A big (goose) step backwards

goosestepping-cleeseGuest opinion: Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards

Dr Tim Ball’s blog post “People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception” – drawing parallels between climate scientists and Hitler – doesn’t do anyone in the climate change debate any favours: in fact it seems a big (goose) step backwards. It’s especially frustrating to see him write this so soon after the productive dinner at Nic Lewis’s place, where the attendees agreed on the need to depolarise and detoxify the climate discussion. Anthony Watts wrote an extremely positive blog post about the evening, and there were many favourable comments from WUWT readers saying how great it was to have a more civilised conversation.

But here we see Tim sink to a new low, with Mein Kampf quotes and snide misrepresentation of the IPCC reports. Perhaps Tim hasn’t yet heard that many people on both sides of the discussion have moved on from the simple name calling of the past…. We were also disappointed that so few commenters below the post distanced themselves from his views. We hope this is merely selection bias, and that many of you are simply sighing and moving on to the next post.

For those that do endorse Tim’s views: we often see people who are sceptical of climate science and/or policy object to the term ‘Deniers’ (a phrase neither of us use). But it’s hard to see how anyone could justify taking offence at being called a Denier if they were happy to call other people Nazis. Especially when those people – professional climate scientists like us – are trying to engage in good faith discussions with Anthony and many others in the sceptical community.

We do understand that Anthony does not read all WUWT guest posts. We’re pleased that when we contacted him he added a disclaimer (albeit a somewhat ambiguous one) and offered us this chance to respond. We see this as a positive outcome of meeting in person at dinner. Certainly we would not be writing this without it.

As we understand it, Tim’s post does not at all reflect Anthony’s views.We therefore hope future WUWT guest writers adopt the civil and rational tone of the conversations we had that evening and do not remain stuck in the pointless, playground insults that do not help either climate science or its discussion.We invite our dinner companions from the 21st September (including Anthony) to add their views below. Personally, we think they will agree that Tim’s view is an out-of-touch relic.

Richard and Tamsin

Professor Richard Betts

Chair in Climate Impacts, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter – Head of Climate Impacts Research, Met Office Hadley Centre

Dr Tamsin Edwards

Lecturer in Environmental Sciences, Department of Environment, Earth and Ecosystems, The Open University


Note from Anthony:

I agree that Dr. Ball’s post had some “over the top” rhetoric in it, and it is my error that the post was published without benefit of editorial actions. It does not reflect my views. My excuse is simply that I was distracted by an extreme challenge in my life at the time, and I didn’t get to vet the guest post as I normally would have. That won’t happen again. On the plus side, this issue illustrates why one of the most common ugly claims about WUWT, the claim of being in the pay of “big oil” or some NGO, can’t possibly be true. If that were true, I could have long ago hired an assistant editor and such missteps would not occur. While there are many things that the IPCC can be validly criticized for, some of which were in Dr. Balls post, parallels with Nazism is not one of them.

While there remain wildly disparate views about climate science, I see that there are people on both sides that are gravitating towards a more central and in my opinion, more reasonable view. Climate skeptics and climate advocates should do everything possible to help facilitate such dialog, otherwise all we have is just noise.  – Anthony Watts

0 0 votes
Article Rating
1.2K Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 27, 2014 5:25 am

Tim lost me at ‘deception’ in the title implying lying and intent, and it’s conspiracy theory sounding silliness. The article (imho) went rapidly downhill from there.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/#comment-1799447

climatereason
Editor
Reply to  Barry Woods
November 27, 2014 6:04 am

I have only just got around to reading the original post and must say I totally agree with Richard and Tasmsin.
Many of us who are sceptical of the AGW meme (but not of constant climate change) are trying to build bridges, don’t think all climate scientists are dishonest or stupid and do not buy into the widespread hoax or conspiracy theme. There are some flaws or uncertainties in the science and a great deal of overconfidence by the consensus in promoting sometimes dubious figures (come on Richard, Global SST’s to 1850??)
It is these we need to deal with in a responsible fashion to chip away at the foundations and Tim’s piece did not help in this.
tonyb

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 6:18 am

When they admit that none their forecasts have been correct – then we will agree with them. Until then, they are being delusional if they imply they have anything but the vaguest idea of how the climate works.

Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 6:26 am

thanks tonyb 🙂

Stephen Richards
Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 7:23 am

I agree with SS. Edwards and Betts continue to spout their deniertribe and their massive increase in global temperature and their massive floods to come and their give us the money now and we will save you from disaster. When they become totally honest and start describing in accurate terms exactly how much they can conclusively prove, I do not want to hear their pathetic gripeing.
Tony B said :
Many of us who are sceptical of the AGW meme (but not of constant climate change) are trying to build bridges, don’t think all climate scientists are dishonest or stupid
You cannot build a bridge without very solid foundation on both sides of the Gorge. That is the starting point. The AGW crowd are a very long way from that witness the cry for another £97m from the UK Met O when they know their models are useless.
Secondly, saying the crimascologist are not stupid implies they are deceitful for they must be supporting the more fraudulent members of their profession for this scam to have continued for soooo long.
Personally, I would shut all climate change research here in Europe and the UK and start a resilience research paid for by businesses that will gain from the research. That way we will know they are lying from the outset and can more easily filter the truth from it.

dorsai123
Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 8:25 am

go ahead and build bridges with liars … I have more productive things to do …

climatereason
Editor
Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 8:48 am

Stephen
Don’t knock the Met office. I am a frequent visitor to their excellent nice and warm library and archives to carry out research into historical aspects of Climate change, which seems nice irony for a sceptic. Wonder if the new supercomputer will vent heat into the Met office buildings?
If Richard Betts is reading this perhaps the next time we are both there he will invite me into the hallowed sanctum of the Staff restaurant to continue the interesting discussion we started during the recent climate conference at Exeter University.
tonyb

mpainter
Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 9:38 am

IMHO Anthony is close to being hoodwinked by these oh so nice types.
All they have done is poor mouth skeptical viewpoints and have offered no apologia for their side’s transgressions against decency.
I hope that Anthony provides Dr. Ball with an opportunity to answer.

Michael 2
Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 10:36 am

“It is these we need to deal with in a responsible fashion to chip away at the foundations and Tim’s piece did not help in this.”
Chip away at what foundations? The elephant needs to be identified, THEN you can chip away at it. The problem is not science. It was never the science. The engine is “control” and the fuel is “fear”. Consider the prime motive for a narcissist — he wants to feel safe. This produces a small range of predictable behaviors.
The earliest proponents of AGW and decarbonization included men who were genuinely afraid for the future, Lovelock for instance.
Consider the cultural heritage of most AGW advocates — the Crown colonies; an island nation perpetually surrounded by enemies. Fear on a grand scale. It’s in their DNA. Decarbonize everyone else, pull their teeth. Feel safe!

Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 11:00 am

climatereason/tonyb. Don’t knock the Met Office?! Are you serious? The Met Office is a joke of an organisation. Never mind their forecasts, which are actually completely useless now (I’m a gardener, trust me, ‘useless’ is to good a word for them). I once got into an email conversation with Phil Jones. I asked him why Giss and Hadley were not singing from the same sheet. He said that HadCRUt3 was better than Giss because Giss extrapolated to cope with the Arctic. Then they went ahead and created HadCRUt4. I haven’t heard Phil Jones say anything about it.

Dan
Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 11:14 am

What we do not need at this time is to relax and try to be nice to a bunch of liars and frauds who have done great damage to society, not by accident but by design. Many should be charged and put on trial. Deliberate deception for personal gain.
You can keep your ‘Lets all hold hands and talk in pale pink voices about how naughty you have been’

dmmcmah
Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 2:35 pm

There are no bridges to build, when climate alarmists have an attitude of my way or the highway. Either you completely accept all their claims or you are a denier. There is no middle ground to be had when one side of the debate believes in their point of view with religious fervor. Remember the science is settled and the debate is over.

Jimbo
Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 2:40 pm

Look chaps, the name calling will not stop on either side. Reasons:
1) Warmists will continue to use the ‘D’ word no matter what. Even into another Little Ice Age.
2) Accusations of being funded by big oil and being shills to the fossil fuel industry.
These folks are attempting a grand re-organisation our entire energy infrastructure at immense cost and pain with no gain (except for the likes of Lord Debden, Lord Stern et al with shares in companies to benefit from their suggestions and reports). FOLLOW THE MONEY, pointing this out makes them angry and prone to name calling. It’s the cash!

Jay Hope
Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 3:28 pm

Don’t forget, folks, that Tamsin openly states on her academic profile page that she is (or was) funded by Ice2Sea, an organisation itself funded to the tune of 10M euros and with an obviously warmist agenda. Even if she privately thought that AGW was complete bull, she’s not going to do anything but fight to the bitter end to protect her livelihood.

Adrian
Reply to  climatereason
November 28, 2014 1:42 am

I totally agree the term Naziism is wrong The IPCC would be more akin to a dictatorship

Jimbo
Reply to  climatereason
November 28, 2014 4:25 am

Tasmin Edwards
I would like to know what made you decide to move into climate science and climate modelling in 2006?
According to the peer review what kinds of weather have been getting more extreme over the last 30 years?

Tamsin Edwards moved into climate science in 2006…….Her research interests are in quantifying uncertainty in predictions from earth system models…..
Tamsin is working on the EU Framework-7 programme ice2sea,”
http://blogs.plos.org/models/about/
=======
My PhD was in particle physics (diffractive Z bosons). Since moving into climate science I’ve done climate modelling,…..
I’ve also reviewed and recommended best practice in uncertainty assessment and communication in lots of different areas of earth system science, particularly in climate and extreme weather……
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/geography/people/tamsin-l-edwards/index.html

lonetown
Reply to  climatereason
November 28, 2014 4:25 am

Well you may be trying to build bridges but it has nothing to do with science. The AGW crowd has systematically used every trick they could think of to keep debate out, including lying, sabotaging careers, conspiring to keep scientific inquiry out and outright fraud and data manipulation, and continue to this day.
When the vested interests of science conspire with the state to manipulate the masses THAT is national socialism and THAT is Nazism whether you like it or not. After 20 years of complete BS from climate science, someone needs to call a spade a spade.

Ted Clayton
Reply to  climatereason
November 28, 2014 7:15 am

One should be on their toes, when it is seen that a résumé mentions uncertainty assessment/analysis.
Uncertain-techniques figure large among striking sci-tech achievements. Their reputation is very robust.
Grooming & recruitment for uncertainty-positions goes after the best of the best.
Climate is an obvious field in which to deploy this specialty.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  climatereason
November 28, 2014 8:19 am

Tony, from where I stand, the foundations look completely rotten. I don’t think that ENSO and the AMO are internal variability, and I know that there is solar forcing of atmospheric teleconnections at the scale of weather, which is again assumed to be chaotic internal variability.

kingkp
Reply to  climatereason
November 28, 2014 12:16 pm

why would you want to build bridges with fundamentally dishonest people?

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  climatereason
November 28, 2014 10:28 pm

Jimbo
November 28, 2014 at 4:25 am
Dr. Edwards followed the money.

Nick Milner
Reply to  Barry Woods
November 27, 2014 6:51 am

I, too, read no further than the title. I’m glad my instincts were correct in doing so (or not, as the case may be).

john s
Reply to  Nick Milner
November 27, 2014 10:37 am

Don’t you think you ought to read it if you are going to comment? Is your trust in Anthony and others so great that you will just take their word for it?

DEEBEE
Reply to  Nick Milner
November 27, 2014 1:47 pm

John uhh no. Nothing to do with trust. My expectation would be that you would stop paying attention if I began my post with a few choice words directed at you. Dr. Ball could have got his point across without the venom

cnxtim
Reply to  Barry Woods
November 27, 2014 8:47 am

The proponents of AGW have been employing collusion, deception and ridicule as they peddle their patent lies for profit.
Like the snake oil salesmen of old they do not deserve any wriggle room as they slink out of town, never to be seen again

MarkW
Reply to  Barry Woods
November 27, 2014 9:13 am

While the “Nazi” rhetoric may be over the top.
The reality remains that the alarmist side wants to control many aspects of everybody’s lives and dramatically decrease our lifestyles.
It really doesn’t matter how good your motives are when you are pursuing evil ends.

Jay Hope
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2014 10:01 am

Hear hear!

Ted Clayton
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2014 10:08 am

Rhetoric-indulgences aren’t just about being over the top.
It’s about whether we’re ready to calmly take a seat, in the front of the bus.

Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2014 12:36 pm

I seem to remember there was lots of research to prove the inferiority of jews in many respects and other science of the times in Germany and I also remember much of Freuds work was geared to drug sales and/or endless expensive therapies so the distortion of science is not new. Genetics and the soviet union also come to mind.

Ted Clayton
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2014 1:52 pm

[Freud was a drug-addict, and Eugenics is scientifically verifiable.]

The [Scientific] world famously doesn’t end with a bang, but with a whimper. It’s not the outside forces that do in a culture, but internal dissipation. Science has survived a fairly steady parade of more or less deep embarrassments.
Actually, I doubt those who consider themselves to be fighting the good climate-fight (pro or con) will determine the outcome. Like mom showing up at a squabble – The Public will end the dispute. Their way.
Assuming that climate-voodooism continues its ineptitude, voters will reward politicians moving to end the farce. All climate-contenders will find themselves twisting in the breeze.
Without funding, and open derision in the media (for whom mocking their Champions will be tomorrow’s lead story), momentary satisfaction among skeptics (as Anthony Watts considers what to do next), there will be a stampede of ‘climate scientists’ to other disciplines.
My brother started out chasing a deep interest in Archaeology. He was encouraged to learn APL programming, and pioneered modern dig-data analysis. Oops; archeo-jobs imploded … so he parlayed the Computer Science minor into a Mathematics major, and joined the Air Force, to follow Carl Sagan to the stars. He did a full career in heavy-lift, instead … and after his boy got into go-carts, he ended up owning a NASCAR dirt-track. The son eventually won the SCCA National Championship … and today they pay the bills fabricating race car chassis, bodies and wings from advanced composites. Brother can go in so many Sci-Tech directions, it makes ya dizzy.
Climate Science is not a science per se, and we all know that. It’s a cross-disciplinarian amalgam of assorted/variable qualifications & skills. When the climate game collapses, those called ‘climate scientists’ will quickly become some other kind of scientist. Most of them already are, and have been, all along. And yeah, most of them are perfectly aware of all of this.
So no, it doesn’t have to be a ghastly professional trauma, when the IPCC is relieved of the climate science portfolio.

Richard Sharpe
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2014 3:09 pm

As far as I can tell no one was called a Nazi. Valid use was made of a principle espoused by a Nazi, however, which seemed accurate to me. Using the Nazi aspersion, even in scare quotes, seems to me to be a case of trying to disqualify the opponents.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2014 4:30 pm

The “Nazi” accusation is a red herring
It distracts from the worldview issues addressed by Tim Ball.
Maurice Strong presumes human population growth is bad.
Therefore use Climate as a popular means to achieve his goal.

Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2014 5:39 pm

Who all is ‘The alarmist side’? I’ve blogged some of my thoughts about the relation between science and policy, and I don’t think I’m trying to control many aspects of peoples’ lives, much less to drastically decrease their lifestyles. Maybe that means I’m not an ‘alarmist’?
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/keep-your-vehicles-how-you-choose.html
or, more recently:
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2012/07/reality-based-decision-making.html

Michael 2
Reply to  Robert Grumbine
November 27, 2014 6:29 pm

Robert Grumbine asks:
“Maybe that means I’m not an ‘alarmist’?”
Probably. Alarmist is polar bears falling from the sky, or photos of people standing in a submerged city, or even “Waterworld” for that matter. Almost anything from Albert Gore Jr. Almost anything at SkepticalScience. Lovelock’s earlier writings.
The hallmark is a “telescoped” time sense as if all this disaster is imminent. My brother was in a panic about millions of drowning Bangladeshis. When I explained that we’re talking 200 to 500 years, longer than the United States has *been* the United States, even a paraplegic can move to higher ground faster than a tide that takes 200 years to rise.
In that time this planet will have several more world wars, including probably the big one, many regional wars, countless economic disturbances and depressions, pandemics; and of course, the elephant in the room, running out of fuel. Thomas Malthus — welcome to your new world.

Michael 2
Reply to  Robert Grumbine
November 27, 2014 6:35 pm

Robert Grumbine asks (elsewhere)
“all just trying to take away their SUV.”
This is an easy target for lefties and greens. Of course, the comedy happens when greens go on the road in their SUV to complain about SUV’s.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/01/monday-mirthiness-live-on-an-iceberg-adrift-for-a-year-guy-alex-bellini-drives-an-suv-to-highlight-his-concern-about-climate-change/
To me a bigger nuisance is huge pickup trucks that cannot park in a normal parking spot nevertheless doing exactly that and you have the misfortune of being parked next to it so you cannot enter your little Toyota. Another scenario is pulling up to a stopsign and a huge pickup truck pulls up beside you and pulls forward so you have no hope of seeing what is coming. If it was just a little higher you could see UNDER it to see what is coming.

Michael 2
Reply to  Robert Grumbine
November 27, 2014 6:44 pm

Robert Grumbine, I appreciate your comment here. I have bookmarked your site and started a new category called “moderate”. You seem to be somewhat unique. It will be interesting to read the comments on your site as readers try to pull you into one camp or another.

Reply to  Michael 2
November 29, 2014 11:36 am

Michael2: By all means keep an eye on the comments and make some yourself. They don’t even have to agree with me, though it turned out we’re in fair agreement about the method of multiple hypotheses.
But, in terms of me being shifted to a more extreme position … not likely. Notice that the SUV post was in 2008. I’ve engaged in the internet discussions on science since the early 1990s, and still am about here. Some things are better supported now, a few of my personal policy preferences have shifted as I’ve seen more of the world. But I’m still around here in the non-extreme.
I prefer ‘thoughtful’ to ‘moderate’. I’d really prefer no labels, but we humans seem to require some degree of that. My thoughts are also pretty much majority when I’m in a meeting with other scientists. You don’t hear about them for the same reasons you didn’t know about me before now.
I’m going to discontinue the ‘notify me of new comments’, so probably won’t see anything further here. But you, and anyone else who would like to discuss the science are welcome to come to my blog. I do enforce an ‘on topic’ rule, so if the topic of the post is sea ice, CO2 is probably off topic. But I also periodically hang out a ‘question place’ post for questions. Nobody who calls themselves a skeptic has ever shown up with a question.

chris moffatt
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2014 4:37 am

Help me out here; who was it who photoshopped himself in the uniform of the Reichsfuehrer SS? I forget.
“But here we see Tim sink to a new low, with Mein Kampf quotes and snide misrepresentation” – because only the CAGW frauds are allowed to do that!

chris moffatt
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2014 5:38 am

I’ve only read it twice but I don’t see any “over the top nazi rhetoric” in Dr Ball’s post. All I see is a very germane quote about colossal deception from the master of colossal deception. If people hadn’t been told the quote was from Adolf Hitler they wouldn’t be having this knee-jerk reaction. Who knew more about the “big lie” than Hitler and his cronies, especially Dr Goebbels? People need to get a grip and read what Dr Ball is saying. Is he wrong about Maurice Strong, IPCC, the big lie and the UN? Do you have data?

Radical Leftist Fun Guy
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2014 10:33 pm

Richard Sharpe:
“Valid use was made of a principle espoused by a Nazi, however, which seemed accurate to me.”
WRONG. It might “seem” accurate to you but if you did basic research you would find Dr. Ball’s usage of the quote was not valid and instead it was grossly abused
Chris Moffatt:
“I don’t see any “over the top nazi rhetoric” in Dr Ball’s post. All I see is a very germane quote about colossal deception from the master of colossal deception. . . . Who knew more about the “big lie” than Hitler and his cronies, especially Dr Goebbels?”
WRONG. For the same reasons Richard Sharpe was wrong.
People, Hitler was not promoting the use of the “Big Lie” but was instead claiming it was being used against the German people. Dr. Ball totally misused that quote.
The irony in this debate is both sides are pushing a Big Lie about Hitler. Both are being very sloppy about a basic fact. The irony is both sides are claiming the other side is using sloppy scientific principles but both are committing academic fraud (in the colloquial rather than legal sense) by not getting a basic fact correct!!

stan stendera
Reply to  Barry Woods
November 27, 2014 1:36 pm

Anthony HAS SPANKED (SNIPPED) me personally because I went over the top. I have learned my lesson and everybody on this thread just needs to chill out.

Reply to  Barry Woods
November 27, 2014 3:07 pm

It’s simple, really. If skeptics don’t like being called deniers — an attempt to demonize people, so that others won’t pay attention to them — then skeptics need to not participate in the same behaviour of name calling. Nazi parallels are particularly nasty name calling.
If you think that Drs. Betts and Edwards are participating in a “being nice offensive” to catch skeptics off guard, then the way to deal with it is via debate. I’m just happy to see that after all this time of folks on our side asking for fair debate (as opposed to stonewalling debate and ignoring critics), a few folks in the mainstream IPCC camp are reaching out.

Reply to  john
November 27, 2014 6:02 pm

Agreed, John.

If you think that Drs. Betts and Edwards are participating in a “being nice offensive” to catch skeptics off guard, then the way to deal with it is via debate. I’m just happy to see that after all this time of folks on our side asking for fair debate (as opposed to stonewalling debate and ignoring critics), a few folks in the mainstream IPCC camp are reaching out.

One modification, though. Debate presupposes fixed positions — neither side in a debate will change or learn. (Except, perhaps, how to be a better debater.)
Discussion is where you all (whoever is in the discussion) bring out your best understandings on some topic and thrash it out — with it being perfectly possible, and considered desirable, by all of you that you’ll leave with a changed understanding. I like to see and participate in discussion. Debates are deadly dull.
At a little more detail and length: http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/08/discussion-vs-debate.html

jolly farmer
Reply to  john
November 27, 2014 10:21 pm

They are “reaching out”, in order to appear nice.
That is what prostitutes and pimps do.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  john
November 28, 2014 1:30 am

John. I would be reaching out too if I finally realized that I am probably wrong and that I was part of a fraud that has caused so much hardship and expense to much of the world. Let me know when that “fair debate” shows up on the MSM and any CAGW sites.

chili palmer
Reply to  john
November 28, 2014 10:43 am

What you call “reaching out” is better described as “co-opting” and it’s very powerful. As an example, NY Times Magazine, 10/16/2011, GOP lobbyist Scott Reed says GOP E uses co-opting to eliminate the Tea Party. Reed: “”That’s the secret to politics:trying to control a segment of people without those people recognizing that you’re trying to control them.”” 3 well known national so-called Tea Party groups were co-opted by the GOP E almost from inception and they remain so. National TP people were befriended by GOP E and they melted. As a result, these national TP groups are now a bigger problem than the GOP E. US politicians of both parties have built the CO2 scam into a $1 billion a day parasite. Real problems are left to starve.

Stephen Prest
Reply to  Barry Woods
November 27, 2014 5:56 pm

“…Perhaps Tim hasn’t yet heard that many people on both sides of the discussion have moved on from the simple name calling of the past….”
Perhaps indeed, but I suggest that, given the legalistic approach taken by those who disagree with Dr Ball, one might be inclined to cut him a bit of slack.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/michael-manns-legal-case-caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/06/silencing-critics-instead-of-debating-them
A donation to Tim’s legal fund would be helpful in the process to move on from simple name calling. As one can see from the WUNT post below, Dr Ball has been waiting some time for the other side to “move on”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/
Regards
Stephen

Jimbo
Reply to  Barry Woods
November 28, 2014 9:58 am

But it’s hard to see how anyone could justify taking offence at being called a Denier if they were happy to call other people Nazis.

Maybe it’s my browser’s edit find function but I cannot find the word ‘Nazi’ or ‘Nazis’ anywhere in Tim Ball’s opinion piece. Sorry if it’s there and I missed it.
Can someone please identify the exact quote where Tim Ball calls “other people Nazis”?
Here is what I read. A quote from Hitler, plus this:

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.
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,…..
The deception was very effective because of the cynical weaknesses Hitler identifies, the natural assumption that nobody could deceive, on such an important issue,…
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….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/

I may not agree with everything Tim Ball writes but if you say he calls “other people Nazis” then show me where he says that?

Reply to  Jimbo
December 2, 2014 8:51 am

Exactly my thoughts!
Tim Ball may be guilty of being politically incorrect, but that’s about it.

Reply to  Barry Woods
November 28, 2014 10:01 pm

If one investigates scientifically and finds very little in the real world to support the basis/claims of the UNFCCC. Then it is obvious naturally to start asking “Why are they doing it?”

Reply to  Barry Woods
November 28, 2014 10:59 pm

Realizing that climate science has been politicized with the motive to promote political Agendas is a giant leap forward for mankind in this debate.

Jimbo
Reply to  Barry Woods
November 29, 2014 9:55 am

Here is a little reminder of what went past. Maybe we should cut Dr. Tim Ball some slack, his opinion piece is mild compared to what you are about to read. No matter how hard WE try this cannot be kept civil. See below for the reasons why.

WUWT – 7 July, 2009
Gore / Nazis – two words I thought I’d never see together, and never wanted to. Yet here it is in a story in the Times Online…..
“Al Gore likens fight against climate change to battle with Nazis” [later changed]
===========
Dr. Roy Spencer
“Time to push back against the global warming Nazis”
===========
[Quotes with links]
“What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s? …If you were to accept Lomborg’s way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing.“
Rajendra Pachauri, U.N. IPCC (2004)
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.“
– Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007)
“We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference.“
– Bill McGuire, University College London (2006)
“…the others working to derail this critical piece of legislation will be seen as the Adolph Hitlers of our day, contributing to a holocaust vastly eclipsing the horrors of World War II.“
– Chad Kister, Environmental Activist (2008)
“The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist.“
– Charles Larson, American University (2013)
Climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous.“
– Clive Hamilton, Charles Sturt University (2009)
“At its core, global warming denial is like Holocaust denial, an assault on common decency.“
– David Fiderer, The Huffington Post (2009)
“It’s about the climate-change “denial industry”, …we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.“
– David Roberts, Grist Magazine (2006)
“I think these people are anti-science flat-earthers. …They are every bit as dangerous as Holocaust deniers.“
– Guy Keleny, The Independent (2013)
“Those who abjure global warming are not skeptics; they are deniers. To call them skeptics is to debase language as much as to call the Ku Klux Klan “prejudiced,” Holocaust deniers “biased,” or Flat-Earthers “mistaken.”
– James Powell, National Physical Science Consortium (2012)
“These are not debunkers, testing outrageous claims with scientific rigor. They are deniers – like Holocaust deniers.“
– Jim Hoggan, DeSmogBlog (2005)
“David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence – it is a crime against humanity after all.“
– Margo Kingston, Webdiary (2006)
“I now have a new level of disdain for global warming deniers. I just lump them in with Holocaust deniers and act accordingly.“
– Stephen Elliott-Buckley, Politics, Re-Spun (2007)

Where were the condemnations on some of those blogs and news sites?

Reply to  Jimbo
November 30, 2014 8:07 am

Maybe you missed a major one there in that list. I’m not going to quote but I suggest to google: Richard Parncutt global warming

Nigel S
November 27, 2014 5:28 am

You started it!

James Allison
Reply to  Nigel S
November 27, 2014 9:12 am

I agree. Stop calling us Den iers and also stop tring to deceive us about the science and I’m sure that then most skeptics will sit at the table and have a reasonable discussion with you.

Ted Clayton
Reply to  Nigel S
November 27, 2014 10:09 am

And we can act to end it … or to validate it.

Scarface
Reply to  Nigel S
November 27, 2014 11:12 am

I concur.
When will Richard and Tamsin write something like this in reaction to an article by a rabid warmista where skeptics are smeared beyond recognition? Or even asked to be imprisoned or killed because of a thought-crime (in that warmista’s view)?
*crickets*

Streetcred
Reply to  Scarface
November 27, 2014 2:04 pm

Absolutely … until then, they are hypocrites. What about them getting stuck into the perennial liar, Bob Ward, with equal gusto. Or coming out and condemning Mann for his ‘crimes against statistics’ … yep, chirp, chirp.
Time also for our gracious host and like-minded to consider that they are being hoodwinked and drawn in by a touchy feely warm cozy fuzzy wuzzy attempt by the likes of Betts and Edwards to blunt the response to CAGW garbage that pays their salaries.

strike
Reply to  Scarface
November 27, 2014 2:21 pm

Cheers! They wouldn’t do anything else….

Brute
Reply to  Scarface
November 27, 2014 2:46 pm

I don’t think the issue is one of an eye for an eye. Besides, the warmists are way, way ahead at this point anyway. There is in fact no possibility of ever evening up that score.
I also don’t think the issue is of Richard and Tamsin being hypocrites. It is not their job to police anyone.
Yes, Ball’s post tried to draw a parallel to practices employed by (among others) Nazis… so? The question is if the reference had merit. I can’t begin to bother to find out.
I think there is some overreacting and nitpicking going on here which, btw, is common in the “debate”. Personally, I shrug. We read worse nonsense day in day out. It’s inevitable. After all, how many commenters know a thing about climate? So they run their mouths on “politics” and such.

Reply to  Scarface
November 27, 2014 4:00 pm

Or when will these two write to call out the RIDICULOUS CERTAINTY of the doom scenarios in the IPCC summary reports? C’mon Man! Really? Tim Ball’s private essay (which I don’t endorse) on a blog gets your collective pen out but not an influencial document being used to alter billions of lives and change trillions of dollars around? As I write this I can’t believe we’ve come to this.
I can’t say I find you Richard, or you Tamsin in any way respectable as scientists. Be honest with the certainty of the science in the IPCC, then you can complain about the opinion of private citizens! This makes me so angry.

jolly farmer
Reply to  Scarface
November 27, 2014 10:23 pm

Fully agree. They are liars, pimps and prostitutes.

John Leggett
November 27, 2014 5:33 am

When a group of people are committing a massive fraud. When their actions are causing the deaths of thousands if not millions of poor people and insuring they and their children will continue to live in poverty. When they advocate actions that will destroy the environment (wind farms and solar farms). When they want do destroy the economies of the developed world and bring everyone’s lives down to the level of North Korea It is hard to be civil in response to their lack if civilly.

Klaas de Waal
Reply to  John Leggett
November 27, 2014 6:10 am

Is it a bird? Is it a plane?….No, It’s Don Quijote.

Chris
Reply to  John Leggett
November 27, 2014 6:15 am

Coal and tar sands destroy the environment – if you don’t believe it go look at the mountaintop removal projects in the Appalachian Mountains, or visit the tar sands in Alberta – or breathe the air in any one of a dozen cities in China. What is your specific evidence that thousands to millions of people are dying due to the advocacy of climate scientists?

Coach Springer
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 6:32 am

Define “destroy”, polemicist. Mt. St. Helens destroyed a few things, but not the environment. The tar sands of Alberta are being mined responsibly and restored You use the word “destroy” in place of “touch.” You want to help the environment? Go to China and teach them how we burn coal.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 6:33 am

Yeah, but you guys ignore all real pollution. CO2 is your one trick pony. You are even happy about the risk using mercury curly bulbs to reduce CO2 and at the same time regulate the tiny amount of Hg from coal fired plants just to shut down the CO2 emissions. Its the hypocrisy of all this that galls. BTW, what do you drive, where do you take your holidays?

ferdberple
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 6:56 am

pollution in China is no different than the pollution that occurred in the Developed World when they initially first industrialized. It is only after countries industrialize and start generating a surplus that they can afford to clean up the environment. Until then all their resources are going towards food, clothing and shelter.
We have just returned from a visit to China. What we saw in our 2 weeks were ultra modern cities to rival anything in the west and a prosperous, booming consumer economy. People we met on the street were polite, helpful and greeted us with a mix of warmth and curiosity.
The people we met were also keenly aware of the pollution and want it cleaned up. They don’t want it cleaned up however at the expense of their prosperity. Given the choice they would rather have a job, condo, car, food on the table and education for their child (yes the one child policy is still in force).
A lot of the industry we saw in China was heavy industry. Massive industrial plants along the Yangtze and on the outskirts of the cities. The sort of industry that largely has been eliminated from the west by environmental concerns. These industries along with their pollution are now bringing wealth to China.
The joke we heard in China is that once they are rich enough, they will transfer these industries and their pollution to India. But in the meanwhile they are the backbone of the economy.

ferdberple
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 7:03 am

I suspect the unemployed of Detroit, living in poverty with something like 70 thousand abandoned buildings would rather have their heavy industry and jobs back, even if it meant dirty air.

ferdberple
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 7:19 am

The oil sands in Alberta are one of the largest natural oil spills on the planet. When the Rockies were formed along what is now the BC – Alberta border, the oil was squeezed out and drained into the sands on the plains of Alberta. Over thousands and millions of years this oil has degraded due to exposure to the environment until today it is heavy oil, mistakenly referred to as tar.
The oil sands recovery projects ongoing on Alberta are removing this heavy oil and returning the sand – cleaner than it was. The governments of Alberta and Canada, along with the oil industry are keenly aware of the environmental issues and are applying lessons learned each year to minimize the impact while bringing enormous prosperity to the people of Alberta and Canada.
The large majority of Canadians are pro development in a responsible manner. We don’t believe all resource development is rape, any more than all sex is rape. We don’t want to simply leave the oil in the ground “for future generations”. Nothing says that oil will have a market in the future. It may well be replaced by something else, leaving today’s oil deposits worthless.

Chris B
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 7:19 am

Isn’t much of China’s pollution natural wind born dust?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 7:50 am

ferdberple *** You Nailed It***

Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 8:02 am

Alberta has no “tar sand” development, it has ” oil sand” development. Using the term is just as misleading as ” deniers”. Tar is the end product of distillation and found in asphalt, oil is the feedstock for distillation and found in your gas tank and crankcase. If you can’ t tell the difference between the stuff on your dipstick and the stuff under your car, learning the difference would be a good starting point. Constantly repeating a falsehood never makes it true, if it did, ” rap” would be music by now.

Catcracking
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 8:11 am

Chris,
Have you ever visited the OIL (NOT TAR) sands of Alberta? What did you see that was destroying the environment. Hope you don’t believe all that exaggerated propaganda from the radical environmentalists. It is oil not tar, if you did your homework on what is tar you would know that it is oil, not TAR in the sands! Furthermore you should look at how the government policy against coal has negatively impacted the economies of the coal mining regions, causing massive unemployment and desperate communities from areas that had high paying jobs.
FYI I worked for one year on a oil sands project in the 70’s and that project alone brought hundreds of thousands of high quality, low sulfur, synthetic crude to market daily in Canada and the US while displacing imported crude from the unfriendly and terrorist supported far east nations. I fished on the banks of the Athabasca river with it’s banks soaked with oil from nature not man. Think man might be cleaning up not polluting?
If you did your homework you would find that the Canada government has strict environmental regulations on the oil sands development and mandates restoration of the lands which are now cleaner than before the oil extraction began. These projects created numerous jobs and contributed significantly to the prosperity of all of Canada.

Taphonomic
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 8:49 am

How many have been killed by a mountain top removal? Mountain top removal doesn’t destroy the environment, it changes it.
300000 per year die from chronic exposure to smoke from traditional cooking practices: http://www.cleancookstoves.org/our-work/the-issues/health-impacts.html
If climate scientists weren’t advocating less carbon based energy production, these people might get a form of energy that that is less deadly.
If you are so worried about carbon based energy production, why are you using a computer?

JimG
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 9:10 am

Clever, Changing the subject. Were not discussing air pollution . Were talking about claims that current levels of CO2 are causing horrific climate change. If you don’t understand the topic, please don’t comment or try your Alinsky type tactics.

John Leggett
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 9:13 am

The history of mankind shows that as dependance on recyclable energy decreased (wind, water, wood, animal and human) as a percentage of the energy available; the living standard of people has gone up and the environment has improved. Compare the environmental problems of Appalachia or Alberta with the environmental problems of Bangladesh or almost anywhere is Sub-Saharan Africa. The environmental movement stopped the distribution of DDT which has increased the deaths by insect born disease by millions.
Advocacy of climate scientists has caused the world bank to stop lending money to third world countries for coal fired power plants. This means that all the people in those countries are trapped in never ending poverty. I also note that ever since the Global cooling, Global warming, Climate change (the name keeps changing) hoax the living standard in the US has stopped increasing.
If they were really concerned as you seen to imply you/they are. They would be fighting to stop the environmental disaster of wind farms and solar power farms. That are killing off Raptores and other birds along with various reptiles. They have perpetuated the hoax of the use of ethanol for fuel from food stocks (corn) that has done nothing for the environment but has increased the world cost of all grain further driving the poor deeper into poverty.
Warmest climate scientists jumped on poor old CO2 a natural plant food that is now lower in the atmosphere that it has been for over 90 percent of earths existence. During the previous Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan and Karoo Glaciations the CO2 level was much higher that it is today. We are living in the Holocene Interglacial of the Quaternary Glaciation and are worrying about it getting a little warmer. If CO2 levels fall much below 260 PPM (they won’t) plants will start to die off and we will have real problems. During the previous interglacial (MIS5) and during the interglacial most like the current one MIS11 sea levels were between 15 MIS5 and 60 MIS11 feet higher that they are today. So I do not take man made global warming with being real.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 9:17 am

And here we have a perfect example of the kind of person John was talking about.
Strip mining does not destroy the environment, especially when you realize that the law requires that the land be remediated when mining is complete.
The air in China is the result of their not using pollution control equipment that has been SOP here for 40 years.
Anyone who cites the air in China has immediately lost all credibility.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 9:21 am

Taphonomic, to the extreme environmentalists, any change, if it is caused by man, is by definition destruction.
It doesn’t matter how small or inconsequential the change might be.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 10:36 am

No they don’t. What’s so precious about a mountain top? It’s just rock. It will get eroded by nature itself. You have a romantic notion of nature. Do volcanos “destroy” the environment? How about the 6000 year old coal fire in Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Mountain, is that destroying the environment.
Agriculture and cities “destroy” the environment far more than using fossil fuels. Should we ban them?

Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 10:55 am

@ Chris :November 27, 2014 at 6:15 am
Coal …… destroy the environment – if you don’t believe it go look at the mountaintop removal projects in the Appalachian Mountains
———————-
And just what is your problem with this “reclaimed” MTR mining site in Kentucky, USA.
http://www.coaleducation.org/technology/Reclamation/mountaintop-images/DSC3524.JPG
Or this “reclaimed” MTR mining site in Clarksburg, WV, USA
http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/21/eastpointemall.jpg
Those hills were originally sooooooo steep that you couldn’t chase a Billy Goat over the top of them … so what was your plans for them before their “tops” were flattened out into “prime” useable real estate? And the coal that was extracted fed the fires that produced the electricity that I need and require ….. and smelted the aluminum for making the cans that I purchase my beer and soda pop in.

Joseph
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 11:19 am

It is only after countries industrialize and start generating a surplus that they can afford to clean up the environment.

Fred, how long did that take in the US? How long will it take for China to generate a “surplus” (whatever that means) when they have hundreds of millions in poverty?

Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 1:02 pm

How many died of starvation due to increased food prices during the “covert food to fuel” fiasco?

Chris Riley
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 1:32 pm

“What is your specific evidence that thousands to millions of people are dying due to the advocacy of climate scientists?”
A 2003 NHTSA* study estimated that cars produced between 1996 and 1999 would kill an additional 39,197 people as a result of CAFE standards.
The war on CAGW has arguably caused more American casualties than Korea, Vietnam, Gulf wars I and II and the war in Afghanistan combined. It is time to put an end to this madness. The daily toll estimated from the NHTSA study of 27 deaths per day is an enormous price to pay for the continuing debate on this issue
*Charles J. Kahane, Ph.D., “Vehicle Weight, Fatality Risk and Crash Compatibility of Model Year 1991-99 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., October 2003, p. 11-13, available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf as of June 23, 2006.

R. de Haan
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 1:39 pm

“Coal and tar sands destroy the environment”.
Only locally just like a volcanic eruption.
Watch the place in a few decades and everything will be fine.
As for China, the current economic boom is boosting the average life expectancy of the Chinese.
No permanent damage will be done to the place. Just look at the German Ruhrgebiet in the sixties and watch it now.
Just answer one question. How many people have been killed by the bio fuel mandate in the USA and Europe? Does the Arab Spring ring a bell?

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 2:00 pm

Chris:
“What is your specific evidence that thousands to millions of people are dying due to the advocacy of climate scientists?”

24,000 innocents died in the UK alone in just one winter due to “”fuel poverty” A year later, the CAGW death toll was even worse: 25,300 excess deaths occurred BECAUSE of YOUR political decision to force higher energy prices and restrict the development and distribution of readily available fossil fuels .
And THAT was in one country that was able to track such excess deaths. You are ignoring the millions harmed every year throughout the less-developed world.

Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 2:56 pm

The air quality is better in Fort McMurray, Alberta–where the Oil Sands are–than Montréal Québec, 130 miles from where Bill McKibben lives. Go to Environment Canada and download the widgets that you see it on a daily basis. Furthermore, Alberta has a draconian reclamation law that requires the mines to restore the land to the same or better condition in which they found it. Any company operating there spends on average 15 years after the mine is closed doing that restoration. The Appalachian Mountains have no such requirement.
You can see what on of the former mines looks like now: http://www.capp.ca/energySupply/innovationStories/Land/Pages/Reclaiming.aspx

Reply to  Chris
November 27, 2014 3:09 pm

You need to read more, Chris. Try this:

<How clean is our ‘dirty’ oil? You’d be surprised.
Researchers for California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard have recently released new data measuring the carbon intensity of various crude oil blends, including diluted bitumen (a.k.a. ‘dilbit’) and upgraded synthetic crude oil (‘SCO’) from the Canadian oilsands. The Californian findings will not be well-received by anti-oilsands activists.
Among the findings that may surprise:
• There are 13 oil fields in California, plus crude oil blends originating in at least six other countries, that generate a higher level of upstream greenhouse gas emissions than Canadian dilbit blends;
• Crude oil from Alaska’s North Slope, which makes up about 12 per cent of California’s total crude slate, is actually “dirtier” than the Canadian dilbit known as “Access Western Blend”;
The “dirtiest oil in North America” is not produced in Canada, but just out‐ side Los Angeles, where the Placerita oil field generates about twice the level of upstream emissions as Canadian oilsands production; and
• The title of “world’s dirtiest oil” goes to Brass crude blend from Nigeria, where the uncontrolled release of methane during the oil extraction process generates upstream GHG emissions that are over four times higher than Canadian dilbit.

P.S. After reading Samuel C Cogar’s comment, I apologize for not knowing that land is relaimed in the Appalachian Mountains.

Planet8788
Reply to  Chris
November 28, 2014 8:21 am

https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-obama-plan-power-africa-gets-off-dim-061242670.html
Instead of helping Africa step into the 20th century we’re keeping them in the 5th century. That’s how we’re killing millions of people.

Reply to  Chris
November 29, 2014 9:21 am

@ policycritic: November 27, 2014 at 3:09 pm
P.S. After reading Samuel C Cogar’s comment, I apologize for not knowing that land is relaimed in the Appalachian Mountains.
—————
No problem, t’was not really your fault.
Info and pictures of/on those re-claimed MTR sites …. are akin to … research and studies that disagree and/or discredit the “fear mongering” claims of CAGW, ….. the “greenies” and the liberal biased “anti-coal” media don’t want the public to know anything about them.
PS: Very, very few people realize that what is pictured in the following photo is in fact a circa-1950’s (non-mining) MTR site …… that millions of people know only as …. Yeager Airport, Charleston, WV.
http://wvmetronews.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Yeager_airport.jpg

Don Hermiston
Reply to  Chris
December 3, 2014 7:08 pm

Coal does cause horrible pollution. But your use of the term ‘tar sands to describe the Alberta oil sands is childish. The oil sands is in a country which has a global green house gas emission of less than 2%. The oil sands accounts for a tiny fraction of Canada’s total GHG emissions which again are less than 2%.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  John Leggett
November 27, 2014 7:24 am

+1000 Great comment

jolly farmer
Reply to  John Leggett
November 27, 2014 10:25 pm

You should not be civil. Call them out for what they are.

Jimbo
Reply to  John Leggett
November 28, 2014 5:08 am

Warmists are trying to save lives by doing all they can to make renewables work better. It’s all for the children and the elderly. They certainly are acting now by making solar and wind turbines generate wonderful cold winter heat. Deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia for biofuels is a good thing. Bird chopping does no harm. Food to fuel? No problem. Indians burn dung to cook? It adds to the flavour I hear. And so on……………
Guardian
Winter deaths rose by almost a third in 2012-13
Age UK describes 30,000 excess winter deaths as shameful and urges government action on energy bills

Jimmy Haigh.
November 27, 2014 5:33 am

They do not like it up ’em!

November 27, 2014 5:39 am

see http://www.theeuroprobe.org 2012 – 021 The Toxic Origins of the EU and they are really toxic.

Richard M
November 27, 2014 5:45 am

I suggest that Richard and Tamsin work to clean up their own house first.
Complaining about describing the techniques used by climate activists (maybe not all climate scientists) accurately is weak. How many climate scientists have stood up publicly and condemned the use to hate language from activists and scientists like Mann? Have you guys gone to activist web sites where skeptical comments are deleted and skeptics banned to voice your objections? If so, I sure haven’t seen it.
Sorry, but when your side started the name calling, ad hominem attacks and massive propaganda to denigrate anyone skeptical of AGW, you really need to show some good faith. Until then you’ve lost the right to complain.

Reply to  Richard M
November 27, 2014 6:28 am

I suggest you find out a bit more about Richard and I 🙂 We do stand up to incorrect science, hate language etc etc. Barry Woods will vouch for this. We have various links we can point you to.
“Your side started the name calling” – generalisation isn’t helpful. Some of us want to do things differently. Why lump us with them when we are clearly drawing a distinction by posting here and meeting with Anthony?
Good faith goes both ways…

knr
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 6:44 am

Your side started the name calling” – generalisation isn’t helpful.
but is factual and accurate which is what is supposed to matter in science.
But the silly insults are not the real problem , the endemic poor scientific practice seen within the area so that being unable to support the claims with good science bad insults are resorted to instead, is the problem .
With big claims come the rightful demand for big evidenced to support them and the claims around AGW have been massive, but evidenced has not.

Richard M
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 7:01 am

There’s an old saying …. closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. That’s pretty much what I see going on. While your intentions may be good, I see them as too little too late. You still have activists attacking skeptics daily. People have lost their jobs for having a skeptical opinion. This is not just about a little name calling. Until I see scientists standing up defending skeptics on a regular basis, I’m not going to get upset when a skeptic like Dr. Ball fights back.

Nick Milner
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 7:26 am

Richard and *me*. Sorry, but all this talk of Hitler brought out the grammar Nazi in me!

