as opposed to indecent scientists?

And I wonder how many decent scientists choose to not participate because:
1.
There is no mechanism to ensure that it will be respected if they announce that they want to drop a volley with another commenter (who they may perceive as hostile, severely biased, narrowly linear, or politically motivated, for example).
2.
There is no mechanism to prevent other commenters from projecting the false logic that if someone exits a volley, they have forfeited. (They may simply be sensibly steering clear of wasting their time in an exchange with someone who is ideologically entrenched, for example.)
3.
Ad hominem attacks are allowed (and obviously this promotes flame-exchanges).

I am inspired to think of ways to help WUWT pull in truck-loads of money so that moderators can be paid TOP coin to ENFORCE decent standards of conduct.

My theory is that a little gentrification of the online climate discussion would increase by an order of magnitude or more the number of decent scientists willing to comment and share their valuable knowledge.

Few of the quoting conventions I see are unambiguous for a casual reader, who might, for example, find this thread via Google search and have no idea what Leif Svalgaard’s quoting convention is. (This is not a complaint – just an observation.)

I tentatively interpret this as a positive sign.<
I don’t think anybody is interested in what you consider positive. I’m not, for one.

Some of the sloppy quotation ‘conventions’ obfuscate the record. Sometimes the obfuscation appears deliberate (and for clarity: no specific accusation is being made).

- -
Leif: “This makes no sense [...]“

I disagree —- & I both respect and concur with your wish to not debate this.

-
In this instance, we have efficiently both agreed & disagreed respectfully.

I tentatively interpret this as a positive sign.

No, you have not picked up on the convention used. The first level quote is done simply by using italics, like in above.
If within the italics, there are further quotation marks they mean that they enclose a further quote (that I was quoting someone else – in casu you). So, no error, and no [silly] correction needed.
-
I would add:
They can also choose to do so efficiently.
(Freedom is practical.)
This makes no sense (and for clarity: I do not wish to debate this).

Thank you so much.

- – -
Leif Svalgaard (21:30:31)
“[...] my initial training was atmospheric physics.”

I respect this – thank you for pointing it out.

There is good stuff here too:
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/RHESSI_Science_Nuggets

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/stp.html
is a good source.

Are they used as a predictor of cycle length?
No, and the cycle length is a rather meaningless number, anyway. The actual activity levels are much better.

I understand that solar flare activity is difficult to predict – who are the leading people on this and do you know any good source material that can help me in my quest to learn more?
Flare research has taken a backseat to CME research lately, but lots of people are still doing this. Spiro Antiochos is one of my favorites [and a good friend]. google him.

I am trying to understand a bit more about solar flares – I have read some basic stuff by googling but have not found a good trend analysis.

Are data tracked and kept – I think I read somewhere that solar flares peak slightly later in the solar cycle then sunspots? If so where can I find it?

Are they used as a predictor of cycle length?

I understand that solar flare activity is difficult to predict – who are the leading people on this and do you know any good source material that can help me in my quest to learn more?

Grateful as ever. Thanks.

The letter to the editor in S&T was favorable. It was a response to an article written on Sun and Global Warming. You were acknowledged as a person who predicted a slow beginning to a slow beginning to cycle 24 and it being a weak cycle (“the weakest in a century”) as documented in S&T July 2007, page 29.

nor will it ever cause me to dismiss all of your future claims in advance.
And why would someone ever even think of doing so? We are indeed from different cultures.

Leif Svalgaard (16:55:42)
“It simply tells me not to take seriously [...]“

Perhaps we have different cultural roots. That does not change my respect for your knowledge about solar science, nor will it ever cause me to dismiss all of your future claims in advance.

And in the end that is actually fine with me [in spite of my badgering]. It simply tells me not to take seriously any challenges issued by you [which I was doing, as is my wont], and to disregard any and all such.

Even as you claim no disrespect was intended, I consider it very disrespectful for you to state that you challenge a statement of mine, but will not tell me what the challenge is. You will rather spend a inordinately large bandwidth complaining about me badgering you and saying that since this is all volunteer work one cannot demand to know. Where I come from it is a right to be confronted with the particulars of a challenge. Trampling that right [as you do] is most disturbing and unsatisfactory. Now, I realize that you have raised 11 points or complaints about ’some’ participants. Would you tell me which of those apply to me in your opinion, so I can seek help or try to amend my ways?

I object to this statement (and for clarity: I do not wish to debate this).

-
Leif: “[...] so shall stop trying for now.”

To be explicit: Please do not resume trying.

-
Your answers to questions about solar science are valued.