Hypocrisy at the Anti-Defamation League?

February 26th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I am calling out the ADL for not denouncing the widespread use of Nazi Holocaust imagery in public statements made by journalists, politicians, and even some scientists over the last 7+ years towards us global warming skeptics.

After years of ignoring statements like this one from Ellen Goodman (Boston Globe),

I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future”. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007

the ADL would appear to have decided (based upon their years of silence) that using Holocaust imagery is OK on one side of the global warming issue, but not the other. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I have been forwarded from a journalist this ADL statement, apparently issued yesterday:

February 25, 2014, Atlanta, Georgia … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today denounced remarks by University of Alabama professor Roy Spencer who wrote on his blog that those who refer to him as a climate change “denier” should be called “global warming Nazis” and that they “are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause.”

He also claims those who advocate for policies to slow global warming are “like the Nazis” in that they are fascist and anti-capitalist. The post is also accompanied by an image of a swastika.

Shelley Rose, ADL Southeast Interim Regional Director issued the following statement: University of Alabama Professor Roy Spencer’s analogy of proponents of global warming to Nazis is outrageous and deeply offensive. This analogy is just the latest example of a troubling epidemic of comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust.

It has become too common to use comparisons to the Holocaust and Nazi imagery to attack people with opposing views, whether the issue is global warming, immigration or stem-cell research. The six million Jewish victims and millions of other victims of Hitler deserve better. Their deaths should not be used for political points or sloganeering. This type of comparison diminishes and trivializes the Holocaust. There is no place for it in civil discussions.

Yup, I would sure have appreciated civil discourse from the other side for the last 7+ years, Ms. Rose.

And, your organization might have helped.

Ms. Rose, where was your organization when journalists, politicians, and even some scientists, chose to call us skeptics “deniers”?

We don’t deny either “global warming” or “climate change”. Yet, we are called “deniers”. Ms. Rose, do you have any inkling why the term “denier” (which is a lie) might be used against us, rather than the term “skeptic” (which is accurate)?

I think you know why.

For at least seven years, the Holocaust has been invoked, explicitly or implicitly, to malign the character of those like me who point out that global warming (1) might not be all the fault of humans, and (2) might not be a problem serious enough to warrant killing poor people through much higher energy prices.

Again, we do not deny global warming. We do not deny climate change.

Ms. Rose, I understand your desire to honor the memories of 6 million Jews murdered over several years during the Holocaust. But every ten years single year, 8 million children die from poverty.

Who will speak out for the much greater numbers who will die from poverty-related causes as we force expensive energy onto humanity through radical energy policies now being pushed in many countries?

You see, Ms. Rose, the path we are on threatens the lives of many more people than were murdered in the Holocaust. Therefore, I do not “trivialize the Holocaust”. In fact, I resent the implication I am trivializing it.

I am instead warning against a new holocaust, which has already begun as countries suffer the economic consequences of forcing high-priced, “concierge energy” on the masses.

So, I want to know where the ADL stands (for example) on Ellen Goodman’s “Holocaust denier” statement, above, as well as the daily barrage of similar “denier” labels we skeptics endure on a daily basis.

We didn’t start the fire, Ms. Rose. And your organization could have helped stop it.

DISCLAIMER: Any views expressed here are my own, and unless otherwise stated, are not those of my employer, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, or the State of Alabama.


355 Responses to “Hypocrisy at the Anti-Defamation League?”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Oh My God!! This gets more ridiculous and absurd with each passing moment. Remember when Pat Riley wanted to trademark Three-peat? Perhaps the ADL can trademark Nazi and any derivation of the word. But then, I’m sure the SPLC will get pissed and say they want some of the action too. Incredible. Really, it is.

    Check this documentary out. This Jewish guy rips the ADL to shreds.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzSKLVliivc

  2. Chuck L says:

    I am Jewish and am embarrassed and appalled at the gross hypocrisy of the ADL. As Dr. Spencer says, they said nothing when global warming believers started calling skeptics “deniers,” they said nothing when Nuremberg-type trials were and are demanded for skeptics, and they said nothing when the proprietors of Skeptical Science photoshopped pictures of themselves on to Nazi storm-trooper uniforms. As one who gives to Jewish and non-Jewish charities, I promise that ADL will never again be a recipient of future charitable contributions from me.

  3. benpal says:

    Anti-Defamation League? Who is defamating whom?

  4. AlecM says:

    The lefties are upping the ante because they are losing the scientific battle and as the climate rapidly cools due to solar effects, have limited time for their totalitarian take-over. Only today, the Socialist Party leader in the UK,, Miliband, said:

    “The qualification for being in a Labour government is rationality and believing in clear scientific evidence.”

    This follows on from the fascistic green Party leader who stated that any senior government employee would be found guilty of thought crime and sacked if they did not conform to the Marxist CAGW dogma.

    So, the new camps are being prepared, this time a Virtual Gulag.

  5. RAH says:

    Silence the opposition any way you can. If the president and every other climate scam artist declaring the “debate over” doesn’t work then they will use other tactics. Admit nothing, Deny everything, make counter accusations. They are the real “deniers”. It is they that unilaterally deny others have a right to speak. Remember Hillary Clinton screaming this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NJxmpTMGhU0

    Good to know who your enemies are though and now the ADL has proven which camp they are in when it comes to the climate debate.

  6. Scott Supak says:

    Oh do I miss Intrade… A .73 anomaly in GISS temp in Sept, a .78 in for Nov… And a .70 in Jan… I’m sure the HadCRUT will follow along nicely, and Pat Michaels’ bet with me looks worse for him every month…

    But onto the question at hand.

    “Unlike them, we deny ‘that most of it is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community.’”–Dr. Roy Spencer

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/climate-change-rebuttal-evangelical-scientists-correct-one-error-make-others-of-their-own-104158/

    Or do you deny that you wrote that?

    Are you also going to deny that the word denier goes back to the 15th century?

    • RAH says:

      Perhaps a look at the word in a dictionary would help you? Na, I doubt it. But one has to try.

      From the Merriam Webster online dictionary:
      de·ny
      transitive verb \di-ˈnī, dē-\

      : to say that something is not true

      : to refuse to accept or admit (something)

      : to refuse to give (something) to someone : to prevent someone from having or receiving (something)
      de·niedde·ny·ing
      Full Definition of DENY
      1: to declare untrue
      2: to refuse to admit or acknowledge : disavow
      3
      a: to give a negative answer to
      b: to refuse to grant
      c: to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires
      4 archaic : decline
      5: to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of

      • Scott Supak says:

        I looked the word up to see how long it’s been common usage in English.

        You’ve avoided answering my question. Do you now deny that you wrote that you “deny” AGW? That was the word you used? Unless that web site is lying, you said “we deny.”

        If so, then you are, by the very definition of the word you used, a denier. This definition, which has been in use for over 700 years now, is the one you chose for yourself in that article.

        • RAH says:

          The answer to your question is in the definitions. Sorry you missed it. But like I said, I had to try. The word as used by the climate scammers when talking about “deniers” is as in to refuse to admit a fact or truth. It is an attempt to label PEOPLE as ignorant extremists.

          The word as used by Roy in your quote is as in to refuse to accept the validity of a claim. It is merely an opinion about a claim that something is factual.

          And it is mute point anyway unless your trying to claim that it was not the proponents of catastrophic AGW that first used the term “deniers” to smear those that disagree with their claims.

          • Scott Supak says:

            Dr. Spencers says he denies. We call him a denier. We are using the exact same definition he used. You cannot proove otherwise. If you could, we’d all be in court where Dr. Spencer would be trying to prove what is in our minds in order to show malicious intent in a slander suit.

            Dr. Spencer is not the first to state that he denies AGW. And for you to ascribe malicious intent to those who merely repeated their usage proves that you jump to conclusions without facts.

            But, seriously, if you can prove that anyone said, back when all this started, “Hey, I know, let’s call them deniers because that will make them seem like Nazis,” then bring it.

        • KuhnKat says:

          Scott,

          Are you claiming that you have PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE that the word Denier as applied to sceptics is ONLY applied as the dictionary meaning and has nothing to do with Holocaust Denial connotations that leftards love to smear on people while supporting the real Holocaust Deniers?!?!

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          Y’all really are maroons.

        • JohnKl says:

          Scott Supak,

          You seem to have a problem with the LAW OF IDENTITY. You quoted Dr Spencer:

          “Unlike them, we deny ‘that most of it is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community.’”–Dr. Roy Spencer

          Where precisely does he deny AGW? In fact, the quote suggests some substantial part of AGW may be human caused. Your obvious problem doesn’t reside with Dr Spencer or anything he may or may not have said. The problem resides in an apparently strong case of Cognitive Dissonance!

          Have a great day!

          • Scott Supak says:

            Well, my comments are being moderated now, so please be patient.

            He says:

            “we deny ‘that most of it is human-caused…’”

            So, at most, Dr. Spencer denies that it is 50.01% human caused. Admitting that something might be 49.99% x us to deny that “most” of it is not AGW? Right?

            How is this cognitive dissonance? Dr. Spencer says he denies that “most” of the warming is caused be humans. Heck, lately, he’s been denying any warming. That’s why I referenced the bet I have with Pat Michaels, which Dr. Spencer posted on this blog.

            But, hey, if you prefer “denier of ‘most’ AGW”, then fine. Still a denier.

            Further, he apparently denies 100% that it is a threat to future generations.

          • handjive says:

            Scott Supak says:
            February 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM

            Quote: “Further, he apparently denies 100% that it is a threat to future generations.”

            Does that prediction come with next week’s lotto numbers?

            Just so we know you can predict the future.

          • JohnKl says:

            Thank you for the reply Scott Supak,

            “How is this cognitive dissonance?”

            Hmmh! Well you wrote earlier:

            “Do you now deny that you wrote that you “deny” AGW?”

            He never denied AGW, he merely quibbles with the amount or extent of supposed warming! You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension as well as logic. As you admitted:

            “But, hey, if you prefer “denier of ‘most’ AGW”, then fine. Still a denier.”

            Not to be outdone, you assert:

            “Further, he apparently denies 100% that it is a threat to future generations.”

            If you stretch any directional change long enough one can always extrapolate some imagined danger since too much or too little of anything will prove dangerous. Nevertheless, as I’ve pointed out in previous posts no-one, certainly not yourself, has proven that current GHG increases endangers anyone especially in regards to warming since we’re still in an ICE AGE!!! Eventually, should the human race remain stuck on hydrocarbons it’s effect on the atmosphere including oxygen nitrogen balance may have to be dealt with. However, that currently is not the case.

            Btw, my internet connection proved problematic when I made my last post and apparently it has been duplicated. Please accept my apologies.

            Have a great day!

          • D. App says:

            Scott, you will have to find clever ways to post here, by using proxies and other user names, because after awhile Roy Spencer censors people he doesn’t like.

            It’s not easy, but it’s doable.

        • JohnKl says:

          Scott Supak,

          You seem to have a problem with the LAW OF IDENTITY. You quoted Dr Spencer:

          “Unlike them, we deny ‘that most of it is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community.’”–Dr. Roy Spencer

          Where precisely does he deny AGW? In fact, the quote suggests some substantial part of AGW may be human caused. Your obvious problem doesn’t reside with Dr Spencer or anything he may or may not have said. The problem resides in an apparently case of Cognitive Dissonance!

          Have a great day!

          • Scott Supak says:

            Me, above ^ “x us” should read “is”.

          • Fonzie says:

            John, I was hoping I’d catch up with you… ; maybe “hops” might return as “schnaps” !

          • JohnKl says:

            Fonzie,

            Hops may be stealthily among us now either hiding or using an alias! All I want to know from Hops, Schnaps, Brewskie, Lager head, Keg in the Corner, or whatever he calls himself these days is WHERE CAN WE ALL GET SOME!!!

            Have a great day!!!

          • D. App says:

            What science suppports Spencer’s claim?

            He never says, does he?

            Nor does he publish papers that support his claim. Except when he sneaks one past the editor.

            Aren’t professional scientists supposed to publish papers that support their claims?

            Why doesn’t Spencer? It’s just so much easier to throw up a half-assed blog post, isn’t it?

            Hey, it still gets you in the newspapers…..

        • Scott Scarborough says:

          The quotes Roy used above, from alarmists, specifically relate their use of the word “denier” with “Holocaust denier.” Did you even read the article?

          • Scott Supak says:

            Yes, I read it. But that doesn’t mean that everyone who uses the word is trying to make the same connection. Some of us use the word the same way Dr. Spencer used it.

            But, please, by all means, you guys should sue anyone who directly compares you to holocaust deniers. Good luck with that.

            In the mean time, I wonder how many comments from right wing nut jobs Dr. Spencer had to delete because they actually want to deny the holocaust? After all, I’m pretty sure most of those who deny the holocaust are on his side of the political spectrum.

          • Rob Honeycutt says:

            It’s called “denial of denial.”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial#Denial_of_denial

            To make the assumption that you can determine another person’s intent when they use a specific word is beyond silly. It’s convenient for “skeptics” to latch onto the holocaust reference and assume that’s what everyone means, because then you avoid coming to terms with the reality that you face.

        • darrylb says:

          I have to admit, this is line of logic is unique,

          So to say ‘I hooked the ball’ Would equivalent to ‘you are a hooker’

          Scott, you are trying to make something out of nothing.
          Sure, some do not realize that they are being more than simply an arrogant know it all.
          But this originated as a vitriolic label. Ad hominen
          slurs arise when there is a surplus of emotion and a lack of knowledge. You know very well that the verbal attacks have been more than simply that of being called a denier.

          Skepticism, done with respect, is at the heart of science; without it, it does not advance as well.

        • yonason says:

          Stop trying to showcase your lexicographic ineptitude. It is very clear that when they say “denier” they mean Holocaust “denier.”

          Here’s a short list of propagandists who explicitly say they mean “Holocaust denial,” but who the ADL is ignoring, probably because the ADL shares their “concern” for the environment.

          So, are you deliberately trying to deceive us? Or are you just not terribly bright?

    • Fonzie says:

      Scott, I think what RAH is trying to tell you is that there are different usages of the word “deny”; Dr. Spencer was using a different usage of the word…

      • Scott Supak says:

        I understand what RAH is telling me. I am aware of the multiple definitions of the word. I am also aware that when someone says they deny something, and then is called a denier, to assume that the person calling him a denier is using the word as a slur is to assume facts not in evidence.

        Just like assuming I don’t know what someone is saying does.

        If anyone did have evidence that the use of the word denier by people who have called Dr. Spencer a denier (a list of people that included Dr. Spencer himself) was malicious, they should sue those who called him that and present their evidence of malicious intent in court.

        Otherwise, they’re just BSing.

        • Scott Scarborough says:

          DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE ABOVE! In it, Roy quotes Ellen Goodman:

          “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future”. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007

          Can your read the above paragraph? Are you trying to say that “Holocaust deniers” could mean anything? Exactly what in the hell are you trying to get at?

          • Scott Supak says:

            What I’m getting at is that not everyone who calls Dr. Spencer a denier is making the allusion to the holocaust. In fact, Dr. Spencer himself said he denies CAGW, so he called himself a denier. I don’t think he was alluding to the holocaust.

            Now, do you want to bet? Because what I see in here are a bunch of people calling me names, in a post about how we shouldn’t call each other names, but not much in the line of putting money where your mouths are.

            I have linked to the post on this blog that describes my bet with Pat Michaels. Anyone wants to take that bet, let me know.

          • yonason says:

            Just saw where you beat me by several days, Ian – no time to read all this stuff. Also, please note my comment below, where I found a page of Supak’s where he uses the accusation of holocaust denial himself. Pretty sleazy slime-ball to pretend Spencer is just making it all up.

        • yonason says:

          I’ve got a quiz for you, Scotty. Who wrote the following, back in 2010?

          “These are the facts. This is how the Bush Administration did business. They risked it all for the benefit of their rich donors, and they blew it. And anyone who says otherwise probably denies global warming, evolution, and the holocaust too.”

          You’re busted.

          You used that very cheap trick yourself nearly 4 years ago, and now you try to tell us we are making false accusations?

          “Progressive” my foot!

          Please crawl back in your hole where you belong. (alternatively, beam yourself back to planet Screwball, ASAP.)

    • DTC says:

      Scott,

      You warmista’s are in a denial bubble which is really quite amusing.

      They can’t accept that the earth warmed naturally from 1800-1900 by 0.5C in the absence of man made CO2.

      They can’t accept that the 1900-1945 temperatures rose at the same rate as 1970-2010, with the earlier years experiencing very little man-made CO2 increases. IPCC btw does not attribute 1900-1945 warming to AGW.

      The warmista’s are stuck in a 1970-2000 time-warp.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1905/to:1945/trend

      • Rob Honeycutt says:

        Actually, DTC, science does accept those things. We know there are other forcings at place, but other factors cannot explain warming of the past 50 years.

        What the science says is that there is a very high likelihood that human emissions of CO2 have warmed the planet over the past 50 years. The science is telling us that, if we continue on our current emissions path, there is a very high likelihood that will present very serious consequences later in the 21st century.

        • shawn says:

          “What the science says is that there is a very high likelihood that human emissions of CO2 have warmed the planet over the past 50 years. ”

          This is factually unture unless you mean precopernican peer pressure is science.

          What science says, is that the predictions of global warming were WRONG.

          That is what science says.

          Yet… Spencer is the denier.

          And apparently some of your associates cannot figure out the Holocaust denier references are infantile, unscientific, and not worthy of actual scientific discourse.
          Repeating it, pretending it means something else when used in public, is also transparently obtuse.

        • DTC says:

          It seems reasonable to look at the last 50 years in light of the last 215.

          From 1800 to 1900 the world warmed ~0.48C, without any AGW CO2.

          Assume for just a moment the natural warming trend of the 1800′s didn’t stop at 1900 and has continued to present day at the same rate.

          If one truly were to determine the co2 impact, they would need to first subtract the natural warming that started in 1800s and most likely has continued to this day.

          Could the most likely condition be we were emerging and are still emerging from the Little Age that ended in 1800-1850?
          This warming trend is simply part of exiting the LIA and we are continuing to exit it. Any CO2 contribution would necessarily need to first subtract the underlying natural warming as we continue to exit the LIA.

          This study outlines very clearly there could be two natural components that can be attributed to climate change. Certainly more reasonable than the current CO2 hypothesis.

          http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf

    • Windy USA says:

      Scott, you worked in a energy intensive industry (Hollywood & TV) with huge carbon emissions including limos and private jets, you travel extensively, you have children, etc. all of which are the largest contributors to emissions you apparently believe will doom the planet. How is your life by action any different than those you label as deniers? Why should anyone respect you or accept your opinion when you are clearly a hypocrite?

    • D. App says:

      Does Roy Spencer ever give interviews to anybody who doesn’t agree with him?

      It doesn’t look like it. Certainly never when I’ve asked him — he doesn’t even have the courtesy to reply to my emails.

  7. The ADL, they seem to protect their own ilk. But is this not what humans and in fact all life does?

    We skeptics defend lives and the environment in our way. We don’t want human population control to hypothetically avoid a possible warming of the Earth.
    We tend to fear cooling more than warming.
    We look at real data and use models as computational devices that intend to show what we programed them to show. This gets so complicated and oversimplified that they mostly fail.
    Models do not produce real data; when working well, they help us look at the data in meaningful ways.

    And yes, the Earth warmed about 1°C from 1910 to 2002, but we think it was mostly from natural causes.

    We know that CO2 in the atmosphere warms the surface of the Earth. We know CO2 content is increasing, but we don’t know the causes. We think climate sensitivity is less than 2°C.

    We know that around 2001 the warming stopped, but we don’t know the causes.
    And we know the whole thing is possibly too complicated to know well enough to model long-range.

    • Scott Supak says:

      “The ADL, they seem to protect their own ilk.”

      By “ilk” do you mean Jews?

      • I meant whatever they think it is.
        But you cut out “But is this not what humans and in fact all life does?”.
        My last name was due to the Spanish inquisition.

