An inconvenient comment? : Stoat

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Profile

My family and me. More...

Make sure you're familiar with the Comment Policy

Confused by my constant use of abbreviations? Then you need the Glossary

Search

Other Information

Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list

Subscribe to globalchange

Email:

Browse at groups.google.com

I've been using Google Reader recently, following the lamented death of Planet Fleck, and I suppose I have to admit its better. Here are some "shared items" if, for some reason, you want to read what I read.

« Snow! | Main | I am all powerful (part 2) »

An inconvenient comment?

Category: climate communication
Posted on: December 18, 2009 6:37 AM, by William M. Connolley

An exciting new blog aicomment.blogspot.com. However, I'm insulted that An Open Mind has got on their bad-boys list and I'm not. I thought I was notorious for rejecting inconvenient comments? Anyway, *I* suggest that you all try to make a comment on this post here, I'll reject them all, and you can get me added to their list of blogs. Of course, if they reject your comments then we can start a blog for that.

[Comments here are now closed]

Find more posts in:

Environment

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/127432

Comments

[Deleted - W]

Posted by: Magnus Westerstrand | December 18, 2009 7:12 AM

[Dismissed with contempt -W]

Posted by: carrot eater | December 18, 2009 7:47 AM

Okay, I scanned through the latest ten posts over there. Past performance may be no guarantee etc. but I'd say that site isn't going to the top of anyone's must-read list.

#10 has no inconvenient comments.

#9 has no inconvenient comments.

#8 has no inconvenient comments.

#7 has no inconvenient comments.

#6 has no inconvenient comments.

#5 has no inconvenient comments.

#4 has one inconvenient comment. Apparently someone submitted three rather silly comments to Tamino's site and he declined to let them through moderation.

#3 has no inconvenient comments.

#2 has one inconvenient comment. In a RealClimate post, Eric Steig joked about both Hansen and Christie complaining about the peer review process ("If both feel the peer review process is biased against them, it must be working rather well.") Somebody was apparently offended by this, and wrote a rather huffy two-line comment that doesn't show up on RC.

#1 has no inconvenient comments.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Posted by: J | December 18, 2009 8:55 AM

[That was good and I was tempeted to leave it, but rules is rulez -W]

Posted by: Larry Johnson | December 18, 2009 9:19 AM

[Ha ha yes I *did* delete it... -W]

Posted by: guthrie | December 18, 2009 9:45 AM

After three comments on a thread at American Thinker I was banned and the comments deleted. I could try again and save the comments this time.

Posted by: Deech56 | December 18, 2009 10:24 AM

[You are a Rude Boy. Definitely no swearing on this blog -W]

Posted by: Eli Rabett | December 18, 2009 11:20 AM

[Deleted because I am a censoring propaganda machine, and my secret slush fund requires that I don't free the code, data and blog comments - W]

Has anybody tried to pretend to be you before?

[Noooo... cunning. Hmm, I think I'll leave this one up -W]

Posted by: carrot eater | December 18, 2009 11:39 AM

[No porn please -W]

Posted by: parrotsatemypiate | December 18, 2009 2:01 PM

Ok, I'll play.

Delete away!

[No. Shan't -W]

Posted by: David B. Benson | December 18, 2009 2:57 PM

This is a test [Ha ha. I pass -W]

Posted by: Phil Hays | December 18, 2009 3:07 PM

HA! MADE YOU BLINK!

[I can't bear to remove it -W}

Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 18, 2009 5:02 PM

Hey!

Rulez is rulez...

Posted by: David B. Benson | December 18, 2009 5:40 PM

That's not a new blog, it's ancient (but a dismal failure in its intent). The web isn't a write-only medium you know. Obviously members of the scienceblorgosphere don't bother to actually keep up with the real world ("real"? shome mishtake shirley).

[You're right, I did -W]

Posted by: James Annan | December 18, 2009 5:58 PM

Kill it! kill it!

Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 18, 2009 7:21 PM

You don't dare delete this. McIntyre and Watts know where you live ...

[Ah, but I deleted this bit. Or did I? -W]

Posted by: dhogaza | December 18, 2009 9:29 PM

Thinking of Watts and his contributions to science ...

It will be a CO2-snowing day in Antarctica before you dare to delete this!

Posted by: dhogaza | December 18, 2009 9:31 PM

My comment deleted from here was also deleted at Inconvenient Comment! It's a conspiracy!

[Right, that means you need to start you *own* blog to post nonsense on :-) -W]

Posted by: parrotsatemypiate | December 18, 2009 10:31 PM

you will NOT delete this, you %&^$@^#$!!

Posted by: Former Skeptic | December 18, 2009 11:55 PM

W- Read this then delete:

"All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."

[W00t! I'm not deleting that. Thanks for letting me know - apparently this is causing something of a fuss. I may actually be obliged to read this trash. Incidentally - despite the attempt to link this to swifthack - as far as I can tell, none of my nefarious off-wiki collaboration came out in the mails -W]

Posted by: Luke Warmer | December 19, 2009 7:07 AM

#20

This might help give some context for Terence Corcoran and the National Post.

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/10/bali-2007-revisited/

Posted by: Deep Climate | December 19, 2009 9:01 AM

Also this:

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/08/in-the-beginning-the-national-post-terence-corcoran-and-tom-harris/

Plus numerous others on National Post, mainly on Lorne Gunter

Posted by: Deep Climate | December 19, 2009 9:05 AM

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles.

Damn, and here I thought he wrote 5,428 identical ones!

[If you're interested, Solomon is just pulling stats from a tool like http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=William%20M.%20Connolley&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia I didn't create more that a small number of articles, of course -W]

Posted by: dhogaza | December 19, 2009 9:22 AM

Ha! You not only deleted my creepy crawly worm post (after 14, before current 15) but you also removed the evidence of that, as you'll remove this evidence of that evidence of that. But I can post more evidence ....

oh, wait, I'm done.
Rules of Go about ladders ought to apply.

Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 19, 2009 11:10 AM

Hmm. Presumably it is inconvient to have someone post your inconsistency of

[Yes, the shame is too much -W]

Posted by: crandles | December 19, 2009 12:41 PM

Re #20: Luke, Solomon refers to things being wikidisappeared at William's "hand," but I happen to know that W., being of a poetic bent, prefers "mailed fist."

Re #24: That would be the ko rule, Hank. Ladders are allowed to run on to the bitter end.

Posted by: Steve Bloom | December 19, 2009 1:51 PM

[I deleted myself -W]

Posted by: dhogaza | December 19, 2009 2:05 PM

I suspected vanity might beat the delete!

Re SuperFreakonomics, more "debunking"/harsh criticism of another non-climate bit:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12/the_all_else_eq_2.html

Posted by: Luke Warmer | December 19, 2009 6:44 PM

Now, really, isn't this vital information?

Firefox not only supports blinks tag, but supports the old IE marquee tag and what is worse is you can use them both at the same time.

What could be worse?

http://www.dervishmoose.com/post.cfm/firefox-still-supports-the-blinking-blink-and-marquee-tag