In his efforts to promote fake #climate news, Anthony Watts censors Nick Stokes

While you're waiting for more in-depth articles, here's something you don't see every day at WUWT. Anthony Watts has put Nick Stokes on moderation (again).

Notice the conspiratorial thinking, false claim and Anthony's obsession with money? He implies that no-one would accept science unless they were paid to do so! Well, the opposite may be the case for Anthony - after all, Anthony said his reason for rejecting science was that he might have to pay more tax. (Nick has let WUWT know on previous occasions that he doesn't get paid to write about climate. He's retired, after a long and successful career at CSIRO.)

Not everyone was impressed by Anthony's censorship. John@EF dryly commented:

February 7, 2017 at 5:07 pm
“endless diatribes” … hmmmm. Oh, you must mean informed substance and logic …. I can see why that threatens you.

Even some fake sceptics were unimpressed with Anthony's censorship. plazaeme wrote:

February 8, 2017 at 12:17 am
What a pity. I always look up Nick’s comments in any thread, to get an intelligent and informed sight of the “other part”. I don’t think he is always balanced. Quite the contrary, but you need a counter balance to get a balanced view.
Anything less than a free pass is a loss. Me thinks. 

Also, what did Nick Stokes have to say about the appallingly wrong article from David Rose. that caused Anthony Watts to get so hot under the collar? Well, he pointed out that David Rose lied in his article, writing:

February 4, 2017 at 9:15 pm
remember “cannot be reproduced.” David Rose lies. Bates did not say that. And it isn’t true.

There Nick was quoting another commenter. What David Rose actually wrote was equally wrong, claiming:

Because of NOAA ’s failure to ‘archive’ data used in the paper, its results can never be verified. 

Of course the results of NOAA can be verified - as shown by all the other data sets, as well as a separate independent analysis by Zeke Hausfather and co. Here's a reminder from Zeke of just how little change the NOAA update makes to the record - and how the total of all NOAA changes reduces the long term trend, not increases it. The recent trend is very slightly increased for NOAA (h/t Windchasers):

Just a quick reminder to folks that the NOAA "adjustments" have relatively little impact on our understanding of recent warming. pic.twitter.com/nnXCUrzrQB

— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) February 8, 2017

And Nick Stokes let people know that David Hoffer was wrong extrapolating out from David Rose's wrong article here, where Nick wrote:

February 4, 2017 at 9:49 pm
““If ALL the data and ALL the code are gone””
OK David. What are you actually on about? Who suggested “If ALL the data and ALL the code are gone”? What is the basis for it? I thought David Rose was making it up, but it seems that you have enhanced it.

And showing that David Rose's chart was wonky, Nick Stokes wrote:

February 4, 2017 at 8:54 pm
The graph shown here is the usual David Rose dishonesty. The difference between NOAA and HADCRUT is almost entirely due to the difference in anomaly bases (1961-90 vs 1901-2000). If you put them on the same 1981-2010 base, it looks like this;

You can read more about how Nick Stokes calmly, politely and patiently tried to inject some sanity into the mad hysteria at WUWT after David Rose's non-bombshell false allegations. (More than 900 mostly empty, conspiratorial, over-excited, non-skeptical thoughts - a bonus Anthony has rarely seen since the hysteria of the non-event of "Climategate".)

Anthony didn't go so far as to claim outright that David Rose didn't lie, but he blamed the graphics department for one of the big deceptions in the article (where he put NOAA data on a different baseline to HadCRUT data), writing:

The faithful have been claiming that there’s no difference between the NOAA and HadCRUT temperature datasets depicted in the Rose article, saying it’s a baseline error that gives the offset. I’ll give them that, and that may have simply been a mistake by the Mail on Sunday graphics department, I don’t know.

I'm surprised that Anthony lost his cool so badly that he put Nick Stokes on moderation. After all, it's the push back from people like Nick, who understands and accepts science, that keeps Anthony's conspiracy theorists riled up enough to visit WUWT and comment.

PS Nick Stokes didn't tell me about this. It's not his style. I found out all by myself, by girding loins and visiting Anthony's rabid mob site.

PPS Here is a link to one of the comments Nick Stokes made on the death threats revealed in emails at ANU, when Anthony Watts claimed they weren't real (when they were).