Miriam O’Brien says: Disgusting Deniers: Anthony Watts exploits the publicity he got from Tim Ball

New Post at HotWhopper. Miriam O’Brien (Sou) takes on Tamsin Edwards and Richard Bett’s guest opinion, Anthony Watts’s concluding note, and comments on the thread, including one from me.

WattsUpWithThat post:  A big (goose) step backwards

HotWhopper Reply from Friday, November 24, 2014 [archived]: Disgusting Deniers: Anthony Watts exploits the publicity he got from Tim Ball

The comments are open…there’s no moderation, except for comments with 3 or more links. There is a new moderation policy in place.

Please refrain from ad hominem comments. I realize that will be difficult for many people, especially if you’ve just returned from Hot Whopper. But try; ad homs hurt your arguments.

Advertisements

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Miriam O’Brien says: Disgusting Deniers: Anthony Watts exploits the publicity he got from Tim Ball

  1. mwh says:

    Does she really not see the incredible irony and double standards of using the ‘disgusting deniers’ in the title. Tim makes no such graphical allusion anywhere in his post, yet ‘Sou’ uses it in the title – what a hypocrite. Tim uses a quote from Mein Kampf to illustrate the big lie that he, not unreasonably, sees in the political outpourings from the CAGW camp and as a result gets personally compared to a holocaust denier…….nice. Any chance ‘Sou’ getting invited to a dinner party at Richard and Tamsins along with Tim and Anthony and you Bob – would be worth having cameras there – epic!!

    Like

  2. Bob Tisdale says:

    Miriam O’Brien chose my “thank you” comment on the thread of the WUWT post A big (goose) step backwards. She wrote.

    “Bob Tisdale” who thinks that Tim’s article was fine by all accounts and that I was nasty for criticising Anthony over it, or so I’ve been told, just wanted to see his name in print. He doesn’t side with anyone one. He’s another fence sitter. That must hurt after a while.

    November 27, 2014 at 6:00 am (excerpt)

    Thank you, Tamsin and Richard, for your post and your concerns. And thank you, Anthony, for posting it.

    Miriam’s “so I’ve been told” link leads to a comment on her “Anthony Watts tries for one foot in the Hitler camp and one foot out” thread at HotWhopper. That November 26, 2014 at 11:19 PM comment by Lars Karlsson reads:

    BobTisdale objects …. not to Ball but to Sou.

    [Removed link – see comment policy, Lars. – Sou]

    Both Miriam’s and Lars Karlsson’s comments are absurd departures from reality. Miriam raised the level of absurdity by deleting the link provided by Karlsson. They must think themselves magic spin doctors, but what they don’t realize is that anyone with the slightest common sense can see through their blatantly obvious falsehoods.

    I have not stated my opinion on Tim Ball’s post, but it follows shortly. On the other hand, my approval of Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts’s post and my approval of Anthony Watt’s closing note to it should have been implied by my thanks to them. In other words, I was not sitting on the fence, as Miriam claims.

    My implied approval of Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts’s post suggested that I did NOT approve of Tim Ball’s post. But let me state that, so that Sou and her kindred serial fabricators will no longer have any doubt.

    I, Bob Tisdale, do not approve of Tim Ball’s guest opinion People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception at WattsUpWithThat. In it, Tim Ball used Adolph Hitler’s writings in a discussion of the IPCC and the climate science community. Regardless of how they are framed, Hitler and Nazism, and all they suggest and imply, have no place in discussions of climate science or the politics that drive climate science. By including references to Hitler in his post, Tim Ball will forever be remembered for it. Regardless of the content of past and future articles, Tim Ball will only be remembered for his reference to Hitler. With that Hitler reference, anything written by Tim Ball is tainted, making it all useless in the climate debate.

    Anthony Watts admitted his mistake in his closing note to the post by Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts. It is a waste of anyone’s time to speculate about what Anthony should or should not have done once he discovered the controversial content of Tim Ball’s post, hours after it was posted. With that said, I believe Anthony Watts’s response was correct, inasmuch as Anthony provided a disclaimer with standard language at the end of Tim Ball’s guest opinion. Anthony did not delete the post. By that time, it was too well known and too controversial. Anthony also did not close the comments, which would have been futile, because the comments would simply have rolled over to other threads at WUWT. Then, days after the Tim Ball post, Anthony Watts published the rebuttal post by Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts.

    Let’s return to Miriam O’Brien’s statement from her most recent post. She began “’Bob Tisdale’ who thinks that Tim’s article was fine by all accounts…” was a fabrication by Miriam. Nothing more, nothing less. Some might even think it was a bald-faced lie. She gave the illusion of trying to soften the fabrication by including, “…or so I’ve been told…”.

    In closing, I will respond to Miriam O’Brien’s laughable “pornography, theft” statement in a future blog post.

    Like

  3. the_real_crab says:

    I think there’s nothing wrong with using Hitler….why is he so off base? Hitler used basic human psychology and propaganda to push his ideology. It shows how someone with power can overcome logic with the simple use of psychology on the human brain; exploiting the built in weakness of our minds.

    These aren’t new tactics discovered by Hitler, they are tactics used throughout history, they are being used now and will be used again in the future. Why? because they work!

    So why is Tim Ball villainized for showing the weakness of the human mind? You build a hundred bridges……..

    Like

  4. Dems B. Dcvrs says:

    “Disgusting Deniers”

    Oh, the Irony.

    Like

  5. Dems B. Dcvrs says:

    the_real_crab says: “So why is Tim Ball villainized for showing the weakness of the human mind?”

    Cause people using those Tactics on “Disgusting Deniers”, don’t want their psychological warfare and propaganda methods pointed out. Bad idea to Gruber…

    Like

  6. mwh says:

    To not study or discuss the origins of National Socialism in Germany, or the thoughts of a monster like Hitler (or Stalin or Pol Pot, or in this case Obama, Abbott, Cameron, Merkel [or whoever fits the bill now]) is to risk the same thing happening again through ignorance. I can see no reason why this example cant be used here. To have us exposed to so many little lies is hiding the bigger lie of stronger global control by the bigger parties.

    I say ignore this debate at your peril, this debate, in so many ways, lies at the core of the freedoms that most of us who are free to post here and at WUWT and at Hotwhopper enjoy. Taking this as an ad hominem attack on warmists generally is to have missed the point entirely.

    Tim Ball has raised an issue that can be applied here by either side of the argument not one. We know on which side he stands. However if ‘Sou’ as a warmist believes skeptics are just a mass of little lies hiding a big agenda, then it equally endorses her stance. To link the intelligent process of debate with a monster is to attempt again to stifle debate. That has already happened here and as a result it would seem everyone is further entrenched than they were before reading these posts. Tim greatly upset I should imagine by being misrepresented and castigated by AW. AW caught on his own blog in a difficult to resolve conundrum – does he protect those that put a lot of work into his blog or back up his stance at that dinner meeting in Bristol and subsequent blogging. Do Tamsin and Richard come out of this feeling they have opened debate with skeptics or slammed their own front door in their face? Does ‘Sou’ understand what a complete hypocrite she looks by using the holocaust analogy in her heading, if she does it should be an embarrassment for her and her supporters a real own goal of her own.

    Give it a few days it will blow over and the hot air will dissipate and antrhopological blog warming will have been averted!!

    Like

  7. Nyq Only says:

    Wow – so only AFTER the WUWT blog distances itself from Ball’s post does Bob T assert his disapproval of it on this blog. Odd behavior. Still trying to make snide remarks about Sou even when he is actually conceding that he agrees with here criticism.

    Like

  8. gnomish says:

    well, watts is presiding over a forum in its senescence.
    the usual life cycle of a forum is that it accumulates regulars who come to know each other and among them an orthodoxy or dogma congeals.
    then they begin to act as keepers of the catechism, driving off those who either disagree with the substance or fail to adhere to the prescribed phraseology.
    soon enough, the forum has lost its original direction and purpose and devolves into a hermetic cult, well defended, now, from disruption of the narrative.
    the gurus take over the reins and the congregation merely follows the hymnal.
    Hypocrisy rules but there is no hesitation to deprecate the use of it by a kaffir- the most recent good example is an article entitled “A big (goose) step backwards” which purports to decry the use of analogy to nazism, disregarding the explicit use of the rhetorical association in the very title to reframe a perfectly valid exposition on ‘the big lie’. and the clueless wonders fall for it because they have undergone rigorous selection for their qualifications as grubering idiots.
    the goodness of this site is that the distraction of meteorology can be dispensed with and the imaginary ‘science debate’ can cease to distract from the real argument.

    Like

  9. Michael says:

    Given the broad acceptance of Balls post by the WUWTers, who have to wonder if there is a link with the obsession in attacking Michael Mann.

    Like

  10. mwh says:

    Gnomish – well said…..I think, a bit convoluted. I agree with your analysis of these various blog sites – their popularity comes and goes, one day ‘trending’ the next day not. Bit of an early call on AW though as this particular thread has attracted perhaps 3x the normal traffic – maybe more, hardly senescence quite yet.

    Hotwhopper and ‘denier’ in its title, Richard and Tamsin and ‘goose step’ in theirs, making allusions and connections that were neither written nor intended whilst using the language of those they purport to despise and distance themselves from, has only succeeded in associating themselves with the very people they abhor. Misguided and rather counter intuitive I think

    Like

  11. Nyq Only says:

    Conservatives use ‘denier’ as a general term for people denying something that is supposed to be reality. It is notable that when they do so they don’t then claim they are making a Nazi comparison.
    The most obvious example is ‘debt denier’ – a term used by conservatives to describe people in the center or left who are critical of conservative fiscal policies in the wake of the financial crisis:
    e.g. CATO: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/debt-deniers-fantasy and NRO have published the same article.
    and the term even gets its own website: http://www.debtdeniers.com/

    Like

  12. Bob Tisdale says:

    gnomish and mwh, thanks for the excuse to go to Google trends. The popularity of some websites does come and go. RealClimate came and went. SkepticalScience has never been as popular a search term but it has remained relatively constant. HotWhopper is a different species altogether. And then there’s Watts Up With That? Its popularity as a search term keeps growing and growing and growing.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. gnomish says:

    [Content Deleted.]

    Like

  14. Bob Tisdale says:

    gnomish, even I couldn’t stomach your last comment, which is why I deleted it

    Like

  15. gnomish says:

    well, an uncensored forum was fun while it lasted.
    for future reference, a war is not matter of debate; it’s a matter of extirpation.
    remember that it is the ownership of lives on the table.
    negotiation is defeat.
    ask dan pearl.

    Like

  16. Bob Tisdale says:

    gnomish, thank you for giving me the opportunity to change my comment policy. You’re likely soon to be banned permanently. I haven’t decided yet.

    Like

  17. mwh says:

    Bob dont put me in the same camp I was trying to be nice and he made a good point. I certainly didnt even imply that AWs site is on the wane, quite the opposite. I am a great admirer of Anthony because he has the ability to get out there and do something – more than I! It doesnt stop me being a bit disappointed this time in allowing the post with the goose stepping picture to go ahead. I wish he had given better advice to his friends. I know you have distanced yourself from Tims post but personally I think the only accusation worthy of his effort is the naivety of thinking this would not blow up in his face

    Like

  18. Bob Tisdale says:

    mwh, don’t worry. The new moderation policy and my thought of permanently banning gnomish had nothing to do with your and his exchange above. The comment by gnomish that shut down the no-moderation policy came after that and was in response to the Google trends graph. It was about what one of the websites could do to improve their stats. You don’t want to know.

    Like

Comments are closed.