Watt’s Wrong With Anthony?

Peter Hadfield responds to Global Warming denialist Anthony Watts regarding a fictitious invitation to debate from Christopher Monckton.

 

For the sake of Anthony Watts, who has a genuine hearing issue (no, this isn’t sarcasm, it’s a genuine condition) and I understand the problems he has listening to my videos, I’ll explain what this one is about. A recent statement on wattsupwiththat.com claimed that I won’t debate Monckton face-to-face. This is a complete fabrication. I have never been invited to debate him face to face and have never declined such an invitation. It was Mr. Monckton who withdrew from an online debate that wattsupwiththat hosted, and he has written to tell me he is too busy to debate. If he is only willing to respond to the evidence when he can see my face then of course I will be delighted to present my evidence to him face-to-face. I have asked wattsupwiththat to correct this misrepresentation, but they have not done so, and they won’t publish my very polite requests for them to do so. And since they say they will delete any messages that make a reference to me, it seems no one else is allowed to point out the error either.

So I am doing so in this video, with my usual mix of politeness, decency and good humor. I have no idea why the wattsupwiththat crew dislike me so intently, and why they defend Monckton so assiduously, but as long as they continue to print falsehoods, refuse to issue corrections and censor comments I guess we will never know.

SOURCE:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/why-there-cannot-be-a-global-warming-co…

via Correcting misinformation about a face-to-face debate.wmv – YouTube.

10 thoughts on “Watt’s Wrong With Anthony?”

  1. I am one of seven or eight moderators at WattsUpWithThat.com. I left the comment:

    “…Peter Hadfield, who will not engage in a face to face debate in a neutral venue…”

    Anthony Watts had nothing to do with my comment. It was mine alone, and to the best of my knowledge Anthony did not see that comment until it was recently pointed out to him in an email. With thousands of comments posted at WUWT every week, one person cannot possibly read them all.

    I did not state that there had been an invitation by Lord Monckton to debate Peter Hadfield, although that could have been assumed from my comment, for which I apologized (see below). As far as I know Peter Hadfield has never challenged Lord Monckton to a face-to-face debate, preferring instead to issue his numerous YouTube videos. That is not to say that Mr. Hadfield will not issue a debate challenge at some future time. Therefore, I have added a correction to the comment in question, as follows:

    “I overstepped in this case. Although Peter Hadfield has never challenged Lord Monckton to a debate, that is not saying he will not debate. My apologies for giving that impression. He is still free to issue a debate challenge.”

    I should also point out that Anthony Watts has given Peter Hadfield the unique forum that he requested. That was very generous on Anthony’s part; after repeated requests, Peter Hadfield was given an opportunity to post whatever he wanted, without restriction, and he took full advantage. Hadfield has been given far more exposure on the internet’s most popular climate site than anyone else in his position. If he now wishes to challenge Lord Monckton to a formal debate, I look forward to it. Should Lord Monckton accept, as the challenged party he would have the right to select the venue, such as Oxford Union, where this debate was held

    Scientific debates advance general knowledge and serve to inform the public. The debate Moderator would, of course, keep the comments strictly confined to debating the Question, and not allow ad hominem attacks. If Mr. Hadfield decides to challenge Lord Monckton to a scientific debate, I wish him the best of luck.

    I trust this sets the record straight: Anthony Watts had nothing to do with the comment I posted. To the extent that it caused any misunderstanding, I offer my sincerest apologies.

  2. Thanks very much for the correction, DB, and I appreciate and accept that it was inadvertant. We are all guilty of overstepping the mark every now and again, myself included.
    Unfortunately you have just made another assertion that I hope you don’t mind me correcting.

    = As far as I know Peter Hadfield has never challenged Lord Monckton to a face-to-face debate, preferring instead to issue his numerous YouTube videos. =

    If you were to ask me whether I’d prefer to present the evidence of Monckton’s errors unilaterally in videos, or present the evidence to him directly in a debate, my preference would without hesitation be for the latter.
    My position is exactly the same as Monckton’s with regard to a face-to-face debate. So your statement could equally well read: “Lord Monckton has never challenged Peter Hadfield to a face-to-face debate, preferring instead to make his numerous speeches.”
    The difference is that Mr. Monckton began an online debate with me on your site (thanks to Anthony for that) and broke off the debate as soon as I cited documentary evidence in my opening rebuttal, despite promising to respond. It is Mr. Monckton who is unwilling to continue the debate, not me.

    = I should also point out that Anthony Watts has given Peter Hadfield the unique forum that he requested.=

    I’m not sure how this was a “unique forum.” The right of reply is by no means unique, it is commonplace in most public media. I was responding to two long posts Mr. Monckton wrote about me on WUWT. I thought it perfectly fair and reasonable that Anthony would allow it. I also welcomed Monckton’s right to reply to me, which he initially promised he would give.

    = If he now wishes to challenge Lord Monckton to a formal debate, I look forward to it.=

    Mr. Monckton doesn’t need an invitation, the debate is still on and he has been invited to issue the response he promised. He can take his time and expend as many words as he likes explaining the discrepencies I showed. Since Anthony decided to no longer host the debate on WUWT, a site called the League of Reason is now hosting it. The page is set up, and Mr. Monckton has been invited to submit the response he promised. Anything he writes in his defence, and any sources he cites, can be checked and verified as the debate continues. If I am wrong about Mr. Monckton’s sources then it should be very easy for him to show it through this debate. Is there some reason he can’t?

    =Scientific debates advance general knowledge and serve to inform the public.=

    I agree. Could you therefore ask Anthony if he would consider re-instating the debate on WUWT, and encourage Mr. Monckton to come back to it? Given your advocacy of this debate, and the number of comments from WUWT readers who want it, I am puzzled as to why WUWT decided to end it rather than encourage Mr. Monckton to continue it.

    Kind regards,
    Peter Hadfield

  3. Moncktons comment: Major9985 [...] says I have an (unspecified) “tainted past”. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/why-there-cannot-be-a-global-warming-consensus/#comment-966063)

    I was asked by Monckton to “specify” my claims that he has a tainted past.

    Hadfield has documented Moncktons “tainted past”. When referencing evidence from Hadfield on WUWT, it has nothing to do with Hadfield, it is about the documented evidence.

    As you said at WUWT “The incessant Hadfield comments are to thread bombing, and violate site Policy. This is basically saying that “incessant comments about documented facts is thread bombing”.

    Even the Mod REP at WUWT thinks some how the name Hadfield makes the documented evidence of Moncktons tainted past irrelevant, stating “Do your own work and don’t bother linking to [Hadfield]”

    You know very well that Monckton has not replied to Hadfields claims at WUWT. Mocnkton has even emailed Hadfield explaining that he will not reply to the debate. I truly can not understand where you got the idea that Hadfield was not prepared to debate face to face.

    If Anthony Watts wants to allow Monckton to be a contributor at WUWT, he and all his mods are going to have to deal with Moncktons (documented) “tainted past”. If anything Anthony needs to take this situation head on.

    You trying to protect Monckton by censoring people and making up outrageous claims does not paint a good picture for WUWT or Anthony.

  4. Mr. Hadfield,

    I will not ask Anthony Watts anything on your behalf. You have been treated extra special by Anthony, yet you are never satisfied. I doubt that Lord Monckton pays any attention to you any more (that is an assumtion, because I have never communicated with Monckton). The way to get his attention is to issue a formal challenge to debate. You are dancing around the issue because you want to set the debate agenda. I do not know Lord Monckton, but if you want to get his attention, I suspect you will have to agree to his venue. Otherwise he will ignore you, as any reasonable person would under the cirumstances: you are motivated by hatred and animosity. As an outside obsever, that is my clear perception. Anyone putting out an endless series of attack videos against someone who merely has a different scientific point of view has a strong underlying motivation, and in you case you are not doing it for love of your fellow man. Quite the contrary.

    I disagree with several other things you posted above, but I will not enter into a debate at any blog that labels people who simply do not with the runaway global warming claim as “denialists”. I am especially shocked that the owner of this blog would use such a pejorative, which cheapens the lives of millions murdered in the Holocaust. I might well ask: What’s Wrong With Randall Gross? After reading his “SUPPORT ISRAEL” page, I would conclude: plenty.

    So enough with the “denialist” pejorative. It takes the place of thinking, and it is nothing but psychological projection: imputing your own faults onto others. Michael Mann is the one who falsely claimed that the climate never changed for hundreds of years, until the industrial revolution. He mendaciously erased both the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age — one of the very coldest events of the entire 10,700 year Holocene.

    Subsequently, Mann’s Hockey Stick paper was falsified, and Nature was forced to issue a very rare Correction due to its massive errors. As a direct result, the IPCC no longer publishes Mann’s original hockey stick chart (and they loved that particular chart above all the other visually confusing spaghetti charts that they must now use — and which are equally mendacious).

    Thus, it is the believers in catastrophic AGW themselves who refuse to accept that the climate changed prior to the industrial revolution. They are projecting their nonsense onto scientific skeptics who know better, and then labeling skeptics “denialists”. Despicable.

    Good luck in your personal war against Lord Monckton, Mr. Hadfield. I doubt that he pays any attention to you any more. I’ve explained how I think you can change that. But you will have to abandon your ad hominem attacks, and argue the science. Be aware that climate science is Monckton’s expertise. He has yet to lose a debate, even with other scientists. I seriously doubt that you have what it takes to best Monckton in a science debate. But give it a shot, if you think you have what it takes.

    I will have great respect for you if you decide to challenge Lord Monckton. Like most, I am interested in scientific truth, not in your YouTube hit pieces, none of which I have ever wasted my time watching.

    I am happy to have raised this blog’s traffic substantially. But this will be my final comment here. I moderate literally hundreds of comments a day on average, so I will not waste any more time where only a handful of readers will visit. So everyone (or should I say, both of you) get to have the last word.

  5. To my readers:
    I admit I have some bias here – I’ve found Potholer54 aka Peter Hadfield to be highly empirical in all of his videos over the past couple of years, and his channel is full of great references and links to actual science papers.

    My thoughts about Monckton are highly distrustful after the “paper” he suckered me with five years ago. At that point I was repeating the standard Right wing politically motivated agitprop rather than investigating on my own. I am ashamed of what I said in the article, I repeated partisan bumper sticker mantras much like D.B. is doing above. Indeed, it was that paper’s attempt at propaganda that caused me to investigate deeper and later to convert from a “warmist’ stance to a “there’s definitely something to worry about here” stance when it comes to climate. I hate it when people lie.

    The more I saw of Monckton, the less I trusted him, which is one of those reasons that I picture Potholer54 wining any imaginary debate (imaginary as I suspect Monckton will continue to dodge.) See Here:
    http://noblesseoblige.org/2009/05/13/monckton-fabricates-data/
    and
    Here:
    http://noblesseoblige.org/2010/04/17/lord-monckton-and-snake-oil/

    “After looking at my Support Israel” page? Could you perhaps be more specific as to what is wrong with that position as they are a US ally DB?

  6. Stealey writes:

    So enough with the “denialist” pejorative. It takes the place of thinking, and it is nothing but psychological projection: imputing your own faults onto others. Michael Mann is the one who falsely claimed that the climate never changed for hundreds of years, until the industrial revolution. He mendaciously erased both the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age — one of the very coldest events of the entire 10,700 year Holocene.

    When faced with such mendacious stupidity as that from Stealey the only thing left to do is to mock him and his buddies.

  7. @ D.B. Stealey

    =You have been treated extra special by Anthony, yet you are never satisfied.=

    As someone pointed out on my channel, Anthony wrote back in January: “point out something [Monckton got] wrong, and [he] will be happy to defend it.” So why am I not satisfied? Because I listed a set of very clear discrepencies between Mr. Monckton’s claims and his sources for those claims, he promised to respond, and then backed out.
    I don’t know in what way I have been treated “extra special” by Anthony. As I said, I was very kindly given the right of reply after Monckton posted two very long posts about me on WUWT. I have only ever had this one guest post on WUWT, while Monckton has had dozens. Perhaps you could explain what “extra special” means.

    =The way to get his attention is to issue a formal challenge to debate.=

    Thanks, but as I said, we were already in the middle of a debate, and Monckton backed out. If this is simply a question of wording, then: I formally challenge Mr. Monckton to return to the debate and to explain the discrepencies between his claims and his sources. If Mr. Monckton wants me to present this evidence to him face-to-face then I have already said that I will be happy to do so. I already have his attention, what I am asking for is his response.

    =You are dancing around the issue because you want to set the debate agenda.=

    No, the agenda was set by Anthony Watts, and I agreed to it.

    =you are motivated by hatred and animosity.=

    I’m not sure how you reach this conclusion. I have been very polite in all my posts, and I have never called Mr. Monckton names or called him a liar or suggested that he is being dishonest, I have simply pointed out discrepencies between his claims and the sources for those claims.

    =Anyone putting out an endless series of attack videos against someone who merely has a different scientific point of view=

    I have no problem at all with Mr. Monckton’s point of view. As I said in my video, he is entirely welcome to his opinion. What I did was exactly what Mr. Monckton encouraged people to do in one of his videos – check his facts. For example, Mr. Monckton cites a Johannessen paper that he says shows a nett loss of ice in Greenland. I checked the paper, and it specifically says that no conclusion can be drawn about the nett loss of Greenland ice because his study only covered the interior. Why is this an “attack” on Mr. Monckton? I would have thought WUWT would welcome this kind of debate.

    = you will have to abandon your ad hominem attacks, and argue the science.=

    With respect, I think you have this backwards. It was Mr. Monckton who chose to use his space on WUWT to call me a ‘pinhead’ and address me as ‘caveman.’ You will notice than in my videos and in my response to him I addressed him politely, and have never made any ad hominems against him. Everything I wrote addressed Monckton’s claim, and the source for that claim, and the discrepency. I would strongly urge you to read it, and perhaps you could point out a single ad-hominem.

    =He has yet to lose a debate, even with other scientists. I seriously doubt that you have what it takes to best Monckton in a science debate.=

    Apparently not, because as soon as I presented my list of discrepencies, he refused to debate any further. That is not the mark of an ‘expert’ willing to examine his facts and engage in debate.

    =I will have great respect for you if you decide to challenge Lord Monckton.=

    Challenge is written above. As I said, it was Anthony that agreed to the format of our debate.

    =I am interested in scientific truth, not in your YouTube hit pieces, none of which I have ever wasted my time watching.=

    Then forgive me for asking how you know that I am “motivated by hatred and animosity” and engage in “ad hominem attacks”? Just curious. If you are interested in ‘scientific truth’ then you should agree with me that Monckton needs to return to the debate and explain the discrepencies between his claims and the sources of those claims.

  8. The amount of PWNAGE by Potholer on Watts, Stealey and Monckton was statistically significant.

Comments are closed.