Pushback on the NYT over “denialist”

Princeton professor emeritus William Happer’s role in forming a White House climate security committee didn’t sit well with a number of media outlets, including The New York Times, which called the eminent physicist a “denialist.”

The headline prompted a backlash from those who object to applying a derogatory label associated with Holocaust disbelief to scientists and others who challenge worst-case climate-change scenarios.

Among those who bristled at the term was Roy Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville principal research scientist, NASA U.S. Science Team leader, and author of Amazon bestsellers such as “Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed on Global Warming” (2017).

“Journalists using the ‘denialist’ label demean their profession,” Mr. Spencer said in an email. “None of the prominent skeptical scientists I know deny some level of recent warming, or humans as a contributing cause.”

Including Mr. Happer. “I know Will,” Mr. Spencer said. “Dr. Happer doesn’t deny that increasing CO2 might have some small influence on climate.”

He continued, “The question is the magnitude of the influence, whether the benefits of more CO2 are being ignored, and whether reducing CO2 substantially might well impoverish humanity.”

Supporters pointed out that the 79-year-old Happer has enjoyed a long and distinguished career as a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the National Academy of Science and the JASON group, and a stint in the Bush 41 administration as Energy Department director of energy research.

“I have gotten to know Will Happer well over the past several years,” said the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell. “He is a man of great integrity and high attainments. Calling one of America’s most distinguished scientists a ‘denialist’ is just stupid.”

University of Colorado Boulder senior research scientist Roger A. Pielke Sr. said the term “denialist” constituted a “pejorative in the context of climate science.”

“It is a blanket condemnation of an individual so as to avoid discussing the substance of a person’s views on the issue,” said Mr. Pielke, who holds a Ph.D. in meteorology. “It is intended to denigrate someone. It is equivalent to calling a person a ‘heretic.’”

He also defended Mr. Happer’s bona fides. “I have met Will Happer and his scientific credentials are solid. For those who disagree with some of his conclusions, rather than insulting him, the discussion should be on the specific scientific questions,” Mr. Pielke said.

Critics have argued that Mr. Happer has “no formal training in climate science,” as his Wikipedia page says, although most scientists identified as climatologists hold degrees in geology, meteorology, physics or atmospheric sciences.

“He has some expertise in infrared radiation spectra, which is of some relevance to climate science, but he does not have formal training in climate science (nobody does really, it’s not really an academic discipline),” said Judith Curry, president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, in an email.


Full story here

I would add that “climate denier” is against the rules of the Associated Press Stylebook. Clearly, NYT and Coral Davenport wanted to denigrate.

195 thoughts on “Pushback on the NYT over “denialist”

      • Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim has become the largest shareholder of New York Times Co (NYT.N) after exercising warrants to double his stake in the publisher to 16.8 percent.14 Jan 2015.
        His purchase of a stake in The New York Times is less about editorial policy and more about the idea that the paper can gain value as an asset,

      • Me thinks Griff has never matured mentally and thus still gets her/his “jollies” by jabbing someone with a sharp stick and then running away and hiding.

        • The more relevant point than that Happer received fossil fuel funding was that he received it for a Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of climate change. In effect, he was no longer giving impartial testimony, but becoming a paid lobbyist.

          It’s less relevant what “formal training” Happer has had in climate change than the amount and type of research he has done on it, reflected in peer-reviewed publications. Climate change is certainly not his area of research expertise; there are many people better qualified to fill the position he’s been given by Trump.

          “Denialist” is a poor choice of word. It makes it sound like there’s an ideology of “denialism,” which I don’t think is the case. However, the idea that “denial” is associated with the Holocaust is absurd. People have denied all kinds of things besides the Holocaust.
          That said, it’s pretty ironic that Happer himself has associated it with AGW: “demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.”

          • In effect, he was no longer giving impartial testimony, but becoming a paid lobbyist.

            No, that wasn’t the effect at all. You offer the same fallacious ad hominem criticism as griff, and you do neither yourself nor anyone here any good by publicly causing us all to waste our time reading it. Hopefully, it isn’t a waste of my time to correct you. This is your brain when you fail to think critically!

            Dr. Happer was invited to offer expert testimony in a court of law. Expert witnesses are a time honored and accepted component of the legal trade around the entire planet. Expert witnesses who testify in a court of law are wholly justified to charge for their testimony and do it all the time on all types of issues over myriads of subjects.

            Lobbying is a completely different act and is generally thought of in terms of attempting to persuade policy lawmakers to make laws favorable to you or your organization. Therefore, no ma’am, Dr. Happer did not “in effect” become a lobbyist in the MN case.

            You’ve allowed your bogus moral presuppositions to get in the way of logical thinking again. Disappointing.

          • I think there is an ideology of denialism. The godfather to this modern days ideology is Michael Mann who is the man who rewrite worlds climate history. He is the founder of truth, and because his gospel many institutions are also changing climate history everyday.

            They want us to believe their propaganda as truth. And because we won´t swallow blindly Manns gospel, we are denialists. They very smoothly gave their label to us.

            I rephrase your last paragraph to point out what reality is from your point of wiew:

            That said, it´s pretty ironic that Happer himself has associated it with truth:
            “Demonisation of climate history is just like the demonisation of the poor Jews under Hitler.”

            It works much better that way, and this way it points out real denialists.

          • Kristi,

            1) Few scientists in the world have more expertise in atmospheric physics relevant to the repeatedly falsified hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming than does Dr. Happer. Maybe none.

            Have you really never noticed that alarmists always say, “It’s just physics”? Well, the physics in which Dr. Happer is the world’s leading expert, ie adaptive optics, involves aspects of the radiative physics and chemistry of the atmosphere highly relevant to the CACA hypothesis.

            2) The pejorative term “Climate change” “Denier” was intentionally borrowed from Holocaust denial in order to associate real scientists with an odious false belief.

          • In 2009, Dr, Happer pointed out that, “I do work in the (climatology-) related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals.”

          • Just a Petroleum Industry Lobbyist….

            William Happer

            Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University
            William Happer, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University, is a specialist in modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei.
            Dr. Happer began his academic career in 1964 in the Columbia University Physics Department, and during this period of time worked at the Columbia Radiation Laboratory, including as Director from 1976-1979. In 1980, he joined the faculty of Princeton University. From 1991-1993, Happer was Director of Energy Research at the U.S. Department of Energy, overseeing a research budget of $3 billion. Returning to Princeton after his time at DOE, he served as Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics and Chair of the University research board from 1995-2005. From 2003 until his retirement in 2014, he held the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Chair of Physics.
            Happer has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers. Awards include an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship in 1966, an Alexander von Humboldt Award in 1976, the 1997 Broida Prize and the 1999 Davisson-Germer Prize of the American Physical Society, and the Thomas Alva Edison Patent Award in 2000.
            Happer possesses a B.S. in Physics from the University of North Carolina and a PhD degree in physics from Princeton University.

    • Michael Mann is also financed by oil companies. But what’s far worse, also by government “climate science” grants.

      So-called “climate scientists” often aren’t scientists at all, but GIGO computer gamers or mathematicians, like GISS’ Gavin.

      • “Climate gamers” — it has a nice ring to it. It captures the artificial apocalyptic worldview they embrace.

        • Agree. “Climate gamers” comes with dual meanings, referencing both.
          1- Climate computer modeling as little more than video games, bearing little relevance to real world events, and…
          2- How climate “researchers” game the grant system, producing results that are geared towards being awarded the next grant, and not objective research employing any semblance of a scientific method. I am amazed (not really) how many journal publications that have nothing to do with climate science drop “climate change” in their conclusions.

          • I heard the head of one of the leading research organizations in the UK say at a meeting that unless the words ‘climate change’ were included in a grant application there wasn’t a hope in h..l of getting the grant.

        • An important difference between programming GCMs and computer games is that the latter actually have some value and show skill.

        • Yes, by Griff’s logic any scientist ever in receipt of government funding should be disbarred from ever expressing an opinion on governmental policies towards climate matters.

          Can you imagine the deafening silence if that happened? We’d all be able to get a good night’s sleep for a change.

    • And most ‘climate’ ‘scientists’ get paid from Government grants which makes them equally potentially biased as the outcome desired of their science is well known and expected if they want that grant money.

      Perhaps a better course is to logically look at each scientist’s opinions and discuss the pros and cons or faulty reasoning of those opinions.

    • You know that Dr Happer is capable of destroying the alarmist industry when DeSmogBlog devotes dozens of pages to denigrate him.

      DeSmogBlog is a Suzuki creation in Vancouver, funded by rich Americans and their foundations to kill pipelines, the oil sands, and the Canadian hydrocarbon based economy in general. Anyone visiting their site is getting mislead by their agenda. They do not do science, they do hit jobs.

    • Which hardly makes him dependent and may in reality make him less biased. The NYTimes is promoting bias in their direction as unbiased and skepticism as bias.

    • WHen you manage to focus on the man’s scientific views and arguments rather than putting forth juvenile ad hominem fallacies, we might pay attention to someone as sleazy as you.

    • Speaking of not objective, desmogblog is the poster child of not objective. No surprise that it’s griff’s go to for hit pieces.

    • Calling him a denialist is a semantic trick which lumps him in with holocaust deniers. It really is a form of hate speech. If you’re good with that then I’m sorry for you.

      • Being an American, being a “Holocaust Denier” is not illegal- it’s merely stupid. I tie in the term “denier” with Paul’s New Testament letters, referring to those who “deny Christ”. It’s a religious attack from Alarmists in the Church of Catastrophic Global Warming.

        Here’s an example:
        Here is an example:

        https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-respond-effectively-to-climate-change-deniers/answer/Daniel-Kinch-2 (https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-respond-effectively-to-climate-change-deniers/answer/Daniel-Kinch-2)

        “It is pointless to try and respond to climate change deniers…..People don’t have time to persuade the unbelievers.”

        • Did you read the reference article in the one you posted? Apparently, we only have 38 months before the extinction event!

          • Dale

            It’s worse than that!

            A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

            The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

            The Guardian………2004…….Ahem.

            Please note, reference to Britain entering a Siberian winter. How does that work when the planets ‘warming’?

            https://tinyurl.com/ybqezeom

          • Don’t you know HotScot – warming makes it colder. Less snow make for more snow. Up is down. black is white. 1984 was supposed to be a warning not an instruction manual.

          • Daniel Kinch, the author of the posted Quora response to the question of how to deal with “climate change deniers” (an utterly moronic label developed by people with child like fears of the Boogey Man hiding under their beds) is an actor, a performer, and an activist, a maker of emotional responses in an audience not a scientist. He is a college graduate from a FL University, and is typical of the left wing fear mongers that wouldn’t know the difference between a Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis, deductive vs inductive reasoning, nor the overlap in IR spectra of atmospheric CO2 and H2O vapour concentrations in relationship to temperatures. Dr Wm Happer does. Yet Kinch is selected by the Moderators at Quora to answer a question he has little scientific expertise in answering because it is a left wing blog site dedicated to indoctrinate the masses in one point of view on the portfolio of issues that characterize their Tribal thinking. He is a member of the Tribe that is not able to think as an individual, to evaluate the truth of information on his own; he was never taught the value of skepticism both in science and especially when the political experts agree and their projected value to humanity of past High Modernist economic plans of socialist/ Marxist central governments to improve the condition of mankind that failed so miserably throughout the 20th C and is failing again in Venezuela and Cuba today. They are ignorant of history, recent and ancient. So they pedal a constant refrain of the fear of the future; which at heart is a fear of the unknown, while their unspoken fear is that of free people to make decisions on their own to liberate themselves from poverty. They pedal the absurdity of the collapse of civilization due to the combustion of fossil fuels, which has propelled the economic growth of the US and now the world economy since the end of WWII to heights never achieved before, raising average people’s incomes to above the poverty level across the globe. Yes there are problems, but nothing insoluble worthy of fear or loathing. We supposed to fear scarcity, low Energy Return on Investment and yet they propose renewable energy technology that has low or negative EROI due to multiple reasons including the widely diffused nature of the sources being captured. Fear of over loading the carrying capacity of the earth while human population growth is slowing in direct relationship to economic growth and increase in per capital income. And of course they hate America and its past success of common people achieving great things above all else for demonstrating the flaws in their
            Totalitarian beliefs. Economic prosperity is an emerging phenomenon borne of individual freedom not a top down product of central government planning and control. It’s ironic that the wealthiest Corporations and their founders are all Leftists: Apple, AMZN, MSFT, GOOG, FB, even BRK etc. Bezos recently got a taste of the anti-business welcome mat in NYC and vitriol of Left Wing Activists. Apparently his selfies didn’t impress the Tribe.

