My Blog Spawn

“My Blog Spawn”. Thanks, I guess, to What’s Up With Watts for pointing out how Anthony Watts privately obsesses over his critics, in all the completely irrelevant ways possible. What a painful example of projection, resentment, back-of-the-classroom goonery, and (hard for him to fight the compulsion) cherry-picking. If he doesn’t stop Googling he may go blind!


Proprietor: Ben Lawson of Toronto, Canada

Some of Ben’s skills: Male modelladies manmarathon runnercookpeach harvester,Bad Santa, snowfall collectora Mac technology specialist and Noble Swan

Reason for creating the blog: he got kicked off WUWT for multiple policy violations, got mad, still trying to get even.

Anthony wants you to know that I frivolously run marathons, but not that I’m a geologist. His way of deflecting my exposure of his bankrupt arguments is troll flickr for photos of me that he thinks are embarrassing, not to point out any actual errors on my part (hey Tony, here’s a tip; I have funnier ones on Facebook). Naturally my motivation, according to him, is revenge over unspecified “multiple policy violations” in my comments on his blog. Not his endless lying and remorseless Nixonian suppression of opponents.

Hats off to fellow “skewered” garbage collectors, currently and These days you have a stronger stomach that I!

15 thoughts on “My Blog Spawn

  1. You were the first (AFAIK) and remain the best, Ben.

    Funnily enough, just before I saw your article, I was mulling over the fact that while we generally post articles refuting the falsehoods and disinformation in WUWT articles or making fun of what is written there, Anthony instead goes for the completely irrelevant personal. He avoided mentioning my agricultural science background, too, favoring my voluntary directorship on the board of a disability services provider. (I expect it was a soft dogwhistle to the cranks among his readers.) The article he linked to on my blog was a curious selection on his part.

    I’ve noticed that Anthony writes very few articles. It’s mostly either cut and paste or guest bloggers. When he does try he usually gets into a lot of strife. That’s one reason he goes for ad hommery and worse. The other is he knows most of his readers respond well to ad homs. It appeals to their lynch mob mentality.

  2. I don’t know Ben, I would be pretty happy being described as a male model, ladies man, cook etc etc. It certainly beats being a failed TV weatherman.

    [Well you know how Anthony resents climate models… – Ben]

  3. These days you have a stronger stomach that I!

    I’ve only been doing this for 6 months and I’m finding it harder and harder. I’ve discovered that attempting to engage with those who are noted pseudo-skeptics is, at best, pointless and, at worst, remarkably frustrating and annoying. As for my blog, I feel like I’m preaching to the converted. Maybe there are some who read who are uncertain, but it does seem as though people who read blogs like ours largely already agree with the general scientific consensus. Clearly, there are some pseudo-skeptics, but they seem to pop in, make some fairly ridiculous comment and then never come back to defend it or respond again. So, maybe it’s having some impact, but it’s not clear what. All a bit soul destoying, to be honest.

    [That’s a big part of the intellectually bankrupt denialist strategy. Relentless repetition of lies until they exhaust those people with the time/energy to correct or challenge them. You have a bigger impact than Anthony cares to admit. – Ben]

    • Mr Wottsupwiththatblog (WoUWTB), I am truely impressed by your success so far, especially taking into account that Richard Tol seemed to have chosen you for his own chest thumping and tends to make quite nonsensical comments.

      However, as a fan, I would advise you not to push yourself too hard. You can’t stop WUWT drivel, and there is lots of it, so only comment when you feel like it.

      If you want to reach “over the fence” people, neven’s approach was interesting : he chose a climate research field he liked, and managed even though as a lay person to gather enough informations to become a reference in the Internet – and I suspect many scientists read him as well. The comments at Neven are wonderful : everyone tries to bring a piece of evidence and speculate about actual facts.

      • Thanks, and you’re probably right. I had intended to simply write specifically about global warming (as distinct from climate change) but have certainly drifted. I probably should take a bit of a break and regularly intend to do so, only to come up with something new to write about. Should probably put more effort into it I suspect. :-)

  4. Hi Ben, some of those photos are pretty cool so I don’t know why anyone would post them to embarrass you. Actually they show you in a good light. Non sinister, likes to have a bit of fun etc…

    I don’t really understand why WUWT posted them. In fact, you should post more of them on your own website – they make you more likable, not less. It is not as though they got you on camera doing something terrible or committing a crime, just having fun.

  5. I can’t help but wonder about the rationale behind the choice of these pictures by good old Willard, and their obvious portrayal as examples of “bad and dissolute” behaviour.
    Did he choose these pictures because he thought mainly about his audience’s mindset, or did he find these pictures really “bad” ?
    Either way, that speaks volumes about the bigotry of WUWT crowd. Especially for an European. Good job Tony, you appear now as a biggot nutter. .

  6. Ben and everyone else — I just want to thank you for the thankless task you all undertake of exposing the senseless drivel from the deniers like Willard Watts. Hard as it may seem, you do play an important role. Deniers make up a lot of the policymakers in places like the US Congress. That means it is important to clearly expose the scientific flaws that make their way from high profile deniers like Monckton to the policymakers via the outlets like Watts. Spending energy on their relentless ad hominems and other non-science drivel is important too, because it helps underscore their true motivations.


  7. Well, Ben. *I* think it’s mighty funny! Some of the pics are flattering, some less so….? I’ve wondered about you: the “why” of this blog. Anthony helped a lot. I’m amazed what he was able to find!

    Anthony mentions that he has kicked folk off the site. In the years I’ve been reading, I’ve never seen it (whereas Real Climate damns folk to the spam folder if the questions are too hard….) [So even when Anthony admits kicking people off his site you still claim to have never seen it?- Ben]

    Have you followed “Joshua” at Judith Curry’s site? Now, there’s a warmist guy who requires some patience, but he’s allowed to rant and rant and rant and, always, to me, his points seem down in the weeds, someplace, like “what is the meaning of is?”

    I don’t know when (or where) Anthony posted this. It’s undated. I follow the site regularly and I never saw it before you brought it to my attention. [The home page from here Anthony used is from August of this year – Ben]

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think Anthony hates you. I think he is amused, and a tad flattered.
    (I would be if I were him.) [Anthony hates criticism as only over-reaching inadequates can, that’s why he went to the effort of creating a comments-off shrine for his attempt at belittling us. – Ben]

    It is interesting that you see your site on a higher scientific and intellectual plane than WUWT. I certainly do not. I would contend your site roils in personal invective. His does not. [Anthony’s blog doesn’t “roil in personal invective”? That’s a laugh. Anthony’s intellectual position (he has no defensible scientific position) is entirely based on it and his website feeds greedily on it. But you’re welcome to your opinions. – Ben]

    Best. …..Lady in Red

  8. I didn’t realize how powerful Anthony Watts had come, three sites with adaptions of his name trying to damn him, has it reached this stage of the game with the alarmism , sunk this low.

    Oh boy you know you are doing well when that happens.

    I Remember spitting image in the UK , if you were a politician and not represented in the programme you were no one.

    [“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Ben]

  9. IPCC report shows that:

    1. The temperature has not increased for almost 20 years.
    2. CO2 levels have risen over that period.

    [Wow, another unsubstantiated claim based on denialist ignorance! What “temperature” are you talking about? Does it accurately reflect the global climate? No, We Are NOT in a Climate “Pause” I do admire your determination though. – Ben]

    • The graph you linked to shows that the SAT has not increased for almost 20 years. That is the physical field about which all the hoo-haa has been for many, many years.

      So you do now agree that for the last 20 years or so there has not been an increase in the average SAT whilst at the same time there has been an increase in the CO2 levels.

      I know that you agree because you are now searching for “where did the heat go” – “oh, it went into the oceans and the cryosphere”. I have no beef with that. I find it highly likely that the Oceans might heat up, that ice might expand without melting in order to absorb extra heat. Unfortunately for you, that is not what the models said would occur – so the models will require more tinkering to correctly reproduce the pause in SAT by somehow putting the extra heat somewhere else. The models said that the heat absorbed by extra CO2 would cause an increase in SAT.

      But you cannot keep saying, as you do keep saying, that the SAT has increased. BECAUSE IT F*CKING HASN’T!

      [So let’s see if I’ve got this;

      • Your references, to nothing, beat mine.
      • The fact that climate data and models are always improving means that we must trust them less and less.
      • When natural climate cycles happen to amplify the remorseless AGW trend they are somehow proof that the scientist’s projections (no, call them predictions!) are wrong, but when natural climate cycles suppress that AGW trend they are now proof that the trend has stopped for realz.
      • Your squinting hopefully at trends you don’t like is all it takes to dismiss them. The heck with Chapter Two, page 3 of the WORKING GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS

      I guess you win because of… reasons. – Ben]

      • Ben, the SAT has not increased for almost 20 years. That is a fact. it does not matter what other things you say, all we have to do is look at the graph that you linked to. We can see that since ~1995 there has been no increase and certainly not of the order experienced between ~1975 to ~1995, of ~0.7 C. If you disagree with that then you need to get your eyes examined!

        [I didn’t link to a graph, I linked to a summary (on page 4 not 3, sorry about that). Since your faith in squinting is unshakeable, I’ll paste in the words of qualified scientists from that document:

        “It is certain that Global Mean Surface Temperature has increased since the late 19th century. Each of the past three decades has been significantly warmer than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest. The global combined land and ocean surface temperature data show an increase of about 0.89°C (0.69°C–1.08°C) over the period 1901– 2012 and about 0.72°C (0.49°C–0.89°C) over the period 1951–2012 when described by a linear trend. Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (0.12°C [0.08 to 0.14] per decade). Several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations are in broad agreement that LSAT has increased. Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) have also increased. Intercomparisons of new SST data records obtained by different measurement methods, including satellite data, have resulted in better understanding of uncertainties and biases in the records. [2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, Box 9.2]”

        But yes, I do believe that we should use the climate data that most accurately reflects the whole Earth’s climate. “Surface Temperature” was the best we could do, but now we can do better. – Ben]

        • The text that you posted states that there is a Hiatus:

          “exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998”

          What is your position Ben? Do you agree that there is a “pause” or a “hiatus” since around 1998, or are you saying there there is not a “pause” or “hiatus”?

          On the one hand you link to a guy who argues there is no pause whilst showing the pause in a plot on his website (there are four lights!) and on the other hand you just posted text stating that there is a pause!

          What do you believe Ben? Pause or no Pause?

          [I thought your claim was “flat since 1995”. Try to stick to your talking point. – Ben]

      • “I thought your claim was “flat since 1995″. Try to stick to your talking point.”

        Ben, I said 1995 “by-eye” looking at the graph which you linked to. You are the one who then posted some text talking about 1998 and I was courteous enough to not split hairs over it.

        But hey, if you are willing to state that you believe there was a Hiatus since 1998, as the very text you yourself pasted does state (!) then we would be making progress.

        If not then you will be known as a “Hiatus Denier”!

        [So I guess you’re blind to this:

        Each of the past three decades has been significantly warmer than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest.

        because your loving gaze saw this:

        “Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (0.12°C [0.08 to 0.14] per decade).”

        Whatever floats your boat, but your hijacking of this comment thread is over. – Ben]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s