Sunday, January 31, 2016

Just plain evil: Anthony Watts and PopTech sink to a new low

Sou | 9:19 PM Go to the first of 66 comments. Add a comment
I'm not surprised that the despicable denier, PopTech would sink this low, but I must admit that I'm surprised at Anthony Watts, despite all the slime that has come from him over the years. They are both effectively arguing that no descendant of any of the tens of millions of people conscripted to the German armed forces early last century, no matter where they live now, and no matter what their or their forebears' personal beliefs or politics are or were, has any credibility when it comes to climate science. Why? Because they or their ancestors "fought for the Nazis".

It is probably the most abhorrent use of Godwin's Law you can imagine.

Note: See the upshot below in the update.

PopTech is a sleazy lowlife from the USA, who's been polluting the internet for years, most recently as a science denier. He once invaded HotWhopper, anonymously threatening me, claiming to have installed a keystroke logger on my computer, presumably in retaliation for my banning him. (Of course he didn't and couldn't.) I'd say he's of questionable character but that would be wrong. He has no character.

Anthony Watts is an unethical lowlife and a contemptible climate conspiracy theorist who libels climate scientists to supplement his income.

Today Anthony has an article about blogger CitizensChallenge. CC has a couple of blogs and I love his style of writing. It is refreshing and to the point. On his more active blog, CC has been writing some articles exposing the silliness of PopTech's science denial. (The title of this article is taken from CC's latest, which he snagged from a comment.)

Anthony Watts wrote his odious smear under the headline: "Another one of my blog spawn goes up in flames". How did CC go up in flames? Well it turns out that he didn't. PopTech was doing another of his paybacks, because CC had written a series of articles showing up his science denial for what it was. Anthony Watts wrote:
Most of these people are angry and often incompetent  trolls that have been booted off WUWT and other websites because they just don’t play well with others. They serve as prime examples as the sort of ridiculously hateful rhetoric that permeates the alarmist side of the debate. They are all long on emotion and denigration, and short on sensibility.

That's a big fat lie and it's no coincidence that Anthony doesn't link to where he supposedly kicked anyone off his blog, or where they "don't play well" with deniers, or any of their "hateful rhetoric", or any of their "emotion and denigration" or where they are "short on sensibility". He can't. It doesn't exist. If he linked to anything it would show him up as petty, uneducatedignorant, sexist, cowardly and nasty. But it's not the worst of it. Anthony continued:
As an example, Andrew K. aka “poptech” says he was being harassed by one of my blog spawn. Some people just need to learn to pick their battles, and Andrew was not amused. This is the result: The Truth about What’sUpWithThatWatts, et al.

If showing up the silliness of PopTech's science denial constitutes "harassment", then CC is certainly guilty.  Rather than try to respond with evidence or discussion of the science, PopTech found a personal obituary notice about CC's father, who emigrated to the US from Germany in 1955 and died in 2006. At least he says it is. (CC hasn't has now confirmed that the notice was about his father.) From the notice, if it is CC's father, he was a talented artist and musician, who was injured and became a prisoner of war in Egypt. CC and his father were very close by all accounts, which makes PopTech and Anthony's attack all the more contemptible. PopTech spun the mandatory conscription into the German infantry, which is not the Nazi party but the regular army, as him having "actually fought for the Nazis" - linking to an old obituary notice from Colorado on the WayBack Machine. (There's more, too. He also suggested that CC has "marijuana induced brain damage".)

Anthony Watts has written some really nasty stuff in his time, but this is as low as I have seen him sink. Not able to dispute the science, not even content to attack CC personally, they attack his father who passed away nine years ago, and who seems to have been a wonderful person and a very loving and loved parent, who, probably on his 17th birthday, had the misfortune of being conscripted into the German infantry late in the second world war (1943). CC's father had considerable talent. He was artistic and musical, and played with the Chicago Chamber Orchestra. I suspect CC has inherited some of his talent as I believe he's a very gifted craftsman.

Unlike PopTech and Anthony Watts, CC cares deeply for the world he lives in, and clearly loves the natural world and science. He is an eloquent writer who has a solid grasp of climate science. Someone who Anthony Watts and PopTech could learn a lot from, if they had half his intellect. (They don't, so that's purely hypothetical.)

If you think PopTech and Anthony Watts sank to a nauseating new low, Jim Steele goes one lower, and wrote in the comments:
I just realized pop tech had linked tony essays on Meisler. That Meisler grew up in a Nazi family is not surprising.
I'm told to expect increasingly worse behaviour from Anthony Watts and deniers as global warming continues to ramp up. Do you think that's possible? Unfortunately, we are condemned to share the planet with these dregs of humanity. Thankfully there are also truly wonderful climate science champions like CitizensChallenge.

I'll leave it to you to decide the answer to the questions: "Ignorant, stupid, insane or just plain evil? Which category does PopTech fall into?" What category do Anthony Watts and Jim Steele fall into? What category do they aspire to?

Update, hold your nose and mind the smelly shoes

The upshot of Anthony Watts promoting that ugly article is that after 198 comments, he closed the thread in a huff. Anthony Watts wrote the last comment:
January 31, 2016 at 9:41 pm
I understand some people are upset. I get it.
Before passing judgment on what I should or should [not] do, what I should or should not link to, and what I should or should not say, each of you should walk a mile in my shoes and endure what I have to endure every day at the hands of faceless cowards.
With that, I’m closing the thread, as it’s turned into a lot of noise.

Sheesh, I wouldn't want to be within a mile of Anthony's shoes. Imagine. It would take ten lifetimes to get rid of the pong. Remember, Anthony's "mile" consists of attacking and libelling scientists, wading through pseudo-scientific claptrap, rubbing shoulders with people like Jim Steele and Roy Spencer, drowning in the cesspit of Tim Ball's anti-semitic conspiracy theories, and being barraged all day every day by hundreds of empty mindless "thoughts". (Note too Anthony's dig at unspecified "faceless cowards". Has his new chum changed his name to PopTech by deedpoll?)

Anyway, before Anthony limped off in his scruffy smelly sneakers, his very good friend Willis Eschenbach (who holds Anthony's scientific prowess in very low regard) fired a couple of shots across the bow of the once grand WUWT. Willis Eschenbach wrote:
January 31, 2016 at 12:49 pm
Poptech is [trimmed]. Look at his slimy attempted character assassinations of Judith Curry, myself, and others whose scientific work he chances to disagree with.

He is obviously not competent enough to find errors in my work or the work of others, or he would do so. To cover up his inability, he resorts to his stock in trade—character assassinations and ad hominems. He’ll stoop so low as to bring up someone’s divorce, or their education, or the fact that their father was drafted, to try to push his line of nasty bullshit.

He hasn’t seemed to notice that none of those things affect a person’s ability to do science … but then science and Poptech’s point do not exist in the same universe—his point is to try to blacken peoples’ names by the most scurrilous means possible.

I have no idea why Anthony is promoting this sleazebag, but count me out. I have no use for him at all, and were it not for the fact that this is a family blog, I’d tell you what I really think of him.

And here's an excerpt from Willis' second comment:
Classy. Real classy.

Someday, Poptech, you may actually notice that it doesn’t matter if a scientists never changes his boxer shorts in his entire lifetime, or if he has bad breath, or his day job is cleaning toilets, or he didn’t go to Oxford.

I've got to say that Willis Eschenbach just saved himself from a HotWhopper article I started, about coccolithophores, and how the factor limiting their growth more than pH is carbon availability for photosynthesis. Maybe later. For now, he has earned a rare pat on the back. Not a huge one, because I know he was partly driven by the fact that PopTech has attacked Willis in the past. And Willis is not immune from attacking scientists himself. Just the same, I'd say he gave Anthony Watts and his lynch mob something to think about, and that's worth a pat.

There weren't many people who were game to stand up to Anthony Watts. I think most people who have a shred of decency departed WUWT quite some time ago, so all he has left are the real dregs of deniersville. That is, the dregs of the dregs of humanity, chomping at the bit for the dog whistle to join a lynch mob.  I'll close with an honourable mention to The Pompous Git, who expressed what most visitors would have been thinking, that is, anyone who accidentally landed at WUWT by mistake:
January 31, 2016 at 9:16 pm
I’m out of here. For some reason I feel dirty. Not the place I remember at all; more like a toilet that hasn’t been cleaned for a long time…
Sou -  Monday 1 February 2016 at 10:10 pm AEDT


...and Then There's Physics said...

Amazing, although maybe not surprising. Of course, Anthony whined like a stuck pig when one of my commenters left a comment about Anthony being tried for his crimes, despite me deleting it after a couple of hours (I can't actually remember how long it took, but it was the same day). Double standards are, of course, the norm.

Anonymous said...


Sou said...

I've wistfully speculated along the same lines. Anthony didn't complain AFAIK. By now he probably realises it's just as likely as not.

...and Then There's Physics said...

Now that you've highlighted it, he probably will complain :-)

Sou said...

I see that Anthony not only blamed you for the comment, he complained that you deleted it.

If/when Anthony gets "frogmarched to The Hague", he'll probably cyber-panhandle his gullible fans begging for money to cover the air fare, accommodation, meals and prison garb.

DavidR said...

The cranks at WUWT et al. have left themselves with nowhere to run. The inevitable rise in global surface temperatures has driven them into a corner; one they chose for themselves. Forced to face reality, such people instinctively lash out in a final, futile attempt to avoid it.

Their last glimmer of an escape route is the satellite temperature record; hence all their fire-power is aimed in that direction. As Nick Stokes has pointed out, it looks very likely that the Monck's beloved 18+ year 'pause' will have disappeared by March, to be (temporarily) replaced by some month in 2009. Even S&C are now openly smoothing the way for a new satellite TLT record in 2016.

We can expect the cranks to take up the cudgels with renewed vigour from here on in, because by some time ~ mid-2016 they will no longer be fighting a losing battle, they'll be fighting a lost one. And they know it. The nastiness has only just begun.

Millicent said...

"mid-2016 they will no longer be fighting a losing battle, they'll be fighting a lost one."

In a sane world yes. But they will simply focus on anything else that has flawed or insufficient data (how is Patagonian permafrost doing?) until the first return to La Nina conditions allows another bout of amnesia followed by claims of global cooling.

"The nastiness has only just begun."

Yeah, that's the bit that really worries me. Very, very stupid people, complicit in a crime of extraordinary proportions, with big money stoking their insanity, and they have guns.

Millicent said...

Oh the irony.

The father of the billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch helped construct a major oil refinery in Nazi Germany that was personally approved by Adolf Hitler, according to a new history of the Kochs and other wealthy families.

jgnfld said...

We're probably due for another Pinatubo event soon as well. That will provide 100% confirmation that global warming is an intergenerational, international, and extremely widely-based conspiracy among scientists wishing to take over the world.

I often think Watts et. al. watch Pinky and the Brain as a documentary rather than a cartoon.

Unknown said...

The later Republican Secretary of State John Foster Dulles as a Wall Street lawyer in the firm of Sullivan & Cromwell resisted any suggestion that the company should close its Berlin office in the 1930s because of Nazi oppression of Jews. Finally confronted by a revolt of partners who threatened to resign en mass, Dulles protested the loss of substantial profits, but finally gave in "in tears".

- The Devil & John Foster Dulles, Townsend Hoopes, 1974

metzomagic said...

Anon, that is a great video. I'd seen it when it first came out, but it's even better on the 2nd viewing :-)

metzomagic said...

This is, AFAIK, the most despicable thing Willard Tony has ever done. But I wouldn't doubt that he is capable of doing even nastier things. On the bright side though, if he keeps going like this, he's bound to wind up in court on the wrong side of a very serious libel case. Unfortunately, one of the neocon wing nut think tanks will probably step up and bail him out of trouble :-/

Catmando said...

Jimmy's comment is illuminating:

"Most political protesters know that if you shout loud enough you don’t need a sentient argument. The masses and or the media will listen and agree with the volume. It’s best to not let the foolish ruin your day."

Unless he's being ironic.

Lars Karlsson said...

My Latin skills are very poor, but I guess one could call this something like "ad antecestorim".

AndThenTheresPhysics suffered a similar treatment a year ago, although his family was not attacked like here. PopTech also thanked Anthony Watts and Richard Tol "for their assistance."

(Sorry about the link, but PopTech seems to have blocked the use of Webcite for his blog).

Lars Karlsson said...

The very first comment at WUWT is right on the target:

"TeeWee January 30, 2016 at 8:02 pm
I have learned that when people are unable to respond with a rational and logical argument, they resort to 3ed grade playground tactics and resort to name calling and rationalization. Whenever they lower themselves to that level, I believe I have won the debate. Just add them to your wall as a trophy."

"3:rd grade playground tactics ... name calling and rationalization" - what an excellent summary of Poptechs post.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Fred was also a founding member of the John Birch Society.

Catmando said...

Reading the comments you might think an entire bus load of grown up people have turned up to comment on what a bunch of lowlife the average denier, and Antony Watts, is. But I doubt they've looked for themselves.

Rattus Norvegicus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BBD said...

PT should be ignored. CC I hope will rise about the stench.

Tadaaa said...

Funnily enough I sent CC an unsolicited email only last week thanking him for his informative blog and taking the time makes a stand against these lunatics

Also I agree with the sentiments expressed here, and have been on record commenting on blogs that I think 2015/16 will be seen as a turning point in climate denial

It will be relegated to something only "the crazies" engage in

Magma said...

Searching back a few years you'll find PopTech's Andrew K. angrily denying claims that he is Andrew Khan, a computer tech now in his late 40s or early 50s currently or formerly residing in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. But what's sauce for the goose is clearly not sauce for the gander, as his doxxing of CC indicates. I wonder how much of his time (or employer's time and resources) that took up?

The old well has run dry at WUWT and the bucket is just bringing up mud now.

Tadaaa said...

He has been spouting seven shades of crap all over the Internet science at least 2006

His big thing back then was an obsessive campaign regarding the various merits of web browsers and OS's

It actually gave me an amusing evening reading old threads, the guy is a lunatic

citizenschallenge said...

Oh that's funny. I've been outside most of the day and didn't know about the WUWT feature, feels like I've hit the Big Top (as in Ringling Bros.)

Sou, you've always been a great source of news, thank you!

So Poptech did pull a Jim Steele on me.
Rather than confronting me directly he, like Steele, resort to "stealthy confrontations" within the protection of their echo-chamber.

It's akin to a Back Alley Debate, where your "opponents" always make sure they've got you outnumbered. Guess the threats come next.

As for the obituary yup, that sounds like my pops. He was quite the man, as a young kid I loved him dearly, with the teen-years not so much, his last five years were spend here in Durango at an old folks home, so I was fortunate to have had a lot of time to reconnect with him. If you ever saw the movie Big Fish and liked it, you'd have probably appreciated my Dad.

With the perspective of accumulating decades I'm ever more cognizant of how extremely lucky and privileged we were to have him and my mom as parents, both very special people and the stories we siblings could tell ;- )

citizenschallenge said...

I respect your opinions, but beg to differ - PT should not be ignored - his (and pals) fraud against the people's right to honestly learn about climate science should be railed against from every venue.

But, don't worry I won't let him get under my skin - I've got a secret weapon, special training even, nobody, but nobody can beat me up like I can myself. So these clowns are a piece of cake, it just makes them look silly.

metzomagic said...

Way to go, CC. Hang in there. We're pulling for you. And, though it goes without saying, I'm sure BBD meant no disrespect.

Poptech has been a scourge for years. He's been outed too, but we don't gloat on that. Big difference between the two 'sides' on this issue, on all counts.

Bernard J. said...

Lars, PopTech's site may be blocked to Website, but it's not to archive.is.

A search for the URL will return the link above, without gracing the crazy's site itself.

metzomagic said...

Oops, should have read a bit downstream first. Poptech is indeed from NJ, like myself (but, yeah, that's like the only thing we have in common), and it seems CC has come to grips with the stuff PT was spouting about his dad. Water off a duck's back, and all that. Consider the source...

Bernard J. said...

"...the guy is a lunatic."

From what has been said in the past, and even by Andrew Khan himself if I recall correctly, (I'm not sure if those posts still exist...) he has in fact been medicated at times for psychological issues. Others may be able to confirm or refute, but the upshot is that your colloquial diagnosis may not be too far off the mark.

BBD said...


First, that should be 'rise above the stench'. Sorry about that. Second, I only meant that you should ignore the nonsense on this specific occasion. My previous comment was a bit of a dog's breakfast. I blame El Nino, of course.

Chase Stoudt said...

This has cleared up a major mystery. I headed over to CitizensChallege’s place to learn more about Poptech. I hadn’t heard about Poptech's list so I was pleasantly surprised to see familiar references on this list. One of the most prolific trolls I’ve ever seen in an unmoderated forum has used Poptech’s list of sources as his foundation. He’s collected all the papers from this list, loaded the abstracts into a file and copy/pastes Ad nauseum in a huge gish-gallop. I knew he didn’t collect it himself (he was especially ambiguous about it’s provenance), so a big thank you to Sou, CC and the rest of you bloggers! I think this speaks volumes about the effectiveness of so many people watching the disinformation machine.

Anyway, I just pointed this out on Livescience, I should see a very interesting response.

numerobis said...

Strangely, RationalWiki doesn't mention poptech at all, anywhere. I can't remember the first time I heard of him, but it wasn't recent.

Huma Kuvala said...

It is extremely likely that this 'prolific troll' you talk about is Poptech himself; he has a bit of a habit in that regard: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/02/rtfr-pops.html?showComment=1361228541652#c785589087070042762

Bernard J. said...

I always thought that it was because, unlike the other deniers listed by Rationalwiki, PopTech is demonstrably a few sangers short of a packed lunch, and that RW are avoiding potential psychological distress on the part of someone who is likely to respond in an exaggerated fashion.

Of course, that was just my assumption. Perhaps they simply haven't yet reached him on their list of things to do.

Bernard J. said...

Oh, and...

Beatlejuice, Beatlejuice, Beatlejuice...!

PG said...

The advantages of having an independent and publicly funded broadcaster (as much as I love Ira Glass, NPR does not rise to the level of the ABC or the BBC).

PG said...

Pop Tech:

Ceist said...

More like the sewerage tank is running dry and the bucket is just bringing up sludge from the bottom now.

Ceist said...

My one run-in with Poptech left me thinking he was a sociopath.

Chase Stoudt said...

I disagree, this specific troll is who he says he is.

Tadaaa said...

these were some of the old threads I remember looking at






he posts as a variety of pseudonyms mastertech etc - often on the same threads, which is quite amusing (split personality issues!!)

Nick said...

Poptech? I thought he was 'dead', after his little list failed simple scrutiny maybe five years ago [?] So, he's still doing his Black Knight thing? Wow.

I see he has tarted up his site. How is that list performing in meeting the criteria he clearly states at the top?

"Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a scholarly journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. This means the papers are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels Ph.D. Climatology."

So, we look at the first paper in his second category 'Antarctica'[the one after the aggressive rejectionism of the professional disinformers of the 'General' category]

The paper is from 1993:
discussing vulcanism beneath the WAIS.

I assume the 'skeptic argument' supported by this paper is 'because volcanoes'? Whatever, the paper abstract is thus:
"It is widely understood that the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) would cause a global sea level rise of 6 m, yet there continues to be considerable debate about the detailed response of this ice sheet to climate changel–3. Because its bed is grounded well below sea level, the stability of the WAIS may depend on geologically controlled conditions at the base which are independent of climate. In particular, heat supplied to the base of the ice sheet could increase basal melting and thereby trigger ice streaming, by providing the water for a lubricating basal layer of till on which ice streams are thought to slide4,5. Ice streams act to protect the reservoir of slowly moving inland ice from exposure to oceanic degradation, thus enhancing ice-sheet stability. Here we present aerogeophysical evidence for active volcanism and associated elevated heat flow beneath the WAIS near the critical region where ice streaming begins. If this heat flow is indeed controlling ice-stream formation, then penetration of ocean waters inland of the thin hot crust of the active portion of the West Antarctic rift system could lead to the disappearance of ice streams, and possibly trigger a collapse of the inland ice reservoir."

The second paper is on the list 'because volcanoes' too. I guess Poptech is assuming that none of his 'clients' have any domain knowledge on Antarctic geophysical research, or what is in IPCC content regarding Antarctica.

The third paper suggests that southward grounding line retreat of elements of the WAIS may be independent of forcing change. Of course, it does not argue there is no forcing change, or that forcing change will not change rates of retreat.

Apparently papers such as these not only meet his stated criteria, but also "...these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise..." and his list is purposed to reveal them. The fact that they are published in prominent journals seems to have eluded him.

Poptech, what a dill. Still.

Nick said...

You are famous now! You are being flogged with a limp lettuce leaf by some of the elite of agnotology.
Cutting edge!

Sou said...

The upshot of Anthony's character attack and alliance with PopTech is that he closed the thread and limped away, but not before trying to cadge a decent pair of shoes from someone else on the pretext of letting them "walk a mile" in his pongy ones:

See the parting shots above in the update.

...and Then There's Physics said...

I was going to comment on that, but I see you've noticed. Poor, poor, Anthony, shame, people are mean to him.

Tadaaa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tadaaa said...

Poptect also indulges in a subtle bit of anti Semitism too

on his website he does a hatchet job and purposely highlight Jon Stewart Jewishness

"Jon 'Stewart' who was born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz"


Sou said...

Two words, "train" and "wreck", spring to mind. And that makes me think of Anthony's article of a few days ago, where he had to strike out most of what he wrote, and still the bits he didn't cross out were woefully wrong - here and here.

miker said...

This obnoxious stuff is reminiscent of the extraordinary contribution of David Evans, Jo Nova's hubby regarding banksters . If you have the stomach for it, the original 2009 version can be found at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/manufacturing_money_and_warming.pdf . There is however another version of this paper which has been sanitized and published in 2010 with the references to banksters and other conspiracy nonsense removed.

Even Andrew Bolt , bless his dear soul, has lambasted the bankster theory peddled by an inmate of the Galileo Society and given it a more appropriate label. See http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/happy_to_help_those_who_ask_but_not_people_who_peddle_this/ .

jgnfld said...

Ahhh...remember John Birch and fluoride polluting the precious bodies of American youth???!!!

Great science!

Anonymous said...

Except it is not really closed... Look at the dates of the latest comments.

-anonymous bastard-

Anonymous said...

Astonishing that when someone points it out, it is closed within a minute, even though they had a day to figure out people were still commenting there. :D

-anonymous bastard-

Unknown said...

@ citizenschallenge. I am so sorry you've had this bull dumped on you by these assholes spewing on your grief and love for your father.
Did he ever mention whether he was aware of a book called From German Prisoner of War to American Citizen by Barbara Schmitter Heisler? Or even whether he responded to any inquiries from her in the late 90's or just after 2000,or was interviewed by her or even was included in the finished book? It is an interesting book about how several thousand German POW'S came back several years after the war to settle here. She included several young men ( at the time of course) and noncomsin her account. If you know he was included in it,it would be interesting to read his account. Or,if not,if you'd like to get a general picture of what he went through here,you might find the book informative. Thanks.

PG said...

Paul Homewood describes the pain and loneliness of the long distance denier (Delingpole’s site today).

Because Matt Ridley and Nigel Lawson give the occasional nod toward reality They are making it harder for deniers like Homewood and Delingpole to appear sane. Yes that’s the essence of his argument.

……these may be earnest, heartfelt positions but they are also politically expedient ones. What it means is that in debates Lomborg and Lords Ridley and Lawson don’t come across as too “out there.” It means that they cannot, by any reasonable stretch, be tarred as “deniers”. Not only are they not denying the existence in “global warming” but they’re not even that far off from where the mainstream “consensus” is.

…..What it does, unfortunately, mean, though, is that those of us on the sceptical side of the debate who want to push the argument a bit further are put in danger of being made to look like extremists. Crazed conspiracy theorists even.

Nick said...

PG, that's all Delingpole's work, using some of Homewood's stuff....contending that perhaps all of the temperature data has been tampered with...he's an ambitious fellah!

After 'dismissing' the machines, in his 'plausible' tone, you'd think he'd look at the evidence from the cryosphere and the oceans, eh.

His concern for appearance is touching.

Kevin O'Neill said...

"Crazed conspiracy theorists even."

Yes, he picked the correct glass slipper.

PG said...

Thanks Nick. I read Paul Homewood. above the title and assumed it was written by him. I couldn't read past the paragraphs quoted because I was debilitated by paroxysms of laughter.

Brandon R. Gates said...

Classic thin-skinnery from Anthony. Stirs shit, then whines when some gets on him.

Nick said...

Yes, Delingpole is uncontroversially quite potty, but writes with the confidence of someone who is utterly oblivious that everyone knows

PG said...

Delingpole is a bad writer. His sentence construction is clumsy and it alone should have alerted me to its author.

BBD said...

What it means is that in debates Lomborg and Lords Ridley and Lawson don’t come across as too “out there.” It means that they cannot, by any reasonable stretch, be tarred as “deniers”.

Yes, they can.

Not only are they not denying the existence in “global warming” but they’re not even that far off from where the mainstream “consensus” is.

Yes, they are. Dellers is such a clown. Here's Ridley, from the same article:

I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.

That's denialsim, pure and simple and Lawson is just as bad. Lukewarmerism is science denial. It denies the validity of almost all the scientific evidence about climate sensitivity and elevates to prominence a tiny handful of flawed or methodologically-limited studies instead.

citizenschallenge said...

Thank you for the kind thoughts. I consider the source of insults, when they come from someone I respect, they hit the spot and cause some self-reflection. When they come from jerks who only want to hurt and don't even understand what they are spewing... yawn.

However, now that I've read Poptechs blog, it's just plain funny. The desperation is palpable. Well at least he gave me a great vehicle to write about myself in a way I rarely do. The title is a bit harsh, but more and more that's what the libertarian crowd seems like.
Lord of the Flies (#8 Poptech's Truth)
I'll have to check out that book, thanks for the tip. It should be mentioned my dad was wounded while in Italy, in the shoulder but not the bone and captured by the British, then hauled off to sit out the war in Egypt, so his POW experience was not the full-on nightmare most other POWs went through. (Not that his war years didn't impact him deeply)

Millicent said...

By the denouement I was hoping Poptech would put up a lot more articles at WUWT.

Bob Doublin said...

Hi cc, this is the poster, sorry my first time and I wasn't sure how to sign in. The most amazing thing about the book is that of the 800,000 Germans POW's brought to America,most had a decent time,some even called it the best time of theirlives.The US authorities were taken aback by the fact they were expecting all these hardcore,brutal Nazis that they would have to guard every second,but it was the reverse. Maybe 20% were like that but for most soldiers,feeding them as well as american soldiers,clothing them ,sheltering them ,keeping them occupied with work and studies,healthcare,and above all not shooting at them or throwing bombs their way, most of them were what they were before: young men just surviving a trying time. Not to say the were always treated right,but I was amazed. The US followed the Geneva Conventions and actually paid them the same salary as what a us soldier got. They did jowever deduct a lot of it to pay for expenses and only gave the rest in script,but still.

Millicent said...

Bert Trautmann, OBE comes to mind at this point.

The best line in that article: "Hello Fritz, fancy a cup of tea?"

marc said...

Citizens Challenge, thank you for letting everyone see what a disgusting group of people these political activists are.

And thanks to Willis for demonstrating that when you leave evidence and logic behind, like these people do, there is no longer a way to agree on reality beyond chimpanzee posing. The enlightenment was wasted on these people.

marc said...

Anthony Watts:I understand some people are upset. I get it.

Before passing judgment on what I should or should [not] do, what I should or should not link to, and what I should or should not say, each of you should walk a mile in my shoes and endure what I have to endure every day at the hands of faceless cowards.

With that, I’m closing the thread, as it’s turned into a lot of noise.

He only closes the comments. He does not denounce the actions of PopTech, he does not apologize for his grave error. Does he lack any moral values or is the coward afraid of PopTech?