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
Anthony,
No apology or explanation needed for the publication of Tim Ball’s starkly controversial post. I did not think its views were endorsed by you.
I never have taken the publication of any guest post at WUWT as an endorsement of its views by you unless you explicitly say at the time of publishing that the guest post views are endorsed by you.
Happy Thanksgiving from the Whitman family to the Watts family.
John
What a ridiculous complaint.
Mentioning something Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf doesn’t automatically equate to calling someone a Nazi. Not even remotely close. And weeping these crocodile tears while the word “denier” is flying around like mosquitoes at a nudist colony is beyond childish.
I didn’t get any of this from Tim Ball’s post, and you should probably be ashamed if that’s all you saw.
Indeed!
True. But it does tie you to a Pacific Garbage Patch of rubbish you don’t need.
I thought it was a great post too, though the rhetoric got in its way.
Hear, hear!
We should be able to sort comments by most liked.
But the most liked comment is always the one that is simplest to understand, most easily agreed with and closest in line with the bulk of the readers.
It doesn’t just amplify the echo chamber. It dumbs it down by promoting the most extreme summary of the least challenging ideas.
As in follow the consensus?
You guys must have learned analogy from Mann. Dr. Ball does not call anyone a Nazi, nor did Steyn compare Mann to a child molester. Your post is nothing more than screaming Godwin’s Law in an attempt to avoid the content of Dr. Ball’s post, content that is likely at, or very near, the truth. Why not comment on that instead of whining about how much better you are than those that made this bed?
Regardless of your purity of motive and actions, we still have the liars in charge, and you both know damn well the consequences of fighting too loudly against them. This is all a result of the road that was taken to get where we are, and understanding this, and vilifying those that drove the bus, is key to preventing it in the future.
Mark
Note to Prof Richard Betts and Dr Tamsin Edwards:
Perhaps some history will help to put Tim Ball’s article into perspective – please see my post below from 2009.
Climate “skeptics” (aka “deniers”) have been the victims of vicious falsehoods, death threats (Tim Ball has received several) and actual violence. That is the reality.
Where were you good people when this was happening, and what did you do then to stop it?
By the way, Tim did not call you Nazis – that contention is a tactical diversion – those who believe he did so should actually read his article.
Regards, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/03/pielke-jrs-take-on-an-amazing-conversation-with-a-climate-scientist/#comments
[excerpt]
I am concerned that people are losing balance on this very serious issue of alleged humanmade global warming..
Having studied this subject for several decades, I have strong opinions.
For the record, I think the climate changes we have experienced in the past decades are predominantly natural, not humanmade, and probably cyclical, related to either oceanic cycles such as the PDO, etc. or solar cycles, or both.
I believe that Earth’s climate is insensitive to atmospheric CO2, and that recent increases in atmospheric CO2, of whatever cause, are not harmful to the environment, and could even be beneficial.
I believe that many carbon abatement programs are at best uneconomic, and a waste of scarce global resources that should be dedicated to solving real problems – not squandered on imaginary ones.
There is also the compelling moral issue of biofuels raising food prices, thus causing hunger among the world’s poor.
I have grown frustrated by warmists’ repeated attempts to shut down this debate and to bully so-called climate skeptics (aka “deniers”) into silence. This bullying is highly unethical, and has extended to threats of violence, and worse.
I have concluded, reluctantly, that some of the warmists’ research papers were not only in error, but were deliberately misleading.
Nevertheless, it is incumbent on all of us on this side of the debate to not emulate the worst aspects of the warmists and their arguments.
Specifically, hatred is self-defeating. So is excessive polarization.
I think we will win this debate based on science and economics, but only after many hundreds of billions have been squandered on foolish alternative energy programs such as wind power and fuel-from-food.
While this terrible waste is frustrating, it is not appropriate to drag ourselves into the mire in an attempt to compete with the other side.
Frankly, I see signs of mental instability in the wild, irresponsible statements attributed to several prominent warmists. Let us not join them down that self-destructive path.
Best regards to all, Allan
From the perspective that some in the climate business (for that is what it is in reality with billions of $$$ sloshing around) that men & women of science cannot be manipulated to serve a cause, because of their supposed superior intellect, is a myth! Many within the climate business have at times willingly submitted to the cause, some not so, but when money is placed upon the table of that cause, when individual careers, pensions, departments, & whole colleges & universities, seek to avail themselves of that money, they know full well that there is a price to be paid in the end! That price is compliance with the prevailing thought process & an element of collusion for the cause! It is very easy for many to simply get caught up in the tidal flow in the process! To think otherwise, is perhaps little arrogant at best, naïve at worst! The words of Sir Humphrey Appleby spring to mind, “the suitable candidate for the new post must be highly qualified, impartial, thorough, & above all, must be sympathetic to the Governments views on………” fill in the blank with whatever!
The following posting appeared at BH recently
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/11/17/why-does-lord-deben-misreport-the-science-of-extreme-weather.html
I posted the following comment:
“Well, Richard Betts and Tamsin Edwards, we await your perspective on what the good Lord is telling us plebs. Do you agree with him or not? If not, why are you staying silent?
If you feel that doing so would be suicidal from the career standpoint, that is understandable. But exactly who in the UK is prepared to step up and state authoritatively where the science really stands when the likes of Deben misrepresent it? Clearly Deben should not be the mouthpiece for the science but, until someone from the UK climate science community puts him in his place, he will continue to use his status to misrepresent the science in support of the CAGW agenda. For whatever reason, climate scientists appear to be fully content to let him, and others, do that.
In contrast, climate scientists do seem prepared to step up to the mark when those sceptical of CAGW venture in the MSM. Strange that.”
Richard or Tamsin are both regular contributors to BH but chose not to respond. That says a great deal to me. They are ready to criticise when Tim Ball is the frame but not so when it is the likes of Deben. Hypocrites.
Er… sorry, but I don’t read every blog post on the internet….?! I only heard about Tim’s because someone sent it to me.
I fully understand that you can’t be expected to read every blog post on the internet. However now that you’ve been alerted to my comment, as a demonstration of your integrity (which, incidentally, I do not for a moment doubt), perhaps you would like to comment on the point raised if only to confirm that the science currently doesn’t bear out what Lord Deben was saying.
TC
Now that it has been called to your attention, do you intend to respond?
And did you read Tim Balls comment before you started belly aching about being compared to Nazis?
I see no such comparison in that posting, perhaps you can quote Tim directly?
Or do you see yourself as a a person fitting the general description?
Willing to use deceptive techniques as Mr Ball describes?
For the record I agree with Tim Balls original post, except I feel he is far to gentle.
The IPCC and its fellow travellers are bureaucracy run wild, parasites to a man/woman/unspecified gender.
So now what is your response?
Here is Lord Deben (John Selwyn Gummer). Is it any surprise he spreads garbage. He is also the same man who as a former minister fed his daughter a beef burger to show how safe British beef was. Then CJD showed it was not so safe at the time. Ahhh well.
Oh, your skeptics + climate scientists meeting, while great, is a drop of water in the ocean, and largely irrelevant to Dr. Ball’s post. What, suddenly he (and the rest of us) should forget everything and play nice because a dozen or so people got together and had a kumbayyah moment? Funny.
Mark
Primarily Dr Ball was using an example of how propagandizing has been accomplished in the past and the example he chose was the methods used by the Nazi machine. This is entirely different from saying that climate scientists are Nazis. A typical example of entirely British politically correct faux outrage coming from Tamsin and Richard. You two should go into politics where that tactic is more generally used.
If you want to be taken seriously perhaps you would be better served by exercising your “outrage” on the pile of garbage just released by the Royal Society and lapped up so enthusiastically by the green tinted brethren of the MSN. https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/resilience-extreme-weather/
I am afraid having dinner in a quiet home is not exactly manning the barricades of truth against disinformation.
Excellent!
+1
Your response, RB and TE?
Indeed Tasmin should give a response on that Royal Society project. She does say:
So go on Tazzy. Is there certainty that weather events are becoming more extreme? Or is it just the same little old extreme weather which you can find extreme weather of here (1936) and here (1935)?
“A typical example of entirely British politically correct faux outrage coming from Tamsin and Richard. You two should go into politics where that tactic is more generally used.”
Exactly. Advancing straw man arguments from their lofty perches of unearned moral superiority is a tactic much favoured by leftists.
I don’t recall either Prof Richard Betts or Dr Tamsin Edwards commenting on this at the time:
No Pressure is a controversial 2010 short film produced by the global warming mitigation campaign 10:10, written by Richard Curtis and Franny Armstrong, and directed by Dougal Wilson. Intended for cinema and television advertisements,[1] No Pressure is composed of scenes in which a variety of people in every-day situations are graphically blown to pieces for failing to be sufficiently enthusiastic about the 10:10 campaign to reduce CO2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pressure_%28film%29
Care to comment now.
And do you care to comment on the extraordinary accumulation of power and wealth flowing to those who are convinced that miniscule increases in a heretofore highly beneficial gas will wipe out humanity (unless of course humanity sends more funds to said elite and genuflects in gratitude)?
Steve, it appears they only care to comment when they incorrectly interpret a post as calling themselves Nazis. But hey, Dr. Edwards did send that one tweet to Michael Mann once.
It’s all about the money. The alarmists are losing in the eyes of the public and fear that their money source is about to be curtailed. Hence they want to make peace with the skeptics; i.e., tone down the debate and remove it to the back burner. But in the meantime, the evil policies which the politicians have enacted (based upon the pseudo science of the alarmists) continue to gain momentum.
‘A big step backwards’???? Who are you kidding?
Richard and Tasmin, the alarmists are wrong and the degree may be argued, but their solution of complete control by the state over nearly all forms of energy exposes their agenda. AGW is an excuse to destroy the freedom that we have today and put massive amounts of power into the hands of the state. On occasion there is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and you are missing the point and being very shallow in your appreciation of the alarmists.
The people that used derogatory terms(deniers,flat-earthers, oil company shills) for anyone that disagreed with them, purposely refused publication of any science that didn’t fit the AGW line, filed lawsuits against their opposition when their fraudulent science was exposed and refused to provide the data used to reach their conclusions, now want to have reasonable discourse without inflammatory rhetoric. This appears to me to indicate that they are now concerned about becoming insignificant now that their hysterical rhetoric, failed predictions and marginal science is being exposed.
“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:”
Well, yes, I guess so. However, neither of you have had Dr. Mann’s legal attack dogs come after you for expressing a perfectly legitimate point of view, have you? AN over reaction, maybe, but a more than understandable one. Once wretches like Mann and Lewandowsky are lanced from the climate debate, maybe it will progress?
Anthony I think its time to put Dr. Ball on a time out.
Guest post priviledge is important.
Standing for civil discourse regardless of what other do is important.
take the stand.
Bogoff
As discipline, he’s already been. Punish, ditto.
It will depend on Dr. Ball, and A. Watts, how it is dealt with. If the Dr. sees his chance to step it up to a higher level, and Watts is good for developing him … getting back on the horse in crutches is always a good choice.
Obviously taken, and no time wasted. Kudos.
What punishment was given to Ball?
“What punishment was given to Ball?”
Many negative comments on the internet. I suspect he’s used to it by now.
Huh? Negative comments are it? At least I got a death threat. Ages ago, and about evolution and age of the earth rather than climate. Still, a death threat. Not mere whining on the internet.
I thought at least there’d been some ‘you can’t guest post here’ penalty.
[Reply: Please cite the death threat, and it will be deleted, at least. Most comments appear without moderation approval, so unless something like that is pointed out, it can slip by. ~mod.]
Dunno, specifically. We’re not privy. Surely, more than some want, less than others. But it does look like a wad hit the fan.
Well yeah, that’s one possibility – maybe more desired than the firing squad, in some quarters.
‘Some’, parsing the white space, could be more worried about the horse they fear he’s riding in on, and that Watts might be stabling it, than the song he was singing or his off-key notes.
My provisional guess is that Dr. Ball may take a little breather, let someone else run the gauntlet, test the AA-batteries.
And ya know, the sturm und drang does not look bad for business.
Disagree with Mosher. When Drs. Betts and Edwards show us more than one tweet of balance then perhaps we should reconsider.
What a joke. You, of all people, claiming some sort of right to judge others…
Mark
Coming from you Steven, that’s very rich.
Its bovine switchology… That’s what it is.
Oh Christ, the master of manipulation (Mosher) is at it again, trying to smear Dr. Ball as a child and censor his freedom of speech.
You wrote: “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.”
Were you in fact called a Nazi? Can you point me to that line?
You can keep your good faith discussions up by refuting the central theme of Dr. Ball’s argument instead of crying foul to the moderator. Are professional climate scientists pointing out “the big lies” or is that just a Denier construct? Or, perhaps a better narrative is that climate scientists are more like the moderate Muslims in that you infrequently denounce the CO2 Jihadists?
+1
To be honest, I support Dr Tim Ball’s original article. It wasn’t us sceptics who first started using the language of the Holocaust with which to denigrate anyone who took issue with us. Many man-made climate change evangelists still use the term ‘denier’ without batting an eyelid, as if it’s all perfectly acceptable. When they stop invoking Nazi atrocities as a shorthand for describing anyone who takes issue with the dominant narratives on CAGW then, as a CAGW sceptic, I will be more than happy to engage with them on civil terms.
Bad skeptics..
Obviously we have to invoke Godwin’s Law here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
But I reject the Hitler analogy.
The IPCC is more Stalinist or Maoist.
The central comittee will decide how the economy will work, where and how energy shall be used, what sacrifices the people shall make for the greater goals, as defined by the central comittee.
Invoke what? Show me the statement and the experiments that establish it as a law. Godwin saw it as an attempt to get people to be more civil. In no way is there any “law” that mandates that nothing Nazi every be mentioned.
For many months this year NOAA has issued a press release hyping “record” temperatures. We all know just how poor the data is that they base those statements on. And, we all know there is higher quality satellite data, whose collection is also funded by NOAA, that contradicts those statements. Does that not look and smell like pure propaganda? An honest organization would at a minimum provide both sets of data and attempt to discuss why there are differences. Nope, not official US government scientists.
When you see actions like this why would anyone be surprised by the article from Dr. Ball. In fact, his analysis seems right on the mark.
Again, it’s best to distinguish between the two camps that make up the AGW movement. The bureaucrats, politicians, rent-seekers, and Green NGOs are thieves that see an open bank vault door and no one guarding it. Careers, profits, and nice hotels await all who participate. Easy to understand.
They are not the ones the techniques Ball describes are aimed at. They would have nothing if they did not have a core base of True Believers. I would estimate roughly a third of the citizens of Western nations would readily believe in CAGW from the moment they first read about it. They have been raised to believe that Man is a cancer on this planet. They are useful for the political support needed to pass legislation and regulation that provides benefit to the aforementioned group.
Incidentally, if Mr. Watts does indeed intend to edit more carefully in the future, he might begin with things like the “(goose)” in the title and the body of the head post.
Not that I would have; but, then, I wouldn’t have found a reference to Goebbels red-pencil bait either.
Yes, the Tim Ball piece was over the top, not helpful nor particularly informative.
Yes, Anthony erred in publishing the piece.
Yes, I agree with much of what Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts had to say.
The following quote was interesting:” 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.”
If TE and RB truly support this view I’m eagerly looking forward to reading similar complaints from them to several of the more abusive alarmist bloggers.
Likely to be a long wait PJ
As Tim (and many other high profile sceptics) have been treated much like what we sometimes scrape off our shoe, it is rather rich to grumble when he responds in kind.
Very few of us have to deal with constant and vile abuse from those who constantly claim to hold the high ground yet seem to have forgotten how to behave like civilised human beings.
To suggest that Tim was trying to associate climate scientists with Hitler is ridiculous. The post accurately described how propaganda is a central tenet of the alarmist meme and correctly showed that the Nazi regime was also fuelled by propaganda. Nowhere did Tim compare any scientists with Hitler.
Until and unless we see the hate being condemned by the consensus side we will make no progress towards amicable relations.
When it is considered acceptable for even our elected politicians to treat sceptics with derision there is little hope of closing the gap.
What Richard and Tamsin could and should do is to disassociate themselves from those using insulting and hateful terminology.
Whilst there is a degree of sceptical reprisal against the way they are often mistreated, the majority of us remain calm and quiet and wait for the day when the truth can no longer be ignored.
“What Richard and Tamsin could and should do is to disassociate themselves from those using insulting and hateful terminology.”
.
If they did that, I think they would have to find a different field, unrelated to climate, to work in.
I used a cornucopia of forbidden words on a comment and went straight to the kids table of moderation! Is there a word count for the record of no-no’s? I used D, A , B , N, J, M for a Score of +6!
I have a deep anger over being lied to going back to the mid 8o’s, right up to now. The CAGW lies are revolting. Tim Ball is mild compared to what I feel. As an engineer I trusted GW scientists. I do not now. I have been made a fool of by trusting them and helping to propagate their lies. No more.
+100
are your feelings hurt?
gosh,, looters in ferguson use the same logic
No but disgusted me when lying about the JAMSTEC long range forecast having a CO² component. You can defend with your soundbites but that’s where your contribution ends.
Hi Steven, Pleased to meet you, I’ve read your posts for some time now. So are you just bored today? Or finally given up on getting those “models” to work?
Does this reply fit within your crusade for civil discourse a few posts up the page?
Steven Mosher November 27, 2014 at 9:45 am
are your feelings hurt?
gosh,, looters in ferguson use the same logic
____________
Really, the same logic. How exactly do you know that? What a putz.
You do realize you just called him one of the rioters in Ferguson, correct? Oh wait, that only applies when it is someone Mosher disagrees with. Silly
You just id exactly the same thing Betts and Edwards are so upset by. Is it OK for me to call for a timeout on your posting? Logic is not your friend, Stephen. Your skills in that area rival your skills with statistical analysis: nil.
Mark
Steven, enjoy your Thanksgiving. Forget logic for once.
So now Mosher equates rightfully angry sceptics with criminal looters in Ferguson … how low can you go, man?
Wow, you put your foot in it this time. If Tim Ball gets punished by a timeout, then you should too, since you just did the same thing. But since I’m guessing there will be no punishments, the least you can do is to show Tim Ball the Way…by sincerely apologizing. If you don’t, then we can only assume that you recognize that there’s nothing to apologize for…
Are the feelings of the thousands per winter month that die in energy poverty in UK ‘hurt’ Steven? After all that is a direct consequence of the Climate Change Act that was put in place because of the output of GCMs by the current complaining scientists. Who in the ‘warmist’ camp cares about people actually dying from cold in the last few years? I am surprised you can see the deaths of so many as a matter for clever academic point scoring debate rather than concern.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/10474966/Energy-row-erupts-as-winter-deaths-spiral-29-per-cent-to-four-year-high-of-31000.html
and many many other references
As long as you can get the next research grant what’s the problem – that right?
Steven Mosher
November 27, 2014 at 7:18 am
Anthony I think its time to put Dr. Ball on a time out.
Guest post priviledge is important.
Standing for civil discourse regardless of what other do is important.
take the stand.
—————————————————–
are your feelings hurt Mosh?
gosh,, looters in ferguson use the same logic……..
You’re despicable.
Who lied to whom in Ferguson?
Steven Mosher,
If you were treated like Anthony has been on numerous alarmist blogs, I don’t think you would look at it the same way. Whatever you may see here is nothing compared with what Anthony constantly endures, for the ‘crime’ of simply having a different point of view.
Really, have you seen some of those blogs? The ugly cartoons? Doug Cotton’s despicable attacks? Why don’t you go to those places and complain?
Steve Mosher does us more good, here, than off in the back-alleys.
Without an opposition willing to sit on our back-bench, we have an echo-chamber.
If his posts contained legitimate insight and a clear understanding of the subject-matter, I would agree. He strayed from that long ago and became just another believer.
Mark
You think they are only lying to you about the climate? Trust me, don’t go down that rabbit hole. The corruption of the half truths never end.