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
There are other issues about the Climate Models which need to be aired in Public. In a 2010 Report**, US Cloud Physicist G L Stephens pointed out that climate and weather models use in hind-casting ~double real low level cloud optical depth as a fitting parameter, ~35% increase of albedo.
Its apparent purpose, a purported global cooling greater than warming since the Last Ice Age Maximum, is to pretend it is much cooler underneath ocean clouds. The high temperature sunlit ocean surface, flooded with imaginary ‘back radiation’, gives much more evaporation than reality, yet the mean temperature is correct; hence the imaginary ‘hot spot’, ‘violent weather’.
Another issue, the fundamental cause of this Science Failure, is the teaching of incorrect radiative (and IR) Physics by US Atmospheric Science, and its spread to the UK and other disciplines. This MIT course module shows why: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node134.html
It teaches that the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation predicts real energy flux instead of Radiant Emittance, Potential Energy Flux to a sink at absolute zero. In reality, net IR flux is the vector sum of Irradiances at a plane (equal to Emittances for collimated beams). The next MIT module transposes Emittance for Emissivity.
The result is the Perpetual motion Machine of the 2nd Kind in the climate models, the creation of ~40% imaginary energy in the ‘Enhanced GHE’. Carl Sagan’s 1960 paper on Venus where he failed to understand Lapse Rate is caused by Gravity, was apparently to blame.
**http://www.gewex.org/images/feb2010.pdf
The people who made the “No Problem” video were advocating the murder of people who disagree with them. And someone gets upset because we compare them to National Socialists? Really? Just to refresh memories:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/o-m-g-video-explodes-skeptical-kids-in-bloodbath/
If the analogy fits wear it. Tim Ball was speaking to the political dynamic which many of us have observed. Hitler, being an idiot did not invent the concept of the big lie. It also did not end with him.
I’ll repeat Richard and Tamsin’s observation:
It’s quite easy to see how, of course. The added assumption, is ‘anyone who is not a hypocrite’.
An observation — it’s unlikely that people who liken you to Hitler/Nazis are going to listen to your science. That applies regardless of who ‘you’ are. Notable on this blog was that the comments to Ball’s post included zero or few objections to his doing so with respect to the entire IPCC (several thousand scientists have participated). And, now, even after Anthony notes his disagreement, most commenters are standing by (or expanding, as they did in the comments to Ball’s post) the Nazi comparison.
They’re free to do so, of course. But the rule applies. With the overwhelming majority of comments being supportive of, or repeating, Nazi/Hitler comparisons — the overwhelming majority of commenters are not going to listen to science. Which they’re also free to do.
Such behaviors, though, being dominant at the most widely read skeptic blog, make it awfully easy to conclude that skeptics are not interested in the science. Still stuck in the past, or, as Richard and Tamsin describe
On the other hand, I’ve talked several times at a science cafe, and had skeptics present and asking questions. The purpose of the cafes being for people to ask questions of a scientist. They, however, didn’t spend their time telling me that I was a Nazi, as were almost all the scientists I’ve ever worked with. And when presented with evidence (and pointers to where to find out more) they updated their thinking/positions. While lead to more questions; and a good time was had by all.
While Anthony himself doesn’t like the Nazi comparisons, and can have polite discussion over dinner with Richard and Tamsin, or by email (with me, some ages back), he’s cultivated a blog wherein the most prominent voices are in line with Ball, rather than himself.
So, a question to Anthony: What’s your purpose? Most clicks, which would argue in favor of continued increase in Nazi/Hitler references? Or to tackle science on climate change?
[Dr. Ball did NOT “call” anyone within the CAGW populist/anti-free-thought community Nazi’s. Dr Ball DID show that the METHODS USED in their bombastic deliveries and in their dogma were similar to the propaganda methods written about in Mein Kampf. The CAGW community invented the charge you are repeating above because the CAGW community recognized the accuracy and effectiveness of Dr Ball’s comparisons of their methods. .mod]
“[Dr. Ball did NOT “call” anyone within the CAGW populist/anti-free-thought community Nazi’s. Dr Ball DID show that the METHODS USED in their bombastic deliveries and in their dogma were similar to the propaganda methods written about in Mein Kampf. The CAGW community invented the charge you are repeating above because the CAGW community recognized the accuracy and effectiveness of Dr Ball’s comparisons of their methods. .mod]
it is also easy to show the similarity between the denial of radiative physics and the denial of the holocaust.
ALL of these comparisons are bull crap. Anyone who calls himself a sceptic should question the comparisons. when you do you see that the comparisions dont aim at truth. In fact, if you want to talk
about the key tool of propagandists it lies in comparisons.
comparing practices to nazi practices. comparing holocaust denial to c02 denial.
Ball just went to the head of the propagandist class
“it is also easy to show the similarity between the denial of radiative physics and the denial of the holocaust.”
Ahhh you make it sound so simple, as in all we need to know about Climate Physics are this and just a few more “physics” terms. And yet cloud “physics”, ocean “physics” and many other chaotic “physics” add immeasurably to the climate UNcertainty. And this is assuming that you even have the ones that you think that you understand are computer modeled correctly. This is just another attempt to mislead and you have become an active part of that problem.
What is c02 denial?
Drawing parallels between the propaganda methods of the Hitlerites and the alarmists, as Dr. Ball did, does not make him a propagandist, Steven.
