The problem with proving I'm wrong is that lots of folks don't understand how to disagree effectively. So here's the Quick Guide To Proving Willis Is Wrong.
Below is Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. It shows the various ways to disagree in increasing order of effectiveness.
Sadly, far too many folks make their living on X down at the bottom of the pyramid, name-calling. Whether the insult is "ass hat" or "racist" or "Zionist" or "terf", that goes nowhere.
In my bio it says
"Immediate block if you open the bidding by insulting me."
Next up the pyramid is the "ad hominem" argument, like "Willis, you can't be right, you don't have credentials" or "you post on a 'climate denier' website". Nonsense. The issue is, are my claims true or not. That doesn't depend on my education, credentials, or where I publish.
Next up the pyramid is responding to tone. It's where someone ignores the actual claims and issues and instead responds to how it's presented. That's something like "Willis, you shouldn't be so harsh in your arguments." And?
Then we have contradiction. Here, the disagreement finally reaches the goal, the actual issues and claims themselves.
However, there's nothing but contradiction—no evidence, no math, no logic. Just "Nope, Willis, you're wrong". Again, that goes nowhere. Meaningless.
Then we have counterargument. We're getting to the good stuff. This first contradicts what I said and then provides observations, evidence, logic, and/or math to support your argument.
Moving upwards, we have refutation. That's where you first quote my exact words and follow with "Willis, that interpretation of the facts is wrong, and here are the detailed reasons why."
You have actively refuted exactly what I said. And at this point, you've shown I'm wrong.
Finally, many arguments rest on a central point. Show that point is wrong and the edifice crumbles. That looks something like "Willis, your central claim is where you say, and I quote, "Germaniums grow better under moonlight." That's wrong, and here's why."
The top two levels are the only way to show that I'm wrong, and I invite you to do so—it's the quickest path to me learning new things.
Finally, please, don't bother with the bottom levels of the pyramid, name-calling, ad hominems, and the like. I'll just point and laugh.
TL;DR version:
TO SHOW THAT WILLIS IS WRONG:
• Quote exactly what I said that you think is wrong, then
• Show with supporting arguments exactly why it's wrong
Quoting is crucial. I can defend my words. I can't defend your rephrasing of them.
Onwards, let's go adventuring!
w.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
First, here's a post I wrote about a time when it sure looks like the good Doctor borrowed my ideas and passed them off as his own. Maybe he blocked me for exposing that bit of his chicanery. wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/30/dr-…
Or perhaps it's because I shone a light on his nefarious involvement in the Climategate emails scandal … wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the…
Not only that, but it should have been no surprise to anyone—these simple facts have been known and predicted by professional foresters for decades. As they say, "It's not rocket surgery" …
Here's another example, a group of scientists saying what folks like me who actually live in the forest have known since forever—unless you actively reduce the fuel load in forests, wildfires will get worse, duh.
In 2009, Dr. Peter Wadhams said we'd have an ice-free summer in 20 years, with "much of that decrease will be happening within ten years."
Here's the record of Wadhams' predicted "decrease" in Arctic summer ice since 2009 …
Then Prof. Warwick Vincent, Canada Research Chair in Aquatic Ecosystem Studies and leader of the Aquatic Ecosystem Studies laboratory at Université Laval, said arctic summer ice would be gone by 2013. His prediction was quickly echoed by climate buffoon Al Gore.
In the UK, the Labour Party has said it will block any further use of North Sea oil and gas. So let's run the numbers and see what difference that will make to the temperature. independent.co.uk/news/uk/rishi-…
Proven UK North Sea oil and gas reserves are about 15 billion barrels of oil equivalent.
Typical CO2 per 42-gallon barrel of oil is about 425 kg.
Dr. Paul, are you aware of the concept of "capacity factor"? Your graphs are of capacity, but out here in the real world, solar farms only produce 14% of their nameplate capacity. Divide all your numbers by 7 and tell us how impressive they really are.
Next, here's the reality of solar plus wind. Yes, as you claim, it's growing fast … but two times a trivially small number is still a trivially small number. We've spent $5 TRILLION on this nonsense since 2000AD, and here's what we got. Can't even keep up with increased demand.
Next, solar is growing fast because it is SUBSIDIZED by well-meaning fools using my tax $, and because it is MANDATED by governments.
Not because it's cheap. Because it's subsidized and mandated. In California, your lunacy has led to the most expensive electricity in the US.