People send me stuff.
I’m sure readers remember the billboard put out by Heartland that didn’t go over at all well with many. Here’s another asking “Who do you believe”?
It’s a tough question for the pro AGW side, and an easy answer for everyone else. You can choose your answer in the poll.
This billboard was done by CFACT.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mark and John,
I am giving my honest opinion of Perlwitz, who has never challenged the perception that he is a putative public expert. I think he spends lots of his time writing blog posts during what most folks would call their work day. How is that possible? Does his boss concur with his blog writing activity? Is that what he is paid to do? Most universities accept public tax monies, but I doubt that those funds include paying someone to advocate for climate alarmism. Who is Perlwitz’ boss? I would like to ask him/her if writing blog posts at work is A-OK. I seriously doubt it. If I am wrong, I will certainly apologize.
Perlwitz lacks scientific facts, so he resorts to bluster. He has no verifiable evidence showing that CO2 causes global warming, or, if so, how much. He is winging it, and it appears to me that he is basing his alarmist propaganda on his belief system, and on his employment — but not on any scientific evidence.
Once again, let me point out that no one agrees with Perlwitz. For someone who presumably places his stock in the so-called scientific “consensus”, Perlwitz does not seem to care that he has no supporting consensus here of his own.
D. B. Stealey, on February 12, 2013 at 6:32 am, in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1223090 wrote:
“Long blog comments”? There is only one comment by me visible here from yesterday. Is this one, which you consider “long”?
Oh, right! There is the other comment by me, the longer one, which I had submitted before the shorter one. The longer one that has never been published here after I submitted it. How would you know about that one, then?
My ethics are just fine. And you have no information whatsoever, based on which you could claim any knowledge about that I posted on “company time”, or on “taxpayer money”. You have made these kind of false accusations against me repeatedly in the past.
Perhaps you don’t get it, Stealey. I do not have a fixed work time, like 9 AM to 5 PM. I do not have to clock in. I can distribute my work over the day, over the week how I like it best. I can take breaks when I want, I can do something else when I want (well, except when we have some meeting scheduled.) to do something else. I can decide whether I work from home, or sitting in my lab. It’s the freedom I have in my line of work as a research scientist at a private university. It’s a nice trade off for the low pay in academia. And you are not entitled at all to impose on me during what time of the day I must work, and when I was allowed to do something else. If you don’t like that, suck it up. So, now I have told you that, and if you one more time make an accusation against me that I was doing something illegal, against the rules or similar, I am going to conclude that you state those false accusations with malicious intent.
You have been informed now.
D.B. Stealey says:
February 13, 2013 at 1:03 am
Mark and John,
I am giving my honest opinion of Perlwitz, who has never challenged the perception that he is a putative public expert. I think he spends lots of his time writing blog posts during what most folks would call their work day. How is that possible? Does his boss concur with his blog writing activity? Is that what he is paid to do? Most universities accept public tax monies, but I doubt that those funds include paying someone to advocate for climate alarmism. Who is Perlwitz’ boss? I would like to ask him/her if writing blog posts at work is A-OK. I seriously doubt it. If I am wrong, I will certainly apologize.
Perlwitz lacks scientific facts, so he resorts to bluster. He has no verifiable evidence showing that CO2 causes global warming, or, if so, how much. He is winging it, and it appears to me that he is basing his alarmist propaganda on his belief system, and on his employment — but not on any scientific evidence.
Once again, let me point out that no one agrees with Perlwitz. For someone who presumably places his stock in the so-called scientific “consensus”, Perlwitz does not seem to care that he has no supporting consensus here of his own.
———————————————————————-
Hi D.B.,
I’m tempted to join you in your speculations, since this appears to be the only way to get the troll to respond at this point, but I can’t honestly say I really much care if Perlwitz is doing this in his free time, or if he’s slacking off at work. Like I told Richard, I don’t really want to believe he’s getting paid to do this – but fortunately I don’t have to conclude that. After all, I post here and nobody’s paying me to do it.
No, I’d prefer to discuss the issues he raised in his attack on Gail’s post. Unlike Perlwitz apparently, I argue not only to express my point of view but to test it. Nothing is quite as good as an intelligent and motivated opponent for pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Since at the end of the day I hate being wrong, I’d prefer to have my mistakes uncovered so I can correct them.
No such luck, Perlwitz won’t answer my rebuttal. But since I can only conclude that he refuses to answer because he can’t, I guess he didn’t have anything useful to offer anyway.
Regards,
Mark