Comments on: What’s up with that?

By: Diatoms…iiiiin spaaaaaaaaaaace!

Diatoms…iiiiin spaaaaaaaaaaace! — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 20:53:23 +0000

[…] By the way, Greg Laden found that Anthony Watts, the climate change denier, was completely taken in by this crap. […]

By: Real Sceptic » Why You Shouldn’t Use Alexa Traffic Statistics

Real Sceptic » Why You Shouldn’t Use Alexa Traffic Statistics — Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:41:09 +0000

[…] with him on certain points and I’ve defended him in the past. One example of this was when Greg Laden published an article that in my opinion was unfair to Watts. Also Laden wasn’t helping with […]

By: Amoeba

Amoeba — Fri, 24 May 2013 17:11:14 +0000

Greg,
It wouldn’t be the first time that Anthony Watts has apparently edited comments dishonestly. I don’t visit WUWT because I find it makes me angry and sad. But there are a number of examples where Watts has been caught being serially dishonest.
Watts’ dishonesty of editing his website:
“This would have been January/February 2 years ago, if memory serves. Last time I looked for those posts they had been removed, and the time before that, edited to make them look less damning – they may or may not have been put back. As I said, Anthony is nothing if not dishonest.”
Not proof but consistent with my recollection.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/25/so-thats-why-surfacestationsor/comment-page-1/#comment-77617

For instance, IIRC, Peter Sinclair was a recipient of a bogus DMCA filed by Watts, which involved a straight, barefaced lie.
See ‘About’ on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM&feature=channel

By: John Brookes

John Brookes — Sat, 04 May 2013 14:25:42 +0000

Anthony Watts (is an arsehole) is only skeptical about some things. When it comes to other things, he’s gullible as hell. And did I mention that he’s an arsehole?

By: Ed Darrell

Ed Darrell — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 00:58:50 +0000

Joe Public, you need to proofread your posts — you reversed that stuff in your last post.

Someone said:

She told me that evolution violates the law of Thermodynamics because all systems tend towards entropy.

It’s fun to get a creationist to explain what “all systems tend towards entropy” means. Especially with regard to biological systems, most of them are completely clueless.

Look in creationist literature. You’ll see awkward descriptions that this means all things decay. “If you don’t clean your desk, it will get messy. Living things die, and then they decay — tending towards entropy.”

Each of those examples is wrong, of course. If we took your desk and orbited it in a lunarsynchronous orbit so it would always be in the dark, it would remain exactly as it is. Papers fly away with gusts of wind — inputs of energy. Books fall with gravity. The inkwell dries out because heat evaporates the volatiles in the ink. Even the dust settling on your desk is brought out of the air by gravity. In an astrophysical sense, there is trend to entropy there, but that’s not how the creationists understand it.

And rotting things? That’s not entropy. The fungus and the insects that breakdown the fallen log all require energy inputs. Rot cannot occur on a slide to entropy. Rot requires energy working against entropy, to rearrange the cellular structures of the former living things, to break them down and digest the chemicals into new living things — new living things which fight against entropy.

Getting creationists to see the evidence can take a miracle. I’ve had some success discussing this entropy idea, which many of them can finally grasp. Their view of entropy is contrary to Newton’s laws, and they can understand that, finally.

“Can understand,” not necessarily “will understand.”

I was on a third round of antibiotics for sinusitis when I discovered my physician was unfond of evolution. I suggested that I feared he might be overlooking evolution of microbes in my sinuses. He ordered a new round of tests, and we figured out it was an unusual staph infection, which a different antibiotic cleared up quickly. He made pains to make it clear to me that he understood evolution enough to practice medicine after that, and we got along just fine.

By: Russell Seitz

Russell Seitz — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:46:39 +0000

This Andy seems pretty much interchangable with the eponymous dolt who edits Conservapaedia

By: Russell Seitz

Russell Seitz — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:22:57 +0000

WUWT has switched to headlining an Australian who is overjoyed that temperatures have reached the 50’s, C, since he thinkis it will take a bite out of the paralysis ticks that empril his doggies. Failing which he recommends adding homeopatic remedies to their drinking water .

According to Watt’s fans, Dellingpole is waving the Victory Over The Ticks banner in the UK papers.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:41:28 +0000

Laden,
You have not answered my questions. I will repeat them for you.
What does Laden have to say about NASA’s claim to have found past life in a meteorite found on Earth? In 2010 NASA reaffirmed its view. It was announced to the world by President Clinton.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043002000.html
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/clinton.html

Laden may have missed Anthony Watts’ quote so here it is:
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“

Is this quote anti-science? Is NASA anti science?

By: Carl Fetterman

Carl Fetterman — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:08:28 +0000

Mr. Laden:
Clearly, you have let your emotions cloud your thinking. You have also forgotten the purported purpose of this blog. Science ends where propaganda begins. If “Watts Up With That” is such a poor blog, it should not be necessary to distort and deceive in order to make fun of it.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:38:31 +0000

Thanks to all the denizens of What’s Up with That for their visit and their wonderful comments!

Here is my response to Anthony Watt’s response to my response to his post responding to the Alien Meteorite:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/17/greg-laden-liar/