so i just want to hear from you guys, whats your opinion about watts. if you would be able to change three things about watts what would it be? please answer :)

1. I'd like Watts to accept the results of his own co-authored peer reviewed paper.

2. I'd like Watts to keep his word when he says "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong"

3. I'd like Watts to stop being a hypocrite (wishful thinking?) who sounds the alarm bells when 'an alarmist' releases data before peer-review but has not problem doing so himself with regard to a (non-peer reviewed) 'paper' in which he lists Steven McIntyre as co-author, a claim which left McIntyre 'puzzled'.

I have actually many more points regarding particular items where I'd like Mr Watts to change his unscientific behavior but, sadly, you only requested three.

I have a 1000 watt stereo and I'd like at least 1000 more

Watts is an area of LA.

Watts is an electrical unit of power.

Watts can refer to Anthony Watts, a genius who knows about climate.

If you give us a clue, maybe we can answer your question.

OK. If we are referring to Anthony, I wish for him to have an open debate with Gringo. (Now run and hide Senor Gringo. Ha! Ha! You wouldn't stand a chance, since you are nothing but a cheap-shot artist, as you have proven time and time again on this very site.)

I suspect that you are referring to Anthony Watts http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/wattsu...

who owns the skeptical climate web site: http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Not perfect, but pretty good. I could improve his site (languages, graphics, adding content), but I think he does well himself. If I had the power to change him, it would be to have him hire me to work for him.

Edit @Gringo: " I'd like Watts to stop being a hypocrite (wishful thinking?) who sounds the alarm bells when 'an alarmist' releases data before peer-review but has not problem doing so himself with regard to a (non-peer reviewed) 'paper' in which he lists Steven McIntyre as co-author, a claim which left McIntyre 'puzzled'."

That wiki you site reads like a smear job, and you make him sound worse. The wiki states that Watts did send it in for peer review, but it is still a work in progress, and it might never get there. That happens somethimes. As for releasing data before peer-review; today on the internet, it gets reviewed by many, and I have no problem with that. As for the listing of a puzzled S McIntyre as a co-author, I have never met either Watts or McIntyre, but have had the experience of being listed as a co-author on a paper, and I would qualify my <> admit <> study. That happens more than people realize. It happens when the head author values input from someone and wishes to include them on the author list instead of the acknowledgments. That is a judgement call. Usually, an author asks first rather than surprises, but it is supposed to be an honor to be included. Normally, one should be allowed to review the content before one's name in put on the paper, but I know that generally, people who do this are trying to honor someone, not trying to committ fraud. I was surprised and a little puzzled as well. BFD.

so i just want to hear from you guys, whats your opinion about watts. if you would be able to change three things about watts what would it be? please answer :)