The Oreskes Death Cult Tweet

A conservative US Supreme Court Judge has just died. Naomi Oreskes tweeted:

Screen Shot 2016-02-14 at 17.45.30

And Aaron McCright, sociologist, tweeted:

Screen Shot 2016-02-14 at 17.46.54

Aaron has form. Just the other day he tweeted:
“in case you didn’t know, John Wayne was an angry, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, homophobic moist turd of a man”
and today:
“proudly single but even when I wasn’t in the past, I never sunk so low as to celebrate ‘Valentine’s Day’.”

Aaron McCright is the author of several papers on climate denialism, (often with Riley Dunlap, who has been campaigning for forty years to replace our current science with a “new ecological paradigm” based on the insane doom mongering of Paul Ehrlich.)

We’re getting used to these outbursts of joy (McCright’s term) at the death of a political opponent from climate activists. First there was Professor Phil Jones’s “cheering news” email about the death of John Daly, then William Connolley on Bob Carter.

Why would they do that? In a situation where most people send warmest sympathies, why do some people send Warmist Sneers?

The Warmist movement shows every sign of being a death cult. The constant reiteration of the demand for population curbs; the assertion that there’s too many of us and that Mother Gaia can’t stand us; the frequently expressed exultation at the idea of the extinction of the species; the constant demand to “think of the grandchildren” which is nothing less than a demand to contemplate the time of your own non-existence; and of course the hatred expressed at those who don’t agree with them; all these are typical of the more morbid religious cults.

The big difference of course is that most cult members keep these kinds of expressions within their closed communities. Only the sense of immunity from criticism that comes from having (superficially at least) imposed their peculiar views on the world of politics, academia and the media can explain the exultation expressed here.

But Oreskes and McCright are not immune, as can be seen in the reactions to their tweets. Even followers of Oreskes are human, it seems, and capable of expressing normal human emotions. There’s hope.

68 thoughts on “The Oreskes Death Cult Tweet

  1. Read my last two sentences. I take pleasure in pointing out that not everyone is like Oreskes.

    Jumping to conclusions which are the precise opposite of what the evidence suggests seems to be your speciality.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The Warmist movement shows every sign of being a death cult.

    So, you’ve drawn some kind of general conclusion about a group with whom you disagree, but suggested that there are some who aren’t that bad?

    Jumping to conclusions which are the precise opposite of what the evidence suggests seems to be your speciality.

    Seems to me that you’re using this incident to make some kind of point that suits your narrative. Maybe that doesn’t qualify as taking pleasure in pointing these things out, but does seem to indicate that you find these kind of things a convenient way to express your disgust at some other group with whom you generally disagree. Almost seems as though you’re using this to make a point. Ironic?

    Like

  3. It’s a curious human habit of directing your greatest enmity at those you think you can defeat, rather than at the truly evil but remote. Thus people blame western governments for middle eastern massacres rather than the insanely evil monsters that are doing the killing. The police arrest some middle class nobody who rides his bike through the park rather than the drug pushers that are dealing at the sides. People despise Trump more than murderers and rapists. They pick on a white actor for using ‘coloured’ rather than a white, male movie industry that is determinedly exclusionary to most people of race, sex, originality and any kind of physical imperfection. Or the black rap star who promotes racism, sexism and violence. It’s about picking on a university about a statue of a dead guy rather than trying to eradicate current brutality and inequality in modern day Africa.

    It’s about laziness as much as it is about a warped sense of right and wrong.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. And thus a warmist will appear to give an example of their fairness, reasonableness and appreciation of perspective & context. (as Ken Rice just did under his “And Then There’s” handle)

    Liked by 1 person

  5. TinyCO2
    Laziness explains some of your examples, like the policeman picking on the cyclist rather than the drug dealers, and the students attacking the statue. There are good reasons to have an attitude to Trump rather than towards rapists and murderers, since the former is more likely to affect you future than the latter, and (if you’re American) you can do something about it. And incidentally, Trump is one of those deflecting blame from the evil monsters to western governments when he points out that the current situation is a direct result of Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

    I don’t think there’s anything odd about feeling a secret Schadenfreude about the passing of someone you despise. It’s expressing shocking thoughts publicly by tweeting it to thousands that’s weird. Rock stars do that, and Republican candidates, and climate pundits. The only thing they have in common that I can see is a sense of immunity that comes from fame and a habit of getting your own way.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. “Why does the morally bankrupt ATTP even appear in these threads?” Shub

    Because he thinks that we’re an easier target than the vast majority of the public and many governments who are bored stiff of climate change. Most warmists sites exist to whine about sceptics, not to do anything about CO2 or the lack of action from even those who say they care about the issue. Lazy and ineffective.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I wonder, have any prominent warmists died in the last 10 years? Have any well known climate sceptics publicly gloated over their demise? If so, equivalence is proven and we can just put these shameful incidents down to the nastier side of human nature. If not, we may have to wonder if certain warmists are more prone to such lapses in moral judgement. I don’t recall whether any prominent warmist has died recently or what the reaction from the opposition has been. Does anyone? Maybe warmists are more physically robust/longer lived?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. “the current situation is a direct result of Bush’s invasion of Iraq”

    Again an easy target. The Middle East, Africa and many Muslim countries are inhabited by loads of horrible, brutal people. It takes almost nothing to set them off. They are at each other’s throats at every opportunity and yes, taking out their dictatorships opened them up to a mass of power struggles but I don’t remember anyone warning that they were incapable of achieving peaceful democracy before Bush screwed up. I’ve never heard anyone say ‘yes I know it’s horrible that that despotic ruler rapes, murders and tortures but frankly he’s the best of a bad lot’. But that’s exactly why everyone has lost enthusiasm for removing Assad.

    Far easier to blame an American president than entire lunatic nations or religions. And they’re happy to let you blame Bush, that way they never have to take responsibility for themselves. They’re always the victim and you (the westerner) are always at fault. It must be true because it’s your idea.

    And Trump is a reaction against that. It’s a rejection of the idea that Americans are the worst people on the planet just because their success means they should be held to a higher standard than everyone else. The unpleasant features that Trump or Bush demonstrate are kids play compared to those practiced by Gadaffi or Saddam or ISIS. Or are you telling me that a Muslim arbitrarily banned (if it ever happened) from the US is worse than a Christian or indeed a Muslim beheaded in Iraq? Are Trump’s sexist opinions worse than large swaths of the Koran or even the Bible? Are the acceptable because they’re the views of dead people even though they are followed by billions?

    As I say, warmists hate sceptics most of all because we’re easier to deal with than the real problem. Blaming oil companies is the pinnacle of that mindset. Boo, hiss, let’s hate the oil companies. It just doesn’t achieve anything because they’re not the real problem.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Because we don’t do censorship.

    Indeed, but I have no idea why you think that allowing people to say anything on this blog is somehow a good thing.

    This isn’t Nature you know.

    Well, yes, that is obvious.

    Like

  10. I’ll give Naomi Oreskes this: Unlike aTTP, she does at least have sufficient self-confidence in her opinions to make her public mistakes under her own name. No one could accuse her of hiding her political motivations.

    And her timing is exquisite: She chooses Valentine’s Day to imply that a Supreme Court Judge ought to be ruled by their heart and not their head.

    Or maybe it is a better joke than it first seems. Either way, I would expect someone of Antonin Scalia’s calibre to have taken it as a compliment.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I never understand the reaction to death of religious people. Scalia was apparently very religious, so he will presumably have believed he’d be with his god after death, or lying in the arms of numerous virgins is it, or whatever – death is apparently good for those who lead a virtuous life. So those mourning should be celebrating and a light hearted remark lke the one you are criticizing should add to the joy. Unless people think Scalia will be headed for damnation, in which case sorrow might indeed be more appropriate.

    I found Oreskes tweet amusing.

    Tiny:The Middle East, Africa and many Muslim countries are inhabited by loads of horrible, brutal people.

    There’s nothing like a good stereotype. But why hold back so, tell us what you really think. Of course there are no horrible, brutal people in Christian countries, that’s for sure! The Nuremberg trials put an end to all of that here…

    Like

  12. “And her timing is exquisite: She chooses Valentine’s Day to imply that a Supreme Court Judge ought to be ruled by their heart and not their head.”

    Or perhaps she had in mind ‘a heart pierced by Cupid’s arrow’.

    Like

  13. “I found Oreskes tweet amusing.”

    Oh you did. Remember you will die one day, too.

    The death of a political opponent is a sad moment. You lose the ability to flex your ideological muscles. If you felt happy at his death it betrays how weak your ideas were.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. JAIME
    “… have any prominent warmists died in the last 10 years? Have any well known climate sceptics publicly gloated over their demise?”

    Yes, Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change and White House adviser who famously said:

    “…like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest…”

    Someone pointed out that it was ironic that this fervent opponent of CO2 emissions died on a transatlantic flight, and got much criticism for it.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. RAFF
    “On ‘censorship’, I have had posts deleted here (by PM).”

    Given how broadminded we are, I wouldn’t boast about it. We don’t have any hard and fast rule as far a I know. Each author does his own thing. If I do remove a comment, I’ll say why. You’ll have to try pretty hard though.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. There is something inhumane about the CO2 Cult, and this post draws attention to some of the darkness to be found there. There is also smugness and arrogance. Which makes the following quotation from a dissenting position written by Justice Scalia in 1996 all the more appropriate:

    “Much of the Court’s opinion is devoted to deprecating the closed-mindedness of our forebears with regard to women’s education, and even with regard to the treatment of women in areas that have nothing to do with education. Closed minded they were — as every age is, including our own, with regard to matters it cannot guess, because it simply does not consider them debatable. The virtue of a democratic system with a First Amendment is that it readily enables the people, over time, to be persuaded that what they took for granted is not so, and to change their laws accordingly. That system is destroyed if the smug assurances of each age are removed from the democratic process and written into the Constitution. So to counterbalance the Court’s criticism of our ancestors, let me say a word in their praise: they left us free to change. The same cannot be said of this most illiberal Court, which has embarked on a course of inscribing one after another of the current preferences of the society (and in some cases only the counter-majoritarian preferences of the society’s law-trained elite) into our Basic Law.”

    (hat-tip: Instapundit)

    Removing the ‘smug assurances’ of the cult from the democratic process seems very dear to their elitist hearts and minds. Out of the darkness comes a strong intent to impose their views on us all whether we like it or not, whether we are able to vote for it or not, and indeed given the flimsiness of the case for alarm over CO2, whether they can justify their views or not. Ben Pile writes often and well on such attempts to by-pass democracy. Here is a relevant quote from his latest post:

    As has been observed here, the externalisation of internal existential crises as climate crisis is a phenomenon we can see in politics, as well as in newspaper circulation figures. Miliband represented the worst of political party machinery failing to ‘engage’ with the public… The more detached from ordinary people and ordinary life politicians and political parties become, so the more they seek legitimacy in ideas that are beyond the senses of ordinary people, and the more they locate power above democratic control on the basis of seemingly ‘global’ risks.

    These new and offensive remarks from two nasty-seeming people merely confirm that we are dealing with much that is unpleasant when we enter what passes for ‘the climate debate’, the one that is asserted by some to be ‘over’.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Shrub, I am aware of my own mortality, more than you can know. But when I die, if nobody cracks a few jokes I’ll be doubly pissed off – unless I’m lying with 17 virgins, in which case I won’t care and you can insult me with all the silent respect you can muster.

    I didn’t know who Scalia was until this morning, so if he was a political opponent, I didn’t know or care. But suggeting that laughing at a joke is the same as feeling happy at his death is the sort of mis-appreciation of life and society that we have come to expect from you. I’m beginning to think that what unites sceptics is a form of sociopathy.

    Geoff, I think what was deleted was a mild tease, nothing at all like what I’m often on the receiving end of (not here yet). PM clearly doesn’t like being teased and that is fine. When I removed the offending sentence he allowed the post, which I thought was cool.

    Like

  18. RAFF
    “I’m beginning to think that what unites sceptics is a form of sociopathy.”

    Do you know, I think you may be right. A very mild form of sociopathy, since we seem to get on alright at this blog, but it’s true that sceptics are probably not joiners by nature, otherwise we’d be all for the consensus, wouldn’t we.

    The reason I’m ready to take your remark about sociopathy seriously is that I think sociological analysis of the two “sides” in the debate will tell us more than yet another general climate model. And of course, since I try to analyse the origins and motivations behind warmism, I must accept that warmists will do the same about us – a fundamental principle of social investigation (and of human relations in general) ignored by most warmist practitioners of social science.

    I’m more upset by your remark about “…the sort of mis-appreciation of life and society that we have come to expect from you” because that is precisely the accusation I’d make about a certain kind of warmist, of which Oreskes and McCright are prime examples. While our criticisms are mostly aimed at their bad faith, sloppy science, inability to reason, and malevolence, there’s a more fundamental criticism which is difficult to formulate without sounding élitist, but here goes:

    They’re just so shallow. You feel like saying: go away and read some history, or some decent science fiction, or Zen Buddhism for Dummies, or anything that will get you out of your obsessive little statistical (s)hell.

    There. I feel better now.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Richard,

    I disagree with what Ken Rice says, but I defend his right to say.

    Well you might defend my right to say things, but you certainly seem to object when I delete any of your comments on my blog. Then you whine to my university on Twitter.

    Geoff,

    since we seem to get on alright at this blog

    Sure, but that’s mostly because you do your utmost to discourage those who don’t share your views from commenting here.

    Like

  20. It’s looking like the warmists are pulling ahead then in the ‘snide remarks following the death of an opponent’ sweepstakes. I guess when each death of an influential climate change sceptic equates – in their mind – to being a step closer to saving the entire human race from destruction, expressions of mild to moderate joy and wise cracks of dubious taste at the passing of another ‘roadblock to emissions reduction’ are quite morally justifiable. But that doesn’t quite detract from the fact that gloating over the death of an ideological opponent evinces some form of personal psychopathy on the part of the gloater. It’s not the same as “cracking a few jokes” when someone dies as suggested by Raff. I’m all for injecting a healthy dose of Dave Allen type humour into the whole subject of death, but expressions of joy at another’s passing don’t qualify in that respect.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Geoff, if you were to call me shallow (“not exhibiting, requiring, or capable of serious thought”), it would be one of the nicer critcisms to have been thrown my way. It might even be true too, depending upon what is meant by “serious thought”, but if so it is without doubt also true of many sceptic commenters. But why do you think Oreskes qualifies? (Being ignorant as well as perhaps shallow, I have never heard of “McCright”).

    Presumably you don’t see yourself or the other CliScep authors as shallow, so perhaps you can point me to one or two really good examples where you or they demonstrate undeniably “serious thought” (so that I can learn).

    Like

  22. At 6.12pm I made a point about “do as you would be done by” being a fundamental principle of human relations, and that warmists tend to be a bit – obtuse – shall we say about such things. Fifteen minutes later up pops ..AND THEN THERE’S PHYSICS to say (to Richard Tol):
    “Well you might defend my right to say things, but you certainly seem to object when I delete any of your comments.”

    What can you say? Is the failure in the first year university philosophy course or further back, in nursery school?

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Raff “The Nuremberg trials put an end to all of that here”.

    How is Germany enjoying its new inhabitants? I suspect the women are slightly less than enthusiastic.

    I think you’ll find that the trials were the smallest part of the effect and that two world wars and occupation were what made the biggest difference. Even then the Germans had civilisation before the Wars. But Germany’s nature hasn’t changed. They still want to boss everyone about but they discovered a more effective, more civilised way of doing it. It takes generations for people to discover a gentler way to co-exist. There are always those who was to revert to violence to get what they want.

    Religions aren’t fundamentally nice. They’re the product of our past. They’re primitive rules for society. For a modern world, people need new rules. By and large Christianity has given way to that system. Islam hasn’t.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Geoff,

    I made a point about “do as you would be done by” being a fundamental principle of human relations

    Sure, which is why I don’t whine if my comments get deleted.

    Is the failure in the first year university philosophy course or further back, in nursery school?

    I can’t remember, Nursery school was a long time ago for me. You’re the one behaving as if you’re still in it.

    Like

  25. Richard,

    “to say” and “to delete” are different verbs with different meanings

    Yes, which is why I responded as I did. Was that too complicated for you? I do appreciate that the link was rather tenuous, but it was mainly to highlight your juvenile behaviour when I do happen to delete one of your comments. If you stopped behaving like a spoiled brat, I’d happily stop pointing it out,

    Like

  26. Tiny, I was right, sociopathy fits you to a T. You misquoted me and in doing so missed the irony. What I said was:

    “The Nuremberg trials put an end to all of that here…”

    And you are building a nasty line in generalisations:

    But Germany’s nature hasn’t changed. They still want to boss everyone about …

    Yes well the British know a thing or two about that. Most big nations too, probably. My guess is that Geoff wont see you as a serious thinker either.

    What interests me about the Middle East is that different religions have lived together there for centuries, so toleration can’t be absent from the people. It seems to me that what has occurred has happened numerous times elsewhere in history: the lunatics have taken over the assylum. There is more going on than just Evil Islam. Just some shallow thoughts…

    Like

  27. Actually, Tiny, I got that the wrong way round. Being a sociopath you missed the irony and therefore you misquoted me.

    Like

  28. Actually, Raff, it is very misleading to adopt the view that basically all religions and cultures are the same and that bad things happen equally with all of them. This is also dangerous. Islam contains a dangerous ideology that has made things pretty bad in the Islamic world for a long time. There is no other way to explain the absence of anything approaching a democratic state with minority rights in that world really since the rise of Islam itself. When the West was dominant in the 19th and 20th century, this ideology had no power or wealth and so was not immediately dangerous. Now that has changed.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. You have acquired the aTTP troll.
    It is worth observing a few of his techniques.
    – The throwback. Call him something and he will return the insult.
    – Moral standards are of his deciding and application.
    – There are no standards of evaluation independent of his own.
    – Start winning a point and he will spark off in another direction.
    – He will always get the last comment unless you block him.

    By the way Ken, have you managed to provide your super-duper model that will resolve all economic priorities in every country together? Or are you still rejecting the collective wisdom of over two centuries of economics based on your dogmatic beliefs?

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Kevin,
    I was going to write a longer comment, but your utter dross doesn’t deserve it. If all you can do is make things up about other people on the internet, and hero-worship Bjorn Lomborg, it really isn’t worth the effort.

    Like

  31. David, did I adopt that view? I don’t think so. I don’t know much about religion and I tend to view one set of superstitious view as poorly as any other. Religion seems in (large) part at least to be about power and control. As a means to control a populatiom it is a fantastic tool and in the wrong hands such tools are dangerous. I think I’m just saying that control of Islam has fallen into the wrong hands.

    manicbeancounter, of those technique you ascribe to ATTP:

    – The throwback. Call him something and he will return the insult.
    Then don’t call him names (or whatever ‘something’ is).

    – Moral standards are of his deciding and application.
    And yours are of someone else’s deciding? Whose, a god of some sort? Odd statement.

    – There are no standards of evaluation independent of his own.
    If that means something, can you give some evidence?

    – Start winning a point and he will spark off in another direction.
    Winning a point? You are probably just deluding yourself.

    – He will always get the last comment unless you block him.
    So you blocked him then? From the thread you linked, you seem to outdo him in word count by 3 or 4 to 1. If he has the stamina to keep that up, you should value him, seeing as you don’t get many comments.

    But I really dont understand you point about 200 years of economics: Or are you still rejecting the collective wisdom of over two centuries of economics based on your dogmatic beliefs? Your link is just waffle and I can’t see what exactly you thinnk ATTP is rejecting. Please summarise for the shallow minded like me.

