Here’s Chris Mooney: In the Climate Debate, The Misunderstanding Is Mutual in which he talks:

about how climate skeptics basically seem to believe that their opponents are driven by socialism and communism. We arenâ??t, of courseâ??duhâ??but it is fascinating to listen to how they explain this, in their own words.

He ends up saying: “@31 yes. i guess my side loses this round, thanks to this thread. depressing”

This is because a couple of commentors (e.g. “1985”) come up with the likes of:

16. Michael Tobis Says:
July 6th, 2011 at 1:29 pm

But to address the broader question, we need to insist that it is not anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-free-enterprise, even anti-competitive to recognize limits to growth. Indeed, itâ??s the creativity of the American society that can lead the world out of this mess

But to do so would be to surrender the reality-based approach to the world to the ideology-based one. Why do you have to insist that something is not â??anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-free-enterpriseâ? when what you need to do is to remove those things from the position of untouchable sacred cows they have been elevated to? There is nothing inherently good to capitalism, corporations or free-enterprise; what matters is whether they work to provide the basic necessities to people without undermining our long-term capacity to do so. If they fail in that mission, then they should be on the chopping block.

So, which side of this dispute are you on?

If you’re on Mooney’s side, why do you denigrate (demonize) scientists like Judith Curry as “denialistst”? And are you willing to disavow the likes of 1985?

And if you’re on the other side, does that mean Chris Mooney is also a denialist? What about Michael Tobis?

BTW, I owe MT a debt for explaining how the “greenhouse effect” actually worked, at a time when there weren’t any good accurate explanations available outside of climate textbooks. (That doesn’t mean I agree he knows what he’s talking about WRT chaos theory. But that’s another story.)

Oh but they have. Those kommies are tricky.
NASA has been this vast global criminal conspiracy for over 40 years now. They are the ringleaders under the thumb of the KGB. They admit to it all on their website.
The conspiracy goes deep.
Very deep.
All the scientists should be put in prison.

wrt #1: Peer-reviewed refs? And why, if 1998 is an outlier, did PNAS find it necessary to print an apologia regarding it? For that matter, why did a bunch of economists find it necessary to put the article together in the first place?

wrt #2: Contrary to what so many people are saying here, this is not a scientific discussion. It’s a political discussion. If you want to call names, well this whole effort to raise a lynch mob is nothing but Lysenkoism. The weaknesses of your arguments are evident when it’s necessary to resort to Lysenkoism.

wrt Judith Curry: If you’ve never heard of her, then you haven’t been keeping up with the whole debate. Just for the record, both Curry and McIntyre agree that the evidence supports some global warming, as do I if you don’t use 1998 as a starting year. Whether it’s an “outlier” is a matter of perspective, it certainly wasn’t considered so during early 1999.

And if Steve McIntyre has no qualifications as a climate scientist, he certainly has them wrt statistics, something some of his targets lack (e.g. Michael Mann of Hockey Stick infamy). He also has a lot of experience recognizing scams (they abound in the mining industry), and everything about how “global warming” was pushed in the 90’s stank of scam.

And if you’d never heard of Curry, what about your own qualifications? No memory of the shouting match over hurricanes? I’m not going to post a link and get my comment deleted, but try Googling [“Hurricane Debate Shatters Civility Of Weather Science” “Wall Street Journal”] (without the braces). Are you a “climate scientist”, or are you getting your “expertise” from the hooligans at “realclimate”?

My problem is that you proponents of AGW action are demonizing anybody who questions your orthodoxy, which in my book means you’re not entitled to call yourselves “scientists” whatever pieces of paper you have.

Don’t you see? The collapse of the Soviet Union was just a deep cover operation! Watch more Glenn Beck. Buy more guns.

Climate Denial Crock of the Week – Climate Change and National Security
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqBURjOdOG8

1. Mr. AK repeats the canard that there have not been statistically significant increases in world wide temperatures since 1998. There is a reason why right wingers like Mr. AK pick that particular year. It is because that year was unusually warm, due to an unusually strong El Nino condition. It is an outlier and should thus be excluded from consideration. In fact, subsequent to 1998, there has been significantly significant warming.

2. Mr. AKs’ allusion to Marxism is nothing more then McCarthyism. The weakness of the deniers arguments becomes apparent when they have to resort to McCarthyism, rather then scientific arguments.

3. I had never heard of Prof. Judith Curry before. Apparently, she is now the go to person for climate change skepticism, now that Prof. Lindzen has gone off the deep end and is now entering Peter Duesberg territory (he is also skeptical of the claim that cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer, despite the fact that he has no medical background to pontificate on the subject).

Apparently, Prof. Curry has posted articles on Anthony Watts’ web site, wattsupwiththat and Steven McIntyres’ Climate Audit web site, both of which are run be individuals with no track record of expertise in climate science and who are widely discredited in the climate science community. Under the notion that one who gets into the pen with the pigs can expect to emerge with a coating of mud, Prof. Curry is looking a little the worse for wear.

First, we had AK and his ravings. Then came the delightful, delirious and dumb Captain Patriot. A small lapse in grammatical standards with Cedric Katesby, but finishing this week’s loon harvest was AK, yet again, with another wonderful rendition of that old crowd pleaser; Marxist internationalism.

If this is the best the human species can come up with, then it is really depressing.

Gwen,Helen and Raging Bee, your attempts to introduce these idiots to sanity is an exercise in futility.

We talk about facts, trends, and studies. They are into conspiracies, and viewing the world through an ideological filter which has no real existence. Marxism is barely a rotting carcass at this stage. However, AK thinks it has got magical powers.

Holy crap, AK! You’re insinuating that I have Marxist sympathies. I’m intimidated. I guess I’ll go crawl back into my commie hole now and never suggest that some sort of international agreements on emissions would be helpful to mitigating the climate crisis. Because that would be supranational, which equates to internationalism, which equates to singing the Internationale. I get it.

Straw manperson much?

I don’t want you to shut up any more than Greg wants me to (AFAIK). It’s hardly intimidation to ask somebody if they have Marxist sympathies when the PotUS has admitted to them. And hardly unreasonable on this blog. And I could hardly say that suggesting that “some sort of international agreements on emissions would be helpful to mitigating the climate crisis” is evidence of Marxist sympathies since I just did so myself.

But this particular post on this blog is part of an effort to stir up a lynch mob, not against people who ignore science (like Raging Bee above), but against anybody who disagrees with an agenda that includes a lot more than a bit of climate science. It doesn’t have anything to do with science, it has everything to do with a sociopolitical agenda. And you need only look at the general climate of opinion to see what that agenda is.

When I see people like GL start paying attention to qualified scientists who aren’t foaming at the mouth warmists, and start drawing a line between real denialists and people who want some real science rather than warmist hype, then I’ll stop with the criticisms.