Skeptical Science Forum


2011-03-23 07:10:22	Watts' hypocrisy
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 121.222.20.55	Eyebrows pricked up at this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/the-not-evil-just-romm-2-solution/ I’m taking this bold step [providing my surfacestations data to them] because the method has promise. Eg - Watts deigned to let BEST have his surfacestation data because he thinks their "method has promise". So that's why he's refusing to release his surfacestation data - he doesn't trust what others might do with the data. Am I the only one that finds this secrecy and a lack of transparency a little ironic from someone who cries foul at any hint of secrecy and a lack of transparency?
2011-03-23 07:26:40
Paul D chillcast@googlemail... 82.18.130.183	I just posted this comment there: “I’m taking this bold step [providing my surfacestations data to them]” FOI request – Please send me a copy of your data ASAP. I wonder if he remembers that he banned me a few years ago?? I guess the chances of it being accepted is small and I doubt if he will bother emailing me with a response (he did when he banned me).
2011-03-23 07:28:18	Heh
Daniel Bailey Daniel Bailey yooper49855@hotmail... 97.83.150.37	If Watts could play anyone in film it would be:
2011-03-23 08:32:43	irony
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4	Yes considering how much Watts et al. have criticized climate scientists for not being sufficiently forthcoming with their data, this is a pretty extreme level of hypocrisy.
2011-03-23 09:10:36	Two-face
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 121.222.20.55	I smell another Rob Honeycutt post :-)
2011-03-23 09:14:38
Rob Honeycutt robhon@mac... 98.207.62.223	Oh... My ears were burning. Nope, that was the guy in the picture Daniel posted. :-)