Real Sceptic

Ventures into scepticism

Responding To Watts About Anonymous Opinions

8th August 2013 13 responses

Anthony WattsSomething I almost always do is to let someone know that I’ve mentioned them in one of my blog post. It’s why I sent my “Anonymous Opinion ‘Not Worth Bucket Of Warm Spit‘” post to Wotts and Watts on Twitter.

And Watts did responds to it with a tweet containing a link to his FAQ page. This is the relevant section from it:

Q. Why do a couple of guest essays have nom de plum names? Aren’t you adamant about people putting their names behind their words?

A. Anyone who publishes on WUWT must be known to the proprietor, and they are all known to me. This requirement is mainly for legal reasons. When running a large enterprise such as this, there may be a legal challenges to writing, and the writer must be held accountable for his/her own words in that case. For the few occasions where somebody wants to publish on WUWT using a nom de plume, the first requirement is full disclosure before publication, and that communications is recorded should there ever be an issue in the furture. Of the nearly 10,000 posts on WUWT, there are just a few that were given the opportunity to publish this way. For good reason, some of those authors fear things like this from activists such as Greenpeace: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.

Publishing on WUWT under a nom de plume known to the proprietor is different from anonymous commenters or some of my doppleganger blog children who use the cloak of anonymity to launch personal attacks against me or contributors to WUWT. For example, in a U.S. court of law, the accused is given the right to openly face the accuser(s). WUWT’s author policy of allows for that if need be. With external attackers who claim self righteousness under the cloak of anonymity, not so much.

No, allowing nom de plum names – also known as pseudonyms – for authors of content on your website is not different from anonymous users criticising Watts. Read more

Blocked By James Delingpole On Twitter

3rd January 2013 2 responses
Image from DeSmogBlog

Image from DeSmogBlog

Not a lot of my readers will know that I’m quite active on twitter, despite my near silence on this blog due to a project I’m working on. I often engage other users on twitter, share interesting news, and give my own perspective on events. Well, as far as that is possible within 140 characters.

I like engaging other users on twitter, it helps with getting a feel for what is being said on subjects and why some are saying it. So it’s not strange that because of this I have exchanges with more known users. As long as everyone is respectful to each other this can be an absolute joy.

And this is where James Delingpole comes into the picture. Read more

The Failure of Climategate 2.0

26th November 2011 3 responses

It has been a few days since the release of a new batch of emails that were obtained by hacking servers at the University of East Anglia. And the usual suspects have been in a complete feeding frenzy digging through them to see if they can find some damning quotes/evidence. Read more

Climategate 2.0? Not really

22nd November 2011 2 responses

Well it seems the hacker(s) behind the original release of the so called climategate emails have released another bunch. This time releasing about 5,000 not previously released emails, and also admitting to having another 220,000 emails.

I venture you won’t need much guessing who immediately jumped on this to proclaim that “here comes Climategate II“, indeed none other than James Delingpole: Read more

How BBC Warmists Abuse The Science – A Response

30th January 2011 2 responses

I probably shouldn’t for the sake of my blood pressure, but I do keep taps on what people on the other side of the debate are saying, especially the more vocal ones. I use it to keep myself appraised of any contrary evidence and queues me on possible cases where a critical look at evidence might be needed.

But I have to say this, most of the time what is being put out by the “sceptics” is severely lacking. Errors and misrepresentation galore, a lot of it being unintentional as climatology is a difficult subject. But often it has its root in what, to me, looks like intentional misdirection and butchering of the science.

And the latest butchering was promoted in a post on the blog Watts Up With That, a website that has a reputation of misdirection and scientific errors: Read more