Monday, February 15, 2016

Who killed Justice Scalia? Anthony Watts sets some rules for crazy conspiracy theories at WUWT

Sou | 8:37 PM Go to the first of 24 comments. Add a comment
As you know, most crazy conspiracy theories are encouraged at WUWT, however there is one at least that is not allowable. The rules for which conspiracy theories are permitted and which aren't only become evident after Anthony Watts has considered them. Very few conspiracy theories are barred from WUWT. Until now, the only ones that I've seen frowned upon are the "chemtrail" conspiracy theory and maybe the HAARP conspiracy theory. Everything else is fine at WUWT. Anthony actively promotes "New World Order" conspiracies of Tim Ball, and the related Agenda21 conspiracy theories. He promotes his own conspiracy theories that scientists are fudging and faking data. As long as a conspiracy is tied in some way to climate science, it's all systems go at WUWT.

Which might have been the problem for the person whose comment Anthony disallowed. It didn't link Justice Scalia's death with climate science.

Who killed Justice Scalia?

Let me go back one. There is a new conspiracy theory that has been disallowed, but only certain renditions of it. The particular version that isn't allowed at WUWT is that "the CIA killed Scalia on Obama’s orders". Now don't be misled. This isn't a total ban on the "Scalia was murdered" conspiracy theory. It's quite okay to decide that Antonin Scalia was murdered in his bed, and that the US Marshalls are in on the conspiracy. It's not at all clear whether Anthony objected to the CIA being brought into the mix or whether he objected to the US President being fingered. Going by the comments allowed it was the CIA that Anthony objected to. He permitted comments accusing the US President of murdering Justice Scalia.

This is what happened. You can decide how to interpret Anthony's rule about which of the "Scalia was murdered" conspiracy theories are permitted at WUWT and which are not.

It came to my attention (h/t PG) that Janice Moore interrupted a discussion of conspiracy theories generated by the detection of gravitational waves (see upcoming article). Janice announced his or her departure from WUWT. Many will be breathing a sigh of relief. Janice Moore is one of the rattier of the ratty WUWT regulars, with a tendency to preach God and pray for WUWTians at every opportunity (not so much lately), and whose comments consist almost entirely of LOLS and punctuation marks and smiley face emoticons. In a rare demonstration that Janice Moore can string words together in whole sentences, she/he wrote:
February 14, 2016 at 7:22 pm
Hey, Marcus. Just posting this as a “good bye, for now.” I need a looong break from WUWT after just now reading Rud Istvan’s and Anthony’s gross mischaracterization of my (and some others’) only wanting an investigation and some answers about Justice Scalia’s death (see 2/14/16 Justice Scalia thread toward the bottom) as an assertion of a “conspiracy theory.” Not once did I assert or described a “conspiracy theory.” And yet, that is how my logical response to this situation was described.
Take care, Marcus. I’ll be praying for you in the years to come.
Your former WUWT ally for truth, but your pal, always,
P.S. I am not going to return here, so, if you reply to this, please don’t be hurt if I don’t respond. 
If you're wondering what that was all about, Janice Moore suggested that Justice Scalia might have been murdered. Apparently that wasn't the one conspiracy theory too far for some of the climate conspiracy theorists at WUWT. As it turns out, Janice's declaration might have been null and voidified by Anthony Watts himself. As I said up top, Anthony seems to think that it's okay to promote a conspiracy that Justice Scalia was murdered, just don't bring the CIA (or maybe the US President) into it. He wrote:
February 14, 2016 at 8:00 pm
Hello Janice,
I noted your decision to leave WUWT thinking a comment was directed at you. it wasn’t. I hadn’t even seen your comment. In my comments admin window, I only see comments that need approval.
Another comment, not published, but sent to the bit bucket, was what I was directing it at. It suggested the CIA killed Scalia on Obama’s orders. That’s the sort of crazy stuff we don’t need.
I’m sorry you thought it was directed at you.
Going back further into recent articles I see that dbstealey was the first to come up with the hint of a conspiracy. Remember he's the ex-WUWT moderator who thinks that Pope Francis is a KGB sleeper agent. He posted this comment under an earlier article by WUWT's main wacky conspiracy theorist, Tim Ball (archived here);
February 13, 2016 at 7:30 pm
Who does Scalia’s autopsy?

