Anthony Watts targets Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, ends up getting scrubbed

Continuing comedy/tragedy at Watts Up With That, Anthony Watts’ staunchly anti-global-warming-science blog.

Funny in the denial of the obvious, funny in the dance to get around the science, tragic in that anyone grants much credence to the denials of the obvious and science — Watts steams on.

Watts and his moderators haven’t completely blocked my comments, and I can sneak one in on occasion just slipping under their radar.  We are all plagued by a recent spate of pro-DDT publicity, prompted by what I am not sure but encompassing a full-court press from anti-science moguls like Paul Driessen, pro-poison advocates, and a film by a crank (quack?) physician-to-the-stars who appears fearful of revealing his full name, Rutledge Taylor and “3 Billion and Counting.”  (Taylor’s film is sort of the “Expelled!” of the Chronically Obsessed with Rachel Carson (COWRC) set, but without the charm and science of Ben Stein’s film, since the scientists refused to sit for an interview with Taylor.)  (Taylor’s publicity refers to him as “Dr. Rutledge.”  Perhaps he aspires to the heights of academic and science credence granted Dr. Phil.)

Watts gave his pedestal over to an engineer, Indur Goklany, for a diatribe against Bill Gates. In comments, I tried to insert some data into an increasingly shrill and increasingly error-prone howl against Gates.  Of Gates I am no great fan (unfairly; I use Windows), but sometimes one needs to stand up for accuracy and fairness, just for the sake of accuracy and fairness.

Watts gave Goklany a platform to go after my two comments.  I’m Watts’ target for the day.

Dancing on the edge of science is treacherous, as Watts and Goklany may have discovered.  Goklany claims I make many errors in my comments, but he cites no evidence suggesting I err at all.  I merely pointed to the decline in death totals from malaria, and to the real work of the Gates Foundation.  Nothing in those comments has been tagged as incorrect.

In comments, however, truth breaks out.  Franklin’s adage about truth winning in a fair fight holds true, especially on a topic like malaria and DDT, where Watts and Goklany together, even were they the acme of broadcast meteorology and dissident engineering, can’t snuff out factual comments fast enough to keep up the tirade.  [You fellows there on the side:  Stop your betting about whether Goklany is a creationist!  Gambling is not allowed here, especially when the fix is in.  He confesses he is “an engineer,” after all.]

I may err; but take a look, Dear Reader, and see if the contrived case against Rachel Carson and for poisoning Africa with DDT doesn’t take a few hits, especially in comments.

Sometime, perhaps this week, I hope to get a substantial comment about the flurry of crank science on DDT, and Rutledge Taylor’s contemptible falsehoods.  But I am without time, and without computer most of the day.

Now, if only being Watts’ target would persuade his readers to actually come here to find the facts about DDT, it would be worth it.


Tim Lambert at Deltoid explains where Goklany runs off the rails of accurate information, and as usual, has more comments than we get in the Bathtub.

29 Responses to Anthony Watts targets Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, ends up getting scrubbed

  1. JamesK says:

    Shooter, if you think DDT is such a jolly good idea then you should have no problem with agreeing that you and your family should be exposed to it.

    As for your claim that Darwin was a racist…feel free to actually prove it.


  2. JamesK says:

    To quote: You know, Darwin was a racist. And sexist.

    Have you read the Bible?


  3. Ed Darrell says:

    There is no significant issue about whether Goklany is a creationist. Who cares?

    The issue is, he’s dead wrong on DDT and malaria.


  4. Ed Darrell says:

    Shooter said:

    You know, Darwin was a racist. And sexist.

    I know that Darwin was not racist, but that racists and trolls often accuse him of that. You’d think they’d wise up and look around, and actually read what Darwin said, eh?

    Darwin probably was a bit of a sexist. No more than other egalitarians of his time, and probably a lot less than most other Englishmen of his time. His studies of other animal species alerted him to the roles of females, and potential of women. Certainly Darwin held women in very high regard, including especially his wife and children.

    But love of humans? What is that to those who wrongly condemn great people of science in pursuit of trying to sound smart? Would they even notice what Darwin said, anywhere?

    Have you been at this internet thing long, Shooter? Search functions at websites and blogs can be a great friend, and aide in discussion.

    Here, you can start getting caught up on DDT, Rachel Carson and malaria:


  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Shooter, words of advice:

    – Lose the mouth. If you have facts, let them speak. If you don’t have facts, go see if you can get some.
    – Publish actual data. There are thousands of studies on DDT. DDT acute effects on animals tends to shrink with the size of the animal, so we shouldn’t expect to see massive results in humans. Teasing out the effects of DDT versus dozens of other chemicals, each of which does one of the harmful things DDT does, can be difficult — so there will be a lot of studies with subtle findings. Over the course of 40 years, truth will come out. That there are more than a thousand studies on bird harms from DDT, and none contrary, is an amazing little fact in itself, and that tells a lot of the story.
    – Acknowledge your opponent’s view, even if it’s snarky and stupid. Respond with non-snark and non-stupid.
    – For the love of God – you can say that here – stop calling everyone a genocidal mass-murderer. If you look through the more than 250 posts on DDT, malaria and Rachel Carson here, you’ll see I use that label, if ever, only in sarcastic response to others, like those whom Anthony Watts entertains in dysinformation at his blog.

    Did you have something to say?


  6. Ed Darrell says:

    I find this one particularly troubling, Shooter — the sort of thing we’d expect from an endocrine disruptor, which DDT and its daughter products are:


  7. Ed Darrell says:

    I am amazed at how completely mouthy you are, Mr. Darrell. I would expect that a man that values accuracy and debate as much as you would not resort to acting like a screaming teenager. Whenever someone questions you, or cites your own evidence and points out that it does not confirm your belief, you call them ‘cranks’.

    Actually, I only call groups “cranks” when they qualify either by Bogus History or Bogus Science.

    Astonishing that you think cranks deserve defending. Does one get paid for defending cranks? (If not, you’re missing the boat.) Or does one just generally hate all mankind and feel a need to kick humanity and civilization at every turn?


  8. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s near Christmas, and the commercial spam attacks are ridiculous. I got nearly 5,000 spam comments yesterday.

    I’m sure God would forgive me were I to simply dump it all, including Shooter’s remarks, without looking.

    Shooter, in your day job, are you a spammer? I can’t convince Akismet that your remarks do not belong in spam.


  9. Shooter says:

    I am amazed at how completely mouthy you are, Mr. Darrell. I would expect that a man that values accuracy and debate as much as you would not resort to acting like a screaming teenager. Whenever someone questions you, or cites your own evidence and points out that it does not confirm your belief, you call them ‘cranks’.

    That is completely anti-scientific behaviour. Your undulating admiration of Carson and of environmentalists, while not even accepting that she, and her supporters, can be wrong, isn’t skepticism. It’s blind faith. Also accusing the people who disagree with you – many with evidence, facts, and logic – as Creationists isn’t just a slam on their person, it’s an ad hominem attack. In fact, writing this comment, it says: “Play nice in the bathtub — splash no soap in anyone’s eyes”. Yet you do exactly that! Sadder still are the amount of people that congratulate you on being so right and standing up to Watts. Yes, this post is four years old, but the fact that you take such an anti-scientific stance and instead go: WAAAAAAAAAAH THIS PERSON DOESN’T AGREE WITH ME, I’M GOING TO CALL HIM A CREATIONIST AND A SHILL AND A SCIENCE DENIER BECAUSE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! is ridiculous!

    I think what undoes your entire thing is how much you rely on the word ‘offensive’. Someone offends you? They’re wrong. Why, you don’t need proof to show how they are wrong, they just are. Monckton offends you? Why, how insensitive! Fine, fine. Let’s assume they are wrong, and that you are right. Let’s start off with the basics:

    – Lose the mouth. Any rational person can see that you’re avoiding any argument and are instead using rhetoric to make YOU seem like the victim, as any normal environmentalist does.
    – Publish actual data. Let’s assume DDT, like tobacco, wrought havoc on all life. Where’s the data? Why did cancer rates fall, and where are the mass extinctions? If animals are dying from DDT, birds are losing their eggs, and bees and bugs are dying en masse, where is the data? If you -are- right, as you assume you are, please prove it to us ignorant, anti-science Creationists. We’d love to hear it.
    – Acknowledge your opponent’s view, even if they are dead wrong. Neutrality will sway your audience.
    – For the love of God – oops, shouldn’t say that – stop calling everyone a genociding mass-murderer. Where did Watts say Rachel Carson was like Stalin? You pretty much said that if someone has a view – real or not – that you don’t like, they need to absolutely relinquish that view or else get metaphorically pummeled.

    Tell me with a straight face whether that is the behaviour of someone who respects science. If anything, it’s the behaviour of those who persecuted Galileo or Darwin. Rather, YOU are the one spreading falsehoods and misinformation, and when someone says otherwise – lo and behold, they’re a Creationist.

    But of course, I can see the slight feminist views and the deep admiration for a mediocre scientist as Rachel Carson – who was not a chemist, or hardcore scientist for that matter, she was a marine biologist – who did not even bother to hear her opponents. As we know, it was all a conspiracy because she was a woman and the chemical companies didn’t want her to stop their fix. Sounds awfully like a 9/11 Truther view, doesn’t it?

    Will this comment be seen as ‘spam’? I suspect that it will. I also suspect that you’ll respond with as much mouth as you did my previous comments, especially with the ‘you better watch what you say about those with autism’ remark. I was talking about the rat study – a study so small that it can’t possibly correlate DDT with autism. In fact, that’s about as convincing as the MMR vaccine causing autism – and you took it without a grain of salt. You are not a scientist; you’re a political scientist. It wouldn’t matter to me if you were, but you have blogs linked to people who are scientists, and it is shameful that they believe such things in blind faith and not rationality.

    You may think you’re akin to Richard Dawkins, but you’re not. I think you’re content with attacking weaker opponents, but when it comes to hard questions, they’re all just Creationists. Your commentators have that Atheism+ attitude, where they don’t actually need proof to back their views, them saying it is enough. Of course, when someone brings up really, really touchy subjects, such as genocide, racism, or the like, the gloves really come off.

    Monckton’s views are repugnant? Prove that they are. Has he been an advocate of genocide? No. Has anyone at that blog been? No. In fact, on a genetic, eugenicist argument, genocide is perfectly viable.

    We can’t have that, else I’ll sound like Hitler. In any case, you lose any and all respect with that snarky, almost child-like attitude you have. Again, it’s a trademark of all environmentalists:

    “I don’t need evidence. All of you are wrong and anti-science. Get with the program!”

    The evidence does show that millions did die in Africa due to infectious disease that could have been prevented. Let’s assume DDT had nothing to do with the drop in malarial deaths and that it was carcinogenic. The fact is, we greatly reduced and/or eradicated malaria from our climate zone, as well as bed bugs and other insect pests – and they didn’t have time to ‘evolve’ because they were completely annihilated. While I can agree that overuse of pesticides are a problem – anyone can agree – the dose makes the poison. Your view is inherently anti-chemical and anti-science. I would accept your view, if it were actually backed up, if your sources agreed with you, and you did not respond the way you do, especially to me. Don’t complain of Watts censoring you when that is the first thing you do. Here, take a look at your own self-righteous comment:

    “You fellows there on the side: Stop your betting about whether Goklany is a creationist! Gambling is not allowed here, especially when the fix is in. He confesses he is “an engineer,” after all.]”

    Well, YOU’RE not a chemist, so you shouldn’t be talking about DDT; you know nothing about agriculture, farming, or biotechnology. Hell, I bet you’re against GMOs, too. I also assume that you are for the Third World to be on the same level as our own, so in that case: by taking this stance, you’re basically saying those people have no right to exist because we’re doing the greater good for them. Talk about lack of sovereignty!

    Amazing. Betting whether someone is a Creationist because they disagree with you. No wonder Watts kicked you off; when you weren’t actually trying to prove him wrong, you resorted to scorching rhetoric to make yourself seem superior.

    In that case, get with the times, you old coot. It’s nice to sound like a SJW, but in the mad world of the Internet, you don’t have a case to back up? You’ve lost the argument. Needless to say, Watts commentators are NOT stupid; most of them ARE scientists. So your gambling that they’re a bunch of creationists is plain dumb.

    In fact, since you’re that mouthy, that if an actual Christian came along, you’d probably call him an idiot because of his faith without even trying to prove him wrong.

    Always amazing to see those who hold science as their new faith go to great lengths to see it shut down. You haven’t got anyone to blame but yourself. I wonder, are you going to make another sarcastic swipe at me, or accuse me of being a Creationist? I wonder.

    You know, Darwin was a racist. And sexist. I think his views of ‘women in science’ and otherwise would be quite…offensive, don’t you think? In addendum, I find your arguments as convincing as those who found Michael Brown innocent. If you’re wondering why I’m bringing THAT up, why, I find your unwavering defense of him…offensive.


  10. Ed Darrell says:

    Watts never did disavow the erroneous views of Goklany, did he? Did I miss something?


  11. karl says:

    @kathy: The simple answer is that it’s not the 1950’s anymore. DDT isn’t nearly as effective today as it was then. (Incidentally, the same is true for chloroquine, the antimalarial that Gates also mentions). Furthermore, since the 1950s and 60s we have so many more tools for fighting malaria–many more effective and safer than DDT. (Incidentally, the same is true of chloroquine–today there a number of new and more effective drugs to treat malaria.) 60 year old tools aren’t necessarily the best tools today. So saying that DDT should be our first line of defense against malaria is a little like saying leeches should be a first line medical treatment. Also: DDT isn’t banned for malarial use anyways, and it never was.

    @bev: “Dr.” Rutledge is a quack. First off, he’s not even an MD, according to his own website. Secondly, he hawks mail order dietary supplements on his website. This should raise red flags. Thirdly, I haven’t seen the movie, but most everything the he says in the preview about DDT and malaria is wrong. I saw an interview with Rutledge and his GF Debby Gibson talking about the movie, and he comes off as a raving conspiracy theorist. I suspect this movie is only going to be persuasive among the Tea Party and/or “911 was an inside job” crowds.


  12. Ellie says:

    Ed, looks like your blog has become the place to advertise that “doctor” and his movie. I especially enjoyed the ONE WITH ALL THE CAPS!


  13. bev says:

    I recently saw an Excellent documentary, 3 BILLION AND COUNTING by Dr. Rutledge Taylor. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND FOR ALL! IT IS A MUST SEE; A REAL EYE-OPENER! This film actually SHOCKS you back INTO SANITY. Dr. Taylor reviewed EPA testimony from over ONE HUMDRED SERIOUS SCIENTISTS AND DOCTORS and has copies, saying DDT is Safe for Humans and The Environment. DON’T DENY TRUTH. BRING DDT BACK! It is the Safest, Cheapest, and most effective way TO ERADICATE BLOODSUCKERS.


  14. kathy says:

    I have a question..
    if Bill Gates says “Sure, he mentions that DDT and chloroquine “brought the death rate down”” (and I heard this myself) and you have quoted him here .. THEN WHY are you continuing to fight for the ban of DDT? Since it has been proven to bring the death toll DOWN, and we experienced the wiping out of Malaria in the States .. WHY Dear Lord .. is this battle still going on? Check out and learn something. STOP calling people liars because they have gotten off the couch and did some leg work and uncovered the TRUTH! You just REPEAT lies.


  15. Hank Roberts says:

    National Punctuation Day, September 24, celebrates the importance of proper punctuation.


  16. Russell says:

    At Watts Up With That, National Talk Like A Climate Pirate Day comes 365 times a year


  17. J Bowers says:

    Oh give it a rest Watts. You banned Ed because he’s showing your blog up to be the lame, pseudo-science rag it is, so you’ve used any “oh, I’m such a victim” meally-mouthed excuse to silence a critic. Ed explained but you’ve decided to ignore it and garner the sympathy vote.

    Man up.


  18. Ed Darrell says:

    I see that Eli Rabett and others including Tim Lambert continued in that thread*. Carrying light to the forces of darkness is a thankless task, and one I have too little patience for. Those who continue to post the facts at Watts Up With That have my deep admiration.

    (* Except when the Evil Twin, Tobacco Tony, stifles the conversation. One wonders why people get so perturbed when the past accomplishments of the advocates are mentioned.)


  19. toby says:

    Well done, Ed, for standing up to Watts. I was annoyed to see you traduced on his blog – I have already admired the way you stand up for science and rational thinking in a difficult environment.

    But be warned – you will not find science and rational thinking on Watts’ blog.


  20. Nick K says:

    Then Mr. Watts must absolutely just love Ms. O’Donnell from Delaware.

    Same idiocy, same ignorance, same ideaology…different genders.

    Hm…a match made in heaven.


  21. Marion Delgado says:

    Watts has a demonstrated lack of scientific knowledge even at the secondary school level. If ever there was an argument for just discarding the alleged expertise of TV weathermen, he’s it. Though Bastardi helps a great deal, as well.

    Roughly speaking, Watts’ position on DDT resistance is that of a creationist. People that believe market fundamentalists are proper skeptics who don’t deny evolution are simply wrong. Throughout the DDT mythos creation and promulgation – a classic example of TeaBag Science – they’ve denied evolution explicitly and implicitly. It’s the basis of their attacks, along with a complete ignorance of statistics (willful ignorance for the most part).


  22. karl says:

    Hi Ed,

    I posted the following at WUWT. Thought I’d post here too, just in case it gets lost over there. Given the threats Watt’s made to you over allegedly putting words in his mouth, it’ll be interesting to see what he does about Indur putting words in Gates’ mouth:

    There’s so much wrong with Indur’s post, but let’s start with him putting words in Bill Gates’ mouth: “Whatever people may think of Bill Gates stance on global warming, there is little doubt that he exhibited substantial political courage in espousing malaria control with DDT. ” Sorry, but nowhere in that 20 minute video does he “espouse” the use of DDT. Sure, he mentions that DDT and chloroquine “brought the death rate down” in the past (3:40), and later (5:45) he mentions that DDT and bed nets can cut deaths by over 50%, but that’s all he says about DDT, and nowhere does he boldly advocate increased use of DDT now. He also notes (~6:15) that “every tool [for combating malaria] has eventually become ineffective”. This would presumable include DDT.

    Maybe Gates has indeed espoused DDT use somewhere, maybe he’s even funding it, but the link Indur provides to back this claim up doesn’t support him. He’s putting words in Gates’ mouth.

    Speaking of bad citations: How about citing some folks from the mainstream rather than relying on the tired clique of right wing/free market pundits. The guys who’ve been pushing the DDT ban myth for years as part of a strategy to slander the environmental movement and make the world safe for free enterprise unbridled by environmental regulations. Guy affiliated with think tanks funded by oil companies and the Koch brothers. Indur quotes a passage from AFM which cites mostly researchers affiliated with AFM (Roberts, Bate), or the American Council on Science and Health (Whelan), or himself. Then he he quotes himself a bit, including work published by Cato. Then he mentions Don Roberts (again), Amir Attaran, Roger Bate (again) and Richard Tren –all guys affiliated with AFM. Finally, he tops it off with a section of “Additional References,” which includes mostly works by these same people. The problem is these guys all hail from a very narrow section of the ideological spectrum. Lot’s has been written on the history of malaria and the history of DDT, and there’s a lively policy debate going on right now about how best to address malaria. Indur seems to be acquainted with only an exceedingly narrow range of views on these topics. If he’s smarter than this, he doesn’t show it with this post.

    Lastly he cites figure 13 of a 2009 EJSD paper to support the statement that “the US ban was imposed only after malaria had been wiped out in the US for practical purposes.” Fair enough, but that that same figure also indicates that by 1945, when DDT was introduced in the US, death rates from malaria had already been steadily declining. This is borne out more dramatically in CDC’s graph of US malaria morbidity and mortality here: So the implication that DDT was essential to our defeating malaria and then we callously banned it once we were malaria free is not supported by US malaria mortality trends.

    In fact, to bring it back to the Gates video, he hints (3:50) at the real reason why malaria was eliminated from rich countries some 50 years ago but still plagues Africa and much of Asia: climate. Rich countries tend to be in temperate zones, and poor ones in tropical zones where the climate is more conducive to malaria. Sure DDT (along with chloroquine and other measures) played a role, but we had–and continue to have–a much easier time dealing with malaria simply because we’re in the temperate zone.


  23. Ed Darrell says:

    Anthony, you’ve been done with science and the facts for a long time.


  24. Anthony Watts says:

    Ed, I’m done with you.


  25. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s difficult for me to believe that you were unaware that your blog promotes those views. No, you didn’t say it — and I should have put a comma in there (you have to read it with your intent to make it say what you claim even without the comma), but here’s the bottom line: If you don’t disavow those views, plus you promote them, they are as good as yours.

    I find it difficult to believe you were unaware of what you were doing, but if you wish to claim it, I’ll let you off with that claim of innocence. That is, I’ll let you off so long as you disavow the views.

    Still waiting.

    As I explained at your blog (comments through your moderation yet?):

    I agree, Anthony, we shouldn’t dance around the issue.

    You’re giving a platform here on your blog to people who espouse contemptible views, including the bizarre claim that Rachel Carson was a mass murderer. You have not disavowed any part of those views, but have instead defended them, even to the point of making up fantastic stories about Jackie Kennedy and Rachel Carson over at my blog.

    That’s water under the bridge. I was unaware that you were unaware of the offensive claims of the people you’ve been promoting here. I owe you an apology for assuming you knew.

    I gather you are offended by the claim that Rachel Carson was a mass murderer. You apparently did not know that Christopher Monckton, Richard Tren, Roger Bate and others had made such claims.

    I apologize that I had not apprised you directly earlier. I hope that you will repudiate those views, and that you will discontinue promoting the crank science views of people who make such claims.

    Surely you do not wish to be known as one who would consort with such crank science. I apologize for not making you aware earlier, and I look forward to your clear statement that it’s not an accurate description of your views.

    You don’t share those views, right? And surely you will act to stop the spread of those claims here, right?

    Now that you know why I find Christopher Monckton’s views so offensive, and you agree as to why they are offensive, I hope you’ll join me in condemning the claims.

    I’m sick and tired of your impugning me personally while you give a pass to such offensive views. It will be good to have to join me in opposing such bizarre claims.

    Don’t dance around, Anthony. It’s time to march. Are you joining us?


  26. Anthony Watts says:

    Is is possible to be more wishy washy and avoid answering the direct question posed to you there. You found it, now answer it directly please.

    Putting words in my mouth I did not say is dishonest.

    Yes Ed, unless you can show proof of what you claim I said, then your comment was dishonest.


  27. Ed Darrell says:

    I presume this is what Anthony is worried about.

    In a comment to the diatribe Watts gave a platform to which falsely complains I err, I said:

    [Quoting Watts’ guest author]First, although the US banned DDT in 1972, its use continued in much of the rest of the world.

    Then I commented:

    Could you tell that to Anthony Watts, Paul Driessen, and all the other people who claim Rachel Carson was a mass murderer?

    DDT was left open to U.S. manufacture by the “ban,” also — which is why we have several DDT manufacturing plants designated as Superfund sites today.

    DDT has never been out of production, nor out of use against malaria.

    Which means that the claim that DDT could have saved millions of lives is specious.

    Now, if you could just convince your buddies Tren, Bate and Roberts to get their math right, and their history right, we could get on with fighting malaria, instead of bashing science and scientists.

    Generally these DDT advocates complain we need a lot more DDT, and they complain that the “ban” killed millions of kids in Africa. Tren, Bate, Roberts, Monckton, Driessen and others have been happy to accuse Rachel Carson of being a mass murderer on the scale of Mao or Stalin or Hitler.

    Watts defended Moncktons stuff earlier on this blog.

    Anthony wrote:


    Mr. Ed Darrell, I’ve had quite enough of you. Cite EXACTLY where I called Rachel Carson a “mass murderer” in my own words. I have never made such claim.

    Either proof or an an apology is required for your continued presence here.

    And, you should check you own blog first: before you say that I’ve used the phrase. And a gentlemanly warning to you sir, I take this seriously.

    – Anthony Watts

    Now I’m curious.

    Anthony, are you saying you were unaware of the claims of the people whose views you’ve promoted on your blog? Are you saying that you did not know Tren, Bate and others — who you allow to be cited as authorities in your feature posts — carry those views?

    Are you saying you disapprove of those views?

    Or are you saying that you’re merely the piano player, and you’re not responsible for the stuff you post on your blog?

    If you disavow the claim that “Rachel Carson is a mass murderer,” and if you disavow the claim that DDT could save millions of lives if only those meany old environmentalists would let Idi Amin spray a little DDT, I’d be happy to acknowledge I got your views in error, for the want of a comma.

    Are you taking down your advocacy of the repugnant views of Christopher Monckton? Are you rewriting the post by Mr. Goklany to eliminate the views of Tren, Bate and Roberts?

    Or is this crocodile tears now that you’ve been caught?

    I’ll post this over at Watts’s blog, but without the apology he demands, I have no real expectation he’ll let it go. It would be interesting were he actually outraged at the statements of the people he’s promoted — but I expect he’ll disavow the messenger, and stick to the message.


  28. Ed Darrell says:

    Is it possible to be more cryptic?


  29. Anthony Watts says:

    There is a comment from you at WUWT that needs your attention.


Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: