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
Calling mainstream climate scientists names, such as “nazis” should not be done or condoned.
One should simply look at facts. It is by now fairly clear that we are in a repeat of the multidecadal oscillation, with the 1970-2000 warming followed by 2000- about 2030 light cooling, just like the 1910-1940 warming was followed by 1940-1970 light cooling, and like a few more such periods recorded in Greenland ice.
The email
[2007] Wils: What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably
shows awareness of the multidecadal oscillation. Yet in the 8 years since, there was no mention of that, the only accurate prediction of what is going on. A willful deception.
The careers of people who did mention it were systematically destroyed, as David Legates testified in Congress. With scientists who mentioned it in a conference like Salby left stranded on airports on their way back, as a result of anonymous denounces made by their colleagues to the university.
The journal “Pattern Recognition in Physics” was terminated when it studied the multidecadal oscillation, still the only predictively accurate if empirical theory, since it reached a conclusion incompatible with the IPCC. Terminated by a climate scientist at the cheer of supporters.
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2014/01/copernicus-publishing-temrinates.html
So maybe instead of name calling we should use descriptives like “willful deceivers who destroy the careers of those holding different opinions based on anonymous denunciation, and terminate journals at the cheers of supporters when they reach conclusions which are correct but different from theirs.”
Whether these are or are not parallel to the Kristallnacht or to public book burnings in squares is a fascinating question, but is not technically part of climate science. It should be left to future historians.
Thank you Tasmin and Richard for your attempt at civility.
One thing that would go a long way, in rebuilding trust between those that are mostly climate change concerned and those that are the least climate change concerned, is for the true scientists to join José Duarte in having bad science retracted:
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
It is obvious fraud and should be removed per the peer review method.
Understandably, this would be very contentious, but it is merely a good faith effort for good science.
intrepid_wanders: Thank you for the Jose Duarte link; I had not read it before. Quite long, but a rewarding read.
Agreed, a long read but very worthwhile … it needs some oxygen and light. I liked this, very pertinent in the light of this Dr Ball’s blog post:
Some answers would be nice, eh ?
My pleasure Alan. While Richard Tol’s attempt did a fine job with the stats José’s simple deconstruction is just invaluable. Mind you, he is not a ‘climate skeptic’ (or even a Climate Denialist Lvl 1):
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/lewis-and-curry
It will be profound when IOP finally has to make a review for retraction of this crappy paper without editor Daniel Kammen’s influence (COI raised), and explain why.
Mods and Antony Watts:
The Tamsin Edwards and Steve (Paris) comments from:
November 27, 2014 at 6:46 am
November 27, 2014 at 6:56 am
November 27, 2014 at 7:15 am
November 27, 2014 at 7:20 am
Are appearing out of sequence and., I think, are not meant for public view.
Sorry but I read the original article and it doesn’t say or imply what is claimed.
In many ways (unfortunately) the climate debate is a propaganda war for hearts and minds. As such it is entirely appropriate to show where exactly the same tactics or theory have been used before. Whether outlined in “Mein Kampf” or a University textbook the principles are the same and either can be used for valid examples. Actually so can a good sales course, sales are a form of propaganda as the intent is to convince the subject to act in a certain way.
The bottom line is that if you cannot recognize the techniques when they are used in action (either against you or for you) then you really haven’t a clue what is going on. and really shouldn’t comment.
As a basic reading list to understand how a Propaganda battle is fought I would suggest at the minimum;
Mein Kampf: For an insight into how a terrifying mind uses principles or propaganda to warp thinking. It’s a really, really scary book.
Animal Farm: How to lie to the people.
A good sales course: Preferably one for used car or Life Insurance salesmen. (Not bagging those professions but people don’t like them so convincing clients to hand over gobs of cash is a serious achievement.)
1984: Really a primer on rewriting history and how it’s done.
Brave New World: Outlining the desired state of mind for the drones.
Fahrenheit 451: The movie is the better option and you will begin to question everything you see on the TV news.
Propaganda: Edward L. Bernays seminal work on the subject from 1928. (A favourite of Goebbels)
The sales course is the most useful in everyday life as you will recognize and understand the techniques used by advertising companies in their campaigns, but you’ll also understand why some climate pronouncements didn’t seem quite right and yet were somehow vaguely familiar.
To Drs Betts and Edwards, I wish you all the best but if you are going to get bent out of shape when someone points out that the side you support uses tactics suitable for certain historically hated people, then the best thing you can do is not associate with that side.
Very good and succinct comment, JohnB!
It is important to understand that the argument, especially from the “consensus”, is mostly a political one. And political arguments always get nasty. A personal example is a hydrology professor friend of mine who is a proud “progressive”. When confronted with the facts of the failed AGW prognosis, he falls back to the political position that it doesn’t matter if it is wrong because all of the GW solutions are good and should be be implemented anyways. In other words, he doesn’t care if AGW theories are true, they are a means to an end and he’s willing to join the consensus if it leads to a more “progressive” world. The unfortunate truth is that political arguments are more about marginalizing and demeaning your opponents, thus I’m a denier, and they’re nazis. Tim Ball has chosen to engage on that level, and while lots of us might not be comfortable with it, I’m not ready to say he’s wrong to do so.
Because two guys out of 97% of climate scientists are being nice to (misguided) sceptics, what kind of revolution are you looking for from us disorganized puny few. I couldn’t accept anything less than some frank admissions that sceptics were the best thing that ever happened to the Lysenkoist developments in climate science. Look, you guys should have howled at the beginning when Maurice Strong, whose formal education ended with high school, defined the problem to be studied – not global warming but human caused global warming. You accepted the premise and then interpreted everything toward that end. If it were not for the ‘pause’ (the term itself a strident belief in your thesis even while it is being brought into question) there wouldn’t be no interest in entertaining sceptics.
Both for your science and your students, you should be taking a big goose step backwards and telling all that, even though Trillions have been spent, we’ve discovered that we are hugely wrong. CO2 has an effect but it is very much less than you thought and there is even a possibility that the earth, without any help has mechanisms that appear to mitigate warming that might otherwise arise from increased CO2 warming, that natural variability is a huge unsuspected factor that makes CO2 warming of less and less concern as the dreaded pause continues. You should also put present day warming in context of the long history of planet’s temperature history and note that at some time in the future we will have to cope with an ice age.
You could stop using red and orange graphics for a piddling part of a degree of warmth. This IS propaganda. Finally, Tim wasn’t comparing you to Nazis like your consensus who has done this by having us ‘deniers’ of their handiwork. You should be shredding fellow warmists’ papers that are egregiously non-science and not leaving it up to hated sceptics like the very gentle, honorable Steve McIntyre. You should speak out against bad science and propaganda – the summary for policymakers and the like.
Then we may have a meeting ground. What we have now is you fellows scurrying around trying to rationalize, eradicate and marginalize the ‘pause’, when it should be a breath of fresh air to reset your compasses. Tim’s essay will be forgotten, but history won’t forget what has happened – being wrong isn’t a crime but much of what’s out there is.
I can never understand why everyone uses Hitler, when Stalin killed and least twice as many and Mao about three times as many innocent folks and they were not fascists, but communists, the same leftists pushing the green band wagon today.
I agree that there is no place for name calling in science. I also believe you have never used Denier before. But why do you seem to try to justify the use of the term for Dr. Ball and those that support him?
“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.”
Again, two wrongs do not make a right. This is not how bridges are built. I guess you can’t say you never used the denier term anymore.
Please clean up your own backyard. Take people to task for using the denier term. That will show that you are truly interested in a civil discussion on the topic of climate change. Most of all never ever try to justify the use of denier again
NOTE: this reply is a general reply, not a reply to Stu U because the the normal means to post am independent reply is missing from this page.
I did not go back and re-read the Tim Ball post, so I can’t say whether my initial take on it was too superficial, but I did not get any impression that climate science was being compared to Nazism or climate scientists to Nazis or Hitler. I must also admit to not having spent 60 minutes or more reading all the comments here, so I don’t know but that my point has been made multiple times by others.
Hitler wrote openly about use of a political technique, one he was thousands of years too late to invent. He just adopted it as others before and since have adopted it. The post seems to me to be about politics and religion having created a political entity — the IPCC — that hijacks the mantel of science in order to use that discussed technique for what are clearly political and religious purposes (religion not openly labeled, but none the less having all the worse aspects of organized religion).
It seems to me that there as been a “knee jerk” reaction to certain words (use apparently not PC unless being denigrated) that prevented perception from going beyond those words to the concept actually being discussed.
I do not often enter into the ‘comments’ section of this site, in fear of “putting my foot in it”!
On this occasion, however, I simply want to say that this has been a worthwhile exercise, in my view. I say this simply because the comment section of this item has had a calming effect, by and large on the whole debate – both sides having adequate space to air their views within a largely amicable framework is good.
Surely that, at least, has been not a bad thing?
Please comment again. No foot in mouth there
Thanks!
I second Stephen Richards’ comment.
Sensible & down-to-earth. Hopefully its infectious!
As IPCC’s utterings are of a political nature, and supporting campaigns like Climategate, the 10:10 video series and of course the consensus (non-) issue, have a manipulative force behind them, I found Ball’s reflections on dark times not very nice but relevant. When science is mixed with politics there is always an agenda albeit not a scientific one; it is always an attempt to control the behavior of populations.
“the productive dinner”
The fact that Richard Betts appeals to dinner demonstrates yet again what a joke climate science, AGW and Warmers are.
Andrew
Coal in China from my trip in 2009, I was there 5 years ago today.
http://s1016.photobucket.com/user/turbofan2010/media/QINGDAO%20CHINA%202009%20VISIT/IMG_2784.jpg.html?sort=9&o=167
Ball states;
“Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science …”
He then asks:
“What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? What motive would you give, when asked?
My answer is, that it is an example of the corrupting nature of existential reliance on the flow of public subsidy.
Will Betts and Edwards give their answers?
have you stopped beating your wife? give us the answer now
Are you planning to make sense anytime soon SM?
For an author, I would have expected better on this one. Not even close.
Mark
I have not…have you stopped yet?
come a little closer and I will stop beating her…
I am perfectly willing to stipulate that some, even most, scientists endorsing the AGW conjecture are acting in good faith. Yet it is nevertheless an indisputable fact that political agendas are a significant element of the AGW alarmism movement, and that radical leftists are using the issue as a pretext to advance their goals. It would be foolish not to take this into account.
Otmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC, made the point quite eloquently:
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, http:// thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-isredistributing- the-worlds-wealth.html, translating from original German publication http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/politik/schweiz/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.html
At the Copenhagen conference in 2009, Hugo Chavez was repeatedly interrupted by applause and received a standing ovation for ranting that capitalism must be destroyed and socialism installed in order to save the planet. http://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/03/06/hugo-chavez-on-climate-change-and-capitalism/
Maurice Strong midwifed the UNFCCC, which begat the IPCC, with the express purpose of advancing socialism.
The eco-radicals speak and write openly of reducing human population to less than 1 billion – in the name of saving Gaia and preventing AGW.
The 350.org people produced ads blowing people up for disagreeing with them.
Naomi Klein’s most recent book advocates the end of capitalism to save the planet from AGW.
A motley collection of communists and socialists recently marched at the vanguard parades in world capitals urging the abolition of capitalism and the triumph of communism to fight “climate change.”
It is not bad faith to notice these things or to point them out, nor to remind people that industrial civilization – based on fossil fuels – has roughly doubled life expectancy and fantastically improved the material quality of human life. It is not bad faith to notice the horrific implications for humanity if the worst of the eco-AGW-radicals ever came to power. We have seen their like before. In the period from 1920 to about 1985, communist governments killed more than 100 million of their own people to enforce their demented vision. The insanity and depravity of those atrocities truly difficult to grasp, yet it is all there in the historical record.
So, in the admirable quest for civility, let us not lose sight of the openly-expressed and standing-ovation-endorsed totalitarian political motivations of a non-trivial element of those on the AGW bandwagon, including senior leadership of the IPCC.
Happy Thanksgiving – we are still semi-free!
Ever consider that the ridiculous claims that AGW action will benefit social justice are as bogus as the AGW is to begin with?
What about a fist sign of honesty?
In the phrase
“virtually all climate studies show that…”
which appears a few hundred times a day in scientific papers and the media, why not insert
“virtually all climate studies, based on models which are by now with 97% confidence wrong, show that…”
That would give any reader a more correct perspective of the problem discussed.
The effect of it on the message should be no bigger than, say, the effect of a CCS plant on the energy production of a power plant. Which is always assumed to be small.
A bit of a pickle for Richard and Tamsin here. They right to ask for a civilised debate but some of their fellow travellers are fruit loops, power hungry or mad.
On the other side of the coin I stopped reading Tims article half way through, I had this mental image of Lew running around the faculty doing handstands shouting ‘see. i told you’
Yes, I agree.
Dungeons and Dragons had a very simplistic model of a human being that, perceptively, differentiated between Wisdom and Intelligence.
The problem with the original article wasn’t that it was unintelligent (that is debatable).
The problem with the original article was that it was unwise
“The problem with the original article was that it was unwise”
That is one of the most perceptive statements made in the comments to both posts. Tim’s post sounded like the e-mails that we have all written and which the majority of us have consigned to the delete button after consideration. But which nevertheless relieved our frustration.
No I don’t think Tim compared IPCC scientists to Nazis, and I respect Richard & Tamsin’s attempts at polite discourse. Unlike the securely tenured Dr Curry, neither of these young(ish in Richards case) can afford to act like her. Cut them some slack they are doing the best they can under difficult circumstances and don’t expect them to do what you probably would not do under the same circumstances.
Arthur Dent,
+1
Well said.
Eh, that’s your opinion… everybody has one.
His article was spot on. These people are frauds, and until the Edwards’s and Betts’s of the world begin publicly denouncing such behavior, it will not stop, and without articles like Ball’s, nobody will ever even hear about it.
Mark
Anthony Watts should invite Betts and Edwards to write a guest blog condemning all those alarmist scientists who have called and are still calling sceptics and “luke warmers” deniers.
+1
+1
It’s no surprise that what moves eminent figures from the other side to deign to visit WUWT is not interpretation of natural phenomena or other scientific elaboration, but a sense of indignation at comments made in the realm of socio-politics.
It’s also no surprise that these correspondents wind up misconstruing and misrepresenting the original allusions that provoked the outrage. Once a person’s feelings have been hurt, their reasoning goes a little sideways. I wonder if Mr. Gruber will show up with his nose out of joint, since he got an honorable mention.
I don’t agree with Tim Ball about the conspiracy thing; I think it’s more like the grammatical mistake in Tamsin’s comment; “I suggest you find out a bit more about Richard and I :)”
Because so many people make that mistake, others don’t think to question it. Consensus
” . . .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.”
What debate? I have never seen one prominent Climate Scientist (or Al gore for that matter) ever be willing to participate in a public debate. Gavin Schmidt, now head of the GISS, wouldn’t even appear on the same TV panel with Roy Spencer, he scurried off the stage like a petulant child.
If you disagree with Dr. Ball, why not in engage him in debate on the points he raised. You can hold it right here. Anthony can moderate.
You can talk the High Road, but are willing to walk the High Road.
dressler versus lindzen. So the BIG LIE is the lie that scientists never debate skeptics.
The big lie is a nazi tactic
science isnt a public debate.
public debate is theatre.
basically you are arguing that we use theatre to inform science and then telling the Big lie that these debates have never happened.
Any debate is better than none.
Regardless of your attempt at diversion; science requires honest and independent verification by anyone so inclined. Public participation need not be like those sham spectacles put on by the ‘consensus’ blinded.
The debate is the public’s look into the science and what issues are involved.
It’s not science per se. It’s part of the education of the public on what is involved.
You continually snipe peoples comment and twist their words. You do far more harm to yourself and the warmist cause by making such snide remarks.
Diversion, (and the blog post is nothing but entryist tactics “we are victimized! sympathize!”)- real scientists ARE sceptics, first last, and always. The BIG TRUTH is that all the prostituted shills on the government tit are in consensus: over something their masters insure they bow down to: A BIG LIE. There is no debate when the megaphone is in the hands of the shills propagandizing the masses. A entire generation (and more!) of public school indoctrinated idolators worship at the feet of the state, their “elite” masters, and willingly sacrifice their fortunes, their lives, their children’s lives, and the future of this nation at the altar of their new religion: environmentalism. Michael Crichton warned about it years ago. But it is not new: as the Chesterton quote above so wonderfully pointed out. Cui bono? Al gore, etc… This is such a great blog.
Steven – the science is settled. No debate. Doubting of science should be handled as a crime.
Obviously the climate models of the past 20 years are all totally deficient. So have the authors examined these tools and brought intensive scrutiny to their structure ? Or is the science still settled ?
It seems to me this post is a first step in the correct direction. Let the debate begin. You two know it must happen, the last 18 years seems to have nature siding with the skeptics, no ?
Anthony Watts; Dr. Tim Ball,
I found it odd to see the rhetorical missteps & judgement-lapses of Dr. Ball’s (otherwise excellent) post on the front page. I think I understand that the author’s enthusiasm got the better of him, and am glad now to learn that the editorial role was distracted from the intervention it would normally have performed.
I hope to see Dr. Ball back up in the author-saddle, soon. That is the best salve.
‘Motivation’ is an important & huge theme which could bear much valuable examination, but there are impressive (if unattractive, unflattering) reasons why we don’t see it taken up more often.
=====
Prof Richard Betts; Dr Tamsin Edwards,
Thank you for stepping in quickly. Your address is a great service, for WUWT, but also for the hopes of ‘discussion & debate’, at large.
Yours,
Ted Clayton
In what way are their contributions a “great service”?
When you debate with prostitutes, it is on the nature of the service, and the price.
Betts debates with Slingo. Not sure who Edwards has to talk to.
Never were a young sailor far away with only hours ashore, hm?
You can’t tell presents by the gift-wrapping. What you think you want, or throw yourself on the floor kicking & bawling for, might not be what serves you best.
Betts-Edwards could be the Messiah, or Lucifer incarnate. Even, at a wild guess, something in between.
Rebels excel at rebelling. Staring at the stark specter of Success, however, their own illustrious counsel could use some augmentation. 😉
Personally I welcome Richard Betts and Tasmin Edwards engaging in dialogue. I think both sides have to be prepared to give the other side room to maneuver so to speak to be able to change there minds without any rhetoric.
real scientists don’t need to build bridges … they are all focused on the data and thus far the data says CO2 doesn’t causes climate change … So if you agree with the data you are on the same page as what you call the skeptics … no bridge needed …
There seem to be a lot of Climate Rambos here who fear nothing so much as the war ending.
there is no war … there is one side that is lying with data … we are correcting … until then it doesn’t end … you want civility with those that would take away your freedoms … must be nice to be so open minded …
M Courtney. Care to define your new introduction “Climate Rambo”?
If I remember the first film correctly, Rambo was incapable of coping with civilian life but magnificent in war.
He was talked down, in the end, but was still a pathetic figure in peacetime.
Many here don’t seem to want an end to conflict over Climate issues. They appear to want the war so as they can excel.
Which misses the point of the fight.
The book is worth reading. Much different from the movie. Good for a snowy night.
I would point out that the title is an ad hom attack just as bad as what they are protesting … seems like they need to work on their bridge building a little more …