A reply to Dr. Tim Ball

This article is in response to the personal castigation meted out by Dr.Tim Ball on myself after I wrote an earlier article on a population growth seminar that I had attended.

by Robert McCarter

Hi Tim,

I know that you have been the brunt of much of the blowback from your position on CAGW and I know that you are frustrated, especially from the lack of support of others. I even understand that you are using my once good name as an Everyman, that obsequious clod, ducking his responsibilities and making only a pathetic attempt to hide his neighbor from the Nazis knocking on the door. Perhaps it was my apologies that you found unctuous, for me they were a thin joke on being Canadian.

Please note that my article you have panned is not about my sudden and late awareness of CAGW it is about my awareness of the underlying and overzealous socialism behind it. I have of course read articles with this premise but there is such polarized feeling about socialism in the US that I added that grain of salt. It was seeing it for myself that convinced me of the political not environmental concerns that were driving the issue. I wrote the article suspecting that many others suspend belief when articles focus on leftist politics and I wanted to convey my experience to aid their own decisions about what is true. Not my intent to swing in on a low hanging bough to snatch the fruit from those who planted the tree.

You have had a lot of vitriol poured in your direction and I think that many of the readers at WUWT are grateful for the robust way you have countered. Certainly I have admired your well thought out essays. However I am not sure you should be defecating on the latter day converts, not good form for the many millions of others we have to win to this side. If you excoriate the first kid to hold up his hand, do you get many more questions. We don’t all have that fine PhD nor the tenured position in a university from which to espouse our ideas, a lot of us are just ordinary people that aren’t even listened to by our wives. Most do not have the training to make decisions from observations, most have too much trust in authority.

And I am not that latter day, I first looked at the global warming issue over 20 years ago. Once burned on global cooling, twice treading with caution. I became skeptical when I looked up the composition and overlapping absorbance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, realizing that water vapor should overwhelm the small amount of CO2 and doubling almost nothing still resulted in almost nothing. I am not a meteorologist or a climate scientist, just a ‘pathetic’ MSc Zoologist and a long time ago at that – but I keep studying. Where I work and live there is not a large scientific community and those that are there seem to be accepting of arguments from authority.

A few years ago I was fortunate to meet Brian Peckford (that one) and he pointed me towards Matt Ridley and then in turn to WUWT and other sites pro and con. For the past three years I have read many (many) articles from global population to windmills trying to suss out the signal from the noise and there is a lot of noise. I read ‘State of Fear’ a poor read as a novel but an excellent read about climate change. I bought several copies and distributed them to friends. I have continued to inundate my friends with articles from WUWT and others. Some friends could care less, others get indignant, lost one friend last week, another holding on by a fishing line. Some accept the non catastrophic story one week then along comes a hurricane and they are back to the beginning. I have about as much influence as I have flatulence but I am still passing gas.

We don’t get many lectures on population growth or climate change in our little town. I attended and I was the only person in a 200 person sycophantic audience who stood to contradict the speaker with factual information. He weaseled away his reply and the audience didn’t seem to note the deception. There is another lecture (Climate Change and Sustainability) this coming Saturday and I plan on attending, even invited some friends. Hey, I’m trying here and if I get dumped with dung how do you think I feel about next time. Are you doing the same thing as your green adversaries and trying to shut me down?

CAGW or the next great scare will not go away until we educate more people and that will not happen if it becomes an exclusive club for the cognoscenti. You have even recognized this need for better education in earlier articles. I agreed with you and as a long time educator I have developed methods to teach students to think. I even contacted you on your website about a year ago and have yet to get a reply.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter Morris
October 16, 2017 6:43 am

I think, perhaps, if you’d started off with this information it might have helped. I know it’s helped calm me.

Your thesis concerning socialism was lost on me in the original post, especially as you lumped it in with politics. There are all kinds of politics and the mistake I made reading your prior post was thinking you were referring to “politics” as the internecine squabbling inherent amongst all scientists versus the overt “socialism” (or rather what seems to be overt to some of us) of the actual politicians and activist scientists.

Knowing that you meant them as one and the same clears up some of the misconceptions I had. But the tone is also lacking. It comes across as a “whoopsie-daisy, I guess I messed up, oh well” kind of apology that I might hear from one of my children rather than a realization of the seriousness of the problem.

Socialism is not a viable political philosophy that sits as an equal amongst other viable political philosophies. It is a cancer that destroys and devours lives, communities, nations and cultures. The catastrophic warming religion is a glue that is being used to stitch together the disparate remnants of the shattered Comintern, including those that had gone dormant in the West.

Realizing this should fill you with a little more dread than was detectable in your prior post. So while I agree your castigation was too strong, perhaps take a moment to consider the stakes in this struggle, and realize how your prior words were likely to be viewed by those for whom this venture has been all-consuming.

Joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Peter Morris
October 16, 2017 6:51 am

Socialism is not a viable political philosophy that sits as an equal amongst other viable political philosophies. It is a cancer that destroys and devours lives, communities, nations and cultures. The catastrophic warming religion is a glue that is being used to stitch together the disparate remnants of the shattered Comintern, including those that had gone dormant in the West.

Concur –

Go to websites such as skeptical science – a constant recurring theme is that governments need to force the populace to solve the global problem
Along those lines – another common theme is that individuals must do whats best for the “common good of all people

Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
October 16, 2017 7:47 am

There has been an ongoing theme referred to as “Degrowth” which espouses the downsizing of economies for the common good (there’s that commie phrase again). This is nothing more than a rehash of Paul Ehrlich’s and the Club of Rome’s commissioned book, “Limits to Growth” ideas rehashed. The whole rotten scheme is the brainchild of the likes of Maurice Strong and his fellow masterminds. I came to the topic of C8 (shorthand for Cash Cow Caucasian Caused Catastrophic Carbon Climate Change) completely unbiased in a quest to find the truth. It didn’t take me long to smell the rats and put the pieces of the puzzle together. That ferret faced little weasel and his flying monkey Gina McCarthy, who headed the EPA, pushed to dismantle the economy, supposedly to halt C8, should have clued in everyone that there was more going on that simple global warming. Now, if I could see all of this, then why didn’t the “scientists” and other erudite folk. No, I thing Dr. Ball has a valid gripe. I’m not inclined to be sympathetic to the “me too types.” Remember when the Allies liberated the concentration camps and the locals couldn’t say it fast enough, “we didn’t know”. “Me too, I’m innocent of these atrocities.” No, too much has happened to be in a forgiving mood, I’m afraid.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
October 16, 2017 12:44 pm

Now I am being equated with being genocidal? Who knew? To give you a flavour of my weak-kneed activism here is an email I sent in response to an article he forwarded from a magazine which unfortunately has far greater readership than WUWT. Note how it keeps to the science:

Hi Barry – long article. I get the sense from it that it is saying that we should trust the experts and to not do so would make you a conspiracy theorist or a flat earther. I have a long standing conflict with authority, going back even further than Harry J., back to when I was a graduate student and rubbed shoulders with experts who were usually more concerned about getting and maintaining their grant money rather than doing good science. On any topic I like to lift the covers and see what is actually going on. Factual information is the touchstone, however many scientists adjust reality to suit politics, not politics to suit reality. Being sure of your facts is difficult and requires time, maybe years, look for consistency, data that repeats and is supported by other independent data. A case in point is the ‘hiatus’, a time from 1997 to 2015 (18 years) over which the global temperature remained relatively constant. The evidence came from satellite observations (UAH and RSS) that were consistent and agreed with radiosondes (weather balloons). The end of the hiatus was the recent 2016-2017 el Nino and the hiatus may continue following the plunge in temperatures that may signal the start of la Nina. This hiatus has been recognized for some years by the ’skeptics’ and only this year has been grudgingly recognized by the in crowd. Note how often you have heard of the hiatus in the media. The hiatus is not correlated with a rise in atmospheric CO2 and indicates that CO2 cannot be the only climate driver.
Another case is the ‘solution’ the solar panels and wind turbines that will make electricity nearly free. In the news have you seen the destruction that the recent hurricanes have done to wind turbines and fields of solar panels. Why is this not being publicized? Have you heard about the experiments of South Australia where the dynamiting of coal plants and building of windmills has rocketed the price of electricity to $0.42 / kWh? Or Germany which is building thousands of solar farms and windmills that on some days produce too much energy and it depresses prices so much other countries are paid money to take the extra electricity, and on other days, several in a row, the wind and solar only produce a fraction of the load. Where the price for the consumer is over Euro 0.30 / kWh? The papers trumpet how prices for solar and wind are falling but with low capacity factors that require coal and gas backup, a cost of duplication that is not added in. Wind and solar are heavily subsidized so it is difficult to know the true cost of the energy. In some states, solar is bought at prices significantly higher than retail ($0.18/kWh) and the solar gets grid priority so that cheaper forms of energy (coal, gas, nuclear) are curtailed. These backup plants are losing money and some are closing to the cheers of environmentalists. It is getting difficult to get the investment for new power plants. There will be problems when the wind ceases to blow and the sun don’t shine.

Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
October 16, 2017 5:45 pm

To Robert McCarter: When tyranny abounds it is often by incremental steps that it arises such that we each become accomplices in our own way. Those “scientists” who knew or should have known that C8 was being pressed by the degrowthers and “Watermelons” (Green on the . . . ) should have spoken out about the data manipulation or “data adjustments” used to shore up the false narrative. Those who said nothing in order to obtain or protect their grant money or status are complicit in aiding governments to justify the huge transfer of wealth and the degradation of life that would inevitable follow, then how are they any less culpable than those that openly wish us harm? (the Degrowthers, or the Watermelons) Yes, the perniciousness is insidious to be sure, but evil nevertheless. You either accept the government lies or you resist it in every way and at every turn. The choice is always yours. I’m so weary of the C8 malarky and those that push it for their ulterior motives. I suppose it is never too late to realize all of this and to speak out against C8. Dr. Ball has been on the leading edge for too long and is perhaps suffering from battle fatigue. If he’s not in a mood to be accepting, he has his reason.

Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
October 16, 2017 11:15 pm

Minted on the edge of all 3rd Reich silver Reichsmark coins is the phrase “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz”, which roughly translates as “The community comes before the individual”. This phrase typifies Nazi society and explains why in Nazi society any concept of individual human rights was at odds with the good of the collective. In other words, Nazism IS socialism and vice versa.

Reply to  Peter Morris
October 16, 2017 7:24 am

Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 16, 2017 7:39 am

I will use that in my ever revolving .sig

Reply to  ferdberple
October 16, 2017 7:50 am

+ 10 I think I am going to borrow that line myself.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 16, 2017 12:18 pm

Well-put Ferdberple.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 16, 2017 1:29 pm

Using that for a signature line. Forgive me, but attributing it to ferdberple doesn’t seem right, but the best I can do.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 16, 2017 2:25 pm

I stopped wearing a lab coat at work. What was normal and even cool in the halls of my alma mater became a source of digs and nicknames like “professor” in the working world.
I am in the private sector now, so I adopted the workers shop coat like the other guys in the plant. I fit in better now and don’t come off like the elite upper management ( even though I am ).

Peter Wilson
Reply to  ferdberple
October 16, 2017 4:58 pm

I hope you don’t have copyright on that phrase, I won’t be able to resist using it in future

Reply to  Peter Morris
October 16, 2017 7:42 am

“Socialism is not a viable political philosophy that sits as an equal amongst other viable political philosophies.”

A matter of opinion

“It is a cancer that destroys and devours lives, communities, nations and cultures.”

a matter of extreme opinion, to which there are as many examples of successful societies as disfunctional ones to adduce as evidence.

“The catastrophic warming religion is a glue that is being used to stitch together the disparate remnants of the shattered Comintern, including those that had gone dormant in the West.2

I’m sorry, but that is sheer fantasy and nonsense.

climate science has nothing to do with socialism or the left: the extreme left is not the least interested in climate change or even renewables.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 8:04 am

No, but the left is very interested in using the AGW scare to promote their own policies of failure. Any issue that can be used to divide and confuse ordinary citizens is co-opted by the left to increase its power to interfere with our freedom.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 8:10 am

Griff, you’re about as clueless as ever, even if some of your comments are humorous.
“climate science has nothing to do with socialism or the left”. It has everything to do with socialism and the left. CAGW is the cause de jour being used to promote socialist philosophies. Haven’t you seen the protests and the banners of the world socialist movement and their affiliates? Haven’t you heard the politicians using CAGW as bludgeon to promote socialist worldview? Some have been quite blatant.
“…the extreme left is not the least interested in climate change or even renewables.” For once, you’re right. The extreme left is all about ends justifying means. They’ll use and corrupt any idea if they believe it’ll further their cause.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 8:20 am

“climate science has nothing to do with socialism or the left: the extreme left is not the least interested in climate change or even renewables.”

In a sense, I agree with you, Griff. The notion of a climate change crisis has been fueled by socialists, but they really could not care less about climate change science or renewables. In fact, I have come to believe that socialists have been promoting wind and solar because they know that they will not work! From the very beginning, the scare has been about socialists gaining more power and control. The agreements that have been constructed do nothing for the climate, but are simply transfer-of-wealth schemse that are completely socialist in nature.

Socialism is not viable. It is like a plate spinning atop a long stick. As long as there is some capitalism to keep the plate spinning, it may stay up there for a while. Inevitably, the socialism will hamstring the capitalism, and the plate will surely wobble and crash. Europe has developed a horrible wobble. The US is not far behind. There is no way you can produce a list of ‘successful’ socialist nations equal to the number of socialist countries that have collapsed or are currently in stages of collapse.

Old England
Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 8:25 am

@ SMC.
Griff is a warmest propagandist , Full Stop.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 8:51 am


>climate science has nothing to do with socialism or the left: the extreme left is not the least interested in
>climate change or even renewables.

LOL! Hilarious! There are none more blind than those that refuse to see.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 8:53 am

Griff: You seem to confuse opinion and fact.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 9:40 am

“…there are as many examples of successful societies as disfunctional (sic) ones to adduce as evidence.”

Successful? Compared to what?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 9:48 am


Thank you for making it abundantly clear just what your belief system is. Your future comments will be evaluated in the context of your personal bias confirmation.

I may have missed it, but did you ever apologize to Susan Crockford?

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 9:56 am

Socialism has been tried in one form or the other in over a hundred countries – and failed in all. It is authoritarian and destroys lives and livelihoods. We have over a century of evidence for that. Read up on what’s going on in Venezuela for the outcome of the latest socialist disaster.

Socialists will always tell you there is nothing wrong with the “recipe” per se. just with how the other guys got the cooking wrong. That’s a dangerous example of delusion at work – repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different outcomes..

Socialism’s premises are fatally flawed – it’s a so called “messianic” political philosophy meaning it purports to contain all the relevant answers and therefore is immune to criticism. In practical terms this means it has no feedback loops and doesn’t learn from its mistakes.

Capitalism on the other hand is successful wherever it’s introduced because it does have market based feedback mechanisms and over time is self correcting on an ongoing basis. When you get it wrong in the market lose a ton of money you want to make sure you understand why, so you don’t lose another load full repeating the same mistake – have a look at Adam Smith and his example of the “selfish butcher” for a really good introduction.

The “messianic” vs. “market differences carry right over into the CAGW debacle.

Mike F
Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 10:07 am

I disagree whole-heartedly. How many millions of people were killed as a direct result of socialism under NAZI Germany and the USSR?

Nigel S
Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 10:20 am

We’ve got the one guy in the whole world who knows how to make socialism work and he won’t tell us! Perhaps Griff is busy advising Maduro.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 10:22 am

OK Griff, name one successful socialist country…

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 10:30 am

Griff October 16, 2017 at 7:42 am

I’m sorry, but that is sheer fantasy and nonsense.

climate science has nothing to do with socialism or the left: the extreme left is not the least interested in climate change or even renewables.

AMAZING, …. utterly amazing.

Poor pathetic Griffy a pretending that he doesn’t have a clue why he has been “posting” ……. socialism and renewable energy “supportive” commentary hereon WUWT.

For, …. “not being the least interested” ……. he sure has been doing a lot “readin n’ writin”. Or is he really a she?

tom s
Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 10:58 am

You disgust me.

chris moffatt
Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 11:01 am

Good grief; for once I agree with Griff on something. The kneejerk comments about “socialism” sometimes appearing in these pages are so outlandishly without foundation that they are pointless to read. One need look no further than western Europe to find successful examples of hybrid socialistic-capitalistic societies. Perhaps if an effort were made to distinguish Socialism from Bolshevik-Leninist-Trotskyist-Stalinism?

Ryan S.
Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 11:37 am

Socialism just hasn’t worked in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, North Korea, Bolivia, Venezuela, Russia, Albania, Bulgaria, or Cuba. But it will work next time right Griff?

Nigel S
Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 11:46 am

I think I’ve finally worked out the mystery. ‘Griff’ (aka Ed) is Ed Miliband. Defending his own insane Climate Change Act and his father’s politics.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 11:58 am

“Socialism just hasn’t worked in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, North Korea, Bolivia, Venezuela, Russia, Albania, Bulgaria, or Cuba. ”

But many in the US say that much of Western Europe esp. Scandinavia are socialist. Those countries seem to be doing fine. So maybe when you get on the socialist bandwagon here, you might not confuse communist dictatorships with socialist democracies.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 12:17 pm


Name one, just one, country which identifies itself as socialist (ie The Democratic Socialist Peoples Republic of XXX… or any combination of the aforementioned in its formal style) and is a long-term economic success, facilitating a decent and improving standard of living for all its citizens.

Even “soft-socialism” of the Western European variety is a cancer. Can you see the looming financial disaster that is the Nanny State and “benefits” across Western Europe? If you cannot, just hang around for another ten to fifteen years and watch the unfunded liabilities of these soft-socialist systems come home to roost and to ruin.

I am not suggesting a civilised society should not provide a decent catch-net for those (and it could be me, or my neighbour, or anyone) who fall on hard times. Nor do I suggest top quality medical care should not be free at point of need for everyone in a civilised society.

All I am suggesting is that “the State” has consistently proven to be the worst possible arbiter of where and how to spend money, and where and how to “manage” economic resources. It has no business “providing” services – it may tax, it may set out the broad-brushstrokes of policy, but thereafter it must leave administration of policy in private hands ie up to the market.

But the latter is another debate for another day. Just name one Democratic Socialist Peoples Republic of XXX that is a huge and lasting success.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 12:22 pm


Joel Snider
Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 12:22 pm

‘I’m sorry, but that is sheer fantasy and nonsense.’

You’d think that one who lives in a virtual world of sheer fantasy and nonsense, would be able to see it.
In practice, it seems to actually be a blinding influence.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 12:25 pm

Give examples of successful non-democratic socialist societies Griff, there aren’t any. And the democratic-Socialist ones are gradually going broke; only their embrace of Capitalism is staving it off, temporarily.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 12:35 pm

hollybirtwistle, technically (from a pure legal standpoint) Norway fits your request, due to the fact that it is actually a “kingdom” ruled by a monarch. Any country with a “king” is non-democratic.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 12:59 pm

Griff, you certainly don’t have a very good, if any, historical education. Strongly suggest you take the time to read in this order, “Reflections of a Ravaged Century” by Robert Conquest and “Dragons of Expectations: Reality and Delusions in the Course of History” also by Conquest. As others have commented their is nothing good to be found in socialism or in any of its various forms.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 1:23 pm

don’t feed the troll.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 1:31 pm

But oeman50, Griff is a nice troll. Clueless…occasionally humorous, but a nice troll.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 2:14 pm

Griff Troll
Some here say we should not feed you ,just ignore you .You actually do nothing for your side of the argument and will never come up with any facts to back your silly notions . The mod allows you and we have to counter your simplistic ideas . The left in New Zealand push CAGW constantly and that we have to cut our emissions while they have never worked out that drastic cuts would make the whole country poorer .They are constantly bleating about children in poverty even with very good social handouts ..Unemployment benefits, accommodation ,emergency payments ( when they have spent all their money ). I know there are some people up against it but slowing economic activity will only push more into the mire .The left in New Zealand want to tax everything that moves plus water CO2 and Methane from farmed animals .

