AWOL: Anthony Watts Out of Lies?

Posted on by

Anthony Watts has gone to ground this weekend, giving me a blessed vacation from his scattergun approach to denialism.

He claims to have a bad cold, but I think it has more to do with licking his wounds over “The Stockholm Initiative”. Anthony made a particularly aggressive claim that a false parliamentary submission by some Swedish denialists was actually the impartial opinion of a legitimate scientific organization. This was immediately shot down in flames.

So I’ll highlight a few positive developments in Climate Change instead.

Skeptical Science has been a great place to find straight-forward unravelling of regular denialist claims. Not long ago they got together with Australian software developers Shine Technologies to produce an iPhone app that gives quick access to their list of predictable “skeptic” arguments. Nice!

Joe Romm at Climate Progress talks about Merchants of Doubt, a book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway that will be released in May, 2010. It exposes the decades-long maneuvering of “a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry.” The same players, but an ever-changing game:

For half a century, the tobacco industry, defenders of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and those skeptical of acid rain, the ozone hole, and global warming strove to ‘maintain the controversy’ and ‘keep the debate alive’ by fostering claims that were contrary to the mainstream of scientific evidence and expert judgment.

Climate Cover-Up, by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore has been available for a while now. It’s another good look at the political backstory of Global Warming denial. It “spotlights premeditated prevarications about the threat of greenhouse gas emissions by the oil and coal industry, in league with junk scientists, compliant conservative politicians and unsavory public relations practitioners.”

4 thoughts on “AWOL: Anthony Watts Out of Lies?”

  1. He’s also missed a call from Tamino to admit his mistake regarding the SPPI paper written with D’Aleo.

    Several people (including me) have posted on the Open Thread asking for comment, but the weekend illness has prevented his response.

    Reply ↓

  2. It seems that some of my posts are still in moderation after a couple of days, so I might as well post them here, if our host is OK with that. [relevant on-topic comments not approved on WUWT? That could never happen! :-) – Ben]

    Reply ↓

  3. First, Smokey wrote:

    Deech56 (10:29:04),

    It appears that the reference was to Anthony’s upcoming paper. Maybe you jumped the gun, or maybe I’m mistaken. But if it was, how can you talk about a “correction”?

    As we know, the climate peer review process is a travesty of misrepresentation and cliquish behavior. It is not worth citing as being reliable. Rather, it is rent-seeking grant chasing by a disreputable clique of insiders. If you need some climategate emails showing that, I’ll be happy to oblige. For that matter, here’s someone from neither camp who gives an outsider’s view: click

    BTW, have you been published by a climate journal? Just wondering if you’re also part of that lot, or if you’re just pulling the usual appeal to the rigged climate peer review authority in an attempt to prop up the punch-drunk tamino, who lives in excruciating jealousy of the much superior WUWT.

    I replied:

    RE Smokey (11:47:06)

    I understood the reference to be to the “paper” published on the SPPI site. The analysis by Tamino addresses the claims from that write-up and not the surfacestations project. Of course, Menne, et al. takes care of the surfacestations claims.

    And no, I haven’t published in a climate journal – that’s not my field. Have published in several other journals, though (Journal of Immunology, Infection and Immunity, International Journal of Radiation Oncology•Biology•Physics, Radiation Research) and served as a peer reviewer for a couple of journals and for some federal agencies. I have my own experience, plus I’ve read the relevant e-mails and then some (I would recommend the exchange in which the submission and acceptance of the Santer paper was discussed), so the whole “rigged peer review” meme doesn’t really resonate with me.

    I, of course, await the correction from our host [i.e. Anthony Watts – Ben].

    Reply ↓

  4. Second, justin wrote:

    Deech56 (10:29:04)

    I tell you what Deech. You come here spouting your die hard dogma, asking questions, quoting “facts”.

    Come back when you have seen the paper. Please. I would love it.

    But like all of the trolls that come here you hit and run. You say something controversial and do not even read the replies. You cannot be bothered about the science. You do not care to even be sceptical enough to read anything other than your dogma.

    And I cannot believe your “scientific big dogs” slur. Please go back to realclimate.

    I replied:

    RE justin (11:57:28) :

    Come back when you have seen the paper. Please. I would love it.

    I did see the paper; downloaded it from here. And kim, Tamino did address RomanM’s criticism here.

    Just seems that you’re trying to pump up our host rather than address the issue. Can’t EM Smith do some maths? I wouldn’t expect Anthony to run the numbers when he can get someone who claims to have the expertise.

    Reply ↓

Leave a comment