Joan Crawford has risen from the grave!

joan As it says in the good book:

Junkies down in Brooklyn are going crazy
They're laughing just like hungry dogs in the street
Policemen are hiding behind the skirts of little girls
Their eyes have turned the color of frozen meat

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no
Joan Crawford has risen from the grave
Joan Crawford has risen from the grave

Catholic school girls have thrown away their mascara
They chain themselves to the axles of big Mac trucks
The sky is filled with hordes of shimmering angels
The fat lady laughs, "Gentlemen, start your trucks"

Oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no
Joan Crawford has risen from the grave
Joan Crawford has risen from the grave

[I've made a couple of corrections to the lyrics] Or, put another way, the current status of Hansen et al. is Status: final response (author comments only). Rumour has it that ACP's online system switches to “Final publication not foreseen” when a certain amount of time has elapsed without the authors replying to all open-discussion comments and the editor making a decision.

I'm a bit surprised, because some of H's comments looked, as I said, like the responses of someone who'd given up. But not yet, it seems.

[2016/2/28: The monster lives. But, is it the same monster?]

More like this

Might it be possible that Hansen was also confused by the 'A final paper not foreseen' status and thought he better put up some replies even if they were only rough notes rather than completed responses?

Prob'ly needs to add more critics as co-authors.

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 20 Oct 2015 #permalink

My apologies for posting off topic but I need your help.

[Note: per comments below, this is trolling; see #11 -W]

You have often mentioned how deniers are so well funded. I have been sent the link below by an acquaintance to mock me.

Could you please throw some facts at them? It really hurts that deniers can get away with this sort of thing.

Thank you.

[I'm a bit disappointed by your link; its mostly smoke and mirrors. So: first page or so is just fluff. Their first real "evidence" is that Bishop Hill and WUWT display banner ads. This, of course, isn't evidence of the absence of a funded campaign. We then have Mike Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute simply describes the myth as ‘manifestly wrong’ which is simply him stating that its wrong, not offering any evidence. Then we get "another sequence of tweets debunks The Exxon Climate Denial Myth". But what that link actually does is provide a whole list of denialist funders - the Koch brothers, Donald Pearlman, who was a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the Global Climate Coalition (GCC).

The very last portion of your link points out that The UEA Climatic Research Unit acknowledges funding from BP and Shell but fails to understand that the UEA took that money to do science with, not fund advocacy. Its like the denialists don't understand that some people spend money on actual science -W]

That's great! Thank you so much!

Could you share the facts on the denialist funders you list? If all I have is their names and no facts, I will be laughed at.

[I don't need to. The tweets that the denialists themselves are pushing do this. For example, #2 is "[Koch Brothers] are hardly the only big money supporters of conservative ideas". He's using that to say Kock-aren't-the-only; but in itself, he's admitting that Koch are doing the funding -W]

You don't need to have facts but I do. I was made to look like a complete idiot.

I brought up your arguments and got a 10 second respite after which I had no answer to anything. I was totally destroyed. The denialist post goes on about a number of things that I have no idea of (what's WWWT and how is it funded by denialist money?)

Not only I couldn't answer how much, I don't even know how it is being spent. I said that there is a climate denial campaign but I was asked, which? How? When? Where? I don't have a clue. My ears are still ringing from the beating.

Then you imply conservative ideas are the same as denialist propaganda so that every dollar spent in one is spent in the other. We were laughed out of the room when my friend said that.

I'm so ashamed... and confused too. You said earlier that BigOil finances real science when everyone knowns they are out to destroy the planet. How does that even make any sense? Is it even true? I've only heard denialist say that before.

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer on this? We've been told many times that there is a many billion-dollar well-documented campaign to deny climate change. Could you please, please, please write a post about it with FACTS that can stand up? I feel like a pariah right now in my own campus.

[> I was made to look like a complete idiot... I said that there is a climate denial campaign but I was asked, which? How? When? Where? I don't have a clue.

Ah, well, there's your problem. You went into a hostile forum and tried to present ideas that you didn't have a clue about. No wonder you got ripped to shreds. But, this is why testing your ideas in a hostile forum is good. You could have sat around talking with like-minded friends for ages (and perhaps you even did) but because no-one tests anyone's ideas, because no-one disagrees, you don't realise how shaky your knowledge is. The denialists are like this too.

Anyway, if you're actually interested about "funding the denial machine" - unlike me - then you really want to ask someone else. For example, Skeptical Science. Googling "skeptical science funding denial" finds me… or -W]

This is insane. I'm in total shock right now. None of those links explain at all the climate denial campaign, how it is funded, nothing. It's all speculation and you say you don't care/know about it but still claim it is happening.

Who the hell are you people!!! Is this a joke!!!

I'm so screwed. I'm gonna have to transfer.

[I was somewhat dubious after your first few comments, but after this I think you're a troll. See also #15 and #21 -W]

Given the subject of this post and thread, it seems only fitting that we clarify the provenance of the cited website desmogblog. Funded by Fenton Communications, founded by a convicted internet fraudster, it can proudly lay claim for being the major push behind the 'climate denial is like Holocaust denial, only worse' meme.

By Thomas Fuller (not verified) on 21 Oct 2015 #permalink

Not being a big follower of "blogs" (with a few exceptions) I had no idea of Jim Hoggan's conviction. I did assume some materials on his site were suggested routes of perusal. Such as this

Also a cursory search can't turn up this conviction of his.

By Russell the Stout (not verified) on 22 Oct 2015 #permalink

After comment #11, I think it's pretty clear that Laura is a denialist troll.

Russell, Tom Fuller likely refers to John Lefebvre, who has provided funding for DeSmog blog.

On the other hand, the way he has written things, he could also be suggesting David Fenton (founder of Fenton Communications) has been convicted, but that would be a lie.


Judgement on John Lefebvre occurred on 10/25/2011
The original complaint was filed on 1/17/2007…

All dates occur after founding of DeSmogBlog

As to my location (e. g. Tom's gas oven), I can see that I've been there done that at ATTP's (INDIRECT usage circa 1996 paper) ...…

Speaking of Holocaust Denying Murderers ...…

" ... climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial deals with the deaths of millions in the past, which it did nothing to cause, however morally odious it surely is. Global warming denial deals with the deaths of millions in the future, which it helps to cause, by crippling efforts to prevent them. And that’s something much worse, as is reflected in law: It’s not a crime to lie about murders in the past, except to hinder a police investigation, or prosecution; but it is a crime to tell enabling lies about future murders—it’s called conspiracy to commit murder."

You know you have a true Denier by the nads anytime THEY bring up The Holocaust.

By Everett F Sargent (not verified) on 23 Oct 2015 #permalink


You know you have a true Denier by the nads anytime THEY bring up The Holocaust.

Everett's comment is both colorful and apt. The argument that labelling a person who rejects the scientific case for AGW an "AGW-denier" is always equivalent to calling that person a "Holocaust-denier", is nothing more than a dishonest rhetorical tactic. AGW-deniers who make it are merely playing the victim card in a bid for legitimacy, and no one should fall for it.

Just because some people have made an explicit association between AGW- and Holocaust-denial, does not mean the association is automatic and implicit from now on. It does not mean survivors of the Nazi campaign to exterminate Jews and other minorities in Europe should feel distressed if somebody gets called an AGW-denier. It does not mean the Nazi Holocaust is the only horrific fact a person might want to deny. Nor does it mean psychological professionals have to stop using "denial" when discussing, for example, victims of spousal abuse who stay with their abusive spouses.

OTOH, an AGW-denier who feels the label is pejorative has caught a clue. AGW-denial is denial in the psychological sense, "in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence." AGW-deniers need to understand that while it may be permissible to reject overwhelming evidence, it's simply not respectable.

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 23 Oct 2015 #permalink

Actually, Fenton Communications hired James Hoggan who promulgated the "climate skeptics are like Holocaust deniers" back in 2005. He pushed it vigorously through the media, as documented on skeptic websites everywhere, eg,…

It was a concerted media push to deligitimize your policy opponents. It also served as hate speech for the haters amongst you, some present here on this thread.

You trashed two words--denier and denial. They had a legitimate role, a place, a function. You ruined them.

Back in the day, 'red' had a legitimate meaning before it was associated with communism. It was an insult for 25 years. Then it was rehabilitated.

Of course, then it started being associated with Republican states. I'm not sure which is worse.

Climate denier is a handy insult you use to tar people with the same brush as those who believe the Holocaust never occurred. It's cheap and tawdry.

Of course, now that you have said Barack Obama is a climate change denier, the sell-by date on it may be said to have passed.

By Thomas Fuller (not verified) on 24 Oct 2015 #permalink

Ah, so reading my droppings elsewhere, I see.

Osama is such a Holocaust Denying Murderer!

There has never been a time when the POTUS has not signed a disaster relief bill. D'oh!

If I didn't mention the signer, you would have asked who signed that bill or some such. See how that works? Prior knowledge of the facts is bleeding obvious, other ignorants, call them Freepers, would have blamed Osama regardless.

So me mentioning Qsama deflects those FReepers, you on the other hand, make your typical stoopit strawman argument.

The word denier does have a rather long history and I seriously doubt its usage will ever change, except if it were replaced with Holocauster. We all are really working very hard on that one currently.

If the monoshoe fits, wear it with pride, monobrow.

By Everett F Sargent (not verified) on 24 Oct 2015 #permalink

I agree with Treesong; Laura is a concern troll and is being deceptive. The man who wrote Laura's comment is just trying to waste time and reduce the willingness to fight climate denialists.

By Brian Schmidt (not verified) on 24 Oct 2015 #permalink


Climate denier is a handy insult you use to tar people with the same brush as those who believe the Holocaust never occurred. It’s cheap and tawdry.

Tom, you can assert your ownership of "denier" and "denial" as strongly as you like, but no-one is obliged to honor your claim.

[Ah, sorry, I forgot to say the same; thank you for saying it -W]

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 24 Oct 2015 #permalink

While I had the impression Laura was a student who had put off a paper too long and was desperate, yet neglected to explain that nor asked for help plainly.

By Russell the Stout (not verified) on 24 Oct 2015 #permalink

I apologize for my lack of reading comprehension as seen in the above comment. Somehow I missed a comment by the inestimable Laura, and now I appear thick. I am not pleased with growing older, but I guess it is better than the alternative.

[:-) - W]

By Russell the Stout (not verified) on 26 Oct 2015 #permalink

If Laura is still around, she should purchase Chris Mooney's Republican War on Science and/or the more recent but not quite a thorough Naomi Oreskes Merchants of Doubt. She could watch An inconvenient Truth, visit DeSmog Blog and check Sourcewatch. She could search and find lots of material with very little effort.

WMC's suggestion of SkepticalScience is probably about as good as it gets. This is not bad (links in 4th paragraph):

I tend to agree with WMC that Laura has not done her homework if she thinks turning up with any kind of argument, skilled or unskilled, is going to make a dent on the usual suspects at places like WUWT, ClimateDepot, McIntyres (is it ClimateAudit) who is particularly good at attacking people, or even Judith Curry's. It's a terrible waste of time and they count your clicks as fandom.

By Susan Anderson (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

crandles>"Now there is a 19th Oct reply to referees Archer and Thorne…

>"[Disappointing. Focusses on fluff, largely avoids substance -W]"

Yes mainly fluff but in saying things like
"For the moment, I comment here on only a few of the matters raised by the referees.
We will make some changes that shorten the paper as well as make it clearer. "

seemed to indicate more was likely to occur at some point.

So do we expect further author comments or revised paper?

If revised paper, does that happen in the same interactive discussion or will it appear as a completely different paper at some later stage?

[It is annoying there is no "watch this page" facility, except to members. Having just checked back, I don't see any changes for Nov or Dec, so it would appear to be stalled. Perhaps its quietly dying in a ditch, like AW's infamous paper? -W]

Surely you know about Anyway, under the current system, the 2nd round of review can be quite slow and hidden, I think it's very likely that the paper is being revised but the final outcome may be some time in coming. I'd also expect the editor to post something more at some point.

[I didn't, but I do now... -W]

By James Annan (not verified) on 04 Dec 2015 #permalink

"The gambling bill was tucked at the tail e nd, pages 213-244, of a much larger Homeland Security bill focusing on mariner safety .... passed during the waning days of the Republican Party's hold on the House of Representatives ... just prior to the 2006 midterm elections .... The new legislation targeted electronic wallet companies that focused on the gambling business ...."

Legal business in many other countries, suddenly made illegal in the US, which protected the existing gambling businesses that were losing customers to the Internet.

Tom Fuller has misremembered that long complicated story.…

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 05 Dec 2015 #permalink

Mr. Roberts, the story is long, complicated and doesn't seem to touch on the issue at hand. Perhaps citing a book as a reference is less than helpful.

By Thomas William… (not verified) on 06 Dec 2015 #permalink