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 2:28 pm

nor is it science. Just so you know. Its a government make work project. Socialist in its essence. They all work for, or are funded by taxpayers in some way.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 3:00 pm

C Paul,

“Any country with a King is non-democratic …”

… Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark (queen) …

So, it appears your understanding of democratic is as mistaken as your understanding of socialist.

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 3:14 pm

You’d best take a 2nd look there Mr. DonM.

If the King/Queen grants legislative powers to any kind of assemblage, they can also revoke said grant. Do you, or do you not realize they have veto powers?

Reply to  Griff
October 16, 2017 5:02 pm

Hi Griff
of course you are riiiight eh babe – even Mickey knows
comment image?w=640

Reply to  Griff
October 17, 2017 4:27 am

tom s October 16, 2017 at 10:58 am

You disgust me.

Well now, Tom, it is not clear who your above remark was directed at, ….. but the fact is, ….. learning the “truth” oftentimes “hurts” both the teller of the untruth and the believer of the untruth ….. and it usually always disgusts those persons who are adamant friends and/or supporters of the aforenoted “teller of untruths and/or outright lies”.

Reply to  Griff
October 17, 2017 4:09 pm

I give you a bit more credit for your views on climate change, disagree with them though I do. But the efficacy of socialism is a matter of opinion? In what galaxy? To begin, what exists in Europe are mixed economies, not pure socialism, which is the end game for progressives.

In fact, if you look at the tax bite, America is as “socialistic” as France. The free market is dead. But forget that. What is pure socialism, or as Marx would have it, “scientific socialism?” It’s the Gulag.

You need to do some reading, in history, and maybe economics. And for you not to have gotten, after all this time, the rather ineluctable connection between the left and CAGW is bizarre. Heck, it isn’t even a secret anymore (cf. Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything) and various other statements, some of them from the UN.

Reply to  Griff
October 17, 2017 8:55 pm

“it purports to contain all the relevant answers and therefore is immune to criticism. In practical terms this means it has no feedback loops and doesn’t learn from its mistakes. ”
This was in regard to socialism, but it could as easily be a reference to CAWG.

Reply to  Peter Morris
October 16, 2017 7:52 am

WRT socialism: Since there were 300+ comments already in the thread when I posted this, it probably didn’t get much attention. I believe it warrants some.

Reply to  Dav09
October 16, 2017 9:24 am

You are right, Dav09. Mises wrote his article on why an economy based on socialism will always fail, almost 100 years ago (1920), and has been shown to have been correct time and time again, yet is continually ignored by politicians who want votes and populations that want ‘free’ stuff.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Dav09
October 17, 2017 4:59 am

I noticed it too. I have both the German and English versions. Perhaps v. Mises isn’t an easy read for the young twitterati due to their reduced attention span as some of his involved sentences have to be read twice even by me.

Jerry Howard
Reply to  Peter Morris
October 16, 2017 9:47 am

“Socialism is not a viable political philosophy that sits as an equal amongst other viable political philosophies. It is a cancer that destroys and devours lives, communities, nations and cultures. The catastrophic warming religion is a glue that is being used to stitch together the disparate remnants of the shattered Comintern, including those that had gone dormant in the West.”

Well said, sir! This is the “take-away” quote of the day. I will respectfully plagiarize your article in future conservations with the few “warmist” friends I have not already lost.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Peter Morris
October 16, 2017 10:14 am

Peter Apology is a very Canadian thing and I did not mean it as a fault in my understanding. I build ideas slowly and having commentators say that the red menace lies behind it doesn’t make it so. I listen to authority but I believe in observation. I can spend a lot of time in suspended belief. I also try to inject a little levity, an article is more likely to be read with a little humour. If that is not to your taste and the issue seems too serious for humour realize that even when the Titanic was sinking the orchestra was playing in an attempt to lighten the mood.

Reply to  Robert McCarter
October 16, 2017 12:41 pm

If you truly understand this issue, you would be apologizing for being so late to see the light, and taking your lumps from Dr. Ball and other Warriors. Instead you are trying to defend yourself. I don’t know what your motivations are to “change sides”, i guess time will tell. In the mean-time put your Big-Boy pants on. You are lacking in humility and come across as shallow.

Writing Observer
Reply to  Robert McCarter
October 16, 2017 6:28 pm

Multiple choice test, pick one:

A) Coward – afraid to upset those currently in power.
B) Self-centered – not caring what happens to all of those “others” who pay the price.
C) Stupid – unable to see what is apparent with even a cursory glance at the issue.
D) All of the above.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Robert McCarter
October 16, 2017 8:17 pm

Holly: Sides? I don’t take sides – what are you thinking? Warriors? – what are you thinking? Big-boy pants? Now I know what you are thinking! – meet you at the shallow end.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Robert McCarter
October 16, 2017 8:18 pm

Writing O: Did you even read the articles?

Aaron Watters
Reply to  Peter Morris
October 16, 2017 10:24 am

Could you be more specific about what you mean by socialism, the “cancer”?
It seems you don’t mean the kind of mixed economy with significant social safety nets
and government assistance for social needs such as you see in Scandinavian countries like
Sweden. Almost without exception all the Scandinavians I have talked with like this approach.
It’s really nice to live in a country where children don’t go hungry because of an accident of birth.
And no child should die because her parents are afraid they won’t be able to pay the doctors.

Reply to  Aaron Watters
October 16, 2017 11:02 am

Must be really nice to live there for lazybones and nitwits who are unable or – more often – unwilling to look after themselves. It’s well-known how prone to alcoholism the Scandinavians are, a phenomenon exposing workshy and irresponsive characters like almost nothing else. It is morally wrong to feed such people and their offspring, it is like breeding vermin wilfully. So-called “social justice” is the greatest INjustice of all, because it gives the unfit the same privileges and rights as the industrious, and doing so, dampens or even removes the only incentive there is to live a decent life and earn your own bread: Because you know you are not worth surviving if you don’t. Socialism’s greatest triumph, and mankind’s greatest disaster, was the invention of “human rights” applicable to everybody regardless of individual merit. There would be millions if not billions less criminals, beggars, and other degenerates on the face of the earth if those who prefer to rely on others rather than pull through on their own would be left to die, as is their natural fate, rather than being pampered and kept alive artificially. Christianity is already fatal enough in this respect, in its perverted perception of poverty, illness, and death as being preferable over strength, health, wealth, and enjoying life, but as a religion, it firmly puts “helping the unworthy” into the individual moral sphere and leaves the decision to do so or not to the individual. Socialism however has turned the perverse “moral imperative” into a LEGAL one with obligatory social security, naturally getting more and more costly since those profiting from it have even been given political influence and the right to vote. Votes of those that live off the state (that is, off others’ work) should be counted NEGATIVE, and votes of those who finance the state should be multiplied in relation to their tax returns.

Only people with no pride and no shame can enjoy being entitled to live on money that has been legally robbed those who have actually earned it. In a just world, none of them would live long (as indeed it was the case in the glorious days of the 18th and 19th century that laid the foundations for everything we thrive upon today, before Socialism started to throttle progress….)

tom s
Reply to  Aaron Watters
October 16, 2017 11:05 am

So are we refusing care for children in the USA that can’t afford it? No we are not.

Writing Observer
Reply to  Aaron Watters
October 16, 2017 6:34 pm

@tom s – Neither are we letting children go hungry because of an accident of birth. Now, many do go hungry thanks to their birth – because their “parents” are either buying their own food – to hell with the kids – or selling the food for their entertainment (mostly drugs), and we don’t take those kids away from them.

BTW, this happens a lot in “socialist” countries, too – it just is not reported.

Aaron Watters
Reply to  Aaron Watters
October 16, 2017 7:54 pm

Some quick searches find these quotes:

“In this US-based analysis, uninsured and Medicaid-insured patients, and those from ethnic minorities, had substantially increased risks of presenting with advanced-stage cancers at diagnosis. Although many factors other than insurance status also affect the quality of care received, adequate insurance is a crucial factor for receiving appropriate cancer screening and timely access to medical care.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18282806 and many more similar studies.

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Carol

“Man,” said the Ghost, “if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust.” further down the page https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Carol

I’m saddened to read such lack of empathy above.

old construction worker
Reply to  Aaron Watters
October 16, 2017 11:50 pm

When more people relay on government funds than people who do not, the government falls apart.
Right now, under our tax codes (local, state and federal) 60% of the cost of goods and services goes to pay taxes. If everybody worked for Micky D’s, Micky D’s would go broke. It’s that simple.

Shaun Zemke
Reply to  Aaron Watters
October 17, 2017 1:38 am

Firstly, Bob Cratchett was a hard worker, not a lay-about, so quoting Industry-lamenting Dickensian tropes is not applicable.
Secondly, Christianity disparaged over helping the poor is just pure straw man misapprehension. Biblically, christians are instructed to help true widows and orphans, not welfare queens or 30-something garage band burnouts. Multiple proverbs and parables site the imperative to work to eat, to earn, to support your family, to be wise with your money, not to throw money at the bone-idle. Christianity has, as has western society at large, been corrupted by Marxism and the SJW utilitarianism. “Hand-up, not a hand-out” are now trigger words or white supremacist, according to your average college professor in the social “sciences.”
Thirdly, the populations of all Scandinavian countries are a drop in the global bucket, and, almost to a country, they’re currently spending formerly free-market obtained capital on their hand-out schemes like an elderly widow with no plans or investment on what to do when the credit runs dry. They spend nothing on defense and only recently have begrudgingly been forced, through foolhardy immigration without assimilation practices, to spend money on police and security. Like a previous poster mentioned, these Scandinavian utopiae will collapse overnight in the next decade of all current shirt-sighted trends continue.
And, the UK and US aren’t far behind them if we keep electing/worshipping blind marxists. Especially if we keep swallowing the CAGW pseudo-science step-child of Marx and Engels.

Aaron Watters
Reply to  Aaron Watters
October 17, 2017 6:31 am

Most rich people didn’t earn their wealth. They inherited it. In many cases you can trace the wealth back to some pretty horrible situations for the workers who created the wealth. Selfish arguments about “stealing wealth” can backfire, because although his solutions don’t work, Marx was right about many of the problems.

Read this to find out how easy and fun it is to be poor in the USA: https://www.amazon.com/Fist-Stick-Knife-Gun-Personal/dp/080704461X#reader_080704461X

James Francisco
Reply to  Peter Morris
October 16, 2017 12:37 pm

Peter Morris. What a great reply. I’m struggling with this topic of accepting converts.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  James Francisco
October 16, 2017 8:20 pm

So this means that you are content with the 0.001 % of the population that are aware this blog even exists?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Peter Morris
October 16, 2017 3:18 pm

Your thesis concerning socialism was lost on me in the original post, especially as you lumped it in with politics.

The problem with socialism isn’t the desire that those who have to give, give to those in need.
Keep the giving voluntary. Keep the needing honest.
The problem is when a political system changes the giving to taking.

Reply to  Peter Morris
October 16, 2017 6:18 pm

“Your thesis concerning socialism was lost on me in the original post, especially as you lumped it in with politics.”

I lost interest because Mr. McCarter is a pretty poor writer, as evidenced by “could care less”.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 16, 2017 8:22 pm

‘Pretty poor’ is so cliche

Martin Mason
October 16, 2017 6:45 am

Good post Robert

October 16, 2017 6:45 am

Mr. McCarter show your friends that 75 out of 77, which is where the 97% comes from. I bet that they will be shocked.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Bobby Davis
October 16, 2017 10:16 am

Done and done.

October 16, 2017 6:48 am

“However I am not sure you should be defecating on the latter day converts”

Good point Robert. Skeptics need to welcome people to come out of the closet, not shame them, even if they have ‘wronged’.

Reply to  Duncan
October 16, 2017 7:04 am

No one should be shamed.
The way to win hearts is by showing the truth.

Reply to  Duncan
October 16, 2017 8:03 am

This ^^^

Alienating new “converts” will not strengthen the cause to shift the intellectual sphere towards the truth (so long as they truly are converted, hard to do). And not everyone (hardly anyone) understands the depth of complexity involved with climate science like Dr. Ball et al (many other scientists like him).

(The “warmunists” obviously need and want the goalpost-shifting cause itself more than a deeper understanding of their science).

Not everyone sees evidence presented in the same way, and everyone has human biases and media understanding to overcome first … before a viewpoint can even begin to be shifted.

Even in the face of such evidence that is more correct, but contrary to their viewpoint.

Reply to  Duncan
October 16, 2017 10:05 am

Well, my old grannie used to say, “You ‘ll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”
Conversely it seems to be the same darned flies who are always drifting astray. So, yeah, we can get them back, but how do we keep them from upsetting the cart yet again?

Reply to  Duncan
October 16, 2017 12:29 pm

I agree Duncan.
Yes, I at times will over react, but once the blood has cooled a bit, a more normal conversation will resume.
Some, never seem to get back to anything like ‘normal’.
This applies to Griff – who I think gets an overly hostile reaction.
Deserved? Possibly, but the comments seem to attack him, more than his message.
Mr McCarter may be in the same boat.
But to not see Dr Balls anger and anguish in his rather ‘warm’ comments, also doesn’t allow for us less affected, to see and feel the deep hurt that his laudable position on the matter, has had on him.
I have listen and read Dr Ball’s comments for a long time, but yesterday I reached a higher appreciation of where he ‘lives’ in this sad situation.
So, I actually thank both Mr McCarter AND Dr Ball, for their mutual commentaries which have affored ME a better understanding.

David Hood
(not a faceless pseudonym )

October 16, 2017 6:51 am

“Gentlemen,” Ben Franklin quipped (perhaps apocryphally) “we must all hang together, or we will most assuredly all hang separately.”

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Thomas Gillespie
October 16, 2017 10:22 am

Arbitrarily hanging together just creates another artificial consensus. If we are to remain scientific it will be the observations that bring us together. When the observations are equivocal then scientists are as difficult to herd as cats.

Steve Case
October 16, 2017 7:01 am

Good post – Now is the best time for people who have kept their mouths shut about climate dogma to pipe up.

“I have about as much influence as I have flatulence but I am still passing gas.”

First chuckle of the day.

Don Perry
Reply to  Steve Case
October 16, 2017 5:41 pm

At my age, I must have one hell of a lot on influence.

October 16, 2017 7:06 am

In 2001, the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) the political body governing the “science” of AGW as it was then known, issued their agreement with our position: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” This is buried in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), Section page 774. Can’t deny that! We call this the prime principle of climate science, and affirm it except for one reservation, and that is the solar activity of the sun with its cyclical patterns. We are climate affirmers based on the IPCC’s principle just quoted.

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology. “~ Ayn Rand

IPCC’s uncontested absurdity is to attempt to prove, what they have admitted cannot be proved.
The absurdity of Robert’s position is to claim he is an educator and did not recognize the obvious con game involved. This has been about politics from the very beginning, and Robert has been an enabler, and his apology still smells of the same behavior.

We are not climatologists, or the like, but we have been fighting what wind farms are doing to eagles and other wildlife since this scheme was foisted on the public. We are still losing business opportunities because of our position, but we will stay the course, because we are educators who understand the difference between science and Scientology.

Raptor Education Foundation

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Peter Reshetniak
October 16, 2017 10:26 am

Sir you credit me with too much perspicacity.

Reply to  Robert McCarter
October 17, 2017 4:24 am

I believe I credited you with not enough for far too long, but better late than never. And, putting yourself in front of this fire storm has merit on its own.

Reply to  Peter Reshetniak
October 16, 2017 1:25 pm

The belief that everyone should immediately know renewables and CAGW are false presumes everyone has equal ability to understand, had the same exposure to information and so forth. That is not a rational claim—people are NOT all equal. Never were, never will be. Anger because someone wasn’t as quick to understand is irrational also. I’m sure someone understood quicker than you. If you’re angry at the hits you took, stop talking. If you do not want to be a target, stop.

Reply to  Peter Reshetniak
October 16, 2017 3:20 pm

Well said Peter R

October 16, 2017 7:10 am

“True believers” infest both sides of the climate debate. That in turn turns off the persuadable.

Only True Believers concern themselves with the motives or prior beliefs of people who are otherwise sympathetic to the cause, whatever the cause is .. or try to establish and police some sort of weird True Believer pecking order, like Nazi’s assigning themselve party ID numbers to show who was a real Nazi first … ditto with communists, and any other “ists” in the world of True Believerism.

Frankly, Ball is an idiot and a True Believer

Skepticism does not require a litmus test of True Believerism.

If you want to persuade anyone, you have to drop the True Believerism. Our skepticism of CAGW is not a matter of faith or politics, the two usual forms of True Believerism. It is a matter of science, and using one’s brain.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Duane
October 16, 2017 7:46 am

Frankly sir, you are the idiot.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 16, 2017 10:06 am

No- that would be you if you think that Ball’s reproach was anything but idiotic.

Nobody who is persuadable is the least bit impressed by his madness.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 16, 2017 12:49 pm

Chatham Daily News, Oct.11, 2017

‘Council of Canadians says wind developer poised to sue’

Re: “The Statement of Claims”

Using the courts to apply pressure?


Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 19, 2017 11:59 am

Wellington Times, Oct.6, 2017


‘Ontario Gothic’

Re: Lawsuit against a person.

Scroll down to: “Four years ago …”


Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 19, 2017 2:34 pm

Desmog, Canada, Feb.6, 2015

‘Climate Scientists Andrew Weaver Wins $50,000 in Defamation Suit Against National Post, Terence Corcoran’


Article includes PDF attachment.

Reply to  Duane
October 16, 2017 8:58 am

“How win friends”, right? Call them idiots. That ought to popular.

Reply to  Sheri
October 16, 2017 9:50 am

Worked for Hillary, didn’t it?

Reply to  Sheri
October 16, 2017 10:04 am

When a guy makes the attack that Ball did, the shoe and the term exactly fits.

Stop it with the True Believerism. Two wrongs do not make a right, and counterbalancing idiots do not result in a useful exchange of information and opinion.

Reply to  Sheri
October 16, 2017 1:14 pm

Duane: It may be the proper term, but it will not win friends. If the goal is to alienate as many people as possible because you’re RIGHT and they are not, then the warmists have that down pat. Intimidation and insults are their mainstay. Yeah, it works on some, but it’s an emotional appeal, not evidentiary. If you’re going for the emotional gut punch, you got it. But winning allies and friends, not so much.

Reply to  Duane
October 16, 2017 9:52 am

From its very inception, this controversy has NEVER been a matter of science. I can scarcely imagine anything more painfully obvious.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Duane
October 16, 2017 10:29 am

Duane Dr. Ball is not an idiot but he may be such a True Believer that he thinks others should join his cause with the same level of zeal. I have a friend who is a true believer in golf and he is trying to impose that same level of devotion on me.

paul courtney
Reply to  Duane
October 16, 2017 12:55 pm

Duane: Tim Ball has been put through ringers you can only imagine, and even McCarter recognizes that. McCarter has graciously responded and commented here instead of hiding or whining, and while I agree with some of Ball’s comments, he should at least acknowledge McCarter’s response, his courage for taking flak, and recognize that, going forward in democratic republics like CA and USA. new converts are as valuable as the old guard. It’s ironic that you criticize Ball while doing exactly what you say he does wrong. And you don’t see it.

Don Perry
Reply to  Duane
October 16, 2017 5:50 pm

“Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.”

Reply to  Don Perry
October 18, 2017 11:42 am

Then you’ll be a mile away and you’ll have his shoes.

October 16, 2017 7:10 am

Mr McCarter, you acknowledge Dr Ball has been dumped on and did not turn away but are suggesting if you get a little dung on yourself you might turn away? Consider it a hazing. You will live.

Reply to  Arild
October 16, 2017 8:59 am

I believe he’s saying that dumping on your allies is not very smart. Apparently, not everyone understands that concept…..

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Arild
October 16, 2017 8:31 pm

I don’t think I have turned away or even alluded to it. However I think that if WUWT eats the next gen climate skeptics it will dwindle away and become a forum for cranks.

October 16, 2017 7:12 am

Robert – a good post, thank you.

My post here was not about you, but about all those who now know that global warming alarmism is a false crisis, but are unwilling to speak out

Regards, Allan

Josh C
October 16, 2017 7:13 am

A good and reasoned reply. Thank you for keeping your head.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Josh C
October 16, 2017 10:31 am

Thank you Josh. You understand.

October 16, 2017 7:29 am

Below are both, a transcript and video of interview with Norman Dodd,

Norman Dodd, former staff director of the Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations. Mr. Dodd reveals that the major foundations have been promoting an agenda that has little to do with charity or good works. The objective has been to move the U.S. into acceptance of a world government, based on the principles of socialism, which is to be ruled covertly by those same interests which control the foundations. 45 min.

Transcript: http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm

Video: youtube.com/watch?v=c5eHdTk5hjw

This is all difficult to believe until you accumulate the massive amounts of evidence available, that evidence is out there for the curious to find. But you have to seek it out.

More: “Tragedy and Hope” by Bill Clinton’s acknowledged mentor, Foreign Service
Schools of Georgetown University history professor, Carol Quigley has the
following quote about the Shadow Government and socialism.

“There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international
Anglophile network which operates, to some extent in the way the radical
Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may
identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the
Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the
operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and
was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and
secret records…. [I]n general my chief difference of opinion is that it
wishes to remain unknown….” Carroll Quigley, “Tragedy and Hope: A History
of the World in Our Time” (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1966), pages,

Mike Maguire
October 16, 2017 8:01 am

Well written response. Appreciate the many good points. Together we shall shine a light on the scientific truth.

The scientific truth has been coming out……make that gushing out…… with or without acknowledgement from one side. Speculative models cannot remain un-reconciled to the reality of observations forever and its in the best for all interests to get on board with the realities of authentic empirical data.

Those that take the longest to do so and have been shouting the loudest with the most attention and distortion of the science will suffer the greatest embarrassment.

Al Gore, Michael Mann, John Cook and others will have to face the unkind music eventually for intentionally sabotaging authentic science. One can just imagine what history will say about them.
That’s the thing. There is a long record of their “definitive” type statements that predict extreme scenarios that will either verify or bust badly. This is what they will be judged by. Even now, the early stages of some bad busts are happening in front of us.

John W. Garrett
October 16, 2017 8:04 am

Writing as one whose career and marriage were wrecked by “speaking truth to power” I have a lot of empathy for Dr. Ball.

Nevertheless, I concur with McCarter’s admonition that, in the long run, vindictiveness and triumphalism are counter-productive for both an individual and the effort to reach the long term goal.

Reply to  John W. Garrett
October 16, 2017 8:34 am


…and I sincerely thank you for your efforts, Mr. McCarter and Dr. Ball.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  John W. Garrett
October 16, 2017 10:34 am

Gee don’t remember saying that but I agree.

October 16, 2017 8:35 am

Robert McCarter –

Thanks for posting this. My reaction to Tim Ball’s article was similar .. “Whoa! This is totally unnecessary”.
Tim has been through a lot and I guess we can excuse his rather unnecessary response. I agree with Tim on much, but I could do without that posting. When you’ve a lot of powerful enemies, you should value your friends..
Welcome aboard, we’ll get there.

Reply to  mothcatcher
October 16, 2017 8:58 am


My sentiments exactly/ Well said!

Robert McCarter
Reply to  mothcatcher
October 16, 2017 10:34 am

Well said.

Reply to  mothcatcher
October 16, 2017 1:22 pm

A brave and appreciated effort Robert and Dr Ball.
Dr Ball has been through a lot of grief from the Michael Mann slander .
I hope he will appreciate that his suffering has been part of the reason that people now still get enough information to change their minds and more importantly to speak out.
The opprobrium to be worn should only come from the other side.

David Ball
Reply to  angech
October 16, 2017 9:09 pm

I can assure you that none of you have any idea what Dr.Ball has been through, for 40 years. No idea.

Reply to  angech
October 19, 2017 6:59 am

Sorry to hear it has been so rough. All the best with the final outcome against that unpleasant Michael Mann.

October 16, 2017 8:43 am

More a case of when I become more aware of the facts I change my mind and rightly so, but at the same time with this CAGW/climate change/extreme weather/coral bleaching/ocean acidification/won’t you think of the penguins meme, you become increasingly aware it aint about science but all about virtue signalling just like we’ve seen with Hollywood recently. Well you have to give them all due credit as great actors under the circumstances.

That’s the beauty and simplicity of virtue signalling as it has such universal appeal to vacuous dilettantes and the intellectually lazy because it costs nothing personally to do so. Unfortunately there’s the hoary old problem of the fallacy of composition but I remain ever optimistic the climate change virtue signallers will go the same way as Bollockswood.

October 16, 2017 8:48 am

Agree – let us keep politics out of debates about climate change. The two are mutually irrelevant.

Reply to  AndyE
October 16, 2017 9:01 am

The two are 100% entwined. Inseparable. You can ignore one half of the problem, but it’s there and continues to grow.

Reply to  AndyE
October 16, 2017 10:22 am

It would be less unrealistic to say let us keep science out of debates about climate change. Debating AGW “science” at this point is IMO accomplishing little more than conferring scientific legitimacy on the political corrupters of science.

October 16, 2017 8:53 am

It is interesting that when these ‘Climate Scientists’ are challenged they play the man instead of the ball.

Kaiser Derden
October 16, 2017 8:58 am

sir, you were not a later day convert … you were a coward who remained silent …

Reply to  Kaiser Derden
October 16, 2017 9:02 am

How to win friends—call them cowards for not speaking up sooner. Guess I missed that one in psych class, too. My how things have changed…..

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Kaiser Derden
October 16, 2017 10:37 am

Funny this is the first commentary that I have read from you. Can you give me a list of previous comments or articles written about climate change or …

Don Perry
Reply to  Kaiser Derden
October 16, 2017 5:56 pm

“Never judge a man until you’re waked a mile in his shoes.”

The Reverend Badger
October 16, 2017 9:01 am

OKaaaaaaaaaaay. WUWT is now morphing into Facebook.

Coming soon – Swipe right for Denyr , swipe left for Warmist.

More science please, Anthony, and rather less personal jousting. I am VERY interested in furthering our understanding of the workings of the atmosphere. I have less than 0.04% interest in listening to person arguments about who insulted who when they said this that or the other.

Reply to  The Reverend Badger
October 16, 2017 9:05 am

Agreed. The previous article by Robert McCarter with over 300 comments was a political free-for-all. Indeed reminiscent of Facebook. Civility is difficult, but one would hope it would still be a goal when on a science website.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Sheri
October 16, 2017 10:50 am

October 16, 2017 at 9:05 am: Hear Hear! We all had to travel a long road to understand. The great thing is to get that far….. Name calling oes not belong here.

Reply to  Sheri
October 16, 2017 2:01 pm

Brett: Yes.

Don Perry
Reply to  The Reverend Badger
October 16, 2017 5:59 pm

You may choose not to read this type article nor the commentaries. Don’t like what’s on the radio? Turn it off.

Bob Denby
October 16, 2017 9:10 am

You guys are playing with your food here. What more is needed than this statement (below)? Nothing!

Christiana Figueres executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm?src=AURLDLQ)

This is a political issue — not a scientific one!

Reply to  Bob Denby
October 16, 2017 9:15 am

A true believer will claim it’s Christiana Figueres goal, not the goal of CAGW. They will believe this will all their heart and you won’t change their minds. Just as you believe it is proof of the goal and most likely will never be swayed.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Bob Denby
October 16, 2017 10:51 am


October 16, 2017 9:13 am

I have written on skeptics eating their own. There is sometimes little tolerance for differences of opinion. The “you’re for us or against us” mentality is quite noticeable in some cases. Difference of opinion and different levels of understanding are what move science forward, yet skeptics sometimes seem to forget that and insist their way is the only way, their beliefs are the only correct ones.

Changing people who live by “authority” and “going along with the crowd” is very difficult. I commend Robert for his work. Facts don’t move these people in many cases. However, someone standing up and disagreeing with the speaker can sometimes give people the little push they need to start questioning. It’s a very tough gig. It’s not standard science, it’s humans and their emotions and what they cling to as beliefs. Science alone will not convince these individuals to leave the safety of the group and stand up against CAGW. I wish it would. It would so much easier. Physical science is pretty straighforward, social science is basically a quagmire.

Reply to  Sheri
October 16, 2017 10:18 am

“I have written on skeptics eating their own. There is sometimes little tolerance for differences of opinion. The “you’re for us or against us” mentality is quite noticeable in some cases. Difference of opinion and different levels of understanding are what move science forward, yet skeptics sometimes seem to forget that and insist their way is the only way, their beliefs are the only correct ones. ”

If you were making this comment about Watermelons, I would agree with you. My observation has been this is more of a tendency of the Left rather than the Right in the current political shenanigans. But, it does seem to apply to extremists in general. Are you implying skeptics are extremists?

Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2017 1:16 pm

I’m not implying anything. That would be what you are doing with the question—implying I am somehow equating extremists and skeptics. It’s your idea, not mine.

Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2017 1:37 pm

So your answer is, ‘No’. Is that what you’re saying? If so, it would have been simpler and easier to say, ‘No’. Or are you just trying to obfuscate?

Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2017 2:00 pm

SMC: Since you are having trouble understanding my responses, the answer is “no”.

Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2017 2:10 pm

Thanks for the… clarification…

Robert McCarter
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2017 8:38 pm

I would have to say based on several of the rather bizarre comments on this page that some (hopefully few) skeptics are extremists.

David Lallatin
October 16, 2017 9:17 am

As usual, the only thing settled is tenure.

October 16, 2017 9:17 am

jclarke341 @ October 16, 2017 8:20 am:
Socialism is not viable. It is like a plate spinning atop a long stick. . . .

Great analogy. Related: Why Do Half-Measures Work for Markets, But Not for Socialism?

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Dav09
October 17, 2017 5:48 am

Dav09, from your link:

Unlike socialism, market reforms need not be total, complete, or utopian in
order for their benefits to be recognized.

This is why market advocates never need to say “market reforms didn’t work in
Country X because that country never achieved full and true capitalism! If only
all the socialists been liquidated, then true capitalism would have been

Excellent, thanks.

October 16, 2017 9:22 am

There is more than enough evidence to convince anyone that AGW was a ploy to move money from rich nations to poor nations using state control. It never was about climate until that was spotted by non scientists such as Al Gore as a correlation/cause concept that would fit the bill and would fool most of the populace. Now the chickens are coming home to roost as deceit, cunning, and fraud are revealed.

Janice Moore
October 16, 2017 10:31 am

Dear Mr. McCarter,

I read most of your very appropriate (taking as given your report of his words) reply to Mr. Ball. Well done (again). You express yourself with honest yet humble candor in an even, fair-minded, tone.

I did not read Mr. Ball’s recent article, for I no longer read any of his articles. He has done much good for the truth about human CO2, but the stench of his ego, regularly expressed in a sour, angry, sometimes-inaccurate (as with you, apparently), tone so permeates all (or nearly all) he writes that I cannot stand to read him. That he has made it known that he is a Christian makes his uncharitable remarks even more abhorrent to me. He brings shame to the name of Jesus Christ. God can take care of His own honor, no doubt, but, it makes me wince, all the same.

So. I am not surprised to see you writing as you did in response to Mr. Ball (given what I have read of his writing in general). And good for you to call him out on it. That was simply the manly, appropriate, honest, thing to do. You do not owe anyone an apology. Your jokes were well within the bounds of good taste and offensive only to a dysfunctionally fragile ego.

Re: many above comments

I want to assure you that I (and no doubt many of us) can see that you have been misunderstood (and, in some cases, intentionally mischaracterized) in your main article and in this reply article. You made a powerful, accurate, point in your first article: socialism is a driving force behind AGW (along with the greed of the enviroprofiteers). You did not conflate politics with science, the AGWists did that long ago. You merely pointed out the fact.

Try not to let the careless (giving them the benefit of the doubt as to their reading comprehension ability) reading of your original article and this reply article get you down. It happens ALL the time to many of WUWT’s finest commenters. Intelligent, well-informed, fine writers are REGULARLY MISUNDERSTOOD — and arrogantly attacked based on that. Just ignore them. They look like FOOLS to those who understand. And, really, those who understand you are the only critics who matter. The rest are the crackling of thorns under the pot. IGNORE THEM.

To close, just focus on the intelligent, thoughtful, responses of those who understood what you wrote (both times).

That Mr. Ball has not responded to you here raises grave doubts as to his courage and integrity (given, he knows what articles are posted on WUWT). If, when he does respond he does not humbly apologize to you for grossly mischaracterizing you (if, indeed, your report of his words is accurate — I’m assuming this), that will confirm the presence, sadly, of a prideful blackness that swirls around inside him choking what would otherwise be a fine mind and heart.

With admiration for your courage, your intelligence, and your humility,


Robert McCarter
Reply to  Janice Moore
October 16, 2017 10:47 am

Thank you Janice. I seem to have a thick skin. If we are to be successful I think we are going to have to tone down the rhetoric and be more inclusive of those with less well formed knowledge about climate change. I think we should also hear some ideas about how we can act at a local level to persuade the many who do not even know there is a debate about CAGW.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Robert McCarter
October 16, 2017 11:20 am

You’re welcome, Mr. McCarter. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Much appreciated. Glad you have a thick skin!

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Robert McCarter
October 16, 2017 7:49 pm

I think in your reply to Dr. Ball, you show yourself to be a modern-day Erasmus.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Robert McCarter
October 16, 2017 8:42 pm

Had to look it up missed that lecture in my renaissance course. I’ll take it as a compliment – thanks. Ah yes the old ‘via media’ approach. I seem to be falling into both gutters.

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 16, 2017 1:27 pm

Janice – Wasn’t October 16 2017 the date of the Andrew Weaver vs Tim Ball hearing? Maybe Dr Ball has been in court all day and unable to respond yet? I look forward to seeing his reply to Robert McCarter, and I hope that he can become more accommodating in this issue. Nevertheless, I hope that Dr Ball prevails in court, as that is surely in everyone’s interest.
In the meantime, Robert McCarter gives good advice: .. be more inclusive of those with less well formed knowledge about climate change.

Don Perry
Reply to  Janice Moore
October 16, 2017 6:05 pm

“Physician, heal thyself”. “Judge not, lest ye be judged”.

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 16, 2017 8:09 pm


Perhaps people don’t know what has and is taking place in Canada with the use of the legal system to scare people into silence.

And I hope Mr. McCarter doesn’t end being another victim of legal tactics being used against him for speaking out.

October 16, 2017 10:48 am

IMHO, the original essay by Tim Ball should not have been published here at all — it is in violation of basic
WUWT policy — there have been far too many personal attacks in the CliSci field — and launching one more does not improve matters. Dr. Ball may rant all his wishes against political ideas, like socialism or capitalism, but not about persons.

Ball’s attack on McCarter is classic CliSci madness — rabid attacks against someone on the same side of the climate divide because their conversion or conviction is not pure enough or sincere or certain or fanatical enough. How many times have we seen this on the CAGW side — attacking fellow “believers” over some small differences in opinion.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 16, 2017 8:58 pm

Kip you always seem to see over the horizon. Thank you for this comment. One has to appreciate however that Dr. Ball has a mountain of gristle on his plate but I agree the article should have been edited or pulled entirely. I hope that more commentators understand the need to keep our own debates courteous. Without that we will fragment and there are few enough as it is.
OTOH I’m not sure I like to be lumped in with ‘believers’ I prefer ‘skeptic’. Skeptic implies more a mind of my own to follow the evidence I observe. I have observed that there are a lot of commentators too quick to criticize my failings with seemingly limited credentials for themselves,.

Reply to  Robert McCarter
October 17, 2017 9:52 am

Robert ==> Didn’t mean to lump you at all — we don’t have very good vocabulary for defining the bins holding differing opinions on CliSci — I used “believers” in the CAGW-concensus-side of the controversy, as it fit better with my theme of conversion and conviction theme, where attacks are on often on people “on their own side”.

Thanks for posting here, liked your conversion story.

Martin A
Reply to  Kip Hansen
October 17, 2017 9:07 am

KH – Yes.

October 16, 2017 11:00 am

Mr. McCarter, I’m sure you can comprehend Dr. Ball’s bitterness considering all that he has endured and is still enduring for the sin of speaking out for truth. Give him a little leeway, he’s earned it.

Reply to  Art
October 16, 2017 1:19 pm

Being attacked for speaking the truth is not grounds for bitterness. If one does not wish to be attacked, one can stop speaking. Choosing to go on is accepting you will be attacked and vilified.

Reply to  Sheri
October 16, 2017 2:19 pm

“Being attacked for speaking the truth is not grounds for bitterness.”… Huh? Since when?
“If one does not wish to be attacked, one can stop speaking.” … Kind’a Reminds me of Martin Niemöller.
“Choosing to go on is accepting you will be attacked and vilified.”… So are you advocating acquiescence, appeasement?

Reply to  Sheri
October 16, 2017 3:37 pm

1. For always.

2. Has nothing to do with what I said. It is true if you don’t speak out in defense of the truth, you should not be surprised when you are swallowed up by lies and deception. However, pointing out the emporer has no clothes is going to get one vilified. It’s a choice—silence or stand up and be attacked. I am not addressing the correctness of either action.

3. I’m advocating that only those who are secure and confident enough to be vilified daily take on the task of defeating CAGW. I am not advocating for a specific choice. I’m stating that these are the choices out there. If one speaks the truth on CAGW, attacks and vilification are to be expected. That’s called reality.

Reply to  Sheri
October 16, 2017 3:50 pm

1. Bovine Scat.
2. Hmmm… Interesting
3. As long as you subscribe to a natural right of self defense, it’s all good.

Reply to  Sheri
October 16, 2017 4:38 pm

1. Cute, but worthless.

3. Self-defense of what? How far? Who decides?

Reply to  Sheri
October 16, 2017 4:52 pm

1. Then you deny the ‘human condition’.
3 The person being attacked and vilified.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Sheri
October 16, 2017 9:01 pm

I hope that I have not seemed bitter – because i’m not. Curious – yes, amused – yes, involved – hopefully.

Christopher Paino
Reply to  Sheri
October 18, 2017 1:27 pm

“Choosing to go on is accepting you will be attacked and vilified.”

And *that* is what makes great people great.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Art
October 16, 2017 8:59 pm

Art I gave him lots of leeway.

Brett Keane
October 16, 2017 11:03 am

We could of course agree that there are different standpoints shaped by personal/family experience. And leave it at that while we pursue the science……

John West
October 16, 2017 11:06 am

Mr. McCarter,

As an engineer in a small town, I can relate. I saw the problems with CAGW since before there was such a thing as WUWT. I certainly made what impact I could; writing op eds for the local paper, supporting dissenting voices with the appropriate credentials, and the like; but lacking solid credentials in the climate sphere there was only so much I could personally do. Dr. Ball’s ire is certainly justified but unfortunately somewhat misdirected. The blame for this mess rests primarily on the Hansen ilk that abandoned science for ideology blinded advocacy with a cause so pure and noble that no deed, deceit, or crime couldn’t be justified; and secondly on all those climate scientists and meteorologists that remained silent as the flood waters of alarmism rose all around them and the dissenters like Ball, Soon, Spencer, Christie, Curry, and Michaels were being maligned, disparaged, and deplatformed. Yes, I empathize with his anger. I just wish he could see our frustration at not being in a position to be of any more usefulness to him than we were. It reminds me of the Piontman’s post that blamed religious leaders for not seeing through the alarmist BS.


October 16, 2017 11:21 am

Quoting the author – Robert McCarter

I am not a meteorologist or a climate scientist, just a ‘pathetic’ MSc Zoologist and a long time ago at that

Mr. McCarter, me thinks that anyone who claims to have earned a Master of Science Degree in Zoology [aka: a Zoologist] ….. could hardly be considered a “pathetic person” unless the awarded Degree in question was obtained via disingenuous and/or dishonest means.

To wit:

zoologist [noun]; an expert in or student of the behavior, physiology, classification, and distribution of animals.

McCarter, anyone who is actually a “learned expert” in the behavior and distribution of animals ….. sure as hell also has to be learned in ….. the climate of the environment in which said animals live and survive.

So, iffen your are a phony Zoologist, …… then “Yes”, …… you are a pathetic example of a Zoologist.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 16, 2017 3:45 pm

Do I need to scan my diploma?

Reply to  Robert McCarter
October 17, 2017 3:58 am
John West
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 17, 2017 5:04 am

He’s referring to “pathetic” in the area of climatology. No matter how much he knows about the subject a climatologist can dismiss what he says by just saying he’s a zoologist, he can’t possibly understand climate the way we do …

Bill Parsons
October 16, 2017 11:43 am

Both the writer and his subject have this in common: they are both nice people.

Didn’t read the Ball article cited, but many previous. For the most part Dr. Ball does not respond in threads to comments about him or his articles, and I think that is his chief sin. Most people would be grateful for an opportunity to “converse” with him.

I appreciate the fact that WUWT readers and writers post articles, both scientific and rhetorical (animal and mineral…), and it’s especially satisfying to see those with the chops to reply to critics and commenters. It’s pretty clear that Dr. Ball has the knowledge and background to deal with all commenters as well as detractors, and one may suppose, based on the length of his posts, he has the time as well. I’ve often wished, both for the sake of WUWT readers, as well as his own reputation, Dr. Ball would make this effort. In particular, I think the conversation might tend to focus his writing.

A “Modern Major General” is a great modeler of information, but until he stops spewing and shows that he can listen as well, he merely comes across as the modern major diletante.

I know our mythic history, King Arthur’s and Sir Caradoc
I answer hard acrostics, I’ve a pretty taste for paradox
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies
I know the croaking chorus from The Frogs of Aristophanes!

Reply to  Bill Parsons
October 16, 2017 12:24 pm

Reply to  Bill Parsons
October 18, 2017 6:01 pm

Anything Dr. Ball might post on any internet website might be used against him?

Maybe he can’t respond?

October 16, 2017 11:44 am

I’m glad to see this post. I too was underwhelmed by your previous posting in which a mea culpa seemed to be offered as sort of a get out of jail free card. This latest post is much more direct and makes more sense.

Two things…it seems you treat socialism as just another option among many which all have more or less equal standing, this may not be true but it’s my take on your words. It is a *cancer* among civilizations, one which merely shifts it’s form and metasticizes again when challenged and falsified…always at the cost of lives and freedoms. This carbon mania is it’s latest stalking horse…

Second, all it takes to know the warming scare is pseudo science is to ignore the PhD’s and media and look *specifically* and *without exception* at the practices and ‘evidence’ being presented, and compare it to where such practices are used in any other hard science. They are not used nor accepted *anywhere*. Models are used as tools, not *evidence*. Code is openly accessible, as is all data…and *adjustments* to it open and documented. Overall theories have comprehensive single works for top to bottom analysis…Principia, General and Special Relativity, etc. Warmism has *none*…just an aggregation of models you aren’t even allowed to examine the code for, and a lot of hand waving claims…very loudly made. The rest of the ‘evidence’ is correlation = causation claims 100% of the time. Neither a coral reef or a warming Timbuktu is evidence of *human* causation. It’s a continual three plates in the air juggling game. I don’t *need* to be a PhD to see the problems here…all I need to have is an understanding of proper method and observe that it is NOT being followed, it has been replaced by media pressure and lots of noise.

That is not science.

October 16, 2017 12:24 pm

There are many anonymous early doubter of the alarm or recent converts who at their level have done and still do their small part into fighting the beast.
As poet Louis Aragon wrote in 1956
“Tout le monde n’est pas Cezanne/ Not everyone is a Cezanne
Nous nous contenterons de peu/ we’ll have to live with our smaller selves
On rit et on pleure comme on peut/ we laugh and cry as we can
Dans cet univers de tisane”/in this lukewarm universe”
Anyone who has been fighting front line against a bureaucracy can sympathize with Tim Ball’s column and even applaud it in context. Anyone who has been a little cog in the fight, early or late, can sympathize with Robert McCarter and empathize with his awakening and his reaction to the scolding he received.
Besides, we all know the bitterness of the academic world during normal times, so imagine in extraordinary times… Simply put: Ferrel can sleep sound in his grave thanks to so many egos.
But this is still beside the point.
In my humble opinion, the worse is yet to come, for all of us; and if anything, the early victory claims after Climategate should serve as a reminder that the Hydra is yet to be fully defeated.
And for that, we’ll need all our strength.

October 16, 2017 12:28 pm

Might we all agree, the exchange between Dr Ball and Mr McCarter aside, that Dr Ball should be wished the very best of British as he deals with the SLAPP today – I believe it is today he faces the Beaks, and I sincerely hope he gives them a bloody nose of the first order.

Reply to  KO
October 16, 2017 1:23 pm

Dr Ball is facing today the most excoriating of personal events,an examination of motivation, knowledge wisdom and intellect bared to all in a court room under cross examination.
He deserves our thoughts and prayers to survive unscathed.
A lot is at stake, his integrity, his children’s rights to know truth and to be free to discern it, science and the scientific method itself.
Speaking as one with a minimal qualification akin to Robert McCarter, compared to atmospheric physicists,
in the biological sciences, I was at first attracted to the concept that a greenhouse gas would warm the planet.
Only after being dragged along to Al Gore’s first movie by my significant other, did I start reading.
It took the sequential failures of the climate predictions, particularly the test of the null hypotheses via the pause, natural vs anthropogenic, to clinch my position.
It took the pause length to make up my mind finally.
The hot spot failure was just icing on the cake.
Plimer’s book was a walk through geology, an area unknown to me.The paleo argument rings true.
Zoologists and vets learn in statistics about null hypotheses and the singular importance of accurate record taking, precise measurement and clear declarations about the purpose of experiment BEFORE the experiment is done, to keep themselves honest.
So it takes our type of scientists a long time to work things out.
For me, working out that CO2 absorption of IR was swamped by water vapour did not automatically mean that the planet may not warm up, particularly if more water vapour was in the atmosphere, the ultimate heat trapping gas.
When I came in from the cold, no one noticed.
So I was not rejected.
Dr Ball has ‘fought the good fight’.
He has earned my respect.
Even if it were slow coming.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  lewispbuckingham
October 16, 2017 7:35 pm

“Only after being dragged along to Al Gore’s first movie by my significant other, did I start reading.”

I took significant mother… a self-proclaimed alarmist, God love her, who, appropriately, snored through the whole thing.

I take your point about Tim Ball. Whatever this “trial” amounts to, he deserves our wishes that it be over speedily.

Gunga Din
Reply to  KO
October 16, 2017 2:22 pm

Amen to that.

October 16, 2017 2:10 pm

Robert McCarter’s reply to Dr. Ball’s criticism rings hollow. It sounds dis-ingenuous. He has a long list of excuses for being late to understand the issue, and a short list of what he has done to “educate” his friends and colleagues, which makes me skeptical of his true motives. Sounds more like he sees an opportunity to jump off a sinking ship and save himself, hence his reference to the band playing on the sinking Titanic, was trying to “lighten the mood”. No, thats not what they were doing. Too many commenting here are to quick to criticize a long-time, effective and battle-weary Dr. Ball for his assessment of Robert McCarter, and too quick to embrace McCarter.

Reply to  hollybirtwistle
October 16, 2017 2:32 pm

I agree but, lewispbuckingham October 16, 2017 at 1:23 pm also has a point.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  hollybirtwistle
October 16, 2017 9:21 pm

Holly perhaps you did not understand – I have been skeptical of the global warming scare for 20+ years and those are not excuses they are information about how one ‘pathetic’, to use Dr.Bell’s descriptor, person in a community with <1% climate skeptics tries to influence others. I have not jumped from a ship I was never on – this is your invention. Please read more carefully and try some action yourself before you criticize.

Reply to  Robert McCarter
October 17, 2017 10:32 am

person in a community with <1% climate skeptics

Wow, that’s one brainwashed community! I doubt a cult of Scientologists or Moonies has that much consensus.

Gunga Din
October 16, 2017 2:50 pm

What Dr. Ball said about the wolves jumping ship and putting on their sheep’s clothing back on, I’m sure it is and will happen as Ma’ Gaia refuses to cooperate with the CAGW hypothesis and the economic reality of politics and policies based on it begin to hit the “everyman”‘s wallet.
But many are genuinely waking up.
Just as Anthony, Dr.Curry and many others opened their eyes when it was less convenient to do so. (I would include Dr. Ball but I don’t know if he ever accepted what the likes of Hansen said.
I thought it … unfortunate (for lack of a better word) … that he put Robert McCarter as an example of the “wolves” rather than the “waking up”.
Robert McCarter’s reply was very understanding of what Dr Ball has been through.
I give Dr Ball a pass.
Sound’s like Robert McCarter has also? Or is at least willing too?

Angus McFarlane
October 16, 2017 3:41 pm

Good post Robert and I agree that we should not be, “defecating on the latter day converts.”

However, I also empathise and sympathise with Tim. He has been to hell and (hopefully) back. He is a prime example of the “Serengeti Strategy” promulgated by, and practiced by, Michael Mann. I hope that he wins the case.

IMO we should welcome former supporters of the AGW hypothesis – they could be our best weapon in proving that the science is not settled and moving to a more rational consideration of climate change.

Reply to  Angus McFarlane
October 16, 2017 3:53 pm

“IMO we should welcome former supporters of the AGW hypothesis… ”

I agree but, beware the poison pill.

October 16, 2017 3:59 pm

Surely it’s better late than never.

Reply to  Stan
October 16, 2017 4:39 pm

Not to some people, it seems.

October 16, 2017 5:20 pm

“What he doesn’t know is that the three Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPP) I received were not only to silence me but also to have a much wider chilling effect against anyone else who dared to speak out. It was very effective because of the silence of so many who didn’t want to know.” ~Tim Ball

I am so sorry Dr. Ball is going through this.

I also think that we had a very close call in which the treaties in Beijing and Paris nearly shut down the agriculture and transportation and manufacturing of the USA. Think of that, a treaty dictating and destroying our nation. People who do not see that as a problem are now the problem. And the shifting of arguments (replacing CO2 with NO2 in multi-billion dollar settlements) has already begun.

But at the same time, I hope much conversation ensues and Robert McCarter continues to do all he can in his sphere to pull back Canada from legislative destruction. All hands on deck.

Mark McD
October 16, 2017 5:21 pm

First, I thought, a decent reply to the post by Dr Ball. It does resolve from where Robert McCarter was looking.

Second, re Socialism and AGW. I don’t see Socialism as the driver for AGW and I don’t think the people behind it see AGW as anything more than yet another tool in removing rights and responsibilities from the People and focussing them back into a central oligarchy.

And they want it to be world wide.

From the diaspora of Islam into once civilised countries to the demand to hand control over climate to liars and cheats, there seems to me to be a drive to destroy the West.

I think the more controlled countries are seen as easier to assert control over at a future date, or perhaps their tight stranglehold over the People is already in the hands of the ‘elite’? But from the propaganda and campaign to enforce public education in the west to the subsuming of Unions into just another political entity, the direction of freedom seems now to be way back at the crossroads we passed back when The Fed was created and the Americans became ‘owned’ by the central banks.

What we’re seeing is NOT Socialism, that’s just a new dress the ‘owners’ are wearing to achieve their goals. The Georgia Guidestones show us what the plans are and the ever-more-restrictive Acts and Laws removing our freedom and rights are the game plan.

Socialism does work, albeit maybe not in anything that looks like modern USA. Socialism takes a People who see that they contribute to a society that contributes back to them. I think Americans have become too programmed into the ME FIRST culture by movies and rhetoric about freedom.

Think how many disaster movies out of the States have everything devolve into a dog-eat-dog battle for survival – and yet that is NOT how we got started on the path to civilisation. Caral in South America is testament to that – they did NOT form their civilisation out of fear but out of cooperation and trade.

So when Americans look at Socialism they do not see Denmark or Norway, they see Nazi Germany and other fascist states.

And yet the Church of AGW is bringing exactly the same sort of controls to the world as those fascists tried. We are not allowed to speak our minds about climate and political correctness is preventing us from commenting more generally about what is being done to us.

We have thousands or even millions of our people living rough on the streets but the main concern is whether we call someone by the correct invented gender pronoun. We have bills being passed to prevent us protesting what is done to our land and our health but the ones being publicly displayed are about letting people with penises into the Ladies toilets.

AGW is NOT socialism, or at least not actual socialism. It is just another way for the super rich, the 0.01% of the world, to funnel our cash and resources into their hands and to reduce the population to manageable levels.

Energy poverty will reduce our numbers, particularly with the Sun going quiet and the desperate need for food and heating that is coming. Zharkova with the ‘heartbeat of the Sun’ is not the only warning voice out there that solar cycle 25 & SC26 are going to be almost non-existent and while it’s only correlation so far, the last time we saw anything similar, hundreds of thousands died of cold and starvation.

And we have MILLIONS now living where they had thousands!
/rant 😀

Reply to  Mark McD
October 16, 2017 7:39 pm

CAGW is not a driver of Socialism. The science has been corrupted and is being used as tool by Socialists. It’s not being used to focus people on a central oligarchy but on forming a new aristocracy. It’s being used as a tool for globalization. It is being used as a tool to destroy western civilization as it currently exists.
Socialism doesn’t work. Never has, never will. Laissez Faire Capitalism doesn’t work either, for different reasons, although it’s worlds better than Socialism. Thinking that Americans are programmed my movies and entertainment to adhere to an individualistic culture is absurd. Entertainment is a reflection, grossly distorted, of the society that creates it. The feedback is miniscule, at best.
I think when Americans look at Socialism, they see the USSR and the PRC. I think Americans don’t realize the socialist aspects of Nazi Germany or Italy. Although, they’re beginning to learn due to the antics of Anti-Fa and similar groups. The practical differences between Fascism and Communism are just about nil for the individual. The primary difference is on the national scale. Fascists are nationalist, Communists are globalist.

October 16, 2017 5:50 pm

Robert McCarter, glad to have you on-board.

October 16, 2017 5:55 pm
October 16, 2017 6:59 pm

I thought Robert’s original article was clear enough with respect to his sceptical views on AGW and I was quite surprised at Dr Ball’s response. The original article was about realising that science and the AGW theory is just a tool being used for political ends and that this is why it’s difficult to win AGW arguments based on scientific evidence. I have just re-read the original article and I think it’s clear many readers got the wrong end of the stick.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  ryal001
October 16, 2017 9:29 pm

Thanks Ryal – I thought it was clear but seems one has to be very careful when poking a stick at Marxism. I suspect that once the M word appears reason disappears.

October 16, 2017 8:25 pm

Weak reply, try again…

Robert McCarter
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 16, 2017 9:31 pm

Weaker reply … I tried again.

October 16, 2017 8:50 pm

Robert McCarter,
I think ya done good . . and it’s not the first time I’ve felt too many who hang around here lack strategic sense at times. You offer a plausible circumstance many might find themselves in now, as the possibility of actual fraud grows almost mundane to conceive of, it seems to me . . Best to make it seem as “forgivable” as one can at this point, to make the sort of transition you present here, I say . . This fight ain’t over, and until it is, I for one welcome your participation, sir ; )

Robert McCarter
October 16, 2017 9:30 pm

Thank you John

alastair Gray
October 17, 2017 3:05 am

I have a tremendous respect for Tim ball for his defence of reason, and the quality of his work, and a huge disgust at his litigious detractors. May he be successful in Court. I do however fail to see the grounds for criticism of Robert McCarter. I am only too keen myself to air my views on AGW earning at worst the hatred or at best the humoring of the madman, the rolling eyes of boredom from my immediate family and friends 2 siblings will no longer talk to me . The general hostility surprised and disappointed me. However I have not, despite a 20 year skepticism based on my scientific career as a physics graduate employed as an exploration geophysicist really done much in an organised way to fight fore the cause. If Bob is guilty, so also am I. Maybe we should organise collectively a propaganda front to counter the other mob

October 17, 2017 5:29 am

Robert McCarter, thank you for your posts and welcome to the skeptic community. Unfortunately, and sadly, Tim Ball has become part of the problem.

David Ball
Reply to  Mark Silbert
October 18, 2017 12:15 am

Mark Silbert October 17,2017 at 5:29am

And , just how, pray tell, is Dr. Ball “part of the problem” after taking the brunt of abuse for all of you? For 4 decades. You do not even understand what “the problem” is, never mind Dr. Ball’s roll in all of this ( a ringside seat of the three ring climate science circus, by the way ).

McCarter’s just mad because Dr. Ball busted him.

Dr. McCarter,

You admit you knew the science was bogus for twenty years.
Watched as Gavin Schmidt walked away from a debate with Dr. Roy Spencer.
Watched as Al Gore released two movies and you were silent.
Watched as Obama proclaimed this is the most important issue facing the world today.
You don’t even understand the damage you let happen on your watch, do you?
Wow. Just wow.

I hope you can appreciate what it might be like for Dr.Ball on that witness stand.
Think on that for a moment.


Robert McCarter
Reply to  David Ball
October 18, 2017 2:42 pm

David – Wow – just wow I didn’t even know I had the watch! I hope you have those orders in writing.

Have you actually read any of the articles? It would appear not. Few have a front row seat in this circus. Note that I am not ‘mad’ because [your father] ‘busted me’ I was only relating my own observation from my back row seat in a small Canadian town (pop <10000). I was not and am not trying to steal anyone's thunder. It was [your dad] misconstruing who I am and what I am that I am sorry to say has undermined his reputation and shaken my long term respect for him. I have no reputation to lose and have no need to gain more. How can you possibly presume that I could be well enough informed or involved or aware. Twenty years ago the internet was just getting booted, for the next 20 years CBC, BBC and major newspapers have been lying by omission, search engines suppress searches on 'denier' websites. Your misunderstanding of the involvement of the general public leaves me (fill in word here).
Go back and read the articles – carefully and realize that I am no PhD rocket scientist. When egos become greater than causes then we are indeed lost.

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Ball
October 19, 2017 3:49 pm

David, I’ve just been praying for your Dad. I don’t know if he was the first that Mann sued but he’s certainly been under legal fire the longest that I know of without bowing.
He deserves support and respect.
If your Dad spoke out of turn regarding Robert McCarter, considering what faced him the day or days before yet another court appearance, he deserves a pass.
He’s human.
If your Dad did not speak out of turn regarding Robert McCarter … time will tell.

PS I hope they do a few movies about Harold Shea … as long as it’s not Disney. 😎

Michael 2
October 17, 2017 7:51 am

“I have about as much influence as I have flatulence but I am still passing gas.”

You have an excellent writing style! Entertain and inform with passion.

Robert McCarter
Reply to  Michael 2
October 18, 2017 2:44 pm

Thank you Michael too.

David Jones
October 23, 2017 8:22 am

Heads Up. I’m afraid this will be seen as “off topic” but it is the best way I can think of to give as many WUWT followers a heads up as possible.
This morning’s BBC TV news bulletin led (yes, No.One item) with a renewal of it’s usual “Global Warming scare”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41653511. It was followed up by the usual suspects, and a few new ones (including the UK’s most revered 91 year-old scientist Sir David Attenborough) chiming on on “acidification” of the oceans, coral beaching, etc. Some helpful additional comments on the BBC news website correcting these-called scientific facts with something more “up-to-date” than I have available will be very helpful. I have got somewhat out-of-date on recent “global warming” matters as I have been unwell for the past couple of years.
My guess is that the BBC is trying to get something going to counter the Brexit arguments that are raging over here.
If they follow their usual pattern they will keep this going for several days.
David Jones

October 29, 2017 2:01 pm

Edwin October 16, 2017 at 12:59 pm
“Strongly suggest you take the time to read in this order, “Reflections of a Ravaged Century” by Robert Conquest”

Thank you for recommending this author.

%d bloggers like this: