Thursday
Jun022011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Strange brew
Jun 2, 2011 Climate: Parliament Climate: Ward Earlier today I tweeted a link to my Peter Phelps story:
#phelps right to warn of dangers of scientific influence. Doesn't make scientists bad people though.
And received this reply from Bob Ward.
Spreading more hatred of climate scientists, I see!
How odd!
Reader Comments (38)
Bob Ward's typing speed means that he's written it before he's thought about it. Happens a lot.
............... as opposed to Bob Ward being paid to to spread hatred of sceptics.
For some time I have been aware that Bob Ward operates from a position where he sees white as black, black as white, positives as negatives, and so on; his first instinct seems to be to bare his metaphorical fangs and snarl. I rescued a sheep dog once, a nice-looking Huntaway who had been abused as a pup and who behaved in a similar fashion to Bob Ward. After six months of determined kindness, the dog happily went off to a new owner and became a much-valued member of its new family. This memory makes me wonder if Jeremy Grantham has some odd habits that are not entirely in line with being a good employer!
It's worth point out that, in addition to those supporing acts who claim to be doing the "science", as they insist on terming it, the vast majority of (C)AGW scions - eco-advocacy shills, bottom dealer, carpetbaggers etc. - also adopt an approach which "is not entirely empirical".
Ward is typical in this regard.
I wonder if Bob had finished his thesis, he would be batting just as enthusiastically for the extractors of shale gas? There can be too many paleopiezometrists out there...
Strange I thought it was the likes of Bob Ward who appears to spread whatever the hatred is about.
It is not hatred of climate scientists that is being spread but as Climategate showed, it is the continual demonstration of their total incompetence .
When he sees the name Monford he reaches for his....
Why would he care? He's not a scientist, he's a very naughty boy, sorry, I mean PR man.
Skeptics look backward (lessons from history); alarmists look forward (projections about the future). Discuss.
"Strange brew -- killin' what's inside of you": Cream, 1967
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3cELfFjXvY
Bob is part of the problem..
I'm a sceptic.. yet somehow I'm having a climate scientist's son over for tea today.
That is, my son is having his friend over... we are not going to eat him... ;) !
(they know I'm vey sceptical of the greenpeace version of CAGW)
What did you expect, after agreeing, even if only in part, with that silly Godwinnian speech? Of course I can see your "point", and I could even point out that the best example is Russia, not Germany, with its technocratic elite trying to command an entire economy, but with that kind of rethoric you shouldn't expect praise nor understanding. The moment that people compare you to Hitler, they should not expect rationality coming back. Perhaps a slap in the face. And I totally endorse that kind of reply.
Climate scientists appear not to have been taught classical physics, rather a modified version intended to achieve the [politically] correct result.
An example is here; http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgg/singh/winners4.html
The 'surface reflection' assertion is phony physics yet it's widely believed in 'climate science' and seems to be taught in its UG courses.
Ward's comment is defamatory, and particularly aggravated by the fact that Montford has published and blogs about climate science, so such a comment is personally damaging. Whilst we might all inadvertently libel others, there is no excuse for inadvertence, and no mitigation through ignorance, for someone such as Ward who is a paid employee in PR. Very unprofessional.
Luis
What sort of rhetoric do you think I have engaged in?
so ones let the attack dog of the leash , I take there is some thing coming up that Bob's pay masters are keen to promote .
No. Keep Bob Ward. Long may he continue. He's brilliant. Just think how much harder it would be without him.
Ah, Odd Bob! Careful Bish! You may end up needing a Doctor!
http://dwf-sja.blogspot.com/2008/10/monster-files-odd-bob-clown.html
Bishop, I didn't say that you "engaged" in any rethoric, but you did seem to endorse someone else's rethoric that is much, much worse than the usual "the so-called sceptics are really just as bad as the holocaust deniers". Which I think you are also apalled to hear. Now take that exact same feeling of disgust and ponder about what these people are feeling for these comments that you've endorsed.
Luis,
I am reminded of Stewart Lee's observation that political correctness is now confused for safety violations.
At the root of the problem of the practise of labeling people as 'deniers', lies not so much as the offensiveness of (inaccurate) comparison with Holocaust deniers, as much as the effort to cast out and ostracise its targets and thereby exclude them from rational debate. It is the cordoning off and the shooing away that is the offending part.
When you declare anyone, who even as much as discusses the political realities of Nazism as a palpable historical illustration of how totalitarianism recruits science to its mission, to be bigoted or deserving of slaps, you are doing the same thing - cordoning off.
Not so much odd as truely bizarre
"How odd!".
Not at all. How tediously predictable.
Luis
I said it was a pity that he had introduced the Nazi analogy.
The utter lack of professionalism is astounding.
Then again...this is what the believers of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) have come to so I dont think anyone is surprised by Bobs LACK of professionalism.
Mailman
Yes you did. I still think it's bad for you to endorse it, even if only partially, because it's a very nasty one-sided almost hate-speech against any scientific reasoning about politics.
Because let's face it, scientists are also citizens and should also voice their opinions. It's not "scientists" nature to be "totalitarian dictators", it's human nature. If you heard any other "profession" telling what they would like to happen, they would undoubtedly speak in dictatorial terms. You only fear the scientists because "Science" has a certain appeal of truth to it, some automatic authority to it. But they are still people.
If you, however, insist on this kind of argumentation, be my guest but then don't cry foul when the predictable backslash happens ("it figures mr Montford sides with this anti-science loon..."). I'd rather prefer much the language of, say, Ben Pile, or, much better, Adam Curtis.
At the root of the problem of the practise of labeling people as 'deniers', lies not so much as the offensiveness of (inaccurate) comparison with Holocaust deniers, as much as the effort to cast out and ostracise its targets and thereby exclude them from rational debate. It is the cordoning off and the shooing away that is the offending part.
This is exactly what mr. Phelps did by saying that in most scientists' heart resides a totalitarian. Are you really incapable of seeing this? Is tribalism too strongly affecting your reasoning?
The bottom line is that there is a clear strand of modern political thinking that could be described as - Science is now the only truth giving pursuit that demands obeisance in the political realm. Is there not?
( Unless it makes a mistake and Italian scientists get put on trial for missing earthquakes! Mamma mia!)
This is before climate science is involved.
As I said on the original thread I think the Aussie megaphone idiot politico is on to something - but not in clever way.
To explain the power of a possible philosophy you may either be tempting indulgence; or inviting insults; by using historical examples of previous usage of that self same philosphy - i.e. Lysenkoism or Eugenics.
Most clearly see it as inviting insults. Good I say!
Let me quote some pulp fiction writer->
*
It isn't out of the realm of decency to say that even Hitler manage to get someone to feed his cats once he was raised out of the gutter ;)
*Quote from a book that showed both left and right have used science and politically motivated science to their ends. Guess which ;)
BTW. Luis Dias
Dunno about the Bish, but I saw this (my italics)
Weasel maybe? But not as simple as you say Monsieur judgemental ;)
.
Leopard, are you really saying there's a qualitative difference between saying that "most scientists are totalitarian in their hearts" and "many scientists - though not all - are totalitarian in their hearts"?
Are we now discussing how 50% is different from 70%? Does that make an insult to a whole bunch of professionals any better?
The fact that I'm forced to make questions as these astound me. What next? Should we really discuss if 2 and 2 is really 4?
Tribalism is really kicking hard here. To call these simplistic insults as "philosophy" is just comical. Puh-lease.
Luis,
Oh I see. When you see a certain inherent authoritarian/totalitarian streak in science or in 'many scientists', you are immediately one of a tribal mentality?
In our bizarro postmodern world, the fight, it seems, is not by trading blows with a 'you are a Nazi', but by trading 'you called me a Nazi'.
History is replete with examples of individual scientists and institutional science unabashedly siding with authoritarian regimes.
Luis Dias
Yes I will go out on a limb (thereby explaining my vague toleration of the Aussie idiot) I think many scientist harbour totalitarian aspirations yes. It is a population experiment question - hawks and doves - I guess as time has moved on from before the time of the Standard Model and before genetic science became genetic engineering - the time of the useful hawks - we now have populating the environment more and more totalitarian scientists - the doves (you see them on telly over-using the words "vast" and "population")
What is a scientist to most people? Someone who has a PhD or someone who has done something like get an award like a Nobel prize?
...Or triple "or" someone who has done something?
If modern day churning out "scientists" overwhelms me with the power of their argument then I am f*cked if I agree - no funster has done anything really useful lately.
We are waiting for a piece of engineering in Switzerland to manufacture a Higgs Boson story perpetually - like fusion.
No f*cking scientist will be seen as useful again. It's not my fault ;)
Oh christ. I hear handbags raised - please don't waste your time arguing about "insults to professionals" with me I am not appearing in the demographic that gives a shit according to last survey run here ;)
.
Luis - Many is not most to most people
Is this the best you can do Bishop, "how odd"? With about seven hundred thousand words available in the English language (give or take a couple hundred thousand), you should be able to do better. Try to be a bit more pungent.
Pot kettle.
Bob Carter is an Australian professor who refuses to toe the party line. Bob Ward was invited by our national broadcaster to smear him with a hatchet job review of a paper Carter wrote.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/documents/2010-09-17Carter.pdf
Among "the most important" of the "systematic errors and misrepresentations" Ward found were...
- alleges that “the science advice of the IPCC is politically cast”.
- characterises the IPCC as “not a scientific but a political body, albeit advised by scientists”.
- asserts that “the late 20th century phase of rising temperature terminated in 1998”, and that “no warming has occurred since 1998”
- “The gentle, short-term global warming that occurred in the last 20th century falls within previous natural rates and magnitudes of warming and cooling. It is therefore prima facie unalarming...”
and it goes on. It's the biggest list of garbage smear used to discredit a non-alarmist scientist to justify his exclusion from the ABC's 'Science' Show where every other doom peddling climate freak is given the podium
Leopard, you are completely oblivious to your bigotry against people that happen to also be scientists and you are still trying to explain the inexplicable. Meditate on it, is all the advice I can give you so far.
> "Doesn't make scientists bad people though."
Should have gone to specsavers, Bob
I nominate Luis Dias for director of a re-education camp. The cover of 'Godwilnning' excuses all sort of authoritarian rhetoric and halts discussion violently.
================
Luis Dias
Scientifically speaking you can't say what I am oblivious to, unless you know everything my therapist knows!? ;)
You only have my words here to go on...
[point where boring personal statement of what I have lived through and stand for should go]
Sorry if this is culturally specific (not knowing where you are from) but I think it is allowable for the debasement of scientists as a class and even the concept of science to be debased in certain forums.
I.e. scientists are not universal Top Trump cards that will always win in every category ;)
re Bob Ward;
He would say that, wouldn't he?