Science illiteracy at WUWT: Last year a grunt, this year a sneer at AGU14

Note: to find out how to see the science at AGU14 - click here.


Last year Anthony Watts, anti-science blogger a WUWT, heard someone grunting at him, when they didn't. This time he saw a sneer, but couldn't take a photo of it.

Anthony isn't great with words as you know. He rarely writes blog articles himself. Almost never will you see a comment on science by Anthony Watts beyond the added word "claim" in a headline, except for the occasional silly article like how Russian Steampipes Cause AGW. Anthony can manage a dogwhistle but that's about as far as he can go. Why people figured it was worth the money to send him to report on AGU14 is anyone's guess.

But they did. This is what they got in return in his Day 2 report:

• A long complaint that Anthony isn't allowed to photograph everyone's intellectual property and plaster it all over his blog. Last year one of his few "scientific" reports was nothing more than 31 crappy snapshots of slides from Judith Lean's Bjerknes Lecture - with no commentary. While not telling his readers that they could view the AGU13 Bjerknes Lecture for free in AGU Virtual Options. (Go watch it if you missed it.)
• A martyrdom complaint that he saw (or imagined) a sneer from Michael Mann (remember Anthony demonstrated the same persecution complex when he imagined a grunt last year)
• A note that he attended a session by Jeff Masters, of which the only thing he reported was that Jeff said that "imagery is important"
• A number of dark blurry shots of people serving beer (and for some reason he complained a lot on Twitter that he didn't have to pay for it, while other people did)
• A photo of a table of people, all busy working hard, which he described as a photo of Dr Peter Gleick's "contempt"
• A photo of a board listing the sponsors of AGU14, where Anthony got in a mention of the sponsorship by ExxonMobil and Peter Gleick in the one sentence - presumably as a reference to the funding of the Heartland Institute's campaign of science disinformation.
• Some tweets about how the "no photos" rule can't be enforced.

I went right over Anthony's article again, looking for some actual reporting of all the science from AGU14. But there was none. Not a shred of science in his report. That was it. That's the sum total of everything from Anthony Watts' Day Two report. Is he that science illiterate? Seems so.

From the WUWT comments

How satisfied are Anthony's backers in his non-reporting of AGU14? Well, here's a sample of the 103 comments (at the time of archiving):

icouldnthelpit wrote about the first paragraph:

December 17, 2014 at 8:00 am
The first paragraph is chock full of litotes and I’m fairly fond of litotes.

If you don't know what "litotes" is (I had to look it up - see I'm not omnipotent :D) here's a description from Wikipedia:

In rhetoric, litotes (/ˈlaɪtətiːz/,[1] US /ˈlɪtətiːz/ or /laɪˈtoʊtiːz/) is a figure of speech wherein understatement is used to emphasize a point by stating a negative to further affirm a positive, often incorporating double negatives for effect.[2][3][4] For example, "She's not bad looking" could be used to express that someone is gorgeous. Or it could convey that she's not particularly ugly, but also isn't particularly attractive. The degree of emphasis depends on the context in which it is used. For instance, the commonly used phrase "not bad" could indicate that something was either average or excellent.[5] Along the same lines, litotes can be used to diminish the harshness of an observation; "He isn't the cleanest person I know" could be used as a means of indicating that someone is a messy person.[6]

In a reference to Anthony's new hearing aids, which gives him near normal hearing, though I know from people with severe hearing loss, it doesn't work in all situations (like crowded noisy rooms), ShrNfr wrote:

December 17, 2014 at 8:01 am
But at least you can hear the presentations better this year.

Scottish Sceptic is pleased to get whatever crumbs Anthony is able to toss:

December 17, 2014 at 8:14 am
Thanks for photos. It’s surprising how they change the perception of the event.

kenw wrote in support of the AGU policy of no photos:

December 17, 2014 at 8:41 am
very few of the professional conferences I attend allow photography, in fact I can’t recall one that didn’t explicitly deny it. usually it is because of the sensitive nature (in my case) of proprietary info. However, most do have a collection, now often digital, of presentations and other materials available either free with registration or in some cases for a minimal cost. Often they are mailed on CD/DVD later. You might inquire as to availability. Stay safe.

Which highlights the fact that Anthony hasn't told his readers about how they can view heaps of AGU14 lectures and presentations for free, from the comfort of their loungeroom.


Duster chimes in about copyright plus points out that poster sessions (and many presentations) are works in progress, given generously:

December 17, 2014 at 10:39 am
Poster session and presentation materials and graphs are all copyright to the authors under US law. They are legally not reproducible without permission from the author. If you can get printed material from the presenter, it can be cited, though not many professionals take venue presentation citations as serious. Typically either they are grad student work that will change between the presentation and the production of a thesis or dissertation, or they are quick and dirty attention grabbers intended to keep a name “current” in people’s memory’s, and for some professions, in the eye of the media. So, the “no photos” rule is there basically to prevent “unrefined” opinions and findings from embarrassing people. For some odd reason critics, the media and more politically-minded types are not willing to let one change one’s mind or to hold nuanced opinions that are not readily pigeonholed.

rd50 agrees, and observes that it points to ignorance on the part of Anthony and WUWT readers. As he says, all you have to do is ask nicely and most researchers are only too happy to answer questions and share their published science - and maybe even their posters:

December 17, 2014 at 4:48 pm
I agree. All scientific meetings have (or should have) this policy. People here who are surprised simply never attended such meetings.
No photography at poster sessions, although some state that you can ask the person at the poster for permission. In any event this is 2014. If you want a copy of the poster it is usually available in a variety of ways, just ask. Some even give you the internet site on the poster, so you can get an instant copy on you cell phone! Please get with it. No annoying photography at poster sessions. We are there to discuss and learn.
At presentation sessions it became even more unpleasant. We get idiots standing up with their iPads to video the session. They don’t care being in front of you. Then we get people getting up and snapping pictures with their iPhones. They don’t care about the distraction.
We don’t need a bunch of people snapping pictures at scientific meetings and disturbing presentations and discussion. Just get your pictures in the corridors!

noaaprogrammer  knows it's all a hoax but would like to know if there are any impacts of "sinking poles"

December 17, 2014 at 9:07 am
At this point, I think most of the regulars at WUWT know that the alarmists’ science is contrived/distorted/manipulated, etc. However I would like to know Anthony’s impression of any changes he may have noticed in the alarmists overall attitudes/feelings/confidence/conniving/etc. i.e. Do they ‘feel’ the heat? – or are they continuing in their goals, oblivious to their sinking poles in public opinion?

davidmhoffer suggests a game of "gotcha", or what passes for such a game at WUWT:

December 17, 2014 at 9:42 am
No photography is an opportunity.
Ask the booths you are interested in for a card, and once you have it, ask them to send you a photo of their posters. The AGU can stop you from taking pictures of researchers works, but they can’t stop the researchers from taking a picture of their work and sending it to you.

Give them some suitable time period (say one month) and then publish a list of all the cards you got, and which ones complied with your request and which didn’t.
Lots of hours of amusement looking at the ones that send their work, and just as many digging into those that didn’t…. 

Cherpa1 doesn't care that Anthony can't report any science:

December 17, 2014 at 10:27 am
Anthony, you are the best. You must really burn these guys. So good to read your blog.

I've got to the bottom of the comments and must have missed any and all of the WUWT donors asking for some science reporting. If you can find it let me know.