And they wonder why skeptic blogs get more traffic…

As WUWT closes in on a million comments…

WUWT_comments

…I thought this is worth reading at The Lukewarmer’s way run by Tom Fuller: 

Worst-Thing-About-Censorship

Maybe Michael Tobis might finally be persuaded to approve Mr. Fuller’s comment, now in moderation for 3 days.

http://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/how-activists-try-to-shape-the-climate-conversation/

h/t to Skiphil

 

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rhoda R

I don’t bother with sites that censor differing opinions. They are boring.

There is a reason why I quit trying to post comments at those websites since it is a waste of time knowing that my comments is likely edited or deleted.
That is why all they have left are the lemmings and fanatics who use a lot of ear plugs in the loud echo chamber they are left in.

Mario Lento

Censored sites are only for people who want to hear what they already think. It gets unreasonable people to all agree to feel a certain way without the benefit of a cognitive thought process.

R. Shearer

They can neither handle truth, dissent or both.

If they refuse to permit contrary observations, assertions, and contentions, what real interest do they have in the examination of their own premises?
Answer (of course): none at all.
And therefore to hell with them.

Arty

I used to read Ladens blog from time to time but the amount of vitriol Greg spits out at people with differing views put me off probably for ever. The constant arguments from authority also struck me as being anti science. No wonder he is getting only a handful of comments, if he is lucky, to his blogs these days.
We have enough questioning from scientists against AGW that any pleas to the consensus can be seen to be a logical fallacy. BTW I am a fence sitter on this issue but with each passing day I am viewing the alarmist predictions and arguments from authority as politics and not science.
I love this place, lots of posts on both sides. I am also very fond of Judith Curry’s blog for the same reason.
Keep up the good work and the readers will continue to come here

It’s not right to pick only what you like, but to take all of the evidence…
~ Richard P. Feynman

Allowing all points of view is why WUWT has such heavy traffic. Readers want to hear both sides in a debate. Then they can make an informed decision.
Alarmist blogs are caught in a trap: if they allow all points of view, they will lose the catastrophic global warming debate, because the planet is not supporting their belief. So rather than allow skeptics to freely comment, they heavily censor.
To them, it is the lesser of two evils: better to protect their belief system, than to enlarge their readership. Their belief in CAGW has been woven into their egos, until they are incapable of seeing — or tolerating — any other point of view:
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”.
~ Leo Tolstoy

Jeff L

@ D.B. Stealey says:
Love the Tolstoy quote – such an insight into the Human mind!

Skiphil

When I first started reading climate blogs a little over a year ago, I spent some time observing at RC and several more of the party line blogs listed by Tom Fuller. Once I saw how heavy handed their censorship is, I had no temptation to waste more time there, even though I have always greatly enjoyed seeking out cordial rational discussion and debate with people of diverse, wide ranging views. There simply did not seem to be much value to trying to engage at such places.

chris y

I tried to post this at Revkin’s advertisement for the new Tobis blog back in November 2011, but Prof. Revkin felt it was not up to the standards of Dot Earth, and refused to post it. I found this ironic, considering the most objectionable language in my comment was found in the quoted writings of the one and only Michael Tobis.
“Five reasons why I think Tobis is irrelevant-
Echo chamber, Malthusian stench, Execrable Rants, Nonsensical platitudes and Narcissistic priggishness-
Echo chamber-
“The site is not for everybody; certainly people who want to argue the question of whether AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or isn’t a problem will find nothing to engage with on our site.”
Malthusian stench-
“The only way to simplify ourselves out of the present mess is by cutting our population 80%, unfortunately.”
Michael Tobis, January 9, 2009
Execrable Rants-
“It is because the fiunkcg survival of the ficunkg planet is at fciunkg stake. And if we narrowly fkncuig miss pulling this out, it may well end up being your, your own fnikucg personal individual fkcnuig self-satisfied mischief and disrespect for authority that tips the balance. You have a lot of fkucnig nerve saying you are on my “side”.”
Michael Tobis, April, 2011
Nonsensical platitudes-
“…creating a global social contract…”
Narcissistic priggishness-
“I think Curry should STFU, or at least stick to such matters, if any, where she has reason for confidence in what she says.”
Michael Tobis, November, 2011
However, software engineer Tobis has extensive experience and expertise in developing government policy to exterminate 80% of the global population?
God help us.

