Our regular reader(s) must have noticed by now that in the dim and distant past we had the occasional debate with Anthony Watts, proprietor of the self proclaimed “world’s most viewed climate website”, catchily entitled “Watts Up With That”?
You may even have noticed that more recently we managed to engage in an admittedly brief debate with the suddenly world famous American Physicist Steven Koonin?
Now in a world exclusive we bring you the shock news that we are suddenly unable to debate with either of them!!!
In a recent article on the Watts Up With That web site Anthony wrote:
I was sent this by email, apparently “Scientific American” doesn’t believe in fairness. I stopped subscribing to SciAm years ago because they’ve turned into a socialist cesspool of opinion, with science as an afterthought. Steve Koonin writes:
“I attach a response that I submitted yesterday to Scientific American. Not surprisingly, they declined to publish it.
Please do distribute my response freely among your contacts or websites.
Steve Koonin“
Needless to say Anthony did as he was asked. Since I consider myself by now as something of an expert on the deficiencies of Professor Koonin’s alleged “science” I replied to Steve’s response to Scientific American on WUWT as follows:
Needless to say two days later I have received no reply and my pertinent comment is still languishing underfoot on the Watts Up With That cutting room floor. Paraphrasing Dave Yaussy only slightly, and bolding for emphasis:
The greatest danger posed by Steve and Tony isn’t their ideas, it’s the attempt to silence all dissent.
That, and their corruption of science.
By way of one further example of his hypocrisy, Anthony did of course advertise his article on Twitter:
Of course he also stifled any anticipated dissent:
Q.E.D? As some scientists have been known to write from time to time.
I guess I’m missing something. I thought you and Anthony Watts were somewhat in agreement, so why is he blocking you? I read both your site and Anthony’s semi regularly. I do admit to being a sloppy reader.
As far as I am aware Mr. Watts and I (almost?) never agree about anything. See for example:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/mark-serreze-and-the-arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/
I have no proof that this 2008 event was Koonin’s last speech as a BP employee, but I strongly suspect it was:
We’re trying (but) it’s not easy to change things…You can’t cut off the present,” he said. “Deployment of energy innovations (in the oil and gas industry overall) is very hard because of entrenched interests.”
He said that climate regulations that put a price on emitting carbon dioxide would incent energy companies to invest in low-carbon energy sources.
“The only way you’re going to get a shift off of this is through a price on carbon,” Koonin said. A carbon tax or cap-and-trade system would act the same way that a rise in gasoline prices has prompted many people to conserve, he said.
“The question is whether it will be high enough…It needs to be high enough to hurt to get people to do something different,” Koonin said.
Hi Stacy,
Your comment seem to be missing a relevant link? This one perhaps?
https://www.cnet.com/news/bp-scientist-to-cut-oil-use-make-carbon-expensive/
With the benefit of hindsight it seems that “Beyond Petroleum” is still merely an advertising slogan?