goes dark – is it permanent? goes dark – is it permanent? (2015/11/21). It’s nice to see that Anthony Watts’ jumping-to-conclusions/wish-fulfilment muscles are still in top shape! had some momentary domain registration problems last week (I love the denier comments there – a momentary website technical problem is proof that PhD climate scientists are incompetent in climate research!).

While few have noticed, since hardly anyone but the handful of extreme faithful visit there anymore [this reminds me of the old restaurant joke: no-one goes there any more, it’s too busy! – Ben], it seems that the website run by the climate alarmist cabal of Dr. Gavin Schmidt, Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Stephan Rahmstorf, and others has gone dark this week.

In exactly the same way that snow fall, anywhere for any reason, is proof that global warming is a hoax (or is over, or has reversed, or has paused) so too does Anthony trumpet that RealClimate must be shutting down in despair:

‘Tis a puzzle, did Gavin or EMS forget to pay the hosting bill, have they given up, or is something else going on?

I’ll just take a moment to remind Anthony that RealClimate is a website run by highly qualified climate scientists for the purpose of rational communication on their subject of expertise, not an angry firehose blast of ill-informed accusations, paranoia and flat-out lies like Watts Up With That.

Anthony finishes up with a bit of stalker truculence; boasting that he can read Dr. Gavin Schmidt’s Twitter feed even though Dr. Schmidt has blocked him (“Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”). Here’s a hint, Anthony: Twitter blocking means you can’t pester him, can’t piggyback on his tweets to spread your bullshit. It’s about dealing with trolls.

10 thoughts on “ goes dark – is it permanent?

  1. “Jumping to conclusions/wish fulfillment muscles are in top shape!”

    And in contrast, you’re laying down what; a few blog posts per year in a format as unoriginal, uninspired and unread as the so called rebuttal to Matt Drudge, i.e; the “Drudge Retort?”
    How amusing.

    [OMG, you’re right! Your totally original and inspirational comment has shattered my self-image. I officially resign from the internet. – Ben]

  2. What a bizzarre rant. No-one denies global warming nor climate change [Bullshit. Denialists have been howling about “the (fake) pause” for years. – Ben]. Anthony’s website does not refute the reality of these two different topics [Bullshit. – Ben]. The question is “is man causing catastrophic changes?”. It would appear not [Bullshit. – Ben] and that’s observational and empirical evidence speaking [Bullshit. – Ben]. The models are not stacking up [Bullshit. – Ben] and if you wish to believe heresay evidence, that’s your prerogative but Ben, you are out of your depth in this field and that’s why Anthony does well. He is not an expert in the field but he can command an army of professionals [Bullshit. Army of lobbyists? Yes. Oh, that’s what you mean by “professional.” Of course Anthony’s the tail of that particular dog. – Ben] to discuss various topics at hand and validate his blog site. [Name ONE “topic” that Anthony has asserted against conventional climate research that has been “validated”. – Ben]

    Tell me Ben, where is your army of pros to back up your assertions that Anthony has it completely and utterly wrong? No? No-one has your back Ben? [Have you heard of legitimate climate scientists? All of them. – Ben] Oh well Ben, I guess that’s why your blog site will be consigned to the dust bin of uselessness. Stay angry Ben, it seems to be what you do best. [Ok, since you’ve got self-deluded assertions thing locked up. – Ben]

    • LOL, stay classy Ben. Yes, i’m sure Michael Mann certainly has you front and center when discussing the next useless climate model while trying to convince us of his innocence in the climategate email sham.

      [Why does climate science always start and finish with Mann and Gore for you idiots? And “Climategate” is just as fake and malicious as last year’s attack video on Planned Parenthood. Falling back to whining about “tone?” You’ve got nothing. – Ben]

      • I agree with craig. Stay classy, Ben. Good job: one of these days the bullshitters will wake up (though I suspect that even then they’ll continue denying reality).

  3. Have you officially resigned from the Internet? Looks like it.

    [No, I just found the end and it’s taking me a while to get back to this spot. – Ben]

  4. Is this blog satirical? It certainly isn’t scientific. [Of course it’s satire! The only science that has ever happened on WUWT has been accidental, and usually an own-goal. – Ben]

    Come on over to WUWT and see how Tenberth just got destroyed [Who’s “Tenberth”? If you think Jim Steele’s resentful, malicious, dishonest attack on Trenberth “destroyed” him, you are devoid of skeptical reasoning ability. Sou at HotWhopper unpacks Steele’s bullshit quite well. Incidentally, her great work is one of the reasons I post so little now. She does such a thorough job of pinning Watts & Co in the spotlight of reason. But I don’t think she has quite as much fun doing it as I do! – Ben]

    • “resentful, malicious, dishonest attack”

      Isn’t it funny that you see a rebuttal to his nonsesnes as the above, but RICO is OK, with ringleader scamming millions from US tax payers or skeptics having to resign for their own and their family safety, or US gov departments proudly announcing they have purged their departments of “deniers” [Conspiracy ideation – Ben]

      As a grown man in my mid 40s, an avid historian, to see people use “denier” is absolutely surreal. The vast majority of those that use it know nothing about science let alone climate science, same can be said of those that use “warmest”. [“Deniers” actively deny both the evidence and the well-grounded scientific principles of climate change. What would you call them? – Ben]

      Let me see, people on the warm side have said..
      Behead deniers
      Drug deniers
      Imprison deniers RICO 20
      ReNeducate deniers
      Who was that guy who attacked the Discovery Channel, oh yeah, a warm nut who was funded by some green group, as he was hiring homeless people to protest with him, and he had no job for a long time.

      Connolly with his piece full of joy at Bob Carter’s death.

      So you lot talk of “denier” tactics, but fail to see how nasty the warm side of this issue is, I don’t mean you or anything here personally, just what has been happening. [Your list of rare over-the-top comments by the general public and a random attack involving a mentally ill person is irrelevant. NOT irrelevant is the actual bad-faith harassment of real climate scientists by deniers through slander, deliberate impeding and abuse of political power. – Ben]

      Me, I have an opinion sure, I don’t buy it but, it’s my opinion, I am entitled to it without receiving a label “denier” rofl, am mid 40s and an avid historian and it is surreal being called a denier by so many people in 2016, 99% of whom don’t know the first thing about AGW scientific fields. Same for many on the other side of the debate.

      Insanity, sad, pathetic, an outside watcher watching humanity would be amazed at how bloody primitive we are. [Your mythical outsider would undoubtably be stunned that humanity could be pinned down by the short-sighted greed/paranoia of so few. – Ben]

      I will start to take warm proclamations more seriously when we start seeing the uncertainties too as well as other possible conclusions. [This sentence is just blind stupidity. Discussion of uncertainties has always been part of climate science. Misrepresenting that uncertainty has been a prime denier tactic since the start of this issue. – Ben]

      When you have publisher editor coming out and saying a 30 year “science is settled no debate” when they are meant to be working in a position of neutrality, that IS scary. [“Neutrality” doesn’t mean ignorance. – Ben]

      “deniers” “warmists” “alarmists” whatever, no one is listening, everyone is just waiting for their turn to talk.

      Rant over

  5. So is the Rockefellers also paying you to pump out disinformation like ExxonKnew or are you just a natural born idiot?

    [No, its usually the billionaire Koch brothers that pay those who spread lies about climate science. I’d love to know what “disinformation” you think is being spread by InsideClimate News, as far as I know they produce award-winning journalism. – Ben
    P.S. I assume the similar, if ruder, comment you posted two minutes earlier is something you’re tried to walk back, so I’ll leave it unpublished.]

  6. Thought you might like this. It’s Wliliam Briggs. The tone matches yours, but there is more there there… …Lady in Red

    [Briggs can’t even get April Fool’s Day right! Your copy-n-paste is from “The Stream” (of what, one may ask). They “champion freedom [christian privilege], smaller government [libertarian selfishness] and human dignity [sexual discrimination]. Climate denialist fantasy fits right in. – Ben]

    Climate Surprise: Why More CO2 is Good for the Earth

    By William M Briggs Published on March 31, 2016 • 2 Comments
    William M Briggs

    I had the good fortune to attend a talk by conservative author Mark Steyn at the Princeton Club in midtown Manhattan on Tuesday, sponsored by Roger Kimball’s The New Criterion and co-sponsored by the newly formed CO2 Coalition, founded by Princeton physicist Will Happer. In the talk, Steyn warned that prostitution will increase because of global warming, and that global warming will also cause impotence in Italian men. This is a compounding tragedy because, of course, all those newly formed prostitutes won’t be able to find customers — at least, not in Italy.

    It gets worse. Global warming is also responsible for Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder, a mental malady affecting the reasoning centers of the brain, causing its sufferers to run nervously in ever tighter circles as they demand the government do the impossible and stop the climate from changing.

    PreTSD was discovered in the maiden science of the psychology of global warming. We can only surmise that it’s caused when people are confronted with the reality that the average annual global temperature has swung dramatically in past ages — long before humans developed a rage for burning fossils — but that of late those same averages have failed to do anything dramatic and, indeed, have failed to cooperate with global warming predictions, which have soared ever upwards (see page 2 of this report).

    Not only are things not as bad as we thought, they are much, much better. And they’re improving. Crop output is up, the world is greener, storms are down in frequency and number, and on and on, despite the forecasts of doom foisted on the public by politicians and media.

    But why are things better? Because of the beneficial effects of releasing carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere. Craig Idso, a bona fide scientist who also spoke at the event, cataloged the good CO2 does. Plants grow not just a little better when CO2 is increased, but they are vastly improved.

    They have greater mass, more roots, better leafs, they use water more efficiently and, the biggest surprise, they react to warmer temperatures more robustly. These entirely salutary effects are so well known (to scientists) that commercial greenhouses artificially boost CO2 to levels about three times higher than are found in the atmosphere.

    In times past, atmospheric CO2 levels were up to 30 times higher — pause and reflect on the number — than they are now; and indeed we are now in a historic, almost dangerously low, period. Yet even though CO2 was then so much higher than mankind could ever hope now to achieve even if we burn every drop of oil that exists, there was no runaway global warming. Why should we expect it now?

    Ross McKitrick asked the same question in his research. His work demonstrates how climate models — running under the assumption that CO2 is dangerous — do not match the reality of actual observations. This is the central point. If the models cannot predict reality — and they have not — then we do not know all the causes of climate change.

    Tossing out models which made lousy predictions used to be the golden rule of science. No longer. There’s been too much money and too much politicization for too long for people to see straight. This was the theme of Richard Lindzen, the grandfather of dynamic climatology and a man to whom all but the most rabid activists listen seriously.

    Lindzen pointed out that “consensus” climate physicists and skeptical climate physicists agree on much, such as that mankind has some effect on the atmosphere, and that the only question is how much. He too says the model-reality discrepancy proves that CO2 can’t be as important as the “consensus” has it.

    While Lindzen makes some headway with actual scientists, hangers-on and politicians are another matter. These people do not understand the science, and don’t care to learn, but they surely believe in the “solution” to global warming — which is defined as greater government control over everything.

    And in any case, shouldn’t we “do something,” just in case? After all, animals might suffer! Probably not, said Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace who has since come to see the light. Moore stressed that animals have much greater phenotypic plasticity than has been acknowledged. This means that animals can survive much better than previously thought, even when the environment around them changes dramatically. (Besides, the environment isn’t changing that much.)

    Moore said that far from humans being a blight on the environment, “We are the salvation of life, because we reintroduced CO2 to the atmosphere that was taken out by oceanic” life that sucked it up. Without CO2, plants die. And without plants, we die.

    Batting clean up was Tufts economist Bruce Everett, who showed that solar and wind cannot be replacements for fossil fuels. He acknowledged that some countries like Germany have splurged on these toys, but he said that Germany was like your neighbor who bought “a Prius to park in the driveway while they drive around in an SUV.” Germany can’t use solar and wind as much as they want because the two sources are unreliable. And expensive. Germans pay double what Americans do for energy.

    If the climate situation is so bad, why all the fuss? Why do people make such a show of their environmental correctness? Why do politicians like our President and celebrities like Leo DiCaprio lecture us all and then hop in their private jets? Mark Steyn provided the answer at the Princeton Club Tuesday: “The great thing about professing to ‘Save the Planet’ is that it absolves you of the need to do anything.”

  7. Hey, you’re really showin’ ’em over there at Watts Up With That.

    By my count, you’ve posted NOTHING for 6 months.

    Don’t worry, that zero can become a lot higher after you change the data.

    [So glad you’ve learned to count! You are now in the upper echelon of denialism. Anthony Watts is locked in a rinse and repeat cycle of fervent ignorance and baseless personal attacks with a thick coating of conspiracy theories. He’s a tired joke, but every now and then he gives me a chuckle. – 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