My post on the 10:10 No Pressure video was picked in an article in the Guardian, which has also introduced additional numbers of self proclaimed climate sceptics to WtD.
I have no issue with that, as I welcome anyone to this blog with an interest in the debate. A small bump in traffic is gratifying to any blogger, but I’m not in this for the fame, money and adulation of groupies.
However, as owner of the blog there have been some comments I found personally offensive.
There are close to 1100 comments form readers on this blog. To memory, I have either deleted or not allowed less than 12 comments.
Some may question why I’d allow so many to come through. Others may accuse me of “censoring” the debate by disallowing even this tiny number of comments. However, the comments I’ve deleted would not be published by any newspaper or media outlet due to their tone or language.
The debate can be robust, but it has to be respectful.
The reason I allow most comments to come through stems from my frustration with blogs such as Watts up with that? You see, they heavily moderate their comments to protect their reputation and shelter their readers from contradictory information.
Right at the start of creating this blog I decided I would never do that.
I’d be honest, open and transparent. I’d admit mistakes.
I wanted to learn from my readers as much as I wanted to inform.
What about your “freedom of speech”?
I’d remind readers that this is a private blog.
I am not associated with any political party, NGO or organisation. It does not reflect the views of my employer (past and present) and is my personal contribution to the debate on climate change. It is created, maintained and published in my own time. The content is my intellectual property.
Thus, I can do pretty much as I please with the blog.
However I believe in freedom of speech and the right for anyone to express their opinion.
So please: comment, debate and give voice to your opinion.
But remember to be respectful your fellow human beings.
The irony: WUWT and sceptic blogs heavily censor their comments
One thing I’d alert climate sceptics too: rarely do any of my comments on sites such as Jo Nova’s and WUWT ever get published.
I’ve given up trying as they actively manage their comments section in order to shape the conversation. Myself and plenty of others have experienced this. A few comments made by “warmists” get through in order to demonstrate they are open minded, but really that’s a fiction.
Indeed, this is what the moderator over at WUWT had to say about my polite and reasonable comments:
Not at all welcome
Oh the irony!
The charge is that we “warmists” are control freaks, fascists and would-be dictators. That “we” want to stifle the debate.
The owners of blogs such as WUWT carefully maintain their comments, and shelter their “fans” from information that would contradict their messages.
Again, and again they disallow comments they don’t like. Especially the ones in which their embarrassment would demean them in the eyes of “the fans”.
Again I ask: why do you trust people who not only actively deceive the general public, but their core constituents?
Ordinary sceptics are being “had”.
You are being deliberately lied too.
It’s a hard thing to hear, but the truth is these people our in the business of PR and spin. Even a cursory glance at their associations demonstrate they are deep in the pockets of fossil fuel industries.
My challenge to sceptics: broaden your reading and research.
You might be shocked at the deliberate campaign of falsehood that is being foisted on you.
Watching the Deniers 
You couldn’t be more correct – I’ve also had my comments deleted from Nova and Watts. Laframbiose doesn’t even offer comments. At least Bolt’s blog has allowed my criticisms.
But I have to admit, most of the science blogs that I’ve come across allow a fair amount of free speech and prefer to give a few warnings before actively censoring an individual (I’ve only deleted maybe a few nonsense comments myself).
It’s pretty hypocritical that many “sceptics” demand the right to voice their scepticism yet actively censor rebuttals to their opinion. However you’re right – they’re not after clarity, but rather to push an agenda that doesn’t stand up to reasonable examination. It’s reinforcement of bias and nothing more.
Very interesting and, as well, true, more often than not. My concern is not so much the blogs as it is the media, where without an entry point, it is very difficult to reach a certain audience.
Then, again, the deniers are not known for reaching out. If they are not willing to hear or listen, their minds are dead anyway.
I’m not so sure Fred.
It may be true of many but, as WTD says, filtering, focusing and frustrating the comments so that only certain kinds of information or analysis gets through is deceptive, or at least restrictive, conduct.
For people of a doubting or suspicious bent, some sites are likely to attract them. The posts may be of a consistent kind, but openness to references, information, links would allow those who start out seriously curious to develop their understanding. Their learning is stunted and their knowledge is narrowed rather than broadened.
I remember the family story about my great-grandmother getting herself kicked out of the fairly strict religious group she belonged to. Her offence? She read something from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It wasn’t *what* she read or said, it was that she’d dared to read something forbidden – something from outside her group. Sound familiar?
In my early twenties, when I was learning all I could about as many religions as I could, I went to the Scientology centre in the city to try to get an idea about their “religion”.
I was shown an old video of Hubbard which was just baffling after which one of the senior members came over to answer any of our questions. It quickly became clear that he was doing anything but answering questions.
We ended up getting a little heated (he was trying to tell me that because I could imagine something it must exist or something like that and I was maintaining that imagination is fantasy). Anyway, I was barred from entering again because I asked too many questions.
Now when they have an open day at the museum, it’s the complete opposite. If you have a question, they’re only too happy to answer it. In some cases it’s hard to avoid it becoming an hour long lecture. I think it’s this wonder and inquisitive nature that makes science so appealing for me.
I agree with the policy of not censoring. Even when deniers bombard the blog with repetitive rubbish I think that it helps to discredit them by allowing, answering where useful and allowing others to answer.
However, there is a lot of testosterone flowing in comments sections. No-one wants to let the other have the last word and discussions often deteriorate. That of course destroys things for others and I think I have twice closed off comments to stop such waste.
I will move a commenter to spam if they are just silly and promoting a book or something. it’s rare but if someone behaves like a spammer I think they should be classified as such. Usually I let them know, along with the comment that the spamming software learns to classify people this way.
Finally, another problem I have had is people using false email or blog addresses. Found one recently after the person he was impersonating raised the issue. When exposed the counterfeiter reverted to porno links.
I have often wondered about introducing some way of ensuring that commenters authenticate themselves, even when with a username. Really can’t stand all the Anon commenters on some blogs.
I agree Ken – I really dislike the Anon characters. I think the few I’ve deleted from my own blog were nameless like that. If you wish to debate on blogs such as these, you should have a name so that there is some stance, some foundation that is built up over time. When they’re nameless they can just say random comments at will and really mess up otherwise stimulation conversations.
From experience virtually all alarmist blogs censor if anybody asks one of the difficult qjuestions like – can you provide any actual evidence for catastrophic warming. If realclimate & the guardian constantly feel the need to censor one can hardly blame you for doing the same.
“You too!” is not an answer. I can’t speak for other blogs, however I’m pretty clear on the policy for this one.
I suspect you choose to ignore the scientific evidence behind climate change to use the label “alarmist” or is that in relation to your odd question – about catastrophic warming.
Which blogs have you been to? This is hardly a “difficult question”, more an open question.
What do you mean? Historically, there is evidence that dramatic climate change has resulted in major extinction events – so there is evidence of catastrophic climate change.
If you’re asking for evidence of current catastrophic warming, that’s a rather silly question – retrospect will only answer that question. It’s like asking for evidence that the on coming car has hurt you before you’re will actually move out of it’s way.
With the historical evidence of increased extinctions rates in relation to previous climate change events and multiple lines of evidence to suggest that ecosystems are already being knocked out of current equilibriums due to the small shift that has already occurred over the previous century we have a compelling argument as to why we should not push the boat too far by allowing anthropogenic climate change to go unmitigated.
For further reading, look up;
Rosenzweig, et al (2008) Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature. 453(15):353-357. doi:10.1038/nature06937
Amano, et al (2010) A 250-year index of first flowering dates and its response to temperature change. Proc. R. Soc. B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0291
For a lighter read, the BBC recently had an article that discusses how polar bears are resorting to the unusual habit of stealing geese eggs in the absence of summer ice, they also reported on an increasing crisis of water security (I’ve not finished reading the actually paper behind this yet) and the risk to long migratory birds as climate continues to change (there are a number of papers that are similar that I may discuss here, but I don’t have them on hand).
And if you’re feeling super lazy, Johan Rockstrom has an excellent presentation of his study.
Please don’t try to pass that question off as unanswerable!
Really,Neal,those sort of questions are seen by science blogs as entirely rhetorical. Maybe they were taken at face value years ago at the start of the science blogging age. There is no ‘evidence for catastrophic warming’ at this moment in time:the evidence is scattered through past,present and projected future times. And who is to decide when and at what spatial scale the definitional threshold of ‘catastrophic’ is crossed?
Time and again,an exhaustive answer has been laid out,and these evolved into basically directing the asker to the primary literature paper by paper and /or through nodes like the IPCC reports,online resources or textbooks…because the evidence is diverse and consists of observation,basic and not so basic physics and chemistry,historical/palaeo interpretations and methodical projection.
Time and again,the question is asked..but it gets less reasonable to expect your homework to be done for you,especially as credible sources of accessible info have proliferated,and online answers build up in the archives. This is why the question often gets scrubbed.
Wow, I have the exact same problem with climate alarmist websites. My comments are seldom posted, unless the comment is posted immediately without being moderated. If the post is held for moderation, it almost never sees the light of day (perhaps 10% make it). However, it’s not as bad today as it was during the peak of climate alarmism from late 2008- 2009. At that time, if my comments were posted directly, they remained there for a few hours at best before being deleted; if the comment was moderated, it was NEVER posted. So we have seen a terrific improvement in the censorship conducted by climate alarmist blogs, and it is this improvement which opened the door for the total collapse of the climate alarmism movement. Cheers.
If the quality of your comments on WTD are any indication of your general addition to other comment threads, I guess it’s not hard to see why many don’t make it up.
Good comeback tim, that’ll teach him. Oh wait, that was me.
Hey, if you’d like to be taken seriously, your comments should be more part of the discussion rather than an attempt to grab attention – as much has been said about you previously, so why should I go to greater levels of explanation?
ouch.
My posts really see light on denier sites – just don’t get out of moderation.
I do like SkepticalScience’s policy – he removes those not civil and not on topic (oh deniers love to Gish Gallop and hop every where – (eg ABC’s Unleashed, pick any article by economist/scientist or denier and it’ll be flooded with posts from an army of deniers that obviously have not read the article and are recycling the latest from their denier echo chamber)). This is good, for I’m sick of reading vile or off topic cut and pasted repeated previously debunked denier rot. Civil and on-topic deneir/skeptic posts are good to read, there’s not a lot of them.
Deltoid is more accommodating – it allows people to see what deniers are, mostly illiterate, demanding, stupid and/or nasty armed mostly with a clipboard pull of text they paste on various spots with complete abandon as to the topic. I am glad though that Deltoid’s blog works with a FireFox addon GreaseMonkey with script ‘killfile’ that enables me to kill particular posters by name – and Deltoid is proactive on deleting sock-puppets that occurs often with these creeps. This makes the comment section on Deltoid readable – I would otherwise find it too exhausting to wade through the same repeated denier crud.
On JoNova’s, I’ve tried to post twice (first time I thought it may have been me) asking very nicely if I couldn’t get a skeptic to prove the operation of a CO2 is also a fraud. Never escapes moderation 🙂 http://galahs.blogspot.com/2010/04/carbon-dioxide-laser.html?showComment=1281337364970#c9039373314977297161
Jo Nova’s writing never escapes moderation,either… all copy approval comes from the Heartland Institute. What a patsy.
The hypocrisy of Anthony Watts’ censorship, on top of his general scientific dishonesty, was what triggered my own modest foray into climate change blogging.
My stance is to moderate all comments, and to append in-line responses to comments that simply repeat disproved denialist claims. I know that this has a restrictive effect on discussion, but I don’t want to provide yet another place for cranks to inflate their egos at the expense of intelligent conversation.
Thanks Ben – I’m a fan of your blog, it’s in my roll and I’ll often link to it in posts. If people have not visited, please do so! It’s a great blog, well written and a necessary antidote to the disinformation on WUWT.
I’ve also seen how you moderate your comments. It’s a very good model and I wouldn’t argue against it. I find some of the comments made by deniers useful intelligence, as they’ll alert to new “memes” floating in the denial-o-sphere and any new blogs/websites I need to monitor.
That’s right, Anthony Watts censorship is total hypocrisy but your style of censorship is ok. Good one.
Just in case you’re not a ranting denier and genuinely cannot comprehend due to english being a 2nd language or just a poor education then:
Watt’s (and most denier sites) censorship=delete or not even appear (not escape moderation)
Ben’s: denier posts that disagree with science or is a rant gets posted but has a reply added to the post, an inline reponse – an example is http://wottsupwiththat.com/2010/10/01/lower-than-this-they-cannot-stoop/#comment-1040
If you can’t now see the difference then my suspicions regarding intellect of deniers will be reinforced. And I don’t expect you to reply and apologise for accusation due to a misunderstanding – if you did, it would undermine my opinion regarding the low-lifeness of deniers.
Too bad he doesn’t seem to understand that there are some who take extreme exception to being lablelled “deniers” simply because they do not share his views. Not to mention that had he read the Policy page on WUWT, he could have taken a few simple (and respectful) steps to avert the severe decree.
When I saw wtd’s post on Armstrong’s 10:10 atrocity, I hoped there might be a possibility of finding common ground. I asked a simple question and was rewarded with a diversionary rant.
Clearly I was mistaken … how does one find common ground with a someone who firmly believes we are at the dawning of the age of “an emerging global catastrophe” (as wtd appears to) and chooses to call those who do not share his views “ALARMIST” (sic)?!
I didn’t think my response would be welcome in that thread, so I “self-censored” and placed it on my own blog, instead:
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/a-close-encounter-of-the-orwellian-kind/
P.S. to mothincarnate who wrote:
“Laframbiose doesn’t even offer comments.”
OMG … Where will I find the commandment of the blogosphere that says: “Thou shalt offer comments”?
WordPress does give blog owners a choice, i.e. to allow or not allow comments – and probably with very good reason! Are you suggesting that this choice be removed?!
hro001,
“how does one find common ground with a someone who firmly believes we are at the dawning of the age of “an emerging global catastrophe” (as wtd appears to) and chooses to call those who do not share his views “ALARMIST” (sic)?!”
Please provide credible scientific basis to object to anthropogenic climate change [ACC] and maybe you’ll find some common ground for a genuine debate. As it stands, there is a strong platform for concern and little more than nonsense that objects to it.
I’m tired of people referring all this climate discussion as simply “belief” and if you think as much, you’ve avoided the science as much as possible.
As for Laframbiose.. please; if she wants to continue to distort and misinform, she should allow others to argue with her. As it stands, Donna simply writes that it’s her free speech to argue against the scientific basis behind ACC (which it is, but this does not automatically give what she says any credibility) and inspires hate/outrage, leading to ignorance in her readership.
THAT IS APPALLING AND TOTALLY WORKS AGAINST REASON. I have every right to be disgusted by her. I assume you’re a fan or her rubbish or you too would want to object.
lol
Just checked out hro001’s site… usual alarmist websites here? And on hro001’s list we have WUWT, American Thinker and… you guessed it: Donna Laframbiose..
As you say on your blog hro001 – you clearly don’t understand the science. FYI, many of the people in Mike’s blogroll and in my own are working scientists who are publishing in relevant fields. I myself am a researcher in eddy flux measuring – which is all about energy, H2O and CO2 transfer between environments and the atmosphere (also an element to climate science).
So please, before you criticise others, making it obvious that this is not your field and not a field you know a great deal amount, think carefully about what you’re saying – all I can see is that you’re simply parroting off think tank propaganda, with you’re heroes being a weather man and a photographer.. Luckily science relies on more substance and transparency (oh, I know you’ve probably heard otherwise, but if you’ve read a great deal of scientific literature, as I have, you’ll see that they need to make their approach obvious and repeatable) unlike WUWT’s nonsense and Donna’s rally talk.
How about a sin bin? The comments are there to read on a blog, but placed somewhere so as to avoid derailing a thread. Then again, I wouldn’t have to manage it so it’s none of my business. Feel free to dump this comment, it’s your blog. Move along now…
mothincarnate:
The reply link on your “responses” are not visible (at least not to me).
But you’re seem to be a very angry little moth (kinda like non-climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri in overdrive!)
[from my text:]
“how does one find common ground with a someone who firmly believes we are at the dawning of the age of “an emerging global catastrophe” (as wtd appears to) and chooses to call those who do not share his views “ALARMIST” (sic)?!”
[your text:]
“Please provide credible scientific basis to object to anthropogenic climate change [ACC]”
[my response:]
The phrase “an emerging global catastrophe” was a direct quote from wtd’s About page.
Unless you are suggesting that “emerging global catastrophe” is now a scientific term equivalent to “anthropogenic climate change”, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
[your text:]
“I’m tired of people referring all this climate discussion as simply ‘belief'”
[my response:]
I’m very sorry to hear that. But, once again, unless you are suggesting that “emerging global catastrophe” is accepted scientific nomenclature, there’s no other word that seems appropriate.
[From your second post:]
“As you say on your blog hro001 – you clearly don’t understand the science. ”
No. That is not what I said on my blog. What I said was:
“[wtd] has a blog on which the about page indicates that he doesn’t know any more about “the science” than I do.”
Let me translate that for you: It’s not his field, and it’s not my field.
[your text]
“FYI, many of the people in Mike’s blogroll and in my own are working scientists who are publishing in relevant fields.”
Ohhhh, I am so very impressed. And does your obviously superior “understanding of the science” increase each time you add another “we must cut carbon dioxide emissions now” advocate to your blogroll?
Give me a break, eh?!
[your text:]
“So please, before you criticise others”
[my response:]
Assuming that you are referring to our respective blogrolls, I wasn’t “criticizing” anyone. In fact what I specifically wrote was:
“His blogroll links to the usual suspects (as though non-alarmist blogs do not exist). But I’m certainly not going to criticize him for that because I choose (albeit, I suspect, for a different reason) not to include any alarmist links in my blogroll.”
[your text:]
“all I can see is that you’re simply parroting off think tank propaganda”
[my response:]
Maybe you need new glasses, or perhaps some remedial reading lessons. Or perhaps you’ve been paying too much attention to the fact-free approach of the likes of Bob Ward.
But speaking of “parrotting off” … what makes you think that those who speak of “an emerging global catastrophe” are doing anything other than “parrotting off” propaganda from the great green media machine?
But maybe we should be sticking to the topic of this thread (or the only other thread on which I was commenting here). Both of which are probably exhausted, at this point.
If you have any argument to present in refutation of material posted on my blog, do feel free to post a comment in the relevant thread.
Quick to turn to insults.
Look, your arguing semantics here. ACC will have detrimental effects on many natural systems, both physical and biological. I personally prefer to avoid “catastrophic” because it’s too loaded.
“Ohhhh, I am so very impressed. And does your obviously superior “understanding of the science” increase each time you add another “we must cut carbon dioxide emissions now” advocate to your blogroll?”
[firstly, you wouldn’t believe how many people that I’ve come across openly attack others for not having scientific training and then attack on other that do, because they do..]
Pathetic.. no I’m not superior, but I have actually gone the distance and took some higher learning in the field and worked also in related areas. You obviously have done none of this and assume, without any basis that your point of view is even more important than all the evidence to date. It is to you, but not how we manage the planet. I don’t rely on advocates (hello!! WUWT, NoConsensus and the rubbish you link to), but I have working scientists on my blogroll. Believe it or not, they actually know what they’re talking about.
Wow – the rest of your comment just jumps into the deep end of silly.
Basically, you’re commenting here, in relation to Mike’s about page and discussing everything everywhere? It’s very hard to have a coherent discussion with you – my two previous comments referred to different things.
Anyway, firstly, you love the term alarmist (and this makes up the bulk of your argument). An alarmist is someone who makes unjustifiable claims to invoke fear for some other reason. Those you label as alarmists actually, at best try to explain the up-to-date scientific evidence as best they can to a wider audience. Some also try to explain where WUWT, Laframboise, Bolt, Nova, Monckton, etc, have got the facts wrong. If anything, these people who you label alarmists do nothing more than provide an evidence rich platform to explain concern. As for the “other reason” – I don’t think anyone of them cares who profits from emerging industries – we in fact see the market as one of the stimulants of change to a more sustainable set of paradigms.
Now, the people that I would label as deniers because they continually disregard the evidence spread unjustifiable claims to invoke fear which is aimed at keeping us paralysed to business as usual. You’ve hinted at this nonsense above. It’s a conspiracy designed to make all of us poor and lead us to a communistic world government. There is, of course, no evidence for this, but people like yourself are sufficiently scared and outraged that you’ll parrot it off to others.
Quite obviously, the people that I would call climate deniers are also the true alarmists.
I don’t know who Bob Ward is, but let me assure you, I have over a century and a half of investigation behind my reasoning. Great green media machine? No, but many many volumes of the highest regarded scientific literature. On the other hand, FOX, HUN, The Australian (and many others that Mike would probably know more about than myself – I’ve avoided media for most of the past decade) are excellent examples of trumpets of unjustifiable fear-mongering propaganda.
Put simply, hro001, you’re wrong from the very beginning.
“Put simply, hro001, you’re wrong from the very beginning.”
Because you said so, no doubt.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/green-fatigue-hits-campaign-to-reduce-carbon-footprint-2102585.html
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/10/10/can-we-trust-the-ipcc%E2%80%99s-evidence/
hro001,
Okay, well I guess this is the final time I’ll bother with this discussion because you clearly have some issues.
“Because you said so, no doubt.”
You’re obviously not paying attention – you’ve just decided to get angry about a subject you know little about.
No, not because I said so, but because all of the evidence that is contrary to your point of view. As I said, refer to my comment Neil Craig – I point to a few good starting points of evidenced-based reason.
You couldn’t even be bothered (or more likely are unable) to address any of the points which I raised. You must suffer from tall-poppy-syndrome or a David-and-Goliath complex, however, I’ll break it down for you.
A medical specialist, say A neurologist, studies for a better part of a decade beyond normal schooling. From there, they will either work in research or practice (quite often, both). Here, their skills are constantly improving, their understanding of the field increases both through their own research and through the work of others.
Scepticism of “break-through” work is a critical skill. Someone publishes findings that counter the established ideas and the rest test the hell out of it – as much wanting to find the flaw as they do in finding something new. The bullshit-meter is on high alert in any field of science and if a flaw is supposedly found – you can make a safe bet that if will be tested as carefully as the original conclusions.
Under all this criticism, trial, repetition and scientific debate, you develop experts that have worked hard to earn their title and respect. Of course not all are as ethical as the rest, but they are often discredited and find themselves on the sideline.
Now, opposite to a medical specialist, you have a witchdoctor. Usually, by some divine calling, this person decides that, on a hunch, they’re pretty good at healing. They might get some guidance over what root or berry to use over another, or which incantation, in as far as training goes, they’re not medical doctors.
That you refer to WUWT and Donna Laframboise, that you link the news articles, that you openly mock the effort made by others that have worked on related field to climate science for more than a century and a half and are unable to escape detection for very long before the bullshit-meter destroys their career only tells me that you refer to witchdotors over trained experts. You quite clearly do not understand scientific methodology and have some delusion of “taking down The Man”… The Man isn’t here, only a massive stockpile of reliable evidence.
The fact that you use a computer – a brilliant result of mathematics and science – to spread your alarmism soaked denial is nothing short of hypocritical.
As for your links; can we trust the IPCC? Of course we can. The few minor issues with getting the studies wrong (and they were minor) were discovered and discussed long before the denial movement jumped on the bandwagon… why were they discovered? Because no scientist wants their work to be misrepresented. If the IPCC had lied and painted the wrong picture, you can make yet another safe bet that every quoted scientist AND NASA AND NOAA would have come down on the panel with more rage than your little ideological movement can build in one of your rallies. No – the IPCC doesn’t have that power.
What you have is a conspiracy theory that has been designed to instil anger and fear and you feel for it hook, line and sinker!
So, again, no, not because I say so. Laframboise likes to talk up how important ones free speech is (which it is), however she fails to mention that without evidence, it’s nothing but hot air. It’s got nothing to do with what I say. Hro001, the evidence says so, not me.
btw, above Neil Craig asked a similar question (about global catastrophe) and I gave a number of links for an introduction into the subject on various levels.
You are to be commended for your stance in your open minded approach to moderation. Some blogs have taken the further step of allowing dissenting authors to guest post on their site.
One has to wonder if a more restrictive stance at other sites has to do with the scale of traffic. Sites with great traffic, such as WUWT and RC, might filter comments to a much greater degree as a means to protect what has evolved from just being a blog, into something that has become a “product”. I don’t really know if many people read comments anymore anymore. There is a very popular blog in the UK that almost always has over 1000 comments and who has time to read them? Personally, I’ve had to limit the time I spend reading comments to Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth (one of the few journalists I respect) and the blogs of actual scientists. It’s much less stressful for me. 🙂
mothincarnate:
Thank you for sharing your opinion (as if I didn’t know what it would be and haven’t heard variants of same umpteen times in the past and, I suspect, no doubt will in the future).
I find it ironic that you insist on repeating your fact-free assertions about both Anthony Watts and Donna Laframboise as though they had some merit.
If you had any evidence in support of your assertions, there is no doubt that you would have trumpeted it far and wide. Yet the evidence you present in support of your claims is zilch, nada, none.
I find it equally ironic that you fail to mention that Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., Dr. Ross McKitrick and Dr. Roy Spencer are also listed on my blogroll.
You are so very far off the mark (not to mention off-topic) in your evidence-free sneer ‘n smear attacks. But you don’t care, do you? The C02->AGW storyline must be preserved at all costs. Intellectual honesty be damned.
But your ardent appeals to authority are a declaration of your faith.
So do carry on being a good little footsoldier, and by all means continue to trust the IPCC reports. Notwithstanding the fact that the recent IAC review found that WG 2 – which, in case you didn’t know, is all about the projected impacts, i.e. the “source” of wtd’s much feared “emerging global catatastrophe” – is probably the weakest part of AR4:
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/ar4s-working-group-2-really-needs-to-get-a-clue/
For the record, the perceptive reader will note that the only topics on which I had commented here (and their respective outcomes) are as follows:
1. in the 10:10 thread, wtd had written:
“I think it is important to stress that the 10:10 did not actually suggest we should punish, harm or “blow up” those that disagree with us. It was an attempt at humour, but a failed one.”
In response, I pointed out that in her E-mail to all, Armstrong had written (and I asked wtd):
[begin]
“It’s a fairly simple and to-the-point premise, I’m sure you’ll agree: we celebrate everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those who aren’t.”
If, as you claim, this is not “suggesting” that those who don’t share your views should be punished, harmed or “blown up”, then what would you say Armstrong was suggesting?
[end]
Neither moth nor wtd has an answer.
2. In this thread, in response to wtd’s attempt to paint Anthony Watts as one who “censors”, I had noted:
“Too bad [wtd] doesn’t seem to understand that there are some who take extreme exception to being lablelled “deniers” simply because they do not share his views. Not to mention that had he read the Policy page on WUWT, he could have taken a few simple (and respectful) steps to avert the severe decree.
Neither wtd nor moth has an answer.
3. Moth had whined (and I had responded):
[begin]
“Laframbiose doesn’t even offer comments.”
OMG … Where will I find the commandment of the blogosphere that says: “Thou shalt offer comments”?
WordPress does give blog owners a choice, i.e. to allow or not allow comments – and probably with very good reason! Are you suggesting that this choice be removed?!
[end]
Niether moth nor wtd answered the questions.
But that’s when the little moth flew in with his diversionary sneer ‘n smear attacks.
Anyway, little moth … thanks for the memories … and here’s one for the road for you. It’s a quote from Dr. Richard Lindzen. You may not have heard of him; he’s a real climate scientist who happens to prefer the “denier” label because:
“the word [skeptic] assumes that there is some pre-existing case for something that could be believed in, and the skeptics don’t believe it. However, there is no case for a climate threat.”
P.S. You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about Laframboise’s blog posts. I readily and proudly confirm that I have highlighted some of her posts on my blog.
I doubt that there is anyone who is more conscientious in documenting (i.e. providing evidence for) claims than she is. You could learn a lot from the example she sets.
But, judging by your posts in this thread – not to mention that which I’ve read on your own blog – I very much doubt that you will.
hro001,
My opinion? Clearly you’re not listening. I’ve provided enough for a beginner like yourself.
As for Donna and WUWT; if you haven’t heard the reality about these two, that’s your failing, not mine. I’ve got a run down on Donna here but in truth – neither are scientists in any form – you select them as authorities because they support your strongly held ideas.
Roy Spencer? lol.. anyone would be happy with his addition to the data base, but not his ability to interprets data. This is the bloke that said, “I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world…”
Yep – a clever guy there!
I’ve only just read a review of Roger Pielke, Jr.’s book. Seems he’s half on the mark on some points. And the others I don’t know of. That said, why not read: Anderegga, et al (2010) Expert credibility in climate change. PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107, or
Oreskes, N. (2004) Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on climate change. Science. 306(5702):1686 doi: 10.1126/science.1103618
The vast majority (over 95%) of relevant working scientists believe that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is compelling. Coupled with what I said earlier, you can see why, as a scientist who keeps up-to-date with the various studies, I must also concur. You have a handful of “experts” – one who claims creationism is more scientific than evolution and two that are journalists at best. So your following statement, “The C02->AGW storyline must be preserved at all costs. Intellectual honesty be damned.” is quite absurd.
Clearly it is you who has been led down the rabbit hole into a dream land, free from scientific methodology and scrutiny. But of course, you’ve made it clear that you don’t know a great amount regarding ACC.
“But your ardent appeals to authority are a declaration of your faith.
So do carry on being a good little footsoldier, and by all means continue to trust the IPCC reports.” Just pathetic – honestly, they simply don’t have the means to do so (and to be honest with you, I’ve not even read the report – I tend to stick with the science straight from the journal). You really must get over this laughable IPCC conspiracy.
As for the IAC’s review – it didn’t discredit the validity of the findings and Laframboise’s citizen’s audit isn’t worth mentioning.
As for you’re plea to other readers;
1. I never saw the video and don’t care to – I’ve said on the 10:10 post that it was a stupid idea and did no help for anyone but for people like yourself who wish to be outraged over nothing.
2. I didn’t know this point was directed at me. Personally, the only points I’ve made over at WUWT were simple questions which were not published.. so you make a null point here.
3. No, I didn’t argue that – I just said (I did say as much) that if she makes such nonsensical claims that inspire hatred, she should allow others to retort – as it stands she just makes her claims without objection. I disagree with this and feel that this is counter productive in the 21st century. (So I did answer this, but like most of what I’ve said, you’ve chosen to be selectively ignorant to what you don’t like to hear).
“his diversionary sneer ‘n smear attacks.”
You are a small time denier aren’t you? When you can’t answer, you ignore and say that everyone else is attacking you – you’re right and nothing will change that in your closed mind.
I’ve heard of Richard Lindzen and he is about as credible as your other “experts”. I have provided an intro into the “case for a climate threat” for you above – but you just overlooked it obviously.
lol – that’s for the laugh! Donna is about the least credible people you’re a fan of. “I doubt that there is anyone who is more conscientious in documenting (i.e. providing evidence for) claims than she is.” and that’s how we know you’re never studied science.
“But, judging by your posts in this thread – not to mention that which I’ve read on your own blog – I very much doubt that you will.”
Sorry hro001, but I’m a fan of evidence, a small amount of which I’ve provided here. I’m glad to disappoint you because you clearly have no interest in modern, objection reasoning – something I take as more important than one’s personal opinion.
But hear none of this.
Well, for one who claims to be such a fan of “evidence” to provide so little (except for the Anderegg travesty) and expect that no one will notice is nothing short of … Amazing. Simply amazing.
hro001,
do you go out of your way to ignore everything?
“Well, for one who claims to be such a fan of “evidence” to provide so little (except for the Anderegg travesty) and expect that no one will notice is nothing short of … Amazing. Simply amazing.”
As I’ve stated a few time – LOOK UP!! I gave some basic links to Neil Craig above… and you say that I provide little evidence??
But because you’re having trouble with something that simple;
For further reading, look up;
Rosenzweig, et al (2008) Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature. 453(15):353-357. doi:10.1038/nature06937
Amano, et al (2010) A 250-year index of first flowering dates and its response to temperature change. Proc. R. Soc. B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0291
But in your head, evidence that is contrary to your personal belief is simply a travesty, right?
You truly are a waste of time – how can you demand answers and celebrate that you got nothing when it’s so obvious that all you’ve done is ignored them? But then again, you are a fan of WUWT and Donna (bringing us back to the original situation, arguing that those blogs don’t allow contrary points of view and celebrate in their ignorance). Your such a typical anti-science fool, close minded and ignorant of the evidence (largely by choice).
I’ve tried to take you seriously and provide a basic look into some of the situations that we face in the immediate future. You’ve made it clear that you’re not interested in a dialogue but rather to push your ideological agenda. I will not be bothered with your nonsense any longer; you clearly shouldn’t be taken seriously.