OT's GONE WILD!

[timauman]

Public Policy & Funding the News
A Project of the USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy

A lengthy, but interesting read on the finances of the news media.

[kidcoyote]

I'm not naive enough to think that arguing with you will ever change your mind.  The only reason I interjected myself into this discussion is because you posted an obviously misleading graph that Lar was (rightfully) quick to call you out on.  I know you will never change your mind on this stuff, and I know that there are an awful lot of people out there who think like you do. 

What is maddening to me is your logic. It is fraught with disingenuity and equivocation. Sixteen scientists signed their names to a piece in the WSJ, and to you that is a death knell for climate change.   In that instance, 16 names (all or almost all of which I'm sure you'd never even heard of before reading the article) was all you needed to declare victory for your side. 

You posted a graph that was supposed to show that temperatures have stabilized over the last decade and a half.  You believe what the graph says from 1997 to present and point to it as evidence for your side.  But you look at the story told by previous 120 years on the graph, and you totally dismiss it.

I shouldn't let it bother me, but it is maddening.  Queue the Nazis and the polar bears.

Richard Lindzen has been a skeptic, and writing about it since 1988. I've seen him speak on TV, read his articles, and quoted him here maybe 1-2 years ago, so your statement is absurd, but typical of the warmist side. Avoid the facts, and smear non-believers. His articles have appeared in major publications over the last several years. Want don't you read his bio? Forget 120 years. Let's try 1500 years. Please answer how Mann's "hockey stick" eliminated the Medieval Warming Period, just erased it, to make his case. And he won't release his data, as he claims it's proprietary? Puhlease. Scientists release their methods, data, etc., to have it confirmed. The cold fusion guys didn't(~20 years ago), and they were disgraced, and laughed at.

If you actually read the 16 scientists' letter, and the reply by the alarmists, you will notice something interesting. Here's a claim of the 16 signers:

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Do the alarmists address it? Or do they just smear the group as "dentists diagnosing heart disease?" Do you even know what the CO²concentration of our atmosphere is? 392 parts per million, or 0.0392%, or 3.92% divided by 100. Scary, huh? As it's been 10X higher(not refuted in response to the gang of 16 letter) why worry? Computer models?

And can you please address the campaign to force meteorologists to change their reporting? This brings up a larger point. Why do groups which preach diversity and tolerance, force conformity, ideological adherence and strict obedience, when it comes to climate science? Why is the campaign against meteorologists not Nazi or Soviet like? Is this not similar to what the 16 mention? Do the alarmists not want the non-conforming meteorologists fired? Do they not want their views denied publication? Several editors have been fired for publication of skeptical views, one just a few months ago, publishing a Spencer piece. Are you even aware of this? Why is this okay with you?

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

This is open scientific debate? Maybe you want Soviet or Nazi style scientific adherence and policy. Not me.

[ronb89]

I'm not naive enough to think that arguing with you will ever change your mind.  The only reason I interjected myself into this discussion is because you posted an obviously misleading graph that Lar was (rightfully) quick to call you out on.  I know you will never change your mind on this stuff, and I know that there are an awful lot of people out there who think like you do. 

What is maddening to me is your logic. It is fraught with disingenuity and equivocation. Sixteen scientists signed their names to a piece in the WSJ, and to you that is a death knell for climate change.   In that instance, 16 names (all or almost all of which I'm sure you'd never even heard of before reading the article) was all you needed to declare victory for your side. 

You posted a graph that was supposed to show that temperatures have stabilized over the last decade and a half.  You believe what the graph says from 1997 to present and point to it as evidence for your side.  But you look at the story told by previous 120 years on the graph, and you totally dismiss it.

I shouldn't let it bother me, but it is maddening.  Queue the Nazis and the polar bears.

Richard Lindzen has been a skeptic, and writing about it since 1988. I've seen him speak on TV, read his articles, and quoted him here maybe 1-2 years ago, so your statement is absurd, but typical of the warmist side. Avoid the facts, and smear non-believers. His articles have appeared in major publications over the last several years. Want don't you read his bio? Forget 120 years. Let's try 1500 years. Please answer how Mann's "hockey stick" eliminated the Medieval Warming Period, just erased it, to make his case. And he won't release his data, as he claims it's proprietary? Puhlease. Scientists release their methods, data, etc., to have it confirmed. The cold fusion guys didn't(~20 years ago), and they were disgraced, and laughed at.

