Anthony Watts rightly makes fun of the Mann-child and the Lewandowskyites here,

Anthony correctly states that the alarmists are losing the argument so they are now trying to suppress dissent. (Not new, actually. It has been part of their tactics from the beginning.)

Anthony correctly points out that this is the tactic the soviets used where they asserted that only crazy people would disagree with them, so those who disagree must be locked away and medicated into oblivion and silence.

I agree with Anthony that the likes of Mann and Lew need professional counseling and help. If they are not yet dangerous to themselves or others, they are likely to be soon. They really seem to need help. The paper sited is truly sad. Emotionalism, not science.…

When Pastor Niemöller was put in a concentration camp we wrote the year 1937; when the concentration camp was opened we wrote the year 1933, and the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians – “should I be my brother’s keeper?” Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. – I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it’s right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn’t it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? — Only then did the church as such take note. Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren’t guilty/responsible? The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out. [End quote from wiki.]

It is important to speak up. It is important to stand our ground.

The climate change alarmists are the ones acting like fundamentalist fanatics. They are the ones denying that the system is more complex than is currently comprehensible. They focus on small facts, claim authority, and ignore the bigger picture.

I was intending to address some of what the paper talks about, but it is too much. It’s not possible to take such seriously and try to actually address it. Inflated numbers, mostly trivial in the big picture, emotional pleas, projection. Too much.

The disparagement of Freedom of Information requests is particularly telling. Why should any data in research ever have to be requested? Shouldn’t it always be freely, publicly, available? Shouldn’t public funding rules require such? Shouldn’t every tax-payer, and every child of a tax payer, have full rights and ready access to all data, assumptions, and considered information involved in the research? Of course. Most publishers even require it; though most seldom actually enforce it; thus the frustration on the part of the skeptics.

I honestly suspect the refusal to use “skeptic” and insist on “denier” is more evidence of religious zealotry. A skeptic nowadays is a protected religious adherent who pretends to nonreligion. Of course, such is just a different form of religion. Alarmism has a longstanding place in the religion of many a zealot. Trying to define your opponent is more political, but it has plenty of precedence in the history of religions.