Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Emotionally, it is almost impossible to walk a mile in another person’s shoes. It is particularly true when the other person is of a different sex. I say this because I believe a climate science story that must be told is the degree of difference in nastiness directed at those who questioned the prevailing AGW wisdom. People who have not experienced it cannot imagine how vile and intimidating it gets, although there are some hints in the “Comments” section of articles on WUWT. It would be worse without a moderator, but even then, you would not see the type of material sent to an individual. What is more disturbing for me, is that the intensity and nastiness are even higher for some than others.
I think there are ways that a person can get a sense of the experience of another’s shoes, but it is only a sense. For example, as a young boy I delivered newspapers and on one occasion was attacked by a large dog. Since then I have been afraid of large dogs, and that has influenced my life because I walk every day, but avoid areas where I know there are large dogs. The outrage is that the dog owners are influencing my life without even being aware of it. For this reason, whenever women hold a “take back the night” event to protest having their freedom of movement limited by unknowing people I provide complete support. It does not put me in their shoes but does give me a sense of their anger and frustration.
I am explaining this because of the experiences of two women involved in the climate debate, Judith Curry, and Sallie Baliunas. I have not spoken with either woman about this column. I also suspect they would not approve, but in a way that is the problem. They know that complaints are automatically considered self-serving, a sign of weakness, and all the other epithets in our society. Judith Curry wrote about why she abandoned climate science in eloquent words but, in my opinion, because of the societal situation, they were restrained and non-accusatory.
I cannot walk a mile in her shoes as a male climate skeptic of longstanding, but, like my dog experience, I have an awareness. I am writing this column because, as a male I am ashamed of the behaviour of too many other males, but also because most would not even know what was and is going on. I watched from a close and better informed vantage point what these women experienced. What happened to them is symptomized by a man, some argue George Bernard Shaw fits the pattern, who was both a misanthrope and a misogynist. This fascinates me because if you hate everybody doesn’t that include women? Apparently, they hate everyone, but really hate women. It is shameful for society in general, but especially in science, where open, completely unfettered, discourse must occur.
The level of animosity and nastiness in debates and discussions is a symptom of the collapse of civility, and that can presage a collapse of civilization. I watched the level of animosity increase as the level of civility declined at climate conferences. It quickly reached a point where conferences were either AGW or Skeptics conferences and then, because of political interference, there were very few of the latter. Therefore, the first Heartland Climate Conference in New York in 2009 was so significant. It was the first major international skeptics conference and valuable for that, but also underlines a scientific divide that should not exist.
Judith Curry and Sallie Baliunas crossed that divide. Curry was working on the AGW approach as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. In the interests of proper, balanced, open, science Curry invited Steve McIntyre to make a presentation explaining his side of the ‘hockey sick’ story. I could have told her what would happen because the nastiest attacks I ever received were from department colleagues: this included a three-page letter that a lawyer deemed libelous. They also deliberately made work and advancement difficult because they controlled promotion, tenure and all aspects of my career. To my knowledge, I remain today the person longest in rank as an Assistant Professor in the history of Canadian universities. My final promotion to full Professor was only achieved after a direct appeal, with evidence, to the University President. Some of this is explained by Sayre’s law that says,
“Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.”
I know academic politics are the nastiest because I was in the military, worked in private industry, and worked for a civilian government. What happened to those who were openly climate skeptics reached another level altogether. Curry and Baliunas were two people who experienced this, but from what I observed, at another level again.
Judith Curry provided a very open and reasoned explanation for choosing to step aside from mainstream academia. Here are some quotes;
“A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.”
“How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).”
“At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs — at least when you are your own boss.”
Based on my experience this was a tempered, reasonable effort that only speaks to the technical and bureaucratic frustrations and shows concern for the students. However, there is a hint of the hurt and anguish about a forced change in career path and a glimmer of the hostile environment in the workplace. The fact that Curry, a clearly private person, decided to ‘retire’ publically speaks volumes. The fact that any academic is forced so far outside their comfort zone speaks volumes about what was going on in climate science and academia should give us all pause, but there is more to it than that,
I don’t think Curry was aware of or could have known, what happened to Sallie Baliunas. The main reason is that Baliunas completely and very quietly withdrew from research and academia and, as I understand, retired to the countryside. I discovered what went on because of our mutual attempts to help people understand the great climate deception. Occasionally over the years, people contacted me after investigating the work of the IPCC. They experience what happened to Klaus-Eckart Puls.
I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements.
These people were so shocked that they sought out someone to confirm that what they found was true. In the case of Albert Jacobs and the people that became the Friends of Science, they approached Sallie Baliunas and me. We both provided as many answers and as much help as possible. One day Albert advised me that they were unable to contact Sallie. I finally contacted Willie Soon, another severely beleaguered skeptic, because he was a colleague who published with Sallie when she worked as an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Her career also included a period as Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Observatory. Besides the FOS contacts, I was pleased to work briefly with Sallie on the historical relationships between climate, crops, ergot fungus poisoning and witchcraft. I like to think that Sallie’s study of witchcraft gave her insight into the persecution of people, especially women, through the exploitation of hysteria and false information. Sallie very quietly disappeared into the good night, but what happened before that helps understand why.
One of the biggest challenges to the AGW deception was the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). David Deming testified before Congress on the threat it was to their narrative. Baliunas and Soon produced an excellent paper from a multitude of sources that confirmed the existence of the MWP. Michael Mann got rid of the MWP with his production of the ‘hockey stick,’ but Soon and Baliunas were another problem. What better than to have a powerful placed academic destroy their credibility for you? Sadly, there are always people who will do the dirty work. Here is how I described what went on in my book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.
“A perfect person and opportunity appeared. On 16th October 2003 Michael Mann sent an email to people involved in the CRU scandal;
Dear All,
Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been kind enough to pass along…
At the time, Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government. Later he became Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President (Obama) for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States Science Czar.
In an email on October 16, 2003, from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley we’re told:
I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.
This is what Holdren sent to the Wednesday Breakfast group:
I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.
The exchange Holdren refers to is a challenge by Nick Schulz editor of Tech Central Station (TCS). On August 9, 2003, Schulz wrote:
In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website, you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It is unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?
Holdren provides lengthy responses on October 13, 14, and 16th, but his comments fail to answer Schulz’s questions. After the first response Schulz replies:
I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?
Of course, Holdren doesn’t agree. He replies:
But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing—it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.
No, it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other. This argument is in line with what has happened with AGW. He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of science and climate science by opting for Mann and his hockey stick over Soon and Baliunas. His entire defense and position devolve to a political position. His attempt to belittle Soon and Baliunas in front of colleagues is a sad measure of the man’s character.
Schulz provides a solid summary when he writes:
I’ll close by saying I’m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question. How much hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by definition beyond the reach of those people?
We now know they deliberately placed it beyond the reach of the people and restricted it to the group that he used to ridicule Soon and Baliunas.”
I attended a conference about a controversial issue a few years ago at which the debate became increasingly personal and nasty. The Chairperson acted properly by interrupting and saying; “People, please, we can disagree, but we don’t have to be disagreeable.” The level of debate on the claim of anthropogenic global warming went far beyond being disagreeable, but there was no chairperson to call a halt. Why are personal attacks so vicious when the subject is as innocuous as weather and climate? What do lawsuits have to do with learning, research, or science? Why were the attacks so nasty that they drove two superbly qualified women to the sidelines?
One of many incorrect statements made in the global warming/climate change debate was that the science is settled. Ironically, those who said it did more to be disagreeable than anyone. The nastiness began and increased as evidence continued to emerge showing the science wasn’t settled. In response to the question reportedly posed by John Maynard Keynes,
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?
Clearly, if you are unprepared to change your mind, you are forced to increasingly nasty, uncivil behavior. It is a manifestation of the idea that if the end is the sole objective, it justifies any means. It is no coincidence that this is a central theme of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks for this article. It is eye opening.
Problems. Call.
https://youtu.be/StKVS0eI85I
@M Courtney March 4, 2017 at 1:09 pm: MC, Tim has it to rights. Having had to train to fight the ‘left’, I had reason to learn fast about them. They are relatively few, the serious ones, but have placed themselves well. Lies are their first recourse. Alinsky, oh yes indeed. Thankyou Dr Tim and friends, we have reason to be very grateful. Still much to do though….
You trained to fight the ‘left’?
I am the ‘left’.
And I’ve trained myself to talk to you and to share ideas with you.
Assuming you are not also the ‘left’.
You should be careful, the Left has a habit of eating their own if they show signs of drifting from the Mantra.
Heretics they consider dangerous, but an Apostate will be burned at the stake.
The first to be eliminated under Pol Pot were those that brought him to power.
Dr. Ball,
Spot on as usual.
Please update us on your unfortunate law suit by the “political scientists” in Canada.
They used to burn witches. The world is far more civilised now but the mechanism of the brain that prioritises in favour of righteous religious zeal over scepticism still operates in the same way.
Science is the opposite of religion. It is the pursuit of physical objective truth. If have an issue with a scientific conclusion show why it is wrong.
What is done here is religious like zeal of the refutation of an idea which people seem to not want to fully understand or accept, with, as part of that pattern, includes the projection of that “religion’ onto science itself under the flimsy cherry picking of a couple of people who sound alarmist rather than reasoned in their frustrated expressions of climate change concern.
And even if the do sound alarmist, so what. They have a right to be concerned, over concerned, etc. If it’s bad communication, tell them. Instead it’s used as justification for the made up but belief reinforcing idea that therefore climate science itself is largely hooey, rather than simply like all science advancement a process of sifting, correcting adjusting with the basic (very conservative) notion that capturing a lot more energy is and will substantially change climate from what it would otherwise be, has been fairly well established; and more importantly there’s nothing in support of any conclusion to the contrary but misconstructions, cherry picked slivers, and irrelevancies pushed as some sort of great insight (and fraudulent claims about made up frauds or in most cases the simple act, and sometimes mistakes, of science); all of which more strongly support the idea that skepticism is a very strongly pushed and reinforced belief system under clever chosen wording of “debate” than even the basic facts of the issue itself.
And that gets just as much in the way of rational conversation on the issue (which many “skeptics” want to achieve because they don’t want to discuss the best ways of dealing with what the issue actually is) as do alarmists that seem to come across as telling people what to think bc they think everyone thinks similarly and gets the same so called “news” and “information” (both of which are flagrantly wrong), so they must know the same stuff.
“Science is the opposite of religion” is correct in the same way that “Any sufficiently advance technology appears to be magic”, as Arthur C. Clarke once observed. I’ll pick just one other line from your comment
” with the basic (very conservative) notion that capturing a lot more energy is and will substantially change climate from what it would otherwise be, has been fairly well established”.
You show me the theory of clouds that predicts that they don’t act as a significant negative feedback by growing and reflecting more insolation as the planet warms, thus significantly reducing the sensitivity to growing CO2.
And there we have the replacement of one dogma by another.
Dude. Let me let you into a deep philosophical Truth. There is no way we can get to the objective truth, physical or otherwise. That’s the terrifying results of years of philosophical investigation, and the statement by scientists who should know better that because some scientific description works in a given context it means that there is ‘strong evidence’ that the description is true.
IN isolation, I could develop a hypothesis that because using the remote on the TV to select certain channels that seem to show pictures of people having sex, that in fact there are miniature people inside the TV having sex and what the control does is open a window into their bedrooms.
It is reasonable, it has predictive power, and its predictions are not falsified by experiment. In the absence of further data it also meets Occam’s criterion, Its very simple. Why introduce electronics and integrated circuits when you don’t need to?…
…Until you take the back off the set, and instead of little people, there are loads of electronics of unfathomable purpose…which is about where quantum physics is today.
Science is not a pursuit for truth, that was the realms of philosophy until it was concluded that the whole idea of truth was anthropic and relative to cultural values anyway, or perhaps to the language in which the philosophy was trying to be expressed. Suffice to say no one goes looking for truth, either in philosophy or in science.
It’s a post truth world mate. Opinion is divided between the left, who think that because truth is relative to language and culture, by changing the language you can change the truth, and a few small voices on the right of philosophy who say that just because the truth is unknowable, doesn’t mean there isn’t an objective truth, though we can’t ever know what it really is, so it does mean that some stuff works and some stuff doesn’t, which is as near as science and rational thinking will ever get.
Science may arrive at a truth relative to some model of how it assumes the world to be But it cannot prove that the model itself is true. That’s where Turing, Gödel, Hofstatder and others came in to basically say ‘you can’t get to the truth of a thing using the just the thing itself’.
If you like the true position is we know nothing for sure and science won’t change that. However we do have ideas that work and ideas that don’t, and so we can probably say that ideas that don’t work are certainly pretty useless apart from occasionally being pretty in a fluffy bunny sort of way and that probably means they are certainly NOT a true picture of the world.
All ideas are false, but some are more false than others.
Science is not about arriving at the objective truth, its about eliminating the ideas that are more false than the others.
Cultural cohesion demands emotional adherence to shared standards. That is good survival stuff. What is bad is when the elites – scientists law makers clerics and warriors, are forced to bow down to it as well. They should be independent and free to set new standards if these are appropriate.
To say we should have no emotional narrative is as dangerous as saying we must all share the same one.
A note here: all great civilizations rise on warm cycles and collapse on cold cycles. So knowing the future is highly important for all of us who don’t want to go into a literal Dark Age.
Secondly: the persecution of anyone who slightly deviates from ANY set position of a group of people and this includes people here at this site, leads to harsh language, insults and open hatred when debating science, of all things.
No one is immune to this, passions rise and rise and people are increasingly unable to debate unless one has the hide of a rhino, which I happen to have.
All of science has had these divisive debates periodically. When evolution came along, it caused debates that rage to this day. That is one prime example. Retreating from these debates happens frequently, too.
I knew, way back in the 1950’s, published evolutionary scientists who ended up being virtual hermits due to bruising battles in the past and was quite fortunate to have them as childhood teachers. But this is a characteristic of science, look at the debates about vaccinations or what to eat to live long lives (my old teachers would say, ‘Pick better parents for better genes’).
We understand why some people have to retreat to protect their health and sanity! It is OK to retire, I am retired and living on a mountain I happen to own. Peace and quiet except for hooting owls, gobbling turkeys or the howl of wild beasts at night. It is so much nicer than fighting battles at work.
Sounds like a great spot..for a windfarm
I have been following this argument since the late 1990’s after following a link from Junkscience.com.
From the beginning, I never thought the climate could be controlled by limiting combustion, as if we agreed not to build fires. Baliunas and Soon were reasonable.
I just had a comment disappear in nirvana, possibly in the moderation queue. On many blogs, one receives a message like “your comment is awaiting moderation” when that happens. Would it be possible to add this feature to WUWT? Thanks for consideration, M.
I had a post disappear completely yesterday. That’s the first time that has happened to me. I notice others have complained of the same thing lately.
Some of my posts will disappear for a while and then show up, but the one yesterday seems to be gone. And yes, usually when you are in moderation, there will be a little message saying as much, but that doesn’t happen when the posts just disapppear into the ether.
Michael Palmer: I have OFTEN had comments go both into “the spam bin” and into the moderation queue. When they go into the MQ, I get the “Your comment is awaiting moderation” message (this happened just today with my 1:54pm comment — I think it was that I forgot to misspell “den1err” (Grr!)).
When they just *poof* disappear, into “the spam bin,” (Anthony has mentioned that purgatorial place before), apparently, no one, not even our host knows for certain why. Anthony has guessed (or, maybe he knows??) that it is due to too many links per comment. Even when I break my multi-link comments up, though, sometimes only part of the comment gets through — or none. And sometimes, even WITH multiple links, the entire comment is immediately published. And I test and test and test all the potential “bad” words sometimes and still just end up with WHO KNOWS WHY! for an answer.
And ONE time (oh, brother), my cursor had slipped into the contact info. part of the reply box, and I had inadvertently typed a 6 or something, so, I was tagged as a “unknown commenter — no e mail on file” type person (or something like that) and auto-moderated.
WordPress is a giant PAIN, but, it’s the best WUWT can do without (IIRC) BIG BUCK (and, perhaps, also a ton of time Anthony does not have to implement a change over).
Caveat: If you use the name of a WUWTer who is currently in auto moderation, your comment goes into either (I can’t remember which — and who knows!! It could be BOTH!) moderation (with the courtesy of an explanatory message) or into the spam bin (rudely — by WordPress, not Anthony — just DUMPED into it!).
Tip: ALWAYS COPY YOUR COMMENT INTO A WORD (or other) DOC so you can later attempt to post it again. I’ve seen some people ask Anthony to find their spammed comment and he can’t find it. It is just GONE.
HOW TO CALL FOR HELP (when you fall into the spam bin): Write a comment in which you spell out moder@t0r in full and correctly — hopefully, there will be one on duty…..
Finally: Please accept my heartfelt sympathy. It is always a bit shocking and frustrating and VERY disappointing to be put into the spam bin (and the MQ, for me, too — ugh, makes me want to take a break from WUWT for a day or two or a week — and sometimes, I do! 🙂 ).
Correction: not BOTH into the MQ and SB, rather, either into….. or
about 50% of my posts say “your comment is awaiting moderation”. Not sure whether they are Too Long, or use Rude Words, or whether I am on some blacklist.
Sometimes they pop up later. Sometimes they dont.
The WUWT uncertainty principle, no doubt.
Yeah, the owner of the site actually claims to still believe ”the basic science is sound” about the fraud and maintains a long list of ”bad words you can’t say about criminals” or he claims his heart will be hurt.
He’s an alternative energy electric car salesman whose income drops off precipitously if the fraud gets solved and people start using real science sites instead of his cloaked ”AGW is real” website.
He’s tried to ingratiate himself into the scientific community but the real scientific community thinks a lukewarmer who says AGW is possible, to be the same thing as any other fraud promoter, won’t have anything to do with him.
He’s running the clock out on his career trying to profit from the fraud while seeming like a crusader against it.
Janice and Leo, thanks for explaining the mysteries of WUWT comment processing. I had already adopted the practice of typing up the comments in a separate editor first, so that they would not be lost in the ether. However, on this occasion, I had not used that precaution.
I am explaining this because of the experiences of two women involved in the climate debate….
I am sure you could add others. Susan Crockford comes to mind.
Is the most egregious statement in the whole article.
Why ‘women’?
Why not ‘scientists’?
To use a clearly gender specific term is to bring into play an unconscious sexism that really says more about Mr Ball than it does about the scientists involved.
We don’t do virtue signalling playing the gender card here do we?
Judith Curry is a damned fine scientist, of honour and integrity and courage whom I very much admire, but not because she is a woman, or despite her being a woman.
Oddly enough what she has to say is gender independent. I have a similar respect for Dr Robert Brown who occasionally enters the fray.
To play the gender card is to fall into the trap of putting on politically correct spectacles and viewing the world as yet another Marxist conflict – this time between the Dominant Male and the Exploited Female.
What utter cobblers.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
All the evil in the world is down to women, who make men what they are. If you want to play games with emotions and semantics.
Or:
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/funny-baby-picture-control.jpg
You mentioned Alinsky’s book fascinating piece of work, I read it in college because I was attracted to a statement Alinsky made when debating William F Buckley. Buckley became a hero of mine after the 70s as I delved into finding out why Ronald Reagan was going to blow up the world, as he was portrayed in the late 70s, and my old Democratic roots. I used to watch firing line and Alinskly said something that appealed to me.. there is no progress without conflict. However that was step one, Alinsky’s idea was to create conflict, but once you are in the position of power, shut it down, And so it is here, We are all deceived into thinking this is about science, Why , we love it, If we could look at weather and climate 24/7 without getting paid, we would. This is light years different from the other side, There are no weather nut cases there. No one that cried when it didnt snow or ( sad to admit) a hurricane recurved. There are a weird blend of people jumping on board, for what ever reason, saving the planet, saving others, saving themselves ( they have no life if they dont get their way) or actually wishing to control others, For me its a spiritual problem, I believe in Gods absolute truth, but man has relative truth and ego and narcissism elevates one to a level higher than God. Okay you dont believe in God, fine, but man is not God and anyone wishing to control another for his purpose is in effect, playing God. But do you understand why I am bringing this up? not to make mad those that dont believe in God, but to say you are DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO IN A SENSE DO BELIEVE THEY ARE GOD-LIKE IN THIS MATTER . And there is nothing absolute about their truths unless it directly involves what they want, Years from now, when objective historians look back at this, they will understand that this ruse is exactly what Alinsky preached, Conflict until you are in control then eliminate and distract people with small issues from your big one, A perfect storm of disinformation and relativism in a time where truth is needed. Peace to all
” A perfect storm of disinformation and relativism in a time where truth is needed.”
That applies to climate science and our current political situation. Who is spreading this disinformation? The Left and the MSM.
Sure, and there’s a cat I need to bell somewhere too…:-)
Two millenia or more of philosophy and we STILL dont know what truth is….
Hi Dr Ball, I tried to contact you through your website. I’ve sent an email to an old email address. If that does not get through the short message is that the answer to “Why are personal attacks so vicious when the subject is as innocuous as weather and climate?” can be found in The Academic Ape: Instinctive aggression and boundary enforcing behaviour in academia
(Note the date of publication does not necessarily imply what it may appear to imply).
Interesting article, have watched this for decades. The now supposedly civilized academic apes, instead of exterminating non-genetic offspring and other morbid primate actions, rely on administrative missives. Without analysis, and to the extent possible, these often replace, modify or damage existing competent programs established by others. I saw this first decades ago when I went back to graduate school and my replacement said he wanted my job to be able to administer, not mentioning the remarkable opportunity offered. I still regret leaving. There is the lack of appreciation, as Bastardi considered above, to be paid for something that you would do for free, if you could. There are several reasons why it has gotten worse, but one difficult solution is to significantly reduce administration and pay academics less but get rid of the hassle. Our founders studied history and realized it, but we may lose it.
I used to think that as a reasonably well qualified sceptic working in the subject for free that my efforts would be appreciated. It finally dawned on me that the more qualified I became the more I was seen as “treading on ‘their’ patch” and working for free was like a red rag to a bull – because if politicians realised that they could get as good (or better) information for free – why pay all these academic researchers?
The fighting within academia, when ideas are challenged is bitter enough, but when academia began to see it’s status as “experts” on so many subject being challenged on the internet – it reacted like any closed shop union.
The fundamental problem is that academia sees “climate” as a subject where it and only it, must be listened to. And we sceptics are treated with the contempt a householder would have for a group of unknown and uninvited students holding a party in their garden. Of course the fact that “climate” is public knowledge, that if anything the academics are holding a party in our garden being paid for by us … doesn’t mean anything to them.
Given the context is attacks on an academic – I should explain, that using the analogy of the party in “their” garden – Dr Ball is a little like a friend of the garden “owner” who said it was OK to party there.
Dr Ball is someone who they think should be on their side – but (quite properly) he is saying that climate is an area which the public are right to have a say about and that views other than the academic “mainstream” should be heard. This in effect makes him a “traitor” in the eyes of other academics. He and others like him become seen as the ones who invited in the unwanted party goers.
Thus we sceptics are contemptible – academics who support us and undermine the legitimacy of academic control over “truth” in climate are seen as despicable traitors.
Scottish Sceptic. I have found your link very interesting. I was wondering if we would still be waiting for some academics to invent an airplane instead we got one from a couple of bicycle mechanics.
When I first started in this debate, it wasn’t really a Left versus Right debate.
It was an exaggerated science versus it sounds probable debate.
But then the Left embraced it because they like to control things and it was a semi-anti-capitalist agenda. Then the environmentalists joined in on the pro-warming side because … well it raised lots of money.
The Right has always been skeptical because it is unproven science and the Right is mainly about prove that it actually works and I’m there to support it. But it has to actually work. Lots of things sound good on paper but they just backfire in the real world.
And now, it is emotional versus logical thinking debate. Left versus the logical thinkers. If you are an emotional person, you want Baliunas fired because it makes you “feel better” about the choice you have already made. Originally, it was strictly Michael Mann trying to preserve his hockey stick and the power that came with it. It was all about Power.
So that squares the circle now. It is still all about Power and Influence now. Whether that translates into $funding or votes or emotional reinforcement or who is controlling Congress. It is NOT about what is really going to happen.
Let us speak openly and clearly to each other. Climate Science is for Ball, Lindzen, Steele, et al to fight. The nastiness is political and must be fought on that field. How do you deal with fanatics? In the words of General Sherman “War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen. I say lets give them all they want”
Yup.
Who said this was a just world? the majority always tries to oppress the minority. But as soon as the tables turn the oppressed become oppressors.
Scientists are neither better nor worse than the rest of the people.
Strange how you viewed this Javier. This isn’t about majority/minority or oppressors/oppressed. It’s about right and wrong. I’m not a critic of AGW because I’m dense. I oppose CAGW because it’s wrong scientifically and the solutions are 1) political 2) draconian 3) inhuman. Most of us have no desire to live under the same sky as the little captain Kim and yet that is the type of government CAGW champions.
Everybody sees him or herself at the correct side of the issue. So it is not about being right or wrong.
Very few people can understand the science behind climate change with enough depth, so almost everybody takes a position and then justifies it. And even those that understand the science behind climate change can get it wrong. It happens all the time. So it is not a question of being scientifically right or wrong either.
So yes, it is a question of a divisive issue with the majority trying to drive the minority into irrelevance, and some people not doing it nicely.
I disagree, being right about the climate issue isn’t about concensus. Being right isn’t about belief. Being right is about being able to predict not make a projection. Being right is about defining the the true nature of things as they are and not as you wish them to be.
If the current CAGW mantra were correct, If, IF, I would support it. I would however, not support the solutions that they are pushing.
This argument in its form will destroy the leadership of the west in science. Whatever the outcome. If the mantra were correct, it’d destroy the fundamental government’s of the west via the solutions to the problem. Wrong, and it destroys the west via the same argument that established communism in Russia. A phantom 97 % concensus. A phantom 95% certainty that temperatures will reach a certain temperature by a certain date.
The laws of gravity aren’t subject to majority laws. Unless or until someone has evidence that our current understanding is wrong, they will stand. That does not mean however, that the laws which I currently hold cannot be changed. In my lifetime I haven’t seen where the number 9.8 m/sec^2 ,changed. Unlike the carbon record or the temperature. I can accurately predict the stopping distance of a huge jest linear flying at a given speed. I can accurately predict chemical reaction. I can predict traits in animals bred a certain way. The current climate science is not only useless in that it can’t predict anything, it is in fact harmful. And that not the majority, determines whether it’s right or wrong. And some people did very nicely during the Age of Faith too, and a lot didn’t.
If tomorrow I drive my car and the brakes fail, will the argument be any less relevant? If they pass laws declaring any skeptic as an enemy of the state, a criminal against humanity, will that diminish the argument ? The only example of someone so enlightened that he doesn’t need to go poo is the little captain. I guess because a majority believe it, it must be so. Is that what you’re saying ?
Yeah, that’s what the alarmists say too.
Of course the great thing about human ‘rights’ is that there are so many to choose from. You cant let the so called scientific truth stand in the way of a morally right theory now can you?
It is about oppressors/oppressed, because Marxism says it is. It is about majority/minority, because that’s how ideas get enforced.
It is about Bandar Log politics: We all say it, so it must be true.
Have you seen a prediction made by CAGW that has been right ? Other than bending the warmest ever out of context, and no where near the models they trotted out.
It is not a matter of consensus. The science of climate is so complex and so new that nobody can claim to understand it. Nobody has a clue about the role clouds play in climate change, to put a simple example. Therefore no side can claim to be right except by chance. It is very common in science that several competing hypotheses can explain most of the evidence. Scientists will then choose one of the hypotheses and each will have its supporters. As knowledge advances some of the hypotheses will be discarded, and other modified. In the end some scientists might have been correct, or perhaps they were all wrong and a non considered possibility turned out to be the right one. It doesn’t really matter.
You believe that you are right, but so do others with the opposite view. What you or they believe is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the continue accumulation of knowledge and evidence, because that’s how science advances and self corrects. The disputes between earthcentrics and heliocentrics are interesting, but irrelevant. What it is important is that we know solar system mechanics well enough to put satellites in orbit, and send probes to other planets.
Climate scientist can’t even get it right by chance. The odds of being 100% wrong are astronomical.
It’s worse than that. I keep meaning to do a piece on where science and maths are at these days and it ain’t pretty,
Not only do we not understand it, but its highly likely that even if we did, we wouldn’t be able to use that knowledge to make accurate predictions anyway. What people don’t seem to get about chaos is that knowing the right formula is one thing, being able to integrate it reliably over time is an impossibly huge task that is subject to errors due to our inability to measure everything accurately enough, and our inability to have adequate computing power or adequate time, to get close enough to a right answer to be useful.
In short the tools both scientific, IT, and mathematical, at our disposal are not adequate to the task of predicting the climate and there are no lines of research that suggest they ever will be .
The massive advances that happened in theoretical science all hinged on a new maths that had never been thought of – Newton’s and Leibniz’ Calculus. OK there were some other things in new maths as well, but this was the key breakthrough that allowed a small subset of natural phenomena to be specified as soluble equations.
Leaving the vast majority of them as insoluble equations.
The advent of the digital computer has meant that a few more that are relatively simple can be solved by methods that would be impossibly long winded otherwise, but the bulk are still insoluble.
And that is why they picked climate. You can’t prove they are wrong, except by waiting over time. You can’t come up with a better model because none of them work at all.
Climate is inherently unpredictable. We have wasted trillions on a problem that can’t be solved, not now, and possibly not ever.
Anyone who claims they can is a fraud and a liar.
“It is not a matter of consensus. The science of climate is so complex and so new that nobody can claim to understand it. Nobody has a clue about the role clouds play in climate change, to put a simple example. Therefore no side can claim to be right except by chance.”
I can claim that there is no evidence available today which shows that humans are causing a net increase of heat in the Earth’s atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
Alarmists can’t prove me wrong.
Skepticism isn’t all that complex. One doesn’t have to know every nuance of the climate to know alarmists don’t have any evidence that CAGW is real.
Btw, the wind has been blowing awfully hard here in Eastern Oklahoma all day. Folks to the east of us should keep their weather eyes open because it’s headed your way.
It’s been blowing here on the east slope in Colorado. Very unpleasant. Cold I might add.
The treatment of Curry has been horrible. And instead of speaking-out about it, alleged fellow climate scientists like Michael Mann encourage it.
Yes. See my reference to her resulting amicus brief in comment above. Includes legal specifics.
The treatment of Curry has been no more horrible than many others. She has had to be destroyed as many others have been before her.
Its just your innate sentimentality about women making it seem that way 🙂
It’s about money and power. Without the money, the power wanes. And without these two, only the science is left. We shall see.
Dr Tim Ball – thoughtful, dignified, insightful – I like your style!
deanfromohio,
You said, “Atheists often have a problem with their relationship with their fathers, and perhaps this is the reason why they never learned to treat women with respect.” Do you have a creditable citation for that claim, or is it just your personal opinion?
A Jewish woman I knew a long time ago dismissed the whole of Christianity in three words:
“Pah! Child psychology”!
Another Jewish woman I knew years ago said the “the problem today is no one knows how they ought to behave”
What is the Christian God but the ultimate father figure anyway?
It’s the Christians who have problems with the relationship with their fathers, surely ? :-0)
“Another Jewish woman I knew years ago said the “the problem today is no one knows how they ought to behave”
I think if you followed the teachings of Jesus, you would be behaving in the proper manner.
If you follow the “Golden Rule”, you will also be behaving in the proper manner. Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Well that was my point. Christian morality works. That says nothing about the actual existence of God though. Which was my other point.
That’s all well and good, but sometimes it needs to become “do unto others what they have done to you already”.#
If someone has stolen from me, I feel no compunction about stealing back.
Leo and deanfromohio, you both make good points.
“If someone has stolen from me, I feel no compunction about stealing back.”
If someone steals from me, I have no compunction with putting them in jail. 🙂 As far as I’m concerned, they brought that on themselves, and deserve to be punished. This should of course, all be done within a legal framework, if we want our society to function properly.
The most intense and persistent attacks are often reserved for people who are perceived to present the greatest threat to the narrative. For today’s progressive left, that often means people who they think and expect should be on their side: women, “minority” groups of various descriptions, everybody knows the lists these days.
Thus when you look at the names of, say, Soon, Baliunas, Curry, Lindzen, and also people like Bjørn Lomborg, they are all people who the progressives arrogantly expect to be “one of us”. Thus their punishment is often greater.
“Another story that requires exposing is the damage, chaos, and death caused by the push for ethanol as an alternative fuel to replace the evil CO2-producing fossil fuels.”
Here is an example of Timmy boy being civil.
What I learned from Timmy boy’s essay is that his time spend on science has not prepared him for living in the real world or to comment outside of his narrow field of study.
For example, for many years I was afraid of dogs. One of my earliest memories is being pinned to the ground by a large dog after getting off the school bus. This fear was reinforced because dogs would attack me because they sensed fear.
I think it was a book by Jack London where I learned dogs were instinctively afraid on men with sticks and how to kill a dog. With this knowledge, I am no longer afraid of dogs nor have I had to be mean to one.
Knowledge overcomes fear.
The second life lesson Timmy does not get is ‘turn the other cheek’. This lesson is at least 2000 years but is not understood very well. Life is full of insults. Sometimes because because stupid is not something we like to hear, we take it as an insult.
It is how we handle our emotions.
When Dr Ball calls American farmers killers I am wondering why he is not worried about their feelings.
“The second life lesson Timmy does not get is ‘turn the other cheek’. This lesson is at least 2000 years but is not understood very well.”
I wonder if you do, Kit. It sure looks to me like you’re intent on striking Mr. Ball’s cheek, so to speak, in response to feeling insulted by him . .
iYe have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
You sure you’ve got the right idea there?
Sadly the instruction to ‘turn the other cheek’ only applies in civilised societies bound by common agreement that stability and peace are more mutually profitable than confrontation.
When you meet someone who is not bound by such common conventions game theory shows the correct response is to kick him in the nuts till he has learnt and agreed to abide by the conventions.
wishy washy politically correct ‘dont abuse children’ has removed this from our culture, leaving it ripe for takeover by anyone with the selfishness and discipline to form a group of people who say ‘strike first kill and rape and pillage’
“With guns in their hands and God on their side” may have been a wry comment on the hypocrisy of the West, but it was an effective way of proceeding for all that.
John
You are a little confused. It could be my writing skills or your reading skills.
Timmy boy did not insult me. I pointed out the ball is not very civil.
John do you think calling people killers is civil?
Then I provided suggestions of better ways of handling problems. When I read timmy’s essay I come to the conclusion that he is not very good at that.
With respect to the bible verse, turning the other cheek does not mean you do not stand in the way of evil. It how you go about standing in the way of evil. As Leo suggested below, there are some societal issues. There are some that hold a grudge that justifies beheading me for something that happened 700 years before I was born.
On the issue of nasty people in the work place or school, I have saved two young men from suicide. One young father in my division missed his family and was not handling deployment very well. He was not handling being picked on. Life is hard on a ship especially for lost lambs. Fortunately, on his way to jump overboard after getting off watch our paths crossed on the way for me to take the mid watch. He was obviously distressed. I shared that I prepared for not getting any sleep and dealing with a**holes, by keeping a picture of the family in my bible and reading a few passages. Find a way to get mentally off the ship. Please do not mention that I read the bible. Being a harda** MF was good defense to dealing with back stabbers.
The second occurrence was many years later dealing with the things parents deal with. A 7th grade boy gave me a prized possession at a Sunday picnic. I did not know the boy or parents well enough to have a serious discussion not that a picnic is a good place to discuss red flag behavior. I called that evening and finally convinced his mom to find counselling for him instead of going to work. She called the next day. He had a rope in his back pack and a pretty good plan to off himself. Apparently he was being picked on at school. I think there was more to it than that but it was not my business.
Sometimes life is not easy.
Leo,
“Sadly the instruction to ‘turn the other cheek’ only applies in civilised societies bound by common agreement that stability and peace are more mutually profitable than confrontation.”
I believe the verses speak of confrontation . . To strike one on the right cheek, meant to backhand them with the right hand, a demonstration of power over the person struck rather than an attack. To turn the other cheek meant to continue the confrontation . . but non violently.
The people he was addressing were going to confront the Jewish establishment, and then the Romans, as he did. He was instructing them on how to win. They did, eventually, and hence we discuss the matter in a society bound by common agreement . . that confrontation is manageable, and does not call for trading blows.
Once you say something that Kit disagrees with, you are forever on his sh$t list.
My admiration never wavers for those that continue to fight the good fight for what we were trained on as empirical, reproducible, classic science in the toughest forums and for the long-haul. Being silenced is not a longterm option for any of us. That doesn’t mean, of course, that people can’t take turns on the front lines to catch their breath. Thank you for hanging there.
When you cannot change the facts to fit your narrative you destroy those that disagree with you. This is a classic strategy of totalitarian politics.
Kit, you managed to take Tim Ball’s words, “Another story that requires exposing is the damage, chaos, and death caused by the push for ethanol as an alternative fuel to replace the evil CO2-producing fossil fuels.” and produce tabloid headline “Dr Ball calls American farmers killers.”
You certainly have a talent for interpretation. But when you use it for character assassination, I can’t help but think that it’s wasted on you.
“The Renewable Fuel Standard, because it is currently dominated by corn grain ethanol, is responsible for reduced air quality over much of the U.S., which leads to increased mortality,” Dr. Jason Hill, an associate professor of bioproducts and biosystems engineering, told House lawmakers in a hearing on the federal ethanol mandate.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/scientist-the-ethanol-mandate-is-killing-people/
another stupid Tim
I am afraid this Tim is just as serious and dr tim.
I skeptical of the science of AGW because it is a weak theory and bad modeling. However, it seems like many here are not equally skeptical or other science based weak theory and bad modeling.
“leading to more deaths from poor air quality in the Midwest and along the East Coast”
This not true. No one is dying from poor air quality in the US. It simple our air quality is good. Not even close to the threshold of harm.
If you tell lies, calling you a liar is not ‘character assassination’.
I’m wondering how much money Kit’s family makes from farming corn.
He’s certainly willing to make all kinds of outrageous claims to attack anyone who dares to disagree with him on the subject.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“The level of animosity and nastiness in debates and discussions is a symptom of the collapse of civility, and that can presage a collapse of civilization.”
““A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.” – Judith Curry
“I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements.”
An important and must read…
George Bernard Shaw was also key in founding Fabian socialism. A true wolf in sheep’s clothing. CAGW acolytes adhere to Fabianism as their constructed model is too complex for lay persons to understand. Almost a caste society..like Aldus Huxley penned in Brave, New World.
Yes, national socialism was leftist. To think otherwise shows the fault of linear thought.
George Bernard Shaw was not a founder of the Fabians. Although he was instrumental in using its funds to found the London School of economics, a stronghold of Marxist theory to this day.