McKibben, Mea Culpas, and Mendaciousness

Over the weekend, 350.org founder Bill McKibben penned an op-ed in the New York Times, which is nothing new, but what WAS new, is that the op-ed was about WUWT, but more specifically, about a couple of ugly comments left on WUWT. This is my response.

The article is Let’s Agree Not to Kill One Another

In the article, Mr. McKibben says:”I was used to social media abuse. Then someone suggested shooting me.”

He writes:

The Los Angeles Times published an op-ed article of minedescribing a trial in Minnesota where some protesters — acting peacefully, threatening no one and informing the company they were protesting against — engaged the emergency shut-off valves on two pipelines and forced the company to temporarily shut off the flow of oil from Canada’s tar sands into the United States. The case against the protesters had been dismissed on the grounds that they’d done no damage; I was trying in my essay to explain why nonviolent civil disobedience helped in the fight for a workable climate.

Not everyone agreed. Indeed, a few hours after my essay appeared, a website called Watts Up With That? published an attack on my article. This enterprise — which bills itself as the most widely read website about the climate, and claims about three million to four million visitors a month— is devoted to proving we have nothing to fear from climate change. The author of the blog post, David Middleton, called me a misfit and made reference to my “sunken chest.” Sure, whatever. Sadly, this just seems to be how politics unfolds in the age of Trump.

But then the commenters went at it. One said: “Anybody got Bill McKibben’s home address? Let’s see how he really feels about ‘civil disobedience’ if it shows up at his front door.” Another added, “Give him a smack for me.” One or two tried to calm people down. But there was also this comment, from someone named “gnomish:” “There is a protocol worth observing: S.S.S. It stands for shoot, shovel and S.T.F.U. Hope that saves you some trouble.”

This “protocol” was left over from the right-wing fight against endangered species laws. If, say, a protected woodpecker was on your land, the “Three S’s” doctrine held that you should kill it, bury it and keep your mouth shut about it. It was, in this case, a public call for someone to murder me, and not long afterward another commenter, “Carbon Bigfoot,” supplied my home address.

All of which stopped me cold.

I was shocked these comments somehow slipped through moderation. Had I known about it, I would have immediately deleted them. All of the commenters, “gnomish”, “Gary Ashe”, and “Carbon Bigfoot,” are now banned for this unacceptable behavior.

This problem was all news to me, and while the article appeared Saturday, I didn’t find out about it until late Sunday afternoon Pacific Time, when I got a tip from a regular reader and a regular contributor.

I immediately found and removed the body of the comment where his home address was posted, and then sent this note to Bill McKibben via Twitter, using direct messaging:

Hello Bill, I’ve been notified of your NYT article, and I’m just as shocked as you. Had you notified me of the comments in question, I would have immediately removed them. They don’t speak for me. My spam and banned words filter looks for the usual 4 letter words, and some other key phrases, but these went though. I never saw them, had I, they would never have been approved.

We disagree, sometimes vehemently, and of course we’d never wish violence on each other. I’m truly sorry this happened. What would you like me to do with the comments?

Anthony Watts

While removing the doxxing comment where his home address was exposed was the sensible thing to do, I asked about the other comments because they were now in full public view, and removing them would look like I’m trying to hide something in the face of broader exposure and criticism. I’ve opted to make inline notes with each comment, saying they were unacceptable. Example here.

This morning, Bill replied to my message Sunday afternoon, with this:

Hey, just saw this. I think taking down the comments would be appropriate. Thank you.

Interesting though, that his first response was to remove them. Hold that thought.. I replied:

I already removed the one with your address prior to writing and I’ll deal with the others today. Look for a post. Who would I talk to at the NYT about a right of reply?

He replied with the letters to the editor department, and after some prodding, gave me his contact there but said he’s “on the way out to the LA Times” implying the contact was not good. I got the impression Bill really didn’t want to see me reply in the NYT and that once again “right of reply” was not something to be afforded to “climate deniers”.

I also asked him this, twice, 4 hours apart:

No problem, and again sorry it happened. Why did you not contact me, leaving those up for days?

No reply to my question? I see you’ve posted on Twitter since and you received the message.

Several hours have passed, and still no response, but Bill has been active on Twitter since. I’ve asked a third time, an hour before publishing this essay, and still there is no response to my question:

Hi Bill, last chance for you to answer my question. “Why did you not contact me, and ask for those comments to be removed, instead of leaving them up for days?” If you don’t answer, than I’ll supply my own, based on what I think your motive was.

He’s had about 9 hours to answer as of this writing, and he’s been active on Twitter during that time.

When I first saw the article written by McKibben, I thought his complaint was about something recent, perhaps in the last couple of days, but surprisingly, the article by David Middleton (and the comments) was from ten days agoBill McKibben calls for civil disobedience… Because climate change.

What do I think Bill’s motive was?  Remember when I said before “Interesting though, that his first response was to remove them.” yet he allowed them all to sit for 10 days. He has my email address, he has direct access to me on Twitter. Not a peep from him.

I think Bill was more interested in getting the NYT op-ed than he was concerned about the comments, or the publication of his home address. Otherwise, he would have asked for the removal immediately, and I certainly would have removed it had I known about it, even without his prodding via his NYT article.

I think Bill just wanted to take the opportunity to make climate skeptics in general look bad because a couple of errant commenters went off the rails, and we didn’t catch it in moderation.

Andrew Revkin mentioned the issue over the article, saying there was “no excuse”, and I replied:

Despite the ridiculous and regular claims that I’m funded by “big oil” or on the payroll of the Heartland Institute (I’m not), the simple fact of the matter is that I don’t have any money to have staff, and volunteer moderators tend to burn out and disappear after awhile.

There’s no easy solution, as Revkin noted in his reply on that thread:

He’s right, at the scale we operate at, handling the volume of comments is difficult. We can’t catch everything. That said, the buck stops here, and it’s my responsibility. Mea Culpa.

So where does that leave me? I have some ideas, and I’ll let people know what I plan to do about it in a future post.

On the plus side, Bill mentioned our previous personal interaction:

In the case of Watts Up With That, I’d made the effort at de-escalation myself. A few years ago, I was scheduled to give an organizing talk in the small California town where the website’s proprietor, Anthony Watts, lived. So I contacted him and invited him out for a beer. I knew I wouldn’t change his mind on climate change, and he knew I would continue to think his work involved wrecking the planet. But it always seems like a human idea to reach out.

And it was fine. We had a couple of beers, he wrote up an account of our conversation for his website, and even most of the commenters saluted us for sitting down and talking.

Yes, it was a good meeting, but Bill was correct, no minds were changed, neither his nor mine. He graciously added:

I don’t want this website shut down; I don’t want the people who write on it prosecuted. I definitely don’t want them murdered. I just want — as the very beginning of some kind of return to the gentler old normalcy — for people to stop making death threats. That seems to me the least we can ask of one another.

Thanks for that Bill, we have reciprocal ideas there.

But here’s where Bill runs off the rails in his thinking. He wants “some kind of return to the gentler old normalcy” but at the same time he promotes civil disobedience rather than constructive debate to get his way. While he acts gentlemanly, his promotion of civil disobedience is simply mendacious, in my opinion.

In the era of the ugly Antifa, street riots, punches and death threats to Trump Supporters, and harassment of conservatives in general, among many other ugly things we’ve witnessed recently, Bill’s call for “some kind of return to the gentler old normalcy” while at the same time promoting “civil disobedience” which often turns into a spark for violent confrontations, is simply laughable.

And where was Bill when these sorts of ugly things against climate skeptics happened?

 

Bill rightfully worries somebody will show up at his house, well it’s already happened to me thanks to a climate crusader.

If Bill really wants “some kind of return to the gentler old normalcy” he could start by using his influence to condemn the type of behavior listed above and work to calm some of these people.

But, I don’t think Bill McKibben really wants to embrace that. I think he simply wants to win his Don Quixotesque climate battle by any means possible.


Note: a couple of minor typos and spelling errors were corrected about 5 minutes after publication – Anthony

 

UPDATE: I had forgotten about this mendacious episode that Bill McKibben promoted:

micats-vigil-web

It seems the well deserved ridicule of these cowards has had an effect, they have disappeared that photo from their website. See here: http://www.tarsandsblockade.org/enbridge-home-demo/

Fortunately, I have a copy of the entire web page before that disappearing act took place.

See the PDF: Tar Sands Blockade – Enbridge

No apology, just down the memory hole. What a bunch of cowardly and pathetic people they are. That goes for Bill McKibben too who thought this was a good enough idea to promote with a tweet rather than condemn it.

BillMckibbenenbridge

 

Advertisements

317 thoughts on “McKibben, Mea Culpas, and Mendaciousness

  1. The difficulty of moderating so many comments is a cost of hosting such a successful, popular blog.

    If only Big Oil would support you so that you could afford to pay moderators!

        • It used to be that a comment which started with the word “moderator” would automatically go into moderation. I don’t know if it is still that way or not.

          • Good point.

            With all the changes back and forth since the migration to the new Web host, it’s hard to keep track of what works.

            I’ve noticed that some words and names which used to trigger moderation don’t anymore. I can type “Anthony” or “denier” without having to substitute or leave out vowels, without having to wait for the comment to appear.

      • Within the past ten days I posted (approximately) ^Comments that imply approval of violence should be removed.” That was indented under one such comment. I estimate that I’ve made three other such comments over the past 9 years, plus sent 2 emails to Anthony about them or other bad cokmments.

        • “Don’t fall for that post, it is somebody trying to make the site look bad.”

          What do you mean, don’t fall for that post? That is the whole point. That comment is pure hate speech and is criminal and is exactly what this essay by Anthony is talking about. It should be taken down as it most certainly makes WUWT look very bad. Why would WUWT ignore that comment if what it says here they don’t tolerate this kind of violent speech and hate.

  2. The left version of the KKK is SJW. If you count incidents, the SJW are way more vile than the KKK. The reason I post anonymously is fear of the SJW. Members of my family have been their victims. They stop short of lynching and burning but they are overjoyed if they can wreck someone’s career forever. They love destroying lives.

    These days, right wing violence pales in comparison with left wing violence.

    • Example:

      Most of the students … said they wouldn’t blame those engaging in violence against people they deemed Nazis. link

    • The KKK was a Democratic Party special operations group, and to some degree Antifa and the other SJWs are now their equivalent. IIRC, you’re Canadian, and might not know US politics and history closely.

      • Yep. I have spent my adult life in Canada. That said, I do remember when the Democrats and Republicans swapped places in the south. It doesn’t surprise me that the KKK was Democrat. link

        What I remember was Lynden Johnson embraced civil rights and Nixon embraced the southern strategy.

        • The supposed “Southern Strategy” was mostly a Democratic Party libel. Most of the southern states that voted for Wallace also voted for Carter in 1976. Pretty much the only former segregationist Democrat who turned Republican was J. Strom Thumond, and his voting record as a Republican was with most of the party.
          Nixon, who I otherwise despise, actually enforced the civil rights laws, with much of the actual desegregation occurring under his administration. Hardly the policy of someone supposedly appealing to racists.

          • You must realize that Nixon was a product of the political scene in his day. No morality, no principles and no justice. Power, greed and ambition was what ruled the day. Maybe they still do. You must remember that Nixon got cheated out of the presidency the 1st time around when the Democrats with mafia help, stuffed the Southern Illinois ballot boxes in a close race.

          • Reminds me of Obamacare .. why did the Democrats vote down Nixon’s plan for national healthcare? Nixon’s speech asking for it is available on the web if you look for it.

        • The supposed “Southern Strategy” was mostly a Democratic Party libel. Most of the southern states that voted for Wallace also voted for Carter in 1976. Pretty much the only former segregationist Democrat who turned Republican was J. Strom Thumond, and his voting record as a Republican was with most of the party.
          Nixon, who I otherwise despise, actually enforced the civil rights laws, with much of the actual desegregation occurring under his administration. Hardly the policy of someone supposedly appealing to racists.
          The spin was to explain why Southerners started voting Republican after McGovern lost the South.

          • The African American vote was obtained for the Democrats during the New Deal. Not because the Democrats actually included African Americans in the benifits of the program. They were not. But because the Democrats went to the leadership of the African American community and told them that if they wished to be assisted at all during the depression then they would need to deliver a African American vote for the Democrats. Also notice that no one ever speaks about the Civil Rights bills of the 1950’s. That is because all of them were defeated by the Democrats. In fact the Civil Rights bills of the 1960’s world not have passed were it not for 80% of Republicans voting for them. The Democrats could only muster 60% of their members. It has simply been one lie after another. And they got by with it for so long. Is it any wonder that the alarmist thought that they would be able to do the same?

        • commieBob

          What the hell, we’re all getting old, so here’s a memory refresh on the Congressional voting for the 1964 civil Rights Act:

          House democrats 153 for & 91 against (37% against)
          House Republicans 136 for & 35 against (20% against

          Senate Democrat 46 for & 21 against (31% against)
          Senate Republicans 27 for & 6 against (18% against)

          All Democrats 199 against & 112 for (36% against)
          All Republicans 163 for & 41 against (20% against)

          Republicans were the minority party, but in both houses of Congress, voted in substantially higher %ages in favor the bill than did Democrats.

          As a courtesy, I won’t even remind the readership that it was Lincoln (a Republican) who freed the slaves in1865, and Bull Connors (an elected Democrat) in 1963 who used bull whips and attack dogs (including on children) in Selma, Alabama.

          • It was Ike, a GOP president, who used federal troops to desegregate Southern schools in opposition to Democrat governors.

            The USSC under Chief Justice Warren, former GOP governor of CA, overturned the 1896 (when Democrat Cleveland was President) “separate but equal” scam of Plessy v. Ferguson. Cleveland had nominated all three Democrats on the court then. The decision was 7-1, with only GOP (Hayes) nominee Justice Harlan dissenting.

            Staunch abolitionist Hayes had commanded McKinley’s regiment in the Civil War. He was badly wounded at South Mountain, before Antietam, where QM Sgt. McKinley distinguished himself. Hayes tied off his bleeding wound and continued leading the 23rd Ohio VIR, but was out of action for Antietam.

        • The Southern states didn’t start voting reliably for Republicans until Reagan’s second term.
          A whole generation after the Nixon’s so called “southern strategy”.
          Those who voted Democrat in Nison’s time, continued to vote Democrat. What swung the south was new voters. Kids reaching voting age and immigrants from other states without the Democrat or die mindset.

      • Tom Halla – October 22, 2018 at 5:06 pm

        The KKK was a Democratic Party special operations group,

        It shur was, and Senator Robert Bird, D-WV, who served as Senator for over 51 years, from 1959 until his death in 2010, …… was once the “top dog” in the KKK, to wit:

        In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia. Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter. When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.

        In December 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:

        “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

        — Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

      • Democrats in 2018 would have everyone believe that on one day sometime in the 1960s, when no one was looking, all of the politicians in the US got up from where they were sitting and moved to the opposite side of the aisle.
        Of course nothing like this ever happened, and in fact all of the actions and policies of the leftists in 2018 are indistinguishable from those of the past decades going back to the civil war.
        All of them.
        From group identity being supreme, right up to if anyone in your group makes a accusation against someone not in your group, lynch them first and ask questions never.
        Nothing has changed, although TDS has caused them to drop their guard and frequently say what they are really thinking.

    • Seriously? Firstly there is not organisation SJW but there is an organised KKK. Secondly
      no one has ever been lynched or murdered by a SJW but far too many were murdered by
      the KKK. Right wing violence in most countries occurs at much higher rather than left wing violence. If you want to count numbers look at school shootings in the USA were almost invariably the people doing it are white males who have previously expressed racists views.
      Can you find me a school shooting done by a feminist lesbian anywhere in the world?

      • Not a school shooting, but the woman who shot up YouTube headquarters was decidedly a leftie. I think CommieBob was unsure of the proper name for Antifa, being Canadian. The Klan was a Democratic party organization, and the Democrats have usually been the more leftist of the major US parties.

      • Antifa is not organized Percy?

        PuhLEEZE!

        There are jackasses across the political spectrum. It’s a shame that you choose to attack at an opportunity for common ground. But then, that’s what the left does. Relentlessly dehumanize the opposition.

      • But the KKK was the created by and populated by Democrats. From the very beginning and all of the way through. I grew up in the South. You voted for whoever the Democrats told you to vote for. The term “Yellow Dog Democrat “ explains all that you need to know. If they ran a yellow dog as the candidate it would have been elected. The alarmist are the same way. If you step out of line you are finished. They will see to it. These were and are despicable people. And who do you think that Hitler and the Nazis Party got their blueprint for their race laws from? They got them directly from the Democrats. So do not give me any of your propaganda regarding the right being worse than the left.

      • Percy,

        First I prefer dialog even when I walk away thinking I wasted my time with an idiot. This tendency to take protests to people’s homes has to end – and the doxing needs to end as well – from both sides (though the left are more likely to act on the information in recent times.)

        You are not entitled to your own facts. KKK was a racist organization. Its politics were neither right nor left. There were as many FDR supporters in its ranks as opponents.

        MOST mass shootings are done by people with psychological issues or by adherents of the extreme version of the religion of peace. Politics have almost nothing to do with it. (The shooting in Denmark of the school children on holiday camp being an exception – though I think he was more an extremist who would have gone off on whatever convenient ideation presented itself then really a serious political thinker.

        Most political assassination is perpetrated by the left. Hodginson (baseball field shooter – I may have misspelled his name) was a man of the socialist left. Most of the presidential assassins of the past have been people of the left (since that mattered anyway).

        The things today that get called right wing violence start out as peaceful protest that gets descended upon by Antifa (left wingers) who are willing to use extreme violence to stop the protest. The left worldwide has decided that the only correct response to those who disagree with them is to shut them up – with extreme prejudice if intimidation fails. If the leaders of the left leaning parties don’t do something to reel them in, there will be deaths.

        All the violence that surrounds a G7/G8 meeting comes from the left. They burn, loot and otherwise trash their way through the city hosting the meeting, making a general mess while simultaneously not impressing anyone with their visions of Utopian communism. (Utopia literally means “no where” for a reason!)

        As for no one being lynched by SJWs, not yet. The rhetorical lynchings are common, and the lack of freedom of expression anywhere SJWs have gained any control is very problematic. Try defending traditional man-woman relationships on a college campus some time and see how long you have a job there. It isn’t physical lynchings, just life altering career-lynchings for having ideas contrary to the SJW politburo. I wouldn’t be too confident in the murder numbers on SJWs either. When the SJW band decide to isolate a target and make it the focus of bullying, many weaker members of society have committed suicide to get away from the bullying for living their life a different way. It is just as much MURDER when the SJW cry-bullies induce a suicide as it is when the KKK lynched blacks or republicans.

          • Thanks,

            I couldn’t which side of the water it was on and took a flyer. (I almost just said Scandanavia as a cheat.) I do think if he wasn’t insane then he was so ready to follow any strong ideation as to be easily lead down a primrose path to despicable evil.

        • Not just the KKK in FDR’s time. If anything, it was an even bigger force in the Democrat Party of racist Woodrow Wilson.

          • “Not just the KKK in FDR’s time. If anything, it was an even bigger force in the Democrat Party of racist Woodrow Wilson.“
            You are so correct. The film ‘Birth of A Nation ‘ was shown in the White House a the KKK exploded across the country. Marches down the main street of large Northern cities in full KKK regalia. This is the history of the Democratic Party they wish for you to forget. Dinesh D’Souza has produced excellent films documenting both their sins and the lies they tell in an effort to hide them from future generations. He has a standing challenge of $10,000 for anyone who can identify any factual errors. At present the challenge has not been met.

        • Owen,
          Facts being what they are do you really agree with commieBob statement that SJW are as vile as the KKK? And yes I would agree that if bullying causes someone to commit suicide then that should count as murder. But again show me some evidence that this happening on the scale of violence and intimidation that the KKK were involved with and then I will happily agree with you.

          • Not quite. I used to live in the SF Bay area, and some SJWs are honest enough to be various flavors of communist (communists split about as readily as Baptists).

          • I stand corrected, Tom.
            You are correct of course.
            The Democrats are a political party, and it is ideology that those groups have in common.
            I should have said they are all leftists.

      • Racism is NOT a conservative trait!!! It’s the leftist liberals that want to divide and classify every one by the color of their skin! I was working at a U. S. military installation when 0bummer took office and instantly we were having to precisely count all the different shades of skin color and all the genders and the slant of the eyes and… s*** we had not even considered in the 8 years previous! I had to say out loud once, “I thought he was supposed to be the post-racial president?” All I got was a pursing of the lips and a shrug in response.

        Summary: Since Timothy McVeigh every mass murderer has been a rabid leftist!

        • I know this is true,or nearly,–yet why can’t others see it? MSM always tried to find some inkling that some new psycho is a conservative only to find he has left or socialist leanings then his politics are suddenly dropped.

        • Racism might not be a conservative trait but on the other hand the common characteristic
          amoung conservative parties around the world is fear of immigration. It doesn’t matter whether it is Italy, Hungary, the UK, the USA, Australia or many others the more conservative the political party the more anti-immigration it is. And so it is no surprising that out and out racists support such parties. It is still official Republican policy to build a wall along the border with Mexico is it not?

          • Percy,

            How is it racist to want to gain control of a national border?

            Not that long ago, Mexico shot illegal border crossers.

            You might not know that racism and imperialism were characteristic of 19th and early 20th century socialism, such as with the Fabians in Britain and Jack London in the US. They were for the little guy, as long as he was white.

            All the more remarkable for London, who was raised by a kind-hearted black woman.

          • John,
            I never said that it was racist to want to control your country’s border.
            However fear of immigration is a common characteristic of right wing parties
            across the globe. Which then attracts out and out racists even though in
            general the leaders of the said political parties generally condem such attitudes
            even though their policies foster it.

          • Percy

            Every political party in the world has it’s fanatical extremists.

            Immigration is not an race issue, far from it, it’s an economic issue but it does attract racist’s, a small minority. Those racists, branded ‘extreme right’ are anything but right wing, they are fascists which is a product of the left (Mussolini) not the right.

            They have been branded ‘far right’ yet they mimic the socialist values of 1930’s/40’s Germany. No one on the right either wants or identifies with them but there is a rich history of left wing and extreme left wing policies across the globe causing misery, famine, racism, genocide, persecution, suppression of freedom, torture, restrictions on free speech, propaganda etc.

            These are our latter day SJW’s, determined to make everyone equal, at any cost, except for of course, the privileged elite. China still conforms to the political ideology, N. Korea and numerous other left wing countries across the globe including Zimbabwe, ruined by Mugabe a self professed Marxist.

            I am in fact true extreme right. I conform to the values of the UK Libertarian Party – a small government dedicated to national and civil defence, freedom of trade, freedom of expression, freedom to work and low taxation.

            Nowhere in there is there room for SJW’s, the KKK or fascist’s all of whom would relieve you of your rights to freedom in a heartbeat. Tthe difference between the three is entirely academic, they are all despicable products of the left.

          • It really is fascinating how members of the left are absolutely convinced that they can read minds.
            So opposing unlimited immigration is always a de-facto racist position?

          • PS: There’s an article up today about the use of strawmen arguments.
            And Percy graciously offers up an example of it.
            Republicans are against illegal immigration, and Percy reliably trots out the strawman that they are against all immigration.

          • Percy, you are a liar.
            The concerns about unlimited and uncontrolled illegal immigration have little to do with fear.
            Why do leftists label everyone who disagrees with them as suffering from a phobia?
            Not that there is anything wring with being afraid of losing your job or of having your children or friend die of a drug overdose or in a mass killing.
            But the principle reasons have to do with economics, rule of law, fairness, and a desire for orderliness rather than chaos.
            You should stick to facts when putting words in peoples’ mouths, or ascribing emotions to others whom you have never met, and of whom you evidently have zero understanding of or in common with.

          • Valuing one’s culture, and wanting realistic reasonable border protections is not fear based, nor is it bigoted.
            However, not caring about the negatives of poorly controlled and failed immigration policies is not simply irrational it is hateful and damaging.

        • It’s the left who proclaims that minorities are incapable of competing on their own, and that the only way for them to succeed is to rely on whites.

      • The KKK was left wing, for whatever that’s worth.

        In my view, the “right wing” is an invention of the left, so as to construct a straw man categorical enemy out of those disparate people who oppose its collectivist program, i.e., social and economic individualists. Basically, the enslavers versus the free, respectively.

        National Socialism and Fascism were and remain both left wing. What remains to be labeled “right”? Mere small-government conservatism? That’s hardly an idea compelling an urge to power, or a death-dealing ideology.

        Traditional Christians? They’re collectivists, like the socialists, but merely with a different ideology. Paul Blanshard wrote a very revealing book called “Communism, Democracy, and Catholic Power,” making a very apt comparison. The collectivist impulse of Catholicism can be extended to other strict-morals-enforcing religious groups.

        So, the religious traditionalists aren’t “right wing,” either. They’re just a sacralized collective opposed to a secularized collective.

        Most of the incidental violence around the world appears to involve Muslims. In the US, the number of women looking to commit murder has increased since 2013. Muslim violence in the West is uniformly supported by the left. The left is also very guilty of Jew-hatred.

        In a study (*) of mass murders in the US, “the majority of offenses were committed with a gun (69%), against family members and acquaintances (76%), by White offenders (61%), by males (94%), and by offenders with an average age of 29.”

        As Caucasians are 64% of the US population, a 61% offender rate means white males are less likely than others to commit mass murders.

        (*) M. A. Taylor (2018) “A Comprehensive Study of Mass Murder Precipitants and Motivations of Offenders” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(2) 427–449.

        • Pat Frank

          Thank you for that.

          Personally, I’m defined by my desire for self sufficiency, a desire for a small government, the desire for freedom of expression and the right to work. I don’t think I’m alone.

          These are inalienable rights not political ideology. There is no ‘right wing’ definition of these there is, however, socialist corruption of them.

          • These are my values as well. I will add compassion for those who by no fault of their own are unable to be self-sufficient.

            We are not alone, but we are, it seems, a dying breed.

          • I think not Rich.
            We saw how many feel this way in November of 2016, although few seemed to believe it until it happened.
            We will see a more emphatic example in two weeks, on election night when the results come across our screens.
            Ignore suppression polls and leftist media propaganda…it is irrelevant noise.
            The political left in the US has taken off their normal-person masks and lurched hard.
            Few will follow, although the vote will also unfortunately include many who pay no attention to policies or what their own self interests are, and an even greater number vote for whom others tell them to vote and know nothing about current events, let alone actual history.
            Many more are on the receiving end of the massive handouts with which the leftist politicians bribe voters.
            And those are the only reasons it will even be close.
            Imagine…we have large numbers of people who have historically been victimized by a sometimes out of control justice system, voting for a party whose leaders have just publicly declared that accusers should be believed, and that presumption of innocence and the requirement to prove an allegation should be done away with.
            If all voters were fully engage and completely informed, it would not even be close.

        • Note that on the right are many disagreements about policy, and various characters have no compunctions against criticizing members of their own party if they disagree.
          We see none of this on the left.

      • Also not a school shooting, but senseless mass murder nonetheless. Adapted from a description of the 2016 movie based upon her life:

        On 10 July 1973, Olga Hepnarová, a 22-year-old lesbian truck driver with a long history of psychological and emotional turmoil, ploughed her lorry into a crowd of people waiting for a tram on a Prague sidewalk, killing eight and seriously injuring 12, most of them elderly. It was not an accident: as Hepnarova had detailed in letters she had sent to two newspapers prior to her crime, and in subsequent confessions, she was committing the mass murder as an act of willful and carefully planned revenge against a society that had cruelly ostracized and bullied her throughout her life, and she intended her crime to serve as a type of warning to other oppressors that the downtrodden may occasionally strike back. Utterly remorseless and entirely sane, Hepnarová was found guilty and hanged less than two years later, the last woman ever executed in Czechoslovakia.

        There are of course famous lesbian serial killers, like Aileen Wuornos, but mass murderers, not so much.

        IMO, school shooters generally aren’t ideologically or politically motivated. Hard to say how many teen and young adult mass murderers are Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1990s

      • “If you want to count numbers look at school shootings in the USA were almost invariably the people doing it are white males who have previously expressed racists views.”

        No Percy. No…

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1840s

        Secondly, the Progressive philosophical mantra is and has been fundamentally racist for some time now, especially in the last 10 to 20 years, but more like for 150 or more. Progressive Statists are the KKK Percy. They always have been. That “right wing violence” you cite is likely Leftist philosophical sympaticos…that’s because when you go too far Right you’re Left.

        Your ilk’s first premise is Identity Politics, which advances Racism as its core premise. Progressives are so stupidly racist they’re racist against themselves, e.g., white Progressives decrying their race because of it. This is foolishness…the behavior of utter and complete addlepates. But that’s what Racism is…the height of contradiction, i.e., the height of stupid and the mantra of the Leftist Progressive.

        Take a speech written by David Duke, switch two words around and you have a speech written by Louis Farrakhan, who, as it so happens, has a disciple sitting in the Deputy Chair position of the DNC right now:

        https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/321040-i-will-leave-the-democrats-if-keith-ellison-is-elected

        Speaking of David Duke, here he is on Mr. Ellison (just LOVES the guy because he “gets it” you see):

        https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/13/david-duke-gives-ringing-endorsement-to-keith-elli/

        I honestly just can’t figure out why the ilks of Progressives aren’t holding hands, signs and singing songs together with the ilks of David Dukians on the White House lawn.

        They’re all the same.

        The philosophy is the same.

        The belief system IS the same.

        • sycomputing – Let us not forget that it was the Progressives that used every bullying tactic at hand to push Eugenics. That movement was full of racists (e. g. Margaret Sanger, Thomas Woodrow Wilson). I suppose the Progressives thought that enough time had passed (the last state to outlaw Eugenics – Oregon did so in the very early 1980s – so that they could use the same bullying attacks again, this time enhanced by modern electronics, to try and cram another pseudo-science down our throats, namely global warming.

      • Of course, there was “Bernie Bro” and Maddow fan, James Hodgkinson who shot House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

      • Both sides have committed violence. Maybe some day we can leave violence behind us. Meanwhile Why don’t we stick to science? However the left won’t let us because they claim the science is settled. What a farce?

      • Percy (I guess it’s feed the troll time…but here goes)

        Your comment-without-documentation”…school shootings in the USA were almost invariably the people doing it are white males…” is demonstrably false. If you’re going to pull statistics directly out of your rectal cavity, someone else is likely to double-check the numbers.

        Stats for all mass-shooters from 1982-2018

        White: 77% of US population & responsible for 59 (57%) of shootings
        Non-white: 23% of US population & responsible for 45 (43%) of shootings
        TOTAL MASS SHOOTINGS IN DATABASE: 104

        Note racial distribution has changed considerably over the 1982-2018 period.

        1) Racial source: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217
        2) Racial shooter source: (source https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/)

      • i was about to mention the gender confused/lesbian? shooter but i see Tom Hallas done it for me;-)
        funny how the media shut down on that incident real fast isnt it?
        or not

      • Secondly
        no one has ever been lynched or murdered by a SJW but far too many were murdered by
        the KKK.

        indeed many were. The KKK started out lynching Republicans (black and white) to suppress their votes. learn some history because your posts clearly show you are historically ignorant.

    • One SJW, told me, if she were able, she would be happy to end the career of any Republican scientist who was anything less than enthusiastic about fighting the good fight against climate change. One of the famous Podesta emails (between Podesta & Steyer) talks casually about getting McKibben involved to end the career of some annoying skeptic; using 350.org activists to picket him at work. A 2nd email celebrates their success stopping IPPC-toting Pielke Jr. The same Pielke Jr. whom the SJW above was happy to label a ‘denier’. His ‘denial’ was to expose that lie that “extreme weather is caused by climate”.

      McKibben needs to wake up and accept he’s in a dirty war.

  3. Unfortunately, WUWT does have a lot of toxic commenters who disgrace the blog (and you). And there’s no easy solution other than banning them or deleting their comments or both.

    I wish there was a better solution (going to a whitelist of commenters maybe?) but it is what it is.

    I did have a sort of assumption that you and/or the moderators would be reviewing a lot of comments but that clearly is impossible.

    So it remains for people who don’t want this level of toxicity to report them.

      • I agree. I’ve been on a blogs where readers can flag a comment to get closer attention by a mod. I don’t know if that capability is possible on this host but, it would speed up finding comments that slipped through.

    • Any blog has toxic commentators, you obviously haven’t been on a physics or maths forum which are about as hard and clinical as you can get. You create a report system and you will get those same people using it to report everyone and overwhelm the mods. If I learned anything from my time answering question on physics blogs is most of them are doing it for a reaction.

      • The definition of trolling, at least the original one, is just that…people saying stuff just to be upsetting or disruptive.

    • John A,
      Sorry, but a white list sounds like cutting off public commentary altogether, and having the blog comments limited to those who have been preapproved for providing someone’s idea of the proper things to say.
      Calling for violence is over the top, but as noted in the headline post, it was not skeptics who started it.
      And posting someone’s address might sound pretty awful, until or unless one realizes that property tax rolls, voter registration records, motor vehicle and license information…this is all public information, and anyone who really wants to, can easily find out these things about anyone who has been identified by name.
      This is exactly why so many of us find the need to remain anonymous.
      It is not by choice or original desire…it is by seeing how swiftly, gleefully, and completely so many people have been targeted for sometimes just one comment that the left views negatively.

  4. I attribute divisiveness in America to activists and outside influences that have successfully completed the ‘divide’ stage of divide and conquer espoused by anarchists.

  5. Hey, good to see this, and sorry not to reply earlier–been out all day.
    I actually did think of getting in touch with you, and I even turned on the computer that day to do so. And the very first thing I saw on Twitter was this from you, in response to a post I’d put up reminding people that Florida governor Scott had been an opponent of climate action.

    Watts Up With That‏ @wattsupwiththat
    Replying to @billmckibben
    Maybe he’ll go one better and ban you and your band of hissy-fit lawbreakers from entering Florida.
    12:15 PM – 11 Oct 2018

    So, it’s true that you didn’t demand my death, but it’s also true that it’s extreme and unAmerican–suggesting that people be banned from entering various states because you disagree with them is wrong. In our country, we should be able to travel freely.
    I’ve tried hard not to be abusive to people I disagree with. It’s not just that I sought you out for an excellent glass of Sierra Nevada beer, it’s that when I’ve come to this website I’ve tried to be respectful. Perhaps you could release all the posts I’ve made here–I think people will find that none have been ugly. At least I hope not.
    But people here routinely subject those they don’t like to all kinds of nasty ideas. For instance, the last post about me before the one that engendered the death threats ended up with posters suggesting, say, that my rear end required “oil-based lubrication.”
    If I may say, I’ve observed over the years that some people on this site sometimes seem to be trying to impress one another with the level of vitriol they can reach. I understand that this is a sign of the times, and I get, as I said in the NYT piece, that when the president is engaged in this kind of abusive behavior it’s hard for others not to indulge. And yet we should try.
    That was the point of my small essay–that we should try to treat each other as human beings. I will keep trying.
    And as I said in the piece, these threats are obviously much worse in other parts of the world, and for women, and for people of color. So, if you need to be abusive to someone, perhaps I am the best candidate, being an older white guy like–I would guess–many of the people reading this.
    I will add that I don’t think civil disobedience is a spark to violence. I think that, as Dr. King demonstrated, it’s a brave way to open peoples eyes to injustice.
    Anyway, thank you for taking down the threats, and have a good evening. As it happens, I have a bottle of Sierra Nevada in the fridge (Bigfoot to be exact) and I will drink it tonight, thinking of Chico and the lovely foothills of what John Muir called the Range of Light.

    • Thanks Bill for commenting.

      Bill where you and I differ at the most basic level is that I don’t break the law, and I don’t encourage others to break the law.

      Stop breaking the law, and inciting lawbreaking, and you’ll have less vitriol thrown at you. It’s just that simple.

      • Sorry, Anthony he won’t see the connection he is allowed to break the law because he is a martyr fighting for good. It would never cross his mind that his actions are actually bad and his behaviour in a group of psychology under masochism. Read his writings they are never the victors or uplifting they all follow a normal masochistic theme. His complaint and the way he handled it is just another way to paint himself as a martyr as would be going to jail.

      • It was illegal to smash up the Berlin Wall.
        Rosa Parks broke the law just by riding a bus in the wrong seat.
        Anne Frank broke the law just by being alive. Was it a good thing when she was forced to comply?
        Are we really to condemn them all just because “It’s the Law”?

        If you believe a law is more evil than breaking it, break it.

        • The big difference is none of the acts you list endangered anyone but the person or persons involved. Your argument is disingenuous because Bill has put no limits on his call to civil disobedience or tells people what precautions and limits should be taken. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr when calling for civil disobedience were very very careful to make sure people understood exactly what they meant and that could not involve anything that endangered anyone but themselves. To even be talking about a narcissist like McKibben in the same light as the examples you gave is a travesty.

        • Rosa Parks broke a law that violated her constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

          Vandalizing private property and interfering with maritime traffic are not examples of breaking laws that violate constitutional rights.

          Civil disobedience involving protests against the government can be justified. Civil disobedience which prevents privately owned businesses from functioning is theft.

        • I believe that we all have the right to do whatever we want, provided we are willing to face the consequences. Where I have a problem is when people justify actions which are against the law and then attempt to evade that responsibility. We have rioters who wear masks and we have individuals who claim righteousness as an acceptable excuse. This just leads to the destruction of the idea that society as a whole determines what is acceptable through law.
          Do what you think is right, but face the consequences in the hope that others will agree and make changes.

          • john, That I entirely agree with in my mind. And, I hope, in my heart.

            But do I have the courage to act as I should?

    • as long as you understand civil disobedience can work both ways in this debate, though i don’t expect to see much until people suffer black outs in winter, i have no problem with that point of view. if civil disobedience involves breaking the laws we all live by then i will expect the law to deal with any issues arising .

      • “that when the president is engaged in this kind of abusive behavior it’s hard for others not to indulge.”….

        strange that liberals are deaf to Pelosi, Waters, Clinton, ….oh well most of the liberal politicians…Soros and the violent groups he funds

        Hey Bill, does resist ring a bell at all?

    • You had my sympathy until you kicked my president. President Trump fights back against abusive behavior rather than accepting victimhood. Politics is a dirty game and he’s a quick learner. MAGA

    • bill mckibben

      An excellent example of how to perpetuate and inflame a contentious debate.

      You have a pop at Anthony in a newspaper that wouldn’t give him the time of day then casually dismiss not replying to him as an inability to get to your computer. Yet you clearly have minute by minute access to Twitter on your phone, and therefore, access to this website by the same means.

      Your condemnation of the WUWT blog dismisses credible scientists and engineers on this site, yet you’re the one standing outside a petrol station with a badly hand drawn sign.

      Social justice campaigning doesn’t give you the right to ridicule others, indeed it’s almost a requirement that you treat them with the greatest of respect. But your barbed ‘apology’ above demonstrates no respect whatsoever for professionals you couldn’t live with in a face to face debate. Try actually having a debate with Dave Middleton about oil, it’s benefits to the world and the downsides he’s well aware of.

      It seems obvious to most of us who frequent WUWT that the IPCC has shot it’s bolt, but people like you imagine their hysteria is a good thing. It’s not, the general public are sick of the outrageous claims made by them and SJW’s like you.

      The reality is, no one cares any more about climate change because you and your ilk have moved the goalposts so many times over the last 40 years no one can see the forest of the goalposts for the trees of the goalposts.

      Even the MSM in the UK, other than the BBC of course, has consigned the latest IPCC report to the middle pages of the red tops instead of splashing it all over the front pages.

      That’s because no one believes you any more Bill, quite rightly, because you have scammed your way here and the jigs up mate. Get over it and get on with your life.

      • Has the IPCC shot its bolt?

        Consider the following:

        6 October 2018 IPCC SR1.5 1 Total pages: 16 Changes to the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers
        1. Background
        Consistent with Section 4.5 of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, Coordinating Lead Authors have identified some changes to the underlying report to ensure consistency with the language used in the approved Summary for Policymakers or to provide additional clarification as agreed at the Joint Working Group Session. These changes do not alter any substantive findings of the final draft of the underlying report as distributed to governments on 29 August 2018. Note that the final draft of the underlying report is also subject to copy-editing and corrections in proof as normally applied to scientific reports.
        2. Changes to be made to the underlying report
        The following table lists those changes that will be made in the underlying report following the line by line approval of its Summary for Policymakers. Note that page and line numbers for the SPM are based on the numbering used in the revised final draft as distributed to Governments on 30 September 2018; page and line numbers for the underlying report are based on the numbering used in the final draft as distributed to Governments on 29 August 2018.

        With that all claims to scientific integrity made by the IPCC have been exposed as nonsense.

      • Social justice campaigning doesn’t give you the right to ridicule others, indeed it’s almost a requirement that you treat them with the greatest of respect

        You’d think that, I’ve yet to find an SJW that actually does follow such a requirement.

      • “Social justice campaigning doesn’t give you the right to ridicule others… Try actually having a debate with Dave Middleton about oil, it’s benefits to the world and the downsides he’s well aware of.”

        Are you kidding? David Middleton routinely puts “Guest ridicule” under the post title. What gives him the right to ridicule, but not others?

        • David Middleton ridicules with substantive merit. SJW folks ridicule from ignorance (or from ideology; same thing).

          So, tell me Kristi, as someone who represents herself as scientifically oriented: why is it you typically engage in drive-by commentary, and virtually never stay to discuss the scientific merit of a stand?

        • “Are you kidding? David Middleton routinely puts “Guest ridicule” under the post title. What gives him the right to ridicule, but not others?”

          Kristi cut it out. You’re making yourself look silly.

          Middleton’s “ridicule” statement is clearly hyperbolic as is evidenced by his wont to then proceed to “ridicule” the subject of his ire with factual presentations combined with thoughtful and substantive attempts at valid logic.

    • ” … when the president is engaged in this kind of abusive behavior it’s hard for others not to indulge.”
      The political left owns demonstrably abusive behavior and then responds irrationally when Trump turns it around, even though his most abusive act is calling opponents nicknames, which as you know can turn on a dime when opponents become allies.

      It’s certainly true that the kind of emotionally driven behavioral response you’re referring to is becoming the norm and it certainly impedes logic. The pollution of climate science logic started over 3 decades ago with the inception of the IPCC who globalized science in order to leverage emotionally driven fear to promote the broken science they needed to justify the UNFCCC’s goal of globally redistributing the developed worlds wealth under the guise of climate reparations. Perhaps you can explain why so many on your side deny this transparently obvious motivation that neither the IPCC or UNFCCC denies or even tries to hide.

    • So, Bill, what do you think might have happened had a pipeline employee or three come upon the scene where your SJW’s were tinkering with the valves? How would you feel about the outcome? ‘Cause let’s face it, it wouldn’t have ended well for the Snowflakes. I can see the roustabout’s defense now: “Well yer honor, we saw these clowns messing about where they clearly didn’t belong and felt there was an immediate danger of catastrophic damage to the pipeline. We had to stop them any way we could.”

      • My fluid dynamics teacher was an expert witness in a case where an oil pipeline burst because the emergency valves shut too fast and the shock wave broke a section weakened by a trenching and cable burying operation. Casually closing the emergency valves without understanding that there might be unexpected consequences is a criminally negligent behavior. Luckily, most systems are over-engineered.

        • “Casually closing the emergency valves without understanding that there might be unexpected consequences is a criminally negligent behavior.”
          My understanding as well. There might not have been serious damage that one time, but there well could have been had other factors been different at the time.

          • Also my experience over 30 years in industry, “water hammer” is a very serious issue in any industry operating piping and pumps. The shock wave can peak at several times the line pressure and can reflect off elbows etc. to amplify other waves. Industry has training standards and protocols around large valves for just this reason. These pipeline saboteurs could have caused a catastrophe miles from where they closed the valves. IMHO their actions were Not civil disobedience but reckless endangerment.

    • Mr. McKibben, if I may reply to parts of what you said that stood out to me…

      You said, “…I’ve observed over the years that some people on this site sometimes seem to be trying to impress one another with the level of vitriol they can reach. I understand that this is a sign of the times, and I get, as I said in the NYT piece, that when the president is engaged in this kind of abusive behavior it’s hard for others not to indulge.”

      I challenge you to consider whether the president is really the cause of this or if this is merely an attempt to deflect focus from a possibly civil– if at times intense– debate over climate change. Is the average conservative engaging in more vitriolic discourse than anyone else at any other point in the past? Is the Internet producing more far-right vitriol than it ever has? I would argue, no. The vitriol is the same between both the right and left. It always has been and always will be. The only thing that has changed is the quantity: both sides are making more and more of it. With all due respect, I think you diminish your character by immediately dropping to the level of blaming someone else. I encourage you to simply look past the voracious salivating of the trolls; don’t even acknowledge it; because giving it any attention just feeds it. If you truly believe what you’re doing is right, and have spent the time to equip yourself with the knowledge to defend what you believe, then show your strength by flexing your knowledge through argumentation and debate.

      You also said, “I will add that I don’t think civil disobedience is a spark to violence. I think that, as Dr. King demonstrated, it’s a brave way to open peoples eyes to injustice.”

      Regarding Dr. King, it’s true that his form of disobedience was non-violent. More than that, it was pacifist– in the Biblical sense: Christ took his beatings and hung on a cross but never once had even the thought of vengeance on his captors or accusers. Dr. King was living for Christ. I think history fails greatly to teach that fact about Dr. King because it’s so politically incorrect. He was not brave for his own gain or even for the gain of his brothers and sisters. Bravery in our world suggests some kind of self-oriented gain: notoriety, respect, wealth, and approval. Dr. King did not care to gain any of that. If throwing away all of that meant defeating racism, he would have done. And he did; he died for it, just like Christ died for a sin-filled world and not himself.

      I don’t care whether you believe in Christ or religion or spirituality, Mr. McKibben, but please don’t abuse who and what Dr. King truly stood for in his social disobedience. Peoples lives were on the line in the 1960s and only the criminally insane denied that because they– the born-and-bred racists– were so adherent to what they believed that they distorted reality to justify their own actions… up to and including the murder of African-Americans. That is plain wrong and is not up for debate.

      Climate change is not in the same universe as racial equality. Climate change is a field of science, which is meant to be meticulously examined, tested, proven, rejected, refined, documented, and debated. Racial equality is a matter of life and death. Period.

