Update: A guest post response, along with a comment from me has been posted, please see A big (goose) step backwards
Guest Opinion: Dr.Tim Ball
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 one of the best proponents in history.
“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”
————————–
Do these remarks explain the comments of Jonathan Gruber about legislation for the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare? Do the remarks fit the machinations of the founders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the activities of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) disclosed in their 6000 leaked emails? It is instructive to know that Professor Gruber’s health care models are inaccessible, protected as proprietary.
The author of the quote 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.
They successfully fooled the majority and even though many are starting to ask questions about contradictions, the central argument that CO2 is a demon gas destroying the planet through climate change, remains. There are three phases in countering what most people understand and convincing them of what was done. First, you have to explain the scientific method and the hypothesis they tried to prove, instead of the proper method of disproving it. Then you must identify the fundamental scientific flaws, in a way people understand. Third, you must anticipate the next question, because, as people grasp what is wrong and what was done, by understanding the first two stages, they inevitably ask the basic question skeptics have not answered effectively. Who did it and what was the motive? You have to overcome the technique so succinctly portrayed in the cartoon (Figure 1).
The response must counteract all the issues detailed in Adolf Hitler’s cynical comments, but also the extremely commendable motive of saving the planet, used by the IPCC and alarmists.
Figure 1
There are several roadblocks, beyond those Hitler identified. Some are inherent to individuals and others to society. People want to believe the best in people, especially if they have certain positions in society. Most can’t imagine scientists would do anything other than honest science. Most assume scientists avoid politics as much as possible because science is theoretically apolitical. One argument that is increasingly effective against this concern is funding. Follow the money is so basic, human greed, that even scientists are included.
Most find it hard to believe that a few people could fool the world. This is why the consensus argument was used from the start. Initially, it referred to the then approximately 6000 or so involved directly or indirectly in the IPCC. Later it was converted to the 97 percent figure concocted by Oreske, and later Cook. Most people don’t know consensus has no relevance to science. The consensus argument also marginalized the few scientists and others who dared to speak out.
There were also deliberate efforts to marginalize this small group with terminology. Skeptics has a different meaning for science and the public. For the former they are healthy and necessary, for the latter an irritating non-conformist. When the facts contradicted the hypothesis, namely that temperature stopped rising while CO2 continued to increase, a more egregious name was necessary. In the latter half of the 20th century, a denier was automatically associated with the holocaust.
Another form of marginalizing, applied to minority groups, is to give them a unique label. In climate, as in many other areas where people keep asking questions for which they receive inadequate answers, they are called conspiracy theorists. It is why I prefer the term cabal, a secretive political clique or faction, named after the initials of Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley and Lauderdale, ministers to Charles II. Maurice Strong referred to the cabal when he speculated in 1990,
What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?
The motive emerged from the cabal within the Club of Rome around the themes identified by their founder, scientist Alexander King, in the publication The First Global Revolution. They took the Malthusian argument that the population was outgrowing food resources and said it was outgrowing all resources. The problem overall was bad, but was exacerbated and accelerated by industrialized nations. They were later identified as the nations in Annex 1 of the Kyoto Accord. The objective to achieve the motive was to reduce industrialization by identifying CO2 as causing global warming. It had to be a human caused variable that transcended national boundaries and therefore could only be resolved by a world government, (the conspiracy theory). Two parallel paths required political control, supported by scientific “proof” that CO2 was the demon.
All this was achieved with the political and organizational skills of Maurice Strong. Neil Hrab explains how Strong achieved the goal.
How has Strong promoted concepts like sustainable development to consume the world’s attention? Mainly by using his prodigious skills as a networker. Over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups, Strong has honed his networking abilities to perfection. He can bring presidents, prime ministers and potentates from the world’s four corners to big environmental conferences such as the 1992 Rio Summit, an environmental spectacle organized by Strong and attended by more than 100 heads of state.
Here is a simple flow chart of what happened at Rio.
The political structure of Agenda 21 included the environmental catch-all, the precautionary principle, as Principle 15.
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
What reads like a deep concern for doing good, is actually a essentially a carte blanche to label anything as requiring government intervention. The excuse for action is the unassailable “protect the environment”. Who decides which State is capable? Who decides what is “serious” or “irreversible”? Who decides what “lack of full scientific certainty” means?
Maurice Strong set out the problem, as he saw it, in his keynote speech in Rio in 1992.
“Central to the issues we are going to have to deal with are: patterns of production and consumption in the industrial world that are undermining the Earth’s life-support systems; the explosive increase in population, largely in the developing world, that is adding a quarter of a million people daily; deepening disparities between rich and poor that leave 75 per cent of humanity struggling to live; and an economic system that takes no account of ecological costs or damage – one which views unfettered growth as progress. We have been the most successful species ever; we are now a species out of control. Our very success is leading us to a dangerous future.”
The motive was to protect the world from the people, particularly people in the industrial world. Measure of their damage was the amount of CO2 their industry produced. This was required as scientific proof that human CO2 was the cause.
From its inception, the IPCC focused on human production of CO2. It began with the definition of climate change, provided by the UNFCCC, as only those changes caused by humans. This effctively sidelined natural causes. The computer models produced the pre-programmed results and everything was amplified, and exaggerated through the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The deception was very effective because of the cynical weaknesses Hitler identifies, the natural assumption that nobody could deceive, on such an important issue, and on such a scale, but also because most didn’t know what was being done.
People who knew, didn’t think to question what was going on for a variety of reasons. This situation makes the statement by German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckert Puls even more important.
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
Puls commented on the scientific implications of the deception when he said,
“There’s nothing we can do to stop it (climate change). Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”
Now, as more and more people learn what Puls identifies, they will start to ask, who did it and what was the motive. 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. Those responsible for the formation, structure, research, and final Reports, easily convinced the world they were a scientific organization making valid scientific statements. They also quckly and easily marginalized skeptics, as the leaked CRU emails exposed.
Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?
=======================================================
Disclaimer [added]: This post is entirely the opinion of Dr. Tim Ball, it does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Anthony Watts or other authors who publish at WUWT. – Anthony Watts
Update: A guest post response, along with a comment from me has been posted, please see A big (goose) step backwards
I believe it is a deep mistake in psychology and epistemology to believe that the end goal and methods were in sight when this whole affair started. Simply not possible but certainly, from hind sight one can look back and connect dots that were not connectable from the beginning. This is how conspiracy theories are woven and why they are WRONG.
Much of what happened could be described as emergent behavior that no one could predict. The idea of some master mind or group of super-intelligent people who understand all of what is understandable after the fact is really static and misses a great deal that it is important to understand about these processes.
The overriding lesson in all of this, for me, is not that there are liars…there are and always will be. It is not that people follow what they perceive to be their self-interest. I expect that doing so is part of a rational course of action.
The real lesson, for me, is to check your premises. Assume for a moment that Maurice Strong had good intentions and really meant well. Then he should have checked his very foundational premises to see if they would lead to failure, or to success. Were they the sort of ‘beliefs’ that would sustain a long term project? I believe they are not and that he will fail but at a huge cost to us all but that is only because we all fail to check our premises, we fail to examine what we assume and check and recheck those ‘beliefs’ often. All of our premises should be provisional in the same way and for the same reason that science is provisional. It leaves us able to understand what roads to take as well as what roads to avoid.
Maurice Strong holds a profoundly wrong premise that informed a lot of his actions but the only reason he’s able to hold that premise and act on it is because so many of us share that premise. To wit: Bureaucrats, technocrats, ‘experts’ have the right to herd humanity into a collective and tell them what to do. For their own good, of course.
This is a false premise and seems to be enormously difficult for humanity to grasp and though we grasp more of how false that premise is today, than we did 2000 years ago, we still struggle with it mightily and this shared ‘belief’ is what gives the power to the Maurice Strongs of the world as well as every two bit dictator or world changing tyrant that ever was or ever will be. This is where the global warming alarmists threaten the rest of us…with their attempt to gain power over energy and therefore over everyone’s life.
No matter what the ‘facts’ of the matter of, this attempt to centralize control and create a one solution for everyone is to be resisted at all costs. It is wrong and the belief that it is ok is the underlying foundation for all manner of evil in the world. And that belief exists in all of us to some degree.
If we said to the alarmists and politicians…you can tell us what you think and we’ll deal with it as we see fit, on a local basis, where no one will be sacrificed to your ‘findings’ there would be no reason to be worried.
It isn’t that CO2 might cause warming that is the problem. It’s the idea that some small group of elite technocrats will decide for everyone what the solution is. And they couldn’t get away with that nonsense if there were not a substantial number of people who allowed fear to trump their options and agreed that ‘someone has to be in charge.’ “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
“I believe it is a deep mistake in psychology and epistemology to believe that the end goal and methods were in sight when this whole affair started.” Maybe not but it would be naive to think that it didn’t become the driving force to put it where it is today. Besides, when did it ‘start’?
Hansen knew exactly the outcome he and Tim Wirth wanted when they turned off the air conditioner in the Senate hearing room in 1988. There is all the evidence in the world in favor of a criminal conspiracy and none against it. The collusion was obvious even before the Climategate emails emerged.
You do agree the UN’s end goal is one world government, don’t you?
Much like they profess to be now.
Could someone please name one good thing the UN has accomplished, ever?
this is Tim Ball’s opinion.. here is mine. the dumbest of dumb (and offensive) posts ever…. Hitler references, etc, deliberate deceptions.. really stupid.. Lewandowsky will love it.
Barry Woods wrote “this is Tim Ball’s opinion”
Thanks! I would not have known otherwise.
“here is mine..really stupid.. Lewandowsky will love it.”
Good enough, now I know Tim Balls’ opinion and now I know yours. His has plenty of examples, yours has, well, the words “really stupid”.
Mine also has the the words.. summarising the stupidity…deliberate deceptions and hitler references..
did you miss those…
I just think that a bunch of folks really believed that humans were harming the Earth, and got caught up in this particular warming cycle and extrapolated out 100-200 years and said the Earth is warming too rapidly, it must be our fault. This message they sent out to the world and politicians and other weak minded individuals (not understanding the sheer ridiculousness of stance) bought it as it fit their per-conceived notion that mankind is killing the Earth. These particular scientists then discovered that the actual evidence was flimsy and sense they were getting a lot of money and notoriety, they started protecting themselves, because they had the cover of the media and the politicians that had already fallen in with them, so they could pretty much do what they want. Now the walls of their house are starting to fall in with the media and political cover they will continue to do really bad things that will insure their house will collapse.
What is really pathetic to me is how the Obama administration has bought into this hook, line, and sinker.
Yeah I was trying to entertain some fringe science ideas regarding climatology, but you lost me at Agenda 21.
You don’t have to believe anybody.
Look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
They even admit to it.
Even ICLEI.
As long as you do their bidding they are the one world government.
I don’t think anyone should need me to point out this post is stupid. The people reading this post here are the same people who mock Stephan Lewandowsky for claiming they are conspiracy theorists. I don’t think they need me to point out claiming there’s a giant conspiracy is stupid.
But this post is way, way worse than that. Dr. Tim Ball used a quote from Adolf Hitler to paint a group of people he dislikes as the bad guys. Hitler’s quote was referring to the Jews. That means Ball’s use of the quote is equating the people he dislikes with the Jews. In Hitler’s argument, Hitler was the one pointing out the “conspiracy.” That means in Ball’s narrative, Ball is Hitler.
This post is disgusting. It is practically using an anti-Semitic rant to paint alarmists as the evil, conspiring Jews being opposed by the Righteous Hitler leading the skeptics to the promised land.
Here’s a bit of general advice: Don’t use anti-Semitic rants from Adolf Hitler to paint people you dislike as evil.
[No, that is NOT how the comment was made, nor why the comment was written, nor the lesson to be made by writing that comment. .mod]
Yeah well, it happens sometimes. Dr. Ball kinda stepped in it too.
You have some good points. You got a little carried about it. Mr. Tim wrote a courageous Post. It’s fascinatingly true, that courage from the soul is as intoxicating as the kind from a bottle. The good Dr. is known to have better judgement.
The Post is a little cringe-worthy. The message, though – aside from the bloopers – meant a lot to many WUWT regulars & passers by. It’s a topic that I hope to see probed further.
Outa 500 comments, there are some duds. There’s a lot of sharps ones, though. Parts of your analysis definitely become over-analysis.
Ted Clayton, I don’t think there is anything courageous about this post. It doesn’t take courage to use offensive imagery to demonize people you dislike or suggest the entirety of the IPCC results arise from of a conspiracy. I’m not sure how either could be considered “fascinatingly true” either.
You are, of course, free to disagree. It just won’t contribute much to express such disagreement in such a vague fashion nobody could know what you are actually disagreeing with.
To whichever moderator left a response in my comment, would you care to explain what your response actually means? As a rule, “Nuh-uh” is a poor rebuttal. I took the time to write a post about this:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/tim-ball-is-hitler/
I think it is reasonable for me to expect more of a response than, “You’re wrong.” Heck, I think it’s reasonable for me to expect moderators not to append “You’re wrong” to the end of my comments without any sort of explanation. That’s not a dialogue. That’s not a discussion. It’s just taking advantage of your moderator powers to score cheap points.
By the way, it is undeniable this post uses an anti-Semitic rant. The only question is how that rant was used, and whether or not that usage was appropriate. Personally, I don’t see how anyone with taste could use an anti-Semitic rant to demonize a group, even if that group isn’t Jewish.
