Comment & HTML guide

Sou | 4:52 PM Go to the first of 21 comments. Add a comment

Skip to:

Comment Policy

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

NEW: No disinformation will be permitted. Such comments will be deleted. (from November 2016)

Avoid personal attacks of other commenters: 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.

Do not post personal contact details of other people: such as addresses, phone numbers or emails. Links to websites listing these are permitted with the proviso as below re anti-science websites. If you want to post your own email address I suggest you do it in the form email at youremailaddress dot com or similar, so you don't get spammed.

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:


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 the four or five people who have been banned.)

For more info, click here. (Added by Sou 18 January 2014)

If you're upset with how you've been treated here (especially if it's something I've done) - read this first.

A tip

If you are writing a lengthy comment, I suggest doing that in a text editor such as notepad. There are a couple of ways this can help. First, the comment box is small, so it's hard to read back over what you've written. Second, if you mess up your comment you can correct it in notepad before reposting it.

Comment as...

Blogger has several options for commenting, using your credentials from a Google account, Typepad, Wordpress etc. After you've typed in a comment you will be asked to choose how you are commenting. The drop down list provides the following choices:

If you comment using a Google account you'll probably have more options available, such as being able to delete your comment that you wrote in haste. Also commenting with your Google account will, I think, bypass reCaptcha, which Google no longer allows turning on and off completely on Blogger. I'm not sure about other verifiable accounts (WordPress, TypePad etc.)

Attention WordPress users: People who have a WordPress account have reported problems. The problem and workarounds are described in more detail here. There are two solutions:

  1. Comment as: OpenID with your WordPress address as http://whatever.wordpress.com (replacing "whatever" with your WordPress name.
  2. Comment as: Name/URL

You can also type in your name or preferred pseudonym. Do this by selecting the Name/URL option in the drop down list. You only need to enter your preferred name in the top line (under "Name:"). You can leave the second box blank (the box marked "URL:").

Commenting as "Anonymous" is strongly discouraged. For one thing, you'll risk being mistaken for one of the other zillion anonymice.

Blogger ate my comment!

If your comment doesn't appear at all, then the only workaround that people have suggested is to use a different browser, such as Firefox. I've advised Google but don't know how long it will take to fix.

If your comment briefly appears, then disappears without trace or acknowledgement, then here's a tip from someone who says that Google blogger misbehaves in this manner at times:
One thing I finally worked out (because someone else made a comment about this behaviour) is that if I change my "reply as" option *after* I wrote something, my reply is silently disappeared when I hit "publish" -- it doesn't even get to you. I have to decide *before* I type the first character who I'm going to be.
In other words, before you type your comment, check to see if the "Reply as" box has your chosen name in it. If you need to change it (eg if you comment as someone else on different blogs/subject areas) then do so before you start typing your comment, not afterwards. This is a quirk of Google Blogger and out of my control.

Possible alternative solution

I see that there may be another possible solution, which is to allow third party cookies.


Your comment will (normally) disappear if you've been banned

The other reason your comment might not appear is if you've been banned. You'll know - it's based on your past behaviour. If your comment has been deleted (shown as "This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.") chances are it will have been published in The HotWhoppery. Or not.

HTML code for comments

Options for html on the Google blogger platform used here are limited.

Bold = <b>insert text here</b>

Italics = <i>insert text here</i>

Hyperlink = <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/">insert descriptive text here</a>


Any comments you leave on HotWhopper are considered to be in the public domain.

Your privacy is important. As with most internet websites, HotWhopper uses cookies for statistical and other purposes, such as aiding in checking comments for spam (advertising etc) and sockpuppetry.

The advertising helps defray some of the cost of the blog. Third parties, including Google, use cookies to serve ads based on a user's prior visits to HotWhopper and/or other sites on the Internet. Users may opt out of the use of the DoubleClick and other cookies by visiting Ads Settings and/or aboutads.info.

More details are available here.


  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:

    citizenschallenge < > gmail. etc

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

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

    WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2013

    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.

    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.

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

  4. citizenschallenge
    SATURDAY, MARCH 30, 2013

    Anthony, Watts Up With Those WUWT HotWhoppers? An Index

    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.

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

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

  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....

    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.

  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?

    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.

    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 ...

  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?

    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.

  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.

    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.

  10. The problem with wuwt is that it is full of mistruths which are then taken as fact and repeated endlessly.
    There is a whole industry that is built on this continual spread of mistruth.
    I will be donating to the fund gladly

  11. I don't have the background to understand all these concepts and calculations, and don't have the time to acquire them.

    Knowing the behavior of the Koch 'ho's in the scientific community, I expect some of them can make what seems to be a convincing argument that there is no such thing as AGW. I'm not talking about the numbnuts like Fred Singer, who don't bother to do anything except indulge in lightweight cherry picking...I mean those with the actual skills and knowledge and who are willing to prostitute themselves for some financial support.

    I am also aware of Watts, who is a Koch 'ho' as well, but may have strayed a bit off the reservation on this one.

    So bottom line is, in clear terms for the layman, what are the lies and what precisely are they doing to obscure the truth?


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.