“Climate McCarthyism” May Backfire As Large Body Of New Science Shows Claims Of “Consensus” Are An Illusion

The web media have been reporting on how a group of activist attorneys general have recently launched efforts to clamp down on climate science dissent.

The science-dissent crackdown is spearheaded by 16 Democrat attorneys general and US Justice Department head Loretta Lynch, who is falling back in part on the powerful federal RICO (anti-racketeering) laws. Their aim is to go after those who allegedly are operating a “climate denial scheme”, alleging that the dissent is defrauding the public.

Just a days ago the Washington Times published an article here questioning the government “crackdown” on the skeptics of the alarmist government-sanctioned science amid the large growing body of science that now refutes alarmist science, all published over the past two years. Here the Washington Times cited NoTricksZone, thanks to the diligent work of guest author Kenneth Richard.

In the report the WT quoted meteorologist Anthony Watts, owner and operator of the world’s most viewed site on climate science, WhatsUpWithThat. Watts acknowledged the growing number of skeptical publications, and implied that the grounds for alarmism and consensus have become more disputed and shaky than ever. “There has been quite an uptick in papers that question the consensus this year,” Watts told the WT. He referred to the Virgin Islands investigation as “climate McCarthyism”.

The US-based Competitive Enterprise Institute libertarian think tank, a target of the investigation called the subpoena against it “the latest effort in an intimidation campaign to criminalize speech and research on the climate debate.”

The WT also cites Bloomberg columnist Megan McArdle who criticized the legal move against climate science dissent, noting that climate activists have an unfortunate tendency of “trying to brand dissenters as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.”

Skeptics and non-skeptics alike accuse the attorneys general of spreading an atmosphere of intimidation, one that is totally foreign to free and open societies where the exchange of ideas is normally welcome and not met with hostility.

“Fraud” investigation may end up reversing

As of March 27, already 133 consensus-skeptical papers have already been published this year, bringing to 660 the number of such studies appearing since January 2014.

Guest writer Richard also recently communicated that his digging into the literature is now revealing that the climate activists had also deceived the public on another climate issue. He expects to present his findings within a few weeks and noted they may be “something really big”.

And as the newly published science surfaces, a clear picture is emerging. It is becoming clearer that the notion of a “consensus-backed settled science” is in fact an illusion and the scheme behind that illusion soon may need to be investigated itself.

Tide gauge measurements rising only 1.4 mm per year

Another illusion surrounds sea level rise. Recently this site presented a number of papers and data sources involving, real, observed tide gauge measurements which in fact show sea levels are rising at rates well less than half the claimed rates.

On the world’s 225 long-term tide gauges, according to Dave Burton of SeaLevel.info site here:

197 of 225 stations (87.6%) have recorded less than 3.3 mm/yr sea-level rise. At 47 of 225 stations (20.9%) sea level is falling rather than rising. Just 28 of 225 stations (12.4%) have recorded more than 3.3 mm/yr sea-level rise.

The average SLR at those 225 gauges is +0.90 mm/yr. The median is +1.41 mm/yr.”

Strange how sea level rise “acceleration” happens to be absent along the coastlines, where it really matters.

There are many other instances, and it cannot be surprising that people have become skeptical. It’s time stop the investigation of the “fraud” of the honest, and to start investigating the “truth” of the dishonest.


27 responses to ““Climate McCarthyism” May Backfire As Large Body Of New Science Shows Claims Of “Consensus” Are An Illusion”

  1. Mike Restin

    Caught this on JD,s Breitbart London site:

    zmrcleanz sipius •
    The new progressive slogan:

    “If you can’t beat ’em, lock ’em up!”
    20 • Reply•Share ›

  2. Robert Christopher

    An encouraging article on Climatology, but McCarthy was right in his accusations, so a different metaphor is needed! Just because the unaware believe it, it doesn’t mean we should propagate the error.

    Joe McCarthy Was Right All Along
    “In recent years, stunning revelations from archives in Washington and Moscow have confirmed that McCarthy’s investigations – and those conducted by other officials before and after – netted not innocent and imaginary “witches,” but secret cadres of hardened Communist agents determined to bring down the American republic. Surely, this makes Joe McCarthy a great patriot and deserving “the plaudits of a grateful nation.””

    Setting The Record On Joe McCarthy Straight
    “In The Secret World of American Communism, John Haynes and I reprinted nearly one hundred Russian KGB documents establishing that Soviet intelligence had recruited American communists to spy on its behalf. We also showed that from its inception in 1919, the CPUSA had been generously funded by the Soviet Union, with subsidies that reached $3,000,000 a year by the mid-1980s, and that the Party leadership had worked closely with Soviet intelligence to ferret out American secrets. And we found snippets of information about a very hush-hush American project, code-named Venona, that had worked to decipher coded Soviet messages.

    After our book appeared in 1995 we were asked to testify before a commission chaired by former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan on government secrecy. We pointed out the oddity of finding information about Venona in an open Russian archive while all information about it in America remained closed.”

    1. Colorado Wellington

      “Climate McCarthyism”?

      Whatever his personal faults, Sen. Joe McCarthy wanted real Communists with allegiance to the Soviet Union out of the U.S. government and armed forces. We know today from KGB sources there were plenty of them in positions of influence and power.

      “Climate Stalinism” works as a precise historical analogy and a useful metaphor for criminalizing dissent against scientific incompetence and corruption. The only people who will disagree are Leftists who identify with the Communist infiltrators and who created the “McCarthyism” narrative to disguise their role.

      1. Analitik

        There was collateral damage, though.
        Robert J Oppenheimer for one was unfairly vilified after guiding the Manhatten Project due to social connections to communist sympathizers. I great waste of a leading intellect, IMO

        1. DirkH

          The “social connection” was probably his card-carrying communist brother?

          1. Analitik

            His attendance at various meetings in the early ’30s through socializing with his brother probably hurt him more than being related to a communist.
            This and his opposition to Teller’s “super” as being unnecesary was what was used to railroad him

    2. John F. Hultquist

      Joseph McCarthy
      Reexaming the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator


      This is an Intro to the book, now can be had for about $4.40.

    3. yonason

      “An encouraging article on Climatology, but McCarthy was right in his accusations, so a different metaphor is needed!” – Robert Christopher

      As best I can tell that’s quite correct. Here’s a another reference on it.

      Thanks for yours.

    4. DirkH

      “but secret cadres of hardened Communist agents determined to bring down the American republic. ”

      Well, all the members of the FDR admin?
      From the link:
      “The new book, published in November 2012, is Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government, ”

      What subversion? FDR allied with the USSR. The WPA posters created under his admin are socialist-realist. The UN was founded in 1941 (not its peace branch, founded in 1945, but the war organisation UN). Members were USSR, USA, and three others I think, to fight the Anti-Komintern-Pakt a.k.a. the Axis.

      This is the Battle Flag of the UN; designed so UN soldiers could create it with their own blood. Later renamed the Honour Flag to obfuscate the nature of the UN as a war organisation.

      FDR admin didn’t need any subversion to be communist.

      1. yonason

        FDR was a Democrat, after all. And, like Democrats today, socialist/fascist and a raving anti-Semite,. The thing that amazes me is that he and then his VP Truman were able to so effectively do what no other Democrat since has been able to do, win a war.

        1. DirkH

          Well he also depleted all the US’s oil except Texas in the process and had to start the dealings with the Saudis at the Bitter Lake meeting.

          That’s when the Petrodollar started, not Nixon/Kissinger 1973.

          1. yonason


            (actually, we now know we have plenty of oil, though we may not have known back then)

            I don’t know why (allegedly) Conservative politicians everywhere allow the Leftists to define the narrative – like allowing John Kerry to go unchallenged when he called Vietnam “Nixon’s War,” when it was started by Kennedy and escalated by Johnson, and Nixon got the US out of it.

          2. DirkH

            Nixon made a deal: Swapping Vietnam for Egypt.
            To get control of the Suez canal.

    5. nightspore

      No one has mentioned the most impressive account of all: M. Stanton Evans’ Blacklisted by History. Probably one of the most significant books of the 21st century.

      1. Colorado Wellington

        The McCarthy myth-busting book the Left hates the most.

  3. BobW in NC

    Love the phrase, ““consensus-backed settled science.” A phrase right in line with “scientific consensus!” Talk about euphemisms! Meaningless words that sound so authoritative.

    Read recently that the purpose of euphemisms is to “’…reinvent reality’ from uncomfortable positions that cannot be defended.”


    1. yonason
  4. Buddy

    I feel so much better knowing that the increased heat over the past 100+ years is a fraud. I guess that means that the ice sheets aren’t melting, the glaciers aren’t melting, and the oceans aren’t rising.

    I feel SOOOOOOO much better now:) Those people who photoshop all the rising seas and melting glaciers must have a real good gig going….no?

    Thanks for the good news guys….:)

    1. DirkH

      “that the increased heat over the past 100+ years”

      You have involuntarily delivered the explanation. The warming goes on since 1750; the rebound from the LIA.

      Next time make sure you pretend the warming started in the 1960ies with mass industrialization. Otherwise people will question the warmunist fairytale.

    2. John F. Hultquist

      I saw this image

      … and was really worried **

      [**not really, I live at an elevation of 682 metres]

      Be that as it may, Photoshopped catastrophes don’t work unless they are plausible. Most everything those of the CAGW cult believe, say, and do is not credible. In the NYC-flooded image, the sea level rise has to be about 78 metres. That isn’t going to happen so the statements are meaningless and the images are cartoons.

  5. yonason
    1. yonason

      Roald, not “Ron” Larson – I need new glasses. Sorry.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy