Search HotWhopper

Loading...

Comment Policy

Sou | 7:00 PM 18 Comments - leave a comment

When I was posting on HotCopper I made the effort to be polite and spent a lot of time researching and composing answers to questions people put about climate science and other topics including shares, with people often putting science questions directly to me by name (often in a rude and abusive fashion).  I am not constrained by the need to be so accommodating of bullies on this blog.  It's mine.

Feel free to post  a comment.  Posts that are generally polite and on topic are welcome.  I'll draw the line with abusive posts and persistent troll posts.

Steer clear of personal attacks, though you can throw pretty much what you like at me.  (Attack the argument, what people say and do.)

Avoid extreme language not acceptable in normal company, though there's a fair bit of leeway given here.

There is a strict "no violence" policy. That is, no talk of guns and no comments wishing physical harm on people. (That's a personal peeve of mine.)

There is also a strict 'no spam' policy.

I will not hesitate to delete comments that are overtly racist, sexist, libelous and/or use coarse language, and will treat people making such comments as permanently banned.  From now on, such comments will disappear with no comment from me and no record of them will remain on public display.  This is in the interest of visitors and people who make a positive contribution by way of comments.  For more info, click here. (Added by Sou 18 January 2014)

Don't post links to anti-science websites. If you think you need to link to a science disinformation or science denying website, try to resist the temptation.  If you can't resist, do not link directly.  Archive the web page first and then link to the archived version.  Here are two options:

http://archive.is/
http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php

If you can't find your comment where you thought it ought to be, try the HotWhoppery.  (If none of your comments appear or all of them disappear without trace, it's probably because you are one of four people who have been banned.)

(Finally, if you fear retribution from that site that merely pretends to like 'free speech', you can always post your comment under another name, using the Name/URL option - you can leave the URL line blank if you wish.)

18 comments:

  1. Do you have an email eddress?

    I'd like to repost your
    "Marcott et al - Must be the Heat!" article at my modest little site:

    http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com
    citizenschallenge < > gmail. etc

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's fine, Peter - check your gmail.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you Sou.
    Here's my introduction:
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2013
    http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-closer-look-at-mciwatts-complaints-re.html

    A closer look at McI/Watts' complaints re. Marcott et al - HotWhopper

    Over the past few weeks the internet's climate science denying echo-chamber has gone into over-time churring out one piece of opinion and vacuum chamber science after another. Unfortunately, it's another example of 'outcome focused' advocacy, rather than a serious dispassionate examination of the paper in question.

    The problem with this approach is that McIntyre/Watts' 'science' is science in a vacuum chamber. Unsurprisingly his 'reviewers' are his own audience, folks who desperately want to not accept what the science and Earth observations are telling us.

    And when actual scientists who understand this stuff point out errors, misconceptions and alteration of the facts ~ it get's written off... {or ridiculed to oblivion}... as part of the conspiracy.
    Is this anyway to approach geophysical facts and the future that is barreling down on us?
    ~ ~ ~

    In any event, Sou over at Hot Whopper.com has taken the time to put together an excellent critique of major flaws in the story-line the echo-chamber is putting out there, in their desperate struggle to discredit and out-scream the important lessons Marcott et al. 2013 has to offer.
    If you are interested the questions raised by McIntyre and Watts, you owe it to yourself to read through this examination.

    I thank Sou for her kind permission to copy and repost her article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dear whopper
      Green house gasses have been falling for a number of years see global relatve humidity trends on the web. Are you trying to say that a .038 percent increase of a minor greenhouse gas has the same effect as a 4% decease of the major greenhouse gas water vapor? Explain how that works.

      Delete
    2. You've landed on the wrong page in more ways than one, Anonymous. Try posting to an article on the topic.

      Delete
  4. citizenschallenge
    SATURDAY, MARCH 30, 2013

    Anthony, Watts Up With Those WUWT HotWhoppers? An Index
    http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/03/anthony-watts-up-with-those-wuwt.html

    Over the past few days I've been getting acquainted with the blog HotWhopper.com because it has done a good job of tracking Anthony Watts' increasingly irrational assault on the science of climatology. She's only been at it for a few months, but has produced many posts worth sharing.

    Since getting information out there to folks who are being lied to by the well oiled disinformation machine is my main goal ~ of which Anthony Watts is a leading light ~ I have compiled an index with short descriptive teaser quotes. For your reference as well as for sharing with others.

    Sou, at HotWhopper, I tip my hat to all the work you have put into your excellent blog.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi, your hotlink to the HotWhoppery is misspelt, (no caps).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fixed, thanks KatyD. (Changed servers recently and these new ones are case sensitive.)

      Delete
  6. Is there any scope for adding more 'recent comments' on the sidebar than just the five? It's how I navigate the site, by seeing which comments I've already viewed, and makes sure I don't miss nested ones....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree too. I looked into this when putting up the "latest comments" widget. Couldn't find anything that would allow more than five comments. If anyone knows of one let me know.

      Delete
  7. Thank you for the welcome. Can I link to Curry's blog under your policy? I guess that's the only one I am unsure about. I understand she has a bias as we all do. The comment I made about Broecker that went away within the last 3 hours, can you please put it into that failed post area so I can remove that link I had there and probably repost it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Always be guided by my example. I didn't link to Judith's blog directly. I made an archived version and linked to that. You've guessed correctly that hers is regarded as a disinformation blog.

      As for your removed comment, it is here at the HotWhoppery. I do not advise trying to repost it.

      I have no intention of allowing HotWhopper to be filled with rubbish comments like Judith's blog is. Take heed of that warning, check and double check and triple check your sources - back to the original source - and cite them - and you'll probably be okay.

      Delete
    2. That removal from the quote of the word "some" by Ragnaar seriously ruins his credibility. He will have to post a lot of good points before I will be able to take him seriously now. If that is not disinforming ...

      Delete
  8. I am not sure where to post this so I'll try here. I made a recent reference to Jim Steele. I assume he's not a favorite of yours. That comment did go to the HotWhoppery. Yes the small table I posted is at WUWT and it is Steele's. I suppose we all decide if we will attack a source or given them some consideration. Looking at Wunsch's recent results from another direction I tried to see what Real Climate, Skeptical Science, ATTP, the Guardian and Science of Doom had to say on it. Not much which is interesting given how low his number was compared to prior studies of ocean heat content. The discussion might be, did Steele misrepresent things. It also might be, is he Jim Steele? The choice may be to restate that Steele is a denier or it may be to discuss, did his table show anything useful? The interesting thing here is what Wunsch's paper said and what it means to the science?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ragnaar wrote: "I made a recent reference to Jim Steele. I assume he's not a favorite of yours."

      You could say the opposite :) Jim's dreadful articles have often been the subject of HotWhopper articles, for example: here and here and here and here and here and here and here and his fibs get a mention here.

      And "The choice may be to restate that Steele is a denier or it may be to discuss, did his table show anything useful? " - I'll just say that there is another choice, which you've since decided upon, which is to refer directly to the science rather filter it through a known science denier. After all, Wunsch and Heimbach themselves write about the research published in earlier papers. As you say: "The interesting thing here is what Wunsch's paper said and what it means to the science?", not what Jim Steele says it says.

      Delete
  9. Regarding your comment about my 'concern trolling' here's what's happened as I see it:
    Sou: The missing heat is in the oceans.
    Ragnaar: Wunsch agrees but thinks the relatives value of that is 2 while Hansen's past study thought it was around 8.
    Sou: Ragnaar acts concerned but if he knew the answer, he wouldn't know what to do with it. He is a 'concern troll'.
    I am concerned that the answer may be 2 and it may be 8. Each answer indicates differing amounts of risk on differing time scales. Each answer has a material effect on what the real heat budget is and how the climate works. I am concerned with what the answer is. As was Wunsch in my opinion, who apparently felt that further study was warranted. I think the point, despite the form of it's delivery, is what Wunsch said. Substance over form as we say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ragnaar wrote:
      "Regarding your comment about my 'concern trolling' here's what's happened as I see it:

      You see it wrong. For example, a specific example I gave re concern trolling was this:

      This is also an example of concern trolling with his "makes one wonder" comment

      Another example from your comment above are these:

      >I am concerned with what the answer is.

      Yet you can see from the literature that this is a subject of active research.

      >As was Wunsch in my opinion, who apparently felt that further study was warranted.

      Implying that someone suggested no further research was needed, which is clearly not so. There will continue to be more data collected. This is an area of active research. Carl Wunsch hasn't had the last word by any means - and says as much in the paper he wrote with Patrick Heimbach, for example:

      The pattern below 3600 m is similar, with much smaller amplitude. These results differ in detail and in numerical values from other estimates, but determining whether any are correct is probably not possible with the existing datasets.

      >Substance over form as we say

      Here the "concern" is that some of the science you cited is not based on data. That is mischievous to say the least and completely unfounded and unwarranted. It's denier-speak.

      Those are what I mean when I refer to concern trolling. It's got nothing to do with the science itself. It's the "I'm just concerned about..." etc combined with you implying that some research is not based on the best data available at the time. Particularly as it's clear that you have tended to favour disinformation websites to science.

      Delete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.