Twitter Climate Nazis Are Back

Tom Nelson has been booted off twitter for using the same word Gavin did.

ScreenHunter_1396 Apr. 01 14.58

Today, April 1, Twitter informed me that my account was “locked” until I deleted this tweet:

Screen Shot 2015-04-01 at 10.44.47 AMScreen Shot 2015-04-01 at 1.20.59 PM

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Twitter Climate Nazis Are Back

  1. vuurklip says:

    Everyone’s crap is not equal! Some are more equal than others.

  2. omanuel says:

    Let’s quit fighting and help society:

    1. Regain sanity by showing science and religions agree: A benevolent and intelligent Higher Power created and sustains the world.

    See “Teacher’s Supplement to Solar Energy”

    2. Reduce social insanity induced by irrefutable evidence: Malevolent and selfish world leaders allied with scientists to rule and enslave society by deceit, exactly as George Orwell predicted in the book he started writing in 1946, “Nineteen Eighty-Four”

    See “Nineteen Eighty-Four”

  3. SteveO says:

    Every day I get closer and closer the John Galt’s solution.

  4. Stephen Richards says:

    Some peoples crap stinks and others don’t. I guess Gavin shits lavender or that must be what his follows think. It must have been them that asked twitter to block him.

  5. Eric Simpson says:

    Not an April Fools joke either.

  6. Hope Forcheese says:

    The Hope Forcheese Pledge:
    “I will vote for any politician from any party who will publicly call out the Global Warming hoax. I will contribute money to any candidate who promises to cut out funding for NCDC, NOAA and GISS. I will volunteer my time to any candidate who promises to prosecute dishonest federal employees for fraud.”

    Bonus points for any politician who will did deep into what Gavin has been up to.

  7. Tom Moran says:

    Are you sure he got kicked off for “crap” or was it for “Hayhoe” .when I say Hey you say Ho’
    Everybody say Hayhoe!

  8. chick20112011 says:

    Hope retweeted this guy using the word “crap” and twit didn’t ban this guy. I wonder why?
    Hope Forpeace retweeted
    B.L. Frazer @BLFrazer · Mar 28

    @HopeForpeace1 the neocon RWNJ tea party Repubs only have hate & personal insults. Can’t debate intelligently without name calling & crap.

  9. Andy DC says:

    Lying about warming is worse than crap. It is total shit!

    • gator69 says:

      Apparently lying is not an issue for Twitter, to them and Harry Reid it is a virtue.

      • Gail Combs says:

        In Progressive Speak it is called “A Good Team Player”

        (I really really hate that term.)

        Team Player = doesn’t have an original thought in his head but is an excellent arse kisser and will go far until his lack of brains blows up the plant or bankrupts the company or both. (BTDT lost the teeshirt in the explosion.)

  10. wyoskeptic says:

    Yep, I noticed. I am starting up a Twitmo Honor Roll for those sceptics, deniers or whatever the put-down du jour is.

    Anyone have any bets who is next?

  11. Dave N says:

    MwLnTq8efv is a swear word in Orkan.

  12. Gail Combs says:

    Expect the persecution of Global Warming Skeptics to ramp up as we approach Paris in December.

  13. cheshirered says:

    What an absurd graph that is from KHayhoe. Juvenile crap.

  14. Rud Istvan says:

    Folks, realize what is going on. You protest here while the other side protests to (biased?) Twitter censors. Best to protest there, not here. With facts. In my Army days, it was called returning fire.

    • Doug says:

      This. ^^

    • darrylb says:

      Rud I, I have read much about what you have posted on Climate etc.
      I appreciate and agree with most all of it.
      I have said that here we are preaching to the choir.
      …and maybe it does some good to protest there. But, I do believe it is necessary to go
      (with respect) to every source that is emitting false info, armed with as much info possible. Recently, as you know, Judith C. at climate etc has been delving into how to engage.
      What Steve offers here is a bundle of data info and I double check everything to verify because one mistake can prove costly
      I have posted some simple things at Real Climate, kind of acting the fool and sounding appreciative. As soon as I ask a serious question such as I would expect a greater chance of kinetic energy transfer than transfer by photon emission and absorption because of respective time magnitudes for each to happen at low altitudes and higher pressure or a question about energy transfer to water vapor at different altitudes under different conditions.—–The question seems to disappear.
      Another incidence which was revealing that I saw was when Gavin and Roy Spencer were to be asked questions on a TV program. Roy, of course, answered very respectfully, but Gavin would not present himself until after Roy left.
      That is characteristic of the entire AGW crew. Al Gore Recommended that.
      The valuable fundamental scientific event never seems to happen. Maybe it has somewhere, but I have never seen it and I am looking for it. There appears to be a greater self serving need to win than to serve the public.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Judith Curry’s reason for talking to skeptics was because she realized the need to engage the enemy and not ignore them. She is NOT a skeptic and her company makes money off Wind Turbines.