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 7:27 am

Please show where you have both corrected the science specifically of the IPCC, their summary, Michael Mann, James Hansen, and so on, so on, and so on.
I have seen none of it. If I’m wrong I would be more than happy to apologies and enter into discussion on the failure of your climate models used for the policy makers document, the recent RS paper etc.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 7:29 am

Betts has a massive interest, as I believe you do, in the continuation of the belief and use of climate models. He has only ever pottered around the fringes of trying to show that he is a semi-sceptic and therefore a good guy.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 7:31 am

If you want to do things differently there are plenty of opportunities on all the sceptics blogs to join in without ad homenins and appeals to authority. Join in please.

Phil Cartier
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 7:50 am

Dr. Edwards,
I won’t critique your and Dr. Betts science. I will critique your knowledge of political history and the use of “the big lie”.
The IPCC’s charter from the outset has been ”to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”.
You’ll note that the IPCC is NOT charged with assessing the scientific understanding of the climate and the potential impacts of climate change on humans and their options for adaptation and mitigation to it’.
There was speculation about carbon dioxide causing the atmosphere to warm virtually since the energy spectra of molecules were discovered, since Swante Arrhenius, who began the politics of global warming with initial calculations of it’s possible existence and warnings about it’s potential dangers. Dr. Ball’s use of the quote from Hitler is simply one point in the long political history of political propaganda starting, perhaps, with Sun Tzu and the art of war.
It really is unfair to tar real scientists who are truly trying to understand the climate with the same brush as the politicians and pseudo scientists who formulated the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the totally unscientific, political IPCC.

dorsai123
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 8:28 am

then point to them …

dorsai123
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 8:33 am

your side is lying … until they stop nothing is out of bounds … YOU are responsible to get them to stop … I don’t care if your feelings are hurt … you are on the side of liars and frauds … fix it … then complain …

Paul Hanlon
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 8:39 am

Hi Tamsin,
Yes, please do post the links. Please also post any links you may have to peer reviewed articles you have written refuting some of the nonsense we see regarding the dangers of man-made climate change.
Also, if you have any links where you publicly assert your dismay at the way Tim Ball was hounded out of the BBC for his views on the climate, that too would be very helpful in establishing that you are indeed genuinely interested in having a proper debate.
When I see that your favourite quote is “If most climate scientists were like Tamsin, there’d be hardly any sceptics”, it doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence, given that skepticism should be the default view of all scientists.
I would also like to see a link where Dr Betts distances himself from his own study here (PDF) which speculates not on whether, but on when there will be a 4°C (with the possibility of a 7°C) rise in global temperatures.
Because when I see stuff like that, the only conclusion I can draw is that the author is a fully paid up member of the Climate Science “Big Lie”, and posting complaints about an article that exposes the use of the Big Lie, smacks of wanting to have one’s cake and eat it.

Mike M.
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 9:35 am

Tamsin and Richard nailed my reaction to the Ball article when they wrote: “We hope this is merely selection bias, and that many of you are simply sighing and moving on to the next post.” There are a lot of bad actors on both sides, but Tamsin is one of the good guys in terms of civilized debate.
Mike M.

k scott denison
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 9:55 am

Please, Dr. Edwards, point is to your statement commenting on the inappropriateness of the hockey stick graph. Imwould love to read it. If not yet published, the your credibility is nil.

Brian Davis
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 10:42 am

Couldn’t agree more, Tamsin. Full marks to you guys for posting here. I don’t see why some people think you should kneel down in sackcloth and ashes and apologize for what other climate scientists may have said. The Nic Lewis meeting was exactly what was needed to open up a constructive and civilized dialogue, and you didn’t shrink from publicly defending it against AGW zealots who criticised you for supping with the Devil. Both of you have always been civil and refrained from name calling and ad hominem arguments.

Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 11:08 am

Then perhaps you would like to comment on the Royal Society’s paper this morning, and Roger Harrabin’s usual refusal to question press releases and Bob Ward’s even more laughable than usual inability to take a balanced view on anything.
I’m sorry, Tamsin, but the fact that Tim Ball got carried away (and I’m not defending him) does not excuse the wilful distortion of the facts of climate and the misuse of models to scare the populace. To put it in a nutshell and language that everyone can understand, the RS paper is a pack of lies. There are no grounds for making the claims it does.
And you know it.

Jimbo
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 11:16 am

I have read some of Tamsin Edwards and Betts comments calling people out on the use of the ‘D’ word and I commend their efforts. I don’t agree with everything Tim Ball writes. Now read these Tasmin. I don’t believe in
Examples comparing AGW sceptics to holocaust deniers.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/03/the-silence-of-the-anti-defamation-league-suggests-they-endorse-defamation-of-climate-skeptics/
Proposed treatment of CAGW sceptics. Not nice, trials, executions, rubbing faces in asbestos etc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/03/the-silence-of-the-anti-defamation-league-suggests-they-endorse-defamation-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1581627
The IPCC should not be compared to Nazis but please to read a bit about the green roots of the Nazi party and the problem of modern eco-fascist ecology. They do say ‘never again’ so we must be on our guard at all times.

Jimbo
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 11:20 am

This should be deleted from my comment awaiting moderation (third line down).
I don’t believe in

Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 11:59 am

@ Brian Davis: November 27, 2014 at 10:42 am
The Nic Lewis meeting was exactly what was needed to open up a constructive and civilized dialogue, ……
——————–
Then tell us, …. just why in hell has it taken like 30 years of denialism of the “junk science” claims, obfuscations, half-truths, fuzzy mathematics and reams n’ reams of “fear mongering” agitprop rhetoric before any of the Degreed Climate Scientists who are avid proponents of CAGW would even consider attending and/or engaging in the aforesaid Nic Lewis meeting?
Surely it is not a case of ….. “They all got smart too late”.

Solomon Green
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 12:06 pm

I agree that name calling damages the debate. As a self-confessed “denier” rather than “agnostic”, I do not mind being called a denier but I understand that many who use that term do so to equate us with the nuttiest of conspiracy theorists so that the public cannot be misled by our honestly and reasonably based views that man has very little power to overrule nature in the long term.
It is a pity, so far as I can see, that whenever a climate scientist such as Professor Pielke (father and son) or Dr. Spencer queries some of the more extreme theories put forward by their doctrinaire colleagues, there is an almost hysterical ganging up against them.
I would be very happy if I saw Professor Betts and Dr. Edwards criticise the recent BBC report of the Royal Society’s latest doom and gloom which appears to me to be sheer propaganda and very little science.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30215782
I realise it would take courage for a British academic working in the field to criticise the hysteria of such an august body. Or should I say two such august bodies?. Do the authors of this blog agree with Professor Mace et al? Are there any points on which they disagree with their report or on Roger Harrabin’s take on that report?
I will await a possible reply with interest. .

Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 1:44 pm

I’m not sure how a discussion makes progress between We’re all gonna die on one side and Everything will be okay on the other.
or between
We gotta stop doing everything and give all our money away and It’s all happened before and there’s nothing we can do about it anyway.
One side says relax, let’s monitor and learn while we can but the other side screams, lies, bullies, and ignores the laws.
Guess which side is which.
One side has all the money in the world, most of Hollywood, the major part of the media, most of the world’s politicians and they still can’t sell this “Big Lie.”
Why is that?
http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm
This site has some graphs showing Average Global Temperatures for the last 2.4B years. Temperatures range between 50°F to 75°F with the current temperature about 56°F.
A second graph Glacial-Interglacial Cycles Over The Past 450,000 years shows five Inter-Glacials during this period. Our current Inter-Glacial is the coldest of the five. (by maybe 15°F)
We could have a ways to go.
These were all natural climate changes. (unless you subscribe to divine intervention)
Lastly, wind turbines and solar panels will not reduce CO2 to any level that could lower the earth’s temperature.
Giving $B to tyrants and despots will not lower earth’s temperature.
Making billionaires out of Wall Street millionaires will not lower earth’s temperature.
Giving government trillions of dollars will not lower earth’s temperature.
Looks like Al Gore and the rest of the rich and famous show us how they fear CAGW by flying private jets around the globe from meeting to meeting to make rules for us to follow because we are killing the planet.
Where is the evidence that today’s climate is run away CAGW?
I am not trying to insult our guests but with so much money, so little evidence and so much lying and bullying there is almost no way I’d fall for it.
Is the globe warming. Maybe.
Can we change it? Just call me skeptical.

MCourtney
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 1:45 pm

No-one should be tarred with being linked with Roger Harrabin.
Every group has it’s crazies.
Every group has it’s idiots.
And some groups have their truly wicked deceivers.
If your unlucky enough to be in such group you are still not responsible for the crazies, the idiots or Roger Harrabin.

4 eyes
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 3:41 pm

If you want to do things differently go to the press and give them a full balanced status report on CAGW including all the uncertainties with scientific rebuttals to skeptics’ concerns. If you do this honestly we will find the common ground quicker.

Robert B
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 5:40 pm

‘since Swante Arrhenius, who began the politics of global warming with initial calculations of it’s possible existence and warnings about it’s potential dangers.’
Didn’t he actually predict benefits of the warming? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/6995/

Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 8:42 pm

Re Richard M’s post above:
“People have lost their jobs for having a skeptical opinion.””
Here is a list of those forced from their institutions due to global warming thugism
George Taylor – Oregon State Climatologist
Sallie Baliunas – Harvard University
Pat Michaels – University of Virginia
Murry Salby – Macquarie University, Australia
Caleb Rossiter – Institute for Policy Studies
Nickolas Drapela, PhD – Oregon State University
Henrik Møller – Aalborg University, Denmark

jolly farmer
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 10:29 pm

So you get a free pass because you post on sceptic sites and have socialised with sceptics?
Give me a break.

hunter
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 28, 2014 7:52 am

Tamsin,
Well said.
Mob action is ugly no matter the mob or the cause.
Keep up the good work.

Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 28, 2014 8:07 am

{bold emphasis mine – JW}
Tamsin Edwards says on November 27, 2014 at 6:28 am
[@Richard M says on November 27, 2014 at 5:45 am]
“I suggest you find out a bit more about Richard and I 🙂 We do stand up to incorrect science, hate language etc etc. Barry Woods will vouch for this. We have various links we can point you to.
“Your side started the name calling” – generalisation isn’t helpful. Some of us want to do things differently. Why lump us with them when we are clearly drawing a distinction by posting here and meeting with Anthony?
Good faith goes both ways…”

Tamsin Edwards & Richard Betts,
This is a very polite and sincere request for info that you offered to supply links to.
Please show a handful of links to the most salient examples where Richard Betts or you had sternly “stand up to [. . .] hate language” toward skeptics that comes from the supporters of the position that there is significant climate change from CO2 by burning fossil fuel.
Repeat – Kindly show us the links to quotes of Richard Betts’ and your most stern past efforts at stopping hate speech directed toward skeptics.
John

Reply to  Richard M
November 29, 2014 4:35 pm

“Have you guys gone to activist web sites where skeptical comments are deleted and skeptics banned to voice your objections?” Was this an attempt at a serious question? How do you think would you see deleted comments?
A few of the sites that routinely do this are skepticalscience, Huffingtonpost, 350.org, NPR (including NPR’s ombudsman), Slate, Alternet, Common Dreams, Buzzflash, Mother Jones, Truthout, Firedoglake, Drudge Report, PJ Media, scienceofdoom, Real Climate, UK Guardian, Scientific American, Discover, The Atlantic.

November 27, 2014 5:47 am

There’s a propaganda aspect to climate change action and it might be appropriate to quote from the evil master of propaganda, Hitler, without offending anybody.
However I don’t believe climate scientists are part of any conspiracy, I support Tim Ball’s right to speak out his mind and my right to ignore his opinions.

ferdberple
Reply to  omnologos
November 27, 2014 7:33 am

There is a conspiracy of silence, where good men (and women) are afraid to speak out. I applaud Dr’s Ball, Betts and Edwards for speaking out.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
DrBall has been sued by two climate scientists for daring to speak up, so I am prepared to cut him a lot of slack. He has had the courage to speak up where a lot of lessor human beings have failed.
I would rather see Dr’s Betts and Edwards publish articles on WUWT about climate science, rather than spend their time criticizing the critics.

ferdberple
Reply to  ferdberple
November 27, 2014 7:51 am

for example: when Dr Mann’s hockey stick was published on the cover of the IPCC report, it is my understanding that Dr. Mann was a recent graduate, and the hockey stick had not been replicated. this should have generated a large outcry from the scientific community; at the minimum a significant warning, because it was contrary to established science. but instead all we heard were accolades, and established science was overturned. the MWP and LIA disappeared, despite the numerous studies that confirmed their existence.
who spoke out?

ferdberple
Reply to  ferdberple
November 27, 2014 7:54 am

or how about Judith Curry, the shameful way she was treated for daring to speak out about Climategate. Who spoke out about here treatment.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

ATheoK
Reply to  ferdberple
November 27, 2014 8:29 am

Absolutely ferdberple!

Reply to  ferdberple
November 27, 2014 1:55 pm

“But that is only because evil always wins through the strength of its splendid dupes; and there has in all ages been a disastrous alliance between abnormal innocence and abnormal sin.”
G.K. Chesterton Eugenics and Other Evils

AB
Reply to  ferdberple
November 27, 2014 2:13 pm

Ferdberple – well said and that applies to all your comments.
This handwringing over being “nice” to the frauds and grant seekers doesn’t wash with me.
When I found out that the residential land we owned was to be surrounded by 131 40 story wind turbines I dared to publicly question the scientific basis for inflicting this disaster on us and our community. I was immediately branded a “denier”.
Tim Ball sums up my feelings to a T. The people peddling thermogeddon are only squealing, “pax, pax” because the truth is out and we have our collective foot on their throats.

nielszoo
Reply to  omnologos
November 27, 2014 12:44 pm

… and the propaganda was what his post was all about. Yes, he quoted the “big lie” meme used so well by the leader of a huge, powerful government… originally Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives in the US. Everyone remembers Hitler and Goebbels using the technique… no one remembers or understands those techniques started with the US Progressives many, years earlier and copied by the Nat’l Socialists. Almost a century later the same Progressives are using the same techniques.
The sad part is that is exactly how the vast majority of the CAGW folks have been working for around 30 years and the skeptics (who every day are being proved to have been correct all along) have been vilified and shut out. Just because he quoted Hitler does not mean the quote was inaccurate…

AlecM
November 27, 2014 5:47 am

Every professional scientist or engineer taught standard physics immediately sees that the IPCC climate models cannot predict climate. This is because the assumption of a single -18 deg C 360 degree OLR emitting zone (search 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf) should have never passed peer review. It provided negative heating in the two stream calculation offsetting imaginary ‘back radiation’. However, It also led to a 40% increase in atmospheric warming and tripling of the real GHE.
Furthermore, Figure 2.5 of Houghton’s ‘Physics of Atmospheres’ proves the Enhanced GHE cannot exist. This is because Lapse rate convection and lateral advection, mostly super-efficient condensation and evaporation, ensure near zero temperature difference between any surface element and local atmosphere!
If there were 157.5 W/m^2 atmospheric warming by surface IR, the ‘Clear Sky Atmospheric Greenhouse Factor’, for an emissivity of 0.75 and 16 deg C surface mean atmospheric temperature would be about 0.5 deg C and we’d have to wear gloves and scarf in the night time tropics!
This desperate propaganda by scientific losers is getting very boring. Perhaps they should be taken en masse behind the bike sheds for a good talking to by real scientists and engineers who actually do experiments, instead of pontificating on the basis of Sagan’s false science.

