In a dramatic about face, is Anthony Watts now saying that he welcomes comments and articles from the "sky dragon slayers" on his blog and will give them equal space with all the other pseudo-scientists at WUWT?
Previously he had banned Doug Cotton and John O'Sullivan because:
These folks mean well, but they’ve latched onto an idea that just doesn’t work. Some of the main players, such as Doug Cotton and John O’Sullivan have gotten so entrenched and angry that they have made persona non gratas of themselves here and at some other blogs.
“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
Like Dr. Spencer, if and when they are able to provide a simple working model of the atmospheric energy balance that matches their theory with observations, I’ll be happy to take another look at the idea here.
And of course, Anthony is perfectly entitled to ban anyone he likes from his blog. The above is an exception. He still promotes other slayers, like the uber-conspiracy theorist Tim Ball. Mostly he bans people who promote mainstream science - using one frivolous excuse or other.
Of course, Anthony might be now saying that he'll be more balanced and only publish three pseudo-science blog articles for every ninety-seven articles by proper scientists.
What he's complaining about (archived here) is apparently a report in the Daily Mail. Reportedly a BBC editor has pointed out that it's false balance to put a climate science denier on a program about climate science. Which it is. Apparently the BBC has decided to stop promoting fake sceptics on the same program as scientists. Anthony is up in arms and wrote:
These antics where climate alarmists rig the news program so they don’t have to appear in a one-on-one situation where an uncomfortable question might be asked, is in my opinion, the ultimate act of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.
It's nothing to do with "uncomfortable questions" or "rigging programs". It's to do with whether the BBC wants to give deniers and disinformers a voice as if their utter nuttery is somehow on par with rational views of rational people, or their quackery is on par with proper science.
Following Anthony Watts logic, he would argue that evolution deniers should be debating biologists on the BBC. And flat-earthers should be debating geologists on the BBC. And BBC health segments ought to provide equal time to the views of homeopaths, anti-vaxxers and crystal-healers as is given to medical professionals.
Not that it's any business of Anthony Watts what happens on the BBC. Anthony doesn't contribute anything to the BBC. He probably doesn't ever listen to the BBC or watch the BBC. It's not Fox, after all, is it.
I've no time to filter out the choicest WUWT comments - you can imagine them or read them in the archive here.