Satan is a Climate Skeptic

Well, I have no idea if that’s true.

But Anthony Watts needs to stop crying crocodile tears about being called a “denier” if he’s going to put up posts like this one. Here’s the headline:

Charles Manson becomes an advocate for global warming

You climate skeptics get the point? What about you, Anthony?

79 Responses to “Satan is a Climate Skeptic”

  1. Stu says:

    “if we don’t wake up to that there’s going to be no weather”
     
    That’s climate denier talk!

  2. Keith Grubb says:

    It is interesting that Osama, and Charlie, are AGW proponets. Can you name any similar lunatics on the denier side. I tried, and I can’t.

  3. Barry Woods says:

    Keith give Anthony a break… 

    He is mereley reporting a headline in a MAJOR UK newspaper….. (7 million readers)

    From the Daily Mail, probably the worst alliance you could hope for if you are in the global warming movement. Manson says in a from prison interview:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378178/Charles-Manson-breaks-20-year-silence-40th-anniversary-gruesome-Sharon-Tate-murders.html

    Global warming must be true, Charles Manson believes in it. Killer breaks 20-year silence on 40th anniversary of gruesome Sharon Tate murders

    Crazed cult leader Charles Manson has broken a 20-year silence in a prison interview coinciding with the 40th anniversary of his conviction for the gruesome Sharon Tate murders – to speak out about global warming.

    So Anthony reports a newstory in a MSM newspaper, in a more restrained fashion than the newspaper, I fail to see a problem.

    The sceptics are always being painted as crazy’s, creationists, etc, with little evidence. so, pointing out somew real crazy’s, bin-laden as well, is somehow bad behaviour?

  4. Brandon Shollenberger says:

    I really can’t see the point here.  Just what is wrong with making a blog post reporting the fact Charles Manson has become global warming advocate?  How does it invalidate complaints about people making derogatory remarks toward an individual?  Is merely mentioning the fact an undesirable person supports a position unacceptable?
     
    I’ll answer my own questions.  There’s nothing wrong with that post!  He drew people’s attention to an interesting factoid without adding anything inflammatory.
     
    Now I’m curious what would happen if Kim Jong-il publicly stated, “Capitalist pigs exaggerate claims of global warming!”

  5. Heraclitus says:

    Looks like a ‘no’ so far then keith.

  6. Keith Kloor says:

    The comments so far are quite revealing.

    So Barry, this whacked story is headlined today on that  “MAJOR UK newspaper.” The Daily Mail strikes me as some frankenstein kind of newspaper–part National Enquirer, part New York Post.

    I guess if Charles Manson gives an interview next year, proclaiming himself to be a climate skeptic, and says he became so because he started reading WUWT, I could note that as “interesting” news, too. You know, because I thought that was an “interesting” association to highlight.

  7. Keith, just because you’re unable to separate yourself from the partisan perspectives of the US climate debate doesn’t make the climate debate the insular thing you perceive it to be. The Daily Mail IS one of the most widely-read papers in the UK, and this fact is not impacted even slightly by your attempts to whither Barry’s statement.
     
    The Daily Mail reported it. WUWT reported that the Daily Mail reported it. Now you’ve reported that WUWT reported that the Daily Mail reported it. Perhaps you don’t see the irony of your post. Meanwhile I think you’re getting comfortable in your echo chamber, Keith, and I think this is already showing in your output.

  8. Heraclitus says:

    Keith, the question I’d like to ask is at what point does one accept that there are such fundamental differences in understanding that one abandons attempts to engage? I’m not saying there is a definitive answer in this thread, but there is certainly fuel for the question.

  9. Keith Kloor says:

    Heraclitus,

    I’ve already had cause to ask myself that several times, but mind you, that question cuts both ways. For example, some of my biggest detractors (who read this blog) are on the opposite side of the spectrum from WUWT and they give no quarter, either.

  10. Heraclitus says:

    But there is disagreement and then there is fundamental disconnection in understanding.

  11. Stu says:

    Nowhere do I see Anthony equating AGWers with Charles Manson. This is basically a fluff piece, or an odd factoid or an odd attempt at a humourous connection to climate. If I was to start hearing skeptics calling AGWers ‘The Family’, with the insinuation that people who believe in AGW are like the people who brutally murdered Sharon Tate, I would have a problem with that. That hasn’t happened yet so no big deal.
     
    When people call skeptics flat earthers, deniers, creationists or other such things, you’re meant to connect the qualities of those labels to the sceptics. Therefore, a skeptic is like a flat earther. A sceptic is like those people who deny the Holocaust. Sceptics are wooly in their thinking like those who deny evolution.
     
    Do you really think Anthony is trying to say that AGWers are like Charles Manson? Or that they show qualities similar to those displayed by a psychopathic killer? I don’t.
     
     
     

  12. Heraclitus says:

    Stu, are you unaware of the comments on WUWT? Do you think Watts is unaware of them?

  13. Stu says:

    Heraclitus-
     
    No, I didn’t read them. As I said- fluff piece. Just like Keith’s the other day equating Watts with Morano and UFO followers. I’ll tell you right now though- if there’s actually anyone who seriously believes that people who believe in AGW are similar to psychopathic killers like Charles Manson… I have no time for those people.
     
     

  14. lucia says:

    Keith is right. Anthony bringing this particular article to the attention of his readers intimates something.  Anthony doesn’t say anything straight out, but it does intimate the idea that at least some of those who believe in AGW are dangerous loonies of the first magnitude.
     
    Mind you, some of those who believe in AGW are loonies of the first magnitude.  But some skeptics are also loonies of the first magnitude.
     
    I’m going to pull a Godwin: Bringing up Manson’s belief on AGW in an on going discussion of AGW and response to it would be a bit like bringing up Hitler’s vegetarianism if you have been promoting the pro-meat eating side of an argument about vegetarian vs. mean eating life styles.  Yeah. Hitler was a vegetarian. I’m sure vegetarian’s “get that”.
    I, unlike Hitler, eat meat.  Get it?
     

  15. Keith Kloor says:

    Stu,

    The comments at the Daily Mail site and at WUWT reinforce why this article was served up like chum for the respective audiences. (Note: a tiny minority at WUWT find the Watts post objectionable.)

    But Stu and other skeptics commenting on this thread deliberately miss the point. I don’ think, as Heraclitus contends, that this is due to a lack of understanding. It’s tribal.

    The same way very smart people like Arthur Smith, when challenged by me, can’t bring himself to admit that Joe Romm plays foul. (See this and this.)

    Here’s the thing: those who look the other way when their guy slyly plays the ad hom, guilt-by-association game have no standing to complain when the other side (e.g.,Romm), does it, too.

  16. Heraclitus says:

    Keith, can I test my understanding by seeing where you think Romm has done the equivalent of Watts has done here?

  17. Keith Kloor says:

    Grypo,

    I’m aware of those instances and agree it speaks to a pattern.

    Lucia,

    Thanks for injecting a reality check into the thread.

  18. Keith Kloor says:

    Heraclitus,

    You seem to misunderstand my point. Anthony Watts knows what he’s doing when he puts up a post like that. So do readers who wink, wink at it.

    Romm has a well-documented history of tarring people he disagrees through ad hom, guilt-by-association tactics.(He’s just more heavy-handed than Watts.)  But those who have a kinship with Romm (because he’s on their side) wink, wink at that ugly side to him.

    So there’s no lack of understanding on both sides about what’s going on here–just rationalization that their guy isn’t doing anything wrong.

  19. Heraclitus says:

    No, I understand your point Keith, I just don’t think I agree with it. However, I could be wrong, which is why I asked you to point me to an example, or examples, of where Romm has done anything equivalent of what Watts has done here. I don’t think he has done, but maybe that is because I am blind to his ugly side. This is not saying that I don’t think Romm has done anything wrong, just that his misdemeanors are in a different class from those of Watts.

  20. Stu says:

    Keith- I actually do largely agree with you, but here’s my reasoning on this.I just have a little less sympathy for your points on this topic after you spent two or three posts talking about Repuplican hate speech as it related to the shooting of the democratic politician a some months ago (yes, it’s a ‘history’ thing). Previously, I agreed with you that Anthony using the ‘warmista’ label in relation to the James Lee figure was extremely poor form. I also spoke publicly here at CAS against the Bin Laden incident. Now I’m not a Republican so please don’t feel that I’m trying to defend Republicans. But your reaction to Anthony’s post, and then your connecting of the democratic shooting with Republicans a few months later I thought was quite unfair. The cases themselves were different- in Lee’s case- there was direct evidence from Lee himself that he was spurned into ‘action’ by watching Al Gore’s film. In the other case, there was no evidence (as far as I saw) that the guy who shot the politician was influenced by the messages of Beck and other right wingers. But you needed to talk about all this stuff anyway over a number of posts- and again, I might probably have agreed with your main message (that extreme right wingers are looneys)- but you seemed to use the incident in the very same way that you accused Anthony of… in an opportunistic or political way.
     
    That’s where I’m coming from with this- so apologies if my stance seems somewhat convoluted. It probably is. Again, sorry.
     

  21. Stu says:

     

    “point me to an example, or examples, of where Romm has done anything equivalent of what Watts has done here. ”

    I’m not aware of an equivalence, but the problem with Romm is that he just flat out expects you to believe that the labels he gives to those he disagrees with are realistic or true. Anthony bringing Charles Manson into debate is a joke- you’re obviously free to dismiss such nonsense. I feel that with Romm, you’re not free. You’re meant to see, through the force of Romm’s passionate speech and superior grasp of the situation, that someone like Steven Mosher is a ‘Hard Core Denier’- that the sceptics are industry funded disinformers and that they are really like Holocaust denying flat earth creationists. Romm insults forcefully and his labels are meant to stick, whereas Anthony is just having fun. Not my cup of tea, but there you go.

     

  22. Heraclitus says:

    Stu, you are clearly wrong that Watts is just having fun. He knows his commenters as well, you would hope, as you and I do.

    I agree that Romm is wrong to characterise Mosher as a hard-core denier, but again I also think you are wrong in saying that he is just asserting this. Romm has come to this conclusion over a period of years, you can see the history and the process by which he has reached this conclusion in his posts. It is also an arguably correct conclusion. Romm does indeed insult forcefully and his labels are indeed meant to stick, though I’d argue he would be willing to unstick them given consistent evidence that they are no longer correct. But these are not random labels, they are based on reasons, though you, and I on occasion, may disagree with those reasons.

    You are the one introducing the Holocaust denial equivalence, this is not an equivalence that Romm makes or implies.

  23. willard says:

    Keith,
    While I agree with you and Lucia, I’d like not to feel intimated to say anything about these kind of editorials practices.  Blogging about them does not seem to change anything, so I doubt commenting will do anything either.  Not that I don’t appreciate you blogging about it: I would have missed it completely otherwise.  Not that I think that my comments will change anything either, only that I prefer to reserve the freedom to comment without having to pass any kind of greenline test.

  24. Stu says:

    FWIW- having read over the comments at WUWT now, the ones equating well known climate researchers with Manson are quite despicable, joke or no joke.
     
     

  25. Barry Woods says:

    A sceptical blog reports a story in  a major national newspaper (not the characature that is represented), then another blogger blogs about the blog, NOT the story. I’m sure all regular bloggers and commentorsrealise those that comment in a blog and at a newspaper DO NOT represent the entire readership of that blog or newspaper..

    In the UK – millions of Daily Mail readers will have voted for Tony Blair and the Labour party in the 1997 and 2001, etc elections…

    Millions of them will have swung back to the Conservative party in the 2010 elections..

    This blog article perhaps reflects on the host as much as is is intended to refelct on those that read Watts Up..

    I have written guest posts at Watts Up, do I fit into a neat little USA political cliche (no:) ) do I think AGW’ers think like Charles Manson? of course not.  😉

     😉 Otherwise I would not let my children go to tea with some very prominant IPCC people that are friends of my family, nor would I let my sister in law come to stay – press officer and political candidate for the UK Green party (also the former editor of Greenworld) 😉

    If I was American I could have perhaps imagined myself voting for a Clinton led (either 😉 Democrat government but NOT Obama ( ie Tony Blair without the charisma, imho).

    Similalry I can understand why people voted for Tony Blair (or John Smith, who sadly died to young), but I utterley detest the leadership of Gordon Brown and Ed MIlliband and Neil Kinnock.

    So perhaps this story reflect more on the hosts pre-conceptions and politics.

  26. Barry Woods says:

    I’ve only read the comments early on at WUWT and the Daily Mail, if they are as bad as Stu states, then the moderstors do need to be much tougher and deal with it. 

    Similalry I am unhappy with many sceptics attacking greens as eco
    -facists or watermelons, becasue i know many grass root environmentlaist and on the whole they are nice caring intelligent people (though I think wrong on AGW)

    alarmists I can live with,though pro and sceptical would be better, as even my local IPCC Professor thinks statements by Hansen and greenpeace are alarmist.

  27. Keith Kloor says:

    Barry (26), spare me, and try to untangle yourself from that twister not.

    You dudes who can’t call a spade a spade on your side are pretty rich.

  28. Stu says:

    If I was really alarmed about AGW and Anthony put up a post about Charles Manson being an advocate for global warming, would I feel personally insulted? I don’t think so.
     
    Do I say this because I’m not really that alarmed about AGW? Maybe.
     
     

  29. thingsbreak says:

    I agree that it’s slimy of WUWT to do the whole implied guilt by association thing, but this (C-a-S) kind of post is also something I’d personally like to see less of. The whole “tweaking” thing. I’ve said it about Jeff Id posts, I’ve said it about WUWT posts, I’ve said it about Joe Romm posts.
     
    It’s navel gazing, pot stirring, etc. I don’t care for it. Just my $0.02.

  30. Barry Woods says:

    – keith what do you mean by – you dudes – !! this is part of the problem presumably you see yourself and myself in different tribes!

    What politics do you ‘think’ I have? they are irrelevant on the issue of CaGW

    this is one issue AGW..  Piers Corbyn is a leftwing aetheist, Philip Foster is a rightish wing Christian priest, Graham Stringer (Labour MP) is on the left-Lord Lawson is on the political right..  what do they have in common they are all sceptical of CAGW..

  31. Heraclitus says:

    Stu, do you think this is about feeling insulted?

  32. Jeff Norris says:

    @Keith
    What were you expecting from WUWT?   Seriously how do you see WUWT.
     Hard Science News and Analysis, Evil Partisan Blog, Rational Social Commentary, Opinion Based Commentary, Weird News from the Internet, The Truth is Out there or maybe a mixture of all of these.
    For the record Watt’s post was Irrelevant to Climate Change, Inconsiderate to Manson’s victims, and definitely a veiled guilt by association attack on proponents.  I also agree that any attempt for me to defend the post smacks of hypocrisy on me.

  33. NewYorkJ says:

    Keith give Anthony a break”¦ 
    He is mereley reporting a headline in a MAJOR UK newspaper

    Please.  Daily Mail is a right-wing tabloid.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

    Is Watts so stupid he can’t think for himself and use proper discretion in what he reports?  Certainly his followers seem to be.

  34. Barry Woods says:

    just like the daily mirror is a left wing tabloid…

    All people, all with votes.

    Please..

    The Guardian is left wing elitist, the Telegraph is right wing elitist..  The Daily Mail is more in the central right, but a lot of readers MUST have voted Labour in the 1997 and 2001 general elections.

    The Sun, Mirror and Daily Express are more tabloid than the Mail

    The Daily Mail, is NOT actually a paper I regularly buy, but 7 million voters do.  It is still  however a major MSM newspaper in the UK like it or not.

    The Guardian probably has labour member reading it (and the mirror) The Telegraph has conservatives reading it, both readerships probably snear at The Mail.  The Mails’s readership are probably sick of the elitist snobbery of both.

    Instant dismissal and snearing is the attitude that ‘climate scientists’ and agw advocates have yet to learn does not work at persuading people, in fact it alienates them..

  35. Alexander Harvey says:

    So Manson gets the last laugh. O yes!

    Just like you filthy predator you, to get another few seconds of fame.

    Must be sweet to know that you can still do it, rake the coals, deliver a little hurt, make a little mischief. I bet you smile to know that people still think you must have been insane, the delight in knowing that they still glorify you and under-rate you.

    Well you little punk, you were nothing special, just another reptile picking over the garbage.

  36. Stu says:

     

    Heraclitus-
     
    My post wasn’t about feeling insulted- it was about tribal bias. Originally I mistook Keith’s original post to be about equating one person calling someone a denier with another person calling someone else a psychopath. Insults and hypocrisy. But Keith- as far as I can tell now, meant the post to be about tribal bias. He was waiting for the sceptics to show up and defend Watts, which is what happened. No doubt that Anthony is employing a guilt by association trick. It’s pretty indefensible, even as a joke- so I will concede that tribal bias (more a personal loyalty to Anthony himself and not to any sceptical position) probably played a part in my overlooking that fact. I think any reasonable person would have to admit that Anthony knew where he was pointing with this. Some of the comments are really bad. Keith was on the money.
     
     

     

  37. Barry Woods says:

    and Keith was stiring the pot a bit, not the first time? – just agreeing with Thingsbreak (30)

  38. Heraclitus says:

    Keith, I note you have not given examples yet of Romm’s tactics that you think are equivalent to Watts’. Given that they are well documented it should be easy to do.

    It seems to me this is the sort of false equivalence that dominates the debate, the idea that there are balancing misdeeds on both sides. Indeed it’s so prevalent that I’ve found many who are very firmly of the view that there is a concensus of scientific opinion that we are facing potentially catastrophic outcomes as a result of anthropogenic climate change have fallen into this pattern.

  39. Keith Kloor says:

    Heraclitus,

    All you need to do is search Romm’s name in this blog and see what I’ve written for examples. Also if you don’t see it exhibited in his blog, I don’t think there’s anything I can do to help you. They are as plain as day for those not wearing blinders.

  40. Lucia: “Anthony doesn’t say anything straight out, but it does intimate the idea that at least some of those who believe in AGW are dangerous loonies of the first magnitude.”

    This kind of observation is not exactly new to WUWT, or many other similar blogs. In fact it is indeed a recurring theme at WUWT, calling out the moronic idiots who spin AGW into CAGW and thus into a manifest economic and existential threat to humanity. It’s one of those “people send me things…” posts, and it isn’t limited to OBL or Manson and in fact these posts happen a lot at WUWT. This time it’s just uncomfortable enough to spawn a blog post from Keith on WUWT’s call-outs because nobody likes Manson, just like nobody likes OBL. I anticipate that the history books will have a lot more pseudo-scientific psychopaths noted regarding the CAGW scaremongering than just OBL or Manson in good time.

  41. Heraclitus says:

    Keith, you’ve given me a very similar reply before and then pointed me to a couple of posts by the Breakthrough Institute, which I did not find convincing as independent evidence goes. Did you not mean what you said, that his errors are well documented?

    What I’m really interested in is an example that you think should provoke a similar reaction in me to the reaction I think we both shared to Watts’ post.

    I don’t think there is an equivalence here.

  42. Keith Kloor says:

    You don’t need to read anyone else’s interpretation to spot the ad hom, guilt-by-association tactics that Romm regularly employs.

    Seriously, I can’t be bothered to draw a circle around them for you. Hell, all you have to to do is read the first post he wrote about me, or any post he writes involving RPJ, TBI, or whoever he designates as  a “disinformer.”

  43. Heraclitus says:

    Well, yes. Romm is certainly unambiguous about his feelings towards anyone he’s concluded is a disinformer. I’ve said earlier that I think his characterisation of Mosher is wrong. But the point is these positions are arguably correct. They represent areas of disagreement, I feel, rather than the fundamental disconnectedness of Watts’ post and the reactions to it.

  44. Ed Forbes says:

     “…Anthony doesn’t say anything straight out, but it does intimate the idea that at least some of those who believe in AGW are dangerous loonies of the first magnitude…”

    LoL…there are LOTS of AGW dangerous loonies out there.

    Some even make it into being listed as terrorist organizations, which is tough to do considering the current political climate.

    I dare you to list a sceptical organization as militant as Green Peace, PETA, and other such Greenies 

  45. steven mosher says:

    When we market an idea or a product it’s often beneficial to have a spokesperson. Competitors can of course deligitamize us by associating anti spokespeople with us.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCL5UgxtoLs

  46. Michael Larkin says:

    Watt’s blog is a curate’s egg. For my money, there are some really interesting articles focussing on the science, and some that are chum for a sharkfest. The fact there are the latter doesn’t affect the interestingness, and often surprising objectivity, of the former.
     
    I read WUWT every day. When there’s a sharkfest post, I usually skip it. Seen one sharkfest, seen “˜em all.
     
    But why are there sharkfests at all? If both sides were concentrating only on the science, what we’d have is an interesting scientific debate. I’ll ignore the question of which side started the acrimony, and which is the more acrimonious, and just note that there is acrimony on both sides, with both regularly holding sharkfests where sharks can fest.
     
    This post of Keith’s could be alleged to have been instigated as an attempt at a second-order fest; maybe a more civilised one, where the sharks turn up with dinner jackets on.
     
    Sharks can’t help it; they need to fest now and then. Given the right circumstances and the right mood, we’ve all attended fests. Some of us may prefer posh nosh parties where the port’s passed round, and others, outdoor barbies with sixpacks. The food for the fest can be raw and torn off the bone, or exquisitely prepared and served, costing a week’s wages.
     
    There are very few total innocents to be found on either side. This is an emotive issue, and some emote more openly than others. Keith seems to me to be a posh nosher, affecting disdain for burgers and hotdogs (to be fair, on either side). Anthony is rather more nuanced (some might say more crafty); he can eat anywhere and in any way; issue invites to all orders of fest. He isn’t the most popular climate blogger for nothing; the man’s a consummate artist.
     
    For all that, I also like Keith’s blog. It’s where I come for my paté de foie gras. Like I said, we sharks must fest.

  47. Michael Larkin says:

    By the way, I’m a Brit. We go in for self-mocking irony. Not for us the /sarc tag. But to anticipate cries of foul or inconsistency, I feel impelled to add this postscript.

  48. Brandon Shollenberger says:

    I find the responses here a bit depressing.  Perhaps most distressing, I’m told I am “deliberately miss[ing] the point.”  It’s not that I’m wrong to say there was nothing wrong with the post in question.  I’m apparently (self) delusional or dishonest.
     
    And why?  Just what was wrong with what I said?  I’m not sure.  Nobody bothered to explain it to me.  The closest thing to an explanation I can find is lucia’s comment:
     
    Keith is right. Anthony bringing this particular article to the attention of his readers intimates something.  Anthony doesn’t say anything straight out, but it does intimate the idea that at least some of those who believe in AGW are dangerous loonies of the first magnitude.
     
    So what?  There is nothing wrong with that, a point lucia basically acknowledges when she says:
     
    Mind you, some of those who believe in AGW are loonies of the first magnitude.  But some skeptics are also loonies of the first magnitude.
     
    Drawing attention to the fact there are loons on one side, even dangerous ones, isn’t wrong.  Now then, lucia points out something which would be wrong:
     
    I’m going to pull a Godwin: Bringing up Manson’s belief on AGW in an on going discussion of AGW and response to it…
     
    But nobody did that.  Every post on a blog does not inherently deal with the same subjects.  A person can have a blog in which they are argue a position and make posts about interesting factoids they read.  Discussing those factoids doesn’t inherently say anything about the other things the blog might discuss.  And what is the response to lucia’s comment?
     
    Thanks for injecting a reality check into the thread.
     
    Keith Kloor praises lucia’s remarks, ones which I agree with.  As far as I can tell, everyone agrees with lucia’s comments.  This means we have common ground.  Unfortunately, nothing she said contradicts anything I said, so I’m still stuck with no explanation.  I do have a clue though.  Keith Kloor said:
     
    I guess if Charles Manson gives an interview next year, proclaiming himself to be a climate skeptic, and says he became so because he started reading WUWT, I could note that as “interesting” news, too. You know, because I thought that was an “interesting” association to highlight.
     
    I alluded to just this sort of thing in my first comment.  I expect people would discuss that sort of thing, and I would think it was perfectly fine.  As long as it was done in a noninflammatory way, I would have no problem with it.  As such, I find it ridiculous I am told the reason I defended Anthony’s post is:
     
    It’s tribal.
     
    Maybe I have missed some point, but if so, it wasn’t deliberate, and I’m not the only one.

  49. Jeff Norris says:

    To a certain extend you are right that Watt’s can be tribal if he wants but tell me how do you determine what is inflammatory? 
    I am sure you agree that you should not  say bomb on an airplane but how do you feel about saying Bombardier?

  50. Brandon Shollenberger says:

    Jeff Norris, I don’t see any point in discussing how one decides whether or not something is inflammatory.  As far as I can tell, nobody has claimed that blog post reported the story in an inflammatory manner.  People seem upset not with the manner in which the post was made, but simply that the post got made at all.

  51. Jeff Norris says:

    Brandon
    In the end we all have are own view of what is exceptable.  Like the Suprem Court said wrt pornography.

    I can’t give you a definition,” he said. “But I know it when I see it.”

  52. Stu says:

    In the past Anthony has handled material which might have caused the kinds of reactions seen in the Manson post with an appeal to keep comments civil and to self snip where necessary. So I think there’s a legitimate case for criticising the way in which this particular post was made.
     
    Ok, I’m out.

  53. Jeff Norris says:

    Stu
    Excellent advice since I can no longer spell or type coherently

    acceptable

  54. Heraclitus says:

    The existence of the post itself is the problem and a failure to understand that is baffling. The comments make it obvious even to the most obtuse why it’s a problem.

  55. Stu says:

    Heraclitus- it’s baffling that you feel Romm doesn’t do guilt by association, ad hom or otherwise.

  56. Heraclitus says:

    I haven’t said that he doesn’t. All I’ve said is that I’ve not seen anything from Romm that is in any sense equivalent to what Watts has done here. Can you point to specific examples where you think my reaction to Romm should be the same as my reaction to Watts’ post?

  57. Heraclitus says:

    I’m away for a few days, so if you do come up with examples it’ll be a wile before I get to see them.

  58. Stu says:

    Posted just a few days ago
     
    ‘Donald Trump and his hair join the climate zombies’
    http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/13/donald-trump-climate-zombies/
     
    and a link from that post-
     
    http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/07/top-5-ways-birthers-are-like-global-warming-deniers/
     
    ‘how birthers are like global warming deniers’
     
    Romm would call me a ‘denier’. People on his blog call me a sock puppet. Ya know, personally- as a green voter, non American, non religious person- Romm would have his audience believe that birthers and religious nutters are just like me. Funny… I just don’t see it. Thankfully, I mostly ignore it.
     
     

  59. Barry Woods says:

    59#  hey you are lucky Romm’s blog just deletes me – I never get past moderation.

    Meanwhile, as we are all talking about a story originally in the Daily Mail..

    They have another sceptical headline..

    Daily Mail: Do you have ‘global warming fatigue’? Just 25% of Britons think climate change is the most important environmental 

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1378483/Do-global-warming-fatigue-Just-25-Britons-think-climate-change-important-environmental-issue.html#ixzz1K4iDg2T0

    The UK newspapers have al been broadly supporting the AGW consensus for the last 15 years (even the Telegraph has Louise Grey and Geoffre Lean, cheerleading).

