tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2697500780329346045..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Disgusting Deniers: Anthony Watts exploits the publicity he got from Tim BallSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38150917761810562282014-12-01T05:28:21.289+11:002014-12-01T05:28:21.289+11:00"He used an example of how people could be fo..."He used an example of how people could be fooled by a big lie he could have used any other example from the Stalin era or middle ages where the King or Pope is God’s anoninted representative on earth."<br /><br />Who knew The Onion began publication during the medieval warm period?<br /><br />Makes a deal of sense.THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91657998377619348082014-12-01T04:10:13.069+11:002014-12-01T04:10:13.069+11:00A couple of thoughts. One is, the mod's respo...A couple of thoughts. One is, the mod's response clarified the rather peculiar disclaimer that Anthony added on Ball's post. "... does not necessarily represent". The usual disclaimers omit the 'necessarily'. Now, though, it seems safe to say that Ball's post _does_ represent the opinion of at least that one moderator.<br /><br />The other, connected, is that at this point, I wonder how much control or involvement Anthony has over his blog any more. If we take him at his word about the Ball post, what we observe from the moderator and comment section says -- 'not much'. <br /><br />Could be that he's in the position of someone who unleashed a beast, and it has now gotten away from him. <br /><br />Digressing: <br />I'm having some schadenfreude now, looking in at 'steve goddard's blog. Having collected a group who thought Watts' didn't have enough accusations of fraud and conspiracy, 'goddard' is discovering that his crowd also doesn't believe that there's a greenhouse effect.<br /><br />Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36482235278986098592014-12-01T03:07:00.984+11:002014-12-01T03:07:00.984+11:00I respect Edwards and Betts willingness to engage ...I respect Edwards and Betts willingness to engage in a conversation. But they have made a serious categorical error. <br /><br />Climate denialists aren't interested in a conversation, in which one discusses arguments and opinions while respecting others and honestly examining evidence. Rather, they have near-immutable fixed views tied to their ideology and (very importantly) their self-image, and are not dealing with evidence. They denigrate those who disagree, certainly do not respect them, and do not honestly evaluate what is presented. In the case of those who engage - like Edwards and Betts, actual academics with relevant experience - they will fawn over them hoping to be taken more seriously in their penumbra. But they won't listen.<br /><br />A conversation takes two participants. Climate denialists fail that criteria, and Edwards and Betts are just fooling themselves thinking that they are persuasive enough to make a difference to those rigid opinions. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81042096272395944822014-11-30T22:18:40.645+11:002014-11-30T22:18:40.645+11:00Or:
You don't build bridges to somebody brand...Or: <br />You don't build bridges to somebody brandishing a flamethrower.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5387836665565661582014-11-30T13:04:43.956+11:002014-11-30T13:04:43.956+11:00Fair enough, Brendan. I'm well aware this blog...Fair enough, Brendan. I'm well aware this blog isn't to everyone's taste. There are many, many less snarky blogs around. <br /><br />I'd say most climate blogs are extremely civil and almost snark-free. Some people enjoy the fact that they can read here what they think but are too polite to say or write :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30204949872325198892014-11-30T12:57:39.507+11:002014-11-30T12:57:39.507+11:00I've been looking at the comments and noticed ...I've been looking at the comments and noticed yours in among them, Robert. That comment from the mod was the icing on the cake and showed that Anthony is such a fraud that he couldn't even get his mods to support his tale that it was a "mistake" to post it.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29095192920130017942014-11-30T09:47:29.368+11:002014-11-30T09:47:29.368+11:00I threw a few comments in to the roil, which made ...I threw a few comments in to the roil, which made no difference, of course.<br /><br />But consider a second. Had they posted in any other venue, it would have necessitated exposing new people to the sliming from Ball. Posting at Watts' meant that the people who saw the slime were the main group who saw the response. This avoided the Streisand effect. All to the good. There's also little point in them posting such an article here -- few here would disagree that it'd be nice if WUWT wouldn't engage in Nazi/Hitler namecalling.<br /><br />It also has a striking merit as a resource for any undecided people you might encounter. The pair of posts, that is, plus their comments. The original's comments consisted of a bunch of people praising Ball for his post. But perhaps there are people there who were just so turned off by Ball that they didn't comment, or even finish the article. (Your undecided friend might think.) The comments on the second, where there's a chance for such people to comment (and some did say that they had skipped the Ball article) is the telling part. _Again_ the overwhelming majority were praising Ball.<br /><br />There was also a lot of 'no compromise with evil' talk, and demands for Richard and Tamsin to make everybody in the world quit using 'denier' before the commenter would believe anything they said, plus many rounds of calling them whores/prostitutes/pimps/etc., and allusions to conspiracy. Tamsin, for instance, can't be trusted on sea level change, for instance, because she's been engaging in a big research project (Ice2Sea) on sea level change.<br /><br />It's a great resource to point your undecided acquaintances to. <br /><br />Plus, note moderator's only interjection was to my first comment (in which he added some name-calling), and not any of the whore/pimp/prostitute/... calling against Richard and Tamsin.<br />Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42971484191772966502014-11-30T09:21:24.720+11:002014-11-30T09:21:24.720+11:00And in response: I totally agree with jolly farmer...And in response: <i>I totally agree with jolly farmer. Anybody who has read the history of totalitarian regimes like the National Socialists in Germany and has read The Road to Serfdom by Frederik Hayek will clearly understand what is going on with the climate scam. Tim Ball is right on the money.</i><br /><br />'CameronH', completes the bingo card. Paging Prof Lewandowsky...billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45885447392759358952014-11-30T07:49:22.974+11:002014-11-30T07:49:22.974+11:00It is indeed incredibly ironic.It is indeed incredibly ironic.palindromnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31161224976234495682014-11-30T05:56:28.726+11:002014-11-30T05:56:28.726+11:00‘The Hitler/Mein Kampf connection is that this ...‘The Hitler/Mein Kampf connection is that this 'Big Lie' strategy in politics was described by Hitler as the method the Jews used to disguise the fact they were in control.<br /><br />The reality of course is that the Big Lie was promulgated by Hitler and the Nazis; that there was a jewish conspiracy that had control of politics.’<br /><br />Exactly, and unwittingly Ball has put himself in the place of Hitler – the exact opposite of his intention. Not many of the WUWT commentators have taken this on board, but there it is for posterity.<br /><br />To rework the old saying, in Ball’s case we can explain his behaviour as an outcome of both incompetence and malice.<br /><br />(The other major incompetence in the article is that it is supposed to be about the IPCC’s motives, but any talk about motive has been swamped by his Big Lie accusation, which is about method, not motive.) Brendan Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78543744472567533082014-11-30T05:54:44.714+11:002014-11-30T05:54:44.714+11:00‘“Attacks” like that pale into insignificance when...‘“Attacks” like that pale into insignificance when compared to the threats, defamation and other ugliness that deniers heap on scientists (who are the real sceptics here).’<br /><br />The attacks against climate scientists deserve condemnation. They go well beyond mere criticism. And in this particular case, you are entirely justified in letting rip on Ball’s original post. It deserves to be trashed. <br /><br />But in general, I’ve also read justifications similar to yours from the other side. Everybody has a tendency to favour their own case.<br /><br />The big irony about your website is that it not only mirrors the content of WUWT, it also mirrors the tone and the types of arguments offered.<br /><br />(This is not to underplay your critiques of the content of the posts at WUWT. I just prefer less editorialising.)Brendan Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41951475015705840942014-11-30T04:49:02.174+11:002014-11-30T04:49:02.174+11:00If he had strong doubts about the quality level at...If he had strong doubts about the quality level at WUWT, he could post less than 5 posts a day. That would give him more time to read.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47857308273722731612014-11-30T04:31:20.087+11:002014-11-30T04:31:20.087+11:00My thought exactly, izen - the "big lie"...My thought exactly, izen - the "big lie" Mein Kampf talks about was fictious, as is the "big lie" Ball talks about.<br /><br />In the most rigorous reading of this analogy, the international jewish conspiracy = the international climate conspiracy; logically the two parties "revealing" the conspiracy are analogous. Those who thought Hitler did a great service revealing how the conspiracy worked are then (presumably) analogous to those who think the same about Ball's expose. I mean, that's not what I think, but its the most accurate reading of Ball's analogy.<br /><br />I wonder if the WUWTians realise that Tim has just accidentally called them out as being like Nazi's...? :-/FrankDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49479355668563746512014-11-30T03:42:04.449+11:002014-11-30T03:42:04.449+11:00Millicent November 30, 2014 at 2:25 AM
You don'...Millicent November 30, 2014 at 2:25 AM<br />You don't build bridges with a lynch mob. <br /><br />A lesson in economy Tony. <br />BTW this particular choir has a strangle hold on all the melodies.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21723832811987501942014-11-30T02:25:20.963+11:002014-11-30T02:25:20.963+11:00You don't build bridges with a lynch mob.You don't build bridges with a lynch mob.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69881944715789751492014-11-30T02:16:56.563+11:002014-11-30T02:16:56.563+11:00I have no problem with Edwards and Betts trying to...I have no problem with Edwards and Betts trying to engage these people in ways to decrease the animosity. As long as they are clear about the science and discuss real issues and the appropriate areas of uncertainty.<br />I think it also quite fair to consider the possibility of conspiracy in science.<br />certainly there have been numerous cases in the past where there has ben a consensus about an issue and then a new perspective has shown that view to be either wrong, or inadequate and was then replaced by a much more effective and detailed scientific perspective. <br /><br />If we analyze the science politics and history of climate science it displays almost none of the necessary characteristics of being a "conspiracy".<br />The only area where climate science has any aspect of that possibility is in the extreme politicization of the issue. I do think that there are probably many climate scientists that are so emotionally disturbed by the attacks on science itself that they may very well have a bias toward current conceptions of ACC.<br />Yet in order for it to be a hoax, these scientists and almost all others would have to be preventing research in areas that would lead to undermining the theory. My understanding of the research is that it is expanding in almost every area where there is any connection to ACC. this fact totally undermines the possibility of conscious attempts at controlling the science to prevent more accurate understandings.<br />The fact that those attacking the theory are overwhelmingly of specific ideological bent and that they are not presenting one specific alternative, undermines the argument of conspiracy to being a vanishingly small possibility.<br /><br />Also in my personal dealings with climate scientists I have yet to engage one that discounted the possibility of their being some potential major errors if empirical evidence suggested such.<br />Again among those attacking the theory there seems to be a complete credulousness towards any suggested fault with the theory, regardless of whether there is any logical basis for the critique.<br /><br />My main issues with people like WUWT and Curry and some others is the complete refusal to counter comments that promote absolutely ridiculous arguments on their sites. I initially thought that Curry might be using her site as some sort of pedagogic open door where all views could be presented and worked out honestly, but was soon disabused of that notion, since she never (in my experience) contradicts the most egregious and unscientific assertions by any of the most extreme commenters.<br />On the contrary I see those more knowledgeable about ACC correcting inaccurate or exaggerated claims made by people that are not as knowledgeable on sites that are supposedly pro-"CAGW"<br /><br />I never expected honesty and accurate info from WUWT or Goddard, or Jonova, or similar sites, since the point of the blogs seemed to be just to undermine ACC no matter what. <br /><br />But if Actual scientists want to try to engage these people in real scientific discussion then, as long as they stick to the science and don't accept unscientific arguments then, that is their decision. As long as they police how their views are presented.tonylearnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15168161576867493109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32805178630657664632014-11-30T00:16:29.270+11:002014-11-30T00:16:29.270+11:00There is a revealing symmetry about the Tim Ball p...There is a revealing symmetry about the Tim Ball post. As has already been astutely pointed out Ball does not directly compare scientists to Nazis. He claims they are engaged in a 'Big Lie' campaign where the sheer scale of the distortion of the truth makes it credible.<br /><br />The Hitler/Mein Kampf connection is that this 'Big Lie' strategy in politics was described by Hitler as the method the Jews used to disguise the fact they were in control.<br /><br />The reality of course is that the Big Lie was promulgated by Hitler and the Nazis; that there was a jewish conspiracy that had control of politics.<br /><br />Claiming that Maurice Strong and his cabal were responsible for the IPCC and the political use of the science of climate is rather like the Mein Kampf claim that international jews were responsible for the defeat of Germany in 1918. In both cases a conspiracy is evoked to explain how contingent events evolved.<br />In both cases the Big Lie turns out not to be where the conspiracists point, but within their own analysis.<br /><br />izenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31008431045632504182014-11-29T22:39:34.505+11:002014-11-29T22:39:34.505+11:00Brendan H, if by "sceptics" you mean the...Brendan H, if by "sceptics" you mean the fake sceptics that inhabit denier blogs, and by "attacked" you mean they are described as climate science deniers, then you have a point. However whatever point you have is pretty weak if not downright petty.<br /><br />"Attacks" like that pale into insignificance when compared to the threats, defamation and other ugliness that deniers heap on scientists (who are the real sceptics here). <br /><br />If you are wanting to engage with fake sceptics, by all means do so. There is little value in it in my experience. I'll talk to them when they come here and be reasonably polite in the main, depending on their attitude and the content of their comment. <br /><br />The only value in commenting on denialist and pseudo-science blogs is for the benefit of the unwary and/or ignorant and the stray reader who is looking for good information about climate and happens upon a denier blog by accident.<br /><br />That's one of the reasons I keep this blog, so that when people google the rubbish they read on denier blogs they may stumble on this one and get some science instead.<br /><br />Oh - and the only people I've come across who are "pro-AGW" are denier bloggers who bleat about CO2 being plant food.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56143648623089854502014-11-29T21:51:23.901+11:002014-11-29T21:51:23.901+11:00Marco: ‘Those guest posts will continue to be foll...Marco: ‘Those guest posts will continue to be followed by many comments applauding Ball for telling the truth, hurling abuse at climate scientists.’<br /><br />I get that. And I’m well aware that the civility charge by sceptics is a rhetorical strategy, and that WUWT regularly attacks climate scientists by name and reputation. <br /><br />But the sword cuts both ways. Sceptics are also subject to attack by pro-AGW bloggers. <br /><br />The only way to occupy the high moral ground is to occupy the high moral ground. Brendan Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85900525521958827252014-11-29T18:55:50.053+11:002014-11-29T18:55:50.053+11:00As an addition, Brendan, the faux "civility&q...As an addition, Brendan, the faux "civility" complaint is easily shown "faux" just by looking through almost any WUWT thread discussing Mike Mann, or Phil Jones, or Kevin Trenberth, or a range of others. If the main post itself is not already insulting, you generally do not need to wait long in the comment section to see the abuse start.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44247110600483578912014-11-29T18:51:59.614+11:002014-11-29T18:51:59.614+11:00"He has publicly admitted that the post as it..."He has publicly admitted that the post as it stands was a mistake"<br /><br />As I noted elsewhere, in different wording, Ball's previous guest posts at WUWT make the same claims as the current one, with similar allusions to a grand conspiracy headed by Maurice Strong. The only thing that was new this time was the comparison with nazi-Germany. It wasn't like the comments on the current thread are very different of those on prior guest posts of Ball. Watts *knows* fully well what he gets in any guest post of Tim Ball.<br /><br />He may thus act "surprised", admit "a mistake", but don't think he'll hesitate next time Ball offers a guest post. Oh, sure, he may not want any further nazi-Germany references, but the main message of Ball's posts will not change, and thus continue to claim a large conspiracy of evil people. Those guest posts will continue to be followed by many comments applauding Ball for telling the truth, hurling abuse at climate scientists. Consider this a prediction you may test me on.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22787941452471877172014-11-29T17:48:32.716+11:002014-11-29T17:48:32.716+11:00Sou: ‘Meanwhile Anthony Watts is sitting back with...Sou: ‘Meanwhile Anthony Watts is sitting back with a big smirk on his face, rubbing his hands gleefully.’<br /><br />I don’t think so, Sou. My guess is that Anthony Watts was made very uncomfortable by the furore created by the Ball article, despite its potential for ratings (and not all publicity is good publicity). He has publicly admitted that the post as it stands was a mistake.<br /><br />Richard Betts and Tamsin Edwards have scored a qualified success here. Many of the denizens of WUWT have been dismayed that their arch-enemies have been able to take the high moral ground, sit at the ‘top table’ as it were, and offer some pointed comment about the value of civilised discussion.<br /><br />Remember that it is sceptics who have waxed indignant over civil behaviour and raised it to a make-or-break issue on the credibility of climate science. Richard and Tamsin have been able to leverage that issue and turn the tables on those sceptics who specialise in demonising climate scientists and their supporters.<br /><br />And they’ve been able to do so ‘in the belly of the beast’. The reason why they have been given the soapbox is because they have taken the trouble to try and build bridges. Few other people would be able to do that.<br /><br />And in my view those bridges will be necessary if any progress is to be made on taking action on climate change. Brendan Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35132345056959619222014-11-29T17:24:32.302+11:002014-11-29T17:24:32.302+11:00I 'spose we should be grateful that the Met Of...I 'spose we should be grateful that the Met Office failed to attend Professor Curry's George C Marshall Institute lecture. PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44610994714843334312014-11-29T14:26:31.599+11:002014-11-29T14:26:31.599+11:00Betts and Edwards could have posted their rebuttal...Betts and Edwards could have posted their rebuttal at The Guardian, SkS, Hot Whopper - any number of places without having to play "Praise The Perp" to get access. <br /><br />They went to WUWT on Watt's terms and becomes click bait for egregious deniers.<br /><br /><br /> PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32364816823592652702014-11-29T14:16:07.942+11:002014-11-29T14:16:07.942+11:00@PG. Excellent comment. There were many ways Tamsi...@PG. Excellent comment. There were many ways Tamsin and Betts could have responded to the Ball post at WUWT: they chose the worst option possible. The Dana and John blog at the Guardian would have been a much better venue.PLnoreply@blogger.com