Quote of the Week: The cost of daring to write about climate

Matt Ridley: “I’ve written about many controversial issues during my career,” Ridley said.

“Never, have I ever experienced anything like what happens when you write about climate, which is a systematic and organized attempt to blacken your name rather than your arguments, and to try to pressure any outlet that publishes me into not publishing me any more.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 28, 2017 3:34 pm

(alinsky 101)…

Reply to  afonzarelli
September 29, 2017 3:55 am

Let’s not forget that it is a $1.5 trillion a year business now. Lots of push back if you are trying to choke that particular chicken.

Tom Halla
September 28, 2017 3:35 pm

One must not doubt the orthodoxy, or at least be open about it.

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 28, 2017 3:39 pm

Tom, i finally beat you to the top of the page (☺)

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  afonzarelli
September 28, 2017 9:52 pm

I didn’t know it was a competition. Might join in later, last time I got really near the top I made some comment about heat transfer from a cool thing to a warm thing which seemed to generate a lot of “interest”.
Challenging “orthodoxy” in Global Warming on MSM – Suicidal.
Challenging “orthodoxy” in Global Warming Refutation on WUWT – Priceless.
Of course Anthony and Charles don’t let you talk about some things on here, WHICH IS FINE (it’s their blog so their rules). I just ask for it to be a bit clearer.

Roger Knights
Reply to  afonzarelli
September 29, 2017 10:59 am

I was the first WUWTer to comment on the first Climategate thread here. (Not that I had anything to say.)

September 28, 2017 3:38 pm

To see similar censorship, intolerance and hostility to contrary opinions, one has to g back to the Soviet Union and Maoist China where the slightest deviation from the Party Line would see one disappear forever into the Gulag or Labour Camp.

Joe _ the Non climate scientist
Reply to  ntesdorf
September 28, 2017 4:03 pm

Same with Hilter who seriously retarded germany’s nuclear science development (and other science development) when by banned anyone who wasnt aryan – since only aryan scientist had the requisite science intellect.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Joe _ the Non climate scientist
September 28, 2017 10:49 pm

from the cross-examination of Albert Speer at the Nuremberg trials –

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Who was in charge of the experimentations with the gases?
SPEER: As far as I know it was the research and development department of the OKH in the Army ordnance office. I cannot tell you for certain.
MR.JUSTICE JACKSON: And certain experiments were also conducted and certain researches conducted in atomic energy, were they not?
SPEER: We had not got as far as that, unfortunately, because the finest experts we had in atomic research had emigrated to America, and this had thrown us back a great deal in our research, so that we still needed another year or two in order to achieve any results in the splitting of the atom.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The policy of driving people out who didn’t agree with Germany hadn’t produced very good dividends, had it?
SPEER: Especially in this sphere it was a great disadvantage to us.

Reply to  ntesdorf
September 28, 2017 4:15 pm

You can bet every dollar you have that the far-left zombies would do the same thing if we allow them. I suspect the Second Amendment is the only cover we would have if the bad guys got full power and attempted to shut everyone else down.

Reply to  pyeatte
September 29, 2017 7:51 pm

” I suspect the Second Amendment is the only cover we would have if the bad guys got full power and attempted to shut everyone else down.”
It looks to me like the good guys are winning this fight. The political status quo is being attacked from all sides. The Bad Guys put out a narrative that fewer and fewer people believe, even though the Bad Guys have the biggest megaphone around (MSM).
That’s subject to change, though. Trump is eating them alive, although the Bad Guys really don’t see it that way and continue to try to trash Trump in every way possible. The Bad Guys(Swamp, Radical Left, Foreign enemies) influence millions of people, and Trump influences millions more. I think soon we will see just who really has the majority of people behind them.
Gotta love Trump! The Chinese announced the other day that they wanted all Chinese busineeses located in North Korea to cease operations in North Korea. When was the last time they did that! Answer: Never! Trump’s got them worried now.
North Koreans are quizzing American Republicans and others asking what Trump is really like. They are starting to understand, they and China, that Trump is a very different person than our past presidents who let both China and North Korea run all over them.
The North Koreans and China thought Trump would act in a similar, cowardly way as former American administrations, but now there are big doubts in their minds. Trump’s got them all guessing now. And that’s good, we want our enemies dazed and confused and uncertain and Trump is a master at doing this.

Reply to  ntesdorf
September 28, 2017 8:50 pm

I think this photo was before the klimate kult existed.comment image

Reply to  PiperPaul
September 29, 2017 6:49 am

Yes. A shocking reminder of Mao’s Cultural Revolution. We are in exactly the same territory now.
In China it wiped out an entire generation.

September 28, 2017 3:46 pm

The prophets of tolerance are always the most intolerant people of all.

Reply to  alexwade
September 28, 2017 4:45 pm

The UK labour party, that of tolerance, sharing, equal rights and social benevolence are now condoning meetings to expel Jews from their organisation.
They are rallying the ignorant youth of my country to impose a socialist state, with a self proclaimed Marxist as shadow Chancellor.
The civilised West fought against such tyranny.
I never expected to face that evil from within.

