Please Go Die in a Fire

So yeah, I'm not... exactly happy. I've been trying not to write a blog post because I find writing while in an emotional state is generally a bad idea. It leads one to make foolish mistakes, jump to false conclusions, miss important details and things like that. However, it also, sometimes, leads to inspiration one can never find in a more calm state. That's going to be the excuse I use for this post, though the more likely reason for writing it now is simply that I'm too angry not to.

You see, I recently wrote a fairly harsh comment at the site Watts Up With That. I had tried to make the comment as restrained as possible, but in doing so, I failed to convey even the smallest portion of my sentiments. You see, the post I commented on was titled "Another one of my blog spawn goes up in flames." It wrote:

As many readers know, the popularity of WUWT has caused some angst and envy in alarmist circles. As a result, I have a collection of hangers on, fake named wannabees, and Internet stalkers. I wear the effort of these clowns as a badge of honor, in addition to the entertainment they provide.

Most of these people are angry and often incompetent trolls that have been booted off WUWT and other websites because they just don’t play well with others. They serve as prime examples as the sort of ridiculously hateful rhetoric that permeates the alarmist side of the debate. They are all long on emotion and denigration, and short on sensibility.

As an example, Andrew K. aka “poptech” says he was being harassed by one of my blog spawn. Some people just need to learn to pick their battles, and Andrew was not amused. This is the result: The Truth about What’sUpWithThatWatts, et al.

Nothing about this seems particularly noteworthy until you read the post it promotes. I'm not going to say anything about it just yet; please go read it for yourself. If you do, I think you'll see why I feel the comment I wrote was far less harsh than was deserved:

Anthony Watts, this is shameful. You’ve just promoted an article in which a man is smeared for things like, having had a divorce and supposedly being brain damaged That much might just be disreputable, but what reaches the levels of truly disgusting is promoting this article when it smears a person for his father having fought in the German army in WWII to make a Nazi smear.

There’s far more to say, but given how dishonorable and disgusting this is, I don’t think there’s any point. Anyone who thinks this piece is acceptable, much less deserving of promotion and support, is a vile, wretched soul who shut up and go away. And that’s the nicest thing I can say about this obscene hit piece.

Of course, what really bothers me is I put so much effort into cutting myself off before I said anything more I didn't go back and proofread the comment. Those typos are embarrassing. In any event, however, things go downhill from there.

You see, I tried to not say anything more. I really did. I tried as hard as I could. Then I failed. That's when I e-mailed Anthony Watts himself. My e-mail began rather unremarkably:


If I had been able to stop myself there, this wouldn't merit any special attention compared to the comment I wrote. But again, I failed at stopping myself, causing me to write:


Which is certainly harsher than my initial comment. It does not, however, express anywhere near the level of contempt and anger I felt. That's why I continued to write.

Now, I want to point out I haven't actually discussed Poptech's piece in this post. I don't intend to. I think it speaks louder for itself than anything I could possibly write. As such, I won't say anything more about it. What this e-mail had to say wasn't some new discovery on my part. I didn't have some epiphany on the road to Damascus. This was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. Then doused it in gasoline and set on fire.

Because I've tolerated a lot of crap from Anthony Watts. I've tolerated a lot of crap from the "skeptic" crowd he helps shepherd and enflame as a whole. I've spoken out against them many times, practically shouting to the point I was hoarse, but I've still accepted them on some level as participants in a discussion I was engaged in. That's over, as the next and last paragraph of my e-mails makes clear. Rather than just show the paragraph alone though, I'll show the whole e-mail this time:


Yeah, I'll give you a minute.

Seriously, take a minute. I need to. I'm biting my tongue so hard I might choke to death on my own blood.

There are not words to express the level of contempt I feel for Anthony Watts and the things he has either done himself, actively encouraged others to do or tacitly encouraged by happily tolerating them even as he knew they were wrong and/or dishonest. At this point I can only say Watts is either a deranged sociopath with no sense of morality who derives sexual pleasure by spreading lies to the greatest number of people possible or is an idiot savant whose one field of mastery is deluding himself into believing whatever idiotic things he finds most convenient at any given moment.

If that seems unfairly harsh, let's look at what I refer to in my e-mail to him. We'll skip over the Poptech post because any male whose testicles have dropped should understand it is more juvenile than fart jokes and is so pathetic and cowardly as to be beneath the level of contempt normally reserved for telemarketers while any female should consider swearing off parenthood at the fear her child might write something like it.

Instead, let's look at where I said:

I think it is shameful enough you continue to chose to do things like willfully ignore the dishonesty of Douglas Keenan

This is an obvious reference to the supposed $100,000 challenge issued by one Douglas Keenan, in which he lied by saying he'd pay $100,000 to anyone who could correctly classify 900 of 1,000 data series he created by the way in which he created them. I call this a lie because while I was initially skeptical of Keenan's claim like any sane person would be, after Keenan had taken people's entry fees for his competition he changed the data series he used because he realized he had made the problem too easy, and if he didn't change them, someone might actually win the $100,000. This led me to write:

That’s horribly wrong. It’s completely dishonest. You don’t pose a challenge, saying you’ll pay $100,000 to anyone who can complete it, then wait around and watch how people try to solve it so you can use that information to change the challenge to ensure nobody can solve it. You don’t take people’s money then tell them, “Sorry, the easy challenge you signed up for is gone now; you have to do this much harder one if you want the prize money.” And you certainly don’t say, “No refunds.”

But that’s exactly what Keenan did. Keenan waited days, letting people work on his challenge and discuss it publicly. He let people submit answers to his challenge, paying him money for the opportunity. He then turned around and changed his challenge to make it much more difficult. And he didn’t even offer to give people a refund if they signed up for the original challenge; he just said they could get a free entry to the new one.

That’s not just wrong; that’s illegal. When a person pays money to sign up for a contest, they form a legal contract with the entity running the contest. If the entity running the contest changes the contest in a way which substantially alters it, such as by making it far more difficult as Keenan has done, they have breached the contract. That means they have no legal right to the entry fees any longer. Saying people can get a free entry into the new contest without offering them a refund is committing theft.

And it gets worse. Because Keenan made undisclosed changes to his data set, nobody can possibly know if their earlier attempts at this challenge worked. That means, for all anyone knows, they might have actually completed the challenge already. Somebody out there may well have already earned the $100,000. Keenan could have easily gotten an entry, saw it was a winner and freaked out, realized he was in big trouble and decided to change the data set to avoid having to pay out the $100,000.

So yeah, Douglas Keenan is a lying, law-breaking cheat who is scamming people out of money. Anyone who has promoted this “challenge” should be embarrassed and should promptly and publicly speak out about his dishonesty.

Of course, Anthony Watts was one of those people. Because he had published a post announcing the challenge, I contacted him about the issue. He responded by defending Keenan as a person:


While promising that if Keenan had done what I said, he'd "be the first to say this along with" me. This was a lie. But that's jumping ahead. You see, despite me having directed Watts to a blog post which showed Keenan had clearly changed the data series in a way which made his contest significantly more difficult to win - in a way which directly addressed the approach being publicly discussed by a number of people examining his contest as a way of solving it - Watts proceeded to promptly swallow the lies Keenan had published about the reason for his change and parrot them back at me, asking if I had read them even though I had quoted the very text he was referring to and showed it to be filled with lies.

Now, I would normally show you Watts's e-mail so you could see for yourself. Unfortunately, Watts specifically said, "Finally, you do NOT have my permission to publish my email" so I'm in a bit of a bind. On the one hand, Watts knows fully well that Keenan lied and committed fraud, and the e-mails he sent to me prove it. On the other hand, he doesn't want me to publish his e-mails publicly, and I don't like the idea of flouting that request.

As a compromise, I'm not going to publish his e-mails. I will, however, show you my e-mails which do sometimes happen to quote excerpts from them. This was my first response to Watts (Keenan's name is only highlighted because it was the words I searched my e-mails for; that wasn't in the original):


Here was my next response:


The post I had written makes it abundantly obvious Keenan had changed his data series in a way which would make the contest more difficult to solve, but because Watts was being so willfully obtuse, I decided to further emphasize the point:


Even given the small size of the preview given by Gmail, it's clear there are systematic differences. That, and the fact I had continued to hammer the point in my e-mails led to Watts finally sending an e-mail I will quote it with my response because I feel it is absolutely necessary (and says nothing anyone could consider sensitive or remarkable):


Watts never responded to me again. He never updated his post announcing Keenan's challenge. He never called Keenan out. He never spoke out about the issue in any way, shape or form. He just chose to willfully disregard the entire issue even though he had been provided indisputable proof he had just helped promote fraud.

Given that, does my e-mail to Watts still seem too harsh? If so, look at my next listed complaint:

and constantly run pieces making obviously false accusations against scientists

I could provide a hundred examples of this if I wanted. It'd require looking at maybe 1,000 posts, but honestly, look at the site's front page on any given day and you're almost certaint to see an example. Heck, earlier this week, I happened to go to the site for some reason, and I immediately spotted two perfect examples (a third was just off the front page at the time). I wasn't looking for them. I just happened to see the posts and thought they might be interesting. Then I looked at them and saw they were crap.

The one post is boring in its problems. The author of the post responded to an article which discussed the issue of adjustments to temperature data for creating the global record. In it, he did things like compare United States temperatures as given by surface measurements from satellites for the entire globe, even though it was a completely meaningless comparison that could only mislead readers, then said:

I think I can see why the so-called consensus has become so obsessed recently with destroying the credibility of the satellite data.

Which makes absolutely no sense as similarities or differences between surface measurements of the United States's temperatures and satellite measurements of them wouldn't do anything to indicate whether surface or satellite measurements are better/more desirable at anything. There was more boring stuff like that, but he also updated the post because even he realized that was crap (which says a lot given his approach to responding to criticisms).

The other post was even worse. It was by Rud Istvan, who I've co-authored a post with before because after I was highly critical of one post he wrote, he asked me to help get things right for the next post. I agreed. I only point this out because Istvan has a strange tendency of referring to this one time as though it should mean anything every time he talks to me when really, I'd do the same for anyone whose work I criticized.

Regardless, his post was complete crap. He concluded it by saying:

This is alarming anthropogenic global warming. But it isn’t caused by CO2. It is obviously just government ‘scientists’ altering ‘official’ temperature records. A 0.1C jump in what the 2014 GISS anomaly supposedly is, manufactured during 2015. It is notable only because of the media ballyhoo that NOAA and NASA created, which they cannot now erase. There are many additional examples.

“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”

— Marmion, canto 6 stanza 17, by Sir Walter Scott

Tom Karl at NOAA and Gavin Schmidt at NASA have woven a tangled web.

Perhaps Senator Cruz and Representative Smith can untangle it.

But in reality, the "0.1C jump" he referred to was completely unremarkable. Half of it came from him misreading a graph (rather than looking for the actual value for the data point in question, which was easy to find). The other half of the change came from the baseline being used for the series changing. Anyone who has the slightest understanding of the topic would know better than to throw around accusations of people having "practice[d] to deceive" based on such trivial nonsense.

But not Watts Up With That. These sort of posts go up on the site all the time. Plus it runs posts doing things like comparing global warming advocates to Adolf Hitler. Though due to the stupidity of people who'd resort to such ignoble behavior, the author of that particular post actually painted himself as Hitler in his analogy. I know it wasn't the intent, but I will always think it darkly humorous Watts Up With That ran a post which effectively said, "I, the ever-righteous Adolf Hitler, decree climate scientists to be lying, impudent Jews engaged in a massive conspiracy to fabricate colossal untruths."

I honestly can't think of anything more incredible than that. I know Watts eventually tried to walk back from the post, even though many of his commenters defended it, by saying it "had some 'over the top' rhetoric in it," but I think claiming there's a massive conspiracy behind the global warming movement and trying (but failing) to basically call people Nazis is a bit more than using "over the top" rhetoric. Maybe Watts disagrees. I mean, Poptech's post (oops, I meant to not mention it again) does use the fact a man's father supposedly fought for Germany in World War II to smear the guy with a Nazi reference, so... yeah, maybe Watts thinks it's cool. Still think my e-mail to him was unfairly harsh? If so, look at the next item I listed:

and the case for global warming to the point you allow authors to say carbon dioxide isn't even a greenhouse gas,

As pathetic and risible as I find much of Anthony Watts's behavior over the years, this is probably the biggest sin. Being a coward who constantly promotes or even resorts to personal attacks and obscene rhetoric (more on this in a moment) is pathetic and whatnot, but even a rude and offensive person can make good points. Watts chooses to go another route. I'm not going to give the many examples of Watts helping promote insane views on global warming any "skeptic" should be embarrassed by that I could provide (a couple are discussed here, for the curious). Instead, I'm going to discuss why this matters.

You see, it's not just Anthony Watts and his crowd at Watts Up With That that promote this sort of idiotic nonsense nobody in their right mind would ever endorse. They influence many people in ways which promote these insane views, to the point they co-author books with them and promote their work. A book Anthony Watts co-authored and promoted said all sorts of things like:

The first 100 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 have a significant effect on atmospheric temperature, whereas any increase from the current 400 ppm will have an insignificant effect.


analysis revealed worldwide errors in the range of 1-5C for individual sampled area-boxes, i.e. errors that far exceed the total claimed twentieth century warming of -0.7C....

Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century, no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability.

As I pointed out at the time I read this:

Meaning this book claiming to show the “facts” of climate change denies we can even know global warming has happened. Not only is that absurd on its face, the book’s argument is obviously wrong given any examination of it. The book compares the large uncertainty in “individual sampled area-boxes” to the amount of global warming. Checking their references shows the area-boxes in question are 1°x 1° boxes. There are 360 longitude degrees and 180 latitude degrees. That means there are 180 x 360 = 64,800 of these area-boxes.

This book uses the uncertainty we have if we look at less than .2% of the globe to claim we can’t know global warming has happened. That’s the entirety of its argument on the issue.

It says far more stupid things trying to downplay or deny global warming, but it also says insane things on other topics, like this gem from one Patrick Michaels:

In the United States, 63 Democratic Party seats were lost in the House of Representatives in the 2010 election. Almost every close race was lost by a member who voted for cap-and-trade. In the Senate, which did not pass or even bring up similar legislation, every close race went to the Democratic candidate. Given that both Houses had voted for the President’s unpopular health care nationalisation, the blame for the loss in the House of Representatives lies squarely with cap-and-trade.

You would probably have to be the dumbest person to ever live, in the throes of a three day coke and booze bender who had just been hit in the head with a baseball bat, multiple times, to believe something this stupid. Anyone else would believes it would either be deranged or dead from having been unable to figure out how to perform complicated tasks like breathing.

There's plenty more to be said about that book, but I don't want to get bogged down as there's a much better example of how Anthony Watts encouraging his horde to embrace anybody and anything which could possibly do anything to support their views, no matter how vile, stupid or wrong it may be, causes global warming "skeptics" to throw away all manner of skepticism. I'm talking about the great, bombastic mouthpiece known as Mark Steyn. And his book which claims to cite over a hundred experts to prove it is fair to say one Michael Mann's work is fraudulent (which it is, because his work is fraudulent) and to consequently compare the guy to a child molester.

No wait, that's right, Mark Steyn is the guy who insisted nobody compared Michael Mann to a child molester:

Mann complains how outrageous it is to compare a scientist of his eminence with Jerry Sandusky. Actually, nobody compared him to Jerry Sandusky: Rand Simberg compared the whitewash of Penn State’s investigation into Sandusky with the whitewash of Penn State’s investigation into Mann, and he was right on both counts.

Even though everybody and their uncle knew Michael Mann had been compared to a child molester. Steyn, a man who constantly talks (well, whines) about how much time he has devoted to the lawsuit over his piece which helped spread that comparison seems to be the only person to have forgotten it. Everybody else, including all those people who haven't spent any time on the topic at all, had no trouble remembering what he had helped do. Funny that, huh?

Also funny is the fact Steyn corrected himself after I pointed out his mistake, but didn't acknowledge or credit anyone as having pointed out the mistake. This is mostly funny because global warming "skeptics" have often made snarky remarks about climate scientists doing the same thing. Regardless, what's actually important is Steyn's many supposed experts include crazy people who say things like:

The IPCC thesis is based on research from the CRU. Scientists from the University of East Anglia have at their disposal enormous sums of money and political support. In practice, they simply obey the dictates of the United Nations, which is promoting the global warming initiative, in order to suppress the development of industry, which they claim is destroying the Biosphere of the Earth…. The anti-industry propaganda is aimed at the destruction of our civilization!


It is time to recognise the climate scam for what it is: a conspiracy to defraud on a monumental scale.

These are from people Mark Steyn list as experts, whose opinion on climate change should be trusted and listened to. Nobody on the "skeptic" side seems bothered by that. People like Anthony Watts don't say, "Hey, Marky pal, you know I love your work, I really do, but some of these guys you're quoting are crackpots. Maybe you could be a little careful about making it look like you endorse them?"

Nope. They don't care if their idols like Steyn support or pomote lunatics. Hell, they'd probably do the same. They certainly aren't going to mind when Steyn does things like attributes quotes to people's children even though the kid was never present at all and then misrepresents what the kid didn't actually say, or get all sorts of basic facts wrong, constantly misquotes people or just flat-out fabricates claims by wildly misrepresenting what people say by intentionally taking it out of context. Or you know, simply fabricating quotes.

There are plenty more examples I could discuss with Steyn and his book, and how no "skeptics" will speak out about them, but I want to move right back to Anthony Watts because it is ultimately his behavior, and the behavior of people like him, which creates the opportunity for people like Steyn to flourish. In that regard, remember me pointing out Steyn's claim nobody compared Michael Mann to a child molester? I had labeled that post, "How Stupid Do They Think You Are, Part Two" because Steyn's claim came only a week or so after I wrote a post titled, "How Stupid Do They think You Are?" That post dealt with some amazingly insane behavior from Watts.

For instance, Watts got upset with me on Twitter:

His claim to have not used the word fraud in the e-mail he had sent is... well, some mixture of idiocy and insanity as at the time everyone was talking about his e-mail which said (in part):

In my last telephone conversation with you, I stated (paraphrasing) that “I believe you folks aren’t doing anything fraudulent, but you are doing what you feel is correct science in what you believe is a correct way”.

After seeing the desperate tricks pulled in Karl 2015 to erase “the pause” via data manipulation, I no longer hold that opinion. You needed it to go away, so you prostituted yourselves, perhaps at the direction of higher ups.

Watts tried to defend his claim by shifting it from not having used the word fraud to:

Which is just offensive because he thought I, or at least somebody, might actually think that wasn't complete and utter crap. He intentionally quoted his e-mail to the extent it said "I believe you folks aren’t doing anything fraudulent" but somehow chose not to acknowledge it was followed by "I no longer hold that opinion." He then went on to say it was a waste of time to talk to me about this issue because “clearly you mind is made up, so this is devolving to noise.” As I said at the time:

How stupid does Anthony Watts think you are? What makes him think people will believe when an e-mail says he holds a belief despite it explicitly stating he does not hold that belief?

Or does Watts not think you’re stupid? Is it possible Watts actually believes what he says? Is it possible Watts read his e-mail, saw it explicitly state he does not believe Peterson et al are innocent of fraud and somehow conclude it says he believes Peterson et al are innocent of fraud? Is that possible?

I don’t know. I can’t read people’s minds. I can’t even understand them half the time. I don’t know what Watts is thinking. All I know is what Watts has said. And what’s he’s said is insane. As I see it, either Watts thinks you’re a complete imbecile who will believe anything he says because he’s Anthony Watts, popular blogger for the climate skeptic movement, or Watts genuinely believes what he says because he’s Anthony Watts, popular blogger for the climate skeptic movement.

Maybe I’m missing something. I don’t know. I do know if I am missing anything, Watts has done nothing to help me find it. Watts’s responses have been, at best, unhelpful. When they weren’t just flat-out wrong, they were generally remarks about people and their persons. Apparently Watts thinks discussing individuals and their character is somehow a good idea even though when he was pressed on the actual issues, he promptly ran away.

But his behavior gets more ridiculous. You'll note I referred to Watts discussing individuals and their character. He does this a lot. He gets rude and aggressively insulting about people pretty regularly. As the e-mail quoted above, which he had sent out of the blue without any provocation, shows, Watts will even go so far as to contact people and insult them, accusing them of fraud and having prostituted themselves at the behest of higher ups just because he doesn't like their work.

I, on the other hand, said in my e-mail to him, "It is simply insane to now tweet to claim your e-mail said you hold the opinions it explicitly said you now reject" after a previous case where I had said basically the same thing with the word "stupid" replacing "insane." There's no comparison, right? One is clearly far worse than the other. Watts apparently thinks so, having said:

A few points:

1. You’ve resorted to labeling/name calling on Twitter, calling my statements “stupid”.
2. You are claiming I’m “insane” in this email: “ It is simply insane to now tweet to claim your e-mail said you hold the opinions it explicitly said you now reject.“
3. “ I'd like this issue to be resolved in a friendly manner because it seems an incredibly stupid thing to argue over.”

4. Your first two statements prevent the latter one from happening. It seems to me that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, except I never did any labeling/name calling. You have.

Yes, that's right. Me calling posting a gross distortion of what oneself has said when it is trivially easy to see through the lie "insane" (and in another instance "stupid") is inexcusable to Anthony Watts. How dare I use language like that? Clearly, I should have... accused him of committing fraud? No wait! I should have called him a Nazi! That's cool by him, right?

Okay, okay. Maybe the Nazi thing isn't something I should call him. I should just say he's drunk, stoned and brain-damaged. We definitely know those are cool by him. After I mocked one of the posts he ran, titled An Update on the Real Deniers


No wait, sorry. I have to stop for a moment. That one still cracks me up. After spending years whining about how people label him and his friends "deniers" because it is a reference to Holocaust denial, Watts ran and then defended a post calling people he disagreed with deniers. It was when I pointed out this hypocrisy that Watts accused me of being drunk or stoned.

Yes, I pointed out his hypocrisy, so he found a tweet of mine in which I had said, "I'm on medicine which shouldn't be combined with alcohol. Family is visiting. I'm gonna risk it" and decided to write:

In his Twitter feed from this holiday weekend, there’s this amazingly candid but disastrous nugget:
Perhaps Brandon can’t understand Dr. Ball’s definitional use of the term in his essay, in a “turnabout is fair play” sense, complete with references, which wasn’t done with any pejorative intent (i.e. “stupid deniers”, “oil-funded climate deniers”, “Koch shill deniers” and dozens of other pejorative uses that we have to suffer daily) because Brandon was blogging today while impaired? It would explain a lot of what we’ve seen today....

Brandon is of course free to be as upset as he wishes about all of this, and I’m sure he’ll write some entertaining arguments about how he’s in the right, but I have to wonder about his ability to reason properly when I see tweets like the above. It’s one thing to have a medical issue like that, but to advertise it to the world and to say he’s going to start drinking on top of medication suggests he’s not thinking through clearly.

The medicine I was on was for migraines so I have no idea why he thinks it is bad "to advertise it to the world." Does he think the fact I get migraines is some shockingly deep, personal secret? Does he think it is some "medical condition" I should hide in shame?

I don't know. I also don't know why someone disregarding the instructions for medicine they're taking would seem a remarkable thing to him. For those of you who don't already know this, most people don't always follow the labels on their medicine. I don't know why Watts thinks me having a glass or two of wine while taking medication for migraines that says I shouldn't drink alcohol is... well, anything.

It's beyond me why Watts thought it was remarkable, Interesting, relevant, not a blindingly stupid thing to bring up in an argument that would only make him look sad and pathetic, incapable of handling any sort of rational disagreement or... well, again, anything. But hey, it makes sense because the post Watts defended didn't use the word "denier" in an "accusatory framing." No wait, that's what he said his use of the word fraudulent wasn't in. What he said for "denier" was it's okay for his guest authors to call people deniers because of their "definitional use of the term" "which wasn't done with any pejorative intent."

Yes, that's right. Everyone who has ever called Anthony Watts a "denier" has been doing it to insult him and label him a Holocaust denier, but remarks like these are purely definitional and not intended as pejorative name-calling:

Even the Pope denied the deniers by excluding them from his climate conclave…
Sadly he doesn’t know enough to know who the real deniers are…
Either way they are the real deniers.
Here are just a few, but sufficient to expose the deniers.
The phrase “cherry-picking” is all too familiar to those following the history of the real deniers.
Logic says it’s those who want to stifle debate, to silence individuals and groups, who are the real deniers.
It appears the President is the denier in chief.
Further proof of who the real deniers are is found in…
In the case of the real climate deniers, they ignore the demonstrable facts and compound their denial by changing the record.

The same author of the post, Tim Ball, is the guy who compared people he dislikes to Nazis at Watts Up With That. In a different post, he wrote:

Those who knew how much climate changes naturally were those previously called global warming skeptics. They now became climate change deniers with all the holocaust connotations of that word.

Yet Watts insists that word, denier, clearly doesn't have any Holocaust connotations when Tim Ball uses it in a non-pejorative way like saying, "It appears the President is the denier in chief." And because I don't understand that, I'm a pill-popping alcoholic with a severe and embarrassing medical condition so nobody should listen to me.

You still think my e-mail to Watts was unfairly harsh...? If so, all I have to say to you is please go die in a fire fueled by the bruised and battered corpse of the vile monument to hatred and idiocy known as Watts Up With That which, if there were any justice in this world, would shut down because the internet became self-aware long enough to commit suicide over its horror of having to deal with the never ending parade of failures and fuckups known as Anthony Watts and the global warming "skeptic" blogosphere.

And yes, I mean the whole damn thing. I don't care if you're Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, a person I've long held a great deal of respect for, or Jeff Condon, a "skeptic" who thinks it's fun to promote bigoted propaganda created by racist hate groups. You're all to blame.

You've all consistently failed to do anything to address the hypocrisy of the "skeptic" movement which tolerates blatant fraud and dishonesty from its own to the point it actively refuses to look at prime examples of the global warming movement gone wrong simply because they don't want to speak out against the rock star icons they herald as champions of their cause who constantly do nothing but produce nonsense and lies which serve only to hide the actual good arguments. At this point, there is nothing the global warming blogosphere could do to better serve the skeptic cause than to shut its whore mouth and quit embarrassing people who actually care about little things like honesty, integrity and truth.

And don't, for even a single second, begin to suspect I think you're any better if you're reading along snickering and thinking about how stupid the "skeptic" cause is as though any of this somehow indicates the other "side" of the discussion is any better. Global warming advocates are every bit as much of nitwit twits as "skeptics" in the blogosphere are. Anyone who tolerates John Cook and his Skeptical Science group as a contributor to their cause without considering the merits of euthanasia over the obvious fraud of his fabricated consensus which follows a long history of doing little things like, you know, fabricating quotes to paint people he dislikes in a negative light, deserves to be written off as a waste of resources who could best better the world by doing whatever they could to minimize their interaction with any portion of it, especially the parts with sentient life.

I just don't have the personal embarrassment of having my name associated with sheep who'd run off a cliff sooner than admit even the most obvious of frauds committed by people like Michael Mann which do nothing but sabotage their movement because their herd mentality renders them incapable of basic reasoning skills, leaving them nothing but a collective mass of useless wretches whose "me too" commentary, if it doesn't ensure global warming destroys the world, would certainly make a reasonable person wish it had.

So please understand, while I may not be writing much about you right now, that's only because most of you have fortunately minimized your existence to me to nothing more than useless placards whose intellectual content is on par with the sign I saw last week saying, "Git 'er done!"

To anyone who might feel upset about this post or feel it doesn't apply to them, guess what? You might be an idiot. Or you might be someone this post doesn't apply to. If it's the latter, bravo! You might be an example showing the human race isn't a complete write off of a species. I wouldn't lay odds on it though. I suspect the existence of reality television alone would justify praying to the earth god Gaia for global warming to be worse than even the most alarmist of individuals thinks just so it could kill us all.

Side note, this post is only the third time in my life I've cursed. Progress!

6:15 AM Edit: I didn't want to ever edit this post for fear if I started making changes I might be inclined to tone down the rhetoric of the post. However, I just saw that Anthony Watts has done the most hilarious thing ever. He's closed comments on the recent post promoting Poptech's vile slurs, saying:


Yes, that's right. While promoting vicious personal attacks written by the anonymous coward Poptech, Watts complained about what he has to "endure every day at the hands of faceless cowards"!

And so there's no doubt, Poptech is an anonymous coward. Watts refers to him as "Andrew K." referencing the supposed identification of Poptech as Andrew Kahn, but Poptech has repeatedly denied that is him, saying things like:


So... yeah. Cry more Watts, cry more. We're all going to feel so terribly sorry about those anonymous cowards you are abused by that we'll... support your endorsement of anonymous cowards abusing people.


  1. Szilard, like it or not, Watts Up With That is probably the most influential website for the "skeptic" side of the global warming argument. It's certainly one of them, and Anthony Watts is certainly an influential person for the movement. Given that, it'd be foolish to simply ignore them. Doing so will only encourage the "skeptic" side of the debate to become more rabid and unhinged. That sort of thing is toxic.

    And its influence is very real. Just look at how Ted Cruz, one of the leading candidates for president, used completely bogus charts created by Steven Goddard in Congress. The same sort of things have been appearing on television over the last couple years as well as various "skeptic" proponents push them in the media. That's only possible because sites like Watts Up With That won't call out obvious BS like Goddard's. If Anthony Watts had run his blog with any interest in genuine skepticism, there would be too large a voice pushing back against the ridiculous extremists like Goddard for his nonsense to be used like this. Instead, Watts has helped spread that sort of bogus propaganda, even though he knows it is BS, and as a result the "skeptic" cause is now tied to the credibility of charlatans like Goddard, crazy people like Christopher Monckton and idiotic showman like Mark Steyn, all of whom constantly say things that are so obviously untrue many people who were previously disinterested will be driven to support the side which rests on the activism of people like John Cook and Michael Mann.

    At this point, I'd say both sides of the global warming debate are without value. I'm just wanting to try to undo any associations I may have created with either side because I don't want to be associated with people who basically either commit fraud or willfully ignore the fraud committed by people they associate and identify with.

  2. And MikeN, you probably don't want to hear what I think of that link. That guy isn't "over-excited," he's delusional. Not only has he not invented anything significant, I remember discussing the very plan he wants to use with people years ago. During discussions where people pointed out the obvious problems that make his approach practically worthless on an industry scale due to glaring vulnerabilities the current popular approaches were designed to counteract.

    I wish he would seek professional help. Preferably of a medical sort, but if not that, then perhaps that of somebody who actually understands the field he's claiming to revolutionize.

  3. I suspected as much. I suggested on his site that he won't get a patent because it's probably already in use.
    However, he does understand the field. It is his business, and is using the filter right now on 5000 domains.

  4. His knowledge is limited. I tried to argue that he is foolish for saying things like 'not matching' and 'matching to an infinite set', and that really it is a subset of Bayesian.

  5. "Die in a Fire"?

    "Tim Ball is Hitler"?

    It really is hard to take you seriously. It's rich to see you rail about personal attacks. You called one of your readers a bigoted whore.

    Pot meet kettle?

  6. MikeN, I don't know why you think he understands his field. If he did, he would know what things like Bayesian analysis are. While he may be making some money in the field, plenty of people have made money in fields they don't understand. I myself have been employed to work on projects I had almost no understanding of, because I knew how to turn the right knobs, so to speak.

    If you can do something which happens to wind up being useful to someone, or at least appearing to be useful to them, whether or not you understand anything is pretty much irrelevant.

  7. JamesNV, you're an idiot. You're a dishonest, bigoted moron who somehow misrepresents things in order to try to pretend people are hypocrites. Do you really think anyone will believe I think personal attacks are inherently wrong? I get you might be delusional enough to believe the insane things you say, but...

    Nobody could possibly read this post without sticking a fork through their eyeball, jamming it deep down into their brain and wiggling it around until their gray matter was a nice juicy mush to believe I had actually "rail[ed] about personal attacks." Anyone else would understand the difference between criticizing cowards who constantly promote personal attacks in petty smear campaigns and obnoxious pricks who immediately resort to such as their only response to disagreement or criticism.

    That's because even the stupidest of stupid people can understand criticizing people for exhibiting certain behavior under certain circumstances is not the same as saying that behavior could never be justified. It is only people like you, who intentionally make themselves dumber than the dumbest person to have ever died of their own dumbosity, who could ever think, for even a single second, I would say personal attacks are a bad thing.

    I wouldn't. People like you are proof personal attacks are a good thing. People like you are proof personal attacks aren't just a good thing; attacks on one's person are likely a good thing too.

  8. I say he knows his field because of the work he has been doing, and the recommendation of a writer for PC Magazine named John Dvorak, probably the longest tenured writer about the industry, and he hired the guy for his services. He is not the guy to pay money for incompetence. So I believe he is very good at providing spam filtering service. He is competent enough to have identified that Hillary is using such a service and thus her e-mails were available for viewing by a third party.

  9. Well, I can't say any of that is compelling evidence to me, and it certainly doesn't outweigh the enormous stupidity on display in the links you've provided.

    Also, what you say in your last sentence isn't true.

  10. Why not? The e-mails would have to go to the service, and they would have to be unencrypted for the filter to have any value.

  11. MikeN, because you said:

    He is competent enough to have identified that Hillary is using such a service and thus her e-mails were available for viewing by a third party.

    When there are all sorts of other possibilities. Leaving aside the issue of that guy's competency, and whether or not it'd actually take any competency to identify something like this (it wouldn't), it is quite possible to use a "spam filtering service" without that making your e-mails "available for viewing by a third party." For instance, one can use a service that runs on your own servers, thus never sending information anyone. One could also send information in a parsed format, which doesn't make the original e-mails available but only some information about them available (for instance, one can perform spam filtering by using a concordance or word list/counts). It is even theoretically possible to create an algorithm which could run on encrypted e-mails without being able to decrypt them. And all this leaves aside the possibility of a third party creating a passive system which analyzes data without giving it any ability to access the data midstream.

    Now, I have no reason to believe any of these particular possibilities actually happened in this particular case. It is quite possible none of these, and no other cases I might be able to think of, came up and Hilary Clinton really did use a spam filtering service which made the e-mails sent to and from her server available for reading by a third party. But comments like yours which just seem to ignore hundreds of other possibilities don't do anything to convince me that's the case. They certainly don't make me think your opinion of who is and is not an expert at certain things holds much water.

    And that last part bears some repeating. Even if what you said were ultimately true, despite your inaccurate and imprecise phrasing, it would still just mean this guy was able to see that e-mails were passed through a server as a form of spam-filtering. Millions of people could do that, including millions of people who have no involvement in the spam filtering industry. His supposed accomplishment here is completely unremarkable, on a level even a rookie script kiddie could manage.

  12. Most of your examples can be eliminated in this particular case, but fair enough. The bigger problem is he hasn't demonstrated that the service was in use at the time.

  13. Pingback: roof repair
  14. Pingback: GVK BIO CRO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *