Anthony Watts: Loser

The mustached weirdo felt like he had to chime in via email.

AW:  “Such immature hate. No need to respond, I’m putting your emails in the spam filter.”

JP:  “Get a life Anthony you amazing loser. We all see what you are. Shill.  Good riddance.”

It’s called righteous indignation, moron.  Spencer’s words speak for themselves to anyone who isn’t a shill or brainwashed by climate alarm propaganda you guys promote.  Spectral absorption occurs when there’s a temperature gradient, idiot?

Let’s have a review of Anthony’s non-existent science training when he pointed a lamp at something, found that it warmed up, and then thought that this was the greenhouse effect:

Slayers “Putting Up” not “Shutting Up”

Slaying Watts with Watts

Closing with Watts

Go ahead now, do another experiment where you can’t find the greenhouse effect.  Pretend that the greenhouse effect has a cause who’s effect is not measurable, and that this therefore proves the greenhouse effect.

You’re a den of vipers, you gatekeepers.  Well you don’t keep me.  And a viper den gets fixed by burning it out and stepping on them as the slithery creeps slide out.  Monckton and now Spencer have publicly shown themselves as to what they are, and Anthony did it log ago.  Keep it coming fellas.

 

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Sophistry. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Anthony Watts: Loser

  1. John Francis says:

    Joe, I have said this before. Insulting people gets you nowhere. I agree with your science, but not with your attitude. Take a leaf out of Steve McIntyre’s or Tim Ball’s book. They are always so unceasingly polite and professional, people take them seriously, as they should.

    Please stop it. You are hurting the science you promote. And don’t say, “Well they did it first”. That is not relevant, even if true.

  2. John I’ll reply here and at your other comment the same thing:

    I can only conclude that they’re shills. From the Monckton post in the comments you will see that he himself did work researching the greenhouse effect and found that it couldn’t be detected. That was in 2007 and was one of the reasons way back then that I became interested in the foundation of climate alarm, which is its conception of a radiative greenhouse effect. His work leads exactly to doing this. What has changed the direction of his research since then and why can he not admit the possibility of what his own work shows? If a cause is supposed to have an effect and the effect which should be measurable can not be measured, then there’s something wrong with the idea of the cause. This could not be simpler and more proper and logical and honest.

    Then in the recent Watts post you will see how Watts himself and a friend of his did some experimentation which quite directly proved the position of the Slayers, but they just pretended it didn’t by doing the “convenient” thing of not actually quantifying their results and thus concluding what they simply desired to instead.

    So what are we dealing with? Yes this has been a question of mine for years. Stupidity, or shilling? Stupidity, or gatekeeping? Stupidity, or playing for the other side?

    At some point it simply becomes both and at further points the righteous thing to do IS to attack. They’ve shown that they’re duplicitous, that they’re dishonest, that they won’t have a debate about it, that they won’t consider it, and that they will ignore and hide their own work about it.

    We’re not dealing with honorable people who deserve to be spoken to respectfully. These are not respectful people. These are not respectable people. They’re not doing scientifically or socially respectable things.

    These are very bad people, whether they are stupid or they are shills. What they’re doing is quite dishonorable and they’re doing it right out in the wide open, and it has been documented, and it has been publicized, and we’ve continually been asked to be nice to them about it while they keep on doing it, as if we are the ones who are supposed to maintain some form of decorum when they are shitting all over what this process is actually supposed to be.

    It’s not the alarmists who are the problem anymore. It is the (shill?) gatekeepers who won’t allow the precise fundamental type of criticism to occur which would destroy the fraud pseudoscience of alarmism at its very base. As long as the alarmist conception of the GHE exists they (alarmists) have a leg to stand on, and all the debates about sensitivity and all the other minutia only drags on and achieves nothing and worst of all gives legitimacy to the pseudoscience by treating it as if it is science. You destroy the base, their greenhouse effect, and you destroy the entire thing…and it can be destroyed because it is wrong. And Watts and Monckton have both helped show experimentally that it is wrong. So who’s paying them or what is motivating them to stop it all from getting out? Is it as simple as that they would both no longer have a following, or possibly even work, if climate alarm was finally shut down for good? They get quite a bit of attention as long as the debate continues. They get on TV, on radio, they get paid for it various ways, etc etc. Is it that? It can’t be answered but it certainly can be concluded that they’re not helping, and in fact, that they are hindering actual rationalism and scientific analysis from occurring.

    So yes, I’m righteously indignant about it. When you realize what you’re actually facing, and what will never happen, then there comes a time when the only action is “force” (i.e. getting angry as I did about it), because you know that the “enemy” is merely seeking to destroy you and will never actually engage you on it rationally – and they have certainly spent a lot of time trying to silence and destroy us, and that was their response immediately at the beginning of this.

    But in any case, these people being what they are and what their education level actually is…the only matter is that they have a following. It was a mistake to ever engage with them and once we realized that long ago we should have committed to not engaging them anymore at all. They’re not referees of or for science or remotely capable of that, and hardly anyone is. Why talk to these nobodies about it? Only because it seemed like it would be fun making friends who had a following who were doing the same research getting to the same final conclusions. Their motives were not in that ball park and perhaps they were worried of losing their following, or *whatever*.

  3. Andy says:

    Yep Joe please don’t Donald Trump om us.

  4. Iampeter says:

    I’ve always been able to dismiss the idea of CAGW just through reason. The basic premise of the environmentalists is: industrial civilization while good for man, is bad for the environment.

    I call that a contradiction and explain that something that is good for man CANNOT be bad for our environment. Since we know that industrial (fossil fuel burning) civilization has been a net benefit to mankind, we logically know that it’s not destroying our environment.

    As such, it never needed to become a scientific debate. People just need to think.

    Having said that even a complete scientific layman like me can understand that greenhouses work because they prevent convection NOT because CO2 is pumped into some of them. That is done to help plant growth speed up in certain climates. Nothing in our atmosphere prevents convection, so there is NO greenhouse effect. And the term greenhouse gas is therefore a complete misnomer. I can also explain that colder objects cannot heat warmer objects so the heat travels from sun – > earth -> atmosphere -> back to space. It never comes back down from our atmosphere as that would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

    All of this is incredibly basic.

    I think a lot of the skeptics who still hold to a atmospheric greenhouse effect may know that this was a pretty big blunder to make and have spent years becoming invested in a debate that should have had the CAGW literally laughed out of any serious conversation. Now they are just doubling down on the bad science, while the alarmists continue to influence policy which is slowly but surely going to destroy our industrial civilization.

    A better way needs to be found to spread the message.

  5. Richard says:

    Hello Joe, I’m new here, my little off-piste story. Tony Hellar was banging on about blankets warming the body. I asked about wet blankets , i think this would be a more accurate representation of the atmosphere if you were going to use that dumb analogy. The result, my comments were deleted and i’m banned.

    Enjoying the site.

  6. Cheers Richard. Yep, that’s what you gotta deal with. Amazing magical heaters in those blankets.

  7. markstoval says:

    I have a short story that should amuse a few here.

    At the site WUWT, all slayers are banned. One can be close to the slayer position if that one had nothing to do with the book or does not mention the group of scientists who are called “slayers”. Also one must not link to anything by Joseph Postma and a few particular others.

    So, one thread perhaps a year ago or so, I mentioned that I thought the evidence showed that CO2 concentrations did did not warm the planet at all. In other words, what is called “Climate Sensitivity” is zero or perhaps negative.

    So a fellow from Duke named Dr. Brown decided we should “debate” the issue. I said I was ok with that, and where should the debate be held? Well there at WUWT he said! I responded that I was certainly not going to debate him on his home field where I could not even link to supporting essays and documents — or even write certain words without the comment being deleted.

    The fellow said, apparently in all seriousness, that he saw no advantage to himself at WUWT. Ye Gods, the blindness of the man.

    I think Dr. Brown is blind to the group think that he has fallen into. I think a lot of the “enemies” of the slayers just can’t take an honest look at the facts and logic being presented to them. When I see some of them seriously claim that without a trace of CO2 in the atmosphere then the earth would be 33 degrees colder I just wonder why they can’t see they need to prove that extraordinary statement.

    Ah well, none so blind as those who will not see.

  8. These people and WUWT etc must be shills. It’s the greenhouse effect, the basis of climate alarm, which they won’t allow to be criticized. So that tells you.

  9. Gary Ashe says:

    Joe Richard, i visualise those blankets, and the holes in them, 1 stitch, drop 10,
    000, 1 stitch, drop 10,000 etc etc,,,,, a blanket consisting of 99.960% hole.

  10. Iampeter says:

    But there is still no blanket. I’d argue no analogy is needed because we can just observe reality. Our planet is not covered by anything. Hence nothing prevents convection, hence no greenhouse effect. Am I really missing something here, because to me it’s so straight forward that it pains me to see even great people like Jo Nova buy into the greenhouse gas theory.

  11. Exactly. It is that straightforward, and so what is the explanation for the hostility towards saying what you just did…!?

  12. Richard says:

    Hello Joe ,

    Just ran this one past Tony Heller under a different email!, he seems to not understand a source of energy and reflection of energy so put it into simple terms for him- well mocking him actually.

    “Just so i understand this, I pour hot water from a kettle- the sun , into a teapot- the earth’s surface, you are saying if i put a blanket around the teapot i can make the water hotter?

    what sounds even more exciting is that whatever energy is lost by the teapot can be reflected back and the teapot made hotter.

    now i grant that as the sun goes down, the kettle gets switched off, then the declining energy of the day can be returned – but as the teapot/ earth’s surface will have residual heat then i’m not so sure what the difference if any would be”

  13. Richard says:

    alas it was removed.

  14. Richard says:

    “now i grant that as the sun goes down, the kettle gets switched off, then the declining energy of the day can be returned ” – haha forget that.

  15. Allen Eltor says:

    The thing about the blanket is that it’s the RELATIVE DIRECTION of ENERGY TRAVEL that isn’t right.

    The sun is a yellow fire. There’s nothing out of the ordinary about the spectra it. It’s a fire, a plasma.

    It’s lighting the earth.

    The earth gives off light identical in spectra to some of the sun’s emission, but earth’s infrared light stream is many times less concentrated.

    If you are in a house and it’s on fire, it’s burning yellow, giving off light somewhat similar to the sun, and just like the sun, that burning house, is giving off infrared. Just like your body is just lots more of it.

    But if you are trapped in a room there is a
    RECOMMENDED WAY to COOL YOURSELF
    as YOU MOVE IN FRONT of THAT FIRE:

    PUT a BLANKET between YOU
    and the FIRE.

    Remember that? How when you’re in a burning house, you are to put a blanket between you and the fire?

    That blanket around the earth
    is known as “the green house gases,” which BLOCK 20% of sunlight from ever reaching earth –

    they deflect that light
    just like the blanket in an emergency deflects the light from the fire,
    when you put it around you to limit the larger light stream getting to you.

    The blanket is there and it’s action is cooling.
    The earth has no other source of warming light.

    When you put a reflective/refractive/light scattering blanket
    between a fire and the object being warmed by it
    less light makes it to that object,
    and when you add more blanket,
    scattering more light before it reaches the object,
    the cooling is enhanced.

    The infrared given off by the earth is a direct result of the amount of sunlight reaching it
    and the blanket of green house gases between the fire and the rock,
    act as a fire blanket reducing firelight reaching it
    with every additional green house gas molecule.

    Making less light arrive,
    can’t make more light leave.

    Ever.

    Adding more light blocking agent
    to the frigid fluid blanket,
    can not make more light leave,
    than when more light arrived.

    Adherents to the warming blanket Kookery always say ”but I mean in this certain way,” and all you’ve gotta do, is in simple language say, ”you mean the way adding more light blocking agent to the refrigerated bath, makes the light warmed rock in it get warmer, and since less light arrives, so more light leaves?”

    Just leave that chad hanging for his befuddled self to figure out.

    CO2 is one of the few active firelight blockers in the atmospheric blanket. 400 ppm of total GHGs has about 20% of sunlight energy not making it to us due to the fire blanket effect: suspending a mass that deflects energy, between a hotter object and cooler one, so you can lower temperatures of the latter.

    There’s no escaping this for the adherents to the thermodynamic garbage called warm atmosphere and it infuriates and confounds them socially, because even though they might not agree with the other kooks about how many settings the heater has, they still think the atmosphere is a heater in the sky. And that more atmosphere must mean, more heater.

    And it’s not. It’s a coolant bath and the light blocking dopants which contribute by far, the most to the cooling, are the green house gases; first in stopping light arriving then setting up phase change refrigeration of the entire surface, particularly the section being heated.

    It’s a blanket too. It’s a fire blanket between a rock, just like the rock in your yard – and the sun, just like the one overhead. In fact, the entire discussion is ABOUT: if putting more light blocking medium overhead,
    will make more light leave the rock in your yard,
    because less light arrives,
    at that rock, you your yard.

    That’s the argument, GHG/GHE/Magic Heater believers have to vomit to peoples’ faces EVERY DAY:

    “If you put more of the light blocking agents,
    in the frigid light blocking bath,
    less light arriving at the rock immersed in it,
    is gonna make more light leave the rock immersed in it.”

    It’s kookville and you can see why everyone who believes in it even a LITTLE bit, is immediately swamped by any exposure to any scientific analysis of any kind, and from any direction. Even from BASIC students: any examination of warm atmosphere/GHE bullshoot

    leads to INSTANT discrediting of both story and teller.

    It’s turning a refrigerated fluid bath, into a heater

    then falling on one’s sword in place

    before admitting the REFRIGERATED FLUID BATH
    never was a heater,
    and isn’t secretly,
    a magical heater
    now.

  16. I met Jo Nova personally a few days ago. Her hubby is a physicist so it becomes hard to persuade someone when they’ve got their spouse as the primary source of information to challenge you with.
    However, she told me the atmosphere was like a blanket. I asked her if blankets were good absorbers or bad absorbers. Then I told her the atmosphere is not like a blanket it’s like a sponge. Heat is like water supplied by a high pressure hose. The sponge doesn’t stop the flow or reverse it, it simply gets wet as the water passes through.
    I will have other opportunities to work on Jo as time goes on. Stay optimistic.

  17. arfurbryant says:

    So, basically, the lukewarmers are now conflating insolation with insulation…!

  18. They always have

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s