Anthony Watts is threatening to sue me

After a hard week at work I enjoy a laugh. Thanks, Greg.

I didn't think Tony could get any nuttier. He's been spending too much time with the Mad Monck(ton).

The poll is missing the obvious other option: "Grow up, Watts".

My goodness, all three options are so intimidating. I'm wondering what these lawyers (plural!) are all suggesting because short of sending a toothless cease and desist, I don't think he has any legal grounds to sue you that would be worth the price of admission to go to court.

There is no case to answer. He's a denier. End of.

Oh I don't know. Might rate a comment on the back page of a newspaper.

"Anthony Watts, ex-television weather announcer and current owner of the world's most viewed anti-science blog, had a case thrown/laughed out of court, trying to sue a real scientist because he taught Watts something about about diatoms."

I wonder how legit Mr. Watts' counting of his ballots will be. Since he did not post the comment I placed on his last thread (as of this moment), I suspect that he will not include it. Therefore I have reproduced it as best I can from memory below:

" Anthony, you old cry-baby, you! You dish it out in spades at WUWT but cry "foul" when treated in kind. And this specific thread - seeking input from your devoted choir members - is pure chicken droppings. Why don't you instead turn WUWT into the open forum you claim it is? Not enough $$$ in that approach, I suppose? "

As you might suspect, Mr. Watts does not like me very much and apparently like those of Mr. XXXX, my comments now go straight into his trash bin - in spite of the fact that I am one of the few bonifide atmospheric scientists (see resume at ericgrimsrud.com) that have provided him with comments (see ericgrimsrud.wordpress.com, November archives).

I wonder how legit Mr. Watts' counting of his ballots will be. Since he did not post the comment I placed on his last thread (as of this moment), perhaps he will not include it. Therefore I have reproduced it as best I can from memory below:

" Anthony, you old cry-baby, you! You dish it out in spades at WUWT but cry "foul" when treated in kind. And this specific thread - seeking input from your devoted choir members - is pure chicken droppings. Why don't you instead turn WUWT into the open forum you claim it is? Not enough $$$ in that approach, I suppose? "
As you might suspect, Mr. Watts does not care for me very much and apparently like those of Mr. Laden my comments now go straight into his trash bin - in spite of the fact that I am one of the few bonifide atmospheric scientists (see resume at ericgrimsrud.com) that have provided him with comments (see ericgrimsrud.wordpress.com, November archives).

I don't know whetherto laugh or draw?

Two observations:

1. Truth is always a defense against libel in the U.S.

A good lawyer will take a look at the posts and understand that Watts is accused of posting to a crank science journal. A good lawyer would advise him to fold his hand and cut his losses -- and post a correction at his blog. He could demand you post a link to his correction, which of course, you'd be happy to do. Which part will he claim is untrue? Depositions on his trying to prove Wickramasinghe's claims would be a lot of fun in the right hands.

2. Counterclaim. Watts is accusing you of inaccuracy, which of course is libelous. Publication, identification, defamation -- of those three elements, he's got it all over your blog, Greg (no offense; it's a cross we all bear that crank stuff is so popular). It won't get to depositions, but were to get that far, again, you could sell tickets. Hello, YouTube? No reason the deposition of Watts couldn't be videotaped -- and it would be delicious and informative to hear his explanations for why it shouldn't be posted on YouTube. I mean, isn't he for science being openly discussed in the public square?

3. Malicious prosecution. If he does find a lawyer willing to file, such a filing would be done with full knowledge that it won't win, and probably shouldn't have been filed. Get the damages. Your lawyer can get rich on this -- let her.

Has Watts made similar complaints to P. Z. Myers? I've heard nothing from him; but he hopes I go away quietly, I'm sure.

Nobody is accusing Watts of posting to anything, that I know of.

Watts has was partly taken in by a totally bullshit research project, and I noted that. End of story.

He claims that I wronged him by not conveying his sense of incredulity. But, 1) not my job and 2) I did include his incredulity in my famous screen shot. He said "This looks to be a huge story, the first evidence of extraterrestrial life, if it holds up…."

He is interested in a story that I personally think should be rejected out of hand, similar to a Bigfoot sighting. That fits, to my mind, with his overall science denialism, and that is worth noting. But also note that he does say "if it hods up"

I am not obligated to screen shot or block quote material from anyone's blog. It is amusing to think that there are people who believe that I am.

This is what bullies do. Make up self-serving rules and then shout them again and again in the hopes that people will get used to hearing them and start to think they are real. These rules, that I have to get Anthony Watts' approval for what I do and do not quote, link, or screen shot are made up. By him.

Hilariously it seems Watts also forgot the little incident where he claimed NCDC had deliberately removed the high altitude/high latitude surface stations to artifically inflate the warming trend, only to be shown wrong in two ways:
(a) the literature contained a paper in the early 1990s describing how scientists had worked hard to *add* stations that did not normally report (which explained the 'disappearance' of many stations after that time)
(b) removing those high latitude/altitude stations would actually at best cause a *decrease* in the warming trend, not an increase.

Watts' solution? Remove the claim quietly, and not apologize, ever.

Do you know exactly what he is threatening to sue you for? It seems a touch vague to me (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/01/19/saturday-morning-breakfast-cer…)

Anthony Watts recently published a guest post by an author who believes in the Loch Ness Monster. Seriously.

Can anyone remember his name?

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/01/19/saturday-morning-breakfast-cer…

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/appeal-to-bunnies.html

sniff. sniff.

Love the smell of ASS in the morning on teh nets. Thanks for maintaining it 24/7 all by your lonesome.

May your next incarnation be actually happy and productive.

Is there some kind of post policy I'm consistently failing? I can't get a damn thing through moderation, not even this comment...
>_>

Why does anybody take Watts as a reasonable spokesperson of anything that needs to be based in reality?

Any updates that you know of? AW is currently saying that he's made up his mind, but he hasn't said in what way (obviously he's not suing, but he isn't actually saying that).

Nobody tells me anything.

I know the feeling.

Still, if you were being sued, you'd think you'd notice :-)

Do people still pay attention to what goes on on those crank blogs?

Someone else thought of it first:

Diatomaceous Mirth

Huh?