Search This Blog

Sunday, August 5, 2012

What got me snipped from is a website that serves as one of the habitats of deniers of anthropogenic climate change. The website is maintained by Anthony Watts. Misrepresentation of climate science, and personal attacks like defaming, smearing, and libelous accusation of fraud and conspiracy against climate scientists are common. Criticism of such a practice on the blog is not liked as much, and one gets easily snipped by the moderators for such criticism, particularly if the host is criticized.
Thus, I decided to document comments that got snipped. I don't want to have written them for nothing.

Following comment that I submitted was snipped from the thread "Watts et al paper 2nd discussion thread" (with some typos corrected):

----- snip

"kadaka (KD Knoebel):

One full week after the last comment, you tried to slip in The Last Word

How this sounds. I "tried to slip". Like I did something in an secretive way through some backdoor.

Yes, I wrote my comment a week after the previous comment. I hadn't seen the article before. What's the problem? Is there a statue of limitation with respect to the time passed after which a misrepresentation of the results from scientific studies and personal attacks on climate scientists can't be rebutted anymore in a comment?

using an insulting tone from the start:

In the following, you quote some statements as examples, which I made. I just don't see how most of the statements could be reasonably interpreted as "insulting and spiteful".

Let's look at them:

Anthony Watts misleads the audience already in the title of his article:

I stated a fact. I provided an explanation for what the misrepresentation was.

And most of the devote followers here don’t notice or don’t care about being misled. They just want to get confirmed their preconceived views.

In the first sentence, I stated a fact again. If you and Anthony Watts feel insulted by those statements, I can only conclude that you two feel insulted by facts.

The second sentence is my explanation for the behavior of the crowd here. Nothing insulting in the statement.

Although I don’t really understand why the fake skeptics crowd, except the ones who dismiss tree ring proxies altogether, is so excited about this study.

The explanation for the statement followed. I see, though, that there may be people who could feel insulted by my use of the word "fake skeptic", since many here see themselves as part of a heroic resistance against some global and omnipotent evil conspiracy. But that's how I see it. I can't accept the majority here as true skeptics, because the majority doesn't use arguments and approaches true skeptics would use, if they didn't scientifically agree with results from research presented by scientists. Also, no one should expect that my comments here are cheerful after climate scientists like me have been defamed, smeared, insulted, accused of being liars and fraudsters again and again, in thread after thread, like in the mentioned one, often after Anthony Watts has provided the lead, and then in the trail of comments in his echo chamber.

These are the kind of personal, inciting statements, which don’t belong in a scientific argument.

Is this an insulting statement? I don't think so.

But this here is just an opinion blog. Anthony Watts doesn’t do any science. Thus, personal attacks against scientists are allowed.

The real science is done at other venues. It's not done in opinion blogs like this one, where no standards are mandated regarding methodological approach, logic, evidence, or proof of sources. One could try to make an effort to uphold standards of a scientific discussion also in an opinion blog, though, to improve the quality of the blog. But such a thing is not done here by Anthony Watts. He doesn't uphold these standards for himself, and the comment section is even worse."

----- snip

Another comment by me in which I challenged Anthony Watts regarding assertions in another thread he made without providing evidence got snipped as well, from an allegedly "Open Thread". Here it is:

----- snip

I'm still waiting for Anthony Watts to provide the evidence for following assertions, he boldly stated in

Jim Hansen and his sponsor actually did turn the thermostat up in June 1988:

This transcript excerpt is from PBS series Frontline which aired a special in April 2007. Here he admits his stagecraft in his own words:

In the following video, no word by Hansen or evidence of his involvement could be found.

2. directed at me:
The only circular reasoning is yours, courtesy of the taxpayers of the USA.

The surface network is a mess, and by extension so is GISTEMP.

----- snip

Update, Monday Aug 20, 2012: A very ugly smear by Anthony Watts against my person has been brought to my attention by arch in a comment below. Mr. Watts insinuated publicly on his blog that I somehow bear personal responsibility for the tragic passing of Robert E. Phelan, one of the WUWT moderators. The ethics of such a personal attack are discussed here.


  1. I understand that you are frustrated by the response to your comments on WUWT, but I'd just have to say you must be the latest in a long line of people who've experienced the same. Your problem is hoping against hope for WUWT to be inhabited by rational people responding rationally to your rational comments. It just ain't so. I've seen good people over the years persisting politely for so long (R.Gates is a name that comes to mind, but there have been many others) against the most pathetically inane comination of intellectual drivel and kindergarten-level abuse, that I've been absolutely amazed by their patience, but I think they're completely wasting their time if their desire is to convert these denizens of a site set up to propagate disinformation. They're preaching to a bunch of old, white, comfortably well off, western men who have no interest in knowing anything except what makes them keep feeling comfortable, and they (the rational ones) eventually give up because they can never make any progress. It's as close to head against brick wall as you could ever get. I'd suggest that the percentage of rational people commenting is only ever about 1 or 2%. So if I were you, I'd forget trying to communicate directly on WUWT, and be kind to your blood pressure instead. How about just doing the occasional notes here on what's on your mind. (And moderate the comments. Don't let the crap through. There's nothing worse for someone trying to get a better insight into the state of play than having to skip past all the clowns' mindlessness to find the gold.)

  2. You are not alone in your frustrations with trying to bring science and sensibility to a site that caters to neither. You fell afoul of the unwritten rule of moderation there never to (possibly) insinuate anything against any of the WUWT primaries, while extreme latitude is granted the Believers (and of course Watts himself) to insinuate whatever they may please.

    WattsUWT thrives on insinuation. He uses it daily in his postings, (as do his Believers) and his and his mods use it to censure anyone who disagrees.

    What do you think would happen to your post if you mentioned in it that perhaps working for Watts might have in any way contributed to the untimely passing of one of his moderators?

    Dr.Perwitz, Thank you for your efforts to correct misconceptions and lies at WUWT. Unfortunately your experience there is far from unique. Unless you are of very strong constitution or want to raise your anxiety and “bitterness towards the human race” levels, I suggest you give up trying to post anything relevant there. Now that they have your number (and ID and Email address and have seen fit to post it) not only are your posts unlikely to see the light of day, if they do you and your employer are likely to receive gratuitous hatred.

    IMHO R. Gates (and several others - as mentioned previously) deserve sainthood for not allowing themselves to be baited by either the regulars or by Watts and for playing the game with the equivalent of both hands tied behind their backs. (Rhetoric/propaganda value is valued over scientific fact).

    HTH, arch

  3. arch and anonymous,

    thanks for your comments. Please don't assume that I write my comments on WUWT to actually convince anyone to whom I reply or any of the other devote followers of Anthony Watts. You have to take into consideration, though, that there is probably a much larger passive audience, including random lurkers present. And if there are many who read what is posted on WUWT, I think it's a good thing, if there are some opposing voices who do not just let all the misrepresentation of science and other crap stand there without any refutation. And if it is just for the records.

    arch, thanks for pointing me to the statements by Watts where he insinuates a responsibility of my person, because I set up this blog here, for the tragic passing of WUWT moderator Bob Phelan. I hadn't seen this before. This attack on me by Watts is just very low, insane and outrageous. I just can speculate what made him doing this.

    1. You are welcome. I debated about it as it is so distasteful. I owe a hat tip to Bob Dekker @ Tamino’s.


    2. Thank you for posting I too have been banned, outed (place of work exposed)

      Like you I believe that convincing others in his band is not important. But it is ESSENTIAL that other points of view, corrections, and true data is available to casual passers-by.
      So if possible please keep posting
      Thank you