    • griff

      Surely you are aware that Michael Mann and his employer have a history of accepting funding from fossil fuel companies? So do lot of other so-called and self-described “climate scientists”. Perhaps you have heard of BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” programme and their “emerging Markets” BOP (bottom of the pyramid) initiative informed by none other than the brilliant Craig Cohon and C.K Prahalad? Have you heard of the Shell Foundation? Do you know what they do?

      Why do you cast aspersions so easily? Should I do the same to “balance the presentations”? Why should seekers of truth wallow in the slough of gossip, back-biting and calumny? If you are going to back-bite people for being “funded” then you should criticise all, because you are fair and balanced, right? If you don’t, you come off looking biased, while complaining other people are.

      The government of Canada is “paid by fossil fuel companies” and we thank them mightily for it. I once worked for BP for 4 days. Does that mean I cannot be objective or independent?

      Desmogblog is not a reliable source of information. He hosts there an uncorrected, brainless attack on the solid science of Waterloo’s Prof Qing-Bin Lu. It is also a cesspool of calumny and gossip.

      • Crispin in Waterloo

        The founder of desmogblog is a convicted criminal.

        Nothing griff has, wears or eats would be possible without Big Oil.

        • Pointing out that he is a convicted criminal is a Poisoning the Well logical fallacy. It has no bearing on the validity of his arguments. It is a form of childish name calling. From the descriptions of his site, there are a lot more valid reasons to doubt his veracity than point out that he has had a conviction. There are many people, such as Chuck Colson, who after their convictions have gone on to be upstanding, truthful, citizens.

          • A criminal record with conviction is important in so many ways in ones life. I am thankful that HotScot brought it a fact that I was ignorant of.

      • Hey Hottie Scottie, I live in the cold dreich Scottish gulag and my beloved wants to book a winter holiday in some hot spot to get away from the cold in 2020.
        Are you telling me we must sell up and not come back?
        I thought some stupid little Bronx barmaid told us we had 12 years left.
        Come on Hot Scot – make your mind up, I don’t want to blow all my grand kids inheritance.

    • In griff’s “mind” receiving any money from an oil company, at any time during your life means that nothing you have to say is worth listening to.

      On the other hand, spending your entire life grubbing for government grants means you are as pure as the driven snow (assuming anyone can remember what that is) and nothing you say is to be questioned.

      Once again, griff proves that he can’t refute anything, so he has to attack the man instead of the argument.

        • I had the pleasure of being there during the snow! I think it was the first time I had experienced a 100 year climate event! The locals and airlines were struggling. If global warming continues it’s southward march, the airports might have to get some de-icing equipment.

          I wonder how much revenue was lost with the cold weather there this week?

      • I’ll bet Griff has bought gas at some point, so it is clear he’s beholden to big oil as well. Big government is a much bigger worry.

    • Dana Nuttyjelly works for Big Oil and he’s a poster boy for CAGW alarmism, so what’s your point?

    • The CRU at UEA took funding from Big Oil, so I presume you ignore anything they have to say about CAGW, yes?

    • Griff, do you earn any money from renewable energy companies or grants?

      You are quick to accuse so you need full disclosure.

      I am happy to say I have worked for both a renewable research company directly (recent) and an oil company indirectly (historic).

      • One who if you ask “what would you accept as evidence that there is no catastrophic man-caused global warming,” would reply “nothing.”

    • Baloney. Even if someone has paid me for something in the past that doesn’t mean I am not independent. By your rationale no one who is paid to do climate research or to comment on climate can be trusted either. In fact most of them would lose their jobs if the panic is dismissed, all those so called climate experts you like actually do have a huge financial conflict of interest.

      You can’t have it both ways, at least not rationally. Either Happer is a reasonable choice or all of your so called experts are more discredited than he is.

      • You can’t have it both ways, at least not rationally

        Remember to whom you are conversing. Rationally never enters into any of griff’s postings.

        • Or any greenie, really – isn’t ironic how they literally spent decades stacking the deck in their favor, and then turn around and squeal like pigs when someone of an opposing viewpoint is put into an influential position – and then have the nerve to position it as if they were the ones being treated unfairly.

          Not the least issue I have with Progressives in general is an extremely distorted perception of scale.

      • By griffs logic, nobody would ever go against the interests of a former employer. No matter how long ago you and the employer parted ways.

    • That’s the second time you’ve put that up Grift – really trying to push your messaging, aren’t you?
      You’ve never really gotten down to who pays YOU, have you?

    • griff

      I don’t think that “employment” is the correct term. It is more like a stipend or fee received for doing research and testifying. It is different from someone who receives all of their livelihood from a particular organization on a continuing basis.

      I don’t think that someone receiving payment one or two times in their career should disqualify them from being credible authorities on a subject. On the other hand, someone who depends on receiving tenure and promotion through bringing grants to their university, in an environment where it has been demonstrated that there is bias against skeptics, should be examined closely.

      That is the essence of the issue. It isn’t that receiving money is automatically a disqualifier. It is reasonable to question whether there might be a conflict of interest if someone has received money from a party with a vested interest. However, it is only a flag, and merits examination, not disqualification. Ten grand is nothing compared to the speaking fees and royalties received by the likes of Al Gore. So, one should also take into account the amount of money if you are going to criticize. I have known academics who wouldn’t even look at a potential grant unless it was at least $100,000!

      Have you ever publicly apologized for saying that Susan Crawford wasn’t a scientist? You are concerned about other people’s reputation, how about yours?

      • +1.

        Burp!

        But I must admit it is a fast little desmofactory troll in shift writing the 1st comment. As if it would work on being first… maybe it does. It’s a troll, after all.

    • Looks like DSB nailed it. Let’s be honest. Who among us wouldn’t sell the planet and all it’s future inhabitants down the river for $24,000? I know I would. In a heartbeat.

    • ” Don’t: Don’t attack the arguer, attack the argument.”

      You cannot rebut anything Happer says, so you attack his character. You’ll persuade NOBODY that way.

    • I actually clicked on Griff’s link.

      The first cite is that Happer was paid $8,000 (by a coal company) to prepare expert testimony in a Minnesota state hearing.

      Since Griff is such a model of moral virtue and principal, I assume he thinks an attorney who gets paid to defend a suspect in a rape-murder trial is forever after pro rape and pro murder?

      Certainly someone who ever “supported” a rapist and murderer should never be allowed to hold any political office. /s off

    • You know I have read many of your posts so I know that you are not stupid or ignorant but I do have to wonder what you think of the rest of us.

    • If you believe that scientists are influenced by money in this way, do you also have any concerns about scientists receiving money and grants from agencies associated with governments, who would like to raise taxes, or with the UN, who would like to use climate change to enact wealth transfers?

      Are those scientists also lacking in objectivity or independence based on where they received their grant money?

    • Thanks for the link. Apparently his “employment” was 32 hours of expert witness testimony at a Minnesota state hearing for which he charged $8000. I expect he was able to maintain an independent point of view. This could be contrasted with Mann’s career at State Penn.

    • Again Griff,

      He is a bright and shinning example of independent and impartial thought.

      He has a long track record of doing what is right, regardless of income.

      Per your highly biased blog reference, he has received less than $25K.

      Per the attempted Greenpeace set-up, he told them he didn’t want money … that they could donate to someone else … that what he does is a labor of love. See today’s hit piece on him per the NYT … they don’t go as low as you did with respect to the attempted Greenpeace set-up.

      William Happer = Honest, rational
      Anon Griff = Irrational, conniving, very biased

    • And his oppponents certainly have a record of paid employment by taxpayers. Which hardly makes them objective or independent.

      See how easy it is?

    • “Happer certainly has a record of paid employment by fossil fuel companies. Which hardly makes him objective or independent…”

      Climate scientists certainly have a record of paid employment by government-moneyed entities. Which hardly makes them objective or independent…

      Do you see the fallacy in your statement?

    • Griff, Desmogblog is nothing but a public relations blog. They can not attack Will Happers knowledge. They can only try to slander him. None of the money mentioned on Desmog went into Will’s pocket. He donated every penny to organizations he saw fit. Because of his work on the Sodium Laser Star, his knowledge of the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere exceeds any of those on your side of the fence. I had a one on one lunch with Will perhaps three years ago. I can attest to his honesty and integrity. The man is just brilliant and a joy to talk to. On a personal note, I was contemplating a major move in my life. Will has a very subtle way of offering insight. For that, I offer many thanks.

    • griff

      Oh goody. desmogblog.

      The site run by a convicted criminal.

      Thankfully it’s not a criminal offence to be paid by Big Oil.

      • I really, really, really hate pointing this out.

        Dismissing desmoblog because it’s run by a criminal isn’t much better than what griff did.
        You can point out desmoblogs long history of getting things wrong.
        You can refute the weight of the alleged evidence that desmoblog found.

        Dismissing it because the owner has been convicted of something is attacking the man, not the argument.

        • Depending on the crime, doesn’t that poison the well? I know it’s a logical fallacy, but credibility should mean something.

          I suppose it’s unnecessary, as you’ve claimed, for to the constant errors, which in itself dismiss credibility

        • While what you say is true, Mark, it’s called “meeting him where he lives”. Since Griff lives by such dismissing by association arguments, it’s a kind of poetic justice to dismiss his own arguments the same way. It’s no different than all the posts pointing out that the climate establishment scientists can equally be accused of being “tainted” by their funding sources (which for many of them include money from *gasp* big oil).

          That said, I know nothing of desmogblog’s criminal history. But if the crime involved defamation, lying, fraud, or the like then the criminal history would be extremely relevant – if they committed such crimes of false information before why would you assume they aren’t involved in false information now?

        • I agree with your point, however I expect HotScot’s motive was to strike Griff with their own mallet. Result: One flattened Griff.

        • I really, really, really hate pointing this out.

          Why? What you’ve said is good and true.

          HS is a good man – and smart . . . he’s one that’s willing to learn. I choose to believe he will take this criticism and become an even better thinker than he already is. And if so, you had a hand in that didn’t you?

          What’s to hate about that?

    • Desmog g?
      They are solely in the business of demeaning and propaganda; definitely not facts or news.
      NYT’s at least has a previous history of accurate reporting decades ago.

      Or, prove that any funds Happer ever received anywhere, caused Happer to spin his results in the funder’s direction.

      Happer does have a history of objective and independent results. N.B. Happer’s honest independence is why the alarmists, like g, fear and hate him so much.
      Otherwise, g is spouting libellous falsehoods.

      Totally pathetic specious claim g.

    • “Happer certainly has a record of paid employment by fossil fuel companies. Which hardly makes him objective or independent…”

      Can you say “genetic fallacy”?

    • The dubious gruff fails to recognize the serious conflicts of hiring, and retaining Sarah Jeong as editorial board member of NYT.
      Here’s is the recap from one of those lying rags you misplace your trust:

      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534

      People that possess the same lack of critical thinking as you, are directly responsible for the destruction of everything wholesome in life. The magnitude of your ignorance is poisoning the future because people like you vote. Low information automatons incapable of self reflection or critical thought destroy great Nations, (as is already happening with double standards such as Smollett likely not seeing jail time.)

      It is that same willfully ignorant cognitive dissonance which is responsible for millions of deaths due to the effects of socialism, because people of your IQ are the target audience.

      You’d vote for Rosie O’Donnell in a beauty pageant if CNN told you she is the most deserving (Notice I didn’t say most attractive).

      How anyone is polite to this guy is commendable

    • griff, seriously you think a few thousand dollars is enough jeopardize ones reputation and career. No it would take millions of dollars , like the government grants Micheal Mann and his friends get.

      • That’s basically it, isn’t it?

        These guys have such crappy views of human nature that they believe nobody can be honest, and that someone can believe X, then disbelieve it for money. I get the idea they are projecting their own low morals, but that’s just me.

        I believe Dr. Lindzen has said (and stand to be corrected) that he would give the same presentation to any group that would have him (i.e., WWF, Greenpeace, Suzuki Foundation, etc.), but he’s never been offered the chance.

    • All those scientists feeding at the government trough also are not objective or independent. If they conclude there is no problem with global warming, they are signing their own pink slips, if they don’t get fired first for writing something positive about global warming.

    • Griff,
      Fossil fuel companies have benefited humanity to an incalculable degree; what have you done? As far as I can tell all you do is lie to support an ideology that would do incalculable harm to humanity. Shame on you.

    • Desmogblog is complete an utter garbage; pretty much the worst website on the internet.
      If they ever had something that was true on their website, it would be very noteworthy. As to their hilarious claim that Happer made a whopping eight thousand dollars off a fossil fuel company I’m sure you believe the “undercover investigation by Greenpeace,” but anyone with greater than half a brain wouldn’t.

    • Griff implies as the press would confirm that we should only ever seek the advice of the least informed, least educated and least competent. Anyone else is certainly biased ( in ways not consistent with yours)

    • “…has a record of paid employment by fossil fuel companies. ”

      When your arguments have no merit, slander the messenger.

    • As opposed to the record of paid employment by government by others which hardly make them objective or independent. I think it is about time that both sides are represented at the same table.

    • Griffer – you are so . . . so . . . so . . . much like a bona fied Climate Scientist! You focus on the fossil fuel companies (analog – an atmospheric trace gas) while ignoring the gorilla in the room which is the Federal Government (analog – the sun and all other natural forcings).

  1. I’ve been studying climate for twenty-five years, and although I have a doctorate, it has no relationship to climate “science”. I’m of the opinion that celebrated climate “scientists” aren’t scientists at all, but merely frauds and charlatans who change their views depending on which way the wind blows and from which government entity the money flows.

    • I really like the epithet ‘Climate Gamers’ proposed earlier by commenter Gary.
      I suggest it be used more, as it also has context with millenials who understand posers and gamers.

      • It is actually a situation the press councils and organization should be dealing with but won’t due to the number of lefties in those.

      • Not true Mark. Their ruling places a much higher bar (proving actual malice in the making of the defamatory statement – which isn’t easy to do) for public figures, it doesn’t eliminate it entirely. I agree with Clarence Thomas that the ruling was a bad one, but let’s not mischaracterize it as you just did.

        • The bar has been set so high that the difference isn’t that significant.
          They can print pretty much anything they want, then when shown that it is false an malicious just claim that it is satire or opinion.

          • The bar is set high for some but public figure Mark Steyn is being sued by Michael Mann. Both the DC court and Michael man will regret having sued this guy.

            Mark likes to handicap himself to make it interestring and he wrote a book on Mann,…. A Disgrace to the Profession … to help fund his case!! and refers to the DC court as a toilet of justice and refers to some of the justices by name that have ruled so far as incompetent bumblers. He’s made the bar as low as he can tby taunting them.

            The real cojos of this fellow are in his coutersuit. Without it, Mann could back out of the suit, not provide discovery (his data and methodology for the hockeystick that he won’t produce ‘for some reason’) and pick up the costs. However, if he backs out now he’s got a few tens of millions to pay for the countersuit. Brilliant!

  2. At this point in time, is it really possible to demean the “profession” of journalism any more than has already been done?

      • I don’t think anyone currently working for the NYT can be considered a journalist, good or otherwise. At least not based on their publish “work” of recent years

        • John Endicott

          Aren’t NYT ‘journalists’ much like Guardian ‘journalists’ in that they are mostly freelance and will cobble any old rubbish together just to make a few bucks.

      • Until 2011, the NYT had a great journalist, war correspondent Dexter Filkins, but he left for the New Yorker.

  3. Climate Crusade skeptics are under constant assault by the climate religious priests and their climate media organs.

  4. Was the “denialist” comment in the article or just the headline? The author of an article in most newspapers has no control of the editor who writes the headline. I refuse to go to the Times to look. Too much propaganda is bad for the blood pressure.

    • Yes, I posted a good example here a few weeks ago. Headline said “Climate change will…”, first paragraph said “Climat change might…”

      Actual scientific paper said “we looked at this, found this, don’t know what it means really, believe this could happen if this also happens, and need more money to look into this further”.

      As an old editor said, we only need writers to produce copy so that the underwear ads don’t all run together.

      Now, its clickbait.

  5. Oh, poor guy.

    He says, without evidence, that most of the warming of the past century and a half was due to natural causes. This is not backed by the scientific evidence. He denies the mainstream position and the evidence for it, so he’s a denier.

    Somebody call the waaaaaambulance.

    You guys denigrate mainstream scientists all the time, so the idea that you’re suddenly for civil conversations is genuinely laughable. Don’t start none; won’t be none. Quit acting like snowflakes, or at least grow a pair of balls and be consistent. If you’re going to denigrate others, expect to be denigrated in return.

    • Find me a skeptical commenter who equates the CAGW camp with a genocidal Holocaust commited by the Naz1s and then we’ll talk.
      (Personally, you can call me the spawn of Satan for my sceptical views. I don’t care)

      • I do. The CAGW camp is genocidal, they are willing to wipe out most people in their own words, and ‘white’ ‘men’ should go first, according to them. African-Americans get an out-of-jail card, which they clearly need, because GAGWists apply policies that hit the poor the most.

        However, you won’t find this opinion in the MSM.

        • Hugs, I’m in the high risk bin, unsuitable for belonging to a diversity category even though I’ve issued a disclaimer that I had nothing to do with the advent of the Age of Reason/The Enlightenment/Renaissance , the Industrial Revolution, the Space Age, the Hi Tech Rev…I’ve merely enjoyed their benefits like everyone else.

    • “He says, without evidence, that most of the warming of the past century and a half was due to natural causes. This is not backed by the scientific evidence”

      The scientific evidence is the similar warm burst 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940, prior to our added CO2. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm )

      Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

      Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails.

      The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA’s press office.

      A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

      An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

      Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

      I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

      So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

      Here are the trends and significances for each period:
      Period Length Trend
      (Degrees C per decade) Significance
      1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
      1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
      1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
      1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

      • Ed, I’ve argued here that most of the warming we have experienced since 1850 occurred before 1940. We fell into s deep and alarming cooling period lasting 35yrs and the 80s and 90s were largely a recovery from the cold stretch.

        Although the Adjustocene has taken care of some of it, at the time there was much disappointment in the clime syndicate that 1998 didnt produce a new record warmth.

    • In the minds of most alarmists. Pointing out the errors in someones work is unacceptable denigration.

      On the other hand, people like Windchaser above feels free to lie about what the evidence is. The world has warmed more than it did over the last 150 years many times in the last 10K years. And none of the other warmings were caused by CO2. It’s up to you to prove that this time was caused by CO2.

      Most of the warming over the last 150 years occurred well before the rise in CO2. So you prove that this warming was caused by CO2 and not nature.

    • Windchasers

      What denigration did he earn? Are you saying that one doesn’t need to, one only needs to hold an opinion?

      You are claiming a moral high ground. I can’t see where you have attained it.

      What is a “mainstream climate scientist”? Someone you agree with? What are the criteria?

      What is laughable about civil conversations? Are you in favour of them? Show us.

    • Windchasers, are you certain that warmists have been universally denigrated with a similar word as Denialist?

      I regularly call them warmist/alarmists as I do on my climate forum and elsewhere, it is an apt description because they do promote a false picture of the climate when they wail on a yearly basis of the “hottest year on record” when it doesn’t even pertain to the AGW conjecture at all. It is about per decade Warming TRENDS meeting modeling guesses that you folks habitually overlook/ignore. You prefer the media sensationalism over testable science research.

      Here is what YOU don’t consider is that many warmist scientists are too fond of far into the future modeling scenarios to do any falsifiable research. AGW conjecture doesn’t meet the basic paradigm of The Scientific Method because it can’t be testable, after all 2019 it isn’t even close to the years 2050 or 2100 AD time frame, that those modeling guesses runs too.

      Why do you overlook these realities?

    • Windchasers

      Please present us all with the credible, reliable, empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.

      If you can’t do it (which you can’t because there are no such studies) then the underlying premise for AGW is nonsense and natural forces are the solution.

      Easy when you know how.

      • HotScot,
        From being familiar with your past comments, I assume that you acknowledge as I do, that CO2 will tend to slow radiative cooling, all other things being equal. You must accept then that in the absence of other effects, increased CO2 would warm the planet to some degree.

        I also assume that you recognize that the climate system is extremely complex and impacted by many factors, none of the effects of which can be measured in isolation.

        I assume that you also agree that despite widespread deficiencies in the data collection methodology and the adjustments made to supposedly correct for those deficiencies, in the end the data shows a small but measurable amount of warming over the past 150 years.

        Finally, I assume that you believe, as I do, that there are emergent phenomena that tend to cool the system when input energy rises, and tend to warm the system when input energy falls, with the overall effect that we enjoy a stable climate on our homeostatic home world.

        So it becomes practically impossible to prove that any one factor is responsible for the warming that has been observed. When you say “evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm” what the alarmists hear you saying is that you question the physics of how CO2 interacts with infrared photons.

        I think that you are not actually doing that. I think you are asking for evidence that warming from atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects is the primary cause or even a significant cause of the observed warming.

        If these are all correct assumptions on my part, then I wonder if you agree that this way of phrasing it is less subject to being misunderstood as science denial? (Although much more long-winded).

    • “You guys denigrate mainstream scientists all the time, so the idea that you’re suddenly for civil conversations is genuinely laughable.”

      The outrage is (or should be) that the term was used in a news headline, not in an opinion piece. It’s a viuolation of journalistic objective mores and especially the Times’s.

  6. The warmunists have been successful in calling all climate skeptics ‘denialists’. That implies that skeptics don’t believe the climate changes. That is not what most climate skeptics believe – they believe that CO2 has little to nothing to do with climate. I personally don’t believe CO2 has ANY affect on climate at all. It is a gas and it follows the gas laws, just like all other gases.
    The ‘greenhouse hypothesis’ is just that – a hypothesis, and it can be disproven, just like any other ‘guess’. The government grants to ‘study climate’ should be instead directed toward PROVING that CO2 has ANYTHING whatever to do with climate. Or not.

    • to John Shotsky: “That is not what most climate skeptics believe – they believe that CO2 has little to nothing to do with climate. I personally don’t believe CO2 has ANY affect on climate at all. It is a gas and it follows the gas laws, just like all other gases.”

      Agree 100% (particularly with “It is a gas and it follows the gas laws”…) – Thanks…

    • That CO2 can slow the escape of heat by absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation in certain wavelengths should not be questioned by reasonable skeptics, John. You put yourself into a fringe category with the view you just expressed. Such a view is reasonably characterized as denial of science. It does a disservice to those of us who would like to persuade reasonable people who have been misinformed by the various vested interests pushing the CAGW meme, if we are associated with your views. Therefore I am commenting to refute you.

      It’s not necessary to deny that CO2 has a so-called greenhouse effect in order to argue that the GHE will not be a significant effect on the climate. The claims of positive feedbacks that amplify the very modest warming that CO2 will cause (all other things being equal) are not demonstrated and seem to be refuted by empirical evidence.

      If your reference to “gas laws” implies that you believe that the atmosphere does some kind of magical compressional heating à la Nikolov-Zeller theory, that’s been repeatedly debunked here. Thank you for sparing us the lapse rate ranting and raving.

      • What hear little if any discussion about is the cooling impact of carbon dioxide. If the magnitude of this is close to the heating impact the influence of carbon dioxide on global temperatures would be negligible would it not?

        • Robert
          CO2 doesn’t warm or cool. CO2 in effect acts to delay cooling. The theory is that when a photon of infrared radiation heading from the surface or lower in the atmosphere gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule and subsequently re-emitted, the direction of the emitted photon is random. So half the time, it re-emits down.

          Your question seems to be premised on the observation that the same should be true for infrared photons coming from space toward earth, so that CO2 would delay warming from space or from the sun. The problem with the logic is that there is much more IR radiating from the earth than is radiating to the earth. IR frequencies correspond to lower emission temperatures such as those of the surface. Most of the sun’s radiation is higher frequency corresponding to much higher emission temperatures. CO2 cannot absorb the higher frequency photons, so it has not effect on them.

      • Rich Davis,
        CO2 is such an insignificant part of the Atmosphere, that it cannot possibly have anything but an insignificant effect on atmospheric temperature.

        • It is a small part of the atmosphere (0.041%) and its effect on temperature is small and beneficial, but it is not insignificant.

          When you make an incorrect claim like that, you hand ammunition to the warmists so that they can rightly claim that there are skeptics denying science.

          The correct answer, embracing the science, is that there is a small and beneficial effect and that the effect follows a logarithmic function so that each addition of CO2 has less impact than the small effect previously experienced.

  7. “Denialist” is far more accurately applied to those like the NY Times, who deny that something other than CO2
    is involved in climate, or that the past decade or more has produced no significant warming.

    • The NY Times would know about denial, as it is the original Holocaust denier. It knew what was happening in Germany to the Jews, but it deliberately buried what few stories it did print in the back pages. Wikipedia has a good summary of a book about the Times’ effort to hide the facts.

      Buried by the Times

    • Check out Mike Bastasch’s reply…

      I would but I refuse to click on any twatter link. I have no desire to visit that waste of cyberspace.

    • Thanks for the Link. I did not go through all of her tweets, but did not see an answer to the WUWT question: “Did you approve the headline?” I take her failure to answer that question as affirmation that she did approve of it, and in my opinion she probably wrote it. Weasel is as weasel does.

  8. “The question is the magnitude of the influence, whether the benefits of more CO2 are being ignored, and whether reducing CO2 substantially might well impoverish humanity.”

    Actually, the (easily answered) question is this: Can anything we (the USA) do measurably change the climate forecast. The answer is no, and this is what we should continually preach. We cannot dictate what China, India, and Russia do, but they will pretend to go along. Data are meaningless to the press and the vast majority of people.

  9. I don’t want to know what Dr.s Spencer and Pielke have to say about the headline, I already know. I want to know what the climate cultists think about it.

    • Am I the only one puzzled or offended by references to Drs. Happer, Spencer and Pielke as Mr.?
      Is that from some journalistic style guide?

      It strikes me as just one more way of lowering the authority of these experts in the minds of her readers.

      • Noticed that too, chalked it up to either an attempt to smear qualified people, or sloppy editing, both of which are hallmarks of modern “journalism”.

        Then again, I believe the NYT actually uses “Mr. Hitler”…

  10. What no-one seems to have picked up is the sheer stupidity of the headline. “It includes a Climate Denialist”. I doubt there is anyone, anywhere, no matter their views on climate change, who would deny that the world has climate! That certainly includes a man of the caliber of Prof. Happer!
    And by the way, is Denialist actually a word!

  11. The Climate Bedwetters and Climate Liar Industry aka the “Alarmists” all hate the fact that someone who his both truthful and factual about climate is being put into a position of power, along with Trump. I mean, it real steams their grits that their CAGW ideology is going down the tubes, and it is hilarious to watch.

  12. Your statement is not only without facts, but without any sign of intelligent thought whatsoever. The fact that you use terms like ‘snowflake’ is just another sign of your lack of any ability to make a cogent argument. The point of the article is the use, by a professional journalist, of the term ‘denialist’ a term deliberately chosen for political reasons to conjure holocaust comparisons. You obviously aren’t capable of the level of comprehension needed to understand this, so perhaps you should avoid reading anything beyond a buzzfeed listicle.

  13. The NYT feeds it’s readers all the news that they can handle emotionally. Which isn’t that much.

    If the panel is actually happening that’s a great day for the USA. Our DOD is putting out political junk that diverts resources away from real needs to imaginary ones.

    The officers putting out this garbage are shelling their own troops.

  14. Notice the alarmist strategy. Name someone as a denier. Name their place of employment. Expect that SJW cuckoos will find their home and work address, then call then names, key their car, phone threats, pellet gun their office windows, smash their car windshield, spray can their office building….forces those ‘deniers’ to shut up and refuse TV interviews lest they become an even bigger cuckoo target….mission accomplished….

  15. From Christopher Clark’s book: “The Sleepwalkers, how Europe went to war in 1914”, a comment about the power of the press in Germany, France , England (War? Bring it on!)
    The German Chancellor, Von Bulow ,said in 1909 : “most of the conflicts in the past ten decades have not been called forth by princely ambition or ministerial conspiracy but through the passionate agitation of public opinion which through the press and parliament has swept along the executive”
    Sounds familiar?

  16. Does not the left understand that science is, just like the law, an adversarial process? The lack of this insight has doomed the IPCC and the entire warmist enterprise, at least as far as their ever coming up with answer to the question; how does the climate work? The problem is, of course, they do not really care. All they require is that it comply with their leftist ideology.

  17. “The question is the magnitude of the influence, whether the benefits of more CO2 are being ignored, and whether reducing CO2 substantially might well impoverish humanity.”

    The most relevant questions are related to what actions should we take, if any. Whatever are the facts regarding C02, warming trends, etc, if we are better off taking no actions to mitigate, then we should take no actions to mitigate. Wind turbines and solar panels need to have an expected benefit that exceeds their expected costs. Even by the reckoning of the alarmists, they are 50x more expensive than they need to be in order to make sense.

  18. ” Does not the left understand that science is, just like the law, an adversarial process”
    Yes, except on one side are guardians of classic scientific methods while on the other side are ‘the fake-science’s climate pseudo-science talibans’ wielding their sledgehammers attempting to systematically destroy the treasures of the science built civilization.

  19. If “griff” has nothing of substance to say, then just ignore him. Who cares?

    I for one am very pleased that a real scientist is forming the committee. By “real”, I mean someone trained in a hard science like physics where the idea of hypothesis forming and testing are well ingrained. If you are trained in a hard science, it doesn’t take a big stretch to understand other branches of science enough to have a valid opinion. Maybe, just maybe, we will get an unbiased opinion from this committee.

    Not that anyone whose mind is made up will agree if the opinion doesn’t suit their agenda.

    I for one can be convinced IF I ever see evidence that is compelling when compared against counter-evidence. And believe me, the obviously biased adjustments to temperature data pretty much destroy that line of evidence from ever being compelling. Someone is going to have to explain to me how such a minuet amount of trace gas can account for such a huge effect, and this means explain it – not model it with a bunch of guesswork but explain it.

    I am well versed in computers, programming, and models and understand what they can and cannot do. They CANNOT simulate climate change 100 years into the future based on what we currently understand in the behavior of weather. Period. (They could be right just by chance, but that’s not the same as being a correct model). When we can get 1 year weather predictions correct 95% of the time, then we can work on getting 5 year ones correct – and so on. It will take a lot of testing and learning about how the atmosphere (including the water cycle and relevant aerosols) really works. I doubt it can ever be done.

  20. Judith Curry’s point is well taken. Climate Science is NOT an academic curriculum. Anyone can call themselves a climate scientist. Many of the consensus voting on the 99% of climate scientists believe that ”
    global warming is real…” etc. are not in fact climate scientists. They may be working on one small corner of their academic specialty (medicine? zoology? microbiology ? geology ? … and have grants to for example, … study the effect of climate change on the gray back flat tailed rocky mountain

    Coral Davenport very likely did not take a science or mathematics related class in college, and likely not in high school. Like most Times columnists they specialize in writing prose, crafting stories to appeal to their particular (liberal) audience written in a way to not cover all important facts and aspects of the issue but to make their liberal point. The Times must pay very well for this skill.

    Coral Davenport Official Biography: Coral Davenport covers energy and climate change policy at The New York Times. She previously covered energy and the environment for National Journal, Politico, and Congressional Quarterly. She previously worked in Athens, Greece as a correspondent for numerous publications, covered the 2004 Athens Olympics, and contributed travel writing and restaurant reviews to Conde Nast Traveler and the Fodor’s, Time Out, and Eyewitness guidebook series. Davenport started her career at the Daily Hampshire Gazette in Northampton, Massachusetts.

    • “… they specialize in writing prose, crafting stories to appeal to their particular (liberal) audience written in a way to not cover all important facts and aspects of the issue but to make their liberal point.”

      That is, know-nothing wordsmiths.

        • An even older joke from “I, Claudius”: his wife took the saying “while the cat’s away, the mice will play” to an extreme and (as this is a family-type website) engaged many partners while Claudius was out of Rome, and charged them for it (hilarious).

          One professional lady of that type had to complain: “what you do for a hobby is my profession. My hobby is gardening”.

  21. Current media strategy:

    1) fire all older writers and editors
    2) hire recent liberal arts grads who took one math class in first year
    3) promote them with “senior” titles the move them to “senior” editor by age 30
    4) produce clickbait
    5) lost money due to changing media landscape
    6) see #1

  22. I’m a proud denier.

    I deny that the world is flat.
    I deny that thenworld came into existence only a few thousand years ago.
    And I deny that human CO2 emissions are causing a catastrophic warming of the Earth.

    Why do I deny these things. One simple word SCIENCE. I mean science that is the acquisition of knowledge through a process of theory and validation, not a “science’ that is the dissemination of unverified calculations and polls or percentages of so called “scientists”.

  23. Increasing *or* decreasing atmospheric CO2 amounts will have no effect on humanity what-so-ever. It is simply a gas that causes a small delay in the dissipation of thermal energy in the lower atmosphere due to it’s relative density compared to water vapor.

    What does and will continue to have an affect on humanity is the continued unabated destruction of the environment resulting in the devastation of natural niche plant life and obliteration of biomes by agriculture carried out on a California scale.

    Without reigning in the super-massive abuse of the environment occurring in many nations the problems of environment are going to continue to get worse *in spite of any attempt to make them better by focusing on 0.5% of a fabricated problem to distract us*.

    Plant trees not lawns. Get your local and state government to ban crops that require any kind of irrigation.
    Get your local and state government to mandate the retention of storm waters. Teach science in school so that future generations can understand the fraud being perpetrated against those alive today.

    • Prjindigo: “Increasing *or* decreasing atmospheric CO2 amounts will have no effect on humanity what-so-ever. ”

      CO2 is necessary and integral to the Carbon Cycle of Life. As such, CO2 is necessary and integral to human life. Decreasing atmospheric CO2 throttles the Carbon Cycle of Life and below some threshold it will no longer support human life.

  24. I have concluded, based on observation, that climate scientists have had no formal education in science.

    • Well, “climate science” is like calling math and statistics “number science”.

      I mean, if its physics, its physics.

      If its chemistry, its chemistry.

      If its geology, its geology.

      The idea that one person would know enough of all three to be an UberScientist is pretty ridiculous.

  25. Bit ironic that the NYTs calls someone a “deni*list” while they denied the Holocaust long after it was proven.

    • Back then the Old Grey Whore loved her some Uncle Joe, not so much the starving, by the millions, kulaks of the Ukraine.

      The motto should be ‘All the News That’s Left to Print’.
      ==========================

    • I’m surprised Google has gone that far. I could understand if it returned WUWT if asked for denial sites. But does it actually freely label WUWT as such? If so, I’d like to to add them to my list of sinners.

  26. I’ve long said that ‘denialist’ is Slithertongue for ‘denier’.
    ==============================================

  27. Davenport has been producing a litany of falsehoods about Greenland for years.

    The woman knows nothing about science, history or environment, she’s an ideologue and a pure eco shill

  28. I had a fulfilling 40-year career in NASA as an expert in computer modeling, but I fully understand a quote by John Tillman in https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/22/pushback-on-the-nyt-over-denialist/

    “An important difference between programming GCMs (global computer models) and computer games is that the latter actually have some value and show skill.”

    I participated in the successful modeling of some very sophisticated entities, such as the Space Shuttle, but in my opinion modeling the earth’s climate is absolutely an exercise in futility. It is perhaps the grandest wet dream of those who accept grant money from the government and the very divergence of results from the myriad extant models should be proof enough to stop such subsidies.

  29. “Denialist” also sounds to me like bad grammar or at least ugly writing. I think the word they are struggling for is “Denier”. But I agree that using a label like that is deliberate and nasty propaganda. I have had a correspondence with the BBC about the same issue to little effect

Comments are closed.