Scroll To Top

Saturday, November 28, 2015

Anthony Watts sinks to another vile low: Jim Jones' suicide cult and climate science

Sou | 2:00 PM Go to the first of 42 comments. Add a comment

With only a couple of days to go until the Paris COP21 talks begin, science deniers are falling apart. Yesterday I wrote how Judith Curry stooped to tabloid writer David Rose as a pulpit for her brand of "no mitigation" advocacy and disinformation. (She is so anxious that her message is falling on deaf ears that she put out a plea to "Be sure to link to the article" and commented "I hope that as a result of this article, i will get a few more twitter followers and followers of Climate Etc.".)

Today Anthony Watts did a Heartland Institute. He posted an article at his blog, WUWT, likening people who accept climate science to Jim Jones and his suicide cult. His latest article proclaims (archived here):

Similarities to Jim Jones and the Cult of Climate Change
"...The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities."
[Update: See the update below relating to plagiarism in the WUWT article.]

Phil Plait said of the Heartland Institute comparison to terrorists and mass murderers:
The Heartland Institute, a far-right climate change denying "thinktank" has put up a series of billboards so disgusting, so vile, that I find it difficult to find words to tell you just how disgusting and vile they are.
So instead, I’ll show you one:

At the time, Anthony Watts claimed (after the fact) that he would not have approved of the posters if he'd been asked. He wrote:
if I had been given that courtesy my answer would have been a resounding NO. Instead, I believe we all got the notice after the fact.

Perhaps it's a case of desperate times, because since then, Anthony has posted articles quoting Hitler and Osama bin Laden to denounce climate scientists. And today his article likens people who accept climate science with Jim Jones and his suicide cult.

Anthony billed his article as a "Guest opinion by Arkady Bukh, Esq". (The only Arkady Bukh Esq I could find via Google and LinkedIn was this one. Given the audience at WUWT, it would be ironic if they were one and the same.) Arkady's headline and opening was:
Similarities to Jim Jones and the Cult of Climate Change
The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities.

Jim Jones, the People’s Temple leader, led over 900 persons to commit suicide 32 years ago. Jones was charismatic and knowledgeable of both Scriptures and human behavior.

After the mass murder/suicide and the murder of U.S. Congressman, Leo Ryan, Jones and his followers were on the news every day for weeks. Jones, who built his cult around a “doomsday” scenario — convinced his followers that the world was past due for an apocalyptic ending very soon.

The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities.
The article went on to list four reasons untruths/logical fallacies for why the author thinks climate change is like Jones' cult:
  1. Climate doomsayers believe they possess truths about the past, present and future and their truths cannot be disputed by anyone.
  2. Doomsayers refuse to debate their belief. They call their dogma “settled science” and attack any critics that dare to whisper in the dark.
  3. Just like a cult, doomsayers has a formal doctrine-setting body — not unlike the Jones’ circle of advisors. The reports by the “ruling” body are thought to be the main source of authority and the texts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are quoted as unholy scripture.
  4. Staying with the Jonestown analogy, the climate change alarmists have created mythologies intentionally built on lies and half-truths. The fallacy can be ascribed as an appeal to everyday experiences, giving the listener some sense of truth-based teaching to mix with the soup of confusion.

Now I don't know anything much about Jim Jones' cult other than the members killed themselves and nearly 300 children. Arkady Bukh, Esq is claiming that the above points apply to it. Whether they do or not, here is why they are untruths/logical fallacies when applied to climate:
  1. This first point shows that neither Anthony Watts or the author knows anything of science. No-one is claiming to "possess truths". Rather climate science is about evidence and scientific theory. Rather than "cannot be disputed", one way science progresses is by dispute. 
  2. The second point is the same as the first, I don't know why it was listed as a separate point. Sure, WUWT is "in the dark", but who is attacking whom? Scientific knowledge progresses through disputes and debates. 
  3. The IPCC doesn't lay out any "formal doctrine". It is not a "ruling body". It analyses and reports the current science. That's all. 
  4. Further down Anthony Watts and Arkady Bukh, Esq list what they think are "mythologies" and "lies and half-truths". The evidence in their article suggests they both are wallowing in a "soup of confusion".

WUWT and Arkady Bukh, Esq claim climate science is a hoax

Here is some of what WUWT and Arkady Bukh, Esq thinks is a hoax. The first one is a strawman fallacy and a misrepresentation:
By now it’s been all over the news that 2015 was the hottest year ever. If, in fact, 2015 was the hottest year of all time, there should be enough calamities happening to inspire a dozen movies. Instead, the opposite is occurring.

That's wrong. 2015 is going to be the hottest year on record, that is, in the instrumental era since 1850. It could even be the hottest year since civilisation began, but it would be difficult to ascertain whether there was a hotter year during the Holocene climatic optimum between 5,000 to 8,000 years ago. No reputable person is claiming that it was the hottest year ever in the past 4.5 billion years. There is ample evidence from paleo-climate studies that the planet was hotter than it is now in past epochs.

Then Arkady Bukh, Esq says that climate science is a hoax because last year, in 2014, in winter, Antarctic sea ice extent was greater than it had ever been since the late 1970s. And last year, not this year, a ship got stuck in the ice. He wrote:
There was record sea ice in Antartica. In truth, a global warming expeditionary ship got stuck in the ice. Artic sea has been making a nice comeback, and the Great Lakes had record ice with only three ice-free months. If it were the hottest year, the ice should be melting.

Notice how he jumps from "all time" in his first point to "the late 1970s" in his second point? Oh, he doesn't mention that the maximum sea ice extent was for winter sea ice (the September extent). Nor does he mention that the record is only since the late 1970s. And he pretends that it was this year not last year. It's only people who know about such things, or people who click his link that would find that out. By the way, his reference to the Great Lakes was also to 2014, though he didn't bother to provide any link for that. The lakes were warmer this year. And as for global warming hinging only on the extent of Antarctic sea ice or the Great Lakes in North America - it doesn't. There are thousands of thermometer readings taken from all over the land and oceans that show that the global mean surface temperature is rising. And the sea ice in Antarctica in winter time or summer time, is not a good indicator even of surface temperature in Antarctica, let alone the rest of the world.

I won't go through every silly point made by Arkady Bukh, Esq, suffice to say that he calls on the fake Oregon Petition, moose populations, polar bears, snow and even makes an "Al Gore is fat" type of comment.

With only a couple of days to go to the start of the Paris COP21 conference, the best that Anthony Watts has to show is an utter nutter saying the majority of the world's population who don't agree that climate science is a hoax are like Jim Jones and his suicide cult.

Update - plagiarism from WUWT

In the comments, Thomas Hanke pointed out that the article contained plagiarism. He found a blog article from January this year that listed the points under "hoaxed". Curious, I did some more searching and found more plagiarism:
  • a section on the stolen emails was plagiarised from an article at New American, written in November 2009, which explains why it talks about - six years on - that "Reliable researchers are still compiling the information for a publication that could shake the nation’s foundation on climate change." 
  • the last section of the WUWT article is a copy and paste of the top paras from an article published this September at Hot Air. the WUWT article isn't formatted properly, which is probably why some commenters were confused.
Sou 8:36 pm 28 November 2015

From the WUWT comments

If you thought that readers of WUWT would object to Anthony Watts' disgusting article, you'd be wrong. He's no only left with the dregs of humanity, about the level of those left at Judith Curry's place. This latest article brings all the utter nutter conspiracy theorists out of the WUWT woodwork. They drowned out the reasonable comments.

There were only two comments that I found that objected to the comparison with Jim Jones' cult. Both were from climate science deniers:

Blue Sky is the only person who states that he finds the article disgusting, despite being a climate science denier:
November 27, 2015 at 1:07 pm
Great website. I am a skeptic.
Comparing those who disagree with skepticism… with Jim Jones is disgusting. Was this site hacked? 

dp is another climate science denier, and objects:
November 27, 2015 at 3:19 pm
I stopped reading at “Jim Jones” and went straight to the comments. Associations such as this belong in the Godwin’s Law realm. Probably my loss but I don’t care. 

The rest were mostly from conspiracy theorists and other climate science deniers:

Dawtgtomis is proud that he has resisted "mind control" of science:
November 27, 2015 at 9:15 am
Easy, Bruce, he’s one of us.
Chaam, you’d think that religions around the world would be denouncing the “model fellowship of Mann” as a false, self-aggrandizing, pseudo-prophetic cult, after so recently witnessing the Jones tragedy of mass mind control.
The one difference that stands out, is that the “church of the omnipotent greenhouse in carbon” uses computers to “read” the future and leaves it up to man to save the planet from an “out of control human infestation”. Somehow religious leaders are sucked in by the technology and believe that they can use this ideology of moral culpability to their advantage, in righting the world’s wrongdoings.

Bruce Cobb doesn't like how human knowledge, industry and commerce has been tainted by science.
November 27, 2015 at 5:37 am
It’s cult-like, but oh so much worse. Warmist ideology, thinly disguised as “science” has permeated and tainted all branches of human knowledge, industry, and politics. The description of meme-plex seems to cover it best. Humanity has never seen anything like it before, and hopefully, when finally stamped out, never will again.

John Robertson thinks that, well it's hard to figure out what (or if) he thinks. Something about eugenics and phrenology:
November 27, 2015 at 9:50 am
“Humanity has never seen anything like it before, and hopefully, when finally stamped out, never will again.”
Sorry that is bollocks Bruce.
History shows many outbreaks of Mass Hysteria.
The scheme is as old as language, the con promises to convince the storm gods to spare you, as long as you pony up.
This latest outbreak is Eugenics packaged, just as Phrenology was “science”.
The difference here is that CAGW seems to have been created, orchestrated and is still being protected from investigation. By our state bureaucracies.
When following the money our governments figure prominently.
Kleptocracy ; a word the Greeks bequeathed us, corrupt and out of control bureaucrats seem to be a feature in every country where the Global Warming Scheme is dominant.
So the Cult of Calamitous Climate is far worst than cult like, it is run by committee.

Bruce Cobb thinks he's figured out what John Robertson was trying to say, but doesn't completely go along with whatever it is. He points out that the rest of the world accepts science (unlike him and the rest of the conspiracy theorists at WUWT):
November 27, 2015 at 11:20 am
Sorry, no sale. Eugenics is certainly a good example, but nowhere near the worldwide scale of the Climate Campaign. There was no “Intergovermental Panel for the Prevention of Racial Impurity”, for example. 

knutesea says he's a "knuckle dragging man", and his comment supports that self-assessment:
November 27, 2015 at 10:09 am
“So the Cult of Calamitous Climate is far worst than cult like, it is run by committee.”
IMO, one of the early important victories of CAGW was based on a strategy that originators such as Maurice Strong may have stumbled upon.
After WWII the people fell in love with scientists. So much so that if a scientist said so, it must be true.
During the 70s stagflation many professionals suffered. Originators such as Mr Strong resurrected the careers of insignificant scientists such as Hansen and then many followed.
Hoffer describes the above group (forgotten professionals) as one of the vulnerable groups to a mass movement. Because I’m a knuckle dragging man, I equate it to what happens when a formerly good looking woman loses her looks and seeks attention.
CAGW will never be the last hoax. It is currently in the top 5 and perhaps worse, it is teaching future mimicers how to apply its successes to future ruses.

PaulH points out that no-one has yet popped up to say "fooled you":
November 27, 2015 at 5:55 am
I’m not sure I like the term “hoax” in this context (although I admit I’ve used the term myself). In a hoax, doesn’t the perpetrator usually/eventually jump up and say, “Ha ha, fooled you!”?

J. Philip Peterson trots out the "communist" meme so beloved of science deniers and climate conspiracy theorists:
November 27, 2015 at 6:21 am (part only)
One of the traits not mentioned here was his propensity towards Marxism/Communism:
Before forming a church, Jim Jones had become enamored by communism and frustrated by the harassment communists received in the U.S.[2] This, among other things, provided a seminal inspiration for Jones; as he himself described in a biographical recording,[2][3]
“I decided, how can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church. So I consciously made a decision to look into that prospect.”
I read one of the many books about Jonestown (about 5 years ago) and did find many similarities with the CAGW doctrine. They also wanted money from Russia to back the church. 

sergeiMK was one of only two people (by my count) who voiced an objection on factual grounds:
November 27, 2015 at 6:23 am
What on earth is this!!!!!
Where are the references for
1. They are scientists no scientist know the TRUTH about the past or future and I challenge you to find a published document that says differently
2. settled science – no science is settled. GHG actions are understood to a very high level of confidence but settled science is generally used by climate change contrarians.
3. The knowledgeable body is made up from climate scientists. The sky dragons would find it difficult to publish (as would flat earthers) in the same way as iron sun/sky dragon/zero point perpetual motion would find publishing on WUWT difficult.
4. just speechless! where is the evidence for the claims? 

Samuel C. Cogar
November 27, 2015 at 9:26 am
Great truthful commentary, Arkady Bukh, Esq, ….. I loved it.

marlene talks about devil worship:
November 27, 2015 at 9:28 am
Satan knows the scripture too and he’s the leader of ALL cults. 

Terry Hembry has a saline solution to global warming:
November 27, 2015 at 9:30 am
The problem does not lie in, Green house gases! Global warming started after the end of the last Ice Age! When the ice deposited the salt from the World’s oceans. You have the Great Salt Lake in the US. The Himalayan mountains, Africa, and as far south as El Salvador they are taking the salt out to make fresh water! Put the Salt back and the Oceans temperature will go back to the original temperature and you won’t have to worry about the Hurricane season or Wildlife’s or dust storms anymore! I have done the math and the research! I can Help the problem!!

MrX steadfastly doesn't "believe" in the evidence. He refuses to "believe" there is any evidence of global warming:
November 27, 2015 at 12:36 pm
Religion is faith without absolute proof. CAGW is a belief despite proof to the contrary. So it’s not on par with religion. It’s something else all together. 


  1. Arkady Bukh, Esq??

    There's little point in me commenting when Anthony Watts does such a wonderful job of parodying deniers by himself. ["Do Lord Monckton next!" shouts the laughing audience, as Watts ducks backstage for a quick costume change.]

    1. The real Arkady Bukh is a criminal defense lawyer. He defended Azamat Tazhayakov against charges of "conspiring to obstruct justice and obstructing justice with the intent to impede a terrorism investigation" during the Boston bombing case, for instance:

      I doubt very seriously that this is the same person. Just another "anonymous coward" hypocritically allowed by Watts to use a pseudonym so long as they write idiotically anti-science rants.

    2. I too would find it very hard to believe it's the same person. The article is sub-sub-par and not at all the standard of writing I'd have expected from the real Arkady Bukh.

    3. Oops. I didn't even check to see if there was a real Arkady Bukh, Esq.

      After wiping the egg off my face I sent a note to Bukh & Associates, PLLC to inform them of the potential misappropriation of its founding partner's identity.

      I hope the Wattites don't consider my action to be a form of bullying. It would sadden me, deeply, if they did.

    4. Let us know if you get a reply, Magma.

    5. I don't see anything in the WUWT article which is inconsistent with it being written by a lawyer. With the prospect of expensive litigation in coming years connected to climate change denial, there's every reason for the legal profession to become interested in the topic and to advertise which side they are inclined towards.

    6. @ Millicent: I'll admit to prejudice. I'm not a lawyer but respect the logic and practice of the law when done well. If Bukh, who Wikipedia informs is an immigrant from Azerbaijan who has been practicing law in New York since 2003, can build a successful law practice in hypercompetitive NYC, I have to assume he is both intelligent and competent. This is not consistent with much of the tone and content of the WUWT article, which includes comments made on ongoing or potential litigation and includes comments no serious lawyer would make on a document intended to be widely read (misusing "disclosers" instead of "disclosures", "As a matter of fact, fraud is a Federal offense punishable by long prison time", "The good thing is that false scientists, and their alarmism, will be countered now with their own words", etc.)

      Arkady Bukh (the real one) is credited with several articles in Huffington Post. See for yourself if the writing resembles that of the WUWT post:
      Entries by Arkady Bukh

    7. I'm not a lawyer and I have no respect for the logic and practice of the law, especially when it is done 'well' from a high profile defence lawyer's perspective.

      I doubt, whoever wrote the WUWT article, that they would bother to put more than a fraction of the time and effort that they would put into a Huff Post article. And I am quite certain that copy editing is more competently done at the latter website.

  2. The scientist(!) responsible for this viewpoint is Richard Lindzen.

    During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.

    “As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”

    and people still regularly Tweet this regarding Lindzen "A legitimate climate scientist on the deranged, quasi-religious nature of the cult of man-made global warming:"

    Have to discredit Lindzen completely. He completely screwed up the QBO theory, and stalled scientific progress for at least a generation of scientists.

  3. When was this? The cult thing goes fairly far back.

    1. Perhaps as far as the Academy of Humanism, famed for hillarious parodies of other peoples revival meetings , but never, ever, of its own.

  4. Well, to be honest, what they think of us is pretty mild compared with what I think of them.

  5. Just looking at the quotes (and googling a little), you may find this useful for comparison:

    1. So it's not just climate science denial, it's plagiarised climate science denial. Who'd have guessed :(

      (It explains why he is out of time - talking last year, not this year, too.)

    2. It's at best an update (by the same author), I think.
      Or is this so common with Watts that it's no surprise?

    3. It's not the same author, Thomas. In any case I found more plagiarism - see the update in the article.

      Anthony Watts has been known to copy and paste an article from somewhere else without telling his readers that it's a copy and paste. It's not all that common for slabs to be copied from elsewhere as straight up plagiarism.

    4. I was wondering what type of person would put "Esq" after their name nowadays? I did check with an online anagram solver, but it came up empty. It would be hilarious if it was a hoax.

    5. MWS it confused me when I first came across it and thought it a foppish anachronism. Here (in Australia) we only used to use it to denote that a man owned freehold property. I was told that in the USA it is used by some people having a law degree, or practicing law or something. One of those cultural differences I'm still learning about.

    6. And then there's Exxon –
      See what they did with the heading? ‘Professionals’.
      At this point, I’d politely ask a client, proofreading their thesis: What the …? You couldn't let me check that first??

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. Esq.: that made me finally check, New Oxford American explains:
      “1 ( Esquire )(abbr.: Esq. ) a title appended to a lawyer's surname.
      · Brit. a polite title appended to a man's name when no other title is used, typically in the address of a letter or other documents: Robert A. Pearson Esquire.”
      That fits with (legends about) traditional Austria by the way: The default title used to be Doktor, in the right circles, obviously.

  6. Sou will you be dealing with the Republican primaries (starts in Iowa Jan 1st) in respect to science? I think you should.

  7. Correction February 1st. The yanks like to have electoral matters dealt with on the most inconvenient of days -Tuesday- They'd never use a public holiday to decide anything. Too many of the wrong type of voter would turn out to vote..

    1. I don't normally write about politics, PG. However never say never. Some of the anti-science agendas of republican politicians in particular might get an airing here.

      BTW - a lot of HW readers are from the USA, some of them would regard "yanks" as insulting :( (For Americans - "yanks" is an Australian slang term for Americans wherever they live, like calling the British "poms". It's not meant as an insult.)

    2. Sou, I can't speak for every US reader of hotwhopper but the term "yanks" from a country with such rich British history doesn't offend me.

    3. To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
      To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
      To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
      To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
      To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
      And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who still uses an outhouse.

    4. To be fair Kevin, when I lived in Northern Virginia I was accused of being a Yankee even though I was far south of the Mason-Dixie line.

    5. Thanks all - and Kevin, love it.

      I'm aware that in a completely different context Australians were roundly berated a few years ago for unknowingly doing something that's a big no-no in the USA. (It was something to do with a sporting advertisement IIRC, and was a good illustration of specific sensitivities in a uniquely cultural context - ie USA race relations.)

    6. Sorry Sou, I missed the context. I think I'm too young to get it. Can you elaborate? I really want to see the ad that Australians were berated for, I bet there's the same thing being broadcasted in the US today.

    7. As an American, I really appreciate the work you've put into this blog. You spend the time to tie all the science together in a coherent story that makes logical sense. It's very impressive Sou.

    8. Chase, Australians love the West Indies cricket team. Traditionally we are fierce but very friendly rivals. As I recall the advert here promoting their visit had a watermelon in it - or something like that. (We associate watermelons with summer barbecues, but in the USA I gather it's considered an insult to black Americans. I understand it harks back to slavery. There was a big fuss in the USA about it and those of us watching learnt something more about race relations in the USA. I don't know if anyone in the USA learnt anything about the strong affection Australians have for the West Indies cricket team.)

    9. Thank you Kevin for that. As one who loves the quirks of context, I haven't laughed that much for a while!

    10. I left the States almost 40 years ago when my first job out of uni took me to Europe. Most people assume I'm Canadian because of my fairly neutral NJ accent, to which I usually respond: "Nope, I'm a Yank".

    11. I actually live in Vermont, though I didn't grow up here. There's a strong local accent which resembles that of Maine or Boston but which is quite distinctive. Pine trees are "poine trees" -- which seems like an Australian touch, but the vowel is not as broad -- and female bovines are "keeows". Many consonants are morphed into glottal stops.

      "Oh, that was a weeyud one. Them poine trees was struck by loi'ning, and all them keeows, they doied."

      Now, THAT'S a Yankee.

    12. In defense of PG, as a born & bred 'Murican, neither I nor anyone I know takes offense at "Yank". Oh, people have tried other things. A Brit friend referred to me as an "uppity colonist" (and called me and my friends "the uppity colonist brigade") and an Aussie friend once called me a "bloody wanker". (With regard to that last one, I actually had that one coming. It was a fair cop.) But "Yank". Nope. No issue with that at all.

  8. Meanwhile, the same old topic keeps cropping up that Watts could be commenting on with first hand knowledge as it is happening not far from his door. Oh look a squirrel! Another squirrel! And another... Watts Up with that Drought?

    1. Add yet another item to list of the long-term geological signature of the Anthropocene -- the dewatering and compaction of shallow sedimentary basin formations via groundwater extraction.

      Record warmth, droughts, heatwaves, rapidly intensifying and late November hurricanes... meh. But NOAA is blocking a Texas Republican's email fishing expedition? THAT'S news.

  9. The irony of all this is that it's actually contrarians who are getting more and more frenzied and obsessive in a manner similar to what one finds in cults. IN the past they tended to dismiss climate scientists as simply stupid. Now the default option is to label them fraudsters and liars at every turn, even if it's something as uncontroversial as issuing the monthly global temperature anomaly, as I pointed out on this blog recently. See my comments at

  10. No faux Climategate to derail the negociations, 2015 ended the pause meme, hockey stick pseudocontroversy was beaten to death. Nothing much more in the purse than the cult idiocy.

    I'm glad NOAA saw through Lamar's game and refused to recreate a Climategate 2. Enough with that nonsense.

  11. I was immediately struck by the reference to the People's Temple catastrophe as having happened "32 years ago", when it happened in 1978. I was in the Bay Area at the time, where most of the dead originated --the whole episode was unspeakably horrible.

  12. I grew up in the same town that Jim Jones also lived in. I went to school with the same kids that were forced to drink the koolaid (literally and figuratively). I knew what it was like to actually live with this cult's influence in my town and how it impacted the people around me. They were dangerous, delusional and most of us knew where it was all going to lead. So I find the usage of the cult of Jim Jones and the claims that there is any kind of a relationship or similarity extremely offensive.

    The comparison of climate science and 'warmists' to the cult of Jim Jones (People's Temple) is an extremely poor attempt to malign (again) individuals and groups (including world-class scientists) with the notion that their 'religion' is distorting the facts.

    This denigrates their expertise, training, lifetimes of study and self-examination through the scientific method, PROVING what it is that they now claim (that warming is real, human caused and getting worse).

    Watts makes an extremely poor analogy here in a desperate attempt to retain readership in a dwindling sphere of influence. It is Watts who is leading a 'cult' of fools, not climate science.

    There is nothing 'religious' or cultish about established science, which is both peer-reviewed and available for anyone to examine. Cults do not do this. Cults refuse examination or investigation. Cult bully, browbeat and submit conjecture and straw arguments to avoid any self-examination. Sound familiar?

    Whereas science flourishes on the sharing and examination of evidence. Science INVITES criticism and research. This how science works and the advancement of human knowledge. Try that on what's-his-names-website (if you can get anything published). Censorship and gang-rape is their response.

    It is Watts who seeks to create a cult following of idiots, morons and fools who parrot the diminishing and ridiculous party line that planetary warming is neither real, threatening or getting worse.

    There's much more that this idiotic group embraces, but sticking to the article topic here - climate science is not a cult, does not share cult characteristics and does not encourage ANYONE to be 'convinced' against their will. Instead, climate science relies upon empirical evidence, many of which are now well-established and considered facts. Moreover, climate science continues to MODIFY itself, evolving as the evidence and facts regarding climate are better understood.

    Watts is simply too stupid, arrogant and vested to admit when he's proven wrong time and time again and his cult following is quite literally brain-dead.

    I reject in the strongest possible terms that this group has any relevancy whatsoever (to reality). Referring to Jim Jones and climate science in the same breath let alone the same paragraph as having ANY possible relationship is absolutely ABSURD. It's just another example of scraping the bottom of the connedspiracy barrel by these morons to try and justify there denial of reality and fact.

    A new low for these asswipes - and a disgusting one at that. ~Survival Acres~


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.