Oh Dear! (5) More from Our Tony (+ friends)

Continuing the obnoxious/wrong/or just plain nasty posts of Watts and his acolytes.

Just a Random collection of posts mainly on WUWT a blog with vast readership - watts therefore needs to trim these posts BEFORE publishing. He cannot claim in his defence that the posts are not edited - there are so many with bans on posting that this would be a lie.


REPLY: You can choose to respond or not, not our call nor our duty beyond determining if the comment violates policy. I do think you just don’t know how to handle online criticism well – Anthony
  1. Myrrh says:
  2. [snip - bogus email address]
  3. Myrrh says:

    I have already explained, it is the same as before wordpress stole it.
    Your claims that you don’t censor is what is bogus.
    [Reply: We don't censor. And please, use a valid email address. ~dbs, mod.]
After a few tens of posts like:
Arno Arrak says:

Interesting. Apparently it had not occurred to the high-powered climate scientists that burning fossil fuels actually releases heat. It should be easy enough for them to calculate how much heat is released when a ton of carbon dioxide is produced. It is not surprising that it is concentrated in the cities because that is where most of the fuel is burned.

you get this:

 LazyTeenager says:

It seems his observations were spot-on, as this new paper just published in Nature Climate Change tells us. From the University of San Diego:
Not exactly.
It’s the USA versus the world. The average global temps are not affected signicantly by this effect.
This effect has only regional consequences that can be both up and down in temperatures.
Might cause a slight uptick in trends in some highly urbanised counties and a slight downtick in trends in other highly urbanised countries. It all depends on where countries are situated with respect to weather patterns.
There is a slight chance it might bias global average temp trends but which way has to be determined.
REPLY: Your opinion is meritless, without citation, and posted from behind the cloak of anonymity with a juvenile self descriptive label . In laymans terms: crap. If you want it to be taken seriously, show some citations and have the courage to stand behind your words. I tire of your predictable cowardly noise, as do others. My best advice is to elevate your status from this level if you wish to contribute something useful. – Anthony
A bit different on this blog that censors dissenting views (so much that no one bothers posting  anymore) :

Rhoda R says:

I don’t bother with sites that censor differing opinions. They are boring.


More from the rejected post
REPLY: Dear Mike Tuppen (aka thefordprefect) outed here in climategate emails – You are in permanent moderation for all comments, because you have abused your posting privileges here many times before, don’t get a big head that we are allowing you back permanently because these were allowed. And no, I’m not interested in discussing your previous issue with hateful vitriol, those will stay in the bit bucket. Be as upset as you wish.
Moderators – don’t approve any comments from Mr. Tuppen that diverge from his discussion of IR and CO2 – Anthony

double standards!

Lewandowsky’s latest smear paper gets pulled from the journal website

Readers may recall these two recent WUWT stories:
  • More shameless conspiracy theory from the ‘Skeptical Science’ smear quest team
  • Lewandowsky’s bear-baiting behavior
Tonight I’m pleased to report, that one skeptic who stood up and complained about Lewandowsky’s libelous claims, has had an effect. – Anthony
force a paper to be pulled because you disagree with it. Use that magic LIBEL legal word imply that you could go to court -
compare to:

Mann -vs- NRO legal battle, heating up

Reposted from National Review Online
Please support us in our fight against Professor Michael Mann.
By Jack Fowler
We’re being sued, and we need your help.
here we have Mann's livelyhood being threatened by truly libellous statements.

A couple from WUWT who never block comments!!!

LazyTeenager says:

February 20, 2013 at 8:53 pm

[snip. Per Anthony, you are one of the very rare persona non grata here. Run along now. — mod.]

ericgrimsrud says:

February 20, 2013 at 6:48 pm

[snip. Persona non grata. — mod.]

REPLY: If it were only that simple. Please read my policy page under the header menu. Both of these people have crossed the line from simply being wrong, to doing and saying things that have crossed the line of decency. I simply don’t want them to be in my “home on the Internet” any longer. I have been quite tolerant, and each of these commenters has had several hundred comments here. But, when they cross lines of decency, I’m not obligated to take abuse in my own home. – Anthony

[Reply #2: You have not read Eric Grimsrud's thoroughly despicable comments, which were deleted before thy were posted. He is truly a horrible human being, and Anthony went out of his way to accommodate Mr Grimsrud. [— From one of Anthony's long term moderators.]

Regarding Lazy T, Anthony has finally had his fill: “OK that’s it, you are banned, permanently. Get the hell off my blog. I won’t tolerate this sort of hateful crap from you anymore. Mr. Rothwell.” – Anthony Watts. Sometimes a line is crossed, and action must be taken. This is not censorship, this is housekeeping. — mod.]
WUWT Revisionism!!!!


Pielke Jr. gets booted from Journal for giving an unfavorable peer review to some shoddy science

2 days agoAcademics / General Science : Watts Up With That?
Mark Steyn writes at The Corner (NRO): Score-Settled Science Since being sued by fantasy Nobel Laureate and global warm-monger Michael E Mann for mocking his hockey stick, I’ve taken a greater than usual interest in the conformity enforcers of the … Continue reading ?
read more


Pielke Jr. appears to get booted from a journal for giving an unfavorable peer review to some shoddy science

I think the journal did a poor job of communicating this to him, but I can’t disagree with their decision. I work in biological sciences. My mentor is on the board of a journal and gets up to 50 requests a year to review manuscripts. I personally do approximately 20/year. I’m stunned the GEC has so low a requirement for ‘editorial board’ status. I’m not sure his interest (better word involvement?) was waning, but rather seemed below expectation from the start.

Tony says
  • * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.

  • What is worse is that Pielke got dismissed because he did insufficient reviewing!  AND the "peer" review was I believe only on his blog!
    Another ip lookup by Tony -

    alex says: July 8, 2013 at 11:37 pm
    Hey, guy, what did you expect? They would pay you for your denial? For your denial tour Europe? You are silly. The only thing I do not understand – why they hired you at all. Or you were not a denier at that time? Of course, you got a tenured job and thought you be safe. Now you know it better. Gotcha!

     REPLY: so does Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet in Duesseldorf condone such use of their network to write such drivel, or are you “tenured” and thus above the law? – Anthony
    trafamadore says:
    richardscourtney says:”I am writing so you know I read your reply which demonstrates you failed to read or understand my post to you.”
    ActualIy, understand your post perfectly.
    You think: that there are tens or hundreds or even thousands of climate scientists involved in a conspiracy of some sort to convince the world that global warming is occurring, and making up data to convince people of this. These scientists speak different languages, live in different counties and do research is completely different areas.
    I think: you are nuts.

    Maybe, but at least he has the courage to put his name to his ideas, so that if he is wrong, he is accountable personally, unlike you. -Anthony
    UPDATE: upon further inspection I find that:
    jr2458@sbcglobal.net – Result: Bad
    MX record about sbcglobal.net exists.
    Connection succeeded to mx2.sbcglobal.am0.yahoodns.net SMTP.
    421 4.7.1 [TS03] All messages from verify-email.org will be permanently deferred; Retrying will NOT succeed. See http://postmaster.yahoo.com/421-ts03.html
    So see ya later, anonymous coward. A valid email address is required to post here by blog policy. Having none, you get the redirect to the permanent spam bin. – Anthony

    That’s a great point about Art Robinson’s pivotal Oregon Petition Project.
    Was a point made?
    In keeping with Johnathon abbott’s testimonial about familiarising onesself with all sides of the debate, here are some critical comments on the petition.
    Bottom line is 0.3% of the science community signed the petition, the petition makers won’t release the data (the full qualifications/field of each signatory), it is likely only a small fraction have expertise in climare science (should statisticians give opinion on neurosurgery?).
    There are more opinions than this, of course. It pays to be skeptical.
    REPLY: Except that “skeptical science” isn’t. That’s the best you can do? Laughable. A rhetorical point: should anonymous cowards like you with no qualifications in climate have an opinion on climate science? -Anthony
    barry says:
    (Rhetorical reply: moderators can see the identities of those posters, and so can Anthony. But you hide your identity. ~mod)
    I once sent Anthony copies of ATI’s release of UVa emails, identified myself from WUWT and declared my name. Very happy to email Anthony my name again, and he can share it with the mods if he wishes.
    REPLY: I don’t recall seeing such an email, or if I did, making any connection. OTOH I get dozens to hundreds of emails a day, so it may just be lost in the noise. – Anthony
    (Reply #2: Anthony previously wrote to you: I’m really rather tired of your pot shots here from behind the comfort of anonymity, where if you are wrong there’s no downside for you because you take the no risk hidey hole route. You were then asked again to identify yourself. Your one word reply: “No.”
    Now is your chance, ‘barry’. Provide a verifiable identity, or remain anonymous. ~mod)
    The site is moderate so there must be agreementwith this comment
    david says:
    After they get rid of the Green agenda crap they need to restore the gun rights to their citizens

    Just how obnoxious is the word "denier" or is it OK if Tony uses it?

    David Appell denies he has any class

    sharper00 says:
    “REPLY: and the AGW community is still stuck on thinking that CO2 is the cause of everything – A”
    What you want to say about the pros and cons of that argument it’s still the case that continuing to attack papers written over 12 years ago which have been superseded by new work both from the author in question and other authors is not a good approach.
    Claiming that either McIntyre is right or there’s a hockeystick is a false dichotomy. McIntyre has never produced his own reconstruction and has only ever critiqued others, which is certainly his right but that also makes it impossible to apply his work to what’s actually happening as opposed to what might be wrong with what others say is happening.
    You can accept everything McIntyre says (or at least a lot of it) and still say there’s modern temperatures are the hottest in a thousand years.
    While it’s easy and indeed common for the blogosphere to get caught up in “the debate” and the personalities (see also Steig/O’Donnell) there’s still an underlying reality which is being investigated. The investigation suggests time and again that as above it’s now hotter than in recent history. This in itself says nothing about why that is and ultimately almost everything in the paleo climate record is going to be little to do with human activity.
    REPLY: spoken like a true MWP and RWP denier, which is the crux of the problem – A

    Weather Channel nixes “Forecast Earth”, including Cullen

    Phil. says:
    I think everybody reading here would agree with cleaner air and water. Thing is a modern coal plant produces very little pollution if you do not count CO2, and other forms of fuel like natural gas produce no pollution. Most(though not all) fuels do not pollute water.
    Then consider Bio fuels cause huge pollution, energy saving light bulbs contain mercury, wind power has a huge physical footprint, tidal barriers and dams destroy habitat.

    One third of the US mercury emissions come from those coal plants!
    dbstealey, moderator:
    Reply: Will, you’re new around here, so you may not know it, but we don’t use the word “deniers,” or any of its permutations. Please use “skeptic,” meaning one who questions.
    Excuse me but ‘skepticism’ is not a synonym for ‘denial’, I’ll continue to use whichever one is appropriate and would suggest Will does likewise!
    REPLY: Ok Phil, let me make this easy for you.
    This blog is my home on the internet, you along with many others, are guests here, just as if I invited you into my living room for a chat. Now if one of my guests gets unruly, and says things that not only insults me, but the other guests, I see it as a reasonable to ask that person to refrain from doing so, and if they choose not to, ask them to leave my home.
    Should I be asking you to leave? Or would you prefer to use a gentler word not linked to WWII Germany to describe your host and other guests? – Anthony


    Paging David Appell – ‘death threats against climate scientists’ story even deader than yesterday

    Nick Stokes says:
    I have to say that calling me out in a post and then putting me on troll moderation which makes replying difficult, is hardly playing fair.
    REPLY: You were put on troll moderation YESTERDAY, not after I made this post, and you know this. Both you and Appell can’t seem to embrace humility, or to even admit you’ve been wrong, try it sometime. Until then, you get the slow lane. – Anthony
     A load of death wishes linked - remember thias is a moderated blog so these have therefore been endorsed!!!!!: 

    FOI email: science is only influenced by ‘big oil’ if they do it

    SergeiMK says:
    Cannot agree more – such hypocrisy:
    Lets look at some of the very ugly DEATH wishes posted here with moderators agreements
    Chemist says:
    April 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm
    I’ll be the one to say it: I hope they die so that their deaths will draw attention to the truth of this issue. If they succeed, then it will be just another propaganda
    Daniel L. Taylor says: May 5, 2009 at 6:51 am
    …Maybe I’m just a cold hearted SoB, but in my opinion they need to freeze to death on that ice. The world needs to see the headline “Global Warming scientists …
    I’m sorry, but if the deaths of everyone on that ice survey team helps raise awareness of and opposition to the global warming political train wreck then so be it. It needs to happen.
    Rachelle Young says:
    March 26, 2009 at 8:52 pm
    I would be content to see all three of them freeze to death or be eaten by ‘endangered’ polar bears
    Is Overpeck’s statement worse than wishing someone dies?
    For no reason this appears in an article by tisdale:
    Anthony Watts says:

    @Bob Tisdale.
    Don’t give this jerk “Taminio” the benefit of anonymity. His name is Grant Foster, he lives in Portland Maine.
    Use his name when discussing his claims, if he stands behind his work, then he should have any problem with his name being applied to it.
    Dumb Scientist says:
    I still think it’s possible that Anthony has the integrity to not snip this comment, so I’ll repeat my challenge that got snipped earlier: “I’d be very interested to see WUWT read through 10,000 scientific abstracts and rate them. You could show the world how to do a proper survey… right?”
    REPLY: Oh please. Bryan for the record, I don’t give a rats ass about what you think about comment policy (see here). You put words in my mouth in the last comment, I snipped it because of that. Get over yourself. Why don’t you get your peers at JPL to do it, if it is so important to you? After all, you’ve got millions of dollars of government money at your disposal there and we have next to nothing.
    The whole consensus chasing is a waste of time in my opinion, Mother Nature will be the final arbiter of the AGW issue- Anthony
    and the whole point of WUWT post is about 52 or 97% consensus !!!!!

    Some one steals a private BB and releases the private posts to the "skeptics"
    Then McIntyre says
    Steve: .... As to my remarks on your comments in the SKS forum: over the years, I’ve gotten tired of people privately conceding the validity of my criticisms of paleoclimate practices, but failing to do so publicly. In your case, your SKS forum comments show that you agreed with many of my criticisms, but, instead of saying so at SKS, you called me a “conspiracy wackjob” – an offensive and untrue allegation. instead of apologizing when I took issue in my above remarks – as you ought to have done – you complained that your remarks had become public. I understand that you were young at the time and I would be quite happy to accept your withdrawal of these offensive and untrue remarks and move on. But first you have to withdraw the allegations, rather than complaining about how they became public.

    Robert way then says
    That being said I do draw the line at what Steve did above. He said basically that in my hacked personal correspondence I said things about him (and many other people) that he didn’t like so he will continue to spread the contents of this hacked correspondence until I “apologize” to him personally. To me this is the type of behavior you very often see in classrooms where a cellphone is stolen and one person says to the other either you apologize to me or I’m going to keep spreading around the bad things you messaged people. You can each yourselves be the judge of what grade level this type of situation occurs the most at ;) I will be issuing no apology to an implied threat or some form of blackmail
    Now usually in a private conversation many things may be said privately. These may include private thoughts about others not included in the conversation.
    If you then steal these conversations and you find things you dislike that's YOUR problem.

    Obnoxious and libellous commentary which will not be retracted even if his mate Monkton disagrees.
    Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/scientist-settles-legal-case-over-study-polar-bear-drownings-2D11691760
    So the message is: be a dimwit, make stuff up, and get paid for it.
    No word yet on whether he’ll get to keep the cushy retirement package that Federal Employees get.
    Looking further, it appears that he’ll be able to keep it.
    According to the PEER Union, they claim “vindication”:...

    Saving the Antarctic scientists, er media, er, activists, er tourists trapped by sea ice

    markstoval says:
    I think these people have been the cause of much death and misery. I would not be able to suppress a grin if they met the fate they want the poor to meet. (and I would not feel guilty one little bit)
    Steve B says:

    dp says:
    December 29, 2013 at 7:43 pm
    Steve B says:
    December 29, 2013 at 6:33 pm
    Some of us are reasonable and intelligent people who know when a line should not be crossed in debate. Wishing one’s opponents dead crosses that line. If you agree then your question makes no sense. If you don’t agree, your question is of no consequence. You have no winning position in this conversation.
    As one poster said earlier in this thread, these are the contributors of thousands of deaths due to energy poverty which would not exist if it was not for this terrible scam. Retribution is warranted especially when mother nature herself dishes it out. No sympathy here. Unfortunately they will get off scott free and spin the whole thing.
    [Ease up. NOBODY representing this site wishes harm come to ANYBODY. ANYWHERE. Mod]

    =====so why allow the posting then???????????????????????


    The Antarctic ‘research’ fiasco – ‘would you, could you, in a boat’?

    Michael Ronayne says: December 30, 2013 at 10:47 am  

    What do you call a ship load of trapped Global Cooling Deniers who are in danger of freezing to death?
    A good start!
    JohnWho says:

    Alan Robertson says: 
    Q: What do you need if you find a shipload of Climate Numpties, stuck in the ice?
    A: More ice.
    And some bourbon.
    Richard D says:

    Rob Dawg says: December 30, 2013 at 12:31 pm
    While never wishing personal harm
    Sorry you’ve been bullied/shamed into thinking criticism of stupidity equals wishing others harm
    Richard Day says: December 31, 2013 at 3:45 pm  

    I hope they run out of food and fuel and heavy storms prevents any kind of rescue or food drops. Much hilarity ensues.
    Rod-meteorologist says: January 1, 2014 at 10:03 am  

    I hope they get out OK, yet I can’t help but observe that the gene pool would be better off without them!


    The Cost of the Green Agenda on UK Fuel Prices

    The cost of green energy is supposed to have pushed the cost of electricity through the roof forcing pensioners to burn books rather than heating with electricity

    If this is the case then electricity costs should have risen much further than the raw energy costs.
    Using government figures you get this graph

    So it seems that current prices track the changes in solid fuel prices but are considerably less than gas price changes.

    So what am I missing?


    Update on fast start Combine Cycle Gas Turbines (base load suitable for wind backup)

    Latest from GE

    FlexEfficiency* 50 Combined Cycle Power Plant

    "GE's new FlexEfficiency* 50 Combined Cycle Power Plant is an innovative total plant design that defines a new standard for high efficiency and operational flexibility. The FlexEfficiency 50 uses an integrated approach to reduce fuel costs, create additional revenue sources, improve dispatch capability and reduce carbon emissions compared to prior technologies. With new gas turbine, steam turbine, and generator components—along with digital control capabilities, power island integration, and a turnkey plant design—the new 510 MW block-size plant features an expected baseload efficiency of more than 61 percent."

    60% efficiency down to 87 percent load
    Greater than 50 MW/minute while maintaining emissions guarantees
    40 percent turndown within emissions guarantees
    One button push start in under 30 minutes
    Total Plant Design
    • High start reliability with simplified digital controls
    • Plant-level flexibility and maintainability
    • Two-year construction schedule
    Leading Baseload Efficiency
    • More than 61 percent baseload efficiency
    • Integrated Solar Combined Cycle (ISCC) greater than 70 percent baseload efficiency
    Low Life-Cycle Costs
    • Designed for twice the starts and hours capability compared to current GE technologies
    original posting: http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/efficiency-of-power-plant-operating.html


    The ozone hole and WUWT

    A post by Watts:

    At AGU, NASA says CFC reduction is not shrinking the ozone hole – yet