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
While I’m sure that other quotes to illustrate the principles involved could’ve been found, others that weren’t so tainted by their association with the author—as is the obvious problem of quoting Hitler, or Mao, or Pol Pot—with respect, I believe that the good professors are ducking the issue here, like a person who can’t argue against my position so instead claims that they find my attitude offensive.
I would guess that Dr Ball used the quotes he did very deliberately to ensure that the post was read. Tactical mistake? Strategically smart? Time will tell. But the truth is that there have been and continue to be many many proponents of AGW who are actively trying to deceive people, though they will call it persuasion, to get them to behave a certain, “green” way. There is no escaping the fact that proponents of AGW have actively engaged in abuses of the “precautionary principle”, abuses of the peer-review process, intimidation (as revealed by climategate emails) in order to prevent the opposing views from being aired—
These are not things which can be swept under the carpet. The impact of these deceitful tactics has been detrimental to life and quality of life around the globe. It has been said that the impact of Rachel Carson’s “The Silent Spring” and subsequent banning of DDT, often attributed to her influence, has been responsible for millions and millions of preventable deaths. I guess that’s a matter of perspective for some people.
But viewed in those terms, what responsibility do the proponents of AGW policies bear in the deaths of people from famine and freezing because of the artificially high energy prices around the world? When the impact of the policies they’re pushing can be seen right now in the high costs of energy, and the impact of that cost is undeniable? When those policies are being pushed over an unproven theory, when everyone knows that the science is NOT settled—or there would not be so many excuses for the as yet unexplained “Pause” which is inexplicable in any of the myriad, obviuosly non-omnipotent GCMs upon which all these policies are based—-and the scare stories continue to get more over-the-top and more shrill and yet more and more people continue to live and die in poverty and misery, we still have people who want to cry, “I’m offended by your comparison to an offensive person from the past” but do not want to speak to the substance of the argument itself?
Note carefully that the authors don’t refute the core arguments Dr Ball has raised. They piously claim that he’s sunk to a new low, that he threatens any useful discussion, yet they offer none.
I don’t accuse them personally of any of the many ugly actions which have been taken by the likes of Michael Mann, Al Gore, et al.
But their apparent refusal to confront the plain fact that many who share their beliefs about man’s role in global warming have resorted to lies and deception in order to forward their “cause” and NOT to increase our scientific knowledge, to the detriment of millions around the world, goes far to explain why many of us are very frustrated with them.
No— I don’t want to appear to speak for anyone else. It is why I am so frustrated with them.
Like his discourse or not, Dr. Ball makes a strong case, and it deserves an honest answer from the proponents of AGW.
P@Dolan:
“Note carefully that the authors don’t refute the core arguments that Dr. Ball has raised but they piously claim that he has sunk to new low…”
Richard Betts and Tasmin Edwards, so long the alarmism continues, which alarmism you do nothing to discourage in your one-sided post, you can take your complaints about skeptical viewpoints to SKS or HotWhopper or whatever suitable forum.
Wow!! I don’t think anyone could had made that point any better. It should be considered that few would have ever heard of AH and his boys if the German economy was not deeply in the toilet. The whole worlds economy will be in the toilet if the alarmists get their way. Then the crazies will cause some real trouble.
Will RB and TE reply to this?
Not likely.
I am sure both these authors are warm, wonderful and caring people but I am skeptical of their response as written here. Maybe they could help by….
Would it be possible for Dr. Betts and Dr. Edwards to provide their own examples of publicly calling out individuals who referred to skeptics as ‘deniers’, or those who call for censorship or criminal charges for skeptics? Any actual examples of their walking-their-talk for better discourse on their side of the discourse?
If they have examples of publicly doing so, I’d be happy to publish the examples on my blog, as I’m sure Anthony would. Maybe they can start by listing their articles calling out the plentiful alarmist miscreants who have personally attacked J.Curry on blogs and Twitter (I don’t know…Michael Mann comes to mind for some reason).
Personally, I also think the discourse would improve immensely if the Betts/Edwards of the world would start calling out the ludicrous, fear-mongering catastrophic climate headlines that populates the alarmist-sphere? Seriously, how hard would it be for either of these brave people to do so? If they want to raise the debate above the tabloid headlines, all they have to do is start calling B.S. on the blatant attempts to scare the public – this would be comparable to shooting fish in the barrel.
