Comparing people to Nazis is bad. I discussed this before, when I showed a person, Tim Ball, trying to do so screwed up so bad he wound up painting himself as Adolf Hitler. There's a problem with that discussion though. It seems not everybody agrees Ball was comparing people to Nazis.
According to them, the post doesn't compare anyone to Nazis even though it begins:
Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? Some skeptics seem to believe it is just poor quality scientists, who don’t understand physics, but that doesn’t explain the amount, and obviously deliberate nature, of what has been presented to the public. What motive would you give, when asked?
The first step in understanding, is knowledge about how easily large-scale deceptions are achieved. Here is an explanation from [Hitler]
Of course, this doesn't compare anyone to Hitler or the Nazis. If that's all there was, people would have a point when they say things like:
To suggest that Tim was trying to associate climate scientists with Hitler is ridiculous. The post accurately described how propaganda is a central tenet of the alarmist meme and correctly showed that the Nazi regime was also fuelled by propaganda. Nowhere did Tim compare any scientists with Hitler.
— Foxgoose (@Foxgoose) December 14, 2014
But the post doesn't end with its beginning. The beginning doesn't compare anyone to Hitler or the Nazis, but it certainly sets the stage. The comparison becomes clear when just a few paragraphs later, Ball says:
[Hitler] was a leader whose lies and deceptions caused global disaster, including the deaths of millions of people. In a complex deception, the IPCC established a false result, the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming, then used it as the basis for a false premise that justifies the false result. It is a classic circular argument, but essential to perpetuate the phony results, which are the basis of all official climate change, energy, and environmental policies.
The paragraph has three sentences. The first sentence talks about what Hitler did. The second sentence talks about what the IPCC did. In what world are the two not being compared? Why would anyone talk about Hitler then immediately talk about another group if not to compare the two? What purpose would their be in doing so, while claiming both promoted false premises, if not to compare the two? Do people really believe Ball was making just casual observations about Hitler and the IPCC, in the same paragraph... just because?
You guys must have learned analogy from Mann. Dr. Ball does not call anyone a Nazi, nor did Steyn compare Mann to a child molester. Your post is nothing more than screaming Godwin’s Law in an attempt to avoid the content of Dr. Ball’s post, content that is likely at, or very near, the truth
And did you read Tim Balls comment before you started belly aching about being compared to Nazis?
I see no such comparison in that posting, perhaps you can quote Tim directly?
Or do you see yourself as a a person fitting the general description?
Happily, not everybody failed to see the comparison. One person commented:
And, now, even after Anthony notes his disagreement, most commenters are standing by (or expanding, as they did in the comments to Ball’s post) the Nazi comparison.
They’re free to do so, of course. But the rule applies. With the overwhelming majority of comments being supportive of, or repeating, Nazi/Hitler comparisons — the overwhelming majority of commenters are not going to listen to science. Which they’re also free to do.
But this was accompanied by a Word of God response from a moderator of Watts Up With That saying:
[Dr. Ball did NOT “call” anyone within the CAGW populist/anti-free-thought community Nazi’s. Dr Ball DID show that the METHODS USED in their bombastic deliveries and in their dogma were similar to the propaganda methods written about in Mein Kampf. The CAGW community invented the charge you are repeating above because the CAGW community recognized the accuracy and effectiveness of Dr Ball’s comparisons of their methods. .mod]
That is a moderator of Watts Up With That, where Tim Ball's piece was posted, acting as a representative for the site. In that capacity, he claims the "CAGW community invented the charge" comments like:
When you understand what Adolf Hitler is saying in the quote from “Mein Kampf” above, you realize how easy it was to create the political formula of Agenda 21 and the scientific formula of the IPCC.
Are comparing people to Hitler/Nazis.
If we (like Tim Ball) ignore the fact Hitler was talking about a strategy used by the supposed Jewish conspiracy, a similar comment would be, "When you understand Hitler's strategy, you realize how easy it was to create the scientific formula of the IPCC." From there it's a short jump to, "The IPCC used Hitler's strategy to create its scientific formula."
And according to a lot of people, there's no comparison involved in that. According to them, Ball discussed Hitler and the IPCC without comparing the two. According to them, Ball pointed out similarities in their tactics without comparing the two. According to them, Ball attributed the success of the IPCC to the strategy Hitler used... without comparing the two.
And if you disagree, you're apparently an alarmist hack who can't read and is just looking for an excuse to believe global warming will destroy the world. Or something.