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

Advertisements

1,190 thoughts on “A big (goose) step backwards

    • 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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

      • 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.

      • “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!

      • 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.

      • 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’

      • 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.

      • 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!

      • 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.

      • 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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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).

      • 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?

      • 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

    • 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

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • [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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

      • 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.

      • 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.

        https://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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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!

      • 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?

      • 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!!

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • “…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.

      https://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”.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/

      Regards

      Stephen

    • 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….
      https://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?

    • 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?”

    • 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?

    • 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.

    • 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*

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  1. 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.

    • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • @ 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.

        Or this “reclaimed” MTR mining site in Clarksburg, WV, USA

        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.

      • 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?

      • “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.

      • “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?

      • 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.

      • 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

      • 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.

      • @ 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.

      • 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%.

    • 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

  2. 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.

    • 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…

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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 …

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.
        https://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.
        https://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.

      • @ 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”.

      • 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. .

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

      • So you get a free pass because you post on sceptic sites and have socialised with sceptics?

        Give me a break.

      • {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

    • “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.

  3. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

      • “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

      • 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.

    • … 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…

  4. 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.

    • 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  7. 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.

      • 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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?

    • 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’

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

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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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?

    • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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

      • “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.

  10. 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.

    • 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.

  11. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

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

    • 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” ?

      • 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.

  12. 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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

    • 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

  15. 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.

    • 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?

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

        Sinclair Upton

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • “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.

    • 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!

      • 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

      • 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?

  16. 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”.

  17. 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.

    • RB and TE are not real scientists. Only in it for the money.

      Dame Julia: “Bend over, Mr Betts!”

      RB: “Yes, Ma’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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

    • 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

      • 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).

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.”

      • 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

      • 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.

      • 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?

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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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)

      • 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.

  23. 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.

  24. > 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.

  25. 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.

    • 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.

  26. 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • “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.

  27. 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.
    https://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.

  28. 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….

  29. 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.

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

  31. 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!

  32. 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.

  33. 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)

  34. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

    • 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.

      • 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 ??

      • 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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?

    • Agreed.

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

    • –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.

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

      • 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.

      • If the truth sometimes is “insulting”, in many levels, should we intentionally start lying and in the same time believe and feel justified ????

        cheers

      • How about saying something of value, rather than the repetitive vacuous mini-soundbites? You seem to have plenty to say when a BBC camera is pointed at you, and a compliant/complicit reporter asks you the usual unthreatening questions about your agenda-driven “science”. Why do you not answer the questions asked of you in this thread? Why are your models continually so far off reality? Let us see your models. Let someone with real expertise in modelling examine and critique your work. Someone not inside your warmist clique. If it is robust, why would you not allow this? I am sure Steve McIntyre would be most willing to facilitate this examination. Or do you have something to hide? Are your models actually so trivial that they are worthless?
        And as for your sensitivity over what Tim Ball said….I suggest your ability to read and understand straightforward English must have been compromised at some point during your education. He was comparing your approach to deceiving us, with the classic approach also used by others with the same aim. Deception.

    • … but Richard, they and their media friends ignore the arguments and continue to trot out the absolutely atrocious science and bluster without a care. Having an argument here or other fine fora is all well and good but they still hide behind the lie of the consensus

    • Richard, You have tried to call these alarmist to debate. What happened? I saw that most disgusting of episodes on US TV when Schmidt refused to face Roy Spencer and debate him. That was a great piece of promotion from a government scientist, was it not ?

      Let’s debate with them by all means, in the media with a truly independent arbiter. I’m utterly convinced they will be able to explain why their models are so far out of kilter with reality and why they then use them, via the IPCC for whom they both work, to push public policy. How did we ever get to the point where my edly parents and friends in the UK were huddled around a one bar electric fire to keep warm in winter and could only turn on their immersion heater once a week to have a shower or bath.

      These two are really comfortable on their public teat with 10.000s to live on. They have no idea how the other half live. Tim is right.

      Let’s have a full and complete confession from them. None of this slipping through the side door to make friends.

      • As do I.

        However, RB and TE take the money and say that they would prefer that the denier word was not used. Where is the robust response? The strong statement on uncertainty? No, it is alarmism all the way.

        They do it for the money. They are maybe the nicest of people, in a social setting. So what?

        They do take lots of money, you know.

  42. Anthony,

    No apology or explanation needed for the publication of Tim Ball’s starkly controversial post. I did not think its views were endorsed by you.

    I never have taken the publication of any guest post at WUWT as an endorsement of its views by you unless you explicitly say at the time of publishing that the guest post views are endorsed by you.

    Happy Thanksgiving from the Whitman family to the Watts family.

    John

  43. What a ridiculous complaint.

    Mentioning something Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf doesn’t automatically equate to calling someone a Nazi. Not even remotely close. And weeping these crocodile tears while the word “denier” is flying around like mosquitoes at a nudist colony is beyond childish.

    I didn’t get any of this from Tim Ball’s post, and you should probably be ashamed if that’s all you saw.

    • But the most liked comment is always the one that is simplest to understand, most easily agreed with and closest in line with the bulk of the readers.

      It doesn’t just amplify the echo chamber. It dumbs it down by promoting the most extreme summary of the least challenging ideas.

  44. You guys must have learned analogy from Mann. Dr. Ball does not call anyone a Nazi, nor did Steyn compare Mann to a child molester. Your post is nothing more than screaming Godwin’s Law in an attempt to avoid the content of Dr. Ball’s post, content that is likely at, or very near, the truth. Why not comment on that instead of whining about how much better you are than those that made this bed?

    Regardless of your purity of motive and actions, we still have the liars in charge, and you both know damn well the consequences of fighting too loudly against them. This is all a result of the road that was taken to get where we are, and understanding this, and vilifying those that drove the bus, is key to preventing it in the future.

    Mark

    • Note to Prof Richard Betts and Dr Tamsin Edwards:

      Perhaps some history will help to put Tim Ball’s article into perspective – please see my post below from 2009.

      Climate “skeptics” (aka “deniers”) have been the victims of vicious falsehoods, death threats (Tim Ball has received several) and actual violence. That is the reality.

      Where were you good people when this was happening, and what did you do then to stop it?

      By the way, Tim did not call you Nazis – that contention is a tactical diversion – those who believe he did so should actually read his article.

      Regards, Allan

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/03/pielke-jrs-take-on-an-amazing-conversation-with-a-climate-scientist/#comments

      [excerpt]

      I am concerned that people are losing balance on this very serious issue of alleged humanmade global warming..

      Having studied this subject for several decades, I have strong opinions.

      For the record, I think the climate changes we have experienced in the past decades are predominantly natural, not humanmade, and probably cyclical, related to either oceanic cycles such as the PDO, etc. or solar cycles, or both.

      I believe that Earth’s climate is insensitive to atmospheric CO2, and that recent increases in atmospheric CO2, of whatever cause, are not harmful to the environment, and could even be beneficial.

      I believe that many carbon abatement programs are at best uneconomic, and a waste of scarce global resources that should be dedicated to solving real problems – not squandered on imaginary ones.

      There is also the compelling moral issue of biofuels raising food prices, thus causing hunger among the world’s poor.

      I have grown frustrated by warmists’ repeated attempts to shut down this debate and to bully so-called climate skeptics (aka “deniers”) into silence. This bullying is highly unethical, and has extended to threats of violence, and worse.

      I have concluded, reluctantly, that some of the warmists’ research papers were not only in error, but were deliberately misleading.

      Nevertheless, it is incumbent on all of us on this side of the debate to not emulate the worst aspects of the warmists and their arguments.

      Specifically, hatred is self-defeating. So is excessive polarization.

      I think we will win this debate based on science and economics, but only after many hundreds of billions have been squandered on foolish alternative energy programs such as wind power and fuel-from-food.

      While this terrible waste is frustrating, it is not appropriate to drag ourselves into the mire in an attempt to compete with the other side.

      Frankly, I see signs of mental instability in the wild, irresponsible statements attributed to several prominent warmists. Let us not join them down that self-destructive path.

      Best regards to all, Allan

  45. From the perspective that some in the climate business (for that is what it is in reality with billions of $$$ sloshing around) that men & women of science cannot be manipulated to serve a cause, because of their supposed superior intellect, is a myth! Many within the climate business have at times willingly submitted to the cause, some not so, but when money is placed upon the table of that cause, when individual careers, pensions, departments, & whole colleges & universities, seek to avail themselves of that money, they know full well that there is a price to be paid in the end! That price is compliance with the prevailing thought process & an element of collusion for the cause! It is very easy for many to simply get caught up in the tidal flow in the process! To think otherwise, is perhaps little arrogant at best, naïve at worst! The words of Sir Humphrey Appleby spring to mind, “the suitable candidate for the new post must be highly qualified, impartial, thorough, & above all, must be sympathetic to the Governments views on………” fill in the blank with whatever!

  46. The following posting appeared at BH recently

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/11/17/why-does-lord-deben-misreport-the-science-of-extreme-weather.html

    I posted the following comment:

    “Well, Richard Betts and Tamsin Edwards, we await your perspective on what the good Lord is telling us plebs. Do you agree with him or not? If not, why are you staying silent?

    If you feel that doing so would be suicidal from the career standpoint, that is understandable. But exactly who in the UK is prepared to step up and state authoritatively where the science really stands when the likes of Deben misrepresent it? Clearly Deben should not be the mouthpiece for the science but, until someone from the UK climate science community puts him in his place, he will continue to use his status to misrepresent the science in support of the CAGW agenda. For whatever reason, climate scientists appear to be fully content to let him, and others, do that.

    In contrast, climate scientists do seem prepared to step up to the mark when those sceptical of CAGW venture in the MSM. Strange that.”

    Richard or Tamsin are both regular contributors to BH but chose not to respond. That says a great deal to me. They are ready to criticise when Tim Ball is the frame but not so when it is the likes of Deben. Hypocrites.

      • I fully understand that you can’t be expected to read every blog post on the internet. However now that you’ve been alerted to my comment, as a demonstration of your integrity (which, incidentally, I do not for a moment doubt), perhaps you would like to comment on the point raised if only to confirm that the science currently doesn’t bear out what Lord Deben was saying.

        TC

      • And did you read Tim Balls comment before you started belly aching about being compared to Nazis?
        I see no such comparison in that posting, perhaps you can quote Tim directly?
        Or do you see yourself as a a person fitting the general description?
        Willing to use deceptive techniques as Mr Ball describes?
        For the record I agree with Tim Balls original post, except I feel he is far to gentle.
        The IPCC and its fellow travellers are bureaucracy run wild, parasites to a man/woman/unspecified gender.

    • Here is Lord Deben (John Selwyn Gummer). Is it any surprise he spreads garbage. He is also the same man who as a former minister fed his daughter a beef burger to show how safe British beef was. Then CJD showed it was not so safe at the time. Ahhh well.

      Register of Interests….
      4: Shareholdings (a)
      Sancroft International Ltd (consultancy; as above)
      4: Shareholdings (b)
      Zero C Ltd (sustainable home builder)
      Valpak Limited (environmental compliance)….
      http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-deben/4154
      ==============

      Daily Mail – 13 January 2013
      Golden windfall of UK’s Green guru: Firm owned by ex-Tory Minister John Gummer connects up wind turbine power – and it paid him £1,750 PER HOUR
      ……When quizzed by MPs before his appointment was confirmed, he was asked about his chairmanship of the £500 million company Veolia Water UK. Lord Deben insisted it did no energy-related business and only dealt with water. If it had ‘even a remote connection’ with the environment or climate change, he promised, he would step down.

      In fact, Veolia – of which Lord Deben remains chairman – boasts on its website of supplying ‘large electrical grid connections for renewable energy producers’, and illustrates this with a large photograph of wind farms.
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261546/Golden-windfall-UKs-Green-guru-Firm-owned-ex-Tory-Minister-John-Gummer-connects-wind-turbine-power–paid-1-750-PER-HOUR.html

  47. Oh, your skeptics + climate scientists meeting, while great, is a drop of water in the ocean, and largely irrelevant to Dr. Ball’s post. What, suddenly he (and the rest of us) should forget everything and play nice because a dozen or so people got together and had a kumbayyah moment? Funny.

    Mark

  48. Primarily Dr Ball was using an example of how propagandizing has been accomplished in the past and the example he chose was the methods used by the Nazi machine. This is entirely different from saying that climate scientists are Nazis. A typical example of entirely British politically correct faux outrage coming from Tamsin and Richard. You two should go into politics where that tactic is more generally used.

    If you want to be taken seriously perhaps you would be better served by exercising your “outrage” on the pile of garbage just released by the Royal Society and lapped up so enthusiastically by the green tinted brethren of the MSN. https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/resilience-extreme-weather/

    I am afraid having dinner in a quiet home is not exactly manning the barricades of truth against disinformation.

  49. I don’t recall either Prof Richard Betts or Dr Tamsin Edwards commenting on this at the time:

    No Pressure is a controversial 2010 short film produced by the global warming mitigation campaign 10:10, written by Richard Curtis and Franny Armstrong, and directed by Dougal Wilson. Intended for cinema and television advertisements,[1] No Pressure is composed of scenes in which a variety of people in every-day situations are graphically blown to pieces for failing to be sufficiently enthusiastic about the 10:10 campaign to reduce CO2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pressure_%28film%29

    Care to comment now.

    And do you care to comment on the extraordinary accumulation of power and wealth flowing to those who are convinced that miniscule increases in a heretofore highly beneficial gas will wipe out humanity (unless of course humanity sends more funds to said elite and genuflects in gratitude)?

    • Steve, it appears they only care to comment when they incorrectly interpret a post as calling themselves Nazis. But hey, Dr. Edwards did send that one tweet to Michael Mann once.

  50. It’s all about the money. The alarmists are losing in the eyes of the public and fear that their money source is about to be curtailed. Hence they want to make peace with the skeptics; i.e., tone down the debate and remove it to the back burner. But in the meantime, the evil policies which the politicians have enacted (based upon the pseudo science of the alarmists) continue to gain momentum.
    ‘A big step backwards’???? Who are you kidding?

  51. Richard and Tasmin, the alarmists are wrong and the degree may be argued, but their solution of complete control by the state over nearly all forms of energy exposes their agenda. AGW is an excuse to destroy the freedom that we have today and put massive amounts of power into the hands of the state. On occasion there is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and you are missing the point and being very shallow in your appreciation of the alarmists.

  52. The people that used derogatory terms(deniers,flat-earthers, oil company shills) for anyone that disagreed with them, purposely refused publication of any science that didn’t fit the AGW line, filed lawsuits against their opposition when their fraudulent science was exposed and refused to provide the data used to reach their conclusions, now want to have reasonable discourse without inflammatory rhetoric. This appears to me to indicate that they are now concerned about becoming insignificant now that their hysterical rhetoric, failed predictions and marginal science is being exposed.

  53. “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:”

    Well, yes, I guess so. However, neither of you have had Dr. Mann’s legal attack dogs come after you for expressing a perfectly legitimate point of view, have you? AN over reaction, maybe, but a more than understandable one. Once wretches like Mann and Lewandowsky are lanced from the climate debate, maybe it will progress?

  54. Anthony I think its time to put Dr. Ball on a time out.

    Guest post priviledge is important.

    Standing for civil discourse regardless of what other do is important.

    take the stand.

    • Anthony I think its time to put Dr. Ball on a time out.

      As discipline, he’s already been. Punish, ditto.

      It will depend on Dr. Ball, and A. Watts, how it is dealt with. If the Dr. sees his chance to step it up to a higher level, and Watts is good for developing him … getting back on the horse in crutches is always a good choice.

      take the stand.

      Obviously taken, and no time wasted. Kudos.

      • “What punishment was given to Ball?”

        Many negative comments on the internet. I suspect he’s used to it by now.

      • Huh? Negative comments are it? At least I got a death threat. Ages ago, and about evolution and age of the earth rather than climate. Still, a death threat. Not mere whining on the internet.

        I thought at least there’d been some ‘you can’t guest post here’ penalty.

        [Reply: Please cite the death threat, and it will be deleted, at least. Most comments appear without moderation approval, so unless something like that is pointed out, it can slip by. ~mod.]

      • What punishment was given to Ball?

        Dunno, specifically. We’re not privy. Surely, more than some want, less than others. But it does look like a wad hit the fan.

        I thought at least there’d been some ‘you can’t guest post here’ penalty.

        Well yeah, that’s one possibility – maybe more desired than the firing squad, in some quarters.

        ‘Some’, parsing the white space, could be more worried about the horse they fear he’s riding in on, and that Watts might be stabling it, than the song he was singing or his off-key notes.

        My provisional guess is that Dr. Ball may take a little breather, let someone else run the gauntlet, test the AA-batteries.

        And ya know, the sturm und drang does not look bad for business.

    • Disagree with Mosher. When Drs. Betts and Edwards show us more than one tweet of balance then perhaps we should reconsider.

  55. You wrote: “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.”

    Were you in fact called a Nazi? Can you point me to that line?
    You can keep your good faith discussions up by refuting the central theme of Dr. Ball’s argument instead of crying foul to the moderator. Are professional climate scientists pointing out “the big lies” or is that just a Denier construct? Or, perhaps a better narrative is that climate scientists are more like the moderate Muslims in that you infrequently denounce the CO2 Jihadists?

  56. To be honest, I support Dr Tim Ball’s original article. It wasn’t us sceptics who first started using the language of the Holocaust with which to denigrate anyone who took issue with us. Many man-made climate change evangelists still use the term ‘denier’ without batting an eyelid, as if it’s all perfectly acceptable. When they stop invoking Nazi atrocities as a shorthand for describing anyone who takes issue with the dominant narratives on CAGW then, as a CAGW sceptic, I will be more than happy to engage with them on civil terms.

  57. Obviously we have to invoke Godwin’s Law here…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    But I reject the Hitler analogy.

    The IPCC is more Stalinist or Maoist.
    The central comittee will decide how the economy will work, where and how energy shall be used, what sacrifices the people shall make for the greater goals, as defined by the central comittee.

    • Invoke what? Show me the statement and the experiments that establish it as a law. Godwin saw it as an attempt to get people to be more civil. In no way is there any “law” that mandates that nothing Nazi every be mentioned.

  58. For many months this year NOAA has issued a press release hyping “record” temperatures. We all know just how poor the data is that they base those statements on. And, we all know there is higher quality satellite data, whose collection is also funded by NOAA, that contradicts those statements. Does that not look and smell like pure propaganda? An honest organization would at a minimum provide both sets of data and attempt to discuss why there are differences. Nope, not official US government scientists.

    When you see actions like this why would anyone be surprised by the article from Dr. Ball. In fact, his analysis seems right on the mark.

  59. Again, it’s best to distinguish between the two camps that make up the AGW movement. The bureaucrats, politicians, rent-seekers, and Green NGOs are thieves that see an open bank vault door and no one guarding it. Careers, profits, and nice hotels await all who participate. Easy to understand.
    They are not the ones the techniques Ball describes are aimed at. They would have nothing if they did not have a core base of True Believers. I would estimate roughly a third of the citizens of Western nations would readily believe in CAGW from the moment they first read about it. They have been raised to believe that Man is a cancer on this planet. They are useful for the political support needed to pass legislation and regulation that provides benefit to the aforementioned group.

  60. Incidentally, if Mr. Watts does indeed intend to edit more carefully in the future, he might begin with things like the “(goose)” in the title and the body of the head post.

    Not that I would have; but, then, I wouldn’t have found a reference to Goebbels red-pencil bait either.

  61. Yes, the Tim Ball piece was over the top, not helpful nor particularly informative.

    Yes, Anthony erred in publishing the piece.

    Yes, I agree with much of what Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts had to say.

    The following quote was interesting:” 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.”

    If TE and RB truly support this view I’m eagerly looking forward to reading similar complaints from them to several of the more abusive alarmist bloggers.

  62. As Tim (and many other high profile sceptics) have been treated much like what we sometimes scrape off our shoe, it is rather rich to grumble when he responds in kind.
    Very few of us have to deal with constant and vile abuse from those who constantly claim to hold the high ground yet seem to have forgotten how to behave like civilised human beings.
    To suggest that Tim was trying to associate climate scientists with Hitler is ridiculous. The post accurately described how propaganda is a central tenet of the alarmist meme and correctly showed that the Nazi regime was also fuelled by propaganda. Nowhere did Tim compare any scientists with Hitler.
    Until and unless we see the hate being condemned by the consensus side we will make no progress towards amicable relations.
    When it is considered acceptable for even our elected politicians to treat sceptics with derision there is little hope of closing the gap.
    What Richard and Tamsin could and should do is to disassociate themselves from those using insulting and hateful terminology.
    Whilst there is a degree of sceptical reprisal against the way they are often mistreated, the majority of us remain calm and quiet and wait for the day when the truth can no longer be ignored.

    • “What Richard and Tamsin could and should do is to disassociate themselves from those using insulting and hateful terminology.”
      .
      If they did that, I think they would have to find a different field, unrelated to climate, to work in.

  63. I used a cornucopia of forbidden words on a comment and went straight to the kids table of moderation! Is there a word count for the record of no-no’s? I used D, A , B , N, J, M for a Score of +6!

  64. I have a deep anger over being lied to going back to the mid 8o’s, right up to now. The CAGW lies are revolting. Tim Ball is mild compared to what I feel. As an engineer I trusted GW scientists. I do not now. I have been made a fool of by trusting them and helping to propagate their lies. No more.

      • No but disgusted me when lying about the JAMSTEC long range forecast having a CO² component. You can defend with your soundbites but that’s where your contribution ends.

      • Hi Steven, Pleased to meet you, I’ve read your posts for some time now. So are you just bored today? Or finally given up on getting those “models” to work?

      • Steven Mosher November 27, 2014 at 9:45 am
        are your feelings hurt?

        gosh,, looters in ferguson use the same logic

        ____________

        Really, the same logic. How exactly do you know that? What a putz.

      • You do realize you just called him one of the rioters in Ferguson, correct? Oh wait, that only applies when it is someone Mosher disagrees with. Silly

        You just id exactly the same thing Betts and Edwards are so upset by. Is it OK for me to call for a timeout on your posting? Logic is not your friend, Stephen. Your skills in that area rival your skills with statistical analysis: nil.

        Mark

      • So now Mosher equates rightfully angry sceptics with criminal looters in Ferguson … how low can you go, man?

      • Wow, you put your foot in it this time. If Tim Ball gets punished by a timeout, then you should too, since you just did the same thing. But since I’m guessing there will be no punishments, the least you can do is to show Tim Ball the Way…by sincerely apologizing. If you don’t, then we can only assume that you recognize that there’s nothing to apologize for…

      • Are the feelings of the thousands per winter month that die in energy poverty in UK ‘hurt’ Steven? After all that is a direct consequence of the Climate Change Act that was put in place because of the output of GCMs by the current complaining scientists. Who in the ‘warmist’ camp cares about people actually dying from cold in the last few years? I am surprised you can see the deaths of so many as a matter for clever academic point scoring debate rather than concern.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/10474966/Energy-row-erupts-as-winter-deaths-spiral-29-per-cent-to-four-year-high-of-31000.html
        and many many other references

        As long as you can get the next research grant what’s the problem – that right?

      • Steven Mosher

        November 27, 2014 at 7:18 am

        Anthony I think its time to put Dr. Ball on a time out.

        Guest post priviledge is important.

        Standing for civil discourse regardless of what other do is important.

        take the stand.

        —————————————————–

        are your feelings hurt Mosh?

        gosh,, looters in ferguson use the same logic……..

        You’re despicable.

    • Steven Mosher,

      If you were treated like Anthony has been on numerous alarmist blogs, I don’t think you would look at it the same way. Whatever you may see here is nothing compared with what Anthony constantly endures, for the ‘crime’ of simply having a different point of view.

      Really, have you seen some of those blogs? The ugly cartoons? Doug Cotton’s despicable attacks? Why don’t you go to those places and complain?

      • Steve Mosher does us more good, here, than off in the back-alleys.

        Without an opposition willing to sit on our back-bench, we have an echo-chamber.

      • If his posts contained legitimate insight and a clear understanding of the subject-matter, I would agree. He strayed from that long ago and became just another believer.

        Mark

    • You think they are only lying to you about the climate? Trust me, don’t go down that rabbit hole. The corruption of the half truths never end.

  65. Calling mainstream climate scientists names, such as “nazis” should not be done or condoned.

    One should simply look at facts. It is by now fairly clear that we are in a repeat of the multidecadal oscillation, with the 1970-2000 warming followed by 2000- about 2030 light cooling, just like the 1910-1940 warming was followed by 1940-1970 light cooling, and like a few more such periods recorded in Greenland ice.

    The email
    [2007] Wils:
 What if climate change appears to be 
just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?
 They’ll kill us probably

    shows awareness of the multidecadal oscillation. Yet in the 8 years since, there was no mention of that, the only accurate prediction of what is going on. A willful deception.

    The careers of people who did mention it were systematically destroyed, as David Legates testified in Congress. With scientists who mentioned it in a conference like Salby left stranded on airports on their way back, as a result of anonymous denounces made by their colleagues to the university.

    The journal “Pattern Recognition in Physics” was terminated when it studied the multidecadal oscillation, still the only predictively accurate if empirical theory, since it reached a conclusion incompatible with the IPCC. Terminated by a climate scientist at the cheer of supporters.
    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2014/01/copernicus-publishing-temrinates.html

    So maybe instead of name calling we should use descriptives like “willful deceivers who destroy the careers of those holding different opinions based on anonymous denunciation, and terminate journals at the cheers of supporters when they reach conclusions which are correct but different from theirs.”

    Whether these are or are not parallel to the Kristallnacht or to public book burnings in squares is a fascinating question, but is not technically part of climate science. It should be left to future historians.

  66. Thank you Tasmin and Richard for your attempt at civility.

    One thing that would go a long way, in rebuilding trust between those that are mostly climate change concerned and those that are the least climate change concerned, is for the true scientists to join José Duarte in having bad science retracted:
    http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

    It is obvious fraud and should be removed per the peer review method.

    Understandably, this would be very contentious, but it is merely a good faith effort for good science.

    • intrepid_wanders: Thank you for the Jose Duarte link; I had not read it before. Quite long, but a rewarding read.

      • Agreed, a long read but very worthwhile … it needs some oxygen and light. I liked this, very pertinent in the light of this Dr Ball’s blog post:

        My fellow scientists, let’s huddle up for a minute. What are we doing? What the hell are we doing? I’m mostly speaking to climate scientists, so the “we” is presumptuous. Is this really what you want? Do you want to coarsen science this much? Do we want to establish a scientific culture where scientists must take polar positions on some issue in the field? Do you want to tout a “consensus” that ignores all those who don’t take a polar position? Do we want to import the fallacy of demanding that people prove a negative, a fallacy that we often point out on issues like evolution, creationism, religion, and so forth? Modern scientific culture has long lionized the sober, cautious scientist, and has had an aversion to polar positions, simplistic truths, and loyalty oaths. Do we mean to change that culture? Have we tired of it? Are we anti-Popper now? No one is required to be Popperian, but if we’re replacing the old man, it should be an improvement, not a step back to the Inquisition. Do we want dumb people who have no idea what they’re doing speaking for us? Are you fraud-friendly now, if it serves your talking points? When did we start having talking points?

        Some answers would be nice, eh ?

      • My pleasure Alan. While Richard Tol’s attempt did a fine job with the stats José’s simple deconstruction is just invaluable. Mind you, he is not a ‘climate skeptic’ (or even a Climate Denialist Lvl 1):
        http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/lewis-and-curry

        It will be profound when IOP finally has to make a review for retraction of this crappy paper without editor Daniel Kammen’s influence (COI raised), and explain why.

  67. Mods and Antony Watts:
    The Tamsin Edwards and Steve (Paris) comments from:
    November 27, 2014 at 6:46 am
    November 27, 2014 at 6:56 am
    November 27, 2014 at 7:15 am
    November 27, 2014 at 7:20 am

    Are appearing out of sequence and., I think, are not meant for public view.

  68. Sorry but I read the original article and it doesn’t say or imply what is claimed.

    In many ways (unfortunately) the climate debate is a propaganda war for hearts and minds. As such it is entirely appropriate to show where exactly the same tactics or theory have been used before. Whether outlined in “Mein Kampf” or a University textbook the principles are the same and either can be used for valid examples. Actually so can a good sales course, sales are a form of propaganda as the intent is to convince the subject to act in a certain way.

    The bottom line is that if you cannot recognize the techniques when they are used in action (either against you or for you) then you really haven’t a clue what is going on. and really shouldn’t comment.

    As a basic reading list to understand how a Propaganda battle is fought I would suggest at the minimum;
    Mein Kampf: For an insight into how a terrifying mind uses principles or propaganda to warp thinking. It’s a really, really scary book.
    Animal Farm: How to lie to the people.
    A good sales course: Preferably one for used car or Life Insurance salesmen. (Not bagging those professions but people don’t like them so convincing clients to hand over gobs of cash is a serious achievement.)
    1984: Really a primer on rewriting history and how it’s done.
    Brave New World: Outlining the desired state of mind for the drones.
    Fahrenheit 451: The movie is the better option and you will begin to question everything you see on the TV news.
    Propaganda: Edward L. Bernays seminal work on the subject from 1928. (A favourite of Goebbels)

    The sales course is the most useful in everyday life as you will recognize and understand the techniques used by advertising companies in their campaigns, but you’ll also understand why some climate pronouncements didn’t seem quite right and yet were somehow vaguely familiar.

    To Drs Betts and Edwards, I wish you all the best but if you are going to get bent out of shape when someone points out that the side you support uses tactics suitable for certain historically hated people, then the best thing you can do is not associate with that side.

  69. It is important to understand that the argument, especially from the “consensus”, is mostly a political one. And political arguments always get nasty. A personal example is a hydrology professor friend of mine who is a proud “progressive”. When confronted with the facts of the failed AGW prognosis, he falls back to the political position that it doesn’t matter if it is wrong because all of the GW solutions are good and should be be implemented anyways. In other words, he doesn’t care if AGW theories are true, they are a means to an end and he’s willing to join the consensus if it leads to a more “progressive” world. The unfortunate truth is that political arguments are more about marginalizing and demeaning your opponents, thus I’m a denier, and they’re nazis. Tim Ball has chosen to engage on that level, and while lots of us might not be comfortable with it, I’m not ready to say he’s wrong to do so.

  70. Because two guys out of 97% of climate scientists are being nice to (misguided) sceptics, what kind of revolution are you looking for from us disorganized puny few. I couldn’t accept anything less than some frank admissions that sceptics were the best thing that ever happened to the Lysenkoist developments in climate science. Look, you guys should have howled at the beginning when Maurice Strong, whose formal education ended with high school, defined the problem to be studied – not global warming but human caused global warming. You accepted the premise and then interpreted everything toward that end. If it were not for the ‘pause’ (the term itself a strident belief in your thesis even while it is being brought into question) there wouldn’t be no interest in entertaining sceptics.

    Both for your science and your students, you should be taking a big goose step backwards and telling all that, even though Trillions have been spent, we’ve discovered that we are hugely wrong. CO2 has an effect but it is very much less than you thought and there is even a possibility that the earth, without any help has mechanisms that appear to mitigate warming that might otherwise arise from increased CO2 warming, that natural variability is a huge unsuspected factor that makes CO2 warming of less and less concern as the dreaded pause continues. You should also put present day warming in context of the long history of planet’s temperature history and note that at some time in the future we will have to cope with an ice age.

    You could stop using red and orange graphics for a piddling part of a degree of warmth. This IS propaganda. Finally, Tim wasn’t comparing you to Nazis like your consensus who has done this by having us ‘deniers’ of their handiwork. You should be shredding fellow warmists’ papers that are egregiously non-science and not leaving it up to hated sceptics like the very gentle, honorable Steve McIntyre. You should speak out against bad science and propaganda – the summary for policymakers and the like.

    Then we may have a meeting ground. What we have now is you fellows scurrying around trying to rationalize, eradicate and marginalize the ‘pause’, when it should be a breath of fresh air to reset your compasses. Tim’s essay will be forgotten, but history won’t forget what has happened – being wrong isn’t a crime but much of what’s out there is.

  71. I can never understand why everyone uses Hitler, when Stalin killed and least twice as many and Mao about three times as many innocent folks and they were not fascists, but communists, the same leftists pushing the green band wagon today.

  72. I agree that there is no place for name calling in science. I also believe you have never used Denier before. But why do you seem to try to justify the use of the term for Dr. Ball and those that support him?
    “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.”
    Again, two wrongs do not make a right. This is not how bridges are built. I guess you can’t say you never used the denier term anymore.
    Please clean up your own backyard. Take people to task for using the denier term. That will show that you are truly interested in a civil discussion on the topic of climate change. Most of all never ever try to justify the use of denier again

    • NOTE: this reply is a general reply, not a reply to Stu U because the the normal means to post am independent reply is missing from this page.

      I did not go back and re-read the Tim Ball post, so I can’t say whether my initial take on it was too superficial, but I did not get any impression that climate science was being compared to Nazism or climate scientists to Nazis or Hitler. I must also admit to not having spent 60 minutes or more reading all the comments here, so I don’t know but that my point has been made multiple times by others.

      Hitler wrote openly about use of a political technique, one he was thousands of years too late to invent. He just adopted it as others before and since have adopted it. The post seems to me to be about politics and religion having created a political entity — the IPCC — that hijacks the mantel of science in order to use that discussed technique for what are clearly political and religious purposes (religion not openly labeled, but none the less having all the worse aspects of organized religion).

      It seems to me that there as been a “knee jerk” reaction to certain words (use apparently not PC unless being denigrated) that prevented perception from going beyond those words to the concept actually being discussed.

  73. I do not often enter into the ‘comments’ section of this site, in fear of “putting my foot in it”!
    On this occasion, however, I simply want to say that this has been a worthwhile exercise, in my view. I say this simply because the comment section of this item has had a calming effect, by and large on the whole debate – both sides having adequate space to air their views within a largely amicable framework is good.
    Surely that, at least, has been not a bad thing?

  74. As IPCC’s utterings are of a political nature, and supporting campaigns like Climategate, the 10:10 video series and of course the consensus (non-) issue, have a manipulative force behind them, I found Ball’s reflections on dark times not very nice but relevant. When science is mixed with politics there is always an agenda albeit not a scientific one; it is always an attempt to control the behavior of populations.

  75. “the productive dinner”

    The fact that Richard Betts appeals to dinner demonstrates yet again what a joke climate science, AGW and Warmers are.

    Andrew

  76. Ball states;

    “Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science …”

    He then asks:

    “What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? What motive would you give, when asked?

    My answer is, that it is an example of the corrupting nature of existential reliance on the flow of public subsidy.

    Will Betts and Edwards give their answers?

  77. I am perfectly willing to stipulate that some, even most, scientists endorsing the AGW conjecture are acting in good faith. Yet it is nevertheless an indisputable fact that political agendas are a significant element of the AGW alarmism movement, and that radical leftists are using the issue as a pretext to advance their goals. It would be foolish not to take this into account.

    Otmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC, made the point quite eloquently:

    The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. . . . But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

    IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, http:// thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-isredistributing- the-worlds-wealth.html, translating from original German publication http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/politik/schweiz/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.html

    At the Copenhagen conference in 2009, Hugo Chavez was repeatedly interrupted by applause and received a standing ovation for ranting that capitalism must be destroyed and socialism installed in order to save the planet. http://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/03/06/hugo-chavez-on-climate-change-and-capitalism/

    Maurice Strong midwifed the UNFCCC, which begat the IPCC, with the express purpose of advancing socialism.

    The eco-radicals speak and write openly of reducing human population to less than 1 billion – in the name of saving Gaia and preventing AGW.

    The 350.org people produced ads blowing people up for disagreeing with them.

    Naomi Klein’s most recent book advocates the end of capitalism to save the planet from AGW.

    A motley collection of communists and socialists recently marched at the vanguard parades in world capitals urging the abolition of capitalism and the triumph of communism to fight “climate change.”

    It is not bad faith to notice these things or to point them out, nor to remind people that industrial civilization – based on fossil fuels – has roughly doubled life expectancy and fantastically improved the material quality of human life. It is not bad faith to notice the horrific implications for humanity if the worst of the eco-AGW-radicals ever came to power. We have seen their like before. In the period from 1920 to about 1985, communist governments killed more than 100 million of their own people to enforce their demented vision. The insanity and depravity of those atrocities truly difficult to grasp, yet it is all there in the historical record.

    So, in the admirable quest for civility, let us not lose sight of the openly-expressed and standing-ovation-endorsed totalitarian political motivations of a non-trivial element of those on the AGW bandwagon, including senior leadership of the IPCC.

    Happy Thanksgiving – we are still semi-free!

  78. What about a fist sign of honesty?

    In the phrase
    “virtually all climate studies show that…”
    which appears a few hundred times a day in scientific papers and the media, why not insert
    “virtually all climate studies, based on models which are by now with 97% confidence wrong, show that…”

    That would give any reader a more correct perspective of the problem discussed.

    The effect of it on the message should be no bigger than, say, the effect of a CCS plant on the energy production of a power plant. Which is always assumed to be small.

  79. A bit of a pickle for Richard and Tamsin here. They right to ask for a civilised debate but some of their fellow travellers are fruit loops, power hungry or mad.
    On the other side of the coin I stopped reading Tims article half way through, I had this mental image of Lew running around the faculty doing handstands shouting ‘see. i told you’

    • Yes, I agree.
      Dungeons and Dragons had a very simplistic model of a human being that, perceptively, differentiated between Wisdom and Intelligence.

      The problem with the original article wasn’t that it was unintelligent (that is debatable).
      The problem with the original article was that it was unwise

      • “The problem with the original article was that it was unwise”

        That is one of the most perceptive statements made in the comments to both posts. Tim’s post sounded like the e-mails that we have all written and which the majority of us have consigned to the delete button after consideration. But which nevertheless relieved our frustration.

        No I don’t think Tim compared IPCC scientists to Nazis, and I respect Richard & Tamsin’s attempts at polite discourse. Unlike the securely tenured Dr Curry, neither of these young(ish in Richards case) can afford to act like her. Cut them some slack they are doing the best they can under difficult circumstances and don’t expect them to do what you probably would not do under the same circumstances.

      • Eh, that’s your opinion… everybody has one.

        His article was spot on. These people are frauds, and until the Edwards’s and Betts’s of the world begin publicly denouncing such behavior, it will not stop, and without articles like Ball’s, nobody will ever even hear about it.

        Mark

  80. Anthony Watts should invite Betts and Edwards to write a guest blog condemning all those alarmist scientists who have called and are still calling sceptics and “luke warmers” deniers.

  81. It’s no surprise that what moves eminent figures from the other side to deign to visit WUWT is not interpretation of natural phenomena or other scientific elaboration, but a sense of indignation at comments made in the realm of socio-politics.

    It’s also no surprise that these correspondents wind up misconstruing and misrepresenting the original allusions that provoked the outrage. Once a person’s feelings have been hurt, their reasoning goes a little sideways. I wonder if Mr. Gruber will show up with his nose out of joint, since he got an honorable mention.

    I don’t agree with Tim Ball about the conspiracy thing; I think it’s more like the grammatical mistake in Tamsin’s comment; “I suggest you find out a bit more about Richard and I :)”
    Because so many people make that mistake, others don’t think to question it. Consensus

  82. ” . . .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.”

    What debate? I have never seen one prominent Climate Scientist (or Al gore for that matter) ever be willing to participate in a public debate. Gavin Schmidt, now head of the GISS, wouldn’t even appear on the same TV panel with Roy Spencer, he scurried off the stage like a petulant child.

    If you disagree with Dr. Ball, why not in engage him in debate on the points he raised. You can hold it right here. Anthony can moderate.

    You can talk the High Road, but are willing to walk the High Road.

    • dressler versus lindzen. So the BIG LIE is the lie that scientists never debate skeptics.

      The big lie is a nazi tactic

      science isnt a public debate.

      public debate is theatre.

      basically you are arguing that we use theatre to inform science and then telling the Big lie that these debates have never happened.

      • Any debate is better than none.

        Regardless of your attempt at diversion; science requires honest and independent verification by anyone so inclined. Public participation need not be like those sham spectacles put on by the ‘consensus’ blinded.

      • The debate is the public’s look into the science and what issues are involved.
        It’s not science per se. It’s part of the education of the public on what is involved.

        You continually snipe peoples comment and twist their words. You do far more harm to yourself and the warmist cause by making such snide remarks.

      • Diversion, (and the blog post is nothing but entryist tactics “we are victimized! sympathize!”)- real scientists ARE sceptics, first last, and always. The BIG TRUTH is that all the prostituted shills on the government tit are in consensus: over something their masters insure they bow down to: A BIG LIE. There is no debate when the megaphone is in the hands of the shills propagandizing the masses. A entire generation (and more!) of public school indoctrinated idolators worship at the feet of the state, their “elite” masters, and willingly sacrifice their fortunes, their lives, their children’s lives, and the future of this nation at the altar of their new religion: environmentalism. Michael Crichton warned about it years ago. But it is not new: as the Chesterton quote above so wonderfully pointed out. Cui bono? Al gore, etc… This is such a great blog.

  83. Obviously the climate models of the past 20 years are all totally deficient. So have the authors examined these tools and brought intensive scrutiny to their structure ? Or is the science still settled ?

    It seems to me this post is a first step in the correct direction. Let the debate begin. You two know it must happen, the last 18 years seems to have nature siding with the skeptics, no ?

  84. Anthony Watts; Dr. Tim Ball,

    I found it odd to see the rhetorical missteps & judgement-lapses of Dr. Ball’s (otherwise excellent) post on the front page. I think I understand that the author’s enthusiasm got the better of him, and am glad now to learn that the editorial role was distracted from the intervention it would normally have performed.

    I hope to see Dr. Ball back up in the author-saddle, soon. That is the best salve.

    ‘Motivation’ is an important & huge theme which could bear much valuable examination, but there are impressive (if unattractive, unflattering) reasons why we don’t see it taken up more often.
    =====

    Prof Richard Betts; Dr Tamsin Edwards,

    Thank you for stepping in quickly. Your address is a great service, for WUWT, but also for the hopes of ‘discussion & debate’, at large.

    Yours,
    Ted Clayton

    • In what way are their contributions a “great service”?

      When you debate with prostitutes, it is on the nature of the service, and the price.

      Betts debates with Slingo. Not sure who Edwards has to talk to.

      • In what way are [prostitute’s] contributions a “great service”?

        Never were a young sailor far away with only hours ashore, hm?

        You can’t tell presents by the gift-wrapping. What you think you want, or throw yourself on the floor kicking & bawling for, might not be what serves you best.

        Betts-Edwards could be the Messiah, or Lucifer incarnate. Even, at a wild guess, something in between.

        Rebels excel at rebelling. Staring at the stark specter of Success, however, their own illustrious counsel could use some augmentation. ;)

  85. Personally I welcome Richard Betts and Tasmin Edwards engaging in dialogue. I think both sides have to be prepared to give the other side room to maneuver so to speak to be able to change there minds without any rhetoric.

  86. real scientists don’t need to build bridges … they are all focused on the data and thus far the data says CO2 doesn’t causes climate change … So if you agree with the data you are on the same page as what you call the skeptics … no bridge needed …

    • there is no war … there is one side that is lying with data … we are correcting … until then it doesn’t end … you want civility with those that would take away your freedoms … must be nice to be so open minded …

      • If I remember the first film correctly, Rambo was incapable of coping with civilian life but magnificent in war.
        He was talked down, in the end, but was still a pathetic figure in peacetime.

        Many here don’t seem to want an end to conflict over Climate issues. They appear to want the war so as they can excel.

        Which misses the point of the fight.

  87. I would point out that the title is an ad hom attack just as bad as what they are protesting … seems like they need to work on their bridge building a little more …

  88. There are other issues about the Climate Models which need to be aired in Public. In a 2010 Report**, US Cloud Physicist G L Stephens pointed out that climate and weather models use in hind-casting ~double real low level cloud optical depth as a fitting parameter, ~35% increase of albedo.

    Its apparent purpose, a purported global cooling greater than warming since the Last Ice Age Maximum, is to pretend it is much cooler underneath ocean clouds. The high temperature sunlit ocean surface, flooded with imaginary ‘back radiation’, gives much more evaporation than reality, yet the mean temperature is correct; hence the imaginary ‘hot spot’, ‘violent weather’.

    Another issue, the fundamental cause of this Science Failure, is the teaching of incorrect radiative (and IR) Physics by US Atmospheric Science, and its spread to the UK and other disciplines. This MIT course module shows why: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node134.html

    It teaches that the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation predicts real energy flux instead of Radiant Emittance, Potential Energy Flux to a sink at absolute zero. In reality, net IR flux is the vector sum of Irradiances at a plane (equal to Emittances for collimated beams). The next MIT module transposes Emittance for Emissivity.

    The result is the Perpetual motion Machine of the 2nd Kind in the climate models, the creation of ~40% imaginary energy in the ‘Enhanced GHE’. Carl Sagan’s 1960 paper on Venus where he failed to understand Lapse Rate is caused by Gravity, was apparently to blame.

    **http://www.gewex.org/images/feb2010.pdf

  89. If the analogy fits wear it. Tim Ball was speaking to the political dynamic which many of us have observed. Hitler, being an idiot did not invent the concept of the big lie. It also did not end with him.

  90. I’ll repeat Richard and Tamsin’s observation:

    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.

    It’s quite easy to see how, of course. The added assumption, is ‘anyone who is not a hypocrite’.

    An observation — it’s unlikely that people who liken you to Hitler/Nazis are going to listen to your science. That applies regardless of who ‘you’ are. Notable on this blog was that the comments to Ball’s post included zero or few objections to his doing so with respect to the entire IPCC (several thousand scientists have participated). And, now, even after Anthony notes his disagreement, most commenters are standing by (or expanding, as they did in the comments to Ball’s post) the Nazi comparison.

    They’re free to do so, of course. But the rule applies. With the overwhelming majority of comments being supportive of, or repeating, Nazi/Hitler comparisons — the overwhelming majority of commenters are not going to listen to science. Which they’re also free to do.

    Such behaviors, though, being dominant at the most widely read skeptic blog, make it awfully easy to conclude that skeptics are not interested in the science. Still stuck in the past, or, as Richard and Tamsin describe

    … many people on both sides of the discussion have moved on from the simple name calling of the past…

    On the other hand, I’ve talked several times at a science cafe, and had skeptics present and asking questions. The purpose of the cafes being for people to ask questions of a scientist. They, however, didn’t spend their time telling me that I was a Nazi, as were almost all the scientists I’ve ever worked with. And when presented with evidence (and pointers to where to find out more) they updated their thinking/positions. While lead to more questions; and a good time was had by all.

    While Anthony himself doesn’t like the Nazi comparisons, and can have polite discussion over dinner with Richard and Tamsin, or by email (with me, some ages back), he’s cultivated a blog wherein the most prominent voices are in line with Ball, rather than himself.

    So, a question to Anthony: What’s your purpose? Most clicks, which would argue in favor of continued increase in Nazi/Hitler references? Or to tackle science on climate change?

    [Dr. Ball did NOT “call” anyone within the CAGW populist/anti-free-thought community Nazi’s. Dr Ball DID show that the METHODS USED in their bombastic deliveries and in their dogma were similar to the propaganda methods written about in Mein Kampf. The CAGW community invented the charge you are repeating above because the CAGW community recognized the accuracy and effectiveness of Dr Ball’s comparisons of their methods. .mod]

    • “[Dr. Ball did NOT “call” anyone within the CAGW populist/anti-free-thought community Nazi’s. Dr Ball DID show that the METHODS USED in their bombastic deliveries and in their dogma were similar to the propaganda methods written about in Mein Kampf. The CAGW community invented the charge you are repeating above because the CAGW community recognized the accuracy and effectiveness of Dr Ball’s comparisons of their methods. .mod]

      it is also easy to show the similarity between the denial of radiative physics and the denial of the holocaust.

      ALL of these comparisons are bull crap. Anyone who calls himself a sceptic should question the comparisons. when you do you see that the comparisions dont aim at truth. In fact, if you want to talk
      about the key tool of propagandists it lies in comparisons.

      comparing practices to nazi practices. comparing holocaust denial to c02 denial.

      Ball just went to the head of the propagandist class

      • “it is also easy to show the similarity between the denial of radiative physics and the denial of the holocaust.”
        Ahhh you make it sound so simple, as in all we need to know about Climate Physics are this and just a few more “physics” terms. And yet cloud “physics”, ocean “physics” and many other chaotic “physics” add immeasurably to the climate UNcertainty. And this is assuming that you even have the ones that you think that you understand are computer modeled correctly. This is just another attempt to mislead and you have become an active part of that problem.

      • Drawing parallels between the propaganda methods of the Hitlerites and the alarmists, as Dr. Ball did, does not make him a propagandist, Steven.
        And so, you tar him with the brush that you accuse him of wielding.
        Ask the fellows here if you can take that one back. Perhaps they will allow it.

      • I’m sure Dr Ball doesn’t mind changing the comparison. Since Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Kim Il sung and Pol Pot all used the same tactics, who would you suggest as a better example?

        A person who points out propaganda techniques is not a propagandist, they are simply telling the truth.

      • No, it is not. Not even close. Strike three.

        First of all, nobody denies the reality of radiative physics. Not that you actually have the physics background to understand (contrary to opinion, it is not a high school topic), but it is quite a bit more complicated than simply SWIR gets absorbed by the earth which gets and then re-radiated as LWIR, which then gets absorbed by CO2. What people.”deny” is that this is dominant driver of the climate (or significant at all). The use of the word is as you use it, something you should know damn well is incorrect, and also intentionally used as a direct comparison to holocaust denial.

        Unfortunately for your very weak analogy, holocaust denial was not a case of subjective interpretation of evidence or untested hypothesis. No, it was a case of outright refusal to accept in arguable proof.

        There are no parallels. There are parallels, however, in the tactics used by propagandists and climate hucksters.

        Mark

    • Just because someone doesn’t condemn Dr. Ball’s opinion (or Hitler’s), doesn’t mean that they implicitly agree with it, myself included. Using a pathetic straw man argument like that doesn’t gain you much respect in my eyes.

      • I agree. I skip past Ball’s posts on this site, I find them boring. Dr Ball is such small potatoes in all of this.

        Hansen and Mann utter invective on a daily basis. They contributed to the IPCC and get to talk directly to governments. But here we are going on about one of the many essays from Dr Ball.

        Even the civil elements of the alarmist side (like Betts and Edwards) have become so biased they cannot even see how ridiculous this is. After so many years of propaganda and alarmism from the AGW side, they want us to be talking about an essay from Dr Ball? This is absurd. The word “denier” has become a term used widely by professional scientists and these people want us to talk about an essay from Dr Ball?

      • Reg — would you also apply that reasoning when groups are reversed? I notice quite a few comments here demanding that Richard and Tamsin get everybody ‘on their side’ to quit using denier. Not merely to object and not use it themselves, but to succeed in getting everybody else not to use it. Other comments complaining exactly that silence _is_ assent (to whatever it is they want to hear people objecting to).

        Anyhow, if you’d read past my “It is easy …”, which it is — note that I did not say it was correct — I gave my own example, firsthand, of skeptics who did _not_ go the ‘you’re all a bunch of Nazi-wannabes’ route. So far, in my first hand 3d experience, that’s all skeptics. Online, not so pretty.

        If you’d read my whole note, you’d also have seen that I’m not objecting to the overwhelming majority here who are fine with calling scientists Nazis, equating them to Hitler, and the like. Just observing that if you want science to be discussed, this isn’t the way to get what you want.

      • Robert Grumbine November 27, 2014 at 5:12 pm
        Reg — would you also apply that reasoning when groups are reversed? I notice quite a few comments here demanding that Richard and Tamsin get everybody ‘on their side’ to quit using denier. Not merely to object and not use it themselves, but to succeed in getting everybody else not to use it.
        ——

        I have no problem with anyone using the term “Denier”. In fact, it is an effective way of identifying those who do not wish to, or are not capable of engaging in an intellectual debate. They are forced to resort to name calling because that is all they have. These are the same people who deliberately use the term “Carbon” instead of “Carbon Dioxide”.

      • I did. And I looked at the responses it gathered there and here. I’ve also read and watched Shakespearean plays including Julius Caesar.

        Quite a few of the natives thought that Ball had indeed equated the IPCC (which is, after all, several thousand scientists over the past 25 years) to Hitler. They applauded Ball, and continue to do so, for doing it so well. So, first point I’ll offer to you to ponder is, why, if Ball did not say something, are so many of your fellows here applauding him for saying it so well?

        Consider too that Ball is a smart guy, capable of writing well. That includes being understood as he wishes to be understood. But people, even despite best efforts and intentions can be misunderstood. If he did not mean to make that equation, why did he not correct the commenters early on as it became apparent that it was how he was being read?

        Finally, to arrive at your conclusion, you’ll have to read Mark Antony’s speech (the ‘Friends, Romans, Countrymen’) — and arrive at the conclusion that he did not praise Caesar, and thought that Brutus and company were indeed honorable men. He makes no statement to the contrary after all.

    • 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.

      Please can you copy and paste the text where ‘they are happy to call other people Nazis’ ?

      • Isn’t it the other way round anyway? It was the ‘other side’ who started calling people ‘deniers’ in the first place, so ‘we’ should surely be saying to them “But it’s hard to see how anyone could justify taking offence at being called a Nazi if they were happy to call other people Deniers”. Not that either statement actually makes any sense, if you think about it.

  91. Drs Bett and Edwards, there are at least two issues here.
    One is the climate science. There, a much more civilized–and much higher quality–dialog needs to take place, and it is good that you are doong so. I think it possible to be very critical of the quality of much of the ‘climate science’. See, for example, essays A High Stick Foul, By Land or By Sea, and Shell Games in Vlowing Smoke. All appeared at Judy Curry’s Climate Etc before appearing in the book. For each essay, the journals, authors, and media publicizers (e.g Walsh at Seattle Times) were provided copies with requests for corrigenda or retraction, owing to their grossly misleading nature that in each case also meeting the standards for academic misconduct. Nothing. That silence from ‘your side’ is not conducive to reasonable discourse.
    The second is the name calling. It is frequent, ugly, and mostly from your side. See essay Climatastrosophistry for examples. It should not occur, but does. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry both likened skeptics like myself to flat earthers in 2014. What you maynnot understand is that this is purely political. And the better analogy is to the tactics of communism, which is why most esposing CAGW can rightfully be labeled warmunists. The historical analogy is developed in Climatstrosophistry, and was first used by former Czech president Vaclav Klaus in 2007.
    It is refreshing that you posted here. Means you are not warmunists, but rather scientists. Now lets engage with some of the shoddy climate science, and make progress toward whatever climate truths we are collectively able to discern.

    • “The second is the name calling. It is frequent, ugly, and mostly from your side.”

      mommy mommy they did it first, they did it worst.

      playground complaints Rud.

      Ball is on your team. Hold him to account.

      • So you consider the occasional firing back of the essentially powerless evenly comparative to the persistent name calling and denigration by active “professionals” (ha ha) . Wow, that is paranoid.

      • Skeptics didn’t start this thing. Most skeptics want to bring some honest debate to the table but get blocked and called names for doing so. And childish comments like yours from the other side doesn’t help. As a regular commenter on this site why don’t you reach out and encourage your colleagues to come here to debate the issues in a scientific manner? You are perfectly placed to bridge the gap. You see Mosher I reckon the reason why you wouldn’t is because you know main stream climate scientists have made a lot of crazy assertions they cannot defend if held to account. Perhaps you could prove me wrong.

      • We are holding him to account. The blog owner has written

        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… Climate skeptics and climate advocates should do everything possible to help facilitate such dialog, otherwise all we have is just noise.

        That’s authored. That above the line.
        Criticising a side because of comments below the line is daft.
        Criticise the individual commenter – sure. But don’t hold us as representative.

        There is no provenance for the comments. We might be drunk, stressed, distracted, uninformed or just stupid when commenting. I often am all, at once. Why else would I assume anyone would care about the opinion of a nobody?

        Most people here are lurkers. They have an opinion but it won’t be as passionate as those who dive in and flail about. And on this and the original article many regular commenters chose not to comment.

        The comments below the line are entertainment and may be stimulating but they are not representative.

      • “There is no provenance for the comments. We might be drunk, stressed, distracted, uninformed or just stupid when commenting. I often am all, at once. Why else would I assume anyone would care about the opinion of a nobody?”
        First of all speak for yourself only. If the opinion represents a logical outlook then one can learn a new valuable thought even from “nobody’s”. Even “they” can spot errors of logic and find deception and often provide a valuable alternate viewpoint.
        ——————————————————————————————————————-
        “The comments below the line are entertainment and may be stimulating but they are not representative.”
        Not representative of whom? The only one you could accurately speak for is yourself.
        ———————————————————————————————————–
        I find this site’s official response against Betts & Edwards timid and from the “nobody” commenters, I would say that many agree.

      • BFL – exactly:
        I said, “Criticise the individual commenter – sure. But don’t hold us as representative.” And my comment was therefore speaking for myself as an individual.

        My state of mind should not be taken as representative of anybody else’s state of mind. I am an anonymous nobody. I represent no-one’s view but my own. And I don’t claim to speak for the others who comment here.

        Nor should anyone else.

      • Steven, three points.
        First, Ball did nothing wrong, as pointed out above. Mein Kampf is about big lies. Taking offense means that evident truth hurts. Deal with it.
        Second, ‘your’ team has been much worse. Documented in essay Climtastrosophistry in new enook Blowing Smoke. Deal with that, and the referenced footnotes proving that these are not mere allegations. Including aspertions from Al Gore and OBama and Kerry.
        Third, you personally have ad hom denigrated me over on Climate Etc concerning BEST station 166900. Go see what you said. Go see what your methodology produced for that ‘pristene’ station.
        After an apology and mea culpa, perhaps you can resume the civilized scientiific discourse that Betts and Edwins advocate above. Until then, you have by your own actions proven the opposite.

        It must be rather tough to find yourself on the losing side of the “science” you swore allegiance to.
        Tougher to find there are others who know methodologically as much as you, with irrefutable fact counters to your increasingly snide remarks.
        Toughest to find that voices your side tried to silence as ‘deniers’ or ‘flat earthers’ or (in your personal case re me) ‘statistical ignorami’ have not been silenced, and en mass are more literate than your worst nightmares.

        BTW in re your indelible (because privately archived) comment on my ‘Mommy’ is long dead, god rest her long suffering (MS plus breast cancer) soul. With that comment up post you revealed the core of your own soul. And now your morale rot is forever archived, as my screenshot .pdf of your unforgivable comment above is now indelibly archived in ways you can never change. But will use.

        Steven, you have just personified all that is wrong from ‘your side’ of climate science, which Richard and Tamsin upthread attempted to right with a feeble olive branch based on an erroneous Ball premise. Disregards to you, permanently. My actual sentiments are much more negative to you, but in the spirit of Richard and Tamsin’s posts are withheld lest they trigger moderation.

  92. What is painfully apparent from the above comments is that the OPs and Tamsin in particular have replied to those who have supported their position.
    But not one single response to all those who have made very valid counter arguments, not only about the vilification of sceptics, not only about the historical accuracy of Tim’s original post on the “Big Lie” but also nothing about the God awfull psuedo Science in the IPCC Summaries and outpouring of awfull scaremongering reports from most other so called Science organisations.

    It speaks volumes of their attitude and says it all for me.

    • Latest scaremongering reports from UK come from the Royal Society. (Today’s DT) If we don’t get to grips with global warming by 2100 we will experience three times as many heatwaves as we do now. And the number of people who die OF THE HEAT each year will rise from 2000 to 6000. Our average mid-summer temperature where I live in England is about 20C. I live in Spain for half the year where average summer temperatures are 30C and I have not heard of many people dying there because of the heat. Of course they do not mention the number of people who die of the cold in the UK each year which would presumably be greatly reduced if we had a rise of a few degrees.

    • They are afraid. Neither reports to sharp criticism at Bishop Hill, either. It is a symptom of the very problem people like me are arguing against.

      Mark

      • I don’t think “taking the skeptic side” is really the point. Betts does this as well, though both do it somewhat weakly, and typically in places where such a position is welcome. Critic fodder, for sure, but immaterial, either way.

        The central premise of their entire post arguably has nothing to do with the post by Dr. Ball, yet neither has responded to this legitimate complaint. Dr. Ball as all the evil for referencing Hitler, yet their personal attack of Dr. Ball, based on a complete failure to actually understand what he wrote, is kosher, and neither has responded to this legitimate observation.

        Mark

  93. Richard Betts is a climate modeller who works for “HELIX”
    http://helixclimate.eu/richard-betts
    Speaks for itself.
    He also comes out with “genius” tweets such as “The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.”
    And this garbage from the Met. Office
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2009/four-degrees
    “Four degrees of warming, averaged over the globe, translates into even greater warming in many regions, along with major changes in rainfall. If greenhouse gas emissions are not cut soon, we could see major climate changes within our own lifetimes.”

    Draw your own conclusions….

    • “The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.”- Richard Betts
      I conclude this is from a wannabe witch doctor. Perhaps I’m in error and it’s really a scientists urging integrity from everyone.

    • RB is a prostitute who tries to pretend that he is cheap. See his salary statement, you will see that he is very expensive.

    • And I should add that like Al Gore, Strong stands to personally benefit from government control of “carbon”. Like many key advocates of warmism, he is in a conflict of interest.

    • Very true. When you advocate policies that will result in the deaths of millions like Maurice Strong does it is hard to avoid comparisons with history’s butchers like Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. Their policies resulted in deaths of tens of millions often of their own people.

      Forgive Dr Ball for learning from history and not wanting to repeat it. I’m in the same boat. The people who contend that CO2 has to be controlled have never proven their case to any extent. Their predictions continue to fail and yet we are to restrict energy production from certain sources and drive the price up for those who can least afford it. That will result in the deaths of a lot of people.

      Continuing to chase the dragon of CO2 caused warming long after it has been dis-proven will leave us without resources to deal with real problems which may include extreme cold.

      One question I have for Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards is the following:
      How long with flat or falling temperatures and rising CO2 before you admit that you and your theory of CO2 controlling the climate are wrong?

  94. I think this post is a big goose egg, I totally agree with Dr. Tim’s assessment and him quoting Mein Kampf was totally appropriate and accurate. Hitler didn’t act alone he was influenced by people around him and leaders of the time, one of which was a U.S. citizen named Edward L. Bernays who wrote the book on Propaganda, literally. This book inspired Joseph Goebbels the head of the propaganda ministry and Hitler and they used it quite successfully.

    Before WWII the word “propaganda” wasn’t frowned upon in fact Goebbels building had a bi=g sign on the front reading “MINISTRY OF PROPAGANDA” they thought ““the scientific manipulation of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in a democratic society.” Not until after the war did it have negative connotations so they changed it to “Public Relations” it’s the same thing it’s how to “control the masses without their knowing it.”

    Edward Bernays used doctors and scientists in his marketing because he knew people trusted them. Remember those ads from the 40’s and 50’s with doctors wearing white lab coats recommending a certain brand of cigarette or “9 out of 10 dentists agree fluoride is good for your teeth” using a consensus among scientists was a good way to control how people thought.

    People think that because Hitler used propaganda and he is dead, propaganda is dead too, but the truth is it was invented here and is still very much alive and well in our culture. Now it is more sophisticated and more subtle but it is still exists and is more powerful than ever.

    • The 1930s-40s central-European leadership didn’t lose their credible and place at the discussion-table, (just) because they engaged in propaganda.

  95. Richard/Tamsin

    Please show exactly where Tim Ball draws parallels between climate scientists and Hitler.

    You might then care to address some of the serious issues Tim raises about the politicisation of the IPCC, the role of Maurice Strong and others, and the corruption of climate science by govt funding. (Perhaps another post would be needed to give this the importance it deserves)

    Paul

  96. Thanks. This needed to be said.

    I find the whole thing confusing. The evidence seems so clear that the models are sub-par. And yet, the official climate prognosticators act like there is nothing amiss.

    Any reasonable person would at least consider that there is sneakiness afoot. But the Hitler analogy is a bad idea if you want to make a serious point to serious people.

  97. Both sides of this chasm live people of various hypotheses and beliefs. Sometimes possess the ability to be nice or at least just plain honest.
    It would be nice for those who claim others are Nazis, murderers, paedophiliacs be judged for what they say by their own people for once. Only in doing this can both sides debate honestly.

    I have an issue with two teams over the gorge calling the other side to lay foundations to build that bridge when behind them are mad, angry braying attack dogs.

  98. When I see Richard and Tamsin appearing regularly at non-science sites like this alarmist fear-mongering propaganda site . . . http://hot-topic.co.nz/ . . . then I will know that they are sincere, and that they care about truth and knowledge.
    But they should be warned – NO scientist, no matter how sympathetic to the cause , will be permitted to post material that suggests that there is even the slightest bit of doubt about the catastrophic prognostications contained within this site.
    But let’s see them try anyway. They will have my admiration if they can last a week there before being placed on permanent moderation.

    • “When I see Richard and Tamsin appearing regularly at non-science sites like this alarmist fear-mongering propaganda site . . . http://hot-topic.co.nz/ . . . then I will know that they are sincere, and that they care about truth and knowledge.”

      loyalty tests.

      This is exactly the kind of crap that keeps the polarization alive.

      • You have a problem with loyalty to truth? Why so?. Is it not worth your while to correct falsehood where you find it?
        Why not go there yourself and put the record straight?
        My point about this site is that neither you , nor I , nor Tamsin and Richard will be permitted to speak the truth there.

        See you there Steven :-)

      • When I know that Betts and Richards have admonished their fellows against such ill behavior seen at these sites, then I will listen to their complaints here.

        Physician, cure thyself.

      • No I have a problem with you telling people what they have to do to prove their sincerity.

        its pretty simple.

      • Steven Mosher-” I have a problem with you telling people what they have to do to prove their sincerity.”

        That’s O.K. with me. I’m happy to accept any sort of demonstration . . . not necessarily the one I proposed (which was tongue-in-cheek, perhaps not obviously).
        And I do acknowledge that Tamsin and Richard may have a lot to lose by declaring publicly under their own names ; so do I , which is why I use a nom de plume.
        They might both choose to do as I do – live to fight another day -lose a battle but win the war. It always pays to choose your battles.
        But the polarity you refer to . . . . science/superstition; fact/belief; truth/bullshit; however you wish to characterise it seems to be eternal. At least , it won’t go away anytime soon.

      • farmer

        “That’s O.K. with me. I’m happy to accept any sort of demonstration”

        I doubt your sincerity. when you use your real name I will believe you.

        too fricking funny

      • But Steven, my credibility is irrelevant: I acknowledge that I can have none in your eyes. I couldn’t care less.
        And I have no more credibility in the eyes of most commenters here than you do; it is just the blogosphere.
        Anyone who wants to know who I am can find out in a couple of minutes. Then they can judge if they need to.

        But this is about the scientific method; who is using it and who is not, and what are the facts.
        Your comment about loyalty tests was wide of the mark; the issue was credibility, not loyalty.
        As most have observed Betts and Edwards have little or no credibility in the eyes of sceptics because while they may privately subscribe to the scientific process, in the sphere of commerce , i.e. in their employment they apparently do not demonstrate any adherence to conventional scientific process.
        Just show me where I am wrong about that; I wasn’t at the “dinner party”.

      • It’s not a loyalty test. It’s a simple challenge. Farmerbraun is interested to know where Richard and Tamsin stand on the question of dangerous global warming. Nothing wrong with that. And why do you dislike polarization? Catastrophic-human-caused global warming is a polarized question — it’s either a real threat or it’s not. You seem to fancy yourself some sort of referee but your logic is faulty and I find your attitude of super-selfrightousness distasteful. It comes off like bullying. I don’t like bullies.

      • “Loyalty Tests”- ? did you miss the posts above in which the names of those scientists who dared to question the party line of the Warmunistas lost their jobs and were pilloried at the post of public opinion? The ENTIRE edifice of secular Environmentalism is built on WORSHIP of their DOGMA. As other here with fare more erudition have noted, your posts continue to shine a spotlight on your projection of your own faults onto others. Polarization does work to maintain dominance of the empowered class; however, pretending there is some group large enough to be heard on the sceptic side to be classified as “polarizing” would be funny, if not so sad. Perhaps when the public at large comes to the realization that they are freezing in the dark after sending all their taxes and donations to a large group of LIARS, true polarization will be evident…

  99. I read the original article by Dr Ball as more of a “tongue in cheek” type article than one asking serious question about motive. The real motive is as Dr Brown explained in his most excellent post. It is a catch all that can secure funding. Just make yourself socially relevant by working up a “climate change” angle to your proposal and you are much more likely to get funding.

    I would like to ask Richard and Tamsin what their thoughts are on the points raised by Dr Brown

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/

    • Amen! I think Occam’s razor tells us that massive funding directed toward the CAGW side of the argument is going to influence some portion of the scientific community. After all, scientists need to put bread on the table, just like the hoi polloi.

  100. I found Dr. Ball’s article enlightening and this “rebuttal” post obfuscating. Tony, you have nothing to apologize for in allowing Dr. Ball to post on your blog. In the end, what is your answer to his question?

    Do you really think that the AGW alarmists are motivated by a poor choice of computer models? Do you think that the mountains of money that pour in to support the bad science come from misguided or mistaken souls who failed to study Karl Popper in college? This is a science blog and perhaps it is off topic to discuss HOW the science got so corrupted rather than just the details of how wrong it is. But in the long run it is not going to be some killer scientific study that refutes AGW and puts the science back on the right track.

    There are already many excellent studies, books like the “Hockey Stick Illusion”, hundreds of articles. The AGW gravy continues apace and our President has committed to $billions to solve non-existent problems. Dr. Ball is right to point out the history and motives of those who started this movement and what their real strategy is.

    It is going to take a sincere, objective look at the facts and a serious, broadly disseminated answer to Dr. Ball’s question to bring the light of truth to bear on the exaggerated claims of AGW catastrophism.

    What’s your answer, Tony? A cutesy reference to “Godwin’s Law”, which seems to amount to “Oops somebody said a nasty, Blog Down” is not going to cut the mustard.

  101. I find it hard to fault Ball for his attack on the CAGW forces.
    Look at what the CAGW skeptics have been fighting over the last twenty-five years:
    1. The discredited Mann “hockey stick”
    2. The statistical torturing of data to support the CAGW hypothesis
    3. The hijacking and corruption of the peer review process to ensure that the
    CAGW skeptics are denied a voice in the scientific debate.
    4. The corruption of the peer review process to allow articles of questionable
    validity to appear in scientific journals to bolster the CAGW hypothesis
    5. The reluctance and/or obstructionism in providing data and methods of
    analysis to those not friendly to the CAGW hypothesis. This is most egregious
    because it undermines one of science’s most important tools: the ability
    to reproduce and verify results.
    6. Ad-hominem attacks on CAGW skeptics and calls for their persecution because
    they do not obey the new CAGW order.
    7. Climate models that have, for the past 18 years or so, significantly diverged
    from reality regardless of the tweaks and changes made to force them
    to accurately predict the climate.
    8. A slippery hypothesis that does not allow for refutation and confers on atmospheric CO2 to have the magical properties of causing at need, warming and cooling, drought and flood, colder and warmer climate, and whatever is needed at the moment to keep CAGW alive.
    9. Addition of epicycles to the CACW hypothesis to account for its failures. See sulfur aerosols, deep ocean heating for examples.
    10. IPCC executive summaries that eschew science to promote political ends
    11. Worst of all, the acquiescence and silence of the many in the science community to these and other outrages.

    I am an engineer and have a great respect for science when it is properly applied. Good science saves lives and makes the human condition better. CAGW “science” does neither and has become like a religion with received wisdom, demands of obedience to central authority, non-falsifiable hypotheses, and calls for capital punishment for heretics. Worse yet, when the truth about the corruption of science is finally exposed, as it always is, irreparable damage will have been done to reputation of science and its practitioners. No longer will the public see scientists as impartial seekers of truth and speakers of truth to power. They will instead be seen as venal and self-serving individuals who sacrificed the will and good of the people for their political agendas and the chance to rule. The golden luster will be seen as the tarnished brass that it has become. The worst effect of this public attitude will be seen when science next aptly cries wolf and the public ignores the warning out of fear that it is yet another attempt to subvert their lives.

    These are sufficient reasons why calls for comity from Betts and Tamsin ring hollow to me. Have they or their like-thinking peers been willing to brave the CAGW mob and vocally and publically criticize and condemn the attacks on the CAGW skeptics? Have they or their compatriots demanded more openness and transparency in the CAGW debate? Have they or others repudiated the questionable and outright fraudulent results of CAGW “science?” Until Betts, Tamsin and others are willing to put their careers on the line and openly and vigorously challenge the CAGW mob by demanding a more open process and the cessation of the CAGW mob’s self-serving and unscientific suppression the CAGW skeptics, then Ball and others have little recourse but to attack in like manner. It is time that the CAGW skeptics stop bringing rubber knives to a gunfight.

    • 12. The banning of Nigel Lawson, the Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, by the BBC from any further discussions on AGW (not that they hold many) because he is not a scientist.

    • Exactly right, jburrell. It’s this part, “irreparable damage will have been done to reputation of science and its practitioners.” that is most upsetting to me.

      The AGW-promoters have deliberately and systematically subverted science. They have knowingly violated their most serious professional ethics. And the science academies have rolled right over in support of that noxious program. The fallout is likely to be awful.

    • 13) Getting editors fired.

      This is not just about ‘science’. It’s about advocacy for renewable energy, prematurely ending fossil fuel use, extreme ecology and making a few well placed people a lot of money. Some have other agendas which spilled from the end of the cold war: strangling capitalism and Western / developing world industrialization and progress.

      Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace

      The WWF Activist in Charge at the IPCC

      IPCC Invites In the Activists

      The people making money off the back of CAGW are Lord Debden, Lord Stern, and a host of other alarmists with shares in companies set to benefit from government action. Neat eh!

  102. I’ll respect Richard Betts when his response to bad science is stronger than Tsk … @aDissentient Yes, I noticed that. Tsk. @c25AA @ClimateSystem @royalsociety … it feels as if his position is that extremist CAGW advocates are just being a little naughty … nothing too bad mind … and in a “good cause” …

  103. I didn’t read the original article before now because it didn’t tell me anything I hadn’t already heard or wanted to again. I’m not a fan of Dr Tim Ball’s posts but people like Dr Ball are at the sharp end of anti sceptic attack and frankly I’d be darn sight more angry in his position than I am as a bystander. And I’m pretty cross anyway. For those who have been savaged by the system, I have every sympathy for anything they want to throw at the warmist machine or those who keep silent while others are shredded.

    I don’t favour likening historical events together with current ones, not because there are no parallels but because there are often too many to make a useful point. Take any two conflicts, from a cat fight between teenage girls to a World war, and some of the aspects will be very similar. The name calling, the rumours, the gathering of allies, the annexing of weaker individuals… these are just human dirty tricks. I’m bored of them from both sides but I don’t expect people to be anything but human.

    It’s really nice that Dr Tamsin and Professor Betts are offering the olive branch but frankly they’re acting like the negotiators in peace talks for the winning side. Assuming they have the authority to act as such, and I very much doubt they have that much influence given the size of warmism, we don’t need to start negotiations as we haven’t lost the war. We didn’t even start the war, we just found ourselves on the opposite side of a very dodgy, ill defined consensus. Have many of us changed our position or got closer to the centre? Do we think climate science has radically improved its procedures and accountability? Do we think they’re voluntarily more honest about the state of modelling or their knowledge? Is the movement towards us the result of their reasonableness or because the climate is making liars out of them? If warming resumed its previous pace (and I’ve never ruled it out) would they pretend there was never anything wrong with climate science in the first place?

    In his graciousness Anthony Watts has given Richard and Tamsin a platform to rebuke a sceptic for going over the top. Absolutely his prerogative to do so. But you know what? I’ve been rebuked by them (en masse) in subtle and not so subtle ways but I’m darned if I’ve seen much where they offer anything but the mildest of criticisms to their own side. Most of those have been in the form of excuses. If they’re a much more staunch ally in secret but have to publicly go softly, softly… Not sure I want allies like that. It means when I’m slapped, I can’t slap back and if that makes me Rambo, give me a headband and combat boots now.

  104. I had a hearty laugh at having a “civil” discussion with the perpetrators of the greatest fraud hoisted upon humanity. What will you discuss? How to dismantle the fraud and destroy their careers in the process? Lots of luck!

  105. Maybe someone’s playing a divide and conquer game with the WUWT’s commentariate and readership given the above … what would you call it? … polarization?

    Alternatively, if all it’s just “noise” it’s pretty popular noise, at least to people who are beyond tired of the endless screed of anti-science level of supposed ‘research’ for the past 25 years by the sanguine and ambivalent dinner guests, who are being hung out to dry by the bald facts of no warming in 18 years and the inconvenient RECORD SOUTHERN OCEAN ICE during 2014 and the second snap polar vortex laden winter flow in two years.

    Next August the politicians and econowonks will still be talking about how the pending 2014-2015 winter caused much more serious economic slowdown than they had anticipated. Three billion for ‘direct action’ will be dead in the water … of course … as it should be.

    • “Maybe someone’s playing a divide and conquer game with the WUWT’s commentariate and readership given the above”

      No skeptic consensus exists to be divided and conquered.

      • I don’t mean a consensus, I mean fractionation of opposition to the AGW BS-osphere. They don’t want to get rid of a consensus, they want to defang an extremely effective opposition to their pet consensus.

        But, in the end, if the winter is protracted with minus 50 again, and the southern sea ice thickens and expands some more, you’d hope that was the bit that mattered to everyone.

        Otherwise it is all just noise. In which case, what does it matter whether a collective attitude of reconciliation exists? Do you need that for agreeable science? Or do you just need to observe what the earth is actually doing, and let that be what matters?

        To my mind all the rest is the real ‘noise’ – pro, or con.

  106. I’ve seen and heard the word Nazi used for the better part of 60 years and it usually means
    control oriented. It seldom has anything to do with the Holocaust or any of the other stuff the real Nazis were up to. Certainly Ball’s use implied no such thing. But charging that someone using it implies the horrible associations, without reason, is a phony argument.

    • ” Certainly Ball’s use implied no such thing’

      certainly?

      hmm. is that settled science? implication in language is a very tricky thing.

  107. How odd??

    What is the purpose of your article above, Dr. Edwards and Dr. Betts?

    Is it to clear the air? Or is it intended to silence strong opinions like Dr. Ball’s?
    From this perspective, your purpose is to silence words you dislike.

    Which brings up the question why do you dislike them? Perhaps because recognizing yourself, friends, or your actions in the descriptions causes chills to run up your spine and quite some embarrassment? Well, truth hurts, and it can hurt a lot more as the fullness of your own actions becomes known.

    Do you really and truthfully defend skepticism every day every time someone disparages or falsely accuses those who question the science? It takes more than a few quotes before I’ll believe that you openly take the skeptics case.

    Back to Dr. Ball;
    Dr. Ball is still under a lawsuit by Mann, a lawsuit that is being ground on with the purpose of punishing Dr. Ball, silencing Dr. Ball and many others.

    When did you last take Mann to task about his legal abuse? When have you voiced support for Mann’s victims? Have you ever wondered what would happen to you under similar circumstances? Sued by an egocentric extremely over sensitive bully backed by apparently infinite funding…

    So, Dr. Ball wrote something you find unpleasant; someone forwarded it to you and now you here at WUWT complaining.

    Could you please define exactly and explicitly where Dr. Ball caused you personally distress? Did he name you, your organization or your specific work product explicitly as fascists? When did you feel personally involved?

    Dr. Ball used strong allusions and quotes to press points that impact him very strongly, valid points from his and many other’s perspectives too.

    There is collusion, climategate proved that; there are many extremely irritating coincidences that imply behind the scenes collusion is just as prevalent today.

    There are many severe and extreme examples of irrational rabid behavior and over the top claims of incredible prophesies blurted by alarmists with barely a murmur from climate scientists. Yes Dr. Betts, this includes your few public rather minor dissensions.

    I’ll return to where I started, just what are you really seeking with your comment above? Science discussed openly and freely? Or Dr. Ball’s uncomfortable words quashed?

    No, I did not fully read Dr. Ball’s article. I am far more interested in getting prosecutors involved than reading someone’s heartfelt beliefs and emotional loss.

    • Well said. This response is seconded.
      The original post by Dr. Ball is well worth a full reading, to fully understand how Betts and Edwards have distorted the points made by Dr. Ball.

  108. Maybe some find Tim Ball’s statements strong. However you have to remember that he has been criticized strongly for legitimate expressions on climate.
    Now are we going to get any reaction the today’s misleading headlines about polar bears:
    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/11/26/polar_bears_facing_worstcase_trajectory_because_of_climate_change.html
    Or do we only get Dr. Susan Crockford’s response.
    Now in the article they said:
    **Even the High Arctic won’t remain a haven for polar bears if the Earth continues to warm at the current pace, says an alarming new study.

    Published in PLOS One, an online science journal on Wednesday, the study warns that all regions of Canada’s Arctic islands could potentially be ice-free for two to five months every year by the end of the century, triggering starvation and reproductive failure for polar bears. **
    I think that means the temperature stays the same???

  109. I was not offended by the Tim Ball article. Explaining the technique of the ‘big lie’ as it was perfected by the propagandists of the Third Reich and recognizing that similar techniques are being used in pushing AGW is not calling someone a Nazi. In fact it is offensive to me that someone use the ultra PC notion that ‘no comparison to anything associated with the Nazis is permissible in civilized society’ to disparage or silence a perfectly valid and appropriate comparison.

    • perhaps the big lie is ball’s lie

      “Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science.”

      That is the Big Lie.

      The simple fact is there is uncertainty. some AGW types claim they have proved. some skeptics claim they have disproved.

      you want to look at Big lies.. try those two. One of them is balls big lie. He’s on your team, maybe he should sit the bench.

      • You simply do not have the knowledge, education, or experience necessary to make such a claim with any authority. The bulk of the argument skeptics have done so well with revolves around statistical analysis, something you repeatedly demonstrate extreme ignorance with.

        Mark

      • Steven, this must rank with your worst comments ever.

        You do.need to read Donna LaFramboise’s books.

        As it is, your comment is the biggest lie right now.

      • The burden of proof is on those who propose and propound a theory. Skeptics are not required to disprove the theory. Nature will do (is doing?) that. It’s perfectly valid to say a theory is wrong until compelling evidence shows it might be right. Uncertainty is cause enough to dismiss the theory. Show some compelling evidence and we can have a discussion.

      • perhaps the big lie is ball’s lie

        “Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science.”

        That is the Big Lie.

        That’s not a lie.

        This paper, all by itself, was enough to discount the entire AGW paradigm. If climate science were not so corrupt, it would have done. But, as usual, it was brushed aside because it contradicted the narrative.

        Kirill Kondratyev has a more accessible discussion here.

  110. I can’t sympathize with two alarmists who miraculously find the feigned outrage and time to distort Ball’s point so they can then feign high ground while ignoring the substance of the quote Ball used.
    IMO the severity of the institutionalized incessant lying generated by the climate theorists more than justifies Ball’s use of the quote.
    And it doesn’t really matter who said the quote Ball used.

    “All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”

    If it were Hitler, Bernie Madoff, Charles Manson or anyone involved with any historical lying the quote still applies very well to today’s Climateers.
    http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/10-biggest-lies-in-history.htm

    Forget who said it.
    I wonder what Betts and Edwards find wrong with the substance and context of the quote itself?
    We’ll probably never know because they’re too busy playing lofty to avoid explaining their take.

  111. Additionally, the time for debate and polite talk about climate is long past, by my reckoning, about seven years past. But back then, the claim was that the debate was over. Those in power and in control just decided they had won, and anybody who didn’t go along, well got heaped with verbal abuse and even threats. Those who valued their jobs knew not to speak out. The comparison of “Skeptics” and those who claimed the holocaust never happened was made deliberately.

  112. Every time you attack the motives of the people you disagree with, you are firing a shot at your own side.

    • Sir, well said. However. The motives the people that warmist sceptics disagree must be questioned. Perhaps not here? Perhaps in manner different than “attack”. When the words and the language are “owned” by one side (Leftists, in this case, and in many other cases in today’s world) It is not possible to use their words to debate or discuss “their” dogma. E.G. “denier”= “heretic” in the canon of environmentalism, and heretics are to be burned, as all inquisitors know. Thus, is it vital to NOT self describe, or pretend to be proud of, the label “denier”. There is much to learned in the neo-reactionary movement regarding the use of our language, which continues to redefine words and topics towards the ends of moving our culture and civilization towards the dead end of a totalitarian egalitarian state. Environmentalism has succeeded Christianity as the State-approved religion; science as a process continues to lose out to a “consensus” of “credentialists” pushing a dogma designed to enrichen the priests and their temples (universities).

  113. “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”

    A huge difference exists between scientists doing science (good), and the politicians leveraging parts of that science for their own purposes (bad). The names that draw the most suspicion, Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are not scientists doing science. Of all the scientists on earth only a few are “under a cloud” but their names are disproportionately well known.

    As for me being called a Denier; I’m used to it — right here on this blog I’ve been everything from Denier to Lewandowsky Fanboy, extreme opposites of the same spectrum.

    I wish scientists would recognize this same distinction. But maybe John Q. Public doesn’t make that distinction and is starting to consider anyone with a PhD the enemy.

  114. One of the first things I noticed about the well known climate establishment personalities was how often they used ad Homs against anyone who had the temerity to question orthodoxy. When those statements got into the hundreds, I knew something was fundamentally wrong with climate science. If it was just the warmist commenters who engaged in this low brow activity, it would not have influenced me. Rather it was pervasive at even the highest levels. I quickly went from agnostic to skeptic. In 6 years of studying the data and voluminous studies, I have been even more convinced there a lot of reasons to question the establishment.

    And now that the tables have been turned the whining begins? Excuse me if I am not more sympathetic.

  115. Dr. Tim Ball was educating the ignorant on the history of the “BIG LIE”, nothing more. Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, isn’t that what we are seeing with the IPCC and cAGW?

    I detected no adhom attacks in Dr. Balls Article, just some unpleasant truths.

    When I see courage or any indication that these whiners are willing to call out some truth about the CO2 fear narrative then they can spout of about there delicate feelings being bruised.

    • This post opens with faux outrage of the “HOW DARE YOU!” sort. Yet these are the privileged scientists who have benefited from the roughly $100 billion in public spending over decades with bupkis for bottom-line results like ECS for decades

      and you ae dismayed that merely a few are OUTRAGED at being repeatedly mislead by your kind as we suffer “just a nother decade and we’ll know!”

      In another era you would be greeted with tar and feathers. Today, you simply get a rare “F*** Y**!” YOU ARE NOT WORTHY OF FUNDING. YOU OUGHT TO BE APOLOGIZING TO US AND MANY OTHERS REPEATEDLY. :BECAUSE YOU ARE RAPING THE TAXPAYER and EXPECT US TO ENJOY IT?

    • “Dr. Tim Ball was educating the ignorant on the history of the “BIG LIE”, nothing more. Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, isn’t that what we are seeing with the IPCC and cAGW?”

      Oh, I don’t know whether to laugh at your post or cry. Dr. Tim Ball was GROSSLY mislading the ignorant (that part you had right) about the history of the BIG LIE. The irony is that Hitler was not promoting the BIG LIE, as Dr. Bal and so many other people erroneously do, but he was instead complaining about its usage against the German people by Germany’s enemies!! That is the BIG LIE.

      And you’re right that the ignorant are doomed to repeat history. People are indeed very gullible and can’t be trained to believe completely false ideas. Both sides in this debate are yelling at each other but both have made an incorrect assumption about the most basic fact. It doesn’t give me faith in the scientific rigor of either side!