RockyRoad

chris y says:
January 26, 2013 at 6:51 pm


However, software engineer Tobis has extensive experience and expertise in developing government policy to exterminate 80% of the global population?
God help us.

If Tobis is able to convince 80% of the population to think like he does, they’ll self-exterminate. We’ll see how “successful” he is.
Thinking logically is the only thing that keeps humans alive–we don’t have natural instincts, fur coats, or the ability to eat grass or wood to stay alive: we must use our minds and to the degree that we do, we prosper. Separate those who don’t use their mind from those that do, and those that don’t simply self-destruct.

Skiphil

P.s. To Anthony and all who make WUWT possible, huge congratulations on closing in upon one MILLION comments!

Progressives?
john robertson

On the “communicate the science” blogs.
Its a wonder of the human mind, that we can be certain we possess the only truth, yet must share or explain this truth only through censorship, evasion & abuse.
Congratulations on nearing a million comments, you are definitely doing things right and proving once again that people will not be told what to think by presumptive authorities.

Dale McIntyre

Dear Mr. Watts,
Tom Fuller is one of the grown-ups in the climate debate. His comments are always well worth thinking about.
And his point about censorship is absolutely vital.
I used to live in Saudi Arabia, Fascinating place, with a fascinating history, intriguing culture, and the most hospitable people on earth.
But I noticed that they had a lot of problems. And those problems were not being fixed because the newspapers and the television news was censored so heavily. Admitting to problems was thought to embarass the royal family, or somebody. So year after year things stumbled along, unadmitted problems never being addressed.
This is a lesson for us. When the government drones start to nibble away at the freedoms of the citizenry (which they do continually, and will continue to do in the future. They can’t help it; that’s what government drones do, like beavers have to gnaw down trees to keep their teeth from growing into their jawbone) we must fight like hell to preserve the freedom of the press.

MattS

I don’t have anything to add to the discussion. I am just doing my part to get to 1M comments. 🙂

OssQss

Nice stats!
I hope you double it this year Anthony ~
Don’t be hesitant to share this site folks. I have been surprised by the number of closet skeptics out there. Being under-informed is not an excuse, it is the norm now ……
Change it >
When do we get another WUWT-TV episode? That was some great stuff to share too.

@D.B. Stealey, you wrote “Alarmist blogs are caught in a trap: if they allow all points of view, they will lose the catastrophic global warming debate, because the planet is not supporting their belief. So rather than allow skeptics to freely comment, they heavily censor.”
Your statement says it correctly. I could not agree more. The problem is that there are enough sheeple that will not see it that way. The US, under the rule of Obama continues its march towards saving the world using my money.

Lady Life Grows

I know I have seen more comments snipped than that. But even then, you know whose comment was snipped as over the top or (rarely) irrelevant, and they can fix it.
Comments that most of us disagree with are normally posted without moderator comment. We can all consider them, although many of us are unmerciful to some of these.

Mk Urbo

I posted comment at http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/26/Whole-Foods-CEO-Global-Warming-Not-That-Big-a-Deal#comment-779472386
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..and received this recant by Al:
Well…did you happen to notice that those prominent scientists who dissent on AGW–most of them are NOT climatologists, but tend to be ohhhh, physicists, biologists, chemists, people who are NOT climatologists. There are a few, to be sure. But not many.
A study in 2009 by Doran and Zimmerman showed 97% of climatologists surveyed agreed that man-made emmissions are contributing to global warming. I cite the study in the thread about Bobby Jindal being half-right here on Breitbart. You can see a list of such studies here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change.
Also….http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/18/global_warming_nine_of_the_ten_hottest_years_since_1880_have_been_in_the.html….nine of the ten hottest years measured since 1880 have been in the last decade.
Another blog post by the same author links to numerous resources to convince the most sceptical critic of AGW. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.html.
Two relevant paragraphs from the latter: “And in the meantime, we saw Arctic sea ice at record low levels in 2012. West Antarctica and Greenland are melting. It is getting so hot in Australia right now that weather forecasters had to add a new color to the weather maps to indicate temperatures above 54° Celsius—that’s 130° Fahrenheit. The heat wave has literally set fire to Australia. And for me (and astronomers around the world) it’s personal; we almost
lost a major observatory to Australian wildfires over the weekend.”
And…
“So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in science journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.”
At least the Whole Foods CEO isn’t shutting his eyes about it… Unlike some I could name.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is this response valid ???

Crispin in Waterloo

Proud to be one (or more) in a million!
Well done Anthony and the wide variety of contributing readers.

John F. Hultquist

Arty says:
January 26, 2013 at 6:10 pm
“. . . a fence sitter . . .

I finally got a broadband connection in Sept. of 2008. Prior to that I hadn’t been paying attention and was quite surprised at what was going on. One of the first papers I found was Stephen McIntyre’s presentation at Ohio State on May 16, 2008 wherein he questions temperature reconstructions.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf
With that and some other things I was reading (The WUWT series on How Not To Measure Temperature, being one such) I visited our local university where I had a few contacts. There I picked up beginning texts on physics, chemistry, and biology. I could read at those for a bit, check things, and best of all I had the correct scientific terms to search for selected topics. Being very much both cynical and skeptical I was never on the fence but a month of reading 3+ hours a day of actual physical science material and blogs such as WUWT, CA, and Jonova convinced me I had the right instinct. Jo’s site has a link to a small (16 page) pamphlet called the Skeptic’s Handbook. It is simple and direct. Then there was Al Gore’s movie, or more precisely, all the criticisms of it, the UN’s involvement, and on and on.
I also find Bob Tisdale’s work convincing. I enjoy the historical aspects “tonyb” and others have been presented several places, here’s one on ‘the Air Vent’:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
Knowing of subs surfacing in the Arctic Ocean – yeah, I’m old enough – now well document on WUWT and elsewhere; and knowing of both hot and cold and wet and dry periods – well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation. CAGW is an extraordinary claim and I haven’t seen the required documentation. Just the opposite.

OssQss

Mk Urbo says:
January 26, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Like a catfish sensing a wiggling worm, I will respond to only one item an you can take it from there. No spin, just the study on the 97%.
Ensure you review the questions, total sample, respondents, and ultimately those used for the end resulting stats.
http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf

Mk Urbo

So less than (<10%) of a ~30% sampling (3146 0f 10,257) is what has turned into the 97% consensus being tossed about by the alarmists ?

John F. Hultquist

Mk Urbo,
I don’t know who Al is. Anyway, all that stuff you have presented has been discussed on WUWT. It is not worth anyone’s time to go over it again; 5 or 6 or 7 times is enough. Pick a four letter word beginning with C and ending in P – that describes it.
~~~~~~~
MattS,
Now I’ve got 2!

Mk Urbo

Ok, thanks – just want some WUWT eyes to support that…

Ah Tobis. After he gave me a runner-up Golden Horseshoe award for leaking the draft IPCC report (an award for lying, supposedly), I dropped by and engaged Tobis and his commenters. Tobis had only read Dana Nuccitelli’s error-ridden response to what I said about the draft report so I was trying to clue them in.
I ribbed Dana a little but was just correcting his science, and the science of those who popped up to rebut me. That lasted until Tobis refused to publish one of my carefully reasoned responses. His kept insisting that I, like all “deniers,” don’t actually have any grasp of the subject, but am only saying whatever I can think of that sounds plausible enough to mislead the uninformed. (Talk about projection.) My repeatedly kicking Tobis’ ass on substance apparently presented too much of a disjoint with his claims that I had no substance so he just stopped allowing me to respond.
World class twit.

DaveG

The worst tactic in evidence is the censorship of comments and commenters. The ‘moderators’ of these blogs will cheerfully trash your comments, or delay them so the conversation has moved on by the time they appear, or worst of all, ‘edit’ them.
Yep! I have tried to comment in a none offensive way many times over the years, and they still bounce you. I simply don’t bother anymore = less traffic to their blogs.

A Crooks

I’m happy to get you one closer to that million
I was just reading Andrew Bolts blog
There is an item with:
” A new study by warmist scientists admits the IPCC probably over-estimated predicted
warming by nearly 100 per cent.
‘GLOBAL warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed, researchers said
yesterday. The most likely temperature rise will be 1.9C (3.4F) compared with the
3.5C predicted by the Intergovern­mental Panel on Climate Change. ‘ ”
Someone commented: “So does that mean 97% of scientists can be wrong? ”
I thought that was funny. I think it should be more widely used – so here it is.
Cheers

gerrydorrian66

Suppressing dissent always ends badly. Always.

MattS

Comment #
John F. Hultquist,
What do carp have to do with Mk Urbo’s post?

Tucci78

At 10:46 PM on 26 January, MattS had asked of John F. Hultquist:

What do carp have to do with Mk Urbo’s post?

What, you couldn’t smell something fishy in that “97%” pseudocitation?

La la la!
Most people grow out of that while still in the playground. Clearly not all of them though.

TBear

The Bear drops by to get the comment stats up …
Oh, and to say `good job’.

One million is a lot.
Tom Fuller is spot on: A lot of the projected impacts of climate change can be adequately dealt with by adaptation. Just think about it: Humans thrive from the equator to the poles. People survived the Warsaw Ghetto and the Killing Fields of Cambodia. We can have a few degrees of warming.
As to censorship, I guess some bloggers treat their blog as an extension of their lectures at college, and thus treat those who comment as they would undergrad students who ask questions. I think that is inappropriate, but it’s their (unsuccessful) blog.

@Mk Urbo
The survey that purported to show that 97% of climate scientists supported the “consensus” was based on the views of just 77 scientists, far too small a sample to be scientific, and the proposition to which 75 of the 77 assented was merely to the effect that there has been warming during the past 100 years.

Mk Urbo

@Other_Andy
Thanks for your comment. That’s what I filtered out of the link OssQss sent me too… Had to read a few times, but it became clear that they were being creative in the survey. OssQss was right, needed to read the questions, they were weak.
The only other recant I couldn’t find was this BS tsunami about 9 of the last 10 years being the warmest on record ? .that can’t be true ???

John F. Hultquist

MattS says:
January 26, 2013 at 10:46 pm carp?

That’s a dead carp that has been on a mud bank for a week in the global warming sun.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And now ‘Other Andy’ responds (correctly) with about the sixth comment on a study that was carp and previously discussed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/23/skeptical-science-conspiracy-theorist-john-cook-runs-another-survey-trying-to-prove-that-false-97-of-climate-scientists-believe-in-global-warming-meme/
and here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
and here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/gmu-on-climate-scientists-we-are-the-97/
Just 3 links by searching WUWT using this: 97%
In about 20 minutes searching a half dozen blogs, one could get several dozen trashing of this stupendously stupid study.

Jimbo

One of the worst censors is ‘Comment Is Free’ in the Guardian’s Climate Change section. A few years back sceptical comments dominated, but today it’s an echo chamber. I was not moderated but banned…………no less than 8 times, yet I stayed withing the terms of use. All I did was point to contradictory evidence and asked for evidence of claims.
Here is an example of Monbiot in the Guardian making stuff up. I corrected him by pointing him to here, here. I was soon banned. Never mind, things will sort themselves out eventually. 😉
Guardian circulation
Year Sales
2000 = 401,560
2005 = 376,816
2012 = 215,988 (December 2012 = 204,222)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/11/guardian-telegraph-financial-times-december-abcs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation

Eliza

OT but going out on a limb here and stating that I think Arctic ice extent and volume will return to normal this year and that it will stay that way or continue to increase as we enter slowly into a new cooler period for the next ice age.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
BTW be on the watch for “adjusments” as the warmist ice sites usually adjust “downwards” in periods like this.

Kasuha

While I have little to complain about in case of WUWT moderation policies, the table at the top is misleading. There is noticeable amount of comments which count as ‘approved’ in it which did not pass the moderation unchanged – either their contents was snipped out completely, partially, or a moderator note may have been added. If moderator’s options were only approve or delete, there would be much more deleted comments – assuming the table covers that statistic, too. So the table does not say much about the actual moderation topic.
And while I don’t remember having anything snipped out by moderators on WUWT, I must say that having moderator’s opinion added to my comment can be also pretty irritating. If a moderator has something to say to my opinion, he should do it the same way as any other person here.
[Perhaps 1 in 60 to 70 gets trimmed. What is added is at the discretion of the Mod.]

Tucci78

At 12:51 AM on 27 January, Kasuha had griped:

And while I don’t remember having anything snipped out by moderators on WUWT, I must say that having moderator’s opinion added to my comment can be also pretty irritating. If a moderator has something to say to my opinion, he should do it the same way as any other person here.

Pro parte mia (and I’ve had the moderators snipe at my comments here rather more than most), I don’t give a tinker’s twitch where the guy sticks in his oar as long as he makes sure to clearly denote that its his piddle on the shrubbery and not mine.
I consider it both efficient and convenient, inasmuch as I don’t have to search among the comments to find that of mine about which the mod is kvetching.
“Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!”

bw

Todays “Skeptic” blogs outnumber warmist blogs for the same reason that free people outnumbered the Nazis in the 1930s. A minority of frenzied activists ranting about their “cause” may claim anything, but they are still a bunch of barking dogs.
The current “greens” yell like barking dogs, they then attract attention among a few more outcast types who crave attention, etc. The current “greens” are like the 1930s Nazis, no one can take them seriously, so they are not considered a threat. But when you are starving you will do anything if the crazy person says he will give you a free meal. The greens fabricate a “crisis” to which they claim to have the “solution” but most people don’t care, why should they? Eventually, the IPCC is created out of the United Nations. No harm in looking at the issue, but the funding just creates more barking dogs. Then a couple misanthropes start showing “info” that supports their cause. Houghton and Hansen for example. They continue to politicize the issue, the media sees them and thinks they can make a buck selling climate horror stories. It’s 100 percent propaganda.
Clueless mainstream politicians get tired of listening to the barking dogs. They try throwing more money at them because they think that will temporarily appease them, thus reducing the noise for a while. However, that is a mistake. Never throw money at any problem, it just increases the size of the problem. Suddenly the Greenshirts/Brownshirts grow to attract 25 percent of the vote, thus attracting more media attention and money from the malcontents, unwise young and desparate voters.
In the 1930s German depression, many people were really starving. Thats how revolutions get traction.
Today we are seeing the death of the AGW movement, but not the end of the Greens. There will never be any end to crazy fanatics and corrupt political bosses, but they will always be wrong. The sane majority will barely notice until its too late, but in todays AGW religion, there are not enough starving people to elect themselves into political power. But the sane majority are noticing the issue, and simply outnumber the fanatics by 10 to 1. Now that the sane pepole have a voice in the “skeptic” blogs, they should not be surprised that the “fanatics” are numerically inferior.
Now, the final step is to stop funding the crazies, stop funding the UN/IPCC, stop voting for corrupt political bosses and bureaucrats
Pull the plug on the IPCC.
Pull the plug on the IPCC
Pull the plug on the IPCC

bw

“Skeptics” outnumber warmists just as sane people outnumber insane people

John Riggs

If you want to see an example of real censorship – post an inconvenient (in relation to the climate change/global warming scam) question. Your question will probably be edited by the loonie left ‘moderators.’ Change it back and it’ll be removed altogether. Argue with the moderators (all warmists) and you’ll be barred from the site, your IP address noted and all future access denied. Seems like they’re worried about something…

imdying

The funny thing the skeptic blog is totally dependent on govts continue to push the global warming agenda/climate change agenda, and researches producing poor biased research papers. Once that ends people will hardly visit these sites anymore.

Tucci78

At 1:15 AM on 27 January, imdying had written:

The funny thing [is that] the skeptic blog is totally dependent on govts continue to push the global warming agenda/climate change agenda, and researchers producing poor biased research papers. Once that ends people will hardly visit these sites anymore.

Hardly. The malfeasances of government thugs – elected and appointed – provide an effectively endless resource for the community of online critics attentive to error, willful stupidity, and predatory connivances. The application of due skepticism is just as necessary when it comes to the analysis of massive “Liberal” fascist blivets like the inaugural address recently dumped by our Fraudulence-in-Chief upon the American body politic like a trainload of toxic waste.
The problem for those in the profession of political speech – of whatever statist flavor at which you wince and spit – is that once someone becomes knowledgeable about how their yammer “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind,” that individual cannot un-know the fact, and will henceforth always treat their pronouncements as carcinogenic bilge.

Justthinkin

The reason why is deep down inside the eco-cultists and so called climate “scientists”, know they have no value. And without their ideology, they are nothing. Thus, the disgusting result of cAGW,climate change,Mann,Gore,stealing taxpayer dollars,and condeming the poor of the world to more misery. I am a Canuck,so maybe some of the Yanks here can answer this question….Cannot Gore be charged under RICO? Or do the Wahabis of Saudi hold to much sway?

Athelstan.

:@ A Crooks – 97% of scientists are wrong!
It’s about right………………about ‘toeing the line’.
Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

@Mk Urbo : re: Two relevant paragraphs from the latter: “And in the meantime, we saw Arctic sea ice at record low levels in 2012. West Antarctica and Greenland are melting. It is getting so hot in Australia right now that weather forecasters had to add a new color to the weather maps to indicate temperatures above 54° Celsius—that’s 130° Fahrenheit. The heat wave has literally set fire to Australia. And for me (and astronomers around the world) it’s personal; we almost
lost a major observatory to Australian wildfires over the weekend.”
– – –
The new colour added seems to have been an alarmists trick, as it was never needed and has been recanted:
“Yesterday, the bureau’s forecast maps for Sunday and Monday showed a deep purple area over the South Australian outback.
However, those forecasts have been revised today, with forecast temperatures no longer hitting the purple range.”
So the extra colours have now been recanted.
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2013-01-09/australias-heatwave-forecast-in-one-animated-map/1071774
– – –
If you check the WUWT sea ice references page, you will see that Antarctic ice hit an all-time record high for extent last year and was normal or above normal throughout 2012. You will also see that in the arctic high latitude (80+), throughout the ice melt season last year and the year before, at least, had temperatures below normal.

Mk Urbo

@garymount
Thank you for the info :o)

MangoChutney
Latimer Alder

Tom Fulller’s excellent essay includes
‘What most of them have in common is the ‘Crossfire’ approach to dealing with disagreement–insults are common and dismissal for lack of scientific credentials even more so.’
Can anyone explain what they all hope to achieve by this tactic?
It doesn’t alter what Mother Nature does one little bit…it doesn’t make the little air molecules jiggle about any faster or slower.. it doesn’t alter ‘Science’ – which cares not a jot for qualifications or status or one’s parental lineage..
So what does it achieve?
My best guess is that some of these blogs are inhabited by those for who ‘Climate Change’ has become a substitute for religion. And that ‘Climate Scientists’ have taken on the very important role of High Priests – interpreting the Word of the Lord. History shows that this has been a very successful way of influencing and controlling the uneducated masses.
Add into that the concept of ‘heresy’ or ‘blasphemy’ and ‘apostasy’….and the need for their to be only One True Faith and the analogues between some medieval religions and today Keepers of the Sacred AGW flame are obvious.
Their mission is not to discuss the science as new data is unearthed and new interpretations formulated. But to ensure that the Old 1990s ideas are kept pure and unsullied by doubt or question or amendment. Their creed is
‘The Science was Settled in 1997. Was then, is now and forever shall be. Amen’
(Inspired by recent unedifying attempts to engage with the ‘Deltoids’ -a far more depressing breed than any of the other similarly named villains from Doctor Who)

Tucci78

At 1:57 AM on 27 January, Latimer Alder had commented upon “Tom Fulller’s excellent essay” thus:

My best guess is that some of these [Warmerbruder] blogs are inhabited by those for whom ‘Climate Change’ has become a substitute for religion. And that ‘Climate Scientists’ have taken on the very important role of High Priests – interpreting the Word of the Lord. History shows that this has been a very successful way of influencing and controlling the uneducated masses.
Add into that the concept of ‘heresy’ or ‘blasphemy’ and ‘apostasy’….and the need for their to be only One True Faith and the analogues between some medieval religions and today Keepers of the Sacred AGW flame are obvious.
Their mission is not to discuss the science as new data is unearthed and new interpretations formulated. But to ensure that the Old 1990s ideas are kept pure and unsullied by doubt or question or amendment. Their creed is:
‘The Science was Settled in 1997. Was then, is now and forever shall be. Amen’

This is the reason why I have long pressed the value of Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements (1951) in consideration of the crap-happy climate catastrophists and their Cargo Cult Science. Its hard to pick out only one pull from Hoffer’s book, but this one seems to fit “the consensus” satisfactorily:

“Charlatanism of some degree is indispensable to effective leadership. There can be no mass movement without some deliberate misrepresentation of facts.”

Brad Keyes

Funny symptom of the pathetic traffic on the believosphere:
I’m currently offering any regular at Tim Lambert’s blog twenty five smackeroos to answer a simple, straight question.
Tumbleweeds.
(To be fair, it MIGHT be a symptom of how I should be out drinking on a Sunday night, like a normal Australian adult.)

iskoob

@Latimer
“Can anyone explain what they all hope to achieve by this tactic?”
I suspect the main payoff is emotional.
After all, we are being pretty damn provocative by not agreeing with them.
Wouldn’t you feel the urge to tear ten shades of hell out of anyone who was as in-your-face offensive to you as we routinely are to them, every time we decline their generous and reasonable cult invitations?

iskoob

@Latimer,
a more serious attempt at an answer:
to start with the obvious, the “crossfire” approach (and indeed the whole family of unpleasant, belligerent, pejorative nasty behaviours directed at outsiders) seeks to make the intruder sweat.
People like us can handle it, if not thrive on it, because we’re debaters.
Not everyone is. Not everyone would be comfortable.
In fact, the average person probably looks at the treatment of deniers-in-a-believalist-world and thinks “please don’t let that happen to me.”
The average low-level believalist is also (not to put to fine a point on it) an inarticulate and insecure non-debating non-thinker. So whenever they might be tempted to stray, they think about what happens to doubters and, well, repress the urge.
So my proposal is that the “logic” behind their hyperbolic, almost anaphylactic immune kickback against any denier in their vicinity might be as simple as “pour encourager les autres“.

Tucci78

At 2:41 AM on 27 January, iskoob had observed:

…the “crossfire” approach (and indeed the whole family of unpleasant, belligerent, pejorative nasty behaviours directed at outsiders) seeks to make the intruder sweat.
People like us can handle it, if not thrive on it, because we’re debaters.
Not everyone is. Not everyone would be comfortable.
In fact, the average person probably looks at the treatment of deniers-in-a-believalist-world and thinks “please don’t let that happen to me.”
The average low-level believalist is also (not to put to fine a point on it) an inarticulate and insecure non-debating non-thinker. So whenever they might be tempted to stray, they think about what happens to doubters and, well, repress the urge.
So my proposal is that the “logic” behind their hyperbolic, almost anaphylactic immune kickback against any denier in their vicinity might be as simple as “pour encourager les autres“.

Well, its certainly encouraged me – to counterattack with all the vitriol at my considerable command, if not necessarily because I’m educated and experienced in scientific method but also because the parochial school nuns conscripted me into debate all through high school, and the Jesuits chivvied me into formal course work in logic as a requirement for matriculation.
I’m genetically lazy. Look up “Sicilian” in the dictionary and there’s no picture. Not because we’re fearful of being identified by the “law enforcement” clowns but simply because nobody could be bothered to show up for the snapshot.
The moment las warmitas began scuttling, blattidiform, in numbers back in the early ’80s, I was reminded delightfully of that great line from the movie version of Cyrano de Bergerac (1950):

CYRANO: Watching you other people making friends – everywhere – as a dog makes friends! I mark the manner of these canine courtesies and think: “My friends are of a cleaner breed; here comes – thank God – another enemy!”

Thereafter (to quote libertarian economist Murray Rothbard):

Hatred is my muse.

Latimer Alder

Iskoob says

‘“Can anyone explain what they all hope to achieve by this tactic?”
I suspect the main payoff is emotional.
After all, we are being pretty damn provocative by not agreeing with them.

I’m sure a part of it is to do with power and helplessness. Many of the defending army of AGW acolytes do not (to me at least) show signs of great personal education or satisfaction with their lives. But they have hitched their emotional resources to what they see as an unstoppable juggernaut and rather relish the sight of it rolling over anyone in its path.
We sometimes forget that the famous picture of the lone protester in Tianamen Square had two people involved. The brave protester himself – and the guy who drove the tank. These guys (and they all all to be male in gender) are perhaps naturally suited to tank-driving?

Wouldn’t you feel the urge to tear ten shades of hell out of anyone who was as in-your-face offensive to you as we routinely are to them, every time we decline their generous and reasonable cult invitations?

If they do suffer from such a response, it tells us a great deal more about the emotional needs of the offerrer than about the intellectual state of the refuser.
‘Show that I am right by joining me…otherwise I’ll punch your head in’