tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post7301408663453938834..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Anthony Watts is in Serious Trouble with a Whopper of a Lie of 'Epic Proportions'Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20670353350705705582016-10-04T00:25:50.836+11:002016-10-04T00:25:50.836+11:00 So then they both lied. So then they both lied.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10213915739167186112014-05-31T08:46:39.428+10:002014-05-31T08:46:39.428+10:00Moved to the HotWhoppery - Sou.Moved to the <a href="http://hotwhopper.com/HotWhoppery.html" rel="nofollow">HotWhoppery</a> - <strong>Sou</strong>.David Friedmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70431106775499231852013-10-18T20:44:32.716+11:002013-10-18T20:44:32.716+11:00,,,it would be surprising if he thought that 66% o...<i>,,,it would be surprising if he thought that 66% of published papers on the subject did not accept it</i><br /><br />Exactly. which is why I say he told (repeatedly) a whopper of a lie.<br /><br />Today he's being equally silly by arguing that higher sea level doesn't mean that a lesser storm and accompanying storm surge can't do the same damage as fiercer storms in the past.<br /><br />If you read WUWT regularly, you'd see that Anthony has posted lots of articles telling fibs about Cook13. Not just his own, but articles by Christopher Monckton too.<br /><br />Perhaps you are arguing that Anthony didn't mean to write what he wrote and wrote again. If he didn't mean what he wrote then why would he have written it? Is he stupid or is he a liar? It's got to be one or the other or both.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66468913823194902932013-10-18T09:00:37.689+11:002013-10-18T09:00:37.689+11:00Since Watts himself accepts the theory of AGW, it ...Since Watts himself accepts the theory of AGW, it would be surprising if he thought that 66% of published papers on the subject did not accept it. I assume he simply phrased his argument badly ? I'd also assume that Sou realises this, but the Bitter ol' Biddy of Bundanga is not one to miss an opportunity to have a swipe at anyone she feels may have pissed on one of her trolling parades in the past. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39262238711737930812013-05-22T00:30:29.641+10:002013-05-22T00:30:29.641+10:00Had to contend with an emeritus biochemist, the we...Had to contend with an emeritus biochemist, the wellknown http://www.desmogblog.com/arthur-rorsch , who was not thát brutal.<br />He 'observed' that the 66% abstracts expressing no position imply the scientists 'lost interest in AGW altogether'. <br />That was subtle.<br />Checked a number of astronomical papers. Nil interest in gravity...cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.com