More wordpress.com troubles for WUWT: post thread closure comments

I’ve previously discussed how some of the recent changes to wordpress code on wordpress.com where we are hosted have cause a bunch of trouble for me, including image cache problems, inverted moderation issues with banned word lists, disappearing comments etc.  Yesterday, I was alerted to a new problem by WUWT reader “Saul from Montreal” in the thread about NSIDC using provisional sea-ice data from the DMSP F18 satellite.

Because we have almost 15,000 stories here now on WUWT, we don’t leave threads open for commenting past 15 days. Otherwise, we’ll be trying to moderate comments on threads that are years old. Here’s the setting we have (screencap of WUWT dashboard):

WUWT-comment-settings

For years, this hasn’t been any sort of issue…that is until wordpress made their most recent change which causes so much trouble. It turns out (now, with the new code) that if comments get flagged for moderation, they end up in the trash, and we have to fish them out. When we fish them out, they will then appear on the thread, even after the thread is closed. This happened yesterday. The 15 days were up about 9AM on June 1st, and moderator Dave Stealey “dbstealey” fished them out around 11AM after the thread had been automatically closed. I also fished some out that morning after the thread had been automatically closed. However, if you were monitoring the RSS feed, you’d see new comments appear on that thread which were already closed…and that’s a no-no. Saul was right to point this out to me.

Worse, moderator Dave Stealey “dbstealey” wasn’t aware the thread was closed, and started replying to some of them made by “Saul from Montreal”. Now, you’d think that if the wordpress system had closed comments like we set it to, we’d get a message saying “comments cannot be accepted, the thread is closed” whether you were a regular commenter, moderator, or the blog owner. Surprise, moderators/owners don’t get that message, as this test message below proves when I succusfully made a comment reply from within the wordpress dashboard over 24 hours after the thread closed:

test-reply-post-closure

So this is an unacceptable situation. We can’t have comments being made after the thread automatically closes, it’s unfair, and gives an impression to people that don’t know what is going on with the mechanics of the system that we might be up to something scurrilous (well, there are some fringe elements that think that anyway no matter what we say or do or how transparent we are. Kisses Miriam O’Brien)  like closing comments manually and then allowing a moderator to run roughshod over commenters that couldn’t reply. That of course didn’t happen, and I hope what I’ve done above shows clearly that was not the case.

So to rectify the issue, I went back and [snipped] any comments that appeared after the thread closed, except the test comment I made for the purpose of this post:

post-closure-snips

All of this has made me take a long hard look at the comment system, moderation system, and the process. I think I have a way forward that will solve most of these issues, but not all. I’ll run some tests and advise in a future post in a few days. If I’m successful, it may eliminate the need for moderation/moderators altogether.

Meanwhile, since this was a breach of my comment and moderator policy (even if accidental), we have to hold our own people accountable lest we become the post facto edited world of “Skeptical Science”,, I’ve taken “dbstealey” off moderation duties. He deserves a break after perusing millions of comments. He’s still as able as any of you to post comments but he won’t be moderating anymore.

For everyone else, please, in the meantime, TONE IT DOWN. I realize this is an emotionally charged election year, but recently a lot of commenters have just gotten over the top. A review of our WUWT comment policy is in order for everyone. Remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right.

Thanks to everyone as always for reading WUWT.

Added: Saul reminds me that during that thread, ‘dbstealy’ made some what I consider to be “over the top” comments about James Randi. While those weren’t my words, I’ll say that they weren’t merited and offer my apology that they ended up on the thread in the first place. Again my admonishment to everyone, “tone it down” please.

 

Advertisements

179 thoughts on “More wordpress.com troubles for WUWT: post thread closure comments

  1. The first law of holes states that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging

      • I suspect he is pointing out the obvious, that dbstealey was not removed as a moderator because he inadvertently posted comments on threads after they were closed. Even if it were believable that would be a reason for a moderator to be removed, everyone who has looked at even a fraction of what dbstealey has been posting/doing on here would know it pales in comparison to his other offenses
        But I could be wrong. There’s a reason I think people should just state their points rather than making vague remarks that sort-of-maybe convey some point.

      • I suspect he is pointing out the obvious, that dbstealey was not removed as a moderator because he inadvertently posted comments on threads after they were closed. Even if it were believable that would be a reason for a moderator to be removed, everyone who has looked at even a fraction of what dbstealey has been posting/doing on here would know it pales in comparison to his other offenses
        But I could be wrong. There’s a reason I think people should just state their points rather than making vague remarks that sort-of-maybe convey some point.

      • Saul says stop digging, then says keep digging. Then won’t elucidate. But Brandon, you can figure it out. Has Stealey taken out some remark of yours, Brandon, under either name? Or yours, Saul? What exactly are you accusing our host of doing, removing Stealey for some other unstated reason and misleading us? The stated reason seems reason enough, and Stealey’s perceived “offenses”, namely speaking his mind bluntly (but on topic and presenting salient points) hardly seem reason for removal. Saul and Brandon, take a deep breath. I’ve read enough of both of your posts to say with certainty that you’ve been treated fairly by the host and, far as I can tell, no moderator has snipped you. Once more, what exactly are you complaining about?

      • Brandon Scollenberger says:
        …dbstealey was not removed as a moderator because he inadvertently posted comments on threads after they were closed. Even if it were believable…
        So Anthony is fabricating reasons? Why would he damage his credibility like that?
        Your animosity carries over from other threads. There are several more examples like that one.
        I pointed out at the bottom of this thread that you’re carrying a personal grudge. Go read it, it only takes a minute. And you’re still making the same false assumptions without any evidence, other than “I suspect.”
        After your atttempted character assassination, you add a smokescreen/disclaimer:
        “But I could be wrong.”
        Wrong as ever, Brandon.

      • “The cover up is often worse than the scandal”
        Why can’t you tell us more?

    • @Saul from Montreal
      Nobody here has any idea what you are trying to say.
      Are you willing to explain the issue? (And why do you even bother typing messages if you aren’t willing to explain the issue?)

    • I hope you are only on a rest break Saul and not a permanent joining of the rest of us. 🙂

  2. Remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right.

    I think we’ve all been to sites that were poorly moderated or not moderated at all. They’re mostly useless.

    • The only place where I’ve not seen this to be true is my own Facebook feed. I don’t (well, almost never) have to moderate comments there, but then that’s only because nearly all my posts are limited to ‘friends of friends’ and that pool of people seems to be pretty self regulatory. And that is because I only friend people on Facebook that I have met IRL. Okay, maybe I do moderate, but being careful about who my audience is.

  3. This is a testament to the [high] level of professionalism driven by the owner of this site! I also will miss DB’s presence as one of the mods.

    • Dave Stealey and I are as far apart politically as one can get, without being honour-bound to resort to violence.
      Yet I respect his intentions. I believe he means to make the world a better place.
      And he’s clearly no fool.
      Wrong as he may be about the inherent wickedness of collective responsibility.
      A break from moderation will be good for him; back in the trenches will restore his youthful zest.
      And that’s a good thing.
      Keep it up dbstealey!
      You are fighting for the good fight. And hitting the target often.

      • I would greatly fear someone approaching me, at gun point, saying, “I need to take [some of] your money to protect you.”
        I fear a government that uses the IRS and the full might of an armed force intent (and succesful) on taking [some of] my life’s assets, behind the vale of doing so for best of intentions. That said, I most respectfully agree with the flavor and tone of DB’s sentiments.

    • Substitute “integrity” for “professionalism” and I agree wholeheartedly. (Many ” professionals” have no integrity.)
      If I understand it right, DB hasn’t been banned from commenting. Just relieved of “mod” duties with their controls of what shows up. (for now?)
      We may see even more comments from Smokey.

      • Agreed Gunga Din. Thank you for fixing for me. Are you trying out for a Mod position?

    • Based on the preponderance of the evidence that is a conclusion a true skeptic could make

      • No there was no intent here, I wasn’t even aware that you could post comments from the WP control panel after the thread was closed. dbstealey didn’t either, and I don’t any of our present or past moderators did or do know this. As far as I’m concerned, its’s a bug/weakness in the WP system, and I’m going to send in a trouble ticket on the whole mess.

      • My fellow Paul: I’m sure your remark was directed at Saul, and you’re right, he’s taking one line pot shots instead of elucidating as Anthony politely asked. But don’t send him away just when he’s showing his true colors, or better said by Mark Twain, he’s opening his mouth and proving it.

  4. I could say more than a few things about Randi myself. Hope DB’s vacation was desired and is temporary. Please, no punishments for a good faith accident.

  5. Thank you for your transparency.
    Transparency is part of respect of others, and respect of others is part of the scientific approach. Scientists should always be transparent not just about experimental setups, models, statistical methods, but also about the revision process, corrections, and changes made because of comments from peers.

  6. I think its important to note and acknowledge that moderators are also members. Members who should be entitled to express their opinions – as long as they are within the sites policies. It is a conundrum – as moderators there is an expectation they must meet a higher standard – which is really unfair in the end.
    Moderators are almost always volunteers – who spend large amounts of time on a thankless task. And then are in a way penalized, with higher standards of conduct as well.
    And yet they continue their work for the greater good.
    Which as MCourtney notes … we should all respect and acknowledge.
    Thanks for your efforts Dave Stealey

  7. I think I may have noticed a few comments recently that were ‘orphaned’, but I think I’ve also seen it at other blogs. I don’t know if they were also WordPress.
    Anthony, I certainly appreciate your attention to seemingly trivial details of the truth. As the saying goes, “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.” Attention to truth that is better than other blogs that cannot be named. Blogs like that don’t even care about being published liars.You still have the high ground as far as I am concerned.

  8. To me, inadvertent posting of comments after a posting is closed is a small thing, but at the same time not so small.
    “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.”
    By coming forward and being open (about a small (?) thing), Anthony demonstrates the highest levels of integrity.
    In short, ‘In Anthony we trust.’
    Thank you for your tireless efforts.

  9. “Thanks to everyone as always for reading WUWT.”
    And, special thanks to you for providing WUWT to be read!

  10. Point taken i.e., “TONE IT DOWN”.
    As a guest I always tone it down, never even had to be told.
    Old school ?

  11. I have learned a tremendous amount of basic knowledge perusing the comments. I also am impressed with the group of commenters (97% anyway!), their knowledge, their ideas and their communication skills.
    But I’m most impressed with Anthony Watts and what he has built here. I’m really not sure where we would be without WUWT getting the actual facts out about the climate scam. He has created a first class site complete with first class contributors.
    Thanks Anthony and the others out there. I’m sure whatever you come up with will be 100% satisfactory. We all know you are hostage to the platform and sooner or later, it will all work out.

  12. ***.***.***.***.***.***.***.***.***.***.***.***.
    D. B. Stealey, WUWT’s #1 Troll Slayer

    Smokey {a.k.a. D. B. Stealey}: “Richard Sanders (04:38:19) : “I take it you are agreeing that there is almost no published science that contradicts the concensus [sic] position.”
    Sanders, you are embarrassingly wrong. This isn’t the realclimate echo chamber, where you can throw out a provably wrong statement like that without danger of it being refuted. Sorry to expose your appalling ignorance on this subject, but you can begin rectifying that deficiency by reading the following papers. When you’re finished, I have lots more:
    Peer-Reviewed papers falsifying AGW:

    {And BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! Smokey fired off 55 right-on-target rounds (i.e., links).}
    (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/11/key-west-fl-sets-new-subzero-record-low-temperature/#comment-157726 )
    *******************************************************
    {And below is an early appearance of that vile troll, “Gates” (this time, “R. Gates”). And good old D. B. is STILL whacking that snake in 2016, six years later… }

    Smokey: Gates, you’re listening to people who have been caught serially lying about almost everything, and who make up entire temperature data sets in order to keep the grant money flowing… and you still believe them?? Being credulous is cute — in a young girl. But some time you’ve gotta start thinking for yourself. Otherwise, you’re just a tool.

    (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/04/nsidc-confirms-wuwt-ice-forecast/#comment-335929 )
    **********************************************************

    Smokey: Barry, Michael Mann tried to erase the MWP, despite reams of evidence that it existed on a global scale. This has been rehashed here so often that anyone still flogging that dead horse is just being an enabler for a known scientific charlatan. You’re not fooling anyone, and you just look desperate. People here know about Mann. Run along and peddle your nonsense on realclimate, they’ll give it a better reception. WUWT [and CA] readers know that MBH98 through Mann ’08 have been totally debunked …

    (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/01/greenland-and-agw/#comment-672940 )
    **********************************************

    dbstealey: “sergei MK, So, if you shoot yourself in the foot, it makes sense to shoot yourself in your other foot? Just because birds fly into windows is no excuse for windmills. And we’re not talking sparrows here. Windmills kill thousands of raptors.

    (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/28/imagine-the-outrage-from-environmentalists-if-it-had-been-an-oil-derrick/#comment-1349423 )
    ***********************************************
    ***********************************************
    ***********************************************
    And true-hearted patriot…

    Smokey: …The Stars & Stripes fly every day of the year at Mr & Mrs Smokeys’ compound!

    (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/31/americans-fly-your-flag/#comment-400929 )
    ***.***.***.***.***.***.***.***.***.***.***.***.
    WE ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR YOU (and ALL of you longsuffering, truth-loving, loyal, moderators)!!!
    You go, Dave Stealey!
    Gratefully,
    Janice
    #(:))

  13. Hey, D.B.. Lol, I’m in moderation, trying to compliment you re: your moderation. Well, too many links, no doubt. In case that post gets lost forever,
    THANK YOU, D. B., Troll Slayer Extraordinaire!
    Gratefully,
    Janice
    ***.***.***.

  14. . . . All of this has made me take a long hard look at the comment system, moderation system, and the process. I think I have a way forward that will solve most of these issues, but not all. I’ll run some tests and advise in a future post in a few days. If I’m successful, it may eliminate the need for moderation/moderators altogether.

    I have often cited WUWT as an example of the best-run site for keeping comments civil, (mostly) on point, and eminently worth reading. The reason, I have always assumed, was intelligent, transparent, and ethical moderation. By ‘ethical’ I mean no attempt to censor contrary opinions, nor to skew the conversation one way or another.
    So I am concerned about how one could maintain this very high level of discourse and yet “eliminate the need for moderation/moderators altogether.” I can’t imagine how it could be done, short of eliminating comments, but maybe that’s a failure of imagination on my part. I await, apprehensively.
    /Mr Lynn

    • The “alt” newsgroups were unmoderated. On one hand, these newsgroups were cesspools of vile commentary and unsolicited commercial advertising. But on the other hand, you could have a discussion on a controversial topic with no mechanism for being banned or any comment erased. It was my favorite but occasionally I would retreat into the safer, pre-digested realm of the moderated newsgroups.
      Moderation allows even routinely uncivil persons to occasionally say something intelligent and civil but it is a lot of work. It also helps avoid embarassment for persons that are usually civil but in a moment of outrage write something they wish they had not. Automoderation is good to catch such things.
      Echo chambers are common; indeed I consider them normal. That kind does not care to have a large number of readers intelligently arguing things, or indeed, a large number of readers. Advocacy websites fall into this class. Banning is swift. In the earlier days of websites, commenting simply didn’t exist. You wrote your thoughts on your web page and I wrote my thoughts on my web page while arguments took place on alt.anything.goes.
      WUWT will occasionally entertain contrary points of view (Monday Mirthiness for instance) and is reasonably tolerant of on-topic CAGW points of view. If it were not so, what would we have to talk about?
      Troublemakers are common and not generally sincere seekers of truth. They are easily spotted and quickly banished, but it is not easy to keep out the sock puppets. On the other hand, a few honorary provocateurs can help keep things lively and if not enough exist perhaps they can be invited.

  15. LOL!!!
    THIRD attempt, with a spelling alteration (eye roll).
    THANK YOU, D. B. STEALEY, Troll Sl@yer Extraordinaire!
    Gratefully,
    Janice
    ***.***.***.***.***.***.***.***.***.

      • Oh, Ron, thank you, so much for saying so. Thanks for taking the time… Yes, indeed, he certainly deserves to be honored. Like Marcus, I am trying hard not to be a WUWT pain in the neck … by writing a lot less frequently. (and I’m getting too long, here, I know, I know) I sure do miss … some of the people, here. Hope all is well in “Winged Hearts” land, Janice

    • Thanks for posting all that on dbs. I always enjoyed his inputs and troll control. I’m sure others will miss him as well.

  16. Now, you’d think that if the wordpress system had closed comments like we set it to, we’d get a message saying “comments cannot be accepted, the thread is closed” whether you were a regular commenter, moderator, or the blog owner.

    The ability to give different users different privileges by assigning them to different groups or roles is standard fare with all database applications. This is the reason I always use two accounts, one for my regular work and one for my sysadmin duties. In addition I often use dummy users to test privileges for different roles or groups as the limitations/privileges are not always obvious.
    As you have now discovered closing comments doesn’t remove posting privileges from editors or administrators. Although not obvious I don’t find it surprising, especially for an administrator.

    • Yes, leaving comments open for editors & administrators isn’t a bug, it’s a feature, intended to permit answering pending questions previously posted. I’ve struggled with WP enough that I’m also not surprised. I’m anxious to know what the solution is.
      Comments on Bishop Hill and JoNova are also very civilized, though I’m not sure how much effort that costs.

      • Yes, leaving comments open for editors & administrators isn’t a bug, it’s a feature, intended to permit answering pending questions previously posted.

        I agree, it is feature although a warning that the moderator is posting to a closed thread wouldn’t be a bad idea.The feature that is missing, but is available through the User Role Editor WordPress plugin (ad fee version cost $$$), is the ability to edit the roles permissions. IMHO, ability to edit roles should be native to the application. It is also my opinion that the moderators should have a separate accounts, one for moderation and one for posting comments.

  17. Hi Anthony, I feel for you with your struggle to maintain standards in the face of badly thought-out wordpress changes. But Dave Stealey has been a magnificent moderator. He was the person who sorted out my woes when a nasty piece of work forged my name on a series of warmist hate attacks on my skeptic friends. It seems a bit harsh to punish him for a mistake that he could not have imagined possible. Who, after all, would think wordpress would be so incompetent?
    Anyway, WUWT is still the best, and all kudos to Dave, in my opinion.

    • Ron, I think if you read some of the other replies, that D.B. Stealy was being relieved of moderator duties not because of the mistaken post-thread closure comments, but because of the tone of other comments he has been making recently. The structure of Anthony’s post makes it hard to see that this is the case, though if you reread it carefully, I think that is what he is saying.

      • Mike MacKenzie said-
        “Ron, I think if you read some of the other replies, that D.B. Stealy was being relieved of moderator duties not because of the mistaken post-thread closure comments, but because of the tone of other comments he has been making recently. The structure of Anthony’s post makes it hard to see that this is the case, though if you reread it carefully, I think that is what he is saying.”
        Let’s examine your comment from a logical standpoint. If dbstealey “was being relieved of moderator duties not because of the mistaken post-thread closure comments, but because of the tone of other comments he has been making recently”, and Anthony is the man of integrity, honesty and transparency that we all believe that he is, then Anthony should/could have SAID exactly that. No one should have to read or reread his OP “carefully” or make assumptions about what they “think he is saying”. Right? Honest, transparent, people of integrity have no need or desire to attempt to cover up their “real” motives, EVER. If they don’t want to declare them openly and publicly, they say nothing at all. They do not obfuscate or hem and haw or attempt to placate others.
        SO-if Anthony is using the post-thread closure event to publicly relieve dbstealey of moderation duties, when in fact he has wanted to relieve him of moderation duties for other reasons for a while, then Anthony has problems with leadership, ownership and personal confrontations as well as honesty, integrity and transparency. Anthony’s exact words were-
        “Meanwhile, since this was a breach of my comment and moderator policy (even if accidental), we have to hold our own people accountable lest we become the post facto edited world of “Skeptical Science”, I’ve taken “dbstealey” off moderation duties. He deserves a break after perusing millions of comments. He’s still as able as any of you to post comments but he won’t be moderating anymore.”
        (There is a massive difference between public comments being posted online at SS, being screen capped or Way Backed, and then removed and/or edited later by someone with the authority/ability to do that internally-and dbstealey posting responses to the earlier comments of another person. Readers here are smart enough to catch on to that whole time stamp after the fact thing if it occurred more than once. I feel insulted on his behalf as well as my own that a comparison to SS was even brought into this conversation. That feels rather “over the top”and unmerited to me. It will be interesting to see consistent behavior results in there being an apology that it ended up in the thread in the first place?)
        And in the update it says-
        “Added: Saul reminds me that during that thread, ‘dbstealy’ made some what I consider to be “over the top” comments about James Randi. While those weren’t my words, I’ll say that they weren’t merited and offer my apology that they ended up on the thread in the first place. Again my admonishment to everyone, “tone it down” please.”
        Using your logic, if dbstealey had been annoying Anthony for any period of time by making repeated “over the top” comments in other threads recently, why would “Saul” need to “remind” Anthony about something that surely had been bothering him for a while now? That makes no sense unless Anthony is oblivious to his own forum or going senile.
        But since you seem to have the ability to know what Anthony meant to say, but did not actually say, perhaps you can tell me why rather than talking to dbstealey privately, like a long time friend, or even as the seasoned site owner who abhors the public fodder that is made out of his own personal life daily, Anthony chose to illogically write an entire article and cause unnecessary drama over what could have, and most likely should have, been handled as a mere technical mistake resulting from poor coding/platform issues, and dealt with between three individuals privately?

      • maybe all that- but hotwhopper has made a big deal out of db posting on a closed thread
        a scandal has been generated.
        sacrifices must be made to deny the enemy talking points.

      • I think that if indeed D.B.S. was fired for for a reason other than posting post-thread-closure comments, then Anthony should have structured his post to make the reason for such a public firing of a such-named person more clear.

      • Donald Klipstein,
        Anthony is an honest guy. If this had been done for a different reason he would have said so, instead of fabricating a fake excuse.

    • I hope it wasn’t anything I said. I tend to be flippant when commenting on stuff that is beyond asinine.
      For me, WUWT is far and away the most difficult site on the whole internet, for me to log into.
      By that I mean, that more often than not, I get an error message that says it can’t show me the page, and asking me if I spelled ” wattsupwiththat.com ” correctly.
      There have been times when I have spent a whole hour on line, working and reworking a post, that I felt I could make a useful piece of information for perhaps a few persons; even one would make it worthwhile.
      Then when I finally hit the send button, the whole internet crashes, and I get that error message again, and my whole post is lost forever.
      I’m sure it relates to that wordpress situation; but I confess I am quite bamboozled by this event where moderator Dave Stealey finds a glitch in their most aggravating editor (WP) and he ends up getting tossed under the bus.
      I don’t know if there even is another internet site using wordpress that I ever log onto; can’t even think of one I might have seen accidently.
      There are precisely three web sites I visit regularly; one of them being the Nikon Store web site, and the other one accounting for about 3% of my internet comments. That leaves WUWT with the remaining 97% of my thoughts. Nikon is a read only for me.
      So wordpress drives me up the wall as I never know whether something I send, ever makes it out of my wifi dongle.
      So If I disappear from here, I doubt you would even find me at that 3% uncertainty site.
      But I sometimes wonder if I’m just wasting my time; I should go fishing instead.
      G

      • I comment on many WordPress sites. I don’t have to have a Facebook or Twitter account. I don’t even have to have a WordPress account, although I always use the same identifier and email address so its pretty much the same thing. I cannot imagine why I would ever give some other website my Facebook password even if I had Facebook.

        • “I cannot imagine why I would ever give some other website my Facebook password even if I had Facebook.”
          Which other websites are asking for your Facebook password?
          I cannot imagine why a (non fraudulent) website would ever do that!

  18. This makes my heart hurt. Quite literally. I’ve never been one to agree that someone can “break” rules or “transgress” laws that they aren’t aware of. Intent matters to me. Even the frequent trolls here get WARNED before they are blocked or edited. But dbstealey posts some comments without knowing a thread was closed (it’s been happening for YEARS….I get emails all the time from people posting on old threads….I haven’t counted the days myself, because I just assumed threads last forever here unless they are closed by moderators and it’s announced “this thread is now closed for comments”) and THAT gets him publicly reprimanded AND relieved of a voluntary position????
    This is one of the best forums I’ve ever frequented. Not JUST because of the quality and maturity levels of most of the regulars-but because of the diversity of backgrounds, education levels, and general willingness to share, learn, and laugh together. Not all of us can, or SHOULD be, warm, soft, droll adults….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. And not all of us are, or should be, prickly, salty, witty entertainers either. GOOD. I’ve always loved that all were pretty much welcome here, warts and all, as long as things remained civil and open, within reason.
    I’ve always liked the idea that as a personal blog, Anthony has the ability to just tell people to “suck it” if he wants to, but it’s starting to feel like that’s giving way to insipid whining, finger pointing, political correctness-crybaby-mob rule. I have ZERO desire to see this forum become edited like SS or Maleficent’s Blog (no kisses from me Miriam), but both of those blogs also have the above in common as well, and it’s extremely distasteful.
    dbstealey has always been one of my heroes, because even when he gets fed up and pissy with posters-it’s usually because they deserved it. He holds his tongue longer than most people I know, and he’s usually CORRECT with his data and comments. That an unknown, unavoidable, unintentional event could result in his dismissal as a moderator here….just makes no sense to me at all. That it was made public and apologized for makes my stomach hurt as well as my heart.

    • My view is similar to Aphan’s. Making a substantive comment, especially in response to a sincere question, is work and sometimes a lot of work. Ad hominem one-liners are tolerable, just part of the rough and tumble.
      But some blog sites attract the True Believers in catastrophic AGW and others attract the True Believers in natural non-catastrophic global warming, or no global warming, based only on conspiracy theories.
      In my opinion, the reason some True Believers make ad hominem attacks is because their positions on either side of the debate are not supported by evidence, sometimes not by logic, and sometimes not by any scientific theory or knowledge at all.
      I am gradually coming to see the blogisphere as a game in which there are fewer players and the cheerleaders have taken to the field to squabble about the color and size of the ball.
      So I observe myself following the dictates of Gresham’s Law. Instead of writing comments in support of skepticism, I am downloading more papers and devoting more time to study.
      The following is a paper that shows even the adjusted homogenized data containing the urban heat-island effect and skewed by wet-bias does not point to much climate change. And the little change claimed seems to have been within the bounds of natural variation (fluctuation).
      Belda, M., Holtanová, E., Halenka, T. and Kalvová, J., 2014. Climate classification revisited: from Köppen to Trewartha. Climate research, 59(1), pp.1-13.
      Paper: http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c059p001.pdf
      The following is one of a series of papers by the same authors that suggests variations in albedo are sufficient to account for observed climate fluctuations.
      “A major change in albedo occurred between the early earthshine measurements and the more recent ones (Fig. 4). For the 1994/1995 period, Palle´ et al. (2003) obtained a mean albedo of 0.310 +/-0.004, while for the more recent period, 1999/2001, the albedo is 0:295 +/-0:002 (with a 0.6% precision in the determination). The combined difference in the mean A between the former and latter periods is of 0:015 +/-0.005, assuming the 1994/1995 and 1999/ 2001 uncertainties are independent. This corresponds to a 5% +/-1.7% decrease in the albedo between the two periods.”
      Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance. P.R. Goode, E. Palle (acute accent on the final ‘e’ in Palle is not shown).
      URL:ftp://bbsoweb.bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
      Presumably, to pass peer-review and not to alarm grant -making committees approached for support in monitoring albedo, their latest paper shortened the observation period to show less variation in albedo. But the following paper is bolder. A 5% change in albedo corresponds to a change in net downwelling solar radiation of about 3% (30/70*5%) Three per cent of 239 W-m2 is about 7 W-m2.
      In 2011, Hansen et al could claim a net radiative imbalance of only 0.58 W-m2. Estimates based on theory vary. Based on theory, Murry Salby stated 1.5 W-m2 net imbalance.
      So what Goode and Palle suggested was that variation in albedo might be great enough to overwhelm all observed, inferred and theorized radiative imbalance.
      Which is consistent with what Svensmark is claiming.
      Hansen, James, et al. “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11.24 (2011): 13421-13449.
      Salby, M. Physics of the atmosphere and climate 2012, CUP, page 249.
      https://books.google.ca/books?id=CeMdwj7J48QC&dq=salby+book+atmosphere+2012&source=gbs_navlinks_s

      Scanning climate blogs in search of new research is worthwhile, but I am gradually coming to tne view that commenting is a waste of time.

      • Frederick Colbourne:
        I am gradually coming to see the blogisphere as a game in which there are fewer players and the cheerleaders have taken to the field to squabble about the color and size of the ball.
        So I observe myself following the dictates of Gresham’s Law. Instead of writing comments in support of skepticism, I am downloading more papers and devoting more time to study.
        _________________________
        Scanning climate blogs in search of new research is worthwhile, but I am gradually coming to tne view that commenting is a waste of time.
        _________________________
        Yeah, and :
        – when commenting is a waste of time
        – what good is downloading papers and devoting time.
        _________________________
        Thanks for sharing. Hans
        / wasted time, Sisyphus syndrome on CAGW – you’re telling me /

      • Mr. Anthony Watts, what platform!
        D.B.Stealy – sentinel.
        Frederick Colbourne – yes. The point?
        commenters , contributers clearing the sight – structures, dependencies under our fingertips.
        whocouldaskformore.

      • I am gradually coming to see the blogisphere as a game in which there are fewer players and the cheerleaders have taken to the field to squabble about the color and size of the ball.
        Omg I am using Google that LOL

  19. Adaptation is necessary sometimes.
    When we don’t have the opportunity to make the rules.
    Just sayin……

  20. I’ve held off saying anything about this, but there is always another side to the story. Anthony told me I can keep commenting here, so this is how I see this situation. It’s my story, and as I always say, the readers can decide.
    A day or two ago I noticed a string of four or five comments by a new commenter: “Saul of Montreal”. He and I (and others) had been debating on an old ‘polar ice’ thread. I doubt if a dozen other people were still reading it because it was almost two weeks old. The thread with the comments is here, and the relevant comments are near the bottom:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/17/nsidc-resumes-sea-ice-plots-with-provisional-data/
    When I saw that several new comments by ’Saul’ had been posted overnight, I replied in the morning as usual, not knowing that the thread had been closed.
    Apparently, WordPress had just made a change that automatically closes comments. But since I was commenting via an ‘Edit’ screen, I was not aware of that. And as Anthony said, he didn’t know about it, either. And since Anthony very rarely closes comments, it never occurred to me that might have happened. So I just replied to Saul’s comments as usual.
    Saul didn’t seem to be faring well in our polar ice debate, so he promptly complained to Anthony that I was using my moderator priveleges to take advantage of him.
    Anthony reacted without asking asking me what happened, or anything about it. He just emailed me his ultimatum. I explained that I was not aware of the comments being closed. I told him it was an unintentional mistake, and I offered to delete my own comments.
    But Anthony emailed me saying that I had caused him “a crapstorm”, and that was the end of it. I tactfully emailed him that I probably needed ‘a break’ from moderating. But that isn’t true. Moderating gives me something interesting to do. My wife is disabled, and I’m at home most of the time assisting her when she needs it. Keeping the site running, rescuing legitimate posts from the Spam folder, etc., are the things that help keep my mind off other issues.
    Also, there isn’t anyone who has been more loyal to Anthony or WUWT than I am. No exceptions. If anything, I’ve been too loyal. I’ve never posted a single negative word about Anthony or this site, and I’ve always gone out of my way to defend Anthony on other blogs. I’ve seen regular comments about that both here and elsewhere.
    So after nearly ten years moderating 24/7/365, and by my count close to a million reader comments, while putting in tens of thousands of unpaid hours over the years to help keep this site running smoothly, and after donating $10,000 to Anthony during that time, I’ve now been unceremoniously dumped because of a complaint by someone Anthony would have labeled an “anonymous coward” not very long ago. I have no idea who ‘Saul of Montreal’ is, but Anthony has clearly taken sides here. I don’t understand why. Maybe in time it will become clear.
    One more comment: this may have something to do with The Great Randi, a magician who seems to be part of a blog called ‘skeptics.dot.com’. Apparently Randi has bought into the man-made global warming narrative, and ‘Saul’ is proud to be a “card carrying member” opf Randi’s group. ‘Saul’ threatened Anthony if he didn’t do something about his complaint. I won’t post his threat here, but Anthony can if he wants to.
    Finally, I object to the way this article was written. It appeared to me, anyway, as assigning blame. There was no need to mention my name repeatedly, or at all. Anthony wrote:
    …this is an unacceptable situation. We can’t have comments being made after the thread automatically closes, it’s unfair, and gives an impression to people that don’t know what is going on with the mechanics of the system that we might be up to something scurrilous… like closing comments manually and then allowing a moderator to run roughshod over commenters that couldn’t reply. That of course didn’t happen, and I hope what I’ve done above shows clearly that was not the case.
    But what did Anthony do then? This:
    …since this was a breach of my comment and moderator policy (even if accidental), we have to hold our own people accountable… I’ve taken “dbstealey” off moderation duties. He deserves a break after perusing millions of comments. He’s still as able as any of you to post comments but he won’t be moderating anymore.
    [my emphasis]
    Readers can decide if this was handled well. IMHO, there was nothing fair about it.

      • I am desperate to donate to my favorite blog, WUWT, and refuse to use PayPal. The recent frap about WordPress has scared me to death. What should I do?????? Help!!!!! You have my E-mail, please use it if you want. I can use credit cards or send you a check if I just knew where???? And How???

      • Dear Anthony,
        I realize that you are under an excruciating burden of pressure from the AGW gang and that your integrity is daily under attack from them. You want to be operating WUWT at the highest level of ethical integrity. Good for you. What the AGW thugs think does — not — matter. What matters is what your friends and family, those who love you, think. We KNOW you are a man of integrity. You have nothing to prove with those whose opinions really matter.
        Dave Stealey is your friend.
        Who is Saul? He is NOBODY (to us). Somehow, that man hit a nerve with you and you turned on Dave, instead of Saul. Sounds like Saul is a crafty, poison-tongued, master of his craft at playing victim and creating the victim-persecutor-rescuer con — you became, essentially, the rescuer of Saul (poor widdo baby got locked out of the thread by accident… waaa).
        Taking Dave’s facts and yours together into evidence, the reasonable juror here is going to conclude that he has been unfairly treated. Treating a loyal, hardworking, fine, man like Dave Stealey like that looks bad. If you want the WUWT community to respect you, you need to publicly apologize to a man who has given ten years of his life to making WUWT happen. “… the work you’ve done…” TEN years of volunteering with enthusiasm.
        WUWT will crumble from within if people like Dave are treated like this. Readers are now alienated, but, hopeful. If you do not make it right with Dave Stealey, there will be a significant shift in loyalty. Apologizing to Dave will not lower you in our eyes, it will make you an even bigger man than you already are, (and that is pretty big — in character, in character, lol).
        You have, under pressure, punished the wrong guy. You do not owe Saul ANYTHING. For the stunt Saul has pulled here, I would ban him permanently. He is nothing but a hissing, half-truth uttering, troublemaker.
        WUWT stepped in a cow pie called “Saul.” Time to hose off our boots and get on with getting the truth out there.
        We love you, Anthony. We also love Dave. I think you do, too …
        With hope
        that WUWT will get over this little bump in the road and
        with gratitude
        for you and for Dave,
        Janice

      • I’m sorry Anthony, I’ve been a big fan of yours, but if what has been revealed about this situation is the full true story, then you handled it wrong. Intent should almost always be the deciding factor, and for someone like Dave that has given so much time and money to your cause, the benefit of the doubt should be given.
        In the past I was the moderator of a busy blog (not nearly as busy as WUWT, but a enough to keep one moderator busy for several hours a day), so I know it’s not an easy task. You are basically making decisions on behalf of the owner and it’s not always clear how things should be handled. Once I got in the middle of a crap-storm because I snipped some financial details that the owner definitely did not want discussed. He backed me publicly and ended the controversy, but privately gave me some tips on how I could have handled it better. That was the right way to do it and I appreciated his support.
        Please make this right Anthony; there’s still time.

    • While I respect the choice to run this site as the owner desires, in the end, this appears to be another example of a professional crybaby (who could I possibly mean, Saul?) making stink and getting his way to the detriment of the vast majority.

      • Boulder,
        I really need to learn to save my posts….sigh.
        Yes, this does stink of crybaby. And more…
        On another blog that Shall Not be Named, Reginald Perrin posted this-
        Reginald Perrin June 2, 2016 at 6:55 AM
        “I have compelling proof that Dave Stealey (aka smokey et al) is still a mod at WUWT. Two hours after a thread closed at WUWT after its two week run, 10 comments appeared in a matter of minutes. Poor smokey had his ass handed to him and this is the only way he could save face.
        https://archive.is/qhQg7
        Unfortunately he forgot about timestamps, there is no way to argue those post weren’t made after comments closed.
        I have been informed off the record that there were alterations and removal of comments on that thread, vanishing without a trace..”
        Now, how is it, that good old Reggie KNEW (had proof) of something AND “had been informed off the record” of alterations and removal etc of comments…either from another mod here at WUWT, or Anthony himself, 8.5 hours BEFORE Anthony ran a “test post” to verify that WordPress was wonky?
        “Anthony Watts June 2, 2016 at 3:28 pm-
        test reply June 2nd, 3:28PM PST”
        How is it that Perrin “knew” exactly what time that thread SHOULD have closed and that “Saul from Montreal’s” posts were not making it to screen but dbstealey’s were before Anthony could verify that 8.5 hours LATER? Do Saul and Reggie know each other? Is Saul from Montreal, Graham Saul-rabid activist and CAGW supporter? Are there three different people here or two? Or ONE? Does Reggie Perrin aka Blowtorch aka Storm…or Saul from Montreal hold such grudges against WUWT and Anthony and dbstealey that he tried to pull off some kind of upset here at WUWT….and in his zeal FORGOT about his own “timestamps”?
        Maybe I’m just really tired and need some sleep…but Daddy always said “If it looks like bullcrap and smells like bullcrap, you don’t have to taste it to KNOW it’s bullcrap.” And I agree with Boulder…this whole thing STINKS.

      • Events like these wind up never being handled well.
        Aphan’s note above shows why they almost can never be handled well. A number of people have been banned from WUWT, all should have been banned earlier. However, it’s hard to point to supporters who have run afoul of local standards, so when it happens, there’s a lot of pressure to prove to the detractors that supporters are held to standards just as high or higher.
        I’m not too impressed with Saul, he seems to have some pretty thin skin. Two weeks into a post’s life, and he and Dave were likely the only people left reading the comments.
        I’m less impressed with this Reginald Perrin fellow. He sounds like another person who spend his life looking for things to criticize in WUWT. He makes his own mistakes, it would appear:

        Two hours after a thread closed at WUWT after its two week run,

        This conflicts with Anthony’s screenshot showing that the comment period is 15 days. I suspect Perrin was so delighted to be able to find something to share with the rest of his peers that glossed over little details like math.

    • I know this is only an aside, but don’t underestimate Randi. Deep down he’s an CAGW critic in a similar manner to Bjorn Lomborg.
      The skeptic movement sadly is a bit of a farce. While built on principles of critical thinking, and whilst there are many capable and knowledgeable scientists in the skeptic movement, as with most things it gets overrun by activists. In JREF, for example, it is not hard to come across anti GMO and anti nuclear activists who are so far removed from science and critical thinking it isn’t funny.
      But back to Randi. Some years ago Randi wrote an opinion piece on his blog that was quite scathing about CAGW. I recommend anyone reads it before being too critical of Randi:
      http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
      It’s a pretty good piece. Of course as soon as he wrote this the hand-wringers in the skeptic movement threatened to throw Randi under a bus for his heretical views on AGW. This resulted in a follow up blog where he seeks to smooth ruffled feathers and throw some crumbs out to the alarmists:
      http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html
      It’s worth noting that the first of these articles is probably closest to Randi’s views; the second was written under pressure from the green blob and when you read carefully does not actually withdraw much from the first post (other than the petition project which was hardly one of the main points).
      All in all I would be surprised if Randi buys into AGW alarmism, even today; I have no doubt the green blob has made him wary about discussing it openly though.

      • Spence,
        Thanks for those links. They changed my opinion of Mr. Randi. The view he expressed in the first link is almost identical to mine (you’re right about the second link. He’s doing a little understandable backing and filling, playing to his readership).
        The only thing I remembered about ‘the Great Randi’ was that he’s a magician, and that he helped to debunk psychic Yuri Geller’s spoon bending tricks. I was glad to read Randi’s very rational view of the global warming scare.

    • stealey
      see my comment below: i had the same accident with the same sanction. Believe me now i am an admin there and as admin integrity of a board comes first place, so sometimes you have to make decisions that are in human way unfair.
      a lot of people will blow this unintentional accident out of context, just wait till it is over and i’m sure then everything will be “same as before”

    • dbstealey – June 2, 2016 at 9:48 pm

      Readers can decide if this was handled well. IMHO, there was nothing fair about it.

      When people in positions of authority make “emotional decisions” ….. when the situation warrants a reasoned-out “logical decision” ….. then “harm” has been done and mistrust will then be first and foremost in all future actions.
      And an added note, …… the highly potential act of …. “emotional decision making” ….. is the primary reason for the claims of the existence of a “Glass Ceiling”.

    • dbstealey June 2, 2016 at 9:48 pm
      Apparently, WordPress had just made a change that automatically closes comments. But since I was commenting via an ‘Edit’ screen, I was not aware of that. And as Anthony said, he didn’t know about it, either.

      This is part of the problem, you post in threads for which you are also the moderator. It would be better if you either did not do that or used a different log in method when posting to that you use as a moderator. I was unaware that you were still a moderator but wondered if you were because sometimes strange things happened to posts when you were posting. Most recently you posted one of your ‘charts’ which showed the incremental forcing as function of pCO2,another poster pointed out that the graph was for a much different sensitivity than the accepted value. You appeared not to understand this and I posted an explanation showing a mathematical explanation of his point, after a few more posts from each of us (not contentious) about a day later both your and my posts disappeared. I requested that the mod reinstate the posts but there was no response. Your participation as both a poster and a mod in the same thread leads to suspicion of dubious activity. Now that you will be only a poster such suspicions won’t arise which will be better.

      • Phil.
        Under “About” on the WUWT title bar, a drop down menu shows a page called “policy”. You should read it.
        I can only assume you have NOT read it, as it clearly states (and has for years) that deleted posts cannot be restored. It also explains several other reasons why posts can be removed, and says “Don’t take it personally.” If you, or a mod, or anyone else is detracting from a thread, even politely, those comments can disappear.
        Anyone can be suspicious about anything they like, but without proof, it means nothing. You have ZERO proof that dbstealey is the one that removed posts from threads in which he also commented. He is no longer a moderator, but that does not mean none of your posts will never disappear in the future, or that you personally won’t find reasons to be dubious about something.
        I personally hope dbstealey posts more now that he’s not moderating.

      • Phil., where ya been?? You missed a golden opportunity to post your innuendo when this thread was new and being read by thousands. But I doubt that more than a dozen or two readers are still following it 4 days later.
        You wrote:
        …you post in threads for which you are also the moderator.
        So do most, if not all moderators. What’s wrong with that? And I comment under my real name (unlike some anonymous posters). Would you prefer that moderators should be censored? The knowledge they contribute is as beneficial as any to the discussion. Or would you prefer that the views of moderators who are posting separately, and under their own names should be censored?
        Regarding your opinion that it’s better to log on to a different screen to comment, I can’t speak for other mods but I suspect they also comment from the Edit screen, because it’s easier and more convenient. Why go to the trouble of bringing up a different screen, finding the right place to comment, posting a reply, and then going back to the Edit screen? I don’t think you would do it that way.
        And I remind you that the WordPress change that caused this problem was done without any warning, and without posting that information on the Edit screen. Since the boss very rarely closes comments, why would anyone go to the bottom of every thread to check for that?
        I’ve moderated close to a million comments here, weeding out the rising tsunami of spam and rescuing the legitimate comments that often get caught in the Spam folder (including rescuing yours), and in general doing the rote work necessary to keep things moving along in a timely manner. Since I can confidently support the skeptics’ position with a mountain of facts, evidence, and observations, there’s no reason to censor anyone. I’ve always said that a big difference between WUWT and alarmist blogs is that they censor comments they don’t like. WUWT doesn’t.
        No doubt you’re aware of the recurring WordPress glitches and problems that readers constantly complain about. The unannounced change that prompted this article was another problem, and it won’t be the last. But to insinuate that I had to resort to deleting a comment because I couldn’t argue the skeptic’s side is presuming facts not in evidence. You’re good at technical details, but you are certainly no skeptic. I am, which makes it easy to deconstruct the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare. And when have I ever shied away from a debate? On the contrary, I enjoy deconstructing that false alarm.
        I’ve always posted your comments like everyone else’s. Whenever I’ve snipped anyone’s comment it’s been for violating site policy, or for an impostor pretending to be another commenter. In those cases I gave a reason for the snip (the only exception being when someone used the F-word or similar. That would simply get a ‘snip’, and the author understood why).
        And why would I delete my own comments, like you said? I’ve regularly advised commenters to keep a copy of their posts. That’s still good advice. So if for any reason you don’t see your comment, just repost it. Simples.
        Next, you say Your participation as both a poster and a mod in the same thread leads to suspicion of dubious activity.
        It would have been hard to find a thread that I didn’t moderate and comment on, since I’ve been moderating comments under every article for ten or more hours a day, 24/7/365 since this site began. You can be as “suspicious” as you like, but if I had done what you’re alleging even 0.01% of the time, there would have been scores of complaints like yours.
        But I can recall only one similar complaint: William Connolley alleged that I had deleted a comment, or done something nefarious (I don’t recall exactly what he claimed because it was two or three years ago). Yes, that’s the same William Connolley who was repeatedly (and temporarily) supended by Wikipedia for deleting hundreds of comments skeptical of man-made global warming.
        When Connolley complained I was immediately suspended. But after the boss investigated Connolley’s accusation via the time stamps, related comments, and whatever other WP forensic tools he was able to use, he emailed me saying he’d proved that Connolley was fabricating his story, and I was promptly reinstated. The events then were very similar to now, but without Saul’s threat.
        Also, you may not be aware of it but there are about a half dozen other moderators. I can only speak for myself. And WordPress routinely causes various glitches and hiccups. I have no idea what comments you’re referring to, but I’ve always posted all comments (excepting those noted above), and moderated without playing favorites. There’s no need to; the alarmist narrative fails due to the lack of credible evidence or supporting observations. But I can assure you that if …a day later both your and my posts disappeared, that I had nothing to do with that. Why would I delete my own comments, anyway?
        You’re using this WordPress glitch to join the monkeypile, along with a couple of others. I think that says more about the ≈3% piling on than it does about my moderating.

      • dbstealey June 6, 2016 at 2:38 pm
        Phil., where ya been?? You missed a golden opportunity to post your innuendo when this thread was new and being read by thousands. But I doubt that more than a dozen or two readers are still following it 4 days later.

        Sorry I do have a life!
        You wrote:
        …you post in threads for which you are also the moderator.
        So do most, if not all moderators. What’s wrong with that? And I comment under my real name (unlike some anonymous posters). Would you prefer that moderators should be censored? The knowledge they contribute is as beneficial as any to the discussion. Or would you prefer that the views of moderators who are posting separately, and under their own names should be censored?
        Regarding your opinion that it’s better to log on to a different screen to comment, I can’t speak for other mods but I suspect they also comment from the Edit screen, because it’s easier and more convenient. Why go to the trouble of bringing up a different screen, finding the right place to comment, posting a reply, and then going back to the Edit screen? I don’t think you would do it that way.

        Actually I do that on my class website, I have a ‘Test student’ login so that I can see the page exactly the way the students do to me sure that things are behaving the way they should.
        And I remind you that the WordPress change that caused this problem was done without any warning, and without posting that information on the Edit screen. Since the boss very rarely closes comments, why would anyone go to the bottom of every thread to check for that?
        I was under the impression that comments were always closed after a suitable period, I’ve frequently noticed that over the years.
        I’ve always posted your comments like everyone else’s. Whenever I’ve snipped anyone’s comment it’s been for violating site policy, or for an impostor pretending to be another commenter. In those cases I gave a reason for the snip (the only exception being when someone used the F-word or similar. That would simply get a ‘snip’, and the author understood why).
        And why would I delete my own comments, like you said? I’ve regularly advised commenters to keep a copy of their posts. That’s still good advice. So if for any reason you don’t see your comment, just repost it. Simples.

        I don’t know, but both your and my posts were ‘deleted’ after about a day.
        You posted your CO2 ‘chart’ here: dbstealey May 9, 2016 at 12:48 pm
        Followed by:
        desmond May 10, 2016 at 2:46 am
        @dbstealey
        And a graph, which is a fake again: It presents ~0,3 Celcius degree per doubling of CO2 concentration.
        dbstealey May 10, 2016 at 11:23 am
        desmond,
        Look at the graph. Where does it say ‘~0,3C’?

        After which I explained how the data showed that and you queried it and we exchanged a couple of posts. A day or so later those posts were gone leaving just the ones shown above with no explanation.
        I responded later:
        Phil. May 12, 2016 at 7:55 pm
        dbstealey May 10, 2016 at 11:23 am
        desmond,
        Look at the graph. Where does it say ‘~0,3C’?
        Well I did explain but my posts were apparently deleted! Perhaps the mods can restore them?

        Next, you say Your participation as both a poster and a mod in the same thread leads to suspicion of dubious activity.
        It would have been hard to find a thread that I didn’t moderate and comment on, since I’ve been moderating comments under every article for ten or more hours a day, 24/7/365 since this site began. You can be as “suspicious” as you like, but if I had done what you’re alleging even 0.01% of the time, there would have been scores of complaints like yours.

        Well there were occasions when Smokey’s posts were edited after they had been responded to, something that could have only been done by a moderator.
        I recall this from about a year ago:
        “(Reply: The moderator who removed Nick Stokes’ comment was not following Anthony’s Rules For Moderators. We all make an occasional error. -mod.)”
        Also, you may not be aware of it but there are about a half dozen other moderators. I can only speak for myself.
        Yes I know, there is a published list, for some reason when I last looked your name was not on it which is why I was surprised to learn you were still moderating.

      • ‘Phil.’ said:
        “This is part of the problem, you post in threads for which you are also the moderator.”
        I’ve been a moderator on every thread. Other moderators comment too, and we all post under our own names. You’re just trying to split hairs. So that argument fails, and so does this one:
        “It would be better if you either did not do that or used a different log in method when posting to that you use as a moderator.”
        I always log in as: ‘dbstealey’… “Phil.” And it’s easy to be a critic when you have 20/20 hindsight. Had I known the thread was closed I wouldn’t have replied. Until this unannounced WordPress change happened, there had never been a problem like this. And now that everyone is aware of that WordPress change, it’s already resolved. So your “log in method” criticism was dead on arrival.
        Next:
        “I was unaware that you were still a moderator but wondered if you were because sometimes strange things happened to posts when you were posting…”
        My moderating was never a secret. Nor was it advertised. And you are insinuating things that I never engaged in. Also, have I ever been reluctant to take on any comment of yours, or anyone else’s that I didn’t agree with? (FYI: the answer to that is a decisive ‘No.’)
        I’ve always moderated in a professional manner, and I certainly never misused that position to delete any comments of yours. Why should I, when I look forward to them? Because while you’re up to speed on details, it’s easy to show that your overall conclusions suffer from a lack of supporting observations. If you were a real skeptic, you would see that.
        You also misunderstand what a good moderator does to keep the site current; rescuing legitimate comments from the Spam folder in a timely manner, fixing typos in articles and comments whenever requested, moving spam that gets past the filter back into the Spam folder, weeding out inappropriate language, and comments about chemtrails, and identifying impostors pretending to be legitimate commenters, fixing links so they display properly, and many other repetitive details. It’s not the picture you’re trying to paint, of evil Moderator Snidely Whiplash searching out ‘Phil’s’ posts to delete.
        I’ve done the rote work of moderating since this site began. I’ve also regularly advised readers to keep copies of their comments so they can re-post them in case of a WordPress glitch, which happens all too often, as we’ve heard from other commenters. I’ve also emailed new moderators, reminding them that they shouldn’t post personal comments under an article as a moderator. Rather, they should comment separately, using their own name.
        Since moderators rarely communicate with each other, I have no way of knowing who might have done what — if anything. Yet with no evidence whatever, you implied that I was deleting your comments (“sometimes strange things happened to posts when you were posting.”). That’s just baseless character assassination. It may surprise you, “Phil.”, but you’re not important enough that I would bother deleting your posts. Why would I do that, when it’s so easy to post a skeptic’s rational, data-based response? That’s what I do all the time.
        And if I or anyone else was arbitrarily deleting comments, then after moderating thousands of threads containing nearly 1,800,000 comments, there would certainly be dozens, if not hundreds of readers complaining about it. But there aren’t.
        Your insinuation isn’t just a one-off; it’s a baseless smear, and I think it’s because you never could make a convincing argument supporting the cAGW scare. Out of more than 180 comments here, you’re one of only two or three disgruntled commenters who used this article as a chance to monkey-pile on by using bogus insinuations, and implying things that are no more than your opinion. That isn’t a reflection of my professionalism, it’s a self-serving attempt to spin a false narrative using slanted comments like this:
        “Your participation as both a poster and a mod in the same thread leads to suspicion of dubious activity.”
        “Leads to suspicion”?? Moderators routinely comment in the same threads they moderate. We use our own names, ‘Phil’, and your “suspicion” is not shared by the overwhelming majority of commenters here.
        By trying to suggest that I deleted your comments, you are accusing all moderators of the same “dubious activity”, because we have all commented in the same threads we moderate. But if you had any evidence that moderators are doing anything wrong, you would have posted it instead of trying to make a bogus case.
        Your “suspicion of dubious activity” amounts to bearing false witness, because you don’t have any verifiable facts to support your narrative, which is nothing more than malicious gossip. Furthermore, on the relatively few occasions I’ve snipped someone’s comment, I posted the reason why – unless it was something obvious like using the F-word, in which case I simply replaced it with: [“snip”] .
        I rarely pass up the opportunity of replying to a comment I disagree with, “Phil.”, because for a real skeptic, refuting alarmist conjectures is one of life’s small pleasures. And it’s our job.

  21. When I read:
    “like closing comments manually and then allowing a moderator to run roughshod over commenters that couldn’t reply.” That of course didn’t happen, and I hope what I’ve done above shows clearly that was not the case.
    I would have expected the response to be along the likes of;
    We are now well aware that this situation can happen because of x, y and z, and so we’ve learned something and will implement a policy to ensure… fill in the blank.
    But instead, DB was ejected in public. Ejecting a volunteer is a pretty serious rejection that cannot ever be forgotten. I don’t get it. It makes me think there is more to the story.
    I am disappointed.
    Call me a skeptic.

    • I also am disappointed in Anthony’s handling of DB from what I know. I commend Anthony for posting DB’s reply. I think this is a painful situation for both of them.

      • Yes,stan stendera @10:53. I couldn’t agree more. It’s a pity this situation has developed in the way it has…It would seem obvious that the person to support in this issue is not the one from Quebec! Who has been more supportive and helpful to this great site all over the years?

      • “I also am disappointed in Anthony’s handling of DB from what I know. I commend Anthony for posting DB’s reply. I think this is a painful situation for both of them.”
        Yes, indeed. Word Press screws up and DB gets tossed under the bus. Unfortunately this is not unexpected here. Our host has shown a certain paranoia here over the years. He seeks to be above all possible criticism. Well, friends, that ain’t possible.
        I have tried to say this without being blunt. I have mentioned it in those threads were our host asked for suggestions. It is time to stop all the censorship based on disagreement with the “luke-warmer way”.
        Anyone who gets too close to being like that group of people who published a book on killing dragons up in the air (can’t even use the f’ing title of the book in this place) are not welcome here. Why? They beat the locals in a fair fight on the issue. Plus, one of them can be a real dick at times. But then every group has members that can be a real dick. Normally we would ban the real dick and not the entire idea.
        And now we toss a well liked moderator under the bus for the sake of some twit on the internet. God Damn.
        I ask our host to please consider that every little internet squabble that happens here is not the end of the fracking world. What is wrong with arguing politics in and election season? No one asked you to pick a candidate.
        Some nameless twit told the most ignorant BS about what happened in Vietnam in an attack on me; and my response when to heaven (or hell) rather than get posted. NOT the end of the world: there are millions of Americans who believe the myth of how we ended up killing peasants on the other side of the globe to “defend our freedoms”. As long as exchanges like that don’t dominate the site — what is the harm in some exchanges that get heated?
        Anyway, I have gone on too long and used up what little time I have before running off to teach young people that we must examine all sides of every issue.
        Please Note: I am not a special snowflake and I don’t need a “safe space” to protect me from “trigger words”. I was raised before the madness set in fully.

      • stan,
        I agree, Anthony is a stand-up guy. He didn’t have to post my view of the situation, but he did. Lots of folks in his position would have just deleted it.
        As you said, this is painful all around. But I don’t hold this or anything else against Anthony. Who knows what unseen pressures there are? I would just like to get past it, and tackle the real job: deconstructing all the misinformation fueling the “carbon” scare.

        • Dave, thanks for that acknowlegement, and thanks also for the comment also on this thread where you realized the comments you made about James Randi were uninformed.

          I would just like to get past it, and tackle the real job: deconstructing all the misinformation fueling the “carbon” scare.

          As a commenter, you have that ability, as long as it falls within our site policy.

      • “Our host has shown a certain paranoia here over the years.”
        To me, it looks like more PC than paranoia. But people are fed up. PC doesn’t sell. Donald Trump sells, because, not PC.
        The line between honest mistakes, activism for a cause believed to be good, and fraud has been passed several years ago when raw data was hidden, including with lawyers threats.
        Anybody who doesn’t call fraud, fraud, and corruption, corruption is complicit, IM(NSH)O.
        There is no “middle ground”, no peace possible. The warmists are at war with everything in Western civilization, like the new progressive left (that’s why they love each others so much).
        Just like when dealing with an AG who suppressed evidence, pressured witnesses, refused to communicate information with the defense, the idea of honest error of prosecution isn’t defensible, and such prosecutor should be tried as the “ordinary” criminal (on kidnapping or murder charges).
        The left doesn’t leave much benefit of the doubt to the police in case a black man (even a thug) gets killed, does it? Why would people give the left the benefits of doubt against overwhelming evidence?

  22. Anthony, my respects for your integrity. I’ve worked with WordPress and other systems, and there are often surprises – not everything works as you’d expect. This is something we should take into account when interacting with any site: at first, at least, give the benefit of the doubt, that it may be a system problem, not something deliberate.

  23. I post quite infrequently and have little time for cutting remarks and sarcasm. I know how to use such tools of the blogging/forum trade, but I’m totally involved in saying what I want to say in such a manner as not to be made a fool by those much more knowledgeable here – and that is a large number. Cheers, Anthony and all who hold things together. I really appreciate being able to stick my nose( hopefully not a misdirected foot) in every once in awhile.

  24. A polite apology to DB is in order together with the restoration of rights … as more illustrious commenters than the old “Streetcred” have said, stop digging. I’m disappointed.

  25. And yet another long reply on an issue goes to that special place and not even into moderation. No telling why those who disagree with some action by our host seems to get lost here.

  26. “I find this paragraph concerning for three reasons” maybe as an outsider to the internals of WUWT. You are just raising questions on something that is not really any of our business.
    “Second, the comment about deserving a break suggests that this was a decisive factor.” If it was it’s not really our business is it?
    It is almost like you want a transcript of what was discussed internally by Anthony and DB. FOIA? 😀

    • “You are just raising questions on something that is not really any of our business”
      Except it is our business now that the story is public and generating more unanswered questions.
      Seriously, how can you NOT understand that a website asking for donation needs to have a comprehensible and uniformly applied policies? Can’t you see that the usual pseudo-arguments we keep reading on every single website with a comment system (“it’s a private place”, “owner’s decision” and “nothing to see, move along”) just aren’t acceptable?
      A private place opened to the public and partially funded by the public isn’t just a private place!!!
      (I write that as a person banned on almost any forum or blog I have ever posted, multi-banned sometimes (with up to 10 consecutive bans, on some tax-funded forum) and no issue on WUWT ever.)

    • It is almost like you want a transcript of what was discussed internally by Anthony and DB. FOIA? 😀
      There’s no transcript. We haven’t spoken for many months, probably not for a year or more. I just did what was necessary to keep things running smoothly; approving comments held because they had a trigger word or too many links, and rescuing legitimate comments from the Spam folder.
      The problem was due to using an ‘Edit’ screen instead of the regular thread. That allows posting a reply under any comment. But the Edit screen doesn’t show if comments have been closed.

    • Think of it this way Dave,
      You are now free to attack the trolls at will. 😉
      Sometime these things can be a blessing in disguise. 🙂

    • AndyG55,
      Thanks, Andy. I’ve always used the game theory maxim: ‘Treat me good, I’ll treat you better; treat me bad, I’ll treat you worse.’ But I never go looking to make enemies. On the other hand, I don’t turn the other cheek, either.
      When someone asserts that human activity is the cause of (fill in the blank), the onus is on them to produce convincing evidence. And if the ‘solution’ is detrimental to the rest of us, they can and should expect push-back.
      With *very* few exceptions I don’t attack skeptics, because they’re on the same side of the debate. That’s the job of the alarmist side. And even if a commenter happens to be an alarmist, if they’re sincere and mean well I still don’t attack them (and note that having a difference of opinion, or asking uncomfortable questions, is not an ‘attack’).
      For example, I’ve always been polite to Steven Mosher. Maybe he doesn’t see it that way, but I would like to see any comments or replies to him that are insulting or untruthful.
      Conversely, I didn’t respond to attacks by ‘Saul’ until he had taken quite a few insulting jabs at me, for example:
      That is not true anywhere outside your personal alternative version of reality… fact free propaganda from your religion of pseudoscience… Back in reality… Newspaper and magazine clippings are not data anywhere outside your religion of pseudoscience… You are a one trick pony… your lies… Guana alert… Can I have some of what you have been smoking?… You are more to be pitied than laughed at… You have not posted links to data only useless trivia about the ice cap and a discredited map made by a weirdo… You are petty, bitter and full of hate… A cynic who doesn’t understand the meaning of volume… You are a soc*pup** wearing climate troll… &etc.
      Those comments by ‘Saul’ aren’t very friendly, ar they? They don’t contain data, or facts, or observations about the polar ice subject; they’re just nasty schoolyard taunts.
      Saul’s personal attacks take the place of verifiable, data-based arguments, and his opinions are unconvincing. So when he saw an opportunity (the WordPress ‘closed comments’ problem), he escalated his complaint to the boss like a tattle tale.
      Anyone is free to compare Saul’s juvenile insults with the fact-based comments I post. I try to provide verifiable data, links, and observations to support my analysis, while Saul’s typical replies are cut and pasted above.
      The ‘climate’ debate is basically due to the failure to follow the same rules (aside from the fact that much more money pours into the alarmist side than the skeptic side; take away the grant money and the ‘global warming’ scare would collapse overnight).
      The two sides go by different rules. One side understands that without skepticism science wouldn’t advance; scientific ‘truth’ would be pre-determined. It would be issued from on high by modern day witch doctors. That’s very close to Lysenkoism: ‘We have concluded that ‘carbon’ is a great danger, and that human emissions are the primary cause of global warming. Dissent will not be tolerated.’ It follows that windmills and ‘alternative’ energy must replace fossil fuel power.
      The difference between the two sides is in which one accepts or rejects the scientific method, which relies on skepticism.
      The climate alarmist crowd rejects skepticism (no matter what they claim). No climate alarmist is a true Popper/Feynman-type scientific skeptic.
      Skeptics simply ask the alarmist side to produce verifiable, testable, data-based measurements, evidence, and observations that convincingly support their central conjecture: their claim that CO2 is the primary driver of ‘climate change’. Instead, we’re met with assertions, failed conjectures, opinions, insults, and unscientific rhetoric.
      Skeptics won the science debate long ago. As a result, it has morphed into politics. Lysenko would recognize the current state of affairs.

      • dbstealey,
        That post was fabulous!
        Real. Backed up by ten years of evidence. And true.
        Not one troll that has ever graced WUWT has ever spoken so eloquently, or passionately.
        It must be at least a little satisfying to know you live rent free in so many heads my friend. As well you should! 🙂

  27. it’s a strange stituation but does remind me from what i encountered myself.
    i see here that the problem is that a lot of trolls would make this unintentional accident a matter of “they do it always.” so even if it looks incorrect the sanction is correct. been in the same boat.
    the problem is even if it’s unintentional a rule got violated, and making an exception would make other people to ask questions about the integrity. so for integrity’s sake even unfair in human way it has to be done.
    in my case i was removed from duty till the issue was resolved (the issue was moderators could not see clearly the topic was closed and the page acted as if it was a normal topic.)
    the admin did explain me why: this way other mods will be very attentive and stay attentive and believe me it felt unfair but afterwards it was logic. like this false accusations get no ground.
    false accusations were thrown but couldn’t keep on living. That was in a board handling about music, so imagine what this can do in a topic so hot as climate change, i bet this silly accident would go simply out of control.
    all i can say is:
    dbstealy keep the heads up, relax even if that feels hard to do. “it’s just a break” even if this is a very silly way to get this sanction that for sure triggers lots of why’s and emotions of unfairness, count to 10, don’t take this too personal, see the consequences trolls will take of this silly accident to discredit this site (which they will do) and when time is right you sure will get back into the mod squad (it’s a break not a permanent ban).
    to give you the heads up: meanwhile on that same forum i did make it to admin 2 years after that storm.
    i for sure won’t doubt your integrity when you’re back in the mod squad, but this is also thanks to this article even if it may look unfair to you personally.
    meanwhile comment have fun with us and keep on sharing your views, they are interesting.
    soon this will be only a bad memory where you can laugh with Anthony saying “remember this moment we had this storm?
    i know in your situation it is hard to do but give it a try and don’t hold grudges they make these accidents often worse then they are.

    • Even the abusers and trolls are given the benefit of the doubt and multiple chances when they purposely violate the rules. The same courtesy should be extended to the mods; no more, no less.

  28. Anthony
    It was a strange situation: Firefox refused yesterday to establish the connections, some longer comments unfortunately were lost upon login. But using Chrome all went well. Now today Firefox is OK again.
    Thanks for being so obstinate in solving these problems 🙂

    • I had the same problem yesterday but clicked the resend info button and all went well.

  29. What disturbed me the most about this (to me at least) unfathomable choice on Anthony’s part was his choice/decision to “fire” (for want of a better word) a longtime respected, dedicated, volunteer moderator without first discussing the matter with him.
    That Anthony appears to have done so on the strength of concerns, objections and/or whatevers from a relatively new pseudonymous newbie (and an apparently ill-informed Canadian one at that!) is – you should pardon my use of the phrase – somewhat alarming.
    Of course, one never knows what goes on behind closed screens. But in this instance – particularly considering dbstealey’s contributions (and notwithstanding what I recall as his dissing of me a few years ago!) I believe Anthony has done him – and this blog – a great disservice by virtually dismissing him without any prior discussion or attempt to resolve their differences.

  30. It would be good for all to note Anthony’s request to tone it down. If you look at the whole subject in hard, strict, scientific terms there should be no tone at all, just different degrees of quality shown in various lots of data and their interpretation.
    If I had my ‘druthers, I would suggest that belief or feelings should be suppressed voluntarily here.
    It is far more helpful to read an objective comment like “The confidence limits of this set of data have been recalculated to give these numbers..:
    … than and emotional remark like “Anyone stupid enough to believe this junk science has rocks in the head …”
    Of course, it is Anthony’s site, so my suggestion is just a suggestion. I hope it’s ok Anthony. It would be dull reading to be all clinical, so some emotion has to be let in, of course.
    Keep well Geoff.

  31. dbstealey: “Readers can decide if this was handled well.”
    No, we can’t—not enough information. On the surface it appears that Moderator Stealey was fired for simply not realizing some rescued comments were past the closing date, because a of a change in WordPress protocols. That doesn’t comport with all we know of Anthony’s fair and even-handed management of WUWT. So apparently there was something else at issue here.
    I’m glad we’ll still be hearing from ‘smokey’/’dbstealey’, whose astute and to-the-point commentary I have looked forward to for years. When he changed his handle from ‘smokey’ to ‘dbstealey’ I quickly recognized they were one and the same. But I was not aware he was a Moderator. That in itself is testament to the quality of his moderation.
    /Mr Lynn

    • Mr Lynn,
      There was also a threat made, which I’m sure had something to do with it. But I’ve said I would leave that for the boss to write about. Or ‘Saul’ can repeat it again here if he wants to. Aside from that, everything is pretty much the way it was explained in the article.

      • dbstealey on June 4, 2016 at 7:54 pm
        – – – – – – – –
        dbstealey,
        One can reasonably think that it could have only been a legal threat. Which would imply ‘Saul from Montreal’ is emulating an aggressive litigation modus operandi.
        I wonder if our respected host at this wonderful venue was given advice by an uninvolved third party to handle your situation like he did. I hope our host is getting balanced advice in such matters.
        John

      • John Whitman saud:
        One can reasonably think that it could have only been a legal threat.
        No, it was nothing like that. I’m quite surprised it had the effect it did, because it wasn’t credible as far as I could see. Everyone sees things differently, but when an ‘anonymous coward’ can intimidate someone so easily, it sends the wrong message. Throwing a strong ally to the wolves never satisfies the enemy. Instead, they smell blood and it makes them even more ravenous.

        • “Throwing a strong ally to the wolves never satisfies the enemy.”
          Of course, that’s how you lose the war.
          Anyway, I am lost: what was the “threat”?
          The more I read, the less I understand what happened.

  32. My only hope is that people like Saul in Montreal, whomever this is, do not start to tear down the operations of this blog by using similar tactics.

  33. I appreciate greatly Anthony’s magnificent work keeping this blog up and running and finding things to post many times a day – it’s extremely hard and nerve-wracking. Likewise I appreciate Dave Stealey’s tireless work defending the site against the alarmist hatemongers who come here and try to wreck things. Here’s my take:
    Remember Saul Alinsky (a truly evil creature): “Play the man.”
    The alarmists follow his nasty, rotten playbook. They attack and misrepresent and bung on their tinfoil halos and throw fake outrages at the slightest slip from godly perfection by our side, while they themselves engage in hate, dishonesty, and character assassination.
    In the end that gets us down (and that is the intent)!
    And so we make slip-ups. Dave made one with the comments, and (IMHO) Anthony has made one by reacting to the (likely entirely fake) complaints he got. People, please, let’s forgive each other and get back to the job. Don’t let those horrible followers of Alinsky wear us out. They are using CO2 as a pretext to wreck our western civilisations and create yet another Marxist failure with all the inevitable poverty, misery and death. It’s too important. Let’s get back to working together.

  34. I don’t post very often, but receive all the WUWT emails of threads.
    The issue here seems unfair on DB, in a technical, moral and a personal way. I think an apology and reinstatement is in order. I’m sure this site can look after itself against anything Saul could muster up.
    I was disgracefully treated by a moderator here on WUWT a few years ago, my name was outed and my comment/s misrepresented then criticized. I was bruised for a while.
    Whilst I was disgusted and offended and would have liked the moderator shot, I think apology and correction are enough. I’m guessing decent moderators are hard to come by, and DB has my respect for all his efforts. (Wouldn’t it be ironic if he was the one?)
    I echo a comment above about the potential damage done to this site over the handling of this.
    Having said all this I feel there might be more to the story than has yet been told. My comment is a first take feeling on the issue.
    I don’t know where we would be without this site, it is amazing and has educated me greatly. I think Anthony has done an astounding job for decades. I think his moderators have done a great job on the whole and in no small way helped the site become what it is. I’m sure they are not perfect and have upset a few, perhaps unfairly, from time to time, but that is natural and human. We are all grown-ups.
    I get the feeling that Anthony could have an apology accepted by DB and that DB would be prepared to come back.

  35. I vote publicly that our db simply get a month off and Anthony and he simply negotiate the future terms.

  36. I didn’t think this needed to be said, but for all you people who think dbstealey was a sacrificial lamb being used to maintain the air of integrity, you’ve been had. That’s not why this happened. This happened because dbstealey has a long history of writing abusive, paranoid rants and they have been a constant source of embarrassment for our host. The behavior in the last few weeks has been particularly embarrassing, to the point our host has had to step in and delete his comments multiple times because of how bad they were.
    This entire thing about WordPress letting moderators comment after comment threads have been closed is just a smokescreen. The same sort of thing has been used a number of times in the past. Our host knows certain things are bad and wrong, but he can’t bring himself to admit they were wrong for whatever reason, so he finds some other excuse to shut them down. And it’s obvious when he does it because the excuse never makes sense in that it isn’t remotely proportional.
    dbstealey should never have been a moderator. That said, since he was a longtime moderator, he deserved better treatment than this. If he was going to be fired, the real reason should have been given. It would have made for a great post too. Our host could have posted screenshots of the various comments by dbstealey he’s had to delete and written, “This is the sort of paranoid, delusional nonsense that isn’t welcome on this site.”

    • Brandon,
      Dave Stealey is human, just like everyone else commenting here. I’ve watched his comments just as closely as I have the trolls, and I’d agree that just like the rest of us, once his own emotions and personal opinions get introduced into a conversation, it pretty much goes downhill. But I also am incredibly thankful that emotions AND personal opinions are still allowed and pretty much uncensored here. Aren’t you?
      All anyone has to do is examine the archived threads to realize that the vast majority of the evidence demonstrates that Dave is not some typical forum hothead who attacks innocent newbies with “abuse and paranoia” for sport. His history shows that he is infinitely patient and reasonable with people who seem sincere and are contributing in even a small way, than I most likely could or would be. His history also shows that he’s extremely skilled at spotting trolls and the sock puppets of those who have been banned, or should be, and has no patience with them…which I personally LOVE. Why even have moderators if not to spot and shut down those people that computer code is not nuanced enough to do on it’s own?
      If someone posts a short, precise comment that Dave disagrees with, Dave usually responds with a short, precise comment in return. When someone pushes and pushes, creating a never ending stream of nonsense, Dave’s responses get longer and longer, as well as more strident. Isn’t that basic human nature? Competent, FREE help is hard to find, and excellent FREE help even more so. What are the odds that Anthony can find even one excellent, free, helper with the emotionless intellect of Data from Star Trek, who has the kind of time to donate that Dave has had?
      Of all the posters here, who do you suppose the opposition would like to see gone the most? I can tell you it’s Dave. If he was batcrap crazy, Anthony never would have made him a mod in the first place, not to mention keeping him there for so long. And I doubt Dave would have stuck around WUWT with the fierce loyalty that he has for so long, if he and Anthony have been on bitter terms for any serious length of time. I can copy and paste blog comments from a variety of other blogs that would prove that Dave Stealey has been a festering thorn in the wounds of many of WUWT’s inept and persistent trolls over the years. Is that because any of them have been the unsuspecting, innocent, doe-eyed victim of some hotheaded, irrational attacker? Not ONCE that I can find. It’s because he is persistent, prepared, detailed, seasoned, and fearless. Qualities that I admire and would HOPE are required by any site owner who takes his blog/forum/reputation seriously.
      I truly hope this blows over. Regulars here understand and are cheering for both Anthony and Dave. And somewhere Saul and his little internet entourage are very pleased with themselves because they are reliving their Jr High drama days all over again.

      • Some accuse others on this thread of past ranting and/or over-the-top comments.
        Ranting (which causes a tendency toward going over-the-top) at WUWT is dominantly caused by any introduction of a political statement in the lead post and/or in comments.
        That is a problem at WUWT where a dominant percentage of WUWT commenters/posters, prima fascia, have a view that it is politics that primarily motivated the creation of and now sustains the GW movement.
        When the vast majority of lead post authors and commenters here at WUWT think that GW focused movements have, at the most fundamental level, a political cause/premise/motive, then of course there will be politically charged comments almost constantly being made on most threads. Political discussions usually are notoriously contentious; it is the nature of such discussions.
        Check the premises about GW focused movements having a fundamental political cause/premise/motive. Rather, focus on critiquing the problematic irrational philosophy of the science responsible for allowing the GW movement.
        John
        PS – This might be a duplicate post

    • You seem to have forgotten something, Mr. S.: we are eye witnesses. Many of us have been observing the data, the comments/moderating of D. B. Stealey, for years.
      In the years I have been here, I have not observed one instance of what any reasonable person would call an “abusive, paranoid rant,” nor any comments which a reasonable person would call “an embarrassment.”
      Your weak statements above are completely unpersuasive.

      • janice
        ‘dbstealey May 17, 2016 at 3:38 pm
        Quite clearly the US science agencies are altering their data to suit the political agenda of their paymasters.
        • The Paymaster is the President
        • The President appoints the heads of science agencies
        • The President has a strong anti-‘carbon’ agenda
        Draw your own conclusions…”
        There are more.

      • Mr. M0sher: Your data (cited above) could only be seen as “abusive, paranoid rant” or “an embarrassment” by one with a skewed (“adjusted,” kriged, perhaps) view of the real data.
        1. The POTUS is a metaphorical “paymaster,” given his control over Executive agency budgets.
        2. This is simply a fact.
        3. Another fact with many statements by POTUS, et al. to back up that assertion.
        Data manipulation by Thomas Karl, NOT a Ph.D. and other scientists paid by the U.S. government is fact.
        Go ahead, Mr. M0sher — cite some more. You are making a fine case for D. B.’s innocence (of Mr. Sh.’s charge)!
        Thank you!
        **********************************
        Hey, I just thought of something! You are a pre-tty clever fellow — you realized that you, a known warmist, standing up and waving a pair of D.B.’s freshly laundered, red, white, and blue striped, pajama bottoms around like they were dirty underwear would make HIM look GREAT! YOU REALLY LOVE D. B. AND ARE SUPPORTING HIM! Aw, M0sher, good for you.
        Heh.
        #(:))

      • Steven Mosher,
        What you’re doing is quoting an opinion shared by a large fraction of skeptical readers. If you don’t think so, check out Tony Heller’s site.
        Go argue with him if you can’t tolerate opinions different from yours, but the fact is he has posted a mountain of corroborating evidence. So if cut ‘n’ paste quotes like that are the best you have to support BS’s nonsense that I’m “paranoid”, then you’ve got nothing.
        I might add that each of the bullet points you copied are understood by rational folks.

      • Steven Mosher,
        Is that the best you can do? There are very few skeptics here who would disagree with those bullet points. In the past 8 years NOAA alone has altered their ‘data’ at least 96 times.
        There is a mountain of evidence to coroborrate the fact that government agencies like NOAA ‘adjust’ the record in order to show more alarming warming. It’s what they do. And almost all of those “adjustments” end up producing more scary warming, not less.
        You cut ‘n’ pasted that comment to support BS’s post saying I’m “paranoid”. But you’ve failed to show any paranoia at all, because it’s simply a fact. The government wants a “carbon” tax, and alarming the public is their primary tool.

      • Mosher,
        THAT is the best example you could find of an “abusive, paranoid rant”? Or even “embarrassing?”
        US agencies alter their protocols, rules, and agendas to suit the political agendas of those they work for. Are you unaware the roles of the Executive Office of the US Government or just in complete denial of those facts, as well as the following two-
        *The President of the US appoints the heads of science agencies, along with other agencies. It’s his job. *The current President DOES have a very strong anti-carbon agenda.
        I’d quibble over the idea that the “Paymaster is the President” on a technicality, but he certainly has both the power and authority to make sure his political agenda gets met.
        So what exactly do you think this particular cut and paste job proves, besides that dbstealey knows more about the US Government than you do?

      • Steven,
        I doubt if there are many skeptics here who would disagree with the three bullet points that you cut ‘n’ pasted. There is a mountain of evidence coroborrating the fact that government agencies routinely ‘adjust’ the record in order to show more alarming warming. NOAA alone has altered the temperature record 96 times over the past eight years, and it’s hardly ‘paranoia’ to question that.

      • “Quite clearly the US science agencies are altering their data to suit the political agenda of their paymasters.”
        When they can’t alter the data, they are burying it: see the overwhelming evidence that low dose rate radiation isn’t harmful, that home radon exposure isn’t an issue, etc. That’s the only way corrupt NAS and corrupt BEIR can keep the all radiation is harmful meme on life support.
        Are these claims ideational in nature?

      • Janice
        “Mr. M0sher: Your data (cited above) could only be seen as “abusive, paranoid rant” or “an embarrassment” by one with a skewed (“adjusted,” kriged, perhaps) view of the real data.”
        You didnt even check the facts
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/17/nsidc-resumes-sea-ice-plots-with-provisional-data/
        The topic was NSIDC.
        not karl
        not kriging.
        AND,,, the comment was removed!
        The point is simple. there was a problem with a satellite.
        Goddard posted up a bogus chart.
        DB never investigated, he just reposted it.
        Then, he has the audacity to accuse people of what amounts to fraud.
        He started in usual fashion by linking to a bogus chart
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/17/nsidc-resumes-sea-ice-plots-with-provisional-data/#comment-2225544
        Then he made comments like this
        “barry, give it up. I made the second comment in this thread, but you didn’t like it. So you cherry-picked an extremely short time slice out of the entire record — the same thing the NSIDC is trying to do to claim that the current ‘ice’ variability is un-natural.”
        Well, the only problem is that in 2012 WILLIS HIMSELF said the “null hypothesis” about the change in ice being natural was challenged ( want the links? they are very embarassing” but see the thread, Saul remembers the time I called out db on this issue
        in 2012!!
        here is the bottom line.
        1. If you make claims of fraud, you better be able to back them up.
        2. If you are a moderator of a skeptical site, you better show MORE skepticism toward
        your own claims than you do against the claims of others.
        3. you cannot Moderate and Debate and been seen as fair. you might be fair, but you cant be seen as fair.
        4. Goddard has embarrassed this site far too many times. Like I said before, his material should be treated with the same seriousness as Chem trail stuff. Its not a good idea
        to give his nonsense ANY oxygen. Look I may disagree with Anthony and Willis on the science, but I’ve never seen them make dishonest mistakes, or totally incompetent mistakes without correcting them. Goddard? nothing but trouble.. whether he is posting, or whether people are reposting his stuff here, promoting it, endorsing it, or just letting it slide.. In short, you should be more skeptical about the junk he posts.. be true skeptics about everything.
        And lastly Janice if you want the raw satellite data for the Ice its available. you dont want it. Why? because you are not a real skeptic. A real skeptic STARTS by questioning their own beliefs. And you dont want to do that… ever.

        • The link you posted, leads to a post by dbstealey in which he used an image of Arctic ice coverage on a specific date and time. You call that map a “chart” and attribute it’s origins to “Goddard”. But “Goddard” looks to have merely posted an image from the DMI.
          So, you seem to be accusing dbstealey of being fraudulent, or Goddard or the DMI. And you just said 1.” If you make claims of fraud, you better be able to back them up”.
          So, please provide evidence to back up your own claims. Otherwise you are engaging in the same behavior you are condemning.

    • Brandon, can you post some examples of my comments being deleted “multiple times because of how bad they were”?
      Several of my comments were snipped over the years, but not more than a handful. That happens routinely to lots of folks, and it’s happened to you, too, IIRC. Anthony snips comments regardless of whether they’re made by a moderator, and it’s a cheap shot to bring that up, since you and I have gotten into some heated discussions in the past. You’ve gotten into it with Anthony and others, too. Out of more than 18,000 comments I’ve posted here, having a half dozen or so snipped is a pretty good batting average, no? And I never claimed to be perfect.
      So, Brandon, is your animosity due to our former disagreements? Or do you just like to kick a guy when he’s down?
      Recently you posted that I am “flat out dishonest”, and a “liar”. You also wrote: “You are deliberately misrepresenting…” And: “…You are lying. Stop it.” You also wrote: “you’re championing a bumbling buffoon who makes a mockery of every one of you” (skeptics). And you’ve posted numerous other personal attacks against me. But now you are accusing me of being “abusive”??
      This isn’t the place to pile on, Brandon. I know you can’t resist, but your innuendo is far too personal. You’re excused from the jury.
      Finally, I’m glad not every comment here is supportive. I have no problem with a 97% approval rating. Brandon is the other 3% that makes it real. Can’t keep everyone happy, you know? ☺

      • Yup.
        And how about Mosher, “explaining” to skeptics the correct way to be truly skeptical.
        I was going to pick it apart but it is too mind-boggling to even want to touch.
        Reading these guys is a veritable primer on how resistant people are to spotting their own psychological quirks.

    • Just a thought. Much seems to have been made in this whole, perplexing affair with DB, in terms of a closed thread, that prevented responses, by Saul of Montreal, to moderator comments. And this particular situation seems to have been precipitated by some of Saul’s comments, posted late in the game, just before the close of the thread.
      Idle questions: Does Canadian libel law come down heavy on comments on blogs for which an aggrieved party is deprived of a right of response? Did Saul of Montreal exploit such a feature of Candaian law, if any, to entrap DB, using a superior knowledge of WordPress, thread-closure quirks?
      Just askin’…

    • Brandon: This is the sort of paranoid, delusional nonsense that isn’t welcome…anywhere. See, just about any little thing can go to moderation, even quoting you.

    • I have noticed some odd problems on a variety of WordPress blogs of vanishing comments; no mention that it is in moderation — it just vanishes but is not predictable. Sometimes they resurface days later, sometimes not. Nothing I post on Jerry Coyne’s blog ever appears and that was rather abrupt when it became clear I was a danger to his echo chamber. I don’t think I’m banned; would I get an alert if so? I have no idea. So I write comments supposing that at least the blog owner or moderator will see them.

  37. I probably shouldn’t weigh in, but as a fellow WordPress blogger, I’ve got to ask—if you are closing the threads after 2 weeks or whatever (makes sense to me!) …
    Why are you going into the trash and fishing out “in moderation” comments AFTER that date? Either moderate them within the 2-week time period or the comment doesn’t get posted. Easy!
    That’s what the NY Times does. I’m a regular commentator there, but not a pre-approved one, so sometimes when I post a comment it doesn’t make it through moderation before the thread is closed.
    This whole affair just seems way over-engineered. The solution appears to be simple: Moderators stop looking at “in limbo” comments once the thread is closed.
    If the moderator is too busy to get to a comment within the window–hey, it happens! Folks are volunteering their time and effort, and you can’t require volunteers to meet service-level-guarantees (“your comment will be moderated within .02 minutes or your money back!”).

    • Johna,
      What I think you missed is the fact that Dave did not know the thread was automatically closing or when. Nor did he know that he would be able to still post comments into a closed thread. Probably like myself and most others, he assumed that the software would not let him, so he didn’t look too closely at the thread status. Obviously going forward this is something they will need to look for.
      I understand that some blog owners/moderators may need/want the ability to post into a closed thread, however the software should at least warn you that you are attempting to post to a closed thread and give you a chance to cancel the action, IMHO.

      • Hmm. Actually, you have given me a policy item when I have my own blog set up. I’ll make one reminder comment on the day that the thread is being closed – and a time before the “official” time after which moderated comments will NOT be reviewed. That seems about the best that can be done.
        Of course, I am anticipating (right now) one post a week, not the volume that occurs here.

      • I think closing during a living discussion is a bad idea, as it creates an arbitrary limit: one comment will pass, one reply to the comment will be blocked, even if in rapid succession.

  38. Count me a card carrying member of the DB Stealey fan club.
    Very disappointed by this news of his suspension. Since I am also a big fan of our host, I shall leave it at that.
    That I am very disappointed.

  39. The following is a “discussion” that I had with dbstealey in March.
    Notice how he fails to admit that he had posted up a disputed (read deceptive) graph – see link – it is stated so here.
    Either knowingly/deceptively or out of ignorance. But why would it be ignorance?
    He after all is (was a mod). BTW was his name on the moderators list?
    Are any other moderators regular (in dbstealey’s case an obsessed) poster?
    Is it correct that a moderator should post?
    Should they not refrain and apply the website moderation rules fairly without fear or favour to both *sides*?
    Did he? Given his obsessive (and conspiratory) views against “warmists”?.
    Also note that despite having nowhere to go – other than do the honest thing and either stay quiet or much better apologise and move on …. he came back 5 days later to rubbish me further> all because I pointed out his posting on a disputed/deceptive graph. An unarguable action..
    I’m sorry, that is disreputable, and unworthy of Anthony’s integrity.
    And furthermore, is it in the interests of this site to be merely an echo-chamber, with dbstealey being the chief cheer-leader (was)?
    Because that sort of treatment toward someone who disagrees (note I am a retired meteorologist with the UKMO ) and bring some knowledge to the subject …. hardly encourages honest discourse now does it??
    That is the reason (on the surface at least) that dbstealey is the subject of this thread.
    —————————————————————————————–
    Toneb March 3, 2016 at 1:37 am
    dbstealey:
    Why is that Alley graph still published on here as including modern warming?
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/
    That graph ends 95 years before present and therefore omitted modern warming.
    “I this thread I’d like to solidify the classifications for the graphs based upon Alley, 2000. The dispute around Alley, 2000 has focused on the axis labels, as WUWT commenter Phil states here
    “Any graph that claims to use Alley’s GISP2 data must either finish at 95 years Before Present (BP=1950) or AD1855 because that is the final date in his database which is on-line and freely available to us all. Lappi’s graph mistakes Present for 2000 as does Easterbrook, they should have a note added pointing out their error or be excluded.””
    ………………………………………………………………………………….
    dbstealey March 3, 2016 at 1:43 am
    Toneb,
    As stated many times before, what we are observing is neither unusual, nor unprecedented.
    I understand your terror. But it is misplaced. You are worried about a black cat under your bed. You can almost hear it breathing. But when you turn on the lights and look… there is no cat.
    And there never was.
    ………………………………………………………………………………….
    Toneb March 3, 2016 at 2:30 am
    dbstealey;
    Thank you for that illuminating response.
    So you knew that graph was deceptive.
    Plainly.
    ………………………………………………………………………………….
    John Finn March 3, 2016 at 2:36 am
    Toneb March 3, 2016 at 1:37 am
    That graph ends 95 years before present and therefore omitted modern warming.
    It actually ends in 1855, i.e. 95 years before 1950.
    Toneb March 3, 2016 at 3:17 am
    John:
    Thank you.
    Written in haste (though Anthony’s quote had it right).
    Yes, the Alley graph, as posted by dbstealey is about as deceptive as it could be in a Blog that is considering anthro GHG emissions post the industrial age.
    ………………………………………………………………………………….
    dbstealey March 8, 2016 at 5:46 pm
    @Toneb,
    All you have is your opinion. I post graphs, and your opinion is that they’re “deceptive”.
    Pure projection on your part. All the deception comes from the alarmist crowd, who are trying to deceive the public into believing that CO2 is the driver of the planet’s temperature.
    That is complete deception on your part. Rational folks here clearly see the complete disconnect between the rise in CO2 and global T. The only verified correlation shows that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. You’ve had it completely backward from the start. Skeptics are right; you are wrong.
    Since you have no charts of your own and only make comments from the peanut gallery, here is a chart that goes right up to 2016.
    It shows clearly that there is nothing either unprecedented, or unusual happening. That means you are wrong.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………

    • “Did he? Given his obsessive (and conspiratory) views against “warmists”?.”
      What views?
      Also, why should people believe that warmistas are reasonable, decent people who will not engage in conspiracies? Which warmistas? Those who claim they got a Nobel prize? Those who faked the 97% studies? Those who conspired (yes, that’s how it’s called) to hide the raw data of the 97% studies? Those who didn’t say a thing? Those who failed to retract the publication when seeing that the data was protected as data on human subjects, which makes the study a psychology study about Cook’s buddies, not a science sociology study? Those who made the “Moon hoax” scam? (shortened Moon scam) Those who didn’t say a thing about the Moon scam? Those who attacked the victims of the Moon scam? Those who mocked the people who dismembered the Moon scam? Those who wants to make illegal to disagree with unspecified “CO2 is bad” theory?
      I used to believe warmists were doing science (that they might be about a few things, but that they were honest, mostly hard working people with the best scientific practices, and they had a moral compass).
      But the evidence that warmists aren’t engaged in a scientific project, that they have no epistemology (just like vaxxers) and no moral compass is overwhelming.
      When dealing with a mafia, be it a communist union, or antinucs, warmists, or vaxxers, paranoia and “conspiratory” attitude (every alleged evidence is considered fraudulent until proven otherwise) is the only possible attitude. After being lied to, when the liars are promoted by mainstream press (the medias are stuffed with government sycophants) as neutral, reasonable, when education is taken over to promote CO2 scare, when the Web is stuffed mutually referential websites that promote lies (in order to bias Google results), when even the science “institutions” (as if science was institutional) go along with the nonsense… yes, paranoid is the default position.

    • “Is it correct that a moderator should post?”
      Ridiculous question. You are trying to mime with judicial neutrality which is a scam anyway – as if there was a judge coming from nowhere with no personal history and no opinion shaped by propaganda on any subject matter!
      Neutrality is a false concept. There is no such thing as neutrality in science. There is only epistemology, and this is what the warmists-progressists-leftists (no significant distinction here, it’s the no such thing as a moral compass crowd) want to destroy.
      A man who is moderator can post, but a moderator shouldn’t ever reject a comment because he doesn’t share the conclusion or arguments presented.

      • simple-touriste says:
        There is no such thing as neutrality in science.
        That’s a fact that many here lose sight of. All the great turning points in scientific history were caused by those who went down their own path against a headwind of criticism.
        Criticism is a valuable function. It identifies errors and helps refine a new theory. But when the basic idea is sound, it drives through criticism. That’s happening in this great debate between scientific skeptics and climate alarmists (AKA: warmists).
        There are always nay-sayers. But they don’t matter in the long run. Their parochial views are the basis for their comfortable position. An immense tax-funded industry has built up around the CO2=CAGW narrative. In the U.S. alone, more than $1 billion is handed out in grants every year. That much money buys not only scientists and universities, but media stories that inevitably sound the man-made global warming alarm. It also buys silence: even when scientists disagree, their peers and university employers make sure they don’t rock the boat.
        But in the long run facts overwhelm belief and propaganda. We see that happening now in the mainstream media. A few years ago most comments under articles about ‘climate change’ were posted by individuals still concerned about human-caused warming.
        But no more. Now most comments from the general public openly ridicule the ‘carbon’ scare. The truth is percolating through the public’s consciousness, and at some inflection point the hoax will collapse. If not for the piles of grant money supporting it, the hoax would have already collapsed.
        So science is not neutral, and never has been. Progress occurs via the tension between opposing points of view. Truth is the arbiter, and facts, evidence, and observations are the weapons that decide the contest. And skepticism is absolutely essential to the Scientific Method.
        Skeptics are clearly winning the public’s hearts and minds because the other side lacks credible evidence and observations. All they have are their conjectures, their beliefs, and their endless assertions. That’s why their modus operandi is to ask endless questions, while avoiding answering questions, and to cherry-pick only those factoids that fit their confirmation bias. And they constantly try to silence effective opposing views, eg: ‘Saul from Montreal’.
        When readers are given both sides of the debate, they make good decisions based on all available information. That process is no different than a jury that is swayed at first by the prosecution’s argument. But when the jury hears the defense’s counter-argument, they begin to change their minds. They’ve been given new facts, which alters their understanding and thus their conclusion. When people are given both sides of an argument, they almost arrive at the correct conclusion. That explains why the alarmist side constantly tries to silence opposing views.
        simple-tourist also wrote:
        A man who is a moderator can post, but a moderator shouldn’t ever reject a comment because he doesn’t share the conclusion or arguments presented.
        The small group of alarmists commenting here does not like the fact that moderators can express an opinion. They would prefer to silence the most effective voices. To Anthony’s credit, he usually disregards that unrepresentative clique. And up to now, moderators have always been free to comment under their own names.
        And as s-t says, a moderator should never censor a different point of view. That doesn’t happen here. I’ve never censored anyone’s comments, and I know of no other moderator who has done that, either.
        The cause of this article, ‘Saul of Montreal’, had been cherry-picking limited areas as examples of global warming. In each instance I replied that a local region is not representative of the ‘man-made global warming’ scare. Those back and forth comments have since been deleted because comments had been closed overnight; which I didn’t know when I replied.
        The end result was that the censors won this round. I’m not complaining, and I trust that after this tempest in a teapot blows over Anthony will do the right thing. In the mean time, it’s worth pointing out once more that skeptics have nothing to prove; the onus is on the ‘warmist’ claim that human emissions are the main cause of global warming. But assertions are not enough. They must provide — if not proof — then at least credible, data-based, and observation-based evidence that supports their conjecture. But any such evidence is flimsy at best, while real world observations support the skeptics’ argument.
        The alarmist claim is opposed by scientific (Popper/Feynman-type) skeptics, and neither side is neutral. There is no neutrality in science. There are correct conjectures (which can then become hypotheses, and then theories). But in the long run, most scientific conjectures and hypotheses turn out to be wrong. They must either be altered, or discarded.
        In this debate, either climate alarmists are right, or skeptics are right.
        But they cannot both be right, because their conclusions are diametrically opposed. One side is right, and the other side is wrong. Time (and Planet Earth) will decide which one is correct.

      • As usual db discusses everything but the main point in Toneb’s post – that db posted a graph with a deceptive end date.

      • Aphan is correct, charts showing global temperatures right up to the present time have been repeatedly posted and discussed here regularly. But as usual, Chris is deflecting like he always does. I’ve posted plenty of charts like this, showing the current global T up until now:
        http://oi53.tinypic.com/sg2wav.jpg
        As we see, current temps are nothing unusual, and earlier in the Holocene global temperatures were a lot warmer than now — before human emissions could possibhly have mattered. That fact deconstructs the ‘man-made’ climate scare, and I have plenty more charts like that one; just ask and I’ll post them. I’d do it now, but as usual Chris is off-topic because he’s got nothin’ but his belief.

      • simple-touriste says:
        A man who is moderator can post, but a moderator shouldn’t ever reject a comment because he doesn’t share the conclusion or arguments presented.
        Agree completely. That’s something neither I nor any other mod (to the best of my knowledge) has ever done. It would defeat the purpose of this “Best Science” site, where viewers come here to read all sides of the issues.
        If comments were deleted because a moderator didn’t share their conclusion or arguments, this site would become just another echo chamber, catering to only one point of view — just like most warmist blogs do. Many of us here have been banned from those blogs for nothing more than posting facts that contradict their alarming narrative.
        WUWT has never been an echo chamber because Anthony wisely decided from the beginning on a ‘no-censorship’ policy. (That policy applies to science based arguments, not to fringe subjects like chemtrails, astrology, etc.) That healthy give-and-take of debate has contributed to the astonishing traffic numbers — numbers that alarmist blogs would sell their mothers into Turkish slavery to get. Except for one thing…
        The choice that alarmist blogs face is between allowing the hated skeptics to freely comment — or censoring them, thus limiting what the public sees to only the alarmist version. So they give up site traffic so they can emit their one-sided propaganda; they can’t have both. Tamino, realclimate, and others like them are struggling to survive on their dwindling clique of like-minded regulars, while WUWT steadily approaches 2 million reader comments due to giving both sides an equal chance to argue their case.
        Following both sides of a debate makes it easy for readers to separate the good arguments from the weak ones. Readers can then make up their own minds, based on the information presented by both sides. When someone makes up his/her mind that way, instead of being told what to believe by ‘authorities’, that conclusion is much more likely to stay with them.
        Another good reason that no moderator would ever reject a comment he doesn’t agree with is because the climate alarmist faction has such weak arguments, which lack credible supporting observations, data, and evidence. Skeptics enjoy repeatedly deconstructing what amounts to an eco-religious belief system that is covered over with a thin veneer of science factoids and constant appeals to authorities. Alarmist arguments have always been very easy for skeptics to deconstruct.
        What skeptic worth his salt would delete those weak conclusions, and thus give up the schadenfreude that comes from running rings around the warmists’ unconvincing arguments? ☺

  40. As a moderator I would usually have allowed off-topic comments like Toneb’s, because this site doesn’t censor opinions, not by climate alarmist, and not even by commenters who also help by moderating the constant flood of spam and comments (which is drudge work, despite what folks like Toneb believe).
    But Toneb is getting personal here. He’s trying to get even because he lost the debate he’s referring to. What he doesn’t show are the numerous other charts I posted from WoodForTrees and many other sources, filling in the past half century. Toneb cherry-picked only a tiny part out of an un-named, months old thread, only posting what he wanted readers to see.
    Is Toneb playing fair here? As usual, readers can decide.
    His one on-topic comment was this:
    Is it correct that a moderator should post?
    Yes, that has been the practice since this site began. I use my real name, “Toneb”, and I never denied that I helped moderate. I never advertised it, either. To me it didn’t matter. But Toneb is always free to set up his own WordPress blog and run it any way he wishes, including censoring the comments of his moderators… if he ever needs moderators.
    Toneb is out of line, and mostly off-topic. Like one or two others, he saw an opportunity to monkey-pile on someone who’s falsified their ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ beliefs by posting data-based evidence and observations. Instead of trying to rehash old debates, Toneb should confine his comments to this article — using verifiable facts, and not innuendo.
    But I’m still happy with the 97% consensus. ☺

    • “But Toneb is getting personal here. He’s trying to get even because he lost the debate he’s referring to. What he doesn’t show are the numerous other charts I posted from WoodForTrees and many other sources, filling in the past half century. Toneb cherry-picked only a tiny part out of an un-named, months old thread, only posting what he wanted readers to see.”
      QED: And why you are where you are my friend.
      BTW: I posted the entirety of the *discussion*.
      You were, and you are now dishonourable.

    • “Toneb is out of line, and mostly off-topic. Like one or two others, he saw an opportunity to monkey-pile on someone who’s falsified their ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ beliefs by posting data-based evidence and observations. Instead of trying to rehash old debates, Toneb should confine his comments to this article — using verifiable facts, and not innuendo.”
      More QED:
      Go gracefully my friend.
      With posters like you WUWT was condemned to being an echo-chamber, as few (on the science side – yes SCIENCE side) were prepared to stomach the likes of your behaviour.
      Marginally less so now.
      You posted up a known deceptive graph (again), did not admit it, turned to general invective and were then small-minded enough to sneak back and have a final “dig”.
      Contempt is not a strong enough word for the feelings I have for such behaviour.
      PS: I await your last word …. as your track record indicates that it is an imperative for you.
      How about you post the global ave deltatT in Kelvin and then I can post this……
      http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5123/5304093969_dc21d0f5d1.jpg
      In return.
      As you Americans say…
      Have a nice day.

      • Toneb is still threadjacking by posting his off-topic, ad hominem comments. The reason is simple: he can’t dispute what the very large majority of readers (±97%) have posted here.
        He’s also engaging in wishful thinking:
        With posters like you WUWT was condemned to being an echo-chamber
        Toneb is confusing WUWT with the thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs that he gets his misinformation from. It’s a form of psychological projection.
        Toneb’s baseless innuendo is contradicted by the plain fact that I’ve commented steadily here throughout the explosive growth of this site — which has gone from only a few comments a week to about 1.8 million reader comments, and more than 270 million unique views in less than a decade.
        No alarmist blog has come anywhere near the spectacular growth of WUWT. They might, if I was commenting on them; there’s certainly a greater correlation between my 18K+ comments here and the skyrocketing traffic, than any putative correlation between CO2 and global warming. But I’ve been censored too many times by Toneb’s favorite echo chambers to keep trying. They cannot tolerate allowing their readers to see facts that contradict their alarmist narrative. So they routinely censor comments by scientific skeptics. And I’m just one of many readers here who have noticed the same thing.
        So I’m not going away as long as Toneb is commenting; that’s just more of his wishful thinking. It’s too easy to deconstruct his alarmist arguments with facts and observations. For example, Toneb’s cherry-picked chart above only covers only a relatively short time period. But when we view a longer time frame, atmospheric CO2 is seen in much better perspective:
        http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
        CO2 has risen many times higher in the past than in Toneb’s truncated chart — and that rise happened well before human emissions could possibly have been a factor.
        So the more we learn, the more preposterous the claim is that CO2 is the ‘control knob’ of global temperatures. Rational skeptics have repeatedly deconstructed the “carbon” false alarm. The slight rise in global temperatures, and the rise in harmless CO2 — by only one part in 10,000 — are both beneficial to the biosphere, with no observed downside.
        Toneb is in over his head here. I recommend reading the WUWT archives for six months or so, in order to get up to sufficient speed on these subjects. That would help educate him more than anything.

      • “So the more we learn, the more preposterous the claim is that CO2 is the ‘control knob’ of global temperatures”
        The most preposterous claim is the notion that a small increase in CO2 content can produce enough warming to cause even more GHG effect capable of causing a runaway warming (causing the system to “tip over”).

      • dbstealey June 4, 2016 at 7:35 pm
        CO2 has risen many times higher in the past than in Toneb’s truncated chart — and that rise happened well before human emissions could possibly have been a factor.

        And more importantly before modern plants were a factor.

      • Look at that spike! You might mistake it for the border on the right hand side.
        So that’s what science looks like.

  41. Anthony & dbstealey,
    dbstealey, other doors will open for you now that you can have more time for other intellectual pursuits. My guess is that you will quickly see other doors that you did not even know existed ….. have fun …..
    Anthony, you are the coach of the WUWT team of mods/posters/commenters. The coach makes the calls, it is in the job description.
    I do sense there being a sea change at WUWT. Had the feeling only this year.
    John

  42. “Remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right.”
    Remember, getting the benefit of informed, competent people who post well written comments is a privilege, not a right.
    Remember, getting donations is a privilege, not a right.

Comments are closed.