As WUWT closes in on a million comments…
…I thought this is worth reading at The Lukewarmer’s way run by Tom Fuller:
Maybe Michael Tobis might finally be persuaded to approve Mr. Fuller’s comment, now in moderation for 3 days.
The Worst Thing About Censorship
h/t to Skiphil
I don’t bother with sites that censor differing opinions. They are boring.
There is a reason why I quit trying to post comments at those websites since it is a waste of time knowing that my comments is likely edited or deleted.
That is why all they have left are the lemmings and fanatics who use a lot of ear plugs in the loud echo chamber they are left in.
Censored sites are only for people who want to hear what they already think. It gets unreasonable people to all agree to feel a certain way without the benefit of a cognitive thought process.
They can neither handle truth, dissent or both.
If they refuse to permit contrary observations, assertions, and contentions, what real interest do they have in the examination of their own premises?
Answer (of course): none at all.
And therefore to hell with them.
I used to read Ladens blog from time to time but the amount of vitriol Greg spits out at people with differing views put me off probably for ever. The constant arguments from authority also struck me as being anti science. No wonder he is getting only a handful of comments, if he is lucky, to his blogs these days.
We have enough questioning from scientists against AGW that any pleas to the consensus can be seen to be a logical fallacy. BTW I am a fence sitter on this issue but with each passing day I am viewing the alarmist predictions and arguments from authority as politics and not science.
I love this place, lots of posts on both sides. I am also very fond of Judith Curry’s blog for the same reason.
Keep up the good work and the readers will continue to come here
It’s not right to pick only what you like, but to take all of the evidence…
~ Richard P. Feynman
Allowing all points of view is why WUWT has such heavy traffic. Readers want to hear both sides in a debate. Then they can make an informed decision.
Alarmist blogs are caught in a trap: if they allow all points of view, they will lose the catastrophic global warming debate, because the planet is not supporting their belief. So rather than allow skeptics to freely comment, they heavily censor.
To them, it is the lesser of two evils: better to protect their belief system, than to enlarge their readership. Their belief in CAGW has been woven into their egos, until they are incapable of seeing — or tolerating — any other point of view:
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”.
~ Leo Tolstoy
@ D.B. Stealey says:
Love the Tolstoy quote – such an insight into the Human mind!
When I first started reading climate blogs a little over a year ago, I spent some time observing at RC and several more of the party line blogs listed by Tom Fuller. Once I saw how heavy handed their censorship is, I had no temptation to waste more time there, even though I have always greatly enjoyed seeking out cordial rational discussion and debate with people of diverse, wide ranging views. There simply did not seem to be much value to trying to engage at such places.
I tried to post this at Revkin’s advertisement for the new Tobis blog back in November 2011, but Prof. Revkin felt it was not up to the standards of Dot Earth, and refused to post it. I found this ironic, considering the most objectionable language in my comment was found in the quoted writings of the one and only Michael Tobis.
“Five reasons why I think Tobis is irrelevant-
Echo chamber, Malthusian stench, Execrable Rants, Nonsensical platitudes and Narcissistic priggishness-
Echo chamber-
“The site is not for everybody; certainly people who want to argue the question of whether AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or isn’t a problem will find nothing to engage with on our site.”
Malthusian stench-
“The only way to simplify ourselves out of the present mess is by cutting our population 80%, unfortunately.”
Michael Tobis, January 9, 2009
Execrable Rants-
“It is because the fiunkcg survival of the ficunkg planet is at fciunkg stake. And if we narrowly fkncuig miss pulling this out, it may well end up being your, your own fnikucg personal individual fkcnuig self-satisfied mischief and disrespect for authority that tips the balance. You have a lot of fkucnig nerve saying you are on my “side”.”
Michael Tobis, April, 2011
Nonsensical platitudes-
“…creating a global social contract…”
Narcissistic priggishness-
“I think Curry should STFU, or at least stick to such matters, if any, where she has reason for confidence in what she says.”
Michael Tobis, November, 2011
However, software engineer Tobis has extensive experience and expertise in developing government policy to exterminate 80% of the global population?
God help us.
chris y says:
January 26, 2013 at 6:51 pm
If Tobis is able to convince 80% of the population to think like he does, they’ll self-exterminate. We’ll see how “successful” he is.
Thinking logically is the only thing that keeps humans alive–we don’t have natural instincts, fur coats, or the ability to eat grass or wood to stay alive: we must use our minds and to the degree that we do, we prosper. Separate those who don’t use their mind from those that do, and those that don’t simply self-destruct.
P.s. To Anthony and all who make WUWT possible, huge congratulations on closing in upon one MILLION comments!
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/23-2
On the “communicate the science” blogs.
Its a wonder of the human mind, that we can be certain we possess the only truth, yet must share or explain this truth only through censorship, evasion & abuse.
Congratulations on nearing a million comments, you are definitely doing things right and proving once again that people will not be told what to think by presumptive authorities.
Dear Mr. Watts,
Tom Fuller is one of the grown-ups in the climate debate. His comments are always well worth thinking about.
And his point about censorship is absolutely vital.
I used to live in Saudi Arabia, Fascinating place, with a fascinating history, intriguing culture, and the most hospitable people on earth.
But I noticed that they had a lot of problems. And those problems were not being fixed because the newspapers and the television news was censored so heavily. Admitting to problems was thought to embarass the royal family, or somebody. So year after year things stumbled along, unadmitted problems never being addressed.
This is a lesson for us. When the government drones start to nibble away at the freedoms of the citizenry (which they do continually, and will continue to do in the future. They can’t help it; that’s what government drones do, like beavers have to gnaw down trees to keep their teeth from growing into their jawbone) we must fight like hell to preserve the freedom of the press.
I don’t have anything to add to the discussion. I am just doing my part to get to 1M comments. 🙂
Nice stats!
I hope you double it this year Anthony ~
Don’t be hesitant to share this site folks. I have been surprised by the number of closet skeptics out there. Being under-informed is not an excuse, it is the norm now ……
Change it >
When do we get another WUWT-TV episode? That was some great stuff to share too.
@D.B. Stealey, you wrote “Alarmist blogs are caught in a trap: if they allow all points of view, they will lose the catastrophic global warming debate, because the planet is not supporting their belief. So rather than allow skeptics to freely comment, they heavily censor.”
Your statement says it correctly. I could not agree more. The problem is that there are enough sheeple that will not see it that way. The US, under the rule of Obama continues its march towards saving the world using my money.
I know I have seen more comments snipped than that. But even then, you know whose comment was snipped as over the top or (rarely) irrelevant, and they can fix it.
Comments that most of us disagree with are normally posted without moderator comment. We can all consider them, although many of us are unmerciful to some of these.
I posted comment at http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/26/Whole-Foods-CEO-Global-Warming-Not-That-Big-a-Deal#comment-779472386
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..and received this recant by Al:
Well…did you happen to notice that those prominent scientists who dissent on AGW–most of them are NOT climatologists, but tend to be ohhhh, physicists, biologists, chemists, people who are NOT climatologists. There are a few, to be sure. But not many.
A study in 2009 by Doran and Zimmerman showed 97% of climatologists surveyed agreed that man-made emmissions are contributing to global warming. I cite the study in the thread about Bobby Jindal being half-right here on Breitbart. You can see a list of such studies here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change.
Also….http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/18/global_warming_nine_of_the_ten_hottest_years_since_1880_have_been_in_the.html….nine of the ten hottest years measured since 1880 have been in the last decade.
Another blog post by the same author links to numerous resources to convince the most sceptical critic of AGW. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.html.
Two relevant paragraphs from the latter: “And in the meantime, we saw Arctic sea ice at record low levels in 2012. West Antarctica and Greenland are melting. It is getting so hot in Australia right now that weather forecasters had to add a new color to the weather maps to indicate temperatures above 54° Celsius—that’s 130° Fahrenheit. The heat wave has literally set fire to Australia. And for me (and astronomers around the world) it’s personal; we almost
lost a major observatory to Australian wildfires over the weekend.”
And…
“So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in science journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.”
At least the Whole Foods CEO isn’t shutting his eyes about it… Unlike some I could name.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is this response valid ???
Proud to be one (or more) in a million!
Well done Anthony and the wide variety of contributing readers.
Arty says:
January 26, 2013 at 6:10 pm
“. . . a fence sitter . . . ”
I finally got a broadband connection in Sept. of 2008. Prior to that I hadn’t been paying attention and was quite surprised at what was going on. One of the first papers I found was Stephen McIntyre’s presentation at Ohio State on May 16, 2008 wherein he questions temperature reconstructions.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf
With that and some other things I was reading (The WUWT series on How Not To Measure Temperature, being one such) I visited our local university where I had a few contacts. There I picked up beginning texts on physics, chemistry, and biology. I could read at those for a bit, check things, and best of all I had the correct scientific terms to search for selected topics. Being very much both cynical and skeptical I was never on the fence but a month of reading 3+ hours a day of actual physical science material and blogs such as WUWT, CA, and Jonova convinced me I had the right instinct. Jo’s site has a link to a small (16 page) pamphlet called the Skeptic’s Handbook. It is simple and direct. Then there was Al Gore’s movie, or more precisely, all the criticisms of it, the UN’s involvement, and on and on.
I also find Bob Tisdale’s work convincing. I enjoy the historical aspects “tonyb” and others have been presented several places, here’s one on ‘the Air Vent’:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
Knowing of subs surfacing in the Arctic Ocean – yeah, I’m old enough – now well document on WUWT and elsewhere; and knowing of both hot and cold and wet and dry periods – well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation. CAGW is an extraordinary claim and I haven’t seen the required documentation. Just the opposite.
Mk Urbo says:
January 26, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Like a catfish sensing a wiggling worm, I will respond to only one item an you can take it from there. No spin, just the study on the 97%.
Ensure you review the questions, total sample, respondents, and ultimately those used for the end resulting stats.
http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf
So less than (<10%) of a ~30% sampling (3146 0f 10,257) is what has turned into the 97% consensus being tossed about by the alarmists ?
Mk Urbo,
I don’t know who Al is. Anyway, all that stuff you have presented has been discussed on WUWT. It is not worth anyone’s time to go over it again; 5 or 6 or 7 times is enough. Pick a four letter word beginning with C and ending in P – that describes it.
~~~~~~~
MattS,
Now I’ve got 2!
Ok, thanks – just want some WUWT eyes to support that…
Ah Tobis. After he gave me a runner-up Golden Horseshoe award for leaking the draft IPCC report (an award for lying, supposedly), I dropped by and engaged Tobis and his commenters. Tobis had only read Dana Nuccitelli’s error-ridden response to what I said about the draft report so I was trying to clue them in.
I ribbed Dana a little but was just correcting his science, and the science of those who popped up to rebut me. That lasted until Tobis refused to publish one of my carefully reasoned responses. His kept insisting that I, like all “deniers,” don’t actually have any grasp of the subject, but am only saying whatever I can think of that sounds plausible enough to mislead the uninformed. (Talk about projection.) My repeatedly kicking Tobis’ ass on substance apparently presented too much of a disjoint with his claims that I had no substance so he just stopped allowing me to respond.
World class twit.
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.
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
Suppressing dissent always ends badly. Always.
Comment #
John F. Hultquist,
What do carp have to do with Mk Urbo’s post?
At 10:46 PM on 26 January, MattS had asked of John F. Hultquist:
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.
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.
@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 ???
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.
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
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.
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.]
At 12:51 AM on 27 January, Kasuha had griped:
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!”
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
“Skeptics” outnumber warmists just as sane people outnumber insane people
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…
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.
At 1:15 AM on 27 January, imdying had written:
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.
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?
:@ 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.
@garymount
Thank you for the info :o)
Blatant deletion of comments at SkS http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm#67843
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)
At 1:57 AM on 27 January, Latimer Alder had commented upon “Tom Fulller’s excellent essay” thus:
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:
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.)
@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?
@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“.
At 2:41 AM on 27 January, iskoob had observed:
Iskoob says
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?
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’
Quantity vs Quality?
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.
Tch tch tch! Where are our manners?
No, after you, Mr Tobis!
I am going to answer this in full because we have new readers joining WUWT all the time so it is a good idea to help bring them up to speed. That is the reason I always try to answer such questions.
………………..
Mk Urbo says: @ January 26, 2013 at 9:01 pm
I posted comment …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rebuttal:
CAGW is not rocket science and is easily understood by chemists, physicists and engineers. People from other disciplines often have very good insights. For example, as an undergrad in chemistry I made a significant contribution to karst geology just because my training was so different. What is really laughable about that statement is ‘ climatologists’ such as Mike Mann do NOT HAVE DEGREES IN CLIMATOLOGY. It is too new a science.
Scientists who dissent:
Art Robinson Reponds to Petition Slander The petition includes about 500 meteorologists and climate scientists. The Global Warming Petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.
Astronauts and Scientists Condemn NASA Participation in Global Warming Hoax “Seven Astronauts and 42 former NASA scientists sent a pointed letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden condemning NASA for giving support to the idea that carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels is somehow causing Earth to warm unnaturally. “
NASA Astronauts Announce Second Letter to NASA at Heartland Conference
And then these former NASA scientists really get serious:
……………
Rebuttal:
Others have addressed this but here are the WUWT links.
About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?
………………
Rebuttal:
The surface temperature record can no longer be trusted because it has been so mangled. For example the realignment of temperature record by Hansen in 1980, 1987, 2007 three graphs That is just the tip of the iceberg. See: my Comment on the accuracy of the temperature record and the Raw temperature graph.
There is a lot more but that will give you an idea of the problem.
Rebuttal:
Jo Nova has Skeptics Handbooks I and II
Also checkout
Questioning the CO2 Ice Hockey Stick
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
The ‘CO2 Well mixed in the Atmosphere’ conjecture, one of the three legs that CAGW rests upon is invalid. ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE & WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
Japanese Satellites say 3rd World Owes CO2 Reparations to The West and the most recent Japanese satellite data: chart
The changes in the C12 / C13 ratios are used to implicate CO2 of human origin as the cause for the ‘increase’ in CO2. That falls apart too upon a closer look. The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios
Rebuttal:
GRAPHS: Global Sea Ice, Arctic and Antarctic
GRAPH: Antarctic Sea Ice Average for 1979-200 vs 2011-3012 and 2012-2013 Note that the sea ice is increasing in the Antarctic and decreasing in the Arctic. This is called the bipolar seesaw.
So what does a bipolar seesaw actually indicate? There is a new paper out discussing that.
OOPS! The End Holocene, or How to Make Out Like a ‘Madoff’ Climate Change Insurer and a MOST Annoying Lead Time Graph also support that instead of CAGW we are looking at the tail end of an interglacial.
More information:
Antarctic Warming? Part 2 – A letter from a meteorologist on the ground in Antarctica
Surprise! There’s an active volcano under Antarctic ice
New paper: A high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica shows “no significant trend in the 1979–2010 ice sheet”
Skeptic paper on Antarctica accepted – rebuts Steig et al Melting is only in the one area
technical explanation of data analysis
Undersea volcanoes might be more common than previously thought
Rebuttal:
As usual they ignore history and change the data. WORSE, the ignore the real cause of the fires.
In Australia if you try to clear a firebreak on your land you could go to gaol
Extreme heat in 1896: Panic stricken people fled the outback on special trains as hundreds die.
Australian Temperatures in cities adjusted up by 70%!?
Is there any unmassaged data out there?
The Smoking Gun at Dawin Zero
Smoking guns across Australia: Where’s the warming? Looking at 16 other locations
No it is not valid it is projection.
@ Gail Combs
Thank you so very much for your time and effort in writing a response. For the record, your assumptions are correct in that many of us WUWT visitors are not “knee deep” in this info on weekly or monthly basis.
I myself have been fighting the good fight for over ten years in just trying to 1) counter misinformation on the web, and 2) expose the underlining agenda for those with an open mind. I’ve always run back to WUWT to make sure that positions I’m defending are correct and many persons on WUWT have been very kind in support of such efforts.
Again, thanks for your help. :o)
Latimer Alder says:
January 27, 2013 at 1:57 am
They are collectivist, like participants at, for instance, a Labor Union rally they try to scream down the opposition. That’s why they always argue with the “97%”, the “consensus”, general argumentum ad populum over and over and over again, and never actually argument scientifically.
I have asked warmists dozens of time to bring evidence for the claimed positive water vapor feedback – I never even got an evasive answer let alone a factual one. The question makes them run away because they don’t understand the tenets of the CO2AGW theory themselves and are probably baffled that someone asks about WATER.
kashua says:
“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.”
Exactly right. If I have one quibble, that is it. Mods should never insert their personal opinions into someone else’s comment, unless it is to point out why a post is being snipped or deleted. They don’t do it very often, and only one or two moderators are guilty of that breach of the Moderator’s Rules. Moderators have their own separate screen names, and they should post their opinions using those separate identities.
That said, WUWT has gone from zero to 1 million reader comments, and ~138 million unique views, in only six years! That is an astonishing accomplishment by Anthony Watts. Clearly, he is doing something right, and he is filling a need that is not being met by other blogs.
@Gail Coombs:
I reckon the kind of “catechism” you’ve provided is valuable. (Wouldn’t others agree?) I’ve often wondered if there’s a “permalink” (preferably a whole site) with that myth/mythbusting format, cheesy as it might at first appear.
Given that we’re, you know, skeptics and that we’re on the side of science, why don’t we have our own SkepticalScience? (Minus the stalinist comment disappearances, obviously.)
Or do we?
Mk Urbo says
‘
Your argument would have more substance if you could show that there is something absolutely uniquely different about the new science of ‘climatology’ that sets it completely apart from the established disciplines of physics and chemistry and biology and geology and statistics and all the rest. And that there is a widely accepted qualification in the subject that can differentiate a true ‘climatologist’ from the common herd.
Can you do either of those things? If not, there is little force to this oft-quoted, but rarely justified position.
Footnote: I note en passant that few of the critics of the idea of homeopathy are practicing in that field either. But I don’t take that observation as reason to believe in the homeopathic theory. A decent theory has to prove itself against criticism from wherever and whoever it comes. Not just from its self-declared adherents.
@Latimer
Its not me Latimer – I was bringing a discussion over from another website in hopes of gaining some rebuttals to such comments. I agree with your point and G Combs makes other rebukes as well. I understand that many points have been beat to death amongst those of you that spend significant time in debate of the subject, but there are always recent starting points of discussion and new people wrapping their hands around the subject.
In this case, there have been many new stories generated off Obama’s inauguration speech which contained some pro-AGW/warming content. The alarmists are out [semi] fresh trying to generate some momentum from this event and IMHO, its worth re-defending.
Another reason skeptic sites get more traffic is that they all seem to have a sense of humour. The warmist sites seem to be populated by sour ranters whose idea of a merry quip is to call someone who disagrees with them a cockroach.
And yes, to have one’s post edited in such a way that it amounts to a misquote is most unsettling. Although, in my case, it is even worse if they quote me accurately.
If the science and consensus is on their side, why the need to censor??? Sceptical comments could easily be trashed and shown to be nonsense???
I think I have one reason why. A couple of years back a Warmist at the Guardian was convinced that c02 by itself could cause dangerous warming. She challenged sceptics to produce peer reviewed evidence. I pointed her to the peer reviewed evidence as well as the IPCC stating that water vapour was a bigger greenhouse gas. She had made lots of comments prior to my comments but nothing after. Was she converted? Maybe not but she wasn’t so damned sure after that.
Palm, face. 🙂 I replied to her here and here and here.
After this she stopped commenting. I wonder why?
Oh and she also said
to which I replied
This place may not be as bad as some others, but it is no paragon of free expression.
A moderator squashed a comment I made because it demeaned, as he claimed, the subject of the comment.
When I sent him an almost verbatim copy of the remark, which was perfectly innocuous, he claimed that what I sent him was substantially different from the original, which was not true; and since it was a one-line comment, it would have been hard to mis-remember.
Very disappointing, and it makes this article look hypocritical.
Climate science is an emerging discipline, very much as Geology was at the end of the 18th Century, with its battle between the Catastrophists and Uniformitarians. There is a similar tension today between the Climate Catastrophists, basing their beliefs on an all controlling deity (CO2) and the Climate Realists (Uniformitarians), albeit with a reversal of the arrow of time. Catastrophists seem to believe that measurements over the short term in the present is the key to catastrophe in the future whilst realists see the past as the key to the present and the future.
Riiight. How many comments are deleted after the fact on this site? LOADS.
REPLY: Well, you are certainly welcome to define that with facts. Yes some commenters are not approved, once we discover that the poster is using fake email addresses. We get a few of those. The policy is that commenters must have a functioning email address, if they don’t they don’t get posting privilege, simple as that.
You are welcome to compare our site use and moderation policy here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
With some others, for example the policy at Greg Laden’s “science” blog here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/about/
Let’s hope you don’t live in Texas – Anthony
This comment is a comment in a million.
And thanks for the opportunity to read the more interesting ones.
At Taminos blog, the amusingly named ‘Open Mind’, they have a thread running claiming that the recent hot temperatures in Australia were proof positive of CAGW,
I just posted links to the actual Governments BOM figures showing nothing unusual in temperatures there over the last 3 and 12 months.
I also posted a BOM link to show that the much touted (on certain blogs) ‘permanent drought’ situation of a few years ago had completely disappeared.
He just eliminated the post, so I sent him this comment which I knew he would censor.
“Ho Ho Ho
Can’t stand someone just posting the facts ehh Tamino?
Kind of interferes with yours and the ‘Teams’ attempts to retain control of the agenda and story.
Unfortunately for you and the rest of your ‘crew’, you can only censor your own pathetically small (and getting smaller) area.
Very little traffic and comments on RC now. Just the faithfull remain!)
Well you lost control of the agenda sometime ago and now reality has caught up with you. You are now starting to see some scientists raising their heads up and suggesting possible other things than CO2 for the short term warming.
The unspoken or implied threats from the climate clique are starting to lose their power and potency a la Lance Armstrong and his clique.
It’s only going to get worse. There is no warming on the horizon and the models will fall out of their error bands and be falsified. New ones could be constructed but what the heck can they show that will put the C in CAGW and yet still match the data?
Nope, you had better start edging towards the life rafts. I see Hansen has been forced out of his bunker and agreed there is a pause in GW.
Who will be the first amongst the clique to declare against CAGW and throw the rest under the bus? It is the right play after all.
Well continue to talk to your acolytes and true believers, you can ignore reality for a while in your little bunker especially if you don’t let anyone but people of true faith in.
Remind you of anything around about 1945? That worked out well didn’t it?
Alan
Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
January 26, 2013 at 11:13 pm
“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.”
Absolutely right you are. And I am sure you will agree on the following;
It is much easier to adapt to, say, 1.5 degrees of warming, than adapting to trying to do all transportation services in your society without using fossile fuels.
If everyone in Norway started to charge all their government sponsored electric car batteries at night, where would the energy come from? Probalbly imported from a “foreign” coal power-plant.
@ Latimer Alder
The other ‘dirty little secret’ that Mr Gore neglects is that his hero, in fact, a good portion of the pro-AGW crowd of Scientists, are not ‘climatologists’ either. Dr Mann, for instance, is not a ‘climatologist’. I’m not sure why an Atmospheric Physicist’s opinion on the matter would be less ‘valid’ (or subject to immediate dismissal). Physics is a very broad subject and is a discipline that, once trained in, the ‘physicist’ can apply his training to the ‘climate’ pretty easily,just like a ‘physicist’ can apply his training to ‘rocket science’, or things as mundane as golf or baseball.
Kasuha:
Your post at January 27, 2013 at 12:51 am says
I speak as a person who has had comments ‘snipped’ on WUWT and who was given a ’24 hour time out’ from WUWT during the past week.
I strongly disagree with your post.
During my ‘punishment’ of a ‘time out’ a post appeared which I (mis)understood to be an attempt to lever wider any rift between me and the owner of this blog. This is an extract from my reply to that.
That variety would not and could not exist without the superb moderation on WUWT.
Richard
In regard to moderation, WUWT is still much better than any green activist site I have ever seen. This goes without saying. But this doesn’t mean that WUWT is free of any problems. There is an obviously disproportional amount of free play allowed to a couple of pet posters (Leif and Willis). They are given a license to insult, while their opponents’ answers are snipped, even if they are no more than mildly ironic. When Anthony Watts talks about “being out of line,” he draws very different lines for his personal favorites and for others. This is censorship.
REPLY: Your concerns are noted, but also not fully aware. Both Leif and Willis have have comments removed. Willis also has had some posting privileges revoked, and he can no longer post new stories at will, but they must be approved by me. You have a long history here of not liking these two people, who sometimes don’t suffer fools gladly and occasionally aggravate other commenters. I’m just as guilty of that. That said, if you can find a better place with the level of discourse we have, you are certainly welcome to go there. – Anthony
“Skeptical” blogs are more popular because because there is no need to be consistent, correct, informed or coherent. Try posting a comment at Real Climate. You feel like a dill, because you know that comment will be read by people who actually understand stuff. Meanwhile at WUWT you can watch an endless succession of wrong arguments paraded endlessly.
So it is good that there are “skeptical” blogs where everyone can feel comfortable in their ignorance, and happily push their prejudices.
REPLY: You certainly do a good job of that too. – Anthony
I was thinking it might be fun (if difficult to moderate, I suspect) to organise a sweepstake for charity on who gets to post the 1,000,000th comment.
Thank you Anthony and all other contributors to this site. I have learnt much over the years coming here.
Spare a thought for Mr Watts, he has had to read a million comments. A million comments x lets say average 30 secs. My maths is hopeless but I make that one year of continual reading 24hrs a day!
Thanks Anthony, for continuing the tradition of first, John Daly, then Steve McIntyre. You then expanded that to new heights, and now there are quite a few excellent blogs — all without feeding off the public trough. That’s the definition of true “grass-roots”.
The warmers are amazed, angry, resentful and in full denial mode (ironic, eh?).
The AGW blogs dare not allow open discussion. Their whole theory would be refuted in detail on their own propaganda sites, and the cause would suffer. It bears repeating: their fundamental purpose is not science, but ideological. They seek to make science serve their beliefs.
Over the last 20 years the IPCC has persuaded Government’s to part with upwards of £100m in a vain attempt to identify the human signal of Global Warming and they have failed. The war for sanity being waged against them is in the main being done by people on the internet.
Thanks to the “Information Highway” in general and WUWT in particular, we have access to information and scientists otherwise denied us by the msm.
As stated on Bishop Hill a few weeks ago it is the blogosphere that is destroying AGW….people who are extremely successful in their own field apply the same principles, request scientific research papers, mull them over, study the fine print and pronounce them to be flawed and unnaceptable.
Thanks for everything Athony….keep up the good work.
Since the study of climate is a multidisciplinary field the critism of specialists in related fields is both appropriate and necessary. The rampant misuse of statistical methods being a prime example.
Over the years I have been corrected quite a number of times by fellow commenters at this site, and it usually is done in a polite, helpful, and often humorous manner. I wind up better educated. Some urban myth (or rural, or suburban,) which I didn’t even know I held as a truth is pointed out, and I become less ignorant. In other words, this site gives you the sensation of uplift.
Compare that to how you feel after commenting on an Alarmist site. There you quite often are either told to STFU or spattered by slung mud (or worse,) or you are simply “disappeared.” One doesn’t depart with a sensation of uplift.
I now only occasionally visit Alarmist sites, mostly out of morbid fascination. I also do it because I was brought up to see both sides of an issue, even when one side is obviously riddled with errors.
One item on Alarmist sites that always intrigues me is a “How To Reply To Skeptics” feature that incarnates in many places. It often contains links to refuted and debunked papers. I think they should be re-titled, “How Not To Think For Yourself.” However it is worthwhile to glance over these prepackaged replies, because you then recognize you have heard them before when talking with certain Alarmists. Then, though they have their reply ready for you, you have your re-reply ready for them.
It is also really fun to say, “Oh, you studied that Responses-To-Skeptics thing over at the Skeptical Science site, didn’t you?” I don’t know why this should make Alarmists look nervous and guilty, but it does.
Also, when you see a one sided story on sites like Yahoo where comments are allowed don`t be afraid to remind readers that they can go to WUWT to get the truth about global warming.
Tucci78 & John F. Hultquist:
That was supposed to be funny because I knew full well that Mr Hultquist meant a different word spelled with the same four letters but with the middle two reversed.
January 26, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Mk Urbo asks:
Is this response valid ???
__________________________
There have been many fine responses to your question. I would add that the response to you by "Al" at Breitbart.com is a great example of lying by omission and also say that logical fallacies are often employed by propagandists, like Al, to bend the truth.
Facts are not truth. Facts are merely facets of the diamond of truth.
If someone installs a new rain gauge in their back yard and upon first use declares “I just measured the greatest rainfall ever recorded at this location”, would you be inclined to build an ark?
Here’s a great link to descriptions of logical fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html
Anthony. Will there be a prize for the millionth comment?
Also, have you examined the Norwegian study announced here: http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918
Doxastic commitment makes a fine razor for practitioners of alternative realities.
All apologies for the formatting mistake in immediately previous post… if mod could correct…
[Done Mod.]
iskoob said “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?”
I don’t think that characterization is universal. There are lots of people posting at the catastrophe blogs who believe that lukewarmers are just one argument away from belief in proactive action based on a CO2 / atmospheric commons. They also are fully aware of Tom Fullers argument that he expresses in the link above which is that problems like a few degrees of change in the global average temperature are easy to sort out especially compared to problems like totalitarian regimes or their admirers and imitators in the nominally democratic world.
While they correctly point out that there is no market incentive or large scale technology to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere (should that be needed), they fail to point out the vast number of astoundingly difficult problems solved by technology without market incentives (albeit many coming from government-funded basic research). The cult that they offer is in one word: hopelessness. Thus it is not the least bit persuasive to anyone with a modicum of knowledge and optimism for the future. They know that we know that. They must continually censor optimistic data or results and promote the “evidence” for pessimism and oversell it many times over. That is not easy without occasionally lashing out, but lashing out is not universal or even very prevalent. Mostly they strike me as saddened that I won’t join them.
One of the reasons I’m a skeptic is that in the early days when the climate wars had just started, I was curious about the subject so RealClimate is where I started with no real preconceptions of which side was *right* or not. Well after posting (mostly lurking) there for a week, I noticed quite a bit of censorship and lots of righteous indignation. Then I found ClimateAudit following most of the original Hockey Stick destruction by reading that site.
Since credentials are a part of this current discourse, lay readers of WUWT need to be clear about something – “Climatology” is not a “science”. Nor is ecology, psychology, epizootiology (a personal favourite of mine, for academic reasons ;), scientology or epistemology. “-ologies” are blended disciplines that encompass a wide range of scientific specializations. To be called a climatologist, or any other “-ologist” is to speak only to a widely diverse but related catalog of subject matter with which one may have some specific, and some generalized expertise. Michael Mann is no more, or less, a climatologist, than I, as a biologist, am. Like “Environmental Science” degrees, Climatology degrees and titles, are a priori constructs of generalized knowledge, with no particular or specific expertise. The expertise comes from in-depth exposure and experience in a science, physics and chemistry, primarily. Climatologists, per se can’t speak to the outcomes of climatology – that is for the expertise in the other “-ologies” to ascertain.
Therefore, referencing someone’s credentials by calling them a “climatologist” is a reference to authority, not to the fact of the breadth, or lack of it, of their expertise in the subject. It’s a strawman argument. – don’t fall for it .
Quote above: “The Science was Settled in 1997. Was then, is now and forever shall be. Amen”
I disagree. The catastrophists will eagerly embrace any new catastrophic theory without any backward glance at their own theories which preceded it and contradict it. One case in point is the theory that Arctic amplification would lead to increased east/west temperature gradients and a stronger polar jet. The stronger polar jet would enhance lower latitude warming leading to warmer results in climate models. That theory was prevalent up to around 2005.
The new theory is that decreased north/south temperatures gradients are leading to a weaker polar jet with deeper meridional incursions which will “cause” superstorms like Sandy. Like all such myopic theories it has theoretical appeal. But fundamentally it is a pretty clear example of mixing up cause and effect. The meridional flow is caused by weather (primarily driven by solar factors) and the persistent meridional flows are what cause the average decreased gradient along with decreased sea ice in places like the Barents Sea.
..and received this recant by Al:
And Michael Mann has degrees in physics and geology but no degree in “climatology”.
(I’m sad to report Mr. Mann is a geologist, but he’s not honest like most other geologists I know–being one myself, mind you.)
So this “Al” person is misrepresenting the whole credentials issue, unless he automatically considers geologists to be akin to climatologists. And most geologists I know haven’t been hoodwinked by this CAGW garbage–they’re too honest to be bought whereas Michael Mann is a notable and notorious exception, a traitor to geologists everywhere.
Agree with “Imdying” above. Its ironic, but the fact is as that AGW is found not be happening no one will be interested in climate anymore. This means that ALL climate related sites will probably vanish in the next 10 years (expect weather sites). WUWT and other skeptic/denier sites rely on the crazy AGW or warmista sites keeping up the lies, adjustments and vitriol LOL
The guy guilty of setting of the scare is non other than the astronomer / physicist Dr. James Hansen. Then [there is] the physics / geologist Dr. Michael Mann. Need I go on???
Doh! I meant
Then there’s….
Aren’t Judith Curry, John Christie, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and Bob Carter decently-respected climate scientists? That’s just the first ones off the top of my head. Doesn’t Judith Curry’s own trajectory, with the fall from grace, expulsion from the inner circle because of her willingness to countenance skepticism etc, enough on its own to address this whole assertion that non-climate scientists are the ones who question climate science? And then crunch grant numbers, connect the dots, identify the gravy train and voila. You don’t even need a conspiracy for The Team to operate; THIS model would predict what we see even if only on a level of the unconscious in each separate climate science ‘worker.’ No alarm = no gig. Or far fewer of them anyway. Not to mention that the average climate scientist’s sex appeal went from zero to hero level once they started pressing the panic button.
Pardon the lengthy post but I’ve been the victim of Gavin Schmidt’s worst censoring offenses.
Connolley showed up over there trying to equate the brazen censorship at RC and others with Anthony’s lengthy struggle to deal with his behavior.
http://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/how-activists-try-to-shape-the-climate-conversation/
“wmconnolley | January 27, 2013 at 6:22 am | You’re lying. You’ve censored entire posts, and all their associated comments.
Somehow you don’t find space to mention that. WUWT routinely bans people it finds inconvenient.
(http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/05/02/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-1/).
And I don’t censor comments (depending somewhat on your definitions).
As for AW “always been a gentleman” – don’t make us laugh. He’s polite to his fawning admirers, certainly.”
But Connolley’s Stoat link directs one to a WUWT webcitation which clearly displays the length Watts went to before unwelcoming Connolley.
In stark contrast Gavin Schmidt et al have in fact (frequently) blatantly banned people in thread midstream for simply bringing up some mild challenge. Worse yet Gavin has edited posts to change their meaning, blocked follow up and allowed his minions to ridicule the blocked
poster by falsely casting them as having ran away confused and defeated.
IMO Anthony had been far too patient with the likes of Connolley but made it clear there is no comparison between WUWT moderating and the real censors of debate.
Romm, Schmidt and company are the low life offenders of the worst kind and Connolley’s disinformation is more proof he has earned deletion, omission and prohibition.
It’s all here:
http://www.webcitation.org/67MNOBx7u
The best excerpts:
REPLY: Hey Connolley, read the first paragraph before you say “not one”. I’m really growing weary of your condescension. Since you think we are all “stupid”, as you stated publicly, why not go back to your Stoat blog and rant there. I don’t disagree with your explanation, but saying “not one of the “skeptics” here had the slightest idea what the effect was” is a condescending assumption on your part, and is dead wrong. – Anthony
REPLY: This is just another case of the “Connolley is superior and we are all stupid” mindset he holds. Apparently he missed my introduction about frost mitigation when he lumped me and everyone into “you’ve all missed it”. What a plonker of a comment. – Anthony
Luther Wu says:
April 30, 2012 at 7:59 am
Connelly is here?
William, whatever happened with you taking your toys and running home… never to return?
[Moderator’s Note: I don’t believe he ever said that. Please keep the Connolley bashing to a minimum and engage him with substance. -REP]
wmconnolley says:
April 30, 2012 at 8:59 am
> [Moderator’s Note: I don’t believe he ever said that. Please keep the Connolley bashing to a minimum and engage him with substance. -REP]
You mean stuff like “What a plonker of a comment.”? You’ll need to check in with the organ grinder, I think 🙂
[Reply: After that “organ grinder” comment, I would be surprised if in future the moderator goes out of his way to defend Mr Connolley. ~dbs, mod.]
wmconnolley says:
April 30, 2012 at 12:47 pm
> Ric Werme says:… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island#Causes …I forgot to ask about one of your recent edit there…
Indeed, you didn’t formally ask a question at all. But I think the question you meant to ask was: “WMC, so you made the article better, unlike RW who has never helped at all; but why didn’t you make it perfect?” Which is self-answering really.
REPLY: And the answer is… after the black marks you’ve given Wikipedia for your arrogant behavior there, many people don’t want to participate any more due to the bullying that you and a few others display there on the climate issue. The fact is that with many (but not all) climate articles, there aren’t stable references from one day to the next because there is so much tinkering going on. I think I speak for many in saying that we’d feel the climate articles would be more trustworthy if you weren’t involved. -Anthony
wmconnolley says:
April 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Anthony> many people don’t want to participate any more
What do you mean, “any more”? You never have; and I doubt any of the folks here have. You’d rather sit on the sidelines carping, and inventing excuses for not making things better.
> due to the bullying that you and a few others display there on the climate issue.
Excuses, excuses.
> The fact is that with many (but not all) climate articles, there aren’t stable references from one day to the next because there is so much tinkering going on.
You’re making that up. Care to prove me wrong? Then find some examples. vague generalities don’t cut it.
REPLY: I’ve never contributed? Really, you should learn to research before making such challenges. I submitted the original page on the Climate Reference Network to Wikipedia in April 2008 after my invited visit to NCDC. I actually did it from my hotel room in Asheville because no page existed on it and I thought there should be one after meeting with NCDC staff (who I was impressed with BTW for that project division). So I took the description from NCDC and posted it along with the appropriate title and cites. It was then promptly deleted by one of the pseudonym named climate bullies you cavort with. My crime was using my own name….because well, we just can’t have that awful Watts person submitting to Wikipedia. Only the anointed get to touch the holy Wiki climate reference book it seems, mere unclean mortals like myself get their contributions deleted wholesale. So I don’t bother anymore. I know others that have been turned off by the bullying as well.
Ah, the famous WMC signature line “You’re making that up.”, now used on almost any blog entry where you are challenged. Just look at any talk page and note the change history for articles on climate for Wikipedia and it is easy to see how much change goes on from day to day. There’s a lot of tinkering. Though from your world view it seems you don’t believe so. A few examples of what the climate bullies of Wikipedia have had happen to them:
Another prominent Wikipedia editor has been climate topic banned – Kim Dabelstein
William Connolley, now “climate topic banned” at Wikipedia
Wikipedia climate revisionism by William Connolley continues
More on Wikipedia and Connolley – he’s been canned as a Wiki administrator
And of course there’s this one which laid it all bare:
Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes broad trust issues over Wikipedia climate information
Of course since you’ve never taken any responsibility for your behavior, I doubt you’ll do so now. You’ll just act like Mike Mann does and say its everyone else’s problem but yours.
Look, we don’t like each other, and I doubt we ever will. You think I’m stupid (along with everyone else here) and have said so publicly, I think you are a condescending bully. By that premise, why would we bother to even try anymore at Wikipedia (to make it better – your words) when you claim we are too stupid to contribute anything? So let’s make it simple, let’s not waste each other’s time here anymore. You have Stoat, I have WUWT. Your comments really aren’t welcome here because you’ve been so disruptive that the threads become mostly about you, rather than the topic. So, I suggest you stick to Stoat, because you aren’t winning any converts here with your style. – Anthony
wmconnolley says:
April 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm
[…] > Look, we don’t like each other, and I doubt we ever will. You think I’m stupid (along with everyone else here)
No, not really. “Unthinking” would be closer.
> So let’s make it simple, let’s not waste each other’s time here anymore. You have Stoat, I have WUWT. Your comments really aren’t welcome here…
I’m not here to be liked. I’m here to help educate your people who (from the comments in this thread, I think you cannot but agree) are in need of help. so if you’re formally banning me, you need to actually say so (but then you can forget all about the “no censorship” claims).
REPLY: And there you go, making stuff up. Do you see “formally banning” (your words) anywhere? How about a citation? I suggest that your presence here is a huge waste of everyone’s time, because due to your baggage, and your particular style of condescension, you are not well received. Further, you can’t even fess up to your own posts on Stoat, much less your failings on Wikipedia where you were in fact demoted.. You write a Stoat post about how stupid we are, citing Policy Lass and now to save face it’s “unthinking”. Mr. Connolley, your actions here (and elsewhere) personify the main reason climate science is failing in its message, and therefore I suggest your time is wasted. Though if you want to continue to waste time, be my guest. However, as before, you’ll get an extra level of moderation.
Here’s the Wiki history page for “global warming”http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&action=history
Seems pretty “day to day” revised to me:
(cur | prev) 14:52, 28 April 2012 Nigelj (talk | contribs) . . (146,643 bytes) (-8) . . (rm unnecessary quotes from ‘dangerous’ x 2, ‘La Niña year’, and ‘Keeling Curve’, the first per talk page)
(cur | prev) 05:55, 28 April 2012 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) . . (146,651 bytes) (-959) . . (not sure this can’t-survive-35-oc matters)
(cur | prev) 01:34, 28 April 2012 Saedon (talk | contribs) . . (147,610 bytes) (+210) . . (Reverted 1 edit by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk): La Page is a published expert with a master’s in atmospheric science and as such meets blog exception criteria per WP:SPS ([[…)
(cur | prev) 00:59, 28 April 2012 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs) . . (147,400 bytes) (-210) . . (→Expected social system effects: WP:BLOG)
(cur | prev) 20:53, 26 April 2012 TheThomas (talk | contribs) . . (147,610 bytes) (-17) . . (→See also: There were two coppies of the link to Terraforming, both were spelled incorrectly.)
(cur | prev) 20:49, 26 April 2012 CaribDigita (talk | contribs) . . (147,627 bytes) (+18) . . (→See also: +Teraforming which is diliberate warming of a planet. (or altering the atmosphere in some way.))
(cur | prev) 20:49, 26 April 2012 CaribDigita (talk | contribs) . . (147,609 bytes) (+18) . . (→See also: +Teraforming which is diliberate warming of a planet. (or altering the atmosphere in some way.))
(cur | prev) 18:22, 26 April 2012 Nigelj (talk | contribs) . . (147,591 bytes) (-4) . . (remove unnecessary quotes from the word ‘dangerous’ both times. These are not used in the source, and both times the phrase is attributed to the source.http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php)
(cur | prev) 03:23, 26 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (147,595 bytes) (+265) . . (→Adaptation)
(cur | prev) 03:18, 26 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (147,330 bytes) (+25) . . (→Expected social system effects)
(cur | prev) 03:15, 26 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (147,305 bytes) (+654) . . (→Expected social system effects)
(cur | prev) 02:45, 26 April 2012 KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) . . (146,651 bytes) (-157) . . (Reverted to revision 489118328 by Mikenorton: rv per WP:SUMMARY and WP:Manual of Style/Lead Section. using TW)
(cur | prev) 02:42, 26 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (146,808 bytes) (+8) . . (→Introduction)
(cur | prev) 02:34, 26 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (146,800 bytes) (+2) . . (→Introduction: “this works better”?)
(cur | prev) 02:13, 26 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (146,798 bytes) (+147)
(cur | prev) 07:06, 25 April 2012 Mikenorton (talk | contribs) . . (146,651 bytes) (-99) . . (rv – please discuss on the talk page)
(cur | prev) 03:19, 25 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (146,750 bytes) (+19)
(cur | prev) 03:17, 25 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (146,731 bytes) (+61)
(cur | prev) 03:11, 25 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (146,670 bytes) (+19)
(cur | prev) 05:38, 19 April 2012 Nicehumor (talk | contribs) . . (146,651 bytes) (-1,975) . . (See talk page. No reason geoengineering should get a separate section.)
(cur | prev) 19:17, 18 April 2012 Martarius (talk | contribs) . . (148,626 bytes) (0) . . (-us)
(cur | prev) 13:54, 17 April 2012 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs) . . (148,626 bytes) (+6) . . (Undid revision 487834044 by Joeytanc (talk) rv vandalism)
(cur | prev) 13:53, 17 April 2012 Joeytanc (talk | contribs) . . (148,620 bytes) (-6) . . (→Observed temperature changes)
(cur | prev) 00:59, 17 April 2012 TjBot (talk | contribs) m . . (148,626 bytes) (+30) . . (r2.7.2) (Robot: Adding ilo:Panagpúdot ti lubong)
(cur | prev) 04:23, 16 April 2012 Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) . . (148,596 bytes) (+37)
(cur | prev) 12:08, 13 April 2012 Nicehumor (talk | contribs) . . (148,559 bytes) (+2,457) . . (A major social system effect may not be a significant natural system effect and vice versa. Since they are a little different it may be better to have separate sections.)
(cur | prev) 12:37, 11 April 2012 Rjwilmsi (talk | contribs) m . . (146,102 bytes) (-8) . . (→Observed temperature changes: Sraight quotes per MOS:PUNCT, replaced: “ → ” (4) using AWB (8060))
(cur | prev) 14:37, 9 April 2012 Rjwilmsi (talk | contribs) m . . (146,110 bytes) (+42) . . (→Particulates and soot: Journal cites:, added 2 PMIDs, added 1 PMC, using AWB (8051))
(cur | prev) 00:47, 8 April 2012 Wavelength (talk | contribs) . . (146,068 bytes) (+3) . . (→Etymology: [¶1 of 2] “it” —> “which”)
(cur | prev) 22:35, 4 April 2012 Teapeat (talk | contribs) m . . (146,065 bytes) (-7) . . (per WP:MOS, articles are about the topic, not the term for the topic)
(cur | prev) 06:05, 4 April 2012 Stephan Schulz (talk | contribs) . . (146,072 bytes) (-2,157) . . (Undid revision 485461502 by Nw68868 (talk) Sorry, but no. Original research, no reliable sources, and plain wrong. See talk if you need to discuss this.)
(cur | prev) 05:55, 4 April 2012 Nw68868 (talk | contribs) . . (148,229 bytes) (+2,157)
(cur | prev) 19:33, 3 April 2012 Nathan Johnson (talk | contribs) . . (146,072 bytes) (-10) . . (→Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings): 1958-2009 is not in any way “long-term”. besides, it’s quantified a few words later.)
(cur | prev) 14:22, 2 April 2012 Rhlozier (talk | contribs) . . (146,082 bytes) (+11) . . (→Feedback)
(cur | prev) 13:38, 2 April 2012 Rhlozier (talk | contribs) . . (146,071 bytes) (-11) . . (→Feedback)
(cur | prev) 13:33, 2 April 2012 Rhlozier (talk | contribs) . . (146,082 bytes) (+22) . . (→Feedback)
(cur | prev) 10:24, 2 April 2012 H3llBot (talk | contribs) . . (146,060 bytes) (+324) . . (BOT: Added Wayback archive url for dead citation link, Tagged citation with {{dead link}}. Queries and error reports)
P.S.Linking to other web pages in your name – deleted. Choose Stoat for your name link, or leave it blank, you are not Grumbine.
P.P.S. For a real eye opener, see this Wikipedia page about Connolley and what they think about him and what actions have been taken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions
But I’m sure he’ll insist that I’ve “made it up”. – Anthony
wayne says:
April 30, 2012 at 6:26 pm
wmc: “Don’t try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, you wet-behind-the-ears puppy.”
Anthony, Wikipedia, as loose some of it’s information is, will not even have William M. Connolley spewing his bad science information laced with insults…. so why is he here? For enlightenment to see how bad AGW badness can get? To have yourself and a multiple of readers and commenters, now included me, insulted right and left because William M. Connolley thinks he is knowledgeable in science and no one else here is? Seems you’ve got a hard decision to make.
William M. Connolley, I gave you your chance in my last comment to be civil and you refused it, insulting again. I’m not going to sit here and play YOUR game. Mods— please play me some leeway in the near future with this jerk.
wmconnolley says:
May 1, 2012 at 1:19 am
[…..] In this case it looks like AW may have erred. Wiki wins again!
REPLY: Actually we both erred, but you won’t admit your error.
1. Mr. Connolley erred in claiming I’ve never contributed to Wikipedia.
[ >What do you mean, “any more”? You never have; and I doubt any of the folks here have. You’d rather sit on the sidelines carping, and inventing excuses for not making things better.]
To paraphease his favorite line, he “made that up”.
2. I erred in not checking again after getting the “speedy deletion” notice, because it caused me to be disgusted with the entire Wikipedia process. Why participate if one person’s opinion can trigger a deletion? Given the behavior problems there, I didn’t bother to even contest it. Why waste my time with anonymous cowards with an agenda?
I think this admonishment from Wikipedia sums up your behavior there quite well, as well as my (and others) reticence for active participation:
William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped
8.1) In the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case (July–September 2009), William M. Connolley was found to have misused his admin tools while involved. As a result, he lost administrator permissions, and was admonished and prohibited from interacting with User:Abd. Prior to that, he was sanctioned in Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute (2005, revert parole – which was later overturned by the Committee here) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley (2008, restricted from administrative actions relating to Giano II). He was also the subject of RFC’s regarding his conduct: RfC 1 (2005) and RfC 2 (2008). The 2008 RFC was closed as improperly certified.
Passed 6 to 0 with 2 abstentions, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic
8.2) William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area, and toward administrators enforcing the community probation. (Selection of representative examples:[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] [17][18][19] [20] )
This uncivil and antagonistic behaviour has included refactoring of talk page comments by other users,(examples:[21][22][23] ) to the point that he was formally prohibited from doing so. In the notice advising him that a consensus of 7 administrators had prohibited his refactoring of talk page posts, he inserted commentary within the post of the administrator leaving the notice on his talk page.[24]] For this action, he was blocked for 48 hours; had the block extended to 4 days with talk page editing disabled due to continuing insertions into the posts of other users on his talk page; had his block reset to the original conditions; then was blocked indefinitely with talk page editing disabled when he again inserted comments into the posts of others on his talk page.[25] After extensive discussion at Administrator noticeboard/Incidents, the interpretation of consensus was that the Climate Change general sanctions did not extend to the actions of editors on their own talk pages, and the block was lifted.
Passed 8 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley’s edits to biographies of living persons
8.5) William M. Connolley has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.
Passed 7 to 1, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
So, after viewing what you are attempting to do with your own blog and interactions here, careful personal consideration, and discussions with other moderators about your behavior at WUWT, it has been decided that like Wikipedia, after 367 Connolley comments and responses, you have been dis-invited from further commentary here. The reason is that you have summarily and regularly violated WUWT policy. While on one hand you have made some valid points, on the other, your behavior here (with follow up taunting on your blog) is serially mendacious, disruptive, dismissive, insulting, and condescending, and as I’ve pointed out the threads Mr. Connolley visits get hijacked by his interaction, making them about him and his taunts. In essence, as you’ve demonstrated on Wikipedia, your participation here is not in good faith either.
To quote WOPR: “The only winning move is not to play.” This is how I feel about Wikipedia and your participation there, and after weighing all the factors, and your participation here. We won’t be playing Mr. Connelley’s war games here anymore. – Anthony Watts
First of all congratulations to Anthony and the team for running an interesting and knowledgable website! Is there a prize for the person that submits the one millionth comment; how about a snow-shovel?
The impression I get from the warmists is that when they make some prediction about climate, they are trying to convince themselves as much as everyone else!
Climatologists or climastrologists?
Tucci78 says:
January 27, 2013 at 3:40 am
… 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 problem for those in the profession of political speech… is that once someone becomes knowledgeable… that individual cannot un-know the fact, and will henceforth always treat their pronouncements as carcinogenic bilge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Colorfully put but very true. Once you figure out you are being lied to by politicians and the media you will never trust either source again. It is the main reason I register as an Independent and if I doubt or can stand both candidates I then try to replace the big hog with the little piggy figuring he can not do quite as much damage.
Limiting damage seems to be the best we can hope for since we seem to have the choice between fascist/corporatism or totalitarian in present day governments. Both of course are run by the same set of thugs.
Mk Urbo says:
January 26, 2013 at 9:01 pm
==============================
Wiki changes daily and as a source its questionable at best.
AS for the science. its been shredded here many times.. I agree with the others on this that its total garbage.
@Bill H
I’ll second your Wiki comment. I fought the editing on that site for years with help from WUWT members to no avail. I did manage to get banned by William Connolley for a year or so, until Wiki purged him for bias editing and overreach.
Remember Tim Flannery “Australian of The year” what a joke!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-28/qld-flooding-alert-moves-south/4486666
He promised eternal droughts in Queensland which led to the Queensland government NOT releasing water from ivenhoe damm..
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm
Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2007:
“Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”
This man is indirectly responsible for millions of dollars in property losses and dozen of lost lives and should be fired from any job related to structural changes in Australia and is nomination withdrawn forthwith
Martyn Jones says: @ January 27, 2013 at 7:47 am
…..have you examined the Norwegian study announced here: http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is this thread: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/25/yet-another-study-shows-lower-climate-sensitivity/
Eliza says:
January 27, 2013 at 8:33 am
Agree with “Imdying” above….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually I think, if handle correctly, you might see WUWT hanging around as a place where new science is discussed. WUWT is not just about CAGW but other interesting stuff.
I just quit trying to engage in debate at Open Mind and RC. I was polite in my posts, but offered counter arguments to the discussions. These comments usually just disappeared while the “faithful” continued to fawn over the hosts and bask in their own self righteousness and pompousness. I do not go to those sites any more. At least here I can express my thoughts and engage in civil discussion of the facts.
Did you mean “criticism by specialists”, because there’s plenty of criticism of specialists in related fields. Meaning criticism directed at the specialists. Just didn’t want to misunderstand what you were saying.
james griffin says: January 27, 2013 at 6:36 am
As stated on Bishop Hill a few weeks ago it is the blogosphere that is destroying AGW
=================================
That is why they do not allow open discussion at the warmer blogs; it threatens their cause.
WUWT will live on in one form or another after the Climatology Farce fades away, the old main stream media, the science journals and TV shows have blown their cover.
Now exposed as willing to mislead for their cause, they are doomed to fade into obscurity, their leaping onto the CAGW bandwagon is now evident to all, whether thro incompetence or agenda does not matter.They can not be trusted to do the job they promised.
People have withdrawn payment, hence the collapsing subscription rates.
So a medium like this blog will thrive, wether thro subscription or the voluntary donations of participants.
In what other medium can you leap right in and argue that a subject is wrong, idiotic or plain nuts and then have smarter people point out the error of your conceptions?
Sure beats screaming at the TV or wanting your money back after buying a magazine.
Trust but verify, is more than an empty motto.
So save science; make a donation to encourage WUWT to continue.
John Brookes says: January 27, 2013 at 5:42 am
==============================
This is known as a drive-by spitball. You don’t seem capable of much else, or at least that is the impression you give.
Far as the traffic question, where do I go the see how much Ladens traffic spiked when WUWT posted the “Should Anthony Sue?” question?
As I suspect these types of blogs will launch uglier and more personal attacks on Anthony, merely to boost their minuscule traffic in the near future.
For unlike WUWT they do have pay Masters, who are seeing a diminishing rate of return on their dollar.
I don’t object to the concept of censorship per se. Who hasn’t tried to read comments at a mainstream site like CNN, WP, WSJ and thought, this is a total waste of my time? It’s like a teenage flame war between Windows/Mac iOS/Android. Not very interesting.
However the execution of censoring is always what causes the problems. I have no doubt that most people enter this with an “even hand” mentality, but it just never seems to work out. Outright bias eventually flows from subconscious bias, and it never seems to recover.
RC is always a case in point. They were posting all my first newbie stuff, and over time my pass rate fell below 50%, I felt unwelcome, and now post infrequently, although I have learned how to properly phrase posts so that 2/3 get through the randomized emotional filter employed there.
You can make a judgment from what they allow through, and what they reject, and it is certainly biased. It’s their right to run the site as they wish. People who respond with some pretty abusive stuff are given effective real time posting access, while I have to wait hours for moderated responses to get through. So be it.
My WTF moment over there occurred when the Himalaya 2035 melt tiff was going on. There was an “it was an innocent mistake” RC post up, and I posted links to Google cached pages showing the NASA website had an attribution page up, and NASA had just disappeared it the previous day, saying the Himalaya glaciers would melt by 2030, 5 years earlier! I even reposted it twice because I thought they had accidentally not let it through. I didn’t even know Gavin worked for NASA at the time.
Naive. That kind of censorship stick with you. And I have no doubt they think they are winning hearts and minds over there.
Thank you, Mr. Watts, for leaving my comment intact.
As to your answer… Surely, it is your site, and you are entitled to prefer some people to others, for whatever reasons, right or wrong. If you really think that musings about drinking with prostitutes in seedy Manila bars or peremptory judgements about ours being the only existing civilization in the Universe pertain to the most visited scientific blog in the world, the choice is yours. What else can I do but smile?
REPLY: The story Mr. Feht objects to is here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/13/we-have-met-the-1-and-he-is-us/
I urge readers to have a look and get your own take-away. Clearly, Mr. Feht’s take-away misses the point of the article entirely, and my position is that he’s welcome to be as upset as he wishes about it, because while Mr. Feht has historically contributed little more than complaining here, essentially a feht accompli now, Mr. Eschenbach has opened his experiences and more than a few eyes with that story, along with many others. – Anthony
Thank you Anthony , you and a host of others have significantly changed the face of the climate debate for the better . I have recieved a free education and am appreciative of it . You and your moderators and contributing posters have much to be proud of .
It is not just left-wing climatology blogs that do this, so too do left-wing political blogs, the left-wing media blogs and especially the left-wing educational blogs.
If you post on these sites, especially the educationalists, and you challenge the established group-think, they will throw hate and bile at you by the bucket-load.
These criticisms are often infantile and easily shot down in flames. But as the bile and fury mounts over the weeks or months, you finally let go with an articulate, reasoned but caustic put-down of your own – and booof – you are instantly banned from the site.
There is nothing quite so intolerant and fascist, as a left wing liberal.
.
I don’t see too many pro-AGW sites that post all comments. At real climate, they posted a portion of my comment that made it seem like I was saying something completely different. My replies were all ignored. From what I’ve seen, even comment from pro-AGW commenters get ignored if they question the orthodoxy.
Mr Watts/Moderators
Apr-po nothing you may feel that the treatment of one David Bellamy is worthy of a wider audience. Together with David Attenborough he was one of the heroes of my youth in his heyday as a conservationist and TV personality in the Eighties and Nineties working with the BBC. But in 2004 he dismissed AGW as ‘poppycock’. He never worked for the BBC again and was dropped from The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts where he was president without being informed having worked with them for 52 years.
Below is a link to the London Mail on Line and an article dated 22 January 2013 entitled ‘The BBC froze me out because I don’t believe in global warming: Outspoken as ever, David Bellamy reveals why you don’t see him on TV any more’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266188/David-Bellamy-The-BBC-froze-I-dont-believe-global-warming.html#ixzz2JCxjXhwc
It is not the message, that is at fault, it is its communication.
By any means necessary.
@Parthlan
Thanks for that article.
I have always been a fan of Bellamy and was wondering if he had retired.
This also explains why we now see so much of Richard Attenborough, the self absorbed global warming crusader, on television.
It seems it pays to adhere to the BBC dogma.
Heretics get burned at the stake.
“That said, if you can find a better place with the level of discourse we have, you are certainly welcome to go there. – Anthony”
The only other place I have found is smalldeadanimals.com. While not a scientific blog,Kate covers everything and anything,and allows any dissenting opinions without snipping,as long as they are to the point,and backed up with facts and/or links, and no ad hominems. A breath of fresh air,like WUWT, compared to most so called sites that call themselves neutral.
Oh. And full disclosure. I do not know Kate,and do not post articles to her site. Just a good read.
“..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.
”
“Climatology” isn’t a science in the way that Physics is a Science, in the way that Chemistry is a Science, or Biology is a science. “Climatology” is a mishmash of a number of different observational “natural sciences” that see something, record it, and try to tell a story to explain it. it makes no predictions that can be falsified, because as soon as a prediction is wrong they tweak an unknown parameter and claim it works again.
While observing and putting together a story that explains it can be useful, there can be hundreds of stories that may explain the same observations. Plotting some pts on a graph and extrapolating a line doesn’t make someone a scientist. Giving more weight to storytellers than people that actually understand how the natural world and science WORKS is a travesty. I trust the chemists and physicists more than I do someone that counts tree rings and makes grand pronouncements of truth, that are really speculation at best.
Jimbo says:
January 27, 2013 at 8:39 am
“Need I go on???”
Well, you might explain Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Charles – Prince of Wales, Rajendra Pachauri, Cate Blanchett, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and that well known climatologist in the White House. Likely I missed one or twol
I claim special status !
SkepticalScience not only de-registered my comment privileges they blocked my IP address from accessing their site !!!!!
I can only read their BS by using anonymous proxy.
Can you believe it ??
They are so sure they are right they have to block access to non-believers !!
Even the most dogmatic religions do not use these tactics.
They lose !
Holy moly, Steve Oregon, It’s Sunday, think of the moderators. But quite an exhaustive history on the Connelly thing. He alone should tell us their whole case is bunk.
Tucci78 says:
“Well, it’s certainly encouraged me – ”
Tucci, that you commented on my comment is something of a consummation of a man-crush for me. Or woman-crush? 2nd-declension-masculine-plural crush.
I have no idea who you are when you’re at home, but when you’re online you’re one of the best writers ever (along with an old doc called Matarese). The bizarre thing is that you’re not just one of the best climate-debate writers since the invention of the climate in 1988 or whenever. That’s not what I meant. You and Dr Matarese have the best voices I’ve heard online on any topic in any period period. The fact that you happen to use your powers in service of this particular good cause is a telling and up-moralising coincidence.
Anyway, what I wanted to say was that [snip], I forgot what it was. Oh well.
PS I presume you’re two years younger than me—and you already write with the pen of a mean old angel. You suck, sirs!
At 1:58 PM on 27 January, in response to a post of mine in which I’d screwed up the hypertext mark-up, iskoob takes note of my inadvertent online multiple personality posting disorder as the result of a chronic I.D. Ten-T malfunction in my system’s wetware (yeah, I’m Rich Matarese; so what could I tell you?) and then praises my voice anent the great “We’re All Gonna Die!” man-made global greasing-and-grafting crusade.
Actually, I began to monitor this suppurating abscess on the collective tochus of the sciences in 1981, courtesy of old-fashioned snailmail correspondence with Petr Beckmann, then emeritus professor of electrical engineering at the University of Colorado, chiefly on the basis of his book The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear (1976) and his delightfully acerbic newsletter Access to Energy.
You know what newsletters used to be, right? Kind of a Web log but printed on paper and you got it in an envelope once a month or so.
Dr. Beckmann knew my background and forwarded to me a boatload of reprints and commentary (his own included) with a “What the hell do you think of this nonsense?” invitation to offer opinion.
It can surprise no one familiar with my online rantings that I’m a science fiction fan, and that I consider mundanes – non-SF readers – not much more than stagnant eddies in the gene pool.
One of the regular elements on the programs of science fiction conventions back in the ’80s – particularly on the east coast – were the presentations of writer and professional science teacher Harry Stubbs (pen name Hal Clement) on “world building,” the speculative application of the principles of planetary astronomy to create the extraterrestrial (and interstellar) settings of “hard” science fiction stories.
As Hal Clement, he’d produced the novel Mission of Gravity (1954), one of the most notably successful efforts to present a story in a setting so outré as to make it impossible for human beings to function as protagonists, and the reader is obliged to identify with a centipede sea captain about twenty inches long, commanding a merchant vessel on an oblate planet where the acceleration field “varies between 700 g at the poles and 3 g at the equator.”
And his other planetological Gedankenexperimenten went on to get really strange after that. Mr. Stubbs was one of the best speakers and panelists to present at those conventions, and was so scrupulous in his recognition of fact-supported argument that in one manuscript reading he accepted my suggestion from the audience to correct that novel in galley to accommodate the phenomenon of cardiac tamponade in cases of traumatic ventricular perforation.
In “hard” science fiction, failure to acknowledge that which is known in the sciences – and to be aware of the “wriggle room” allowed by conjecture, hypothesis, and theory – will get a writer hammered. The general levels of scientific literacy among “hard” SF readers hits nosebleed-inducing altitudes, and both in reviews and at conventions, the critique has always been both fierce and sustained.
Its fair to contend that “hard” science fiction fen tend reliably to consider the “man-made global warming” hokum simply sucker bait for the mundanes. Trufen quit buying that felgercarb well before the IPCC first anacronymonated, and the few “squishy” SF writers who’d succumbed to it – like Ben Bova – are figures of considerable contempt.
But having been desultorily but for decades persistently interested in “world-building” and the reasons why and how conjectural planets might present challenges for the characters in scientifictional stories, I horsebacked a diagnosis for Dr. Beckmann to the effect that “These clowns have overstated the greenhouse gas effects of any possible man-made increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide by at least three orders of magnitude.”
Which is to say that their contentions were purest crap, and could never be anything other.
Subsequent attention paid since getting on the grand and glorious Intertubes in the late ’90s has given me absolutely no reason to revise that initial assessment of this concept’s flaming bogosity. Heck, in estimating their error at only three orders of magnitude west of “hysterical” I was actually cutting those climate charlatans a helluva lot more slack than they’ll ever deserve.
But enough of my experiences in the merry kiester-kicking of the catastrophists. So how far past your own sell-by date do you happen to be?
Whenever I bring up info on WUWT in a discussion with warmists, they go ballistic about the site but they never address the meat of the issue on factual terms.
Anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint on any topic is an ‘extremist.’
And hey, I’m happy to move you closer to 1 Million comments, Anthony.
At 2:36 PM on 17 January, parentofed had observed:
Moreover, these Warmerbruder types are never willing to specify why or how the content of Mr. Watts’ Web log is (or should ever be considered) objectionable, much less “extremist.”
If WUWT is ever and anon unreliable and/or deliberately duplicitous, you’d think that these climate catastrophe caterwaulers would have specific page and comment URLs memorized for ready recapitulation, quotations drawn and set for hot-button insertion from their FAQ files, wouldn’tcha?
And yet if you ask these guys for page, paragraph, and line, you either get “[chirping crickets]” or the banhammer. Not uncommonly both.
Hrm. Or are they still alleging that Mr. Watts and his cadre of contributors are all in the pocket of Big Oil, or members of the Kochtopus’ vast retinue of think-tankers, PR flacks, and scandalously paid-by-the-post Internet trolls?
“Liberal” fascisti never give up on the Big Lie, y’know.
@Tucci78
When I link or reference WUWT I’m getting more replies with “thanks for the link” or “appreciate you directing me to that website” than in years past. The AGW alarmists are still trolling in good numbers and they always decry WUWT as propaganda, but the tide has turned in my observations.
Sometimes these ‘posts’ look straight off MJ mag or Huff Post even … you do realize who owns a majority of stocks (issued by corporations and held by private individuals, who vote said stock) do you no not? You do realize also how elective offices work in this country?
One would not like to think that comprehending the actual functioning of ‘the market’ or government as being forever slightly beyond Gail’s level or reach … the answer then lies in education, awareness; verily, a better educated and voting public (and market!)
.
What a great read this thread has been. Congrautlations on reaching a million. (presumptive, I know) Keep up the good work!
Tom
1. They haven’t been rising during the last decade, as the warmist models predicted, which suggests the climate sensitivity is less than they think.
2. In 1880 we were climbing out of the depths of the Little Ice Age, the coldest period in 10,000 years. It lasted for centuries. Naturally we’re setting “instrumental” record highs now after 140 years. We were hotter for centuries during the Medieval Warm Period and the ice caps didn’t melt or sea levels rise much then.
My Sunday thesis: the RC site’s censorship strategy was the dominate role model for most of the sites we see today struggling ineffectively to neutralize valid scientific skepticism.
Further, I think RC is the primary reason for the erosion of public trust in alarming AGW activists.
John
_Jim says:
January 27, 2013 at 2:39 pm
… you do realize who owns a majority of stocks (issued by corporations and held by private individuals, who vote said stock) do you no not?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And there is where you are DEAD WRONG. Stock used to be owned by individuals who voted the stock but that is no longer the case. Take for example Monsanto. Monsanto is 85% owned through mutual funds and the mutual funds vote the stock not the people who put up the cash. For example the Johnson family owns/controls Fidelity, Magellan fund and several others and therefore THEY not us vote a sizeable chunk of stock. Heck most people haven’t the foggiest idea of what stocks their money purchased.
As usual you have not bothered to do you homework while I have nor do you ever back up your flaming. (Hows the job at the bank going?)
Tucci78 says:
January 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Dr. Beckmann and Harry Stubbs, two wonderful people. I spent a most memorable evening listening to Harry and Issac Asimov roast Dr. Anthony Lewis (physicist & SF author) on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday.
Harry and Tony had done nuclear experiments at White Sands. While driving away from the experimental site before the bomb blew, Harry had a tendency to pull back on the steering wheel when over taking another car since he learned to fly before learning to drive. Tony twitted him at the roasting about this quirk.
What proof do we have that the other alarmist blogs hasn’t reached or surpassed the 1,000,000 comment milestone?
It’s very possible that over one million comments have been SUBMITTED – and that the 97% applies to their REJECTION rate.
Of course, we’d need raw data for that…
Anthony Watts replies:
January 27, 2013 at 11:17 am
I urge readers to have a look and get your own take-away. Clearly, Mr. Feht’s take-away misses the point of the article entirely, and my position is that he’s welcome to be as upset as he wishes about it, because while Mr. Feht has historically contributed little more than complaining here, essentially a feht accompli now, Mr. Eschenbach has opened his experiences and more than a few eyes with that story, along with many others. – Anthony
Mr. Watts, I think that a cheap word play on your readers’ last names is below your dignity.
Calling for readers’ support in hunting down a person who had guts to disagree with you is also a not very dignified strategy.
It would be below my dignity to argue with your other angry and unconsidered remarks.
Suffice it to say that I have contributed to this site many times, long before ribald Mr. Eschenbach appeared as a poster here, and received positive feedback from readers, publicly as well as privately (you may recall that you yourself made one of my posts “a post of the week” a while back).
REPLY: Fair enough, but your ongoing complaint themes about Dr. Svalgaard and Mr. Eschenbach aren’t going to result in their suspensions from WUWT, so my advice for the path forward is to concentrate on contributing to the dialog henceforth. – Anthony
@henrythethird says:
January 27, 2013 at 7:54 pm
+++++
I wonder if someone there could undelete the skeptic trash /sarc, and fill their posts to get recognition of their sites…
“Yes some commenters are not approved, once we discover that the poster is using fake email addresses.”
Lies, lies, lies. You are banning people for merely disagreeing.
REPLY: LOL! If that were true, your comment and many others wouldn’t appear.
For example this one http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/26/and-they-wonder-why-skeptic-blogs-get-more-traffic/#comment-1210151 – Anthony
@alexander feht
I think you need to read the rubric at the top of Anthony’s blog. It says
‘Commentary on puzzling things in life……’
That you don’t find some articles to your taste is your prerogative…but you really don’t have much of a case to slag him off just for publishing them.
Grow a pair.
Latimer Alder says:
January 27, 2013 at 10:39 pm
@alexander feht
I think…
You don’t, Latimer. You don’t even understand, what it is about.
Do you know, why WUWT is a great site? Because Anthony Watts, while he doesn’t allow others to make imputations against his good name, has it in himself to admit when he was unfair.
Learn a gentleman’s English. Maybe then people would start listening to you.
@alexander feht
Whatever.
Watts up with blocking my comment directing you to a report from 1981 showing that repubs knew climate change was a serious threat? Your censorship proves who you really are. Come on Anthony, keep the dialog open, at the very least. Let your readers see the whole sorry mess. http://Www.buckyworld.me
REPLY:Well for one thing, it is off-topic, though I doubt given your history here you will truly understand what that means. I agree, your website is a whole sorry mess, and your whole purpose here is to drum up traffic for it while you refuse to engage in debate or answer questions. Your lack of respect for people here, the continual calling people ‘deniers” etc is noted, and that’s what gets you in trouble and why your comments trying to get people to visit your blog aren’t welcome here.
Imagine if we started using “dumb blonde” labels about you. Perhaps now you’ll see why your use of the term “deniers” is not welcome – Anthony
At 5:10 PM on 27 January, Gail Combs offered me the unsolicited pleasure of realizing that I’m not alone in my personal remembrances of Petr Beckmann (a merrily enraged refugee from the Soviet occupation of his homeland, and adamant opponent of socialist tyranny in the marketplace as well as in the sciences) and Hal Clement (whom I will always remember in the Atari-era ’80s taking inordinate joy in showing me his first efforts to “paint” with the ghodawful computer graphics programs available to those of us with home computers running 8-bit CPU chips).
Ms. Combs had written of:
Well, in all fairness to Col. Stubbs, the wheel of an automobile is rather inordinately like unto the control yoke of a Consolidated B-24 bomb truck, and I understood full well that wrestling those Davis-wing’d monstrosities from the pilot’s seat gave one habits on the controls better suited for the operation of bulldozers than sports cars.
@Patrick Guinness ravasio
The link in your referenced article goes to a ‘unknown file type’ not to a .pdf, so I cannot open it to check what it says.
But – as a general observation – I imagine that a big entity like the US government gets many hundreds of reports a year to consider. A remark on page 35 of just one of those doesn’t of itself constitute prima facie evidence of a grave crime if it was ignored or overlooked.
At 2:22 AM on 28 January, Pat Ravasio gripes:
Not that its possible to conceive of this Web site’s operators (or most fervent frequenters) being uncritical partisans of the Rotarian Socialist right wing in our permanently incumbent “bipartisan” Boot-On-Your-Neck Party, any proof that the Red Faction clowns had given the “climate change” hysteria a pass “from 1981” is Mr. Ravasio inadvertently providing his political enemies a kind of praise rather than damnation.
Those dictating Republican policy on the preposterous demonization of anthropogenic CO2 in the ’80s had dismissed this allegedly “serious threat” as yet another letie-luzer “Liberal” lunkhead scheme to destroy industrial civilization for the political advantage of our National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP) – and also, of course, to enrich themselves at public expense.
Doubtless their motivations were nakedly political (“Never give them bastids an inch!”), but talk about the proverbial stopped clock showing the correct time of day more or less by accident….
Mr. Ravasio, haven’t you yet realized that the attitude toward the political party which maintains the utterly corrupt and thoroughly gelded “Suntan John” as its leader in the U.S. House of Representatives is, among many of us skeptical of your beloved “We’re All Gonna Die!” climate catastrophism (emphasis on the “man-made” aspect), essentially that of H.L. Mencken?
Pat Ravasio says: January 28, 2013 at 2:22 am
Your censorship proves who you really are. Come on Anthony, keep the dialog open, at the very least.
================================
Pat Ravasio thinks that she can use this blog to drum up business for her own website by posting such drive-by spitballs. She never engages in dialogue but simply pastes spitballs like this on the thread.
So Pat, clean up your act and quit using the d-word, respond to comments and criticisms, and take your complaints of censorship where they belong: sks, RC, Tamino, Connelley and crew.
And Pat,
In 1981 people like you were wetting their britches over global cooling. But you do not know that, do you?
ONE Million comments! And all approved! That’s one heck of a work load.
If you had to average 5 minutes per comment (I’ve read many hundreds in the years I’ve been coming here and many take much longer than five minutes to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest), you are talking of an elapsed times of nearly ten years!
Just shows what a great job the mods do here. Well done Anthony.
[Nah. You give us too much credit. Most of us mods can read a whole comment in 5 – 20 seconds … 8<) Mod]
[But doing the spell check takes a bit longer. Mod]
Dear Moderators,
We, who are on this journey through the wastelands of the intentional scientific biases supporting alarming AGW by CO2, respect your fair light ways.
I dedicate these lines to thee,
Take care.
John
A valuable summary document with some of my own skeptical questions and concerns, which exhibits for me why I find the open minded probing at sites like WUWT more helpful than the rabid beat-downs preferred by the RC type echo chambers:
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/01/Ridley-Ten-Tests.pdf
(h/t Bishop Hill)
Congratulations to Anthony and his merry crew of volunteer moderators.
While some posters may have an axe to grind on moderation, etc., the
large majority appreciate the quite light moderation here. My impression
has always been that if you have something to contribute and express
yourself in a civil way, your comments will get through.
Tucci78 says:
January 28, 2013 at 3:10 am
At 5:10 PM on 27 January, Gail Combs offered me the unsolicited pleasure of realizing that I’m not alone in my personal remembrances of Petr Beckmann…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We still have a stack of ‘Pink Newsletters’ stashed in a filing cabinet. Great stuff. I loved Petr Beckmann’s challenging Ralph Nader? to a televised match where Petr would match him gram for gram with Petr eating plutonium and Nader eating caffeine.
We lost a really great man when he died. I am glad Art Robinson could take over but it is not the same.
At 1:23 PM on 28 January, Gail Combs had written:
Dr. Robinson is a nice guy, and articulate as the dickens, but Dr. Beckmann was one of Jonas Ingram‘s “tough sons of bitches,” and even in his final days he refused to be whipped by the disease that was killing him.
No matter how many times he got knocked down, he didn’t quit trying to get up again.
@Dr Matarese
you credit me with too much guile!
I thought tucci98 and Rich Matarese were 2 entities.
I even dared to believe we had been given, in tucci, a new Matarese (the biggest compliment I could think of).
All this from your writing style.
Now I can’t decide whether to feel:
– sad because there’s one less angel of death walking among us than I thought
– proud of this spectacular validation of the stability, reliability and (let’s face it) overall exquisite correctness of my taste in literature
– relieved that I don’t have to envy you for being a Wunderkind on top of everything else. (I’m two years older than I thought you were when I thought your screen name included your birth year.)
At 7:12 PM on 28 January, iskoob had written that he’d
Yeah, well, that’s not so comforting when you recall how they got Ted Kaczynski.
Er, if any of las warmistas suddenly start spontaneously detonating or anything curious along that line, you guys will remember that my ethnic group doesn’t do things like that. Much. Our style is more traditionally to keep on patting such people on the back until small holes appear between our fingers.
No women, no kids – and “Cui è surdu, orbu, e tace, va continuare cent’anni im pace.”
Though we do have to acknowledge that there ““Ain’t nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker,” don’t we? Ah, the nuances….
Console yourself. The only Wunder in my life comes most mornings when I awaken to find that la sposa has again cocooned herself in all the bedclothes, leaving me in speculation on life and death to the effect that “If I’m in hell, how come its so cold? And if I’m in heaven, how come I gotta pee?”
Dr Matarese,
I wish I’d had time to keep up with your writings. University takes up too much of it.
(I bet that’s enough of a clue for you: what am I studying?)
So excuse my ignorance: are you still wasting your mind in the Swiss Patent Office of family practice? Healing the sick when you should be slaying the undead?
In which case, give up your day job! Please. The times need you.
Just last year the larynx of one of my guardian angels was silenced (via the oesophagus).
I was sure the deep, dirty wound his passing left in the world of letters would never heal.
But YOU know something even he never managed to grasp.
How science works!
And now, in these moronic tempora, when science is daily raped and traduced in every land, you selfishly indulge the profession of helping people who come to your rooms, asking for help?
For shame! Lol.
🙂
By the way, if you know much about sport, then you understand two things (one of them useless, to be sure) that even Hitch never did.
He was quite open about the twin lacunae of which he was aware.
Interestingly, he always forgot to admit “…and Spanish.”
But if only you’d written los warmistas, Dr Matarese, you’d be ahead of my dead archangel by a further (trivial, to be sure) point!
Dr Matarese, if you’re still haemorrhaging hours a day in a GP clinic, I implore you: be a good Samaritan, stop Helping People, and just write. As destiny demands.
(Here’s an amusing phenomenon that’s puzzled you too, I bet: when I decided to take up the double-snaked staff myself, a few years ago, I could never get over how much my friends admired the ideal of “helping people for a living.” The economic premises alone are mind-boggling! I finally just asked them for the brutal truth: “Are you saying, all these years I’ve wasted in IT… I’ve been hurting people for a living?” Lol.)
Just write.
@tucci78
As I mentioned,
“I wish I’d had time to keep up with your writings.”
As I didn’t mention, the point: should I just google the 2 screen names you use, as far as I know?
Any other way to find them?
I’m with MattS – just tryin’ to get you to the million..!
Hell – I might just make another visit…
Nice work Anthony! Keep the faith!
Yes, had the same experience as many readers here. Comments on threads are many times better then the post, or do clarify the post.
You may agree or disagree but also learn something. What does one learn when he is insulted and his answers no longer appear? Well, my learning was to look in other places for the information.
It took some time to discover WUWT which is now my anchor for climate questions. And I learned a lot. Thank you ! Keep on the good work!