[No. You are wrong. This post does not create nor continue any anti-Semitic rants. That you have chosen to invent such an impression is not the fault of the original author, nor any other readers or commentors. .mod]
Wow. Unamed moderator, are you seriously going to tell people this quote from Adolf Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, was not part of an anti-Semitic rant? The paragraph the quote comes from begins with these words:
Almost immediately after the quote comes these words:
How can you claim I am wrong to say this post uses an anti-Semitic rant? How else would you describe Hitler’s writing? The text is entirely about saying the Jews are evil, conspiratorial liars.
The supposed liars were the Jews; the supposed hero was Adolf Hitler. That is what is being used as a parallel here. The parallel here is the heroic Adolf Ball is exposing the big lies of the Jewish alarmists.
And yet it is the SkS crew who enjoy dressing up as N@zi officers.
Brandon, you are the one who introduced the whole context, Jews, etc., not Tim Ball. You need to apologize for your ill-considered construction of the post.
mpainter, that’s ridiculous. Tim Ball used the quote to portray people as Nazis. All I did is point out that’s not what the quote was about. There is no reason I should apologize for pointing out Ball misrepresented the quote he used by acting as though it was referring to Nazis.
Ball portrayed the quote as the exact opposite of what it was. According to you, I should apologize for pointing that out.
Um… no?
+1
Brandon Shollenberger writes “The people reading this post here are the same people who mock Stephan Lewandowsky for claiming they are conspiracy theorists.”
WOW — that’s amazing! How did you know? (It might be that people who know the name Lewandowsky also view WUWT so there’s about a 90 percent chance that the same people are here doing both).
As to anti-semitic rant, well, it certainly didn’t seem that way to me. I took it as Hitler’s “big lie” that the Jews were a problem to be solved, the final solution. I haven’t read “Mein Kampf” and it is probably at the very bottom of a list I probably won’t finish in this lifetime.
Anyway, it also didn’t matter to me who the statement is ascribed to — it is a theory and a pretty good one that can be applied to a great many situations.
Michael 2:
I obviously don’t know this in regard to every reader, but the demographics are the same. Also, there are a lot of names in this comments section, including ones I recognize. It’s not hard for someone to recognize the overlap.
I didn’t claim this post was an anti-Semitic rant. I said it uses one. I get Tim Ball didn’t tell anyone he was using an anti-Semitic rant. I get he probably doesn’t even realize he was using an anti-Semitic rant. I get he didn’t intend any anti-Semitism in his post.
But that doesn’t change that he used an anti-Semitic rant in his post to demonize people he dislikes. It doesn’t change that many people, myself included, find using anti-Semitic rants in order to demonize people you dislike, whether or not they are Jews, disgusting. Doing so associates the people you dislike with Jews, demonizing the Jews.
It also doesn’t change that the parallels he drew place himself in the shoes of Adolf Hitler. It doesn’t change that he painted skeptics as needing to follow Adolf Hitler. I’m sure he didn’t mean to do that, but he did do it.
I am sure this is not the sort of reaction we would have seen on this site had roles been slightly changed. Heck, I bet there are people in this comments section who have complained about being called “deniers” because of the association with Holocaust deniers. I guess being associated with Holocaust deniers is horrible, but being associated with the guy responsible for the Holocaust is alright.
The sad thing is I have no problem with using a quote from a horrible person out of context if you like the phrasing. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, that’s not what Tim Ball did. Ball intentionally used a quote from Hitler to associate people he dislikes with Hitler. You yourself acknowledge that interpretation. That means when Ball makes the colossal screw up of associating himself, not the people he dislikes, with Hitler, it’s not an irrelevant thing.
Leaving aside the disgusting nature of trying to associate people you dislike with Adolf Hitler, the moment you write an entire post to do it, you make any associations in your post a central aspect of your post. You don’t get to use association to demonize people you dislike then claim associations in the post are a non-issue.
Brandon writes: “I bet there are people in this comments section who have complained about being called ‘deniers’ because of the association with Holocaust deniers.”
Yes, the implication was obvious to me (maybe not so obvious to younger people). But I soon learned that trying to correct that labeling was pointless — it is an alias for “I don’t like you”.
Michael 2, I don’t see how one can take offense at that connotation and think this post is fine. I agree the connotation exists (especially given the association was made explicit by some), but this post goes way beyond it.
Any INTELLIGENT reader can know, when reading honestly, that Mr. Ball was referring to and analyzing the CONCEPT of “The big lie”, and NOT the TELLER of such. NOT Hitler and NOT the Jews, NOT the SS, NOT J.Geobels, NOT the Aliies, NOT the AXIS, NOT ANYTHING or ANYBODY save the CONCEPT of the “Big Lie”
You, Mr Shollenberger , (by YOUR stated logic), and pretend misunderstanding and hyperbolic expressions of offence and assignment of “characters” are now playing the roll of ?
Sal Alinsky ?
Brandon, you have performed this same maneuver several times and under differing circumstances: put a certain spin/ interpretation on text/opinion/passages and cry hoarse that that is the only interpretation possible and that the resulting logical conclusions are universally valid and indisputable.
It doesn’t work.
Shub Niggurath, I obviously don’t agree with what you say. I’d argue it’s nothing more than you making vague, unsubstantiated personal remarks to dismiss things you don’t like while refusing to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion. Or at least, I’d argue that if I felt this sort of petty, pathetic exchange was worthwhile.
Instead, I’ll just say your response does nothing more than say, “Nuh-uh” and throw some irrelvant character assassination out there. That’s not a response. That’s just trolling. If you want to have a real discussion, I’m game, but otherwise, peace out.
It is not a personal remark. It is a characterization of a technique in rhetoric, one I happen to claim that you practice. It is possible to defend its practice or accept the validity of the criticism without taking it personally.
This;
“Wow. Unamed moderator, are you seriously going to tell people this quote from Adolf Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, was not part of an anti-Semitic rant? ”
is where you pull this trick.
Shub Niggurath, I’m not even going to dignify this “argument” with a response. Instead, I’ll just point out you’ve done absolutely nothing to show anything I said is wrong, yet you criticize me for what I said.
If you want to have a discussion, it’s not hard to do. I’ll be around.
Brandon Shollenberger happens to point out:
Watch for popular posts elsewhere; write a piece about the other piece, then go kick over the garbage cans, rile up the dogs … mentioning your own piece while everybody is staring at the commotion.
Crude; obvious. Could be in Games People Play … but if it works for you, hey.
Ted Clayton, you have got to be kidding me. I’ve had posts of mine reprinted at this site with nary a link to the original because I tell people they are welcome to reuse what I write however they like. Anytime I refer to a post I write in a discussion I make sure to write enough detail that nobody need read the link to see what my argument is. And I pretty much never discuss popular subjects, favoring topics I know won’t get much interest.
Your attempt to paint me as some sort of attention seeking traffic leech is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to smear me as a person with insinuations that are baseless and obviously false.
Brandon Shollenberger,
The ‘issue’ in Dr. Ball’s post that you want to focus on, has not been ignored; he did not get a free pass on his indiscretion. It was noticed, and dealt with from multiple angles. We weren’t sitting here for 500 comments, talking around an elephant in the middle of the room.
1.) These comments show strongly differing interpretations of Dr. Ball’s controversial rhetorical device(s). Your opinion & interpretation is just one among a number, albeit well to one end of the spectrum. No one slant is going to be the right one … not even a broad pro or con is established. It’s just a matter of opinion.
2.) I like to see folks create their own blogs, and the basic idea of ‘cross-talk/fertilization’, is a good one. The idea of blogs reflecting onto each other, though, means to work together on fields where they can in fact work together. Showing up to vent on the perceived imperfections of others content, is not how different blogs enhance each other.
Where blogs differ philosophically, they need to go with ‘live and let live’. Enemies are easy; colleages take work.
Good luck with your website.
Ted Clayton, I can’t help but notice you’ve completely dropped the lines of discussion you raised in your previous response to me. That’s sort of good as those lines were rude and wrong, but it’s pretty lame to insult a person then just drop the issue. You don’t “live and let live” by insulting people then running away.
As for the rest of what you say, if my interpretation is wrong, so be it. People are welcome to explain where I’ve gone wrong. Nobody has though. Every response I’ve received saying I’m wrong, including Word of God responses and comments which have been deleted, have said I am wrong without doing a single thing to show I am. That is not okay.
It’s simple. I’ve explained my position. If it is wrong, people should talk about how it is wrong. That’s how discussions work. Discussions do not work by people just yelling, “Nuh-uh!” and hurling insults.
Incredibly, it seems the reaction to me pointing out the anti-Semitic nature of text Tim Ball uses to try to demonize people, and the unintentional parallels it creates, shows more offense than the reaction to Tim Ball trying to paint climate scientists as Nazis. I’m not sure how that works.
‘Noticing’ (or purporting to notice) things that aren’t there and not happening, strikes me as a recurring theme with you, Mr. Shollenberger. Everything I’ve said stands, in writing. Nothing has been withdrawn or altered.
Indeed, the list grows. Take for example, topic guidelines. Ie, firstly & foremost, making a pragmatic effort to keep the commenting “on-topic” – relevant to the topic of the Post. In the present case, our topic in this post is Motivations; specifically of the IPCC, but of climate change activists/activism more generally.
The first thing that jumped out for me, in both the Post and the comments, is that there is widespread confusion of motive, with goal. These are not the same thing, and it pays to make the distinction. The ‘end-result’ is not the ‘why’ it was pursued (confusing the two is a case of ‘circular logic’).
Motivations are a tough topic to assess or analyze (goals or results are easy). There remains considerable elements of taboo and verboten attached to the mere discussion or acknowledgement of motivational factors & forces. That explains in part why people are so ready to call the Goal (or Objective), the Motive.
The goal or objective of thread-hijacking (arguably the curse of blogs, as spam curses email), for example, is to disrupt it. Wreck it. Why folks do this, want to do this, feel they have to do this – that’s the motive part. And it’s weird; eg, normally damaging their own credibility, when ostensibly they seek to be meaningful or influential.
When we see an articulate, intellectually-competent figure, actively attempting to establish his own blog, disrupt the topic of another Post … wow. Why on earth would he do that? Why would trained scientists go so far out on so flimsy a climate-speculation limb?
These are darn good but very difficult questions … and posing such thorny matters does indeed make Dr. Ball’s post courageous.
=====
I’ll make you a deal, Brandon Shollenberger. You make a good-faith effort to comment on the intended topic of Dr. Ball’s post, and I will reciprocate, on your post.
Ted Clayton, you say:
But I never suggested you’ve withdrawn or altered anything. In fact, had you quoted more of my comment, you’d show I said you the problem I have is that you did not withdraw or alter anything. Not only are you responding to a strawman, you are claiming I am seeing things which aren’t there for believing in said strawman. This is nothing but an obvious misrepresentation.
As for the rest of what you say, it sounds like you might be saying you haven’t been engaging in good faith, but I’m not sure. I don’t have the interest to try to parse your comment for its intended meaning. I’m content to just note your responses have been completely unresponsive to the points I’ve made.
It’s pretty ridiculous how many people have complained about my interpretation (here and elsewhere) given not a single person has made any effort to show my interpretation is wrong.
Mods. Just go ahead and snip it already for crying out loud. I get it, not a proper tone and all that, incendiary and such… and you’re not wrong. Frankly I don’t have time or patience at the moment to do this clowns nonsense justice. Cheers.
All caps words can put a comment into the moderation queue, judging from my experience.
moderator, could you release the comment I left above?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/
“This post is entirely the opinion of Dr. Tim Ball”
Not really, I agree with him completely and so do lots of other people I know. Having looked quite extensively into Maurice Strong, the UN and the global governance they seek, via Agenda 21, bio-diversity etc. Dr Ball has encapsulated it extremely well. They want a global carbon tax and those pushing for this most strongly are the globalist financiers and “green” billionaires, who cash in on a guaranteed floor price for a virtual product. This has always been political, not scientific. It does not make you a conspiracy theorist if you can see what is really happening here over time.
Check out “United Socialist Nations”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_progress_governance_via_climate_change.htm
and
“Changing The Engine Of The Global Economy – The Next UN Strategy”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/changing_global_economy_engine.html
Apart from comparing climate scientists to hitler, an excellent essay. I do wonder what the future will say about maurice strong.
I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Tim. They almost achieved their goal of World Government in 2009 at COP 15 in Copenhagen but this speech by Lord Monckton warning us of what was really going on set off a series of events which cause them to fail.
It is my theory that this speech caused the still unknown whistleblower to release the Climategate emails. Then with Climategate along with unseasonably cold weather Copenhagen was thankfully a failure.
But they aren’t giving up, even with temperatures dropping, record sea ice, record numbers of polar bears and less and less people believing them they are forging ahead to Paris in 2015 for COP21. There I think they will try again to accomplish world government. Much of the groundwork has already been laid in New York this last fall and with Obama’s climate deal with China was crucial I think.
I think it’s time for Lord Monckton to make another speech.
Perhaps Monckton could tell us how an education in Journalism is a qualification to speak authoritatively on Climate Science, or how he justifies his claim that he’s a member of the House of Lords, when that House has publically denied he was ever a member.
@warrenlb:
As I recall, it was not the House of Lords voting on a specific issue, but an un-elected govenment bureaucrat who wrote a letter.