      I kindly and respectfully ask you to no longer think of yourself as following in the foot steps of Dr. King. His foot steps are deeper, broader, bloodier, more humble, more selfless, and more kind than any hero of climate change can ever make.

      You are right to have felt damaged by the grossly unacceptable comments that appeared here on WUWT, and I sympathize with you. But do not make this about you. Swing your sword of knowledge and wisdom, ready for blocks, parries, and ripostes.

      — Leo

      • Leo,

        You have done in this quote what so many have done, you have limited your scope of vision:

        I don’t care whether you believe in Christ or religion or spirituality, Mr. McKibben, but please don’t abuse who and what Dr. King truly stood for in his social disobedience. Peoples lives were on the line in the 1960s and only the criminally insane denied that because they– the born-and-bred racists– were so adherent to what they believed that they distorted reality to justify their own actions… up to and including the murder of African-Americans. That is plain wrong and is not up for debate.

        The bold part should read any who stood in their way, white, black, christian, or jew. The segregationists weren’t too picky about who they killed to keep their perverse way of life.

    • bill McKibben, “I think that, as Dr. King demonstrated, [civil disobedience is] a brave way to open peoples eyes to injustice.

      False analogy: MLK never wrecked property nor deliberately caused economic damage. His “civil disobedience” was actually civil. Yours is not.

      when the president is engaged in this kind of abusive behavior …” The irony, it burns.

      I’ve seen Trump counter-punch, is all, against those who insult him, but without descending to the “racist, homophobe, transphobe, misogynist” vitriolic lies of his critics.

      • Pat,
        I agree with your thoughts completely.
        Trying to claim the moral highground when calling for “they go low, we kick them” exposes who the real violent anarchists are.

        Joel

        • Prominent Democrats now proclaim that civility is no longer a value or virtue. Hence, civil disobedience can and should now be uncivil, and that violence in the cause of Progressivism is a virtue. People with whom Progressives disagree should be hounded out of restaurants and attacked in their homes.

    • Gosh Bill, It’s so weird because I see this as just the opposite

      If I may say, I’ve observed over the years that some people on this site sometimes seem to be trying to impress one another with the level of vitriol they can reach. I understand that this is a sign of the times, and I get, as I said in the NYT piece, that when the president is engaged in this kind of abusive behavior it’s hard for others not to indulge.

      I see conservatives as wanting to respect the law and liberals as wanting to get their their way no matter who it hurts. When I first investigated this climate thing about 10 years ago, I was on all the sites hungry for information. I was on the NOAA site and NASA sites–and asked questions on the climate blogs. I was ridiculed and scoffed at on the AGW sites and and the skeptics sites went way out of their way to give me answers. I couldn’t get comfortable on the AGW sites with the vitriol that you talk about. As a researcher myself (soft sciences), I read and reread the studies of the day and then read the conclusions and realized that what the blogs said the research said, it didn’t. And then I could not ask them about it.

      I do think that confirmation bias is at work here. What happened to you is regrettable–and for that I am sorry. Yet, to then blanket “vitriol” on this site and skeptics in general is more a function of your bias than reality. This site is generally very civil, and informative, and funny–where as the standard AGW blogs are more mocking, intimidating, shaming…. is this my bias? Some yes. But if there were an objective study done, I’ll bet I’m right. Skeptics are more professional, less abusive, more generous regarding motives, and fairer. Can we do a study? It’s doable.

      • Shelly

        I could have written that, indeed I did a double take!

        I couldn’t have written it as well though.

        My experiences of AGW sites are the same as yours, as has been my experience of WUWT.

    • Only one thing to say to you Bill,

      https://i.postimg.cc/3xKD6YXS/Towards700.png

      CO2 is NOT the evil gas that you and your ilk make it out to be.

      CO2 is the gas that provides for ALL LIFE ON EARTH…

      .. and by saying we should restrict it, you are taking a very anti-life approach to the planet as a whole.

      Its sick and its depraved.

      I do not condone violence of any sort…

      … but you deserve every bit of verbal RIDICULE you get.

    • Your side has threatened the careers and lives of skeptics for years. And you have helped enable the refusal if climate obsessed people to deal with skeptics honestly, much less with civility.
      Anthony has been much more forthright and transparent in this than you have on issues from your Native American heritage to the reality of the non-crisis we are experiencing with climate.
      While sanctimony does fit you like a well worn goive, it is still unpleasant.

      • “Your side has threatened the careers and lives of skeptics for years.”

        And shot holes in the office next to Christie’s, while faking death threats to Australian climatologists.

    • Bill, What will it take for you to admit that this global warming thing is just a big hoax? How much colder will the weather have to get before you cash it in? Exactly what will it take? As for us skeptics, we would agree that if all of the ice disappeared in the Arctic ocean then we would come over to your side. Catastrophic global warming can’t happen without all of the ice in the Arctic disappearing. But what will it take on your side to admit that you are wrong?

        • It is significant that every alarmist like Bill McKibben refuses to limit their belief zone. On the other hand we skeptics have no qualms about laying bare where we draw the line. Everyone can agree that CAGW couldn’t happen unless all of the Arctic ice disappeared as the alarmists have predicted many times and failed. So we skeptics would have to change our way of thinkoing if that did indeed happen. However alarmists like McKibben always refuse to tell us where their bottom line is.

    • “…I will add that I don’t think civil disobedience is a spark to violence. I think that, as Dr. King demonstrated, it’s a brave way to open peoples eyes to injustice…..”.

      Mr McKibben, Dr King’s civil rights movement was a social movement or a social issue. Morphing the climate change issue into one of social justice suggests that there is no science remaining to discuss and debate. Anthony’s blog has done a commendable job of demonstrating that the Earth’s climate and what influences and drives it is still very much a scientific issue and should be treated as one.

      Conflating the Civil Rights Movement with the scientific issue of climate change represents an inability to understand how science works and how it differs from social movements. I suggest you take some time to read up on the scientific method and how scientific discourse operates.

      And as I said in a comment elsewhere, civil disobedience is just one step away from violence and bloodshed. All it takes a one spark for civil disobedience to cross over the line. I can only presume that you do not have any control over those who are part of your movement, so how do you presume to prevent their civil disobedience from crossing over the line?

    • Bill.
      Lots of things for you to answer to, yet no response, except as to your involvement with 350.org.
      I guess it means that you’re rightly afraid of debate as you’re clearly clueless about the science, you promote an indefensible ethical double standard and have nothing but empty rhetoric to support your position. Feel free to offer evidence to the contrary.

    • Bill – REALLY!!

      I am a retired 20 year detective and don’t buy the – “I actually did think of getting in touch with you, and I even turned on the computer that day to do so” BS. My guess is that you, in such a situation, would contact the person to whom the comments were aimed. The likely response from them would have been – leave it Bill, I have plan.

    • Civil disobedience is anarchy, and disrupting law abiding businesses is just plain criminal.

      I’m personally sick of direct action by people who claim that democracy has failed them, therefore it is justified.

      No democracy hasn’t failed, YOU failed to win the argument, you failed to convince, you failed to provide the evidence, you lost at the ballot box.

      As for vile abuse, try as a skeptic, going and having a reasonable discussion on any of the CAGW sites run by high-profile warmists.

      It wouldn’t surprise me if CAGW supporters posted the problematic comments in order to discredit WUWT – because that is entirely consistent with the dirty tactics CAGW proponents employ.

    • the last post about me before the one that engendered the death threats ended up with posters suggesting, say, that my rear end required “oil-based lubrication.”

      well you were holding up a sign that looked like it said “this rump temporarily closed”, so, in context, it clearly was a joke based on your poorly written sign rather than a “nasty idea”. It’s called humor.

    • That was the point of my small essay–that we should try to treat each other as human beings. I will keep trying

      No, the point of your small essay was to play the victim and attack Anthony’s very effect site. If you truly wasn’t to “treat each other as human beings” your first action would be to contact Anthony, as one human to another, about the issue rather than call him out in a media organ that wouldn’t give him the time of day to respond.

    • Bill: “I even turned on the computer that day”. Sure. The dog ate my homework. Intellectual childishness from an alarmist. I’m not disappointed.

  6. Sorry about the “sunken chest” remark… It’s just that the Exxon station photo was hilarious.

  7. i tend to agree with your assessment of the situation anthony. i would also be wary of commentators that post extreme comments. you have no way of knowing what their motivations are ,or their background. they may genuinely mean what they say, or they may be trying to provoke more responses in a similar vein to then make an issue of them in the msm.

    as soon as you were made aware of the posts you took the correct action,that is all anyone could ask or expect. you provide a platform for discussion, you cannot be held responsible for what other people think.

  8. Maybe the denizens of this site can step up to the plate and stop that kind of speech before it gets out of hand– or at least let it be known that it’s unacceptable.

    For myself, I don’t think I paid much attention to that piece on WUWT. I don’t read everything.

    Don132

    • Don

      Frankly, how Bill deciphered gnomish’s posts is quite beyond me. They are usually unintelligible gibberish.

      I probably missed the comment because I don’t bother reading past the first line of anything gnomish posts. I’m not sure he knows what a capital letter is.

    • Maybe the denizens of this site can step up to the plate and stop that kind of speech before it gets out of hand– or at least let it be known that it’s unacceptable.

      Actually, it has been my experience that when unacceptable comments are pointed out, the response is quite prompt. I think Bill McKibben is unfairly blaming the many for the few and most especially blaming Anthony unreasonably.

      (That is correct, thank you) MOD

      • It appears that Bill decided unfairly to take umbrage because that would help his cause.

        Not that I approve of the offending comments, especially posting his address.

          • Naturally, I agree, although it was readily available.

            And Bill hypocritically supports CACA activists targeting the homes of people he doesn’t like.

            (True, but it is against the policy of this site to allow addresses and e-mails to be published here in the comment section) MOD

          • Mods,

            As of course it should be.

            Nor should Bill encourage his activists to demonstrate outside people’s homes with torches and masks.

  9. Bad news, bad show by some on WUWT.

    What we all must remember is that we are all on show here and Anthony cops the flack for our stupid remarks.

    What some might consider reference to violence a harmless comment because, well, it’s just between we sceptics isn’t it, is viewed from every corner of the world and reflects on our perception of the world.

    It’s also viewed by the subject of those remarks, and threatening behaviour impacts on more than just the subject targeted. There are partners and children to be considered here.

    I operate anonymously so if threatened I can shrug it off. Some operate under their real name and it’s easy to trace where they live. McKibbon has at least one thing going for him, like Anthony, he’s nailed his colours to the mast and must be respected for the courage of his conviction.

    I can’t apologise for anyone other than myself on this blog Anthony but I do hope others heed what you have highlighted.

    • Yeah, to put it mildly, too many comments on this site disgust me these days, and I’m a genuine sceptic. I don’t come here for political propaganda, or to read abusive comments. I come here for the latest thinking in the climate debate.

      But more and more, recently, this site has become an alt right echo chamber. If I wanted to read that kind of material I could hop over to Breitbart or a half dozen other politically slanted operations, all of which stuff, when posted here, simply damages the credibility of the anti CAGW cause.

      If we could just stick to facts, logical argument and reasonable theorising that would be great. Ad hominems never strengthen an argument and are self indulgent and juvenile. And while we’re on that angle, it would be great if those we disagree with were appreciated more. Steven Mosher, Nick stokes and others are a boon to the site. They ask hard questions. They often make logical points. They bring something to the debate. They cause us to think more clearly, to re-examine our arguments, to look at the facts anew.

      A one sided debate gets sterile pretty fast and usually gets left behind. Be grateful for the collision of opinion. It helps us to improve ours. Personal abuse on the other hand degrades the author, the target and the readers. Anger blinds. It clouds thought. It drives us towards confirmation bias instead of pursuing an objective position – the only position that is genuinely scientific. Achieving accuracy requires us to look inward, to identify and counter our biases, and that includes political bias/propaganda.

      Attacking the left is a major distraction from dealing with the science and has nothing to do with science. Conspiracy theories are an even bigger waste of time and energy. It’s about the science. It’s about logic. It’s about unbiased consideration of the evidence, and it’s also about recognising our limitations. And it’s about showing respect for those who disagree with us, as they are perfectly entitled to.

      They might be right and we might be wrong. We don’t know for certain. Anyone who thinks they do has lost their way. The future is the only arbiter. It’s not evil, or stupid to support the CAGW position. Sincere belief is something that afflicts humans. As someone else on here once said, it helps to see humans as belief machines. It doesn’t just happen to others. It happens to us to too. Once we realise that, we should be able to free ourselves of the anger and hostility that plagues those who think there is something wrong with those who disagree with them.

      None of us sees every side of an issue. Let others help us to see more, and to see more clearly. That way we can all learn and move the debate forward.

      • Jim,

        The problem is as it always has been: CAGW is at it basis, a political, not scientific proposition. It is a solution (one world dictatorial all-powerful government led by Mathusians) looking for a likely problem to stick it on.

        Once you realize that, the politics that get discussed on the site make sense.

        • I appreciate that there are many people on here with that view OweninGA, but I don’t think it can be treated as a given. That’s what conspiracy theorists do. They join some of the dots and think they’ve cracked it, but history teaches us that we tend to see only those dots that suit our world view, and that there are many that we can’t, and don’t want to see.

          Those who want to convince us of the validity of that claim should treat it like any other theory/hypothesis: by presenting evidence and careful argument. They should also look at all the evidence against it. There are plenty of serious scientists/thinkers out there who genuinely believe in CAGW. Sagan wasn’t a fool, for example, and he’d weighed in on this debate quite a long time ago.

          There may be individuals out there who are of a Malthusian bent who’ll try to ride any convenient theory to their chosen destination, but so far as I can see the evidence doesn’t stack up in any meaningful way – at the moment. But, as always, I’m open to hard evidence and sound argument.

          However, if it’s true that there is a large scale Malthusian, or one world government, conspiracy dependent on CAGW then that makes a well marshalled and effective scientific response to it even more necessary, and the less emotional and political the presentation the better. Undercut their chosen vehicle and the whole thing falls – at least until they find another.

          • “Attacking the left is a major distraction from dealing with the science and has nothing to do with science. Conspiracy theories are an even bigger waste of time and energy. It’s about the science. It’s about logic. It’s about unbiased consideration of the evidence, and it’s also about recognising our limitations. And it’s about showing respect for those who disagree with us, as they are perfectly entitled to.”

            Simply stated, you are wrong.
            Many of the stories on this site are regarding topics far outside of the strictly scientific.
            I am sure you feel strongly about your objections, but I find it laughable you write a long post insulting people while whining about how people ought to speak and the proper topics for conversation.
            I could run through a long list of specific things you are wrong about, but those who comment here can easily pick them out…so I will just say that people who we disagree with do not “deserve” respect, and I think you must be a warmista troll to suggest that the abusive warmista hatemongers do not simply deserve, but are somehow “entitled” to our respect.
            I have no idea where you got this ridiculous notion, but it may be the biggest crock of crap I have read in days.
            Respect is earned.
            CAGW is political.
            Liars have colluded to defraud the public.
            Stokes and Mosher are jerks and are full of crap.
            Nice ass-kissing though.
            Speak for yourself.

          • Many of the pure science stories have nothing to do with Climate Science.
            Just today there’s an article about NASA fixing a gyroscope on the Hubble telescope.

          • Menicholas

            “I will just say that people who we disagree with do not “deserve” respect, and I think you must be a warmista troll to suggest that the abusive warmista hatemongers do not simply deserve, but are somehow “entitled” to our respect.
            I have no idea where you got this ridiculous notion, but it may be the biggest crock of crap I have read in days.
            Respect is earned.
            CAGW is political”

            Who is it who is being a hatemonger here? It’s you, Menicholas.

