more than editing, from a legal sense.

      There is a right to speak….there is no right to be heard.

      • Just Steve,
        In a narrow legal sense you are of course, correct. However, the larger point being made here is about the value of debate itself, and a willingness to tolerate the ideas of those with whom one disagrees.

        What does it say about a group so insecure, that they must instantly vacuum away any opposing viewpoints. The preferable alternative obviously, is to respond to the opposing viewpoint with sound arguments in an attempt to persuade, if not the original writer, at least those who are onlookers to the conversation.

  3. Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote about fascism: “The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.” In the case of The Daily Kos, the Progressive thought police are the fascist group that has taken ownership of “their” truth to be the only truth.

    • Hmm, I now understand. FDR was not as smart as people think he was! (Though I suspected this all along.) Fascism is like socialism in that the government controls production. The key difference is that government does not own the means of production, but controls all production. If a factory owner does not do what the government wants, the factory is confiscated and turned over to government crony who will do the government’s bidding. (A factory can be anything – a newsroom, a blog, a widget manufacturer, etc.)

      It may start out that fascism comes about through political oligarchy as FDR implied, but it comes down to brute government force in the end controlled by the powerful few. It is also true that before the war FDR wrote glowing reports of the Mussolini miracle in Italy.

    • That’s what is repellant about billionaires being activists for their personal pet peeves and contributing mass sums of money to them, especially when their aims are against one or more of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. Bloomberg, for one.

  4. The left wing echo chamber cometh.

    They come and they go. This is skirmish tactics by way of propaganda. Imagine that you would be able to actually debate a real eco-religion. It wouldn’t be a fair fight. The AGW advocates are generally uninformed bio-bots repeating slogans.

    The objective of these people through sites like Daily Kos is to bark out their nonsense to achieve their eco- religious/political end. It is not about dialogue. It is not about science. It is a verbal steamroller of oppression by socialists.

    Where did you ever get the idea that these zealots ever held science or rationalism as virtues? If you think that, you have lost. These people are robots chanting words from empty heads.

    This is them…

    Burning the Wickerman

    • > These people are robots chanting words from empty heads.

      Yup.

      But unfortunately this is also true of many other groups – actually, perhaps most humans. Most people I know definitely do not want to think for themselves, even the very smart ones.

  5. “Climate Change Free Speech Prohibited at DailyKos”

    Any kind of speech except Consensus Speak. Four legs good, two legs bad.

  6. When the POTUS condones the same behavior, “fair” is no longer in the equation. Oppression is.

    Just sayin, bullies, blowhards, and lies, right before your eyes.

  7. Interestingly, this section:

    “think of me as the Fox Mulder character from the X-Files TV series / movie, who wanted so desperately to believe in UFOs. Give me some kind, any kind of irrefutable proof showing big industry-inspired / industry-bought errors in the skeptics’ peer reviewed published reports, please hit me over the head with undeniable evidence of the lies skeptic scientists have told and what motivated them to do such shameful acts that are so easily exposed, please, please, please”

    Can easily be changed to:

    “think of me as the Fox Mulder character from the X-Files TV series / movie, who wanted so desperately to believe in UFOs. Give me some kind, any kind of irrefutable proof showing [b]big government-inspired errors in the warmists’ [/b] peer reviewed published reports, please hit me over the head with undeniable evidence of the lies [b] warmist [/b] scientists have told and what motivated them to do such shameful acts that are so easily exposed, please, please, please”

    And that can be easily accomplished via the ClimateGate files. There is undeniable proof that they lied, had errors in their research, and they admitted what their unscrupulous motivations were.

  8. Kos said this:

    “Perhaps the only way to convince the cult of deniers, is to convince them that their initial assumtion [sic] that doing something about climate change will require a dramatic change in lifestyle is wrong!”

    And the thread includes these tidbits:

    ‘It is not about dialogue. It is not about science. It is a verbal steamroller of oppression by socialists.’
    ‘Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote about fascism…..’
    ‘To silence criticism is to silence freedom’
    ‘So instead of liberty, they promote fascism’

    So Kos’s point is to ‘convince’, and the posts are all about fascism, socialism, and censorship!

    Anyone encountering this dialogue for the first time might be inclined to say:

    Kos: 1) Wants to persuade through dialogue and communication.
    2) Has information about the impact of solutions.

    Those posting: “Overheated, irrational, over the top fearful of solutions, but have no interest in the science and don’t want to hear anything about solutions.”

    Which are the adults? And which are the children?

    • Censorship is dialogue and communication? Seriously?

      Don’t you realize how ridiculous you sound?

      • What censorship? WUWT bans posts or links from AGW websites, and has policies that if violated, lead to a ban. Any blog has a protected right to do so.

        Seems like what we’re seeing on this thread is a pity party.

      • warrenlb blurted out “What censorship? WUWT bans posts or links from AGW websites, and has policies that if violated, lead to a ban. Any blog has a protected right to do so.”

        WUWT includes a long list of links to AGW websites but you’d have to scroll down a bit to see them.

        DailyKOS has the sharpest censorship of any blog I’ve participated in. The slightest deviation from their groupthink results in being banned. I lasted about an hour there and all I did was point out a silly, stupid blatant lie someone had posted; something so trivially easy to find the truth that the writer ought to have been embarassed.

        Scientific American isn’t very far behind. I quit Huffington Post when they took a hard left turn a couple of years ago so they never got the chance to ban me. Until then it was a lot of fun with lively, real debates.

        I always write civilly; there is no reason for anyone to ban me except on grounds already thoroughly discussed here — discussion is not their goal, maintenance of the hive is their goal.

        They, and possibly you, are drones; enslaved to a queen that is never seen by most of the drones but they know with certainty the “smell” of their hive and will viciously attack intruders that do not smell right.

        It is a matter of degree and intent. WUWT will eventually ban someone that just isn’t civil; but if you sincerely and politely (sea lion, anyone?) argue some aspect of climate science, all the better!

        DailyKOS differs dramatically. Truth is irrelevant; I have never seen anything like it for “doublethink” — the ability to think completely rival things at the same time; good is bad, bad is good; war is peace, etc. George Orwell must have had DailyKOS in mind when he wrote “1984”.

        In that sense DailyKOS is an interesting phenomenon for students of human nature.

        “Seems like what we’re seeing on this thread is a pity party.”

        Yes; it is a pity that DailyKOS does not encourage discussion and debate because they do at times have interesting commentary and sometimes ask questions, rhetorically of course, that I could answer if only permitted.

      • Follow-up:

        warrenlb says “WUWT bans posts or links from AGW websites”

        WUWT will delete a post that contains too many links of any kind.

        There’s hardly any point in linking to DeSmogBlog or SkS; I won’t follow those links anyway.

      • @warrenlb… If a given blog, newspaper, magazine, etc… wishes to suppress opinions about some viewpoint on some topic… that’s *not* censorship?
        Hint: it is.

        Is censorship of the presented viewpoints a privilege of the information provider?
        Hint: it is.

        So, by definition, Kos is censoring viewpoints, which means that ‘dialogue’ is not the goal. While that censorship is a privilege of the information provider, the blatant censorship of opposing viewpoints is precisely in violation of the scientific process. Science only works through thorough and continuous examination of opposing viewpoints. Nearly literally, nothing is ever ‘settled science’.

      • WUWT only bans people who are offensive and offer nothing to the conversation.
        DailyKos bans anyone who disagrees with them.
        Only a total nincompoop would declare that there is no difference between the two positions.

      • warrenlb- you attempt to justify the censorship at such sites as that reprehensible KOS, by equating them with actions at WUWT. The fact that you are still here after all this time, disproves your claim.

      • warrenlb May 18, 2015 at 7:46 pm
        WUWT bans posts or links from AGW websites

        And yet there’s the links to Pro AGW Views almost directly across from your comment.

        and has policies that if violated, lead to a ban.

        ….and yet, here you are. Again, and still.

    • warrenlb is writing as if he deems himself to be the arbiter of what can and cannot be discussed. How does that fit in with the idea of free speech, exactly?

      It’s interesting that warrenlb can spout his misinformation and nonsense here — but scientific skeptics are banned from posting facts and evidence at his favorite blogs.

      How does that work, warrenlb? Why is it a one-way street?

      • …Because CAGW is seen as too much of a risk to do nothing… and those who stand in the way are stirring trouble with the doubts.

        However, I’ve had CAGW arguments with friends and family for two decades. That’s 20% of a century, the last time I did the math. Shouldn’t most of the coastal areas be under the ocean by now? If not… and clearly they are not… it would seem that the emergency is not so much of an emergency.

        And then part two of primary enters… the doubters will take away the government run CAGW gravy train… I think that’s where we are now. And when the pie slice is threated, the right to free speech needs to go.

    • The children are those that declare that anyone who disagrees with them is evil and must be silenced.
      Aka, DailyKos.

    • And which are the demented sociopathic narcissists who are cannot stand to discuss issues in an open dialog?

    • warrenlb “Which are the adults? And which are the children?”

      Insufficient information provided.

      I wish to be a child; eager to learn new things, flexible of mind and with a cup not full (*).

      * Reference to the movie “Avatar”: “It is hard to fill a cup that is already full.”

  9. Walls keep people out and walls keep people in.

    The Kos Wall is to keep people inside the prison of ignorance.

    Outside are reality and freedom.

    August 20, 1961 — Berlin, Germany (youtube)

    A wall of l1es will always fall in the end, for truth wins. Every time.

    The young don’t like being told to stay put — “just be-koz”. The young are, even now, questioning ….

    November, 1989 — Berlin, Germany (youtube)

    Good for you, Mr. Cook, et. al.!!! Keep on sending in those dits and dahs — truth is getting through. If it were not, the Kos gatekeepers would not be so bumblingly frantic. What a bunch of BUFFOONS! lololololololo

  10. Maybe it’s just me, but Satterfield isn’t making any sense as far as I can see. First he says skeptics believe they’ll have to make some significant changes in their lifestyle which is why they don’t ‘believe’. He even says the overwhelming evidence is that this is not likely the case (regarding, I assume, the significant lifestyle changes). But he follows this up with an appeal to authority, stating that the “nearly unanimous opinion” (97%?) of climate scientists is that we are heading for a catastrophe! But somehow, apparently, averting catastrophe doesn’t require any significant lifestyle changes, huh? Color me skeptical :)

      • “…let’s look at someone who has been convinced that doing something about climate change means a significant change in their lifestyle, wealth, or ability to drive their favorite vehicle. Understand here, that there is overwhelming evidence that this is not likely the case, ”

        Yes, that statement struck me as just plain “nuts”. If no “lifestyle” changes are needed, just why do CAGWers attack skeptics? Do they believe in FAITH rather than GOOD WORKS?

      • Not “No” lifestyle changes….just significant changes. Significant to whom? Depends on whose ox is gored…

  11. Gosh, I wasn’t aware that DailyKos was considered a locus for atmospheric physics research. My bad.

    Frankly, who cares how a coven of trivial, immature and politically besotted reporters(?) conduct themselves.

    • I remember the Daily Kos as being “the source of truth” when the brouhaha over Dan Rather’s GWB memo was the talk of the town. A while later, many of the same people who were pushing the Daily Kos were also pushing Real Climate.

      Amazing how difficult it is for some people to grasp the concept of “agreeing to disagree”.

    • The owner of DailyKos was feted extensively at the most recent Democrat convention.
      They are and always have been very influential to those on the left.
      Beyond that, this is just one more example of censorship on pro-AGW sites.

  12. Not sure why this is surprising to anyone. Liberals/Progressives are highly intolerant of anything that diverges from their beliefs. This happens all the time at the Democratic Underground, where long term users are “tombstoned” (meaning they are permanently banned) for daring to take the wrong viewpoint. I once left a comment there that had absolutely nothing to do with politics, but was a serious matter that was related to my business. My extremely helpful comment was wacked and my account tombstoned.

    I’ve been blocked by all sorts of Cult of Climastrology members on Twitter. Blocked at Little Green Footballs (after Chuck went bat guano insane) for simply asking him a question. Blocked for a while at the UK Guardian for asking inconvenient climate questions. Blocked at Shakesville, and I never even commented there using Disqus. I could keep going on. Suffice to say, they are very intolerant.

      • warrenlb,

        When you can’t answer the points raised, you change the subject.

        That’s just more of your deflection. How about trying to answer the points raised… IF you can. You can start by explaining why you’re against free speech.

      • The comments are complaints about Kos and others exercising their right of free speech. The whiners just don’t like to be criticized.

      • warrenlb says:

        The whiners just don’t like to be criticized.

        For once we agree. Next time you’re over at Kos, tell those crybabies that being criticized is part of life, and that the answer isn’t to shut out differing opinion just because the Kos kidz are a bunch of whiners.

      • Fascinating how our AGW troll is so tolerant regarding the fascist tendencies of his friends.

      • warrenlb,

        “The comments are complaints about Kos and others exercising their right of free speech. The whiners just don’t like to be criticized.”

        Well that pretty much describes the situation at DailyKos I guess. Bunch of people whining because there are millions or billions of people who disagree with their strange world view. They do not like to be criticised, at all – they can’t stand it in fact. It is the psychology of a school yard bully. The internet allows them to have their own playground. Better there than here, IMV.

      • Focus Warren Focus.

        This is a comment section for a specific article. What evidence in the piece demonstrating The Daily KOS being small minded, fearful of criticism, and an echo chamber for only pre-approved views do you disagree with?

        Maybe it’s too painful to live in a world where people are allowed to have opposing views.

        Too bad.

        I wonder if you could, would you prefer to shut up all people whose views you do not approve of like the KOS does on their site? It seems to be a trending line of thinking.

    • I once [or thrice] had an argument about CAGW at a party. I was *accused* of not *believing* in anything.

      I took it as a compliment, as I follow evidence based reasoning and not belief unfalsifiable, and apparently infallible, pseudoscience and superstition.

  13. I was in a cult. The strict rules were that we had to avoid, at all cost, anything that contradicted what the cult leader said was true. This was because a powerful, wealthy conspiracy was working to destroy the cult. This enemy was EVIL and wanted to destroy the world so they could control it all.
    This Daily Kos sounds too damn familiar.

    • So glad you got out, Bill!! Aaa. Don’t EVER tell your real name online — in their eyes, you are now the “enemy.” You must be a strong person — so many, even if they see the truth, are too frightened to ever leave a cult. VERY happy for you. (ugh — thinking now about real cult members, I shuddered — very real tragedies are happening as we write).

  14. Somehow I got on their list and get at least 3-4 emails a day from them. I can’t remember one article or one thing that I agree with and never respond (but like to keep track) They are always looking for money (donations) and for me to sign their petitions. I almost responded once, but figured that they would X me from their email list. I like to keep track of what the socialists – eco-nuts are promoting…

    • Oh, brother, Max (eye roll and smile). THAT is because he never got the AC fixed in his 1969 Camaro resto-rod and that 427 with the dual overhead cam puts out a lot of heat in a cruise through town!

      The comment is a bit crude, but, the general sentiment seems to be backed up by some “evidence,”:

      lololololol……. Hm.

      #(:))

      • Janice, this one’s for you girl. (And wow, you seem to know your cars! :-)

        Rare Double COPO 1969 Camaro 427 V8 425 HP Muscle Car

        But seriously, wouldn’t you prefer this guy?

      • Thanks, Max. I have known a few gear/motor heads (all very patient teachers). $169,000 — only a sucker would pay that much. It wasn’t ORIGINAL, just restored to factory. Heh, while the guy narrating the vid was likely being honest THERE…, the frequency of his “believe me”s said to me: “That guy l1es on a regular basis.” Just a prejudice, I know, but I’ve never met a person who used phrases like, “Believe me” with high frequency who was not also a habitual liar. A weird-but-true “fact.” Re: the sound …. (cough)…. I sure hope it was the poor sound quality of the video… . Not impressive.

        NOW! Impressive is the Dumb Car (a.k.a. “Smart Car”) monster truck! Loved it! Truly, “smart.”
        #(:))

        Thanks for sharing.

        And, to all: I feel just fine, thank you very much, talking about stuff like this on a thread about that Klimate Klown periodical. What trivia would NOT be on topic? lololol

      • Might I note that the chevy 427 has a single cam in the block :)
        The ford 427 I think in some versions had a single overhead cam, but dare I say putting one in a classic Camaro is sacrilegious?

    • Really? Nothing to do with breaking blog rules? Offensive language? Persistent trolls? etc

    • I’m confused, is Russell Cook responsible for the moderating policy of this site? Silly rabett, your tricks are for kids.

    • And yet, Eli, your posts are still here whereas a post like that would quickly disappear over at KOS. There’s a difference between removing offensive rule-breaking posts and removing posts whose only offense is to offer a different point of view.

    • Most of those comments that get bit canned are from invalid email addresses or have some other attempt at hiding their identities. Some have gotten banned but usually after quite a few warnings for trolling the board off topic. Some instant bans have gone out for those communicating threats or using abusive language, but for those who treat this blog as a conversation in our hosts living room there is no problem. There can be many disagreements, but we don’t have to be disagreeable while doing so.

      Of course after a while, one learns to just read past certain users’ comments because the track record indicates that their block of text will be content-free.

    • Isn’t it fascinating how those who defend fascism are utterly incapable of recognizing the issue of scale.
      One site allows posts that disagree with the host, but only bans those who time and again violate the rules of the site.
      The other site bans anything that the moderators disagree with.

      To some who are either clueless or desperate to change the subject, these two cases are indistinguishable.

      • just one of the reasons I found CAGW to be suspect. The quality of the argument from warrenpound and rabettpellet is so typical of the warmistas. the science is settled, the world is gonna end, you can’t see my data because you’re a denier, and on and on and on

    • Eli Rabett asserts “Nothing personal…”

      Some, but not me of course, would say everything you write is personally motivated. ;-)

  15. Kos is just a left-wing echo chamber, and being a private site, they are entitled to their own rules just as WUWT or any other are. So who cares about them? Surprised that this article is here.

    • The point was not about the mere presence of censorship. THAT, everybody knows and/or would otherwise guess at. The point was one of their own people admitting that within DailyKos, there are ‘trusted users’ and ‘untrusted users’, and the inherent threat aimed at their own people: “Obey. Or risk being labeled ‘untrusted.’” They were so weird about that trusted/untrusted user structure that I could not be trusted to read my own diary post.

    • We care about them because they represent the public face of the True Enemy we are fighting, in the Climate wars. This is not a “scientific” battle at all, and anyone who still believes that is hopelessly naive. This is now ONLY about money, and power, and political control, and Kos represents that element of society that is eager to seize power and disenfranchise the rest of us.

      You might as well have said, why should anyone have cared about an obscure German corporal in 1931? Not many people at the time did – but they should have. All they had to do was listen to find out what was coming.

    • NZ Willy says “So who cares about them? Surprised that this article is here.”

      It is obvious that you and a great many other people care about the existence of DailyKOS and consider it a window into a dangerous world view.

      As to the article being here, I cannot say as it basically states the obvious BUT as you can be sure DailyKOSsers will be looking at these comments, might be interested in how many are not subscribing to their world view.

  16. Thanks, Russell Cook. Not that I care about the Kos, but intolerance is a symptom of an ugly malaise. I know, I came from a country that was destroyed by intolerance (later came greed, then fear).

      • The revolution always eats its own. Name some left wing or fascist revolution that came to power that didn’t have its own lists of trusted and untrusted followers — with the latter soon going to the wall.

        The surest sign of an untrusted follower is that the person actually believes in the stated goals of the revolution. A trusted follower knows its all about getting power and keeping it by any means.

        Eugene WR Gallun

  17. The DailyKossac is still around??!! It’s amazing to me that such a degenerate vestige of the blog wars still lurks in the dark corners of the net

  18. Lestists want everyone to think and believe the same as they do,with opposing views often: boycotted, demonized, ridiculed, shouted down, picketed, censored, harassed, threatened, businesses shut down, careers ruined, and in some tyrannous countries–imprisoned and killed.

    In free societies with strong freedom of speech laws, even hate speech is allowed, providing direct illegal threats of violence aren’t advocated.

    It’s only through open and unfettered debate can truth be ascertained, for without it, only dogma and tyranny survives.

  19. Climate change and fish science is conducted by the same agency, NOAA.
    Ask yourself this rational question. If you have reservation of the data with one issue, climate or fish, who could not be skeptical of both data issues?
    It is NOAA after all.
    Grandiose vessel’s that for whatever reason, feed poop into computer models that spit out some pretty smelly, economic choking, results because stock assessments in NE are not having the climate data(!) factored in, in the place they claim the temp went through the roof, which would result in the of knowing of redistribution.
    The NOAA is controlling this because ENGO insider bureaucrats that are of the well, kooky persuasion, are all camped out in DC.
    In the Gulf of Maine lurks the R/V Bigelow. The only boat that couldn’t catch a cod, or a flounder.
    A Tale of two pictures – NOAA and Enviros have it all wrong on Gulf of Maine Cod!
    http://fisherynation.com/34174-2

  20. In all the millions or billions of words written about climate change, melting glaciers (glaciers melting in the dead of night?), drought, extreme weather, and whatever, I have yet to see any evidence that CO2 is the cause. Instead, the increase in world temps since the late 1970s is correlated with the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the same time span, and that’s it. The conversation immediately moves on from there and the presumption that CO2 is behind it all is left unremarked.

    It’s exactly like Lysenkoism where a peculiar form of evolution was taken as fact, and an entire biological science was extrapolated from that unproven (and incorrect) starting point. CO2 has become “the god of the gaps” in climate science, whereupon anything that can’t be explained by obvious other factors is attributed to the malign effects of The Gas That Can Do Anything. It is assumed that so much is known about how Earth’s climate works the we can immediately determine what is outside the realm of normal variation — even though we know via the geologic record that normal variation is far greater than anything we’ve seen in the climate of the last 35 years.

    • Agree. The enviro-communists are fighting for control of economies via CO2. End justifies whatever means they use.

      • I wouldn’t think so, they are just bunch of economy (as some kind of science) loonies.

        It is official, the UK May (so far) temperatures (even BBC says so) are up to two degrees below normal.

      • I don’t remember the name of the UN bigwig who stated several years back that it didn’t matter if CAGW was true or not, since it enabled them to implement policies that needed to be implemented anyway.

  21. “….We are new world politicians,
    Self-appointed science masters,
    Conjuring up our false predictions,
    Inventing fresh disasters.

    You are not allowed to question
    How we say that you must live;
    Your free speech is only free,
    If it follows our narrative.

    Real world observations
    Are not your concern,
    We invent the truth for you,
    There’s nothing else to learn.

    So just follow Agenda 21,
    It’s our World governance plan,
    And repeat after us:
    “Climate is changed by man”….

    Read more: http:///wp.me/p3KQlH-EH

  22. I think it most humorous that warrenlb’s complaint that WUWT doesn’t allow links to pro AGW sites is almost directly across from the link list to pro AGW sites.

    • Kos won’t even let me on. I feel privileged not to be allowed at a censored Leftist web site.

  23. Pretty obvious sign they are losing their battle. They now have to resort to coercion to keep the party line going because there isn’t any actual data to fall back on.

  24. I realize why main stream media outlets won’t give air time to climate skeptics but why do everyday people take such offense if you happen To be a skeptic? They will say that I have no right to have such an opinion on the topic. Does anybody here even bother discussing this issue ever in real life if it comes up? I think with most people I’d rather chew on dirt.

    • Why were everyday people in the Soviet Union take such offense if anyone criticized The Party openly?

      Because if you were not seen to be giving public condemnation of the political heretics, you could lose your social standing, and even your job. For average people who are just trying to live their lives, the constant intimidation by the leftists makes it not worth the risk.

      That, by the way, is why secret ballots and elections are so important. See “UK Election Results, 2015” for a recent example of how that issue plays out over time.

      p.s. You must live in a leftist enclave; if you lived in Texas, you’d be able to discuss the issue to your hearts content with just about anyone you met.

  25. If you think that censorship of sceptics or those suspected of unorthodox views is bad now , it is mild compared to what will happen after the Paris summit .
    At present the main concern is that the income of academics and some charities is threatened by the scepticism over AGW , insignificant sums compare to the 100billon dollars /year that will be available from 2016.
    I have just been reading “The Ugly Game” by 2 Sunday Times journalists about the corruption over the 2012 Qatar Soccer World Cup bid , and that was about an event involving about 10 billion every 4 years not 10 times that amount each year . The scale of corruption that is likely will be such that anyone trying to interfere will be seriously “discouraged” . Do you think that Obama or Cameron will want their own electorate to know that the money extracted from them is being misused . Censorship will intensify – it has to in order to protect the politicians.
    Whilst most of the Qatar bid corruption involved Asian , African and Caribbean individuals , this is not a racist post because , having just spent a few days in Venice I checked on the progress of the Moses barrier there , to find that the Venice mayor , the man pledged to protect his own city , is being charged with corruption over some of the billions of euros for the project .
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10875534/Mayor-of-Venice-arrested-on-lagoon-barrier-project-corruption-charges.html
    It seems inevitable that these enormous sums of money will result in large scale and vicious corruption and there will be intense pressure on anyone , journalist , politician or member of the public who tries to point this out.

    • mikewaite,

      I’m afraid you’re right. They have decisively lost the science debate, as we see here every day. And when they resort to name-calling, they look despicable to neutral readers.

      So the only thing left to them is to censor the views of anyone they can. I was banned from Scientific American after I posted a simple chart of temperature and CO2! I had been very careful to not give them any reason to delete my comment. But they did it anyway. Every time I’ve tried to post since then, my comment is never published. I’ve emailed them twice, asking about it. No response.

      So you are right, that will be their tactic. I expect even more than that. But at least for now, we have WUWT and other ways to express our views. And to the extent that they censor skeptics, it will just push more readers into the available censorship-free sites.

      Twenty years ago I wouldn’t have believed tis would be happening in America. But it is.

    • The general public scares me on this issue. This may be the most embarrassing portrayal of group think and ancient propaganda tactics working on the present day Western population. A large portion of the population actually thinks it’s okay to call agw skeptics deniers or flat earthers. These people generally require no actual scientific research to shun and harass someone who has these views. It’s one thing if people don’t value individual research or thinking for themselves. The problem hereis the subliminal commands these people are getting to abuse and persecute honest skeptics and willingly carrying out these orders like ww2 Germany.

  26. I have been aware of the Daily KOS site for some years now. I have only visited that cesspool a couple of times and that was enough for me. I have, however, often heard of censorship there. The censorship there looks to be on par with the English newspaper called The Guardian.

    It has been said up-thread that this site has no censorship, but there are people who post comments at other skeptical sites that disagree. I suppose that if one reads the site policy you will see that certain scientific viewpoints are not allowed to be defended here or even linked to. This is the right of the blog owner to censor whatever viewpoints he wants to, but let us not pretend that we are pure as the driven snow. Humans do seek to cut off debate after a certain point.

    Since I am on that topic, let me say that Dr. Fred Singer once wrote an essay that ended with him saying that, ““I should note that I am somewhat out of step here with my fellow skeptics. Few of them would agree with me that the climate sensitivity (CS) is indeed close to zero.” Dr. Singer was correct, few agree that climate sensitivity to CO2 is vanishingly close to zero. Those who believe that modern climatology is wrong on how the atmosphere distributes heat, cools, and so forth are not free to debate their ideas here. That is fine it is a private blog, and they are allowed to hint at their viewpoint once in awhile.

    I would note that sometimes people who agree with your position can be such horse’s rears that it damages yourself and your position. “With friends like this who needs enemies”, is an old saying. But I think it may be time to open up this site to all scientific viewpoints as long as they are championed in a polite and respectful manner. But that is just one old fellow’s opinion.

    • markstovalsays “let us not pretend that we are pure as the driven snow.”

      I do not pretend it. I am it.

      Of course I might have my own definition of what exactly “pure” means.

      Purity in any sort of ideological debate means clinging faithfully to your beliefs which are themselves aligned to an authority of some sort.

      Even your usage of “pure” is the same — you consider “pure” to be existing when debate is unfettered, somewhat like the “alt” unmoderated newsgroups; but that would be considered extremely impure on any orthodox religion blog (IMO).

  27. There’s a bit of confusion on “free speech” and its contexts. Censors often claim they are not the government and so “free speech” isn’t an issue. It’s true that the First Amendment itself is not at issue, however the principle of free inquiry is.

    The blogs that do not censor comments are better than those that do for the same reason South Korea is a better country than North Korea. Free inquiry is a moral principle.

  28. Talking to yourself, or answering one of the voices?

    Now FYI: most of us here (not you) are not “climate skeptics”.

    Most WUWT readers are Feynman-type scientific skeptics. Every honest scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost. That leaves out the alarmist clique, but they’re actually a small minority.

    Then there are the majority of scientists who are just being prudent. The ones who don’t speak their minds, because of intolerant little thugs like the Kos kidz. They have bills to pay, and they want their next pay raise and/or promotion. But if they retire and speak their minds, it isn’t to support the MMGW hoax.

    So there you have it. We’re not ‘climate’ skeptics here, we are scientific skeptics — unlike the climate alarmist crowd, who have taken the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ narrative as their new eco-religion. They wouldn’t know honest science if it bit ’em on the a… nkle.

    • [snip . . you are simply using invective which adds nothing to the debate . . mod]

    • Interesting how the trolls have keep reinventing this mythical consensus in order to defend what they can’t defend using science.

    • icouldnthelpit May 19, 2015 at 3:33 am

      “I’d say more like Fred Hoyle. He often went against the prevailing consensus with similar success.”

      He may have been wrong about the “steady state” universe, but he was right in his analysis of stellar physics, Under his theory, all elements had to be formed in stars, and cycled into the universe. In this insttance he was spot on.

    • icouldnthelpit confusingly asks “So you don’t think there’s a scientific consensus regarding climate change, similar to the scientific consensus regarding the big bang?”

      Yes, I don’t think that; which is to say, this question or comment is not on my mind.

      But since you have put it in my mind, I really don’t know what percentage of relevant scientists ascribe to:

      1. The climate is changing; that’s what it does! (hopefully all scientists).
      2. The climate is changing solely because of humans (probably very few scientists).
      3. Humans influence the climate in at least a minuscule way or more (probably a majority).
      4. Humans are the principle driver of climate change (I suspect about 1/3 to half of relevant scientists think this especially if you define relevant scientist as someone that ought to believe this)
      5. Humans are evil nasty creatures destroying the planet (seems to be confined to Australian scientists and everyone in the Sierra Club and the piece of green, except themselves of course).

      How many cosmologists believe in the Big Bang is not known to me but scientists usually dispute everything.

    • Michael – there are, indeed, a good number of cosmologists who are disinclined to accept the Big Bang, for various reasons, and are working on alternate theories. Even those who accept it admit that it is merely the most useful theory thus far, and that it has its failings.

      That’s pretty normal in real science, yet it’s an aspect of science that seems to elude the AGW true believers.

  29. JUST FYI: Just got this email today (I get 3 to 4 a day from the Daily Kos – copied email, but changed my name at the beginning):

    JPeter, Republicans have set their sights on the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), a 50-year-old program, set to expire in September, that’s been the principal means through which we’ve acquired and protected new lands for national parks, public recreation, wildlife refuges, and habitat protection.

    Join CREDO and Daily Kos in telling Congress: Fully fund and permanently authorize the LWCF.

    Republicans plan to divert funds away from the program and strip it of its ability to continue acquiring land for public use. It’s a cynical attempt to keep new lands out of public hands and available instead to fossil fuel drilling, mining, and real estate companies.

    This is just the latest assault in the war on America’s public lands that Republicans have been waging since the start of the new Congress–one we’ve been fighting at every turn. We can’t let this latest attack go unanswered.

    Click here to sign the petition from CREDO and Daily Kos telling Congress: Don’t gut the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

    Keep fighting,
    Monique Teal, Daily Kos

    • Just how much land is it necessary to protect? Will they not be satisfied until all land is owned or controlled by govt?

      • “Will they not be satisfied until all land is owned or controlled by govt?”

        Bingo! Give the man a cigar! You’ve hit upon the true goal.

        Consider which other political system of the last 100 years thought it necessary for all land to be owned or controlled by the Government, and you’ll understand why this has been the True Goal for those partisans from the start. “warming” has never been anything but the excuse, a totalitarian regime that will re-order society according to their ideology is the desired end.

      • I love the daylight color 5000k LED’s. It brings sunlight into my house for so little cost and when I finish moving partly to solar power their efficiency will be much appreciated.

  30. from Monkton:
    “Now that Auntie has parked her tanks on my lawn, I’m going to park mine on hers. Mine are bigger, and they serve the cause of truth, justice, and the British way. Perhaps, once the existing corrupt organization has been purged and the red-blooded Marxists replaced with blue-blooded capitalists, we can have Top Gear back”.

    Does this not seem a wee bit two faced?

    From what I Understand there are many climate change dissenter, dissenters who have been provably banned from this very site for simply posting what they understand to be the truth (not to mention all those dragons and steve goddard!).

    Does this not seem a wee bit two faced?

    • sergeiMK

      You ask

      From what I Understand there are many climate change dissenter, dissenters who have been provably banned from this very site for simply posting what they understand to be the truth (not to mention all those dragons and steve goddard!).

      Does this not seem a wee bit two faced?

      No, it is not “two faced” because it is not true.

      Yes, the dragons are kept out of WUWT because otherwise they would monopolise almost every thread (the solar enthusiasts cause enough difficulty). Other than that it is simply a falsehood that any people “have been provably banned from this very site for simply posting what they understand to be the truth”.

      People get banned from WUWT for breaking the site rules and NOT for posting what they think to be true.

      Additionally, people who offend our host for some reason (usually arguing with his friends) get given a Time Out which consists of a temporary ban usually of 24 hours or 48 hours.

      I should point out that I have repeatedly been given Time Outs so it is obvious that I am not prejudiced when I say the giving of Time Outs is very reasonable behaviour by our host: it is his blog. Indeed, he has never given me a permanent ban although it is clear that he would prefer it if I stayed away.

      The tolerance of WUWT is a stark contrast to the behaviour of warmunist sites that ban anybody who presents evidence and/or argument contrary to their dogma.

      Richard

    • sergeiMK,

      ‘Two faced’? No.

      From what I’ve seen, the handful of people banned from WUWT are those who repeatedly violate site policy. They get warnings, but keep on. Then there are those who engage in identity theft, posing as other commenters. That is thoroughly dishonest, no? And there are those who use up to a dozen-plus fake screen names, to make it appear as if they have some sort of ‘consensus’ supporting their point of view. (There is somewhat of a conflict between some of the policy provisions, and no-censorship free speech. So far, free speech seems to have a bit of priority when there’s a conflict.) And the number of banned commenters is extremely tiny considering that WUWT has more than a million reader comments.

      But I have yet to see anyone banned for having a different scientific point of view than Anthony Watts (with a couple specific exceptions, listed on the Policy page, like chemtrails).

      And therein lies the problem: alarmist sites are trying to get skeptics banned (and even the name ‘skeptic’ changed to ‘denier’) for only ONE reason: skeptical commenters have a different scientific view.

      That’s it. For having a different point of view, an entire group of scientists, engineers, and a public highly educated in the hard sciences are being attacked for merely questioning the “dangerous man-made global warming” narrative.

      Don’t you see a major problem with that?

  31. “Trusted User”

    LOL – is that like being a “made man” in the mob?

    “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it? –Phil Jones“

    This quote says it all concerning the science, when you don’t get the most basic precept of science that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, (meaning finding something wrong with the hypothesis, data or methodology), there is not much more to say.

    In terms of public discourse the KOS of course is allowed to allow or disallow any speech it wants to, since it is privately owned, but lets look at 2 different approaches to the free market place of ideas. There is a program called “The Atheist Experience” that invites and welcomes opposing views since they understand discussions with opposing views is the best way to articulate and promote their views. A Ford auto dealer who is committed to selling Fords wants to only talk about Fords but will not disallow discussions of Chevrolet, since that would indicate they cannot argue their product is superior. In contrast, the KOS dis-allowing opposing views or hard questions indicates how vacuous and tenuous their positions are. To compensate for the impotence of ideas concerning climate and other areas and maintain their self-perceived position positions of intellectual authority the site has devolved to the intellectual equivalent of knuckle draggers.

  32. We’re all gonna DIE! CO2 will KILL us ALL! Don’t try to speak sensibly or inject any sanity into our unreasoning panic! If you do, we’ll call you crazy, shut you up, and throw you in the lunatic zoo. Because that’s what anyone with an easily defended, well reasoned, scientifically valid point-of-view would do. Obviously!

    /Need I mention that this is my sarcastic interpretation of the DailyKOS Terms of Service for posting on their blog and forums? Probably not, but I have done so to avoid any confusion.

  33. Not always, but most of us aspire to reach those heights.
    On the other hand, warmistas bear a striking resemblance to Stalin and Pol Pot.

  34. As I keep asking: What can be done?

    I don’t see this changing any time soon. And when (I don’t think it’s ‘if’ anymore) it comes to the believers finally becoming violent against the dissenters, I don’t see anything happening then either.

    Someone show me that I’m wrong. How do we change course?

    • You make a good point, TonyG, but the question “How do we change course?” today has about as much meaning as when the deck hand on the Titanic asked it 60 seconds before it got introduced to the iceberg.

      All we can do is brace ourselves and get ready. The only good part is that I’m more ready for it than they are.

      • With the top 20% of income earners paying 90% of income taxes and the bottom 50% paying nothing, we have passed the point of no return.
        A solid majority of voters in this country are convinced that they have a right to take whatever they need from anyone who has more than they do, they will continue to vote for more and more from govt and demanding higher taxes on the remaining producers.
        We have already seen a slow exodus of people with high incomes who have decided to give up their US citizenship rather than be robbed blind by US taxes. As tax rates begin their inevitable climb, this trickle will become a flood.
        The best we can do is make our plans for the transition and whatever comes next.

  35. Why would you bloat the hit count of their site by even acknowledging the existence of such an article? They’re only preaching to the true faithful of their creed, so nothing you could possibly say will win you any “converts”. I avoid any contact with Vox/Salon/Puffington Host for the same reason.

    • Raising their visibility just might encourage a few more people to visit them.
      The more people who see the kind of insanity that is displayed there, the more discredited they become.
      Those who are truly vile already belong.

  36. TomB “Why would you bloat the hit count of their site by even acknowledging the existence of such an article?”

    To reveal the size of the iceberg you’d rather believe does not exist. DailyKOS and its readers believe they are numerous, 97 percenters and 99 percenters. Being in the majority is just about everything to a drone (reference to the workers in a beehive).

    So once in a while it may be fun even if not useful to punk DailyKOS with a few thousand hits from a rival. If you look at the survey at the bottom on “do you believe fossil fuel burning is the primary cause of climate change” you’ll see that overwhelmingly the answer is “no” and the no’s are probably all coming from WUWT and this will show up in someone’s Deniers Report. Either way, DailyKOS cannot muster nearly as many “yes” as this site can produce “no” and that’s just people that follow the link and see the survey at the bottom!

    • Thanks for the heads up on the survey, I went and voted on it myself.
      They barely have 200 votes on the survey, and 180 of them are no.
      That’s gotta burn the editors there.
      Surveys here usually get well over 1000 votes in just a few hours.

      • The survey was obviously “push-pull”. I actually had to lie when I answered “no”, fossil fuel is not the parimary cause of global warming. I was specifically thinking of studies by “McKittrick” showing most of the measured warming was where there was increased industrialization and productivity, implying the increased heat being measured is industrial waste heat.

  37. In the vein of censorship of material that needs to be examined so that both sides of the global warming issue get vented and researched properly I should like to add the following:

    I was very interested in the 22 inconvenient truths on global warming posted to the WUWT website May 12 by Jean-Pierre Bardinet of France. Subsequently, on YouTube, I listened to an approximately 1-hour long, data-filled presentation, by French physicist François Gervais, critical of the human-induced, greenhouse theory of global warming.

    I think both the article and the presentation are so impressive that I wanted to use a local website, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, to make people there, where I live, aware of those two contributions. That website is Unpublished Ottawa and what follows is my short message:

    “For those who follow and accept the majority opinion regarding global warming you should at least familiarize yourselves with the information in the following link:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths

    For those who understand French it would also be useful to go to the next link and listen to Prof. François Gervais:

    That was put up on the website, but subsequently removed by the website founder. It is his letter, also in quotes, which I find astounding, and which goes along with the notion of censorship.
    ================================================================================
    “Hi Joe,

    Climate Change denial is one of the subjects we don’t allow on UnpublishedOttawa.com because it’s not based on real facts. Anyone can grab facts and make an argument out of it, but when the vast majority of scientists, who have little to gain, agree that we have a problem, a problem that is already manifesting itself all around the world, then allowing posts that deny this reality, is in our opinion akin to intentional deception.

    I understand you don’t think climate change is real. But, what difference will it really make if we are to build a sustainable society? How does living in balance with nature harm our society?

    It won’t. In fact, I believe it will make us stronger and more resilient to future natural and man made disasters. And, it will make us more competitive by forcing the private sector to be more efficient, just how Free Trade did when Mulroney brought it in, in the 1980’s. Competition is good and so is innovation. Two things climate change adaptation will bring to Canada’s economy when we end our dependence on oil.

    I don’t expect you to agree with me, but please know that I will never accept the CFRA (a local conservative radio station in Ottawa) view of the world… That all change is bad and that we all should be focusing on making as much money as possible no matter the consequences.

    This is because I am hockey goalie. Someone who puts the team first, ahead of myself. I built this site for that reason… Having invested close to $100,000 already. One day it may benefit me, but right now, it’s just a cash drain. I keep it running though, because it’s needed.

    My apologies, but if we let one letter on this subject to be posted, we have to allow others. I’m not prepared to turn UO into a forum to discuss a topic that is more deception than reality because to deny it, is to prevent the necessary change from taking place.

    I’d much rather discuss what we’re going to do to adapt… Like burying our electricity power lines for example… Nothing has been done since the ice storm of 1998 when Mother Nature showed us how vulnerable we are to disaster. This is an issue that gets no attention because it doesn’t benefit any particular interest group, it benefits everyone.
    If you want to write about how incineration will help Ottawa adapt to a changing world, that’s an idea I’d be happy to help promote.”

    • Joe Wallach,

      I would write him back and ask what, exactly, are his qualifications for making such a judgement?

      You can easily find climatologists and others with PhD degrees who have written articles here, by using the WUWT search box. You could write, for example, that “Climatologist Prof. Richard Lindzen says essentially the same thing. Dr. Lindzen was head of M.I.T.’s atmospheric sciences, so he understands the subject.”

      This is just a suggestion. But if someone had written that arrogant and pompous reply to me, I would demand to see his C.V.

      If you don’t get a satisfactory answer (how could you, from a hockey goalie?) then I would broadcast your letter and his response to as many venues as possible.

      Don’t take that from these tinpot wannabe dictators/censors. Whatever you get posted here and elsewhere is on the internet forever. Hold his feet to the fire. At the least, make it uncomfortable for him. Post his answer all around the internet.

      And don’t let him frame the debate. When he says, “I understand you don’t think climate change is real”, set him straight. Tell him that scientific skeptics have known for longer than many young alarmists like him have been alive that the climate always changes. That isn’t the question, and he knows it. He is just terrified of a debate he cannot win.

      • @DBStealey

        You: “I would write him back and ask what, exactly, are his qualifications for making such a judgement?”
        and “You can easily find climatologists and others with PhD degrees ”
        and “if someone had written that arrogant and pompous reply to me, I would demand to see his C.V. ”
        and “If you don’t get a satisfactory answer (how could you, from a hockey goalie?) ”

        So do you now embrace ‘appeals to authority’ and ‘credentials’ ?

      • db stealey,

        Your point about finding out the background of the individual is something I never thought to do. But, rather than call him, I searched and found out that he not a scientist in any field. On his web page bio at http://unpublishedottawa.com/users/james-ogrady he wrote that he is “an entrepreneur, communications professional, school teacher and community activist,…a hockey goaltender, political hack and most importantly, an advocate for grassroots, participatory democracy at all levels of government”. In light of the nature of his rejection of my post, his last phrase is illuminating. Thank you for the suggestion.

        Real scientists are open to exchanges of ideas because it enriches them, whether or not they agree with the points being made by another. As a geologist I have been through those many times and have discovered, as I am sure that you have, that it is wise to listen to counter arguments. Regardless of how, those counter arguments might well help us frame our own understanding of issues. Thank you.

  38. Hate to break the news, but the progressives of Daily Kos have never believed in free speech.

  39. Something else to say is that the right wing sites aren’t any better. That’s the brief version. The long version is too long. Suffice to say that I’ve been banned by the best of ’em, both left and right.

  40. In following up on my post of May 19 to this forum and dbstealey’s suggestion about writing to the antagonist, who has his own website, I did just that May 21 and found the reply very interesting. The highlight of this exchange is that, initially, he stated that climate change denial is not based on real facts as per the following statement extracted from his preceding reply to me:

    “Climate Change denial is one of the subjects we don’t allow on UnpublishedOttawa.com because it’s not based on real facts.”

    In the second paragraph of my letter below I asked him for evidence that arguments counter to global warming (that should have been anthropogenic global warming) are not based on facts. He did not do so in his reply. Following is my second letter:

    James,

    I must confess to having been stunned by your strident position and your explanation for having taken down my post to your website Sunday. You maintained that global warming is resoundingly accepted by the science community, and there is no doubt about it. I have seen posts to UnpublishedOttawa. com, and elsewhere, in which the correspondent wrote “the science is settled”.

    According to you arguments counter to global warming are not fact-based. What is your unequivocal, indisputable evidence for such an all-encompassing, and incorrect, statement? (see the links below and the ones that I tried to put up on your website). Moreover, that is not how to proceed along a scientific pathway.

    What about the argument that the Totten Glacier, the largest in eastern Antarctica, is melting from below, a phenomenon allegedly due to man-made global warming. Carrying that a bit further, how does warm air descend in cold water? Next there are volcanoes in Antarctica, some of which are periodically active. Since they are hot, and associated with hydrothermal fluids, would you not think that heat from circulating hydrothermal fluids or molten magma (when beneath the surface, but lava when it breaks through) would play a role in melting that glacier?

    We all come to certain conclusions about things, and don’t want to accept the idea that we may be wrong. But none of us can always be right. What I had submitted was not offensive. It was merely a scientific way of proceeding by alerting those who blindly accept that anthropogenic global warming is occurring to give a look and listen to other viewpoints, presented by Jean-Pierre Bardinet and François Gervais (if they understand French).

    Don’t misunderstand this e-mail. I stated and maintain that I’ll never submit anything else in the future to UnpublishedOttawa.com. This is to try to help you, as a school teacher, to become open minded; your students deserve to be exposed to, and taught about, differing view points

    Links:

    http://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/great-lakes-ice-cover-most-extensive-mid-90s

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/more-ice-great-lakes-now-during-2014-polar-vortex

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/satellite-data-no-global-warming-past-18-years

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/the-truth-behind-the-totten-glacier/
    http://www.natureworldreport.com/2015/03/warm-ocean-water-causing-irreversible-melt-in-antarctic-glacier/

    His reply:

    Joe,

    You are barking up the wrong tree. I’m not interested in having this discussion with you.

    If you are not aware, I am a former Green Party politico. I was the director of communications for the Green Party of Ontario during the 2007 Ontario provincial when the party tripled its vote, reaching an all-time high of 8.3%. I have believed climate change is man-made for many years. Long before it became fashionable.

    I have been and will continue to work toward building a sustainable society around the world until the day I die.

    You are welcome to your opinion, but I do not and will never agree with it.

    • Joe,

      I’ve argued with other alarmists on their own blogs, and I can’t recall anyone being like that.

      He is a perfect example of Dr. Michael Crichton’s eco-religionist:

      Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

      There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment….
      [source]

      So forget that guy, ‘green’ is his religion. Changing his mind would be like telling a Jehovah’s Witness that their religion is all wrong. But he certainly could have been at least a little gracious about it after your polite letter.

      I’d keep his final comments, and post them wherever you see his name or his blog mentioned. It doesn’t reflect well on him. Let other folks see it, too.

  41. As dbstealey suggested poignantly, above, the fellow with whom I have attempted to communicate in a meaningful way is an environmentally religious zealot. Such people are not helpful even if they bring forth good ideas because it is impossible to dialogue with them, as I believe the series of letters that I have been able to bring forth in this forum shows. The letter below closes my series of communications with the founder and publisher of UnpublishedOttawa.com:

    “James, I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong or that those who oppose your position, such as I, are right. I just wanted to: a) express my utmost surprise at your reaction to my attempted post to UnpublishedOttawa.com and b) provide you with examples upon which the other viewpoint is based. Your reaction, however, is “demonstrative” of the (lack of) scientific rigor supporting your belief.

    Did you even look at the links that I sent? No need to answer.”

Comments are closed.