Friday
May032013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Book burners
May 3, 2013 Anthony Watts' story about some academics in the US burning a sceptic book is rather wonderful. University folk can be quite extraordinarily foolish can't they?
Reader Comments (55)
This is quite emblematic of the mentality of so many CAGW cultists. Of course they will now claim it was just a silly little joke, but advocacy of book burning is extremely outrageous whether or not it is carried out (I doubt they actually burned the book in their little conference room, but the point is that they could think it appropriate to celebrate and advocate such a deed).
Two depraved faculty members at the Dept. of Meteorology, San Jose State University (California USA) thought it would be a hoot to post a photo on the department website of the two of them about to burn a book critical of climate science:
Professors invoke book burning of unwelcome book
Now the embarrassing photo has been removed, and the university claims it was merely some ill-conceived attempt at "satire" -- but what is the "satire" about burning or threatening to burn a book you disagree with??? There is no satire in that. It is simply an expression of extreme intolerance, bigoted narrow-mindedness. It can only be amusing to co-religionists who share a horror that anyone could disagree with them.
Rather classic "Ivory Tower" it seems. I pity the students.
I think that these two professors who now find themselves to be chastised throughout the world will think again before they do something this foolish. This is not the way one would want to become famous.
Disgraceful! They should at least have placed it in lavatory to be used for its intended purpose. Or in the recycling bin...
97% of known arsonists believe in global warming.
From Fahrenheit 451
“We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against. So! A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon.” — Captain Beatty
Perhaps Mr Loo Paper should take a look at the mental state of these CAGW cultists.
May 3, 2013 at 2:23 AM | Skiphil
This response from the university sounds like a slightly modified recycling of the 10:10 No Pressure PR disaster "defense":
At least the university was embarrassed enough to take down the backfired bookburning, but evidently not sufficiently embarrassed to apologize.
Unlike the U.K. Met Office's "My Climate and Me" - who were embarrassed enough to apologize for their:
which was still on the site as of April 23, but by April 26 - for an almost beyond belief reason - had morphed into:
But not sufficiently embarrassed to remove the evidence of their passive promotion of the misleading and highly inaccurate headline contained in the original science by press release of Marcott et al's notorious:
As of today, this headline remains intact. Notwithstanding the fact that as I had repeatedly observed:
Oh, well ... I suppose we really need to update the list of commonly understood English words that seem to have been redefined in the name of "the cause" - by adding "humour" and "satire" to "trick", "decline", "peer review", "experiment" etc.
Have no doubt that these people were not serious. The lesson of history is that the most deadly of totalitarian socialist regimes, The NSDAP, or Naziis for short, developed because its cultists competed in their extremism, encouraged by the elite.
First books then people.
Extraordinarily foolish is the best description, just a nice example of that special combination of sanctimony and stupidity that is so typical of the alarmists.
Maybe Nurse will give them both an award from the RS.
And despite BitBucket's attempt to deflect, he wants to give people like this more power.
May 3, 2013 at 3:29 AM BitBucket
More Bitbucket "humour". A laugh a minute.
Various people at the WUWT website have pointed out the folly of burning books inside a building! Of course the photograph merely showed a match being held close to a book. The people involved probably were not quite stupid enough to actually set fire to it but you would have thought that believers in the theory of CAGW would be intelligent enough to realise that it would be more sensible to take the photographs outdoors.
Even Warmists are bound to agree that the incident doesn't exactly enhance the academic reputation of San Jose State University!
Jesus wept...these guys have got to be so insulated from reality that they think this is 'funny'.
Academics really can be incredibly stupid....
Did they learn nothing from Fanny Arrmstrong and her disastrous 10:10 No Pressure venture?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjVW6roRs-w
I imagine that donations to their 'university' will show a blip as more people start to hear of this. And no bad publicity for Heartland either.......
As Steve Jones has said in the past, he has no objection to people burning his books [on evolutionary biology], as long as they pay for them first.
Isn't is strange.
I am so confident of the judgement of history, anything that enters the public domain from the warmist side I want preserved for posterity.
Nothing should be lost.
California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, §3.25(a) and (b)] Open Flame Devices.
Oops. I wonder if the University's fire safety officers approved their book burning activities.
Didn't the Nazis start with book-burning before moving onto people?
CAGW believers belong to a vicious nihilistic cult- just like the Nazis.
I have sent the email pasted below. I encourage all others to do the same to voice your concerns.
Dear Sir/Madam
I have recently been made aware of an article on your website which showed two members of your faculty setting a flame to a book, which apparently criticises the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
May I add my voice to the (undoubtably) many voices who have expressed concern, that a centre of learning has advocated this practice. I suggest that you encourage the bearers of the flame to actually read the book and then respond with a critisism of the contents rather than aping the actions of the Nazis.
I feel saddened that intellectual debate on the subject of global warming appears to be being smothered in the centres of higher learning.
Respectfully yours,
Dave Loughlin
Maybe they gave up trying to find Trenberth's missing hotspot and decided to make their own?
Either way they confirm that AGW is really just a political religion.
Mmmmm, cause and effect. Burning reading material is always leading to Nazism? Isn’t a really good way of determining it I think. If they had used it for compost or lining the bottom of a parrot cage they would have escaped that association and probably got some brownie points for wit.
As others have said this is just an indication of blinkered stupidity, they really missed a chance to make the point better but they couldn't help being so dumb.
I mean I really can’t imagine getting much traction from outraged cries of
“My God! They’re using that pamphlet for collecting parrot droppings. That’s how the Nazi’s started!” ;)
@ Hilary re My Climate:
On April 25th, I posted the following comment to the Marcott piece:
"“we aim to publish a follow up article or video next week”
***TUMBLEWEED***"
As of today, my comment is still awaiting moderation.
Quite clearly, having said they would publish a follow up from a Met Office climate scientist, they have discovered that the original piece was wrong and indefensible, and rather than 'fess up to this, they have decided to just bury it WHILE LEAVING THE "UNPRECEDENTED WARMING" HEADLINE IN PLACE.
It is absolutely disgraceful and marks out My Climate and Me as a one-sided propaganda outfit.
"Mmmmm, cause and effect. Burning reading material is always leading to Nazism? Isn’t a really good way of determining it I think. If they had used it for compost or lining the bottom of a parrot cage they would have escaped that association and probably got some brownie points for wit."
Short memory "Leopard in the Basement", all the pieces are already in place:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/professor_calls_for_death_penalty_for_climate_change_deniers.html
I didn't feel any outrage about that picture. I mean, those people had at least TWO photographs of large fires framed and hung on the office's walls. No wonder they'd think about hotting up the book's pages.
Most likely, there is a kinky side to it.
The shoddy behaviour of those academics speaks of very low standards of integrity and scholarship, and can be added to the other exhibits that support that as being far from unusual in the engorged field known as climate science. By featuring this juvenile display prominently on their website, they were presumable pleased, initially at least, to have displayed their loyalty to their cause.
Meanwhile the author of the book they displayed has a thoughtful piece up at WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/the-tragedy-of-climatism-resource-misuse-on-a-global-scale/
His earlier book, 'Climatism!', is by the way a lively and engaging work, one which I am pleased to have on my shelves. I also own the the second, even more 'popularised' book. 'The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism'. It is packed with information, and packaged in chunks with lots of pictures and diagrams to make it widely accessible and 'quotable' from. I commend it as well. I can see why the oafs at San Jose wanted to burn it. I like to think their action will result in increased sales. You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mad-World-Climatism/dp/0982499620 .
@May 3, 2013 at 10:46 AM | Max Roberts
Thanks for that reference. All the pieces are in place there from many disparate jig-saw puzzles and then mashed together to make a mess in my opinion. ;)
I don't see any evidence of Nazi tendencies in the photo of those people with the pamphlet and lighter. I see outright stupidity though - no doubt about it, in fact I think that observation is something that could be common ground even with their otherwise supporters. Much better to make and use that point I think.
For instance that article you link to makes the same Unabomber association that the Heartland Institute also so ham-fistedly used too. I think you have to target associations more carefully than that and be more realistic about what you claim they may lead to.
For instance after reading the recent Oreskes fantasy narrative that revealed her understanding of the state of the world and where she thinks it is going; and how she clearly feels science is letting her down. I felt I saw similarities in the work to the Unabomber manifesto in content and attitude. I don't mean to claim the next step is her bombing anyone, but I was prepared to make the association and I think I would be on firmer ground arguing that their sentiments start out in a similar way and are only similar for the flaws in perception, rather than claim to know were it may lead - leaping to outrage - I think it indicates a flaw in their understanding or abilities that can be exploited and discussed in a rational way.
This is nothing to do with Nazism, this is as TerryS highlighted the extinguishing forever the "soul" contained within. An historical concept.
This is why it is so symbolic. This is why the connection to burning people follows.
Because in history, they are effectively the same act. The same purpose. Remove permanently, as though it never existed. Book burning is wishful thinking.
And you would have thought that people with a certain intellect would have realised that.
I am not offended, but as TLITB points out, there are any number of more imaginative ways to send the message about what they perceive the value of this document is.
They choose the symbolic, spiritual one of soul extinction.
No satire in that.
This shouldn't really come as a surprise. When you have no argument of any substance tokenism is all you have left.
Cut the faux outrage, what exactly do you expect climate scientists to do with a book that rubbishes their work? You think they are going to give it to the children to read perhaps, or pass it on to friends? The recycling bin or the wood burner are the obvious places for it.
BB - as I have experience no outrage I can respond easily. The most non-obvious thing to do with a book that "rubbishes" my work is to publish only a picture of me pretending to burn it while sitting in an office.
I and am sure many others had not realised HI had published any such book. Now we have. Expect orders to soar. Game set and match (ahr ahr) for Heartland...
Bit has used the 'recycle the book' twice now. :) :)
BB, as you so clearly demonstrate on almost all your posts on this site...
It seems only your morals have the right to be the arbiter of what is acceptable.
Geronimo says your are an adolescent. I am not sure about that, but you are incapable of stepping out of the surety of your own world view.
In your world the only outrage allowed is one where you think the planet is threatened in some 22-year old undergraduate type of thinking.
Any other outrage is by definition "faux".
And what really annoys me about people like you who use the term "faux-outrage", is that long after they have grown up and grown out of their moral superiority, moved on to other things, the world is left with the costs and the consequences. Even more so with CAGW and its mitigation.
You contributions on this site have gone from the challenging to just plain antagonistic. It really is because of people like you and how you behave that I am a sceptic.
Giving people like you power, would be like giving 14 years old's the vote.
BB -
The WUWT post cited above by John Shade indicates that the author's beef is less with the climate scientists than with the profligacy of the policies which have arisen due to (IMO, excessive) concern with AGW. Which objection I share, without agreeing with the author on all his points.
To my mind, this is a case of mindlessly trashing the book because it presents a contrary viewpoint, rather than considering all of its points. (baby, bathwater, &c.) This behavior is not restricted to any particular faction, but seems to be at its most vicious among those strongly committed to AGW, as exemplified with the 10:10 video.
Jiminy Cricket, from challenging to just plain antagonistic in the space of a week? Hmm. I post according to my mood and the subject. Sometimes a serious answer seems appropriate, sometimes I feel bitter and twisted and I post sarcasm, and sometimes like here I post... etc.
What do you do with books and articles that support CAWG - pass them on to friends? What would be your response if a group you regarded as scum sent you (targeted) a book that you object to (to put it mildly)? Put it on the bookshelf? Sure filming a burning might seem childish, but are you on the Hill now the arbiters of peoples' sense of humour too?
Oh, and on "faux outrage", don't forget to tell your co-sceptics Chuckles, Frosty, Diogenes, Jack Savage, David S, Tertius, James P, sHx and Richard Drake to grow up as well (Google search).
...what exactly do you expect climate scientists to do with a book that rubbishes their work?
Perhaps prepare a cogent defense of their work? Possibly ignore it? Maybe read it, and learn where they have failed to properly explain their work?
Or, they could pretend to burn it, making the implicit claim that in their view there was no possible way that their analysis, data gathering or methodology could be improved, or that their results could be better explained. Yeah - that's the ticket.
Forget about Hitler.
By posting an image suggesting they would burn this book, the two professors have joined a long line that stretches back to the Qin Emperor and to the Inquisition.
If anyone would like a suitable bookmark to assist with your reading of either of Goreham's books, I have a simple cut-out-and-keep one for you here, complete with edifying comments on book-burning:
http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/climate-classroom-library-copy-and.html
"...hee who destroyes a good Booke, kills reason it selfe..." --Milton via TerryS
You've put your finger on the true issue here, Terry: the symbolic destruction of reason, truth, knowledge and wisdom--all that academia is supposed to nurture. Beneath the symbolic action lies a distressing reality, an infection in the unconscious mind of academia, revealed only through Freudian slips, projections, and acting out in metaphor, as at SJSU. A new dimension has been added to professorial hubris, a soul-deep and deadly sickness.
JorgeKafkazar, "reason, truth, knowledge and wisdom", now there's four concepts that are likely to be entirely foreign to Heartland Institute publications.
...let's put another book on the fire darling - nice of Heartland to save us buying logs.
dang what a lot of bucket troll spam.
It is scandalous they did not wait till the depths of winter
Many booksprove so bad that publishers must pay to have the remainders huled away, and serious reviewers find a catalytic afterburner equipped Jotul book stove a handy piece of kit when they land on the list of high throughput vanity presses
Authors whose Amazon reviews outnumber their bookstore sales invoke the Ariopagetica at their peril.
BB you are right humour is relative. Here is a photo: Humour and humanity?
Through the whole of history this scene has been repeated. Some old man is digging is his own grave. As soon as he is finished the smiling and laughing soldiers (not Germans) will shoot him. Humour really is relative.
The two photos share the same symbolism, share the same motivations. And what might that be?
The lack of humanity.
Greenies have disgust for their opponents, and contempt for the mass of humanity.
History has always been such.
For their cause, Greenies want the opposition silenced and the masses neutralised. They want to suspend the tenants of democracy, they want to fix the market. The effects of this have always been the same. You give power that cannot be taken away. And history has shown were those paths lead.
Greenies feed us the propaganda of fluffy Polar Bears. If you contest it, then your are burned.
Society is a balance, you want to change that balance and give power to those who will abuse it.
Oh sorry, I forgot Green politicians and businessman are a new morally superior race of being.
Yeah right...
As soon as you start having to invoke the horrors and inhumanity of war to support your arguments, you lose.
yeah Russell, you may need to burn books (I heard the old people are, lacking fuel). But who photographs themselves doing it? Eco-pornographers?
I guess the calorific content of a flabby bitbucket would keep us going for a few seconds...burn him!
May 4, 2013 at 1:50 PM | BitBucket
Who adjudicates this kinda thing? I've always wanted to know.
Eh? 'cos otherwise it is so clearly acceptable?
Or summat else?
While BB is thinking can I place "Fuckwit" with the adjudicator?
May 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM | BitBucket
To an American, it seems that BB is advocating the burning of books. My reaction to the photo was astonishment that two professors would fail to realize that they were invoking Nazi symbolism and doing it just as the Nazis intended. Can they be that ignorant? I would say that it is highly unlikely.
Burning a book, or making out that you are burning a book is highly symbolic. It's not about the fact that you disagree with whats written, or that you will not read whats written. That's easy enough to do ... just don't buy it or read it ! What the act of 'burning a book' says is that not only do you not agree with its content ...... but you don't want anyone else to read it. And THAT, from university lecturers, is an abhorrent concept.