.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Tim Ball and his audience at WUWT complain about naming and shaming!

Sou | 5:56 PM Go to the first of 24 comments. Add a comment

Anthony Watts insists on giving voice to favoured sky dragon slayers who dispute the greenhouse effect, in particular Tim Ball who co-authored that silly book.

I picked up this from Tim's latest effort  (archived here, and updated here and here and here), which is nothing but a long complaint that normal people see him for what he is.  Was Anthony Watts having a shot at Tim Ball's history of deliberately deceiving the public about global warming when he came up with the title?
Public Relations (Spin Doctors) Deliberately Deceived Public About Global Warming and Climate Change
I guess not - going by the comments and Anthony's frenzy of comment deletion (see below).  Anyway, Tim Ball writes (archived here, and updated here and here and here) - my bold italics:
Recently, I gave a three hour presentation with question and answers. The audience was educated people who distrust government and were sympathetic to my information. I decided to illustrate my point and concern by asking a few basic questions. Nobody could tell me the difference between weather and climate. Nobody could name the three major so-called greenhouse gases, let alone explain the mechanics of the greenhouse theory. My goal was not to embarrass, but to illustrate how little they knew and how easily PR can deceive and misdirect.
I can't imagine anyone but the sort of conspiracy theorists he describes, sitting through three hours of Tim Ball's nonsense.

Further in his article, Tim fakes surprise that it's not expected that anyone would query the credentials of people who accept science - for their acceptance of science.  And he wonders why people who reject science wouldn't be treated in the same fashion.

The answer is simple.  There is no reason to query someone's reasons for accepting mainstream science.  All you have to do is look at the science.  Do you query a person's expertise if they say that day follows night?  Do you look at them askance and ask them what qualifications they have for making such a statement?

If a person disputes mainstream science then one is entitled to ask why they dispute it. Do they have solid grounds for disputing accepted science?  Does their work experience or credentials give them special insight that isn't shared by experts? If a person claims that day never follows night, it would be understandable that you'd query their grounds for making such a claim. Maybe they live in the Arctic or Antarctic.  Otherwise, there is ample evidence to prove them wrong.  In the case of climate science I've yet to meet a scientist or non-scientist who has solid scientific grounds for rejecting science.  Least of all Tim Ball or any of the other denizens at WUWT.

Tim writes:
The epithet “global warming skeptic” was applied to me years ago and was used in questions from the media. When I explained I accepted global warming the media was surprised. They didn’t understand when I explained my skepticism was about the cause – the claim it was due to human CO2. Some labeled me a contrarian, but it wasn’t effective because few know what it means.
Tim isn't a global warming skeptic so I can't imagine anyone referring to him as such these days.  He's a denier of climate science.  He rejects physics.  He rejects the greenhouse effect.  He rejects the notion that burning fossil fuels and clearing land has resulted in a massive rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, which are causing the world to warm faster than it has in at least tens of millions of years if not hundreds.

Tim calls it "smearing".  I say it's calling it what it is.  Since Tim is so open about rejecting mainstream science, why is he so offended when it's pointed out that he does?

Aptly, Tim Ball calls on a writer of fiction, Michael Crichton, to support his stance.  That is fitting!

Oh, and he wants respect for his disagreement?  He writes:
“A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree” – Dr. Leonard George.
This after Tim Ball tries to lampoon prominent climate scientists, after he calls realclimate.org a "PR" site instead of recognising it one if not the best climate science website on the internet, run by some of the world's leading climate scientists.

I don't care if he wants to tell fibs or whether he's willing to be truthful and call himself a fake sceptic, a science denier, a person who rejects physics or whatever.  Just don't go complaining when other people tell it like it is.


From the WUWT comments


Anthony is busy deleting lots of comments.  One comment that Anthony deleted referred to this Statement of Defense by the Calgary Herald when Tim Ball tried to sue them (he subsequently dropped the case AFAIK).  It gives some insight into the mind of Tim Ball and Anthony Watts for promoting him so often. And it makes this article of his even more ridiculous than it already is.  (I've a copy of the page but didn't get it archived in time.  The Statement of Defence amply covers the points raised.)

Anthony didn't delete comments from other science deniers as far as I can tell. Here's a sample from people who also reject mainstream science.  It's no surprise that they congregate together with other science rejectors.  It's ironic and a great demonstration of double standards.  There are lots of ad hom responses to an article complaining about the lack of respect the general public has for prominent people like Tim Ball, who make a living out of spreading disinformation (and arguably libeling climate scientists).

A.D. Everard says:
November 6, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Well said. It is an extra pity that our schooling systems (everywhere) seem to have devoted the last few decades to dumbing down their students. It’s harder than ever to get many thinking critically or clearly for themselves. They’ve been taught it’s easier to trust the pop-stars and priests and computer models of climate religion. It’s changing, largely thanks to nature and the non-arrival of the promised doom, but it’s changing slowly. They believe so deeply, some of them.

john piccirilli says (my hyperlink):
November 6, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Great post. Thanks, I don’t feel so stupid now for almost believing this bs
Thanks to Christopher Booker and wuwt I have seen the light.

Txomin says:
November 6, 2013 at 5:28 pm
It’s an interesting post that I’ve enjoyed reading. Thank you
However,I must have to confess that, in my experience, people deceiving others are far fewer in number (and significantly less effective) than those deceiving themselves.


wayne says:
November 6, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Such an article has been needed for so long! It is very welcomed.

RockyRoad says:
November 6, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Warmistas are like a bunch of squawking geese–you avoid them because they’re so doggone annoying. They don’t realize their only value is to be roasted–for dinner or otherwise.

 R. de Haan says:
November 6, 2013 at 7:12 pm
And the worst aspect of all, the bastards breed like rabbits. They have infested virtually every corner of society. Wait until they show their true colors and start marching….(LOL)
Great article. Thanks

albertalad is impressed by Tim Ball's lack of credentials and paucity of publications and says:
November 6, 2013 at 7:40 pm
The Calgary Herald could perhaps explain the climate science degrees of all the activists the IPCC are using as documented. Then in this case – Dr Ball is indeed a step up from that group of morons the IPCC uses themselves. Or the IPCC lead – a railroad engineer – Dr. Ball is a genius to that fake.

Gunga Din says:
November 6, 2013 at 8:23 pm
The “site” is the web site Realclimate, named by Gavin (Schmidt). But science doesn’t need PR, so why do climate scientists use it?
=====================================================================
Shouldn’t that be “ReelClimate” as in “reel ‘em in”?

And a comment from Dumb Scientist, who manages to sneak one by without being deleted (so far) and says:
November 6, 2013 at 9:22 pm
Jim Clarke says:
November 6, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“The propagandists portray CAGW skeptics as people who don’t believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so they can compare them to flat-earthers. This is one of the tactics that Tim Ball is talking about.”
Isn’t Dr. Tim Ball an author of Slaying the Sky Dragon… the book which denies the existence of the greenhouse effect?

RockyRoad says Tim Ball has been "besmirched by association".  He doesn't yet realise that Tim Ball denies the greenhouse effect:
November 6, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Dumb Scientist says:
November 6, 2013 at 9:22 pm
….
Isn’t Dr. Tim Ball an author of Slaying the Sky Dragon… the book which denies the existence of the greenhouse effect?
Well, I jumped into Amazon, looked up the book, found the authors include a Tim Ball.
However, Tim Ball is responsible for two chapters in the book that describe how climate research became politicized and how the IPCC came into existence as an organization whose mission was to convince governments that they needed to introduce policies based on the danger of man-made global warming.
Ten more chapters were written by six other authors, and some experts have taken exception to the concepts of climate physics they present–persumably the denial of the existence of the greenhouse effect being one of them.
So, being the devious fellow you are, you’ve tried to besmirch Dr. Ball by association. And that, dear sir, is typical of this very thread’s subject–Deliberately Deceiving the Public!
You have a nice day, now. 

And here - Dumb Scientist says:
November 6, 2013 at 9:57 pm
RockyRoad, “CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period!”
http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas-that-raises-global-temperature-period/ (archived here - Sou)

Konrad pulls no punches and says:
November 6, 2013 at 10:08 pm
@David Appell
As you can see some here may be critical because your actions have contributed to -
- Trashing of the scientific method and respect for science
- Damage to democracy
- Blighting of the landscape with subsidy farms
- Slaughter of wildlife by subsidy farms
- Radioactive pollution of the Chinese landscape producing subsidy farm magnets
- Driving manufacturing from countries with environmental protections to those without
- Corruption and crime fuelled by carbon ponzi schemes
- Transferring wealth from poor to rich through subsidy farming
- and the endless list of snivelling stupidity goes on…
However your actions have also contributed greatly to creating a better future -
- UN kleptocracy discredited and permanently compromised
- All hope of a “bio-crisis” with bio-debt collected and redistributed under a frame work of UN global governance destroyed
- EUSSR parliament discredited and permanently compromised
- Every activist, journalist, politician or party of the left permanently compromised
- Lame stream media no longer the gatekeepers of opinion
- The rise of New Media and global grass-roots movements that can never be controlled or influenced by the regulating class
Thanks David ;-)
PS. David, if you have any further post election wailing and gnashing of teeth to get through, please take it to the outer darkness. That’s what it’s there for.

RockyRoad, now that he's discovered Tim Ball does indeed deny the greenhouse effect, admits that he, RockyRoad, denies it too (what a wanker):
November 6, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Dumb Scientist says:
November 6, 2013 at 9:57 pm
RockyRoad, “CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period!”
http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas-that-raises-global-temperature-period/ (Sou: I've archived the page here).
Then you’ve learned something today, Dumb–But that still doesn’t mean you can drop the “Dumb” and claim to be a “Scientist”.
Or do you have incontrovertible proof that CO2 DOES INDEED raise global temperature?
If so, please post it. (And no, somebody’s “assumptions” or “guesses” or “SWAG” simply won’t do.)
(Oh, this ought to be good.)

Dumb Scientist replies to RockyRoad and says:
November 6, 2013 at 10:33 pm
Aside from the end-Permian, the PETM, and the thawing of Snowball Earth?

Konrad has closed his eyes to comments like those listed here and says:
November 6, 2013 at 10:41 pm
Chad Wozniak says:
November 6, 2013 at 10:16 pm
——————————————–
Yes and no. Those with no escape such Mann, Karoly and Flannery have jammed the throttles to Full Stupid Ahead. However some of the Professional Left in Australia seem to be aware that things are about to end badly. They can be seen test driving exit strategies on the political blogs including -
“we were giving the planet the benefit of the doubt” ie: Noble cause
“but, but but, the conservatives believed too!” ie: It wasn’t just us
The good news is that none of this is going to work. The conservatives didn’t vilify sceptics and those that vilified cannot use the Noble Cause excuse. The bitterness of some of the posts is revealing. Some of the Professional Left are starting to realise what they have done. They have used all the tactics Tim Ball has listed, and they have done so in the Age of the Internet. The Internet is a game changer. None of the old lame stream media techniques such as “walkback”, “snowstorming”, or “issue fade and replace” work any more.
The thing both Tim ball and Michael Crichton did not consider about the Internet is memory. The lame stream media’s memory is selective but the Internet remembers everything forever, and is instantly accessible by billions at the tap of a keyboard or click of a mouse. The Professional left have not shot themselves in the foot. They have not even shot themselves in both feet. They have been tap-dancing on an anti-tank mine. For the Professional Left it’s pink mist time.

M Courtney sometimes tries to present himself as a slightly more rational fake sceptic, perhaps to prove he is not like his dad.  Not this time when he voices his conspiracy theory (pal review) and wishful thinking - that WUWT has become the main forum for internet climate debate (he jests, surely, and is apparently oblivious to the fact that Anthony has censored a whole heap of comments in the thread):
November 7, 2013 at 12:18 am
One of the problems with spin is that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
The website RealClimate was set up to dominate the internet discussion just like the gatekeepers in the mainstream media were spun (thanks to Roger Harribin who is still at the BBC).
Yet the debate was beyond the feeble hand-waving of the self-proclaimed Climate Experts at RealClimate.
Now WUWT has become the main forum for internet climate debate. SkS tries hard but has far less reach.
That’s why the self-proclaiemd Climate Scientists (authenticated by Pal Review) have to come here to push their agenda.
The spin is out of control. And that is more of a problem for the doom-mongers than the lack of warming this century.

The persecution complex is rife at WUWT - other paranoid conspiracy theorists can't hold a candle to dyed in the wool science deniers.  Some of them really and truly think that all the world's scientists plus all the scientific publishing houses and their staff plus all the world's governments plus most of the world's media plus 80% or more of the population on earth is part of some amazing conspiracy.  kretchetov says:
November 7, 2013 at 1:12 am
Great post.
It is wonderful to see posts exploring the idea that Global Warming scare is nothing to do with science, but with PR, politics, money and influence. 
And what a brilliant idea that is, if 80% of population can be scared stiff to hand over their money and freedom as they cannot tell basic scientific truth from a lie, and 20% intimidated and called names if they dissented.
The question I would like to ask – is there ANY reputable scientific institution that stood the ground and survived the assault? Russian Academy of Science, maybe?

Well, well, well - who have we here? Is it the real thing or a copy cat?   Jeff Id says:
November 7, 2013 at 3:25 am
Well written sir!


Since Anthony is so busy deleting comments, I might pop back with updates of the archives.  In fact, it looks like Anthony is so busy he isn't taking the time to distinguish his denier friends from his scientific foes :) (Search a page for davidmhoffer).

Archive here.

Archive updated here (do a search for David Appell.  If there's one thing Anthony Watts cannot abide, almost as much as he cannot abide climate scientists, it's a journalist who understands climate science.)

Further update here and here and here.

24 comments:

  1. Thanks Sou! I wonder if the person who "outed" me clicked on my name before misconstruing my attempt to explain that we all have to struggle to understand science.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A valiant effort, Dumb Scientist. I wonder whether your comments will last the distance. That article and thread was truly amazing. The article for being a content free gripe and the comments for doing exactly what Tim Ball was complaining about.

    And Anthony's reaction - lol. I can imagine him stomping and flouncing and tearing his hair out, wondering whether he did the right thing a few months back in letting comments appear immediately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it was a top effort indeed,

      Delete
  3. "educated people who distrust government and were sympathetic to my information. I decided to illustrate my point and concern by asking a few basic questions. Nobody could tell me"

    So for Tim Ball, "educated" is consistent with "doesn't know anything" as long as one distrusts government?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's self-evident that anybody who knew the answers to Tim Ball's questions (the difference between weather and climate, name the three major so-called greenhouse gases and explain the mechanics of the greenhouse theory) wouldn't sit through a three-hour lecture from him in the first place. I'd prefer to stick pins in my eyes, and I could easily answer all three of his questions.

    Perhaps he should survey the general public, not those who are gullible enough to be fooled by him?

    Tim Ball claims that his "sympathetic" audience were educated - obviously not in climate science, and a three-hour lecture from him didn't even give them the basics.

    MWS

    ReplyDelete
  5. As a historical note: for years Crichton was promoted by Washington thinktanks like George Marshall Institute. Then, Heartland ran incessant articles quoting him, plus ads saying "Crichton was right!"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Amusingly, Konrad also denied the greenhouse effect in another article. Steven R. Vada goes down the same rabbit hole in this article, but still can't swallow harleyrider1978's denial that smoking is unhealthy.

    When RockyRoad babbled about lags, I said: "I chose those examples because CO2 preceded warming during the end-Permian, PETM and thawing of Snowball Earth."

    When mkelly asks if that's all I got, I said "Also, Venus is hotter than Mercury despite the fact that Mercury is closer to the Sun and darker than Venus."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tim Ball sees a conspiracy under every rock, apparently.

    Once the problem is falsely established, control is not far behind. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) needs a replacement. It must be a natural global resource, little understood by most so they can easily mislead transcend national boundaries and quickly raise passions and concerns. The target, water, is already in play.

    Water Is Replacing Climate As The Next False UN Environmental Resource Scare

    Maybe "they" are putting something in his water?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another good 'un by Tim:

      The full interview was in preparation for a larger documentary on the use of climate science to achieve a political agenda of wider government control that I anticipate will appear in conjunction with my upcoming book on the topic. The need was for an issue that had global impact thus forcing the participation of all nation states and deferral of control to a global governing agency – the UN.

      Climate Science As A Vehicle For Political Control

      No need to imagine this fellow is tormented by imagined conspiracies. He's quite frank about it.

      How about this?

      Almost every aspect of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) work is manipulated, selected, and controlled, to prove human CO2 is causing global warming. The objective was to prove the hypothesis, not to perform objective science.

      The goal was established by the Club of Rome whose member, Maurice Strong transmitted and translated it into world government policy through the United Nations.


      IPCC Control Calculations of Annual Human CO2 Production For Political Agendaf

      IPCC is controlled by the Club of Rome and only Tim Ball knows. "They" are everywhere, though it's hard to turn around fast enough to see 'em.

      Delete
    2. Looking at Tim Ball (and Don Easterbrook, etc.) I have to say I feel a bit sorry for public relations outfits like Heartland and all the rest.

      It must be a damned tricky business locating people with the finely tuned, barely-balanced combination of craziness and communications skills suitable for the public face of a campaign. Looking at Ball, he's sort of metastable, flipping between managing to write something superficially persuasive and being simply barking mad.

      For the PR honcho managing these people, every day will bring the chance that one or another of them is blown, that people draw a line between serviceable op-eds and unhinged screeds and notice it's the same person writing both. It must be truly nerve-wracking.

      Yet the daily fear and loathing is unavoidable. The people best qualified for the shovel work of swaying popular opinion have to be sincere in their beliefs. A person who sincerely doesn't believe in simple facts governing the behavior of the planet is necessarily not going to be very easy to manage, because one badly crossed mental connection is almost always accompanied by many more.

      What a quandary.

      Delete
    3. I can see the dilemma for right wing lobby groups, but in many cases (eg USA, the GWPF) they've been hijacked by the crazies already. (Eg the Unabomber poster, some of the recent US election campaigns).

      I don't know why Anthony plays with people like Monckton and Ball. They are nuts and Anthony I think aims for an image of "reasonable". Though some of his own comments show that he himself has a "crazy" component too. So maybe he's just giving in to his own conspiracy inclinations, even though he knows the risk to his "reputation". (Of course, thinking that he had any sort of "reputation" to risk would show he's not living in the real world.)

      Delete
  8. Dumb Scientist - keep going! Lots of fun reading the replies in Sou's latest update link. WUWT has really gone downhill from just 6 months ago. Who knew that smoking's correlation to lung cancer was just a conspiracy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Here's the most recent archive. I was impressed with Anthony Watts's response to harleyrider1978.

      Delete
    2. Wow, so it is possible to sympathize with Watts!

      One observes that harleyrider's rant would also be a considerable - and squirming - embarrassment in the Lewandowsky sense. He was allowed to run on waaaaaaay too long, too.

      Surely the episode must have triggered considerable cognitive dissonance, even at Watts'? Even they must see the similarities in the method.

      Delete
    3. Whatever other faults Watts may have, he is a human being and it is perfectly reasonable to sympathize with him in a case like this.

      The question is, what does he think of his Heartland Institute colleague Fred Singer (and others of his fellow contrarians) who reject the dangers of secondhand smoke? Is he on record about this?

      Delete
    4. While it's reasonable to sympathise with Watts, I don't. Nor would I piss on him if he were on fire, frankly.

      Delete
    5. According to Friends, that's for jellyfish, not fires. Using an extinguisher might sway fence-sitters though...

      Delete
  9. Here's what I tried to post at WUWT. (I have to use pseudonyms there because I am banned outright if I use my real name.):

    --------
    Tim Ball is hardly a climate science expert, and this has been admitted in a court of law.

    After the Calgary Herald published an op-ed by Ball on April 19, 2006, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, they published a letter on April 23, 2006 from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, who pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball's credential were being seriously overstated. Ball later threatened Johnson and the Herald and ultimately sued for defamation.

    In their Statement of Defense filed in Court, the Calgary Herald submitted the following:

    1. "...that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.

    2. "The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

    3. "The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

    4. "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

    5. "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

    Ball dropped his lawsuit.

    Source: The Calgary Herald, Statement of Defense – paragraph 50, Dr Tim Ball v The Calgary Herald, In the Court of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary, Dec 7, 2006 (http://is.gd/brO4uO).

    More at:
    http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-update-0
    http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents
    http://www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for trying, David. The abuse WUWT slings at you would have shocked me a few years ago. Now all I can say is that you are not alone.

    Anyway, I jumped back in, but my most recent comment had two links so it hasn't made it through moderation yet. Here's a copy:

    Konrad says:
    November 7, 2013 at 6:54 pm
    "So the summary of your response is that you have found an excuse to avoid answering six simple science questions and instead reasserted your previous claims about CO2 (which are wholly unsupported by empirical evidence) and claim they are “fact”."
    ----

    Only at WUWT could 420 million years of climate records not count as empirical evidence. If you didn't like that paper for some unspecified reason, how about this review paper of different studies over the last 65 million years? It yields similar results, of course, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11574.html


    ----
    Konrad says:
    November 5, 2013 at 2:38 am
    "... the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm"
    ----

    What a fascinating claim! As far as I can tell, the Sky Dragon Slayers argue that greenhouse gases are unrelated to surface temperature. Konrad seems to have outdone the Slayers; he argues that they actually cool the surface. Could he possibly be serious? Let's find out:
    http://archive.is/c1lj5


    ----
    Konrad says:
    November 5, 2013 at 1:45 pm
    "CO2 is not an insulator. It acts to cool our atmosphere by radiation."

    Konrad says:
    November 5, 2013 at 3:45 pm
    "I am saying that CO2 does not insulate."

    Konrad says:
    November 6, 2013 at 3:19 am
    "... So what would happen if our atmosphere contained no radiative gases? ... Atmospheric temperatures would then rise higher..."

    Konrad says:
    November 6, 2013 at 3:37 am
    "...the net effect of radiative gases in our moving atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm."

    Konrad says:
    November 6, 2013 at 2:55 pm
    "Coldest – Thin atmosphere with radiative gases.
    Cold – Thin atmosphere without radiative gases.
    Warm – Thick atmosphere with radiative gases.
    Hottest – Thick atmosphere without radiative gases."

    Konrad says:
    November 6, 2013 at 3:36 pm
    "the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling."
    ----

    Do you seriously believe that adding greenhouse gases cools a planet's surface? If so, the average surface temperature of the Earth should be lower than that of the Moon because the Earth has lots of greenhouse gases and the Moon has none. Is that the case?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dumb Scientist. It looks like you are a welcome poster at WUWT. Being a frequent poster it's interesting you didn't know about Anthony's very personal reasons against smoking. Do Sou's readers know about Anthony's electric car, extensive home solar panel installation and switch over to LED lighting in his home.

    Given this site exists just to trash Anthony Watts, a post about his virtues is not likely to make it through moderation. But I can be hopeful

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given this site exists just to trash Anthony Watts

      You are mistaken. This site exists to "demolish disinformation". It focuses mostly on information from Anthony Watts' denialist blog because he is a clearing house for denialist disinformation like Tim Ball's conspiracy theories discussed above. Or as often, Anthony Watts copies and pastes disinformation from denier articles elsewhere, or puts up silly articles from his readers.

      Anthony Watts boasts about his large readership, which WUWT definitely attracts. So it makes sense to show how wrong and dumb are the articles he posts. And it makes sense to show him up when he ad homs climate scientists, which is a favourite pastime of his.

      Anthony doesn't write too many articles himself and when he does they are usually woefully inaccurate and very wide of the mark - like here and the comments he's added to Paul Homewood's latest article here.

      If you want to sing the praises of Anthony for being energy efficient, that's fine. Energy efficiency is something every sensible person would be aiming for. It doesn't warrant canonisation to be energy efficient. It's just normal responsible behaviour.

      If you want me to go easy on what he writes, then no. Anthony promotes disinformation about climate science. Not only that but he behaves like a bully. And like bullies everywhere he also behaves like a coward, banning people at the drop of a hat.

      You'll notice that my comment policy is much more liberal.

      Delete
    2. How about the puppies? He's nice to puppies, right?

      Delete
  12. Dr. Ball is back, and Elen left a long comment on November 16 that seemed refreshingly open minded. So I responded.

    ReplyDelete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.