Gaffe down under- ‘Final Solution’ Was Bad. But So Is ‘Climate Denier’

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.

A black and white photo of captured Jewish women with their hands up. PHOTO: Jewish women captured by the Nazis in Budapest, Hungary in October 1944. (Wikimedia Commons)

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…

So the answer to the question of whether climate denialism is morally worse than Holocaust denialism is no, at least, not yet.

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…

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.

Read more at Herald Sun

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 17, 2018 10:00 am

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.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  n.n
August 17, 2018 10:18 am

“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.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 17, 2018 12:12 pm

“The models agree with observation, each time, every time.”

Talk about denial…

comment image

Fig. 1. Global (70S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The black line is the time series for the RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.(All time series have been smoothed to remove variabilty on time scales shorter than 6 months.)

Double denial: Describing the above as “a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.”

John V.Wright
Reply to  David Middleton
August 17, 2018 3:25 pm

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’!

Reply to  John V.Wright
August 18, 2018 4:57 am

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… 😎

Reply to  David Middleton
August 17, 2018 11:51 pm

” a small discrepancy” that doesn’t seem too bad?

Reply to  RyanS
August 18, 2018 4:49 am

>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.

Reply to  RyanS
August 18, 2018 1:08 pm

Being below the best case scenario, is “a small discrepancy”? As always, you only see what you are paid to see.

Reply to  MarkW
August 18, 2018 5:35 pm

Which RCP is this?

Reply to  Bill_W_1984
August 19, 2018 4:08 am

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.

Reply to  David Middleton
August 19, 2018 5:07 pm

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.

comment image

Harry Passfield
Reply to  n.n
August 17, 2018 11:40 am

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.

Bryan A
Reply to  Harry Passfield
August 17, 2018 12:08 pm

I wouldn’t give up, that is what “they” want

It does leave one scratching ones head though

nonsenensical ninny perhaps

Joel Snider
Reply to  n.n
August 17, 2018 12:18 pm

I’m not even sure what this overall statement is supposed to mean.

Reply to  n.n
August 17, 2018 7:39 pm

I think the fake response algorithm is back. This is not a coherent comment.

Reply to  n.n
August 18, 2018 2:37 am

“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.

Reply to  MarkBLR
August 18, 2018 10:17 am

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.

August 17, 2018 10:04 am

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

Phil R
Reply to  CO2isLife
August 17, 2018 10:52 am

Oh, they understand all right. They just plan on being the ones in charge.

Reply to  CO2isLife
August 17, 2018 12:01 pm

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.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Sara
August 17, 2018 12:19 pm

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?

Jon Salmi
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 18, 2018 8:19 am

The warmist playbook has been taken straight from the Eugenics movement and enhanced by modern communications techniques.

Joel Snider
Reply to  CO2isLife
August 17, 2018 12:14 pm

It’s not as frightening for the perpetrators.

Greg in Houston
Reply to  CO2isLife
August 17, 2018 12:24 pm

Yep, those freaks on the catwalks are really…… oh wait, I thought you said fashion.

Reply to  CO2isLife
August 17, 2018 12:37 pm

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

Reply to  CO2isLife
August 17, 2018 11:44 pm

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.

Reply to  RyanS
August 18, 2018 12:00 am


Reply to  RyanS
August 18, 2018 10:20 am

Ryan: Makes sense to me.

Reply to  RyanS
August 18, 2018 1:11 pm

Once again, Ryan tries to turn reality on it’s head.

August 17, 2018 10:05 am

Professors of what?
Nothing scientific I would wager.

Reply to  Bitter&twisted
August 17, 2018 11:18 am

“Public Ethics”

It is a pity he does not have the private ethics to tell the truth.

Reply to  BillP
August 17, 2018 1:12 pm

He answers to a higher power. In his world, ethics involves advancing the agenda. Anything that does that, is by definition, ethical.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Bitter&twisted
August 17, 2018 12:44 pm

An awful lot of professors these days are just people who profess to know everything and be ‘experts’. Sweet FA to do with professionalism.

Nigel in California
August 17, 2018 10:08 am
August 17, 2018 10:09 am

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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 17, 2018 5:21 pm

The same way folks here claim everyone who disagrees is a paid troll?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 18, 2018 10:21 am

Jeff: Or a left-wing wing nut.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 18, 2018 1:12 pm

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.

August 17, 2018 10:15 am

Again, living in the Matrix where computer code is reality.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Sheri
August 17, 2018 12:44 pm

Isn’t remarkable how Hollywood has been telling all these sorts of cautionary tales for years, and now seem determined to act it out?

kent beuchert
August 17, 2018 10:15 am

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.

Reply to  kent beuchert
August 17, 2018 11:34 am

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.

Reply to  kent beuchert
August 17, 2018 11:34 am

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?

Martin Howard Keith Brumby
August 17, 2018 10:17 am

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…

Joel Snider
Reply to  Martin Howard Keith Brumby
August 17, 2018 1:45 pm

No one seems to feel the stones they throw.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Martin Howard Keith Brumby
August 17, 2018 2:32 pm

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?

Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2018 10:23 am

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.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 18, 2018 3:22 am

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

Roger Gibbs
August 18, 2018 8:06 pm

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?

August 17, 2018 10:28 am

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.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Alasdair
August 17, 2018 8:24 pm

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.

August 17, 2018 10:34 am

Only miserable people promote miserable paradigms.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 17, 2018 11:39 am

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!

Reply to  Goldrider
August 17, 2018 12:10 pm

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.

Reply to  Sara
August 17, 2018 2:11 pm

+10 thumbs for parenthesized mental image 🙂

Jim Clarke
August 17, 2018 10:45 am

“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…!

Reply to  Jim Clarke
August 17, 2018 2:56 pm

“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.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Jim Clarke
August 18, 2018 12:18 am

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.

Reply to  Jim Clarke
August 18, 2018 1:47 pm

More recently Mann has shifted to the term climate science denier, as though somehow they’re more skeptical than “allowed”.

Gary Pearse
August 17, 2018 10:54 am

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.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 17, 2018 12:17 pm

“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.

Matthew Thompson
August 17, 2018 10:56 am

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 …

Barry Sheridan
August 17, 2018 10:57 am

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.

August 17, 2018 10:59 am

“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.

August 17, 2018 11:13 am

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.

Reply to  BillP
August 17, 2018 12:21 pm

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?

Joel Snider
Reply to  Sara
August 17, 2018 3:00 pm

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.

August 17, 2018 11:18 am

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?

Reply to  Hans Erren
August 17, 2018 1:19 pm

The catastrophe is that they aren’t the ones controlling the wealth.

August 17, 2018 11:19 am

“Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. ”


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..

Reply to  Marcus
August 17, 2018 1:20 pm

“hundreds of billions of the worlds poor today”

I do not believe the world’s population has reached those levels yet.

August 17, 2018 11:21 am

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.

August 17, 2018 11:22 am

You would think they would have some extreme hot or cold….or unprecedented drought or flood to talk about

August 17, 2018 11:23 am

These people are reaching the end of a short rope, but the ground is still long way down.

August 17, 2018 11:24 am

Sorry…. hundreds of Millions ….
100’s of Billions would be the money wasted by 2100 that could have helped those poor instead…

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Marcus
August 17, 2018 8:38 pm

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.

August 17, 2018 11:30 am

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.

Reply to  eyesonu
August 17, 2018 12:24 pm

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.

August 17, 2018 11:31 am

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!

Reply to  Goldrider
August 17, 2018 11:48 am

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”

Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2018 11:44 am

They want a flame war, we’ll be happy to oblige.

August 17, 2018 11:47 am

Denying the Holocaust is a bad thing, however, ignoring the other holocausts in the Soviet Union and China is also a bad thing. These hardly ever get mentioned. Mao and Stalin made Hitler look like a piker when it comes to body count of those murdered. And their ideology was much closer to that of those pushing AGW than fascism is to conservatism, of which we conservatives are constantly accused. Actually Nazi ideology was a form of socialism, National Socialist German Worker’s party. Kind of like what China has morphed into. But then China and the Russians were our allies in WWII. We should have listened to Patton and MacArthur.

Reply to  JimG1
August 17, 2018 3:25 pm

The whole world is denying one in progress right now–the Rohingya people’s genocide in Myanmar. Denial (as in, “we don’t SEE that!”) is employed whenever convenient. Just as the party of 58 “genders” is “denying” the actual, observed climate facts as we write this.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Goldrider
August 17, 2018 8:43 pm

Not to mention that nature has provided us with only two body types.

Reply to  JimG1
August 18, 2018 1:38 am

Conveniently forgotten fact!
Poland was invaded by Germany AND Russia at the start of WW2.

Joel Snider
August 17, 2018 12:16 pm

An absolutely undeniable truth is that bullies cannot take getting hit.
As such, Progressives/Warmists (pretty much interchangeable) cannot take their own medicine.

Just listen to the press caterwauling lately about being ‘picked on’.

August 17, 2018 1:58 pm

Does the government of Iran have any plans for a “final solution?”

Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
August 17, 2018 2:27 pm

That’s why they want nukes.

Reply to  MarkW
August 17, 2018 2:44 pm

Nuclear power plants are indeed the final solution. Solves the CO2 issue very well.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
August 19, 2018 5:36 am

Iran has a “final solution” for their largest religious minority, a campaign which started in 1991, according to documents from their highest authority. They plan the complete destruction of the Baha’i community, members of which are not allowed to be employed in any government position nor receive a pension. They are not permitted to attend tertiary educational institutions and their marriages are not recognized. Some 4000 inflammatory hit pieces are published against them per year in government controlled media advocating hatred, violence and the destruction of property. Lately the government agents have been ripping up graveyards with bulldozers and fire-bombing businesses and homes.

High Treason
August 17, 2018 4:44 pm

The whole notion that any word or phrase that has any Nazi connotations MUST be banned or hounded down mercilessly is a GUARANTEE that Nazism WILL rear its ugly head again. If creeping fascist tendencies are not able to be exposed, then, with the sociopathic and control freak tendencies of Socialists, it MUST return. As has been the case throughout history, the brutality and immorality tends to get ever more vile.

All those pathetic politicians and mealy-mouthed media that are jumping on the bandwagon of condemnation must hang their heads in shame at what a pack of cowards they are.

Hopefully, there shall be a non-gutless Jew that emerges to address Parliament that will call it like it is. It seems that only a Jew can get away with any reference to the Holocaust. Alas, the Jews in Federal Parliament at the moment are the gutless wimp Jews-the sort that supported the rise of Hitler and the disastrous outcomes that sprang from this.

I would love to see the faces of the Greens , Labor and assorted other lefties drop when they find they are flapping their little wings of indignation and soiling their pants whilst having tantrums, only to find the comments not only valid, but from one of the “chosen people” entitled to make such comments. Even better if it creates a Streisand effect where people watch the “offending” maiden speech that reveals the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

August 17, 2018 5:38 pm

The more accurate term is climate science denier. As in denying the now universally accepted fact that mans release of CO2 is warming the planet. No sane person could deny that and so that only leaves the insane to be insulted. Before you pile in on my comment, give me the name of one prominent person (in the field) who denies mans release of CO2 is a significant contributor to warming the planet? Spencer, Curry, Watts all accept CO2 is a contributing factor. So in my book they are not climate science deniers… they just don’t accept the IPCC’s view that significant trouble lies ahead… unless.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Simon
August 18, 2018 12:33 am

“Spencer, Curry, Watts all accept CO2 is a contributing factor. So in my book they are not climate science deniers… they just don’t accept the IPCC’s view that significant trouble lies ahead… unless [action is taken].

Correct: we skeptics don’t deny the basic science of AGW; we deny the iffy alarmism of high climate sensitivity and positive climate feedbacks. It is this distinction that alarmists try to conflate.

Reply to  Roger Knights
August 18, 2018 1:04 am

“we skeptics don’t deny the basic science of AGW”

The overwhelming majority here would debate that. On the nuttier end, GHGs don’t even exist, let along anthropogenic ones.

You mean you question the iffy alarmism of high climate sensitivity and positive climate feedbacks don’t you?

Otherwise you’re just splitting hairs.

Reply to  RyanS
August 18, 2018 1:18 pm

As always, Ryan sees only what he is paid to see.

Reply to  MarkW
August 18, 2018 10:57 pm

“paid to see”?

Someone ‘liked’ this? Nutters.

Roger Knights
Reply to  RyanS
August 19, 2018 12:32 pm

ME: “we skeptics don’t deny the basic science of AGW”

RyanS: “The overwhelming majority here would debate that.”

AGW is the non-catastrophic portion of global warming—it is the small direct effect of extra CO2 on temperature. Persons who accept this are known as lukewarmers. 90% of commenters here fall into that category. (There may even have been a poll on this matter a few years ago. If there wasn’t, there should be one now.) Persons who deny the direct effect of more CO2 call it the (mythical) sky dragon and this site’s guidelines prohibit the advocacy of their views.

RyanS: “You mean you question the iffy alarmism of high climate sensitivity and positive climate feedbacks don’t you?”

No, I disbelieve in them and so it’s accurate to say that I deny them.

RyanS: “Otherwise you’re just splitting hairs.”

Eh? Are you insinuating that CAGW (positive feedbacks) is as “basic” as AGW? If so, why is the high effect of feedbacks soft-pedaled or omitted in warmist advocacy aimed at the public? It’s iffyness is far from the solidity of CO2’s direct effect—far more than a hair’s difference.

Reply to  RyanS
August 19, 2018 2:35 pm

RyanS writes

The overwhelming majority here would debate that. On the nuttier end, GHGs don’t even exist, let along anthropogenic ones.

Nonsense. The overwhelming majority would not debate that. The nutters in the alarmist camp believe the earth is on course for thermal runaway and end up like Venus. Hansen was one of those and so the nutters in the AGW camp actually mattered.

Reply to  Simon
August 18, 2018 1:18 pm

Speaking of insane, Simon pops up on cue to attack arguments that nobody has made.
Very, very few people deny that CO2 can cause warming. The issue has always been how much.
Unless you are part of the lunatic fringe that believes that any change caused by man, no matter how miniscule is evil, you have to admit that the warming we have seen over the last 150 years has been completely beneficial, and there is no evidence that any warming we are likely to see in the next 150 years will be anything but beneficial.

Even the IPCC has given up the claim that there are significant troubles ahead, but the liars have to keep lying.

Reply to  MarkW
August 19, 2018 9:51 pm

“Speaking of insane, Simon pops up on cue to attack arguments that nobody has made.”
You really do need to learn to read, and then understand what all the squiggles mean. I didn’t attack anyone’s argument. I was making my own point.

Reply to  Simon
August 20, 2018 2:00 pm

Simon writes

they just don’t accept the IPCC’s view that significant trouble lies ahead

They don’t accept the suggestion that CO2 is the significant factor because they are skeptical of the alarmist assumed feedbacks. As are most of us here at WUWT. There is no sound science for those feedbacks. The IPCC on the other hand explicitely attributes most of the recent observed warming to anthropogenic CO2.

Reply to  Simon
August 18, 2018 4:38 pm

There must be a new talking point just released. Simon, RyanS, and Philip Schaeffer have it. There will be the others soon to follow. Kristi and others need to read their emails to see what they are supposed to think and say. Anyone want to bet where it originated? I’ll take Phillip S on even odds.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  eyesonu
August 18, 2018 10:40 pm

Eh? Leave me out of your paranoid delusional fantasies thanks.

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
August 18, 2018 10:52 pm

Agent P! I thought we agreed. Oops, mod can you delete this please.

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
August 19, 2018 12:53 am

And Agent Mark, try not to make your fake sceptic-concern comments too nutso, your double-agent cover could get blown.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  RyanS
August 19, 2018 2:45 am

Apparently there are some flaws in our training program. We aimed for libertarian, but ended up with a sovereign citizen, and even here that’s a bit much.

Reply to  eyesonu
August 19, 2018 7:21 am

PS & RS,
Yeah … your surveillance needs to improve as well as your communication links. Your comments appeared 12 minutes apart but were over 6 hours after mine. You need to work on that “rapid response” timing.

There is a website [Climate Science Rapid Response Team (CSRRT)] devoted to providing a “rapid response”. Go back and read the playbook again.

Reply to  eyesonu
August 19, 2018 7:33 am

One more thought. Are you sitting the same room holding hands?

Patrick MJD
August 17, 2018 5:45 pm

“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”

Call himself a professor? What an idiot! Firstly, he forgets the first time Holocaust was used to describe killings on a massive scale was the Armenian Holocaust, roughly 1915 – 1923, where the deaths are estimated to be 1.5 million. Secondly, how much actual warming would there have to be to start risking the lives of hundreds of millions people?

I suspect this professor obtained his qualifications, and clearly uninformed opinions, off the side of a Weetbix box.

al in kansas
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 18, 2018 7:58 am

6 million ? try 9 million. 3 million Russian POWs were also in associated camps. They weren’t gassed, just starved and worked to death. Also, how many Roma, political prisoners, homosexuals, ect.? On the eastern front many were killed in place and never were sent to the camps. Horrific amounts of death and destruction for the entire 1st half of the 20th century.

lemiere jacques
August 17, 2018 11:40 pm

how having a point of view can put lives of people at risk? if you beleive in CO2 theory of climate change what kills people is using CO2 not thoughts… may be it has something to do with the fact that this guy will continue to use fossil fuel ?

August 17, 2018 11:49 pm

A right wing nut says something stupid and thats another reason to hate the left.

Andrew Bolt: olympic level dog whistling.

Reply to  RyanS
August 18, 2018 1:19 pm

Ah yes, the old, anyone to the right of a socialist is right wing nonsense.
But when lies are all you got, might as well make them big ones.

Reply to  MarkW
August 19, 2018 12:56 am

Double- agent Mark, dude you’re being way too obvious, tone it down.

Bob in Castlemaine
August 18, 2018 12:27 am

The amusing thing is that Fraser Anning’s unintentional use of the verboten phrase was just that, unintentional. As for most of the sanctimonious hypocrites involved in the current media pile-on down under most of them wouldn’t even think twice about using the deliberately holocaust linked “denier” slur.
This nonsense was even picked up by our prime time Friday night TV Aussie rules football, being highlighted in the weekly match of the round Richmond vs. Essendon (my team) by the AFL (Australian Football League) with a symbolic pre-match, coin toss hugging by two Muslim players from the opposing teams.
The AFL is very much a political animal, into promoting PC Leftist causes. But the public outrage is growing at the misuse of our great game to promote the AFL’s pet political causes.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Bob in Castlemaine
August 18, 2018 12:44 am

Yeah, it just happened to have been penned by Richard Howard, who was advisor to One Nation senator Malcom Roberts, who had this to say about him.

“In an interview with The Australian yesterday, Mr Roberts said his former staffer was “fascinated with Nazi Germany and authoritarian ­approaches and decisive rulers”.”

But I’m sure it was just a misunderstanding.

Roger Knights
August 18, 2018 12:37 am

Being “in denial” or “a denier” was used before Holocaust denial came along in the 70s or so. It was a pop psychology term for denying that one was an alcoholic or had some other “issue” that was obvious to everyone else.

Reply to  Roger Knights
August 18, 2018 12:52 am

Fauxtrage is Bolt’s stock in trade.

Reply to  RyanS
August 18, 2018 1:20 pm

Irony is lost on you.

Greg Cavanagh
August 18, 2018 2:08 am

Professor Clive Hamilton is a disgrace to humanity. And I’m ashamed that he is also an Australian.
Australia has had some of the greatest scientists. And we’ve had some idiots in authority like Clive Hamilton who usurp power for their own glory. Clive, you will go down in history as being very wrong about a good many things.

August 18, 2018 4:19 am

the screams over a simple two words…was/IS being used to deflect what else he said
which was a citizens of Aus vote on immigration
they did it for less than 1% pop wanting gay marriage
but immigration is a a far bigger problem we arent allowed to speak up or vote on.

August 18, 2018 7:07 am

Fascists are known for the “Big Lie,” and Man Made Climate Change is one of the biggest of big lies. Progressives using the labels of Fascism and other pejorative terms is simply nothing more than transference.

The Deplorable Faces of Fascism

What Real Fascism Looks Like; It’s Alive and Well in the 21st Century Progressive Left

Warmist Billionaire Tom Steyer Compares Trump to Hitler

Things A Fascist Would Never Do

August 18, 2018 10:10 am

Okay, I agree with Professor Mann on this point. CAGW is a fraud. Skepticism is good. Particularly for scientists. Anyone remember the good Professor and the Yamal tree rings?

August 19, 2018 10:46 am

Professor Manne is an australian Professor of Politics. Professor Hamilton is an australian “Public intellectual”, who is basically an economist. A couple of windbags who pontificate on how society should be structured in the face of climate change. Professor Hamilton is an advocate of internet censorship in Australia, which pretty well tells one where he is coming from.

They don’t seem to have won any awards for good taste.

Verified by MonsterInsights