        • Scott Supak says:

          “I meant whatever they think it is.”

          You called Jews “ilk.”

          • Eduardo Ferreyra says:

            No, he didn’t call jews “ilk”. He called the fascist people in the ADL “ilk”. Do you remember that the ADL was actively (too actively, even kidnapping people as Louis DuPont) during the “Ozone Wars” in the late 80s and early 90s, siding with those fraudsters as Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina that were promoting the depletion of the ozone layer because of CFCs in the atmosphere? Do you remember that during those days Edgar Bronfman was ADL’s highest authority? The grandson of a famous Canadian bootlegger of the 1920s.

            And Bronfman managed to acquire DuPont’s company thanks to a hostile bid he made and was accepted by one of his inside men in high position in DuPont? And later Bronfman gave protection to Ira Einhorn when he murdered his girlfriend and kept her in a freezer during weeks while he fled to England with Bronfman help? That’s the kind of “ilk” inside the ADL that Andrés Valencia mentioned.

  8. You’re funny, Scott. Maybe you and the ADL can exhume another Spencer and have him preside over Nuremberg II; the trial and subsequent hanging of the “Deniers.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgvR67Ktwio

    It is the likes of you and the ADL who are making a mockery of the Holocaust and Nuremberg, Scott. Before you know it, Roy, they’ll be kidnapping you and dragging you off to Israel to be tried for Global Warming War Crimes.

    • Scott Supak says:

      “Maybe you and the ADL can exhume another Spencer and have him preside over Nuremberg II”

      What does this even mean? Exhume another Spencer?

      I have quoted Dr. Spencer, using a word from the 15th Century, the verb “deny,” to describe what his position is on AGW. He said “we deny.” If he chooses that word for himself, I don’t want to be a denier of his right to use it.

      • I see. It doesn’t matter that you don’t get it. Fonzie does, and that’s what counts.

        But since we’re on the subject, I will make a statement:

        Based on your screen name, I deny you’re a female.

        Am I now officially a “Denier?” By virtue of that label, am I now in league with Holocaust Deniers as Ellen Goodman implies about those who deny for whatever reason? Scott, I can prove you’re a “Denier” too, and like Roy and me, you also need to be dragged in front of the other Spencer (Tracey), to be tried for Denial Crimes. State emphatically for all of us here, that you deny the Bible was written by God, and was instead written by Satan. Come on, Scott. Don’t be a hypocrite. Admit your denial…it will set you free…to make your way to the gallows with the rest of us.

        • Scott Supak says:

          I asked what “Exhume another Spencer” means, and you come back with this?

          > “I see.”

          I don’t think so. I deny that you are a “seer.”

          > “It doesn’t matter that you don’t get it.

          Oh, I get it. You want to act like I don’t get it so you can avoid the salient points, fine.

          > [The rest of your rant]

          It’s Spencer Tracy. Not Tracey.

          If you describe yourself as someone who “denies” something, then you are, by your own definition of the word, a “denier” of that thing. The word has existed for 700 years in our language. Seems a bit silly to get all huffy about it.

          Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

          As for the Bible, all the evidence I’ve seen suggests men wrote it. The whole “Satan wrote the Bible” thing is a thought exercise written by a friend of mine. I think it’s clever. You should read it.

      • llew Jones says:

        Scott appears to be a typical alarmist climate science disciple. viz a simpleton. Alarmist climate scientists deny that natural climate variability has been a significant factor in global warming over the last hundred years or so.

        Do you concede that thus they also should be labelled “climate change Deniers”?

  9. Gary Mount says:

    I read the following tweet just yesterday:
    - – -
    John Deben ‏@lorddeben · 15h
    Deniers deny that climate change is happening or there’s a human cause. Dismissers simply think it unimportant. Both accurate not insulting.
    Retweets 3
    Favorites 2
    Barry Woods Helen Southall Marc Morano Paul Vanston

    12:15 AM – 26 Feb 2014 · Details

  10. Scott Supak says:

    I’m addressing you, Dr. Spencer, not one of your fellow denier commenters.

    “Unlike them, we deny ‘that most of it is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community.’”–Dr. Roy Spencer

    • Dave N says:

      CAGW proponents deny that warming is mostly natural, Scott. The difference is that skeptics don’t use that label, because it’s offensive.

    • O. Olson says:

      Surely the people commenting here know the difference between a verb (to deny) and a noun (denier)?? And that the definition of a noun derived from a verb can drift over time and acquire nuances if not outright changes in meaning?

      • Scott Supak says:

        Words have connotations and denotations. The connotations of “denier” track closely with the connotations of the verb “deny.”

        But I would suggest that if someone take such great offense at the noun, they shouldn’t use the verb to describe their own position.

        • Scott Scarborough says:

          You are of the Ilk that believe that if you say something that makes it so. I am here to inform you that you are wrong. The connotations of “denier” does not track closely with the connotations of the verb “deny.” Are you counting on people not knowing what the words connotation and denotation mean? In English context is everything. The word “Player” may mean that you are predisposed to cheat on your significant other… a cheater as in “he’s a real player.” But if you are a “Basket-ball player” it never means that you cheat at basket-ball. But I am sure, if it fit your purpose, you would be on this blog maintaining that someone who says that they are a basket-ball player is not to be trusted because of some of the possible definitions of the word “player.” Or the converse that the charge of someone being “a real player” is not derogatory at all even if it obviously is. The context of the usage of “denier” when commenting on Roy’s Climate Science conclusions is as clear as can be and that is why you don’t find a comment from Roy in response to you. He does not feed the Trolls.

          • Scott Supak says:

            Well, how nice to have such an expert on the language to set me straight.

            It’s all about context. If someone says they deny CAGW, or “most” of it, then they are a denier of CAGW, according to their own terminology.

            I have yet to see anyone put the word denier into the same context that the world player would need in order to be deemed derogatory.

            If you don’t like the world denier, then don’t say you deny CAGW. It’s really simple. Had Dr. Spencer not said he denies CAGW, his protests about being called a denier would have a better footing.

            Funny, though, that you have no problem with calling people names while you bemoan people calling people names.

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          Scott Dumbpak,

          You really want to make an ass of yourself for all to see. Be my guest.

          Micha Tomkiewicz, Ph.D., is a professor of physics in the Department of Physics, Brooklyn College, the City University of New York. He is also a Holocaust survivor. This is what he had to say:

          “Deniers.” The term itself triggers angry responses and, recently, it’s been used in a tumultuous series of climate change opinion pieces, responses and blog posts – now numbering in the hundreds…………The comment reflects the undeniable fact that the term “deniers” has a direct association specifically with Holocaust deniers and captures much of the intellectual spirit and tone of this debate.

          http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2012/04/22/first-post/

          Please do not embarrass yourself further, unless you don’t mind revealing your absolute stupidity.

          • Scott Supak says:

            Dumbpak, ass, stupid…

            Well, at least you didn’t call me a Nazi.

            Find my comment here about the bet I made with Pat Michaels, which was posted by Dr. Spencer on this blog.

            Come put your money where your dirty mouth is, wingnut.

          • D. App says:

            The word “denier” existed long before the Holocaust. It will exist long after it.

            Stop whining about words and provide better science.

  11. Mark Ping says:

    Indeed the Holodomor was comparable to if not worse than the Holocaust, and it didn’t require ovens or anti-Semitism. It only required enforced poverty.

    Keep of the fight, good Doctor!

    • Mark Ping says:

      Huh, in fact now that I think about it, Climate Stalinists may actually be a better term… Though Nazis is apropos because of the ‘denier’ slur, as you’ve point out.

      • Scott Supak says:

        I bet some people deny the Holodomor, too. Just like some deny evolution.

        Of course, if it turns out that millions do die from the catastrophic effects of warming, then I guess we’ll technically have to refer to deniers as “pre-deniers” if we really want it to be a slur.

        • handjive says:

          Scott Supak says:
          February 26, 2014 at 7:51 PM

          Quote: “Of course, if it turns out that millions do die from the catastrophic effects of warming, …”

          You will be happy to know the environmental pogrom has begun, Scott.

          Poor coloured people are being murdered in the name of your Global Warming:

          “With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object.
          Activists say some are told they are going to health camps for operations that will improve their general wellbeing and only discover the truth after going under the knife.

          Yet a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.

          The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, …”

          http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india

          Sleep well tonight, Scott.
          Until they come to knock on your door … hopefully soon.

          • Scott Supak says:

            This crap from the UK, that would be the conservative government of the UK?

            Come knock on my door. I dare you.

            But what’s really funny is how you say this is a bad thing, and then you hope it happens to me. If you hope it happens to me, then you think it would be, in some cases, a good thing.

            What if the people in India suffering this fate (assuming the story is accurate) are like me and think CAGW is going to be a real problem? Would it be OK then, or still a bad thing?

          • handjive says:

            Scott. Conservative? Democrat? Bah!
            My view: As for any politicians who have ever believed in global warming, or supported the carbon tax, or a carbon-constrained economy, there is no hope for them.
            They are either too stupid or incompetent to be taken seriously.
            Make their lives hell too, just as they wished a diminished life on you.*
            . . .
            Why “dare them” to knock on your door?
            You should welcome them.
            The UK Conservatives ‘think’ the same as you, Scott.
            Reducing population numbers to cut greenhouse gases to fight climate change. Just like the programme says.
            The CAGW future as foreseen.

            I hope they knock on your door so you can contribute to fight the future CAGW that YOU think will happen.
            Surely a “good thing” for the CAGW future as you see it?
            Leading by example. Catastrophic future avoided.

            And … What if the people in India suffering this fate are NOT like Scott Supak and DON’T think CAGW is going to be a real problem?
            Would it be OK then, or still a bad thing?

            PS. Got a problem with The Guardian? Take it up with them.

            * http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5257

        • GTMGQ says:

          Do you deny that people are already dying from biofuel and carbon-trading policy. Bravo, you’re so moral…

      • Carbonicus says:

        We’re also using climate parasites now.

  12. Lew Skannen says:

    Not forgetting Hansens ‘Death Trains’.

  13. Carbonicus says:

    Roy, I’m Jewish, live in Atlanta, and have connections to people well placed at ADL at a regional and national level.

    I’ve also spent 25+ years as an environmental professional, helping to facilitate the investigation, characterization, and remediation of the real environmental risks to human health and the environment from the US legacy of industrialization. Professional interest led me to begin studying climate science (and related physical sciences, to the extent empirical data from geology, atmospheric chemistry, physics, and other disciplines is relevant) more than a decade ago.

    I am a “skeptic”, too. I am regularly called a denier, and as a Jew, this offends me, for the same factual reasons as you (Eco-fascism, energy poverty impact on billions, etc.) but for an added obvious reason.

    I just learned of this flap this evening.

    I am going to be on ADL regionally and nationally tomorrow bright and early. They have called out the wrong side, and I am going to give them the context they missed, using so many examples over more than half a decade that they will be overwhelmed and have to admit their error, or recognize the hypocrisy of their one-sided reprimand.

    Stand fast. The comparisons you made are correct as to magnitude, historical context in terms of politics masquerading as science, etc. And because the implications for humanity of the Eco-Left actually succeeding with these policies I, as a Jew, am not offended in the least by your use of the Swastika. The comparison is not hyperbole, it is appropriate, and then some.

  14. Anthony Watts says:

    Thanks Carbonicus,

    I hope you show up at their office in person and offer a civil discussion. The address is listed in the press release published here:

    http://wp.me/p7y4l-r1F

    • Carbonicus says:

      As posted by others above, Shelley Rose is conveniently out for today and tomorrow. Message left. But I also know numerous business/civic leaders in the Atlanta Jewish community who are involved in ADL, and I’m already reaching out to them.

      In the meantime, I’ve already spoken directly with Abe Foxman, ADL National Dir. I’ll be sending him examples of egregious use of Nazi/Holocaust imagery/language used by Roy’s opponents over the years, and demanding exactly what Roy did below. Either retract it and apologize, or equally condemn the other side for its even worse use of the things that offend ADL.

      Stay tuned. If that doesn’t work, we’ll simply take this national very publicly until reason and morality prevail.

      Will update efforts on this posting as things unfold.

    • Scott Supak says:

      A civil discussion? Carbonicus uses the term “climate parasites” and you hope he’ll have a civil discussion.

      Hey, Carbonicus, come to my house and call me a parasite and let’s see what kind of discussion we have.

      You’re invited too, Anthony.

  15. KevinK says:

    Dr. Spencer, with respect;

    To quote Mahatma Gandhi;

    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    I think we are all in step #3 now. They have “nothing” real to defend (from a scientific perspective). The observations (with some flaws like all real observations) do not match the hypothesis (i.e. “The Planet Has A Fever”, etc. etc.). The predictions are not happening (as expected from anybody with enough hubris that attempts to model the climate). So we are left with “name-calling” and emotional responses. A sorry state of affairs for science.

    But new ideas will crop up and explanations about the flaws in the old ideas will take root and the world will move on.

    While I disagree with you on some things (what the results of the “GHE” actually are). I respect the quality of your work and your thoughts on the subject(recently akin to swatting a hornets nest).

    You are correct, a few (perhaps originally well meaning folks) have decided what the “rest” of the world must do to create perfection (no “pollution” of any kind, no inequality, no damage to the Earth, no use of anything we might run out of, a perfectly stable climate that is at the exact temperature determined by bureaucrats, etc. etc.). Alas, perfection never exists so the hunt for it must go on. And anybody that says; “perhaps we should stop hunting and just deal with what we have now” gets shouted down.

    Stand your ground good sir, you are on the right side, although it may take a while to recognize that.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  16. If you describe yourself as someone who “denies” something, then you are, by your own definition of the word, a “denier” of that thing. The word has existed for 700 years in our language. Seems a bit silly to get all huffy about it.

    Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

    Yeah, I’m so huffy I need an oxygen mask. Sure thing. According to Ellen Goodman, Scott, if you deny something even if you don’t use the word deny but rather just imply you deny it then you are, by default, a Holocaust Denier. Per our little discussion here, it’s clear to me you deny a great many things without ever using that 700 year old word. Per Ellen Goodman, you’re a Holocaust Denier. Join the crowd. Now, if you change your tune and attitude and say I’m right, maybe there will be some leniency for you, but if you deny I’m right, explicitly or implicitly, then it’s the gallows for you, I’m afraid. If you have a problem with that, talk to Ellen Goodman and the ADL. They made the rules.

    • Scott Supak says:

      So, let’s make sure we have this straight…

      When Roy Spencer calls himself a denier, he’s using one definition of the word, but when anyone else uses the same word he used, we’re automatically the using the same definition as Ellen Goodman?

      Yeah, I have a problem with THAT, and I’m talking to you.

      But I’m sick of talking to you pseudo-skeptics. If you want to make a statement that gets my attention, do what Pat Michaels did and put your money where your mouth is.

      http://supak.blogspot.com/2013/09/fake-climate-science-skeptic-finally.html

      • Scott, I can see you’re not yet ready to come out of the closet about your Denial. That’s fine. There’s no Rush. We have plenty of time…but even more time if you embrace your latent Denial because then there’s no more preternatural CAGW to worry about.

        FYI, I don’t gamble, I invest…in people. It’s money better spent, sir. Get it? Spentsir (Spencer…haha, I make a funny).

        • Scott Supak says:

          If Pat wins, I give to autism. If I win, Pat gives to Climate Scientist Defense Fund. Either way, we’re investing in people.

          Do you own a mutual fund? If yes, then you gamble.

          As for denial, whatever. You can say that I deny your bull. Fine. I’m a denier of pseudo-skeptic bull. Silly word games. All meaningless BS. It’s like arguing with evolution deniers. Meaningless round-and-round that leads to no one chaning their minds and people screaming at each other and calling each other names.

          I offer a better way. A gentleman’s way. A simple bet. A measure of one’s certainty of future warming.

          And you chickened out.

  17. JD Ohio says:

    Several comments try to justify the use of “denier” as simply a neutral word describing those whose minds are closed to scientific evidence. In some occasions in the past, it was occasionally used in that sense. In today’s world, it is most commonly used to associate people with holocaust deniers.

    The law has a means to deal with people who have an underlying defamatory meaning, but who try to hide behind the innocent meaning: the concept of innuendo. So, in the 1950s if you called someone a fruit and that person lost his job because people falsely believed he was gay, then the speaker would still be liable for defamation even though there was a possible innocent connotation. The same principle is applicable here.

    There is a simple term with no Nazi baggage that could be used to describe those who are impervious to reason — “rejectionist.” I wonder why it is never used, and warmists almost uniformly use the term “denier.” If warmists didn’t really intend the innuendo, different terms would be used. Instead, they prefer to make the cheap, cowardly shot and regularly use the term “denier.”

    JD

    • Fonzie says:

      Spot on, J D, spot on…

    • Scott Supak says:

      Cowardly shot… Heh. Just once I’d like to see you guys jump on your own people about all the cowardly shots they take at us. Just look at the wide variety of crap I’ve been called in these comments. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I’m sure I could go back and find all kinds of fun names for folks on my side of the equation that you guys spewed out.

      What’s really funny here is the double standard. When you guys say you deny, as Dr. Spencer did, it means one thing, but when we say it, it’s innuendo.

      I prefer to call you guys pseudo-skeptics, or fake-skeptics.

      But this is all nonsense. If you’re not willing to bet on future temperatures, you’re just a bullshitter. And I mean that in the philosophical sense of the word–as in when the FCC OKed it’s use on the Daily Show when Jon Stewart interviewed Professor Harry Frankfurt, author of the book “On Bullshit.”

      http://supak.blogspot.com/2013/09/fake-climate-science-skeptic-finally.html

      • JD Ohio says:

        Scott, I am willing to make a bet they will expose the fallacy of your bet. I will bet you that at any point 25 through 100 years from now (you choose the length) thata smaller percentage of people will be living in extreme poverty (if we can find another objective definition of poverty that is fine by me) than are living in it now. The fallacy of your bet is that it assumes that if there is a substantial rise in temperatures that it will cause harm to people.

        Your assumption is wrong for two reasons. 1. Technology is advancing so rapidly that by the time that any large rises in temperature could occur, it will be a trivial exercise to manage the increase and potentially CO2. 2. Even assuming that there are no direct ways to manage warming, people will find a way to adapt.

        Please note that my focus is on PEOPLE, not what you would consider to be proxies for things that could harm people, such as temperature rises, species extinction, acidification of the ocean et cet. Hansen evoked the Nazi death trains in his ridiculous scaremongering with respect to potential rising temperatures. So, let’s join the real issue– which is whether people will be harmed.

        I will warn you ahead of time that this is sucker bet in my favor. Malthus has always been proven wrong because he did not understand technological innovation or the human capacity for adaption. Please let me know whether you are willing to put your money where your mouth is on an issue that really matters.

        JD

    • barry says:

      In today’s world, it is most commonly used to associate people with holocaust deniers.

      Where I live holocaust denial is not a notion that has much currency. The term ‘denier’ is not locked in the public memory as having associations with holocaust denial. It resonates more as a psychological term, as in denialism. I can understand if certain people are sensitive about the usage for the reaosns here described, but it is not a general concept.

      I will not cringe from describing someone as ‘black’ (mood) because some people say this usage has racist connotations.

      I will not refrain from using the word lady, just because some feminists associate it with old-world values on womanhood.

      I will not refrain from using the word midget, even though some ‘little people’ are offended by the term.

      I see umbrage with the term ‘denier’ in the same category. A small group trying to tell everybody else that a certain word is offensive and should be forbidden. Political correctness is only valid up to a point. I would be surprised if people here would uphold such notions of language cleansing.

      • Scott Supak says:

        Nice.

        And the really funny thing is that most of these CAGW deniers are right wing, and they are the ones who scream the loudest about the “PC police.”

    • Methuselah says:

      Somehow, I don’t think Scott, D.App, or other members of the AGW cult would be making the same claim about the word “mongrel” not having racist connotations simply because it originally referred to dogs.

      • barry says:

        Don’t know where you’re from, but here ‘mongrel’ is an epithet meaning ‘of low character’, while ‘denial’ is associated with psychology.

        In science, denialism is associated with pseudoscience – HIV/AIDS denial and evolution denial, for example. History revisionism includes Jewish Holocaust denial, Cambodian and Armenian genocide denial.

        What these have in common is a set of ‘debate’ tactics which serve to downplay, distort or ignore facts. The wiki entry sums it up fairly well.

        Mark Hoofnagle (brother of Chris Hoofnagle) has described denialism as “the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.”[5][6][28] It is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics in order to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy:[29]

        * Conspiracy theories — Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in “a conspiracy to suppress the truth”.
        * Cherry picking — Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look as though they base their ideas on weak research.
        * False experts — Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility.
        * Moving the goalpost — Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence.
        * Other logical fallacies — Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.

        Tara Smith of the University of Iowa also stated that moving goalposts, conspiracy theories, and cherry-picking evidence are general characteristics of denialist arguments, but went on to note that these groups spend the “majority of their efforts critiquing the mainstream theory” in an apparent belief that if they manage to discredit the mainstream view, their own “unproven ideas will fill the void.”

        This is what most people are referring to when they call someone a ‘denier’ regarding AGW. That is, by a country mile, the most prevalent intention upon usage. Scanning google will give you a clue.

        All words have associations. I, for one, will use mongrel to describe mixed breed dogs and persons of low character. Do you think we should kowtow to the PC police?

  18. Ossqss says:

    I stand by your position Dr. Spencer.

    It is about control of energy in the end. The current policies that have been generated from modeled science continue to cull the human race.

    It is truly a travesty.

  19. A Country Farmer says:

    Stand up for what’s right! Those that are irrational won’t read your response, or they’ll distort it, but you have the truth on your side, and I hope that helps you get through the attacks.

  20. Mike Flynn says:

    I presume the ADL would be horrified by anyone saying

    “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” — Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994

    and would immediately leap to the defence of the million Arabs. But alas, all steps must be taken to ensure the Jewish fingernail is not offended by being undervalued.

    What nonsense. Nature doesn’t seem to care what your colour, race, creed or bizarre personal proclivities are. Trying to denigrate unbelievers in the magical effects of CO2 achieves nothing. Unbelievers remain unbelievers, magic remains magic, and the Earth continues to do what it has done for the last four and a half billion years. Cooling that is – slowly, remorselessly, and inevitably.

    Nazi, Jew, Communist, Capitalist, Christian, Buddhist – all just words. You may call me what you wish – my care factor remains zero.

    The weather, and its average, climate, continue to change, whether you like it or not.

    If you don’t like it, sue someone. Good luck with that.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn

  21. Murray Allan says:

    When it is clear that science has never been able to even remotely quantify the actual effect of man made CO2 and any change in the temperature of the earth, the term denier can accurately be placed on the warmists. Its clear their science is incomplete ( at best ). The science barely understands the effect at all, cue the pitiful climate models. It must be hard for Spencer to deal with this idiots and their lies. Science has been put in shackles for Obama, Algore and Kerry to mishandle.

  22. martha durham says:

    this is the craziest thing ever. when the models match the observed, game over. until then, lots to learn. the cagw people have everyone in a frenzy. like doomsday preppers except cagw people are not doing anything except advocating spending everyone elses money (or raking in everyone elses money like algore, pelosi, etc) and doing in the poorest of the poor. chicken little makes algore very rich.

  23. John F. Hultquist says:

    Put death trains into the WUWT search box. There are several posts that come up.

    Several years ago I made a comment that something in James Hansen’s past must have influenced his odd and disgusting use of “death trains” and I think it is every bit as repugnant. Shelley Rose and the ADL members need to be aware of this history. If Roy’s blast at the warmist group brings this about – great!

    Or look at this one: (at Bob Burns comment WUWT 3:58)
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/11/26/202133/hansen-stands-by-coal-traindeath-train-analogy/#

  24. Peter Whale says:

    Bravo Dr Spencer we at last have a discussion and debate. If name calling works as it seems to, we have followed the wrong path by being courteous with name callers, let us join them with full gusto like Dellingpole and call them the scum they are for the deaths and the misery they have caused.

  25. Morph says:

    I was one of those who didn’t agree with the Nazi phrase when you used it the other day.

    I withdraw that, I agree with you now.

  26. Bert Walker says:

    Perhaps someone will send the ADL a picture of Dana Nuticelli, and John Cook in their full SkS Nazi regalia (that had been posted at the SKS website around Aug 2013 I think), thanking the ADL for supporting AGW propaganda.

    Actually they are at:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/mad-haxor-skillz-godwinize-skeptical-science/

  27. googler says:

    Is this the same “Shelley Rose” identified here?…

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/stepitup2007/464126698/?rb=1

    • Anthony Watts says:

      @”googler” most likely, and I’ve sent a query asking Ms. Rose to confirm if in fact that is here posing with the climate activist group “Step it Up”

      See photo at: http://wp.me/p7y4l-r1F

      But I got an email saying:

      I will be out of the office Thursday and Friday on ADL business. If you need immediate assistance, please leave a message on my cell. I will respond as quickly as I can. Thanks..

      Shelley Rose

      Interim Regional Director

      I wonder if this is related to her PR yesterday?

      But, her being part of a climate activist group who uses the Jewish church in Atlanta for meetings would explain a lot.

  28. mac says:

    Pensioners and low income earners that I know of are already hesitant to use their air conditioners, even in extreme heat, because of the high power costs. This suffering should weigh heavily on the minds of those that are perpetuating this carbon dioxide scare and forcing up prices.

  29. Tim Spence says:

    This is what I think of this sad act by ADL, a step too far in entirely the wrong direction.

    What a lamentable and distasteful state of affairs.

    http://climatefraudwatcher.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/adl-a-step-too-far-in-entirely-the-wrong-direction/

  30. Further, he apparently denies 100% that it is a threat to future generations.

    Really? Scott, the valuable service you’ve provided here thus far in this discussion is you’ve proven, unequivocally, that Denial is not just a river in Egypt. See, Scott, you DENY 100% that making AGW theory official and settled will result, via actionable, enforced legislation, in the suffering and deaths of countless people the world over; a genocide of sorts and all based off of faulty science.

    You and your ilk have to answer for the following, Scott, because it emanates from your ilk. The fact that you deny you and your ilk are condoning this rhetoric by your acquiescent silence reminds very much of the good, silent Germans who sat back and watched, and said nothing as the Nazis expanded their reach and power; and it started with rhetoric like the following.

    From Guy McPherson’s website, Nature Bats Last. McPherson is a radical (as radical as they come) AGW Consensus member who believes humans will be extinct by 2032 because of AGW. He fosters the following comments at his website, meaning these comments have gone unchallenged, and actually, are the spirit and sentiment of that place:

    http://guymcpherson.com/2013/10/climate-chaos-in-four-minutes-a-video-update/#comment-99601

    Rob@thepubliclibrary Says:
    October 9th, 2013 at 7:07 am

    If it is the aim of environmentalists to stop fossil fuel production and use, then they are promoting a policy that would have disastrous consequences for human civilization and the environment. If we stopped using fossil fuel today, or by 2020 as Al Gore proposes, at least half the human population would perish (probably more, a lot more) in a very ugly sequence of events – war, famine, pestilence. The Solution, therefore, is damn near as bad as the disease. However, crashing industrial civilization and then having a majority of the humans die is the only chance Every Living Thing on Earth has – and that is what the fight is now about. The biggest problem logistically is having most humans die soon – because they leave behind this giant toxic infrastructure that, if left unattended, will become more and more toxic. So, the real question is: How do we get the humans to die AND get the toxic infrastructure safely dismantled. That should be our focus.

    http://guymcpherson.com/2013/10/climate-chaos-in-four-minutes-a-video-update/#comment-99757

    Robin Datta Says:
    October 9th, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    As stated by Bill McKibben, the fossil fuel industries are “Public Enemy Number One.”

    In that case the real Public Enemy Number One is the global human population in excess of the population at the beginning of the Coal Age, around the 1820s – all the people in excess of one billion, who are the driving force behind today’s extraction and combustion of fossil fuels. No consumers: no demand – no profits.

    Where is the ADL? These statements, the scope and sentiment of them, make the Nazis look like rank amateurs. There is a palpable hatred of humanity present, and the raw and primal smell of blood drips from the anticipatory prose.

    • Scott Supak says:

      The amount of discussion that you have dropped is astounding. And now you want to move on to something else. This is described perfectly in the book “On Bullshit” by philosophy professor Harry Frankfurt.

      But I’ll play along, even though I’m starting to think you won’t put money where your mouth is.

      > See, Scott, you DENY 100% that making AGW theory official and settled will result, via actionable, enforced legislation, in the suffering and deaths of countless people the world over; a genocide of sorts and all based off of faulty science.

      I haven’t said anything like that. I think that making sure that energy companies don’t shift their negative externalities onto the rest of us is the very definition of a free market. The current rigged game is not. This goes for lots of other negative externalities besides carbon, like mercury.

      Making the corporations pay for those externalities will likely raise prices. But if I use solar panels, or wind, to generate my own juice, why should I have to pay for what I don’t buy? How is that a free market?

      Right now we give billions to big oil and carbon in direct, and indirect, subsidies. That needs to stop. Let them compete in the market.

      But what’s really great is how you try to turn the catastrophic argument onto those of us who only want to make the companies pay the true costs of their pollution. If you don’t think carbon is one, fine, argue against it. But to suggest that a carbon tax would lead to another holocaust is to do exactly what you’re saying you don’t like us doing.

      > These statements, the scope and sentiment of them, make the Nazis look like rank amateurs.

      Really? I bet if you were using your real name, you’d be less likely to say that these statements are WORSE than what the Nazis did. HUH?

      Now put up or shut up. Your schtick is getting old.

      • JohnKl says:

        Thank you Scott Supak,

        There never seems to be an end to the apparently meaningless claims you make. For example you stated:

        “But what’s really great is how you try to turn the catastrophic argument onto those of us who only want to make the companies pay the true costs of their pollution.”

        REALLY?!!! A mind is only so good as the precision of it’s concepts Scott Supak. Please enlighten us (if you can) precisely who must pay the cost of said pollution to what hypothetical victim/beneficiary. It seems to me you’ve benefited as much as anyone from whatever it is you define as a pollutant these days. So when can we expect your check in the mail?!!! Have a great day scrounging for change Scott!

        you went on to whine:

        “If you don’t think carbon is one, fine, argue against it. But to suggest that a carbon tax would lead to another holocaust is to do exactly what you’re saying you don’t like us doing.”

        While a carbon tax may not be a holocaust, NOT THAT ANYONE HERE CLAIMED THAT IT WAS, it certainly has no bearing in reason. Of course, the real purpose behind such an absurd statement may be to conceal the real daily holocausts right in front of your eyes!

        Again, have a great day!

        • Scott Supak says:

          “NOT THAT ANYONE HERE CLAIMED THAT IT WAS”

          Speak up, apparently George F’ing Will didn’t hear you, because just today he compared those of us who know what’s happening with AGW to Nazis. Just in this thread, I have several people here talking about how “warmists” are as bad, if not worse, than Nazis, or Stalin. Try reading the comments before you spew your BS.

          “Please enlighten us (if you can) precisely who must pay the cost of said pollution to what hypothetical victim/beneficiary.”

          Again, apparently you didn’t read all the comments. I don’t come in here and mess with your little bubble often, but when I do, I at least try to be throrough. Here’s what I said above:

          Around 13,000 Americans die every year from the direct pollution from coal fired plants. Plus, 20,000 heart attacks, and 1.6 million lost work days.

          http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf

          We all suffer because of that, and none of the costs associated with those negative externalities are included in the price of coal. Neither are the price of the spills from companies that dump their toxic crap in the water. Heck, in some cases, the companies that do the pollution go bankrupt after spills, leaving the taxpayers with the clean up AND the bankruptcy costs.

          “Again, have a great day!”

          Why do you people always say that when you don’t mean it? Do you get bonus points for being disingenuous? Just say what you mean, like so many others here who’ve called me everything in the book… in a thread where Dr. Spencer whines about being called a name he doesn’t like.

          • John K says:

            Thank you Scott Supak,

            You complained:

            “Just in this thread, I have several people here talking about how “warmists” are as bad, if not worse, than Nazis, or Stalin.”

            Hmmh! You seem to need a reading comprehension lesson. I merely suggested that no one here (as in on this website) as far as I’ve read claimed a carbon tax to be a holocaust. Many WARMISTS throughout history including Jacques Cousteau, probably Paul Ehrlich and others do ADVOCATE FASCIST ENDS SIMILAR TO STALIN OR HITLER! As a possible memory refresher and aid to the possibly learning impaired I’ve repeated two quotes I presented earlier. Please see below:

            “The United Nation’s goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, forced sterilization, and control of human reproduction, and regards two-thirds of the human population as excess baggage, with 350,000 people to be eliminated per day.”
            - Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1991

            “It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. ”
            - Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1994.

            You went on another rant:

            “Again, apparently you didn’t read all the comments. I don’t come in here and mess with your little bubble often, but when I do, I at least try to be throrough.”

            Oh! I’m quite thorough and you still haven’t answered my questions. Btw, if you wish to be thorough you might spell the word correctly.

            You claimed:

            “Around 13,000 Americans die every year from the direct pollution from coal fired plants. Plus, 20,000 heart attacks, and 1.6 million lost work days.”

            Believe it or not, whether or not those figures bear any relation to reality, I do agree that COAL BURNING PLANTS can pose a threat especially in regard to VOC’s and other compounds. However, a CARBON TAX would be leveled on all sources irregardless of their potential harm or impact on life and property. Personally I have no problem with government protecting lives and property, a rather conservative notion. However, I do have a problem with leftist demagogues arbitrarily imposing costs and fees on others for allegedly beneficial causes all the while doing NOTHING ABOUT THE CAUSES THEY CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT and in many (if not all) cases diverting funds to various GIFTS TO THE POLITICALLY CONNECTED. You still have yet to identify precisely who will benefit from said carbon taxes and/or fees other than the abstract taxpayer SUPPOSEDLY getting something back for un-defined bankruptcy and clean-up costs. If the polluting party goes bankrupt that only proves the MARKET WAS EFFECTIVE IN ELIMINATING A POLLUTER! Yet you have provided NO PROOF that any of the carbon tax money will actually go to even the small government services you mentioned. Please don’t offer some pending legislation as proof of anything since even current LAWS ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED and there’s a long history of diverting government dollars to the hands of the POLITICALLY CONNECTED.

            You then chide:

            “Why do you people always say that when you don’t mean it?”

            What do you mean by YOU PEOPLE? You go on:

            “Just say what you mean, like so many others here who’ve called me everything in the book…”

            Hmmh! I don’t know what BOOK you refer to, but believe me I haven’t called you EVERYTHING applicable at all! Nevertheless, I do in fact mean quite honestly…

            HAVE A GREAT DAY!

            P.S. – I gain nothing by you having a lousy day, and ONE GOOD DAY MAY JUST CLEAR THE COBWEBS out of what currently passes for your STATE OF MIND.

  31. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    “one denies the past and the other denies the present and future”.

    Denies the future says a lot about the intelligence of the writer.

    • She’s apparently a Calvinist because her statement implies the future is set in stone, or maybe she believes time is flat circle.

      • Scott Supak says:

        The possible future you ridicule is highly likely, and getting more likely all the time. This is made obvious by the fact that you will not bet on that possible future.

        And now, days later, I go through this thread and see that in every case where I challenge you people to put money on what you say you’re certain of, no one would.

        Not one of you. That speaks more volumes than the wingnuttery you spew by the gigabyte.

  32. It is a clear cut case that I think they’ll understand.

    There’s no doubt they understand, but what’s most important is the one and only truth, and that is what stance to take that will result in the most donations and contributions to their organization. They’ve put their wet finger to the wind and by virtue of this most recent response, we see that their actuaries have predicted this is the most lucrative approach. They wouldn’t dare deny that actuarially-imputed milk & honey flowing future.

  33. Roy, I’m Jewish, live in Atlanta, and have connections to people well placed at ADL at a regional and national level.

    Do you play online poker, as well? If you’re who and what you say you are, just sign in with your real name. Otherwise, you’re anonymous and can be anything at anytime. In case you’re wondering who I am, I’m a female Jewish topless dancer (I know, there aren’t many of us, and that’s what makes us so special…like diamonds) in Atlanta and I also know many influential people both inside and outside of the ADL. See how that works?

    I don’t think Roy needs to grovel and plead his case with the ADL. He doesn’t need to cower to their blackmailing, blackballing, McCarthyite tactics. The proper approach to the ADL is to
    turn the other cheek
    , as in making it loud and clear the ADL has no authority in this matter and their opinion carries no more weight than that of any individual citizen.

    • Scott Supak says:

      Nice use of Matthew 5:39 to instruct someone on how to deal with Jews.

      Heck, if you just wait long enough, they’ll all die in a lake of fire during the Rapture…

      But maybe you didn’t mean it that way?

      • I’m thinking you’re a foil and not what you pretend to be. Are you not aware of what the ADL is? It’s not necessarily Jewish, although many Jewish people work there and donate to it. This is from Wikipedia:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League

        The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, is an international non-governmental organization based in the United States. Describing itself as “the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency”, the ADL states that it “fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all,” doing so through “information, education, legislation, and advocacy.”

        My turn-the-other-cheek article is advice to anyone who is confronted with someone/something attempting to backhand them from a position of involuntarily imposed authority. The message is “I am your equal, you have no authority or power over me and no business treating me as an inferior subordinate who must bend to and obey your will.”

        • Scott Supak says:

          “I’m thinking you’re a foil and not what you pretend to be.”

          I’m exactly who I say I am. I don’t use a fake name on the internet.

          “I am your equal, you have no authority or power over me and no business treating me as an inferior subordinate who must bend to and obey your will.”

          And yet you insist on cost-shifting negative externalities on me.

          But, hey, if you don’t see the irony in telling people to “turn the other cheek” to the ADL, then you’re hopeless.

  34. Andy says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    If you are so inclined to reconsider your stance and apologize for using the term “Climate Nazi”, might I suggest this as a template: from the movie “Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean”

    JUDGE ROY BEAN
    [Bean apologizes to the marshals' wives] I understand you have taken exception to my calling you whores. I’m sorry. I apologize. I ask you to note that I did not call you callous-ass strumpets, fornicatresses, or low-born gutter sluts. But I did say “whores.” No escaping that. And for that slip of the tongue, I apologize.

  35. Vangel says:

    Good for you Roy. It takes courage to stand up to the political machine that is promoting the AGW movement and justifying the attempt to drive energy prices higher. The ADL is an embarrassment as it panders to power and popular sentiment. But what would you expect from progressives who do not understand that the Holocaust was created by progressive ideology in the first place?

  36. Barry Woods says:

    From Pop Tech:
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptical-science-smear-skeptics-as.html

    Skeptical Science: Smear Skeptics as Holocaust Deniers

    In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums “hacked” and the contents posted online. In a forum thread titled “Advice on engaging the public”, John Cook posts enthusiastically, “Here is an excellent email from Greg Craven…”

    Here’s my two cents on engaging the public:

    The biggest obstacles you need to understand are that the public doesn’t understand the nature of science, …they aren’t rational decision-makers, [...]

    Be aware that the press is very defensive about being called “liberal” by the heartland. So they will always give a denier equal weight under the guise of “We just report and let the reader make their own decision.” The hell they do. Ask “When the press does a story on the Holocaust, do they give equal time to the revisionists?”

  37. Bil Danielson says:

    Dr. Spencer, you and I may not agree on everything (e.g. philosophy). However, on this concrete matter I am in complete and total agreement. Well written commentary and retort.

  38. Yes, I have used the word “deny” before. It actually does have a general usage, and is in the dictionary, like the more general term “holocaust”.

    But this is diversion from the main point…those who have specifically used it to make Nazi- and Holocaust-type connections to people like me.

    Many clear examples exist over the years which the ADL chose not to condemn, before they hypocritically condemned me.

    They can either (1) condemn those others, (2) retract their condemnation of me, or (3) look like hypocrites to the rest of the world. Their choice.

    • Scott Supak says:

      “those who have specifically used it to make Nazi- and Holocaust-type connections to people like me.”

      And what were those connections, exactly?

      It’s funny how I come in here to show you’ve used the word deny, labeled yourself one who denies, and then I get called every worn-out cliche of a name in the book that right wingers have for liberals.

      So, maybe you should condemn all the name calling from your right wing friends, eh? Or are you just another right wing hypocrite? Honestly.

      But really, I don’t care. Go ahead and call people all kinds of names and then whine when they do it to you. I really don’t care, because I really just want you to make the same bet I made with Pat Michaels. I really don’t care what names I’m called. I just want your followers to put their money where their mouths are.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Scott,

        You have been shown that the use of the word ‘Denier’ by the Warmists is specific to Holocaust Denier and not the more general meaning.

        THEY are the ones who specifically said so, not the Skeptics.

        Your continually missing that point makes me want to ask you a question.

        Is the pay good?

        Snowden: Training Guide for GCHQ, NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media

        • Scott Supak says:

          “You have been shown that the use of the word ‘Denier’ by the Warmists is specific to Holocaust Denier and not the more general meaning.”

          No, I’ve been shown that some “warmists” made it specific to the Holocaust. You have tried to extrapolate “some” to “the warmists.” Your faulty logic, not mine.

          “Is the pay good?”

          What pay? The CFTC closed Intrade to Americans, and it has now gone out of the prediciton market business. So, I’m not taking money from pseudo skeptics there anymore. Too bad. It was fun. And lucrative.

          But funny how you guys always think we’re government agents.

          Watch out for the black helicopter I just sent your way.

  39. John S. says:

    Of course the ADL are hypocrites. As are many other organizations. According to Gallup, BBC, and der Speigel polls, we skeptics are either majorities or near majorities in the USA, UK, and Germany. So if our opponents want to call 1/2 the population they are trying to persuade to their side “deniers” and call for Nuremberg-like trials for skeptics…I say GOOD! Let them make asses of themselves. Lets give them more rope. To mimic their losing PR strategy by calling them “Nazis” is just a sub-optimal strategy. Better to call them “bullies” and skip the Nazi nonsense.

    Continuing this strategy of calling them Nazis makes as much sense as spitting into the wind. Let’s call them “climate bullies” and be done with it. The one silver lining from Dr Spencer’s Nazi PR campaign is ADL has been outed as partisans in the CAGW debate… Please Dr Spencer. Your expertise is in science. Not attack PR campaigns. Besides based on polls, the alarmists are not doing so great w/ their ad hominen attack PR campaigns. If we must mimic, let’s mimic success and not the alarmist PR failures…

    • John S., I would agree with you if not for the fact that they are guilty of what they are accusing us of.

      It’s more than just bullying…they are accusing us of killing people by supporting carbon-based energy when in fact they are the ones killing people by withholding that energy.

      Their behavior goes far beyond just name-calling. I’m saying it time to expose them and their dangerous agenda.

      • Scott Supak says:

        How many people are dying because we’re withholding carbon-based energy? I’d like to see some numbers on that. Then we can put them up against the people who die or whose health is severely affected, from just the non-carbon pollution from coal plants. You know, not even looking forward to future CAGW. Just people who die and get sick now.

        • Alcheson says:

          Gee, Scott. Using your line of reasoning, you’d think that the development and utilization of carbon based energy would have led to a decrease in life expectancy, increased poverty and much lower quality of life for all.

          Funny thing is, when you look at what has happened since the wide-scale deployment of fossil fuel based energy sources, it has very CLEARLY DONE THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you seem to think is does.

          So far, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has been a net POSITIVE. Temperaures ~1.5C higher than little ice age (LIA); crop yields up 30%; earth 11% greener.

          People like you prefer LIA temperatures and decreased crop yields and the like. Also, at 200ppm CO2 and lower, plants growth is severely impacted… that is a REAL CATASTROPHIC tipping point. Good thing it is now up around 400ppm to gives us a little breathing room.

          • Scott Supak says:

            You do know that when you burn petroleum or coal, CO2 isn’t the only output?

            Care to talk about all the deaths from that pollution? Maybe stack those up against the temporary increased gains in agri yields (which can also be explained by taking into account breeding higher yielding plants, chemical agriculture like fertilizers and pesticides, etc).

            “200ppm”?

            Really? 350 would be nice. I don’t see 200 being mentioned anywhere. Geez… Talk about alarmists…

            And what happens at 450?

            And, in case you haven’t noticed, fisheries are depleted, oysters and scallops dying… Hope you don’t like sea food.

          • JohnKl says:

            Scott Supak,

            You complained:

            “You do know that when you burn petroleum or coal, CO2 isn’t the only output?”

            Hmmh! Much of the petroleum these days gets processed into fuel. In regards to automobiles, you do realize automobiles manufactured since the 1970′s come with catalytic converters that use electricity to reduce most of the tail-pipe effluent to CO2 and water don’t you? Early designs functioned improperly during stop and go traffic but modern designs work even then. So your technically correct water vapor may be produced as well. Your welcome to call H2O a pollutant our current government may be more than willing to listen to you!

            Have a great day!

          • Scott Supak says:

            JohnKl thought he’d inform me about the modern catalytic converter. And he thought he’d avoid the fact that modern emissions systems don’t stop all of the harmful outputs from gasoline engines.

            Funny, too, how JohnKl completely ignored the pollution from the refineries that create the gasoline, as if he’s not responsible for any of that pollution when he runs his internal combustion engine…

            But it’s funny how you completely avoided the bigger point I was making, which is all the other stuff we get from burning coal. What’s the matter, don’t want to talk about the thousands of people who die as a result of the direct pollution from coal plants? You want to just keep cost-shifting those negative externalities onto the taxpayer?

            How is that fair? How is that even conservative?

          • John K says:

            Scott Supak,

            Actually, I addressed coal in other posts. However, AGAIN for the record I actually agree that COAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS (VOC’s etc.) can POSE AN IMMEDIATE THREAT and government has a role in protecting lives and property.

            You go on to claim:

            “And he thought he’d avoid the fact that modern emissions systems don’t stop all of the harmful outputs from gasoline engines.

            True, but most of them. You go on:

            “Funny, too, how JohnKl completely ignored the pollution from the refineries that create the gasoline, as if he’s not responsible for any of that pollution when he runs his internal combustion engine…”

            Funny, I claimed no more nor less responsibility than anyone else although you assume I own one. Btw, are you claiming to be some AUTOMOBILE VIRGIN untouched by the stain of petro-chemicals! In regards to refineries, family members and friends of mine have lived quite close to them for many years apparently without harm. They supposedly can be operated safely and at a profit. However, admittedly no one knows all the possible long term effects of hydrocarbon pollution. One should attempt to eliminate to the extent feasible dangerous particulate emissions, but really A CARBON TAX DOESN’T DO THAT!!! You added:

            “What’s the matter, don’t want to talk about the thousands of people who die as a result of the direct pollution from coal plants? You want to just keep cost-shifting those negative externalities onto the taxpayer?”

            Actually, I’d be happy to talk about COAL POLLUTION which is a significant danger but since the thread concerns GHG emissions I didn’t address it. My post merely sought to clarify that NOT ALL HYDROCARBONS are equal in terms of impact on life and property. MANY OF THOSE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WOULD BENEFIT ENORMOUSLY BY SHIFTING TO NATURAL GAS OR ALTERNATIVES. OF COURSE, A CARBON TAX MIGHT GREATLY INCREASE THE COST OF NATURAL GAS!!! DO YOU CARE?!!! No and I don’t seek to shift the costs. However, it SEEMS YOU SEEK TO SHIFT THE BLAME AND CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!!

            You went on to state without rational foundation:

            “You want to just keep cost-shifting those negative externalities onto the taxpayer?
            How is that fair? How is that even conservative?”

            My post did take a jab at your broad lumping of hydrocarbon fuels and perhaps a bit snarky. However, since I never said what you claim, I can only conclude you’re possibly either prone to irrational leaps in logic, dishonest or indifferent to FACTS.

            Have a great day!

            P.S. – What have you done to ADDRESS YOUR PARTICIPATION IN SAID “EXTERNALITIES?”

        • Gail Combs says:

          How about Almost 3,000 people in England and Wales die each year as a result of fuel poverty – more than are killed in road accidents, an inquiry has found

          That does not include the starvation deaths due to the major increase in the price of grain that resulted in food riots in 30 countries.

          …Despite the many possible contributing factors, the timing of violent protests in North Africa and the Middle East in 2011 as well as earlier riots in 2008 coincides with large peaks in global food prices. We identify a specific food price threshold above which protests become likely. These observations suggest that protests may reflect not only long-standing political failings of governments, but also the sudden desperate straits of vulnerable populations. If food prices remain high, there is likely to be persistent and increasing global social disruption…

          Today, many poor countries rely on the global food supply system and are thus sensitive to global food prices [21]. This condition is quite different from the historical prevalence of subsistence farming in undeveloped countries, or even a reliance on local food supplies that could provide a buffer against global food supply conditions. It is an example of the increasingly central role that global interdependence…

          In 2008 more than 60 food riots occurred worldwide [58] in 30 different countries [59], 10 of which resulted in multiple deaths [30–40], as shown in the figure….
          http://necsi.edu/research/social/food_crises.pdf‎

          • Scott Supak says:

            Better infrastructure, better buildings, better vehicles, better furnaces, investing in people, as Cold calls it… There are all kinds of things we can do to make the fuel they use go further. All smart programs from a market efficiency argument that you want to make for cheaper energy. But cheaper energy your way involves lower costs by shifting the costs onto taxpayers.

            Around 13,000 Americans die every year from the direct pollution from coal fired plants. Plus, 20,000 heart attacks, and 1.6 million lost work days.

            http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf

            It’s all a matter of degree. Everything has costs and benefits. Burning coal has a lot of costs that are not included in the price.

            So, why are you defending direct interference into supposedly free markets?

      • John S. says:

        Dr Spencer, I agree. They are guilty of what they accuse us of. I agree their agenda is dangerous. I agree people will die if we follow their “green” policies.

        Where I disagree is the PR strategy of calling them “Nazis”. The alarmist bullies have had the full backing of the press and yet…skeptics have grown from a small minority to near majorities in many modern nations. The alarmist strategy of wild hyperbole is a loser for them. We do not want to mimic their losing Nazi strategy (calling people deniers, calling for Nuremberg-like trials of skeptics, Skeptics should be killed, etc…).

        There are other ways to expose them. My choice is alarmist bullies…

  40. Werner Brozek says:

    Is there any subtle message between Naomi Oreskes book title “Merchants of Doubt” and Shakespear’s “The Merchant of Venice”?

  41. Native Son says:

    Ok, I’ve given this some thought. After working my way through this thread, and after also having studied your famous, in-their-face graph depicting global warming model predictions vs actual observational surface temperatures, I propose for your convenience, Dr. Spencer, the term “P.S.E.U.D.O.-scientist” as a handy, acronymous word to use when referring to “Panic-Sustaining Extrapolators and Unwavering Deniers of Observation.” In addition, you may find useful the term “C.R.O.N.Y.” as a word-sparing acronym to use when referring to a “Coddler of Researchers with One-sided, Nonscientific Yaw.”
    Used in a sentence, for example: “The ADL seems to have become a C.R.O.N.Y. to the P.S.E.U.D.O.-scientists who still predict climatic gloom and doom, all observational evidence to the contrary.”
    Rock on, Dr. Spencer.

  42. ^Upthread – What’s the point of showing Shelley Rose’s photo? I don’t need her photo and address to know the ADL is hypocritical. I knew that already through my own research. That’s why this response from the ADL is not surprising and to be expected. I have been told on other threads that this is serious business and nothing to laugh about. My response to that was levity helps temper and diffuse any potential reactionary rage. The message was ignored and for the one or two who did respond, it was dismissed or marginalized. People on both sides of this debate get irrational and do irrational things. Some readers could take the depositing of Rose’s photo and address as an invitation to target her. Don’t dismiss this possible danger. There are radicals who go too far. Bombing of abortion clinics comes to mind, or shooting out generators at power stations. Don’t grease the skids for the radicals. Just as the AGW Consensus needs to police its own crowd before talking down those who don’t consider the science settled, so too do those who don’t consider the science settled, meaning it’s important the skeptics don’t encourage radically reckless behavior.

  43. In the meantime, I’ve already spoken directly with Abe Foxman, ADL National Dir. I’ll be sending him examples of egregious use of Nazi/Holocaust imagery/language used by Roy’s opponents over the years, and demanding exactly what Roy did below.

    I suspect the ADL, maybe Abe himself, is already monitoring this blog, so it’s not like he doesn’t know. If you watch the documentary I deposited in the first comment, it’s Monkey Business and per the film the ADL is in no way heavily staffed. That’s good; low overhead means more bonus money for the few fortunate enough to have landed a job that doesn’t require any real work besides exploitation and manipulation.

    Personally, I hope they don’t retract it. It wouldn’t be in keeping with what the ADL really is, or on second thought, maybe it would. Trying to save face for purposes of PR rather than conceding genuinely on principle is just more hypocrisy, so it wouldn’t be out of character.

    Either way, Roy will be fine. The ADL has no sway or authority in this matter as far as I’m concerned and I’m not alone in that sentiment.

  44. Scott Supak says:

    There seems to have been a Holocaust of sorts in respect to many of my comments… So much for open discussions.

    Check out this holocaust:

    http://www.pqbnews.com/news/247092381.html

    > High acid levels in the waters around Parksville Qualicum Beach have killed 10 million scallops and forced a local shellfish producer to scale operations back considerably.

    [...]

    > “(The high acidity level means the scallops) can’t make their shells and they are less robust and they are suseptible [sic] to infection,” said Saunders, who also said this level of PH in the water is not something he’s seen in his 35 years of shellfish farming.

    The oceans are dying. I know why, and I’m willing to bet on it. How about you guys?

    http://supak.blogspot.com/2013/09/fake-climate-science-skeptic-finally.html

    • JohnKl says:

      Truly sad Scott Supak,

      You do realize many lakes, especially crater LAKES EMIT THEIR OWN CARBON DIOXIDE FROM GEOLOGICAL ORIGINS! Remember (if you ever new) about Lake Nyos in Camaroon and others:

      “A pocket of magma lies beneath the lake and leaks carbon dioxide (CO2) into the water, changing it into carbonic acid. Nyos is one of only three known exploding lakes to be saturated with carbon dioxide in this way, the others being Lake Monoun, also in Cameroon, and Lake Kivu in Democratic Republic of Congo. On August 21, 1986, possibly as the result of a landslide, Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages.[2] [3] Though not completely unprecedented, it was the first known large-scale asphyxiation caused by a natural event. To prevent a recurrence, a degassing tube that siphons water from the bottom layers of water to the top allowing the carbon dioxide to leak in safe quantities was installed in 2001, and two additional tubes were installed in 2011.”
      Source (Wikipedia)

      Nice try at alarmism! Unfortunately for you many of us see through it.

      Have a great day!!!

      • Scott Supak says:

        Who said anything about lakes? Did you read the story? This particular Holocaust is happening in the Georgia Strait. That’s the ocean near British Columbia, not some lake.

        So, I say the ocean is dying, give proof of it, and you come back with an argument about lakes.

        OK, then.

        Are you denying that ocean acidification is on the rise around the world?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Give it up Scott.

          Most of us are either scientists (I am a chemist) or educated lay people.

          The Oceans are BUFFERED. That means you can add acid all day long and the pH will stay pretty much the same.

          Fresh water has the observed equilibrium pH of 5.7 while Oceans are alkaline pH ~ 8

          ….A real buffer can namely be defined as a reaction system which modifies or controls the value of an intensive (i.e. mass independent) thermodynamic variable (pressure, temperature, concentration, pH, etc.). The carbonate system in the sea will act as a pH buffer, by the presence of a weak acid (H2CO3) and a salt of the acid (CaCO3). The concentration of CO2 (g) in the atmosphere and of Ca2+ (aq) in the ocean will in the equilibrium Earth system also be buffered by the presence of CaCO3 at a given temperature (Segalstad, 1996)….

          Experimentally it has been found that CO2 and pure water at 25 degrees C reaches 99% isotopic equilibrium after 30 hours and 52 minutes; after shaking (like wave agitation) 99% equilibrium is reached after 4 hours and 37 minutes (Gonfiantini, 1981). At 350 ppmv CO2 in the air, the equilibrium concentration of carbonic acid in pure water will be about 0.00001 molal at 25 degrees C. This chemical equilibrium is reached within 20 seconds (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). At the same temperature, at pH-values between 7 and 9, CO2 reaches 99% chemical equilibrium with water and calcium carbonate in about 100 seconds (Dreybrodt et al., 1996)….

          At this point one should note that the ocean is composed of more than its 75 m thick top layer and its deep, and that it indeed contains organics. The residence time of suspended POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) in the deep sea is only 5-10 years. This alone would consume all possible man-made CO2 from the total fossil fuel reservoir (some 7200 giga-tonnes) if burned during the next 300 years, because this covers 6 to 15 turnovers of the upper-ocean pool of POC, based on radiocarbon (carbon-14) studies (Toggweiler, 1990; Druffel & Williams, 1990; see also Jaworowski et al., 1992 a)…
          http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm

          • Scott Supak says:

            So massive failure of oysters, scallops, coral… all just BS from warmists? No holocaust there, move along.

            But if “most” of you are scientists, that certainly explains why you won’t make the Pat Michaels bet.

            So, name a bet then. Make it simple, though. I’m not a scientist. I’m an investor in free markets.

        • John K says:

          Truly even sadder Scott Supak,

          The acid formation in lakes and other bodies of water derives from GEOLOGIC aka VOLCANIC origin! OCEANS ARE VOLCANICALLY ACTIVE!!! Baby Krakatau has been forming in the oceans between Java and Sumatra for many years. Lately the islands have seen INCREASED VOLCANIC ACTIVITY as have other places around the globe. Remember:

          Most Common Gases:

          Water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are the most common volcanic gases.

          Other Gases include:

          In lesser amounts, volcanoes release carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide (COS), carbon disulfide (CS2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), hydrogen flouride (HF), boron, hydrogen bromine (HBr), mercury (Hg) vapor, organic compounds, even gold. From Cadle (1980).

          My analogy to lakes works just as well for oceans and other natural bodies of water. Methane hydrates and other gas formations form throughout the ocean floor.

          You BIZARRELY claim:

          “So, I say the ocean is dying, give proof of it, and you come back with an argument about lakes.”

          IMHO YOU HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO PROVE THE OCEANS ARE DYING AND HAVE YET TO DO SO! You only provided an article claiming that “Saunders said the carbon dioxide levels have increased dramatically in the waters of the Georgia Strait, forcing the PH levels to 7.3 from their norm of 8.1 or 8.2.” Leave aside whether Saunders knows what he’s talking about and assume he’s correct, it only means that small BAY has experienced a reduction in alkalinity. Which may be due to REGIONAL CAUSES, like geological conditions or possibly local human emissions into the bay.

          As to ocean acidification around the world please provide comprehensive evidence one way or another you still have FAILED to do so. Btw, increased ocean acidification may have human and other causes quite apart from CO2 emission. I’ll discuss more later, got to run,

          Have a great day!

          • John K says:

            Note that I referred to BAY as in Qualicim Bay.

          • Scott Supak says:

            Of course you ignored the part where this is happening all over the place. Oysters, scallops, coral, all dying in record numbers all over the world.

            You’re telling me this is because volcanoes in the ocean are suddenly THAT more active….

            Heh. Good one.

            You going to bet with me about future warming, or are you yet another chicken spewing BS?

          • John K says:

            Thank you Scott Supak,

            You claimed:

            “Of course you ignored the part where this is happening all over the place. Oysters, scallops, coral, all dying in record numbers all over the world.”

            Hmmh! Let’s asume you mean that oysters, scallops, coral are all dying in record numbers all over the world is due to ATMOSPHERIC CARBON LEVELS. You still have yet to prove it. Pesticides and phosphates and many other human causes impact/destroy/bleach coral reefs, not to mention natural causes. Oh! you might consider that the fishing practices of many island cultures of dynamiting coral reefs to obtain their catch might just have something to do with this as well. You do get a lot of exercise leaping to conclusions.

            Have a great day!

          • John K says:

            Scott Supak,

            You wrote:

            “You’re telling me this is because volcanoes in the ocean are suddenly THAT more active….”

            Unclear as to the ocean, but surface volcanoes certainly are. You may have noticed recently reported events in Indonesia. Btw, the increase in geological activity has been going on for some time now, including earth fissures spewing mud and gasses. I believe on of the places is called Lubindo, but you can sure look it up. In any case, you still haven’t removed other local human pollution causes either.

            You go on to rant:

            “You going to bet with me about future warming, or are you yet another chicken spewing BS?”

            No, and actually I don’t mind if it does warm since we’re still in an ICE-AGE. However, I don’t take bets generally unless the reward exceeds the risk and we’d have to agree on the UN-ADJUSTED RAW DATA SOURCE to be used. Moreover, since in my view the earth has likely been warming for several thousand years (note Louis Agassiz proof to Charles Lyell of retreating glaciers and massive flooding in Western Europe and many, many other proofs) and since I don’t DENY that human may have some impact on temperature, why would I bet against what is likely inevitable anyways. Btw, as I’ve mentioned many, many times since neither you the IPCC weenies and nor anyone else has any plan to convince 7 billion people on this orb to much of anything, let alone reduce carbon emissions to levels not seen since the 19th century and potentially halt rising atmospheric carbon levels, Why don’t you stop the chicken dropping BS and precisely state your environmental goals, your plan of action and record of accomplishments to address the problems you metion!

            Have a great day!

        • GTMGQ says:

          The scallop kill is due to localized conditions. Ocean pH has not declined significantly globally, it’s hovering around 8.2-8.1.

          • JohnKl says:

            Thanks GTMGQ,

            You bolstered my point. The lack of knowledge held by so many regarding the real state of our ecology just amazes me. Untold tons of toxic material gets dumped into the waters of our continental shelf and the local waters near cities and towns around the world, yet amazingly many CAGW alarmists will blame almost every slight chemical change, including PH changes, in these environments to ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVELS!!! Personally, I have a friend who works in HAZMAT in Los Angeles and he’s told me stories of how businesses and industries frequently dump toxic stuff into the LA river. One scenario goes like this. Some business bordering the river builds decking over the basin. They then will store barrels of toxic whatever on those deckings. A storm will come and wash the collected barrels into the river and the business will call it an ACT OF GOD!!! Moreover, we still have untold number of mustard gas barrels submerged off our shores from WWII that slowly deteriorate and leave their offal.

            http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/10/08/millions-unexploded-bombs-lie-in-waters-off-us-coasts/

            However, in the fantasy world of WARMIST PSUEDO SCIENCE their exists only ONE APPARENT THREAT ATOMOSPHERIC CO2!!!

            Have a great day!

            P.S. not so long ago if memory serves L.A. city did multi-million dollar analysis of the Santa Monica basin to determine how much toxic material was their and if it could be safely removed. They concluded their was so much buried in the sands that they could safely remove it without endangering the regions biology! All YOU WARMING ALARMISTS JUST KEEP REPEATING TO YOURSELVES IT’S THE CO2, IT’S ALWAYS THE CO2 NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS OTHERWISE IT’S ALWAYS THE CO2!

  45. The ADL, has an agenda where as true science which Dr. Spencer and others practice are seeking the truth.

    The ADL is but a blip on the climate scene and will soon vanish into oblivion along with AGW ,which will be a theory that winds up in the trash can where it belongs before this decade ends.

      • Jake says:

        Scott, please stop asking for people to bet. You don’t seem to understand that almost everyone on here is a scientist. Therefore, we understand variance. As soon as this fool wager was made Dr. Spencer made a comment (I believe) that he felt the bet to be foolish. Far too high a variance for me to drop $100 on it … and this has nothing to do with my firm belief that CO2 is a very small player in global temperatures

        Since most gamblers really don’t understand this concept, Vegas makes money.

        NOW, if the damn Georgetown-Marquette total would just drop to 133.5 tonight, then that OVER is attractive ;) …..

        • Scott Supak says:

          Nah, I think I’ll keep asking…

          “Therefore, we understand variance.”

          You don’t have to be a scientist to understand noise.

          Intrade had all kinds of fun markets. One of my favorites was 2019 to be hotter than 2009. The 2019 to be .2 hotter (GISS anomaly) than 2009 was a longer shot. I had fewer shares of it.

          See, I don’t care for the noise. I want to bet on the signal.

          I bid 20 shares at $2.50/share (binary payoff 0/10) “now through 2019 to be .1 GISS anomaly greater than now through an equal amount of time backwards from now.

          Make a counteroffer.

          • Jake says:

            That game just won’t get off of 134 ……

            See Scott, it won’t be a smart bet … to much of the value in the wager lies in the push at 134 ….

            And far too much of what drives the temperature of this planet remains a mystery. Which is why we need to continue to delve into that mystery. I’d still be minding my own business if it weren’t for some dope claiming that the science is settled. I’m smart enough to NOT bet on a basketball game where, say, I have no information on how a team plays on the road … or defends an uptempo style of play … or deals with the 2-3 zone. And I certainly won’t bet on global temperatures since we have soooooo much more to learn. It’s why, when I go to Vegas, I don’t bet red or black … there’s no edge.

            And that’s why it’s so dangerous when important government folks won’t provide the Dr. Spencer’s of the world to do their good work. We would all benefit, it would decrease the variance.

            Dammit, game off the board …

          • Scott Supak says:

            So, no counter offer, then?

            “far too much of what drives the temperature of this planet remains a mystery”

            That explains why you’re too chicken to bet. You’re afraid we’re right, and you’d lose.

            I’m not afraid you’re right. I won’t lose. I didn’t lose when I was betting on temps and ice at Intrade, and I won’t lose now.

            This is the only sure thing I’ve ever bet on.

            So long, chickens. See you next time I have some more time on my hands to poke a stick in your silly little self-reinforcing cage.

  46. Let the climate do the talking and that will take care their soon to be obsolete theory.

  47. Scott ,I would say up to this point Dr. Michaels is winning the bet hands down. Good Luck, you will need it going forward.

    • Scott Supak says:

      We don’t have to argue. That’s the beauty of putting cash where your mouth is. The cash can do most of the talking. Cash doesn’t call people names to which they might take offense.

      But please, feel free to show me the numbers. Or the money.

  48. Hey Scott, it’s becoming obvious you’re using Roy’s website to pimp your Online Gambling operation. That’s disrespectful to Roy since you haven’t asked his permission to advertise illegal activity, and it shows a lack of character on your part. It does explain why you’re firmly behind CAGW and any legislation attendant to it; you don’t mind gambling with other people’s lives.

    http://vegasclick.com/online/legal.html

    Taking bets on a server located in the U.S. (Risk Level: 5)

    Taking bets (i.e., operating a casino, sportsbook, or racebook) on a website located in the U.S. is assumed to be illegal, and nobody does this in the U.S. for that reason. All Internet gaming websites are located in other countries where it’s legal for them to operate. (The U.S. government maintains that it’s not legal for them to serve U.S. players, but that’s another story.)

    Invest in people, Scott; don’t gamble on their lives.

    • Scott Supak says:

      Didn’t even read the bet, did you? Loser pays winner’s charity. Nothing illegal there.

      Further, you’re wrong on the facts, and your source is outdated. NV, NJ, and DE all passed online gambling laws which the Obama DoJ said they won’t mess with, even for people playing across state lines.

      At the moment, I see commercials for online poker on the NYC stations, for the people of NJ.

      And even further still, Dr. Spencer would be guilty of “pimping” my online gambling operation if what you said was true….

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/pat-michaels-bets-on-25-years-of-no-warming/

      • Didn’t even read the bet, did you?

        Nope, why would I? It’s silly.

        • Scott Supak says:

          Since you were wrong on the facts and accused me of committing a crime, I await your apology for calling me a pimp.

          But I won’t hold my breath. You guys love to call people names. That’s why it’s so funny when you get all pissy because someone calls you names.

          The bet, which you call silly, was Pat Michaels’ idea. He said “it was a good bet” we’d go 25 years with no statistical warming.

          I just took his bet. Pat won’t talk to me anymore, so you’ll have to tell him how silly his bet is.

          But now I know where you stand. At least Pat put his money where his mouth is.

          • I haven’t called you a name. Will you apologize for that false accusation? I won’t hold my breath.

            You mentioned three states. Is your server in any of them? Are you licensed to run this gamble? I’m betting you’re not. Since you’re not, you’re operating illegally. Apologize for that, as well. I won’t hold my breath.

        • Scott Supak says:

          Um, yes, you did call me a name. Here you go:

          “Hey Scott, it’s becoming obvious you’re using Roy’s website to pimp your Online Gambling operation.”

          Are you saying that if you use the verb “pimp” to describe what I’m doing, you’re not calling me a pimp?

          And, you also avoided the fact that Dr. Spencer, who’s server I believe is in the US, is also “pimping” online gambling, since he posted the bet here as well.

          Also, again, as an expert on gambling who took a lot of money from people like you at Intrade, if Pat and I agree the loser pays the winner’s charity, it’s not gambling. It would only be gambling if the winner took the loser’s money.

          Don’t believe me? Try to file charges against me.

          But since you asked, I believe blogspot is hosted in the UK by Google. So, I’m fine even if you think what I’m doing is gambling, which it’s not.

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Only who don’t know the real meaning of “money” can imagine gambling as a way for funding charity initiatives.
        Scott, what’s your idea of money?
        I mean, is money a synonym of wellness for you?

        About fifteen years ago, here in Italy a stupid socialist government encouraged “legal” gambling for “financing cultural and charity” initiatives. Now we have most of pubs with legal “money eating” machines installed and thousands of family destroyed by gambling.
        All in the name of “culture” and “charity”.

        Money is just the credit of wellness that the owner produced in excess for himself/herself, in favor of the society.
        If people start to believe that money itself is wellness then it is the begin of the end.

        • Scott Supak says:

          Money is a medium of exchange.

          Making bets on the future of warming is not the only thing I do to help fund worthwhile charities. In the case of this bet, though, there’s a certain sense of ironic justice, since, when I win, Pat Michaels, the resident pseudo skeptic for the CATO institute, will have to send $250 to the Climate Scientists Defense Fund.

          The betting I did at Intrade, where I took pseudo skeptic money, was more like betting on various stocks in the stock market.

          What do you think gambling is? Maybe a contract on the outcome of something uncertain? Sounds like Wall Street to me.

          So, are you a capitalist? If so, then you support gambling in the form of stock markets.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Yes, I’m a capitalist and I would like the stock market returns to the very reason of exist in a capitalist economy: that is, allowing people to do money financing the industries, not just speculating on them.
            For your information, when the “new economy” entered the stock market the then secretary of the Italian Democratic Party (formerly Italian Communist Party) Massimo D’Alema went to a TV show and expressed his satisfaction to see that finally also the working class people would “make money” at the stock exchange.
            And yes, some blind capitalists didn’t understand what it was happen, and acclaimed the new economy believing to make money that way. I warned some of them that it was the beginning of the end, but like Cassandra I haven’t been believed.

            Scott, if you like the socialist style of life, come here in Italy and enjoy it.
            Come here and work 65-70% of your time for paying taxes for having almost nothing in change.
            Here, the more you work the more you loose your rights to get services for free.
            Maybe the US media don’t cover the Italian news, so you could not be aware that from a couple of years it is not so rare to read the newspapers and find about entrepreneurs who committed suicide because of the fiscal charges they were no more able to pay (here we pay taxes for the next year using the current year income as reference, so in case the next year something goes wrong we’ll get the refund in next 3 or 4 years).

            And about the usefulness of a carbon tax (so acclaimed by the leftist as a solution), in case you don’t know, we pay gasoline 6.4 Euros/gal (8,82$/gal).
            Do you really believe that here we are pushing the “alternative energies” for that?
            We aren’t just no more competitive in almost anything for that.
            It’s an economic suicide.
            I only hope that we will not face a civil war in next future for that.

          • Scott Supak says:

            And off you go into other directions that have nothing to do with what was said before. This constant shifting of the rules governing the conversation are known in English by their philosophical name: bullshit.

            The point you left behind here is that gambling in prediction markets has useful predictive values, and offer a hedge to many investors in commodity markets, etc. They are very popular among market enthusiasts for that, and many other reasons.

            And the bet I have with Michaels has value as well, since one of us will be sending money to a worthy charity.

            “Here, the more you work the more you loose your rights to get services for free.”

            In this country, Republicans would mock you mercilessly for asserting a “right” to get government “services for free.”

            Also, the more you make here, the less you qualify for in terms of safety net programs like food stamps or medicaid (our medical coverage for the poor). Same as in your wonderful country.

            Luckily, your capitalist loving friends at Wal Mart keep the pay of their workers low enough so that their workers can get food stamps and medicaid. This is, you guessed it, more cost-shifting of negative externalities onto the taxpayer.

            If you call that free markets, I have a Roman Aqueduct to sell you.

    • Scott Supak says:

      This.

      “Invest in people, Scott; don’t gamble on their lives.”

      Such irony. I support investing in infrastructure that will make us more resilient and sustainable. These are good things whether one believes in CAGW or not.

      But the big gamble isn’t in my direction. Investing in a sustainable future is smart for many reasons and if the catastrophic warming doesn’t happen (again, I will BET against it, that’s how sure I am–how about you?), then we have made ourselves more efficient and resilient, and better prepared for a future when fossil fuels are depleted, or too hard to extract from their remaining locations.

      Your bet is a lousy value proposition. It maintains an unsustainable status quo that features a great many non-carbon negative externalities that get cost shifted on the taxpayer even if you are right about carbon.

      My bet, even if I’m wrong, has a good, and more fair (less negative externality cost-shifting) value.

  49. Riki Blum says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I am an ADL member, but I won’t be for much longer if they do not retract this press release.
    Ms. Rose is clearly using her position at ADL to promote the political agenda of other organizations, and she should be fired for abusing the organization’s stature and resources for her own ends. As far as a know, the ADL has no position on the climate debate, nor should it have one – it is well outside their mission.
    But the appalling use of the term “denier,” which they have ignored for far too long, is well within the ADL mission. Saying nothing was bad enough, but this public hypocrisy is intolerable.
    First thing tomorrow I will be on the phone with the national and Northeast regional offices.
    Hang in there. The cavalry is coming.

  50. There seems to have been a Holocaust of sorts in respect to many of my comments…

    Quick, someone get Foxman on the phone. Scott just broke the rules…again.

    I deny what you’ve said, Scott. Only in your dreams. Now, go get your book in order.

    • Scott Supak says:

      You deny what? That Cold is your real name?

      Some of my comments from yesterday are not here. Do you deny that?

      I’ll get my book in order as soon as some of the pseudo skeptics in here put their money where their mouths are. Right now, only Pat Michaels has agreed to a bet. That book is really easy to keep track of.

  51. Gunga Din says:

    Hypocrisy at the Anti-Defamation League?

    ===================================
    My only question is: Why the question mark?

  52. Gunga Din says:

    PS For those who have engaged Scott Supak regarding “denier”, I suspect he knows full well that it’s original and continued use by some is to somehow link skeptics to those who are in denial regarding what the Nazis did in the Holocaust.
    If he’s not fully aware, then he is in denial.

    • Scott Supak says:

      “it’s original and continued use by some is to somehow link skeptics to those who are in denial regarding what the Nazis did in the Holocaust”

      Keywords “by some.” But, hey, show me the original use. Who said it first? Because you said the original use was to “somehow” link skeptics to holocaust deniers.

      Where’s your evidence of this “original” sin of slander?

      I gave evidence of Dr. Spencer using the word. I think it’s odd that when he uses it, it’s one, less disgusting definition, but when I use it, it’s the worst one.

      One thing I was apparently in denial about is that pseudo skeptics would put their money where their mouths are.

  53. wizard says:

    All the above.
    I am right, you are wrong.
    Reminds me of primary school in the early sixties.
    Name calling and bully boys.

    Peace Love and Happiness.

    • Scott Supak says:

      Actually, I’ve tried to avoid the whole “right” and “wrong” thing by letting my money do the talking. Then we will have a very direct measure of the relative rightness and wrongness of the various parties here.

      And as for bullies, isn’t it interesting that the people who are decrying the use of a common word due to it’s negative connotations have called me all kinds of names in this thread, from stupid, to retarded, to a pimp?

  54. pat says:

    dr. spencer -

    your original article is turning out to be a game-changer.

    CAGW zealots might yet regret they did not drop the “denier” tag, when politely asked many, many times over.

    ditto the MSM, which has a lot to answer for as well, for also using the terminology, & for refusing to point out that CAGW sceptics do not deny climate, climate change, or even some degree of AGW, etc.

    if anything, MSM upped the ante – 16 instances of denial/deniers/denialism etc in this recent one…& that’s before u get to the comments!

    19 Feb: NYT: Andrew C. Revkin: A Look at the ‘Shills,’ ‘Skeptics’ and ‘Hobbyists’ Lumped Together in Climate Denialism
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/a-look-at-the-shills-skeptics-and-hobbyists-lumped-together-in-climate-denialism/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Climate%20Change&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0

    you have my full support, for what little that is worth.

  55. Barry Woods says:

    hi I’ve a comment stuck in moderation
    (no doubt due to lots of URL’s)

    quotes and references of sceptics being equated to ‘holocaust deniers’ going back to 2005 – The Independent (UK national newspaper) thought they might be useful. ie journalists and politicians doing this for years.

    I reproduced it at WUWT:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/bizzare-anti-defamation-league-apparently-gives-a-green-light-to-defamation-of-climate-skeptics-by-comparing-them-to-holocaust-deniers/#comment-1577831

  56. Barry Woods says:

    I’ve taken the links out:

    The Independent – Hari 2005:
    “The climate-change deniers are rapidly ending up with as much intellectual credibility as creationists and Flat Earthers. Indeed, given that 25,000 people died in Europe in the 2003 heatwave caused by anthropogenic climate change, given that the genocide unfolding in Darfur has been exacerbated by the stresses of climate change, given that Bangladesh may disappear beneath the rising seas in the next century, they are nudging close to having the moral credibility of Holocaust deniers. They are denying the reality of a force that – unless we change the way we live pretty fast – will kill millions.”

    The Guardian – 2006:George Monbiot “Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.”

    2006:Mark Lynas “I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put this in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it”.

    2007: fed Ellen Goodman : “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”

    then there are others saying ‘climate treason’, and others saying ‘Nuremburg trial’ for climate – and I’m sure very many other USA, examples could be found (in the main stream media (Hari, Independent, Monbiot – Guardian) very politicized and a huge deterrent to speak up at all.

    2008 – Grist Climate Nuremburg (quoting monbiot)

    2008: Hansen -Crime Against humanity:

    2009: Krugman – Guilty of treason

    2011- Chris Huhne – UK Minsiter Enrrgy & Climate Change– “Defying climate deal like appeasing Hitler-

  57. Walt Allensworth says:

    Lets not all forget Sally Jewell who in July 2013 threatened 70,000 Government employees at the Department of the Interior that they had better not be deniers.

    http://grist.org/news/sally-jewell-doesnt-want-any-climate-deniers-at-interior/

    • barry says:

      Her “threat” amounts to inviting them to witness the evidence.

      Rather than going all PC on word usage, how about a straightforward call to tone down the rhetoric?

  58. yonason says:

    Dr. Spencer. As an Orthodox Jew I am deeply ashamed of the criticism of you by the so-called Anti-Defamation League.

    It’s frustrating, but their absurd politically correct posture toward you is yet one more indication that the ADL has become an irrelevant tool of the political Left, which is ironically the very source of the problems, past and present, that they were set up to try to guard against.

    In their defense, as best I can muster one, they are probably mostly “Liberal” Jews, who are virtually all politically brain-washed from the cradle. Still, most are intelligent, and one has every right to expect that they should have checked their facts.

    Your anger at them shows you probably took them more seriously than they deserve to be? I know I was shocked when I first realized they were over the event horizon, as it were.

    In any case, please don’t take it personally. They really have no clue what they are saying, as they have long ago lost touch with reality.

    Sadly, it isn’t likely that any of them know that the Greenies of today really are the soul mates of Nazis of the past.

    Best regards, and keep doing what you do so well, telling the truth about the climate.

  59. Massimo PORZIO says:

    Ok Scott,
    I take a look to your web page, now I know who you are.
    So, I decided to follow the suggestion of a good friend of mine who always says: when you point the moon dish with your index finger, stop discussing with the people who stares your finger instead of the moon.
    And citing a great Italian judge of the 90s: “there is one thing worse than the corruption, the ideological corruption”.

    Have a nice day, and take care of you children (really, if you can).

    Massimo

    • Scott Supak says:

      Your English needs work, but the wingnut shines bright like a full moon on snow on a clear winter night.

      My kids are awesome. I took good care of them, and they are now grown, responsible, caring adults who hate Republicans and wingnuts as much as I do, thank you. They will be working to make a better world for everyone, despite the fact that so-called capitalists like you massively cost-shift the negative externalities of fossil fuels onto the rest of us.

      • BBould says:

        Teaching hate is a wonderful thing to teach your children.

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          Hi BBould,
          don’t waste your time,
          he’s just staring the finger tip…

          Scott, By the way:

          lo so che il mio inglese non è perfetto, ma almeno io non devo usare il traduttore per comprendere il tipo di soggetto che sei.

          Provo pena e compassione per quelli come te.

          Abbi comunque una buona giornata

          Ciao

          Massimo

  60. Robert of Prague says:

    Dr. Spencer;

    I stumbled on your URL by the linking power of the Web (invented by Algore, of course). It started by reading a commentary on the PatriotPost (recommend highly) re: the fascist-hatchet piece by Carol C. on CNN & the open letter to her on WUWT & the many comments there; like here, mostly scientists & the occasional troll.
    As an aside, let’s not waste any time on them. They’re impervious & oblivious to/of facts. Let’s ignore them, shall we?

    I’ve noticed many years ago the ADL trending left & quit paying attention. We are a ‘gojim’ family but have always supported Israel, especially during the Six Day War, not to mention our historic abhorrence re: ‘Pogroms’ under the tzars & bolsheviks, the Holocaust & anti-Semitic policy of the USSR & its satellites. It is a historic fact that (secular) progressives, socialists, nazis, fascists, communists, limo-libs – ad nauseam – were, are & will be (c)overtly anti-Semitic. It is a dangerous crowd, as you mentioned, and our family & the untold millions of the Holocaust/Gulag dead can attest to by direct experience.
    E.g., my great-uncle fought the Bolsheviks during the Civil War in Russia after 1918 & was executed by the Gestapo in 1943 w/out a trial. He was a leader in the Resistance.
    The family has been ever since 1923 on the ‘Index’ of the radical red/brown/green Left; we wear it as a badge of honor. We stand w/ you.

    Lastly, my take on the ‘climate change’ hoax:
    Preamble: Part of Stalin’s reign of terror in the 1950s was weather: ‘We shall command the rain & the wind.” (for all the trolls/warmists/chicken little, et al, from where the wind is blowing…)

    Here are my two centavos. First off, a bit of history. The AGW hoax’s begun in early ’70s as Global Cooling (by 2000 we’ll freeze & starve to death, was the claim), mostly by Swedish socialists. Since it didn’t happen, the AGW popped up & now the clever & unprovable ‘Climate Change.’
    It’s been the agenda of the limo-libs & assorted Lefties & pinkoes for over 40 years. They’re all control freaks; the Elites are also greedy, on top of it. The ‘high-priest’ & mega-hypocrite, Algore’s made a cool-few-hundred-mio-$$$ on this hoax.
    BTW, no one here mentioned the frozen Great Lakes & record deep freeze/snow in the NE. Nature does what & when it will. We, puny humans cannot change the weather/climate either way.
    There are two main factors effecting climate. The solar flares ~11 y cycle, currently quiet.
    This latter one is rarely mentioned. The precession & nutation of the Earth’s axis (full cone circumference in ~26000 years) is the cause of last Ice Age & all long term real climate swings.
    5000 years ago, Sahara was a lush garden, I rest my case.
    I am a geologist/geophysicist from a family of generations of exact science people.

    • googler says:

      Ms. Rose’s delusional and, ultimately, lamentable calculation is that when progressives/fascists, again, come after the Jews (and any remnant religious sects), she will be somehow absolved because of her progressive bent.

  61. Jimbo says:

    Here is what a lovely professor had to say. :)

    Prof Richard Parncutt
    [Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz]
    “If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.”
    http://www.webcitation.org/6D8yy8NUJ

    • Jimbo says:

      Where was the ADL and the lovely Shelley Rose when we needed them.

      First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Socialist.

      Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.
      ——-
      Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

      Does Shelley Rose want us to remain silent, like she did over proposed execution of sceptics, if they come for the Jews again? I am not Jewish so should I remain silent? Shelley is setting up on hell of a precedent.

    • GTMGQ says:

      Killing people for future crimes that even he admits may not ever happen-this guys a real nutter…

  62. Eli Rabett says:

    So, you clowns prefer denialist? For fun and profit of course

  63. Howard says:

    Dr. Spenser:

    Two wrongs don’t make a right. In fact, getting down to the same debased level of some of your opponents only serves to discredit you and your beliefs.

    • yonason says:

      So, when he’s falsely called a “Nazi” (a Nazi style propaganda technique, btw), you would deny Dr. Spencer the right to defend himself?

      Of course, that’s how that technique is supposed to play out. They accuse you falsely, then you respond by exposing what they are doing, then they accuse you of using that propaganda technique.

      Sadly, all too many people are fooled by that one. Either you are one of them, …or worse.

  64. WizGeek says:

    Please, can we deny (pun intended) Scott Supak any traction here by simply replying to all of his posts with a single “Whatever.” and leave it at that? ;)

  65. Greg Laden says:

    You seem to have uncritically conflated looking at holocaust denialism in analogizing or trying to understand science denialism with using holocaust imagery and making comparisons to Nazis, etc. Therefore your point is entirely invalid.

    Also, you have made the very specific claim that an organization has a policy that they’ve never discussed, based on the fact that they’ve never discussed it. Therefore your argument is weak.

    So, you have a weak, invalid argument there, I’d say.

    • Jimbo says:

      Laden, does it hurt your head when you write psychobabble after taking psychotic drugs?

    • Gail Combs says:

      His point is entirely valid especially when we see comments like the one from Prof Richard Parncutt (above)
      or this comment:

      Rob@thepubliclibrary Says:
      October 9th, 2013 at 7:07 am

      If it is the aim of environmentalists to stop fossil fuel production and use, then they are promoting a policy that would have disastrous consequences for human civilization and the environment. If we stopped using fossil fuel today, or by 2020 as Al Gore proposes, at least half the human population would perish (probably more, a lot more) in a very ugly sequence of events – war, famine, pestilence. The Solution, therefore, is damn near as bad as the disease. However, crashing industrial civilization and then having a majority of the humans die is the only chance Every Living Thing on Earth has – and that is what the fight is now about. The biggest problem logistically is having most humans die soon – because they leave behind this giant toxic infrastructure that, if left unattended, will become more and more toxic. So, the real question is: How do we get the humans to die AND get the toxic infrastructure safely dismantled. That should be our focus.

      http://guymcpherson.com/2013/10/climate-chaos-in-four-minutes-a-video-update/#comment-99757

      People are already dying (3,000 of hypothermia in the UK per year) as obviously was intended by you and the rest of your bloody handed ‘Team’.

      • John K says:

        Hi Gail Combs,

        The GREEN NAZI AGENDA has been clear for decades. The anger expressed by CAGW promoters is IMHO often designed to quiet questions and/or descent not to engage in dialogue. For them the means and the ends have already been decided and questions of FACT and REASON long ago disregarded. It’s simply a matter of INCITING ANGER AND VITRIOL so as to CREATE AN OPPOSITION upon whom they can inflict irrational, ineffective laws so as to increase control of the populace for apparently eventual further GENOCIDE.

        It’s seemingly why THEY WILL RARELY DISSCUSS SCIENTIFICALLY THEIR GOALS, MEANS TO OBTAIN THEM OR RECORD! Their goal appears to be for many like the people I’ve quoted before MASS DEATH. They have no means to obtain even their supposed GOALS of climate change (as I showed in previous posts). Their RECORD (KYOTO PROTOCOL for example) pretty much reflects FAILURE!

        Have a great day!

      • John K says:

        Hi Gail Combs,

        Just a thought. Your quote states in part:

        “So, the real question is: How do we get the humans to die AND get the toxic infrastructure safely dismantled. That should be our focus.”

        Notice the only direction this person can provide to millions of God’s creatures capable of enormous accomplishments including repairing “TOXIC INFRASTRUCTURES,” is to KILL/MURDER them. Of course, enormous questions become implicit in his question. How many TOXINS and ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS will arise getting those pesky HUMANS TO DIE?!!! Let’s say they get their way and KILL OFF THOSE UNDESIRABLES, who’ll be left to remove the TOXIC INFRASTRUCTURE and WHAT GUARANTEE DOES ANYONE HAVE THAT THE SUPPOSEDLY VIRTUOUS REMAINING CLEAN-UP TEAM WILL ACTUALLY DO THEIR JOB AND NOT REPEAT WHAT WAS DONE BEFORE? After all everyone contemplating these actions are PART OF AND HAVE IN MANY WAYS NOT EVEN NOTICED BY THEMSELVES BECOME DEPENDENT ON SAID TOXIC INFRASTRUCTURE!

        Have a great day!

    • David.App says:

      Greg: Roy Spencer finds it CONVENIENT to make a connection between “denier” and the Holocaust, however tenuous.

      It means he doesn’t have to deal with the science. And as long as he can avoid the science, he can’t lose.

      He can’t win, either, but he can’t lose.

      It has been a shameful display by a so-called professor (of anything). It adds to his statement that he sees his job as minimizing the role of government. In any nonbackward state, he’s have lost his job long ago. But that’s Alabama.

  66. Mike Maguire says:

    This is exactly what they want.

    Take the issue off the scientific battle field where they have lost and put it into the marketing, propaganda and brainwashing of the public side based on non scientific tactics.

    Lose the scientific battle, but win the war because of the winning strategy using proven effective non scientific methods that frustrate and overwelm the authentic scientists who are like fish out of water in the realm of using non scientific ways to spin and manipulate positions in order to convince people.

    A politician or marketing strategist is probably better prepared to win this kind of war than a legit scientist armed with empirical data from the real world.

    • Gunga Din says:

      Maybe this is exactly what they think they want. But an honest and authentic scientist who gains the public’s ear is hardly a “fish out of water”. More like a shark among the guppies that have been leading the school astray.
      My Dad was an MD. A pediatrician and a damn good one. He knew what he was doing and he had good “bedside manners”. Parents might choose the bedside manners over an MD who knows what he’s doing. But when their kid doesn’t get well, they start to listen to the MD who knows what he’s doing even when he might not have the “bedside manners” they’d prefer.
      Hansen and Mann said it would be getting hotter everywhere. It’s not. Now the CAGW supporters are making all kinds of claims as to where “the missing heat” is hiding. (Most of those places don’t have thermometers or any record that could be called a long record.) They are even claiming cold is caused by that “heat”.
      Sure, only responding to the “name calling” won’t work….but when you have someone’s attention and then have the facts to back it up?

      • barry says:

        “Hansen and Mann said it would be getting hotter everywhere.”

        Please cite where either of them said exactly that.

        • Gunga Din says:

          As soon as you tell me how a coal train can be a coal train of death.

          • barry says:

            Honesty is better than misdirection. It looks something like this.

            Gunga Din: “Ok, I overstepped there. Mea culpa. But my point is…”

            If you can’t corroborate a claim, withdrawing it is the only honourable response. You actually get more, not less credibility as a result, at least with intelligent people.

          • Gunga Din says:

            I’m sorry.
            Can you please enlighten me as to just which ocean Hansen said would not boil? Or maybe he had a theory that explained how oceans can boil without heat?
            Or maybe you can tell me how the upper tip of Mann’s Hockey Stick, that he claimed represented global temperatures, could be the highest point of his chart but not represent heat?
            Or maybe you mean that when sea levels rise (presumably just before they boil)it will be a bit cooler at some locations than it was before they became submerged?
            Intelligent people want to know.

          • barry says:

            Hansen’s fictionalised account was not a prediction of what would happen.

            Hansen wrote in WSJ,

            Twenty-four years ago, I introduced the concept of “climate dice” to help distinguish the long-term trend of climate change from the natural variability of day-to-day weather. Some summers are hot, some cool. Some winters brutal, some mild. That’s natural variability.

            But as the climate warms, natural variability is altered, too. In a normal climate without global warming, two sides of the die would represent cooler-than-normal weather, two sides would be normal weather, and two sides would be warmer-than-normal weather. Rolling the die again and again, or season after season, you would get an equal variation of weather over time.

            But loading the die with a warming climate changes the odds. You end up with only one side cooler than normal, one side average, and four sides warmer than normal. Even with climate change, you will occasionally see cooler-than-normal summers or a typically cold winter.

            The original ‘hockey stick’ graphs covered the Northern Hemisphere. There were locales that were cooler (eg, Eastern Tropical Pacific). The uptick doesn’t represent ‘everywhere’, only global average.

            Citing paleoclimate reconstructions to try and corroborate that Michael Mann said “it would get hotter everywhere,” seems a bit odd.

            Both have said that warming is clear on continental scales over the long term. Both have said that short-term cool events and trends occur on a global scale, and Mann has been working on a study of AGW impacts on ENSO, speculating that global warming could lead to a cooling period in the Pacific (more la Ninas).

            So, hotter everywhere? No. Average temperature of the globe will warm? Yes.

          • barry says:

            Mann on millennial temperature reconstruction.

            Individual regions typically depart substantially from the average. Thus, while most regions were cooler than present during the medieval era, some were as warm, or potentially even warmer, than the late-20th-century average. These regional anomalies result from changes in atmospheric wind patterns associated with phenomena such as El Niño and the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/climate-change-report_b_3999277.html

        • Lewis Guignard says:

          Barry, the common belief, because of Mann et al, is that the climate, the weather, will be getting warmer everywhere. It is not necessary that Mann said that specifically, it is what he and people like Igore, are leading the people, through the compliant media to believe. So, if you take exception to inaccuracy, I suggest you pick on Mann and his minions first, because they have intentionally disseminated inaccurate information.

          Additionally, as is being established regularly, the earth isn’t getting warmer, we are having weather.

          It changes from time to time, from hour to hour, day to day, month to month, year to year, decade to decade.
          In fact, the arctic has less ice these days, much like a few decades and centuries ago. The glaciers shrink, they grow, it rains, then there are droughts.

          Hopefully, we will remain in an interglacial. I’d not enjoy seeing what happened if the snow failed to melt one summer in the upper Midwest.

          • barry says:

            the common belief, because of Mann et al, is that the climate, the weather, will be getting warmer everywhere. It is not necessary that Mann said that specifically, it is what he and people like Igore, are leading the people, through the compliant media to believe. So, if you take exception to inaccuracy, I suggest you pick on Mann and his minions first, because they have intentionally disseminated inaccurate information.

            Mann didn’t say that. The media are a key source of miscommunication, and people on all sides of the debate complain about it.

            Taking exception to innacuracy is fundamental for a skeptic worthy of the title.

            If you think climate change of the last hundred years is all natural, then you are no skeptic, you are a true believer.

    • David.App says:

      The scientific case for AGW has never been stronger than it is right now.

      Don’t complain to me if you don’t understand the evidence.

      And don’t expect me to tolerate Spencer’s hatred. It’s far, far out of bounds, and far beneath the dignity of a professor anywhere.

      He has been removing himself from the scientific debate for many years now, especially in refusing to engage colleagures. This is just another step along that path into extremism.

      Frankly, it speaks very poorly of him as a scientist — as someone who could not win the scientific debate, and so has resorted to name calling like a child.

      It is difficult to see Roy Spencer ever again being taken seriously as a scientist. And, yes, the rubs off on John Christy, too, who has been on thin ground ever since he went before Congress and presented that comical “paper” by Anthony Watts the very day after it appeared on the Web, even though it was found to be very deficient abnd hasn’t appeared in the literature since then — has it John?

      I wonder if Dr Christy has corrected the Congressional record? I doubt it.

      • Gunga Din says:

        How are the kangaroos?

        • BBould says:

          Poptech,

          These people are “Haters” pure and simple. They are also hypocrites – need I say more?

          No need to label them Nazi’s or Warmists or whatever – THEY ARE HATERS and they are teaching their children to HATE!

        • barry says:

          5 of those listed do not even mention Holocaust denial, as your title infers, Poptech. Others include it as part of a list of pseudo-science – they are not making a moral equivalence.

          9 of the 27 people listed clearly make a moral connection between climate change ‘deniers’ and Holocaust denialism. I think their remarks are inappropriate.

          What no one seems to have mentioned is that there is a vast difference between Holocaust denialism and the Nazis. Nazism laid waste to cities and towns, devastated economies, and killed tens of millions of people, including 6 million Jews in pogroms and death camps. Holocaust deniers seek to dismiss or downplay the latter.

          Nazism was one of the most destructive forces of the 20th century. Holocaust deniers are a weird anomaly. Calling people Nazis is overkill by several orders of magnitude.

      • DirkH says:

        David.App says:
        February 28, 2014 at 8:39 PM
        “The scientific case for AGW has never been stronger than it is right now.
        Don’t complain to me if you don’t understand the evidence.”

        You still think that the computer models of the IPCC have predictive skill; even after they have now failed for 17 years straight? You even think that failure strengthens your case?

        David, you sound like a parody of a warmist.

      • GTMGQ says:

        The scientific case for CAGW, which is what we’re concerned with-not AGW, has never been weaker. The IPCC in AR5 is backing away from specifying a number for climate sensitivity-the whole underpinning of the catastrophe meme. Now it is pushing “transient climate response” in a desperate attempt to corellate CO2 with warming again. Unfortunately (for the CAGW religion) natural cycles explain the warming far better than increases in CO2 do. For a good time Google “Maurice Strong fugitive” to understand the truly nefarious origins of this whole dead-weight loss climate hoax.
        Oh heck, here’s a headstart
        http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48898

  67. Jimbo says:

    Statements from the great and the good linking “deniers” and the holocaust. Climastrologists have done a great job convincing the naive but one day they will regret it.
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html

    I accept that the climate changes, that’s what it has slowly been doing over the past 16 plus years. Stay tuned. ;)

  68. Threepwood says:

    As in a previous thread..

    NAZI literally means socialist, it was a socialist movement first and foremost. The results of NAZI socialism were not too different from Stalin’s, Chairman Mao’s or Kim Il Sung’s socialism in terms of devastation- is it defamation to simply observe the history of the political ideology of the global warming movement?

    Mein Kampf, Mao’s little red book and the UN’s ‘recommendations for policy makers’ all contain well meaning sounding ideas that appeal to a certain view of ‘fairness’. The problem as always is with shoving one’s own sense of ‘fairness’ down everyone else’s throat at all costs.

    • Rob Honeycutt says:

      If the Nazis were socialist, why did spend so much time killing socialists during the war?

      • Gunga Din says:

        They were the wrong kind of “socialist”.
        Read “Animal Farm” or search for the animated version of it.
        (The animated version doesn’t end the way the book did. The animals didn’t rise up again.)

        • Gunga Din says:

          I should add, the problem isn’t a “right or left” political philosophy. The problem is the elitist of either stripe that would impose what they want on those who disagree. (In the USA today that seems to mean someone who claims to be “offended” by someone who isn’t one of the elites’ groupies.)
          The elitist are in it for there own benefit, not yours. They defend “rights”, but not yours if you’re not a groupie.
          Kind of like what the ADL is becoming.

          • Lewis Guignard says:

            I’m offended by the term “yankee” but I don’t get much traction when I whine.

      • JohnKl says:

        Rob Honeycutt,

        You’re not long on logic are you? The Bolsheviks slaughtered many socialists during the Russian revolution and the formation of the U.S.S.R. Whatever happened to the Mensheviks? Do you claim the Bolsheviks and the communist/leaders of the Soviet Union were not Socialists? You will find in every form of socialism attempted many people calling themselves socialists were killed by other socialists. How does any of that prove a country is or is not socialist?

        Of course, you could be one of the current crop of socialist apologists who in an attempt to explain away socialim’s seemingly utterly destructive history continually run around asserting that REAL SOCIALISM has never been tried because whatever moronic system created in it’s name did not adhere to some supposed socialist ideal. That only means that socialism can never exist in practice. Which makes it for the most part exactly what it’s opponents have said all along a complete lie for the muddleheaded. As has been said before SOCIALISM IS THE SYSTEM OF THE FUTURE AND IT ALWAYS WILL BE!!! Why because whoever actually has to live under the nonsense eventually awakes to find an unworkable disaster that must be explained away. However, rather than actually come to grips with it’s utter failure the idealists resorts to blaming everyone else for it’s failure. I new a socialist sympathizer who actually blamed the USSR’s recurring famines on BAD WEATHER. 75 years of bad weather seems rather difficult to believe especially when it seems to have ended with the onset of private farming. Nevertheless, we do live in a Barnum and Bailey world far too much of the time.

        Have a great day!

      • Poptech says:

        The crusher crew has arrived!

        http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html

        Nazi = “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”

        Rob, the man-purse maker never received a proper education in history.

    • D. App says:

      Of course, today the socialism goes to the corporations and users who spread damaging pollution about the Commons, without having to pay for that damage.

      It’s a massive failure of Roy Spencer’s capitalism. But he won’t admit it.

      From each according to their smokestack, to each according to their lungs.

      • Poptech says:

        CO2 causes lung damage? Are you insane?

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          No, he’s just a socialist.

        • Scott Supak says:

          A lot more than CO2 comes out of the coal plants, wingnut.

          • Lewis Guignard says:

            Scott and D. App,
            Let us pretend that all environmental pollution must be paid for by the producer. So we, the people, obviously via government dictate, charge for pollution. The companies pay the charge – (happy now?) But it doesn’t end there. The companies then charge more for their products (as in higher prices for cigarettes when the manufacturers agreed to pay the lawsuits over time) To make a long story short, it becomes like a value added tax, paid for by the final consumer. So the price to the consumer is higher, so he can pay the manufacturer, so the manufacturer can pay the government, who pays the government employee for determining the charge and collecting it, leaving less for the people, but more for the government, a larger, more intrusive government, I should remind you.

            But there is less for the people, but you will also notice, the manufacturer never paid it, he just passed it along – as is true with all corporate taxes.

          • barry says:

            The companies pay more to government in the form of tax on carbon. The government redistributes some of this as tax breaks to the people, some for R&D on renewables. In Australia, the carbon tax saw few people with less nett income – there were some that lost out.

            If you think that companies would not try to change their habits based on this scenario, then you obviously believe companies have no interest in paying less tax to government. You’d also have to believe that companies are not competitive, and none would try to gain advantage over another by lowering their tax obligation to government and undercutting competition prices.

            There’s no instant fix and there would be some pain. But you’re not even telling half the story.

            Entrepreneurialism doesn’t vanish with a carbon tax. Why is there so little faith in business meeting the challenge?

      • John K says:

        Hi David A,

        You wrote:

        “Of course, today the socialism goes to the corporations and users who spread damaging pollution about the Commons, without having to pay for that damage.”

        True. Several decades ago people had to pay private parties to remove and dispose of their garbage. People had an incentive to conserve and reduce their waste. However, now curiously the government provides the service we’re supposedly taxed to pay for it and no one thinks about it.

        “It’s a massive failure of Roy Spencer’s capitalism. But he won’t admit it.”

        Maybe, but you should ask him specifically about such issues first. You seem to assume too much.

        “From each according to their smokestack, to each according to their lungs.”

        Hmmh! The modern day IPCC (Hansen, etc.) now encourages NUCLEAR POWER as some sort of CLIMATE SALVATION. Assuming news reports to be reliable, the ongoing 2+ year long Fukushima melt-down drama suggests:

        “From each according to his nuke-pile to each according to his lungs, stomach, skin etc.”

        Have a great day!

  69. Rex Logan says:

    Thank you sir for standing up for truth! You are not alone!

  70. David.App says:

    Dr Roy Spencer wrote:
    “I am calling out the ADL for not denouncing the widespread use of Nazi Holocaust imagery in public statements made by journalists, politicians, and even some scientists over the last 7+ years towards us global warming skeptics.”

    Hilarious, when you yourself has just used such imagery.

    Do you have a sense of decency, or not?

  71. David.App says:

    Spencer: “Denier” is a perfectly good word in the English language, that existed long before the Holocaust.

    It has a certain meaning, and has for a long time.

    That meaning is appropriate in its current usage about climate science.

    As many people have admitted, such as Richar Lindzen and Steve Milloy, among others. They are OK with being called “deniers.”

    You certainly don’t get to define language, or tell anyone else what words they can or cannot use.

    “Nazi” is beneath the dignity of a professor, even in Alabama.

  72. googler says:

    “Denier” is a perfectly good word in the English language,…

    Not since discredited global warming nazis co-opted it.

    Meanwhile (and returning to the subject at hand)…a formidable post over at PopularTechnology.net…

    Skeptics Smeared As Holocaust Deniers, ADL Silent

    • D. App says:

      Do you really think “Nazi” stings?…. It does not, of course. Obviously those who understand and accept climate science are nothing like the Nazis.

      It makes you look desperate.

      And Dr. Spencer — If his science could compete, he’d have no need to call names. But having to use “Nazi” is an admission of failure.

      His frustration is stark and obvious.

      • googler says:

        His frustration is stark and obvious.

        Perhaps not nearly as stark and obvious as your apparent compulsion to troll this topic. Are your quarks THAT agitated?
        Perhaps you should go stir your own soup?

      • Gunga Din says:

        A “Rose” by any other name…

        • D. App says:

          Don’t like it?

          Then win the science.

          • Gunga Din says:

            Please let us know when you’ve set the date for the debate with you, Mann, Hansen and Gore vs Spencer, Lindzen, Watts and Monckton. Heck, you can even have Bill Nye as a freebie.
            (Apologizes to anyone whose name I misspelled.)

          • Lewis Guignard says:

            D. App,

            You ignore the science, then say you don’t. Your compulsion to follow the conventional wisdom as laid down by Mann is sad.

            Years ago, as the argument first reared its ugly head, I came to believe in CO2 induced warming. Continued reading about Malenkovich’s theories and then many others caused me to change my mind. I became concerned that the earth is at the far end of an interglacial. I became more worried about more ice than more water. Further, the problems indicated by the AGW adherents are caused by man himself. It is stupid to build cities at the waters edge, or houses in the flood plain. Yet we are supposed to SAVE them?

            Further, the weather we have had the past 150 years is moderate by historical standards. But why do you think man, by his inactions or actions can cause that weather to continue in its mildness?

            You sir, are the ostrich.

          • GTMGQ says:

            WTF? Seriously???

  73. Massimo PORZIO says:

    Ok David Appell.

    “Obviously those who understand and accept climate science are nothing like the Nazis.”

    Since you understand and accept “climate science”, tell us, what are the incontestable conclusions of the current “climate science”?

    Ans tell us what’s your concept of (climate) science which is “winning” today?

    Thanks in advance.

    • googler says:

      Ok David Appell.

      Nah. Could be a moby troll. Whatever the case, misrepresenting yourself as someone else is grounds for removal/banning in wikipedia…a wise policy.

    • John K says:

      Hi Massimo Porzio,

      Great question. It’s good to remember many points in this regard. The CAGW crowd has yet to:

      1. Define the theoretically optimal amount of GHG’s in the atmosphere to support and sustain life and/or the supposedly best average mean temperature for the planet. Nor have they shown ANY CAPABILITY OF DOING SO!

      2. What agreed upon RAW/UNADJUSTED DATA SOURCE should be relied upon to test any of their claims. They seem to demand THAT EVERYONE ACCEPT THEIR CLAIMS WITHOUT QUESTION. SO MUCH FOR SCIENCE!

      3. Provide any rational method/modality to actually achieve supposed goals and/or a means to induce 7 billion people on this orb to comply and try cooperate in them being achieved! Of course, it’s AWFULLY DIFFICULT TO CONVINCE EVEN 1 PERSON TO COMPLY WITH A REQUEST WHEN YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOUR GOALS ARE OR THE MEANS TO OBTAIN THEM.

      4. Provide evidence of any effective action on their part to reduce and/or halt the atmospheric growth of GHG’s. Yet they nevertheless demand everyone’s cooperation. Does this seem like some JONES TOWN CULT or what?

      Of course there’s much more. Perhaps we can continue later.

      Have a great day!

      • John K says:

        Hi Massimo Porzio,

        Just a minor correction to my post above. My statement should have read GREAT QUESTIONS (plural)! Sometimes my English isn’t so good either when I’m in a hurry. Thanks for your contributions.

        Have a great day!

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          Hi John,

          I fully agree, what you wrote is exactly what I meant.

          I was sarcastic about David Appell believing in climate science.
          I use the word “believing” because, at the moment, all the climate scientists can state for sure is that they currently don’t know how much (if any) CO2 changes the Earth climate.
          I’m absolutely convinced that the word “believing” should never be used in science (very likely, likely, unlikely and very likely too).
          Somewhere I read that even Marx Planck complained about the use of the statistical method to make science, he warned about the possibility that everything could be wrong even if it appears right. So he stated that only when there is non other way to make a real scientific process, a scientist could use statistic.
          Unluckily, I’m not able to retrieve where I read that nice piece of scientific statement which in my opinion contributed to make Planck a great scientist.

          Have a nice day.

          Massimo

    • barry says:

      “what are the incontestable conclusions of the current “climate science”?”

      There are a number of factors that influence climate, natural and anthropogenic, including the sun, orbital variation, volcanoes, aerosols, greenhouse gases, land use changes and black carbon.

      CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

      More CO2 in the atmosphere has a warming effect on surface temperatures.

      Human activity has increased atmospheric CO2 by about 40% since the industrial revolution.

      The globe’s surface has warmed over the last century.

      Anthropogenic GHGs have caused some of that warming.

      CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, and the rate of anthropogenic emissions has increased over the industrial period.

  74. Woodman says:

    Leaving aside the debate about word choice for a minute (btw Dr Spencer simply restated Ellen Goodman’s synonym of denier) the heart of the debate is about power, $ and propelling the progressive agenda. According to Patrick Moore the founder of the largest independent environmental organization in the world (Greenpeace) those who believe warming and cooling is based on man made CO2′s are building their house with severely compromised materials.

    This week Dr Moore was asked “Okay, then what’s driving the agenda (global warming hysteria)?”

    MOORE: It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including: Politicians, who want to make it seem as though they’re saving the world; environmentalists, who want to raise money and get control over very large issues like our entire energy policy; media, for sensationalism; universities and professors for grants. You can’t hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has something to do with climate change. It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one.

    Dr Moore is a scientist. You’d think the media would be all over this. Instead we get crickets.

    • googler says:

      Woodman says: March 1, 2014 at 1:34 PM

      You’d think the media would be all over this.

      I retired that thought permanently on May 4, 2004, when the voices of 250+ Swiftboat Vets warning America as to John Kerry’s true character were all but ignored.

      A google for media reports on Dr. Moore’s congressional testimony will, as you should expect, return virtually nothing.

  75. To get back to real science for those that want to know the newest could spend some time reading through the transcript at http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf of the American Physical Society workshop on climate change. I especially recommend the talk given by John Christy (pages 330 to 400 (loosely spaced text and excellent graphs). Richard Lindzen’s speech is also very good dealing mainly with climate sensitivity

  76. rossbrisbane says:

    Why does Roy Spencer hold to a very LOW sensitivity of CO2.
    The global warming projection is in the range of 1.5c to Upper 4.5c by 2100.

    What is missed by many here and thus the reasoning by other colleague John Christy?

    Before I state the obvious let me quote the following:

    The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as “likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.”

    Individual studies have put climate sensitivity from a doubling of CO2 at anywhere between 0.5°C and 10°C; however, as a consequence of increasingly better data, it appears that the extreme higher and lower values are very unlikely. In fact, as climate science has developed and advanced over time , estimates have converged around 3°C.

    A study led by Stefan Rahmstorf concluded “many vastly improved models have been developed by a number of climate research centers around the world. Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6–4.1°C, most clustering around 3°C” (Rahmstorf 2008). Several studies have put the lower bound of climate sensitivity at about 1.5°C,on the other hand, several others have found that a sensitivity higher than 4.5°C can’t be ruled out.

    A 2008 study led by James Hansen found that climate sensitivity to “fast feedback processes” is 3°C, but when accounting for longer-term feedbacks (such as ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and greenhouse gas release from soils, tundra or ocean), if atmospheric CO2 REMAINS at the DOUBLED level [OVER LONG TIME SPANS], the sensitivity increases to 6°C BASED ON PALEOCLIMATIC (HISTORICAL DATA CLIMATE DATA)

    In the SUM total of all statements by Spencer and Christy lies thus their foundation reasoning. They both adhere to Young Earth Creationism (10,000 to 15,000 year old earth!). Thereby disallowing themselves exposure to any science based evidence that can indicate through long age processes on earth that would indicate the evidence EARTH’s HIGH CO2 sensitivity to climate effect by concentration levels!

    BOTH John Christy and Roy Spencer need to correct some very bad fundamentalist Baptist theology and disavow themselves from literal 7 day creationism and embrace a fundamentalist OLD Earth creation model from Genesis. This would actually release them from BOTH the denial BONDAGE in having eyes that do not see, ears that do hear and speech that is mute to objectively consult those who do have enlightenment without compromising their Christian integrity. They can see for themselves just how much EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of long ago support the high sensitivity scale.

    Perhaps it would help both gentlemen to inquire of good faithful men and women who accept the science of high sensitivity of CO2. They should also get in touch with Republicans (as both Spencer and Christy are very strident in their political persuasion). And talk to the faithful few that actually follow the good science of Climate Change. These Republican’s clearly state we are headed for huge issues into the latter part of this century economically. The death toll from a high sensitivity result and its effects on the world’s population and growing poverty would be incalculable.

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      Hi Ross,
      “They can see for themselves just how much EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of long ago support the high sensitivity scale.”

      Please give us a link for at least one “EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE” about your claim.

      All you quoted are estimation based on pure statistic which relies on questionable proxies (at least for the temperature resolution which they should infer). The very same wrong done kind of statistic which in the ’80 stated that benzodiazepines were safe drugs. Now we know that benzos are all but safe. Using terms very liked by your “scientist”, it’s very likely that 40% of the elderly who chronically used them have been diagnosed for Alzheimer disease, after a silly test called MMSE. Which again, is a test based on pure weak statistic.

      You wrote:
      “In the SUM total of all statements by Spencer and Christy lies thus their foundation reasoning. They both adhere to Young Earth Creationism (10,000 to 15,000 year old earth!). Thereby disallowing themselves exposure to any science based evidence that can indicate through long age processes on earth that would indicate the evidence EARTH’s HIGH CO2 sensitivity to climate effect by concentration levels!”

      Again, please cite a link to a climate research, published by the two scientists, which demonstrate what you wrote.

      It seems to me that you are one of that kind of people who can’t realize the meanings of word such “moral integrity” and “professionalism”.
      Most of the scientist who placed the fundamentals of current science were Christians.
      Marx Planck was Christian too and in 1944 he wrote:
      “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter”

      Now, following your “scientific method”, should we “discard” his work, because he believed that behind the beginning there is God?

      Your mental setup is very compliant with the ideological corrupted kind.

      Have a nice day.

      Massimo

    • Poptech says:

      What the hell does this have to do with the ADL? Why can’t you people post on topic?

      • D o u g   C o t t o n says:

        There is discussion above about sensitivity to carbon dioxide. I have proved with valid physics and empirical evidence that the only thing that all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can do is cause about 0.1 degree of cooling. There is absolutely no positive sensitivity to carbon dioxide and no one has been able to counter my hypothesis with valid physics, whereas the imaginary “fissics” supposedly explaining positive sensitivity is easily rebutted from various angles, including my study of rainfall-temperature data which will be published in April. There are many comments I have written on the linked thread which should be of interest for those wanting to determine what the real truth of the matter is.

    • JJ says:

      rossbrisbane says:

      Before I state the obvious let me quote the following:

      The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as “likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.”

      Fourth assessment? That’s seven year old news. The Fifth assessment came out a few months ago. What is its best estimate of sensitivity? Why didn’t you quote that?

      Oh yeah. Because in AR5, IPCC didn’t offer a best estimate. And they didn’t offer one, because they are doing the same thing you are doing – trying to hide the fact that if they were to make a best estimate based on current data and (lack of) confidence in their models, the best estimate of climate sensitivity would be significantly lower than the 3C minimum that you clowns need in order to keep ‘global warming’ viable as a political tool.

      You really shouldn’t behave like that, while whining about other people’s religious beliefs. Pay more attention to the failings of your own.

      • barry says:

        “Oh yeah. Because in AR5, IPCC didn’t offer a best estimate.”

        “The multi-model ensemble mean in ECS [Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity] is 3.2 °C…”

        AR5 Chapter 9.

        • JJ says:

          Pay attention. The model ensemble mean is not the best estimate, if you don’t trust the models. And now, even IPCC doesn’t trust the models.

          And that is why they refused to offer a best estimate for climate sensitivity:

          No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

          AR5 SPM.

          Their problem is pernicious. If they hold to the ECS of those models, they know that they are just going to look that much more stupid as the observations continue diverge ever farther from the grossly overheated model projections.

          On the other hand, if they adjust the ECS response of the models down until the predictions match the observations, the ECS value they will land on is going to be far too low for anyone to give a rats ass about.

          So they punt.

          • barry says:

            I see that you are correct about not giving a best estimate. The rationale you have given, however, is little more than a conspiracy theory. Entirely speculative, and not very convincing, because IPCC has always emphasised the range (eg, the uncertainty), and never stipulated that the best estimate was the final word. If there was some sort of conspiracy to protect the models or whatever, then they wouldn’t have given a mean value that was higher than the AR4 best estimate. Had they given a best estimate in AR5, they could always fall back on the range.

          • JJ says:

            “I see that you are correct about not giving a best estimate. The rationale you have given, however, is little more than a conspiracy theory.”

            No. It isn’t anything nearly so exotic as a conspiracy theory. It is simple recognition of a mundane expression of very typical human behavior. Advocates emphasize that which supports their desire, and diminish that which does not. That is SOP the world over, throughout all of time, in every aspect of life. Especially in politics, and politics is IPCC’s raison d’etre.

            “Entirely speculative, and not very convincing, because IPCC has always emphasised the range (eg, the uncertainty), and never stipulated that the best estimate was the final word.”

            Nonsense. The thumb sticking out here is that IPCC has always provided a best estimate, and that estimate has been used as the basis for everything from attribution and impact studies to the party line propaganda statements. The best estimate was used to tell the scary stories, and the function of the range has been to exaggerate the scary on one end while covering ass on the other.

            Yet now, despite concurrent claims of ever improving information and ever higher certainty of conclusions, for the first time they refuse to give a best estimate. And they hide their only acknowledgement of that in a footnote.

            Any new best estimate would have to go down, and they can’t say that. So they don’t.

            “If there was some sort of conspiracy to protect the models or whatever, then they wouldn’t have given a mean value that was higher than the AR4 best estimate.”

            Of course they would. And they did. It isn’t conspiracy. Its spin. Plain old every day spin. It is lying, but it is the sort of lie that is accepted as common practice: remain technically truthful, while using omission to avoid having to make a cogent statement of the truth and imply its opposite.

            “Had they given a best estimate in AR5,…”

            They didn’t. And it wasn’t an accident that they did not. And it wasn’t because the ink to print it would have been too expensive, or to save the trees needed for the paper it would have been printed on, or whatever your conspicuously unstated alternate explanation for their action might be.

            They refused to give a best estimate, because they knew what it would be, and how it would be used.

          • barry says:

            that estimate has been used as the basis for everything from attribution and impact studies

            Climate sensitivity values are most often an emergent property of climate modeling and the range is quite wide – why do you think there is a range at all? Uncertainty in cloud feedback is one of the major reasons for the spread. Impact studies assess ‘scenarios’, gifferent emissions trajectories in the context of various mitigation strategies (or not), and try to downscale model resolution too assess regional impacts. Climate sensitivity is not “plugged in.” The Charney value is central, but certainly not all-encompassing.

            Sorry, but your knowledge is as woeful as your logic.

    • GTMGQ says:

      AR5 has backed right off from providing estimates of climate sensitivity.

  77. tonyM says:

    rossbrisbane asks:

    Why does Roy Spencer hold to a very LOW sensitivity of CO2.
    ———————

    Then Ross prattles on about conclusions based on Hansen and models and concludes that it is religion that compels Dr Spencer.

    There is a far more cogent explanation that fits in with science as opposed to belief. Empirical evidence to date does not show the alarmist hypothesis to be right.

    The empirical evidence falsifies the alarmist call whether you take the last 17 years or the last 70 years or the last 140 years. The actual sensitivity is quite unlike the alarmist claims.

    To continue to believe in the high sensitivities of 3+ deg K suggests very much a religious belief, a faith based prediction and not science.

    The Oracle of Delphi was far better with its predictions; it got it right 100% of the time. Sure there was a lot of rationalisation of the original message but rationalisation is all I have been hearing from the warmistas and they still have not got it right.

    Like undetectable heat that goes to the bottom of the oceans!! Really now! A better explanation is I have a pesky gnome at the bottom of my yard shovelling energy to the centre of the earth 24/7.

    There is a plethora of failed predictions like Polar bears without ice by 2013, Manhatten under water by now as would Tuvulu and Maldives, Antarctica losing ice, Himalaya glaciers to go soon and the rest of the rubbish predictions of warmistas.

    Clearly, the first criterion to being a warmista is to have deep religious faith. Science doesn’t figure at all. Ask Dr Mann who says that proofs are for geometry and maths and not for science. A personal belief that one has got it right is all that is needed! Right you are, sir.

    • Lewis Guignard says:

      Anything which is not understood can be explained by magic.

    • barry says:

      Empirical evidence to date does not show the alarmist hypothesis to be right.

      It doesn’t show them to be wrong either.

      The empirical evidence falsifies the alarmist call whether you take the last 17 years or the last 70 years or the last 140 years. The actual sensitivity is quite unlike the alarmist claims.

      Centennial scale warming is consistent with transient climate response (TCR). Unlike ECS, TCR is the estimate of climate response to a doubling of CO2 at the time of doubling, whereas ECS is the equilibrium state after feedbacks have occurred (for the most part, 30-40 years after the end of the forcing).

      Mean TCR is estimated at 2.1C for a doubling of CO2.

      CO2 has increased by 36% since 1900 (296ppm – 398ppm)

      Global temp has increased by 0.8C since 1900.

      36% of 2.1C = 0.76

      Out by 4 hudredths of a degree over more than a century. Not a bad ‘guess’.

      Here is a graph of TCR v observed temps. The blue line is based on a linear trend of CO2, and the red line is the actual development of atmospheric CO2 over the period.

      (The chart was created on Excel by a committed AGW skeptic. At my request he added the actual trajectory of CO2 accumulation (the original graph had a linear rise only), and also added buttons that could be used to change the climate sensitivity value. I still have the Excel doc he emailed me in 2010 with CO2 and HadCRUt3 data if anyone wants it.)

      • tonyM says:

        Barry:
        Thanks for your efforts.

        If an event does not materialise then a prior claim that it should materialise is wrong – ipso facto. The basis for such a claim or the mechanism of such a prior claim must be wrong. It may be able to be salvaged into a modified hypothesis, which requires testing.

        The same will hold if testing any hypothesis on past data but only in the case of failure. A positive outcome is meaningless as it may be simply a confirmation of information which led to the hypothesis.

        What you allude to is a different hypothesis. You may be right. Make a prediction and lets see in 40 or so years. Past statistical data is quite meaningless as your conclusion is based on it. You would need to show a physics relationship which does follow consistently or can be experimented on to see the outcome empirically.

        Let me make a general observation; predictive models based on statistics where the data set is subject to the shifting sands of time will prove quite futile.

        Meanwhile I will be guided by the models of which 97% have failed and Hansen’s 1980′s paper and confirmed paper in 2012 to make assumptions about what climatologists predict.

        Hansen is very clear that his sensitivity, based on empirical evidence, is better than the models. He is not talking 30 – 40 years. His claim includes “all fast response mechanisms in the real world climate system.” He then goes on and names them – water vapour, clouds etc.

        They fail; they are wrong.

        • barry says:

          The fast reponses Hansen is talking about are the metrics examined in the 1979 Charney report – 3C per doubling is known as the Charney sensitivity, which Hansen refers to re the canonical 3C/CO2 doubling. “Fast” feedbacks include mixing in the upper oceans. From the report:

          Our estimates of the rate of vertical exchange of mass between the mixed and intermediate layers and the volumes of water involved gives a delay of the order of decades in that time at which thermal equilibrium will be realized.

          (Charney did not consider aerosols)

          Hansen himself writes:

          It would take ~50 years to warm up the thermacline and the mixed layer if they were rapidly mixed… turnover of the deep ocean is thought to require 500 – 1000 years….

          The full impact of the warming may be delayed for several decades…

          The sentence from Hansen’s paper that you quoted has the word “fast” in quotes – they are “fast” compared to the centennial and millenial scale feedbacks that Hansen is mainly interested in, and which he argues produces a higher sensitivity than the Charney estimate (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity).

          While ECS is the equilibrium global mean temperature change that eventually results from atmospheric CO2 doubling, the smaller TCR refers to the global mean temperature change that is realised at the time of CO2 doubling under an idealised scenario in which CO2 concentrations increase by 1% yr–1 (Cubasch et al., 2001; see also Section 8.6.2.1). The TCR is therefore indicative of the temperature trend associated with external forcing, and can be constrained by an observable quantity, the observed warming trend that is attributable to greenhouse gas forcing. Since external forcing is likely to continue to increase through the coming century, TCR may be more relevant to determining near-term climate change than ECS.

          AR$, Chapter 9, Section 6.2: Estimates of Climate Sensitivity Based on Instrumental Observations

          If one wanted, as someone was attempting upthread, to ascertain the validity of climate sensitivity in real time (obs, not projections), then TCR is the better metric. ECS is not instant, TCR is as close to instant as you will find.

          • tonyM says:

            Hi Barry. I take a different reading on what you say. Hansen himself made it clear that the 3 deg C related only to last century in a 1988 presentation. He claimed that the sensitivity would be 6 K in the 21st century. The two clearly overlap.

            But I’m not going to get stuck on a minor short term variable which has little influence on the other much faster forcings or feedbacks which he included and relate to 3 deg C – including aerosols.

            In any case, he put out predictions; that solves the issue. Similarly with model predictions. That sets the stage. It’s up to them to try to rationalise what differences have occurred if they wish to salvage a hypothesis that has failed. They have not been able to do that. The models seem to have got worse with progress!

            WRT to your work I’m not in a position to comment except reiterate what I have said before. You have basically used up your database to develop the relationship. You now have to wait to see if it holds as you cannot use any of that data for testing purposes. You may be close. You may well be able to test in a faster manner.

            I think we are at cross purposes. I am not trying to establish a sensitivity value or relationship. I am simply observing that the relationships claimed to date are false in the period since records basically started – about 1850. Whether the claimed sensitivity is 3 or 6 K is basically of little importance as the empirical evidence shows it to be well below that lower limit.

            Similarly models fail the empirical tests but over a shorter time frame.

          • barry says:

            I’m not sure we are talking at cross-purposes, Tony, as much as talking past each other.

            Hansen proposed a new metric beyond Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (canonically 3K/doubling – Charney sensitivity), which he calls Earth System Sensitivity. Climate models had held certain boundary conditions fixed, like the ice sheets and deep oceans. Hansen thought this underestimated the ^true^ sensitivity, since ice sheets and deep ocean will respond to forcing. Based on paleoclimate, he estimated the long-term feedbacks (centennial to millenial scale) and came up with a larger sensitivity that represents a longer ‘tail’ of slower feedbacks.

            When you offered that past obs belie climate sensitivity of 3C, I pointed out – correctly – that the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivty is the realization of sytem response once equilibrium has been reached, and that this is purported to take several decades owing to oceanic thermal inertia.

            There is a – rather crude – way to estimate ECS from observations. Just add 30 – 40 years more observational data and you will have accounted for the “fast” feedbacks that take several decades to equilibrate.

            But the method recommended by the IPCC to assess near real-time response to forcing is to use Transient Climate Response values – which represents the system response at the time of doubling.

            I realized I’ve repeated myself. I’m not arguing that any particular value is ‘correct’. I’ve mentioned three different metrics (TCR, ECS, ESS), and if I remember correctly, there is a fourth. One should use the metric most suited to the task: ESS for assessing very long-term response (centuries to millenia), ECS for fast feedbacks (days to decades), and TCR for immediate climate response.

            Over the long-term, there is no disparity between obs and TCR, as I showed. This holds whether you start in 1979, 1950, 1900, or 1850. What has everone’s interest is the IPCC model ensembles (which do not plug in climate sensitivity) being warmer than obs in recent years. That tells you very little about climate sensitivity, but does suggest the models need more work. They are not designed, nor are they claimed to reproduce, short-term trends. Typically, projections are given at 30-year intervals, consistent with the classic definition of a climate period.

            (Hansen’s 1988 model returned an ECS of 4K, not 3K)

            All models are imperfect. The slow-down in warming over recent years and the seeming divergence with GCMs has defintely got the modeling community asking questions. But saying that the models are falsified is overkill.

            There was another 16-year period not long ago when the trend was 0.3C/decade. The climate research community did not automatically ascribe that to a ‘low sensitivity’ in the modeling. The first suggestion was that it might be a result of natural fluctuations. I wish the skeptical community would eschew the ‘fail’ mantras and exercise that kind of open-minded skepticism – basically, approach the science neutrally, without dogmatism and agenda.

          • tonyM says:

            Barry:
            I appreciate your efforts in describing the technicalities. However, I’m a simple guy and when Hansen states that the “physics is exact” and “includes all processes in the real world” then I take him at his word that he is quite capable of allowing for all the lags you mention when he makes predictions based on various scenarios in his 1988 paper.

            I should not have to make any allowances at all unless of course some major event has occurred which clearly impacts. There is none that comes to mind. His predictions fail!

            Both models and Hansen would make such lag allowances as their concern is the distribution of energy within the system.

            If there is such a lag, then this lag is coming to fruition now as well as the CO2 which is increasing now (allow for a lower immediate impact). So why has T been flat for about 17 years? Why do all these predictions continue to diverge from reality?

            This is not just “the seeming divergence with GCMs;” it is reality. Reality says they are wrong.

            You point to a 16 year period of 0.3 deg/decade. I don’t know what the science community was saying but if there were no major events to account for it then they were wrong again in not predicting it. That is reality!

            I make the observation that since the mid 40′s CO2 was increasing. The T did not show any increase until the late 70′s by and large. I am aware that they attribute this to aerosols. However the West started to clean up its act in terms of discharge in the 70′s. So there is this 30 year gap of fundamental forcing and feedbacks both in direct effect and any lag you suggest (which should be happening now). Where is it?

            You wish for “skeptics” to approach the science neutrally, without dogmatism and agenda. Good. Perhaps you should tell climatologists and the IPCC all about such an approach.

            The onus in science is for the proponent to show the empirical evidence which backs up his claims. Don’t blame us if what we see is politicisation as opposed to science, name calling as opposed to empirical evidence, damning as opposed to listening and models and predictions which fail.

          • barry says:

            Well, we disagree, Tony, but at least we did it civilly. Cheers.

  78. D o u g   C o t t o n says:

    To all<

    May I suggest those writing on this thread read this comment and the following one ..

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/global-precipitation-mission-ready-for-launch-today/#comment-106846

    • Poptech says:

      Doug, what the hell does that have to do with the ADL? Please don’t distract this thread with your off topic debates.

  79. Villabolo says:

    I see on this post the most morally torpid form of intellect that one can sink to. Accusing others – psychopath style – of what they themselves are guilty of.

    What happened, some years back, when a thread posted by Anthony Watts called AGW proponents “cockroaches”? And spare me the denial for I was on that thread in real time when it came out.

  80. For one thing, I see a difference between skeptics and true deniers. I see Dr. Roy Spencer as a skeptic, rather than a denier.

    I consider as skeptics ones who question the reported magnitude of past manmade global warming, and the magnitude of future manmade global warming that is predicted by louder advocates of its existence. And whether it will be problematic enough to justify costly remedies.

    Even ones who see manmade global warming as significant but falling short of expectations and of being a major problem are ones I would call skeptics – especially if they are still questioning, and considering the science as *not* settled.

    I see that there is such a thing as deniers – people who believe that manmade climate change does not exist at all or is not significant.

    For another thing, I want mutual fair play, with all sides involved being equally prohibited from usage of the Holocaust or Nazis in their debate tactics.

  81. yonason says:

    After doing CTL_F search, I don’t see that anyone has referenced the No Tricks Zone article in support of Dr. Spencer.

    Since it’s a nice supplement to what he says, with additional supporting material, I thought I would include it.

  82. pochas says:

    The human race forms groups based on myth and superstition, it has always been thus. Membership in such a group confers survival value in the face of other such groups. It also limits the population and gives rise to the hegemony of Darwins’ Law. It takes courage to be a Scientist, to eschew myth and superstition.

  83. yonason says:

    There’s a reason the ADL is reacting the way they are. They have been co-opted by Leftists, like this Holocaust survivor who’s world view is warped by the very Leftist ideology that enabled the Holocaust in the first place.

    How people who have suffered at their hands, can turn around and embrace the very source of their pain, while rejecting those who wish to prevent it, is beyond me.

    • Carbonicus says:

      It’s simple, and as a Jew, I can tell you first hand.

      For these people, Judaism is a tradition, an identity, but what it is NOT is religion.

      For these people, their religion is LEFTISM.

      They are not hard to identify.

  84. Dan Murray says:

    You friends of Dr Spencer are guilty of pig wrestling. You’ve got all dirty and Scott the pig and his cousins are happy in their mud puddle.

    • yonason says:

      You mean the way Dr. Spencer “wrestled” with the warmists?

      I see no problem using Supak’s rabid dissembling to expose same. …that, and to get out related information exposing their (and others) disinformation, that might not be relevant elsewhere.

      If they’re happy about that, they are even stupider than I thought.

  85. Gunga Din says:

    Dr. Roy,
    Sorry for the part I played in taking some of the discussion off of the topic of the ADL’s hypocrisy in jumping on you for using “Nazi” to describe the tactics of the Climate SS while giving a pass to those who would exploit the memory of the atrocity that is known as The Holocaust.
    I was having a little fun at the topic’s expense. Again. sorry.

  86. Dikran Marsupial says:

    Dr Spencer, are you going to criticise Fred Singer for his use of the word “denier” in his article “Climate Deniers are Giving us Skeptics a Bad Name”? Do you think he was making any connection there with Holocaust denial?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html

    You wrote about Singers article and were not critical of his use of the word “denier”, even though you specifically mentioned it.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/

    You even call others deniers yourself in the comments:

    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
    March 15, 2012 at 5:43 AM

    apparently, I am making no progress with the true deniers of the greenhouse effect. There is no amount of evidence which can change their minds.

    That is also hypocrisy.

    I’m genuinely sorry that you have been made angry by this Roy, but this is not the right response. Perhaps you need to go back and look at some of the things you have written and you will see that you are without blame either.

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      I don’t understand if you are joking with this, anyways Dr.Spencer is complaining about this:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/03/the-silence-of-the-anti-defamation-league-suggests-they-endorse-defamation-of-climate-skeptics/

      Read till the end the article and the citation too, so you know what it’s all about.

      Have a nice day

      Massimo

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        I know what Dr Spencer is complaining about, however if he is going to point out hypocrisy on the part of the Anti-Defamation League, then he should expect his hypocrisy to be discussed as well (i.e. complaining when people call him a denier, when he does not complain when fellow skeptics call people deniers, and labelling others as deniers himself).

        That doesn’t mean that there is no hypocrisy on the part of the ADL, just that there is the same hypocrisy on the part of Dr Spencer as well.

        Personally I am not keen on name-calling, having learned that it rarely achieves anything; rational discussion of the science is preferable and more producctive. However if you are going to call people names, as Dr Spencer has done, you forfeit the right to complain about it when others apply that same label to you.

        My aim in pointing this out is the hope that Dr Spencer will consider this rationally and temper his anger, which I suspect is doing him more harm than good, so that he can go back to working on the science which is a much better response to being called names.

  87. Massimo PORZIO says:

    World English Dictionary:
    “hypocrisy : the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one’s real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety”
    Where do you find Dr.Spencer’s hypocrisy?

    Call one denier (which means that he/she declares an assertion or statement to be untrue), is not that bad if it’s true.
    Being him not a denier but just a skeptic about the magnitude of the GHG effect on climate, I don’t find any hypocrisy if he use the word denier against who completely believe that GHGs have nothing to do with climate and at the same time he complains about who call him denier alluding to the Holocaust “explicitly or implicitly” as himself wrote.

    I agree with you that it’s better to return to “rational discussion of the science”, but it seems to me that Dr.Spencer was not the one who decided to transform one of his opinion into the main target of the climate debate.

  88. Walter Allensworth says:

    Just sent this to the ADL…

    Dear ADL,

    I am writing you to say that I am appalled by the US Government’s use of the word “denier” with respect to those who challenge the highly partisan theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, or more in use right now “climate change.”

    I am part of a very large group of the US population that happens NOT to agree with the highly partisan CAWG theory, and am grievously insulted and threatened by the government when officials use the word “denier” to label me. I have a degree in physics and run a small company who’s livelihood is provided by scientific study.

    Furthermore, the incendiary monicker “denier” or “climate denier” was specifically chosen to associate those who not believe in CAGW with holocaust denial.

    Examples are clear, and they are many.

    In the recent Senate All-night warmathon, democratic senators used the highly charged and insulting moniker “denier” no less than 27 times. This language, being used by our elected government officials, is meant to intimidate and degrade those who do not agree with partisan politics. As such, they are violating my first amendment rights of free speech.

    So far, the ADL has condoned this horrific action with it’s silence. Will the ADL continue in it’s tacit agreement with political suppression by means of holocaust imagery?

    This abuse of power is well documented here:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/12/summary-of-the-use-of-denier-in-senate-dems-all-night-warmathon/

    Sincerely,
    Walter S. Allensworth
    —– my address ——