Extremist language in the Heartland

[Stephen Fox]

Not far from Shorter College one of the largest SBC churches in NE Alabama reportedly the pastor had a series on Obama as the AntiChrist. At some point you would imagine Rick Lance and Bob Terry would have something to say. Just how big a skirt is the autonomy of the local church and at one point is a Southern Baptist pastor no longer a minister of the Gospel but a demagogue?

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/extremist-rh ... -cms-19595

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Can some one tell me if this is a legitimate interview involving Robert Pharham ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P03x3kRK1oE

If so, he doe not seem to have applied the Golden Rule to his performance in the clip.

[Blake]

Not far from Shorter College one of the largest SBC churches in NE Alabama reportedly the pastor had a series on Obama as the AntiChrist. At some point you would imagine Rick Lance and Bob Terry would have something to say. Just how big a skirt is the autonomy of the local church and at one point is a Southern Baptist pastor no longer a minister of the Gospel but a demagogue?

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/extremist-rh ... -cms-19595

Stephen, what on earth do the thread title and link have to do with your paragraph?

[Gene Scarborough]

Note the author: Stephen Fox!!!!!

The wilder the link, the more he distracts the participants on this good website

The article deals with Global Warming and the use of inflamatory signs in Chicago

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---that is a typical interview clip of Parham in the limited time allowed---and pushing to get his point across.

I agree with him. I run my business with a Golden Rule ethic that I need to raise worker according to production. If we do better than average, instead of an hourly rate I can apply a percentage rate since labor normally is 1/3 of my gross price.

Wal Mart has been extremely "successful" by doing its best to keep employees under 40 hours so they don't have to provide benefits. Sam Walton didn't build the business on the backs of employees, but it is not the same now that he is gone.

Those who gripe about the long lines and poor service at Wal Mart, could go to smaller stores if they were not so focused on saving money. We get what we pay for and if you don't consider your own waiting time a part of the equation, then you could be spending more than you think to "save money."

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed---that is a typical interview clip of Parham in the limited time allowed---and pushing to get his point across.

I agree with him. I run my business with a Golden Rule ethic that I need to raise worker according to production. If we do better than average, instead of an hourly rate I can apply a percentage rate since labor normally is 1/3 of my gross price.

Wal Mart has been extremely "successful" by doing its best to keep employees under 40 hours so they don't have to provide benefits. Sam Walton didn't build the business on the backs of employees, but it is not the same now that he is gone.

Those who gripe about the long lines and poor service at Wal Mart, could go to smaller stores if they were not so focused on saving money. We get what we pay for and if you don't consider your own waiting time a part of the equation, then you could be spending more than you think to "save money."

Ed: So Gene do you think Parham was applying the Golden Rule in his push to get his point across? Personally I think he failed miserably at making a point and looked like a fool, definably not his best. That is why I questioned the legitimacy of the presentation.

And did you even listen to the other fellows defense of Wal Mart?

[Gene Scarborough]

I did listen to his opponent----found him to be the heartless one--especially if you have ever talked with a Wal Mart employee! Things haven't changed in that salt mine.

[Ed Pettibone]

I did listen to his opponent----found him to be the heartless one--especially if you have ever talked with a Wal Mart employee! Things haven't changed in that salt mine.

Ed: I have, and I suggested that they use what union dues wold be to buy company stock. The Wal Mart company has paid quarterly dividends every quarter since their first in April of 1971. That is how I started buying GE when I worked there just out of HS.

[Gene Scarborough]

That's why, when I was working my way through college and enquired at McDonald's, I gladly stuck with my Trim Carpenter part-time job.

The Manager informed me that if I could replace another employee by doing the work of 2, I could make .5 more than the starting wage----I didn't get into Emory by being stupid!!!!

Our trouble now is people are more and more trapped in "service jobs" with little opportunity of advancement. Outsourcing overseas to cheap labor lets us "save" at WalMart---but where do you find a job to make enough to "save" at WalMart???

[Stephen Fox]

The right does it. The left does. Christians do. Atheists do it, too. Want to end a discussion, defeat a proposal, derail an idea? Then hit the apocalyptic button by accusing another of being Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden or some other horrific figure.

Extremist rhetoric that relies on hateful comparisons is a vice for those without a real argument. And it is overwhelming the public square and church sanctuaries.

With the recent NY Times expose on Reviving Jeremiah Wright; and Hannity jumpin on the band wagon last night; it is obvious--Scarborough misses the point once again--Parham has larger point than global warming, one focus of his opinion piece.

IN Ne Bama a large church with much in common with another in the area that was a bastion for Judge Roy Moore's ideology for a while; now the cause has now taken root in another location and festering with a series of sermons on end times, with innuendos to Obama as a "dark" figure and as the anti-Christ of Revelation.

Question being is it the responsibility of Lance and Terry to investigate or the Autonomy of local Southern Baptist Church supercedes all other concerns.

See my faith and practice link. What would Jonathan Merritt say?

[Gene Scarborough]

Stephen----are you sure you aren't on the sauce tonight????????????

On the wrong thread and now------what the heck

[Stephen Fox]

I'm after the Gander

[Gene Scarborough]

Don't let the mental health officials find you, buddy!!!

[David Flick]

.
.
------ 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not far from Shorter College one of the largest SBC churches in NE Alabama reportedly the pastor had a series on Obama as the AntiChrist. At some point you would imagine Rick Lance and Bob Terry would have something to say. Just how big a skirt is the autonomy of the local church and at one point is a Southern Baptist pastor no longer a minister of the Gospel but a demagogue?

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/extremist-rh ... -cms-19595

Fox, You started this thread and included a link to one of Robert Parham's articles, i.e. Extremist Rhetoric Overwhelms Public Square, Church Sanctuaries. Toward the end of his article, Parham rails against folks who use "extremist rhetoric" against opponants. He wrote:

An anti-science group sought to discredit those who believe that human beings have a responsibility to care for the Earth, a core biblical imperative, by throwing a "verbal bomb." The Heartland Institute did what many do who lack a persuasive case – compare the other side to evildoers.

The right does it. The left does. Christians do. Atheists do it, too. Want to end a discussion, defeat a proposal, derail an idea? Then hit the apocalyptic button by accusing another of being Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden or some other horrific figure.

Speaking of "extremist rhetoric," do you think maybe that Robert Parham might want to drop doing that which he accuse others but not himself of doing? It's well established that the term "denier" is a word which refers to, or associates another with, a Holocaust denier. Through the years, Bro. Parham has routinely referred to global warming skeptics as being "deniers." For example:

• Deniers Create Doubt to Fend Off Science of Climate Change -- calls Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe a "denier."
  
  
• Global Warming Skeptic Converts to Global Warming Believer -- says the Wall Street Journal is a safe haven for "deniers."
  
  
• Answering the Global Warming Deniers in the Snowstorms -- declares that Limbaugh, Beck, and Fox News are "deniers."
  
  
• Sen. Inhofe Lists Creationists as Prominent Scientists in Global Warming Report -- declares that Sen James Inhofe is an "unhinged denier."
  
  
• Global Warming Worsens, New Ethic Needed -- declares that "deniers" have little room for science or for empirical evidence.
  
  
• What Do the Fall and the Flood Say Theologically about Global Warming? -- declares that global-warming "deniers" argue that science is unsettled about whether human beings are the driving cause of climate change.
  
  
• Gore Challenges Global Warming Deniers says that religious fundamentalists and extreme free-market ideologists are "deniers"
  
  
• Reality Is on Our Side -- says that "deniers," and large carbon polluters and their ideological allies are attempting to undermine the credibility of the science

The alarmists have long been using variations of the term "denier," (i.e. "denialist," "denialist machine." "unhinged deniers"). In his book, The Deniers, skeptic, Lawrence Solomon, wrote in on page 3:

The very term “deniers” is a deliberate reference to the “Holocaust deniers” who defended the Nazi regime by claiming that the Jews and their allies faked the Holocaust to slander Hitler. Scott Pelley, of CBS’s 60 Minutes, was asked by CBS Web reporter Brian Montopoli why he did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics in his influential broadcasts on the topic. Pelley replied, “If I do an interview with Eli Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” According to Montopoli, Pelley went on to explain that “his team tried hard to find a respected scientist who contradicted the prevailing opinion in the scientific community, but there was no one out there who fit that description. Pelley declaimed that he was not interested in “pseudo-science or conspiracy blogs,” but “sound science.” Other journalists taking the denier’s metaphor to it’s logical conclusion have suggested that climate-change dissidents be put on trial for crimes against humanity.

There is no question but that the term is hateful and is used in derision against global warming skeptics. The alarmists don't have a leg to stand on with their silly arguments so they resort to using a term of derision to describe those who don't agree with their views. Among the most prominent users of the term are, Joe Romm, James Hansen, and Al Gore. See my documented commentary on Romm, Hansen and Gore in this post.

------ 2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For years, going as far back as 2006, Hansen has joined a host of others who want deniers to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature. James Hansen told the Guardian:

"Our children and grandchildren will judge those who have misled the public, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue almost unfettered, as guilty of crimes against humanity and nature. But the eventual conviction of these people in the court of public opinion will do little to ease the burdens that will have been created for today’s young people and future generations." Source...

Also see here, here, here, here, here and here. Is there any doubt that that Hansen and others compare skeptics with Nazis and wants them tried like Nazis for committing "high crimes against humanity?" Not in my mind.

------- 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a strange case where a Holocaust survivor has the audacity to call global warming skeptics "deniers" (Emphases mine)

Holocaust Survivor Compares Climate Skeptics To Hitler Deniers

Micha Tomkiewicz is a physicist who tells us he was a child in the Warsaw Ghetto and Bergen-Belsen during World War II when the Nazis (and Soviets) were gleefully murdering millions. He said that the Holocaust “killed most of my family and deprived me of my childhood.”

His is one more awful story from a century filled will awful stories of what happens when people assume Utopia can be had by all-powerful central government. His story and the story of his fellow survivors becomes far worse when we consider that there are some who deny the Holocaust occurred, that there are exist people who actively impugn evidence that is plain to the simplest idiot.

We hear these denials, but all of us know that these statements aren’t denials at all. It is clear that the people who deny that millions upon millions of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and others who were slaughtered by state power think it a fine thing that these souls died. Holocaust deniers, as everybody knows, don’t deny and instead have a secret (and sometimes an open) desire that the killing should begin anew.

Tomkiewicz knows what we know. He understands what the term denier means; he knows it is a code-word for evil.

But even knowing all this, and living the life he as lived, he cannot stop himself from using this word to describe people who do not fret as much as he does about climate change. He is so consumed with his passion that he was able to write this:

In 1933, very few people believed that Hitler would seriously try to accomplish what he preached and almost no one could imagine the consequences of his deadly reign. Although there was evidence available — Hitler was clear about what he wanted to do in Mein Kampf — why did people not pay attention? These “deniers” might as well have been called skeptics in their day.

Skeptic's reply

This is well worth spending a moment to unpack. He begins with a truth: it is true that in 1933 “very few people believed that Hitler” would become the menace he was to become. Tomkiewicz follows this true by claiming the truth was false and that there was enough evidence for all, or at least a majority, to have predicted with certainty that Hitler would eventually come in third as Leader With The Highest Body Count (Mao still holds the title, followed closely by Stalin; thank you socialism!). With loving hindsight, Tomkiewicz condemns the world for being filled with “deniers.”

Which makes it strange that he next says,

But what I am suggesting is that even though it’s hard to see a genocide — any genocide — coming. The future is hard to predict, but we can see this one coming. This genocide is of our own making, and it will effect everyone, not just one group or country.

It is hard to tell that climate change will be a genocide, but it is also easy to tell. Just as he claims it was hard to see that the Holocaust was coming but also easy to see. Just as he paradoxically claims that skeptics, whom he calls “deniers”, cannot see as sharply as he can. He says that skeptics pine for “unattainable certainty” about the coming “climate change genocide.” But he also claims to possess this certainty, or enough of it so that he can demand the government “do something.”

To call a skeptic a “denier” is rank abuse, because as we have seen the word is a stand-in for vile intent. To compare “climate genocide” “deniers” with those who—what exactly? Supported Hitler? Enabled the man? Remember Tomkiewicz implied “deniers” in 1933 were responsible for Hitler—ah, the whole thing is asinine.

A far less serious crime to logic is his begging of the question. Skeptics claim, via arguments and evidence, to be less certain about climate change than Tomkiewicz. Tomkiewicz claims to be more than sure; he says he is certain. But he also implies that because he, Tomkiewicz, is sure then everybody should be, when the point at issue is how certain anybody should be. To attempt to bypass this debate by casting foolish aspersions and distasteful comparisons is a sign of weakness. Source...

------- 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four years ago (Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:19 pm ), Rick Wright picked up on Parham's usage of the offensive "denier" word. He wrote:

I happen to have little difficulty with the idea (theory? conclusion?) that global warming (a) is happening and (b) is significantly influenced by human activity. (Genesis 6-8 anyone? Conservatives read their Bibles one assumes.) That having been said such comparisons are unfortunate. Those who question the "consensus" are like Holocaust deniers? Geez leweez. And unfortunately such over the top rhetoric seems to be all too common with Robert Parham.Whether we are "brother moderates" is beside the point. Moderates of all people should know better than to employ extreme, excessive, divisive, polarizing, and demonizing rhetoric. Remember the despicable Wall Street Journal editorial blasting the New Baptist Covenant? And yet who gave her some of her best ammunition? (Robert Parham.) Anyone who uses Nazi/Holocaust comparisons to marginalize (a favorite mod-lib term right?) their opponents is already on mighty thin ice. And just because those who use such comparisons are "right" does not justify the practice.

When I hear about another lambast from Parham... a certain British word comes to mind. Source...

------ Conclusion -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox, reckon when Parham will get around to apologizing to the skeptics for calling them "deniers"? He ought to have better sense. It's strange that a Christian ethicist would employ the term which clearly refers to Holocaust deniers. By any measurement you wish to choose, he has for a long time used "extremist rhetoric" against those whom he rails against for doing the same. Methinks there's quite a lot of hypocrisy going on here. Parham is apparently unaware of Godwin's law.

[KeithE]

In the world of GW discussions (if we can call them that) the word “denier” merely means someone who disagrees with the scientific view that man has caused GW/CC or that GW/CC has not happened. It no longer (if it ever did) denotes anything about the Holocaust deniers, no more than the word “alarmist” recalls the person who cries FIRE is a crowded theater.

But equating “alarmists” (e.g. the 95-100% of climate scientists whose studies have demonstrated AGW) with the unabomber Kazcinski so graphically on a billboard is an intended direct comparison and is indeed extremist language - yeah I know they have taken that off the billboard, but Heartland has not yet apologized or stepped down from that statement.

Parham has it right and did not compared GW/CC “deniers” to Holocaust “deniers” in those articles (as you imply), no matter what Solomon said.

[David Flick]

1In the world of GW discussions (if we can call them that) the word “denier” merely means someone who disagrees with the scientific view that man has caused GW/CC or that GW/CC has not happened. 2It no longer (if it ever did) denotes anything about the Holocaust deniers, no more than the word “alarmist” recalls the person who cries FIRE is a crowded theater.

1) Baloney cheese. Keith, you can spin it however you like but there's no way under heaven that you can honestly and rightly defend the use of the word "denier".

2) Double baloney cheese. Whether in the world of GW discussions or in the world of discussions about farming tulips, the word has a direct connection to Hitler and the Nazis.

But equating “alarmists” (e.g. the 95-100% of climate scientists whose studies have demonstrated AGW) with the unabomber Kazcinski so graphically on a billboard is an indended direct comparison and is indeed extremist language - yeah I know they have taken that off the billboard, but Heartland has not yet apologized or step down from that statement.

a) There has never been, nor will there ever be "95-100% of climate scientists whose studies have demonstrated AGW." Not even remotely close to the facts.
b) Other than in GW alarmist blogs and publications, not one person has successfully demonstrated that AGW is reality. Such a notion is pure, unadulterated propaganda.

Parham has it right and did not compared GW/CC “deniers” to Holocaust “deniers” in those articles (as you imply), no matter what Solomon said.

You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for defending Parham and his usage of the term. You know good and well the term is used to denigrate those who oppose AGW.

[KeithE]

1In the world of GW discussions (if we can call them that) the word “denier” merely means someone who disagrees with the scientific view that man has caused GW/CC or that GW/CC has not happened. 2It no longer (if it ever did) denotes anything about the Holocaust deniers, no more than the word “alarmist” recalls the person who cries FIRE is a crowded theater.

1) Baloney cheese. Keith, you can spin it however you like but there's no way under heaven that you can honestly and rightly defend the use of the word "denier".

2) Double baloney cheese. Whether in the world of GW discussions or in the world of discussions about farming tulips, the word has a direct connection to Hitler and the Nazis.

But equating “alarmists” (e.g. the 95-100% of climate scientists whose studies have demonstrated AGW) with the unabomber Kazcinski so graphically on a billboard is an intended direct comparison and is indeed extremist language - yeah I know they have taken that off the billboard, but Heartland has not yet apologized or stepped down from that statement.

a) There has never been, nor will there ever be "95-100% of climate scientists whose studies have demonstrated AGW." Not even remotely close to the facts.
b) Other than in GW alarmist blogs and publications, not one person has successfully demonstrated that AGW is reality. Such a notion is pure, unadulterated propaganda.

Parham has it right and did not compared GW/CC “deniers” to Holocaust “deniers” in those articles (as you imply), no matter what Solomon said.

You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for defending Parham and his usage of the term. You know good and well the term is used to denigrate those who oppose AGW.

You are in extreme denial. 6 years in a row reputable polls have said somewhere between 95- 100% of climate scientists are AGW (as I have pointed out).

And talk about hypocrisy. Your language towards your opponents has been atrocious through the years (“idiots", “hoax", + 30 others I documented previously). “Deniers" is just descriptive as is “alarmists”. Get over it, as you once (probably many times) told me, when I asked you (and then BL board) to tone it down.

Oh and btw, I’m proud to be called an “alarmist” because this is no false alarm.

[KeithE]

Just to show how bad Heartland’s President’s words were (from Fox’s lead-in “Ethics Today”)

Heartland Institute put up an inflammatory ad on a digital billboard in Chicago that associated those who believe in climate change with mass murderers.

"The most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists," claimed the institute's president, Joseph Bast, in a press release. "They are Charles Manson, a mass murderer; Fidel Castro, a tyrant; and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Global warming alarmists include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010)."

Bast asserted: "The leaders of the global warming movement have one thing in common: They are willing to use force and fraud to advance their fringe theory."

Justifying the billboard, the Heartland Institute said: "The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."

[David Flick]

Just to show how bad Heartland’s President’s words were (from Fox’s lead-in “Ethics Today”)

1Heartland Institute put up an inflammatory ad on a digital billboard in Chicago that associated those who believe in climate change with mass murderers.

"The most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists," claimed the institute's president, Joseph Bast, in a press release. "They are Charles Manson, a mass murderer; Fidel Castro, a tyrant; and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Global warming alarmists include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010)."

Bast asserted: "The leaders of the global warming movement have one thing in common: They are willing to use force and fraud to advance their fringe theory."

2Justifying the billboard, the Heartland Institute said: "The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.

1) Get over it, Keith (and all of you alarmists out there). The billboard came down 24 hours after it was put up. Meanwhile, virtualy all of Romm, Gore, Hanson's vile references to "denialism" and suggestions that the skeptics should be tried for "high crimes against humanity" (as though they are Nazis) is still out there on the internet and in print. No apology has ever been issued by any of these alarmists.

2) Keith, I never justified the billboard. Not once. The hypocricy of the alarmists is stunning. They are raising h--- over a billboard that came down 24 hours after it was put up, while steadfastly hanging on to (and justifying) the usage of terminology associated with Nazism.

[KeithE]

Just to show how bad Heartland’s President’s words were (from Fox’s lead-in “Ethics Today”)

1Heartland Institute put up an inflammatory ad on a digital billboard in Chicago that associated those who believe in climate change with mass murderers.

"The most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists," claimed the institute's president, Joseph Bast, in a press release. "They are Charles Manson, a mass murderer; Fidel Castro, a tyrant; and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Global warming alarmists include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010)."

Bast asserted: "The leaders of the global warming movement have one thing in common: They are willing to use force and fraud to advance their fringe theory."

2Justifying the billboard, the Heartland Institute said: "The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.[/quote]

1) Get over it, Keith (and all of you alarmists out there). The billboard came down 24 hours after it was put up. Meanwhile, virtualy all of Romm, Gore, Hanson's vile references to "denialism" and suggestions that the skeptics should be tried for "high crimes against humanity" (as though they are Nazis) is still out there on the internet and in print. No apology has ever been issued by any of these alarmists.

2) Keith, I never justified the billboard. Not once. The hypocricy of the alarmists is stunning. They are raising h--- over a billboard that came down 24 hours after it was put up, while steadfastly hanging on to (and justifying) the usage of terminology associated with Nazism.

But Bast has yet to back down from what he said above in red.

David, do you support those statements?

I challenge you to find where Gore, or Romm ever said "skeptics should be tried for high crimes against humanity”. I found where Hansen suggested such and here is the paragraph in 2008:

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. If their campaigns continue and "succeed" in confusing the public, I anticipate testifying against relevant CEOs in future public trials

in this article

Hansen was looking forward to a public trial where fossil fuel industry CEOs would be tried for profit-first decisions vs. global-long term concerns. Who could blame him (or Mann or Jones) for being frustrated with such a fierce set of opponents armed with so little science. And to be repeatably called a perpetrator of a hoax (as you and the media you read have often done) has to maddening when they clearly have concerns for humanity’s future habitat in mind. Imagining a time for judgment is understandable and natural.

As a whole, the use of extremist language is far more prevalent in the denier camps, virtually non-existent in scientific articles, but sometimes bleeds into scientists's conversations to each other (about 10 of thousands of the hacked emails) and when they talk to the media who love any controversy. This has been out of pure frustration with the deliberate obscuring of facts from the fossil fuel industry, their fronts (like Heartland) and free-market ideologues who think polluting industry need not pay the cost of their pollution including CO2 emissions.

[Gene Scarborough]

Global change issues involve more common sense than just speculation. You cannot apply big machines to forests with clear cutting and not affect the air temps and the polution of streams.

You cannot pour emissions into the air and not affect the natural cycles of weather and air temps. If populations do not care for their sewage, then disease breaks out and mother earth reduces the population. The same is true of animals eating vegitation away and then starving without food to balance with what the food supply can naturally provide. We are using chemicals to speed food growth and then find hormones and hybrids generate cancer!

For me, it is simple common sense and animals have to balance with the air, water, food to sustain them. Already we are depleting the marine resources by over-fishing. Much of the excess comes directly from pure old greed.

[David Flick]

1In the world of GW discussions (if we can call them that) the word “denier” merely means someone who disagrees with the scientific view that man has caused GW/CC or that GW/CC has not happened. 2It no longer (if it ever did) denotes anything about the Holocaust deniers, no more than the word “alarmist” recalls the person who cries FIRE is a crowded theater.

1) Baloney cheese. Keith, you can spin it however you like but there's no way under heaven that you can honestly and rightly defend the use of the word "denier".

2) Double baloney cheese. Whether in the world of GW discussions or in the world of discussions about farming tulips, the word has a direct connection to Hitler and the Nazis.

But equating “alarmists” (e.g. the 95-100% of climate scientists whose studies have demonstrated AGW) with the unabomber Kazcinski so graphically on a billboard is an intended direct comparison and is indeed extremist language - yeah I know they have taken that off the billboard, but Heartland has not yet apologized or stepped down from that statement.

a) There has never been, nor will there ever be "95-100% of climate scientists whose studies have demonstrated AGW." Not even remotely close to the facts.
b) Other than in GW alarmist blogs and publications, not one person has successfully demonstrated that AGW is reality. Such a notion is pure, unadulterated propaganda.

Parham has it right and did not compared GW/CC “deniers” to Holocaust “deniers” in those articles (as you imply), no matter what Solomon said.

You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for defending Parham and his usage of the term. You know good and well the term is used to denigrate those who oppose AGW.

You are in extreme denial. 6 years in a row reputable polls have said somewhere between 95- 100% of climate scientists are AGW (as I have pointed out).


There are no reputable polls anywhere that have shown that "somewhere between 95- 100% of climate scientists are AGW." The notion that 95 to 100% of climate scientists believe the reality of AGW is classic alarmist propaganda.

And talk about hypocrisy. 1 Your language towards your opponents has been atrocious through the years (“idiots", “hoax", + 30 others I documented previously). 2“Deniers" is just descriptive as is “alarmists”. Get over it, as you once (probably many times) told me, when I asked you (and then BL board) to tone it down.


1 Oh really? Just who was the last to call whom an idiot? It certainly wasn't me. It was you who last called me an idiot. It occurred on Monday, Nov 29, 2010 @ 11:31 am. On that day while you were off flying high somewhere in the wild blue yonder, you posted no less than two (2) of the same message wherein you called me an idiot. Check it out here. Would you like to eat some crow? Here, have a plate...

-- Incidentally, how about re-documenting the last time I called you an idiot? I'd be very interested in seeing your documentation. I can't seem to find it in the BL.Com archives.

2 One major difference. The term "alarmist" has no connotation whatsoever to Nazism. The term "deniers" is a direct reference to Nazism.


Oh and btw, I’m proud to be called an “alarmist” because this is no false alarm.


It must be miserable for you to wake up each day living in fear of a nonexistent threat. From you, I can appreciate how Chicken Little must have felt, believing that the sky was falling.

[KeithE]

1In the world of GW discussions (if we can call them that) the word “denier” merely means someone who disagrees with the scientific view that man has caused GW/CC or that GW/CC has not happened. 2It no longer (if it ever did) denotes anything about the Holocaust deniers, no more than the word “alarmist” recalls the person who cries FIRE is a crowded theater.

1) Baloney cheese. Keith, you can spin it however you like but there's no way under heaven that you can honestly and rightly defend the use of the word "denier".

2) Double baloney cheese. Whether in the world of GW discussions or in the world of discussions about farming tulips, the word has a direct connection to Hitler and the Nazis.

But equating “alarmists” (e.g. the 95-100% of climate scientists whose studies have demonstrated AGW) with the unabomber Kazcinski so graphically on a billboard is an intended direct comparison and is indeed extremist language - yeah I know they have taken that off the billboard, but Heartland has not yet apologized or stepped down from that statement.

a) There has never been, nor will there ever be "95-100% of climate scientists whose studies have demonstrated AGW." Not even remotely close to the facts.
b) Other than in GW alarmist blogs and publications, not one person has successfully demonstrated that AGW is reality. Such a notion is pure, unadulterated propaganda.

Parham has it right and did not compared GW/CC “deniers” to Holocaust “deniers” in those articles (as you imply), no matter what Solomon said.

You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for defending Parham and his usage of the term. You know good and well the term is used to denigrate those who oppose AGW.

You are in extreme denial. 6 years in a row reputable polls have said somewhere between 95- 100% of climate scientists are AGW (as I have pointed out).


There are no reputable polls anywhere that have shown that "somewhere between 95- 100% of climate scientists are AGW." The notion that 95 to 100% of climate scientists believe the reality of AGW is classic alarmist propaganda.

And talk about hypocrisy. 1 Your language towards your opponents has been atrocious through the years (“idiots", “hoax", + 30 others I documented previously). 2“Deniers" is just descriptive as is “alarmists”. Get over it, as you once (probably many times) told me, when I asked you (and then BL board) to tone it down.


1 Oh really? Just who was the last to call whom an idiot? It certainly wasn't me. It was you who last called me an idiot. It occurred on Monday, Nov 29, 2010 @ 11:31 am. On that day while you were off flying high somewhere in the wild blue yonder, you posted no less than two (2) of the same message wherein you called me an idiot. Check it out here. Would you like to eat some crow? Here, have a plate...

-- Incidentally, how about re-documenting the last time I called you an idiot? I'd be very interested in seeing your documentation. I can't seem to find it in the BL.Com archives.

2 One major difference. The term "alarmist" has no connotation whatsoever to Nazism. The term "deniers" is a direct reference to Nazism.


Oh and btw, I’m proud to be called an “alarmist” because this is no false alarm.


It must be miserable for you to wake up each day living in fear of a nonexistent threat. From you, I can appreciate how Chicken Little must have felt, believing that the sky was falling.

This discussion should not have ended up in the SBC Forum but so-be-it.

Years ago I complained to the Moderators about your vehemence and language wrt GW. I sent them an extracted list via PM (it has been deleted at least from my PM records). It had as I remember 30 epithets (bad language) with included idiot, hoax, arrogant and many other things each repeatably used. It went all the way to Bruce to adjudicate and he said tough language like that was to be expected and that I should have a thicker skin. So I started in firing back but never to the level you have consistently done.

I’ll cool it if you will. I much prefer to let the plots do the talking.

You keep repeating your "baloney cheeses” and even deny (oh I'm sorry) refuse to admit the plain fact about 95-100% of climate scientists are AGW according to 6 straight years of various polls. If you give any DATA plots at all, it is usually truncated to hide the truth (E.g. earth air temps from 1998- today ignoring the available DATA from 1850 -1998) or non-measurements like your longrangeweather.com conceptual graphic that were not measurements prior to 1850 but someone's guesstimate based on a presumed volcanic effects of global temps. Read more about this longrangeweather website here.

As for the use of “deniers” read this article by one of your favorites (tic). Personally think you have not been bothered by the word “denier” until now as a means to combat the real extreme language coming from Heartland and their billboard and over the top words they have not retracted. Look at the red highlighted text on my March 20 12:14pm post above.

Would you rather I call you a “GW/CC skeptic”? You can continue to call me an “alarmist” for brevity.

[David Flick]

This discussion should not have ended up in the SBC Forum but so-be-it.

I'll move it to the latest Global Warming thread and we'll continue it there...

1In the world of GW discussions (if we can call them that) the word “denier” merely means someone who disagrees with the scientific view that man has caused GW/CC or that GW/CC has not happened. 2It no longer (if it ever did) denotes anything about the Holocaust deniers, no more than the word “alarmist” recalls the person who cries FIRE is a crowded theater.

1) Baloney cheese. Keith, you can spin it however you like but there's no way under heaven that you can honestly and rightly defend the use of the word "denier".

2) Double baloney cheese. Whether in the world of GW discussions or in the world of discussions about farming tulips, the word has a direct connection to Hitler and the Nazis.

But equating “alarmists” (e.g. the 95-100% of climate scientists whose studies have demonstrated AGW) with the unabomber Kazcinski so graphically on a billboard is an intended direct comparison and is indeed extremist language - yeah I know they have taken that off the billboard, but Heartland has not yet apologized or stepped down from that statement.

a) There has never been, nor will there ever be "95-100% of climate scientists whose studies have demonstrated AGW." Not even remotely close to the facts.
b) Other than in GW alarmist blogs and publications, not one person has successfully demonstrated that AGW is reality. Such a notion is pure, unadulterated propaganda.

Parham has it right and did not compared GW/CC “deniers” to Holocaust “deniers” in those articles (as you imply), no matter what Solomon said.

You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for defending Parham and his usage of the term. You know good and well the term is used to denigrate those who oppose AGW.

You are in extreme denial. 6 years in a row reputable polls have said somewhere between 95- 100% of climate scientists are AGW (as I have pointed out).


There are no reputable polls anywhere that have shown that "somewhere between 95- 100% of climate scientists are AGW." The notion that 95 to 100% of climate scientists believe the reality of AGW is classic alarmist propaganda.

And talk about hypocrisy. 1 Your language towards your opponents has been atrocious through the years (“idiots", “hoax", + 30 others I documented previously). 2“Deniers" is just descriptive as is “alarmists”. Get over it, as you once (probably many times) told me, when I asked you (and then BL board) to tone it down.


1 Oh really? Just who was the last to call whom an idiot? It certainly wasn't me. It was you who last called me an idiot. It occurred on Monday, Nov 29, 2010 @ 11:31 am. On that day while you were off flying high somewhere in the wild blue yonder, you posted no less than two (2) of the same message wherein you called me an idiot. Check it out here. Would you like to eat some crow? Here, have a plate...

-- Incidentally, how about re-documenting the last time I called you an idiot? I'd be very interested in seeing your documentation. I can't seem to find it in the BL.Com archives.

2 One major difference. The term "alarmist" has no connotation whatsoever to Nazism. The term "deniers" is a direct reference to Nazism.


Oh and btw, I’m proud to be called an “alarmist” because this is no false alarm.


It must be miserable for you to wake up each day living in fear of a nonexistent threat. From you, I can appreciate how Chicken Little must have felt, believing that the sky was falling.

This discussion should not have ended up in the SBC Forum but so-be-it.

Years ago I complained to the Moderators about your vehemence and language wrt GW. I sent them an extracted list via PM (it has been deleted at least from my PM records). It had as I remember 30 epithets (bad language) with included idiot, hoax, arrogant and many other things each repeatably used. It went all the way to Bruce to adjudicate and he said tough language like that was to be expected and that I should have a thicker skin. So I started in firing back but never to the level you have consistently done.

I’ll cool it if you will. I much prefer to let the plots do the talking.

You keep repeating your "baloney cheeses” and even deny (oh I'm sorry) refuse to admit the plain fact about 95-100% of climate scientists are AGW according to 6 straight years of various polls. If you give any DATA plots at all, it is usually truncated to hide the truth (E.g. earth air temps from 1998- today ignoring the available DATA from 1850 -1998) or non-measurements like your longrangeweather.com conceptual graphic that were not measurements prior to 1850 but someone's guesstimate based on a presumed volcanic effects of global temps. Read more about this longrangeweather website here.

As for the use of “deniers” read this article by one of your favorites (tic). Personally think you have not been bothered by the word “denier” until now as a means to combat the real extreme language coming from Heartland and their billboard and over the top words they have not retracted. Look at the red highlighted text on my March 20 12:14pm post above.

Would you rather I call you a “GW/CC skeptic”? You can continue to call me an “alarmist” for brevity.