After writing my article How BBC Warmists Abuse The Science – A Response I thought what the heck lets join the conversation on Watts Up With That. And I posted the following comment:

Seriously? You post an excerpt from a column where one of the arguments is “Even the weather has turned against them, showing that all the computer models based on the assumption that rising CO2 means rising temperatures have got it wrong.”. Which can be paraphrased as it’s snowing outside so global warming is not happening… Cold spells can happen, even when the planet is warming up.

However, it’s again someone who’s work is being used which also says that second hand smoking and asbestos don’t cause cancer. And even has been critical on the theory of evolution saying “rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions”.

I’ve written a more in depth response on my blog:
https://www.realskeptic.com/2011/01/30/how-bbc-warmists-abuse-the-science-a-response/

But suffice to say this is not someone that helps your argument.

To be honest my annoyance shows in that comment. Caused by who they are citing and the arguments Booker is using. But so often the sceptics rely on people that are just not the type you want to rely on to help make your point. Especially with someone who defends Intelligent Design with the phrase “rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions”. That just doesn’t sound like someone who has any right to talk on any scientific subject.

All comments on WUWT are approval only and in the end my comment wasn’t approved, and replaced with the following:

[snip. Insulting and mischarachterising WUWT on your blog is your business. But don’t expect to get free advertising here. ~dbs, mod.]

Now what they objected to was the article I wrote on my blog, which was the reason they removed the entirety of my comment. The offending part being the opening of it:

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 it’s 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:

But why they didn’t remove the offending paragraph and link is beyond me… And to be honest in my opinion I wasn’t insulting WUWT. However I was harsh with how they treat the subject of Global Warming and the people who accept the mainstream view.

But the thing that struck me the most was that they removed the comment as it’s insulting. But not that long ago Watts himself called people who attend 350.org events “filthy eco hippies artists”, and the people from the organisation “kooks”. Insults and defamation is a recurring theme on WUWT and he has even gone as far as filing false DMCA claims

To me this looks like a case of someone who can’t take criticism that shows how wrong he is.