Those guys at WUWT are sick. Should note that with their upvoting system in place you can see that they do not get as much activity as they claim for a "popular" science blog. They probably have a couple of dozen people that follow the threads.
I gave a wry smile when I read this in the radio debate threadUsing sock puppets in order to find someone to agree with you is a violation of site policy.That’s why you were punished, not for anything you said.For years one of the most prolific posters at WUWT was 'Smokey', an outspoken defender of the site party line. When he carelessly included a link to his gravatar, it emerged that Smokey's real name was David Stealey (aka dbs, dboehm, dbstealey and probably a few more) who was a site moderator.That's right, for years Watts enabled a staff member to sockpuppet-post in the threads he was moderating - editing, delaying and deleting posts from those with opposing viewpoints, all on a site that rightly deplores such practices in its policy statement.A sideshow to the argument obviously, but you have to ask why the need for subterfuge if they have any kind of a case. I wonder how many of the 'posters' are actually on the payroll?
You are famous! :-)
Phil, was that sock puppet sentence from some earlier post of Watts', or the recent one about the Lars Larson show?I have commented on Watts' site using a pseudonym -- like nearly everyone else there -- and only when I've been censored but still wants to get points across.But I *never* used a sock puppet to agree with myself. Ever. If Watts is referring to me with that comment, he's wrong. Anthony Watts has a difficult time playing fair, and often doesn't.
Never mind, Phil, I found it.
Just keep in mind that Watts try to silence people if he can:"Another blog at ScienceBlogs, “Deltoid”, run by Tim Lambert, met a similar fate, but much earlier on. It seems Tim crossed the line one day on a climate opinion, and smeared a respectable journalist, and that journalist decided to fight back, hard. I had some behind-the-scenes involvement in that. After that, Tim was reduced to posting monthly open threads, and that was it."https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/06/another-nest-of-scientific-haters-goes-dark/
Oh, he's a piece of work, a bully one day, a whining victim the next. Posters he disagrees with and who do not use their real name (a sensible precaution given his record) are 'anonymous cowards', yet for years he enabled a mod to post under an alias. And not the sharpest knife in the drawer; if you want a giggle, chase down his series comparing GISTEMP to the satellite measurements and insinuating deceit because the NASA data were uniformly warmer - not understanding they were anomalies with differing baselines. And this is meant to be his 'specialist subject'. FacePalm.The (typically uncivil) thread in which Stealey slipped up has been archived here. Specifically the comment at August 5, 2012 at 6:14 pmAnd here is a post confirming dbstealey was a mod, who perused 'millions of comments'.It is harder to imagine a clearer example of a double standard.
What what I have seen and heard Watts is as dishonest as the day is long. I rarely bother with trash blogs like that.It's sad really, I would welcome a climate change contrarian blog that only posted factual information and did not pander to the conspiratorial fringe - it would be fun.
Post a Comment