            Your response only deserves disrespect.

            “Skepticism” is no less political than CAGW.

            And you should speak only for yourself. There are many skeptics here who don’t resort to the childish, emotional invective of a playground bully. It is comments like yours that distract from interesting discussion and turn WUWT into the kind of boring echo chamber Jim was talking about.

          • You must have some thin skin there Kristi, if you think that is hatemongering.
            I am not the one telling everyone how they need to speak, and what the proper way to discuss things is…on someone else’s blog.
            Only leftists use terms like “conspiracy theorists” to describe skeptics.
            I know a backhand slap when I am hit with one, so save your ridiculous whining and crocodile tears for someone you can con into feeling guilty.

      • The problem is that the whole CACA scheme is political. Based upon genuine science, there is no risk of catastrophic man-made climate change. Human activity has affected local and even regional weather and even climate, but nothing we do threatens dangerously to change global climate.

        So far, enriching its atmosphere with a fourth molecule of vital plant food per 10,000 dry air molecules has only been greatly beneficial to life on Earth. A fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth molecule would only be better for C3 plants and other living things. Twelve would be best of all.

        Unfortunately, no matter how much fossil fuel we burn, it’s probably not possible to boost atmospheric CO2 above 600 ppm, which is still far below optimum for all trees and most other plants.

        • Also, obeisance to the false god of CACA has cost the world millions of lives and trillions in treasure. It’s not just a political issue, but a matter of life and death.

          Bill’s advocacy and activism have contributed to squandering so much wealth and needless loss of precious life.

      • “None of us sees every side of an issue. Let others help us to see more, and to see more clearly. That way we can all learn and move the debate forward.”

        Is it a debate? Is the idea to “move the debate forward”?

        You mean like Climategate indicates an honest debate?

        You mean like just these few articles in as many days indicate that this subject is really about debating the truth with honest people?

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/21/the-guardian-un-climate-report-requires-an-urgent-switch-to-an-insect-protein-diet/

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/20/socialist-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tactics-to-defeat-nazi-germany-can-defeat-global-warming/

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/20/south-african-un-climate-delegate-we-have-passed-the-era-of-choices/

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/20/climate-change-endangers-dozens-of-world-heritage-sites-leaning-tower-of-pizza-edition/

        Nonsense Jim (with all due respect). This isn’t about science. At all. If it were this “debate” wouldn’t even be happening. I’m not for trashing people ad hominem style, nor for threats, but acknowledging the politics of propagandized “science” when and where Medusa shows her head is absolutely legitimate, because it’s absolutely true that the science is, at its worst, greed born and bred propaganda and at its best…well is there a “best”???

        • I’ve commented further down, with an answer of sorts to your main point, sycomputing. As for the articles you link I think they are simply the left wing equivalent of what’s implied or explicit in many of the comments on here: both left and right appear to see larger political or business forces hiding behind the science and using it for their own purposes, and the situation has escalated to the point where it’s as much about tactics and hostility, as it is about the underlying science, because both sides have become so entrenched.

          Either way, the solution, imv, is to demonstrate that the science is faulty. When the science falls, it all falls.

          And the hell of it is that there are good people on both sides, people with the best of intentions, people who really care, people who have a great deal more in common with each other than their position in such a hostile environment allows them to see. Emotion and the irrationality it too often produces have dragged both sides away from the potential for appreciating the common ground between them.

          Nearly all of us (excepting psycopaths) want the best for ourselves and each other. We all want a future for our kids that is free of conflict in a world that allows them to live and stretch themselves healthily, productively and happily. When we stop believing that there are good people on the other side of the debate, when those on the right think that democrats are evil, and democrats think that conservatives/republicans are monsters then we’re in deep trouble. It means we’ve lost our way.

          I suspect that’s where we are at the moment, all across the western world. A sizable proportion of people seem to be losing the ability to listen to and really hear views that oppose their own without resorting to anger and abuse. It’s like youtube writ large. Online exchanges seem to fuel deep division and polarisation, and somehow it’s migrating into the real world.

          And, to skip to your last question: yeah, I think there is a “best” but only at the personal level. It’s the best we choose. But if we’re allowed to choose our own idea of what’s best then we have to grant that freedom to others. And if we’re to have a reasonably happy world then our choice of what’s best shouldn’t be harmful to others, and vice versa. Mill’s harm principle is as good a place to start – imv.

          PS. Climategate – humans lie. To themselves, to others. Feynman was very honest about that. The easiest person to lie to is ourselves. I try to keep that one in mind all the time. It’s tough.

          • Ooooops – “psychopaths! That was unfortunate!! Wasn’t going for a play on words there .. damned typos . . getting old!

          • “Emotion and the irrationality it too often produces have dragged both sides away from the potential for appreciating the common ground between them.”

            Blessed are the peacemakers, Jim, but you’ve presupposed a common ground that doesn’t exist.

            All the best and take care.

        • sycomputing,

          Do you believe all the propaganda is on one side?

          Do you believe all the dishonesty is on one side?

          Just because others politicize the debate, does that mean it ought to be political?

          Does the fact that others make the debate ridiculous mean people here have to stoop to the same tactics? For instance, what does the KKK have to do with anything?

          • Recalling the Klan as a ancestral activist/terrorist group is relevant when discussing other extremist groups, such as Earth First or Antifa. When a political party decides to take direct action, to put a smarmy euphemism on it, recalling history is advisable.

          • Do you believe all the propaganda is on one side?

            Do you believe all the dishonesty is on one side?

            Nah, unfortunately, human beings are propagandists and liars by nature. Some more than others, naturally. Sometimes it’s very subtle, almost innocent, in that we don’t even really know we’re doing it. E.g., when we muddy the waters of an argument by introducing the bad behavior of the other side for whatever reason we believe such a thing is relevant. 🙂

            Just because others politicize the debate, does that mean it ought to be political?

            Well it depends. What are the ramifications of ignoring the political aspect of the debate from the other side? In the case of CAGW, I don’t believe that’s wise. The proponents of the theory have purposely inextricably linked the “problem” to a political solution, hence, the answer in this case has been predetermined by the proponents of the theory. Or so it seems to me.

            Does the fact that others make the debate ridiculous mean people here have to stoop to the same tactics? For instance, what does the KKK have to do with anything?

            Of course people anywhere don’t have to do so, but because we’re all human (and therefore willful sinners and stupid), we always will “stoop to the same [ridiculous] tactics.”

            My friendly advice to you would be to avoid spending too much of your precious time on the earth lamenting the stupidity of human beings. I’m unable to avoid that lamentation so I can tell you from experience it’s probably not at all worth it. You can’t get that time back. Ever. Just keep in mind that in the end if you’re honest with yourself you’ll find you’re just as stupid as they are, just in other ways. I know I am and I know you are too. There’s both humor and humility in that knowledge.

            But if you’re like me and you just can’t help lamenting Stupid, then you could make the best of your malady, e.g., when you see it, you could take the opportunity to offer an objection to the Stupid and try to teach someone why they’re stupid. Like you’ve done here. It’s good practice for logical discourse, it’s fun and you never know if you’ll be successful or if perhaps you yourself may learn something!

            🙂

        • Cool reasoned discussion of anything is never improper in my book Tom. But cool and reasoned discussion of the political dimension of the debate – so far as there is one of substance – is something I very rarely witness on here. Partisan discussion is rarely enlightening.

        • Tom Halla,

          The problem on both sides is that the science is seen through the lens of politics. It is very often assumed here that the science itself has become a tool of politics, and I don’t think that is a safe assumption.

          If one does suppose that the science is tainted by politics, there is no reason to believe that only the science supporting CAGW is political, and that contrarian science is unbiased.

          The science needs to be evaluated on its own merit. Science can and should inform policy, but not the reverse.

          Unfortunately, the IPCC reports have bundled together science with policy. While only one section of it is meant to inform policy makers, it is often seen as a political document in its entirety. This is just one of its weaknesses.

      • “But more and more, recently, this site has become an alt right echo chamber.”

        In my early days here I advocated that anything political be banned (as it is counter-productive to winning over centrists and leftists and provides an easy way for alarmists to dismiss us. I also advocated that no space be given to boasting about weather events that suggest cooling, as weather isn’t climate. But I gave up on that hopless task 6 years ago. I also commented negatively on Anthony’s imprudent politics post on some Trump-favorable disclosure about the Russia investigation 4 (?) months ago. There should maybe be a sister site where our politicos can blow off steam.

        I also objected to the excessive snark Griff was taking here, saying that once he was driven away worse warmists would replace him, and also saying that his posts gave us an opportunity to rebut his sources (usually Guardian or BBC articles), and so he was a valuable resource for us.

        • “There should maybe be a sister site where our politicos can blow off steam.”

          Or perhaps we could have an open thread available where such political topics could be discussed in more depth.

        • And yet here you are, Roger . . . Ever the optimist I suspect. I admire your staying power. I’ve about had it . . . but I keep coming back because every now and then there are excellent articles and brilliant (non political) comments posted, though not so often recently. A particular highlight was the work of RGBrown. Haven’t seen him for a very long time, and that’s a loss. Take care.

      • Jim the reason politics so often comes into it is because the whole global waming/CAGW/Climate Change/etc “debate” is entirely political. The science (which doesn’t back up the climate catastrophy narrative) is mere window dressing.

      • “We don’t know for certain. Anyone who thinks they do has lost their way. The future is the only arbiter.”
        I also do not think you are a scientist, or if you are, you are a bad one.
        We know plenty.
        We know there is nothing whatsoever unusual happening with the weather or the climate, and the ranting and raving from fearmonger activists is either intentional lying or delusional nonsense.
        We know that the historical records have been altered beyond recognition, and this has been a long term effort perpetrated by numerous individuals, and the purpose of it is to conceal the obvious truth that nothing unprecedented is occurring with the weather or the climate.
        We know that every prediction of the warmistas has been wrong. Completely wrong.
        Laughably wrong.
        And this now extends back more than 30 full years, and includes an encyclopedia’s worth of failed forecasts, predictions and doomsday prophesizing. Nothing bad has happened that is not part of the normal cycles and the natural variability that has been documented over the very short time for which we have good records.

        We know plenty, and all of it points in one direction: We are being misled massively, and the people doing it are organized and militant and they are powerful and they are serious They want to do serious harm to our industrial society and do not care who is hurt by the insanity they propound.
        Another thing we know is that from the get-go, the IPCC has been anything but a scientific organization engaged in fact finding the truth about the Earth.
        What they are is a political organization who started with their conclusion, and every one of their reports has misstated the science and misrepresented their own reports in the summaries for policymakers.
        Yup, we know plenty.
        And I know one more thing…you are not who you say you are.
        You can say you are a “genuine skeptic” all day long, but your words say the opposite.
        You sound credulous and gullible.
        You sound like a fool.

      • Well said Jim As a non scientist i appreciate this site the most when it runs articles explaining climate science from a skeptical viewpoint
        Abuse and political comment I can get any day of the week from the low life politicians and the MSM in my country Australia

  10. I suspect that similar to the #walkaway movement which is happening to Democrats so more and more of the public are simply turning away from the global warming/climate movement. Just like people are sick and tired of the lies of the Democratic Party so the public sees time after time the predictions of the climate changers fail miserably and have decided to simply walk away. And just as this has resulted in the Democrats turning to ever more extreme tactics so the alarmist are turning to more extreme behavior.

    • That has already happened in Australia, Climate Change is a toxic subject no one wants to touch. In politics it is no win or good outcomes in the lifespan of any of the voters, and as a one percent nation all the real outcome relies on other countries. In public discussion it just opens up toxic discussion between the left and right no one cares what the middle majority think because left/right have deeply entrenched views.

  11. You could use some George Soros money to hire a moderator. Or a government employee who works on the site when his time is being paid for by taxpayer dollars.

  12. “…I think Bill was more interested in getting the NYT op-ed than he was concerned about the comments, or the publication of his home address. Otherwise, he would have asked for the removal immediately, and I certainly would have removed it had I known about it, even without his prodding via his NYT article.

    I think Bill just wanted to take the opportunity to make climate skeptics in general look bad because a couple of errant commenters went off the rails, and we didn’t catch it in moderation…”

    Ding ding ding

  13. “All of the commenters, “gnomish”, “Gary Ashe”, and “Carbon Bigfoot,” are now banned for this unacceptable behavior.”

    Banned?
    “gnomish” commented several times on this thread 5 days ago ….

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/18/trump-is-right-to-question-climate-change-causes/
    And this one..
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/17/have-we-reached-peak-alarmism-on-climate-change/#comment-2495355

    This 7/8 days after being “banned” for this comment …..

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/10/bill-mckibben-calls-for-civil-disobedience-because-climate-change/#comment-2486551

    • Anthony Banton,
      The other Anthony said, “Over the weekend, 350.org founder Bill McKibben penned an op-ed in the New York Times,…”
      Are you trying to stir up trouble? Or did you just not read what Anthony Watts wrote? The bans were announced today and you are complaining about comments over 5 days old. Your complaints are disingenuous! They are the essence of what it means to be a troll.

      • “Are you trying to stir up trouble? Or did you just not read what Anthony Watts wrote? ”

        No and yes … but obviously not properly.
        Apologies.

  14. Allow users to help with moderation by adding an option that lets users flag a comment for moderation.

    (It is a good idea, which would help me moderate on them, but can be abused by a few aggrieved persons who might use it as a way to harass someone and waste Moderators time chasing dead ends) MOD

    • This. Of course the moderator also needs to see who’s flagging the comment so they can address abuse of the system.

      (That is standard in forum software, blogs I have no idea if it is the same way) MOD

    • Would it be possible to give a handful of reliable regulars flagging privileges.
      That way offensive posts could be flagged relatively quickly, without the overhead of dozens of people flagging an individual post.

  15. Bravo Anthony. I see lately that conservatives in Portland are starting to fight back… And this is not good. Even though the leftists have been using violence for years now… It is willfully ignored. But you better believe some idiot leftist with a bloody face will be all over every channel. You MUST stay nonviolent and suffer the abuse.

    It burns to hear the likes of McKibben soil the name of Dr. King. While fomenting discord, chaos and trying to destroy the government.

    • Mark,

      That way leads to civil war. NO SIDE CAN BE ALLOWED TO RESORT TO VIOLENCE! Once that genie is out of the bottle, the only result is blood.

      ANTIFA needs to be taken down like an organized crime syndicate. At every ANTIFA event, there are at least 150 counts of conspiracy to commit a crime committed. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a felony even if the crime so conspired is a misdemeanor. What’s more, because they operate on an interstate basis, they can be tried in federal court. In my opinion, the only reason this has not happened is that all the locations they operate in are left leaning and so getting a conviction in even an open and shut case would be difficult. Until the government takes a law-and-order stance on this and starts seriously giving jail time to those committing violence. The escalation will continue.

      • You can bet your bottom dollar that the Antifa movement has been infiltrated by the the FBI. However the problem is that the FBI itself has been infiltrated by the left. Trump is trying to drain the swamp but the leftist alligators swim deep.

        • The FBI is more concerned about supposed “alt-Right” groups than Antifa.

          If the Proud Boys are ever fingered for violence, odds are good that a federal infiltrator was the agent provocateur.

      • “ANTIFA needs to be taken down like an organized crime syndicate.”

        I agree. They are definitely organized and they are definitely, deliberately committing criminal acts. They are a clear and present danger to American society..