Is that the example you’re hanging your hat on?
And by your defininition of whom you presume to be qualified to have an opinion on climate science, just about every warmist is disqualified. Including you.
Of course you can always submit an article of your own; just click on the Submit Article button. Or, you can continue your potholer shots from the peanut gallery.
Personally, I would love it if all you critics of article authors would write your own articles. That would be very satisfying.
@dbstealey: For an understanding of Science, I don’t rely upon non-publishing amateurs, as you apparently do. But that’s understandable .Since you reject peer-reviewed Science, that doesn’t leave much but Journalism majors to fall back on.
warrenlb says:
I don’t rely upon non-publishing amateurs, as you apparently do.
Wrong as always, warrenlb. You rely on the opinions of, at most, a couple of thousand rent-seeking scientists and hangers-on, all of whom are self-serving climate alarmists. That’s fine, if a little prejudiced on your part.
Contrary to that group is the opinion of tens of thousands of American scientist, all of them with degrees in the hard sciences — including more than 9,000 PhD’s — who have stated, in writing, that CO2 is harmless, and that it is beneficial to the biosphere. I know which group I rely on.
Others can decide which group they think is being honest, and which group is self-serving. Readers can also decide for themselves what the evidence is that supports each group. Me, I see plenty of evidence supporting the American scientists — and *very* little evidence supporting the climate alarmist clique. The true ‘consensus’ [for what that is worth, but it is you who keeps citing bundles of self-serving pal reviewed papers] is the view of the American scientists.
You also ask:
Do you have Scientific evidence contradicting the findings of the 10,000 peer-reviewed research papers summarized in the IPPC 5th Assessment?
Yes, mountains of evidence. I post it here constantly. Not that I have to, because I am a skeptic. The onus is on you to support your runaway global warming conjecture. But so far, all you have are your endless appeal to authority claims. That’s not nearly good enough.
DBstealey: 9000 PhDs denying the Greenhouse Effect? Is that what you claim? And the mounds of evidence? Published in peer-reviewed journals? Of course not. You’d have to say that’s a corrupt process, else it would destroy your anti-AGW worldview.
Warrenlb says “You’d have to say that’s a corrupt process”
I’d say you are a bit late to the party. At any rate, we here are all words on a screen. Yours, mine; there is no “mounds of evidence” HERE. On the other hand, I appreciate pointers to where claims are being made especially if it doesn’t include “skepticalscience” somewhere in the URL.
Warren,
The 9000 scientists & engineers of whom DB speaks don’t necessarily “d*ny” the GHE. They are however skeptical of catastrophic man-made global warming, for which indeed there is no evidence. On the contrary, all available evidence clearly shows CACA false. You need look no farther than growing gap between observed reality & the GCMs designed to show warming in lock step with increasing CO2. But other mounds of evidence also exist, & are growing daily.
dbstealey, warrenlb & milodonharlani
Please keep in mind that the 32,000+ signers of the OISM petition is a small group, considering that the pool of American holders of hard science degrees numbers about 10,600,000
The 99.7% that haven’t signed might have good reasons.
David Socrates says “Please keep in mind that the 32,000+ signers of the OISM petition is a small group, considering that the pool of American holders of hard science degrees numbers about 10,600,000”
Well then it ought to be pretty easy to cook up a list of AGW approvers.
The majority of hard science, medical, engineering, etc doctorates do not buy into CACA, whatever their reasons for not signing the Oregon Petition might be.
Even among meteorologists (some of whom stand to benefit from CACA funding), the best survey found only 52% support for some opinion favorable to man-made climate change (IIRC), although not necessarily catastrophic. So far, any effect from increased CO2 has been beneficial.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus/
Prominent climate skeptics from academia, for instance, haven’t signed the petition. Others in relevant disciplines are ineligible, as for instance medical doctors. It’s absurd to imagine that all those who haven’t done so support full-bore CACA.
If the contest comes down to appeal to authority, then I’m going with Freeman Dyson rather than Mikey Mann, with Burt Rutan over Jim Hansen & Judith Curry instead of Naomi Oreskes.
The bogus 97% blather wouldn’t matter even if it were accurate, which of course it isn’t.
Perhaps these 49 NASA rocket scientists, mission controllers & astronauts (from the days when the agency sent men to the moon instead of promoting Islamic science & CACA) might have made an even better contrast to Hansen & his acolyte imp Schmidt than Rutan alone:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
Wow. Impressive speaker.
1) “drawing parallels between climate scientists and Hitler” – having read the post in question, I disagree with this assertion. He made a far more subtle and specific point about the tactics and behaviour of the IPCC
2) The IPCC is not composed exclusively of climate scientists. It’s simplistic to equate criticism of the IPCC with direct criticism of the climate scientists who contribute to it’s output.
I can’t see anything in the original post that warrants an apology. And although it’s common to cry Godwin or claim that swearing or invective automatically leads to forfeit, that just isn’t so.
It’s not a comparison I would have drawn myself precisely because of the reaction it would generate. But that doesn’t mean those reactions are warranted or particularly well considered.
Steven Mosher says:
**November 27, 2014 at 11:11 am
perhaps the big lie is ball’s lie
“Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science.”
That is the Big Lie.
the simple fact is there is uncertainty. some AGW types claim they have proved. some skeptics claim they have disproved.
you want to look at Big lies… try those two. One of them is balls big lie. He’s on your team, maybe he should sit the bench.
Sceptics do not deny the existence of the greenhouse effect of CO2, only the great exaggeration of the amount.
Steven now creates another ‘Big lie” by suggesting that sceptics have not explained the bad science of IPCC. Does Mosher suggest that the “hockey stick” is good science? Is the exaggeration of the projected temperature increase by the end of the century good science?
Dr Ball has it spot on. Climate “scientists” and their political masters have been using the “Nazi” smear on skeptics for years. Now the boot is on the other foot the poor little darlings, like Betts and Edwards, who have profited nicely from the AGW scam, are shouting “foul”.
Excuse me while I puke.
I’ve read all 577 comments following Dr. Ball’s original post. My position resembles those of “hunter” and John Whitman. My summary of Dr. Ball is that the “warmist” position is based on using methodical propaganda in the name of science. ie. lying. Also, that unsavory political regimes in the 20th century also used propaganda to support political ends. I see nothing wrong with that statement. Others may object.
Essentially, Dr. Ball is warning the casual observer that the claims of “global warming” advocates are lies.
A few negative responses of the “barking dog” mentality.
Dr. Ball is a scientist offering observations of the “warmist” behaviour outside his true expertise, but in the context that he understands the actual science to show that his scientific opinion is supported by observed facts. Dr. Ball is also free to create his own blog with his own rules of engagement. I hope he continues to freely express his unique insights into any aspect of the “global warming” issue that he chooses.
Please Dr. Ball, rewrite this and offer a mea culpa.
Two major reasons for alarming the populace about C02 are: 1.Moving to renewable energy sources is equivalent to disarmament; 2. Cooling the planet will hasten the next Ice Age, thereby drastically culling the herd by means of starvation — a method proven effective by Stalin. There are many in the UN who believe passionately in both universal disarmament (except for the UN) and depopulation. The AGW scare is their best chance at achieving both ends at once.
Goodness. Do you also think JFK was killed by LBJ, and the government launched 9/11?
Anthony, you don’t like it but I’m in a country sent broke by the warmists. 100,000 lost their jobs, as a carbon tax brought on as bad an outcome as the GFC. Money was raised and given away in corrupt deals, while “scientists” overestimated the ECS 4-fold and fabricated links to climate, rain and wind.
I’m tired of assuming the motive is benign misunderstanding of data over 25 years. Esp given Gillard’s letter “Greening the Red” setting out this precise action plan 25 years ago for Fabian socialists.
Does it apply to all? No. Is it unfair to some? Absolutely. Is it categorically untrue? No.
Dr Ball, your article is appreciated. In my view, the comparison with Hitler is entirely apt. Godwins law is an internet meme with no weight in logical argument. It is just another way for the politically correct to tell you to “shut up”.
Tim Ball is entirely correct… But we knew all this already. Who here has not heard of Maurice Strong, pre-war German politics, Limits to Growth, post normal science and climategate? The list goes on and we all read from the same page. All Tim Ball has neatly done is roll it all into a concise piece and joined some dots in a meaningful way…
The really disappointing aspect has been Anthony’s reputational cascade (very topical ;)) kicking in after the unjustified, accustational tomes of a pair of agw disciples – who we know only too well suckle the teet of agw – who set up a straw man to refute TB’s insighful and entirely rational association between the big lie and the IPCC.
You are absolutely right Justin. Why Anthony drove away Dr Tim Ball over this post just baffles me almost as much as global warming alarmism.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
A Must Read:
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
“There’s nothing we can do to stop it (climate change). Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”
I am unable to read this post. It is too lengthy. Anyhow I agree with Michael Crichton on the parallels between present day climate science and early 20th century eugenics movement:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html