The reason for my fraternal support is simple: the Watts Up With That crowd took displeasure at a post, since corrected, suggesting that Anthony Watts was a bit on the mendacious side. Currently the article is entitled: ANTHONY WATTS: IT IS NECESSARY TO USE THE CORRECT SEA-ICE GRAPHS ON WUWT TO AVOID MISLEADING THE PUBLIC but it has evolved over the course of the day and the comments reflect this.
Let's sample a few:
So, not putting a name to your work is pretty weak. Like Abzats and his fantasy on peer review. And John Cook's [of SkepticalScience.com] boyfriend - pretty cheap that one.
Let's remember that sock puppers are banned at WUWT, except when they are Dave Stealey, aka Smokey.
|Possibly Dave Stealey, but who can say?|
Let's be very charitable and say that no one ever lies on WUWT. Economical with the truth, perhaps, but not lying. We never did hear what happened to the Heartland delegation in China. Presumably the Chinese stood them up. But when mistakes are pointed out, and they are repeated, it is difficult not to call it lying. It is typical denier behaviour - to ignore the truth, to bury your head in the sand, to put your fingers in your ear and go "la, la, la" - definitely not to admit the mistake unless you can help it. Disappear the post down the memory hole, like one on Greenland ice a few week's back.
Ignoring Worrall's tautology, there is a sweet irony here. Challenging the misinformation at WUWT does not meet with a charitable reception. It meets with insults, snide comments and more. Willard has named and shamed some who have had the temerity to claim that black is black and white is white, unlike our denier friends who abuse science and maths to further their own ends, whatever they might be. Watts and his cronies are occasionally very malicious. I've been down that line and I shall not bother again.
A use of the D word that doesn't get snipped:
Once again, the irony is overpowering. Deniers cling to their cherished pseudofacts for as long as they possibly can, repeating the claims long after they have been debunked or making weak claims about peer review. And I thought the word denier was banned at WUWT.
Watts certainly doesn't snip comments of a conspiracist nature and there are plenty of accusations flying around on WUWT about fraud and conspiracy amongst climate scientists so it is hard to deny that accusation, even if it is true. A simple way to avoid it would be for Watts and his moderators to challenge any conspiracy comments but they do not.
Finally, take this, brother, may it serve you well.