Willis makes the NYT, Gavin to stop “persuading the public”

Willis makes the NYT, Gavin to stop “persuading the public”. Reading a New York Times article entitled Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate, Anthony Watts concludes that Gavin Schmidt’s realclimate.org, the climatology website that explains climate science, should stop doing it. Climatologists should stick to their thermometers and leave the ‘splainin’ to Anthony, because he’s so good at it. Actually Anthony, I think you’re just wishing you could prevent reality from interfering with your fantasy world.

This quote about denialists from Energy Secretary Steven Chu puts Anthony in context: “What standard are they being held to? It’s very asymmetric. They get to say anything they want.”

Anthony’s also delighted that one of his blogging buddies, “citizen-scientist” Willis Eschenbach, is quoted in a NYT article: “I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret – I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored”. He apparently wants scientists to “stop trying to pass off garbage as science.” Psychologists call this projection.

5 thoughts on “Willis makes the NYT, Gavin to stop “persuading the public”

  1. Ben, your site is great. People that show up here are directed to the original articles on WUWT. Plus your comments give people a great insight into what passes for arguments among the AGW supporters.

    Many thanks for driving traffic to WUWT, you’re doing a wonderful public service.

    • I’m here to shine a light on WUWT’s deceptions, including your own comic contributions, not suppress them. I want readers to visit WUWT, but I want them to have some rational context when they get there. Whether either of us are providing a “public service” will be for history to decide, but I’ll take fact over fiction for now.

    • Hi Willis,
      As you know, I’ve been active in this particular thread over at WUWT just trying to figure out who are the “peers” who review climate science papers which appear in Energy and Environment.

      All this has not given me time to respond directly to your more recent post. Given that I’m in the penalty box at WUWT and my most recent post over there is still awaiting moderation, I hope you get a chance to read this and know that I welcome a debate on science with all of you.

  2. Herman, I don’t know who they are either. All I can tell you is that the peer-reviewed paper I published on E&E was reviewed quite strictly. You can see the paper here.

    [Willis, your 2007 article in E&E is a curiously hostile narrative based on biased assumptions and innuendo. If there’s a valid scientific conclusion there it’s well buried. Who indeed let it through? Your 2005 article in E&E also came under scrutiny for editorial oddities. That 2005 RealClimate post generally discusses the issue of maneuvering by people trying to slip past objective review and shows that the problem (and the tactic) has been around for a long time. “Quite strict” and “Energy and Environment” don’t belong in the same sentence. – Ben]

  3. Willis, what’s important about your paper is that it is not a scientific paper on climate science, in that I do not see it contributing to the body of knowledge. It’s a paper about writing science papers. So it does not pass any tests I know about qualified scientific reviewers. (Speaking as a layman here.)

    Now, if some scientific reviewers want to come forward and reveal themselves as reviewers, I’ll stand corrected. As I’ve said before — no one at E&E possesses the qualifications to review climate science research and I have my doubts that there’s much depth of knowledge to review papers as well.

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