Alberta Slim
Reply to  AlecM
November 27, 2014 8:02 am

Right on. Thanks

Viking Explorer
Reply to  AlecM
November 27, 2014 7:18 pm

Well said alecm. There certainly was deliberate deception.
I reject the notion that any comparison to nazis is out of bounds. This clearly benefits those who are using their methods or accept some part of their ideology.
The nazis were not obviously evil or insane. Everyone loves to show video of Hitler giving a speech like a madman, but translated into english, the ideas are quite ordinary.
My mother researched Quisling in detail and was surprised to find him to be an ordinary Norwegian.
I haven’t read Dr Ball piece, but I immediately see these similarities:
1) they both used science as a means of mass manipulation.
2) they both desired to stamp out opposition by ridicule and then by force
3) they both targeted children
4) they both had obvious totalitarian aims thinly hidden beneath the surface
5) they both are very anti capitalism and anti freedom

November 27, 2014 5:49 am

As I am at war with ENGOs on fishery issues, a parallel like battlefield, I can understand how someone would move to extremism to prove a point. My fight has been continuing for many years, calling for real science from the same agency that is constantly referred to here, NOAA.
Trying to present material to people that worship this agency, which is now controlled by ENGOs, is a frustrating exercise in futility.
I have also become militant and pointed in my engagements with politicians, and the corporate sold out enviro’s.

Reply to  borehead
November 27, 2014 2:01 pm

NOAA, oh yeah.
There was this Jim Hansen and 20 foot seas drowning NYC…due very soon I understand.
Thank goodness he’s been replaced with a calmer head.

Reply to  mikerestin
November 27, 2014 3:55 pm

oops
That’s NASA not NOAA

November 27, 2014 5:52 am

Parallels with Nazism? No, the original article simply quoted from Mein Kampf, which is something else entirely. The charge was willfull deception and the means needed to carry it out on a large scale. You don’t have to slaughter millions of people to use tactics that the Nazis first systematically used for their benefit. More mundane uses of their tactics are also possible. I didn’t read the intitial article and think that the IPCC was about to start rounding people up and putting them on cattle trucks just because Hitler’s name was used. I simply nodded my head about the incredible nature of humanity and it’s ability to be deceived.

ConTrari
Reply to  wickedwenchfan
November 27, 2014 6:12 am

While I totally agree with any effort to keep the climate debate on a civilized footing, it does not seem quite right to claim “Hitling” in this case. As an example of a way of lying to and dominating the masses, the quote from Mein Kampf is valid. I would think that it has been used in such contexts in a great number of articles and studies in the social sciences, so why not here? I can not see that the article has any specific accusations of warmists being nazis or anything like that.
Rather, it is some of the comments that seem to make this claim. Hitler is long since history, and one should be allowed to use this person as a source if one thinks it is relevant to the case in hand.

jolly farmer
Reply to  ConTrari
November 27, 2014 10:34 pm

I agree. I wonder if RB and TE would also agree?

ferdberple
Reply to  wickedwenchfan
November 27, 2014 7:40 am

that is how I read Dr. Ball’s article. He wasn’t calling people Nazi’s. He was showing how the Big Lie works. The Nazi’s showed the world how it can be applied.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 27, 2014 11:19 am

fredberple
… and the reply from Betts and Edwards shows how close to the bone Ball’s comment is!
A question of “if the cap fits” perhaps.

M Courtney
November 27, 2014 5:52 am

Two wrongs don’t make a right… and we are only responsible for ourselves.
I wasn’t outspoken enough on the original post.
I should have condemned the demonization of people whom I disagree with, more fully.
For that I apologise.
Yes. I’m very glad this post appeared.

dorsai123
Reply to  M Courtney
November 27, 2014 8:30 am

you can’t apologize for something you didn’t do …

MCourtney
Reply to  dorsai123
November 27, 2014 11:34 am

Actually I did.
The Methodist Worship Book has a Prayer of Confession that is used before taking Holy Communion. It contains a plea for forgiveness for “the good we have not done”.
Because there is an obligation to do the best you can.

Jim Rose
November 27, 2014 5:52 am

I would like to ask the authors two questions:
(1) What is your best estimate for the climate sensitivity factor?
and (2) How many adjustable parameters exist in the climate models? By this I include initializing to the current climate over some period of time (how many pieces of information are used in the initialization?)
Thanks for any help, Jim Rose

Editor
November 27, 2014 5:52 am

The science is settled!
So isn’t it time we wound up the IPCC? Or is it only there for political reasons?

knr
Reply to  Paul Homewood
November 27, 2014 6:36 am

In its own words ‘we don’t do sceince ‘

Stacey
November 27, 2014 5:55 am

Sorry I do not see how Dr Tim Ball’s post is in anyway offensive and neither did he call the alarmists Nazi’s as implied by Dr Betts and Dr Edwards.
He used an example of how people could be fooled by a big lie he could have used any other example from the Stalin era or middle ages where the King or Pope is God’s anoninted representative on earth.
The IPPC reports may well be the state of the art in man made global warming, although better men and women than me have shown otherwise. What cannot be called into question is the deception created by the summary for policy makers.
I paraphrase ” Hey guys get those names no ones going to check whether they have pHd’s or not. This was pre Kyoto.
I pose one other queation imagine if all the billions wasted on climate change research and subsidies had been spent saving lives in the third world would it be tens of people or millions of people?
The big lie of the Nazi’s, Stalin, Pol pot resulted in millions of dead.
The big lie of the climate change community resulted in ????????? still counting?

Man Bearpig
Reply to  Stacey
November 27, 2014 6:46 am

Yes, that is how I read it too. I guess AGW proponents don’t like being a target and read more into what was said. Well, news for them we have been subjected to abuse, Some have even said we should be executed, have our houses burned down, etc, etc. And they come here whinging over something that was not said nor implied.
If they genuinely want discussion, why not make a post here? explain your position. There are many here that will question it, some will ridicule it but if you are able to cope with that, then that is called ‘discussion’

M Courtney
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 27, 2014 6:53 am

If they genuinely want discussion, why not make a post here?

This comment is a trifle misplaced, considering the authors of this very post.

Louis
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 27, 2014 10:55 am

Sorry M Courtney, but you cherry picked what you quoted. Man Bearpig asked the authors to make a post here that will “explain your position.” They have not done that yet. All they did was complain about the name calling while doing a little name calling themselves — “goose step backwards” indeed! We have people like the President of the United States linking us to the Nazis by calling us “deniers,” and they get upset about their side being called out for their use of propaganda? Both sides have resorted to ad homs. But if they really want to start a positive conversation, they should ignore the name-callers and state their position. Then we will have something to discuss and debate, unless, of course, they think the debate is over. In which case, there is nothing left to discuss, except why we think the world is flat and why we won’t accept their “established” science.

MCourtney
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 27, 2014 1:07 pm

Louis, the hostility shown in the comments does not encourage the next stage of debate. There needs to be the appearance of respect – we aren’t giving that.
The authors of this article have stepped onto the away pitch. They’ve made a move that shows respect. That should be recognised.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Man Bearpig
November 27, 2014 8:02 pm

MCourtney said:
“Louis, the hostility shown in the comments does not encourage the next stage of debate. There needs to be the appearance of respect – we aren’t giving that.
The authors of this article have stepped onto the away pitch. They’ve made a move that shows respect. That should be recognised.”
No they haven’t. A move of respect would be to argue that everyone including their side has made over the top statements and to point out their bona fides. Instead this entire piece is whinging that someone on the other side called them names and bluntly states that ‘Denier’ really isn’t all that bad, so we should just get over being upset to be called that. Do the authors chastise members from their ‘side’ when they write ridiculous hit pieces on skeptics? Do they reject the censorship at realclimate or skeptical science? Did they raise a cry about Lewandusky’s hit pieces?
They can clean up their own house first, if they want to pretend that they have the moral high ground here.

Chris B
Reply to  Stacey
November 27, 2014 7:31 am

Ummm, how on Earth is the Pope’s election an example of the Big Lie? I think this post is generally about unwarranted insults, no?

ferdberple
Reply to  Stacey
November 27, 2014 7:41 am

that is how I read Dr. Ball’s article. He wasn’t calling people Nazi’s. He was showing how the Big Lie works. The Nazi’s showed the world how it can be applied.

RLNorthrop
Reply to  ferdberple
November 27, 2014 10:25 am

I have been talking to my friends about AGW and using a lot of information from WUWT to support my conclusion that CO2 has nothing to do with Global Warming. One of the questions I always get is what is the motivation behind AGW proponents to distort science? Why would our President and many congressional leaders get on the AGW bandwagon if it will lead to de-industrializing our country and create economic chaos without solving any problems? A good question and one that Dr. Ball is attempting to answer. Does the answer come from the Club of Rome and others in the U.N. who would like to see one world government? Are Maurice Strong, Al Gore, John Holder and others the catalyst of this movement?
It all sounds so much like a conspiracy theory that it is hard to believe. So what is the answer? These people aren’t stupid. It is clear to me that those that promote the idea of AGW have an agenda that is not based in science. Wasn’t that the crux of Dr. Ball’s argument?

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  ferdberple
November 27, 2014 11:33 am

No ferdberple, I think people misunderstand, Hitler is explaining how others employ the big lie. Its not a statement of how he is going to do it. This is what makes the comparison so toxic
And yes I read Mein Kampf, Or rather tried to. Had to give up.
michael

gbaikie
Reply to  ferdberple
November 27, 2014 1:25 pm

“It all sounds so much like a conspiracy theory that it is hard to believe. So what is the answer? ”
Stupidity.
There is no smart evil.
Evil is layers and layers of stupidity.
People who are stupid will do anything to solve their imagined problems-
and such madness could be interpreted by others as being intelligent.
Action may be admirable and Hitler was a man of action- hence admired by the
German people, but he was also a certifiable idiot- despite some claims of him
being a genius.
Though power will tend make a person less intelligent- as power can be a potent
distraction.

Steve Fitzpatrick
November 27, 2014 5:56 am

It’s good that Tamsin and Richard were willing to formally reply to Tim Ball’s post. Even better that Anthony posts their reply. My experience is that it is more constructive to assume those who disagree with you do so in good faith than to assume they are simply ‘evil’, ‘corrupt’, ‘liars’, etc.
I trust Tamsin and Richard will have a similar reaction, and make similar comments, when they hear or read comments made about ‘deniers’ by climate scientists and green activists which are comparable (or worse!) than Tim Ball’s unfortunate comments.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Fitzpatrick
November 27, 2014 9:35 am

Even people of good will can pursue evil ends.
Just because they are polite while trying to destroy my families standard of living, doesn’t make them good people.

Professor Bob Ryan
November 27, 2014 5:59 am

I agree – name calling on either side does the debate no favours and science a disservice. There is a political dimension to climate science – obviously, and it is a shame that the political dimension and the imperatives that go with it emerged so early in the development of what is still a very immature discipline. It is nonsense to paint all climate scientists as charlatans just as it is to paint ‘skeptics’ as numskulls in the pay of big oil. Professor Betts and Dr Edwards make a very worthwhile riposte to the Ball article – I thought it was OTT and although I am more than happy to ‘mix it’ in academic debate I felt that the author went well beyond the limit of what is acceptable.
Like many readers of your excellent blog, Anthony, I do hope that your personal travails are being resolved.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Professor Bob Ryan
November 27, 2014 6:25 am

The evidence I’m sorry, is that overwhelmingly the name calling has been against sceptics. So, e.g. the BBC twice likened sceptics to paedophiles. This was seen as acceptable by the BBC – in contrast when some minor blogger likened the way Penn cleared a paedophile to their behaviour with Mann (not actually likening the two) Mann sued.
The simple truth I have observed is that sceptics usually talk about the science – and alarmist with no leg to stand on with the science usually resort to responding with personal attacks
There is absolutely no comparison between the appalling NAZI style abuse of power by the very higher echelons of the alarmist organisations and the almost infinitesimal name calling by a very view individual sceptics.

Reply to  Professor Bob Ryan
November 27, 2014 6:30 am

Thanks Bob!

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 28, 2014 8:59 am

Tamsin. Still waiting for those links to your good works . In case you just forgot , you said ” We have various links we can point you to”
Well point to them.

k scott denison
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 28, 2014 9:31 am

Suspect it will be a long wait Jim. To this point they’ve responded only to posts that support their statement.

jolly farmer
Reply to  Professor Bob Ryan
November 27, 2014 10:48 pm

I am glad that you see that the Betts/Edwards response was OTT. But I wonder how clear you have made your opinion that clisci is “still a “very immature discipline” ?

Professor Bob Ryan
Reply to  jolly farmer
November 28, 2014 12:25 am

Well, Mr Farmer, I will make an exception and reply to someone who uses a pseudonym. You clearly haven’t put my name into the search bar for this site. That would have saved you the trouble of commenting.

Editor
November 27, 2014 6:00 am

Thank you, Tamsin and Richard, for your post and your concerns.
And thank you, Anthony, for posting it.
Cheers
PS: To those celebrating the holiday today, Happy Thanksgiving. And to everyone else, have a great day.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 27, 2014 6:31 am

and thank you Bob

Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 6:54 am

Tamsin: Have you ever considered that, although you are trying to be objective and scientific, your work and that of other climate scientists is being used and abused by politicians in control of the entire operation? Vide the comparison of the Summary for Policy Makers with the substance of the scientific portion of IPCC reports.

David Wells
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 7:52 am

Tamsin I think you over reacted Adolf did not invent psychology he just used to deploy his chosen political regime and Tim was not in any way implying that some folk involved in the climate arena had certain unwelcome tendencies but I did view your spat with Matt Ridley on Newsnight and you said as I remember to Matt “your are a journalist” or words to that effect, implication Matt was not really qualified even to be involved in the debate but of course you are?
It is not warming, fact, all climate models have failed, fact. Your special subject is climate modelling so I would not be surprised that you need to reinforce yours and everyone else’s conviction that they are valid when the evidence to date would encourage anyone with a modicum of interest that to recognise that their predictive or projective ability is zero therefore why should the taxpayer continue to fund this malady?
“To capture the public imagination we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to strike the right balance between being effective and being honest.’ Dr Stephen Schneider, Discover October 1989.
The IPCC came into being in 1989 and since that time the IPCC and those involved have been promoting the idea that for all of that time the planet has been warming and that it is about to get much worse whilst observations have fundamentally contradicted that belief and that assertion.
Matt Ridley asked the question he is a luke warmer and likes to sit on the fence by you declined to recognise the simple fact that for the last 18 years and 1 month it has not warmed whereas even the IPCC and our Met office have at least tried to dignify their rattled flawed rhetoric by reluctantly admitting that it just is not warmed and therefore climate modelling as a discipline is ridiculed.
Even now forecasting weather remains no better than chance yet predicated on Co2 you would have us believe that we can predict or project how our climate will change in 100 years time when over the past 26 years the evidence is that you cannot.
This morning the Today program on the BBC touted yet another Royal Society report based upon the Malthusian concept that we were outgrowing our planet, there would be no food and warming would be unstoppable because of atmospheric Co2 all based upon computer modelling without any recognition that observation contradicts this assumption.
When climate modellers as a group begin to face reality and cease making fear laden reports then and only then will their contribution be valid.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 27, 2014 2:14 pm

Back atcha Bob.

Admin
November 27, 2014 6:05 am

A lot of terrible things are done in the name of climate, such as biofuel subsidies. Even former UN personnel admits biofuel subsidies hurt poor people http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/nov/26/burning-food-crops-biofuels-crime-humanity .
Alarmists justify such ugliness on the grounds that a little harm now is better than far greater harm in the future. One way to derail such rationalisation is to dismantle the claims of “far greater harm in the future”.
But we also need to make sure people fully understand the magnitude of the harm their actions cause, and how much worse it could become.

Andyj
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 27, 2014 9:03 am

Rric,
Where’s bloody Al Gore in this. Oh sorry, forgot. A socialist thing. *wink*

November 27, 2014 6:05 am

Here’s some more Nazi stuff for you to choke on, Mr Betts. Let’s see more of that and less silly dinner parties with fraud deniers.
Lessons from anti progress ideology
“We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”
Ernst Lehmann, Biologischer Wille. Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich, München, 1934
alturl.com/xxmqe

whiten
Reply to  Eric Smith (@eric144144)
November 27, 2014 10:52 am

Eric
Agw stand on the premise of that very seperation of humanity from nature.. 🙂
Man-made and all that, you know.
Erns seems to have got it right after all, as far as that goes (the own destruction).
The only possible separation of humankind from nature happends in the fictitious AGW idea or a fictitious Nazi propaganda and dogma…….and we know the price incurred and payed in the case of the Nazis.
cheers

Viking Explorer
Reply to  Eric Smith (@eric144144)
November 27, 2014 7:28 pm

Whiten, Eric’s point is that the rhetoric is very similar.

whiten
Reply to  Viking Explorer
November 28, 2014 5:44 am

Viking
My point is that is more than similar, quasy the same… probably even worse than:-)

davideisenstadt
November 27, 2014 6:06 am

the chutzpah!
these guys were part of a group that promoted the big lie…over and over again, using goebbels’ techniques. if they get compared to a historical figure once in a while (like george bush had been, numerous times) well, so be it.
no tears shed here.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  davideisenstadt
November 27, 2014 9:44 am

Davideisensradt. Don’t ever forget that Goebbel was a doctor also. You are right on other than that. I would like to know from Anthony what he thought was “over the top”. The topic that Tim Ball was writing about is more important than all the science and mathematics because most of the voters who elect the politicians that do us the most harm do not understand the science. They believe the MSM. The MSM believe NASA, NOAA, GISS on and on and on. When I try to convince some voters that they are wrong the first thing I am asked to explain is why would these scientist who work for these important institutions tell us lies. We need some good explanations for the “WHY” and how could so many be so very wrong. Has this kind of thing ever happened before. Dr Ball was kind enough to give us his ideas and also ask the readers for theirs. So far he got nearly 600 (565 for the nit picking mathematicians who just love to show off their stuff). My guess is there will be one less skeptic doctor and two more warmist doctors on this site. It is doctors and professors and scientist that have brought on this calamity and it is going to take them to stop it. The “let’s be nice plan” does not work. Plenty of good evidence for that. Start with Neville Chamberlain. Mr peace in our time waving that letter for Adolf.
A step backwards? Come on Anothony. What was over the top?

Mick
Reply to  Jim Francisco
November 27, 2014 11:43 am

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Sinclair Upton

Mick
Reply to  Jim Francisco
November 27, 2014 11:46 am

Upton Sinclair

Evans Ronald
Reply to  Jim Francisco
November 27, 2014 4:50 pm

Now I detest Warming W……s as much as the next chap but, fair dos, invoking Neville Chamberlain is not justified. He was not a fool or a coward or a scoundrel. He tried his best to avoid a catastrophic war and he should not be condemned for failing to foresee the future. Wisdom in retrospect is not impressive.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  Jim Francisco
November 27, 2014 6:48 pm

clubfooted, goebbels was as well, IIRC.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Jim Francisco
November 28, 2014 9:53 am

Evans Ronald. I did not call PM Chamberlain a fool, coward or a scoundrel. You have done what many others on this thread have done and that is saying that something was said that wasnt. My point was that appeasement doesn’t work. I think that if our president FDR would have had first rate military instead of 17th and he went with PM Chamberlain to talk with AH, WW2 could have been avoided. That could have saved millions of lives and gallons of gasoline.

David A
Reply to  Jim Francisco
November 30, 2014 2:26 am

Evans R says “Wisdom in retrospect is not impressive”
============================================
On the other hand, learning from the past is not only impressive, but essential.
“Such is the nature of the Tyrant, when he first appears , he is a protector.” (Plato)
Political Power gained through ANY means IS the history of mankind. A politician failing to honestly representing to the general public their true goal, power OVER others as well as wealth, fits the definition of a “conspiracy”, the synonyms are: plot, intrigue, cabal refer to surreptitious or covert schemes to accomplish some end, most often an illegal, evil or simply immoral one.
The long list of quotes from leaders of the IPCC and “Green” industry aptly demonstrate the political nature of CAGW, as they request ever more funds and central power over nations. That politicians lie, that is conspire to misrepresent their motives, should not be considered on outrageous charge. That some innocent people believe the lies, should likewise, not be considered shocking. That observers of this phenomena as applied to the promoters of CAGW, should find similarities to the past methods of crowd control and public persuasion used by past totalitarian statist with tyrannical aims, is also not surprising.
The economic harm of making energy expensive is, in my view, a terrible and highly immoral crime against humanity. Economic collapse invariably lead to wars. This struggle for international control over the multi trillion dollar energy market (the largest monetary market in the world) ad the associated power inherent in taxing the very air humankind breathes, is, in my view, highly immoral, and likely to end in catastrophic failure of a breaking world.
Anthony Watts, since Tim Ball article does little more then raise the same concern as my above post, please consider taking back your “over the top” label. In my view it is a necessary consideration well supported by the evidence, and human nature as seen repeatedly in human history.

Mike Mangan
November 27, 2014 6:06 am

Please apply Eschenbach rule and quote precisely where Ball accuses Alarmists of being Nazis.

Ian W
Reply to  Mike Mangan
November 27, 2014 10:40 am

The answer is that he didn’t – he was saying that the methodology of the ‘Big L ie’ was described by Hitler in Mein Kampf and that the same ‘Big L ie’ methodology was being used by politicians basing their l ies on the projections from the failed models of climate scientists.

Odin2
Reply to  Ian W
November 27, 2014 3:21 pm

Exactly. The methodology is the same. It was probably a mistake to mention Hitler, because that gives the AGW proponents the chance to cry foul and deflect. There certainly has to be a paper on the big lie theory.

chris y
November 27, 2014 6:07 am

We at WUWT were also disappointed that so few climate scientists distanced themselves from views such as those summarized here-
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/throwing-the-hate-crime-grenade/

climatereason
Editor
Reply to  chris y
November 27, 2014 6:22 am

Up-thread I said I agreed fully with Richards and Tamsin’s comments. However it does take two to tango and both ‘sides’ – must stop their silly and childish name calling and innuendo and work more constructively to determine whether the ups and downs of our climate can be attributed to mans efforts or whether we are a bystander.
In that respect the late great Hubert Lamb-first Director of CRU- said this shortly before his death;
“The idea of climate change has at last taken on with the public after generations which assumed that climate could be taken as constant. But it is easy to notice the common assumption that mans science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environment must be due to us. It is good for us to be more alert and responsible in our treatment of the environment, but not to have a distorted view of our own importance. Above all, we need more knowledge, education and understanding in these matters.”
Hubert Lamb December 1994
He also said about historic temperature reconstructions that ‘We can understand the tendency but not the precision.’ This relates to the overconfidence I referenced in my earlier post. We don’t know to tenths of a degree the ‘global’ temperature’ Sea Surface temperatures or Deep ocean Temperatures (amongst many other matrix) and should stop proclaiming we do.
Richard Betts-a very reasonable person in my view- was at the same climate conference in Exeter as I was when he heard Thomas Stocker say we did not have the technology to measure the temperature of the deep oceans-referring to anything below 2000 metres. The average ocean depth is 4000 metres.
tonyb

Stephen Richards
Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 7:36 am

Hubert Lamb also saw the way his climate unit was being manipulated by the UKMO and others into the now well known “humans and captilism are evils and must be destroyed. He was very, very disappointed as am I. I remember the UKMO before this scam became their lifeblood. It was honerable, gentille and honest.

mdmnmdllr
Reply to  chris y
November 27, 2014 6:41 am

Bravo.
Two wrongs do not make a right … but there is certainly an overabundance of hypocrisy inherent in the two authors’ position when they choose to take on Dr. Ball splinter in the eye, and utterly ignore the world-sized log in their own. Chris Y’s noting of the post and Joanne Nova’s blog is timely and dead on target. Frankly, Anthony, you would do well to repost it to WUWT as a further counterpoint in this debate.
I would also say that calling something what it is – as in comparing AGW tactics to “the big lie” as proposed by that most unfortunate and evil of men in his seminal book – is hardly an invalid or inappropriate action. George Santayana’s maxim is timely here: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Food for thought, my friends, as we consider our blessings – among them the gift of freedom of speech – on this Thanksgiving day.

Radical Leftist Fun Guy
Reply to  mdmnmdllr
November 28, 2014 10:44 pm

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Indeed. So it’s definitely ironic that so many people, including you, have no idea that Hitler was not “promoting” the ‘big lie’ but was instead complaining about its usage against the German people.

Reply to  chris y
November 27, 2014 6:59 am

I was new to the online world then – hadn’t yet plucked up the courage to post at Bishop Hill. Needless to say I don’t find it productive or helpful to call sceptics Nazi appeasers etc either!

whiten
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 9:57 am

Hello Dr. Tamsin Edwards.
Let me thank you first for the time and effort towards this blog post.
Is good and productive to have as large as possible a spectrum of opinions and conclusions from people like you and Dr. Tim Ball, even in the case while such opinions contrary to each other. Is productive I think, while pluralism in a given subject is allowed without projudice.
Said all this, in my opinion, even while I may have some reservation about Dr. Tim Ball’s blog posts in general, I still don’t think the one blog post in question was about name calling or demonisation. After all Nazis were humans too.
Forgetting and ignoring the history or prohibiting historical comparisions (for whatever reason) may and could lead to repetance of same or similar mistakes and crimes.
In my opinion also seems to be productive enough to highlight a matter in such a view point……..you see you here and participating by initiating and expressing an argument and opinion in accord to Dr. Ball’s opinion.
I myself appreciate it a lot…..and hopefully you and Professor Betts will be more inclined in the future to participate and engage with your own blog posts here at WUWT, especially in scientific themes about climate and Climatology, if that won’t be to much for you. Every little helps, I think.
Now if I may ask one question.
What would you call the actions of scientists, mostly in the field of Climatology, actions that lead and cause manipulation, destruction, loss and jeopardising of actual real raw climate data ??! (regardless of the motive)(especially in the case of such unprecedented climatic condition)
Thanks
cheers

jolly farmer
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 11:02 pm

Could you not pluck up the courage to object to the use of “denier” other than on sceptic sites?
Rather than say you do not find it “productive or helpful to call sceptics Nazi appeasers” could you not just say that it is wrong?

Interested Observer
November 27, 2014 6:08 am

A big step forward would be if “climate scientists” were to stop relying on GIGO models and instead stuck to collecting data in the real world. The Earth is a very large and complex system which has only been studied with modern instruments for a very short period. My take on all that I’ve read is that we still know very little about how our planet works and what is most needed is large volumes of data collected over long periods of time covering all the ways in which energy flows around our planet. Only then will we be able to make sense of any changes which are happening.
It would be a big step forward if “climate scientists” stopped claiming to be able to predict the coming apocalypse based on such scant information. It just makes them look like a bunch of religious nuts wearing “The End Is Nigh!” sandwich boards, shouting at passers-by to “Repent or else”.

James Allison
Reply to  Interested Observer
November 27, 2014 9:58 am

+1

Scottish Sceptic
November 27, 2014 6:11 am

Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards: “It’s especially frustrating to see him write this so soon after the productive dinner at Nic Lewis’s place, where the attendees agreed on the need to depolarise and detoxify the climate discussion.
If you wanted to detoxify the discussion then you need to admit we have been right all along that the climate models could not predict the climate.
Instead, the reports after those meetings were completely intolerable and suggested that far from accepting that we have always been right, you or someone in your circle suggested sceptics had somehow changed our views and become part of your delusional “consensus”.
Sceptics don’t want consensus! We just want good science. And when you and your circle are prepared to accept that and reach the standards of good science that is necessary if people or governments are to rely on your advice that is: science substantiated by the facts – you will not only be a sceptic but also a real scientist.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Agreed! +1

jolly farmer
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 27, 2014 11:06 pm

RB and TE are not real scientists. Only in it for the money.
Dame Julia: “Bend over, Mr Betts!”
RB: “Yes, Ma’am”

Lance of BC
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 28, 2014 12:06 am

Agreed +1
PS- Sceptics come in many forms, be they right or left(I would be classified) or middle/Lukewarmers, we only seek the truth.
Truth is OUR 3% of a trace gas(CO2) does not control the planets temperature OR weather.
PPS- The billion a day our world pays for post modern soothsayer/CAGWism, is now NOT going to helping the 2,000.000 dying of malnutrition a year on this planet, not including those lacking clean water and cheap energy to lift themselves out of poverty and death using CO2 omitting energy sources is a crime against humanity.

Mike Mangan
November 27, 2014 6:12 am

Sneering at skeptics for crying “Hoax!” is in itself a propaganda technique. I’ve seen thousands of comments where skeptics are accused of being conspiracists without them ever even mentioning the subject. It’s a favored pejorative among Alarmists.

P@ Dolan
November 27, 2014 6:14 am

While I’m sure that other quotes to illustrate the principles involved could’ve been found, others that weren’t so tainted by their association with the author—as is the obvious problem of quoting Hitler, or Mao, or Pol Pot—with respect, I believe that the good professors are ducking the issue here, like a person who can’t argue against my position so instead claims that they find my attitude offensive.
I would guess that Dr Ball used the quotes he did very deliberately to ensure that the post was read. Tactical mistake? Strategically smart? Time will tell. But the truth is that there have been and continue to be many many proponents of AGW who are actively trying to deceive people, though they will call it persuasion, to get them to behave a certain, “green” way. There is no escaping the fact that proponents of AGW have actively engaged in abuses of the “precautionary principle”, abuses of the peer-review process, intimidation (as revealed by climategate emails) in order to prevent the opposing views from being aired—
These are not things which can be swept under the carpet. The impact of these deceitful tactics has been detrimental to life and quality of life around the globe. It has been said that the impact of Rachel Carson’s “The Silent Spring” and subsequent banning of DDT, often attributed to her influence, has been responsible for millions and millions of preventable deaths. I guess that’s a matter of perspective for some people.
But viewed in those terms, what responsibility do the proponents of AGW policies bear in the deaths of people from famine and freezing because of the artificially high energy prices around the world? When the impact of the policies they’re pushing can be seen right now in the high costs of energy, and the impact of that cost is undeniable? When those policies are being pushed over an unproven theory, when everyone knows that the science is NOT settled—or there would not be so many excuses for the as yet unexplained “Pause” which is inexplicable in any of the myriad, obviuosly non-omnipotent GCMs upon which all these policies are based—-and the scare stories continue to get more over-the-top and more shrill and yet more and more people continue to live and die in poverty and misery, we still have people who want to cry, “I’m offended by your comparison to an offensive person from the past” but do not want to speak to the substance of the argument itself?
Note carefully that the authors don’t refute the core arguments Dr Ball has raised. They piously claim that he’s sunk to a new low, that he threatens any useful discussion, yet they offer none.
I don’t accuse them personally of any of the many ugly actions which have been taken by the likes of Michael Mann, Al Gore, et al.
But their apparent refusal to confront the plain fact that many who share their beliefs about man’s role in global warming have resorted to lies and deception in order to forward their “cause” and NOT to increase our scientific knowledge, to the detriment of millions around the world, goes far to explain why many of us are very frustrated with them.
No— I don’t want to appear to speak for anyone else. It is why I am so frustrated with them.
Like his discourse or not, Dr. Ball makes a strong case, and it deserves an honest answer from the proponents of AGW.

mpainter
Reply to  P@ Dolan
November 27, 2014 9:30 am

P@Dolan:
“Note carefully that the authors don’t refute the core arguments that Dr. Ball has raised but they piously claim that he has sunk to new low…”
Richard Betts and Tasmin Edwards, so long the alarmism continues, which alarmism you do nothing to discourage in your one-sided post, you can take your complaints about skeptical viewpoints to SKS or HotWhopper or whatever suitable forum.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  P@ Dolan
November 27, 2014 10:55 am

Wow!! I don’t think anyone could had made that point any better. It should be considered that few would have ever heard of AH and his boys if the German economy was not deeply in the toilet. The whole worlds economy will be in the toilet if the alarmists get their way. Then the crazies will cause some real trouble.

jolly farmer
Reply to  P@ Dolan
November 27, 2014 11:09 pm

Will RB and TE reply to this?
Not likely.

November 27, 2014 6:17 am

I am sure both these authors are warm, wonderful and caring people but I am skeptical of their response as written here. Maybe they could help by….
Would it be possible for Dr. Betts and Dr. Edwards to provide their own examples of publicly calling out individuals who referred to skeptics as ‘deniers’, or those who call for censorship or criminal charges for skeptics? Any actual examples of their walking-their-talk for better discourse on their side of the discourse?
If they have examples of publicly doing so, I’d be happy to publish the examples on my blog, as I’m sure Anthony would. Maybe they can start by listing their articles calling out the plentiful alarmist miscreants who have personally attacked J.Curry on blogs and Twitter (I don’t know…Michael Mann comes to mind for some reason).
Personally, I also think the discourse would improve immensely if the Betts/Edwards of the world would start calling out the ludicrous, fear-mongering catastrophic climate headlines that populates the alarmist-sphere? Seriously, how hard would it be for either of these brave people to do so? If they want to raise the debate above the tabloid headlines, all they have to do is start calling B.S. on the blatant attempts to scare the public – this would be comparable to shooting fish in the barrel.
Again, if they have examples of doing so previously, I would love to see/read. Hmmm…maybe Anthony could convince this team to write a monthly article for WUWT that debunks the current scary climate “science” headlines, which by doing so, would help refocus the climate debate on what is truly important. Objectively, they really could help raise the skeptics out the propaganda-muck that is constantly created by the loonieness of catastrophic-science.
Okay, maybe the above is too difficult for the B&E team. So let’s start easy.
Any chance they can write an article calling out the prominent alarmists who actually dress up as Nazis and who also published the absolute rubbish regarding the “97%” meme or that CAGW skeptics don’t believe in the moon landings or constantly speak of a fossil-fuel conspiracy behind skeptics? It would be a small start, but a meaningful step in the right direction telling the alarmist-sphere they will be targeted for the rhetorical excesses, not just Dr.Tim Ball and other skeptics.

Knutsfordian
Reply to  C3 Editor
November 27, 2014 9:09 am

Try Lawrence Solomons’s book The Deniers for a start. Book discussion here.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?200424-1/book-discussion-deniers

k scott denison
Reply to  C3 Editor
November 27, 2014 9:59 am

C3, I suspect you will be waiting a long time for the proof that they walk the talk.

jolly farmer
Reply to  C3 Editor
November 27, 2014 11:13 pm

Any chance that RB/TE will reply to this?
No.

Brian Borders
November 27, 2014 6:18 am

As one of the “little people” following the Climate Change war, I am open-minded enough to understand that elites aren’t necessarily conspiring outright. I’m sure the President, Al Gore, Prince Charles, media types like Charlie Rose are probably true believers in CAGW. (Okay, Obama is probably cynically using the issue to push an agenda.)
Frankly, I didn’t take away anything negative or extreme from Dr Tim Ball’s article. I do think it’s useful to keep an open mind about the consequences of policy by the more powerful in our world, and their world view.
I agree with John Leggett, November 27, 2014 at 5:33 am, and Richard M. The actual debate is only occurring in the blogosphere at this time, away from the attention of the less informed. Maybe it would be a good idea for Prof Richard Betts and Dr Tamsin Edwards to submit their piece to the New York Times and Real Climate, for example. To only bring their essay to a skeptic site is insulting.

John Endicott
November 27, 2014 6:20 am

Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards,
While I agree with you that such talk isn’t helpful, where were you for the past couple of decades when such unhelpful talk was (and still is) being spouted by “your side”? When you start taking your fellow travellers to task for their language, then and only then can you be taken seriously when you take the other side to task.

climatereason
Editor
Reply to  John Endicott
November 27, 2014 6:28 am

John
There has sometimes been too much deferring to those climate scientists with big reputations by some on the consensus side and not enough querying.
It puts me in mind of this Moroccan proverb;
‘If at noon the King says it is night, will you say; behold, the stars?’
tonyb

PiperPaul
Reply to  climatereason
November 27, 2014 7:25 am

Let’s not forget the mainstream media holding the megaphone and not asking any tough questions (for political reasons or because the climate hysteria narrative suits their purposes for the attention-seeking headlines and soundbites).

Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 6:46 am

I hesitated whether to include that tweet to Michael, and will probably regret it (and will definitely be criticised by ‘my side’ for it). I didn’t include it to gain favour with those here who hate him. I included it – perhaps a little hastily and unwisely – to show that climate scientists do disagree with each other, publicly, on the use of polarising rhetoric. To be fair to Michael here, he quickly calmed down and retracted (deleted) the original tweet.

Steve (Paris)
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 7:20 am

Please explain?

davideisenstadt
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 7:38 am

has he retracted his slew of Koch denial machine tweets?
has he stepped back from his attacks on judy curry, who, BTW, didn’t even consider filing suit against him?
do you have a rough idea of the number of times the words “disinformation” or “fraud” were used by mann to describe people who didn’t agree with him?

Mike Freeman
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 9:02 am

The tweet is hardly an admonishment in the use of the term, indeed, it appears to be a tacit approval for the use of the term. This sudden appeal for ‘civility’ strikes me as having a high likelihood of being used as a Trojan Horse by the Mann’s and Lewandowsky’s of the world; while you may very well be thoroughly sincere in your intentions, the skeptical community would be wise to hold a suspicious point of view lest we get caught with our pants down after a declaration of “peace in our time.”

Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 9:25 am

There’s a subtlety here that should be made clear
When you criticized Michael Mann
You objected to him using language too grim
For a “colleague,” though he can
Use exactly that tack when he wants to attack
A mere skeptic! That’s implied
By the words that you used. Thus our kind are abused
Stopping that you should have tried.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

Cyril Vibert
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 10:34 am

Tamsin, show us where you have rebuked Mann for denigrating a sceptical scientist.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 11:03 am

Tamsin, in your final email you wrote, “I repeatedly defend Barry because he works hard *not* to be Anthony Watts.
Anthony Watts has bent over backwards to be honest and ethical. The evidence for this is overwhelming on WUWT itself; in black-and-white. Anyone who frequents WUWT can’t help but be favorably impressed with Anthony’s ethical standard.
That first statement of your final-thoughts email, representing the distilled essence of your views, shows that you suffer from an inverted ethical perception.
The fact that you made that statement to Peter Gleick, on “Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:29 PM,” entertaining him in a conversation about ethics, in which you denigrate Antony Watts, well after it was fully established that Peter Gleick himself is a liar, a fabricator of documents, and a character assassin is a clear indication that you live in an ethical fairy-land.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 11:25 am

After investigating, I have to take back my “well after” statement. It seems Peter Gleick was outed in February 2012.
So, Tamsin, the irony is that you were discussing the ethics of the climate debate with Peter Gleick at the very same time he was stealing documents, fabricating documents, and engaging in character assassination. Not “well after.” My apologies for the mistake.
So, what do you think? Is it now your view that Peter Gleick even less ethical than Anthony Watts? (just to say: that’s an ironic question for the inference-challenged).
And, while I have your attention, can you describe what evidence it is you think establishes “a discernible human influence” on climate?

Jimbo
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 12:46 pm

Tasmin,
Check this out! Here are just a couple of images that were at one time on the SkS server. I agree that people should not compare themselves with the Nastis.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1_herrcook.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/herrtankboy.jpg

k scott denison
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 1:56 pm

With all due respect, Dr. Edwards, this “proof” that you chastise both sides equally is laughable.

PhilCP
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 2:23 pm

Tasmin,
Although I appreciate that you’ve had the courage to criticize MM, I would like to note two points:
1) As others have noted above, your tweet seems to approve the use of the word “denier” against skeptics in general, just not colleagues. For example, Anthony is not one of M. Mann’s colleagues, according to you, it’s implicitly ok to call him a denier. You could have been more firm. It’s not OK to call anyone a Nazi except for an actual Nazi.
2) You admit that you might take flak from your side for posting that tweet, criticizing Mr Superstar Mann. This proves that you don’t really think that your side has changed its slanderous, intimidating and bullying ways. This is the complete opposite of the intent of the original article, where you say essentially that times have changed and alarmists are no longer bullies.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 4:42 pm

Tamsin
Thanks for confronting Mann.

jolly farmer
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 11:18 pm

How very courageous of you, Ms Edwards.
Take you seriously? As a scientist? Really?

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 28, 2014 11:10 am

Please excuse me Tamsin. Somewhere in this thread I challenged you for your links that proved you have argued against the harsh language. Well you did and they did show that you have tried. I hope you don’t suffer any harsh treatment from your side, many others have. Tempers do run high when both sides think that the other side is causing the demise of mankind.

Marion
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 29, 2014 1:50 am

Tamsin,
I have carefully read Dr Tim Ball’s post and simply cannot find any examples of the ‘calling climate scientists Nazis’ or ‘pointless, playground insults’ implied in the above post – perhaps you would be good enough to actually cite those relevant phrases at which you took such offense. It seems to me that most of the invective is actually contained in your own response!
I also seem to recall your own attack on the Great Global Warming Swindle headed as
“Climate Change Denial”
http://www.academia.edu/1740608/Climate_Change_Denial
Nor do I accept without question the credibility of those who signed the Julia Slingo petition (as both you and Richard Betts did) released just after Climategate that vouched for the ‘professional integrity’ of ‘thousands of scientists across the world’ and ‘That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method’ and still have no regrets for doing so, particularly in the light of what the Climategate mails exposed.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/25/maddox-prize.html?currentPage=2#comments
and those attempts by Richard Betts to promote David Karoly as someone doing ‘a good job’ on a Bishop Hill thread despite his disgraceful attack on Professor Bob Carter, (see same thread quoted above)

Beale
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
December 1, 2014 11:01 pm

Following the very first link in Edwards’s comment, we find her explaining that the word ‘denier’ is no big deal, and isn’t meant to suggest Holocaust denial – two falsehoods.

jgmccabe
November 27, 2014 6:21 am

I concur with those others here who have read the original article and have not seen any reference to alarmists let alone climate scientists as Nazis. All I’ve seen is Tim Ball use a quote from a very high profile deceiver on how easy it is to encourage people that your deceptions are true and valid. It seems to me that Betts and Edwards are trying to brew further discontent by this response.

Chilli
November 27, 2014 6:23 am

> We were disappointed that so few commenters distanced themselves from his views
I started reading Tim’s article but found it to be rather silly (and long) so skipped it and thought no further about. I supspect many other readers skipped it too or just started commenting on the interesting question of why the CAGW movement had been so politically successful. Going back now and reading the comments I find many interesting and thoughtful. On reflection perhaps more people should have called Dr Ball on his hyperbole – but frankly, us sceptics have become so used to being called evil deniers in the pay of big oil – that silly insults from either side hardly register anymore.

Harold
November 27, 2014 6:28 am

Repeal Godwin’s law. I, for one, admit to enjoying a good “downfall” spoof.

David Wells
November 27, 2014 6:29 am

This morning the Royal Society released yet another report effectively enthusing about the Malthusian argument which Tim mentioned in his article which in the Royal Societies eyes would be made worse by rising levels of atmospheric Co2 even though it is not warming. Whilst Edwards and Betts remain consistently biased apologists for their deformed, defamed and flawed computer models which have failed completely to project or predict how our climate will behave then in my humble opinion I don’t see that anything Tim said has not be said before. I started to again Christopher Bookers book the Real Global Warming Disaster which quite legitimately records the process from where this climate deranged phenomena started to where it is not which is a completely contradicted basket case. The passage from which Tim quoted was no more than a qualified assessment of how fraudsters reel in their prey, the psychology is important and not its supposed connotations with Adolf.
If the passaged quoted was from a phycology textbook no one would have questioned its significance but because it was an extract from Mein kampf the prissy little darlings get all uppity thinking they are being aligned with Adolf but that was not the point Tim was making.
Tim like Booker just identified the processes that Maurice Strong and Stephen Schneider deployed in order to use their political conniving to further their political cause. It was and remains a political connivance and if people are concerned about the deceitful nature of those whose intention it is to deceive then we are all beyond redemption.
All the text did was to expose the thought process of people like Bernie Madoff and his pyramid selling hoax, are we saying then that clever guys who do their research should not reveal that research lest people who are most reluctant to admit their possible human foibles might feel transgressed and uncomfortable that their chosen path in life could be considered a mite dubious, Oh dear.
Remember this Tamsin Edwards appeared on BBC TV and professed her absolute confidence in the value of her climate models, like Joanna Haigh she said they were beyond reproach that they are giving us a really true picture of what happens in our climate except that this is completely untrue but she wants us to believe that it is.
Think this quote really does explain exactly what Tim was getting at and the thought process behind the political motivation of the UN/IPCC for goodness sake are we now saying that Maurice Strong and Stephen Schneider are saints beyond suspicion, I beg to differ.
“To capture the public imagination we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to strike the right balance between being effective and being honest.’ Dr Stephen Schneider, Discover, October 1989.
According to RSS/UAH there has been no warming distinguishable from zero for 26 years, flat for 18 years and 1 month and the trend is down since 2001 whilst one quarter of all Co2 was emitted between 2001 and 2010 and the temperature has not blinked and Tamsin feels it really awful that her blinkered attitude should be question and the possibility that there is a degree of underhandedness in the IPCC activist inspired hoax which is discussed frequently on this website is unfair, unfair to who exactly those who conspired to delude us into believing that we were all going to fry and according to the Royal Society, die a horrible death from starvation and overwhelming heat, please give me a break.

Jan Christoffersen
Reply to  David Wells
November 27, 2014 10:13 am

David,
For clarity, please shorten your sentences and, otherwise, use some punctuation. In general, some comments here become unintelligible ramblings due to the sloppy use of English, normally a fine expressive language.

knr
November 27, 2014 6:32 am

I wonder if the authors will ever get around to condemning the repeated and extreme attacks on sceptics , will included calling for them to be jailed , forcible tattooed and worse or will they find that the one place they do not wish to look is under their own doorstep?
When Richards and Tamsin’s are as willing to take on the ‘professionals’ working in their own areas that use this technique as part of their ‘science’ they be in much better place to lecture others on why they should not do it.
In short, to avoid the charge of hypocrisy but best not to act like a hypocrite in the first place.

Reply to  knr
November 27, 2014 6:53 am

See above

CW
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 10:06 am

If you truly believe your models reflect the climate accurately, why not publish the code used–the equations of state–the multivariable functions that describe your insights–let other scientists view your formulations. All you do is infer your “models” reflect the “true” analogue of climate….please, try to be humble, as any true scientist would be in the search for truth.

scf
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 12:15 pm

I’ve gotta agree with many of the responses to you here. You said Michael Mann’s use of the word “denier” against a professional climate scientist was “strong”. Seriously? This sounds like tacit approval for use of the term against ordinary rubes like me. You said you might regret posting that tweet here, when in reality it sounds like a pretty weak and paltry comment to someone who routinely tells people they are part of the “Koch denial machine”. Then you give this same person credit for retracting that one tweet.
In your other link you show yourself challenging Peter Gleick. Good for you. As others have pointed out, Peter Gleick is a liar, a fabricator of documents, and a character assassin, as has been shown when he attempted to pass off falsified documents to discredit people he disagreed with. So I am underwhelmed by your outreach.
Point us to a place where you defended Professor Lindzen, Steve Macintyre, or another prominent and civil skeptic. These people, who have shown utmost restraint and civility, have been savagely attacked by the other side.
Frankly, I found Tim Ball’s piece to be a bore and over the top. But that post was a needle in the haystack of invective and hatred emanating from the other side of the debate, the utter falsehoods and demonization of skeptic views. Also keep in mind that Dr Ball has been sued by Mann, that person whom you’ve credited for retracting a tweet. So perhaps he has reason for strong words himself.
Keep it civil? The word “denier” is not “strong”. It’s rude, it’s insulting, it’s denigrating, and it has become commonplace in use by your side of the debate. To my utter disbelief, that horrible invective has become commonly used by your side, not only by activists but literally by professional scientists. If you ever expect civility to break out, it will never happen until that word is no longer used at all.
No doubt you yourself are showing civility and I applaud you for it. But you are surrounded by people who are not. This has warped your outlook on the debate, to the point where you think that taking a small stand against the likes of Gleick and Mann is a measurable step. It is not. It is like trying to stop a waterfall with a bucket. Like I said before, you would need to challenge the vast hordes of unethical scientists using the word “denier” on a regular basis, the vast reams of false and outlandish “research” on your side, not the most horrific offenders like Mann and Gleick, if you wish to show us a measure of real intentions to change the civility of the debate.
One more thing: I think it is the height of arrogance (on the part of Watts as well) to think that a pleasurable dinner amongst a bunch of people from either side is an olive branch that has any significance to the millions of other people involved in the debate. You guys have a nice dinner while “denier” rubes like me cannot utter our opinions in public without being attacked. I don’t recall being invited to your dinner.

k scott denison
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 1:58 pm

Dr Edwards, your tweet example is, in a word, laughable.

jolly farmer
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 11:31 pm

“See above” does not address the point.
Are you a pimp, a prostitute, or both?
I suppose that you find salary statements on (or under?) your doorstep (figuratively speaking)? So perhaps you are the latter?
Feel free to reply.

Admin
November 27, 2014 6:34 am

Jason Jay Lee’s manifesto, when he stormed the offices of the Discovery Channel in 2010
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/leemanifesto.pdf
Background story
http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/198433/
Was Jason mentally ill before becoming obsessed with green catastrophism, or did he become mentally ill because of his contact with green catastrophism?
WUWT has published other posts about the mental strain alarmists endure.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/15/a-climate-of-despair-climategate-had-more-effect-than-we-realize/
If someone truly thinks the world is about to end, their mind will visit some pretty strange places – and some minds will probably snap under the strain.

jjs
November 27, 2014 6:37 am

I read Dr Tim Balls plog post when it came out. I thought it was spot on. Global warming is less a technical debate than a political. What drives the IPCC is politics and who controls the human race, free people or governments. One needs to make sure they include fair analogies of what happens when you let the government lie to you to gain control. Only a small percent will ever get the technical side of the arguments especially in America at this point. If your going to fight it’s best not to fight with one hand tied behind your back….

Harry Passfield
November 27, 2014 6:37 am

There is a exact parallel to this lack of criticism of IPCC by ‘climate scientists’: Take a look at the EU and the way it enforces discipline in its senior members. Once they take their EU pension they are not allowed to criticise any part of the EU or they forfeit their pension. Is that something that applies at the Met Office.

Oatley
November 27, 2014 6:38 am

Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards,
To sum up the comments above…for your next dinner, invite the alarmist crowd and lecture THEM.

ConfusedPhoton
November 27, 2014 6:38 am

Given the fact that nearly all the climate “scientists” stood by silently at the height of alarmist claims and nastiest ad hominen attacks,
I find this a bit rich!

Joe Born
November 27, 2014 6:39 am

I don’t generally care for Dr. Ball’s posts. And, yes, I do sometimes think they go “over the top.” But perhaps it would be helpful if Mr. Watts would tell us what precise aspect it is of Dr. Ball’s post he would have changed if he’d had the time. Readers would then have a better sense of the degree to which views will henceforth be censored at this site.
The fact is that much of the success of climate catastrophism is indeed the Big Lie psychology. Many people believe what they hear only because they can’t imagine someone with the given public official’s or learned society’s credentials saying something if it were as demonstrably untrue as many of us know it to be. And Dr. Ball is correct to point out historic precedents for that technique’s success. I for one don’t see why one should refrain from doing so just because one practitioner was Goebbels.

November 27, 2014 6:41 am

There no such person as a climate skeptic. There are however many thousands(indeed tens of thousands) of scientists who are righly skeptical of the theory of man made climate change for which there is no scientific proof. As founder of the energy(and climate) group at the Institute of Physics in 2004 I have yet to find any scientific basis for this political theory. Climate has changed for billions of years with both temperature and carbon dioxide levels being much higher than today. In fact in the Ordividian era(an ice age!) carbon dioxide levels were 20 times higher than today with no runaway greenhouse effect)

Reply to  Terri Jackson
November 27, 2014 4:37 pm

Aye! +1

November 27, 2014 6:42 am

I do agree with Richard and Tamsin. Nevertheless I’m both comforted and frustrated that climate sceptics are held to a significantly higher standard than the most prominent and, apparently, esteemed climate science communicators.
So, acknowledging the rhetorically implicit “Tu Quoque” logical fallacy, seriously, I ask non-rhetorically: why MUST we maintain standards so significantly higher than those opposite, who are in paid roles to promote climate alarm?
I take it as acknowledgement of the generally reasonable tone from climate sceptics that Richard and Tamsin find Tim Ball’s post so out of step from the broadly higher standards hereabouts that they felt it noteworthy enough to pen this piece. I suspect that a battalion of Richard and Tamsins could not find enough hours in the day to address and elevate standards amid the gish gallop of drivel and Ad Hominem from the so-called climate consensus.

Reply to  Simon Hopkinson
November 27, 2014 6:55 am

Well, I’m always saying to my colleagues that I think we shouldn’t use the word denier, that we shouldn’t generalise about sceptics views/motivations/knowledge etc, that civility and listening should go both ways. Some examples linked in another comment from me.

Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 6:56 am

that ^I think^ we shouldn’t use the word

Steve (Paris)
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 7:15 am

Wrong site?

David Wells
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 9:21 am

Oh how gracious, you shouldn’t use the word denier so in your own mind therefore anyone who does not agree with your belief is de facto a denier. Computer models, failed, warming non existent, IPCC disowns notion that Co2 at 400ppm or 1ppm per 10,000 more over the last 100 years causes extreme weather, that warming since 1880 is just 0.7C with temperature now where it was in 1970 and warming of just 0.07 C over the last fifty years with methane at just 0.00017% and Co2 at just 0.03% of our atmosphere your belief or conviction overrides scientific fact or data, right or wrong?
Of course the movement was politically inspired, that also is recorded fact and the Co2 hypothesis remains an hypothesis.
Your employment is predicated on modelling therefore if you now deny modelling then you would be the human equivalent of a turkey voting for Christmas and I don’t expect that any time soon.
The BBC have just confirmed to me that they do not peddle scaremongering rhetoric about climate change and would you believe I just saw overhead a flying pig.

Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 10:28 am

Tamsin, I recognise that you have long discouraged use of the “denier” narrative, but censoring its use merely masks the underlying faulty belief that sceptics *are* somehow “deniers”. Instead of discouraging, I think you need to challenge its use every time you hear it – demand clear justification for its use at every turn. It really doesn’t take much effort to expose the “denier/denialist/Big Oil/freemarketeer” nomenclature as a nonsense, and consequently their continued use as a pejorative.
While the demonisation of dissenters is a sad feature of politics through history, it really has no place at all in scientific circles. That it remains endemic in climate science at this stage in a decades-long debate is a sad reflection on the subject. It should long-ago have become as academically unacceptable as drinking & driving is now socially unacceptable.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 7:05 pm

your example is a good start. now, if we can get people like mann to accept that not all who disagree with him are funded by the koch denial machine or are frauds…well, that would be better.

jolly farmer
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 11:41 pm

Are you saying that they shouldn’t use the word, or that you “think” they shouldn’t use the word?
Some may say that I should not use the word “prostitute”. Maybe I should say that “she does it for the money”. After all, you do, don’t you Tamsin?

Marion
Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 29, 2014 6:23 am

Yet you posted a presentation on ‘Climate Change Denial’ (something of a misnomer as sceptics do not dispute climate change simply anthropogenic global warming!!) in response to the Great Global Warming Swindle.
http://www.academia.edu/1740608/Climate_Change_Denial

M Courtney
Reply to  Simon Hopkinson
November 27, 2014 7:16 am

why MUST we maintain standards so significantly higher than those opposite, who are in paid roles to promote climate alarm?

Because it is the right thing to do.
And what’s the alternative?
A competition to get to the basest of practices?
I’d like to think I’d lose.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  M Courtney
November 27, 2014 7:40 am

You are right M. Courtney BUT the modern world is now plagued by communication surfit. This means that those who control the comms control the message and therefore the people. Do you think that we would be having this discussion with Betts and Edwards if blogs such as Anthony’s never existed ??

juanslayton@dslextreme.com
Reply to  M Courtney
November 27, 2014 8:57 am

M Courtney: Because it is the right thing to do.
Reason enough. And for any who are willing to listen to the man:
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
This from a fellow who was the object of serious long-term malice.

Bruce Cobb
November 27, 2014 6:42 am

There really aren’t “two sides” to the debate, and the suggestion that there is is itself a lie. There is the truth about climate, which is what Climate Realists have been struggling for, and there are those defending and working for the Climatist Industry. Motives are a red herring, but defense of one’s own industry, regardless of how wrong and damaging it is, is a big one.

Dr Slop
November 27, 2014 6:44 am

Richard is in an unfortunate bind. Mitchell of the UK Met Office signs off on a report which contradicts (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/11/27/a-right-royal-contradiction.html) accepted opinion on model outcomes. Even if Mitchell is known for taking a cursory view of the role of a reviewer (iirc he had no notes even though he was the UK government’s sign off for the last IPCC AR but one), taking a contrary view to those senior to have can have impacts.

Coach Springer
November 27, 2014 6:45 am

I would not be unmindful of the levers of power that world wide control of mankind’s activities can be had through global warming alarmism and junkscience. Not even in the short-term interests of civil debate. Even IF alarmists should prove their unfalsifiable string of hypotheses, they would no right to wield those levers and every obligation to avoid being used in ways that would lead to that outcome. Scant evidence of that from the scientific community where many are activists and, by definition, not scientists. Climate Phd, heal thyself.

Vince Causey
November 27, 2014 6:45 am

Wasn’t Tim the victim of a Mann lawsuit some time ago? Not heard much recently, but I can understand how Tim became filled with rage, which came out in his article. Don’t think we should get too hung up about it.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Vince Causey
November 27, 2014 7:44 am

I was wondering the same thing and whatever came out of that.

Ian W
Reply to  PiperPaul
November 27, 2014 11:10 am

Last report was it still continues with attempts being made to run Dr Ball out of money by continual delays.

Gregory
November 27, 2014 6:48 am

Anthony, Tim may have been off when it came to real scientists but when you apply to the historical significance and the politics at play, we made valid points. Maybe he hurt some sensitive feelings. Maybe he needed to reel in Godwin’s Law a bit. He seems to be able to see over the horizon more than others who’s nose are firmly in the books and roadmaps.

November 27, 2014 6:48 am

Dr. Ball’s question requires an answer.
“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? ”
This is not a scientific question, this is the opening salvo in the pursuit for justice and accountability and punishment of the perpetrators.
Attempts to disqualify Dr. Ball’s question based on his rhetoric are not appreciated and will not work.
We have wasted years of our lives fighting a fight we did not ask for. Our anger is justified and inquiries into the motives and techniques of those who hoisted this fraud on the world will be made. Our scars are too deep for us to let civil complaints about tough rhetoric distract us from the justice that must be had.
Answer the questions: Why? What are the motives?

Ed_B
Reply to  gettimothy
November 27, 2014 10:47 am

Agreed.
Only USA Senate hearings on the issue which asks that of prominent climate scientists can hope to answer it.

gbaikie
Reply to  gettimothy
November 29, 2014 12:03 am

–gettimothy
November 27, 2014 at 6:48 am
Dr. Ball’s question requires an answer.
“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? ”
This is not a scientific question, this is the opening salvo in the pursuit for justice and accountability and punishment of the perpetrators.–
Punishment and accountability are going going to make amends for the trillions of dollars and millions lives lost due to these snake oil salesmen. It’s the public which elected an idiot who said he would stop the ocean from rising. It’s the public which almost elected Al Gore as the US president.
What these snake oil salesmen [such as Hansen and Mann] are doing is being a politician.
Mann is a politician. Hansen was a politician. None are doing the job they were paid to do.
Or they are not elected as “honest” politician are but their “life work” is being a politician.
You can not be a politician and scientist. You can first be politician and than become a scientist, or be scientist and then become a politician, but you can’t be a part time scientist and politician- particularly if you are crazy Lefty whom all, are convinced that the answer in life lies in politics.
So the rule with politicians is if their lips are moving, then they are lying.
And scientist are interested in what can learned from data- part of a great effort which has
on going concern for centuries.
So, as general rule we should not have bureaucrats [called “public servants”] moonlighting as wannabe politicians.
Though over the year American have seemed to have lost this good sense.
So there is the option of firing/retiring the public servants who are not doing their jobs but are instead devoting their time to political matters.
Release them from their public service so they can spend their remaining life devoted to what they think is far more far more important tasks rather the the job they were hired to do.
And we can hire public servants who will spend all their working hours doing the job which btw, we paying them **far** too much money to perform.
If politicians want to the work bureaucrats [due to boredom or wishing to do something useful for society] we could allow this, but we should not make the huge mistake of paying them for this work- they tend not to have much work experience or capability to do work and in addition tend to be useless liars.
And also I should mention “the scientists” who are actors who pretend they are scientists.
They are actors- actors are the people you see on the TV. Including serious looking “News Anchors”- they are actors.
Both actor and politicians are similar- they lie/pretend for a living.
There is this common tendency to think Hollywood actors have some kind of wisdom- despite abundant evidence that they live a life as a clown.
The only punishment which makes any sense is the public engaging in self flagellation- and that’s pretty stupid.
Why not try simply being skeptical of people who wear lab coats or use other disguises that give the impression that they are scientists. And one can generally assume that “professional scientists” have better things to do.
Probably a reason why these climate scientist say it’s about saving the world, a feeble attempt to avoid the question, “why are wasting your time with the news media?”
As general rule any scientist who claims to be saving the world will tend to speak once, and will not follow on by doing infomercials.
If saving the world, why would they waste much time with public announcements?
Though that’s also probably related to idea “the science is settled”- that being, no more work having to with science is actually needed.
Which is another good reason to fire them. Actually a couple reason, one, it’s utterly
stupid- as in shoot him as he too stupid to be a human. Two, it’s basically a letter of resignation from any job related to being a scientist.

Gregory
November 27, 2014 6:49 am

Sorry, we = he

Richard S.J. Tol
November 27, 2014 6:50 am

I’m with Richard and Tamsin on this: Let’s vigorously but respectfully try and convince each other, using arguments instead of insults.

Reply to  Richard S.J. Tol
November 27, 2014 6:56 am

I like the sound of that

Reply to  Tamsin Edwards
November 27, 2014 10:56 am

I like the sound of it too Tamsin Edwards. However, I should point out I’ve never seen Richard Tol actually do it. He’s been one of the most consistently abusive and non-responsive individuals I’ve seen on climate blogs.
I’m not trying to drag personalities into this. I just think if we’re going to set standards, we have to apply those standards to the people promoting them. “Do as I say, not as I do” is not okay.