Is Anthony Watts airbrushing his past ?

Watching Anthony Watts on PBS Newshour I was struck  by how reasonable Anthony appeared. He stressed at least three times how he agreed Global Warming exists, and his account of his past was shall we say surprising. Anthony mentions James Hansen's testimony to Congress in '88 and claims that he was motivated by it.  So the viewer could be forgiven for thinking that Anthony has taken a measured path from AGW proponent to skeptic over the years.
But surely theres something missing. What about Anthony's denial of global warming? He seems to be airbrushing that out of the record. I tried to post a message on the open thread on his blog asking how he got from Leipzig Declaration signatory to his current oh-so-reasonable stance. It hasn't made it through moderation.

Ironic how climate denial blogs claim their view is being suppressed yet are quick to censor any dissent or probing questions.

IMHO it's a worthwhile question. Conceding the world is warming but taking the stance that warming is insignificant is much more nuanced than his flat denial of the consensus back in 1995. We need to know whose judgment to trust and it seems Anthony can't account for his earlier stance.  How can we take Anthony Watts seriously now ?

Lewandowsky's Conspiracy Paper : Im the Outlier

I'm normally a big fan of Prof Stephan Lewandowsky's work, but this time I'm not so sure. Lewandowsky's conclusion is roughly that people who don't accept the scientific consensus on climate change are more likely to accept modern day conspiracy theories like the moon landing was a hoax.

The argument goes climate deniers also support conspiracy theories which are all obviously wingnut fodder and so their climate denial can be dismissed too.  But it relies on these conspiracy theories to actually be wingnut fodder. And in my head there's still room for my cherished skeptical view of the Warren Commission report and support of the scientific consensus on climate change.

So for the record here's my thoughts on three conspiracy theories.

If the Apollo moon landing were a hoax, why didn't the Russians who were tracking Apollo by radar and at the height of the cold war call it out?

But  I simply don't buy the lone gunman theory, did you know Richard Nixon was in Dallas November 22nd 1963 ? That has to be suspicious.

I've got an interesting angle on Roswell too.  There was no UFO crash , but the authorities conspired to make it look like a UFO crash to mitigate loss of business from the closure of the military base.

  An Alien at Roswell. Good for Business 

Ok Ive not bothered to search for evidence for that one, and perhaps for 'authorities' you could read 'conspiracy theorists' themselves . But it's no bad thing that conspiracy theorists challenge everybody else's view, and for that they really don't deserve the bad press . Perhaps today's conspiracy theorist is tomorrow's Revisionist Historian. So let's stop comparing climate deniers to conspiracy theorists , it's not fair on conspiracy theorists.


Apparently this is what the McDonalds in Roswell looks like. I rest my case. (h/t Wake and Wander )