WattsUpWithThat censor discussion about hate speech

When I discovered the true extent of hate speech used against sceptics and the lack of hate speech by sceptics I wrote an article combining the comments by the BBC and a UK government minister about sceptics into the title. Or to be more precise, I wrote a commentary preceding my raw notes I had taken when trying to find example “robust” comments from both sides. It was because there was such extreme comments on one side and very little on the other that I felt it necessary to make people aware of this and when I reflected on it I felt it actually amounted to hate crime under UK law and so reported it to the police (I have not heard since)

In a post on WattsUpWithThat on hate speech from Al Gore, I said something like:

“Whilst writing something about the ‘heated argument’ on climate I found it far too easy to find the most horrendous assertions by alarmists and far too difficult to find anything comparable by sceptics and as a result I wrote an article which started: ‘If I had actually said “Climate scientists are Nazi Paedophiles” how long would it be before the BBC and the whole warmist chatterarti of academia would be condemning me? So, why do government ministers and BBC broadcasters feel they can libel me in precisely this way?'”

Please note: the phrase “paedophile” was used TWICE by presenters on the BBC. Once I woke up to this phrase being used to mean people like me. The phrase “Nazi” was used by a UK government minister.

Anthony Watts chose to censor not only the words used by the BBC and Government ministers but also to censor any discussion of this appalling behaviour.

This is precisely why this kind of hate speech continues and that is why I added the comments to the article on Social Good Summit turns to hatefest – Al Gore likens skeptics to racists, homophobes and violent alcoholics.

When this morning I saw my post had been snipped. I then added a comment along the lines of:

“Anthony you are right on so many things but wrong on this.

Unless or until we confront this kind of hate speech from people such as the BBC & government ministers, it will continue. Yes it is ugly, but that is precisely why when I discovered the extent and horrific nature of this hate speech I reported it to the UK police. However we all know that the police will do nothing until people like you who are in a position to make a fuss stand up.

Are you prepared to stand up or will you just effectively condone it?”

When I returned I found:

Mike Haseler says:

[snip]

I think Anthony has answered the question.

Addendum

As I do not have verbatim records of exactly what I wrote, I have added this comment:

Anthony, if you have them available, I would appreciate original copies of what I posted so that I can ensure my account of this exchange on my blog is as accurate as possible.

I regret that in the mood Anthony appears to be in, this comment is unlikely to receive any reply and will also be snipped. However, although Anthony’s actions are regrettable and counter-productive, we must not lose sight of the fact that the real criminal here are those who used the hate speech like the BBC and UK government ministers.

However, I suspect if it had been US government ministers and US broadcasters Anthony would have taken a very different course of action.

Addaddendum

I was recently a juror on a case involving domestic abuse over an extended period. Whilst I cannot discuss details this experience was instrumental in forming my views. We sceptics must speak out and should certainly not hide this kind of abusive behaviour by high profile warmists.

This entry was posted in climate. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to WattsUpWithThat censor discussion about hate speech

  1. markx says:

    Hi Mike … I came here from WUWT, out of curiosity.

    I see where you are coming from, but would agree with Anthony’s approach. A remark such as the first one you posted (mentioned above, and which was snipped) would certainly be taken out of context and would be used against the skeptics, with great trumpeting and joy. I can certainly see why Anthony did not want those particular words on his blog, though perhaps it could be argued he was little too blunt about it.

    We could probably all learn a lesson by the careful, measured and deliberate way Judith Curry delivers her thoughts on Climate Etc.

    • Hiding abuse does not make it go away, pretending it didn’t happen doesn’t make it go away. It just gives a green light to people like Gore to repeat the insult knowing that no sceptic will ever have the guts to face them with their own comments. Unfortunately, unless or until people like Anthony have the courage to admit this kind of abuse has and continues to occur by the most respected people (supposedly trusted broadcasters like the BBC and UK government ministers) there is no doubt it will continue.

      However, I should point out that I didn’t write the article for sceptics today but for academics in 20-40years time. This way there will be a historic record detailing the truly horrific nature of the warmists hate speech – and I have to be honest the failure of sceptics, police, the media and BBC governors to take action against this hate language.

    • Mark … forget to welcome you to the blog and thank you for posting.

  2. stewgreen says:

    – I tend to agree with Mike. Skeptics rarely censor stuff, and if we do we should state why rather than make people guess. The Second time it seems like No commients will be permitted discussing decisions on comments
    – The first time could be based on Godwin’s rule “Mention the Nazi’s and the debate is finished”.
    – Main point these days is that the Temperature Rise King is wearing no clothes and that the main stream media are sorely lacking in pointing this out and letting the alarmists get away with “fronting it out”, with no global warming for 15 years and scant evidence of any trend towards catastrophe by observing other factors like sea level or ice etc.

  3. stewgreen says:

    In the WUWT’s page I note this justification for moderating Mikes comment “[snip – Mike take this ugly essay of yours elsewhere – not gonna play this game with you – Anthony]”
    – If Mike really only posted what he claims.. then whoever moderated it has a strange interpretation of what is an “ugly essay” ..it’s as if a warmist has hijacked the moderating

  4. Stew, thanks. The word “Nazi” was used by a government minister (Chris Huhne). The word “paedophile” was used twice on the BBC. These words have been sanctioned for use against us by those professing to have the highest moral standards amongst the warmists.

    So, it is very strange that we apply a standard so extreme that we cannot even discuss these types of comments on WUWT. If we cannot discuss the BBC’s portrayal of sceptics as like “paedophiles” on WUWT what is the point of that blog?

  5. Mike I agree with you. Game theory says that the best tactic in such circumstances is not turning the other cheek but counterattacking to the same but not greater extent, probably slightly lesser. In this case this does not mean making similarly false accusations but it does mean disagreeing with such accusations and I would argue, demanding that anybody in the warmist camp dissociate themselves from such filth (& that we be prepared to make accusations when they are provably true.

    I assume Anthony decided what you said violated his “no vulgarity of any sort” comment policy but in fact “paedophile” is from the latin not the vulgar tongue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s