Saturday, March 17th 2012, 11:36 AM EDT
Climate blogger Anthony Watts perplexes his readers with a spiteful outburst against fellow skeptics of man-made global warming. The host of the world's most read science blog has made it clear he won't tolerate any dissent against his beloved greenhouse gas theory, the scientific cornerstone of man-made global warming alarm.
Indeed, the front man of WUWT is in danger of tarnishing his otherwise stellar reputation in the global warming skeptic community with another science-free pop at fellow skeptics of the doomsaying cult, the 'Slayers.' Unlike Watts who insists carbon dioxide must cause "some" atmospheric warming, the Slayers disagree and despite lofty detractors have seen their science in the ascendancy since the launch of their best seller in late 2010.
Watts has never baulked at privately bad mouthing the Slayers' groundbreaking book,'Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory' that he admits he hasn't read. But in the last year Watts has increasingly gone public to let it be known that he refuses to countenance any debate on his website about the validity of the greenhouse gas theory, which he unquestioningly accepts.
Here is his latest vituperative blast as published on WUWT (March 14, 2012):
“I have been badgered repeatedly to carry “Slayer” articles on WUWT, and with the exception of one cartoon by Josh, I have refused to do so since I view the work (and its derivatives) as pointless and fatally flawed. In his latest essay, Sir Roy has not only slayed the slayers and slayettes, but has sliced and diced and made julienne fries in two easy steps. – Anthony”
Anthony has repeatedly stated that he does not grasp all of the science involved in this debate and depends on his bloggers and other scientists to inform him. He is rather like Spencer, who continues his rant as follows:
“...even some of us technical types end up feeling ill-equipped to argue outside our areas of expertise.”
Such is how the “blind lead the blind.” A perfect example of Anthony’s inabilities in this complex science is evinced from his immediate endorsement of Svensmark’s CERN cloud study (WUW: Aug 24, 2011). The CERN experiment suggested cosmic rays contributed to the nucleolization of 3 micron SOx molecules to the 50 micron particles necessary for cloud formation. The resulting clouds and rainfall remove these SOx molecules ending the process. Without identifying the source and rate of SOx production that supplies this 3 micron feedstock, this finding is completely useless.
It is either ironic or hypocrisy for those who advocate transparency and open debate to then restrict debate that they admit not understanding. As further proof Anthony closed any comments on his Slayer rant with a link to Roy Spencer’s “Two Step” rant.
No one has the right to tell others how to think. But it is somewhat galling to be publicly attacked by someone who styles himself as an advocate of open scientific debate yet who hypocritically refuses to permit any debate when it irks his own sensibilities. Perhaps the more enlightened readers on WUWT could advise their host that he is unlikely to further enhance his reputation by stooping to these attacks. As one respected environmental journalist (name withheld) commented:
“All opinions about so-called global warming deserve a fair and open hearing. Unfortunately, Anthony Watts, who I admire, will not post any articles on his Web site contesting the reality of the GHE or the alleged warming effects of CO2. It’s a shame. My guess is that he is afraid he’ll be labeled a crank by not only the warmists, but also the lukewarmists, many of whom are his close associates. In that regard, he is not much different from many government-funded consensus scientists who are afraid, for professional and personal reasons, to deviate from the pack AGW mentality.”
Perhaps some are right and Watts and the scientists he supports are afraid of debating. Perhaps they are fully aware that their case is weak and a wider audience will see this if any public debate is held. So it yet remains to be seen whether Watts has the strength of character to redeem himself and be open and honest enough to give all skeptics a fair hearing on the world's most popular science blog.