I left this comment over at the Talkshop the other day responding to the comment shown above and the hissy fit that preceded it with the now infamous goosesteps of intolerance over Dr. Tim Ball’s Big Lie post over at WUWT. I am making it a post of its own as I may have more to follow. It is done with a sense of exasperation and a tongue firmly in cheek. Enjoy (or kick off on Twitter). 😉
craigm350 on December 10, 2014 at 7:43 pm
The smell of faux outrage. Nothing quite like it to take the focus off the failure of computer mod… squirrel!!! … or the legislative juggernaut that employs them to polish… Squirrel! … I must have missed the legislation, most probably squirreled (!) in – in accordance with EU edicts – where ‘government approved’ climate scientists were elevated to deities, not discounting their own proclamations of having greatness thrust upon them. They now share none of the same human flaws as the peon masses and if this is so I must atone – for fear of future flak and flagstones (cf. video below) – and bring offerings whilst bowing and scraping before them. Although the concensus opinion is to worship and obey, so it shall be written into the model and so it shall be done, I feel just a little unsettled by the lack of science… Squirrel!!! … as alluded to by Dr Ridley.
The thrust of my article was that the reputation of the whole of science is at risk if bad practices and biases are allowed to infect data collection and presentation, and that science like other institutions can no longer take public trust for granted.
The overwhelming majority of scientists do excellent, objective work, following the evidence wherever it leads. Science remains (in my view) our most treasured cultural achievement, bar none. Most of its astonishing insights into life, the universe and everything are beyond reproach and beyond compare.
But Dr Betts’s reaction has weakened my confidence in this view.
Ah! Now I see the problem.
Confidence! Dr Betts and the rest of the IPCC immortals keep saying things about their confidence levels. Dr Ridley has made a fundamentally flawed assumption in many of his previous arguments – the problem of ‘sensitivity’ lies not with fa..sorry…the models, but Climate Scientists! The poor things.
I think Dr Betts should posthaste seek out a sympathetic G.P. who will sign him off work for a month with the stress – induced by that bullying Dr Ridley and following so soon on from the trauma of Dr Ball’s hateful offensive words. That way Dr Betts, as a civil servant, can spend even more time trawling for stuff to rightly* take offense with. As he will be “working from home”, this may also help resolve the communication issue that deeply troubles the immortals.
Consider it a proxy extension of the global outreach program for hearts and minds. Dr Betts can really help homogenise Twitter with the Two Minutes Hate and have all the peons running through the streets screaming/tweeting ‘we’re all going to fry’ whenever any storm is due anywhere in the world.
In the process of writing this I have come to the clear conclusion that not only do I have a substantial part of the draft for Climate Wars 2 – The Suffering of Mann (comes with no 3D glasses but free Lew Paper instead), but more importantly we must repent and refrain from logical resistance to the inevitable future ‘scenario(s)’ that GIMP5…sorry CMIP5…has added to the impressive body of work on the shelves of Waterstones (well you didn’t expect to read tax payer funded science for free did you?). Although, I still have a nagging doubt that his holiness Dr Betts is playing the formulaic blame card to draw attention away from the observable fact that models have fail…SQUIRREL! SQUIRREL! SQUIRREL!
* ‘Rightly’ may need to be banned, as hate speech, just in case it causes offence to the self chosen congregations on Twitter who could not possibly offend anyone as only they are worthy to pass judgement. A committee has yet to decide on a replacement word.