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
I note a lot of people demanding that tasmin and Richard “call out” alarmists for their excessive rhetoric. As if such a display would change your mind about their sincerity or truthfulness. What evidence do we have that this will work?
Can any of you think of someone who believes in AGW that has called out Mann and Jones?
Did that change your opinion of them?
Muller called out Mann. Did that stop you from attacking his sincerity? His truthfulness?
Two of us wrote a book critical of Mann and Jones. Yet the attacks continue.. From both sides..
Judith called out Mann yet you will still find Willis for example calling for her to do more.
The call to disown people and disavow them belongs to the realm of religion and politics. Which is to say skeptics now demand a political or religious gesture before they will discuss science. These moves demanding political and religious gestures insure that we won’t get back to the science. Comes the question. Why don’t skeptics want to get back to the science
“Why don’t skeptics want to get back to the science”
Cause you can not return to science that is still Bad Science. Climate Science is now polluted with Politicians, Activists, Profiteers, Scientists who aren’t, and Scientist who will not disavow themselves from Bad Science.
When you lie down with Climate Scientists, all you ever get is bad science.
Another big lie from Mosher. Skeptics spend plenty of time discussing the science. So much of it is bad, however, you have to winder why. That is all Dr. Ball did… he asked why. Then all the warmists lost their heads like children in a candy store and projected every one of their own flaws back onto those same skeptics and whined about their response yet again. Nothing unusual, you people are as predictable as a virus. Oh crap, did I just call you all virii?
Mark
You mean reality, like ROI, corruption, bankrupt countries, apathy.
Good luck with that.
Tim Ball’s Hitler quote effectively outlines the power of the big lie; Hilter’s offsider Goebbels developed it into propaganda. It is the use of propaganda that drives the fear (and funding) of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). Propaganda is used not to inform but to persuade; it is often mostly true but with salient elements, one that would inform rather persuade a person, left out: this is the lie of omission. It is upon the lie of omission that the fear of catastrophic CAGW is built. Most scientists involved in climate studies do good work though some are activists too.
Some of these activists, and cohorts, are well aware that the propaganda they use, disguised nowadays as communication studies, incorporates the lie of omission; so do those people who practice ‘new journalism’. New journalism does not rely so much on facts but on a system of beliefs, sometimes feelings, in order to create a narrative. The narrative is catastrophic AGW. This narrative is not being used to inform the populace of CAGW but rather a vehicle to drive change; CAGW is simply the catalysts used to drive this change. This is not a conspiracy, everything is ‘hidden in plain view’ including United Nations proposals, under various organisational names, but summarised in their Agenda for the 21st century (Agenda 21).
As I posted on the Ball blog the other day, “the “debate is no longer just about the environment. It is about economics, culture, ideology and foreign policy. The old debate about climate change believers and sceptics is dead (being kept alive only for political gain). The new debate is about policy solutions.” (Paul Kelly, editor-at-large, The Australian newspaper, 21 March 2007). Kelly quotes in that article the then British Chancellor Gordon Brown: “My ambition is to build a global carbon market founded on the EU emissions trading scheme and centred in London” to which Kelly adds, “The bill will create statutory carbon budgets that will be managed “with the same prudence and discipline” as financial budgets. For Brown, the carbon will be counted like the pound sterling.”
The role of the fear of CAGW is to implement a system of global governance to administer these statutory carbon budgets, which will apply to all countries. This has not changed. This was the purpose of the 2009 Copenhagen Conference – if you have not done so then read what was attempted to be implemented there. This is not a conspiracy – the information has always been available but as Kelly says above, “the old debate about climate change believers and sceptics is dead (being kept alive only for political gain).”
Ball was right to mention Hilter’s use of the power of the big lie. As I said in my Ball blog submission the other day: note this statement from Mike Hulme, quoted in ‘The Guardian’ newspaper (sorry, no date), “…‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking . . . scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence.”
Readers can start to draw their own conclusions. However, Tim Ball herein has presented us with an outline of the real battleground. The argument about climate is a side issue. Many thanks to Anthony for this forum.
Technically, secrecy is not required for a conspiracy. There really is a conspiracy, and it is right out in the open. The big lie doesn’t even need to be a lie… noooooo, they’d never try to do that to us. Remember, Obama told us what he intended to do… and we were shocked, shocked I tell you, when he did it.
Mark
The crazy people here are making skeptics look bad. It is worse than the totally uncritical back slapping that happens whenever a point however poorly supported is scored against the agw crowd. This doesn’t have to be a lowest common denominator situation. Logic not name calling will win eventually.
Something I learned late in life..”everybody’s crazy”, that not withstanding, you have a point.
If, you can count casuistry, drawing dodgy analogies*[1], picking holes in arguments but never addressing the actual facts – “where is the man made signal”. If that’s what alarmists call “good faith discussions” then they need to go back to first principles [if they have any] and have a very long re think.
As to drawing on the thoughts of Hitler,
I think the link is made. The obvious facts speak volumes, this is not about linking to a deranged megalomaniac born in Austria but in certain cases megalomania, it is a an apt descriptor, Pachauri, Mann, Hansen, Gore, all fit that ‘suit’ very nicely.
Aye, tell a lie, tell it big and augment it with scare stories and tales of the bogeyman – it has worked for centuries. The thing is though, humanity – we long ago reached out and although the enlightenment grows dimmer every hour Obama sits in the White House – some of us still are able to divine the truth, from among the charlatans dispersing their plethora of lies and dissimulation.
*[1]
..” 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.”…
=============
Maybe something other than the internet would sooth your sensibilities.
Your disappointment directed towards the commenters, then accusing them of “selection bias” when their responses/non-responses offend you, leaves one to wonder if opinions should even be tolerated ?
About anything.
Link: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/10/29/richard-b-on-the-two-degree.html to above quote.
Some people are so desperate to be invited to sit at the big table aren’t they?
Doesn’t it matter to you that these people lied, obfuscated, and turned a blind eye to the most eliminationist rhetoric from their side all in the name of a cause that they personally got to profit from?
Case in point: “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”
This man is still profiting from this ghastly scam – without it his entire position wouldn’t exist! If someone lies and cheats their way to the top table, then graciously offers you a seat down the end – if – you behave yourself, then the response should be not to sit down at their table.. but to show them your door!
Stop playing into their frame. Their rule is not legitimate. Their positions of respectability are not legitimate. Would you happily sit down and debate civilly with the inquisitors? Would you accept an invitation to sit at the table of the witchsmeller pursuivant? Calls to civility are merely attempts to maintain their position, and silence the rightful angry backlash they still deserve.
@ur momisugly Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards,
The Streisand effect is the result of your guest opinion. It is being well aired in this thread and I don’t feel you are well pleased if in fact you were confident you were holding the high ground.
I like this site. Tim Ball says some stuff that could be construed as offensive, Richard and Tamsin quite reasonably and effectively raise their objection and the debate rages on for both sides for (last count)526 posts with many views expressed. Now thats open debate – a wonderful use of free speech
I agree with the open debate that is advocated here, the post by Tim Ball didnt raise many extreme socialist rants that I read, there was some excellent debate raised in that thread. I dont think the quotes were extreme or out of context but actually label both sides of the debate as ‘at risk’ of a ‘big lie’. Only if you are sensitive to criticism, perhaps because the comfortable ride one has been having has got a bit bumpy for 18 years, would you take this so personally. The best part and by far the most relevant was the cartoon…….so true.
When locked in debate with ‘the other side’ of this climate date can any of us honestly say that we havent put our fingers in our ears and gone la, la, la, la…. even if for some part of the debate. How many have read the first few lines, got angry, not read the rest and then posted something that perhaps later you realise was over the top and often out of context; yet we are unable to jump in and correct our hot headedness.
I think Tim was a bit hot under the collar when he wrote his post and I think Tamsin and Richard have read far more in to his post than Tim intended.
The main point is all parties have aired their views now because this site has not stood in the way, I sincerely hope that all parties are satisfied that they have been heard.
+1
Lots of talk of “building bridges” or “moving to a more central view”. Sorry, but that sounds like special pleading to me.
Would anybody seriously suggest building bridges between the scientific community and young earth creationists? The CAGW crowd are simply wrong, the predictions are poor and the models don’t work all that well. Meeting them in the middle just takes us to “half right”
Siding with the provable truth is like being pregnant, you are or you aren’t, there is no middle.
JohnB says “Meeting them in the middle just takes us to half right”
Or double right. You aren’t much of a negotiator. WHY does it matter to a young earth creationist that the earth be young? Why does it matter to anyone else that it is old? A secret of negotiation is to find out “what is wanted” and then see if each side can have what they want, while at the same time keeping a treasured belief.
I’m not a young earth creationist, but I *am* a religious person, so what I believe is that those who attack the young earth creationists trying to persuade them the earth is 4.7 billion years old are seen as attacking their foundations of morality and purpose in life. It will be strongly resisted.
Conversely, I can see where it might matter particularly in the present context of climate change, or the much more assured problem of running out of fuel. Young Earther’s must necessarily believe the earth was created with fuel already invested into it, enough to last until the Rapture. After that nobody is going to care or need more anyway.
Attacking the religion isn’t going to help because they expect to be attacked. It is a sign of being on the correct path.
“Siding with the provable truth is like being pregnant, you are or you aren’t, there is no middle.”
I hope you are not a computer programmer. You get a point for binary thinking, but as most people are binary thinkers your point is shared by billions of other people.
It matters a lot which trimester of pregnancy one happens to be in. So your binary thinking hides rather a lot of important information.
Whups, forgot to get to the point with JohnB:
The point of “middle ground” is that many, maybe most, CAGW supporters believe in the emergency but are intelligent enough to see that polar bears are not actually falling from the sky and aren’t actually extinct.
Consequently, some room for “nuance” exists, but you need to be capable of nuanced views. This isn’t a good/bad thing, it is just one of the many ways people differ.
Leadership qualities include rapid decision making with a positive feedback that once you’ve made a decision you assure yourself that it is the correct decision. The Myers-Brigg natural leader type is “ESTJ”, extraverted, senses the world as it is (sensory input), prefers facts, and uses facts when dealing with other people. This kind is binary (like you) and sees no reason for negotiation or meeting-in-the-middle.
The problem with being that kind of leader, or “a” problem, is that you can find yourself walking alone because you have no followers, not that you’d notice that you do not.
The “facts” since we use that word so often around here include the physical, demonstrable ability of carbon dioxide to absorb electromagnetic energy (infrared light) when then becomes heat energy.
There’s a lot more to the story which I had written and then deleted since I was distracting myself from ever making a point.
The point is to find out What Is Wanted. What do warmists want? Many, or most, want safety and security. What do skeptics want? I suspect most want the same thing. The difference lays in how to achieve it.
So a “meeting in the middle” would be to explore what is wanted and how to negotiate for it while NOT stomping on each other’s religions.
Michael, in some areas there is room for negotiation, this doesn’t mean that such room exists in all discussions. Why a YEC has trouble dealing with reality is a job for a shrink, not a negotiator. Frankly, any form of negotiation is pandering to their insanity and insecurities. Negotiation is a rational process of discussion and kind of “by definition” you can’t have a rational discussion with an irrational person.
Your argument sounds good until you realise it requires that you give credence to their “treasured belief”. sorry but the world is not 6,000 years old. They are wrong. 100% non negotiable, not even slightly in any way right, wrong. I see no benefit in keeping fools from understanding that they are fools. For a start, they will never, ever advance beyond their idiocy. Destruction of old wrong beliefs is required before new, correct ones can be understood and accepted.
If your religion makes you irrational and insane, what benefit is there to anybody for not “stomping” on it?
The point here is that physical truth is not a morality question. You appear to be against binary thinking however all thinking can be boiled down to yes or no questions. The sun rises in the West or it doesn’t, but maybe we should meet morons halfway and agree it rises in the North? The world is 6,000 years old or it is not.
You either stand with and stand for truth or you don’t. A “partial truth” is also a “partial lie”, something that is often conveniently forgotten. The practical difference is this: You can be assured that everything that I write is the truth to the very best of my knowledge, I might be wrong, but I’m not knowingly hiding any facet of the truth as I understand it. Since you wish to “negotiate” part truths, you cannot make the same assurance and everything you say may contain a “partial lie”, knowingly and intentionally.
In a discussion of “wants” you may wish to consider this and decide which is the preferable outcome. I want people to understand and accept the physical truths about our world and am willing to sacrifice any beliefs (including mine) to get that. You want to build bridges and are apparently willing to sacrifice truth to get that.
I too have strong spiritual beliefs and foremost among them is devotion to the truth. If a person isn’t willing to tell the truth to the best of their ability at all times, how can you trust their word on any other topic?
JohnB, thank you for your prompt and very interesting reply. This may take a few responses and I might lose interest so I make no promises.
“If your religion makes you irrational and insane, what benefit is there to anybody for not stomping on it?”
The benefit to not stomping on someone else is perhaps they will not stomp on you.
I believe I asked already what you believe is to be gained by stomping on someone’s religion? What exactly is the problem with 70 percent of Americans thinking the EArth is 6,000 years old? I had hoped in your lengthy response you would answer that.
“You appear to be against binary thinking”
I believe I made it quite clear. The extreme application of your thinking turns into a singularity, a black hole; where you become the only perfect person in the universe. Good luck going through life like that.
“all thinking can be boiled down to yes or no questions. The sun rises in the West or it doesn’t, but maybe we should meet morons halfway and agree it rises in the North?”
Since I am a libertarian I allow you to believe it rises in the West whereas for me it rises in the East. I cannot think of any reason why you should believe as I do in this matter but I hope you do not sail ships or pilot aircraft.
But even that is not “truthful”: It rises in my East only twice a ear at the equinoxes! At other times it will rise a bit north of east, or a bit south of east. So you might ask me “Does it rise at 1 degree?” No. “Does it rise at 2 degrees?” No. And so on. Will I say yes to any? Probably not, it might be 85.5 degrees, neither 85 nor 86, so you’d go all 360 and I would say “no” to every one.
Obviously at the poles it takes 3 months to “rise” in a spiral and can be a bit of a challenge to guess where on the compass you first see a glimpse of it.
Why cannot you stand for truth?
Because truth has nuances.
Let us consider therefore the truth of gravity as measured by Newtonian physics, 9.81 meters per second per second or 32 feet per second per second. But is that truthful? No. Shall I call it a lie? No, but you would, by your inflexible logic. To be “truthful” you need the exact gravitational force where you are standing when you asked the question, or maybe it is intended for a reader and will be slightly different, as it depends on many factors. Then there’s the Lorentz Transformation to take relativity into account, the Reynolds number of the falling object so you can calculate wind resistance. Stuff like that.
So to be truthful you need those factors.
But since I have not commited to 100 percent truthful, I can throw a rock over a cliff at Spring Canyon, listen for the “thump” and estimate about 150 feet. Good enough to respect the height of the cliff.
But you… I cannot imagine what you would do when you cannot give a proper answer except by “yea” or “nay” — obviously your long message violated your belief that all thinking can be “yes” or “no”.
JohnB, my computer froze up so I’m not sure my last post got through. Anyway, to continue:
“I want people to understand and accept the physical truths about our world and am willing to sacrifice any beliefs (including mine) to get that.”
WHY do you want people to understand and accept the physical truths about our world? You do not seem very willing to sacrifice your own beliefs.
What proof do you have that you, the world and the universe was not created YESTERDAY? None whatsoever; but neither does it matter. I play the hand I was dealt. If it is an illusion, so be it.
“You want to build bridges and are apparently willing to sacrifice truth to get that.”
I am willing to not proselyte the world with everything I believe. I do not have to blurt out “The Earth is 4.7 billion years old!” at a Southern Baptist Convention and neither do you. When I engage in a religious discussion, which global warming most certainly resembles, I do not lay all my cards on the table at once for doing so shuts off conversation — I learn nothing and neither does the person I’m corresponding with.
By “building bridges” I have a job, a community, friends and family. All of those are choices except family and my family contains some extreme variation including contrarians that will make a declaration, if you agree they will instantly change the declaration so that you are always in a state of conflict and disagreement. It is even possible to build a small bridge there — discuss *nothing*, say “please” and “thank you” and seek meaningful conversation elsewhere.
Left wingers, right wingers, atheist vs believer. My mother was into tarot cards, biorythms, astrology, Christianity, Buddhism, and a dozen others all at the same time. She believe it all and what a mess it made. Building THAT bridge was no easy task and it wasn’t much of a bridge.
“The world is 6,000 years old or it is not.”
Trivially true. It could be 6,001 years old and qualify as a “not” in your scenario. Perhaps you see my point of view even if you do not share it — binary thinking hides magnitude of error which is very important. All practical engineering has tolerances since error exists in all manufacture.
It is better to indicate magnitude of error, not just the fact of error. “By most estimates, the earth is nearly a million times older than you believe it to be” conveys both difference of opinion and magnitude.
But if you were just arguing 6,000 years vs 7,000 years, then maybe the argument serves no purpose.
In climate science this is at the heart of disputing climate models — is the error “significant”. It is not proper to take a binary point of view with a model; they are all “wrong” from a binary point of view, but some are more wrong.
Compromise is almost never the best solution w.r.t. any criteria. Compromise is the reason we are slowly losing most of our rights in the US. The first compromise is half way toward the activist viewpoint. The second is half yet again… it is a slow march, but one with an undeniable outcome.
Mark
I have been called every name in the book by “The CO2 drives the Climate” crowd. Someone once said “Trust but Verify” Anthony, that may be good advice. “The CO2 drives the Climate” crowd actions will speak louder than their words.
As a tax payer I don’t mind funding Climate research. I do mind being treated like a mushroom. Just a word to the wise. Politicians, unelected bureaucrats and scientists get your act together or your funding will be cut.
Why Anthony allowed “A big (goose) step backwards” to be presented as a title is beyond belief,a few drinks and a chat with charlatans and he shows appeasment.
Allows Pontification against Tim Balls by Richard Betts and Tamsin Edwards and grovels
down to them,uttering excuses.
Bow down Anthony, but beware of ‘Judas’.
Right, wrong, or in between, let’s see you do a better job of juggling all the balls He has in the air.
UNDERSTANDING THE GLOBAL WARMING CONSPIRACY — MAKING THE PROPER COMPARISON.
AN “OPEN” CONSPIRACY.
Clinton’s housing bubble is a really good comparison. It started with a noble cause — let’s give poor people their own homes! Connected people got rich and Democrat politicians got big donations and a big political lift.
The conspiracy part began when it adherents realized it could not work but kept it going because it still benefited them personally. They kept it going until it turned into the biggest financial boondoggle this country has ever seen. We are still in the mini-depression Clinton caused.
There were no backroom meetings. The whole disaster occurred because it was set up in such a way that it was in the Democrats short term self-interest to keep it going as long as possible. It was an open conspiracy of people who knew what benefited them personally. They didn’t even need to nod and wink at each other. To admit that disaster was looming would bring bad immediate consequences. Putting it off for as long as possible allowed them to still receive benefits. It did not matter to them that they were making the crisis worse by delaying it. Personal self-interest was behind it all.
Global warming is just such an “open” conspiracy. Self-interest dictates that they put off the day of reckoning for as long as possible. That is why they don’t care what the science is. That is why the goal posts keep getting moved back. As long as they can keep it going they will reap benefits.
Eugene WR Gallun
Actually the gradual removal of the Glass–Steagall act was primarily responsible for the many abuses since the 1980’s in the U.S. banking system with Greenspan throwing in the last wrench. Would suggest you watch Inside Job for more clarity on this subject:
BFL
What you are talking about has nothing to do with what i am talking about. I am explaining how something as awful as Clinton’s bubble and global warming can continue to roll along when they are so obviously must go bust eventually. There is not some hidden conspiracy but rather there is an open conspiracy of people doing what in the short term benefits themselves.
Currently there is no benefit for any alarmist to admit the truth.
The gutting of Glass-Steagall has its parallel in global warming — the gutting of peer review and journal standards.
We have a major difference. You think the bankers used Clinton. No, you have it wrong. Clinton used the bankers to further his political agenda. Clinton made it pay for banks to issue housing loans to very low income people. And the banks took advantage of it. Clinton was an idiot who had no idea what chaos his liberal agenda would unleash upon America. Big Government always means Big Fail.
Probably I am not writing clearly. It is thanksgiving. If my writing seems gobbled undoubtedly it is the turkey talking.
Eugene WR Gallun
Wrong. CRA (Clinton quotas), GNMA, FNMA and mark to market accounting did it, not the banks.
Conflating a tactic with a political philosophy is the refuge of scoundrels and AGW scientists.
No, the main point isn’t to be satisfied if both parties ‘feel heard’.
The main point is we are all so desperate for approval, to be liked, to ‘seem to be balanced and reasonable’ that we let the revolutionaries burn the place down and claim vast swaths of new territory for themselves.
Then once the new order has been established, through deceit and fraud, we let the revolutionaries relax into their new positions while we concern ourselves with being moderate and fair and open with them.
This is an ad hominem attack on Hitler.
Just because he was evil doesn’t mean everything he said was wrong.
The fact that he used the “Big Lie” for evil purposes doesn’t invalidate the claim that it is a powerful propaganda tool.
The “Big Lie” can be used in the service of both noble cause corruption and ignoble cause corruption.
And there is a straw man here because quoting Hitler doesn’t imply that anyone using the “Big Lie” is a Nazi.
After all you could accuse someone of Lysenkoism without branding them a Stalinist.
I’m never really impressed with the whole name calling thing. It strikes me as something very juvenile. I don’t have the benefit of the higher level of education of some of those who resort to it but I’m quite certain it has no place in in the advancement of scientific understanding.
Dr. Ball poses the question ”What is the motive?” He then explains that it is a human trait to fall for the bigger lie more so than a little lie. He points out that the Nzis knew this, and he quotes from Mein Kampf. to illustrate his point.
Nowhere in his article does he say climate scientists are Nzis, or are like Nzis. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that Dr. Betts and Dr. Edwards have made this claim.
I certainly hope Dr. Ball responds to clear this up.
With respect,
Eamon.
In fact, Dr. Ball did not use Naz! or Naz!sm in his post. Those words were used by Betts, Edwards and Watts… Henceforth we shall refer to this as “the small Thanksgiving day lie”
There is an absolute and fundamental flaw in Betts and Edwards’ argument, demonstrated by this sentence: “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”. This shows them as having read into Ball’s post something that simply was not there.
Ball was NOT calling anyone a Nazi. He was using a passage out of Mein Kampf to demonstrate how public opinion can be manipulated. That the passage was written by a Nazi — the arch-Nazi — is beside the point.
It looks to me as if Betts and Edwards saw the words “Mein Kampf” and had an “Ah Ha, Gotcha” moment.
If their comprehensive levels are so low, it is not surprising they are on the warmist side of the debate.
One does wonder…
I agree. Ball did not even use the words Naz! or Naz!sm. That would initially be the construct of Betts, Edwards and Watts.
If not to any other comment on this thread, Betts and Edwards should reply to this one.
Let us see what happens.
Correction, last paragraph: comprehension levels.
I found Dr. Ball’s post rather tedious, and his points could have been made much better without a reference to Hitler.
There is, however, some history here:
• Richard Glover, The Sydney Morning Herald (2011): “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”
• Charles Larson, American University (2013): “The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist.”
• David Fiderer, The Huffington Post (2009): “At its core, global warming denial is like Holocaust denial, an assault on common decency.”
• David Roberts, Grist Magazine (2006) : “It’s about the climate-change “denial industry”, …we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
• Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007): “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”
• Guy Keleny, The Independent (2013): “I think these people are anti-science flat-earthers. …They are every bit as dangerous as Holocaust deniers.”
• Jim Hoggan, DeSmogBlog (2005): “These are not debunkers, testing outrageous claims with scientific rigor. They are deniers – like Holocaust deniers.”
• Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer (2007): “Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust.”
• Robert Manne, La Trobe University (2009): “Denialism, a concept that was first widely used, as far as I know, for those who claimed that the Holocaust was a fraud, is the concept I believe we should use.”
• NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.”
• Former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be “strangled in their beds”.
• Eco-magazine Grist called for “Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics”.
• Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.”
• Heidi Cullen, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
• The U.N.’s top climate official, Yvo de Boer: “ignoring (catastrophic anthropologic global ) warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’.
• UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland: “IT’S COMPLETELY IMMORAL, EVEN, TO QUESTION” the UN’s scientific “consensus.”
Although there may be a need to explain, without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, how the so-called “consensus” has been manufactured, stooping to the level of the warmists rhetoric is not necessary.
The poor quality of the warmists’ rhetoric is only surpassed by the low quality of their science. Concentrating on the low quality of their science and ignoring the poor quality of their rhetoric will better serve the goal of improving global warming science.
From time to time miscues can occur. As they say, you sometimes need to walk a mile in a man’s shoes before being too critical:
Dr. Tim Ball, a former professor of climatology discusses the heavy price paid by scientists who publicly question the CAGW dogma: “I’ve often thought if I had to do it again I wouldn’t do it,” he said. “Until you have experienced, like some are having with the IRS attacking them in the U.S., you cannot relate to other people exactly what it’s like when you are sitting in your little condo and you’ve spent all of your savings on legal fees. And (when there’s) a knock on the door at 4 o’clock on a Friday and your wife starts crying because she’s afraid it’s the sheriff delivering a legal summons. People have no idea what that’s like. I’m not sure that I would do it again. I’m almost at the point where if the world wants to be fooled, let it be fooled. I’m not going to fight for it again.
Thank you, Leon; I’ve bookmarked this comment.
It’s not that I’m convinced that discussions of the Big Lie effect should avoid reference to the best-known practitioner. As one who has tended to get less exercised than some over “denier” usage, though, it was good to be reminded of how egregiously it actually gets used. And, as one who tends to pass over Dr. Ball’s posts (until I was spurred by Mr. Watts’ craven disavowal to read the last one), it was helpful to be informed of what may have contributed to the tone of some of his posts.
Leon,
Precisely.
IF Dr. Ball had chosen to catalog the real things the climte obsessed call for and have done his essay would have been a great opinion piece. BVy attributing motive and by making the incredibly counter productive comparison between the climatocracy and the disastrous politics of post WW1 Germany he only hurt himself.
But life goes on.
The climate kooks are still acting like loons, and most of all the climate does not care about this tiff or the apocalyptic screeching of the climate obsessed.
Yes, a valuable resource. Thank you!
First, it has never even been about science.
Second the climate change operation knows themselves they fudged the facts, thus just the fact there is a debate is a loss for all of U S.
The fraud is just buying time to pull in more gold.
In fact the climate change Dr’s and Prof.’s are just the useful fools of the power cult in Washington D.C. and the U. N..
Great cost of opportunity lost to the world as a whole chasing these fraud rainbow..
If I read the situation correctly, RB and TE are taking a shot at our host for allowing a guest commentator on his blog to talk about topics inconsistent with the convivial problems have been solved tone established at a Kumbaya love-in dinner.
If their thesis has merit the only problem is that there weren’t enough seats at the table. Had Tim Ball been invited, along with Mann, Romm, Scmidt, the kids from SkS, etc., etc., we’d have peace in our time.
Perhaps it’s not too late to organize another dinner with more guests.
Hell, I’ll buy a round!
Yes, kumbaya, and there was much rejoicing “scientists and skeptics unite and break bread together!” It was orgasmic. Why on earth should anything but harmony be expected moving forward?
Maybe because we aren’t all that stupid?
Mark
Never break bread with a Warmist. Never reach out and never meet them in the middle ground. WHY? Because ‘science’ is not about compromise or being fair. They are losing ground and want a ceasefire. They worry every night about what might happen to their FUNDING for climastrology ‘research’.
No one was called a nazi, no one was accused of disparaging a race or starting WW3. On the other hand the use of the term “denier” is clear and is despicable, declaring unfounded scientific certainty dishonest.
Did not read any apologies from the authors of this article concerning this behavior. The blantant effort to personally marginalize and diminish anyone who disagreed I guess should also be forgotten as well?
When they clean their own house they can climb back on their soap box. Until then I do not see why they think they have much to say.
Agreed
Good Anthony, bad Tim – the usual game of “Divide and Conquer”. You cannot make peace with someone who does not admit his wrongdoing. I have often tried that, and it never worked. If they were serious they would try to walk a mile in Mr. Ball’s mocassins, which you could predict they would never even ponder.
After a fight the opponents often can see their own weaknesses clearer, and they are then more willing to compromise – after the argumentation, not before.
What irritates me is that the moderate ones fail to police their own. This happens in all areas that deal with controversial ideas and programs, be it religious ideas, political programs, or climate (cough hack) control policies. And that erks me. To no end. Extremist views are often born in the bedroom of moderation, and then those that started it fail to whip the extremist views into submission. Hitler and his ideas are no different. His thoughts were not original, they were just extremist. Follow the thread back and you will find the bedroom from which that seed was born.
So if you want my attention, police the extreme views of your position. Otherwise your silence is acceptance of those extreme views regardless of your post here.
Being a quiet sort myself, I never really liked the “silence is acceptance” meme.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
You may have misinterpreted my thought. I refer to the moderate view, which is: climate change is caused by humans, just not catastrophically so. In other words, those that believe that CO2 causes warming beyond the noise of natural variation but are not into the “we are all going to die” view. That is the view of many older and wiser climate researching scientists in peer reviewed literature. And comprise the silent majority in the ivory tower. It is their silence in the presence of all the Hansen’s I berate.
I’ve been here for 5 years, I didn’t misinterpret anything, I was just pushing your buttons.
Beware the silent majority.