Two developments suggest that Cook et al 2013 Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature may be soon be headed for “retraction watch”, since serious problems with the data are becoming evident, which when accounted for bring the 97% consensus figure into question.
First, there are new issues with the search system used to gather the papers, as Shub Niggurath explains at Bishop Hill:
===============================================================
The climate change literature comprises well over hundred thousand articles and books. Cook et al’s strategy was to focus on papers directly related to “global warming” or “global climate change” in Web of Science. Here’s how they describe it:
In March 2012, we searched the ISI Web of Science for papers published from 1991–2011 using topic searches for ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’. Article type was restricted to ‘article’, excluding books, discussions, proceedings papers and other document types.
A Web of Science search performed following the authors’ description to the letter actually returns 30,940 entries, not 12,464. Excluding the ‘Arts and Humanities Citation Index’ (A&HCI), this becomes 30,876. This is when search phrases are not enclosed in double-quotes (i.e., ‘global warming’ instead of “global warming”).
Scopus is an academic database covering technical, medical, and social science disciplines. Surprisingly, when Scopus is searched using the correct search phrases, a total of 19,417 entries are retrieved. A Web of Knowledge search returns ~21,488 records. These figures are 7473 records (Scopus) and ~9544 records (Web of Knowledge) greater than what Cook et al eventually analysed.
More here:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/27/landmark-consensus-study-is-incomplete.html
=================================================================
Second, more authors are now reporting that their papers were categorized improperly:
=================================================================
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
“Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.” – Dr. Morner
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake.” – Dr. Soon
“No, if Cook et al’s paper classifies my paper, ‘A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change’ as “explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize,” nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.” – Dr. Carlin
more here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2
Anthony, shouldn’t your title be “… continues to fall apart”?!
The very fact that such a paper exists in such sloppy form points to the insecure desperation of the whole damn cult. Desperate to bolster their standing as scientists with an axe to grind, er, consensus, they’ll resort to full-on garbage science, a.k.a. too damned lazy to do the actual research.
Sizzling science from the very best. Cook et al. 2013 cites Lewandowsky et al. 2012.
It really can’t get any more rigorous than that can it?
Odd to search for “global climate change” but not the more common “climate change”. There should also be a problem in omitting synonyms for “global”.
Someone tweet Obama please…
Whoa, papers from Morner and Soon were classified as supporting AGW? you don’t have to read the abstract, let alone the content, to know these papers likely completely reject the notion all together.
For papers from the rest, you might want to read the abstract once to confirm it’s not supporting AGW.
Cook is finding it much harder adjusting the opinions and conclusions of scientists, than adjusting the data.
What do you mean “starting” to fall apart? I don’t think anything was ever built by this. I wouldn’t give Cook et al Lego to play with, they’d just choke on it 😉
“Nobody is more qualified to judge a paper’s intent than the actual scientists who authored the paper. ”
-John Cook.
Anonymoose,
Cook et al admit that a search for “climate change” in Web of Science will bring up more papers. For instance, they say they found 43,650 papers in Web of Science. Searching Scopus with the same phrase, (1991-2011 range, English language, document type ‘Article’, published in journals) returns 55,606 articles. A search in Web of Knowledge returns 63,213 entries. Repeating the authors’ exact search terms on Web of Science brings up 46,797 papers. As can be seen, *all* these results are thousands to tens of thousands more than what Cook et al report, This is evidence for a systematic bias/deficiency in the authors’ search. Their searching misses enormous swathes of literature that are fully qualified to be included in the study, which did not get included simply because the authors don’t know how to use and report academic literature database searches.
It appears Dana Nuccittelli has admitted on Twitter that they did not use Web of Science but Science Citation Index which is a subset of Web of Science.
Cynically, does this really matter? The headlines have been published, which is all they really wanted, whos going to headline a retraction?
Even if someone wrote the story, somehow, I can’t see any editor in the MSM running with
SUPPORT FOR CLIMATE CONSENSUS RETRACTED, SCIENTISTS FUDGED DATA
Nice though that would be!
Their Web of Science search is very poor as it only searches the title and abstracts of the papers for those key phrases not the entire body and excludes scientifically valid ‘review’ papers by using the ‘articles’ document type.
Every single response I have received has been that the author’s paper was falsely classified.
Ric, the Morner and Soon papers were falsely classified as “No Position on AGW”. Carlin’s was falsely classified as “Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize”.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2
I am sure Dana will be along to tell us that he knows more about the papers than the authors.
I saw the title and wondered why this was re-posted.
Guess it is a new post.
But they will still show up and say we have screwed things up, Dana/Cook rated the abstracts, authors were asked to rate their own papers, we are conflating things by having authors complain about the abstract ratings, not the paper ratings. Or something like that.
To get it out of the way early, what is the solid defense against such bloviating?
One of the main issues with the paper hasn’t been properly addressed.
What is the consensus ?
The funny thing is, that the word “consensus” is found a gazillion times on the project website, but nowhere a defintion of the consensus as used in the study.
You will find that definition only, if you do the test by yourself, or from somewbody else who did it.
The highest class of consensus (which was actually barely populated) is an explicit statement of some sort “that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).”
Actually, this is NOT the IPCC consensus.
It is IPCC consensus, that AGW has caused almost 100% of warming on all timescales since 1750.
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/ScreenShot2012-12-13at43419PM_zps4a925dbf.png
(e.g. subtract the 1750-2011 and 1750-1980 bars to get “recent” 1980-2011)
Further, if you anyone attributes 40% to the sun and 60% to AGW he will certainly be labelled a climate change denier but at the same time in the highest AGW endorsing group. .Same story for 40% to ocean currents.
I can’t think ever of a supposed “study” in an area of physical science which amounted in effect to little more than an opinion poll, based on subjective standards at that. Continuing to resort to PR tactics such as this, ultimately must alert more and more thinking individuals to the true political nature of so-called the so called “science” behind AGW
Please accept my apology for the unacceptable editing error above.
It’s pretty useless doing those searches in the first place. If a paper is about, for example, the Indian Ocean Dipole, it is unlikely to contain the words ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’, yet its findings may have a bearing on AGW. A quick search for “indian Ocean Dipole” listed several papers. The first was neutral on AGW, although it was based only on climate models. The second was http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Paper/12324824, which identified inter alia a negative cloud feedback. So although it expressed no opinion on AGW (why on earth would it?) its findings nevertheless may indicate that AGW theory (which depends on positive cloud feedback) is incorrect. I didn’t look at any more papers. I am sure that other searches would often yield similar results.
What this indicates is that John Cook’s searches and paper are a waste of time, his figures are unreliable, and in any case they are meaningless. In the final analysis, only the scientific evidence matters.
This was post re scepticism was going so well on Randi’s site until the mention of Sceptical Science.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2129-science-communication-is-about-knowing-who-youre-talking-to.html
James Randi’s site is not about skepticism if the topic is climate change.
If the science is settled and there is a massive consensus for CAGW then why is so much money being spent on researching it ?
Surely, if the science is settled, there is nothing more to research ?
Shub Niggurath said on May 27, 2013 at 10:58 pm:
For those unfamiliar with those:
http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/science_citation_index/
Looks like you’ve got to be attached to a university for online access, staff or student.
I’m getting wonderful flashbacks from the 1980’s, of wandering through the university libraries, pulling out the massive tomes of citations on the main floor, hoping that this was the right search word to provide relevant info, then scribbling down the info on a slip from the many small piles of scrap paper, followed by heading off to the periodicals or perhaps other stacks, through the narrow passageways, the many flights of steps, hoping the reference is there, is relevant, while guesstimating the photocopying charges…
Today people do a Google search and call it good. If you ask them to search more rigorously, they’ll also check Bing.
Any polling of scientists should segment them into three groups:
1. Actively practicing whose publication record is always on the side of warming and whose funders fund ‘warming’ studies to a far greater degree than ‘skeptical’ studies.
2. Actively practicing whose publication record is skeptical or even handed and whose funders either fund ‘skeptical’ science to a far greater degree or fund both sides of the argument in a dispassionate, even-handed manner.
3. Retired scientists not in need of grant funding to continue their careers.
A fourth group could also be surveyed, namely those with sufficient expertise to judge the matter professionally but whose career is not intimately linked to funding of climate science.
That would be an illuminating survey, wouldn’t it??
I wonder who is scientific enough, rigorous enough, dispassionate enough, honest enough and financially strong enough to carry it out correctly??
Today people do a Google search and call it good. If you ask them to search more rigorously, they’ll also check Bing.”
Hey, that works… if you are into ‘trivial pirsuit’.. ! 🙂
And AW, how can something that is as tenous and thin as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, fall any further apart ?
The survey should be narrower and deeper. I.e., it should survey only a random sample of the literature (say, papers whose #1 author’s name begins with a certain letter or pair of letters), and it should look at the content of the article, not just the abstract.
Second, papers dealing only with impact and mitigation should be excluded, or at least scored separately. It is those papers, whose non-expert opinion is nearly universally warmist, that contribute so much to the “97%” figure that’s bandied about.
And totally off-topic.. where does that black line think its going ??
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
So, scientific research shows ‘AGW Consensus’ falls from 97% to (say) 44% in less than 3 months.
That should grab some headlines.
Perhaps somebody else has pointed this out already, but by searching for papers with “global WARMING” the selection must be skewed. Would the ration be the same if one search for “global climate CHANGE” ?
‘Of those that stated a position on the cause of global warming, 97% stated humans were the main cause’.
Yeah but couldn’t that also just mean that this particular 97% (which is only 33% of the whole total in any case) had come to a position when they shouldn’t have done so, because the data was ambiguous, and that the remaining 67% are really the right ones? There are numerous cases where those (even a majority, which isn’t even the case here) who drew a conclusion prematurely were the dumb ones, not the smart ones. Reminds me a little of the Stanley -Millgram experiment, many people will just follow something because a man in a white coat, or in authority says so. This paper has got political convenience written all over it.
Honestly, Cook is a crock, history won’t treat him kindly. I don’t know what to make of the journal that published this tripe.
The damage is done. There will be no equivalent fanfare when this ‘paper’ gets balled up and thrown in the direction of the waste basket as there was when it was prestidigitated.
The search should have been for papers containing the word climate and included only those whose entire content could be parsed cost free.
There is a reason the ‘warmists’ will not debate the facts concerning the most basic analysis and fundamental issues concerning the AGW theory: Lukewarm AGW Vs Dangerous AGW: They would lose that debate.
Rather than have a scientific debate that defines the key issues, that requires observational data to support positions, this paper appeals to the parsing of wording in the abstracts of papers (the parsing of the wording is done by a biased person) to support some vague position. The paper that alleges consensus is a pathetic attempt by the warmists to distract the conversation from the key issues. Data and analysis does not support the extreme AGW position.
The warmists and many media sources are trying to push any warming (a single hot month, a single storm) as evidence of dangerous warming.
The following are some of the key issues and observations that the warmists will not debate and are trying to hide:
1) The 20th century warming is not statistically significant (i.e. there has been other periods of warming and cooling in the recent human history post 1850 that is similar to the 20th century.) As we are aware, the MET will not when formally asked to quantify the scientific significant of the 20th century warming: respond with a quantified answer; as the temperature data does not support the warmist position.
2) The latitudinal pattern of warming does not match that predicted by the AGW theory. (There is too much observed warming in the Northern Hemisphere ex-tropics. There is hardly any warming in the tropics.) See paper link to below to back up that claim.) That fact indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has caused by something else than CO2. Hint solar modulation of clouds. No one is even discussing this observation.
3) Even if 100% of the warming was caused by CO2, the amount of observed warming is significantly less than what is predicted by the general circulation models (See link below). The most recent warmist’s response is the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. (No one has noticed that if there is mixing of surface water with deep water that will significant reduce/cap the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2. Is there no end to the problems for the warmists?)
4) There is no tropical tropospheric warming. The IPCC general circulation models predict that the most warming on the planet should be at around 8K above the surface of the planet in the tropics. This predicted warming amplifies the CO2 forcing and is due to additional water vapor in the atmosphere. 20 years of measurement by satellites and over a 100,000 weather balloons supports the assertion that there is no tropical tropospheric warming. Lindzen and Choi’s analysis (2009 and 2011 papers) shows that planetary clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist forcing changes by reflecting more or less sunlight off into space. That result explains why there is no tropical tropospheric warming and explains why there is almost no long term warming of the tropics.
5) A 1000 years ago it was as warm or warmer than current temperatures. Atmospheric CO2 did not cause that warming. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record. The cycles of warming and cooling are not caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. There is no explanation for past cyclic warming and cooling that matches the pattern of the 20th century warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years (William: 16 years and counting). The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)
The recent atmospheric global temperature anomalies of the Earth have been shown to consist of independent effects in different latitude bands. The tropical latitude band variations are strongly correlated with ENSO effects. The maximum seen in 1998 is due to the El Niño of that year. The effects in the northern extratropics are not consistent with CO2 forcing alone.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/tropic53.gif
http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/26/tropical-troposphere/
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
There probably shouldn’t be any surprise that 97% of climate change scientists, or scientists which publish papers on climate change, have a consensus that they agree that AGW is THE explanation. If a similar survey was made of papers on a monotheism religion – Christian, Islam and Judaism – it would be a fair bet to say that there would be greater than 97% consensus that there was one god. There would be a lot of others that would disagree but amongst the believers there would be a very high agreement. Separating dogma, faith and facts has always been, and will probably always will be, a very prickly pear.
Dealing with opinions expressed almost a quarter of a century ago is hardly a way to estimate current consensus claims. The Climatology world has changed enormously, and so have the
opinions of climatologists.
Last week on the Guardian I said I was baffled as to why the Cook paper was necessary if their ‘science’ was so strong and we already had the 97% in place. Of course the reasons are the crumbling consensus, lack of warming, a stream of recent climate sensitivity papers, government hesitancy / U-turns over green energy, the return of freezing winters to Europe etc.
Hailing retraction watch. The Cook paper clearly illustrates the manipulations that are part and parcel of climate science.
Henry Galt says:
May 28, 2013 at 2:05 am
The damage is done. There will be no equivalent fanfare when this ‘paper’ gets balled up and thrown in the direction of the waste basket as there was when it was prestidigitated.
==================
Agreed. I can look forward to having this ‘peer reviewed paper’ thrown in my face for years by the ‘cocktail party AGW advocates who automatically classify me as a ‘right wing ignorant nutball’ as soon as I mention anything that goes against the orthodoxy (that being that dirty Republicans are ‘for pollution’ and are mainly responsible for the lack of inaction to ‘save the planet from CO2 pollution). These folks are NOT interested in hearing anything that might make them have to think about the orthodoxy. It is so much easier to simply accept and repeat the party line. They are wholly uninterested in facts or truth.
Bill Marsh, you are correct. And when I make any attempt to explain how the 96% or 97% ‘consensus’ was arrived at, ie to demonstrate it’s falsity, eyes glaze over: it doesn’t fit with what people want to hear.
It’s the environmental and science correspondents of the MSM I blame for this false public perception: they make no attempt to question what they are spoon-fed by climate ‘scientists’ ie propogandists for AGW. They make no effort to master the scientific and statistical basics they need to understand what they are being told. They fail to familiarise themselves with scientific method, which leads them to take amateurs (self-proclaimed ‘experts’) like John Cook or William Connolly seriously. And so they continue to spout rubbish in their papers to an uninformed public, which looking to them and is largely dependent on them, for information. Teachers read their papers and force-feed their pupils with their rubbish. Shame on them all.
THIS is what they should be reading, and following up on – how many alarm bells like these need to ring, before they start to research in depth on what they are fed?
Quote from above:
“Is this an accurate representation of your paper?”
“Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.” – Dr. Morner
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake.” – Dr. Soon
“No, if Cook et al’s paper classifies my paper, ‘A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change’ as “explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize,” nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.” – Dr. Carlin
Cook’s mum should tell him to stop hanging out with Lewandowski – the man’s a bad influence..
It was written to perpetuate the 97% lie and is serving that purpose. Read the op-ed by Eugine Robinson in the Washington Post “Obama’s Mission on Climate Change”
If the authors corrections to their paper classification was ice, we would have a real problem with accelerating sea level rising!
Let’s assume for the moment that Cook et all has good intentions. They really were trying to assess the consensus. What we are seeing is the effect of researcher bias. There’s no doubt Cook and his minions are biased and now we get to see just how much that bias has affected their research.
Now, if they had an intelligent bone in their bodies they would realize this same type of bias has been infecting 97% of the scientists that support AGW. That includes the researchers that have been adjusting temperature data and defining sensitivity.
What Richard M says:
May 28, 2013 at 8:16 am
With great big bells on …
I think they were right to leave out review articles as most of these would not take a position one way or the other. Also many review articles will not have an abstract (as I recall) and thus could not have been used anyway.
Bill_W, review articles do not take a position one way or the other and do not have abstracts? Really?
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science
That is amazing news.
My question is …. as we go into 20 or 30 years of cooling tempatures, are people like Cook and places like “skepticalscience” and “realclimate” just going to dissapear like puffs of smoke? At a certain point you are just never going to hear from them again?
If it does indeed get cooler. (see how that’s done, alarmists?)
Dana Nuccitelli responds to criticism of the Cook et al survey in The Guardian today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics
Interesting to note that he refuses to cite WUWT directly, using webcitation.org to divert traffic, yet repeatedly cites links to Skeptical Science, which has been proven to be an unreliable source.
Once you have moved to a discussion of the data, analyses of the data, and which conclusions are to be drawn from it, consensus becomes irrelevant. If you argue, “As you can see from pionts A, B and C, it follows that D. But D entails that E. QED,” it doesn’t make sense for your interlocutor to say, “But most experts don’t believe that E.” At that point, since you have provided a case for E, the consensus that E is false is irrelevant.
So, if you provide an argument based on data and your interlocutor says, “Oh, yeah? Well whom should I believe, you or the overwhelming majority of climate scientists?” then you are warranted in pointing out, “At this point, we’ve moved to the data and I have given a case for what the data shows. If you can’t address that case, then just admit that. But citing consensus against my conclusion is irrelevant once we’re analyzing the evidence.”
Consensus has only two epistemic uses. First, for those who do not have the wherewithal to understand the data pertaining to a certain question, they must fall back on the consensus of the experts, place their bets and take their chances. There’s nothing wrong with that. We can’t be experts in everything. I have to rely on the opinions of ancient Greek historians and nuclear physicists to navigate those fields because I am too ignorant to do otherwise. (Of course, since I can’t trust them entirely I must use caution.)
The second use of consensus is in observation. If a scientist is unsure of what he thinks he’s observing – it’s too surprising, say – he may enlist others to repeat the experiment and compare observations. If there is consensus about the observation, then this counts in favor of it. Human sensory apparatus isn’t perfect and repeatability across many observers weeds out many of the foibles and bolsters the case that an observation is correct. But observation should not be confused with analyses based on it. If you have provided an analysis based on observational data, your analysis’s not having been repeated by others is irrelevant. if they disagree with your analysis’s conclusion, then they need to refute your analysis. Repetition of analysis is irrelevant.
I’m just saying.
Duke C,
Dana is now censoring all of my comments at the Guardian.
@Poptech
That’s not true (at least at this moment). Could it be you didn’t abide by the community guidelines? And I believe the Guardian has it’s own moderation crew.
Plain Richard, all of my new comments are not showing up and various one have been censored so unless posting CVs of scientists is against their community rules then no.
Richard, did you miss this? “This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.”
Do you really think I cannot reply to Dana’s comments? I have tried posting comments ten times now and none of them are going through.
Oh well censorship is the only way they can win a debate.,
@Poptech
I don’t know about new replies, maybe you have been blocked. But what you said
“Dana is now censoring all of my comments at the Guardian.”
was simply not true while there are comments by you being displayed at this time (and some that are moderated, yes, which you allude to in your second answer to me).
Postings of long CVs of scientists with hardly any accompanying context may be considered spam-like (this is a guess).
Dana has been pushed. Check out his latest in the Guardian. Sceptics have clearly rattled him.
Plain Richard, what I said was completely true, as ‘all’ referred to anything new I tried to post since that time as I cannot post a single new comment. Do you find this acceptable?
I did not post anything without additional text. Please stop making excuses for blatant censorship.
Jimbo, Dana is now censoring all of my comments to that article so he can pretend I cannot respond to his comments.
“The climate change literature comprises well over hundred thousand articles and books.”
Man, I though 12,444 were a number beyond belief! 100,000+ – what a sea of sludge to sort through to find pearls. How can more than 1% of it have had a useful premise to explore on one subject. How is it we haven’t even begun to get enough understanding of the subject with a blitz like this over only a couple of decades? I’ve accepted the dumbing down but didn’t know they were so prolific. Trillions wasted – how did they expect this to continue. This alone would have to have put an end to it soon. How are we going to clean up our libraries. How many journals are there? I’m sorry, I lost the thread of this post. I’ll recover eventually
@Poptech
Come on! Nothing wrong with admitting you were a bit over melodramatic with
“Dana is now censoring all of my comments at the Guardian.”
‘Hardly any accompanying context’ is not the same as ‘without additional context’!
Plain Richard,
That is what the Guardian does. I have responded numerous times to people but most don’t see the light of day. Here is a reply I made to on guy who wrote a piece in the Huffington Post and put it up on the Guardian. Let’s hope this reply makes it through.
———
@Elliott Negin –
In your piece for Huffington Post I read the title and it said:
Therefore since you seem to think that fossil fuel funding calls into question various groups aims then I have a number of straight forward questions for you.
Are the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project results climate misinformation? It was partly funded by Koch.
Does the Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project spread climate misinformation? It received funding from Exxon.
Is the Climate Research Unite engaged in climate misinformation? They have received funding from BP and Shell and have worked with BP since the late 1970s.
Does the environmentalist group the Sierra Club engage in climate disinformation? They have received funding between 2007 and 2010 from the gas industry and fracking industry interests.
Do I need to go on???
Why do they keep doing this sort of stuff? Do they really think no one will check? I suppose Cook was after the hit-and-run headlines, but seriously, that’s beginning to wear thin and it’s not doing his reputation any good – what’s left of it.
Wouldn’t NOW be a good time for these people to look to a future beyond the AGW joke? They need to start cleaning up their act or they’re going to be unemployable.
Plain Richard, I am not over melodramtic at all. All of my comments are now being censored at the Guardian. I cannot respond to ANY of the replies to my existing comments.
Do you find this type of censorship acceptable?
@Poptech
Take it to the Guardian moderators, discuss it with them why you can’t comment anymore. I know three of your comments have been moderated at least (one of Dana was moderated as well as a consequence).
Btw, you were flooding the thread over there with your complaint that papers were rated falsely, and you got the reply that abstracts had been rated, and paper self-ratings were treated separately. Clear answer, but you couldn’t stop going. Here you illustrate this same behavior of not letting go by telling us that you tried to post comments over there 10 times. It could be the Guardian moderators consider you a troll….
On another point, did you actually read the Cook paper and the guardian blog post from Dana? You behave as the perfect example of scientific denialism that Dana could wish for. Think about it.
Poptech, my comment hasn’t make it through after over half and hour and they say it should appear in a minutes. This is the great game these censors play. They don’t want a debate because they can’t stand the truth.
Plain Richard, please tell me what my comments were in reply to theirs? Oh, wait you cannot see them since because they are being censored. I was not flooding anything, each of my comments were unique.
I am well aware they rated the abstracts but that is an excuse not an argument. Now did they apply this rating to the entire paper? Was that an accurate representation of their paper?
Yes, I read the entire paper and the Guardian article.
Why are you so afraid of allowing anyone to read my comments? Do you support censorship like this?
If I am the perfect example then let my comments through so I can be used as this example. I WANT to be such an example. Why are they so afraid to debate me?
@Jimbo
“Here is a reply I made to on guy who wrote a piece in the Huffington Post and put it up on the Guardian.”
Could it have been off-topic? Part of the Guardian’s rule 8 says:
“8. Keep it relevant. We know that some conversations can be wide-ranging, but if you post something which is unrelated to the original topic (“off-topic”) then it may be removed, in order to keep the thread on track. “
@Plain Richard – seems that discussing funding climate research WAS the topic. Pointing out the funding on both sides of the debate is directly relevant.
One has to ask, why are you leading the discussion on a red herring? Unless you are somehow employed by the Guardian, you are in no position to speak from authority. And if you are employed by them, your excuses are wearing thin.
All my comments were directly on topic but they were obviously questions that were too hard for Dana to respond to so they got censored. This way they can pretend I cannot respond to their arguments.
Looks like the Grauniad will be using SkepSci “moderation”. Anything you post may be deleted, while leaving a pattern to the replies that makes your words appear to have been truly horrendous, ignorant, and/or inflammatory. Check back in a bit, anything remaining may be “edited to conform to community standards”, to the point where passerby will wonder just who that ranting racist religious anti-science ignorant nutter thinks he is, stupid bastard should be banned from all polite logical blogs everywhere and sent back among his own lot.
And going by the comments they’ve allowed stand, complaining they’re not allowing your comments in that muck is like moaning you’re not allowed to wrestle pigs in mud.
@Poptech
As said before, ask the Guardian why you have been banned. And stop putting words in my mouth, which you seem fond of.
“Plain Richard, please tell me what my comments were in reply to theirs? Oh, wait you cannot see them since because they are being censored. I was not flooding anything, each of my comments were unique.”
No, I can’t see comments that don’t appear. Someone decided they moderate a few of your comments and, as you informed me, don’t allow any new comments from you. Why would that be? Giving lengthy CVs of Carlin Idso Scafetta Shaviv and Soon, and Toll as a reply to yourself? Unique? You had that as copy and paste stuff, you have used that before.
Or would it be that you say that Dana falsely classified papers? Though nothing in the Cook paper says they did? Did Dana falsely classify papers in the Guardian blog post? You got an answer. That they rated abstracts and were not 100% correct in that. You should have left it at that I guess and not -as you do here- putting words in people’s mouth “So you believe to know more…” Etc etc… You should check out English libel laws, nr 6 of the Guardian rules, you were quite close (I think at the right side of it still).
Flooding? Well, depends… You were very eager, at least more than dripping!
“I am well aware they rated the abstracts but that is an excuse not an argument. Now did they apply this rating to the entire paper? Was that an accurate representation of their paper?”
Where did anyone involved in the Cook paper say that they rated the paper instead of the abstract? Give me a link! It seems that, ironically, you are misrepresenting the Cook paper when you are accusing the authors of that paper of misrepresenting other papers (and take look at rule 2 of the Guardian).
“Yes, I read the entire paper and the Guardian article.”
So you missed the specific criticism of your blog post in Dana’s article? You could have explained why this criticism was wrong, instead you decided to repeat what you already said in your blog post before…
“Why are you so afraid of allowing anyone to read my comments? Do you support censorship like this?”
Afraid? Who? Everybody with an Internet connection (cannot speak for those with statewide censorship, e.g. china, Iran) can read your blog! You are not being censored. The guardian decides what they think acceptable for their site, Anthony decides it here (and occasionally comments are moderated here).
“If I am the perfect example then let my comments through so I can be used as this example. I WANT to be such an example. Why are they so afraid to debate me?”
You want to be the example by which Dana can prove scientific d*******m? You’re serious? I guess that could be an argument with the Guardin moderators: “with my comments I will show that Dana is right and scientific d-stuff is alive and kicking!” That”ll convince ‘m!
Oh yeah, debate means you respond to what others say, not say the same thing you said before.
@Poptech
You seem to be responding to a reply I gave to Jimbo. Whatever…
“All my comments were directly on topic but they were obviously questions that were too hard for Dana to respond to so they got censored. This way they can pretend I cannot respond to their arguments.”
On topic? In Dana’s article they answered your criticism. Instead of taking that up and answering that answer you repeated what you had said in blogs before. Is that on topic? Not in my definition. Too hard for Dana to respond? He just did, but you did not respond to the response. Pretend you cannot respond? Well, then show us! Respond to Dana’s response, not on the guardian apparently, but you can write smth on your own blog or maybe here.
@Poptech
I see you have added new comments at the Guardian. Did you convince moderators? Still being censored? Nobody daring to debate with you? Care to reconsider some of accusations? Not afraid to being used as a perfect example? Been complaining too soon?
@Jimbo
I see you comment now at the Guardian!
@ Plain Richard
Why would they admit in Cook’s paper to falsely classify papers?
So you know why I posted the CVs and in what context?
Did Cook et al. falsely classify the abstracts of the papers I mentioned?
Did Cook et al. apply the abstract rating to the entire paper?
Does only reading an abstract allow you to misrepresent the position of a paper?
I did not put words in people’s mouths but asked them a specific question and I could careless about English laws as I do not live there.
Is it scientifically acceptable to misrepresent a paper by only reading the abstract?
Are you on medication?
None of your arguments make any sense if I am supposed to be some poster boy for denialism then it would be in their interests to humiliate me with my posts. What are they so afraid of? Dana can’t even defend his own paper let alone prove a personal attack.
So it is OK for Dana to not answer any questions but just repeat what he said before?
@ Plain Richard
Dana’s article was a simply ad hominems and personal attacks and failed to answer any of my criticisms. I correctly claimed that Cook et al. falsely classified papers by falsely rating abstracts. This was further confirmed by their comparisons to the authors self-surveys.
Bad data is bad data.
@ Plain Richard
Fascinating how I started complaining here and some of my comments showed up (I submitted enough). The rest are still being moderated and some have been censored. This is still unacceptable as again it looks like I cannot reply to their new comments while mine get held up in moderation.
@Poptech
“Why would they admit in Cook’s paper to falsely classify papers?”
If there is false classification of papers then it is due to false self-ratings of authors.
“So you know why I posted the CVs and in what context?”
Context? No context except for what you have stated in blogposts before. Plain repetition.
“Did Cook et al. falsely classify the abstracts of the papers I mentioned?”
I can’t tell you for all of those but Dana already said on the guardian comment section that they -of course- haven’t got all of them right and gave you an example. What’s your point?
“Did Cook et al. apply the abstract rating to the entire paper?”
That’s exactly the point! You repeat this all the time. I don’t see this in the Cook paper. Tell me where I am wrong.
“Does only reading an abstract allow you to misrepresent the position of a paper?”
Who did so? Come on, show me proof!
“I did not put words in people’s mouths dbut asked them a specific question and I could careless about English laws as I do not live there.”
A. “Dana is now censoring all of my comments at the Guardian.” Not true.
B. “I did not post anything without additional text.” I didn’t say so. “‘Hardly any accompanying context’ is not the same as ‘without additional context’!”
C. “Please stop making excuses for blatant censorship.” I did not do that.
D. “All of my comments are now being censored at the Guardian. I cannot respond to ANY of the replies to my existing comments.” Apparently you can…
E. “Do you find this type of censorship acceptable?” Inserting stupid leading questions, nothing to do with me saying you are wrong that all your comments are being censored!
F. “Why are you so afraid of allowing anyone to read my comments? Do you support censorship like this?” Ditto!
G. “All my comments were directly on topic but they were obviously questions that were too hard for Dana to respond to so they got censored. This way they can pretend I cannot respond to their arguments.” Hilarious!
“Is it scientifically acceptable to misrepresent a paper by only reading the abstract?”
This question doesn’t make sense. Nobody misrepresents a paper by reading an abstract. Of course it is scientific to rate abstracts if you have a clear methodology. Why wouldn’t it be?
“You are not being censored.”
Define censorship…
States versus Internet, domains have their own rules. Don’t like m, express yourself somewhere else. Blabber blah blah
“Are you on medication”
Who cares?
“None of your arguments make any sense if I am supposed to be some poster boy for denialism then it would be in their interests to humiliate me with my posts. What are they so afraid of? Dana can’t even defend his own paper let alone prove a personal attack.
So it is OK for Dana to not answer any questions but just repeat what he said before?”
I said you make yourself the perfect example by simply repeating what you said before and not reacting to what others say. You again put words in my mouth. Your discussion style is lacking to say the least. Remember I only said you were wrong when you said all your posts were deleted. You are the one who tries to escalate things and doesn’t take people for what they say but what you think they might imply. And yes, you appear to be able to play a posterboy at the Guardian. Go ahead and do so! Show m all wrong!
@Poptech
“Dana’s article was a simply ad hominems and personal attacks and failed to answer any of my criticisms. I correctly claimed that Cook et al. falsely classified papers by falsely rating abstracts. This was further confirmed by their comparisons to the authors self-surveys”
Which again shows that you are blocking all criticism. You just keep repeating stuff. End of discussion here. Have a good day!
@Plain Richard
Are you aware that they did not contact every author of every paper for a self-survey?
Are you aware that they only got back 14% of the responses for the authors they did email?
So therefore this has nothing to do with false self-author ratings.
So you don’t know what context I stated the CVs in and are attempting to imply what the context was based on any one of my thousands of other comments? Seriously?
If Cook et al. did not falsely classify the abstracts then are you claiming the scientists I quoted are lying?
Cook explicitly says it in their abstract:
“For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”
Does only reading an abstract allow you to misrepresent the position of a paper?
What was the purpose of Cook et al. to apply a rating to the abstracts in their study?
@ Plain Richard
Tell me what in the Guardian article was an argument that allows Cook et al. to misrepresent the position of a scientist’s paper.
Consensus acceptance of ill-conceived ideas isn’t the same as consensus rejection of ill-conceived ideas. But given enough time, they inevitably follow in that order. Lying works with impunity in politics, but utterly without it in science.
In case my newest comment at The Guardian disappears, I am cross-posting it here as well as at Popular Technology:
@Martin1505 – The Guardian removed Popular Technology’s reasoned reply to this article. In fact, Nuccitelli tweeted me earlier today directing me to this article as his specific reply to Popular Technology!
It seems extremely intellectually problematic for the moderators to then remove Popular Technology‘s reply.
Popular Technology made its point cogently, citing the authors who felt that their papers had been miscategorised by Cook et al. But The Guardian removed it so you and others can’t read it. This was heavy-handed and not in the spirit of a true scientific debate.
I just posted, but I think Askimet ate it. Can you resurrect it please?
In case my newest comment at The Guardian disappears, I am cross-posting it here as well as at PT:
@Martin1505 – The Guardian removed Popular Technology’s reasoned reply to this article. In fact, Nuccitelli tweeted me earlier today directing me to this article as his specific reply to Popular Technology!
It seems extremely intellectually problematic for the moderators to then remove Popular Technology‘s reply.
Popular Technology made its point cogently, citing the authors who felt that their papers had been miscategorised by Cook et al. But The Guardian removed it so you and others can’t read it. This was heavy-handed and not in the spirit of a true scientific debate.
@peterboghossian @ChristophDollis So it looks like you didn’t read my article which responded to Poptech’s denialism.
Fair enough for Nuccitelli to direct me to his article (which I find inadequate, as I’ve expressed to him in other tweets, and a comment on the article, and one more I’m formulating), but clearly his the forum for his reply does not allow detailed, well-cited criticism — not even from the person he’s responding to.
Shame, Guardian — this makes Nuccitelli look bad, perhaps unfairly.
Well not only that, it began bizarrely. My earlier comment before it perhaps disappears:
@Poptech – Am I the only one who found it odd how Dana Nuccitelli chose to start this article of all articles with a conspiracy theory?
I realise when your debating hand is weak, poisoning the well is a popular strategy for a certain type of person, but it’s farcical to do that in this article considering Nuccitelli’s point 5 — conspiracy theories.
In fact, his expecting people to overlook it goes to point 3 — logical fallacies: i.e., special pleading.
And what was his second point? Cherry picking? That’s rich.
While I concede this OFTEN happens in every side of every debate, including the skeptical side of the AGW debate, the climate alarmists are Zen masters at picking the start and end points on a graph to create a slope to fit their biases. They also, some of them, put a lot of effort into reducing well-known historical warm periods, as in MWP, Roman Optimum, etc.
At the end of the day, it isn’t about semantics and it certainly is not about consensus. But even if it were, your analysis of this paper shows much of it is artificial and manufactured [corrected typo]. Cook, Nuccitelli, et al. appear to have been sloppy.
That’s the charitable interpretation.
(The most likely one is profound psychological bias. Also possible is intentional dishonesty, but I’ll stick in the middle on this one.)
No dice.
I and others replied to at least one of PopTech’s comments, that was quite brief, but also damning. It essentially cited, verbatim, quotes from the scientists that disagreed with how Cook et al. 2013 classified their papers.
As I mentioned in the (currently moderated) comment above, Nuccittelli directed me to his Guardian article expressly as his reply to Popular Techology, which he named in his tweet. But there, PT’s very much on point comments are removed — well, the ones that show Cook et al. 2013 in a bad light, anyway.
That’s an odd sort of debate, don’t you think? Anthony Watts’ has warned me about using Skeptical Science as a source (I’ve even commented there) due to deleting on-topic but inconvenient comments and various forms of intellectual dishonesty.
After Cook et al. 2013, I’m looking more favourably on Watts’ skepticism re: Skeptical Science, Cook, and Nuccittelli.
Ah, forgive the essentially double post. I had thought my comment (the first one) was gone for good via Askimet, and rewrote it, adding Nuccittelli’s tweet and some commentary. Thanks for publishing it though.
I just read this a few minutes ago. It’s also relevant to what you guessed.
In the case of The Guardian article, it appears to me that 2 types of comments are subject to removal: obviously rude, off-base ones … and entirely on-point ones that show the author’s work in a particularly bad light.
This is hardly the first time I’ve observed this type of pattern (I’ve had it happen to me plenty of times) so it’s easy enough to recognise it.
Plain Richard, another SKS troll mindlessly arguing about the validity of a fraudulent study done by paid activists and liars.
I have been over at the Guardian reading some of the stuff put out and read this classic by Dana himself . . .
Guardian contributor
dana1981
28 May 2013 9:36pm
Recommend 18
@AVoiceFromAmerica – I address that here. Short answer – virtually every study quantifying the contributions to global warming puts the human contribution at ~100% over the past 50 years.
That is the extremes he is prepared to go to. Unfortunately the entire B-Ark group swallow that sort of rot with alacrity. It may be sour grapes on my part seeing how I am now “pre-moderated” because I asked him to answer the Met Office “not out of the natural variation” statement. That got deleted a couple of times.
http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/more-than-100-ski-areas-sign-climate-declaration-calling-for-u.s.-policy-action-on-climate-change?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+CeresNewsFeed+%28Ceres+Sustainability+News+Feed%29
Ski resorts don’t seem to agree with you. Wonder why. The only cult is the Church of Denial; as with all religions, it soaks up the simple-minded in search of something to believe in, ministered by high priests who concoct gospels of faith. All too doctrinal for the ‘flock’ to understand, but faith and a desperation not to be wrong and the green devils [who want to spoil the party] right is all that matters.
I don’t know the deal with Plain Richard’s obsessive defense of (all things) the Guardian.
The Guardian is continuing to heavily censoring my comments so it appears I cannot respond to arguments addressed to me.
My one censored comment simply asked someone to define ad hominem. I have submitted it again today.
For the record I responded to any argument directed towards me and if my response is not there that it because it was censored.
oneworldnet says:
May 29, 2013 at 8:14 am
Your comments seem to have that “bot” look to them.
But anyway, I wonder if this was one of those ski resorts that was so concerned about not having any snow.
http://pix11.com/2013/05/27/n-y-sees-3-feet-of-snow-fall-on-memorial-day-weekend/#axzz2UjacSQ6j
[ oneworldnet says:
May 29, 2013 at 8:14 am ]
The only cult is the Church of CAGW; as with all religions, it soaks up the simple-minded in search of something to believe in, ministered by high priests who concoct gospels of faith. All too doctrinal for the ‘flock’ to understand, but faith and a desperation not to be wrong and the devils [who want to spoil the party] is all that matters.
Excellent accessment. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
“Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.”
@All who think I am working for or defending guardian or sks
I was not doing that, I was simply annoyed with Poptech. It started when Poptech said:
“Dana is now censoring all of my comments at the Guardian.”
There were comments from poptech around, still are, new ones have appeared since. Dana did nothing, I can point you to a comment from Dana that was moderated in the same comment section. Poptech said then he couldn’t do any new comments (later a lot of his comments appeared, I guess now he was put on premoderation). I gave some reasons why he could have been moderated (but he should ask the moderators, I saw only three comments of him who were moderated later).
My annoyance starts here:
“what I said was completely true, as ‘all’ referred to anything new I tried to post”
All is not new.
” Do you find this acceptable?”
Stupid leading question
“I did not post anything without additional text.”
I never said so! Putting words in my mouth, that got me going.
“Please stop making excuses for blatant censorship.”
I never did! Again accusing me of something I did not do. Above that a bit rich, since Poptech moderates comments at his own blog, and sometimes comments are moderated here and still Poptech is happy to have guest posts here. All of this is just moderation of course, the rules of the host. But Poptech calls it blatant censorship when he is being moderated. Annoying I think…
I tried once more to get him to see reason with “Come on! Nothing wrong with admitting you were a bit over melodramatic”. But Poptech never ever admits he could have been wrong.
He asks me: “Do you find this type of censorship acceptable?” Which is a bullshit leading question, it is only moderation at the guardian.
I also explained him his style that “you couldn’t stop going. Here you illustrate this same behavior of not letting go by telling us that you tried to post comments over there 10 times.” It is typically of Poptech, no matter what you say he repeats the same stuff over and over again.
Because I was annoyed, I also told him to take it to the guardian moderators, and, very evilly, ” You behave as the perfect example of scientific denialism that Dana could wish for. Think about it.” Dana analyses Poptech writings as a combination of three strategies. What does Poptech do? Does he argue that that is not true, or does he repeat the same thing and over again and thereby confirming the strategies defined by Dana? You guess!
More stupid stuff from Poptech:
“Why are you so afraid of allowing anyone to read my comments? Do you support censorship like this?”
Never said so, he is not being censored. Guess he finds it ok when others are being moderated, but when he is, then it is censorship.
“If I am the perfect example then let my comments through so I can be used as this example. I WANT to be such an example. Why are they so afraid to debate me?”
Sound like a Jesus complex. Ah well, after having commented three or fours days on the guardian he appears to have given up. Can’t see he has been moderated more than others. I am not going to repeat the rest of the discussion that anybody can see above, only mention that I gave a list of him putting words in my mouth and that he immer repeats the same stuf. There was the end of discussion.
Poptech after that answered with two post consisting of 1. Leading questions and 2. Repetitions of stuff he said before. That’s my opinion. Draw your own conclusions.
Richard,
Yes you did you said, “Postings of long CVs of scientists with hardly any accompanying context may be considered spam-like”
You have yet to argue against the censorship at the Guardian and made implications as to why my comments were being moderated. The Guardian was not moderating all comments, mainly just skeptics and the handful or inexcusable alarmist smears such as the one calling me a Nazi.
The Guardian is a very different animal and should allow for debate from both sides.
I was not wrong about being censored as none of my comments violated any policy. I was literally responding to other commentators.
Conveniently once I started exposing the censorship here my comments were allowed through there.
At a site like the Guardian, I do not expect anyone to be moderated unless they are legitimately posting inflammatory things like calling someone a Nazi or spamming advertisements. Disagreeing with Dana on an issue is not something that should be moderated.
Actually I have not given up at the Guardian, I just do not get notified of comments (unlike WUWT) and do not check the site everyday (when I checked last there were not new responses to my comments). Thanks for the reminder!
You failed to address the blatant censorship at the Guardian and instead were making excuses for it, including making false implications about my posts and why they should have been pre-moderated.
Yes, anyone can see for themselves that my comments were being censored and then once I complained at a website that has a large reach this conveniently changed – so yes draw your own conclusions.
@anybody who may still be reading this (but not Poptech)
See? He does it again:
““I did not post anything without additional text.”
I never said so! Putting words in my mouth, that got me going.
Yes you did you said, “Postings of long CVs of scientists with hardly any accompanying context may be considered spam-like””
Hoping everybody will oversee ‘hardly any’. And I was initially only trying to give him a possible explanation why some of his posts were moderated (of which I saw 3 before they were being moderated)…
The rest of Poptech latest post seems to be some vague justification why it is ok to denounce guardian moderation as ‘blatant censorship’ but being ok with moderation here and at Poptech’s own blog… Oh well…
Plain Richard, I am well aware of what you said and the implication was that I was simply spamming CVs without sufficient accompanying text, effectively saying “no text”. Play semantics all you want but I certainly did no post anything like calling someone else a Nazi which was posted with no problem at The Guardian and required reporting to get removed.
The Guardian “moderation” was blatant censorship and your continued attempts to compare it to the moderation at other websites is an Ad hominem tu quoque.
I have been commenting online for over 15 years at hundreds of websites and am well aware when I post something that would violate a comment policy and when I am being censored. Someone intellectually honest at the Guardian finally realized this too.
People are of course free to draw their own conclusions how “magically” once I started complaining here my posts were allowed through.