Another one of my blog spawn goes up in flames

image

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.

208 thoughts on “Another one of my blog spawn goes up in flames

  1. I have learned that when people are unable to respond with a rational and logical argument, they resort to 3ed grade playground tactics and resort to name calling and rationalization. Whenever they lower themselves to that level, I believe I have won the debate. Just add them to your wall as a trophy.

    • When you’re taking flak, you know you’re over the target! The one thing all those ranters have in common is a lack of scientific credentials. As usual.

      • Barrie Harrop is my favorite. He may have graduated from high school, but has nothing beyond that. He is always trying to claim that I do not have a science background in this sort of stuff. Wrong Harrop. The PhD was from MIT with the thesis topic of atmospheric temperature profile retrieval from the citizen microwave sounders on Nimbus E and Nimbus F. My stuff is still being cited 38 years later. Only citation that Harrop has ever gotten is for a moving offense while driving under the influence of stupidity. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Barrie+Harrop He is notable in that the use of his name to award stupidity ratings was banned on the WSJ after it came into general usage http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Harrop

        These guys cannot discuss science. They simply do not know it.

      • I have been ‘Harroped’ more than once on the WSJ. He tried the same thing with me, demanding my bona fides as a means of demeaning anything I wrote. It didn’t matter to him that i work in a technical field and have extensive experience with physics, particularly thermodynamics and optics. I was an ‘uneducated Yank’ bought and paid for by the [insert bugaboo of the day here].

        I loathed his ‘copy and paste’ posting. I think he figured if he repeated the same talking points often enough he’d change some reader’s mind. But all it was was annoying and eventually I stopped paying any attention to what he wrote.I didn’t bother wasting any time responding to him as I had better use for my time.

    • “I have learned that when people are unable to respond with a rational and logical argument, they resort to 3ed grade playground tactics and resort to name calling and rationalization.”

      Yes, PopTech apparently only has ad hominem as a last resort.

      • Poor Wagen. Wrong again-Here’s a link so you can learn the difference.

        “It seems as though, in pretty much every argument I’ve ever had, at some point or another someone mistakes what an “ad hominem attack” or the “ad hominem fallacy” really is. It’s a pretty easy way to score rhetorical points, shouting about your opponents using ad hominems when really they’re just insulting you, usually in parallel to making an argument. It’s less easy to score said rhetorical points when someone else in the conversation actually knows the difference and is willing to point that difference out. This post is intended to be a go-to reference any time someone makes this mistake, so please, by all means, link it whenever necessary.”

        (insert http first) ://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2011/09/15/what-is-an-ad-hominem-what-isnt/#ixzz3yrRaDJDG

      • Not at all, I think that anyone who wishes to get their climate science from a brain-damaged stoner / framing carpenter with a high school diploma should be free to do so.

  2. This one about Dr. Seitz from Harvard about making tiny bubbles in the ocean by using 1,000 wind mills to reduce global temperatures made my day! Did he ever get a grant to test his theory? Maybe I can apply for a job there, already as a youngster I made a lot of tiny bubbles in the bathtub! My secret: using soap. LOL! Hilarious!

    The article about Dr. Seitz on WUWT was from 2010. While most posts here are very entertaining and the ‘regulars’ show a great sense of humor, it would be nice to collect the most funniest contributions on a ‘Funnies’ section. Like the reference material.

    Thanks, Anthony!

    Stephan

  3. Most political protesters know that if you shout loud enough you don’t need a sentient argument. The masses and or the media will listen and agree with the volume. It’s best to not let the foolish ruin your day.

      • “I agree with every word, but perhaps not for the reasons you might expect. Can you hear the ones who shout the loudest? I can.”

        Didn’t the doctor tell you that when those voices in your head came back, you’d need to up the medications? Again?

    • Yes, I think it was Oscars Wilde who said an expert was someone being wrong at the top of his voice.

  4. 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.

    Well, hell. I’ve been chided over my “anger issues” and inclination to exploit assessments of disputants’ character as “denigration,” and you let me post.

    Admittedly, on “permanent double-secret probation.”

    “When the going gets tough, they send for the sons of bitches.”

    Admiral Earnest J. King, upon being notified that he’d been appointed Chief of Naval Operations 18 March 1942 (apocryphal)

  5. Most of these people are angry … {their} hateful rhetoric {…} permeates the alarmist side of the debate. They are all long on emotion and denigration, and short on sensibility.

    And that reminded me of another hero who stood up for the cause of freedom, only to be spit on and slandered: the Vietnam War veteran. Anthony Watts is on the front lines in the battle for truth. We, sitting in the anonymous comfort of our homes, have no idea how tough that has been for Anthony and his family.

    Way to go, POPTECH! By giving it to that slimeball with both barrels, you stood up for a real hero. Well done!


    (youtube)

    We love you, Anthony Watts.

    Don’t ever give up (you, too, poptech). The world needs you.

    Gratefully,

    Janice

    • Janice, it’s not every day I get on WUWT and have tears come to my eyes. But your post did that today. Thanks for posting that.
      And nobody spat on those vets bigger time than one of their own, our current State Secretary John Kerry, Remember – he compared them all to Genghis Khan, or was it Attilla? Now he says “climate change” is the greatest threat of our times. Obviously he didn’t think the communist empire was a threat 50 years ago.
      Along that line, I’ll take a bit of an exception to the quip in the PopTech story that “Pete’s late father Dieter Werner Miesler actually fought for the Nazis”
      Well, true, technically, but not knowing what Dieter’s experience in the Wehrmacht was, or if he committed any atrocities, I’d say the Nazi reference is a bit of a low blow. PopTech links to Dieter’s obit, which says he was “drafted into the German infantry in 1943”. So he was cannon fodder for their side, not a job they’d give to the party faithful. That doesn’t make him a Nazi any more than my getting drafted in 1968 made me a fan of LBJ.

      • Janice: Like Richard, I generally only post here if it is in my area of expertise (radiation stuff). As a Nam combat vet, I offer a thanks to you and Richard for these sentiments. I had the honor to defend the freedom of the S. Vietnamese. All people deserve freedom, not just us Americans.
        To bring things back to the subject of Anthony’s missive, the key word in a previous sentence is honor. I put Anthony and so many others here square into my circle of brave men and women that I have had the honor to serve and work with. Self-less and willing to step into the fight for everyone’s freedom is the heart of the true warrior. Anthony’s work has definitely been at a level deserving the Medal of Freedom. An underdog fighting injustice, he has mobilized an army that is winning. Like my service in Nam, it feels dang good to be on Anthony’s side – the side of right.

      • aGrimm,

        Your comment says it for me, too. Most readers are unaware of the terrible abuse Anthony has been subjected to, for nothing more than having a different scientific point of view. That alone demonstrates that the climate scare isn’t science.

        Like Richard Keen, I also got my draft notice early in 1967. It never occurred to me to try and avoid it, I wasn’t raised like that. But a friend’s father took me aside one day, and told me where I could enlist rather than being drafted. So I enlisted. But being a young guy and hearing all the commotion, I volunteered and was sent there anyway (Tuy Hoa). I wanted to see things first hand. When you’re young and stupid you tend to disregard the downside.

        I arrived not long after the Tet offensive. Like lots of single guys there, I found a local girlfriend. She told me what had happened: the first night of the the Tet attacks, teams of Viet Cong that had been there for years went house to house. They had compiled the names of the local civilians who were pro-government, or who spoke out against the North, or were anti-communist, etc.

