“Why Am I ‘Dragging’ the Holocaust into the Climate Change Debate?”

I had originally planned to make my next post a continuation of the last one, and call it “Proof, Part 2.”  However, my last blog post stirred up a lot of debate and reaction, including recognition from New York Times environmental reporter/blogger Andrew Revkin.  So, I thought I’d take a slight detour and address some of the issues raised by that post.

Many thoughtful comments on this blog (thanks!!) have focused on my so-called “dragging” the Holocaust into the climate change debate.  The claims were that I am “cheapening” the Holocaust, that I am not able to distinguish between deniers and skeptics and/or that I am accusing climate change deniers of using “Nazi methods” simply by using the term deniers in the context of climate change.

First of all, I could not and would not “cheapen” a genocide that killed most of my family and deprived me of my childhood between the Warsaw Ghetto and Bergen-Belsen.  I was born three months before the start of this genocide in which we were targeted for annihilation because we belonged to a group that the Germans did not think had a right to exist.

But, of course, I am using the term “denier” to make a point.  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.

I make my “climate change denier” claim for one reason.  It’s easy today to teach students to condemn the Holocaust, but it’s much more difficult to teach them how to try to prevent future genocides.  There are different kinds of genocides and they don’t repeat themselves; they come to us in different ways.  I am not suggesting that the Holocaust is just like climate change.  But what I am suggesting is that 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.

Even if people don’t believe this or are skeptical – remember Germany as Hitler came to power – why don’t we act now?  Why wait?  And what, exactly, are we waiting for anyway?  Are we waiting for “the answer?”  Since, as I’d said earlier, the future is not totally predictable, we may never get “the answer.”

I don’t want my grandchildren to die in a climate change genocide that we could have helped head off because we were waiting for some unattainable certainty about climate change.

The preventive actions that need to be undertaken are outlined in various credible scientific reports and will be expanded upon right here in the near future. They will have to be applied on a multigenerational time scale (End of Now in my book- see first blog).

These actions that we can take now are not meant to be “the answer” to a certain scenario. They were always meant to be an insurance policy that we can afford to pay and that we must pay.  In my opinion, most of those actions can be summarized like this: at a minimum, we must require that by the “end of now” (my grandchildren’s life-span), half of our global energy use must not result in the emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and fossil fuels must not be coal based.  (There’s more on all of that in my book.)

Ultimately, my main objective in “dragging” the Holocaust into this debate is that, in my opinion, long-term solutions to our climate change problem can only be attained through the educational system.

Holocaust studies and commemorations are now widespread.  Here’s just one example – “United Nations General Assembly resolution 60/7 on Holocaust remembrance called for the establishment a programme of outreach on the subject of the ‘Holocaust and the United Nations’ and measures to mobilize civil society for Holocaust remembrance and education in order to help to prevent future acts of genocide.”  Millions of children, mainly in Europe, North America, Australia, Israel, and even in China study the events.  Holocaust museums are opening in places that are not directly connected with the event.

A valid question, one that probably only a person with a background similar to mine can ask is, why?  The UN resolution provides a reasonable response – “to prevent future acts of genocide.”  The Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana wrote that, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” to which the English writer and cartoonist Max Beerbohm replied, “History does not repeat itself.  The Historians repeat one another.”

Teaching the Holocaust to achieve this objective requires not only the study of past events, but it also must attempt to analyze future situations that might lead to genocides – man-on-man and self-inflicted – through destruction of the physical environment.

I belong to the last generation of Holocaust survivors.  The interest in study of the Holocaust is increasing, and the demand for people like me to appear before school children to tell our stories and answer their questions, is increasing.  This is an opportunity that I choose to use to remind everybody within our reach that we need to pay attention to the prevention of future genocides through analysis of situations that might lead to one.

Be Sociable, Share!

About climatechangefork

Micha Tomkiewicz, Ph.D., is a professor of physics in the Department of Physics, Brooklyn College, the City University of New York. He is also a professor of physics and chemistry in the School for Graduate Studies of the City University of New York. In addition, he is the founding-director of the Environmental Studies Program at Brooklyn College as well as director of the Electrochemistry Institute at that same institution.
This entry was posted in Climate Change. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to “Why Am I ‘Dragging’ the Holocaust into the Climate Change Debate?”

  1. This is a topic that’s close to my heart… Best wishes!
    Where are your contact details though?

  2. Spot on with this write-up, I really feel this amazing site needs far more attention.
    I’ll probably be returning to read through more, thanks for
    the info!

  3. My brother suggested I might like this web site. He was entirely right.
    This post truly made my day. You can not imagine just how much time I had spent for
    this info! Thanks!

  4. Victoria says:

    Saved as a favorite, I like your blog!

  5. I’m not sure where you’re getting your info, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for magnificent information I was looking for this info for my mission

  6. Pingback: Climate Change, Hiroshima and Nuclear Winter. | ClimateChangeFork

  7. Vielen Dank für Ihre wunderbaren Beitrag! Ich wirklich genossen lesen, könnten Sie eine große author.I werden sich erinnern, um Ihren Blog Lesezeichen und wird schließlich wieder irgendwann. Ich möchte Sie ermutigen, weiterhin Ihre große Schrift, haben einen schönen Tag!

  8. Hello Clim,

    I am going to buy the Ebook of Climate change: the fork at the end of now, it’s very interesting! thanks I am reading now more about crimes at your blog post.

  9. click here says:

    Unquestionably believe that which you stated. Your favorite justification appeared to be
    on the net the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed while people think about
    worries that they just do not know about.
    You managed to hit the nail upon the top and defined out the whole thing without having
    side effect , people can take a signal. Will probably be back to get more.

    Thanks

    Stop by my web-site :: click here

  10. coupon deals says:

    Excellent post, cheers!

  11. Pingback: Global Warming Denial, the Second Coming, and Government Control

  12. susan says:

    the idea was really very good helped me with many, Thank you

  13. Ludmila K says:

    I could not agree more with this post. On the personal level, climate change means high probability of destructive weather events, less available food, need of resources necessary to maintain the leaving space, and increasing number of people loosing it all. The psychological pressure on everyone will be increasing and mixed with unknown that future holds, it will be very difficult especially for lower and middle classes.

    And truly there are many deniers as there were during the Holocaust. My parents, for example, are educated people however they don’t believe in the climate change and at the moment, they don’t plan to change their habits. And there are people who acknowledge the possibility but to me it feels like they are playing with probabilities because they ask for more and more proves spending the precious time on it instead of taking the necessary actions.

    Looking at my camping pictures, I really hope that my children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the nature as it is now. Because even though there is probably a chance that the climate won’t change, I don’t won’t to leave with the probability that it may. And if it happens as scientists predict, it won’t matter if you agree with Holocaust comparison or not, many people will die and we won’t be able to redo it.

  14. My partner and I stumbled over here from a different web address and thought I might as well check things out.
    I like what I see so now i am following you. Look forward to
    looking into your web page yet again.

  15. Pingback: Two Shades of Audience | ClimateChangeFork

  16. Pingback: Denial of Science and History: An Increasing Modern Phenomenon? - Page 41

  17. Pingback: Three Shades of Deniers | ClimateChangeFork

  18. Tamica Gair says:

    Thank you thanks thank you for including accessibility in your top 10, especially in a way that points up the advantages to other user groups (such as mobile device users) when sites are accessibly designed. Magnificent.

  19. Quite a few remarkably good factors! I appreciate you writing this write-up plus the rest of the website is also really great also.

  20. “Why Am I ‘Dragging’ the Holocaust into the Climate Change Debate?” | ClimateChangeFork is an outstanding share. Thank you for this writing.

  21. epa says:

    You have mentioned very interesting points! ps decent internet site.

  22. Garmin 1490t says:

    Can I just say what a relief to discover someone who truly knows what theyre talking about over a internet. You actually know how to bring an dilemma to light and make it important. Far more folks have to read this and understand this side with the story. I cant consider youre not additional well-known due to the fact you truly have the gift.

  23. I’m not sure the place you are getting your info, but great topic. I must spend a while learning more or working out more. Thank you for excellent info I was looking for this information for my mission.

  24. Paydaybank says:

    I was more than happy to seek out this internet-site.I wished to thanks on your time for this excellent read!! I undoubtedly having fun with each little little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post.

  25. I don’t even understand how I stopped up right here, but I believed this post used to be good. I do not know who you are however definitely you are going to a well-known blogger when you aren’t already. Cheers!

  26. Paydaybank says:

    I enjoy looking through a post that can make people think. Also, thanks for allowing for me to comment!

  27. Hey there! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a group of volunteers and starting a new project in a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us useful information to work on. You have done a extraordinary job!

  28. holy chicken says:

    Woah! I’m really enjoying the template/theme of this blog. It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s very difficult to get that “perfect balance” between superb usability and appearance. I must say you’ve done a fantastic job with this. Also, the blog loads super fast for me on Safari. Excellent Blog!

  29. Nestor Rasberry says:

    I believe this internet site contains some real great information for everyone :D . “Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.” by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

  30. Perry Makos says:

    We are a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your web site offered us with valuable info to work on. You’ve done a formidable job and our entire community will be grateful to you.

  31. Willis Graydon says:

    Hey there, You’ve done a great job. I will definitely digg it and personally suggest to my friends. I am sure they will be benefited from this web site.

  32. Marni Duffin says:

    Heya i am for the first time here. I came across this board and I find It really useful & it helped me out much. I hope to give something back and help others like you helped me.

  33. Wow! Thank you! I continuously wanted to write on my website something like that. Can I include a part of your post to my blog?

  34. I’m still learning from you, as I’m trying to reach my goals. I definitely enjoy reading all that is posted on your website.Keep the information coming. I loved it!

  35. Laminat says:

    I had no trouble navigating through all the tabs and information was very easy to access. I found what I wanted in no time at all. Pretty awesome. Would appreciate it if you add forums or something

  36. escorte iasi says:

    I’m interested to know if it’s possible to copy a paragraph of this publication to use for my school project.

  37. Laogai says:

    I find it absolutely fascinating that all my comments are being deleted.

    If anyone is wondering why they’re getting no answers to their questions, it’s not because sceptics have none, it’s because you’re not being allowed to see them. It makes you wonder how much confidence our host can have in his position if he dare not debate it openly.

    And it suggests another reason why the holocaust is being dragged into the debate. Evil likes to disguise itself as good. What better way to disguise your efforts to persecute and exclude a minority than to claim to be against that sort of thing?

    What’s the point in sabotaging your own efforts to educate people by excluding the very people you want to educate?

  38. Anonymous says:

    Really fascinating write-up. Do you actually plan on adding a great deal more material or even posting even more? Excellent job!

  39. Marlowe Johnson says:

    what LCarey said. Thanks very much for this contribution Prof. Tomkiewicz. I’ve bookmarked this blog and look forward to future posts!

  40. Pingback: Is the holocaust denial/climate change denial comparison apt? | Virginia News Press | Virginia Breaking News Headlines | Virginia News Directory

  41. Louise says:

    There is a post on WUWT discussing the use of the word denier to describe those that don’t accept the science of global warming http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/18/integrity-score-climatebites-1-mann-0/. I tried to link to this site with a very bland post pointing out that this blog exists and is written by a holocaust survivor who explains why he uses the term denier. My post went into moderation and then disappeared.

    Apparently WUWT doesn’t do censorship so it must be something else…

  42. William Chandler says:

    If you apply for a disability claim from an insurance company or, especially, the government, you have to PROVE you have been injured, REPEATEDLY. The insurance companies and government do not just “take your word for it” and never question you again. When Israel began USING the Holocaust for Political Leverage and Monetary Reparations, Israel itself opened the Holocaust up to questioning. When Israel collected MONEY for the Holocaust, Israel SOLD THE STORY RIGHTS. So it is not just Our RIGHT to “question” the holocaust, it is Our DUTY to ask “Are we buying a PIG in a POKE?”

  43. Marco, we are not denying science, we are affirming it.

    Was Dr. H. H. Lamb, author of “Climatic History and the Future,” and “Climate, History and the Modern World” a climate change denier? The thousands of studies he references in these two monuments to climate science would suggest by your definition he is.

    We who are proponents of natural climate change are combatting science with science. Have you read Steve McIntyre’s cool dissection of the Hockey Stick?

    Have you noticed the shrill alarmism about ocean acidification? “…that acidity of the oceans are increasing ‘at a rate in the last 100 years that is 10 times faster than any 100-year span in the last 300 million years.’

    ” This is interesting on many levels, most conspicuously because it’s not true. An obvious fault is that ocean pH changes cannot be measured in precise 100-year increments covering the past 300 million years. However, there’s more.

    A 2005 study (Pelejero et al.) spanning the period 1708-1988 found a clear interdecadal oscillation of pH between 7.9 and 8.2 pH units. The study showed many oscillations of 0.2 pH units within the three 100-year periods examined.

    A 2009 study (Liu et al.) of the pH history of the South China Sea covering the past 7,000 years shows oscillations of 0.4 pH units, some of which decreased 0.2 pH units in a 100-year period. About recent increases in ocean acidity, this study concluded: “(T)here is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the two most recent pH values. They are neither the lowest of the record, nor is the decline rate that led to them the greatest of the record.”

    It’s hard for a statement about acidity increasing “faster than any 100-year span in the last 300 million years” to be true when the rate isn’t the even the fastest in the last 300 years, as one study shows, or in the last 7,000 years per another study.

    A 2009 Australian study (Wei et al.) found a decrease in pH of 0.4 units 1935-1940, and an earlier decrease of 0.3 units 1860-1865. Both of these reductions, as all of the previous examples, were obviously not caused by increased atmospheric CO2. This is not denial, this is science. Don’t you know the difference?

  44. (since my first comment has been “awaiting moderation” for two days now, I thought I would repost it, and this is it)

    Dr. Tomkiewicz, why are you a natural climate change denier?

    Was Dr. H. H. Lamb, author of “Climatic History and the Future,” and “Climate, History and the Modern World” a climate change denier? The thousands of studies he references in these two monuments to climate science would suggest by your definition he is.

    By your remarks you cheapen both the Holocaust and climate science.

    We who are proponents of natural climate change are combatting science with science. Have you read Steve McIntyre’s cool dissection of the Hockey Stick?

    Have you noticed the shrill alarmism about ocean acidification? “…that acidity of the oceans are increasing ‘at a rate in the last 100 years that is 10 times faster than any 100-year span in the last 300 million years.’”

    This is interesting on many levels, most conspicuously because it’s not true. An obvious fault is that ocean pH changes cannot be measured in precise 100-year increments covering the past 300 million years. However, there’s more.

    A 2005 study (Pelejero et al.) spanning the period 1708-1988 found a clear interdecadal oscillation of pH between 7.9 and 8.2 pH units. The study showed many oscillations of 0.2 pH units within the three 100-year periods examined.

    A 2009 study (Liu et al.) of the pH history of the South China Sea covering the past 7,000 years shows oscillations of 0.4 pH units, some of which decreased 0.2 pH units in a 100-year period. About recent increases in ocean acidity, this study concluded: “(T)here is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the two most recent pH values. They are neither the lowest of the record, nor is the decline rate that led to them the greatest of the record.”

    It’s hard for a statement about acidity increasing “faster than any 100-year span in the last 300 million years” to be true when the rate isn’t the even the fastest in the last 300 years, as one study shows, or in the last 7,000 years per another study.

    A 2009 Australian study (Wei et al.) found a decrease in pH of 0.4 units 1935-1940, and an earlier decrease of 0.3 units 1860-1865. Both of these reductions, as all of the previous examples, were obviously not caused by increased atmospheric CO2. It is also obvious that Oregon oysters survived them all, and should persevere.

    Dr. Tomkiewicz, this is not denial, this is science. It seems you would know the difference.

  45. Pingback: The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 1267

  46. J Bowers says:

    “We are not deniers, we are simply searching for the truth in what should be a free and open debate.”

    In the peer reviewed literature, if you please. Publishing sciencey sounding stuff on the internetz as serious debunking of the consequences of the laws of physics really doesn’t pass muster.

    Oh, and Churchill was an alarmist.

