Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Berkeley temperature team explains attack on its initial findings by WattsUpWithThat was pure fabrication

By Joe Romm  

"Berkeley temperature team explains attack on its initial findings by WattsUpWithThat was pure fabrication"

Share:

google plus icon

UPDATE:  Watts has posted two comments below that contain a disingenuous admission of error and several more outrageous falsehoods.  While Watts asserts below, “I was not aware of the issue until Dr. Muller communicated with me,” the truth is that Watts has known for six days that his post was in grave error — but it is only my post here that forced him to concede the mistake.

It was fairly obvious the discredited denier Anthony Watts made a false statement and egregious blunder last week when he attacked the initial findings of Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.  Of course, that’s true of most posts on WattsUpWithThat, but this fabrication stands out because Watts usually attacks climate science, not the confusionists.

Here’s the hilarious story of Watts’ self-inflicted implosion, what Shakespeare called being hoist with his own petard.

Last week, the deniers were unhappy that climatologist Ken Caldeira emailed me that BEST’s initial results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.”

As I hoped, my post led the discredited denier Anthony Watts to blurt out in a blog post his close involvement with BEST and his intentions to try to twist the results.  But what I didn’t expect was that Watts would go so far as to make stuff up in order to attack BEST.

Watts noted that “the Initial Findings statement from BEST, written by lead scientist Robert Rhode,” states:

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has not yet done the analysis of the full data set with the corrections to produce a global surface temperature trend. We are first analyzing a small subset of data (2%)….

A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend … broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU.

… the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data …

Then Watts immediately attacks:

That 2% subset they refer to is some weather stations in Japan. They chose Japan because it made for a compact insular test case for the code, combining rural, urban, and airport stations under one organization’s output to keep it simple. Like Ken Caldeira, I’ve seen that preliminary 2% output. I’ve also seen a lot of other things, some things Caldieira hasn’t seen that the BEST team has shared with me. So has Zeke and Mosher, but neither they nor I are screaming “exclusive” and jumping to conclusions like Romm is doing over Caldeira’s general statement on that 2% sample run to test the code.

What’s even funnier is that whenever we mention USHCN trends for USA stations, AGW proponents are quick to point out that the USA has only about 6% of the land surface area of the Earth (USA: 9,629,091 km2, Earth: 148,940,000 km2 source), but they are now willing to go with the weather station data from 377,930 square kilometers of Japan’s land area which is 0.25% of the Earth’s surface area, as enough for “confirmation” of a global trend.

No.  Not even close.  The exact opposite of the truth, in fact.

It was pretty obvious then that BEST — no matter how screwed up it is thanks to Muller and Curry and the input of deniers like Watts and Steven Mosher — would never claim that a bunch of Japanese weather stations

  • could possibly show “a global temperature trend”
  • could possibly be called “randomly chosen data”

And now, in fact, Dr. Rohde himself has directly confirmed that the 2% sample refers to the whole globe:

“The 2% samples are a random selection of stations (i.e. from a list of all stations). They have the same spatial characteristics as the 100% sample in that regions which are heavily oversampled (or undersampled) in the whole set would be expected to be similarly over sampled (or undersampled) in a 2% subnetwork.”

Only former TV weatherman Watts could imagine any group of scientists and statisticians would publicly claim that data taken from 0.25% of the Earth’s surface area could be random and determine a global trend.  But why he fabricated this attack on BEST’s initial findings — and, more bizarrely, why he called the Berkeley team “AGW proponents,” when it includes the likes of Richard Muller and Judith Curry (!) — is anyone’s guess.

Here’s my theory.  Watts is the person on the Internet most responsible for viciously smearing scientists and spreading disinformation on global warming, particularly disinformation on the surface temperature record (see Watts urges WattsUpWithThat readers to disrupt Forbes blog: “shout them down in the comments section”).

Watts infamously coauthored a “report” accusing top U.S. scientists of various kinds of misfeasance and malfeasance in the global temperature record.  It was utterly debunked last March (see Wattergate: Tamino debunks “just plain wrong” Anthony Watts).  As Tamino wrote, “your use of false claims to accuse NOAA scientists of deliberate deception was not just mistaken, it was unethical.”