        It’s time to start an investigation into the socialist billionaires who are financially enabling these violent groups. They are a significant part of this organized crime syndicate, too.

  16. I will suggest here that it is naive and perhaps somewhat ignorant to believe that civil disobedience can remain peaceful and non-violent. Civil disobedience is just one step away from violence and bloodshed.

    I will also suggest here that the kind of change that the more radical element of the climate alarmist orthodoxy demands in response to their perceived “climate crisis” is not achievable and cannot happen without violence and bloodshed. Recall the banner from a climate march which stated, “To Change Everything Requires Everyone” or something to that effect. Does McKibben not concur with that banner? Sounds like a demand for a pretty revolutionary overhaul of society if you ask me. Bill might find that revolutions have been known to be violent if he ever took the time to review the history of them.

    • The warmists claim that their activism is based on “science”, but more and more it has the feel of a religious crusade… even more so when you dig into the datasets underlying the models and find that they are wholly inadequate for the purpose they are being used for, even before you start looking at the “adjustments” the datasets are put through.

  17. The most important reason for “tidying” up the language…

    The misfit ginned up a NY Times Op/Ed based on a couple of sarcastic remarks in my post and a couple of totally unacceptable comments… Totally ignoring the substance of my demolishment of his call for civil disobedience.

    Maybe I do need to 86 the sarcasm.

    • “Maybe I do need to 86 the sarcasm.”

      For what reason? Because someone totally ignored the substance of your argument on the basis of a couple of comments that weren’t even yours? Cut it out. The appropriate action has been taken, justice has prevailed. It’s more than their side ever does or will do.

      Billy Ayers can still get a paid speaking gig.

      • When idiots focus on my colorful language and ignore the substance in WUWT comments, it provides them with an entry point into the discussion and me with an opportunity to logically beat the living schist out of them.

        When a misfit does the same in a NYT op/ed, it provides them with the opportunity to attack WUWT on a large scale platform, where I can’t effectively rebut their horst schist.

        • “When a misfit does the same in a NYT op/ed, it provides them with the opportunity to attack WUWT on a large scale platform, where I can’t effectively rebut their horst schist.”

          You just did.

          Take care.

        • There are idiots who make a profession out of misinterpreting what others say.
          And if they can’t misinterpret something, they will make up something that they can complain about. They don’t get paid unless they are upset.

  18. For as long as healthy open debate is shut down by one side, ignorance will prevail. The animosity has been entirely constructed by the emotional Alarmists’ refusal to engage with sceptics. Many of us were impressed by your meeting with Bill Mc Kibben for it’s honesty and respect. We can see what happens when these two qualities are absent.
    I can’t find myself ever agreeing with Mc Kibben’s (whacky) views on Climate change, but I have no desire to bring GBH to his door step. Both sides need to listen to each other and communicate as intelligent civil human beings. It’s the proverbial elephant in the room. How Alarmists got away with silencing Sceptics for so long is astounding. It would normally indicate a weakness in the arguments of the oppressors, and people would question why they don’t want to debate. All credit to their propaganda people for making it acceptable. However, as political lines shift, this position will become more and more difficult to sustain.

    • Eamon Butler,

      “The animosity has been entirely constructed by the emotional Alarmists’ refusal to engage with sceptics. ”

      I’ve been posting here for quite a while, and though I try to be relatively reasonable, I’ve had to put up with hundreds of insults

      “How Alarmists got away with silencing Sceptics for so long is astounding.”

      Obviously skeptics have not been silenced at all. This site is a testament to that, as is the prevalence of skepticism in American politics. You are evidently not American (judging by your spelling of “sceptics”); maybe it’s different in your country.

      “It would normally indicate a weakness in the arguments of the oppressors, and people would question why they don’t want to debate.”

      I’m guessing that’s because it’s pointless – too many skeptics simply say the books have been cooked, the science isn’t reliable. Scientists do debate, but they do it in their accepted, traditional forum of the peer reviewed literature, or at lunch with colleagues, or a conferences. Public debate is simply not all that interesting to most scientists because for the public to understand it, it has to be superficial. There are also many scientists who don’t want to be seen as biased – there was long debate within the scientific community over whether individuals should advocate a position, for fear of losing the reputation for being dispassionate. Look at those scientists who have come out as advocates and the backlash and ridicule they’ve experienced.

      “All credit to their propaganda people for making it acceptable.”

      There have been decades of well-organized and well-funded propaganda against CAGW. It’s hard to see propaganda if it seems to agree with what you want to believe.

      There’s plenty of propaganda on this site.

  19. Considering the number of years this blog has been operating, and the numbers of articles per day, and the number of comments day, you’ve kept out of the muck-throwing incredibly well. Weather luck, skill, audience, or moderation I don’t know. But this is one of the best sites available, and it’s doubly incredible since it’s such a hot topic (politics and policy, taxes and imposed costs, science V’s non-science, us V’s them).

    You should be very proud Anthony, regardless of this upset of opportunity by McKibben.

  20. Is there perhaps a way to set up the site so that us Joe Average posters can flag posts that we consider inappropriate, so that the mods can look at them and take the appropriate action?

    • Don

      The site was recently afforded the ability to edit posts and up/downvote comments. It was hacked so we’re back to a rudimentary site.

      Nor do I think the Russians would bother much with WUWT so I assume it was an interested group who did the hacking.

      So, in short, no, the more complicated the site becomes the easier it becomes to compromise it.

      • Lol, wordpress is a constant target. It’s almost never personal.

        Telling people that it’s almost certain that they weren’t being targeted personally is a regular part of my job.

        The figures Anthony showed looked pretty normal to me, as was stated in another comment in that thread from someone who showed similar figures for his own site.

    • You can try starting your post with the word “moderator”, that used to auto-trigger moderation. I haven’t tried it since the site was hacked, or crashed, whatever.

    • Up in the Header Menu is “Tips and Notes”
      There you find a webform to send in your message.

      Dan

    • unfortunately any such tool is open to abuse by trolls who would use the opportunity to bury the moderator in a mountain of spurious reports. Mr. Watts and his volunteer moderators do an exemplary job as it is but no system is perfect. I salute their efforts.

    • “Is there perhaps a way to set up the site so that us Joe Average posters can flag posts that we consider inappropriate, so that the mods can look at them and take the appropriate action?”

      You could contact the moderators by leaving a message on the “Tips and Notes” page.

  21. I wonder what the chances are that “gnomish”, “Gary Ashe”, and “Carbon Bigfoot,” are not actually sceptics at all, but Church of AGW trolls out to make trouble?

  22. bill mckibben

    And if you want an example of how ‘peaceful’ civil disobedience can spiral out of control, my personal recollections of the miners disputes in the UK should serve as a salutary lesson.

    • Right on!

      I was in Merrie Olde in the early ’70s, and it was ugly and bitter. Three day work week during the oil crisis. Frequent national elections.

      Kind of like the Resistance in the US today.

  23. There have been some seriously unhinged posts lately that I was going to call out, but I didn’t—sorry to say. I figured at the time, and I still do, that they were the work of trolls trying to taint WUWT and it usually doesn’t pay to feed the trolls. One comes to mind about handing somebody a knife to commit suicide. If there’s anybody on the skeptical side who seriously believes that kind of thing, get to a shrink asap. I refuse to believe those are real comments.

    How should we report issues like this? Would it work to preface the post @mods or something?

  24. You’ll remember in a prior comment (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/20/methods-and-tricks-used-to-create-and-perpetuate-the-human-caused-global-warming-deception/), to wit:

    “You should also keep in mind that another of the tactics of the socialists is to appear to be appeasing toward dissension, which is why they agreed to that “productive dinner at Nic Lewis’s place” and “agreed on the need to depolarise and detoxify the climate discussion”… they have no intention on halting their shilling for enslavement of the world populace, they merely want the other side to agree to take it a bit easier on how they word the process of enslavement.

    Give them no quarter, spare them no mercy. All socialists should be weak, broke and running scared. They’ve killed hundreds of millions of people over just the past century, their ideas have never worked anywhere they’ve been attempted, and they’re just insane and stupid enough to think that if they just get the ‘right people’ in power, that those ‘right people’ will somehow buck the odds and resist the old adage “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”.”

    So what McKibbleBrain really wants is for us to not do what his side does every single day… hypocritical to the extreme, given that they’re the ones who were making death threats and burning cities from the very day Donald Trump became president.

    Don’t be misled down that path toward more fascism, Anthony… we don’t need more restrictions on speech, we need less. We always win in the marketplace of ideas because the other side’s ideas are insane twaddle.

    So if you’re thinking of implementing some sort of “Real Name” requirement, do keep in mind you’ll be playing directly into the fascist’s hands… anyone making any comments in contradiction to their insanity will be hunted down, doxed, harassed and threatened into silence by the socialists.

    It matters not who promulgates the idea, the content of the idea is all that matters. We beat the libtards to a pulp daily simply because we can remain pseudonymous.

    • Hmmm.
      I started posting with a pen name.
      Then changed to my real name.
      With the hatred and violence of the Left, I’ll go back to posting name.

    • yeah, realname also allows for id wandering/abuse.
      funny how bmck took so long
      and compared to wellknown media /people of influence making some pretty nasty suggestions to anyone not rowing for their team…
      in the main we are pretty tolerant to their hate
      I am damned sick of denier as thats a real term of abuse used daily
      i am a skeptic!
      i dont deny climate changes
      I DO deny we are having the influence they claim

  25. Looks to me Bill was enjoying his status,”Victim of the Week”.
    So much joy,no way he would advise Anthony,when the comments play into his desires.

    I actually wonder why you give this person any coverage at all,I have seen enough of Bill McKibben who I see as an attention whore,hypocrite and phoney.
    My view is only reinforced by the actions you document head post.

        • Funny how Mr McKibben immediately jumps on any mention of the 10:10 video to say 350.org condemned it immediately, but remains silent about his backing of the “Demo outside the home of Enbridge CEO”.

          Yet he complains in his NYT opinion piece about the “threat” of the very same tactic at his house.

          Care to explain Mr McKibben why targeting someone else is ok, but not you?

      • But I’d barely turned on my computer when that good feeling turned to a kind of quiet nausea.

        Kind of how I felt when I saw this post. While I like to engage in hyperbole and sarcasm, the “doxxing” and actual threats were totally unacceptable.

        If you think there is a path to a constructive dialogue, I’d certainly be open to listening.

      • I’m glad you are sticking around–I know its uncomfortable. Glad to hear that you didn’t condone that horrible horrible video. I couldn’t imagine what the Climate Change propagators were thinking.

    • According to 350.org:

      “Bill McKibben is an author, environmentalist, and activist. In 1988 he wrote The End of Nature , the first book for a common audience about global warming. He is a co-founder and Senior Advisor at 350.org, an international climate campaign that works in 188 countries around the world.”

  26. I re-read the comments from the older post.

    I didn’t recognize anything that would resemble a threat, direct or implied. The address surprised me then, and it was wrong for Bigfoot to have placed it. The SSS joke was too much. The “give him a smack for me” was followed by a “ta”, which seemed to imply a joke. (At the time I almost replied with “give him a big wet slobbery smootch for me too …”; I wish I would have.)

    But, there were no threats. So, for Mckibben to “thank you” for removing the threats either shows how smart he is (formalizing that there actually were threats) or shows how emotionally limited he is (not that the two are mutually exclusive). Either way, just as you “can’t/shouldn’t negotiate with a terrorists” (disingenuous fanatical wack-job that wants to scare people to get their way in the world), you can’t reasonably expect to reconcile with one either.

    • Activists from 350.org went to the house of a guy they didn’t like, and Bill backed them. But naturally, he doesn’t want protesters outside his house.

      I guess what’s sauce for the goose isn’t for the gander.

    • DonM

      Standing outside a petrol station with a childishly hand drawn sign is hardly the act of an intelligent man, it’s the foot stamping petulance of a child.

      But 350.org, 10:10, antifa etc. are all predicated on puerile behaviour which is manifest in the naive ideology of socialism.

      Indeed, the entire alarmist movement exhibits childish behaviour exemplified by Climategate with juvenile lying and manipulating circumstances to achieve their own selfish ends.

  27. when you have virtually the entire MSM with you – as McKibben does – & especially NYT & WaPo – it’s clearly just another opportunity for Bill’s CAGW propaganda.

    meanwhile, the same MSM is not interested in reporting most of the following…though they are good at creating the climate that incites it:

    Updated: Breitbart: Rap Sheet: ***613** Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters
    It is open season on Trump supporters, and the media is only fomenting, encouraging, excusing, and hoping for more…
    https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/07/05/rap-sheet-acts-of-media-approved-violence-and-harassment-against-trump-supporters/

  28. Hmm….
    Bill’s gang regularly makes threats against skeptics at least equal to those he got here.
    And he does nothing about it.
    His position on this seems no more sincere or credible than when he pretended to be an Indian or when he gets around the world spreading his delusional claptrap about CO2.

  29. WUWT is now required reading for two of my Great grandsons science teachers. Both recognize that CO2 is plant food. I have explained to them that even when the substance of the post is out of their field of expertise that the COMMENTS will help clarify the subject matter. We must help Anthony screen out threats when we see them. Both teachers will have a 30 year impact on the education of out youth. Let us not distract them.

  30. I deeply believe in the freedom of speech and the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I also believe you should not violate the standard relative to not yelling fire in a crowded theater. That would include calling for violence to be perpetrated on anyone.

    Yet those on the Left don’t like it when they are called out with the same verbal attacks, some calling for violence, that those not on the Left suffer. They confuse and confound the issue by discussing the KKK, Nazis, and other evil groups while the most profoundly nasty and evil groups in world history have been on on the left. Read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” or read about the “philosophy” of the poster child Che Guevara.

    I have been attacked verbally in public, in the news media, on the floor of Legislative committee hearings, etc, etc. More than several times for something I never did or said. When I publicly objected I was told by those attacking me and their supporters to “get over it” to “grow up” and “be thankful it was just words.”

    The Left today is not generally promoting peaceful civil disobedience just to opposite. Sure some talk about it and when so called civil disobediences turns to violence they often blame it on anyone else, anyone but those that started the demonstration. Like in the 1960s and 70s they are promoting socialist revolution using any excuse they believe appropriate, e.g., immigration, open borders, global warming, LGBT rights, etc. Of course the leaders care very little about such subjects other than as tools to motivate the rank and file to some form of action.

    Remember shortly before 9-11-2001 national intelligence agencies reported to Congress on terrorist groups. At that time at the top of the list were radical environmental groups who had caused more monetary damage than any other movement. The agencies testified that it was by pure luck no one had been killed by such actions.

    • Earth First! spiked trees, recklessly endangering the lives of loggers. Willfully, and with malice aforethought.

      The Envirowhacko Unabomber likewise.

    • The justice who coined the “fire in a crowded theater” analogy later regretted having done so, because of how it was (and still is) stretched beyond the context and scope of his original judicial opinion.

      • Also, the usual rephrasing of Holmes’ 1919 opinion in Schenck v. United States (regarding the 1917 Espionage Act) leaves out crucial words.

        Holmes’s original wording was “falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic”. His opinion was that speech which is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true. This distinction is rarely if ever pointed out.

        • Perhaps off topic, but having mentioned the heroic service of Presidents Hayes and McKinley in the so-called Civil War, I should also salute Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

          Like his fellow anti-slavery Republicans, young Holmes displayed conspicuous gallantry. The recent Harvard grad was thrice wounded, at Ball’s Bluff, Antietam and Chancellorsville, leaving the Union army before the end of the war as a captain, but brevet LTC.

          His regiment, the 20th Massachusetts, was however derided as the “Copperhead Regiment”, because it contained so many Democrats.

      • So true! My point is primarily about inciting violence or promoting violence against others. On occasion that has been stretch by someone interpreting what someone said whose words clearly did not call for violence but who go blamed when other committed violence.

        Public discourse in the USA and in the UK was historically coarse and often in your face. Read any of the early town debates in Colonies prior to the Revolutionary War or Winston Churchill’s debates in Parliament.

        During my career I was threatened physically more than a few times because I tend to speak truth to power and the public. I never complained though I did watch over my shoulder. I was literally in the line of gun fire three times, though it is still debated by those that were there whether I was a target or just coincidence. At least once I was only the target because I was in a government vehicle caught between two opposing political groups, it was nothing personal.

  31. I totally disagree with the doxxing of Mr. McKibben. I’m completely opposed to any revelation of any personal information about anyone.

    However, I find his objections to the so-called “threats” to be more theatrical than real. He knows Anthony, they’ve shared a beer. If he was truly concerned, he would have gotten in touch with Anthony straightaway, and it would have been handled. Instead, he made a calculated decision to leave them up in order to milk them for all they were worth.

    Which convinces me that he was more interested in the possible publicity that he could garner than he was afraid of the “threats”.

    For example, he and others have claimed that the “SSS” comment was a real threat. To me, it was just another lame attempt by some anonymous poster at a joke. Not funny … but not a threat either. If that’s a real threat then I’ve been threatened hundreds of times … but it’s not, and I haven’t. Spend much time on the web espousing any controversial position and you too can get that kind of meaningless aggro response.

    Finally, I have to commend Anthony for his actions in this matter. I have no inside knowledge of what happened, but to my eye looking from the outside, he has handled this in both a professional and a cooperative manner. As soon as he was notified of the situation, he reached out to Bill McGibbon, apologized for what had happened, and removed the offending comments.

    Can’t say fairer than that … kudos to him for that, and as always, my profound thanks to him for all the work and all the heartache that he has enduring to make this site a long-standing bastion of freedom of scientific thought. WUWT is the finest public peer-review site I know of, and that is due entirely to Anthony’s work and his enduring honesty.

    Well done, that man!

    w.

    • “If he was truly concerned, he would have gotten in touch with Anthony straightaway, and it would have been handled. Instead, he made a calculated decision to leave them up in order to milk them for all they were worth.”

      Amen…so it would indeed appear!

    • Anthony, Messeurs and Madames: I am grateful to you once more for a revealing read that is overall well worth my time and effort for its deeper understanding of what’s up with this. And like Willis, my mother didn’t raise a fool. The timelined facts demonstrate a shameless personal smear attempt on you via quite unlikely associations in a ‘newspaper of record’ by one more two-faced elitist who thinks they are being clever misdirecting attention away from their own conduct. But such increasingly common deceit and bullying simply declares their own bankruptcy as they accuse others of the very corruptions so plainly admissible to themselves.

      Thus I am provided here the great pleasure of saluting Mr. Watts for blessing us with his long standing open-handed service that has among others equipped me to be a truth-bearer to family and friends who had few other media sources to verifiably counsel their essential duty in the elective franchise as informed citizens of a republic. Anthony. you have in your own characteristically honest way managed to place a solid brick into the edifice of this nation as founded and I am much obliged to you.

    • What you said fully agree with. Anthony is doing a great job, very necessary. I still look at the site everyday, it is my home page, but am concentrating more on my particle physics interests, since I concluded, from checking the physics they misuse, that the global warming is another apocalyptic religion/belief. Sooner or later mother nature will take care of setting the record straight. At the moment they can still claim cold spells are due to global warming!!

    • For example, he and others have claimed that the “SSS” comment was a real threat

      A sign reading “Solidarity means attack” as torch wielding masked individuals gather outside a private residence is as much if not more of a threat, yet billy boy endorsed that with a tweet. So his credibility is nil on that front.

  32. Just a little bit sensitive considering the Greens ran TV advertisements in Australia that fantasize about murdering schoolchildren and office workers who disagree or are wavering about global warming.

      • Yeah. The term “lunatic fringe” was originated by Teddy Roosevelt to refer to the more radical of his own supporters. All causes tend to attract yahoos inclined to do vicious things. The person who assassinated McKinley was regarded as a nutcase by other Anarchists.

      • wouldn’t be the first time someone engineered something and then also exploded in faux outrage at it.

        That way not only is the emotional narrative established, they can virtue signal the moral high ground by condemning it.

        the IRA used to stand behind the peaceful protesters and fire past them to provoke armed responses and then condemn the violence that ensued.

        ANTIFA does similar.

        Who knows who the posters here were, and what their real motives were?

        False flagging is another well worn technique.

        As is astroturfing.

        In the end that is the significance of what is going on. It is in the end a conflict between those to whom the end justifies the means, and those to whom the means is the end – a safe orderly polite society that doesn’t promote hatred is the goal. And those that promote an insane disorderly hate filled society in order to achieve other goals.

        Perhaps Bill you should unequivocally state whether you are on the side of civil violence to achieve green goals, or are in the side of peaceful protest.

      • bill mckibben: As I pointed out above, 350.org was the first to criticize this video

        And yet not only didn’t 350.org criticize but actually endorsed the KKK like tactics of showing up at somebody’s house with mask covered faces, torches, and a threat

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/13/wackadoodle-350-org-protesters-disappear-their-kkk-moment/

        The very kind of thing that you feared might happen to you with your address being doxxed. As long as you support such uncivil behavior, you have no credibility in crying about it being applied to you.

  33. The left are the biggest hypocrites around. They deem that it is ok for them to doxx people, hound them out of employment, tell lies about people and call for death penalties for expressing valid opinions. If the boot is on the other foot, the left soil their diapers over it. Not a level playing field by any stretch of the imagination.

    The left have no hesitation in making baseless accusations and then using them as a justification for all sorts of vile acts, including assault.

    3 years ago, “Antifascists” attacked me-almost killed me when we were marshaling for a rally to uphold Australian law. Attempted murder for defending the law. This is the act of Brownshirts. The police were not interested, even when I found a lead on the identity of the attacker.

    2 years ago, the useful idiots knew who I am and went xxxxxxx-Nazi, Nazi. I wonder how they came to that conclusion since my parents are Holocaust survivors. Alas, there was nobody to record the idiots being humiliated (who would have guessed that sarcasm is my middle name.) Next time, we will have a megaphone and video ready, although the brainless students that recognized me in the past have probably flunked out of university due to intellectual deficiency syndrome. They did not recognize me at a well publicized disgraceful incident in Sydney recently. Tough luck for the useful idiots- I took phone footage of them in action, which is more incendiary than what appeared in the news. Oh dear, the footage has been forwarded to those that are taking the matter further.

  34. Calls for etiquette and to not “disgrace” Anthony or the site could quickly devolve into mob censorship and an ice-cold chilling effect on open communication. The big-S State doesn’t have to overtly censor when it can get your peers and neighbors to shame you into self-censorship. If there’s policy violations deal with them, but never, EVER let netiquette nannies get in the way of saying what needs to be said.

  35. Not sure what happened to my previous comment…

    I can’t help but wonder just who “gnomish”, “Gary Ashe”, and “Carbon Bigfoot,” really are. Such vitriol most usually comes from the Church of AGW true believers and their priests, NOT from sceptics.

    It would not be the first time lefty fascists have pretended to opposing views so they can bring retribution on their foes.

    And with the Sun going for siesta, the earth’s mag field taking a nose dive and the solar system moving out of the local supernova cloud, GCR’s are going to unheard-of heights and we’re looking at the coming decades as potentially worse than the LIA.

    That gets the rabid lefties foaming at the mouth and desperate to turn the ‘debate to violence and so distract the People. Can’t let them realise the prophesies have now been wrong for several decades and getting wilder by the month.

  36. I see this kind of like holding a bar owner responsible for another patron punching you after you shot your mouth off about controversial topics.

  37. I haven’t been as active here recently. Been recovering from a nasty case of neruinvasive West Nile virus that has done a number on my abilitity to type and think. But I can say this: robust measured observations compared with robust models should be the ONLY topic worth debating. The name-calling and hurt feelings seems so juvenile to me. So get over yourselves and debate what can be observed, measured, and modeled. The rest of our words are less than wheat chaff. Like your mother said, sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me. So Bill, do we need a Kleenex to go with that sniveling? Buck up and focus on whether or when the models will need adjusting and the scary scenarios put in the vault.

  38. [SNIP very very off topic, poorly formatted, learn to use paragraphs and don’t thread bomb – Anthony]

    • Arno,

      As has been so often asked of you, for the love of all that is holy and good, please discover the paragraph!

      • And proofread your comment before punching the ‘Post Comment’ button. Your copious typos and mis-spellings make you sound like an idiot, and your message gets lost.

      • This is your blog, Anthony. and you have a perfect right to throw me out as you did. But I disagree that climate science is off topic on a climate blog such as yours, I am a scientist but I never boasted about my work because it really is off topic for a climate scientist. But should you wish to sample some of my work, going back to 1974, there is no better way than by going directly to Google Scholar on the internet. Climate science was just a hobby with me but I daresay you would benefit by reading my 2010 book on the topic. Most of my publication is work I did for the Apollo Lunar Lander project. But should you wish to quaint yourself with f my publications there is no better way than going directly to Google Sc Scholar on the internet. Most of it is connected to the Apollo Lunar Lander project in some way, Climate science came to me as a hobby but I daresay you just might benefit by reading my 3010 book about it. they have collected it nicely together. into one place. William Haas is also a scientist. Science led both of us to the came to the same conclusion on CO2, using two different scientific approaches. You might call it a consensus of two. It is real science not the fake pseudo-science of these “97 percent” believers in the IPCC crap. There was a time in the history of science when disagreement with the powers that be could cost you your life. This happened to Giorrdano Bruno who was burnt on the street in Rom. Scarcely a generation after this Galileo was tried for basically similar sins but all they gave him was house arrest. And Newton got a well-paid job at the Royal Treasury. What you are doing, Anthony, by suppressing science is basically bringing back the bad old days when science had to conform to to powers that be or else. The earth was flat.non-scientists or pseudo-scientists whose”97 percent believers in the IPCC crap. There was a time in the history of science when disagreement with the powers that be could cost you your life. This happened to Giordano Bruno who was burnt on the street in Rom. Scarcely a generation after this Galileo was tried for basically similar sins but all they gave him was house arrest. And Newton got a well-paid job at the Royal Treasury. What you are doing, Anthony, by suppressing science is basically bringing back the bad old days when science had to conform to powers that be or else. The earth was flat.

  39. Here in Florida who owns what property is public knowledge and is easy to look up. I don’t like this at all since I am very opinionated and I never know what opinion might set someone off. I never wish anyone any harm but the government make it a right of the public to know where you live.

    • Public recording of real estate ownership is much more than that.
      When you buy real property, also known as real estate, it includes a set of legal rights. Mostly they are the right of possession, the right of control, the right of exclusion, the right of enjoyment and the right of disposition. The seller transfers these rights to the buyer through a deed, most commonly a warranty deed (but there are others). When you record the deed in public records it allows members of the public as well as taxing authorities and lenders to know who owns which property. Along with your rights goes responsibilities such as paying taxes and taking care of the property in accordance with local laws. So when you record the deed you give notice that the prior owner no longer has the rights to that real estate and that you, the new owner, are now in charge of that property. If you do not record the deed in public records the deed is still good however it can bring about a host of problems. The old owner can take out a loan against the property because the lender has no idea that he no longer owns it or the old owner can resell the property without your knowledge, just to name two. Now neither of these actions by the old owner will stand up in court however, that will require the new owner to spend money and time trying to straighten things out. Recorded deeds also create a chain of ownership that can be later researched to determine who owned the property when and that is very important in the event a claim against the property shows up years later.

  40. Kudos to Anthony, again. Your spirit of decency rises to the top. From the early days of flatearther deniers threatened with being Nuremberged to today, WUWT has for more than a decade sought to be a voice of reason in the face of irrational hate-spewing anti-debate rhetoric from venomous alarmists.

    While some on our side have reacted poorly at times to the onslaught, myself included, Anthony Watts has maintained his dignity and decorum on this site. Bless you, Rev. Your example teaches and leads.

  41. What they want is a very low barrier for comment moderation. I have seen this happening recently on many other blogs.

    This cannot be managed by volunteers. So it is typically provided automatically as a service by an organisation like Facebook.

    Now, here’s the rub. Facebook, in common with all the other Mainstream Social Media, will intentionally moderate from a left-wing viewpoint. So pressing for a low moderation barrier – perhaps getting legislation to force it in some countries – will remove right-wing comments from the Web.

    I would not be surprised to find, if you went for using Facebook as your access provider, that almost all comments were automatically deleted as ‘supporting climate denial’…..

    • if wuwt went with fkbk then i wont be here
      invasive spyware and their bias to censorship gows daily
      as does gaggle
      last thing anyone wishing discussion on serious matters needs.
      true herd mentality, scary sh*t

  42. Beware the deadly vicious spiral of revenge.

    Corcyra’s revolution in 427 BC, the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War, is a paradigm of revolutionary logic. Thucydides tells us that the citizens’ divisions had been of the garden-variety economic kind. Its Assembly had taken an ordinary vote on an ordinary measure. But the vote’s losers, refusing to accept political defeat, brought criminal charges against their opponents’ leader. By thus criminalizing differences over public policy, by using political power to hurt their opponents, they gave the revolutionary spiral its first turn. The spiral might have stopped when the accused was acquitted. But, he, instead of letting bygones be bygones, convinced the assembly to fine those who had brought the charges. After all, they had to be taught not to do such things again. The assembly approved the fine. But the second use of political power to hurt opponents gave the revolutionary spiral its second turn. Had the original wrongdoers paid up, the problem might have ended right there. Instead, outraged, they gave it the third push, bursting into the Assembly and murdering him. That ended all private haven from political strife. Civil war spiraled into mutual destruction, until the city was well-nigh depopulated. Thus does Thucydides’ account of how revolutionary logic manifests itself in personal behavior echo through the ages—an account that strikes Americans in October, 2018 as all too familiar: “men too often take upon themselves in the prosecution of their revenge to set the example of doing away with those general laws to which all alike can look for salvation in adversity, instead of allowing them to subsist against the day of danger when their aid may be required.”

    Our Revolution’s Logic, Angelo Codevilla
    https://americanmind.org/essays/our-revolutions-logic/

    • Thanks for that history lesson, David. It looks like we are in a similar situation today.

      I wonder, would convicting Hillary Clinton of her crimes be considered revenge or justice? I guess it would depend on which side of the fence one was on.

      • It would be justice (anyone else who did what she had done would be behind bars already), but her supporters would never see it that way.

      • Socrates struggled with defining justice. However, I’d suggest that the essence of justice is a societal attempt to promote the Rule of Law. That is, punishment will hopefully serve as a deterrent for those inclined to ignore the law. Whereas, revenge is simply a primitive desire to hurt someone after you have suffered an injury. Therefore, if a court of law concludes that HRC broke the law, and it is reasonable to assume that punishing her may set an example to dissuade others in the future from doing the same, then conviction and punishment is justice.

  43. The NYT Op-Ed pages:
    -where truth goes to die a death by neglect of the whole truth.
    – where presumption of innocence dies “because they said so.”
    – where the double standard is their only standard.

    Any one who believes the NYT news pages and its op-ed pages practices anything that would be recognizable as journalism is deluding themself… badly.

  44. Over 150 comments!

    IMO, I think this is more a publicity stunt on the part of McKibben and an attempt to tarnish the reputation of Anthony Watts and WUWT than anything else. However, the doxxing (I had to look that up) post was well out of order!

  45. Comments tend to vary on the different sites according to the nature of the blog and the moderation of the proprietor. The less moderation the more open the discussion but the more risk of in civil comments. It is very easy to knock someone at a site when they are “ on the other side” and easy to feel smart, snide or superior doing so, I know, I have done it too often myself.
    No easy way to stop people putting up such comments but if the tone is more civil they stick out like sore thumbs and responsible people like Roger can call attention to them.
    I do like his idea of a report button, like a thumbs up or down but with the report going through to a moderator and not visible on screen.
    Well done Anthony and thanks for allowing Mr McKibben free range of reply. I think the mea culpa and the thanks was all that was needed from both sides.

    • dunno about others
      I try not to say anything I wouldnt be saying to a person IN person
      if i call em an idiot in print I would do the same to their face.
      but we aussies do tend to be direct 😉

  46. The comments seem to have gotten off track.
    How did the negative posts make it through the filters? Were they specifically written to do so?
    Were the posters regulars or one-offs?
    Given the amount of false flags being generated by the left, I can’t help but think it might have been a setup.

    • i believe gnomish is [was] a regular poster,the other two i haven’t seen posting on other threads though i may have missed them.

      [There. Now it’s correct. -mod]

  47. Note to all, including Bill Mc.

    I spent my Monday afternoon pulling an RV trailer across West Texas on I-20 (east bound this time). Did ElPaso to central Texas.
    Every trip I have made on that highway through the Permian Basin in the last few years amazes. Going from Pecos to Midland (125 miles) is a trip across working America — hard working America. The drilling rigs working both near and far into the distance, the numerous gas flares stacks – near and far into distance, oil tank farms going up as I drive, the constant (and I mean hundreds) back and forth of frack sand and fluid trucks on the interstate highway at 75 mph is amazing.

    From my former military days it reminded me of the build up and execution of Desert Shield/Storm in 90/91. A Never ending streams of trucks, and trucks, and trucks, and people. But this is everyday life in the Permian basin today.

    They are working to fuel an energy hungry economy. And they are doing it every day. Every week. Every month, so when I pull into gas station, there’s fuel to put in the tank. And when I flip on a light switch the lights do indeed come on. And nat gas to heat my home. And the Left would be happy to see those folks all in the unemployment line, because somehow burning nat gas is “carbon pollution”.

    We have an economy dependent on energy… affordable energy. And there are men and women, many tens of thousands, many with hardly a high school education, working hard for their families for their pay check. And they are making good money today — by working hard.

    And as I keep driving, I get to Sweetwater. Sweetwater bills itself the Wind Turbine capital of the world. By the sheer number of big turbines that stretch from horizon to horizon from Texas to Noth Dakota, it may very well be. Plenty of hard working folks keeping those things turning too. They too put power to they grid, but only when the wind is blowing. (I had a good south westerly tail wind — good for mpg pulling a trailer, as evidenced by watching the big blades hubs go around almost straight on to my direction of travel). But those turbines didn’t just grow out of the ground under the will of Green Thoughts. Putting up each turbine, manufacturing all the components for each turbine, and repairing each turbine required massive expenditures of refined oil to make them ready to turn.

    People on the Left would just love to see Texas shut up, stop producing oil and nat gas, and to be happy to get a basic subsistence payment for their vote. Texas is getting it done. And those wind turbines would stop too, unable to be repaired or replaced.

    Folks on the Left want to throw all those folks out of their jobs… to “Save the Planet” from the manufactured Climate Change crisis.

    Climate Change is not about climate. Climate Change is about power and political control. Nothing else. The science behind it is not actual science, but merely cargo cult science of climate models and altered temp data records.

    So Bill, when you want to put all those people out of work, and keep millions in Africa similarly impoverished, I get mildly angry inside too. But unlike the Left, I respect our laws. They are not to be ignored when it becomes inconvenient to do so.
    Can you say the same about your Democratic Party base and “leaders”.

  48. If the website backend cannot use a flagging system without causing vulnerabilities, might I suggest that readers can reply to an offensive post with the statement “Flag” to alert whoever is watching over the comments.

    • He (Mckibbon) had the big emotional letdown because was not able to follow through with the “expert testimony” in the pipeline tampering case. Being an expert witness was going to be a big deal for him personally … he was going to both absorb and reflect the spotlight … his greatness was going to be revealed.

      The judge let him down. It wasn’t fair.

      He then needed to do something, anything, to get the light back on himself, to get out of the low.

      This was it.

      He should sent private little personal thank-you notes to the three banned posters for getting him the opportunity.

  49. It’s a very fine line isn’t it – intimidation.

    So our friend William organises ‘a march’ – against Climate Change, Big Oil, Wall St. or whatever.

    What is that if not a group of het-up & agitated people tramping around town, talking loudly & shouting and generally getting in the way of other people & blocking the place up.
    Then they all tend to descend on a particular place – residence and/or place of work of someone in particular.

    So we have verbal, visual and physical intimidation don’t we? Isn’t this what ‘protest marches are all about?
    And you, William McK, organise them.
    Comment?

    And most of the folks in the typical march will have used fossils to get there (and home again), will be wearing fossil clothes, drinking fossil enabled sugar out of bottles and cans produced by even more fossils. While tramping along a road made of ever more fossils (asphalt) and surrounded by buildings made from fossil fired bricks and/or cement and glass.

    The fact that 50%+ of them are only there looking for a Good Time (trying to get off with each other) and another 40% were there under some sort of bribe or inducement is selectively forgotten.
    Nearly all of them will be thinking of the exercise they’re getting and how much body-fat they might lose, itself caused by the over-consumption of sugar = another product of fossil fuels.

    The only non-fossil organic thing inside your crowd will probably be the weed they’re smoking.
    Climate marches are Bad News all round.

    Why not just set up a large PA in a field or football stadium and play them some loud music for 8, 9 or 10 hours continuous?
    You’ll get a larger crowd and the folks will come out of it feeling & being much better, mentally as well as physically.
    You could even show some of Al’s films or other nice climate change stuff on the big screens but, no soundtrack please.
    Let the people decide for themselves. Do not try to intimidate, rail-road or brainwash them.

    You’ll be much more popular and may even get rich.
    We know that is what you *really* really want, by virtue of it being what you keep talking about and accusing others of being.
    Win win for Will. What’s not to like?

    • Peta of Newark wrote:
      “The only non-fossil organic thing inside your crowd will probably be the weed they’re smoking.”

      Nah, even the weed they use to dull their senses into a drug-induced CAGW-supportive trance requires vast amounts of power to grow. Pot produced indoors can use as much as 5,000 kilowatt-hours of energy to produce 1 kilogram. And it’s nearly all grown indoors in the US, because potheads are paranoid that others of their amoral ilk will Bogart their stash.

      If the kooks wish to be taken seriously, they’ll have to walk their talk… nothing on or in them produced via fossil fuels, biking to their threat-marches / mob riots / cryfests, living in a cave (because even a tent requires fossil fuels to produce) without fire (which emits CO2).

      I’m betting none of the leftist tards have it in them to actually live like they profess to want. And if they ever got that sort of lifestyle forced upon them by their own insanity, they’d be the very first ones wailing, gnashing their teeth, rending their sackclothes and stomping their feet in impotent infantile rage.

      “It’s just so UNFAIR! We got exactly what we wanted!”

      • ” Pot produced indoors can use as much as 5,000 kilowatt-hours of energy to produce 1 kilogram.”

        Can you post a citation for that RIDICULOUS assertion?

        • Coeur de Lion wrote:
          “RIDICULOUS”

          I see you’re caps-locking… a sure sign that you’ve got some sort of agenda, no doubt. Which is probably why you’ve found yourself utterly unable to Google for yourself, right? Or perhaps you’re just too high to do so…

          Reference: study by Evan Mills, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, US legalized indoor cannabis growing consumes $6b/yr in electricity… you’ll note it’s only a $3.5b/yr ‘industry’.

          Reference: Northwest Power and Conservation Council in Oregon, which found that an indoor grow system for only four plants sucks up as much energy as 29 refrigerators.

          Reference: Last summer in Portland, Oregon, Pacific Power reported seven outages from cannabis production.

          Reference: Denver, CO, in which the cannabis industry consumes 4% of all electricity use. Per the Energy Information Administration and Xcel Energy, that equates to 269,583,884 KWh in 2016. (Also note the high percentage of crude-oil and coal-generated power in CO.)

          Reference: MA Dept. of Energy Resources, Cannabis Energy Overview and Recommendations; “Grow operations require about 360 kWh per 25 sq. ft. of space”, to include lighting, A/C and dehumidification.

          Reference: Energy Associates, “Energy Up In Smoke” report and CPUC ‘Energy Impacts of Cannabis Cultivation’ report, showing 3% of all CA electricity consumption goes to cannabis cultivation and sale; “According to the latest public data, indoor cultivators operating year-round were consuming about 150 W/sq. ft. of active canopy”.

          Reference: CBC report (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/cannabis-pot-marijuana-weed-electricity-engineering-1.4498349), showing it requires ~2000 KWh / pound of cannabis.

          Reference: NPCC, 2014 (https://www.nwcouncil.org/sites/default/files/p7_18.pdf), Page 7 of 12, to wit: “Indoor Cannabis production ~ 5000 KWH/kg”

          Now don’t you feel silly?

  50. Did Anthony see an increase in “viewers” for the offending thread?
    You know what they say any publicity is good publicity, so it may have back fired on old Bill.
    He could actually have added a few more people who change their minds when they see the posts on here.

  51. Threats like that have no place on a discussion forum. They are disgusting when they come from either side.

    They seem out of place coming from the Right side of the ideological spectrum, which may explain why this makes national news when it would be a near impossible task to chronicle all the death threats against conservatives coming from the Left.

  52. Some other blogs I frequent have a “report obnoxious comment” button for bringing bad things to the attention of the blog owner. Would that help?

  53. Once more the site with transparency is mocked and the people who hide and don’t respond are praised. Thank you Anthony for always maintaining above board and transparent honesty. It’s not to be found on the other side.

  54. Always remember, Mr. McKibben is a propagandist.

    Propagandists only use truth as a vehicle slip in their falsehoods. A truth when tied to a lie, is still a lie.

    And they always pretend for compromise. “Let’s add some of my dung to your sausage. Oh what a fine sandwich we’ll make together. I’d help you eat it, but I’m a vegan.”

    Too much?

  55. “The Los Angeles Times published an op-ed article of minedescribing a trial in Minnesota where some protesters — acting peacefully, threatening no one and informing the company they were protesting against — engaged the emergency shut-off valves on two pipelines and forced the company to temporarily shut off the flow of oil from Canada’s tar sands into the United States. “

    Acting peacefully? Well, that’s stretching it. They used physical force to stop other citizens and a corporation exercising their legal rights to work and make a living.

    That they caused no damage is essentially a lie. Just as robbing a bank when nobody is there still causes damage even if no one is physically hurt. They illegally caused measurable economic harm to other people.

    And as to internet comments, yes the direct and implied threats should not happen and should be removed. Unfortunately there will always be few in any large forum. But a lot of people on McKibbens side of the aisle are also rather too good at posting text inflammatory enough to provoke the kind of responses that then allows them to suddenly come over all delicate and play the victim.

  56. Bill’s call for “some kind of return to the gentler old normalcy” while at the same time promoting “civil disobedience” which often turns into a spark for violent confrontations, is simply laughable.

    Laughable, yes.

    So, shutting off a major oil pipeline is okay, Bill ?

    I have no idea, of course, but I wonder how Bill would react, if somebody shut off his lights, or (if he uses gas appliances) if somebody shut off his gas, or (if he drives a gas-powered car) if somebody siphoned and disposed of the fuel in his tank. Wouldn’t all these activities be forms of civil disobedience?

    I mean, does Bill use electricity?, drive a car? Isn’t an act of shutting off an individual’s use of such things also equivalent to an act of shutting off a supplier of an individual’s use?

    And using a perceived death threat as a soapbox to write a long editorial just seems like an act of dramatization. Without the comments inspiring his editorial, he would have had to choose another angle. The negative comments gave him a perfect platform, and he took full advantage of it to highlight his hypocrisy.

    So transparent it’s sickening.

  57. Am I right in thinking McKibben is funded by the same people who fund Joe Romm? I might even call them both proxy employees of the same business owner. As in Steyer is friends with McKibben (& funder) & Podesta who was Joe Romm’s boss, and Steyer is, essentially, Joe Romm’s financier. I that light, McKibben is like an outraged salesman for a pyramid scheme. I’m honest Bill. I always sold my pyramid options to people who wanted them. They were good phoney financials. I’m outraged anyone would complain about this!

  58. We do have a problem with the tone and tenor in the comments. In the heyday of Climate Audit, I could link something to a friend, and they would come away feeling they had seen a serious, well thought out point of view. Steve McIntyre seldom stayed into political discussion, and when he did, believe it or not, he professed to be more inline with the Democrats in the US. Still turned out brilliant work.

    I hesitate to do the same now with WUWT. Willis, Anthony, Dave all provide excellent articles but the partisan raving which follows turns away anyone other than those already in the choir. Remember, before you bash people of other opinions, that the politics often add little to the topic, and may actually detract from the ability to reach a widespread audience.

  59. I love the update.
    I was actually trying to remember that event,as it showed the blatant hypocrite for what he is.
    Rules for thee,none for me.
    That group threatening a home and family was one of the most disgusting displays of stupidity I have seen.
    Yet Bill was just fine with it,however when suggestion is made that the favour be returned..He cries about threats on Anthony’s Site,to a 3rd party while carefully neglecting to contact Anthony.
    I feel you could reinstate the “Banned Ones” as they were quite gentle in their response to the flagrant deceit that Bill peddles daily.
    Any sarcasm and especially return doxing will of course be seen as “Threats of Violence” by the activists.
    Standard play and pure projection.
    Otherwise known as trying to use your ethics and decency against you.

  60. Of course the entire climate change, global warming or whatever you want to call it becomes political because the proposed solution is to take people’s money and to dictate what a person should or should not be doing. Those are political arguments because it takes government action to enforce those solutions. And it is particularly obvious that the liberals, left wing, socialists, progressives or whatever you want to call them come from the point of tax and control, tax and control, tax and control with the belief that government is and always will be the best and only solution to everything in our lives.

  61. Why doesn’t Bill McKibben claim that he has a fear of flying and of cramped spaces, than fly to where Anthony Watts lives; then gets trapped in a cramped space with him and then complains about how his phobia was triggered. Than claim that he didn’t know about getting the exact same result with an email.

  62. I don’t doubt for a millisecond Anthony’s integrity. Sure, we’re human and make mistakes, but, from personal experience, I’ve no doubt he wasn’t aware of the comments in question.
    Back when Mann was claiming to be a “Nobel Laureate”, I made a suggestion for a Josh Cartoon of Mann with a … Nobel Lariat around his ….
    Well, I was thinking of “give a man enough rope and he’ll …” but I didn’t put that in the comment.
    My suggestion disappeared but not his mod comment that were words to the effect of it was inappropriate and “Not Funny”.
    At the time, I didn’t like it. But later I accepted it. It could have been taken the wrong way.
    I’ve no doubt all of the comments Bill mentioned “slipped through” and I’ve no doubt about Bill’s motives in waiting to reveal them without alerting Anthony first.

  63. As soon as I saw the gist of this post, I knew that the doxxing comments came under a David Middleton “guest ridicule” post. I’ve long-since stopped reading his childish antics here and IMO, WUWT would be much more reputable without him.

Comments are closed.