And so, you tar him with the brush that you accuse him of wielding.
Ask the fellows here if you can take that one back. Perhaps they will allow it.
I’m sure Dr Ball doesn’t mind changing the comparison. Since Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Kim Il sung and Pol Pot all used the same tactics, who would you suggest as a better example?
A person who points out propaganda techniques is not a propagandist, they are simply telling the truth.
No, it is not. Not even close. Strike three.
First of all, nobody denies the reality of radiative physics. Not that you actually have the physics background to understand (contrary to opinion, it is not a high school topic), but it is quite a bit more complicated than simply SWIR gets absorbed by the earth which gets and then re-radiated as LWIR, which then gets absorbed by CO2. What people.”deny” is that this is dominant driver of the climate (or significant at all). The use of the word is as you use it, something you should know damn well is incorrect, and also intentionally used as a direct comparison to holocaust denial.
Unfortunately for your very weak analogy, holocaust denial was not a case of subjective interpretation of evidence or untested hypothesis. No, it was a case of outright refusal to accept in arguable proof.
There are no parallels. There are parallels, however, in the tactics used by propagandists and climate hucksters.
Mark
Pot calls the kettle, who called the kettle black, black.
Just because someone doesn’t condemn Dr. Ball’s opinion (or Hitler’s), doesn’t mean that they implicitly agree with it, myself included. Using a pathetic straw man argument like that doesn’t gain you much respect in my eyes.
I agree. I skip past Ball’s posts on this site, I find them boring. Dr Ball is such small potatoes in all of this.
Hansen and Mann utter invective on a daily basis. They contributed to the IPCC and get to talk directly to governments. But here we are going on about one of the many essays from Dr Ball.
Even the civil elements of the alarmist side (like Betts and Edwards) have become so biased they cannot even see how ridiculous this is. After so many years of propaganda and alarmism from the AGW side, they want us to be talking about an essay from Dr Ball? This is absurd. The word “denier” has become a term used widely by professional scientists and these people want us to talk about an essay from Dr Ball?
Reg — would you also apply that reasoning when groups are reversed? I notice quite a few comments here demanding that Richard and Tamsin get everybody ‘on their side’ to quit using denier. Not merely to object and not use it themselves, but to succeed in getting everybody else not to use it. Other comments complaining exactly that silence _is_ assent (to whatever it is they want to hear people objecting to).
Anyhow, if you’d read past my “It is easy …”, which it is — note that I did not say it was correct — I gave my own example, firsthand, of skeptics who did _not_ go the ‘you’re all a bunch of Nazi-wannabes’ route. So far, in my first hand 3d experience, that’s all skeptics. Online, not so pretty.
If you’d read my whole note, you’d also have seen that I’m not objecting to the overwhelming majority here who are fine with calling scientists Nazis, equating them to Hitler, and the like. Just observing that if you want science to be discussed, this isn’t the way to get what you want.
Robert Grumbine November 27, 2014 at 5:12 pm
Reg — would you also apply that reasoning when groups are reversed? I notice quite a few comments here demanding that Richard and Tamsin get everybody ‘on their side’ to quit using denier. Not merely to object and not use it themselves, but to succeed in getting everybody else not to use it.
——
I have no problem with anyone using the term “Denier”. In fact, it is an effective way of identifying those who do not wish to, or are not capable of engaging in an intellectual debate. They are forced to resort to name calling because that is all they have. These are the same people who deliberately use the term “Carbon” instead of “Carbon Dioxide”.
Robert – I endorse “.mod” comment on Ball.
Look at the SUBSTANCE of what Ball was saying.
I did. And I looked at the responses it gathered there and here. I’ve also read and watched Shakespearean plays including Julius Caesar.
Quite a few of the natives thought that Ball had indeed equated the IPCC (which is, after all, several thousand scientists over the past 25 years) to Hitler. They applauded Ball, and continue to do so, for doing it so well. So, first point I’ll offer to you to ponder is, why, if Ball did not say something, are so many of your fellows here applauding him for saying it so well?
Consider too that Ball is a smart guy, capable of writing well. That includes being understood as he wishes to be understood. But people, even despite best efforts and intentions can be misunderstood. If he did not mean to make that equation, why did he not correct the commenters early on as it became apparent that it was how he was being read?
Finally, to arrive at your conclusion, you’ll have to read Mark Antony’s speech (the ‘Friends, Romans, Countrymen’) — and arrive at the conclusion that he did not praise Caesar, and thought that Brutus and company were indeed honorable men. He makes no statement to the contrary after all.
Please can you copy and paste the text where ‘they are happy to call other people Nazis’ ?
Isn’t it the other way round anyway? It was the ‘other side’ who started calling people ‘deniers’ in the first place, so ‘we’ should surely be saying to them “But it’s hard to see how anyone could justify taking offence at being called a Nazi if they were happy to call other people Deniers”. Not that either statement actually makes any sense, if you think about it.
Drs Bett and Edwards, there are at least two issues here.
One is the climate science. There, a much more civilized–and much higher quality–dialog needs to take place, and it is good that you are doong so. I think it possible to be very critical of the quality of much of the ‘climate science’. See, for example, essays A High Stick Foul, By Land or By Sea, and Shell Games in Vlowing Smoke. All appeared at Judy Curry’s Climate Etc before appearing in the book. For each essay, the journals, authors, and media publicizers (e.g Walsh at Seattle Times) were provided copies with requests for corrigenda or retraction, owing to their grossly misleading nature that in each case also meeting the standards for academic misconduct. Nothing. That silence from ‘your side’ is not conducive to reasonable discourse.
The second is the name calling. It is frequent, ugly, and mostly from your side. See essay Climatastrosophistry for examples. It should not occur, but does. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry both likened skeptics like myself to flat earthers in 2014. What you maynnot understand is that this is purely political. And the better analogy is to the tactics of communism, which is why most esposing CAGW can rightfully be labeled warmunists. The historical analogy is developed in Climatstrosophistry, and was first used by former Czech president Vaclav Klaus in 2007.
It is refreshing that you posted here. Means you are not warmunists, but rather scientists. Now lets engage with some of the shoddy climate science, and make progress toward whatever climate truths we are collectively able to discern.
“The second is the name calling. It is frequent, ugly, and mostly from your side.”
mommy mommy they did it first, they did it worst.
playground complaints Rud.
Ball is on your team. Hold him to account.
So you consider the occasional firing back of the essentially powerless evenly comparative to the persistent name calling and denigration by active “professionals” (ha ha) . Wow, that is paranoid.
Skeptics didn’t start this thing. Most skeptics want to bring some honest debate to the table but get blocked and called names for doing so. And childish comments like yours from the other side doesn’t help. As a regular commenter on this site why don’t you reach out and encourage your colleagues to come here to debate the issues in a scientific manner? You are perfectly placed to bridge the gap. You see Mosher I reckon the reason why you wouldn’t is because you know main stream climate scientists have made a lot of crazy assertions they cannot defend if held to account. Perhaps you could prove me wrong.
We are holding him to account. The blog owner has written
That’s authored. That above the line.
Criticising a side because of comments below the line is daft.
Criticise the individual commenter – sure. But don’t hold us as representative.
There is no provenance for the comments. We might be drunk, stressed, distracted, uninformed or just stupid when commenting. I often am all, at once. Why else would I assume anyone would care about the opinion of a nobody?
Most people here are lurkers. They have an opinion but it won’t be as passionate as those who dive in and flail about. And on this and the original article many regular commenters chose not to comment.
The comments below the line are entertainment and may be stimulating but they are not representative.
“There is no provenance for the comments. We might be drunk, stressed, distracted, uninformed or just stupid when commenting. I often am all, at once. Why else would I assume anyone would care about the opinion of a nobody?”
First of all speak for yourself only. If the opinion represents a logical outlook then one can learn a new valuable thought even from “nobody’s”. Even “they” can spot errors of logic and find deception and often provide a valuable alternate viewpoint.
——————————————————————————————————————-
“The comments below the line are entertainment and may be stimulating but they are not representative.”
Not representative of whom? The only one you could accurately speak for is yourself.
———————————————————————————————————–
I find this site’s official response against Betts & Edwards timid and from the “nobody” commenters, I would say that many agree.
BFL – exactly:
I said, “Criticise the individual commenter – sure. But don’t hold us as representative.” And my comment was therefore speaking for myself as an individual.
My state of mind should not be taken as representative of anybody else’s state of mind. I am an anonymous nobody. I represent no-one’s view but my own. And I don’t claim to speak for the others who comment here.
Nor should anyone else.
Lead by example.
michael.
Steven, three points.
First, Ball did nothing wrong, as pointed out above. Mein Kampf is about big lies. Taking offense means that evident truth hurts. Deal with it.
Second, ‘your’ team has been much worse. Documented in essay Climtastrosophistry in new enook Blowing Smoke. Deal with that, and the referenced footnotes proving that these are not mere allegations. Including aspertions from Al Gore and OBama and Kerry.
Third, you personally have ad hom denigrated me over on Climate Etc concerning BEST station 166900. Go see what you said. Go see what your methodology produced for that ‘pristene’ station.
After an apology and mea culpa, perhaps you can resume the civilized scientiific discourse that Betts and Edwins advocate above. Until then, you have by your own actions proven the opposite.
It must be rather tough to find yourself on the losing side of the “science” you swore allegiance to.
Tougher to find there are others who know methodologically as much as you, with irrefutable fact counters to your increasingly snide remarks.
Toughest to find that voices your side tried to silence as ‘deniers’ or ‘flat earthers’ or (in your personal case re me) ‘statistical ignorami’ have not been silenced, and en mass are more literate than your worst nightmares.
BTW in re your indelible (because privately archived) comment on my ‘Mommy’ is long dead, god rest her long suffering (MS plus breast cancer) soul. With that comment up post you revealed the core of your own soul. And now your morale rot is forever archived, as my screenshot .pdf of your unforgivable comment above is now indelibly archived in ways you can never change. But will use.
Steven, you have just personified all that is wrong from ‘your side’ of climate science, which Richard and Tamsin upthread attempted to right with a feeble olive branch based on an erroneous Ball premise. Disregards to you, permanently. My actual sentiments are much more negative to you, but in the spirit of Richard and Tamsin’s posts are withheld lest they trigger moderation.
What is painfully apparent from the above comments is that the OPs and Tamsin in particular have replied to those who have supported their position.
But not one single response to all those who have made very valid counter arguments, not only about the vilification of sceptics, not only about the historical accuracy of Tim’s original post on the “Big Lie” but also nothing about the God awfull psuedo Science in the IPCC Summaries and outpouring of awfull scaremongering reports from most other so called Science organisations.
It speaks volumes of their attitude and says it all for me.
Latest scaremongering reports from UK come from the Royal Society. (Today’s DT) If we don’t get to grips with global warming by 2100 we will experience three times as many heatwaves as we do now. And the number of people who die OF THE HEAT each year will rise from 2000 to 6000. Our average mid-summer temperature where I live in England is about 20C. I live in Spain for half the year where average summer temperatures are 30C and I have not heard of many people dying there because of the heat. Of course they do not mention the number of people who die of the cold in the UK each year which would presumably be greatly reduced if we had a rise of a few degrees.
Exactly A. C.
They are afraid. Neither reports to sharp criticism at Bishop Hill, either. It is a symptom of the very problem people like me are arguing against.
Mark
Responds, not reports. My auto-correct is getting worse.
Mark
Tamsin did reply above, with examples of her taking the skeptic side.
I don’t think “taking the skeptic side” is really the point. Betts does this as well, though both do it somewhat weakly, and typically in places where such a position is welcome. Critic fodder, for sure, but immaterial, either way.
The central premise of their entire post arguably has nothing to do with the post by Dr. Ball, yet neither has responded to this legitimate complaint. Dr. Ball as all the evil for referencing Hitler, yet their personal attack of Dr. Ball, based on a complete failure to actually understand what he wrote, is kosher, and neither has responded to this legitimate observation.
Mark
Hear, hear!
Richard Betts is a climate modeller who works for “HELIX”
http://helixclimate.eu/richard-betts
Speaks for itself.
He also comes out with “genius” tweets such as “The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.”
And this garbage from the Met. Office
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2009/four-degrees
“Four degrees of warming, averaged over the globe, translates into even greater warming in many regions, along with major changes in rainfall. If greenhouse gas emissions are not cut soon, we could see major climate changes within our own lifetimes.”
Draw your own conclusions….
I did a very long time ago.
“The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.”- Richard Betts
I conclude this is from a wannabe witch doctor. Perhaps I’m in error and it’s really a scientists urging integrity from everyone.
RB is a prostitute who tries to pretend that he is cheap. See his salary statement, you will see that he is very expensive.
I think it’s unfair to criticize Tim Ball for is post. He is spot on to hang this on Maurice Strong. Strong has been a key figure in this issue from the very beginning. He has tentacles going in many directions.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2461
And I should add that like Al Gore, Strong stands to personally benefit from government control of “carbon”. Like many key advocates of warmism, he is in a conflict of interest.
Very true. When you advocate policies that will result in the deaths of millions like Maurice Strong does it is hard to avoid comparisons with history’s butchers like Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. Their policies resulted in deaths of tens of millions often of their own people.
Forgive Dr Ball for learning from history and not wanting to repeat it. I’m in the same boat. The people who contend that CO2 has to be controlled have never proven their case to any extent. Their predictions continue to fail and yet we are to restrict energy production from certain sources and drive the price up for those who can least afford it. That will result in the deaths of a lot of people.
Continuing to chase the dragon of CO2 caused warming long after it has been dis-proven will leave us without resources to deal with real problems which may include extreme cold.
One question I have for Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards is the following:
How long with flat or falling temperatures and rising CO2 before you admit that you and your theory of CO2 controlling the climate are wrong?
I think this post is a big goose egg, I totally agree with Dr. Tim’s assessment and him quoting Mein Kampf was totally appropriate and accurate. Hitler didn’t act alone he was influenced by people around him and leaders of the time, one of which was a U.S. citizen named Edward L. Bernays who wrote the book on Propaganda, literally. This book inspired Joseph Goebbels the head of the propaganda ministry and Hitler and they used it quite successfully.
Before WWII the word “propaganda” wasn’t frowned upon in fact Goebbels building had a bi=g sign on the front reading “MINISTRY OF PROPAGANDA” they thought ““the scientific manipulation of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in a democratic society.” Not until after the war did it have negative connotations so they changed it to “Public Relations” it’s the same thing it’s how to “control the masses without their knowing it.”
Edward Bernays used doctors and scientists in his marketing because he knew people trusted them. Remember those ads from the 40’s and 50’s with doctors wearing white lab coats recommending a certain brand of cigarette or “9 out of 10 dentists agree fluoride is good for your teeth” using a consensus among scientists was a good way to control how people thought.
People think that because Hitler used propaganda and he is dead, propaganda is dead too, but the truth is it was invented here and is still very much alive and well in our culture. Now it is more sophisticated and more subtle but it is still exists and is more powerful than ever.
The 1930s-40s central-European leadership didn’t lose their credible and place at the discussion-table, (just) because they engaged in propaganda.
Richard/Tamsin
Please show exactly where Tim Ball draws parallels between climate scientists and Hitler.
You might then care to address some of the serious issues Tim raises about the politicisation of the IPCC, the role of Maurice Strong and others, and the corruption of climate science by govt funding. (Perhaps another post would be needed to give this the importance it deserves)
Paul
Comments on the original post take up this matter from many different angles.
And while you’re at it, what are your views on today’s Royal Society report on extreme weather? Are either of you aware of any of the catastrophic “extreme weather” in the 17thC, far worse than anything seen lately?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/climate-catastrophe-in-the-17thc-geoffrey-parker-in-review/
Paul
Unfortunately I have it direct from the Horses mouth that the Met office don’t ‘do’ history, or that from pre 1850 or so.
They cite too many uncertainties in the data to make it scientific. They are forever trying to refine Parkers post 1772 CET data.
tonyb
Or the 16th century when fierce storms battered the east and west coast of the UK
Tamsin Edwards
I endorse Paul Homewood
Tim Ball was NOT saying IPCC = NAZI – That’s a red herring.
Please address the SUBSTANCE of what Ball was addressing –
the WORLDVIEW issues
He highlights Noble Cause Corruption
What excuses to reduce population etc.
Please look beyond that superficial issue of the person he quotes, and address the substance.
Noble cause corruption is a fiction. There is nothing noble about corruption. Corruption is lying to line your own pockets or to improve your public image. It’s a sign of weakness and dooms one to failure.
Thomas
“Noble cause corruption” is a technical term where the end justifies the means. See:
Steve Rothlein “Noble Cause Corruption” Written For and Distributed by Public Agency Training Council.
Thanks. This needed to be said.
I find the whole thing confusing. The evidence seems so clear that the models are sub-par. And yet, the official climate prognosticators act like there is nothing amiss.
Any reasonable person would at least consider that there is sneakiness afoot. But the Hitler analogy is a bad idea if you want to make a serious point to serious people.
Both sides of this chasm live people of various hypotheses and beliefs. Sometimes possess the ability to be nice or at least just plain honest.
It would be nice for those who claim others are Nazis, murderers, paedophiliacs be judged for what they say by their own people for once. Only in doing this can both sides debate honestly.
I have an issue with two teams over the gorge calling the other side to lay foundations to build that bridge when behind them are mad, angry braying attack dogs.
When I see Richard and Tamsin appearing regularly at non-science sites like this alarmist fear-mongering propaganda site . . . http://hot-topic.co.nz/ . . . then I will know that they are sincere, and that they care about truth and knowledge.
But they should be warned – NO scientist, no matter how sympathetic to the cause , will be permitted to post material that suggests that there is even the slightest bit of doubt about the catastrophic prognostications contained within this site.
But let’s see them try anyway. They will have my admiration if they can last a week there before being placed on permanent moderation.
“When I see Richard and Tamsin appearing regularly at non-science sites like this alarmist fear-mongering propaganda site . . . http://hot-topic.co.nz/ . . . then I will know that they are sincere, and that they care about truth and knowledge.”
loyalty tests.
This is exactly the kind of crap that keeps the polarization alive.
You have a problem with loyalty to truth? Why so?. Is it not worth your while to correct falsehood where you find it?
Why not go there yourself and put the record straight?
My point about this site is that neither you , nor I , nor Tamsin and Richard will be permitted to speak the truth there.
See you there Steven 🙂
When I know that Betts and Richards have admonished their fellows against such ill behavior seen at these sites, then I will listen to their complaints here.
Physician, cure thyself.
No I have a problem with you telling people what they have to do to prove their sincerity.
its pretty simple.
Steven Mosher-” I have a problem with you telling people what they have to do to prove their sincerity.”
That’s O.K. with me. I’m happy to accept any sort of demonstration . . . not necessarily the one I proposed (which was tongue-in-cheek, perhaps not obviously).
And I do acknowledge that Tamsin and Richard may have a lot to lose by declaring publicly under their own names ; so do I , which is why I use a nom de plume.
They might both choose to do as I do – live to fight another day -lose a battle but win the war. It always pays to choose your battles.
But the polarity you refer to . . . . science/superstition; fact/belief; truth/bullshit; however you wish to characterise it seems to be eternal. At least , it won’t go away anytime soon.
farmer
“That’s O.K. with me. I’m happy to accept any sort of demonstration”
I doubt your sincerity. when you use your real name I will believe you.
too fricking funny
But Steven, my credibility is irrelevant: I acknowledge that I can have none in your eyes. I couldn’t care less.
And I have no more credibility in the eyes of most commenters here than you do; it is just the blogosphere.
Anyone who wants to know who I am can find out in a couple of minutes. Then they can judge if they need to.
But this is about the scientific method; who is using it and who is not, and what are the facts.
Your comment about loyalty tests was wide of the mark; the issue was credibility, not loyalty.
As most have observed Betts and Edwards have little or no credibility in the eyes of sceptics because while they may privately subscribe to the scientific process, in the sphere of commerce , i.e. in their employment they apparently do not demonstrate any adherence to conventional scientific process.
Just show me where I am wrong about that; I wasn’t at the “dinner party”.
It’s not a loyalty test. It’s a simple challenge. Farmerbraun is interested to know where Richard and Tamsin stand on the question of dangerous global warming. Nothing wrong with that. And why do you dislike polarization? Catastrophic-human-caused global warming is a polarized question — it’s either a real threat or it’s not. You seem to fancy yourself some sort of referee but your logic is faulty and I find your attitude of super-selfrightousness distasteful. It comes off like bullying. I don’t like bullies.
“Loyalty Tests”- ? did you miss the posts above in which the names of those scientists who dared to question the party line of the Warmunistas lost their jobs and were pilloried at the post of public opinion? The ENTIRE edifice of secular Environmentalism is built on WORSHIP of their DOGMA. As other here with fare more erudition have noted, your posts continue to shine a spotlight on your projection of your own faults onto others. Polarization does work to maintain dominance of the empowered class; however, pretending there is some group large enough to be heard on the sceptic side to be classified as “polarizing” would be funny, if not so sad. Perhaps when the public at large comes to the realization that they are freezing in the dark after sending all their taxes and donations to a large group of LIARS, true polarization will be evident…
I read the original article by Dr Ball as more of a “tongue in cheek” type article than one asking serious question about motive. The real motive is as Dr Brown explained in his most excellent post. It is a catch all that can secure funding. Just make yourself socially relevant by working up a “climate change” angle to your proposal and you are much more likely to get funding.
I would like to ask Richard and Tamsin what their thoughts are on the points raised by Dr Brown
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Amen! I think Occam’s razor tells us that massive funding directed toward the CAGW side of the argument is going to influence some portion of the scientific community. After all, scientists need to put bread on the table, just like the hoi polloi.
I found Dr. Ball’s article enlightening and this “rebuttal” post obfuscating. Tony, you have nothing to apologize for in allowing Dr. Ball to post on your blog. In the end, what is your answer to his question?
Do you really think that the AGW alarmists are motivated by a poor choice of computer models? Do you think that the mountains of money that pour in to support the bad science come from misguided or mistaken souls who failed to study Karl Popper in college? This is a science blog and perhaps it is off topic to discuss HOW the science got so corrupted rather than just the details of how wrong it is. But in the long run it is not going to be some killer scientific study that refutes AGW and puts the science back on the right track.
There are already many excellent studies, books like the “Hockey Stick Illusion”, hundreds of articles. The AGW gravy continues apace and our President has committed to $billions to solve non-existent problems. Dr. Ball is right to point out the history and motives of those who started this movement and what their real strategy is.
It is going to take a sincere, objective look at the facts and a serious, broadly disseminated answer to Dr. Ball’s question to bring the light of truth to bear on the exaggerated claims of AGW catastrophism.
What’s your answer, Tony? A cutesy reference to “Godwin’s Law”, which seems to amount to “Oops somebody said a nasty, Blog Down” is not going to cut the mustard.
I find it hard to fault Ball for his attack on the CAGW forces.
Look at what the CAGW skeptics have been fighting over the last twenty-five years:
1. The discredited Mann “hockey stick”
2. The statistical torturing of data to support the CAGW hypothesis
3. The hijacking and corruption of the peer review process to ensure that the
CAGW skeptics are denied a voice in the scientific debate.
4. The corruption of the peer review process to allow articles of questionable
validity to appear in scientific journals to bolster the CAGW hypothesis
5. The reluctance and/or obstructionism in providing data and methods of
analysis to those not friendly to the CAGW hypothesis. This is most egregious
because it undermines one of science’s most important tools: the ability
to reproduce and verify results.
6. Ad-hominem attacks on CAGW skeptics and calls for their persecution because
they do not obey the new CAGW order.
7. Climate models that have, for the past 18 years or so, significantly diverged
from reality regardless of the tweaks and changes made to force them
to accurately predict the climate.
8. A slippery hypothesis that does not allow for refutation and confers on atmospheric CO2 to have the magical properties of causing at need, warming and cooling, drought and flood, colder and warmer climate, and whatever is needed at the moment to keep CAGW alive.
9. Addition of epicycles to the CACW hypothesis to account for its failures. See sulfur aerosols, deep ocean heating for examples.
10. IPCC executive summaries that eschew science to promote political ends
11. Worst of all, the acquiescence and silence of the many in the science community to these and other outrages.
I am an engineer and have a great respect for science when it is properly applied. Good science saves lives and makes the human condition better. CAGW “science” does neither and has become like a religion with received wisdom, demands of obedience to central authority, non-falsifiable hypotheses, and calls for capital punishment for heretics. Worse yet, when the truth about the corruption of science is finally exposed, as it always is, irreparable damage will have been done to reputation of science and its practitioners. No longer will the public see scientists as impartial seekers of truth and speakers of truth to power. They will instead be seen as venal and self-serving individuals who sacrificed the will and good of the people for their political agendas and the chance to rule. The golden luster will be seen as the tarnished brass that it has become. The worst effect of this public attitude will be seen when science next aptly cries wolf and the public ignores the warning out of fear that it is yet another attempt to subvert their lives.
These are sufficient reasons why calls for comity from Betts and Tamsin ring hollow to me. Have they or their like-thinking peers been willing to brave the CAGW mob and vocally and publically criticize and condemn the attacks on the CAGW skeptics? Have they or their compatriots demanded more openness and transparency in the CAGW debate? Have they or others repudiated the questionable and outright fraudulent results of CAGW “science?” Until Betts, Tamsin and others are willing to put their careers on the line and openly and vigorously challenge the CAGW mob by demanding a more open process and the cessation of the CAGW mob’s self-serving and unscientific suppression the CAGW skeptics, then Ball and others have little recourse but to attack in like manner. It is time that the CAGW skeptics stop bringing rubber knives to a gunfight.
12. The banning of Nigel Lawson, the Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, by the BBC from any further discussions on AGW (not that they hold many) because he is not a scientist.
Exactly right, jburrell. It’s this part, “irreparable damage will have been done to reputation of science and its practitioners.” that is most upsetting to me.
The AGW-promoters have deliberately and systematically subverted science. They have knowingly violated their most serious professional ethics. And the science academies have rolled right over in support of that noxious program. The fallout is likely to be awful.
13) Getting editors fired.
This is not just about ‘science’. It’s about advocacy for renewable energy, prematurely ending fossil fuel use, extreme ecology and making a few well placed people a lot of money. Some have other agendas which spilled from the end of the cold war: strangling capitalism and Western / developing world industrialization and progress.
The people making money off the back of CAGW are Lord Debden, Lord Stern, and a host of other alarmists with shares in companies set to benefit from government action. Neat eh!
I’ll respect Richard Betts when his response to bad science is stronger than Tsk … @aDissentient Yes, I noticed that. Tsk. @c25AA @ClimateSystem @royalsociety … it feels as if his position is that extremist CAGW advocates are just being a little naughty … nothing too bad mind … and in a “good cause” …
The “good cause” is the money for RB.
So he is a prostitute.
I didn’t read the original article before now because it didn’t tell me anything I hadn’t already heard or wanted to again. I’m not a fan of Dr Tim Ball’s posts but people like Dr Ball are at the sharp end of anti sceptic attack and frankly I’d be darn sight more angry in his position than I am as a bystander. And I’m pretty cross anyway. For those who have been savaged by the system, I have every sympathy for anything they want to throw at the warmist machine or those who keep silent while others are shredded.
I don’t favour likening historical events together with current ones, not because there are no parallels but because there are often too many to make a useful point. Take any two conflicts, from a cat fight between teenage girls to a World war, and some of the aspects will be very similar. The name calling, the rumours, the gathering of allies, the annexing of weaker individuals… these are just human dirty tricks. I’m bored of them from both sides but I don’t expect people to be anything but human.
It’s really nice that Dr Tamsin and Professor Betts are offering the olive branch but frankly they’re acting like the negotiators in peace talks for the winning side. Assuming they have the authority to act as such, and I very much doubt they have that much influence given the size of warmism, we don’t need to start negotiations as we haven’t lost the war. We didn’t even start the war, we just found ourselves on the opposite side of a very dodgy, ill defined consensus. Have many of us changed our position or got closer to the centre? Do we think climate science has radically improved its procedures and accountability? Do we think they’re voluntarily more honest about the state of modelling or their knowledge? Is the movement towards us the result of their reasonableness or because the climate is making liars out of them? If warming resumed its previous pace (and I’ve never ruled it out) would they pretend there was never anything wrong with climate science in the first place?
In his graciousness Anthony Watts has given Richard and Tamsin a platform to rebuke a sceptic for going over the top. Absolutely his prerogative to do so. But you know what? I’ve been rebuked by them (en masse) in subtle and not so subtle ways but I’m darned if I’ve seen much where they offer anything but the mildest of criticisms to their own side. Most of those have been in the form of excuses. If they’re a much more staunch ally in secret but have to publicly go softly, softly… Not sure I want allies like that. It means when I’m slapped, I can’t slap back and if that makes me Rambo, give me a headband and combat boots now.
I had a hearty laugh at having a “civil” discussion with the perpetrators of the greatest fraud hoisted upon humanity. What will you discuss? How to dismantle the fraud and destroy their careers in the process? Lots of luck!
Maybe someone’s playing a divide and conquer game with the WUWT’s commentariate and readership given the above … what would you call it? … polarization?
Alternatively, if all it’s just “noise” it’s pretty popular noise, at least to people who are beyond tired of the endless screed of anti-science level of supposed ‘research’ for the past 25 years by the sanguine and ambivalent dinner guests, who are being hung out to dry by the bald facts of no warming in 18 years and the inconvenient RECORD SOUTHERN OCEAN ICE during 2014 and the second snap polar vortex laden winter flow in two years.
Next August the politicians and econowonks will still be talking about how the pending 2014-2015 winter caused much more serious economic slowdown than they had anticipated. Three billion for ‘direct action’ will be dead in the water … of course … as it should be.
“Maybe someone’s playing a divide and conquer game with the WUWT’s commentariate and readership given the above”
No skeptic consensus exists to be divided and conquered.
I don’t mean a consensus, I mean fractionation of opposition to the AGW BS-osphere. They don’t want to get rid of a consensus, they want to defang an extremely effective opposition to their pet consensus.
But, in the end, if the winter is protracted with minus 50 again, and the southern sea ice thickens and expands some more, you’d hope that was the bit that mattered to everyone.
Otherwise it is all just noise. In which case, what does it matter whether a collective attitude of reconciliation exists? Do you need that for agreeable science? Or do you just need to observe what the earth is actually doing, and let that be what matters?
To my mind all the rest is the real ‘noise’ – pro, or con.
I’ve seen and heard the word Nazi used for the better part of 60 years and it usually means
control oriented. It seldom has anything to do with the Holocaust or any of the other stuff the real Nazis were up to. Certainly Ball’s use implied no such thing. But charging that someone using it implies the horrible associations, without reason, is a phony argument.
” Certainly Ball’s use implied no such thing’
certainly?
hmm. is that settled science? implication in language is a very tricky thing.
How odd??
What is the purpose of your article above, Dr. Edwards and Dr. Betts?
Is it to clear the air? Or is it intended to silence strong opinions like Dr. Ball’s?
From this perspective, your purpose is to silence words you dislike.
Which brings up the question why do you dislike them? Perhaps because recognizing yourself, friends, or your actions in the descriptions causes chills to run up your spine and quite some embarrassment? Well, truth hurts, and it can hurt a lot more as the fullness of your own actions becomes known.
Do you really and truthfully defend skepticism every day every time someone disparages or falsely accuses those who question the science? It takes more than a few quotes before I’ll believe that you openly take the skeptics case.
Back to Dr. Ball;
Dr. Ball is still under a lawsuit by Mann, a lawsuit that is being ground on with the purpose of punishing Dr. Ball, silencing Dr. Ball and many others.
When did you last take Mann to task about his legal abuse? When have you voiced support for Mann’s victims? Have you ever wondered what would happen to you under similar circumstances? Sued by an egocentric extremely over sensitive bully backed by apparently infinite funding…
So, Dr. Ball wrote something you find unpleasant; someone forwarded it to you and now you here at WUWT complaining.
Could you please define exactly and explicitly where Dr. Ball caused you personally distress? Did he name you, your organization or your specific work product explicitly as fascists? When did you feel personally involved?
Dr. Ball used strong allusions and quotes to press points that impact him very strongly, valid points from his and many other’s perspectives too.
There is collusion, climategate proved that; there are many extremely irritating coincidences that imply behind the scenes collusion is just as prevalent today.
There are many severe and extreme examples of irrational rabid behavior and over the top claims of incredible prophesies blurted by alarmists with barely a murmur from climate scientists. Yes Dr. Betts, this includes your few public rather minor dissensions.
I’ll return to where I started, just what are you really seeking with your comment above? Science discussed openly and freely? Or Dr. Ball’s uncomfortable words quashed?
No, I did not fully read Dr. Ball’s article. I am far more interested in getting prosecutors involved than reading someone’s heartfelt beliefs and emotional loss.
The comments were unusually good, too.
Well said. This response is seconded.
The original post by Dr. Ball is well worth a full reading, to fully understand how Betts and Edwards have distorted the points made by Dr. Ball.
Maybe some find Tim Ball’s statements strong. However you have to remember that he has been criticized strongly for legitimate expressions on climate.
Now are we going to get any reaction the today’s misleading headlines about polar bears:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/11/26/polar_bears_facing_worstcase_trajectory_because_of_climate_change.html
Or do we only get Dr. Susan Crockford’s response.
Now in the article they said:
**Even the High Arctic won’t remain a haven for polar bears if the Earth continues to warm at the current pace, says an alarming new study.
Published in PLOS One, an online science journal on Wednesday, the study warns that all regions of Canada’s Arctic islands could potentially be ice-free for two to five months every year by the end of the century, triggering starvation and reproductive failure for polar bears. **
I think that means the temperature stays the same???
I was not offended by the Tim Ball article. Explaining the technique of the ‘big lie’ as it was perfected by the propagandists of the Third Reich and recognizing that similar techniques are being used in pushing AGW is not calling someone a Nazi. In fact it is offensive to me that someone use the ultra PC notion that ‘no comparison to anything associated with the Nazis is permissible in civilized society’ to disparage or silence a perfectly valid and appropriate comparison.
perhaps the big lie is ball’s lie
“Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science.”
That is the Big Lie.
The simple fact is there is uncertainty. some AGW types claim they have proved. some skeptics claim they have disproved.
you want to look at Big lies.. try those two. One of them is balls big lie. He’s on your team, maybe he should sit the bench.
You simply do not have the knowledge, education, or experience necessary to make such a claim with any authority. The bulk of the argument skeptics have done so well with revolves around statistical analysis, something you repeatedly demonstrate extreme ignorance with.
Mark
Steven, this must rank with your worst comments ever.
You do.need to read Donna LaFramboise’s books.
As it is, your comment is the biggest lie right now.
The burden of proof is on those who propose and propound a theory. Skeptics are not required to disprove the theory. Nature will do (is doing?) that. It’s perfectly valid to say a theory is wrong until compelling evidence shows it might be right. Uncertainty is cause enough to dismiss the theory. Show some compelling evidence and we can have a discussion.
You seem to be enjoying this.
Lots of low hanging fruit for ya, eh
“perhaps the big lie is ball’s lie
“Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science.”
That is the Big Lie.”
That’s not a lie.
This paper, all by itself, was enough to discount the entire AGW paradigm. If climate science were not so corrupt, it would have done. But, as usual, it was brushed aside because it contradicted the narrative.
Kirill Kondratyev has a more accessible discussion here.
I can’t sympathize with two alarmists who miraculously find the feigned outrage and time to distort Ball’s point so they can then feign high ground while ignoring the substance of the quote Ball used.
IMO the severity of the institutionalized incessant lying generated by the climate theorists more than justifies Ball’s use of the quote.
And it doesn’t really matter who said the quote Ball used.
“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”
If it were Hitler, Bernie Madoff, Charles Manson or anyone involved with any historical lying the quote still applies very well to today’s Climateers.
http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/10-biggest-lies-in-history.htm
Forget who said it.
I wonder what Betts and Edwards find wrong with the substance and context of the quote itself?
We’ll probably never know because they’re too busy playing lofty to avoid explaining their take.