2011-08-14 08:34:07Anthony Watts-- Gotcha!
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Something that I just posted at SkS (yes, I am probably violating the comments policy), it may get deleted, so I'm posting here in the forum.  Thought of this while mowing the lawn ;)

"I think we need to be very clear about an incredibly important point here.  Anyone, and I mean anyone, peddling this hypothesis about the recent increase in CO2 being almost entirely attributable to the warming is a denier of the theory of AGW.

What is telling is that for years some prominent "skeptics" have been lying to us-- for example, Anthony Watts proprietor of the pseudo-science site WUWT is now peddling Bastardi's nonsense which includes Salby's refuted hypothesis. What is odd is that very recently Watts took strong exception to John Cook referring to "deniers" when speaking to a photo of a badly sited weather station.  It it is clear that his bluster (i.e., Anthony's) was just a facade to his denial  and all these years he has been lying when he claims to be a "skeptic".  That, or Watts has now finally jumped from being a "skeptic" to a full-blown denier of the theory of AGW.  

The underlying foundation of the theory of AGW, is as the name suggests that we are almost entirely responsible for increasing CO2 (and other GHGs), so to deny that or not accept that is to be a denier of AGW. So anyone who supports Watts or his site is now also by extension a denier of the theory of AGW. EOS.

PS:  Perhaps Salby can explain to us how we humans have managed to increase CFCs (measured in ppbv), N20, low-level O3  and other species that are not temperature dependent, while not managing to increase CO2?"

2011-08-14 09:11:17
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I was a bit critical of Watts for this same reason in the post (about the rebuttal) I just wrote on the CO2 increase being human-caused.  Though I didn't use the d-word.  I did say that those who accept this sort of nonsense argument (and specifically named Watts, Nova, Curry, and Bolt) aren't real skeptics.  Basically what you said, but more civil :-)  It's up in the blog post forum for review.

2011-08-14 09:26:07
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Good blog post Dana (I was going to suggest including the graphic that shows increase in downward welling LWR at surface sites as well).

Anyhow, IMHO, Watts and Curry et al. jumping on the Salby bandwagon is HUGE, it is a gift. 

If they do endorse his hypothesis demonstrates that they are not "skeptics" but in denial about AGW, and that all their 'skepticism' and arguments that have been mad eover the years to suggest that the warming has not been happening or is not bad have just been made to appear "skeptical" when in reality they are fully fledged deniers.  To do so is incredibly disingenuous.  I could use stronger words, but will not ...for now :)  Same goes for the self-professed 'lukewarmers'.

2011-08-14 11:20:43
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
Yeah it's pretty amazing just how far on the bandwagon they jumped. The comments at WUWT are just insane, people saying things like "this is real science". Not one shred of skepticism that I saw, although I couldn't stomach reading a lot of those comments.
2011-08-14 11:34:06
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
Hah I read a few more WUWT comments. This one was my favorite:
I consider that,above all other research, this paper has checkmated AGW theory
There actually were a couple comments skeptical of Salby, but 90+% seem to think it's the death knell for AGW. Just makes you shake your head. Oh, and Watts censored a commenter for commenting on the abstract without listening to the podcast. So much for WUWT not censoring comments.
2011-08-14 13:18:02
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Jee Dana, you are a braver man than I going over there.  I couldn't stomach it.

Re this comment "I consider that,above all other research, this paper has checkmated AGW theory"

Actuallyy, in reality,  championing or uncritically accepting Salby's nonsencical hypothesis is a death knell for one's credibility and lays to rest any claims made by you in the past thast you are a "skeptic" or "lukewarmer".

2011-08-14 19:02:39Can't comment in there since Watts hasn't apologized.
jyyh
Otto Lehikoinen
otanle@hotmail...
85.76.159.81

N/T

2011-08-14 19:38:56
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Errrrrm, John Cook had not made it publicly known that Watts had sent him an email that 'threatened' him. Watts now knows (or might know) that John discussed the email with other people connected to SkS.

It's a good idea to distiguish between what is discussed here and what is publicly known.

2011-08-15 03:00:19
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Paul D,

I said that Watts took exception to what John said...i said nothing of his email to John or that he had "threatened" John.  Watts has probably has vented publically about John referrig to "deniers".  Google "watts +cook +denier"-- I think it safe to say that I did not give anything away.

 

2011-08-15 07:36:28Watts' denial rage
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.177.173.40
I wasn't aware of Watts saying anything public and nothing jumped out on google - what has he said publicly? I'm not comfortable with hints of the private email being discussed publicly if there is no public complaint - wouldn't want to hand any ammo over to Watts who is a master of faux outrage and distraction from the science.
2011-08-15 15:08:23
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi John,

Sorry about this.  The google search that i provided seems to point to Watts complaining about being labelled a denier by you. However, if you are not comfortable with my post, then please feel free to delete it.  I'm really sorry if I jumped the gun (believe it or not i did try and be careful with my wording and to not be too specific)!

For now i will amend my post to mention that Watts takes exception to being labelled a denier and leave your name out of it.  I do think that there is an opportuinity here to leave a whole whack of egg on anthony's face-- if he doesn't want to be called a deniers, then he should not promote grabage like basatrdi';s without a very clear and unequivocal caveat saying that he doe snot necessarily agree with him.  Otherwise he is implictly agreeing with him.