In the discussion on
this post, per posted an abusive comment, violating my comment policy.
I’ve had to ban him twice before (see here and
here), so I simply banned him again, deleting the offending comment and the few that he posted after that.
That should have been the end of it, but the folks at Climate Audit decided to branch out from their unending attempts to find fault with the hockey stick paper into an investigation of my comment policy: In this posting John A falsely claimed that I had deleted all of per’s comments because I disagreed with them.
This prompted a flood of abusive comments directed at me and calls for some sort of investigation of the allegedly nefarious treatment of comments on blog. Ironically, Steve McIntyre ended up deleting some of the worst ones and threatening to ban folks for flamage. Mind you, comments repeating John A’s canard that I don’t know what entropy is were allowed to stand, while this email that I posted from Robert Parson to explain their error was quickly deleted:
It so happens that I assigned a slightly more complicated version of the problem that Anonymous is making such a hash about to my Physical Chemistry class a couple of years ago – and I never got around to taking down the course Web Pages (just delinked them) – so feel free to throw it into the fray if you like. The problem is number three from Problem set three: calculated the final temperature and entropy change when ice melts in liquid water.
The solution (unfortunately, a scan of a handwritten page, that was a busy year).
It’s somewhat more complicated because there’s a phase change so you need to account for the heat of fusion, but if you set delta-Hfus equal to zero you get back to a weighted average of the two temperatures.
McIntyre then closed comments and added this to the post:
As an encore, Lambert, emulating Mann’s prior blocking of me from his FTP site, has blocked John A. from access to his site.
I don’t know whether or not Mann has blocked McIntyre from his FTP site, but I certainly haven’t blocked John A from access to my site. Earlier today I couldn’t access my site either—I wonder if McIntyre thinks that was because I blocked myself from access.
The icing on the cake is this additional comment from John A:
I have discovered that I am not the only blocked from even reading Lambert’s weblog. Clearly Lambert has decided that intelligent, scientifically literate critics are too scary for Lambert to cope with. I can still read the site through one of the Internet’s numerous anonymous proxies, so Lambert’s petulence counts for nought.
A normal person who discovered that other people also had trouble accessing my site might have concluded that there was a problem with the server or something, but not John A, who concludes that I must be specifically blocking them as well.
Update: McIntyre has added a rather graceless correction:
Lambert says that John A. was not blocked. He says that there were server problems at his end which prevented access to everyone. We will of course take Lambert at his word, although I will note that I did not experience any access difficulties in the period in question.
Actually, I didn’t say that nobody could access my site, just that I had had problems as well. Others may have got through at the same time. Such are the vagaries of the Internet.
Update 23 Aug I worked out why John A couldn’t access my site. McIntyre’s response:
Lambert first said that other people had the same problem as John A and later said: “Anyway, I figured out what happened — a spambot has been spamming my blog using the same IP as you [John A], so Bad Behavior blocked access from your IP. I’ve removed the block, but if the spambot does it again, it will be automatically blocked again. If you are the only person using that IP address than your computer is infected.”
Of course it was John A who said that other people had the same problem as him. McIntyre’s modus operandi seems to be to attack with baseless charges and when proved wrong to attack with more of the same instead of retracting.