Janice Moore supported Smokey's theorising and wrote:
February 13, 2016 at 8:06 pm
D.B. — Precisely. Sure hope that his family will demand that their own medical expert be, at the very least, present for the entire procedure and given copies of all lab results, etc… . When your loved one dies, however …. you just don’t care, sometimes… . Sure hope the family will listen to some wise advice, nevertheless, and that someone who cares will act on their behalf to make sure the autopsy is: 1) complete; 2) honestly and competently performed; and that 3) the results are fully shared with the family.
After my initial deep dismay, that was my first thought: “Sure hope they get an autopsy.”
Your thought went one better… .
While he was, after all, 79, I expected Antonin Scalia to live to be 90, at least. The timing is definitely convenient for the enemies of our Constitutional rights… . Hm.

Janice Moore did some more reading and mused that the US Marshalls might have been in on the conspiratorial plot to kill Justice Scalia:
February 14, 2016 at 3:02 pm
It was 0330 the next morning, so that rules out that “suspicious circumstance.” After a brief read of news, the first place to investigate is the U.S. Marshalls who reportedly told the judge there was no need to see the body. No. I do not think that every one of the U.S. Marshalls members is above reproach. There needs to be a forensic examination in the context of a general investigation.

Janice Moore urged fellow conspiratorial thinkers at WUWT to demand an autopsy and investigation:
February 14, 2016 at 2:00 pm
WE, the People, should demand an autopsy (and investigation).

Janice Moore said it again:
February 14, 2016 at 2:13 pm
I realize, that, GM. I think that an investigation should happen.

Janice Moore then gave her/his reasons:
February 14, 2016 at 2:44 pm
Dear Rob R,
Thanks, Rob. Here’s a rational conclusion: given the strong motive of Scalia’s political enemies, an investigation into Justice Scalia’s death is only logical. I have not concluded anything. I, as a reasonable person, have questions that I would like answered.
To assume all is well is to ignore the context of the death.

Now Janice wasn't the only WUWT-er who promotes the "Scalia was murdered" conspiracy theory. Here are some more, from the Justice Scalia is dead discussion (archived here):

Ari Halperin hinted that the murderers escaped to Mexico:
February 14, 2016 at 1:54 pm
Presidio County Judge Cinderella Guevara pronounced Justice Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body and decided not to order an autopsy, according to Washington Post. Presidio County is heavily Democratic; in 2012 elections, Obama received 71% of the county’s vote. The death happened at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, less than an hour from the Mexican border, allowing murderers (if there was a murder) easy entrance and escape.
Is anybody going to insist on the autopsy and investigation? 

I'd say Mike Bromley the Kurd is serious, going by his later comment:
February 14, 2016 at 3:29 am
Perhaps he was slipped a mickey. 

Marcus hints too that there is something afoot:
February 14, 2016 at 3:40 am
.. I find the timing of his death….very unsettling ! 

belousov wondered who did the deed, but not who gave the order:
February 14, 2016 at 4:00 am
I wonder if Obama killed Scalia himself or was able to find a government employee capable of doing the deed. This kind of puts Watergate in perspective – a 5-4 SCOTUS stay of a presidential flagship ideology driven project (AGW) and a few says later the 5 becomes 4. Quelle surprise! 

Tom in Florida wondered the same thing:
February 14, 2016 at 8:12 am
My very first thought. (Does Vince Foster come to mind?) 

High Treason smells murder:
February 14, 2016 at 1:19 pm
Extremely suspicious is an understatement. To announce “natural causes”immediately, especially before a Coroner’s report smells like murder to me. How convenient- the only obstacle to dictatorial power conveniently dies, the stalwart defender of the Constitution. Immediate verdict. Sure. Socialists and other totalitarians will stop at NOTHING to cement their power, even murder of political opponents.
Time for Americans to be ready to honour the OBLIGATIONS of the second amendment. It is not just a right to bear arms, it is an obligation for the People to rise up against a rogue government. Do note, the second is there to protect the first. If the first goes, so does freedom. Obama will go after guns immediately, which means the People can not defend themselves against their government, which is very clearly overstepping the mark. How many violations of the Constitution can be tolerated?
As for climate rubbish- the “convenient” death gives Obama the rubber stamp. The rubber stamp extends to the entire nation.

Janice Moore isn't the only one to think the US Marshalls are in on the conspiracy. Gloateus Maximus wrote:
February 14, 2016 at 3:44 pm
Too bad he’s already embalmed in a rush to judgement. I wouldn’t trust US Marshals as far as I could overhead toss them. 

schitzree warns WUWT-ers that Stephan Lewandowsky could be mining the thread for research material:
February 14, 2016 at 6:46 am
Vote against Obama and less than a month later he’s in charge of picking out your replacement.
But don’t worry, Lew Boy will be along shortly to reassure us that any concerns we might have that this all seems mighty convenient are just ‘Conspiracy Ideation’. In fact, I’ll bet he’ll already have a paper about it ready to go.

