This is what Denierism looks like …
One of the perpetual challenges for a climate blog is what to do about the Denier Troll spam. It is relentless, voluminous and distracting.
Simply deleting it (the obvious solution) leads to a barrage of accusations of censorship which, however baseless, cannot be refuted since the comment is now gone.
Ignoring them can create the impression that there is no rational answer to whatever irrational points they made, which is most definitely not the case.
“Feeding the Troll” ie responding (whether as if the author were making relevant, rational points, or otherwise) merely encourages them, although it can be a useful exercise in laying bare just how bare their case is. Regardless, it is immensely time consuming and mostly pointless.
Purpose of this page:
For the general Public:
1) You may judge whether you think my moving a comment to here was fair or not, and whether the commenter had a legitimate point. You can also assess the criteria I use and whether those are reasonable for judging comments to be spam;
2) Here you get to sample actual Denierism. This page is not a set up and the comments are actual comments that have been posted to this site … they are NOT fictional creations to make Deniers look like morons. This really is a fair representation of the intellectual quality of the Denialosphere.
For Denier Trolls:
See, you have not been censored or silenced, merely identified and correctly categorized.
For me and legitimate site users:
i) It gives me somewhere to put the dreck so that it does not clutter rational conversation and distract from the substance of the posts. I guess it’s analogous to the ‘quarantine’ folder where your virus protection software sticks infected files;
Anyone can assess whether I have been unfair in judging a particular comment of point to be spam;
Anyone can argue that my criteria are unreasonable & make a case to the contrary.
eg if someone wants to make the case that arguments that are no more than collections of logical errors should be part of legitimate intellectual discussion, go for it!
What is “Denier Troll Spam?”
Denier Troll spam is definitely NOT defined based on the conclusion or case it attempts to argue for, but rather by having one or more of the following qualities:
- No rational reference to actual facts, particularly accepted science;
- A level of “scholarship” that would be considered embarrassingly bad for middle school science homework;
- Mindless reposting of Denier talking points, all known to be drivel;
- No evidence of actually having read the article it purports to dispute, or even understanding what the topic was;
- Unsubstantiated claims that are easily shown to be idiotic nonsense, eg:
- “The IPCC forgot that climate changed in the past.”
- Right, that’s why they devoted Chpt 6 of the report to the topic;
- “You forget that CO2 is plant food.”
- Right, millions of scientists “forgot” Grade 4 science;
- “Al Gore’s global warming theories … ”
- Right, Gore was alive 150 years ago when global warming was first scientifically investigated.
- “The IPCC forgot that climate changed in the past.”
- No evidence of a logical argument;
- Reliance of logical errors to make the point;
- No point at all, just random rambling;
- Basing the argument on delusional conspiracy theories and other paranoid fantasies;
- No content other than name calling, juvenile boasting and generally sounding like an 8 yr old playground bully;
- Using rhetorical scams like JaQing Off and the Gish Gallop;
- Demanding that other people provide the evidence or references that a 12 yr old could find on the internet in 20 secs (Burden of Proof fallacy)(and naturally not looking at the evidence when people do provide it);
- Having committed one or more of the above and then whining that no one gives you a real answer to your point/question/abuse (whether they did or not).
Some excellent guides to what makes for Denier Troll spam are (hat tip to Bluerock):
How to keep your comment off this page:
Speak rationally and to the point, cite facts and provide evidence.
- Make a logical argument
- Acknowledge and deal with the facts;
- Check whether your argument has already been shown to be false.
Pretty simple really, and quite telling that apparently it is necessary to spell it out.
Now that your comment is on this page:
1) Unfortunately WordPress does not allow me to simply transfer comments from one page/post to another and as such I have to cut and paste. As the authors didn’t feel their thoughts worthy enough to bother investing some actual thought into, I will not bother separately copy/pasting author etc.
If you really want to take credit for some part of this collected silliness just reply to the comment in question.
Actually I consider this anonymity a kindness since it means that the Deniers are spared the embarrassment of family, friends, employers etc ever seeing their comments.
2) Don’t expect any response to anything on the page other than noting that the comment meets the criteria for inclusion here.
If you feel your thoughts are so worthless that they don’t deserve the 5 min required to frame them as a logical point then there is no reason to expect anyone else to invest any time into them.
HINT: If you want a different rational response try making a rational point.
NB That is not to say that some comments won’t get responses, particularly those that are more effective at masquerading as an actual point, just that it is not a given.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Some collected spam from the past and present:
Update from me: Heh, I knew you were a serious propagandist when I started. I just poked you to see the reaction. It was pitiful.
Oh, well, one last shot; something that you and Anne both miss. If this study by Meehl and van Loon, and others actually pans out and is describing a real, not just a modeled, process, then it leads to the explication of the sort of magnification of the sun’s effect which has been the Holy Grail for all the Sun Worshippers. It might explain how the sun, with minimal change in total energy from maximum to minimum, can effect much larger changes in climate on earth. So think this one through a little more, before you let your faith decide it for you. Me, I’m pretty skeptical of this one because what they are modeling is highly complex, even if it is real. They are blind men touching the elephant.
Anne’s off on the meaning of the solar cycles, too. Sure, #24 seems to be on the rise, at least by 10.7 strength if not sunspots. But it’s going to be a weak one, on a century scale, and we may well learn a lot from it. Google Livingston and Penn for the sunspots becoming like the smile on a Cheshire Cat by 2015-2017. Now, just what effect will that have on climate? Well, adieu, kind friend, and stubborn host. You should call this blog the ‘Open Ear’.
Eh, you forget that they explain the temperature record without much recourse to the CO2 effect. But I sense you aren’t interested in the truth, pal. Sorry ’bout dat.
Yeah, you are funny; a scientist and a self-acknowledged authority on rhetoric, and you don’t even want to talk. I’m trying for a simple conversation, which I realize may be above your paygrade. This is your blog, you know its architecture, you moderate it, and you move my post of it so moves you. Me, I’ll talk, but I’m already tired of your games. I see little evidence of science here, or skepticism. You, sir, are boring me.
The oversimplified concept of CO2 as an important greenhouse gas pales in comparison to the grand overarching question of just what determines climate. The earth is a gigantic heat engine functioning as huge analog computer in ordering its climate and we don’t know how it all works. Least of all, apparently, you.
We’ll take just your last one, the supposedly “Open Mind” who deletes and bans even worse than you do. He says he believes that deniers denigrate climate models because they don’t like their output. Well, no, I denigrate the models because they’ve utter failed, at the 95% confidence level, see lucia’s rank exploits, at their projection of 2 degrees C warming in a century and failed in only 8 short years. They could hardly have been more wrong. I actually like their output, because it is a huge nail in the coffin of the climate fraud.
Also, do you have any idea what validating and verifying formally mean in the computer model world? Hindcasting ain’t even in it, Bro.
(Response) 1) So obviously you have no background in the sciences. Thank you for sharing that. IF this comment is moved I will share why your “analysis” is so misguided as to be breathtaking. Regardlesss, this copy is being deleted.
2) An easier and more to the point way of saying “I don’t understand any of it” is to just state “I don’t understand any of it.” We will take your word on it, no need to prove it at such length as you have done here
btw you are now flagged as a spammer, anymore posts in the wrong thread will be deleted without ever appearing on the blog
UPDATE You now realize I was serious (3 comments in spam folder deleted) … the appropriate thread is linked, post there and move these … everything else gets deleted
Blind faith, me boys. My God, the kind of faith you place in unvalidated and unverified global climate models, with mistaken assumptions about the feedback of water vapor, and fatally inadequate parameterizations of clouds and convection.
(Response) How about you get a clue?
This Year’s Model
The Climate Models Have it Right
Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy of Climate Models
Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations
Myth: Models are unreliable
The 16 Climate Models
One dimensional climate models
Not Computer Models
rather than wasting peoples time with unsubstantiated claims well known to be unscientific drivel?
Pew poll says 57 percent of Americans think there is credible evidence of global warming, which is a 20 loss in points over three years. Gallup shows that only 1 percent of Americans rank the environment as their biggest worry. The Copenhagen treaty is a bust.
This trend despite (perhaps because of the) constant barrage exagerated disaster forcasts must tell you people are seeing thru the hype.
The are important issues confronting people, global warming is not one of them. Promoting a fast to draw attention to your pet folly is silly and just reenforces the ridiculous nature of you argument.
Then whats this “consensus” constantly being shoved in our face…. BS?
Well actually it is and I agree, so when and if science can demonstrate we are negitively influencing climate lets by all means address it. To date they have failed to accomplish that.
A lot of credit is given to the Evil empire’s PR campaign but they have been outspent 100 to 1? by AWG proponents without convincing people they are in danger.
I can claim a lot of things are happening and can assure you its mostly bullsh#t. It is not the role of detractors to prove global warming does not exhist. Its AWG burden to prove its happening.
Mostly I think you are up against the fact it was a really really nice day…a little cold but a really nice Fall day.
As I said, predictable.
Given your seeming difficulty in understanding the use of quotation marks: ‘business as usual’ , ‘prove’, ‘settled’ and ‘catastrophe’ it is hardly surprising that you appear to believe AGW appears well past the point of inductive reasoning. 
And given the breadth and depth of published literature on the subject, one might anticipate a certain effortlessness in highlighting five key articles which you believe are seminal in rejecting the null hypothesis of AGW and taking the deductive direction toward an incontestable scientific law. 
Instead you resort to ad hominem attacks. 
This in itself rather appears to highlight a shortfall in your assertion that (sic) ‘politics & economics have no bearing one the truth of the science’. One is compelled to reject your utopian world view, as in fact most reasoning people might, whilst nevertheless accepting the ideal. 
However, explicitly denying an inextricable linkage of economics, politics and science suggests a certain naivete at best, or more likely, disingenuousness. 
 Nice try at avoiding the actual point, but it didn’t work.
 Nice try at attempting to obfuscate the actual point and not acknowledging the points I made, but it didn’t work.
 Pointing out and documenting that you have no idea of what you are talking about and no grasp of even basic science is not an ad hominem attack, it is simple taxonomy.
 More vacuous verbiage; check your thesaurus for “sesquipedality” while you’re at it. You attempted to conflate economics and politics with science, apparently failing to grasp the difference between things that influence one another vs things that are synonymous.
 Do you even understand the concept of making a rational argument using evidence based on facts which one cites?
Thank you for your baseless opinions and unsubstantiated assertions. Now please go spam someone else because back here in the real world we have to deal with actual reality, not fantasies that we imagine are somehow material because they are stated emphatically.
Let the observed reality be our judge.
For the record, here is the comparison of IPCC projections and my predictions for global mean temperature.
Year=>Temp (deg C)
Year=>Temp (deg C)
Let the observed reality be our judge.
Ben & Ian
“There is an obvious upward trend in these data.”
But that is only about 0.06 deg C per decade, not the 0.2 deg C per decade warming of the IPCC, which is an exaggeration by 3.33 (0.2/0.06) times!
Here is the IPCC’s projection statment:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2 deg C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1 deg C per decade would be expected.”
Such a lovely open forum, just as he claims
Publish anything so long as he agrees.
I like it! Should run for president:)
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish