If I had actually said “Climate scientists are Nazi Paedophiles” how long would it be before the BBC and the whole warmist chatterarti of academia would be condemning me? So, why do government ministers and BBC broadcasters feel they can libel me in precisely this way? Because that is what I have found in what when taken as a whole appears to be a concerted hateful and criminal campaign of deceit by government ministers, BBC broadcasters, academia and environmentalists against ordinary people like me.
It all started a few days ago I wanted to write a paragraph to illustrate the “heated debate” on climate and thought I could do this by selecting a few choice quotes from BOTH and I repeat BOTH sceptics and non-sceptics to highlight the heated nature of the debate.
Well, as you can imagine, it did not take long to find a few choice quotes from the highest profile organisations of the most hideous nature about sceptics. The obvious one was the repeated libel about sceptics being “Paedophiles” from the BBC (see below). So, ten minutes later I had all I needed of insults against sceptics and I started looking for the sceptic insults to warmists.
Now in my time I must have said a few colourful words about warmists so I thought it would be a few minutes of easy searching to find a few juicy quotes to balance the paragraph from well known sceptics (and not just comments on blogs).
Did I heck?
Eventually I found a quote from Lord Monckton about alarmists being like the Hitler youth. Assuming that there would be some warmist website that had collected all the worst sceptic quotes using the usual libellous slur “denier” I searched for “climate denier hitler” expecting to find several lists with Monckton’s quote amongst them.
But what popped up:
Chris Huhne “Fighting Climate Change Deniers Is Like Fighting Hitler”
Monckton may be a well known figure within the climate debate, but he holds no official government position and his suggestion was that alarmists were like the misguided people who followed Hitler.
In contrast, Chris Huhne was a UK government figure speaking on behalf of the UK government and the people of the UK, libelling sceptics by using the phrase “denier” and likening us not to mis-guided youth who followed Hitler and most of whom had little to do with the atrocities but to evil incarnate itself in the form of Hitler.
I just cannot fathom the deranged mind of the civil servant or government advisor that wrote that speech of hate.
Chris Huhne was saying we were the evil incarnate who sent millions to the gas Chamber … Monckton was at best saying warmists were misguided youth who wrongly supported Hitler. The two are in no way comparable. .
… and so it continued.
That was yesterday. Since then I have found a couple of other choice quotes from sceptics of which the “worst” was the Unabomber billboard which was criticised by sceptics and withdrawn.
And in all this time searching and searching and searching for something to be fair to the alarmists side and not falsely suggest that sceptics do not insult the other side … all I seem to have proven to myself is that whenever I search for just one quote from a sceptic, I find a torrent of abuse from the alarmists.
So, what do I do?
Do I try to falsely create a parity by selecting all the sceptic quotes and just a few of the alarmist to suggest I have been “fair” or am I really fair and publish the whole list?
The Whole List
So, here is the whole list – in its unedited form at the point when I realised that there was no way on earth I could be “fair” to the scum who continue to insult us from government ministries and BBC officers.
But, strange as it may sound, I still want quotes from sceptics insulting warmists, so if anyone can think of anything please add it to the comments.
(the raw list follows)
At times sceptics have viewed the academics researching climate to be little more than scammers:
conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.1
And at times Sceptics have used colourful language:
Lord Monckton Calls Youth Climate Activists “Hitler Youth”2
But this is mirrored by those on the other side like Chris Huhne who equated Fighting Climate Change Deniers to Fighting Hitler”3
“World leaders who oppose a global agreement to tackle climate change are making a similar mistake to the one made by politicians who tried to appease Adolf Hitler before World War Two … Giving in to the forces of low ambition would be an act of climate appeasement.”
Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Huhne.4
In June 2009 an influential U.S. website (Talking Points Memo) asked:
“At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers? So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now? ” 5
And likewise, whilst their language is less coloured, the supposed greater kudos of academics has enabled them to be just as disdainful in their own way of sceptics. A notorious individual is Stephan Lewandowsky, Winthrop Professor and an Australian Professorial Fellow at the University of Western Australia who whilst having no qualification to speak about the climate science asserted about those many sceptics with scientific qualifications that:
Evidence is overrated when you’re a conspiracy theorist
“unlike the real insights provided by science and rational thought, conspiracy theories obsessively focus on selected pieces of — real or imaginary — “evidence” while ignoring mountains of actual data. Thus, conspiracy theorists deny the existence of the elephant sitting across the room because part of its earlobe is splattered with pink paint — so, not being completely gray, it can no longer be an elephant.…This attribute of conspiracy theorising applies in full force to the actions of climate “sceptics” who operate outside the peer reviewed literature:
For several years now, armies of irate pensioners have been swarming the countryside, spurned on by feverish websites, … climate “sceptics” obsessively yelp at the alleged frailties of the surface temperature record and accuse respectable scientific agencies of “fudging” data,
…It will collapse under its own absurdity because as new scientific evidence amasses at a rapid pace, the presumed conspiracy must grow ever more grotesque and all-encompassing:6
But the same attitude whilst less flamboyant is also expressed by other academics:-
“… there is absolutely nothing wrong with being sceptical, all good scientist are sceptical, so I tend to refer to those people you mean as Climate change deniers, because they just deny it’s happening and choose various reasons”7
But if the Climategate emails are to be believed, behind closed doors there is real hostility as an email between two very prominent climate academics regarding the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics) shows:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”8
But the attitude of academics is best seen in their close allies in the media like this astonishing quote from the BBC likening sceptics to paedophiles:
“not long ago to question multiculturalism…. risked being branded racists and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers“9
Despite many complaints the BBC did not apologise for what many consider a libelous insult but instead allowed the same assertion that sceptics are like paedophiles to be repeated again in 2012:
‘The people who are most vocal in denying human responsibility for the disastrous effects of climate change are mostly male. The people who control factories of wage slaves in the developing world are almost exclusively men, as are the commanders of terrorist regimes. Leaders who threaten or declare war are mostly men as are those involved in paedophile gangs’10
As for the politicians:
Climate change sceptics are “crackpots and conspiracy theorists”,
UK Energy Secretary Ed Davey1
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed:
“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said:
“A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald:
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
And the view of environmentalists can more or less be summed up by that of
“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” -Richard Benedik, U.N. / U.S. Bureaucrat12
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-Founder of Greenpeace13
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reducing CO2] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.” -Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office
“Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful [propaganda].” -David Frame, Oxford U
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.” -Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
“Free Enterprise really means [giving the rich] the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings…Capitalism is destroying the earth.” -Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
“Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.” -Pentti Linkola, Finnish Ecologist
“…every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.”—–George Monbiot, a UK Guardian environmental journalist
“An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth…..discipline; prohibition, enforcement and oppression are the only solution.” “As for those “most responsible for the present economic growth and competition”, Linkola explains that they will be sent to the mountains for “re-education” in eco-gulags: “the sole glimmer of hope,” he declares, “lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens.”—Pentti Linkola, a Finnish ecological philosopher 14
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”— Professor Maurice King
June 2008 James Hansen who headed up NASA’s Goodard Instritute for Space Studies and compiled one of the global temperature record set, called:
“for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”15
Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr (son of “Bobby Kennedy) lashed out at sceptics in 2007, declaring:
“This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors”16
In 2009 Robert F. Kennedy called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared that their CEO’s
‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”17
In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning sceptics saying:
“An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,”
In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist’s writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials:
“When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki said:
… “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.”
In July 2007 Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) wrote:
“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.” 19
‘In Nov 2010 the UK Guardian asked:
“Is climate science disinformation a crime against humanity? … Disinformation about the state of climate change science is extraordinarily – if not criminally – irresponsible, because the consensus scientific view is based upon strong evidence” 20
In January 2013 David Bellamy revealed that the:
BBC axed me for rubbishing global warming … Someone even emailed me to say I was ‘the worst paedophile in the world’, basically saying I was killing children by denying global warming.21
Oct 2010 Richard Curtis who used to write many good comedies for the BBC like Blackadder and Not the nine O’clock news wrote a film called “No Pressure” which showed children who were sceptical of Global warming being callously killed in terrorist style explosions by teachers within a school.
In 2007 Peter Gleick gave testimony before the us senate investigating “Climate change research and scientific integrity”. In this he said:
There are many tactics used to argue for or against scientific conclusions that are inappropriate, involve deceit, or directly abuse the scientific process …
Personal (“Ad Hominem”) Attacks.
This approach uses attacks against the character, circumstances, or motives of a person in order to discredit their argument or claim, independent of the scientific evidence.
Guilt by Association
Challenge to Motive (such as greed or funding)22
In February 2012 Gleick admitted he had stolen the identity of another person (a member of Heartland’s board of directors) in order to steal the confidential documents. He then lied about the nature of one document he originally claimed had come from Heartland, notably a ‘strategy memo’ that purported to describe Heartland’s plans to address climate change in the coming year. That document was quickly shown to be a fake, written to misrepresent and defame The Heartland Institute.23 It is widely believed that Gleick was the author of the fake memo.
June 2011 Richard Glover, radio talker and 20 year columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, in what was taken to be a reference to the Nazi practice of tattooing holocaust victims stated:
Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.24
July 2009 “Al Gore today compared the battle against climate change with the struggle against the Nazis,” reports the London Times.”25
Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore Over Global Warming Campaign
The founder of the Weather Channel is ridiculing Al Gore over his calls for action on global climate change, saying in a column that global warming is a “hoax” and “bad science.”
Michael Mann is a notorious academic and author of the discredited “hockey stick” which was a figurehead used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which pro-ported to show that historically, global temperatures had recently & suddenly increased. This assertion was thoroughly discredited by Steve McIntyre who showed that random data would have produced the same hockey stick shape.
Michael Man is also the “mike” referred to in the Climategate emails in the phrase “Mike’s Nature trick” which was a trick to hide evidence of inconsistencies in the historic temperature record. In addition emails uncovered during the Climategate scandal showed University of East Anglia researcher Phil Jones, apparently fearing that a Freedom of Information Act request might force the release of embarrassing data or questionable procedures, sent Mann an email (contrary to the FOI act) asking him to delete certain emails between Mann and Keith Briffa (a colleague of Phil Jones) and asking him to ask Wahl to do the same. Wahl later acknowledged that Mann had participated in the conspiracy to break the UK FOI law and forwarded Jones’ request to delete emails.
In April 2011 Tim Ball an environmental scientist made the humorous comment that Mann “should be in the State Pen rather than Penn State.” Mann responded by suing Ball for defamation.
In Dec 2011 after further climate emails were released from an anonymous source only known as “FOIA” a message was sent to various sceptics including Roger Tallbloke. Police then ceased computers from Roger Tallbloke, presumably trying to locate the original message because there was no reason to suggest Roger had done anything but receive a message from FOIA.
However, Roger was the only person to have computers seized, so when Greg Laden posted an article referring to “Computers of Criminal Cyber-Thieves Seized”, it was a libellous accusation that Tallbloke was a “Criminal Cyber-Thief”. Roger consulted a solicitor and Greg Laden withdrew his original comments but the Michael Mann repeated the libel in a tweet.
May 2012 The Heartland Institute produced a bill board at a single site which showed Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber whose manifesto expressed his belief in catastrophic man-caused global warming. Very quickly some prominent sceptics began criticising the billboard:
Suddenly, we were all publicly linked to an organization that thinks it’s OK to equate people concerned about climate change with psychopaths. (Donna Laframboise26 )
Several years after writing this I have had a response from an alarmist claiming they could easily find nastiness from sceptics. So I will post their commen to ensure I’m not being unfair: