UPDATE 02-Apr-2015: Please note my comment below in which I provide documentation and links to some recent evidence of Betts’ choice of posting patterns. Of equal interest, IMHO, is dennisambler’s comment in which he highlights some of Betts’ earlier history.
I disagree with much of what the environmental movement do – I disagree with them on GMOs for example – but as an objective scientist I’m not going to hide my results just because someone I disagree with likes them. If you see me on Twitter you’ll see me call out bad science whenever I see it, no matter which side it comes from. [Richard Betts – Sep 24, 2013 at 9:18 AM via Bishop Hill Discussion: Writing and reviewing IPCC AR5]
Let’s watch Betts, a distingushed representative of the UK’s jewel in the crown, as he “calls out” some very bad science from Rahmstorf, Mann et al. Notice the deafening sounds of silence from Betts on that thread, folks?!
But wait … here he is “calling out” this bad science via twitter where, evidently, one is supposed to look:
YMMV, but such tepid (and somewhat ambiguous) “calling out” doesn’t exactly meet my definition of criticism. In my view, Betts’ tweet is much closer to Goodall’s “stubbornly silent” than to any approximation of “criticism” (robust or otherwise!)
Nor, for that matter, was I particularly impressed with (or, considering his past performances, surprised by) his recent choice to launch his Caspar Milquetoast imitation at the blog of one who’s always struck me as a perennial attention-seeking (and/or traffic-seeking?!) bore. See, for example, Tom Fuller’s assessment of the bore, aka ATTP, in action.
But back to Betts … For some (IMHO) unfathomable reason, Betts chose the blog of ATTP, in order to share his views on the blindingly obvious problems inherent in the words of those who choose to label their opponents as “deniers“.
Over the years, I have observed Betts opting to scatter his umbrage at the least important (if not completely irrelevant) thing. His tweet above – combined with his chosen failure to engage with the meat of McIntyre’s post – has given me no reason whatsoever to change my opinion. [More evidence available on request!]
Then again, it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that Betts might have privately chastized Rahmstorf, Mann et al for their latest exercise in error-riddled recycling.
Notwithstanding any and/or all of the above, the view from here is that Betts would have far more credibility – and respect – if he were to publicly post his objections, as he so readily does at the drop of a virtual byte, whenever he thinks he’s spotted an error (however irrelevant to the major point of the post in question) on which he can pounce and pontificate to his little tweeting-heart’s content.