Climate Change Denier Roy Spencer Says People Who Use Word 'Denier' Are 'Global Warming Nazis'

Read time: 5 mins

Prince Charles is a “global warming Nazi” and, apparently, so is U.S. President Barack Obama.

That’s according to Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the world’s most often cited deniers of the risks of human-caused climate change.

In a blog post titled “Time to push back against the global warming Nazis,” Dr Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, wrote that he had made a decision about anyone who used the term “denier” to describe … well… deniers of the threats of human-caused climate change. 

He’s going to call them “Global warming Nazis.”

Spencer wrote:

When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

Spencer later added a note, which said:

A couple people in comments have questioned my use of “Nazi”, which might be considered over the top. Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause — I think it is very appropriate. Again, I didn’t start the name-calling.

So who else, apart from Prince Charles and U.S. President Barack Obama, will Roy Spencer be branding as “global warming Nazis” because they’ve used the term “denier”?

UK climate policy advisor Sir Nicholas Stern – he’s a “global warming Nazi”. So is Al GoreAnd that Richard Branson? He’s one of them there “global warming Nazis” too.

Dr Spencer is not a fringe figure in the politicization of the science of climate change. 

He has been called at least four times by the Republican Party to give “evidence” to Congress.  He is cited by prominent climate sceptic commentators around the world, including Australia’s Maurice Newman, the current Government’s top business advisor.

Dr Spencer was also incandescent in his post at the “pseudo-scientific ramblings” of the leaders of the “global warming Nazis”.

Step forward, every major national scientific academy on the planet, all those “global warming Nazis” at the World Bank, and the “global warming Nazis” in various defence forces around the world who increasingly see climate change as a major security issue.

While we’re talking about “pseudo scientific ramblings”, would this be a good time to point out that Dr Spencer believes that a Christian “god” is responsible for everything on the planet and says there’s more evidence for creationism than there is for evolution?

When Dr Spencer is not touting the merits of creationism, he has written how “my job is to minimise the role of government”. 

Oddly, while Dr Spencer is convinced that all “deniers” should rally around his call for a rebranding of the likes of Barack Obama and Prince Charles, there are even deniers who prefer the term that he personally finds so offensive.

Take, for example, denier Dr Richard Lindzen, who when asked by a BBC journalist about which descriptive term he preferred, said: “I actually like ‘denier.’ That’s closer than skeptic”. (Six months before this interview, Lindzen had claimed the opposite, saying he was offended by the term.)  It seems important in this context to point out that Dr Lindzen is Jewish.

Or there’s also denier Steve Milloy, who told Popular Science that: “I'm happy to be a denier.”

Lawrence Solomon, a prominent Canadian columnist, has written a climate book with the title “The Deniers” based on a series of columns he wrote, also called “The Deniers”.

Tom Harris, the head of climate science misinformation PR outfit the International Climate Science Coalition, agreed with Spencer's Nazi reference, commenting: “Yes, they certainly do behave like Nazis.”

Harris’ organisation claims to seek “a more rational, open discussion” on climate science, which is somehow achieved by calling people “global warming Nazis”.

Another prominent climate science denier to have used Nazi analogies is Lord Christopher Monckton.

In 2011, shortly before flying to Australia for a speaking tour, Monckton used a large image of a Nazi swastika in a conference presentation next to a quote by an Australian government climate policy advisor, Professor Ross Garnaut.

As a result, speaking venues in Australia cancelled their Monckton appearances. Prime Minister at the time Julia Gillard described the remarks as “grossly inappropriate” and the Opposition leader Tony Abbott, who is now Prime Minister, said it was “offensive and over the top”. 

Monckton issued a guarded apology, but then later claimed his remarks had been “very mild”.

Spencer also used swastika imagery in his post with a picture of a group of larch trees planted in the shape of a swastika in an east German forest. The trees went undiscovered for many years because the effect was only visible for a short time during autumn when the larch leaves changed their colour but the surrounding pines didn't.

Once discovered, the trees were cut down. According to Spiegel Online, this was done over fears the site “could become some kind of pilgrimage location for neo-Nazis”.

Dr Spencer’s offensive comparison with Nazis risks turning his own views, and his own website, into a shrine for the most extremist of climate change deniers.

No offense.

Get DeSmog News and Alerts


Spencer's comments just show the dishonesty shown by AGW deniers. His first statement is a distortion of the truth. Climate scientists do not claim that only CO2 is affecting climate, they know that other factors are involved but that the CO2 effect is a major contributor to global warming.

As for his second comment that just shows how low deniers will stoop to insult honest people.

People like Spencer et al. are despicable because they know what is happening, they know what is causing it but deny it.

what term would you prefer as a counter label to describe those who try to deny free speech to guest skeptic speakers at universities, call for censorship in TV and newspapers, imply that skeptics should be dealt with as traitors, etc? Any suggestions?

I would suggest the term “bullshit detectors”. Freedom of speech does not mean institutional support for liars. “Balanced” commentary does not imply there is a “right” to spread falsehoods either. There again, the true definition of skeptic is not naysayer either. How about real skeptics, putting fake skeptics in their place? Bullshit detection is indeed an honorable calling, if at times an unpleasant task.

and was exposed by Revkin at Dot Earth and Samenow at the Washinton Post. Yet John Holdren comes out on White House video and makes false claims about the warming Arctic causing cold in the USA. Anyone selling such nonsense like Holdren can get air and press time to spew such falsehoods. There’s plenty of “bullshit” that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts are attributable to man’s CO2 and will become worse, even though the IPCC scientists’ confidence in such past claims has been downgraded to “low confidence”. Who is on TV telling the scientific truth about “low confidence” in future increases in extreme weather? It would be nice if people were told the truth about the “low confidence” that climate scientists have in human attribution for hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts or the high uncertainty that it will become worse.

The term Polar Vortex has been in the standard meteorological corpus since the mid 20th Century. The recent weather conditions in the North American continent are indeed attributed to polar warming with the displacement of colder air into more southerly latitudes and amplified jet stream patterns; this has been confirmed by instrumental observation. 

It is incorrect to state that individual weather events are _ever_ directly attributed to human agency, and no credible climate scientist makes that claim, though plenty of fake skeptics insist that they do. It is the long term changes in underlying climate conditions to which emissions, land use, and related industrial activities can be legitimately credited. 

The frequency of meteorological events as such, will not increase, any more than the number of days in the year will increase. However the intensity and scale of such events, especially due to the longitudinal increase in amplified jet stream patterns, is clearly enhanced. Such are the changing conditions, only indirectly related to AGW but more directly related to the amplified polar warming which *is* a long-recognized feedback of the enhanced greenhouse effect.

I note that your references are pseudonymous commentators in news media. Since that's hardly from the milieu of science based publications, might I suggest yet another euphemism? 

“Meadow muffins” are similarly detected. And deserve similar treatment.

I was specific about Holdren but nice unrelated and inaccurate gish gallop rant on your part and completely ignoring what I actually said. As for your jet stream patterns sales attempt. I’m not buying it. Go bounce your nonsense off of climate scientist Cliff Mass for a rude awakening on the subject. I already talked to him. While you’re at it go talk to climate scientist Drew Shindell on aerosol contribution to Arctic warming them come back and tell me what % of Arctic warming is attributable to your “long-recognized feedback of the enhanced greenhouse effect”. TIA

Nazis were right wingers?

Could a climatologist be a Nazi ?… Sure, that's not actually part of the Phd requirements to disclose but I guess if watts can have a fetish for pop tarts ?

 A few years into Iraq nobody could find anyone who admitted they voted for Bush regardless of science aptitude.. We think this was just fart in the elevator syndrome. Hanson already admitted he was once a Republican but hasn't declaired any facist Leterhosen. Actually the previous denialologist  expletive was always the exact bipolar crank opposite term ” commi “. A single person can't be a commi,  they need have a commi party first.  You can be a communist  sympathizer,  I guess, but it still doesn't have much to do with the burning question of co2. You see, I'm a heartland institute sympathizer, but it doesn't make me a member. I feel for the zombies who live in the institute attic and feed on brains. These are one of those species displaced by global warming or possibly mistakenly checked in thinking it was a motel six. I hope that clears up your confusion.

” In the analysis of Cowtan & Way, which interpolates the data-poor region in the Arctic with a better method, 2013 is warmer than 1998 (even though 1998 was a record El Nino year, and 2013 was neutral)”

Don't know what happened this year for sure yet except a something similar happened a few years back and while all the cold was spilling out of the arctic and deaper into the USA warm air was being sucked into the arctic and following a denial snowmageddon fragfest the Arctic had an early thaw in the spring. See we are not so concerned of the weather from year to year as the addition of positive forcings like an ice free arctic and increased greenhouse  gas and methane from melted permafrost and unfrozen castrates  of methane and carbon sink wiped out by pine beetles or rain forest developers and… people who want a pipeline and then quickly flash a diagram of all proposed pipelines that would be ramed through post mortum that looks like Steve harpers manly chest before the bikini wax.

In other news there was a well known snake handling southern pastor who was bit by a rattle snake and died recently. That is not usually fatal in this day of age except when you get bit in the ass the congregation won't suck out the venom. I'm not sure that was the case, just one possible explanation . I can't really relate it to global warming except when the paramedics showed up the congregation said he went home and the paramedics went away but they might have been talking about the snake… so it's good to be specific in any discussion. Hey, that sort of has some relevance to this discussion :)

Windy, extreme weather events are increasing at an alarming rate globally. See here:

Increasing temperatures whether AGW or non AGW are predicted to increase these events. So we have a cause effect relationship. However we can not prove that any specifc event was caused by AGW only that their numbers will be greatly increased.

If you do not accpet that the increase in extreme weather events is caused by increasing temperature then you must have an alternative plausible explanation. Please let us know what your alternative explanation is, otherwise we will know that you are just another AGW denier troll.

What you offer as evidence is not peer reviewed science Ian. All the UN and environmental NGO stuff is biased garbage. I have tons of peer reviewd research showing past extreme weather to be far worse than anything we see today from ice mass balance to drought to warmer global temperatures and most certainly warmer Arctic temperaturres than today.

Some of paleo science was recently covered in the main stream media to counter the “bullshit” that current California drought is also man's fault. I'm not interested in your biased grey literature as I would rather get info from peer reviewed science sources and climate scientists that I engage with. I also prefer to listen to scientists who have already testified before congress this year and are on the record saying that confidence that man has contributed to the extreme weather events I specifially listed above, is low. I'm sorry you are unwilling to accept the scientific reality.

Peer reviewed literature is not common for the sort of information I presented. I at least present data. You, in your usual denier troll ways did not produce any back up for your rubbish.

Here is how the Global Assessment Reports are developed:

The Global Assessment Reports are developed on the basis of a large body of original research contributed to UNISDR by a wide range of independent scientific institutions, think tanks, UN agencies, governments, non-governmental organisations and businesses. This includes original data, case studies, analysis and survey results – all available online.

Seems like a rigorous and honest way to do things, unlike the denier blogs you choose to read and quote.

My State Climatologist doesn't agree with your extreme weather nonsense Ian. I have had exchanges with him regarding tornadoes and hurricanes and he is aware, as I am, that extreme weather data needs to be normalized over time for apples to apples comparison. Normalized scientific data doesn't support your non-normalized UN data Ian. NOAA tries to pull the same non-normalized nonsense on their web site on disasters too. Call me an AGW denier troll all you want. It's better than being a global warming Nazi. lol

I'm so tired tired of the ritual name calling that ensues whenever a commentor dares to speak out against the CAGW mantra.

Please try to keep it civilized if you folks want to have any credibility amongst the casual skeptics out here.

Thank you!

Maybe you and Roy have the same problem… a fatigue issue? A bit of turrets with the cAGW and NAzi slurs, butt for the original complaint you can try prunes and nibble your way into the Prozac sack for the other problem. This blog is not intended for the diagnosis of any specific illness, so do not try this at home,  keep this side up when reading the monitor, to avoid confusion,  and don’t attempt to handle rattle snakes in church without an agnostic doctor present.

…is that you win an argument with an idiot.

Roy Spencer and Ian Christie's work gets quite a lot of airplay in the denialist echo chamber. Their narrowly focused radiosonde/satellite readings from the Tropical Mid Troposphere (TMT) within the ± 20° lat bands have been used extensively by Watts, Solomon and their followers, attempting to “prove” that overall Global temperature trends have stalled. Truly theirs is the realm of cherry picking, missatribution, and wandering goal posts. This has very little to do with the responsible practice of scientific methodology, as it is basically the abuse of statistics toward a preferred outcome… category errors, all areas besides the TMT, and their use of the least reliable temperature data on record, be damned.

So now Spencer is reduced to provoking Godwin's Law. By my reckoning this is a very strong (over 95% confidence) indication that Spencer's better-informed critics are indeed, arguing with an idiot.

I am reluctant to call people liars. I do not have any such reluctance in calling them rationalizers. I think that is much more common.

So I am calling Spencer a self pitying rationalizer. I think he has convinced himself that people who call him a denier are linking him with Holocaust deniers.  I think his motives for selling himself this bullshit are rather disingenuous. I think he wants to make himself a victim and a martyr in his own eyes. The cause that he supports has very little in common with the Nazis. (OK, if you look hard enough you will find any political cause agreeing with the Nazis on something, so no nit picking please.) But his methods have a lot in common with those of Holocaust deniers. He is willfuly blind and seeks only evidence and interpretations of events that support what he wants to believe. He is unwilling to admit that he was wrong on anything important and he is unwilling to believe anything ucomfortable.

Here is a quote from Spencer in the Christian Post:

Unlike them [Katharine Hayhoe and Thomas Ackerman], we deny “that most of it is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community”.

So how can he get so enraged when he is called a “denier” when he admits that he is one?

“Denier” some one who denies something.

is defined as follows:

DENI'ER ∫. [from deny

   1. A contradictor ; an opponent.    Watts.

   2. One that does not own or acknowledge. South.

   3. A refuſer ; one that refuſes.     King Charles.


Gotta love thoſe long letter “s” characters ſ …

Also note that Johnson's annotations refer to his contemporary literary sources, so that first citation is from the logician Isaac Watts, definitely not Anthony Watts! 

This is from the last edition of Johnson's dictionary actually revised by himself during is lifetime. The word “denier” clearly predates any 20th Century context, and has no neccessary reference to Holocaust denial.


I have put the comment pasted below onto Roy Spencer's blog, and copied it here in case anything happens to it over there.


As a retired psychiatrist, I would like to respond.

Denial is a real, common and well-recognised psychological defense mechanism that denies painful thoughts, truths, realities, facts, feelings and emotions, associated with aversion to dealing with same.

I regularly dealt with denial in my consultations.

It happens with alcoholics who refuse to accept that they are alcoholics. It happens with skeletal young women who refuse to accept that they have an eating disorder.

We all do denial to some extent, for instance, in forgetting dentists’ appointments.

Anyone who knows an individual who is in denial can see that they have a problem, except when some friends and acquaintances may be sucked in to the individual's belief system.

Every argument, fact or emotional pleading is countered by the individual in denial with “No, but what about x y and z?”

The condition can be resolved, but it needs enormous investment of supportive care, knowledge, wisdom and patience on the part of the community, mediated mainly by psychiatric services.

The critical factor in resolution of denial lies with the subject experiencing the unpleasant reality that is being denied. The alcoholic may need to experience loss of job and family before they join AA. The smoker may need to experience his heart attack before he gives up.

So denial in individual psychology is generally accepted among scientifically trained psychiatrists as a recognisable mental condition.

I leave it to you to decide whether the fossil fuel industry's pain in contemplating loss of profitability might possibly push them in the direction of denial.

Ok Roy, Not everybody denies they are deniers…

This seems to be Some blanket statement to cover the beliefs of all evangelicals on a completely unrelated to Christianity issue of climate change? I have no idea if you can be excommunicated from the evangelicals for believing in reality but this would make it hard to sit in a pew if you made it outta grade ten science.


    We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry.

    Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

    We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.

    We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.

    We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression. “

I will just add that the web site is from vancouver were the electircal supply is all renewable hydro electric and government owned and built by commis many many years ago and helps pay for the social system (profit) while maintaining union wages and the cheapest power anywhere…aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Roy Spencer did not call them “Nazis.” He called them “Climate Nazis,” which is a very different thing. It's a literary reference to the famous Seinfeld “Soup Nazi,” as explained at Language Log:
OTOH, the people who Dr. Spencer called “Climate Nazis” have, for years, been calling Dr. Spencer and anyone else who disagrees with them “Deniers,” which is a shameful reference to Holocaust Deniers.

If you don't know about the Seinfeld “Soup Nazi,” this is for you:
It is a very common Internet meme. For instance, a google search for “grammar nazi” yields over 600,000 hits:
Here's what KnowYourMeme says about Grammar Nazis:
…and Soup Nazis:

You forgot, Neo Nazis..

Hey, You're right!, adding a prefix makes your self defamation seem almost intelligible.

DaveBurton, please read my post above. Denial is a real thing. It is not just an extension of the term “holocaust denier”, although it is probable that most holocaust deniers are also in denial over that horror.

It seems they want us to add a prefix to denier so that they are not confused with the holocaust or the 3000 major wars BC that may have included a few holocausts with people like gingas condalisa or lanolieum blownapart. As pointed out so often of the handful of scientists that deny global warming a few deny other well established science like the fact smoking can kill you. Most smokers don't deny it and to some extent it makes them feel like batman, although the crime fighting excitement and danger is more emphysema and the 3 am hack up of a lung. Some of these sciencetits are in fact professional deniers. We don't want to pigeon hole anyone.