Columnist Andrew Bolt writes:
Fraser Anning using the phrase “final solution” has outraged dozens of politicians from Labor and the Greens because of the link to the Holocaust.
Will Labor and the Greens now express similar outrage at the phrase “climate deniers”, given its deliberate link to Holocaust deniers?
Professor Clive Hamilton:
Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming…
Fellow extremist Professor Robert Manne:
Scepticism is in general, as it should be, a positive word, denoting scientific or humanistic curiosity and in particular the presence of an open mind…
Read more at Herald Sun
Denying life and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
Conception is a first-order forcing of human evolution. The models agree with observation, each time, every time.
Selective-Jew… child. The wicked solution. The final solution.
“The models agree with observation, each time, every time.”
The only prediction that the computer climate models ever got right was that the earth cooled after Mount Pinatubo and that was a hindcast and not a forecast.
“The models agree with observation, each time, every time.”
Talk about denial…
http://www.remss.com/research/climate/
Double denial: Describing the above as “a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.”
May as well stop knocking on that door David – there is no one at home.
Ps: Although we skeptics are very grateful for your continued informative, scholarly and entertaining ‘knocking’!
I like “knocking” down Warmunist morons… if for no other reason than the fact that they are too stupid to realize they have been knocked down… 😎
” a small discrepancy” that doesn’t seem too bad?
>95% of the models disagree with observation, each time, every time… all in the direction of predicting more warming. And this is the “Mears-ized” RSS data, which were “adjusted” to erase the pause and more closely match the amped up warming of the GISS time series.
That’s not a “small discrepancy.” It’s a total failure.
The fact that the models have failed in the same direction for 30 years, makes it an epic failure.
The fact that they have never been able (or willing) to generate a model ensemble in which the observations track the middle of the 5-95% band for any significant period of time ( except during strong El Nino events) indicates that the modeling methods totally lack predictive skill, the modelers lack sufficient knowledge of climate sensitivity to CO2 or that climate “science” is so politically tainted, that it is no longer a science.
Being below the best case scenario, is “a small discrepancy”? As always, you only see what you are paid to see.
Which RCP is this?
I don’t think RSS specifies the RCP’s. It’s most likely an ensemble of RCP’s, similar to the one used in Ed Hawkins’ Climate Lab Book. In these ensembles, the observations tend to track below RCP4.5, a strong mitigation scenario.
Since 1998, the rate of change of the trend-line of the HadCrut4 monthly time-temperature curve has been constant or decreasing (green curve on graph below). The rate of change of the trend-line will likely become negative within the next 20 years, reaching the lowest global mean trend-line temperature in almost 40 years. Lower temperatures could persist for decades.
The black curve in Fig. 1 will probably be below the yellow band when updated to the present. i.e., outside the maximum range of possible temperatures predicted by CMIP-5 simulations. That is not “a small discrepancy.” What will the discrepancy be in 2100? When will climate scientists start working together and consider that long-term climate prediction may not be possible.
Hmm… What is the point of the rhetorical question in the first para? Nothing that follows gives it one. In any case, I’ve never heard that anyone denies life. The statement is as bad as, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’
The second para is a non-sequitur: the first statement is true – and banal; the second is contentious.
The third para is babblegaf. It’s almost obscene – but you might think it art.
And then I gave up.
I wouldn’t give up, that is what “they” want
It does leave one scratching ones head though
n.n
nonsenensical ninny perhaps
I’m not even sure what this overall statement is supposed to mean.
I think the fake response algorithm is back. This is not a coherent comment.
“The models agree with observation, each time, EVERY TIME.”
One measure of “climate” is the 30-year TREND of 360 months worth of data. Using a “sliding window” approach is ONE way of visualising “climate change”.
Download the (4) RCP “ensemble means”, as monthly anomalies, from 1860-2100 (e.g. from KNMI Climate Explorer).
Download the empirical / measured GMST datasets (I used GISS, NCEI, HadCRUT4, Cowtan & Way and the 2 BEST versions [Air” and “Water”])
Calculate the 30-year (trailing) TRENDS for all datasets.
The CMIP5 models :
– match from 1895 to 1900
– DIVERGE from 1900 to 1965
– match from 1965 to (roughly) 2005
– DIVERGE from ~2005 onwards
This is (at least) one case where “the models” cannot even HINDCAST correctly (especially for the first half of the 20th century) !
To claim they “agree with observation, EACH TIME, EVERY TIME” is a provably FALSE assertion.
The trend is what I would expect for an interglacial period like the one we are in. The earth warms and warms until it doesn’t. Then back into another ice age.
If Progressives understood history and Fascism, they would understand how truly frightening they are.
The True Face of Fascism is Socialist Big Government Not Conservative Small Government
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/12/10/the-true-face-of-fascism/
Oh, they understand all right. They just plan on being the ones in charge.
Even bright people can be fooled and used as tools. Ernest Hemingway was as easily duped into supporting Communism as these Proggies. When he realized how completely he had been duped and used as a propaganda tool, he went into a depression that ended his life.
They won’t wake up until they are tossed aside like rag dolls.
Well, Eugenics was all about saving humanity from mongrel races.
Greenies want to save the EARTH from humanity.
The ‘final solution’ in both is obvious – and similar – but which is worse?
The warmist playbook has been taken straight from the Eugenics movement and enhanced by modern communications techniques.
It’s not as frightening for the perpetrators.
Yep, those freaks on the catwalks are really…… oh wait, I thought you said fashion.
Why does the left insist so much on public education, with official programs, or the non-alternative of private schools with the teachers with the same education providing the same education, same goals, same programs?
They NEED to control the programs to ERASE the most dramatic parts of history of the 20th century:
– the story of the Great Depression, the promises of Roosevelt, the effect of the New Deal
– the nature of fascism according to Mussolini
– the ideas of Roosevelt on fascism
…
When studying history, I knew something was missing. The “history” made no sense what so ever:
– how a country achieves prosperity by spending was not explained
– fascism was described in term of folklore, a unique case: the description of Nazism in the same history book doesn’t waste ANY time in folklore
– in the history of WWII, the sourcing of oil was the obviously missing piece
Funny how a gaffe by an arch-conservative on the lunar right becomes a rant against the left. I guess that means thing is an excuse for a good spittle-flecked rant.
anything
Ryan: Makes sense to me.
Once again, Ryan tries to turn reality on it’s head.
Professors of what?
Nothing scientific I would wager.
“Public Ethics” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Hamilton
It is a pity he does not have the private ethics to tell the truth.
He answers to a higher power. In his world, ethics involves advancing the agenda. Anything that does that, is by definition, ethical.
An awful lot of professors these days are just people who profess to know everything and be ‘experts’. Sweet FA to do with professionalism.
More self-righteous mental gymnastics.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/240/Self-Righteousness-Fallacy
Ad hominem is their first resort. Claiming their critic is a paid tool of the fossil fuel industry is so common it is a cliche. Or one is a Russian troll.
The same way folks here claim everyone who disagrees is a paid troll?
Jeff: Or a left-wing wing nut.
It really is sad how you alarmists have to lie about what others are doing.
Then again, it’s easier than actually trying to defend the tactics of your side.
Again, living in the Matrix where computer code is reality.
Isn’t remarkable how Hollywood has been telling all these sorts of cautionary tales for years, and now seem determined to act it out?
The big question is why these people believe that climate deniers can determine govt policy. The last time I looked, a large majority of govts are going full speed ahead on carbon redution. So are these people afraid that their “scientifically based” arguments will not prevail? Why would they think that when they believe the arguments for global warming are irrefutable? They exhibit no logic here, scientifically or otherwise.
Precisely. Their evidence is apparantly irrefutable, so where is the harm in a few tinfoil hat wearing cranks refusing to believe? All they have to do is convince the general population that they can get by perfectly well without fossil fuels. All they will have to give up is literally everything that they have. Not just their hi tech luxuries but also such non essentials as food, clothing, housing, heat, light, effective medicine and basically life. These are sacrifices that the entire world would be all too willing to make were it not for those evil deniers.
The market forces, fracking mostly, are taking care of the CO2 reduction problem. Which is freaking them out, because that’s not how it was supposed to work–market solutions render irrelevant their rent-seeking and grant-troughing and hysterical prognostications. If the “problem” is rendered moot, what reason have their cabal to exist?
Yes, but it isn’t just “denier”.
What about Jim Hansen and his “death trains” and “death factories” to describe coal trains and thermal power stations?
Were these “Professors” vocal in their outrage about that, I wonder?
And if that is just ‘fair comment’ and they are so worried about “the enormous suffering caused by global warming”, are they going to swing by Beijing and give them a lecture on the error of their ways?
Somehow I doubt it…
No one seems to feel the stones they throw.
I wonder if James Hansen knows how thoroughly he has been pwned by Monckton on the matter of calculating a feedback factor. Monckton reproduced a snip of Hansen’s paper (1984) showing how bizarre was his (Hansen’s) math. What do you call a bandwagon in a death spiral?
Climate Extremism, or Climatism is the concept I believe we should use.
The answer to the question “Is climate extremism morally worse than worldwide terrorism” is “no”, at least not yet.
Bruce wrote:
“The answer to the question “Is climate extremism morally worse than worldwide terrorism” is “no”, at least not yet.”
Bruce, I suggest you are seriously incorrect, based on the following facts (and many others):
Terrorism is a relatively small problem in society – the deaths from a major terrorist strike like 9-11 totaled about 3000. I am not diminishing this tragedy – we lost a young family friend on 9-11. However, the death toll from global warming / climate extremism is much greater than that from terrorism.
Earth is significantly colder-than-optimum for humanity and the environment. Twenty times more people die from cold than die from heat – about 2 million Excess Winter Deaths every year worldwide – an average of about one hundred thousand just in the USA*, equivalent to two 9-11’s per week for 17 weeks every year!
Not all of these deaths are due to global warming extremism, but Excess Winter Deaths are increased by foolish green energy policies like mandated wind and solar power in the grid, which produce little useful (dispatchable) energy and drive up energy costs, preferentially killing off the elderly and the poor.
Even more startling is the preliminary estimate of Excess Winter Deaths in the UK – about 48,000 this past winter! The UK suffered about HALF the average annual Excess Winter Deaths of the USA, but the UK has only ONE-FIFTH the USA’s population. High energy prices, or “Heat or Eat” as it is termed in the UK, is becoming a significant cause of premature deaths of the elderly and the poor. Anti-fracking groups in the UK, many of whom are phony-green Marxist fronts, have cost Britain dearly in lost billions of pounds sterling and hundreds of thousands of needlessly-shortened lives.
Even greater is the enormous suffering and death in the developing world, where green fanaticism has prevented the installation of cheap, reliable, abundant energy systems.
This is very frustrating, because some of us knew that the global warming scam was false nonsense as early as ~1985, based on the evidence available then. Since that time, the evidence against global warming fraud has grown more and more credible, and yet this multi-trillion dollar-per-year scam continues.
I (we) published in 2002 that the global warming crisis did not exist in reality, and that green energy schemes would not be adequate to replace fossil fuels. Both these statements are now proven to be correct, for anyone who objectively examines the evidence.
I suggest that anyone who continues to support global warming alarmism and schemes to abate fossil fuels is seriously deluded at best, and more correctly is guilty of crimes against humanity. The overwhelming evidence is that increasing atmospheric CO2 will lead to improved plant and crop growth, and any resulting warming will be mild and beneficial.
Let’s broaden the question to:
“Is GREEN extremism worse than worldwide terrorism?” and the answer again is an overwhelming YES!
