Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

When lukewarmists attack

Thursday, September 22, 2016 2:18
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

sheep-attackIt’s a bit like being savaged by a sheep. Anthony Watts and his psychotic sidekick Willis the drug-addled cowboy are at it again. They’re trying to undermine the work of Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller, who gave an excellent presentation at our highly successful London Conference. Their theory covers the underlying physical principles which determine surface temperature across a range of solar system bodies with radically different parameters in terms of insolation, surface pressure, atmospheric composition and rotation rates. There’s not a snowball in hell’s chance of Watts or Willis understanding it, as they amply demonstrated last time they had a go.

Willis has triumphantly added to Watts’ vindictive nonsense by proclaiming to the world it was he who managed to get one of Nikolov and Zeller’s papers withdrawn from publication due to their use of pseudonyms. He bigs himself up as a hero for being a snitch.

“I was the one who wrote to the Editor of the paper (sic) and notified them of the imposture.”

“And now, we have the denouement … so yes, folks, one person can indeed make a difference in this world, the web makes giants of us all.”

I have a word for people like Willis. It’s not ‘giant’,  it’s ‘wanker’.

But never mind, we will continue to support Ned and Karl’s work by publishing and discussing it here at the talkshop, as we have from the start when we broke the original story that WUWT then copied. Their findings on the magnitude of the ATE have been empirically vindicated by DIVINER’s lunar measurements, and we look forward to further fruitful collaboration.

The latest version of their withdrawn paper with additional explanatory sections was sent to me last night by Ned Nikolov. It’s well worth studying. In the email Ned notes the comment by Michael from ‘the Hockeyschtick’ and Anthony’s reply to it.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/14/climate-skeptics-behaving-badly/comment-page-1/#comment-2299711

Hockeyschtick says “I hope Anthony will consider a hearing for better or worse here at WUWT on the scientific merits of the paper, as it would be to the benefit of everyone. What do we have to lose?

Anthony replies “Nope, sorry. Nikolov and Zeller wore out their welcome with me with some abusive emails in the past, if they want to discuss “the scientific merits of the paper” they can do it elsewhere. I don’t want anything to do with them or with Doug Cotton, who has also worn out his welcome with abusive emails, and yet persists postign (sic) under fake names as if somehow that will convince me to let him have a forum here.”

Ned responds:

I do not recall sending any abusive emails to Anthony, do you? Also, I have not communicated with him at all since 2012 !

I think it’s pretty clear what Anthony’s (and Willis’) agenda is – they never cared about real science or any kind of theoretical breakthrough that could resolve the climate debate for humanity. They only seem to care about keeping the online discussion going (by directing it in circles) and running their little (for-profit) enterprise.

Even Lord Monckton thought it necessary to issue a rebuke to Watts:

While I am uncomfortable with scientific papers being published under false names, such as “Nicolas Bourbaki”, it is perhaps unduly sweeping pompously to dismiss an entire scientific conference on the basis that one of the papers presented at the conference and another outlined in the conference volume are not thought meritorious.

The conference was very successful and will probably be repeated next year.

Niklas Moerner’s approach in organizing the conference was not to exercise any form of censorship, for there is far too much of that on the other side. Bad papers, presented at a high-level conference such as the London conference, will be rejected by the majority of the participants as not having justified their claims. The bad papers, however, do not make the good papers bad. So let us not become too intolerant. There is quite enough intolerance among the climate Communists.

Worth noting then , that Ned and Karl’s contribution received warm applause and elicited interesting questions from the free thinking audience. What a difference from the closed minds of the WUWT wankers.

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.