        Emsnews and I recognized her as a non-skeptic faster than a guy would because we understand the female mind a bit better. Guys generally use a straight forward frontal assault. (Mann’s lawsuits, refusing to talk to skeptics, baring comments….) Women can not because we are physically weaker and because in business/the work place we are ignored, literally not heard. This means a smart savvy successful female can give Machiavelli lessons in manipulating people.

        Judith Curry

        Peter Webster — Judith’s Business partner

        Webster is where you get a glimpse of where Judith is actually coming from.

        Webster is a member of the Aspen Global Change Institute.
        FUNDING for Aspen Global Change Institute comes from:
        * The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
        * The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
        * The National Science Foundation (NSF)
        * The Department of Energy (DOE)…..

        Don’t forget that Judith company is based on government grants too.

        Aspen Global Change Institute
        Global Solutions Lab

        This section is currently under construction. Soon, visitors to this page will find information about proposed solutions to the most pressing global environmental challenges. In light of the tremendous impact global climate change will have on human civilization, considerable worldwide effort is being directed into finding global-scale solutions to either mitigate climate-driven changes or adapt to potential impacts. Much research has addressed technological innovation, particularly in the realm of energy, but attention has also focused on necessary social, business, and legal reforms.….

        Sure sounds like they are actively working on the nitty gritty of the UN’s Agenda 21.

        When you pull the Aspen Global Change Institute thread things get real interesting…

        Climate Communication is a non-profit science and outreach project supported by grants, including from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Climate Communication operates as a project of the Aspen Global Change Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to furthering the scientific understanding of Earth systems and global environmental change…

        So it looks like Judith just might be part of the Aspen Global Change Institute’s Climate Communication outreach project A direct connection that can be traced between Judith and the Aspen Global Change Institute would be self defeating so the connection is via her partner. How many times have we seen this ruse used by politicians like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

        WHAT WE DO

        We publicize and illuminate the latest climate research in plain language, making the science more accessible to the public and policy makers.

        Examples include our primer on climate change and our feature on extreme weather and its connections to climate change. We’ve also released a report on heat waves and climate change.
        ← We Assist Journalists
        We Support Scientists →

        And guess who is on the staff of Climate Communication?
        Peter Gleick
        Katharine Hayhoe
        Michael Mann
        Jeff Masters
        Michael Oppenheimer
        Naomi Oreskes
        Jonathan Overpeck
        Benjamin Santer
        Kevin Trenbreth
        Don Wuebbles

        To name just a few.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Curry is as much as sceptic of CO2 warming as Muller from WORST is.

          She just seems to like sitting on the fence as part of the ruse.

  15. Anto says:

    Do a Twitter search for every swear word you can possibly imagine and you will find they are not censored. A climate sceptic says, “crap”, however – suspended.

    • B says:

      Humans like their rules socially flexible and selectively enforced. Humans don’t like rigid rules for themselves, just for other people they disagree with or don’t like.

      Those who have unacceptable views, who not conform, who out work other people, or whatever other social offense you can think of can expect to have the rules enforced upon them rigidly.

      • Gail Combs says:

        It is the Rule of Man (aka the King) vs the Rule of Law.

        The USA was set-up to enforce the rule of law. The Corrupt especially the corrupt in the Supreme Court have perverted the Rule of Law and turned it into the Rule of Man.

        REGULATION AND THE CONSTITUTION: Former Senator Schmitt Cites Constitutional Limits on Regulatory Government

        ….It is now obvious that Congress got America into a real pickle when it agreed in 1933, as part of Roosevelt’s New Deal, to delegate law-making power to agencies under the control of the President. This unconstitutional and increasingly threatening situation became entrenched with the passage of the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act. APA set up the formal mechanisms for creating regulatory law outside any direct action by Congress.

        With the Administrative Procedures Act, Congress gave the Executive Branch almost complete responsibility for directly overseeing the economic burden, legality, and the constitutionality of non-legislative regulations. The legal oversight of regulatory law through the Federal Courts, and its costs were left to the people and the States…..

        So the Supreme Court responsed by giving the non-elected bureaucrats EVEN MORE POWER.

        Supreme Court decision bolsters federal regulators’ power to interpret and change regulations — without formal notice

        Even as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is under fire for overstepping its authority to regulate the financial services industry, the bureau and other federal regulators received more muscle this week from a U.S. Supreme Court decision that grants federal agencies the power to issue interpretive rules about regulations without first making them public or following formal legislative rule-making processes.

        The case, “Thomas E. Perez, et al., v. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), et al.,” asked the Supreme Court to resolve the long-standing question of whether a federal agency seeking to propose new rules or significantly amend existing ones must engage in the notice-and-comment procedure prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA requires agencies to publish a notice of proposed rule-making in the “Federal Register” and entertain comments from interested parties before promulgating new rules or significantly altering existing rules….


        The 6th and 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 3 Section 2 give US citizens the right to a trial. However as Joan Biskupic stated:”

        “Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial.”

        The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case — and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial….

        ….As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” ….

        A critical part of the US government is the Citizens RIGHT to judge both the accused AND THE LAW. This right is critical because it allows citizens the final say on laws and regulations. Therefore it was absolutely necessary for the ruling class to demolish this right.

        They did so

        Here is how theruling class have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial and the final say on laws and regulations:

        …The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases… The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,” …

        The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.

        In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil jury trial neither “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. State of Connecticut (1937), nor “fundamental to the American scheme of justice,” Duncan v. Louisiana (1968).!/amendments/7/essays/159/right-to-jury-in-civil-cases

  16. Elaine Supkis says:


  17. Elaine Supkis says:

    Steven, your complaints about being banned is crazy when YOU do this at the SLIGHTEST event that irritates YOU.

    Pathetic thin skin you have.

  18. ossqss says:

    Seems to me he hit a threshold of feedback and was impacted.

    Same thing was used to dump you Tony.

    Community organized responses that are working?

    Censorship can take many forms. Just sayin, test, test ?

  19. Does anybody have a link to the chart that Bull Schmidt was calling crap?

  20. juanmirre says:

    Green Religion, Man-made Climate Change Dogma, CO2 Inuisition

  21. Gail Combs says:

    I just posted a comment on Obama voter fraud. One of the interesting tidbits about the Progressives is how they make themselves appear to be a much larger group than they actually are (All funded by George Soros and the Rockefeller foundations of course.)

    Yesterday Hubby ran into this:

    There is on Twitter this thing called StopRush, and it’s people attacking me and this program much the way Indiana is being attacked today, and whatever conservative institution was attacked yesterday. What this group does is they go after local advertisers on local EIB affiliates, and they try to intimidate local businesses… They just overwhelm them with complaint tweets, threatening tweets, a bunch of e-mails. It’s 10 people. We researched it. We know who the people are. We know where they live. Virtually 85% of all the so-called outrage e-mails and tweets are generated by 10 people, made to look as though they are thousands and thousands and thousands. It’s all fake. It’s all phony.

    In other words most of what we see is an ILLUSION created by money, created by paid propagandists and created by the bought and paid for MSM. Rasmussen showed ~ 30% Democrats, 30% Republicans and ~30% Tea Party before the Tea Party was targeted by the MSM as loony-tune racists. Shortly thereafter Soros fired up the competing Occupy Wall Street ‘movement’ and made sure THEY got all the news coverage and the Tea Party was sidelined.

    We still have far less than a majority of DemiRats and a growing distaste for the US government.

  22. Smokey says:

    The climate alarmist side used to engage in fair, neutral debates, using professional moderators. But no more!

    Why not? Simple. Because they lost every debate. No exceptions. So now they hide out instead of debating, and they denigrate formal debates as being ‘not science’. But the truth is, they lack credible arguments.

    Debates serve an excellent purpose: they allow the taxpaying public to separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of pseudo-science. Since the public is paying the freight, they should be presented with both sides of the issue, no?

    When the public is given all available information, they almost always make the correct decision. That is the reason the global warming narrative is so tightly controlled by the alarmist crowd’s media sycophants: they want to control the public. That is called ‘propaganda’.

    Here is just one example of a debate between climate skeptics and climate alarmists (I have lots of other examples saved). Before the debate, the voting audience was polled, and a majority of them voted that global warming was a crisis. Following the debate, the majority had switched their votes to the skeptics’ side.

    That’s why Mann, Schmidt and the rest hide out now, instead of debating. They are not convincing, because they lack facts and evidence to support their narrative. Now they rely on Twitter, and their army of head-nodding lemmings to run interference for them. That is the real psuedo-science.

    • gator69 says:

      The alarmists rarely and grudgingly agreed to a few debates, and dodged even more. This is by far the least publicly debated scientific subject.

    • Gail Combs says:

      As I mentioned in the comment above Rush did the digging and found that ‘vast army of head-nodding lemmings’ was actually only ten people.

      This vast army of believers is just like the 97% of scientist say meme, A BIG HONKING LIE! Remember in various polls including a huge one by the United Nations CAGW came in dead last.

  23. gator69 says:

    They have changed the complaint form since Tony’s suspension, but after some digging I was able to find good contact info for those who do not have an account.

    Phone: 415-222-9670,

    Flood those fascists with your righteous indignation.

  24. gator69 says:

    I sent two messages. After the second, Twitter blocked my email address, another good reason to have multiple throwaways, so they got my second message, and third. 😆

  25. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism.

Leave a Reply