Last year on Counterpoint Anthony Watts appeared:

Michael Duffy: In which direction does the bias lie? Are you suggesting that the temperature has not got as hot as the American official historical record suggests?

Anthony Watts: That’s correct. It’s an interesting situation. The early arguments against this project said that all of these different biases are going to cancel themselves out and there would be cool biases as well as warm biases, but we discovered that that wasn’t the case. The vast majority of them are warm biases, and even such things as people thinking a tree might in fact keep the temperature cooler doesn’t really end up that way.

Watts went to to rubbish the paper by Menne et al that analysed Watt’s data and found no warming bias.

But when Watt’s paper came out it contradicted Watt’s claims on Counterpoint, finding no warming bias, just like Menne.

The ABC Code of Practice says:

5.3 Demonstrable errors of fact will be corrected in a timely manner and in a form most suited to the circumstances.

So naturally Counterpoint corrected the record.

Ha ha, just kidding. Look at how they restate Watt’s hypothesis in their follow-up show:

His hypothesis was that the data recorded by these monitoring stations was, for a variety of reasons, inaccurate. The paper has now been published and co-author John Nielson-Gammon discusses their results.

So rather than correct it, they just pretended that this was never his hypothesis. As Steve puts it at Opinion Dominion:

Don’t, however, expect either the interviewer or interviewee to express any interest at all in co-relating what Watts used to say about his project, and what it actually found.

As one might expect from the soft-sceptic Counterpoint, they are interested in emphasising the finding relating to diurnal temperature range, the importance of which still seems fairly unclear, even according to Neilsen-Gammon.

The finding about mean temperature trends not being artificially inflated by siting issues gets the briefest of mentions. Surrounding it is a sea of words from Paul Comrie-Thomson emphasising that the paper did find something interesting, that it was a worthy project, that it would be good if more science of this type could be done, etc.

After being rightfully castigated in comments for their deceptive conduct, Counterpoint replied in comments:

Claims of misrepresentation and professional misconduct by Counterpoint are untrue and highly offensive. In response the program sought comment from John Nielsen-Gammon …
“I was expecting to be asked about why Watts said one thing about the results while the paper said another, and apparently your listeners did too. But I have no objection with focusing on what our best analysis shows, rather than considering why the previous analysis was incorrect.”

This isn’t much of a defence. First, Counterpoint does not dispute that Watts’ claims, given so much emphasis by Counterpoint were incorrect. Second, Nielsen-Gammon confirms that, like the listeners, he expected to be asked about the contradiction to Watts’ claims. Why wasn’t he? It certainly appears to be a deliberate cover up and Counterpoint has not been able to come with an explanation.

More from the ABC Code of Practice:

9.2 ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. Complaints that the ABC has acted contrary to this Code of Practice should be directed to the ABC in the first instance. Phone complainants seeking a written response from the ABC will be asked to put their complaint in writing. All such written complaints are to be directed to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs, GPO Box 9994, in the capital city of your State or Territory. The complainant will receive a response from the ABC within 60 days of receipt of their complaint.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2011

    > Muller is on record as saying that, up until climategate at least, it was the only one he actualy trusted.

    Would that be the Richard A. Muller who worked on the [BEST project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature) that so disappointed Watts when it found, contrary to Watts’ strongly asserted and loudly proclaimed pre-existing belief, that the temperature records were essentially accurate and that the globe bloody well *is* warming? And did you conveniently forget to mention that bit for the readers when you implied he didn’t trust any of those records? Or were you entirely unaware of it – and if so, why?

    > Bishop Hill’s article points out that GISS’s global coverage is achieved thru extrapolation of a small number of stations…

    That’s not a valid criticism unless he can quantify how uncertain it is and demonstrate that it’s *too* uncertain for the purpose.

    Which he almost certainly can’t, because various papers have looked at how strongly correlated temperatures are across various regions in order to assess whether this kind of extrapolation – which takes place elsewhere as necessary – is valid. I’m not aware that Bishop Hill has written or cited one that refutes those papers.

    In other words it’s a Clayton’s criticism – the criticism you make when your audience will swallow a faux criticism and thank you for offering such a high class beverage.

    As you did.

  2. #2 GSW
    June 30, 2011

    @Lotharsson

    Yes it is the same Muller. The bishop links to a previous post which discusses the limited data availability for the Polar region in regards to the GISS dataset.

  3. #3 Scribe
    June 30, 2011

    I have just finished corresponding with Purdue University about Mr Watts. They confirm that he has no qualification from them, despite attending from 1975 to 1982. I have sent the evidence by email to the owner of Deltoid.

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2011

    > All other things being equal, I am not aware that this is disputed. … Saying CO2 is plant food, doesn’t seem that controversial if you confine your criticism to the statement made.

    You aren’t very good at interpretation then. The saying “CO2 is plant food” is almost ALWAYS used to imply that adding more to the atmosphere will *increase agricultural productivity for human benefit* and by extension be an unmitigated good for humanity and the ecosystem because how could something that makes more food “for free” be any kind of “pollutant” or cause any kind of problem, so why all the fuss about a little bit more? And that’s without addressing the contentious argument that it will shrink the Sahara (which conveniently ignores that desertification is likely due to climate change in many areas). Or noting that more shit may fertilise my garden, but that doesn’t mean it won’t cause medical problems if it gets into my water supply.

    And given that it’s more likely than not that higher CO2 will lead to *reduced* agricultural productivity, this fails on the overt point, let alone on the covert implication.

    > Cook points out that precipitation is important as well, which it is.

    And nitrogen and phosphorous. And *temperature* ranges. And pests that may massively thrive and fertilising fauna that may suffer under climate change conditions. And micro-nutrient and protein production that may significantly degrade under climate change. And so on…

    Which is why “CO2 is plant food” is a slogan designed to bamboozle the uninformed – and quite often effective at it.

  5. #5 Wow
    June 30, 2011

    > Saying CO2 is plant food, doesn’t seem that controversial

    Sorry, it IS controversial.

    What do you think they put in the fertilisers? Dry Ice?

    “CO2 is plant food” is as accurate as saying “O2 is human food”.

    There. There is your dealing with that statement.

  6. KiwiInOz:

    > It is bordering on obsession and attacking a symptom not a cause.

    So what do you think are the root causes of, say, someone threatening to rape climate activists’ children? What do you think are the root causes of attempts to spread lies in news stories to downplay these threats? How do we attack these root causes?

    — frank

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2011

    > It is one of the 3 “main” datasets (GISS,HadCru,UAH)

    Most people would say that RSS is one of the main data sets.

    Especially since (IIRC) discrepancies between certain aspects of RSS and UAH led scientists to conclude that the UAH algorithms had a significant error – a fact that (IIRC) Spencer and Christy denied for some time (years?)

  8. #8 John
    June 30, 2011

    GSW, how can Co2 be a plant food when it is a harmless trace gas incapable of affecting anything?

  9. #9 Jeremy C
    June 30, 2011

    John,

    I wish I had said that.

  10. #10 Chris O'Neill
    June 30, 2011

    Rick Bradford:

    All of which schoolyard abuse we can observe on … this single thread.

    I wonder how many threads ago the schoolyard abuse started from:

    Have you ever considered taking you brain in for a service?
    maybe they could fix the bits that don’t work and put the rest of it back in the right order.

    Bradford only sees what he wants to see. How completely normal for a denialist.

  11. #11 GSW
    June 30, 2011

    @Chris

    Booked it in yet? ;)

  12. #12 KiwiInOz
    June 30, 2011

    Frank @ 107.

    Mental illness the first.

    Ars3holes the second (no arguement from me).

    Assuming that lack of overt condemnation by some means that they support the ars3holes is a long bow. It’s like the letters to the paper complaining that the Muslims aren’t opposing violent actions – when the majority do.

    I seriously doubt that GSW or others support the activities that you mentioned.

  13. #13 rhwombat
    June 30, 2011

    KinOz: frank has been fighting the good fight with the GSW, Bradford and mike trolls for several threads. Frank’s taunt started as a reductio ab adsurdam of the denialist trolls when the slimy bastards started calling the threats of death and rape against climate scientists and their families leftist/warmist false flag operations, even before Bolt’s public agitprop. The trolls fell for it, as GSW did for John’s brilliant wedging on paleoclimate reconstructions.

    The trolls are not, strictly speaking mentally ill (with the possible exception of mike), but are unable think particularly quickly (in GSWs case using an emoticon “tell” [; )]) while they wait for inspirations/instructions. I suspect that GSW is a bot identity, tasked with playing hare and hounds with Deltoid, hence the need to both persist with a single meme and to wait for a shift change to respond to new angles. I doubt that Bolt is sufficiently bright to run such a system (though maybe his string-pullers are), but I do think that GSW’s defence of Bishop sHill makes that part of its likely control cabal. The ironic thing is that the regular posters here hand the trolls their own arses with predictability and wit, proving (yet again) that the inherent weakness of the denialist propaganda war.

  14. KiwiInOz:

    > > So what do you think are the root causes of, say, someone threatening to rape climate activists’ children? What do you think are the root causes of attempts to spread lies in news stories to downplay these threats? How do we attack these root causes?

    > Mental illness the first.

    > Ars3holes the second (no arguement from me).

    And what of the third? How do we attack these root causes? I notice you have no answer to that question, despite your sanctimonious admonition to refrain from “attacking a symptom not a cause”.

    If there’s a way to attack these root causes leading to rape threats and lies to downplay rape threats, I’m sure people will be willing to use it!

    > Assuming that lack of overt condemnation by some means that they support the ars3holes is a long bow.

    Or is this your way of “attacking these root causes”? ‘Ooh, these people are arses or mentally ill, and then there are their enablers, therefore we should be exceedingly charitable to the enablers to the point of groveling before them’?

    Nope, I’m not buying that. It’s simply … obsessive accommodationism.

    * * *

    rhwombat:

    Thanks. I see you also noticed GSW’s two-day delay. :)

    — frank

  15. #15 KiwiInOz
    June 30, 2011

    Actually, Frank, I had to cut my comment short in order to go and catch the train to work, so wasn’t able to address the vastly more important and complex issue, i.e. what to do. It takes more thought than I was able to give it at the time to do it justice.

    I will try and come up with something suitably pithy for you during the day.

    Meanwhile, you just keep cutting the heads off that hydra.

  16. #16 Chris O'Neill
    June 30, 2011

    GSW:

    @Chris
    Booked it in yet? ;)

    Yes, ad hominem is the sum total of denialist’s arguments. Rick Bradford won’t see these of course.

  17. #17 mike
    July 1, 2011

    @ no. 114

    “The trolls are not, strictly speaking mentally ill (with the possible exception of mike)…”

    and

    “…While they wait for the inspiration/instructions…”

    and

    “…the regular posters here hand the trolls their own arses with predictability and wit…”

    Well, first, off let me apologize for that little fratricidal, friendly-fire incident I caused (no. 91, 92, 94, and 99, above (heh heh)). And then let me clarify one other matter, right here and now. I am not “mentally ill!” (both hands in the air making “V” signs). Just ask my shrink (curiously, she reminds me a good deal of luminous beauty). Rather, her diagnosis is that I’m “crazy as a loon.” Not at all the same thing, I think you’ll have to agree, rhwombat.

    So I’m not waiting for any “inspiration/instructions”, rhwomat, in order to form up my comments. No siree. I’m spacing my comments so that they fit between counseling sessions. So there, little smartypants wannabe, rhwombat.

    I also showed my shrink some of the latest Deltoid threads and when I opined “Don’t you think these guys are a bunch of nothing-burgers?”–you know what she said?–“Don’t you mean “nothing-boogers?” (we both laughed).

    She also thinks you guys are a bunch of humorless double-dip cone-heads lacking in self-awareness.

  18. #18 chek
    July 1, 2011

    Li’l mikes retreat into fantasy, as seen above, obviously doesn’t stop at just climate change denial.

  19. #19 Wow
    July 1, 2011

    > I am not “mentally ill!” (both hands in the air making “V” signs).

    Such being a sign of mental retardation.

    > Just ask my shrink (curiously, she reminds me a good deal of luminous beauty)

    What? You only see your shrink over the internet?

    “Rather, her diagnosis is that I’m “crazy as a loon.””

    So you’re not mentally ill, you’re a lunatic.

    Potatoe, potato.

    > -you know what she said?

    Don’t you mean “typed”?

    > –“Don’t you mean “nothing-boogers?” (we both laughed).

    Ah, yes. Your shrink is your internet pal.

    And ending on a note of projection.

    1/10 for effort.

  20. Am I the only person who thinks mike’s falsch-Deutsch comment reads better in the original Idiot?

    mike:

    > So I’m not waiting for any “inspiration/instructions”, rhwomat, in order to form up my comments.

    Actually we were talking about GSWbot, but perhaps you have a problem distinguishing between GSWbot and yourself. About that, rest assured that we perfectly understand.

    (OK now. Where’s GSWbot’s smiley when we need it?)

    — frank

  21. #21 mike
    July 1, 2011

    @ no. 121

    frank, you’re making yourself look silly, guy. Re-read rhwombat’s no. 114 and see for yourself.

    I hate to say it, frank, but you seem to be wrapped a little tight there. Take it from a pal, you need to chill out a bit, ol’ man.

  22. Actually we [including rhwombat] were talking about GSWbot, but perhaps you have a problem distinguishing between GSWbot and yourself. About that, rest assured that we perfectly understand.

    frank, you’re making yourself look silly, guy. Re-read rhwombat’s no. 114 and see for yourself. [...] you need to chill out a bit, ol’ man.

    Um, projection much?

    Can you even utter a sentence that actually describes something outside of your heat-oppressed imaginations? (OK… actually, do you even understand my preceding question? Ugh, never mind.)

    — frank

  23. #23 mike
    July 1, 2011

    @ no. 123

    Look, frank, I can see you’re getting worked up and all. So I’d like to put things into a perspective–you know, a perspective that will save you some stress both now and in the future.

    It’s like this frank: As long as your comments are strictly of the Dr. Lab-Rat science-geek variety, I could care less (in fact, I always just skip over the weener-dork technical stuff in a comment). But if you instead decide to slip a snark-booger into a comment or if the spirit enters in to you and you start “speaking in tongues” about your “big” plans for the “little” people, then I feel empowered to playfully engage your goof-ball snark and watermelon-sprach.

    Almost as simple as that, frank. Just one more little thing, though. Keep your greenshirt mitts off my monster-truck. I mean, there’s no way I going to part with all that babe-magnet vroom-vroom. You know what I mean, frank?

  24. I asked mike:

    > Can you even utter a sentence that actually describes something outside of your heat-oppressed imaginations? (OK… actually, do you even understand my preceding question? Ugh, never mind.)

    Judging from mike’s bullshit torrent of a response, it’s clear that the answer to both questions is “no”.

    mike apparently can’t (or won’t) understand the concept of “reality”.

    — frank

  25. #25 Chris O'Neill
    July 1, 2011

    you guys are a bunch of humorless double-dip cone-heads lacking in self-awareness.

    I’d say both of these accusations are a sign of not being able to get irony. Poor mike.

  26. #26 KiwiInOz
    July 2, 2011

    Sorry Frank et al – haven’t had time to get on with the third answer, and just quickly checking in now. Complex issues are complex!

    To clarify – my comment about mental illness refers to those people who make the threats, e.g. that guy who admitted to belting out the threat to Anna-Maria Arabia.

  27. #27 rhwombat
    July 2, 2011

    Actually mike, I am qualified to make a clinical diagnosis (MB BS PhD FRACP…you can ask your shrink what that means – if she’s not a symptom of your illness). You seem to have a narcissistic personality disorder. As you will have gathered from looking up the DSM, that doesn’t have a good prognosis, but I suspect that you are on medications for some of the symptoms (that is, if you can afford them in the pathetic excuse you have for a health system in the US). Do yourself, us and your therapist (if she exists) a favour, and stop trying to use trolling Deltoid as an outlet for your mental illness. It’s hardly going to be constructive to your health to take on people with real expertise and passion. Getting your arse handed to you regularly and publicly will make the symptoms worse, not better. If you have to troll blogs, there are a number of US ‘Domestic” political blogs that would suit your needs admirably (try Free Republic, or WTFUWT). Denialists know neither shame nor reason, so your disability wouldn’t hamper a full and frank exchange of bullshit. Here’s a hint: GSW is not one person with one voice. It’s a bot. I know you have trouble telling us humans apart, but actually talking to real ones helps, as do the pills. Good Luck.

  28. #28 mike
    July 2, 2011

    Great Gaia, rhwombat!

    I mean I knew you were in the medical field in some capacity. But I just assumed you were a proctologist and that’s what drew you to the company of your fellow Deltoid regulars. But a booger-brain like you is actually employed to deal with Australians suffering from the tragedy of mental-illness? I guess that’s socialized medicine for you. What a joke.

  29. #29 chek
    July 2, 2011

    I wouldn’t have believed it, but you actually do get more hilarious with every post, li’ll mike.

    Can I look forward to you and your children maintaining the strength of your convictions, so that in your country’s nerverending Cheneywar you could wear a patch or tattoo proclaiming ‘No socialised medicine, thanks’ so that medics from civilised countries can by-pass you or them while you await your corporately sponsored healthcare medics to arrive?

    Because socialised medicine doctors and nurses aren’t even qualified to be in the same income bracket and would have to pile on more than a few copies of Das Kapital to apply enough pressure to staunch the bleeding from your severed arteries. It’s how they’ve been trained, and quite obviously they would need to carry far fewer volumes onto the battlefield if they knew in advance their help wasn’t required by you and your ilk.

    “Socialized medicine”.
    Rofl.
    Is there anything you can’t bastardize in service to your crank ideology?

  30. #30 mike
    July 2, 2011

    check, I understand that you suffer from “narcissistic watermelon disorder.” I understand that and I forgive you.

  31. #31 rhwombat
    July 2, 2011

    OK mike. We get that you’re a pathetically sick puppy. All the prepubescent scatology and aggressive hostility towards anyone who you think looks askance at your carefully crafted blog image of the All-American-Hero-in-Jughead-disguise are a bit of a giveaway. That you become hysterical at the concept of paedophilia (a subject that you introduced in earlier threads) suggests that it is at the core of your personal problems.

    “It’s like this frank: As long as your comments are strictly of the Dr. Lab-Rat science-geek variety, I could care less (in fact, I always just skip over the weener-dork technical stuff in a comment). But if you instead decide to slip a snark-booger into a comment or if the spirit enters in to you and you start “speaking in tongues” about your “big” plans for the “little” people, then I feel empowered to playfully engage your goof-ball snark and watermelon-sprach”

    Please stop projecting all over us, and bugger off.

  32. #32 mike
    July 2, 2011

    rhwombat,

    Just to clarify a matter. I did not introduce the subject of pedophilia–rather I was the target of an off-the-wall charge that I approved of child-rape and then was repeatedly tasked by other Deltoids to condemn child-rape. In response, I then repeatedly made rather clear my view of the pervert-shits that rape children. Of course, I offered you, rhwombat, a chance to also condemn pedophilia–child-rape–and especially pedophilia in the form of child sex-slavery for profit. But you have yet to respond, rhwomat. Perhaps the Herr Doktor Mental Health Expert can explain his reticience?

    Incidentally, I did look up that “narcissistic personality disorder” business you previously brought up, rhwomat. The diagnostic features don’t fit me–sorry to disappoint you, guy. But they most surely do fit the majority of the regulars on the Deltoid blog.

    And that got me thinking as to why my trollery has been successful to such a spectacular degree on this blog. Then it struck me, I’ve been pushing exactly those buttons that someone with a narcissistic personality disorder just has to respond to. Compelled to respond. Even as they knowingly make a fool of themselves.

    Thank you for that insight, rhwombat (and you’re one of the narcissist guys too, right? Be honest, rhwombat).

  33. #33 Michael
    July 2, 2011

    mike has me genuinely curious about one thing – is he 16 or 17?

    Still no troll/denier can even attempt to defend Anthony Watts’ incompetence.

  34. #34 luminous beauty
    July 2, 2011

    >Incidentally, I did look up that “narcissistic personality disorder” business you previously brought up, rhwomat. The diagnostic features don’t fit me–sorry to disappoint you, guy.

    Self diagnosis? That works so well for narcissists in denial.

    You’ve got to hit bottom, friend. Then seek help.

  35. #35 luminous beauty
    July 2, 2011

    >I also showed my shrink some of the latest Deltoid threads and when I opined “Don’t you think these guys are a bunch of nothing-burgers?”–you know what she said?–“Don’t you mean “nothing-boogers?” (we both laughed).

    >She also thinks you guys are a bunch of humorless double-dip cone-heads lacking in self-awareness.

    Transference and counter-transference with an imaginary therapist? I don’t think that is covered in the DSM. Except, perhaps, under the general definition of psychosis.

  36. #36 mike
    July 2, 2011

    @ no. 135 & 136

    Well, it kinda seems to me, LB, that what we have here is a sort of Dr. Spock meets Nurse Ratched deal. A little too weird for me. More the sort of thing that would appeal to rhwombat. So you might want to aim your hippie-chick charm in that direction.

  37. #37 John
    July 2, 2011

    >As long as your comments are strictly of the Dr. Lab-Rat science-geek variety, I could care less (in fact, I always just skip over the weener-dork technical stuff in a comment).

    So why are you here? To abuse people who are smarter than you and make yourself feel better about your intellectual inferiority complex? Oh, you admit you are *trolling*! Yes, that will show daddy those science geeks once and for all!

    From your laughable comments about “socialised medicine” I’ll take it that you are another right-wing nutjob who knows deep in his heart that global warming is a marxist scam (but can’t explain why) and thus resorts to juvenile name calling. He then hides this under the term “trolling” to cover over the fact he really is an unhappy old man dying alone.

  38. #38 mike
    July 2, 2011

    @ no. 138

    O.K. Deltoids. Last call. My real life only allows me so much time to spend answering idiot comments on this thread.

    It is amazing to me that with so many atomic-brains loose on this blog engaged in such an intense amateur psychology effort to put me in a box, that you guys can’t even get close. I think the problem is that I’m a normal human being and you weirdos have little or no experience with such an item.

    And as far as my favorite “doofus”, John, goes, if there is anything to this psych business, at all, then he is truly one of rhwombat’s famous “narcissistic personality disorder” freaks. And, of course, John is “the kind of guy who gives you greenshirts your reputation as diaper-pail creep-outs”.

    Enjoyed the walk down memory lane, John.

    Nighty-night Deltoids

  39. mike:

    > I think the problem is that I’m a normal human being and you weirdos have little or no experience with such an item.

    Normal human beings don’t conjure up therapists in their brains to talk to them and then proudly write about that episode as a blog comment.

    You’re just like the obviously wasted drunkard who loudly proclaims in a drunk voice, “uh — ahm nat drank — *sploosh*” while everyone else watches.

    You have issues.

    — frank

  40. #40 rhwombat
    July 2, 2011

    mike @133:

    No. You raised the issue of paedophilia, accusing “warministas” of having a conference in Cancun to facilitate “their”child molesting habits. You got quite agitated about it.

    From other posts, I recall you harassing Vince Whirlwind about US military prowess at Milne Bay in WW2, and describing Bernard J as otiose. You generally use a curious mixture of very literate terminology mixed with pre-pubescent scatology, adolescent sexual identity confusion (lb may well be one of the hippy-chicks you yearn after, but has a female partner) and palpable insecurity regarding anyone with perceived expertise in science. You use a lot of arch, archaic, aggressively American Archie and Jughead schtick, and recognise terms like COINTELPRO when dropped into a post. So lets dance, mike.

    I don’t think you are a blog construct, like GSW, because you are too consistent with your peccadilloes. you are most probably a middle-aged, male, Humanities graduate, who is quite bright but a spectacular under-achiever. You are definitely single, and have major problems relating to other humans. You never made it in the US military, so you weave hints of USMC macho persona into your fantasy identity. You probably grew up in Utah, or at least under the influence of the LDS or similar US far-right religious institution. You do have a personality disorder, which, combined with your OCD, restricts whatever employment you can get to blogging for wingnut welfare: in short, you are a Koch-sucker. Your wrinkle is a violent reaction to paedophilia, which suggests personal experience. and the likely genesis of your personal pathology. You think blogs like Deltoid are filled with the high-achieving (male) scientifically-literate technocrats that haunt your insecurities, so you troll here to simultaneously earn Koch credit and scratch that painful itch in your personality.

    So bugger off and scratch somewhere else, you pathetic loser.

  41. #41 mike
    July 2, 2011

    rhwombat,

    This is your “professional” best effort to figure me out? You’re a guy with a PhD in this sort of stuff? Do you realize, rhwombat, that virtually nothing of your speculative profile of me is accurate, except one thing and that of the least consequence. You’re a freaking incompetent, rhwombat.

    On the other hand, rhwombat, if you’re fishing for my personal information and that’s the stratagem behind your little post, then register another fail and chalk up yet another example of your incompetence.

    And let’s not dance, thank you very much.

  42. #42 mike
    July 2, 2011

    @ no. 142

    rhwombat, in my last comment, I gave you credit for getting one thing right with your otherwise inept profile of me. Well, since then I’ve done a little digging and it turns out I was wrong. You didn’t even get that one thing right, it turns out. So instead of a “freaking incompetent” it turns out that you’re actually a complete freaking incompetent.

    I guess that’s why you can’t make it in private practice.

  43. #43 John
    July 2, 2011

    Mike, you are spectacularly fragile and defensive which is weird considering this is the internet and nobody knows or cares who you are. rhwombat’s profile must be right on the money if you feel the need to protest to us that it’s wrong. You are depressingly easy to get a rise out of, which makes you a terrible troll.

    By “normal person” you must mean you are some schmuck who works in a factory for minimum wage and is angry that a bunch of science geeks he used to bully in school have better jobs and more money than he ever will.

    If all these inferiority complexes make you feel like you need to childishly abuse people online to make yourself feel better, I feel sorry for you. You are a very sad and pitiable little man.

  44. #44 mike
    July 2, 2011

    @ 144

    Well, john, I see we’ve got in you another failed Deltoid psychologist. But at least you’re not sucking on the taxpayer tit like rhwombat and your incompetence is not wed to a PhD in the field of your incompetence (I guess). So that does distinguish you from rhwombat (again, I guess).

    Incidentally, that little allusion to your unhappy childhood was quite poignant and revealing. Why am I not surprised?

  45. #45 rhwombat
    July 2, 2011

    Mike @142:

    Again, no. This is not my “professional” best effort to figure you out, and competence is irrelevant when calling out a pathetic, self-obsessed nuisance like you. Like many others in this blog, I’m sick of the pathology you keep exhibiting as an anonymous troll.

    My PhD was on lipid mediators of host defence in bacterial infections – neither climatology nor psychiatry. It’s science Jim, but not as you know it. Understanding psychopathology is part of my job as a Staff Specialist in Medicine in a Teaching Hospital, part of the soul-destroying serfdom of the Glorious Socialist Health Workers & Yoghurt Weavers Collective of New South Wales. Understanding psychopathology is useful in predicting whether the knife-wielding junkie with encephalitis is going to slash at my eyes or his own. It is also useful to work out why unpleasant vermin like you shit in the playground.

    Most of us engage in blogs like Deltoid because it’s interesting, expansive and interactive on a larger scale than the conversations we have with family, friends and colleagues. For me Deltoid is also the most well known sci-blog based in Oz, and thus combines the wit and interest of PZ Myers, Eli Rabbitt and John Mashey with the local relevance of Crickey, Grog’s Gamut and other (non-Rupertarian) media. Some of us are professionals in various scientific disciplines, others are not, but maintain a level of intelligent interest regarding the subjects of discussion.

    You are the exception: for you, it’s all about you. In whatever reality you inhabit, you cannot get anyone interested in you, your whining or your evident psychopathology unless you pay for it, and you just can’t work out why. I’m neither taking a professional approach to diagnosing what ails you, nor am I the least but interested in finding out about the details of your personal pathology. I’m just just asking you to bugger off and stop annoying the unimpaired.

  46. #46 mike
    July 2, 2011

    @ no. 143

    This is killing me, rhwombat, but scrupulosity compels me to acknowledge that you were right about two things in my profile. I am indeed a male and I definately don’t like pervert pieces of shit who rape children.

    And by the way, rhwombat, when are you going to get around to condemning child-rape and especially child-rape in the form of commercialized child sex-slavery? What’s the deal, rhombat? Just why are you hanging-fire on this subject? I don’t get it.

  47. #47 rhwombat
    July 2, 2011

    wombat: “You’re a loony”
    mike: “Running away eh?! You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!”

  48. #48 mike
    July 2, 2011

    @ no. 146

    You know, rhwombat, you’re finally beginning to talk like a real human being. And you’ve offered a more-or-less snark-free and earnest comment. What a refreshing change.

    rhwombat, when I first commented on this blog you hold so dear, it was to point out an error in another comment in a matter in which I happened to be informed. And my comment was of the Mr. Nice-Guy sort completely free of any point-scoring, booger-flicking, or snark-baiting. Just a good-faith effort to courteously correct a mistake in another comment. Well, much to my bewilderment, my very first comment was received with a torrent of abusive replies by some of my still-favorite Deltoids which did not abate even when it was grudgingly recognized that I was right in my initial comment–indeed that only seem to further inflame the situation. And, of course, this being Deltoid-land, anti-Americanism was a prominent theme.

    After that initial experience (abetted by a moderation policy that was not, at that time, evenhanded), I toyed with just blowing the whole Deltoid blog off and going about my business. But then I thought, hey these little geek-ball momma’s boys just don’t pack the baggage to justify their bold talk. And since I always kinda enjoyed a scrap, I decided to devote myself, part-time, to taking you guys on. And given the tenor of your last comment, rhwombat, it looks like I’ve done a pretty good job of it.

    And you know, rhwombat, had I been shown simple common courtesy when I first commented on this blog, you would never have had my “pathology” to deal with. But you know my weakness, rhwombat? I don’t mind telling you. If you and your pals begin to conduct yourselves like gentlemen and gentlewomen and show courtesy and moderation in your comments, then you’ll put me out of business–and no one will be happier than me to see the “Going Out of Business” sign go up.

    In the meantime, if you want to talk the talk, then let’s see you walk the walk. I’m up for it.

  49. #49 rhwombat
    July 2, 2011

    So you are going to bleed on us, then?

  50. #50 mike
    July 2, 2011

    @150

    rhwombat,

    I like it better this way, too.

    And, just in case you forgot, rhwombat, you still haven’t answered those pesky little questions I posed at no. 147. Remember, those sort of questions were thought appropriate when posed to me and a few others on this blog. Certainly, you didn’t object to those sort of questions earlier on when directed at others. So I think it not out of line to ask you for the same sort of condemnation of child-rape that was demanded of me (and which I was more than happy to deliver).

    But since it appears that you are having a real hard time offering up an unqualified condemnation of child-rape, and especially child-rape in the form of child sex-slavery–the commercialized rape of children by the hundreds of thousands worldwide for the repellent pleasures of sex-tourist pervert-shits and the profit of their betters– I’d just be happy with a simple explanation as to why an obsessive blabber-mouth like yourself suddently finds himself tongue-tied when it comes to the subject of child-rape.

  51. #51 bill
    July 2, 2011

    Surely, wombat, you have enough material for that conference paper by now? ;-)

  52. #52 John
    July 3, 2011

    Mike is threatened by intelligence and feels he needs to insult people into submission. At least now he’s finally admitting his childish behaviour-seeking is the result of his intellectually weak arguments being spurned.

    In response Mike will now shriek that I am wrong, because he is a big tough internet warrior who doesn’t care what people think, and call me a variety of childish names thus proving, in his own mind, that he is right.

  53. #53 mike
    July 3, 2011

    @no. 133 and 152.

    “No. You raised the issue of pedophilia accusing “warmistas” of having a conference in Cancun to facilitate “their” child molesting habits.” (rhwombat’s no. 133).

    Not really sure about what conference bill has in mind in his comment no. 152, but since you seem to be “planning” a little something rhwombat, I can see that I have to challenge the quoted extract, above, from your no. 133. The quoted portion of your comment no. 133 is factually wrong.

    PART 1

    “No, you raised the issue of pedophilia…”

    You are factually in error, rhwombat. It was not I that raised the the issue of pedophilia. The thread in which I first raised the issue of child-rape (a.k.a. pedophilia) was that attached to the “Australian Climate Scientists get death threats” post. My first comment dealing with child-rape was no. 199 on that thread. Prior to my comment the following comments had already raised the issue of child-rape, directly or by implication, and all in a form to discredit “deniers”:

    No. 39 made reference to raping a baby

    No. 74 and 79 made reference to raping climate scientists’ families and by implication any children in those families.

    No. 154 made reference to “raping kids”.

    No. 173 “El Gordo [a "denier], are you also a supporter of child rapists like James…”

    no. 191 “Inactivists “el Gordo”, “mike” and “Rick Bradford” apparently have no problem with people threatening to rape climate families.” That last prompted my reply at no. 199, 200, and 203, a series of comments in which I first raised the issue of child-rape.

    CONCLUSION: Clearly, I did not introduce the issue of child-rape (a.k.a. pedophilia)as can be seen above, rhwombat.

    PART 2

    “…accusing “warmistas” of having a conference in Cancun to facilitate “their” child molesting habits.”

    This portion of your statement is flat-out factually in error (please quote my comments in the future rather than making up words to put into my mouth). My comment on Cancun was no. 203.

    I did not “accuse” warmistas (a word I did not and do not use) of anything. Rather, I questioned the IPCC’s choice of venues for their annual meetings and condemned their choice of locales (Cancun and Durban) that are notorious for their child sex-slave industries. In that regard, I urged a boycott of the IPCC conferences until the IPCC selects venues that are not also hosts to a commercialized child-rape industry.

    CONCLUSION: A simple reading of comment no. 203 will verify that the second part of your statement is also factually in error. So read my comment, rhwombat.

    PART III

    In the thread attached to the post “Another day, another dollar” a commentator also falsely claimed that I had accused “IPCC scientists of being child-rapists without proof” (no. 48). However, that false accusation was withdrawn (no. 80) based on my comment no. 53. So you’re not the first to go down that wrong path, rhwombat.

    PART IV

    Also in the thread attached to the post “Another day, another dollar” I was asked to specifically condemn child-rape at no. 34 (I thought I had done so already) and provided a further condemnation at comment at no. 38. So I didn’t start this “condemnation” business, rhwombat. Rather, I merely thought it a good idea to get ringing denunciations of child-rape from all the Deltoids–though my effort there was no more successful than my attempt to build a mass boycott of the next IPCC annual conference.

    In conclusion, do try to get the facts right, rhwombat, in any presentation that includes my views. Quotes within context is the best way, you know.

    And I know it’s unlikely, rhwomat, that you will acknowledge your errors and provide retractions–but you’re on notice now, guy.

  54. #54 bill
    July 3, 2011

    Jeebus, if you-all ain’t been actin’ the great grand-daddy of a loon, and no mistake. You best be takin’ those meds when you s’posed to in future, Punkin.

  55. #55 Tim Lambert
    July 3, 2011

    Enough. This post is not about you, mike. From now on all comments from mike and any comments about mike should go into the Open Thread. I can’t move comments, so I’ll just delte the off topic ones.

  56. #56 rhwombat
    July 3, 2011

    Thanks Tim. It was getting a bit Lovecraftian.

  57. #57 caerbannog
    July 3, 2011


    I have just finished corresponding with Purdue University about Mr Watts. They confirm that he has no qualification from them, despite attending from 1975 to 1982. I have sent the evidence by email to the owner of Deltoid.

    Posted by: Scribe | June 30, 2011 10:31 AM

    Christ! Seven years of college down the drain…”

  58. #58 steve from brisbane
    July 18, 2011

    I trust people have noticed John N-G’s recent post on the matter of the Counterpoint interview.

    blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/07/what-i-did-on-my-summer-vacation/

    (His response to my comment is interesting too.)

Current ye@r *