Watts & Co Misuse of Blogs

"THEY" talk about corruption of peer review
"THEY" talk about climate scientists forcing publication editors to resign.
"THEY" find it quite ok trying to destroy a scientists reputation because they disagree with his results - DESPICABLE, TWO-FACED ... etc. etc.
From CA
  • Anthony Watts
    Posted Sep 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Reply
    for those that are keeping track, and wish to register a complaint on the statistical methodology being faulty (not to mention the sampling) you can contact:
    Professor Robyn Owens
    Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)
    The University of Western Australia, M460
    35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009
    [full phone email details were included here]
    • Posted Sep 22, 2012 at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Reply
      Your comment is awaiting moderation. well done watts trial by blog is an ideal way to improve science
    • HAS
      Posted Sep 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Reply
      Another way in is through the funding agency. L. is part funded through a Discovery Australia Linkage Project LP120100224 “Creating a climate for change: from cognition to consensus” (you can find details of the Australian Research Council site). The administering organisation is the University of NSW who have a contract with the ARC for this funding (the generic contract is on the ARC site). Ben R Newell Assoc Prof @NSW is likely the lead.
      Anyway there a number of points in the ARC contract that are possible breached by L. et al. and the associated publicity around it. A quick scan suggests that those climate sceptics that feel aggrieved should review clause 18.4 and 18.6 of the funding contract that reference the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) (also available at the ARC web site).
      The sections dealing with conflict of interest (L. other blog interests); respect for research participants; reporting results; and communicating research findings (informing interested parties before the media) appear to have been breached. These are matters that could well be referenced regardless of the contract in any communication directly with the UWA. The Code lays down the process for UWA to follow.
      However while UWA may seek to balance Code compliance with academic freedom there is the issue of the ARC contract under which L.’s activities have been part funded. It seems that UWA and the U. of NSW also have a responsibility in this regard that are not balanced by academic freedom, and the ARC as funder has a clear interest in breaches. These could all be approached by anyone who feels L.’s work has breached the code (or any other part of the funding agreement) pointing out these obligations are independent of academic freedom.

    1. Moderation is Watts's way of making sure the science doesn't go differently from his predetermined position, if he can help it.

      Profound limitations occur. People who read newspapers and science journals may get the idea Watts's joint is biased. Fortunately for Watts, many, many people do not read newspapers or science journals.


    2. Unfortunately his blog is popular! many thousand hits /day.

      With such popularity should come much responsibility - but it doesn't

      Vote for my blog, he says, and thousands do - send xyz an email to attempt destruction of a reputation and hundreds do
      His blog is two faced - Gleick pretending to be heartlander is bad - Monkton pretending to be a representative of Myanmar (which he refers to as "Burmese for Burma" when it is simply the name of their country) is good.

      The deletion/non appearance of comments on WUWT. Climate audit, Tallblokes Talkshop - frustrates any with conflicting views. So much that few now make their appearance.