    Like

  32. Raff said “I don’t know much about religion and I tend to view one set of superstitious view as poorly as any other.”

    Don’t worry to much about it Raff, we’re pretty used by now to militant Atheists who don’t actually know much about the religions they blame all the world’s problems on. Neither is it unusual for them to assume that their ignorance of the differences between those religions means that all religions must be the same.

    And I certainly hope your posts continue to be allowed here. As the tweets listed above show, and ATTP’s continues to prove, nothing helps the Skeptical view flourish like the candid words of the Alarmists.

    Like

  33. SCHITZREE, I’m neither “Alarmist” nor a “militant Atheist”. Neither have I ever blamed all (or even many) of the worlds problems on religion. I conclude from your getting all three wrong that you are not a serious thinker (nor even a proficient reader) and consequetly that Geoff would call you “shallow”. Join the club.

    manicbeancounter, come on give us a concrete example from “the collective wisdom of over two centuries of economics” that ATTP rejects. You say he rejects it all, so a few example should be easy.

    Geoff, you haven’t yet, but I’m still hoping you will point out some really good examples of CliScep writers demonstrating serious thought. I don’t hold out much hope, especially as skeptic commenters seem anything but deep. We’ve got TinyCO2 who’s best efforts amount to insults to a great religion, ditto David Young; the bean counter who wouldn’t seem to know anything about 200 years of economics; Miner49er who can’t manage more than a sentence; and SCHITZREE who can’t seem to read properly. Next to these shining examples of serious skeptical thought, ATTP and I are intellectual giants (well ATTP, anyway).

    Like

  34. Interesting conversation here on many points. But it was the grandiose self-application of the term “intellectual giants”, and then a feigned moment of supposed humility, by RAFF that ultimately prompted my response. It all started when I read the following statement by RAFF-“I’m beginning to think that what unites sceptics is a form of sociopathy.”

    First of all, people with sociopathic tendencies are most known for their inability to “unite” with anyone, even other sociopaths. They call it “antisocial personality disorder” for a reason. The Mayo Clinic says:

    “People with antisocial personality disorder typically have no regard for right and wrong and often disregard the rights, wishes and feelings of others. Those with antisocial personality disorder tend to antagonize, manipulate or treat others either harshly or with callous indifference.”

    (Now, if RAFF is a qualified expert on mental illnesses, he should have his license revoked for attempting to even insinuate the mental health, or illness, of people he’s never met or examined himself. But I doubt he is.)

    Then there is the fact that the very statement he’s defending-that of Oreskes-is an actual FORM of sociopathy itself. It demonstrates a disregard for the feelings of those who might be mourning Scalia’s death. Scalia is no longer here to insult or shame personally, so she either chose to antagonize his loved ones with her tweet, or has an extremely calloused indifference to them as well as rejecting what is considered morally correct behavior at a time like this.

    RAFF’s interesting comments continue-“I never understand the reaction to death of religious people.” And “But when I die, if nobody cracks a few jokes I’ll be doubly pissed off – unless I’m lying with 17 virgins, in which case I won’t care and you can insult me with all the silent respect you can muster.”

    Sociopaths are often unmoved and cold regarding situations that would upset a normal person. They lack empathy for other people. Again, when RAFF dies, it won’t be HIM that gets to experience the “jokes” or the “insults” or the “kindnesses” expressed. It will be those who cared about him, and even if they believe in a “next life” that is better than this one, natural, normal human behavior is to MISS, often painfully, those who are no longer present to us. That he does not understand this most basic human reaction to death, is telling. Cloaking it as an inability to relate to a specific group of people (religious people) is revealing.

    “I don’t know much about religion and I tend to view one set of superstitious view as poorly as any other. Religion seems in (large) part at least to be about power and control.”

    So he doesn’t know much about it, but he knows enough to lump them all together under the banner of superstitious, which he views poorly, and he goes on to mention that they all seem in large part to be about power and control.

    “Tiny, I was right, sociopathy fits you to a T. You misquoted me and in doing so missed the irony. And you are building a nasty line in generalisations.”

    Actually, inability to detect irony is not a characteristic of sociopathy, at all. Saying someone “misquoted” you, when when they did not actually misquote you, is a lie, and sociopaths are often pathological liars. Saying that what “unites skeptics is a form of sociopathy” is also building a nasty line in generalizations. Ability to see disturbing behavior in others, but not in one’s self, is also a characteristic of sociopathy.

    I’m not saying that RAFF is a sociopath. That would require extensive testing by experts, and internet forums don’t meet the requirements. What I am saying is that it’s in poor taste, hypocritical, ironic, irrational, and the complete opposite of the behavior one would expect from an “intellectual giant” to insinuate that an entire group of people that you have self defined under the banner of “skeptics” might be sociopaths, while at the same time exhibiting (providing written evidence) tendencies that so very closely match the mental illness you offhandedly directed at that group, yourself.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. aTTP 15 Feb 16 at 12:42 am

    You have accused me of making things up about you. If it is dross you can demonstrate it with the superior counter-arguments, based on the scientific method implied in your chosen alias. I do not think you can. Instead you will concentrate three things.
    First is to spark off in other directions, changing the argument and pointing to secondary opinions. As I mapped here.
    https://manicbeancounter.com/2015/02/08/the-propaganda-methods-of-and-then-theres-physics-on-temperature-homogenisation/

    Second, you will make claims about my lack of ability and bias, rather than demonstrate your superior abilities and objectivity. Such as in the comments here.
    Third, you will sulk and say it is disgusting that I should dare to challenge your opinions. But without any counter-arguments they should be deemed worthless.

    Like

  36. Raff, If my characterization of your statements are incorrect, exactly what are you saying about the Middle East? The truth is pretty clear and the typical secular liberal is incapable of understanding it. The problem is a paucity of imagination and a lack of courage.

    Like

  37. Kevin,

    You have accused me of making things up about you. If it is dross you can demonstrate it with the superior counter-arguments, based on the scientific method implied in your chosen alias.

    I think you have a strange view of how things should work. The onus is on you to not say things that are untrue, not on me to prove that they’re untrue. If you’re happy appearing to be remarkably dishonest, that is not my problem.

    First is to spark off in other directions, changing the argument and pointing to secondary opinions. Like I mapped here.

    Most of the time I’ve interacted with you is to point out that what you’ve said is not true. This is all. I don’t think I’ve changed this argument at all. I’ll even repeat it: stop saying things that are patently untrue.

    Second, you will make claims about my lack of ability and bias, rather than demonstrate your superior abilities and objectivity. Such as in the comments here.

    Huh? Where in the comments here have I said anything about your ability and bias. What you said in your first comment was utter nonsense. I’ve no idea if this is because you’re biased and somewhat lacking in ability, but that doesn’t change that it was dross.

    Third, you will sulk and say it is disgusting that I should dare to challenge your opinions. But without any counter-arguments they should be deemed worthless.

    I’ve never said any such thing. This is utter nonsense. In fact, it’s almost the other way around. You’re the one who gets all upset if I say anything remotely critical about your heroes.

    Let’s bear something in mind here, I have never mentioned you in one of my blog posts, or in a comment on another blog, other than to point out that you’re saying something untrue. If you don’t like that, stop doing it. This is not complicated.

    Like

  38. This thread is not about the Middle East, or about whether Kevin (ManicBeanCounter) said something untrue about Ken (andThenThere’sPhysics) on another site. It’s about the peculiar behaviour of two prominent climate activists Naomi Oreskes and Aaron McCright.

    Joking or expressing joy at a death is generally considered shocking behaviour in anyone. Expressed so publicly to thousands of followers on Twitter, and by professors at distinguished American Universities, it seems not only scandalous, but mystifying, given the atmosphere of political correctness on campus which has been so evident recently.

    I offered the barest skeleton of an explanation. If anyone has anything to add, or alternative explanations, I’d like to hear them. Otherwise I may start to remove irrelevant comments.

    Like

  39. said something untrue about Ken (andThenThere’sPhysics) on another site.

    Another site?

    It’s about the peculiar behaviour of two prominent climate activists Naomi Oreskes and Aaron McCright.

    And my interest was in why you thought you would use the apparent peculiar behaviour of two prominent climate activists (one of whom is so prominent I’d never heard of them) to infer this

    The Warmist movement shows every sign of being a death cult.

    I realise you provided two other examples, but that that still doesn’t make it some kind of statistically significant sample, and one of those (I think) was not intended to be a public statement.

    Like

  40. Geoff, when Graham Chapman died shortly before some event, one of the other Pythons said it was one of the worst examples of party pooping he had seen in years. If you had heard about it or seen it on TV would you have found it shocking and why?

    TinyCO2 (aka Aphan), sorry to have upset you.

    Like

  41. Raff-
    “TinyCO2 (aka Aphan), sorry to have upset you.”

    I’m not TinyCO2, nor did you upset me. I specifically said I found your comments fascinating. I, again, find it fascinating that you reached to two false conclusions in a one sentence reply without a shred of evidence to support either one.

    Geoff,

    I agree with your premises and I find it shocking when ANY grown adult who knows better acts like that. Professionals are expected to behave in a manner that doesn’t reflect negatively on them or the organizations they work for. Someone who teaches students is usually disciplined for antisocial/ negative behavior in public-those on a public level are often fired.

    We live in a world where someone can say something unoffensive or innocent, and be called a racist and after a huge public outcry, they get fired for it, but another person can say something deliberately offensive and on purpose and no one cares. It’s truly a sad place to be.

    Like

  42. ATTP:
    “I realise you provided two other examples, but that that still doesn’t make it some kind of statistically significant sample…”

    Then repudiate her statement. Say that it does not represent or reflect your sentiments.

    Like

  43. “Death cult” might be pushing things a bit too far, but there is certainly something distasteful about gloating over the death of a political opponent. It does seem to be something more associated with “progressives” – witness the widespread celebration of Mrs Thatcher’s death. I can’t remember the same scenes when leading Labour politicians died. I’m reminded of 1984 and the two minute hate.

    It’s also worth remembering that Oreskes et al are on a moral, rather than a scientific crusade. Some research quoted a few years ago (in the Guardian of all places) suggesting that people who see themselves as being virtuous in one sphere are likely to give themselves a licence to engage in unethical behaviours in other spheres. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/15/green-consumers-more-likely-steal. I suspect that those taking a more evidence-based approach (most of the commenters on this blog?) are less likely to fall into that trip.

    Like

  44. I agree John Brady. Death Cults are more about people who worship death, seek for it, are devoted to death, suicide, killing. I don’t see evidence that Oreskes and pals actually worship “death” or are devoted to it. I think they fear death more than anything else, which is why they are obsessed with trying to prevent their own demise under the guise of saving everyone and the planet itself from death by climate change.

    Not only can the perception that one is accomplishing a “virtuous act” make someone feel more noble and superior, it can also make them perceive those who disagree with them as societal degenerates, threats, enemies. And when a perceived “enemy” dies, it’s perfectly normal and acceptable to celebrate or be happy about one less “bad guy” in the world.

    Oreskes boldness at tweeting out such a message could be viewed as an indicator of how disconnected she truly is from the majority of decent, moral human beings. I suspect (always willing to be wrong) that she really didn’t anticipate any backlash or incrimination when she sent it. Groupthink tends to limit your ability to perceive and understand anything outside of that group.

    Like

  45. John Brady, Aphan
    You’re both right. “Death Cult” was inexact and exaggerated. Aphan has it right when he says: They are “obsessed with trying to prevent their own demise under the guise of saving everyone and the planet itself from death by climate change,” although of course there is no question of preventing their own death, but simply of avoiding the unpleasant thought.

    As I discussed at https://cliscep.com/2015/10/19/feeling-like-a-scientist/ it’s extraordinary how often grandchildren are mentioned by scientists in their discussion of climate science, as if anyone could or should legislate for the way the world will be in sixty years time. Freud pointed out how an obsessive concern for the wellbeing of a loved one may disguise an unconscious contrary sentiment, in this case a resentment at the fact that one’s grandchildren will be around when we won’t.

    But if “death cult” is an exaggeration, it’s nothing compared with the morbid exaggerations of deaths from climate change, mass extinctions, etc. promoted by warmists. A doomsday cult would have been a more accurate description.

    Millenarians tend not to commit suicide when their prophesies of doom fail to materialise; they live to prophesy another day. And they tend to get angry at those who doubt their prophesies. See
    https://cliscep.com/2016/02/17/alarmism-for-political-activists-who-should-know-better/

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Aphan, yes I agree that calling it a ‘death cult’ is a bit of over the top headlining.
    It seems a bit inconsistent that you say on the one hand “it’s perfectly normal and acceptable to celebrate or be happy”, but then you go on to say “how disconnected she truly is from the majority of decent, moral human beings”.
    I very much agree with your 3rd paragraph and groupthink. The way I see it, within the little group in which she operates, everyone shares her rather extreme views, so things that would normally be challenged go unquestioned. I think this applies much more widely, to the whole of climate science, not just the pseudo-historians and pseudo-psychologists.

    Like

  47. @Geoff, the attitude of two of the commenters here echoes the that of those two happy to Tweet joy at people’s death. They seem here to disrupt and sneer*, whereas the rest here seem to a constructive attitude of seeking truth using analysis and logic.

    *To the outsider it seems as if they are here just cos they are paid by the hour or something.

    Like

  48. stewgreen, They seem here to disrupt and sneer*, whereas the rest here seem to a constructive attitude of seeking truth using analysis and logic.

    It is unusual to see a “skeptic” being constructive, mostly they are wholly destructive. Nic Lewis sometimes qualifies as constructive, but I’m having trouble thinking of anyone else. Those of use who sneer though are essential to your “debate”, for without us you’d just be me-tooing and great-articling – we construct your debate.

    Like

  49. Paul,
    I can see how what I said could be viewed as inconsistent. But the vast majority of people don’t view those they merely disagree with as some kind of “mortal enemy” or “ruthless scourge” that must be vanquished.

    Truly good, mature people who sincerely desire and demand the right to believe, think and embrace the ideologies of their own choosing as well as the concept of equal rights for all, understand that if they want others to be tolerant of their positions, they must be tolerant of the positions of others. And yet we see evidence all the time where those who are often very vocal in demanding those rights, are the least tolerant towards people who exercise those same rights in a way they find personally offensive.

    The moment someone arbitrarily places a pejorative label on someone else, my instant response is to examine any evidence I can find from the labeler, NOT the person being labeled. I want to know if I can trust the person making the claim to be an honest, logical, qualified determiner of such things. If it appears they are a solid, smart, moral person whose opinion can be trusted, THEN I examine the behavior of the person they labeled to see if their claim has merit. Quite often these days, the person who brings up a nasty insinuation about the character or behavior of another, displays that exact character flaw or behavior themselves, and ironically, often while they are applying that label.

    It doesnt really matter to me what side of the debate they are on. It doesn’t really matter why they do it. They could be projecting, or lacking in logical skills, or employing cognitive biases subconsciously, or just be batcrap crazy. To me, in any case, it renders whatever that person says in the future worthy of suspicion.

    Liked by 2 people

  50. Aphan, what does your analysis tell you about Paul, who labelled me a liar seemingly just because our opinions differ?

    [ You are lying again. I didn’t call you a liar because opinions differed but because you lied about what Geoff said, more than once.]

    Like

  51. Aphan, thanks, another star comment.
    I feel the same way now about conspiracy theorist labelling, thanks to the Lewandowsky nonsense. If A says that B is a conspiracy theorist, that raises more doubts in my mind about A than about B.

    Like

  52. Raff replied to this comment by stewgreen- “They seem here to disrupt and sneer*, whereas the rest here seem to a constructive attitude of seeking truth using analysis and logic.”

    With-
    “It is unusual to see a “skeptic” being constructive, mostly they are wholly destructive. Nic Lewis sometimes qualifies as constructive, but I’m having trouble thinking of anyone else. Those of use who sneer though are essential to your “debate”, for without us you’d just be me-tooing and great-articling – we construct your debate.”

    I noted that stewgreen used the word “seem” which is (according to google) “used to make a statement or description of one’s thoughts, feelings, or actions less assertive or forceful”. In other words, stewgreen’s statement demonstrates an awareness that what he’s saying is merely his thoughts, feelings… his personal interpretations of the behaviors of specific people contributing in a specific place-“HERE”.

    Raff’s responses, on the other hand, are assertive and forceful. To him skeptics do not ‘seem’ or appear to be…they “ARE mostly, wholly destructive”. The only premise he offers to support his conclusion that “it is unusual to see a skeptic being constructive, mostly they ARE wholly destructive” is that he has trouble thinking of anyone outside of “Nic Lewis”. He doesn’t indicate that he’s talking specifically about skeptics HERE, which makes it appear that his statements apply to all skeptics in general. His speech does not indicate that he is aware that he is sharing his opinion, or his viewpoint on these topics. He makes declarative statements which are read as if what he’s saying are well known facts. He ends with the arrogant declaration that “those of us who sneer” (including himself in a group that does sneer… without embarrassment) “are essential to your “debate” for without us….”

    Raff’s tendencies, again, mimic a narcissistic sociopathy:
    Logical/cognitive biases-declares things to be so without supplying evidence
    lacking ability to understand and assume that there is a difference between one’s personal assumptions/opinions and the actual facts accepted by others
    Lack of empathy (discussed earlier)
    Complete acceptance of being someone who sneers/condescends
    Perception that he/people like him are “ESSENTIAL” to others

    He also asked me “Aphan, what does your analysis tell you about Paul, who labelled me a liar seemingly just because our opinions differ?”

    I scrolled through all comments in this thread and cannot find any statement made by someone named “Paul” in which he called Raff “a liar” for any reason. Maybe I missed it, so Raff, could you point it out for me?

    But bear in mind, that attempting to deflect attention to someone else (as if your prior behavior makes you a credible witness, or as if someone else behaving irrationally somehow mitigates your own irrational behavior) causes me to instantly focus more on YOUR behavior, not his. At least you used the word “seemingly” here…which makes me wonder why you only use it selectively.

    Like

  53. … the frequently expressed exultation at the idea of the extinction of the species; the constant demand to “think of the grandchildren”…

    Kinda contradictory, don’t you think?

    I don’t think you writing this post reflects on anyone else but yourself.

    Well… yes. Do you have a degree in stating the bleedin’ obvious, Ken?

    Why does the morally bankrupt ATTP even appear in these threads?

    Probably because he is bored to tears; astrobiology does not give you much to study.

    As I have mooted on another site (it may not be an ecclesiastical mountain, but you should go there), it is a cult that is on its own guilt-trip. There are many “progressives” that, having ditched the Catholic Church, are at a loss as to how to indulge in the self-flagellation that seems so common in the more fervently religious.

    Like

  54. Pingback: Turning out Nice in Syria | Climate Scepticism

  55. Hmmm. I’m skeptical.

    Most death cults abjure the kind of worldly amenities Oreskes wouldn’t be caught dead (*ahem*) without.

    So no, I’m not convinced that’s the most apt diagnosis of the organizational psychology at work here. And (at the risk of tone-trolling) the use of such a term when not absolutely justified can only play into the hands of those who think, or would like everyone else to think, that we’re a bit shrill.

    The word “cult” is fine. Don’t throw that out. “Death” is the bathwater.

    Oreskes is guilty of leading a cult of pre-scientific unreason. Her miserable little Church of Consensuology worships stupidity, not death. People will die, to be sure—but that’s an afterthought, not the main game.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s