Banishing Questions and/or Dissenting Viewpoints

by Russell Cook

Imagine a scenario where you believe a lack of public understanding about a critically important scientific issue is impeding progress on solving the issue. Since many common people communicate through social media, you’d welcome inquiries and constructive criticism from myriad Twitter users because this would allow you to not only solidify the soundness of your position to a much wider audience. You would further use it as a fabulous platform helping you to demonstrate your complete openness to educating the masses, wouldn’t you?
As I demonstrate below, Dr Michael Mann and some other entertaining folks don’t exactly agree, when it comes to man-caused global warming. Share your experiences in the comments section.

What crime prompted that? Either this one

You feel a need to trash @HeartlandInst ‘s book because its chapter 1 eviscerates the 97% consensus, yes?

… or this reply to one of his supporters:

When you deliberately leave out half the science – the skeptic side – and validate this via a logical fallacy, it looks like agenda-pushing.

This was after I saw his tweet about a news story of his efforts to recycle a booklet from skeptics of man-caused global warming …. which has its first chapter thoroughly disputing the exact point he made in his tweet. Szydlowski is not especially famous, but his act of blocking me embodies one of the fatal faults crippling the Al Gore side of this issue.

 

My crime? Apparently suggesting ….

Your video seems to indicate you are totally unaware of the depth of material from skeptic #climate scientists

… and/or replying to one of her supporters praising her for her communications skills …

An excellent lesson in communication failure: repeat left-wing talking points on economics and assume your audience doesn’t catch them

I’d never heard of Debbie Dooley before, she is described as a founder of the Tea Party movement. But upon learning of her pro-solar position via a far-left enviro-activist site, I was perplexed that an alleged right-wing person was apparently regurgitating an utterly misperceived psychological premise from the far-left on how to persuade right-wingers into action against global warming. Ms Dooley’s comeback of an absolutely unsupportable far-left talking point accusation prompted me to write a May 11, 2017 blog post right here. No doubt her inability to support her tweet accusation in the subsequent Twitter joust I had with her sealed the deal on her decision to block me.

 

Could be this one did the trick …..

… it’s the NewsHour … fleeing from questions

… but it took quite a while to take effect. Hari Sreenivasan is currently one of the two most famous ‘celebrities’ blocking me, he is a senior correspondent for the PBS NewsHour and anchor of their Newshour Weekend program. Back in 2013, he admitted being a sucker to reply to me, and he later threatened to block me, but didn’t apparently follow through with that since he tweeted directly back to me a year later with this gem: “… good luck to you. Each time I engage, you make me regret it.” Between that date and December 2016, he blocked me. Notice how the climate scientist Andrew Dessler came to his defense right after me here. Dr Dessler’s name will come up again shortly below.

 

I was blocked within mere moments of tweeting this:

Case study of #HowYouKnowTheyreLosing was necessity to push ‘vast industry-corrupted skeptics’ smear 20+ yrs ago

Dr Michael Mann, the internationally recognized climate scientist, is the second-most famous person blocking me from a Twitter account. I knew of William Briggs’ “Blocked by Mann Club” about a year earlier, but wasn’t tempted to try out the instant block feature until seeing Dr Mann’s tweet about a “fossil fuel group attacking” him. One could guess that either Dr Mann employs staffers to screen out such tweets, or his Twitter account has a screening program doing that.

 

Once again, pointing out a person who is unwilling to permit dissenting viewpoints is a crime:

Forbidding tough comments at your newest blog? Not to worry, here’s a screencapture.

A bigger readable version of the deleted comment I screencaptured is forever preserved at an archive version of her post that I created. (Interesting how she chose to immediately delete that one, but readily accepted the one by Lubos Motl which is still there to this day, albeit in an altered form minus the web link he long ago placed there). If my tweet about my deleted comment isn’t what prompted her to block me, this one probably caused it:

Oops, forgot to ask if you’d checked what the latest temperature in Resolute is.

The backstory here is that a Schatzie’s Earth May 2015 blog post concluded with a long list of prominent skeptics of man-caused global warming — with my name in that bunch — labeled as “murderers” of a pair of Arctic explorers. My tweet link for the nearest weather station no longer functions properly, but records show what the temperatures were in the area nearest to where the two explorers were lost during “unseasonably high temperatures.” It was below freezing. My heartfelt condolences to the families of the lost explorers, but who was actually possibly responsible for their deaths? Perhaps it was the global warming community which led these two to believe they didn’t need to pack much cold weather protection.

 

There’s that name again from the above “Hari Sreenivasan” section. Dr Dessler is an atmospheric scientist, and his block of me might have came from my reply to his praise of Hari Sreenivasan and the NewsHour’s exclusion of ‘flat Earth theorists’…

You are their new spokesperson on this matter? Question remains why THEY have not publicly elaborated on this

… or my subsequent tweet about the silliness of bringing up ‘flat earthers’ in the first place….

Everybody knows the F.E.S. sells gag t-shirts. Why AGW’ers continue to refer to it as a serious society is beyond me.

Whatever the case was, when I tried to reply straight to Dr Dessler’s Twitter account (which he temporarily permitted me to follow) a short time later that same day, I encountered the block screencaptured in the tweet I have here.

 

Who is this person? Perhaps the better question is what is this thing? If you go back the March 2013 timeline before and after this point, all I was doing was jousting with it over political angles of the global warming issue. Then Twitter user Maurizio Morabito (of BBC TwentyEightGate revelation fame) noted that it acted like a Twitterbot. When the other Twitter user in the conversation wondered about who the person was in its avatar photo, I did a small amount of photo image searching and then said,

Ya mmised [sic] in my 14-hr old tweet,  it’s Barton “Woody” Emanuel: https://www.facebook.com/woody.emanuel… (The earlier tweet was this one)

Notice throughout those several tweets how they go to “wood757,” while the responses are coming from a “TheWoodman2”. Try clicking on any link to “wood757” in the conversation and it takes you to an account created in November 2016 having zero tweets. Not only did “wood757” swap his/its headshot photo to the pastoral scene after I said who he was, the whole thing got a new Twitter account name. While I don’t have a screencapture of the “wood757” page in its original form, I did get a screencapture from the “twtrland” site’s profile of my tweets close to that time – the avatar photo of “wood757” is the first one on the left in that screencapture. It’s identical to the one I found at the above-noted “Woody Emanuel” Facebook page. What is the significance of that? Climatologist Dr Kerry Emanuel is also shown there. Facebook pages are public domain, but while respecting a degree of privacy in not disclosing another source of family details which is otherwise easily and publicly found on the internet, I can still absolutely establish that Woody Emanuel is Dr Kerry Emanuel’s brother. One more thing: the avatar photos that come up via my Twitter archive of those old 2013 tweets to “wood757” have the identical photo to the current “TheWoodman2” account, and he or it still blocks me.

My first ever time encountering Twitter account blockage (quicker responding screencapture of the link in that one here and the “error message I referred to here), by another internationally recognized climate scientist, Dr Katherine Hayhoe. Once more, what was my crime? Daring to suggest a scenario where she could conceivably lose a debate with a climate scientist from the skeptic side of the issue.

Is it plausible someone like Dr Lindzen would accept your debate requirement and still win it?

(One other note about Dr Hayhoe – when she implies skeptic climate scientists are ‘industry-paid crooks,’ citing Naomi Oreskes and James Hoggan, she reveals her own enslavement to an accusation ultimately coming from only one source: Ross Gelbspan.)

Who disputes blocking Twitter users for profanity or spectacularly irrelevant impolite material? That’s not the case here. While it’s funny how one person with nearly 20,000 tweets believes he advances his cause via fake utterances, the serious problem here is the appearance of a range of people from no-name environmentalists on up to prominent climate scientists and a major journalist feel compelled to block inconvenient questions and/or observations from an ordinary citizen.

The hallmark of any solid argument is its ability to be soundly defended against all criticisms and concerns. How solid is the idea of man-caused global warming, if our mind’s eye image of it is people fleeing from tough questions?

 

Advertisements

97 thoughts on “Banishing Questions and/or Dissenting Viewpoints

  1. The sort of chaos on Twitter is reason for appreciating moderated sites like this. Moderation done effectively is something I can praise, but I do not have the personality characteristics to do so effectively. Some unmoderated discussion sites, such as comments on The Hill, devolve into a brawl almost immediately. Breitbart discussion groups are useful in setting a bad example.

    • If you mean that Breitbart deletes without comment posts contrary to its viewpoint, no matter how polite and bans the user permanently, then yes, Breitbart is setting a bad example.

      You may also ask yourselves how welcome contrary views are on this site…

      [You might want to reconsider that snide comment. We carry a great many contrary views as is evidenced by your very own contributions. We also carry many articles that put forward a positive AGW point of view.

      Your snide aside seems to reveal an underlying agenda on your part. Namely to traduce this site and what it does. You don’t have any “right” to comment on this site Griff, you are here at the tolerance of the host Mr Watts, and it is rude and unacceptable to have you trying chip away at the site in this fashion.

      If you have issues with how you have been modded take it up with Mr Watts directly but I can assure you that none of the moderators have been instructed to reject any contribution from anybody as long as they don’t contravene the site rules, for you to imply otherwise is insulting. . . . mod]

      (Griff,I approved three of your comments today that were in Moderation, I don’t agree with them at all, but they met the stated comment rules,Mr, Watts set up for his blog. You have well over 100 comments published here,which indicate your opinions are allowed here,despite many not agreeing with them) MOD

      • Yet you’re happy with the moderation at the Groaniad. No dissenting post is allowed in it’s (laughable) climate change page. It’s a bubble.

        You really have to go some to get modded on Breitbart(London) Got any tips?

      • One of the reasons why this site is so respected is that opposing views are are tolerated and discussed. Generally they are discussed with clear, lucid reasoning and often with humour. Even though I rarely agree with say Nick Stokes, I still read his pieces because I might learn something, I might question my own beliefs.
        You should try it Griff, but first you should learn to apologise when you are wrong. You should apologise to the Moderators

      • Genuine appeal for reflection on the part of posters, really.

        I think we all need to be open to alternative views.

        Take a moment to think about it as regards this site.
        This site is not openly hostile, even accepting. But without reflection – will it stay that way?

      • There will always be room for you on this site Griff, as an example of the sort of brain dead idiocy the site was created to combat.

        Without people like you, this site would cease to exist.

      • “This site is not openly hostile, even accepting. But without reflection – will it stay that way?”
        Griff, you are definitely an alarmist “true believer”.
        Note how close you just came to the alarmist mantra:
        “Yeah, temps haven’t gone up (or sea level rise accelerated) YET; but how do we know they WON’T?”

      • ‘Grift calling for people to be open to alternative ideas. Irony is truly dead.’

        That’s one of the things I eventually realized as a young man – ‘counter-culture’ (from which Progressivism was spawned) wherever you find it, is far from tolerant or open-minded – it’s usually the rigidly closed-mind of the zealot. But they depend (INSIST, in fact) on both tolerance and an open mind from others. All part of the process of exploitation.

        Remember Obama imploring us to ‘just once’ try and see the world from a different perspective?
        Well, I have, actually. And the thought of Obama actually doing the same is laughable.

        Oh… and don’t forget the all-important step of positioning one’s self as a victim.

      • Griff is lying.
        Breitbart only deletes posts after MULTIPLE users complain about them for a good reason, like abuse, profanity, insults, etc.
        I could point to literally THOUSANDS of “contrary” posts that are not deleted.
        The problem, of course, is that most leftists are incapable of being polite or reasonable.

      • “snide aside” – new phrase I never heard before

        “traduce” — new word i never saw before
        I thought it had something to do with geometry!

        And I’m no spring chicken.

        This site and the MOD is a total learning experience.

        Tell the grifter I post comments on global warmunist sites and they all get deleted !
        I don’t even get the entertainment of vicious character attacks in response.

        When I used to try to change Wikipedia ten years ago,
        the changes were reversed in an hour.
        Moderate, logical comments about a subject I had 40 years of experience with.
        Majority rules there.

        Not here.

        Here the grifter and Mr. Masher get to post almost anything they want.

        As a libertarian I don’t agree much with Democrats or Republicans.

        But I see a difference:

        Republicans debate if you don’t agree with them.

        Democrats hate you if you don’t agree with them.

        A big difference … and getting bigger!

    • Gee, Griff, I had to type in caps and make at least a dozen similar comments to get banned from Breitbart. Contrary views are not the problem—I made a bunch of them for a year or more. Pointing out a verifiable truth they do not like is what really ticks them off.

      (Lee: Griff is somewhat correct on Breitbart. I have many screen shots from deleted comments that I had posted. As far as I could tell, moderation is based on if someone complains about a comment. Other than that, I could find no real pattern.)

      While moderation here is quite annoying at times, at least we are spared the “I make $90 an hour from XYZ” spam and for that I say “Thank you a thousand times over”.

  2. Russell,
    You said, “I was blocked within mere moments of tweeting this:…” Thank you for giving me yet another reason for ignoring Twitter and FaceBook.

    • Ditto; I do not now and never will have any account w/ Twits, FaceTube, Ubook, MyFace, or any other “social” media crap.

      Send a message to all the perps like Zuckerberg and close your account(s), and encourage everyone you can to do likewise. When the CAGW crowd finds out it is wrong, they’ll only have themselves to sink into depression with. Maybe they’ll do what they think humans should be doing: offing themselves.

      We can only hope … … …

      • Yeah, right on, Vlad. Dodge Farcebloat while you’re at it. I had soooooo much difficulty removing myself from that slippery sinkhole many years ago in its early days. Foolishly thought I would give it a go. Almost certain my data is still there, somewhere.

      • I don’t use Farcebook, &hitter, YouBoob or any such thing for the same reasons that I don’t go to brothels, don’t drive my car in a reckless manner and don’t urinate on the pope or defecate in public. I respect myself and I respect others.

      • No, I am not saying that all people who use so-called social media are fools, but just that such media attracts fools, many twaddling twats who wannabe famous and think that spouting endless drivel about themselves is going to make people like them. I am just recommending that people get off those sites. Whatever they once were, they are now places of concentrated depravity, ignorance and idiotic left-wing virtue-signaling. Like a brothel, you are likely to encounter many mental diseases, like the belief in AGW.

      • I briefly was on Facebook a few years ago. I closed my account.
        If you have an account that you are going to close be aware that Facebook won’t tell your “friends” that you closed your account. It will just tell them that they have been “unfriended” by you.
        I’d heard that’s what they did so I put up a message a couple of weeks before saying I was going to close my account to avoid any misunderstanding among my real friends.

  3. I don’t twitter but what I do see makes me think
    important scientific issues have been relegated to short spurts because “climate experts” have nothing of importance to say. Most do not write very well when they try.

    In contrast, years ago scientists wrote letters to explain their thinking. When time was available to compose carefully the letter could be shortened. [Recall Strunk & White’s “Omit needless words.”

    Blaise Pascal was a thoughtful person.
    Here is one possible modern day translation of Pascal’s statement. Note that the term “this” refers to the letter itself.

    I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter.” [original in French]

    To be blocked by twits should be considered a badge of honor.

  4. Do you criticize Trump as well for blocking people on Twitter? Is that a hallmark of the fact that he has
    no solid arguments. And appears to have no idea about what health insurance is or how it works
    ($12 a year until you are 70) according to his latest interview with the New York Times.

    • The last I heard from Trump about health insurance was simply his suport for not allowing eexcusion becase of preexusiting consditions. I believe that qualifies as information about health insurance, although his oposition was to Obamacare, which is hardly a health insurance system. It is a poorly conceived govt/health insurance disaster that was adopted without anyone even knowing what it was, or how it was supposed to work. Those were the program’s “sound arguments,” except there weren’t even any arguments, sound or otherwise.

      • The affordable care act may have been poor conceived but there is no way it was adopted without people knowing what it was or how it was meant to work. It was debated in congress for over a year before being voted on. Compare that to the current republican bill which was written in secret and voted on within a few days before anyone could work out how bad it was.

      • So Obamacare was advertised. Over 2000 pages filled with “as the Secretary shall determine”? About as transparent as mud.

      • “You have to pass the Bill to find out whats in the Bill.” Nancy Pelosi. People had to actually file FOIA to get text of Obamacare released, and Democrat Party fought tooth&nail to stop it. I know. I was involved in getting the actual text into the hands of American citizens BEFORE it was voted on and it was a pure son of a bitch, we were fought every step of the way.

    • Trump is simply disabling a well organized effort to spam his tweets using bots and thereby stop discussion (because there’s so much garbage to wade through). Also, many people comment on Trump’s tweets to get re-tweets and further their own exposure and livelihood. Blocking all of the above is reasonable and quite a different motivation than being afraid of having an open discussion.

    • “Trump … appears to have no idea about what health insurance is or how it works”

      Coverage of pre-existing conditions is by definition not insurance. People can’t buy home insurance to protect their home after it has been damaged by a hurricane, but the same principal doesn’t apply to Obamacare-type health insurance. What a scam.

      • Precisely true. I cannot understand how Trump takes this position unless there is some nuance not being conveyed. Pre-Obama, it was usual that if you transitioned from one policy to another, as long as you had continuous coverage the pre-existing condition exclusion was waived. In any event, the exclusion is usually for a limited period of time, most often six months. It’s a burden, but you could carry your old insurance for the exclusion period and then drop it.

      • People can buy insurance on a new house if their house has burned down. No one shuts the owner out permanently, unlike health insurance. Not everyone with a pre-existing condition walks in when they need surgery—some have health conditions from childhood, some lost their insurance elsewhere and now cannot get re-insured (which seems to me to be like never re-insuring someone whose how burned down). There’s extreme hostility about people “walking in with their house on fire” and wanting insurance. That’s not always the reason pre-existing conditions are a problem—job loss and loss of insurance, sickness contracted under age 18, etc, all factor in. I do know people who just didn’t buy insurance and had a catastrophic health issue. They declared bankruptcy. They still got care. They still did not pay for it. Either “insurance” pays or the bankruptcy court settles it.

      • to Came, Saw Lefty:

        A handful of states had rules, before ObamaCare, that did not allow insurance companies to turn you down because of pre-existing conditions.

        At least 30 states had high risk pools that covered turned down people with pre-existing conditions.

        My pre-2014 insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan was not allowed, by state law, to turn down customers with pre existing conditions. I used to be a customer. I verified this with a friend who is an insurance consultant.

        ObamaCare tripled my insurance premiums, and forced me to micro-manage my taxable income for a few years to get huge subsidies until I was eligible for Medicare.

        I was actually able to cut our after-subsidies premiums in half from our pre-Obamacare levels without breaking any laws.

        We had never taken a $1 of any type of welfare before taking those subsidies.

        My wife and I both retired at age 51, and never in our wildest imaginations could have expected medical insurance premiums to triple from 2013 to 2014 when ObamaCare rules kicked in for us.

        Covering pre-existing conditions is expensive.
        It allows grifters to not buy insurance until AFTER they find out they will soon have big medical expenses.

        ObamaCare no lifetime limits on insurance payouts are also expensive.

        Mandatory “free” services are also expensive.

        Insuring a person with a pre-existing condition, such as high blood pressure and diabetes, is not the same as insuring a home that has already been hit by a hurricane.

      • @Sheri
        On an individual basis, it doesn’t hurt the system if the occasional individual gets covered where they might not be eligible. Insurance is about covering risks. If everyone didn’t carry insurance until they had a heart attack or got cancer, the system would collapse entirely because the insurance carrier has all 100% risk. He’d have to jack your rates up to the point where you couldn’t afford it anyway or go out of business. That’s why Obamacare had “mandatory” participation, so there would be an income stream to cover claims. The fines for non-coverage were a joke, of course, so naturally people are gaming the system. Pay the trivial fine, get coverage when it goes pear-shaped.

    • He blocks people on HIS twitter account, not on the WH twitter account. Any individual can block any other individual OR group as they choose, that is part of the terms of service of twitter.

  5. Suggestion for WUWT. Don’t post interwebz wars as recounted by one of the participants. BORING. ONE SIDED.

    • Hey, how about instead you do not tell people what to do?
      Here is another idea…if something bores you, stop reading it.

    • “If something bores you, stop reading it.” I’m happy to take your advice. This post elevates people who are consumed by social media. Yet another “so what” post.

      Who’s approving this stuff?

      • “This post elevates people who are consumed by social media.”

        If that is all you see out of my guest post, I politely suggest that you fully re-read it and pay particular attention to the last line it it. This is NOT about my own particular personal beefs with other Twitter users, and this is not solely focused on Twitter, it is meant to be an illustration of what is entirely wrong with prominent people in the AGW issue who promote themselves as being as authorities the general public should accept without question. What I try to show here is how common citizens are able to use the means of social media to directly connect with these “authorities” and what happens when the public starts asking them rough questions. When more of the public begins to see where the weakness is in these “authorities”, the more they will aim at this weakness, and the more likely the otherwise currently complicit mainstream media will smell blood in the water over this failure to answer/discuss reasonable questions and observations.

      • Mr. Cook. I understand what you’re saying and I appreciate the tone with which you offer it. But the problem you write about, with all due respect, is simply another illustration of what can happen when you personally insert yourself into the climate wars. I’ve been there myself.

        What motivates guys like Michael Mann to immerse himself in this bickering is beyond me. Nothing about AGW is going to be decided by the verbal jousting you find in the twitterverse and on this blog.

        And you might consider whether this foolishness is worth your own time. Far be it for me to tell others how to spend their time. After all, I’ve spent a fair amount of time commenting on this string, but it comes from weariness of the climate wars and how little I think it contributes to the overall discussion.

  6. Read the basic science of heat transfer in gases and you will find there is no such thing as a ‘greenhouse gas’. Basically a radiative gas in the atmosphere cannot ‘trap heat’, it disperses it.

    • I think the idea is that it slows it down on it’s way out to space.
      Does not trap.
      Perhaps you can detail how long this delay is and thus demonstrate it is insignificant?
      Personally, I do not know enough to decide if that argument is valid.
      But I do know that radiation is not the only way energy is transported in the atmosphere.
      And that much energy is not in the form of thermal motion of molecules.

      • Absorption of and retention of energy is a fact on earth …. with 70% of it absorbed and stored in the oceans. Retention time in the ocean is long. As for atmospheric GHGs ….. I’m not sure that they play much of a role because they emit at the same rate they absorb (at least that is what the science says on the subject). Thus their contribution to anything is totally dependent on the energy source that is feeding them the energy. As those sources cool, so do they.

      • There’s a model of a simple 1 layer atmosphere model here:

        http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/simple-earth-climate-model-single-layer-perfect-greenhouse-atmosphere

        One of the “GOOD” points it leaves out is that though the sruface receives about 480 watts, which would give us an average temperature of 30 C, 100 watts of that is dissipated in the latent heat of evaporation of water and in conduction of warmer air to higher layers in the atmosphere. The net effect is that earth’s temperatures average only about 14 or 15 C.

        Here’s a model of a multilayer atmosphere that absorbs only a fraction of the radiation at each level, by a CAGW skeptic.

        http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/radical-new-hypothesis-on-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/

        Let the flux from the sun to the ground be 4 joules/unit time*unit
        area,
        and stay constant.

        –> SUN
        –>
        –>
        –>
        –>

        With no greenhouse gases, the earth will either heat up or cool down
        until
        the outgoing flux from the earth is equal to the incoming flux from
        the sun.

        Sun –> O O O O <– <– <–O O–> <–

        You've now got an unbalanced situation where 5 joules/unit time*unit
        area
        are hitting the earth, 4 from the sun and half of the 2 from the
        atmosphere,
        and only 3 joules per second are leaving the earth, the 2 not
        absorbed by
        the gas, and half of the 2 from the atmosphere. The atmosphere will
        gradually
        warm up until outgoing flux from the atmosphere, plus the fraction of
        the flux from the
        earth not intercepted by the atmosphere, equals the incoming amount
        from the sun.
        Since in my example, half of the outgong flux is intercepted by the
        atmosphere,
        the watts hitting the earth's surface will increase to

        1/(1-1/4) = 4/3 of 4 joules/(unit time*unit area) = 5 1/3 joules/(unit
        time*unit area).

        Remember the atmosphere is intercepting half of this, so 16/6 joules
        (unit time*unit area)
        is intercepted by the greenhouse gas atmosphere, and another half,
        16/6 joules, escapes
        directly to space.

        The final equilibrium balance is
        16/12 Earth
        atmosphere to earth O–>16/12 16/12(from atmosphere)–>Earth

        Sun –>4

        16/6 to atmosphere <–
        Earth
        16/6 to space <–
        Earth

        So yes, a greenhouse gas will warm the earth, the amount of warming
        depends on the fraction
        of the outgoing (and incoming for that matter) radiation absorbed by
        the atmosphere.

        In the above example, 4 units are incoming from the sun to the earth,
        4
        units are outgoing from earth to space, and the earth's surface is
        at 5 1/3 joules, a multiple of 4/3 the radiation received by the sun
        and returned to space.
        In effect, since an additioanl 1/3 of the solar flux is
        radiated by the atmopshere, models call this 1/3 of a standard atmosphere.

    • To Richard:
      EWater vapor and CO2 and methane in the air may have nothing to do with how a real greenhouse works, but for some reason the term greenhouse gas is used.

      It’s not worth arguing about that term — since we only have 20.5 years before CO2 runaway warming ends all life on earth. Except cockroaches, ants and mothers in law — of course that’s only my theory.

  7. Well… TECHNICALLY since the IPCC was created to _ASSUME_ CO2 caused a man made apocalypse… it’s all agenda pushing and all agenda.

    They skipped step 1 in use of theories: testing.

    • IPCC was created to prove Mann made CO2 will cause runaway warming and eventually destroy all life on earth. The conclusion was given to the IPCC and can not be changed.

  8. One thing this site does Griff is apologise when they get something wrong , have you said sorry to Susan Crockford yet ?
    Man bear pig and the other Mann aren’t interested in discussing science , after all Mann would have to cough up his work and then you would just find holes in it .

    • I have to stand by my views on Susan Crockford – which are no different from a large number of other people
      – namely that someone who is not a polar bear researcher and definitely not actively involved in field research on polar bears is not a polar bear expert.

      • So… you are then a ‘credentialist’. Only someone trained and employed in a given field may be allowed to express their views in that field. Never mind their lifetime interests.
        Is that what you’re saying?

        Seems to me that we need MORE of people who inform themselves without drawing pay to come to given conclusions.

      • Griff,

        Dr Susan Crockford is a zooologist who has a PHD in evoluntionary biology. There is no such degree with polar bear specialist written on the parchment of paper the uni hands out at graduation.

        She has evolved, like many zooologists who have a PhD, into a specialist who studies polar bears for a living just like Dr Nikita Ovsyanikov, another zoologist with a similiar PhD who studied the artic fox for 13 years before moving into polar bear research.

        Susan has 20 years of polar bear research behind her, so I’m not sure how long, in your mind, must Susan study the field, to be considered an expert? You owe her an apology otherwise I and I’m sure other readers will too, consider you to be an obnoxious troll with little value to contribute to the broader discussion on this blog and will continue to be treated like the shyster you are.

      • “I have to stand by my views on Susan Crockford”

        Where did you complete your doctorate on zoology, Griff?

      • Hmmmm, so I guess a couple of bicycle mechanics from Ohio weren’t “expert” enough to build their own wind tunnel, measure the aerodynamic properties of various airfoil designs, and construct the first well-documented heavier-than-air craft? Yeah, let’s not pay any attention to them.

      • Does Michael Mann have a degree in “Climatology”. Hansen? When and were such degrees handed out? I suspect most geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, etc have a better appreciation of climate than most. Most of us don’t live long enough to understand more than how weather varies – including those of us who have studied long term weather variablity directly or indirectly to make a living.

      • Griff, I went over this very claim of yours at another blog,the other day but being what you are, ignoring my full bodied reply completely. I will post it here for the benefit for others to see why I can say that you are a stupid dishonest warmist troll.

        This is what Griff wrote:

        “Griff says:
        July 18, 2017 at 1:58 pm

        I’ve got exactly as much experience in dedicated polar bear studies and field studies on polar bears as Susan Crockford. And I’m not paid by Heartland.”

        What a stupid statement since Griff was shown late LAST YEAR right here in this blog what DOCTOR Crockford background and research history are. Yet just 3 days ago indicating her massive memory hole,writes that stupid statement,with a patented funding fallacy added.

        My reply three days ago didn’t cure this dishonest troll at all:

        “sunsettommy says:
        July 18, 2017 at 5:24 pm

        As usual Griff, you are a liar since Susan has a PUBLISHED paper on Bears,published several white papers,authored books on bears and more.

        Just when I wasn’t paying attention: 1 million views surpassed

        “Over 1 million views, four polar bear books (including my first novel, the polar bear attack thriller EATEN), several white-paper type publications (here, here, and here), several magazine articles (one here), two videos (see below), and a scientific paper on polar bear conservation that was peer reviewed before it’s publication at PeerJ Preprints.”

        https://polarbearscience.com/2017/05/26/just-when-i-wasnt-paying-attention-1-million-views-surpassed/#more-105344

        She has a Zoology degree too.

        Meanwhile you have ZERO books,papers or degree to match her with.

        What you offer are ignorance,lies and stupidity.”

        https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/arctic-to-be-ice-free-by-november-10/#comment-55994

      • I see that Griff is a liar,since she was TOLD just 8 months ago,that Dr. Crockford is indeed a published researcher of Bears and the Arctic region.

        Here is the December 14,2016 reply to Griff’s idiotic ignorant statement she made about Dr. Crockford,here on WUWT:

        Griff writes,

        “….BTW: does Susan actually have any qualifications to speak about bear populations?

        She does not research or publish (scientifically) about bears, nor is she involved in the biology of arctic populations, so far as I know.

        What she says is surely just opinion? any biologist who has read the papers surely has a view just as valid??”

        Climate Otter replies in the very next comment,a smashmouth reply,

        “You don’t make much effort to find out anything, do you griff?

        I am a zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. I am currently an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia and work full time for a private consulting company I co-own with two colleagues, Pacific Identifications Inc.

        Crockford 08_21_2011_0056b

        Like Ian Stirling, grand-daddy of all polar bear biologists, I earned my undergraduate degree in zoology at the University of British Columbia. Polar bear evolution is one of my professional interests, which I discuss in my 2006 book, Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species (based on my Ph.D. dissertation earned in 2004 at the University of Victoria, B.C. Canada), see http://www.rhythmsoflife.ca.

        You’ll find a list of my publications (with a brief introduction) further down, after the list of my most popular posts (with links). At the bottom of this page is a brief bio for posting elsewhere.

        Zoogeography, paleoecology, archaeozoology and ostemetry papers
        **Crockford, S. J. 2012. Annotated map of ancient polar bear remains of the world. Electronic resource, available at http://polarbearscience/references ISBN 978-0-9917966-0-1. https://polarbearscience.com/2012/11/26/ancient-polar-bear-remains-of-the-world/

        *Crockford, S.J. 2012. Archaeozoology of Adak Island: 6000 years of subsistence history in the central Aleutians. Pg. 109-145 in D. West, V. Hatfield, E. Wilmerding, L. Gualtieri and C. Lefevre (eds), The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska. British Archaeological Reports International Series, Oxford, pg 109-145. ISBN 978-4073-0905-7

        *Nishida, S., West, D., Crockford, S. and Koike, H. 2012. Ancient DNA analysis for the sea otter (Enhydra lutris) from archaeological sites on Adak, Aleutian Islands. Pg. 147-165 in D. West, V. Hatfield, E. Wilmerding, C. Lefèvre, L. Gualtieri (eds.), The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 2322, ISBN 978-4073-0905-7.

        *Wilson, B.J., Crockford, S.J., Johnson, J.W., Malhi, R.S. and B.M. Kemp. 2011. Genetic and archaeological evidence for a former breeding population of Aleutian Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii leucopareia) on Adak Island, central Aleutians, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89: 732-743. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/journal/cjz

        **Crockford, S.J. and G. Frederick 2011. Neoglacial sea ice and life history flexibility in ringed and fur seals. pg.65-91 in T. Braje and R. Torrey, eds. Human Impacts on Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters: Integrating Archaeology and Ecology in the Northeast Pacific. U. California Press, LA.

        *Baichtal, J.F. and Crockford, S.J. 2011. Possibility of kelp during the LGM in SE Alaska and implications for marine mammals. Poster 5-12, 19th Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Tampa, FL. Nov. 28-Dec.2.

        **Crockford, S.J. 2008. Be careful what you ask for: archaeozoological evidence of mid-Holocene climate change in the Bering Sea and implications for the origins of Arctic Thule. Pp. 113-131 in G. Clark, F. Leach and S. O’Connor (eds.), Islands of Inquiry: Colonisation, Seafaring and the Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes. Terra Australis 29 ANU E Press, Canberra. http://epress.anu.edu.au/ta29_citation.html

        **Crockford, S. and Frederick, G. 2007. Sea ice expansion in the Bering Sea during the Neoglacial: evidence from archaeozoology. The Holocene 17(6):699-706.

        *Crockford, S.J., Frederick, G. & Wigen, R. 2002. The Cape Flattery fur seal: An extinct species of Callorhinus in the eastern north Pacific? Canadian Journal of Archaeology 26(3):152-174. http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/publications.lasso

        Martinsson-Wallin, H. & Crockford, S.J. 2001. Early human settlement of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Asian Perspectives 40(2):244-278. (Includes an analysis of fish remains & a comprehensive list of modern Rapa Nui fishes). http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/asi/

        Crockford, S.J. 1997. Archaeological evidence of large northern bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, in coastal waters of British Columbia and northern Washington. Fishery Bulletin 95:11-24. http://fishbull.noaa.gov/

        Domestication, speciation and evolution papers
        Crockford, S.J. and Kusmin, Y.V. 2012. Comments on Germonpré et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2009 “Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes”, and Germonpré, Lázkičková-Galetová, and Sablin, Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2012 “Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Předmostí site, the Czech Republic.” Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2797-2801. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312001537

        **Crockford, S.J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. Comment (May 1) to Hailer et al. 2012. “Nuclear genomic sequences reveal that polar bears are an old and distinct bear lineage.” Science 336:344-347. Follow link and click on “# comments” under the title http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.1216424

        **Crockford, S.J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. Comment, with references (May 1) to Edwards et al. 2011. “Ancient hybridization and an Irish origin for the modern polar bear matriline.” Current Biology 21:1251-1258. to view comments, go through the host website, http://www.Cell.com and find the paper at the Current Biology website. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900645-2#Comments

        Ovodov, N.D., Crockford, S.J., Kuzmin, Y.V., Higham, T.F.G., Hodgins, G.W.L. and van der Plicht, J.. 2011. A 33,000 year old incipient dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia: Evidence of the earliest domestication disrupted by the Last Glacial Maximum. PLoS One 10.1371/journal.pone.0022821. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022821

        Crockford, S.J. 2009. Evolutionary roots of iodine and thyroid hormones in cell-cell signaling. Integrative and Comparative Biology 49:155-166.

        **Crockford, S.J. 2006. Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species. Trafford, Victoria [for a general audience, polar bear evolution discussed];

        **Crockford, S.J. 2004. Animal Domestication and Vertebrate Speciation: A Paradigm for the Origin of Species. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria (Canada), Interdisciplinary Studies. [filed at the National Library under Zoology; polar bear evolution discussed] Pdf available, just ask.

        **Crockford, S.J. 2003. Thyroid rhythm phenotypes and hominid evolution: a new paradigm implicates pulsatile hormone secretion in speciation and adaptation changes. International Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A Vol. 35 (#1, May issue):105-129. http://www.elsevier.com/ [an invited submission; polar bear evolution discussed]

        **Crockford, S.J. 2002. Thyroid hormone in Neandertal evolution: A natural or pathological role? Geographical Review 92(1):73-88. http://www.jstor.org/journals/00167428.html [an invited commentary]

        **Crockford, S.J. 2002. Animal domestication and heterochronic speciation: the role of thyroid hormone. pg. 122-153. In: N. Minugh-Purvis & K. McNamara (eds.) Human Evolution Through Developmental Change. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. http://www.press.jhu.edu/press/books/index.htm [polar bear evolution discussed].

        Crockford, S.J. 2000. Dog evolution: a role for thyroid hormone in domestication changes. pg. 11-20. In: S. Crockford (ed.), Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. Archaeopress S889, Oxford. http://www.archaeopress.com/defaultBar.asp

        Crockford, S. J. 2000. A commentary on dog evolution: regional variation, breed development and hybridization with wolves. pg. 295-312. In: S. Crockford (ed.), Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. Archaeopress S889, Oxford. http://www.archaeopress.com/defaultBar.asp

        Northwest Coast dog studies
        Crockford, S.J., Moss, M.L., and Baichtal, J.F. 2012. Pre-contact dogs from the Prince of Wales archipelago, Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 9(1):49-64.

        Crockford, S.J., 2005. Breeds of native dogs in North America before the arrival of European dogs. Proceedings of the World Small Animal Veterinary Congress, Mexico City. [invited lecture] available online at: http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2005&PID=11071&O=Generic

        Koop, B.F., Burbidge, M., Byun, A., Rink, U, & Crockford, S.J. 2000. Ancient DNA evidence of a separate origin for North American indigenous dogs. pg. 271-285. In: S. Crockford (ed.), Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. British Archaeological Reports (B.A.R.), Archaeopress S889, Oxford. http://www.archaeopress.com/defaultBar.asp (collaborative research with Univ. of Victoria (Ben Koop, Biology) & National Science & Engineering Research Council, Canada (NSERC) [first published analysis of ancient dog DNA]

        Crockford, S.J. 1997. Osteometry of Makah and Coast Salish Dogs. Archaeology Press, Publication 22, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/dept/arcpress/index.htm
        [A comprehensive analysis of cranial & postcranial remains of adult dogs from 20 coastal archaeological sites]

        Crockford, S.J. & Pye, C.J. 1997. Forensic reconstruction of prehistoric dogs from the Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 21(2):149-153 [the story of the wool dog/village dog sketches done by RCMP forensic artist CJ Pye] http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/publications.lasso

        Seal and sea lion diet studies
        Tollit, D.J., Schulze, A., Trites, A.W., Olesiuk, P., Crockford, S.J., Gelatt, T., Ream, R. & Miller, K. 2009. Development and application of DNA techniques for validating and improving pinniped diet estimates based on conventional scat analysis. Ecological Applications 19(4):889-905. [This study compares my bone ID of prey species to DNA analysis] http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/07-1701.1

        Olesiuk, P.F., Bigg, M.A., Ellis, G.M., Crockford, S.J. & Wigen, R.J. 1990. An assessment of the feeding habits of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, based on scat analysis. Canadian Technical Reports on Fisheries & Aquatic Science. 1730.
        http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rp/rp2_tocs_e?cjfas_cjfasS1-98_55

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/14/more-polar-non-science/#comment-2371537

      • Your views are those of a ignorant, know-nothing twit.

        They are the views you ALWAY stand by.

        They are irrelevant to any meaningful conversation.

      • Oh dear Griff look what I just did , made you look like an ignorant , know nothing troll .
        If you made the apology back then some of us may actually have given you a break , there is still time to say it by the way , I will be waiting in the wings watching for it .
        It’s easy ” I’m sorry I was wrong and I apologise “, not hard to do .

      • “Griff never apologizes, he just finds new excuses.”

        That’s what he’s paid to do.

    • “One thing this site does Griff is apologise when they get something wrong , have you said sorry to Susan Crockford yet ?”
      Griff isn’t paid to apologise for attempting to damage the professional reputations of the people he has demonstrably lied about.

  9. We are known by the company that we keep; on social networks and discussion forums too. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense. See LFTR, thorium

  10. 2 little stories…
    Possibly Microsoft, Apple, Nintendo set up, a little while ago, a large demonstration of their new game/game controller/whatever.
    It was in a large auditorium with a huge screen, filled with eager geeks and each with a controller linked to a central computer.
    They had to use their collective skill/genius to steer a little fish or something through a 3 dimensional maze – on the large screen. easy peazy.
    No.
    When the game was started, the little fish just stayed where it was, twitching a bit but otherwise going exactly nowhere. And so it did for several minutes.
    Everyone was frantically jiggling their joysticks, but nothing happened.
    Until someone in the house (maybe the game’s designer) shouted ‘Turn left’ or some such simple instruction to everyone.
    Suddenly the little fish started moving and completed the maze with the greatest of ease.

    Is Mr Trump the guy doing the shouting right now?
    Right now, everyone is desperately and frantically twiddling their joysticks, keyboards, mice, smartphones, twitters, faceborx and the whole collective is going precisely nowhere. Paralysed by its own self-importance and deafened by the noise that it itself is making.

    #2
    You see I’ve moved house recently. To fill my time as a retired farmer, I went to cut the grass verges along the country lanes near my house. Especially along a single track lane where a lot of dog-walkers, mothers and children, disabled folks have to share the road with some very large trucks, just come off a motorway, going to their wood recycling depot.

    An old boy (typical ex-serviceman) with a yappy little dog stopped me. In no uncertain terms I was told he was ‘The Parish Council’ and demanding to know who told me to cut the grass. (No grass there, actually a jungle of overgrown weeds of the invasive & notifiable variety (read= illegal) Thistles, nettles, bracken, ragwort, cleavers and some knotweed.

    Now, this is where twitter, facebork and The Internet in general would utterly fail…
    Because: reading his body language and pauses for thought, it was obviously a real jolt for him that I was operating off my own bat, at my own expense and in my own time to tidy the village up and create a roadside refuge for the walkers from the big trucks.. He couldn’t ‘get it’
    I went on to say that as it was now tidy, maybe litterbugs, fly-tippers and dog-messers would think twice before doing their business.

    He then tried some bluster about my ‘not being insured’
    What, to drive a lawnmower?

    Then, while standing on the grass I’d previously cut, stamped his foot on the ground telling me not to cut closer to the hedge than ‘this’ because of the ‘wildlife’
    I looked puzzled and said nothing but effectively asking ‘what wildlife’

    Again he had to pause to think and came up with ‘vole’
    Seemingly their are voles under this hedge.
    I know for a fact their are house mice under there, I can smell them. Its almost a 6th sense I get that makes my skin crawl.

    By this time it was obvious how lie-detectors work. He was visibly flustered, stressed, actually shaking and in all probability, plenty of the dog mess I was finding came from his dog.
    It was sooooooo obvious he was lying and in the modern day style, just wanted to use his ‘authority’ from the Parish Council to p1ss on my parade. First Impressions and all that.
    He sheepishly muttered bout my ‘making a good job’ then marched off.

    You don’t get that on the interweb and that is why I am extremely skeptical that ‘technology will save us’ – as frequently written about even on here….

    • Peta…..many thanks for your two stories; now I know why people commit suicide.

    • We have a reservoir nearby with a concrete walkway across the dam. I struck up a pleasant conversation with a gentleman there and we watched the youngers walking along, isolated in their mobile device worlds. Connected with everyone and yet strangely, nobody…

    • Hi Peta…I have been pondering this dilemma of keeping things neat, tidy and safe vs disturbing the creatures that live and thrive in those messy, weedy spaces beside the road.
      On my daily walks I have observed thousands of honey bees in the thistles, monarchs cocooning on the milkweed, songbirds feasting and nesting in the chicory and woody weeds, frogs, toads, snakes and turtles scurrying in the damp cool shade of the long grasses etc.
      Also as a driver of a vehicle I am concerned when the untrimmed weeds hide the animals that dart out at the last second and I fail to slam the brakes on quick enough to avoid its ugly end.
      I have been wondering how to accommodate the humans and creatures both and this is my solution; If you plan on using a wild area for human uses trim and cut it early so no creature establishes residence. Otherwise its just carnage, unfair and selfish.
      There is a whole new generation of people that are human haters because of our lack of thought for the other species that share our planet. I like to shut them down by finding solutions to problems l believe we can fix.

    • You brought a breath of that fresh farming country air with you, nuanced by the delightful smell of happy, well-fed cattle and sweetened by a forest breeze after a rainy thunderstorm… a good voice to have on this site. Enjoyed your stories. Control freaks, such as the council authority figure you mentioned, unfortunately, never die. They just smell that way.

      PS: My grandpa is buried in Newark, my namesake and a Spaniard from Galicia, and I live in Oz down under. We’re all a somewhat scattered bunch, kind of our own “diaspora.”

  11. I went to the link “a Schatzie’s Earth May 2015 blog post”. The article was written with the help of a 6 year old. The comment section was a gift – it is a testament to ‘winning’ against the alarmists.

    • Yah, no Twit, no FB, no LinkedIn… because tgeir business model is focused on privacy violation (plus all of the execs are big boosters of bodyshopping). I liked the more free-wheeling usenet news…at least until the spammers invaded.

      Read Bishop’s _Big Sort_ recently. It was a chore due to the extreme leftist/collectivist terminology and approach, but there were a few nuggets. When leftists tried to experiment with their notion of open debate and discussion, the participants tended to sort away from the middle toward more adamant dusagreement.

      Personally, it is my experience that that is a middle stage in the process, and many drop out as the argument grows heated, just because they have a low tolerance for disagreement. But, those who persisted often found that the whole fire-storm turned around different people having in mind subtle different definitions of just 1 or 2 key words…and then all of the heat dissipated.

      That doesn’t mean lasting consensus was achieved right then. People tended to revert to the meanings and speech/writing patterns to which they were long accustomed. But the dictionaries and etymologies and quotes and data would come back out more quickly as some participants remembered the previous round. Many people learned. (OTOH, the movie people never did show mw the money.)

      I don’t understand the significance of being “blocked from following”. I mean, I understand that some people would block certain others from adding comments on their articles, etc. But not allowing people who disagree or who use terminology you dislike from reading seems bizarre.

  12. Twitter was not designed (if it actually WAS designed) to handle dispassionate discussions by
    knowledgeable participants. It is about time Twitter and Facebook were abolished and replaced by something civilized and useful. It would have the good side effect of removing Facebook’s Zuckerberg from any public discussions. A more shallow thinker than Zuckerberg cannot be imagined – his Facebook product (pure junk) proves it. The human Reflecting Pool.

  13. Well, I would share my experiences, but I can’t because Dr Mann blocked me a few months ago after I asked him a question in response to one of his tweets.

      • Mr. Crock:
        I write a newsletter and three blogs as a hobby.
        I have no spare time for Twitter or Facebook and don’t know much about them.

        Your article was a learning experience for me about “left wing internet police”.
        Keep up the good work.

        If anyone here gives you a hard time, ignore them.
        Some people here would complain about a Boy Scout who walked an old lady across the street.
        Well, I would, i don’t know about everyone else.

  14. Control the debate, makes it much easier to silence all who oppose a specific agenda. Speech codes on college campi comes immediately to mind. Can’t control what people think so you silence them.

  15. I was a well loved denier posting at the Guardian but got banned in spring of 2016 after having a debate with a chap about the Social cost of carbon. I got the boot when I finally revealed to them that the report they were citing as a valid source (the $5trillion per year one) was a working report and as such is more of a thought exercise than a factual report.

    They actually deleted that as it doesn’t`show as my last post.

  16. Banishing Questions and/or Dissenting Viewpoints

    … in other words, editing

    Everybody has a right to allow what they want in a forum that THEY founded. It’s a privilege of being in the editorial seat. WUWT is no exception. There are subjects, words, and people that are forbidden on this blog.

    Some of the ideas that I am open to, for example, would get be labelled “heretic” here, and so I simply avoid those as much as possible, or only hint at them from time to time.

    You decide which games you want to play, where they are played, and determine whether or not you can play by THOSE rules. There is a playing field for everybody on the internet.

    I know that, if I were a blog administrator, then my moderation style would be more “wild-wild west” than most.

    Whining about being blocked or banned, then, is not my style. I can play different games. Again, I understand the rules of the field, and choose the fields that I know I can deal with.

    • Where, in any part of my guest post, do I imply that I am whining about the situation? My presentation is as emotion-free as possible; I show the blockages, and I show what is most likely to have prompted the blocker to block me. The exercise is to show how supposedly concerned AGW believers are so quick to shun anything which remotely undermines their position. If I can prompt these results, imagine how the greater public will react when they see prominent reporters holding the likes of Al Gore, Naomi Oreskes and Michael Mann accountable this way? This isn’t about any hurt feelings on my part, it is about the appearance of tyrannical control over the message of man-caused global warming by a select few One Percenters who have far more control over the narrative than they are entitled to have.

      • The trouble is that you seem to be misunderstanding the context within which you are trying to communicate. First, it doesn’t make a bit of difference which party wing you are flapping, using just one wing leaves you in a descending spiral. Which wing is used simply determines whether the rotation is clockwise or counterclockwise. Robert Anton Wilson wrote years ago that “convictions make convicts.” He was not talking about criminals, but about people with convictions and the way in which their convictions imprison their minds. That is you are arguing with people of “faith” not science, and there is no “standard” in religion that calls for the faithful to give the unrighteous a fair hearing before burning them at the stake. The fact that numbers of “convicted” brandish the word “science” does not make their faith science, nor does it mean they have any intention of actually practicing science, or even trying to understand science.

      • Where, in any part of my guest post, do I imply that I am whining about the situation?

        RC, maybe “whining” was a bit too direct. When I see a detailed presentation from somebody who targets that many specific instances of being blocked, banned, or impeded in their attempts to share a particular side of an issue, I cannot help but detect an underlying frustration, whose expression, although seemingly very factual and unemotional, STILL suggests a wish to make people something that they cannot be.

        A person who creates, hosts, or otherwise is responsible for a given commentary platform makes the rules, and so when somebody expresses dissatisfaction about the rules those people make or behavior they employ in constructing their comment platforms, they are, in effect complaining, hence “whining” in the guise of analysis.

        You cannot make a platform welcome you. You cannot make people like you. You can only try to express yourself, see what takes, what gets rejected, and then decide how much more you are willing to get rejected in an attempt to make a point. Griff, for example, seems to have a high rejection threshold here. (^_^)

        I could not see myself documenting, as you have, the number of times my posts in other arenas have been deleted, blocked, or otherwise rejected because I differed in some fundamental way from the person moderating the forum. Yeah, it pisses me off. But I get over it, and move on, knowing where I might be welcome in the future and where I might not be.

        Do valid views get lost in the discussion? Of course they do. Accepting this as a fact of life does not mean you like it — it just means that you do not waste any more time trying to appeal to people whose minds might be closed on certain points.

        If a thorough analysis is the cause of somebody deleting the analysis, then I would count this as a gauge of my success in dealing with the issue. I might not have the audience to witness it, but I know that I am on a successful track, which I might use somewhere else, where such an analysis might be appreciated.

        Also, I didn’t say that there was anything wrong with whining. (^_^) I just noted a difference between my reaction and your reaction, and that’s the word that came to mind, however inaccurate it might be.

      • @Robert Kernodle & Duster : Gentlemen, what we have here is possibly a ‘not seeing the forest for the trees’ situation. It may help you both to understand the rational for this guest post by seeing it in its prior 7/13 version at my blog ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=5468 ) with a different opening paragraph. I wanted to have a link to use in Twitter when encountering future blocks. Upon further reflection, I thought WUWT readers might want to share similar experiences with famous AGW people, along the lines os sharing index card questions posed from audience members to the likes of Drs Michael Mann / Katherine Hayhoe at their public presentations that got screened out. An effort to show what such people are actually frightened of, in other words.

        This is not a dispute about what folks are entitled to do within the boundaries of their own properties, nor is it an effort to convert the faith of recalcitrant AGW believers, it is an effort to showcase the acute weakness found within anyone who states an authoritative position and subsequently bars any question about it. If all of us seek to have policy based on sound science, we have to make the effort to hold the policymakers and the people influencing them accountable for the positions they hold. Common citizens like me can use social media to expose this problem to a wider audience. You’ll have to trust me on this, that is the only goal I have in presenting this exercise.

  17. The last ” letter to the editor ” I sent to my local paper had been so heavily censored and changed it almost made me look like a warmista , no offensive words used nothing that could be defamatory just facts about CAGW .
    When I complained the response was ” yeah thought you wouldn’t like it ” , so another publication albeit a local rag goes hard left green .
    I think it’s in all our interests to know how bit by bit what we say on this subject is slowly being sensored out of existence and only pro CAGW theology allowed .

    • Robert: Absolutely.
      Several times I’ve written “letters to the editor” of our local provincial paper, The Chronicle Herald. Most times they either omit my letter completely while at others, edit so heavily, that my letter no longer makes a point or any sense at all.
      In one personal dialogue with the editor, I was informed that generally people weren’t interested in my point of view (as a CAGW skeptic). This is one of the mechanisms used by the mass media to convince the public that there really is only one point of view…

  18. I think I was on Facebook about 1 week before I got a death threat for posting a comment about what I thought was a perfectly legitimate opinion. That was that as we (in UK) are a United Kingdom we should have exactly the same laws in all parts, England,Scotland,Wales and NI. devolved areas should only be allowed to change admin stuff, % charges and the like but laws themselves must be the same.
    Similar problems have been personally experienced in other online areas and I now have not only a collection of dozens of death threats but have been banned from large areas on online discussion groups.

    The receipt of a ban or limitation is actually quite a useful indicator as to what is going on in certain areas. There is a huge amount of censorship of “dissenting” views in multiple areas, organised removal of historical information, old web pages, etc.

    It is very instructive to make a note of banning and censorship in our own field of CAGW on both sides of the fence. Sometimes a clear agenda is spotted (usually pro CAGW but some notable antiCAGW is about) and sometimes you can spot what used to be called a “personality clash” between individuals.

    Publicity of the events is very helpful to shine a light on these areas and make more people aware of it. It might be useful if we had something like a league table of various blog sites with a censorship star rating. Even better would be fully transparent “banning logs” on sites so one could see who banned who for what and when.The patterns in that would be interesting!

    • Okay, so documenting these instances might be useful. I might have to come around to this way of thinking, but, up til now, I just have not spent the time on noting how many of my various posts or comments anywhere have been rejected.

      I once rejected a journal, during a peer review process of assessing a paper I submitted. It was I who rejected the reviewers. The editor seemed shocked at this move, as if no writer for them had ever done that before. I got a look at the peer review process close up — one of the reviewers was nagging me to include research in some pet area of his that had zero relevance to what I was writing about, but he wanted me to fit it in somehow. Nope. Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeejected. Not jumping through that hoop. Taking my ball and going home.

      • Good to know. As I pointed out just above, my objective in documenting this collection was to point out what it was that frightened no less than three internationally recognized climate scientists, one nationally seen journalist, one teacher, one stereotypical hard left environmentalist and a ‘thing’ run by the brother of another famous climate scientist that wasn’t even a real person. Had I only mentioned the blockages, people could have easily jumped to the incorrect conclusion that I was hurling obscene irrelevant attacks worthy of being blocked. All of this coming from an ordinary citizen. The situation I want people to imagine is what it would look like if major journalists approached these same AGWers with the same tough questions and observations, recording it all on video. Hence the last image of my guest post where the reporter is chasing the person who’s now reluctant to speak.

Comments are closed.