HTTTACS Open Thread

Okay, the main page for How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic has over 500 comments now, so as I should have done long ago, I am closing comments there.

Please post any miscellaneous comments that don’t fit better elsewhere on this site here on this thread, thanks!

218 thoughts on “HTTTACS Open Thread

  1. What?

    No pithy retort before UK bedtime?

    Snowman must be resting his prefrontal cortex–it has a lot of rationalizing to do.


  2. Well done snowman. I thought your posturing about my supposed failure to acknowledge my error was one of the most hypocritical things I had ever read (Fox News commentary notwithstanding), but even you have exceeded your own standards with your criticism of Chris at post #193:

    “……It’s remarkable, Chris, that you are so devoid of critical faculties, so unable to conduct any sort of textual analysis, that you are actually impressed by that vacuous piece of self-justifying nonsense published by 255 ‘scientists’….”

    So Chris is ‘devoid of critical faculties’ for being impressed by a piece signed by 255 scientists? Now, let’s just compare this to YOUR comments at post #179:

    “….The recent op-ed by a group of distinguished scientists in the Wall Street Journal confirms what has been obvious for years….”

    Note the syncophantic forelock tugging from the denialist hypocrite. 16 non-scientists and fossil fuel industry shills write an op-ed piece in the WSJ, and snowman has a denialist orgasm – uncritically accepting everything they say, and even calling them ‘distinguished’ in the process. 255 scientists write a piece in a science magazine, and suddenly snowman – a man with no science education past high school – thinks that Chris is ‘devoid of critical faculties’ and ‘unable to conduct any textual analysis’ for accepting what they have to say. Wow snowman, that’s breathtakingly hypocritical, even for you! You’re not very good at applying the same standards to yourself that you attempt to apply to others are you?

    I have a challenge for you snowman – but of course I know as per your usual modus operandi that you will simply ignore it and continue with the usual dross you write. How about you follow some of your own advice, and use your self proclaimed ‘critical faculties’ and ‘conduct a textual analysis’ of the WSJ piece? But of course, I bet you won’t, for two reasons. Firstly, you are incapable. Secondly, if you were capable, and did so, it would destroy the illusory worldview that you have constructed in which to hide your fragile ego.


  3. Oh, and snowman, let me get you started on your textual analysis. Here is a quote from the op-ed piece:

    “…..A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet….”

    And this is what “…Yale economist William Nordhaus…” has to say about that particular quote – supposedly citing his work:

    “…..The piece completely misrepresented my work. My work has long taken the view that policies to slow global warming would have net economic benefits, in the trillion of dollars of present value. This is true going back to work in the early 1990s (MIT Press, Yale Press, Science, PNAS, among others). I have advocated a carbon tax for many years as the best way to attack the issue. I can only assume they either completely ignorant of the economics on the issue or are willfully misstating my findings….”

    Now, please tell us again what you think about these ‘distinguished scientists’. You know, the ones who misrepresent the work of others?


  4. mandas thanks for the exposition on what I was getting at in #195. I expected it to soar over snowman’s head but I’m glad someone saw the point.

    Though I should mention that I’ve not read the sciencemag article. I can see the gross deficiencies in the WSJ guff-piece without needing to have them pointed out to me.


  5. Yes Chris. Something else that the snowman has failed to realise is that the WSJ op-ed piece, for all its faults, actually accepts that the planet is warming and that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible. It’s just that they think – in different parts of the article – it isn’t increasing that much; or that warming and additional CO2 are good things and that we shouldn’t do anything about it.

    I wonder if he actually read the article close enough to realise that. I’m guessing not, because his post #179 says the total opposite to the WSJ op-ed piece. I guess if you are a denier, you don’t read what you are referring to if you think it supports your case (do you read anything??!!)


  6. (do you [Snowman] read anything??!!)

    Maybe he does; maybe he doesn’t. One thing I know for sure is Snowman (that’s with a “man” *of course* LOL) did *not* read Wesstuhn. LOL. What a tool . . .


  7. “or that warming and additional CO2 are good things and that we shouldn’t do anything about it.”

    Does the sciencemag article cover the subject of vernalisation?


  8. It would appear that the snowman has crawled back under his rock again. What’s the matter snowman, haven’t been able to think up a pithy ad hom to use against us?

    In the interim, I thought I would try and track down the source of some of snowman’s information so we all know where he is coming from. It’s one of the traits of deniers like crakar and snowman – they never reveal their sources. They like to claim that they are smart, and that the information they present is a product of their own reasoning. But you and I know differently. They are just plagiarising morons who never had an original thought of their own, and who rely on other deniers writing on blogs or in newspapers for their information. They don’t have the intellectual capacity to read real science articles or journals, which is a pretty telling critique of the denier ethos.

    So for the sake of clarity, I did some searching for the source of snowman’s original post in this latest discussion. And guess what? It was from an article written in the UK Telegraph, by that paragon of journalism, James Dellingpole. The article is here:

    Note the quotes (from snowman):

    “….. It is now perfectly clear that the Modern Warm period ended over a decade ago and we are embarking upon a prolonged period of cooling……”

    From the article:

    “….the thing we really need to fear right now is not global warming but global cooling….”

    From snowman:

    “…..The recent op-ed by a group of distinguished scientists in the Wall Street Journal confirms what has been obvious for years….”

    From the article:

    “… op-ed in the Wall Street Journal signed by 16 distinguished scientists….”

    From snowman:

    “….but it is upsetting to think that so much public money has been thrown away on this folly, not to mention the economically ruinous CO2 reduction policies that some Governments – the UK is one – foolishly embarked upon….”

    From snowman:

    “….which has led to the squandering of billions of pounds on an entirely unnecessary scheme to “decarbonise” the UK economy…..”

    Post #179:

    “…..It will be a pleasure to see the climate soothsayers confounded….”

    From the article:

    “…..And where did “Nostradamus” Viner go?….”

    From snowman:

    “….How long will it be before the usual academic climate alarmists admit they were wrong? Well, as one British journalist recently put it, hell will freeze over first….”

    From the article:

    “…..When are all those “climate” “scientists” at institutions like the University of Easy Access finally going to eat crow? Actually this question is entirely rhetorical since I already know the answer: when hell freezes over….”

    So snowman, good job! At least if you are going to plagiarise someone else’s work, could I ask two things please?

    Firstly, that you at least acknowledge your sources so we can deal with the original morons, and not waste our time trying to present evidence and facts to a mindless galah who is simply repeating what he has read or heard without any understanding.

    Secondly, could you use reputable sources, and not idiots like this guy:

    There’s a good chap!


  9. Yeah I found that pretty amusing too the last time Snowman just regurgitated Wattstalk:

    It’s sort of like playing a very restricted but still entertaining version of the game Clue. It’s always “Snowman, with the bullshit, from . . . .”–and that’s the part we have to figure out. Well done on this one, mandas. I had just assumed it was Watts but hadn’t checked yet.


  10. Mandy, you really are a strange fellow. You claim to detect something sinister in the fact that I have discussed matters that have been mentioned countless times by any number of people.

    Take your first couple of paragraphs. I said that it was clear we were entering a period of cooling. Ha! you triumphantly shriek, so did James Delingpole. But so have innumerable others with increasing frequency, and the same could be said of all the other points. I referred to the op-ed and a group of 16 distinguished scientists. So did Delingpole. But so did everybody else. The internet has been full of it since the op-ed appeared. You must know that. I referred to the waste of funds. But everybody in the UK talks about that. In fact, people talk of little else.

    But you’ve got me on one point. When I quoted the remark about hell freezing over before scientists would admit they were wrong, I said only that a British journalist had made the joke and didn’t mention a name – a grave sin, to be sure.

    Mandy, can’t you see what an obsessive you have become, spending your days searching for references in the hope of scoring a couple of pathetic points? You are not quite as unhinged as Ian Forrester, but I fear there is a real danger you may be heading in that direction. You need to get a life. You spend too many hours here. Think of those goats.

    Oh, hang on, I’ve just looked again at your post and see what put the idea in your head. Delingpole mentioned Nostradamus and I referred to climate soothsayers. But if you look back through my earlier posts you will see that I have described them that way many times. (In fact, I was rather pleased with the description; perhaps I should admonish Delingpole for copying me.)

    Actually, Mandy, I wasn’t intending to post tonight because I am going away early tomorrow on business and won’t be back in London for some while. However, I didn’t want to disappoint you. I know that as far as you are concerned a day without Snowman is, so to speak, a day without sunshine.


  11. I have discussed matters that have been mentioned countless times . . . –Snowman (with an “s” of course. hehe)

    Yes–by idiots. You just paraphrase their stupidity because you have no capacity for independent and rational thought.

    Snowman . . . with the bullshit . . . from . . . . ?

    So Snowman: What’s a “trend”? LOL.


  12. Get over it snowman.

    You have been caught out plagiarising the words of a discredited hack. We have always known that it is your modus operandi to regurgitate the opinions of others – not having sufficient intellect to form one of your own – but on this occasion I have simply identified whose opinion you have offered up. Perhaps the reason you are attempting to fudge the issue is because everyone knows Dellingpole (“…I don’t have the time or education to read science….I am an interpretor of interpretations….”) completely lacks any credibility – so I can understand your embarassment for using him.

    But it’s really straightforward. In future, try to act with a modicum of ethics and reference your sources. I know that’s very difficult for someone like yourself – a demonstrated hypocrite – but give it a go. As I said, I would much rather deal directly with the originator of the material, rather than someone who simply parrots what he has read without even the slightest understanding of either the article on question or the issues behind it.


  13. Snowman, thank you for responding to my earlier post.

    I was at pains to explain that all the evidence I have found so far is well explained by the AGW theory. You responded with a claim that the Earth is going to cool, due to a Solar minimum, but you provided no evidence. Can you provide a link to the original research that supports your claim? Being a true sceptic, I am keenly interested in evidence obtained “from the horse’s mouth”, as it were. There are numerous places I can look to get evidence from the other end of the horse i.e. from wild claims and arm-waving unsupported by reputable science.

    I am sorry the other posters subsequently have poked fun at you and I am sure you can score a major victory over them, if only you can show me the peer-reviewed, original research that will make all the other evidence I have found utterly useless and discredited. I look forward to your alternative theory that fits the evidence even better.

    I wait, but not with bated breath as I turn blue after only a few minutes.


  14. A commendable try, owl, but a couple of years of enduring this fool will change you, if you have the stamina for it. When I first started engaging on this forum a few years ago I also initially tried to plead for others to take a more amicable tone with Snowman and his ilk.

    I was young and foolish. They were right and I was wrong. He deserves–and will richly receive–the abuse and humiliation his posts merit.

    Notice how he refuses to answer direct questions? He has no honor or honesty. He has even previously admitted that this is not a factual debate for him. Have as much fun as you are able trying to reach him with reason. You’ll tire of it soon enough, I am sad to predict.


  15. Interestingly it is beginning to emerge (at Rabbett Run) that at least one name as given in the WSJ piece is spelled incorrectly (Antonio Zichichi should be Antonino) and several affiliations are also incorrect* did these ‘distinguished’ non-experts even read the screed that their name was put to?

    * affiliations as given in quote marks, actual affiliations in brackets.

    Claude Allegre, “former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris” (former director, Institute of Geophysics, Paris)

    William Kininmonth, “former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology” (Acting Science Administrator in charge of the National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology)**

    James McGrath, “professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University” (Ethyl Corporation Professor of Chemistry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)

    Henk Tennekes, “former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service” (former director of research, Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute)

    **As our Australian friends know the National Climate Centre does no research, they are responsible for data archiving and distribution.


  16. skip, mandas, I have to admit to having my tongue somewhat in my cheek. Having said that, I do try to be a genuine sceptic (British spelling) and I am prepared to revise my world view in the light of compelling evidence. The tongue being in the cheek meant that I have little expectation of Snowman, or anyone even better qualified, coming up with an alternative theory that explains all the evidence. If I am wrong, if a new theory surfaces, I will be the first to apologise to Snowman.

    Will no-one take up the challenge? Is it too hard to disprove AGW? I am not a scientist, so I should be easy to fool.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s