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  HotScot
September 28, 2017 9:55 pm

More info / links please on the Labour Party Jew banning. I have some personal contacts quite high up in the UK Labour party and would like to raise this at our next meeting.

Reply to  HotScot
September 28, 2017 10:24 pm

See https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/26/new-antisemitism-row-for-labour-over-fringe-speakers-holocaust-remarks-miko-peled
Open up the Timeline, Labour and antisemitism, to see data on 12 previous incidents.

Reply to  HotScot
September 29, 2017 2:57 am

I’m sorry, this is absolute rubbish. The Labour Party is not antisemite, and never has been. What they are likely to do is have members who criticise Israel – which is not the same thing. For instance, from that same story you quoted: “Levane, who is a member of the anti-Zionist Jewish Voice for Labour, said accusations of antisemitism occurred when people criticised “the despicable actions of the Israeli government against the Palestinian people”.”

Reply to  HotScot
September 29, 2017 3:11 am

Jay Willis
Have a look from the perspective of another prominent Jewish figure.
“Michael Kalmanovitz, a member of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, called for two pro-Israeli groups to be expelled from the party. He said: “The thing is, if you support Israel, you support apartheid. So what is the JLM (Jewish Labour Movement) and Labour Friends of Israel doing in our party? Kick them out.” The Mirror reported: “Loud cheers, applause and calls of ‘throw them out’ erupted in the room of around a hundred activists in response.”

Reply to  HotScot
September 29, 2017 4:28 am

The left wing media (BBC, ITN, Channel 4 News usw) cry shame when there is a reaction to Angela Merkel’s policies in Germany with the election of 93 AFD deputies to the Bundestag but say nothing when a hard left Stalinist party is poised to take over government in the UK. They are not Trots; whose leader, if you remember,was hunted down and assassinated by Stalin’s agent in Mexico city.

Reply to  HotScot
September 29, 2017 7:12 am

If you criticize Israel for the same things you permit in other countries, than you quite probably are anti-semitic.

Reply to  HotScot
September 29, 2017 8:31 am

Jay Willis September 29, 2017 at 2:57 am
Exactly! We must all remember that not all zionists are jews and not all jews are zionists. Huge difference! Alan Hart wrote a great book “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews” and one rabbi stated that he had summed up the problem facing jews in 7 words.
If Matt Ridley thinks climate science is blacklisting differing views just try criticising Israel sometime.

Reply to  HotScot
September 29, 2017 8:20 pm

“The philosopher Plato believed that two of the most important questions that a society needed to address were: (1) what will society teach its children and (2) who will do the teaching.”
Plato had it right.
The Radical Left are currently teaching our children, and they are teaching them to hate.
I think Trump is looking into the education issue, too. He wants to know why the U.S. spends more money on education and is still number 31 in education compared to the rest of the world.
Trump might also be getting ready to come down hard on the Radical Left censorship of other views on college campuses.
It’s going to be a hard fight, but we must “teach the children well” otherwise it will be the end of our civilization.

Reply to  HotScot
September 30, 2017 1:56 am

The far left in the UK has always been anti semitic. Back in the fifties it was following the Stalinist line. At that point the rationale was that Israel was western imperialism and a creature of US financial interests, which were of course Jewish. This went along with the infatuation with the Baath, which was supposed to be Arab sociialism. This view is still one source of anti semitism in the old left. You saw one instance of harking back to it in Livingstone’s remarks to the effect that the Nazis had been Zionists.
A clue to the presence of these attitudes is the seemingly innocent reference to Palestine, the term being used instead of Israel. Jack Straw once caused a slight stir by referring to the geographical territory of the state of Israel in this way, and then innocently explained that it had been merely a geographical expression. But actually it is code for saying that the speaker still has not accepted Israel’s right to exist.
So this strand in Labour is a harking back to the last century, the thirties and forties and fifites, and opposing the foundation of the state of Israel and then extending from there.
But you also have now among the young on the left a related but truncated and much more visceral anti-semitism. This is partly Labour’s flirtation with multi culturalism and placating Islamism – look at Corbyn’s contacts with Islamic terrorist groups for instance. Look at Corbyn’s attendance at an event on Israel where he manage to attend and speak without ever using the word ‘Israel’ and his reference to terrorist groups as our ‘friends’.
An example of this sort of thing was the Labour MP who opined that Israel should be moved to Arizona. She did not of course mean that the state of Israel including all the Palestinian Arabs. No sir, just move the ones who are the problem.
In the student movement in England you find this sort of visceral hate on the left, an example being the use of the term ‘Zio’, which has become a colloquial term of abuse equivalent to ‘Yid’. This is also connected to the meme of Jewish financial interests, as in the accusation that the financial crash, which is positioned as the famous long awaited ‘crisis of capitalism’ was produced by the domination of international finance by Jewish interests.
The far left in England is a really nasty swamp with all kinds of weird creatures in it, and is far more of a threat to freedom and decency than the weirdos of the right who no-one pays any attention to and who are a vanishingly small minority. When you see people with Socialist Worker banners demonstrating and demanding action against a non-existent threat from British fascism, worry. When these same people take over the Labour Party, which they have, worry even more.

Reply to  alexwade
September 29, 2017 1:18 am

I don’t think that climate alarmists have ever pretended to be prophets of tolerance.

Reply to  Nylo
September 29, 2017 6:54 pm

You’re right in that. Never were nor likely to be any time soon.

September 28, 2017 3:54 pm

In Australia, these sentiments apply about 110% to the expressing the notion that it is perfectly all right to vote NO to same-sex marriage.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  karabar
September 28, 2017 4:33 pm

The thing is SSM is a waste of time, there already *IS* equality in the law and has been since 2008/2009. One has to ask what else is the Govn’t up to while we are all distracted by the SSM “debate”?

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 28, 2017 6:17 pm

The government should bloody well provide same-sex civil unions. If the couple finds a church willing to solemnize it as a marriage, the government should have no say. I realize that “should” is one of the most dangerous words around, but I’m willing to use it here. (I’m not sure what would happen if I were to say that in print, but since Minnesota already has same-sex marriage, I’d probably be scorned as a troglodyte.)

September 28, 2017 4:08 pm

People need to wake up to the Progressives/Socialists/Marxists/Whatever you want to call them. They will do anything to gain control. Their dominance of the MSM and academia must be challenged. An excellent starting point would be the UN.

Gunga Din
Reply to  markl
September 28, 2017 4:19 pm

It would seem that “Freedom of Speech” no longer includes “Freedom of Thought”.

Reply to  markl
September 30, 2017 1:45 am
Willy Pete
September 28, 2017 4:12 pm

Humanism is a lie? What lie is that? Maybe I don’t know what you mean by humanism.
If it mean opposition to the Big Lies of creationists, then it has been one of the greatest forces for good in history, not evil. That would be creationism, under which false doctrine God must needs be evil, deceptive and incompetent, among other bad things.

Willy Pete
Reply to  Willy Pete
September 28, 2017 4:18 pm

But if by humanism, you mean this movement, the same applies:
Erasmus and St. Thomas More were both humanists, although the latter lacked tolerance.

Reply to  Willy Pete
September 29, 2017 7:15 am

It never ceases to amaze me how often atheists claim to know more about religion than do the people who actually spend their lives studying it.

Reply to  Willy Pete
September 29, 2017 7:13 pm

It is equally astonishing how many pastors claim to know enough about evolution to criticize when in fact every word they use further exposes their empty library shelves. Of course, the number of “atheist” biologists that seem to fall for defending the label “evolution” rather than the actual data and ideas is outright pathetic too. You can study “religion” for a lifetime, but since it resides solely in people’s opinions and beliefs, you will never exit by any door but the one you entered by. Theist or atheist, if you make a claim to transcendental knowledge . . . try and actually prove it empirically.

September 28, 2017 4:13 pm

“the greening over the past 33 years reported in this study is equivalent to adding a green continent about two times the size of mainland USA”
I’ve not seen it described that way before….and had no idea it was that big

Reply to  Latitude
September 28, 2017 4:56 pm

I’m surprised you of all people have missed it for the last year or so.
Nor is it Matt Ridley that goes on to describe the greening in terms of continents, it’s one of the authors own descriptions. Not in the foregoing excerpt, but elsewhere.
Matt’s presentation here is illuminating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE

old construction worker
Reply to  HotScot
September 28, 2017 5:26 pm

“….describe the greening in terms of continents,…” But if you listen to Monsanto or other big corporations Co2 is poison.

Reply to  HotScot
September 28, 2017 6:10 pm

HS, I saw the numbers/percentages, etc….just never thought to put it together as a visual aid like that
You know like an ice free arctic still has 1 million sq km….the size of Egypt

bit chilly
Reply to  HotScot
September 29, 2017 11:42 am

interesting observation there old construction worker. maybe a source for some of the ludicrous amount of money the green blob receives these days.

Reply to  Latitude
September 28, 2017 6:36 pm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/25/inconvenient-study-co2-fertilization-greening-the-earth/ said:

International team reports CO2 fertilization prompted plants and trees to sprout extra green leaves equivalent in area to two times the continental USA, or nearly 4.4 billion General Shermans (largest giant Sequoia tree)

The article says “mainland USA” but probable should have said “contiguous USA.” Must be the same article.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Latitude
September 28, 2017 9:05 pm

Latitude: 3trillion trees, 14% increased forest cover, that is 420billion new ones in 33yrs, avg age 16, each takes in 20kg of C a year, so 1/3 of a tonne each, total 140Gt of C, humans emit 10Gt/yr, probably over the the 33years, averaged, say 6Gt/yr, or 200Gt, however, the preexisting stock of trees also got fatter plus shrubs, etc., and some trees died or got burned in a forest fire so probably to be conservative we could double the sequestration to 400Gt, but they say a third of human emissions gets sequestered in the ocean the so this reduces amount available from humans to ~140Gt, so all our emissions are being sequestered by new growth and ocean uptake (plankton?) and the ocean warming must be giving up extra CO2 to fatten existing stock etc.
The energy taken out of the system by photosynthesis must be at least equal to the burning of 400Gt of anthracite plus inefficiencies. Anyone calculate if this could account for the Pause, which coincided with the greening?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 29, 2017 6:49 am

quite easy, you can do it yourself
just get from Wikipedia the energy content of a ton of coal, in joule, multiply by 400G, divides by the duration (33y*365.25d*24h*3600 = ~1Gs) and Earth whole surface (wikipedia again), and you get the power equivalent per surface unit. To be compared to average solar input or so-called “forcing”.
short answer: both energy of burning fossil fuel, and energy stocked when photosynthesis turn it back to wood, are totally negligible amount.
That’s why they hyped GHG in the first place, you know
I am not sure that your calculation which result in 400Gt carbon ate by greening is correct, however. If it is, then greening ate up more carbon than humans released, and the whole AGW story turns obviously false. I would be surprised if none noticed that before, if it were true. Check again

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 29, 2017 7:11 am

Youtube has several video lectures by Murry Salby on this subject. He is a former professor of atmospheric physics sacked by Macquarrie University for teaching this heresy.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 29, 2017 8:27 pm

“The energy taken out of the system by photosynthesis must be at least equal to the burning of 400Gt of anthracite plus inefficiencies.”
Don’t give the alarmists any ideas. Next thing you know they will be using increased vegetation as their excuse for the long temperature pause we have had in the 21st century.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 30, 2017 1:54 am

I often wonder how climate changes like this happened without the help of our modern day CO2 emissions.
SOUTH AMERICA DURING THE LAST 150,000 YEARS – Jonathan Adams, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
“In general, it would seem that 150-130,000 y.a. the continent showed the general glacial-age pattern of colder and more arid conditions. After about 130,000 y.a., climate warmed and moistened and the forests reached a similar area to the present. After 115,000 y.a., cold and aridity began to influence the vegetation, to an arid, cool maximum around 70,000 y.a., followed by erratic but generally fairly cool and drier-than-present conditions throughout the continent. A second cold, arid maximum began around 22,000 years ago and lasted until about 14,000 14C y.a., after which rainfall and temperatures increased and the forests returned over several thousand years.”

John Silver
September 28, 2017 4:15 pm

Please don’t. This is fine.

michael hart
September 28, 2017 5:21 pm

The environmental benefits of extra carbon dioxide increasing plant growth in sub-Saharan regions will be denied and ignored until the last by those who make a living from reporting bad things.
Even today I watched a BBC article about “the great green wall of Africa” that is being planted.
Yes, I whole-heartedly agree it is good to have re-forestation programs at the desert margins where human pressures are great. Yet I see not even the slightest acknowledgement or even realization by the BBC that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually aids this process enormously, and probably far far more than any UN/governmental agencies ever could. I suspect that many people making such programs for the BBC are genuinely well intentioned, yet are also honestly completely ignorant about the scientific basics of photosynthesis.
Matt Ridley is certainly an excellent writer and receives my best wishes, but he is still pushing against a wall of political green ignorance at influential institutions like the BBC.

September 28, 2017 5:23 pm

Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) will stop at nothing. They go for the throat. They will inflict the maximum pain as they totally destroy lives and careers. It doesn’t matter if you are actually sympathetic with their cause. Any tiny deviation from their orthodoxy is enough to bring out the venom.
Alice Dreger describes, in great detail, several cases of the above in Galileo’s Middle Finger. IMHO, the SJWs are right up there with the Red Guard, or maybe they are like the folks who ran the Salem Witch Trials.

Reply to  commieBob
September 28, 2017 6:47 pm

It’s better to know what they’re up to than to bury it where no one can see it because it’s not “nice”.
If you want to win a war, you have to know your enemy, including all his weaknesses. And take nothing for granted.
For example, the SJW howler monkeys tend to engage in repetitive behaviors, instead of innovating and/or being persuasive. This is just one characteristic. They seem to be more and more like one-trick ponies.
If you know how they behave, it’s easier to figure out how they think or even IF they think at all. I’m starting to believe that they don’t do much thinking. They seem to be reactive rather than innovative.
Do you see where I’m going with this?

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  Sara
September 28, 2017 10:30 pm

You are right about the SJW howler monkeys. The responses in some arguments are often predictable, in some cases I pretty well guess word for word what they are going to say next. One is tempted to think it the same few people (alt online identities) but I conclude it is actually indoctrinated group think hence no ability to actually think. Arguments won easier in these cases and their lack of logic and/or stupidity exposed easier. This seems to apply MORE in the SJW Climate monkeys than other areas, possibly because the science base is weaker.

Reply to  Sara
September 29, 2017 6:22 am

“Ideology is the alternative to thinking.”

Reply to  commieBob
September 29, 2017 1:04 am

A key example is Bjorn Lomborg who despite accepting the claim of human- caused global warming still gets pilloried and referred to in the media as a “Denier” -largely because he disagrees with the orthodox view of what to do about the alleged problem
Lomborg favors more research into global warming and into cost- effective methods for reducing carbon dioxide emissions as a first necessary step His cautious stance is just not acceptable to the true believers
It reminds one of the fierce religious doctrinal wars of the 16, 17 and 18th centuries in which people were burnt at the stake over varying quibbling interpretations of the bible and religious activity

Reply to  Thomho
September 29, 2017 2:03 pm

It reminds one of the fierce religious doctrinal wars of the 16, 17 and 18th centuries in which people were burnt at the stake over varying quibbling interpretations of the bible and religious activity

Me thinks the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) are the 21st Century version of the “death squads” that decended upon the populace via direct orders from the Church of Rome, to wit:

September 28, 2017 5:32 pm

The SJWs went after Scott Adams the creator of the Dilbert cartoon strip. He estimates that they have cost him upwards of a million bucks. link

Margaret Smith
September 28, 2017 6:48 pm

A programme here, on the BBC today called ‘Russia with Simon Reeve’ and part of a 3 part series, was in Siberia starting in Kamchatka.. Reeve delivered two long rants on climate change, unremitting global warming, Arctic melting faster than ever, terrible releases of methane as the permafrost all melted and we were all going to fry. (Elsewhere he was wondering at people playing games outside in temperatures of -55C – this at the onset of spring).
The BBC never stops. If anything, they are getting more hysterical with every passing year.
Any idea they are softening their stance on climate is clearly mistaken. They casually call sceptics ‘deniers’ and otherwise ignore them. Matt Ridley has a tough time being heard anywhere but online.

John V. Wright
Reply to  Margaret Smith
September 28, 2017 8:58 pm

Margaret you are so right. The BBC is so inherently left in its approach to everything that it taints every programme that it makes. It’s journalism has been particularly affected and, as a properly trained and experienced (former) journalist, I can tell you that it’s “news” content is poor. The way in which it reported the decision to ban fossil fuel cars in the U.K. by 2040 was typical. The obvious first question was to ask politicians about the required generating capacity – obvious even to a 12-year-old. Never asked. This in a nation that needs Chinese money to build its next nuclear power station and that won’t be ready for 15 years. But the BBC’s abysmal environmental correspondents never thought to raise this obvious issue, just delivered the usual po-faced homilies about climate change (the term ‘global warming ‘ has long since vanished from BBC reports – yes, we all know why). The decline in journalistic objectivity at the BBC is shocking.

Reply to  Margaret Smith
September 28, 2017 11:54 pm

to counter that there was a nice programme by Tony Robinson on Dartmoor (SW England) near where I live.
He mentioned that the signs of habitation on the upland slopes illustrated that it had been warmer in the past.
A BBC programme earlier in the week also mentioned that the Uk’s climate was warmer and drier in the Bronze age. So these references do slip through.
Shame about the Reeve programme though as his programmes are always very interesting and the one about Russia was great

Reply to  Margaret Smith
September 29, 2017 12:28 am

Well, he’s only reciting what the Russian government also believes…
Russian military and economic investment in Siberia is based around their understanding that Arctic sea ice is declining and Siberia warming rapidly.
We’ve seen record temps in Russia, wildfires and anthrax outbreaks due to thawing permafrost.
Scepticism is still a viewpoint limited to a narrow part of the population and an even narrower part of the scientific community – so why is the BBC wrong to go with the accepted scientific view?

Reply to  Griff
September 29, 2017 7:31 am

“why is the BBC wrong to go with the accepted scientific view?”
Just an example: the “accepted scientific view” is that you just cannot correlate current extreme weather event to warming. BBC just keep hyping claims that warming cause extreme weather events. The “accepted scientific view” is that CO2 increased is correlated to global greening. BBC won’t say that.
BBC (just as other media, to be fair) just don’t care about “accepted scientific view”.
Now, only a fool would expect any media to be fair and unbiased. The specific trouble with BBC is that it runs on £3.7 billion from people whether they like it or not.

Reply to  Griff
September 29, 2017 10:27 am

Absolutely. Just defund BBC, there is no reason to fund a politically independent and totally leftist party.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Griff
September 29, 2017 10:58 am

Why do you suppose there was anthrax in the permafrost if not for the fact that it was warm enough in the past for it to be endemic? Permafrost wildfires? What are you smoking today, Griff? Record temperatures since when?
Look a little farther North. The ice is coming back, Griff!

Reply to  Griff
September 29, 2017 3:05 pm

“Scepticism is still a viewpoint limited to a narrow part of the population and an even narrower part of the scientific community”
Only in your Loony Lefty echo chamber limited by the science blogs in the Guardian and Carbo Brief, Skanky.
Out in the real world, your AGW religion is going down fast.
Now go and apologise to Dr. Crockford for deliberately and maliciously spreading untruth about her scientific credentials.

Reply to  Griff
September 29, 2017 8:31 pm

“Scepticism is still a viewpoint limited to a narrow part of the population and an even narrower part of the scientific community ”
That sounds like wishful thinking, Griff.

Reply to  Margaret Smith
September 29, 2017 12:30 am

John, I suspect you don’t come across this, but left wing blogs and publications are absolutely full of the BBC’s right wing bias.
Since both sides are complaining, I suspect they’ve got it about right.
Oh -also climate science is science, not a left wing viewpoint

Reply to  Griff
September 29, 2017 7:18 am

Both side complaining is not sure BBC got it right, it is sign they got it double wrong.
Oh, also: science is science, any sort of adjective (“climate”, among other) added to science means you left any sort of science.
But you are right on a point: climate activism is not left wing viewpoint. Quite the opposite, it is literally the most reactionary, as extreme right as possible, political movement on earth: urging return to status quo ante, discipline, respect of (science) authority, hard policing (jailing and even killing) dissenter because they corrupt social order and “divide us”, etc. Far right.
It sends in utmost hilarity that SJW, grauniad and the like, believing themselves “progressive”, run for this so hard for it.

Reply to  Griff
September 29, 2017 9:20 am

I think you are confused with tokenism here in the case of right wing anything at the BBC.

Reply to  Griff
September 29, 2017 10:29 am

Griff’s right wing is socialists and left wing communists. There are no conservative voices in today’s Western MSM. It is freaking sad for us.

Reply to  Margaret Smith
September 29, 2017 1:13 am

Reeve has so much form in this area that one must question the motives behind the travel facade of his programmes. His travels always feature interviews with local people that have never before seen these conditions, and in poor Greece he berated them for not recycling enough and for still generating electricity from coal.

Reply to  Margaret Smith
September 29, 2017 1:34 am

Margaret, you are right in your criticism. The bit about the permafrost craters was strange. There was no attempt at describing the mechanism by which they are formed, only righteous indignation.
Could anybody on WUWT give an explanation of WUW those craters?

Reply to  TonyN
September 29, 2017 1:54 am

The permafrost craters have been formed as long as there has been permafrost.
There is no permafrost crater crisis.

Reply to  TonyN
September 29, 2017 7:27 am

Ice in the crater walls was specifically identified. This implies permafrost in the vicinity was NOT melting. Crater must have formed by focused melting of ice from below. But heh, ice melting – must be climate change! Russian “expert” from FSB?

Reply to  TonyN
September 29, 2017 7:34 am

I remember an article on these (in Alaska instead of Siberia, if i remember well) somewhere on WUWT. With proper explanation, which, as you may guess, as just nothing to do with global warming

Reply to  Margaret Smith
September 29, 2017 3:58 am

“They casually call sceptics ‘deniers’ and otherwise ignore them.”
Dismiss, I like the term dismiss. Once person is labeled a denier then whatever he/she has to say is automatically dismissed; At the point of dismissal no further conversation is possible.

Fen Tiger
Reply to  Margaret Smith
September 29, 2017 4:34 am

Simon Reeve comes over as an affable type, but his views are essentially standard-issue Guardianism – deep Green and authoritarian. You’d have to ask him how he squares these beliefs with making a living by travelling the world as he does. Something about educating the little people, probably.
My least-favourite Reeve moment was when he was in Vietnam or Cambodia, and encountered a dirt-poor man who had established a tiny farm within the boundaries of a national park. “It’s really difficult [to choose between the animals and this man and his family],” emoted Reeve: but he later made it inescapably clear that he approved of the armed goons whose job it is to drive human beings out of the park – and kill them if they refuse.

Reply to  Margaret Smith
September 29, 2017 4:38 am

Couldn’t agree more Margaret:
‘The left wing media (BBC, ITN, Channel 4 News usw) cry shame when there is a reaction to Angela Merkel’s policies in Germany with the election of 93 AFD deputies to the Bundestag but say nothing when a hard left Stalinist party is poised to take over government in the UK. They are not Trots; whose leader, if you remember,was hunted down and assassinated by Stalin’s agent in Mexico city’.

Steve Richards
Reply to  Margaret Smith
September 29, 2017 8:22 am

I was very disappointed by the climate rant. Ruined an otherwise good program.

September 28, 2017 6:51 pm

The above gets back to the old saying, “One persons freedom fighter is t another persons s Terrrorest.”
A perfect example is that of Isreal, , then Palestine, and now again iIsrael . . . Ask the Palestines where they came from, , almost certainly from the persnsn left in Isreal when the Romns deported the intelligent ringleaders. Check the DNA . Michael.

September 28, 2017 6:51 pm

“…this is big news.” Which of course is why it must be suppressed.

Crispin in Waterloo
September 28, 2017 6:55 pm

Some aspects of the true situation with the greening are difficult to accept in certain intellectual circles where the ideology has outstripped the facts available.
In general science is cautious. That doesn’t mean scientists are. They get enthused.
The addition of such a large area or area equivalent is absolutely remarkable. Was it predictable? Was it predicted? How well? By whom? What else did these people say?
Is there anything else we are overlooking or discounting that is as important as this? The future food security of humanity may rest upon maintaining a CO2 concentration above 400 or 500 ppm.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
September 29, 2017 3:48 pm

Freeman Dyson has always stressed global greening as a big reason for viewing the rise of CO2 with equanimity. He’s focused on the benefits it brings to the global poor.

Bill Treuren
September 28, 2017 7:35 pm

I call people that advocate “renewable energy” poor killers. The question is should we keep throwing the poor under the bus whist there is uncertainty about the efficacy.
It is risk reward issue and nobody is stupid enough to not understand that electricity prices are 100% up in general where the adoption of this project has happened and sometimes much more.
Energy poverty is a phrase of the left, turn it on them and advocate that only the rich should have to buy renewable energy at 5X the price of gas fire power so the poor can escape their poverty. See how much the ruling class enthuse about actually paying $1000/month for that utility if they have a family income over $80k/year. Its focusing at a minimum and demands a discussion based on a fact trail that all can understand.
Matt is a very smart guy and claims to be a lukewarmer let’s see if he is actually a pessimist.

Paul Watkinson
Reply to  Bill Treuren
September 29, 2017 4:28 pm

Good idea Bill Treuren. In addition, the government should insist that all those who submit income tax returns showing annual income of, say, £100k or more should be obliged to install smart meters in their various residences and to provide to the revenue the serial numbers of those meters. Those meters can be locked onto the high tariff you, Bill, suggest above and it may also be possible, in times of peak demand to selectively cut off supplies to from those meters (thereby maintaining supplies to the rest of us and avoiding a South Australia type blackout). Further it would be fair, in my opinion, to cut off supplies from those meters when green energy production fell to lets say 15% of plate capacity just to point out the unreliability of such supplies.
The extra revenue generated by the high tariffs should be used to subsidise those household accounts where consumption is below average – ie the poor.
Paul Watkinson

September 28, 2017 8:51 pm

I am sure Matt had seen fanatics before he just hadn’t seen fanatics with a lot of money behind them. We gave a bunch of fanatics lots of money, what could go wrong with that? I mean it worked out so well for us in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan they are just choosing slower more civilized ways to attack us.

Reply to  LdB
September 29, 2017 8:40 pm

“I am sure Matt had seen fanatics before he just hadn’t seen fanatics with a lot of money behind them. ”
This is a big problem. The Radical Left is very well financed and they apply that money to tearing down society as we know it.
The Billionaires on the Right are way behind in this ideology game, although Steve Bannon seems to be changing this.

September 28, 2017 9:15 pm

Who are the organisations (I do not believe they are individual citizens) doing this to Ridley? Does anyone have any ideas?
Let’s start naming and shaming.

September 28, 2017 9:58 pm

–Matt Ridley: “I’ve written about many controversial issues during my career,” Ridley said.
“Never, have I ever experienced anything like what happens when you write about climate, which is a systematic and organized attempt to blacken your name rather than your arguments, and to try to pressure any outlet that publishes me into not publishing me any more.”–
That because global warming is a religion.
It’s not science, it’s pseudoscience.
If global warming was science, one would not have this problem.

Reply to  gbaikie
September 29, 2017 12:55 am

It’s not even pseudoscience, Voodooscience or pathological science is more covering.

The Reverend Badger
September 28, 2017 10:13 pm

For those who have the time and inclination I recommend engaging with SJW climate nutters online where they are easily drawn into an argument. Provided the site chosen is not under their control or otherwise likely to ban you this is useful. It gives you a chance to sharpen your arguments and speed of response (if needed). The thread / argument can remain visible to many other readers so we get our message spread. You can review the text & see if you are winning the argument. Sometimes your win may be so good they go back and delete all their comments!
For the science literate I recommend sites like the Stack Exchange. I once got a NASA scientist in the noose and hauled up but it can be a thin line you have to tread to avoid a ban. PhD’s will find it entertaining. I suggest a “throwaway” email for registration as the site mods can, in some areas, be very defensive.
If you have a wander round an interesting chat / blog site you will often find older comments which seem to get passed by but yet still remain at the top or near top in certain google type searches. These can be good ones to add to as they can be overlooked by the resident SJW gatekeepers.

The Reverend Badger
September 28, 2017 10:19 pm

There are evil truth suppressors on the right and the left. Look for both and point them out IN A LOUD VOICE.

Reply to  The Reverend Badger
September 29, 2017 3:28 am

The Reverend Badger
“There are evil truth suppressors on the right and the left.”
Very true, but the left has a well documented history of perpetrating atrocities in the 20th Century at the alter of ideology, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Kim Jong-il, to name a few.
And it irritates me that the likes of the Klu Klux Klan are branded as right wing when they emerged from the Democrats of America.
I’ll be voting for the far right if the opportunity arises, the UK Libertarian Party, one dedicated to ridding the country of bureaucratic government and encouraging free trade. Nothing violent about that at all.

Reply to  The Reverend Badger
September 29, 2017 7:14 am

The vast, vast, majority of truth suppressors are from the left.
It is also the left that calls for the death of those who disagree.

September 28, 2017 10:21 pm

Just be thankful Matt Ridley wasn’t wearing a red hat.

September 29, 2017 12:32 am

Let’s note that Ridley has an awful lot of exposure in the UK newspapers and publications – and even on the BBC.
And he has been roundly criticised because of what he said and wrote – not because he said or wrote it.

Nigel S
Reply to  Griff
September 29, 2017 9:05 am

Which predictably opens thus: ‘Matt Ridley is a Conservative hereditary peer and journalist, who used to be best known for writing about genetics. He is probably better known now for being the chairman of Northern Rock bank at the time that it had to be bailed out by British taxpayers in 2007.’
Most of us know a hatchet job when we see one and learn to avoid wasting further time.

Nigel S
Reply to  Nigel S
September 29, 2017 9:07 am

Sir Paul Nurse is best know for writing about yeast … (easy once you get the hang of it!)

Reply to  Nigel S
September 29, 2017 1:01 pm

john cook the not so well known cartoonist .

September 29, 2017 1:18 am

Humour is probably the best response to these attacks, there will be much scope for it over the next decade if it turns out to be true that the only significant climate change in the last 100 years was the one-off shift in temperatures at the end of the 20th century.

September 29, 2017 1:46 am

I recommend Ridley’s full articles on these topics:
Both pretty good, and I sense Ridley is getting quite angry now – he is usually very good-natured and optimistic.

September 29, 2017 1:50 am

So for the West, a dark, misanthropic version if Gaia worship is filling the void left by the demise of Christianity. For the climate believers to react to the amazing news that Earth is greening with anger and rejection tells us much about the new “Climate catholicism”.
It is universal. The Paris Accord is its Nicene creed. It is an angry non-rational religion that refuses to think of costs and benefits. And rejects critical thinking. And is willing to destroy the environment with industrialized windmills and solar farms. And none of its dogmas, when applied, will make a luck of difference to the climate.
And the believers will not care.
In fact, the greening of Earth is a wicked thing to the faithful because it challenges their faith.
And their faith us hoky; to challenge it is prima facie evil.

Roger Knights
Reply to  hunter
September 29, 2017 3:52 pm

correction of the last line: “us hoky” should be “is holy”

September 29, 2017 2:31 am

WUWT has an web ad in my browser for this idiotic green scam web site below.
They do not seem to know that WUWT readers will be only opponents for their BS.

September 29, 2017 3:00 am

As CO2 ‘climate change’ theory becomes ever-more discredited expect alarmist rhetoric to ramp up in a proportionately corresponding manner. The latest admission by Myles Allen (models have been running too hot) has significantly weakened their cause and they know it, hence outright fury. Expect more of the same.

September 29, 2017 4:12 am

A Blast from the Past (from 2015):
“Carbon dioxide and plankton: A Recipe for Growth.”

September 29, 2017 11:19 am

I don’t know if this has been posted here yet.
“”Accused NSA leaker called America ‘the worst thing to happen on the planet’
Reality Winner, 25, told FBI agents she was disappointed in her job as a government contractor, court records show.
In their latest filing Wednesday, prosecutors also included a partial transcript of a Facebook chat between Winner and her sister in February.
“Look, I only say I hate America like 3 times a day,” Winner wrote. “I’m no radical. It’s mostly just about Americans obsession with air conditioning.”
Her sister asked: “But you don’t actually hate America, right?”
Winner replied: “I mean yeah I do it’s literally the worst thing to happen on the planet. We invented capitalism the downfall of the environment.”

Reply to  DCA
September 29, 2017 8:44 pm

“Her sister asked: “But you don’t actually hate America, right?”
Winner replied: “I mean yeah I do it’s literally the worst thing to happen on the planet. We invented capitalism the downfall of the environment.”
Unfortunately, this delusional thinking is the way the Radical Left looks at the U.S. and western society. Children don’t grow up hating. It is taught to them by an older generation of haters.

Joel Snider
September 29, 2017 12:14 pm

“Never, have I ever experienced anything like what happens when you write about climate, which is a systematic and organized attempt to blacken your name rather than your arguments, and to try to pressure any outlet that publishes me into not publishing me any more.”
This is what I’ve tried to tell people – nobody who hasn’t experienced it seems able to believe it.

September 30, 2017 1:11 am

I was personally attacked by 4 members of my family when I said to them that the climate scare was overblown – I have never experienced anything like it in my life – it was truly distressing seeing family members put fake ideologies over family members.

Reply to  OzSkeptic
October 1, 2017 4:47 pm

That’s how ‘civil’ wars start.

%d bloggers like this: