I looked at that Anthony Watts and tobacco claim and frankly the deeper I look into it the more delusional it looks. I think it started with one smear that may or may not have been correct and snowballed. One smear for somebody in particular(Robert Spencer?) has been used to paint with a broad brush:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/ ... ony-watts/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/02/ ... nnections/
Of course the habit of certain types to just make it up and spread FUD around doesn't help to clarify the issues.:
http://my.firedoglake.com/cgibson/tag/anthony-watts/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28 ... ine/191545
Especially when people misinterpret what they see based on beliefs. Of course basing you arguments on stolen and faked documents:
http://heartland.org/press-releases/201 ... -documents
doesn't help your cause. Of course the AGW people have a long history of ad hominum attacks rather than using data to make an argument:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/07/g ... its-point/
The Anatomy Of A Delusion
-
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: The Anatomy Of A Delusion
Very scathing: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/0 ... -the-week/
And at the end this tidbit: "UPDATE: Pielke, Sr. has commented on the video, complaining that it links deniers like Watts to the tobacco issue. GetEnergySmartNow explains why the link is a fair one."
The link: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/07/28 ... gh-or-cry/
Now, in all fairness, I cannot see a direct link between Willard and the tobacco industry; but Lindzen has such a link. Likely my source confused them. I'll notify them, assuming it wasn't me.
And at the end this tidbit: "UPDATE: Pielke, Sr. has commented on the video, complaining that it links deniers like Watts to the tobacco issue. GetEnergySmartNow explains why the link is a fair one."
The link: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/07/28 ... gh-or-cry/
Now, in all fairness, I cannot see a direct link between Willard and the tobacco industry; but Lindzen has such a link. Likely my source confused them. I'll notify them, assuming it wasn't me.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.