Friday, June 17, 2016

A new low from creepy sleazy Anthony Watts, stalking climate scientists and reading their emails

Sou | 4:19 PM Go to the first of 62 comments. Add a comment
Anthony Watts is a creep. Yes, you knew that. Today there's another example. He wrote about how he's been stalking climate scientists and their families (archived here). It's another low from Anthony Watts, posting aerial shots of what he said was the roof of the homes of some scientists in the USA. He was pawing through the Internet and Google Earth looking to find climate scientists who didn't have solar panels on their roofs. Anthony wrote:
From the “arch denier Watts leads the way” department (see my photos below) I thought it would be interesting to see how many climate scientists actually have solar power on their home, so I did an aerial survey to find out. The results don’t speak well for them. Don’t worry, I did not disclose anyone’s address – Anthony
The first thing that struck me was how sleazy that was. The second was how offensive it is to judge a person's understanding of climate change by whether they had solar panels or not. The third thing that I noticed was that most of the photos showed houses surrounded by trees. Trees have a habit of blocking the sun and don't mix well with solar panels. Another thing I noticed was that he got some houses wrong - one he discovered and at least one he didn't.

Anthony doesn't approve of governments offering incentives to install solar, even though he has admitted he himself got a government rebate via PG&E. Nor does he understand that installations should be sited well. He wrote about Dr James Hansen having the solar panels on the roof of the barn not the roof of the house, if it was his house. The house was surrounded by trees, the barn was not. It's not uncommon for people to put solar panels on the roof of the garage or other building nearby if the house is subject to shade. Anthony implied that this wasn't good enough.

No, scientists do not have to stop living their lives, and neither do you

His article reminded me of an article by Michael Mann on Facebook. He pays for his electricity to be provided by windpower, not solar. But that's not the point. He wrote this when he saw a comment implying that climate scientists should stop leading normal lives if they are to be believed about climate. The implication was that if scientists use modern transport to go to Antarctica or their university or wherever to study climate change, then they are hypocrites. Professor Mann wrote:
I actually find this sort of argument rather offensive. Nobody--at least not I, certainly--is telling anyone they have to stop living their lives, that they have to stop traveling etc. That is a straw-man argument promoted by propagandists like Bjorn Lomborg. By parroting their specious claims you are facilitating their attacks.

I have been quite consistent and clear in arguing that what we need to do is put a price on the emission of carbon and incentivize, dramatically, the shift away from fossil fuel burning to renewable energy. We can do this in a way that is not in general disruptive of a reasonable lifestyle. If you ask, am I in my own life doing what I can do to decrease my carbon footprint, then the answer is yes--I get my electricity from wind power (I pay extra for that but am happy to), I drive a hybrid vehicle, I recycle, reuse, and reduce energy and resource usage wherever possible. Personal responsibility plays a role, but any real solution is going to require policy change at the highest level, including a price on carbon. I have pretty much devoted by life to trying to make that happen. So let's stop with the false dichotomies, specious arguments and the crypto-ad homs, and focus on the problem at hand. Thanks.
Anthony posted a photo of what he claimed was Michael Mann's house - except it wasn't!

Anthony Watts plays hero and persecuted victim

Deniers would be delighted if climate scientists gave up their careers and went to live in caves, surviving on cold stone soup. They want scientists to stop observing how rapidly climate change is occurring and reporting what's causing it.

Anthony boasted about how put up some solar panels a couple of years ago, and played both hero and persecuted victim in the process, in the style of conspiracy theorists:
But, I’m the evil one, according to many climate scientists, anonymous coward bloggers, and activists.
I remember coming across his articles from back when he installed his panels. He tried to make money out of his readers. He also didn't know that the rebate he got from PG&E was from the government - it was part of the government's renewables incentive program!

Scientists use email therefore climate science is a hoax

This intrusion into the personal lives of scientists from Anthony Watts is more than distasteful, more than offensive, it's downright creepy. He makes a habit of it. In another article today (archived here), he is rubbing his grubby hands together at the prospect of wrapping them around up to sixteen years of personal emails belonging to two eminent climate scientists, Professors Malcolm Hughes and Jonathan Overpeck from the University of Arizona.

With deniers, the content of emails doesn't matter. They never find anything in them that shows wrong-doing or that climate science is a hoax. With conspiracy theorists, all that's needed to prove their "climate hoax" conspiracy is the existence of emails. Using email is proof that climate science is a hoax, in the mind of science deniers. When they can't find anything wrong with the emails, that just proves to the utter nutter deniers that the conspiracy is deeper and darker than ever and extends even further. It's not even evident in private emails! (Climate science deniers are nutty as a fruit cake and are, by definition, conspiracy theorists.)

A Cautionary Postscript

The horrific assassination of British MP Jo Cox should act as a caution for Anthony Watts and his personal vendetta against scientists, whose only "crime" is doing scientific research. He should be very wary of doing or writing anything that would lead one of his nutters to do something like that. I doubt he'll stop.

From the WUWT comments

Anthony's audience hasn't changed. He still targets the right wing authoritarian followers who believe that climate science is a hoax and an ice age cometh, urged on by the disinformers who know that's not true, but who don't want to mitigate global warming.

June 16, 2016 at 3:30 pm
A good market opportunity for sellers of dummy solar panels to make it look like you’re willing to subscribe to the narrative, even though you know solar panels are a waste of money.

bradpeterson commented on Anthony leaving in road names in his photos:
June 16, 2016 at 3:37 pm
I would suggest blurring out road names. You identify cities, and many satellite shots also show adjacent road names. With both of those it’s rather easy to obtain an address. 

Anthony Watts explained how easy it is for people of ill-intent to stalk the private homes of climate scientists and their families:
June 16, 2016 at 4:24 pm
I missed a couple adjacent road names, fixed now and images updated. Thanks. However, anybody can figure out these addresses with less than 5 minutes of searching on Google and other services. That’s how I did it. No secret haxor skilz needed. 

William R is envious of successful professionals at the top of their field:
June 16, 2016 at 4:09 pm
Those poorly funded public servant socialist-leaning academics sure do have nice houses. Such men of the people. I wonder where they got all that money from. Green living at it’s be$t. 

Mick In The Hills thinks that living near the coast, as 85% of Australians do, proves that climate science is a hoax.
June 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm
Good work Anthony.
A while back I thought of outing alarmist activists and politicians with beachfront properties here in Australia.
Maybe they know something they’re not telling the punters?

Gunga Din thinks that the (wrong) photo of the (wrong) house of Michael Mann's family tells him all he needs to know. He's wrong:
June 16, 2016 at 4:38 pm
Character matters.
Hypocrisy is another word that may come into play. It’s commonly understood as “Do as I say, not as I do.” But some of who have been around for awhile know that it isn’t that simple. If we’re stuck in a pit ourselves, it’s not hypocrisy to tell someone else not to jump in with us. That’s passing on wisdom learned “the hard way”.
Hypocrisy is pretending to be something you are not, one who pretends he’s not in a pit.
Maybe if Mann had spent less of other people’s money on law suits he could have spent more of other people’s money on solar panels. Just like Hansen.
These people are stuck in a money pit that they demand others fill.
For what? Ego? Power?

Will Nelson summed up the view of science deniers, except for his "open flame":
June 16, 2016 at 4:41 pm
Actually, if they really practiced what they preached they’d have to be living in mud huts and cooking with an open flame.

commieBob wrote how solar photovoltaics are the way to save money, which is what science deniers care about:
June 16, 2016 at 4:44 pm
Back in the 70s I did a fair bit of work on pv solar. It saved my employer a bucket of bucks by reducing fuel resupply trips to remote locations. The payback was less than a year.
I could have engineered a system that would never need resupply but it would never have paid back its cost. Inspection and maintenance trips were necessary anyway. The extra cost for fuel resupply was the difference between renting a Beechcraft and renting a DC-3.
PV can really pay off if it is part of an engineered system. Even so, it doesn’t become part of the equation until most of the easy energy conservation steps have been taken first.

expat is doing his part to end fossil fuel use, despite being a science denier:
June 16, 2016 at 4:54 pm
I’m a huge skeptic but use only solar on my 20 acres to power everything but the hot water heater and stove which are propane. Don’t even have grid power to the property. Run the house and barn/workshop just fine with it too. A well and septic take care of the other utilities so with the garden and critters I’m self contained. Still not a greenie though.

The rest of the comments are wishful thoughts of science deniers when they get to read personal emails (archived here). They'll be sorely disappointed and will have to come up with a conspiracy theory to explain the lack of evidence of a conspiracy:

coaldust can't wait to see the hidden truth and doesn't know the truth isn't hidden:
June 16, 2016 at 4:49 pm
When the light flicks on
Shining in dark spaces
We see hidden truth
Many deniers, like Taylor Pohlman, think that getting personal emails despite their being no evidence of wrong-doing is okay, while getting documents when there is some evidence of wrong-doing (in the case of ExxonMobil) is not okay:
June 16, 2016 at 5:58 pm
They aren’t subject to FOIA, but are to subpoena – which can be much worse. However, in both cases you generally have to be specific – in this (FOIA) case, they were. In the Exxon case, it was a 40 year fishing expedition, with no evidence of a crime a priori. That’s not allowed in either situation.

Duncan seems to think that it's emails, not scientific research on climate change or evidence of dangerous warming, that is driving policy:
June 16, 2016 at 5:06 pm
I work in the private sector, I understand I would not want my emails made public. There is always a little fudge factor to get through the daily grind which could be construed as dismissive but definitely not fraud or endangerment. Would I go to court over them and spend many thousands to prevent releasing them, absolutely not. When it is public money, I guess the purse is limitless. As well, my emails are not driving policy of governments to spend billions of tax payer money. 

nigelf has already come up with a back-up conspiracy theory in the style of recursive fury:
June 16, 2016 at 5:18 pm
Something tells me that hard drives are crashing all over the place right now and we’ll see next to nothing.

asybot is one of several people who wants to know where Christopher Monckton's case is at. Does anyone know what he or she is talking about?
June 16, 2016 at 5:40 pm
It is a big step on the road to truth, no matter where it will lead us. I think some one else asked about where Moncton’s case is at . Can he elaborate ( anybody) without jeopardizing his case?

Just Some Guy thinks that the media is in on the "climate hoax" conspiracy:
June 16, 2016 at 5:44 pm
Looking forward to reading them. Although if there are any big smoking guns related to the Hockey Schtick, I doubt the media will cover it. 

Michael Jankowski decides that resisting making private emails public is proof that climate science is a hoax.
June 16, 2016 at 7:11 pm
Hard to believe they didn’t have something to hide considering their legal battle to keep them hidden in response to a FOIA request.

GeologyJim doesn't know that there are all sorts of reasons for some government records not being made public. There are lots of exemptions to FOIA. Would he object to his personal records held by the government being plastered all over the Internet? Would he object to commercial-in-confidence records being plastered all over the news? I'd like to see him get emails to and from Lamar Smith.
June 16, 2016 at 6:37 pm
This is an excellent decision, because it drives home the point that work done with taxpayer support is completely subject to FOIA. If you take public money, you have to divulge all your communications and results.
Next up: Public access to computer code written/used by tax-funded researchers
In high school math class, the maxim was “Show all your work”

John Harmsworth tosses in an irrelevant thought, explaining how despite global temperatures rising at an alarming rate, an ice age is comething:
June 16, 2016 at 8:45 pm
Except given the limited amount of time we have left using fossil fuels and the even more limited residency time of atmospheric CO2, it’s pretty iffy that we will dodge the next glaciation without putting Oprah- sized mirrors in space. Also, CO2 has next to nothing to do with temps.

John talks of stench and fear, both in abundance at WUWT:
June 16, 2016 at 8:46 pm
Ah. That strange smell is the stench of fear in the once
sacred halls of truth in academia. Charlatans beware;
“what goes around comes around” bites hard indeed.

References and further reading

Michael Mann on Facebook, how he is not telling anyone they have to stop living their lives (and how he powers his home with wind power).

From the HotWhopper archives


  1. I've been to Mike's house, which is *not* the house Watts showed., which is a rarity in that area in *not* being surrounded by trees.
    Watts seems geographically challenged: Pennsylvania = Penn's woods.
    PA gets less solar insolation than CA, solar panels are not as well supported in PA as in CA, and again, there are lots of big trees.

    Wind is a better choice.

    1. On my last trip to Pittsburgh I was surprised how few solar panels and windmills there are. PA has some great ridges, and roofs in Pittsburgh tend to be above the trees.

      Plenty of dams, but those got built in the 19th century already.

    2. I ran into Dr. Mann at Five Guys one time. Though I was the geeky grad student over in the corner, whispering to my friends "Do you know who that is?!?"

      Only vaguely related, my graduate advisor got the other Distinguished Professorship from the EMS department at Penn State, the year that Dr. Mann did. And my next-door neighbor was an IPCC author! State College is such a neat little town.

  2. If you've nothing in the science cupboard, go for the ad hominem.

    Odd that he has the time to go Google-Earthing people's homes, but his 'gamechanging' paper on US temperature adjustments announced in 2012, remains apparently unfinished.


    He should read George Monbiot's 'Heat', which lays out a convincing case that we can achieve 90% GHG emissions reductions with minor impacts on quality of life.

    Providing there's the political will, of course.

  3. "Don’t worry, I did not disclose anyone’s address"

    Oh, I'm so relieved. For a moment there I thought that someone might fly a drone over my house and photograph it if my address was disclosed.

  4. C'mon Denier lurkers - or should I say 'skulkers'? - we know you're there; someone has to squeak up to defend this act of valiant investigation, surely? Or is this too much for even you? Or maybe it's not even enough: should he go through Mike Mann's bins, do you think?


  5. It is great that Anthony Watts has solar panels all over his house.

    This does raise the question, though, of what he actually believes about climate change.

  6. Many people who put solar panels on their roofs do it because they think it will save them money and not through any ecological motives.

    1. The end result is good.

      It's interesting that many pro-coal deniers will forsake their principles for money, isn't it. Evidence at WUWT suggests that their greed can overcome their ideology.

      In the end, if enough people change their behaviour their beliefs won't matter so much.

    2. But what about the immorality of shunning fossil fuels????

    3. If you read denier blogs you'll soon learn that according to the denier bible, acquiring and keeping money is more important than morality. It's even more important than coal.

      It's okay to give away if the cause is worthwhile, like sending Anthony Watts off to Russia to look at steampipes :)

    4. @Sou @Greg Laden
      Can you imagine how angry Willard was when he realized that the "good lord" was a product of my deranged imagination. I have lost count of the number of times Watts has come out on the losing end in our interactions. He is such an easy mark.


    5. I would guess that Watts also took advantage of federal subsidies for his rooftop solar panels.


  7. To display my prowess at climate science I have stacked 5 layers of solar panels on my roof. Beat that scientists. The only problem is you can not see this from above :(

    1. I have installed my solar panels in the cellar. I put them there so that my neighbours do not think I am some sort of green, pinko, hippie, commie environmentalist.

    2. I'm so generous and unselfish that I put solar panels on all of my neighbor's houses. Now I'm the only one on the block who doesn't use PV!

    3. Meh. Solar panels are *so* yesterday. I have tapped directly into the Sun. Mind you, if something goes wrong, it could be curtains for all of us. But such is the price of progress.

      At least this is working out better (so far, anyway) than my previous project with the naked singularity that escaped through my basement floor last weekend. Oh well...

    4. @metzomagic: The importance of solar fuses cannot be overemphasized. Eight of ten supernovas can be traced to faulty wiring.

  8. you can just imagine him sitting in front of his computer in the morning limbering up for bit of science denial, then letting out a big sigh and saying "oh what's the point" as he clicks on google maps

  9. "sixteen years of personal emails"

    err. Wrong.

    the mails in question were not personal by admission of the defendants.

    "IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion requesting disclosure of the withheld emails which were identified in the initial and supplemental logs as prepublication critical analysis, unpublished data, analysis, research, results, drafts, and commentary is GRANTED"

    From the ruling.

    The defendants themselves said the mail was a public record

    "22. AzBOR did not object to the release of all emails and did in fact release some emails that were
    responsive to the records request.
    23. AzBOR has acknowledged that the emails are public records.
    24. Alternative methods of communication have been and remain available to Professors Hughes and
    Overpeck and any other similarly situated person should they desire to correspond in confidence
    regarding research projects and like endevours.
    25. AzBOR did not specifically identify any substantial and/or irreparable private or public harm that
    will result from disclosure of the subject emails."

    1. The emails may or may not be considered public records. That may be determined now or after appeal. That does not contradict the fact that they are personal correspondence.

      I'm well aware that you have a penchant for judging science and scientists by taking snippets of stolen emails out of context, Steven. That's what deniers do, not scientists. I'd have thought you'd know better by now. My mistake.

    2. I must say the ruling was convoluted. This part was particularly puzzling:

      >>Alternative methods of communication have been and remain available to Professors Hughes and Overpeck and any other similarly situated person should they desire to correspond in confidence regarding research projects and like endevours.<<

      Are those "other methods of communication" not public records? The bush telegraph perhaps? Telepathy?

    3. which part of
      '23. AzBOR has acknowledged that the emails are public records."

      Do you not understand? denial is a hard life. avoid it.

      The university disagrees with you. Argue with them, not me. The ruling is not convoluted. IF you are a employee governed by FOIA and you use the property ( server, for example) of the employer, then whatever you do on that is searchable for responsive records. There are exclusions provided ( like personal information, health information student information ) but the exclusion they tried to use was not legit. the other methods of communication include, your own personal mail, the telephone, meeting in person, etc. Playing stupid is not a way to win arguments or make our side look intelligent.

    4. Steven, which part of "being one does not contradict the other" do you not understand. The emails were personal correspondence, whether or not they are personal correspondence on the public record. The two are not mutually exclusive.

      I take it you have no opinion to offer on Anthony's not so veiled threat to scientists and their families (posting photos of their homes).

    5. Which part of THIS is not english

      '17. At the time the emails were generated, Professors Hughes and Overpeck were aware that, because
      they were state employees using their employee email addresses, the emails were subject to public
      records requests.
      18. The emails relate to research work that was done by Professor Hughes and Overpeck in their
      respective capacities as employees of the University of Arizona.
      19. Per policy of the University of Arizona, all research (which includes creative endeavors) conducted
      at the University is the property of the University.

      It is pretty simple. When you sign an employment agreement you agree to certain things. Like all the work you do doesnt belong to you it belongs to your employer. For example when I worked in aerospace one employer forgot to have me sign a 'rights assignment" agreement so they didnt own any patents I came up with.
      (that was a fun fight ) When you use the univeristy mail or your employers mail, you typically lose the right to call it personal. Of course their are exceptions, again spelled out. If you dont like this, dont take a job in the public sector. Again, your argument is not with me it is with the university and the government of arizona. I suspect they wont give a crap what you think. In the same vein I hope policy makers dont give a crap what skeptics say on blogs.. Im an equal opportunity kind of guy when it comes to telling people what they think doesnt matter. Hint.. what you think about this doesnt matter. again, denial is hard, I'll suggest you live in the real world and RTFM

    6. ATI/EELI isn't interested in the science part of any emails. They are just hoping for gossip. Disinformation lobby groups know from experience (having got truckfuls of emails from scientists in the past) that they won't be able to use them to show that climate science is a hoax.

      It's a charade if a dangerous one, much like Lamar Smith's and James Inhofe's threats to scientists. They know that deniers just have to hear the word "email" to believe that climate science is a hoax and we're heading for an ice age.

    7. Steven, are you as thick as you appear?

      Having one's personal correspondence subject to public records requests does not make it any less personal correspondence. Email has been the main way scientists have communicated with each other since letters went out of fashion at universities in the 1980s.

      Are you trying to tell me that the personal emails between scientists that you published way back after they were stolen weren't personal? Of course they were. Deniers had a field day with the more personal bits, which probably got you all excited at the time. You finally got some fame, if not much fortune from it all.

    8. BTW Steven - I don't know if you think I'm saying they are not public records. I'm not. They are. The legal system is working through whether those public records should be made available to the public or not. (Not all public records are freely available.)

      All I'm saying is that this is correspondence between colleagues. It is personal correspondence *as well as* being public record.

      PS Your comment and its tone signals a disagreement with the ruling, or at least lends support to the argument that making public personal correspondence between academics:

      >>would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously and negatively impact higher education in Arizona and throughout the country.<<

    9. "Steven, which part of "being one does not contradict the other" do you not understand. The emails were personal correspondence, whether or not they are personal correspondence on the public record. The two are not mutually exclusive."

      Wrong. The DEFENDANT admitted they were related to the work ( not personal) and hence public records.
      personal does not mean "between people" The mails discussed reseaarch that had been published, data, not what suzy was going to wear to the prom.

      "I take it you have no opinion to offer on Anthony's not so veiled threat to scientists and their families (posting photos of their homes)."

      As for what Anthony did I think it was creepy. Especially since he had a cow when Anna hayes showed up at his place of business. In that case some bloggers ( like Tamino said that it was out of line. Others (I wont name them ) thought it was ok. I looked for you comments on that case but could not find them. In any case I think what he did was creepy and over the line.

    10. The ruling I read said that the defendant said they were related to the work. They didn't say anything about whether they were personal or not. Maybe there were a couple that didn't include anything personal. Knowing scientists, I'd be very surprised if most of them didn't have personal opinions both about their work as well as non-work related stuff. Very few would be as if they were writing a report or memo public servant-style. That's not how academics behave with each other.

      I get the feeling you are not acquainted with academic life or behaviour, Steven. You're behaving like an outsider perhaps wanting to be an insider. Not being "in" is why you flip flop between attack and defense.

    11. "PS Your comment and its tone signals a disagreement with the ruling, or at least lends support to the argument that making public personal correspondence between academics:

      >>would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously and negatively impact higher education in Arizona and throughout the country.<<

      HUH. do you understand english?

      'As noted in the previous ruling, the affidavits/arguments of AzBOR are compelling. However, they go
      beyond championing academic freedom and, in effect, promote the creation of an academic privilege exception
      to ARS §39 – 121. This is a proposition more properly made to the legislature rather than the courts."

      My personal thoughts? RTFM.

      I have zero problem with the arizona law as it stands.
      I had zero problem when greenpeace went after micheals or when folks go after Tol's mail.. you work in the public domain.. get a clue. You get involved in politics.. get a clue. Even when you dont.. I've had skeptics pester my past employers and past employees searching for stuff. My advice to them was tell them everything they knew, hide nothing. It wont change the science cause only science can change science.

    12. Okay, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I might have been, Steven. What I meant was that the tone of your comment could be used to *bolster* the argument made by the University (as I quoted), and *didn't* support the ruling of the judge.

    13. Regarding changing the science, that's not the purpose of ATI/EELI's or CEI's or Lamar Smith's fishing expeditions. They are just for show. The intention is to harass and intimidate scientists and stop research. The intention is to feed conspiracy theories.

      Notice how at WUWT every time there are emails to be released it is a breathless "breaking news" and all the conspiracy theorists just know they will prove science is a hoax. After the emails are pawed through, there is not even a whimper. Repeat, repeat.

      It's political theatrics and has a bad effect on scientists who are harassed. And has a bad effect on politics, with Republicans against any and all mitigation.

      It's bad all around. As John Mashey implied, FOIA was never meant to be abused in this manner - for vindictive harassment of scientists.

    14. Sou, please be sure to include Senator Ted Cruz, head of the "science" committee in our Senate, these days more capable of kneecapping honest research than Inhofe. He's not a nice chap.

    15. Because melting ice sheets and polar ice caps, rising sea levels, spring coming earlier each year, species migrating northwards, more extreme weather events, etc., etc... these are all obvious signs that scientists are colluding on e-mails to propagate the obvious hoax of so-called 'anthropogenic climate change'.

      How did they ever think they'd get away with it?! But, of course, those munificent libertarians can see through it all. They're not gullible rubes like all us librul greenies.

  10. I think one very important aspect has to be taken seriously and that is the underlying creation of this atmosphere of hostility, which does lead to deranged individuals trying to kill public figures that represent to that individual an identifiable target.
    The publishing of addresses of any person is to be deplored and is morally repugnant.

    1. Yes, the implied threat of violence, in a society thick with high-powered killing machines and busy acquiring large armories of same, is not trivial.

  11. And even where a scientist does have solar panels, in Watts' eyes he can't win. Regarding James Hansen's solar panels: "Guess who paid for them? You and I did."

    Regarding Watts and his humble self-praise, I notice that somewhere between 20 to 25% of the houses in his Hancock Park subdivision have rooftop solar panels, some more extensive than his own.

    I won't put his address down. That, after all, would be a form of not very subtle harassment. Much like providing a hostile, angry, right-wing readership with the towns of residence and high-resolution satellite imagery of the homes of prominent climate scientists. Oh, but no worries. After all, it's the U.S. What could possibly happen?

    1. Well, Anthony Watts himself got a rebate (see article above). It's just that he falsely claims it wasn't a government rebate (it was).

      And neither you nor I nor Anthony Watts would have paid for Dr Hansen's panels. James Hansen did. He was quoted as getting a Fed govt rebate, same, I expect, as most other people who installed panels at the time, since it was a Federal program (or that's what's said at WUWT).

      A rebate nowhere near covers the cost of the panels. Anthony said his rebate was $1200 or so.

      None of that should distract from the fact that Anthony stalked scientists and their families in his efforts to keep his "climate hoax" conspiracy lynch mob sated.

  12. See David Schnare and Jon Riches Mislead Arizona Court to Harass Climate Science Researchers, or put another way, they lied.

    We'll see if this holds up under appeal, but FOIA rules vary by state.
    If AZ wants to have laws that let lawyers like this waste public money in endless fishing expeditions, funded by Peabody, etc, I suggest withdrawing all Future Federal research grants from AZ and urging researchers to take their existing grants elsewhere.

    Note: FOIAs are valuable, when properly used ... but the laws haven't caught up with distinguishing between carefully-specified cases where there is already evidence of conflict of interest, grant fraud, etc ... and harassment.

    If you want tosee examples of reasonable FOIAs, try the FOIA Facts series on Wegman & GMU.

  13. Replies
    1. Wisdom dictates that one would not expect to see many solar panels in Europe's areas of very low insolation.


  14. You insult fruit cakes. Not to mention nuts.

    But it's great that unskeptical "skeptics" are skeptical enough of their ideas that they bother to install clean energy. Shows the market is ahead of them.

  15. I wonder how much hotter the planet has to get before climate change deniers will be hiding from angry mobs.

    1. I suspect that it will need to become hotter than is possible for many species to remain extant, and perhaps including our own. Humans on average are not equipped at the individual level to process and act on a threat of this type, which is why we're leaving it too late for action.

      And on that note, there's notice of the first mammal to become extinct as a result of human-caused climate change:


      Vale the Bramble Cay melomys. One down, many, many more to go...

  16. Watts is a creep, a disinformation schill who seeks to persuade his braindead followers into believing his connedspiracy crap. But this is a new low - creepy stalker guy is right.

    His entire argument is the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy. Watts doesn’t even know what this is.

    His fans are deluded, deceived and uninformed. They’re far too stupid to recognize a false argument when posed. This is the same tactic / fallacy used on claims against Al Gore and many other prominent figures. But stalking climate scientists like this and offering this as “proof” is really a new disgusting low.

    I can’t even read the asinine responses from his fans. Sorry, but these people are just not worth my time or life anymore. They’re fanatics and part of the problem with moving this country off of it’s deep ignorance and denial.

  17. 'The horrific assassination of British MP Jo Cox should act as a caution for Anthony Watts and his personal vendetta against scientists, whose only "crime" is doing scientific research. He should be very wary of doing or writing anything that would lead one of his nutters to do something like that. I'll doubt he'll stop.'

    You are the most pathetic human being I've come across, to use the death of a fellow human being for political purposes.

    1. There is so much wrong with your comment that it's hard to know where to start.

      The killing of Jo Cox was a political act. There's always a risk that too much fear and emotion will incite a person to go beyond the pale of reason. In the comments where Anthony showed the homes of scientists and their families, he mentioned the second amendment (I looked it up, I know what it means).

      It doesn't take much these days. One never knows who is reading a blog and how it will affect them.

      This article isn't about politics, it's about blog ethics, so I don't know what you meant by political purposes.

    2. You know her husband 'used her death for political purposes' too, right? By calling on all people to unite against the bigots and the haters? Which camp are you in - the uniters or the haters? How about Watts and blog posts like the one being discussed?

    3. "You are the most pathetic human being I've come across, to use the death of a fellow human being for political purposes."

      And you chose to do what? Find a mirror Chad, go look in it, and you will see a truly pathetic human being.

    4. Rappél.

      The horrific assassination of British MP Jo Cox should act as a caution for Anthony Watts and his personal vendetta against scientists, whose only "crime" is doing scientific research. He should be very wary of doing or writing anything that would lead one of his nutters to do something like that. I doubt he'll stop.'

  18. LOL!
    Seems like Anthony got it all wrong anyway:


  19. Wow, Anthony Watts certainly seems to have got you spooked! For anyone wanting to see what the guy actually says, his website is:
    You can comment there without restriction if you want to take issue with anything.

    1. Not so on either count, Anonymous.

      1. Who'd be spooked by a cowardly stalker?

      2. WUWT is restricted to conspiracy theorists. Don't you have to register to comment now or is that a future "improvement"? Most normal people who comment don't last long (those who don't think that climate science is a hoax). First they are flamed, then rebuked by Anthony for not adhering to the "climate hoax" conspiracy, then their comments are censored, then if that doesn't stop them they are banned. I was banned for a harmless tweet, not for commenting.

      I've let your breach of the comment policy here slide this one time.

    2. Anonymous, like many at that website you are misled into thinking it is easy for non-deniers to comment there. That is because you do not see the comments that are delayed, deleted and banned. Of course what you can, to a degree, see to evaluate is the partial and biased moderating behaviour. The moderators do not understand the difference between enforcing the posting rules even-handedly and their own personal biases. Perhaps you could look again in that light. But I doubt you could be that objective.

    3. "You can comment there without restriction"

      Googling on "site:wattsupwiththat.com snip" proves you are either a liar or a deluded idiot.

    4. Yeh, what Millicent said. She says things in such a pithy and economical way.

      I go for deluded idiot.

    5. I got zonked after my second comment, and Watts' included a denunciation of my email address - supposedly provided in confidence, of course - for containing the word 'green' under that second comment.

      I also vote 'deluded'.

    6. Unless something's changed since I could last be arsed to defile WHUTTerville with some common sense (oh, about a week ago maybe?) my comments have been making it out of moderation.

      I feel so special now.

    7. Anonymous.

      "You can comment there without restriction if you want to take issue with anything."

      Really? Comment there and be subjected to nasty comments from his attack dogs, doxxed, and more than likely end up blocked?

  20. My comment disappeared, but no matter, I just noticed Ceist upstream posted the same link to Desmog Blog.


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.