Every man and his lagomorph has a post taking the piss out of the “Ship of fools“, so I won’t bother. But (since I seem to have managed to get censored by every denialist blog I try to post on) I thought I’d make a handy list of said blogs and comments. Warning: there’s no useful content anywhere in this post; its all just record-keeping for me.
Also, I do find it tedious when people whinge on about censorship. So I’m a bit reluctant to do so myself. But I’m going to indulge.
In roughly chronological order:
P Gosselin: From “Jewish Science” To “Denier Science”: Copernicus Charade Is Latest Example Of German Intolerance To Alternative Climate Science Explanations
A new entry, 2014/01/18. Calls itself “NoTricksZone” but has clearly got one trick up its sleeve: censoring comments and banning people who voice unpopular opinions.
[Update, 2014/01/28: AFAIK that post is still stuck, but we're having a moderately sane discussion at Backfire! Eminent Physicist Calls Attempted Journal Suppression A Throwback To “Inquisition And Books Burning”!, so perhaps its time to review my opinion.
And indeed, now peace has broken out so I have no complaint at this time.]
No, I’m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley
> You aren’t the keepers of the truth
Agreed. But what has that got to do with you pretending that a bunch
of no-hopers are “among the most esteemed in the field”?
> Collectively they have published in the neighborhood of 1000 scientific papers, an immense contribution to the field
I’m dubious – care to share your source for that “1000″?
(currently snipped here (archived) with “[snip - I don't take comments from no-hopers who are "among the most esteemed in the field". So how does it feel to be censored, Dr. Connelly...climate modeler who could not get a single model to work? Don't bother commenting here in the future.]“)
The “1000”, BTW, is his claim for the total publications. Morner, apparently, claims more than 500. Anyone have a good source for that?
> You’ve failed to discuss any science and have descended to ad hom insults, so out you go.
There’s hardly any discussion of science in any of these comments. And
if you think pointing out a certain asymmetry in comment approval is
insulting, you have a thin skin. Still,I’m sure you’ll find a reason
for censorship if you need one.
> I’ll post the screencaps of my comments you’ve censored on your blog another day.
Oh come, why wait? But make sure it isn’t http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/01/19/shocker-solar-physicists-interested-in-solar-physics/#comment-25275 or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/09/03/lancelot-law-whytes-unitary-field-theory/#comment-21912 or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/09/03/lancelot-law-whytes-unitary-field-theory/#comment-21868 cos they’re all published.
Note: having checked, I can’t see any comments from “tallbloke” that didn’t get published. So my suspicion is that he is “dramatically diverting” (sixth of the Techniques). But we’ll see.
[Update: Over at NoFreeSpeechZone TB stirringly but perhaps with a certain lack of self-awareness asserts that "Censorship has to be fought". I put in a comment pointing out the anomaly, but I'm not holding my breath.]
[Update: JN responds in the comments. And I respond to her and... my comment appears. That's good. No meeting of minds so far but I'm happy to say that all my comments are getting through.]
I don’t have an exact copy of the comment, but I pointed out that she had mysteriously failed to include
In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.
in her quote from the cessation notice. Its nice that she subsequently included the text via update, though it would have been nicer had she acked me as the source of her revelation.
> *You are a Ph. D. de facto; Einstein’s doctorate from Oxford was “honorary.”
Einstein had an earned doctorate from Zurich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Academic_career
Oh come now. You can’t possibly imagine that NSF would fund this stuff, can you?
And as for cowardly: here I am. Under my real name, not hiding as anon.
(suppressed at http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/im-retiring-from-full-time-climate-change-blogging/#comment-14503).
Of course. No post about censorship would be complete without WUWT. Self-proclaimed harbour for free debate, but in fact ruthlessly moderated. I got banned in 2012 but after the lulz of Dr* Bob, he couldn’t resist a whinge: RealClimate Co-Founder Exposes His Inability to Grasp Complex Subjects. Since that was explictly about me, I was allowed to post some comments: how jolly. But alas for the Watties, they didn’t do very well against me, and it became necessary to suppress me. The accusation that I was refusing to debate them, while they were suppressing my attempts to talk, was particularly Orwellian.
> you finally suggested that E Prof. Lindzen
Still gnawing that bone? No, I haven’t suggested here that “E Prof” is
the correct way to refr to L. You said that.
On M’s troubles with Galileo: it turns out that the full text of his
condemnation is online for all to read:
As you’ll see, M is hopelessly wrong.
> no name calling
Review the comments here. The “name calling” is overwhelmingly from
you lot. I’m not complaining – it makes you look silly.
> while never committing to anything
As I’ve said, I’ll commit to debating with M: all you need to do is
stop censoring my comments in that thread and we can debate. As to
your proposed debate, the problem is that you’re too cowardly to even
mention your toy offer to him. You guys are all fake slavering for a
debate, but its you that’s preventing the debate happening.
> RichardLH says: January 12, 2014 at 6:31 am Not banned so much as it would appear from your contributions on this thread at least.
But now you do realise that this thread is the exception, no? My
comments to other threads are censored.
> Professor Lindzen.
Lindzen isn’t a prof. He’s emeritus.
> Actually, Galileo was wrong.
That one is definitely going in the quote-books, long after the rest
of this article is forgotten.
> Damages will be huge.
No they won’t. Firstly, because L won’t sue, he isn’t stupid.
Secondly, because if he did the case would be thrown out – nothing
here raises to the level of libel, even if proved true, which they
> Sooner or later we are going to have to take someone to court
Mann is doing that. Oddly, no-one here seems to be keen for that day
in court to happen.
I’ve also been suppressed at Dr Roy Spencer’s, and Climate Etc., but since I wasn’t expecting that I didn’t both erkeep copies; it was months ago anyway. Ter be honest I did push Dr Roy a bit (this one got through, it was a later one that died).