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
before I go – Richard criticising the Guardian who were apologising for Gleick’s unethical conduct:
via Bishop Hill:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/27/lying-and-deception-can-be-justified-says-climate-change-eth.html?currentPage=2
Here’s Richard Betts’ comment from the Guardian thread:
Mr Garvey
I am a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and also a lead author with the IPCC (NB. the opinions I express here are my own though – I am just telling you that for context).
I would ask you to refrain from bringing my profession into disrepute by advocating that we act unethically. We already have enough people accusing us, completely incorrectly, of being frauds, green / left-wing activists or government puppets. A rabble-rousing journalist such as yourself telling us that we should “fight dirty” does not help our reputation at all. “Fighting dirty” will never be justified no matter what tactics have been used to discredit us in the past.
Inflammatory remarks such as yours will only serve to further aggravate the so-called “climate wars”. People’s reputations are already being damaged, and we know that some climate scientists get highly distasteful and upsetting mail through no fault of their own. If people like you continue to stir things up further, it is only a matter of time before somebody actually gets hurt, or worse.
Please keep your advice to yourself, we can do without it thank you very much.
Richard Betts (Prof)
BRINGING THE CLIMATE PROFESSION INTO REPUTE
“I would ask you to refrain from bringing my profession into disrepute”
A university colleague who went to the East Anglia U end 2009 to give a math talk told me the taxi driver was offering to make a small detour for her, passing in front of the CRU building, “the ones with the scandal.”
” If people like you continue to stir things up further, it is only a matter of time before somebody actually gets hurt, or worse.”
Did Betts really write that? It could easly be taken as a death threat.
After twenty-some years of being deliberately, premeditatively compared to Holocaust deniers, enthusiastic suggestions of Nuremberg trials, and accusations of general total villainy – all against the backdrop of the sort of political and scientific shenanigans we’ve come to expect from the AGW crowd – it’s difficult NOT to see the sort of comparison Ball suggested. As I see it, those in the warmist camp, who were making these sort of blanket, knee-jerk accusations against those who questioned junk science, really fit the mold for their own charges more than those they were accusing – in effect, accusing the opposition of being what they themselves actually are, as a means of camouflage – which is demonstrated by their own thin skins when their rhetoric turns back upon them.
It’s worth mentioning that the Holocaust would not have occurred (at least the way it did) without the junk-science of Eugenics – which purported to save us from ‘mongrel races’ – NOW we have junk science that purports to save the Earth from humanity itself. ‘Science’ has given us both. Which is worse?
So now cant we get on with it. Most climate websites and blogs tend to be echo chambers because of the entrenched positions taken by the extreme sides. This blog is no different because most ‘warmist’ opinion is shouted down or just shunned before it is listened to.
I have added to the comments above and expressed my disappointment that this thread happened at all – because at the end of the day I think it was a knee jerk reaction and I am even more surprised to hear that the John Cleese – Fawlty Towers picture was edited in, in fact I’m quite shocked. Having said that the heading and rebuttal was equally regrettable as it sets things off on the wrong foot – a less antagonistic title and a more empathic approach may have succeeded in getting more thoughtful responses, perhaps from Tim Ball himself who has kept sensibly quiet in all this.
Personally I would hope that Tamsin And Richard are able to ignore the rubbish that appears on all these sites and present their support for the warmist view. Surely being able to stand against the critical storm here is the best peer review available.
Ignoring the dross is a blogging virtue. I have had my say and I hope I havent over stepped the mark and I most certainly welcome their viewpoint and avidly look forward to proper debate rather than the echo chamber back slapping. If I have offended I apologise, can we now get back to the science?
Charmed I’m sure.
Betts and Edwards were given a guest post to complain about Dr Tim Ball or being compared to Liars of the past, to wag their fingers at one and all and or what?
After 1100 comments neither has been able to quote Dr Ball ‘s oh so offensive statement.
Why?
Because their reading comprehension is a well developed as their abilities as climate scientists?
Richard Betts seems to be having an online hissy fit.
Comes here, plays the school mama and beats a hasty retreat as the mob snickers.
Comes across as a pompous bully, inarticulate and shallow.
If the comments made here reflect the abilities of this man, you Brits are so lucky..
I for one see a clear explanation of why the Team IPCC ™ Climatologists, avoid debate at all costs.
I dont know Richard or Tamsin and I dont know their work, my reference is this thread. I doubt anyone else, bar 1 or 2, knows them either. I will give them the benefit of the doubt that this thread has become an embarrassment and I hope to hear their views in the future.
I do not agree with attack dog policy, nor do I claim a stake in this blogsite, I know what its like to be hounded off a blogsite for no other reason than being too neutral and not warmist enough, it wasnt nice and it upset me for several days.
I cant speak for anybody else and quite a few here are definitely not speaking from my viewpoint. But having expressed their view and having expressed mine I have no right to expect a public apology from them nor should they give it. My apology was purely in case I caused them personal upset, which wasnt intended. Their beef is with Tim and the thread here was in open rebuttal of what he was saying and they have both been back and replied to reasonable comment. I think they have been more than reasonable when you consider the tide of comment against them (mine included). Whether or not they apologise to Tim is up to them and no business of mine. I see no evidence of a ‘hissy fit’ just a rather ill conceived response.
As for appeasement – nothing wrong in that so long as the warmth of it doesnt blind the reality!
MWh “As for appeasement -nothing wrong in that”. That was not the case with Adolf (the fellow most of this fuss is about). He took the peace offer as a sign of weakness and that emboldened him to attack and as they say the rest is history. That sure has been a lesson to me.
Richard Betts
November 30, 2014 at 2:39 am
Betts, your words:
“….. I feel like I’ve been invited to stay at someone’s house as a guest, only to find they’ve got pet rats who’ve left droppings in my shoe……”
==============
You sound like a hypocrite with such vile words. Are you claiming academic authority? Could it be that a rat left droppings here on WUWT in the lead post.
BTW, I don’t see anything in Dr. Ball’s post the should have gotten your panties in such a twist.
Yea, yea, I know, I don’t subscribe to the academic authority bit, but then you have provided a good example of why.
IPCC is vile.
I’m afraid that the Mainstream Republicans will listen to twits like this McCain advisor & not go after the purveyors of CACA poison in this Congress, but wait for a sympathetic, pro-science President as well:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/e2-wire/224275-will-gop-put-climate-science-back-on-trial
My Congressman is in the GOP leadership, but has a lot of constituents with heavily subsidized windmills on their land. In the aggregate they (including my own friends & relatives) donate more to his campaigns than I do. Both my Senators are lost causes, Klimate Kool-Aid Drinkers.
PS: Happily, the Klimate Kool-Aid Klan are now in the minority.
Tim Ball has his facts down, maybe unfortunate to use AH, but it doesnt mean that many scientists dont believe the big lie, just like many of the public. They are just trying to prove the small details or not, studying the reason for a specific card in a deck of 52, not realizing that its part of the house of cards.
I’m not native english and even though I believe my english is good, these are things I find very hard to express so please don’t sue me if I’m not perfectly clear or correct.
In my opinion, this article is very significant. It is the first time I see two mainstream scientists coming to express their disagreement with another article on WUWT. What it means to me is that they consider WUWT sufficiently serious platform for a discussion.
It is a great chance for WUWT. WUWT is asking for open discussion for years and here it got the chance to hold it itself. This article may not exactly be scientific, but it is a test. We should not lose that chance, regardless how we may dislike opinions from the “other side”. For most of us readers, global warming is largely matter of belief, not of performing scientific research. And yes I understand that hearing arguments based on things we don’t believe hurts. But if we can stand that, we can learn and we can improve while without discussion and always looking at just one side, we are inevitably going the “principia scientific” direction, however much we are convinced that we are the ones who are right.
I would like to thank Anthony for publishing this article. I lost a lot of my belief in WUWT in recent years but this article is a promise. I wish more serious and educated people found the courage to send their polite arguments here for publication – next time hopefully about scientific rather than political matters. They don’t have to be always right, but I am pretty sure they won’t be always wrong either.
Labeling each other does little to move us forward.
The climate Is an enormously complex entity— and none of us know each part.
With well over 200 Million views on this blog with this article approaching 1200 comments…………Have we reached the point where ( at times ) it is necessary to create an area on “Watt’s Up With That” —Which appears more like an actual debate forum with rules and such?
I have read this blog for so long that an article with a 100X less replies was a big day and I have very seldom seen what I would consider an actual debate that did not quickly fracture and disappear as the tide of articles rolled on.
Put the contestants in a ring—YES!— I’m asking for blood sport science.
Show me your numbers, show me your data, tell me where you got the graph from, show me the exact quotes on the exact article, and show me what you got.
I agree 100% with Dr.Ball and the central question of his article .What is the motive for creating the exaggerated manmade global warming lie ?
!. Money 2.Money 3. Money All the rest …Power ….Population control ….Vote buying …Redistribution of wealth all pale in comparison .
When someone has robbed you don’t expect a civil conversation . That ship sailed years ago .
Global warming was essentially a massive inside trader scam of world proportions .
The IPCC scientists were the store front and still are .
Amber says;
“IPCC scientists” are the same as WUWT authors & commenters.
We here on this blog have zero authority, and are responsible for only those words we pen. Yet what is Mr. Watts’ blog, without the throng adding so much content?
Ditto for ‘IPCC scientists’. They volunteer their time, donating research, opinions and data to the IPCC entity. Yet they have no authority, no power, and no responsibility … other than for the occasional faux pas they commit in their own writings. And they get no money.
There aren’t really any IPCC scientists. IPCC is strictly a “bureau”, public servant assignees from member-nations, a policy Panel (the ‘P’ in IPCC). IPCC itself is not composed of scientists, and does not conduct science.
There are thousands of scientists who contribute materials – gratis – for the IPCC to consider in doing their policy work. It’s not practical or realistic to tar them all with one brush, or march them all off to some purgatory/gulag. Firstly, the vast majority of them are doing or saying nothing that is controversial, from the skeptics’ point of view. Except that they do it on behalf of the IPCC.
From tens of thousands of contributions to the IPCC enterprise, we have a small collection of bloopers. Similar (or higher) goof-rates will be found at, say, Nature.
Again, mistakes and excesses can also be found on WUWT. Does that mean the bootjacks can stomp in and rip the server-plug outa the wall? There are those who would cheer, but no.
That there will be strong reactions to the appearance of a high-level IPCC contributor here on WUWT is understandable. Dr. Richard Betts is the IPCC AR5 Lead Author, making him a preeminent figure among the throng who contribute to the IPCC. Albeit, unpaid.
There have been expressions of dismay, that WUWT is essentially ‘fraternizing with the enemy’. That now we have to all talk like mealy-mouthed bureaucrat-drones ourselves, speaking only in fancy-pants tones out of concern for the tender sensibilities of visiting dignitaries … who are ‘collaborators’ with our opposition.
=====
Anthony Watts is onboard with the importance of changes on this/his blog.
The key statement in this Post by Drs. Betts & Edwards, reads:
WUWT, and the skeptic community at large, benefits from addressing the smokey-backroom, lounge-lizard component of the blog. Content contributed to the site needs to be not only suitable for publication in eg The New York or London Times, but ultimately even for inclusion in an IPCC Assessment Report.
Dr. Ball asks in the original post:
”Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?”
Yes, the Noble Lie.
Ok, so I’m really late to this, a week in WDW will do that.
Invoking “The Big Lie” is tricky business. In context, Hitler is accusing the Jews/Marxists of using “The Big Lie” with respect to the narrative of why Germany lost WW1 when in fact the narrative was true. So, in accusing someone of perpetrating “The Big Lie” you’ve actually put yourself in the role of accusing the truth of being a lie.
