Climate change accusers get accused

KKK-like demonstration on lawn of pipeline executive home last Thursday night (Source: WUWT)

Within science, skepticism is the engine of enlightenment. It’s the fundamental ingredient leading to deeper understanding of our physical universe. It’s an essential function, without which progress in science cannot be achieved.

Skepticism is a celebrated part of every scientific discipline save for one – climate science. Skeptics, not part of the so-called 97 percent climate consensus, are disproportionately criticized by the climate community if their research and conclusions have the audacity to contradict the standard model. Fear and misinformation are used to marginalize them.

Most likely that is because climate science is the most political of all the sciences. Literally tens of trillions of dollars world-wide are riding on the truth or falsehood of a theory of human-caused global warming whose main conclusion is that there will be global climate catastrophes if human carbon dioxide emissions are not stopped soon.

Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and prominent climate science skeptic, recently pointed out that mainstream accusers often wrongfully accuse skeptics of the very same unsavory tactics that they themselves and their supporters employ.

Watts then issues a direct challenge to his accusers to cite examples of bad behavior by skeptics that even remotely comes close to examples of believer misbehavior that he has found. One incident was just a few days ago.

Is Watts overreacting? Read on to decide for yourself…

The acts of the accusers

Watts’ ire was raised by this tweet sent out by Lord Deben. Deben is a politician; a member of England’s House of Lords. He is Chairman of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change. It’s an independent body that advises the UK government on carbon emission standards.

In climate science circles charges like Deben’s (and worse) are made against skeptics literally every day.

Fed up, Watts identified several examples of bad behavior by mainstream climate science believers.

The following professional quality video was produced in Lord Deben’s England by an organization called 10:10. It’s founder, Fanny Armstrong, is a film maker. The video promotes the idea that everyone reduce their carbon emissions by 10 percent every year for the next 10 years to save the world from global warming.

This video is not a joke. It’s very disturbing. If you are offended by graphic violence, don’t watch it.

To be fair, 10:10 has denounced it’s own 2010 video. They say it was a mistake. They say they withdrew it off their web site “within hours” and apologized.

They say, “You could fill a book with the things we learned from this episode”. True, it teaches much about the group’s mindset.

Shades of the KKK

Just a few days ago – Thursday, Feb. 6th 2014 at 10 o’clock at night – a group of protestors knocked at the front door of oil pipeline executive Andrew Maki. He is a Board of Directors member of Enbridge, Inc. It’s infamously known as the operator of an oil pipeline that ruptured along Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010. It was the largest oil pipeline spill in United States history.

Among other things, the unexpected guests were protesting the jailing of three female activists days earlier. The women were convicted of blocking construction of an Enbridge oil pipeline expansion project. They were judged flight risks and ordered to remain in custody until sentencing. They face 2-3 years jail time.

The Maki protestors videoed and later published the event on the Internet. It’s instructive for all of us to hear what transpired at Maki’s front door as he attempted, unsuccessfully, to politely listen and respond to the protestor’s grievances.

The protestors identified themselves only as “the people”. They are members of an environmental group called “Tar Sands Blockade” dedicated to stopping the Keystone XL pipeline.

Climate denial

Intimidation and threats are not the exclusive realm of radical environmental groups. Politicians and mainstream climate scientists use them to.

There isn’t a U.S. Congressional hearing on climate change that goes by without one or more lawmakers calling skeptic witnesses “climate deniers”.

World famous climate scientist Michael Mann, inventor of the now-discredited “hockey stick” graph, is suing National Review and it’s columnist Mark Steyn in an expensive libel lawsuit for describing Mann with these remarks:

  • “he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science”
  • “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph”

Does Mann have the right to defend himself against libel? Of course he does!


So, which is right? Are the “climate naysayers” personally unpleasant and abusive as claimed by Lord Deben or, as Watts says, something else is closer to the truth?

It’s easy enough to prove. Take the Watts challenge. If you can find examples of climate skeptic behavior towards the warmist community conquerable to the above examples, then Watts is mistaken.

Go ahead, give it a go! Feel free to report back here your own results.


About azleader

Learning to see life more clearly... one image at a time!

Posted on Feb 11, 2014, in Climate, climate change, culture, Economy, environment, Global Warming, Government, nature, news, Opinion, Politics, science, Thoughts. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. What a sad, sad state of affairs.

    People are now controlled with hysterical government rhetoric and our beautiful, bountiful, benevolent world is overlooked.

    I will try to address this in Chapter 3 of my autobiography.

    • In this article, I’m commenting on an observation. That observation is that it’s often true that a group which accuses another group of something – like racism, lying, name calling, etc. – often are bigger offenders than those they accuse.

  2. The hockey-stick model is discredited only to morons like you.

    • Thanks for the “moron” comment. It supports the idea put forth in this article that skeptic accusers are “personally unpleasant and abusive” and not the skeptics as suggested by Lord Deben.

      Willard, you need to keep up with current events. The hockey-stick graph by Mann, et al, 1998 fell by the wayside years ago after its statistical methodology and data were found to be flawed. See MIT Technology Review, Oct 15, 2004:

      Perhaps you have a different explanation why the IPCC dropped climate science’s most famous graph from it’s assessment reports and replaced it with far less dramatic temperature reconstructions.

      If so, what is it?

Comments and questions are welcomed!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: