Secret Skepticalscience

Moderation at your friendly neighborhood Skepticalscience thread

I was glancing at Skepticalscience a few days back , and the usual stuff was still there – the sentimentality, the droning, the navel-gazing, and of course, the bald-faced propaganda. I thought this bit in particular was striking:

However, the Climategate emails had very little to do with the IPCC reports.

There was just one commenter who questioned this claim. He received no response. That is how it is now –  they say whatever they want, whenever they want to, and in any way or form they choose to. No feedback mechanism seemingly operates.

Among consensus websites,  Realclimate is too weird (and growing irrelevant), Joe Romm is too goofy (and a failure to boot), DotEarth is dreamy and … there are hardly any other central venues of aggregation worthy of mention. Inadvertently, Skepticalscience has become the proxy voice of the climate consensus on the intertubes. Their brand of robotic straight-faced simplistic ‘myth’ narratives and officialese has to hold the fort for the global warming narrative.

Unfortunately though, this will kill any human interest in climate change, and climate science. Surely it speaks volumes about the climate movement that these guys are left holding the torch, so to speak

The censorship, snippery and comment butchery is still there as well, just as it was before. Witness:

Moderation at your friendly neighborhood Skepticalscience thread – Glowing example

Now apparently, Skepticalscience has a special feature – a secret forum. News comes via Tom Nelson and Australian Climate Madness of a leak exposing contents of the forum. Apparently a cabal of  secretive website members hang out, coordinating, planning, complaining and strategizing in the forums which is the beating heart of operations. What a bunch of whackjobs, one would think—as though the censorsing and shutting down of debate were not enough they have to go huddle in the back and bitch about you as well.

It is dispiriting to think all that secret activity goes only to produce the kind of stuff they do.

Update 1: John Cook has posted that a ”breach of privacy”  in the form of an “”external hack rather than from within Skeptical Science itself”  has affected his website.

Update 2: A SkepticalScience author/insider makes the statement: [...] “There’s a variety of information which is being collected. We are to the point where we have a short list of suspects based on the evidence that is collected.” [...]

42 thoughts on “Secret Skepticalscience

  1. - Forum link now dead, and the top news headline reads
    “Climate hero inside whistleblower has leaked secret info”
    no sorry that’s the Big Brother doublespeak they use when activists break the law, it actually reads “Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online” (the same thing they praised Peter Gleick & Desmogblog for last month !)
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Skeptical-Science-hacked-private-user-details-publicly-posted-online.html

  2. Doesn’t smell right to me. Probably a false attempt at self-aggrandizement with the added bonus of moral indignity. “Why, these horrible people have hacked into our servers, too! Think of the damage to our poor email accounts!” Corrupt pdf doesn’t help, nor does all info being public to begin with. I call bullshit.

  3. Surely the biggest non-event of 2012 so far? I suspect SkS will be the only people* who get worked up about this. Who would want an insight into that snidey little world?
    For once, I suspect “Nothing to see here” will very much be the correct phrase. Huge Yawn.

    *Oh….and the Guardian, who will have a post-Gleick volte-face and tell us that privacy is a good thing once again.

  4. - I note : The data has not been republished all over the net, with aggressive & twisted language framing it. Contrast that with the Peter Gleick/ Heartland affair where people who thought “ah that supports my dogma so I’ll republish it”, didn’t bother to do any factchecking.

    - Could be Climagate 3, but no need to hurry just handle the analysis professionally, fact check, look for fake bits & refrain from the anger & hysteria the activist-science blogs use. But maybe the churnalists should be fed some truths to copy & paste, as otherwise they’ll make stuff up and get the story all wrong.

  5. I’m surpised at the comments here and at Bishop Hill, which are either yawn-nothing-to-see or – well – sceptical. Maybe it’s because sceptics concentrate on the science and don’t think enough about how the whole CAGW may eventually play out – the politics and the mass psychology, in other words.
    It’s unthinkable that Cook did this to himself in order to accuse sceptics of a hack. He’s just lost too much face.
    Think of his alternative moves now. If he drops the “research”, he’s admitting it was sheer publicity. If he goes ahead, he’s got to go ahead with the publicity campaign too. Any journalist who joins in looks like a propagandist. Any journalist who doesn’t is admitting that the project is an embarrassment and will seem to be giving in to sceptic pressure.
    The CAGW story will never make the mainstream until it provokes some (probably trivial) eyecatching story. This may not be it, but it’s a nice appetiser.

  6. ht tp://gxost.ru/download.php?id=39

    I doubt there’s anything explosive there but it’s interesting to see their side of things. SkS linked to Heartland private internal docs, nothing was redacted. This is information SkS (inadvertedly) published, no phishing or tricks. Sure, given the lack of basic security it’s possible there has been hackers trawling around, too. Email addresses are partially redacted.

  7. outsider, the claim that SkS inadvertently published any of this information is a self serving lie by the hacker. The claim that this data was not redacted is also a lie. The hacker, at a minimum, did a search and replace on all names in the forum so that private data was included in the forum posts that was not there before. Curiously the hacker also removed the personal details of all known deniers from the released information, which I guess reveals the idiocy of people like Mangan who claim this was done by SkS for publicity.

    I know Shub likes to fluff up on fake moral outrage at SkS at the drop of a nickel, but his deliberate hosting of known stolen information shows how very fake that moral outrage is.

  8. I know Shub likes to fluff up on fake moral outrage … very fake…

    Yeah, you would know that, wouldn’t you? /sarc

    Who dug out the stuff and put it on a Russian server? How was he able to do it? Those are your questions. Do you know what ‘hosting’ means?

    Isn’t it funny how you are able to freely walk in and vent your spleen here, while your skepticalscience forum is closed to the public and every Skepticalscience thread is overrun by scissor-happy commenters who are moderators?

    Why does a science website require secrecy?

  9. Shub, you have chosen as a moniker the name of a being who in their ontology is known for claiming to be beyond good or evil. As such, you implicitly claim that morality has no claim on you.

    What is more, you act that way too. So, yes, fake moral outrage.

  10. Skeptical Science purports to be a site about the discussion of the science, but really it is just a propaganda machine. That is why the moderators hold the opposition to strict standards that are not enforced against the followers.

    I responded to a comment about resource depletion of fossil fuels saying (really conceding to their side if they are right), that if we are headed to a mass extinction event or vaporizing the planet’s water, then resource depletion of fossil fuels was the least of our worries. My comment was called “crap” and I should not be saying such nonsense unless I can cite sources. So I cited a video on youtube of James Hansen himself saying the precise words about “losing half of the species” if we continue business as usual and to his book “Storms of my Grandchildren” talking about vaporizing the planet’s water like on Venus. Those citations were edited out because they did not cite the peer reviewed literature and my post was off topic. Then I was called a troll. So I guess James Hansen can go around speaking all kinds of nonsense, and it isn’t relevant unless it is in the peer reviewed literature. That just tells me that they recognize that Hansen is a loose cannon. By the way, he makes a similar mass extinction comment in the TED video citing the IPPC calling a large percentage of the species “ticketed for extinction.”

    Yet they publish all sorts of statements from Lindzen and Spencer that are outside of the peer reviewed literature. The peer reviewed literature rule is used as a pretext to deleting unfavorable posts They routinely engage in ad hominem attacks against skeptics, calling them idiots and tinfoil hat wearers. And if one asks a question, they immediately start discussing the questioner saying things like “fake skeptics like to do such and such…”

    I am an engineer of 23 years, and I am really trying to find out the truth about climate change. I suspect that it doesn’t hold water, but I have not fully made up my mind. If my children are in danger, then I certainly care about what we are doing to the planet. But so far, the whole thing seems more akin to the false DDT scare.

    In any event, as a place to discuss science, Skeptical Science is a joke. If you tow the party line, you can say any unbridled comment you want.

    If you want to see how terrible the science is over at Skeptical Science, take a look at the MWP section and look at the two graphs in the intermediate tab. To “compare” the MWP to today, they chart a three hundred year period that covers the entire MWP including before the warming and after. Then they compare it to a decade, 1998 – 2008, which is close to being the peak of the recent warming trend. Gee look at how the graph of the decade is all red, while the three hundred year graph is white and blue. Comparisons like this are highly misleading and don’t show anything, yet they consider that to be good science.

    Now, Skeptical Science has the right to be a propaganda machine if wants. I have no problem with that. And, their model is actually quite good. Spend all the time “debunking” “denier” “myths,” but spend very little time actually discussing the case for CAGW.

    Their whole case boils down to three points:

    1. There is unprecedented recent warming.
    2. The models show that it is due to CO2.
    3. We can’t think of any other cause of the recent warming.

    The first point fails any reasonable level of scientific investigation. To the second, I would say “so what,” how hard can it be to fit a model into past data to show what you want it to show. I could probably do the same to show that housing prices in the US cause the planet to warm. And the third just means that the topic is worthy of further study, especially as to the other potential causes.

  11. dude, do you have any idea what you are saying?

    I am not ‘outraged’ by anything skepticalscience has done. In this event, I am disappointed, if anything. Look at the post above, I say as much. Nor am I ‘morally’ offended by skepticalscience’s actions – they are neither the first, nor the last entity in the climate debate to practice censorship. John Cook can censor and butcher user comments for all he wants.

    What I can do is express my disgust. There it was:

    One may perhaps be very convinced of being right and express opinions strongly, but to indulge in a blatant, abrasive attempt at censorship and controlling replies posted by a senior scientist … I cannot recollect a similar obnoxious event in the climate debate in the recent past.

  12. - Careful about feeding the trolls. The warmists have a massive armoury of PR tricks. They have done something wrong again, so they resort to the BULLIES tactics of attack with insults & accusations to try to put non-conformers on the back foot, just the same way criminals rush around accusing others before they can be accused themselves. Someone claimed above “It’s a lie” etc & as usual the claim was made with absolute certainty, but then no evidence was provided… well then that’s just mudslinging.

    - It’s tiresome to defend against their unsubstantiated insults, rather our job is to steadily & reasonably expose their crimes…… Keep up the good work

  13. I read the comments on Hansen’s ‘vaporize the oceans’ at Skepticalscience, and noticed their handling of the comments, too.

    Look at comments on Monckton, suffering an acute lack of moderation, that are running presently:

    There is something seriously wrong with the world when a person like Monckton is treated as an international hero rather than rotting in jail.

    .

    Lord my #ss

    .

    … Sublimely Scented Excellency …

    .

    … many of the people sitting around me were completely unhinged — we are talking tinfoil-hatville to the max.

    .

    But on the whole their audience doesn’t care, because they’d rather believe – it’s what they’re good at – whether it be in faked birth certificates, global Communist conspiracies, or English aristocrats who are smarter than the entire trained scientific establishment, don’tchaknow?

    .

    Although in any country we have skeptics and deniers there are traits characteristic of the anglo-saxon world that aren’t easy to decipher for us “barbarians” (as strangers, the original meaning of the greek word).

    .
    .

    Well, I spent more time than I would have liked yesterday–on a beautiful Saturday, no less–”debating” with just such idiots (Canadian ones, FWIW.) Second Law, yadda yadda, Faith-based AGW, yadda yadda, lying scientists, yadda yadda. I (and a few other masochists dedicated posters) …

    All comments above, are immoderate, ad-hominem (ie., irrelevant to the point under discussion), and definitely lack any citation to a ‘peer-reviewed journal’. How are left standing?

    The simple explanation, as you point out, is that asking for ‘peer-reviewed references’ is a censorship tool and nothing more.

  14. - Don’t let them establish the meme “Hacked” “private data published”. Rushing to frame the debate by shouting weasel words is another activist trick, whereas skeptics wait until the facts emerge so to apply the correct term. The problem is the churnalists come along & just copy & paste the same activist phrases.
    - The irony is we know they DO apply to the Gleick/Heartland case, but weren’t used the media pasted the warmists phrase “leaked” & “insider”. Yet in this case both claims seem wrong :
    1. There is NO private data that has been widely republished (only things I can find a mention of the zip file & a few quotes pasted into comments sections a couple of skeptic blogs)
    2. No evidence of any “hacking”, rather there are plausible claims of guessing where SkS had put secret discussions on public display

  15. Tom Curtis …

    I see a lot of indignation from you (some real, I suppose), and that you throw around terms like ‘denier’ and ‘liar’ )even ‘idiocy’) without any heed or discrimination. It is hard see what point if any you actually are trying to make.

    Everybody on the sceptical side is aware of the spin, the onesidedness, the PR efforts, the political agendas, the media support etc on the warmist side. Nobody is really suprised about what’s going on there.

    Why are you so angry?

  16. John Cook and his groups are cowards in addition to everything else. They can’t even admit when they screw up (e.g., see stealth edits). Sorry if I’m a bit skeptical of John Cook’s claim it was an external hack. Doubt it, nobody really gives a f*ck about that loser website, it’s just fun to kick around sometimes.

  17. If, as you say shub, if skeptical science is now the voice of alarmism, then indeed the battle is won [was it ever in doubt?].

    Puerile point scoring, inexpertly argued polemic and trash science, if that’s the best they can come up with….. .
    But then, this was never about science, that was defenestrated long ago. No, with alarmism, this is a battle of an irrational warmist ideology verses pragmatism, honesty and truth telling.
    The outcome can not be denied, that; lies, spin and politicised propaganda no matter how many times it is repeated never triumphs when contesting with the truth, probity always wins out:

    Truth and logic, they are of the natural order and all of us would do well to note it.

  18. Strange that SkS claim that IP addresses of users have been posted. This appears to be untrue

  19. Sorry, I see that there are IP addresses in the forum comments, but not the users.csv file

  20. - Are you sure the truth will out rule apply ? It’s an upside down world these days
    Right at this very moment skilled activist PR people are preparing press release to feed into the compliant pravda of the Environment departments of the Guardian, BBC, New Sci-activist etc.
    - Then the false narrative of “hacked” “private data”, & “IP addresses published” will be printed and “Once it is writ to paper it becomes ‘real’. It doesn’t matter to those churnalists that those statements turn out to be false, if something confirms their dogma they will reprint it, without pausing to think of fact checking. (especially if it’s black & white simple dogma instead of the full colour complex of reality)

    - Just see how the false narratives of “98%”, “funded by big oil” etc. have become “true” in the minds of people who don’t check facts.

    - Anyway well done the public in the Australian state of Queensland ! Any journalists want to check what’s caused her party to have “less seats than a minivan” ?

  21. nobody really gives a f*ck about that loser website

    Puerile point scoring, inexpertly argued polemic and trash science

    Skeptical Science purports to be a site about the discussion of the science, but really it is just a propaganda machine

    Skeptical Science is a joke

    John Cook and his groups are cowards in addition to everything else

    skilled activist PR people are preparing press release to feed into the compliant pravda of the Environment departments of the Guardian, BBC, New Sci-activist etc.

    not to mention the extraordinary, and utterly risible -

    Doesn’t smell right to me. Probably a false attempt at self-aggrandizement with the added bonus of moral indignity. “Why, these horrible people have hacked into our servers, too! Think of the damage to our poor email accounts!” Corrupt pdf doesn’t help, nor does all info being public to begin with. I call bullshit.

    And that’s only from this one thread!

    PS, I know contextual reading is hard, but if you reread that 6th quote that begins ‘Although in any country we have skeptics and deniers’ you’ll discover that it shouldn’t be on your list. The writer is referring to him or her self as a ‘barbarian’ who doesn’t always ‘get’ the whole Anglo-Celt thing, I’m afraid.

    Motes and Beams, people, motes and beams…

  22. Further, I note that you have taken umbrage at the following -

    we are talking tinfoil-hatville to the max

    Perhaps you’d care to enlighten us all as to the nature of the ‘Alien Shield Helmets’ referred to in this ‘hilarious’ cartoon by Josh over at the Sticky Bishop’s, where you are frequently in residence, I gather.

    In fact, I rather believe you were the very party that tipped him off to the hack, if I’m not mistaken!

    Now, please, don’t let me interrupt. By all means, all of you, return to your profound deliberations on your purely scientific objectivity and Solomonic detachment from the fray…

  23. well, billzog, what can I say. I don’t have a ‘comment policy’ that tells people what to do, what is allowed and acceptable and what is not. People post what they want and speak their mind. It is Cook who has erected a facade of a ‘policy’ which, as John Kosowski notes, springs into place at the slightest sign of impassioned engagement from the average Joe. At the same time other average Joes, as long as they are ranged against the right targets, can apparently give full expression to their anger. It did not even strike the moderators (of whom there seems to be a horde) that these comments violate the rules.

    Do you now understand the hypocrisy behind the policy?

  24. Motes and Beams, people, motes and beams…

    Oh dear. You strike me as a particularly dim specimen, indeed a real thicko. It is quite clear that you can read (well done!), but it is evident that you suffer from a severe impediment in your attempt at understanding the written word and what it actually means. I’d say you were ESN.

    You have managed heroically to miss the entire point of Shub’s comment above which was to show that ad hominems from CAGW fquits get left in place on SkS while the posts of sceptics are severely ‘moderated’ out even when, or rather especially, they conform to the hypocritical rules and actually cite sources. As John Kosowski said above, “…the moderators [at SkS] hold the opposition to strict standards that are not enforced against the followers.” Shub was expanding on this by supplying further illustrative examples. Geddit now?

    So no, not “Motes and Beams, people, motes and beams…” or anything even remotely like it, you dumbarse prick.

    You are one of those CAGW fquits, aren’t you? Occam’s razor says you are, though I’d much rather he shut up and cut your throat with it, and your pals’.

  25. Well, this general notion that ‘anything goes’ certainly explains

    the sentimentality, the droning, the navel-gazing, and of course, the bald-faced propaganda.

    and, of course, johndwarchers not-at-all-vile missive.

    Charming place you have here. Keep up the good work – I hope you attain all the success you so richly deserve!

  26. You just can’t acknowledge the howler embodied in that idiotic post of yours, can you?

    No. So, tell me, who’s the ‘denier’ now, billyboy? That should be an easy one for you. There are plenty of clues. Take your time and have yourself a good think on it. Try to get it right for a change.

    Instead you make a ham-fisted attempt to deflect attention by trying to strike a superior ‘moral’ pose. But you can’t even do that properly, although you must have had lots of practice at it — your kind always does. From where I’m standing you have all the gravitas of a chimpanzee dressed up in oversized top hat & tails . You’re simply ridiculous.

  27. - Guys, I already said don’t feed the trolls (like billzog), it’s a wate of energy. The leaked data evidences that warmists have again been acting immorally. Having been caught in the wrong. Instead of coming up with an explanantion they have done their normal trick of attacking.
    -This is best ignored. We shouldn’t allow them to shift the agenda, and waste time defending ourselves when we’ve done nothing wrong.
    (In this case SkS has strict forum rules which it selectively applies to discriminate against skeptical commenters. There is no point in defending ourselves HERE as we don’t have the same rules to suppress comments)

    - We shouldn’t get distracted rather we should do the GOOD WORK of continuing to expose the lies and distortions warmists come up with and encourage the public not to accept reports at face value, but rather do their own fact checking.

    - I see that far from being widely republished like the fake Heartland document, the SkS data only comes up it a few small places like the comments section of the Bishop-Hill blog
    : They are calling it OPEN-GATE with reference to the claim that the data was on public view on the webserver : http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/26/opengate-josh-158.html

  28. Stew, hello.

    You say don’t feed the trolls, it’s a waste of energy. Right. I agree.

    But I’d add that it’s much better to feed ON them instead. I recommend ripping their livers out and eating them raw. Which, when you think about it, is a very natural thing to do so it should make them happy. In fact it’s so natural it’s green.

    Yes, nature red in tooth and claw — now that’s my kind of green.

    By the way, they’re superb moralisers, aren’t they? I just wonder how they square that activity with the inevitable unnecessary deaths they’ll cause due to fuel poverty as a result of the lunatic policies they advocate — among poor old-age pensioners for example. What a nasty way for the poor old dears to go, eh? But I doubt the thought will ever cross the greenies’ minds. More likely they’ll ask how many angels can dance on Granny’s dead, cold head, or something.

    Fcuk ‘em.

  29. John, It Shub’s blog so I’ll just make a brief comment.
    - The activists keep coming up with these dumb distracting attacks. I always think it’s best when anger is provoked not to just to try to defend by reflecting anger back, but take the energy from it to go on the attack by digging up & exposing flaws in their methods & logic and promote the good skeptic science.
    - Insulting them is a waste ..Believers are like a woman trapped in an abusive relationship , everyone on the outside can see they should get out, but she thinks “he’s really a nice guy” and can’t see she’s being lied to & exploited.
    - and others have too much invested to lose – not only do warmist activist scientists have their entire careers invested, but there are huge implications for governments in backtracking ..(legal claims)

    - Today’s distracting story is “conservative Americans have lost trust in science”

    and the REAL story is : Agenda_control_by_attack/Book_to_sell/Election_coming
    …as Yet again the greens twist science by spinning flawed data … It’s BEST IGNORED
    ( Mike Smith says the Qn was actually “faith in ScienTISTS ?” )

    - and the meme they are trying to create is almost certainly BS from the start as of course, it’s not as if we can say 99% of scientists are “liberal”

  30. Stew,

    What you say makes a lot of sense.

    On the other hand I do have my animal needs. It’s a tough one for me. :)

    By the way, yes, it is Shub’s blog, and I’m grateful for being allowed to post on it.

    Best wishes.

  31. So my posts citing James Hansen’s warnings were chopped out of SkS because I didn’t cite peer reviewed literature, but rather just actual video of him speaking the words, and of course, because my post was “off topic.”

    So I went to the section entitled “James Hansen’s motivation,” and made the following post responding to someone who stated “I accept all that Hansen says:”

    jzk at 20:58 PM on 5 April, 2012
    John @12,

    “I accept all that Hansen says.”

    How about when he says that our Oceans will begin to boil?

    “you can get to a situation where, it just, the Oceans will begin to boil…”

    @2:05.

    Then Daniel Bailey replies:
    “Jzk, the operative word Hansen uses is “can” (and please refer to the video in its entirety for context, not a solitary quote-mine). This is predicated on many variables also occurring, like first burning all the coal and then exploiting all the tar sands and shale oil extraction technologies and a methane/clathrate permafrost release.

    Note that the likelihood of this last is sharply confirmed here.

    Further discussion of those factors belongs on one of the many more relevant threads devoted to those topics, rather than this one. ”

    Of course I am accused of taking Hansen’s comments out of “context.” Hansen’s “motivation” for making this video is that “if we allow emissions to continue at a high rate…” all of these bad things could happen. So how in the world is it “out of context.”

    Then Daniel tries to accuse my post of being off topic.

    So I reply:

    “Daniel @14,

    Notice that Hansen begins his talk with “if we allow emissions to continue at a high rate…”

    Then he gets to talking about losing every species on Earth, and boiling the Oceans. Since all signs point to emissions rates increasing from where they are now (China and India), then according to Hansen these outcomes are real possibilities.

    This thread is entitled “James Hansen’s motivation” and I was responding to a post that stated “I accept all that Hansen says.”

    So how could my post possibly be off topic?”

    So then, like freaking clockwork, in comes the Moderator:

    “Moderator Response:

    [DB] “So how could my post possibly be off topic?”

    Again, reading my comment it is clear that I was referring to the individual factors Hansen discusses, like a methane/clathrate release. Those are best discussed further on individual threads devoted to them (Search function). Please desist in looking to quote-mine and take things out of context.”

    So, not a complete “snip” and delete, but a warning to “Please desist in looking to quote-mine..”

    What a total bunch of crap. While I am not a climate scientist, I have been an engineer for 22 years having graduated from University of Illinois, College of Engineering. I know a thing or two about science and reasoning. People like James Hansen have full license to go around shooting their mouth off alarming people with unbridled claims of mass extinction and boiling the Oceans, and any attempt to even cite to their alarmism is treated as “quote mining.”

  32. Ok, so here comes the moderation. I posted:

    “Tom @18,

    The talk starts out “what would happen if emissions continue to grow?”

    He then talks about “over centuries you could get a runaway greenhouse effect..lose all the species…boil the water” There is no “quote mining” going on here, the citations I have quoted are a very fair representation of the message that Hansen is trying to convey to the public. As you all also know, in Hansen’s peer reviewed literature, he subscribes to a climate sensitivity of 6C per doubling of CO2.

    Hansen did not preclude any of this in the video with “all carbon burnt” or anything like that. He is telling the public that if we continue business as usual (as he has said many many times in many places) that very severe things will happen like huge sea level rises, mass extinction events and boiling the water on the planet.

    And, yes Tom, if your “evidence” against a runaway greenhouse is the “models” then that is no evidence at all. Certainly there must be some other “evidence” upon which the models are based that might lead one to that conclusion.

    So is it then, a fair statement to say that Hansen’s views are “outside the consensus?”

    And in rolled the moderator, “snipping” out most of my post:

    “Moderator Response:

    [DB] As noted earlier, and as specifically pointed out to you by Tom Curtis below, Hansen does not discuss the runaway greenhouse effect in the video linked in the OP. Your intransigent insistence that he did is therefore utter, willful falsehood.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit off-topic posts and make things up. We really appreciate people’s cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

    Fabricated quote and trolling statements snipped.”

    Now I am fabricating quotes despite actual links to video sources of Hansen speaking the words.

    Besides the blatant censorship, if anyone wants to see the intellectual “brilliance” going on at SkS, look at the following.

    So basically, I am asking whether Hansen is outside the consensus with his alarming predictions of seal level rise, mass extinction and the boiling of the oceans. This is what I get in response:
    “It is not a fair statement to suggest that Hansen is “outside the consensus”. Hansen suggests that a runaway greenhouse is possible on Earth. Most of what I have seen disagrees with Hansen, see Tom’s links above, but that does not mean Hansen is wrong.”

    So most disagree with Hansen, but he is not outside the “consensus?”

    And, from Tom Curtis: “Hansen is probably wrong about runaway greenhouse effect.”

    So Hansen is being overly “alarmist” about the runaway greenhouse effect, but we should take him at his word about the extreme sea level rise and mass extinction event that is coming within this century?

  33. Here is my final post on the Hansen’s motivation page. Shub, if you think I am over doing it here with these posts, my apologies. I just find Skeptical Science’s conduct an insult to real “science.”

    Tom @27,

    This is a very sad display of purported “science” discussion. The misrepresentation here is the very title of the site “Skeptical Science.” It should be changed to “Climate change propaganda.” Hansen’s comments on the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect are entirely relevant towards his “motivation.”

    If Hansen were going around making other outlandish predictions, those would be relevant too as impeachment. The opposite would be true as well. A solid track record of scientific development would establish credibility. It would all be relevant.

    Your aim in moderating me is not to lay all of the facts on the table to find the truth, but rather to merely promote an agenda.
    That is why Scaddenp and others can say any comment they want regardless of whether it is true as long as they are on the alarmist side. Where did Hansen preface any of his warnings on the fact that all carbon would be burnt in either the OP or the video I cited? Yet that comment just sails on past with no challenge. If I challenge it, my challenge is deleted. I am not even opposing your agenda in any of this discourse, just getting facts on the table. That is how science is supposed to work. I am not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist (engineer). No question of real science or engineering problem would ever be discussed this way.

    Despite your lengthy hair splitting comment, I very fairly depicted Hansen’s positions. It is not necessary to misrepresent Hansen as being extreme, he already does an excellent job on his own. Now perhaps Hansen is right. If so, we all need to be alarmed. I have children too. But why quash the real information about his views and allow clear misrepresentations to stand unchallenged? What does that do to further your cause?

    Does Hansen tell his grandkids to look both ways and up before crossing a street because a meteor might land right in front of them? That would be “extreme” yet the risk is greater than his runaway greenhouse warning. Yet he does not present 5 meter sea level rise this century, mass extinction or even the oceans boiling several centuries from now as an “extreme” case, but rather a very real possibility of continued increasing fossil fuel use, and yes, over the long term on the latter.

    Of course, it is your (group’s) site, and you are free to have a propaganda website, and you are free to misrepresent it as being a site about science. But if you do that, all you say will be tainted.

  34. Here is my final post on the Hansen’s motivation page. Shub, if you think I am over doing it here with these posts, my apologies. I just find Skeptical Science’s conduct an insult to real “science.”

    No, it’s OK. It is when you engage closely when things like this come out.

  35. Poptech: More Shenanigans at SniptopicalScience « Tallbloke's Talkshop

  36. ‘…we need a conspiracy to save humanity’ | Watts Up With That?

  37. Religious fundamentalists have major melt-down … | pindanpost

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s