How does Heartland funding Anthony Watts show "the lying-based anti-science denial movement at work"?

The quotes in my question are from a previous question. This actual question was: "Which of the Heartlandgate documents most clearly shows the lying-based anti-science denial movement at work?" One answer stated: "(1) Heartland is giving money to Anthony Watts" This is not an isolated... afficher plus The quotes in my question are from a previous question. This actual question was: "Which of the Heartlandgate documents most clearly shows the lying-based anti-science denial movement at work?"

One answer stated: "(1) Heartland is giving money to Anthony Watts" This is not an isolated sentiment on this issue as can be seen at many warmer blogs like ThinkProgress, DeSmogBlog and SkepticalScience. However, the SkepticalScience analysis is limited to:

"Confirmation that skeptic blogger Anthony Watts is part of Heartland’s funded network of misinformation communicators.
“We (Heartland) have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”"

Watts describes the intended project for that funding on his blog as follows:

"It is simply for this special project requiring specialized servers, ingest systems, and plotting systems. They also don’t tell me what the project should look like, I came up with the idea and the design. The NOAA data will be displayed without any adjustments to allow easy side-by-side comparisons of stations, plus other graphical representations output 24/7/365.'

Watts intends to take existing NOAA data and provide a user friendly interface for displaying it. So what evidence is there that Watts is going to use that funding for "misinformation" as SkepticalScience calls it?
Mettre à jour: It's apparent from many answers the some people don't know what the word "evidence" means. Here is the backwards thinking I am seeing here and elsewhere on this issue....... "Evidence" is something that supports warmist belief. "Misinformation" and "lies" are... afficher plus It's apparent from many answers the some people don't know what the word "evidence" means. Here is the backwards thinking I am seeing here and elsewhere on this issue.......

"Evidence" is something that supports warmist belief.

"Misinformation" and "lies" are things that are contrary to warmist belief.

"Debate" with skeptics is a waste of time.

"Skeptics" are an impediment to progressing this issue and deserve the derision they receive.

Who's really anti-science?
Mise à jour 2: @pegminer - Sigh, you have it backwards...again. I highly respect science and the scientific method. I need to for my job. I'm in the testing and verification business along with risk assessment. If I gave poor technical advice, it would be very costly. And that's the precise reason I have the attitude... afficher plus @pegminer - Sigh, you have it backwards...again. I highly respect science and the scientific method. I need to for my job. I'm in the testing and verification business along with risk assessment. If I gave poor technical advice, it would be very costly. And that's the precise reason I have the attitude that I do towards this issue.

I see poor, unsubstantiated advice that is likely to be very costly. The risk/reward ratio is way out of whack. To ignore this is to be ideological not scientific.
13 réponses 13