Here is Anthony Watts' excuse
for his false insinuation that I threatened a legal action to get a post-debate video removed from Lars Larson's Youtube channel:
Why did he offer any opinions at all? Why not get the facts first?
Why didn't he contact me to ask what actually transpired? And wait until he knew.
I even left him a voice mail yesterday to ask him to stop it. I gave him my phone number. He never returned my call.
Because that's not how Anthony Watts operates. Instead he thinks it just fine to make false insinuations and broadcast them to the world and then let them hang out there forever, maybe letting is victim respond (maybe) to defend himself. By then, of course the damage is already done. Watts knows that. He knows what game he's playing.
And you can only defend yourself only if Watts allows you to reply to comments. Otherwise he "punishes" someone by moderating them or deleting them. He lets people lie, claiming I used sock puppets
on his blog. Completely false. Another lie he hasn't let me respond to. Now I'm moderated there and little gets through, and I have no way to defend myself there amongst a mountain of impolite, rude, false and vile insults against me.
(Of course, none of them have the balls to come over here and say anything, let alone using their real names. They stay in their dark corner, where it's safe and all insults about me are allowed. Chuck Wiese too. Deniers never try to read the blogs that are presenting real science, or engage there. They need constant reassurance, comment after endless comment, that someone, somewhere, agrees with their conspiracies and hatred. No one who understands the science and knows the evidence needs that kind of endless reassurance -- they know what they know and want to learn more. There are
interesting and important topics in climate science that are open, uncertain, and are worthy of discussion. As someone once said, climate science needs a far better class of skeptics -- real skeptics.)
And Watts wonders why the science community completely ignores him and scoffs at the mention of his name. It's a reputation he's thoroughly earned.
Here's what actually happened on Thursday. In the weeks leading up to the debate, the Executive Producer of the show said in an email that I would be asked to sign a waiver for them to use the audio and video. I was never offered any waiver when I was there, and frankly never even thought it about, since I was pretty busy with, you know, thinking about what I was going to say and then saying it.
I didn't have, and still don't, any problem with them airing the audio/video of the debate itself. And I've told them that. But I was very surprised to learn that they kept their camera rolling after the show ended. I never expected that. Maybe I'm naive, and maybe I made a mistake by trusting a conservative to play fair. I think it was sneaky.
I think they wanted a controversy to draw attention to their show. (Isn't that how all conservative talk show hosts and conservative pundits operate?
Rush Limbaugh is more responsible than any other single person for the polarity that divides the US today. And how did he do that? By making false insinuations, just like Watts, and being purposely outrageous, like, to cite just one example, coining the word "feminazi.")
Update 7/2 11:10 am - The Larson show's content producer and I have spoken, and he apologized and said he would never have done that (posted the after-show video), that it was done by someone beneath him in the organization, and when I brought it to his attention he had it removed immediately. I appreciated that very much and told him so, and reiterated that I had no problem with the show itself being posted anywhere.
So after I got home and learned that an after-the-debate video appeared, I pointed out to the exec producer and Lars that no waiver was offered and so none was signed. I told them I had no problems with them using the debate audio and video, but would they "please remove" the after-debate video. I haven't even watched it yet -- I only saw what was the front page of the video itself. But I know what transpired. I think it was sneaky to still record after the debate ended and I (and everyone else, for that matter) had let my guard down.
But Watts' asked me about none of this -- he just dangled a lie, which he thinks is just an "opinion."
I hate this shit too but I gotta defend myself.
More of how Anthony Watts operates: he's still trying to claim
that I insulted his dead mother! This one scraps the ground pretty low. See, I once made a joke about his hefty denialism, writing somethink like "Anthony Watts Denies His Mother Exists." Did I know the first thing about his mother? Of course not. Clearly I was trying to illustrate his extreme denialism by choosing something that would be impossible to deny -- the existence of one's own mother. After all, you wouldn't be here without a mother.
But Watts saw another opportunity to twist someone's words into something that smeared them and let him again play the victim. Because, you know, those poor poor deniers. Seeing another chance to go low, Watts took it of course. It's how the science deniers operate, and I've gotten one-millionth of the invective of people like Ben Santer, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and William Connelley and Tamino others have received.
If you can't win the science, swing for their knees. Heartland (who has paid Watts money
) does it, goons like Chris Horner and Steve Milloy do it, Joe Barton and Louie Gohmert have done it. That's why it's so satisfying that Michael Mann took all of them on, gave as good as he got and more, and has emerged as one of the most prolific, honored and quoted climate scientists in the world. (And I knew him before he was famous!)
Remember, Watts also lied about agreeing to accept the results of Richard Mueller's BEST project. "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong," Watts said
. Then he refused.
Deniers. You can't trust 'em. Watts' blog is like an open sewer, and those things ooze from the top and take the most negative gradient downhill.
PS: And, yes, I still think Anthony Watts will apologize for his blog before he dies.