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.]
> 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-inter… or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/09/03/lancelot-law-whytes-unitary-fi… or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/09/03/lancelot-law-whytes-unitary-fi… 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.
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 bother keep 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).
Morton's Demons are kept busy:
'Morton's demon stands at the gateway of a person's senses and lets in facts that agree with that person's beliefs while deflecting those that do not. This demon is used to explain the phenomenon of confirmation bias.'
But it applies to moderation policies, too.
Yes the WUWT thread raised the level of NIchtselbtbewusstheit to levels never before seen.
Review the comments here. The “name calling” is overwhelmingly from you lot. I’m not complaining – it makes you look silly.
Great time. This post was published around the time, the master himself, Anthony Watts, called me "Victor Venemous" on Twitter.
Willie Soon emailed me the original copy of the "termination" page as it first appeared and I cut and pasted it accurately. When I notified him of the post, he immediately told me the page was updated, and so I updated my post. One of my moderators must have binned your comment, I assume because they could not figure out what you were going on about. I did not see it. The mods know I would not bother doing something as pointless as you suggest. (Thanks to this pingback I've since found your comment and posted it). Meanwhile I was emailing authors of the papers and I have a full copy of what the editors sent with timestamps, and it’s clear their “nepotism” excuse was an afterthought, probably when they realized how inadequate their primary objection was (ie “doubting” the IPCC). Your apology is accepted. Thanks for trying to help, perhaps next time if you write with goodwill instead, your comment will prove helpful. – Jo
[Hello, and welcome. I don't believe your explanation for the disappearence of my comment, but I'll test you again in the near future: make sure you're ready. Your apology is accepted - this is bizarre, even for one of your lot. As for next time, my comment can only prove useful if it makes its way through your censors -W]
It seems trouble has been brewing at PRP for some time and it finally came to a head. Jeffrey Beall, who you may know as an expert in dodgy journals (usually predatory though not in this case), cottoned on about six months ago:
I wish AW had taken you up on your willingness to debate Monckton at WUWT. That would be such fun to observe! I wonder why he hasn't tried to make that happen .... You'd think he (and Monckton) would be salivating at the prospect of taking you down. Whatever could be causing them not to take this on?!?
[AW is unpleasant, but not entirely stupid. He knows the result would not be pretty for him. As for M, I think he regards WUWT as write-only (like many others there): he isn't about to waste time reading the rest of the junk on the site, so I doubt he was even aware of the debate some mod proposed in t' other thread -W]
Perhaps a fire of unknown origin is causing global warming?
Hi I am writing to you on behalf on the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum, we are conducting a survey of those interesting in the climate debate which should be of interest to all involved.
The main focus is on the education and work experience of participants, but it will also assess employment and social factors for their relationship with views on climate.
We would be very grateful if you would take the time to complete the survey. The responses are confidential.
The url is: http://scef.org.uk/survey/index.php/868721/lang/en.
Just a note, although the survey cited above is conducted by a denialist organization, its structure and questions are surprisingly even-handed. It will be interesting to see how they spin the results.
[Agreed; I had no problems in answering it; except I skipped the question about the flu epidemic, even though I knew what they were on about, because it didn't really work -W.
I decided to do the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum questionnaire anyway, even though their stated agenda is AGW dissidents so their is a perceived bias there. Some of the questions were lame in my opinion eg "Climate varies naturally" well yes of course it does but over what timeframe and how this compare to the AGW timeframe is the issue.
[There was one on "does climate vary naturally" or somesuch. I answered Yes, of course. Hopefully everyone did. Quite what they'll do with that I don't know -W]
What they'll do:
Headlline: 100% agree climate varies naturally! more than 97%
These are some points that highlight how media can influence the minds of the audiences at big. Step 3: Arrive Early Show up at the meeting early and set up your equipment.