Skeptical Chicken

The Skepticalscience Team, usually prompt in jumping on to any study or a sneeze that confirms their biases, is very quiet about Marcott et al with the 11,000 year hockey stick. Why? Are they worried the study would tank after they stick their necks out for it?

So things sit, dumb. But as a resident hack attempted to work up froth about ‘denier’ Anthony Watts, the itch had to be scratched and discussion of the Marcott paper broke out.

Now, these comments, coming almost entirely from Skepticalscience contributors’ are ‘off-topic’, violate ‘comment policy’ and ought to be deleted right? Nah. That’s not how it works. It is one rule for the in-house boys and another for the rest. So the comments stayed up.

Along comes A.Scott, asking pesky questions about Marcott’s paper trying to join the discussion that was already on. Can you guess the response?

Moderator Response: [DB] This thread is about Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water. Much of your challenge is beyond the scope of this thread – and thus off-topic. FYI.

ascottSo this Team can talk about a dangerously wobbly piece of work like Marcott et al but only with each other. The moment someone from outside asks tough questions, they shut everything down.

If you look at the thread, A.Scott began just as instructed by the moderator ‘DB’, with a lengthy comment about [Anthony] Watts’ denial business. The result? Comment butchery by the same moderator: snip, and further snip, snip.

So, not only can there be no lateral movement whatsoever, these guys won’t stand their ground and defend their own threads from questions that are on-topic.

Good luck to A.Scott.

Advertisements

6 comments

  1. Andy

    I’ve had recent experiences with SkS that also involve lots of deletions.

    However, I did put a couple of comments on a rather curious post on Norway’s “lack of commitment” to renewable energy (99% hydro) which have remained intact, possibly because most others agree with me

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewables-policy-norway.html
    comments #7 #8

    However, another rather bizarre thread on whether Pachauri had been misrepresented by The Australian newspaper (on the claim that he agreed that there had been a pause in warming for 17 years) resulted in multiple snippings of my comments, and included one accusation of “abusive html” (whatever that is)

  2. richardcfromnz

    Been there done that in the ‘Dueling Scientists’ thread at SkS (as “Richard C (NZ)”). Fortunately when you keep the links to your deleted (not just snipped) comments the original thread version is still accessible complete with comments that are overwritten in the new thread version. Read all about it in the “aside” at the bottom of the Rahmstorf section in this writeup of a bigger issue (OHC) of which SkS is a mildly interesting sideshow:-

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE/edit?usp=sharing

    A Scott may not be wise to back Don Easterbrook on the GISP2 issue. I disputed Don’s graph (or a similar one) directly by email a year or two ago because he’s not right I don’t think. Don was intractable. Can’t say I want to go back down that rabbit hole but I’ve still got the emails with all the details if I had to.

  3. Shub Niggurath

    Richard
    Regardless of who’s right, and whether Skepticalscience is justified in trashing Watts’ name, the worst thing to have is a broken, altered historical record of text, when the argument comes from a serious commenter.

    These people, on the other hand are so used to abusing their moderator privileges to control the playing field they leave no historical trace intact.

    If you try to bring this to their attention, whole posts are bumped off, as A.Scott points out here., for questioning moderation ‘policy’.

    It would be something to watch how many of A.Scott’s posts are finally left standing. On the whole, an example of the devious ramifications of censorship at the microscale, evolving right in front of our eyes.

  4. Anthony Watts

    Heh, the piece was so dumb I didn’t even bother with a response, not that a response would get through anyway, as I’m not allowed to comment at Skeptical Science. Besides, I’ve had far worse things said about me. I’ve been insulting by professionals, these guys are amateurs.

    The Marcott hocket stick looks to be a case of the worst cherrypicking ever, Watch that, as it is far more important than any of the members only kidz club babble.