How deeply is Anthony Watts invested in denialism? So deep that he won't even allow evidence of death threats against scientists to be posted in the comments of his blog, after asking for such evidence. Instead he repeatedly deletes it.That's as deep as it gets, people.
He wrote that "I’ve yet to see any [death threats] that have been substantiated" and asked for substantiation. I provided this article, and Watts again asked for evidence. I gave this list, which ("snip") he refused to allow to be posted. Then I posted this recent video from Australia, the most obvious evidence of them all, and he still refused to allow it to be posted -- four times: "snip", "snip", "snip", "snip" -- the last time because I did not apologize for not providing evidence of the threats, which he did not allow to be posted!
He again asked for evidence on a later post. I offered all these articles, especially this article from The Guardian which directly quotes from some of the threatening emails. His reply would have made a birther proud:
I’m familiar with these, but none of them show anything to make me believe they are real. I can just as easily create a list of complaints without email headers of any kind and “claim” that I get death threats here at WUWT or that I had a dead animal dumped on my doorstep.... If somebody shows me actual emails, like in climategate, then that would be evidence.Of course if such emails were made public (and what threatened person would do that anyway, with all kinds of private information in their headers?) his excuse would be that it's easy to type up a fake email message in a flat ASCII file.
So there really is no evidence you can provide. None. Even in principle. (For good measure they then again disallowed a link to the Australian video.)
You literally cannot even begin to reason with him. His denial has no bottom and is now maintained by outright refusal of facts.
Is there even a word for this level of craven depravity? It would be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous. But it is very, very dangerous.
22 comments:
Even McIntyre's doing it now. Post something against their thinking and it gets deleted. He's trashed many threads with his deletions leaving orphaned comments anrandom posting order.
Watts is of course worse not only banning people but also adding threats to their jobs.
Its a bit random but some of his threats are here:
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/search/label/censorship
Mainly in the Oh dear entries.
Well, duh.
He's doing politics. See the cartoon.
The point is to repeat his claim to the public, not to get an actual response from you.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rmc/lowres/rmcn94l.jpg
(McIlwaine, Randall)
Appell:
What do you mean... you only just found out that one of the tactics of denialists is to ignore evidence of stuff, so that they can claim there's no evidence?
-- frank
I'm curious as to why you posted that Guardian link quoting from the actual emails. None of the quotes listed there were actual death threats. (Hate mail, yes, death threats, no.) You would have thought they'd have picked the ones with actual death threats in as the best examples to show us, wouldn't you?
I had a brief look at some of the others, but there's nothing there that would even rise to the level of the 10:10 "No Pressure" video, let alone James Jay Lee's manifesto. I'm sure you can do better.
Do you think sceptics don't get hate mail?
Amazingly, snip, the 10:10 video was generally criticised by the consensus side - as either tasteless, ineffective or both.
Strangely we don't see much criticism of Anthony's obvious censorship (or how he plays the game, i.e. show me the evidence *but I'll delete it when you do*)
Stu N:
Apparently "snip" thinks that when someone holds up a noose to a climate scientist, that isn't a death threat, but merely a bad advertising strategy.
By that 'standard', of course there can be no death threats...
-- frank
David,
In the Watts post you linked to showing that you were “sniped” 4 times:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/29/bizarre-nyt-follow-aaas-lead-on-foia-requests-equate-to-death-threats/#comment-702985
You posted, by my count, 40 times. Of those 40 times you were not deleted the first 36 times. After the 36th, Watts demanded you respond to the claim that the “death threats” that you brought up, consisted of just 2. One was posted in either 2006 or 2007 and the other about 1 year ago.
Perhaps it would help us determine exactly what you posted the last 4 times. Watts demanded “a list of current credible death threats or post an apology.”
Did you provide either? Since you are adamant in your claims of death threats I would expect this to be easy.
Amazingly, Stu N, the threatening emails were generally criticised by the skeptical side (including Anthony) - as either tasteless, ineffective or both.
Sean Ogilvie:
When did the request for evidence of death threats turn into a request for evidence of current death threats?
Has Watts been, um, moving goalposts?
* * *
"the threatening emails were generally criticised by the skeptical side"
Excluding Tim Blair, Marc Morano, George Rock, Andrew Carswell (Daily Telegraph faux-journalist), Andrew Bolt, and doubtless many more...
Also, the death threats were only "criticized" on the condition that they don't exist. Some "criticism" indeed.
-- frank
Frank you may want to learn to read. Threatening emails are different than death threats. The threatening emails have been proven to exist and as far as I know where never denied, no death threats have ever been shown to exist except in the over active imaginations of a few people.
And from your comment I assume every AGW supporter has publically criticized the 10:10 video? I won't be able to make up a long list of supporters that haven't publically come out against the video?
So a satire video aimed at no one in particular is the same as a threatening message aimed directly and personally at specific scientists? No.
David:
"Threatening emails are different than death threats."
When someone threatens someone else with death, it is a death threat. Saying "oh, the phrase 'collateral damage' was meant metaphorically" doesn't cut it.
"I won't be able to make up a long list of supporters that haven't publically come out against the video?"
You see... Tim Blair, Marc Morano, Andrew Carswell, Andrew Bolt, and George Rock are just some of the people who responded to the inactivists' death threats to climate scientists by cheering on the death threats, or spreading lies to downplay them.
-- frank
So if 'collateral damage' wasn't metophorical then you must think 'war' wasn't metaphorical. I guess you believe skeptics are going to launch a seige of the colleges and workplaces of the climate alarmists using tanks, artillery, warplanes and missles.
And yes when someone threatens someones else with death it is a death threat. Now show us where those death threats are. Hasn't that been the whole questions from day one? Where are the actual death threats?
"So if 'collateral damage' wasn't metophorical then you must think 'war' wasn't metaphorical."
Here's a counter-example for you: Breivik -- the Norway shooter -- literally believed that he was starting a literal civil war (that'll run through 2030 and 2070 and 2080). He went on to literally kill several people.
So your excuse that "when the scientist-haters wrote 'collateral damage' and 'war' they really meant it metaphorically, honest!" cuts no ice with anyone.
And I said,
"Tim Blair, Marc Morano, Andrew Carswell, Andrew Bolt, and George Rock are just some of the people who responded to the inactivists' death threats to climate scientists by cheering on the death threats, or spreading lies to downplay them."
No answer to that, David? What do you think of people like Andrew Carswell who inject counterfactual lies into a newspaper to downplay the death threats?
-- frank
"And I said,
"Tim Blair, Marc Morano, Andrew Carswell, Andrew Bolt, and George Rock are just some of the people who responded to the inactivists' death threats to climate scientists by cheering on the death threats, or spreading lies to downplay them.""
So some people are jerks. Some of them even write blogs. Unless you are claiming that all skeptics are the same, the fact that you can name some jerks that make up a sub group is of no value. As I said there could be a similar list of alarmists.
I said;
"I guess you believe skeptics are going to launch a seige of the colleges and workplaces of the climate alarmists using tanks, artillery, warplanes and missles."
And your response is "...they really meant it metaphorically, honest!" cuts no ice with anyone."
Means you actually believe that the skeptics are amassing an army with tanks and such to attack the alarmists.
You need serious mental help.
David:
"So some people are jerks. Some of them even write blogs. Unless you are claiming that all skeptics are the same, the fact that you can name some jerks that make up a sub group is of no value. As I said there could be a similar list of alarmists."
Andrew Carswell is not a blogger. He's a 'journalist' who wrote a newspaper 'story' full of lies (now refuted) just to downplay the death and rape threats against climate scientists.
Are you still going to play the 'nah, it's not my fault, so let's just look the other way and pretend everything's fine and dandy' game? We'll see...
And if you can hear about the Norway shooting and still think any reference to "collateral damage" in a "war" is clearly metaphorical, you have a huge problem.
"You need serious mental help."
Projection much?
-- frank
Did I say they were all bloggers?
"Some of them even write blogs."
Well how about that I didn't. I suggest you take some reading comprehension classes.
Now when do you expect this skeptical attack to occur? Do you have any idea where they are marshaling their troops and equipment?
Does the situation that occurred in Norway have anything to do with climate change?
No, it doesn't so why do you keep bringing it up while refusing to answer the questions you have been asked?
You sir are an incredibly pathetic moron.
Oooooo, a parsing flame. Eli just loves it. So Pielke
Providing links to news articles which publish unsubstantiated claims by purported victims does not constitute evidence of anything other than the purported victim made a claim. Watts is right. Where is the actual evidence that the claim is true?
GoRight:
"Providing links to news articles which publish unsubstantiated claims by purported victims does not constitute evidence of anything other than the purported victim made a claim."
Given that Andrew Carswell of the Daily Telegraph had to go through the effort to write a counterfactual bullshit article to downplay the claims of death threats themselves, I'm inclined to think that the claims are actually true.
Because, if the claims of death threats are false, then why'd there be a need to downplay them with bullshit?
-- frank
frank
"Because, if the claims of death threats are false, then why'd there be a need to downplay them with bullshit?"
If the claims are real then why isn't a single law enforcement agency actively investigating? Why have no charges been brought?
Post a Comment