Abusive censorship on Twitter – same word used by Gavin Schmidt gets commenter banned

twitter-logo

UPDATE: 4/3/15 1PM PST WUWT gets results, Tom is out of “twitmo”

Not being able to win arguments on merits, a complaint was apparently made to ban/suspend Tom Nelson from Twitter for using the very same description of a graph that climate scientist Gavin Schmidt made.

Tom Nelson alerts me via email of this, last week it was Steven Goddard, whose account has been reinstated after massive complaints to Twitter. This week, we have the same tactic against Tom Nelson. He writes:


On March 22, After I posted this graph,
@ClimateOfGavin called it “crap”.
gavin-crap-twitter
I then posted @KHayhoe’s “mother of all hockey sticks” below, and asked if it was “crap”.
Today, April 1, Twitter informed me that my account was “locked” until I deleted this tweet:

Twitter then unlocked my account.  After I posted the “Delete tweet” screen shot above, I was suspended.

If calling a graph “crap” is grounds for suspension, why isn’t @ClimateofGavin suspended?

Updates: Mark Steyn asks a good question here:

Iowahawk nailed it here, in reference to warmists trying to shut down Steve Goddard:

 

Advertisements

231 thoughts on “Abusive censorship on Twitter – same word used by Gavin Schmidt gets commenter banned

  1. Hardly surprising, eh?
    In WWII there were many, many people in the regime eager, willing, and able to do the bidding of the Fuehrer and he didn’t even have to tell them to do it. It’s a “lead by example” type of thing. They had no idea they were doing anything wrong.

    • Nonsense. They knew very well they were doing wrong. They just felt that they had official sanction to do it.

      In the Nuremburg Trials, the excuse “I was only following orders” was deemed insufficient. And it is. If you don’t have the ability to tell good from bad even to that extent, you should be in prison or a mental institution, not on the street.

      • +1 — Natural Law, or “the Law above the law,” was all that convicted those thugs.

      • That excuse, though legally faulty, is socially credible. People do follow orders when they don’t have enough information or when everybody else is doing it. We have a mechanism wired into our brain to follow the crowd and to follow the leader. This is why the PR technique of “mass appeal” and “speaking from authority” works.

      • In the Nuremburg Trials, the excuse “I was only following orders” was deemed insufficient.
        ===========
        It appears the German’s were not the only ones following orders:

        Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud.[71]

        Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of “substituting power for principle” at Nuremberg. “I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled,” he wrote. “Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”[74]

        U.S. Deputy Chief Counsel Abraham Pomerantz resigned in protest at the low caliber of the judges assigned to try the industrial war criminals such as those at I.G. Farben.[75]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials

      • It depends on the person. Moreover, the idea that a random individual has knowledge, much less understanding, of state policies is absurd. To boot, there are those individuals that might or might not understand what’s happening around them beyond the sense that they can themselves take advantage of the situation to get away with, in some cases, literally murder.

        The gatekeepers at Twitter responsible for this idiocy are tiny individuals with even tinier personal agendas and nothing more. My opinion is that Twitter is not “conspiring”.

      • Anne,

        Although I would certainly agree that it is “insufficient” to simply say one was obeying orders may I please respectfully ask you to read up the work of Stanley Milgram?

        Rather frightening…

      • @ferdberple

        Nuremburg wasn’t really a fair trial. It was a witch hunt to shut people up. To shut up witnesses about the sort of things that were being financed within NAZI occupied Europe. Not sure I would use that as an example, or as precedence considering that there was no evidence presented to confirm the “war-crimes” of those that were subject to execution.

        It just goes to show you, never trust a globalist, or a banker.

      • Many “Wardens” in Britain during WW2 (Those people who wore a white tin helmets with a “W” on it) were guilty of supplying the black market.

      • Justice Douglas (and others of like mind) condemned the Allies because he did not believe in Natural Law, or the law that all healthy people are born with, written on our consciences, seen in virtually every society at all times throughout the world. Murder of innocent people is universally condemned.

        The Allies did justice at Nurnberg. Nurnberg stands for the principle that while a law makes something legal it does not make it right.

      • “Murder of innocent people is universally condemned.”

        Is that why we ascribe guilt by association to justify it on grand scales?

      • …if you have a spouse and kids, you would have done the same thing to ensure their survival. I <3 the moral superiority of the untested. You don't know what you would have done, but the odds are you would not choose to condemn your family.

    • Well It is hardly surprising is it. When supposedly grown adults play around with finger toys to Tinkle. Titter, Wankle, Lingedout, Faceache, etc etc, is it any wonder that they get treated like a bunch of adolescent children.

      If you want to be treated like mature adults, learn to write proper English (or whatever your first Language is) and stop fooling around with ersatz hieroglyphic juvenilia.

      Humans are slowly losing the benefits of communicative language, and they still think that somehow, they are intelligent beings.

      So the solution to being banned on Titter, is at your fingertips. Just tell them and their toys to go Jump in the lake.

      G

    • Attempting to shut down academic and scientific debate is ALWAYS wrong: anyone involved in academia or journalism knows that perfectly well.

  2. Twitter is an elementary grade schoolyard with little other purpose than to provoke fights. Just wondering why the skeptical side isn’t employing the same tactics as their opponents? Little would be lost in shutting down this venue of ventilation in a blizzard of service lockings.

    • The ‘sceptical side’ don’t need to sink to those tactics as rational argument and presentation of evidence is all that’s needed to demonstrate the falseness of the CAGW proponents’ claims. Truth also doesn’t want to hide things but expose then to the full glare of light for all to see.

    • Gary:

      Well, this is just one skeptics’ opinion, but i (we?) don’t use the same tactics as our opponents because we find it repulsive.

      I’m not trying to flame you with my response; there are days when I wonder the same thing.

    • Twitter would all of a sudden start suspending the people abusing the report feature.

      My account was locked claiming there was “suspicious activity.” I didn’t notice that the reason I wasn’t able to retweet was because my account had been locked. I think it was pure shenanigans on the part of Twitter. I’m no big wig and only have 850 followers but I think they’re going for the killing a thousand small fishes approach. Small fish are more likely to think it’s an isolated instance and possibly abandon their account. I had to have a message sent to my email, then click link and run through some process that wasn’t responding and had to repeat it several times. Twitter is in on this IMO. Former google employees founded Twitter. One was a Ferguson native and a “hands up don’t shoot/shot in the back” Michael Brown truther.

    • So there you have it in print…Gavin Schmidt admits that climate models fail due to erroneous assumptions AND that errors in maths undoubtedly exist. Beautiful. Simply beautiful.

      • So just what errors are there for example in ordinary arithmetic or algebra or geometry. I can’t say that I have ever encountered any errors in those branches of mathematics.

        I do see numerous examples where individuals simply aren’t able to use them correctly.

        If you don’t know how to run a lathe; don’t blame your ignorance on the lathe.

      • There are false assumptions, conceptual errors and bad math. Climate models have multiple conceptual errors which are not strictly ‘false assumptions’, a term which implies ‘something was considered and decided upon incorrectly’.

        An omission (forgetting something) is a conceptual error. There are a lot of omissions in climate models, the second most embarrassing of which is the one paid for by Canadian public funds over on the coast in California North. Canada is the shame-faced subsidiser of the second-hottest running of all the basically worthless climate models that fail, year after year, to predict the world’s temperature. By making enough false assumptions and conceptual errors and mathematical mistakes, one gets an impossible 6-8 degrees of warming from a doubling of CO2.

        “XX did it, YY did it, why shouldn’t we did it?” – President Mangope.

        They should put those servers in Winnipeg. They could use the hot air.

    • It is easy to use math or logic to make ridiculous claims if you start with ridiculous assumptions or do not clearly define context.

      Completely logical
      – People with blue shirts are smart
      – You have a blue shirt
      – You are smart.

      The certainty of math
      – You can with mathematical certainty increase your chances of wining the lottery by 300%
      – Buy 3 tickets for every 1 ticket you used to buy.

      The gullible public falls for this kind of stuff all the time, that scientists do as well is baffling.

      • “””””…..– You can with mathematical certainty increase your chances of wining the lottery by 300%
        – Buy 3 tickets for every 1 ticket you used to buy…….””””””

        So person (A) buys one lottery ticket. Person (B) buys all of the rest of the lottery tickets.

        Person (A) has the winning ticket.

        Fat lot of good it did person (B) buying all of those losing tickets.

        Statistics can tell you nothing about the likelihood of something that only happens once. It might give you some idea of your expected success rate if you buy tickets in say a million lotteries.

    • Nassim Taleb is a brilliant and original writer. I always look forward to reading his books. Not sure if he is in dispute with Gavin Schmidt, but if so, I would put my money on Nassim.

    • “…the failure of the models to match (the) real world (is) far more likely due to erroneous assumptions.”
      Well thank you Captain Obvious, that’s exactly what we’ve been saying!

      I would have said “No shit, Sherlock!” but I don’t want anyone to report me for abuse.

  3. Never used Twitter and stuff like this is why I never will. But I’m happy to spread the news about their tactics to all of my friends and family who do use it!

      • Hey, Edward Martin, hanging upside down (you are pretty amazing :) ) — still praying for your cousin’s family. Hope they’re doing okay.

      • Top vs. bottom? Hmm, Ross Perot, the former CEO of EDS, a pretty rich guy. Hated the Bushes, and most certainly the Bushes hated him. His revenge was to draw enough votes away from Bush to hand the election to Bill Clinton. But I would not call the Bush/Perot thing a “top vs. bottom” thing. That was two pretty powerful guys going at it. And Perot was at times a goofball, too.

    • All for freedom and equality [though the UK Liberal Democrats (Dim Lebs) had a deal to try to change our electoral system, by referendum, in return for which they would support a redrawing of constituency boundaries, to – broadly – make them all equal in size – so 80,000 in leafy Edgbaston get one MP, whilst gritty Surrey gets one MP for every 80,000-ish voters. When they lost the referendum, by about 5 to 2, they reneged on the deal – so we have lop-sided constituencies, where Labour can probably get a majority with 35-38% of the votes, yet the Tories will probably fail to do so with 40-42% of the total popular vote – all depending on where the vote goes, or comes from, or other psephological conundra].

      Liberals, here, are revealed as politicians. No less, but no more. For many ‘politician’ is a term of abuse – but our nations do need leaders.
      A quandary.
      No – I’m not volunteering.

      Auto

      • This problem goes back a loooong way; circa 1776 in fact. The whole “taxation without representation” squawk from the colonies was countered by some in Parliament that due to population shifts and the failure to redistrict, any number of “homeland” Brits were in the same boat. As if getting it wrong at home made getting it wrong abroad OK. That’s a major reason redistricting is done every 10 years in the US per the Constitution. It’s the primary reason we have a national census.

    • Liberals used to fight “the man”, “the establishment”. Now they fight freedom of thought, they have become petty tyrants and like how it feels.

  4. I believe that suspensions on Twitter are triggered automatically by an algorithm, which detects instances of accounts with less than 10K followers being reported by 10 other accounts.

    @ClimateofGavin has less than 10K followers………

  5. This falls under the title, if you can’t refute their arguments, then shut them up. Keep up the good fight.

  6. Don’t tell everyone how to get their Twitter account suspended, I was beginning to look on it as a bonus feature!

  7. Twitter is perfect for climate change propaganda, which is largely statistical soundbites masquerading as science, and claims that a paper or article says X or debunks Y when in fact it says Z.

  8. Twitter is doing what bigger companies usually do: they turn arrogant, do stupid stuff, in short making themselves ready to go down the tubes. How stupid could they possibly be – instead of being a really wide platform for all kind of intelligent, and sometimes also stupid discussion turning them into censorship by blocking opinions … Almost funny.
    Let them go on, arrogance and upcoming failure are closely related. Those that were blocked: keep it up, you will win.

  9. Well I’ve had an email from Mr Crap and he’s angry at being compared to the Hockey Stick. Says it’s defamation to be linked to something so worthless.

  10. I should be banned from the net entirely because of my comments exposing scams and crap of all kinds.

  11. My favorite Gavin Schmidt moment was when he was on Ted Talks. He said that with climate science you have to either accept all of it or none of it (paraphrasing). Later he said that when modeling the climate you need 14 orders of magnitude and the models currently can model 4 orders of magnitude (again paraphrasing [badly]).
    I was taught that each order of magnitude is 10 times greater than the previous; therefore the current climate models are ten-thousand/hundred-trillionths or one/ten-billionth of the way to being correct and those are some rather long odds.
    I may be misremembering much of this as it has been a year since I saw this Ted Talk and I encourage others to correct me.

    • Good memory, Brian. I’ll affirm you. I think you were remembering this video:


      TED Talks with Gavin Schmidt (youtube)

      1:01 “It’s the whole {earth system} or it’s nothing.”
      1:13 “…roughly 14 orders of magnitude…”

      (yes, each order is 10 times greater than the previous one)

      • That is the video that I was thinking of, though not exactly how I remember it being. In the first few minutes he gives you a glimpse of how impossible the task of accurately modeling the climate actually is.
        By pouring our money into an impossible task that can only yield a minimal benefit (conservation of resources), we are delaying the breakthroughs in physics, medicine, materials science, cosmology, and several other fields that are critical to our survival as a species. I believe that our academic institutions, by encouraging this groupthink, are discouraging the independent minded people that bring with them the new perspectives that lead to these breakthroughs.
        We, as a species, are turning our attention inward on ourselves instead of outward toward the universe and I see this as the beginning of a decline. I hope I’m wrong.

    • Brian,

      He said that with climate science you have to either accept all of it or none of it (paraphrasing).

      Nope, he didn’t use the word “accept” …

      The patterns that you see are there at all of the different scales, but you can’t chop it into little bits and say, ‘Oh well, let me just make a smaller climate’. I can’t use the normal products of reductionism to get a smaller and smaller thing that I can study in a laboratory and say, ‘That’s something I now understand and it’s the whole‘. It’s all or it’s nothing.

      … he used the word “understand”. I think the dichotomy at the end is unfortunate, but the caution against presuming to understand the whole system from one or very few of its parts is spot on.

      Later he said that when modeling the climate you need 14 orders of magnitude and the models currently can model 4 orders of magnitude (again paraphrasing [badly]).

      Very badly. If you must chop things into bits, at the very least make an effort to get the bits correct. Best though, to look at and attempt to comprehend as much of the whole as possible, and then faithfully reproduce it when commenting on it. That’s tremendously difficult to do for climate. Not so much for a 12 minute talk about climate.

      • Brandon Gates

        Wow! Now if we could only get you to plead for the same thing (getting the little bits correct) for CAGW data and use of the scientific methodology, we’d have a deal!

      • Chip Javert,

        Who is this “we” of whom you speak?

        —————

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/27/outrageous-noaa-demands-262000-fee-for-looking-at-their-public-data/#comment-1893671

        dbstealey: You’re getting fixated on things that don’t matter.

        Me: Irony. I’m not the one making noises about suing the gummint for (“only”) weather data available for the price of a simple email. Since you’ve flunked the literacy test, let’s see how you do on the numeracy portion. Do you think a successful lawsuit against the Feds would cost more, or less than $262,000 NOAA says they require to honor the law and fulfil Goddard and Clizbe’s FOIA request? Which would be most cost-effective from the taxpayer’s point of view? Tell you what. Since I’m a big supporter of government and scientific transparency, and willing to put my money where my mouth is: If Anthony starts a coordinated pledge drive with Goddard and Clizbe to raise the $262,000 for the FOIA to go through, I’ll contribute $500.00 out of my own funds in support. If the drive reaches 50% of that amount, I’ll contribute another $500.00 as a further demonstration of my commitment to the effort. If, after 90 days from the opening bell of the pledge drive, the full $262,000 is not met, all collected funds are to be donated to: http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/

        dbstealey: Dream on, Gates, and while you’re at it, get a life.

        Anthony: [crickets]

        —————

        Not those two apparently. I can tu quoque too you see. There’s not much to it. Protip: works best with specific, clear-cut examples — not sweepingly vague references to vast amount of data and nebulously defined scientific methods. The smaller the burden of proof you assume, the better this tactic works. Which is … not very well.

        To wit: None of this has any bearing on whether Brian badly paraphrased Gavin Schmidt out of context or not, but it was a fun diversion.

      • Gates says:

        If you must chop things into bits…

        …says the guy who incessantly chops things into bits.

        Really, the Gates threadbombing over the past year is past tedious. And reading his vile anti-WUWT comments on other blogs is hypocritical. They don’t let me or lots of others comment there.

        So lately I’ve been just skipping over most anything by Gates. His comments add nothing worthwhile to the discussion. I only noticed this one because I like Chip Javert and read his comment. Then I noticed the psycho posted right under it…

      • Brian,

        Your summary was good enough. Lol, both B. Gates’ inaccurate criticism of you and also the AGW speculation he regularly and impotently attempts to promote on WUWT is soundly refuted by Schmidt’s lecture.

        You comprehended Schmidt much better than Gates did.

        Irreducible complexity. Comprehending the entire climate system called “earth” by looking at sub-parts is at this time not just “tremendously difficult to do” (Gates above), it is impossible.

        Perhaps, we should start calling Mr. Gates, The Red Queen (of Alice Through the Looking Glass fame).

        Janice

      • I agree, D.B.. I read the comment I reply to above to support good ol’ Brian, but, whatever was grunted out by Gates in the comment below Javert’s, I have no idea. Not going to waste my time.

        To dignify Gates with a response is only worthwhile to:

        1. Prevent him from fooling people; or
        2. Support those he slanders.

      • dbstealey,

        Then I noticed the psycho posted right under it…

        Maybe I am crazy; for the life of me I can’t figure out if “denegrating” other people is against site policy or not. If I didn’t subscribe to the principle of taking as good as I give, I’d appeal to the mods [1] — but rumour has it you ARE one. The game is rigged. Rigged I tell you! Halp halp, I’m being repressed!

        ——————

        [1] Speaking of, mod: this may be a duplicate post.

      • Janice Moore,

        Your summary was good enough.

        Well … this IS gummint work we’re talking about …

        You comprehended Schmidt much better than Gates did.

        Hmm. Well I quoted Schmidt directly. Divining comprehension is difficult, if not …

        Irreducible complexity. Comprehending the entire climate system called “earth” by looking at sub-parts is at this time not just “tremendously difficult to do” (Gates above), it is impossible.

        … that. Good point. I happen to agree.

        Perhaps, we should start calling Mr. Gates, The Red Queen (of Alice Through the Looking Glass fame).

        Playing with the queen of hearts
        Knowing it ain’t really smart
        The joker ain’t the only fool
        Who’ll do anything for you
        ~Juice Newton

        Some people also call me a Space Cowboy.

      • Why does “climate science” remind me of “The Blind Men and the Elephant”?

      • David Chappell,

        Mr Gates, I suggest you learn the meaning of “paraphrase”.

        par·a·phrase
        verb 1. express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.
        noun 1. a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.

        Rewording for clarity. Not rewording to change meaning.

        Compare: He said that with climate science you have to either accept all of it or none of it (paraphrasing).

        With: The patterns that you see are there at all of the different scales, but you can’t chop it into little bits and say, ‘Oh well, let me just make a smaller climate’. I can’t use the normal products of reductionism to get a smaller and smaller thing that I can study in a laboratory and say, ‘That’s something I now understand and it’s the whole‘. It’s all or it’s nothing.

        Definitely a rewording, but one which changes meaning. I suggest you learn the meaning of “strawman”. And pay heed to this hazard: That is the video that I was thinking of, though not exactly how I remember it being.

        To his credit, Brian said: … (again paraphrasing [badly]) …

        It’s not to your credit that you’ve not recognized the difference in meaning between “accept” and “understand”. May I suggest you look those words up as well while you’re learning about the strawman fallacy.

      • Just an engineer,

        Why does “climate science” remind me of “The Blind Men and the Elephant”?

        Perhaps because you ignore what they say and confuse your own “approach” to the problem with theirs?

    • Well what you said is only true if for some crazy reason one happens to be using a decimal number system.

      I think Velociraptors only had three toes on each hind leg; one of which for some reason stood straight up in the air (probably better to scratch under their armpits). I think they had three fingers on their tiny hands. So they probably thought an order of magnitude was a factor of six; not ten.

      • Very true, and if this were a Velociraptor site it would also be mathematically appropriate. I wonder how many digits the ecosystem has?

  12. Well, as a veteran of UseNet (ask your grandparents), I find all social media to be a comparative kindergarten.

    Other than things like “rouge cancelling”, which weren’t easy to do, your posts could not be censored or deleted at all. If was very much like the wild west: no moderators or fiduciary interests that limited your posts. Nobody “owned” it.

    BTW, this is the first I’ve read that blog, and found this incredible:

    http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2015/02/noaa-settled-science-earth-at-5824f-in.html

    I love it when you can make a good point with documents sourced back to the supposed “big brains” who have so much “settled science” on their side.

  13. Hi Anthony, how ironic!

    I just wrote this in a thread on my blog:

    But, independently, in a general sense, it is well possible that an individual on Twitter can be taken out on the basis of ‘complaints’, that can be easily orchestrated. Take Roger Pielke Jr on 538: he was absolutely made to shut up – from the high reaches of the Obama administration. Pielke Jr could continue writing his material on his own blog but he’s been knocked out of an discomfiting perch. That is censorship.

    https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/censorship-by-judith-curry/

    • Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) censors people at his own blog for the slightest of reasons. Just say you don’t trust the Bush clan and bang! He eliminates you with no warning forever.

      He is a tool. And a HUGE hypocrite.

      • emsnews: We’re still waiting for you to provide examples of censorship and hypocrisy by Steve Goddard. You make some pretty harsh claims; it’s time to put up or shut up.

      • He just did it to me and to others. Proof is easy: I can’t post there. And I did nothing ‘wrong’ so far as being polite and on topic.

  14. Anthony
    Can you can get a copy of what Twitter sent To Tom.
    Not saying I don’t believe tom but would make this a 100% fact story of why twitter did this.

  15. Speaking of “interesting questions” … where’s the original (allegedly) hand-drawn graph?

    Bonus question: should blog owners be forced by law to publish any and all comments?

    • Brandon – ‘any and all’ – woo o o o o o!
      All?
      Now, decent, non-abusive – even if entirely contrary – yes, of course they should be published [or, if not, the site must display a symbol indicating they only publish confirmatory posts – i.e. they’re utterly biased].

      But ‘any and all’ : –
      – ‘get your 9099ers n 5ter01ds at +AA1678432ii)g’;
      – The Writer is a +**!?()(*&&%;
      – This scam is led by [well pretty much any reviled group you like – say P0l1T1c1an5].

      I think there need to be some boundaries.
      I know it’s the Interwebb thing . . . but still.
      My thoughts . . . and many will – and are free to – disagree.
      Thank goodness!

      Auto

      • auto,

        I think there need to be some boundaries.

        So do I. Abuse and other “terms of use” policies are not easy to define objectively. Discussing them as if they are is not valid. I think you understand this. If so, you and I have no issue.

    • Should blog owners be forced by law to publish any and all comments? No. For many reasons – swamping by opponents, litigation, OT, etc. In the end, blog readers will decide, for example RC lost many readers and its adverse-comment-deleting policy was a factor.

      • timg56,

        I’m not aware of any universally inviolate rule definitions of how blogs vs. twitter must operate. Both are communication mediums with owners, who are not — and I think should not — be compelled to exist at all. Twitter and blog owners have chosen to provide services, on their own time at their own financial risk. I’m sorry, but twitter is not something I see as an essential public service which needs to be mandated by law. To protect their business, they need to be able deny users who violate terms of service from accessing it.

    • Unclear why you want to get into business of regulation people’s behavior.

      But, for laughs, let’s assume your silly question was law: imagine how many ‘bots would immediately clog up (almost) every discussion. If comments (especially specific view points) are censored, you’ve indeed learned something about the blog.

      • Chip Javert,

        Unclear why you want to get into business of regulation people’s behavior.

        Because Anthony is a blog owner.

        If comments (especially specific view points) are censored, you’ve indeed learned something about the blog.

        If, if, if. Ok, speculate about the “ifs” on this one:

        http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/06/05/the-guardians-ridiculous-claim-of-75-arctic-sea-ice-loss-in-30-years-patently-false/

        [Update: I’m banned at WUWT. I’ve had some fun tweaking AW’s source for this nonsense, though -see the comments there. Back at WUWT, PaulB is doing a good bulldog on AW. I am curious to see how long before he gets stomped on – W]

        Do you understand the concept of a “zero-sum game”? I ask, because failing to recognize when you’re in one can lead to being hoist by one’s own petard.

        [NOTE: William Connolley (Stoat) has been routinely coming here to “tweak” people then write about it, plus write denigrating things about me. He’s also violated site policy several times. His ban was well earned then and will continue, however, I have made exceptions for him a couple of time since then when his name was in stories here. I don’t have any regrets, as he’s the worst sort of serial abuser of trust (and Wikipedia) I’ve seen. As to your concerns, “Brandon”, I don’t give a flying f about them, since you seem to exist here for the same purpose: “tweaking” people. In every large venture like this, there will always be a few people who want to push the envelope, and sometimes wear out their welcome trying to do so and/or push past the envelope and venture into taunting and denigration. Do try to stay clear of abusing the site policy and you’ll not suffer the same fate. – Anthony]

      • Anthony,

        It would help me adhere to site policy if you’d be specific about which one(s) I have violated. And how. Anything less is nonsensical static.

        [REPLY: Just read it, heed it, and you’ll be able to stay clear of it – Anthony]

      • Anthony,

        I just did, not for the first time. I’d be a lot happier about toning down my deliberately rude comments if the enforcement efforts were more equally applied to all participants here. As it is, I’m happy trade barbs and insults with anyone, without undue complaint since this is an emotional topic and I would rather be as free as everyone else essentially is to express anger and derision. So far, you and the mods have given me a great deal of leeway, which I do very much appreciate.

        Some of this is indirectly relevant to the topic of the head post; namely that Twitter has community participation standards just as you do. Thus far, your only answer to that argument has been to warn me about vague violations of your own site policy. Curious tactic, and a very mixed message. Perhaps you can clear up any misunderstandings on my part.

      • @ Brandon,
        You got Anthony’s attention.
        A stellar job.
        Now, are you gonna respect his house rules, or get shown the door ?

      • u.k.(us),

        Look, you’re good at getting a rise out of people.

        That’s not an answer to my question. But ok. Whether people allow me to get a rise out of them is more up to them than me. I’m perfectly willing to have reasonable conversations with people I think are being reasonable even if — especially if — they disagree with my position. That’s stimulating for me. I learn from it.

        Change your tack.

        I’m not the only side of this conversation, and I will not allow it to be dictated to me what I find reasonable or not. Especially not in such subjective terms.

        Anthony is well within his rights as owner of this blog to allow my participation here or not. He doesn’t need a written policy to do it. But while we’re talking about it:

        You are responsible for your own words.

        Yes I am, and that’s true wherever my travels take me. It’s one of my core personal values to take responsibility for my own actions and words. When I mock, deride, berate, criticize, rant … “denigrate” … I do not expect the response to be kind. And certainly would not think of asking it, at least not with a straight face.

      • Odd. I have developed a Pavlovian Response to “Brandon Gates” that causes me not to read any thread with those two words at the top so I can move on to comments of more interest than the thread jamming that happens. Whois Brandon Gates …

      • Wayne Delbeke,

        I have developed a Pavlovian Response to “Brandon Gates” …

        Then you give me far more power than I deserve.

      • u.k.(us),

        Hey, as long as it is respectful, then it’s all good.

        That depends on one’s definition of respect.

        It was weren’t it ?

        There are subtle ways to disrespect another person which don’t involve overtly negative emotional displays, mockery or “harsh” language.

      • Hey Brandon,
        You’re a garrulous guy with a burr under your saddle.
        Why do you devote so much time to this blog?

      • u.k.(us),

        What kind of mind-set do you need, to assume you can control the weather ?

        At this stage in our technological advancement, I’d say it was lunacy to seriously suggest such a thing. One wonders why it’s relevant to even raise the issue.

        mebbe,

        You’re a garrulous guy with a burr under your saddle.

        Sometimes.

        Why do you devote so much time to this blog?

        Would you believe me if I told you? And why, pray tell, is it relevant?

        Both: Why are you two attempting to change the subject?

      • mebbe April 1, 2015 at 8:37 pm
        Hey Brandon,
        You’re a garrulous guy with a burr under your saddle.
        Why do you devote so much time to this blog?
        ——————————–

        The Koch Brothers pay him to lose arguments.

      • I didn’t realize there was a subject, I thought it was a conversation.
        They do tend to take…. turns…. don’t they, conversations ?

      • u.k.(us),

        I didn’t realize there was a subject, I thought it was a conversation.

        Abusive censorship on Twitter – same word used by Gavin Schmidt gets commenter banned

        They do tend to take…. turns…. don’t they, conversations ?

        Twisty ones. Happens here a lot when the lead argument of the head post starts looking indefensible. Then the “who, me” innocent act starts. Actually, it looks to me like it there from the beginning:

        If calling a graph “crap” is grounds for suspension, why isn’t @ClimateofGavin suspended?

        Not quite as epic as Goddard’s $262,000 FOIA request, but still obviously a crowd-pleaser.

        You abandoned …

        What kind of mind-set do you need, to assume you can control the weather ?

        … awfully quickly. I was kind of interested to see your next move on that one. Or was that a tacit “admission” that it’s NOT actually relevant?

      • philincalifornia,

        The Koch Brothers pay him to lose arguments.

        You didn’t hear? They fired me after the first day.

      • BG sys…
        “Some of this is indirectly relevant to the topic of the head post; namely that Twitter has community participation standards just as you do.”
        ===================================================
        Your point is?
        You see Brandon, no one is saying having community standards is wrong. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy of enforcement. Your childish complaint that you only respond in kind, is a pathetic plea for a violin. You foolishly attempt to blame others for your own bad behavior. Sorta like, “But they did it to me first” whining.

        I can and have been censored at several pro CAGW sites simply because I linked cogent skeptical peer reviewed reports. OTOH you likely have more posts here then anyone, and the majority of those contain a gratuitous insult or three.

      • David A,

        Your point is?

        Try reading further down in that comment.

        You see Brandon, no one is saying having community standards is wrong.

        Least of all me, but that won’t stop you from putting words in my mouth will it.

        What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy of enforcement.

        That is the argument being made based on speculation, yes. I follow the logic just fine. Where’s the evidence?

        Your childish complaint that you only respond in kind, is a pathetic plea for a violin. You foolishly attempt to blame others for your own bad behavior. Sorta like, “But they did it to me first” whining.

        Nice story. If being furious at lies and the people who tell them is childish, then newspapers are written by infants. OTOH, I purged tee vee “news” from my consumption habits a long time ago because I think it is entertainment for sheep. I swear, what planet ARE you living on.

        I can and have been censored at several pro CAGW sites simply because I linked cogent skeptical peer reviewed reports. OTOH you likely have more posts here then anyone, and the majority of those contain a gratuitous insult or three.

        Oh goody, another equivalence argument. Are other blog owners to be compelled to adhere to Anthony’s policies?

        And since speculation is particularly in vogue today, I quote you: You foolishly attempt to blame others for your own bad behavior.

        In this very post you have misrepresented my own words. I’m supposed to believe your personal testimonials about how you’ve been “censored” elsewhere? Take a hike. The flip-side of freedom to speak is freedom to not listen. We need both, otherwise …

        … well let’s just say you’re not the only one in this conversation with visions of sliding down slippery slopes.

      • @ Brandon,
        Tactics vs strategy, now that is an interesting question.
        Do you leave the rook exposed to present a target that if not taken, indicates a more complex plan in the works ?

      • u.k.(us),

        Do you leave the rook exposed to present a target that if not taken, indicates a more complex plan in the works ?

        What I think is that the Illuminati would make sure that temperature “observations” fit the “desired” modelled outcome. And that their are much simpler and easier scams to run … typically one picks something that doesn’t rely on independently verifiable physical phenomena. Parsimony is not proof — it’s not even evidence — but it sure is compelling.

        I don’t think the nasty leftists are going to come after you and your droogs to rig you up like Alex DeLarge here. It’s certainly not what I’m advocating. If “they” — whoever “they” are — try it, I’ll gladly share a foxhole with you against it.

      • u.k.(us),

        PS: Usually when I leave a rook exposed it’s because I’m playing too aggressively.

    • no, they should not be required by law to publish all comments, and every blog will set its own standards of moderation — but such double-standards and malicious standards will narrow the interested community over time and give the lie to any claim to allow a well balanced, open minded set of inquirers….

      Large sites like Twitter and Facebook, in particular, ought to be committed to a wide open set of conversations and discussion, since they pretend to be society-wide institutions and not mere tiny bits of the blogosphere. No one can force them to operate a particular moderation policy, but one can argue convincingly that their policies “ought” to be very tolerant to a wide range of opinion.

      • Skiphill,

        Censorship by intimidation certainly is arguable. But calling a suspension censorship on such thin evidence looks more like manufacturing controversy and playing the martyr than being the true victim of some nefarious plot to quell dissenting opinion.

        But, we all have our biases, don’t we.

      • “But, we all have our biases, don’t we.”

        And some are mre obvious and boring than others.

    • No blog owners should NOT be forced by law to publish all comments. The blog is a private entity and we do not require more government interference in our lives. Less would be nice. Even though there are trolls whose sole purpose in life is to be a pain in the ass, censorship of any type is a slippery slope. Better to resist the taunting and skip their comments. Comment threads often have more content and depth than idiot talking heads on cable news, I would not want that controlled or limited in any way.

      Blogs who do not publish all views lose intellectual integrity and either fade away or become a feeding trough for the gullible and faithful. Since by definition the faithful are not allowed to entertain opposing views, they must at all cost not see opposing views.

      I am not sure twitter itself is the issue, it may be petty tyrants due to limited intellectual capability (only slightly above that of a watermelon) who attempt to shut down opposing views by frivolously reporting abuse. I imagine it is just an amazing coincidence that the petty tyrants trying to shutdown a free exchange of ideas on twitter, NY Times, LA times, RC, Guardian, etc are AGW proponents.

      • “No blog owners should NOT be forced by law to publish all comments. The blog is a private entity and we do not require more government interference in our lives.”

        I agree with that 110 percent as the old football coaches love to say. But … but … if I say the same thing about private property like a restaurant or a retail store then I would be called all manner of names and vilified. Why is some private property private and other “private property” not really private?

    • Brandon Gates on April 1, 2015 at 2:01 pm

      – – – – – – –

      Brandon Gates,

      That is the least interesting question. These are interesting questions:

      1) Should newspapers be required to publish all letters to the editor.

      2) Should talk show hosts be required to air all the callers in?

      3) Should the IPCC be required include all research in its assessments other than just favorable research that supports their biased view that there must be significant and dangerous GW?

      4) Should all blog commenters be required to provide proof of identity?

      John

      • John Whitman,

        No to (1) and (2), (4) is should be left up to the blog owner. (3) is not a question — it’s an opinion stated as fact, masquerading as a question. Which is rhetoric, not science.

        And no, I’m not still beating my wife and never have. Thanks for playing.

    • Brandon Gates on April 2, 2015 at 3:56 pm

      – – – – – – – – –

      Brandon Gates,

      My Q #3 is based on the IPCC’s own official and formal charter created from the approved framework agreement that caused the IPCC to be formed. IPCC supporting it is legion. It created a systemic epistemic structural flaw in IPCC work product that is fatal in a scientific sense. The IPCC is proud of its charter.

      John

      • John Whitman,

        My Q #3 is based on the IPCC’s own official and formal charter created from the approved framework agreement that caused the IPCC to be formed.

        That is the only supportable fact in your “question” #3. The rest is your subjective opinion.

        I’m still not beating my wife, I never have, and I’m not planning to any time soon. “Asking” loaded “questions” is not science, it’s transparently obvious rhetorical nonsense. Please kindly take your systemic epistemology and burn it with fire, then not-so-kindly demand your money back from whomever taught you that good science is done by sophistry.

      • Brandon Gates on April 2, 2015 at 6:29 pm

        – – – – – – – – –

        Brandon Gates,

        The IPCC proudly acknowledges what it does based on its charter so a question that includes a reference to its charter has created a level playing field for an answer. Fair enough.

        I understand that focusing on the structural flaw causes more lack of trust in the thing the IPCC calls science. I have no pity.

        John

  16. A note on Twitter

    I started using twitter a few years ago and I have had a lot of discussions with folks about the nature of the State (government), anarchy, minarchy and the like. I am a die-hard radical libertarian who is a big Murray Rothbard fan. I began my political blog just to make long answers to twitter discussions.

    Many of my followers and Twitter friends have had their accounts suspended by simply answering lunatic socialists (you know — “liberal” democrats) and I came close myself once. I just blocked the twit after he claimed me answering him with facts was “abuse”.

    The cry-baby democrats run to report “abuse” whenever they see they are losing the argument. No reason for “climatologists” not to act the same way now is there.

    “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” ~H. L. Mencken … and I feel the same about climate “scientists”.

    • markstoval,

      “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” ~H. L. Mencken … and I feel the same about climate “scientists”.

      Charming. You know, when I read Rothbard, I kept thinking of Somalia for some reason. It’s all becoming clear to me now.

      • I would say that you fail to understand the difference between a failed State and an anarchy. I am not surprised at your failure to understand … par for the course apparently. (plus the fact that Somalia has had all sorts of “help” from various states fighting via proxy there)

      • markstoval,

        I would say that you fail to understand the difference between a failed State and an anarchy.

        Consistent with what the guy said to me before he turned me on to Rothbard, whom I quite enjoyed reading by the way.

        I am not surprised at your failure to understand … par for the course apparently.

        Goes with being a student of history I guess. The Statist philoshpy in all its incarnations has proven the most powerful. I’ve observed that anarchists consistently confuse what they think ought to be with what is, not least, I wager, because arguments like Rothbard’s ARE undoubtedly seductive. He was very logical and I found his works fairly internally consistent. It’s the stuff he left out that is the weakness. Shades of Rand in that respect. Many good, valid principles, but the radical nature of their works — more or less by definition — aren’t comprehensive and therefore ultimately miss what works best in practical reality.

        (plus the fact that Somalia has had all sorts of “help” from various states fighting via proxy there)

        That’s what happens to power vacuums. Human nature abhors them, just like Mother.

  17. @ AW, Off topic but the quickest way I could think of). Cali has just announced a 25% reduction of water use (on BreitBart california) with huge penalties for users ( but the delta smelts are fine, I guess they can’t pay the fines

    • Well there is a strain of thought the earth would be a much better place if humanity was not on it.

      I wonder what happened with desalination plants in California. They were controversial with complaints about greedy profiteers, ruining of the environment, etc. It is much more expensive water than rain water from lakes or reservoirs, but expensive water is better than no water.

      Of course water could efficiently be pumped down to the drought areas, but the delta smelts somehow have more expensive lawyers than the populace in drought areas.

      • Still OT. Just read a media article that says LA’s corroded water pipes causes the city to lose 8 billion gallons of water per year. Also water use per person in Cali is 117 gallons/day. As a comparison my local city Auckland (higher rainfall) use per person is about 40 gals. per day. A looming problem for the Sunshine State.

    • I hate to even mention this, but: The Delta Smelt only lives where there is already water; namely in the Northern California Watershed area.

      It is taking that water to some other place that doesn’t have water, and has never had water for climate reasons, that creates water problems. And they aren’t taking the Delta Smelt’s water just to float the Desert Pupfish. They are sending it to places where even the pupfish can’t swim.

      Just my opinion of course.

    • What a fool. Didn’t he study the water problem in Santa Barbara during the 90s? They did the same thing, everyone voluntarily reduced their water usage too, and water prices soared. It created a human disaster for the poor, and threatened bankruptcy for water services companies.

      He should have made it 10%, as Santa Barbara discovered, and he stopped the Delta smelt project util things are back to normal.

  18. I detest the censorship on Twitter, but if climate science realists/skeptics want to operate in that playground, recognize that you will be held to a different/higher standard. If you venture into enemy territory be aware that people like Gavin apply the “rules” just as they do at Real Climate etc. They are contemptible petty authoritarians, but they will not change and one has to operate in awareness of how they enforce their double-standards. One can complain, but they are what they are.

    Just my 2 cents from one who wants nothing to do with the Twit-world.

    • You must be a fellow Brit. I wonder if this word would get past at Twitter, given its meaning?

  19. I think the twittering algorithm is a touch sensitive these days when it comes to “abuse” reports because they’ve got some bad press after a few recent suicides.

    Of course things generally aren’t looking good for Gavin scientifically, but I wouldn’t want him to get overly depressed or anything.

  20. The big issue in this debate is that there is no “consequences” for acting unethically if you are a global warming advocate. There are only “rewards” for doing so. We need to start having some consequences for these people.

    Is this a case where there needs to be some consequences?

  21. The warmists have resorted to censorship, because their “science” is anything but. They can’t defend it from objective scrutiny. I have been banned from the blogs at Weather Underground (a fitting name), because I’ve repeated made them look like fools with their pseudoscience.

  22. Anthony Watts tackles the big science issues….

    This site censors for much lesser offenses.

    [REPLY: Oh, please Your whining gets you nowhere, you’ve appeared here under several sockpuppet aliases, and changed emails to try to get around the fact that you’ve violated site policy https://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/ And yes, you are banned for that behavior, and will continue to be. Tom Nelson uses his own name, you taunt from the shadows and used several fake names. I’m not obligated to consider your opinion when you constantly abuse the rules. Feel free to be as upset as you wish, but all future comments from you or your various persona will go straight to the bit bucket -Anthony]

  23. One of our freedoms is to have access to social media but, as with all of our freedoms, most people do not understand how to use them and that mis-use is hurting other people. Hence I am not on social media except Linked-in. People on Linked-in are generally polite and reserved in expressing their opinions.

    • Anonymity is a curse and a blessing on the internet.

      It is a blessing because never before in history have so many people been able to share ideas, views and thought so freely and openly without retribution. Gavin can spout and spit his opinions and vitriol at skeptics and be paid handsomely, others can and do get fired from their jobs for expressing their opinions.

      It is a curse because it frees people from accountability and therefore common decency. Comment threads can be loathsome places where people who take a break from beating their girlfriends or kicking the dog go to express opinions or where decent folks find an outlet for suppressed rage.

      There is a lot of anger out there, and it can be hurtful, but I say let the experiment continue.

    • I’ll have to look up that social media freedom thing. That’s a new one on me. I know that you aren’t always aloud to talk to anyone you meet on the street; they may be offended by you talking to them.

      Somebody/thing/whatever sent me an e-mail saying: Look at all the people you may know on linktin; whatever that is. I told them that US Customs told me just the other day, that I am NOT a person of interest to them. So if US Customs isn’t looking for me; I don’t care who else may be; or may not be for that matter.

      I’m sure their are lots of identity thieves who simply love all of the stuff that people give them on social media.

      There’s that old French joke about the guillotine engineer victim, who elected to get treated face up.

      After two failures, he said; “I think I can see what is jamming the blade up there !”

      so enjoy your right to social media.

      g

  24. Gavin Schmidt has a low intellectual discourse threshold. It is so low that he cannot debate his questionable thought processes found in his professional work corpus.

    We have the answer to the lyrical question ‘Where Are The Clowns?’.

    John

  25. I can’t even get my head around why these so called expert climate scientists like Schmidt and Mann waste their precious time Tweeting in the the first place. It appears so demeaning to me.

    Twits on Twitter: – Perhaps the title for a new TV reality show where teams of contestants compete to out Twit each other:

    twit (twĭt) n. 1. Informal A foolishly annoying person. 2. A reproach, gibe, or taunt. tr.v. twit·ted, twit·ting, twits. To taunt, ridicule, or tease, especially for embarrassing mistakes or faults:

    • Future historians of science will wonder how a few no-rate scientists managed to co-opt so much of science so successfully, to the point where questioning their CO2-driven AGW dogma is both funding and career death, even in unrelated fields, while their own field of climate science, so-called, has gone from an obscure backwater to receiving multi-billions per year in funding.

      Lsyenko was a rank amateur compared to Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Trenberth, and their ilk.

  26. Brandon Gates: Some of this is indirectly relevant to the topic of the head post; namely that Twitter has community participation standards just as you do.

    Well, that’s part of the topic. The rest is that their standards are not evenly applied. Some are more equal than others.

    • Juan Slayton,

      The head post doesn’t specify what community standard Twitter invoked to justify the account suspension. It’s more than a bit hasty to talk about unevenly applied standards without that information in hand, don’t you think?

      • So if Twitter doesn’t explicitly specify their reasons for suspension, their even-handedness can not be questioned? How convenient….

      • Juan Slayton,

        So if Twitter doesn’t explicitly specify their reasons for suspension, their even-handedness can not be questioned? How convenient….

        Read what I actually wrote: The head post doesn’t specify what community standard Twitter invoked to justify the account suspension.

        Twitter does explicitly specify their terms of use: https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules#

        Read the head post again.

        Do we know which of those terms Twitter used to justify suspending Tom Nelson’s account?

        Does “suspended” mean the same thing as “banned”?

      • Brandon,
        It’s bizarre to me that you, an obvious subscriber to the AGW orthodoxy, wind up writing comment after comment on an incredibly trivial thread that doesn’t come close to being an opportunity to convert ambivalent skeptics.
        We know that this isn’t your only port of call and that your demeanour elsewhere belies your querulous tone here.
        You’re calling people to task for casting aspersions on the good faith of twitter!
        What do you do on the week-end for fun?

      • mebbe,

        It’s bizarre to me that you, an obvious subscriber to the AGW orthodoxy, wind up writing comment after comment on an incredibly trivial thread that doesn’t come close to being an opportunity to convert ambivalent skeptics.

        I don’t see much ambivalence on this blog. As for this thread, I don’t think the issues being discussed are at trivial.

        We know that this isn’t your only port of call and that your demeanour elsewhere belies your querulous tone here.

        I take it for granted that what I write in public on the Internet is avaialable for everyone to read. What of it?

        You’re calling people to task for casting aspersions on the good faith of twitter!

        lol, no. I don’t particularly like twitter. Not twitter itself, but the concept … and not just that really, but how it’s so often used. I think reducing conversations down to 160 characters is a poor way to communicate issues of any great import or complexity … such as the state of climate and climate science. Science in general. Politics. Unholy hybrids of science and politics. Etc., ad infinitum, ad naseum.

        I (hope I) don’t have such a strong case of premature grouch syndrome that I’d go so far as to say that twitter is ruining critical thinking and conversational skills … but have you seen some of the stuff kids these days are saying?

        What do you do on the week-end for fun?

        Geez you’re persistent. I fly remote control airplanes on Sunday with a bunch of other geeks like me. Is there anything ELSE you want to know about my private life which you think is relevant? For Pete’s sake, I may be a pugnacious big-mouthed arrogant know-it-all son-of-a-horses-rear-end at times, but I really do make an effort to keep my nose out of others’ personal business.

      • BG says,
        “Juan Slayton,

        The head post doesn’t specify what community standard Twitter invoked to justify the account suspension. It’s more than a bit hasty to talk about unevenly applied standards without that information in hand, don’t you think?”
        =====================================
        The head post clearly states that until a specific comment is deleted, the ban would have effect.
        You saw the post, what reason do you think twit demanded it be deleted?

      • Brandon,

        I’ve shown your response to Dr. Watson and he’s opined that you are clearly a politician since you evaded all the actual questions and chose, instead, to reply to the rhetorical question at the end about how you entertain yourself.

        He also was struck by the irony of your exclamation that I am persistent, in light of your dogged tenacity on insignificant threads, your protestation notwithstanding.

        I actually am interested in why you would commit so much energy to visits behind enemy lines but I don’t really expect you to tell me.

        Of course, you have probably absorbed the entirety of the Lewandowsky manifesto and so know exactly where I am coming from; I see kemtrayls emanating from model aircraft as they buzz me at the tennis courts.

        I don’t like twitter, either, but we all said the same about video games, tv, and Victorian mothers despaired at their daughters wasting their lives in novels when they could have been doing needle-work.

      • mebbe,

        I’ve shown your response to Dr. Watson and he’s opined that you are clearly a politician since you evaded all the actual questions and chose, instead, to reply to the rhetorical question at the end about how you entertain yourself.

        Well maybe the problem is that my shrink only has a masters degree. However, he, like me, knows that I’m not a politician. You certainly like making things up as you go. I don’t need Lewandowsky to figure that one out … besides, Bob Altemyer has a far more comprehensive treatment and a great sense of humour about the topic:

        http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

        Much more readable than Dr. Lew. YMMV.

        He also was struck by the irony of your exclamation that I am persistent, in light of your dogged tenacity on insignificant threads, your protestation notwithstanding.

        You should have also queried Mr. Holmes, he may have been able to correctly ferret out the intentional irony. Speaking of, I don’t have to consult with anyone but myself to note the supreme irony that none of this conversation has anything to do with my comment you first replied to in this subthread.

        I actually am interested in why you would commit so much energy to visits behind enemy lines but I don’t really expect you to tell me.

        I could counter with an answer for spite, but I’m pretty sure that’s what you’re playing for. “Perverse psychology” I call it. Oh hell with it. Has it occurred to you that I don’t like spending too much time in echo chambers which tend to confirm my own preconceived biases?

        Of course, you have probably absorbed the entirety of the Lewandowsky manifesto and so know exactly where I am coming from; I see kemtrayls emanating from model aircraft as they buzz me at the tennis courts.

        Ah. Well, when the full-scale white — not black — helicopters show up, you know you’ve had it.

        I don’t like twitter, either, but we all said the same about video games, tv, and Victorian mothers despaired at their daughters wasting their lives in novels when they could have been doing needle-work.

        Ayup, generation gap. I was destined to be a curmudgeon … may as well accept the inevitable.

  27. Have discovered a pattern. Obama decides to push Federal global warming executive orders, shutting down fracking and the like (because it’s the only healthy aspect of the ecnomy left unmolested).
    Congressman Witch Hunt (Dem – State of Confusion, Gerrymander county) attacks a Desmaug blog list of sceptical scientists.
    Twitter feed blocks Steve Goddard and then Tom Nelson over dubious non infractions or misdemeanor thought crime.
    Same day they try to attack the actual climate, rebuking Antarctica for being a counter revolutionary ice cube bigger than North America.
    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22Antarctica%E2%80%99s+hottest+day%22

    President Stompyfoot is acting up again.

  28. twitter wars… so inside baseball…
    If you play the twitter facebook MSM game…. you get burned.

    WUWT.. the web site, is immune.

  29. A Despot By Any Other Name..
    The actions of Twitter are the digital equivalent of the old Communist regime tactic of “Disappearing” someone they found threatening or wouldn’t tow the party line. Tom Nelson was disappeared off Twitter, both to intimidate him personally, but also to warn others of the cost for political dissent.

    Companies like Twitter and others, simply violate the 1st amendment rights of Tom and other users. A fact that has grave impact, not only on the Climate Change debate, but is already altering the course of societies globally and should be challenged by the full weight of federal legislators in all countries that value liberty and freedom of speech.

    Technology Evolving Faster Than Legislation
    The issue that seems to escape even the most diligent advocates of liberty and freedom of speech is the vast number of battles that established societal norms were fought in an analogue age before technology was a dominant factor. When communication were once separate from the manner in which one chose to engage within society. The Pen and Paper was one of the most effective and open communication platforms ever invented.

    Increasingly, with software automation and the world of downloadable Apps, it has never been easier to control the public because communications and engagement are being intertwined, across virtually every level of interaction in society: Governmental, Commercial and Social. The power of which creates the temptation for ethically bereft politicians, companies and activists to violate the rights of the public by using these technologies to rescind the protections of the constitution to the outdated societal norms of the analogue past.

    For generations, free willed people had become familiar with the manner in which this basic right was exercised within public discourse and defined interactions with key public entities. Any violation of these rights to express one’s personal viewpoint was reflexively challenged with great confidence and vigour, fuelled not only by the sense of justice provided by the 1st amendment, but even individuals that were not educated in the law were bolstered by the social norms set from the precedent of past battles against attempts to censor ideas.

    Consider the time of the last great revolution in communications, the Telephone industry was established around the world, largely by the hand of governments that had evolved a well defined understanding of their obligations to Privacy and Freedom of Speech, codified in legislation, informed by principles reflected in the U.S. 1st Amendment.

    The trouble with the advent of Internet and Mobile technologies, many of these best understood precedents became much harder to identify how those rights applied to the new behavioural scenarios in which people interact and exchange ideas on those platforms.

    Remember: If You Don’t Pay For It, YOU ARE The Product
    For example, in the past, nobody would accept a telephone service in which because calls were free: all calls were monitored by the carrier for the purpose of ensuring that every word of your conversations were deemed by them, to conform to an arbitrary set of restrictions defined at the whim of said carrier. This scenario was avoided by the foresight of early legislators by establishing a technological and legislative framework to govern carriers with due consideration for privacy and 1st Amendment principles. Let alone the bizarre notion that by using the phone would mean you have agreed that the carrier owns everything that you shared while on the phone, to be used by that company for any purpose it sees fit, in perpetuity.

    All such information will be stored permanently, aggregated, mined and remined into the future by a military grade international Intelligence Service that studies you in terms of, at minimum: your demographic, psychographic traits, for your stage of life characteristics, the places you go, your friends and associates, the people and entities with which you make contact, your health and medication details. Then they sell the output of that analysis to the highest bidder to subject you to sophisticated psychological manipulation, sometimes in the form of advertising, often in the guise of a modified experience of the platform over which they control and for which you will not be informed. (Such as Twitter censoring the locations into which a tweet is published.) Simply explained in the common vernacular as: Targeted Advertising and Personalisation services.

    Sadly, the fact this situation was allowed to develop for Internet and Mobile technologies is an indictment of the current generation of legislators and needs to be addressed.

    What Has Changed?
    The paradigm shift for the 21st century is that the vast majority of societal engagement is based on technologies and the vast majority of those are privately owned. The communications revolutions facilitated by Internet technologies embodies in major platforms like Twitter were established by private entities that unlike governments, carried no obligation to police 1st Amendment rights. To the contrary, as private entities, legislation under company law specifically inverted the obligations of directors from that of government from guarding the rights of the public, to protecting the interests of shareholders for the utilisation of company products, over and above their customers.

    Outsourcing Political Censorship
    Ever wondered why the mostly left leaning Main Stream Media (MSM) have so enthusiastically endorsed the use of Twitter? Because the political affiliations of these companies can be understood by their policy documents and their philanthropic investments. In that manner, Twitter has demonstrated consistent adherence to the Left Wing Narrative, but even more critically, the interactions Twitter provides between users (Use Cases) provides extraordinary levels of control over the discourse, with very little transparency to the manipulation by applied by Twitter or the politically protected accounts.

    In short: It’s the ideal platform to “Disappear” political dissenters.

    It follows that supportive individuals and organisations in the activist community and MSM can rely on Twitter to protect their campaigns, the logical conclusion is that politicians would also validate Twitter as a platform of influence. Hence, you see the absurd situation of a national press office, or broadcaster quoting and individual tweet, or a Hashtag that is trending because of a few hundred or thousands of tweets, while ignoring a site like WUWT with excess of 225 million visitors.

    Societies today benefit from communications platforms like Twitter and Facebook that are so cheap it’s completely unmetered. Everyday people rely on companies like Google to provide information to queries. Many have come to think of Google results as a de facto standard for the very existence of information relating to some concepts. But the results are highly contrived and susceptible to manipulation, as they have already been found guilty.

    But if people forget the fact that freedoms won are not permanent and must be defended against the next generation will to exploit a bewildered and overwhelmed public. The cost for the individual will be the progressive dismantling of their constitutional rights.

    • “””””…..Consider the time of the last great revolution in communications, the Telephone industry was established around the world, largely by the hand of governments that had evolved a well defined understanding of their obligations to Privacy and Freedom of Speech, codified in legislation, informed by principles reflected in the U.S. 1st Amendment…….””””””

      You must be dreaming. The Telephone Industry was established by Ma Bell, without aid and comfort of any government. And it worked like a charm, with AT&T shipping products that actually worked, and manufactured by their Western Electric subsidiary. And they built the Bell Telephone Laboratories; a National research treasure that consulted widely with its patent licencees, to transfer technology to them long before it would ever be blessed to go into the Bell Telephone System.

      Then the government meddlers jumped in; jackboots and all, and they destroyed what private enterprise had built, and along with it, one of the world’s great research resources.

      I can hardly believe the open kimono handholding that I got at one of my technology transfer sessions with top Bell Labs researchers free to tell me anything I wanted to know about what was of interest to me. (at that time it was LED technology that was of interest; and we got it into the public hands years before AT&T deemed it stable enough for “The Bell System.”)

      Nah ! Government just got in the way, and turned a reliable Telephone System, into a tower of babble.

      g

      • Thanks for the reply George,

        I’m sorry, I don’t see how your comment relates to the quote you provided from me.

        Additionally, perhaps I’d ask we focus the core point and cutting some slack on the peripherals considering the fact WUWT is a global community, so few observations will ever be specifically applicable in every city country in which it is read if applied locally. Your example was specific to the US and certainly isn’t true for various other counties in the world. Even so, I didn’t suggest Bell was established by government aide, but that legislators rose to the challenge of creating an effective legal framework that protected the publics constitutional rights. For example, it’s easy to understand why phone tapping was made illegal. But the privacy violation represented by “cookies” and various meta data tracking, added to personal legal records is ubiquitous today and a far greater privacy violation. (I accept many people do not understand the practice, hence are ambivalent to the risk.) Suffice to say, Big Data is in it’s infancy. Whatever you believe the threat is today, billions are currently being spent to expand the reach of tracking, data capture, sharing and scenario based interventions.

        The rest of your comments related to the public versus private management (though I share your view), that was not the topic of my post. The issue that was core to my post was the lack of legislative protection for constitutional rights. Where govts around the world were aware of their obligations and provided an effective legislative framework that facilitated the growth of the telephony industry, without totally abandoning the public’s constitutional rights. As I stated, this is clearly not the case for Internet and Mobile technologies.

        It is easy for some to say, they don’t use Twitter and conclude that social media is irrelevant. But that would both short sighted and incorrect. Facebook claims users of 1.23 billion users. Twitter claims 288 million users and along with Facebook is heavily leveraged by the media, activists and political class as a tool for influencing opinion and organising campaigns. Google claims to serve 3.5 billion searches per day from a dominant share of the search market. Companies such as these control the Mega Scale platforms that represent the fundamental infrastructure for communications and engagement within society globally. It would be ludicrous to ignore the impact to constitutional rights, let alone the debate on Climate Change from organisations with that degree of influence.

        I hope that clarifies the issues I attempted to address.

  30. Liberals apparently have no spine. What a bunch of wusses… It’s no wonder they zealously crave a big-mommy government to control and take care of them.

    • Evidently, in Australia; well Victoria, the Conservatives call themselves (and their party), the Liberal Party. Go figure.

  31. Seems like selective enforcement of Twitter policy, if it is indeed a policy. When I do a google search for “crap” on the twitter.com site, I get over 8,330,000 hits. The first several have “crap” in their “handle” (I think it is called; since I am not a Twit, nor cool to boot, I may not have the jargon right.). Here are the first few:

    Crap Taxidermy (@CrapTaxidermy) | Twitter
    https://twitter.com/craptaxidermy
    The latest Tweets from Crap Taxidermy (@CrapTaxidermy). We’ve got a book! Its called; ‘Much ado about Stuffing’ and is available from http://t.co/ozCfPAv7OL.

    CRAP Eyewear (@crapeyewear) | Twitter
    https://twitter.com/crapeyewear
    1907 tweets • 210 photos/videos • 2368 followers. “Enter to WIN the new #TheTuffPatrol shades from our friends @WhoWhatWear: https://t.co/rQbB5WWnn0

    Tweets about #crap hashtag on Twitter
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/crap
    On Mar 27 @NajeeDeTiege tweeted: “I dont want to be up But i have to 😒 #..” – read what others are saying and join the conversation.

    Who Gives A Crap (@WhoGivesACrapTP) | Twitter
    https://twitter.com/whogivesacraptp
    1430 tweets • 74 photos/videos • 2704 followers. “Action shot by Kirsty P 👌 https://t.co/azDDrrD1cd

    Crap Dates (@FirstDateHell) | Twitter
    https://twitter.com/firstdatehell
    The latest Tweets from Crap Dates (@FirstDateHell). If you’ve had a bad first date, send us a tweet summing it up. The best (or, rather, the worst) will appear here …

    Capp Street Crap (@cappstreetcrap) | Twitter
    https://twitter.com/cappstreetcrap
    The latest Tweets from Capp Street Crap (@cappstreetcrap). Chronicling the weird stuff that ends up in my driveway and other nearby randomness.

    Teenage Pinoy Crap (@FilipinoNigga) | Twitter
    https://twitter.com/filipinonigga
    The latest Tweets from Teenage Pinoy Crap (@FilipinoNigga). Do I really seem like a guy who cares about our generation?

    Crap Film Club (@crapfilmclub) | Twitter
    https://twitter.com/crapfilmclub
    The latest Tweets from Crap Film Club (@crapfilmclub). Collectively celebrating crap film – if it’s really that bad, it just has to be good. London.

    Le Crap Dublin (@LeCrapDublin) | Twitter
    https://twitter.com/lecrapdublin
    The latest Tweets from Le Crap Dublin (@LeCrapDublin). Your not so free, ultimate online guide and blog to things happening in #Dublin. // Creativity …

    Crap Comedy (@crapcomedy) | Twitter
    https://twitter.com/crapcomedy
    The latest Tweets from Crap Comedy (@crapcomedy). Norway’s alternative comedy festival. Next festival: January 2015. @parkteatret Festival managers: @raalf …

    wint on Twitter: “are you having a crap of me mate?? Are …

    Nov 30, 2014 – Are you, having a crap of me mate. 850 retweets 1,573 favorites … @dril yeah mate, im having a crap of Your Holyness. 0 retweets 1 favorite.

    Crapalicious! (@crap) | Twitter
    https://twitter.com/crap
    The latest Tweets from Crapalicious! (@crap). “Sure, there’s some crap out there. But there has always been crap.” – John Legend. Flush…

    World Of Crap (@theworldofcrap) | Twitter
    https://twitter.com/theworldofcrap
    The latest Tweets from World Of Crap (@theworldofcrap). Nostalgia, humour and shite. Birmingham, UK.

    • Look what I found. under the #crap hashtag on Twitter.
      Time magazine- ten questions about the blizzard. http://time.com/3682375/blizzard-10-questions/

      It starts out with ,
      No. Again: no. Absolutely, positively no. This is weather, not climate. Just like a collie isn’t a species, a crouton isn’t a salad and the aglet on your shoelace ain’t the whole shoe, so too is a single meteorological event in your town (or state or region) not the same as climate. All the same, you’ll hear a lot of self-satisfied huffing from climate change deniers this week. Please feel free to laugh at them.”.

      Then it goes downhill from that.

  32. Once upon a time if you had an (highly passionate) opinion on something you simply hurled that opinion at the television or newspaper. The only persons who heard it were yourself and sometimes your long suffering family. These opinions generally were of a temporary nature and contributed little to the sum of human knowledge. If you were really passionate you may have sent a letter to the editor of the paper in question with the hope that it was worthy of publication. If you were to offer these opinions in public, you were usually granted greater use of the footpath or your own seat on the bus.

    Today twitter et al (including WUWT) allows anyone to voice their opinion. This does mean that they are any more valid or really contribute anything to a conversation. Whoever runs a blog has the right to sent your comment to /dev/null, as long as they are consistent in their application of the rules.

    One other problem with twitter is that politicians now appear to think that it represents the opinions of the majority of the population and that they should be acted upon.

  33. The beginning of a poem???

    Gavin Schmidt — I Got The Data In Me
    (Most sorry Kiki Dee)

    Don’t have no troubles at NASA
    I’m a rocket nothing can stop
    Survival’s always the first law
    And I’m in with those at the top

    I heat up
    I cool down
    Data gets in my way I discard it
    The high and the mighty can frown
    So say what they want — they reward it

    I got the data in me
    I got the data in me
    I got the data in me
    i got the data in me

    Hopefully to be continued

    Eugene WR Gallun

    • Gavin Schmidt — I Got The Data In Me
      (Most sorry Kiki Dee)

      Don’t have no troubles at NASA
      I’m a rocket nothing can stop
      Survival’s always the first law
      And I’m in with those at the top

      I heat up
      I cool down
      A site I don’t like — I discard it
      The high and the mighty can frown
      So say what they want — they reward it

      I got the data in me
      I got the data in me
      I got the data in me
      I got the data in me

      Hopefully to be continued

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • Gavin Schmidt — I Got The Data In Me
        (Most sorry Kiki Dee)

        Some middle verses not written yet — but this is a tentative ending verse. Don’t know. This is a poem about corruption so why not end it with an old image? Maybe, maybe not.

        In a garden an apple hung
        On the lowest branch of a tree
        Why reach for anything higher?
        It filled my every desire
        I got the data —
        I got the data —
        I got the data —
        IN ME!

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • In a garden an apple hangs
        On the lowest branch of a tree
        Why reach for anything higher?
        It fills my every desire
        I got the data —
        I got the data —
        I got the data —
        IN ME!

        Eugene WR Gallun

  34. I tend to digress, the more this goes on the more the owners of twitter will actually turn to the skeptic view. This happened with Wikipedia and Conolley remember? Let them keep doing this, eventually the truth will out..It always does. AGW is crumbling… they know it.

  35. The fact that Gavin will jump into the arena with Tom is evidence enough that his opinion should be heard. Gavin is neither stupid, nor evil, although he is probably wrong.

  36. Those Twits, although they are nothing but “waistcoat pocket Hitlers”, think they can ban the truth from reality. I hope they carry on rendering such abominably bad service to themselves. That will bring them out of business.

  37. It’s not only Twitter, it’s almost all social media systems such as Facebook (FB). I have had many FB friends, these are people I actually know, unfriend me because of my opinions on climate change (CC) and my non-alarmist position on CC. I have now been locked out from FB with FB demanding a “photo ID”, such as a passport or drivers licsense, a request from “Rufus” at FB, to prove who I am. Not going to happen FB!

      • Is that so? I wonder where FB is “hosted”? I know so many people who put so much personal information on social media sites like FB, and then have their accounts hacked! Or they use “smartphones” for twitter and FB as well as banking etc, and then lose their phones. Matters not. These “people” at social media sites don’t get the fact one can create a new e-mail address and sign up again. No issue!

  38. You can always ask Twitter why they did it at @support and @twitter that seemed to get Steve Goddard unlocked very quickly – he actually ended up with 1000’s of extra followers because of it……me I’m just a novice but have been blocked from Michael Mann as a badge of honour and I only asked him a polite question.

  39. Twitter (in particular, but not alone) is absolutely *rife* with fake / spoof / astroturf accounts. One or a few people can, sometimes with the aid of automation software, report a post hundreds or thousands of times.

    And as far as I can tell, the administrators either can’t tell or don’t care, and there is a lumbering hulk of (mainly anecdotal) evidence that this process trends a certain way, politically.

    And entirely predictably.

  40. Twitter sounds like a leftists propaganda tank.
    I will never use those type of “social media” information leeching services and my social life (getting with real live people) is just fine.
    To think that a word like “crap” is selectively offensive seems to contradict freedoms that we were given under the constitution. User agreements are dangerously close to becoming a virtual idealogical muzzle.
    What’s next for him the Gulag?

  41. The corruption of peer review that Climate Scientists engage in is bad, this is nothing.

    Things worth saying need over 140 characters anyway.

  42. Re: Gavin’s remark ,”hand-drawn” graph. Poor Gavin, you are showing your age! Prior to the computer age,ALL graphs were drawn by hand.That’s how science progressed to it’s present state. When computers
    and printers dropped down to my purchasing level, I got some. But now I can’t draw a non-linear graph with
    only two points!! I used to, with a French curve. Gavin must think computer-generated stuff is pure and holy. Hand-drawn is subject to fudging(he should know!).

  43. All across the internet debate about the climate has been shut down bit by bit. Comments about ANYTHING is being slowly strangled. I have been online for decades, way back when it was run by NASA. Before it was open to the general public, we held huge debates there between various universities that had access to the brand new internet.

    Mainly we talked about space issues, of course.

    The height of commentary online was way back in 1998-2000. This is when places like the New York Times had this huge forum where people could start their own threads and hold court and I ran a big hunk of that site, sponsoring all sorts of topics. The free for all was amusing and great fun.

    Then, starting especially with 2001’s 9/11 event, the web began shutting down swiftly. People could run their own ‘blogs’ but no longer had the huge platforms of the major media. The NYT shut down its forums entirely, totally and erased all the tons of information we put there.

    Then, they began messing with making comments on stories. 90% of the stories at the NYT no longer allows any comments. At Huffington Post, they made the comments on stories fewer plus made the text very,very tiny and you can’t enlarge the text.

    This was done by others. Making text tiny, that is, then there was the ‘hide the comments so you have to find them like easter eggs’ attempt at eliminating comments.

    Finally, many publications simply killed comments entirely. Very much fewer mainstream media solicits any comments at all. This has driven people to blogs like here to comment. And eventually this, too, will end because if I drew a graph of ‘access to comment’ it would show a hockey stick going straight downwards and once again, people will be forced to comment only to themselves and a few friends.

    Note how people are ‘unfriending’ each other over stupid things. Thus ends the internet debates with a whimper rather than a bang.

    • Used to be vigorous (and entertaining) commentary and debate in the comments section on Western News&Media newspaper websites before they made it mandatory to comment via Facebook. Not much of interest there now.

      Previously, comments could be found in search engines and you could read the article with all comments attached. No more.

      Mandating a Facebook account to comment is evil.

      Most if not all of the mass murderers over the last few years have had a Facebook account.

      And…Facebook “friends?” What a joke. Facebook is for people who want to be seen by strangers.

      http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/how-facebook-makes-us-unhappy

  44. Very nasty from Twitter. They have to watch it, their market value rests on being a place for discussion. Mad how narrow minded this kind of people gets.

    • Interesting. FB may be hosted in a country where Europena law does not extend. I have been a FB user for a few years and was not in “violation of site policy”, until now. I use a name that people know me by, one of the “site policy criteria”. My picture “ID” is there, also complying with site “policy”. That pretty much means the same for everyone I “know” on FB. I used to frequent the “No Treble” page, as well as a couple of other bass player FB pages, as I recently re-started playin bass guitar. I do not know ANYONE who is called “No Treble”, or “Treble No”. And the “Fred Hollows Foundation” (He’s been dead for a while, so getting a “photo ID” of this great man might be a problem). I guess that’s off the page now! This very well may have been a complaint “someone” (Actually, FB users HAVE raised complaints) raised against me at FB on my opinions on climate change. Oh well, buh bye FB. Hey, FB, remember ICQ? (It’s the only reason I setup a hotmail account in 1996).

  45. How did we ever communicate before Twitter? I have some ideas, but if you tweet you probably wouldn’t understand. tan123 should accept Twitter’s gift for what it is – precious time.

  46. CAGW is cult science. Cult science is defined as those who work with incorrect theories, when it is known that observations and analysis has shown the theories in question to be incorrect. Cult science uses ‘fuzzy logic’ to reinforce their incorrect theories. Cult scientists prefer discussion on twitter where the discussion is limited to name calling and grand standing and to forums which they control, so they can delete scientific comments which show their theories are incorrect.

    The following is an example of ‘fuzzy logic’. This is an explanation of what Schmidt meant when he suggested that the ‘logic’ of the IPCC’s climate science models must be accepted all or nothing. That statement of course is irrational if normal logical analysis is applied.

    Gavin Schmidt argued the earth must amplify forcing changes (positive feedback) rather than resist forcing changes, as if the planet resists forcing changes then we (climate scientists I would assume) do not understand what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle. Scientific problems cannot be solved if the scientists do not look for the correct theory as they for whatever reason prefer to stick with the incorrect theory.

    The cult explanation for what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle is massive amplification of tiny forcing changes (the amplification mechanisms must also cause cooling in regions of the earth that are not affected by the tiny forcing change). The amplification mechanisms appear when needed to cause the abrupt climate change at the appropriate times and then disappear at other times such as when there is a large volcanic eruption in current times. This silly magic wand ‘tipping point’ amplification turns on when required and turns off to enable the earth’s climate to avoid wild random oscillations and to avoid the earth returning to complete ice coverage, the frozen earth state which is very stable. Cult science uses the analogue of a canoe when explaining their magic wand tipping point amplification. It is a fact that recent analysis of the earth’s response to forcing changes unequivocally supports the assertion the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes which explains why there has been no warming for 17 years. The ‘tipping point’ amplification mechanism is an urban myth.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2

    The other possible explanation for what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle is there is an unknown massive forcing mechanism (hint it is the sun). If that was correct, then we also do not understand the sun and the stars which is a big thing from a scientific standpoint.

    What makes this subject, the climate wars, particularly interesting is it appears we are going to experience the unbelievable change to the sun that causes a massive forcing change, the massive forcing change that causes a Heinrich event. As what is currently happening to the earth’s climate and to the sun has happened cyclically before one can ‘predicted’ what will happen next by describing what has happened before. The past is a guide to the future.

    Comment:
    Fuzzy logic is used to reinforce urban myths, such as the myth that Europe’s warm winters are due to the North Atlantic drift current and that a complete stoppage of the North Atlantic drift current is the explanation for cycle abrupt cooling. Those appealing to ‘Gulf stream’ stoppage causing Younger Dryas like abrupt cooling events use magic wand tipping point amplification to convince themselves.

    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate

    The Source of Europe’s Mild Climate
    The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth
    If you grow up in England, as I did, a few items of unquestioned wisdom are passed down to you from the preceding generation. Along with stories of a plucky island race with a glorious past and the benefits of drinking unbelievable quantities of milky tea, you will be told that England is blessed with its pleasant climate courtesy of the Gulf Stream, that huge current of warm water that flows northeast across the Atlantic from its source in the Gulf of Mexico.

    That the Gulf Stream is responsible for Europe’s mild winters is widely known and accepted, but, as I will show, it is nothing more than the earth-science equivalent of an urban legend.

    Recently, however, evidence has emerged that the Younger Dryas began long before the breach that allowed freshwater to flood the North Atlantic. What is more, the temperature changes induced by a shutdown in the conveyor are too small to explain what went on during the Younger Dryas. Some climatologists appeal to a large expansion in sea ice to explain the severe winter cooling. I agree that something of this sort probably happened, but it’s not at all clear to me how stopping the Atlantic conveyor could cause a sufficient redistribution of heat to bring on this vast a change.

    • Yes, it is the sun. Entirely and totally. Active ‘warm’ sun=global warming.

      Quiet ‘cool’ sun=Ice Ages.

      All Ice Ages begin with a steep descent in temperature and end very, very suddenly with mega-melting of giant glaciers a mile thick that vanish in less than a thousand years except at both poles and perhaps, half of Greenland.

  47. In regard to the Nuremberg, the conventional practice in a situation such as the victory in Europe over a regime as odious as the NAZIs would be to execute the perpetrators and issue a white paper subsequently to provide the justification. Instead the US insisted on a trial format. Sine this was a trial of the high officials of a defeated government, it was a trial with a difference. There could be no possibility that these high officials could be found innocent. The trials were justifications for the punishment that were impose and nothing else. The legal dressing was simply part of the procedure to provide the justification to the public and history.

    At the Belsen camp, British troops were ordered to take the SS guards prisoners. One British soldier was so overcome by what he saw there that he opened fire and killed a number of them. When asked by his commanding officer why he did it, the replied that it was something in reference to the horror around him. This is similar to the Nuremberg trials

    During WW2, the US post war policy to Germany was conceived by the Treasury Secretary Henry Morganthau Jr. The plan was to strip Germany of all heavy industrial capacity. Germany was to be transformed into an agricultural country which would not have the capacity to wage war. The French were in favor of this plan or even more stringent measures. The British were coerced into supporting the plan by Roosevelt tying it to Lend Lease agreements. However the reality of governing and feeding a populous country after the war intervened in the implementation of the Morganthau Plan and it was abandoned. The US then acquiesced to the necessity of leaving low level NAZI officials in place to manage the country and to provide for Germany’s re-induistrializaiton. The trials as part of the de-NAZIfication effort became pro forma.

    Note that in all of this law was created as part of the policy of the victors. The law and policy had to address the horrors of NAZIism. The policy faced the issue of removing NAZIism from Germany and removing the possibility of another German war while at the same time supporting the German population. The success of these laws can be seen in the fact that both Germany and Japan accepted their defeats. There was no insurgency in either of them. Both are now peaceful and prosperous countries.

    • TAG

      April 2, 2015 at 12:38 pm

      The plan was to strip Germany of all heavy industrial capacity.”

      That plan was applied after WW1 and extended after WW2. It worked so well that the countries involved stripped Germany of it’s “industrial might” so much so that those receiving said “spoils of war” could not reassmble it. Train and ship loads of “stuff” was dismanteled and extracted from Germany, shipped to England, France and Russia that no-one could put it back together again. Of course, Von Braun and his rockets were a different story. The US took that info and technology.

  48. William Astley April 2, 2015 at 7:51 am
    CAGW is cult science.
    .. uses ‘fuzzy logic’ to reinforce their incorrect theories.

    Yep agree I made the same observation a while ago, Thanks for your essay.

  49. Just more evidence of repression of our freedoms — in this case free speech. I Wonder if Mr. Nelson will have trouble with the IRS next….

Comments are closed.