Being Clear About Watts

Let's just be clear about this: Anthony Watts wrote, about the AGU meeting:

I got a first hand insight into many of the climate personalities we cover here at WUWT.  To name a few, I encountered, Michael Mann, John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, David Appell, Gavin Schmidt, ....

I never once encountered Watts at the AGU meeting. I never saw him, never looked at him, never noticed him, never had the slightest thing to do with him, wouldn't know he existed if he hadn't written about me on his blog.

Frankly, I was pretty damn busy covering the conference to notice who was watching over me. I'm still tired from working 15-hour days there.

My beat is science, not people. I'm not interested in blog fights. I'm still weirded out that Watts was stalking me, sitting near me in order to watch my reactions to the talks instead of paying attention to them.

All the while afraid to introduce himself.

His "coverage" of the meeting was extremely thin gruel. He dealt with none of the science he heard (or didn't hear; rumor is he's very hard-of-hearing, which makes you wonder why he ever thought I "grunted" at anything, such as his site was presented as an example of the bad science that goes around.)

Watts' schtick is lying about people [lie #1, lie #2], then pretending he's oh-so-magnimious for taking it all back.

The man is a creep. He clearly could not understand the talks at AGU (he doesn't even have a B.S., you know), and so had no other choice but to write about people instead of science, in order to justify his taking advantage of his readers' largesse. Posting pictures of slides, as if that's some kind of meaningful coverage. Imagining he's so important that he's scaring people.

Just creepy. Perhaps he should have stayed home and worked on that paper he so loudly and obtrusively hawked about US surface stations, which after all this time never has made it through peer review.

Like Morano, Watt is the kind of creep who somehow thinks attacking people means attacking science. But if either of them knew anything at all about science they'd know that has never worked, nor can it ever. Which is precisely science's strength, and why no "open letters" or red-bold email addresses will ever make any difference.