What leading voices in the climate debate should do – lead. Can Anthony Watts do that?

Anthony has again hurled another insult:

Repeated insult

Watts has moved from calling me an idiot to labeling my ideas idiotic, a move designed to shelter WUWT from legal action. One could consider that a small improvement. 

However, that is insufficient.

Anthony, I will state the following for the record: I unreservedly apologise for the charge made and have done so already. It has been withdrawn, and your comments allowed on WtD.

In return I expect  the gracious acknowledgement of this; a public apology for the defamatory insults directed at me by you and posters at your blog; their withdrawal.

I also request future references to this episode to cease, as your record and those of (some) of your followers does not reflect well.

I will continue to be critical of the ideas and the information presented on WUWT were debate warrants this.

Where I believe you or a guest poster is in error I will call attention to that.

As many others (on both sides of the debate) have suggested, prominent voices in the climate debate need to assume the role of leaders.

I may not have the volume of visits of sites such as WUWT have, but that does not matter.

Therefore Mr. Watts I will lead if you cannot: I will take that leadership role.

The choice is now yours.

It is time to move on from this event, which I am now doing. It has been far too distracting.

About these ads
Tagged ,

50 thoughts on “What leading voices in the climate debate should do – lead. Can Anthony Watts do that?

  1. Bill Jamison says:

    For someone to be a “leading voice” they must be heard. I don’t think WtD can make that claim:

    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com#trafficstats

    • Gregory T says:

      This is what I would expect from an agent of the Watts brigade. Claiming a website that contains 12 areas of information, of which less then half have any information and claiming it has any validity. But that’s your MO.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Gregory please go back and read my post again. It’s only two short sentences so it shouldn’t take you long.

        Now that you’ve done that please notice that I didn’t mention WUWT in my post. Nowhere in those two sentences do you see WUWT or Anthony Watts. So how could I possibly claim that WUWT has “any validity” when I didn’t mention it at all?

        What I said is true: you can’t claim to be a leader if no one is following. You can’t be a leading voice in the climate debate if no one is listening to you. Maybe Mike desires to be that leading voice but for that to happen he’ll need to attract significantly more readers.

        That’s my MO? Why do you feel the need to try make this personal when all I did was state an obvious fact?

        Is that YOUR mo Gregory???

    • Rachel says:

      Bill, Leadership is not defined by the number of followers someone has. Someone could be an excellent leader of a small team of four or a neighbourhood group or even of their family. The size of your following is immaterial.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Rachel you can’t become a “leading voice in the climate debate” if no one hears you. It really is that simple. You also don’t become the leading voice by simply proclaiming yourself the leader.

        • Rachel says:

          Look, a purple cat!

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It would have been more mature to simply say “Yes you’re absolutely right Bill”

        • Rachel says:

          Can’t tell someone they’re right when they’re not now.

          Your comment is off-topic and completely pointless.

        • john byatt says:

          Not many heard me bill but with many others doing the same we got larrisa waters into the senate and the rest is history

          your lack of commentary on science is telling, you stick to typos, semantics
          and who has what graphs,

          if you want an all round understanding then forget watts

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No my comment is specifically on topic: you don’t become a “leading voice in the climate debate” by simply declaring it. It doesn’t work that way. You earn it.

          FWIW I don’t consider Anthony Watts to be a “leading voice in the climate debate” either. He’s not a scientist he’s not a politician, he’s not a leader, he’s simply a very popular blogger.

        • john byatt says:

          he is only popular with the deniers, he has nothing to add to the science

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It’s a blogger’s job to add to the science?

  2. Gregory T says:

    After reading the endless tirade over the past couple of days, I decided to revisit some old psychology websites to ascertain what the makeup of a denier is and why they exude such hostility and irrationality toward educated discourse. Needless to say there are hundreds of sites, but they all seem to come to the same consciences (I know the word will bring blood to the boil, but it’s what it is) and that the more denial is prolonged, the harsher the ramifications to the denier.

    Now I have randomly picked one site for the purpose of demonstration and before I’m accused of “cherry picking”, I am more then happy to view any sites that deny my findings.

    The following is an excerpt from:

    http://drsanity.blogspot.com.au/2006/04/strategies-for-dealing-with-denial_17.html

    Some negative consequences of denial include:

    • In the longer-term, denial requires continued compromises with reality to maintain the pretense that “Everything is fine!” or “If only X would happen, everything would be fine!” Eventually, delusional thinking, along with paranoia and the inevitable conspiracy theories begin to take the place of rational thought in those who deny reality for long periods of time.

    • The denier must then place the blame for the unacceptable reality on someone else and that leads to increased conflict between deniers and non-deniers. Efforts to maintain their denial consumes them and will lead them to escalate their anger and rage as their denial becomes untenable and ever more obvious.

    • The denier will begin distort language and logic to rationalize and justify their behavior. Eventually, cognitive strategies and rational argument will be abandoned altogether by the denier, because those strategies are not sustainable and are unable to convince others; at which point the person in denial will simply refer to his feelings or emotions as the sole justification.

    • The denier will feel justified in acting out against those who threaten the peacefulness of their fantasy.

    • Problem solving and decision making will deteriorate as the entire focus of energy becomes the maintenance of the denial. In place of rational alternatives, excessive emotionality in general; and specifically anger and rage escalate toward those who are “blamed” for the reality that does not conform to the denier’s worldview.

    • In the end, interactions with those in denial are characterized by the denier’s frequent smugness; sense of superiority; arrogance; belittlement of alternative views; and undiluted hatred toward anyone or any idea that questions their worldview.

    As the old saying goes, “If the shoe fits…….”

    • Gregory T says:

      Please excuse my spelling re consciences and change to consensus.

      • john byatt says:

        here are climate deniers in conversation about the local government referendum, linking it to a one world government hoax by the UN

        http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/local-government-do-we-really-want-these-people-to-gain-more

        “• In the end, interactions with those in denial are characterized by the denier’s frequent smugness; sense of superiority; arrogance; belittlement of alternative views; and undiluted hatred toward anyone or any idea that questions their worldview.”

        all there, the one world government, sense of superiority and everything else

        • john byatt says:

          do not bother joining up to debate, naysayers are banned, I was banned for questioning their climate change position,

    • or if it looks like a duck…..

      In your reading, was there a mention of a particular personality trait or disorder? For example, delusional disorder?

      • Gregory T says:

        Does this help ?
        grandiose type (patient believes that he has some great but unrecognized talent or insight, a special identity, knowledge, power, self-worth, or special relationship with someone famous or with God)

        http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/delusional-disorder

        • that fits some of them for sure. I get the impression they all have a selfish anti-establishment mentality and too much misplaced self pride to ever admit they are wrong. In order to protect themselves they dig ever deeper into the weird alternate reality they have. Most of them would shit their pants at the intelligence and work it takes to become a scientist yet in the same instant think they can do science by googling a few things and mucking around in Excel. Try convincing one to only use google scholar or some other database of peer reviewed journals. As soon as they realise they can’t find the stuff they are looking for they go back to the comfort of watts where their ignorant opinions are reinforced by equally moronic scientific illiterates. It’s sad. I stopped feeling sorry for them a long time ago. I now have nothing but contempt for them.

        • john byatt says:

          I share your contempt mike, how many thousands of papers are there on range and altitude shifts due to climate change ?

          the climate retards, pick this one

          http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/ants-ropogenic-global-warming-nope.html

        • I read that paper. The data on the ants and their ranges is sound. It was retracted due to errors in calculation of overall speciec richness. Oh well, I guess because a poor paper in a minor journal is retracted for reasons unrelated to the main findings, the AGW hypothesis has been falsified! morons.

        • Gregory T says:

          Do you ever get nostalgic for the old days, when you could boot up your old 286, initiate windows 2.1, turn on Netscape 1.0,fire up the 12kbps modem, and away you go, the world at your finger tips. Now if you remember, Netscape 1.0 had a Gopher capability, which allowed access to university servers and other private servers. Now I’ve got a map of the world, the size of a large road map that shows all the sites (there must be a couple hundred) and their addresses and if you had a few spare hours, you could visit one or two provided you modem didn’t time out.
          Now the reason for this long winded rant, is because I find it astounding that with today’s information technology available at your finger tips ( enough to complete a few PhD’s) we seem to have more ignorance then ever and people not afraid to show it.

          I seem to have forgotten my own thread, sorry for the diversion.

    • Nick says:

      Watts conforms to and confirms every point in your check-list. Exchange with him is pointless.

    • john byatt says:

      language WARNING

  3. Watts is an idiot and has already been proven wrong by events on numerous occasions. He’s just one more in a long list of contrarian crack pots pretending expertise even as they seek to muddy the public’s perception of, now obvious and increasingly extreme, incidences of human caused climate change. The proper response to any nonsense he posts is to either ignore it or make fun of it. In any case, it does not merit a serious discourse nor is he worthy of the title ‘leader.’ Those who’ve flocked to his blog are merely the poor victims of a band wagon fallacy promoted by media sources aligned to Watts interests and backers. Loon and shill are terms that would better serve him and the fools that follow him…

    Meanwhile, Michael Mann, whom Watts and his ilk have repeatedly defamed has just now received yet one more validation to his ground-breaking Hockey Stick study…

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/09/2272181/mann-of-steel-new-film-starring-author-of-the-hockey-stick-and-the-climate-wars/

    • sabretruthtiger says:

      The hockeystick has been completely debunked. His fraudulent overweighting of faulty proxy pine data by a factor of 300 shows his disgusting, criminal nature and the character of the science denier alarmists.

      Anthropogenic global warming is a scam with zero evidence behind it.
      You shills and sufferers of extreme cognitive dissonance and adherance to the liberal eco-fascist, evil greenie religion are holding back the progress of civilisation and poisoning minds with your lack of critical thinking and your lack of respect for science, justice and morality.

      All the science shows that AGW is a scam.

      You will note when it comes to man made global warming the skeptics back up their arguments with scientific facts and logical arguments. There is overwhelming evidence against significant man made global warming yet the Alarmists have provided no evidence to support it. They merely have speculation about hidden heat content in the oceans causing the current 17 year hiatus in temperature rises. ARGO buoys have shown no such hidden heat.

      The IPCC computer models are all drastically wrong, massively exaggerating predicted temperature rises 2 to 3 fold above that of reality. They predict positive feedbacks in their models which drives their alarmist apocalyptic warnings.

      These positive feedbacks are proven not to exist, or to be counterbalanced by equal or greater negative feedbacks by empirical data.
      There is no mid tropospheric hotspot predicted by the models from extra evaporation of water, this flat out disproves their positive feedback theory.

      ERBE satellite readings have shown that Outgoing Longwave Radiation goes up with warming not down as their models suggest, also disproving their positive feedback theory.

      Low level cloud albedo, cumulonimbic convective subsidence and radiative mass sinking due to increased warm atmospheric layer height from thermal expansion radiates more energy into space as surface temperatures rise.

      if you also look at the climate record whereby the Mediaeval Warm Period is proven to have been globally hotter than today with much less CO2, the fact that CO2 rise lags 800 years behind temperature rise in the climate record (Vostok ice cores) showing temperature drives CO2 not the other way round, the fact that it hasn’t warmed in 17 years despite rising CO2, the fact that Antarctica ice is at record levels and the Arctic has mostly recovered from it’s 2007 minimum, the fact that sea level rise has not increased, that sea temperature has not significantly increased, not at any rate anywhere near enough to account for the warmists’ hidden heat theory, you realise all the evidence is against the Alarmists.

      If you also take the huge amounts of fraud and outright lying by scientists and the media you realise this is an agenda, it’s all about power and politics and not science.

      Mann’s infamous hockeystick where he gave hundreds of times the weighting to one faulty set of pine proxy data as he did to the others thus causing a ‘hockeystick’ shape in order to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period that was shown to exist in all the other proxies is the prime example.

      The removal of colder high altitude stations suddenly from collation of data to create a warming effect, the tampering of data as in Darwin Australia to ‘fudge’ the data upwards, the placement of temperature stations next to hot asphalt urban facilities, the crossing out of an earlier IPCC report conclusion which stated there was no discernible human influence and replacing it with the opposite ‘there is a discernible human influence’ etc shows the depths to which the highly politicised alarmists will sink to because the science doesn’t support their conclusions.

      Give it up Alarmists, the debate is over.

      • john byatt says:

        Watts needs a warning on his blog

        caution , reading this blog can cause serious mental problems

      • Poe for sure. Nobody can be this moronic.

      • Definitely a Poe. Genuine denialists normally show up with what they consider to be their “smoking gun” factoid which disproves AGW, which more often than not is a cut and paste from the latest at Climate Depot or WUWT, and then proceed to offer their other favourite talking points in subsequent comments. When someone shows up and runs the whole gamut of denialist memes in one post you can be confident it’s just someone taking the piss.

        • john byatt says:

          He is genuinely unbalanced

          @WTFIUMA

          sabretruthtiger says:
          February 23, 2013 at 1:55 am
          Ahhhh, the Globalists have finally fabricated a study that predicts a pattern of precipitation that enables them to tax and overcharge for water, along with putting heavy restrictions on it.
          They were having issues with the logical consequences of warming, that more moisture evaporates into the atmosphere and it rains more. But this, along with the empirical evidence of increased precipitation in many urban areas doesn’t fit their Orwellian world government resource strangulation and crushing of the economies in order to push through their world slave state.

          Cherry picking a couple of areas and claiming they fit the models does not a validation make.

  4. Meanwhile, at The Australian, the day after environment editor Graham Lloyd told us that wind turbine infrasound causes “annoyance” according to a 1987 report about a wind turbine that has never been deployed, we get Matt Ridley reassuring us that the climate change hoax is on its knees and we should totally buy Bob Carters new book.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/why-nobody-ever-calls-the-weather-normal/story-e6frgd0x-1226676712911

    Remember – this is a newspaper which, in its editorials, insists that it “accepts the science”.

  5. Rachel says:

    I’m amazed that catweazle666 is suggesting someone do some proper research. What a good idea. Start with your local library catweazle666 and some real scientific literature. A political blog like WUWT is not the place for proper research.

  6. john byatt says:

    One of the flying monkeys made a selected one sentence comment on this yesterday, think this was the one referred to

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/07/arctic-misrepresentations/

  7. john byatt says:

    I see that willard arsehole still not respecting anonymity if you not on his side,

    see Alex comment

  8. Fredrick Toben says:

    It always amuses me when critics of whatever political persuasion pull out the Nazi card, as did Andrew Bolt recently in his latest >>The return of the green Nazi<To learn who rules over you, simply learn who you are not allowed to criticise<.

  9. john byatt says:

    Carter still bleating about being thrown under a bus by JCU ?

    The man was giving JCU a bad name with his rejection of “the CO2 greenhouse theory”

    no science from bob just continual Heartland paid for drivel.

    • sabretruthtiger says:

      If by a bad name, you mean describing the empirically proven fact that anthropogenic global warming is a scam with zero evidence behind it.
      You shills and sufferers of extreme cognitive dissonance and adherance to the liberal eco-fascist, evil greenie religion are holding back the progress of civilisation and poisoning minds with your lack of critical thinking and your lack of respect for science, justice and morality.

      All the science shows that AGW is a scam.

      You will note when it comes to man made global warming the skeptics back up their arguments with scientific facts and logical arguments. There is overwhelming evidence against significant man made global warming yet the Alarmists have provided no evidence to support it. They merely have speculation about hidden heat content in the oceans causing the current 17 year hiatus in temperature rises. ARGO buoys have shown no such hidden heat.

      The IPCC computer models are all drastically wrong, massively exaggerating predicted temperature rises 2 to 3 fold above that of reality. They predict positive feedbacks in their models which drives their alarmist apocalyptic warnings.

      These positive feedbacks are proven not to exist, or to be counterbalanced by equal or greater negative feedbacks by empirical data.
      There is no mid tropospheric hotspot predicted by the models from extra evaporation of water, this flat out disproves their positive feedback theory.

      ERBE satellite readings have shown that Outgoing Longwave Radiation goes up with warming not down as their models suggest, also disproving their positive feedback theory.

      Low level cloud albedo, cumulonimbic convective subsidence and radiative mass sinking due to increased warm atmospheric layer height from thermal expansion radiates more energy into space as surface temperatures rise.

      if you also look at the climate record whereby the Mediaeval Warm Period is proven to have been globally hotter than today with much less CO2, the fact that CO2 rise lags 800 years behind temperature rise in the climate record (Vostok ice cores) showing temperature drives CO2 not the other way round, the fact that it hasn’t warmed in 17 years despite rising CO2, the fact that Antarctica ice is at record levels and the Arctic has mostly recovered from it’s 2007 minimum, the fact that sea level rise has not increased, that sea temperature has not significantly increased, not at any rate anywhere near enough to account for the warmists’ hidden heat theory, you realise all the evidence is against the Alarmists.

      If you also take the huge amounts of fraud and outright lying by scientists and the media you realise this is an agenda, it’s all about power and politics and not science.

      Mann’s infamous hockeystick where he gave hundreds of times the weighting to one faulty set of pine proxy data as he did to the others thus causing a ‘hockeystick’ shape in order to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period that was shown to exist in all the other proxies is the prime example.

      The removal of colder high altitude stations suddenly from collation of data to create a warming effect, the tampering of data as in Darwin Australia to ‘fudge’ the data upwards, the placement of temperature stations next to hot asphalt urban facilities, the crossing out of an earlier IPCC report conclusion which stated there was no discernible human influence and replacing it with the opposite ‘there is a discernible human influence’ etc shows the depths to which the highly politicised alarmists will sink to because the science doesn’t support their conclusions.

      Give it up Alarmists, the debate is over.

      • A brilliant Poe! Your future as a conspiracy theorist is assured. And that’s lucky because your understanding of science is close to setting a record for all time lows.

        Didn’t you forget Al Gore?

  10. catweazle666 says:

    Still whining?

    Perhaps you will think twice and do some proper research before going off half-cocked and libelling other bloggers in future.

    [Personal insult: which becomes an immediate ban, Mike @ WtD]

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 771 other followers

%d bloggers like this: