Monckton PWNED! Flawless Victory! Part 3

So now it seems that Watts Up With That? is just being dishonest.

So I have no information myself on who is right with these behind the curtain emails, etc., but clearly Potholer54 has made clear arguements which Monckton has not answered and it’s clear that WUWT doesn’t want to deal with it, so they are banning posters and removing comments. Not having an open discussion always raises a red flag about that person’s honestly and that’s what Anthony Watts has done here.

I can only guess that since Monckton got owned by Potholer54, that is causing some problems at WUWT. It’s hard to see it many other ways.

Monckton PWNED! Flawless Victory! Part 2

Well this blog has been stepping more toward the Athiest and Politics side of the world lately and I want to change that. These issues are dear to me, but I want to try to toss in some gaming topics as well.

I plan to focus a bit on Boardgames on the IPad\IPhone. Which ones do I play and what I think of them, etc.

While I’m working on that, here is a Potholer follow up to another post to the Monckton debate.

Monckton PWNED! Flawless Victory!

Got to give credit where credit is due. Well done Potholer! Why people still believe this guy is just unbelievable.

Watts Up With That? and Lord Monckton – Part 2

Here is Part 1 with all the videos.

So Load Monckton has responded to all those videos in the first post and Potholer54 (Peter Hadfield) has replied back.

OK, first watch the videos in the part 1 link (or at least some of them). I’ll wait…

So, if you watched those videos you will see that those videos have little to do with climate change directly. What they really deal with is Lord Monckton misquoting science papers, books, etc. that talk about climate change in a way that ‘Climategate’ followers could only dream about.

At this point, no matter what side of the issue you fall on, the key issue here is Lord Monckton seems to be misleading people and both sides of the climate change debate should care about that, if both sides really want to get to the truth of the matter.

So, read the second link I’ll wait again…

OK good. So Lord Monckton replies back with calling Peter Hadfield names, etc. No real comment on the points made by him. Now to anyone else, this should raise a red flag. Anthony Watts allows this name calling to continue in the comments thread.

Now this thread has been going on for about a month now. In time Peter responds and after a lot of back and forth Watts finally allows Peter to rebut Monckton’s post as part of the post. I find the different comments of Mr Watts interesting…

For example:

we do look forward to your debunking Al Gore in a video (I’ve yet to see one dedicated to him let alone the five you dedicate to Monckton in references above, feel free to drop a link here), since you claim not to be biased in any way.

– Anthony

um, who cares if it’s one video or 5 or none for that matter. That has nothing to do with Monckton misquoting his sources. Look at the videos and see what you think.

Anyway, it goes on like that for awhile. I will give Mr. Watts some credit for (after Potholer explaining what an ‘equal response’ is) posting Potholer’s reply in the body of the main post. It is clear that there is some one sided snipping of posts however. WUWT is clearly not a free forum like Potholer’s channel is.

Clearly, the readers of WUWT have their brains wired differently than I. This is just about quoting your sources correctly and if you are able to step back and look at things objectively it is clear that Monckton is being misleading.

Watts Up With That? and Lord Monckton

Lord Monckton is a big name in the anti-science movement in reguards to climate change. Of course he doesn’t believe it. Potholer54 had a 5 part series on Monckton documenting his missteps and now Monckton replied to it on the website ‘Whatts Up With That?’.

Below is Potholer’s video reply and he shows why he continues to be one of the best channels on youtube. How anyone believes these guys I really can’t understand…

If you missed the series, here it is:

Watts up with Watts? Part 2

Video by greenman3610

You know I’m glad Richard Muller came around, but next time don’t talk out your ass. I have no problems checking up on researchers, but don’t throw stones until you have something to back you up next time.

Watts up with Watts?

I’ve been waiting for this one for a while. 🙂 Here is the link from TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Climate change deniers thought they had an ally in Richard Muller, a popular physics professor at UC Berkeley.

Muller didn’t reject climate science per se, but he was a skeptic, and a convenient one for big polluters and conservative anti-environmentalists — until Muller put their money where his mouth was, and launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, in part with a grant from the Charles G. Koch foundation.

OK, Muller has a right to be a skeptic. That’s what science is all about.

What makes this fun is the web site ‘Watts Up with That?’ which is a big denier blog. On this post Mr Watts says:

I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.

Cool. Now I just have to wait for the results. OK here we go!

After extensive study, he’s concluded that the existing science was right all along — that the earth’s surface is warming, at an accelerating rate. But instead of second-guessing themselves, his erstwhile allies of convenience are now abandoning him.

“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find,” Muller wrote in a Friday Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.”

Mr. Watts reaction? Well, now he says the paper needs to be peer reviewed. Well, OK, but don’t you think based on the results that you would hold back a bit and see what happens? Nope, 4 more blog posts about how global warming is wrong.

Not that Watts had much street cred with me to start with, but he just used up any he might have had.