Hypocrisy over at WUWT? Will Anthony Watts remove the personal and defamatory insults made against me on WUWT and apologise?

The difficulty in occupying the moral high ground is when you make the following comment: 


Example 1: name calling

This from a gentleman who stormed onto my blog and demanded immediate edits, all the while questioning my professionalism? I responded immediately and promptly.

Despite this Mr. Watts decides not to acknowledge my response, but instead rounds out his actions with a public insult.

Not very gracious behavior is it?

One could be tempted to call them the actions of a bully.

Not a good look is it Mr. Watts?

The comments on the WUWT post are also illustrative, as this one clearly shows:


Example 2: homophobic insults

What does a persons sexuality have to do with the debate? And why should such a charge be even considered an insult? As far as I’m concerned both gay and straight are normal, healthy expressions of human sexuality.  But not for this poster, who clearly thinks being labelled “gay” is a form of insult. 

Such defamatory and prejudicial material should be removed from WUWT.

As should Mr. Watts ungracious insult directed at me. 

I believe an apology is in order, or there is a real risk of Mr. Watts looking like a hypocrite.

One would hope Mr. Watts responds with the same requisite promptness and diligence exhibited at WtD. 


[Note: see WtD discussion guidelines on the use of language. Some off colour language is permitted, but I strongly urge all posters to refrain from personally insulting others.]

39 thoughts on “Hypocrisy over at WUWT? Will Anthony Watts remove the personal and defamatory insults made against me on WUWT and apologise?

  1. John Rentoul has a hashtag that answers your question, #qtwtain. Questions to which the answer is no.

    It’s a measure of the man. Your apology is added the stack of grudges he bears.

  2. The climate conversation attempting to uncover what is happening SUFFERS when

    we allow ourselves to resort to name calling, lying, and exchanges of insults-


    What about intellectual honesty? What about integrity and accountability?

    NOT OF THE OTHER GUY, but your own.

    This applies to BOTH sides.

    Concern yourself with your own integrity and accountability, not the other guys.

    IF there is error, POINT IT OUT, demonstrate it – with actual evidence – leave out the name calling, insults, claims and counter claims – alarmism, too.

    LET THE EVIDENCE do the talking – it will speak for itself, it doesn’t need to be backed up with accusation, insults or name calling.

    Can we not refrainr from this behavior?

    What GOOD is it accomplishing?

    More time and energy is spent fighting each other than establishing the evidence.

    The fighting, counter claims, name calling is extraordinarily COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to

    establishing [falsifiable] understanding and an atmosphere that facilitates it.

    THIS is beneath us, beneath us all.

    IT’S TIME TO ACTUALLY MAN UP, BOTH SIDES, apologize, admit and repudiate error on BOTH sides.

    WTD – you got the email I sent you.

    Are you going to the one who elevates the conversation?

    A Concerned Person

  3. Lars Karlsson says:

    It seems you have actually made Watts and his minions very happy. Now they can wallow in their perceived martyrdom for quite a while.

    Shame on you!

  4. Mr Watts seems to lose his temper more often lately.

    Must be hard being on the losing side of the climate debate. A recent post of mine suggests that Watts & co are losing followers rapidly. Especially if you know in your heart that you are sprouting nonsense daily, no matter how much you deceive your mind.

  5. Sou says:

    Anthony Watts being a hypocrite? Acting like a bully? Name-calling? Allowing sexism and homophobia? Heaven forbid!


  6. An apology – a real and unflinching apology shouldn’t depend on the other guy going first or be delivered with the expectation that the other guy change his behavior – though it can be requested.

    IF the change in behavior is not reciprocated THAT speaks for itself.

    In a previous post, in response to Mr. Watts comment, I said you had manned up.

    I was wrong. You haven’t yet.

    A genuine apology will not include any justification, rationalization or any attempt at

    minimization, won’t require that the other guy change his behavior or point out his wrongs

    first – it just won’t.

    The time and opportunity is here, now. I hope you grab it.

    I had asked that Mr. Watts repudiate the incorrect information presented by Lord

    Monckton as documented by Potholer54 in response to your apology.

    That request was based on an genuine, accountable and unflinching apology.

    My request is for a reciprocating act of intellectual honesty and integrity on Mr. Watts part.

    Mr. Watts could ACT of his own accord on that request and it would be inline with his

    commitment to accurate data and honestly presented.

    The appeal here is to exercise intellectual honesty and humility [the greatest

    virtue] to create an atmosphere where evidence and conclusions drawn from it can be

    tested civilly.

    HOLDING BACK because the other guy may not reciprocate ensures we’re just going to have more of the same.

    What we have now sucks.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Thanks for you email, I did receive it. As noted I’m giving you email thought and may become the basis for a post in the near future.

      Thanks again.

  7. catweazle666 says:

    Typical bullying Watermelon, you can dish it out but you can’t take it.

    Perhaps if you muzzled your attack dog Byatt you might just have some chance of your pathetic whining being taken seriously.

    • Thank you for your defending of the indefensible. To my mind the best bit is that Mr Watts now owes Mr Cook an apology. Will Mr Watts be man enough? Or will that be a #qtwtain?

    • BBD says:


      No improvement in the standard of your commentary I see.

    • roymustard says:

      I see you take Byatt so seriously you believe he should be silenced. Why do you hate freedom?

      • roymustard says:
        July 10, 2013 at 8:50 am
        “I see you take Byatt so seriously you believe he should be silenced. Why do you hate freedom?”
        ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

        Why do you think the freedom to endlessly repeat known lies and misrepresentation – particularly when it’s about the conditions of our life support system* – is defendable?

        . . . *you know the global heat distribution engine which society’s engines are energizing way beyond anything society has ever had to deal with.

        Or haven’t you been paying attention to the global economic system’s infra-structure (and farm) mangling extreme weather events that have been occurring throughout the world with ever increasing tempo???

  8. […] the Deniers has, quite understandably, written a new post titled Hypocrisy over at WUWT? Will Anthony Watts remove the personal and defamatory insults made against m… I agree. If Anthony is going to criticise a post on another blog and claim that they’ve […]

  9. I started a post about this yesterday and then decided not to finish it as I assumed it would all blow over and everyone would apologise and make up. I keep forgetting that the world of climate science skepticism is not the same as the world I normally occupy. I’ve decided to modify my post and have just posted it. Not sure it will make any difference or that there is any real expectation that Anthony will apologise about the rhetoric in the comments on his blog. First time for everything I guess, so who knows.

    • john byatt says:

      then again ben, such old comments like these, left up at watts may sometimes be useful.

      • Yes, although I think you may have confused me with the other blogger (Ben) who’s blog name is similar to mine. My fault really for not making sure that mine wasn’t sufficiently different 🙂

        • john byatt says:

          all okay ben my fault as i missed with that

          good to see others are out there

          cheers jb

  10. I am not expecting an apology and think Watts already answered indirectly. Watts last post starts with the insult: “I’m sure the greenies will be following this closely, rooting for a hurricane to hit that nearby oil platform or coal power plant onshore.”

    Do not expect a rational discussion at WUWT. We should try to stay as civilized as possible, so that the difference is clear to any third party.

  11. Steve says:

    While this ‘polite’ but prolonged discussion is going on about a comment that was clearly labeled as funny is going on, the arctic ice continues to melt.

    • Steve, where did you find a label saying “funny”? I fail to find one on the WUWT post.

      • Steve says:

        The original comment that started this discussion was on this blog, and was labelled ‘funny’.
        Yes, I think that Mr. Watts does not share the same type of sense of humour as our genial host on this blog, and, perhaps in the absence of anything better to do is acting out his moral outrage.
        Personally I think that everyone has a sense of humour, but that our ideas of humour differ considerably. I’m not suggesting that My. Watts has no sense of humour, in fact many of the things on his blog are hilarious. I only think that he did not like the style of humour used here.

  12. About a year ago, I was the target of a vicious attack by Mr. Watts.

    For the grave sin of having one of my tweets retweeted by Dr. Evi… er, I mean, Dr. Mann, Watts accused me of being a tattooed Goth wearing black lip gloss, really ugly mascara, and a silly leather getup that Lady Gaga wouldn’t be caught dead in.

    If you think you can stand it, you can view all the sordid details here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/13/friday-funny-dr-michael-mann-keeps-interesting-company/

    It’s been nearly a year since that attack, and I *still* resemble Watts’ vicious accusation, very deeply! 😉

  13. Steve says:

    I think that Mr. Watts calling you an idiot, and AndyG55’s suggestion that you are John Cook’s boy friend were both intended as jokes.
    I don’t think they are funny, and I would be more outraged than amused if these insults were directed at me. But people have different ideas of what is funny; and often our jokes say more about ourselves than about the person we are joking about. Our cat has written a book with many insults directed at me, but I still give her nice cat food. While some people have thought this book to be funny, others take themselves so seriously that they simply don’t understand someone who publicly makes fun of themselves.

    I think it is time to move on. This exchange is diverting attention from the science.

    • Steve, you make a good point. OTOH, this is a blog about deniers more than the science. It is easier to watch them when they pile in. 🙂

    • john byatt says:

      the suggestion of being cook’s boyfriend by andyG55 was ignored really, what he needs to be held account for is his claim that mike did not have the balls to use his name when the dickhead only had to click about as you do on every other blog if you wish to know the name of the blogger if they are inclined to give that information and mike does

      and he hypocrite hides under a false name while making the claim

  14. I highlighted the delightful AndyG55 on one of my postsabout the double standards over at Jo Novas. I suggested she include the following section in her Blog Rules. Anthony Watts could also be honest and use the same.

    “If you accept the AGW hypothesis, be aware that I am more likely to heavily moderate your comments than any of my fellow deniers because I am a paranoid, self obsessed, narcissistic, condescending hypocrite, afraid of any information being posted that is inconvenient for me.”

    The lack of self awareness amongst these people is astounding.

  15. Bill Jamison says:

    andyG55’s comment was rude and out of line. I also noticed the homophobic slur and was surprised it passed moderation. There is no place for those types of insults in these discussions.

    • What do you mean!?

      That sort of dirty playing and turning a level playing field into a mine impregnated, body strewn battlefield

      has been the bread and butter of the science denialist crowd since the golden days of Reaganomics.

      After all – you do realize it’s nothing but a political fight to them –
      They couldn’t care less about learning anything about our planet… it’s all about the do.re.mi$$$$$$$$ and protecting personal fiefdoms.

  16. roymustard says:

    I’m more amused by the anonymous non-entity complaining about anonymous non-entities. My stars!

  17. Bill Jamison says:

    I really doubt that calling someone an idiot can be considered defamatory. You can consider it rude and in bad taste but I’ve never seen anyone sued for being called an idiot.

    But let me know if you can so I can sue john for calling me a fool and an idiot in the original thread about the NSIDC chart!

  18. Well, it’s certainly refreshing to see that comments ARE allowed here, unlike the WUWT site. Apparently the people at WUWT, like their colleagues in the Senate, refuse to even debate climate change and instead only allow “comments” that they approve of. The very name “What’s Up With That”, ironically and oh so obviously demonstrates the mentality of the audience they are preaching to.
    I wouldn’t worry too much about them slandering you as such… It simply means you are doing an exceptional job that is solidly founded in science… Something that they shudder at the thought of over at WUWT. Keep up the good work!!!

  19. Glen Michel says:

    You people have as much wallop as a smoked kipper.Get on about really proving the existence of mans signature on climate change, or better still arrange a panel of alarmist scientists;MIchael Mann would be an interesting selection up against some people who hold a different view! Oh , that’s right they do not debate the issue as it’s incontrovertable that CO2 is the culprit and that the planet will fry unless we get it back to 250ppm.

  20. Glen how about denialist starting to get real about the evidence?

    I notice Mr. Watt has posted a talk by “Dr.” Willy Soon – listen to that pack of lies, and hysterical claims, and willful ignorance only an idiot or disingenuous denialist could fall for! But, his is the kind of vacuous poop denialist folks call “reliable evidence”.

    And, that crowd just laps it up.

    Oh and sounds like you don’t believe CO2 is greenhouse gas either… that’s another great intellectual gymnastic trick of the arrogant science skeptic (i.e. ideological economic warriors).

    Sadly you’re probably right the side of serious science seems to have about as much wallop as a smoked kipper,
    so looks like the Republican Machine and it’s Kochs and Murdochs and the millions of PR dollars and BS will succeed in their political battles to stop any and all attempts at proactively meeting the challenge that modern society’s grand geophysical experiment is creating.

    Instead guess we’ll just watch things slowly go to hell in a hand bag and then youz folks can pull out the guns youz love so much and remind everyone why you’re Right.

  21. […] the Deniers has, therefore – quite understandably – written a new post titled Hypocrisy over at WUWT? Will Anthony Watts remove the personal and defamatory insults made against m… I agree. If Anthony is going to criticise a post on another blog and claim that they’ve […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: