Over the weekend, 350.org founder Bill McKibben penned an op-ed in the New York Times, which is nothing new, but what WAS new, is that the op-ed was about WUWT, but more specifically, about a couple of ugly comments left on WUWT. This is my response.
The article is Let’s Agree Not to Kill One Another
In the article, Mr. McKibben says:”I was used to social media abuse. Then someone suggested shooting me.”
He writes:
The Los Angeles Times published an op-ed article of minedescribing a trial in Minnesota where some protesters — acting peacefully, threatening no one and informing the company they were protesting against — engaged the emergency shut-off valves on two pipelines and forced the company to temporarily shut off the flow of oil from Canada’s tar sands into the United States. The case against the protesters had been dismissed on the grounds that they’d done no damage; I was trying in my essay to explain why nonviolent civil disobedience helped in the fight for a workable climate.
Not everyone agreed. Indeed, a few hours after my essay appeared, a website called Watts Up With That? published an attack on my article. This enterprise — which bills itself as the most widely read website about the climate, and claims about three million to four million visitors a month— is devoted to proving we have nothing to fear from climate change. The author of the blog post, David Middleton, called me a misfit and made reference to my “sunken chest.” Sure, whatever. Sadly, this just seems to be how politics unfolds in the age of Trump.
But then the commenters went at it. One said: “Anybody got Bill McKibben’s home address? Let’s see how he really feels about ‘civil disobedience’ if it shows up at his front door.” Another added, “Give him a smack for me.” One or two tried to calm people down. But there was also this comment, from someone named “gnomish:” “There is a protocol worth observing: S.S.S. It stands for shoot, shovel and S.T.F.U. Hope that saves you some trouble.”
This “protocol” was left over from the right-wing fight against endangered species laws. If, say, a protected woodpecker was on your land, the “Three S’s” doctrine held that you should kill it, bury it and keep your mouth shut about it. It was, in this case, a public call for someone to murder me, and not long afterward another commenter, “Carbon Bigfoot,” supplied my home address.
All of which stopped me cold.
I was shocked these comments somehow slipped through moderation. Had I known about it, I would have immediately deleted them. All of the commenters, “gnomish”, “Gary Ashe”, and “Carbon Bigfoot,” are now banned for this unacceptable behavior.
This problem was all news to me, and while the article appeared Saturday, I didn’t find out about it until late Sunday afternoon Pacific Time, when I got a tip from a regular reader and a regular contributor.
I immediately found and removed the body of the comment where his home address was posted, and then sent this note to Bill McKibben via Twitter, using direct messaging:
Hello Bill, I’ve been notified of your NYT article, and I’m just as shocked as you. Had you notified me of the comments in question, I would have immediately removed them. They don’t speak for me. My spam and banned words filter looks for the usual 4 letter words, and some other key phrases, but these went though. I never saw them, had I, they would never have been approved.
We disagree, sometimes vehemently, and of course we’d never wish violence on each other. I’m truly sorry this happened. What would you like me to do with the comments?
Anthony Watts
While removing the doxxing comment where his home address was exposed was the sensible thing to do, I asked about the other comments because they were now in full public view, and removing them would look like I’m trying to hide something in the face of broader exposure and criticism. I’ve opted to make inline notes with each comment, saying they were unacceptable. Example here.
This morning, Bill replied to my message Sunday afternoon, with this:
Hey, just saw this. I think taking down the comments would be appropriate. Thank you.
Interesting though, that his first response was to remove them. Hold that thought.. I replied:
I already removed the one with your address prior to writing and I’ll deal with the others today. Look for a post. Who would I talk to at the NYT about a right of reply?
He replied with the letters to the editor department, and after some prodding, gave me his contact there but said he’s “on the way out to the LA Times” implying the contact was not good. I got the impression Bill really didn’t want to see me reply in the NYT and that once again “right of reply” was not something to be afforded to “climate deniers”.
I also asked him this, twice, 4 hours apart:
No problem, and again sorry it happened. Why did you not contact me, leaving those up for days?
No reply to my question? I see you’ve posted on Twitter since and you received the message.
Several hours have passed, and still no response, but Bill has been active on Twitter since. I’ve asked a third time, an hour before publishing this essay, and still there is no response to my question:
Hi Bill, last chance for you to answer my question. “Why did you not contact me, and ask for those comments to be removed, instead of leaving them up for days?” If you don’t answer, than I’ll supply my own, based on what I think your motive was.
He’s had about 9 hours to answer as of this writing, and he’s been active on Twitter during that time.
When I first saw the article written by McKibben, I thought his complaint was about something recent, perhaps in the last couple of days, but surprisingly, the article by David Middleton (and the comments) was from ten days ago: Bill McKibben calls for civil disobedience… Because climate change.
What do I think Bill’s motive was? Remember when I said before “Interesting though, that his first response was to remove them.” yet he allowed them all to sit for 10 days. He has my email address, he has direct access to me on Twitter. Not a peep from him.
I think Bill was more interested in getting the NYT op-ed than he was concerned about the comments, or the publication of his home address. Otherwise, he would have asked for the removal immediately, and I certainly would have removed it had I known about it, even without his prodding via his NYT article.
I think Bill just wanted to take the opportunity to make climate skeptics in general look bad because a couple of errant commenters went off the rails, and we didn’t catch it in moderation.
Andrew Revkin mentioned the issue over the article, saying there was “no excuse”, and I replied:
Andrew, we have 2.5 million comments in the same span, and I employ 4 letter word filters, in addition to keyword filters. Unfortunately, I never saw these comments, and they didn't trigger any filter. They don't speak for me, I don't condone this. if seen, it would be removed
— Watts Up With That (@wattsupwiththat) October 22, 2018
Despite the ridiculous and regular claims that I’m funded by “big oil” or on the payroll of the Heartland Institute (I’m not), the simple fact of the matter is that I don’t have any money to have staff, and volunteer moderators tend to burn out and disappear after awhile.
There’s no easy solution, as Revkin noted in his reply on that thread:
Scale issue is a real impediment to fostering constructive online discourse. One of the key challenges in moving from theoretical #noosphere to an actualized #knowosphere. There's an algorithm for civilizing global fisheries (@GlobalFishWatch). Maybe for civilizing commentary?
— Andrew Revkin 🌎 ✍🏼 🪕 ☮️ (@Revkin) October 22, 2018
He’s right, at the scale we operate at, handling the volume of comments is difficult. We can’t catch everything. That said, the buck stops here, and it’s my responsibility. Mea Culpa.
So where does that leave me? I have some ideas, and I’ll let people know what I plan to do about it in a future post.
On the plus side, Bill mentioned our previous personal interaction:
In the case of Watts Up With That, I’d made the effort at de-escalation myself. A few years ago, I was scheduled to give an organizing talk in the small California town where the website’s proprietor, Anthony Watts, lived. So I contacted him and invited him out for a beer. I knew I wouldn’t change his mind on climate change, and he knew I would continue to think his work involved wrecking the planet. But it always seems like a human idea to reach out.
And it was fine. We had a couple of beers, he wrote up an account of our conversation for his website, and even most of the commenters saluted us for sitting down and talking.
Yes, it was a good meeting, but Bill was correct, no minds were changed, neither his nor mine. He graciously added:
I don’t want this website shut down; I don’t want the people who write on it prosecuted. I definitely don’t want them murdered. I just want — as the very beginning of some kind of return to the gentler old normalcy — for people to stop making death threats. That seems to me the least we can ask of one another.
Thanks for that Bill, we have reciprocal ideas there.
But here’s where Bill runs off the rails in his thinking. He wants “some kind of return to the gentler old normalcy” but at the same time he promotes civil disobedience rather than constructive debate to get his way. While he acts gentlemanly, his promotion of civil disobedience is simply mendacious, in my opinion.
In the era of the ugly Antifa, street riots, punches and death threats to Trump Supporters, and harassment of conservatives in general, among many other ugly things we’ve witnessed recently, Bill’s call for “some kind of return to the gentler old normalcy” while at the same time promoting “civil disobedience” which often turns into a spark for violent confrontations, is simply laughable.
And where was Bill when these sorts of ugly things against climate skeptics happened?
- Beyond bizarre: University of Graz music professor calls for skeptic death sentences
- Another call to arrest climate “deniers”
- Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change, hurricanes
- Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be “thrown in jail”
- One climate activist predicted that skeptics will be lynched. “As climate impacts continue to become clearer to the general populace, fossil fuel executives, and climate misinformers who have played a part in this catastrophe, may some time soon prefer a safe jail cell to the torches and pitchforks that are coming their way,” wrote Peter Sinclair of the climate fear–promoting website Climate Denial Crock of the Week.
- On June 5, 2009, former Clinton administration official Joe Romm of Climate Progress defended a posting on his website warning that climate skeptics would be strangled in bed for rejecting the view that we face a man-made climate crisis. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” he warned.
- More about those ugly claims here.
Bill rightfully worries somebody will show up at his house, well it’s already happened to me thanks to a climate crusader.
If Bill really wants “some kind of return to the gentler old normalcy” he could start by using his influence to condemn the type of behavior listed above and work to calm some of these people.
But, I don’t think Bill McKibben really wants to embrace that. I think he simply wants to win his Don Quixotesque climate battle by any means possible.
Note: a couple of minor typos and spelling errors were corrected about 5 minutes after publication – Anthony
UPDATE: I had forgotten about this mendacious episode that Bill McKibben promoted:
It seems the well deserved ridicule of these cowards has had an effect, they have disappeared that photo from their website. See here: http://www.tarsandsblockade.org/enbridge-home-demo/
Fortunately, I have a copy of the entire web page before that disappearing act took place.
See the PDF: Tar Sands Blockade – Enbridge
No apology, just down the memory hole. What a bunch of cowardly and pathetic people they are. That goes for Bill McKibben too who thought this was a good enough idea to promote with a tweet rather than condemn it.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Looks to me Bill was enjoying his status,”Victim of the Week”.
So much joy,no way he would advise Anthony,when the comments play into his desires.
I actually wonder why you give this person any coverage at all,I have seen enough of Bill McKibben who I see as an attention whore,hypocrite and phoney.
My view is only reinforced by the actions you document head post.
Isn’t Bill McKibben associated with 350.org?
I believe they were part of this… https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/o-m-g-video-explodes-skeptical-kids-in-bloodbath/
https://youtu.be/5-Mw5_EBk0g
No, actually, 350.org and I were the first people to criticize it
https://thinkprogress.org/bill-mckibben-days-that-suck-c117d40d340f/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/13/wackadoodle-350-org-protesters-disappear-their-kkk-moment/
Peaceful protest, but targeting a private home, with flaming torches and covered faces. Not exactly mob violence, but uncomfortably close.
Yeah, if someone showed up in front of my house wearing masks, I would tend to presume bad intent.
Funny how Mr McKibben immediately jumps on any mention of the 10:10 video to say 350.org condemned it immediately, but remains silent about his backing of the “Demo outside the home of Enbridge CEO”.
Yet he complains in his NYT opinion piece about the “threat” of the very same tactic at his house.
Care to explain Mr McKibben why targeting someone else is ok, but not you?
Kind of how I felt when I saw this post. While I like to engage in hyperbole and sarcasm, the “doxxing” and actual threats were totally unacceptable.
If you think there is a path to a constructive dialogue, I’d certainly be open to listening.
I’m glad you are sticking around–I know its uncomfortable. Glad to hear that you didn’t condone that horrible horrible video. I couldn’t imagine what the Climate Change propagators were thinking.
According to 350.org:
“Bill McKibben is an author, environmentalist, and activist. In 1988 he wrote The End of Nature , the first book for a common audience about global warming. He is a co-founder and Senior Advisor at 350.org, an international climate campaign that works in 188 countries around the world.”
…and…who funds all of this? Donations? Book sales?
(pardon my snooping)
Good question.
350.org doesn’t reveal its donors:
https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C90014580&cycle=2016
Funny thing, liberals are always demanding that conservative organizations be forced to reveal their donors.
Hah! Found this in bwegher’s posted link…
Bill my good man, would you be willing to reveal if you are a paid entity as a senior advisor, and if your income originates from the Rockefellers?
Is this why you insinuated that Anthony is backed by big oil?
Biggest of Big Oil, even if laundered through a foundation.
Shades of fat masher Al Gore, whose dad was a paid tool of Communist stooge Armand Hammer’s Occidental Petroleum. Then Prince Albert sold his YouTube channel to Al Jazeera, owned by the oil-rich royal family of Qatar, for $500 million.
Come on, Anthony. You”re better than that last paragraph.
Better than calling a spade a spade? I should hope not.
Given the behavior outlined in the article, why do you believe the paragraph was out of line?
Mr. McKibben, have you ever thought of joining your local branch of Optimists International Club?
https://optimist.org/join.cfm
It might allow you to save the world in a more realistic, useful and philanthropic way.
Just sayin’
I re-read the comments from the older post.
I didn’t recognize anything that would resemble a threat, direct or implied. The address surprised me then, and it was wrong for Bigfoot to have placed it. The SSS joke was too much. The “give him a smack for me” was followed by a “ta”, which seemed to imply a joke. (At the time I almost replied with “give him a big wet slobbery smootch for me too …”; I wish I would have.)
But, there were no threats. So, for Mckibben to “thank you” for removing the threats either shows how smart he is (formalizing that there actually were threats) or shows how emotionally limited he is (not that the two are mutually exclusive). Either way, just as you “can’t/shouldn’t negotiate with a terrorists” (disingenuous fanatical wack-job that wants to scare people to get their way in the world), you can’t reasonably expect to reconcile with one either.
Activists from 350.org went to the house of a guy they didn’t like, and Bill backed them. But naturally, he doesn’t want protesters outside his house.
I guess what’s sauce for the goose isn’t for the gander.
DonM
Standing outside a petrol station with a childishly hand drawn sign is hardly the act of an intelligent man, it’s the foot stamping petulance of a child.
But 350.org, 10:10, antifa etc. are all predicated on puerile behaviour which is manifest in the naive ideology of socialism.
Indeed, the entire alarmist movement exhibits childish behaviour exemplified by Climategate with juvenile lying and manipulating circumstances to achieve their own selfish ends.
when you have virtually the entire MSM with you – as McKibben does – & especially NYT & WaPo – it’s clearly just another opportunity for Bill’s CAGW propaganda.
meanwhile, the same MSM is not interested in reporting most of the following…though they are good at creating the climate that incites it:
Updated: Breitbart: Rap Sheet: ***613** Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters
It is open season on Trump supporters, and the media is only fomenting, encouraging, excusing, and hoping for more…
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/07/05/rap-sheet-acts-of-media-approved-violence-and-harassment-against-trump-supporters/
Hmm….
Bill’s gang regularly makes threats against skeptics at least equal to those he got here.
And he does nothing about it.
His position on this seems no more sincere or credible than when he pretended to be an Indian or when he gets around the world spreading his delusional claptrap about CO2.
WUWT is now required reading for two of my Great grandsons science teachers. Both recognize that CO2 is plant food. I have explained to them that even when the substance of the post is out of their field of expertise that the COMMENTS will help clarify the subject matter. We must help Anthony screen out threats when we see them. Both teachers will have a 30 year impact on the education of out youth. Let us not distract them.
I deeply believe in the freedom of speech and the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I also believe you should not violate the standard relative to not yelling fire in a crowded theater. That would include calling for violence to be perpetrated on anyone.
Yet those on the Left don’t like it when they are called out with the same verbal attacks, some calling for violence, that those not on the Left suffer. They confuse and confound the issue by discussing the KKK, Nazis, and other evil groups while the most profoundly nasty and evil groups in world history have been on on the left. Read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” or read about the “philosophy” of the poster child Che Guevara.
I have been attacked verbally in public, in the news media, on the floor of Legislative committee hearings, etc, etc. More than several times for something I never did or said. When I publicly objected I was told by those attacking me and their supporters to “get over it” to “grow up” and “be thankful it was just words.”
The Left today is not generally promoting peaceful civil disobedience just to opposite. Sure some talk about it and when so called civil disobediences turns to violence they often blame it on anyone else, anyone but those that started the demonstration. Like in the 1960s and 70s they are promoting socialist revolution using any excuse they believe appropriate, e.g., immigration, open borders, global warming, LGBT rights, etc. Of course the leaders care very little about such subjects other than as tools to motivate the rank and file to some form of action.
Remember shortly before 9-11-2001 national intelligence agencies reported to Congress on terrorist groups. At that time at the top of the list were radical environmental groups who had caused more monetary damage than any other movement. The agencies testified that it was by pure luck no one had been killed by such actions.
Earth First! spiked trees, recklessly endangering the lives of loggers. Willfully, and with malice aforethought.
The Envirowhacko Unabomber likewise.
The justice who coined the “fire in a crowded theater” analogy later regretted having done so, because of how it was (and still is) stretched beyond the context and scope of his original judicial opinion.
Also, the usual rephrasing of Holmes’ 1919 opinion in Schenck v. United States (regarding the 1917 Espionage Act) leaves out crucial words.
Holmes’s original wording was “falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic”. His opinion was that speech which is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true. This distinction is rarely if ever pointed out.
Perhaps off topic, but having mentioned the heroic service of Presidents Hayes and McKinley in the so-called Civil War, I should also salute Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Like his fellow anti-slavery Republicans, young Holmes displayed conspicuous gallantry. The recent Harvard grad was thrice wounded, at Ball’s Bluff, Antietam and Chancellorsville, leaving the Union army before the end of the war as a captain, but brevet LTC.
His regiment, the 20th Massachusetts, was however derided as the “Copperhead Regiment”, because it contained so many Democrats.
So true! My point is primarily about inciting violence or promoting violence against others. On occasion that has been stretch by someone interpreting what someone said whose words clearly did not call for violence but who go blamed when other committed violence.
Public discourse in the USA and in the UK was historically coarse and often in your face. Read any of the early town debates in Colonies prior to the Revolutionary War or Winston Churchill’s debates in Parliament.
During my career I was threatened physically more than a few times because I tend to speak truth to power and the public. I never complained though I did watch over my shoulder. I was literally in the line of gun fire three times, though it is still debated by those that were there whether I was a target or just coincidence. At least once I was only the target because I was in a government vehicle caught between two opposing political groups, it was nothing personal.
I totally disagree with the doxxing of Mr. McKibben. I’m completely opposed to any revelation of any personal information about anyone.
However, I find his objections to the so-called “threats” to be more theatrical than real. He knows Anthony, they’ve shared a beer. If he was truly concerned, he would have gotten in touch with Anthony straightaway, and it would have been handled. Instead, he made a calculated decision to leave them up in order to milk them for all they were worth.
Which convinces me that he was more interested in the possible publicity that he could garner than he was afraid of the “threats”.
For example, he and others have claimed that the “SSS” comment was a real threat. To me, it was just another lame attempt by some anonymous poster at a joke. Not funny … but not a threat either. If that’s a real threat then I’ve been threatened hundreds of times … but it’s not, and I haven’t. Spend much time on the web espousing any controversial position and you too can get that kind of meaningless aggro response.
Finally, I have to commend Anthony for his actions in this matter. I have no inside knowledge of what happened, but to my eye looking from the outside, he has handled this in both a professional and a cooperative manner. As soon as he was notified of the situation, he reached out to Bill McGibbon, apologized for what had happened, and removed the offending comments.
Can’t say fairer than that … kudos to him for that, and as always, my profound thanks to him for all the work and all the heartache that he has enduring to make this site a long-standing bastion of freedom of scientific thought. WUWT is the finest public peer-review site I know of, and that is due entirely to Anthony’s work and his enduring honesty.
Well done, that man!
w.
+42
I agree.
“If he was truly concerned, he would have gotten in touch with Anthony straightaway, and it would have been handled. Instead, he made a calculated decision to leave them up in order to milk them for all they were worth.”
Amen…so it would indeed appear!
+360
Anthony, Messeurs and Madames: I am grateful to you once more for a revealing read that is overall well worth my time and effort for its deeper understanding of what’s up with this. And like Willis, my mother didn’t raise a fool. The timelined facts demonstrate a shameless personal smear attempt on you via quite unlikely associations in a ‘newspaper of record’ by one more two-faced elitist who thinks they are being clever misdirecting attention away from their own conduct. But such increasingly common deceit and bullying simply declares their own bankruptcy as they accuse others of the very corruptions so plainly admissible to themselves.
Thus I am provided here the great pleasure of saluting Mr. Watts for blessing us with his long standing open-handed service that has among others equipped me to be a truth-bearer to family and friends who had few other media sources to verifiably counsel their essential duty in the elective franchise as informed citizens of a republic. Anthony. you have in your own characteristically honest way managed to place a solid brick into the edifice of this nation as founded and I am much obliged to you.
What you said fully agree with. Anthony is doing a great job, very necessary. I still look at the site everyday, it is my home page, but am concentrating more on my particle physics interests, since I concluded, from checking the physics they misuse, that the global warming is another apocalyptic religion/belief. Sooner or later mother nature will take care of setting the record straight. At the moment they can still claim cold spells are due to global warming!!
For example, he and others have claimed that the “SSS” comment was a real threat
A sign reading “Solidarity means attack” as torch wielding masked individuals gather outside a private residence is as much if not more of a threat, yet billy boy endorsed that with a tweet. So his credibility is nil on that front.
Just a little bit sensitive considering the Greens ran TV advertisements in Australia that fantasize about murdering schoolchildren and office workers who disagree or are wavering about global warming.
As I pointed out above, 350.org was the first to criticize this video
https://thinkprogress.org/bill-mckibben-days-that-suck-c117d40d340f/
Yeah. The term “lunatic fringe” was originated by Teddy Roosevelt to refer to the more radical of his own supporters. All causes tend to attract yahoos inclined to do vicious things. The person who assassinated McKinley was regarded as a nutcase by other Anarchists.
wouldn’t be the first time someone engineered something and then also exploded in faux outrage at it.
That way not only is the emotional narrative established, they can virtue signal the moral high ground by condemning it.
the IRA used to stand behind the peaceful protesters and fire past them to provoke armed responses and then condemn the violence that ensued.
ANTIFA does similar.
Who knows who the posters here were, and what their real motives were?
False flagging is another well worn technique.
As is astroturfing.
In the end that is the significance of what is going on. It is in the end a conflict between those to whom the end justifies the means, and those to whom the means is the end – a safe orderly polite society that doesn’t promote hatred is the goal. And those that promote an insane disorderly hate filled society in order to achieve other goals.
Perhaps Bill you should unequivocally state whether you are on the side of civil violence to achieve green goals, or are in the side of peaceful protest.
bill mckibben: As I pointed out above, 350.org was the first to criticize this video
And yet not only didn’t 350.org criticize but actually endorsed the KKK like tactics of showing up at somebody’s house with mask covered faces, torches, and a threat
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/13/wackadoodle-350-org-protesters-disappear-their-kkk-moment/
The very kind of thing that you feared might happen to you with your address being doxxed. As long as you support such uncivil behavior, you have no credibility in crying about it being applied to you.
Plausible deniability. Yawn.
Nothing more than another political extremist on a personal crusade against “his enemies”. If you get in the face of enough people with noisy bleating, then someone will eventually be sure to fight fire with fire.
http://leftexposed.org/2016/07/bill-mckibben/
The left are the biggest hypocrites around. They deem that it is ok for them to doxx people, hound them out of employment, tell lies about people and call for death penalties for expressing valid opinions. If the boot is on the other foot, the left soil their diapers over it. Not a level playing field by any stretch of the imagination.
The left have no hesitation in making baseless accusations and then using them as a justification for all sorts of vile acts, including assault.
3 years ago, “Antifascists” attacked me-almost killed me when we were marshaling for a rally to uphold Australian law. Attempted murder for defending the law. This is the act of Brownshirts. The police were not interested, even when I found a lead on the identity of the attacker.
2 years ago, the useful idiots knew who I am and went xxxxxxx-Nazi, Nazi. I wonder how they came to that conclusion since my parents are Holocaust survivors. Alas, there was nobody to record the idiots being humiliated (who would have guessed that sarcasm is my middle name.) Next time, we will have a megaphone and video ready, although the brainless students that recognized me in the past have probably flunked out of university due to intellectual deficiency syndrome. They did not recognize me at a well publicized disgraceful incident in Sydney recently. Tough luck for the useful idiots- I took phone footage of them in action, which is more incendiary than what appeared in the news. Oh dear, the footage has been forwarded to those that are taking the matter further.
Calls for etiquette and to not “disgrace” Anthony or the site could quickly devolve into mob censorship and an ice-cold chilling effect on open communication. The big-S State doesn’t have to overtly censor when it can get your peers and neighbors to shame you into self-censorship. If there’s policy violations deal with them, but never, EVER let netiquette nannies get in the way of saying what needs to be said.
Not sure what happened to my previous comment…
I can’t help but wonder just who “gnomish”, “Gary Ashe”, and “Carbon Bigfoot,” really are. Such vitriol most usually comes from the Church of AGW true believers and their priests, NOT from sceptics.
It would not be the first time lefty fascists have pretended to opposing views so they can bring retribution on their foes.
And with the Sun going for siesta, the earth’s mag field taking a nose dive and the solar system moving out of the local supernova cloud, GCR’s are going to unheard-of heights and we’re looking at the coming decades as potentially worse than the LIA.
That gets the rabid lefties foaming at the mouth and desperate to turn the ‘debate to violence and so distract the People. Can’t let them realise the prophesies have now been wrong for several decades and getting wilder by the month.
I see this kind of like holding a bar owner responsible for another patron punching you after you shot your mouth off about controversial topics.
I haven’t been as active here recently. Been recovering from a nasty case of neruinvasive West Nile virus that has done a number on my abilitity to type and think. But I can say this: robust measured observations compared with robust models should be the ONLY topic worth debating. The name-calling and hurt feelings seems so juvenile to me. So get over yourselves and debate what can be observed, measured, and modeled. The rest of our words are less than wheat chaff. Like your mother said, sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me. So Bill, do we need a Kleenex to go with that sniveling? Buck up and focus on whether or when the models will need adjusting and the scary scenarios put in the vault.
neuroinvasive
Pam, I hope your health is improving. I have missed you, as well as many other old-timers here.
Your comment reminded me of a favorite song.
Welcome back Pamela. I hope better health embraces you soon.
My condolences and best wishes for as rapid a recovery as possible.
I hadn’t heard of WNV in Wallowa County, although it has occurred in your neighboring Baker and Union Counties, and my next county over, Umatilla.
http://www.eastoregonian.com/eo/local-news/20170628/west-nile-virus-found-in-umatilla
+42 × 101000
[SNIP very very off topic, poorly formatted, learn to use paragraphs and don’t thread bomb – Anthony]
Arno,
As has been so often asked of you, for the love of all that is holy and good, please discover the paragraph!
And proofread your comment before punching the ‘Post Comment’ button. Your copious typos and mis-spellings make you sound like an idiot, and your message gets lost.
This is your blog, Anthony. and you have a perfect right to throw me out as you did. But I disagree that climate science is off topic on a climate blog such as yours, I am a scientist but I never boasted about my work because it really is off topic for a climate scientist. But should you wish to sample some of my work, going back to 1974, there is no better way than by going directly to Google Scholar on the internet. Climate science was just a hobby with me but I daresay you would benefit by reading my 2010 book on the topic. Most of my publication is work I did for the Apollo Lunar Lander project. But should you wish to quaint yourself with f my publications there is no better way than going directly to Google Sc Scholar on the internet. Most of it is connected to the Apollo Lunar Lander project in some way, Climate science came to me as a hobby but I daresay you just might benefit by reading my 3010 book about it. they have collected it nicely together. into one place. William Haas is also a scientist. Science led both of us to the came to the same conclusion on CO2, using two different scientific approaches. You might call it a consensus of two. It is real science not the fake pseudo-science of these “97 percent” believers in the IPCC crap. There was a time in the history of science when disagreement with the powers that be could cost you your life. This happened to Giorrdano Bruno who was burnt on the street in Rom. Scarcely a generation after this Galileo was tried for basically similar sins but all they gave him was house arrest. And Newton got a well-paid job at the Royal Treasury. What you are doing, Anthony, by suppressing science is basically bringing back the bad old days when science had to conform to to powers that be or else. The earth was flat.non-scientists or pseudo-scientists whose”97 percent believers in the IPCC crap. There was a time in the history of science when disagreement with the powers that be could cost you your life. This happened to Giordano Bruno who was burnt on the street in Rom. Scarcely a generation after this Galileo was tried for basically similar sins but all they gave him was house arrest. And Newton got a well-paid job at the Royal Treasury. What you are doing, Anthony, by suppressing science is basically bringing back the bad old days when science had to conform to powers that be or else. The earth was flat.
They’re free for the taking: ¶
Here in Florida who owns what property is public knowledge and is easy to look up. I don’t like this at all since I am very opinionated and I never know what opinion might set someone off. I never wish anyone any harm but the government make it a right of the public to know where you live.
Public recording of real estate ownership is much more than that.
When you buy real property, also known as real estate, it includes a set of legal rights. Mostly they are the right of possession, the right of control, the right of exclusion, the right of enjoyment and the right of disposition. The seller transfers these rights to the buyer through a deed, most commonly a warranty deed (but there are others). When you record the deed in public records it allows members of the public as well as taxing authorities and lenders to know who owns which property. Along with your rights goes responsibilities such as paying taxes and taking care of the property in accordance with local laws. So when you record the deed you give notice that the prior owner no longer has the rights to that real estate and that you, the new owner, are now in charge of that property. If you do not record the deed in public records the deed is still good however it can bring about a host of problems. The old owner can take out a loan against the property because the lender has no idea that he no longer owns it or the old owner can resell the property without your knowledge, just to name two. Now neither of these actions by the old owner will stand up in court however, that will require the new owner to spend money and time trying to straighten things out. Recorded deeds also create a chain of ownership that can be later researched to determine who owned the property when and that is very important in the event a claim against the property shows up years later.
Kudos to Anthony, again. Your spirit of decency rises to the top. From the early days of flatearther deniers threatened with being Nuremberged to today, WUWT has for more than a decade sought to be a voice of reason in the face of irrational hate-spewing anti-debate rhetoric from venomous alarmists.
While some on our side have reacted poorly at times to the onslaught, myself included, Anthony Watts has maintained his dignity and decorum on this site. Bless you, Rev. Your example teaches and leads.
What they want is a very low barrier for comment moderation. I have seen this happening recently on many other blogs.
This cannot be managed by volunteers. So it is typically provided automatically as a service by an organisation like Facebook.
Now, here’s the rub. Facebook, in common with all the other Mainstream Social Media, will intentionally moderate from a left-wing viewpoint. So pressing for a low moderation barrier – perhaps getting legislation to force it in some countries – will remove right-wing comments from the Web.
I would not be surprised to find, if you went for using Facebook as your access provider, that almost all comments were automatically deleted as ‘supporting climate denial’…..
if wuwt went with fkbk then i wont be here
invasive spyware and their bias to censorship gows daily
as does gaggle
last thing anyone wishing discussion on serious matters needs.
true herd mentality, scary sh*t
Beware the deadly vicious spiral of revenge.
Our Revolution’s Logic, Angelo Codevilla
https://americanmind.org/essays/our-revolutions-logic/
Thanks for that history lesson, David. It looks like we are in a similar situation today.
I wonder, would convicting Hillary Clinton of her crimes be considered revenge or justice? I guess it would depend on which side of the fence one was on.
It would be justice (anyone else who did what she had done would be behind bars already), but her supporters would never see it that way.
Socrates struggled with defining justice. However, I’d suggest that the essence of justice is a societal attempt to promote the Rule of Law. That is, punishment will hopefully serve as a deterrent for those inclined to ignore the law. Whereas, revenge is simply a primitive desire to hurt someone after you have suffered an injury. Therefore, if a court of law concludes that HRC broke the law, and it is reasonable to assume that punishing her may set an example to dissuade others in the future from doing the same, then conviction and punishment is justice.
Gandhi said it or something like it.
“An eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blinded.”
The NYT Op-Ed pages:
-where truth goes to die a death by neglect of the whole truth.
– where presumption of innocence dies “because they said so.”
– where the double standard is their only standard.
Any one who believes the NYT news pages and its op-ed pages practices anything that would be recognizable as journalism is deluding themself… badly.
Over 150 comments!
IMO, I think this is more a publicity stunt on the part of McKibben and an attempt to tarnish the reputation of Anthony Watts and WUWT than anything else. However, the doxxing (I had to look that up) post was well out of order!
Comments tend to vary on the different sites according to the nature of the blog and the moderation of the proprietor. The less moderation the more open the discussion but the more risk of in civil comments. It is very easy to knock someone at a site when they are “ on the other side” and easy to feel smart, snide or superior doing so, I know, I have done it too often myself.
No easy way to stop people putting up such comments but if the tone is more civil they stick out like sore thumbs and responsible people like Roger can call attention to them.
I do like his idea of a report button, like a thumbs up or down but with the report going through to a moderator and not visible on screen.
Well done Anthony and thanks for allowing Mr McKibben free range of reply. I think the mea culpa and the thanks was all that was needed from both sides.
dunno about others
I try not to say anything I wouldnt be saying to a person IN person
if i call em an idiot in print I would do the same to their face.
but we aussies do tend to be direct 😉