Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Taunting the World: Anthony Watts brazenly boasts about climate disinformers getting away with theft and lies

Sou | 1:59 PM Go to the first of 13 comments. Add a comment

Anthony Watts at WUWT has decided to go back five years (archived here), and boast about how he and other deniers escaped the wrath of the law and got away with the crime of receiving stolen property, protecting thieves and worse. They've not got much else to boast about these days. But it's in character for him and his band of deniers to be proud of the fact that deniers managed to defeat the British constabulary, steal thousands of emails from a university, and then misrepresent the contents to the world at large.  How they hounded the world's leading climate scientists and tried to destroy their professional reputations, in their effort to put the entire world at risk.

What science disinformers like Anthony Watts won't admit to his dismal audience is that there was nothing, nothing at all in the emails. Zero. Zilch. Not one teeny tiny little bit of an email, that put the smallest dent in the vast body of climate science knowledge.  All the incident showed was how low science disinformers will sink to try to preserve the interests of those they are shielding. The crooked politicians. The greedy fossil fuel company owners.

That was a dark episode, and is probably the best example of the lengths to which these climate vandals will go in their ongoing efforts to make the next several generations suffer misery, drought, hunger, thirst, floods, dislocation, social upheaval and war. They will break the law. They will steal, lie and defame - and continue to do so. Some of them will get away with it. Others won't - or that's my climate prediction. Many of them will pay for their crimes eventually - either by being brought before a court of law, or by suffering the effects of climate change first hand themselves.

Some of these people are sociopaths who get a kick out of damaging humanity. Some are just petty criminals, lowlife scoundrels who are in it for the money. Their target audience is the wilfully ignorant. The dumb deniers. The uneducated ultra-conservative voter who is afraid of anything and everything outside their immediate tiny bigoted social circle.  The disenfranchised and fearful, who think they are powerless. It's the dumb deniers who make up the chorus and help spread the lies of the professional disinformers. It doesn't take much to play on the fears of the fearful. All it takes is to pretend to be anti-authority. To be against learning and knowledge and all the good things that humanity represents.

These people think they are above the law. They will libel, steal and lie and do whatever it takes to make sure the world gets hotter as quickly as possible. Oh, those same people will call on the law when it suits them. If someone stole from them they'd be the first to call the local police force. However they think they themselves are immune. Well, they are getting away with their criminal acts for a while, but it will backfire on them.

Look at Anthony Watts. His own home state has been burning up, suffering one of the worst droughts in recorded history. It's improved only a smidgen since the worst of three months ago. How is he coping? He doesn't say. Anthony Watts, supposed weather person, has barely mentioned what's happening in his own backyard. He doesn't have the courage to admit to his readers that he and they are part of the problem. That they are bringing this on themselves.

Source: US Drought Monitor

Yes, this is a bit different to the mild ridicule I normally heap on the denialati. Ridicule is good, but not all these people are simple buffoons and well-meaning idiots. Some of them are quite simply immoral and have shown they are willing to break the law to protect their own personal interests. Calling disinformers out for their crimes from time to time, is also good.


  1. Funny. The dis-informers aren't necessarily deniers.Not really sure whom your vitriol is aimed at.

    1. Some deniers have limited intellectual capability when it comes to climate change.

      To be crystal clear, I am writing about everyone who is intent on speeding up global warming, including you, anonymous. (For lurkers, this particular anonymous has appeared here before and is a self-declared climate science denier.)

      I am writing about all the people you support who misrepresent science, who vilify scientists, who lie either knowingly or through deliberate and wilful ignorance, and all of you who campaign against science, knowledge and learning.

      You speak of vitriol - you and your chosen "friends", the science denying scoundrels of the world, are full of it.

  2. Sou for the first time ever I have to take issue with you.

    The NYT and the Guardian published stolen encrypted US diplomatic cables distributed by WikiLeaks in 2011 and were not prosecuted. It's essential that the press Including HW and WUWT must not suffer criminal sanctions if those organs were not involved in any theft.

    The Pentagon Papers precedent must be maintained.

    What WikiLeaks, NYT and the Guardian DID NOT DO was to employ those leaked cables in a dangerous or wilfully misleading and deceptive manner.

    WUWT et al did nothing but dangerously and wilfully mislead and deceive. That's the true crime of the denier blogs but that crime should only be challenged by an action in defamation in a civil court or by being comprehensively debunked by the press including science blogs like the excellent and dogged HW.

    1. GSR, I think I understand the line you are drawing. However I would dispute that the theft of hundreds of thousands of personal emails from the University of East Anglia could be considered to be in the public interest. They were not the Pentagon Papers.

      Theft is theft. Using what was stolen for personal profit (as some people did), and to spread disinformation and cause general mayhem is immoral.

      In any case, we do agree, from the look of it, that the way that science deniers fabricated and misrepresented the contents and used them to try to prevent ongoing research and try to ruin the reputation of world-renowned climate scientists, was verging on criminal.

    2. Sou the malicious criminality of the CRU's email theft was partially mirrored by their desperately ugly publishers. Absent evidence of criminal complicity however, the publisher's liability is correctly limited to just the malicious bit.

      I have no knowledge of Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning's intent but I am not at all convinced that her massive theft was in the public interest either.

      The question we must address is "what elevates a publication to criminal conduct and who's going to be the arbiter?"

      These dangerous liars have to be beaten down in our electorates not in our criminal courts.

    3. BTW deniers, ''beaten down' is purely metaphorical.

    4. As an exercise in PR i asked in the local community what people thought about Climategate ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,blank stare, not as well known as you might believe

    5. GSR, I completely agree that we need to protect the ability to get important material out to the public.

      But there's a huge difference between the Pentagon papers, etc., and so-called "Climategate." That was not a case of some white hat brigade trying to get important information into the open. There was no whistle to blow. It was a cold, calculated attempt by ideologues and/or profit seekers to spread FUD.

      They weren't serving the public. They were serving themselves and their masters

    6. "There was no whistle to blow. It was a cold, calculated attempt by ideologues and/or profit seekers to spread FUD. "

      You left out pure ruthlessness, sociopathic even.

  3. John I agree it's overstated in some places. Where do you live?
    If it's Oregon, WA, CA or CO then we have already taken that as read.

  4. chrisd3 and citizenschallenge

    The criminal CRU hackers had no whistle to blow and their mens rea cannot be compared to that of Daniel Elsberg, Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden.

    Nor can the malicious publication of the emails be compared to the ethical action of the NYT and the Guardian.

    There is no moral comparison but there is definitely a legal one and we must protect a malicious publication's right to be malicious if we are also to protect the rights of the NYT the Guardian, the ABC, BBC etc. .

    Here's a better way to support legal remedies against malicious conduct by the media


  5. k_naranek2263@yahoo.comNovember 22, 2014 at 12:28 PM

    The current California drought pales in comparison to droughts of the past. The North American far west has over the past thousands of years experienced severe droughts lasting centuries. That they could occur again during the modern era should come as no surprise. Below are two scholarly references for these non seismic related events.


    "Severe drought is the greatest recurring natural disaster to strike North America. A remarkable network of centuries-long annual tree-ring chronologies has now allowed for the reconstruction of past drought over North America covering the past 1000 or more years in most regions. These reconstructions reveal the occurrence of past “megadroughts” of unprecedented severity and duration, ones that have never been experienced by modern societies in North America."

    A Study of ancient trees rooted 36.5 m below the surface of Fallen Leaf Lake


    1. You are right of course. There have been megadroughts in the region before in relatively recent times (the past thousand years or so), and that could certainly happen again. Not something to wish on any nation.

      If you're taking issue with my writing "recorded history", you're right. It was ambiguous. What I meant was the modern instrumental record, not the entire history of California. The droughts you are referring to may have been recorded somewhere at the time or not, but AFAIK they were discovered through paleoclimatology rather than through an examination of written weather records maintained during the droughts themselves.

      I'll try to be more explicit in future.


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.