As WUWT closes in on a million comments…
…I thought this is worth reading at The Lukewarmer’s way run by Tom Fuller:
Maybe Michael Tobis might finally be persuaded to approve Mr. Fuller’s comment, now in moderation for 3 days.
The Worst Thing About Censorship
h/t to Skiphil
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t bother with sites that censor differing opinions. They are boring.
There is a reason why I quit trying to post comments at those websites since it is a waste of time knowing that my comments is likely edited or deleted.
That is why all they have left are the lemmings and fanatics who use a lot of ear plugs in the loud echo chamber they are left in.
Censored sites are only for people who want to hear what they already think. It gets unreasonable people to all agree to feel a certain way without the benefit of a cognitive thought process.
They can neither handle truth, dissent or both.
If they refuse to permit contrary observations, assertions, and contentions, what real interest do they have in the examination of their own premises?
Answer (of course): none at all.
And therefore to hell with them.
I used to read Ladens blog from time to time but the amount of vitriol Greg spits out at people with differing views put me off probably for ever. The constant arguments from authority also struck me as being anti science. No wonder he is getting only a handful of comments, if he is lucky, to his blogs these days.
We have enough questioning from scientists against AGW that any pleas to the consensus can be seen to be a logical fallacy. BTW I am a fence sitter on this issue but with each passing day I am viewing the alarmist predictions and arguments from authority as politics and not science.
I love this place, lots of posts on both sides. I am also very fond of Judith Curry’s blog for the same reason.
Keep up the good work and the readers will continue to come here
It’s not right to pick only what you like, but to take all of the evidence…
~ Richard P. Feynman
Allowing all points of view is why WUWT has such heavy traffic. Readers want to hear both sides in a debate. Then they can make an informed decision.
Alarmist blogs are caught in a trap: if they allow all points of view, they will lose the catastrophic global warming debate, because the planet is not supporting their belief. So rather than allow skeptics to freely comment, they heavily censor.
To them, it is the lesser of two evils: better to protect their belief system, than to enlarge their readership. Their belief in CAGW has been woven into their egos, until they are incapable of seeing — or tolerating — any other point of view:
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”.
~ Leo Tolstoy
@ur momisugly D.B. Stealey says:
Love the Tolstoy quote – such an insight into the Human mind!
When I first started reading climate blogs a little over a year ago, I spent some time observing at RC and several more of the party line blogs listed by Tom Fuller. Once I saw how heavy handed their censorship is, I had no temptation to waste more time there, even though I have always greatly enjoyed seeking out cordial rational discussion and debate with people of diverse, wide ranging views. There simply did not seem to be much value to trying to engage at such places.
I tried to post this at Revkin’s advertisement for the new Tobis blog back in November 2011, but Prof. Revkin felt it was not up to the standards of Dot Earth, and refused to post it. I found this ironic, considering the most objectionable language in my comment was found in the quoted writings of the one and only Michael Tobis.
“Five reasons why I think Tobis is irrelevant-
Echo chamber, Malthusian stench, Execrable Rants, Nonsensical platitudes and Narcissistic priggishness-
Echo chamber-
“The site is not for everybody; certainly people who want to argue the question of whether AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or isn’t a problem will find nothing to engage with on our site.”
Malthusian stench-
“The only way to simplify ourselves out of the present mess is by cutting our population 80%, unfortunately.”
Michael Tobis, January 9, 2009
Execrable Rants-
“It is because the fiunkcg survival of the ficunkg planet is at fciunkg stake. And if we narrowly fkncuig miss pulling this out, it may well end up being your, your own fnikucg personal individual fkcnuig self-satisfied mischief and disrespect for authority that tips the balance. You have a lot of fkucnig nerve saying you are on my “side”.”
Michael Tobis, April, 2011
Nonsensical platitudes-
“…creating a global social contract…”
Narcissistic priggishness-
“I think Curry should STFU, or at least stick to such matters, if any, where she has reason for confidence in what she says.”
Michael Tobis, November, 2011
However, software engineer Tobis has extensive experience and expertise in developing government policy to exterminate 80% of the global population?
God help us.
chris y says:
January 26, 2013 at 6:51 pm
If Tobis is able to convince 80% of the population to think like he does, they’ll self-exterminate. We’ll see how “successful” he is.
Thinking logically is the only thing that keeps humans alive–we don’t have natural instincts, fur coats, or the ability to eat grass or wood to stay alive: we must use our minds and to the degree that we do, we prosper. Separate those who don’t use their mind from those that do, and those that don’t simply self-destruct.
P.s. To Anthony and all who make WUWT possible, huge congratulations on closing in upon one MILLION comments!
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/23-2
On the “communicate the science” blogs.
Its a wonder of the human mind, that we can be certain we possess the only truth, yet must share or explain this truth only through censorship, evasion & abuse.
Congratulations on nearing a million comments, you are definitely doing things right and proving once again that people will not be told what to think by presumptive authorities.
Dear Mr. Watts,
Tom Fuller is one of the grown-ups in the climate debate. His comments are always well worth thinking about.
And his point about censorship is absolutely vital.
I used to live in Saudi Arabia, Fascinating place, with a fascinating history, intriguing culture, and the most hospitable people on earth.
But I noticed that they had a lot of problems. And those problems were not being fixed because the newspapers and the television news was censored so heavily. Admitting to problems was thought to embarass the royal family, or somebody. So year after year things stumbled along, unadmitted problems never being addressed.
This is a lesson for us. When the government drones start to nibble away at the freedoms of the citizenry (which they do continually, and will continue to do in the future. They can’t help it; that’s what government drones do, like beavers have to gnaw down trees to keep their teeth from growing into their jawbone) we must fight like hell to preserve the freedom of the press.
I don’t have anything to add to the discussion. I am just doing my part to get to 1M comments. 🙂
Nice stats!
I hope you double it this year Anthony ~
Don’t be hesitant to share this site folks. I have been surprised by the number of closet skeptics out there. Being under-informed is not an excuse, it is the norm now ……
Change it >
When do we get another WUWT-TV episode? That was some great stuff to share too.
@D.B. Stealey, you wrote “Alarmist blogs are caught in a trap: if they allow all points of view, they will lose the catastrophic global warming debate, because the planet is not supporting their belief. So rather than allow skeptics to freely comment, they heavily censor.”
Your statement says it correctly. I could not agree more. The problem is that there are enough sheeple that will not see it that way. The US, under the rule of Obama continues its march towards saving the world using my money.
I know I have seen more comments snipped than that. But even then, you know whose comment was snipped as over the top or (rarely) irrelevant, and they can fix it.
Comments that most of us disagree with are normally posted without moderator comment. We can all consider them, although many of us are unmerciful to some of these.
I posted comment at http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/26/Whole-Foods-CEO-Global-Warming-Not-That-Big-a-Deal#comment-779472386
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..and received this recant by Al:
Well…did you happen to notice that those prominent scientists who dissent on AGW–most of them are NOT climatologists, but tend to be ohhhh, physicists, biologists, chemists, people who are NOT climatologists. There are a few, to be sure. But not many.
A study in 2009 by Doran and Zimmerman showed 97% of climatologists surveyed agreed that man-made emmissions are contributing to global warming. I cite the study in the thread about Bobby Jindal being half-right here on Breitbart. You can see a list of such studies here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change.
Also….http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/18/global_warming_nine_of_the_ten_hottest_years_since_1880_have_been_in_the.html….nine of the ten hottest years measured since 1880 have been in the last decade.
Another blog post by the same author links to numerous resources to convince the most sceptical critic of AGW. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.html.
Two relevant paragraphs from the latter: “And in the meantime, we saw Arctic sea ice at record low levels in 2012. West Antarctica and Greenland are melting. It is getting so hot in Australia right now that weather forecasters had to add a new color to the weather maps to indicate temperatures above 54° Celsius—that’s 130° Fahrenheit. The heat wave has literally set fire to Australia. And for me (and astronomers around the world) it’s personal; we almost
lost a major observatory to Australian wildfires over the weekend.”
And…
“So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in science journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.”
At least the Whole Foods CEO isn’t shutting his eyes about it… Unlike some I could name.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is this response valid ???
Proud to be one (or more) in a million!
Well done Anthony and the wide variety of contributing readers.
Arty says:
January 26, 2013 at 6:10 pm
“. . . a fence sitter . . . ”
I finally got a broadband connection in Sept. of 2008. Prior to that I hadn’t been paying attention and was quite surprised at what was going on. One of the first papers I found was Stephen McIntyre’s presentation at Ohio State on May 16, 2008 wherein he questions temperature reconstructions.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf
With that and some other things I was reading (The WUWT series on How Not To Measure Temperature, being one such) I visited our local university where I had a few contacts. There I picked up beginning texts on physics, chemistry, and biology. I could read at those for a bit, check things, and best of all I had the correct scientific terms to search for selected topics. Being very much both cynical and skeptical I was never on the fence but a month of reading 3+ hours a day of actual physical science material and blogs such as WUWT, CA, and Jonova convinced me I had the right instinct. Jo’s site has a link to a small (16 page) pamphlet called the Skeptic’s Handbook. It is simple and direct. Then there was Al Gore’s movie, or more precisely, all the criticisms of it, the UN’s involvement, and on and on.
I also find Bob Tisdale’s work convincing. I enjoy the historical aspects “tonyb” and others have been presented several places, here’s one on ‘the Air Vent’:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
Knowing of subs surfacing in the Arctic Ocean – yeah, I’m old enough – now well document on WUWT and elsewhere; and knowing of both hot and cold and wet and dry periods – well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation. CAGW is an extraordinary claim and I haven’t seen the required documentation. Just the opposite.
Mk Urbo says:
January 26, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Like a catfish sensing a wiggling worm, I will respond to only one item an you can take it from there. No spin, just the study on the 97%.
Ensure you review the questions, total sample, respondents, and ultimately those used for the end resulting stats.
http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf
So less than (<10%) of a ~30% sampling (3146 0f 10,257) is what has turned into the 97% consensus being tossed about by the alarmists ?
Mk Urbo,
I don’t know who Al is. Anyway, all that stuff you have presented has been discussed on WUWT. It is not worth anyone’s time to go over it again; 5 or 6 or 7 times is enough. Pick a four letter word beginning with C and ending in P – that describes it.
~~~~~~~
MattS,
Now I’ve got 2!
Ok, thanks – just want some WUWT eyes to support that…
Ah Tobis. After he gave me a runner-up Golden Horseshoe award for leaking the draft IPCC report (an award for lying, supposedly), I dropped by and engaged Tobis and his commenters. Tobis had only read Dana Nuccitelli’s error-ridden response to what I said about the draft report so I was trying to clue them in.
I ribbed Dana a little but was just correcting his science, and the science of those who popped up to rebut me. That lasted until Tobis refused to publish one of my carefully reasoned responses. His kept insisting that I, like all “deniers,” don’t actually have any grasp of the subject, but am only saying whatever I can think of that sounds plausible enough to mislead the uninformed. (Talk about projection.) My repeatedly kicking Tobis’ ass on substance apparently presented too much of a disjoint with his claims that I had no substance so he just stopped allowing me to respond.
World class twit.