Scroll To Top

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Lying Willis Eschenbach defames a prominent scientist and spreads fake news @wattsupwiththat

Sou | 3:27 AM Go to the first of 30 comments. Add a comment

Willis Eschenbach is one of the sleazier climate disinformers who tells lies quite freely at WUWT (and is a shameless misogynist). Most of the time he pretends to be a "scientist" who is "just wondering" about something or other. He seems to think he was the first to discover the mechanisms of thunderstorms, for example, which is pretty weird. I mean this has probably been part of Meteorology 101 going way back before Willis was a twinkle in his father's eye.

Sleazy pseudo-scientist - Willis Eschenbach
Credit: unknown

Other times (and often at the same time) he loses his cool and lashes out and all and sundry. That's when he brazenly outs himself as a committed liar. Willis has a very short fuse.

Today he ventured beyond the pale, even for a creep like him. He was complaining about an article in Scientific American: The 9 Best Reactions to the House Science Committee’s Breitbart Tweet. He effectively said he no longer reads SciAm much because it isn't anti-science.

But that's not what I want to write about. That's the norm at the fake science blog, WUWT.


Disgusting untrue defamation


What I was much more disgusted with were the lies he told about the renowned scientist Peter Gleick. Willis told several big whoppers. He falsely claimed that Peter Gleick "was forced to quit his job in disgrace". Which is an outright lie. This is what he was referring to - a transition, four years after the incident with the Heartland Institute and completely unrelated. Willis might as well claim that Obama is resigning from the Presidency because he failed the American people.

Then Willis claimed that Dr Gleick "never did say one word of contrition for his actions". Another huge lie. Here is part of what Peter Gleick wrote after he helped expose the extent Heartland Institute's funding of science disinformation. It includes his apology:
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Peter Gleick

Why is it that despicable people like Willis Eschenbach tell such outrageous lies about scientists? Is it because they think it makes them look big and important?

Some would call it projection. Here is something Willis wrote in the same article - a reference to vampires and a declaration that Willis is a hard core climate conspiracy nutter. (I don't believe it. IMO he's turned into a full time disinformer pandering to climate conspiracy nutters. He thinks the nutters are going to reign supreme now that Trump has been elected as the nutter President.):
What do we have to do to rid the climate science field of these crooks? Does it take an oak stake through the heart at the crossroads at midnight to keep people like Peter Gleick from springing to life again? In any other field, committing scientific forgery and mail fraud to advance your bogus scientific claims would get you laughed out of town, if not ridden out on a rail … but in climate “science” it gets you an honorable mention in “Scientific” American and an invite to chair an AGU session. Go figure.
I don't have time for more - but feel free to say what you think about this, or about what has become fashionable these days - the making up of stuff. It's got so bad that someone shot up a pizza place in Washington because of a revolting lie that's been circulating on the internet.

Deniers and disinformers have been doing this for years. Now that it's gone mainstream, who knows what horrible thing will happen next - and where?

PS At times I am so utterly disgusted by the aberrant behaviour of people at WUWT that I'm tempted to ignore them. Then I think about what has been happening these past few months, with the lies that led to Brexit and Trump, and the hate, racism, white male supremacy, homophobia, misogyny that seems to be taking over the world. I realise we must take a stand against it - not just for the sake of common decency, but to stop the world falling into complete chaos, taken over by barbaric ignorance-loving rabble.




30 comments :

  1. Yes, Sou. Thanks. Serial lies, as always, from Eschenbach, promoted by Watts. Sad little men, wrong on the science, resorting to personal attacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be sure, I do not accept your 'sorry'. That action deserves you a statue of your volume in gold.

      Delete
  2. If anyone has the stomach to visit the thread, you will find that the charming Willis has called me a "scumbag".
    I of course replied returning the complement.
    No doubt there is another elegant missive from him re that and, trust me, there will be a follow up to that if there is, even if not.
    I've had enough of these scumbags.... oh, am I delving down to his level?
    Tony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've had enough of these scumbags.... oh, am I delving down to his level?

      It's easily done; I keep having to remind myself not to descent to their level, and often fail. I see you used my RSS TTT figure. Glad it was useful for someone.

      Delete
    2. ATTP:
      Although an expert on meteorology, I make sure I am on firm ground when posting on broader thermodynamical physics and statistics.
      Yours is a site I have never posted on but regularly visit. My thanks to you.
      I see there's a 3rd thread regarding the subject. (They have to drive the thing into mythology after all).
      BTW: I think we should make more of the disconnect between the tropospheric temp sat data and radiosonde since the MSU to AMSU change over in 98.
      In regard to that I've put up Tamino's study in both WTFUWT and CE.
      They should be constantly ridiculed over their hypocrisy regarding "adjustments" to the surface record while relying on the absurdly revised sat record.
      And we know why UAH is the current fave of course.

      Delete
    3. Tony,
      Thanks. Yes, I do think that there are many things that we should be ridiculing them about. The problem, though, is that sometimes it ends up (in my case, at least) coming across as being unpleasant, at which point they start to complain about tone, etc. That can lead to third party observers feeling as though we're being mean to these people who are simply asking what seem like reasonable questions. If they don't know the history, they won't realise how often these trivial issues have been pointed out and how they continue to be re-hashed despite them being obviously wrong.

      Delete
    4. ATTP

      Likewise, I'm a regular visitor to your blog and am very grateful for your contribution. I find the tone of your musings to be respectful and measured despite the provocation and shear drugery of dealing with such difficult characters.
      It doesn't take long for third party observers, (who appraoch the subject without too much cognitive bias) to decide where the balance of evidence lies.

      I think you do an excellent job.

      Delete
    5. ATTP, that can provide a teaching opportunity - to explain the tactics of deniers who engage in tone trolling (like here and here) to divert attention away from:

      their anti-knowledge / anti-science stance,

      the fact that most science deniers prefer to defame scientists, and actively avoid discussing the science itself (or whatever topic is at hand),

      the fact that science disinformers lie, fudge and fake ad nauseam,

      the fact that some deniers are like children, and think it's all about them,

      the fact that many deniers and disinformers love to play the persecuted victim, so they can play hero to other climate science disinformers.

      Tone trollers are like any other troll and want to be the centre of attention. Climate science denying tone trolls are motivated by that childish trait, as well as wanting to spread FUD about science, and annoy the hell out of people who are wanting to have a decent discussion. It's a win-win-win for them if you let them get away with it.

      IMO it's best to ignore them, but even if you do stay strong and ignore them, there'll always be someone who'll get caught and respond, so that usually doesn't work.

      The other options are to delete their comments, or call them out for the game they are playing. (I think you usually handle tone trolls rather well, ATTP.)

      Delete
    6. Yes, I must admit, I am often guilty of being sarcastic, or ironic at least.
      The irony works better as many deniers are US citizens and irony often goes over their heads.
      I only know of one out and out Troll - Mike Flynn and he does a positive service to science with his Sky-dragon slaying bollocks.
      As they say don't feed them.
      Though it is the case that there's always someone who takes the bait.
      As with the case with Willis, I never use ad hom .... unless used on me first.
      One person who is good at turning the other check is Nick Stokes.
      Don't know how he does it, and he always comes across in a quite submissive but authorative tone.

      Delete
    7. Mike Flynn, that wally who hangs around Dr Curry's blog? Oh man, I picked him from the start. I do not respond to his comments unless I think it relevant to something someone else has already said.

      Delete
    8. Flynn turns up on Spencer's as well.
      Maintains there is no GHE.
      Nothing, but nothing will ever penetrate that.
      As you say Harry, I don't even read, just post sometimes if someone else has engaged.
      BTW: Spencer's is best left alone. There's several of that type there.

      Delete
    9. Jo Nova has a couple as well, they exist in a sort of bizzaro alternate reality with different physical laws. I have only commented at Spencer's once or twice, I could not figure out how to get email alerts if anyone responded to my comment.

      Delete
    10. > I've had enough of these scumbags.... oh, am I delving down to his level?

      I don't think so, Tony B. I've seen you stay on point after the first, second, third, nth personal insult. The worst you did to Willis in your opener was beg the question of "fake news". A savvier interlocutor would have sidestepped the *implied* accusation of dishonesty and hammered you for the fallacy.

      Instead, he went apoplectic for you calling him dishonest and then refused to discuss any of the actual scientific content of your post.

      Playing the victim card at the earliest plausible opportunity when one has an especially weak hand is a fairly classic move amongst bullshitters.

      Delete
  3. Maybe they want jobs at Breitbart or something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've taken to calling Bannon a professional troll. I myself wouldn't mind getting paid to do it ... ;)

      Delete
    2. I was banned from Brietbart back during the latest Willie Soon revelations after only one post. All I said was he's a fraud and chronically "on the take" (in the nicest way I assure you), while providing documentation to back it up. They just don't like well-sourced and genuine information over there.

      Delete
  4. I'd posted this over at RC a bit ago. It's worth reposting here, I think:
    I certainly share the sense of desperation many have expressed here. Climate Central, Skeptical Science, ATTP and Sou over at Hotwhopper have some excellent discussions. I’ll just close off with something from Tamino a while back: “I’ll continue to do what I can come hell or high water. Expect both.” And from ATTP’s post today “Good luck everyone, we might need it.”
    Keep up the good work RC crew…we need it now more than ever.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Its worth remembering that Heartland is not (although they forget this) in any position to complain, having tried the same thing themselves.

    But then as Heartland money does from time to time end up in the trousers of Anthony Watts he's not likely to allow that to be mentioned, much less allow them to be criticised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Millicent:
      Oh yes, the hypocrisy comes as read.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eric, before you falsely accuse scientists - take a look in the mirror. Then figure out for yourself how it is that you live with your own behaviour, and what drives you to write for a fake news site that specialises in defamation of scientists. No conscience? Immoral? Pact with the devil? Hate humanity? Or do you just yearn for acceptance by the scientific illiterati?

      Delete
    2. Eric is trolling. He won't mention Heartlands and Marc Morano's dirty tricks, nor the theft of CRU emails.

      Delete
  7. How can he look at the mirror ? There is no reflection.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A white horse walks into a bar.

    The barman says "we have a drink named after you".

    The white horse replies "what Eric?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. I feel honored that WUWT published a hit piece on me some months ago. Puts me in esteemed company, an honor I do not deserve. It was written by the odious little Jim Steele, not the offensive (but equally ignorant) Willis. Still, I'm touched.

    Sou, I, like you, want to ignore these insectiod-brained trolls. Unfortunately, they have seized control of the nation where I live, which is a sad commentary on my nation. I vacillate between anger, despair, and wanting to simply watch a marathon of my favorite TV shows and movies on DVD for the next four years. Your blog posts help to focus me. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here is an example of what your talking about slightly off the subject however this is the quote pasted below.
    An example of how made up stuff post truth is used.

    Exactly Ren, so where is the proof for your scare campaign? You have no scientific peer reviewed proof at all!
    The onus is on your side to prove your claims, and this does not include the many failed computer predictions. As the Federal Senator in this speech (who is also a climate scientist) points out very clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hopelessly off topic, but for those of us seeking for some consolation in the post-truth world, the following report on the Brexit supreme court hearing will provide considerable amusement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link! Truly an enjoyable read.

      One question in comments notes that rabid Brexiteers seem to be less abundant in coments threads at the Graun than hitherto - and, God, you couldn't move for them a couple of months ago - and while attention span is mentioned I can't help but wonder if buyer's remorse has set in after the period of gloating schadenfreude.

      One also wonders what hangovers a few months of US policy being unilaterally set by a tyro insomniac megalomaniac with poor impulse control at 3 in the morning via Twitter are going to bring.

      Delete
  12. Now Pat Frank is slagging off Gavin Schmidt
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/06/trump-induced-panic-exposes-media-bias-and-ignorance-of-climate/
    I guess he's still petulant about being schooled about basic math and stats and how GCM's actually work- wasy back in 2008:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/comment-page-10/#comments

    And the irony of a blog article by greenhouse effect denier/Sky Dragon Slayer Tim Ball about "bias and ignorance about climate" is truly hilarious.

    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.