@Twitter @Support is not playing by their own rules in the unfair suspension of climate skeptic Tom Nelson

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

I don’t regularly take up causes on WUWT, but this one sticks in my craw for the sheer pointlessness of it all. To borrow an overused phrase from the warmist movement, this is a “canary in the coal mine for free speech and climate skepticism”. Yesterday, I posted Abusive censorship on Twitter – same word used by Gavin Schmidt gets commenter banned.

In that post, you can see the exchange and what appears to be the reason, simply using the word “crap” to describe a graph. Nelson compared his use of the word to how Gavin Schmidt has used the word on Twitter in the past. In keeping with Team ‘no culpability” policy, Gavin complains there’s no comparison, and wants to be left out of the issue. Of course he does.

gavin-suspendOf course, Gavin doesn’t seem to mind abusing Tom:

Gavin-ugly

The story got picked up yesterday by Mark Steyn and then Twitchy, along with some other outlets, and I surmised that by this morning, Nelson’s account would be restored; I was wrong and sent this out.

Followed by some support:

And this one, that I wholeheartedly agree with.

I’ve been following Tom for years, he’s never abusive, always courteous, but he does ask some questions that make some in the climate establishment very uncomfortable.

Here are the rules that Twitter has in place, I can’t see where Tom Nelson went afoul of it.


The Twitter Rules

Our goal is to provide a service that allows you to discover and receive content from sources that interest you as well as to share your content with others. We respect the ownership of the content that users share and each user is responsible for the content he or she provides. Because of these principles, we do not actively monitor and will not censor user content, except in limited circumstances described below.

Content Boundaries and Use of Twitter

In order to provide the Twitter service and the ability to communicate and stay connected with others, there are some limitations on the type of content that can be published with Twitter. These limitations comply with legal requirements and make Twitter a better experience for all. We may need to change these rules from time to time and reserve the right to do so. Please check back here to see the latest.

  • Impersonation: You may not impersonate others through the Twitter service in a manner that does or is intended to mislead, confuse, or deceive others.
  • Trademark: We reserve the right to reclaim usernames on behalf of businesses or individuals that hold legal claim or trademark on those usernames. Accounts using business names and/or logos to mislead others may be permanently suspended.
  • Private information: You may not publish or post other people’s private and confidential information, such as credit card numbers, street address or Social Security/National Identity numbers, without their express authorization and permission. You may not post intimate photos or videos that were taken or distributed without the subject’s consent.
  • Violence and Threats: You may not publish or post direct, specific threats of violence against others.
  • Copyright: We will respond to clear and complete notices of alleged copyright infringement. Our copyright procedures are set forth in the Terms of Service.
  • Unlawful Use: You may not use our service for any unlawful purposes or in furtherance of illegal activities. International users agree to comply with all local laws regarding online conduct and acceptable content.
  • Misuse of Twitter Badges: You may not use badges, such as but not limited to the Promoted or Verified Twitter badge, unless provided by Twitter. Accounts using these badges as part of profile photos, header photos, background images, or in a way that falsely implies affiliation with Twitter may be suspended.

Abuse and Spam

Twitter strives to protect its users from abuse and spam. User abuse and technical abuse are not tolerated on Twitter.com, and may result in permanent suspension. Any accounts engaging in the activities specified below may be subject to permanent suspension.

  • Serial Accounts: You may not create multiple accounts for disruptive or abusive purposes, or with overlapping use cases. Mass account creation may result in suspension of all related accounts. Please note that any violation of the Twitter Rules is cause for permanent suspension of all accounts.
  • Targeted Abuse: You may not engage in targeted abuse or harassment. Some of the factors that we take into account when determining what conduct is considered to be targeted abuse or harassment are:
    • if you are sending messages to a user from multiple accounts;
    • if the sole purpose of your account is to send abusive messages to others;
    • if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats
  • Username Squatting: You may not engage in username squatting. Accounts that are inactive for more than six months may also be removed without further notice. Some of the factors that we take into account when determining what conduct is considered to be username squatting are:
    • the number of accounts created
    • creating accounts for the purpose of preventing others from using those account names
    • creating accounts for the purpose of selling those accounts
    • using feeds of third-party content to update and maintain accounts under the names of those third parties
  • Invitation spam: You may not use Twitter.com’s address book contact import to send repeat, mass invitations.
  • Selling usernames: You may not buy or sell Twitter usernames.
  • Malware/Phishing: You may not publish or link to malicious content intended to damage or disrupt another user’s browser or computer or to compromise a user’s privacy.
  • Spam: You may not use the Twitter service for the purpose of spamming anyone. What constitutes “spamming” will evolve as we respond to new tricks and tactics by spammers. Some of the factors that we take into account when determining what conduct is considered to be spamming are:
    • If you have followed and/or unfollowed large amounts of users in a short time period, particularly by automated means (aggressive following or follower churn);
    • If you repeatedly follow and unfollow people, whether to build followers or to garner more attention for your profile;
    • If your updates consist mainly of links, and not personal updates;
    • If a large number of people are blocking you;
    • If a large number of spam complaints have been filed against you;
    • If you post duplicate content over multiple accounts or multiple duplicate updates on one account;
    • If you post multiple unrelated updates to a topic using #, trending or popular topic, or promoted trend;
    • If you send large numbers of duplicate @replies or mentions;
    • If you send large numbers of unsolicited @replies or mentions;
    • If you add a large number of unrelated users to lists;
    • If you repeatedly create false or misleading content;
    • Randomly or aggressively following, favoriting or Retweeting Tweets;
    • If you repeatedly post other users’ account information as your own (bio, Tweets, url, etc.);
    • If you post misleading links (e.g. affiliate links, links to malware/click jacking pages, etc.);
    • Creating misleading accounts or account interactions;
    • Selling or purchasing account interactions (such as selling or purchasing followers, Retweets, favorites, etc.);
    • Using or promoting third-party services or apps that claim to get you more followers (such as follower trains, sites promising “more followers fast” or any other site that offers to automatically add followers to your account);
  • Graphic Content: You may not use pornographic or excessively violent media in your profile image, header image, or background image.

Your account may be suspended for Terms of Service violations if any of the above is true. Please see our help pages on Following rules and best practices and Automation rules and best practices for a more detailed discussion of how the Rules apply to those particular account behaviors. Accounts created to replace suspended accounts will be permanently suspended.

Accounts engaging in any of these behaviors may be investigated for abuse. Accounts under investigation may be removed from Search for quality. Twitter reserves the right to immediately terminate your account without further notice in the event that, in its judgment, you violate these Rules or the Terms of Service.

We may revise these Rules from time to time; the most current version will always be at twitter.com/rules.


So, for those of you that think this suspension is unfair, help out by tweeting a message to @Twitter and @Support asking for @tan123 to be reinstated. if you want to show the double standard in action, you can reference today’s blog post with a short URL:

http://wp.me/p7y4l-w9w

or yesterday’s:

Be courteous. Thanks for your consideration. – Anthony

UPDATE: Gavin, in his full glory.

Gavin-muteAnd his decision, after I replied “that’s not helpful, and reflects badly on you sir”

Gavin-blocked

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

276 thoughts on “@Twitter @Support is not playing by their own rules in the unfair suspension of climate skeptic Tom Nelson

    • I don’t think a ban on twitter deserves quite this level of indignation, you can’t really be comparing a case of an online fight to death, destruction, and murder commited by terrorists.

      • david smith,

        Naw, it’s a dogwhistle. Not quite as subtle, but so is this: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/01/abusive-censorship-on-twitter-same-word-used-by-gavin-schmidt-gets-commenter-banned/#comment-1895723

        “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”.

        One doesn’t need to be a dog to hear it. However, I do keep a canary around this coalmine just in case.

      • Brandon,

        Nah, it’s a joke.

        However, I’m more than happy to say that some warmistas such as Mike Mann and Al Gore are scum-bags and charlatans.
        Let your canary choke on that.

      • david smith,

        Neither of us are Stephen Skinner, but I’m happy to express my opinion as fact for effect.

        My canary has no material issue with what is written in primary literature — nay, textbooks of physics and atmospheric chemistry — about the relevant core principles of radiative forcing due to IR-active atmospheric species. It does look askance at some of the future projections because it is a smart bird and payed attention to all those lectures about the limitations of inference and uncertainty of many many sorts in college.

      • Just read Stephen’s reply.
        it seems SE was correct. Mea culpa .

        Brandon,
        Your canary seems to have more discerning lungs than I have it credit for!

    • From the rules defining spam: “If you repeatedly create false or misleading content;”

      In the minds of a twitter admin, allowing skeptics a voice would be like allowing ghost hunters to tweet about their paranormal encounters.

      • Crap, I should have checked twitter before commenting. There is all kinds of paranormal content, all of which is, by default, false or misleading. Apparently, twitter bans content based on purely political motivation.

      • “If you repeatedly create false or misleading content;”
        But doesn’t that apply to most of what climastrologists spew??

    • No one ought to be surprised by Gavin Schmidt’s behavior. The man is hardly a profile in courage.

      Here is him running away from debate with Roy Spencer on John Stossel’s program:

  1. Gavin is deomonstrating the important differnce between educational achievement and wisdom. He is so strong in one category and so utterly lacking in the other.

    • Which one does he have? He may have initials behind his name but he has not demonstrated either.

  2. I’m not on Twitter or FaceBook, and never will be, but I hope you tweeters will deluge Twitter in this case. Let the silent majority be heard.

    • FB is (Was for me) a common connection of people, across world, as in my case. I used to be able to “communicate” to any of my FB “friends” in the UK, New Zealand, America and Africa…etc etc etc. Now, I can’t.

      I’ll just have to use Viber (Are you reading this FB?).

  3. OK, in light of the Indiana Cake War headlines, a contrarian libertarian view:

    I have a right to free speech, but I don’t have a right to a free public platform.

    Do I have a “right” to a free Twitter account? Does anyone? It’s their servers, their dime, their turf. Why should they not be able to cut anyone off, for any reason? They may be biased leftist jerks, and probably are, but it’s their property, not ours.

    • Yep, they have the right to violate their own guidelines, and enforce unwritten rules unevenly, they sure do. And Twitter users who abject are free to vote with their feet, or, more likely, deluge them with support for Tom. If enough people object, Tom will be reinstated.

      • I don’t know, Twitter could be construed as a “public accomodation”, like a pizza shop.

      • The declaration is that a ‘place’ is a ‘public space’ and therefore open to anyone. It also means Twitter would not be able to serve alcohol without a licence. Interesting thought…

      • As Alan Watt notes, the biggest problem of all is the gross double standard: Pizzerias will lose because they are a “public accommodation”, and Twitter will win because they are a “private entity with prerogatives under the Bill of Rights”.

        Heads I win, tails you lose.

      • Exactly. Look, I can understand that we’re all pissed about how Tom was treated. It was underhanded and obviously prejudicial. But I still think it was Twitter’s prerogative. Does it make them look mean and petty? Hell yes. But that’s their choice to make.

        Larger principles are more important than specific incidents.

      • So, Twitter is a corporation and is subject to anti-discrimination laws as are other licensed businesses (federal laws for sure, and likely laws whatever state in which they incorporated). How exactly is this different than the Indiana religious freedom law presently in the news? Liberals say the religious freedom law in Indiana is discriminatory. Publicly licensed businesses shouldn’t be able to turn someone away because of their beliefs. The law is reported to be flawed. As reports and protests go, a business that serves the public should not, except where clear conduct violations exist, be able to pick and choose to whom it grants service. Exactly how is this Twitter situation with Tom Nelson different? Isn’t this another measure of the double-standard we see constantly with liberals? Is this actually illegal, regardless of those (with whom I agree) who have stated that Twitter has a prerogative to deny service?

        Note that I made no statement about my agreement or disagreement with the Indiana law garnering so much attention. I’m simply asking why is this Twitter refusal to serve someone, on an apparently arbitrary and capricious basis, different than what is being reported about the Indiana law that mostly liberals are protesting at present. Where am I wrong in drawing this comparison?

        This Twitter thing is simply another example of relativistic morality on the part of liberals. I can break the rules but you can’t. Do as I say not as I do. Pathetic responses from G. Schmidt, in my opinion.

        Tom Nelson, this is the sort of thing over which liberals sue in court (and often win large judgements). Cha-ching for you, my man!

        Bruce

        PS: for those not familiar (international visitors here?), the religious freedom law in Indiana stems from a catering business that opted not to cater a same-sex wedding on religious grounds and then got sued.

      • I don’t know if Twitter has been using the “safe harbor” provision of the law covering information service providers, but that provision only applies if they do not exercise editorial control. By not closing Gavin Schmidt’s account for the same violation of TOS, they come across to me as exercising editorial control. In that case they can be held liable for anything their users put up.

      • @ Boulder Skeptic 7:33pm You couldn’t be more wrong. The Indiana law does NOT stem from a catering business – it’s a family owned small pizzaria that has NEVER catered weddings. There are 232, now 231, pizzarias in that town and the gays could have easily strolled to any other one and asked for catering services. And what ever happened to freedom of association? Would the gay couple sue anyone who declined to attend their mirage on grounds of discrimation? The pizza owners never said they wouldn’t serve gays, they just don’t want to be a part of something they believe is againsts God’s law. When a law forces that kind of association, the law itself is discrimatory.

      • @ Boulder Skeptic 7:33pm You couldn’t be more wrong. The Indiana law does NOT stem from a catering business – it’s a family owned small pizzaria that has NEVER catered weddings. There are 232, now 231, pizzarias in that town and the gays could have easily strolled to any other one and asked for catering services. And what ever happened to freedom of association? Would the gay couple sue anyone who declined to attend their mirage? The pizza owners never said they wouldn’t serve gays, they just don’t want to be a part of something they believe is againsts God’s law. When a law forces that kind of association, the law itself is discrimatory. I am absolutely opposed to cultural Marxism.

      • icouldahad April 3, 2015 at 7:00 pm

        You might try reading again. You said I couldn’t be more wrong and then proceeded to make the exact point I was describing.

        The Indiana law is being protested by liberals and the LBGT community as some great atrocity that someone decided not to participate with others with whom they have disagreements based on religious principles. My question was, how is this banning of T Nelson on Twitter any different from what the pizza shop did (i.e. choosing not to associate with someone based on beliefs)? Where is the same indignation against a ban by Twitter because of their beliefs? My point was, if they were applying their indignation and “Principles” equally, they would be boycotting Twitter as well as the Indiana law. But they are not. Because T. Nelson isn’t in their circle. They are the same situation at the core. Why aren’t the liberals protesting BOTH. Because there is a double standard and a moral relativism at play.

        We actually agree. I believe the pizza shop should not be forced to have a business relationship with anyone they choose not to. If they do that enough, they might go out of business and that’s what capitalism is all about. Let people vote with their dollars. Plenty of other pizza shops were available to provide the requested services. But to bring this back home, I have no problem with Twitter banning whomever they choose either and if they do that enough, they might go out of business. Marxism in any form is doomed to eventual failure and is inherently a trampling of individual liberty.

    • Eustace, I agree with you, but one could make the argument that Twitter is a “public accommodation” like a restaurant or bakery and, as such, should be prohibited from discriminating against customers with different beliefs.

      • I don’t agree with the “public accommodation” concept. It may be law, but I still don’t agree with it.

      • “I don’t agree with the “public accommodation” concept. It may be law, but I still don’t agree with it.”

        I also don’t agree with the “public accommodation” laws, but as long as we have to put up with the damn things I think Twitter should be bound by the same rules as my local restaurant is. Being libertarian does not mean we have to toss out fairness.

      • Even though Twitter as a private entity can decide to ban any thought or commentator they wish, when they censor speech purely based on, “I don’t agree with that.”, they achieve nothing less than “Supreme Idiot” status.

        Imagine a cell phone company deciding to sell contracts only to democrats, that is how stupid Twitters position is.

        Seems another example of how liberals go apoplectic when their ideas are challenged and fall back to their most comfortable position as petty tyrants.

      • ALX,

        By denying half of the potential market place a voice, they are practically inviting a competitor to make a product that makes them go the way of the big IBM monopoly in PCs. What’s more, since they are in the cabal that is cheer leading the FCC takeover of the internet, I await their screams when the other party has control of the FCC and they wind up penalized in some way for their partisan position. Of course the other side does not do that because they believe in the rule of law and that is what the twits at twitter are counting on.

      • “By denying half of the potential market place a voice, they are practically inviting a competitor to make a product that makes them go the way of the big IBM monopoly in PCs”

        That is basically what I told then when I made my complaint. They already have competition, two new social media entities came online just this past March. The Blaze network probably has the capacity to make them sweat, should they want to.

        I reminded them that pissing off half their customers makes profitability a challenge.

      • Owen,

        No, they aren’t. Nobody cares about the competitors. Nobody will use them.

        The only sort of competition that would have any chance at all would have to be as heavily funded as Amazon or such. And I don’t see anyone ponying up that sort of money to build an alternative.

      • To clarify that was in response to “they are practically inviting a competitor to make a product that makes them go the way of the big IBM monopoly in PCs.”

      • Eustace is right. Is WUWT a “public accomodation”? Should Anthony be forced to reinstate troll accounts? I’m not arguing Tom is a troll. As a Libertarian myself, I would caution against using the State as a hammer because at some point, you will find yourself as a nail.

      • @Owen in GA – Its funny that you think “skeptics” make up 50% of twitters potential user base. Can you provide any data to back up that assertion? what percentage of the general populace is a climate change skeptic?

      • Eustace, I don’t agree with it either, but so long as it is the law, it must be applied even handedly.
        The whole problem is that the law is only applied against companies that offend leftists.

      • Someone else
        April 2, 2015 at 2:24 pm

        “@Owen in GA – Its funny that you think “skeptics” make up 50% of twitters…”

        I agree with you someone else, real skeptics make up no more than a few percent. I’ve come to accept the 97% figure for crowdthought folks even though the methodology of arriving at it was not even grade school science fair quality. But considering that the 3% demonstrably have a monopoly on the population’s intellect as evidenced by all the grave concern about skeptics overturning the CAGW theory and policy by even those at the highest level (the president for example), the army of lab-coated clones, 97 percent of the news media, 100 percent of the universities and scientific agencies and 99% of the funding, yes I get your point. We must be superhuman. Your talking points dealer makes no bones about the fact that skeptics are dangerous guys to argue with and deal with and that the might of the 97% of people and resources have to be brought to bear on these devilishly clever heretics who seem to be winning the battle.

        I’ve mentioned the analogy before, Mrs someone else, we skeptics are like conservation biologists trying to save the unwittingly endangered Nile crocodiles, while the crocodiles are trying to bite our heads off. We’ll keep you safe though, we have been doing it for centuries.

    • And nobody is saying they don’t have a right to ban anyone they want.
      The whole issue, as you are well aware is the double standards they are using when choosing when to apply their standards.
      As a master of double standards, it’s hardly surprising that you would miss this.

    • @Eustace

      I agree with you. The folks at twitter can be as unfair, biased, and hypocritical as they please. It’s their house.

    • And what of the networks needed to access their servers? Does Twitter own those as well? With the internet to begin being regulated, do the network owners have a new responsibility at enforcing rules onto Twitter, ensuring “equality” over publicly owned accesses?

    • Hey Eustace Cranch! “Do I have a “right” to a free Twitter account? ”
      Certainly no natural right to an account — but remember that a Twitter account is not free. No money changes hands, but (and I am not a Tweeter, so someone correct me is I am wrong about this) you give them legal use of your information and words, which they then sell to marketers. Once you have an account there is a quid quo pro. Twitter’s responsibility is the same to you as any other merchant at that point. Let the lawyers begin the argument… :)

  4. I recently re- read George Orwell’s novel 1984. I was absolutely flabbergasted at how much our current political situation mirrors the plots of the book. Historical revisionism, newspeak, and big brother…all coming to life before our very eyes by those who only want their version of “truth” to be told. Very scary, indeed.

    • I write op-ed pieces for local paper and I reference Orwell’s 1984 often.
      Sadly, few get it – what do they read in school anymore?
      Not about the Ministries of Truth and Plenty.

      • When you live a life based on censorship and lies, you assume everyone else does too so you come to believe that is just the way life is.

      • ” exSSNcrew
        April 2, 2015 at 12:15 pm

        They read The Communist Manifesto. Often … and at length.”

        No, they don’t. The real problem is that most high schools don’t encourage reading beyond very basic texts. They tend to ignore classical literature and poetry almost completely. That goes for charter schools as well. This in turn creates a growing generational gap in understanding and very limited communication potential. When my daughter was in high school, I did my best to encourage her to read widely both in genre and in time. Since her interests were and still are linguistics and languages, I tried to explain that she really needed a better than average grasp of the workings of her own language (beyond grammar through common metaphor and the devices which were known among Norse poets as “kennings”). She still comes to me with phrases “translated” to English from – say – Russian, which I help her convert into meaningful English that still carries the sense of the original language and meaning. She has come to realize that ol’ Dad had more of a point than she had understood at the time.

      • Duster
        April 2, 2015 at 1:24 pm
        “” exSSNcrew
        April 2, 2015 at 12:15 pm
        They read The Communist Manifesto. Often … and at length.”
        No, they don’t. The real problem is that most high schools don’t encourage reading beyond very basic texts. ”

        The Communist Manifesto is just a list of ten demands (of which 8 or so are implemented everywhere in the West; about 9 in the USA (the Exit Tax)).

        So it should be comprehensible enough.

        What you SHOULDN’T try to read is Das Kapital. It’s longer and boringer than Mein Kampf.

      • I had to read “1984” in high school, 50 years ago. and saw the fictions becoming realities. At the time the plot seemed totally unbelievable, today it’s unavoidable.

    • There are two “books”. 1984 and Animal Farm. Both, as I understand are the same principally, two extremes, but opposite. One “left”, one “right”. Both “systems”, equally failing the people it was to support. We can draw on a real example of the “leftist 1984” model. That is Ethiopia. It failed on a monumental scale! Thats why Marxism/Socialsm do not factor in Ethiopian life…they are too busy trying to make enough food/money to feed themselves!

      • I prefer to think that the political world is not flat, but that it is, instead, round. Hence, no matter which direction you go in, left, right, up or down, if you go far enough, you end up in the same place: The Dark Side.

      • Phil, that metaphor doesn’t hold water; the earth rotates and shines on all sides. So no matter where you are, it just depends on where the light is shining at the time? There are certain things that are never right…

      • Please allow me some poetic license. I was making a play on words (re: Star Wars), when I said “The Dark Side.” As you say, some things are never right. We are in complete agreement on that.

      • Patrick
        April 2, 2015 at 12:12 pm
        “There are two “books”. 1984 and Animal Farm. Both, as I understand are the same principally, two extremes, but opposite. One “left”, one “right”. ”

        Quite wrong. Both are about socialism. Orwell was a socialist. He was talking about what he knew.
        Mussolini started his career as a socialist. Hitler called the worst enemy of the NSDAP the bourgeousie and the aristocrats.

        It was Stalin – not a very objective figure – who declared Hitler to be “extreme right”.

        The “third way socialist” Henry Ford was financier of Hitler’s election campaign.

      • DirkH April 2, 2015 at 4:21 pm

        ….1984 and Animal Farm. … Both are about socialism.

        Someone else April 2, 2015 at 2:31 pm

        Your mistake is just comparing it to “leftist control methods”. The same applies when extremism is applied to any ideology.

        Your political biases are showing, DirkH.
        SE gets this one correct.

      • I disagree. Dirk is, in my view, exactly correct. The real argument is, was, and always will be about statist, government control, vs. individual liberty. Socialism leads to ever greater central control. The US idea of individual rights, (within the context of the rule of law and those rights not impinging on others same liberties, stealing as an example) superseding all “group” power, in whatever form is central to issue.

        Modern education teaches very little about the founding principles of the US.

      • “DirkH

        April 2, 2015 at 4:21 pm

        The “third way socialist” Henry Ford was financier of Hitler’s election campaign.”

        In this respect you are correct. Ford, “donated” (Tax avoidance?), profits from Ford vehicle sales in Germany to Hitler. Ford also copied and made the “Willys Jeep”. He also treated his non-english speaking workers like “slaves”, he was a horrid man IMO. I will never but a Ford product! I will also never buy a VW product.

        1984 and Animal Farm, IMO, were more about how extreme “politically motivated systems” (The control of people because religion isn’t working these days) can go, left or right, does not matter. Orwell saw this. Jew, Christian and Muslim. All in “conflict”. Stalin, Mao and Hitler “realised” it and saw a “solution”!

      • Hey David A, “The real argument is, was, and always will be about statist, government control, vs. individual liberty.”

        Bingo! Yes, in the end it comes down to authoritarianism vs individualism — or maybe a better pharsing is “coercion vs liberty”.

        The reason why politics today is presented as left vs right is because both wings always move quickly toward tyranny. Let the people choose what logo their politicians wear and who cares what they actually do once in power? After all, we are a free people! We get to choose whether we are whipped for not picking enough cotton, or whipped because we have not hoed enough rows.

        Pardon the outburst of cynicism. Long term I am optimistic about liberty.

    • 1984 was intended to be a cautionary tale, unfortunately some people think it was a blueprint.

      It is actually frightening watching this. Those who are “in control” don’t see anything wrong with what they are doing, because they honestly believe that their opinions are 100% correct. That is no different from the current wave of islamic terror… their ideology makes it impossible to even consider that anyone else could possibly have any useful contribution.

      Yes, I’m equating leftist control methods with terrorism. One marginalizes and removes the voice of alternate views, the other kills. Same result, overall.

      Incidentally, and not like I think anyone cares, but I predicted this 20 years ago when I first saw forum operators censoring certain people for their politics. With a new communication medium comes new people to exploit it, every time.

      • Your mistake is just comparing it to “leftist control methods”. The same applies when extremism is applied to any ideology.

      • True. Problem is, “everyone” thinks their views are “moderate” and that everyone else is “biased”.

      • With a new communication medium comes new people to exploit it, every time.

        And new and better methods for propagandizing, “othering”, spreading FUD, silencing heretics (such as organized downvoting), hectoring, misdirection, data tampering, dis- and misinformation…

      • The correlation is more apt than you may realize. Look what happens whenever leftists gain total control, anywhere in the world. The first thing they do is to start executing those who oppose them, or even just disagree with them.

      • The key distinction is whether censorship comes in the form of the power of government. For example, Anthony is free to banish anyone from his home here at WUWT he wishes. Same for the Alarmists website with skeptics comments. But if the government though tells Google-WordPress to shut down WUWT because it carries amessage it disfavors, then it is time for the 2nd American Revolution.

  5. Who is this Schmidt guy – talking like some mardy teenager that’s not getting its own way?

    The sake of all of us I do hope its THE director of NASA GISS.

  6. Oh wait! Obama has just “cured” the Iran nuclear issue! I have to go find my play-tex 24hr girdle…I used to wear that in anticipation of a good laugh. But now I need to put it on well in advance because the joks come really really late these days!

    What is the US (7th fleet?) doing no the red sea off Yemen? I’d say making sure oil still passes. One has to ask why does Saudi strike Yemen?

      • The US owns Saudi too…and there is a heavy US Navy presence in the Red Sea. It’s been building for some years now.

      • One Nuke detonated above the USA could cause an EMP that would do more damage. Does that still make him a genius?

      • It’s happening right now. “Pirates” are impacting oil shipments through the straights of Aman. Does not get shown on MSM media too much these days, but it;s there. I “understand” that there is a building of a military “presense” on the east coast of Africa right around the gulf of Oman.

  7. Worth pointing out, I feel, that Gavin Schmidt is not the only prominent warmist mentioned in Tom’s “offending” tweet. Maybe you’re barking up the wrong tree by going after Gavin?

    Just saying……..

  8. Sorry, but this much like the Vietnam War: nothing to win, and no way to win it.

    Seriously, we know that warmists are thin-skinned. Why continue belabouring the point?

    • Vietnam was winnable, and indeed had been effectively “won”, until Vietnam was given away by democrats.

      • Not “effectively won” it was won. It was also worth winning because it stopped the spread of communism through Asia, giving democracies such as Japan time to mature.

      • Since the Vietnamese trade deficit is around 19 billion/yr in their favor, I’d say that they won.

  9. You should all close your Twitter accounts en mass. It’s childish nonsense, anyway, in my opinion. I don’t have a Facebook account either, for the same reason. I understand some people like to inform others what they’re up to, but I would rather keep personal stuff exactly that. I will NEVER understand the huge appeal of these net institutions.

      • Yeah, just set up a private IRC server somewhere and go there. Only give out its address to those you like, and if someone stumbles across it, move again. Go underground (and stay there)

    • I use fb, but it’s a communication tool for keeping in touch. I won’t ever understand these people that have 1500 “friends”, that’s going way, far overboard. I have about 50, and from time to time lose one or two and gain a new one.

    • No I disagree strongly. Todays new geblneration communi ates via social media. If Skeptics closed their twitter accounts, it would be a tiny fraction of the twitterverse the ecofascists use to communicate their lies. Campaign Obama used it to great effect to spread lies and message versus Romney in 2012. Closing your twitter is selfcensorship the left would love.

      No just the opposite. Twitter loudly the skeptic message, en masse and do it politely with science and data. Put your challenges to the alarmists Priesthood in the form of questions they would rather not answer:
      Examples:
      – what about the 18 yr long T pause?
      – why is Antarctic sea ice maintaining +2 sd levels above 30 year average for more than 2 years now.
      – why are the glaciers in the Karakorams growing?
      – why are there fewer severe storm intensity frequency for the past 10 years compared the the previous 20 years?
      – – why are world wide crop yields steadily increasing year on year for 30 yrs?
      Just keep hitting them with inconvenient data that shows the Alarmists’ message is bogus.

      And don’t self-censor your right to ask questions.

      • Can anybody cite a period when climate DIDN’T change?
        The overall trend since the end of the last glaciation may be warming, but no matter which data you look at the variations in average temperature are generally quite significant.
        Heck, the variation in temperature over the six month winter-summer minima-maxima is probably 50 degrees,
        Humans, who have adapted to virtually every place on the planet (agreed some more readily than others) will not be able to cope with even the worst predictions of the warmists?
        To quote a television character, “Horse hockey”.

    • But before you close your Twitter accounts en masse, why not start a mass campaign to get the Schmidt dude banned from it for using the three-letter “C” word? Or for any other creative reason you can come up with? That he doesn’t want to be involved is an excellent reason for involving him.

  10. Naive question from a non-twittering person: How can I help influencing the Twitter administrators without becoming a twitterer?

    • a few years ago I had quite a lengthy correspondence with a bot called Lynda on yahoo groups support

  11. Has anyone seen Schmidt and Mann in the same place at the same time? They might be the same person. Or is being bald, beady-eyed, pudgy, with a lame devil-beard a prerequisite for being a GW evangelist?

  12. As I posted earlier today in a completely unrelated thread somewhere else, one must simply accept that Big Tech is firmly in the hands of the Social Justice Warriors and other left-leaning individuals, the same folks who are the major proponents of CAGW. The only question is how long it will take Google, Apple, Twitter et al. to “disappear” any non-like-minded websites, users, etc.

    • One of the reasons that “Big Tech” is firmly in the hands of the Social Justice Warriors is that “Big Tech” has to please the State. The central government loves “global warming” and other social “justice” issues since they always seem to require the state to gain ever more power over the populace. Amazing how that works.

    • A tool is what you make of it. Murderers have used axes and chainsaws, but people put them to good use every day.

      • Interesting that you allude to axes and chainsaws instead of the usual tool of murderers.
        Would you be prepared to declare that possession of any and all firearms should be permitted, and only criminal use of such a tool should be condemned?
        My guess is that you, in particular, do not subscribe to that view.
        Your analogy is not apt in any event, which is usually the case for analogies when they are used to make broad, general statements about specific subjects.
        Twitter is twitter; it’s not a hammer or a chisel or a spade or a cement mixer, so suggesting that it would make concrete just fine if people used it appropriately is silly. Twitter is the sum of its tweets, and if the tweets weren’t so twit-like, it wouldn’t be twitter.

    • I agree. I first found it when the Samliili pirates took The MaerAlabama. I was fun then, because no one supported the pirates, it showed cleverness to make fun of them in very few words. But it quickly became pointles

      • I was briefly enthusiastic about twitter when isis were closing in on Kobane.
        Initially, it seemed like there were eye-witness accounts that were much more informed than the news reports.
        It didn’t take long to realize that wasn’t the case; almost all of the tweets were regurgitated press releases from interested parties or news items from non-msm news sources.
        Thousands of re-tweets and a format that is 50% metadata.
        As so many have observed, twitter is a colony for twits.

    • Dr. Spencer – thanks for everything you’ve done in the pursuit of truth. Your book began an fascinating journey for me.

      I hope you don’t mind my twitter links to your work/thoughts on model falsification and adjustments, presented as innocuously as possible given the diversion of hundreds of billions from US families.

      The silence is deafening from scientists on the train as the scientific method, statistics, peer-review, FOIA and those struggling to meet food and energy needs have been thrown under the bus.

      JRP

  13. Twitter is utterly stupid precisely because it devolves into name-calling and snark. It’s a pointless, useless waste of time and electrons. Abandon it to the bully echo-chambers.

  14. Possibly under this?:

    If you repeatedly create false or misleading content

    Not being concensus it is by warmist reasoning ‘false ‘ and ‘misleading’. By any sane reasoning Mann would be banned for his false and misleading Koch conspiracy abuse of anyone he disagrees with (Koch Calenders anyone?) :D

    There does seem to be a push on suppressing dissent of late. Quite a few alternative sites have found themselves removed from GoogleAds over the past few weeks. This is one example but there have been others

    http://gawker.com/google-suspends-anti-war-site-from-ad-network-for-abu-g-1692398286

    Of course it could be completely unrelated but you never know. Climategate, Paedophile priests, the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal (UK) etc are just some ‘conspiracies’ shown to have substance despite being dismissed beforehand.

    Social Justice Warriors love free speech – ‘for me not for thee’. What happened to Tom is very much their modus operandi

  15. Good time to ask Richard Betts, who was indignant about something posted here as “not contributing to civil debate”, if he thinks this is ok.

  16. An-th-ony

    You need to have everyone who is Tweeting and Retweeting use the same hashtag # to get it to start “trending”… if you can show that hashtag trending people (Twitter) will pay more attention.

    May I suggest #censorship or #twittership

  17. If a web service is free, you may be the product being sold. Stop letting them sell you.

    The Schmidt in this twitter exchange is remarkably similar to the Schmidt who was given a Bronx cheer from the Manhattan audience at Intelligence Squared in 2007 when Crichton, Lindzen and Stott bested him in a formal debate of the question, Global Warming is not a crisis. Blaming the audience for not understanding what they are hearing is not often a winning argument especially when they are Manhattan liberals who walked in the room agreeing with you.
    http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/559-global-warming-is-not-a-crisis

    Schmidt has been hiding from knowledgeable skeptics ever since.

      • Not really.
        To use Algore’s phrase, there are “Inconvenient truths” that can be consealed for only so long.,sort of like the plague.

  18. That Gavin Schmidt behaves like a coward with very bad manners. He has obviously been hitting the kill switch because he isn’t interested in a debate or an exchange of arguments but for sheer dogmatism. Disgusting.

  19. Maybe Gavin can team up with Mann and create a petition entitled, “Censorship is your Friend”. Sub-titled “How to hide your idiotic behavior”

    The NY Times can sponsor it.

  20. Better to ignore Twitter altogether. In terms of human discourse it is a ‘force for evil’ Just debases debate.

  21. Note the time stamps on some of Gavin’s tweets. Since when was tweeting during working hours part of his job at NASA. Probably using a NASA GISS device. In the private sector, this would be indelible grounds for discpline up to and including termination.

    • They can stretch it since as head of GISS it is a public outreach on GISS role in Climate research.

      • Doesn’t seem as though “intelligent life on Earth” and “freelance troll” will win him any awards for customer outreach. Tom pays Gavin’s salary. If he complains to NASA, I’ll bet Gavin will hear about it. Nothing will happen to him, but he’ll hear about it.

    • Thanks for all the insights over the years. Since when was any of this “CRAP” – from Hansen to Santer to yamal061 to Lewandowsky- not grounds for dismissal, and in my world of finance, plea bargains?

  22. Twitter and facebook are major platforms, whatever you may think of them personally. And nothing will change until people start leaving them in mass, and/or until people start adopting alternative platforms. The problem is that nobody is willing to make the change. I experienced that with a social platform I built a few years ago – nobody wants to go there if nobody is there yet. It’s turned into a platform for me to talk to my family…

    Just like anything else – you get what you feed. Feed censorious platforms and you will reap censorship. Until people are in large numbers willing to support alternatives, that’s all you get.

    Doesn’t seem much different than the rest of life. Places like this are echo chambers. Places like Twitter, NYT, mainstream news, etc. reinforce the truth: the facts are NOT coming out. Propaganda IS winning.

    Orwell’s vision comes true bit by bit.

  23. I suggest that only those who aspire to master the art of chic repartee at VIP cocktail parties should get a Twitter account and use it a lot. If that isn’t one’s aspiration then Twitter use seems marginally effective.

    I have a Twitter account and am seeking skill in such repartee for cocktail parties.

    John

  24. You cannot expect help, or sympathy from someone who is part of a weblog that deletes any comments they disagree with. Otherwise known as censorship.

    • Was never sure if it was RC generally, or it’s principals personally, that censored fact based intelligent comebacks. Given Gavin’s actions, the Venn diagram now says both. Sure sign of knowing you are on the losing side of an argument.

  25. Gavin Schmidt is a [trimmed].

    [PLease do not insult female dogs by comparing them to paid government bureaucrats. .mod]

  26. Definition of “twitter”, from Mirriam-Webster online:

    verb
    : to make fast and usually high sounds
    : to talk in a quick and informal way about unimportant things

    Full Definition of TWITTER
    intransitive verb
    1: to utter successive chirping noises
    2 a : to talk in a chattering fashion
    b : giggle, titter

    3: to tremble with agitation : flutter

    transitive verb
    1: to utter in chirps or twitters (the robin twittered its morning song)
    2: to shake rapidly back and forth : flutter

    See twitter defined for English-language learners
    See twitter defined for kids
    Examples of TWITTER

    The birds were twittering in the trees.
    A robin twittered its morning song.
    What are those people twittering about?

    (emphasis added)

    From the same source, the definition of “twit”:

    noun
    : a stupid or foolish person

    Full Definition of TWIT
    1: an act of twitting : taunt
    2: a silly annoying person : fool

    See twit defined for English-language learners
    Examples of TWIT

    Only a complete twit would insult his hosts.

    First Known Use of TWIT
    1528

    I do not use it, but from casual observation, I think it is aptly named.

    I fail to understand why anyone pays heed to what goes on in the Twit-o-sphere. If Gavin Schmidt or anyone else want to believe he is some kind of cyber-sage with thousands of groupies who eagerly gobble up every verbal road apple he deposits on the virtual trash dump of Twitter, that’s a psychiatric condition that deserves sympathy at least until there’s an effective treatment.

    • Unfortunately twitter has the ear of an entire generation. It’s not “real” if it’s not tweeted. Politicians use it to brainwash their electorate, and anyone not on it is considered “stupid” by the younger, hipper generation.

      I’ve never had a twitter account, and don’t expect to start… but pretty much everyone I know under 30 practically lives by it.

      • Actually, twitter has lost the cool factor among the youngest. Teens to college age don’t care for it all that much anymore. Instagram is where it’s at for that crowd.

      • Better to be considered stupid, than to BE stupid,
        As my wife always said:”We dinosaurs know where the bones are buried.”

  27. Oh well, time to start tweeting some of those old climategate emails to and from a certain Gavin.

    What ever happened to CG3 ?

    • That would definitely be a violation of the twitter terms of use, as i understand it the emails you make mention of were stolen…

      • The emails were subject to FOIA which they (“The Team”) conspired to avoid. How can one steal something that is free? And paid by taxpayers?

      • Well, let’s start with: something that was paid for isn’t free, and work from there.

      • AFAIK Someone else, it has NEVER been proven that the ‘Climategate’ emails were stolen.

      • Brandon Gates April 2, 2015 at 4:58 pm
        Well, let’s start with: something that was paid for isn’t free, and work from there.
        —-

        Okay, let’s do that. I pay taxes. My taxes fund this nonsense. Since I pay for this I own it, therefore it is free to me.

        I paid for my car, therefore I am free to use it. It is free to me.

        What is your point exactly?

        This is exactly why FOIA were enacted.

      • Reg Nelson,

        What is your point exactly?

        Your answer is as good as any:

        This is exactly why FOIA were enacted.

        Rule of law and all that rot.

      • “That would definitely be a violation of the twitter terms of use, as i understand it the emails you make mention of were stolen”

        Oh, well then, why of course Gavin reported it to police immediately when he found the evidence, right? :)

  28. This is the problem I have with “liberal progressives”. They are not liberal at all, it is an Orwellian label. They are exactly 180 degrees opposite from liberal. They are authoritarian. They are fascistic. And it is obvious at this point that they are growing desperate and feel a need to silence any criticism as their charade falls apart. There are billions of dollars at stake in keeping this scam alive.

    • Strange, I’ve always thought of myself as a Liberal Progressive (uk). In fact, I still do. Yet the underhand tactics used by the CAGW crowd to suppress and ridicule legitimate debate(and dissent) appals me. These people are not what I would call Liberal by any stretch.

      Actually, I have been pondering this since first visiting this most excellent site. You see, what I have always thought of as the ‘Liberal tradition’ in the UK lays great emphasis on fairness, open-mindedness and scientific rationalism (or, at least, I think it does). Thusly, Liberals should be fairly easy to persuade as to the rights and wrongs of the matter simply by presenting them with the facts, and by laying bare the methods used by many of those pushing CAGW (as this site does extremely well).

      So, thinking as what I imagine a ‘Liberal Progressive’ should, I quickly realised that I had been wrong for 25 years believing this crap (oops), and that I was being duped. Silly me, I should have looked into it, rather than trusting them.

      But the point is, I suppose, that I didn’t know. Most people out there don’t. I find it hard to believe that If a true Liberal free thinker knew what had really been going on in the climate ‘debate’, that they wouldn’t come to the same conclusion that I have.

      I know that the word ‘Liberal’ is anathema to many here, and that it seems to have a different meaning in the US to that in the UK, but to my mind this is misrepresenting the philosophy. There are many like me, I’m sure, that would come round if they were better informed.

      So, please don’t make an enemy of the LibProgs, They need to be persuaded, and are less likely to listen to you here if you put their backs up. Facts, logic, and integrity will do it, eventually, but they need the information.

      But then there’s Ed Davey (sigh)

      • ChrisDinBristol ,

        Kudos to you, sir, for admitting it. Others have, also, as they have come to realize that they, too, were the victims of the ‘carbon’ hoax. Simply put, they were lied to.

        However, I’m not aware of anyone who was skeptical of the man-made global warming narrative who changed their minds, and switched to being a climate alarmist. That tells us something.

        It tells us that skeptics will change their minds if the facts and evidence changes, but the alarmist crowd will not. Skeptics search for truth, while alarmists are motivated by other things.

        As you know, many readers here are politically liberal, but they refuse to accept the MMGW scare. Their interest is in the scientific truth of the matter, not in the politics. Skeptics want scientific veracity above anything else. That makes us different from climate alarmists.

  29. In Ukraine suddnely those judges that convicted in currputed ways controlled by Russia has been convidted themselves, just like countless police chiefs etc etc. Everone thought they could do their dirty games in safety, but suddenly one morning things changed and the past did catch up.
    I hope this day come for all those related to climate “science” with a dirty history.

  30. So on a Wednesday Morning the GISS director is tweeting and blocking people.

    So either he is breaking government policy or he is acting in his official capacity as director of thd GISS and banning the general public.

    Either or its about time Gavin started acting like a grown up.

    • Pretty sure he has provided indelible evidence of breaking government policy. Probably figures, if Hillary can do it as Sec. State, I can do it as head of GISS.

      • It is worse than I thought. Found and read NASA social media policy NPD 2540.1G, issued after the 11/18/10 Office of Special Counsel prohibition on federal,employee use of social media to promote named political candidates. Gavin is allowed to do this Twitter stuff under an Obama executive ‘transparency’ order provided (a) does not distract from work and (b) is not overtly political concerning named candidates. Your tax dollars at work subverting you. Obama sanctioned, government sponsored, new media war against any who dare contest his official line. My bad for never imagining this was even possible, let alone sanctioned by new official policies.

  31. Before I even got to the bottom where Gavin blocked you, Anthony, I was highly, highly, skeptical of this claim of yours:

    “No I don’t think he is [okay with censuring of thought], he’s just annoyed he’s involved.”

  32. Gavin, the International Man of Mystery. There’s plenty enough to understand about the climate without bothering oneself about what makes Gavin tick. The guy is nothing but a distraction.

    • Gavin has always behaved in this manner. Real Climate is nothing more than a propaganda site, that prohibits any comments that challenge the believed status quo.

      He is a charlatan and a coward. It’s incredibly sad that the once noble NASA has sunk to this level.

  33. Rules of antagonistic discourse:

    1) A good defence is a great offence
    2) Don’t seem like you’re going on the offence
    3) Remember who pays your salary

    Score so far:

    1) Yay for Gavin
    2) Oh, um, wait…
    3) Oops, he did it again

    Not doing to well there, are we, Gavin old mate? Got snitty for no good reason and forgot who pays for the bread, eh?

    Be reasonable, and engage in debate, and people will respect you. Behave like a schoolboy bully, and you’ve pissed on your chips, haven’t you? Twerp.

  34. With all the “self-talk” they do convincing each other of ever more doom and gloom and ever higher CO2 sensitivity …

    … you’d think they could benefit from just listening to other “voices” which are more objective once in awhile.

    Clearly, the climate sensitivity is nowhere near previous estimates but they can’t bring themselves to even think about that clear fact.

    When you belong to a group that does not allow any dissent, eventually the whole group either becomes even more convinced of “whatever the group is pushing” or the people who don’t buy in just get ostracized. It is not beneficial to you to be part of such a group and nobody would say that you can think properly if you are; nevermind, an objective scientist.

    They could all use some deprogramming and some Tom Nelson.

  35. in the 60s or it may have been 70s ( was such a blur ) the genius Hockney predicted all of this internet malarky in a lecture on television, then he went further suggesting that every household would be (webcam) online 24 hours a day. I have thought about this suggestion over the years and I think it would eliminate pretense and outright lying and falsification which has got to be a good thing ?

    • the consequences of there being no secrets probably impacts on military security and unless everybody is forced somehow to comply then it is probably not going to work, still in principal it works.

      • joelobryan,

        It is everywhere. And leftists have completely screwed up everything they’ve touched. Despite that crowd’s blaming everyone else for their blunders, the blame must be laid at the feet of the left. They exemplify the very worst in human nature — and that’s the kind of following they attract.

        I recently took a course in American history, and we were shown a video of communist agitators in the 1930’s. Nothing has changed. They were out in force, with hundreds of signs at that protest saying, “SMASH THE BOY SCOUTS!!”

        What’s that all about? It is about morality. The scouts teach morals, and the left attacks that because moral behavior is the foundation of a good society. The goblins released by the Russian revolution have infested the West, and the result is seen all around us. The scouts are still under attack. Every other force for morality is also under constant attack, like churches and Western religion. Government finances are atrocious, amounting to outright theft from taxpayers (Obama just promised Egypt free $billions, plus billions more in military aid — without Congressional approval! How can he just take tax money and give it away??)

        Unfortunately, the left has made serious inroads. I firmly believe it is part of an organized, long term plan put into effect by the old Soviets. After the Wall came down, they saw that they could not defeat the US militarily, so they ramped up their attacks on the US media complex and other ‘organs’ of the state. There was plenty of solid evidence showing their plans, which came to light in the Venona papers and other documents that were circulated following the fall of the Berlin Wall. None of this is any secret.

        Now it is paying huge dividends. The mainstream media has sold out the country, preaching to the masses that illegal immigration is a good thing, continuing the attacks on the scouts, promoting abortion, demanding that the Constitution must give way to gay and other ‘minority rights’, etc.

        Personally, I think they have won. At this point it seems a miracle is required to put the country back on the right track. Even if a true American President is elected next time, the Soviets, like the Islamists, will never give up. Their motto is: “two steps forward, one step back”. So far, that has been an extremely successful strategy. Is there an answer? A counter to that strategy? I don’t see one. Does anyone?

  36. Too bad you can’t get the DrudgeReport to pick this story up, that might be enough negative publicity to make Twitter reconsider their position….

  37. Hey, I got banned from Wikipedia for drawing attention to a troll who kept removing edits from the Younger Dryas Impact Event page, even when the things he removed were quotes from scientific journal papers. He often did this within 30 minutes of the edits.

    Technically I was banned because I used the guy’s name and not his user ID. They claimed that his name was private information. But I did not use the name in public. I only used it in what should have been private communications with the editors I was attempting to alert.

    So, join the club, Tom!

    • Oh, and I appealed my ban and won, but then told them to go stuff it, that if they wanted people trolling and removing factual edits, they didn’t deserve someone as honest as me.

      • Good for you Steve. And your story is why even elementary school teachers often will not accept a citation to Wikipedia as it is worthless now.

  38. Anthony,

    Of course, Gavin doesn’t seem to mind abusing Tom:

    Baawwwww. Ok, mayyyybee the not-overwhelming evidence of intelligent life on Earth was a tad harsh even by my standards. The ” … no-award winning freelance troll … ” tweet had me in stitches. If that’s abuse, you pretty much need to ban me AND everyone who’s called me a boring, no-talent troll here. I’d be happy to make a list.

    • Would calling Gavin a no scientific-method pretender troll be okay then?

      Has Gavin (or anyone else for that matter) produced any scientific theory regarding carbon dioxide that has proven to be true?

      I’ve searched and have found none. Have you? If so please enlighten us?

      • Reg Nelson,

        Would calling Gavin a no scientific-method pretender troll be okay then?

        Absolutely.

        Has Gavin (or anyone else for that matter) produced any scientific theory regarding carbon dioxide that has proven to be true?

        Do you know how to ask an honest question?

        I’ve searched and have found none. Have you? If so please enlighten us?

        I can lead a horse to water, but I can’t make it drink, Reg. What you’re doing here is exactly why people like me get tired of trying answer the questions that you’re “just asking”.

      • Brandon says,
         “I’m human, so I cannot plausibly tell you that the insults directed at me never find their mark. What you’re “missing” — is that I fully expect to be insulted by the very virtue that I don’t spare the rod either, especially when my blood is up. Which it is a bit at the moment since, once again, you’re twisting my words around which is well, basically lying. And I hate lies.”
        =========================================================================
        My Response. Twisting your words??? So you never made any posts intimating that WUWT limits debate because WUWT is as inconsistent as twitter, or “realclimate” So this from you…
        . “Anthony says, “Of course, Gavin doesn’t seem to mind abusing Tom”:
        “Baawwwww. Ok, mayyyybee the not-overwhelming evidence of intelligent life on Earth was a tad harsh even by my standards. The ” … no-award winning freelance troll … ” tweet had me in stitches. If that’s abuse, you pretty much need to ban me AND everyone who’s called me a boring, no-talent troll here. I’d be happy to make a list.”
        is saying what?

        Brandon, in the two previous post on this subject you made numerous comments with the same basic message, calling Antony a hypocrite for complaining about something that regularly happens at WUWT. The fact that I pointed out that Anthony allows your childish banter, and you with your oh so stingless barb retorts, is in and of itself evidence against your assertion. The fact that you, since you began to post here, likely have MORE POSTS THEN ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL, refutes your immature assertion.

        See Brandon, you are the one lacking logic, not me. In the above juvenile sarcastic comment to Anthony, you broke rules of logic. Anthony simply said that Gavin was abusive, and nothing about banning him. Your refusal to recognize such comments from Gavin, which you quote, as inane and abusive, and your “.Baawwwww. Ok, mayyyybee…” sarcastic and childish response, is on par with Gavin’s immature comments.

        The truth is that it is very likely that Anthony would let Gavin post at WUWT, if he would agree to answer questions and comments. The truth is that many here and elsewhere have posted edited comments where Gavin removes the scientific meat of the argument. Something I have seen you do to me in a poor attempt to “ twist words”. I have had “Realclimate” posts deleted outright, that linked to nothing but peer reviewed literature, and statements supporting that. Yes, Gavin at times allows the weakest critical posts through just so he can win a point. So Brandon, I am not “ mind reading” but observing facts.

        Your comment to me reiterating, “ blog owners are not compelled to publish all comments”. Is your attempt to twist a point out of nothing, as I never remotely intimated they should. So my point is not as you said “moot”. My point regarding uneven allowance of rational debate at Gavin site stands on its own. Once again your logic fails as both a straw man, and one lacking cogency to unethical behavior that I never asked to be regulated, but was simply highlighting.

        Brandon your poor post finishes with…
        “The fine print: I take full responsibility for once again more or less calling you an idiot and a buffoon. I chose to do it of my own free will, and accept whatever consequences come of it.”
        ———————–
        The only consequences I see are
        … your self parody and chilishness is exposed for any to read.
        … my truthful logical, and direct comments to you , ” found their mark” as you admitted.

    • Poor Brandon wants all to play a little violin for him. Brandon, the list of your insults to the entire WUWT community and to individuals is long and boring. Your mission appears to be to correct blog posts here, often (not always, just often) making points irrelevant to the head post. Yes Brandon, you can find many insults, with many, including myself, calling you a troll. (Often, IMV not incorrectly) Your difficulty will be in proving that you were a victim of personal insults, before you exhibited the same behavior yourself.

      You miss the overwhelming difference between a site like WUWT, and “realclimate”. At realclimate factual scientific quotes linking to peer reviewed reports and national and international databases, are OFTEN either edited with the most factual cogent portion removed, or never posted.

      Your comments here are numerous. Indeed, I would guess you are likely THE MOST published poster at WUWT. Therefore sympathy for your pleas proclaiming that Anthony is just as selective as the twitter post criticized, falls on very deaf and indifferent ears, as your very presence here clearly disputes your own assertions.

      • David A,

        I’m human, so I cannot plausibly tell you that the insults directed at me never find their mark. What you’re “missing” — is that I fully expect to be insulted by the very virtue that I don’t spare the rod either, especially when my blood is up. Which it is a bit at the moment since, once again, you’re twisting my words around which is well, basically lying. And I hate lies.

        As such, I’m not disposed believe your equivalence argument about RealClimate vs. WUWT. And I in fact don’t believe it because I read that blog myself and see dissenting opinion in the comment threads ALL THE TIME. Even if that weren’t true, your argument is moot: blog owners are not compelled to publish all comments, nor do I think they should be.

        You can’t read Gavin, Michael or Stefan’s minds, all you can do is raise your appeal to hypocrisy on very thin circumstantial evidence. When you do, all you do is advertise your own bias all over the place. Which. Is. A. Stupid. Tactic.

        Why would a champion of logical thinking and good science such as yourself publicly engage in such sloppy argumentation and expect to be taken seriously? Wake up!

        ——————

        The fine print: I take full responsibility for once again more or less calling you an idiot and a buffoon. I chose to do it of my own free will, and accept whatever consequences come of it.

      • Brandon says,
         “I’m human, so I cannot plausibly tell you that the insults directed at me never find their mark. What you’re “missing” — is that I fully expect to be insulted by the very virtue that I don’t spare the rod either, especially when my blood is up. Which it is a bit at the moment since, once again, you’re twisting my words around which is well, basically lying. And I hate lies.”
        =========================================================================
        My Response. Twisting your words??? So you never made any posts intimating that WUWT limits debate because WUWT is as inconsistent as twitter, or “realclimate” So this from you…
        . “Anthony says, “Of course, Gavin doesn’t seem to mind abusing Tom”:
        “Baawwwww. Ok, mayyyybee the not-overwhelming evidence of intelligent life on Earth was a tad harsh even by my standards. The ” … no-award winning freelance troll … ” tweet had me in stitches. If that’s abuse, you pretty much need to ban me AND everyone who’s called me a boring, no-talent troll here. I’d be happy to make a list.”
        is saying what?

        Brandon, in the two previous post on this subject you made numerous comments with the same basic message, calling Antony a hypocrite for complaining about something that regularly happens at WUWT. The fact that I pointed out that Anthony allows your childish banter, and you with your oh so stingless barb retorts, is in and of itself evidence against your assertion. The fact that you, since you began to post here, likely have MORE POSTS THAN ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL, refutes your immature assertion.

        See Brandon, you are the one lacking logic, not me. In the above juvenile sarcastic comment to Anthony, you broke rules of logic. Anthony simply said that Gavin was abusive, and nothing about banning him. Your refusal to recognize such comments from Gavin, which you quote, as inane and abusive, and your “.Baawwwww. Ok, mayyyybee…” sarcastic and childish response, is on par with Gavin’s immature comments.

        The truth is that it is very likely that Anthony would let Gavin post at WUWT, if he would agree to answer questions and comments. The truth is that many here and elsewhere have posted edited comments where Gavin removes the scientific meat of the argument. Something I have seen you do to me in a poor attempt to “ twist words”. I have had “Realclimate” posts deleted outright, that linked to nothing but peer reviewed literature, and statements supporting that. Yes, Gavin at times allows the weakest critical posts through just so he can win a point. So Brandon, I am not “ mind reading” but observing facts.

        Your comment to me reiterating, “ blog owners are not compelled to publish all comments”. Is your attempt to twist a point out of nothing, as I never remotely intimated they should. So my point is not as you said “moot”. My point regarding uneven allowance of rational debate at Gavin site stands on its own. Once again your logic fails as both a straw man, and one lacking cogency to unethical behavior that I never asked to be regulated, but was simply highlighting.

        Brandon your poor post finishes with…
        “The fine print: I take full responsibility for once again more or less calling you an idiot and a buffoon. I chose to do it of my own free will, and accept whatever consequences come of it.”
        ———————–
        The only consequences I see are
        … your self parody and chilishness is exposed for any to read.
        … my truthful logical, and direct comments to you , ” found their mark” as you admitted.

    • “Coming in from London from over the pole
      Flying in a big airliner”- Arlo Guthrie: “Coming Into Los Angeles

      in re: Frankie Boyle; Peasant back- talking the elite…

      • Yes, when Branson says, “My fellow B Team leaders and I have called for an ambitious goal of net zero global carbon emissions by 2050 in the face of this grave challenge”; then his wealthy through fossil fuels is indeed, very much fair game for criticism.

  39. Hey Dirk! If Orwell was a socialist (and he was to a degree, for a while), he sure was a lousy salesman.

    It’s like calling Upton Sinclair a hotdog salesman. ;)

    • He described himself as a socialist, but that he didn’t like the nasty direction socialism seemed to take whenever it gained the ascendancy. The absolute control it always demanded be invested in the chosen enlightened few for the benefit of all mankind was the part that seems to have appalled him. At least that was the message I got out of reading his works. Or as my high school literature teacher put it “highlighting the theme of man’s inhumanity to man as an art form.”