Along comes the Berkeley group, which Watts starts working with.  But Caldeira then explains what the preliminary results are, which disagree with Watts’ disinformation.

Watts then claims he has seen things that Caldeira “” a project funder and one of the country’s top climatologists “” hasn’t seen.  He then reveals his true agenda in the post:

The issue hasn’t been the slight warming over the past century, we’ve always conceded that there is some. The issue has always been magnitude, uncertainties, and cause. With the BEST project, we’ll get closer to the ground truth of magnitude and uncertainties“¦.

His goal is to try to reduce the magnitude and push up the uncertainties in the final report.  He repeats a claim he wrote earlier:

I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.

But now Caldeira explains the analysis supports “in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.”  Even Mosher, another denier working with BEST, says, “I believe BEST will confirm “¦ the answers given by CRU and GISS are largely correct.”

And finally project chair Muller himself has stated in a public talk what the main findings are:

  • “We are seeing substantial global warming”
  • “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”

That directly contradicts Watts.  Indeed, it directly contradicts the core premise of WattsUpWithThat.

So the question is, will Anthony Watts keep his word and concede, finally, that there has been substantial warming in recent decades and that the results given by CRU and GISS are largely correct?

Or will he find a way to change the final results?

Or perhaps he’ll just make more stuff up and try to pass it off as the “insider” truth of what really happened.

To update the old saying, people who live in glass houses don’t actually like transparency.

Related Post:

‹ Tim Pawlenty: “Every one of us” running for president has flip-flopped on climate change

As Congress Appeases Polluters, Military Arms With Clean Energy For Climate Battle ›

49 Responses to Berkeley temperature team explains attack on its initial findings by WattsUpWithThat was pure fabrication

  1. Mike Roddy says:

    People who smear scientists and whose own data assumptions turn out to be wrong never seem to suffer consequences. Watts, McIntyre, and Singer, for example, are not subject to the rigor of academic publications, so they remain insulated from charges of fabricating evidence.

    Even their reputations survive somehow. Singer and Milloy, for example, shilled for the tobacco companies, claiming, without evidence, that studies showing tissue damage and cancer risk from smoking were incorrect.

    The public is rarely informed here, and people on the edges of traditional media like Romm and Cook have to do the dirty work that they should be performing. Climate Progress and Skeptical Science have performed important public services here, but it’s about time that the media owned up to their enormous failures, and worked to correct them.

  2. The fact that millions go to this laughable web site daily and believe it hook line and sinker is a sad commentary on the state of science in America.

  3. Barry says:

    Like the GOP, Watts is running out of solid ground to stand on.

    Like the coyote in the road runner cartoons…these folks have been running so hard without paying attention to where they are going that they are now finding themselves off the cliff with that sinking sensation in their stomachs as they tentatively look down.

    To paraphrase Homer: “Doh!”

  4. Sou says:

    Thanks for pointing this out, Joe.

    So far Watts is still writing about snow, as usual. My guess is he’ll ignore this as he does with a lot of things he can’t refute or twist into denial. On the other hand, he might have a go and show just how far he will sink to deny what’s happening.

  5. Yes, I made a mistake, I misheard what was being presented, which happens sometimes. As you may know I’m about 80% hearing impaired and the presentation made to me was verbal with some printed graphs. I did not get to come back with any of those graphs, notes, or data so I had to rely on what I heard. I simply misheard and thought the 2% were the Japan stations they showed me.

    I was in contact with Dr. Muller last night and planned an update to that post which I will do. You’d holler about it either way so the timing isn’t much important.

    Along the same lines of correction, Joe, will you be removing the comment from Mike Roddy that suggest I am involved in animal bestiality?

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/21/and-the-2010-citizen-kane-award-for-non-excellence-in-climate-journalism-goes-to-%e2%80%a6/#comment-314061

    I hope you will and issue me a public apology for allowing such a libelous and ugly claim to appear on Climate Progress which is in violation of your stated site policy. http://climateprogress.org/terms/

    Thank you for your consideration.

    [JR: Your cry for sympathy would have more credibility if your post hadn't been full of cock-sure invective. That entire post was based on 100% certainty that you were right and I was wrong. Not only that, but when a commenter pointed out that you were obviously wrong many days ago, you dismissed him and left the egregious error up for several days!

    Indeed, what's really laughable about this comment is that your post begins by attacking me for a post where I actually made a correction, whereas you sat on your error for days and days, even after I and others pointed it out!

    If your plan is to point to your infirmity whenever someone points out an egregious error you make, then next time don't express your statements with such certainty, with such dismissiveness for every other human being.

    As for the months old comment, we've been through this before: If I am responsible for every one of my comments then you are responsible for every one of your comments. Now you have dug up a months-old comment, which at first glance appears to be a humorous dig. Note that he introduced the comment saying, "This is in spite of the humor breaks, including...." But it offended you and I have deleted it.

    But YOU have allowed the nastiest comments to be said about me on post after post -- including that very post! And what about the vicious anti-Semitic slurs about a Holocaust survivor that you just let go on and on. Seriously, your commenters are so far over the top that you have no business criticizing anybody comments.

    So until you issue apologies to me and Hansen and countless other people that your commenters libel on a daily basis, don't come here whining about one comment you dug up written last December!]

  6. Pete Dunkelberg says:

    Yikes! The Rabett says http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/03/coming-soon-to-courthouse-near-you.html

    Could this start happening in both directions?

  7. MapleLeaf says:

    Beesman @3,

    I agree, but only to a point. Joe and others have been dealing with the nonsense and shenanigans from Watts for a very long time now. I sense that they a long time ago they grew tired of using a civil tone with the likes of Watts. Honestly, Watts deserves to be treated like a child. [snip]

  8. J Bowers says:

    Have deniers been taking intensive courses in how to tone troll lately?

    @ 3 Beesaman, Watts has been caught out again. Get over it.

  9. climate undergrad says:

    @3 What?

    “We are grown ups out here you know.”

    Really? We’re talking about someone who has over and over againd claimed the earth is not warming even in the face of multiple (hundreds?) of independent lines of data in a country where almost half the population and exactly one half of the political parties like to deny this fact.

    “Grown ups” are allowed to ask why and how this has happened. In this case, correcting a former TV weatherman (for the hundreth time) and questioning his motives and tactics is certainly not ‘stalinist propaganda’.

    Do trolls use the word invective?

  10. Richard Brenne says:

    Beesaman (#3) – I lived in Russia and saw the aftermath of Stalinist Russia, a time when estimates are that Stalin had 20 million or more of his own people killed, with many more imprisoned in ways tantamount to torture.

    So your “despair when posts like this read like some Stalinist propaganda outburst” and saying “stick to the facts and leave the invective for the children in the playground” and “we are grown-ups” is closer to invective than anything in Joe’s evidence-based post.

    Despite years of frustration with the great harm being done by Watts and those like him, Joe does not use any profanity or call Watts any names other than “discredited denier” and worst of all “former TV weatherman.”

    Most of effective human communication involves character and story. When Watts makes himself a central character in the biggest story ever told (the greatest danger to our species ever, including from nuclear weapons) by helping create the biggest story every sold (that there’s essentially no problem because he says so without evidence), Joe has every right to say what he’s saying.

  11. dorlomin says:

    Said it before Ill say it again, Watts is the Eric Cartmen of the climate bloggers.

  12. Since Joe has not seen fit to provide a link to the post in question, along with the errata I published, I will do so, here it is: [snip]

    [JR: That is another falsehood. There is a link to the post in question in my post here. I am tired of you publishing your nonsense here. And I'm certainly not going to give you another link -- particularly to an error riddled post that contains a variety of false attacks on me.]

    BEST has seen the correction and has thanked me for it. I was not aware of the issue until Dr. Muller communicated with me.

    [JR: That is also an outrageous falsehood. One of your commenters pointed out on March 23 (!) your mistake "It seems to me that using weather stations only in Japan doesn’t seem like a random process, yet the BEST team says the stations mimic the Global Data and were randomly chosen." Instead of correcting your post last week, you wrote, "Ah I see you are immediately back to wasting everyone’s time here, so I’ll waste some of yours with some sarcasm. I’m not going to give you any additional information, as you’ve proven yourself to be a hostile commenter who will just run over to the Rommulans...." ]

    Thanks for taking out Mr. Roddy’s ugly bestiality insinuation, it was hardly humorous by any stretch.

    As for being cock-sure about information in blog posts, here’s the problem in reverse where Mr. Romm made a very large error and also had to correct a blog post.

    [JR: Uh, the difference was that 1) I was quoting someone else and 2) the minute the error was pointed out I fixed it, whereas you refused to fix your post for 6 full days after it was pointed out. If I hadn't written this post, who knows if you ever would have fixed that falsehood.]

    [snip -- I'm not giving you more links back to another error-riddled post.]

    Blogging by its nature, gets peer review post facto.

    Thanks again, Anhtony

    [JR: Uhh, only for those who care about accuracy, as opposed to those who push disinformation, like you.]

  13. climate undergrad says:

    None of this explains why Dr. Muller is consulting with a discredited-denier-former-TV-weatherman.

    There have got to be at least 1,000,000 people more qualified, possibly a lot more.

    Hell, i’m one of them with a B.S. in engineering science and a focus in energy and the environment.

    Funny how Watts didn’t mention whether or not he will concede on the “settled facts”(NAS) or “unequivocal”(IPCC) evidence that the earth is in fact warming.

  14. Jeffrey Davis says:

    Accusing someone on consorting with a goat is a time-honored intenet mock. Always prefaced with the libel-defeating boilerplate, “I’ve heard that …”

    I can’t believe that Watts is so thin-skinned, humorless, and self-important as to object — in print! — to the accusation of goat consorting. It’s like running to mommy.

  15. Mark says:

    Anything he says has one goal:

    Make the discussion sound like particularly nasty divorce proceeding.
    That’s all he has to do – integrity be damned – and he wins.

    At least, until the climate itself forces Watts to crawl into a hole in shame….. which it will.

    Meanwhile, does the man get a dime of federal funds? Then lets subpoena all his email! I especially want to know if he’s investing in real estate in Churchill Manitoba, water distribution technology, and so on. I mean, does he expect to leverage his current profits earned by smearing climate scientists, planning to really cash in big peddling things to desparate people in the future? Integrity be damned. But at least it would be consistent.

  16. Wit's End says:

    Not Shakespeare, but apropos -

    Oh what a tangled web we weave
    When first we practice to deceive.

    - Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808)

    And don’t be knocking my buddy, Mike Roddy, neither! We were on the teevee too!

    (okay, for five seconds)…

    http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/03/koch-kills-on-ed-show.html

  17. HP ClimateHawk says:

    Mr. Watts. Your story about Hansen’s “little known” 1988 prediction is false. You never bothered to compare the Salon.com report with Bob Reiss’s book. Search for “west side highway” on http://www.skepticalscience.com for more info.

    Pull that false story down, Watts.

  18. Richard Brenne says:

    Mike has withdrawn the goat comment, but no word from the goat itself. . .

    [JR: Remember, Watts has never apologized for the smears against NOAA or NASA scientists -- or the headline "When Warmistas Attack" or the attacks on the patriotism of Tamino and Rabbett or.....]

  19. Mike Roddy says:

    Dear Anthony,

    I wrote almost all the text for the original Alternet 5 Awards for Most Heinous Climate Villains, and bestiality was never mentioned in the original or subsequent versions posted on that site:

    http://www.alternet.org/environment/149120/5_awards_for_the_world%27s_most_heinous_climate_villains?page=4

    Ian Murphy, my coauthor who mostly did the illustrations, added the bestiality part in the Buffalo Beast version. Ian writes a lot of dark humorous pieces, which suits my taste. My name is also on the Beast version, but I don’t really care.

    We were having fun, Anthony, including with the aftermath. Now, however, I am wondering. And my advice to you, dear Anthony, is to remember what Lyndon Johnson said to his campaign manager in a 1948 run for Congress:

    LBJ: “I want you to accuse my opponent of having sex with every animal in the barnyard”.

    campaign manager: “But that’s not true!”.

    LBJ: “Yes, but I want him to deny it!”.

    We can’t help but laugh at you, Anthony, sorry. How could anyone possibly take your opinions about climate science and everything else seriously?

    And thanks to my friends for sticking up for me here.

    [JR: If you want to know the kind of comments Watts routinely allows, read this.

  20. MarkB says:

    Most revealing was when a commenter pointed out the discrepancy between Watts’s Japan claim and what BEST said, Watts threw ad homs at him.

    eadler: There is real inconsistency here in these two posts. It seems to me that using weather stations only in Japan doesn’t seem like a random process, yet the BEST team says the stations mimic the Global Data and were randomly chosen.

    Can we rely on this sort of ” inside information” about the study, or is the BEST team misrepresenting the status of the program on their web site. If BEST is trying to remain impartial, and wants to be seen as impartial, why is it giving people who oppose the idea of AGW, and criticized the GISS, CRU and NCDC data special access to what is going on? This could make it seem like they are influencing the process.

    (Watts) REPLY:Ah I see you are immediately back to wasting everyone’s time here, so I’ll waste some of yours with some sarcasm. I’m not going to give you any additional information, as you’ve proven yourself to be a hostile commenter who will just run over to the Rommulans and rant about it there, followed by more ranting from the Rommulan general. Comical, they can’t even wait for the science, they MUST STERILIZE it before it reaches Earth. Can’t have anything that might threaten the Rommulans now can we? /sarc – Anthony

    —–

    Watts always seems so much more polite when he strays from his denialist realm.

    And speaking of inappropriate posts, Watts doesn’t do much to clean them up. I won’t post it here, but it’s on the link above at:

    Smokey says:
    March 23, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    —–

    Notable also is the degree to which WUWT adherents blindly accept what he . Examples:

    charles nelson:

    I recommend Watts Up With That to all my friends and aquaintances as well as people I argue with. The rigorous way this site presents un-impeachable, data from impeccable sources is a credit to you…as is the level of actual scientific knowledge that abounds in your comments section.

    Alexander K:

    Joe Romm only opens his mouth to change feet theae days, it seems. He tells the silliest of stories then is forced to back down and retract.

  21. Neal J. King says:

    Joe,

    I don’t agree with your strategy:
    “So the question is, will Anthony Watts keep his word and concede, finally, that there has been substantial warming in recent decades and that the results given by CRU and GISS are largely correct?”

    I think it is more important that Watts & family stop pushing nonsense about “no global warming” than that he eat crow in public about getting it wrong. By trying to force the issue, you may just ensure that he does neither – thus sustaining the lifespan of this stalling point.

    There is a quote attributed to Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”: “Never cut off your enemy’s retreat.” I think this point has application in this situation.

  22. MapleLeaf says:

    And, in his desperation, Anthony tries to detract from his failings by bringing up irrelevant internet humour. Look, squirrel!! Talking of humour, I wonder if Anthony has retracted his misleading and juvenile cartoon of Sir Paul (other juvenile cartoons have been posted on his site)? Don’t throw stones in glass houses Anthony.

    I think that the remaining 20% hearing that you have is highly selective Anthony, and miraculously manages to filter out the inconvenient findings concerning climate science. Truth is you heard what you wanted to hear and did not bother to check your facts. Something you have a propensity to do.

    Oh and while you are hear could you please formally apologize to NOAA (we have been waiting a very long time for that one) and provide us with a hyperlink to all your station.org data, all of it, as well as correspondence pertaining to it. You know, to be transparent and all. Thanks.

    Say hi to Morano and Inhofe from us.

    PS: And one last thing, how about revealing Goddard’s real name. It is the least that you could do given that you allowed him to post on your site multiple times, despite you allegedly have a rule not allowing people to post on your site using use a pseudonym.

    PPS: So sorry that even the BEST results do not conform to your belief system. I trust all correspondence between you and Muller and other BEST members will be made available for viewing– transparency is after all one of the objectives of BEST.

  23. Neal J. King says:

    climate undergrad @13:

    You ask, “None of this explains why Dr. Muller is consulting with a discredited-denier-former-TV-weatherman.

    There have got to be at least 1,000,000 people more qualified, possibly a lot more.”

    There is a very good reason for consulting with Watts: He has one of the most popular climate websites on the WWW, and he’s skeptical about global warming. If the BEST study takes into account his input and concerns, and still gets the conventional results (and that is what looks like happening), Watts & family will have no fallback and no cover.

    It would be worthwhile to get beyond this stage of argument. Let’s let that happen.

  24. Steve L says:

    Hey Anthony Watts. Congratulations on being able to admit you were wrong. Seriously, I actually respect that. It seems very rare over there.
    But you better get used to it, because you guys are wrong about so very much. And it doesn’t matter how much you “shout them down in the comments” — you guys need to look in the mirror and figure out what is the honorable way to react when your shouting certainty is no longer convincing to anyone with a speck of decent intellect.

  25. Rob C. says:

    Anthony Watts: you are committing acts that are morally and ethically on par with selling meth to gradeschoolers. At long last, have you no shame?

    Never mind, its a rhetorical question, and the answer is abundantly clear.

  26. climate undergrad says:

    @ Neal J King

    I appreciate your perspective – though that explains more why we should let Watts retreat to “ok its warming” than why Muller consults him. Joe Romm has one of the most popular climate sites on the WWW (and oh by the way a PHD in physics from MIT) but isn’t on this “inside track.” Moreover, after hearing Mullers ‘Al Gore derangement syndrome’ it certainly does not seem like he is trying to set the (warming temperature) record straight.

    The cynic in me says this may be some attempt to “round up” the deniers towards more believable doubt spreading tactics. “Guys the it’s not warming thing is just stupid – can we all agree to move onto ‘it’s uncertain’ or ‘it will cost too much.’”

  27. LP says:

    ***
    A message to Anthony Watts:
    ***

    Please save the bullsh!t and playing the victim card for your own blog where it fits right in.

    Everyone who reads this website knows how entirely, calculatingly, un-apologetically, full of $%&# you are. You can blame your “misunderstanding” on bad hearing or the mean ole internets as much as you want, but just remember this:

    Your blatant dishonesty and distortion is completely transparent to CP commenters like me and the rest of us – i.e. those who actually understand the science of AGW as well as the underhanded politics people like you peddle to deny it.

    Now think about what happens when time, reality, and hindsight catch up to those flocks of sheeple you choose to lead astray. Unless you’ve brainwashed yourself as badly as you have your own readers, I think you know just as well as the rest of us what’s really coming down the pipe.

    So please enjoy your 15 minutes of disingenuous fame, your absurd “science blog” awards, and whatever kickbacks you’re getting from the Heartland Institute and the Koch brothers for all your pollutocrat propaganda.


    Because here’s the REAL accolades you will ultimately be remembered for:

    When your 15 minutes are up, when the harsh reality of AGW will be too much for even your own Dunning-Krugerite army to ignore, when the consequences are too dire and any possible mitigation too little too late – people will eagerly look back for whoever they can blame.

    The next generation and those beyond will ask with incredulous outrage how we chose to twiddle our thumbs on this issue when our best scientists warned us about it for decades.

    And although you may not be around to face the torches and pitchforks by that point – just remember every word you write on that joke of a website, every speech you give spreading your disinfo to the disinformed, will find it’s way into permanent history.

    So when people look back FOR THE REST OF HISTORY with disdain and ask how our generation could be so lazy, so selfish, and so utterly stupid to let this all happen – they’ll have the exact same perspective on you that we already do.

    I hope that level of permanent infamy is worth whatever cheap kicks you’re getting out of all this in the meantime.

    Just who’s going to be around 100 years from now to blame all your DELIBERATE dishonesty on “bad hearing”?

    Good luck with that.

  28. Mark Shapiro says:

    Mr. Anthony Watts:

    A quick google search reveals that you and a Mr. Steven Goddard have been referring to me and other readers of Climate Progress as “Rommulans”.

    Lands’ sakes, Mr. Watts! That is bad behavior, indeed. It is bad manners. Rude!

    Please desist. And stop lying about global warming, smearing scientists, blocking progress, and supporting pollution and polluters. I mean, really!

    Your friend,
    Mark

  29. KeenOn350 says:

    @ LP

    Well said!

    DaveW

  30. bill says:

    Having read all the comments on that page all I can say is; motes and beams, Mr. Watts. That whiffy smear of a potted biography of Joe R sitting there quite unmolested is particularly unimpressive.

    I remind you that you are apparently happy to leave ‘[Joe Romm] is the salaried representative of the political forces seeking to impose Global Warming legislation on the world for their own political and financial reasons’

    Plus, of course, it seems you are entitled to leap on ‘hostile commenters’; particularly, one suspects, when their questions come a little too close to the mark. To my mind that ridiculous ‘Rommulan’ stuff is clearly an attempt to divert attention from the disturbing content of the comment and re-rally the tribe around how nasty the enemy is (what, with all those horrible facts and all that contemptible evidence!)

    And what precisely does George Soros have to do with any of this? Oh, I get it; he’s the ‘evil’ puppet-master, and he certainly riles the troops up a treat!

    Pathetic.

    But, by all means, come here and make ‘outraged’ accusations based on months old material…

    [JR: I appreciate your fortitude in reading those comments, but it's worth seeing what we're up against. They are typical of most of his posts.]

  31. P.G. Dudda says:

    Mr. Watts, you are making those of us with 90% hearing loss (like me) appear to be incompetent fools unaware of the unreliability of our hearing and incapable of cross-checking information given to us verbally. Please stop.

  32. MapleLeaf says:

    And, in his desperation, Anthony Watts tries to detract from his failings by bringing up irrelevant internet humour and playing the victim. Look, squirrel!! Talking of humour, I wonder if Anthony has retracted his misleading and juvenile cartoon of Sir Paul? Don’t throw stones in glass houses Anthony.

    I think that the remaining 20% hearing that you have is highly selective Anthony, and miraculously manages to filter out the inconvenient findings concerning climate science. Truth is you heard what you wanted to hear and did not bother to check your facts. Something you have a propensity to do.

    So sorry that even the BEST results do not conform to your belief system. I trust all correspondence between you and Muller and other BEST members will be made available for viewing– transparency is after all one of the objectives of BEST.

    While you are here could you please formally apologize to NOAA (we have been waiting a very long time for that one) and provide us with a hyperlink to all your station.org data, as well as correspondence pertaining to it. You know, to be transparent and all. Thanks.

  33. MarkB says:

    If one’s hearing is poor, it stands to reason that one should not rely on it, but instead seek other means of receiving the information. Moreover, if it came to one’s attention that there was a discrepancy, instead of hurling bizzare insults at the person pointing out the discrepancy, it would be more reasonable to reconsider one’s potentially wrong interpretation. That is what a good skeptic would do. It would reflect poorly on a person if he had denied of ever being informed of being mistaken when it’s clearly the case that he had. It also reflects poorly on a person who complains of a potentially inappropriate comment on a blog post months ago, when his own post from last week has clearly offensive comments in place.

  34. Jack says:

    @ LP

    Hear! Hear!

    You’re on the wrong side of history Watts, you know climate change is real – I’d bet my house that you know – you know full well it’s going to reek untold misery on the third world and cost lives, yet you’re willing to swap lives for a few bucks of your blog – that to me is unbelievable, unforgivable – why don’t you do the world a favor and find another profession!

  35. Peter M says:

    Watts attacks JR, and other so called ‘warmest’ blogs as those attempting to ‘hijack’ ‘freedom’ and the American Free enterprise system’ and impose a world wide ‘Rommulan’ socialism to enslave us.

    His defense of an ideology includes smearing others, while distorting scientific information as a Modus operandi to achieve protecting a Plutocratic type of oligarchy the USA has become.

    Its interesting to hear the same smears, denials, trashing of data and information from sources of the highest credentials. While Watts seemingly finds nothing to dispute scientific data except to accuse them of being collecting bogus data, that suits their ‘elitist’ aspirations to control ‘freedom’. A sort of ‘Climate McCarthyism’.

  36. Russell says:

    In reckoning himself “about 80% hearing impaired”, and confessing insufficient recall to cope ” with some printed graphs.” Watts has afforded greater insight into the remainder of his faculties than a random 2% sample might provide.

    It also explains how he can listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Glenn Beck with such apparent equanimity.

    No beastly remarks about other vegetables please, Mr. Roddy.

  37. John Mason says:

    It’d be hilarious if the subject-matter wasn’t so damn serious.

    I’d suggest a career-change for Anthony before he digs himself in any deeper. How about arable farming, eh? After all, he has years of experience in planting strawmen…

    Cheers – John

  38. Mark says:

    Re Joe’s update

    “the truth is that Watts has known for six days that his post was in grave error — but it is only my post here that forced him to concede the (((((mistake)))).”

    Also Re Russell (34)

    You guys are giving Mr Watts way much credit. He’s in the smear business. Personally I would not be surprised if it was premeditated all the way, or at a minimum was the sort of cunning lie that arises from preplanned and studious ignorance.

  39. J Bowers says:

    [JR: If you want to know the kind of comments Watts routinely allows, read this.]

    Joe, that comment seems to have disappeared from that page.

    [JR: Good. As always, the hypocrite Watts makes no changes/corrections until I call him out. He comes here to complain about one comment four months ago while the post I critiqued has countless absurd comments.]

  40. Neal J. King says:

    JR, where is my comment #26?

    [JR: It contained a false statement.]

  41. Neal J. King says:

    JR,

    If you believe a particular statement is false, why not just call it out?

    I don’t think most readers would find my perspective particularly objectionable.

    [JR: It is a long stated policy of CP. Otherwise, I have to waste a lot of time, as I'm doing now. Also, I KNOW that statement is false.]

  42. catman306 says:

    If we are all Rommulans, we probably would have used a cloaking device which would have made Mr. Watts and his website invisible to human beings everywhere.

    Alas, his site is still there…

    Either we are not Rommulans or readers of his site are not human.

    Good logic, you think, Tony?

    [JR: I prefer to think of us more as the relatives of the Rommulans, which is to say the Vulcans. There is little doubt that Trekkies or Trekkers ain't filled with science deniers, so it is amusing to see Watts corrupt yet another pro-science enterprise, as it were. There is also little doubt that in the Star Trek world, Watts and his ilk would be the Borg.]

  43. Dave H says:

    Always worth repeating – if a blogger is going to be held to account for the comments that appear on their pages, then Judith Curry condones calling climate scientists “eugenicists”

    I suggest Watts take his opprobrium over there.

  44. Horatio Algeranon says:

    Beware the Jabberblogger, my son…

  45. Anne van der Bom says:

    “There is also little doubt that in the Star Trek world, Watts and his ilk would be the Borg”

    More like the Ferengi.

  46. Mark says:

    No no…. Species 8672! The denialists are covert operatives for an alien invasion. They were sent here to con us into doing geoengineering and genocide to make the place more hospitable before the Mother Ship arrives. I must say…. so far, so good.

  47. Even the Ferengi had their good points.

  48. Artful Dodger says:

    @Mark #46: Please don’t give us cause to doubt your Trek-cred ;^)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_8472

  49. Horatio, I hope you don’t mind my reposting of your Jabberblogger — “snickersnack” must be one of my most favorite words.