The First Church of Willard Tony needs you

This post is only for those who track the alternate universe of climate science denialism. It will make no sense to anyone who hasn’t lifted the lid on that nest of vipers.

New mocking opportunities available.

At the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change conspiracy theories, smear campaigns, demonisation – and home to dodgy mathemagraphology….

Viewings must be way down. Now they’re taking testimonies. There have been too many apostates. The congregation needs to reassure themselves. Many a whistle in the dark can be heard.  Will hymns and bake sales be far off?

There seem to be a disproportionate number of engineers. As one myself that saddens me. Worse still, though, as you read through the testimonies you realise than not a one has actually read the primary literature. But they’re pretty well all convinced that manmade global warming is a hoax with an underlying conspiracy theory. You start to realise how important Lewandowsky’s work is.

Think Dr Strangelove, with more fervour. Maybe the Medicis.

I don’t approve of anonymous trolling. But I must say I am tempted to write in and explain how I was reborn, had my eyes opened and realised the only way was the way of denialism.

Next week The Honourable Lord will babble in tongues. Again.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The First Church of Willard Tony needs you

  1. I think you give anonymity a bad name 🙂 Bear in mind that trolling implies sowing discord or being inflammatory and doesn’t require anonymity nor does anonymity imply trolling. Of course, there are – in my opinion – perfectly valid reasons for not posting comments on Willard’s blog.

    Like

    • There are certainly valid reasons for retaining anonymity. Climate deniers do attack personally. Blogging anonymously is understandable. But anonymity never adds to credibility. At best it is justifiable, as in your case.

      At worst, as I was musing, it’s just a cover for interwubz vandalism.

      Like

      • and I was just trying to humorously suggest that you post your comment for your amusement without it being seen as trolling 🙂 I do find, however, that my ability at online humour is poor at best.

        I agree with you about anonymity. It almost certainly reduces credibility and justifiably so. However, one can still hope that if what’s said has merit, that it might still be noticed and that some people make take something from it.

        Like

      • If it helps, I read your blog. And I generally agree with what you write. And I concur with your reasons for anonymity. In your situation I’d do the same.

        I just don’t want to use your valid reason to justify my trolling and tagging Willard. I think I could keep it just inside their generously wide envelope of credibility to get it posted. And I think the knowing would guffaw over it. But it would be immoral of me to do so. Could I look at myself in the mirror in the morning is the question I’d have to ask myself. Well, I probably could. But it’d still be wrong. 🙂

        Like

      • Indeed, I agree. I had wondered something similar myself. Could I write an anonymous post for WUWT that was almost scientifically credible but that attempted to debunk AGW. I could possibly convince Anthony that it was genuine and maybe I could get it posted. I could then wait for Jai Mitchell or Nick Stokes (or someone else) to point out some obvious flaw. Then I could respond by acknowledging their correction and recognising that my post was largely wrong. It might work, it might be a useful illustration, but it just seems devious and wrong.

        Like

  2. It’s an honor. I’ll do my best. Here’s my new role-model:

    Wait. Wasn’t it not meant for me? (Reading back.)

    PS: Eli prefers to use Willard Tony when referring to the other Willard.

    Like

  3. Icarus62 says:

    Refuting the deniers can be satisfying but I don’t know that it actually makes any difference to anything. The people who want AGW to be false aren’t going to be influenced by any amount of actual evidence. I reckon we’ll only get serious action when a critical mass of people have their lives seriously and undeniably damaged by it. I hope there is something effective we can do when that day comes.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s