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
@ur momisugly Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards
My goodness gracious; it is so horrible that your feelings were hurt by having your side mentioned in the same post as the Germans of the 30s and 40s. Horrible! So bad I can not even bring myself to write out the names of the secular Satan.
Now, if you are finished whining, how about telling your side to publish their data (“Dr.” Mann first), not tamper with the temperature data sets in a bogus manner, and then apologize the the families of the people who died in the cold due to much higher energy prices caused by this false alarm.
I think the deaths of many are on the hands of the alarmists. Sorry to have to say that, but we poor people have trouble paying exorbitant energy bills that the grant-eaters can easily afford.
This is a very good reply. It’s clear that they still don’t understand how vile the ‘denier’ tag is. Being a nazi just means that you support the philosphy of national socialism. Being a denier however means that you are complicit in the annihilation of 6 million people. There is a difference. Dr Ball did not, in any case, call anybody a nazi.
I for one would like Betts and Tamsin to admit or deny the holocaust of starvation and deaths caused by the rise in basic commodity prices resulting for the most part from the AGW paradigm.
Other commentators on this thread may wish to consider which direction wealth is being transferred from.
I agree that Anthony seems to be heading up the wrong creek without a paddle. We need to remain alert and watchful. These Warmistas are a cadre of liars.frauds and authoritarians who want to do damage to the economies of the World and to society by intentional malevolent design. They are guilty of malfeasance and should be charged with their crimes and put on trial. Let’s not collapse into a lumpy pile all singing ‘Kum Bey Ya’. These are real crimes.
The original post that generated the ruckus referenced a quote from Adolf Hitler’s views on propaganda. While Hitler today is viewed in the same way that perhaps Napoleon was viewed a few centuries earlier, putting that aside, one could hardly argue that he wasn’t an expert in that field.
I didn’t find the original post to be very good.
Also, one thing that the author wasn’t aware of is that use of the ‘H’ word on the internet is ‘banned’. Trolls try to shout down the merits of any debate as soon as ‘H’ comes up. They do this because collectively they have decided that ‘H’ can never be mentioned. There is never any rational reason why the ‘H’ word is taboo, of course. or why ‘H’ is worse than calling someone a fascist, or referring to Pol Pot, or any other bad historical event. It’s just a forbidden word because nitwits have decided it should be forbidden and there are more nitwits on the internet than non-nitwits.
Any debate absolutely needs to be civil from beginning to end. That is why (in addition to a fine mind of course) that Steven MacIntyre stands head and sholders above the rest.
Removing adjectives from the debate is difficult from a communication point of view but is also necessary.
But there is also something else other than civility and impassive language required and that is context. So Tamsin Edwards recently said:
“I’ll start with some things we’re certain about. The earth’s energy budget is out of balance: there’s more energy going in than coming out, so the planet is storing it up. That’s not unusual in itself, only that we are helping tip the scales.”
1) If there is more energy going in, its effect could be miniscule and within measurement error and we still dont know enough about cloud feedback to state that sentence with any significant interval.
2) In terms of natural variability, anthropogenic influences could be even more miniscule
3) The concluding element to the sentence is then lacking in context
and then
“The extra energy means the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean have warmed, making the hottest days warmer and more frequent, and the coldest days less frequent”.
The at may or may not be a consequence of heating but not necessarily related to anything that homo sapiens has done and we also as yet don’t fully understand extended 2nd/3rd/4th order exothermic decay , the conclusion is out of context
civil
impassive
context
and then brace oneself to absorb the diatribe of the unreasoned…..
FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH ALL THAT IS NECESSARY IS FOR GOOD MEN TO TALK AMIABLY ABOUT IT.
Eugene WR Gallun
Treatment of Dr Ball aside, I see progress: Met Office observes not only WUWT, but also commentators views. There is also some tentative efforts towards negotiation. Never mind the clumsiness. The trend is encouraging.
It’s not about negotiation but about being honest about the forecasts.
The only reason they are negotiating is because their forecasts are so useless that they’ve given up getting any credibility from accurate forecasts – so now they want credibilty by the back door and somehow they think if Anthony or some other sceptics endorse them – they’ll get credibility that way.
But all it will do is make anyone who allows themselves to be used that way lose their own credibility.
They might be better served to realise that simply by being honest and open about uncertainties would earn the support of a small army of voters that with the two recent wins by UKIP the pommy politicians will not be quick to irritate.
Support good and open science and call out bad and be surprised at how many allies you gain. 😉
Scottish Sceptic. Willingness to negotiate is not negotiation, let alone the outcome. It’s more like a ceasefire. And I take it from Met Office – despite of my instinctive urge to fetch tar and feathers.
WUWT is a complicated beast. It is the best shortcut to updates on the AGW fraud so I visit regularly. I am mostly apolitical in that I assume most politicians are incompetent, lazy or corrupt in that order so I am bemused by the use of WUWT as a soapbox for political positions. I have suggested a few times in comments that the debate to win hearts and minds would be better served by sticking to the high road of science. Okay, I have poked a stick in the eye a time or two myself and I can understand why people get so frustrated with the nonsence that gets published on the AGW side. But almost nobody that I know has the slightest interest in wading through the pile of horse manure generated by a bunch of blog weenies spewing at one another. If this is really about winning the debate and not just an opportunity to vent, then I would rather see the more outrageous statements reined in. I really like Tim Ball. He was the person who first opened my eyes to the problems with AGW. But we don’t need to make parallels with Nazis to win this. All that does is drive people away. Drown them in data, I say.
Yes, unbiased data is the only way to combat extremists of any brand.
Winning the public is essential in this war, but you won’t win the public in drowning THEM with data. Especially if we can’t ensure, that THEY keep their fingers off the data.
Personally, we think they will agree that climate “scientists’ view is an out-of-touch reality
“We were also disappointed that so few commenters below the post distanced themselves from his views. ”
I am dissapointed Tim Ball gets so much support here. I always skip his posts.
The socialists, including Hitler were bad. The communists, including Stalin, Zedong, etc were worse. However, the Marxist fringe, including the international left and allies (e.g. Mandela), posed a greater threat, since their efforts to consolidate capital and control, especially in developed states, were not limited by national boundaries and the population therein. Still, the modern left and not a few on the far right (e.g. libertarian, anarchist) oversee even greater efforts to displace, replace, abort, and tax competitors and “good Germans” alike.
Hi guys,
As as somehow former greenish German person – but not really believing in the GAGW meme I would like to remind of some psychological standards:
If you want to win a person, you should avoid anything to make him angry.
If you have a noble cause, you should behave in a noble way.
It is crucial to really understand him and why he is behaving in a strange way – no person is really evil and bad.
If you compare persons or movements with historical misbehaving persons or movements you will not win his understanding but you will implement some biological reactions – like pouring out the fight-or-flight-hormones. And this will enforce his negative imprint in his brain, adding more resistance even to listen to you – or if, then only to find out that you are wrong.
It doesn’t matter if that person has misbehaved or said wrong things or statements. Even if you think you have the RIGHT to pay back his behavior with the same currency – if you want to WIN him, you should not use it.
Only facts stated in a generous and sovereign way and showing him that you are trying to understand him will possibly help him to rethink his matter.
This doesn’t mean to be weak and accepting anything. What i want to point out is that we are biological beings and that we are behaving in many aspects like animals; we and our opponents.
Hopefully some of you will understand this and translate it into better English, if necessary.
English is fine. It all makes sense.
And I agree wholeheartedly with it all.
Except for one line; “It is crucial to really understand him and why he is behaving in a strange way – no person is really evil and bad.”
Some (of us?) are really evil and bad because it is useful. And we all must engage constant vigilance to overcome our original sin.
Assuming that no-one is bad is usually correct. But not always.
You are right – Some few people are really evil – or at least in their thoughts and deeds. Some are blinded though wrong information. Some are even aware that they are wrong but not capable to confess that they are wrong. We should even them give the opportunity to retreat in a honorable way (this is what I learned in Africa).
But 99% are just thinking they do or suport the right thing. Or they believe wrong things just because of perpetual repetition in the media. If any person should happen to visit WUWT, he should see a polite debate, quoting only scientific valid statements, openness to any point of view – and even being skeptic to one’s own opinion – we all should improve and lean day by day.
Everybody will be disgusted by name-calling, defending unscientific theories, and unwillingness to listen to others.
The point is not to be right and to defeat everybody with a different opinion. The “others” just should see we are open-minded persons, willing to learn and to understand each others.
The problem is that 1% Johannes. Some do evil because they are misguided or fearful or indoctrinated. But there is still the 1% who do it because they want to and because they like doing it. They’re the ones who fill the ranks of the “Secret Police” in every totalitarian regime.
And “1%” may seem small, but in my Australian home that means 230,000 possible recruits for a regime. This is not an insignificant number. 😉
I was confused about Tim Ball’s quote from Hitler about the Big Lie. Was he quoting Hitler approvingly as an expert on detecting Big Lies perpetrated by other people? Hitler was attacking those who blamed Ludendorff for Germany’s loss in World War I. He wasn’t publishing his plan for disseminating his own Big Lies.
So what was Tim Ball doing? Quoting Hitler as an expert in order to expose the Big Lie by uppity ups in the profitable industry known as Big Climate? Seems like a good way to discredit your own argument right out of the box.
In his defense, I wouldn’t be too hard on Tim Ball. He has, after all, been preyed upon by Michael Mann who is, of course, one of those of whom we might say, “the truth is not in him.” If anyone has been damaged by the principals of Big Climate, it is Tim Ball.
Thank you. The only voice of reason I’ve yet to see in this thread. Hitler was complaining about the use of the Big Lie–not promoting it.
If both sides in this debate can’t even get the basic fact/assumption that they are arguing about correct it’s like the ignorant yelling at the ignorant. Both sides show they are truly incapable of detecting a Big Lie.
Actually Hitler was also an excellent practioner of the “big lie”, was he not? That a tyrant considers it ok to use the very methods he complains about others using, is not surprising.
Wow look at all of the lefties getting upset that someone dares to speak the truth. What Dr. Ball failed to mention was that this CAGW scam is just the latest action in a campaign that has been being waged for a century. That so many can not see the truth is due to the success of those earlier actions. The first time I had a teacher lie to me, trying to push some Marxist nonsense, was when I was in fifth grade. And that was quite a long time ago. I bet that teacher was not even aware of the Marxist origins of what he was saying.
I bet your ability to detect Marxist ideas is just as poor as your ability to detect “the truth” about such issues as the use of Big Lies. You teacher probably made some general comment not dissimilar to what Jesus said, something about caring for the least fortunate amongst us or something, and you labeled it “Marxist” without having a clue.
And btw, it’s pretty sloppy to assume “all of the lefties” think one way or another. I too am skeptical of CAGW but I think it’s really silly to think there is some sort of Marxist conspiracy behind it. If anything, it’s a capitalist conspiracy.
Can somebody please tell me what, other than more rhetoric, posturing on self claimed high ground and spin meistering, either Betts or Edwards brings to the debate?
When you Google people and sites that have been labeled as “climate doubters” you get lots of character assassination and allegations of “bought science”. How can skeptic science break through this noise and deliver the real facts, including the media-ignored socioeconomic implications?
Well we do have Nazis in America. And they do head governments.
The Reagan – Bush administration tried to suppress the finding that cannabis is effective against cancer. You can look it up. Of course the Democrats did nothing when they had a chance.
Cannabis cures cancer. Cancer kills 586,000 Americans every year. Every Prohibitionist is complicit in mass murder.
That is 1,500+ people a day. For 35 or 40 years. And it is not over yet. Now it is not quite in the range of what “climate controllers” contemplate but it IS proof that no party is immune to the disease of mass killing for political profit.
I have no objection to calling mass murderers Nazis. Trouble is – they ALL are. And just as the left clings to its AGW delusions so the right clings to its prohibition delusions. And the people get to die left and right.
[“cures cancer”?? .mod]
Mod. I have a canned line just for you (already used it elsewhere).
Look up “Cannabis cures cancer”. And if you prefer medical journals try “Cannabis cures cancer NIH”
=================
It is amazing how little people know about the endocannabinoid system. And how they won’t even look unless prompted. It controls every other system in the body. You have more receptors for it than any other kind. Trouble is the popular media doesn’t cover it because if they did Prohibition would end day after tomorrow.
Same reason you don’t get much truth about CAGW. The MSM are in league with the controllers.
moderator – let me call your attention to my response to your comment.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/#comment-1800629
Including yourself apparently. Research into anti-cancer properties of cannabinoids has been going on for decades. There is, as yet, no clear evidence that cannabis extracts can “cure” cancer or appreciably lengthen the survival time of terminal cancer patients
In experiments with mice, animals given very high doses of purified delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) seemed to have a lower risk of developing cancer, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (the mice didn’t smoke it in a joint) and there is some evidence it can suppress tumour growth.
Only one small trial involving patients has been published. Nine patients with an aggressive form of brain tumour were given highly purified THC through a tube directly into their brain. Eight showed some kind of response to the treatment. However, all 9 subjects had died within 12 months – about what would be expected with or without the treatment.
Nonsense. Cannabis-based drugs have been developed since the 1980s at least – including Nabilone which is (or was) used to combat sickness from chemotherapy. See
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/coping-with-cancer/coping-physically/sickness/treatment/types-of-anti-sickness-drugs#nab
Ignore the troll, he is the same twit that pops up everywhere touting his wares.
Uhhhhhh…….no
If this is intended as a response to my comment then perhaps Streetcred could (a) tell me what is incorrect about my comment and (b) provide a link to any study which shows long term cannabis use gives protection against any form of cancer.
In other words, could he or she put up or shut up.
Well, well well,
Yes. There is a fair amount of scepticism. So try this US Patent:
Phytocannabinoids in the treatment of cancer
US 20130059018 A1
http://www.google.com/patents/US20130059018
And try this link to see a page filled with links to the medical literature:
http://drsircus.com/medicine/cannabis-cures-cancer
===============
“The active molecules in cannabis kill brain cancer — another study has revealed.
Scientists using an extract of whole-plant marijuana rich in pot’s main psychoactive ingredient THC as well as cannabidiol (CBD) showed “dramatic reductions in tumor volumes” of a type of brain cancer.
“High-grade glioma is one of the most aggressive cancers in adult humans and long-term survival rates are very low as standard treatments for glioma remain largely unsuccessful,” according to researchers Katherine A. Scott, Angus G. Dalgleish, and Wai M. Liu from the Oncology Department at St. George’s University of London.”
=======
Also check out the recent Press release by the National Brain Cancer Foundation on the subject.
=======
What is known so far is that CBD and THC together have the following effects on cancer: antiproliferative, antiangiogenic, antimetastatic, apoptotic.
John Finn,
Nabilone is not cannabis. It is a synthetic cannabinoid. There is a difference. With whole cannabis or its extracts you get synergistic effects you do not get with single drug medicines.
The first video on this page (the science is in the first 7 minutes of a 16 minute video):
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/11/cannabis-and-cancer-of-the-brain/
Explains how cannabis cures cancer.
M. Simon
Read your links properly. None of the research in the studies you cite has involved actual patients.
In a previous post you made the somewhat grand claim that ” Cannabis cures Cancer” . If you read my comments I acknowledge there have been some encouraging results but these have been achieved in early pre-clinical trials. The current stage of research is still some way short of demonstrating that Cannabis extracts are effective against cancer in humans.
I’m sure you would object if any attempt was made to extrapolate lab results which show the IR absorbing properties of CO2 to the more complex nature of earth’s atmosphere.
The Alarmist side needs to admit they were wrong, and apologize. Then we can have an amiable chat about what their punishments should be.
RICHARD AND TAMSIN — WRITE AN ARTICLE CRITICAL OF DR. MANN’S RHETORIC.
PUBLISH IT HERE ON WUWT.
WUWT needs to invite Richard and Tamsin to write an article criticizing some of the rhetoric of a prominent warmist. I suggest Dr. Mann who is renown for this acidic comments.
When you offer such an article to WUWT criticizing Dr. Mann — detailing his transgressions and how it speaks to his character — then we will know you are dealing from a straight deck.
Let it be filled with the same self-righteousness indignation as the current complaint article focusing on Dr. Ball.
Never going to happen. Hypocrites.
Eugene WR Gallun
Anthony, publicly invite them to do that. Top line on WUWT. Suddenly you will realize that you are not dealing with the honest men you think you are.
When Anthony writes an article criticizing balls rhetoric or crazy lysenko claims we will know he is honest.
See how silly that is.
Judge people by what they write.
The point is that they wait until someone steps on their toes, then express disbelief, offer up some faux olive branch, and folks like you think that is some sort of second coming. If they want to be treated as if they are seriously interested in civil discourse, simply pointing mentioning how bad they think Mann is on a skeptic website is hardly sufficient. That they refuse to do so publicly is a good example of hypocrisy.
They are being judged by what they write and where they write it. What they don’t write, and where they don’t write, however, says something, too.
Mark
Mosher,
Judge people by what they write? Isn’t that exactly how i am asking Mann to be judged? See how silly what you write is.
Let Richard and Tamsin do up Mann. Let them display their even hand in this matter.That is what I am asking for. Let them condemn Mann for name calling that far transcends what Dr. Ball wrote.
And you could do it to! Why don’t you write something condemning the things Mann has written?
Hypocrite.
Eugene WR Gallun
Wow, you went right up to the line on that one.
Wow Steve M, did you just mention Lysenko? The quality of your posts has dramatically changed during the past two years, are you awakening from the bad CO2-dream as a result of the 18+ years of no significant warming despite of CO2-levels rising as before? Suffering from collapsing confirmation bias are you?
You really should look deeper into the Lysenko dimension of this all, although you do not like what you see, which is clear already now since you are calling the mere hint of Lysenkoism being crazy. Deteriorating confirmation bias must be a bitch.
We do judge you by what you write. You are “trivially true but essentially meaningless.”
In addition, you are a bore.
Wouldn’t the “big lie” scenario described by Dr. Ball require a vast conspiracy between a large number of independent actors? I thought the global warming as a hoax meme had been losing steam lately..
Joseph,
Everyone here including you, knows Global Warming is a hoax.
Andrew
No, not really. Did you read Tim’s piece? Not a whole other different than just about any other socialist push in the world. It died with the wall, but not really. Heck, most of these are actually quite out in the open. They have gotten so blazon they will openly tell you their plans.
Mark
Hint: the words “hoax” and “conspiracy” do not mean the same thing.
Well the title “A big (goose) step backwards” is just a subtle attack on Tim Balls, so I post here a subtle attack on Clim-astrologists.
Enjoy the resemblance.
Very nice. Thanks.
Parallel to NAZI’s? Hum, let’s see. OK, first of all…NAZI is an abbreviation for Nationalist Socialism. Interesting that the central control and “even outcome” that they wanted, was similar to all the “communists” agendas, yet they hated the communists with a passion? WHY, their goal was CONTROL and POWER. So let’s make the term NAZI into another “N” word. OK, now that that is done, let’s see what the goals, results and actions are. How about a list of comparisons/non-comparisons: (Shall we say examine 1935 to 1945?)
1. Germany under central control, and one party – Greens want order forced on all the world by one world
“agreement”.
2. Germany with one official source of information – Environmentalists/Greens :One source of “official” information and no competition.
3. Germany denigrating and hurting anyone opposing 1 and 2.
– Difference: Greens, not to violence (generally) and not
given or advocation “summary execution” power. However, by PASSIVE means,
Greens manage the same result.
4. Germany doing an amazing concerted BUILDING effort, making jobs for millions, building a large
industrial base, and threatening the world.
– Greens, destroying millions of jobs, tearing down our industrial base, and threatening the world in a “passive agreesive” manner.
I would say that if we look at the AWG/Green/Environmentalists, their parallels to the (Germany 1935-45, see, no “N” word!) is actually, a POOR comparison.
Dare I say, that “that was then”, this is NOW, and history really (despite the tendancy of humans to “create associations and links, based an simplistic thinking) does NOT repeat itself. By definition, everything is DIFFERENT, every moment.
My conclusion: YES, true…analogies to Germany 1935-1945 ARE NOT VALID nor useful. Have I made my point????
“Reasonableness” has never proven productive in dealing with the “true believing” sect. Facts, hard data and scientific logic have rolled off them like water off a duck’s back. My interpretation of Ball’s diatribe is that it was simply a counter-punch to the constant drumbeat of the opposition to the effect that, “Sling enough poop on the wall and some of it will stick”. I do not approve of that respnose-in-kind, but I most certainly understand the impulse. As to any “conspiracy theories” anyone might wish to attribute to the “true believers”, I’ll note that conspiracy is not necessary to explain the actions of the IPCC and other advocates of AGW. The explanation for their behavior was aptly described in Upton Sinclair’s pithy observation:
““It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
Professor Richard Betts and Dr Tamsin Edwards, please educate the readers here on why AGW is NOT a scam and a fraud….
“I agree completely with Dr Tim Ball. He is completely correct about the whole scam.”
“What Dr. Ball failed to mention was that this CAGW scam is just the latest action in a campaign that has been being waged for a century.”
“Saying the crimascologist are not stupid implies they are deceitful for they must be supporting the more fraudulent members of their profession for this scam to have continued for soooo long.”
“Our anger is justified and inquiries into the motives and techniques of those who hoisted this fraud on the world will be made.”
“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.”
“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”
“I had a hearty laugh at having a “civil” discussion with the perpetrators of the greatest fraud hoisted upon humanity.”
“its about redistribution of wealth.Done by fraud, covered up by lies”
“WUWT is a complicated beast. It is the best shortcut to updates on the AGW fraud”
“What we do not need at this time is to relax and try to be nice to a bunch of liars and frauds who have done great damage to society, not by accident but by design. Many should be charged and put on trial.”
“When a group of people are committing a massive fraud.”
“you are on the side of liars and frauds”
“This handwringing over being “nice” to the frauds and grant seekers doesn’t wash with me.”
“Here’s some more Nazi stuff for you to choke on, Mr Betts. Let’s see more of that and less silly dinner parties with fraud deniers.”
“I see that there are people on both sides that are gravitating towards a more central and in my opinion, more reasonable view. ”
I willing to be more reasonable, when Global Warming advocates return the BILIIONs of dollars in funding they got for their “”work”” they knew was bad science.
As for gravitating towards a more central view, forget about it. The Global Warming advocates have hyped their claims beyond the absurd. For over a decade the Global Warming advocates have brow-beat us with their hype, their non-sense, their elitism, their arrogance.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because of Godwin’s Law
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because of Godwin’s Law
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because of Godwin’s Law
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
Because of Godwin’s Law.
But we were all “nice” so that’s all right then. . . .
Because of Godwin’s Law
“He Who Shall Not Be Named” right?
Watts Up With Harry Potter.
Disappointed!!!!
Brilliant!