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
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”.