IMHO, the original post should have been centered around the Noble Lie instead.
Wikipedia has the Noble Lie cheat sheet. This entry has a link to their Big Lie article, in the See also.
The Noble Lie goes back to Socrates, and has been popular with intellectuals, scholars, and lesser actors, for centuries. Thus, it can entail a lot of complexity, though it is not especially polarizing or toxic.
The Big Lie drags in baggage that is highly polarizing and toxic, and its history has been (therefore?) distorted, manipulated & abused. Using this Lie-theme rhetorically or in debate, is like tossing a cup of gasoline into the living-room stove, to get it going better. Oh boy.
Those who have a problem with Tim Ball’s post may be saying more about themselves than about what they’re complaining about. The ‘good’ Germans in academia turned their backs on what was happening to the Jews — they didn’t want to know. When it comes to global warming alarmism, the facilitators of deception also are a playing a big role in giving wings to propaganda and fear mongering; remaining quiet can be a very loud silence when standing up and speaking out is the only moral thing to do. Real scientists should be outraged by the ‘hockey stick,’ bogus claims of a 97% consensus and the corruption of data caused by the UHI effect. “Only 1000 stations have records of 100 years and almost all of them are in heavily populated areas of northeastern US or Western Europe and subject to urban heat island effect.: ~Dr. Tim Ball
The hangup with this approach, is that blog-owner and prominent AGW-skeptic Anthony Watts is himself the lead person in this category.
While Mr. Watts did not throw Dr. Ball under the bus, and appears to have somewhat reluctantly allowed the criticism of Dr. Ball’s rhetoric, he nonetheless makes clear that had he read the submission by Dr. Ball before publishing it, he would have required changes.
It appears that Mr. Watts himself chose or at least approved the ‘exciting’ high-stepping picture at the top.
It’s hard to ‘paint’ critics of Dr. Ball’s composition-choices, without including Mr. Watts.
At least the cards are on the table –e.g., the Left sought to marginalize Wm. Gray (Global Warming’s First Victim of “the Totalitarian Temptation”) by labeling him a denier. It shouldn’t be surprising that many skeptics may wish to call out those that use liberal fascist tactics to draw attention to the fact that AGW is not really about science at all or it wouldn’t be a Left vs. right issue.
It’s understandable, for sure. But it’s a rigged game. The Left can talk & act provocatively, and it’s cute. Let the Right behave the same way, and it’s … not-cute. That’s just the way it is in the current era. Getting upset about it … only puts a smile on the Left’s face.
The Right does have the natural assets to escape the trap. The Left’s mission is to distract them from remembering those assets, and to trick them into going with their liabilities, instead.
It is inherent/intrinsic in the Progressive philosophy that if we can Change, we can theoretically Improve. Perceiving this opportunity-in-principle is their special flash of genius. Their liability is a weak intuitive grasp of what should or can Change … and an even worse grasp of what represents an Improvement. They wanna just roll the dice. Stability is their enemy.
The Conservative-Right psychology is attuned to the values & beauties of Stability. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it. If something does need Changed, look first before you leap. Carefully select any Improvement, tally the full costs, and be prepared to pay the price.
Conservative’s special abiding genius is their capacity for discipline, on multiple levels. It enables them to effectively face challenges on almost any scale or dimension, and sustains them on epic journeys to the goal.
Skeptics of Climate-Drama are letting the opposition ‘get their goat’. They are using the – hurtful! – provocative antics of their opposition, to excuse (infantile) provocative responses. The irony of Conservatives acting like Radicals is thus far escaping them (blinded by their oh-so-justified anger). Blow all that.
AGW-skeptics need to suck it up, pull it together. Quit acting so … so wounded.
And unlike the AGW-dramatist opponent, Conservatives actually have what it takes.
I jumped into this one the day it was posted, and many people have posted comments which show they see things very much as I did, that either the good Professors—and a very great many others—had given tacit support to destructive policies in the name of all things Green (for whatever reasons), or they were dupes who were being used. Again, let’s not forget that many many others apparently did the same, but weren’t even kind enough to respond or chime in. Professors Edwards and Betts have spoken up, however, and drawn the lightning. But let’s save some ire for others as or more deserving. I have yet to hear their entire story, and I believe they’re entitled to speak their piece, and I would indeed like to know, if they can recall every step along the way, how they justify silence on this point, support on that, etc.
That said, I’m not holding my breath; I can’t tell you why I did many things which happened only weeks ago; why should I expect such of them? Can anyone explain exactly why they believe and act the way they do, throughout the span of their lives?
I could wish our host hadn’t editorialized at all. I think perhaps he shot from the hip because the subject was heating up, and he’d extended, and been extended in return, an olive branch, and wished not to give offense. I don’t know and I won’t try to speak for him or defend his actions—he’s more than capable as I’ve seen.
But on another front, I will dare to defend him: An-th-ony has been extolled here in very recent history for being very nearly a National Treasure—for representing all who claim to be Skeptics in London, for being the face of Skeptics around the world, for putting up with the stresses of providing us all this forum, and making himself a HUGE target for both professional, and much worse, personal attacks, because he stood up and did what he thought was right: he defended the science.
He did not take a political stance, but one AGAINST political stances. Personally, I think he erred in his editorial comments because being cordial to people, skeptic or not, is a social, or political activity. The science is about the facts, not the niceties, and while there’s everything to be said in approval of civil discourse when discussing a subject, a close reading of Dr. Ball’s posts would reveal to anyone that he never called anyone anything, and was aggressive, but civil. He used a historical, factual event to make a point, and was accused of making dastardly comparisons—which he did not, not even tacitly.
I think those who so accused him protest-eth too much. He didn’t name any names, made a generalization, and revealingly, some people appeared to have taken it personally.
There’s an old legal maxim: “When the facts are with you, pound the facts. When the Law is with you, pound the Law. When neither the facts nor the Law are with you, pound the table.”
That is the gist of the responding post from Professors Edwards and Betts. To me it says, “Guilty conscience.” Yet I don’t think they are bad people; many good people do great harm through the best of intentions every day—why should they be expected to be saints?
I was taught once, by a very very wise man, to ask myself a question before I spoke:
“Do you wish to persuade, or perform?”
We need to persuade the people who currently have the ear of the political class to follow the science, where ever it leads, even if it does not support the pet theories of the various “environmental” groups, and convince them that though the world may be warming, the science says that the policies currently being pursued are of much greater harm than doing nothing at present—among other things. But this one is the most important thing at present.
I say again, we must persuade them to follow the science. NOT convince them they’re wrong. They’re intelligent enough, if they follow the science, to determine the facts. And science is all about trying to prove things wrong. We have problems with people like Dr. Mann, who appear to take this personally, that someone would try to prove HIS theory wrong—ego, right? So let’s not be that way ourselves. It’s not about us being right. It’s about the fact that we don’t CARE who’s right, we care about the science, because if we get THAT right, we’ll do the right things, and we have proven to ourselves that the science says the IPCC’s advice to policy makers is dangerously wrong.
Insults, dares, accusations— How does hurling any of that at Professors Edwards or Betts help us fix the horrible misallocation of wealth which is currently doing so much damage in the world today?
Do we wish to persuade or perform?
And I for one will not forgive anyone who antagonizes An-th-ony to the point where he says, “Why am I bothering?” and decides to fold up his tent and slip away into the night. Especially over this!
Because my own memory is not so short that I can forget all the great good he has done for the world by providing this forum—on his own dime, with his own time—where so many skeptics can share their thoughts, and people such as myself can come to get better educated, so we may go out and persuade other non-science types that no, cAGW is a fallacy, and dump fact after fact after fact on them, with links and resources to bolster our arguments.
Few enough places existed that provided this a decade ago, none as well then, none as well now.
An-th-ony, I think that Dr Ball’s post stands on its own, and I don’t believe you need to distance yourself from it. I know that Professor Tamsin did indeed take after Dr. Mann in twitter when Mann had the gall to attack Professor Spencer; you covered that here, after all! We were all happy to know that Professor Edwards wasn’t just a WarmBot, slavishly repeating the dogma, as I recall—I have no need to see that Professors Edwards or Betts prove anything, personally, about their past behavior! Who am I to judge??
I, along with many others, only wish that these two, and their colleagues, will help end the politicization of the subject, bring it BACK to the Lab where it belongs, and look for the answer instead of letting demogogues and politicians and self-seekers choose it in committee, such that anyone may enrich themselves at the world’s expense.
p@ur momisugly
P@ur momisugly … it is not possible to put the genie back into the bottle. It should never have been allowed out of the bottle except for the corrupting influences of money and power. ‘Climate scientists’ sold their souls to the devil for a few pieces of silver, now the damage is done and they find themselves intoxicated with a little fame and addicted to self adulation. Persons far more dangerous than them control their lives and careers like drug pushers in the mall toying with the lives of their addicts … getting them to do and say more and more ridiculous things each day in exchange for a fleeting high.
Streetcred,
I know I probably sound like a cross between Don Quixote in The Man of La Mancha & Pollyanna here, and I know YOU get it: cAGE isn’t a conspiracy in the way that most people think of them, with some evil John Pleasance type stroking a long-haired white cat & talking to a table full of shadowy types. It’s a perfect storm where a few petty people’s egos fed by the credulous gullibility of some well-meaning environment zealots, fueled the greed of a few politicians who saw a tool, and a bunch of greedy corporate types piled on, then some opportunistic administrators at universities, and then political correctness infected it and to get published, you had to be seen to support AGW, and before too long, to even get a grant, you had to mention AGW…
All this was even recently covered, more or less by Tim Ball in another of his excellent posts.
But I still think there’s a need to regroup and recap here, and ask ourselves just what DO we want from Professors Edwards and Betts, and from others that support AGW?
Speaking for myself, I don’t want an apology, or have a need to see someone “atone”, yet I think I hear that vibe from some folks.
People are dying because of actions being taken on the advice if computer-simulation wielding zealots. I believe that. But the responsibility for those deaths and that misery spreads so far and wide, there is no point in trying to assign blame: we’d never get around to correcting it for all the time recriminations would eat.
We need to be civil, but firm, in insisting that both sides follow the science, and ask the questions BEFORE deciding what the answer is. An-th-ony has always supported that by posting papers regardless of what side of the argument they seem to support, and letting us ask questions and thrash it all out.
This is all how scientific enquiry is supposed to work. And the Wishing-will-make-it-so crowd are losing the argument, EVEN THOUGH THEY AND THEIR FRIENDS CONTROL THE MAJORITY OF THE NEWS FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD.
I see no need to coddle people, but civility is still important. Winning over a Tamsin Edwards would ‘ve a much greater thing than crushing her under abuse. Likewise Professor Betts et al. I would even welcome Michael Mann, did he display a true road2damascus conversion.
The important thing is to do the correct thing, and to arrive at that, we must do the science, not the politics. To steal a favorite Alarmist term, we may be at a tipping point: the very fact that two professors who support AGW posted a response to a posting here, that they were bothered enough by what a bunch of skeptics had to say, is , I think, a very telling point.
Sou doesn’t trumpet new AGW discoveries: she snipes at anything on WUWT, trying only to tear skeptics down, not build “consensus” up, down to frothing about the most inconsequential , like how few new posts appeared this weekend (on a holiday weekend in the U.S., and I lived in Oz & was married to a True Blue, dinkum Sheila from Queensland for some years, so I KNOW Sou has to be very ignorant indeed to not be aware of Thanksgiving in the U.S.), as if An-th-ony must be about to shutter the site. Few AGW supporting sites that still bother to make much noise now. Why bother? They realize they’re not winning the argument, in spite of their overwhelming advantage. Why? Because simple facts get in the way, and people are NOT convinced by “we’re even more certain that ever” rhetoric.
