Watts the Denialist

Ok I guess I'm a troll. The actual emails listed are abusive, uncalled for, rude and nasty. But I didn't see any that were death threats. I have to admit that I didn't go exhaustively through every article linked. Given his core argument I would have thought he would put those front and center. Perhaps just bad evidence presentation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWVFHJUYVcE&feature=share

Nutters

Dorlomin, Yes nutters is right, and rude and stupid, but hardly a death threat. Their argument is that green policies are suicidal. Not that they are going to lynch the guy.

"noose" = "death threat".

It doesn't matter if the guy holding the noose claims he meant something else.

As we know so called climate scien-tits are involved in so called cons - piracy, we could ask the man if he believes on the existence of climate scientists and name a few. As the mans attention span is shorted like an inverted Tiljander proxy there might even be an answer!

and rude and stupid, but hardly a death threat.

Brandishing a noose is not a death threat?

Thats beyond desperation.

It seems to me that, as with all threats, the person receiving it is the one who decides if it is a legitimate "threat" or not. It's easy for anyone else to stand back and make judgement, but it's something else entirely when the abuse is directed squarely at you.

"shorted like an inverted Tiljander proxy"

... and so the chunterings of McI's li'll star chamber of self-proclaimed 'experts' becomes a would-be justification for actions half a world away.
Never mind Rupe'n'Becky's'n'Jimmy's "Duh, whut?" performances last week, now that's what you could call 'plausible deniability', if you were so minded.

It's amazing how all the pieces come together.

While I think it was stupid theater. In my opinion it was meant as an offer for him to hang himself. But I can see how making a gift of a noose could be viewed as a death threat by someone else. But Dorlomin it is not cut and dried. I still don't really see how this makes David Appell's case. If he wanted to focus on this one example and say that Watt's should cover it, I guess that would be ok. But none of the articles or emails really point to a pattern of death threats.

[But I can see how making a gift of a noose could be viewed as a death threat - this is pretty pathetic stuff. I'm sure you could excuse away "I'm going to kill you" if you contorted yourself hard enough, too.

Besides which, you miss the point - which is Watts refusal to allow the comments to be posted. Appell has the evidence, but for some reason Watts doesn't want his readers to see it - that rather suggests that he agrees with Appell as to its validity, no? If, as you suggest, it was all innocent fun, Watts would be happy for his ditto heads to be allowed to look at it -W]

You are all missing the best part. Watts is playing wounded elephant. It looks like David Ball has shown up and more.

BTW, go over to Curry's. Eschenbach and friends are dumping on your global cooling pages

[Gosh, there is an awful lot of trash there. 179 comments and precious little of any value. The only one worth anything was yours, which Curry responded to. I found some WE stuff saying "Connolley is a bad person" but I didn't see any attempt at all to engage with the argument, presumably because they can't -W]

Ok I guess I'm a troll. The actual emails listed are abusive, uncalled for, rude and nasty. But I didn't see any that were death threats. I have to admit that I didn't go exhaustively through every article linked. Given his core argument I would have thought he would put those front and center. Perhaps just bad evidence presentation.

The first sentence of the first article Appell links to in support of his claims (emphasis mine):

The death threats received by Australian climate scientists such as Will Steffen, Andy Pitman and David Karoly havenât come out of the blue.

MartinM, That is just a claim. Where are the actual death threats? This is third hand.

Here is the question on the noose. If someone handed Monckton a noose at one of his stupid speeches would you consider that a death threat? Or just telling him to shut up?

Nicolas,

Perhaps this item reported at Deltoid might convince you that rather serious incidents are taking place in Oz.

And the truly ironic thing is (although Appell did choose some bad examples) that a couple of weeks ago Watts posted a complaint about an op ed in an Australian paper in which the author invited deniers who claimed to be unable to understand how an odorless, colorless gas in low concentrations could have such a profound effect. She suggested that they try an experiment in a closed room containing 0.1% CO and see what happens. He claimed that this was a death threat. Why shouldn't a much more direct threat from a person representing a group which was aggressively picketing a presentation also be taken as a death threat also?

He claimed that this was a death threat.

Watts is quite happy to allow statements to the effect that anybody who thinks the AGW "unconvinced" might be irrational is on the point of violence. (Although reading the quote below left me with the feeling that the author is projecting.)

If you believe your opponents are irrational, then at some point you contemplate using force to get them to agree. Iâm not shocked to find this in a teacher. The urge to commit violence on those who refuse to learn is an occupational hazard. I taught, I know.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/16/craven-attention/

Deltoid:

... or the researcher who received an email, with a marksman's target superimposed on his photo.

Surely Nico would have it to mean a compliment to the researcher, telling his work is right on the mark...

> a marksman's target superimposed

It's a plus sign.
That's positive.
Positive feedback is always good.
QED, no threat.

Oh, wait.
Were we talking about climate change or about death threats?
How do we tell them apart?

Martin,

This conversation is about evidence. Who was the researcher? When did the this take place? Where is the photo. It sounds suspiciously like an urban legend copied from the political discussion in the U.S.

Sorry Rattus, still all second or third hand. Where is the news story with the actual incidents being described. What University? What were the actual threats? Whose office has added security recently because of these issues?

Look at it this way. Could I prove there had been death threats by referring to David Appells posting which "proves it."

I have already said that many of these statements are idiotic and rude. I'm certainly not ruling out the possibility that there have been multiple death threats. I am simply pointing out that remarkably in all of this writing there is almost no actual evidence. The noose video is the closest and it is, to me, ambiguous. Dozens of emails are quoted. Not a single one is really a threat of any kind.

[But you're still missing the point. Why won't Watts let his readers judge this for themselves? Why are DA's posts there removed, though voluminous pointless rubbish is let through? -W]

"Second hand or third hand blah blah"

FFS, don't be lazy and click on the news links on Lambert's blog post. The answers are there.

"I am simply pointing out that remarkably in all of this writing there is almost no actual evidence. The noose video is the closest and it is, to me, ambiguous. Dozens of emails are quoted. Not a single one is really a threat of any kind."

Are you the type of person who needs to see the actual email threat, or be present at the lecture where the noose was displayed to actually admit that these are valid threats to people?

FWIW, I agree with WC - your verbal contortions are pathetic.

Nicholas Nierenberg:

I have already said that many of these statements are idiotic and rude. [...] The noose video is the closest [to evidence] and it is, to me, ambiguous.

Yeah, I understand, Nicholas. Holding up a noose isn't a death threat, it's merely an advertising strategy, which of course is totally not a reflection of the actual high moral integrity of the climate 'skeptics' -- ooh.

So by your 'standard', of course there aren't any death threats (or rape threats for that matter), there are only failed advertising strategies!

I wonder what you think of this tidbit:

Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?

Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynchs you.

Nicholas, do you think this is merely a bad choice advertising strategy by a climate 'skeptic' with a high degree of moral integrity -- and somehow not actually a rape threat?

-- frank

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/homegrown-terrorism-us-0811?page=all

For Nicolas Nierenberg:

âDid you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parentsâ socialist beliefs and actions?â

Clive Hamilton has the details.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/22/2826417.htm

Something else to note is that the details of many of the emails are part of ongoing investigations by the likes of the FBI, so are not publicly available. Yet.

Silencing the scientists: the rise of right-wing populism
by Clive Hamilton

Are you the type of person who needs to see the actual email threat

I'm getting the impression that NN is the type of person who needs to see the bodies before he'll believe the threat was made ...

I get some annoying popup login screen on this page, probably from some of your ads... (or maybe if you hotlinked some photo...)

wpt101.com is the offending domain

Well, here's a thought question:
rank the following in terms of threat:

N: Noose at talk.

E: Random threats by Email.

B:Blog posts, like: Sean Peake's fix bayonets towards Ray Bradley for showing up at WUWT and politely answering a question.

R: Find an eviscerated rat on your doorstep, as a guy in yellow Hummer drives away shouting insults, unsurprising as Ben was under continuous attack from TAR time, starting with Seitz & Singer in the WSJ.

(Google: ben santer dead rat)
Sorry, I am unable to display the rat... guess this doesn't count.

Well, here's a thought question:
rank the following in terms of threat level:

N: Noose at talk.

E: Random threats by Email.

B:Blog posts, like: Sean Peake's fix bayonets towards Ray Bradley for showing up at WUWT and politely answering a question.

R: Find an eviscerated rat on your doorstep, as a guy in yellow Hummer drives away shouting insults, unsurprising as Ben was under continuous attack from TAR time, starting with Seitz & Singer in the WSJ. He got enough threats to have security guards at public appearances.

(Google: ben santer dead rat)
Sorry, I am unable to display the rat... guess this doesn't count.

Nicolas,

Try following the links in the Deltoid post. They point the the full articles.

William,

Ok, let's be absolutely clear. I'm not defending these people OK. They are garbage. What I'm saying is that I haven't seen a single credible story in all these links about an actual death threat against a climate scientist. (Unless we go with making a gift of a noose.)

As to the accusation that Watt's won't publish stuff. He did, in the same thread that all this is about Appell linked many of the articles you guys are talking about. Including this one.

http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-the-target-in-culture-…

Just read through it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/29/bizarre-nyt-follow-aaas-lead-on-f…

[I don't think you are defending these folk. But I don't see you saying a word against Watts for deleting Appell's posts, and that is hard to understand -W]

[I don't think you are defending these folk. But I don't see you saying a word against Watts for deleting Appell's posts, and that is hard to understand -W]

W, perhaps that's because NN is doing the same thing with words that Watts is doing with technology: ignore, ignore, ignore all the evidence of death threats and rape threats so that he can claim that they don't exist.

Why would NN say a word against Watts's methodology if NN's using it himself?

-- frank

[I can't agree with you. I think NN is being "sceptical" to an unreasonable degree, but that isn't comparable to Watts. NN isn't censoring anyone's posts. And he has a good record in the past of picking up mistakes from people like Oreskes -W]

Watts wants a list current death threats. Watts also wants an apology from Appel, as death threats from up to five years ago don't seem to count as death threats in his book, using that as an excuse to mod away Appel's comments.

"We are still waiting for you to point out the valid death threats. Sorry, the repackaged ones from 5 years ago donât count."

Spat my coffee out.

[I can't agree with you. I think NN is being "sceptical" to an unreasonable degree,

W, what NN is doing is simply summarily blow away all the mentions of nooses, dead rats, bayonets, and gang rapes with a generic "THERE IS NO DEATHS THREATS!!!!" Sounds more like someone ignoring evidence than someone who's 'unreasonably skeptical'. But then again, I'm not exactly known for charitable interpretations of people's words.

-- frank

Appell has a follow-up post.

Remember, too, that this is the same Watts who, after a middle-aged woman who posts at source watch visited his business's office to ask him some questions, squealed loudly and widely that he'd been personally threatened with violence by a global warming fanatic blah blah blah ...

William,

Ok I agree I didn't really follow Watt's logic for starting to delete the posts in that thread. I had understood Appell's point to be that Watts didn't allow any of this evidence in. Appell was clearly able to post at least some of the links that were referred to here. I don't think more of the same would probably have made any difference.

I guess they got tired of him posting a bunch more, but that whole thread is so stupid I'm not sure why they drew the line other than a fit of pique. I would suggest that he let Appell post whatever he wants within reason.

Frank and others,

I certainly never said there are no death threats. That would be stupid and I'm not. I said that his article did not document any death threats. Mostly what I am seeing is a big echo chamber.

As I keep saying. Where is the actual professor? Where is the actual time frame? What was the actual email etc? A dead rat is not a death threat. It is crude but it isn't. (Even if I go with the noose. By the way I didn't say it was an "advertising strategy.") Saying "eat shit and die." Is not a death threat. The "rape" thing was second hand in an unknown time frame to someone unidentified except as a climate campaigner.

Maybe I am being excessively skeptical on this. But I think you guys are lending credibility to every accusation and rumor. Perhaps there is a middle ground.

[I think at this point we've all said what we're going to. Please please can we not have a round of comments attacking NN for the above, if all you're doing is repeating previous points? Of course, if you have something new to say, do, but trivial variations will be frowned on and (ironically, ha ha) deleted -W]

The guy with the noose was a LaRouchie whose only connection to denialism is their belief that climate science is part of the Queen of England's evil plot to addict everybody to heroin.

NN -- "I guess they got tired of him posting a bunch more, but that whole thread is so stupid I'm not sure why they drew the line other than a fit of pique."

Watts has a devout readership, and what Appel was posting contradicted Watts's narrative. It's similar to Lucia's, where she doesn't go as far as banning or redacting, but she jumps on those who upset her more critically challenged readers when they fail to effectively challenge the dissenters themselves.

Paul Kelly, what are you trying to say? Does it matter what the reason of the denialism is?

I think some people are failing to realize the cultural connotations of a noose. Nooses are often left hanging form trees in the US to intimidate African Americans. This is an implied threat.

In any case, using a noose as a prop in a political argument is unheard of, while using a noose to intimidate has a long history. It's pretty clear what you mean to say when you introduce an implement whose primary use is to asphyxiate human beings until the die. Threats do not have to be direct.

A person is crazy enough and hates you enough to catch a rat, eviscerate it, find your house, drive there and leave it on your doorstep, such that your son fears for his safety in his own house.
No worries.

This discussion has emphasised the intentions of the emailers and the interpretations of the recipients. But what about the risk of 'unintended' * consequences?

I have just been watching BBC2's Newsnight in which a leader of the EDL was trying to distance himself from Breivik in Norway. B is not the only violent psychopath around. The emails, discussed above, are part of a kind of collective insanity which has been stirred up without regard to the side effects. If anything very nasty happens, there will be a rush of people trying to disclaim all responsibility.
---------
* Perhaps I am being charitable there?

On a Dutch blog for climate pseudo-skeptics it was actually spun in such a manner that Breivik is in reality a leftist, just like the Nazis were. 'Everyone's a Nazi, except me', is a way of thinking characteristic of Nazis, I guess. The right conservatives are the true Herrenvolk, but crazy leftist Breivik said the exact same thing?

These dog whistlers just don't know what they are unleashing.

Frank, John,

I'm assuming William is asleep at this point. But you are both being ridiculous. I just said it wasn't a death threat. It was a horrible, nasty, brutish stupid thing to do. But you guys are kind of doing a drive by on me now.

[Agreed - I've deleted some comments (response here snipped). You were warned -W]

Come on, Nicolas, Frank only wants to give you a present.

/downplay mode off

If Pinch of the Times can brandish a moose,
Who can object to a lynching Larouche?

W, I don't see what's wrong with my proposed deal

[ Sorry, but the mood between you and NN isn't such that you can use humour, it will only offend. This stuff is polarised enough already, you shouldn't be trying to drive further wedges -W]

-- frank

Is anyone surprised by Nicholas' comments?

W, I'm not using humour. I'm asking NN to put his life where his mouth is.

-- frank

W,

And there you have it. Frank wasn't being funny it was an actual threat.

Okay, humour break:

"As I read the Wegman Report, I must say I was impressed by how well this statistician had grasped the intricacies of paleoclimatology, and in particular, high-resolution studies of tree rings, ice cores, and corals. His section on the problems of using tree rings, and of the important points that one must take into account, struck me as quite brilliant â lucid and clear. It was only later that I realized that large sections of his report had been lifted verbatim from my own 1999 book on the subject, âPaleoclimatologyâ."
-- Ray Bradley from his new book.

H/T caerbannog the anonybunny

Also noted was that Watts took David's 'Watts denies his own mother' metaphor, informed us that his mother was deceased and that therefore this was somehow David striking a low by bringing personal family type issues into an Internet debate. Which is surely entirely muddled logic.

Oh and then there was this.
http://dashes.com/anil/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of-assholes-its-yo…

One might also add that if one's website is full of people singularly misinformed about the very subject matter of your website...

[Aiee. Will no-one listen? I've deleted some comments here, and will probably go back and kill some earlier ones, too -W]

Murderous weasel

[We have sharp teeth, and are known for biting lagomorphs and others. Ha, you can always post up the comments on your blog with a big notice about me censoring stuff -W]

So you really are Keith Kloor in drag. . . .

I have been banned from commenting at Watts web site for correcting him on the facts too often.
I am sure I am not alone. Here is one of the reasons I was banned:

Last March, after Professor Muller had testfied before Congress, that a sample of the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature data set had been analysed, and the results looked just like the GISS and Hadcrut global average temperature graphs, Watts protested that the 2% sample only represented Japan and therefore we could conclude nothing from it.

In a comment, I quoted that Muller's written report, which said it was a random sample of global data, and judging by that it couldn't have come only from Japan.

Watts castigated me severely as follows:

"Ah I see you are immediately back to wasting everyoneâs time here, so Iâll waste some of yours with some sarcasm. Iâm not going to give you any additional information, as youâve proven yourself to be a hostile commenter who will just run over to the Rommulans and rant about it there, followed by more ranting from the Rommulan general. Comical, they canât even wait for the science, they MUST STERILIZE it before it reaches Earth. Canât have anything that might threaten the Rommulans now can we? /sarc â Anthony"

Oops! - On March 28 after being corrected by Muller himself, Watts admitted :

"I made a mistake regarding the 2% figure, I misheard what was being presented during my visit with the BEST team at Berkeley. As many of you may know Iâm about 80% hearing impaired and the presentation made to me was entirely verbal with some printed graphs. Based on the confidentiality I agreed to, I did not get to come back with any of those graphs, notes, or data so I had to rely on what I heard. I simply misheard and thought the 2% were the Japan station analysis graphs that they showed me."

That is really a lame excuse. I think there is more than hearing impairment going on here. It seems he can't read either. Muller's written report, which I quoted, said it was a random global sample.

He denies the existence of facts which prove his opinions are incorrect, and invents a conspiracy theory to cover it up. He needs to ban people who dissent in order to feed his self image of himself as an astute scientist.

[Anybody sane cannot possibly believe that Muller would have released results based only on Japan. Presumably, Watts is projecting his own techniques onto others -W]

Isn't there a psychological condition with some of these affects, inflated sense of self worth/ego, failure to admit or accept responsibility for errors/mistakes, enjoyment from manipulating people. Gee, I bet there may even be superficial charm in there somewhere.

Well, for a pretty actual death threat, there is always Anna-Maria Arabia having received an email saying she would be âstrung-up by the neckâ:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/scientists-are-receivi…

Clive Hamilton mentioned several others aimed at CSIRO scientists with beautiful verbous prose like: âyou will end up collateral damageâ, âyou will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f**king neck, until you are dead, dead, deadâ, âYour head will be on a stakeâ.

These statements are pretty unequivocal (and explicit) death threats. One could argue that all these could be just steam being let out by frustrated rednecks who are otherwise nice to children and animals (no doubt that 99,9% of such threats are just hot air), but that argument surely will not cut it. Try shouting out aloud in an airport "Watch out, infidels - I´m a terrorist armed with dynamite!" and try to explain to the police afterwards that it wasn´t seriously meant. I remember at least 5 bomb threats against my primary school in the most peaceful corner of provincial Scandinavia, which were, of course, all completely hollow and probably made by bored pupils in the older classes, but the police and the teachers were still forced to take them all damn seriously.
And certainly, some death threats are everything but hollow - learning that Anders Breivik spent several pages of his manifesto raving echoing the rantings of Monckton and the exact same things that has angered the people making the above threats against the climate scientists is hardly reassuring after the Utøya massacre.

People who are not at the receiving end of such threats should be very, VERY careful not to trivialise them or offer up kind excuses.

@Eric Adler #55

...or to paraphrase Jon Stewart, 'hearing impairment isn't even in my Top 20 of things wrong with Watts'.

> he would not live to see further global warming.

But, but -- that's exactly what Tim Ball says himself!

He doesn't expect to live to see further global warming.

Regardless of whether he speaks out or not.

How could he?

Global Cooling: Dr Tim Ball - Climate Gate
climatecooling.blogspot.com/2009/11/dr-tim-ball-climate-gate.html Nov 25, 2009

Eli,

That is indeed a death threat. If that had been presented in the original discussion then I would have simply agreed. I didn't doubt that death threats had been made, I just said that the things being listed weren't death threats. That, in fact, is how the whole discussion began.

Is this the point where NN praises himself for attaining the "middle ground" wherein "[you Ms. Arabia will be] strung-up by the neck" is a death threat, while dead rats at the doorstep aren't a death threat (except when directed at NN himself)?

Or perhaps this is the point where NN claims that the death threats are all the fault of scientists because they're not communicating the actual severity of the death threats clearly enough?

Or the point where NN agrees there's an actual death threat against a climate scientist, and then decides that it's he who's being victimized?

I await NN's (and W's) response...

[This all seems a bit pointless and going-round-in-circles-y. But NN has already admitted one death threat -W]

* * *

Meanwhile, from the Australian article linked by CBH:

> More than 200 scientists will converge on Parliament House today to call on politicians to help stop misinformation in the climate debate.

> But it's not certain the scientists will be able to personally deliver their message to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

> "Look, I've got a pretty busy schedule today," he told ABC Radio.

Well, it does seem Abbott is too busy a man to concern himself with such grubby tasks as protecting his country's citizens.

-- frank

W:

This all seems a bit pointless and going-round-in-circles-y.

Repetition can be useful at times (in this case, to remind everyone that NN is nowhere as "reasonable" as he makes himself out to be). Not everything in life is an academic conference where all presented content must be original...

-- frank

Weasels, of course, miss the point which is to exhaust everyone proving the obvious and it was obvious, and it took what 62 posts and two weeks. Now extrapolate to understand what is going on.