Again, if they have examples of doing so previously, I would love to see/read. Hmmm…maybe Anthony could convince this team to write a monthly article for WUWT that debunks the current scary climate “science” headlines, which by doing so, would help refocus the climate debate on what is truly important. Objectively, they really could help raise the skeptics out the propaganda-muck that is constantly created by the loonieness of catastrophic-science.
Okay, maybe the above is too difficult for the B&E team. So let’s start easy.
Any chance they can write an article calling out the prominent alarmists who actually dress up as Nazis and who also published the absolute rubbish regarding the “97%” meme or that CAGW skeptics don’t believe in the moon landings or constantly speak of a fossil-fuel conspiracy behind skeptics? It would be a small start, but a meaningful step in the right direction telling the alarmist-sphere they will be targeted for the rhetorical excesses, not just Dr.Tim Ball and other skeptics.
Try Lawrence Solomons’s book The Deniers for a start. Book discussion here.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?200424-1/book-discussion-deniers
C3, I suspect you will be waiting a long time for the proof that they walk the talk.
Any chance that RB/TE will reply to this?
No.
As one of the “little people” following the Climate Change war, I am open-minded enough to understand that elites aren’t necessarily conspiring outright. I’m sure the President, Al Gore, Prince Charles, media types like Charlie Rose are probably true believers in CAGW. (Okay, Obama is probably cynically using the issue to push an agenda.)
Frankly, I didn’t take away anything negative or extreme from Dr Tim Ball’s article. I do think it’s useful to keep an open mind about the consequences of policy by the more powerful in our world, and their world view.
I agree with John Leggett, November 27, 2014 at 5:33 am, and Richard M. The actual debate is only occurring in the blogosphere at this time, away from the attention of the less informed. Maybe it would be a good idea for Prof Richard Betts and Dr Tamsin Edwards to submit their piece to the New York Times and Real Climate, for example. To only bring their essay to a skeptic site is insulting.
Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards,
While I agree with you that such talk isn’t helpful, where were you for the past couple of decades when such unhelpful talk was (and still is) being spouted by “your side”? When you start taking your fellow travellers to task for their language, then and only then can you be taken seriously when you take the other side to task.
John
There has sometimes been too much deferring to those climate scientists with big reputations by some on the consensus side and not enough querying.
It puts me in mind of this Moroccan proverb;
‘If at noon the King says it is night, will you say; behold, the stars?’
tonyb
Let’s not forget the mainstream media holding the megaphone and not asking any tough questions (for political reasons or because the climate hysteria narrative suits their purposes for the attention-seeking headlines and soundbites).
1. Two decades ago I was 15.
2. We do.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/28/dellers-on-reason.html?currentPage=3 (11:52pm)
http://unsettledclimate.org/2012/02/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/
https://twitter.com/flimsin/status/392278255476027393
Now will you take me seriously? 🙂
I hesitated whether to include that tweet to Michael, and will probably regret it (and will definitely be criticised by ‘my side’ for it). I didn’t include it to gain favour with those here who hate him. I included it – perhaps a little hastily and unwisely – to show that climate scientists do disagree with each other, publicly, on the use of polarising rhetoric. To be fair to Michael here, he quickly calmed down and retracted (deleted) the original tweet.
Please explain?
has he retracted his slew of Koch denial machine tweets?
has he stepped back from his attacks on judy curry, who, BTW, didn’t even consider filing suit against him?
do you have a rough idea of the number of times the words “disinformation” or “fraud” were used by mann to describe people who didn’t agree with him?
The tweet is hardly an admonishment in the use of the term, indeed, it appears to be a tacit approval for the use of the term. This sudden appeal for ‘civility’ strikes me as having a high likelihood of being used as a Trojan Horse by the Mann’s and Lewandowsky’s of the world; while you may very well be thoroughly sincere in your intentions, the skeptical community would be wise to hold a suspicious point of view lest we get caught with our pants down after a declaration of “peace in our time.”
There’s a subtlety here that should be made clear
When you criticized Michael Mann
You objected to him using language too grim
For a “colleague,” though he can
Use exactly that tack when he wants to attack
A mere skeptic! That’s implied
By the words that you used. Thus our kind are abused
Stopping that you should have tried.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Tamsin, show us where you have rebuked Mann for denigrating a sceptical scientist.
Tamsin, in your final email you wrote, “I repeatedly defend Barry because he works hard *not* to be Anthony Watts.”
Anthony Watts has bent over backwards to be honest and ethical. The evidence for this is overwhelming on WUWT itself; in black-and-white. Anyone who frequents WUWT can’t help but be favorably impressed with Anthony’s ethical standard.
That first statement of your final-thoughts email, representing the distilled essence of your views, shows that you suffer from an inverted ethical perception.
The fact that you made that statement to Peter Gleick, on “Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:29 PM,” entertaining him in a conversation about ethics, in which you denigrate Antony Watts, well after it was fully established that Peter Gleick himself is a liar, a fabricator of documents, and a character assassin is a clear indication that you live in an ethical fairy-land.
After investigating, I have to take back my “well after” statement. It seems Peter Gleick was outed in February 2012.
So, Tamsin, the irony is that you were discussing the ethics of the climate debate with Peter Gleick at the very same time he was stealing documents, fabricating documents, and engaging in character assassination. Not “well after.” My apologies for the mistake.
So, what do you think? Is it now your view that Peter Gleick even less ethical than Anthony Watts? (just to say: that’s an ironic question for the inference-challenged).
And, while I have your attention, can you describe what evidence it is you think establishes “a discernible human influence” on climate?
Tasmin,
Check this out! Here are just a couple of images that were at one time on the SkS server. I agree that people should not compare themselves with the Nastis.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1_herrcook.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/herrtankboy.jpg
With all due respect, Dr. Edwards, this “proof” that you chastise both sides equally is laughable.
Tasmin,
Although I appreciate that you’ve had the courage to criticize MM, I would like to note two points:
1) As others have noted above, your tweet seems to approve the use of the word “denier” against skeptics in general, just not colleagues. For example, Anthony is not one of M. Mann’s colleagues, according to you, it’s implicitly ok to call him a denier. You could have been more firm. It’s not OK to call anyone a Nazi except for an actual Nazi.
2) You admit that you might take flak from your side for posting that tweet, criticizing Mr Superstar Mann. This proves that you don’t really think that your side has changed its slanderous, intimidating and bullying ways. This is the complete opposite of the intent of the original article, where you say essentially that times have changed and alarmists are no longer bullies.
Tamsin
Thanks for confronting Mann.
How very courageous of you, Ms Edwards.
Take you seriously? As a scientist? Really?
Please excuse me Tamsin. Somewhere in this thread I challenged you for your links that proved you have argued against the harsh language. Well you did and they did show that you have tried. I hope you don’t suffer any harsh treatment from your side, many others have. Tempers do run high when both sides think that the other side is causing the demise of mankind.
Tamsin,
I have carefully read Dr Tim Ball’s post and simply cannot find any examples of the ‘calling climate scientists Nazis’ or ‘pointless, playground insults’ implied in the above post – perhaps you would be good enough to actually cite those relevant phrases at which you took such offense. It seems to me that most of the invective is actually contained in your own response!
I also seem to recall your own attack on the Great Global Warming Swindle headed as
“Climate Change Denial”
http://www.academia.edu/1740608/Climate_Change_Denial
Nor do I accept without question the credibility of those who signed the Julia Slingo petition (as both you and Richard Betts did) released just after Climategate that vouched for the ‘professional integrity’ of ‘thousands of scientists across the world’ and ‘That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method’ and still have no regrets for doing so, particularly in the light of what the Climategate mails exposed.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/25/maddox-prize.html?currentPage=2#comments
and those attempts by Richard Betts to promote David Karoly as someone doing ‘a good job’ on a Bishop Hill thread despite his disgraceful attack on Professor Bob Carter, (see same thread quoted above)
Following the very first link in Edwards’s comment, we find her explaining that the word ‘denier’ is no big deal, and isn’t meant to suggest Holocaust denial – two falsehoods.
I concur with those others here who have read the original article and have not seen any reference to alarmists let alone climate scientists as Nazis. All I’ve seen is Tim Ball use a quote from a very high profile deceiver on how easy it is to encourage people that your deceptions are true and valid. It seems to me that Betts and Edwards are trying to brew further discontent by this response.
> We were disappointed that so few commenters distanced themselves from his views
I started reading Tim’s article but found it to be rather silly (and long) so skipped it and thought no further about. I supspect many other readers skipped it too or just started commenting on the interesting question of why the CAGW movement had been so politically successful. Going back now and reading the comments I find many interesting and thoughtful. On reflection perhaps more people should have called Dr Ball on his hyperbole – but frankly, us sceptics have become so used to being called evil deniers in the pay of big oil – that silly insults from either side hardly register anymore.
Repeal Godwin’s law. I, for one, admit to enjoying a good “downfall” spoof.
This morning the Royal Society released yet another report effectively enthusing about the Malthusian argument which Tim mentioned in his article which in the Royal Societies eyes would be made worse by rising levels of atmospheric Co2 even though it is not warming. Whilst Edwards and Betts remain consistently biased apologists for their deformed, defamed and flawed computer models which have failed completely to project or predict how our climate will behave then in my humble opinion I don’t see that anything Tim said has not be said before. I started to again Christopher Bookers book the Real Global Warming Disaster which quite legitimately records the process from where this climate deranged phenomena started to where it is not which is a completely contradicted basket case. The passage from which Tim quoted was no more than a qualified assessment of how fraudsters reel in their prey, the psychology is important and not its supposed connotations with Adolf.
If the passaged quoted was from a phycology textbook no one would have questioned its significance but because it was an extract from Mein kampf the prissy little darlings get all uppity thinking they are being aligned with Adolf but that was not the point Tim was making.
Tim like Booker just identified the processes that Maurice Strong and Stephen Schneider deployed in order to use their political conniving to further their political cause. It was and remains a political connivance and if people are concerned about the deceitful nature of those whose intention it is to deceive then we are all beyond redemption.
All the text did was to expose the thought process of people like Bernie Madoff and his pyramid selling hoax, are we saying then that clever guys who do their research should not reveal that research lest people who are most reluctant to admit their possible human foibles might feel transgressed and uncomfortable that their chosen path in life could be considered a mite dubious, Oh dear.
Remember this Tamsin Edwards appeared on BBC TV and professed her absolute confidence in the value of her climate models, like Joanna Haigh she said they were beyond reproach that they are giving us a really true picture of what happens in our climate except that this is completely untrue but she wants us to believe that it is.
Think this quote really does explain exactly what Tim was getting at and the thought process behind the political motivation of the UN/IPCC for goodness sake are we now saying that Maurice Strong and Stephen Schneider are saints beyond suspicion, I beg to differ.
“To capture the public imagination we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to strike the right balance between being effective and being honest.’ Dr Stephen Schneider, Discover, October 1989.
According to RSS/UAH there has been no warming distinguishable from zero for 26 years, flat for 18 years and 1 month and the trend is down since 2001 whilst one quarter of all Co2 was emitted between 2001 and 2010 and the temperature has not blinked and Tamsin feels it really awful that her blinkered attitude should be question and the possibility that there is a degree of underhandedness in the IPCC activist inspired hoax which is discussed frequently on this website is unfair, unfair to who exactly those who conspired to delude us into believing that we were all going to fry and according to the Royal Society, die a horrible death from starvation and overwhelming heat, please give me a break.
David,
For clarity, please shorten your sentences and, otherwise, use some punctuation. In general, some comments here become unintelligible ramblings due to the sloppy use of English, normally a fine expressive language.
I wonder if the authors will ever get around to condemning the repeated and extreme attacks on sceptics , will included calling for them to be jailed , forcible tattooed and worse or will they find that the one place they do not wish to look is under their own doorstep?
When Richards and Tamsin’s are as willing to take on the ‘professionals’ working in their own areas that use this technique as part of their ‘science’ they be in much better place to lecture others on why they should not do it.
In short, to avoid the charge of hypocrisy but best not to act like a hypocrite in the first place.
See above
If you truly believe your models reflect the climate accurately, why not publish the code used–the equations of state–the multivariable functions that describe your insights–let other scientists view your formulations. All you do is infer your “models” reflect the “true” analogue of climate….please, try to be humble, as any true scientist would be in the search for truth.
I’ve gotta agree with many of the responses to you here. You said Michael Mann’s use of the word “denier” against a professional climate scientist was “strong”. Seriously? This sounds like tacit approval for use of the term against ordinary rubes like me. You said you might regret posting that tweet here, when in reality it sounds like a pretty weak and paltry comment to someone who routinely tells people they are part of the “Koch denial machine”. Then you give this same person credit for retracting that one tweet.
In your other link you show yourself challenging Peter Gleick. Good for you. As others have pointed out, Peter Gleick is a liar, a fabricator of documents, and a character assassin, as has been shown when he attempted to pass off falsified documents to discredit people he disagreed with. So I am underwhelmed by your outreach.
Point us to a place where you defended Professor Lindzen, Steve Macintyre, or another prominent and civil skeptic. These people, who have shown utmost restraint and civility, have been savagely attacked by the other side.
Frankly, I found Tim Ball’s piece to be a bore and over the top. But that post was a needle in the haystack of invective and hatred emanating from the other side of the debate, the utter falsehoods and demonization of skeptic views. Also keep in mind that Dr Ball has been sued by Mann, that person whom you’ve credited for retracting a tweet. So perhaps he has reason for strong words himself.
Keep it civil? The word “denier” is not “strong”. It’s rude, it’s insulting, it’s denigrating, and it has become commonplace in use by your side of the debate. To my utter disbelief, that horrible invective has become commonly used by your side, not only by activists but literally by professional scientists. If you ever expect civility to break out, it will never happen until that word is no longer used at all.
No doubt you yourself are showing civility and I applaud you for it. But you are surrounded by people who are not. This has warped your outlook on the debate, to the point where you think that taking a small stand against the likes of Gleick and Mann is a measurable step. It is not. It is like trying to stop a waterfall with a bucket. Like I said before, you would need to challenge the vast hordes of unethical scientists using the word “denier” on a regular basis, the vast reams of false and outlandish “research” on your side, not the most horrific offenders like Mann and Gleick, if you wish to show us a measure of real intentions to change the civility of the debate.
One more thing: I think it is the height of arrogance (on the part of Watts as well) to think that a pleasurable dinner amongst a bunch of people from either side is an olive branch that has any significance to the millions of other people involved in the debate. You guys have a nice dinner while “denier” rubes like me cannot utter our opinions in public without being attacked. I don’t recall being invited to your dinner.
Dr Edwards, your tweet example is, in a word, laughable.
“See above” does not address the point.
Are you a pimp, a prostitute, or both?
I suppose that you find salary statements on (or under?) your doorstep (figuratively speaking)? So perhaps you are the latter?
Feel free to reply.
Jason Jay Lee’s manifesto, when he stormed the offices of the Discovery Channel in 2010
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/leemanifesto.pdf
Background story
http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/198433/
Was Jason mentally ill before becoming obsessed with green catastrophism, or did he become mentally ill because of his contact with green catastrophism?
WUWT has published other posts about the mental strain alarmists endure.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/15/a-climate-of-despair-climategate-had-more-effect-than-we-realize/
If someone truly thinks the world is about to end, their mind will visit some pretty strange places – and some minds will probably snap under the strain.
I read Dr Tim Balls plog post when it came out. I thought it was spot on. Global warming is less a technical debate than a political. What drives the IPCC is politics and who controls the human race, free people or governments. One needs to make sure they include fair analogies of what happens when you let the government lie to you to gain control. Only a small percent will ever get the technical side of the arguments especially in America at this point. If your going to fight it’s best not to fight with one hand tied behind your back….
There is a exact parallel to this lack of criticism of IPCC by ‘climate scientists’: Take a look at the EU and the way it enforces discipline in its senior members. Once they take their EU pension they are not allowed to criticise any part of the EU or they forfeit their pension. Is that something that applies at the Met Office.
Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards,
To sum up the comments above…for your next dinner, invite the alarmist crowd and lecture THEM.
Given the fact that nearly all the climate “scientists” stood by silently at the height of alarmist claims and nastiest ad hominen attacks,
I find this a bit rich!
I don’t generally care for Dr. Ball’s posts. And, yes, I do sometimes think they go “over the top.” But perhaps it would be helpful if Mr. Watts would tell us what precise aspect it is of Dr. Ball’s post he would have changed if he’d had the time. Readers would then have a better sense of the degree to which views will henceforth be censored at this site.
The fact is that much of the success of climate catastrophism is indeed the Big Lie psychology. Many people believe what they hear only because they can’t imagine someone with the given public official’s or learned society’s credentials saying something if it were as demonstrably untrue as many of us know it to be. And Dr. Ball is correct to point out historic precedents for that technique’s success. I for one don’t see why one should refrain from doing so just because one practitioner was Goebbels.
There no such person as a climate skeptic. There are however many thousands(indeed tens of thousands) of scientists who are righly skeptical of the theory of man made climate change for which there is no scientific proof. As founder of the energy(and climate) group at the Institute of Physics in 2004 I have yet to find any scientific basis for this political theory. Climate has changed for billions of years with both temperature and carbon dioxide levels being much higher than today. In fact in the Ordividian era(an ice age!) carbon dioxide levels were 20 times higher than today with no runaway greenhouse effect)
Aye! +1
I do agree with Richard and Tamsin. Nevertheless I’m both comforted and frustrated that climate sceptics are held to a significantly higher standard than the most prominent and, apparently, esteemed climate science communicators.
So, acknowledging the rhetorically implicit “Tu Quoque” logical fallacy, seriously, I ask non-rhetorically: why MUST we maintain standards so significantly higher than those opposite, who are in paid roles to promote climate alarm?
I take it as acknowledgement of the generally reasonable tone from climate sceptics that Richard and Tamsin find Tim Ball’s post so out of step from the broadly higher standards hereabouts that they felt it noteworthy enough to pen this piece. I suspect that a battalion of Richard and Tamsins could not find enough hours in the day to address and elevate standards amid the gish gallop of drivel and Ad Hominem from the so-called climate consensus.
Well, I’m always saying to my colleagues that I think we shouldn’t use the word denier, that we shouldn’t generalise about sceptics views/motivations/knowledge etc, that civility and listening should go both ways. Some examples linked in another comment from me.
that ^I think^ we shouldn’t use the word
Wrong site?
Oh how gracious, you shouldn’t use the word denier so in your own mind therefore anyone who does not agree with your belief is de facto a denier. Computer models, failed, warming non existent, IPCC disowns notion that Co2 at 400ppm or 1ppm per 10,000 more over the last 100 years causes extreme weather, that warming since 1880 is just 0.7C with temperature now where it was in 1970 and warming of just 0.07 C over the last fifty years with methane at just 0.00017% and Co2 at just 0.03% of our atmosphere your belief or conviction overrides scientific fact or data, right or wrong?
Of course the movement was politically inspired, that also is recorded fact and the Co2 hypothesis remains an hypothesis.
Your employment is predicated on modelling therefore if you now deny modelling then you would be the human equivalent of a turkey voting for Christmas and I don’t expect that any time soon.
The BBC have just confirmed to me that they do not peddle scaremongering rhetoric about climate change and would you believe I just saw overhead a flying pig.
Tamsin, I recognise that you have long discouraged use of the “denier” narrative, but censoring its use merely masks the underlying faulty belief that sceptics *are* somehow “deniers”. Instead of discouraging, I think you need to challenge its use every time you hear it – demand clear justification for its use at every turn. It really doesn’t take much effort to expose the “denier/denialist/Big Oil/freemarketeer” nomenclature as a nonsense, and consequently their continued use as a pejorative.
While the demonisation of dissenters is a sad feature of politics through history, it really has no place at all in scientific circles. That it remains endemic in climate science at this stage in a decades-long debate is a sad reflection on the subject. It should long-ago have become as academically unacceptable as drinking & driving is now socially unacceptable.
your example is a good start. now, if we can get people like mann to accept that not all who disagree with him are funded by the koch denial machine or are frauds…well, that would be better.
Are you saying that they shouldn’t use the word, or that you “think” they shouldn’t use the word?
Some may say that I should not use the word “prostitute”. Maybe I should say that “she does it for the money”. After all, you do, don’t you Tamsin?
Yet you posted a presentation on ‘Climate Change Denial’ (something of a misnomer as sceptics do not dispute climate change simply anthropogenic global warming!!) in response to the Great Global Warming Swindle.
http://www.academia.edu/1740608/Climate_Change_Denial
Because it is the right thing to do.
And what’s the alternative?
A competition to get to the basest of practices?
I’d like to think I’d lose.
You are right M. Courtney BUT the modern world is now plagued by communication surfit. This means that those who control the comms control the message and therefore the people. Do you think that we would be having this discussion with Betts and Edwards if blogs such as Anthony’s never existed ??
M Courtney: Because it is the right thing to do.
Reason enough. And for any who are willing to listen to the man:
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
This from a fellow who was the object of serious long-term malice.
There really aren’t “two sides” to the debate, and the suggestion that there is is itself a lie. There is the truth about climate, which is what Climate Realists have been struggling for, and there are those defending and working for the Climatist Industry. Motives are a red herring, but defense of one’s own industry, regardless of how wrong and damaging it is, is a big one.
Richard is in an unfortunate bind. Mitchell of the UK Met Office signs off on a report which contradicts (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/11/27/a-right-royal-contradiction.html) accepted opinion on model outcomes. Even if Mitchell is known for taking a cursory view of the role of a reviewer (iirc he had no notes even though he was the UK government’s sign off for the last IPCC AR but one), taking a contrary view to those senior to have can have impacts.
I would not be unmindful of the levers of power that world wide control of mankind’s activities can be had through global warming alarmism and junkscience. Not even in the short-term interests of civil debate. Even IF alarmists should prove their unfalsifiable string of hypotheses, they would no right to wield those levers and every obligation to avoid being used in ways that would lead to that outcome. Scant evidence of that from the scientific community where many are activists and, by definition, not scientists. Climate Phd, heal thyself.
Wasn’t Tim the victim of a Mann lawsuit some time ago? Not heard much recently, but I can understand how Tim became filled with rage, which came out in his article. Don’t think we should get too hung up about it.
I was wondering the same thing and whatever came out of that.
Last report was it still continues with attempts being made to run Dr Ball out of money by continual delays.
Anthony, Tim may have been off when it came to real scientists but when you apply to the historical significance and the politics at play, we made valid points. Maybe he hurt some sensitive feelings. Maybe he needed to reel in Godwin’s Law a bit. He seems to be able to see over the horizon more than others who’s nose are firmly in the books and roadmaps.
Dr. Ball’s question requires an answer.
“Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? ”
This is not a scientific question, this is the opening salvo in the pursuit for justice and accountability and punishment of the perpetrators.
Attempts to disqualify Dr. Ball’s question based on his rhetoric are not appreciated and will not work.
We have wasted years of our lives fighting a fight we did not ask for. Our anger is justified and inquiries into the motives and techniques of those who hoisted this fraud on the world will be made. Our scars are too deep for us to let civil complaints about tough rhetoric distract us from the justice that must be had.
Answer the questions: Why? What are the motives?
Agreed.
Only USA Senate hearings on the issue which asks that of prominent climate scientists can hope to answer it.
–gettimothy
November 27, 2014 at 6:48 am
Dr. Ball’s question requires an answer.
“Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? ”
This is not a scientific question, this is the opening salvo in the pursuit for justice and accountability and punishment of the perpetrators.–
Punishment and accountability are going going to make amends for the trillions of dollars and millions lives lost due to these snake oil salesmen. It’s the public which elected an idiot who said he would stop the ocean from rising. It’s the public which almost elected Al Gore as the US president.
What these snake oil salesmen [such as Hansen and Mann] are doing is being a politician.
Mann is a politician. Hansen was a politician. None are doing the job they were paid to do.
Or they are not elected as “honest” politician are but their “life work” is being a politician.
You can not be a politician and scientist. You can first be politician and than become a scientist, or be scientist and then become a politician, but you can’t be a part time scientist and politician- particularly if you are crazy Lefty whom all, are convinced that the answer in life lies in politics.
So the rule with politicians is if their lips are moving, then they are lying.
And scientist are interested in what can learned from data- part of a great effort which has
on going concern for centuries.
So, as general rule we should not have bureaucrats [called “public servants”] moonlighting as wannabe politicians.
Though over the year American have seemed to have lost this good sense.
So there is the option of firing/retiring the public servants who are not doing their jobs but are instead devoting their time to political matters.
Release them from their public service so they can spend their remaining life devoted to what they think is far more far more important tasks rather the the job they were hired to do.
And we can hire public servants who will spend all their working hours doing the job which btw, we paying them **far** too much money to perform.
If politicians want to the work bureaucrats [due to boredom or wishing to do something useful for society] we could allow this, but we should not make the huge mistake of paying them for this work- they tend not to have much work experience or capability to do work and in addition tend to be useless liars.
And also I should mention “the scientists” who are actors who pretend they are scientists.
They are actors- actors are the people you see on the TV. Including serious looking “News Anchors”- they are actors.
Both actor and politicians are similar- they lie/pretend for a living.
There is this common tendency to think Hollywood actors have some kind of wisdom- despite abundant evidence that they live a life as a clown.
The only punishment which makes any sense is the public engaging in self flagellation- and that’s pretty stupid.
Why not try simply being skeptical of people who wear lab coats or use other disguises that give the impression that they are scientists. And one can generally assume that “professional scientists” have better things to do.
Probably a reason why these climate scientist say it’s about saving the world, a feeble attempt to avoid the question, “why are wasting your time with the news media?”
As general rule any scientist who claims to be saving the world will tend to speak once, and will not follow on by doing infomercials.
If saving the world, why would they waste much time with public announcements?
Though that’s also probably related to idea “the science is settled”- that being, no more work having to with science is actually needed.
Which is another good reason to fire them. Actually a couple reason, one, it’s utterly
stupid- as in shoot him as he too stupid to be a human. Two, it’s basically a letter of resignation from any job related to being a scientist.
Sorry, we = he
I’m with Richard and Tamsin on this: Let’s vigorously but respectfully try and convince each other, using arguments instead of insults.
I like the sound of that
I like the sound of it too Tamsin Edwards. However, I should point out I’ve never seen Richard Tol actually do it. He’s been one of the most consistently abusive and non-responsive individuals I’ve seen on climate blogs.
I’m not trying to drag personalities into this. I just think if we’re going to set standards, we have to apply those standards to the people promoting them. “Do as I say, not as I do” is not okay.
If the truth sometimes is “insulting”, in many levels, should we intentionally start lying and in the same time believe and feel justified ????
cheers
How about saying something of value, rather than the repetitive vacuous mini-soundbites? You seem to have plenty to say when a BBC camera is pointed at you, and a compliant/complicit reporter asks you the usual unthreatening questions about your agenda-driven “science”. Why do you not answer the questions asked of you in this thread? Why are your models continually so far off reality? Let us see your models. Let someone with real expertise in modelling examine and critique your work. Someone not inside your warmist clique. If it is robust, why would you not allow this? I am sure Steve McIntyre would be most willing to facilitate this examination. Or do you have something to hide? Are your models actually so trivial that they are worthless?
And as for your sensitivity over what Tim Ball said….I suggest your ability to read and understand straightforward English must have been compromised at some point during your education. He was comparing your approach to deceiving us, with the classic approach also used by others with the same aim. Deception.
… but Richard, they and their media friends ignore the arguments and continue to trot out the absolutely atrocious science and bluster without a care. Having an argument here or other fine fora is all well and good but they still hide behind the lie of the consensus
Richard, You have tried to call these alarmist to debate. What happened? I saw that most disgusting of episodes on US TV when Schmidt refused to face Roy Spencer and debate him. That was a great piece of promotion from a government scientist, was it not ?
Let’s debate with them by all means, in the media with a truly independent arbiter. I’m utterly convinced they will be able to explain why their models are so far out of kilter with reality and why they then use them, via the IPCC for whom they both work, to push public policy. How did we ever get to the point where my edly parents and friends in the UK were huddled around a one bar electric fire to keep warm in winter and could only turn on their immersion heater once a week to have a shower or bath.
These two are really comfortable on their public teat with 10.000s to live on. They have no idea how the other half live. Tim is right.
Let’s have a full and complete confession from them. None of this slipping through the side door to make friends.
As do I
As do I.
However, RB and TE take the money and say that they would prefer that the denier word was not used. Where is the robust response? The strong statement on uncertainty? No, it is alarmism all the way.
They do it for the money. They are maybe the nicest of people, in a social setting. So what?
They do take lots of money, you know.
Tim Ball’s essay was not insulting.
If you disagree, let’s see you quote the insulting bits.