tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post6964673718608850515..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: More perversity from Anthony Watts @wattsupwiththatSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85822156615592106352015-06-30T18:12:36.022+10:002015-06-30T18:12:36.022+10:00Our professional team will provide you with the pa...Our professional team will provide you with the <a href="http://www.paraphrasingservices.net/faq-on-paraphrasing-online/" rel="nofollow">paraphrasing online</a> . This is an amazing, amazing post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18306187003559030107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30450682659394026542015-06-12T16:10:50.463+10:002015-06-12T16:10:50.463+10:00The difference between Ted Kaczynski and Anthony W...The difference between Ted Kaczynski and Anthony Watts is that one of them is so crazy that he denies Anthropogenic Global Warming.Brian Dodgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10283294944944463293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10940522696569190622015-06-11T06:05:25.694+10:002015-06-11T06:05:25.694+10:00I'd be lying if I said it doesn't do my sc...I'd be lying if I said it doesn't do my schadenfreude-y heart good, when I see a comment at WTFiuWT, like the following, "Mr Watts, your delusions of grandeur are a wonder to behold. Thanx for the laugh."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47571600119433890232015-06-10T13:36:57.333+10:002015-06-10T13:36:57.333+10:00As I predicted a few days ago re the McKibben meet...As I predicted a few days ago re the McKibben meeting.<br /><br />"It gives Revkin who wallows in this pathetic lukewarmer, lets all be friends tripe a chance to give Watts some publicity."<br /><br />The only person who would have benefited from that meeting was Watts who would have traded on the publicity to enhance his own status as a leading global climate denier (despite his near scientific illiteracy).<br /><br />But Watts is a extremist crank as are the bulk of his supporters. And without those supporters, he is a nobody - just another wailing internet conspiracy theorist. Despite the best efforts of people like Revkin and Richard Betts to bring him into the tent, it is almost inevitable that he would disgrace himself before he gets through the flap.<br /><br />Focusing on persuading the "dismissives" is bad strategy & a waste of time. These cranks will go their graves wailing about climate science.<br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30064993337157979012015-06-10T13:04:53.835+10:002015-06-10T13:04:53.835+10:00Andy Revkin has updated his article about Anthony ...Andy Revkin has <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/a-climate-campaigner-bill-mckibben-and-climate-change-critic-anthony-watts-meet-in-a-bar/?_r=0" rel="nofollow">updated his article</a> about Anthony Watts and Bill McKibben (which was previously congratulatory):<br /><br /><i><b>Update</b>, June, 9, 8:51 p.m. | Having been on the run overseas since the weekend, I’m only now catching up with Anthony Watts’s attack on Tom Peterson, one of the authors of a recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate paper. The exchange, in which Watts accuses Peterson of prostituting himself and hints at fraud, occurred just after he’d posted on his friendly meeting with climate campaigner Bill McKibben, described below.<br /><br />Here’s my reaction:<br /><br />Any notion that Watts is interested in fostering an atmosphere of civility and constructive discourse evaporates pretty quickly in considering how he handled his questions about that paper. Alternating between happy talk about rooftop solar and slanderous accusations is not constructive or civil.</i>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44377968287674653402015-06-10T12:18:55.303+10:002015-06-10T12:18:55.303+10:00The bottom line is that Watts libelled Peterson an...The bottom line is that Watts libelled Peterson and his coauthors, and they have so far not called Wats on it. If Willard had any sense he'd stop with his unfounded accusations before someone decides that they don't have such a deep well of magnanimity.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39067886375521289402015-06-10T08:33:18.601+10:002015-06-10T08:33:18.601+10:00I would have to agree with the others. Some people...I would have to agree with the others. Some people are lost causes.. I think the cognitive dissonance that would result by moving in a more moderate direction would be too much for Watts to handle. And many of his adoring followers would probably also dump him. They know what to expect at WUWTJosephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26640274511716046972015-06-09T17:20:37.541+10:002015-06-09T17:20:37.541+10:00Playing the victim, yes.
I have no doubt that Wat...Playing the victim, yes.<br /><br />I have no doubt that Watts is doing it deliberately, he is not deluded. Send out a nasty email and hopefully provoke a response which he can then parade in front of his audience.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27627769197870602062015-06-09T07:13:05.001+10:002015-06-09T07:13:05.001+10:00might have some value in the long-term
Ah, yes, t...<i>might have some value in the long-term</i><br /><br />Ah, yes, the long-term. Let's wait and wait and wait. I mean, we're in a hiatus anyway, right? Might as well get played.Nevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15413215743703093876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18024951462814101092015-06-09T05:58:39.721+10:002015-06-09T05:58:39.721+10:00In this case the bcc list is irrelevant. Watts had...In this case the bcc list is irrelevant. Watts had no expectation of privilege or confidentiality in the email sent to Peterson, and as the person to whom the email was directed Peterson could share its contents however and with whomever he wished.<br /><br />The hacked CRU emails and the handful of comments that have been a mainstay of WUWT and similar sites for years are another matter, since they were illicitly acquired by an unknown third party.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50265849029328941062015-06-09T01:43:51.610+10:002015-06-09T01:43:51.610+10:00That open letter was to Marcia McNutt. It was the ...That open letter was to Marcia McNutt. It was the most cringeworthy, sexist and patronizing article I have ever read at WUWT. <br /><br />Tom Peterson was fully entitled to publish Anthony's email. Anthony had copied it to "undisclosed recipients", so the only way to counter its libellous content was to publish the response. <br /><br />Anthony has extensive previous with regards to publishing genuinely private correspondence. As in the fable of the scorpion and the frog, he just can't help it, it's in his nature. <br /><br />And anybody who meets privately with Anthony with the expectation of striking up some rapport through a face to face meeting should expect to get stung later.Andy Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16313161977123410684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7104955504530377212015-06-09T01:02:07.157+10:002015-06-09T01:02:07.157+10:00Oh come on, that one was pretty funny. The lede w...Oh come on, that one was pretty funny. The lede was (must print now!) "EPA funded researchers influence EPA policy". Duh!Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14210352286722670572015-06-08T23:32:17.130+10:002015-06-08T23:32:17.130+10:00==> "While not as overt as his email, I th...==> "While not as overt as his email, I think a "reasonable person" would regard this as an allegation of fraud:"<br /><br />I remember the "open letter" from Willis to a female scientist (can't be bothered to figure out which one) in which (paraphrasing) Willis said that she had been fooled into a misunderstanding of climate science, quite likely because men were lying to her because she's attractive.<br /><br />Watt's selective "outrage, outrage I say" is beyond parity.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27818176719815492972015-06-08T23:27:00.992+10:002015-06-08T23:27:00.992+10:00Dana Nuccitelli has a new story in the Guardian to...Dana Nuccitelli has a new story in the Guardian today and included part of Watt's email. <br /><br /><br />http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/08/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-noaa-global-warming-faux-pause-paperCeistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64301457946447974432015-06-08T23:06:05.258+10:002015-06-08T23:06:05.258+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Gingerbakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211637630936981883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30122037149637264532015-06-08T22:50:01.814+10:002015-06-08T22:50:01.814+10:00Another important point, which I'll add to the...Another important point, which I'll add to the article up top. Anthony can't argue that his unsolicited email should have been kept private without exposing his double standards. This is a WUWT article from less than a month ago - posted on 13 May 2015:<br /><br /><a href="https://archive.is/hAmmw" rel="nofollow">Hump day hilarity: WUWT’s new policy on hate mail – your hate mail will be published</a><br /><br />In that article he not only posted the email, he posted the email address of the sender, too. (Something that is definitely against <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/comment-policy.html#policy" rel="nofollow">HotWhopper policy</a>).<br /><br />Think too, of all the times Anthony promotes Chris Horner's fishing expeditions - FOI-ing government agencies and universities for emails. Maybe it would have surfaced sooner or later anyway - though I suspect he'd not publish it at WUWT if it did. Or not with Dr Peterson's reply:(Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75622907097387357222015-06-08T22:24:15.892+10:002015-06-08T22:24:15.892+10:00I think Anthony's feeling injured not because ...I think Anthony's feeling injured not because the email was made public, it was more because it was made public at HotWhopper instead of at WUWT. Anthony could hardly have posted it given the polite reply he got. <br /><br />If he'd not got a reply, or if Dr Peterson had been short with him, maybe then Anthony would have posted it at WUWT, showing how brave he is at daring to send an email to a real live scientist. And not just any email, an email where he told those scientists what deniers think of them.<br /><br />All that's pure speculation. Tom did reply and Anthony chose to do nothing with it. <br /><br />I like it that scientists are standing up to Anthony's bullying and false accusations. What's telling is that no-one in that Twitter thread accepted Anthony's version that he wasn't really accusing Dr Peterson of fraud. (He accused Dr Peterson and his colleagues of fraud and prostitution, in plain language that left no room for doubt.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12991306559525193242015-06-08T21:54:17.861+10:002015-06-08T21:54:17.861+10:00Watts seems to be acting injured because his corre...Watts seems to be acting injured because his correspondence, which presumably he meant to be a private matter between himself and his correspondents, has been made public. He seems to be implying that such publication is unethical. <br /><br />Somewhere at the back of my mind I seem to remember rather a large amount of internal mail being published, without any of the authors being consulted, and a lot of network traffic to a certain website and money for the authors of a cash-in book being generated ….<br /><br />I used to suspect that Watts couldn't actually believe all the guff he promotes, that he posted it up to please the crowds, Bread and Circuses. But it seems he has allowed himself to be swayed by his own stream of propaganda and he does genuinely that believe the authors of the Karl paper and presumably the reviewers and journal editor have all falsified a study for purely political ends. <br /><br />I look forward to the submission of a response pointing out exactly where the paper is in error ....<br />Phil Clarkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47692297056709556062015-06-08T21:13:34.606+10:002015-06-08T21:13:34.606+10:00McKibben may not have said much because he was utt...McKibben may not have said much because he was utterly gob-smacked by Watts's idiocies - referred to here as "science which passeth understanding". Which indeed it does.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3966991990076102082015-06-08T21:01:04.413+10:002015-06-08T21:01:04.413+10:00He doesn't give any names, but he links to the...He doesn't give any names, but he links to the article and describes it as "a construct of dubious data doctoring portending that climate disaster is right on schedule."Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57481765833817307642015-06-08T20:59:34.342+10:002015-06-08T20:59:34.342+10:00Battig has a DeSmogBlog entry...that should tell y...Battig has a DeSmogBlog entry...that should tell you something.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51083571078501788062015-06-08T20:52:18.351+10:002015-06-08T20:52:18.351+10:00Good catch, Lars. It's not just the comments t...Good catch, Lars. It's not just the comments that are often libelous (like Tim Ball's stuff which gets pretty close at WUWT - (we've yet to find out whether his writing elsewhere is deemed libelous by the court). <br /><br />Anthony does post articles like that too - though in that case they bypass the problem by not naming any individual - (I'm guessing it doesn't. I haven't read the full article).Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54138300148599734692015-06-08T20:49:07.285+10:002015-06-08T20:49:07.285+10:00Sou a US Federal Government agency does not have r... Sou a US Federal Government agency does not have recourse to an action in defamation. His email may still defamatory as it accuses the authors and specifically Peterson of such conduct .It depends on who the cc'd recipients are. He he is free to say anything he likes about <br />NOAA or any other agency.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82164924603688456212015-06-08T20:44:15.317+10:002015-06-08T20:44:15.317+10:00I notice that Watts yesterday (after the meeting w...I notice that Watts yesterday (after the meeting with McKibben) put up a guest post with the title "Bespoke Science…Made-to-Order Science" by somebody called "Charles G. Battig, M.D" [must refrain from making fun of name].<br /><br />A sampe of its uggliness:<br /><br /><i>"I propose a new label for science papers which attempt to challenge established concepts by refashioning data banks to achieve a desired conclusion. Borrowing from the fashion world, I term such science efforts as “bespoke science.” Made-to-order…made to measure…made to fit the desired outcome by selective data trimming, adjusting, and stitching together. Be ready to see much more tailoring of data to fit the U.N. agenda as December approaches."</i>Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22380762707931848992015-06-08T20:33:19.596+10:002015-06-08T20:33:19.596+10:00I don't know how safe Anthony is, but I suspec...I don't know how safe Anthony is, but I suspect that this time around neither the scientists nor the NOAA will bother taking action against him. (He keeps crying "poor" - don't know how poor he really is). If he hooked up under the umbrella of the Heartland Institute or one of the other lobby groups he'd be more at risk. He does push his luck all the time. (One of these days he might push the wrong person.) <br /><br />As publisher at WUWT Anthony is exposed. He is responsible for what he publishes, whether he reads it or not.:<br /><br />While not as overt as his email, I think a "reasonable person" <a href="https://archive.is/lG3cj#selection-543.32-543.178" rel="nofollow">would regard this</a> as an allegation of fraud:<br /><br /><i>NOAA/NCDC will attempt to rewrite the surface temperature record yet again, making even more “adjustments” to the data to achieve a desired effect</i><br /><br />And a "reasonable person" would regard this as a <a href="https://archive.is/HdvRm#selection-587.0-587.186" rel="nofollow">claim that the scientists are lying</a>:<br /><br /><i>Tune in here tomorrow at 2PM EDT (11AM PDT) and you’ll see why this is the most mendacious attempt yet to save their climate science from the terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet.</i>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com