Green extremism started with the banning of DDT from ~1972 to ~2002. The ban on DDT DOUBLED the number of deaths from malaria, more than half of which were children age 4 and under whose deaths peaked at almost 1 million per year – just babies for Christ’s sake – and half of these deaths were easily preventable.
Add to this the numbers of deaths due to the global warming scam and the “phony war” against increasing atmospheric CO2 and the total green death toll is in the tens of millions, similar to the number of needless deaths caused in the 20th Century by leftist icons Hitler, Stalin or Mao.
Leftist Greens are the greatest killers of our time – rivalling the death tolls of the greatest sociopathic killers of the 20th Century.
Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. We are doing that now, killing off the elderly and the poor, thanks to criminal leftist greens and their minions.
Regrets, Allan
Allan a well thought out article, one which I agree with.
As I see the problem with the climate alarmists is that it has become a religion to them, all logical thought no longer applies. This is the doctrine and we must blindly follow seems to be their catch-cry. I have to admit in the beginning I followed their preaching, then my basic science lessons came to the fore, and slowly the scam that is global warming became more evident.
My question is, how do we counter this corrupt religion. Are our politicians so blind to the catastrophe they are bringing on us that they follow the alarmist doctrine without question. Has anyone got an answer?
It is the Greens that are the Deniers; for they are denying reality. It is they who are hell bent on denying affordable energy to humanity. They even deny the consequences.
A favorite trick of communists and fascists in the U.S. is to name their organizations the opposite of what they are. Thus we get ANTIFA, which is a bunch of black shirts whose actions resemble those of Mussolini’s black shirt organization. I don’t think the wearing of black shirts is an accident.
In the 60’s and 70’s the Left feared giving cheap energy to those in the U.S. because then the masses would be independent and in no need of interference in their lives from a socialist government. One Leftist movie by Jane Fonda and a total media campaign are the reasons we don’t have more reactors on line right now. Another factor was government interference in experimental reactors intended to develop safer and more efficient output.
Only miserable people promote miserable paradigms.
They like to stand on the bridge downtown on the full moon, waving their silly signs: Aged-out hippies trying to relive their days of Birkies and hairy armpits, alongside the bimbo trophy wives of CEO’s, their Amherst and Yale educations being squandered on “managing” spa visits for themselves and their Labradoodles. But running the “proper” cause up the flagpole is the new, essential social climbing for such types, colossal bores ignored by normal people. And let’s face it, being “Against Global Warming!” doesn’t demand one actually DO anything! Especially not get rid of the 7,500 sq. ft. mansion, the 3 vacation houses, or the frequent flier miles. Just buy a Tesla as one of your 6 family cars, that’s all the “sincerity” you need!
My new working theory is that a Progressive can be defined as one who’s terrified that someone, somewhere, is actually enjoying life guilt-free!
Yep! Guilt-free living here! (Waves arms and jumps up and down)
I may not have a huge house, but it’s mine. It isn’t loaded with luxuries like satin sofas and spa tubs and a private chef/butler, but it’s cozy and comfortable and I am within a 10 to 20 minute drive of every kind of grocer you can think of, never mind hiking trails and a big, huge lake called Michigan that likes to send thundersnow at us once in a while.
Yeah, I got it good here in my kingdom. No guilt at all!
No, none of them can come live with me when they get cold and hungry, because I don’t let proggie-froggie silliebots up my front steps.
+10 thumbs for parenthesized mental image 🙂
“Denialism, a concept that was first widely used, as far as I know, for those who claimed that the Holocaust was a fraud, is the concept I believe we should use.”
Of course Mr. Manne wants to use the word ‘denialism’ over ‘skepticism’ for those who find no reason to fear a future climate crisis, because skepticism is a noble word, while denialism is considered stupid and repugnant. What he really wants to say to those who disagree with him is:
The Holocaust was a specific, horrific historical event. When one chooses to believe that such event did not happen, they are correctly said to be in denial of that event. Climate change, in this context, is not an event that has happened, but an opinion that certain events will happen. It makes no sense to say that “I am in denial of your opinion or forecast”, which literally means that i deny that you have an opinion or forecast, not that I disagree with it.
For example, the weather service can issue a forecast for snow in Dallas tomorrow, and I can disagree with that forecast, stating that it is likely to be in the 90s, and much too hot for snow. I am not ‘denying’ the forecast when I say it will not snow. I am simply skeptical that the weather service forecast is accurate. Clearly, the word ‘skeptical’ is the correct word for describing a disagreement with a projection of the future.
The term ‘denier’ is not the correct English word for someone who does not agree with a prognostication. One cannot deny something that has yet to be. Only that which allegedly is or has been, can be denied.
The phrase ‘climate change denier’ has no literal meaning and literally applies to no one. No one on the planet denies that climate has changed nor denies that it can change. The phrase is an explicit derogatory expression created to demonize people with a different scientific opinions of the probable state of the future of the Earth’s atmosphere.
It is childish name-calling, pure and simple. Rufio…Rufio…Rufio…!
“No one on the planet denies that climate has changed nor denies that it can change.”
I can. Using climate in the singular is bogus.
Warmists are practicing equivocation when they accuse opponents of being deniers. Opponents deny the liklihood of CAGW, which is based on iffy positive feedback guesses, but warmists are implicitly (to their audience) accusing opponents of denying AGW—the indubitable (small) direct warming effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. They are trying to make opponents look like cranks.
More recently Mann has shifted to the term climate science denier, as though somehow they’re more skeptical than “allowed”.
Why are undereducated useful tools from the terminally corrupted socio-psycholo-politico designer-brained branch of lackademia speaking for the climateers?
The answer is unhappily too clear. They have witnessed a real science rise to the lofty heights of their own peerless certitude that the proles and undesirables need to be closely governed globally by their betters. If you are a dyed in the wool progressive, you are perplexed that underlings should be making such a fuss about the obvious. The climate arithmeticians with their carved in stone magic linear formula are happy for support from those who have ” been there”. The socios are happy for validation sharing the peak with science at last.
“Betters”? That word keeps coming up. “Better” means more skilled at doing something, more productive, more likely to produce something useful in the near or distant future.
These so-called “betters” can’t cook, can’t clean up after themselves, can’t even do their own laundry, don’t even know which brand of bathroom tissue to buy, couldn’t figure out how to get from one place to another without following a GPS-generated guide, probably can’t even find their way out of a paper bag without help, and if they got lost on a country road, would most likely die of starvation before they got out and started walking.
So how are they “better” then you or I?
Simple: they aren’t.
Do you DENY the complete failure of climate models to in any match observations?
Do you DENY the failure of weather stations to be properly sited, maintained and distributed?
Do you DENY that at least some of climate change can be attributed to natural forces?
more from other thinkers below …
These wretched people who utilise emotive phrases as a mean of overcoming rational objections to any area where scientific doubt is legitimate are beyond forgiving. It might have some excuse if these self same wretches actually offered a viable alternative path for sustaining a modern society, but generally they do not have a clue of how we can generate enough electricity, I think Michael Mann is an exception here as at least he admits harnessing the nuclear is part of the solution.
“Climate Terrorists Convicted in ND for Damaging Keystone Pipe”
https://marcellusdrilling.com/2017/10/climate-terrorists-convicted-in-nd-for-damaging-keystone-pipe/
Daniel G. McGowan
“……an American environmental and social justice activist who was arrested and charged in federal court on multiple counts of arson and conspiracy, relating to the arson of Superior Lumber company in Glendale, Oregon on January 2, 2001, and Jefferson Poplar Farms in Clatskanie, Oregon on May 21, 2001, the latter of which the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) claimed responsibility for. His arrest is part of what the US government has dubbed Operation Backfire.”
Paul Watson
“….a Canadian-American marine wildlife conservation and environmental activist, who founded the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, an anti-poaching and direct action group focused on marine conservation and marine conservation activism; a group accused of Eco-terrorism by both the Japanese government and Greenpeace.”
Organizations that have been accused of eco-terrorism in the United States include the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), Greenpeace, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Earth First!, The Coalition to Save the Preserves, and the Hardesty Avengers.
Have any of us ever heard of a sceptic taking the law into their own hands and conducting eco-terrorism that jeopardises innocent human lives?
But it’s acceptable to insult us by defining us as ‘deniers’ when none that I know of ever denied the climate is changing.
My emphasis where evident.
Everybody is denying the opposite of what they believe.
So the idiots who think climate change is entirely caused by humans are denying natural climate change; I refer to such people as “nature deniers.”
If course “climate denier” is nonsense anyway, nobody denies climate, just specific reasons for its changes.
But THEY deny the existence of weather now, referring to it as ‘climate’, which is completely incorrect in every way. So who is the denier?
Aren’t they kind of the pot calling the kettle boiling hot?
It’s even one step worse – because BOTH the pot and kettle are hot.
What they are doing is accusing others – who aren’t – of being what they are.
It’s their go-to method on every issue – not just Climate Change.
The climate catastrophists always “forget” to mention that the high emission hot world of 2100 is also a very wealthy world, so what is the catastrophe?
The catastrophe is that they aren’t the ones controlling the wealth.
“Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. ”
Correction,,
Instead of remembering the deaths of six million innocent Jews in the past, Climate Warriors wish to risk the lives of hundreds of billions of the worlds poor today !!
There, fixed it for ya …
These “people” are sick in the head..
“hundreds of billions of the worlds poor today”
I do not believe the world’s population has reached those levels yet.
Climate denialism is a false label, because no one, I mean no one, denies climate, as far as I know.
What a completely stupid phrase! Highly educated people are using a completely stupid phrase.
Only YOU can prevent stupid brain misfires. Let’s not give this stupid phrase any more traction.
You would think they would have some extreme hot or cold….or unprecedented drought or flood to talk about
These people are reaching the end of a short rope, but the ground is still long way down.
Sorry…. hundreds of Millions ….
100’s of Billions would be the money wasted by 2100 that could have helped those poor instead…
Since the Great Society legislature of President Johnson was passed, we had spent 7 trillion dollars to help the poor by 2000. Today, I bet that figure is more like 10 trillion. The percentage of people needing food and cash subsidies to stay alive has increased as has the government bureaucracy that is supposed to help bring them out of poverty. It would be cheaper to make them all millionaires and eliminate the departments created to supposedly help them. The conclusion is that any extra money available to help the poor would be better spent elsewhere.
The left or progressives or whatever they call themselves have gone completely off the rails. The academic left is likely to carry most of the blame. They are Freaking Nuts. To be quite candid there is an air of insanity about them. This is not said in jest. The really sad part is the corporate entities that feed off their bizarre behavior at the general public’s expense and social decay. I don’t know if there is a final solution to the issue, but it needs to be addressed.
One solution is to stop giving them money. I get the impression that the majority of them are in this nonsense for the cash that cow generates. If I’m right, and the cash sources dried up, the whole thing would shut down in two blinks of the eye.
Somebody calls you that name, look ’em dead in the eye and say “YES! I deny that any real-world evidence yet observed proves that any of the constant, normal, gentle changes our climate has experienced since 1850 are caused by humans.” Full stop. They’ll look at you, blink, and run away. Because someone who is using purposely inflammatory language is expecting to “trigger” an irrational, emotional reaction. Don’t give them that, give them facts they may just dare to try checking!
A thought: Given that the horrendous events of WWII are now a living memory to only the most senior of citizens, why does everyone freak out about this word? Why let your adversary define the narrative? Cook up your own historical pejorative, something about Bastille Day or the Battle of Culloden. Makes about as much sense!
Lately, the liberal left’s way of thinking is incompatible with reality..
They use the heartaches of the past to further their dreams of socialist “Utopia” !
(and the innocence of children of course)
Those of us with even the slightest bit of honor will never forget the lessons learned…
…
“Never Again”