Contrarian scientist Dr. Roy Spencer is loved by sceptics for doubting climate change. He is also loved by creationists for doubting evolution.
Spener runs a blog where he muses on climate change, and well… how it’s just a big conspiracy. Normally his writing isn’t worth commenting on.
However Spencer has gone off the rails by invoking Godwin’s Law in comparing “believers” in climate change to Nazis.
In a long rambling and barely coherent post Spencer lists all the ways the scientific community are just like (drum roll) the Nazis:
I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.
The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.
They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.
Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).
Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.
Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty.
Wow.
Did you catch-all that?
Not only is the analogy offensive, it is patently absurd.
Spencer has donea Godwin and invoked the Nazis. He has also engaged in The Law of Denial:
In any online conversation related to climate change the probability of conspiracy theories, political/religious orthodoxy and totalitarian regimes being invoked is 1.
Sure, I call people like Spencer “deniers” not because of some imagined like to Nazis but because they are in denial.
Just like creationists are in denial about evolution.
Or Flat-Earthers are in denial about.. oh you get it.
Please, every one give a round of applause for Dr. Roy Spencer for what has to be this years most unintentionally funny blog posts.
This one is for you Roy:
Watching the Deniers 
yep…..deniers are deniers. It’s been awhile since I’ve had the opportunity to bring this one out. http://wp.me/a2fD5I-cN
I never knew the first stage of grief was “denial of the Holocaust“.
Kinda makes the Kübler-Ross model seem like the ultimate Godwin.
Dr. Spencer’s so adorable.
On the other hand, some accusations of denial are more explicit:
“While most environmentalists continue to insist that there is no connection between international bans on DDT and human deaths, such protestations really are like denying that the Holocaust ever happened.” [Dr. Roy Spencer, 2008]
Because I deny Dr. Spencer’s DDT conspiracy theory, Dr. Spencer referred to me using a more explicit version of the “repulsive, extremist” comparison that pushed his buttons. But I won’t call Dr. Spencer names, because that seems unproductive and incredibly unprofessional.
(h/t to Kilby at Hot Whopper and Tim Lambert.)
Seen at WUWT:
Does Dr. Spencer’s “global warming Nazi” label also apply to famous contrarian Dr. Fred Singer?
Does Dr. Singer’s “denier” label apply to Dr. Spencer? “Roy Spencer on how Oceans are Driving CO2” was incredibly, fractally wrong.
Excuse me?!
I know of a few journal editors/boards who resigned of their own volition because their editors-in-chief had published patently absurd, pseudoscientific denialist clap-trap, but I’m not aware of any instances where editors have been forced to resign on the basis of their beliefs.
Can someone point out an instance where a denialist editor was forced to resign simply for being in denial of the science?
the eugenics guest post from Worral cannot be far away now
“Like the Nazi’s, they are anti-capitalist”… Dr Spencer may be a crap scientist, but he’s an even more crap historian. The capitalists helped Hitler into power. Indeed, as Willhelm Reich observed in The Mass Psychology of Fascism, “Fascism grew out of the conservatism of the Social Democrats on the one hand and the narrow-mindedness and senility of the capitalists on the other hand” (page 233)
Hmmm… narrow-mindedness and senility… that could well describe a particularly pervasive media empire that holds considerable influence on Australian politics. Just a suggestion, that’s all…
Indeed, uncle Rupert is the narrow-minded capitalist and Abbott et al are definitely fascists. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2Xmj3wZCxas/TfT_6G6MHWI/AAAAAAAAM_8/OS-lpAEP1EM/s640/fascism.jpg
Of course the Nazi’s were anti-capitalist. That’s why all those companies that had helped make Germany a leading industrial power in the late-19th/early 20th century were smashed by Hitler, and have never been heard of again: Daimler, Audi, Siemens, Krupps, BMW, Bayer, Allianz, Munich Re, Deutsche Bank, E.ON (ex-VEBA, VIAG and PreussenElektra)….who but an economic historian has heard of any of them?
What did the founder of Fascism have to say on the subject? “The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state”. But what would Mussolini know?
I keep this Mussolini quote handy for occasions such as this:
“Corporatism is the corner stone of the Fascist nation, or better still, the Fascist nation is corporative or it is not fascist.”
WordPress didn’t like the long URL for source. Here’s Italian original; search for it to find the book from whence it came:
“il corporativismo è la pietra angolare dello Stato fascista, anzi lo Stato fascista o è corporativo o non è fascista” [looks like it’s now in note 25 of wiki entry “America:_Freedom_to_Fascism”]
Bit off topic I know, but it appears that some mindless computer “auto-correction” of spelling might have crept in courtesy of Google.
“Spencer has down a Godwin”
“Please, every one five a round of applause”
It is becoming the bane of my life. Every email I write, I have to now check, not only the spelling but whether each sentence makes any sense. 🙂
Thanks
facepalm at the climate sceptics party blog
Irony at it’s finest “UN-Skeptical Science is a site set up to smear people who are sceptical about the falsified man made global warming hoax”.
“Sure, I call people like Spencer “deniers” not because of some imagined like to Nazis but because they are in denial.”
I assume you mean ‘link’ to Nazis?
You’re clearly in denial yourself if you’re trying to pretend that the term “denier” isn’t linked to “Holocaust denier” in the public mind, as It most certainly is.
Having said that, please continue to use the “d” word as much as possible – every appearance of it wins the CAGW sceptic side a few more converts. Cheers!
you forgot the “” around the word sceptic. Everytime you refer to anthropogenic climate change deniers as sceptics you demonstrate that you either don’t have a dictionary or do but know how to read it. That said, I’d be keen to know your opinion on Roy Spencer’s latest brainfart where he refers to everyone who accepts the science underpinning anthropogenic climate change as “nazis”. Actually, that’s not true. You’ve already demonstrated how shallow your thinking is so don’t bother. Noone cares what you think.
uknowispeaksense: “you either don’t have a dictionary or do but know how to read it” – I think you forgot ‘don’t’ before “know how to read it”. Comedy gold.
I didn’t refer to “anthropogenic climate change deniers” at all, I used the acronym “CAGW” in which the “C” stands for “catastrophic” – the difference is crucial. What do you think “deniers” are denying if you can’t even get your terminology correct?
Brilliant detection of a typo in uknowispeaksense’s post. I imagine that you are similarly adept at finding typos in the IPCC reports and conflating them to fraud, conspiracy, etc. But then I should be kinder to you, as I know that conflation of typos is all you,have. It’s really quite amazing that your benefactors, the Koch Bros., have spent more than $500 million in the past 5 years and have yet to produce any peer-reviewed rebuttal of the 98% consensus. Now that’s comedy gold.
[Having said that, please continue to use the “d” word as much as possible – every appearance of it wins the CAGW sceptic side a few more converts.]
Anyone who tries to suggest they were undecided about the science of climate change until they heard someone use the word “denier” is lying. This faux-outrage about the term “denialist” is really something to behold:
“Until you alarmist warmist green totalitarian fear mongers show me some respect and stop using the term “denialist” don’t expect me to take you seriously.”
Yes, everyone knows “denial” always means “Holocaust denial”. Like Kubler-Ross’s five stages:
1. Holocaust Denial
2, Anger
3 – 5 etc…
Of all denier memes, this is the stupidest. Well, equal stupidest along with the use of CAGW to label everyone who accepts the science.
Labelling anyone who accepts the science as a “GW Nazi”, it manifestly incorrect, since the label assumes (according to its own bogus definition) that all such people want statist intervention to crush fossil power and make our power more expensive.
But I’m in favour of a free-market response, so labelling me a “Nazi” is just laughably stupid. Being pro-free market, I think it is imperative that Governments remove the greatest market failing associated with energy use – the continued externalisation of costs which means uneconomic fossil fuel plants continue operating at considerable (hidden) cost to the public.
Make sure the playing field is truly level and let the renewables stand or fall. They will do very nicely, if our governments stopped paying polluters to pollute.
FrankD: You’re quite happy to label others “deniers” and don’t care if some take offense but you object to being labeled a “GW Nazi” yourself – ironic. Maybe that was Dr. Spencer’s whole point…
Incidentally, offshore wind energy (to pick one example of so-called “renewable” energy) costs approximately three times more than fossil fuel energy and would fail utterly in a free market, which is why it has to be supported by “government” subsidy. In the UK (where I live) this comes from increasing people’s electricity bills. This is a poor-to-rich wealth redistribution in action.
Denier is not “linked” to the Holocaust. It is a word that means “someone who denies”.
not in their own fantasy world loup
Epic fail on the comprehension there Mr Bone. I said it was laughably stupid, not that it was objectionable. A bit like your posts, really. 🙂
I don’t care if Spencer calls me a Nazi, I just observe that it is ridiculous to do so.Clearly you have no idea of what “ironic” means.
“Incidentally, offshore wind energy…”
See? Laughably stupid. You didn’t even read what I said – the effective subsidy given to fossil fuels through socialising their costs (look up externality) is many times any wind subsidy. And that really is a poor-to-rich wealth redistribution.
“While most environmentalists continue to insist that there is no connection between international bans on DDT and human deaths, such protestations really are like denying that the Holocaust ever happened.” [Dr. Roy Spencer, 2008]
Spencer is the only one *actually* connecting people he disagrees with with holocaust deniers. His outrage (and yours) is as phony as his (and your) “skepticism”.
Can you state your point a bit more clearly please? You don’t appear to be making sense.
I wonder how many of the scientists this lunatic Spencer is talking about have ever invaded Belgium?
Thanks for that great video clip. Cheered me up no end.
(Why can’t they make movies like that (“The Producers”) any more ?….or am I becoming a boring old f… like Roy?)
This would help
https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-expel-religious-extremism-from-schools-23368
fishbonehead says,
“Having said that, please continue to use the “d” word as much as possible – every appearance of it wins the CAGW sceptic side a few more converts. Cheers!”
Idiot scores an own-goal and doesn’t even realize it. He confirms what we (the warmists) always knew: what deniers believe is not governed by reason or evidence. Apparently, all you need to convert a simpleton to a full-blown denier is merely to call him “denier”. When you realize how many of those unthinking imbeciles there are out there, it’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
DENIER, DENIER, DENIER…(I just had to do it, hahaha).
“fishbonehead”, “idiot”, “simpleton”, “imbeciles”, “DENIER, DENIER, DENIER…(I just had to do it, hahaha)”
Seriously, how old are you – five? With regard to the ‘substance’ (if you can call it that) of your comment, People get labeled “deniers” if they merely question CAGW alarmism, which leads them to infer that there is no substance to said CAGW alarmism. If your “side” has convincing scientific arguments, why don’t you employ them instead of just calling us names?
“If your “side” has convincing scientific arguments, why don’t you employ them instead of just calling us names?”
Because your “side” rarely to never accepts what is presented. I have gone around the bush many times in “dialogues” with deniers. (“Dialogue” is euphemistic for the weird conversations that often ensue.) I post references to peer reviewed literature; denier posts crap from WUWT or nothing at all but arm waiving, and rarely posts facts or analysis or coherent argument supportive of their position. I post logical arguments; denier repeats like a parrot no matter what I say, ‘you haven’t made a falsifiable statement, Popper says it’s not science.’ [Here’s a recent post on that nonsense: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/%5D
As for the specific point (“CAGW alarmism”); most people who study AGW and climate change consequences never use “CAGW”; that’s a construct of deniers. Nevertheless, the more scientists and analysts dig into the details of what is actually happening and compare that with what the models say is likely to happen if we don’t alter our current path, the costs and consequences appear increasingly alarming.
I don’t use “idiot” etc as much as other posters, but I agree with their basic point: deniers are willfully stupid. In fact, one of the biggest irritations to me of denial stupidity is the sheer refusal to acknowledge impacts that are already under way along with the accruing costs. Deniers will increasingly become part of the fringe scene along with creationists and cold fusion advocates. You’re entitled to your opinions, but you’ll never change reality by believing in them.
Reporting your site to the Anti Defamation League
Reporting you to the faux outrage society and referring you to butthurt anonymous.
Speaking as a secular humanist of strongly Jewish descent; “So what?”
If I was owner of this site, by response would be; “Oooh, I’m scared.”
Over 25 quotes that the ADL ignores,
Skeptics Smeared As Holocaust Deniers, ADL Silent
I see your research and fact checking skills haven’t improved. You have attributed intent to Paul Payek that isn’t there. As the head of the global language monitor he was merely reporting their opinions on what they considered offensive. Yep, he is on your side and you painted him a villain. Well done.
That is easy to verify, so I will contact him. In the mean time it is up to 30 and will be used every time alarmists try to use the word denier.
All you nonsense about my other list has long been refuted in extensive detail. You have to be disappointed that the list continues to get a ridiculous amount of web traffic.
Be sure to ask him if he’s a denier too.
Poptech.
Still struggling with the difference between “are” and “like”, I see.
That, and the fact of the science which so galls you to your denialism in the first place.
Bernard, you do know what an analogy is? Still struggling with using a dictionary, I see.
An analogy is used to compare things that have characteristics or qualities in common. Comparing climate deniers with Holocaust deniers is not the same as saying “denier” means only those of the Holocaust flavor. Your logic fails.
Perhaps (but I doubt it) you will benefit from this post appearing in my in box this very day:
And before you get all wiggy on “climate deniers” I hereby replace it with “AGW deniers.”
How is your fight against the strawman coming along?
Are you talking to me? Your coherence is about as clear as your logic. Or I’m just too simple for your argument: What strawman?
Strawman arguments are logical fallacies for a reason.
Yes, and the English language has something called “proper nouns” for a reason. If you’re going to claim I’m committing a logical fallacy you’ll need to point it out with words.
Poptech.
Still missing the point, I see…
google gave me three times as many global warming deniers as holocaust deniers
maybe the holocaust deniers will be complaining that they are being likened to global warming deniers ?
“That is easy to verify, so I will contact him. In the mean time it is up to 30 and will be used every time alarmists try to use the word denier.”
Here Andrew, contact this mob https://www.lifeline.org.au tell someone who gives a fuck
John, it is not possible for Google to produce results that support your dishonest ad hominem as all skeptics believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.
“all skeptics believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age”
I really doesn’t matter a rat’s rectum what you “skeptics” believe, The facts contradict you. Reality will mug you eventually. Why do you think that nearly 80% of summer Arctic ice by volume has melted in the past 30 years. Do you really think that is due to natural variation?
Pop–It is not ad hominem to call someone a stupid ass. Ad hominem is calling someone’s arguments incorrect because they’re a stupid ass. Got it?
p.s. You’re posts are a gem of incoherence.
I’ve been following the global warming argument closely of late and I’ve noticed both sides often fulfill Godwin’s Law. Global warming advocates liken skeptics to Holocaust deniers (akin to a Nazi). Skeptics compare Al Gore’s public awareness campaign to Nazi-like propoganda. It’s lazy debating – why discuss the issues with facts and logic when you can easily write off your opponent with a derogatory label?
– John Cook – 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Beginnings_of_the_modern_denial_movement
Barry Woods.
You appear to be attributing the content of your post to John Cook, from 2007.
Could you please provide a proper reference to the statement if indeed you are attributing the content to John Cook.
If not, could you be more clear in making your point.
[…] ………………………….. […]
[…] ………………………….. […]