CST – Senator Sanders: You Skeptics Are Like Nazi Deniers, Plus Hurricanes

Collapsing Science Today: Hey, don’t say climate alarmists are over the top or something

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is comparing climate change skeptics to those who disregarded the Nazi threat to America in the 1930s, adding a strident rhetorical shot to the already volatile debate over climate change.

“It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s,” said Sanders, perhaps the most liberal member of the Senate, during a Senate hearing Tuesday. “During that period of Nazism and fascism’s growth-a real danger to the United States and democratic countries around the world- there were people in this country and in the British parliament who said ‘don’t worry! Hitler’s not real! It’ll disappear!

Completely irresponsible rhetoric from an elected national official. If Sanders was a Republican, everyone, including those on the Right, would call for him to resign. But, since he is a “D”, the media and left is silently cheerleading. But, wait, there’s more!

Sanders’ reference to the Nazi threat is sure to enrage Republicans who are already skeptical of the science behind climate change. But Sanders wasn’t the only one throwing bombs at a hearing that was ostensibly about the EPA’s fiscal 2011 budget. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has called global warming a “hoax,” is asking for an investigation into the science used in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the governing body on climate science.

Got that? The Politico just compared Sanders’ Nazi comment to Inhofe calling AGW a hoax. As if the two were even remotely similar.

As a side-thought, weren’t all the unhinged on the Left telling us that the small number of signs from some TEA Partyers that made Hitler references bad (after almost 8 years of Bushitler comparisons)?

Meanwhile, that whole hurricanes kerfuffle as of late? Yeah, about that. There’s a new study by the World Meteorological Organization (via Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog)

Hurricane counts (with no adjustments for possible missing cases) show a significant increase from the late 1800s to present, but do not have a significant trend from the 1850s or 1860s to present3. Other studies23 infer a substantial low-bias in early Atlantic tropical cyclone intensities (1851–1920), which, if corrected, would further reduce or possibly eliminate long-term increasing trends in basin-wide hurricane counts. Landfalling tropical storm and hurricane activity in the US shows no long-term increase (Fig. 2, orange series)20. Basin-wide major hurricane counts show a significant rising trend, but we judge these basin-wide data as unreliable for climate-trend estimation before aircraft reconnaissance in 1944.

There is quite a bit more, including a part about no increase from 1970-2004, and I highly suggest, if this is an area of interest to you, to read all the excerpts at Piekle’s blog, but, here is the conclusion

. . . we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.

Ouch! Let the True Deniers spin away!

Finally, just for giggles, some year old humor that I heard on Raleigh’s new Rush Radio (106.1) while showering for work, some part of a BBC program about the Earth First idiots

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “CST – Senator Sanders: You Skeptics Are Like Nazi Deniers, Plus Hurricanes”

  1. Reasic says:

    lol. What in the world is the problem? He didn’t call anyone Nazis, nor did he call them Holocaust deniers. The analogy was simply to another time in which a real threat existed, but some refused to believe it.

  2. Otter says:

    Except that in that period, the threat was REAL, and sick.

  3. Reasic says:

    So, you can’t explain why anyone is upset over this? I don’t get the offense, outside of the fact that you think it’s not analogous.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    You don’t see anything wrong with someone saying that people who are skeptics about global warming are the same as people who thought Nazi’s weren’t evil?

    You don’t see anything wrong with AGW skeptics being compared to Nazi deniers?

    That is just stunning.

  5. You would be popping your head, Reasic, if a Republican made a claim about liberals like that.

  6. Otter says:

    ‘So, you can’t explain why anyone is upset over this?’~ realsick

    Can’t you Read?

    And still you have nothing to say about the FACT that hurricanes are not getting more powerful OR more numerous.

    Not to mention that it is an IPCC scientist who is posting that FACT.

  7. Reasic says:

    This is a real threat that we face, and you all deny it. I don’t see the problem. You choose to ignore the experts, and instead, prefer information spoon-fed to you by biased sources. It is very analogous.

    Otter, the subject of hurricanes is a less certain, and is a side point for me. The crux of the argument that you all reject is whether man is at fault for warming temperatures (or whether temps are even rising). I prefer to stick to that. How can we move on to the consequences of global warming, if we can’t even agree on the causes of it?

  8. gitarcarver says:

    The crux of the argument that you all reject is whether man is at fault for warming temperatures (or whether temps are even rising). I prefer to stick to that.

    We prefer to stick to the science of the issue. That is the point. Not only are there huge holes in the data, what data was used was cooked to support a conclusion, rather than the data leading to a conclusion.

    How can we move on to the consequences of global warming, if we can’t even agree on the causes of it?

    We know the cause of global warming – it is a natural cycle of the earth. The question is whether man’s influence increases that warming or not. The science is, at best, unsettled. The true deniers in this are the ones who take a conclusion and refuse to believe that the science that supposedly supports that conclusion is riddled with lies, inaccuracies, and a political agenda.

  9. Larry says:

    In the 1930s, the Progressives and liberals thought the Nazis and Facism were just wonderful.

    Jonah Goldberg lays it all out in Liberal Facism.

    The good senator might want to choose a different analogy.

  10. Reasic says:

    We prefer to stick to the science of the issue. That is the point. Not only are there huge holes in the data, what data was used was cooked to support a conclusion, rather than the data leading to a conclusion.

    Be specific. What data, and how was it cooked?

    We know the cause of global warming – it is a natural cycle of the earth.

    Ah. It’s just some unknown, mysterious cycle? when, in the past, did this same cycle occur, and how often did it occur before that?

  11. gitarcarver says:

    Be specific. What data, and how was it cooked?

    We know the data to support the hockey stick was cooked. We know that the NASA data has gone missing. (Of the NASA data, a full 45% of the data was never there to begin with. Researchers “filled in the gaps.”) We know that data the IPCC used is, by their own admission, faulty. We know that the often cited “report” on the Himalayan glacier was faked. We know that the hurricane data was “massaged.” We know that the temperature sensors are unreliable due to their placement next to non-climate related heat sources (such as air conditioners.)

    Ah. It’s just some unknown, mysterious cycle?

    Who said it was mysterious?

    Oh wait, you, the denier of all scientific evidence that contradicts your point of view, says it is “mysterious.”

    Are you denying that the earth has gone through cooling and heating cycles in the past?

  12. Reasic says:

    Just as I thought. You are armed with just enough talking points to make you skeptical, but don’t have near enough scientific details to prove anything. That’s typical, unfortunately. To answer your points:

    1. No, the hockey stick was not “cooked”. Yes, McIntyre and McKitrick found a small error, but once it was corrected, there was no substantive change to the overall result.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

    2. No NASA data has gone missing. Any honest effort to obtain data from a climatologist would turn up the data. This is the latest deniers’ trick. Submit spurious FOI requests, not in a genuine effort to conduct independent research, but rather to engage in fishing expeditions.

    3. “The data the IPCC used is faulty”?! That’s a rather broad statement. I’m assuming you’re talking about a statement attributed to Dr. Murari Lal by David Rose in the Daily Mail, in which he supposedly said thta he knew that the “data hadn’t been verified”. What you should know is that David Rose has a long history of misquoting climate scientists in order to create sensational stories. Dr. Lal has since clarified the matter:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php

    4. The report you’re referring to was from the WWF, and it qualified as “grey literature” under IPCC rules, which is not used often in the IPCC reports, but is useful in the second and third working groups’ reports, to fill in data where extensive scientific research has not been done. In this case, there would have been no problem, had the WWF report not contained a typo, which was unfortunately not caught by the WGII team. The original source claimed that the glaciers would be gone by 2350, but the WWF report stated “2035”. This has nothing to do with the proof that man is mostly at fault for recent warming, and was most definitely not the result of anyone trying to “fake” anything.

    5. Let’s see. Another vague assertion about general “hurricane data”. This is growing tiresome. Why is it that you can spit out vague talking points, and I’m left to figure out what the hell you’re talking about before I can even refute it? Do you have any idea how much research has been conducted on this subject?

    6. Ah, temperature sensors… You must be a surfacestations.org fan. Here’s the thing about surfacestations.org: They post pictures of temperature sensors. That’s it. They haven’t done any conprehensive analysis of the effect of the supposed conditions on the sensors, or shown that any unwanted anomalies are not later corrected in the temperature calculation. Now, we know why this hasn’t been done:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

    The insinuated effect doesn’t exist. Funny, isn’t it? You state that we “know” something, that you really don’t “know”. There’s been no study o prove it. It was only insinuated with photos and anecdotal evidence. You just wanted to believe it, so you did.

    7. Cycles. I asked you for specifics on the cycles, which you didn’t provide. Yes, the planet has gone through cycles. Are you talking about glacial and interglacial periods? What cycles are you referring to, what caused them, and what makes you think that the same forces are at fault now? Or are you simply making a general argument about climate change being natural, without having really looked into it to know why that might be true?

    Listen, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. I really want to pursue this further with you, if you are willing.

  13. gitarcarver says:

    1. No, the hockey stick was not “cooked”.

    So you are saying that the error and the supporting graph were not cooked to display an conclusion?

    That would be denial #1.

    2. No NASA data has gone missing.

    NASA admitted it had gone missing. It is interesting that you attack those who want to see the data as having ulterior motives, but claim that you and fellow deniers are pure in motive.

    3. “The data the IPCC used is faulty”?!

    It doesn’t have to be broad. Once a single scintilla of data has been found to be faulty, the whole report is faulty. I guess you missed that the report has been retracted?

    4. The report you’re referring to was from the WWF,

    Right. The one with the statements that were not scientifically verified yet quoted as being such.

    5. Let’s see. Another vague assertion about general “hurricane data”.

    There was no vague assertion at all. The prediction of hurricanes being more powerful and numerous than in history are demonstrably false. That is the problem with deniers of science such as yourself. You make excuses for the mistakes and then say “the premise is still sound.” You are one of those that believes in finding things to support a conclusion rather than letting the conclusion come from the data.

    6. Ah, temperature sensors… The insinuated effect doesn’t exist.

    I love how you reference an article that contradicts your point.

    7. Cycles. I asked you for specifics on the cycles, which you didn’t provide.

    That’s okay. Your accusation of a “mysterious cycle” was vague. Don’t get upset with me for responding in the same way you have.

    I really want to pursue this further with you, if you are willing.

    With you?

    No thanks.

    I’ll stick with pure science as opposed to people with a bias.

  14. Reasic says:

    1. hockey stick

    So you are saying that the error and the supporting graph were not cooked to display an conclusion?

    Yes, that is what I am saying. I provided you with a link. Did you read it? In what way do you think it was cooked?

    2. NASA data

    NASA admitted it had gone missing.

    deniers have admitted that they are only fishing to “see what turns up”. What specific data are you talking about? Provide a link or something. You also claimed that the IPCC admitted using faulty data, which was false. Back up your claims.

    3. IPCC “faulty data”

    It doesn’t have to be broad. Once a single scintilla of data has been found to be faulty, the whole report is faulty. I guess you missed that the report has been retracted?

    It seems that you’re getting your stories mixed up. Now, you seem to be referring to this:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

    This has nothing to do with the IPCC (at least not yet). It was released a full two years after the latest IPCC reports. Most other post-AR4 studies have predicted sea level rise that is double what is in AR4. This study was more in line with the report. As it turns out, its findings were likely too low:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/

    4. WWF study

    The one with the statements that were not scientifically verified yet quoted as being such.

    Somehow you skipped the part about this being a typo, rather than an attempt to “fake” anything.

    5. Hurricane data

    You are one of those that believes in finding things to support a conclusion rather than letting the conclusion come from the data.

    Interesting statement, given that I have taken no stances on the issue of hurricane activity or strength due to global warming. I only wanted you to be more specific about your claim. Which study was found to have data that was “massaged”?

    6. temperature sensors

    I love how you reference an article that contradicts your point.

    Please explain for me how an study that finds a cool bias for poor sites listed by surfacestations.org contradicts my point. I’m all ears.

    7. cycles

    That’s okay. Your accusation of a “mysterious cycle” was vague. Don’t get upset with me for responding in the same way you have.

    How sophomoric. You’ve basically admitted that you don’t have an answer. Since you won’t get into specifics about something that you don’t understand, I’ll tell you that the earth’s past glacial and inter-glacial periods were brought about by changes in the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the planet’s orbit. These have happened on a much larger time scale than the changes we are seeing in recent years. Unless there is some other cycle that you know about, but are keeping a super secret for some reason, I’m going to have to call your bluff on this one as well.

    With you?

    No thanks.

    That’s what I figured. You’re like all the rest of the denier wannabes in the blogosphere. You have just enough talking points to mislead the passerby, or get a high five from your fellow kool-aid drinkers, but when faced with real scientific facts and sources, you have you rebuttal. You stammer around, eventually provide childish cut downs, and then run with your tail tucked between your legs.

    I’ll stick with pure science as opposed to people with a bias.

    Okay. I assume by “pure science”, you mean research that is published in relevant prestigious scientific literature, like Science or Nature.

    Nah.

Bad Behavior has blocked 12782 access attempts in the last 7 days.