Quote of the week: ‘anonymous cowards’ please take note

Just before I wrote And, I’m back the other day, I came across this quote that inspired me to press on against the ugliness, the abuse, and the taunting that climate skeptics endure every day, with yours truly in particular being the brunt of many of those. For those who are childish purveyors of ugliness conducted from the shadows of anonymity (you know who you are, Slashdot labels them as ‘anonymous cowards’), this quote serves well as my guide for the future:

“Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you. All those things are said against you because they want to stop you in your tracks. But if you keep going, you’re sending a message to people who are rooting for you, who are agreeing with you. The message is that they can do it, too.” ― Andrew Breitbart

Since I’m a regular target of hate mail, hate Tweets, and hate blog essays, for daring to express a consensus-contradictory opinion on Climate, I’ll add a thought of my own: Online, anonymity breeds contempt.

The Internet has created an easy and safe way for people to hurl insults, ugliness, slander, libel, and taunts without having to endure the consequences of their actions or the social shaming that would come if such things were said in polite company. Truly, such taunters comprise an army of social justice warriors insignificant anonymous cowards.

As for WUWT’s role in this, I think it is summed up very well by this comment by drednicolson posted today:

That Alarmist comments appear at all [on WUWT] puts the site far ahead of the curve. Skeptics rarely get the same courtesy on Alarmist sites.

And Alarmism is wrapped heavily in identity politics, so any rebuttal, no matter how politely expressed, will likely be claimed a personal attack.

And using passive-aggressive, pseudo-polite language to attract hostility, then complain about people being mean, is a common ploy of the more insidious trolls.

Sometimes (more often than not) we have to resort to banning such people as they escalate their anger and eventually run afoul of our blog comment policy. But, there are those who can post disagreement without being mean or abusive. Commenter Nick Stokes comes to mind. While he is often maddeningly obtuse (he once got me so irritated I suggested it may be time for him to STFU – my bad, with apology) and mis-directive in the form of “Look! A squirrel!” he is almost always polite. Recently, with a comment where he smeared somebody, he earned being put on moderation (he’s earned several time-outs). Today, having paid his penance, I’m taking him off to see if he behaves. At least he uses his real name, which may be why he’s incapable of ever admitting to error in his comments.

While there are occasions where anonymity is required, such as whistleblowers, criminal informers, and people whose livelihoods are at risk if they speak out, the garden variety anonymous Twitter and blog taunters deserve the Arkell v. Pressdram response. In fact, that’s probably the best way to respond to such things.

Here is my suggestion:

When somebody spews irrational climate-fueled hate, just reply: “See Arkell v. Pressdram“. It’s a great way to get the message across without lowering yourself to their level of lexiconic skill. Then, ignore them. It’s the attention they seek. Deprive them.

So, besides giving that standard response, once. it’s best to just ignore the denizens of the “anonyverse” who want to tear you down, without having the integrity to put their own name to their childish taunts.

Onward!

 

Advertisements

287 thoughts on “Quote of the week: ‘anonymous cowards’ please take note

  1. Or, there’s my favorite statement from Dr. Jordan B. Peterson.

    “Don’t underestimate the power of truth. There’s nothing more powerful. Now in order to speak what you might regard as the truth, you have to let go of the outcome. You have to think, alright, I’m going to say what I think, stupid as I am, biased as I am, ignorant as I am, I’m going to state what I think as clearly as I can and I’m going to live with the consequences, no matter what they are. Now, the reason you think that, that’s an element of faith. The idea is that, nothing brings a better world into being than the stated truth. Now you might have to pay a price for that, but that’s fine. You’re going to pay a price for every bloody thing you do and every thing you don’t do. You don’t get to choose to not pay a price. You get to choose which poison you’re going to take. That’s it. So, if you’re going to stand up for something, stand up for your truth. It’ll shape you because people will respond and object and tell you why your a fool and a biased moron, and why you’re ignorant. And then if you listen to them, you’ll be just that much less like that the next time you say something. And if you do that for 5 years, you’ll be so damn tough and articulate and able to communicate and withstand pressure that you won’t even recognize yourself, and then you’ll be a force to contend with.”

    • Of course, you realise that the problem with this is that it requires the effacement of one’s ego. This is impossible for most people and difficult for the remainder.

      The standard approach is that one has a point to make and is prepared to defend it — sometimes, regardless of the cost. This is about ego (and personal welfare and gain). The standard response from other ego-driven individuals is to try to shout the ‘heretic’ down. (97%, anyone?) Thus, we have an ego-driven, power-fuelled numbers game. You will appreciate that the truth is of limited relevance in such a situation.

      Dr Peterson’s statement is a reasonable framing of how things ought to be. In this world, unfortunately, we have to deal with things the way they are.

      It is important to retain an effective capacity for self-doubt. If constant re-examination of your position still leaves you convinced of its correctness, then go with it!

      However, there is one important caveat. If you stand for a very unpopular opinion, or one violently opposed by the powers-that-be, you would be well-advised to shut up. Otherwise, you will be trampled to death. The truth is of no use to you here, although you may derive some cold satisfaction from post-mortem vindication. (I hope that Herr Semmelweiss, and a long line of others, are happy now.)

      • Spot on lefty, it’s all about (nietzsche’s) “will to power”. Too many are caught up in the way things ought to be and not in the way that things actually are…

      • In the words of Haddaway,
        “If you leave it how you found it, it will always be the same. The sinners take the prizes, and the righteous take the blame.”

        Apathy is not the answer.

      • Interesting, but it misses an important point. The personal abuse is very often not about YOU. That is hard for most people to understand. But why does that occur? There are several categories of serial abusers:

        1) Sociopath and psychopaths. These people would abuse mother Teresa given half a chance. You are just a thing, and object. Don’t take it personally – it isn’t.

        2) Sycophants and wannabes. These are people genuinely too dumb to be relevant to the conversation. Abuse is a form of attention whoring. It isn’t about you, it is about them. Ignore it.

        3) Egotists. They just want to be right, and don’t care how they achieve this goal. Typically they can be flattered back into line. Usually by finding some sort of common ground and working from there. Again, it is not about you, it is about them winning. Let them win, at least a little.

        4) Lastly, the fourth category, and perhaps the most important. People who firmly believed one thing, but have read your words, and honestly can’t come up with a coherent response. They are lashing out at the psychic pain they are feeling. They feel embarrassed and stupid for believing what they believed so fervently. Those people might just change their mind some day. They are the equivalent of someone covering their ears and yelling “shut up shut up shut up!” Just be polite.

        Anyway, most people say ignore the abuse, but I like to push back, just a little. Usually by suggesting that I believe they are better people than that, that they shouldn’t have to resort to personal abuse to make a point. And I never respond in kind myself. It is not barreling ahead, or tit for tat, or ignoring the troll. Just a realization that resorting to personal attacks is often the last refuge of the emotional and intellectually bankrupt.

  2. I will stand by your decisions, Anthony. You are someone I trust. I might respectfully suggest to other gentle readers not to feed the trolls. It is unbecoming of gentle ladies and gentlemen. Let the hate wither and die.

    • The speaker said, “Well as there are no ladies present I guess it is OK if I tell a few “jokes”, heh heh!”
      A man in the audience replied with, “There may be no ladies, sir, but there are gentlemen.”

      • I think that the responder to the would-be jokester was Robert E. Lee, and it was around a campfire one evening during the Civil War – at least that is how I was told this anecdote.

  3. The truth will out.
    As the saying goes – If you’re catchimg flak then you must be over the target.

    The more shrill the detractors become, the more they expose their true selves.
    ( The same can be said for the anti-Trump press.)

  4. Arkell Vs. Pressdram
    Oh, goodness – the Richard Ingrams days of Private Eye; it brings it all back. About the time I started reading PE.
    And – if I may say so – an ideal response to the nastier types seemingly able to access the internet.

    AW – an absolutely cracking idea.

    Auto
    An intermittent subscriber to PE nowadays.
    Absolutely riveted on during the ‘Dear Bill’ years – probably the highest of high-spots!
    Still have the complete collection of books.
    [Sad? Individual!]

    • A great moment to see a reference to that famous case. In English law it’s referred to as “Arkell and Pressdram” although written exactly as our host has it so ‘vs.’ is not correct. Further pedantry; it never got as far as being a ‘case’ but that shorthand has been used ever since Private Eye published the full correspondence and Mr Arkell stopped his nonsense (he was ‘bang to rights’).

      Good to see that the holiday was such a tonic!

      • Ah, yes. My first day in lawr school (the prof was from Borston). The vs. is pronounced “and”. Geez. A long, long time ago (1956). Brings back memories.

  5. “..Commenter Nick Stokes comes to mind. While he is often maddeningly obtuse (he once got me so irritated I suggested it may be time for him to STFU – my bad, with apology)…”

    Has he ever apologized for the things he’s posted about you on other sites, often saying he was going to STFY and never post here again due to your censorship and unjustly putting his posts in moderation too often and too long?

    • Other sites are not Anthony’s living room.
      My impression of him has been that he just honestly, but strongly, disagrees. (And that, being human, he is prone to all the foibles of being human that the rest of us are.)
      He may believe and defend that Man’s CO2 must be controlled but, his last name is not Mann.

    • I recognize the maturity and common sense of this post, but I prefer the way Heller dismantles Stokes’ lazy drive-by commentary. I’m childish that way.

      • Me to. Tony Heller is a enlightening daily read. I love his use of NOAA raw data to show how we have cooled every day this spring right through to fall, as compared to the thirties. His posting of the thirties newspapers temperatures verify NOAA raw data and his overall point.. that we are witnessing massive on going fraud with this “warmest ever” propaganda..which is achieved-via “adjustments”.

        I see that none of the climate scientists dare show up on his blog and provide corrections to his charts of the raw data. Why not? Do they know hat they cannot refute the facts on the NOAA raw data files? Do they know that the cannot justify the adjustments and homogenizations?

        Strangely, this wonderful WUWT site does not have a link to Tony Heller, that I can see. Why? Does his use of the word “fraud” freak out this site? I remember that Steve McIntyre used to forbid that word on his Climate Audit blog.

      • Heller’s use of NOAA’s own actual temperature data to show their manipulations is extremely powerful and readers should be forward them to their congressman and senators who do not have a clue about this “scientific” fraud.

      • sailborder, Tony Heller used to be a prolific poster here as Steven Goddard, but after a couple huge rounds over a fairly minor issue where he wouldn’t admit he was wrong, Anthony and Tony agreed that it was time for Tony to start his own blog.

        If you’re interested in some of the flap, see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/results-lab-experiment-regarding-co2-snow-in-antarctica-at-113%C2%B0f-80-5%C2%B0c-not-possible/ and perhaps follow some of the links.

        He still seems sore about it. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/reading-comprehension/

  6. This site has exemplary moderation, keeping a very controversial subject going without becoming a riot. There are other sites that never got it right, either getting taken over by trolls or becoming a tyranny.

      • Moderation yes, but I would also suggest the type of people who frequent, who’s journey (possibly over years) for the truth landed them here, would tend to be already level headed, objective and reasonably intelligent. If not for these virtues they would have been side tracked long before, either through boredom, indifference or the lack of perseverance. So the subject matter/writing style, as it is presented by Anthony, attracts a certain caliber of person……..and lets not kid ourselves, I think we all enjoy the occasional troll bashing once in a while, like a Pinata at a birthday party.

  7. Arkell v. Pressdram

    That’s to the point… Climate change has never been about climate change. It’s all about a Nietzsche like power vs. power. (we’re dealing with psychological warfare here) Climate change is just the side show. Once one realizes this (in a real and tangible way), it becomes much easier to deal with. It then becomes just a matter of taking them out. It’s easy to get frustrated when you’re here to debate climate change and the other just wants to play mind games. Put the mind games first (because that’s where things are anyway) and the discussion only following that…

    ~mr. w., i don’t think that stokes meant any harm with that “willy soon” thing. he rejected the premise of eric’s post that green energy contributes to poverty. (therefor soon was involved in no wrong doing) he, meaning nick, seemed genuinely surprised at the reaction to his comment…

  8. “It’s all about a Nietzsche like power vs. power.”
    So GW is a conspiracy led by mad scientists to take control of the world. Really?

    • Environmentalism is a very useful excuse for various politicians to justify their agendas on other issues. An unknown number are sincere, but most of the adherents of the green blob in the US and Canada are remarkably ignorant of the actual issues, and are doing a suckup to a pressure group.
      Environmentalism is also a mass movement, with quasi-religious adherents of various degrees of radicalism. Calling it a conspiracy is something of a straw man..

      • I think you’re being kind. Politicians want influence over money. It’s always money and votes. I also think they’re WILLFULLY ignorant, which is also being kind. The mayor of Miami almost certainly knows that 1/3 of his city is sinking, and was developed below the MHW level, so yes, will flood in a pretty predictable fashion. He still goes on TV every chance he gets to wave his arms about sea level rise, and that’s just one of a thousand examples that come to mind.
        My response to most on the AGW side is that I like tide gauges and thermometers, and I dislike statements with “if”, “may”, “might” etc. Someone on another blog was blathering on about sea level rise on the Gulf Coast of Fl. I mentioned that there’s a tide gauge in St. Pete that seems to tell a different story. The response was, “Well…yeah…maybe!…but it’s rising in other places!!!”
        Nuff said.

      • I am trying to not be what I am criticizing, but some politicians are bad examples of confirmation bias and being so shallow they are in danger of beading up. They have no desire to actually understand the evidence behind what they are being told by the advocates of a position they find useful, and at worst regard every claim as pure opinion, as if it were a bad class in art history or English Lit.

    • How in the frack did you read the “power vs power” comment and translate that inside your tiny, narrow, cognitively challenged mind into ANYTHING remotely similar to “So GW is a conspiracy led by mad scientists to take control of the world”???
      REALLY????
      No matter how little logic or reason I use, I cannot even catch a glimpse of such a conclusion.

    • @ reallyskeptical
      October 4, 2017 at 3:17 pm: We have on our records the words of Strong, Edenhoffer, Klein, Oreskes, Climategate etc.. So yes, Really! Except they are not scientists, rather they are/were marxists and fellow-travellers by and large The ‘scientists’ who assist them eg Santer who did the 1st big fraudulent act, are mere ‘useful idiots’. To quote Lenin, IIRC.
      But the truth is unlikely to be what you really seek. However, I hope I can be proven wrong in that, for your sake.

    • The Climategate emails revealed their true motives, in their own words. Did you not read them? Do you not know what the “cause” was/is?

      Mad? yes — by that mean I mean mad/crazy, crazy that they abandoned science and the scientific method, in pursuit of a political ideology.

    • reallyskeptical,
      “So GW is a conspiracy led by mad scientists to take control of the world. Really?”
      Not exactly, but not too far off. A few quotes by H.L.Mencken might be useful here:

      “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

      “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” – which is why we call them watermelons (green outside, red inside).

      “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong” – which is a good a description of wind and solar power that I’ve read.

    • Those who seek power (power for power’s sake or power to advance an ideology) and profit will fund and twist whatever “sticks against the wall” of the public’s cranium.

      So GW is a conspiracy

      “GW”? Don’t you mean “CAgw”?
      Without the “Catastrophic” (within “living memory” meme) and the “Anthropomorphic” (“Man is the cause” meme) then we are faced with just NATURALl events to which we need to adapt and respond.
      We can’t prevent them.

    • “So GW is a conspiracy led by mad scientists to take control of the world.”

      No, a conspiracy led by far more powerful organs than the scientific profession, mad or otherwise.

      At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
      Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

      http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

  9. Anthony, this site is characterised by its great balance over a long period of time in all aspects of its content & its management. It is run by a incredible human being (warts and all) and is has become a touchstone for many hundreds of thousands of us who want to understand what is going on in climate science. It is more than a great example of how to fight error in climate science & the politicisation thereof, it is a wonderful example of how to fight the good fight on the internet in all other areas of contentious debate. One final thought, every single post by these anonymous warmists should be seen as a sign of success on your part. They can’t argue with the search for truth so they are reduced to calumny & slander. I wish you continued success in the future as long as you want to carry on.

  10. Thanks Anthony, good post. We are in a period when everything is political. Luckily WUWT is a place where people from all sides can and do discuss the science. I, for one, am very happy that Nick Stokes visits the site and takes the time to comment. Most of the time he has a point when he criticizes my posts. He might not say it in the most diplomatic way at times, but if I ignore the tone and look only at the substance of what he is saying, I usually learn something. And, why do we visit WUWT several times a week or write posts? Isn’t it for feedback and to learn from others? I can put up with a lot of snide comments to learn as much as I learn here. I even like Stephen Mosher and very much appreciate comments from Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Leif Svalgaard. But, as a scientist with only a BS who has worked with, and supervised, PhD’s for 40 years, I have a stainless steel skin. Look for what you can learn from, ignore the rest, that is my motto.

      • Agree about Mosher, wonder why he is so different now?

        His Climate gate book is on my book shelf,worth the read.

      • The number of anonymous people here is funny.
        Nothing “happened” to me.
        The same as ever.
        Here is the difference.

        In the beginning those in climate science refused to share data and code.
        I bitched and FOIAd, you all cheered.
        NOW its the skeptics who refuse code and data, you all defend this [snip].

        In the begining I questioned these things about temperature.
        A) The sampling: Solved that.
        B) Adjustment code: Solved that.
        C) UHI… hmm I did work, got an answer, still not happy.
        D) Microsite. hmm I did work, got an answer, still not happy.

        What changed was being called a fraud for posting my data and my code.

        In the begining I was a lukewarmer. See climate audit.
        It was acceptable to skeptics
        Nothings changed.

        In the begining I supported a full scale push on Nuclear. Nothings changed.

        What has changed?

        Model are still wrong but useful
        C02 still causes warming
        Leif is still my go to man on Solar

        What has changed? Oh ya, I converted Muller.

        jk

      • Oh Mossshhher the once Great and Powerful, your reply is unresponsive to my question. To help you, I’ll ask again:
        1. have you always been so inarticulate; and
        2. have you always been so misguided?

      • Whoops, looks like javier’s link ain’t working… Svalgaard won’t acknowledge that high solar activity correlates with warming and low with cooling over the course of the sunspot record. (mosh, as a warmist, you don’t want to be standing next to that guy)

      • “NOW its the skeptics who refuse code and data, you all defend this . . ”

        Could you give us a good example of what you are referring to, Steven?

        What skeptic is refusing you code and data?

      • Mosher, I stay anonymous even though I’m retired and essentially tenured, HOWEVER the SJW-climate-extremists-ba$tard$ would go after my kids if they knew who I was. Jordan Peterson had political capital he could use to fight the good effective fight , I don’t.

      • In the beginning those in climate science refused to share data and code.
        I bitched and FOIAd, you all cheered.
        NOW its the skeptics who refuse code and data, you all defend this shit.
        In the begining I questioned these things about temperature.
        A) The sampling: Solved that.
        B) Adjustment code: Solved that.
        C) UHI… hmm I did work, got an answer, still not happy.
        D) Microsite. hmm I did work, got an answer, still not happy.

        A) Really?

        B) Really?

        C) Got an answer, sure. Was it right? Since you’re averaging different locations together, the answer is meaningless.

        D) See C.

        Still haven’t got a LOT of data, according to Steve M. So you apparently quit too soon. But since you seem to fish for accolades. WELL DONE!

        What changed, in my perception, is that you call anyone who doesn’t agree with you an idiot, in various ways. It’s the whole honey and vinegar thing you don’t seemed to have worked out.

      • Mosher finds it funny that so many of us are anonymous. Here’s why I’m commenting under a nom de plume: quite a lot of the work I’ve been doing in the last decade has been funded by, or under contract to the Canadian federal government, which is fairly permeated by warmists in the civil service, and now in parliament. Although I don’t see the level of hostility to skeptics in Canada that seems to prevail south of the border, I don’t want to take the chance of being blackballed. I’ve only got one career and I want to keep it, plus who knows what damage it could do to my actual clients if I ran up against a really mean activist.

        As you say, Anthony, Nick Stokes and Steven Mosher are (usually) polite. The same can’t always be said of those who reply to their comments. Which is a shame. I apologise on their behalf. How often do we hear that alarmists can’t argue the science so they resort to ad hominem attacks? Doesn’t mean that it’s OK to do it back. Either debate the science or put a cork in it, ladies and gents. If you feel that strongly, silence is a great reply.

      • “As you say, Anthony, Nick Stokes and Steven Mosher are (usually) polite.”

        Mosher hasn’t been civil in quite a long time. He reaps what he sows.

  11. There is something about the whole internet posting and debate medium that makes it all too easy to write things in the heat of discussion you would never say intentionally in talking and I know I’ve done this too and regret it. That is not the same as some of the hideous trolls who clearly just set out to vilify and abuse and why Anthony and the regular contributors deserve support against such cowardice.

    I’m glad that WUWT does give people like Nick Stokes and even Griff a voice, even though I disagree with much of what they claim. It makes WUWT a very special place and something to value when dissent by those who oppose the whole AGW narrative is increasingly marginalized and attacked in an increasingly post- science world.

      • Um, no. People only get banned when they break the blog policy. ..some folks just can’t behave themselves, and consider their right to voice opinion in a manner not consistent with our policy more important than learning to get along.

      • Personally I would not place Griff and Stoke’s in Troll category. They come with an opinion, on topic and are cordial. Mosher on the other hand, with his sometimes one sentenced cryptic posts could do with some work.

      • Well, really, maybe those “many” would do well to emulate the behavior of nick and griff. (then they wouldn’t be banned) You’re still here, aren’t you?! Remember that blogs are monarchies and not democracies. If Anthony sees fit to bann anyone for any reason, then that’s his prerogative. Nick and Griff are living proof that Anthony is more than fair (even though he needn’t be)…

      • Anthony Watts says: “Um, no. People only get banned when they break the blog policy.”

        Sou? Rabbit? Tamino? Appell? Connolley?

        Most of these have had reasoned disagreements with a post and then were banned.

        (Rabbet I don’t think is banned,but the others are for a good reason) MOD

      • Yes, all if them have violated blog policy…especially Appel …except [Tamino] aka Grant Foster who was offered a guest post, but was too cowardly to accept. He can’t handle criticism and prefers his “safe space”.

      • Also, it is obvious that WUWT “true believers” can project more abuse than can people like Stokes or Trafamadore.

      • There are a few non-green blob warmist True Believers on this site, but they are rare. The term, as originally used, refers to adherents of a religiofied mass movement, like Marxism or N a z ism.
        Most of the posters on this site are into trashing the illogic of True Believers, not as adherents of a mass movement themselves.

      • rs, have you any proof of your troll assertion? I know of none. OTH, go to warmunist sites and count the hundreds of permanently banned skeptical commenters who violated no published site rules. You want specifics, try skepticalscience, ATTP, realclimate, Sou as just starters. rs (you deserve lower case address), you need to start to come to grips with verifiable reality. The data is there for all to see who seek it. Even you, should you chose to look. BUT YOU DO NOT.

      • Yeah, Miriam is really nasty,which caused her to be banned all over the place. She is insufferably ugly at her site,which is why a visit there once was enough for me.

      • And, she uses that ugliness to make money…I’ve been told many times I have a solid case against her in Australia, but teally, she’s not worth my time and effort. ..at least so far.

      • AW says: “she uses that ugliness to make money”

        Could you explain that one? Just curious what you think.

      • Duncan? well the nice thing is that since 2007 I have always used my real name. How about you?
        or fonzerelli or reallyskeptical? or sunsettommy or Micheal of Oz?

        It is so ironic on a post about anonymous cowards.

        Now the hilarious thing is this.

        People here LOVE the one sentence sarcastic responses to posts about science.

        but

        one sentence cryptic comments bug the hell out of people.

        Think about that… dont just react.. but pause and think..

        what does a cryptic comment make you do? why?

        What does a cryptic comment prevent you from doing? why is that important.

      • “reallyskeptical October 4, 2017 at 4:07 pm

        “Anthony Watts says: “Um, no. People only get banned when they break the blog policy.”

        Sou? Rabbit? Tamino? Appell? Connolley?

        Most of these have had reasoned disagreements with a post and then were banned.”

        Now there is a prime case of reality denial. fakeskeptical reveals it’s true nature by the people it admires and respects.

      • “C. Paul Pierett October 4, 2017 at 6:15 pm
        Selling advertising is much better/ethical than asking for site visitors to make donations. When will Anthony be begging for $$$ next?”

        Insidious specious sophistry, cpp!

        Just when did parasitic “selling advertising” becomes so honorable that friends helping friends is distasteful?

        Ugly irrational emotionalism driving advertising dollars is so honorable, NOT!

        Your every attempt to paint Anthony in a negative light has failed. Abysmally!
        Enjoy your total lack of success..

      • To: Steve M – Duncan Smith is my real name. Many many years ago that was what I used as I did not know what I was getting into. I just left it as is. I have made submitted post here under my full name too.

      • Mosher, i use fonzie because it’s my real nick name (i actually look like winkler) AND it’s a free country (ya do what you please). If you’re free to be obnoxious, then i’m free to use my own nick name…

      • “she sells advertising on her website”

        so why is this on your site?

        https://www.qlav.com

        [if you paid attention, you’d learn in another thread that that is a free ad I gave Charles the Moderator as thanks for helping me this summer – Anthony]

      • One of the most perplexing things about Sou is that she was until recently a trustee of a mental health charity yet she calls nearly all opponents lunatics. It all seems to have been ‘triggered’ by a car trip across Australia with her mother in blazing heat that her car air conditioner was not equal to leading to her mother becoming distressed.

      • Hello Mr Mosher, i am Michael i live in Australia, my email address is my given name middle initial and surname combined and Anthony gets it everytime i comment, and the ip address of the two pcs i use to browse.

      • I’m sure that there have been countless comments allowed here where the mod on duty grit his/her teeth but let it through even if they strongly disagreed. Within the bounds of human frailty (and site policy), all opinions are allowed.
        Would you prefer a site that would delete your comment out of hand?
        This isn’t Berkeley.

    • Griff’s great redeeming feature is that he has a sense of humour. At least some of what he posts appears to be tongue in cheek. And often times his posts could form the basis for a moderately amusing comedy routine.

      • Just go read the things griff said about Dr Crockford re. Polar Bears etc and her lack of qualifications or experience, a thorough lack of civility or integrity (with his own asserted position) was displayed, not even the courage to apologise for the attack.

      • I said OFTEN free of nasty words,that was one of his slip ups,but based on being ignorant of who she is in that thread.

        He got a big take down over it by Climate Otter.

      • Michael, I am not trying to be nasty when I have commented on Crockford’s posts… if you recall I directly addressed a post from her with a reply at one time…

        I am merely reflecting strong opinions out there on the web on the subject, on which I think there is a case to answer.

        I have nothing to apologise for.

        [a majority of readers and mods differ in that opinion -mod]

      • Griff, never reflect strong opinions out there on the web. Think for yourself.

        Oh, and a good rule of thumb is that you should not apologize for offence if you meant to offend but you should apologize for inadvertant offence.

      • “Griff’s great redeeming feature is that he has a sense of humour.”

        More like an unintentional comedy act !!

  12. Well said, Anthony. With regard to Nick Stokes, I find he mainly tests my patience because he is obviously intelligent and knowledgeable but when the evidence clearly shows the gross failings of his religion he invariably avoids the thrust of the argument and nit-picks meaningless details. A scientific man who resorts to unscientific obfuscation

    • The posts from Nick which amuse me the most are the ones where he says things along the line that he took somebody’s data and code and got exactly the same results as the other person did thus proving conclusively that they are correct.

      • Usually arguing that people should check people’s results before saying they are wrong. He can do that because he is a computer scientist and can deal with code, and can tell if they are correct of not.

      • “reallyskeptical October 4, 2017 at 5:00 pm
        Usually arguing that people should check people’s results before saying they are wrong. He can do that because he is a computer scientist and can deal with code, and can tell if they are correct of not.”

        Gross assumption, fakeskeptical, without merit or fact!

        All too many programs are tangled messes. Deciphering those programs requires careful dissection module by module then recombined after every module is proven functional.
        In many if nor most cases, it is far easier to just write a new program.

        It is far far worse when one is trying to debug or decode a program someone purposely buggers to prevent competitors or commoners from running their proprietary code. A problem all too common amongst the paranoid elites claiming to be scientists.

        Nick is intelligent and knowledgeable. That does not give Nick deity powers over code, data or computers. Well written code that is well organized is very rare; and not likely to be found in any program predicting climate catastrophes.

      • ATheoK, I don’t recall Stokes ever claiming to have read or analysed code. He has however repeatedly said that he has executed code and got the same results as if that proves something.

      • @RS

        Oh dear, what would you expect when you run somebody else’s data and code? Too easy you say?

        And how does that prove that they are right about what they programmed into their code and the validity of the input data?

        Skeptical people worthy of the name try to think things through. How about you?

      • I love redfish, which here in Texas is more properly called red drum. In Australia I think they call Red Snapper redfish, right? This is OK, I like grilling red snapper as well. Rub either of them with a lot of Tony Chachere’s Creole Seasoning, slap them on the grill skin down, cook until they have just turned white and flaky, and it’s a perfect entre! Shrimp Lake Pontchartrain sauce on top is best. Sorry to be so off-topic, but I’m getting a little hungry.

      • rh,

        I know since I was the one who told Tony about Stokes snotty statements against Tony. That post is his first one,he did two more after that. Now he told me he is going to post part FOUR soon,in response to Stokes foot in the mouth statement about Tony’s coding and so fourth.

        Nick writes,

        ” Nick Stokes
        October 4, 2017 at 3:36 am Edit

        “Really?”
        And your evidence is that something I said has pushed Tony Heller into his usual incoherent ranting. Just look at two items in that. I said that people circulate these graphs with no attempt at fact-checking. So his response is that he posts code, and so I am ignorant. But the point would then be, do those who circulate the graphs ever run Heller’s code? I’m betting no-one does.

        And as for this
        ” They are a simple numerical average of the USHCN monthly final minus the numerical average of the monthly raw temperatures, per year. Math doesn’t get any simpler than that. A third grader should be able to understand”
        It’s simple, and just wrong. There were (USHCN has been obsolete for years) 1218 stations in the final set. There were a varying number, usually somewhere around 900, in the raw set. He subtracts the average absolute temperatures, and says the result is due to adjustment. But they are different sets. The 900 raw stations may just, on average, be warmer or cooler places than the 1218 final. If there is inhomogeneity (lat, altitude etc) you either have to use the same set, or carefully correct for the difference. Else you get things like the Goddard spike.”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/03/and-im-back-my-thanks-to-everyone/#comment-2627091

      • Tony has now posted a new reply to Nick Stokes,

        Nick Stoke Busted : Part 4

        https://realclimatescience.com/2017/10/nick-stoke-busted-part-4/

        Never could find where Nick claimed that USHCN is obsolete,even with the link he supplied.

        Quoting Tony,

        “Nick claims that USHCN is obsolete, which is also complete BS. USHCN makes up almost the entire NOAA/NCDC US temperature record. Here is the current NCDC graph”

        Tony,effectively destroyed Mr. Stokes claims.

        Nick, your worst enemy is your own big mouth.

      • Sunset,
        “Never could find where Nick claimed that USHCN is obsolete,even with the link he supplied.”

        I gave the link. Here is is again, describing developments in 2014:
        ” As a result, NCEI began using nClimDiv data to compute contiguous (CONUS) temperatures, replacing USHCN as the official CONUS temperature data set.”

        So TH points to the “current NCDC graph”. But where does it say USHCN?

      • Nick writes,

        “So TH points to the “current NCDC graph”. But where does it say USHCN?”

        You blind Nick? it is very easy to see,maybe you are hoping to get that foot out of your throat,with a bluff?

      • Here is what Nick, dishonestly leave out:

        “The new divisional data set, nClimDiv, differs from USHCN in several ways. In particular, nClimDiv makes use of a much larger set of stations (over 10,000) and includes observations from many networks not included in USHCN (e.g., RAWS and SNOTEL). nClimDiv also uses a different computational approach known as climatologically aided interpolation, which helps address topographic variability and changes in the station network through time.”

        What he doesn’t tell you is that USHCN is this,which is still ACTIVE!

        “Since 1987, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly National Climatic Data Center) has used observations from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) to quantify national- and regional-scale temperature changes in the conterminous United States (CONUS). To that end, USHCN temperature records have been “corrected” to account for various historical changes in station location, instrumentation, and observing practice.The USHCN is actually a designated subset of the NOAA Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) Network. The USHCN sites having been selected according to their spatial coverage, record length, data completeness, and historical stability. The USHCN, therefore, consists primarily of long-term COOP stations whose monthly temperature records have been adjusted for systematic, non-climatic changes that bias temperature trends.”

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/background/ushcn

      • To continue to show what Nick leaves out about USHCN, is this from NOAA:

        “The first development of USHCN datasets were at NOAA’s NCEI in collaboration with the Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) in a project that dates to the mid-1980s (Quinlan et al. 1987). At that time, in response to the need for an accurate, unbiased, modern historical climate record for the United States, personnel at the Global Change Research Program of the U.S. Department of Energy and at NCEI defined a network of 1219 stations in the contiguous United States whose observation would comprise a key baseline dataset for monitoring U.S. climate. Since then, the U S HCN dataset has been revised several times (e.g., Karl et al., 1990; Easterling et al., 1996; Menne et al. 2009). The three dataset releases described in Quinlan et al. 1987, Karl et al., 1990 and Easterling et al., 1996 are now referred to as the USHCN version 1 datasets.”

        and,

        “Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted USHCN version 2 CONUS average maximum temperature (see also Fall, S. (2011)). Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN CONUS temperatures are well aligned with recent measurements from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). This network was designed with the highest standards for climate monitoring and has none of the siting and instrument exposure problems present in USHCN. The close correspondence in nationally averaged temperature from these two networks is further evidence that the adjusted USHCN data provide an accurate measure of the U.S. temperature.”

