Monday, February 06, 2017

Anthony Watts Does a Steve Bannon

Anyone who asks too many inconvenient questions at WUWT gets banned or put on moderation. The latest to provoke Watts' frustration is Nick Stokes, :


9 comments:

David in Cal said...

I would appreciate an analysis of Bates's claims by someone with expertise in the handling of temperture data. As I understand it, Bates made some serious accusations:
-- failing to follow some procedures for validating data, in order to publish a certain result, timed to influence policy decisions at a particular meeting
-- getting a wrong conclusion, because the data wasn't correct
-- failing to save all original data, either through negligence or in order to cover up prior mishandling of the data

My understanding of Bates's claim may be wrong. And, Bates certainly may be wrong, for all I know. The skeptic blogs are giving this a lot of prominence. I'd love to see a diuscussion by someone with expertise who isn't on the skeptics' side.

Tom Dayton said...

David in Cal: see Eli's excellent summary, and comments by me and John Mashey:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/02/boiling-bates-down.html?m=1

See also Eli's previous post: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-speed-of-entropy.html?m=1

JoeT said...

Go read the the NYT article posted here. That will give you links to the articles by climatologists Peter Thorne (misidentified as John Thorne for some bizarre reason) and Zeke Hausfather as well as E&E News.

Not linked to by the NYT but also worth reading is the the Climate Feedback article posted here and the ars technica article

David Appell said...

To me it looks like the usual much ado about nothing. Science magazine approved Karl et al data and methodology. Hausfather et al just verified it in a publication in Science advances and early January.

Dano said...

It's a lot ado about another disinformation campaign that's being trotted out.

That is: more talking points by 10 politicians to foam about when they are arguing EPA and NASA funding needs to be slashed. Another climategate ruse.

Best,

D

Victor Venema said...

That comment threat is so so sad. After Watt's example, everyone is trashing Nick for providing real information and pledging allegiance never to be influenced by reality. Someone must help these poor people. Imagine dying in such a state.

On the internet it is not possible to have a meaningful conversation with them, but maybe it is possible in real life? One of ways to bring European countries together were EU exchange programs for young people.

magmacc said...

"EU exchange programs for young people" -- Victor

Of course there's no practical way to test this, but I'd bet €100 that the youngest decile of WUWT readers and commenters are between 40 and 50 years of age.
Magma

Harry Twinotter said...

I agree with Danno.

As for Watts. No surprises there. I think he is a slimy little toad. He demonstrated to me he was a liar a long time ago.

JoeT said...

Good summary just came out today in Science How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a high-profile warming pause study