Dave, just acknowledge that you fell for the 'death threats' malarkey hook line and sinker, you applied not a whit of scepticism to the unsupported claims. No good complaining about Watts's tone.
"Now I'm receiving insulting email from Anthony Watts...."And - unsurprisingly - from others as well. I'm new to your behavior, but it doesn't seem teribly considered or mature, does it? Maybe a change of job (to one in which your opinions are not required) is advised?
The Warm/Alarmists lie like bad wigs.But the lies and liars are beign revealed.Lemon
You wrote in a post titled Science bullies: "Hmm.... ridiculing, lying, name-calling, harassing (such as publishing email addresses), endless innuendos.... Remind you of anybody? "
Not sure where the phrase began, but "Screwed the pooch" fits here !!
"Rule #1: You can never ask too many questions."OK. In what way is this email "insulting"?
It seems it's an Anon fest around here so let me comment with my full name. I'm sure it's pretty easy to find out my web address, my email, a picture of mine and more.That said, your WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2011 post "Watts Still Denying the Death Threats" is quite embarrassing in hindsight. What are your plans to avoid falling for fabricated news in the future?
Well, OK: you are the dumbest. "Dumb and dumber" does not give you proper credit.Sincerely,hunter
Looks like you should have paid attention to your own "Rule #1."
Looks like you should have paid a bit more attention to your own "Rule #1."
David Appell wrote:> Now I'm receiving insulting email from Anthony Watts....Should I add it was a well deserved insult? And a too mild one, for that matter.After all false accusation of a crime is criminal activity itself. And yes, the last time I've checked sending death threats to people was a crime.
Dude,You took the word of those you admired. Nothing embarrassing about that, only discouraging. And an indication of the importance this climate change argument has, far beyond simple technical analysis. With the Gleick semi-confession (not finished, right?), it is now public that spinning the "truth" is on the Green side, just as you have said it is on the skeptic side. Which is not a surprise.Nullius in verba. Don't take anyone's word for it, could be taken to be a condemnation of humanity. I see it as revealing two things: 1) virtually nothing is either settled or certain, and 2) the final decision is biased by our emotional as well as intellectual attachment to the implications of what we accept.Not all warmist claims are bogus. Not all skeptic claims are bogus. That being said, anyone who tells you to believe him, her or it unconditionally is one of those people your mother told you to stay away from.Everyone is a stockbroker of his own ideas.
I'm sure they're honest in all other respects, it must only be threats they lie about.
Posting that email really showed him!
There's no news here, just recycling. As I pointed out in his earlier thread, the original reports said just that - ANU had not contacted the AFP but they were aware of the threats.I tried to post this in the "paging" thread at WUWT, but I'm on troll moderation, and is hasn't appeared, though something else has. It seems odd for Anthony to be "paging" me and then making it hard to respond.
Have the decency to redact the email addresses and admit you were wrong. Can't you see that this is just making you like a prat?
Have the decency to redact the email addresses and admit you were wromg. Don't you see this just makes you look like a prat?
Have the decency to redact the email addresses and admit you were wrong. Don't you see this makes you look like a prat?
Unless you do the honourable thing and apologise unreservedly to Anthony Watts, you will be forever considered a wilfully perjured individual, devoid of all moral worth and totally unfit to be received into the society of men who prize honour and virtue above falsehood and weakness.
Apparently none of the Watties Anonymous have read the actual report by the Information Commissioner:15. The question is how release of the documents could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any person. In other words, the question is whether release of the documents could be expected to create the risk, not whether the documents reflect an existing credible threat. Even if the threats were highly credible, the question would be how release of the documents would add to the expected threat....and based on this he recommends release of the mails, provided the identities of the individuals in the mails are obscured (Hmm, I wonder why?):...that the 11 documents that are the subject of this IC review are exempt, but edited copies [...] should be released to the applicant...The whole report is simply not about whether there were credible threats or not. David was in his full right to call out the usual dishonesty of Watts & co.
Yep, he was right.
Wow - that is some double standard there. Watts has so many things wrong and still online that HE needs to correct before he starts calling others that it is hard to know where to start. Take the BEST project, to which he contributed. When the Berkeley results confirmed the other temperature indices Mr Watts claimed ..."The Earth is warmer than it was 100-150 years ago. But that was never in contention - it is a straw man argument. The magnitude and causes are what skeptics question"Oh really Mr Watts? What then is this?"That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century."Oh, its a paper co-authored by Watts and still freely avilable for download. The conclusions have not just been shown to be false, they have shown to false by a project of which Watts was a part. Can we expect the 'paper' to be removed? A correction? A retraction? An apology for misleading people? A portion of 'crow pie'? Don't hold your breath.Watts is all about propaganda. He leaves the tedious business correction of misleading data to the real scientists. Sources:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.htmlhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/best-what-i-agree-with-and-what-i-disagree-with-plus-a-call-for-additional-transparency-to-preven-pal-review/
AW has a really weird mindset. He spews out a pile of bile like "...your own ineptitude and hatred..." and then signs it "Cordially".Its as if he doesn't even read what he writes. Or he thinks he can point to the "cordially" to prove he's the nice guy. Or something; I really can't understand.
Post a Comment