2011-07-27 01:22:04Forget Tornadoes. Lets Talk--Unendingly--About Heat Waves and Global Warming -- Chris Mooney -- DeSmog Blog
John Hartz
John Hartz

Another nicely written essay by Chris Mooney.

BTW, on the comment thread to this article, Albatross sliced and diced the denier drone "anonymous." Unfortunately, "anonymous" just keeps droning on like the Energizer bunny.

2011-07-27 01:35:04News Flash: Skeptical Science is no longer a credible source for climate deniers
John Hartz
John Hartz
Hank122 (not verified)

Oh come on Lionel! We all know that the skeptical science site's sole purpose is to be a very low level 'turn to' answer site for newbie warmists that are getting their butts kicked on blog answer forums like this one.
They are pure propaganda and you know it. You won't see anyone linking to that place in the discussions at intelligent blogs such as Judith Curry's etc (and yes, she's a warmist of sorts).
Most of the skeptics that post here gave up on Skeptical science a long time ago.


2011-07-27 02:45:02
Julian Brimelow

Yup, I have been over there Badger, what a fricking distster DesmogBlog  has come.  Each thread is now overrun with trolls.  I can only hope that DB are undertaking some kind of experiment.  I emailed them but they did not even reply, so God knows why I am wasting my time trying to keep the rot out of their site.

Tks for the compliment, I was actually considering asking people for advice as how to deal with this kind of BS, I mean they are like robots with juvenile mentality.  I was under the impresison that I was just banging my head against a wall and making no impact at all Badger.....

Here is another example to add to Badger's:

"Hank122s (not verified)

Just a little tip for you...
No one reads the skepticalscience site, not even serious CAGW folks. It's almost as bad as Climate Progress (now called 'Think Progress'?). Find some new links to post if you actually want skeptics to read them, ok?

And another:

"anonymous2 (not verified)

Oh NO! You didn't just cite Skeptical Science as a source, after complaining about the skeptics sources? Wow! You just cited probably the worst BS, non-science source on AGW.

Worse, you didn't even know it."

There is also a clear example of spam on the thread this morniing so something might be wrong with their site.

Badger, do you have DB's ear?

2011-07-27 03:44:25


The defensive argument against that sort of attack: "You don't have to believe the articles in SkS. Just follow the references. All the links are there."

2011-07-27 03:58:41
Julian Brimelow

Thanks Neal.  I think that I said something similar at some point-- about following the links and reading the papers cited in the posts.

2011-07-27 05:55:11Albatross
John Hartz
John Hartz

I do not have anyone's ear at DeSmog Blog. I also do not have a magic formula for dealing with drones like "anonymous-the-denier." I've crossed swords with him many time over on the comment threads to recent DeSmog Blog articles. My sense is that the Climate Denial Spin Machine has ordered a carpet bombing of all comment threads to articles about climate change. Thanks to actions taken to gut existing US environmental laws and the EPA by the Republican/Te Part cabal in the US House of Representatives, the climate denier drones smell blood and are out in force. 

2011-07-27 07:54:14
Rob Painting

Maybe Badger, or maybe is just like 'broken windows' if some loser smashes a window on a car or building, it doesn't take long for another loser to come along and do likewise. Same with graffiti. What you are witnessing is the online version. That's why 'warmist' climate blogs, that don't moderate their sites properly, piss me off. They're probably doing more harm than good. Those Desmogblog guys need a giant-sized kick up the arse. 

2011-07-27 16:45:28
John Mason


I've given up on reading DeSmogBlog comment threads for the same reason - trollfests, each and every time. They'd be better off not having any commentary if they can't be bothered to implement some moderation - it's not that difficult to tell apart people who are just confused or uninformed and your everyday denialist astroturfing troll, is it?

cheers - John

2011-07-27 18:35:09
Paul D


Although linking to skeptical science and 'marketing' it on comments as answers to questions maybe be beneficial in improving SkS visibility. As the responses indicate, it can be counter productive. As far as being persuasive is concerned it can be far more effective if you discuss using your own voice and knowledge, people eithyer give up, because you seem knowledgeable or they gain respect because they failed to catch you out and you always seem to have an answer.

I think using skeptical science as support is very valid and can help, but despite the advantages of refering people back to SkS, when it comes to discussions with deniers is conecerned, credibility is reduced by just pointing people to another site because you don't have a response.


Some possible useful tips?

1. Discussing with a commited denier.

Use SkS and many other sources as a resource to back up your discussion without refering directly to them unless you link to peer reviewed papers or info that has substantial backing of academic/professional knowledge. Most of these discussions are often posturing (and often male posturing), quite basic instincts, if you want to win or wear down the opposition you have to appear better than the other person. If you just refer back to someone elses work, it doesn't cut the mustard with ordinary joe. The reality is they just want to knock you out for the count.


2. Discussing with someone that is willing to listen

If someone wants more information or you have managed to convince to re-think their opinion, then point them to SkS.

2011-07-27 19:32:21


Yes, SkS should be used as the SUPPORT for a discussion/comment: It can't replace the content of the comment itself.

2011-07-28 01:26:13On the other hand...
John Hartz
John Hartz

quoting from an authorative source (including SkS) is better than pretending to be an expert on a particlar subject as do most climate denier drones.

As they say, "Variety is the spice of life."  

2011-07-28 21:48:46


Hi Badgersouth

I was on Desmog Blog early this week and placed a comment through their contact us link. Seems that they are quite aware of the issues regarding the comments and trolls that lurk on their site. Here is the response I got from Brendan:

'Thanks for your note Paul.  It's an issue that we're grappling with.  We don't have the staff capacity to moderate in real time, although we do try to moderate daily. When we closed comments for about a year, there was no discussion, which wasn't good either. So we're reviewing options, and hope to have a solution to the troll problem in the coming weeks.  Thanks for your patience.'




2011-07-28 21:58:50



SkS is not an authoritative source: Only a minority of participants can claim to be professionally involved with climate science (and I'm not one of them).

The strength of SkS is the transparency with respect to sourcing the information presented to respected peer-reviewed scientific journals.

An appropriate use of SkS:

- Respond to the post directly;

- Set the context for a reference to a fuller account;

- Reference the SkS article that is directly relevant.

Simply saying, "The answer to your un-informed opinion is here" is not going to cut it.

2011-07-29 02:20:46
Julian Brimelow


I agree, but we are dealing with trolls and drones here....just read the thread in question, it  depresses me that humans can behave this way.  This is an exceptional situation.  I really do not feel like wasting the time drafting thew quality of posts that I submit here at SkS, only to have it answered with some juvenile retort that the "HokeySchtik is a fraud and Al Gore is fat LOL".  Their system has been compromised and invaded by the equivalent of computer viruses, so perhaps debating this is all a waste of time...I don't know.



Thanks for that.  Good to hear that they recognise the problem and will deal with it relatively soon. Perhaps I will not waste my time there till this investation is over.

2011-07-29 03:32:03Nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz

In the immortal words of Frank Sinatra, "I'll do it my way."

I also take issue with your statement that "SkS is not an authoritative source."

2011-07-29 05:52:57



SkS is a form of scientific journalism. Only a very few of our participants are qualified to assert a fact in climate science on the basis of their own proven expertise and experience. Most of us are interpreting what full-time professional climate scientists are saying.

In other words:

- If Jim Hansen says something about climate science, that comes under the category of being authoritative.

- If I say something about climate science, it doesn't come close.

- If I say that Jim Hansen said something about climate science, that is scientific journalism. If I give the link, then there is transparency.

- If I say something and PROVE it to you by reasoning, there is no need to discuss authority: It's an evident truth.

2011-07-29 06:05:09nealjking
Peter Miesler

what a beautiful concise description. . .   njk, i'm gonna have to steal that one  ;-)

2011-07-29 13:14:15nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz

Thanks for setting me straight.

I'll still do it my way.