Monday, December 30, 2013

The really ugly side of Anthony Watts and his science deniers at WUWT

Sou | 7:42 AM Go to the first of 62 comments. Add a comment

Update: Anthony Watts is working hard to cement his reputation, with unfathomable behaviour. See below.

I've only been watching the antics at WUWT for a few months.  I occasionally went there before last year when someone at HotCopper copied and pasted some nonsense, but didn't hang around because it was so eminently dull and wrong.  Since I've been attempting to show up the stupid, I've come to know Anthony Watts and his regulars a bit better.

One thing I've observed and been dismayed with is their really nasty side.  Anthony is not satisfied with smearing individual scientists, he takes delight in any misfortunes.  He takes special delight in any misfortunes of people who take dangerous journeys to inhospitable parts of the world in an effort to find out more about the world we live in - or for the sake of adventure.

This past few days he has, with great glee, been writing about the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, with the ship stuck in ice.  (Anthony may have been gearing up to get in the mood of this article with a frenzy of tweets, insulting all and sundry and making little sense.  The juxtaposition of this tweet followed immediately by this one and then adding insult to injury to Gavin Schmidt after calling him "cowardly" was especially silly. Anthony doesn't frequent twitter that often except to tweet his blog articles, but when he does he tends to go berserk.)

In this especially nasty (and misleading) article Anthony wrote (archived here, update here, latest update here):
Then there’s the comedy of a scientific research expedition disguised as a junket for activists and reporters, such as this guy, tweeting up a storm from on-board:...
... The other fellow, Chris Turney, has some science credentials, but also has a propensity for wackadoodle alarmism as we see in this WUWT post: Now it’s 2°C climate change target ‘not safe’
Mostly, it’s a media sponsored event, presumably so they can tell us how terrible things are in Anarctica with melting and such:

Being icebound in Antarctica is a "comedy"?  Mostly "media sponsored"? A "junket" - where people pay their own way?

Given his lack of research skills, it's understandable that Anthony wouldn't attempt to find out anything about the expedition, the scientists, the passengers or who is supporting the expedition.  However, as an avowed "free marketer", you'd have thought Anthony would favour a venture that is supported by business and private sponsorship as well as by government grants.  But no. It's scientific research - therefore it must be bad, regardless of its funding, its mission or the value of the work.  Or I should say it's bad in Anthony's eyes because it's science.  Science means new knowledge and new knowledge is to be scoffed at in the weird world of the scientific illiterati.

(Anyone who, after reading an article like that one of Anthony's, thinks that he is anything but a brutish thug who despises knowledge, adventure and exploration needs their head read.)

The Australasian Antarctic Expedition is being led by Professor Chris Turney of the University of New South Wales.  They are tracing the path of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911-1914, led by Douglas Mawson.  The "science case" is described here.  You can keep up to date with what's happening on Twitter  @ProfChrisTurney.

It seems that the ice is finally starting to break up.  So hopefully the Aurora Australis will be able to free the ship.  I wish them well (with a touch of envy - I would love to go to Antarctica).


Anthony Watts is working hard to retain and solidify his reputation.  He writes (archived hereupdate here, latest update here):
UPDATE: get a load of the hilarious announcement from the expedition, where they claim sea ice is disappearing, see update 2 below....
UPDATE2: You can’t make this stuff up. This is from a news.com.au story covering the incident and the announcement made by the expedition:

Anthony refers to this precarious situation as "hilarious".  He can't read past the words "Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change".  He highlighted those words in yellow.  He was so keen to show those people in peril just what he thought of them and how clever he is to have spotted those words that he failed to notice what followed immediately after, like "but here ice is building up".  And he completely ignores the warning about "the increase in sea ice has freshened the water below, so much so that you can almost drink it" or "Who can say what effects ..."

I've been stumped by Anthony Watts ignorant and utterly foolish utterings before.  But this is up there with the worst of them.  Does he really and truly not have even a glimmer of understanding of the consequences of the havoc we are wreaking on the planet?  Does he really and truly not have the least bit of empathy for people in danger? (It would appear the answer is "no" to both.)

Here is what Anthony referred to - from News.com.au
A statement from the Australasian Antarctic Expedition:
We're stuck in our own experiment. We came to Antarctica to study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by trapping ice. We followed Sir Douglas Mawson's footsteps into Commonwealth Bay, and are now ourselves trapped by ice surrounding our ship.
Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up. We have found this has changed the system on many levels. The increase in sea ice has freshened the seawater below, so much so that you can almost drink it. This change will have impacts on the deep ocean circulation.
Underwater, forests of algae are dying as sea-ice blocks the light. Who can say what effects the regional circulation changes may have on the ice sheet of the Antarctic plateau, or whether the low number of seals suggests changes to their population.

