UPDATE: 4/3/15 1PM PST WUWT gets results, Tom is out of “twitmo”
Not being able to win arguments on merits, a complaint was apparently made to ban/suspend Tom Nelson from Twitter for using the very same description of a graph that climate scientist Gavin Schmidt made.
Tom Nelson alerts me via email of this, last week it was Steven Goddard, whose account has been reinstated after massive complaints to Twitter. This week, we have the same tactic against Tom Nelson. He writes:
On March 22, After I posted this graph,
@ClimateOfGavin called it “crap”.
I then posted @KHayhoe’s “mother of all hockey sticks” below, and asked if it was “crap”.
Today, April 1, Twitter informed me that my account was “locked” until I deleted this tweet:
Twitter then unlocked my account. After I posted the “Delete tweet” screen shot above, I was suspended.
If calling a graph “crap” is grounds for suspension, why isn’t @ClimateofGavin suspended?
Updates: Mark Steyn asks a good question here:
Iowahawk nailed it here, in reference to warmists trying to shut down Steve Goddard:
twitter probably consumes the output of several nuclear power stations
I’d rather shut down Twitter than these power stations.
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?
The corruption of peer review that Climate Scientists engage in is bad, this is nothing.
Things worth saying need over 140 characters anyway.
Is it just coincidence that your comment, including spaces, is 140 characters? 🙂
Or just have a read what the founder of Twitter said about people using Instagram.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/twitter-founder-on-instagram-2014-12
“I frankly don’t give a s*** if Instagram has more people looking at pretty pictures.”
Double standards or what?
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!).
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
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.
Twitter should change its color scheme to various shades of brown.
@Patrick April 1, 2015 at 11:40 pm
Pretty intersting what the university of Leuven/Louvain/Löwen in BE thinks about FB and that ilk:
http://www.law.kuleuven.be/icri/en/news/item/icri-cir-advises-belgian-privacy-commission-in-facebook-investigation
https://securehomes.esat.kuleuven.be/~gacar/fb_tracking/
So I think that utmost discretion must be advised while using FB or Twit’s den.
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).
Twitter is an aptly named service. The vast majority of their users are twits.
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.
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
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
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.
Or as the Twitterati would say… TLDR.
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.
twat’s whitter?
Reblogged this on Climatism.
Twitter censorship…
Oh haha! MODS
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.
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….