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/introduction

        AS you can see that USHCN is NOT obsolete!

      • Now Nick is to confuse us here since Tony didn’t say it was at all. Here is what you said:

        “He did not claim what you showed is a NCDC graph. I think it is his own.”

        From his website you didn’t read carefully,shows what Tony says about the chart YOU posted:

        “Nick claims that USHCN is obsolete, which is also complete BS. USHCN makes up almost the entire NOAA/NCDC US temperature record. Here is the current NCDC graph :”

        The next chart you didn’t comment on says:

        “Here is the current USHCN Final graph”

        Then the last chart I posted:

        “The two graphs are almost identical.. The graph below plots both USHCN final and NCDC temperatures.”

        https://realclimatescience.com/2017/10/nick-stoke-busted-part-4/#comment-67446

        You didn’t show evidence that Tony’s last two charts are not based on the official data.

        Once again you blow a lot of irrelevant smoke.

      • Sunset
        Here is another NOAA statement on its dataset summary page:

        ” NCDC builds its current operational contiguous U.S. (CONUS) temperature from a divisional dataset based on 5-km resolution gridded temperature data. This dataset, called nClimDiv, replaced the previous operational dataset, the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), in March 2014. “

      • Sunset
        “AS you can see that USHCN is NOT obsolete!”
        This gets weirder. The two sections you quote in detail describe USHCN vers 1 and 2. They don’t even get up to 2.5, the most recent version. Doubly obsolete.

      • Its a RE-NAME and a minor change in how its calculated.

        ClimDiv and USHCN are essentially the same mal-adjusted load of junk.

        And they match each other, by design, back to 1895.

        USHCN is NOT obsolete.. all the data is still available, it just stopped being calculated in 2013

        And you KNOW that….. .so stop trying to muddy the waters with your twisting and turning.

      • “USHCN is NOT obsolete.. all the data is still available, it just stopped being calculated in 2013”
        So how can something that isn’t calculated by NCEI not be obsolete?

      • “You didn’t show evidence that Tony’s last two charts are not based on the official data.”
        From here is the official NCEI plot. It shows both ClimDiv and USHCN. The USHCCN terminates in 2014. The note at the top says:
        “National USHCN monthly temperature updates have been discontinued. The official CONUS temperature record is now based upon nClimDiv. USHCN data for January 1895 to August 2014 will remain available for historical comparison.”
        In fact the group of stations that NCEI used to use for USHCN are still reporting, and you can put together your own calculated average using that data if you want. Tony Heller seems to have done that. But it is his calculation, not NOAA’s.

        Here’s that official plot:

      • I didn’t say the results were different; I said that USHCN is obsolete. USHCN is an index compiled by a method, which some criticise. ClimDiv is compiled by a quite different method. They give very similar results, which suggests simply that they both work well. But there is no point bashing away now at the USHCN method. ClimDiv is the method they are now using.

      • Can you still access the data for USHCN, from the NOAA web site?

        Please let us know, Nick.

        Its just a RENAME.. you KNOW that, don’t you.. and are just trying to fool yourself.

        A very easy person to fool…. because you are.

      • “which suggests simply that they both work well”

        ROFLMAO

        NO Nick.. it implies that the data is being FUDGED to match. !!

        They are both EQUALLY junk

      • You do know that you have displayed your complete INCOMPETENCE of mathematics and statistics by accepting the totally unnatural almost exact match of the two “not different” fabrications, don’t you ?

        Or did your maths and stats end at high school?

        Do you REALLY think two different methods could give such an exact match…

        …. are you really THAT naïve and gullible ?? !!!

        No need to answer, !!

      • “Do you REALLY think two different methods could give such an exact match”
        Yes, of course. The calculations are just numerical spatial integration. CONUS has excellent coverage, with many hundreds in USHCN, and about 10000 in Climdiv. With good coverage it is possible to get very good accuracy, by any well executed method.

      • Poor Nick, you have so many LIES and DISTORTIONS in your head, you can’t keep up with them, can you ! :-)

        So funny !!

      • Problem is, Nick, that they use EXACTLY the same MAL-ADJUSTMENTS from the real data !!

        WAKE UP !!

      • “Or did your maths and stats end at high school?”
        In fact, I have a PhD in Mathematics, and 35+ years as research scientist in the Division of Mathematics and Statistics, CSIRO. And you?

      • “In fact, I have a PhD in Mathematics, and 35+ years as research scientist in the Division of Mathematics and Statistics, CSIRO. ”

        Then, as someone with a degree in mathematics, you obviously agree with the statement that:
        “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

      • Oh dear.. Nick now resorts to thinking he is the greatest.

        So funny !

        Your time at CSIRO was obviously spent evolving the AGW farce.

        Well done.

        No wonder you are so, so protective of it, and are prepared to go to any lengths of dis-information to cover it .

      • CSIRO was once a company that did thing to BENEFIT society, not destroy it.

        When did the rot start, Nick.. about 30 or so years ago ??

      • Nick is a very competent mathematician and that is the reason why he knows that all the time series thermometer temperature reconstruction sets are meaningless, and that it is impossible to make any comparison of temperature fluctuations with respect to time, because the sample set (the source data from which the temperature is obtained) for any one year is continually changing over time.

        I have made this point to Nick many times. The data set from which the 1880 temperature is assessed, is not the same data set from which the 1900 temperature is assessed, which in turn is not the same data set from which the 1920 temperature is assessed, which in turn is not the same data set from which the 1940 temperature is assessed, etc and so forth. This means that at no stage is it possible to make a like for like comparison. One cannot look at the time series reconstructions and conclude that temperatures are rising (or have changed) because this may be nothing more than the consequence of using a different sample set.

        It is akin to seeking to ascertain whether the height of men has changed over time, by measuring the height of adult men in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands during the period 1961 to 1990 and finding an average of all these heights, and then compare it to the height of Spanish men measured in 1880 and conclude that the height of men has dramatically increased over time. One cannot from that conclude that in 1880 men were less tall than they are in 1960.

        Nick recognises this fact, which besets all the time series thermometer temperature reconstruction sets (eg., GISS, HadCrut etc). Nick states:

        It’s simple, and just wrong. There were…1218 stations in the final set. There were a varying number, usually somewhere around 900, in the raw set. He subtracts the average absolute temperatures, and says the result is due to adjustment. But they are different sets. The 900 raw stations may just, on average, be warmer or cooler places than the 1218 final.If there is inhomogeneity (lat, altitude etc) you either have to use the same set, or carefully correct for the difference. Else you get things like the Goddard spike. (my emphasis)

        There is no way that they can be carefully corrected for the difference, and it is absurd to even try. What one needs is good quality unadjusted RAW data that can be compared directly with good quality RAW data with no adjustments whatsoever,

        We should not be trying to make global or hemispherical sets with infilling, kriging, spatial coverage adjustments etc, we should just make like for like direct comparison at the same point on point locations. We should simply select say the 200 best sited stations where there can be no doubt that there has been no manmade changes/material changes in the surrounding locality, and then retrofit these stations with the same type of enclosure 9painted with the same type of paint), fitted with the same type of LIG thermometer (calibrated using the same methods as was historically applied at that location) and then observe using the same practice and procedure as was used in the 1930s/1940s.

        In that manner we can obtain modern day RAW data that can be directly compared to historic RAW data from the station from the 1930s/1940s without the need for any adjustment whatsoever to the data. This would be done on an individual station by station basis, simply comparing each station with itself to see whether there has been any change in temperature at that particular site since the highs of the 1930s/1940s.

        there would be no fancy statistics, simply a list of the number of stations that show say 0.2degC cooling, 0.1 degC cooling, no change, +0.1 deg warming, +0.2 degC warming etc. In that manner a like for like comparison can be made, and we would quickly get a feel as to whether there had been any significant warming during the period that some 95% of all manmade emissions have been made. Of course, that would not establish that CO2 is responsible, but would provide us with a better insight into temperature change.

      • The big problem I have with well educated Mr. Stokes is that he keeps contradicting himself:

        First he says USHCN is obsolete,when his own link says it was replaced or discontinued,which doesn’t mean obsolete at all.Then he produce a NOAA temperature chart showing that USHCN and ClimDiv are virtually identical for the first 116 years. Which means even now they are STILL using USHCN data in their 2017 chart since it has NOAA stamp right on the chart Nick himself posted.

        Meanwhile USHCN still exist and downloadable from the NOAA,which means it is NOT obsolete after all.If it was really obsolete,they would have stopped using it…. DUH!

        Then Nick dishonestly tries to make it appear that Tony make his own charts up, by saying this:

        “He did not claim what you showed is a NCDC graph. I think it is his own.”

        Which is interesting,and indicate that he didn’t really read this post by Tony at all,since the data in his charts are ALL from the NOAA website, as shown here

        Nick Stokes : Busted Part 2

        “In this post I take down the second part of Nick Stokes idiotic claim :

        Steven Goddard produces these plots, and they seem to circulate endlessly, with no attempt at fact-checking, or even sourcing. I try, but it’s wearing.

        My source code has been out there for years. Nick has no excuse for his ignorance.

        I just added it to UNHIDING THE DECLINE, to make it really easy for even the most clueless climate alarmist. (It is very wearing for me to have to deal with these clowns, who spread the same misinformation year after year.)

        Download UNHIDING from here. Click on the DOWNLOAD ALL button.

        It will be downloaded as a very large zip file. The reason it is so large is because I have included the entire US daily temperature database. I did this is because Windows users might have a difficult time extracting the data from NOAA. I also have included everything you need to get the data directly from NOAA.

        It takes a long time to run, and will appear like nothing is happening. Be patient. Your computer is processing several versions of the entire US daily and month temperature data sets.”

        and so on.

        https://realclimatescience.com/2017/09/nick-stokes-busted-part-2/

        Nick NEVER challenged Tony’s source code and software that was created for people to download any or all of the NOAA data to see for themselves what is going on. He posted a sample chart to showed it looks like in the link,Nick NEVER countered the software at all.

        It is clear to me that he is here to spread misleading comments. Many people are getting really tired of his game too, as they show a lot of dissenting comments against his confusing,misleading babble.

        I would expect that anyone with a PHD in Math and a long career in the field would be able to provide comments that are free of misleading and dishonest omissions,that it is clear and to the point. But he is never clear and to the point. since he doesn’t come across as being on the same page with himself.

        Now I am sorry for being harsh with you at times, but I expected YOU to do much better than this,since you are a well educated man with a long career. DR. Mann is supposedly well educated too,but he is a bad scientist with a massive chip on his shoulder,should I blindly follow the words of that man,because of his educational background?

        Stop with your silly obsolete argument, since it hurts you deeply as you still use USHCN TWO years (in a NOAA stamped chart) after it was supposed to be… he he… ha ha… made obsolete.

      • Aphan,
        “Then, as someone with a degree in mathematics, you obviously agree with the statement that:”
        Well, I also learnt to read and quote properly, and not to cut arguments off halfway through. The full quote reads:
        “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential. “

        And that is just what they do. You may have noticed that you rarely see the IPCC present a single model trajectory. They show a spaghetti graph of the range generated. This relates to the wellknown disconnect between initial conditions and long trem behaviour in fluid mechanics. There is a very important engineering activity called computational fluid dynamics, much used for designing aircraft etc. Exactly the same could be said of that. It is not possible to predict future states from initial conditions. But you can predict the things that matter.

      • Nick writes,

        ” Nick Stokes
        October 4, 2017 at 11:21 pm

        Sunset
        “AS you can see that USHCN is NOT obsolete!”
        This gets weirder. The two sections you quote in detail describe USHCN vers 1 and 2. They don’t even get up to 2.5, the most recent version. Doubly obsolete.”

        Version 2.5 is online showing that USHCN is updated as each PAST version has done,but it is still called USHCN. It us now up to year 2017. Gee why would they spend so much time over obsolete USHCN…. snicker.

        Yes it is getting weirder that the NOAA keeps updating USHCN,when it is supposed to be obsolete FOUR years ago

        From Status,txt

        “June 9, 2015

        USCHN Version 2.5.5 has been released. See Technical Report GHCNM-No15-01
        in ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/ for details
        on the changes associated with this version update. USHCN Version 2.5.5
        homogenized data are associated with the naming convention “52j” to
        reflect the version of the Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm used.

        May 28, 2015

        USHCN Version 2.5.0 will be replaced by Version 2.5.5 in early June, 2015.
        Information on this change is available in Technical Report GHCNM-No15-01.
        Accordingly, the PHA algorithm change will results in a version change
        from 52i to 52j.”

        The latest file Modification was October 5 2017.

        Here is the File Nick never talked about,since USHCN was supposed to be obsolete FOUR years ago.

        ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/

      • “They show a spaghetti graph of the range generated. ”

        And NOT ONE of them is even close to reality.

        Side of a barn.. MISSED. !!!

      • I make a big deal about Nick calling USHCN OBSOLETE,when there is evidence straight from the NOAA that it is not. I just posted a link to the file showing that it is being updated DAILY for Precipitation,Maximum/Minimum temperature and T average. The last update was today for those values,which is OCTOBER FIVE TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN. (October 5,2017)

        Tony was correct all along when he said it is updated DAILY,you denied it by calling it obsolete. You clearly said it wasn’t being updated either.

        Nick writes,

        “It’s simple, and just wrong. There were (USHCN has been obsolete for years) 1218 stations in the final set.”

        and,

        “This gets weirder. The two sections you quote in detail describe USHCN vers 1 and 2. They don’t even get up to 2.5, the most recent version. Doubly obsolete.”

        You keep fighting the NOAA on it where they say it is being UPDATED,with Version 2.5 then you missed the current 2.5.5 version which you probably never saw since you think USHCN is he he…. snicker…. obsolete.

        USHCN is being updated DAILY,which means it is still being maintained and updated. This means the NOAA doesn’t consider it obsolete,as they spend effort on it daily to keep it updated and make that data available for downloads.

        You need to stop here since I have destroyed your stupid Obsolete argument with proof from the NOAA themselves.

        Here is current Version 2.5.5 that is updating daily. Here is that link,Nick didn’t bother to bring up since it destroys the stupid Obsolete claim he keeps making against USHCN. I wonder if you didn’t even know this current version exist since you were saying version 2.5 wasn’t even online yet.

        ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/

      • Unfortunately, Nick tries to use his once maths prowess to bend everything to his manic bias based on his religious type belief in AGW. It really is a bit of a waste and very counter-productive.

        We will see if he admits to his error on USHCN being obsolete. !

    • Stokes endears here because he’s polite and straight to the point (relatively), which I guess is the best etiquette for science blogs. Once or twice I’ve come to his defense from particularly nasty replies to simple comments.

      • Sometimes Mr Stokes will take the time to write reams of nick-picking that looks clever but is actually argument-less. His “Random walk” comments are a perfect case and for a formal example of a PHD mathematician being completely and unashamedly obtuse, you need look no further! Just to be clear, the argument is about finding trends in a database and showing that there is no statistical difference between that correlation, and a random walk through the very same data – not some other data – and not data that includes off the scale points where the earth boils at the point your supposed linear trend extrapolates too! ;-)

        But as for this current thread, I still have no idea of the relevance of his dispute about the graphs above. What follows is a an example of a Nick Stokes argument in three graphs, two of which he posted:

    • “Forrest Gardener October 5, 2017 at 3:02 pm
      ATheoK, I don’t recall Stokes ever claiming to have read or analysed code. He has however repeatedly said that he has executed code and got the same results as if that proves something.”

      Thanks Forrest:
      I was responding to really fake skeptical’s absurdities.

      Executing code, using somebody else’s instructions, specific inputs and feeds proves zero about what the program actually accomplishes. That is not independent replication.

      I’ve been handed some incredibly badly written code, ostensibly to fix.

      I also had one BAL Assembly teacher include instructions on how to confuse anyone trying to follow or debug a program and to prevent code theft.
      Compiling called modules into binary executables offloads some of the dodgy code and it should raise hackles when programmers and program managers promise that the compiled code is without blemish and runs perfectly.
      That’s a good time to prepare test decks where results are easy to track.

  13. I agree with all the others. WUWT is my first port-of-call and the website is the one I fully recommend to anyone who asks for the best site to start with.

    By the way, I very much enjoy the weather picture of the day. Yesterday’s was amazing (Double Rainbow and Lightning Strike) and it had a second lightning bolt. What a picture!

    • Vigilantes, pirates, rogues, brigands, hoods, delinquents, criminal, rioters, vandals, fascists, ku klux klan wannabees, etc.

      Just helping, Climate Heretic.

      • No, actually, Social Justice Warriors are inherently communist.

        Communist theory is based on the divisions in society. To obtain power, communism teaches that the proletariat must be educated about how the bourgeoisie are taking advantage of them. In societies with strong class distinctions this is very effective, but in societies with weak class distinctions this is ineffective.

        In the United States there is a lot of social mobility. People are taught that with hard work and good fortune they can make the jump from poor to rich. Status is not generational.

        But the U.S. does have a problem. It has not integrated racially. Now there are a multitude of reasons for this and most everyone is complicit but there it is. So if there is no proletariat or bourgeoisie in the U.S., communists have figured out that there are other divisions. So they make these divisions worse and then use them to push for “justice”, which is a code word for political change.

        Ever notice how “justice” tends to veer away from democracy and towards totalitarianism. Or how it always seems to hate capitalism. Or how “justice” never seems to build unity. It is a feature, not a bug.

      • Communists are just following a philosophy. Communism may be thoroughly dysfunctional in government, but it is still just a philosophy.

        Once these thugs start using violence, racketeering, confidence scams, theft, gross littering, vandalism, shaming, forcible harassment, etc; they’ve moved far beyond simple communism into full criminal activiy.

        Prisons are similar to communist enclaves. Let the criminal jerks enjoy the semi-communist lifestyle while in prison.

  14. Anthony is spot on here.

    But it doesn’t take much effort – well, not for me, at least – to work out who the trolls and sowers of discord are. Someone who – for example – starts a late comment (on the recent Mikhail Voloshin thread) with “This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read lol” doesn’t deserve much of an answer. And this particular “John” redacted his surname after his first comment!

    More difficult are cases like Nick Stokes and Griff. Nick often does add something useful to the discussion, and he knows more about the technicalities than many here, including me; though he got his come-uppance on that same thread. But kudos to him for using his real name.

    Griff is a more interesting case. Not everyone knows that WordPress gives blog owners the IP address from which each comment is published. On other WordPress blogs (not WUWT), when I’ve authored a headpost, I get an e-mail for each comment, which includes the IP address it came from. And (unless the commenter is very savvy) it isn’t all that hard to narrow that down to a geographical location. When the comment comes from an unshielded government office, it’s easy. So, I’m 100% certain that Anthony knows Griff’s real identity; and I’m 97% certain I know it myself. By my reckoning, Griff’s office is about 35 miles from my home, and he’s an “academic lead for public engagement.”

    And then there’s Steven Mosher, who did great work for the cause of scientific truth in the early days of WUWT, but seems now to have gone over to the dark side. On that very same Voloshin thread, he called me “stupid” and a “clown” because I queried how BEST did its temperature adjustments. Now, I’m not stupid, as most who have read my two headposts on this site will attest. But yes, I can be a clown when I want to. Indeed, I once posted a limerick on this very blog, in which I rhymed “Steven Mosher” with “isn’t kosher.” So, as far as I’m concerned, I’m even with Steven.

    • Saint Stephen, with a rose, in and out of the garden he goes. Country garden in the wind and the rain, wherever he goes the people all complain.

      (garcia, lesh & hunter)

    • You are.

      Look. When I demanded than hansen post his code it was for ONE REASON.
      I thoiugh his description of adjusting for UHi was bogus.
      I knew his proxy for UHI was bogus.

      So I wanted his code so I could ACTUALLY SEE WHAT HE DID!!
      I argued the code was the best documentation. Not the paper BUT the CODE.

      You all applauded this logic.

      get the code Steve, see what you can find,

      So I did. he freed the code.

      Now, in all that debate people against code release Told me that I was Just asking for the code
      and not really interested. They said he should not release code because I would Just bug him
      to explain

      My argument remained the same.

      If Hansen posts his code I WILL NEVER BUG HIM TO EXPLAIN

      Why?

      because the CODE is the best explanation. he owes me the code and nothing but the code.
      His code is his argument. Once he posted the code he gave me everything I needed to understand
      he gave me everything that science requires of him.

      Asking him to explain further… when he ALREADY provided the best explantion ( code and data)

      would be Stupid and clownish behavior

      So, GIVEN that I made this argument years ago. Basically the argument that i am not entitled to ask for more explanation once someone has posted their code and data, is it ANY WONDER that I would snap at you, when you havent looked at what was publsihed over 5 years ago.

      you wanna understand the adjustments.

      READ
      THE
      CODE

      We posted it so that you WOULD NOT NEED TO ASK ME
      We posted it because it is actually what is done
      We posted it because it is better than any words i can write.
      We posted it so you can go make it better
      We posted it so you can see for yourself

      Again. This is No different than the arguments i made before Asking hansen for code.

      Did you expect me to change my principles?

      • Please provide the dIstribution of up breakpoints versus down breakpoints in BEST over time?

        That makes request number 12 now.

        Basically, anytime temperatures fall in a station using the BEST algorithm, that is identified as a breakpoint and the down step is removed. Temperatures increasing do not trigger a breakpoint and stay in.

        For an average station, 7 down breakpoints are identified and removed and only 1 up breakpoint is removed. The definition of fake.

      • People understand the adjustments. The question is if they are legitimate. Too many examples of the “code” creating warming trends where none actually exist nor should exist based on other lines of evidence.

      • Oh Mossshhher the once Great and Powerful, on numerous occasions you have not said to read the code. Instead you assert that some arbitrary adjustment or other makes no difference.

        So make up your mind, do you want to comment on the results produced by your code or not.

        Oh and I’ve been fascinated by your recent assertions about CO2 causing warming in the oceans. Is that in your code too?

    • Hmmm. So do you suspect A.W. is his real name?

      More than half of the agendaist’s* on WUWT use pseudonames. But only realskeptics** get criticized for it.

      * great new term by Rabbit.
      **not to be confused with “skeptics” on this site.

      • His name is Willard Anthony Watts (dropped the Willard so as not confuse with Willard Scott according to wiki)…

      • I am Thomas,but use Sunsettommy,starting from 15 years ago as my internet name. In those days I was the owner of the largest portable Telescope in South East Washington,a 25″ F5 Obsession,which required a 10′ tall ladder and a Trailer. I would drive well out of town to find a fairly dark area,set up the scope,while the Sun was setting in the west,with marvelous reddish/Orange colors.

        That is why I use Sunsettommy.

      • Well, I say something to my wife and she looks a my and usually says, “Really?”
        So it must be true.

      • reallyseptical, how kind of you to provide some nice little examples of ‘nietzsche’ like behavior for the readers of this thread…

      • ” how kind of you to provide some nice little examples of ‘nietzsche’ like behavior”

        ????

      • I use part of mine. I work at a University with those who do not care to be disagreed with. Rather than cause workplace tension I only use my first name. Others have the same. You see, while we skeptics may think that the believers of the church of global warming are misguided and misinformed, to true believers we are all heretics who should be driven from our jobs, our homes, and burned at the stake! That is the difference between the two sides, so if you are not a member of the Church of Climatastrophe and work among them, you keep your head down.

      • its your changing your last name from gullible to skeptical… sort of the opposite of reality, that is the lie.

      • This is my real name. Though googling it will get you either some psychology professor, or a Dutch soap star. Neither of which are me.

        I think.

      • I joined WUWT before I retired from teaching computer science at a university over 3 years ago. To keep peace in the workplace I used the pseudonym noaaprogrammer because I wrote computer programs for scientists at NOAA and NCAR in Boulder, Colorado back in the early 1970s.

        BTW, I am well familiar with adjusting boundary conditions in computer programs for realizing desired outcomes. Just looking at someone’s code and its output does not tell you how many times that program was run with different sets of boundary conditions until the desired outcome was produced – unless, of course, that information was included in a comment statement.

      • reallyskeptical October 4, 2017 at 5:20 pm
        Well, I say something to my wife and she looks at me and usually says, “Really?”
        So it must be true.

        8-)
        (I won’t ask what it is you said.8-)

    • Hey Aphan, how you doin?

      You know, Perry Mason signed the Oregon Petition too, and while that’s the name of a famous character, it is also the name of scientist, so, you know, it could happen again.

      /grin

      • Mods – something happened – previous post should say “Perry Mason” not “Perry Ma”.

        Help.

        (Fixed) MOD

      • Yeah, it could happen. But in this case, it didnt.

        Just like reallyskeptical isn’t really skeptical.

        In both cases, their names are as irrelevant as their opinions. Illogical people are tedious no matter who they are.

        :)

  15. Remember also that you are experiencing someone else’s five stages of grief.

    The Kübler-Ross model, or the five stages of grief, postulates a series of emotions experienced by terminally ill patients prior to death, wherein the five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.The Kübler-Ross model, or the five stages of grief, postulates a series of emotions experienced by terminally ill patients prior to death, wherein the five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.~wikipedia. Soft science i know, i know… woe the humanities!

    • How could you be confused? Nick says that a random walk is not a possible real solution to understanding variability in climate change. A random walk allows going to 0 degrees K and to 500 degrees Kelvin. Those temps don’t and can’t happen in a world constrained by physics.

      • There’s nothing in the tone of that post that would indicate to anyone why he should be kicked off the forum.

        That’s why I’m confused.

      • Steve,

        He is still around because 95% (or should I say 97%) of the time he is civil and mostly cogent if a little over impressed by some really dodgy data. However in that last 5% (3%?) he gets a little testy and lets his rhetoric get a little personal. Granted there have been a few times his sparring partner probably should have gotten a time-out with him, but as I learned as a kid – ’tis the second blow that draws the foul.

      • rs, you didn’t understand what the guest blogger was talking about either. Nick created a Red Herring,which is why many in that thread tried to point out what Nick missed.

      • That point was fully addressed in the post, so I assume Nick didn’t read it all the way through (it was pretty long).

      • “Nick says that a random walk is not a possible real solution to understanding variability in climate change.”

        Neither is linear trend analysis.

      • When many make credible replies to his argument,then yes he might not have a good case for his position.

      • So you, and I guess them, think that 0 degrees K is a possibly ???? I mean really, the early, randomly, could go to absolute zero? That is crazy thinking.

      • so, are you saying that you agree with Nick’s position, and that other commenters on that post did not? If so, that was not clear.

      • No rs,

        read it again:

        “Have you notice yet,that I have not supported anyone in that thread on this discussion?”

        Meanwhile there is a reply,Nick NEVER replied after three days:

        ” Phoenix44
        October 1, 2017 at 11:40 am Edit

        You don’t seem to have read the piece.

        If a random walk can simulate the data, then the data can be a random walk.It is that simple.”

        hmmmm…….

      • Okay.

        A random walk can simulate anything. really. It’s random. Monkeys can do Shakespeare.

        Nick was arguing from first principles. A random walk allows temp to go outside of physical reality.

        Why does that need clarification?

      • Apparently you don’t even know what the objections are to what Nick talks about.

        meanwhile………

      • The problem on that thread, at least initially, was that he was arguing by deflection – trying to make those unaware of that tactic think that his “counter” had anything to do with the thesis of the post. That is what I called him out for. It’s actually a favorite tactic of Nicks – as exhibited in the one comparing “temperatures” to a bounded random walk. (Where he seized on the “random” and completely ignored the “bounded” – which was pointed out to him many times, not that it did any good.)

        BTW, concerning anonymity – my “handle” is my WP account, which I set up for my own blog (moribund at the moment). For those who can’t even click on the handle and read the blog, my real name is Richard Skinner.

        Before that, there are probably many comments back in the archives with “Reality Observer” on them; those were me too. That was an anonymous handle, for continued employment purposes. (I still use it over on other comment platforms. Mainly because someone who keeps on changing their screen name is automatically considered “fishy” for very good reasons. I finally gave up on changing it manually every time I go onto a WP site.)

        I “came out of the shadows” because I now really don’t give a damn. Regarding the remote possibility of my being riddled by a couple dozen rounds from the local SWAT team – well, the wife has always wanted San Diego beachfront property. Eight figures should take care of that dream for her…

      • Ome can’t prove much from a random walk. In a random walk, one would ‘take a random walk’ many many times which would give you a distribution of possible “where am I now?”s. This distribution is the statistical description of the null hypothesis. Using this, one can determine how likely it is you are where you are, assuming that the only influence was chance (.e. that your walk was random). In other words, one can ask a question like “How likely is what i observed given chance and only chance is operating?” If it turns out that the answer is “Not that effing likely!” Then one wpild tend to infer that something other than chance is at work. That something other than chance made you go in one direction vs. the other.

        Since the walk in question involved a relatively brief time span, it struck me as an appropriate test.

        Nothing prevents one from adjusting the observations to compensate for apriori factors and then running the random walk. One is just baking these factors into the null hypothesis.

  16. I of course join all of the others here who applaud and thank Anthony for this great website and wish him continued success with it. I would surmise here that one’s blog does not easily get over 300 million hits in ten years unless one is doing something right. Anthony is a thorn in the side of those who have been wrongly brainwashed in believing the climate alarmist narrative and a thorn in the side of those who are using it as a pretext for their political/activist agenda knowing down deep inside that it is faulty. Al Gore is perhaps one of them.

    I will suggest however that, as good as Internet technology is today for interacting with others over long distances, it also makes the climate alarmist narrative much easier to sell to the naive and gullible populace for one’s activist purposes. I suggest that it is (unfortunately) far easier to do so today with the Internet than it probably would have been 50 years ago without it. I cannot imagine the narrative being sold to the masses as easily and lasting this long as it has if it had come into being in the 1950’s or 60’s. Of course, the mainstream media (and especially the cable/satellite 24 hour news channel) has played a big role in selling the narrative and keeping it alive as long as it has.

    Still, I have faith that the truth will eventually win out in the end. I just hope I live long enough to see it. Ma Nature is going to do whatever she wants and no doubt has little interest in those that are politically, emotionally, eco-religiously and financially vested in the alarmist narrative. I believe there is an old saying with says: A lie (or is it a rumor?) travels halfway around the world in the time it takes for the truth to put its boots on.

  17. In general, I think that blogs like WU should _publicly_ document banned commenters, saying why they are banned. I also think that the “convicted” commenters should be released from banishment after some set time, maybe a time that gets longer for each banishment.

      • The whole fake name real debate seems like useless virtue signalling to me. Who really cares if someone wants to protect their real identity or if someone else throws caution to the wind and posts their real name? Oh but what about the ones who post a fake but real sounding name! Who honestly cares!? After all, they get the boot or get suspended when they cross the line. Leave it at that or debate the line or the enforcement productively. Or even better, debate climate science.

      • Well, I use “my” name mainly because it’s been my nickname for more than 20 years. Probably more people know me by that than the one in my passport. And No, it does not refer to “Doctor Who” though I am sometimes jesting about it. I think people should make up their mind whether they agree with my comments (or not!) based on what I actually post not on who I am.
        Many commenters here know my “true” name, profession, official email address etc. (when I think it’s their business). Since I don’t consider myself a full-time anti CAGW activist I don’t look happily forward to get my regular email (and “snail-mail” box) littered with abusive insulting trash from misguided fanatics and other trolls …
        I once commented using my real name at some other site and had to learn the hard way that it was not a smart choice.
        Call it cowardice if you want to – I call it reasonable.

    • Sounds like a reasonable plan that you should implement for your blog, reallyskeptical.

      Please let us know how well it works there.

    • Sou shouldn’t be released ever! You don’t make a site like the one she did on a nearly named domain and use it to slander, libel and misrepresent another site. Generally internet stalking is an unforgivable sin.

    • rs, some people who got banned should NEVER be given a second change because what they said was so wrong,that it was common sense not to reconsider them. Miriam (Sou) was one of them,since she made no decent effort to debate on the topic. She made a lot of personal attacks,with a heavy dose of Fallacies and being plain stupid.

      Meanwhile Anthony stated earlier, that they VIOLATED Site Policy,which is the dominant cause of being banned.

      • You are zooming deeeep into the Twilight Zone,since you mock me who posted a real name,while you still don’t post yours.

        You wrote,

        “Oh. And poor sunsettommy, great, your name is tommy. I know 100s of tommys. so useful.”

        It is really hard to take YOU seriously who mock me over a real name I post,while you continue to hide behind yours,unless of course you came from hippy parents who decided to name you, reallyskeptical.

        You are looking really stupid now.

      • rs,

        you didn’t provide the entire quote:

        “And I think that commenters should use their real names if they wish to be taken seriously. What’s your’s?”

        He never said he ban anyone if they didn’t post their real names,surely that is obvious as many here have posted under a different name for years,as I have for at least 8 years.

        Maybe it is time for you to slow down on this, since it is becoming a bore to read you whining about it.

      • “Excellent phase shift, good bs skills with this one. Question remains.”
        “And I think that commenters should use their real names”

        Wow. Why are you asking for my name when most of your posters don’t use theirs.
        Or do you mean that you don’t take what most of your posters say seriously, because they don’t use their real names.

        Oh. And poor sunsettommy, great, your name is tommy. I know 100s of tommys. so useful.

      • You are zooming deeeep into the Twilight Zone,since you mock me who posted a real name,while you still don’t post yours.

        You wrote,

        “Oh. And poor sunsettommy, great, your name is tommy. I know 100s of tommys. so useful.”

        It is really hard to take YOU seriously who mock me over a real name I post,while you continue to hide behind yours,unless of course you came from hippy parents who decided to name you, reallyskeptical.

        You are looking really stupid now.

      • I’m sorry, are you real?

        So if I said my real name is Really, would you be happy?
        Or if I said George, then would you be happy?

        A real name is something that track you as an individual. So “Tommy” doesn’t cut it. It’s as fake as all the other names out there.

      • So Mr. Skeptical…I can call you that right? Mr. Really Skeptical.

        So anyway, Mr. Skeptical, you do realize that you are quickly denigrating yourself down to troll status with this thread, right? You are trying to dictate to Anthony how he should handle his site behind an anonymous handle which is the exact opposite of what you really are.

        You might be a highly educated person, but right now you are acting like a basement internet tough guy.

    • NO… a blog is a blog owner’s personal property. And he or she should run it however he or she sees fit! All that ‘democracy’ and ‘fairness’ does is burn out a blogger. (Anthony, with his recent sabbatical, perhaps being exhibit A)…

    • I mean, really, you can ban people on your blog, and many people would agree with you. But why not make it public? There are examples of this, PZMyers comes to mind, but now I go to his blog and can’t find it. Oh well, whatever.

      And why make it permenant, at least always. (You don’t for Nick)

      (If you owned and/or Modederated operated several forums and blogs as I have,you would understand why Bannings are rarely made public.I have seen a forum be destroyed because the owner foolishly allowed debate over the merit of a ban) MOD

      • A blog be destroyed because of debate over a ban? This I have never heard of. Could you enlighten me?

        My good friend and ex-lab mate PZMyer’s pharyngula site used to have this but I can’t seem to find it after he moved his site to freethoughtblogs. He has been on the web since about 2002, so he might know something about it.

      • I don’t recall big, well, huge flaps at WUWT over bannings. I think that’s mainly because people don’t get banned until they worn out their welcome multiple times and the great majority is glad to see them gone.

  18. AW,
    The following is excerpted from a letter to the editor in my daily newspaper. The letter addressed the LV shooting, but the sentiment applies everywhere, including climate.

    “I’ll make it simple. We have a hate problem in this country. We throw around hate from dusk to dawn. We hate people in comment sections because they have a different opinion. We hate people because we don’t like their profile picture. We hate people because of where they come from. We are a country that loves to hate. That hate will continue to drive mentally unstable people, like the shooter tonight, to take hundreds of lives.”

    • Well, there are a couple of people that I would shoot on sight, considering their profile picture. You identify with “Alex” from “A Clockwork Orange,” and expect to be allowed anywhere near my family? Nope.

    • “We are a country that loves to hate.”

      The author presumes to speak for everyone. I think he presumes too much.

      We are a country of lovers and haters. I, personally, think the lovers are in the majority. That’s been my experience. The Las Vegas massacre is a good example of all the angels we have in our society.

      Americans rise to the occasion when the time comes.

  19. Finally Canada is doing something to fight climate change and it involves kids.
    Thank you O Liberal Minister McKenna wife of of the inimitable Scott Gilmore, great defender of Freeland, for offering this beauty to our kids in the style “Honey a shrank the kid’s brain”:
    https://climatekids.ca/

    Really, Thank you!

  20. “And using passive-aggressive, pseudo-polite language to attract hostility, then complain about people being mean, is a common ploy of the more insidious trolls.” Yes, they do. It has been a recent development and is probably best ignored, since anything one says is twisted like a floor mop and wrung out by the troll.

    As for anonymous postings, I refused to use my name for a long time on my web pages—not because I have anything to hide (currently, my name, occupation, etc are on the sites as is the state where I live) but because I firmly believe that ideas are separate from the speaker. I learned that in college when taking philosophy classes and science classes—you evaluate WHAT is said, not WHO said it. It completely eliminates any appeal to authority. However, I found that people really don’t understand the concept, most like a name attached to a website so I gave up and used my name. I still wish there were NO real names used because ideas and facts are what count, but I’m a realist…..

    • “As for anonymous postings, I refused to use my name for a long time on my web pages—not because I have anything to hide (currently, my name, occupation, etc are on the sites as is the state where I live) but because I firmly believe that ideas are separate from the speaker.”

      I agree with Sheri. It’s what you say, not who you are that is important.

      T and A are my initials. My name is in my email address registered with Anthony.

      I can post under my name if people insist because I have nothing to hide. I have posted on Usenet in sci.space.policy and alt.politics since about 1994, until I came to this website a couple of years ago, under my real name, so I’m not afraid to use my real name on the internet.

      But not everyone is free to use their real names for many reasons, so I don’t think pressure should be put on people who wish to remain anonymous.

      Not sure what to do about this since I naturally resist when I feel like someone is pressuring me, and changing my handle seems kind of like legitimizing Stokes and Nick’s criticisms of anonymous posters.

      It’s what you say that is important, not your handle. Using one’s name or position to bolster one’s argument, is basically an appeal to authority.

      Tom Abbott is my name, in case you were wondering.

  21. They don’t care. A fanatic by any other name is still a fanatic. These people spewing the hate will get worse. They have replaced one religion with a new one – saving the planet! They are no different than those who ushered in the French Reign of Terror or the communists revolutions which slaughtered millions in Russia, China and Cambodia.

    • “They have replaced one religion with a new one – saving the planet! ”

      I drink a lot. I believe in drinking. So drinking must be a religion, as least for me.
      Those people who are engineers, they believe in engineering. So engineering is a religion, too.
      It seems like calling a “religion” is now religious.

      And meaningless.

      • rs

        If you are ‘really’ interested in the concept of environmentalism vs religion, I suggest that you spend a few minutes with Michael Crichton here. I think you will find that his anthropological explanation has nothing at all to do with drinking or engineering.

        Best
        JW

      • Some people become quite rapturous regarding nature, describing their emotional connection to it using religious terminology. Such feelings may be initiated and later heightened by an LSD trip along with some cannabis.

      • “So drinking must be a religion, as least for me”

        Explains why most of your posts are incoherent nonsense.

        Zero-science.. all alcohol. !

      • RS, seriously?

        Engineers believe in engineering so engineering is a religion?

        To paraphrase from Billy Madison, everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read what you wrote. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

      • # Forrest Gardener

        No engineer worth his degree “believes” in engineering. They know how to apply it properly.

  22. I’ve run into Nick “Navier” Stokes on Judith Curry’s website, and found his trolling to be tolerable and easily dealt with. His website is interesting, sometimes, though not in the way he intends. It’s fine to have him post, as long as it is not in a libelous way. He does, in fact, sometimes offer arguments (rather than assertions or appeals to authority) that can be instructive. In other words, he is sometimes part of an actual debate, which is refreshing..

  23. “Online, anonymity breeds contempt.

    The Internet has created an easy and safe way for people to hurl insults, ugliness, slander, libel, and taunts without having to endure the consequences of their actions or the social shaming that would come if such things were said in polite company”

    That’s why I use my real name when posting. I may sometimes be mistaken, but I avoid making childish
    ad hominem attacks which I will later be ashamed of.

  24. I could get a new g mail address and use a fictitious (real sounding) fake name.I could use a vpn that would mask my location.
    I simply don’t care if people use fake names or pseudonyms as long as they use them consistently. It doesn’t take me long to establish their agenda or what kind of personality they have.
    I don’t use my full name because if you google it then I pop up on the first line with my photo.
    It only takes one vindictive nutcase to stir up trouble if they chose to.
    Of course I could be lying.
    I’m really only interested in what people say, rather than who they are.

    • Agree, in my case my picture and bio. would appear on the company web site of hard working colleagues who might be embarrassed by the attention (and my spelling).

      I quiet like the ‘Joseph K’ association too!

    • WHO we are is IRRELEVANT to any logical, rational debate. The ONLY thing that matters are the conclusions that can logically and reasonably be drawn from the premises provided by those involved in the discussion. A serial killer can make strong, logical arguments and a PhD can make weak, illogical ones.

      If you have to resort to using flawed logical premises about the person you are debating, it indicates that your argument sucks and you arent rational enough to engage with at all.

  25. I am glad you are back Anthony,
    Just a comment on this:

    Commenter Nick Stokes comes to mind. While he is often maddeningly obtuse …

    The main reason I read some of these posts is that the forum is open to knowledgeable people from all sides. Nick Stokes is probably the person I appreciate most of all. He shows that he has deep technical knowledge; excellent analytical skills and he present his views with a good and polite language.

    The reason you find him obtuse could perhaps only be that you disagree with him?
    /Jan

    • I agree. I always look out for Nick’s comments, and I appreciate that he takes the time and trouble to post on this site. Unfortunately, many people are not as polite as they should be when debating with Nick. He puts his head above the parapet and needs a thick skin.

      • Richard I agree. I hate when comments I reply to are filled with people who ‘agree’ to my position but devolve to insulting without substance.

  26. The abuse isn’t bad. Its some of the dishonest replies dressed up as reasoning. I wrote a quick ( and not that great) explanation of why saying the ocean is warmed by the atmosphere through conduction is silly ( because the bottom 1 m of atmosphere would need to cool by about 1000 degrees to warm the top 1 m of ocean by 1 degree)
    “No robert the first metre of atmosphere will not raise the first mete of ocean by the same amount in terms of temperature due to the differerent heat capacities of air and wate,r as I have already stated. The total energy (measured in joule)transfered from the atmosphere by conduction must be the same as that taken up by the ocean (and land). First and second laws of thermodynamics.”
    If you didn’t pick up on it. He’s not actually disagreeing.

  27. Well, its difficult bringing an opinion to the web… (and even more difficult to keep on presenting it: hat off to Anthony there)

    The web is not a safe space

    Its also difficult trying to comment across the lines on the web -for they are drawn more closely than in real life debate (in pub, office or political meeting)

    And since I do that, I try (despite occasional strong feelings or anger) to keep within the local rules and keep it civil

    And I get just as much abuse as any skeptic doing it. And I see just as much abuse heaped on leftists, leftards, progressives, climate scientists and other folk from commenters here as I see skeptics get elsewhere.

    So I’d say ‘remove first the beam’

    and then ask yourselves do you genuinely want debate, or just an internal debate?

    what I want from this is a genuine ten shilling argument, an exchange of views on the science across 2 viewpoints.

    If you don’t want that, you are free to have an internal discussion. block the non-skeptic view. That’s OK. A blog like Neven’s on sea ice just blocks all skeptic posts as declared policy.

    I venture to suggest that this would be an even better site without the politics (those which do not bear directly on science or climate that is). That would remove a lot of controversy and abuse attracted, arising from issues which don’t bear on the main subject: climate.

    (And I’m only anonymous in that it isn’t safe to put your name and address out there on the web. So Griff has to do)

    • “And I see just as much abuse heaped on leftists, leftards, progressives, climate scientists and other folk from commenters here as I see skeptics get elsewhere.”

      I certainly wouldn’t deny that you are on one side of the debate that is in a minority on this website.
      But I have tried explaining my skeptical views on prominent “elsewhere”[*] sites and quickly found my views were just deleted after it became clear I was serious about them and wouldn’t go away. You, on the other hand, are still commenting here at WUWT despite expressing views that are at odds with the blog owner.

      [*Of the sites biggest elsewhere sites I consider to be completely ‘warmist’, the BBC still does fairly well in one respect: When they choose to allow comments, they do allow most opinions to be aired. However, I suspect this is just because they know that if they allow their bias to overcome the moderators obligations then I can ultimately write to my Member of Parliament. They will have the final say over BBC funding, even if it takes years or decades for the BBC to called to account. In the meantime, an MP can make life difficult for the BBC]

    • The thing is Griff, EVERYONE has their own opinions and they are allowed to have different ones. Even scientists last time I checked.

      But OPINIONS are not FACTS. They are different words with different definitions. Science, hard cold science is about facts. What can be determined vs what cannot be. What can be replicated vs what cannot be. What can be predicted, and validated, vs what cannot be. What can be logically extrapolated vs what cannot be.

      Logical fallacies will NEVER convince a rational mind. And they should NEVER be used or tolerated in ANY debate or argument of any degree of importance.

      Science is about facts, truths and evidence. Opinions often involve emotions, personal interpretations, and cognitive biases. None of those things belong in “science” at all.

      • The sad fact is: Too many people “out there” actually believe something like 2+2=5 is a valid(!) alternative opinion.

      • The human desire to understand, from which all science is motivated, is an emotional desire.

        Because of the imperfection of our senses, we cannot infallibly claim that facts, derived from our observations, are truth. We can only believe they are.

        Thus, completely separating humanity from human knowledge is not possible. We are not logic-bots, as much as some seem to wish they were.

        And it’s possible to think logically and irrationally at the same time. Logic is a method, only as good as the premises you plug into it, and just as vulnerable to GIGO as a computer climate model.

        Debate does not have to be an a priori zero-sum game. Even Plato recognized thesis, antithesis, and *synthesis*.

      • “If truth is by nature subjective, the truth of the proposition “truth is subjective” is subjective, which means it is not necessarily true. However, for it to be false would mean that the proposition “truth is objective” can be true. But for this to be so would entail that truth is necessarily objective, for if the proposition “truth is objective” can be true, it must be true. This is not so of the proposition “truth is objective”, which is not self-contradictory. Ergo, either truth is objective, or the question is basically meaningless as for truth to be (by nature) subjective would mean that what is true isn’t necessarily true including the statement that what is true isn’t necessarily true.” Andrew Messing, Harvard University

      • Syllogism A–

        Premise 1:
        Nothing unreal exists.

        Premise 2:
        Objective truth exists.

        Conclusion:
        Objective truth is real.

        Syllogism B–

        Premise 1:
        Only what we can sense and perceive, and induce or deduce from the same, is real.
        (So we reject for argument’s sake the possibility of “revealed truth”, a domain of religion.)

        Premise 2:
        Our senses, perceptions, inductions, and deductions are fallible.

        Conclusion:
        We cannot infallibly sense, perceive, induce, or deduce what is real.

        Syllogism C–

        Premise 1:
        Objective truth is real.

        Premise 2:
        We cannot infallibly sense, perceive, induce, or deduce what is real.

        Conclusion:
        We cannot infallibly sense, perceive, induce, or deduce what is objectively true.

        :)

      • There is a good proof of 1+1 doesn’t equal 2. Good because the logical fallacy is difficult to spot despite being a simple argument.
        (Spoiler alert) The fault is that the square can be a negative number, not just the positive. Can you imagine a debate where such an objection is howled down as denierism? Its such a beautiful proof that I sincerely think that 97% of climate scientists couldn’t spot it even if their career didn’t hinge on the scam continuing.

      • I was corrected:
        Matter of fact 2+2=5 ! You just have to choose a high enough value for “Two” ;-)

      • Dred,

        Here are the problems I had with your initial post.

        “The human desire to understand, from which all science is motivated, is an emotional desire.”

        Curiosity is not listed anywhere as a human “emotion”, nor did you offer evidence to support the claim that “all science is motivated” by the exact same thing.

        “Because of the imperfection of our senses, we cannot infallibly claim that facts, derived from our observations, are truth. We can only believe they are.”

        Corrected I might agree with you:

        Because of the imperfection of our senses, we cannot infallibly claim that our CONCLUSIONS, derived from our observations, are FACTS/CORRECT.

        “Thus, completely separating humanity from human knowledge is not possible. We are not logic-bots, as much as some seem to wish they were.”

        Never suggested otherwise. But we CAN examine our premises and conclusions (And those of others) and determine whether those premises and conclusions are logical or not. We can identify the human biases and ( if we want our conclusions to be as rational, logical, and as correct as they possibly can be) reject them

        “And it’s possible to think logically and irrationally at the same time.”

        Evidence to support this conclusion please.

        “Logic is a method, only as good as the premises you plug into it, and just as vulnerable to GIGO as a computer climate model.”

        You provided no premises, or evidence, to support any of the conclusive statements you made. So logically, I can only assign them the value of being your opinion at this point.

        “Debate does not have to be an a priori zero-sum game.”

        I never said it did.

        As far as your other response, objective truths or FACTS exist whether we can perceive, sense, induce or deduce them. That’s why they are OBJECTIVE rather than SUBJECTIVE. It is not human knowledge or discovery or understanding that makes them REAL. They exist outside of our imperfect senses.

  28. But, there are those who can post disagreement without being mean or abusive. Commenter Nick Stokes comes to mind.

    I consider that it is very important to have Nick (and his ilk) regularly commenting on this site. Nick usually posts well constructed arguments, and backs his position up with data/links. This site requires a range of views and standpoints if it is not to get bogged down in group think, and preaching to the converted. A sceptic should be sceptical of both sides of the argument, so it is always good, and can only assist knowledge and understanding to see a range of views expressed. This site would be much poorer if Nick did not comment.

    Nick is a very competent mathematician and that is the reason why he knows that all the time series thermometer temperature reconstruction sets are meaningless, and that it is impossible to make any comparison of temperature fluctuations with respect to time, because the sample set (the source data from which the temperature is obtained) for any one year is continually changing over time.

    I have made this point to Nick many times. The data set from which the 1880 temperature is assessed, is not the same data set from which the 1900 temperature is assessed, which in turn is not the same data set from which the 1920 temperature is assessed, which in turn is not the same data set from which the 1940 temperature is assessed, etc and so forth. This means that at no stage is it possible to make a like for like comparison. One cannot look at the time series reconstructions and conclude that temperatures are rising (or have changed) because this may be nothing more than the consequence of using a different sample set.

    It is akin to seeking to ascertain whether the height of men has changed over time, by measuring the height of adult men in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands during the period 1961 to 1990 and finding an average of all these heights, and then compare it to the height of Spanish men measured in 1880 and conclude that the height of men has dramatically increased over time. One cannot from that conclude that in 1880 men were less tall than they are in 1960.

    Nick recognises this fact, which besets all the time series thermometer temperature reconstruction sets (eg., GISS, HadCrut etc). Nick states:

    It’s simple, and just wrong. There were…1218 stations in the final set. There were a varying number, usually somewhere around 900, in the raw set. He subtracts the average absolute temperatures, and says the result is due to adjustment. But they are different sets. The 900 raw stations may just, on average, be warmer or cooler places than the 1218 final.If there is inhomogeneity (lat, altitude etc) you either have to use the same set, or carefully correct for the difference. Else you get things like the Goddard spike. (my emphasis)

    There is no way that they can be carefully corrected for the difference, and it is absurd to even try. What one needs is good quality unadjusted RAW data that can be compared directly with good quality RAW data with no adjustments whatsoever,

    I have outlined many times how to go about such approach, and why BEST was a lost opportunity in failing to audit the stations and failing only to use the most prime stations and in failing to utilise a different paradigm to that used by the likes of NOAA/GISS/HadCrut etc. BEST have used the same approach as the other heavily adjusted reconstruction series, but with a different algorithm. These algorithms are simply a fudge seeking to render poor quality data into something better. What is needed is to use only good quality data, and throw out, and not work with the rubbish.

    • richard verney October 5, 2017 at 5:51 am

      I have made this point to Nick many times. The data set from which the 1880 temperature is assessed, is not the same data set from which the 1900 temperature is assessed, which in turn is not the same data set from which the 1920 temperature is assessed, which in turn is not the same data set from which the 1940 temperature is assessed, etc and so forth. This means that at no stage is it possible to make a like for like comparison. One cannot look at the time series reconstructions and conclude that temperatures are rising (or have changed) because this may be nothing more than the consequence of using a different sample set.

      But even though the dataset is changing it’s still possible to do the random walk analysis. In my experiments on random walks I start out with a certain number of organisms at the center of the field of view which start wandering all over the plate. When I analyze the data I find they’re obeying random walk statistics, after a while some of them leave the field of view but the remainder still show random walk statistics. The data gets noisier with time of course until the number remaining gets too small to do the test.

  29. paranoia |ˌperəˈnoiə|
    noun
    a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically elaborated into an organized system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality.
    • suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification: the global paranoia about hackers and viruses.

  30. I’ve definitely benefited. Thanks

    It also helps to know the intellectual adversary if you could call them that. They look mostly hollow by all observations. I gravitate to the deeper information pool like WUWT. Others prefer the kiddie pool at NYT or the wet spot at HuffPo.

  31. if you are a “a regular target of hate mail, hate Tweets, and hate blog essays”

    Then it proves you are on the right track.

    REAL science does not need to vilify people to “prove itself” – E.G We might poke some fun at “Flat Earthers”… but we don;t send hate mail or attack them… becasue “spheroid Earth” is REAL science, Flat Earth is not.

    Same here – ACC is the “non-science” (you could shorten that to “nonsense” and it still has meaning)… and it needs to attack you to divert attention from your REAL science.

  32. ‘Recently, with a comment where he smeared somebody, he earned being put on moderation’

    I’ve been on moderation for years. It’s not that tough. Though it is curious.

  33. WONDERFUL!

    “Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you. All those things are said against you because they want to stop you in your tracks. But if you keep going, you’re sending a message to people who are rooting for you, who are agreeing with you. The message is that they can do it, too.” ― Andrew Breitbart”

    I miss Andrew Breitbart every single day, and I’d miss you too Doctor Watts, if you gave up or became afraid or overwhelmed by the stupies who assail you (and all of us who are “with you” in spirit and mind).
    Please don’t falter, and please take care of yourself.

    We many, who know the truth when we read it and hear it, walk toward the fire together here, whether we are scientists or not, because this is a place where truth is told. We cannot survive without truth.

  34. “Ignore them. Deprive them.” Perfect advice. The cowards are just trying to bait others. Don’t take the bait and run your own race. They can be left dangling with their passive/aggressive posts, tweets, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s