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.
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
It is to control spam, as I do not have a moderation staff.
Poptech,
Thanks for the answer.
John
Poptech takes things too far. Bringing up divorces? why are you promoting this Anthony?
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.
Harsh, but fair. I’m beginning to warm to him.
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.
Heh, I found that interesting as well.
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.
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.
http://wermenh.com/climate/scinews.jpg
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
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
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
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.
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.
Well done Poptech.
“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!
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.
And why do you think that Poptech’s “outing” of adversaries is any different to stalking?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2016/01/the-truth-about-whatsupwiththatwatts-et.html?m=1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/
http://www.populartechnology.net/2015/01/who-is-and-then-theres-physics.html?m=1
Wagen, because doxing is not stalking since the information is publicly available.
Poptech, sometimes you have to define the big words for Wagen. If you have dolls, that works even better. (yes….horrific snark tag)
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!
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.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/
So, are you returning to reality-based assessments? I would welcome that.
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.
Yes, “fanboys” and Willis has them.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/fanboy
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
@ur momisugly 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.
Some people just don’t know when to quit.
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…
It doesn’t take much imagination to know that!
+100
Well it’s all in the Game of Climastrology.
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.
Well colour me intrigued! Do they have to be body guards or I can I order one to read outloud to me all day? 🙂
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
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.
Oh, (snicker)…you might very well be a puppet master…I have no idea. But if there is anyone on the face of the planet that has something up her…..ahem…that moves her mouth for her….it is a certain harpy of a woman who runs a certain whopper of a website.
Her real username should be “Sue” as in lawsuit.
if you don’t put them on an encyclopediadramatica page, you’re not really serious about max lulz
😉
gnomish on January 31, 2016 at 5:14 pm
– – – – – – – –
gnomish,
Disclaimer – I had to look up lulz.
John
oh- let me help moar!
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Lulz
“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.
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.
God, the typos in that comment are embarrassing. Please excuse the lack of proof-reading. As you can see, I was not exactly worried about the niceties of the situation when I wrote the above comment.
Good writing gets read, poor writing not so much.
Most of us just ignore what you write anyway Brandon S, so worrying about your typos isn’t necessary.
From Brandon’s Blog: “TIM BALL IS HITLER
You cannot make this stuff up.
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.
Brandon, did Peter’s father fight for the Nazis?
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?
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
Poptech January 31, 2016 at 4:02 pm
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.
poptech,
Your coldness paid off.
John
Heh.
“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:
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.
I’m out of here. For some reason I feel dirty. Not the place I remember at all; more like a toilet that hasn’t been cleaned for a long time…
Throwing temper tantrums is not how you win an argument.
Don’t worry, you were dirty long before you got here.
You won’t be missed.
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.
Yo, Git,
Don’t go away. I for one enjoy your comments. Always have.
Seconded!
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.
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 http://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]
Maybe it’s because Californy was so far ahead of the “curve” (like Stalinist Russia)…..