As WUWT closes in on a million comments…
…I thought this is worth reading at The Lukewarmer’s way run by Tom Fuller:
Maybe Michael Tobis might finally be persuaded to approve Mr. Fuller’s comment, now in moderation for 3 days.
The Worst Thing About Censorship
h/t to Skiphil
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
@Kenneth Naddeo 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?
:@ur momisugly 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
@Kenneth Naddeo 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’