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
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.
============