If you actually read the 16 scientists' letter, and the reply by the alarmists, you will notice something interesting. Here's a claim of the 16 signers:

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Do the alarmists address it? Or do they just smear the group as "dentists diagnosing heart disease?" Do you even know what the CO²concentration of our atmosphere is? 392 parts per million, or 0.0392%, or 3.92% divided by 100. Scary, huh? As it's been 10X higher(not refuted in response to the gang of 16 letter) why worry? Computer models?

And can you please address the campaign to force meteorologists to change their reporting? This brings up a larger point. Why do groups which preach diversity and tolerance, force conformity, ideological adherence and strict obedience, when it comes to climate science? Why is the campaign against meteorologists not Nazi or Soviet like? Is this not similar to what the 16 mention? Do the alarmists not want the non-conforming meteorologists fired? Do they not want their views denied publication? Several editors have been fired for publication of skeptical views, one just a few months ago, publishing a Spencer piece. Are you even aware of this? Why is this okay with you?

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

This is open scientific debate? Maybe you want Soviet or Nazi style scientific adherence and policy. Not me.

Ahhh, I shouldn't do this, because getting involved with Kid makes me do radical things like cancel my PSHoops account...

Just a comparison:

Richard Lindzen:  respected scientist at MIT

Michael Mann:  respected scientist at PSU

Richard Lindzen:  views attacked by some scientists, accused of bias.

Michael Mann:  views attacked by some scientists, accused of bias.

Richard Lindzen:  views supported by invididuals with a political agenda

Michael Mann:  views supported by individuals with a political agenda

Richard Lindzen:  accuses others of trying to silence his views and ideas, yet still has a prestigious job, funding, and a voice in the climate change debate (unlike Lysenkoism)

Michael Mann:  accuses others of trying to silence his views and ideas, yet still has a prestigious job, funding, and a voice in the climate change debate (unlike Lysenkoism)

Richard Lindzen:  can point to some scientific studies that support his views.

Michael Mann:  can point to a lot more scientific studies that support his views.

Richard Lindzen:  views in line with Kid's

Michael Mann:  views opposed to Kid's

Therefore:  Richard Lindzen is correct.

[kidcoyote]

Ahhh, I shouldn't do this, because getting involved with Kid makes me do radical things like cancel my PSHoops account...

Just a comparison:

Richard Lindzen:  respected scientist at MIT

Michael Mann:  respected scientist at PSU

Richard Lindzen:  views attacked by some scientists, accused of bias.

Michael Mann:  views attacked by some scientists, accused of bias.

Richard Lindzen:  views supported by invididuals with a political agenda

Michael Mann:  views supported by individuals with a political agenda

Richard Lindzen:  accuses others of trying to silence his views and ideas, yet still has a prestigious job, funding, and a voice in the climate change debate (unlike Lysenkoism)

Michael Mann:  accuses others of trying to silence his views and ideas, yet still has a prestigious job, funding, and a voice in the climate change debate (unlike Lysenkoism)

Richard Lindzen:  can point to some scientific studies that support his views.

Michael Mann:  can point to a lot more scientific studies that support his views.

Richard Lindzen:  views in line with Kid's

Michael Mann:  views opposed to Kid's

Therefore:  Richard Lindzen is correct.

I can't help it if you're think skinned. Grow up.

You can't be serious about comparing Mann with Lindzen. You tell me who's got a better educational pedigree.

Lindzen

Education

Lindzen attended the Bronx High School of Science (winning Regents' and National Merit Scholarships,) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Harvard University.[4] From Harvard, he received an A.B. in Physics in 1960, followed by an S.M. in Applied Mathematics in 1961 and then a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics in 1964. His doctoral thesis, entitled Radiative and photochemical processes in strato- and mesospheric dynamics, concerned the interactions of ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics in the middle atmosphere.

Mann

Mann was born in Amherst, Massachusetts. He obtained an A.B. in applied mathematics and physics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989, graduating from there with honors. He then studied at Yale University, obtaining an MS in physics in 1991, an MPhil in physics the same year, an MPhil in geology and geophysics in 1993, and a PhD in geology and geophysics in 1998.[1]

Seems to me, Lindzen appears more qualified to comment on atmospheric science. But that's me. Mann can bolster his case if he releases his data and 'proprietary' methodology. As he doesn't have a background in atmospheric science, I understand his reluctance.

Nobody seems to want to answer the question as to why meteorologists being under attack is okay. Be with us or off to the Gulag? Is that it? Preach tolerance and diversity, but do the opposite?

And my favorite writer is at it again.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100133247/children-just-arent-going-to-know-what-sun-is/

[UncleLar]

Nobody seems to want to answer the question as to why meteorologists being under attack is okay. Be with us or off to the Gulag? Is that it? Preach tolerance and diversity, but do the opposite?

Well for one thing, it's irrelevant.   Challenging meteorologists has no effect on warming.   It has nothing to do with the science behind it.

[Craftsy21]

Was this posted yet? http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf (warning: PDF file)

The reason skeptics are under attack is that most are uneducated or bought and paid for by certain interest groups that are invested in a world without man-made climate change.  Just like Big Tobacco not so long ago. 

You have to believe Kid, were he a bit older, would probably be one of those guys out in the streets talking about the non-sense of carcinogens in cigarettes due to some fringe science questioning such findings. 

It's one thing to doubt something that many people doubt.  But when you've got 16 people on your side among thousands that aren't, shouldn't you be a little more skeptical of your own opinion at that point?  Especially when you're not a scientist or anything resembling a scientific-thinking person?

Nah - it's just a big conspiracy.  How they got the entire U.N. in on it, I'm not sure.  I'm sure kid will get to the bottom of it.

[LarryH]

http://climatenonconformist.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/nazi-slurs-dangerous-territory/

I'm not naive enough to think that arguing with you will ever change your mind.  The only reason I interjected myself into this discussion is because you posted an obviously misleading graph that Lar was (rightfully) quick to call you out on.  I know you will never change your mind on this stuff, and I know that there are an awful lot of people out there who think like you do. 

What is maddening to me is your logic. It is fraught with disingenuity and equivocation. Sixteen scientists signed their names to a piece in the WSJ, and to you that is a death knell for climate change.   In that instance, 16 names (all or almost all of which I'm sure you'd never even heard of before reading the article) was all you needed to declare victory for your side. 

You posted a graph that was supposed to show that temperatures have stabilized over the last decade and a half.  You believe what the graph says from 1997 to present and point to it as evidence for your side.  But you look at the story told by previous 120 years on the graph, and you totally dismiss it.

I shouldn't let it bother me, but it is maddening.  Queue the Nazis and the polar bears.

Richard Lindzen has been a skeptic, and writing about it since 1988. I've seen him speak on TV, read his articles, and quoted him here maybe 1-2 years ago, so your statement is absurd, but typical of the warmist side. Avoid the facts, and smear non-believers. His articles have appeared in major publications over the last several years. Want don't you read his bio? Forget 120 years. Let's try 1500 years. Please answer how Mann's "hockey stick" eliminated the Medieval Warming Period, just erased it, to make his case. And he won't release his data, as he claims it's proprietary? Puhlease. Scientists release their methods, data, etc., to have it confirmed. The cold fusion guys didn't(~20 years ago), and they were disgraced, and laughed at.

If you actually read the 16 scientists' letter, and the reply by the alarmists, you will notice something interesting. Here's a claim of the 16 signers:

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Do the alarmists address it? Or do they just smear the group as "dentists diagnosing heart disease?" Do you even know what the CO²concentration of our atmosphere is? 392 parts per million, or 0.0392%, or 3.92% divided by 100. Scary, huh? As it's been 10X higher(not refuted in response to the gang of 16 letter) why worry? Computer models?

And can you please address the campaign to force meteorologists to change their reporting? This brings up a larger point. Why do groups which preach diversity and tolerance, force conformity, ideological adherence and strict obedience, when it comes to climate science? Why is the campaign against meteorologists not Nazi or Soviet like? Is this not similar to what the 16 mention? Do the alarmists not want the non-conforming meteorologists fired? Do they not want their views denied publication? Several editors have been fired for publication of skeptical views, one just a few months ago, publishing a Spencer piece. Are you even aware of this? Why is this okay with you?

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

This is open scientific debate? Maybe you want Soviet or Nazi style scientific adherence and policy. Not me.

[kidcoyote]

http://climatenonconformist.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/nazi-slurs-dangerous-territory/

These things start with the abuse of civil liberties, and the silencing of dissent. The efforts as evidenced by that site, nothing more than a blatant attempt to silence dissent, is chilling. I don't care if you agree. It's a small step, but a clear one. I don't think it will be successful, but not for lack of effort. And there is no justification for this smear campaign. As the site itself states, meteorologists are now more educated, no longer, "glorified announcers." So why smear them, and why force compliance with AGW orthodoxy? Can't meteorologists speak with their own voice? Can't they voice their own opinion based on their knowledge? You either agree or you don't. Which is it with you, forced compliance or open debate? Don't dodge the question with links.

You're either okay with the method recommended by this site or you're not. I'm not. I find it outrageous. Where do you stand? I wonder how you'd feel if you were one of the 55 identified deniers, identified by name. Nazi like, IMO.  Maybe they'll make them wear yellow stars, so people can ridicule them on the street. How long will it be before they demonstrate in front of their homes. I find it amazing how intolerant and how much anti-diversity the left can be when some have contrary, aka diverse opinions.

http://www.forecastthefacts.org/

[Skeeza]

UncleLar attempts to fact-check kidcoyote's new book

Great read, tbj.  It had me laughing.  I could picture the exchange.   

Best part, I also heard the "rumor" about the stratosphere leg.  I actually heard it from a construction manager, but not one that worked on the project.  I didn't know it was a rumor, I thought it was true.

[UncleLar]

http://climatenonconformist.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/nazi-slurs-dangerous-territory/

These things start with the abuse of civil liberties, and the silencing of dissent. The efforts as evidenced by that site, nothing more than a blatant attempt to silence dissent, is chilling. I don't care if you agree. It's a small step, but a clear one. I don't think it will be successful, but not for lack of effort. And there is no justification for this smear campaign. As the site itself states, meteorologists are now more educated, no longer, "glorified announcers." So why smear them, and why force compliance with AGW orthodoxy? Can't meteorologists speak with their own voice? Can't they voice their own opinion based on their knowledge? You either agree or you don't. Which is it with you, forced compliance or open debate? Don't dodge the question with links.

You're either okay with the method recommended by this site or you're not. I'm not. I find it outrageous. Where do you stand? I wonder how you'd feel if you were one of the 55 identified deniers, identified by name. Nazi like, IMO.  Maybe they'll make them wear yellow stars, so people can ridicule them on the street. How long will it be before they demonstrate in front of their homes. I find it amazing how intolerant and how much anti-diversity the left can be when some have contrary, aka diverse opinions.

http://www.forecastthefacts.org/

Let me see if I have this right.

When you argue against the global warming community, it is "open debate".

When they counter, it's "a smear campaign", "abuse of civil liberties", "silencing of dissent", "Nazism", or "Fascism".

 

[LarryH]

http://climatenonconformist.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/nazi-slurs-dangerous-territory/

These things start with the abuse of civil liberties, and the silencing of dissent. The efforts as evidenced by that site, nothing more than a blatant attempt to silence dissent, is chilling. I don't care if you agree. It's a small step, but a clear one. I don't think it will be successful, but not for lack of effort. And there is no justification for this smear campaign. As the site itself states, meteorologists are now more educated, no longer, "glorified announcers." So why smear them, and why force compliance with AGW orthodoxy? Can't meteorologists speak with their own voice? Can't they voice their own opinion based on their knowledge? You either agree or you don't. Which is it with you, forced compliance or open debate? Don't dodge the question with links.

You're either okay with the method recommended by this site or you're not. I'm not. I find it outrageous. Where do you stand? I wonder how you'd feel if you were one of the 55 identified deniers, identified by name. Nazi like, IMO.  Maybe they'll make them wear yellow stars, so people can ridicule them on the street. How long will it be before they demonstrate in front of their homes. I find it amazing how intolerant and how much anti-diversity the left can be when some have contrary, aka diverse opinions.

http://www.forecastthefacts.org/

What I disagree with is placing the climate change debate on equal footing with Nazism.  I can suspend reality long enough to believe that mother’s milk leads to heroin, but to equate the climate change debate to Nazism is just beyond my ability to delude myself.

And Nazism was such an evil in the world I find it dangerous to lessen what is was by saying it is the same as the current controversy.  Unless, of course,  you are a holocaust denier, then maybe I would understand your logic.  I would not agree, but I would at least understand how you think.  Is it possible that is how you equate the climate change debate and Nazism, by denying the holocaust?

[UncleLar]

Just to lighten things up a bit.

These two newswomen almost make it through a difficult subject but lose it at the end.

http://youtu.be/1KuRDzQ-ufY

[kidcoyote]

What I disagree with is placing the climate change debate on equal footing with Nazism.  I can suspend reality long enough to believe that mother’s milk leads to heroin, but to equate the climate change debate to Nazism is just beyond my ability to delude myself.

And Nazism was such an evil in the world I find it dangerous to lessen what is was by saying it is the same as the current controversy.  Unless, of course,  you are a holocaust denier, then maybe I would understand your logic.  I would not agree, but I would at least understand how you think.  Is it possible that is how you equate the climate change debate and Nazism, by denying the holocaust?

Okay, fair point. But Nazism didn't start with gas chambers. I had a client, now deceased, born maybe 1905, in Germany. He passed the bar exam in the early 30's, but received a letter from the head of the German court system, stating(going from memory here): "I regret to inform you that although you passed the exam, I will be unable to grant you the right to practice law due to the edict by Chancellor Hitler prohibiting Jews from becoming lawyers. As soon as this fool is out of office, I look forward to working with you." My client state taht people had no idea what was coming, including him.

My client left Germany, went to Italy, then England, then the US, and got into the shipping business. Civil liberties are denied in stages, spoonfed to an unwary populace.  I see this as an assault on freedom of the press. If it's not a freedom of the press issue, what is it? This is the kind of thing you see in totalitarian regimes. Sort of a first step. If Nazism isn't a good example, pick another, something lighter. Venezuela? China? Russia? Certainly something which should be foreign to the US. If they demonstrate in front of some of these 55's houses, is that legitimate? How about threatening advertisers? Threatening donors to the AMS?

[LarryH]

What I disagree with is placing the climate change debate on equal footing with Nazism.  I can suspend reality long enough to believe that mother’s milk leads to heroin, but to equate the climate change debate to Nazism is just beyond my ability to delude myself.

And Nazism was such an evil in the world I find it dangerous to lessen what is was by saying it is the same as the current controversy.  Unless, of course,  you are a holocaust denier, then maybe I would understand your logic.  I would not agree, but I would at least understand how you think.  Is it possible that is how you equate the climate change debate and Nazism, by denying the holocaust?

Okay, fair point. But Nazism didn't start with gas chambers. I had a client, now deceased, born maybe 1905, in Germany. He passed the bar exam in the early 30's, but received a letter from the head of the German court system, stating(going from memory here): "I regret to inform you that although you passed the exam, I will be unable to grant you the right to practice law due to the edict by Chancellor Hitler prohibiting Jews from becoming lawyers. As soon as this fool is out of office, I look forward to working with you." My client state taht people had no idea what was coming, including him.

My client left Germany, went to Italy, then England, then the US, and got into the shipping business. Civil liberties are denied in stages, spoonfed to an unwary populace.  I see this as an assault on freedom of the press. If it's not a freedom of the press issue, what is it? This is the kind of thing you see in totalitarian regimes. Sort of a first step. If Nazism isn't a good example, pick another, something lighter. Venezuela? China? Russia? Certainly something which should be foreign to the US. If they demonstrate in front of some of these 55's houses, is that legitimate? How about threatening advertisers? Threatening donors to the AMS?

You seem to make no distinction between private citizens exercising freedom of speech and governments exercising (abusing) authority.

Who is showing up and demonstrating in front of the houses of the 55 you keep referring to?  National Guardsmen or private citizens?  If it is private citizens I believe what they are doing is called free speech and not fascism.

Who is “threatening” advertisers?  Private corporations/citizens or the FCC?  If it is private citizens I believe it is called a boycott and not fascism.  (Unless the “threats are terroristic, and then there are laws prohibiting such behavior, further evidence that we do not live in a fascist state.) [edit- ...or it might even be called the free market  ]
 
Who is “threatening” donors to the AMS? Private citizens or the IRS?  …I believe you get my point.   

[kidcoyote]

What I disagree with is placing the climate change debate on equal footing with Nazism.  I can suspend reality long enough to believe that mother’s milk leads to heroin, but to equate the climate change debate to Nazism is just beyond my ability to delude myself.

And Nazism was such an evil in the world I find it dangerous to lessen what is was by saying it is the same as the current controversy.  Unless, of course,  you are a holocaust denier, then maybe I would understand your logic.  I would not agree, but I would at least understand how you think.  Is it possible that is how you equate the climate change debate and Nazism, by denying the holocaust?

Okay, fair point. But Nazism didn't start with gas chambers. I had a client, now deceased, born maybe 1905, in Germany. He passed the bar exam in the early 30's, but received a letter from the head of the German court system, stating(going from memory here): "I regret to inform you that although you passed the exam, I will be unable to grant you the right to practice law due to the edict by Chancellor Hitler prohibiting Jews from becoming lawyers. As soon as this fool is out of office, I look forward to working with you." My client state taht people had no idea what was coming, including him.

My client left Germany, went to Italy, then England, then the US, and got into the shipping business. Civil liberties are denied in stages, spoonfed to an unwary populace.  I see this as an assault on freedom of the press. If it's not a freedom of the press issue, what is it? This is the kind of thing you see in totalitarian regimes. Sort of a first step. If Nazism isn't a good example, pick another, something lighter. Venezuela? China? Russia? Certainly something which should be foreign to the US. If they demonstrate in front of some of these 55's houses, is that legitimate? How about threatening advertisers? Threatening donors to the AMS?

You seem to make no distinction between private citizens exercising freedom of speech and governments exercising (abusing) authority.

Who is showing up and demonstrating in front of the houses of the 55 you keep referring to?  National Guardsmen or private citizens?  If it is private citizens I believe what they are doing is called free speech and not fascism.

Who is “threatening” advertisers?  Private corporations/citizens or the FCC?  If it is private citizens I believe it is called a boycott and not fascism.  (Unless the “threats are terroristic, and then there are laws prohibiting such behavior, further evidence that we do not live in a fascist state.) [edit- ...or it might even be called the free market  ]
 
Who is “threatening” donors to the AMS? Private citizens or the IRS?  …I believe you get my point.

The Department of Energy is the largest donor to the AGW cause. Phil Jones at the CRU at UEA(see Climategate) stated this. What is the motivation of that site? The 16 have it right, cui bono. Charles Monnet, the suspended scientist, who saw the drowned polar bears, had a $50 million annual budget. For that budget, he should have been on a first name basis with each bear. I particularly liked this denier's comment which they posted,

"Al Gore's movie-Inconveniently NOT the truth....I too drank the KoolAid before that movie"
Justin Berk of WMAR-TV Baltimore, MD

But look at some of the other comments they posted of 'deniers'.

"Increased CO2 actually increases crop production, when CO2 drops to less than 150 (parts per million) plants will commence failing. If the plants die, then the livestock die and then guess who is next?"
Gary England of KWTV-TV Oklahoma City, OK
SOURCE: ENIDNEWS 04/11/2009

"Let's start with the basics. Is climate change real? Of course, the climate's been changing since the beginning of time. Are carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rising? Yes, but they've been much higher at times in the past, in fact, 20 times higher 500 million years ago. Is there a climate crisis? I say, absolutely not! But is the climate warming? Well, in recent decades, yes. But there's more to the story.."
David Paul of KLFY-TV Lafayette, LA
SOURCE: KLFY 07/08/2009
 
The site doesn't even refute these statements. They just want them stopped. Doesn't matter, won't work. Lots of people are giving up drinking the Kool Aid.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/02/07/two-more-scientists-change-sides-in-the-agw-debate/