Wednesday, December 19, 2012

HotCopper Deniers of the Week

MobyT | 10:26 PM Go to the first of 9 comments. Add a comment

More silliness from denier share traders on HotCopper

Here is the latest world-shattering news straight from the keyboard of berretta - a resident science rejecter at the HotCopper share discussion forum (subs req'd):

Berretta doesn't just deny science he denies economics as well.  He seems to have decided that burning coal is not one of the main source of the additional atmospheric CO2 from human sources (usually edging out oil / petroleum products).

Younglogga, a newcomer to HotCopper, posted a decent response - he knows his stuff pretty well:

Silly old Berretta was having none of it.  In Berretta's mind he himself is the smartest man on HotCopper. Scientists know nada, according to him.

LesPaul is typical of the trolls, coming up with one of the tiredest, least original denier taunts on the internet: "Stop breathing if you accept science and let we scientific illiterati get on with destroying the planet in peace", he says.

While Mike68, who has often said that Cat 5 Tropical Cyclone Yasi was a good thing, and that global warming will also be good because jungles will grow, posted in the same vein as LesPaul:

The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything CO2 is 42 (+1)%

In fact it wasn't very hard to find the latest information.  (Ain't google wonderful.)

Last year coal was the biggest source of CO2 emissions. Here is what the Global Carbon Project says in its latest Global Carbon Budget report:
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels burning and cement production increased by 3% in 2011, with a total of 9.5±0.5 PgC emitted to the atmosphere (34.7 billion tonnes of CO2). These emissions were the highest in human history and 54% higher than in 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol reference year). In 2011, coal burning was responsible for 43% of the total emissions, oil 34%, gas 18%, and cement 5%.
(The above doesn't include equivalent emissions from deforestation, agriculture and other land use activities, which last year accounted for around 10% of the total. )


As for Berretta

So far, Berretta hasn't given his answer.  When he poses a silly question it is often his habit to not provide any answer of his own.  I guess he thinks if he says coal burning is not currently the biggest contributor then maybe someone will believe him.

As for HotCopper

Yes, this really is the standard that HotCopper aspires to.  The mods and management allow deniers to harass anyone who is actually interested in science and if that doesn't get rid of them, the mods add to the bullying.  Ultimately if you still insist on posting real science, management and mods form a lynch mob and ban you forever.


  1. This stuff is interesting and not something that is available to non suscribers, Do you Use Sou at Hot Shit, you would probably be banned pretty quickly if you did

    1. John, HotCopper is a commercial operation and open to anyone to subscribe, subject to ASIC limitations on who can post (no professional financial advisers etc).

      It pays to have a head vice handy before visiting HotCopper. A lot of mind-exploding stuff. (And a BS filter for threads about share trading.)

      And no, I've never posted on HotCopper as Sou. Until I set up HotWhopper I kept my Sou identify for climate science discussions in the main. MobyT was mainly for HotCopper.

  2. It was obvious that berretta was going to show how smart he was by saying that the answer was the ocean

    younglooga pulled the carpet from under him and he would have looked like a dronga saying that you are correct,
    he just gives a hint that he was going to say something else instead of the Ocean, " I was talking about human emissions,
    No you were not dickhead.

    better to have people think you are a dill than comment and confirm it.

    1. You could be right, John but I'm not so sure. Berretta has never given any indication that he understands anything about the carbon cycle (or any science let alone climate science).

      This report was released from the IEA just a day or so prior, saying how coal could surpass oil as an energy source. Could be he confused energy sources with waste generation (CO2 emissions).

      We'll probably never know as he doesn't usually answer his own questions. (He has a habit of posing a dumb question then complains that people can't read his mind. He scoffs at correct answers but doesn't say what he thought the 'right' answer was.)

    2. MobyT is at it again I see. LOL

      You Tosser. :)

  3. Turns out berretta thinks that jet planes produce more CO2 than coal.

    1. whooda guessed, the person is a F#####T

  4. Rice cultivation is the biggest single source of made made CO2 during the fermentation that goes on in the flooded fields post harvest ... a sad fact eh.

    1. Hi anonymous, you're thinking of methane (CH4) from wetland rice, not CO2.  And it's not 'most', it's been estimated that globally, methane from rice production accounts for around 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

      If you're interested in the biochemistry, look up methanogenesis.  And here's an article about a paper from UC Davis on the problem and tactics that can be used to reduce it.

      It's getting to be a bigger problem.  Rising CO2 means rice plants grows faster (when not affected by floods or drought) but yields won't keep pace - so there'll be more methane per kg rice than before.  With rice being a staple and important to feed the world, reducing methane becomes more important.


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. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.