I agree with Martin A. Go no further.

I agree with Martin A and munroad, don't go there. High-level and dry generic references to some similarities of CAGW with other aggressive cultures (religious or secular), can make a valid point without too much risk of sparking monster emotional explosions or tripping over many apples and oranges comparisons within a heinous domian. But there is no true comparison and no benefit in where you are seeking to go, plus potentially enormous damage. Stop while you still can.

Make that four objections. I see no good reasons why anyone would want to consider "how these specific facts might legitimately be used in the CAGW debate". That is somewhere I will not go.

and another objection..

why not explore this on your own blog,

Richard, I'm glad to agree with the majority of commenters for once. That you even think the subject is worthy of discussion says a lot about you, and what it says is not at all flattering.

I find myself in agreement with Chandra. Had to happen sometime.

Richard what were you thinking? This will take us nowhere IMO.

Not a suitable topic of discussion. You are still comparing a climate scientist to a Nazi, even if only by implication.

Richard Drake
I have waited for your answer before commenting. History is full of examples of scientists being human, I can't think of anything earlier, but Newton was less than friendly to Hooke and Cassegrain. I'm sure there are Greek examples. Why should we be surprised at anything any human does?

Perhaps it's good to remind ourselves just how low we can sink rather than ignoring it completely.

I for one am interested in your next posting. Although, judging by the reactions, starting the discussion here in the way it was framed might not have been the greatest idea you've ever had,

Just for bloody mindedness, I do not like group pressure to close down debates... one of the reasons that mistrust for CAGW started.

People may say "do not go there". However, in 20-30 years some PhD thesis will be written about the term "denier", and why it was used, and by whom. It will look at the contradictions.

Some of the public people who the term "denier" pejoratively are Jewish. So the reflection of history and reflection on this area they brought upon themselves.

Legitimate debate. Maybe not for here or now, but do not fear to tread on these paths.

Living in Hungary, with many Jewish friends, they always want the light to be shone, just in this they shine the light themselves.

Your answers appear to change nothing. There are great reasons not to place ungaurded trust in scientists, but your comparison in 1) is not valid. It is right to replay the horrors that happened in order to understand how they may be avoided in the future. Many great documentaries and analyses do. These tell us it is nothing to do with science and scientists as such, but to do with lurches in the moral / legal / behavioural code of whole societies. The scientists embedded in those societies simply move with the larger needle. So in 1930s/40s Germany, doctors ended up regularly killing off disabled children, some industries willingly participated in the use of slave labour, police and local law-makers went down paths they would probably have never contemplated 25 years earlier regarding Jews and other ethnic minorities, neighbours reported heinous things against neibours based on rumour and vendetta and personal fear (US researchers were astonished to realise this is how the Gestapo worked, they were expecting to uncover a vast network pressuring the population, but in fact the population pressured itself and a few guys in an office received a flood of denouncing letters to follow up at their leisure), angry young men and many others participated in Krystallnacht, ordinary army units (not just SS) committed war-crimes, and so on and so on.

By surgically extracting from this whole cultural context the (heinous) actions of some scientists and saying this is a reason not to trust scientists (in a completely different cultural context), misses the entire point. While there are common (evolutionary) mechanisms underlying the tractjectories of cultural entities down such paths, and indeed all paths (which means there will be mechanisms common to CAGW / religion / extremist politics, for instance), you have done nothing to explore these and indeed your approach is a blind alley which has almost no scope to do so. A direct comparison of scientists from these 2 contexts is a simply awful apples to oranges with massive emotion attached for very bad measure.

As for 2), why make a monstrous statement just to point out the bleedin obvious that everyone knows. As others have said, why would anyone think to ask this anyhow?

So 1) is invalid, 2) is worthless. I think (presumably not deliberately but through frustration) you have been drawn into an area that some fall to now and again. Your attempt here will horrify many and tittilate a few who seek to undermine skeptics, they will be rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of how many not-too-far-out-of-context quotes might fall into their hands from this. Far from being the light that JC suggests, I believe this is cultural porn, same as the consensus folks sometimes indulge in climate porn. It tells us nothing and will only cause more obscuring social flames.

I thought about staying stum as Martin A suggested, but thought 1 more piece of advice might help more than hinder; please stop.

Richard, I've had conversations with many people here and there are only a few people who have not at some point made me examine what I think I know to be true. I can honestly say that you are one of the few. You seem merely to be a windbag with an exaggerated opinion of his own self worth, as your name dropping and prolific creation of discussion threads illustrates. What amazes me is that you do this in your own name for all to see what a d**khead you are.

Your "Don't you agree with me..." challenge to Martin (and effectively to us all) shows your conceit. It is not Martin or the rest of us who agree with you, it is you belatedly recognising a truth known forever by any right thinking person.

Richard, ref 'freedom of expression'
why not take it to your own blog, what is the point of your self indulgence here.

I’ve said it before, there’s very little to be gained from comparing modern situations with history other than noting that human nature doesn’t change much. Sceptics share very few similarities with those who have been persecuted in the past. Very few. The main difference is we are not in the minority and WE ARE NOT VICTIMS! personally I don’t intend to become one, either in thought or deed.

For people like Spencer, things are a little different and I’m sure being a public sceptic is similar to being a controversial politician. However, even they are a long way from becoming victims of Nazi style pogroms. It may be the fantasy of warmists to shut us up, by force if necessary, but they’re nowhere near having the strength or support to do it. Can you imagine them taking one of us to court? I think most of us could mount excellent defences of our chosen position. The consensus side would be the one to suffer.

Yes, calling people names is a tactic of the brutal throughout history but it’s also the tactic of the school bully. Don’t lift people like Mann out of the petty sphere they exist in by thinking their behaviour more significant than it is.

This subject should be dropped because it makes us look too much like whiney warmists who play the victim card regularly... and we rightly despise them for it.

Mar 2, 2014 at 1:59 PM | Richard Drake

Pretty much the whole opening could be used that way. As even sandyS pointed out, this very is far from your greatest idea. It seems you are bulling on, but I'm bowing out.