Anthony Watts

Well, it seems Anthony crybaby Watts is not only a sanctimonius prick but possibly one of the biggest arseholes getting around. Apart from going back on his word about revealing the private discussions illegally obtained from SkS, he has now taken to revealing the personal details of people who post on his blog…only the non-deniers of course. I have been at the end of that nonsense when I posted a comment from work and he revealed my university claiming I had breached the university’s policy, which I hadn’t. Anyway, he banned me from commenting after that. So let’s see what Anthony has done.

 

I am not providing a link to the post.  Although it’s no doubt easy enough to find, I am not going to compound Anthony’s offence. So Anthony is now really starting to reveal his true colours. He is a nasty, self-obsessed, beligerant, sanctimonius, untrustworthy coward. His goal seems to be to drive away dissenting opinions from his denier den so that he can revel in the admiration of his sycophantic bootlickers as they engage in their orgies of scientific illiteracy inspired conspiracy ideation and idiocy in peace.

I actually see this gradual decline in standards at WTFIWWAW as evidence that crybaby Watts is starting to see the writing on the wall for his lunacy. Eventually the money he receives from Heartland will dry up and he will have to shore up support from his ever-willing to donate serfs, like the parasite he is.

28 Comments

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

28 responses to “Anthony Watts

  1. Nick

    Well,he’s well and truly lost it now. This idiocy about ‘anonymous cowards’ was always a joke given his moderators names were unknown for a long time,given that commentators are now known to have their own sock-puppets,and given the blessed anonymous ones who sing his song…but outing addresses is a signal that he wants others to harass those individuals.

    He has a serious cognitive deficiency if he cannot acknowledge his own behavior for what it is.

    • He has no self-respect and is completely unworthy of anyone else’s. I normally wouldn’t comment the way I have but he has proven himself a lousy dog.

      ________________________________

      • At one point I was keeping track of his exposures and general “nastiness”:
        (do a search with — “oh dear” site:http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com )
        As you say he seems to have one aim in mind keep the dissenters out of his “home” as he refers to his blog.

        • I’m a bit pissed off now. I didn’t get anywhere close to the number of comments you did. He merely came here, saw the word “denier”….alot and then used my posting from work in my own time as an excuse to bin me. Thanks for the tip though. I might make documenting the demise of AnthonyWatts’ sanity a pet project. I reckon he’s losing it.

          ________________________________

  2. john byatt

    An outing and a conspiracy theory

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/true-unbelievers.html

    repaid him, one of his mates Jeff T Hutcho

  3. It is clearly wrong to publish contributers’ email addresses. However, with reference to the WtD piece to which you linked, there is nothing actually illegal about quoting stuff posted on a public forum (even though it would break house rules on many sites if in lieu of an actual refutation of an argument). Am I missing something here?

    • You’re right Martin but the WtD post refers to the fact that Anthony publicly stated he wouldn’t reveal the illegally obtained private conversations from SkS and has promptly gone back on his word. The private conversations were illegally hacked and posted on a Russian server. Watts downloaded them and is now posting bits and pieces. It is akin to handling stolen goods and shows he has no conscience, morals or shame.

      ________________________________

  4. Sou

    Tony consistently does this to people – ie outing them. (In my case, he tried and tried to find out who I was but the best he could manage was some veiled allusion to my home town and letting me know he was checking me out with people he thought I might know. Oh as well, in a last ditch effort he offered to post an article of mine on his blog – as if!)

    Divulging personal details is his tactic for ridding his site of comments from anyone who might know what they are talking about or, particularly, anyone who shows him up.

    In regard to the SkS stuff, he’s giving us all a deeper insight into the revolting side of his character – in case anyone missed it over the years. It’s consistent with his past history. He has to stretch a lot and cherry pick to make it seem as if there was anything ‘wrong’ with those private conversations. His efforts seem to have fallen flat, eliciting not much more than the expected ‘that’s brilliant’ type of comment from the more moronic posters.

    The only people he’s fooling now are the few left who want to be fooled (about 10% in the USA if some polling is correct). His own recent poll showed that 99% of his readers are climate science deniers.

    Tony has been flailing about and blaming everyone but himself for the fact that he’s come out as a laughing stock, after he boasted about his appearance on PBS and then reality hit with the public reaction and PBS apology (to its viewers). I don’t know why he picked SkS in particular, rather than say, Joe Romm or anyone else who wrote about their dismay at the PBS fiasco. (Romm is a very tough customer and Tony would be wise not to take him on in any serious way. He should also be very wary of taking on SkS.)

    • I found it funny when he outed my university and said he was going to contact them to let them know I was breaching their internet use policy. I actually had the policy right in front of me because I was half expecting it. I was tempted to email it to him and ask him to point out the clause(s)but decided it wasn’t worth it. I’ve got a perfectly good brick wall here at my house I can bang my head against and I also figure that I don’t need to justify myself to him. He’s not that important.

      • Sou

        It’s like the bully in the school yard yelling out loudly “I’m telling on you” after you’ve shown them up in some way.

        Watts is very childish in his taunts and in his behaviour more generally. He seems to think that people who work for an organisation are treated like, and think of themselves, as being in a child/parent or child/teacher relationship. Common to bullies in the workplace (eg I’ve seen some managers operate with that assumption), but it wouldn’t enter the mind of any serious professional.

        Brings to mind the notion of hierarchical individualism as used by Kahan et al – and a tendency of extreme right-wingers to accept authoritarianism as their preferred social construct.

    • Sou

      Tony decided not to heed my warning about Joe Romm. He’s put up a post saying “it wasn’t my fault, it was the other guy” in response to Joe Romm apparently calling him out. Watts’ post is typical of the cowardly side of bullies.

      As expected, Tony’s false ‘outrage’ post is eliciting comments of the type that he says he didn’t call for. Which was what Tony was encouraging all along by publishing the articles Joe Romm was reportedly alluding to in the first place.

      Oh what a tangled web…

      • indeed. the pitfalls of deception 101

        ________________________________

      • Sou

        On going back to Watts’ article, I think what he might be wanting to do (apart from stirring up deniers to ‘battle’) is get Romm and SkS to publish more articles about him. Romm (and SkS AFAIK) has only recently published one article in which Tony featured prominently – and that was as much about PBS as Tony himself. Watts might be worried about the diminishing number of deniers and wants to boost his profile on pro-science blogs.

        In other words, Tony is probably just looking for attention. Some sort of recognition by pro-science bloggers that he’s “legitimate”. In fact he’s not even viewed as ‘legitimate’ by some of the anti-science lobby. A hard-core denier on another website wrote recently: “CA is the serious science site, not WUWT. WUWT is about marketing, IMHO” – (my emphasis) – which sums up what even some ‘deniers’ think about Tony and his tactics. (And shows how little deniers know about what constitutes ‘serious science’.)

        I say let him stew in his own juice.

        • I’ve been thinking he is becoming increasingly irrelevant. It would be a sign of desperation if he’s adopting the “any publicity is good publicity” tactic. Perhaps he’s noticed a decrease in donations to his tipjar? It might be interesting to check back through his his archives and count the number of comments and also the number of comments from different people. I get the impression (through my anecdotal untrained eye) that nowadays its mostly a core group of the usual suspects. i actually don’t have time to do it but I’m sure someone out there does. I can see the title of the blogpost now. “Anthony Watts becomes increasingly irrelevant and insular.He might lie but the numbers don’t.” of course I could be wrong and he’s operating beyond some sort of critical mass of idiots.

          ________________________________

  5. john byatt

    Googled Anthony Watts is an arsehole, first two hits uknowispeaksense.

  6. Sou

    Actually, I always find it hard to work out just what US-style ‘libertarianism’ is all about. Maybe it’s some combination of authoritarianism and anarchy – which would explain why I find it so hard to fathom.

    • Some goose in the comments there just loves making shit up. Coming the wet tropics Ihave a fair idea of what the climate is like. Here is his comment Mike Buzz-Senior Busbysays: September 30, 2012 at 3:36 pm Guess those of us living in the north of Australia (in my case Townsville) and enjoy 24c minimums too 36 to 38C maximums day with upwards of 90%rh on a constant basis for 4 months at a time are just freaks then.

      Here is the actual data for Townsville http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_032040.shtml

      The average 9Am humidity for Townsville during the wet season is actually around 70%. The average maximum temperatures are around 31. I’m surethat when it rains the humidity gets up that high and I know from experience you will get the occasional day over 35 but nothing like the impression this idiot is trying to portray. I suggest those who exaggerate like that do so because they lack the conficdence in their own position.

      ________________________________

      • john byatt

        Yes mate I know I lived there also for twelve years , civil aviation, read it and thought that he must spend all day in a sauna. really only remember one very humid day, It was a xmas day, lived out near the Ross dam,

        dry dusty chonkie apple and cryptostegia territory

      • Sou

        Re the claim of “36 to 38C maximums day with upwards of 90%rh”, see this paper on heat stress and humidity. Constant exposure to those conditions would threaten the lives of and probably kill most people if exposed for long enough.

        If the weather was as described by Mike Buzz-Senior Busby for ‘four months of the year’, then people would have to find ways to avoid heat stress and death.

        In other words, they’d have to use dehumidifiers and/or air-conditioners that cope with these conditions for long periods (difficult), and remain indoors, or find other ways to reduce their body heat, or move to survivable locations.

      • john byatt

        His arse seems to be very prophetic about the future though