Category Archives: Tone

University of Graz Responds to Parncutt’s calls for death penalty for “deniers”

Posted on by
2

University of Graz Responds to Parncutt’s calls for death penalty for “deniers” ()2012-12-27). Yeah! Denialist outrage has led the University of Graz to censor their music professor’s ill-advised ramblings about climate change! Freedom from speech is victorious! Nothing more satisfying than a bit of successful bullying, is there Anthony? Monckton, of course, also got his stick in there.

Also, Skeptical Science and DeSmogBlog haven’t explicitly disavowed Professor Parncutt’s essay suggesting the execution of denialists, so that clearly means they support it.

UPDATE2: 2:55:PM PST In an email received today from Skeptical Science contributor Dana Nuccitelli, he has flat out refused to distance himself or the SkS website publicly from the Parncutt essay. Readers may recall that Parncutt used SkS as a reference in his essay calling for the death penalty. No word yet on whether John Cook (owner of the website) agrees and no word yet from DeSmog blog. – Anthony

Funny, I happen to have Mr. Nuccitelli’s actual response here, which was also posted as a comment that was blocked by Anthony’s censors, which seems a bit more nuanced than Anthony’s “reporting”:

From: Dana Nuccitelli
To: Anthony <xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: still waiting…
We of course don’t agree with giving denialists the death penalty, but we’re also not going to waste our time commenting on what some German musicologist said just because he happens to (correctly) cite SkS as a factually accurate source on climate science.

Given than you frequently allow WUWT guest posts from people like Christopher Monckton, who aside from being a total nutjob (to put it as kindly as I can), says some pretty horrible things on a regular basis, I really don’t think you’re in a position to expect more than that.

-Dana

Friday Funny – David Suzuki goes postal

Posted on by
1

“Friday Funny – David Suzuki goes postal” (2012-11-09). Anthony Watts re-blogs the Heartland Institute’s A Polite Discourse with Professional Climate Alarmist David Suzuki, where right-wing political hack Jim Lakely pretends that sending a Heartland Institute published rant on climate science (Roosters Of The Apocalypse: How The Junk Science Of Global Warming Nearly Bankrupted The Western World) was an attempt at “polite discourse.” (“Roosters” didn’t exactly make a splash back in February, this Bismarck Tribute review is the first real analysis that shows up in Google.)

Here’s Lakely’s attempt at polite discourse:

  1. He publishes and attacks a private correspondence.
  2. He calls Dr. Suzuki a “Professional Climate Alarmist”.
  3. He calls Dr. Suzuki childish.
  4. He puts “esteemed scientist” in sneer-quotes.
  5. He dismisses a renowned environmental scientist as expressing “faith-based climate views”.
  6. He ignores the entirety of environmental science to write “defaming people who disagree is the only trick aging alarmists like him have left.”

Here’s the note Dr. Suzuki wrote on his return-to-sender package:

“I am a scientist and I take great umbrage at being sent such a load of crap from a bullshit shill organization for the oil industry. You are the most anti-science group I can imagine.

David Suzuki.”

Seems pretty accurate to me, Anthony. In fact it applies equally to you, although I suspect your motivation is garden-variety incoherent libertarianism.

Why I no longer subscribe to Popular Science

Posted on by
5

“Why I no longer subscribe to Popular Science” (2012-110-03). Anthony Watts reminds us that he holds grudges. Popular Science is still on his long list of subversive publications with which he will have no truck. National Geographic and Scientific American are also on his list.

What re-warmed the fire in Anthony’s belly? Popular Science reported on the controversy of a denialist Wikipedia volunteer Ken Mampel spending a week feverishly expunging references to climate change from the Hurricane Sandy Wikipedia page. The PopSci article was really about the randomness and wildly varying credentials of Wikipedia editors, but it’s the wiki page subject that woke Anthony up.

Where’s PopSci’s coverage of the William Connolley Wikipedia controversy? Equal time! Credentialed climate scientist versus “Joe Blow”!

Friday Funny: Dr. Michael Mann keeps interesting company

Posted on by
9

“Friday Funny: Dr. Michael Mann keeps interesting company” (2012-07-13). What are the chances that Anthony Watts, after years of alternately wailing about imagined personal attacks and launching them himself will be correct when he “accuses” his regular critic “caerbannog666″ of being… a Goth!!!!!!!! The only things Anthony manages to “out” are his own scientific hypocrisy and his pathetic inability to see past his own prejudices.

But, you say, every single occurrence of “caerbannog666″ in a Google search can only be related to the target of his mini-McCarthyist rummaging!

 I wondered who is this guy? A well known climate blog regular, he’s been bloviating all over the climate blogs for years. After finding him though about a minute’s worth of Googling public information, I wish I could unsee what I found. Meet [name of Brazilian bystander redacted] (Caerbannog)

That 31 year-old Brazilian goth’s MySpace page is clearly proof of the identity of a 57 year-old American who’s a critic of Anthony’s denialism. And everyone knows that Goths are creepy and dumb, so “caerbannog666″ is a creep and dumb! Therefore no Global Warming. Also, every “citizen-scientist” should go to that MySpace page and post insults.

Turns out the chances of Anthony correcting his foolish error are pretty low. In fact about as low as the chances of him even admitting it (you really owe it to yourself to watch Anthony flounder stiffly in the comments, preserved here as a PDF for posterity):

I’m not the least bit interested in what a few anonymous cowards think I should do/not do. ‘Caerbannog666′ has to make the request and he’s the only one whose opinion matters. He can use the contact form, or he can leave a comment on tips and notes. So far he’s done nothing. And since I’m tiring of the usual anonymous people who think that their opinion matters more on this issue, I’m closing comments. As stated, if ‘Caerbannog666′ wants a correction, he can ask for one and show why, and if he can demonstrate why he’s not the same person, I’ll gladly make a correction.

It’s pretty comical that Anthony thinks his inaccurate (and irrelevant) “outing” would be a legitimate way to diminish his scientific critics. Anthony tries to walk that back a bit in an update, mumbling about his proclaimed acceptance of people who choose to dress “in the dark style”. This post really boils down to impotent, frustrated, lashing out by A. Watts.

This self-congratulatory comment by David Ball sums up the Watts Up WIth That hypocrisy best: “Tolerance is one of the magic ingredients of WUWT IMHO.” I think that last bit of tech lingo is “In My Horse-shit Opinion”.

Anthony Watts Defeats Himself

Posted on by
7

“Hump day hilarity: Chris Mooney’s abby-normal post modern science” (2011-11-09) and ”Mooney pulls a Muller” (2011-11-10). After years of announcing how he was going to prove Global Warming was a lie (but utterly failing to do so), Anthony decides to castigate anyone else who talks about their conclusions before formal publication. Only the targets of his hypocrisy have simply released drafts of submitted papers (the previously beloved Dr. Muller) or described a book they are still writing (Chris Mooney’s The Republican Brain). Anthony, you may recall, loudly and repeatedly announced that he was going to prove that the temperature record was both inaccurate and tampered with, and that climate scientists were corrupt socialists. You may also recall that he was 99 44/100%  wrong.

So what has twisted Anthony’s shorts this time? You’re going to love this: He’s attacking a book that hasn’t been finished yet, claiming that it portrays conservatives as idiots who jump to conclusions! Nice stick-work there, Anthony.

Seems like finishing your book is kind of redundant now, Chris! You can read his take on the response is here: Conservatives Attack and Misunderstand A Book They Haven’t Read… A Book About Flawed Conservative Reasoning.

Bill Nye is the anti-science guy when it comes to global warming and hurricanes

Posted on by
6

“Bill Nye is the anti-science guy when it comes to global warming and hurricanes“ (2011-08-30). Dr. Ryan Maue seems annoyed with how little traction with his denial science is getting, so he’s going to give political whining a try at his Policlimate blog. Why? Because as he says “Anthony typically avoids political issues” (I still rubbing my eyes over that). Luckily Anthony Watts seems willing, this one time, to dabble in politics by cross-posting Ryan’s rant about Bill Nye’s recent appearance on Fox News.

You know the denialists have had their asses publicly handed to them when they try to re-write an event after the fact by nit-picking someone’s live TV responses intended for a general audience (and when we talk about Fox audiences we’re talking really general) and then declare post facto victory because of imperfect grammar or getting a measurement wrong. They can also be reliably expected to complain about “tone”.

The title of this YouTube copy is “Bill Nye insists the earth is warming though data shows it is not.” and has comments disabled. Denialism writ tiny.

Seems Bill Nye didn’t play along with Fox News “Freedom Watch” guest host Charles Payne’s attempt to describe concern about our changing climate as “apocalyptic”, “irresponsible”, or to assert that there’s a bit of warming “but that’s not from man”. When Payne realized that Bill Nye wasn’t serving as a fig-leaf for Fox News’ preferred scientific assertions he pulled out the patented Fox News escape hatch of but… Al Gore! ending thus:

“We brought you on because we knew you could connect the dots,” Payne interrupted. “Although the route you’ve taken is still confusing some of the viewers.” - Fox Business Host Accuses Bill Nye of ‘Confusing Viewers’ with Science

So six minutes of interrupted reality-based answers to leading questions balances endless hours of Glenn Beck conspiracy theories? That’s “Fair and Balanced” for you.