What can I say? After promoting Tim Ball's wacky One World Guvmint conspiracy theories, now Anthony Watts has got Tim Ball resurrecting Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. Scientists pointing out that the 1950's book was gobsmackingly stupid is another sign that climate science is a hoax.
I wonder what the WUWT-ers will make of that?
Tim Ball wrote:
Nature Climate Change is owned by the Nature Publishing Group that is a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. This is interesting because they were the publishers involved with the Velikovsky travesty, one of the most egregious examples of the conflicts that occur between publishers and a search for the truth. You can read Velikovsky’s side of the story in his book Stargazers and Gravediggers that Amazon describes as follows.
In one of the greatest acts of censorship in American history, a powerful lobby of establishment scientists forced Macmillan to suspend publication of Immanuel Velikovsky’s “Worlds in Collision” – the first shot fired in the campaign against Velikovsky’s “heretical” views. Here, with enormous dignity and intelligence, Velikovsky himself tells the full story of one of the most shameful book-burning episodes of our time. This is Velikovsky’s final word on the matter, and it forms an important inside account of a scandal that shook the worlds of science and publishing alike.
Velikovsky became a target for Carl Sagan, an early promoter of human CO2 caused global warming. That claim became central to the argument about the threat of higher CO2 levels. He challenged the claims of the levels and cause of temperatures on Venus. Sagan felt so threatened that he published a book Scientists Confront Velikovsky. It is about all his claims thus collectively including Venusian CO2. He is not to be believed on anything.
In case you missed it, here is the Wikipedia article describing Velikovsky's book from 1950 - how he figured that Venus shot out from Jupiter as a comet, almost sideswiped Earth causing lots of catastrophes, then swung back again causing more catastrophes on Earth. In its wild screeching journey, Venus pushed Mars which also nearly hit Earth and caused a heap of other catastrophes.
Really and truly.
I'm not joking.
Read it for yourself.
From the WUWT comments
February 28, 2016 at 10:12 am
…Well said Dr. Ball..You make Canada proud again !
Update to the WUWT "thoughts"
I've just been back to WUWT to see how the comments panned out (archived here). It was quite a while before anyone took issue with Tim's defense of Velikovsky's Venus "theory". The first person was Steven Mosher, who poked fun at one of Judith Curry's pet deniers, Rudd Istvan, for his apparent gushing endorsement of Tim's conspiracy nuttery in general. Rudd seems to think that 200 years of "warmunist" science (aka climate science, or the climate hoax, depending on your world view) is the fault of non-government organisations and the 193 countries that make up the UN. ristvan wrote:
February 28, 2016 at 10:51 am
I think there are two different dynamics going on. MSM is simple to understand. “if it bleeds, it leads” is an old MSM slogan, and CAGW has produced a lot of bleed. For once august journals like Science and Nature, there is a much more complicated multipart dynamic. Part is the politicization of science through mechanisms like NGO influence and government reseach funding, something Eisenhower warned about in his farwell address. Part is the international agenda set by UNFCCC before the consensus falsely determined the science was settled. An example of this is the IPCC charter, not to understand climate change, but only anthropogenic climate change. The journals got swept along by this tide, with pal review and ‘climate correctness’ finishing the job of eroding their credibility.
Now that the hopeless intermitancy of renewables is biting with penetration, now that Mother Nature has by and large not cooperated this century, now that a lot of the CAGW ‘blood’ has been exposed for the alarmist nonsense it always was, the tide is turning.
The other factor is the internet. This the first great science/public policy debate where MSM and paywalled journals are NOT the main places voters can turn to be informed. As the importance of MSM and paywall journals continues to fade, so will warmunist momentum.
Steven Mosher replied, a short while later:
That stung. Rudd Istvan must have had another look at Tim's article and reconsidered, balancing the importance of supporting Tim Ball's wacky conspiracy theories in general with the importance of not being seen as a Velikovsky fan. ristvan regurgitated some of the Wikipedia article Steven linked to. He accused Steven Mosher of being "over the top", while Tim Ball merely had the Velikovsky part of his narrative "factually distorted":
February 28, 2016 at 1:27 pm
Mosher, you are over the top again. My post was nothing about Velikofsky’s comparative mythology ‘evidence’ nonsense. Nor does his nonsense repeal Newton’s celestial mechanics (laws of motion), which make his speculations about Mars and Venus beyond nonsense. McMillan fired the editor who decided on publication as a science book within their imprint on grounds of incompetence (manifestly so), and transferred the imprint to Doubleday (publishes fiction and non fiction) to remove stigma from McMillan (publishes science books and textbooks).
Velikofsky published a second edition removing most of his damning appendix arguing against Newton, and then in 1965 a new edition with a different preface and an epilogue about the controversy. It is still in print as a paperback, and an ebook version is available. Just checked.
Dr. Ball got that that part of his narrative factually distorted.
lsvalgaard got a snipe in some time later, quoting Tim Ball's article and writing:
February 28, 2016 at 12:11 pm
This is Velikovsky’s final word on the matter
That you are pushing Velikovsky just shows how deep the scientific illiteracy rot has gone.
That drew a late response and slight backtrack from Tim Ball, who complained that he wasn't pushing Velikovsky, he was just arguing that real scientists were wrong to pan his nonsense and push Macmillan Publishers to remove it from their scientific texts list (eg to class it as fiction, not science). BTW here's an overview of the Harvard Hasty Pudding Club. JFK was a member :)
February 28, 2016 at 4:32 pm
Wrong! I am not “pushing” Velikovsky. Why don’t you read carefully without automatically and almost immediately putting on your blinders? I was using Velivovsky to illustrate how mainstream academia reacts when somebody dares to suggest anything other than what they push. Step outside their prevailing wisdom and they disclose their tunnel vision and prejudices quickly and nastily. Harlow Shapley’s despicable behavior in the matter was exposed by the letter he wrote to Macmillan threatening wto get all academics to withdraw their textbooks. The letter was obtained and revealed by the Harvard Hasty Pudding Club.
You'll notice that Tim also shifted his complaint from Carl Sagan to Harlow Shapley, which undermines his "higher CO2 levels" argument in his main article. (Not that anyone noticed.) Maybe Tim decided to read the Wikipedia article, and might have even "believed" some of it. According to Wiki:
In Cosmos, Sagan also criticizes the scientific community for their attitude toward Velikovsky, stating that while science is a process in which all ideas are subject to a process of extensive scrutiny before any idea can be accepted as fact, the attempt by some scientists to suppress outright Velikovsky's ideas was "the worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair." 
KiwiHeretic is a fan of Velikovsky, claiming his predictions have come true. Is he confusing him with Nostradamus (who people like to love)? He also claims that Carl Sagan thought something about hollow moons and aliens. WTFUWT? (It seems to all mixed up with a Mars aliens conspiracy theory that's new to me, but old. And no - Carl Sagan did not believe or promote the view that the Mars moon was a hollow structure where alien cities existed.)
February 28, 2016 at 6:43 pm (an excerpt from a longer comment with more wacky notions)
It’s interesting but predictable that the anti-Velikovsky venom still flows freely after all these years. As pointed out by a number of observers during the Velikovsky scandal, he must be the luckiest thinker who ever lived for having made so many correct prior claims (‘predictions’) on the strength of a supposedly flawed theory. If he was so wrong, as many Sagan worshippers on this forum seem to believe, how could he have made so many correct predictions based on his ideas? Was he just lucky? What would be the chances of that? I keep hearing people claim with authority that Velikovsky was necessarily wrong or that he was deluded, but I never hear anyone explain precisely why he must be. It is enough for them merely to say so. They then quote Sagan as their authority because Sagan wrote a book denouncing Velikovsky as a fraud. Little mention is ever made of the fact that Sagan himself never read Velikovsky’s books and was known himself for having come up with crackpot ideas like his belief, peddled in the mid-sixties, that Phobos (one of the moons of Mars) was hollow and peopled by aliens. ...
February 28, 2016 at 3:22 pmI read a couple of Velikovsky’s books, including Worlds in Collision. Very persuasive, IMO. Has anyone refuted his (correct) prediction that Venus would have a retrograde revolution?