UPDATE: 4/3/15 1PM PST WUWT gets results, Tom is out of “twitmo”
Not being able to win arguments on merits, a complaint was apparently made to ban/suspend Tom Nelson from Twitter for using the very same description of a graph that climate scientist Gavin Schmidt made.
Tom Nelson alerts me via email of this, last week it was Steven Goddard, whose account has been reinstated after massive complaints to Twitter. This week, we have the same tactic against Tom Nelson. He writes:
On March 22, After I posted this graph,
@ClimateOfGavin called it “crap”.
I then posted @KHayhoe’s “mother of all hockey sticks” below, and asked if it was “crap”.
Today, April 1, Twitter informed me that my account was “locked” until I deleted this tweet:
Twitter then unlocked my account. After I posted the “Delete tweet” screen shot above, I was suspended.
If calling a graph “crap” is grounds for suspension, why isn’t @ClimateofGavin suspended?
Updates: Mark Steyn asks a good question here:
Iowahawk nailed it here, in reference to warmists trying to shut down Steve Goddard:
Hardly surprising, eh?
In WWII there were many, many people in the regime eager, willing, and able to do the bidding of the Fuehrer and he didn’t even have to tell them to do it. It’s a “lead by example” type of thing. They had no idea they were doing anything wrong.
Nonsense. They knew very well they were doing wrong. They just felt that they had official sanction to do it.
In the Nuremburg Trials, the excuse “I was only following orders” was deemed insufficient. And it is. If you don’t have the ability to tell good from bad even to that extent, you should be in prison or a mental institution, not on the street.
+1 — Natural Law, or “the Law above the law,” was all that convicted those thugs.
That excuse, though legally faulty, is socially credible. People do follow orders when they don’t have enough information or when everybody else is doing it. We have a mechanism wired into our brain to follow the crowd and to follow the leader. This is why the PR technique of “mass appeal” and “speaking from authority” works.
In the Nuremburg Trials, the excuse “I was only following orders” was deemed insufficient.
===========
It appears the German’s were not the only ones following orders:
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud.[71]
Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of “substituting power for principle” at Nuremberg. “I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled,” he wrote. “Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”[74]
U.S. Deputy Chief Counsel Abraham Pomerantz resigned in protest at the low caliber of the judges assigned to try the industrial war criminals such as those at I.G. Farben.[75]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
It depends on the person. Moreover, the idea that a random individual has knowledge, much less understanding, of state policies is absurd. To boot, there are those individuals that might or might not understand what’s happening around them beyond the sense that they can themselves take advantage of the situation to get away with, in some cases, literally murder.
The gatekeepers at Twitter responsible for this idiocy are tiny individuals with even tinier personal agendas and nothing more. My opinion is that Twitter is not “conspiring”.
Anne,
Although I would certainly agree that it is “insufficient” to simply say one was obeying orders may I please respectfully ask you to read up the work of Stanley Milgram?
Rather frightening…
@ferdberple
Nuremburg wasn’t really a fair trial. It was a witch hunt to shut people up. To shut up witnesses about the sort of things that were being financed within NAZI occupied Europe. Not sure I would use that as an example, or as precedence considering that there was no evidence presented to confirm the “war-crimes” of those that were subject to execution.
It just goes to show you, never trust a globalist, or a banker.
Many “Wardens” in Britain during WW2 (Those people who wore a white tin helmets with a “W” on it) were guilty of supplying the black market.
Citing that kangaroo court ‘the Nuremburg Trials’ is just silly.
Justice Douglas (and others of like mind) condemned the Allies because he did not believe in Natural Law, or the law that all healthy people are born with, written on our consciences, seen in virtually every society at all times throughout the world. Murder of innocent people is universally condemned.
The Allies did justice at Nurnberg. Nurnberg stands for the principle that while a law makes something legal it does not make it right.
“Murder of innocent people is universally condemned.”
Is that why we ascribe guilt by association to justify it on grand scales?
…if you have a spouse and kids, you would have done the same thing to ensure their survival. I <3 the moral superiority of the untested. You don't know what you would have done, but the odds are you would not choose to condemn your family.
Actually the vast majority of the leadership actually said they were doing the right thing because their laws stated they were right.
Well It is hardly surprising is it. When supposedly grown adults play around with finger toys to Tinkle. Titter, Wankle, Lingedout, Faceache, etc etc, is it any wonder that they get treated like a bunch of adolescent children.
If you want to be treated like mature adults, learn to write proper English (or whatever your first Language is) and stop fooling around with ersatz hieroglyphic juvenilia.
Humans are slowly losing the benefits of communicative language, and they still think that somehow, they are intelligent beings.
So the solution to being banned on Titter, is at your fingertips. Just tell them and their toys to go Jump in the lake.
G
Ecce Homo Stultus.
OMG ROTFL BTW YOLO YODO CYT GG GL TTYL
George you might enjoy this Tedx Talk by Prof. Seth Lerer – Dean of Arts and Humanities and Distinguished Professor of Literature at the University of California at San Diego.
Hoorah! Twitter is for Twits
Good Grief! I just made a Tweet.
I’m with George E. Smith.
Attempting to shut down academic and scientific debate is ALWAYS wrong: anyone involved in academia or journalism knows that perfectly well.
Unfortunately, that statement has been proven false. Take a look at the article regarding students of journalism and their answers regarding publishing “denier” articles.
Stunning. I’d toss every one of them out of the program for failing to understand what journalistic integrity means. I’d then toss their professors out after them, for failing to teach them even the most basic creed.
Sorry…link here:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/24/reporters-explain-why-balance-isnt-needed-on-global-warming/
One man’s crap is another man’s treasure… Gavin’s crap must be priceless.
LOL
At least he (Gavin) thinks it don’t stink and its priceless.
Twitter is an elementary grade schoolyard with little other purpose than to provoke fights. Just wondering why the skeptical side isn’t employing the same tactics as their opponents? Little would be lost in shutting down this venue of ventilation in a blizzard of service lockings.
The ‘sceptical side’ don’t need to sink to those tactics as rational argument and presentation of evidence is all that’s needed to demonstrate the falseness of the CAGW proponents’ claims. Truth also doesn’t want to hide things but expose then to the full glare of light for all to see.
If this was true , there would BE no arguement! But, sadly , it is not .
Let’s stick with the truth, ethics, and integrity. It will win in the end.
Gary:
Well, this is just one skeptics’ opinion, but i (we?) don’t use the same tactics as our opponents because we find it repulsive.
I’m not trying to flame you with my response; there are days when I wonder the same thing.
Twitter would all of a sudden start suspending the people abusing the report feature.
My account was locked claiming there was “suspicious activity.” I didn’t notice that the reason I wasn’t able to retweet was because my account had been locked. I think it was pure shenanigans on the part of Twitter. I’m no big wig and only have 850 followers but I think they’re going for the killing a thousand small fishes approach. Small fish are more likely to think it’s an isolated instance and possibly abandon their account. I had to have a message sent to my email, then click link and run through some process that wasn’t responding and had to repeat it several times. Twitter is in on this IMO. Former google employees founded Twitter. One was a Ferguson native and a “hands up don’t shoot/shot in the back” Michael Brown truther.
only twits go anywhere near twitter
lol
I suppose “BS” stands for “brilliant science.”
{from this WUWT post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/01/a-frank-admission-about-the-state-of-climate-modeling-by-dr-gavin-schmidt/ }
So there you have it in print…Gavin Schmidt admits that climate models fail due to erroneous assumptions AND that errors in maths undoubtedly exist. Beautiful. Simply beautiful.
So just what errors are there for example in ordinary arithmetic or algebra or geometry. I can’t say that I have ever encountered any errors in those branches of mathematics.
I do see numerous examples where individuals simply aren’t able to use them correctly.
If you don’t know how to run a lathe; don’t blame your ignorance on the lathe.
There are false assumptions, conceptual errors and bad math. Climate models have multiple conceptual errors which are not strictly ‘false assumptions’, a term which implies ‘something was considered and decided upon incorrectly’.
An omission (forgetting something) is a conceptual error. There are a lot of omissions in climate models, the second most embarrassing of which is the one paid for by Canadian public funds over on the coast in California North. Canada is the shame-faced subsidiser of the second-hottest running of all the basically worthless climate models that fail, year after year, to predict the world’s temperature. By making enough false assumptions and conceptual errors and mathematical mistakes, one gets an impossible 6-8 degrees of warming from a doubling of CO2.
“XX did it, YY did it, why shouldn’t we did it?” – President Mangope.
They should put those servers in Winnipeg. They could use the hot air.
It is easy to use math or logic to make ridiculous claims if you start with ridiculous assumptions or do not clearly define context.
Completely logical
– People with blue shirts are smart
– You have a blue shirt
– You are smart.
The certainty of math
– You can with mathematical certainty increase your chances of wining the lottery by 300%
– Buy 3 tickets for every 1 ticket you used to buy.
The gullible public falls for this kind of stuff all the time, that scientists do as well is baffling.
“””””…..– You can with mathematical certainty increase your chances of wining the lottery by 300%
– Buy 3 tickets for every 1 ticket you used to buy…….””””””
So person (A) buys one lottery ticket. Person (B) buys all of the rest of the lottery tickets.
Person (A) has the winning ticket.
Fat lot of good it did person (B) buying all of those losing tickets.
Statistics can tell you nothing about the likelihood of something that only happens once. It might give you some idea of your expected success rate if you buy tickets in say a million lotteries.
Alx, buying 3 tickets only increases your chances by 200% over buying 1 ticket.
Nassim Taleb is a brilliant and original writer. I always look forward to reading his books. Not sure if he is in dispute with Gavin Schmidt, but if so, I would put my money on Nassim.
I imagine that his issue is going to be with the underlying math. He has a strong distrust of most things Gaussian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_%282007_book%29
“…the failure of the models to match (the) real world (is) far more likely due to erroneous assumptions.”
Well thank you Captain Obvious, that’s exactly what we’ve been saying!
I would have said “No shit, Sherlock!” but I don’t want anyone to report me for abuse.
He meant the assumptions are too optimistic.
Never used Twitter and stuff like this is why I never will. But I’m happy to spread the news about their tactics to all of my friends and family who do use it!
….but liberals are the tolerant ones
lol +1
They’re two sides of the same coin, it’s not left vs right, it’s top vs bottom. No tolerance
https://youtu.be/jZYSL26zGTo
Hey, Edward Martin, hanging upside down (you are pretty amazing 🙂 ) — still praying for your cousin’s family. Hope they’re doing okay.
Top vs. bottom? Hmm, Ross Perot, the former CEO of EDS, a pretty rich guy. Hated the Bushes, and most certainly the Bushes hated him. His revenge was to draw enough votes away from Bush to hand the election to Bill Clinton. But I would not call the Bush/Perot thing a “top vs. bottom” thing. That was two pretty powerful guys going at it. And Perot was at times a goofball, too.
No it is the socialist mind vs non socialist mind. And many on the Right are socialists
All for freedom and equality [though the UK Liberal Democrats (Dim Lebs) had a deal to try to change our electoral system, by referendum, in return for which they would support a redrawing of constituency boundaries, to – broadly – make them all equal in size – so 80,000 in leafy Edgbaston get one MP, whilst gritty Surrey gets one MP for every 80,000-ish voters. When they lost the referendum, by about 5 to 2, they reneged on the deal – so we have lop-sided constituencies, where Labour can probably get a majority with 35-38% of the votes, yet the Tories will probably fail to do so with 40-42% of the total popular vote – all depending on where the vote goes, or comes from, or other psephological conundra].
Liberals, here, are revealed as politicians. No less, but no more. For many ‘politician’ is a term of abuse – but our nations do need leaders.
A quandary.
No – I’m not volunteering.
Auto
This problem goes back a loooong way; circa 1776 in fact. The whole “taxation without representation” squawk from the colonies was countered by some in Parliament that due to population shifts and the failure to redistrict, any number of “homeland” Brits were in the same boat. As if getting it wrong at home made getting it wrong abroad OK. That’s a major reason redistricting is done every 10 years in the US per the Constitution. It’s the primary reason we have a national census.
Liberals used to fight “the man”, “the establishment”. Now they fight freedom of thought, they have become petty tyrants and like how it feels.
Do some research on the origin of the word “tyrant”. You might find it amusing.
I believe that suspensions on Twitter are triggered automatically by an algorithm, which detects instances of accounts with less than 10K followers being reported by 10 other accounts.
@ClimateofGavin has less than 10K followers………
…I believe you’re right
“Report abuse” is a crude implement. But it does save money.
This falls under the title, if you can’t refute their arguments, then shut them up. Keep up the good fight.
Don’t tell everyone how to get their Twitter account suspended, I was beginning to look on it as a bonus feature!
Twitter is perfect for climate change propaganda, which is largely statistical soundbites masquerading as science, and claims that a paper or article says X or debunks Y when in fact it says Z.
Twitter is doing what bigger companies usually do: they turn arrogant, do stupid stuff, in short making themselves ready to go down the tubes. How stupid could they possibly be – instead of being a really wide platform for all kind of intelligent, and sometimes also stupid discussion turning them into censorship by blocking opinions … Almost funny.
Let them go on, arrogance and upcoming failure are closely related. Those that were blocked: keep it up, you will win.
They have no tube to go down to. They have a P/E of 131; they’re a Californian Ponzi scheme in the first place. Likely with some support from In-Q-Tel.
Harsh! … but probably quite accurate. 😀
A P/e of 131 needs investigation.
Twitter is just plain stupid as is Facebook. The world and web would be better off without them.
Twitter is a lot better than Fæcebook.
Dish soap is a lot better to drink than Drano but…
MichelS
Oh, I REALLY like that…
Well I’ve had an email from Mr Crap and he’s angry at being compared to the Hockey Stick. Says it’s defamation to be linked to something so worthless.
I should be banned from the net entirely because of my comments exposing scams and crap of all kinds.
My favorite Gavin Schmidt moment was when he was on Ted Talks. He said that with climate science you have to either accept all of it or none of it (paraphrasing). Later he said that when modeling the climate you need 14 orders of magnitude and the models currently can model 4 orders of magnitude (again paraphrasing [badly]).
I was taught that each order of magnitude is 10 times greater than the previous; therefore the current climate models are ten-thousand/hundred-trillionths or one/ten-billionth of the way to being correct and those are some rather long odds.
I may be misremembering much of this as it has been a year since I saw this Ted Talk and I encourage others to correct me.
Good memory, Brian. I’ll affirm you. I think you were remembering this video:
TED Talks with Gavin Schmidt (youtube)
1:01 “It’s the whole {earth system} or it’s nothing.”
1:13 “…roughly 14 orders of magnitude…”
(yes, each order is 10 times greater than the previous one)
That is the video that I was thinking of, though not exactly how I remember it being. In the first few minutes he gives you a glimpse of how impossible the task of accurately modeling the climate actually is.
By pouring our money into an impossible task that can only yield a minimal benefit (conservation of resources), we are delaying the breakthroughs in physics, medicine, materials science, cosmology, and several other fields that are critical to our survival as a species. I believe that our academic institutions, by encouraging this groupthink, are discouraging the independent minded people that bring with them the new perspectives that lead to these breakthroughs.
We, as a species, are turning our attention inward on ourselves instead of outward toward the universe and I see this as the beginning of a decline. I hope I’m wrong.
Brian,
Nope, he didn’t use the word “accept” …
The patterns that you see are there at all of the different scales, but you can’t chop it into little bits and say, ‘Oh well, let me just make a smaller climate’. I can’t use the normal products of reductionism to get a smaller and smaller thing that I can study in a laboratory and say, ‘That’s something I now understand and it’s the whole‘. It’s all or it’s nothing.
… he used the word “understand”. I think the dichotomy at the end is unfortunate, but the caution against presuming to understand the whole system from one or very few of its parts is spot on.
Very badly. If you must chop things into bits, at the very least make an effort to get the bits correct. Best though, to look at and attempt to comprehend as much of the whole as possible, and then faithfully reproduce it when commenting on it. That’s tremendously difficult to do for climate. Not so much for a 12 minute talk about climate.
Brandon Gates
Wow! Now if we could only get you to plead for the same thing (getting the little bits correct) for CAGW data and use of the scientific methodology, we’d have a deal!
Chip Javert,
Who is this “we” of whom you speak?
—————
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/27/outrageous-noaa-demands-262000-fee-for-looking-at-their-public-data/#comment-1893671
dbstealey: You’re getting fixated on things that don’t matter.
Me: Irony. I’m not the one making noises about suing the gummint for (“only”) weather data available for the price of a simple email. Since you’ve flunked the literacy test, let’s see how you do on the numeracy portion. Do you think a successful lawsuit against the Feds would cost more, or less than $262,000 NOAA says they require to honor the law and fulfil Goddard and Clizbe’s FOIA request? Which would be most cost-effective from the taxpayer’s point of view? Tell you what. Since I’m a big supporter of government and scientific transparency, and willing to put my money where my mouth is: If Anthony starts a coordinated pledge drive with Goddard and Clizbe to raise the $262,000 for the FOIA to go through, I’ll contribute $500.00 out of my own funds in support. If the drive reaches 50% of that amount, I’ll contribute another $500.00 as a further demonstration of my commitment to the effort. If, after 90 days from the opening bell of the pledge drive, the full $262,000 is not met, all collected funds are to be donated to: http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/
dbstealey: Dream on, Gates, and while you’re at it, get a life.
Anthony: [crickets]
—————
Not those two apparently. I can tu quoque too you see. There’s not much to it. Protip: works best with specific, clear-cut examples — not sweepingly vague references to vast amount of data and nebulously defined scientific methods. The smaller the burden of proof you assume, the better this tactic works. Which is … not very well.
To wit: None of this has any bearing on whether Brian badly paraphrased Gavin Schmidt out of context or not, but it was a fun diversion.
Gates says:
If you must chop things into bits…
…says the guy who incessantly chops things into bits.
Really, the Gates threadbombing over the past year is past tedious. And reading his vile anti-WUWT comments on other blogs is hypocritical. They don’t let me or lots of others comment there.
So lately I’ve been just skipping over most anything by Gates. His comments add nothing worthwhile to the discussion. I only noticed this one because I like Chip Javert and read his comment. Then I noticed the psycho posted right under it…
Brian,
Your summary was good enough. Lol, both B. Gates’ inaccurate criticism of you and also the AGW speculation he regularly and impotently attempts to promote on WUWT is soundly refuted by Schmidt’s lecture.
You comprehended Schmidt much better than Gates did.
Irreducible complexity. Comprehending the entire climate system called “earth” by looking at sub-parts is at this time not just “tremendously difficult to do” (Gates above), it is impossible.
Perhaps, we should start calling Mr. Gates, The Red Queen (of Alice Through the Looking Glass fame).
Janice
I agree, D.B.. I read the comment I reply to above to support good ol’ Brian, but, whatever was grunted out by Gates in the comment below Javert’s, I have no idea. Not going to waste my time.
To dignify Gates with a response is only worthwhile to:
1. Prevent him from fooling people; or
2. Support those he slanders.
dbstealey,
Maybe I am crazy; for the life of me I can’t figure out if “denegrating” other people is against site policy or not. If I didn’t subscribe to the principle of taking as good as I give, I’d appeal to the mods [1] — but rumour has it you ARE one. The game is rigged. Rigged I tell you! Halp halp, I’m being repressed!
——————
[1] Speaking of, mod: this may be a duplicate post.
Janice Moore,
Well … this IS gummint work we’re talking about …
Hmm. Well I quoted Schmidt directly. Divining comprehension is difficult, if not …
… that. Good point. I happen to agree.
Playing with the queen of hearts
Knowing it ain’t really smart
The joker ain’t the only fool
Who’ll do anything for you ~Juice Newton
Some people also call me a Space Cowboy.
Mr Gates, I suggest you learn the meaning of “paraphrase”.
Why does “climate science” remind me of “The Blind Men and the Elephant”?
David Chappell,
par·a·phrase
verb 1. express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.
noun 1. a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.
Rewording for clarity. Not rewording to change meaning.
Compare: He said that with climate science you have to either accept all of it or none of it (paraphrasing).
With: The patterns that you see are there at all of the different scales, but you can’t chop it into little bits and say, ‘Oh well, let me just make a smaller climate’. I can’t use the normal products of reductionism to get a smaller and smaller thing that I can study in a laboratory and say, ‘That’s something I now understand and it’s the whole‘. It’s all or it’s nothing.
Definitely a rewording, but one which changes meaning. I suggest you learn the meaning of “strawman”. And pay heed to this hazard: That is the video that I was thinking of, though not exactly how I remember it being.
To his credit, Brian said: … (again paraphrasing [badly]) …
It’s not to your credit that you’ve not recognized the difference in meaning between “accept” and “understand”. May I suggest you look those words up as well while you’re learning about the strawman fallacy.
Just an engineer,
Perhaps because you ignore what they say and confuse your own “approach” to the problem with theirs?
Well what you said is only true if for some crazy reason one happens to be using a decimal number system.
I think Velociraptors only had three toes on each hind leg; one of which for some reason stood straight up in the air (probably better to scratch under their armpits). I think they had three fingers on their tiny hands. So they probably thought an order of magnitude was a factor of six; not ten.
Very true, and if this were a Velociraptor site it would also be mathematically appropriate. I wonder how many digits the ecosystem has?
Well, as a veteran of UseNet (ask your grandparents), I find all social media to be a comparative kindergarten.
Other than things like “rouge cancelling”, which weren’t easy to do, your posts could not be censored or deleted at all. If was very much like the wild west: no moderators or fiduciary interests that limited your posts. Nobody “owned” it.
BTW, this is the first I’ve read that blog, and found this incredible:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2015/02/noaa-settled-science-earth-at-5824f-in.html
I love it when you can make a good point with documents sourced back to the supposed “big brains” who have so much “settled science” on their side.
Hi Anthony, how ironic!
I just wrote this in a thread on my blog:
https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/censorship-by-judith-curry/
Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) censors people at his own blog for the slightest of reasons. Just say you don’t trust the Bush clan and bang! He eliminates you with no warning forever.
He is a tool. And a HUGE hypocrite.
emsnews: can you cite examples of censorship at Real Science?
emsnews: cite examples of his hypocrisy as well please.
emsnews: We’re still waiting for you to provide examples of censorship and hypocrisy by Steve Goddard. You make some pretty harsh claims; it’s time to put up or shut up.
He just did it to me and to others. Proof is easy: I can’t post there. And I did nothing ‘wrong’ so far as being polite and on topic.
Anthony
Can you can get a copy of what Twitter sent To Tom.
Not saying I don’t believe tom but would make this a 100% fact story of why twitter did this.
Anthony
I see Tom Now Included what was sent to him by Twitter and poster the Tweet screen capture now on his blog also.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2015/04/twitter-has-suspended-me.html
Speaking of “interesting questions” … where’s the original (allegedly) hand-drawn graph?
Bonus question: should blog owners be forced by law to publish any and all comments?
Brandon – ‘any and all’ – woo o o o o o!
All?
Now, decent, non-abusive – even if entirely contrary – yes, of course they should be published [or, if not, the site must display a symbol indicating they only publish confirmatory posts – i.e. they’re utterly biased].
But ‘any and all’ : –
– ‘get your 9099ers n 5ter01ds at +AA1678432ii)g’;
– The Writer is a +**!?()(*&&%;
– This scam is led by [well pretty much any reviled group you like – say P0l1T1c1an5].
I think there need to be some boundaries.
I know it’s the Interwebb thing . . . but still.
My thoughts . . . and many will – and are free to – disagree.
Thank goodness!
Auto
auto,
So do I. Abuse and other “terms of use” policies are not easy to define objectively. Discussing them as if they are is not valid. I think you understand this. If so, you and I have no issue.
Should blog owners be forced by law to publish any and all comments? No. For many reasons – swamping by opponents, litigation, OT, etc. In the end, blog readers will decide, for example RC lost many readers and its adverse-comment-deleting policy was a factor.
Mike Jonas,
Why should Twitter be any different?
Gates,
Perhaps because it isn’t a blog?
timg56,
I’m not aware of any universally inviolate rule definitions of how blogs vs. twitter must operate. Both are communication mediums with owners, who are not — and I think should not — be compelled to exist at all. Twitter and blog owners have chosen to provide services, on their own time at their own financial risk. I’m sorry, but twitter is not something I see as an essential public service which needs to be mandated by law. To protect their business, they need to be able deny users who violate terms of service from accessing it.
Unclear why you want to get into business of regulation people’s behavior.
But, for laughs, let’s assume your silly question was law: imagine how many ‘bots would immediately clog up (almost) every discussion. If comments (especially specific view points) are censored, you’ve indeed learned something about the blog.
Chip Javert,
Because Anthony is a blog owner.
If, if, if. Ok, speculate about the “ifs” on this one:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/06/05/the-guardians-ridiculous-claim-of-75-arctic-sea-ice-loss-in-30-years-patently-false/
[Update: I’m banned at WUWT. I’ve had some fun tweaking AW’s source for this nonsense, though -see the comments there. Back at WUWT, PaulB is doing a good bulldog on AW. I am curious to see how long before he gets stomped on – W]
Do you understand the concept of a “zero-sum game”? I ask, because failing to recognize when you’re in one can lead to being hoist by one’s own petard.
[NOTE: William Connolley (Stoat) has been routinely coming here to “tweak” people then write about it, plus write denigrating things about me. He’s also violated site policy several times. His ban was well earned then and will continue, however, I have made exceptions for him a couple of time since then when his name was in stories here. I don’t have any regrets, as he’s the worst sort of serial abuser of trust (and Wikipedia) I’ve seen. As to your concerns, “Brandon”, I don’t give a flying f about them, since you seem to exist here for the same purpose: “tweaking” people. In every large venture like this, there will always be a few people who want to push the envelope, and sometimes wear out their welcome trying to do so and/or push past the envelope and venture into taunting and denigration. Do try to stay clear of abusing the site policy and you’ll not suffer the same fate. – Anthony]
Anthony,
It would help me adhere to site policy if you’d be specific about which one(s) I have violated. And how. Anything less is nonsensical static.
[REPLY: Just read it, heed it, and you’ll be able to stay clear of it – Anthony]
Anthony,
I just did, not for the first time. I’d be a lot happier about toning down my deliberately rude comments if the enforcement efforts were more equally applied to all participants here. As it is, I’m happy trade barbs and insults with anyone, without undue complaint since this is an emotional topic and I would rather be as free as everyone else essentially is to express anger and derision. So far, you and the mods have given me a great deal of leeway, which I do very much appreciate.
Some of this is indirectly relevant to the topic of the head post; namely that Twitter has community participation standards just as you do. Thus far, your only answer to that argument has been to warn me about vague violations of your own site policy. Curious tactic, and a very mixed message. Perhaps you can clear up any misunderstandings on my part.
@ur momisugly Brandon,
You got Anthony’s attention.
A stellar job.
Now, are you gonna respect his house rules, or get shown the door ?
u.k.(us),
Have I been violating any site policies today in your view?
Look, you’re good at getting a rise out of people.
Change your tack.
u.k.(us),
That’s not an answer to my question. But ok. Whether people allow me to get a rise out of them is more up to them than me. I’m perfectly willing to have reasonable conversations with people I think are being reasonable even if — especially if — they disagree with my position. That’s stimulating for me. I learn from it.
I’m not the only side of this conversation, and I will not allow it to be dictated to me what I find reasonable or not. Especially not in such subjective terms.
Anthony is well within his rights as owner of this blog to allow my participation here or not. He doesn’t need a written policy to do it. But while we’re talking about it:
You are responsible for your own words.
Yes I am, and that’s true wherever my travels take me. It’s one of my core personal values to take responsibility for my own actions and words. When I mock, deride, berate, criticize, rant … “denigrate” … I do not expect the response to be kind. And certainly would not think of asking it, at least not with a straight face.
Odd. I have developed a Pavlovian Response to “Brandon Gates” that causes me not to read any thread with those two words at the top so I can move on to comments of more interest than the thread jamming that happens. Whois Brandon Gates …
Hey, as long as it is respectful, then it’s all good.
It was weren’t it ?
Wayne Delbeke,
Then you give me far more power than I deserve.
u.k.(us),
That depends on one’s definition of respect.
There are subtle ways to disrespect another person which don’t involve overtly negative emotional displays, mockery or “harsh” language.
What kind of mind-set do you need, to assume you can control the weather ?
Hey Brandon,
You’re a garrulous guy with a burr under your saddle.
Why do you devote so much time to this blog?
u.k.(us),
At this stage in our technological advancement, I’d say it was lunacy to seriously suggest such a thing. One wonders why it’s relevant to even raise the issue.
mebbe,
Sometimes.
Would you believe me if I told you? And why, pray tell, is it relevant?
Both: Why are you two attempting to change the subject?
mebbe April 1, 2015 at 8:37 pm
Hey Brandon,
You’re a garrulous guy with a burr under your saddle.
Why do you devote so much time to this blog?
——————————–
The Koch Brothers pay him to lose arguments.
I didn’t realize there was a subject, I thought it was a conversation.
They do tend to take…. turns…. don’t they, conversations ?
u.k.(us),
Abusive censorship on Twitter – same word used by Gavin Schmidt gets commenter banned
Twisty ones. Happens here a lot when the lead argument of the head post starts looking indefensible. Then the “who, me” innocent act starts. Actually, it looks to me like it there from the beginning:
If calling a graph “crap” is grounds for suspension, why isn’t @ClimateofGavin suspended?
Not quite as epic as Goddard’s $262,000 FOIA request, but still obviously a crowd-pleaser.
You abandoned …
What kind of mind-set do you need, to assume you can control the weather ?
… awfully quickly. I was kind of interested to see your next move on that one. Or was that a tacit “admission” that it’s NOT actually relevant?
philincalifornia,
You didn’t hear? They fired me after the first day.
BG sys…
“Some of this is indirectly relevant to the topic of the head post; namely that Twitter has community participation standards just as you do.”
===================================================
Your point is?
You see Brandon, no one is saying having community standards is wrong. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy of enforcement. Your childish complaint that you only respond in kind, is a pathetic plea for a violin. You foolishly attempt to blame others for your own bad behavior. Sorta like, “But they did it to me first” whining.
I can and have been censored at several pro CAGW sites simply because I linked cogent skeptical peer reviewed reports. OTOH you likely have more posts here then anyone, and the majority of those contain a gratuitous insult or three.
David A,
Try reading further down in that comment.
Least of all me, but that won’t stop you from putting words in my mouth will it.
That is the argument being made based on speculation, yes. I follow the logic just fine. Where’s the evidence?
Nice story. If being furious at lies and the people who tell them is childish, then newspapers are written by infants. OTOH, I purged tee vee “news” from my consumption habits a long time ago because I think it is entertainment for sheep. I swear, what planet ARE you living on.
Oh goody, another equivalence argument. Are other blog owners to be compelled to adhere to Anthony’s policies?
And since speculation is particularly in vogue today, I quote you: You foolishly attempt to blame others for your own bad behavior.
In this very post you have misrepresented my own words. I’m supposed to believe your personal testimonials about how you’ve been “censored” elsewhere? Take a hike. The flip-side of freedom to speak is freedom to not listen. We need both, otherwise …
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Clockwork%2771.jpg
… well let’s just say you’re not the only one in this conversation with visions of sliding down slippery slopes.
@ur momisugly Brandon,
Tactics vs strategy, now that is an interesting question.
Do you leave the rook exposed to present a target that if not taken, indicates a more complex plan in the works ?
u.k.(us),
What I think is that the Illuminati would make sure that temperature “observations” fit the “desired” modelled outcome. And that their are much simpler and easier scams to run … typically one picks something that doesn’t rely on independently verifiable physical phenomena. Parsimony is not proof — it’s not even evidence — but it sure is compelling.
I don’t think the nasty leftists are going to come after you and your droogs to rig you up like Alex DeLarge here. It’s certainly not what I’m advocating. If “they” — whoever “they” are — try it, I’ll gladly share a foxhole with you against it.
u.k.(us),
PS: Usually when I leave a rook exposed it’s because I’m playing too aggressively.
no, they should not be required by law to publish all comments, and every blog will set its own standards of moderation — but such double-standards and malicious standards will narrow the interested community over time and give the lie to any claim to allow a well balanced, open minded set of inquirers….
Large sites like Twitter and Facebook, in particular, ought to be committed to a wide open set of conversations and discussion, since they pretend to be society-wide institutions and not mere tiny bits of the blogosphere. No one can force them to operate a particular moderation policy, but one can argue convincingly that their policies “ought” to be very tolerant to a wide range of opinion.
Skiphill,
Censorship by intimidation certainly is arguable. But calling a suspension censorship on such thin evidence looks more like manufacturing controversy and playing the martyr than being the true victim of some nefarious plot to quell dissenting opinion.
But, we all have our biases, don’t we.
“But, we all have our biases, don’t we.”
And some are mre obvious and boring than others.
I agree. There’s nothing worse than a dull insult.
No blog owners should NOT be forced by law to publish all comments. The blog is a private entity and we do not require more government interference in our lives. Less would be nice. Even though there are trolls whose sole purpose in life is to be a pain in the ass, censorship of any type is a slippery slope. Better to resist the taunting and skip their comments. Comment threads often have more content and depth than idiot talking heads on cable news, I would not want that controlled or limited in any way.
Blogs who do not publish all views lose intellectual integrity and either fade away or become a feeding trough for the gullible and faithful. Since by definition the faithful are not allowed to entertain opposing views, they must at all cost not see opposing views.
I am not sure twitter itself is the issue, it may be petty tyrants due to limited intellectual capability (only slightly above that of a watermelon) who attempt to shut down opposing views by frivolously reporting abuse. I imagine it is just an amazing coincidence that the petty tyrants trying to shutdown a free exchange of ideas on twitter, NY Times, LA times, RC, Guardian, etc are AGW proponents.
“No blog owners should NOT be forced by law to publish all comments. The blog is a private entity and we do not require more government interference in our lives.”
I agree with that 110 percent as the old football coaches love to say. But … but … if I say the same thing about private property like a restaurant or a retail store then I would be called all manner of names and vilified. Why is some private property private and other “private property” not really private?
If a graph is accurate, what difference does it make if a computer or a person drew it?
Exempt once the Religious Freedom Laws are passed. 😉
Brandon Gates on April 1, 2015 at 2:01 pm
– – – – – – –
Brandon Gates,
That is the least interesting question. These are interesting questions:
1) Should newspapers be required to publish all letters to the editor.
2) Should talk show hosts be required to air all the callers in?
3) Should the IPCC be required include all research in its assessments other than just favorable research that supports their biased view that there must be significant and dangerous GW?
4) Should all blog commenters be required to provide proof of identity?
John
John Whitman,
No to (1) and (2), (4) is should be left up to the blog owner. (3) is not a question — it’s an opinion stated as fact, masquerading as a question. Which is rhetoric, not science.
And no, I’m not still beating my wife and never have. Thanks for playing.
Brandon Gates on April 2, 2015 at 3:56 pm
– – – – – – – – –
Brandon Gates,
My Q #3 is based on the IPCC’s own official and formal charter created from the approved framework agreement that caused the IPCC to be formed. IPCC supporting it is legion. It created a systemic epistemic structural flaw in IPCC work product that is fatal in a scientific sense. The IPCC is proud of its charter.
John
John Whitman,
That is the only supportable fact in your “question” #3. The rest is your subjective opinion.
I’m still not beating my wife, I never have, and I’m not planning to any time soon. “Asking” loaded “questions” is not science, it’s transparently obvious rhetorical nonsense. Please kindly take your systemic epistemology and burn it with fire, then not-so-kindly demand your money back from whomever taught you that good science is done by sophistry.
Brandon Gates on April 2, 2015 at 6:29 pm
– – – – – – – – –
Brandon Gates,
The IPCC proudly acknowledges what it does based on its charter so a question that includes a reference to its charter has created a level playing field for an answer. Fair enough.
I understand that focusing on the structural flaw causes more lack of trust in the thing the IPCC calls science. I have no pity.
John
A note on Twitter
I started using twitter a few years ago and I have had a lot of discussions with folks about the nature of the State (government), anarchy, minarchy and the like. I am a die-hard radical libertarian who is a big Murray Rothbard fan. I began my political blog just to make long answers to twitter discussions.
Many of my followers and Twitter friends have had their accounts suspended by simply answering lunatic socialists (you know — “liberal” democrats) and I came close myself once. I just blocked the twit after he claimed me answering him with facts was “abuse”.
The cry-baby democrats run to report “abuse” whenever they see they are losing the argument. No reason for “climatologists” not to act the same way now is there.
“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” ~H. L. Mencken … and I feel the same about climate “scientists”.
markstoval,
Charming. You know, when I read Rothbard, I kept thinking of Somalia for some reason. It’s all becoming clear to me now.
I would say that you fail to understand the difference between a failed State and an anarchy. I am not surprised at your failure to understand … par for the course apparently. (plus the fact that Somalia has had all sorts of “help” from various states fighting via proxy there)
markstoval,
Consistent with what the guy said to me before he turned me on to Rothbard, whom I quite enjoyed reading by the way.
Goes with being a student of history I guess. The Statist philoshpy in all its incarnations has proven the most powerful. I’ve observed that anarchists consistently confuse what they think ought to be with what is, not least, I wager, because arguments like Rothbard’s ARE undoubtedly seductive. He was very logical and I found his works fairly internally consistent. It’s the stuff he left out that is the weakness. Shades of Rand in that respect. Many good, valid principles, but the radical nature of their works — more or less by definition — aren’t comprehensive and therefore ultimately miss what works best in practical reality.
That’s what happens to power vacuums. Human nature abhors them, just like Mother.
@ur momisugly AW, Off topic but the quickest way I could think of). Cali has just announced a 25% reduction of water use (on BreitBart california) with huge penalties for users ( but the delta smelts are fine, I guess they can’t pay the fines
Well there is a strain of thought the earth would be a much better place if humanity was not on it.
I wonder what happened with desalination plants in California. They were controversial with complaints about greedy profiteers, ruining of the environment, etc. It is much more expensive water than rain water from lakes or reservoirs, but expensive water is better than no water.
Of course water could efficiently be pumped down to the drought areas, but the delta smelts somehow have more expensive lawyers than the populace in drought areas.
Still OT. Just read a media article that says LA’s corroded water pipes causes the city to lose 8 billion gallons of water per year. Also water use per person in Cali is 117 gallons/day. As a comparison my local city Auckland (higher rainfall) use per person is about 40 gals. per day. A looming problem for the Sunshine State.
I hate to even mention this, but: The Delta Smelt only lives where there is already water; namely in the Northern California Watershed area.
It is taking that water to some other place that doesn’t have water, and has never had water for climate reasons, that creates water problems. And they aren’t taking the Delta Smelt’s water just to float the Desert Pupfish. They are sending it to places where even the pupfish can’t swim.
Just my opinion of course.
What a fool. Didn’t he study the water problem in Santa Barbara during the 90s? They did the same thing, everyone voluntarily reduced their water usage too, and water prices soared. It created a human disaster for the poor, and threatened bankruptcy for water services companies.
He should have made it 10%, as Santa Barbara discovered, and he stopped the Delta smelt project util things are back to normal.
I detest the censorship on Twitter, but if climate science realists/skeptics want to operate in that playground, recognize that you will be held to a different/higher standard. If you venture into enemy territory be aware that people like Gavin apply the “rules” just as they do at Real Climate etc. They are contemptible petty authoritarians, but they will not change and one has to operate in awareness of how they enforce their double-standards. One can complain, but they are what they are.
Just my 2 cents from one who wants nothing to do with the Twit-world.
Twitter is for twats.
You must be a fellow Brit. I wonder if this word would get past at Twitter, given its meaning?
I think the twittering algorithm is a touch sensitive these days when it comes to “abuse” reports because they’ve got some bad press after a few recent suicides.
Of course things generally aren’t looking good for Gavin scientifically, but I wouldn’t want him to get overly depressed or anything.
Best we keep him from flying passenger planes into mountains, too.