  47. Scrooge says:

    OK I’m a little confused here. The scientific debate about CO2 being a GHG and being a driver has been over for years. So what “debate” are we talking about. Seems to be some mythical cycle or its just a big hoax and all the things we are seeing just isn’t there. There is always room for real scientific debate but the line should be drawn on the tin foil hatters and those that just want shift the overton window. Otherwise you will just end up with another WUWT or faux news.

  48. MarkH says:

    I’ve been writing about the similarity between the argumentation of various denialists, including climate change, evolution, holocaust denial etc for years, you can read my initial foray into the issue here if you like.

    However, the comparison between deniers doesn’t need to be a moral one. The comparison should come from the fact that they argue the exact same way, as do all denialists. Some denialists may even have the best of intentions, but if your arguments are just empty rhetoric used to deny scientific data, you’re making denialist arguments. The key tenets of these arguments are conspiracy theories, cherry picking data, citing fake experts, moving the goalposts, and general logical fallacies.

    The holocaust deniers have ludicrous conspiracy theories to explain away the reams of evidence and personal recollections of the individuals from the holocaust, they look for miniscule inconsistencies in evidence to suggest the holocaust did not happen or minimize the scale (as did the very first denier Paul Rassinier who also alleged a zionist/soviet conspiracy to invent the holocaust), they cite historical evidence from bogus historians like David Irving, moving goalposts for the level of evidence required to prove the event to create impossible expectations for historical evidence, and finally logical fallacies like Irving’s moral minimalization of the holocaust by citing the bombing of Dresden.

    Similarly, climate change denialism engages in these same rhetorical tactics. When denialists like Inhofe or Santorum cite a “hoax”, what they are alleging is a conspiracy between thousands of scientists worldwide to fabricate data for a single ideological purpose – the creation of world government or socialist/antibusiness environmental legislation. This is frankly absurd. The lesser “grantsmanship” conspiracy is that no scientist will ever discover anything contrary to the consensus because they fear losing their funding, also absurd given the purpose of research is to discover new and ideally revolutionary information. Anyone who actually works in science and writes grants finds these ideas absurd on their face. How could one possibly coordinate such a conspiracy? And science revels in novel and revolutionary results that often confound previous findings. Just read Nature or Science any given week.

    The cherry picking of papers, often from journals that are overrun by cranks like Energy and Environment, and even the cherry-picking of individual data points or time periods is rampant.

    Fake experts? How about the Oregon petition and various other lists generated by climate change denialists full of MDs, meteorologists, and the occasional AC repair man? How about routinely dishonest fake experts like Christopher Monckton, fake member of the British Parliament who also thinks he’s cured HIV? Anyone who has an inkling of intellectual honesty would rather cut off their arm than cite this guy as an expert, but not the climate change denialists. Anyone with any perceived authority in science or politics who supports their position becomes a messiah.

    Moving goalposts and impossible expectations? They’re the single best denialist group at ignoring every single contribution to the literature that contradicts their view. They still make noise over the hockey stick despite it being replicated, again and again, by other investigators.

    Logical fallacies? Al Gore is fat and has a big energy wasting house. God made the earth and is the only one who can destroy it (surprisingly common argument). etc.

    The decision to identify climate change denialists as similar to holocaust deniers has nothing to do with the moral failure of them as individuals but the fact that they make the exact same kind of arguments. In fact anyone who uses these argumentation strategies to deny a body of established scientific evidence, whether it be evolution, that HIV causes AIDS, etc., is a denialist, not necessarily because they are bad people, but because they don’t understand what constitutes valid scientific evidence or methods of argumentation. It’s not about having contrary opinions, or even disbelief in a scientific consensus. It’s about refusing to use valid methods of challenging existing evidence and consensus, like data, research, and arguments that are intellectually rigorous and consistent.

  49. Marco says:

    Ah, the quotation out of context as a method of argumentation. I’ve seen that before in creationists.

    Laogai, a debate is fine, but not if the denial of scientific results is based on ideological reasoning. Like “this is going to affect me economically, therefore I do not like it, and therefore the science must be wrong”. I’m sure I can find myself a few juicy quotes from people ‘on the other side’ which explain why they behave like they do (see one example further below), but unless you actually *show* something to be wrong, your argument is just an ad hominem.

    To me it is quite obvious that AGW is not desirable. Not from an ecological point, nor from an economic point. I don’t want it to be true, but the data keeps on pointing in that inconvenient direction. So, why do so many others deny that reality? In my honest opinion mostly because the idea is in great conflict with their ideology. Some christians accept evolution, others do not. Those that do not often provide arguments that show their faith in a god would be diminished if they were to accept evolution as a highly functional theory. I see the same with many who deny the reality of AGW: for some it contradicts their idea that “god is good and will take care of us”, as codified in the Cornwall Alliance’s statement on global warming (notable signers Roy Spencer, Ross McKitrick, and Joe D’Aleo). For others, it contradicts their ideology that they have the right to do whatever they want, without having to look at the consequences, especially when those consequences are not easily visible. A third group just does not like the implications of the proposed solutions, which often involve government action. And rather than propose solutions themselves, they’d prefer to deny there *is* a problem. This sometimes translates in denial of the science, too.

  50. mbabbitt says:

    Shame on you for cheapening the Holocaust and feeding the hatred of the climate alarm religionists. Disgraceful.

  51. Jay says:

    Professor Tomkiewicz, first I want to express my sorrow for your loss and pain.

    I am Jewish, I have a BS in Physics (and in one math), I was born in the sixties, and I just find the comparison of AGW skeptics to Holocaust denial terribly inapt, clumsy, and in poor taste.

    Anyway, I wish I knew more about WWII and more still about Physics, but I can’t help but think that the great Jewish Physicists I studied would have been either been skeptical about AGW themselves, or much more encouraging about climate change skepticism themselves.

    Best wishes,

  52. Laogai says:

    Micha,

    Thank you for writing about this – with your background, it is possible to discuss the the historical parallels without getting cut off with ‘Godwin’ claims.

    The basic problem with the analogy is that we do not know at the time, without hindsight, which side of history we are all on. As I’m sure you know better than I, the Holocaust started from the claim that the Jews were a threat to the world. Government authorities promoted the view, and those who ‘denied’ that the Jews were dangerous were denounced as deluded or corrupt. It became first socially unacceptable to speak up in their defence, and eventually dangerous to do so. The national socialists enforced their opinions on everyone, denied free speech, prevented debate or the presentation of any other arguments or evidence than their own; largely on the grounds that anyone arguing against them was clearly wrong, and it would be ‘dangerous’ to let innocent and easily-fooled people be deceived by Jewish propaganda.

    With hindsight, of course, and knowing both sides of the story we can easily see what nonsense this was. But if the national socialists had won the war, would we now be saying the same sorts of things about those who had denied (and perhaps continue to deny) the reality of the Jewish threat?

    Today we have a brewing war between the advancing health and prosperity afforded by cheap energy and capitalism, and the threat of climate change. Which is the Jews and which the Nazis? Which is the lying propaganda and which the brave stand for truth? How can we tell?

    That’s why whichever side you’re on, you need to make a stand for free speech and debate, for openness and transparency, for evidence and explanation, for upholding standards and investigating rigorously. Because it’s the only way to tell the truth from the propaganda.

    Which side calls for debate, and which says the debate is over? Which side tries only to be heard, and which tries to silence and exclude the opposition? Which side tries to open up the evidence, and which side hides their data and methods behind a wall of secrecy? Can you imagine, if the world was under threat from an asteroid, the astronomers keeping their observations secret for IPR reasons? To protect their ability to publish more papers?

    Some quotes for you to consider:

    “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.”

    “It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically”

    “p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…”

    “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

    “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have”

    “this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology.”

    “As we have said, it is not too difficult to see how this will end: It will end through ecological necessity. Nature will take humanity by the throat and confront it with the biospherical damage that it has done. It is most unlikely in our opinion that some form of spontaneous, unorganized democratic groundswell will awaken the masses to their fates before it is too late. Rather any such resistance to the system must come from an organized vanguard, unafraid to ultimately rule in the name of the common good. These new philosopher kings feature what we call the “authoritarian alternative” discussed earlier.”

    “Government in the future will be based upon (or incorporate, depending on the level of breakdown of civilization) a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.”

    And there are hundreds more. Will people look back and say this was the equivalent of “Mein Kampf”? That they were perfectly clear about what they wanted to do and what they were doing and how they were doing it, for those who were willing to see? Why aren’t we paying attention?

    I don’t expect you to change your mind about climate catastrophe, but perhaps you will see the difficulty with making historical parallels. Denying past events is not the same as denying future ones.

  53. My reference to the Oregon oysters was due to the alarmism generated by an Oregon study that their oysters were not reproducing energetically because of “alarming” ocean acidification shown by a decrease in pH of 0.1 units, “a rate in the last 100 years that is 10 times faster than any 100-year span in the last 300 million years.” Dr. Tomkiewicz, don’t you find anything in such a statement worthy of dispute?

    Even by a natural climate change denier?

  54. Dr. Tomkiewicz, why are you a natural climate change denier?

    Was Dr. H. H. Lamb, author of “Climatic History and the Future,” and “Climate, History and the Modern World” a climate change denier? The thousands of studies he references in these two monuments to climate science would suggest by your definition he is.

    By your remarks you cheapen both the Holocaust and climate science.

    We who are proponents of natural climate change are combatting science with science. Have you read Steve McIntyre’s cool dissection of the Hockey Stick?

    Have you noticed the shrill alarmism about ocean acidification? “…that acidity of the oceans are increasing ‘at a rate in the last 100 years that is 10 times faster than any 100-year span in the last 300 million years.’

    ” This is interesting on many levels, most conspicuously because it’s not true. An obvious fault is that ocean pH changes cannot be measured in precise 100-year increments covering the past 300 million years. However, there’s more.

    A 2005 study (Pelejero et al.) spanning the period 1708-1988 found a clear interdecadal oscillation of pH between 7.9 and 8.2 pH units. The study showed many oscillations of 0.2 pH units within the three 100-year periods examined.

    A 2009 study (Liu et al.) of the pH history of the South China Sea covering the past 7,000 years shows oscillations of 0.4 pH units, some of which decreased 0.2 pH units in a 100-year period. About recent increases in ocean acidity, this study concluded: “(T)here is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the two most recent pH values. They are neither the lowest of the record, nor is the decline rate that led to them the greatest of the record.”

    It’s hard for a statement about acidity increasing “faster than any 100-year span in the last 300 million years” to be true when the rate isn’t the even the fastest in the last 300 years, as one study shows, or in the last 7,000 years per another study.

    A 2009 Australian study (Wei et al.) found a decrease in pH of 0.4 units 1935-1940, and an earlier decrease of 0.3 units 1860-1865. Both of these reductions, as all of the previous examples, were obviously not caused by increased atmospheric CO2. It is also obvious that Oregon oysters survived them all, and should persevere.

    Dr. Tomkiewicz, this is not denial, this is science. It seems you would know the difference.

  55. Eli Rabett says:

    Micha, you make a very strong point, the issue is not those who deny after the damage is done who are responsible but those whose denial prevents action.

  56. Joe Bastardi says:

    Please explain then why temperatures are behaving according to climate cycle theory as the Pacific, which has been in its warm mode 1978 to 2007 has no flipped and 3 year GLOBAL temps have begun falling
    http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
    Note, this is NCEP temps
    That the IPCC forecast is busting, while co2 is rising
    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/normalised.png
    That arctic sea ice has returned to normal ( this is the norwegian site hardly a right wing think tank)
    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
    and that the strength of correlation with the ocean and the sun is much higher than co2
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/amopdo_regression.png

    I wonder if you have even read any ideas contrary to the ones you have

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/multidecadal_tendencies.pdf

    We are not deniers, we are simply searching for the truth in what should be a free and open debate. As someone who had my ancestors suffer at the hands of Mussoline, the climate of trying to shut down debate resembles much more that era than what you believe will kill your grandchildren. Quite the contrary, handcuffing generations to what simply be a utopian ghost is what will lead to the demise of the freedom you and I both cherish and have had family and friends die for

    By the way, there is much more from where this came from. If you want we can go back to the little ice age and the relationship of the solar cycles to the earths temps, including an increasing amount of people who believe we are going back to the little ice age. In fact, the recent attacks of winter in europe and the far east, though we managed to escape this year ( how convenient we also forgot the previous two winters whose severity was amazingly also blamed on global warming for some warped reason, that no matter what the weather, its global warming, or the heat and hurricanes of the 30s-50s in this nation) are much like the written history of when the earths temps began a rapid fall. I would suggest a look at some of the forecasts coming out of Russia around the time of glasnost when they first raised the alarm about solar cycles 24 ( current) and 25 going back to minimums and a return to the little ice age by 2030. How is it Chinese studies which show no hockey sticks are simply disregarded?
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/china/liu-2011-tibet-tree-rings-2485-year.gif
    Are you aware of this. If this is cherry picking, its because the orchard is ripe.

    Its hard for me to write this to a person who went through the horrors you did. I can not even begin to imagine it. It is something that makes me instantly admire you. But I would ask you to consider looking at the other side. The sheer physical realities, that co2 is .0004 of the atmosphere, that man, according the DOE puts only 3-5% of the CO2 into the air meaning the part of the atmosphere with man caused c02 is .00002, that termites put out 2.5 times the amount of man, that it is 1/400th of the greenhouse gasses of air, that air has 1/1000th the heat capacity of our oceans, making the oceans by far the primary heat source of the earth/atmosphere system, that its specific gravity is 1.5 that of air, it heats and cools faster than air, has different radiative properties, all at the very least supply the reason for doubt in this matter to any clear thinking purpose, and I believe within the next 20-30 years because of natural cyclical cooling continuing, be proven to have been driven by people who simply wish to control others

    You had first hand experience in that. I have been taught about it based on the history of my Italian heritage

    blessings
    JB

  57. EEB says:

    “…and it will effect everyone, not just one group or country.”

    Then, by definition, it would not constitute genocide. You need to find a more appropriate metaphor, chief. Face it, we want to kill everybody, including ourselves…so we can get rich.

  58. LCarey says:

    Prof. Tomkiewicz, thanks for starting your blog, and particularly for calling out those folks who are making a career of assidiously denying reality. They aren’t actual “skepics” in any shape or form – actual skeptics are searching for the truth and open to having their minds changed by evidence, and these folks are simply “faux skeptics” firmly committed to grasping ANY evidence (however tenuous or tortured) that can be bent to support their existing worldview/ideology/tribe and merely pretending to be rational. (I got into this whole energy/climate thing simply looking for new investment opportunities, and have been appalled by the unbelievable level of guibillity and illogical thinking demonstrated by the folks you rightly characterize as “deniers” – they are indeed deniers of the overwhelming corpus of evidence that exists at this point, i.e., that which rational folks think of as “reality”.) Best wishes.

    (P.S. – I am fairly sure that Tom Fuller will be by shortly with his usual “b-b-b-but both sides do it!!!!!” schtick.)

  59. Wyo says:

    I am really enjoying your posts.

    It’s so good to hear someone talk about the whole “denier” issue from your persective. People assume that you are saying that the Holocaust is the “same” as what’s happening with climate change. That’s absurd. This is the best explanation I’ve seen on this issue.

    Please keep writing. And I’ll keep reading.

  60. Luboš Motl says:

    Dear Prof Tomkiewicz,

    I agree with you it is appropriate to recall the lessons we learned from the Holocaust in the climate debate. The only problem with your description is that you have made a sign error which is not so embarrassing given your age. Of course, it’s climate alarmism that is the most dangerous political movement for the present world.

    As our president and others have pointed out in their books, it’s the climate alarmism that has superseded Nazism and communism as the greatest threat for the human freedom, economic freedom, prosperity, and even the survival of politically inconvenient people. The pillars of climate alarmism are similar to those of fascism – the opinion that the government has the right if not duty to intervene individual lives, redistribute resources, etc. to achieve a greater good.

    After all, climate alarmists are not even trying to hide that they are fully analogous to the Nazis and they adopt some of the very same language against the sensible people – the climate realists – as Nazis adopted against the Jews. The climate alarmists are dangerous, must be stopped, and the most notorious ones have to placed in the prison.

    Best regards
    Luboš Motl

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>