How To Lord Comment Sections

On the 2022-10-03, Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Brenchley (viz. Christopher) wrote a piece at Tony’s showcasing a paper he allegedly wrote two years ago. Nobody ever read it. It has not been published anywhere. Co-authors are unnamed, yet Christopher vouches for their prestige. No data, no code has been forthcoming. Many claims seem recycled from earlier public interventions.

On the 2022-10-04, Roy Spencer (hereafter Roy) reacted to the post, reiterating that our picturesque pontiff has much to learn about modelling. Being friends, Roy granted Christopher a right of response, which he redeemed the very next day. With it he simply repeats everything he said at Tony’s, without addressing any point Roy raised. End of the backstory. We can stand it aside.

Our only concern here is how Christopher lorded the comment sections at Tony’s and Roy’s. His decorous display of power provides a true object lesson. Let the Master teach – dominus ipse loquitur. We simplify his method into three handy prescriptions. After that, I pity the fool who would pretend that Christopher did nothing constructive for Climateball.

§1. Preempt with Ponderous Putdowns

Mr B continues wilfully, mendaciously and malevolently to misrepresent what we have said and done. Mr B’s assertion here is nonsense. Mr B is on a losing wicket. Don’t waste your time reading Mr B’s purported “refutations”. Mr B continues to be unaware that. Mr B is like a stuck gramophone record: out of date, out of tune and out of kilter. Spiteful to the last, Mr B again shows his true colours.

Ah, the lamentable M has resurfaced from the goo. Mr M seems content to continue to advertise his bottomless ignorance. Mr M knows nothing about climatology. M is, as usual, woefully out of his depth. Mr M, like all the climate Communists, is becoming desperate as our result takes hold {1}. If Mr M were to get his kindgarten mistress to read our own writings on this subject, we have made it plain that &c. Mr M, as usual, quotes me out of context. The useless M, increasingly desperate as he sees the climate-Communist house of cards toppling, now tries to suggest &c {1}.

Mr S is wrong. The ever-partisan Mr S is, as usual, wrong. Mr S again deliberately obfuscates a simple issue. Mr S is merely spiteful. Mr S is being silly. It is Mr S who, as usual, is peddling nonsense. Mr S is showing himself to be more than usually accident-prone. Mr S continues pointlessly to push the feedback-circuit analogy beyond the point of breakdown, apparently in the vain hope of obfuscating the issue.

Mr. A, as usual, makes stuff up. C is entitled to his theories, but they have no bearing on our argument. D, as usual, writes without knowledge and without intention to attain the objective truth. “E” is perhaps no chemist, and he also has a poor understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. F prays Roy in aid. J is more than somewhat off topic. K seems to have missed the point of the head posting completely. Mr McG is in fact comparing two merchants of science with one merchant of Communism {1}. P seems not to comprehend the entire climate system. Mr R is no expert on climate, or on the mathematics of feedback. W is no doubt expert in Marxism-Leninism, but he is certainly no mathematician {1}.

§2. Pontificate with Pseudo-Profundities

First, one might say, with Gauss, non notatio, sed notio. Mr B says we extrapolate. No: we merely calculate. The Mandelbrot set is at once the simplest and the most complex of all chaotic objects. Our argument is, at root, simple: however, for those unfamiliar with control theory it is very difficult to explain.

G is, alas, ignorant of feedback formulism in control theory. Those who, like H are not familiar either with control theory or with the still older discipline of summing infinite series and obtaining closed-form solutions thereto, will find it difficult to understand any feedback-related discussion. Such feedbacks as may subsist in a dynamical system at any given moment must perforce respond to the entire reference signal then obtaining, and not merely to some arbitrarily-selected fraction thereof. Mr S has little understanding either of control theory or of the number-theoretic closed-form solution to the sum of an infinite series of powers of a variable <1. Mr S appears to be unfamiliar with the diagrammatic representation of a summative node.

It is simple to deduce, again from mainstream, midrange data, that each $1 billion spent on attempting to reach global net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 would abate between one five-millionth and one millionth of a Kelvin of future global warming, at a total cost potentially exceeding total global corporate profits over the next 30 years (and indefinitely thereafter).

That’s an argumentum ad verecundiam, which has no place in science. One may question any scientific claim, provided that there is a scientific basis for one’s questioning. But one may not question a scientific claim by saying that n% of scientists support that claim. That is the argumentum ad populum, the logical fallacy of mere headcount. No true scientist would regard consensus, however large, as a logically valid or respectable argument.

Sigh! It is very difficult to explain the scientific method to those with no training therein. Particularly where a topic – such as the climate – has been made politically contentious, the usual way to have a discussion is to accept ad argumentum everything that the opponent asserts except what one is able to disprove. Our argument has indeed become obscured, by the deliberate action of several shills and trolls who are determined to try to keep the Party Line on climate alive long after the science underlying it has collapsed.

§3. Seal Yourself in Sanctimonious Righteousness

When someone furtively anonymous is paid to talk nonsense and to divert attention from the objective truth, I shall not be polite to him. There can be no ad hominem argument when the paid climate Communist {1} in question lacks the courage to say who he is, but lurks behind &c. One understands that “B,” a paid totalitarian {1}, does not understand or enjoy the concept of free speech.

The poisonous climate Communist “W” {1}, having been repeatedly trounced on the few occasions when he has attempt, disastrously, to make scientific points, now resorts to the default position of those paid by the Kremlin to destroy the West’s energy supplies: reputational assassination. W is clearly in favor of ‘trashing the Western economies, and continuing the inexorable transfer of industries, jobs, profits, wealth and global economic and political hegemony from the democratic, Judaeo-Christian, freedom-loving West to the grim oligarchs of Communist-led China and Russia on the basis of forecasts that are proven guesswork and are not borne out by events {1}.

Actually, my article had a single line of well-justified epithets, directed at a contributor whom I did not even name. One despairs of rectifying invincible ignorance, and in Judaeo-Christian theology we are taught that it very seldom works. Jealousy is the root of all Socialism {1}. Jealousy is the root of all evil. Socialism is evil {1}. Munich Re have long been too close to Communism for comfort {1}. Which is why contrary to what is generally reported in the Marxstream media in recent decades there has been a decline in just about every indicator of severe weather worldwide {1}.

I am sorry that the debate will not continue here. But one of the participants had made himself so wilfully and nastily objectionable that Tony decided that – though these columns on climatology’s error have proven very popular – he cannot continue to host them. However, it has been very useful to have been able to discuss these ideas here, for there have been several constructive and helpful contributions.

* * *

Study these darts as religiously as Christopher disparages homosexuality. Perfect putdowns. Discursively dodge like nobody is watching. Fire up your online thesaurus. Win.


{1} Drink!


2022-02. The Power of Obscure Language. JoeB reconstructs Christopher’s argument.


About Willard
This entry was posted in ClimateBall, how-to and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to How To Lord Comment Sections

  1. russellseitz says:

    Guess whose comments Roy erased?

  2. Willard says:

    Wait. Roy moderates?

  3. russellseitz says:

    You only have to check the Mute box once.

  4. Willard says:


    It could be that Roy dislikes you personally, but considering that he’s tolerating Sky Dragon Cranks such as Graham, Pup, and Mike, chances are that you got caught into is capricious filter. Even Doug succeeds in bypassing Roy’s bans. He’s back.

    There are strings of letters that trigger it automagically, like “ab” and “dc”. This makes talk of absorption difficult. Also, for some reason if you make many comments in a row, the systems treats your comments as spam. In fact Roy’s blog shuts down from time to time. Richard had to contact him to put it back on. Even then it’s hard for the email on his website bounces back.

    That said, it is possible that Roy dislikes you personally.

  5. Dan Riley says:

    Yet “Nick Stokes” keeps trying to be a voice of sanity. Was there ever a more Sisyphean task?

  6. Willard says:

    Ah you mean “Mr. S”, Dan. In Climateball as everywhere else, one must imagine Sisyphus happy:

    Regular readers might recognize Mr. M, who is indisputably the communistest among us.

  7. russellseitz says:

    Never a word about Roy- I wanted to know id The Financial Times and the man who ordered broiled mushrooms at The Beefsteak Club were going to join Munich Re on Monkers list of Climate Communists.

    No infrared jokes please.

  8. Willard says:

    I just recalled that you left a comment and I responded to it:

    [R] I neglected to ask Mandelbrot when I had the chance some decades ago , so the ball is in your court.

    [W] Both Mandelbrot and aristocratic sets contain hyperbolic components, Russell.

    It made me add the Mandelbrot bit in the piece. So thanks for that.

  9. russellseitz says:

    I left several uneventfully, until 7 October . You’re probably right about it being a filter glitch: poor thing has to sort a 4-digit comment string . Apologies to Roy if so.

  10. angech says:

    How To Lord Comment Sections
    Great post
    Posted on October 10, 2022 by Willard
    “On the 2022-10-03, Our only concern here is how Christopher lorded the comment sections at Tony’s and Roy’s. His decorous display of power provides a true object lesson. Let the Master teach – dominus ipsa loquitur. “

    A sound principle.

    three handy prescriptions.
    §1. Pepper Preemptive Putdowns
    Oh dear.

    §2. Pontificate with Pseudo-Profundities,
    Oh no

    §3. Seal Yourself in Sanctimonious Righteousness
    Oh yes

    “I am sorry that the debate will not continue here. But one of the participants had made himself so wilfully and nastily objectionable that Tony decided that – though these columns on climatology’s error have proven very popular – he cannot continue to host them. However, it has been very useful to have been able to discuss these ideas here, for there have been several constructive and helpful contributions.”
    * * *
    Study these darts.
    Perfect putdowns.
    Discursively dodge like nobody is watching.
    Fire up your online thesaurus.

    Sound advice from one master here to his students.
    But at the end is not all this fluffery a bit hollow?

  11. Willard says:

    Yes, Doc. Lording comments might very well be the most aristocratic skill.

  12. angech says:

    He does entertain.
    His idea does not seem to be gaining much traction.
    I think he needs to reword it without the verbosity.
    I like the total energy of the earth concept but if it works Roy would have been more
    That the earth is itself a tiny permanent heat source might alter the concept of how retained warming works?

  13. Chubbs says:

    Observed sea level rise in the US is running “near or above higher-end model projections used in recent assessment reports”. Eyeballing the charts, east and gulf coast rises are running roughly 2 feet per century and accelerating vs RickA’s 8 inch number for the past century.

  14. Chubbs says:

    Oops put comment above in wrong thread. How not to Lord over comment sections.

  15. Philip Clarke says:

    Pat Frank is is another proponent of the pre-emptive putdown. Witness this example in the comments on Dr Patrick Brown’s video debunking Frank’s error propagation nonsense …

    “Before getting to your arguments, it is evident from our conversation that you have not been exposed to calibration, nor to the necessity and use of calibration experiments, nor to the propagation of calibration error through subsequent measurements and experiments.

    This is a very, very serious deficiency in your training. You have every right to be highly upset with the negligent people and programs responsible for this state.”

    (Dr Brown’s Masters thesis was ‘Reproduction of Twentieth Century Intradecadal to Multidecadal Surface Temperature Variability in Radiatively Forced Coupled Climate Models’, his PhD was ‘The magnitude and mechanisms of unforced variability in global surface temperature’, he worked as a postdoc at JPL and NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and was a Research Fellow at Stanford).

  16. russellseitz says:

    Chubbs ought to send Observation-based trajectory of future sea level for the coastal United States tracks near high-end model projections along to Tucker Carlson.

  17. Willard says:


    You’re right. Peppering Preemptive Putdowns is a common Climateball technique. Since I wanted to emphasize the aristocratic means by which lords comment sections with that technique, I have revised my section. It is now called Preempt with Ponderous Putdowns.

    Pat is more of a pounder himself, e.g.:

    > I was polite throughout that thread. Let’s see you show where I “went meta.”

    Sure, PatF. Here’s the last sentence of the comment before your last:

    Rather analogous to your approach here, Marco, spouting off without knowing what you’re talking about.

    Both meta and the opposite of polite.

    And here’s your very first sentence:

    The valid questions on this web-site have probably been answered in my replies on Patrick Brown’s site.

    Meta. It doesn’t strike me as very polite too.

    I’m not sure how you connect not being meta with being polite, but here you go.

    Challenge met.

    It was easy to meet – you made four comments so far on this thread, PatF, and most of them are both meta and not very polite.

    From now on, please stick to your pet topic.

    Guest post: Do ‘propagation of error calculations’ invalidate climate model projections?

  18. russellseitz says:

    Willard , I fear “dominus ipsa loquitur” (sic) invites Brenchley to quote you as having said :

    ‘Lord, she speak for itself’

    Which, as a noted Latin orator reportedly said , is Greek to me.

  19. Willard says:

    I think the feminine form is domina:

    I lost most of my Latin, so if my declension is incorrect, I would gladly correct it.

  20. David B Benson says:

    “The owner herself is speaking” is the online translation of “dominus ipsa loquitor”.

  21. russellseitz says:

    Res ipse dixit

  22. Willard says:

    My own online translator gives me The Master himself speaks. I did check that beforehand. Now, for Domina ipsa loquitur it gives me The lady herself speaks.

    To really know Latin, I need to find how the lady could order a beer. How about Domina iubet IPAm?

  23. Willard says:

    I think I found the glitch. A thing, in latin, is feminine. Hence the “ipsa” after “res.” When looking at the translation, I was unknowingly using Dominus ipse loquitur. I will edit accordingly.

    I found enough resources using this site:


  24. russellseitz says:

    IPA magnopere !

  25. angech says:

    I am expecting a rather large fall in sea level height over the next 6 months if not already due to the large amount of water that has currently fallen on inland Australia and Pakistan.
    I think this is a legitimate expectation.
    Has there been any recent fall consistent with the rainfall already experienced?

  26. angech,
    My understanding is that that can influence sea level rise, but is unlikely to produce a “large fall” and doesn’t influence the long-term trend, because it will mostly eventually end up back in the ocean.

  27. russellseitz says:

    Right Willard- my mistake in eliding ‘He said it himself”, with the legal maxim ‘it speaks for itself.’

    The proof is the gender ending of Lucretius’ best-selling classical science textbook, De rerum natura

  28. Ooooh! I feel like Ed McMahan. How large is this sea level fall that you are expecting, Angech? Everybody needs a sidekick to ask the right question when occasion demands such.

  29. angech says:

    “Rain – in effect, evaporated ocean – fell in such colossal quantities during the Australian floods in 2010 and 2011 that the world’s sea levels actually dropped by as much as 7mm.”
    Guardian article quote.
    A drop of 10 mm considering the amount of rain here.
    Nearly got our house last week!
    As ATTP says it will be a temporary phenomenon again but interesting to confirm f it is the case.

  30. The 7mm drop in 2010 and 2011 were associated with rainfall tjat was captured in Lake Eyre and did not flow back to the oceans as normally happens with rainfall.

    “Australia is really unique,” said Fasullo. In the continent’s eastern interior, most of the rain that falls runs inland, into a salt lake called Lake Eyre — never reaching the sea.

    Lake Eyre is the lowest point in Australia. It’s usually a dry, salty flat. But when it rains heavily, the basin fills, and the lake teems with new life, as long-dormant seeds spring to life and birds flock to the lake.

    I read that Queensland floodwaters will be flowing to Lake Eyre, aka Kati Thanda. It would be good for shorelines around the planet if a lot of rainfall could end up in large inland lakes like Kati Thanda or the Great Salt Lake because filling large inland lakes can recharge the lakes and cause sea level to drop. 10 mm or about 0.4 inches is not a large drop, but it is measurable and significant.

    Kati Thanda area sounds amazing when the water returns:

    Thanks for pointing me to look at Kati Thanda.

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 )

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.