Sunday, October 6, 2013

On credibility...

Sou | 2:44 PM Go to the first of 6 comments. Add a comment

I read this at WUWT and thought, what a plonker.

charles the moderator says (my bold italics):
October 5, 2013 at 5:58 pm
David Archibald,
May I suggest you turn your talent of finding patterns in random correlations and squiggles to humorous subjects such as: [inserted graphic of pirates]
At least your posts could then possess some redeeming quality or social value as opposed to the continued detritus that simply continues to pull down the credibility of this site.

I've some questions for charles the moderator:
  1. Does he really and truly think that WUWT has any credibility to pull down?
  2. What makes charles the moderator think that Anthony Watts is seeking credibility?  If he was, why would he put up so many incredible articles?
  3. Isn't it about time charles the moderator put the same suggestion to Anthony Watts himself?  And no, bad cartoons by Josh don't count.

(David "funny sunny" Archibald's latest effort is archived here.  He didn't get much applause except from hard-core deniers like Janice Moore, who'll clap anyone who rejects science no matter what silliness they write.)


  1. Two agnotologist mediocrities fall out at a site approvingly cited by News Ltd opinion writers...

    One day some people at that company are going to wonder how they ever allowed the outsourcing of science based material to such incompetent cranks....but too late to save their credibility.

    Seriously, Australian scientists must direct a detailed critique of media policy failure on science to the management of News.

  2. More pirates:


  3. Archibald must be stopped, or people might not believe the next WUWT post about how the Greenland ice sheet formed during the LIA.

  4. So, they're not just unpleasant to people they regard as "warmists". They're just unpleasant. That's comforting to know.

  5. For the deepest blood-spitting bile and murderous hatred you can't do better than schism.

    Watts has brought up credibility before regarding denial of the greenhouse effect, which he and other luminaries denounced as damaging to the mission and its message. He soon discovered he'd lose half the room if he stuck to that line and it was dropped. I don't think it's gone away, though, and it'll emerge again come time to apportion blame. I'm looking forward to it keenly.


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. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.