Physicist Lubos Motl, long-running commentator on all things climate, declared recently he agreed with BEST’s Steven Mosher Wattsupwiththat.com readers were ‘anti-science nut jobs’.
I agree with Mosher: these “principled” critics of all adjustments are surely throwing the baby out with the bath water. And by the way, I do agree with the description of those who get crazy whenever somebody mentions the word “adjustment” as anti-science nut jobs, and yes, I do think that a large number of such people exists among the WUWT regular readers
Except Mosher said no such thing.
Mosher did call WUWT readers anti-science nut jobs but at a different time. Trying to convince people not to use the word ‘denier’, he said even such loony nut jobs as WUWT readers refrained from using ‘SS’ for Skepticalscience:
I pointed this out [#1]:
Lubos claimed he hadn’t mixed anything up∗
I gave him the link to Mosher’s comment – the ‘evidence’. Lubos disappeared it [#2]:
I waited for about an hour and asked, ‘hey, could you look, a comment (with evidence) disappeared:
What I got in return:
This is the part where the tricks start. After a while, Lubos allows the second of my comments – the disappeared one – to appear. Along with a long reply.
Lubos was not only tweaking comment timings, he was going the extra mile agreeing with Mosher—it was now ‘infantile’ to be using such acronyms as SS, and a sign of ‘demagoguery’.
Something must have clicked. He was infantile not too long ago himself:
Dear Shub, I haven’t mentioned the funny exchange whether the acronym of Skeptical Science is “SS” at all if I have to say it now, then indeed, the right acronym of the website is “SS” :-)
So this is what Lubos does: he goes back to his own comment where he made the “SS” joke (marked ∗) and adds a sentence. He adds the bolded portion to make his words fit better:
Dear Shub, I haven’t mentioned the funny exchange whether the acronym of Skeptical Science is “SS” at all – if I have to say it now, then indeed, the right acronym of the website is “SS” :-) even though I may avoid this acronym because John Cook is too small a crackpot to hijack such a formidable trademark -
Ironic? A physicist supporting adjustments to past records, adjusting the record of his own comments?
How does one trust anything Lubos’ has written or said?
The dishonesty in this brief interaction repeats like a fractal in the climate debate. Everything from the desirability of adjustments to skeptics ‘demanding’ them and their impact is spin and PR.