Wednesday, December 31, 2014

New Year's Resolution - I've been told to lift my game

Sou | 8:36 AM Go to the first of 62 comments. Add a comment

Update - see below.

I've had a strong message to lift my game from none other than Lucia Liljegren, who runs a blog somewhere in deniersville. The science I reported these past few days has not persuaded her of the following:

Until now I'd thought of Lucia, when I thought of her at all, which was rarely, I'd imagined her to be a denier of the lukewarmish variety. If science doesn't persuade a lukewarmish denier and they remain convinced that the pseudo-scientific crap at WUWT is undemolished, then I really have to lift my game. (Of course it could just be that she's feeling a bit left out, not rating a mention here very often - though a search up top shows she's been featured here on more than one occasion.)

Any ideas, people? Simpler? Shorter? Less science? More science? 

And no, don't tell me less snark :)

BTW - This is a serious question. Here's a chance for you to have your say.

PS - Go have a look at Paige Brown Jarreau's research project on science blogs. She's got a clever interactive graphic to go with it. Victor Venema alerted me to it. Stoat was suitably impressed as well :) (While Lucia was trying her best to score points for sadly-isolated Anthony Watts of WUWT.)
Update: Lucia has kindly responded on Twitter, but was unable to think of (or put into words) any suggestions for making it easier for her and other deniers to understand science. It may be that the problem isn't me after all. Or it could be that the blog format isn't suitable for some people. If I had the talent, I'd try comic strips. I remember one denier at HotCopper complaining that a science paper had too many words and not enough pictures - really and truly. They did.

Update2: Lucia has added two ideas - to pace myself - good tip. To not make snide remarks about Jim Steele's ongoing nasty baseless personal one-way vendetta with Camille Parmesan. I'll pass. She also said that writing ideas on Twitter is difficult. She hasn't yet twigged that she could write more than 140 characters here at HW. Which is a sort of tip - to try to factor in the intellectual capability and limited imagination of deniers when I write.


  1. You could post more recipes. That seems to be Lucia's idea of climate blogging. Or, wait, better! An endless series of meandering posts about spammers & would-be hackers of your site.

    1. Oh, is that the trick.

      Now you mention it, I do recall having the impression that she is paranoid that people will try to hack her blog. Why anyone would want to do that I cannot imagine. (Has she got something hidden there that she doesn't want anyone to see?)

      I also recall that she said she was going to join Anthony Watts and his entourage in Bristol to listen to Michael Mann and John Cook. Did she ever report that? She didn't ask any questions :)

    2. Lucia tried to leave a comment but got hit with the Blogger bug.


      She let me know she didn't go to Bristol because her father died. Which makes me feel quite awful for mentioning it.

  2. Since you asked ...

    1) Less snark. Yes, really. Might be hard to do, as it might mean moderating out people like Mack so you're less tempted, but worthwhile IMO.

    2) Pace yourself: maybe 2-3 per week; max 5.

    3) Just enough "dumb AW" posts to provide a place for WUWT people to visit, but maybe 2 "science" posts per dumb-AW posts. The science being done by real scientists is really cool. I have skill in a specific small area, but I enjoy the insight to other sciences. OTOH, fake skeptics really are getting dumber, and it's becoming less interesting, like "catching" fish by going to the fish market.

    4) blog-roll link to Cook and Nuccitelli at the Guardian.

    Great job. Happy New Year!

    1. Thanks, PL. I have toned down the snark a little bit over time - I think. Maybe not in this article, but some of the others.

      Pacing myself - well that might happen anyway as real life places demands.

      Denier articles wax and wane and are repetitive - so I might have a go at setting up a reference to some of the better articles. Many older HW articles are untidy. Even I have trouble following some of the older ones :)

      I'll see what I can do re the Guardian blog. If there's an RSS feed it could work.

    2. No! No! No! I want more snark and I want to read about every stupid thing Tony doaes and says every day.

  3. Lucia should be paranoid. She's friends with the hacker Brandon. He's probably broken into her site dozens of times.

  4. You should probably not judge how well you are doing by your influence on blogging mitigation skeptics. They should already know all the answers to the typical questions of the mitigation skeptics. They should already know that WUWT is not a good source of science information. They will change when their neighbors give them a funny look.

    The people you can and want to reach are people new to the climate "debate". It is hard for me to judge how well you do there, but to take an extreme example do not assume that your reader knows that Anthony Watts runs WUWT. And skip from one name to the next without explaining they belong together.

    It is again hard for me to judge, but I would personally prefer less snark and would think that to be more effective. Sorry. :) But I am not sure. Imagine someone reading the corresponding thread at Climate Etc. They will see very confident people with massive personal attacks against my character. They will see someone who doubts that CO2 increases are caused by humans. And one lone person on the science side quietly explaining why the latter is nonsense. If this reader is science minded and likes solid evidence, this reader sees that the attacks against me are free of content and may chose the science side. If this reader is less interested in science or not able to judge it well, however, and just takes up the vibe and who is more confident as signal for who is likely right, this reader might chose the wrong path.

    I remember Lucia as a very smart good-natured person and a fierce debater. In this post she just sounds bitter. And when I pointed out that the isolation of the WUWT cluster is also because they did not mention finding one of the science blogs important in the survey, her answer was that the science blogs do read the WUWT cluster. That is the other direction, she used to be a good listener and that made debating her at least fun. A pity.

    1. Clearly, snark sells better than coolly rational discussion. Victor's blog posts and comments are the model I prefer of how science should be communicated, but Victor gets fewer comments on average than Sou. How do you (Sou) want to measure success? People lit up by snark are already committed one way or the other; no opportunities there.

    2. Thanks, Victor. The "less snark" seems to be a popular suggestion. I'll practice restraining myself - no promises to drop it entirely (it's a trademark :D), but apply it more surgically and deliberately (if that makes sense).

      Early on I was more careful to spell out who was who, and refrained from naming random people. I've slipped up there lately, so that's a good reminder.

      I'll take your comments on board about Lucia. I've not had much to do with her before now, and rarely visit her blog. This little episode might be an anomaly rather than the normal :)

    3. I disagree with PL & Victor.

      The snark is more than appropriate and it helps to communicate the message that the "science" from WUWT and the other denier blogs should not be taken seriously. WUWT is a science "hate" site motivated by ideology and pointing that out is a necessary part of rebutting their crank claims about climate. It would IMO be a far bigger mistake to treat these nutters as equals to working climate scientists.

      The snark would be inappropriate if that is all you offered but it is accompanied by some excellent explanations of climate science.

      There are also a lot of other blogs out there which focus only on the science. But not every climate science blog has to be a carbon copy of that model.

      Keep doing what works. And expect more whining from the deniers who are being filleted by your posts.

    4. Lucia was quite prominent at first, having some actual math and stats knowledge and not being obviously insane. Like Curry, she claimed the 'bridge' role of the true sceptic with real concerns but soon (again like Curry) was firmly entrenched with one side - and it's turned out to be a shrinking island.

      However clever you are with the jigsaw pieces there's only one picture on the box, and it's not the one they want it to be. Hence the frustration and bitterness, not to mention battiness. And, of course, condescension from the faded star to the upstart.

    5. If I remember correctly Zeke posted at Lucia's. It was worth while checking to see his stuff. Lately, she has been a waste of time.

    6. I would agree with PL's suggestion for some regular straight science posts. There is probably only so much WUWT nuttery that a normal person interested in climate science can handle in per week.

    7. I agree with MikeH :)

      No approach any of us takes squeezes out any others. It's a great thing about the internet - essentially unlimited space. The recognition HotWhopper is getting from relatively hoary old players like Watts and Lucia and JoNova among many argues for sticking to sticking it to 'em just as Sou is.

    8. @MikeH & Sou: The easiest way to dial back the snark is to increase the ratio of reports of cool new climate science to WUWT rebuttals. I agree there's no value in treating WUWT posts as real science to be rebutted.

      The question Sou should ask (IMO) is: How do I best capture and educate people who hear a WUWT meme and go searching for more information to see whether there is any truth to it? For my own personality, the snark turns it into "well, I didn't like the tone of WUWT (esp the comments) but the article tone here feels familiar (however, commenters are much saner on average), so I'm either watching a cat fight or the jury really still is out on the science". An alternative approach would be almost like SkS, where you restate the WUWT meme (to get people via search engines) then analyze it scientifically (and sanes snark), complete with peer-reviewed cites so that the visitor has a better "feeling" of the validity of the site. I suspect this is what Sou was suggesting about going back to old posts and improving referencing within them.

      Of course, it isn't my blog, and I don't have time to test communication methods on my own blog, so it's all to be taken with grains of salt.

    9. @MikeH - I've just made one of my infrequent trips to Judith Curry's blog, and there are zillions (well almost) of comments from Willis Eschenbach, complaining about me mocking him about Arctic winter. He got so mad he made up stuff that I didn't write trying to make himself not look so bad.

      It's a balancing act - which I think can be done. Keep up the mockery of pseudoscience (it's gets good publicity in all the right places, for one thing) but don't overdo it.

    10. I disagree with PL & Victor.

      No, you don't. :) I only gave consideration for both options. ;)

    11. I agree with Cugel that there's plenty of room on the net for different approaches; just want to make sure the enormous amount of time this blog must take results in net good. It's also a fair comment that the attention from the old guard (add Tisdale to Cugel's list) suggests the present style is fine!

    12. IMHO snark and ridicule are effective tools. You can turn on the science tone and turn off the snark when needed, and as long as you don't sound like the denial crowd you are fine.




  5. When they're patronising you you're on the right track. It ain't broke so don't mess about with it :)

    There are plenty of places to get the pure science. You present science very well, which is great, but I think it should be towards the real point - evidence-based mockery of the eminently mockable. That latter is your particular skill, in my judgement.

    Thank you for exercising it :)

    1. Thanks, Cugel. It's lovely to be accepted for what comes naturally, warts and all :)

    2. I'm sure it goes very much with your grain (as it does with mine) but I'm pretty sure you put a lot of thought into just what you wanted to do and how you'd approach it. Also no intention of being diverted from either, and why the hell should you be.

      There's 'snark' as in coining 'Warmunists' yurk-yurk and there are the intellectual demolitions you perform; these two things are not the same by a long chalk.

  6. Don't change anything sou! And no one ever got anywhere on the internet with less snark.

  7. Sou,

    It figures snark would be a main feature of the discussion as it's a main feature of your writing style. At risk of beating the topic to death, in a mud fight, I think it pays to not be afraid of slinging some. And the simple, perhaps unfortuntate, fact of the matter is: snark sells. I freely admit that your brand of skewering the idiotic "arguments" at WUWT is a big draw for me. I like having that outlet. Sometimes I think you drop the hammer a bit too harshly, but don't we all. Some things need to be said as bluntly as possible, our loved ones' futures depend on us sometimes not being very nice people to liars and idiots.

    That said, there is a big place in my heart for bloggers like Victor, ATTP, WebHub, Moyhu and the crew at RC because I'm not always looking for the emotional release of seeing Watts et al. getting torn a new one. I read their blogs with as much rapt attention as yours, I just don't participate as often because your style of writing about the science is very accessible to someone like me who is an avid science fan but who doesn't do science as a profession.

    In short, I like variety and you provide some just as the others I've named and far more I haven't. If you decide to switch things up a bit this year, well, more variety for me!

  8. Sou just keep doing what you are doing! You remind me of the late Christopher Hitchens. Here is some of his comebacks. Go to 30 min for a devastating revelation!


    It is not enough to just adhere to the scientific method. Sometimes and lately more often we have to rub the noses of the deniers in their own excrement. It does not work for puppies or deniers but it gets the attention of the undecided onlookers.


    1. "rub the noses of the deniers in their own excrement"
      Well said Bert...Looks as if this "snark" is not so easy to control, Sou.

  9. Don't stop the snark! You can't get through to the thickos anyway, no matter whether you're polite or respectful or whatever. Might as well have fun exposing their stupidity and ignorance.

  10. Golly geewhiz. Goodness, gracious me! Too much snark? How dreadful.

    Honestly, I think you get it about right. A lot of the time you're deconstructing the wots's misreading or misdirecting about a new paper. Other times they're coming up with their own particular brand of daft without reference to any particular thing at all.

    I reckon you get it pretty right most of the time. Less formal than a RealClimate post on a new paper but using the same "style" as a wots-daft type. That is, they produce their own graphs and graphics with whatever crayons and butcher's paper they have handy but you use proper formats and consistent references rather than their products of fevered nightmares whisked lightly with wishful thinking.

    Keep going as you are. Being reflective, occasionally, as well as thorough, consistently, won't do you or anyone else any harm.

  11. By all means, keep the triumphalist arrogance, er 'snark', coming. There's nowhere else in the 97%'osphere that it is more purely distilled.

  12. I saw a comment on WUWT the other day saying that cynicism and sarcasm get results. If the deniers don't like a taste of their own medicine then keep dishing it out. There's a lengthy tradition of puncturing the posturing of people who should know better by being snarky and giving them nicknames and if the targets don't like it, well, that's just tough. They could learn better science after all. I'm a bit snarky myself and I like your style - real science leavened with humour works for me. In fact, I came across your site when I wanted to check some things I had read in the Mail On Sunday in the UK and found much to interest me. And the links meant I could check things more deeply if I wanted.

  13. To be frank, the snark here sometimes gets a bit heavy-handed. Case in point: update 2 in this very post. Sarcasm should be done with style.

    1. Fair enough, Lars, on taking the high ground, which I mostly have when it comes to the personal attacks from people at WUWT.

      I prefer not to indulge in blog wars, but must ask, have you been to Lucia's blog lately? How far off the mark was I, really?

      (I'd provide a link but it's against HW comment policy. I tried to archive but got banned for the effort - an automated ban not a personal ban. I'd not posted a comment nor would I. So there's more than a grain of truth in what you read here in the comments, too. It's a strange world.)

    2. BTW I'd not read any of that when I wrote this article. I've only just been there, having seen some visitors come here and got a mite curious. (On the other hand, Lucia should have read my comments on Paige's blog I'd have thought. And she says she has read HW articles.)

    3. I hardly ever look at Lucia's blog. Looking at it now, it seems like a rather boring place, an a bit petty one.

      As for Watts and co, I think that in a manner they deserve anything we can pile on them. However, doing so doesn't make good writing. A few good and well-aimed snarks are better than many indiscriminate ones.

    4. A few good and well-aimed snarks are better than many indiscriminate ones.

      Yes, good point. Good snark comes out of good criticism.

    5. And good snark can help to drive home the point. Clumsy snark, on the other hand, is more likely to detract from the point.

    6. "Clumsy snark ..."

      Balletic snark?
      Lithesome snark?
      Graceful snark?
      Athletic snark?
      Constructive snark?
      Hot snark?
      Snark snark?
      Pointed snark?
      Toxic snark?

    7. "Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
      As he landed his crew with care;
      Supporting each man on the top of the tide
      By a finger entwined in his hair.

      Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
      That alone should encourage the crew.
      Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
      What I tell you three times is true."

    8. Excellent Lars! :)

      Though this line
      "What I tell you three times is true."
      belongs more in the denier tool chest.


  14. The articles I enjoy and find useful are those that deftly take apart the denier articles and memes. When I see an article, say on WUWT, full of graphs and verbiage, I do not have the time or energy to get up to speed on the subject and research it to see why it is wrong. So a blog such as this taking them apart, highlighting the deceptions and generally debunking them is very useful. Especially when some links for good reading are added.

    As for snark. If someone posts some denier rubbish here and refuses to engage in sensible criticism of it then they deserve all the snark they get. There comes a point when "dickhead" is the only valid retort.

  15. You have them rattled, Sou. In comments Lucia claims not to be a big HW reader and says you are ineffective because she finds your posts 'incoherent'. She is being disingenuous; she is smart enough to understand that your posts achieve exactly what you set out to, expose the bilge at WUWT as erm, bilge, and point readers towards what the literature actually says. Most of the regular readers at WUWT have clearly given up on science, however I think the value of Hot Whopper is as somewhere people (I suspect increasingly) come to to discover, in sometimes forensic detail, why the denial at WUWT is in fact, denial. Keep it up.

    As for the snark, or ad hominem, well, there's an argument for saying it has no place in a scientific discussion, there again, this is the blogosphere, not Science or Nature; remove the snark from a typical WUWT thread and what's left? You first, one could say. And what if the ad homs are factually correct, and give an indication the character and reliability of the subject? I have here described Watts as a liar and a hypocrite, I then gave an example of him lying (saying that warming was never in doubt after a Heartland report he authored a year earlier said the exact opposite) and hypocrisy (claiming to be champion of open debate while allowing Smokey/Stealy to both post and secretly moderate threads, he also btw, some time ago deleted a post of mine made when using my real name was unwise, claiming I had made an ad hominem against him while denying readers the opportinity to see that I'd done no such thing, fortunately I'd a copy of the post.


    At the Guardian newspaper they have a tradition when a new Editor is instructed, to 'carry on as heretofore' which is pretty much his or her complete job description.

    Carry on as heretofore, Sou.

    As for Lucia, well I genuinely do not visit there much, is she still insisting on starting all her 'falsifications' of the IPCC projections in 2001?

    1. Phil Clarke: "As for the snark, or ad hominem, well, there's an argument for saying it has no place in a scientific discussion"

      True. But as you suggest by saying "remove the snark from a typical WUWT thread and what's left?", there's no science at WUWT anyway, so this doesn't apply ...

      Carry on, Sou. If they weren't annoyed with you, you'd be failing ...

    2. Phil Clarke "this is the blogosphere, not Science or Nature". This is a very important point. As a scientist I don't view blogs as sources of cutting edge science. But they do serve an important role in explaining science to what is, with some exceptions, a naive audience. However in the case of WUWTers snark is probably all they really understand. I don't see anyone or anything (short of an effect on their pocketbook) changing their minds about science that does not fit their preconceived notions. My advice for HW? Stick it to 'em. Let RC explain the science, let Tamino explain the math/stats, let ATTP try civility, but someone has to keep WUWTers aware that bullshit is just bullshit.

  16. I like this blog the way it is. And, looking on the bright side, it's safer for a climate science blog (or any blog for that matter) to 'ridicule' Watts et al than to 'ridicule' Kim Jong-un. Have a Happy New Year!

  17. While I read ATTP, RC, Victor's etc (with varying frequency) and appreciate their deeper treatments, life would be a little dull if every voice in the conversation was in the same tone. Sou's touch with snark is pretty light compared to some others in the field, and a lot lighter than many commentators here and at her prime target's place.

    Amusing and entertaining while also informing is no small thing, and Sou manages it nicely, IMO, with the help of a good commentariat.

    As Oscar Wilde said: "It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."
    Whatever other merits their blogs may have, Lucia is tedious. Sou is not.

    PS Sou - trying your idea of tweaking my nym. Hopefully doesn't get stuck in the filter.

    1. Thanks, Frank. BTW - that didn't work, did it. I'm thinking maybe it's your IP address - which is a shame coz I don't think we can get around that.

      The only other thing you might try, if you're willing, is to set up a Google profile and log in with that. I can't guarantee success, but it could be worth a shot - or not. (Google allows you to set up an account without identifying your real life name and details, though I recommend adding your mobile phone for security - no-one else would see it.)


      Meanwhile, I'll see what else I can find out. (It could be other bloggers have had the same problem and maybe even resolved it.)

  18. Why not tell Lucia to tell her pal Jim Steele to lighten up with his utterly dishonest vendetta against science in general? That man's hysteria goes well beyond Camille.

    Steele's penguin "climate horror story" YouTube series, Video 4a

  19. I seem to be in the minority re snark but, unlike WUWT, the commenters here justify their opinions which leaves me a bit less sure. But to reiterate an earlier point: the goal should probably be to get people here who read something in WUWT that sounded plausible to them, then show them that the WUWT view was wrong. So, repeat the WUWT meme, then demolish it in a way that inspires confidence that you're the more reliable source.

    But, as someone said, there comes a time to call a dickhead a dickhead.

    Really, I'll keep reading regardless: I love this site as a quick way into denier memes and because the commenters are generally sane. Happy New Year.

  20. Serious scientific discussions should be themselves taken seriously. Idiocy, on the other hand, that is trying to be passed off as serious scientific discussion shouldn't, ridicule and mockery are wholly appropriate in such cases.

    Sou, there are lots of different sites commenting on climate - your snark and mockery certainly has its place.

  21. Oh keep the snark. If we were to allow the deniers to determine how we behaved we'd have to pore over other people's private emails and misrepresent them. Mere snark seems rather kind by comparison.

  22. "Illegitimis non carborundum"

  23. Happy new year Sou,
    From my vain attempts at engaging deniers I've only reconfirmed the futility of it all.
    You may as well debate Ken Hamm on the age of the Earth.
    Pointing out the vast weight of consensus and that their' publications are rejected by the peer review process is only met with counter demands for ANY evidence for the CO2 link and attacks on flawed 'modern science' and peer review. Throw in the global socialist government agenda and you have a conspiracy theory. This is also wittily turned around to me.
    All you can do is try to package the evidence up ' climate science for dummies ' style and confront them in public debates.

    Btw, have you seen the recently IPA published "Climate Science, the facts ' ?
    Various articles by the usual suspects, not one of them a climate scientist.
    Can't wait for the peer reviews.

  24. Thanks everyone - that's all hugely valuable feedback.

    Because it's easier to continue the same style of blogging, and because it comes naturally (and because it seems to be working) expect to see the blog this year continue to evolve in much the same direction as it has so far.

    Lars and PL and Victor and others made excellent points regarding the amount and style of sarcasm and snark. So I'll be paying extra attention to the quality and quantity and where and how it's targeted. I'll also work on improving the quality of the science reporting as time goes by, and the readability (quality of writing), and graphics/illustrations.

    Reading between the lines, Lucia seemed to (erroneously) think that HW blog articles should be debunking every single silly point in denier articles at WUWT or wherever. (She also seemed to mistake WUWT for a science blog - demonstrating that she is not too bright when it comes to climate.)

    Debunking every point would take forever. Not only would it be a pointless exercise, it would make for long, tedious, boring articles that probably no-one would read. Thing is, sometimes you can identify a fatal flaw, which makes the entire denier argument collapse.

    In any case - debunking articles point by point is not what HW is all about. The denier silliness (or otherwise) is used as a springboard to science - so I might only focus on one of the points in an article and expand on it with what I can find of the latest science. Or use it point out logical fallacies and/or denier tricks (sleight of hand), or straight up deception. Or comment on disgusting behaviour (defamation and lack of ethics) or the Serengeti Strategy. Or just ridicule the absurdity of what passes for "science" on denier blogs. Or something else entirely.

    On the point about where HW fits into the blogosphere, HW was never intended to be another SkepticalScience.com and could never be a realclimate.org. What I try to do is respond very quickly to the latest bit of denier idiocy, so that when people do a search for the latest meme the HW article pops up in Google. I can tell that it works, because there are often visitors who come after doing a search for a person who's just written an article at WUWT - or on a particular topic. I can also see that people arrive from other discussion boards, thanks to HW readers linking to articles here. (One of the favourites is the Roy Spencer chart where they used a denier tricks, such as aligning on a five year average, to make models look far different to observations.)

    Don't worry - the info I get doesn't identify individuals or IP addresses nor would I want it to. Google doesn't tell me who did the search, but it does identify the search terms that bring people to HW. And if you're wondering - the most common all-time search term, not counting "HotWhopper blog" and similar - is wuwt :) (Followed by sun, for some reason).

    So thanks again for the feedback. And happy new year.

    1. A minor point but an important one. Sou will always acknowledge if she has made a mistake or slightly misinterpreted real data when it is pointed out . Ideologues and demagogues would simply dig in their heels and double up on their error.
      The fundamental difference between science and ideology is that a scientist will change their mind when new evidence is available. Ideologues and demagogues will just ignore any new evidence and rationalise with Olympic class mental gymnastics and self? deception. Bert

  25. Well I am alt least grateful to Lucia for has pointing me here. I am a occasional and mostly disappointed visitor to Lucia's. I thought initially that while she was cut of skeptic cloth, she would al least be honest enough to fess up and admit that she was wrong when/if the results started to come in on the other side. I was kind of looking to her as a bit of an honest broker really, A bit like an Andrew Sullivan of the climate-o-sphere. But she's completely gone off the boil, and I know she's has some tough personal issues so that may well be part of it. But she still won't point out denier nonsense even if it's perfectly evident, and she won't even interpret her statistics and graphs so that lay-people can get a potted summary of which way the numbers are heading. I feel a bit sorry for her. She probably doesn't want to turn on her former supporters, and so prefers to fade out rather than publicly face up to, what appears even to lay-people like me, to be the bleeding obvious.

  26. Sou why are you even entertaining this "snark" conversation? You are an empiricist by nature and by training and the evidence shouts that you successfully disrupt deniers.

    There may well be higher callings on this planet but right now Sou I can think of

    Can we please put this snark rubbish to bed? HANDS UP ALL WHO THINK THAT SOU HAS FAILED IN HER MISSION. I thought so. Next post please Sou.

  27. Been on vacation so only noticed this post! First, I found the graphic both funny and interesting (but not in the same way that Judith uses the word). It was also not far from what I expected...except I was surprised that anti-science blogs such as WUWT made the list at all. I think Judith's and Lucia's reactions were funny, but not unexpected. As others have said, Lucia's blog has gone downhill and it is surprising to even hear her name at this point.

    As for feedback. I love the daily snark that I get here. It helps to keep my sanity when few others are holding anti-science blogs accountable, Please don't stop. I only have one small piece of feedback - edit and tighten up posts to cut repetition. This will make posts shorter and more readable to climate newcomers. Along similar lines, you don't have to answer everything about a topic because you have enough scientists reading your blogs to answer some things for you. ATTP does this very well, often ending blog posts with some sort of request for help. Final feedback - don't stop! I'm a huge fan and am quite thankful for all the work you do.

  28. HI Sou and Happy New Year:

    I see several different types of posts at WUWT that Hot Whopper addresses.

    First are the posts where Anthony latches onto a press release about a newly released paper and then jumps to wild conclusions ("see this proves there is no warming, etc. etc!!"). Most of the time there is no indication he actually read the paper at all. Had he done so it would be apparent the paper doesn't say what he thinks it says at all. Often the issue is very specific and highly qualified and he extrapolates to conclude something just the opposite of what the authors present. HW is most helpful here when you present the actual study and explain what it does and doesn't say. One suggestion would be to try to include more direct statements and even comments from the authors themselves.

    A second type of WUWT posts are the longwinded amateur expositions of Tisdale et. al. I doubt even the WUWT faithful read all the way through them and am not sure it is worth the huge effort needed to untangle the strained logic and countless graphs. Until he is able to get his ideas accepted in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal (unlikely to say the least) , I think they are best ignored.

    Third are the constantly recycled, discredited memes that keep resurfacing long after they have been thoroughly debunked. (e.g. "it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period so AGW does not exist"). These are best addressed by referencing a database of myth-busting posts. SKS does this very well and there may not be a lot to add to their "encyclopedia".

    Last are the comments. Every post there seems to be met with a chorus of enthusiastic (and irrational) climate bashing and piling-on; only rarely are there hints of a real discussion. There's plenty of room for snark in pointing out the nuttiest of the comments; it is too easy in fact. Occasionally though someone dares to try to engage in a serious convo. HW can help by alerting readers the effort so that maybe one or two HW readers would wander over to support the commenter.

    As for snark in general, I don't mind it at all but can see how some others might. I think of the American website www.politifact.com which addresses and debunks common political memes and points out which have some truth in them and which are myths and fabrications. They do so without the snark and it probably boosts the site credibility a bit, but makes for dryer reading.

    Anyway thanks for all the good work. Looking forward to 2015.

  29. Well, for a moronic climate revisionist troll she's a fair writer, but same old, same old.


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.