Anthony Watts is continuing to work hard to appeal to the dregs of humanity. He has all but rid his blog, finally, of any normal-thinking human being. He thinks he has to keep up his fight against reason and ethics, and has another protest about the 97%. Anthony really doesn't like it that 97% of scientific papers that attribute a cause to warming have it caused by humans. It seems he'll go to any lengths. That's because more than 97% of his readers are climate conspiracy nutters who think climate science is a hoax, and he can't bear to lose a source of income (his blog). Anthony Watts is trying to corner the market of paranoid conspiracy theorists and other shady types. Surely no sane person who prides themselves on their rational ability would admit to being a fan of WUWT.
One of the main reasons that Anthony Watts claims "fraud" is because he has just learnt that researchers working together as a team actually talk with each other while doing research. In particular, they clarify with each other what exactly is meant by different classification definitions to make sure they are all on the same page. I wonder how he thinks the 97% paper got written? (You write one para, I'll write the next, and I won't show you mine and you don't show me yours.)
Anthony applauds a script kiddie who doesn't return the favour, and who spends some of his time hacking forums and much of the rest boasting about it and misrepresenting what he steals. When Anthony can't find evidence of a conspiracy he portrays honest work as dishonest, and the dishonest deniers push the meme because they've nothing else to push. (Yesterday Anthony was promoting a climate hoax television show claiming that climate science was a conspiracy. The show was made in 1990. He is really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days.)
Anthony Watts tries to deny that he loves the "F" word, contrary to evidence
In this latest article (archived here) Anthony Watts falsely claimed that he doesn't like the word "fraud" and said he didn't think he'd used it in a headline before. One of his conspiracy fans proved him wrong. WUWT is nothing more than one big "fraud" allegation, claiming climate science is a hoax, a conspiracy. To wit:
- around 97% of Anthony's copies and pastes of press releases about new science have a headline starting with the word "claim", meaning that his readers are not to "believe" science
- Anthony wrote an email to a top NOAA scientist accusing him and his colleagues of fraud
- When news of that hit the NYTimes, Anthony then accused the NOAA scientist (and yours truly) of "sliming" him - can you believe it?
- A Google search returns 6,930 results of the word "fraud" at WUWT, 2,030 results of the word "fudge", 4,260 results with the word "hoax", 2,040 results with the word "manipulate" and 4,570 results with the word "fake".
- Many of his articles are alleging fraud, fakery or wrong-doing by scientists as are many of the "thoughts" left by his readers.
False accusations are all he's got. In this case he has nothing.
Anthony Watts is unethical - what's new?
Research teams work as a team - who'd have guessed?
Independent doesn't mean what disinformers think it means
Disinformers disinform - who'd have thought?
Why disinformers do and don't dispute the findings
The big research question is...
- they are afraid of what they will find out, that humans are causing global warming
- they are too stupid to know how to find a single paper, let alone thousands of papers
- they are not stupid, just incompetent
- they are lazy and don't want to be viewed as dishonest as well as lazy
- they are scared of the cognitive dissonance, knowing what they discover will smash their view of the world
- they are cowards.
Almost half a million downloads
Conspiratorial "thoughts" from WUWT
One can only marvel at the incapability of deniers, their conspiratorial mindset and their wilful ignorance. WUWT provides a rich source of material for cognitive scientists and is a repository of the some of the worst examples of our species. Anthony Watts is doing a very good job of weeding his blog of any rational, sane person or even irrational people of good character. He's down to the dregs:
March 12, 2016 at 8:11 am
“… is indeed nothing more than a manufactured outcome.”
Was there ever any real question that this was an unbelievable number? It’s a shameless equivalent to the number of people in North Korea who voted for the Dear Leader, with just as much scientific credibility as a consensus, or a mandate to ‘rule’ the Journals. We’ve all been around long enough to know how this works, and the shenanigans played over pot-‘o-cash, and pecking order. A claim like that is shameless dross and should have been laughed out the door from the outset.
March 12, 2016 at 8:12 am
Ya know, someone made an argument along the lines of “how can so many scientists be lying.” I remarked to myself that they don’t need to be lying to be wrong. But, I wonder, is that even the case? Maybe they really are all lying, at least, maybe a large enough percentage are lying to shift the narrative in their favor.
I really don’t understand how people can grow up to be so dishonest. I used to think that nearly everyone was basically honest, only hiding things about themselves they found embarrassing (addictions, etc.). Anymore, I just don’t know.
March 12, 2016 at 1:42 pm
‘I’ve never met any scientists not in full support of taking action to curb co2 emissions.’
Its my melancholy duty to inform you that CO2 doesn’t actually cause global warming, the plateau in temperatures for 19 years and massive model failure is proof of that.
All those scientists have been brainwashed by their own propaganda.
MikeN asks the script kiddie if he meant what he said about Anthony Watts:
March 12, 2016 at 10:40 am
Could you clarify that Brandon e-mailed this, and not that you copied it from somewhere? I was under the impression that Brandon wanted you and other readers of this blog to ‘go die in a fire’.
From his blog:
“At this point I can only say Watts is either a deranged sociopath with no sense of morality who derives sexual pleasure by spreading lies to the greatest number of people possible or is an idiot savant whose one field of mastery is deluding himself into believing whatever idiotic things he finds most convenient at any given moment.”
March 12, 2016 at 8:41 am
Anyway, instead of complaining about the paper, why not just re-do the analysis? Is just a meta-analysis, shouldn’t take too much time if you have a couple of volunteers, which I’m sure you can find on this blog. Then you’ll have something nobody can ignore :)
March 12, 2016 at 11:51 am
“why not just re-do the analysis?”
That has to come under the “why bother” category.
It was irrelevant then, its irrelevant now.
(even though its about the only thing that politicians have to hang their AGW on)
You still don’t know that consensus has absolutely nothing to do with proper science, don’t you?
Or are you a sociologist ?
steverichards1984 opts for a wacky conspiracy theory in another example of recursive fury:
March 12, 2016 at 12:35 pm
I note that the co-author Mark Richardson has left University of Reading and joined NASA’s JPL working on the ‘Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2’.
We may now have a satellite to be suspicious of.
Weather businessman and conspiracy nutter John Coleman opts for the money conspiracy theory. Deniers are money obsessed and many only see the world through a money filter. Weird isn't adequate:
March 12, 2016 at 12:21 pm
It is clear that the 97% of scientists figure is an exaggeration. The issue is how much of one. It is also clear to me you can buy a lot of scientist for 4.7 billion dollars year (the amount of Federal budget dollars allocated to pro AGW research). I believe the percentage of scientists doing pro AGW research and therefore appearing to BELIEVE AGW is a purchased percentage. Remember next to sex, money is the most power force in our modern society.
References and further reading
John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce 2013 Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 (open access)
From the HotWhopper archives
- On Gateway Beliefs: And a tough question at WUWT that no-one could answer - February 2015, which goes partway to explaining why disinformers tell lies about science
- About that 97% - Not a "Great Moment" for WUWT - May 2013, about how a poll at WUWT shows that at least 97% of his readers are science deniers
- Curses! It's a conspiracy! The Fury is Back Thrice Over - July 2015, about a scientific paper on the evolution of conspiratorial ideas on denier blogs
- More perversity from Anthony Watts @wattsupwiththat - June 2015, where Anthony after being exposed for falsely alleging fraud responds by arguing that he is being slimed (for sliming) - with more references to his false allegations.