        That first night the VC murdered almost half the civilians in the town. The locals knew them as friends, cyclo drivers, farmers, etc., so it was easy. In most cases they were let into the homes. This had obviously been planned for a long time. The same thing happened throughout the South. (I sometimes wonder if some of the current tsunami of immigrants are putting together similar lists here.)

        Attitudes have changed a lot since then. The military is almost universally admired now. Back then, it wasn’t. But now, instead of the ’60’s generation protesting the war it’s the community organizer President who is politicizing and hobbling the military, and using it for his personal benefit like he uses Air Force One. He is deliberately gutting our national defense, there is no doubt about that. Recently he arbitrarily cut 40,000 soldiers from the Army, and he has been heavily culling general staff officers that he thinks might not be ‘progressive’ enough. That’s easy for someone who uses the IRS to go after his political enemies.

        But of course, not a single cut has ever been made to the EPA, even after the Animas river scandal. I keep telling myself that in ten months we could get a rubber band reaction, and elect someone on the other extreme: someone who really believes in the Constitution. Or even a rabble-rousing populist, for that matter. Anyone but more of the same.

        (/rant. Just wanted to get that off my chest. And thanks, Janice. That was very moving.)

      • Writes dbstealey:

        [/rant. Just wanted to get that off my chest.]

        Who could blame you? It’s not as if those who are scientifically literate are likely ever to be unaware of the history and moral philosophy – including present and past political affairs – as well.

      • I’d say the Nazi reference is a bit of a low blow.

        I fully agree. Most of the survivors of Nazi military service are just as worthy of our respect as are our own veterans. Period.

      • Writes commieBob:

        Most of the survivors of Nazi military service are just as worthy of our respect as are our own veterans. Period.

        Conscripted in 1943. The young man apparently held out as long as possible in the National Socialist Reich, and bagged in North Africa when the wheels came off von Arnim’s Heeresgruppe.

        Not a war criminal, but rather just another luckless member of “the Greatest Generation” who got born in the Old Country.

      • I have never understood the public’s desire to blame the soldiers. It’s always the politicians or military staff who screw up. Vietnam leaders were never vetted for good honest leadership and were among some of the most corrupt. Vietnam was fought in defense mode only, never any thought of taking the fight on the ground to the North; afraid of China, then we shouldn’t have been there. Then there were the southern “free fire zones” where literally any thing that moved was open game; really? How in the h#ll does that help keep them on “your side”. The “free fire zones” should have been all to the north. The south was so bombed out and defoliated with hazardous chemicals that many areas became like a moonscape and that doesn’t even include the follow on birth defects caused by those toxic’s. Then there were the AR-15/M16 screw ups with the forward bolt assist and Ball powder being used specifically against the warnings of Colt which resulted in up to a 50% jam rate in the field and many unnecessary deaths. Of course the “brass” blamed the failures on inadequate cleaning rates.
        Another example is Korea where US soldiers quite suddenly did fine when General Walton Walker (who was in full retreat) was replaced with General Matthew Ridgway upon Walker’s death in an auto accident. The difference, apparently, was that Walton stuck to the roads and Ridgway decided to attack the North Koreans on the hills where they were. I have always wondered how much better Korea might have went if some one like Ridgway had been in command the entire time.

      • BFL had mentioned in exemplia:

        …Korea where US soldiers quite suddenly did fine when General Walton Walker (who was in full retreat) was replaced with General Matthew Ridgway upon Walker’s death in an auto accident. The difference, apparently, was that Walton stuck to the roads and Ridgway decided to attack the North Koreans on the hills where they were. I have always wondered how much better Korea might have went if some one like Ridgway had been in command the entire time.

        Walker, of course, was a tanker; he had XX Corps under Patton during the European Unpleasantness. Ridgeway, on the other hand, was parachute infantry (101st Airborne Division and then XVIII Corps – Airborne – in the same conflict). Being both philosophically disposed toward and well-practiced in non-motorized warfare, Matthew Ridgeway would of course be aware of how leather personnel transportation systems could be best leveraged in rugged terrain.

        Gather unto a Web site a multitude of readers who might credibly be consider polymaths and you don’t know what is gonna turn up in the comments, do ya?

      • Kerry used “Genghis Khan”, Richard Keene, when he was slandering Vietnam Veterans.

        Did you know Kerry also met with the North Vietnamese communists in Paris, on his own, while the Vietnam war was still going on. Aid and comfort to the enemy, it’s called. He was playing “Secretary of State” way back then.

        Thanks Janice, and Richard for taking up for Vietnam veterans.

        BTW, Vietnam veterans have nothing to be ashamed of. We did our job and won the military war. The problem was Liberals gained sufficient political power after Watergate to enable them to abandon South Vietnam, which swiftly descended into chaos and death, and now they have done the same thing in Iraq, with the Iraq military war being won, and then Obama prematurely withdrawing and throwing Iraq to the terrorist wolves.

        The vets did their jobs. The Liberal appeasers are the ones who threw all that blood, sweat, and tears away like it was nothing. That’s what Liberal appeasers do. Don’t put them in charge if you want to win the war and preserve the future peace. They won’t do it. They don’t know how. All they want to do is cut and run.

        TA

      • May I first thank you for your service in the military. I truly respect it whether you were drafted or enlisted.

        So, it is with all due respect for that service, that I say the following.

        Poptech’s exact words were-“While others alarmists try and smear skeptics as “Holocaust deniers”, ironically Pete’s late father Dieter Werner Miesler actually fought for the Nazis”

        Poptech didn’t say that Miesler’s father WAS a Nazi sympathizer, he said he fought for them. That is a fact. He was injured and taken prisoner by the British in Italy and held in Egypt.

        Poptech didn’t call him a war criminal or a Nazi, or anything else. He did not even begin to insinuate ANYTHING about Miesler’s father as person. Period. He merely called his stint with them “ironic” because of alarmist behavior.

        So why did you, Richard Keen, immediately jump to defend an innocent German soldier against what is obviously an imagined, implied, assumed slight, by making an actual, open insinuation about the character of another man-Poptech-by calling his reference a “low blow”?

        “Well, true, technically, but not knowing what Dieter’s experience in the Wehrmacht was, or if he committed any atrocities, I’d say the Nazi reference is a bit of a low blow. ”
        (low blow-an illegal blow that strikes below an opponent’s waist, an unfair or unsportsmanlike comment.”)

        I find Poptech’s comment neutral with the possibility to easily be taken in an offensive manner, but your comment was not neutral and meant to be an insult. I would like to understand why you would defend one man against an imaginary slight, by attacking another man openly with a real one?

      • Dear Richard,

        Thank you for taking the time. I’m so glad to know that you (and others) understood the point I was trying to make. And, you’re so welcome.

        Janice

      • Dear A. Grimm and D.B. and TA and misbehavin’ (yes, YOU, too, misb, sacrificed … great treasure…),

        Thank YOU.

        And thank you for taking up arms, yet again, here on WUWT, using those mighty intellects to fight the Battle of AGW. Yes, indeed, A. Grimm, I know you as “that expert (among other things, of course) on the truth about half-life of carbon and beryllium (and other) isotopes”. Glad you and steel-trap-logical-mind-engineer D.B. are here!

        That my analogy elicited so much thoughtful, deeply felt, comment, shows that we still need to be talking (and for my part, listening) about Vietnam. Not to solve a problem, no, simply to weep and to express deep feelings which, so long as and to the degree they are not experienced, will lie heavy on the heart, causing pain. Pain which is then either shoved deep inside, only to emerge elsewhere (usually in a disproportionate angry outburst), or medicated. I urge anyone who knows vets (of any conflict) to give them the opportunity (and don’t give up after one try… wait a few weeks and ask again) to talk about it. Just TALK about it. And all you need to do is to listen.

        And, you are very welcome.

        Gratefully,

        Janice

        P.S. Thank you, too, ATheoK — thank you for sharing that moving story. Good for you to be a friend.

    • Janice, I’m not surprised that others beat me to a reply to your post to tell you I’m still snuffling as I write this. Hey, I’m not even American. I was raised (a long time ago) when it was instilled in boys that they don’t cry. With something like this, there is no way to hold back the tears.

      I think the horrible treatment of Viet Vets was the beginning of the plague of political correctness that has reached numbing proportions today.

      • Nobody ever spit on me, Gary. I wore my uniform all the way home from California, while others scurried to change into civilian clothes, no doubt believing the “abuse” reports of the day. Nobody said a discouraging word to me as I moved through the airports on the way home. I think some of the tales of abuse are a little overblown. Not that some of it didn’t happen.

        TA

      • I appreciated your comment TA-my father served in the Navy, and in Vietnam, and came home to continue his Naval career until he retired. I never witnessed one person spit on him or disrespect him in any way. I have never, ever disrespected any man or woman in uniform because of the respect I had for my father and all of his military friends I ever met or spent time with.

        That doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen, I’m sure it did. There are messed up, sickening people everywhere, of all colors, creeds, and nationalities. Of course, it seems to me like the abuse that DID happen to our US vets generally comes from “liberal” “left wing” “progressive” types, and not ever living in a place where those types were or are the majority, it’s just not something I am familiar with myself.

        And thank you for your service as well. And everyone else here who has served. You are honored and appreciated by me and my family, openly as often as possible.

      • Dear Gary,

        Thank you for telling me that. Certainly, not all the Vietnam vets were abused, but those who were reminded me of Anthony Watts, our brave soldier for science truth.

        While the amazing minds of so many of those who stand up for science truth on WUWT are shining lights in the universe of the blogosphere, the key to their DOING something about it, DOING something to fight against the l1es of the AGWers, is: their great hearts. And your comment demonstrates that emotional intelligence, yet again.

        Your Ally for Science Truth (and proud to be your and your country’s neighbor),

        Janice

      • Gary – the disdain for VN vets originated in Marxist thought. From Marx, to the Frakfurt School, and on to Vietnam.

        In short, the Marxists have been active politically in the U.S. (as elsewhere) for a long time. Their main enemy is our society. The military is part of our society, as is war. The Marxists want to bring down our society.

        They utilize several avenues, but a great one is to find some genuine, actual problem and exploit it, making it an emotion-filled Hegelian Dialectic of historical conflict. (Marx’ mechanism of history is literally directly based on Hegel and Hegelian Dialectic; this is why Marxism is all about “dialectics”). Well-recognized communists Tom Hayden and Herbert Aptheker traveled to N Vietnam in 1965 in order to get a first-hand view of information to use to denigrate the United States. Hayden is a large figure who covers a lot of the waterfront on the ways the Marxists are striving to weaken our society. The trip is covered in the book, “The Other Side,” so this is no secret or rumor – they wrote a book about the whole trip.

        Jane Fonda, a girlfriend of Hayden, infamously repeated such a trip in 1972.

        I don’t think he and his fellow travelers care much about the various rabble-rousing groups and issues he has advocated for. There are serious problems in America to address – including a lot of the nonsense that goes on with our wars.

        But the answer is not for us to throw our society out the window and usher in the “synthesis” of Communism resolving all of the thesis/antithesis conflict we need to address.

        “PC” is about us well-meaning, everyday citizens learning to censor ourselves so that there is no acceptable counter to their anti-society claims. We cannot even speak up about how foolish it is that Rachel Dolezal claims to be Black, and no one can have an opposing view on the Bruce Jenner issue.

      • Freedom has many enemies. It always has. It always will. It’s futile to give it one name, like Marxism because then no one suspects anyone or anything that isn’t defined by that word as an enemy. The enemies change names and faces and positions all the time. They’ll even dress up like you, and act and talk like you, while they infiltrate your life at your invitation.

        They are so clever, so patient, that a great many people who truly believe themselves to be freedom lovers, or intelligent truth seekers, have been slowly infected with false ideas and erroneous conclusions. You never feel the invisible chains until they get tight enough to restrict your own movements somehow.

        The most dangerous people in the world are often the ones telling you that THEY can make your life better FOR you.

    • Thanks for the post Janice. Brought a tear to my eye too.
      Ironically, when Dr. Steele asked me yesterday if I missed the area in his response to my post re: Pacifica slide, my first thought was to reply “no , because I visit Golden Gate National Cemetery regularly”. My brother , who was killed in Nam in 1969, is buried there. He, although drafted too, sincerely believed that he was defending the freedom of others . At the time, he wasn’t even old enough to vote.
      Agree with the other commenters that since we don’t know anything specific regarding PM’s father’s service , other than he was drafted in 1943, it is a below-the-belt tactic to make vile generalizations about it. There were also many soldiers wearing the “Nazi” uniform who risked and gave their own lives in order to thwart the genocidal agenda.

    • I suspect that there are multitudes of those who did the “spitting on” that are now ashamed of what they did.
      These vets have nothing to be ashamed of.
      Thank you all.

      PS I registered for the draft but it ended before my number was called.

      • So many of those who did the spitting have no remorse as they usually fail to remember their wrongs. A lot of them express that hidden guilt in “save the world” expressions and activities.

        All too many are the ones who ignored the vets which causes great evil itself. I can understand the difficulty so many WWII and Korean War veterans had with the Vietnam war; as they fought known enemies everyone recognized. Who is/was the enemy was vague and couched in loose terms of ‘communists’ and ‘communism’.

        The enemies in Vietnam were rarely well known, especially in world views. Nor were our allies over there well identified or strongly supportive. Problems caused by government officials and senior staff in how they represented America to citizens and soldiers.

        Leaving us to support and be proud of your veterans! In spite of official policies!

    • There are few things more disturbing than accompanying a Vietnam veteran to the war monument.

      No one expects that monument, it shakes one’s soul just to view it as a person. It shatters many souls to see a veteran make it to where their roster of buddies, friends and comrades in arms are engraved.

      The friend I accompanied to the monument fell to the ground and cried. I’ve never seen him cry before or after; and it took a half a bottle of bourbon to get him to stop crying and fall asleep when we got him back to the dorms (manager education seminar).
      Nor did he think the monument would affect him so. I learned most of what I know of his Vietnam service while he calmed down from that memorial visit. The events that ended his service involved an ambush with explosion that left him basically with legs, but without knees and a substantial portion of his service buddies whom he rediscovered in the cold stone engravings.

      Since then, I’ve helped others too stricken to pencil rub copy their fallen friend’s names; as I took a job not too far from the Vietnam War memorial and I occasionally walked past.

      Horrible memories literally gush out of the vets as they spot their buddies. It must be similar to veterans visiting soldier burial grounds in Normandy; much as was depicted in “Saving private Ryan”.

      I’m of the age when the Vietnam War draft board’s final years. My draft number was 135 and my local draft board reached somewhere between 131 and 133 that year. Most of the kids I knew who joined rather than get drafted never saw duty in ‘Nam as troop reductions were in full force by the 1971 Summer and Fall. I attended college, but never signed up for the student deferral as I certainly didn’t want a delayed draft hanging over me.

      Thank you Janice.

      • ATheoK

        As I posted earlier, my father was a career Naval officer who spent time in Vietnam. In every house we ever lived in, my father drove a metal flag pole into the ground in front of it and raised the American flag every morning and took it down every night. When he got older, he left it up at night, but always had a spot light shining on it.

        I moved to the DC area after high school and could not WAIT to visit The Mall in DC for myself. While as excited as a small town farm girl like myself could possibly be, seeing all of that history for myself, in person, when I approached the Vietnam Memorial (and later the Korean War Memorial), the “hush” was palpable. There is such a reverence, loss, deep emotion that hangs there. Everyone feels it. I knew there was a “book” there in which you can look up a soldier’s name, and locate the panel and line on which their names are carved. My father’s name, obviously, was not in that book. But I looked anyway. There was however, a soldier’s name that was almost identical to my father’s. I carefully noted the location, and made my way to that panel and name. I placed my memorial brochure under that young man’s name, and had another visitor take a photo of my hand and that name, and I still view that photo often.

        Why? Why would I do that? Because, that photograph reminds me, and now my children, how blessed and lucky we are to NOT know anyone whose name is on that wall. All of those young men and women DIED, and so many, many others suffered for the rest of their lives, for the cause of “freedom” and “liberty” and my father’s name could have been there too. Or my uncle’s, or god forbid in the future, my children’s or grandchildren’s names. Every time I see that photo, I THANK that young man and all of those whose names are carved with his. At one point I even contemplated trying to find his family, to thank them personally, but thought better of it over time.

        I took a group of highschool students to Washington DC a few years ago. I took them to the monuments, and I told them enough to make sure they approached with reverence, and then just watched them. I watched them touch the stone, see their own reflections in it, look up relatives and take pictures and rubbings. They were profoundly affected. Then I took them to the Korean War Memorial and encouraged them to “get close” to the statues. To look into those vacant, hollow eyes. To measure themselves against them…discover they are the same height, and close to the same ages as those haunted faces. To hold those faces in their own hands and “imagine” for a moment…They wept tears WITH me, and said some incredibly deep and mature things afterwards.

        The legacy of the brave, lives forever, among the living. We will never forget.

      • atheok – yes, the monument is chillingly powerful. The first time I visited, I had no idea how it would impact me – I am too young to have been in the VN war, although I did at the age of 18 sign up for selective service, like I was supposed to, and from that point got fearful every time some conflict arose (1983 Granada invasion onward).

        To anyone who has not visited the Vietnam Memorial, put it on your list, but be ready to be emotionally impacted by the sheer genius of its clever way of paying tribute to and memorializing the deceased from the VN war.

  6. Remember always that a lightning rod for emotions and publicity is useful – even mandatory at times – to vent and to channel off the excess charges and unwanted, unneeded and useless, but very high energy charges that do accumulate around the tallest target in the vicinity of a loud rolling noises and (need we say) thunderous but non-productive) noises.

    A lightning rod needs to be firmly grounded in the earth, and yet connected to but insulated from and separated from the house and the valuables stored within. A large, grounded and secure lightning rod permits excess energy to dissipate harmlessly into the dirt, worms, and debris underground. Where such energy needs to be released – safe from the valuables stored in the house above.

    Yet also remember that even the value of Ben Franklin’s lightning rod was disputed vitriolically and visciously in public by the consensus of the experts in the scientific world at the time! Installed and used in many cities after it was invented 250 years ago, they STILL argued about its effectiveness and value in the parlors and halls of the time!

  7. I sense overkill.
    However I feel that the members of the Cult of Calamitous Climate and similar emotional retards have been allowed to hog the discussion for far too long.
    So good work PopTech.
    That this character felt the need to anonymously attack WUWT, demands that someone expose him, just to see why he craves anonymity.

    The above expose of Mr Peter Miesler .. reveals a kind of sad malfunction..I am surprised PopTech did not end up laughing this poor sad sack off.

    I like the lists, with photos.
    When this hysteria collapses I hope there will be an archive.

  8. geez guys ….wake up..your playing right into his hand. For such a numskull you have awarded him special attention. Having been “called out ” that he is “unfair” and a worthless, non-jobholding, freeloading ignoramus nazi, I guess you think he’s been put in his place, and he’ll go away. Really ?

    Get a pair of balls and get in line…….behind Tim Ball, John Cristy, Steve McIntyre, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, etc., etc., etc. That would be the “Unfairness Line”. The line where the consequence of speaking openly and honestly has consequences. The line where people take that risk knowingly and don”t ask for sympathy as the temperature rises. The line where you really can’t be a “crybaby”.

    If you can’t stand the heat, stay on the sidelines and watch. Granted, it’s a nasty battle….as such, “No crybabies allowed”.

  9. I LOVE when a really good and well cited post here can be used in a cagw debate. Most I encounter will just dismiss whatever it is right off and call it a “denier blog”. So then I simply pull the same citations from the link, point out the link was cited from published sources and usually add another source for good measure. I happen to do my best to understand the arguments of the full range of cases people make on the issue. Some folks instantly seal themselves up if it doesn’t fit their current world view. This is not something those seeking truth do. Why does it seem like many of these folks WANT things to be bad and scary? It isnt just that they believe it, they see to want things to be horrible. Many I encounter give me this impression anyway.

  10. At some point, one will begin to feel sorry for the dead horse. …mmm not there quite yet.

    “And tell Merrill to swing away.”

    • I always feel sorry for the horse. About Viet Nam war and the American Vets; I was one of those people who thought that America was in over their heads and just did not know it. Perhaps a bit of hubris but really did not seem to know that Viet Nam had beat the Chinese to a stop several times in the past and was not a country configured for the sort of fighting that the American Army was best at. As to the men and women who served there[drafted] I have always felt that they got a raw deal compared to the vets of WWII. My father and two Uncles served in that war and thefollowup support was excellent, as was the stature of vets. I live in New Zealand and have for fifty plus years. A chilly little country with a warm and welcoming style. NZ is a long narrow country with NO wind breaks from the great pacific and always cold. We often find it hard to believe in global warming. Hence I am begining a serious research effort . GG

      • I was one of those people who thought that America was in over their heads and just did not know it. Perhaps a bit of hubris but really did not seem to know that Viet Nam had beat the Chinese to a stop several times in the past and was not a country configured for the sort of fighting that the American Army was best at.

        On the other hand, the Empire of Japan had taken over French Indochina and its dependent protectorates (presently Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) in 1941 without visible difficulty, and treated the region as a rear area subject to occupation and exploitation as they went on in the later years of the war to sustain operations in Burma and offensives against India (see the KohimaImphal campaigning in 1944).

        The U.S. military establishment might have been lulled by those notable Japanese successes as well as by the impression that the French – having proved themselves a weak reed in 1940 – had failed in the First Indochina War (1946-54) for similar reasons.

      • Yes there were a lot of other indicators to suggest that the Vietnamese were tough and smart. The really sad bit was that if the Americans had been open minded they could have had Ho. chi Minh as an ally ( as they are now). Thank you for your response. GG

      • “The really sad bit was that if the Americans had been open minded they could have had Ho. chi Minh as an ally ( as they are now). Thank you for your response. GG”

        “As an ally (as they are now)”??? Ho Chi Minh is dead. He has been since 1969. Americans could hardly have been open minded enough to convince the rest of Vietnam to defect from Chinese and Russian communism and stand with Ho Chi Minh. Or do you think the US has mind control powers we just failed to use then?

      • I lost my first reply I think dropped my ipad. Yes I knew HoChiMinh was dead,I was referring to the period when he was a student in Paris and made efforts to contact America s with a view to inlisting aid against the French. As to the allay bit US and Vietnamese restored diplomatic Relations rather quickly for two countries that had fought a long and bitter war. Relations seem to be very amicable at present . You know more as I assume you are living in the contiguous USA. GG

    • I don’t care if the cartoon gets removed, but I laughed out loud when I read “tell Merrill to swing away”. Our family says that ALL the time when someone vents about some injustice or another. “Swing away!”. Thanks for the smile Paul!

  11. Before we get too carried away with the “Nazi” references and insults:
    My father was drafted into the Latvian army in 1938.
    In 1940, the Russians invaded Latvia, and my father was dragooned into the Russian army.
    In 1941, the Germans invaded Latvia and my father defected to the German army and fought against the Russians.
    In 1945 he surrendered to the Americans, after having taken part in the defence of the bridge at Remargen.
    Also in 1945, due to his fluency in Latvian, Russian, German and English, he was drafted into the American army.
    In 1951he was discharged into the USA.
    So, is he a Nazi, a Commie, a Capitalist, a Saint or what?

    • William:

      Thankyou for your superb post about the history of your father in the 1930s to 1950s.
      You ask

      So, is he a Nazi, a Commie, a Capitalist, a Saint or what?

      Your account says your father was a man who did what was necessary to survive, and I trust you are proud of him because you owe your existence to his survival.

      Richard

      • totally agree. any nazi reference (especially of forebears) is totally inappropriate and loses you any argument. Anything said after that BS and I go ‘LA,LA La and want to punch someone in the face

      • Yep. Ditto “survivor”.

        I never have understood why an army would attempt to put “enemy soldiers” in it’s own ranks. I mean, I know it happens, but if I was the enemy soldier, I would use every opportunity to undermine and weaken the army I was being “forced” to fight for, even at the peril of my own life.

    • In 1945 he surrendered to the Americans, … So, is he a Nazi, a Commie, a Capitalist, a Saint or what?

      Smart; he was smart. You wanted to surrender to the Yanks or the Brits. You definitely didn’t want to risk being captured by the Soviets.

      • You definitely didn’t want to surrender to the British! Perhaps you are unaware of Nikolai Tolstoy’s book The Secret Betrayal. A secret agreement with Moscow from 1944 and confirmed at the 1945 Yalta conference, meant all Soviet citizens were to be repatriated without choice. This was a death sentence for many by execution as they were stripped of the new clothes the British had given them before they were hung from the trees. An English soldier who said his superior officer held a gun at his head thus forcing him to herd these men to their obvious and imminent death recalled his nightmares when telling me of this a couple of decades ago. Several jumped from the bridge they were to cross to drown in the icy winter waters rather than hang or be shot. I have also seen film footage of this taken by the British army since. It was shameful!

      • The Pompous Git says:
        January 31, 2016 at 12:41 pm

        … Perhaps you are unaware of Nikolai Tolstoy’s book The Secret Betrayal. …

        You are right, I was unaware of that book. That’s a pretty sickening bit of history.

        My comment was based on the experience of one of my professors, a German, who did manage to stay out of Soviet hands and did surrender to the Brits.

    • Your comment wasn’t “censored” Alex. It got caught in moderation because you used the “N” word. It got released because it was deemed appropriate by the moderators here after they got to, and read it. I’m sure they are reading a LOT of comments caught in moderation on this thread because of that word alone.

      “Any comment of nazis loses you the argument”

      Wrong again Alex. I can only assume that you are referring to, or attempting to refer to Godwin’s law. If that is in fact what you are doing, you’re doing that incorrectly as well.

      wiki-Godwin’s law

      “Godwin’s law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one’s opponent) with Naz1s – often referred to as “playing the H1tler card”.

      “there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Naz1s has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin’s law.”

      Alex, in this case, the man’s father actually WAS a German who DID fight for the real Naz1’s, so bringing it up IS relevant and has nothing to do with “winning or losing” anything.

  12. Both left and right websites and news sites ban people. I find this rather boring. One reason a poster of any sort posting anything contrary to the ideology of the web hosts is…they are annoyed if they are losing an argument.

    I will note that the handful of global warmists who show up here monopolize the conversations because the regulars here go nuts whenever anyone says anything contrary to what they say to each other.

    That is, we have a debate. BOTH sides get nasty and even stupid and whine and poke at each other because we like doing this and to fix this tendency in humans, most sites either have zero comments or let only one side have any say which makes them ECHO CHAMBERS.

    I hope this doesn’t happen here but history says, everyone will censor everything to keep any ideology afloat. Sad, I like debates.

    • I am assuming that there is some problem with wordpress. I would hate to think that there is some sort of censorship here based on opinion. This has not been my experience here in the past. I am not a contreversial person here (I think)

      • Alex-to put it plainly…the use of the word N…..a……z….1 (put an i there) causes any post in which it is used to go into moderation. So if your post contained the “n” word, it will take a moment to show up. Give the mods time today. Be patient. There are an inordinate number of posts using that word today.

        Do not call posts getting hung up in moderation as being “censored”. You’ll know if something is censored here when the mods tell you it cannot be posted OR your post shows up with a [snip] in it.

    • Alex on January 31, 2016 at 3:46 am

      – – – – – – – –

      Alex,

      It happens to me sometimes that my comments go into the WP nether regions due to something within the WP programming.

      They usually are eventually retrieved by mode[r]ators. I sometimes ask the mode[r]ators to look for my comments in the WP nether regions.

      John

      • Thanks John
        Not common for me, but then again , I don’t comment that often. I just took the positive approach and assumed it was some sort of glitch. It’s good that you confirmed that this stuff happens

        [Reply: if your comment doesn’t appear after a reasonable amount of time, say thirty minutes or so, post another one asking a mod to try and find it. ~mod]

    • Well, by your own admission, WUWT is very light on censorship and it lets all and sundry in. There are limits dictated by taste, some minimal requirement of relevancy to the topic, and the like, I’m sure you would agree. WUWT does it best! Indeed, the most fervent CAGW supporters have been invited to present here, but few take the challenge.

    • emsnews wrote:

      “I hope this doesn’t happen here but history says, everyone will censor everything to keep any ideology afloat.”

      Being skeptical is not an ideology.

      TA

    • emsnews-

      Did it ever occur to you that what you think, assume, believe might be influencing the way you “see” the things that happen here? The regulars here do not go “nuts” wherever anyone says anything contrary to what they say to each other. Nor am I “going nuts” right now by calling you out.

      This website allows more debate than any other forum I’ve ever been on. It’s annoying as crap sometimes, for both sides, but if WUWT banned every person who posts here that “the regulars” don’t agree with, you’d have been long gone. And yet, here you are.

      “That is, we have a debate. BOTH sides get nasty and even stupid and whine and poke at each other because we like doing this and to fix this tendency in humans, most sites either have zero comments or let only one side have any say which makes them ECHO CHAMBERS.”

      Wow. Nothing like declaring that “we all like” the exact same things to prove you aren’t actually a reasonable person. SOME people might “like” getting nasty, stupid, whining and poking at each other, but not all people do. Some people find it tedious, immature, illogical and ineffective if the goal is to be productive.

      Also, it is impossible to “fix this tendency in humans”. Certainly not allowing comments, or only letting one side post comments doesn’t “fix this tendency”. It just removes that tendency from the equation. No humans get “fixed” by it. And the nasty, stupid, whiney, poking ones simply go somewhere else and demonstrate their inferior, lazy, petulant characters in other places.

      WUWT can be, and is for many people, a veritable daily education in how to debate like a grown up, how to be logical and reasonable, and how to influence others in a positive way. But there’s always the oddball…ahem….that refuses to learn anything and just keeps on, keeping on.

  13. Good post, thanks for linking to poptech’s site.

    It is data points like this one — idiots trying to dispute the science on skeptical blogs by ad hominem and other underhanded tactics that almost convince me that we are winning. (that and the polls that show CAGW is low on American’s list of concerns)

    The thing I don’t understand is that the alarmists seem to always blame skeptics while it is Mother Nature who is kicking their pretty theories in the ass.

    ~ Mark

  14. Poptech’s piece is the kind of ill-considered outburst that gives online debate a bad name. It obviously gave the author a deal of personal satisfaction, but I seriously doubt whether he or any of his friends or followers would feel even slightly scorched by it. More likely they would feel their own sense of personal satisfaction for having got so far up Poptech’s nose that he took the time to write it. The reference to the father’s wartime record is particularly obnoxious.

      • Yep, he has a series of his exposés listed in the right side nav bar at his blog.

        It seems to me Poptech never forgets the source of something he disagrees with and once a person is labeled, he or she is labeled forever. I fully agree it’s important to remember peoples past beliefs and claims, but it’s more important to realize people change. We don’t start out perfect, it takes a little while to get there. :-)

        A good example is his post about Judith Curry. http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/05/truth-about-judith-curry.html

      • Thanks Rick. Fully agree about our lack of perfection; Lord knows I’ve made a fool of myself here on occasion! So, Peter Meisler is in good company with myself, Willis, Richard Courtney and others almost too numerous to mention.

      • Ric Werme-
        “I fully agree it’s important to remember peoples past beliefs and claims, but it’s more important to realize people change. We don’t start out perfect, it takes a little while to get there. :-)”

        People CAN change. People DO change. But not all people change into something better than what they were prior. Some people get worse and worse. Some people lose the ability to even see which direction they are changing in.

        I personally don’t care at ALL what Willis’s background is. I don’t always read his work, and when I do, I don’t always agree with it. But my interest and agreement or lack of it has ZERO to do with who he is or where he was or was not “trained”. But I do, REALLY care about whether or not Willis (or anyone else) can represent himself AS a person honestly and openly. How he responds to having FACTS about him revealed tells me more about his integrity than any piece of paper from a university ever possibly could.

        College degrees are banners that declare “This person spent this many years and a whole lot of money on a certain topic and we declare this person competent enough to pass the exams required to get this piece of paper.” They DO NOT reveal whether or not that person is honest, kind, wise, scrupulous, or trustworthy. People’s actions do that. All the time. And that counts a lot more with me than a piece of paper that cost someone years of their lives and a buttload of money to purchase.

    • Poptech can post whatever he wishes to. Just like Anthony can. Or you. Or I. Online debate gets a bad name because of the idiotic behavior exhibited by some of the people who often engage in those debates. Poptech is allowed to post something on his own website for his own personal satisfaction isn’t he? Or do you think that all personal opinions must be carved down to the most bare facts so they pass some kind of political correctness test that YOU approve of as “well considered”? You are no more qualified or “logical” in your opinion of Poptech than you think his opinion of Miesler is!

      But if Poptech starts stalking you online and harassing you day in and day out, you let us know.

  15. Pop tech has an interesting site but I can’t comment there because his registration requires I be a member of one or more of a variety of social media (?) or whatever they are, which I’m not. Perhaps he will see this comment and figure out that you can’t pigeonhole everyone in the array of possibilities he presents. He might miss out on more than a few (eccentric[?]; perhaps not belonging to clubby things qualifies me these days) skeptics (he doesn’t get the number of comments he should probably for this reason). I never in my life joined any fraternities, service clubs, secret societies and the like. Disclaimer, I have a skype account with three contacts on it and I use a pseudonym because I use it for convenience and economy but don’t want to be ‘out there’, although I use my real name in blogs, of which I respond on only a few.

    • Gary Pearse on January 31, 2016 at 7:23 am

      – – – – – – – –

      Gary Pearce,

      We should ask poptech why he introduced the requirement to login with a ‘social media’ account to comment at his site.

      Also, Judith Curry a while ago changed to Climate Etch commenters needing to sign in using a Twitter or Facebook or WordPress (or maybe a personal website) in order to comment.

      If I recall correctly, I think the reason she did that was to mitigate against some unscrupulous people commenting by using regular commenter’s screen names.

      John

    • Wolfho –

      I do not see where Poptech said anything derogatory about the fact that Pete filed for divorce in 2012.

      It happens, it is public record.

      Your comment somewhat appears, at least to me, that you find the knowledge that someone is divorced implies something negative about that person.

      On the other hand, don’t some claim that “climate change” causes divorces? If so, Pete is simply “walking the walk”, so to speak.

    • Because everyone only sees a small fraction of the the amount of abuse Anthony takes running this website. I experience a mere fraction of the insanity he is harassed with on a daily basis.

      After Peter called me “maliciously ignorant”, a “paranoid wack job”, “insane, stupid and evil”, a “resource of lies and tidbits of malicious fraud” and accused me of “deliberately deceiving people” I lost all sympathy for him and have no regrets.

      • Poptech, it makes me sad that you feel the need to defend anything you said on your own personal website for your own personal reasons. The fact that Anthony posted it here, indicates that Anthony also gets some personal satisfaction out of the “outting” of this particular little weasel of a man. GOOD. Anthony deserves to smile once in a while and see the other side get kicked in the …..well you know.

        WUWT has a lot of posters who are very reasonable and logical, and who are good at heart. Even people like that make mistakes once in a while, and it can and should be overlooked. But because it tries not to “over-moderate”, that also means the comment threshold is …er….lower rather than higher. (grin) I know you already know that, just trying to hold up a sign of sorts for those who might not.

        (P.S. the little weasel in me was both delighted and a tad frightened, at the same time, at the sharpness of your weapon. lol)

    • Wolfho,
      Anthony can promote anything and anyone HE wants to. It’s HIS blog. Not yours. Not “ours”. He doesn’t have to answer to anyone. Your personal opinion is allowed here, and clearly you don’t like this article/thread. Noted.

    • It is not impossible. I have written here before about a seminar at Bozeman, Montana in the fall of 1974, most likely, where a visiting physicist spoke, favorably, about all of the CAGW belief system. In fact, he maintained it would be possible to transfer all of the water on Earth into the atmosphere (he was probably referring to a runaway greenhouse effect). Gilbert Plass’ articles on burning fossil fuels and the concommitant warming of cities in Northern Europe were from 1950s era Scientific American articles. So, this has all been around for a long time–just not quite the obsession it has become at present.

    • [This may repeat an earlier post that vanished]

      Possibly he did learn about global warming in high school. I have written here before about a very strange seminar at Bozeman, Montana in the fall of 1974, most likely, delivered by a physicist who summarized, favorably in his telling, of all the CAGW beliefs. Also, Gilbert Plass’ article in Scientific American Magazine about the burning of fossil fuels and the concomitant warming of northern Europe was from 1959, I think. This worry and belief system has been around for quite some time.

  16. Uh….I thought mankind was going to freeze to death in 1973? At least that’s what my 9th grade World Science teacher was preaching.

    • Both (typo – Bother) views were around. The “we’re all gonna freeze” realization was based on some new work and hence getting a fair amount of attention in the popular press, including science magazines like Science News.

      Once Keeling published his CO2 paper from Mauna Loa, then everyone stormed the warming bandwagon.

    • Stephen Schneider who was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment one of the Ice Age Scare of the 1970s foremost advocates.

      Schneider published a book titled “The Genesis Strategy” at this time, warning of the coming glaciation, and wrote glowing a testimonial on the back cover of a popular `Ice Age’ book of the time (Lowell Ponte’s The Cooling, Prentice Hall, N.J., USA, 1976), in which the Ponte claimed that the cooling from 1940 to the 1970s was but the precursor to the main event – the coming Ice Age.

      Schneider warned of the impending Ice Age in Schneider S. & Rasool S., Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141

      So yes, you are correct. There was a full-on global cooling scare in the 1970s. Schneider continued in this vein until the warming commenced in the 1980s when he did a volte face and promoted Thermageddon instead.

    • The Pompous Git:

      You say

      So yes, you are correct. There was a full-on global cooling scare in the 1970s. Schneider continued in this vein until the warming commenced in the 1980s when he did a volte face and promoted Thermageddon instead.

      His behaviour which you report was typical.

      Global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) fell from ~1940 to ~1970. This global cooling was used as justification by several activists for attempting to create a global cooling scare in the 1970s. The attempt failed because the cooling had ceased so ‘global cooling’ did not become the successor scare to ‘acid rain’.

      Global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) rose from ~1970 to ~2000. By 1980 this global warming had removed the possibility of a global cooling scare but was used as justification by several activists for attempting to create a global warming scare. The global warming scare ‘took off’ because it obtained political support from Margaret Thatcher who elevated it to become a major international issue.

      The attempted global warming scare had ‘prepared the ground’ for the global warming scare and was morphed into the global warming scare.

      Before ~1980 activists claimed emissions of SO2 from power stations were causing global cooling that could result in global catastrophe.
      That claim was morphed.
      After ~1980 activists claimed emissions of CO2 from power stations were causing global warming that could result in global catastrophe.
      The cooling scare lacked political support so failed. But the warming scare obtained political support so became a major international concern.

      Richard

  17. Michael Jankowski / poptech,

    Perhaps Meisler meant he learned about global cooling in high school because about that time the media was starting to ramp up hype on the fear we could be going into an imminent ice age.

    But even global cooling (imminent ice age) is unlikely to be already in the curricula of a high school so soon at the just the beginning of the media focus on it.

    John

  18. Thanks, Anthony, for all the good work you have done and continue to do.
    I come to Watts Up With That? to learn, if I have learned anything, it would be for you, the commenters and the moderators.

  19. My children came home from school in the late 70’s saying that if we didn’t stop using
    hydrocarbons, we were going into another ice age.

    I did my first reading on climate and concluded, if you believe in cycles repeating,
    and I do, that the next major climate change would indeed be another ice age.

    I wish i believed that burning hydrocarbons would change that.

  20. “Learned about global warming in the 70s”? I remember the conversation being more about global cooling back then. Burlingame schools must have had the Internet at least 15-years before the rest of us!

  21. Knowing first -hand the lengths stalkers will go to in order to reach their perceived targets is the main reason I post with a pseudonym.
    Some become very dangerous, presenting dangers far worse than “climate change”.
    It is very necessary to expose them and their deeds.
    You have done us a service, Poptech.

  22. Did anyone else read Christopher Booker’s article in today’s Sunday Telegraph about the tidal wave of celebration and gloating among the warmists across their blogs and over twitter on the recent sad death of Professor Bob Carter. A really revealing insight into the mentality of these people and the spittle flecked hatred that they feel for anyone who dares to question their religion.
    Don’t be deterred by these creeps Anthony – the level of abuse is an indicator of how frequently you are hitting the bullseye!

  23. Poptech is [trimmed]. Look at his slimy attempted character assassinations of Judith Curry, myself, and others whose scientific work he chances to disagree with.

    He is obviously not competent enough to find errors in my work or the work of others, or he would do so. To cover up his inability, he resorts to his stock in trade—character assassinations and ad hominems. He’ll stoop so low as to bring up someone’s divorce, or their education, or the fact that their father was drafted, to try to push his line of nasty bullshit.

    He hasn’t seemed to notice that none of those things affect a person’s ability to do science … but then science and Poptech’s point do not exist in the same universe—his point is to try to blacken peoples’ names by the most scurrilous means possible.

    I have no idea why Anthony is promoting this sleazebag, but count me out. I have no use for him at all, and were it not for the fact that this is a family blog, I’d tell you what I really think of him.

    w.

    • It is not possible to assassinate someone’s character using facts.

      I am not surprised you would misrepresent my argument with your fanboys, which was about whether you were a “scientist” or not. Resorting to strawman arguments that I disagreed with Judith Curry’s and you “scientific work” is disingenuous.

      It what you stated was true then papers from yourself and Dr. Curry’s would not appear on my list:

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

      Yet they do.

      • “fanboys”…….. really ??
        This is the internet, it’s dog eat dog, there is no such thing as a “fanboy”.

      • Poptech, although I think that perhaps your article on Judith Curry could use an update after her “change of heart” per se, all I see on your site about her and Willis are facts.

        I don’t know why Willis would be upset at having his professional credentials known. He’s a smart, gifted man in many things and his work will speak for itself, regardless of whether or not some university handed him a shiny stamped certificate or not. Some of the greatest men and women I’ve ever known were not college graduates. But they also were not ashamed that they weren’t either. None of them would allow someone to represent them as something that they were not, because their integrity meant more to them than anyone else’s accolades or insults.

      • u.k(us) on January 31, 2016 at 4:36 pm

        – – – – – – – –

        u.k(us),

        I think you are underestimating the internet and fandom / fanboyism / fangirlism. There are orders of magnitude more fandom / fanboyism / fangirlism since the internet compared to before. N’est ce pas?

        There are literally thousands of fan websites on the internet.

        Does Willis have fans at WUWT? I could easily do a word search at WUWT where commenters said they were fans of Willis. So, prima fascia, yes he has fans. Although I think a more accurate term is followers; it is more neutral and not emotionally charged.

        I do not think poptech was inaccurate in a very basic sense wrt using the term fanboy.

        John

      • @ John Whitman,
        That was a well-fashioned comment.
        I was only trying to highlight the obviously derogatory usage of the term “fanboys”.

      • Aphan, the article on Curry was done after her “change of heart” to shed light on her background since she was still using the term “denier” at the time. I continue to remain skeptical of her sincerity.

        Since my argument was against Willis being considered a scientist, he is obsessed with losing credibility and resorts to strawman arguments. Some of his fanboys continue to defend that nonsense to this day. I just made sure anyone else could be properly informed.

      • scientist –
        (British Dictionary definitions:)
        noun
        1. a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods
        (dictionary.com)

        “When I use the word scientist” said Humpty Dumpty in a proudly authoritarian tone, “it means those people assigned badges of merit by the correct authorities, neither more nor less.”

        “But can you really make cannabis cause brain damage just by publishing 150 papers by the correct authorities?” asked Alice.

        “Why not?” replied Humpty-Dumpty rhetorically. “It worked for global warming!”

      • Khwarizmi, either certain titles hold a meaning in society or they are meaningless. If anyone can be considered a “scientist” then the title is worthless. Any serious study on the issue would not include Willis’s credentials as meeting the criteria necessary to use the title, thankfully.

        I have a theory on those who ignore medically reproducible studies on the negative effects of marijuana…

  24. Anthony, If you require a very large English body guard (or two) then just send me a mail. I have them in all colours, sexes and sizes.

    • 3×2 says:
      January 31, 2016 at 4:30 pm

      – – – – – – –

      3×2,

      An Englishman or Englishlady on protection surveillance in Chico? : )

      As decoy / distraction for real protection surveillance maybe.

      John

  25. From HotWhopper… “Searching back a few years you’ll find PopTech’s Andrew K. angrily denying claims that he is Andrew Khan”

    I truly am the puppet master.

  26. “They serve as prime examples as the sort of ridiculously hateful rhetoric that permeates the alarmist side of the debate.”

    I’d have said, ‘constitutes,’ rather than ‘permeates,’ but otherwise agree.

  27. 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.

      • Yes Poptech, cite as defense of your pathetic attempt to use a Nazi smear on someone my post pointing out Tim Ball tried to smear tons of people as Nazi-like on this site, but did such a bad job of it he painted himself in the role of Hitler for his analogy. I’m sure that’ll convince people I’m a hypocrite because if they don’t actually read any part of the post, it can sound like I am.

      • You’re not a hypocrite. You just totally and completely took Tim Ball’s points out of context AND THEN stated outright that “he painted himself in the role of Hitler for his analogy.” In writing. Here, just now. Again. That just makes you irrational and/or indicates a reading comprehension problem. All poptech did was say that it was IRONIC that someone who regularly sides with people that use the term “denier” had a father who actually fought for the Naz1party. You also took THAT completely out of context in order to attack him too. At least you are consistent in your madness.

    • How is someone smeared for having a divorce? How is brain damage not a serious issue? Shouldn’t we have sympathy for the mentally challenged? So Peter’s father did not fight for the Nazis? Are you the PC police?

  28. Poptech on January 31, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    “It is not possible to assassinate someone’s character with facts.”

    Poptech (or poptech),

    I agree; with the following caveat, quid pro quo, proviso and sine quo non.

    Subject to the reasonable validation of the fundamental concepts of what objective vs subjective fact is; you can’t avoid epistemology and metaphysics, ever.

    I think you have coldly, absolutely cryogenically, nailed it .. . .. . . yet we need to do due epistemological and metaphysical diligence ….

    John

  29. Poptech January 31, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Not at all, I think that anyone who wishes to get their climate science from a brain-damaged stoner / framing carpenter with a high school diploma should be free to do so.

    You can see why I called this guy pond scum …

    Poptech, despite my shortcomings, my science is good enough for Nature magazine to peer review it and publish it. As a result, I couldn’t care less if my research doesn’t fit the pathological fantasies of some random anonymous internet popup like yourself.

    In addition, your response could be the poster child for an ad-hominem attack. Since you are unable to find a single thing wrong with my science, instead you attacks my history, my education, my supposed mental shortcomings, and my education … anything but my science.

    Classy. Real classy.

    Someday, Poptech, you may actually notice that it doesn’t matter if a scientists never changes his boxer shorts in his entire lifetime, or if he has bad breath, or his day job is cleaning toilets, or he didn’t go to Oxford.

    ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHETHER HIS SCIENCE IS SOLID OR NOT.

    Wake up and smell the coffee, Poptech. You are destroying your reputation with your foolish claims. Instead of bitching and whining about people who are actually doing scientific research, how about you try doing some yourself? If you don’t like my scientific claims, don’t waste your time claiming I’m guilty of mopery on the skyways. That only makes you look like a petulant creep.

    Instead, QUOTE WHAT I SAID AND SHOW ME WHERE I’M WRONG. That’s how you can gain back the respect that you are throwing away by your pathetic attempt to blacken peoples’ names.

    Or, you could just keep bitching and whining and raising meaningless personal objection … your choice.

    w.

    • “Not at all, I think that anyone who wishes to get their climate science from a brain-damaged stoner / framing carpenter with a high school diploma should be free to do so.”

      Willis, calm down. He was talking about Peter Miesler NOT YOU!!! Good grief!

      “As a result, I couldn’t care less if my research doesn’t fit the pathological fantasies of some random anonymous internet popup like yourself. ”

      Then what the crap are you doing here calling him all kinds of names he never called you? Seems like you DO care Willis.

      “Since you are unable to find a single thing wrong with my science, instead you attacks my history, my education, my supposed mental shortcomings, and my education … anything but my science.”

      I am unaware of anything he said that attacks your science. He attacked the lack of integrity shown by you when you allow others to declare that you are trained in ways you are not! Not only allowing that to happen, without correcting it, but then coming in here and kicking and screaming even though you apparently “couldn’t care less” is making YOU “look like a petulant creep.”

      “Instead, QUOTE WHAT I SAID AND SHOW ME WHERE I’M WRONG. That’s how you can gain back the respect that you are throwing away by your pathetic attempt to blacken peoples’ names.”

      Respect is EARNED Willis, it is not ASSUMED. Neither one of you gets to determine how much other people respect, or do not respect you! So, how about you start by acting in the manner you demand? Show us where anything Poptech said about your past is wrong. Are you ashamed of your past? You have no reason to be! How about admitting openly, and apologizing, if you in fact made false claims about yourself, or allowed other people to print such without trying to fix it? THAT is the mark of someone respectable. If you can’t act in a more respectable manner than you are accusing him of, you don’t deserve anyone’s respect either.

      My crap. I raised 2 teenaged girls that were 14 months apart and as vicious and hormonal as they often were, they both would have rather died than act like this in public, much less in print! And they certainly have never argued like this since they became adults!

      • Aphan, clearly you cannot read. A few of the Poptick’s quotes re Willis:

        You were never employed as a “computer modeller” in the scientific sense. You just keep inventing new titles to apply to yourself and it misleadingly distorts your actual experience.
        Willis is vaguely published but is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
        I notified the Daily Telegraph that Willis is not an computer modeller
        I notified James Delingpole that Willis is not an scientist,
        I notified the Right Side News that Willis is not an engineer,
        I notified the Daily Telegraph that Willis is not an computer modeller,
        Et cetera…

      • Git, Aphan can read very well and is 100% on target. Integrity matters and I have never seen for example Anthony or Steve McIntyre misrepresent themselves or knowingly allow themselves to be misrepresented like Willis has. I see nothing wrong with anything you quoted.

    • Willis, first of all that comment was directed at Peter, second you keep making the same strawman argument, as I have yet to even discuss your “science”. My argument I was having with your fanboys was whether you should hold the title of “scientist”. I do not and supported it with extensive evidence.

      I am neutral on your published papers, which is why I included them on my list so people can read them and make up their own minds about them.

  30. One last thing. Frankly Anthony I’m appalled and disappointed that you would promote a noisome little oink like Poptick. I thought rather more of you than that. Toodle pip and have fun with your “friend”. But watch your back. His sort are best kept at a distance.

    Willis, if you find somewhere more salubrious to post, I hope to find you and more interesting discussion of science there. So long and thanks for all the fish(y stories) :-)

    • Ahem, TPG-the QUOTE used by Willis in his last post was directed at Peter Miesler specifically, in this thread. And everything you posted in your quote (I assume) are titles that Willis either gave himself or allowed others to apply to him that DO misleadingly distort his actual experience.

      At least your nickname was appropriate. I appreciate that.

    • I do not believe Anthony considers me a friend, as I do not know him well enough so have no fear. I can personally attest that he has been nothing but diplomatic with me, a true professional. Something that cannot be said for those that viciously attack him.

  31. I understand some people are upset. I get it.

    Before passing judgment on what I should or should [not] do, what I should or should not link to, and what I should or should not say, each of you should walk a mile in my shoes and endure what I have to endure every day at the hands of faceless cowards.

    With that, I’m closing the thread, as it’s turned into a lot of noise.

    • So, you close the thread on Jan 31, but there are still comments from Feb 01? My comments are not dated with my local time, so that can’t be the reason. One reason I can think of is that the comments from Feb 01 were in moderation but made before the thread was closed. Is it that?

      If so, I do wonder why a comment like https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/30/another-one-of-my-blog-spawn-goes-up-in-flames/#comment-2134589 would be in moderation? Confused…

      Or is the thread not actually closed (will find out soon, I guess), or do some commenters have special privileges?

      [somehow the thread got re-enabled -mod]

Comments are closed.