tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post195296696564987889..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Anthony Watts' strawman and cherries and the hottest year on recordSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81842209313393328712016-03-17T21:31:08.181+11:002016-03-17T21:31:08.181+11:00Aha. Usually more than one way to skin a cat with ...Aha. Usually more than one way to skin a cat with HTML, as Magma shows. I think it's by using the unicode character 8322 to produce the subscripted 2 rather than the 'sub' tag. Let me try here: CO₂.metzomagichttp://metzomagic.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38766495437526037702016-03-17T14:58:40.016+11:002016-03-17T14:58:40.016+11:00Tony's head is going to explode when he is inf...Tony's head is going to explode when he is informed that S.M. has posted here...life is good!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07604184699513441116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47145094439519847912016-03-17T13:05:18.956+11:002016-03-17T13:05:18.956+11:00I know the subscripts can be a problem, but writin...I know the subscripts can be a problem, but writing lower case (e.g. co2) is a red flag to me. I'm happy with CO2, as subscripts sometimes don't work.<br /><br />I also agree with Magma re pH - the H is capitalised because it is hydrogen. MWSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24482244872763661392016-03-17T12:48:14.727+11:002016-03-17T12:48:14.727+11:00That would mark a real turning point at WUWT, Nick...That would mark a real turning point at WUWT, Nick. I guess we'll have to wait to see if it's permanent or just a temporary dummy spit (like deleting Steve Mosher's comment).<br /><br />Anthony's rattled. (Dummy spits and rattles. Hmmm.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83022395453130588872016-03-17T12:01:28.220+11:002016-03-17T12:01:28.220+11:00I see that the gracious host accepted your observa...I see that the gracious host accepted your observation with his usual charm.<br /><br /><i>Anthony Watts<br />March 15, 2016 at 3:40 pm<br /><br />And it’s worth noting that your comment is pointless, since the graph was replaced. But it’s typical Stokes.</i>Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24158742142682152992016-03-17T10:13:12.373+11:002016-03-17T10:13:12.373+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11255466542968249065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75205407009635045162016-03-17T09:05:37.613+11:002016-03-17T09:05:37.613+11:00Sou,
"Nick Stokes found it somewhere else on ...Sou,<br /><i>"Nick Stokes found it somewhere else on WUWT - it's from Jason2 and is of sea level, not temperature:"</i><br />There is more in the thread following <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20160316174632/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/15/one-graph-proves-that-record-high-year-of-2015-and-record-months-of-2016-are-not-agw-driven/#comment-2166867" rel="nofollow">here</a>. AW didn't like my observation, but he did eventually add a caption saying a bit more about it, and also another plot which really is of 2015 temperatures. Also an update:<br /><i>"Note: based on comments, the first ENSO event graph caption was updated to clarify it, and a second SST graph was added for those who prefer that representation of the ENSO event."</i><br /><br />Meanwhile, my comments at WUWT now go to spam, and haven't been re-emerging.<br />Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87816109169697335642016-03-17T05:57:28.140+11:002016-03-17T05:57:28.140+11:00Thanks, Steven. (He could have thanked you instead...Thanks, Steven. (He could have thanked you instead of censoring your comment.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2104107442884589352016-03-17T04:45:30.629+11:002016-03-17T04:45:30.629+11:00Sou, being mentioned in your article is almost as ...Sou, being mentioned in your article is almost as satisfying as being referenced in a footnote. Thanks.<br /><br />Toneb and a couple of others are doing a smash-up job at WUWT being rational and informative and responding to the crazy. I know we won't have an effect, but at least it hones some writing and web research skills, and encourages the virtue of patience.D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12767267477747659692016-03-17T03:39:03.709+11:002016-03-17T03:39:03.709+11:00I quoted Anthony
'Pretty definitive, in my o...I quoted Anthony<br /><br />'Pretty definitive, in my opinion."<br /><br />And I explained why it was not definitive<br /><br />I also explained his use of a false dilemma<br /><br />"this graph indisputably proves that the El Niño is the driver of record high temperatures, not carbon dioxide."<br /><br />I also had some comments about "settled science". stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06920897530071011399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1694762276488037032016-03-17T01:52:25.098+11:002016-03-17T01:52:25.098+11:00The inability to write a simple chemical formula o...The inability to write a simple chemical formula or abbreviation correctly (e.g. co2, Co2, C02, PH, Ph, etc.) probably has a strong correlation with a commenter's general incompetence regarding the topic at hand. But sometimes it's just a typo.<br /><br />There are a number of numeric subscripts and superscripts in the Unicode character set, and one can write CO₂ by using the subscript 2, but it's generally more trouble than it's worth for a blog comment.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15060501539758518832016-03-17T01:20:23.052+11:002016-03-17T01:20:23.052+11:00.this graph indisputably proves that the El Niño i...<i>.this graph indisputably proves that the El Niño is the driver of record high temperatures, not carbon dioxide</i><br /><br />Seems as if WUWT and other AGW deniers are still looking for that magic bullet, that elusive single needle in the haystack that will bring the entire scientific consensus crashing down in ruins.<br /><br />Given the apparent over-representation of engineers among 'skeptics', I wonder if that lack of insight into scientific and technical matters carries over to their day jobs.<br /><br />Skeptical engineer: I've *run* the numbers. Given the tensile strength of the steel available at the time, there's NO way the Golden Gate Bridge could support its own weight, let alone traffic and wind loads. It's a hoax, probably just another socialist tax grab.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20398665426846381912016-03-17T01:16:22.570+11:002016-03-17T01:16:22.570+11:00The reality is that most web site comment sections...The reality is that most web site comment sections are configured to filter out the HTML 'sub' tag (HW filters this out, for example), so you can't exactly blame them for that. You came blame them for all the rest of their denier tendencies, of course :-)metzomagichttp://metzomagic.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24408374852811404802016-03-16T23:13:53.877+11:002016-03-16T23:13:53.877+11:00Istvan's use of quotes in 'adjusted' -...Istvan's use of quotes in 'adjusted' - classic denierTadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46057871030809076152016-03-16T22:50:07.213+11:002016-03-16T22:50:07.213+11:00Well, to be strictly correct the "2" nee...Well, to be strictly correct the "2" needs to be subscripted, but still. palindromnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67893380710043942002016-03-16T22:10:25.589+11:002016-03-16T22:10:25.589+11:00Read Harvard's take on Santer's "at l...Read Harvard's take on Santer's "at least 17 years". He's so wrong words fail; it's hilarious.JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20195099562338240722016-03-16T22:00:46.901+11:002016-03-16T22:00:46.901+11:00It is not AGW because ... 2014 sea levels.
Genius...It is not AGW because ... 2014 sea levels.<br /><br />Genius.Phil Clarkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744659873337514317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13586899447576291282016-03-16T21:26:50.051+11:002016-03-16T21:26:50.051+11:00You can also use statistics. There's at least ...You can also use statistics. There's at least <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/about-that-97-not-great-moment-for-wuwt.html" rel="nofollow">a 97% chance</a> that a "thought" at WUWT is from a dimwit denier :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52862239464821002622016-03-16T20:43:06.193+11:002016-03-16T20:43:06.193+11:00I have a simple way to filter out those who have n...I have a simple way to filter out those who have no idea what they are talking about - such as Ktm who can't write CO2 correctly.<br /><br />How many science classes must you have slept through not to know how to write simple chemical formulae?mwsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68820715205896628582016-03-16T20:10:40.183+11:002016-03-16T20:10:40.183+11:00There's a good article at The Conversation abo...There's a good article at The Conversation about the February spike in surface temperatures.<br /><br /><a href="https://theconversation.com/februarys-global-temperature-spike-is-a-wake-up-call-56341" rel="nofollow">https://theconversation.com/februarys-global-temperature-spike-is-a-wake-up-call-56341</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2372191819903088082016-03-16T20:05:56.985+11:002016-03-16T20:05:56.985+11:00Going by some of the comments, Tony, I think some ...Going by some of the comments, Tony, I think some deniers get a lot more enraged by scientific facts than any normal person does when deniers do all they can to speed up warming. Deniers typically process science with emotion not reason.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38875378196592494912016-03-16T18:36:47.081+11:002016-03-16T18:36:47.081+11:00The comment by dcpetterson is the same in differen...The comment by dcpetterson is the same in different words to the one I (Toneb) posted higher up the WUWT thread. Istvan's comment that Sue has quoted is his reply to me. I haven't even read it - as it would send me down the rabbit-hole in a rage - and I've learned (not always successfully) to resist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17614652735774985250noreply@blogger.com