@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

 

 

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

276 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Espen
April 2, 2015 3:19 pm

I’m disappointed that Gavin has started to act like a Mann 🙁

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Espen
April 2, 2015 3:57 pm

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.

elftone
April 2, 2015 3:19 pm

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.

Jim Roth
April 2, 2015 3:21 pm

Twitter is crap
Sent from my iPhone
>

Bill Illis
April 2, 2015 3:34 pm

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.

RACookPE1978
Editor
April 2, 2015 3:37 pm

[trimmed. Again. .mod]

zemlik
April 2, 2015 3:38 pm

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 ?

zemlik
Reply to  zemlik
April 2, 2015 3:51 pm

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.

charles nelson
April 2, 2015 3:39 pm

Gavin doesn’t sound quite right in the head.

Reply to  charles nelson
April 2, 2015 8:11 pm

welcometo polarized American society courtesy of Leftwing extremism in government.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 3, 2015 3:29 am

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?

Scott
April 2, 2015 3:50 pm

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….

Steve Garcia
April 2, 2015 3:53 pm

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!

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Steve Garcia
April 2, 2015 3:55 pm

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.

Reply to  Steve Garcia
April 3, 2015 1:18 am

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.

Brandon Gates
April 2, 2015 4:15 pm

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.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Brandon Gates
April 2, 2015 5:10 pm

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?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Reg Nelson
April 2, 2015 7:35 pm

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”.

Reply to  Brandon Gates
April 2, 2015 7:17 pm

I never said “no talent” but I have found you dishonest having observed some outright lies by you at Slandering Sou’s.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  jim Steele
April 2, 2015 7:40 pm

I’ve never seen you call me a troll either. Two outta three ain’t bad.

David A
Reply to  jim Steele
April 4, 2015 4:45 am

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.

David A
Reply to  Brandon Gates
April 3, 2015 4:23 am

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.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  David A
April 3, 2015 3:24 pm

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.

David A
Reply to  David A
April 4, 2015 3:36 pm

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.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  David A
April 5, 2015 1:38 am

David A,

Twisting your words???

Yes. Is English not your first language?

Steve from Rockwood
April 2, 2015 4:46 pm
Brandon Gates
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
April 2, 2015 4:49 pm

“You own an airline you mad c**t”.
Epic.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
April 2, 2015 5:43 pm

“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…

David A
Reply to  Alan Robertson
April 3, 2015 4:37 am

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.

michael hart
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
April 2, 2015 6:07 pm

That’s made my day.
And +1 to Huffpo for reporting it.

garymount
April 2, 2015 4:47 pm

Jeff Sand left his job at Twitter. He is now back working at Microsoft :
http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Jeffsand-left-his-job-at-Twitter/f27dae4f64f74523a018a46e0017d763
Maybe someone can ask him some questions.

AJB
Reply to  garymount
April 2, 2015 6:42 pm
gator69
April 2, 2015 4:50 pm

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. 😉

Owen in GA
Reply to  gator69
April 2, 2015 6:20 pm

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.”

April 2, 2015 4:51 pm

Just block Gavin and Mann and all of the Gravy Train riders. Who cares what hey have to say about anything anyway?

William Astley
April 2, 2015 4:56 pm

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.
http://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/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
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
http://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

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

Reply to  William Astley
April 2, 2015 7:51 pm

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/

William Astley
Reply to  markx
April 2, 2015 8:12 pm

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.

TomRude
April 2, 2015 5:00 pm

Twitter = crap anyway…

April 2, 2015 5:06 pm

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.

April 2, 2015 5:50 pm

Silly Gavin, Twits are for kids.

Andrew Richards
Reply to  Typhoon
April 2, 2015 10:54 pm

everyone’s a kid @Gavin’sWorld

mountainape5
April 2, 2015 6:09 pm

I suggest you stop using Twitter, waste of time…

BruceC
April 2, 2015 6:11 pm

Would a gathering of Twits be called a Twerp?

crosspatch
April 2, 2015 6:25 pm

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.

April 2, 2015 6:40 pm

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.

ossqss
April 2, 2015 6:44 pm

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……
http://support.radioshack.com/support_tutorials/communications/Images/pro79a_3b.gif

BFL
Reply to  ossqss
April 2, 2015 10:33 pm

Regenerative receiver squeal…………

Scott Scarborough
April 2, 2015 7:01 pm

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.

Andrew
April 2, 2015 7:06 pm

Perhaps Twitter should look up the sort of stuff said about Tony A666ott some time.