When did we last hear of an outrage from the SkS kids, for example? AGW supporters got very desperate, a published and supported lies (97%, anyone?) while their AGW scientists came up with more, and more increasingly bizarre excuses for the pause, and maybe it’s just me, but I feel the same desperation from them I thought I could feel from the Kremlin back around ’87.
But it would be much better to have a few of the AGW crowd start to question their conclusions, tHan retrenchment even more desperately in AGW dogma. People are suffering. We need to end this sooner, for them.
I don’t feel a need for vindication; history will record the winners. I’d just like to see the various governments stop wasting time and wealth and lives on more simulation-supported perpetual motion machines, and spend some time on things which people DO need.
To flog the poor horse just a little more, I don’t think we can force anyone to say, “Yeah, I was wrong” & it’s pointless to try. But maybe we can get them to agree on a few sensible things that don’t require anyone abasing themselves? Things like, “Ok, the science might not be settled…” Just to start?
Trying not to be TOO hopeful, here…
Have a better one…
p@ur momisugly
You come within a hair’s breadth of saying something, then don’t.
Is it for effect, or what ?
So apparently Warmists are welcome to routinely smear skeptics as “[Holocaust] deniers”, but a skeptic finding parallels with Warmists’ deceptions and those of the nazis is completely unfair.
They pay a price for these tactics. Public support for the AGW cause has been falling for 8 straight years. Their big global shindigs are flopping, one after the other. Part of that is their ‘signature’ deceptive & antisocial behavior. At the very least, emulating them will only pull skeptics down to their level … and in practice it is probably much worse when skeptics try the same thing.
AGW-alarmism proponents love it, when skeptics act like AGW-alarmism proponents.
Freedomfan . Another thing that the warmist should know about the nazis is that they (Germans) could not stop them once they realized they needed to be stopped. Many did try and were killed.
It was essentially the taking over of government by a new means of control over the masses that animated the spirit of global warming in the conceited mind of Al Gore (the putative Minister of Unified Earth). A political outcome in Florida was, however, not a part of Gore’s plan.
Gore changed the plan after being denied the Presidency of America by George Bush. Gore decided instead to satisfy himself with simply burning down the country. In the same way that many today refuse to condemn Muslim anti-Semitism, the silence of academia concerning Al Gore’s use of science to spread anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism has been the most chilling response of all.
Drs. Betts, Edwards — still feel like playing the ‘long game’ with this loathsome crowd?
Nothing more loathsome than trading your integrity for a few pieces of silver.
I found this quite interesting in the light of the conspiracy discussion:
Uncovered: Scientist-enviro conspiracy to have neonic pesticides banned
http://junkscience.com/2014/12/04/uncovered-scientist-enviro-conspiracy-to-have-neonic-pesticides-banned/
“Dr Tim Ball’s blog post “People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception” – drawing parallels between climate scientists and Hitler – doesn’t do anyone in the climate change debate any favours: in fact it seems a big (goose) step backwards. It’s especially frustrating to see him write this so soon after the productive dinner at Nic Lewis’s place, where the attendees agreed on the need to depolarise and detoxify the climate discussion.”
The absurdity of these Orwellian comments is on such an epic scale that I don’t know where to start.
1) These are the very people that call real scientists “skeptics” “deniers” “flat earthers” and “conspiracy freaks.” They are the ones that publish the Orwellian science articles replacing real data with “consensus.” They are the ones exposed in the leaked e-mails, and suddenly Dr Ball is the villain? Hitler would have been proud of this attack the messenger type of an article. Where have these “outraged” experts been during the climate inquisition? They are only now outraged when the witch they were burning actually fights back and sheds the light on reality? The hypocrisy is on such a biblical scale it is laughable.
2) The parallels between the Eugenics Movement and Piltdown man are undeniable. Michael Crichton wrote about it in his book “State of Fear.” Dr Ball has said nothing that is obvious to anyone studying this issue.
3) These “scientists” have a reason to fear because the new Republican Congress is 100% certain to investigate the claims that skeptics have been making for years. Just google “Climategate Mt Kilimanjaro Dr Lonnie Thompson and sublimation” for a glimpse of what is to come. I will personally love to see the “scientists” explain to congress how a glacier melts in sub zero temperatures and how you can have glacier melt when there is no warming.
4) The “guilty man flees when no one pursues,” and “me thinks thou protests too much.” The Climate scientists have behaved as guilty people have behaves since the beginning of time. This fraud will surely end badly, and trying to make amends now will be futile, and attacking Dr Ball won’t change that outcome.
5) Here is basis science 101 that hopefully will be a requires experiment in all class rooms going forward after this hoax is exposed:
Scientific Method 101, undoing the damage done by the Climate Science Fraud:
1) Define the Null Hypothesis: Man is NOT causing Climate Change
2) Collect Data: Use the Greenland Icecore data over the past 14k and 20 k years.
3) Test the Data: What are the high and low temp values and what is the standard deviation?
4) Analyze the data: Are current temps at a high or low? Where do they fall in the range? Are we currently or at anytime in the past 100 years outside 2 standard deviations from the norm?
5) Reach a conclusion: The AGW theory isn’t supported by the data and is a hoax.
That is what 100% of all classrooms that do this simple, basic and foundational test will reach. Without that simple experiment on their side, they really have nothing, but I could go on and on and on, but the people perpetration this fraud know it is a fraud, and they know what they have to fear when Congress starts the investigations. I hope Dr Ball makes sure the investigators know where to look. Keep up the great work Dr Ball, and don’t let the Orwellian “scientists” stop you from pursuing the truth. History will record you as a hero, and your critics will join Eugenics and the Piltdown man as embarrassments to science.
Watts, you don’t need big oil money. By this time, your blog is self-sustaining. It doesn’t do the big oil cause any good to continue to fund you, when you publish stories in their interests on your own. They can use the funds more effectively elsewhere.
[Site rules require you use a valid email address. .mod]
You’re from the Rolling Stone school of investigative reporting, we take it?
“Are contemporary Leftist critics of Israel secretly anti-Semitic? No, not in the vast majority of cases. Are modern socialists inwardly yearning to put global warming sceptics in prison camps? Nope. Do Keynesians want the whole apparatus of corporatism, expressed by Mussolini as “everything in the state, nothing outside the state”? Again, no. There are idiots who discredit every cause, of course, but most people on the Left are sincere in their stated commitment to human rights, personal dignity and pluralism.
My beef with many (not all) Leftists is a simpler one. By refusing to return the compliment, by assuming a moral superiority, they make political dialogue almost impossible. Using the soubriquet “Right-wing” to mean “something undesirable” is a small but important example.
Next time you hear Leftists use the word fascist as a general insult, gently point out the difference between what they like to imagine the NSDAP stood for and what it actually proclaimed.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/
Linked from:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Libertarians also hear this frequently from the Left. They are almost habitually mischaracterized by the Left as being “far-right-wing” when nothing could be further from the truth.
Instead, that is being leveled at them because they are “not-Left”, and so the easiest way to demonize them is to call them “right”, even though the very idea is ridiculous to anyone who is familiar with the philosophy. Libertarians are not “right-wing” in any real political sense, only in Leftist propaganda.
My reason for replying is that I too have seen, to a rather ridiculous degree, this assumed moral superiority in those of Leftist leaning. Especially in recent years, they have had a very strong tendency to call anyone who does not share their views “stupid”, which invokes in the minds of the not-stupid, thoughts about Dunning and Kruger.
“Next time you hear Leftists use the word fascist as a general insult, gently point out the difference between what they like to imagine the NSDAP stood for and what it actually proclaimed.”
And don’t forget the KKK, which was inextricably intertwined with the Democratic Party of the U.S.