  40. Gavin Schmidt is very busy continually pushing his team’s message. There must be a reason why he does not want to discuss the science.

    There are a host of climate ‘science’ issues to discuss, the problem, from Schmidt’s team’s standpoint is it is a fact that observations and analysis do not support their team’s message. Observations and analysis support’s the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar changes, rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar changes. In the past the regions of the planet that warmed when there was high solar activity cooled when solar activity slowed down. It is a fact that the sun is now experiencing a significant anomalous slowdown. There is observational evidence now of high latitude cooling. The warming is reversing. I notice Schmidt does want to discuss the fact observations now support the assertion that there are multiple fundamental errors in the IPCC GCMs. That is the reason why Twitter must shutdown skeptical climate science discussion. The warmists cannot win a scientific debate.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

    Roy Spencer: Ocean surface temperature is not warming in the tropics.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benchmarking-ipccs-warming-predictions/
    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

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

    • Gavin was a little more cautious in this Nat Geo story….

      The Weather Underground called last week’s temperatures a “remarkable heat wave,” although they occurred during the end of the austral summer, when Antarctic temperatures are typically highest.

      The temperature has yet to be certified as an official record for the continent by the World Meteorological Organization.

      “It’s hard to draw much conclusion from a single temperature record”, cautions Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. Last year Antarctica also logged a record cold temperature, he notes.

      What’s more important are the long-term trends, says Schmidt. And when it comes to Antarctica, he points out, the past few years “have actually been quite complex.”

      The world’s ocean has been warming rapidly, absorbing much of the planet’s excess heat. As a result, large glaciers on or around Antarctica that come in contact with the warming water have been melting rapidly. But some other glaciers farther inland on the continent are actually growing.
      “That has not been satisfactorily explained,” says Schmidt. “One record warm temperature doesn’t cut through all that complexity”.

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150331-antarctica-hottest-temperature-climate-change-global-warming-science/

      • Schmidt’s response was disingenuous. Three points he should have noted.

        1) The record was a record for a single day and is 0.4C above the previous record. The record is due to increase wind speed not due to warmer ocean temperatures.

        2) The Antarctic peninsula is outside of the polar vortex and hence measures the temperature of the Southern ocean and is hence affected by wind speed. Similar to Ireland which Schmidt uses to incorrectly support the assertion that the Little Ice Age did not happen. The Antarctic continent has anomalously cooled rather than warmed which Schmidt knows.

        ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

        The reason why the Antarctic continent cools during Dansgaard-Oeschger cyclic warming is the albedo of low level clouds is less than Antarctic ice sheet. The high level warming at both poles is caused by a reduction in low level clouds. This phenomena is erroneously called the Polar see-saw. See this paper for details.

        http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
        The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays

        3) Antarctic sea ice is the highest ever recorded for every month of the year which is only possible if the Southern ocean temperatures are dropping which they are. The physical reason for the Southern ocean cooling is an increase in cloud cover.

  41. Hitting the “report abuse” button is a common dirty trick of Leftists. FabiusMaximus.com does typical “lukewarmer” reporting, although running articles debunking the alarmists and doomsters who go beyond the IPCC and peer-reviewed literature. Hence the frequent accusations of being “deniers” — and the our struggles with the various “clean internet” monitoring services to removing ratings of “unsafe for children” and “posting malicious software”.

    These services tend to have limited interest in responding to false reports, since doing so runs up their costs. After all, false reports don’t harm *their* business. But they respond if you chase them long and hard enough.

    It’s just the way climate alarmists play the game, armored in their own minds with the self-righteousness of saviors of the world.

  42. The primary problem with both Twitter and Facebook is that they seem to rely on individual users clicking a button to flag something as abusive. This process can, itself, be abused by people flagging things they simply disagree with as “abusive” in order to get the person auto-suspended when some software algorithm somewhere has accumulated enough flags. Then to get restored, one must enter a queue for human review and wait for a person to actually review it. It is a system that can be exploited to shut down speech one does not agree with.

  43. Well, we should all remember that the folks who get their news from “The Daily Show” are the ones who get their news updates from Twitter and, unfortunately, some of these folks are old enough to vote.

  44. Interesting update.

    So, after viewing so much direct truncation of messaging, in various forms of communication, how long until nobody hears this type of information?

    Think about it……..

    It’s happening in many forms. Think, IRS, FCC, DOJ, Google Filters, MSM, twitter, and on and on……

  45. It appears as though Gavin is saying that the reason Tom Nelson’s Twitter account was suspended is because he insulted a religious Icon, namely the Hockey Stick. That is all I can get from his messages.

  46. Quoted from RoHa’s post # 23 at JoNova’s

    The all time classic description of “Twitter”

    “Never before, in the field of communication, have so many people of so little importance been able to demonstrate their total idiocy to so many”.

  47. Article

    TEMPERATURE GRADIENT CAUSED BY GRAVITATION

    Chuanpingliao

    International Journal of Modern Physics B (Impact Factor: 0.46). 01/2012; 23(22). DOI: 10.1142/S0217979209052893
    ABSTRACT Thermodynamic deduction and experimental results both demonstrate that gravitation causes temperature gradient in an adiabatic system, i.e., gravithermal effect: The higher altitude the lower temperature.

    Source: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/263879139_TEMPERATURE_GRADIENT_CAUSED_BY_GRAVITATION

    The implications for climate science are that it is not radiation from CO2 and water vapor that is raising the surface temperature, but gravity. The AGW fraud is debunked.

    • gravity causes the adiabatic lapse rate… except when it doesn’t. it only take one repeatable, valid counter obs to destroy a hypothesis.

      • I think you will have a hard time finding anybody (except possibly yourself) who actually doubts that the lapse rate is due to gravity.

    • I’m signing up for an account to read the article . Gravity definitely enters the energy balance of particles at different depths in a gravitational “well” . But for the nonce , I will continue to assume that the difference even a 100km variation around a 6,400km ball makes is small . I don’t think it should be too hard to calculate , but I’ve got other priorities .

      Your last paragraph I don’t understand at all . Surely the Earth’s surface gravity has not changed 0.3% over the last couple of centuries .

  48. It’s pretty clear Tom Nelson violated their policies. Revealing that their work is crap is information they wish be left private.

  49. I for one do not trust the Nazi Youth of Tweeter nor the existence of the Gavin Schmidt.

    Schmidt’y old boy, you just do not even rank with Schrõdinger’s Cat. And Schrõdinger’s Cat was a Joke, i.e. it never existed in the first place!

    Ha ha on you Schmidt’y.

  50. I’m not sure it’s a bad idea if Twitter degenerates into an activist ghetto and echo chamber. If it isn’t that already. I always thought Twitter was a pretty dumb idea to begin with. Not sure why so many people waste their time with it. Intellectual discussion reduced to sound bites perfectly exemplifies everything that is wrong with modern intellectual discourse.

    • Yes, imagine what an ET would deduce to be the average state of human intelligence and emotional sophistication if he/she/it first learned of our planet’s existence through exposure to Gavin Schmidt’s twittering…

      • I think that we have already been contacted and told to stay put/not allowed out there where we might cause a whole heap of trouble.

      • On further reflection perhaps Gavin is an ET – judging by his unusually pointy-shaped head as featured on his Twatter photograph.

  51. IMO no serious scientist would attempt to use a 140 character message to get important information across, unless to broadcast propaganda to the unwashed headline-grabbers.

    Don’t follow them down into this simpleton’s maze. They’re protected from any serious debate.

  52. Twitter is a corporate entity, First Amendment rights do not apply. If they fail to act as a neutral medium, the only remedy available is to drive them out of business fast.

    As an analogy, consider this statement:

    The Government reserves the right to immediately suspend your freedoms without further notice in the event that, in its judgment, you violate these Rules

    No matter what those Rules are supposed to be, the lack of Due Process is enough in itself to constitute Tyranny.

    It ‘s abusive to the extent it would not go unnoticed even in the UK, a country with no written Constitution whatsoever.

    In cases like this citizens have a grave obligation to revolt.

    On the marketplace, the splendid playing ground of Twitter, it means to drive them out of business with all conceivable devices at our command.

  53. Our time in history is surreal. The planet is about to abruptly cool and we have a bunch of idiots that are still pushing CAGW on every media outlet that they can manipulate. At what point in time will observations cause the general public, the media, and some of the cult scientists to have their eureka moment and change ‘sides’. A cult scientist continues to believe in a incorrect theory for whatever reason(s) when observations have disproved the theory in question.

    Men and women go mad in groups, turn off their minds from considering observations and logic that disproves their paradigm. They normally return to sanity over a long period of time one by one however in your face global cooling should hurry the process on.

    Cold snaps (William: What we are observing is different than a cold ‘snap’. Record cold monthly temperatures, record snowfall amounts, the start of significant, disruptive ocean effect snow on the US and Canadian east coast) like the ones that hit the eastern United States in the past winters are not a consequence of climate change. Scientists at ETH Zurich and the California Institute of Technology have shown that global warming actually tends to reduce temperature variability.

    Duh how is it possible for the planet to cool if CO2 is currently ‘warming’ the planet? It is possible for the planet to cool, as there are multiple fundamental errors/misunderstandings in the CO2 modeling/theory.

    Schmidt spends his time looking at his team’s incorrect theoretical models and pushing CAWG which explains why he and the cult of CAGW can completely ignore the logical implications of a step change in sea ice in the Antarctic starting in 2012 for all months of the year and the sudden cooling and increase in snowfall on the Greenland Ice sheet starting in 2013. (P.S. The sudden onset of Arctic cooling is not due to a reduction in the North Atlantic drift current. The North Atlantic drift current has increased due to the increase in wind speed in the Atlantic. Non stop flights must now stop for fuel when flying east to west due to the higher west to east wind speed.) I would assume the CAWG/lukewarm warmists assume the observed planetary cooling and sudden increase in the jet stream velocity is just weather and assume it is not a trend. Odd that they do not look at the paleo record.

    The sun has abruptly ‘slowed down’ (actually changed to a new once in 8000 to 10,000 year state), the planet has started a Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling cyclic (also called a D-O cycle in the paleo climate literature). There is a mechanism that is temporarily slowing down wind speed in the Southern Pacific Ocean. That mechanism is starting to abate which explains the slowly increasing blue regions in this diagram.

    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by Solank et al.
    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-13/surging-jet-stream-winds-hinder-u-s-bound-flights-from-europe

    Surging Jet-Stream Winds Hinder U.S.-Bound Flights From Europe
    Stronger westerly headwinds for U.S.-bound flights are stretching out travel times, forcing some planes to stop for refueling. Trips such as London to New York, a busy business route, are running almost eight hours — 45 minutes longer than voyages in September.

    Two Philadelphia-bound American Airlines flights, one from Brussels and the other from Amsterdam, had to touch down on Jan. 11 to refuel in Bangor, Maine, said Scott Ramsay, the carrier’s managing director of its integrated operations center. The journey from Brussels took 9 hours and 16 minutes, about an hour more than three months earlier, according to industry data tracker FlightAware.

    Higher Costs
    Flights across the Atlantic to eastern U.S. cities in December 2013 averaged 19 minutes later than a year earlier, according to industry data tracker MasFlight.com. Travel times in December 2014 were similar to those in 2013, MasFlight’s data from more than 1,300 flights a year showed.

    With the threat of increasingly strong headwinds every winter, airlines face higher costs on those westbound flights with the use of extra fuel and the crew’s time. “When you were planning to fly non-stop, stopping for fuel costs money,” said George Hamlin, president of Hamlin Transportation Consulting, who has more than 40 years of experience in commercial aviation and aerospace.

    • Would stronger westerly winds in the N Atlantic increase the strength of the North Atlantic Drift , bringing milder winters, which some claim to be the case, to the British Isles?
      However any change in the strength of the windspeed will be attributed by the pro-AGW community as an example, indeed, proof, of “climate change” and , by definition , of global warming.

      • No. An increased in wind speed in general cools the planet.

        Increased wind speed over the ocean results in increased evaporation which results in cooling as more latent heat is transported higher in the atmosphere where there are less greenhouse molecules per unit volume. The greenhouse effect is directly dependent on the number of molecules of each type per unit volume. The number of molecules per unit volume of course is directly related to atmospheric pressure and hence reduces exponentially with altitude.

        Global warming is not the explanation for the sudden increase in wind speeds as planetary temperature has not as of yet changed significantly. A change/new forcing agent is required to explain the sudden increase in wind speed. The change/force agent is the sun. Support for that assertion is the fact that there has been a sudden and significant ‘slowdown’ of the sun and the fact that evidence of the increased wind speed and cooling in the paleo record when there is a slowdown of the sun.

        There is a hundred fold dust deposited on the Greenland ice sheet during the coldest abrupt climate events, the Heinrich events. The Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cooling events are less severe than a Heinrich event, there is roughly a 10 times increase in dust deposited on the Greenland ice sheet during the D-O cooling event. The dust comes from Mongolia. The increase in dust deposited on the Greenland ice sheet is due to an increase in wind speed. What we are currently observing happened before. We know the past increases in wind speed were not due to CO2. We also know the past cooling events in the paleo record were all followed by warming events which were not due to CO2.

        There is no evidence that increased CO2 causes an increase in wind speed. In fact the theoretical IPCC models predict a reduction in wind speed when the planet warms which if it did occur would amplify the CO2 forcing due to less ocean evaporation. The IPCC models used every thing theoretically possible to increase warming in the model.

        The planet will also cool as the current solar change that is causing an increase in wind speed is also causing an increase in low level cloud cover, a reduction in cirrus clouds (The high altitude wispy cirrus clouds warm due to the greenhouse affect particularly at night and in high latitude regions. The reduction in cirrus clouds is the reason for record cold temperatures in high latitude regions. The cirrus effect is greater in the Arctic as there is more water vapor at high altitudes. Over the Antarctic the air is so cold there is very little water vapor so the there is almost no cirrus cloud affect.

  54. “… It is possible for the planet to cool, as there are multiple fundamental errors/misunderstandings in the CO2 modeling/theory.”

    I agree with that 110 percent as the football coaches love to say. To use the word of the day, the “CO2 warms the planet 32 degrees” meme is a load of crap.

  55. As someone once described to me… “Twitter is the new hang out for the village idiot”

    • Before social media, the village idiot’s reach was confined mostly to his or her village.

      Now the village idiots have a network with a global reach enabling them to reinforce and collectively resonate in their inanities.

  56. Twitter may have been the last coal mine but the entire flock of canaries is stacked up in front of the hate crime, hate speech, offensive speech, discriminatory speech, et al, up to and including the latest round of kill the pizza folks for merely “thinking” about not catering a wedding.

    Curtailing free speech is like opening Hesoid’s Pandora’s Box. Once it’s opened (curtailing speech then curtailing thought) you’re not going to get freedom back (those pesky Amendments).

    I believe each letter of the alphabet has been converted to “the word”. The only canary associated with this episode is that we obviously need some rules regarding how the banned “C-word”s (as in plural) are distinguished. Is a small “c” the one that refers to a body part? Does a capital “C” refer to skin tone? Does an italic “c” refer to a middle aged woman?

    When you finish the C’s, move on to the rest of the letters. Some advice, I would pretend letter “N” doesn’t exist.

    Oh, and stack the “C” canary out with the others. You may need to take along a ladder.

  57. It seems to me that somebody took ‘offense’ at Tom’s tweet and reported it. Twitter then demanded that the ‘offending’ tweet be removed, which Tom did, but then posted a screenshot of the ‘delete tweet’ message from Twitter, so then Twitter took offense at Tom defying their unfair and unreasonable diktat, so suspended him in revenge!
    I’ve also posted a screenshot of the ‘delete tweet’ in questioning Twitter Support why they’ve suspended Tom, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Twitter suspend my account too.

  58. what I noted was the complete avoidance of reply to
    did you report or someone you know?
    and then the threat of dissing by mute or blocking

    a-n-thony asked a Q too close to home I guess?
    dont see why any one twits of fakebooks really
    mass mediated sheeple following thing
    privacy invasion as freebie – gross.

  59. Nelson typically devastates the climate scientists and leftist global warming believers on twitter. I’m not surprised that he’s been suspended.

    Ya’d think with billions and billions of dollars spent on government climate science (for promoting left-wing polices), that anybody with access to a newspaper or goggle and in particular, the scientists themselves, could easily demolish Nelson’s points and great questions. Instead, they do what Gavin Schmidt did on Fox news with Roy Spencer: they run away like cowards. Except on twitter, they block and/or report.

  60. The climate debate really can get a bit overheated at times and having a ‘report abuse’ button on twitter that is open to abuse itself has been an issue for twitter for along time, I don’t buy into the idea that twitter is censoring any of it’s users, it’s simply a case of AGW activists abusing this feature, and I wouldn’t think Gavin would have reported Tom for abuse, as I see both of them exchange thoughts all the time. AGW activists are more inclined to organise a mini ‘report abuse’ campaign against AGW skeptics than skeptics are, for the simple reason that they are activists!

  61. Has anybody else noticed that over the last couple of days the climate reporting on Yahoo seems to now be funneled through “Progressive Climate” so that ‘comments’ instead of being part of Yahoo News are required to be registered over at “progressive”. I find it interesting since the comments on Yahoo climate news items in the past generally been a great location to see that skeptics generally outnumber alarmists and generally state their case with greater civility as compared to alarmists. Professional Alarmist trolls are easily identified by clicking on their address and seeing the thousands of messages they have posted. The new set up looks to me like its designed to filter the discussion through the “progressive site” and not show all that healthy and surprisingly competent skepticism in public.

  62. dbstealey
    April 3, 2015 at 3:29 am

    joelobryan,

    “Unfortunately, the left has made serious inroads. I firmly believe it is part of an organized, long term plan put into effect by the old Soviets. After the Wall came down, they saw that they could not defeat the US militarily, so they ramped up their attacks on the US media complex and other ‘organs’ of the state. There was plenty of solid evidence showing their plans, which came to light in the Venona papers and other documents that were circulated following the fall of the Berlin Wall. None of this is any secret.”

    I’ve remarked on the bad part of the Iron Curtain falling down before with no interest from readers in that view. Universities, scientific societies, education bureaucracies, the UN bureaucracies and leaderships, NGOs, etc. were infiltrated by ideologues who saw the existence of ready made effective structures from which they could work their magic from within. In comments a few years ago on a thread about unveiled threats from Greenpeace- We be many, you be few we know where you work, we know where you live. And don’t doubt for a minute that a list is being put together. At the time, one commenter said that one of the directors or board members of GPeace was a former Stasi officer!!! I never got a link or heard it again but it sent some goose bumps up my back. Don’t forget that there were a large number of those in academia, the bureaucracy, etc. whose skills and training didn’t suit for a job in an open society. Where does a Marxist economics professor get a job? KGB, Stasi officers, etc. etc. The brightest of the lot found places in the West rather easily, especially in Europe where there is a soft landing for them. Hey, Cambridge University was essentially a Soviet spy training institution.

    Regarding a way to come back? Yeah, it won’t be easy. There has to be a major failure of governments and economies to get a tide going the other way. On an individual basis, parents have to take more control of their children’s education to resist the entrenched Marxism in the schools. When one says they have drunk the Kool Aid, this is what it means to me. A vast majority of people that don’t know they’ve got it wrong.

    • I agree with what you and dbstealey are saying. I differ in believing that it goes back before when the Iron Curtain fell. Check out Antonio Gramsci, Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, the Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism. I think they’ve been at it for a long time and their “underground” strategy is paying off.

Comments are closed.