    IF the papers in the UK sense that the public don’t care, and there is some mileage in being sceptical to AGW derived economic policies, ie windfram subsidies, carbon taxes, etc, at a time when the public are suffering finacncially. Well the sceptical newspaper floodgates might open. ie those in the economics/politics and business sections might be allowed to criticise environmental policies based on the demands of AGW advocates

  60. NewYorkJ says:

    Re: #59

    The Watts argument/implication is

    1.  A single crazy psycho Manson supports climate science

    2.  All who support climate science are crazy psychos

    You know, pretty much any experts…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Stu’s Romm examples are very poor analogies.  Trump is being criticized for making bogus statements and pandering to the far right, nothing remotely related to the Watts GBA fallacy. In the second post, Romm is simply comparing the logical styles of two very large groups, who happen to strongly overlap, and his comparisions are spot on.

    To find extremists on the denier side, one needs to look no further than Watts.  He’s on record directing followers to “shout down” those who disagree with his doctrine.  Besides the illogic of it, there’s no need track down some big-time criminal and see what he/she thinks on global warming.

  61. Stu says:

    NYJ-
     
    To be honest, I wasn’t looking very hard.
     

  62. Brandon Shollenberger says:

    @52, Jeff Norris, obviously, I don’t see anything wrong with the post in question.  Other people do.  As you say, people can have a difference of opinions, but that doesn’t mean there should be no discussion.  You should be able to explain why you hold the position you hold whether or not you agree with me.  So far, nobody has.
     
    The only thing anyone has offered as an explanation to me is the sort of thing found in NewYorkJ’s comment at 62, and I’ve already addressed it.  I explicitly stated why I find that explanation to be fallacious, and nobody has contradicted me.
     
    This is what I don’t get.  I explained why I thought there was nothing wrong with the post in question.  The responses I got said I deliberately missed the point, and the reason I defended it was tribal bias.  That’s all.  Nobody has actually addressed what I said.
     
    At this point, the accusations leveled against me seem to be nothing more than projection.

  63. Stu says:

    Brandon- it’s fair to say that Anthony gave about as much evidence in his post that climate scientists were like Manson as Keith gave in his post that Satan is a climate sceptic and Joe Romm gave in his Trump post that the denier brigade has bad hair. That is… absolutely none. True… the more excitable on each end of the climate divide will read or infer whatever they want to or need to about such posts, I think one does need to concede this point. However, the correct response, the reasonable response-  I would have thought atleast, is just to ignore.

  64. Brandon Shollenberger says:

    Stu, I would have understood criticizing Anthony for not making any effort to head off asinine inferences.  Anthony could easily have included a sentence which told people not to extrapolate anything from Manson’s advocacy.  I don’t think he had any obligation to do so, but I can understand people saying he should have.
     
    But to say Anthony equated anyone with Manson is absurd.  To say people who think Anthony’s post was fine are self-delusional or dishonest is absurd.  To accuse people of being “tribal” for defending Anthony’s post without having any information about how they would handle similar situations is absurd.
     
    Here’s something to think about.  I first found out Hitler was a vegetarian a few years ago.  At the time, I had a friend who was a vegetarian, and he and I often had disagreements about it.  One of the first things I did upon finding out about Hitler’s vegetarianism was to tell my friend about it.
     
    In doing so, did I equate all vegetarians with Hitler?  Obviously not.  Did I equate my friend with Hitler?  He didn’t think so.  In fact, we had a pleasant discussions stemming from me mentioning the topic.
     
    This blog post didn’t criticize the tone Anthony used.  There was nothing wrong with his tone.  It doesn’t criticize any of the text in Anthony’s post.  There was nothing wrong with the text.  The entire criticism was nothing more than, “How dare he mention that!?”  And for anyone who dared think mentioning the topic was okay, the response was basically, “You’re a biased fool!”

  65. Brandon Shollenberger says:

    I just saw something which really reinforced the point I had in mind.  I just read through the comments on that blog post.  Of the 90 comments, five have been deleted by Anthony.  A handful of others equated Manson with others, generally vaguely.  I noticed about five of these.  I also noticed at least as many comments saying the post was offensive or irrelevant.
     
    So I have to say it.  If you think Anthony’s post is comparable to using pejorative terms to dismiss people, you’re nuts!

  66. Stu says:

    Imo, all of these points are correct at the same time.
     
    Yes- Anthony reported something in another newspaper.
     
    Yes- Anthony made a bad post.
     
    Yes- People made distasteful or offensive comments on it.
     
    Yes- Anthony had a fair obligation to better moderate and was indirectly responsible for some of those comments and could be reasonably accused of fueling a ‘shark fest’
     
    No- Anthony was not equating climate scientists with Manson or psychopathic personalities in general.
     
    No- Directly labeling someone a denier is not the same as what Anthony did with his post.
     
    Yes- Tribal bias is a pretty good explanation for why some people focused on some of these points to the exclusion of others.
     
    Yes- The whole thing is mostly an irrelevant waste of time (see point 2)

  67. Barry Woods says:

    Why no fuss over the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph.. that both reported this story..

    AND, the comments in the MSM newspapaers are MUCH worse than anything at WUWT..

    Interesting, no complaints about the MSM?

  68. Brandon Shollenberger says:

    I pretty much agree with all of those points, save the second one.  I’m not clear on what is meant by “bad post,” but I don’t see it as one.  I certainly wouldn’t call it a “good post” though.
     
    As an irrelevant aside, I noticed something which I found amusing.  I haven’t seen anyone else comment on it, so I might as well.  Two major players in the global warming controversy (at least in the public’s view of it) are Michael Mann and James Hansen.  Mann, Hansen.  Manson…
     
    Mind you, I’m not saying there is any relation.  I just thought it was kind of “interesting.”

  69. Ort says:

    “Mind you, I’m not saying there is any relation.  I just thought it was kind of “interesting.””
    A good example of preterition.
    (a la Anthony Watts)

  70. NewYorkJ says:

    Barry Woods:  Why no fuss over the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph.. that both reported this story

    They tend to be garbage sources as well.

    AND, the comments in the MSM newspapaers are MUCH worse than anything at WUWT.

    I disagree.

    Stu: No- Anthony was not equating climate scientists with Manson or psychopathic personalities in general.

    Not directly of course.  Just implied.  If you disagree, what’s the purpose of reporting it?  It’s clearly chum.

  71. Heraclitus says:

    Well Stu, your failure to come up with anything that even remotely equates to Watts’ post reinforces my view that there is a systematic effort to create a false equivalence between the two sides in this debate. There are several instances of it evident on this thread alone.

    Brandon, no one is going to argue with you about whether there’s anything wrong with Watts’ post, that you can’t see the problem for yourself simply shows the fundamental disconnectedness inunderstanding.

  72. Stu says:

    I apologise for not really being interested in sifting through other peoples rubbish. When you say ‘even remotely equates’ though- just what kind of transgression, what line do you imagine Watts has crossed here that Romm has yet to remotely cross?
     
    I wonder how you feel about MT ‘implying’ that Steven Mosher might be single handedly responsible for the extinction of the human race? He also recently called Lucia ‘evil’, directly. Funny, I like MT a lot more than I do Romm- even when he says stuff like this. I wonder why?
     
     

  73. Stu says:

    PS- Perhaps you actually do feel that Steven really “can make a difference, in the same way the idiot who put all the backup generators at Fukushima below tsunami levels showed us.” Just like some people on Watt’s blog probably do think that Manson, and Mann and Hansen would make great dinner buddies, or that every single sceptical argument can be put to bed simply by shouting ‘denier!’, by invoking the religious Right, ‘birthers’, or some other such irrelevance.
     
    Yeah- some people actually think like that. Can’t really help ’em. Sorry.

  74. Heraclitus says:

    Your first sentence is the standard response that I get time and again – there are multiple, well documented examples, we are told, but when it comes to actually giving these examples this seems to be too burdensome.

    You, I think, acknowledged that the example you did give was weak. I’m not going to try to explain further what was wrong with Watts’ post that I’m asking for an equivalent of, as I said above and as Keith’s original post basically says, if you can’t see what is wrong with it then engagement is not going to be possible. I think you can see what is wrong with it.

    I agree with Tobis’ implication that Mosher, or rather the strand of argument that Mosher represents in this debate, is probably going to be most responsible for the continued inaction that will likely lead to catastrophic impacts in the near future, impacts that will make the lives of my own children deeply uncomfortable at the very least. His reaction to Mosher, Lucia and others like them is justifiable. It is the culmination of long engagement in debate with them. I don’t know the narrow context of his use of ‘evil’ towards Lucia, but I suspect it is more nuanced than you imply – I could be wrong.

  75. Heraclitus says:

    In what way is arguing that Mosher’s arguments can be influential equivalent to thinking that Manson and Mann and Hansen are morally comparable? What do you think the purpose of Mosher’s writing is if it can’t have an influence?

  76. lucia says:

    Heraclitus–
    The context is a Chauncy-Gardiner-eque conversation <a href=”http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2011/04/willard-and-i-reflect-on-latest.html”>here</a>
    I’m not sure anyone can really figure out what precisely mt means readers to understand from that conversation.  Seems like one long Dog whistle to me.

  77. Heraclitus says:

    Thank-you. As I thought, more nuanced.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.