Bob Tisdale does a Wondering Willis - it's "mind blowing" that a science blog wrote about WUWT

Remember when Wondering Willis wrote that scathing piece about Anthony Watts and WUWT, saying that Anthony couldn't tell good science from pseudo-science crap even if he had a year to think about it?  His article was one long insult to Anthony and WUWT.

Now Bob Tisdale has done the same (archived here). In another full-on insult to WUWT, Bob writes how he finds it unbelievable that any proper science site would take the least bit of notice of the nonsense that goes on at Anthony Watts' blog.

What that tells you is that now two of the most prolific writers at WUWT have a fairly realistic picture of WUWT's place in the world. Both Willis Eschenbach and Bob Tisdale view Anthony Watts in the same way as most other people do. Anthony Watts runs a fringe blog that is not to be taken seriously by anyone, let alone by anyone who knows anything about climate science.

When two of Anthony's staunchest allies come out with this sort of thing, you see that they realise that WUWT is just another inconsequential blog that happens to attract a lot of people - but not the type of audience anyone would want to boast about.

Mind blowing and truly bizarre

Bob uses words like "mind boggling" and "truly bizarre" to describe his reaction to the realclimate article. He is probably astonished that anyone outside the deniosphere bubble has heard of WUWT, let alone that reaclimate.org would write an article about the (dead or dormant) WUWT widget. Who in their right mind (according to Bob) cares about a misleading widget - or any of the tricks deniers use to deceive the world? He's wrong. Research shows that when you expose the tricks that deniers get up to, people respond. They can see more clearly how disinformers are dishonest.

Bob can't envisage that anyone can do more than one thing.  I've seen that before with low-achievers. They are amazed that someone can whip up a blog article in their own personal time, for example, and still produce high quality research in their day job. Bob also seems to think that Professor Stefan Rahmstorf should stop his "physics of the oceans" research and get a new job developing climate models. Why? I don't know. Maybe Bob thinks it's a growing field. Or maybe it's because Bob can't understand physics of the oceans, so he thinks it not worth researching.

There is a lot more wrong with Bob's article. As usual he packs a lot of wrongs into a big space. For example, Bob is unable to distinguish between the importance to the ordinary person of the temperature on the surface of the earth - where we live, work and play, and the importance to science of the amount of heat being stored in the ocean. Bob's inability to see the obvious is fairly typical of those who inhabit the ignorant end of denialism.

The WUWT widget died in September, but Bob says he's had the word that someone is going to resurrect it.

You can go to realclimate.org to see the tricks that are used in the WUWT widget. It's a good example. You'll also find a better widget. Well, it's really a chart that you can copy onto your own website that gets updated automatically every month. It's got CO2 plotted against surface temperature. It needs a bit of work still. (The colours are hard to see, for example, and the typeface is too small compared to the size of the chart, and it would be nice to be able to change the background and foreground colours. Are there any widget programmers out there with time on their hands?)

It's got the important things right, though. Such as the relationship between CO2 and surface temperature is consistent with physics, unlike the WUWT widget. And it shows the solar radiation in a meaningful way, unlike the WUWT widget.

From the WUWT comments

The usual. Nothing terribly illuminating except where Willis Eschenbach points out that to keep up the hits, Anthony Watts has to endlessly regurgitate garbage - with umpteen pseudo-scientific or political "essays" from "guests" every single day. Otherwise his readers would wander elsewhere to write their one-liner denialisms. Whereas RealClimate.org has a strong readership base because of its high quality scientific articles, even though they've been a bit less frequent this past few months (since Gavin Schmidt became Director of GISS, NASA). And the quality of the discussions at realclimate.org remains very high, is focused on science and encourages people to think. While the quality of comments at WUWT is below low and aimed at the unthinking mindless hordes.

I won't bother posting any comments. It's enough to know that Bob Tisdale, like Willis Eschenbach, holds WUWT in extremely low regard. If you want to read them, they're here.
.