Un-American witch hunts: Karl Rove Tactic #3 from WUWT

If there is one thing that defines climate science deniers it is that they are conspiracy theorists. Some wilful deniers believe the disinformers who claim that climate science is a hoax and that scientists are committing fraud. WUWT is full of it. Today it's Eric Worrall's turn (archived here). This time he's doing a Karl Rove, and accusing Senator Whitehouse of being a conspiracy theorist because he is exposing the deliberate disinformation campaigns allegedly paid for in part by fossil fuel companies.

Some background. Over time, more and more evidence has been compiled showing that fossil fuel companies have paid money to climate denying organisations in the USA. This includes ExxonMobil, Peabody coal and others. Today Eric Worrall copied from the Guardian:

The Senate heard how fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy and the billionaire oil brothers Charles and David Koch had funnelled millions into groups that had spread doubt about the causes of climate change.

The Guardian article has a lot of detail, including the role of paid disinformers like Bob Carter. It also has links to other documentation of the deliberate campaigns to spread climate science denial, including in Australia.

Oddity of the Week: McCarthyism is alive, just, barely, at WUWT

There is not much happening at WUWT today. The only item of interest is that the AGU Board has deliberated on whether to continue to accept sponsorship from Exxon and has decided that yes, it will.

The other item (vaguely related) that I thought worth commenting on was the WUWT Quote of the Week article (archived here). Not the article itself, it was the discussion underneath (see below). The quote itself was lame. Just another dime-a-dozen fossil fuel shill called Alex Epstein saying the same old thing. Here's Anthony's quote of the week:

As long as your life is being made possible by the people in the fossil fuel industry, I think you should be grateful, and I think it is a crime — a moral crime — that you are damning anyone by association,” “I wish Sen. Whitehouse were here because what he is doing to the free speech of those companies and anyone associated with them is unconstitutional and I think he should apologize or resign,”

Seriously - by investigating harmful disinformation campaigns, Senator Whitehouse is threatening the free speech of mega-companies - and acting unconstitutionally? Give us a break! Deniers are getting very hard up for material these days.

Creationist and anti-vaxxer Galileos - step this way

Pinocchio by André Koehne

A couple of lawyers seem to be wanting to make a name for themselves as defenders of anti-science defamers (archived here). David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman have written an article at the Wall Street Journal about how they or their current or future clients (presumably) want to press their right to falsely defame climate scientists. Why do I say this? Because right in the middle of the article is written:

The Climate Inquisition began with Michael Mann’s 2012 lawsuit against critics of his “hockey stick” research—a holy text to climate alarmists. The suggestion that Prof. Mann’s famous diagram showing rapid recent warming was an artifact of his statistical methods, rather than an accurate representation of historical reality, was too much for the Penn State climatologist and his acolytes to bear.

That is a complete fabrication of the situation. Dr Mann's case isn't about critics of his research. It's about defamation. This pair of scallywag lawyers seem to want to join the queue waiting to be sued. Since they are lawyers, they must know that the case is about the ugly and false allegations of fraud by the people Professor Mann is suing.

Denier weirdness: About face on "free speech" at WUWT

Anthony Watts is competing with Roy Spencer with most unexpected results (archived here). Roy Spencer has just announced he has disallowed comments on his blog. Roy got fed up because his blog became infected with a physics denier called Doug Cotton. Perhaps Anthony sees stopping comments as a status symbol.

In addition to the possible competition motive, it could be that Anthony was feeling under-appreciated. He may have been feeling the need for a little love and affection and hoped his article and poll would garner lots of compliments. What else can he do to distract his readers from the rapidly warming world?

Whatever the reason, the very peculiar result from all this is that almost 40% of WUWT readers do not support unfettered "free speech".

Denier weirdness: Heartland Institute deniers don't want their disinformation questioned

You know how deniers are always going on about free speech. What they mean is that sometimes when they protest climate science they get rebuffed with sciency facts. I've already commented on the fact that Mark Steyn, that champion of "free speech" (or his version of it) doesn't allow comments on his blog. Now it seems that the Heartland Institute has decided that their public denier fest is not going to be public after all - although I'm guessing they will still be streaming the event to anyone who won't be bored senseless by it. (The only people who'll like it will be the already senseless.)

Kyla Mandel from DeSmogBlog reported on Twitter that the Heartland Institute has just kicked out one third of the women who rolled up to attend their denier fest at COP21, which has just begun - that is, Kyla Mandel, I'm guessing:

The formerly open to the public Heartland climate denial conference just cut number of women present by a third pic.twitter.com/8uUZzRDcyu

— Kyla Mandel (@kylamandel) December 7, 2015

Denier whines of censorship: Why won't they let me say the Earth is flat?

Anthony Watts has really, really, really got his nose out of joint. What caused his nose to become disjointed was a UK newspaper, The Independent. It has modernised its website and poor little Anthony can no longer find a minor article from March 2000 - more than 15 years ago.

It's a conspiracy, he moans. It's all a plot to hide bad headlines. He wrote (archived here, cached here):

In light of what happened yesterday with The Independent apparently disappearing a famous climate prediction blunder article while leaving an article critical of its use intact, this opinion piece by Joe Wallach seemed pertinent -Anthony

Sheesh. He doesn't mind hiding his own inconvenient articles, does he? Try to find this one at WUWT: "An interesting issue with ice core data". Here's the link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/03/an-interesting-issue-with-ice-core-data/

What? It's disappeared? Along with all the 83 comments? Okay then, here's the archived version: http://www.webcitation.org/6H83F9g4X

Credit: XKCD

The Spanish Inquisition, conflict of interest and free speech

Still nothing from denier blogs. All is quiet. Have deniers given up the battle? Are they gearing up for a concerted attack on science? Looking for that final, final, final, final, final nail in some coffin or other? Anthony Watts is still focusing on extremist right wing lunacy. He's not got anything to offer the centrist WUWT-ers.

Today's contribution (archived here, latest here) is from Paul "bring back smog" Driessen, who is moaning that an economist should be allowed to breach the rules of the Brookings Institution, and blames it on Elizabeth Warren. Nothing to do with climate science, although Paul did manage to mention Senator Whitehouse in the same article. Chastising him for wanting scientists to declare the entities funding their research, and any potential conflict of interest. He opened in his usual highly exaggerated and misplaced fashion:

As Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition for 15 years, Tomas de Torquemada presided over the interrogation, torture, imprisonment and execution of thousands, for the “crimes” of religious heresy and pretended conversion to Christianity. Historian Sebastián de Olmedo titled him “the hammer of heretics.”

Today Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) are pursuing their own inquisition against perceived “heretics.” 

Free speech advocates make a fresh start by banning free speech

There's some sort of denier shindig going on in Washington, I've heard. WUWT is quiet, probably because Anthony Watts is away receiving his "dumbest fake sceptic of the year" award. (He's already been exercising what he thinks is his right to defame.) No-one can say much about this fresh start for fake sceptics, because the organisers have decided to ban some of the media.

What's clear is that The Heartland Institute has made a "fresh start" for "free speech". What that means is that these champions of free speech are going to preserve their right to make up whatever they like and say it to anyone dumb enough to listen, while making sure there is no-one around to disagree with them.

Seriously. You couldn't make it up.

(Kyla Mandel at DeSmog UK has the details. Check the headline, and the link at the bottom of the page.)

Maybe the Heartland Institute is going to adopt Free Speech HotCopper-style:

We fully endorse unfettered free speech (which is the right of every full-blooded proudly conservative white male, especially those over 50), and will do our best to suppress all stray bleeding heart liberals and feminazis who invade our space, so that you can exercise your right to free speech without fear of contradiction.

Free speech and freedom of expression: Differences across the Atlantic

You could get giddy trying to keep up with all the contradictions at Anthony Watts' anti-science blog, WUWT. Barely a day after all the WUWT-ers were up in arms that Daily Kos didn't allow a couple of deniers to post a very lengthy, internally inconsistent, denier manifesto under an article, Anthony Watts is proud to say that he doesn't support "free speech" after all. Or perhaps I should say freedom of expression. Not in the UK at any rate.

Ian Wolter's prize-winning artwork of climate science disinformers, Anglia Ruskin University. Photo: it's all over the internet so I don't know

UPDATE: See below. You'll enjoy it :)

---

Tom Harris, Free Speech and Disinformation

WUWT is in the doldrums still. For want of anything better, Anthony Watts has published a puff piece by someone called Russell Cook, who is moaning about Tom Harris' free speech being "prohibited" at DailyKos (archived here). This is exactly in line with what the DailyKos article stated was a PR strategy of Tom Harris:

The clever ploy in this PR strategy is a claim that climate change deniers are being frightened into silence.

On opprobrium and disrespect

See below for an addendum.

A convoluted mixed up quote from the Curry files, as seen at WUWT:

In the climate wars, those that use pejorative names for people that they disagree with are the equivalents of racists and anti-semites, and deserve opprobrium and disrespect. 

Quit calling us racist and anti-semitic, Judith, or you'll get my opprobrium and disrespect.

On second thoughts, too late.

Deniers are milking the free speech thing for all they think it's worth. I gather from their mixed up, convoluted articles, that they want to be free to say whatever nonsense pops into their head without being criticised for it. But they don't want anyone else to say whatever pops into their head.

Or maybe they are lauding the right of anyone to say whatever pops into their head. It's hard to know. At WUWT there's a stack of quotes ranging from 'deniers should be hung, drawn and quartered' (or equivalent) to 'aren't people just simply too, too awful for saying deniers should be hung, drawn and quartered' (or equivalent). It's not been made clear whether WUWT is approving all the quotes or only some of them are permitted in their own quaint version of "free speech".

Oh, and various denialist lobby groups (well, one anyway - you can guess which one) want to be invited to talk on BBC radio programs. I expect the BBC could arrange a special radio segment for climate science deniers, along with the anti-vaxxers, the pro-smoking lobby and the flat earthers.

A few years ago I had the ABC radio on while driving, and there was a long segment devoted to ghost hunters. It wasn't April 1 and the interviewer treated the shysters with courtesy and respect.

So my advice to deniers is don't give up. Push for a fake sceptic segment on your local radio station. Failing that, there's always Prison Planet and Jesse Ventura and David Icke and Breitbart and WattsUpWithThat and ClimateEtc.

(If you haven't guessed, WUWT has slowed down a lot lately, which is fine by me. The average daily post count since New Years' Day is 2.5, a long way shy of the eight or nine a day in recent months. Anthony Watts himself has all but vanished from the scene. The other nutters are left to run the nuttery.)

Addendum

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it myself - archived here. IMO Judith Curry has behaved more badly than Anthony Watts at his worst. If you can stomach it, read the archive. Do a search for her weird comments.

She uses the murders of cartoonists in Paris as a pretense to take another shot at Michael Mann. She calls alleged defamation "satire", arguing people who defame are merely exercising their right to free speech. She doesn't have a clue about what is allowable as free speech. Would she think the same if someone wrote an article in the press claiming she committed scientific fraud? Multiple times? What if they added an aside about child molesters?

She labels as the equivalent of racist and anti-semitic, people who refer to climate science deniers as such and says it is "very sad" to see scientists behaving like that. She seems to be oblivious to the inconsistency. She refers to people who accept science as "warmists" and "alarmists" and then goes on to write: "When person A calls person B a ‘denier’ or any other pejorative word, in my opinion they deserve disrespect, in the context of the broader discussion in my piece."

Even hard-boiled deniers recognise the difference between murdering people, defamation and free speech, and have tried to point this out to Judith. Judith is so mired in her personal dislike of Michael Mann that she can no longer see straight. That plus her ideology looks to have taken such a hold that she has lost her grasp of science.

Perhaps the biggest visible sign of how low Judith has sunk is that she left this gross disgusting cartoon up on her blog for more than a day. I didn't comment on it earlier because I assumed she would remove it when she saw it. She didn't. Even her fans thought she would remove it.

It appears that nothing is too gross or vulgar for Judith these days. If you thought she'd lost it before, then see where she is now.

Finally, she is being caught out by her own words and has succumbed to criticism of inconsistency or whatever, and put back up her sky dragon slayer articles, which she'd removed some time ago.

Sou 14 January 2015

Disgusting deniers: wanting "freedom of speech" to spread climate disinformation

At WUWT there is another distasteful cartoon in the style of the Heartland Institute's murderers and terrorists posters (archived here). The WUWT article and cartoon by Josh, draws a fake analogy between the massacre of the Paris-based cartoonists and the so-called "rights" of deniers to defame scientists and spread disinformation. (Deniers don't complain about WUWT banning people, in fact one of the worst offending would-be censors, a sock-puppeting moderator at WUWT, denies that, too.)

Here is what xkcd has to say about free speech (h/t BW):

Suck it up, deniers!

Judith Curry and George Brandis on Free Speech

I don't have much to say about the fact that Judith Curry seems to have embraced Mark Steyn (archived here), who is being sued for defamation. Judith says with her usual carefully ambiguous wording that: Mark Steyn has written a remarkable defense of free speech.

All I will say is that I do not want to live in a society that allows people to tell lies about others to such an extent that it ruins their professional or personal reputation.  That's why most societies have laws protecting people from this.

Freedom of speech came at a big cost to past generations and there are some societies where it still doesn't exist.  Those people who gave their lives for it would be turning in their graves to know how it's being abused by some people today.  The right to free speech also carries responsibility.  (I'm all for freedom and I do think it's important to distinguish between giving offence and causing unwarranted and undeserved harm.  That distinction seems to be blurred in the mind of some of the most vocal people who complain they aren't permitted to freely libel and slander others, but take offence when other people exercise their right to free speech and criticise them in turn).

I'll also refer to the attitude to free speech that I encountered on Hot Copper, which describes this situation.  In my view it's probably not that different to that of some of the loudest yobbos yelling for the freedom to say whatever they want whenever they want and where ever they want, regardless of the veracity or consequences.  But when someone else rightly corrects what they say, they shriek that their free speech is being hampered and political debate is being "shut down".

Excuse me?  Didn't I just read you speaking freely (though illogically, certainly politically), Senator Brandis?

Here's the list of items George Brandis wants discussed at Question Time in Parliament (nearly forgot the /sarc tag):

• Debate the pros and cons of gravity.
• Is earth really flat?
• When did life on earth begin - 4,000 years ago, 6,000 years ago or 11,000 years ago?
• Are germs really that important for human health?
• Tobacco smoking and health benefits.

Free Speech - HotCopper Style

Got this today.  Seems a few people have been stepping close to the line and HotCopper sez "it's not fair".  According to HotCopper, speech should be free (no matter what?)  - except perhaps when they don't agree with it.

Anyway, what chance do you think I have of dipping into the HotCopper Fighting Fund to fight the arguably illegal restriction of my speech on HotCopper?

Dear (name withheld),
You are probably aware that from time to time people take issue with comments that are made on HotCopper. Indeed, sometimes legal action is threatened or taken against members because of statements they have made here. You may have even seen this article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Sometimes, we think that when this happens it is unfair, and a restriction on the right of Australians to engage in free speech. We know a lot of you think the same way because you've been contacting us and telling us so.

In fact, some of you have asked is there a way that you can donate money to a fund that can be used to help members in financial need to pay for lawyers' fees.

We have therefore set up a discretionary trust called The HotCopper Fighting Fund. If you wish to donate to the fund, see the details below:

Nice to see HC has a pet and very tame journo at SMH.  I wonder if this means HC's G-M isn't going to move to the USA (where Ron Paul lives) after all, to try to escape the 'relentless pressure from lawyers'?

The Monkey Takes the Mickey

A humorous diversion courtesy HotCopper...fluffymonkey taking the mickey...
(Click image for larger version)

What fluffynymph really meant ...(click here for translation)

More on: Parody or the 'Real Thing'?

What good is the HotCopper discussion board if you can't use it to vent?  Provided one is of the right political persuasion (pun intended), it's almost as good as having your very own blog!

Venting does have its limits though.  The main complaint of HotCopper's operator "Yoda" is that Australia's laws stifle 'free speech' (while he and his moderators delete comments they don't agree with when the mood takes them!).  He says he's "getting ready to move to the USA" where, he presumably and mistakenly thinks, you can say whatever you like about anyone whenever you like.

Source (subs req'd): HotCopper.com

Now you can understand why many HotCopper regulars believe they have free rein when it comes to voicing their discontent with "tall poppies".  And you can take it as given that high up the average HotCopper-ite's list of pet hates is Ben Bernanke.  When they aren't blaming the One World Government, the UN, President Obama or PM Gillard, they blame Bernanke for all the real and imagined ills of the financial world.

Just the same, when some of the regulars mistake this satirical piece on Ben Bernanke (from the famed "The Onion") for the 'real thing' it's got to be right up there with the best of them.

Source (subs req'd): HotCopper.com

No-one could accuse the average HotCopper-ite of being astute :(

Free speech protection for real Aussie share traders (men only, naturally)

We've put up some suggested Terms of Use to better explain who is welcome and how to behave on some (not most) forums set up for share traders and investors.  These are particularly geared for that large Aussie board built as a 'men's playground'. 

Bleeding heart liberals and feminazis be warned!  These terms of use are designed to protect the rights of full-blooded dinky di Aussie men to 'free speech'.  Anyone who disagrees with their point of view may be tolerated to a point, but does NOT have a right to 'free speech'.

Click here to read.  Comments most welcome (except if you're a bleeding heart liberal or a feminazi or anyone other than a white Australian male of sufficiently conservative inclination). /sarc