Climate conspiracy theorist and Gish galloper, ristvan was about the only person who objected to all the "who killed Scalia" comments, and toward the end of the very long thread piped up with a plea:
February 14, 2016 at 5:26 pm
Folks, have to weigh in to keep WUWT semi-credible. Loose the conspiracy theories. Period.
Scalia was 79, and significantly overweight. Regrettable but likely natural loss. 

Finally, after allowing all the above comments through, Anthony Watts decides that maybe Rudd has a point and that only climate-related conspiracy theories should be allowed on his blog. He wrote:
February 14, 2016 at 5:48 pm
I have to agree, enough of this, take it elsewhere. All further replies of this nature will be deleted.
It was after writing that comment that Anthony apologised to Janice Moore and said he wasn't directing it at her/his version of the "who killed Scalia" conspiracy (see above). So it's fairly clear that only one version of that particular conspiracy theory is not welcome at WUWT. Most are.

Political extemism at WUWT

On another (or related) note, some comments will provide insight into just how extremist the right wing extremists at WUWT are. It makes me think that what Anthony Watts objected to in the conspiracy theory he banned wasn't the part about President Obama, it must have been the part about the CIA. (Maybe because the CIA isn't supposed to operate on US soil.)

In response to a comment about President Obama being incorruptible, the following comments emerged. I think most people would agree that President Obama would be regarded as right of centre on the world stage. A "small l" liberal but very far from being socialist or extreme left. He's probably on par with Australia's Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who leads the conservative party here:

Gloateus Maximus must inhabit a very weird and narrow world:
February 14, 2016 at 7:57 am
Beyond naive. Obama is nothing if not a hard Left ideologue. All that will matter to him is how reliably socialist and anti-constitutional his nominee is. And his or her ethnicity. 

AndyJ's world is even weirder (if that's possible). He's talking about a man who was elected not once but twice by the American people. What does he think of his neighbours one wonders.
February 14, 2016 at 12:39 pm
Yes, you are being naive. Very naive .Obama is a self-serving sociopath who has shown no evidence of conscience when it comes to killing innocent civilians overseas and possibly at home in order to promote the Imperial agenda. Any nomination he makes to the bench will be pushed on fringe issues but will be totally pro-fascism.

Scalia conspiracy theories elsewhere

WUWT isn't the only place to come up with this conspiracy theory. It's all over the internet. Just Google "Who killed Justice Scalia". I think this headline has to be up there with the best of them, if you're a Star Trek fan:
Did Leonard Nimoy Have Antonin Scalia Killed to Give Obama Enough Supreme Court Votes to Cancel the 2016 Election?


  1. The WUWTers are falling for the ruse...

    Obama is the obvious suspect, just who the real mastermind wanted people to blame so he could evade capture. Safe in the knowledge that the Senate won't confirm anyone, the mastermind removes a Catholic (aka quasi-Christian cultist) and can, after he wins both the Republican nomination and the general election, install a true Christian, a Seven Mountains Dominionist, to the Court.

    Yes, Ted Cruz killed Justice Scalia! It's the logical explanation. An overweight 79yo smoker could never have had a heart attack.

    Now where are my fruit loops?

    1. Anthony Watts was very reluctant (and late) in his saying that Scalia murder comments weren't welcome. And he quickly corrected himself, letting everyone know that they *were* welcome after all, provided they came from white-listed WUWT regular conspiracy theorists.

  2. Hasn't dbstealey chimed in with his warmist FSB/KGB?

    As for the rest: it sounds like they are one step away from doing a Rambo in an Oregon nature reserve.

  3. "Presidio County Judge Cinderella Guevara pronounced Justice Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body"

    Don't WUWT fanboys know the difference between a judge and a pathologist?

    1. There is a difference between a "County Judge" and a county judge who rules on law. In many places in the U.S. the top executive of the County is called the County Judge. This person can be appointed by an elected council (usu. commissioners), in which case their powers are mainly administrative. Elected CJs have more power, often the ability to veto county council's legislation.
      In Texas, the CJ is a hybrid elected executive/judicial position where they also preside over small civil and misdemeanor cases. They aren't required to be lawyers, their only required legal training is 30 hours in the first year and recurrent training of 16 hours/year.
      In this case, the County Judge is the second pick to preside over an inquest when the Justice of the Peace is not available. This particular county has more than one Justice of the Peace, but they were all involved in other business far away from the scene. (West Texas counties are huge and sparsely populated in a way that only Aussies could appreciate)

  4. It is all very simple really, it isn't so much who killed Justice (irony) Scalia but what. It was clearly the cognitive dissonance that reached an intolerable level from his attempts at squaring what he read at WUWT with the reality of the globally changing climate and weather patterns.

    On the other hand he was simply old and in bad shape.

  5. Imagine what would happen if another pollutocrat aligned supreme court justice popped his clogs in the immediate future?

    1. I wouldn't be surprised if Clarence Thomas's blood pressure occasionally hits 200/120.

  6. Hmmm. Seems obvious that Scalia is a martyr to the Republican ideal of "do nothing government". The SCOTUS actually made decisions. Can't have that! So now there's a 4-4 split for the foreseeable future. Now whether Salia sacrificed himself or was done in by some fan of grid lock, I can't say.

    Do I need a sarc tag on this? :-)

  7. I am not surprised by this new conspiracy theory. There seems to be a real immaturity in this country today which has dragged down political awareness to a degree that it has become laughable. The alternative media used to be places like Pacifica Radio and In These Times, and people like Noam Chomsky. Now, sadly, it's places like HardDaw, PrisonPlanet and people like Alex Jones and Jeff Rense. I don't see the alternative media as an alternative anymore.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. HardDaw should be HardDawn. Sorry about that.

      Anyway, I am aware that HardDawn is satire. But there are some people out there who do believe that what HardDawn prints is true news.

    3. I agree. These are strange times in which we live. I remember when I was a kid and I encountered the first person who rejected Evolution, and it shocked me, and now look at how many Americans reject that, the science of dating that shows the Earth as being more than 6,000 years old and all of this climate science conspiracy stuff. Maybe it's always been around and the Internet and various media outlets just give it greater avenues, but it certainly seems like these things have gone on the upswing over the past maybe 30 years.

  8. It's been remarkably easy for Hilary Clinton to shift the blame to Obama, hasn't it? The old "A black guy did it and ran away" ploy still works, apparently.

  9. That conspiracy theories would pop up was to be expected. That happens for every newsworthy event.

    The amount of detail and the chosen perpetrator is incredibly funny.

    That being said, when such a powerful man suddenly dies and presumably was in good medical care, an autopsy does make sense. It will not stop the conspiracy theories, just make them bigger, as they always do over time, it would only include the doctors into the conspiracy.

    1. Apparently the county administrator who decided an autopsy was not warranted consulted with Scalia's doctors first. That's good enough for me.

  10. Oh right. Because a fat man having a heart attack at 79 is just totally unbelievable.

  11. It's odd that some hardcore AGW deniers insist that the death of 79-year-old overweight man is more likely anthropogenic than due to natural causes.

    I'm sure that, with a little effort, it would be possible to demonstrate a natural +/- 80 year cycle for corpulent American men

  12. I expected him to live until he was 90 because he was so fit and flexible. Antonin and I attended the same Bikram Yoga class.

  13. You know, I used to think Lewandowsky et al had rather over-egged the pudding with the whole Moon-Landing thing, but as time has gone on, given the completely (and comically) un-self-aware response, and then things like this, it really bring home that this is not just a slightly overstated sideline; it's a key point! These people's minds are broken.

    I note with considerable be/amusement that now Trump's getting in on this one!

    One can't help but think of Mencken: "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

    Of course, they've had one already... but Trumpism is a rabble in a league of its own. Like WUWT.

  14. yes, I came at the climate "debate" from the conspiracy angle - i.e. debunking daft claims from 911 twoothers, sandy hook hoaxers, false flaggers and "chemmies"

    what I found so interesting was the similarity of approach that the climate deniers took in dismissing evidence that they did not like and accepting with blind faith any old claptrap that supported their non belief in the "official" story - or "consensus" as it is known in climate science

    they don't have to have a coherent alternative as long as whatever is presented to them is counter to the official narrative. In fact it does not matter that it is in direct conflict with a theory they held last week - it is quantity that counts not quality of the counter arguments

    the longer it goes on, the more the consensus position is confirmed (as more data comes in) - the dafter and more shrill the conspiracists become

    it is quite a good "proxy" measurement, maybe not as good as tree rings, but pretty close!!!

  15. Ahhh, bottom feeders gotta feed ... wow!

    Bullseye and likewise bingo:

    The suggestion that Scalia's death is anthropogenic, because climate change/global warming isn't. Weird, innit?

    1. Thinking like a conspiracy theorist, only the failed conspiracies are uncovered, and since they failed, they obviously weren't very good ones. The _really_ successful conspiracies never see the light of day - they are all around us, but we can't see them! (Just like UFOs.)


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.