  116. There’s a subtext to this word d-e-n-i-e-r which needs to have a bright light shined on it. It’s really a code word, isn’t it. What it is intended to evoke is the highly-charged term h-o-l-o-c-a-u-s-t d-e-n-i-e-r. There is no more serious charge that can be laid against someone in intellectual debate than to be called one-of-those. It is considered beyond the pale precisely because it is taken for granted that to deny the holocaust is to be an apologist for the horrors of Nazism.

    So let’s not beat around the bush: the use of the term d-e-n-i-e-r is nothing but a cute and clever way of labeling anyone refusing to sign up to the climate consensus a Nazi.

    Tamsin’s tweeted objection to Mann was not to the use of the term per se, but to the application of the term to an actual climate scientist. In other words, the term must only be used for “them”, not “us”.

    But quote Mein Kampf, and they squeal “foul”.

  117. I have mixed feelings about this. Yes, the Tim Ball article was rubbish – a very muddled argument throughout, with a completely inappropriate analogy. In fact he even got the analogy muddled – see Brandon Shollenberger’s Izuru blog if you care.

    But on the other hand, while it’s wrong for Ball to make any kind of Hitler – climate science analogy, there are climate scientists every day making analogies between climate sceptics and Hitler apologists, climate sceptics and tobacco companies, and so on. So I can see why many people here are not very sympathetic to RIchard and Tamsin.

    • there are climate scientists every day making analogies between climate sceptics and Hitler apologists, climate sceptics and tobacco companies

      Can you give some examples of scientists doing that. Although, I have heard the tobacco company analogy frequently used by non-scientists, I believe it’s related to the energy industry funding scientists and scientific organizations like Heartland.

      • You mean linking scepticism with Holocaust DENIAL isn’t obvius to you?
        You remember that the Hokocaust did happen, don’t you?

        Watch Schindler’s List. It shows Death Trains carrying people to Factories of Death.

        Then consider the words of James Hansen who was director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. (He was the first scientist to warn the US Congress of the dangers of climate change).

        The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.

        Is that too subtle for you? Because that got through the media control of the Guardian and NASA.

      • Sigh, full of typos and bad formatting.
        That’s how much I’m annoyed at the wilful blindness to the accusations of Holocaust denial.

      • I see one person saying one thing one time and not being very specific about his intent. Paul claimed this was happening on a daily basis. And to suggest that he was comparing climate skeptics to Holocaust deniers is also a further stretch.

      • Ok, I see you have an example of a science related group that issues a report. Honestly I don’t think there is any doubt that the industry energy has funded scientists and other scientific organizations to protect their vested interests like tobacco companies did. Also, I don’t think you are going to see very many individual scientists talking about the energy industry or using tobacco related tactics. And especially not on a daily basis.

      • Joseph, you appear wilfully blind.

        Death Trains existed.
        Factories of Death existed.

        Using such language is not a coincidence. They are two different phrases. He knew what he was saying.

        Now, in this case I do not believe his principle aim is to dissuade the reader of the existence of the Holocaust. But he is trying to link the certainty of something that hasn’t happened yet (maybe yet, maybe not) with something that did.
        Yes! The Holocaust did happen.

        But every day we have people making the link. “Denier -should be locked up for causing mass death”!
        But it hasn’t happened and it may not happen. The Denier word linking the Death Trains of historical reality with modern infrastructure and the imaginary deaths of the future…
        “DENIER” is used every day.

        It is polite to accept that the word is used to link sceptics with Holocaust denial. Otherwise the constant linking of a past horror with a projection of the future must be equating the reality of the two.
        And that is Holocaust denial.

        How do you explain phrases like ” Denier”. “Death Train”, “Factories of Death” or (here’s another) Nuremberg Trials?

      • Joseph ..

        Can you give some examples of scientists doing that. Although, I have heard the tobacco company analogy frequently used by non-scientists, I believe it’s related to the energy industry funding scientists and scientific organizations like Heartland.

        Heartland is a political advocacy group. From their ‘about’ page (heartland.org / about) :

        Mission: Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

        Policy Advisors: Approximately 235 academics and professional economists participate in its peer-review process, and more than 160 elected officials serve on its Legislative Forum.

        Whether they’re good or bad is a different matter. But they’re not a scientific organization.

      • Joseph November 27, 2014 at 12:15 pm
        Can you give some examples of scientists doing that. Although, I have heard the tobacco company analogy frequently used by non-scientists, I believe it’s related to the energy industry funding scientists and scientific organizations like Heartland.

        If you think that Michael Mann is a climate scientist then here you go!

        Scot Mandia
        “Mike describes the well-documented tobacco industry “doubt is our product” misinformation strategy that is now being used in climate discussions.”
        http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/12/422774/michael-mann-author-book-hockey-stick-climate-wars/

        An Interview with Michael Mann on the Climate Wars: Part 2
        Part 2: Worse than the Tobacco Wars
        A crime against humanity is being waged using tactics the tobacco industry once used to deny its products posed a public health hazard.
        http://www.ecology.com/2012/07/14/interview-michael-mann-climate-wars-2/

        See these too.
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/03/the-silence-of-the-anti-defamation-league-suggests-they-endorse-defamation-of-climate-skeptics/

      • Joseph,
        Let me teach you something about tobacco and Warmists by readingthis.

        Let me teach you something about fossil fuels and Warmists by reading this.

        Let me teach you something about green groups INVESTING in fossil fuel companies by reading this.

        The BBC invests some of its pension money in the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC). The BBC also invests some of its pension money in oil companies and tobacco companies. I will follow up with the BBC references for you after this post.

      • Joseph, here is what I promised.
        BBC Pension – Top equity Investments at 31 March 2013

        Altria Group [Tobacco]

        Drax Group [Electricity generation]

        BHP Billiton [Oil & mining]

        British American Tobacco

        BG Group [Oil & natural gas]

        BP [Oil & natural gas]

        Royal Dutch Shell [Oil & natural gas]

        Imperial Tobacco

        Centrica [Natural gas & electricity]

        Reynolds American [Tobacco]

        Petrofac [Oilfield services]

        Occidental Petroleum [Oil & natural gas]

        The above list “Does not include any assets held in pooled funds.”

        [BBC Pension Scheme]
        “The Scheme is also a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) and has signed up to their investor statement.”
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/aboutthescheme/responsible.html
        —–

        “The statement is supported by 259 investors – both asset owners and asset managers – that collectively
        represent assets of over US$15 trillion.”
        IIGCC – November 2010

  118. To pretend that there is a going to be a polite and rational debate that will turn the tide of climate change hysteria is delusion. Further, to pile on Dr Ball for speaking the truth in a way which might disturb WUWT’s claim to the moral high ground is worse. The truth is that the strategy of the big lie is being used. Also Dr. Ball has been materially damaged by the actions of the AGW advocates. You, Anthony not so much.
    I don’t think erudite discussions of climate change on this or other blogs are changing the tide. If there were no pause in the warming trend, there would be no debate.

    • It’s a common political strategy to demand civility from the same people you are trashing. It’s only effective for the side with the press on their side. Unfortunately, we know who’s side the press is on.

  119. Let’s drop the Nazi references and invoke Genghis Khan instead. After all there are far fewer people still alive who remember his misdeeds. Then when someone compares climate science to the Mongol hoards we can see how stupid their argument really is.

  120. Dr. Tim Ball was educating the ignorant on the history of the “BIG LIE”…

    If the topic of Dr. Ball’s post had been fascist history, he would have been on-topic.

    Unfortunately, he got in his own bight and ended trussed in his own rigging.

    Nothing real serious … a gentle warning as sailors say.

  121. “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.”

    Why?
    The Totalitarian behavior that is behind many people in IPCC makes it a fair comparison.

  122. I agree completely with Dr Tim Ball. He is completely correct about the whole scam. Also he is a phycisist and knows what he is talking about. Who gives a hoot being called a Climate Nazi”!!. I am PROUD of being called a climate denier, I love it. Again I am afraid WUWT is being woodhinked as it has many times now by NOAA (staion surveys), Muller, BEST ect. A far more credible source is Real Science and which becoming the only really useful site with REAL information and PROOF against the fraud. However WUWT used to be a one of the best and we are gratefull for its incredible efforts throughout the years

    • Actually Eliza, I am very glad that Anthony gave “Bedwards” a forum here. I don’t think in any way that it was a mistake. Anthony has repeatedly said he would do so. It’s his blog, and it is because of the nature of the man that it is the leading climate science blog on the planet.

      Had he not allowed them to post, I wouldn’t have have known who they were, but now I can see that they are buried up to their armpits in the alarmist narrative. We have Betts as one of the leading climate modellers in the MET Office (funny how the Met went down in everybody’s estimation as he was climbing up the ladder there), which allowed him to write this sort of screed.

      He was also actively involved in the writing of the AR5 Summary for Policymakers (you know, the one where the disasterbaters get to live out their fantasies). This guy isn’t just an alarmist, he’s the alarmist’s alarmist and a fully paid up member of the Big Lie Brigade. Just because he’s asked one of his co-conspirators to play nice to our faces, doesn’t make him any less so.

      Tamsin has posted about ten times here, eight of which were utterly vacuous. The one content-free comment from Betts just highlights the amount of cognitive dissonance within the climate community. To any of the requests for information here, nothing. To anything of the substance of what Dr Ball said, nothing. Instead they both wasted their opportunity to address the skeptic community with a strawman argument, which was not very respectful of the host.

  123. Had been watching youtube last night, Epstein vs. McKibben. The way and content MK presented to the audience was a disgusting lesson in demagogy, and yes he strongly reminded me of a famous German, in the 1930s.
    This is not a scientific debate for long anymore. And not sceptics have poisoned it, but people who misuse science for their political agenda. It is not sufficient for the sceptic or better the realistic side to be limited to a scientific duscussion while, behind our back, the society is being changed based on fearmongering and lies. If we keep discussing the science only, we’ll wake up under dictatorship.

  124. …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”

    Calling people deniers is calling them Nazis. Columnist Ellen Goodman made that explicit. Her nationally syndicated Boston Globe column directly equates scientific skeptics with Holocaust deniers: “…global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers…”. The Policy page of WUWT bars the use of “deniers” and similar pejoratives, but some commenters still use it to demonize skeptics.

    Equating opponents with Holocaust deniers is done because they lack credible scientific arguments. Name-calling is the only weapon they have left in their arsenal, and as we see, they use it constantly. If I had a dollar for every time we were called ‘deniers’, ‘denialists’, etc., I could retire in style!

  125. While there may be those among the warmists who are reasonable, and disinclined to participate in inappropriate tactics, the leading voices in that community are neither open-minded nor tolerant of dissent. Given that, it is hard to find fault with Dr. Ball’s understandable venture into the same kind of heated rhetoric many warmists employ. Nevertheless, I would suggest a more accurate comparison would be to Lysenko rather than to Hitler. Lysenko’s rise to power in the Soviet era was a consequence of the fact that his ‘scientific’ ideas were conveniently consistent with the politics of Lenin and Stalin, along with their collectivist central planning in agriculture. Those scientists who provided questionable data in order to support Lysenko’s ideas, were given official recognition and research funding. Those who pointed out the flaws in Lysenko’s ‘science’ were roundly criticized and condemned. Scientists are people, and people have varying goals and motives, and left to themselves, most scientists would endeavor to find the truth, undeterred by political persuasions. However, when research is coupled in an unholy alliance with a political system that has an agenda, there will be those who are willing to provide convenient science, made to order. In the case of Lysenko, it became increasingly more dangerous to disagree with him and, by 1948, dissent from Lysenko’s ideas became officially illegal. ‘Deniers’ were condemned, imprisoned, and even executed.

    How is that basic pattern different from conditions today, where political philosophies desiring greater power in controlling the use of energy in the private economy, have undue influence on which scientific ideas are funded and advanced? As an aging scientist, and an avid observer of scientific endeavors, I will predict that when the dust has settled in a few decades, those who aggressively advanced global warming theory, to the exclusion of other ideas, and to the discrediting of legitimate scientists as ‘deniers’, will find a place in scientific history alongside that of Lysenko.

    A good read can be found here:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/

  126. Just noting the comments above its quite obvious that WUWT has made another huge mistake and will lose even more fans. I guess it lost a 3rd of its fans with the incredible misguided attack on Tony Heller at Lucias totally irrelevant site (joke). Its certainly is losing my confidence in its ability to “dent warmism in any meaningfull way” LOL (just joking)

    • The level of interest & participation on these posts, suggests that interest is strong & readership is high.

      You can’t please everybody, though.

    • WUWT will lose no-one as a result of this post or any other. We are all open to debate. Many of are scientists and/or engineers retired or otherwise. We are not fairweather commenters and have been with Anthony for some time already.

    • Eliza says “I guess it lost a 3rd of its fans”

      Obsession with fan counts is a hallmark of Huffposters, Facebookers and Twitterers or is that just twits?

      I go where the conversations are interesting, informative and lively. Right here in other words.

  127. I don’t have time to read all responses atm, so forgive me if I duplicate someone’s point, but why would someone objecting to comparisons to Nazi’isms use the term “goosestep” in the title of a blog post? Seriously? It’s wrong when someone else does it, but not when you do?

    The goal of propaganda, and all of it’s offspring, is to divide. Us against them, right and wrong, good and bad. If you all REALLY want to change the dialog, you have to stop playing THEIR GAME. Change the rules! Create ANOTHER team who plays differently. Give it a name, and the help it go VIRAL. Science Moderates. Climate Change Realists. Give people a solidly defined, common sense, fact based group to align themselves with, make both of the current “sides” deal with a third side. Give both the scientists and the public an “island”, a category, a group, an identity for crying outloud.

    And the stand the crap up and draw some lines in the sand. It is NOT enough to just attempt to get everyone to play nice. You have to clearly define the type of behavior and tactics that are off limits and then constantly, vigilantly, object, loudly, to every instance in which they are used. By everyone.

    When you deal with unreasonable people, expecting logic and reason to win the day is a fool’s mindset.

  128. I am waiting for the legitimate scientists working with the IPCC to demand that the full science reports are published FIRST, so that folks can read them. I’m also waiting for the real scientists to put a stop to the manner in which the politicians (UN) manipulate the science summaries, vote on every sentence and then raise their hands for a 95% consensus. When Edwards and Betts lead this movement, I will accept their sincerity in the debate. All scientists should support the dismantling of the university PR press releases and communicate their finding directly to the press. This would eliminate the misleading headlines which often aren’t supported by the information in the articles. A lot of damage has been done by putting the cart before the horse.

  129. So Dr. Ball is not as saintly as Mr. Watts. Well saints are hard to come by these days. As for Betts and Edwards it is hard to concentrate on science when there is not much of it, is there?

  130. If the AGW expounders were not engaged in promoting an elitist agenda which serves the power structure they would have been facing criminal prosecution long ago.

    Why should they not face harsh judgement from those they viciously attack?

    If their economic victims had any power at all these “scientists” would all be rotting in prison. Which is where they belong.

    This big lie moved past excusable “mistake” decades ago. We may not achieve justice but it is surely due.

  131. I am surprised that no sceptic caught the problem at the very start of Ball’s piece.

    “Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent”

    we can illustrate this by turning it around

    Scientists have done a reasonable job of explaining how c02 warms the planet. Now, as more people understand what the scientists are saying, the question that most scientists have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind disbelieving science to such an extent”

    You see the move? the move is the same in both arguments. It proceeds like this: Given we have proved X, we now need to explain why people or group ‘Y’ don’t believe X.

    Folks who study rhetoric and logic come to see these patterns of thought. With training you can learn to empty an argument of its substance and just look at the form. And here the form is the same.

    The form then goes on. It looks like this

    Given that we know X, how can we explain people who dont believe X

    The explanations for our failure to convince people fall in to these classes:

    A) they are stupid
    B) they are evil.
    C) they are sick

    we try to convince skeptics that C02 causes warming. They refuse. And so the next move is to question their intelligence. For example with Dr. Ball we might attack his back ground, his age, his education.
    You’ve all seen these attacks on Willis for example. Alternatively we might attack their character. They are evil deniers. They are in the pay of big oil. they dont care for their grandchildren. . make up anything you like.
    Lastly, we might argue that they are sick: Lewandowsky helps here. Sceptics are mentally ill.

    On the other hand when skeptics believe they have demolished the science and people keep believing, then they too turn to the three tactics. The scientists are stupid. And here people ‘explain’ what the real scientific method is. Or they are as Ball does, that they are evil or use the methods of Evil people. And lastly you might attack their mental health. The are fear based “the sky is falling” type of people

    What leads to this in both instances is an over confidence that you have shown X to be the case.
    You assume the truth of your position, and given that you feel justified in explaining why the flaw MUST lie with the people you are trying to convince.

    there is a very common version of this fallacy ” have you stopped beating your wife”

    Ball asks the question “why” and on the other side folks ask the question “why”

    The problem is that this why question assumes several things. It assumes that people have to have motives for what they do. it assumes that we have the ability to divine these motives and to test our knowledge of these motives. And it assumes that all people in a group have the same motives. None is these is justified without some evidence or argumentation. And in reality the conclusions about motive are some of the shakiest conclusions one could ever draw. No real skeptic ever runs to divine the motives of people much less groups of people or institutions.

    Finally Ball’s analysis of Nazi propaganda is horribly flawed. The tools of propaganda are fairly well known. Republican propaganists use them, Libertarians use them, AGW alarmists use them. Ball uses them (#3 below) .
    What made nazi propaganda UNIQUE was not the methods. The methods are well known and find their roots in nearly every religion. The methods are used today to sell political parties, religion and soap. What made nazi propaganda unique was the content. Not the method. The content.

    The most important elements of all good propaganda

    1. Deification of the leader
    2. Creating a folklore or myth
    3. Demonizing Opposition
    4. Controlling the mass media
    5. Scapegoating minorities
    6. Using symbolic imagery

    Those are the methods. What you can see then is that ANY propaganda can borrow these methods. They are not uniquely nazi. You might say that Hilter borrowed his methods from the major religions of the world.

    .

    • Mosher:

      “…we can illustrate this by turning it around

      Scientists have done a reasonable job of explaining how c02 warms the planet.”

      Isn’t that the problem, Steve? Scientists just haven’t done a good job. If they had there would be fewer sceptics – perhaps.

      • They have done a reasonable job starting back in 1896 before nazis. Go read Willis on guy calendar.
        You gunna call him a nazi too.

        If you don’t get the science you are stupid evil or sick

      • The problem is Steven that what CO2 does or doesn’t do WRT the climate is almost irrelevant. CO2, whether a large or small forcing is simply one of many inputs into a gigantic and chaotic “feedback machine”. It is the output of the feedbacks that regulates what the climate does, not the inputs.

      • Steven Mosher
        November 27, 2014 at 2:47 pm
        ” Go read Willis on guy calendar.
        If you don’t get the science you are stupid evil or sick”
        ————–
        Mosher, are you sure you get the science!

        For once there is no any science that studies or researches the warming of the planet…..and you keep misqouting Climatology intentionally and repitedly. That is no science or proscience…is plain ideology (or propaganda) with a clear intent to cause confusion and a kinda of derailing of an argument.
        I can’t say how stupid evil or sick that is…as I am not the one comming up with these three insulting words.

        I assure you have no chance on getting the Guy Calendar’s science.
        Also is suggested you read it again and maybe you find that in science the philosophical approach is a companion while the ideology approach is a foe……

        For G sakes stop implying that Climatology is the science of planet’s warming….or at least have the guts to call it the glob’s warming science… as at that point you may find some consolation, confirmation and grounds of appeal in M. Mann’s new wanabe science…….soon to be named as a new scientific field……the Globoscorchology. :-)

        cheers

    • “Scientists have done a reasonable job of explaining how c02 warms the planet. Now, as more people understand what the scientists are saying, the question that most scientists have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind disbelieving science to such an extent”

      Scientists haven’t done a reasonable job of explaining how CO2 warms the planet. That’s the motive. They have done a pathetic job. I would be embarrassed.

      This is reasonable (and according to the physics of multimodal heat transfer):

      The paper can be downloaded here:
      http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=1539#.VHeMl8m8Hq5

      • If you don’t get the science then I will pull a Dr ball on you. We get to ask what motivates you. Are you stupid evil or sick?

        However if you repudiate ball’s motive hunting then and only then can you argue that the problem may lie in the explanation

      • Are you stupid? I just answered what motivates me. Again, it’s embarrassingly pathetic ‘science’ by the AGW convinced.

    • Excellent comment. The original article was flawed in just the way you say.

      And that leads to focussing on why this can be believed:

      Scientists have done a reasonable job of explaining how c02 warms the planet.

      It is challenged because the models don’t work and it is not proven that CO2 is the dominant driver of the climate so I would say. That’s where I would focus.

      But if we focus on psychology rather than physics we will get nowhere. We just talk past each other.

      • “It is challenged because the models don’t work and it is not proven that CO2 is the dominant driver of the climate so I would say. That’s where I would focus.
        But if we focus on psychology rather than physics we will get nowhere. We just talk past each other.”
        ——————————————————————————————————-
        Sorry, but they can’t focus on the physics as they would lose in any reasonable professional debate. So they practice school yard bullying instead so they can keep stealing our tax money. Because of the major loss in monetary outcome, there can be no serious mutual discussion but only verbal warfare, that warfare being the evidence against deception and denigration. Anytime a “professional” practices these tactics he has reduced himself to the level of street fighter and it should be obvious that he has logically lost all credibility because he is no longer capable of professionally defending his position. Unfortunately the MSM has lost so much scientific intellect that it is unable to discern the difference.

    • What is interesting in your argument, Mosher, is that you cite three specific examples of the arguments that alarmists use vs. sceptics, but only vague hand waving of how skeptics do the same. I think you made Dr. Ball’s point.

    • “Scientists have done a reasonable job of explaining how c02 warms the planet.”
      If the planet was in bell jar and the only factor was the amount of C02 , which it is not , which may explain they in practice they not done a good job hence the need for the ‘missing heat ‘ etc .
      And its not a ‘good job ‘ their claiming to have done either , its a miracle of perfection that means they produce from a mixture of chaos and much is poorly or not not know ‘settled ‘ science and cannot be challenged .

    • If you can find the ‘Skepticgate’ emails you might have some support for ‘turning it around’.

      Svante Arrhenius did a reasonable job of explaining how c02 warms the planet. More recently, other scientists have miserably failed to explain how ‘we’re all gonna fry’ and their shenanigans employed in trying to convince us have made them a laughing stock.

    • “Scientists have done a reasonable job of explaining how c02 warms the planet.”

      Then why isn’t it warming?

    • Mosher: You replied to my comment below in this fashion:

      They have done a reasonable job starting back in 1896 before nazis. Go read Willis on guy calendar.
      You gunna call him a nazi too.

      If you don’t get the science you are stupid evil or sick

      First off: I never accused anyone of being a Nazi (you added ‘too’). Secondly, I am not stupid, evil or sick. Those three words, along with ‘arrogant’ and [self-snip] describe you to a ‘T’. There is no enjoyment in having any kind of discussion with you. It will not happen again. Take your sick mind somewhere else.

      BTW: You originally claimed that scientists had done a ‘good’ job. When called on it you changed it to ‘reasonable’. Kinda says it all.

      • Harry
        Don’t get upset and angry, that’s the Mosher’s aim, to trigger as many as possible in name calling and have his point proven that the Dr. Ball’s blog post is supported here simply because of the urge of name calling and not because it has anything to do with reality, simply trying to introduce confusion, doubt and deformation on the point made in Dr. Ball’s blog post…:-)

        cheers

    • Steve Mosher, “I am surprised that no sceptic caught the problem at the very start of Ball’s piece.

      “Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science.

      Skeptics didn’t catch it, because it’s not a problem.

      The IPCC’s AGW paradigm was destroyed at least 13 years ago, if not before (pdf). See here; more discussion here.

      The entire AGW claim rests on climate models, and the physical theory they represent. That theory is clearly incomplete where it is not wrong. The errors in energy flux are hugely larger than any possible effect exerted by CO2 forcing, water vapor enhanced or no. For example, and here.

      Climate models, and climate physical theory, are fully incapable of resolving the effect on the climate of modest increases in atmospheric CO2.

      This is completely obvious to any physical scientist who takes a close look at the errors made by climate models.

      Folks who study rhetoric and logic come to see these patterns of thought.

      Folks who study rhetoric and logic have no justifiable reason to think they can resolve a debate among physical scientists.

      It’s worthwhile here to remember the words of Einstein (pdf) in a letter to Bohr, concerning scientists, “[The scientist] therefore must appear to the systematic epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist: he appears as realist insofar as he seeks to describe a world independent of the acts of perception; as idealist insofar as he looks upon the concepts and theories as the free inventions of the human spirit (not logically derivable from what is empirically given); as positivist insofar as he considers his concepts and theories justified only to the extent to which they furnish a logical representation of relations among sensory experiences.”

      Training in rhetoric and logic alone will never be enough to speak intelligently about questions of science.

    • Steven Mosher:
      i am surprised that no sceptic caught the problem at the very start of Ball’s piece.

      “Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the iPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent”

      we can illustrate this by turning it around

      “Scientists have done a reasonable job of explaining how c02 warms the planet. Now, as more people understand what the scientists are saying, the question that most scientists have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind disbelieving science to such an extent”

      you make some good points Steven – too bad so many replies to you focused on the one controversial fact – that of Alarmist settled science – they missed your point on form – cuz that’s where a problem exists

      first of all – your “turned around version” actually makes sense if we are just discussing form – and that proves the sense of Ball’s statement – in fact – both your statements recap the history of the AGW debate – with your statement being Phase 1 – answering that question by WUWT and others constitutes Phase 2 – which then leads naturally to Ball’s Phase 3 – which is a inquiry in the whys and wherefores of the perpetrators

      i’ll ignore the fast one you pulled – using “scientists” in your statement instead of “alarmists” as i would have – it’s not important to my dissection – altho it is a generalization that shoves Skeptics outside the scientific domain – and yet generalization seemed to be one of your pet peeves with Ball et al

      i too noticed a problem with Ball’s opening statement – but i was only mildly put off by it – after all – he was only writing an introduction – i recognized that he found a poor way of leading to the article’s topic – we really don’t need an milestone before examining motives – evidently that flourish was all he could manage to come up with

      if we treated his statement like a logical argument as you did – Ball’s statement would be considered a non sequitur – using your formulation “Given that we know X, how can we explain people who don’t believe X” – there is no logical connection between the first part of that formula and the second part – consider it backwards – does “divining motives” really depend on a “settled science” – does any part B depend on part A

      and while Ball assumes his side was victorious – those who think otherwise can read it as a “what if” – if they can stomach the thought – and maybe find the accusations he makes can often be “turned around” and used on him and his supporters

      you treat Ball’s over-confidence in his assumption of victory as a sin – or a fallacy – it’s a sin in some ethical systems – but never a fallacy – the problem with confidence is that it will very likely cause bias – blinders – and might lead to only viewing opponents as satan’s spawn – that’s a bad thing – but doesn’t make over-confidence a fallacy

      logicians recognize that – and don’t categorize it as a fallacy – have you noticed that science history has many stories of scientists who over-confidently stood by their theories despite the shrill voices spouting the evidence against it – some observers would call those shrill people over-confident too

      isn’t it possible that some confident people won’t make fallacious arguments – a category i assume you place yourself since you are obviously confident enuf to lecture us

      strangely enuf – confidence and over-confidence can be considered a motive – and “devining motives” was supposed to be a no-no for Ball – but not you?

      On the other hand when skeptics believe they have demolished the science and people keep believing, then they too turn to the three tactics. The scientists are stupid. And here people ‘explain’ what the real scientific method is. Or they are as Ball does, that they are evil or use the methods of Evil people. And lastly you might attack their mental health. The are fear based “the sky is falling” type of people

      later you will speak of generalizing by Skeptics – yet the paragraph above accuses Skeptics – not a subset of them – of using the feeble analyses you talk about – you then further generalize by accusing Skeptics of only employing those 3 tactics – since you ignore the sensible analyses that have been used – and yet again – you use the generalization “scientists” instead of “alarmists” or “warmists” or whatever – do you really think there aren’t any scientists who are Skeptics

      you know – when exposing generalizations – it most effective to avoid them while making your argument

      there is a very common version of this fallacy ” have you stopped beating your wife”

      that request is a “loaded” statement cuz it assumes wife beating – but it is not always fallacious – your study of logic should have explained the distinction – but more relevant – it’s not parallel to Ball’s article

      yes – Ball is implying that the science is settled – even tho he did not explicitly state that in the opening statement you analyzed – still he writes with that notion blazing across the page – but unlike wife beating – the falsity of the unspoken assumption does not render his “devining” invalid – as i said earlier – that assumption isn’t needed – destroy his premise of “settled science” – and his analysis/devining can probably still be used

      Ball asks the question “why” and on the other side folks ask the question “why”

      The problem is that this why question assumes several things. it assumes that people have to have motives for what they do.

      huh?! – try a book on psychology – or try this exercise – think of a moment when you didn’t have a motive for what you did

      i want to give you the benefit of the doubt – so i presume you actually meant to say something along the lines of – “Some Alarmists/Warmists don’t have any other ‘motive’ than scientific curiosity – and a conviction in the dire results they find – and nothing faintly political”

      based on your statements – i know that you agree that Other Alarmists might have less “pure” motives – or at least tactics – very fair-minded concession – and one i want to make regarding the Skeptics side

      it assumes that we have the ability to divine these motives and to test our knowledge of these motives.

      psychologists do this all the time – as do evolutionary biologists – and social or political commentators – detectives looking for means motive and opportunity – etc

      And it assumes that all people in a group have the same motives.

      generalization is an easy trap for lotsa people – huh Stephen

      None is these is justified without some evidence or argumentation.

      that’s what Ball’s article is – evidence or argumentation for unscrupulous motives – and its publication now makes it open to falsifiability – like a good libertarian and Skeptic – i defend his right to publish his analysis – regardless of the quality – just as i defend your right to falsify it – even as i dissect your falsification

      And in reality the conclusions about motive are some of the shakiest conclusions one could ever draw.

      “shakiest” huh – i assume you make that claim cuz we can’t yet see the inner workings of the mind – yet motivation remains the subject of psychological investigation

      in a sense – motiviation is one of the easiest things to research – it starts at home – understand your own motives – and you will better understand others’ – plus – outside ourselves – we are living in a lab – where we can observe others – and try to connect their statements and actions

      however – trying to apply what we know about motivations is the tricky part – eg – is the Alarmist True Believer a leftwinger – perhaps susceptible to peer pressure – hmmm

      No real skeptic ever runs to divine the motives of people much less groups of people or institutions.

      is this principle original with you – in my reading – i’ve found divining motives a very common practice – i certainly wouldn’t want to abide by your principle – and handicap my own analytical side

      i will end by supporting your criticism of Ball’s Nazi parallels – but to a limited extent – i wouldn’t have attempted to render the knockout punch to the use of Nazi associations by – in turn – associating it with religious practices – i am an atheist – yet i seriously doubt that the roots of propaganda is found in religion – that claim just shows that you are as willing resort to propaganda as anyone else

      i was discouraged and quit reading Ball’s article when i encountered the tired association with Nazis – i know their propaganda machinery is famous – but the emotions aroused by the use of their imagery seems a propaganda tactic in itself – i think a rational analyst would avoid confusing the issue by avoiding them – leave that technique to the Alarmists – if you can’t find a less emotive parallel – your resources are too meager – and makes me inclined to distrust you – and ignore the rest of your article & canon

      having said that – i have to acknowledge that writing his kind of article is inevitable – i’ve been in countless debates – i know that eventually – despite the effort of one or both sides to rein in emotions – they eventually rise to the surface as the debate lengthens – and Level Vitriol is reached

      after scanning Ball’s article – i noted that it has some good points – lost in the vitriol – a publisher would recognize that it has a limited audience – the True Believers of AGW Skepticism

      • Nada, nix, noonan…neither Naz!, Naz!s nor Naz!sm were used by Ball. Why are you, Mosher, Betts, Edwards and Watts putting words in where words weren’t?

  132. I quote: “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.” Converssation can be civil but it will not change any scientific facts. These exist independently of conversation and cannot be changed by conversational babble. You either understand the facts or you don’t and politics can only paper over but not change the existence of facts. Fact is that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming, whether you like it or not. That is a scientific fact, arrived at by scientific reasoning based on observations of nature. Lets go through the process of proving this statement. First, we know that there is no warming right now and there has been none for the last 18 years. That is a an observation of nature. Second, during this period of time atmospheric carbon dioxide has been steadily increasing according to the Keeling curve based on accurate observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide content. Third, IPCC uses the Arrhenius greenhouse theory to predict future global warming by the greenhouse effect. The Arrhenius theory says that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will cause the air to warm because carbon dioxide absorbs OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation, which is infrared radiation). That is supposedly grounded in the radiation laws of physics. But look what is happening: atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, Arrhenius green house theory predicts warming, but nothing is happening. For each of the previous 18 years Arrhenius tyeory has predicted warming and got nothing at all. If you are a scientist and your theory predicts warming but you get nothing at all for 18 years in a row you are justified in putting that theory into the waste basket of history. Since the Arrhenius theory does not work the claim that it is based on absorption laws of physics is false. We need a greenhouse theory that is not in conflict with the laws of physics. Such a theory is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory or MGT. It differs from Arrhenius theory in being able to handle several greenhouse gases that simultaneously absorb in the infrared. Arrhenius can handle only one – carbon dioxide – and is incomplete. According to MGT, the two most important greenhouse gases – water vapor and carbon dioxide – form a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared. Its optical thickness is 1.87, determined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to air it will start to absorb in the IR just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase the oprtical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor keeps total absorption constant and no warming takes place. This warming that did not take place would have been called greenhouse warming by the failed Arrhenius theory we just dumped. The absence of this warming means that anthropogenic global warming, AGW, simply does not exist. It is a pseudo-scientific fantasy, cooked up by over-eager climate workers to justify the existence of the greenhouse hypothesis. In 1988 it had never been directly observed and Hansen took it upon himself to proove that it exists. He unveiled it in front of the United States Senate and announced that “..the greenhouse effect has been detected..” It turned out that at least one third of the hundred year warming he submitted as his proof was not caused by greenhouse type absorption. Hence, the verdict of real science is and remains:

    THERE IS NO ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING NOW AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY. PERIOD.

    Make this your talking point number one when talking to warmists because it is true. All the science to back it up is here.

    • Wish I could put that on a bumper sticker- still, much appreciated by this commoner.
      Glad to have some valid facts to counter the emotional attacks when these discussions start at the barber shop.

      • Is this all, Cathrrine? You must be an English major which is a pity. Someone with your curiosity could have become a scientist. You do read with close attention to detail but it is not clear how this relates to comprehension.

  133. The responses these two posts have gotten show why I don’t visit this site with any regularity. Even if I didn’t find Tim Ball’s post disgusting, the comments would disturb me. Look at how many people claim Ball merely mentioned or quoted Hitler. That’s ridiculous. Anyone remotely fairminded who read Ball’s post would know he did more than that. It’s just convenient to pretend he didn’t.

    And look at the responses this post has gotten. I’m not going to name individuals, but how many people have openly endorsed the idea global warming is a hoax/fraud? How many people have insisted the only way Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts could be accepted is if they completely rejected this or that aspect of climate science?

    There are about a hundred other things I’d like to say, but I don’t see a point. It seems to me most people call for civility merely as a convenient way to attack their opponents, dismissing the notion of civility the moment it becomes inconvenient. That sort of attitude reflect what appears to be a culture of partisan rabble rousing.

    I think Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts are good examples of people genuinely seeking civility. I support their efforts, and I respect them. Sadly, I don’t see anything to make me think they will make progress here.

    • Brandon: If I may; if there was anything I took away from Tim’s post it was the need to make sure we do not forget our history. A guy called Santayana had something to say about that. Furthermore, I also felt that if Tim had used Stalin as his muse instead of AH there would not have been such an outcry. Like you, I can’t see the point: although mine is of ignoring the ideas of tyrants who created our history. There may well be better ways to examine them and articulate their evil but writing about evil cannot, surely, make the author an evil person.

      This comment was also prompted after I had viewed, again, the film, The Killing Fields, on TV here last night. Would you then have us not discuss the mindset of people like the Khmer Rouge?

      (This comment has been scanned and found to contain no snark) ;-)

      • Harry Passfield, there is nothing wrong with discussing history or quoting terrible people. I have quoted liars, murderers and cheats because they happened to have a good turn of phrase. I’ve quoted men responsible for genocide because I felt their thoughts merited discussion.

        But none of that is what Tim Ball did. Ball’s post did not merely quote Adolf Hitler. It did not just discuss his thoughts. It specifically set out to tar people Ball disliked by associating them with Hitler.

        If you want to just discuss someone’s thoughts, it is easy to do. It is not difficult to quote a person in a way which distances his words from his person. Ball did the opposite. He intentionally repeated his references to Hitler just to reinforce the association.

        You have to try pretty hard to believe Ball merely quoted Hitler.

    • ? How many people have insisted the only way Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts could be accepted is if they completely rejected this or that aspect of climate science?
      Calling them to promote good science and call out bad science, even when it comes from their own side, is not asking them to ‘rejected this or that aspect of climate science’ its asking them to do the job they are supposed to do in the way they are supposed to do it .
      If they cannot then frankly in no position lecture others and if you like it or not the reality is both has seen advancement in their careers thanks to the money, 97 million new reasons in Betts case, etc that AGW has brought in .

      • KNR, calling for people “to promote good science is one thing.” That’s not what I’m referring to though. It’s not hard to find a number of examples on this page where people demand these two confess some great wrongdoing or reject an entire aspect of climate science.

        If I need to provide quotes, I can. I can point to the individual comments I have in mind, if necessary. I don’t see why I should have to though. It’s not hard to see a multitude of comments on this page which are exactly like I describe.

        I want Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts to call out bad science on their “side” more than they do. I think Betts has been sadly apathetic about his inclusion in the Recursive Fury paper as a conspiracy theorist. I think he ought to have done more in response. I don’t think he should have accepted the excuses Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook and others used to explain it.

        But at the same time, I’m not going to demand Betts reject all climate modeling as useless (or maybe even dishonest) as like some people demand. That’s stupid.

        .

        Side note, Tamsin Edwards thinks too highly of Bayesian statistics. If she’d just stop being so close-minded about the issue, she’d see Frequentism is a great thing!

        #Frequentism4lyfe!

      • They dont have to do anything, Brandon. But their concern comes across as disingenuous when they don’t, and hypocritical when they whine as in this post (unjustifiably, no less).

        At the end of the day, you don’t get much credit for good things when you come across as a hypocrite on everything else.

        Mark

      • Mark, I’ve seen Tamsin Edwards do more to encourage civil discourse in the last week than I have seen on this site in the last six months. You can portray her as disingenuous or hypocritical because her efforts don’t accomplish what you’d like, but the reality is she does far more for this “cause” than you or I do.

        I don’t care if Tamsin Edwards agrees or disagrees with me. I’m confident she’ll give what I say a fair chance. She may not agree with me, and she may be wrong, but she’s genuinely interested in having a real discussion. She’ll think about what I have to say. She’ll try to be fair and honest. That makes her great in my book.

        There are things I wish Edwards would do. There are things I think Edwards ought to do. I think her lack of comment on a number of subjects is sad and makes her look bad. I think she has little idea what she’s talking about when it comes to Frequentism vs. Bayesian statistics.* That doesn’t make me think she’s horrible though. It makes me think she’s the sort of person I ought to try to talk to and have real discussions with.

        A lot of people want to pretend Tim Ball merely mentioned Hitler, that he wasn’t trying to compare the people he dislikes to Hitler. That’s a bad idea. It’s obvious to any fair-minded individual Ball used the Hitler reference to demonize people.

        *In her defense, pretty much nobody actually understands mathematics. The difference between Frequentist and Bayesian mathematics involves fundamental aspects of mathematics, aspects which are ignored or glossed over in most educations. It’s a sad state of affairs, but it’s hardly one I can fault a single individual for. I’d wager 999 people in a thousand have never heard of the sort of discussion I have about this sort of thing:

        https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/0-999-does-not-equal-1/

      • I should point out I’ve had more interactions with Tamsin Edwards than Richard Betts so I refer to her more than him. It shouldn’t be taken as saying anything about Betts. I just don’t know the guy.

        Also, I should point out the idea people must criticze X before being listened to is silly. I do think Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts should criticize people like John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky and Michael Mann. All three have done terrible “science” which should never have been accepted by other scientists. At the same time, I know not every person needs to be involved in every controversy to have credibility. I know people don’t have to jump into a single issue in order to earn their “chops” as someone people should be listened to.

        The lack of harsh criticism for Mann, Lewandowsky and Cook does not make me dismiss Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts out of hand. I’ve seen people with harsh criticism for those three who have been dishonest and hypocritical. Those people might have agreed with my “position,” but they weren’t people worthy of admiration.

        In the end, what it comes down to is actions. Edwards and Betts routinely talk to people they disagree with. They give respect to people with different views. That makes them decent people who deserve our gratitude and openness. Welcome them, and progress can be made. Dismiss them, and you’ll just contribute to the partisan echo chambers everyone says are horrible.

    • Brandon – I count five or six of your pronouncements that you think that Tim Ball’s note is disgusting. You really lack comprehension of what he said nor do you know what you are talking about. Glenn, who is not a scientist, does have a good grip on it and I recommend that you read his comment here:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/#comment-1801294

      I might add that neither you nor anyone else here actually remembers the war that Stalin and Hitler
      started with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, an agreement to divide Poland in two between Germanu and Russia. One consequence of it was that my country, Estonia, got handed back and forth between Stalin and Hitler while I was still in high shool and eventually ended up in Stalin’s pocket. I do have an interest in what really happened because all sides were keeping it hidden for decades after the war. I also do have sympathy for the suffering of the jews but I do not think that knowledge of facts per se somehow denigrates those who refer to them in rational discourse. Tim Ball did that and Glenn understands that. You should learn from it.

      • Arno Arrak, I’ll note you’ve continued the trend of insulting me while saying I am wrong while not actually doing anything to show I am wrong. It’s fascinating how many people (here and elsewhere) have done this. In my experience, when people refuse to actually discuss that with which they disagree, it’s usually because they can’t find a real response.

        As I’ve said multiple times, if all one wishes to do is quote a person to explain a point, that is fine. It doesn’t matter how horrible the person might be. That is not what Tim Ball did. Ball drew parallels between Nazis and climate scientists. He reinforced the association he was making by repeatedly and unnecessarily referring to Hitler. He did all this while making absolutely no effort to distance his discussion or reference to Hitler from his discussion of climate science.

        You can insult me and claim special knowledge all you want, but none of that will do a thing to address what I’ve said.

      • Brandon – Apparently I have to draw a picture for you. I sent you to read Glenn’s post so you would understand what you are doing wrong but you paid no attention to it. Here is what he said:

        ‘… I am very well informed wrt history and political science and philosophy. And I absolutely believe that Tim Ball’s comments were fair. Fyi, from the outset, you should know that ideas that claim “any time a comparison to the Nazis is made, you have already lost the argument” are nonsense. The Nazis weren’t some magical evil force that existed outside of normal society and normal institutions. In fact, Nazism most pernicious aspect was its ability to wrap it’s more ugly and dark agenda around good causes and beneficial outcomes for the German people..’

        From his post he seems to be a reasonably well informed and thoughtful person whose opinion I respect. You should think about what he says instead of reflexively dismissing it. If you disagree with any of it, give me your reason and we will discuss it. You are not going to make friends and influence people by posting a lot of repetitive complaints on a an internet blog.

  134. OK I am going to give the benefit of doubt to these 2 people. They really do believe they are on the side of goodness and light. However the easiest deception of all is self-deception, for some the ego will do anything to protect itself.

    Tin Ball’s column did not call the scientific establishment Nazis, he merely pointed out that they were part (in most cases unwittingly) of a massive deception. He pointed out that the primary culprit and the creator of the UN AGW machine was Maurice Strong. Strong who was a master at manipulating the unelected bureaucrats of the UN was nominated by U Thant to organize the first Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. He was appointed the first director of UNEP and under the auspices of this entity he gave birth to Kyoto, the IPCC, and the WMO, not bad for an unelected official. Strong is self-described as a socialist whose method is capitalism.

    This juggernaut has been lumbering on unchecked and bank-rolled by the world’s governments for nearly 25 years now over which time global temperatures have flat-lined. The message has found resonance with left-leaning westerners who are consumed with guilt about the success of capitalism. This is no longer about the facts as the “deniers” are finding out. Kudos to Tim Ball and shame on the fellow-travellers who are enabling the non-scientific politicos who have nothing in mind other than control.

      • CO2 can warm the planet, to me this is a given. The question I have is whether or not it continues to do so with increasing concentration of CO2. I also question the extent to which it can have an impact in the presence of much greater concentrations of water vapour. That water vapour has a negative feedback loop with the formation of clouds is to me patently obvious.

        I believe that global temperatures have risen in the last 130 years by around 0.8C, I do not know the reason. I also believe that global temperature has not risen for the last 18 years even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by 15% over that period. Whether CO2 has an impact or not has not been demonstrated, and the source of the deception, the models, have effectively been demonstrated as worthless. Whether CO2 has any impact whatsoever has not been demonstrated, but I believe the impact of the increase of CO2 concentration has been hyper-inflated for the express purpose of demonizing fossil fuels.

      • yes…massive deception. Do you deny that the measures advocated by people like hanson and mann will have virtually no effect on climate?

      • Steve Mosher, “Do you deny that co2 will warm the planet?

        This is the heart of the erroneous thinking surrounding the AGW claim.

        There is no doubt that CO2 transforms radiant energy into kinetic energy, dumped into the atmosphere.

        The entire AGW claim rests upon the completely unsupported idea that this kinetic energy strictly appears as sensible heat in the atmosphere and the oceans. This assumption is built into climate models. It is physically unjustifiable, because the climate has many other response channels.

        So, there it is, Steve. Prove that the kinetic energy produced by increased CO2 shows up as sensible heat, alone.

        Show that none of the kinetic energy is lost in increased rates or amounts of convection; no compensating change in cloud formation or cloud type; no increase in rate or amounts of tropical precipitation.

        None of that is resolvable using climate models.

        Fritz Möller pointed out this problem 50 years ago (and here), in his debate with Gilbert Plass. It’s been pretty much ignored since then. One can understand why: if the complexity of climatological response channels is acknowledged, the simplistic monotonic AGW sensible-heat-über-alles paradigm gets flushed.

        William Grey has discussed this problem in detail (pdf), but, of course, he’s been ignored because the proper narrative is so important. Grey’s informed and professional opposition, by the way, produced Judy Curry’s completely unjustified accusation of senility, documented in a 2006 WSJ article; a gratuitous ad hominem for which she has never, to my knowledge, apologized.

      • “Massive deception? Do you deny that co2 will warm the planet?”
        Yep. I deny. Not the high school radiative physics. The physics partially beyond our current understanding that manifests in no measurable relationship between temperature and CO2. Dude, you really got to look into saturation.

        Honestly, not feeling as charitable as Tasmin. While hurling insults does no good in a negotiation, it works great in politics, and since the shamans of séance have insinuated themselves into positions of political power and have exercised that power to stifle debate alternate science, it’s really not a negotiation.

      • Steven Mosher says: November 27, 2014 at 2:59 pm
        Massive deception? Do you deny that co2 will warm the planet?

        =======================================================

        Steven, Do you deny that for the past 18 years co2 has increased whilst the planet has not warmed? If not, does that not tell you that the situation is not as simplisitic as you paint it and that painting it as being that simplistic when it clearly isn’t *is* a deception.

  135. I read the Financial Times and follow their energy and power blog by Nick Butler. Nick often use “deniers” and once he used “flat earthers”. If you register with FT you can read my comments.

    Withe 40 years experience of energy conversion and environment I have many examples from international R&D projects I have worked on, where the same kind of language was used when I questioned the CO2 argument as motivation for the projects.

    The looser is a poor woman and her children in SS Africa when cooking the family meal indoors over open fire. The need electricity and clean water.

    Dr Edwards should keep that in mind, and engage on the issue!

    I am proud to have been a “black engineer” doing work to supply “black”energy to poor people with latest best available technologies . Black is beautiful!

    Below what I commented on the post by Dr Ball
    “To understand what has happened, you need to know how different people in different countries have used climate change for their interests.

    Look at Sweden and Denmark.
    In both countries climate change is used to motivate energy, business and welfare politics. Bert Bolin and other meteorologists at Stockholm University supplied the tool.

    In the EU commission, with responsibility for climate change, was first Margot Wallström Sweden and then Connie Hedegaard Denmark. One without education at University and one with a degree in Literature.

    In UK Magaret Tatcher used climate change to combat coal miners union.

    Scientist in the field of energy conversion and environment and business leaders evaluated and found opportunities. Now they don’t know how to get out of the mess.”

  136. Dr Tim Ball taking a passage out of Mein Kampf as an illustration of the theory of how a Big Lie can be propagated very successfully throughout society may have been inadvisable but it was certainly not irrelevant or misguided. The use of this passage by Dr. Ball does not directly compare climate scientists with Nazis – the suggestion is plainly absurd. I do not rule out the possibility that, given that Dr. Ball and other sceptics have, for years been directly and maliciously associated with Holocaust deniers by the climate catastrophists working in science, politics and the media, his choice of example here was motivated just a little by resentment and mischief, but that does not render it any less appropriate. We are not talking about Nazism, we are talking about Hitler’s theories on how society can be duped into believing a massive untruth.
    Alas, I do not believe that there will be any really meaningful and lasting reconciliation between climate scientists/CAGW advocates and sceptics until such time as the former stop pretending that the evidence for post industrial man-made global warming is “overwhelming” or that it is accepted by the “overwhelming majority” of scientists, therefore is not open to serious doubt or questioning. This is not the case, yet politicians and green groups and renewables industries bigwigs continue to push hard the urgent mitigation route, even though it has proven to be impractical, often ineffective, and economically and socially damaging.

  137. the article reminds me of Egypt during talks with Israel rebuking the Israeli for fighting back against the attacks OF OTHER COUNTRIES – the authors aren’t the only GW Alarmists – there are others out there who don’t practice what the authors’ preach – and Those Abusive Alarmists are the majority voice – while the authors mistakenly think they are – and demand that skeptics address all their skepticism only to them

  138. I believe in civil discussion. Let’s talk about the science and politics, but leave out ad hominem, criticising people, talking about opponent’s motives, calling names, and so on. There is a saying that the player of the Nazi-card loses the game.

    In less polarized atmosphere it is easier for them to get closer to us. I don’t require full surrender. Just doing the science as it should, fact and evidence based.

  139. 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.

    That parallels a couple of points I made in “Notes from Skull Island” at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/:

    7. Certain fringe or off-topic comments would be “moderated” out, because they step on people’s toes and don’t play well in Peoria. E.g., New World Order theorizing, bolshy bashing, boot-the-UN and tar-and-feather-‘em remarks, and most attribution-of-motives comments. Populist “venting” of all sorts would be toned down; instead the stress would be on sweet reasonableness and out-reaching to the average citizen and opinion-leader. Any media pro would advise that course, especially one with a big funder behind him (who wouldn’t want to be tarred by association with tin-hat opinions (if news of a link ever came out)). Such a “mainstream” tone and mindset would be the fingerprint of any top-down campaign on a scientific topic.

    8. Not only would there be more stylistic similarity, but the content would be less idiosyncratic as well. There’d be evidence of a “script” or list of talking points that skeptic commenters were following, instead of the typical home-brew assemblage of arguments.

    • Very good point. And we need some sort of self-censorship to stop this sort of own goal.
      It will get worse too.
      Lewandowsky probably had his paper on this written before it even happened.

  140. My issue with Tim Ball’s post was that he gave the impression there was only one, or very few, motives to be ascribed to a very wide range of people.

      • True or not, I don’t think that is unusual. But some of them are a bit ticked off with being treated as ill-intentioned dimwitted pond-scum by the POTUS and Prince Charles downwards.

  141. AGW or not, there are many things we can probably agree on like; moving away from fossil fuels is a pretty good idea. Meanwhile, we’ve got a fed gov that has spent 8 trillion bucks (or more) on wars to control the resources of the middle east. What would have happened if even half of that was used for building alternative energy infrastructure in the USA? And I don’t mean dopey windfarms. The very last thing we should consider is a carbon tax, giving more money to the criminals who give us endless wars, and that’s what this is really about, more money for the criminals.

    The entire debate is a smokescreen.

    • “we’ve got a fed gov that has spent 8 trillion bucks (or more) on wars to control the resources of the middle east.”

      Completely unfounded assertion.

    • Moving away from fossil fuels when there is no credible or viable alternative is not something we can agree on, in fact it’s a stupid idea and is costing HUGE in both money and environmental damage. I’ve always thought it was one of the great ironies that the attempts of the misguided to “save” the planet is doing more harm than anything else.

      Fossil fuels are your friends.

      • “Fossil fuels are your friends.”
        I couldn’t agree more! We owe much of our well-being to fossil fuels and that’s not going to change any time soon. Renewables are hopelessly inefficient and unreliable. The recent dramatic fall in oil prices will obviously cause problems in some quarters, but for the world as a whole it will provide a massive boost.

        Overall, I think I’m on Tim Ball’s side. The world is the victim of the greatest fraud in history and it’s right for people to speak out against it. I can hardly find words to express my anger at how so many people have corrupted the science. They clearly have huge vested interests in climate change alarmism, in fact many of their jobs depend on it. I would probably do the same – assuming, of course, that I didn’t care about the integrity of science.
        Chris

  142. Jburrell is totally right. Betts is virtually absent & Edwards makes vacuous comments on this thread. Its plain that its more than their next grant application is worth for them to make any meaningful contribution here. Keep up the good work Dr Ball – I find nothing offensive in your post.

      • After writing an attack piece of their own, one singling out a very specific person, then refusing to engage ANY criticism, exactly what would you expect?

        Mark

      • … refusing to engage ANY criticism…

        Make that ALL criticism, from all comers.

        Much as I’d like to read their come-back on all these challenges, it’s not hard to see why they clammed up.

        There could be a follow-up, or more/further. This seems to be coming off pretty well; good for WUWT, and Betts-Edwards.

        Don’t be too surprised if they/Watts develop this role. But I doubt it will expand to mud-wrestling a dozen hostile commenters at once.

        … And yeah it’s easy to tell some would druther they not bother.

      • Perhaps there is a reason nearly all of it is criticism? Most people have good hypocrisy detectors..

        Either way, this is their MO, not just here, but at BH as well. They are both loathe to address direct criticism.

        Mark

      • Oh, and for the record, the error in their initial read of Dr. Ball’s post was noted very early in the subsequent posts, before it was obvious they overwhelming majority were critical.

        If you dont want to be construed as afraid, don’t act like you are.

        Mark

      • Mark T,

        I thought the real topic Dr. Ball addressed was super, and I hope he pulls through the flak and flies another (better planned) sortie like it. Motivations (and goals) are important: do be careful, though … there are real reasons why we generally steer clear of such questions.

        The H-stuff? ‘Oh-no’! Just makes life way complicated, and brings no special value to the mission. It’s a liability.

        Mostly, I’m glad to see the references to Old Central Europe targeted. My wittle feewings aren’t offended by that stuff, but my communication-sense … saw the wall of flak coming. That was self-inflicted. The conspiracy talk doesn’t elevate the piece either. But the motive-angle? Yep, people work from motivations. Understanding them is empowering.

        My main reservation about the Betts-Edwards critique is that it has no mention what Dr. Ball’s post was actually about. All they pay any attention to, is that – eww – he stepped in something. That suggests the possiblity that they aren’t that interested in ‘working with’ Ball, or even Watts (and indeed, Watts is not exactly jumping for joy … tho that could be the general doghouse atmosphere, too).

        A secondary reservation arises, upon reading:

        … We were also disappointed that so few commenters below the post distanced themselves from his views.

        Hmm. First, having been part of the live comment-stream myself, my perception at the time was that Dr. Ball was taking a real drubbing, for “his views” (presumably alluding to the H-talk).

        Second, I therefore returned just now and counted all the comments that contain the H-word: 30, a high percentage of them, negative. In real time, others alluded to the ‘problem’, without “repeating” the H-language. I used that tactic myself, several times.

        No, I don’t see the basis for the “so few” assertion. Did Betts-Edwards actually do a decent scan of those 500+ comments? In fact, ‘heat’ over his H-language – and conspiracy indulgences – is rather prominent in those comments.

        Ok, those are my criticisms of the B-E critique. They aren’t meant to ‘dismiss’ their input – or to ‘call’ their motives: in fact, I’m glad to see it and think they did us – including Dr. Ball – a real service. Our topic is not European history, and that stuff is not neutral analogy-material.

        Thanks for the wider insight – which I don’t have.

        Ted

      • No disagreement from me, Ted.

        Keep in mind, BTW , my opinion of both was solidified.long before this post over at BH. This post is just reinforcement of my opinion.

        Same with Mosher. Unfortunately, I actually respected his views before BEST.

        Mark

      • The science is settled, so what’s left ?
        Motivation, and what is one of the larger motivators ?, (you guessed it) money.
        How does the money flow ? in a pyramid scheme. Now we’re learning.

  143. so now we can’t talk about the phenomenon of the big lie (and history ties it to hitler like it or not) w/o being afraid of being involved in the nazi backlash crap.
    history doesn’t care about peoples feelings and neither do I.
    the article talks more about strong than hitler, can we no longer talk about him too?
    stifle anyone that does, its the only way to prevent scary conversation.

    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

    IOW you want to decide what that is. and talking about the history of the big lie is, for some odd reason, something you don’t want discussed.
    I find that interesting, very interesting.

    • You can talk about strong however you can’t credibly tie the behavior of people like me to strong. Never met him. Never read a word he has written. His views don’t change physics. CO2 warms the planet.

      • No, but we can tie people Ike you to ignorance of the subject matter. I don’t think you are liar, just lacking in ability.

      • Mosher

        Wow what great insight. CO2 warms the planet. That helped a lot. You know the issue is by how much. Is it 1% or 99 %? Where on that continuum?
        You are of no use.

      • CO2 warms the planet

        You have made that statement a few times on this post today Steven Mosher. Can you show us the evidence of your statement?

        Temperature Anomaly trend
        Mar 2001 to Sep 2014
        Rate: 0.009°C/Century;
        Temp range 0.508°C to 0.509°C

        Temperature Anomaly trend
        Aug 2004 to Sep 2014
        Rate: -0.338°C/Century;
        Temp range 0.921°C to 0.887°C

        The above temp. data both come from the same place……the partially Koch Bros. funded BEST (I think you know of it). The upper data is land + ocean, the lower, land only.

        Please explain?

      • We don’t know that more CO2 warms the planet. We know the direct effect of CO2 on the radiation balance. We have no idea of the effect on the trillions of other variables affecting the global temperature, such as cloud cover for instance. If increased CO2 indirectly increases cloud cover then maybe it indirectly has the reverse effect on the radiative balance and doesn’t warm the planet. Your simplistic statement does nothing to advance the conversation.

      • “CO2 warms the planet.”
        Really? So why is there no sign of this in the ice core records?
        I’m satisfied that the effect works in the laboratory. But whether AGW works in the chaotic climate system is another matter.
        Even if there is a real effect in the climate system, the science is changing, despite the distorted version peddled by the IPCC. The trend in values for CO2 sensitivity is to get smaller and smaller, one recent value being about 0.4 C

      • way to insert yourself into the conversation.
        feeling a bit left out or something?
        you’ll notice I never mentioned you at all, you are not important enough to me for me to try to tie you to him.
        get over yourself.

    • dmacleo, THANK YOU. One of the saner summaries of the whole discussion (not to slight others of you who have shared this view).

      • thank you.
        I read and re-read the offending article a few times trying to see the outrage and just could not find it.
        what I did see is people willing to read into it to parse out whatever slights they wanted to feel slighted over which bugs me.
        maybe thats just me though, I’ve been wrong many times before.
        and if talking about the big lie bugs people this much there is a reason, sort of wonder about that.

  144. The original post was long, with little new material. The excess references to cabals with etymology from Wankerpedia took me out of the piece, which was obviously Tim’s opinion, not Anthony’s.

    However, as far as “…gravitating towards a more central and…more reasonable view,” that is happening only in limited areas of climate science, and cannot be relied upon. Global Warming is not and never was about climate science. It’s about confiscation of wealth on a global scale, implemented by and for a corrupt UN. That objective will never change one iota.

    Stephen Richards (7:23 am) is 100% correct, above. There is no way to build a bridge between the Bandini Mountain of politically-driven pseudoscience and the Mt. Everest of Truth. Tim Ball is 99% right, and I’d like to see a brief final word from him or Lord Monckton.

  145. Tim Ball is no better than Lewandsky.
    I don’t bother to read any of the articles where person X tries to psychoanlyse the motives about person or group Y.
    There is no science involved, just gobbledegook.
    I want science based stuff, even i I don’t completely understand the deep mathematical aspects portrayed.
    Let the sociologists and such like go fight it out somewhere else.
    Mick

    • Tim Ball is no better than Lewandsky.

      Yeah, Dr. Ball is a lot more credible than Dr. Lewandowsky.

      I don’t bother to read any of the articles where person X tries to psychoanlyse the motives about person or group Y.

      Let the sociologists and such like go fight it out somewhere else.

      You know Lewandowsky is a psychologist? Cognitive psychobabble?

      • That was kind of a dicey sally alright. ;)

        But it sounded like he might not know; and others might take it as plausible.

        Having an informed dog gives you an unfair advantage.

  146. I imagine that having to blow your life savings defending against a frivolous lawsuit might leave you somewhat bitter and subject to rhetorical excess.

  147. What the apologists for the Warmunist side like Mosher intentionally gloss over is the fact that there has never been a level playing field. Not even close. The power has always been on the side of those working for the Big Lie.

  148. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (High Quality Version)
    http://tinyurl.com/mml5aca

    Lindzen quotes from Mike Hulme’s book “Why We Disagree about Climate Change”
    as follows:
    “The Idea of Climate Change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change but what climate change can do for us”
    “Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical and spiritual needs”
    “we will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects”
    “These myths transcend the scientific categories of true and false”

    AndyWest does a more comprehensive deconstruction of the new age mystic , Mike (Aesop) Hulme here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/quote-of-the-week-cru-scientist-disses-cooks-97/#comment-1558534

    There is no room for agreement between those who want science to remain as a wonderful mode of inquiry, vs those who would turn it into a “Source of Authority” for which the main vehicle has been Climate Change Dogma.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/#comment-1797042

    All the Best
    brent

  149. When I saw Dr Ball’s article, the first thing that went through my mind was “how long until this gets completely off the rails?”. So, here we are. I’d like to make a few quick points:

    1. Dr Ball’s choice of historic illustration of the Big Lie was ill advised. But the Big Lie has been with us since the shaman of some primitive tribe first thumped his walking stalk on the ground, declared some frightening incident (ranging from a unexpected crack of thunder to a volcanic eruption) a sign that the Gods are angry and the tribe must make some sacrifice to appease them. Had he used this illustration of the Big Lie instead of the one he did, would you read his article differently?

    2. Dr. Ball’s article implied (in my mind) the existence of a grand conspiracy, which I find ludicrous. Nixon couldn’t keep a lid on Watergate where only a few individuals were involved, how would anyone keep a lid on a grand conspiracy involving thousands of climate scientists? Seems to me we have a few movers and shakers (Thatcher, Strong, etc) who have created a rather large bandwagon that a lot of people are jumping on, nothing more (see reference to Robert G Brown’s most excellent post upthread).

    3. The article’s ultimate intent (in my view) was to expose the role of Maurice Strong in the creation of the bandwagon we see today. I applaud Richard and Tamsin for engaging in a positive way, but the fact of the matter us that powerful people like Strong and Thatcher have politicized and polarized the debate, with the likes of McGibbon and Lewandowski adding fuel to the fire and profiting from doing so, all quite without any climate science credentials to speak of. So, along with your umbrage with Dr. Ball’s methods, it would be good for you to also be willing to acknowledge and discuss the politicization aspects and history of how the debate came to be the way it is now.

    My recollection is vague, but if I recall correctly, Dr Ball may have lost his job at U of Mb due to the influence of Strong who is a major donor to that institution. Take that into consideration along with Dr Mann’s law suit against Dr Ball, and it is easy to see that Dr. Ball has suffered FAR more than most of his for being public with his views on climate change. I still think his article used an ill advised example, but I must also cut him some slack for the manner in which he has suffered personally for taking up the skeptic side of the debate, I’d be over the top angry and likely to make ill advised comments if I had been treated as Mr Ball has for putting, frankly, a lot of facts on the table in his articles on science that are of considerable value to the discussion.

    • I looked at the whole up-tread twice and couldn’t find rgb’s post on this thread:
      ” (see reference to Robert G Brown’s most excellent post upthread).”
      Could you provide a link, as I always want to read rabaduk’s thoughts
      Thx, jpp

    • It’s not about conspiracy, it’s about groupthink, such as the groupthink that caused 99% of the world population to believe that fats (saturated and not) are bad for you. Now scientists have changed their minds, 20 years later, and are saying fats are good for you, after the entire planet bought into the hokum.

      It’s the same groupthink that has caused the entire planet to believe for the last 20 years that sunlight is bad for you (skin cancer and the like) when in reality lack of sunlight is probably more of a problem (vitamin D deficiency).

      This same type of groupthink can manifest itself in more evil ways, racism being the obvious example, where entire populations of people come to believe something that is false about other populations of people. Then eventually you come to think about genocide, where entire populations of people believe it’s justified to exterminate other populations of people. It is this line of thought which is what led to this post.

      In any case, it’s not about conspiracy, it’s about groupthink. Groupthink has been prevalent in the sciences since the beginning of time.

      • Absolutely right. Generally, when we use the word ‘conspiracy’ it implies something that was deliberately organised. Actually, there has been some amount of deliberate organisation, Maurice Strong and the Group of Rome being examples.

        But it definitely doesn’t require any organised conspiracy to get scientists to widely believe in something that isn’t true. How many scientists today believe in the steady state theory of the universe or that the continents are fixed and static? But they were the consensus beliefs in their time. In fact the history of science is basically the story of how one consensus after another turned out to be completely wrong.

        I think two driving factors are vested interests and green extremism. Mix group think in and the whole thing becomes virtually predictable. Group think is incredibly powerful, and some studies into it produced dramatic results.

        Fortunately history also teaches us that science is self-correcting and I’m reasonably optimistic that this will happen, though possibly not in my life time. The sad things is that it may require a healthy dose of global cooling to finally get scientists off their CO2 and computer model addictions.
        Chris

    • davidmhoffer wrote, “how would anyone keep a lid on a grand conspiracy involving thousands of climate scientists?”

      Manhattan Project.

      What? A hundred thousand people conspired to keep it secret for 25 years. Just because it was a conspiracy you might have approved of, does not make it any less a “conspiracy”.

      Oh, and I’m old enough to remember when people laughed and made fun of anyone who suggested there existed any such ridiculousness as “the Mafia”. Seriously, big conspiracies abound; some are still believed even centuries later (Guy Fawkes, anyone?)

      But I think a better exploration of the motives of the CAGW crowd is to be found in Harvey’s Abilene Paradox.

  150. While almost everyone here is well-meaning or at least has some understandable axe to grind, it seems to me that a missing concept is causing much misunderstanding and some communication breakdown.

    Not all bad (or good, come to that) things that happen in society can be attributed to individuals. In fact powerful runaway cultures kinda sweep individuals along. There is a very real sense in which the culture has an agenda of it’s own, which does not belong to any of the individuals within it. While this agenda is certainly not senitent, nor even agential, it is no less powerful for that. This is not intuitive, BUT explains stumbling blocks like those exposed here. In various historically dire regimes, the vast majority of supporters, frequently including much of the elite, passionately believe they are right and on the side of good (at least until it is too late and fear takes over instead). This is true for the latest cultural belief in the certainty of catastrophe, namely CAGW. Most of those in the Consensus, including most of the climate scientists, are not bad but believers. Misinformation about the scientific level of certainty in catastrophe has gripped their minds (and those of much of society too), causing rampant bias within their science, which causes still stronger belief in a feedback loop. It is well known that most folks caught up in such cultures can be both well-intentioned and genuinely puzzled about challenges, and *not* bad people. Even those involved in emotive campaigning or propagandising will in general be of this type, they are are not knowingly doing anything wrong; quite the reverse, they feel they are fighting inaction and even in some cases, evil!

    SO… it has for decades been well-researched that perfectly well-meaning folks can be part of a negative culture, perhaps very negative. The cultural agenda owns them, not vice versa; it’s naive at best to accuse individuals of a big list of injustices as though the reverse is true. In part the law defends against this effect, and ‘the cultural defence’ in law does *not* excuse the influenced from responsibility for their own actions (I agree!). BUT most actions promoting the culture will be inside the law (and in any case a powerful culture will alter the law in its favour), and most individuals will be a tiny subclause somwhere on the list, which list they are themselves also blind to. The point here is fight the culture, NOT the *well-meaning* individuals inside it, who are the best allies in the fight one could hope for; eroding from the inside is a great tactic.

    Before folks say ‘this is not logical’ or ‘why don’t they realise?’, who here is caught up in NO such culture of any kind? Not me. Religion, say? Or nationalism? Or for some the more passionate wings of left-right politics? Whatever. Because cultural bias is domain orientated, one can be perfectly logical in such one domain, and yet blind (or at least misty) to logic in another.

    I think Dr Ball attempted to point out (in an unfortunately inflationary manner) something along the lines of this cultural runaway. Well I make cultural comparisons to highlight CAGW characteristics too. But I feel Anthony is dead right; if we don’t enage, if those on either side continue to use inflationary language or inflationary comparisons, this reinforces the polarization that will accelerate the runaway culture of catastrophe still more! Attempting to brake the culture with science and common sense (easily the skeptics’ best tactic so far), starve it of emotional fuel, and denude its boundaries by tunneling through the barbed wire to the more reasonable influenced, these will all help. CAGW is already getting to the point where for some, fear is already a partial motivator, though the main drive is still from the *honest* and freely given passion of millions. This is a dangerous time; if fear takes over, then things will get much much worse, and polarization can only drive up both misunderstanding and fear.

  151. I was offended by the tone of the original article by Dr. Ball and had considered leaving WUWT to what I perceived was the takeover by the radical right. Glad to see it was simply an unmoderated aberration. Hope the tone remains the thoughtful and reflective consideration of all sides in this topic…

    • “… and had considered leaving WUWT to what I perceived was…”

      Get off your high horse. You know full well that authors here have a multitude of views and that there is no “takeover”. Yours is just more cynical trolling to try to get opinions you don’t like censored. Threatening to leave because we aren’t up to your standards? For my part I’ll be glad if I never hear from or about you again.

  152. Oops, that was supposed to be a there, not a . Gah! Lack of preview capabilities so we miss the obvious typos…

    • I don’t think anyone was paying attention to your spelling errors. Most probably saw the disconnect between “Hope the tone remains the thoughtful and reflective consideration of all sides in this topic…” and your disdain and perjorative use of “radical right”. See how that works?

  153. TAMSIN i’m not the slightest bit interested in what you think Tim Ball meant or didnt mean with his article . I am interested in the fact that you dip your fingers in my wage packet each month [without my consent] before i get my hands on whats left of my hard earned. So next time you help write an article on this site at least try to justify why you need my money to fund your work and life style. Tell us how much better your climate models are now compared to reality.

  154. Any bringing together of parties on both sides of the debate has to be for the good!
    Much better is constructive dialogue and friendliness than continual strife and argument
    and name calling!

    • The warmists have refused to debate for a decade now. There is nothing to debate they say. The science is settled. The worldwide data says their hypothesis has failed. Thus I agree, there is nothing to debate. The science is settled. It is just that the warmists are in denial, and they are making policy on a failed hypothesis. It is time they admitted that.

      • BINGO!

        There is nothing left to debate, so let’s shut down the IPCC without delay.

        • IPCC surface temperature projections failed and continue to fail.
        • 18+ years of no global surface warming (not as promised on the packet).
        • No clear trends in extreme weather over a climatic period.
        • Antarctica near record sea ice extents in recent years.
        • Arctic death spiral stuttering in recent years.
        • Greening biosphere.
        • Global food production at unprecedented levels.
        • Oceans are still alkaline…………………….

      • Hi guys,

        As as somehow former greenish German person – but not really believing in the GAGW meme I would like to remind of some psychological standards:

        If you want to win a person, you should avoid anything to make him angry.

        If you have a noble cause, you should behave in a noble way.

        It is crucial to really understand him and why he is behaving in a strange way – no person is really evil and bad.

        If you compare persons or movements with historical misbehaving persons or movements you will not win his understanding but you will implement some biological reactions – like pouring out the fight-or-flight-hormones. And this will enforce his negative imprint in his brain, adding more resistance even to listen to you – or if, then only to find out that you are wrong.

        It doesn’t matter if that person has misbehaved or said wrong things or statements. Even if you think you have the RIGHT to pay back his behavior with the same currency – if you want to WIN him, you should not use it.

        Only facts stated in a generous and sovereign way and showing him that you are trying to understand him will possibly help him to rethink his matter.

        This doesn’t mean to be weak and accepting anything. What i want to point out is that we are biological beings and that we are behaving in many aspects like animals; we and our opponents.

        Hopefully some of you will understand this and translate it into better English, if necessary.

      • Johannes Herbst
        November 27, 2014 at 2:54 pm

        Very good point, a very noble way to approach a given situation………but if I am not wrong with my historic knowledge and by trying a historical comparision it can be shown that actually the noble approach you suggest was actually the very way the Hitler at the time was treated in the political arena…to win him over and all that….but as we know it did fail and turned the whole thing for the worse…..gave him time to be stronger more agresiv and more distructive.

        And that had a tag price, a rather large one, to the degree that we today find it disturbing while mentioned in a comparision …..

        Science, the science in principle is a treasure to a civic society, and society since it’s first days has established a judiciary system to protect it’s treasures and forward it’s own continuation.
        And it is the duty of the society and the judiciary system to protect such treasure from any significant damage that may be incurred through malpractice or any other means before it is to late.

        Scientist are bound to the same rule….they resolve to crime, they become subject to criminal liability and punishment.

        Resolving to fraud, distruction of public property, professional misconduct etc. brings one face to face with
        judiciary….and the same should hold true for any scientist that resolves to the same, for whatever motivation.
        This is not propaganda, is how things are and work.

        To me it seems that the time for the noble approach you suggest is already over.
        That is my opinion.

        cheers

  155. @ Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards

    My goodness gracious; it is so horrible that your feelings were hurt by having your side mentioned in the same post as the Germans of the 30s and 40s. Horrible! So bad I can not even bring myself to write out the names of the secular Satan.

    Now, if you are finished whining, how about telling your side to publish their data (“Dr.” Mann first), not tamper with the temperature data sets in a bogus manner, and then apologize the the families of the people who died in the cold due to much higher energy prices caused by this false alarm.

    I think the deaths of many are on the hands of the alarmists. Sorry to have to say that, but we poor people have trouble paying exorbitant energy bills that the grant-eaters can easily afford.

    • This is a very good reply. It’s clear that they still don’t understand how vile the ‘denier’ tag is. Being a nazi just means that you support the philosphy of national socialism. Being a denier however means that you are complicit in the annihilation of 6 million people. There is a difference. Dr Ball did not, in any case, call anybody a nazi.

    • I for one would like Betts and Tamsin to admit or deny the holocaust of starvation and deaths caused by the rise in basic commodity prices resulting for the most part from the AGW paradigm.

      Other commentators on this thread may wish to consider which direction wealth is being transferred from.

  156. I agree that Anthony seems to be heading up the wrong creek without a paddle. We need to remain alert and watchful. These Warmistas are a cadre of liars.frauds and authoritarians who want to do damage to the economies of the World and to society by intentional malevolent design. They are guilty of malfeasance and should be charged with their crimes and put on trial. Let’s not collapse into a lumpy pile all singing ‘Kum Bey Ya’. These are real crimes.

  157. The original post that generated the ruckus referenced a quote from Adolf Hitler’s views on propaganda. While Hitler today is viewed in the same way that perhaps Napoleon was viewed a few centuries earlier, putting that aside, one could hardly argue that he wasn’t an expert in that field.

    I didn’t find the original post to be very good.

    Also, one thing that the author wasn’t aware of is that use of the ‘H’ word on the internet is ‘banned’. Trolls try to shout down the merits of any debate as soon as ‘H’ comes up. They do this because collectively they have decided that ‘H’ can never be mentioned. There is never any rational reason why the ‘H’ word is taboo, of course. or why ‘H’ is worse than calling someone a fascist, or referring to Pol Pot, or any other bad historical event. It’s just a forbidden word because nitwits have decided it should be forbidden and there are more nitwits on the internet than non-nitwits.

  158. Any debate absolutely needs to be civil from beginning to end. That is why (in addition to a fine mind of course) that Steven MacIntyre stands head and sholders above the rest.

    Removing adjectives from the debate is difficult from a communication point of view but is also necessary.

    But there is also something else other than civility and impassive language required and that is context. So Tamsin Edwards recently said:

    “I’ll start with some things we’re certain about. The earth’s energy budget is out of balance: there’s more energy going in than coming out, so the planet is storing it up. That’s not unusual in itself, only that we are helping tip the scales.”

    1) If there is more energy going in, its effect could be miniscule and within measurement error and we still dont know enough about cloud feedback to state that sentence with any significant interval.
    2) In terms of natural variability, anthropogenic influences could be even more miniscule
    3) The concluding element to the sentence is then lacking in context

    and then

    “The extra energy means the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean have warmed, making the hottest days warmer and more frequent, and the coldest days less frequent”.

    The at may or may not be a consequence of heating but not necessarily related to anything that homo sapiens has done and we also as yet don’t fully understand extended 2nd/3rd/4th order exothermic decay , the conclusion is out of context

    civil
    impassive
    context

    and then brace oneself to absorb the diatribe of the unreasoned…..

  159. FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH ALL THAT IS NECESSARY IS FOR GOOD MEN TO TALK AMIABLY ABOUT IT.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  160. Treatment of Dr Ball aside, I see progress: Met Office observes not only WUWT, but also commentators views. There is also some tentative efforts towards negotiation. Never mind the clumsiness. The trend is encouraging.

    • It’s not about negotiation but about being honest about the forecasts.

      The only reason they are negotiating is because their forecasts are so useless that they’ve given up getting any credibility from accurate forecasts – so now they want credibilty by the back door and somehow they think if Anthony or some other sceptics endorse them – they’ll get credibility that way.

      But all it will do is make anyone who allows themselves to be used that way lose their own credibility.

      • They might be better served to realise that simply by being honest and open about uncertainties would earn the support of a small army of voters that with the two recent wins by UKIP the pommy politicians will not be quick to irritate.

        Support good and open science and call out bad and be surprised at how many allies you gain. ;)

      • Scottish Sceptic. Willingness to negotiate is not negotiation, let alone the outcome. It’s more like a ceasefire. And I take it from Met Office – despite of my instinctive urge to fetch tar and feathers.

  161. WUWT is a complicated beast. It is the best shortcut to updates on the AGW fraud so I visit regularly. I am mostly apolitical in that I assume most politicians are incompetent, lazy or corrupt in that order so I am bemused by the use of WUWT as a soapbox for political positions. I have suggested a few times in comments that the debate to win hearts and minds would be better served by sticking to the high road of science. Okay, I have poked a stick in the eye a time or two myself and I can understand why people get so frustrated with the nonsence that gets published on the AGW side. But almost nobody that I know has the slightest interest in wading through the pile of horse manure generated by a bunch of blog weenies spewing at one another. If this is really about winning the debate and not just an opportunity to vent, then I would rather see the more outrageous statements reined in. I really like Tim Ball. He was the person who first opened my eyes to the problems with AGW. But we don’t need to make parallels with Nazis to win this. All that does is drive people away. Drown them in data, I say.

    • Winning the public is essential in this war, but you won’t win the public in drowning THEM with data. Especially if we can’t ensure, that THEY keep their fingers off the data.

  162. Personally, we think they will agree that climate “scientists’ view is an out-of-touch reality

  163. “We were also disappointed that so few commenters below the post distanced themselves from his views. ”

    I am dissapointed Tim Ball gets so much support here. I always skip his posts.

  164. The socialists, including Hitler were bad. The communists, including Stalin, Zedong, etc were worse. However, the Marxist fringe, including the international left and allies (e.g. Mandela), posed a greater threat, since their efforts to consolidate capital and control, especially in developed states, were not limited by national boundaries and the population therein. Still, the modern left and not a few on the far right (e.g. libertarian, anarchist) oversee even greater efforts to displace, replace, abort, and tax competitors and “good Germans” alike.

  165. Hi guys,

    As as somehow former greenish German person – but not really believing in the GAGW meme I would like to remind of some psychological standards:

    If you want to win a person, you should avoid anything to make him angry.

    If you have a noble cause, you should behave in a noble way.

    It is crucial to really understand him and why he is behaving in a strange way – no person is really evil and bad.

    If you compare persons or movements with historical misbehaving persons or movements you will not win his understanding but you will implement some biological reactions – like pouring out the fight-or-flight-hormones. And this will enforce his negative imprint in his brain, adding more resistance even to listen to you – or if, then only to find out that you are wrong.

    It doesn’t matter if that person has misbehaved or said wrong things or statements. Even if you think you have the RIGHT to pay back his behavior with the same currency – if you want to WIN him, you should not use it.

    Only facts stated in a generous and sovereign way and showing him that you are trying to understand him will possibly help him to rethink his matter.

    This doesn’t mean to be weak and accepting anything. What i want to point out is that we are biological beings and that we are behaving in many aspects like animals; we and our opponents.

    Hopefully some of you will understand this and translate it into better English, if necessary.

    • English is fine. It all makes sense.
      And I agree wholeheartedly with it all.

      Except for one line; “It is crucial to really understand him and why he is behaving in a strange way – no person is really evil and bad.”
      Some (of us?) are really evil and bad because it is useful. And we all must engage constant vigilance to overcome our original sin.
      Assuming that no-one is bad is usually correct. But not always.

      • You are right – Some few people are really evil – or at least in their thoughts and deeds. Some are blinded though wrong information. Some are even aware that they are wrong but not capable to confess that they are wrong. We should even them give the opportunity to retreat in a honorable way (this is what I learned in Africa).

        But 99% are just thinking they do or suport the right thing. Or they believe wrong things just because of perpetual repetition in the media. If any person should happen to visit WUWT, he should see a polite debate, quoting only scientific valid statements, openness to any point of view – and even being skeptic to one’s own opinion – we all should improve and lean day by day.

        Everybody will be disgusted by name-calling, defending unscientific theories, and unwillingness to listen to others.

        The point is not to be right and to defeat everybody with a different opinion. The “others” just should see we are open-minded persons, willing to learn and to understand each others.

      • The problem is that 1% Johannes. Some do evil because they are misguided or fearful or indoctrinated. But there is still the 1% who do it because they want to and because they like doing it. They’re the ones who fill the ranks of the “Secret Police” in every totalitarian regime.

        And “1%” may seem small, but in my Australian home that means 230,000 possible recruits for a regime. This is not an insignificant number. ;)

  166. I was confused about Tim Ball’s quote from Hitler about the Big Lie. Was he quoting Hitler approvingly as an expert on detecting Big Lies perpetrated by other people? Hitler was attacking those who blamed Ludendorff for Germany’s loss in World War I. He wasn’t publishing his plan for disseminating his own Big Lies.

    So what was Tim Ball doing? Quoting Hitler as an expert in order to expose the Big Lie by uppity ups in the profitable industry known as Big Climate? Seems like a good way to discredit your own argument right out of the box.

    In his defense, I wouldn’t be too hard on Tim Ball. He has, after all, been preyed upon by Michael Mann who is, of course, one of those of whom we might say, “the truth is not in him.” If anyone has been damaged by the principals of Big Climate, it is Tim Ball.

    • Thank you. The only voice of reason I’ve yet to see in this thread. Hitler was complaining about the use of the Big Lie–not promoting it.

      If both sides in this debate can’t even get the basic fact/assumption that they are arguing about correct it’s like the ignorant yelling at the ignorant. Both sides show they are truly incapable of detecting a Big Lie.

      • Actually Hitler was also an excellent practioner of the “big lie”, was he not? That a tyrant considers it ok to use the very methods he complains about others using, is not surprising.

  167. Wow look at all of the lefties getting upset that someone dares to speak the truth. What Dr. Ball failed to mention was that this CAGW scam is just the latest action in a campaign that has been being waged for a century. That so many can not see the truth is due to the success of those earlier actions. The first time I had a teacher lie to me, trying to push some Marxist nonsense, was when I was in fifth grade. And that was quite a long time ago. I bet that teacher was not even aware of the Marxist origins of what he was saying.

    • I bet your ability to detect Marxist ideas is just as poor as your ability to detect “the truth” about such issues as the use of Big Lies. You teacher probably made some general comment not dissimilar to what Jesus said, something about caring for the least fortunate amongst us or something, and you labeled it “Marxist” without having a clue.

      And btw, it’s pretty sloppy to assume “all of the lefties” think one way or another. I too am skeptical of CAGW but I think it’s really silly to think there is some sort of Marxist conspiracy behind it. If anything, it’s a capitalist conspiracy.

  168. Can somebody please tell me what, other than more rhetoric, posturing on self claimed high ground and spin meistering, either Betts or Edwards brings to the debate?

  169. When you Google people and sites that have been labeled as “climate doubters” you get lots of character assassination and allegations of “bought science”. How can skeptic science break through this noise and deliver the real facts, including the media-ignored socioeconomic implications?

  170. Well we do have Nazis in America. And they do head governments.

    The Reagan – Bush administration tried to suppress the finding that cannabis is effective against cancer. You can look it up. Of course the Democrats did nothing when they had a chance.

    Cannabis cures cancer. Cancer kills 586,000 Americans every year. Every Prohibitionist is complicit in mass murder.

    That is 1,500+ people a day. For 35 or 40 years. And it is not over yet. Now it is not quite in the range of what “climate controllers” contemplate but it IS proof that no party is immune to the disease of mass killing for political profit.

    I have no objection to calling mass murderers Nazis. Trouble is – they ALL are. And just as the left clings to its AGW delusions so the right clings to its prohibition delusions. And the people get to die left and right.

    [“cures cancer”?? .mod]

    • Mod. I have a canned line just for you (already used it elsewhere).

      Look up “Cannabis cures cancer”. And if you prefer medical journals try “Cannabis cures cancer NIH”

      =================

      It is amazing how little people know about the endocannabinoid system. And how they won’t even look unless prompted. It controls every other system in the body. You have more receptors for it than any other kind. Trouble is the popular media doesn’t cover it because if they did Prohibition would end day after tomorrow.

      Same reason you don’t get much truth about CAGW. The MSM are in league with the controllers.

      • It is amazing how little people know about the endocannabinoid system.

        Including yourself apparently. Research into anti-cancer properties of cannabinoids has been going on for decades. There is, as yet, no clear evidence that cannabis extracts can “cure” cancer or appreciably lengthen the survival time of terminal cancer patients

        In experiments with mice, animals given very high doses of purified delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) seemed to have a lower risk of developing cancer, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (the mice didn’t smoke it in a joint) and there is some evidence it can suppress tumour growth.

        Only one small trial involving patients has been published. Nine patients with an aggressive form of brain tumour were given highly purified THC through a tube directly into their brain. Eight showed some kind of response to the treatment. However, all 9 subjects had died within 12 months – about what would be expected with or without the treatment.

        Trouble is the popular media doesn’t cover it because if they did Prohibition would end day after tomorrow.

        Nonsense. Cannabis-based drugs have been developed since the 1980s at least – including Nabilone which is (or was) used to combat sickness from chemotherapy. See

        http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/coping-with-cancer/coping-physically/sickness/treatment/types-of-anti-sickness-drugs#nab

        Nabilone
        Nabilone is a man made drug developed from cannabis (marijuana). It is licensed for treating severe sickness from chemotherapy that is not controlled by other anti sickness drugs. It works very well for some people, but can cause drowsiness or dizziness in others. This can last for a couple of days after you’ve stopped taking it.