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
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.