I’ve been Lenfesteyed

I’ve been Lenfesteyed (2012-01-03). Anthony Watts thinks the only remedy needed for people who disagree with his version of science and politics is to just change the radio station when a partisan “radio personality” starts regurgitating Anthony’s lies.

Yes, as long as Anthony’s misinformation isn’t heard by me it will have no consequence.

Anthony pretends he’s laughing off James Lenfestey’s January 2nd commentary (“The state of fear at the new year“) in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, but he has to go completely off-topic to find something irrelevant to attack his critic with. James writes poetry! (Note to commenter “Chris Smith” this is an actual example of ad hominem.)

Lord Monckton, who positively lives for strutting about and stirring things up, has also decided to respond. He’s sent a weaselly letter to the paper containing his usual collection of debunked assertions that he simply expects will not be checked before publication. I howled at his characterization of Professor John Abraham’s truly epic take-down of Monckton’s presentation at Bethel University as a “driveling attempted rebuttal of it by a non-climatologist at a local bible college”. That’s the sign of a puffed-up poser who knows he’s been publicly thrashed. The references to the usual tiny circle of denialist personalities and “supporting links” to his denialist scienceandpublicpolicy.org website and Ken Cuccinelli’s shameful legal assault on Dr. Michael Mann are weak tea indeed.

Anthony and Lord Monckton, face it: Being invoked by an ignorant blow-hard partisan talk-show host is the pinnacle of your achievements.

4 thoughts on “I’ve been Lenfesteyed

  1. Ben, off-topic, but you’ve missed so far Tony’s great coup of becoming an IPCC reviewer. I hope you’ll be able to find the time to keep us up-to-date on all his interactions with the IPCC. I, personally, can no longer tolerate reading his website and come here instead to get the sanitized picture of what’s going on over there. While he is bound by confidentiality rules in the IPCC review process (or, as his followers see it, the conspiracy), I seriously doubt he’ll be able to keep silent now that he’s inside the Borg ship. We’re relying on you to be our eyes and ears. Thank you for being able to stomach his nonsense and keep up the good work!

    [We covered Anthony’s baseless delight here. Thanks for your “thanks”! – Ben]

  2. Watts is going to be an IPCC reviewer? That should provide plenty of “comic relief” for the IPCC volunteers who have to wade through all the “expert reviewer” comments. I can just see the IPCC scientists arguing like schoolboys over who gets the read the most entertaining submissions…

    Michael Mann: “Dibs on the Watts comments.”

    Kevin Trenberth: “No way — you got his comments last time.”

    Michael Mann: “Well, if I let you read Watts’ comments, then I get Lord Monckton’s”.

    Ben Santer: “Wait — that’s not fair. You guys haven’t let me read *any* of Watts’ or Monckton’s comments yet.”

    Gavin Schmidt: “I want Steve Goddard’s”.

    [The EPA got to play that game in 2010, with some of the more amusing observations, such as this one, extracted at Rabett Run. I expect similar foot-in-mouth from Anthony. – Ben]

  3. Watt’s the bet he doesn’t actually make a comment except to perhaps correct a typo then he can say he “corrected the IPCC report”.

    [That would be his smartest move. – Ben]

  4. Dear Rick,Thanks for lnteitg my post make it onto your website and past the moderator, we’ll see if my reply makes it as well. Unfortunately you have been blinded by your advocacy, it understandable when you have devoted most of your career to something that is slowly falling apart under harsh scrutiny. Your links and references are all to sites that share your advocacy and the same cool-aid. I wouldn’t be too proud of referencing the IPCC as a standard of expertise. I watched the hysteria of the build-up to the Copenhagen conference with the pictures of polar bears standing on chunks of ice surrounded by water, and the politicians and the IPCC chairman indignantly claiming the “science is settled”, based on a summary report that hyped the potential dangers and suppressed dissenting views or ranges of uncertainties. As soon as I heard the “science was settled”, I was immediately suspicious because of my science background. The media was fed exaggerations from the IPCC report such as an expected 6 degree C temperature rise, and that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 (are people really that stupid to believe that?).Unfortunately, the climate “scientists” have been tainted by this whole process and advocacy and did not stand up to the exaggerations that have been pushed. It is easy to understand why the climate “scientist” community got caught up in all this hype with the immense political pressure that was involved, the vilification of dissenting views, and human nature when such vast amounts of money are involved. Contrary to your claim, the public does not trust this process, and I would suggest it will not be restored until we step back and an open and independent review (separate from political interference and environmental advocacy) is done of all data sets and models. Don’t just rely on the consensus of climate “scientists” – likely the same group that produced the “sterling” (yes I am being sarcastic) IPCC recommendations, encourage open and honest challenge and debate from dissenting views and all other kinds of scientists such as physicists, solar experts, geologists and others who are not implicated in this climate “scientist” consensus. That is how science is supposed to work, not science by advocacy.Contrary to your belief, I have followed and researched this topic for several years now and will keep an open mind as it further develops, it certainly is not “settled”. I think we should all agree that the climate will ALWAYS CHANGE. It is hubris to believe that with our current knowledge and technology that we adequately understand (at this stage – maybe we will in the future) the relationship between the sun, the earth, and its incredibly complex and variable atmosphere, and human impact; certainly not enough to justify huge transfers of money and imposition of global controls. I think you miss the point, as a professional engineer I do not claim to be an expert in this area, however engineers are pragmatists who can understand and take hard science and adapt it to the REAL WORLD. As you admitted, engineers have developed everything from the space shuttle, the computer, the internet (oops, maybe that was Al Gore), to the IPod (not just sky scrapers). From your bio: “Rick has worked as an educator, writer, and policy analyst and advocate since the 1970’s, in federal and state government, academia, and nonprofit organizations”, I take it that you do not have much of a science background or training and therefore just rely on what you are told. I also assume you have never developed or understood a computer model and how easily they can be manipulated based on biased inputs. This is what happened to the majority of the media (that then when on and spoon fed it to the general public) who do not understand science. Bernie Madoff was also a supposed expert in his field; perhaps his clients, the public, and media should have been more skeptical or challenging. You would do well to keep that in mind.Thanks for the debate.Rob

    [I think I missed a bit. Could you repeat it in ALL CAPS? – Ben]

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