Saturday, January 30, 2016

The Truth about What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.

"Your resident dummy reviewer... [referring to himself]"
- Peter Miesler, Skeptical Science Forums

Peter Miesler ("Pete the Carpenter") is a brain-dead stoner / framing carpenter with a high school diploma who likes to spam emotional and unsubstantiated nonsense around the Internet under the username 'citizenschallenge'.

Pete was born in Münster, Germany on July 1, 1955, moved to Burlingame, California in 1968, graduated from Burlingame high school in 1973, had a "spiritual re-birth" at Yosemite National Park in 1974 and moved to Colorado in 1979 where he spent two decades honing his "scientific" knowledge working at restaurants before moving to the scientific big leagues as a day laborer, yet wound up filing for divorce in 2012.

When Pete is not contributing to deforestation, he spews a horrendously formatted troll blog named "What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al." that was originally created to stalk and harass skeptical meteorologist Anthony Watts but is now used to smear anyone who disagrees with his alarmist ideology. Pete's scientific "credentials" include learning about global warming in a 1970's high school science class and being a registered Democrat.

Unfortunately, Pete's limited education and intellect prevents him from being able to defend the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments he spams on his blog. His debating skills amount to copying and pasting results from amateur Google searches without reading them, fabricating conspiratorial delusions that support his emotional positions and then censoring fact-based comments that refute all of the nonsense he spams.

Pete is incapable of debating anyone where they can actually reply without being censored or having their comments hacked up and edited. When he does respond it often includes incoherent gibberish, which is a telltale sign of marijuana induced brain damage, making any such interaction futile.

While other alarmists try and smear skeptics as "Holocaust deniers", ironically Pete's late father Dieter Werner Miesler actually fought for the Nazis - something cartoonist John Cook at Skeptical Science can only dream of.


Citizen's Challenge
What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.
Friends of Wolf Creek
NO Village at Wolf Creek

Further Reading:

Clarifying Peter Miesler’s (aka CitizenChallenged) Dishonest Internet Sniping: Emperor Penguins
Peter Miesler Helps Expose USHCN Homogenization Insanity and Antarctic Illusions
How What'sUpWithThatWatts Argues Against Global-Warming Skeptics


Tucci said...

Any appreciations as to how often Miesler's web log posts and comments are either cited or re-blogged?

If he's as much a nithing as this appraisal presents, the man's impact is at best that of an irritant, and it's hardly fair to go after him with an engineer's hammer when a flyswatter will do.

Andrew said...

This is for future reference so others do not waste their time.

Unknown said...

... divorce in 2012 ...

Seems like you are not the first to send this dude packing.
I don't get around much and never heard of this guy but did enjoy your description.
Well done.

viejecita said...

We have a few popular sayings in Spain, which seem to the point here :

"No ofende quien quiere sino quien puede "
" Antes se coge a un mentiroso que a un cojo"...

Which mean, more or less, that truth comes out and clear in the end.

Just to say WUWT has a vast following, here in Spain, and that even if we do not often write, we feel for you, and we are glad when these envious nincompoops are exposed.
Enhorabuena !!!

Jim Steele said...

Thanks Andrew. I will add this to my links when I get attacked by internet snipers who use Meisler as their authority.

Harry Dale Huffman said...

I think you should, at the end of this article (and in every individual exposé you write), direct the reader's attention to the other "Exposés" on the right side of the screen. People (like "tucci" above) need to come to understand that ALL of the "expert" promulgators, as well as the mere ideological defenders, of the climate alarmism are equally incompetent about the scientific truth of the matter, in that they all continue to dismiss and ignore the definitive evidence that should have shut them up long ago. This includes, I have found, all of the "lukewarmers" as well as the alarmists -- in fact anyone who believes ANY PART of the "consensus" climate science today, including the very "measurements" of global mean surface temperature, upon which all else depends in science. The science is broken, that is the larger point that needs to be learned by all. Politics, or ideological dogmas, rule the debate(s). And there are many such dogmas, inherently divisive, adhered to by the various activist factions that form the current political correctness, under Obama, and whom I quickly learned to know as the Insane Left--and I say this as one who voted Democratic through 8 straight presidential elections, over 28 years. Now that false science has seduced the Left into radical insanity, I worry that the Right will also fall into that pit of mindless drivel that constitutes unquestionable dogma; science has already fallen into it, as far back as Darwin (who, as any passing reader's likely negative reaction to this statement will most poignantly reveal, is also "unquestionable", and has been for generations of by now thoroughly miseducated scientists).

Alex Zeilstra said...

How ironic that he attacks others who have such a great amount of credentials (e.g., Anastasios Tsonis, when he himself possesses essentially none to speak of. I looked at his latest post, and he has sunk so low as to quote commenters, of all people, so as to ponder whether you are ignorant, stupid, insane, or just plain evil! He seems to have no comprehension that not all of the papers on your list have to agree with each other for your list to actually be of any validity, instead that they simply have to support a skeptic argument against AGW alarmism.

John Leal said...

Anthony Watts, you know when you're on target when you cop sniper fire from the alarmists.

citizenschallenge said...

Funny how you supposed heroes of truth gotta keep it within you echo-chamber.

Alex Zeilstra said...

I thought about going to your blog but figured it would be just as bad, if not worse, than Miriam O'Brien's HotWhopper blog, where attacks and absurdities reigned supreme, at least in the comment thread I was in. Anyway, why on earth would I even read that link you gave to me, because judging by some of your other work, it will be full of falsehoods and slanders against those you disagree with?

Streetcred said...

Arschloch, I spit in your general direction!

Andrew said...

My entire reason for commenting at Peters site was to address the nonsense he spammed about my list of papers. Instead it spiraled into his wacko-world of lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. some examples:

"Constantly verbally demeaning your opponents, is the sign of a phony." - Peter Miesler

"I have done my best to engage in a serious discussion and to rationally explain how I see your "messaging" and why I believe you are a malicious fraud." - Peter Miesler

"'s a perfect example of his style of über-gish-gallop," - Peter Miesler

"Unfortunately such maliciously false conclusions are easy when one has no interest in learning..." - Peter Miesler

"...Poptech's only goal is to sow doubt and apathy." - Peter Miesler

"...striving for understanding means nothing to you." - Peter Miesler

"...and broadcast to all who buy your game - that the whole world of science is conspiring against you. " - Peter Miesler

"...the Republican/libertarian PR machine agrees, so they put plenty of wind under the man's wings." - Peter Miesler

"But, in the end of the day Andrew Poptech's lists are a dilettante's game that don't inform anyone about anything" - Peter Miesler

"Think about Poptech's game. He believes he can dismiss the entire community of scientists who have been focused on learning how our climate system operates." - Peter Miesler

"his favorite tactic is to overwhelm with his self-certain rhetoric..." - Peter Miesler

"Rather than admit personal mistakes and beginning to learn about what's happening to this planet Earth we depend on - you turn on your fellow humans." - Peter Miesler

"'s about disputing Poptech's establishment bashing, self-certain conclusions about those studies." - Peter Miesler

"Why the double standard when it comes to accusing respected scientists of supposed wrong doing, based on innuendo rather than any actual evidence?" [Then he links to other websites that have nothing to do with Popular] - Peter Miesler

"...why do you folks have such contempt for spending money on understanding how our planet operates. Why does concern for protecting our "Environment" (that would be our biosphere, read life support system) - evoke such hostility?" - Peter Miesler

Andrew said...


"That makes you a paranoid wack job if you've actually convinced yourself that the entire scientific community of tens of thousands of skeptical, educated, professional individuals are conspiring to threat your "freedoms" or whatever you've conjured up in your mind." - Peter Miesler

"Poptech, the problem is you have made yourself the single arbiter of truth and you hold the serious scientific community in complete contempt so you've erected this completely self-certain faux-science bubble around your certitude. You spend all your time defending that certitude with fancy dancing and creating your own rules of engagement that totally eliminate the need for reality checks - with what's going on in the real physical world." - Peter Miesler

"I believe that is because you are trapped within the political battle and refuse to look beyond your limitations." - Peter Miesler

"Calling them names [The IPCC] and you're insulting the entire scientific community." - Peter Miesler

"You are a resource of lies and tidbits of malicious fraud" - Peter Miesler

"Maybe you think you're doing your god's work, but you are deliberately deceiving people..." - Peter Miesler

"'re biased to the core. Incidentally, uni-directional skepticism equals denial." - Peter Miesler

"I mean you actually believe your causal study trumps full-time experts." [I have never published a study] - Peter Miesler

"You're little clique of in-house extremist scientists, has beens and wanna bes, is a insulator circle jerk of passionately biased individuals more interested in personal goals and political economic considerations than in any learning about the Earth we depend on." - Peter Miesler

"Or at least get honest and admit what you are doing is about propaganda and has nothing to do with learning about our climate system and what we are doing to it" - Peter Miesler

"Seems a little sociopathic to me, but I realize that's where much of the libertarian crowd's heads are at these days." - Peter Miesler

"That reality in itself puts you right into the category of malicious frauds out to deceive the public." - Peter Miesler

"That our children will be bearing the burden and misery of our collective failure means nothing to you people" - Peter Miesler

"Ignorant, stupid, insane or just plain evil?" - Peter Miesler

Jim Steele said...

citizen challenge, your response illustrates your lack of self awareness and integrity, I once visited your website to protest your gross fabrications intended to denigrate me. After that I promised I would not respond to your bull crap. Knowing I would never again venture onto your insidious website , you have written more blogs suggesting if I did not respond I was acknowledging the truth of your vacuous assertions or hiding. Such tactics only illustrate what a deranged human being you truly are.You have no science background but parade yourself as someone who can tell good from bad science i.e. skeptics bad BS alarmism good.LOL But all you illustrate is the worst of the internet, and how dishonest internet snipers like yourself will go to every length to disrupt and discredit meaningful scientific debate hopng to recruit others to support your unsubstantiated paranoia !

Andrew said...

You cannot make this stuff up - Pete admits to physically stalking Anthony Watts,

"A few years back Kevin Trenberth was going to give a climate lecture in Boulder, CO, specifically for Anthony Watts as he was bragging on WUWT, but being a public institution it was open to the public. When I blogged my intention to be there to meet the man and directly ask him some questions, to say nothing of getting to listen to Dr. Trenberth in person - somehow Anthony's scheduling got all complicated and he bowed out and the event was cancelled, guess I didn't rate." - Peter Miesler

Then he admits to harassing and smearing anyone who disagrees with his alarmist ideology,

"Damned straight! I harass web-charlatans and attack their lies about scientific work..." - Peter Miesler

Alex Zeilstra said...

He really is quite pathetic, as your examples further prove.

ncdave4life said...

Thank you for this information, Andrew. I wish I'd read it before I wasted a lot of time on Miesler's blogs, getting frustrated by his censorship and confusion.

I didn't realize that whatsupwiththatwatts is run by the same guy as citizenschallenge. I just posted the following comment on his whatsupwiththatwatts blog; it's "in moderation," and will probably never see the light of day:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Well, well, well, having deleted / disapproved / censored four of my eight comments on his blog, "CitizensChallenge" instead shows up here for a hit-and-run attack.

Before I waste too much time on it, I'll start at the end, and answer his last question first, as a test. Let's find out whether WUWTW will let me post comments here, or whether they censor me like citizenschallenge does on his own blog.

I wrote, on his blog, "CO2 emissions, which have increased atmospheric CO2 from about 0.03% in the 1940s to about 0.04% today, are directly responsible for 15%-20% of current agricultural productivity. If CO2 were still at 0.03% instead of the current 0.04% of the atmosphere, we'd need 18-25% more land under cultivation, just to maintain current agricultural output. If all the world's rain forests were put under cultivation, that would almost, but not quite, make up the deficit..."

That was confusing to citizenschallenge. He responded, "Heck his numbers don't even mesh, 18-25% increase in acreage only producing 15-20% increase in food productivity. I'd want to learn more about how that's figured before giving it any weight."

It's just arithmetic.

An 18-25% increase in acreage would increase food production by 18-25%, if the new farmland is as productive as the old.

After an 18% increase in production, 15% of the result is due to the increase.
(0.18 / 1.18) ~= 0.15 = 15%.

After a 25% increase in production, 20% of the result is due to the increase.
(0.25 / 1.25) = 0.20 = 20%

citizenschallenge also wrote, "15-20% of net productivity? That is one wild claim. Curiously (or not) no references or explanation are offered. Simply a wild self-certain statement we are supposed to swallow;" and "Ditto: Curiously no references or explanation are offered. Simply a wild self-certain statement we are supposed to swallow."

But that is not true. I posted a reference, on his blog, but he deleted / disapproved it. I wrote:

"...Prof. Happer's colleague at Princeton is America's most illustrious living physicist, Prof. Freeman Dyson. Prof. Dyson took over Albert Einstein's old job at Princeton. He says, "It's certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation. About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it's a real plus to burn coal and oil." In personal correspondence with me, Prof. Dyson told me that 15% was a conservative estimate."

A link to the source of that published quote from Prof. Dyson, and many other supporting references, can be found on my web site, here:

Dave Burton ("ncdave4life")

ncdave4life said...

Jim Steele wrote, "citizen challenge, ... Knowing I would never again venture onto your insidious website, you [Meisler] have written more blogs suggesting if I did not respond I was acknowledging the truth of your vacuous assertions or hiding."

It gets even better, Jim. In my case, Meisler had the chutzpah to repeatedly demanded that I "respond" to his criticisms, after he had deleted those very responses which I already provided.

Likewise, Meisler accused me of failing to provide references for a claim after he deleted the reference which I had already provided.

He's a real piece of work.

Andrew said...

It is futile to engage with a drug user.