Any sane person would be very concerned, not just for the people who are trapped in ice and the people who are attempting to rescue them, but for the Antarctic and for what the changes that are taking place there will mean for the rest of the world.

Perhaps I shouldn't, but this unfathomable behaviour reminds me of speculation I made once before.

From the WUWT comments

The following comments are not for the faint-hearted. Anthony's troops have rallied to his cry - or some of them have anyway. (Archived hereupdate here, latest update here):)

Addendum: The comments have got much worse, with people suggesting death is too good for the scientists and passengers.  A mod (not Anthony) has vowed that no-one responsible for WUWT wishes them harm but Anthony's effusive glee belies that comment.  I won't print any more comments and definitely won't copy the most awful comments. They are too gross for HotWhopper.  However because I think it's important for the record, I have them preserved in the update here, latest update here. ) Sou: 7:32 pm, Monday 30 December 2013.

After Anthony Watts' two despicable and misleading articles on the subject, Dave has the cheek to write:
December 29, 2013 at 11:30 amAnyone taking bets that this will be reported in an honest manner by our ever-so-unbiased media?

JEM gets into the spirit of the illiterati and wishes they'd disappear:
December 29, 2013 at 11:42 am@albertalad – send food, diesel, and biodegradable bog paper, shut off their internet, leave them there.

Then a genuinely concerned comment from a surprising source - David Ball says:
December 29, 2013 at 11:47 am
I hope they will be ok. They have underestimated the ice, so I hope they do not underestimate the very real danger they are in.

andrewmharding dehumanises "them" with his attribution of "they" and says:
December 29, 2013 at 11:44 am
Poetic justice! They have been telling the world that we need to pay high taxes on fossil fuels to stop AGW; they get stuck in the substance they say is disappearing (clearly it isn’t), needing icebreakers burning fossil fuels to attempt to rescue them.

Mac the Knife twists his knife and says:
December 29, 2013 at 11:53 am
At last – true Environmental Justice in action! In the most direct and immediately tangible terms, the expanding ice pack surrounds them with blunt and massive evidence that their beliefs are wrong. Yet, they continue to preach the AGW dogma, even as the antarctic climate tries to kill them. If that isn’t a hallmark of religious environmentalism, I don’t know what would be!
ABC’s MARGOT O’NEILL: The research stakes are high. ….But there’s ominous signs of climate change. Indeed, Margot. Ominously, the incredibly thick and extensive pack ice is trying to crush your ship!
Adding insult to their hypocritical injuries to the environment, consider of all of the energy, money, human effort, and resulting emissions/’pollution’ being needlessly expended to ‘rescue’ these enviro-miscreants from their own ice folly. Ahhhh – the massive, ice cold irony!


  1. andrewmharding: "they get stuck in the substance they say is disappearing (clearly it isn’t)"

    Mac the Knife: "At last – true Environmental Justice in action! In the most direct and immediately tangible terms, the expanding ice pack surrounds them with blunt and massive evidence that their beliefs are wrong."

    The Telegraph just commented on similar statements as pure trolling.

    1. I suppose that makes WUWT just one big troll. (WUWT-ers have a tendency to label any stray science visitor a troll. Richardscourtney was particularly fond of doing that. He's not been seen there lately. Got trolled out I expect.)

      BTW I made the mistake of looking at the comments under the Telegraph article. Talk about trolling :(

    2. Talk about trolling :(

      That was my comment! :) But that did not go through moderation. :-)

      (Probably some technical glitch, that would have been one of the most diplomatic remarks there.)

  2. I suppose it should be interesting that the denial side is so populated by people you would cross the road to avoid - Watts, Monckton, Delingpole, dbstealey, Richard S Courtney and the choir that follows them, all shouting loudly how humane they believe themselves to be. I've been following the moral indignation of the serial liar, Lord Monckton and how he has been owned by the so called trolls on his science = religion sermon on WUWT.

    1. Surely after Anthony's articles belittling the plight of the thousands who died in the cities and settlements destroyed by Haiyan, and now this. Surely at least some of his readers are sane enough to realise there is something very wrong with the man.

  3. I'm not sure Tony understands how these sorts of things happen. I've read a lot of accounts of Antarctic exploration and it always seemed to me that ships would be locked into the pack when they were near fast ice (ice which is grounded) and the pack. Then the wind would change and blow the pack down on them. Most often the wind would change and the ship would be freed before too long, but sometimes the wind would not change blowing more and more ice down on the ship(s). In the worst case you got Shackleton. One thing to note, most often these ships were equipped with supplies for a year or so on the ice, so being trapped for a few days was not a problem. In the extant case, I doubt that the ship has supplies for any longer than the planned length of the cruise. Of course they could always start shooting seals!

    1. An article in the NYT today confirms that this is what happened:

    2. The Shackleton expedition came to my mind too. It was a known - and accepted - hazard. I am in awe of those early explorers.

      I'm also dripping with envy over the visit to Mawson's hut. Imagine being there, soaking up the atmosphere, thinking of those guys with nothing but some tools, supplies, their own skills - and no chance at all of a helicopter rescue.

    3. Mawson's trip and narrow escape after the loss of two companions and most of their supplies is truly amazing. A story of survival even more harrowing than Apsley Cherry-Garrard's "Worst Journey in the World" (which I highly recommend).

    4. Going by what I've seen up close of Anthony Watts this past few months, I'd say with some confidence that Anthony doesn't care how it happened. I've never seen him demonstrate any sensitivity or empathy and doubt he is capable. I have seen him being extremely callous and cavalier about other people's disasters - even using his wife's family's suffering to score points.

      All Anthony is interested in is making mileage out of it. Blog hits and click throughs would be a priority. Of even greater importance to him is being admired for his cleverness and wit and showing up the "enemy" (that is, polar scientists in particular). Or so he thinks.

      Events like this can show people in their true colours. And Anthony's colours aren't pretty.

    5. If you think Watts is bad look at this from Nova's Home for the Intellectually Inadequate.

      Stephen Richards
      December 30, 2013 at 7:00 pm • Reply

      We hope the 74 people on board stay safe, and wish them some global warming.

      No wedon’t. We wish them a jolly from hell and if one of them happens to die well so be it.

      These idiots have chosen not to look, listen and learn and they should pay the consequences, if not the bill for 3 icebreakers, umpteen rescuers risking their lives and 32 helicopter trips plus the fare back to their slimy holes.

    6. They are as bad as each other. (Stephen Richards must be doing the rounds. He's popped up at WUWT too.)

      What people like Stephen Richards won't acknowledge is that the only reason we know what we know about climate is because of the scientists who risk their lives each year doing dangerous work and travelling to inhospitable places.

      Okay, I know the people who make such ugly comments don't know anything about climate - but they pretend they do. Where do they think the data comes from? People sitting in armchairs watching tele while writing comments at WUWT and Jo Nova's on their iPads? No. It's from people working at the frontiers - in both geographic terms as well as scientific terms.

      (I will now take ten deep slow breaths and give some thought to the stranded people and those who are working to rescue them.)

    7. David Roth: "... I will not be misdirected by denial. I will give my attention to the people hanging on for their survival..."

  4. So nothing from Watts about the UHI impact of Mawson's hut? Disappointing.

  5. As Rattus notes, this hooting and howling from the repugnant WuWTian peanut gallery simply demonstrates that they have no clue why being stranded in Antartic sea ice in summer is absolutely consistent with a global climate that is warming.

    Not surprising, really, considering that they have never twigged as to why the small bit of land around the South Pole makes a difference compared to the ice dynamics of the landless North Pole - no matter how many times they've been told, and in simple, single-syllable words.

    I've seen more intelligence in a drop of pond water mounted on a hæmocytometer.

    Bernard J.

  6. " Does he really and truly not have even a glimmer of understanding of the consequences of the havoc we are wreaking on the planet?"

    Of course he does.
    He wants the destruction to happen as totally and quickly possible.

  7. Apparently on Sunday it was relatively warm and the passengers were walking about on the ice snowballing and building snowmen. Quote, "At a balmy 2C and with hardly any wind, those who chose to spend the morning outside could step into the sunshine without the usual coats, scarves and gloves. The metal of the deck was warm to the touch and the ice around us glistened with a sheen of freshly melted water."

    The problem has been mainly the prevailing winds which blew the pack ice together trapping the ship. It's one of those eventualities which I'm sure was always on the cards in that location. Quote source

  8. Funny, all of the indignation about Watts “insulting all and sundry and making little sense”, yet you don't have to look hard on this blog to find comments like:

    “the serial liar, Lord Monckton”

    “Nova's Home for the Intellectually Inadequate.”

    “the repugnant WuWTian peanut gallery”

    “WUWT-ers have a tendency to label any stray science visitor a troll”

    Hypocrisy, it would appear, is alive and thriving at HotWhopper.

    1. The first, serial liar, Lord Monckton is merely a statement of demonstrated fact. Try Googling Monckton lies.

      Secondly, I think there is a difference between ridicule and wishing people dead. I'm quite happy to ridicule because there is a level of pomposity in the self appointed guardians of science. I draw the line when people wishing physical harm on others.

    2. Perrhaps it is another identifying characteristic of science deniers, that they are unable to distinguish between wishing serious harm on people and name-calling at worst and straight up accurate descriptions and statements.

      In this case, WUWT-ers are wishing people dead whose only "crimes" involve travelling to Antarctica and doing science.

      Lord Monckton is a serial liar. It's a fair description. He is known for it. He lies about the science. That's how he makes a buck - travelling circuses to Australia and the USA as a "climate entertainer" telling lies about climate science to people in cardigans. Without even going into all his lies about climate, look how often he pretends to be a member of the House of Lords for example. Look how often he has lied about the Cook study.

      The dig at Jo Nova's blog - well I don't visit there too often but I know it by reputation.I do know that Jo Nova herself has some very wacky ideas so probably her blog is home to others with wacky ideas. In any case, surely anonymous does not think that sort of name-calling can be equated with wanting people dead or delighting in the fact that they are in a dangerous situation.

      Many of the crowd at WUWT are calling for harm to people who have done no harm to anyone as far as they know. In fact all that the WUWT crowd know about them is that they travelled to Antarctica and that some of them are doing scientific research on the trip. Travel plus adding to knowledge is their "crime", which has got Anthony stirred up a lot and some WUWT-ers stirred up so much that they wish them dead. And they are making all sorts of other repugnant comments.

      As for Anonymous' inclusion of the statement that WUWT-ers have a tendency to call people who make comments about real science "trolls". That's simply a statement of fact. While I see that Anonymous might not see any difference between namecalling and calling for the death penalty for the crime of doing science, I don't understand why a simple factual statement is equated with a call for the death penalty. (Look at David Hoffer's current article at WUWT - which I wrote about yesterday. Read the first two lines. Do a search for comments by richardscourtney - "troll" is his common response to anyone making a comment that reflects mainstream science.)

    3. the repugnant WuWTian peanut gallery"

      I'm happy to stand by every one of the descriptors in my sentence. Which one do you believe cannot be supported with evidence from WUWT itself?

      Bernard J.

    4. “I'm happy to stand by every one of the descriptors in my sentence. Which one do you believe cannot be supported with evidence from WUWT itself?”

      What about this one?

      “I've seen more intelligence in a drop of pond water mounted on a hæmocytometer.”

      Thoroughly scientific argument you put forward there Bernard J, really adds to the argument, maybe you should provide a link to the peer reviewed paper that backs up your claim. Seriously if someone at WUWT had posted a stupid comment like that it would be written up here as “proof” of how evil those “deniers” are. Using the logic mentioned above that “ I know the people who make such ugly comments don't know anything about climate - but they pretend they do.” describes you well as insults seem to be all that you have.

      Wishing harm on others is hardly exclusive to so called “deniers” either, for example Prof Richard Parncutt once called for the death penalty for “deniers” and the alarmist Jill Singer suggested that climate sceptics should gas themselves. So you can climb down from your moral high horse on that one.

      It is obvious that it is not what you say, how insulting or derogatory you are but which side you are on that matters here, so my original observation about hypocrisy still stands, ignore the fact as much as you like but it is still a fact and until you open the other eye you will never see it.


    5. Hello anonymous coward.

      First point, you've shifted the goal posts from the quote of mine that you originally repeated, to wit:

      "the repugnant WuWTian peanut gallery"

      Logical fallacy, that.

      Never mind, I am happy to bat at “I've seen more intelligence in a drop of pond water mounted on a hæmocytometer.” You see, the protozoan and other planktonic inhabitants in a drop of pond water have the basic mechanisms of response to behave rationally given the environmental stimuli to which they are exposed. Conversely, the denizens of WUWT are presented with scientific stimuli by the profession and their responses are irrational and counter to a logical and objectively reasoned analysis of the subject material. What's especially embarrassing for them is that they're advantaged by multicellularity and neuronal networks, and in at least some cases an education that would usually confer sufficent knowledge that they should be able to reason their way to a correct conclusion, but their irrationality forces them to positions contrary to continued survival on evolutionary scales.

      You say:

      "Seriously if someone at WUWT had posted a stupid comment like that it would be written up here as “proof” of how evil those “deniers” are."

      No, you are confabulating. That's another logical fallacy.

      As to your:

      "Wishing harm on others is hardly exclusive to so called “deniers” either, for example Prof Richard Parncutt once called for the death penalty for “deniers” and the alarmist Jill Singer suggested that climate sceptics should gas themselves. So you can climb down from your moral high horse on that one."

      you are falsely attributing to my position (given that you are responding to me) something to which I do not subscribe. In fact I recently wished the very opposite for these people.

      And in response to your:

      "...so my original observation about hypocrisy still stands..."

      I would simply say that my over-riding interest is to maximise the greatest good for the most people and non-human life forms across space and time (which means beyond the next five years' worth of luxury in the USA or the rest of the First World...) so any pillorying of the selfishness and stupidity of self-indulgent Westerners is small change in my book.

      I say that with both eyes open, unlike your crowd who can't see past their own ideologies, self-interests, and personal biases.

      And if you're all for "scientific arguments", perhaps you can point to the most telling one that refutes the fundamental conclusions of climatology as described by the IPCC. Note that this is actually stting a low bar for you, as the IPCC is a conservative summary of the science, having been filtered by countries with interests counter to saving the planet in the long term.

      I await your best shot with interest.

      Bernard J.

    6. “First point, you've shifted the goal posts from the quote of mine that you originally repeated,"

      On the contrary Bernard, I pointed out that the climate change true believers are just as prone to resort to insults and childish name-calling as those on the opposite of the fence, the first line of your post demonstrates my point perfectly. Thank you!

    7. Hell again anonymous coward.

      Let's see, you're too scared to put a name (even a pseudonym) to your comments - that to me would indicate that you're anonymous and cowardly.

      Or is it simple laziness rather than fear? That works well for me if you prefer.

      As to your glass jaw, if you're going to go all concern troll about the comments on Hotwhopper and ignore the repugnancy that is being widely strewn throughout the peurile WUWT thread, then the problem is less about open eys as it is about the log in yours.

      Yes, I have been blunt in the calling of your lot for the fools, ideologues and ecological vandals that they are - the time for kid gloves and flower petals passed years ago, and interestingly it seems to be the only strategy that actually touches a nerve... Years of attempting reasoned discussion and education has failed in almost all cases, which says a lot about those who think that they know better than the professionals.

      And it will all start again in the new year. Same old same old.

      I can hardly wait.

      Bernard J.

    8. Anonymous your points are irrelevant to the subject at hand.

      You implied that there is some sort of equivalence between calling for the death of people trapped in ice and pointing out that Monckton tells lies; or pointing out that WUWT-ers have a tendency to label as "trolls" people who accept science. The latter points are facts that can be supported by ample evidence. They do not represent any sort of hypocrisy.

      In any case, HotWhopper doesn't rail at name-calling as such. Therefore your "hypocrisy" tag carries no weight in that regard. If Anthony insulted all and sundry with facts it might be a different matter. But he doesn't. He makes up stuff and, as you point out by your quote, he makes no sense.

      What HotWhopper does is expose disinformation. It's not a tone troll blog it's more a fact-checking blog and a disinformer-outing blog. HotWhopper uses snark a lot but I do my utmost to be factual.

      Your weak attempt to derail this discussion is an excellent example of the sort of silliness deniers carry on with at anti-science blogs. Your comment provides a good example of tone-trolling too.


    9. Bernard, the entire point of my original post (if you even bothered to read it!) was to highlight the rank hypocrisy in regard to insults and name-calling on display on this blog it had nothing at all to do with:

      “protozoan and other planktonic inhabitants in a drop of pond water have the basic mechanisms of response to behave rationally given the environmental stimuli to which they are exposed” Talk about shifting the goalposts and logical fallacies!

      So what do we get next? Come in spinner Bernard J wades right on in with what? Insults and childish abuse. As for your belief that you are a better person than I am because of “your over-riding interest is to maximise the greatest good for the most people and non-human life forms across space and time” I'll let you in on a little secret, a large percentage of us this planet have the same view.

      And Sou, you claim that “What HotWhopper does is expose disinformation.” yet you worship at the feet of the cartoonist from SKS? Seriously?

    10. the entire point of my original post...was to highlight the rank hypocrisy

      Except you failed, quite miserably to demonstrate any hypocrisy. However you did make a half decent effort to demonstrate the fine art of tone trolling.

      And if you are trying to show HotWhopper readers that you hold dismal denialist "beliefs" and reject science, such as the peer-reviewed literature discussed at SkepticalScience, then your last statement isn't a bad effort.

    11. “Except you failed”

      Well no I didn't, you somehow tried to show that anyone who reads and comments on WUWT is evil and that comments posted on the site prove your point. WUWT has thousands of readers and you cherry-pick a small selection of comments so you can pump your chest out and claim the moral high ground. HotWhopper has a small readership and only a few posters, yet it took no time at all to suck Bernard J into behaving exactly like you accuse others of doing. The defence rests.

    12. What I was showing was how Anthony Watts was making capital from other people's misfortune. How he and most of his commenters are, in this instance, belittling scientists and science and at worst, some of his commenters are wishing that harm befalls the people on this ship.

      You may regard that as "evil". It's not the word that I would choose as the most appropriate. It's fairly obvious that probably most of the commenters actually believe in what they write. They are on a mission to rid the world of those nasty knowledge-creators. (Wishing harm, I grant you, is not something that most people would regard as "good".)

      Hotwhopper hasn't got anything like the readership of WUWT, but it has a wide readership nonetheless. And, with some exceptions, our readers are of much higher calibre in many respects than the audience that WUWT targets.

      You may have "sucked Bernard J" (and me) into responding to your tone trolling, but that's not the point of this article.

      The one positive is this latest comment from you suggests you don't approve of people belittling scientist and science or wishing harm on people. I've provided a link to the comments at WUWT for people who want to get the flavour of comments. The few comments I've selected aren't the worst.

    13. Just to add to my recent post, one of the quotes that I highlighted in my original post, (attributed to you Sou) was this:

      “WUWT-ers have a tendency to label any stray science visitor a troll”

      yet the response in your latest reply is:

      “However you did make a half decent effort to demonstrate the fine art of tone trolling.”

      Hmmm.... a good look in the mirror might be in order methinks...

      Still believe that you are not a hypocrite?

    14. The fact that you don't know the difference between tone trolling and labelling comments about science as "trolling" says it all.

      Try looking up "hypocrite" in the dictionary. You do not seem to know what it means.

    15. Sou, I'm fully aware of what the meaning of the word hypocrite means.

      Call me all the names that you like, it doesn't bother me at all, just don't expect me to respond in kind, it's not my style.

      What I would like however is a plausible explanation as to why you believe that you can label others (like me) as trolls, yet if anyone on another blog (eg. WUWT) uses the same term to denigrate a poster, you are up in arms, claiming the moral high ground as you go. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

    16. Okay, if you say so (about the definition). However that's not what your comments so far suggest.

      Now to the lesson on trolling. But first. You may not have noticed, but what I did was describe your comments as a fine demonstration of tone trolling. That is different from calling you a troll. I suppose it's a fine point of distinction.

      As for the difference between tone trolling and labelling a person a troll because they make a comment about science. The difference is that when a person makes an on-topic comment, especially when it is factual but even if it's not, then it's not generally regarded as trolling. (That's not necessarily so. A person for example, could go to a religious website and post "God is Dead" just to stir people up. In which case it would be regarded as troll behaviour, but not tone troll behaviour.)

      From the link I provided above:

      Tone Trolls are the language puritans of the blog world. They will studiously avoid addressing the substantive issues of an argument, but will tut-tut at the tone of the conversation or the language used. They are also easily "offended" by not treating their pet opinion with the automatic respect that it apparently deserves.

      I hope you now better understand why your "tut tut" comment at language is considered tone trolling. It fits the criteria almost to a t. If you instead had made a comment about Anthony trying to make capital out misfortune it would not have been tone trolling.

      As for David M Hoffer and Richardscourtney - when they refer to someone as a troll, what they mean that the person has discussed actual science. That is not considered troll behaviour by normal people.

      If you still don't understand the distinctions, let me know and I'll dig up some more examples to illustrate.

    17. Tone Trolls are the language puritans of the blog world.

      Give me a break! How on earth could you describe me as a language puritan!
      All I have done is provide you with examples from your own blog of the type of behaviour you deplore on other blogs. Once again you are unable counter my argument that hypocrisy is what HotWhopper is all about so you are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks.

    18. > How on earth could you describe me as a language puritan!

      Because it arguably fits such posturing as "Call me all the names that you like, it doesn't bother me at all, just don't expect me to respond in kind, it's not my style."!

      Hope this helps,


    19. HotWhopper doesn't deplore name-calling. That would be hypocritical. HotWhopper deplores disinformation. It also deplores inaccurate name-calling.

      I get that Anonymous doesn't get that. Just like Anonymous doesn't get why HotWhopper isn't being hypocritical.

      I see that Anonymous doesn't know the meaning of ad hominem. This might help.

      For example, if I said that we can't believe anything Anonymous has written about Anthony Watts' tendency to capitalise on misfortune because Anonymous doesn't know the meaning of hypocrisy, then that would be an ad hom fallacy. But I haven't said anything like that.

    20. Sou, what you see as a character flaw amongst the so called “deniers” is this,

      “WUWT-ers have a tendency to label any stray science visitor a troll”

      yet after only a handfull of comments which you failed to successfully address you resort to accusing me of trolling, simply because I have a different viewpoint to yourself, which proves my point about your double standards precisely. You can play semantics as much as you like but nothing will alter that fact.
      My work here is done...

    21. Amazing how there can there be so many "wrongs" in so few words, starting with confusing an action for a character flaw and finishing with "alter that fact". (Reminds me of a couple of the odd characters at HotCopper.)

      Let's just hope the last five words are correct and that the ellipses is just a slip of the keyboard.

      Anonymous didn't make it to first base:

      1. Complain about language - tick
      2. Off-topic - tick
      3. Concerned that nobody is giving anon credit - tick

      Speaking of resorts, I hope Anonymous keeps her or his promise and that I don't have to resort to Pharyngula's remedy.

  9. Mawson landed in in Antarctica and then trekked 600 miles inland, now these stranded scientists can't even cross a bit of ice to get to Mawsons hut, pathetic, they have given up already, how the hell was this incompetent bunch supposed to follow in Mawsons footsteps and repeat the science ?

    They have all the modern technology, GPS, radar, satellite imagery, local weather station data ect, why did the ship get stuck? Astonishing stupidity is why.

    They went looking for a non existent boogieman and got bitten by mother nature.

    Only gullible fools believe there is warming in Antarctica, ALL the data shows otherwise and people are getting sick of whacky alarmists making shit up to try to justify their sooth saying apocalyptic visions.


    1. Prove you're not a troll, wandered over from Deltoid? Citation to "no warming in Antarctica" please.

      Ever been to Antarctica, "Karen"?


    2. Karen, if that is your real name (I think this is the same troll from Deltoid):

      Obviously you have never read anything about the Mawson expedition. You are a fool.

    3. Face the facts fella's, this whole fiasco is was an attempted propagandic stunt that has backfired, there was never going to be any serious science performed by this bunch of watermellons.
      The incompetence is abundantly evident, :)


    4. Karen is making a value judgement, that the observations being taken by ARC Fellows and other scientists on this trip will be of no value. She/he makes that observation before the data is even analysed. I very much doubt that Karen is in any position to judge the merits of any science, let alone science where the data is just being collected and hasn't yet been analysed.

      Even if no science at all were possible on this trip - is there any reason for calling for the death of these people or acting as Anthony Watts has acted?

      I believe that Karen is so offended by climate science of any type that he/she is moved to names like "water-mellon" (sic).

      I'll translate for the normal reader: "watermelon" - there are some people in the world like "Karen" who regard the study of natural science and management of the environment as a communist plot, would you believe. (Green on the outside and red on the inside.)

      Need I say more?

    5. Come on, "Karen", a cite for "Antarctica is not warming.


    6. Sou, a more apt description of watermelon can be found here



    7. PL, I'll keep it simple for you :)


    8. One would wonder why a bunch of watermelons couldn't check sea ice conditions before they departed ?



      I guess that they got their reconnaissance data from SKS, lol


    9. Anonymous, are you trying to say that knowing the sea ice anomaly before they left would have helped them avoid ice packing in a blizzard a month later?

      Perhaps you don't yet understand the difference between weather and climate?

    10. Karen - the UAH data has had, and continues to have, problems with calibration and corrections. IMO it has the least reliable trends of any of the major temperature data sets. As it is, you appear to have (cherry)picked the particular dataset that supports your view while ignoring others.

      2006 - Significant Warming of the Antarctic
      Winter Troposphere (radiosonde)

      2008 - Decadal-Scale Temperature Trends in the Southern Hemisphere Ocean
      2009 - Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year

      Antarctic warming is ongoing, statistically significant, and pretty much as expected from the increases in greenhouse gases. Your posts are unsupported, not to mention obnoxious.


    11. KR, do try to keep up with the subject sweetie :)
      [1] We present a new stable isotope record from Ellsworth Land which provides a valuable 308 year record (1702–2009) of climate variability from coastal West Antarctica. Climate variability at this site is strongly forced by sea surface temperatures and atmospheric pressure in the tropical Pacific and related to local sea ice conditions. The record shows that this region has warmed since the late 1950s, at a similar magnitude to that observed in the Antarctic Peninsula and central West Antarctica; however, this warming trend is not unique. More dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-nineteenth and eighteenth centuries, suggesting that at present, the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers at this location has not exceeded the natural range of climate variability in the context of the past ~300 years.


      KR, your links were basically weather reports, lol

      Happy new year to all, Karen :)

    12. Yep, that's the Deltoid case.
      Advising Sou to decide on having her blog turn into the warzone Deltoid is or not :)

    13. Karen: Why send me to a graphic for MSU for 70-60 S to represent Antarctica? Have a look at a map: where is Antarctica?

      So, since most of 70-60 S is ocean (sea-ice covered much of the year), what does that tell us about *land* temperatures?


    14. Karen - Glad to see you know how to cite properly. Your citation, however, is to a _single site_, not the region as a whole, cf. cherry-picking. As that paper has just been published, it will be interesting to see how it stands under examination. You also refer to half-century continental warming trends as "weather"; I don't know if this is D-K effect or disingenuous on your part, either way it is wholly wrong.

      Continent-wide the Antarctic shows significant mass loss (Shepard et al 2012) with acceleration (Velicogna 2009). Your claims otherwise are nonsense. Sadly, your only purpose here appears to be an attempt to derail the thread. Fortunately, people involved in climate discussions have learned to look up folks references.

      Sou, I would advise the use of a hammer on this one :)


    15. Karen, you didn't actually read the Thomas et al. paper you cited, did you?

      Last sentence: "This is not inconsistent with the exceptional recent global warming, during which approximately 20% of the observationally covered Earth’s surface still does not show 100 year trends that are
      significantly larger than internal variability [Karoly and Wu, 2005]."

      So, after you read Thomas et al. (2013), read Karoly and Wu (2005).

      Next, tell us how you feel about WUWT posters wishing death on people trapped on a ship in Antarctica.


    16. "Karen", also "Sunspot", and "Mack", lately of Deltoid

      With an irony that hurts given the usual denier whining about Holocaust denial, you throw the term "watermelon" at us without so much as blinking at its long, long history as a racist insult.

      How appallingly hypocritical of you.


  10. Peripherally relevant, if anyone happens to visit Christchurch, NZ, do not miss the wonderful Canterbury Museum, which has a fine collection of Antarctic exploration history ... which makes one truly appreciate the earlier explorers. An interesting recent South Pole trek is this one., with a 19-year-old originally from nearby Palo Alto. Although technology is certainly better, that's still hard work.

  11. Turns out that the sea ice that is causing all the hassle is the result of an ice berg the size of Luxembourg smashing into a glacier - a reporter on the Russian ship said that the expectation is that this debris will cause problems for years.

    It stems from melting - it's just that the leftovers are not melting immediately because there's so much of it.

    You could give the denialists many millions of dollars and they still could not buy a clue.

    Bernard J.

  12. Karen is wrong on more than one count. Karen wrote: now these stranded scientists can't even cross a bit of ice to get to Mawsons hut, pathetic

    Karen is wrong. The scientists did go to Mawson's hut.

    Visiting the explorer Douglas Mawson's huts at Cape Denison, around 70km across the fast ice from where our ship the Akademik Shokalskiy is moored in Commonwealth Bay, East Antarctica, had always been the target of this expedition. Several scout teams had investigated the ice sheet between the ship and the hut in the three days we had been at the frozen continent, however, and their news didn't look good: a recent warm spell had melted lots of the snow cover on the fast ice, and the route across it was riddled with pools of water covered with thin, easily broken ice.

    One team, including expedition leader Chris Turney, had made it to the huts on Thursday but it had taken them a hard slog of five and a half hours, with regular stops to push their vehicles out of the sludgy snow. They decided that it was too risky to take all of the passengers to the huts and, instead, there would be just one more trip from the Shokalskiy, leaving at 7am on Friday morning. One of the expedition co-leaders came into my cabin at 10pm on Thursday night and told me that there was a space for me but I'd need to be ready by 5am the next morning if I wanted to be on it.

    There were seven of us in total, including two marine biologists and an ornithologist who needed to get to Cape Denison to carry out specific updates of some of Mawson's work on the original Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE) between 1911 and 1913.

    You can read the rest here at the Guardian.

  13. Karen sez: "Only gullible fools believe there is warming in Antarctica"

    Then quotes an article that says:"The record shows that this region has warmed since the late 1950s"

    I think we can all see who the fool is, who is not fooling anybody but herself.


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.