Guest 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
Tim lost me at ‘deception’ in the title implying lying and intent, and it’s conspiracy theory sounding silliness. The article (imho) went rapidly downhill from there.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/#comment-1799447
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.
thanks tonyb 🙂
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.
go ahead and build bridges with liars … I have more productive things to do …
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.
I totally agree the term Naziism is wrong The IPCC would be more akin to a dictatorship
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?
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.
why would you want to build bridges with fundamentally dishonest people?
Jimbo
November 28, 2014 at 4:25 am
Dr. Edwards followed the money.
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.
Hear hear!
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.
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.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/01/monday-mirthiness-live-on-an-iceberg-adrift-for-a-year-guy-alex-bellini-drives-an-suv-to-highlight-his-concern-about-climate-change/
To me a bigger nuisance is huge pickup trucks that cannot park in a normal parking spot nevertheless doing exactly that and you have the misfortune of being parked next to it so you cannot enter your little Toyota. Another scenario is pulling up to a stopsign and a huge pickup truck pulls up beside you and pulls forward so you have no hope of seeing what is coming. If it was just a little higher you could see UNDER it to see what is coming.
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.
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
They are “reaching out”, in order to appear nice.
That is what prostitutes and pimps do.
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.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/michael-manns-legal-case-caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/06/silencing-critics-instead-of-debating-them
A donation to Tim’s legal fund would be helpful in the process to move on from simple name calling. As one can see from the WUNT post below, Dr Ball has been waiting some time for the other side to “move on”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/
Regards
Stephen
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:
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?
Exactly my thoughts!
Tim Ball may be guilty of being politically incorrect, but that’s about it.
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?”
Realizing that climate science has been politicized with the motive to promote political Agendas is a giant leap forward for mankind in this debate.
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.
Where were the condemnations on some of those blogs and news sites?
Maybe you missed a major one there in that list. I’m not going to quote but I suggest to google: Richard Parncutt global warming
You started it!
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.
And we can act to end it … or to validate it.
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.
Cheers! They wouldn’t do anything else….
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.
Fully agree. They are liars, pimps and prostitutes.
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.
Is it a bird? Is it a plane?….No, It’s Don Quijote.
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.
Isn’t much of China’s pollution natural wind born dust?
ferdberple *** You Nailed It***
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.
http://www.coaleducation.org/technology/Reclamation/mountaintop-images/DSC3524.JPG
Or this “reclaimed” MTR mining site in Clarksburg, WV, USA
http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/21/eastpointemall.jpg
Those hills were originally sooooooo steep that you couldn’t chase a Billy Goat over the top of them … so what was your plans for them before their “tops” were flattened out into “prime” useable real estate? And the coal that was extracted fed the fires that produced the electricity that I need and require ….. and smelted the aluminum for making the cans that I purchase my beer and soda pop in.
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?
How many died of starvation due to increased food prices during the “covert food to fuel” fiasco?
“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?
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:
P.S. After reading Samuel C Cogar’s comment, I apologize for not knowing that land is relaimed in the Appalachian Mountains.
https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-obama-plan-power-africa-gets-off-dim-061242670.html
Instead of helping Africa step into the 20th century we’re keeping them in the 5th century. That’s how we’re killing millions of people.
@ policycritic: November 27, 2014 at 3:09 pm
“P.S. After reading Samuel C Cogar’s comment, I apologize for not knowing that land is relaimed in the Appalachian Mountains.”
—————
No problem, t’was not really your fault.
Info and pictures of/on those re-claimed MTR sites …. are akin to … research and studies that disagree and/or discredit the “fear mongering” claims of CAGW, ….. the “greenies” and the liberal biased “anti-coal” media don’t want the public to know anything about them.
PS: Very, very few people realize that what is pictured in the following photo is in fact a circa-1950’s (non-mining) MTR site …… that millions of people know only as …. Yeager Airport, Charleston, WV.
http://wvmetronews.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Yeager_airport.jpg
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%.
+1000 Great comment
You should not be civil. Call them out for what they are.
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
They do not like it up ’em!
see http://www.theeuroprobe.org 2012 – 021 The Toxic Origins of the EU and they are really toxic.
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.
Richard and *me*. Sorry, but all this talk of Hitler brought out the grammar Nazi in me!
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.
then point to them …
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.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/03/the-silence-of-the-anti-defamation-league-suggests-they-endorse-defamation-of-climate-skeptics/
Proposed treatment of CAGW sceptics. Not nice, trials, executions, rubbing faces in asbestos etc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/03/the-silence-of-the-anti-defamation-league-suggests-they-endorse-defamation-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1581627
The IPCC should not be compared to Nazis but please to read a bit about the green roots of the Nazi party and the problem of modern eco-fascist ecology. They do say ‘never again’ so we must be on our guard at all times.
This should be deleted from my comment awaiting moderation (third line down).
I don’t believe in@ 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.
‘since Swante Arrhenius, who began the politics of global warming with initial calculations of it’s possible existence and warnings about it’s potential dangers.’
Didn’t he actually predict benefits of the warming? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/6995/
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.
Tamsin,
Well said.
Mob action is ugly no matter the mob or the cause.
Keep up the good work.
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.
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.
Absolutely ferdberple!
“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…
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.
Right on. Thanks
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
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.
NOAA, oh yeah.
There was this Jim Hansen and 20 foot seas drowning NYC…due very soon I understand.
Thank goodness he’s been replaced with a calmer head.
oops
That’s NASA not NOAA
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.
I agree. I wonder if RB and TE would also agree?
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.
fredberple
… and the reply from Betts and Edwards shows how close to the bone Ball’s comment is!
A question of “if the cap fits” perhaps.
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.
you can’t apologize for something you didn’t do …
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.
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
The science is settled!
So isn’t it time we wound up the IPCC? Or is it only there for political reasons?
In its own words ‘we don’t do sceince ‘
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’
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.
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.
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.
Thanks Bob!
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.
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.
and thank you Bob
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.
Back atcha Bob.
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.
Rric,
Where’s bloody Al Gore in this. Oh sorry, forgot. A socialist thing. *wink*
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
Whiten, Eric’s point is that the rhetoric is very similar.
Viking
My point is that is more than similar, quasy the same… probably even worse than:-)
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
Upton Sinclair
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.
clubfooted, goebbels was as well, IIRC.
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.
Please apply Eschenbach rule and quote precisely where Ball accuses Alarmists of being Nazis.
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.
We at WUWT were also disappointed that so few climate scientists distanced themselves from views such as those summarized here-
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/throwing-the-hate-crime-grenade/
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?
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”.
+1
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.
Agreed! +1
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.
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.
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.
Will RB and TE reply to this?
Not likely.
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.
Try Lawrence Solomons’s book The Deniers for a start. Book discussion here.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?200424-1/book-discussion-deniers
C3, I suspect you will be waiting a long time for the proof that they walk the talk.
Any chance that RB/TE will reply to this?
No.
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.
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).
1. Two decades ago I was 15.
2. We do.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/28/dellers-on-reason.html?currentPage=3 (11:52pm)
http://unsettledclimate.org/2012/02/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/
https://twitter.com/flimsin/status/392278255476027393
Now will you take me seriously? 🙂
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.
Please explain?
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, show us where you have rebuked Mann for denigrating a sceptical scientist.
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?
Tasmin,
Check this out! Here are just a couple of images that were at one time on the SkS server. I agree that people should not compare themselves with the Nastis.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1_herrcook.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/herrtankboy.jpg
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.
Tamsin
Thanks for confronting Mann.
How very courageous of you, Ms Edwards.
Take you seriously? As a scientist? Really?
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.
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.
> 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.
Repeal Godwin’s law. I, for one, admit to enjoying a good “downfall” spoof.
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.
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.
See above
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.
Dr Edwards, your tweet example is, in a word, laughable.
“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.
Jason Jay Lee’s manifesto, when he stormed the offices of the Discovery Channel in 2010
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/leemanifesto.pdf
Background story
http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/198433/
Was Jason mentally ill before becoming obsessed with green catastrophism, or did he become mentally ill because of his contact with green catastrophism?
WUWT has published other posts about the mental strain alarmists endure.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/15/a-climate-of-despair-climategate-had-more-effect-than-we-realize/
If someone truly thinks the world is about to end, their mind will visit some pretty strange places – and some minds will probably snap under the strain.
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….
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.
Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards,
To sum up the comments above…for your next dinner, invite the alarmist crowd and lecture THEM.
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!
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.
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)
Aye! +1
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.
that ^I think^ we shouldn’t use the word
Wrong site?
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?
Yet you posted a presentation on ‘Climate Change Denial’ (something of a misnomer as sceptics do not dispute climate change simply anthropogenic global warming!!) in response to the Great Global Warming Swindle.
http://www.academia.edu/1740608/Climate_Change_Denial
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was wondering the same thing and whatever came out of that.
Last report was it still continues with attempts being made to run Dr Ball out of money by continual delays.
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.
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.
Sorry, we = he
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 that
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
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.
Tim Ball’s essay was not insulting.
If you disagree, let’s see you quote the insulting bits.
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
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.
Indeed!
True. But it does tie you to a Pacific Garbage Patch of rubbish you don’t need.
I thought it was a great post too, though the rhetoric got in its way.
Hear, hear!
We should be able to sort comments by most liked.
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.
As in follow the consensus?
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
http://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
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!
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.
Er… sorry, but I don’t read every blog post on the internet….?! I only heard about Tim’s because someone sent it to me.
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
Now that it has been called to your attention, do you intend to respond?
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.
So now what is your response?
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.
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
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.
Excellent!
+1
Your response, RB and TE?
Indeed Tasmin should give a response on that Royal Society project. She does say:
So go on Tazzy. Is there certainty that weather events are becoming more extreme? Or is it just the same little old extreme weather which you can find extreme weather of here (1936) and here (1935)?
“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.”
Exactly. Advancing straw man arguments from their lofty perches of unearned moral superiority is a tactic much favoured by leftists.
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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?
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.
Bogoff
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.
Obviously taken, and no time wasted. Kudos.
What punishment was given to Ball?
“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.]
Dunno, specifically. We’re not privy. Surely, more than some want, less than others. But it does look like a wad hit the fan.
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.
What a joke. You, of all people, claiming some sort of right to judge others…
Mark
Coming from you Steven, that’s very rich.
Its bovine switchology… That’s what it is.
Oh Christ, the master of manipulation (Mosher) is at it again, trying to smear Dr. Ball as a child and censor his freedom of speech.
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?
+1
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.
Bad skeptics..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Likely to be a long wait PJ
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.
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!
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.
+100
are your feelings hurt?
gosh,, looters in ferguson use the same logic
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?
Does this reply fit within your crusade for civil discourse a few posts up the page?
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
Steven, enjoy your Thanksgiving. Forget logic for once.
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.
Who lied to whom in Ferguson?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Very good and succinct comment, JohnB!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Please comment again. No foot in mouth there
Thanks!
I second Stephen Richards’ comment.
Sensible & down-to-earth. Hopefully its infectious!
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.
“the productive dinner”
The fact that Richard Betts appeals to dinner demonstrates yet again what a joke climate science, AGW and Warmers are.
Andrew
Coal in China from my trip in 2009, I was there 5 years ago today.
http://s1016.photobucket.com/user/turbofan2010/media/QINGDAO%20CHINA%202009%20VISIT/IMG_2784.jpg.html?sort=9&o=167
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?
have you stopped beating your wife? give us the answer now
Are you planning to make sense anytime soon SM?
For an author, I would have expected better on this one. Not even close.
Mark
I have not…have you stopped yet?
come a little closer and I will stop beating her…
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:
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!
Ever consider that the ridiculous claims that AGW action will benefit social justice are as bogus as the AGW is to begin with?
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.
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.
Arthur Dent,
+1
Well said.
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
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.
+1
+1
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
” . . .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.
Steven – the science is settled. No debate. Doubting of science should be handled as a crime.
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 ?
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.
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. 😉
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.
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 seem to be a lot of Climate Rambos here who fear nothing so much as the war ending.
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 …
M Courtney. Care to define your new introduction “Climate Rambo”?
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.
The book is worth reading. Much different from the movie. Good for a snowy night.
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 …
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
The people who made the “No Problem” video were advocating the murder of people who disagree with them. And someone gets upset because we compare them to National Socialists? Really? Just to refresh memories:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/o-m-g-video-explodes-skeptical-kids-in-bloodbath/
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.
I’ll repeat Richard and Tamsin’s observation:
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
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.
What is c02 denial?
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
Pot calls the kettle, who called the kettle black, black.
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”.
Robert – I endorse “.mod” comment on Ball.
Look at the SUBSTANCE of what Ball was saying.
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.
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.
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
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.
Lead by example.
michael.
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.
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.
Exactly A. C.
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
Responds, not reports. My auto-correct is getting worse.
Mark
Tamsin did reply above, with examples of her taking the skeptic side.
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
Hear, hear!
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….
I did a very long time ago.
“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.
I think it’s unfair to criticize Tim Ball for is post. He is spot on to hang this on Maurice Strong. Strong has been a key figure in this issue from the very beginning. He has tentacles going in many directions.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2461
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?
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.
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
Comments on the original post take up this matter from many different angles.
And while you’re at it, what are your views on today’s Royal Society report on extreme weather? Are either of you aware of any of the catastrophic “extreme weather” in the 17thC, far worse than anything seen lately?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/climate-catastrophe-in-the-17thc-geoffrey-parker-in-review/
Paul
Unfortunately I have it direct from the Horses mouth that the Met office don’t ‘do’ history, or that from pre 1850 or so.
They cite too many uncertainties in the data to make it scientific. They are forever trying to refine Parkers post 1772 CET data.
tonyb
Or the 16th century when fierce storms battered the east and west coast of the UK
Tamsin Edwards
I endorse Paul Homewood
Tim Ball was NOT saying IPCC = NAZI – That’s a red herring.
Please address the SUBSTANCE of what Ball was addressing –
the WORLDVIEW issues
He highlights Noble Cause Corruption
What excuses to reduce population etc.
Please look beyond that superficial issue of the person he quotes, and address the substance.
Noble cause corruption is a fiction. There is nothing noble about corruption. Corruption is lying to line your own pockets or to improve your public image. It’s a sign of weakness and dooms one to failure.
Thomas
“Noble cause corruption” is a technical term where the end justifies the means. See:
Steve Rothlein “Noble Cause Corruption” Written For and Distributed by Public Agency Training Council.
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.
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.
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…
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
http://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.
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.
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.
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!
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” …
The “good cause” is the money for RB.
So he is a prostitute.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
The comments were unusually good, too.
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.
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???
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.
You seem to be enjoying this.
Lots of low hanging fruit for ya, eh
“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.
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.
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.
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).
“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.
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.
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
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/SensitivityVsTime.jpg
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?
$167billion at last count.
+1
And this article just sounds like another mislead attempt, you know like where the assassin smiles at you so that you will stand still long enough for a better shot.
“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!
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”.
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.
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).
Sigh, full of typos and bad formatting.
That’s how much I’m annoyed at the wilful blindness to the accusations of Holocaust denial.
Here is a small sample from the google search: site:.edu climate denial tobacco
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/global_warming_deniers_and_their_proven_strategy_of_doubt/2285/
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_denial_machine.html
http://0-www.pbs.org.librus.hccs.edu/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/robert-brulle-inside-the-climate-change-countermovement/
Do a google search for: site:.edu climate denial tobacco
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
There are many more.
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 ..
Heartland is a political advocacy group. From their ‘about’ page (heartland.org / about) :
Whether they’re good or bad is a different matter. But they’re not a scientific organization.
If you think that Michael Mann is a climate scientist then here you go!
See these too.
http://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.”
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
…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!
+1
physicist LOL
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/
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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
How do you account for the fact that so many who do get the science act stupid, evil, and sick?
=============
“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):
http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-9801007/2786aedf-f5fe-470c-8af9-4710598bf569.jpg
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.
No, he is not stupid, he is just willfully ignorant.
Mark
Excellent comment. The original article was flawed in just the way you say.
And that leads to focussing on why this can be believed:
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 .
Mosher, I do believe Dr Brown replied to you and that comment was promoted to this article along with his post on slashdot explaining the problems with the “science” around global warming:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Perhaps you could start by addressing the issues he raised?
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?
See, the posts are just to get the threads going.
That is where it gets interesting and informative.
Mosher: You replied to my comment below in this fashion:
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.
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?
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
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
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
psychologists do this all the time – as do evolutionary biologists – and social or political commentators – detectives looking for means motive and opportunity – etc
generalization is an easy trap for lotsa people – huh Stephen
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
“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
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?
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.
Paragraphs, please. Thanks!
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.
+1. Paragraphs for me too please.
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:
http://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.
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.
Massive deception? Do you deny that co2 will warm the planet?
Mosher, I do believe Dr Brown replied to you and that comment was promoted to this article along with his post on slashdot explaining the problems with the “science” around global warming:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Perhaps you could start by addressing the issues he raised?
Nice trick… when do you intend to stop beating your wife?
Mark
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.
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.”
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.
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
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.
That parallels a couple of points I made in “Notes from Skull Island” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/:
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.
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.
Bravo. A good skeptic.
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.
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
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.
More certainty about people’s motives on little to no data.
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
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
And your point is? Based on?
Quite typical.
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:
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.
Ed Davey – Feb 14
From the Right, fringes of the Conservative Party and Ukip are parroting the arguments of the most discredited climate change deniers
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/davey-in-warning-on-climate-change-deniers.23409658
I have no doubt Tamsin complained about this at the time.
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.
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.
Mosher, I do believe Dr Brown replied to you and that comment was promoted to this article along with his post on slashdot explaining the problems with the “science” around global warming:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Perhaps you could start by addressing the issues he raised?
“CO2 warms the planet” is just a slogan.
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.
Steve M, since you are so strong in your CO2-faith, you will certainly have something to say about these two blog posts:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/derivation-of-effective-radiating.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-greenhouse-gas-radiative-forcing.html
“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.
CO2 warms the planet.
Except that it isn’t. Lol
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.
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.
Ah yes science is never settled but you are certain about balls pseudo psychology.
I’ll bet his speaking fees don’t compare to Al Gore’s “pseudo psychology”…. I mean science.
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
Yeah, Dr. Ball is a lot more credible than Dr. Lewandowsky.
You know Lewandowsky is a psychologist? Cognitive psychobabble?
My dog has more credibility than lewandowsky.
Damning ball with faint praise
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.
I imagine that having to blow your life savings defending against a frivolous lawsuit might leave you somewhat bitter and subject to rhetorical excess.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
In theory one would say the civil discourse is preferred — but when politics enters the room its had to maintain ones cool!
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.
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:
http://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.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/#comment-1797042
All the Best
brent
+1
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
Sorry, he didn’t post on this thread. Someone referenced one of his comments on a different thread, which were subsequently elevated to a full post, which in turn someone talked about on this thread. Sorry for the confusion (or did I just make it worse?). Anyway, here is a link to the post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
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.
Thanks David, yes I know that post and sent it to my CAGW friends…
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.
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.
Oops, that was supposed to be a there, not a . Gah! Lack of preview capabilities so we miss the obvious typos…
Very annoying I was trying to say I put a ‘b’ instead of ‘br’ in the brackets. Grrrr.
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?
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.
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.
Hear, hear!
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
If it were in fact about the climate.
Sorry to post the news,, its about redistribution of wealth.
Done by fraud, covered up by lies, enabled by payments in gold.
That they only use 6 inches of their 12 inch knifes is no real help as the blood of truth is still running bold red on the floor.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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…..
FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH ALL THAT IS NECESSARY IS FOR GOOD MEN TO TALK AMIABLY ABOUT IT.
Eugene WR Gallun
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.
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.
Yes, unbiased data is the only way to combat extremists of any brand.
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.
Personally, we think they will agree that climate “scientists’ view is an out-of-touch reality
“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.
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.
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. 😉
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
moderator – let me call your attention to my response to your comment.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/#comment-1800629
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.
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
Ignore the troll, he is the same twit that pops up everywhere touting his wares.
Uhhhhhh…….no
If this is intended as a response to my comment then perhaps Streetcred could (a) tell me what is incorrect about my comment and (b) provide a link to any study which shows long term cannabis use gives protection against any form of cancer.
In other words, could he or she put up or shut up.
Well, well well,
Yes. There is a fair amount of scepticism. So try this US Patent:
Phytocannabinoids in the treatment of cancer
US 20130059018 A1
http://www.google.com/patents/US20130059018
And try this link to see a page filled with links to the medical literature:
http://drsircus.com/medicine/cannabis-cures-cancer
===============
“The active molecules in cannabis kill brain cancer — another study has revealed.
Scientists using an extract of whole-plant marijuana rich in pot’s main psychoactive ingredient THC as well as cannabidiol (CBD) showed “dramatic reductions in tumor volumes” of a type of brain cancer.
“High-grade glioma is one of the most aggressive cancers in adult humans and long-term survival rates are very low as standard treatments for glioma remain largely unsuccessful,” according to researchers Katherine A. Scott, Angus G. Dalgleish, and Wai M. Liu from the Oncology Department at St. George’s University of London.”
=======
Also check out the recent Press release by the National Brain Cancer Foundation on the subject.
=======
What is known so far is that CBD and THC together have the following effects on cancer: antiproliferative, antiangiogenic, antimetastatic, apoptotic.
John Finn,
Nabilone is not cannabis. It is a synthetic cannabinoid. There is a difference. With whole cannabis or its extracts you get synergistic effects you do not get with single drug medicines.
The first video on this page (the science is in the first 7 minutes of a 16 minute video):
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/11/cannabis-and-cancer-of-the-brain/
Explains how cannabis cures cancer.
M. Simon
Read your links properly. None of the research in the studies you cite has involved actual patients.
In a previous post you made the somewhat grand claim that ” Cannabis cures Cancer” . If you read my comments I acknowledge there have been some encouraging results but these have been achieved in early pre-clinical trials. The current stage of research is still some way short of demonstrating that Cannabis extracts are effective against cancer in humans.
I’m sure you would object if any attempt was made to extrapolate lab results which show the IR absorbing properties of CO2 to the more complex nature of earth’s atmosphere.
The Alarmist side needs to admit they were wrong, and apologize. Then we can have an amiable chat about what their punishments should be.
RICHARD AND TAMSIN — WRITE AN ARTICLE CRITICAL OF DR. MANN’S RHETORIC.
PUBLISH IT HERE ON WUWT.
WUWT needs to invite Richard and Tamsin to write an article criticizing some of the rhetoric of a prominent warmist. I suggest Dr. Mann who is renown for this acidic comments.
When you offer such an article to WUWT criticizing Dr. Mann — detailing his transgressions and how it speaks to his character — then we will know you are dealing from a straight deck.
Let it be filled with the same self-righteousness indignation as the current complaint article focusing on Dr. Ball.
Never going to happen. Hypocrites.
Eugene WR Gallun
Anthony, publicly invite them to do that. Top line on WUWT. Suddenly you will realize that you are not dealing with the honest men you think you are.
When Anthony writes an article criticizing balls rhetoric or crazy lysenko claims we will know he is honest.
See how silly that is.
Judge people by what they write.
The point is that they wait until someone steps on their toes, then express disbelief, offer up some faux olive branch, and folks like you think that is some sort of second coming. If they want to be treated as if they are seriously interested in civil discourse, simply pointing mentioning how bad they think Mann is on a skeptic website is hardly sufficient. That they refuse to do so publicly is a good example of hypocrisy.
They are being judged by what they write and where they write it. What they don’t write, and where they don’t write, however, says something, too.
Mark
Mosher,
Judge people by what they write? Isn’t that exactly how i am asking Mann to be judged? See how silly what you write is.
Let Richard and Tamsin do up Mann. Let them display their even hand in this matter.That is what I am asking for. Let them condemn Mann for name calling that far transcends what Dr. Ball wrote.
And you could do it to! Why don’t you write something condemning the things Mann has written?
Hypocrite.
Eugene WR Gallun
Wow, you went right up to the line on that one.
Wow Steve M, did you just mention Lysenko? The quality of your posts has dramatically changed during the past two years, are you awakening from the bad CO2-dream as a result of the 18+ years of no significant warming despite of CO2-levels rising as before? Suffering from collapsing confirmation bias are you?
You really should look deeper into the Lysenko dimension of this all, although you do not like what you see, which is clear already now since you are calling the mere hint of Lysenkoism being crazy. Deteriorating confirmation bias must be a bitch.
We do judge you by what you write. You are “trivially true but essentially meaningless.”
In addition, you are a bore.
Wouldn’t the “big lie” scenario described by Dr. Ball require a vast conspiracy between a large number of independent actors? I thought the global warming as a hoax meme had been losing steam lately..
Joseph,
Everyone here including you, knows Global Warming is a hoax.
Andrew
No, not really. Did you read Tim’s piece? Not a whole other different than just about any other socialist push in the world. It died with the wall, but not really. Heck, most of these are actually quite out in the open. They have gotten so blazon they will openly tell you their plans.
Mark
Hint: the words “hoax” and “conspiracy” do not mean the same thing.
Well the title “A big (goose) step backwards” is just a subtle attack on Tim Balls, so I post here a subtle attack on Clim-astrologists.
Enjoy the resemblance.
Very nice. Thanks.
Parallel to NAZI’s? Hum, let’s see. OK, first of all…NAZI is an abbreviation for Nationalist Socialism. Interesting that the central control and “even outcome” that they wanted, was similar to all the “communists” agendas, yet they hated the communists with a passion? WHY, their goal was CONTROL and POWER. So let’s make the term NAZI into another “N” word. OK, now that that is done, let’s see what the goals, results and actions are. How about a list of comparisons/non-comparisons: (Shall we say examine 1935 to 1945?)
1. Germany under central control, and one party – Greens want order forced on all the world by one world
“agreement”.
2. Germany with one official source of information – Environmentalists/Greens :One source of “official” information and no competition.
3. Germany denigrating and hurting anyone opposing 1 and 2.
– Difference: Greens, not to violence (generally) and not
given or advocation “summary execution” power. However, by PASSIVE means,
Greens manage the same result.
4. Germany doing an amazing concerted BUILDING effort, making jobs for millions, building a large
industrial base, and threatening the world.
– Greens, destroying millions of jobs, tearing down our industrial base, and threatening the world in a “passive agreesive” manner.
I would say that if we look at the AWG/Green/Environmentalists, their parallels to the (Germany 1935-45, see, no “N” word!) is actually, a POOR comparison.
Dare I say, that “that was then”, this is NOW, and history really (despite the tendancy of humans to “create associations and links, based an simplistic thinking) does NOT repeat itself. By definition, everything is DIFFERENT, every moment.
My conclusion: YES, true…analogies to Germany 1935-1945 ARE NOT VALID nor useful. Have I made my point????
“Reasonableness” has never proven productive in dealing with the “true believing” sect. Facts, hard data and scientific logic have rolled off them like water off a duck’s back. My interpretation of Ball’s diatribe is that it was simply a counter-punch to the constant drumbeat of the opposition to the effect that, “Sling enough poop on the wall and some of it will stick”. I do not approve of that respnose-in-kind, but I most certainly understand the impulse. As to any “conspiracy theories” anyone might wish to attribute to the “true believers”, I’ll note that conspiracy is not necessary to explain the actions of the IPCC and other advocates of AGW. The explanation for their behavior was aptly described in Upton Sinclair’s pithy observation:
““It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
Professor Richard Betts and Dr Tamsin Edwards, please educate the readers here on why AGW is NOT a scam and a fraud….
“I agree completely with Dr Tim Ball. He is completely correct about the whole scam.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Our anger is justified and inquiries into the motives and techniques of those who hoisted this fraud on the world will be made.”
“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.”
“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”
“I had a hearty laugh at having a “civil” discussion with the perpetrators of the greatest fraud hoisted upon humanity.”
“its about redistribution of wealth.Done by fraud, covered up by lies”
“WUWT is a complicated beast. It is the best shortcut to updates on the AGW fraud”
“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.”
“When a group of people are committing a massive fraud.”
“you are on the side of liars and frauds”
“This handwringing over being “nice” to the frauds and grant seekers doesn’t wash with me.”
“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.”
“I see that there are people on both sides that are gravitating towards a more central and in my opinion, more reasonable view. ”
I willing to be more reasonable, when Global Warming advocates return the BILIIONs of dollars in funding they got for their “”work”” they knew was bad science.
As for gravitating towards a more central view, forget about it. The Global Warming advocates have hyped their claims beyond the absurd. For over a decade the Global Warming advocates have brow-beat us with their hype, their non-sense, their elitism, their arrogance.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because of Godwin’s Law
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because of Godwin’s Law
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because of Godwin’s Law
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
Because of Godwin’s Law.
But we were all “nice” so that’s all right then. . . .
Because of Godwin’s Law
“He Who Shall Not Be Named” right?
Watts Up With Harry Potter.
Disappointed!!!!
Brilliant!
I note a lot of people demanding that tasmin and Richard “call out” alarmists for their excessive rhetoric. As if such a display would change your mind about their sincerity or truthfulness. What evidence do we have that this will work?
Can any of you think of someone who believes in AGW that has called out Mann and Jones?
Did that change your opinion of them?
Muller called out Mann. Did that stop you from attacking his sincerity? His truthfulness?
Two of us wrote a book critical of Mann and Jones. Yet the attacks continue.. From both sides..
Judith called out Mann yet you will still find Willis for example calling for her to do more.
The call to disown people and disavow them belongs to the realm of religion and politics. Which is to say skeptics now demand a political or religious gesture before they will discuss science. These moves demanding political and religious gestures insure that we won’t get back to the science. Comes the question. Why don’t skeptics want to get back to the science
“Why don’t skeptics want to get back to the science”
Cause you can not return to science that is still Bad Science. Climate Science is now polluted with Politicians, Activists, Profiteers, Scientists who aren’t, and Scientist who will not disavow themselves from Bad Science.
When you lie down with Climate Scientists, all you ever get is bad science.
Another big lie from Mosher. Skeptics spend plenty of time discussing the science. So much of it is bad, however, you have to winder why. That is all Dr. Ball did… he asked why. Then all the warmists lost their heads like children in a candy store and projected every one of their own flaws back onto those same skeptics and whined about their response yet again. Nothing unusual, you people are as predictable as a virus. Oh crap, did I just call you all virii?
Mark
You mean reality, like ROI, corruption, bankrupt countries, apathy.
Good luck with that.
Tim Ball’s Hitler quote effectively outlines the power of the big lie; Hilter’s offsider Goebbels developed it into propaganda. It is the use of propaganda that drives the fear (and funding) of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). Propaganda is used not to inform but to persuade; it is often mostly true but with salient elements, one that would inform rather persuade a person, left out: this is the lie of omission. It is upon the lie of omission that the fear of catastrophic CAGW is built. Most scientists involved in climate studies do good work though some are activists too.
Some of these activists, and cohorts, are well aware that the propaganda they use, disguised nowadays as communication studies, incorporates the lie of omission; so do those people who practice ‘new journalism’. New journalism does not rely so much on facts but on a system of beliefs, sometimes feelings, in order to create a narrative. The narrative is catastrophic AGW. This narrative is not being used to inform the populace of CAGW but rather a vehicle to drive change; CAGW is simply the catalysts used to drive this change. This is not a conspiracy, everything is ‘hidden in plain view’ including United Nations proposals, under various organisational names, but summarised in their Agenda for the 21st century (Agenda 21).
As I posted on the Ball blog the other day, “the “debate is no longer just about the environment. It is about economics, culture, ideology and foreign policy. The old debate about climate change believers and sceptics is dead (being kept alive only for political gain). The new debate is about policy solutions.” (Paul Kelly, editor-at-large, The Australian newspaper, 21 March 2007). Kelly quotes in that article the then British Chancellor Gordon Brown: “My ambition is to build a global carbon market founded on the EU emissions trading scheme and centred in London” to which Kelly adds, “The bill will create statutory carbon budgets that will be managed “with the same prudence and discipline” as financial budgets. For Brown, the carbon will be counted like the pound sterling.”
The role of the fear of CAGW is to implement a system of global governance to administer these statutory carbon budgets, which will apply to all countries. This has not changed. This was the purpose of the 2009 Copenhagen Conference – if you have not done so then read what was attempted to be implemented there. This is not a conspiracy – the information has always been available but as Kelly says above, “the old debate about climate change believers and sceptics is dead (being kept alive only for political gain).”
Ball was right to mention Hilter’s use of the power of the big lie. As I said in my Ball blog submission the other day: note this statement from Mike Hulme, quoted in ‘The Guardian’ newspaper (sorry, no date), “…‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking . . . scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence.”
Readers can start to draw their own conclusions. However, Tim Ball herein has presented us with an outline of the real battleground. The argument about climate is a side issue. Many thanks to Anthony for this forum.
Technically, secrecy is not required for a conspiracy. There really is a conspiracy, and it is right out in the open. The big lie doesn’t even need to be a lie… noooooo, they’d never try to do that to us. Remember, Obama told us what he intended to do… and we were shocked, shocked I tell you, when he did it.
Mark
The crazy people here are making skeptics look bad. It is worse than the totally uncritical back slapping that happens whenever a point however poorly supported is scored against the agw crowd. This doesn’t have to be a lowest common denominator situation. Logic not name calling will win eventually.
Something I learned late in life..”everybody’s crazy”, that not withstanding, you have a point.
If, you can count casuistry, drawing dodgy analogies*[1], picking holes in arguments but never addressing the actual facts – “where is the man made signal”. If that’s what alarmists call “good faith discussions” then they need to go back to first principles [if they have any] and have a very long re think.
As to drawing on the thoughts of Hitler,
I think the link is made. The obvious facts speak volumes, this is not about linking to a deranged megalomaniac born in Austria but in certain cases megalomania, it is a an apt descriptor, Pachauri, Mann, Hansen, Gore, all fit that ‘suit’ very nicely.
Aye, tell a lie, tell it big and augment it with scare stories and tales of the bogeyman – it has worked for centuries. The thing is though, humanity – we long ago reached out and although the enlightenment grows dimmer every hour Obama sits in the White House – some of us still are able to divine the truth, from among the charlatans dispersing their plethora of lies and dissimulation.
*[1]
..” 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.”…
=============
Maybe something other than the internet would sooth your sensibilities.
Your disappointment directed towards the commenters, then accusing them of “selection bias” when their responses/non-responses offend you, leaves one to wonder if opinions should even be tolerated ?
About anything.
Link: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/10/29/richard-b-on-the-two-degree.html to above quote.
Some people are so desperate to be invited to sit at the big table aren’t they?
Doesn’t it matter to you that these people lied, obfuscated, and turned a blind eye to the most eliminationist rhetoric from their side all in the name of a cause that they personally got to profit from?
Case in point: “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”
This man is still profiting from this ghastly scam – without it his entire position wouldn’t exist! If someone lies and cheats their way to the top table, then graciously offers you a seat down the end – if – you behave yourself, then the response should be not to sit down at their table.. but to show them your door!
Stop playing into their frame. Their rule is not legitimate. Their positions of respectability are not legitimate. Would you happily sit down and debate civilly with the inquisitors? Would you accept an invitation to sit at the table of the witchsmeller pursuivant? Calls to civility are merely attempts to maintain their position, and silence the rightful angry backlash they still deserve.
@ Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards,
The Streisand effect is the result of your guest opinion. It is being well aired in this thread and I don’t feel you are well pleased if in fact you were confident you were holding the high ground.
I like this site. Tim Ball says some stuff that could be construed as offensive, Richard and Tamsin quite reasonably and effectively raise their objection and the debate rages on for both sides for (last count)526 posts with many views expressed. Now thats open debate – a wonderful use of free speech
I agree with the open debate that is advocated here, the post by Tim Ball didnt raise many extreme socialist rants that I read, there was some excellent debate raised in that thread. I dont think the quotes were extreme or out of context but actually label both sides of the debate as ‘at risk’ of a ‘big lie’. Only if you are sensitive to criticism, perhaps because the comfortable ride one has been having has got a bit bumpy for 18 years, would you take this so personally. The best part and by far the most relevant was the cartoon…….so true.
When locked in debate with ‘the other side’ of this climate date can any of us honestly say that we havent put our fingers in our ears and gone la, la, la, la…. even if for some part of the debate. How many have read the first few lines, got angry, not read the rest and then posted something that perhaps later you realise was over the top and often out of context; yet we are unable to jump in and correct our hot headedness.
I think Tim was a bit hot under the collar when he wrote his post and I think Tamsin and Richard have read far more in to his post than Tim intended.
The main point is all parties have aired their views now because this site has not stood in the way, I sincerely hope that all parties are satisfied that they have been heard.
+1
Lots of talk of “building bridges” or “moving to a more central view”. Sorry, but that sounds like special pleading to me.
Would anybody seriously suggest building bridges between the scientific community and young earth creationists? The CAGW crowd are simply wrong, the predictions are poor and the models don’t work all that well. Meeting them in the middle just takes us to “half right”
Siding with the provable truth is like being pregnant, you are or you aren’t, there is no middle.
JohnB says “Meeting them in the middle just takes us to half right”
Or double right. You aren’t much of a negotiator. WHY does it matter to a young earth creationist that the earth be young? Why does it matter to anyone else that it is old? A secret of negotiation is to find out “what is wanted” and then see if each side can have what they want, while at the same time keeping a treasured belief.
I’m not a young earth creationist, but I *am* a religious person, so what I believe is that those who attack the young earth creationists trying to persuade them the earth is 4.7 billion years old are seen as attacking their foundations of morality and purpose in life. It will be strongly resisted.
Conversely, I can see where it might matter particularly in the present context of climate change, or the much more assured problem of running out of fuel. Young Earther’s must necessarily believe the earth was created with fuel already invested into it, enough to last until the Rapture. After that nobody is going to care or need more anyway.
Attacking the religion isn’t going to help because they expect to be attacked. It is a sign of being on the correct path.
“Siding with the provable truth is like being pregnant, you are or you aren’t, there is no middle.”
I hope you are not a computer programmer. You get a point for binary thinking, but as most people are binary thinkers your point is shared by billions of other people.
It matters a lot which trimester of pregnancy one happens to be in. So your binary thinking hides rather a lot of important information.
Whups, forgot to get to the point with JohnB:
The point of “middle ground” is that many, maybe most, CAGW supporters believe in the emergency but are intelligent enough to see that polar bears are not actually falling from the sky and aren’t actually extinct.
Consequently, some room for “nuance” exists, but you need to be capable of nuanced views. This isn’t a good/bad thing, it is just one of the many ways people differ.
Leadership qualities include rapid decision making with a positive feedback that once you’ve made a decision you assure yourself that it is the correct decision. The Myers-Brigg natural leader type is “ESTJ”, extraverted, senses the world as it is (sensory input), prefers facts, and uses facts when dealing with other people. This kind is binary (like you) and sees no reason for negotiation or meeting-in-the-middle.
The problem with being that kind of leader, or “a” problem, is that you can find yourself walking alone because you have no followers, not that you’d notice that you do not.
The “facts” since we use that word so often around here include the physical, demonstrable ability of carbon dioxide to absorb electromagnetic energy (infrared light) when then becomes heat energy.
There’s a lot more to the story which I had written and then deleted since I was distracting myself from ever making a point.
The point is to find out What Is Wanted. What do warmists want? Many, or most, want safety and security. What do skeptics want? I suspect most want the same thing. The difference lays in how to achieve it.
So a “meeting in the middle” would be to explore what is wanted and how to negotiate for it while NOT stomping on each other’s religions.
Michael, in some areas there is room for negotiation, this doesn’t mean that such room exists in all discussions. Why a YEC has trouble dealing with reality is a job for a shrink, not a negotiator. Frankly, any form of negotiation is pandering to their insanity and insecurities. Negotiation is a rational process of discussion and kind of “by definition” you can’t have a rational discussion with an irrational person.
Your argument sounds good until you realise it requires that you give credence to their “treasured belief”. sorry but the world is not 6,000 years old. They are wrong. 100% non negotiable, not even slightly in any way right, wrong. I see no benefit in keeping fools from understanding that they are fools. For a start, they will never, ever advance beyond their idiocy. Destruction of old wrong beliefs is required before new, correct ones can be understood and accepted.
If your religion makes you irrational and insane, what benefit is there to anybody for not “stomping” on it?
The point here is that physical truth is not a morality question. You appear to be against binary thinking however all thinking can be boiled down to yes or no questions. The sun rises in the West or it doesn’t, but maybe we should meet morons halfway and agree it rises in the North? The world is 6,000 years old or it is not.
You either stand with and stand for truth or you don’t. A “partial truth” is also a “partial lie”, something that is often conveniently forgotten. The practical difference is this: You can be assured that everything that I write is the truth to the very best of my knowledge, I might be wrong, but I’m not knowingly hiding any facet of the truth as I understand it. Since you wish to “negotiate” part truths, you cannot make the same assurance and everything you say may contain a “partial lie”, knowingly and intentionally.
In a discussion of “wants” you may wish to consider this and decide which is the preferable outcome. I want people to understand and accept the physical truths about our world and am willing to sacrifice any beliefs (including mine) to get that. You want to build bridges and are apparently willing to sacrifice truth to get that.
I too have strong spiritual beliefs and foremost among them is devotion to the truth. If a person isn’t willing to tell the truth to the best of their ability at all times, how can you trust their word on any other topic?
JohnB, thank you for your prompt and very interesting reply. This may take a few responses and I might lose interest so I make no promises.
“If your religion makes you irrational and insane, what benefit is there to anybody for not stomping on it?”
The benefit to not stomping on someone else is perhaps they will not stomp on you.
I believe I asked already what you believe is to be gained by stomping on someone’s religion? What exactly is the problem with 70 percent of Americans thinking the EArth is 6,000 years old? I had hoped in your lengthy response you would answer that.
“You appear to be against binary thinking”
I believe I made it quite clear. The extreme application of your thinking turns into a singularity, a black hole; where you become the only perfect person in the universe. Good luck going through life like that.
“all thinking can be boiled down to yes or no questions. The sun rises in the West or it doesn’t, but maybe we should meet morons halfway and agree it rises in the North?”
Since I am a libertarian I allow you to believe it rises in the West whereas for me it rises in the East. I cannot think of any reason why you should believe as I do in this matter but I hope you do not sail ships or pilot aircraft.
But even that is not “truthful”: It rises in my East only twice a ear at the equinoxes! At other times it will rise a bit north of east, or a bit south of east. So you might ask me “Does it rise at 1 degree?” No. “Does it rise at 2 degrees?” No. And so on. Will I say yes to any? Probably not, it might be 85.5 degrees, neither 85 nor 86, so you’d go all 360 and I would say “no” to every one.
Obviously at the poles it takes 3 months to “rise” in a spiral and can be a bit of a challenge to guess where on the compass you first see a glimpse of it.
Why cannot you stand for truth?
Because truth has nuances.
Let us consider therefore the truth of gravity as measured by Newtonian physics, 9.81 meters per second per second or 32 feet per second per second. But is that truthful? No. Shall I call it a lie? No, but you would, by your inflexible logic. To be “truthful” you need the exact gravitational force where you are standing when you asked the question, or maybe it is intended for a reader and will be slightly different, as it depends on many factors. Then there’s the Lorentz Transformation to take relativity into account, the Reynolds number of the falling object so you can calculate wind resistance. Stuff like that.
So to be truthful you need those factors.
But since I have not commited to 100 percent truthful, I can throw a rock over a cliff at Spring Canyon, listen for the “thump” and estimate about 150 feet. Good enough to respect the height of the cliff.
But you… I cannot imagine what you would do when you cannot give a proper answer except by “yea” or “nay” — obviously your long message violated your belief that all thinking can be “yes” or “no”.
JohnB, my computer froze up so I’m not sure my last post got through. Anyway, to continue:
“I want people to understand and accept the physical truths about our world and am willing to sacrifice any beliefs (including mine) to get that.”
WHY do you want people to understand and accept the physical truths about our world? You do not seem very willing to sacrifice your own beliefs.
What proof do you have that you, the world and the universe was not created YESTERDAY? None whatsoever; but neither does it matter. I play the hand I was dealt. If it is an illusion, so be it.
“You want to build bridges and are apparently willing to sacrifice truth to get that.”
I am willing to not proselyte the world with everything I believe. I do not have to blurt out “The Earth is 4.7 billion years old!” at a Southern Baptist Convention and neither do you. When I engage in a religious discussion, which global warming most certainly resembles, I do not lay all my cards on the table at once for doing so shuts off conversation — I learn nothing and neither does the person I’m corresponding with.
By “building bridges” I have a job, a community, friends and family. All of those are choices except family and my family contains some extreme variation including contrarians that will make a declaration, if you agree they will instantly change the declaration so that you are always in a state of conflict and disagreement. It is even possible to build a small bridge there — discuss *nothing*, say “please” and “thank you” and seek meaningful conversation elsewhere.
Left wingers, right wingers, atheist vs believer. My mother was into tarot cards, biorythms, astrology, Christianity, Buddhism, and a dozen others all at the same time. She believe it all and what a mess it made. Building THAT bridge was no easy task and it wasn’t much of a bridge.
“The world is 6,000 years old or it is not.”
Trivially true. It could be 6,001 years old and qualify as a “not” in your scenario. Perhaps you see my point of view even if you do not share it — binary thinking hides magnitude of error which is very important. All practical engineering has tolerances since error exists in all manufacture.
It is better to indicate magnitude of error, not just the fact of error. “By most estimates, the earth is nearly a million times older than you believe it to be” conveys both difference of opinion and magnitude.
But if you were just arguing 6,000 years vs 7,000 years, then maybe the argument serves no purpose.
In climate science this is at the heart of disputing climate models — is the error “significant”. It is not proper to take a binary point of view with a model; they are all “wrong” from a binary point of view, but some are more wrong.
Compromise is almost never the best solution w.r.t. any criteria. Compromise is the reason we are slowly losing most of our rights in the US. The first compromise is half way toward the activist viewpoint. The second is half yet again… it is a slow march, but one with an undeniable outcome.
Mark
I have been called every name in the book by “The CO2 drives the Climate” crowd. Someone once said “Trust but Verify” Anthony, that may be good advice. “The CO2 drives the Climate” crowd actions will speak louder than their words.
As a tax payer I don’t mind funding Climate research. I do mind being treated like a mushroom. Just a word to the wise. Politicians, unelected bureaucrats and scientists get your act together or your funding will be cut.
Why Anthony allowed “A big (goose) step backwards” to be presented as a title is beyond belief,a few drinks and a chat with charlatans and he shows appeasment.
Allows Pontification against Tim Balls by Richard Betts and Tamsin Edwards and grovels
down to them,uttering excuses.
Bow down Anthony, but beware of ‘Judas’.
Right, wrong, or in between, let’s see you do a better job of juggling all the balls He has in the air.
UNDERSTANDING THE GLOBAL WARMING CONSPIRACY — MAKING THE PROPER COMPARISON.
AN “OPEN” CONSPIRACY.
Clinton’s housing bubble is a really good comparison. It started with a noble cause — let’s give poor people their own homes! Connected people got rich and Democrat politicians got big donations and a big political lift.
The conspiracy part began when it adherents realized it could not work but kept it going because it still benefited them personally. They kept it going until it turned into the biggest financial boondoggle this country has ever seen. We are still in the mini-depression Clinton caused.
There were no backroom meetings. The whole disaster occurred because it was set up in such a way that it was in the Democrats short term self-interest to keep it going as long as possible. It was an open conspiracy of people who knew what benefited them personally. They didn’t even need to nod and wink at each other. To admit that disaster was looming would bring bad immediate consequences. Putting it off for as long as possible allowed them to still receive benefits. It did not matter to them that they were making the crisis worse by delaying it. Personal self-interest was behind it all.
Global warming is just such an “open” conspiracy. Self-interest dictates that they put off the day of reckoning for as long as possible. That is why they don’t care what the science is. That is why the goal posts keep getting moved back. As long as they can keep it going they will reap benefits.
Eugene WR Gallun
Actually the gradual removal of the Glass–Steagall act was primarily responsible for the many abuses since the 1980’s in the U.S. banking system with Greenspan throwing in the last wrench. Would suggest you watch Inside Job for more clarity on this subject:
BFL
What you are talking about has nothing to do with what i am talking about. I am explaining how something as awful as Clinton’s bubble and global warming can continue to roll along when they are so obviously must go bust eventually. There is not some hidden conspiracy but rather there is an open conspiracy of people doing what in the short term benefits themselves.
Currently there is no benefit for any alarmist to admit the truth.
The gutting of Glass-Steagall has its parallel in global warming — the gutting of peer review and journal standards.
We have a major difference. You think the bankers used Clinton. No, you have it wrong. Clinton used the bankers to further his political agenda. Clinton made it pay for banks to issue housing loans to very low income people. And the banks took advantage of it. Clinton was an idiot who had no idea what chaos his liberal agenda would unleash upon America. Big Government always means Big Fail.
Probably I am not writing clearly. It is thanksgiving. If my writing seems gobbled undoubtedly it is the turkey talking.
Eugene WR Gallun
Wrong. CRA (Clinton quotas), GNMA, FNMA and mark to market accounting did it, not the banks.
Conflating a tactic with a political philosophy is the refuge of scoundrels and AGW scientists.
No, the main point isn’t to be satisfied if both parties ‘feel heard’.
The main point is we are all so desperate for approval, to be liked, to ‘seem to be balanced and reasonable’ that we let the revolutionaries burn the place down and claim vast swaths of new territory for themselves.
Then once the new order has been established, through deceit and fraud, we let the revolutionaries relax into their new positions while we concern ourselves with being moderate and fair and open with them.
This is an ad hominem attack on Hitler.
Just because he was evil doesn’t mean everything he said was wrong.
The fact that he used the “Big Lie” for evil purposes doesn’t invalidate the claim that it is a powerful propaganda tool.
The “Big Lie” can be used in the service of both noble cause corruption and ignoble cause corruption.
And there is a straw man here because quoting Hitler doesn’t imply that anyone using the “Big Lie” is a Nazi.
After all you could accuse someone of Lysenkoism without branding them a Stalinist.
I’m never really impressed with the whole name calling thing. It strikes me as something very juvenile. I don’t have the benefit of the higher level of education of some of those who resort to it but I’m quite certain it has no place in in the advancement of scientific understanding.
Dr. Ball poses the question ”What is the motive?” He then explains that it is a human trait to fall for the bigger lie more so than a little lie. He points out that the Nzis knew this, and he quotes from Mein Kampf. to illustrate his point.
Nowhere in his article does he say climate scientists are Nzis, or are like Nzis. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that Dr. Betts and Dr. Edwards have made this claim.
I certainly hope Dr. Ball responds to clear this up.
With respect,
Eamon.
In fact, Dr. Ball did not use Naz! or Naz!sm in his post. Those words were used by Betts, Edwards and Watts… Henceforth we shall refer to this as “the small Thanksgiving day lie”
There is an absolute and fundamental flaw in Betts and Edwards’ argument, demonstrated by this sentence: “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”. This shows them as having read into Ball’s post something that simply was not there.
Ball was NOT calling anyone a Nazi. He was using a passage out of Mein Kampf to demonstrate how public opinion can be manipulated. That the passage was written by a Nazi — the arch-Nazi — is beside the point.
It looks to me as if Betts and Edwards saw the words “Mein Kampf” and had an “Ah Ha, Gotcha” moment.
If their comprehensive levels are so low, it is not surprising they are on the warmist side of the debate.
One does wonder…
I agree. Ball did not even use the words Naz! or Naz!sm. That would initially be the construct of Betts, Edwards and Watts.
If not to any other comment on this thread, Betts and Edwards should reply to this one.
Let us see what happens.
Correction, last paragraph: comprehension levels.
I found Dr. Ball’s post rather tedious, and his points could have been made much better without a reference to Hitler.
There is, however, some history here:
• Richard Glover, The Sydney Morning Herald (2011): “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”
• Charles Larson, American University (2013): “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.”
• David Fiderer, The Huffington Post (2009): “At its core, global warming denial is like Holocaust denial, an assault on common decency.”
• David Roberts, Grist Magazine (2006) : “It’s about the climate-change “denial industry”, …we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
• Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007): “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”
• Guy Keleny, The Independent (2013): “I think these people are anti-science flat-earthers. …They are every bit as dangerous as Holocaust deniers.”
• Jim Hoggan, DeSmogBlog (2005): “These are not debunkers, testing outrageous claims with scientific rigor. They are deniers – like Holocaust deniers.”
• Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer (2007): “Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust.”
• Robert Manne, La Trobe University (2009): “Denialism, a concept that was first widely used, as far as I know, for those who claimed that the Holocaust was a fraud, is the concept I believe we should use.”
• NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.”
• Former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be “strangled in their beds”.
• Eco-magazine Grist called for “Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics”.
• Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.”
• Heidi Cullen, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
• The U.N.’s top climate official, Yvo de Boer: “ignoring (catastrophic anthropologic global ) warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’.
• UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland: “IT’S COMPLETELY IMMORAL, EVEN, TO QUESTION” the UN’s scientific “consensus.”
Although there may be a need to explain, without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, how the so-called “consensus” has been manufactured, stooping to the level of the warmists rhetoric is not necessary.
The poor quality of the warmists’ rhetoric is only surpassed by the low quality of their science. Concentrating on the low quality of their science and ignoring the poor quality of their rhetoric will better serve the goal of improving global warming science.
From time to time miscues can occur. As they say, you sometimes need to walk a mile in a man’s shoes before being too critical:
Dr. Tim Ball, a former professor of climatology discusses the heavy price paid by scientists who publicly question the CAGW dogma: “I’ve often thought if I had to do it again I wouldn’t do it,” he said. “Until you have experienced, like some are having with the IRS attacking them in the U.S., you cannot relate to other people exactly what it’s like when you are sitting in your little condo and you’ve spent all of your savings on legal fees. And (when there’s) a knock on the door at 4 o’clock on a Friday and your wife starts crying because she’s afraid it’s the sheriff delivering a legal summons. People have no idea what that’s like. I’m not sure that I would do it again. I’m almost at the point where if the world wants to be fooled, let it be fooled. I’m not going to fight for it again.
Thank you, Leon; I’ve bookmarked this comment.
It’s not that I’m convinced that discussions of the Big Lie effect should avoid reference to the best-known practitioner. As one who has tended to get less exercised than some over “denier” usage, though, it was good to be reminded of how egregiously it actually gets used. And, as one who tends to pass over Dr. Ball’s posts (until I was spurred by Mr. Watts’ craven disavowal to read the last one), it was helpful to be informed of what may have contributed to the tone of some of his posts.
Leon,
Precisely.
IF Dr. Ball had chosen to catalog the real things the climte obsessed call for and have done his essay would have been a great opinion piece. BVy attributing motive and by making the incredibly counter productive comparison between the climatocracy and the disastrous politics of post WW1 Germany he only hurt himself.
But life goes on.
The climate kooks are still acting like loons, and most of all the climate does not care about this tiff or the apocalyptic screeching of the climate obsessed.
Yes, a valuable resource. Thank you!
First, it has never even been about science.
Second the climate change operation knows themselves they fudged the facts, thus just the fact there is a debate is a loss for all of U S.
The fraud is just buying time to pull in more gold.
In fact the climate change Dr’s and Prof.’s are just the useful fools of the power cult in Washington D.C. and the U. N..
Great cost of opportunity lost to the world as a whole chasing these fraud rainbow..
If I read the situation correctly, RB and TE are taking a shot at our host for allowing a guest commentator on his blog to talk about topics inconsistent with the convivial problems have been solved tone established at a Kumbaya love-in dinner.
If their thesis has merit the only problem is that there weren’t enough seats at the table. Had Tim Ball been invited, along with Mann, Romm, Scmidt, the kids from SkS, etc., etc., we’d have peace in our time.
Perhaps it’s not too late to organize another dinner with more guests.
Hell, I’ll buy a round!
Yes, kumbaya, and there was much rejoicing “scientists and skeptics unite and break bread together!” It was orgasmic. Why on earth should anything but harmony be expected moving forward?
Maybe because we aren’t all that stupid?
Mark
Never break bread with a Warmist. Never reach out and never meet them in the middle ground. WHY? Because ‘science’ is not about compromise or being fair. They are losing ground and want a ceasefire. They worry every night about what might happen to their FUNDING for climastrology ‘research’.
No one was called a nazi, no one was accused of disparaging a race or starting WW3. On the other hand the use of the term “denier” is clear and is despicable, declaring unfounded scientific certainty dishonest.
Did not read any apologies from the authors of this article concerning this behavior. The blantant effort to personally marginalize and diminish anyone who disagreed I guess should also be forgotten as well?
When they clean their own house they can climb back on their soap box. Until then I do not see why they think they have much to say.
Agreed
Good Anthony, bad Tim – the usual game of “Divide and Conquer”. You cannot make peace with someone who does not admit his wrongdoing. I have often tried that, and it never worked. If they were serious they would try to walk a mile in Mr. Ball’s mocassins, which you could predict they would never even ponder.
After a fight the opponents often can see their own weaknesses clearer, and they are then more willing to compromise – after the argumentation, not before.
What irritates me is that the moderate ones fail to police their own. This happens in all areas that deal with controversial ideas and programs, be it religious ideas, political programs, or climate (cough hack) control policies. And that erks me. To no end. Extremist views are often born in the bedroom of moderation, and then those that started it fail to whip the extremist views into submission. Hitler and his ideas are no different. His thoughts were not original, they were just extremist. Follow the thread back and you will find the bedroom from which that seed was born.
So if you want my attention, police the extreme views of your position. Otherwise your silence is acceptance of those extreme views regardless of your post here.
Being a quiet sort myself, I never really liked the “silence is acceptance” meme.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
You may have misinterpreted my thought. I refer to the moderate view, which is: climate change is caused by humans, just not catastrophically so. In other words, those that believe that CO2 causes warming beyond the noise of natural variation but are not into the “we are all going to die” view. That is the view of many older and wiser climate researching scientists in peer reviewed literature. And comprise the silent majority in the ivory tower. It is their silence in the presence of all the Hansen’s I berate.
I’ve been here for 5 years, I didn’t misinterpret anything, I was just pushing your buttons.
Beware the silent majority.
The Scientific Method has strict rules for confirmation/disconfirmation of hypotheses, of which the CAGW hypothesis has miserably failed to meet.
CAGW is a disconfirmed hypothesis, yet rather than adhering to the Scientific Method and tossing this failed CAGW hypothesis on the pyre of failed ideas, the alarmists say they’re even more confident than ever CAGW is a robust and sound hypothesis.
Since CAGW alarmist “scientists” no longer adhere to rules of the Scientific Method, what they are practicing isn’t science it’s something else: rent seeking, political/social/economic agendas, job preservation, political/social/economic engineering, political/social/economic propaganda, theft, waste/fraud and abuse, etc…
At this stage, the only question is what’s the most effective and expedient means and strategy to “burn this CAGW down”… Period! (TM).
We’ve tried debating, but “the debate is over”, so that doesn’t work. We’ve tried calm discourse, but have called: deniers, Neanderthals, anti-science bumpkins, idiots, paid shills, etc. so that doesn’t work, we’ve tried being more aggressive and have been cautioned to be more civil in our discourse…
The alarmists game plan is the ol’ Potomac slow roll, which they’ve effectively used for the past 18 years of no global warming trend, and need to keep it going for another 20 years, until the PDO switches to a 30-yr warm cycle around 2035, after which, global temps will start to rise again…
Now is NOT the time to call a truce and hunker down on our fox holes. Now is the time for offense using all weapons in our arsenal (ridicule, calm debate, peer-review papers, humor, ad hominem, etc.,) to expose the lies, deceit and theft of the left on this CAGW scam.
The reason leftist hate to be ridiculed is that they know it is effective. It is a strategy they often use against the right and hate to see used against themselves.
+100
You have said what I wanted to say much better. Those are the facts as I see the situation. It’s no longer about science. It hasn’t been for a very long time.
Tamsin, sometimes the number of people commenting here at WUWT can be overwhelming, especially to people who want to answer questions posed to them, like you. You’ve done a great job. Thank you.
While I have great respect for Prof Richard Betts, though none for Dr Tamsin Edwards. What you’ve done here is denigrated Dr Tim Ball for what was clearly an opinion piece.
You haven’t addressed the point of his post; you’ve attacked the man instead.
If Tamsin alone posted this, I would have accused him of distraction and trying to sideline the issue brought up in Tim’s post. I’ve read many of Richards posts, and for this reason I’m hoping that it’s a shoot from the hip reaction instead.
But the main complaint of the majority on this thread also holds. Neither of you have been so critical of the nonsense that gets published in the name of science. Take Paul Nurses comments on Climate Change while in position as head of the Royal Society as the example. Take that man to task, and then we may take your criticisms a little more seriously.
Tamsin is a woman.
That is some woe, man, but that way’s the Ladies’.
==========
Apologies to Dr Tamsin for mistaking your gender.
The last post of article I read of yours was many years ago, and I was insulted by your words back then, I’ve never read an article or post of yours since.
In the BBC Horizon program hosted by Paul Nurse, a NASA climate scientist, as part of his ‘proof’ of global warming, clearly stated that mankind emits 7 times more CO2 than Nature. Of course, in fact Nature emits roughly 30 times more CO2 than mankind. The scientist had told an outrageous lie, pure and simple.
Paul Nurse’s response was to ask why sceptics denied this. This showed his utter ignorance of climate science. That Nature emits 30 times more than mankind isn’t the slightest bit contentious, even the IPCC confirms this figure.
The title of the program was ‘Science Under Attack’ and hosted by Paul Nurse, the then head of the Royal Society. The title is appropriate. No question, science is under attack. But it’s under attack from the scientists themselves. It’s the sceptics who are fighting for the integrity of science.
Ironically, the ancient motto of the Royal Society is: “Take no-one’s word”. That man is a disgrace to science.
Chris
Chris,
Paul Nurse isn’t and has never been a climate scientist. He is a geneticist. I trust your other points were fact checked by you before you posted them.
Therefore Margaret Hardman the geneticist should not have taken what the NASA climate scientist said on face value. The motto of Royal Society ‘Nullius in verba‘.
Here are others who should learn this lesson.
• John Cook: physicist & cartoonist
• Joe Romn: physicist
• John Holdren: plasma physicist
• Grant Foster (Tamino): theoretical physicist
• Dana Nuccitelli: physicist
• Gavin Schmidt: mathematician
• Eric Steig: geologist
• Bill McKibben: environmental studies
• Bill Nye: mechanical engineer
• Paul Nurse: geneticist
• Rajendra Pachauri: economist / industrial engineer
• David Suzuki: zoologist / geneticist
• Al Gore: divinity major
Margaret,
I suggest you carefully re-read my post. I did not state that Nurse is a NASA climate scientist. For the record the scientist was Dr Bob Bindschadler.
He stated that mankind emits 7 gigatons per year, and Nature just 1 gigaton. He completely and possibly willfully ignored vast natural sources such as soil (Wikipedia has a useful diagram summarising all the CO2 emission sources).
The following conversation:
Nurse:So 7 times more?
Bindschadler:That’s right.
Nurse: I mean why do some people say that isn’t the case.
Bindschadler: I – I don’t know
Bindschadler paused there – maybe he realised he had just made a huge mistake, but decided to go with the lie.
Nurse’s question shows his utter ignorance. The basic fact that Nature emits around 30 times more than humanity is accepted by both sides of the argument, it ws never in contention. Of course, the believers will do all they can to hide that inconvenient fact.
Bindschadler should have been disciplined for bringing NASA into disrepute and the BBC people should have known his statement was false. But did the BBC also decide to go with the lie?
Feel free to comment, Margaret. But this time make sure you understand what I wrote first!
Chris
Margaret Hardman, your comprehension levels are low. Chris Wright’s post was perfectly punctuated to show that Horizon was hosted by Paul Nurse and that a NASA climate scientist (unnamed) made the emission claims.
I could say more but I won’t.
I have already explained why I think this habit of guessing the motivations of those we disagree with is a dangerous and reprehensible practice, so I will just repeat that we should stick to logic and the facts.
Leave considerations of motives to Lewandowsky and Poirot.
So the “Deniers” are B’s all over again because they won’t be nice to those poor Alarmists when all those terrible climate change created catastrophes that their models predicted didn’t , haven’t and are less and less likely appear.
The Denier’ are B’s because after 25 years of abuse, threats, denigration, constant spite, threats of violence and even suggestions for execution if we didn’t change our skepticsm to belief [ shades of ISIS ] then we are B’s because we aren’t polite and won’t lay down in front of the alarmists in submission WHEN THEY FINALLY WANT TO TALK.
The Deniers are B’s because they won’t talk politely with the Alarmists when Alarmists in highly placed scientific positions have never ever made ANY PUBLIC ATTEMPT or have EVER PUBLICLY denounced the gross and constant and vicious attacks and excesses of the their running dogs in the leftist Universities, the media and the green watermelons on the skeptics on the so called “Deniers” so named by their own believers and a description which they have never condemned.
They are now attempting to weasel out of their own role and responsibility in the attacks and name calling by claiming they have never personally used that term itself.
Despicable!
When the alarmist scientists who have created this whole debacle and incredibly expensive and grossly wasteful of wealth and live’s ideology openly recant and apologise for their excesses, their threats, their career destroying actions and strictures against those scientists who were prepared to stand up in private and in public and state their doubts and the arguments against the global warming science, then the skeptics might have a good reason to talk in a fair and reasonable manner.
When the alarmist scientists openly and plainly and forcefully condemn the language, the despicable actions and equally despicable invective used against the skeptics and when they condemn the stupidity of so much of the published science promoting alarmist ideology and demand corrections and withdrawals and apologies to the skeptics for the grossly and deliberately corrupted claims of climate created and related / weather events and the gross distortions of the science tailored to suit the alarmist ideology all created and made by their own side and the media and in the alarmist blogs and by very highly placed political operatives and in the major science journals , then after that they can come and ask to talk and the skeptics will talk.
These same alarmist scientists are the very ones who created this whole grossly divisive ideology, They are the ones who have overseen the destruction of lives and wealth, political cohesion and societal disruption..
They are the ones who have created the western ideology that the fanatics of the environmental and watermelon culture are now trying to use to stop a third of the world’s poorest and most deprived peoples from just trying to achieve a better life for themselves and their families.
Had I seen an article from Betts and Edwards here on WUWT which instead of condemning the skeptics for not being polite in failing to bow to them and talk politely after 25 years of vicious invective against those same skeptics, but instead an article on WUWT savagely condemning the vicious human destroying warmist catastrophe ideology, a creation of those same warmist scientists that is being used in attempts to stop other human beings in some of the most deprived parts of the world from looking forward to enjoying some of fruits of the better life that the climate alarmists and their scientists take for granted then I would give them much more credence.
The skeptics are B’s because it has all come unstuck for the alarmist ideology when Nature has refused to toe the alarmist line and has failed to heed the climate models and their predictions allowing everybody to now see that all those mega billion dollar models and their predictions aren’t aren’t worth a pinch of the proverbial but instead have cost untold wealth and thousands of lives plus deep suffering amongst millions from energy poverty.
NOWHERE have these climate alarmist scientists ever apologised or eaten humble pie for the damage they have done to people, to entire countries , to the western political process and to all of society with their utterly false and grossly damaging and increasingly impotent climate model based cult like ideology they themselves have created .
Not once ! Never!
Instead they post here on this skeptic site and blame the skeptics after 25 years of invective directed against the skeptics for not being polite and talking.
Yeh! I’m angry. And after everything that has happened I believe the skeptics and a very large percentage of the Earth’s peoples have a right to be very angry at the climate alarmists indeed.
Phew! Too long but… yeah! 😉
Mark
ROMs anger is shared by many. The AGW meme extends well before 1988, but that was one of the important points where “global warming” increased it’s reach into the public/media awareness. In a sense, the creation of the IPCC illustrates the transition of AGW from science to politics. One way to understand this is to read this link
http://dwightmurphey-collectedwritings.info/A67-GlbWrmg.htm
that describes the AGW issue at it stood 18 years ago. Murphy also points at Lysenkoism as the political precedent to the AGW extremist position.
Also look at 1970s AGW proponents Lovelock and Moore, who helped define the issue, yet have “recanted” and joined the skeptics. Their understanding of the facts shows that the heart of the traditional “global warming” meme has truly stopped. It is only the political inertia that continues, even the media are starting to smell the blood of the coming political crash.
Or pick up a copy of any climate related publication before 1988, such as the 1980 book by Sherwood Idso. Or any paleoclimatology review. The science has always been overwhelmingly skeptical of CO2 having any effect on climate.
Indeed ROM, If climate science was any other science THEY would seek an urgent review of climate sensitivity and seriously dial down the alarming projections by now. Observations are the key. Yet they ramp up the alarm and advocacy! As long as nature is the main driver then they will lose this war because you can’t ignore observations forever. This they are trying to do and it is very, very sad to watch.
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
Thanks again, the ONE chart every skeptic should have copied and ready to post on alarmist sites everywhere.
Yes. They have set the stage anew. Now we will observe.
EVEN A CHILD IS KNOWN BY HIS ACTIONS.
Sadly, I expect no change in their actions. (:<((
I am angry too. Brainwashing and indoctrinating our children into their green blob, socialist loving capitalist destroying cult without our consent. Mr. Ball should have mentioned that this tactic was used by 1940 Nazi Germany as well. This youth organization was called the Hitler youth and Hitler believed “who owned the youth, gains the future”. Here in Ontario our government has high jacked our education system and is brainwashing our youth to meekly accept and even welcome globalization and the New World Order. How sad that my boys have to sit in class and listen to teachers make fools of themselves as they spew CAGW and socialist propaganda. They do their required assignments knowing in order to get good grades they have to pretend they are one of the zombies. How sad and how are they any better than the scientists who knew CAGW was a lie and by not saying anything against it, perpetuated it?
Looking at the hundreds of billions wasted on Green Energy, thousand of lives lost, millions suffering fuel poverty and shivering in a cooling world, and a post from Ball is what gets them upset enough to write a rebuttal blog post. This is gone way past the point of being civil, and quite frankly, it is that civil unrest that has the only chance of stopping this madness. These 2 should look into their own closet before commenting on others.
Far more eloquent and intelligent commenters have voiced their mind in here, so i shall not try to match them.
I do however wonder if Pattons saying of “we’ll grab the enemy bu the nose and kick them in the balls” (variations and politer versions abound) is not part of the oppositio s willingness to engage here. The realization that repeated testicular trauma hurts prompting a desire for said trauma to end.
While any nazi link is frowned upon, i want cAGW/CC/extreme weather/weird weather to end in a Nuremberg rather than a toothless “Truth and reconciliation” whitewash. Far to many have died due to green schemes for the latter. Just the 300k due to cooking fires, directly linkable to climatism through world bank stop on loans for cheap electrical generation must be mounting as we speak.
I’ve known that AGW was rubbish since mid-2007! As I expect most climate scientists did. But that didn’t stop them or the IPCC from continuing to scaremonger this empty mantra while raking in grant money to fund their research. Follow the money! And hang your head in shame for not exposing the sham yourself, especially after the Climategate email release in ’09. Tim may have been a little over zealous, but his point struck home. No exceptions! You simple cannot be a climate scientist and NOT know that CO2 concentration is a resultant variable and not a forcing! Continuing to promote AGW destroys your credibility. Everyone involved in continuing to promote this sham should go to prison!
Bill
YES indeed. Let’s stick to the facts. The CAGW hypothesis is perfecty clear; The warmists claim that the extra CO2 from fossil fuel burning is causing dangerous runaway global warming. The prepodernace of the evidence indicates that this is not the case. Yet the warmists still persist in claiming that their hypothesis is sound.
The infamous spagetti graph, publicised in the IPCC reports themsleves, ought ot be enough to make any decent scientist squirm — yet they don’t squirm..
I don’t think it is helfpul to infer — even obliquely — that warmists are Nazis but they are indeed unscrupulous. They cleverly switched from talking about global warming to taking about climate change and they have studiously avoided open debate with skeptics. And their use of the word denier is deliberatly nasty. Whilst many skeptics are perfeclty happy to join the ranks of so-called lukewarmers die hard CAGW believers still go for an all or nothing approach.
Until such time as they are willing to entertian at least the possibility that their core hypothesis is hoplessly flawed no real dialogue is possible. They are not even willing to concede that there is no consensus even although actual surveys show that some 50% of metreologists are skeptics and in excess of 70% of geologists are skeptics. They behave as if there are no solid grounds for being skeptical which is completly ridiculous. The minute that they at leat admit the possibilty that they have made a terrible and costly mistake dilaogue will beocme possible and climate science can return to being a proper evidence based branch of science as a whole.
“We hope this is merely selection bias, and that many of you are simply sighing and moving on to the next post.”
I make a regular habit of sighing and moving at this blog. But I also make a regular habit of stopping by to see what’s been posted. Very often at WUWT there is interesting content worth mining but it does take some work to identify the valuable nuggets.
Anthony should be commended for making room for a wide range of views and opinions. But Dr. Ball’s recent post which preemptively invoked Godwin’s Rule makes it clear that the WUWT content filter needs refining.
Where does the fault lie, the opinion piece, or the publisher ?
It got out there, maybe it wasn’t the usual fare, so what, you can always click-off.
Talk about a Tempest in a Teapot of outrage in the internet age, set your filters to a higher level if you can’t stomach it.
While Dr. Ball’s post wasn’t anything spectacular. This one sure is. If you read through the posts, there are a lot of very good points to be considered by Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards.
And I hope they do consider them.
There is only one reasonable view. Humans are not causing the climate to change. Now let’s get to the business of real climate science and stop with the Marxist totalitarian crap.
The UN wants to setup a one-world government, and crush freedom, liberty, Capitalism and Democracy. They want to heard people into habitation zones, lower their standards of living and prevent them from multiplying. And the Climate Change hoax is their justification.
The world hasn’t seen anything this dastardly since Nazi Germany, so Dr. Ball is spot on. What seems dangerous in this situation is calls for appeasement towards those dangerous people.
There’s a blobby green elephant in the room, breaking windows fore and aft. Richard Betts says ‘Tsk’. Tamsin Edwards surveys the shattered clarity and gets frisky with the whisk.
=================
I have to admit that I skipped Tim Ball’s post entirely, root and branch. Why? Because of the title.
To me, the question of motive is more than irrelevant. It is generally both unknown and unknowable. Heck, much of the time I’m unaware of my own motives until well after the event.
As a result, I’m extremely skeptical that person A can accurately judge the motives of person B.
In addition, having been the recipient of endless ad hominem attacks, I find them vile and despicable no matter who puts them forwards. A scientific statement is either falsifiable or not, regardless of whether the person putting it forwards is a sinner, a saint, or a blithering idiot.
w.
“To me, the question of motive is more than irrelevant. ”
It is relevant in the case you wish to do something about a problem. A relatively common example happens in domestic disputes — spouse is angry, crying or whatever; you ask what is the problem. What you are likely to hear is only the immediate manifestation of a much deeper problem. Probing the motive is probably the only way to solve a serious problem. Trivial problems are something else of course.
Suppose global warming could be halted in its tracks, as seems actually to be the case for the moment. Will that staunch Agenda 21? No. Will that stop governments from taking ever more control? No. The motive is not really stopping global warming (although, like a broken dish it could still be a problem of its own).
What I see is several motives that have congealed around a “cause” that is convenient for all of them. Should global warming be solved, SOME complainers will be happy but I think most won’t be, for it has not addressed “social justice”, peak oil, private ownership of land or a dozen other favorite talking points.
Even those left wing talking points are still not the “motive”. I believe the motive is fear. But fear takes place in the amygdala, it has no language, no cognition. It is a force like magnetism, it just exists, and attaches itself to this or that. Until and unless fear itself is mitigated, absolutely nothing else will ever solve a problem that hasn’t even been addressed.
Yes! Motivation is mostly a murky & unresolved thing; emotions & instincts, ‘in action’. That is partly why we so often misidentify the goal or objective, as the motivation. Wrong. Money & power eg are goals; why one strives so on their behalf, is the motivation.
Here is an insight on applied-motivation that many will not be unfamiliar with, but will immediately recognize & grasp. The military long ago mastered the identification, stimulation and manipulation of intrinsic motivations; they could not fill their role, without using these techniques.
An Iditarod sled dog racer evaluates dogs for their motivational-complex, rejecting those with ‘needs’ (a partial synonym for motivation) that interfere with racing-behavior, and arranging complimentary-motivations within the team (one must want to lead, and others must follow) … and the military does much the same as the musher, but with people.
Take the immigration of Indian Nationals to the USA. Many successful & leading IT-computer professionals are today from India. Top industry executives lobby to increase the quota for India.
The USA taps the widespread goal of Indians, to move to America. This goals guides them literally like a shining beacon, often from an early age. But what actually serves as the motivation for different Indians, can be very different. And those differences can make stark differences, here in the States.
To make a hypothetical (but not unrealistic) example, a rural Indian may be drawn by the promise of excitement & glamor, in the West. Rural India can seem very boring and plain. Everything the country-Indian sees about America in the media, is the opposite of what they see at home.
The urban Indian, otoh, is awash in excitement, and overly-familiar with the pragmatics of glamorization. The goal-oriented city-Indian may be motivated more by the escape-impulse, and not so hooked on ‘romantic’ America.
Our rural Indian may thus have ‘expectations’ of their new home, which are likely to be disappointed. The city-Indian may obtain satisfaction, simply in escaping their native city, happy to alight somewhere, anywhere else.
Motivations – the real motivations – are very important, and they matter a lot. Eco-Green-Climate folks are working from various kinds of prevalent motivational-complexes, just as is the successful Indian-American leading Google, or the elite SEAL team who takes out Osama bin Laden.
It’s a mistake to assess motivations of ‘movements’, be they Immigrants or Environmentalists, from what we see & read about their nominal leadership. ‘Leaders’ in such situations often are not at all motivationally-comparable with the cohort they ‘lead’.
Hoorah +100.
Opinions. Everyone has them. Me, I don’t much care for them. And I don’t see why having an opinion gives someone the right to call someone else names. Give me some data and insight and let me make up my own mind.
Me too. I’ve never read anything from Tim Ball which has contributed to my understanding of AGW (or lack of it). Spencer, Lindzen, Michaels, Steve McIntyre, Jack Barrett, the Pielkes and even Willis 🙂 have all, at some point, helped in improving my knowledge and forming my opinions. Tim Ball – nothing.
Then you have a closed mind. You really should look into the UN and Maurice Strong. AGW is politics pure and simple.
“As a result, I’m extremely skeptical that person A can accurately judge the motives of person B.”
As a result, your presumption of what the Dr. Ball’s post said, is wrong.
He asked the question, but left it hanging.
How could someone possibly have good motives when their means and ends are both evil?
But no matter what individual motives are, the plan to concentrate power and control everyone never ends well. And the UN is using this hoax to institute Agenda 21 in order to do just that. Of course, some people deny reality and say “It’s just a plan”. Yeah, so was every major crime, terrorist act, coup d’état and war in history.
Willis,
Well and concisely stated.
Except that he didn’t actually read the post he is criticizing. Seems there were Amazon reviewers doing that a while back and everyone lost their heads over the matter. Double standards?
Mark
Willis, many of the leading proponents of CAGW have clearly stated their motivation, so it is not a WAG to believe them. I will quote just one, but similar TRUE quotes from dozens of green leaders are available.
Otmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC, is very direct:
“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.”
I realize that this is Anthony Watts’ blog and he will do whatever he wants with it regardless of my opinion. That’s fine with me. I usually enjoy Dr. Watts’ blog immensely because his scientific arguments are good, but this post is different. Throwing a guest author under the bus for political reasons is embarrassing.
“Mr.” Watts 😉
Exactly.
Gosh, his freedom is just killing you, ain’t it.
So we have:
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
So we know that they should know better. We know that they do know better. We know that they receive handsome rewards.
They object to being called out for the big lie. They think it should not happen, because they have broken bread with Anthony and others. They sometimes post on Bishop Hill. Therefore, they should get away with it.
Well, I don’t buy it. They had the option of making clear any doubts they have, but they have not done so. Alarmism gets a free pass. Betts gets his tongue out for Dame Julia Slingo every time.
So we have to conclude that Betts and Edwards are prostitutes, pimps, or both at the same time.
May the good Lord rot their souls.
I totally agree with jolly farmer. Anybody who has read the history of totalitarian regimes like the National Socialists in Germany and has read The Road to Serfdom by Frederik Hayek will clearly understand what is going on with the climate scam. Tim Ball is right on the money. Best and Edwards are either in on the big lie or they do not have enough scientific smarts to clearly analyse what is going on. That is, they are either in on it or are what Lenin, that other totalitarian socialist, called useful idiots.
People like Best and Edwards and the rest of the alarmist fraternity have been waging a remorseless and unremitting war against people who call them out and our side seem to think that they are in a Saturday Afternoon game of cricket using gentlemen’s rules. Time to wake up. What we have here from these blokes is the equivalent of the Islamic concept of Taqiyya or holy lying. Any tactic is OK to advance the cause.
Gaialingual.
========
It was common for members of the Waffen SS to cover up their Death’s Head insignia, to deny
their crimes against humanity, and pretend to be ordinary members of the Wehrmacht.
Now that we have answered insult with insult, let’s return to the scientific domain, and leave leverage games to the politicians and press. The scientific domain is necessarily constrained in time and space. Science is a philosophy that is founded on a consensus of evidence and deductive reasoning, not opinion and inference.
Otmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC, is very direct:
“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.”
What science have Betts and Ewdards posted here?
Tim Ball has been greatly maligned for many years by the Canadian Climate Mafia and it is quite natural for one so treated to have deep feelings of resentment for those who treated him so. To restate the facts of that treatment or of similar acts of bad faith and treachery here on WUWT is not in any way new fo him or several other contributors, so I am bit surprised by all folks here pulling a Capt. Renault “I’m Shocked” moment over Tim’s piece. Come on guys!
No, it is not quite natural to indulge in the sort of stuff Dr. Ball indulged in. Leave it to the climate kooks.
they do conspiracy speculation much better and depend on conspiracy completely to sell their bs.
What speculation?
Otmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC, is very direct:
“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.”
This is not at all a good post. I personally have had the opposite experience to what Richard and Tamsin experienced in my neighborhood at a local skeptics group. When I published an article asking for good manners and good ethics in climate change discussions, I was attacked and baited for what “might” be my views. Moderatism has no place in serious politics, and Tim Ball understands that from experience: There are far too many Hitlers and Maurice Strongs standing behind the “kind scientists”.
After a quick look I can say that there is nothing there I have not seen and worse in the accusations against climate scientist disbelievers.. While I think we do not need to descend to their level as we have a simple case that their predictions are so bad they are improved by picking numbers by throwing a dart blindfold this is no big deal so forget it until we see a shred of integrity from the IPCC and the climate science fraternity.
The more I think about it, the more I am disappointed that Anthony sounds so apologetic in his note below the opening shot from Prof Richard Betts and Dr Tamsin Edwards. Dr Tim Ball was, in my opinion, completely justified and morally correct to call out CAGW evangelists (and msm for that matter) for their offensive, aggressive treatment of climate skeptics, including (but not limited to) the outrageous use of the ‘Denier’ word – itself used for no other reason than to denigrate, humiliate and insult anyone who dares dissent from the dominant CAGW narative.
I was hoping for a little more in the way of support for Dr Ball’s completely correct and wholly justified rebuttal to such unforgivable behaviour from academics and professionals who really should know much better.
kim’s corollary to Godwin’s Law is that the first person to cry ‘Godwin’ in a discussion of authoritarianism is a useful idiot. These two are well paid, also. I also note they have high scientific credentials and credibility. Perhaps their obvious skill at communications has drawn them into a prominence overstepping understanding.
I like them both, despite flaws; egads, Tim, too.
===================
kim,
Ball wallowed in it. His essay should have been edited severely for content and style.
It was an own goal.
Well, it’s a good thing I didn’t read it.
===========
‘Climate scientists’ are like the members of the orchestra who serenaded the people as they step down from the cattle trucks.
It seems to me that Richard Betts is sticking to his usual method of a drive by. In this case Tamsin seems to be the only one of the two responding, perhaps she’d have been better served by not putting her name to the article; then Richard Betts’ true colours would be clearly visible.
Is Richard Betts too busy and too important to bring himself down to the level of your average sceptic to read and reply to their comments? It seems the answer is is “Yes very much so”. I have no great respect for people who operate in this way.
Exactly, drive by elites.
The Nazis didn’t hold talks with the Jews.
I think that what Dr. Ball said was necessary. A little bit drastic for sure but not really beyond the pale. He published “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” which I can recommend for reading. I see that as some milder way of talking about…hmmm….”an inconvenient truth”.
Wow. Tim Ball gets to post a controversial posting; Tamsin and Betts get to reply. This is an example of why this blog is so much better than others, such as Re*lClim*te.
Tamsin and Betts. Thank you for trying to tone down the rhetoric on both sides. Sincerely.
However, Ball’s posting didn’t call anyone a Nazi. That simply didn’t happen, and you won’t be able to provide a quote where it did.
Yes, Ball quoted Hitler; yes, Hitler described the “Big Lie”, and he and the Nazis used it effectively. However, the reverse is not logically correct; because Hitler and the Nazis used the Big Lie does not mean that anyone who uses The Big Lie is Hitler or a Nazi. Reading it as if the reverse where implied says more about what is going on in your heads than what is going on in Tim’s.
That said, I think anyone who quotes Hitler should be prepared to explicitly state the limits of what they are trying to say. Tim should have said something like “My using a Hitler quote should not be construed as comparing Climatologists with Hitler or the Nazis”.
THAT said, the cynical part of me notes that focusing only on what you believe is a Nazi comparison could be a way of trying to make it impossible to discuss the propaganda technique of the Big Lie wrt to the politics of Climatology, because any reference to the Big Lie would be a comparison to Nazism. If this was not your intention,you two should ALSO have explicitly said something along the lines of “We believe that comparing climatologists to Nazis is counterproductive; however, this does not mean that it’s not worthwhile to pursue the question of the usage of the Big Lie in the politics of Climatology.”
I would love to hear your opinions on this topic. For instance, over on BH right now is a posting called “Bob Misrepresents the Science Again”, where Bob Ward is quoted as saying “…if we go above global warming of more than 2 degrees we will be facing very severe risks” (see BH for the full quote). Betts has already said that most climate scientists do not subscribe to this meme. Is this Bob Ward attempting to implement the “Big Lie”, and if so, should it be labeled as such?
Similarly, we should all know that the latest IPCC report does not support the concept that we are currently experiencing global-warming induced “extreme weather”, and that attribution studies consistently fail to find a connection between individual weather events and global warming. Yet, newspapers are full of stories that say that we ARE experiencing this; Obama has said so, numerous scientists have said so…yet it clearly is not part of the “consensus” (whatever that is), and there is simply no explanation how, if the surface temp hasn’t warmed in umpteen years, we would suddenly be experiencing Extreme Weather. Is this an example of the Big Lie at work, and if so, should it be called out as such?
Neither Richard Betts nor Tamsin Edwards will answer these questions.
Prostitutes do not want to upset their clients.
You cannot appease the climate warmists fanatics. This is very like Chamberlain in 1938 giving in to the nazis and later paying very very dearly for it. Basically you should probably not be even talking to these people as this site has now given a certain “respect” to these people. Good luck with that!
We have piece in our time. A little piece of Poland, a little piece of France.
http://ww2gravestone.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Neville%20Chamberlain.jpg
I also note that all of a sudden my postings go into moderation.You’ve definitely lost me as a poster here.
[Reply: We know who is on moderation and who isn’t. You are not. If you feel the need to go elsewhere that is up to you. But please don’t blame others. ~mod.]
Eliza, it’s nothing personal. It happened to me 5 minutes ago, then my comments stopped going into moderation. It happens from time to time. I have been at WUWT since before 2008 I think.
“drawing parallels between climate scientists and Hitler” He did no such thing, he used Hitler’s example of the Big Lie” as an illustration of how the “Big Lie” that is AGW has been created. It is a sociological concept, confirmed by the number of attempts by Sociologists to try and understand why so many people don’t believe it. Tim Ball simply told it as it is and the extreme reactions demonstrate how close to the truth he is.
It would be unfortunate if Anthony chose not to publish any more guest opinions from Dr Ball, because of the unwarranted flack he has had from the warming protagonists.
I have just re-read Dr.Tim Ball’s article and think it is excellent. I think Prof Betts and Dr Edwards need to put a teaspoon of concrete in their tea and harden up a bit.
Read it again and stop being silly. It was a stupid ill conceived and poorly written article. It played exactly into the narrative of Lewandowsky. It makes skeptics look like the kooks, not the climate obsessed.
Nonsense.
Mark
Really, here is one example of a leading proponent of CAGW, in his own words affirming everything Dr Ball stated,
Otmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC, is very direct:
“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.”
George.. What they need is a reading comprehension course. This might be a clue to the reason that they believe in CAGW.. It seems that either they didn’t read the article or they are mentally impaired.
I am all for keeping debate civil etc.
But I am still for Ms Hayhoe and Mr Betts to get a bit more honest and frank with the Climoscientificindustrial complex.
The “oh so reasonable” presentation comes at times that it appears advantageous to their interests – which I never see them admit are deeply conflicted.
It’s easy to be led astray regarding motive. It’s easier to decipher result.
If one reads the books by Shrirer (Rise and Fall), Speer (inside), Hitler (Kampf), Borman (Table Talk), Goebbels (his diaries) and others Hitler believed individual dictatorship (his) was the perfect form of government. Of all the categories one can fit Hitler into such as genocide, socialist/statist, conqueror, etc., the broadest one is totalitarian. What some find fascinating is how democracies morph into totalitarian states. Germany, in the last free elections held of the Weimar Republic, saw the Nazis seize power having gained only about 2/5ths of the vote. And that was the Nazis controlling the news and arresting opponents.
The roots of “generic” totallitarian have been discussed for centuries. See 1 Samual Chapter 8, Plato’s works, etc. Every King, Khan, Stalin, etc., AND their supporters are simply totalitarianists. The motive matters little. The result is always totalitarianism in all it’s many forms. A person desiring totalitarian rule is best left to the soft sciences like psychiatry.
Bell seems to seek motive where he might have restricted his discussion to democracies evolving into totalitarian states. The similarity of methods imposing totalitarianism on a population, without war and conquest, almost always follows the techniques the Nazis proved worked in democracies. Thus the comparisons. They’re all under the same hat.
Passing note.
It has been almost universally reported by those who met Hitler that he had a “magnetic” personality – especially while dining. The fact that he frequently ordered the execution of those he charmed might be a caution for those sitting down with totalitarianists. Just saying.
Seems to me that the central matter arriving from all the above is that whilst it is good that such as Betts and Tamsin are engaged in dialogue with us heretics, that they refuse in public to condemn those of their colleagues in climate science who have done such damage to the notion of scientific research and progress, we still have a huge problem.
Why will they not speak out against the Manns and Lewandowskys? Why?
This is one of the posts that Sou (Miriam O’Brien) has chosen to comment on at HotWhopper. See my post at MoreOnMiriamO’Brien’sHotWhopper:
http://moreonmiriamobrien.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/miriam-obrien-says-disgusting-deniers-anthony-watts-exploits-the-publicity-he-got-from-tim-ball/
Miriam O’Brien (Sou) takes on Tamsin Edwards and Richard Bett’s guest opinion, Anthony Watts’s concluding note, and comments on the thread, including one from me.
Bob – why are you constantly advertising Sou’s anti-WUWT site?
Albedo bits, I’m advertising my website, not Sou’s. And I’m providing links to archived versions of Sou’s blog posts that show how low warmists will stoop. Can’t get much lower than Sou.
meant to add … the policies invoked by CAGW attack the poor and have done huge damage to the Third World. What’s worse? That, or what Tim Ball wrote, and what he quoted?
This is grossly out of proportion, and a total side show.
I think there needs to be more heated rhetoric on the skeptic side, to offset the constant drumbeat of heated rhetoric pouring out of the other side. When every single alarmist article cites a 97% consensus, that is heated political rhetoric designed solely to impugn the credibility of anyone that disagrees. When the term denier has been fully adopted by alarmist and their coconspirators in the media, that again is a solely rhetorical attack used to paint people as ideologically motivated and impervious to all attempts at reason. I am shocked that these two rhetorical weapons have become standard fare, and even more shocked that scientists have allowed this to be done with their credibility on the line. Scientists should reject this stuff and rebuke anyone that attempts to use it while discussing their work.
It’s a bit ironic that one article on wuwt elicits an immediate rebuke from people who have ignored hundreds or thousands of -more- vicious rhetoric from others on their side and coconspirators in the media. If you really don’t like this, then follow Anthony’s lead by getting your own house in order. As far as I’m concerned, this just shows that alarmists are sensitive to the same types of rhetorical attacks they dish out routinely, and makes me think that more might finally impress upon them that they are the aggressors that need to reverse course.
Some people proudly announced that they didn’t read Tim Ball’s piece, and yet still were happy to comment on it. Shame on you.
I went back and re-read it. Yes, maybe it wasn’t a great idea to quote Hitler. But in no way did Ball call anyone ‘Nazis’. Pretty well everything he said about the IPCC is almost certainly true. It is very, very important that people understand the true nature of the IPCC, whether it is a paragon of scientific integrity or hopelessly corrupted by money, politics and green extremism. If we follow the IPCC’s advice to the bitter end, it will literally cost the earth. And, in my opinion, it will achieve absolutely nothing except human misery.
I would love to see these two scientists, and many more, engage in proper scientific debate with serious sceptics. But it probably won’t happen as the sceptics usually win easily when there is true debate.
I still have great respect for Anthony and WUWT, but his response to Tim’s piece has reduced it by a few notches. And, please, give Tim an opportunity to reply. And maybe start a useful debate with him and the two scientists. I would love to see that!
Chris
I had intended to comment on Tim Ball’s original article that it went over the top, with its immediate appeal to Hitler and the Nazis. Its a fair comment to invoke Godwin’s law.
Tim Ball has enough intellectual firepower to be able to find alternative ways of effective communication.
But there are double standards at work here of course. It is easier to be casually discriminatory and defammatory when you hold a mainstream establishment position. Thus use of the grossly defamatory term “deny-er” raises little reaction from any other than skeptical groups. This explains Roy Spencer’s frustration leading him to counterlabel users of the “d” word as “climate Na3is”.
The “warmists” are a large and very mixed population. There are the extremists who are actual fascists and even willing to admit this. But there is a much larger group for whom AGW support is a part of genuinely well-meaning environmental positivism. In attempting to win hearts and minds for climate skepticism / rationalism, we should aim at the second larger, moderate group, and ignore as far as possible the first. This means we need to moderate our language and approach.
“The “warmists” are a large and very mixed population.”
Indeed. Warmists: They enemy of my enemy is my warming brother.
The Warmists mix ranges from people desiring Power, to Climate (Alarmists) Scientists wanting more funding, to Eco Terrorists, to going Green corporate profiteers, to countries looking for grievance dollars, to actual foreign powers looking to take down their enemies (U.S., U.K., etc.), to control by One World government of U.N.
You forgot the largest group. Well meaning and intentioned people who sincerely want to “do the right thing” for the environment and their kids/grandkids. How do you politely tell someone they’ve been had, used and will be discarded along with all their efforts by those they trusted? It is like telling someone their skin color is turquoise. .
Tim did not use the words Naz! or Naz!sm rather he used a quote from a book to illustrate a point. Invoking Godwins law would be inaccurate in Tim’s case…however Betts, Edwards and Watts have started “the small lie” of claiming Tim maligned climate scientists by calling them the N word.
“This means we need to moderate our language and approach.”
Why? This is a war. Total war means you use whatever you have to beat down the enemy.
In this case, their junk science has been trashed, observations vs computer models – dead, the political agenda needs to be completely destroyed.
Cuddling up to the alarmunists will only allow them to continue down the path they are on. You need to stop the needless deaths associated with the stupid policy, stop the waste of funds feeding the beast. Expose the rot.
People are waking up and now is not the time to give in to the two-faced alarmists.
Kudo’s to Dr Tim Ball for writing about this cancer.
We need more open and honest dialogue and if it hurts, too bad.
Dr. Ball’s post in question will be remembered far longer than his other many good posts.
It was an own goal. It happens. Get over it.
So pick up, move in the right direction and keep on winning.
It is not the worst thing that could have been said, and if compared to the nastiness of unremarked climate obsessed claims about skeptics was not such a big deal.
But skeptics are the good guys in the social madness of climate obsession.
Good guys win by doing things the right way.
It was not an own goal It was an accurate portrayal of the political motivation of the statist proponents of CAGW.
Otmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC, is very direct:
“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.”
“we often see people who are sceptical of climate science”
This is an arrogant statement because it assumes ownership of “climate science” by one group. Sceptics are not sceptical of “climate science”; how could they be, when a great number of climate scientists are themselves sceptical, as all proper scientists are? How could they be when climate science encompasses a wide array of theories involving the sea, the atmosphere, the sun, cosmic rays, clouds… But you conflate the term “climate science” with the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming. Sceptics are sceptical of certain THEORIES, not of climate science. Learn to accept that fact then you may start to understand the various sceptical positions a bit better.
I have always felt that the real climate scientists are the sceptics.
Thanks David and well put., i dont think anthony realised that that bridge built between establishment climate scientists and the lukewarmers at Tony B’s little get together was actualy a draw bridge controlled by the those who live in the manmade warming castle. Didnt Betts after that little party say disingenuously that sceptics there had begun to accept that the greenhouse effect was real and is this article an excuse to firmly shut the drawbridge in sceptics faces. If Betts and Edwards chose instead to come to watts up and show us their work i would have more respect for them
–“we often see people who are sceptical of climate science”
This is an arrogant statement because it assumes ownership of “climate science” by one group.–
I think it’s creative writing. They didn’t want to say “we often see people who are not believers of climate science.”
So when there a picture of herd walrus on beach- according to the climate science, these walrus are on the beach because of human emission of CO2- which is warming the world.
To be a believer is to believe that this is the climate science.
I have not read Prof. Ball’s post, but I personally would not trust people with titles like ‘Chair in Climate Impacts’. LOL!
Let me repeat here, if I may, a comment I made at Bishop Hill (Unthreaded) a few moments ago:
Got round to reading the post by Tim Ball at last: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/
I think Richard Betts and Tamsin Edwards have over-reacted to it. I think they are two people who bring some grace and decency to the climate ‘establishment’, and I admire them for that. But I do believe I admire Tim Ball a great deal more. His post makes what I think is a worthwhile contribution to the greatest puzzle of this horrible period of overblown alarmism about carbon dioxide we have been living through: how on earth did a handful of people, perhaps most notably Maurice Strong and his chums in the Club of Rome but no doubt there are others, have such a massive political success with their campaigning to demonise CO2 and, by association, industrial progress itself? That Tim Ball quotes one of the most evil socialists of the 20th century is not out of order. He and his small group also had dramatic political success, and in that case it has been one which has received a great deal of subsequent study, not least of the propaganda techniques used. The quote used reveals a basic contempt for ‘the masses’, noting our vulnerability. I hope that the Great Climate Scares of the last quarter of the 20th century will also receive a great deal of study, since they too have caused appreciable harm and may yet do a great deal more.
I’ve long wondered if MS is in China rightly advising or being advised of his rights.
==================
Oh, was that was the question.
I think the answer is media always want a cheap story.
Those guys are always complaining about the high costs of running news organization
So it’s sort of like you don’t know what to talk about, so you talk about the weather-
but of course it must bleed so it’s *scary* weather.
Billions of people are going to die and it’s the end of life as we know.
There things real scientists could twist to make them scary- climate scientist
as group tend to be more useless and therefore more desperate.
And all the past success with pseudo science of past scares indicated a way to get famous and rich
I suppose they also wanted the dashing Al Gore elected as US president,
so they wrote a book for him.
Thatcher wanted to end coal union strangle hold, so nuclear power was a way
to make electrical without CO2 emission. More nuclear power less monopoly
for coal electrical power generation. She later stated her regret of her part in this.
US Farmer wanted more government subsidies so we got the ethanol subsidies- which were
sold as way of reducing CO2 [which they don’t]. Also tried to sell that makes less dependent
on foreign oil [which is also a lie].
President Carter [the great idiot] started subsidizing solar power [again as solution to
energy imports- again, wrong and stupid].
Not sure about wind energy, but probably sold as it was better than solar energy- and that is almost plausible- but only because solar energy sucks badly. Particularly in most of the States in United States.
One thing about wind energy is it does blows in the winter, when you need the most power.
A context of solar and wind energy was the delusion that we were running out of fossil fuel,
so obviously the idiots didn’t want to support nuclear, and wanted the dream of natural and “free”
energy [idiocy squared].
As I said before, stupidity- tons of it, stacked
But as scam/religion the preachers were making a lots money. Al Gore made sizable
amount money for the cause [his bank account].
Though none of this could have happened without some help by the earth itself- 30 year warming [and 1998 El Nino] and following after the very cold Little Ice Age. I also think the defeat of idea that we entering into a Ice age [more pseudo science] helped the cause of “global warming”- a term once used to refer to the current 10,000 year warming trend [or the current interglacial or other past interglacial periods].
And the consumption of vast quality of various drugs also helped.
Now for sum of money we wasted that probably could paid to send starship to another star [not that this is a good idea]. What did we get?
Answer, vast corruption. And climate science halted. But it was a huge distraction if you value distracting the public attention from other matters they might imagine is important.
It seems that most of the angst is about Tim Ball’s use of the Nazi analogy, with people on both sides crying “Godwin’s law! Godwin’s Law!” (To paraphrase Captain Barbossa, it’s not really a law, it’s more of a guideline)
I think, if we’re honest with ourselves, we can all see one way in which this analogy is perfectly appropriate – just like WW2, this conflict can only end with complete victory on one side and total defeat on the other. Some individuals may defect from one side to the other (especially as the end approaches), but just as there was no negotiated settlement possible in 1945, there is no chance of any negotiated settlement between the two sides today. I think that reality is what scares people the most.
Pretty difficult to invoke Godwins Law when ‘Hitler or Nazism’ is mentioned at the start!
Wws. Sounds like you may be a WW2 buff. I read somewhere that one of the top German scientist that was working on the atomic bomb claimed ( after the war was over) that he was secretly working to disrupt it. He tried to restore his reputation but I don’t think it worked.
As to underlying motives, I think our society is displaying the return of a primitive belief that we humans by making sacrifices can assure ourselves of more favorable weather.
“… primitive belief that we humans by making sacrifices can assure ourselves of more favorable weather”
What AGW agenda wants it’s sheep to believe, while they Elitely sheer us of Green$.
As there is an illustration to this post with John Cleese, you might be interested in his view on political correctness. It is not about climate change but …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2851888/John-Cleese-blasts-political-correctness-protecting-select-groups-ridicule.html
There have always been three separate streams of consciousness in any discussion of climate. One stream deals with anything that could be scientifically related, and contains actual facts and numbers. The proxies belong in this stream, along with actual measurements. The second stream is the obvious political/monetary/power that is being deliberately channeled to or from various places and peoples. The third stream is the PlayStation modeling, and data manipulation, which may (or may not) refer over to the data stream, and is the interface through which the second stream justifies their actions.
It is very possible, if referring to the political/monetary/power stream, to discuss the stratagems of Hitler, Stalin, or even Roosevelt, as relevant comparisons to manipulating this stream. The other streams are similar. I would suggest that comments on climate should always be prefaced by which stream they are addressing, and should remain within that stream, thus simplifying discussion.
The matter seems simple enough to me. What profit for skeptics to prevent a civilized discussion? You will never defeat the hachet men and smear artists at their own game. Besides being impractical it is the moral low ground, why take that tact to no advantage or benefit?
For some of us maybe the answer is, because we’re still pissed off. That’s perfectly reasonable. I don’t intend to forget any of this; although I may forgive the more honest mainstream scientists who didn’t indulge in the PR, their professional credibility will always remain diminished in my eyes as a result. But so what, right? I’m still pissed off. I’ve seriously been labeled a conspiracy theorist, a science denier, a ‘big oil operative’, all that. I’ve been censored and spat on for standing by my convictions. I don’t want to let that go, I’d like for somebody to pay for that.
Yeah. Sweet dreams, it isn’t going to happen. Eventually, we have to figure out how to move forward and what we realistically hope to accomplish. As Anthony said,
We can move on or just continue to produce noise.
Unless and until the lies stop, there can be no dialog.
So, as long as any hatchetman or any smear artist; any John Cook or any Stephen Lewandowski anywhere elects to ‘lie’, there can be no dialog.
This is an utterly unrealistic condition to hold out for. If you accept this then for all intents and purposes you accept defeat, that you can accomplish nothing. Okay, fine. Why post here? To make noise?
It borders on the insane to add a comment to a thread of this length, but I’m not going to let that stop me….
The Alarmist propaganda ploy to describe sceptics as ‘Deniers’ seems to me to have two clear purposes.
The first is that of a schoolboy bully: “Anyone who disagrees with me is an XXXX”. Choose your epithet. The purpose is to shut down debate, to persuade the weak minded to stay quiet because they don’t want to be called an ‘XXXX’. This serves their purpose because a rational look at the facts shows that, accepting the science, the policies being advocated are wildly extreme. The reason they are extreme is that the underlying environmentalist agenda is against growth and consumption, not CO2 – but reducing CO2 requires reducing energy consumption, so it will do as a pretext. A rational view will show that we have decades to solve the technical problems, during which time we don’t need to make people poor.
The use of the term ‘Denier’ has a second purpose. It pisses people off, rather mightily and justifiably. As a result, the sceptic becomes as mad as hell. No matter the virtue of her arguments, she seems like a crazy eccentric, with the alarmist on the side of mainstream, sweet reason, holocaust-affirming sanity. In other words, this is a device designed to make us behave badly to put us in a poor light.
Bottom line: to combat this, quietly expose the tactic as a device to stifle debate, and above all, don’t rise to the bait. They can’t win the argument, but a name-calling contest is always going to be a toss-up.
R.
The topic reflects a frustration I’ve been having with the skeptic blogs. The recent election results should have signaled an end to non-stop advocacy and the beginning of the execution phase of the skeptic movement. Enough minds have been swayed – that effort can go into maintenance mode. The fresh energy has to be to help define policy going forward.
There are but two precious years before the next congressional elections and there will also be a presidential election at that time and here we are wasting our time still trying to sway public opinion. Stop it! The public has spoken. We won the hearts and minds of the voters. Turn quickly to policy issues – you all surely must realize the CAGW crowd is retrenching and fortifying not only their agenda but will use the remaining influence until the last grant dollar is spent. It is well past time to think and act politically. Because their job is done and damn well done at that this will probably mean less will be heard or needed from Tim Ball and Bob Tisdale and others from the pure science community and more will be heard from the people at GWPF and other blogs from the political category seen in the right sidebar. Dr. Curry is already out front with this.
WUWT is in the best possible position to retool and focus on reshaping policy, defining funding targets, and getting the message to the MSM if the right politically trained leadership steps forward. This is not the time to continue playing ‘got your nose’ with Mann and the boyz and it would be a travesty if that continues at the expense of influencing policy.
A Grand New Skeptic Party was not on my ballot. Or on anybody else’s ballot.
When Big Governments lie, the lies that come out are… Big by nature. I’m not sure what else there is to discuss about it. That’s what they do.
Andrew
“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”
—————————————————————-
Maybe the authors know of some better examples of the big lie.
AH was just one man among the best progressives in the world.
Progressives like Barack Obama (ACA…lots of lies)
Jon Gruber (paid $M to lie)
John Beale (EPA paid to lie …Secret Agent retired)
Lisa Jackson (EPA Richard Winsor was just one lie retired)
Lois Leaner (IRS lies vs TEA party retired)
Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House really silly liar)
Eric Holder (Attorney General from gun running to race baiting liesretiring)
Along with other proven liars Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Wendy Davis and too, too many more to list.
All these people are considered leaders and all are pushing a big lie just like the UN.
It’s not whether they know it’s a lie because it doesn’t matter even if it is a lie.
They use lies to nudge Socialist policies worldwide and any lie is good if it’s for the cause.
… and all from a common ‘institution’.
If you are going to start an article discussing propaganda by explaining how it works then Hitler is a reasonable example to use. Nazism was adept at using propaganda. It was not a poorly chosen parallel but one that readers would readily understand.
The Big Lie quote specifically perhaps isn’t a good example of it though. The quote from Hitler is his claim that Big Lies were used against Germany by jewish controlled interests. That said, I suppose this itself could be viewed as Hitler’s ‘big lie’.
Or, the fact that so many people believe an erroneous fact (that Hitler promoted the “Big Lie” in his book) is an example of the ‘Big Lie.’ Wouldn’t you say this is a successful use of propaganda against Hitler and the National Socialists (whether you think it’s well deserved or not)? So I suppose Dr. Ball’s piece in an unwitting example of a Big Lie which unfortunately greatly weakens his argument. His opponents do no better because they make the same mistake.
Wow, talk about “playground” behaviour! This is juvenile whining over nothing. Where exactly does Dr. Tim Ball “call other people Nazis”? Dr. Ball was illustrating an important, relevant point about The Big Lie and how you get away with it, which with the demonization of CO2 and and the unproven hypothesis of man-made global warming is exactly what happened, right under our noses, while many scientists were asleep at the switch, or worse, collaborated. And to top it off, Betts and Edwards are not satisfied with a disclaimer (“somewhat ambiguous”) that should never have been made in the first place.
Dear Anthony Watts, Professor Betts and Dr. Edwards,
Dr. Balls last sentence in his post was
“Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?”
Well, do you? Telling us that your feelings were hurt by incorrectly believing that Dr. Ball called climate scientists “Naz!s” or distancing yourself from Tim is not a refutation of his post. Rather, it may be only your inability to comprehend his writing style that correctly asks and answers the question that your smokescreen can’t cover up. Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?
+1000
Do you feel lucky …
http://youtu.be/8Xjr2hnOHiM
Another +1000
Sensible people who base conclusions on data and logic, collected and analyzed without any political bias, do not understand that leftists lie and mislead ALL THE TIME because they think their cause is so important that lying is justified!
.
Leftist scientists are no different than leftist political science professors, or leftist plumbers — they have a cause they believe only fools would resist, and there is no harm in lying to fools since they don’t know what is best for them.
.
There is no other way, other than lying and misleading, for leftists to justify their hatred of capitalism, corporations, profits, prosperity, economic growth and population growth.
.
Their goal is not the prosperity that most people want — their goal is an impossible dream of equality, in spite of the fact that people are so different in intelligence and attitude.
.
The global warming scam is nothing more than a political tool to advance the big government / anti-private corporation agenda.
.
Prior scams that didn’t take were acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer, among many.
.
Claiming a catastrophe is coming in the future is an age-old power strategy used by political and religious men to gain power over the masses and tell them how to live “for their own benefit”.
.
There is no reason to be polite to leftists, since they will NEVER be polite to anyone who questions their claims.
.
Their goal, in the Saul Alinsky-style, is to ridicule and character attack opponents so there WILL NEVER BE A DEBATE (because anyone who opposes their beliefs is (called) a fool / denier / etc. not worthy of debate).
.
There is good reason to ridicule the left wing scientists who take money from the taxpayers to play computer games — they are NOT practicing science, and they are WASTING the taxpayer’s money!
.
Playing computer games and making inaccurate predictions of a coming climate catastrophe … that no human could predict … since no human can predict the future climate .. is not science … and whether or not a person doing this has a science degree makes no difference — computer game predictions are climate astrology, not science.
.
Whether you call them climate Nazis, or science deniers, or warmunists, or climate astrologers … these offensive labels put the warmists on the defensive. That’s a good thing.
.
If they want us to stop calling them names, then they had better stop calling us names — only then can we all get down to serious, calm and soft-spoken debate of the data (of course that will never happen).
.
When the case is weak, every good trial lawyer knows he must badger the witnesses and try to discredit them.
.
The case for a coming climate catastrophe is very weak, given the absence of warming in the past 12 to 18 years … so the name calling will not stop.
.
Name calling in one direction is a clever political tool — Obama is an expert in character attacking his opponents — he won two elections using that “debate” tool.
.
Refusing to fight back when the leftists character attack non-believers like us … is like boxing them with one hand tied behind our back.
.
“Their goal, in the Saul Alinsky-style, is to ridicule and character attack opponents so there WILL NEVER BE A DEBATE”
Add to that — Cry foul when tables get turned.
Saul Alinsky’s relish in dishing it out, but can’t stomach it when they get spoon fed their own.
+++! Yes, control of the language and the debate is everything. Scientists who wish to counter leftist tactics of debate need to start studying neo-reactionary sites which clearly and succinctly lay out the rules for talking to (and attacking) leftist memes. Most of the neo-rx blogs are written by political thinkers; but everything they are about is exactly where real scientists need to go when planning to counter the anti-science memes of the socialist agenda.
Investigating IPCC motives is the most important undertaking humanity should collectively ask at this point in history. Name calling doesn’t help anyone, but getting to the bottom of this massive “Crisis of Opportunity” scam is the only way to derail the gravy train and put the science train back on the tracks. Hitler, The Salem Witch Trials…..they are similar in many aspects but not productive references.
Not really. “motive” is subjective. We need to do what skeptics do best: Use facts to counter hype.
Richard Betts & Tamsin Edwards,
Please start your efforts at more civil and rational dialog by showing us your real concern for your own use of less-than-civil discussion of Tim Ball in your lead post. You see, don’t you, that your civility criterion already wasn’t met even by yourselves in your plea for civility.
John
I agree with you entirely, John. The article Richard Betts & Tamsin Edwards wrote is an embarrassment of less-than-civil discussion. I am sorry to see it published on WUWT.
+ 1
“Refusing to fight back when the leftists character attack non-believers like us … is like boxing them with one hand tied behind our back”
Nothing short of Congress defunding EPA and educational institutions wasting money on CAGW will halt the tide. To do less means they win.(It is all about their getting money and power after all, not science. We taxpayers are just suckers.)
Yes, Congress will end politicized climate-games, the same way it ended the Vietnam War. Decline to fund it … while glancing nervously over their shoulder at a sea of unamused citizens.
“End it or we vote to end your career”, is a message Congress responds to.
The polling-attested slide of climate-games began about 2006. 2016 might not be too optimistic.
“We taxpayers are just suckers.”
Only the modern day ones. The taxpayers of past, through a Tea Party, then a revolution. Based on Taxation without Representation. Which is where taxpayers are at today, No representation.
Congress does not represent Taxpayers. While, White House uses IRS as political weapon. Not to be left out, SCOTUS decided health care Insurance was a Tax, an annual Tax to just Live.
“Especially when those people – professional climate scientists like us ”
While do I feel like, we are being whacked by people hiding baseball bats behind their backs?
_______________________________
“We were also disappointed that so few commenters below the post distanced themselves from his views.”
As we have been to see so few “”Professional”” Climate scientists distance themselves from BAD Climate Science, Politics of CO2, Denier insults, going Green profit Scams, ‘We are Smarter than you’ attacks, GW cover-ups, falsifying of temperature records, and Climate scientists hiding their work.
_______________________________
“… 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”
Redirect much? Ball didn’t call Climate Scientists Nazis. Ball pointed out that Global Warming Cabal was using similar psychological tactics that Hitler had written about, a tactic long known to scam artists and politicians.
_______________________________
“when we contacted him he added a disclaimer (albeit a somewhat ambiguous one)”
“Albeit”, doth protest too much, methinks.
_______________________________
“playground insults that do not help either climate science or its discussion”
Prey tell, why should we help “Climate Science” that isn’t?
Why should we play, and be judge by AGW rules; when Global Warming Cabal does not?
When your name is against a guest post here, isn’t one honour bound to at least respond to questions and comments at least for a couple of days?
Unless Betts is posting under nom de guerre then he hasn’t posted a single reply in 813 comments. I suggest he has seriously abused Anthony’s hospitality and should not be allowed further guest posts without committing to responding for 48 hours after the posting has been made.
Does that “logic” also apply to the author of the thread that this thread is in reference to?
Yes, anyone who has asked rather than a re-blogging.
Betts will not respond.
He and Edwards claim that Dr Ball compared them to Nazis. He didn’t.
Edwards has given some replies. It seems that Dame Julia Slingo has told Betts to keep quiet.
Maybe Edwards is the tart with a heart of gold. Maybe Betts is the deputy assistant under-pimp?
But they both get plenty of the taxpayer’s money, so that’s all good then.
How could Richard Betts bring himself to respond? He is terrified of Big Momma Dame Julia Slingo.
I have commented at WUWT many times, but usually they are humorous one-liners or limericks. Just occasionally, I feel the need to say something serious. I fear this has to be one of those times. What I say is going to be – necessarily – longer than I would like it to be. And it isn’t going to be nice to either side in this “debate.”
(A brief aside about me. Long ago, I was trained as a mathematician. I don’t like to name-drop, but Dr Edwards, whose Ph.D. thesis was about Z bosons, might care to know that one of my supervisors in my first undergraduate term was Jeffrey Goldstone.)
Now, I’m no Steve McIntyre – nor even Sherlock Holmes – but there has been a lot of misdirection on both this and the earlier thread.
It’s a fact that Dr Ball quoted Hitler out of context. Commenter Brian Macker picked this up on the other thread several days ago. Hitler wasn’t talking about his own version of the Big Lie – that came later. Instead, he was referring to Jewish and Marxist critics of the German loss of WWI.
I don’t know if Dr Ball did this deliberately or innocently. Whichever, Drs Betts and Edwards fell into the “Godwin trap.” They should have known better.
However, there are other problems too. Betts and Edwards say: “It’s especially frustrating to see him write this so soon after the productive dinner at Nic Lewis’s place.”
Was Dr Ball invited to that dinner? If he was, could he have afforded either time or money to visit from Canada? And did he give his assent to the conclusions of that meeting? He didn’t comment on Anthony’s post about it. So, is it reasonable to expect Dr Ball to “toe the line” agreed by a meeting he wasn’t at? I think not.
Then there was the following; which, the more times I read it, the harder I laugh. “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.” But when I look at the previous sentence, I see the word “snide.” Yes, Drs Betts and Edwards, you have indeed moved on from “simple name calling.” You have learned to use adjectives as well as nouns! Clever (adjective) children (noun).
Almost five years have passed since Judith Curry, back in February 2010, entered dialogue with us skeptics in this very forum. I myself was one of “Willis’s wolf-pack” who gently mauled her. It can’t have been a pleasant experience; but she came through it, dealt with it honestly, and is a stronger person and a better scientist for it.
But the gap has widened in that time. Richard and Tamsin, if you really do want to follow Judith, you will need to jump. In a big way. For the planet itself, by refusing to warm, has made us skeptics even surer of our scientific case. That is, that whatever warming foreseeable human activities may (or may not) cause in the next century won’t be catastrophic. Yet the bad, anti-business and industry, anti-human politics has gone on; and still goes on. And you, Betts and Edwards, have continued taking the money – our money – and yet you have done nothing to counter that politics. So, are you really surprised at the tone of the comments on this thread?
I’ll end by seriously mis-quoting Robert F. Kennedy: “Ask not what climate skeptics can do for you. Ask what you can do for climate skeptics.”
+ 1 for most of this.
I do not agree that Dr Ball quoted Hitler out of context. Hitler was writing about how propaganda is done, and that pertains to how CO2 scare propaganda is done. Tell the big lie, again and again.
“And you, Betts and Edwards, have continued taking the money – our money – and yet you have done nothing to counter that politics. So, are you really surprised at the tone of the comments on this thread?”
Edwards has tried, as weakly as is humanly possible, to deal with this. Betts hasn’t even tried.
Edwards is an academic, Betts is a civil servant. Edwards has more job security. From now on, Richard Betts is Richard “brown-tongue” Betts [tm Slingo 2014].
Neil. You seriously misquoted John F. Kennedy. I watched that speech on live TV. You wrote one of the best replys on this 1000+ thread. I wish I had your smarts and education so I could make better sense of the math and science. I have always been a skeptic but started to have doubts after one recient warm winter and summer. After trying my honest best to find the truth I remain a skeptic. This site has been the most convincing help. I hope that the science and math wiz kids who make comments to the effect that only science should be discussed here, realize that the 200+ million visits would not be that high with only the S & M people. I love the witty humor here. Maybe some of these folks should chill out.
Thanks, Jim, and I’m surprised you’re the only one who noticed my mis-attribution to RFK instead of JFK.
I’m glad you enjoy WUWT. So do I.
“Goodwin’s Law” at work
The boxer doesn’t like it when the punching bag fights back! Time to settle this like normal human beings and have a televised debate!
Is that a clucking sound I hear?
Let us converse, Richard and Tamsin
The science is settled, friends. Read my previous comment and educate yourselves as befits climate scientists. You seem to have enjoyed a conversation with Anthony so let us discuss some things that can be said conversationally. First, Richard, take your foot off that wall you faker. You cannot prove that opponents of global warming are Nazis by doing that. You were right to hide your face, Tamsin, when he did that. Nevertheless he convinced you to sign his scribblings after that, and this is a shame. You, Richard, are twisting what Tim Ball said to prove that opponents of globsal warming are Nazis. This I would have expected that only from the likes of Naomi Oreskes and you have now lowered yourself to her level. . What Tim Ball did was to hold up what Hitler said as a negative stereotype of what global warmists are doing now, in his opinion. I happen yo think from personal experience that his charges are justified. Take, for instance, the HadCRUT3 temperature curve that originates in Met Office Hadley Centre where you work. When I was writing “What Warming?” that came out in 2010 I discovered that they were showing imaginary warming in the eighties and nineties. They called it “late twentieth century warming,” but there was none according to satellites. I even put a warning about it into the preface but nothing happened. They continued with the fake upward slope into the twenty-first century with the absurd result that in their temperature curve the 2010 El Nino peak is now higher than the super El Nino of 1998. But this is not all. HadCRUT, GISS, and NCDC, all ground-based data sets, are very similar and all differ from satellites by showing the same fake warming where there is none. Having three independent data sets that show similar temperatures should increase any user’s confidence that the temperatures are real. But are they really independent or just cooked up by operators behind the scenes? I vote for the latter case. Why? Because all three curves were secretly computer processed, a perfect opportunity for synchronizing their readings. And how do I know that? They screwed up. Unbeknownst to them the computer left its footprints on all three publicly available data sets, all exactly in the same positions on all three temperature curves. They comprise sharp upward spikes at the beginnings of years. One even sits on top of the super El Nino of 1998 and makes it taller. They are all easy to see if you compare them to satellite temperature curves that are free of this junk. This is why I advise everyone to use satellite temperature data whenever it is available. All this I know from personal experience but Tim Ball probably has more, enough to make him justifiably hopping mad. You. Richard, saw an oppportunity to squelch criticism with your fake “Nazi” charge. Anthony thought you were really offended and apologized, something he need not have done had he known what fakery you are associated with. I also hope that Tamsin will learn something about how you guys operate to keep control of the movement.
Please use paragraphs to make your posts more readable.
I’m sure that Tamsin Edwards was well aware of how these guys operate.
The innocent tart with a heart of gold? I think not.
On the Tim Ball post at WUWT entitled “People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception”, my comments there had just the following two criticisms of Tim Ball:
1) Ball’s intellectual approach to ‘why’ / ‘motivation’ / ‘basis of premises’ has the same fatal flaws that Oreskes’ intellectual approach to ‘why’ / ‘motivation’ / ‘basis of premises’ has.
2) As Oreskes does in her repetitious con$piracy hysteria about skeptics, we see Ball doing in his con$piracy stuff about the supporters of significant climate change from CO2 by burning fossil fuel.
I add that, although I do not have much criticism for the general intellectual approach of Ball’s in comparing an infamous piece of early 20th century Continental European history to early 21st century international (UN) history involving the climate change movement, I think that relevant historical comparison was destroyed by the two flaws I pointed out above.
John
I’m not sure the authors are particularly fair to Anthony. For example the following post has a number of references to ‘deniers’ in its comments:
http://blogs.plos.org/models/climate-scientists-must-not-advocate-particular-policies/
I could not find any apologies by Dr. Edwards in the chain of comments.
I also found Tim Ball’s post to be mild compared to the caustic nature of so many AGW proponents. If it is OK for authors like Cook and Lewandowsky to question both the motives and the sanity of skeptics in (supposedly) peer reviewed papers, questioning the motives of AGW activists in a blog is probably OK.
So here is a challenge for Richard Betts and Tamsin Edwards: Are you willing to publicly, and in writing, disavow the 97% myth? That will be real progress.
I’m a lurker here and in other climate skeptic blogs. I’m not a scientist, so I don’t weigh in on the many scientific issues that are dissected in the serious skeptic community. But 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.
And when asking why the Progressive-Marxist left has put so much political capital behind such a bad set of ideas and science, one can quite easily draw parallels to the Nazis. Ball’s hypothesis about the true ideological motivations of the much of AGW hysteric left is spot on. They believe we are overrunning the biosphere and in their world, “whatever it takes is the motto”. So, what would it take to really get govts to deindustrialize and reduce population growth? How about “the big lie”?
Ball does a great job of explaining how the big lie works. Essentially trusted sources tell a lie so huge that people conclude that it can’t be a lie, as it would be so absurd to tell such a big lie. This is exactly what AGW liars have done – the parallel is perfect and the case is not at all overstated by Ball. These people we are up against are Malthusian-Marxist hysterics.
Many climate skeptics are very uncomfortable with discussing the politics of this and it’s clear why at this point. First, many are Progressives of a sort and have been brainwashed into thinking that any time someone mentions the word “Marx” they are deranged. No, that’s just your effing ignorance. The other issue – very common among STEM men – is that they are political idiots but don’t know it. They seem to not understand how Marxist, Anarchic and other radically left, supposedly “Progressive” causes use AGW to justify their ideas about “social justice”. Sorry, some puke just came up the back of my throat – but I’ve read Rawls, who invented Social Justice theory and I know it’s as big a pile of horsehockey as the AGW hysteric’s science.
What you are seeing in AGW is one of many ways the left intentionally corrupts reason to support their political ends. Too bad you folks here either don’t understand the politics/history or that it makes you uncomfortable. Ball is spot on.
+10 From a fellow lurker.
AGW or CAGW is about social behavior, – not about the atmosphere.
YES. thanks long time lurker- me too. and now i am commenting and hoping to help these real scientists and engineers understand the battle they are in- for truth and their lives. Mr. Ball was indeed ‘spot on’. I dreamed of a nation which would continue our dream of colonies on the moon, electrical energy too cheap to meter, and an actual helping hand of technology to our poorer brothers and sisters on this globe. Instead, as the neo-reactionaries are putting it “the monster only swims left” – I am only 68 yrs old (ha) and when I see where the supposed “conservatives” of our political parties are today…. well. Is it deliberate? Many would say so, and have published evidence of such. There are now two generations of western youth indoctrinated in a belief that humans are evil, and that the civilization which created the highest standard of living for the most number of humans – EVER in history – must be brought down. The science and technology which makes all these well- fed and pampered ‘useful idiots” turn on their own society is beyond belief- except it is real. It is good to see so many comments here helping scientists find a slightly different “candle in the dark”: political reality.
Yeah, but people getting down on themselves goes way back. All kinds of self-abasement and kinky goings on. Takes me back to Bible Study. Sin, the Fall, Expulsion from Eden, Living by the Sweat of Thine Brow, and Redemption following interminable subjugation of the unworthy spirit..
Makes me wonder sometimes if it’s just a political quirk, or if there’s sometime more ‘organic’ to it.
Dr. Ball is indeed correct and accurate. He is what we call “dead-right“.
Dead-right is the highway-safety campaign in which we are encourage to essentially drive for the other guy, or to at least to check & monitor his driving.
Dead-right is where you do something or act in some manner that is within your road-rights to do, but someone else is committing a fairly small road-error, which results eg in them T-boning you (when they should have yielded), and you die.
You were right. Dead-right.
All Tim Ball needed was a good analogy or metaphor. The one he chose is – and is known to be – explosively incendiary, whereupon everybody with a cigarette or other smoking-material pulled out their Bic and flicked it. KA-BLEWEY.
Now, most people don’t even notice what he was saying – only that he kinda T-boned himself.
Ted Clayton writes “most people don’t even notice what he was saying”
Really? How do you arrive at that observation? Be scientific.
Yes, sadly, most folks just run the blooper-reel over and over.
Even this post ‘about’ Dr. Ball’s article, doesn’t make any mention of it’s subject. All the authors care about (and they’re papered Academics), is his unfortunate choice of analogy-material. About the core topic he was addressing or theme he was articulating – not one word.
People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception
Motives. Not goals. Goals, objectives, results – that’s easy. What pushes us toward goals?
Note that taking an interest in motivations is not risk-free. There are opportunities to make mistakes. But then, Tim Ball made a mistake, using ‘strong spirits’ European History (unrelated to his actual topic) which left much of his readership intoxicated.
By observation. 8-
Fund me. ;-
Hi lurker, I like your introduction. I am a scientist and I jumped into this thread because I think Anthony was wrong to allow these two warmists to put in a comment based on a twisted view of what history means. I already have two comments on this thread and you can get to them by clicking the addresses below:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/#comment-1801280
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/#comment-1800394
There is science in there but I always make a point of using English, not math, and to make it comprehensible to anybody who wants to know. I agree with what you have said and suggest you avail yourself of my previous comments so I don’t have to repeat what I said.
Glenn, spot on. Very well articulated.
Sorry for jumping from the ropes into the ring on you, Glenn. I should have reined it in long enough to say Hello, and Welcome, and despite the rowdiness I think it’s a great move to ‘go active’, bounce your own pennies off the wall!
In college, around 1980, I went for the full German program, to avoid all the gimmicky Composition-Lit courses. I was aware of who the Prof was, a German national immigrated after WWII.
Turned out, he was a pubescent in Dresden, a bright kid already long channeled into the Old European scholasticism-curricula, when it was firebombed. He lost his family and was evacuated to some old hillbilly couple out in the Black Forest. He loved to retell the story of the barrel they kept behind the stove, adding fruit-trimmings (eaten-apple cores) and left-over mush and bread-crusts … carefully dipping rations of low-test brew from deeper down. Then he would shudder in revulsion.
Each summer he made a major tour through East Germany, examining Communist social programs and giving sanctioned talks. I believe his family were native Easterners. He wasn’t a Commie, but he didn’t go with the usual Western hard-line, either. He thought Marx was daft; a comic-book intellectual.
Even as a kid, he was already taking classic Greek & Latin training. He taught introductory course in both at college, at night, alternating quarters. I took both from him, after my first semester in his regular day-class. These night ancient language class were really an eclectic bunch. A good scatter of European exchange students, in all his classes.
So it turned out to be a lot better than just dodging Freshman Requirements. There’s a bit of Herr Schneider’s classes, here at WUWT. 🙂
+ as many as I am allowed.
TE and RB should be here defending themselves. Instead, silence. Shame on both.
This is a very good reply. I am thinking of collecting some of the best and try to get them posted in a new post. I think the ” why” and “how could such a big lie be believed or spread” question, should be thoroughly discussed. I think that the goals and motivations you have mentions should be discussed here a little more. It is the driver for CAGW alarmist scientist.
Gary Pearse November 27, 2014 at 6:33 am
Yeah, but you guys ignore all real pollution. CO2 is your one trick pony. You are even happy about the risk using mercury curly bulbs to reduce CO2 and at the same time regulate the tiny amount of Hg from coal fired plants just to shut down the CO2 emissions. Its the hypocrisy of all this that galls. BTW, what do you drive, where do you take your holidays?
Coal fired power plants provide ~50% of the US Hg emissions that’s a long way from a ‘tiny amount’!
I am not at all versed on mercury. What is the data to support a concern from US coal plants? Increase in ??? disease down wind from plants??
I think it’s making us all stupid. Take Phil., for example…
Mark
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/01/mercury-the-trickster-god/
I think I have found my answer. There is no direct health effects measured, BUT, the downstream levels in sport fish COULD be a problem if eaten every day. Since this is an easy fix by all coal plants to install modern scrubbers, it is OK by me to mandate it. Those that don’t will switch to natural gas.
Globally natural sources are responsible for 30%-50% of Hg emissions. As for the rest Cement production, Incineration of waste, Gold mining, Burning of other fossil fuels, burning wood and Cremation (teeth fillings) should be added to burning of coal.
Thanks.. but how about the data on adverse heath effects? Surely coal burning states should have higher rates of something health related.
Even a little bit of Uranium is good for you! Your red granite counter is actually ore grade at a couple of hundred bucks a lb of oxide. A geiger counter turned on is never quiet. All 92 elements are to be found in a teaspoon of dirt. I’ve got amalgam fillings in me 50-60 years old and I’m a healthy old guy. Just because you can measure it in parts per trillion, doesn’t say it’s a worry.
Not long ago, there was a determination with considerable alarm by some over-educated cretin that he found several parts per trillion of Sb (antimony) in water from plastic bottles (the plastic is made using an Sb catalyst). He was unaware that high analysis antimony compounds are used as a medicine.
It’s the same with mercury. Yes volatilized mercury is dangerous and dosages of a number of its compounds are similarly known to be toxic, but such compounds such as amalgam for teeth and mercurochrome as an antiseptic (recommended for “scarless” healing) have had long uneventful usage. Nevertheless, the mercury scares (some legitimate) have resulted in the removal from use of many things like mercurochrome and mercury thermometers. Yet, when it comes to the AGW scare, we are encouraged to buy Chinese curly mercury light bulbs!!! Tell me you haven’t simply swept up your broken curly lightbulb and thrown it in the garbage instead of calling in some kind of mercury swat team to clean it up.
You are right that natural sources of Hg emissions make up about 50%. That in itself should tell you that it isn’t such a problem in the dosages we are alarmed about. It apparently damages the brain. We kids used to play with it because it was such cool stuff and heading for eighty, I can still recite the periodic table of the elements and still consult on the geology, mining and processing of rare metals – rare earths, Li, Rb, Cs, Platiinum, tantalum, niobium, etc. Don’t be afraid.
Commentary on the SCOTUS review of the Utility MACT Rule
http://junkscience.com/2014/11/28/commentary-on-the-scotus-review-of-the-utility-mact-rule/
Anyone who brings Nazis into a scientific argument is ignored. IT’S Sad that there are skeptics that defend this guy.
I salute you Anthony.
Dr. Tim ball…You are an Ass.
Blue sky writes “Anyone who brings Nazis into a scientific argument is ignored”
Except by you and several hundred other people!
I try to reconcile your outrage with Suzuki and Kennedy saying there should be a law to jail ‘deniers’.. That somehow reminds me of the ‘thirties’.. and yellow arm bands, the jail, then.. so you see, I get concerned about the CAGW crowd. Should I take them at their word? Dare I vote them into office? Am I a sheep? Is T. Ball not an echo to my concerns?
You might surprised to learn that you have believed the “small lie”…..
Did Dr. Ball use Naz! or Naz!sm in his post? No, That would be Dr. Edwards, Prof. Betts, Anthony Watts and now you and many others whose reading comprehension is apparently lacking.
Can’t hold their liquor. Dr. Ball serves them a taste of hot-spiked rhetoric, and they’re drunk outa their gourds.
So Nazism and all the ruin it wrought has no lessons for us anymore? We are never to use the terrible examples of Nazi Germany in order to illustrate behaviours which might in some way resemble what the Germans created in the last century? Okey dokey. Let me know when we have decided to ignore history altogether, after all, what can the past teach us? For the record, the big lie was brought in to the argument to illustrate a political rather than scientific argument.
No, hauling out history’s more-vile figures to characterize climate activism is not a measured or proportional response.
Are we forgetting about Russia? Venezuela and Argentina? The Middle East and radical Islam? Lots of bigger worries than climate-sensationalism.
Global Warming is gasping, eyes rolling white in its head. The models are fluff. The climate is fine. It’s a charade. Alternative energy is a bust. The price of oil is in free-fall. OPEC is in shambles.
No. There’s nothing in the climate-circus says it warrants the H-man treatment.
Grandma will lay this sucker out cold, with a chad.
Quite. The use of propaganda was at the heart of the Nazi machine.
Ted Clayton. The CAGW scare is killing the poor in the Third World. 2 million die of smoke related disease each year – cheap electricity would stop this. Biofuels add to hunger. This is in effect, indirect eugenics. CAGW is an assault on humanity, hurting the poor and the deprived the most.
jeremyp99,
(Sorry for the delay; I ‘hid’ this in my reply-Tabs.)
The general idea behind the wood-fire disease-morbidity example is a big & important one. It’s what’s behind large parts of epidemiology and the CDC, etc. But we also have to keep our heads up & eyes open, in this field … as it is easily ‘exploited’.
Our response to the theme of ‘starving children in Africa’, eg, required a major reassessment, after it was noticed that countries and regions were ‘creating’ such children, to attract our benevolent attention … and funding.
Smoky cooking fires have been noticed, all along. A wide range of approaches have been tried. The biggest factor maintaining the smoke, is that they live in hot and often humid country. This is the tropics & subtropics.
They don’t need/want the heat, from a fire. So they deliberately maintain a (relatively cool) smouldering cook-fire (that’s why dung is popular). The fuel lasts longer, too. That’s what generates 95%+ of the smoke, pure & simple.
Cheap electricity would help, but of course first off, electricity is certainly not cheap. Right now, the price of oil is falling, and generally other sources of energy will follow. But overall, longer-term, we expect energy-prices to continue with an historic climb, for a few more decades. We used to tell (tease) children; “You can catch a bird, by putting salt on it’s tail.”
Secondly, and more in-their-face, is that installing distribution powerlines is much more problematic, than it is in the West. And for that matter, it is now very difficult to build new powerlines, in the USA. In Africa, oil pipelines are often punctured, to swipe the crude. Protecting powerlines, even if they could be erected, is a serious issue in lots of the regions where we would like to see improvements.
Realistically, the main driver today behind lamenting & targeting the smoky cookfires of poor regions is not really the effects on health, but instead is motivated by perceived environmental effects. “Wood-burning is denuding/destroying the ecology!”
I have no concerns about your own honest concerns, but by now we are all-too-aware of the hazards in an ‘overly-simplified’ analysis of these issues.
Ted
It takes one to know one
Anthony has put an enormous amount of effort into creating this splendid blog and so must be entirely free to include or exclude whatever he wants. However, given that Climategate showed some proponents of the CAGW scare to be lying,it’s surely legitimate for Dr Tim Ball (and others) to speculate on their motives. Future historians surely will.
“Guest opinion: Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards”
The Richard Betts who thinks that climate models are not that important?
Hey, Betts, that’s a nice turnaround! Hey, can we have our money back? Please sell the taxpayer funded supercomputers for scrap and refund us will ya?
Any ambulance chasers preparing a class action lawsuit against the warmist crooks yet? I’m game!
Hmm funny that, or not so funny depending on if you pay taxes to HMG Exchequer.
“Fork out for a new super computer!” they cried!
I cried, the pain of it is too much…… “Wot another one?” We spilled £33 million on a new super computer not 6 years have passed………!?#!
Dame Slingo exhorts the government – all your problems will be solved at the keyboards in the Exeter ‘hive’. Exeter, [Hadley centre and Richard Betts] for reasons only beknownst to our idiot Westminster polity presiding over the plebeians, once again the poor old taxpayers ARE NEVER consulted!…….Yep, all those global warming advocates – aka the civil servants down in Exeter – will shorty be in receipt of a new super computer and at the princely sum of £100 mil’.
Alas but even at £100 million – if the supposition is bunk [CAGW] all you’ll get out – is junk science.
Hell’s teeth, why do we put up with and continue to fund these mountebanks?
Fantastic isn’t it. All the new computer will do is generate rubbish quicker than the previous machine.
Result.
The noble doctor and the esteemed professor will pay back all of the public money they have received, just as soon as the IPCC confirms that there is nothing to worry about.
That’s what they said. In a quiet moment. In a silent way.
Just watched a horse in the winners circle at Woodbine, it was huffing and puffing while the humans tried to make it stand still for a photo after running its guts out, I swear the horse was looking around for some real competition.
I am surprised that with so many learned folk here that no one mentioned this.
Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party embraced and even promoted Welteislehre (World Ice Theory / World Ice Doctrine), also known as Glazial-Kosmogonie (Glacial Cosmogony).
So in a sense, the Nazis promoted a crack-pot climate theory to further their political agenda.
The comparison between Nazi misuse of science and the IPCC misuse of science for political advantage could very well be justified.
It occurs to me that suggesting Dr. ball has ‘sunk to a new low’ is somewhat of an insult and not exactly civil. So maybe the authors should stop their sniveling. Also, while it might be Mr Watts’ view that we all ought to gravitate towards the middle I would submit that Dr.s Betts and Edwards are doing no such thing. Moreover, is it necessarily the case that the middle is where we ought to be? What if, contrary to Mr Watts view, the truth lies elsewhere?
Noting these words from the authors of this post:
“We were also disappointed that so few commenters below the post distanced themselves from his views.”
Think about how ironic this statement is, since virtually the entire collection of AGW advocates community and green energy advocates, including academia have been silent on the numerous, extensive distortions promulgated my a major sector of that community. This extends to the top of one political party using such terms as deniers, flat earther”s, etc.
Are they deaf to the nasty comments from Pelosi, Boxer, Gore, etc.
How much longer do we have to sustain an annual budget of 20+ billion dollars for climate change to fund the distortion and promises of failed green energy for “settled science”.. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
Also I find it appalling how the global warming community clung to the hockey stick story well after it was shown to be flawed. It virtually took an act of Congress to extract the truth.
If the authors can show they have been critical of the above GW claims in writing, I will apologize.
Given the treatment of those who do not confirm to the party line it would be a pleasant surprise.
It is clear what causes the current lack of public interest in climate.
There is NOT ENOUGH NAME CALLING. You can’t have a WWF match between someone nicknamed The Hulk and someone called John Smith.
So let us call someone who takes every new excuse for the observed lack of warming at face value, like “the heat went in the deep ocean without causing any dilation, without raising temps there more than they rose before, and without being noticed on its way, and will jump back defying thermodynamics,” let us call someone like that a `gullible.’
Someone who is willing to pay for bringing back the weather of the past, which had more tornadoes and droughts, a `mark.’
Someone who would enact energy taxes passed to the poor to subsidize cars for the rich a `cynic.’
Someone who knows the Arctic ice surface announced yesterday, a `data freak.’
And so on. Imagine a Sunday TV debate between a denier, a skeptic and a data freak vs a gullible, a mark and a cynic about spending a trillion to reduce the current 3mm/year sea level rise to the 3mm/year sea level rise from a century ago.
A skeptic vs a cynic on how many poor is it OK to freeze to death in order to raise the subsidy for a Tesla from $30k to $40k.
A denier vs a gullible, on: “If the poor freeze before they have children, how does that save their grandchildren?”
Or, refreshingly without names, two Sierra Club folks on “The last California condor: fried at Ivanpah or chopped at Altamont?”
If anyone still has the stomach . . . .
http://www.listener.co.nz/category/climate-change-current-affairs/
Yes it is behind a paywall , but really . . . . surely you have seen enough?
While I find the idea of comparing anyone with Nazis to be appalling, I can’t help but think about some of the things that have been said about sceptics. We’ve been called Flat Earthers, moon landing deniers, racists, fringe scientists and a few less polite names as well. I’ve seen politicians insisting that sceptics be locked up and punished, college professors who insist on war crime trials for sceptics and a movie that shows children’s heads being blown off for not agreeing with the consensus.
If you want to be treated with respect you have to earn it. Disparaging people for holding legitimate viewpoints just because they disagree is no way to encourage positive reactions. People have to command respect, not demand respect.
For Betts and Edwards, Occasional random acts of kindness are not enough. There needs to be consistency and constancy.
“How much longer do we have to sustain an annual budget of 20+ billion dollars for climate change to fund the distortion and promises of failed green energy for “settled science”.. ”
As long as the money goes into the bank accounts of Richard Betts, Tamsin Edwards and the rest of the parasites.
Jolly Farmer, you hit the nail on the head
And since they only have one high school formula, a CO2 control knob and science that is settled (they haven’t really changed anything since the human-caused global warming meme was handed down to them by Maurice Strong, a new world order socialist elite who never went beyond high school nor even knows what science is about), why is it costing billions a year with no progress – the same climate sensitivity, the same feedbacks…..give them all a final paycheck and a pink slip. Why do we need several hundred thousand climate scientists and growing?
The consensus claimed the end of the world was nigh. However, members of the consensus did not change their habits, profited from a carbon credit exchange, and still that was not enough. The consensus now wants to use government force to extract private capital and redistribute it to minority consensus holders. The consensus has exploited flat-Earth “science”, and corrupted science, in order to create political, economic, and social leverage. The consensus’s strategy and tactics are vaguely familiar. Not necessarily socialist, or even communist, but certainly left-wing.
I am disappointed at those who took offense at Tim Ball’s original post. I thought it a good idea to take on the “how” of getting a big lie believed by the masses. I think it very important to discuss this as we figure out how to undo the big lie. I suggest that Tim Ball be given a sincere apology. I read the original article and many of the comments and found it relevant to the present problem of overly politicized pseudo science.
If we cannot use one of the biggest examples of the big lie from the past to attempt to defeat it, to show people how it has been done in the past and now in the present, we’re in a world of hurt. I’m sticking up for Tim Ball. I thought it was a good article and on point.
I agree with all those who say we should not compromise. Regardless of motive, they need to be defeated utterly.
Edmund Burke is attributed with this quote “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” This is false. “Good men who do nothing” (scare quotes, not quote quotes) is an oxymoron. Not speaking up about bad or deceptive science is not a virtue and should not be treated as such.
I have a lot of time for Tim Ball, especially in view of his relentless persecution by deep-pockets Mann. But his opinion pieces (and sometimes his comments) do show a lack of judgement, which is not suprising as he is a scientist and not a historian, policy analyst or writer by profession.
The article itself was a jumbled mess, and he certainly didn’t make it clear that the comments from Mein Kampf were directed at Jews. Presenting that quote the way he did was always going to derail discussion of his wider points. He needs a good editor, badly.
While I tend to agree with those who discount trying to attribute motive, again I suspect that some of the problem was just bad writing. What he really seemed to want to discuss was something rather different – the drivers of the climate catastrophe movement.
That said, the notion that just because a few people went to a nice dinner party recently means that everything is fine and “why can’t we all just get along” is disingenuous at best. Ball never mentioned (conspicuous by his absence) Richard Betts, or Tamsin Edwards. Their aggrieved response, reminiscent of the perpetually aggrieved individuals that pop up every time someone says something they don’t like, even if it’s not about them, hardly merited a reply post which was incidentally content-free.
Since when is “someone said something mean in the playground” worthy of a post here?
Thanks, Johanna … you took the words right off my keyboard!
Just one additional note (for the record): Ball is being sued not only by the ‘free speech for me but not for thee’ Mann, but also by Canada’s own Andrew “climate change is a barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles” Weaver, as I had noted a few years ago.
My perception of Betts, over the years, is that he seems to have a penchant for making much ado about nothing. But then, considering that his preferred mode of “communication” is via twitter [11.5 K tweets since Jan. 2010], perhaps this is not as surprising as it might seem on the surface.
Certainly my own experiences of attempting to engage Betts in more substantive dialogue over the years have been considerably less than salutary. e.g. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/12/2/quantifying-uncertainties-in-climate-science.html?currentPage=3#comments – my comment of Dec 5, 2012 at 3:28 AM, as well as those of others in that particular thread … I found it quite enlightening, on occasion – more for what was not said than for what was – and at a mere 224 posts, not too long a read!
Professor Betts & Dr. Edwards,
The statement “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” seems completely out of place in a reply to, or a criticism of, Dr. Ball’s post. Dr. Ball didn’t call anyone a Nazi; no individual was even depicted as being Nazi-like. Parallels were made between the propaganda methods of the Nazi’s and the lies that are being told everyday about the Climate. (The Nazis’ were very good at it … it worked to fool, mislead, and allow for rationalization of actions/inaction by a lot of people; It worked to drive a certain society in a direction that allowed for unlimited control by the Nazi’s.)
It is likely that neither one of you is a Nazi. And it is my guess, based on your above writing skills, that if you were compared to a Nazi because of the way you dress, or get your hair cut, then you would not have been offended in the least (… consider the source, consider the stupidity of the insult, and forget about it …). But, generally the more accurate at criticism is, the more offense is taken. It is yourselves, Betts & Edwards, that have made the incorrect leap in logic that you were being called Nazi’s ….
One other tactic of a good propagandist (politician, lawyer, or climate scientist) that Dr. Ball did not elaborate on is that the manipulator/liar will try to put the turd in the other guy’s pocket. Some of the above posts show that you have successfully done that. My advice to Dr. Ball would that he holds his ground and makes sure that he keeps you (and Mr. Watts) away from his pockets.
I also have a few questions for you. Can either one of you look in the mirror and honestly say “I never used the 97% percent B.S. to my advantage, knowing all along that it was complete crap” ? Can you honestly say you never utilized or quoted any of the commonly accepted propaganda exaggerations to make a point in one of your lectures? Have you never derided a student that had an opinion that differed from your accepted CAGW hypothesis?
And finally, how long have the two of you been trying to “depolarize and detoxify the climate discussion” ? Has it only been since the famous dinner at Nic’s place, or have you actively been reaching out over the last 10 years? Mebbe, you’re starting your good will efforts with the above post…? In any case, it would go a long way if you would acknowledge some of the propaganda/lies that have allowed the global warming scare to proceed as far as it has and then publicly ask the bad guys on your side to knock it off.
This is excellent Jeff. I hope Anthony Watts will read this and reconsider his remarks about Dr Ball. I think he and Tamsin and Betts owe Dr Ball an apology. I really think that they didn’t read his article.
Tim Ball’s comments were refreshingly accurate and to the point: a beautiful synthesis.
As a scientist, though, I find that he could have developed more the part where the consensus climate fellows are scientists on the take.
The pay in the US alone, according to the US budget, is $2.7bn/year, or about $10 million a day in climate scare grants. More than that in Europe.
What is bought by these $10 million a day is among others those 97% confidence bad models. All erring ON THE SAME SIDE, warming. Statistically speaking, this kind of error distribution is virtually impossible to obtain at random.
The ONLY possibility is that the models are wrong ON PURPOSE. Not accidentally, not by incompetence, not due to limitations of data or computing power.
The models are INTENTIONALLY bad. That’s simply what $10 million/day buys you, these days. A branch of fake science where practitioners go through the moves and produce EXACTLY the results that you are paying them to produce.
PS I am looking forward to the day when you can buy your very own climate scientist on craigslist, for a week. Say you bought a Tesla for $120,000. For another $50k, a fully credentialed climate scientist would write the modern equivalent of an ode or a saga or a narco ballad, singing how future generations will be grateful for what you did, and publish it in a scientific journal.
A ballad like
but centered around you, your new renewable gear and the climate which stopped changing due to you and your gear.
“The statement “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” seems completely out of place in a reply to, or a criticism of, Dr. Ball’s post.”
Indeed.
The problem with that phrase is the absurd logic of it. It is primitive level of reasoning. Something not to be expected in WUWT.
It is like saying that nothing can be criticized because can have the same retort irrespective of the criticism merits.
Members of Global Warming team called for “deniers” to be jailed for their opinion. Isn’t that nazi/communist like?
Tip: We are all big boys here and can handle Dr. Ball speaking his mind, no one confuses what he says with Anthony’s position on anything. I cannot believe Anthony fell for these peer-pressure tactics by two cry babies who do not appreciate freedom of speech. And for the love of God don’t fall for one of the most useless people in this debate – Mosher’s manipulations of censoring every position he does not agree with.
Do you really think the other side is sitting here going, “Oh I am going to take Anthony Watts more seriously now because he does not let Dr. Ball post on his site anymore” – ROFLMAO, what sort of delusional world do you live in?
No one cares about these pretentious dinner meetings either.
I have to agree – as I have said I really like this site – but on this occasion I am really disappointed that an open discussion making comparisons with the Big Lie, which on the face of it is perfectly reasonable, is disparaged, but a counter post with a picture of John Cleese goose stepping is approved by AW on the strength of a dinner party association. This has not furthered his quest for better debate. Mentioning the Big Lie in the context of a bad thing should not ever have been disparaged in this way. However the use of the picture and the words (goose) step in the title have labelled his ‘friends’ as the worst kind of ‘warmists’. I am not saying that is necessarily true of Tamsin and Richard, but this was definitely misguided and counter intuitive
I made a visit to the Tamsin Edwards blog and red.
“I used to be a particle physicist. Sadly, I left before it became cool to be a particle physicist.”
“Now that I’m a climate scientist”
I made a comment, not accepted by her, and asked what she should do when it no longer was cool to be a climate scientist.
She reminds me of the many very talented PhD students I met 15 to 20 years ago on EU applied energy R&D projects. They went to projects where positions where available. About 1992 top priority was energy efficiency and lowNox. 15 years later top priority was climate change.
Eye to eye people agreed with my opinion that there is no scientific evidence for the change. On EU DG XII Expert meetings It was impossible to get support. Around 2002 important people said. “It’s to late to protest”
Tamsin Edwards takes advantage of the political propaganda. As Nazism is a topic in this post, and and the post by Dr Ball, I suggest the film Taking Sides with Stellan Skarsgård and Harvey Keitel. (About conductor Wilhelm Fürtwengler)
Being nice to a bully on the play ground will not protect your lunch money.
Being nice to a bully on the world political stage will not protect your tax money, freedom, liberty or get you invited to a inside the cult steak and lobster dinner.
It will take just one thing, stand the ground and fight.
They project weakness that is why they hide behind new more hard to dismantle frauds.
Betts and Edwards,
Remind us again of your evidence for dangerous man-made climate change.
Seems to me you represent one of the first steps in the gradual climb-down of the scientific establishment, trying to build a consensus with sceptics to gradually finesse the two ends of the spectrum together, and hope we’ll all forget that all the alarmists have been wrong on everything.
Again, WHAT’S YOUR EVIDENCE?
Frankly I’m shocked that wattsupwiththat has allowed this ad-hom attack on tim ball to be posted…. Nothing in richard “thew I refuse to debate but troll you and claim to be a nice guy” betts and dr “Timmy” tamsin post counter a single argument, fact or reality put forth by tim ball(or anyone else for that matter). This post is nothing but ad-hom whining and crying.
Worse still is the fact that anyone who knows betts knows he openly supports fascism. At least if your educated enough to know what fascism is.
One of the most fundamental parts of science is calling a spade a spade… does anthony even know what fascism, nazism, communism and how they reach these goals both from a historic point of view as well as a purely theoretical point of view? I highly doubt it.
This post is nothing more then classic AGW propaganda say the debate is over except in this case its the debate is over we are not fascist. If anthony truly believe that betts is not a fascist then lets debate it…. I will be happy to break down to end the level that a kindergarten will understand that yes betts is a fascist.
Much like algore though betts knows the true he refuses to debate and does anything and everything to avoid having to deal with reality.
Mosher and his analogy of the “have you stopped beating your wife” question is silly. He forgot the preface, which is “Answer yes or no….. “.
It is clear to any adult reader with a reasonable grasp of the language, what the question Ball is really asking in his first paragraph, underneath his overcomplicated prose. And, any reasonable reader would expect a response from Betts and/or Edwards along the lines of ” Yes there is a plausible but uncertain case both for and against the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth’s environment, and it the subject of efforts to determine the actual values”. Yet while we see many responses from others, along those lines, but so far neither of the pair have attempted to answer the question.
Mosher offers chop-logic.
IMO, contrary to Mosher’s “time out for Tim Ball” statement above, both Edwards and Betts should be called to the carpet for this hit piece and asked to defend the egregious failure in their reading comprehension regarding Ball’s post. They should either respond that they erred, and offer a sincere apology, or be banned from any further guest posts themselves. This is nothing but a drive-by from two “respected” climate “scientists.”
Shame on everyone that supports this nonsense.
Mark
Let me replace “Nazi” with “pedophile” in the context of this discussion. The CAGW alarmist have, for many years, claimed the “high ground” using terms related to “Nazi” in their propaganda.
A Nazi analogy is little different that relating one to a pedophile. So Mr Betts, are you going to continue to support the pedophiles that have been raping the nations’ youth with propaganda to support and advance their perverted “cause”? I am being raped by proxy. With your past support of the “cause” are you guilty of multiple counts of rape by proxy?
Do you want everything to now be OK with a retreat of your previous actions by simply pleading for an understanding and compromise? Are you still a supporter of pedophilia or just looking for a plea agreement on your own terms? Is your ship sinking and you now want rescue within your own terms? You have a lot to answer for.
BTW, a full blown rout is no time to try to negotiate favorable terms of defeat. Surrender to the truth if you want mercy.
Mr. Betts, this has been focused on you. There are those much more guilty than you that need to be called to account. Incarceration, confiscation, etc. comes to mind.
Judge, jury and executioner.
A novel thought……, it might work ?
My previous comment was not so much directed at you, Mr Betts, as it was at those you have sanctified in the past. But I will say it certainly would be directed at those who have been the active players in the scam well known as CAGW. You have been their spokesman in the past so it would seem reasonable to assume that you continue to do so.
If one goes to the University of Bristol’s website page for Dr. Tamsin Edwards, a “favourite” quote about her states:
“If most climate scientists were like Tamsin, there’d be hardly any sceptics”.
This quote was from a Twitter exchange between Richard Betts and Paul Mathews, who provided the quote.
Dr. Edwards pipes in the exchange, stating: “Heartstoppingly brilliant praise – thank you so much”
No. It was a brilliantly horrible phrase. The quote is backwards. It should read, “If most climate scientists were sceptics, there’d hardly be any Tamsins”
This is the root problem with climate science. Elites patting themselves on the back with no one questioning the science.
I’m sure Dr. Richard Feynman is rolling in his grave.
Dang you formatting to heck! Last two sentences should not be italicized.
There is no evidence for catastrophic man-made climate change, and all the evidence in the world against it. So-called “climate scientists” must know this, which means they are paid liars who should be held in contempt, at best.
I’d like to think that there will come a terrible reckoning when the world wakes up to how they have lied and profited thereby, but more likely they’ll enjoy undeserved pensions from their ill-gotten gains.
Totally agreed. AGW is a pseudo-scientific fantasy as I pointed out in my comments. The science is there to prove it and those responsible for the operation of this scam should be brought to justice. Forthwith, without delay.
Dear skeptics, please try to understand that nobody in this AGW-tragedy on either side, is intending to do any harm, well, almost nobody. We are probably all a bit of world saviors, wishing the best world for our grandchildren. The only problem is the disagreement about how to do that, especially given the enormous uncertainty factor and the inevitable tribal groupthink tendency in stress situations, especially when the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it moral panic scenario’s are involved. This creates the strong us-versus-them situation, which is clearly visible in the majority of posts here.
Evidently, Prof Richard Betts and Dr Tamsin Edwards attempt to overcome those biases on both sides and obviously then it’s time endorse that, bury the hatchet and pass on the calumet, rethink the scientific method and discuss climate accordingly in an objective way, without politics and fundings.
And really, nobody gains by more polarisation and demands for justice to be done.
What’s wrong with a demand for justice?
Said nobody ever, when on the winning side of a bet.
are you serious a picture of a goose stepping Basil Fawlty under this thread’s heading is absolutely not an Olive branch and an attempt to slur a perfectly reasonable argument which could have been discussed rather than attacked in such a poorly thought out way. I appreciate lefty that you are having a go at peace making, but the silence from those that caused this is deafening
“…nobody … Is intending to do any harm ….”
PPHHtttt.
Judging someone’s intent is a tough thing to do. But, if that someone repeatedly exagerates, or feels a need to align themselves with those who exagerate to make their point(s), you should be very suspect of their intentions.
And could you please eloborate on what you mean by “AGW-tragedy” … if you would do that your post would make more sense.
Rapist believe the same thing while they are playing with their victim whom they believe is “enjoying” it.
We are way past the innocent child that AGW was back in the 1980s. If the debate had stayed in the science pie in the sky world you might have an argument. However we are well into the trillions of policy and law “adjustments”. Not to even talk about the thousands that lost jobs directly because of not believing in global warming.
Begging for mercy as everyone can see plainly your crimes near the end of the trial have rarely in a sane court gotten that person mercy.
Hey, I was just trying to appeal to reason attempt to break through the vicious circle of accumulating hostilities.
Having said that, I know that the AGW myth is the result of herd behavior, the urge to have a terrible threat or deadly enemy like predators, the other tribe, devils, dragons, global warming, anything to be frightened of so that we can crowd together in fear and be social. Obviously, people who obstruct that must be traitors who are consorting with the enemy (that’s us). That’s the mechanism we are looking at, not only for AGW but just about any human tragedy in the past, the wars, the revoltutions, witch-hunts, crusades, what have you. All to be classified as moral panic, tribalism and groupthink. See also Judith Curry’s blog: http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/25/groups-and-herds-implications-for-the-ipcc/
The tragedy of AGW that it made “us” make terribly wrong political decisions, resulting in severe future fuel poverty when we are unable to keep warm with all the failing wind turbine with broken bearings in a next random little ice age.
There is very little hope to reverse these processes. But I’m sure that striving for a friendly neutral diplomatic dialogue would have more chance than ranting for justice. Sometimes one has to shallow pride.
Nothing changes if all you do is pat the people at fault on the back and say “do better next time”.
Also I’m not sure what you mean by “appeal to reason attempt to break through the vicious circle of accumulating hostilities.”
Right now one side aka the cultists have stolen trillions of dollars, created laws and rules based on lies, forced the firing of scientists and others who don’t believe, demand more money, demanded sane people be fired from jobs, jailed, even killed for solely the crime of non-belief.
vs
Sane people demanding that the insane cultists be fired for lying, fraud, theft, and many other crimes.
Sane people demanding that the insane cultists be jailed for lying, fraud, theft and many other crimes.
Sane people demanding that insane cultists be hanged for knowingly spreading terror, working with enemies of the people with the idea to overthrow legitimate governments, theft on a muti-billion/muti-trillion dollar scale, crimes against humanity, attempts to bring back slavery and so much more.
One can only describe this as a ” vicious circle of accumulating hostilities” if one were also to say hitler, stalin, mao’s death camps were just a “vicious circle of accumulating hostilities”. The reality is its simple sanity vs insanity.
temp
November 30, 2014 at 8:19 am
Nothing changes if all you do is pat the people at fault on the back and say “do better next time”.
=========
Your point is well understood.
temp, eyesonu,
I understand your emotions, but really this won’t solve anything, it will just trigger the exact opposite effect of what was intended. Mind that most, the vast majority out there in the other camp, has no beginning of a notion of reality. They are just causal bystanders, groupthinking passively, whilst happily absorbing the raging sermons of the moral enterpreneurs and the justifications of the mindguards. To the other camp, unexpected and not understood rants are likely confirming their tribal enemy image projection, reinforcing the ditochomy. Hence it won’t solve anything and it works just totally counterproductively.
You’d be surprised what force can be in diplomacy and a kind word and clean unbiased science.
I don’t know whether to laugh or puke at this. I have worked with real live diplomats… and a slimery creature you would be hard to find. I’ve also played a lot of games that either have a diplomat position as official or unofficial. I also know trolling history and have studied the first two acts of trolling… the diplomat troll and the academy troll.
Your post reads just like something one of our diplomats would plot out when out group attacked another group and suddenly people rushed to help defend them. Then our predictions and expectations were wrong, and we suddenly think were going to lose this fight or at the very least lose the gains we’ve made. The diplomats would write nicely worded letters about how we should stop the fighting and how we will both lose if we don’t, etc, etc, etc. If it didn’t work or we didn’t think it would work from the start we would head to the forums and the diplos would post the slavish messages to the public. The goal was to prevent more people rallying to the enemies side. Then the diplos get on the alt accounts and they post like you do… so much verbiage…such wonderful “rational” arguments…
The point was for it to seem like us(the attacker) was reasonable, kind, not an enemy to everyone etc, etc. If you look at the run up to WW2 both germany and the ussr were aces at this game. By first sounding reasonable, responsible, etc, etc, etc through official talk that doesn’t change much or effect much. However when counter comments come who’s better to field those comments? The official source who is not believed or a third party “common man” on the street person… always better with the third party. Make them sound reasonable and thus they make the official source seem more reasonable.
Whats truly scary is both how easy and how effective this simple method is…. at least against stupid and poorly educated people anyway. As a troll hehe not so effective against me.
Anthony is clearly being played by the “nice guy” version of this troll. Something that was also used alot in the run up to WW2. Death camps guards had families, friends, kids, they weren’t some robot task force. I also found it more interesting to read the personal mail sent from the death guards to their families. Makes you remember that these are completely “normal” people. Sadly due to ignorance much of it willful people take things at face value. How many jews were turned in by the family next door? Who they had dinner with and talked with for years….? Who they thought were good honest friends….? Many thousands… people are in such a rush to dehumanize normal human behavior and believe that the normal human is somehow not normal.
As to your argument of counterproductive… one can make this argument for anything. Its counterproductive to say when you catch a criminal your going to charge him with all these crimes and find him guilty then punish him harshly… He’s not going to want to turn himself in then. However if you promise to only give him a few months in jail for rape and murder I’m sure he will gladly turn himself in…
Counter-productivity is often in the eye of the beholder… sure demanding criminal charges against many in the AGW network is going to heavily decrease the chance they will openly admit guilt… to which I say so what.
In the real world the only way for fair diplomacy and bridge building to start would be if the playing field was even… a return to thing before the war you could say. In order to do that the following would have to happen.
Cultists would admit that global warming is completely unproven.
Cultist will have to demand and be successful in the repeal of all actions, laws, policies based on global warming.
Cultist will have to demand and be successful in that all funding for any actions, research, policy, laws be stopped for 10 years.
Cultist would have to demand and be successful in a complete restarted of the scientific process which means thing like the IPCC would not be about start as their goal was to 1. prove global warming was real and 2. prove man was causing it. Also projects and research would assume that warming is unknown and any cause is unknown.
If that were to happen then some type of diplomacy could start… but thats not going to happen.
What cultists betts/tamsin want/offering is the following.
Skeptics to admit they acted badly, were mean, etc, etc, etc
Skeptics to admit that cultists didn’t act in bad faith, committed no crimes, etc, etc, etc
Skeptics to admit that global warming could be real and we should prepare no matter what.
Skeptics to allow all laws, money, policy, etc, etc, etc to stay on the books
Skeptics to allow the continued massive funding of propaganda aka “science” on global warming.
Skeptics to allow more laws, policy based on the old “science” and new “science”.
Skeptics to STFU.
In return
Cultist will admit they are not perfect and thus couldn’t exactly figure when global warming will happen but it will happen.
Cultist will admit that a small fringe element may have been mean, nasty or otherwise toward skeptics
Thats the current breakdown of cultists demands by people like betts and timmy the tamsin… call me unimpressed by their “surrender” or how productive “diplomacy” is.
Temp,
I guess we have to agree that we disagree. Essentially I think that the vast majority of alarmists are essentially victims of groupthink, apart from some odd extremist moral warriors, who are easily identifyable with climategate and other incidents. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3791464?uid=3738736&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21105330608783
Obviously the keyword is “victims”, not nearly the same as perpetrators. However, if one is to consider them as perpetrators, one is victim oneself of groupthink/moral panic, seeking a common enemy to form ones own group. Somebody has to break this tendency. Victims need guidance and understanding, while you can hold the few moral warriors fully responsible for the results of their actions.
But I do understand if this sounds highly incomprehensible. Study Irving Janis and Stanley Cohen on groupthink and moral panic.
Lets not agree to disagree… thats the biggest line of anti-science retardation ever uttered. Your argument is to let anyone and everyone off of everything. Cultists have victimized countless untold millions… does this mean if they start killing cultists wholesale that you will be the first to stand up and say “they were victims they its ok not to punish them”. Will you? Being a victim doesn’t give you free for all rights to do whatever ever you feel like. You talk about “vicious circle of accumulating hostilities” but you approve and support said circle. No one thinks that every cultists should be slaughter even me who loves a good killing and thinks killing is generally the best problem solver doesn’t even believe killing them amass will be good. So your argument is spaciest at best.
You seem at this point to writing simply because you can’t debate anymore, because you’ve run out of anything that can sound even remotely rational, based in science or logic. What next play the race card?
Temp
I see that the new element in your exposition is: “Lets not agree to disagree… thats the biggest line of anti-science retardation ever uttered.”
I beg to differ. In my world, science advances by disagreement. Using consensus, for example, we would still think that phlogiston is the matter of which fire is made, and we yet would have to discover oxygen. On the other hand, readers who would have taken the trouble to google some of the terms and names I used here, would have read that the seeking of consensus is a central, most important issue in groupthink. I am not a groupthinker and I’m perfectly happy if we differ.
Now let me introduce a new element: thinking as a alarmist/warmer and why you can’t bring that to court seeking justice.
Suppose that all we -warmers- want is be a good steward for this world to keep it for the future. We have learned about greenhouse effect and the apparant danger of accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere. We have also learned about peak oil and we realize that chosing for the renewables appears to solve both “problems”. That would have been the greatest triumph for science ever. This is way too good not to be true. So it must be true. And as good Earth saviors we will do anything to make that solution happen. And obviously, anybody who is opposing us, cannot be a good person.
So this is probably just about the average warmers mindset.
Now two disasters loom, the ever increasing discrepancy between model predictions (projection is a weasel word) leading to the increasingly inevitable falsification of the current greenhouse hypothesis and the economical collapse of renewables.
That’s very tough for the (us) warmers to accept, of course we could distract ourself with cognitive dissonants for quite a while and keep fighting vigourously for our good cause. But eventually we have to accept that our mean purpose of life is crumbling slowly and face that we are not the heroes we wanted to be, instead we are failures.
So as said before, warmers are essentially good people who wanted the best, but because of that they are now facing a major depression. So what good would it do to demand justice to be done? What did they do wrong legally? So in my opinion the only way ahead is to reach out, burry the hatchet and clean up the mess together.
I pity your “science”. Science is about following the scientific method. Your “science” is no better then groupthink you claim to condemn.
Now thats its been edited I completely agree its a typical warmist mindset…. hehe
first haven’t warmist been distracting themselves with “cognitive dissonances” for the better part of 25 years now… being that under science, global warming never had much evidence of support anyway? That combined with a large amount of evidence against…
No one is going to be punished for believing in the death cult of global warming… At least not in the US where religion is a right. However theft, fraud, treason…. those things aren’t rights. If the warmists haven’t broken any laws then they will be free to go… No one except warmists have put forth the idea that skeptics or warmists will end up in death camps or any of a host of other things. Warmists have long called for the death of skeptics solely for the fact they don’t believe in the warmists religions… its perfectly understandable that warmists such as you self fear that skeptics we act like you. You have little to fear in that idea. Your the ones that are crazy cultist not us… we understand the rule of law and aren’t just going to have show trials like you would be skeptics before sending them off to the death camps.
I understand perfectly that warmists fear that skeptics are just like warmists and everything they planned to do to us skeptics will be done to them(aka death camps, torture, etc). However skeptics aren’t warmists. You arguments are of a fantasy world where skeptics are just and stupid and crazed as warmists.
Second after WW2 many germans learned the truth of what germany was doing…. the same could be said after the berlin wall fell… should those groups have been spared reality? How much should have been spent sparing them from reality or letting them down easy? Who would pay for it? Insert countless more questions that you will refuse to answer and have refused to answer most of the question of have put forth in the many posts above.
Concentration camp guards were good people too if you bothered to do some research on them. Plus I’m trying to burying the hatchet… in some warmist heads and I got no problem cleaning up the mess afterwards.
Temp,
On the scientific method, sure but the keywords are reproduceable and falsifiable. Attempts to falsify a hypothesis tend to follow from disagreement. I was studying Siberian mammoths way back in the 90ies when the global warming fever struck and from what I saw, I knew that could never be right. Hence the urge to falsify, born from disagreement. So let’s disagree and advance.
Then WW-II, my earliers toddler memories go back to the 1950ies when cities around us were still cleaning up the ruins from the battles, especially Arnhem (A Bridge Too Far), where I lived nearby. And every conversation of adults inevitably ended in the question, how on Earth it was possible that an entire nation and many traitors of our own nation could have been so devilish. Although nobody could answer that question, it was considered a big lesson that should never be forgotten, ever.
Nowadays we have Godwins law that prevents us from even thinking about those lessons. But seeing the extremist partisan AGW blogs and having studied the forces and interaction in social structures, I consider the aforementioned question answered. But that doesn;t mean that the majority of those involved are victims of groupthink, not agitators nor perpetrators.
If you follow the scientific method you rarely have disagrees outside of pie in the sky “science”. The problem has always been and the cause of said disagrees is the failure to abide by the scientific method.
Nothing devilish about just normal people acting normally. I find it profoundly sad that people refuse to accept the simple reality that nothing during that time frame was abnormal at all… it was all perfectly normal and refusal to accept this means that we keep the process circling again and again.
Collectivism is a normal and the most common human thought process… theirs a reason why the vast majority of the world throughout history has lived under some type of collectivism… Once again… nothing changes if you pat them on the back and say do better next time…. BECAUSE THEY NEVER DO BETTER… unless you mean higher death counts they have managed to improve them.
I’m still waiting for you to respond to the many other points such as your whine about “diplomacy”. What exactly are betts and timmy offering? I listed what they offered… and the demands that go with it. What exactly does building bridges with low level peons such as betts and timmy going to do? Will they handcuff themselves to the royal soc’s doors and refuse to leave or eat until they admit AGW is wrong? They speak for no one… hell I’d even question if they speak for themselves….
betts offers a link post where he commented when someone called skeptics deniers… he said it was “unhelpful”. OMG hold him back he’s on a rampage…. betts and timmy are nothing but peons… they have zero power to do anything. They also have zero balls to done things they could be doing such as posting harsh comments condemning the use of denier… they don’t. They may post some fancy verbiage on their personal blogs which no one ever goes to… but thats the point… they know no one ever goes there and they known that its easy to say “well i’m playing with the deniers minds trying get them to understand why they are wrong so I only do this to gain trust”, when ask by coworkers and others in the field. ACTIONS…. trust is gained by ACTIONS. When rats jump from a sinking ship they swim away from the ship…
Right now any sane person educated in propaganda and/or trolling knowing betts and timmy’s ACTIONS are nothing more then poor attempts at trolling and propaganda. They are purposely trying to change the topic from AGW is wrong, cultists are evil, etc to “o well skeptics are just as bad and the reason no one listens to you is because your not “professional” or “nice”. Which anyone who’s watched 25 years of the BS going by knows thats nothing but BS. The reason why they are on the defensive is BECAUSE people stopped being “professional” or “nice”.
People got up and said “Hey these people are frauds, scam artists, lairs, they want your money, they want to your freedom, they want your children… THEY COME FOR YOUR VERY LIVES!!!! etc. People said… really? Well I don’t believe you so I’ll look for myself… and they did and they then found out “o shat your right”. That why people like betts and timmy want people to STFU. Those loud cries are causing people to stop and look…. and its an ugly picture they see. The bright light cast by public exposure is what is truly killing AGW. Science will be the finishing move but in the end thats all science can possibly be… skeptics must win the PR war before they can drop the clumsy MOAB like bomb that is science to finish the battle. You clear the flak guns away from the target to get the bombers through… and thats been the failure for over ten years by sciences… science is a wonderful weapon to use to kill AGW but if you can’t even get your bomber over the target your science is FRICKING USELESS and MEANINGLESS. It doesn’t matter how right you are in no one bothers to listen or care. If people 25 years ago had stood up and said people like hansan and mann were frauds lairs, scam artists we wouldn’t be here now… instead you got people like betts that say that the research may have been “unhelpful”. Or people like you that are “well do better next time”.
AGW was never a debate about science since no science supported AGW from the start… and you don’t get people to look at the science by sitting in a hole telling people your right… the “end is nye” guy is more believable then you will be.
Well, the warmers may not be intending harm, but they are causing it. Just ask the poor of Africa who would love cheap electricity. Ignorance is no excuse. And I do not believe they can be ignorant of the damage they are doing to other human beings.
…”and discuss climate accordingly in an objective way, without politics and fundings. ”
==============================================================
remove the funding’s and political decisions demanding expensive energy and international government, and I will have as many low key conversations as you wish; however there would not be any conversations then,
Fortunately, sans funding and political decisions regarding CO2, the CAGW proponents will simply vanish away.
Well a day or so has passed with no reasoned response from Betts or Whats her name.
We’ve been trolled.
A drive by whine by righteous crybabies, insisting a slander they cannot substantiate.
Us mean low down ignoramuses dare to compare a historic malfeasance to acts of todays post normals.
Well duh, those who do not learn from history will repeat it.
The true distinguishing mark of Climatology and all activists from the Cult of Calamitous Climate, is the Willful Denial of History.
There was no Medieval Warm Period.
Unprecedented weather..Extreme Weather weather like never before(What?)… if you ignore history.
Today is warming like never before.. except 3 other periods for which we have data.. except for eons from the geological layers.
Does an alarmed,concerned citizen ever stop to wonder?
What climatic conditions prevailed when this planet sequestered millions of tonnes of CO2 as coal?
Ignorance this willful at government policy levels does need explained.
As Tim Ball asked”What motive?”
What motivates mass hysteria and the madness of the mob?
We are herd beasts, an instinctive survival trait is that of being in the pack, rather than those attacked by that pack.
Individualism is only survivable where rule of law and reason prevail.
The proclaimed age of reason was announced prematurely.
Man is not comfortable when reason conflicts with the wisdom of “everybody knows that”.
“A drive by whine by righteous crybabies, insisting a slander they cannot substantiate.”
I’d say that I have read nearly all of the posts in this thread, and that seems to be the majority opinion. One or two suggested that Betts and Edwards should be given the benefit of the doubt (about their credibility), but given that neither had anything of substance to say for themselves to date , then the jury will, it seems , remain out on that point.
Disappointing, when it seemed at first that a dialogue was being proposed.
At least they were willing to leave the bubble of their comfort zone in academia and government to hear what those who pay their bills think about their efforts.
It’s comforting to me to know that 69% of those surveyed in a reputable public opinion poll are convinced that “climate scientists” fake “data”, which is of course exactly what they do, as “adjustments”.
[Snip. Try again if you like, without calling everyone you disagree with ‘deniers’. ~mod]
Love it — you folks are so self-protectively insular. Enjoy your tiny, diminishingly effective world.
C’est moi,
Do you have an argument with any substance? If so, give it a try.
Dream on. The skeptic, ie realist, position is gaining adherence daily, and already constitutes a majority.
Your days of deception are numbered. Apres Mann, le deluge!
Iom Tsec
Qu’est-ce que c’est ?
Yeh O.K I got it.
Only ten more comments needed for a thousand comment thread.
============
Well thank you for making Tamsin and I so welcome /sarc
There’s some truly vile comments above. I feel like I’ve been invited to stay at someone’s house as a guest, only to find they’ve got pet rats who’ve left droppings in my shoe.
To those who did try to engage reasonably, thank you for doing so – I’m sorry but this is clearly not the place for civilised discussion (unlike Nic Lewis’s dining room).
Richard. At least you don’t have to deal with constant slurs such as we get from Tamsin’s colleague at the Uni of Bristol. This cuts both ways, and it is clear that you don’t recognise it. Call off the attack dogs, and maybe peace will reign.
Mr. Betts,
The discussion seemed pretty civilized to me. Perhaps there are viewpoints that do not reflect that which you embrace. There are many that have been offended by those you have embraced over the past.
You should appreciate reading opinions that differ from those coming from ivory towers and those that will tell you only what you want to hear.
And you also need to realise that we are ANGRY!
Richard I am sure you are upset, these blogs always have a few that are an embarrassment and I wont apologise for them as they arent worth the effort.
However I hope you know the reason why I for one am upset with your rebuttal because with the heading and picture you have used imagery you claim to dislike yourself and is at the core of what you are complaining about. Irony will not work here nor will like for like – thats not discourse thats a declaration of hostility.
Tim is pointing his finger at the IPCC but frankly with strong warmist views such as yours his argument is equally valid when supporting your view of many skeptical little lies. What a shame that right from the start you decided to be outraged and disengaged from us, rather than tried to see what Tim was saying without automatically assuming very wrongful associations.
Nic Lewis should be very disappointed in this – I feel you must have let him down big time if the agenda for the dinner party is to be believed.
Monsters lurk on these sites waiting to bite you, but the majority want to engage and would enjoy the discourse. Its difficult to ignore the emotive heat that is raised by this issue but ignore it w should if we want to engage.
Be honest here did you really expect an article headed as yours was going to get a reasonable response – it wasnt reasonably conceived
Professor Betts,
Can I repeat the questions that I posed two days ago?
“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 will be happy to repose those questions on any blog that you consider sufficiently civilised to elicit a response.
I thought the report did quite a good job at making it clear that vulnerability of people was a key factor in the impact of extreme weather, so a lot could be done to help by helping people become less vulnerable. Yes, some kinds of extreme events are increasing, but for others it’s not yet clear. The IPCC AR5 report is quite nuanced on this. The report was out-of-date in using the ‘wet places are getting wetter’ meme, that’s not supported by the latest research (not over land anyway, where it really matters)
What extreme events are increasing, & how physically do you connect them to man-made global warming?
A warmer world is a less stormy world, on this & other planets, which is only to be expected, since the engine of extreme WX is the difference, the degree of the gradient, between the equator & the poles.
Ice Houses are stormier than Hot House intervals, when earth’s climate is equable, with less difference, between the equator & the poles, as during the Cretaceous, for instance, with crocodilians in the Arctic.
Dear Richard Betts et al,
“Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?”
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful reply.
Tom Moran
Derby, CT, USA
Richard Betts,
I am happy that, after ~1,000 comments made about Tamsin’s and your post, you have decided to comment here. Thank you.
I made a sincere and polite request to Tamsin and you in a comment two days ago. I have not gotten a response from Tamsin or you. I have reproduced my old comment with the request to you both below. I would sincerely appreciate your response.
Richard Betts, again I would sincerely appreciate a response from you. And if you are in contact with Tamsin then I would appreciate it if you please encourage her to respond.
John
John
See here for example.
Richard Betts,
Thanks for your reply (Richard Betts November 30, 2014 at 3:31 pm ) to my request to you.
This appears to be the quote of yours that you were guiding me to.
Richard Betts, yes that is clear call out from you for everyone to depoliticize the science dialog.
I would also like to see you call out to everyone, in the future, to stop hate talk against skeptics as well as hate talk against supporters of significant climate change by CO2 from fossil fuels. Hate talk includes use of the ethically pejorative label ‘dęnier’; a label which is too implicated with some horrific 20th century European history.
John
Hey look a comment by betts… lets see.
Insulting other people… check
Claiming to be a nice guy… check
Demands made…. check
Zero substance…. check
Zero willingness to debate… check
Crying and/or whining…. check
No attempt to place info in to counter any claims or others dispute facts…. check
Yup looks like a typical betts post
Betts, you owe Dr Ball an apologiy. You a snivelling coward, and a public disgrace. If you wish
not be likened to a Nazi, RESIGN: get a real job, and start contributing to society instead of parasitizing it. – Colin Day.
Hypocrite. Your response was vile. You were WRONG and you slandered Dr. Ball. You should admit you were wrong and apologize.
Mark
Dr. Betts,
It’s good that you ‘dropped a note’. It’s just symbolic, but that’s all it takes.
That these comments are an unruly display of human nature, yeah.
It plays to your hand, that the Post gets 1,000 comments. That frees you from some of the innate communication-expectations. It creates a pick-and-choose setting for you. Like a lecture hall with 1,000 in the seating … unlike the small class where one quizzical face might interrupt.
Although addressing large crowds goes back several hundred thousand years, it was always rare or occasional. Although there was absolute pressure & selection for interpersonal and small-group speaking-ability, there was little or none for large crowds … especially not with hostile elements.
All normal people who get up on a stump and face a mixed sea of pro & con faces, are in the same starkly unequipped boat; across time & space, we are all unsupported by our natural endowments. It is a fiercely evocative experience, and a rocket-launch learning-curve, for all typical personalities & temperaments.
Even accomplished actors sometimes admit to butterflies, or worse.
Thank you, and all the best to you and Dr. Edwards.
Ted Clayton
Dr. Betts, I am confused should Dr. Ball ask your permission before he exercises his right to free speech?
For someone allegedly so morally superior to us skeptics here how come you resorted to calling us “rats”? Was that something discussed at your pretentious dinner meeting to “depolarise and detoxify the climate discussion”?
You seem confused, we are all big boys here and can handle reading what Dr. Ball says and at the same time *gasp* comprehend that it is not Anthony’s opinion. You see skeptics accept and appreciate that independent thought and debate exists on climate debate.
Why should you be made welcome, having accused Dr Ball of calling you Nazis, when he didn’t?
Your post is pretty well content-free. A reasonable response would have addressed the issue of the “Great Lie”.
You have prostituted yourself for money. You have pimped out science, for money. The MO is not fit for purpose. You are a parasite, sucking on the public teat.
Sorry you don’t like to hear this, Dr Betts.
Having a look at Tamsin Edwards’ twitter account, it would seen that she regrets the famous dinner. Too much slumming it with the deniers. Do you feel the same?
You have left droppings in the shoes of every single UK taxpayer, pensioner, patient, schoolchild etc., etc.
The Good Lord will rot your soul.
Richard Betts. You finally reply to over a thousand comments about a an article you coauthored about being civil to each other, with sarcasm. “Well thank you for making Tamsin and I so welcome /sarc
There’s some truly vile comments above. I feel like I’ve been invited to stay at someone’s house as a guest, only to find they’ve got pet rats who’ve left droppings in my shoe.”. You could have responded to the question that was asked many times ” where was anyone called anything” but you chose to ignore all the good polite questions and supply the quote above. Were you invited to write this article? What are you trying to do?
Once again you focus on whining, instead of addressing the many reasonable but challenging comments and questions. You refused to address any who actually, in cogent verbiage, challenged your outrage, accused you of putting up a straw man, asked you to quote what you claim Dr. Ball stated, etc.
I
Richard – silencing Bob Ward and his endless stream Authentic CAGW gibberish would be a start. Yet never do we see him pulled for the nonsense he spouts by you or your fellows in the science. Why is that?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/11/27/bob-misrepresents-the-science-again.html
Richard Betts,
If you has replied to any one of the ≈1000 comments here we could have had a dialog. You obviously read them.
Apologies for any that were truly over the top, but I see few like that. What I see mostly are concerns that are still unanswered by you.
You should not be surprised when people get frustrated by your hiding out. Instead, engage them. If you have a tenable position you will get plenty of support. But complaining about uncited comments while refusing to answer any questions or concerns will naturally result in people making comments that you may not like.
I don’t think there’s any excuse for the kind of comments jolly farmer was repeatedly making, first about Tamsin and then about myself. The moderators repeatedly let them through, and I didn’t see anyone here objecting.
[Reply: this is one of the few climate sites that does not censor comments. If you would like censorship to begin after 8 years, please give your rationale. ~ mod.]
Indeed, they even let you post your bile as a guest blogger. Go figure. You cannot ask to be allowed to slander another blogger then claim the moral high ground when others treat you similarly. What a hypocrite.
Mark
Dr. Betts,
It’s just dead electrons. If you had something more in mind here, beyond just to protest Dr. Ball’s choice of analogy & argumentation … then it will only be a matter of a few tribal initiations, arrows through your collar, and assorted displays of symbolic bellicosity. The amount of actual blood-loss shouldn’t keep you off high-altitude aircraft for more than a couple weeks.
It’s hard to see how a professional can join this kind of den, not due to the behavior, but simply the fact that keeping up means doing nothing else. Not so much that certain people just shout their Cuckoo Nest lines over & over, but that there are hundreds of comments, just piled-on chaotically.
And with you around, interest & commenting will skyrocket, not for days, but for months.
I hope you do have a plan, or at least a notion. The interface between academic institutions and the generally-skeptical public is a vast, nearly unpopulated wilderness. The future Lancashire, ca 1066. 😉
Ted Clayton
Why should you expect anyone here to support your tantrum?
You & Edwards are part of the government-academic-Green industrial scam that has led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in the UK alone & cost humanity trillions in misallocated resources.
To which of my comments do you object? The words prostitute and pimp? The money you are on, hardly necessary to be on the game as well. You have prostituted yourselves and the science. But I don’t expect to find you on the street corner.
I find it hard to understand why the UK Meteorological Office should pay for a head of climate impacts, at a time when your customers who need timely and accurate forecasts do not get them. The bill goes up, the quality goes down. The 33 £million computer doesn’t do it, we need £97 million.
I expect a serious climate impact to arrive. That is the start of the next glaciation. I do not see how you can affect this. (nor do I know when it will arrive, nobody does). So why the big salary? What is the point? What is the point of Richard Betts?
I think that some people did object to my posts. Great! At least you can’t accuse me of being insipid.
Interesting that you feel that the moderators shouldn’t have let them through.
Please give the rationale for your objections, Ms Edwards and Mr Betts, otherwise:
foxtrot oscar
So glad you are taking notice.
You say, “I don’t think there’s any excuse for the kind of comments jolly farmer was repeatedly making,”
So, Mr public parasite Mr Betts, to what do you object?
??
PS It has been noticed here that you have hidden behind Tamsin.
And you would like WUWT to censor in order to not hurt your feelings.
Sack Richard Betts.
Ok Professor, that’s bait! 😉
That’s not WUWT, or Mr. Watts, or 100 other people here.
How diligent have you been in pointing out to people such as Dame Julia Slingo what the 2012 SREX or the WG1 section of AR5 have to say on extreme weather?
I suppose that, as long as the money keeps rolling in, its all good.
Richard Betts says: November 30, 2014 at 3:58 pm
I don’t think there’s any excuse for the kind of comments jolly farmer was repeatedly making, first about Tamsin and then about myself. The moderators repeatedly let them through, and I didn’t see anyone here objecting.
——————————–
I didn’t see you making any specific objections either. You just make a general blanked comment comparing the posters here at WUWT to rats. I don’t think there’s any excuse for that kind of comment, frankly, yet you make it and, gasp, the mods also let that through. Hypocrite.
Meanwhile… God help us when the world DOES start to cool…
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/record-ice-great-lakes-weeks/
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/record-snowfall-northeast/
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/wheat-kill-off-extreme-cold-november-video/
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/worcester-doubles-previous-snowfall-record/
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/iran-snow-blizzards-began-early-november-continue/
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/heavy-snowfall-alberta/
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/turkey-heavy-snowfall-knocks-power-4-days-counting/
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/coldest-minnesota-thanksgiving-1930/
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/coldest-minnesota-thanksgiving-1930/
No worries, we’ll help ourselves.
=========
I have no idea what the problem is with the article by Dr Tim Ball. It is a superb article.
I have read it again, I have then re-read it, and then re-read it one more time… just in case I missed anything.
There is absolutely nothing in the article that is inappropriate. And I do not believe it had any “over the top” rhetoric in it.
I am stunned that a very well presented article, that reflects some important points, has now been soured by Prof Richard Betts and Dr Tamsin Edwards.
This blog is owned by Anthony Watts. So I respect his right to say what he wishes here, and control what is presented here, and to exert his editorial influence. But I will just say this… the concern of Betts and Edwards is really much ado about nothing.
I agree.
The authors of this post are “disappointed” in those who support Tim Balls post illustrating the political statist motivation behind the leaders of the CAGW movement.
I am disappointed they did not address the comments of this man, one of their leaders..
Otmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC, is very direct:
“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.”
Nor did they address a hundred other such statements of their supporters and leaders.
The energy market is the largest monetary market in the world. Only an ignorant fool would find it surprising that power hungry statist want to control it. Every statist would love to tax the very air the common man breathes. It is not foolish to think politicians would misrepresent their motivation in doing so.
Well I’ve just ploughed through all the posts. Fascinating.
I didn’t count, but I reckon that the proportion supporting Dr Ball (me included) is not unadjacent to 97%. Now that’s a figure you can trust!
Nearly five years ago I began my research on what information was available on the Internet to learn about climate science. Just over five years ago I read about the climategate emails. I recall thinking to myself at that time that I would not be interested in reading those emails, because that’s the kind of person I am, not interested in personal private correspondence between individuals. Ironically I almost became only the fourth person in the world to download the climategate II files from the Russian server, but due to my lack of experience with the original release, by the time I clued in I was seventh or so.
I never bothered with articles in the newspaper related to environment or climate, just skipped right past them. The day the Vancouver Sun gave over total editorial control of a Saturday paper, I didn’t read any of that days paper, and I am a long time reader of the Vancouver Sun going way back into my early teen years.
Now, I am 54 years old and have spent a great deal of my life studying scientific topics, electronics being one of the first while working for high tech companies engineering and building such diverse things as the communications system for the Vancouver SkyTrain system to a huge robotic arm for the Three Mile Island nuclear facility to remotely operated vehicles designed for depths up to 3000 meters.
I took computer science courses as Simon Fraser University, and math and physics, though I didn’t complete the physics course as it seemed rather silly to sit in class taking notes while trying to follow along with the professor and I had a heavy course load and working full time. Ten years passed by while emerged in a world surrounded by engineers, scientists and technicians from around the world, from Chinese nationals to U.S. Navy personnel. My job was in drawing the schematics, first by hand with a drafting table then later by CAD. In my childhood I used to draw schematics of houses for fun after having acquired a couple of books of house designs. Later in high school I became the top student in drafting and won an award. I recall one school assignment where I ripped the taped down drawing from my board and crumbled it up and threw it in the garbage because I was not satisfied with the outcome. Having insufficient time to start over again, I later retrieved the drawing, ironed it flat, taped the corners back on and submitted it to the teacher for grading. I got a 49 out of 50 points, and I still have that drawing.
In my grade nine or so science class, circa ~1975, I gave a presentation to the class on various solar power energy technologies. This was during the era of the so called energy crisis as well as the coming ice age, that despite what some try to say was an esoteric idea, I was considering moving south, from Canada, for the sake of my future family.
I fell deep into computer science when I felt that my drafting job would one day be taken over by more sophisticated software, and then I became the one to write this software that would take over my previous job. But I thought of other things that could be replaced or enhanced by new software, and my ideas grew. The complexity of solving some problems caused me to realize that I needed to learn some sophisticated or advanced mathematics.
Now for me, I have a contorted history of my math learning. I had a large gap between ending my grade 11 math course and beginning my grade 12 course that caused me to have a great dissatisfaction of how well I felt I had learned the subject. Though I could do the math, I didn’t understand what I was doing.
Now it just so happened that much later in life I went back to university for a second time and due to a higher qualification for math as there was a change in the requirements after I had graduated I took another math course, pre-calculus, or algebra. I finished the course with a 92% mark and discovered that I liked math after all, and I might even be better at it and like it better than computer science.
Nevertheless I spent several years studying computer programming, having quite my job and studying the subject on my own and burning though my savings and then some. The thing I learned about computer programming and computer science is there is no end to it. You can keep studying something new and by the time you finish there is a boat load of even newer stuff you can try to learn. I was glad when Microsoft stopped everything they were working and reallocated their resources to work on an Internet browser and internet related technology. This gave me a chance to catch up.
Note that I went through two phases of computer science, the first phase was during the big iron era, when computers were entire rooms with floor boards you could lift up to access some of the wiring. My second phase consisted of personal computer use. Anyway, after years of this second phase, at some point I came to realize that I needed to find out if calculus would help me solve the complex problems I had run into to further my software ideas.
Math Is Hard
I discovered my old study notes from my calculus studies from two decades earlier. I had forgotten that I had studied certain calculus topics, but obviously I hadn’t learnt or understood it the first time. I could follow the rules to get the right answer, but I didn’t know why it was the right answer. Sound familiar ?
This final time around, I wanted to learn and understand calculus. Not just acquire a piece of paper saying I took a course, but acquire the knowledge to solve real world problems. I used my experience with learning computer programming to heart and was determined to have the same success come hell or high water and
Thoroughly and finally learn calculus. I recalled how when I started on my venture to learn PC programming the code I saw looked utterly daunting. It was all hieroglyphics and gobbledygook, and many, hundreds of pages of it. And I mastered it. So I would attack the calculus as I had the C, and the C++ and the Windows SDK, the Win32, the OLE and the COM, the MFC and the C#. And that’s just off the top of my head.
So my calculus study began, with the intent to learn and learn it well. Daily I studied it, not long hours but daily for years. There were times when I thought I would never understand this stuff. But I persevered, keeping in mind how I came to master the computer programming. I will leave out all of the processes and discoveries of my math learning process, but it largely amounted to studying from cover to cover of my 988 page calculus book over and over again, discovering missing pieces of my knowledge, pieces, sentences and paragraphs that I couldn’t recall having read the previous time(s) (even after the 5th read through). And after a while, I wondered why I ever had trouble learning this calculus, all the pieces fell into place. I gained a great insight into many aspects of mathematics and the learning process, too long and involved to relate here.
To recap, I have spend decades studying and working within a scientific and engineering realm, and I am leaving out other topics I have studied, Strength of Materials, My original university Physics course book I have read through a couple of times, aviation, I rebuilt my Porsche engine myself. And then one fateful day, February 12, 2010, I decided to see what I could discover about climate.
And after a short amount of time, keeping in mind my background in science, I was shocked at what I discovered. And now I have 5 years of additional full time study of climate science to add to my repertoire. My conclusion, to put it bluntly, I agree whole heartedly with what Dr. Tim Ball has to say on the subject, every last word of it. Maybe I will write about the past 5 years of my full time switch to studying climate science and publish it on WUWT on the day of my 5th anniversary, and the climate science software project I am developing.
garymount
November 30, 2014 at 5:38 am
====\===
I find your discussion most interesting of your “understanding” of calculus. Sounds like you wrote my experience exactly. I followed the ‘rules’ and got the right answers but until I fully understood ‘why’ it was just another engineering related class. From that point onwards the ‘why’ became the paramount issue and the ‘how’ and ‘why’ in differential equations was a real kicker. Now I seem to approach every issue/interest from the ‘how’ and ‘why’ angle. Thanks for jogging my memory.
Gary: You are the kind of a student every teacher dreams of getting. After twenty years of teaching high school science I have met very few of them. Keep up the good work.
Let us hope you do that writing. And that your writing, your efforts, inspire the rest of us to better communications against the soft propaganda of the CAGW castro-physists and their political leaders.
Nice image, that crumpled drawing.
=========
This thread has surpassed 1000 comments at the time of this comment. That shows much interest in the topic.
If I may suggest, maybe Anthony could , at this point, split future comments into an “A” and “B” category. Then, Mr. Betts, perhaps you could recruit Mules Allan to support you arguments and the both of you set those here “straight”. Allen tried it without much success a while back on Bishophill. Allen is clearly a ‘snake oil’ salesman. I would like to see your real character and see if if you support Allen. Let’s get it all out in the open. You are both regarded as “respected” by the current mainstream. Beat up these lowly realists (skeptics) on WUWT while you have the attention of so many.
Yes, Where’s the science?
These gentlemen suffered insult and deision about their beliefs.
They argue about the derision itself and dream for a friendly conversation. They don’t address the cause of the derisiveness.
The fact that those of their ilk would bring the prosperity enjoyed by Western nations to a halt. Because they say so. That is a personal threat to me, myself.
I don’t like CAGW alarmists and I’m not ashamed to say it.
Friendship, civility? no way. The gloves have been on for awhile. This is a fight not a friendly discussion.
Never smile at a crocodile.
” 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.”
Betts/Edwards
The implication being that Tim Ball called people that in his WUWT posting. So Betts and Edwards have played the “A nasty man called us Nazis” card. And seem to have got away with it.
Met Office statements – of which this is an example – are word crafted with the utmost skill and care. “We said no such thing” is something that they make sure can always be stated if need be. See the Met Office’s pamphlets on the dangers of climate change for more examples.
I have just been re-reading “The Third Reich” by Michael Burleigh. A horror story beyond any work of fiction. A Daily Telegraph review (quoted on the cover of the current paperback edition) puts it better than I can, in just a few words:
“Burleigh has created the mental world in which it became unthinkable not to do the unthinkable, and the depraved became the conventional”
I think it is entirely legitimate to examine other cases, in addition to CAGW, where a viewpoint, attractive to large numbers of people for a range of reasons persuasively presented to them, and playing on their fears, has taken root. The horrors that resulted from the rise of National Socialism in Germany in the 1920s and 30s should not be a reason for not trying to understand parallels if they exist.
@richard Betts 2:39am
Another scold, of no significance.
Perhaps you can quote the original offence you claim by Dr Ball.
Probably you cannot
As Gary Mount describes, each individual here brings their own expertise to this conversation.
Direct personal examination of the claims of Castrophic ,Global Warming,Climate Changes, Future Doom has not produced many conversions to belief in mankind’s responsibility.
Like many, until the CRU emails, I doubted those who claimed a level of mendacity and collusion by the IPCC.
Since 2009 I have zero sympathy for all who have and continue to enable such corrupt behaviour.
Assuming Richard Betts and Tasmin Edwards are scientists and competent in their chosen fields, I would expect they have the basic ability to communicate this science to those who pay for their leisure to pursue it.
So a simple request of both these tax funded persons, how about showing all WUWT readers the science?
I am sure Anthony would give prominence to a civil, intelligent presentation of your evidence.
However it would be very refreshing to be presented with data and conclusions supported by that data(complete with doubts inspired by that data and methods of falsifying the stated conclusions) as opposed to belief and unsubstantiated conjecture.
The original article expressed by Dr Ball was one hundred percent correct. This is a typical attempt by both Betts and Edwards to point the finger at something completely trivial why avoiding the actual questions. They, Edwards and Betts support a corrupt mantra and their response is typ0cial of such hypocrites..
Hypocrites, prostitutes, parasites, pimps….
The original article expressed by Dr Ball was one hundred percent correct. This is a typical attempt by both Betts and Edwards to point the finger at something completely trivial why avoiding the actual questions. They, Edwards and Betts support a corrupt mantra and their response is typ0cial of such hypocrites
Very late to the party.
There are some who are just trying to understand “climate”. They are the scientist.
Unfortunately, they have all to often accepted “peer-reviewed” articles as reasonable facts in their quest.
Peer-review has been corrupted by “The Team”.
Politics has entered in using “Climate Change” as an excuse to promote a political/sociological agenda.
(I saw an article about the protest in Ferguson moving moving into stores. One of the protesters in a Walwart was interviewed. He’s a professor. He was there because he believes and teaches that capitalism is evil. No indication he gives a sh*t about Brown or Wilson. Find a disturbance and try to stir the pot in his desired direction.)
CAGW as promoted by the likes of Gore, Mann, Hansen, Obama, well…it’s a long list, has not been promoted to gain knowledge and understanding but rather money, power and control.
Give some slack to those pushing against the misuse of the hockey stick-shaped lever.
Never smile at a crocodile.
I find the picture they posted with their article both in bad taste and obnoxious. And it also tells a story. There is Richard Betts, the instigator, putting his foot up on the wall as a supposed symbol of goose-stepping Nazis. And there is Tamsin, head down on the table hiding her face. She is aware of the travesty Betts is setting up and does not wanr to be part of it. Betts is obviously the leader and Tamsin is a follower doing his bidding. Big mistake, Tamsin, you did not think through what you were doing. The gravy train of global warming is not going to last much longer because the word is getting out that AGW is phony. But that is not my problem. My problem is that I do not like the incredibly biased reasoning behind this article. Plus disappointment that Anthony let you get away with that. Even if you are someone who escaped from Hitlers camps you should realize that what he is doing is consciously associating a totally wrong group of people with Hitler’s crimes. I am for bringing those criminals to justice but what he is doing is wrongly associating his opponents with being Nazis. There is a group of people with strong guilt feelings that allow such travesties to occur and he is apparently aware of this. Glenn, whom I quoted, has analyzed the mindset and said what needs to be said to people like Richard Betts. Here is his URL again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/#comment-1801294
And Tamsin, when you put your head down it came to me that you really do not fit the picture of a Moonie.
Arno,
I don’t think those people in the pic are Betts & Edwards. Those are actors.
And no, it doesn’t look like he has his foot on the wall. It’s a pretty good (amateur) high-step.
If this guy, and this gal, actually want to get something going with WUWT, it could lead to very good things. Even if Betts & Edwards loath everything that the blog represents.
Let them come in. Get used to the place. Bear in mind, they have busy schedules, so their activity would have to be pretty sparse.
Betts is a leading IPCC author. Getting on some kind of terms with him could make a lot of difference.
Ted
It would be great if they really wanted to subject their religious beliefs & rice bowl assumptions to critical scrutiny, but they’ve showed over & over again that they don’t.
The fact is that they’re accessories to mass murder both before & after the fact. How they can live with themselves, I don’t know, but then the guards at Auschwitz slept well at night too.
While I’m glad that they showed up here, nothing anyone says here will change anything about their beliefs or behavior.
What will have an effect however is their political masters who pay the piper changing their tune. Canada and Australia already have leaders who know that the Team’s meme is a total crock. When and if the US joins them, then you’ll see a rapid 180 degree turn by these parasites upon the body politic. Especially if Russia, China and India join the reality consensus caucus, leaving the benighted foolish criminals of Western Europe in splendid ivory tower isolation, still killing and impoverishing their subject populations, sacrificed upon the altar of yet another failed god.
Betts, Edwards, et al need to know how the public in general and taxpayers in particular feel about the fraud they have perpetrated. It is not without good reason that 69% of Americans believe that alleged “climate scientists” have faked data. That’s because they have, at tremendous cost in lives and treasure.
What will end this insanity? Maybe a President Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. A President Jeb Bush wouldn’t. Both US parties have a vested interest in taxing breathing. For Democrats, it furthers regime control en route to a socialist utopia. For GOP members of Congress and probably Presidents, it’s yet another means of extorting campaign contributions via granting favors in exchange for cash.
I’m not holding my breath for a quick political fix, but eventually Mother Nature will call drastic BS on these scam artists posing as “scientists”. To be a scientist, you have to practice the scientific method.
Man-made “climate change” is a crock. So far among the major Western Democracies only Canada and Australia have fought back against this anti-human, anti-scientific pile of ordure, allied with small states like the Czech Republic under Vaclav Havel. But with the aid of Mother Nature, truth will prevail, if never the justice that the con artists in lab coats deserve.
milodonharlani,
I know, bad things happen, and I hear heartbreakers from England. I’m American, but you know the Claytons lived on the Ribble River for 500+ years.
We have immigration problems here … guys who performed salt-of-the-earth work, find themselves competing with shadowy ‘immigrants’ who entice people to hire them at rates the average pet will starve on.
That’s me, a worker … I became a senor pro, all the other guys starved out, Border Patrol started investigating illegals … now I’m the last man standing, and I have it pretty good.
The community, the rural culture, though – gutted.
And ultimately, I hold the basic-conservative sector to blame, since it is they who tip the deal, for the cheap labor. It’s both sides of the fence that pull these irresponsible stunts. Britain has done bad things, America has their share – but they’ve both pulled through on critical plays, too.
The Germans defamed themselves, 75 years ago. But I can’t glare at 30-somethings, hold history against them.
I did the Cold War, with the real weapons of mass destruction. But we dealt with the Soviets; personally, at low levels as well as high. We were cordial and well-manner and professional … as we stalked each other under the sea. It worked out in the end, but not only was it scary, it involved staying on a rational level with people we knew were off-the-charts, in some ways.
I’m not saying ‘forget’. We don’t forget. We do remember, and we do keep track. But we try not to let that prevent us moving toward a better overall position, when an opening opens up. That’s how I keep hope alive.
Ted
sturgishooper,
Well, I’m kind of assuming that Betts isn’t moonlighting or anything. He’s a buttoned-down institution-man, and isn’t going off on a lark. Not like this … he could have a lot of explaining to do.
I have to take it, that part of the opportunity here isn’t just that Betts is expressing a spot of humanitarianism, but that his ‘aberrant’ activity has been vetted, and other people will be keeping an eye on how it goes. That the Professor will be getting back to them, reporting, and getting further instructions.
Like yourself, my take is that the politics of climate are at a much more advance state than we see in the media. Pres. Obama dances a good show; he makes it look good … but not only am “I” not buying it, his own supporters & fellow travelers are wearing very long faces.
We should look at Richard Betts, as by no means ‘just’ Professor Betts.
Ted
Catherine Ronconi,
Although I can’t really know for sure, it kinda seems & is my hope that Betts & Edwards are here, not just to pitch an honestly not-quite-on complaint about some rhetoric in an Opinion piece, but yes – to come around and get it from the horse’s mouth.
Bush? Rand? 2016? I say and again hope, that this is going to be a US election-cycle for the books. It could make a LOT of difference. Check the popcorn inventory.
The GOP are no Boy Scouts, but they have a very hot run going at the gaming table. They are close, but they need that one little thing to get it over the top. Don’t think it’ll last forever, but going down this stretch they are going to kiss our whatever, for our sweet vote.
Yes, we have our point-man nations like Canada, and statesmen like Havel … and if that doesn’t work, I believe we do have Mother Nature standing in the wings.
Maybe our visitors are aware of those things too?
Ted
This has been going on for years on the Bishop Hill blog. It will never make any difference.
The UK Met Office is renowned as a rubbish weather forecaster. The “head of climate impacts” will not change that.
Dame Julia Slingo has his gonads in a vice-like grip. Once in a while, he squeals, but I think that when all is said, he rather likes it.
Richard Betts certainly likes the money.
“and I didn’t see anyone here objecting.” Not even you, Mr Betts, on your own thread.
I do see them in the news, with a tender part of their anatomy in the door-jam.
Better recognition, a more-engaged role with entities in world-centers (like em or loath em), could lead to funding for WUWT … relieving eg excessive editorial chores.
To soil oneself, is to lap up the more-powerful opposition’s happy-talk. To engage with the opposition, and stick by one’s own views, is the standup way to go.
I think that’s a still from a Monty Python skit chosen because it looks like an exaggerated “goose step”.
If I’m not mistaken, (I have been before. But please don’t tell anybody!) Arno is well aware of that but his comment is playing off of the picture.
Arno,
Errr… maybe I’m missing some extremely subtle humour here…it’s always difficult to tell online…I’m not sure whether you are being ironic in pretending not to know where that photo comes from….? 😉
(Ted is right that is certainly isn’t us. I’m sure that many readers do know where it’s from.)
BTW Tamsin and I didn’t attach that photo, I think Anthony must have. IMHO it shows quite a good awareness of British humour….
😉
Cheers
Richard
Gunga Din plumbs the pic-mystery;
Is this then maybe Monty Python humor?!
It was a tad subtle for me alright … score one for Arno. ;
Do not be fooled. Dr Tamsin Edwards is as big a see you next Tuesday as are they all.
IMO the two big cry babies are in a snit because the truth hurts. Their hissy fit is because they are in fact complicit in mass murder, just like the Nazees to whom they wrongly imagine they’ve been compared. Because of them and their cohorts in crime, mass murder has been perpetrated among all those who’ve died alone, cold and in the dark.
jolly farmer,
I’m not thinking of some nirvana here. Kumbaya & ‘smores, I’d be surprised.
Watts runs a publishing business. Nothing fancy; he’s the editor & typesetter. A specialty clientele; some of it vanity-press.
Now a guy with a global rep related to the ‘specialty’, but from the other side of the tracks, shows an interest. Or maybe it’s an accident. From the disclaimers at the top, though, it sounds like Betts-Edwards wanted on, and Watts let them. Rather than Watts being star-struck, and inducing his new associates to – sigh – ‘Ok, we’ll decorate your blog’.
I mean, what if Watts somehow bumps into Pres. Obama, and the guy stumbles around on a page, saying halfway thought-through things … so what! Let the President come on when he can, and take into account he isn’t spending 10 hours a day keeping up with the blog.
For heaven sake, this is the IPCC, right here on WUWT, in the flesh. Yeah, they garbled their gripe. Big deal. Let a little oxygen into the ol’ gray-matter, and allow for the possibility that there could be an ongoing exchange, right here, with the IPCC.
Don’t just shout ’em down. We’re tough enough to have the real world hanging around.
Ted
“We’re tough enough to have the real world hanging around.”
The concept of real world being the IPCC is a strange sensation
Yes… And maybe someday they won’t be, or will be under new management, or otherwise no longer ‘strange’.
But until Mike told them to pack it in and call it a day, the USSR was real world, and we didn’t try to operate on some other premise.
Your comments are obnoxious. Have you no self-awareness? Do you not see what kind of impression this gives of yourself and indeed the whole blog?
Richard Betts,
Have you no self-awareness? Do you not see what kind of impression IPCC gives of yourself and indeed the whole “climate science” community?
Little wonder that the leaders of Canada and Australia agree with the vast majority of the US public that CACA is a crock.
The farther that GIGO models diverge from reality (which is even farther than from the cooked book surface station “data” sets), the higher the confidence that IPeCaC has in its baseless conclusions for policy makers. Well, the policy makers are starting to wake up and listen to the skeptics and taxpayers. The jig will be up for the CACA con game when a new US administration turns off the spigot to the public trough.
milodonharlani;
Yeah, but. That spigot-control is fairly fine-grained, and as mysteriously programmable as any Global Climate Model.
Some climate-research(ers) will get axed, but cooling-possibilities eg are of course something that needs careful attention. Maybe more than warming.
Mayor university centers & programs are huge investments, and we don’t call the movers to clear out their rubbish. We change what they do; we make them jump through different hoops. CRU isn’t going anywhere.
People who are selectively chasing politicized goals (polar bears eg are not in trouble; they die in the hundreds, out on the annual ice, each winter, the frozen carcass then floats, then bloats) will … serve GOP PR-needs just fine.
What we think is wrong is not Global Warming, or Climate Science.
Ted
IMO “climate science” is wrong because it’s not climatology anymore, based upon observation of nature, but computer modeling of the world as its archdruids want it to be.
So the new Congress needs to do all it can, with a CACA-spewing administration still in place, to limit the damage false “science” can do, while promoting real science.
Only after Obama has been replaced with a pro-rule-of-law, pro-science president can the real house cleaning begin, with the US following in the path blazed by Canada and Australia.
Western Europe may be a lost cause, with its socialized population so divorced from the land & so far removed from real participation in power that they fall for the garbage spread by their EU masters. Or at least their rulers pretend to buy into the scam in furtherance of their own interests. So you may well be right about the Hadley Centre.
Happily, socialist Old Europe is every year less & less important & the energetic, more capitalistic Pacific Rim more so.
Richard Betts complains that this Blog should be censored … my, freedom of thought and speech is such a great affront. Try being a “denier” making a reasonable comment at any of the warmista blogs, BBC, or Graunaid … I’d be mightily impressed if you should mosey on over to your usual interweb hangouts, Prefesser Betts, and draw their attention to their offensive censorship. Ever wondered why commenters here are an angry lot? Censorship shoved down one’s throat doesn’t taste much good.
Streetcred,
Could/would WUWT make no-harsh-words/names a hard rule for everyone?
If that comes down from Mr. Watts, then I would say that even more important things are in the works, than tentative speculations we’ve tendered so far.
Like you say, such talk is everywhere on the Net. I would support it; I know several words, and good words can be bad. 😉
But it would be a real eyebrow-archer, if it does come to that.
Meanwhile, best advice for Dr. Betts is, this is a blog like other blogs, and it has it’s imperfections – nasty-talk being a big one.
The caveat is, WUWT already takes a hard line on its unfavorite name-word. That’s a theoretical setup for going consistent with all such ‘uncalled-for language’. Not that I see it coming … but I have been surprised before.
Ted
Ted, as you point out, we already have some language forms excluded here and that’s a good thing. Anymore and I’d suggest that the blog would experience a significant exodus. People get aggrieved when they are excluded from thoughtful commentary and debunking with considered article / paper weblinks … as is commonplace at warmista blogs and MSM. At sks they even edit and delete comments to distort the interactions … and then you’re banned.
People get more aggrieved when they get ‘seagulled’ and further insulted by the author/s then suggesting that this blog should be censored because they feel hurt … they feel hurt ? LOL 😉
Betts and Edwards should be better prepared for some blow back to their ‘opinion’ … and stop treating people with a different view as a mob of idiots.
Anthony Watts decides what appears on this blog. I admire him, but I have never met him. He is not a “publisher”. He doesn’t make money from this. He called for donations in order to go to the UK.
Betts and Edwards do not need a tip-drive in order to attend their conferences. The taxpayer foots the bill, with no say in the matter.
This is about the money. What are Betts and Edwards good for? Self-regard, and getting the snout well into the trough.
+1 Jolly … I’d further proffer that one of their ‘seniors’ might have whispered a word in their ears that this sort of thing by Dr Ball cannot go unanswered and maybe should be answered through access granted at ‘dnar’ HQ.
Another thing that I’d like to raise, this ‘dinner’ was held under ‘Chatham House rules’, a quaint English thing so not as to disturb the outward appearance of serene control. Now if Betts and Edwards are going to invade our computer screens with their disappointment, then we have a right to know what exactly went on … we’re not party to the quaint little English arrangement … so we should be forgiving at getting a little miffed at being accordingly lectured at by those who seek secrecy when what we want is total transparency. Which merry-go-round are we meant to be riding?
Streetcred says;
It’s true that the blog-comments serve to exchange more than ‘just the data/facts’, and that’s important since we aren’t Vulcans.
Reining in outright name-calling is an easy step, and simple filters will point to words that need to be checked, as now. Filters can’t discern respect from disrespect, though, and progress in that area – by both sides – is usually what it comes down to.
There can a lot of heartfelt action, within good guidelines.
Presumably, Betts and Edwards are here to become acquainted with views other than their own. If they just wanted more of the echo-chamber, they would just stay on sites that agree with them.
Anthony Watts wants the working-blog to continue working, but it can’t be multiple things to multiple people. Adapting & evolving takes some changes.
jolly farmer said;
Yeah, running a blog or website is real “publishing”. And when it gets even slightly ‘active’, the work & duties are very much those of a real “publisher”. It’s a stiff job.
My understanding is that Jeff Bezos’ blog, aka Amazon dot Com, has never turned a profit. Basically, Mr. Bezos and Mr. Watts are in the same business-boat. They pour it all back into the website.
Anthony Watts’ blog is a high-traffic asset on the WordPress dominion. Over 20% of the global Internet runs on WordPress, and WUWT is one of their hot clients.
It would cost a lot of money to host this site, on your own (because of the traffic and load). WordPress hosts it, in return for access to the pages, to run ads. That’s real capital in action.
WUWT is an Internet-based publishing-business, and a fairly serious, successful example.
Commenters, commenting, and comments are all part of this business. An important part.
I’m not advocating censorship – I am an avid supporter of free speech, but with freedom comes responsibility. If some of you folks want to make yourselves look irrational and beyond the reach of reason, carry on with the abusive language, it’s your loss.
BTW my remarks at December 1, 2014 at 3:54 pm above were in response to ‘jolly farmer’. Ted Clayton seems far more astute – thank you Ted for your attempts to bring some sanity to this madhouse… 😉
If only you could bring some sanity to the CACA madhouse. But you can’t or won’t.
No matter. Mother Nature is in the process of swatting you down.
And on the side or genuine science rather than politically-motivated activism, we have the GOP congressional majority. This bill to defund the IPCC blackmail racket, which died in the Senate in 2011, will be resurrected:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110825/ipcc-unfccc-climate-change-house-republicans-budget-appropriations-state-department
Of, not or. Sorry.
My representative was in charge of the House GOP campaign this year, which did so much better than expected.
Well Richard after all this you never answered any questions. You just complained. Is this your way of bring ing “some sanity to this madhouse”? Here is another clever thing that Adolf’s boys did that you may be able to use. He tricked Stal (uncle Joe) into killing most of his (uncle Joe’s) top generals just before he attacked him. He new uncle Joe was paranoid about his military so AH’s spies were able to convince uncle Joe (FDR’s term) that his generals were plotting against him. Was that cleaver or what?
“Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.”
[Author hidden due to possible backlash over his country of origin and the risk that Climate scientists may be in correctly associated with mental illnesses or being sex fiends.]
Jim F,
Clearly, if there’s a madhouse, it’s run by Pachauri, & Betts helps pad the walls.
If claiming ever greater certainty for a phenomenon with ever less evidence in its support isn’t insane, then what is?
Betts,
So you think WUWT is a “madhouse”?
You sir, have been in your ivory tower for much too long. You are getting a glimpse of the real world. You may soon get a very good look at the reality of it all. Your gig is up.
Time to stop the insanity!
Defund not just IPCC, but GISS and NCAR, for starters. And end grants to modelers. The very best you can say is that the climate system isn’t well enough understood yet to model and that it’s too complex for present computers anyway.
Dr. Betts;
Oh sure. Interesting how good a line that proved to be…
mwh notes the saw:
Yeah, or survival-tactic. Problem is, it gradually takes over; chokes everything else out.
Ted
So, Richard, WUWT is a madhouse and the WUWT community is a bunch of rats. so much for your holding yourself up as a paragon of civility.
—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. —
I wonder what “does do anyone in the climate change debate any favours”
Someone must be able to make list of articles which do this, right?
Or there a lot good movies, and one make list best 100 movies and obviously
differences in opinion, whether one is right or wrong in terms of what is best- which is not the issue- the point is that such as list could be made.
So let’s assume there two camps: People who think the climate scientist establishment is doing
a heck of good job. And second group who view climate scientist establishment are very similar
to snake oil salesman [not doing heck of a good job].
Or call the groups the team supporters and the skeptics.
Or establishment vs anti-establishment. Insiders and outsiders.
You get the idea, i hope: Pro vs Con.
Make a list of 5 articles which have been written which “does do anyone in the climate change debate any favours”
5 of what one thinks best does this. Either side or both sides.
I would make a list, except that I have no clue what it means.
I can make a list of movies I like, but can’t make list of movies does me any favours.
Nor can think of any movies which are big goose step backward.
I think the problem is I don’t even think in this fashion, but what I hoping is that
there are some people who actually do think this way, and they could give their examples in
a list of 5 of the best.
I don’t want a list of the worst- as I see that as just excuse for people to whine about something. Which I think is very common and very boring.
We’ll give this one three ‘tsks’, capitalization permissable on the third one; exclamation point completely non-obligatory.
=======================
Some comments on Thatcher and CAGW appear above, in relation to the miners’ strike. The two had nothing to do with each other. Thatcher may have kicked off some of the CAGW scare, but she later back pedalled.
On the miners’ strike – lets be clear
1. Wilson closed more pits than Thatcher, as the industry was already becoming uneconomic under Labour
2. Under Thatcher, we are able to import coal from Poland cheaper than we could mine it here. More pit closures were inevitable, however, Scargill’s ego meant he preferred war to jaw jaw. The rest is history. Scargill sold his workers down the line. He didn’t suffer though. They did.
Correct. UK coal is far more expensive than Wyoming coal. It’s simply not competitive in world markets. It would be even less so if the Obama administration were not waging war on US coal, keeping so much of it out of the global market, while restricting its use at home, where in any case it faces competition from cheaper gas.
Hello Tamsin Edwards,
Firstly, kudos for venturing into the fray.
Given you have had the courage to respond and appear to understand the juvenile negativity of name calling in general, I wonder if you might not send a friendly e-mail to John Cook at the Uni of Queensland.
Apparently he doesn’t share your view.
He’s recently produced a course entitled “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial”
Personally I think it’s comical but a rather pointless exercise in preaching to the choir.
Considering John Cook is a “Climate Communication Fellow”, one would think he’d know that. It all seems rather odd, but then again, he also produced the roundly debunked 97% consensus paper, so who knows where his head is at.
Perhaps a quiet word in his shell like might be best.
Objection! (to the objection)
I point out that:
– The IPCC is more than one thing, notably scientists versus hangers-on such as politicians and activists. (Recall that summaries don’t accurately represent the science, and that IPCC documents sometimes just regurgitate claims of activist organizations. Recall for example the basic error regarding the extent of glaciers in the Himalayas, using a value taken from an anti-human activist group without basic checking – the IPCC mis-represents its work as peer-reviewed.)
– “advocates” includes many people whose behavior resembles facist tactics, such as
o David Suzuki’s desire to jail politicians who do not follow his whims
That’s the David Suzuki who blamed capitalism for environmental problems, in his speech to the Occupy mob in Vancouver BC (the mob that forced their way into a private business).
The same David Suzuki who recently lent his prestige to initiators of force on Burnaby Mountain.
o James Hansen and other climate scientists initiating force in “protests”.
o Several people, including so-called “scientists, who have advocated oppression of skeptics, and in some cases advocating harming them in ways including tattoes on their forehead. Those are tactics common to tyrants like Hitler and Lenin, and worse such as execution of the first elected legislators in Russia.
o Lies, a tactic typical of facists and Marxists, and of some religious people such as today’s Islamic Totalitarians (who for example teach children that Jews in Israel drink human blood).
o Plain whackos holding academic positions involving climate “science”.
o If you look at the beliefs of climate alarmists in other areas of life, you often find collectivism, especially the Marxist kind, and advocacy of controlling other people (while hypocritically spewing carbon themselves).
– So any sincere advocates have a huge challenge – to differentiate themselves from the dishonest advocates. A few have done so, many have not.
Dialogue is good but people have to be willing to listen – advocates have a poor record of doing so, indeed often refusing to debate because they consider opponents beneath them, whereas skeptics have read their research (and found them wanting).
I also point out that the important question is how to predict climate, which requires understanding of causes. The pause in temperature rise shows me that no one is able to, never mind the “science is settled” mantra of alarmist scientists. Alarmists are very eager to blame humans as the cause, despite evidence otherwise and serious flaws in their theories (aka “models”).
Tim Ball’s claim is that the IPCC is trying to deceive people on a large scale, I interpret his Hitler analogy as illustration of how that may be achieved. I might have used the Marxism cousin of Hitler’s Nationalsozialistische, both are based on anti-human ideology as are Maurice Strong’s views. But the “editor” that’s needed is for clarity – Ball should have added words to improve flow for comprehension.
Professor Betts, thank you for your reply (November 39 3.55 pm). As a one-time demographer, I agree with the gist of the report which warns that an increasing population and urbanisation will create problems that, currently, governments do not appear adequately to acknowledge let alone address.
However I was hoping that you might have commented on what appears to me to be both false science and unnecessary scaremongering. As reported by the BBC:
‘The Royal Society warns that the risk of heat waves to an ageing population will rise about ten-fold by 2090 if greenhouse gases continue to rise. They estimate the risk to individuals from floods will rise more than four-fold and the drought risk will treble.
Its scenarios are based on the assumption that the world stays on the current trajectory of emissions, which the authors assume will increase temperature by 2.6-4.8C around 2090.”’
For example, do you really believe that the world could warm by between 0.35C and 0.64C per decade over the next seventy-five years?
And, even though you have found that “….some kinds of extreme events are increasing”, do you agree with Professor Mace’s statement “We are ….. making the climate more extreme.”?
I’m with Brandon on this.
I think I’ll read and comment on predominantly non USA blogs from now on…
the comments here are beyond satire.
You and Brandon are not alone, many people cannot handle freedom of speech but they are predominantly on the Alarmist side of the argument.
freespeech – vs adults agreeing to have a civil discussion – agreeing that name calling is to be avoided, as it is counterproductive. As only the loudest, most intolerant and extreme fringes get heard, and most of the people in the middle wander off in disgust at the childishness…
Argumentation by vuvuzela. 😉
Civil discourse? Barry I know you are not new to this debate but come on. I always attempt to have a civil discourse but it inevitably rises to personal attacks every time I am winning a debate.
I am aware of all the so-called “moderates” who cannot handle free speech and their pretentious moral superiority.
Poptech says;
Winning debates is not that big a trick, despite its voodoo-reputation. It’s especially easy in email or blogs, since there is time between exchanges to think, research … and fact-check.
Garden-variety debates generally aren’t won – they’re lost. People commit unforced errors, and down they go. The person who avoids mistakes, usually wins.
The ” so-called “moderates” “ rhetoric, is such a mistake. In these 3 Posts, two by Dr. Ball and one by Drs. Betts & Edwards, nobody has claimed to be a “moderate”, and nobody has been called a “moderate”.
There isn’t a group of identified or “so-called” moderates.
Ted, I was responding to Barry who was talking about “people in the middle” – I call these people “moderates”.
Your argument about debates makes no sense since both sides cannot always win or always lose.
before I go – Richard criticising the Guardian who were apologising for Gleick’s unethical conduct:
via Bishop Hill:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/27/lying-and-deception-can-be-justified-says-climate-change-eth.html?currentPage=2
Here’s Richard Betts’ comment from the Guardian thread:
Mr Garvey
I am a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and also a lead author with the IPCC (NB. the opinions I express here are my own though – I am just telling you that for context).
I would ask you to refrain from bringing my profession into disrepute by advocating that we act unethically. We already have enough people accusing us, completely incorrectly, of being frauds, green / left-wing activists or government puppets. A rabble-rousing journalist such as yourself telling us that we should “fight dirty” does not help our reputation at all. “Fighting dirty” will never be justified no matter what tactics have been used to discredit us in the past.
Inflammatory remarks such as yours will only serve to further aggravate the so-called “climate wars”. People’s reputations are already being damaged, and we know that some climate scientists get highly distasteful and upsetting mail through no fault of their own. If people like you continue to stir things up further, it is only a matter of time before somebody actually gets hurt, or worse.
Please keep your advice to yourself, we can do without it thank you very much.
Richard Betts (Prof)
BRINGING THE CLIMATE PROFESSION INTO REPUTE
“I would ask you to refrain from bringing my profession into disrepute”
A university colleague who went to the East Anglia U end 2009 to give a math talk told me the taxi driver was offering to make a small detour for her, passing in front of the CRU building, “the ones with the scandal.”
” If people like you continue to stir things up further, it is only a matter of time before somebody actually gets hurt, or worse.”
Did Betts really write that? It could easly be taken as a death threat.
After twenty-some years of being deliberately, premeditatively compared to Holocaust deniers, enthusiastic suggestions of Nuremberg trials, and accusations of general total villainy – all against the backdrop of the sort of political and scientific shenanigans we’ve come to expect from the AGW crowd – it’s difficult NOT to see the sort of comparison Ball suggested. As I see it, those in the warmist camp, who were making these sort of blanket, knee-jerk accusations against those who questioned junk science, really fit the mold for their own charges more than those they were accusing – in effect, accusing the opposition of being what they themselves actually are, as a means of camouflage – which is demonstrated by their own thin skins when their rhetoric turns back upon them.
It’s worth mentioning that the Holocaust would not have occurred (at least the way it did) without the junk-science of Eugenics – which purported to save us from ‘mongrel races’ – NOW we have junk science that purports to save the Earth from humanity itself. ‘Science’ has given us both. Which is worse?
So now cant we get on with it. Most climate websites and blogs tend to be echo chambers because of the entrenched positions taken by the extreme sides. This blog is no different because most ‘warmist’ opinion is shouted down or just shunned before it is listened to.
I have added to the comments above and expressed my disappointment that this thread happened at all – because at the end of the day I think it was a knee jerk reaction and I am even more surprised to hear that the John Cleese – Fawlty Towers picture was edited in, in fact I’m quite shocked. Having said that the heading and rebuttal was equally regrettable as it sets things off on the wrong foot – a less antagonistic title and a more empathic approach may have succeeded in getting more thoughtful responses, perhaps from Tim Ball himself who has kept sensibly quiet in all this.
Personally I would hope that Tamsin And Richard are able to ignore the rubbish that appears on all these sites and present their support for the warmist view. Surely being able to stand against the critical storm here is the best peer review available.
Ignoring the dross is a blogging virtue. I have had my say and I hope I havent over stepped the mark and I most certainly welcome their viewpoint and avidly look forward to proper debate rather than the echo chamber back slapping. If I have offended I apologise, can we now get back to the science?
Charmed I’m sure.
Betts and Edwards were given a guest post to complain about Dr Tim Ball or being compared to Liars of the past, to wag their fingers at one and all and or what?
After 1100 comments neither has been able to quote Dr Ball ‘s oh so offensive statement.
Why?
Because their reading comprehension is a well developed as their abilities as climate scientists?
Richard Betts seems to be having an online hissy fit.
Comes here, plays the school mama and beats a hasty retreat as the mob snickers.
Comes across as a pompous bully, inarticulate and shallow.
If the comments made here reflect the abilities of this man, you Brits are so lucky..
I for one see a clear explanation of why the Team IPCC ™ Climatologists, avoid debate at all costs.
I dont know Richard or Tamsin and I dont know their work, my reference is this thread. I doubt anyone else, bar 1 or 2, knows them either. I will give them the benefit of the doubt that this thread has become an embarrassment and I hope to hear their views in the future.
I do not agree with attack dog policy, nor do I claim a stake in this blogsite, I know what its like to be hounded off a blogsite for no other reason than being too neutral and not warmist enough, it wasnt nice and it upset me for several days.
I cant speak for anybody else and quite a few here are definitely not speaking from my viewpoint. But having expressed their view and having expressed mine I have no right to expect a public apology from them nor should they give it. My apology was purely in case I caused them personal upset, which wasnt intended. Their beef is with Tim and the thread here was in open rebuttal of what he was saying and they have both been back and replied to reasonable comment. I think they have been more than reasonable when you consider the tide of comment against them (mine included). Whether or not they apologise to Tim is up to them and no business of mine. I see no evidence of a ‘hissy fit’ just a rather ill conceived response.
As for appeasement – nothing wrong in that so long as the warmth of it doesnt blind the reality!
MWh “As for appeasement -nothing wrong in that”. That was not the case with Adolf (the fellow most of this fuss is about). He took the peace offer as a sign of weakness and that emboldened him to attack and as they say the rest is history. That sure has been a lesson to me.
Richard Betts
November 30, 2014 at 2:39 am
Betts, your words:
“….. I feel like I’ve been invited to stay at someone’s house as a guest, only to find they’ve got pet rats who’ve left droppings in my shoe……”
==============
You sound like a hypocrite with such vile words. Are you claiming academic authority? Could it be that a rat left droppings here on WUWT in the lead post.
BTW, I don’t see anything in Dr. Ball’s post the should have gotten your panties in such a twist.
Yea, yea, I know, I don’t subscribe to the academic authority bit, but then you have provided a good example of why.
IPCC is vile.
I’m afraid that the Mainstream Republicans will listen to twits like this McCain advisor & not go after the purveyors of CACA poison in this Congress, but wait for a sympathetic, pro-science President as well:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/e2-wire/224275-will-gop-put-climate-science-back-on-trial
My Congressman is in the GOP leadership, but has a lot of constituents with heavily subsidized windmills on their land. In the aggregate they (including my own friends & relatives) donate more to his campaigns than I do. Both my Senators are lost causes, Klimate Kool-Aid Drinkers.
PS: Happily, the Klimate Kool-Aid Klan are now in the minority.
Tim Ball has his facts down, maybe unfortunate to use AH, but it doesnt mean that many scientists dont believe the big lie, just like many of the public. They are just trying to prove the small details or not, studying the reason for a specific card in a deck of 52, not realizing that its part of the house of cards.
I’m not native english and even though I believe my english is good, these are things I find very hard to express so please don’t sue me if I’m not perfectly clear or correct.
In my opinion, this article is very significant. It is the first time I see two mainstream scientists coming to express their disagreement with another article on WUWT. What it means to me is that they consider WUWT sufficiently serious platform for a discussion.
It is a great chance for WUWT. WUWT is asking for open discussion for years and here it got the chance to hold it itself. This article may not exactly be scientific, but it is a test. We should not lose that chance, regardless how we may dislike opinions from the “other side”. For most of us readers, global warming is largely matter of belief, not of performing scientific research. And yes I understand that hearing arguments based on things we don’t believe hurts. But if we can stand that, we can learn and we can improve while without discussion and always looking at just one side, we are inevitably going the “principia scientific” direction, however much we are convinced that we are the ones who are right.
I would like to thank Anthony for publishing this article. I lost a lot of my belief in WUWT in recent years but this article is a promise. I wish more serious and educated people found the courage to send their polite arguments here for publication – next time hopefully about scientific rather than political matters. They don’t have to be always right, but I am pretty sure they won’t be always wrong either.
Labeling each other does little to move us forward.
The climate Is an enormously complex entity— and none of us know each part.
With well over 200 Million views on this blog with this article approaching 1200 comments…………Have we reached the point where ( at times ) it is necessary to create an area on “Watt’s Up With That” —Which appears more like an actual debate forum with rules and such?
I have read this blog for so long that an article with a 100X less replies was a big day and I have very seldom seen what I would consider an actual debate that did not quickly fracture and disappear as the tide of articles rolled on.
Put the contestants in a ring—YES!— I’m asking for blood sport science.
Show me your numbers, show me your data, tell me where you got the graph from, show me the exact quotes on the exact article, and show me what you got.
I agree 100% with Dr.Ball and the central question of his article .What is the motive for creating the exaggerated manmade global warming lie ?
!. Money 2.Money 3. Money All the rest …Power ….Population control ….Vote buying …Redistribution of wealth all pale in comparison .
When someone has robbed you don’t expect a civil conversation . That ship sailed years ago .
Global warming was essentially a massive inside trader scam of world proportions .
The IPCC scientists were the store front and still are .
Amber says;
“IPCC scientists” are the same as WUWT authors & commenters.
We here on this blog have zero authority, and are responsible for only those words we pen. Yet what is Mr. Watts’ blog, without the throng adding so much content?
Ditto for ‘IPCC scientists’. They volunteer their time, donating research, opinions and data to the IPCC entity. Yet they have no authority, no power, and no responsibility … other than for the occasional faux pas they commit in their own writings. And they get no money.
There aren’t really any IPCC scientists. IPCC is strictly a “bureau”, public servant assignees from member-nations, a policy Panel (the ‘P’ in IPCC). IPCC itself is not composed of scientists, and does not conduct science.
There are thousands of scientists who contribute materials – gratis – for the IPCC to consider in doing their policy work. It’s not practical or realistic to tar them all with one brush, or march them all off to some purgatory/gulag. Firstly, the vast majority of them are doing or saying nothing that is controversial, from the skeptics’ point of view. Except that they do it on behalf of the IPCC.
From tens of thousands of contributions to the IPCC enterprise, we have a small collection of bloopers. Similar (or higher) goof-rates will be found at, say, Nature.
Again, mistakes and excesses can also be found on WUWT. Does that mean the bootjacks can stomp in and rip the server-plug outa the wall? There are those who would cheer, but no.
That there will be strong reactions to the appearance of a high-level IPCC contributor here on WUWT is understandable. Dr. Richard Betts is the IPCC AR5 Lead Author, making him a preeminent figure among the throng who contribute to the IPCC. Albeit, unpaid.
There have been expressions of dismay, that WUWT is essentially ‘fraternizing with the enemy’. That now we have to all talk like mealy-mouthed bureaucrat-drones ourselves, speaking only in fancy-pants tones out of concern for the tender sensibilities of visiting dignitaries … who are ‘collaborators’ with our opposition.
=====
Anthony Watts is onboard with the importance of changes on this/his blog.
The key statement in this Post by Drs. Betts & Edwards, reads:
WUWT, and the skeptic community at large, benefits from addressing the smokey-backroom, lounge-lizard component of the blog. Content contributed to the site needs to be not only suitable for publication in eg The New York or London Times, but ultimately even for inclusion in an IPCC Assessment Report.
Dr. Ball asks in the original post:
”Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?”
Yes, the Noble Lie.
Ok, so I’m really late to this, a week in WDW will do that.
Invoking “The Big Lie” is tricky business. In context, Hitler is accusing the Jews/Marxists of using “The Big Lie” with respect to the narrative of why Germany lost WW1 when in fact the narrative was true. So, in accusing someone of perpetrating “The Big Lie” you’ve actually put yourself in the role of accusing the truth of being a lie.
IMHO, the original post should have been centered around the Noble Lie instead.
Wikipedia has the Noble Lie cheat sheet. This entry has a link to their Big Lie article, in the See also.
The Noble Lie goes back to Socrates, and has been popular with intellectuals, scholars, and lesser actors, for centuries. Thus, it can entail a lot of complexity, though it is not especially polarizing or toxic.
The Big Lie drags in baggage that is highly polarizing and toxic, and its history has been (therefore?) distorted, manipulated & abused. Using this Lie-theme rhetorically or in debate, is like tossing a cup of gasoline into the living-room stove, to get it going better. Oh boy.
Those who have a problem with Tim Ball’s post may be saying more about themselves than about what they’re complaining about. The ‘good’ Germans in academia turned their backs on what was happening to the Jews — they didn’t want to know. When it comes to global warming alarmism, the facilitators of deception also are a playing a big role in giving wings to propaganda and fear mongering; remaining quiet can be a very loud silence when standing up and speaking out is the only moral thing to do. Real scientists should be outraged by the ‘hockey stick,’ bogus claims of a 97% consensus and the corruption of data caused by the UHI effect. “Only 1000 stations have records of 100 years and almost all of them are in heavily populated areas of northeastern US or Western Europe and subject to urban heat island effect.: ~Dr. Tim Ball
The hangup with this approach, is that blog-owner and prominent AGW-skeptic Anthony Watts is himself the lead person in this category.
While Mr. Watts did not throw Dr. Ball under the bus, and appears to have somewhat reluctantly allowed the criticism of Dr. Ball’s rhetoric, he nonetheless makes clear that had he read the submission by Dr. Ball before publishing it, he would have required changes.
It appears that Mr. Watts himself chose or at least approved the ‘exciting’ high-stepping picture at the top.
It’s hard to ‘paint’ critics of Dr. Ball’s composition-choices, without including Mr. Watts.
At least the cards are on the table –e.g., the Left sought to marginalize Wm. Gray (Global Warming’s First Victim of “the Totalitarian Temptation”) by labeling him a denier. It shouldn’t be surprising that many skeptics may wish to call out those that use liberal fascist tactics to draw attention to the fact that AGW is not really about science at all or it wouldn’t be a Left vs. right issue.
It’s understandable, for sure. But it’s a rigged game. The Left can talk & act provocatively, and it’s cute. Let the Right behave the same way, and it’s … not-cute. That’s just the way it is in the current era. Getting upset about it … only puts a smile on the Left’s face.
The Right does have the natural assets to escape the trap. The Left’s mission is to distract them from remembering those assets, and to trick them into going with their liabilities, instead.
It is inherent/intrinsic in the Progressive philosophy that if we can Change, we can theoretically Improve. Perceiving this opportunity-in-principle is their special flash of genius. Their liability is a weak intuitive grasp of what should or can Change … and an even worse grasp of what represents an Improvement. They wanna just roll the dice. Stability is their enemy.
The Conservative-Right psychology is attuned to the values & beauties of Stability. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it. If something does need Changed, look first before you leap. Carefully select any Improvement, tally the full costs, and be prepared to pay the price.
Conservative’s special abiding genius is their capacity for discipline, on multiple levels. It enables them to effectively face challenges on almost any scale or dimension, and sustains them on epic journeys to the goal.
Skeptics of Climate-Drama are letting the opposition ‘get their goat’. They are using the – hurtful! – provocative antics of their opposition, to excuse (infantile) provocative responses. The irony of Conservatives acting like Radicals is thus far escaping them (blinded by their oh-so-justified anger). Blow all that.
AGW-skeptics need to suck it up, pull it together. Quit acting so … so wounded.
And unlike the AGW-dramatist opponent, Conservatives actually have what it takes.
I jumped into this one the day it was posted, and many people have posted comments which show they see things very much as I did, that either the good Professors—and a very great many others—had given tacit support to destructive policies in the name of all things Green (for whatever reasons), or they were dupes who were being used. Again, let’s not forget that many many others apparently did the same, but weren’t even kind enough to respond or chime in. Professors Edwards and Betts have spoken up, however, and drawn the lightning. But let’s save some ire for others as or more deserving. I have yet to hear their entire story, and I believe they’re entitled to speak their piece, and I would indeed like to know, if they can recall every step along the way, how they justify silence on this point, support on that, etc.
That said, I’m not holding my breath; I can’t tell you why I did many things which happened only weeks ago; why should I expect such of them? Can anyone explain exactly why they believe and act the way they do, throughout the span of their lives?
I could wish our host hadn’t editorialized at all. I think perhaps he shot from the hip because the subject was heating up, and he’d extended, and been extended in return, an olive branch, and wished not to give offense. I don’t know and I won’t try to speak for him or defend his actions—he’s more than capable as I’ve seen.
But on another front, I will dare to defend him: An-th-ony has been extolled here in very recent history for being very nearly a National Treasure—for representing all who claim to be Skeptics in London, for being the face of Skeptics around the world, for putting up with the stresses of providing us all this forum, and making himself a HUGE target for both professional, and much worse, personal attacks, because he stood up and did what he thought was right: he defended the science.
He did not take a political stance, but one AGAINST political stances. Personally, I think he erred in his editorial comments because being cordial to people, skeptic or not, is a social, or political activity. The science is about the facts, not the niceties, and while there’s everything to be said in approval of civil discourse when discussing a subject, a close reading of Dr. Ball’s posts would reveal to anyone that he never called anyone anything, and was aggressive, but civil. He used a historical, factual event to make a point, and was accused of making dastardly comparisons—which he did not, not even tacitly.
I think those who so accused him protest-eth too much. He didn’t name any names, made a generalization, and revealingly, some people appeared to have taken it personally.
There’s an old legal maxim: “When the facts are with you, pound the facts. When the Law is with you, pound the Law. When neither the facts nor the Law are with you, pound the table.”
That is the gist of the responding post from Professors Edwards and Betts. To me it says, “Guilty conscience.” Yet I don’t think they are bad people; many good people do great harm through the best of intentions every day—why should they be expected to be saints?
I was taught once, by a very very wise man, to ask myself a question before I spoke:
“Do you wish to persuade, or perform?”
We need to persuade the people who currently have the ear of the political class to follow the science, where ever it leads, even if it does not support the pet theories of the various “environmental” groups, and convince them that though the world may be warming, the science says that the policies currently being pursued are of much greater harm than doing nothing at present—among other things. But this one is the most important thing at present.
I say again, we must persuade them to follow the science. NOT convince them they’re wrong. They’re intelligent enough, if they follow the science, to determine the facts. And science is all about trying to prove things wrong. We have problems with people like Dr. Mann, who appear to take this personally, that someone would try to prove HIS theory wrong—ego, right? So let’s not be that way ourselves. It’s not about us being right. It’s about the fact that we don’t CARE who’s right, we care about the science, because if we get THAT right, we’ll do the right things, and we have proven to ourselves that the science says the IPCC’s advice to policy makers is dangerously wrong.
Insults, dares, accusations— How does hurling any of that at Professors Edwards or Betts help us fix the horrible misallocation of wealth which is currently doing so much damage in the world today?
Do we wish to persuade or perform?
And I for one will not forgive anyone who antagonizes An-th-ony to the point where he says, “Why am I bothering?” and decides to fold up his tent and slip away into the night. Especially over this!
Because my own memory is not so short that I can forget all the great good he has done for the world by providing this forum—on his own dime, with his own time—where so many skeptics can share their thoughts, and people such as myself can come to get better educated, so we may go out and persuade other non-science types that no, cAGW is a fallacy, and dump fact after fact after fact on them, with links and resources to bolster our arguments.
Few enough places existed that provided this a decade ago, none as well then, none as well now.
An-th-ony, I think that Dr Ball’s post stands on its own, and I don’t believe you need to distance yourself from it. I know that Professor Tamsin did indeed take after Dr. Mann in twitter when Mann had the gall to attack Professor Spencer; you covered that here, after all! We were all happy to know that Professor Edwards wasn’t just a WarmBot, slavishly repeating the dogma, as I recall—I have no need to see that Professors Edwards or Betts prove anything, personally, about their past behavior! Who am I to judge??
I, along with many others, only wish that these two, and their colleagues, will help end the politicization of the subject, bring it BACK to the Lab where it belongs, and look for the answer instead of letting demogogues and politicians and self-seekers choose it in committee, such that anyone may enrich themselves at the world’s expense.
p@
P@ … it is not possible to put the genie back into the bottle. It should never have been allowed out of the bottle except for the corrupting influences of money and power. ‘Climate scientists’ sold their souls to the devil for a few pieces of silver, now the damage is done and they find themselves intoxicated with a little fame and addicted to self adulation. Persons far more dangerous than them control their lives and careers like drug pushers in the mall toying with the lives of their addicts … getting them to do and say more and more ridiculous things each day in exchange for a fleeting high.
Streetcred,
I know I probably sound like a cross between Don Quixote in The Man of La Mancha & Pollyanna here, and I know YOU get it: cAGE isn’t a conspiracy in the way that most people think of them, with some evil John Pleasance type stroking a long-haired white cat & talking to a table full of shadowy types. It’s a perfect storm where a few petty people’s egos fed by the credulous gullibility of some well-meaning environment zealots, fueled the greed of a few politicians who saw a tool, and a bunch of greedy corporate types piled on, then some opportunistic administrators at universities, and then political correctness infected it and to get published, you had to be seen to support AGW, and before too long, to even get a grant, you had to mention AGW…
All this was even recently covered, more or less by Tim Ball in another of his excellent posts.
But I still think there’s a need to regroup and recap here, and ask ourselves just what DO we want from Professors Edwards and Betts, and from others that support AGW?
Speaking for myself, I don’t want an apology, or have a need to see someone “atone”, yet I think I hear that vibe from some folks.
People are dying because of actions being taken on the advice if computer-simulation wielding zealots. I believe that. But the responsibility for those deaths and that misery spreads so far and wide, there is no point in trying to assign blame: we’d never get around to correcting it for all the time recriminations would eat.
We need to be civil, but firm, in insisting that both sides follow the science, and ask the questions BEFORE deciding what the answer is. An-th-ony has always supported that by posting papers regardless of what side of the argument they seem to support, and letting us ask questions and thrash it all out.
This is all how scientific enquiry is supposed to work. And the Wishing-will-make-it-so crowd are losing the argument, EVEN THOUGH THEY AND THEIR FRIENDS CONTROL THE MAJORITY OF THE NEWS FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD.
I see no need to coddle people, but civility is still important. Winning over a Tamsin Edwards would ‘ve a much greater thing than crushing her under abuse. Likewise Professor Betts et al. I would even welcome Michael Mann, did he display a true road2damascus conversion.
The important thing is to do the correct thing, and to arrive at that, we must do the science, not the politics. To steal a favorite Alarmist term, we may be at a tipping point: the very fact that two professors who support AGW posted a response to a posting here, that they were bothered enough by what a bunch of skeptics had to say, is , I think, a very telling point.
Sou doesn’t trumpet new AGW discoveries: she snipes at anything on WUWT, trying only to tear skeptics down, not build “consensus” up, down to frothing about the most inconsequential , like how few new posts appeared this weekend (on a holiday weekend in the U.S., and I lived in Oz & was married to a True Blue, dinkum Sheila from Queensland for some years, so I KNOW Sou has to be very ignorant indeed to not be aware of Thanksgiving in the U.S.), as if An-th-ony must be about to shutter the site. Few AGW supporting sites that still bother to make much noise now. Why bother? They realize they’re not winning the argument, in spite of their overwhelming advantage. Why? Because simple facts get in the way, and people are NOT convinced by “we’re even more certain that ever” rhetoric.
When did we last hear of an outrage from the SkS kids, for example? AGW supporters got very desperate, a published and supported lies (97%, anyone?) while their AGW scientists came up with more, and more increasingly bizarre excuses for the pause, and maybe it’s just me, but I feel the same desperation from them I thought I could feel from the Kremlin back around ’87.
But it would be much better to have a few of the AGW crowd start to question their conclusions, tHan retrenchment even more desperately in AGW dogma. People are suffering. We need to end this sooner, for them.
I don’t feel a need for vindication; history will record the winners. I’d just like to see the various governments stop wasting time and wealth and lives on more simulation-supported perpetual motion machines, and spend some time on things which people DO need.
To flog the poor horse just a little more, I don’t think we can force anyone to say, “Yeah, I was wrong” & it’s pointless to try. But maybe we can get them to agree on a few sensible things that don’t require anyone abasing themselves? Things like, “Ok, the science might not be settled…” Just to start?
Trying not to be TOO hopeful, here…
Have a better one…
p@
You come within a hair’s breadth of saying something, then don’t.
Is it for effect, or what ?
So apparently Warmists are welcome to routinely smear skeptics as “[Holocaust] deniers”, but a skeptic finding parallels with Warmists’ deceptions and those of the nazis is completely unfair.
They pay a price for these tactics. Public support for the AGW cause has been falling for 8 straight years. Their big global shindigs are flopping, one after the other. Part of that is their ‘signature’ deceptive & antisocial behavior. At the very least, emulating them will only pull skeptics down to their level … and in practice it is probably much worse when skeptics try the same thing.
AGW-alarmism proponents love it, when skeptics act like AGW-alarmism proponents.
Freedomfan . Another thing that the warmist should know about the nazis is that they (Germans) could not stop them once they realized they needed to be stopped. Many did try and were killed.
It was essentially the taking over of government by a new means of control over the masses that animated the spirit of global warming in the conceited mind of Al Gore (the putative Minister of Unified Earth). A political outcome in Florida was, however, not a part of Gore’s plan.
Gore changed the plan after being denied the Presidency of America by George Bush. Gore decided instead to satisfy himself with simply burning down the country. In the same way that many today refuse to condemn Muslim anti-Semitism, the silence of academia concerning Al Gore’s use of science to spread anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism has been the most chilling response of all.
Drs. Betts, Edwards — still feel like playing the ‘long game’ with this loathsome crowd?
Nothing more loathsome than trading your integrity for a few pieces of silver.
I found this quite interesting in the light of the conspiracy discussion:
Uncovered: Scientist-enviro conspiracy to have neonic pesticides banned
http://junkscience.com/2014/12/04/uncovered-scientist-enviro-conspiracy-to-have-neonic-pesticides-banned/
“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.”
The absurdity of these Orwellian comments is on such an epic scale that I don’t know where to start.
1) These are the very people that call real scientists “skeptics” “deniers” “flat earthers” and “conspiracy freaks.” They are the ones that publish the Orwellian science articles replacing real data with “consensus.” They are the ones exposed in the leaked e-mails, and suddenly Dr Ball is the villain? Hitler would have been proud of this attack the messenger type of an article. Where have these “outraged” experts been during the climate inquisition? They are only now outraged when the witch they were burning actually fights back and sheds the light on reality? The hypocrisy is on such a biblical scale it is laughable.
2) The parallels between the Eugenics Movement and Piltdown man are undeniable. Michael Crichton wrote about it in his book “State of Fear.” Dr Ball has said nothing that is obvious to anyone studying this issue.
3) These “scientists” have a reason to fear because the new Republican Congress is 100% certain to investigate the claims that skeptics have been making for years. Just google “Climategate Mt Kilimanjaro Dr Lonnie Thompson and sublimation” for a glimpse of what is to come. I will personally love to see the “scientists” explain to congress how a glacier melts in sub zero temperatures and how you can have glacier melt when there is no warming.
4) The “guilty man flees when no one pursues,” and “me thinks thou protests too much.” The Climate scientists have behaved as guilty people have behaves since the beginning of time. This fraud will surely end badly, and trying to make amends now will be futile, and attacking Dr Ball won’t change that outcome.
5) Here is basis science 101 that hopefully will be a requires experiment in all class rooms going forward after this hoax is exposed:
Scientific Method 101, undoing the damage done by the Climate Science Fraud:
1) Define the Null Hypothesis: Man is NOT causing Climate Change
2) Collect Data: Use the Greenland Icecore data over the past 14k and 20 k years.
3) Test the Data: What are the high and low temp values and what is the standard deviation?
4) Analyze the data: Are current temps at a high or low? Where do they fall in the range? Are we currently or at anytime in the past 100 years outside 2 standard deviations from the norm?
5) Reach a conclusion: The AGW theory isn’t supported by the data and is a hoax.
That is what 100% of all classrooms that do this simple, basic and foundational test will reach. Without that simple experiment on their side, they really have nothing, but I could go on and on and on, but the people perpetration this fraud know it is a fraud, and they know what they have to fear when Congress starts the investigations. I hope Dr Ball makes sure the investigators know where to look. Keep up the great work Dr Ball, and don’t let the Orwellian “scientists” stop you from pursuing the truth. History will record you as a hero, and your critics will join Eugenics and the Piltdown man as embarrassments to science.
Watts, you don’t need big oil money. By this time, your blog is self-sustaining. It doesn’t do the big oil cause any good to continue to fund you, when you publish stories in their interests on your own. They can use the funds more effectively elsewhere.
[Site rules require you use a valid email address. .mod]
You’re from the Rolling Stone school of investigative reporting, we take it?
“Are contemporary Leftist critics of Israel secretly anti-Semitic? No, not in the vast majority of cases. Are modern socialists inwardly yearning to put global warming sceptics in prison camps? Nope. Do Keynesians want the whole apparatus of corporatism, expressed by Mussolini as “everything in the state, nothing outside the state”? Again, no. There are idiots who discredit every cause, of course, but most people on the Left are sincere in their stated commitment to human rights, personal dignity and pluralism.
My beef with many (not all) Leftists is a simpler one. By refusing to return the compliment, by assuming a moral superiority, they make political dialogue almost impossible. Using the soubriquet “Right-wing” to mean “something undesirable” is a small but important example.
Next time you hear Leftists use the word fascist as a general insult, gently point out the difference between what they like to imagine the NSDAP stood for and what it actually proclaimed.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/
Linked from:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Libertarians also hear this frequently from the Left. They are almost habitually mischaracterized by the Left as being “far-right-wing” when nothing could be further from the truth.
Instead, that is being leveled at them because they are “not-Left”, and so the easiest way to demonize them is to call them “right”, even though the very idea is ridiculous to anyone who is familiar with the philosophy. Libertarians are not “right-wing” in any real political sense, only in Leftist propaganda.
My reason for replying is that I too have seen, to a rather ridiculous degree, this assumed moral superiority in those of Leftist leaning. Especially in recent years, they have had a very strong tendency to call anyone who does not share their views “stupid”, which invokes in the minds of the not-stupid, thoughts about Dunning and Kruger.
“Next time you hear Leftists use the word fascist as a general insult, gently point out the difference between what they like to imagine the NSDAP stood for and what it actually proclaimed.”
And don’t forget the KKK, which was inextricably intertwined with the Democratic Party of the U.S.