Censorship by Judith Curry: the devolution of climate blogs keeps pace

Kool-aid-drinking-gun-toting-skeptical-parrot

The climate skeptic: it is a ‘Kool-Aid’ drinking gun-toting parrot

On a blog post about ‘blog discussions’, Judith Curry bumped off a comment from me that included the sentence “ATTP does not belong in the climate debate”. Curry’s post claims ATTP’s ‘warm blog’ has a magic touch and is heavily commented. Sure.

What is the “magic touch” for a warmie blog? First, you write about the topics running on well-trafficked skeptical blogs. This brings two advantages (i) you don’t have to scratch you head thinking about what to write, (ii) you draw commenters from the well-trafficked blogs. Second, you practice blatant one-sided censorship. This announces and consolidates your partisan status, and earns a stable of commenters who need protection to thrive. Ta da – ‘magic touch’.

The formula is clear: you can examine almost any climate consensus blog – they don’t survive and grow without the golden combination of borrowed skeptic points and censorship.

The opposite does happen. If you go back, there was Bart Verheggen’s blog which hosted, among others, a remarkable discussion thread that ran for thousands of comments with participants of all stripes. Then Keith Kloor’s Collide-a-scape became the venue for interesting discussions. In both the spark lasted as long as the hosts held back, allowing emergent conversation to flow.

Others think it is pesky commenters that destroy good discussion. Marcel Crok’s Climatedialogue and Michael Quircke’s Climate Change National Forum (CCNF) marshaled original climate content and catastrophist Michael Tobis made a hermit of himself at the gated community Planet 3.0. All appear to be motivated by a sense of dread about the barbarians (i.e, commenters).  Climatedialogue and CCNF cordoned commenters into a separate second-class area whereas Planet 3.0 required vetted registration. As far as I can see no ‘magic’ happened. It is no one’s fault but just confirmation of the formula.

Curry now declares she will ensure ‘stricter moderation’ on her blog. Her blog flourished because there was a groundswell of support for someone from the orthodoxy willing to state unpalatable truths. It is unique for the torrent of comments that would put legions of online marketing pundits to shame. It is sad she’s decided to go hunting to remove critical comments.

Advertisements

92 comments

  1. omanuel

    Professor Curry helped win the climate debate and has reason to fear those trying to intimidate the winners. They are too late. We now know it matters not if

    1. CO2 heats or cools the Earth,
    2. Solar neutrinos oscillate or not
    3. The Sun makes or consumes H,
    4. Neutrons attract or repel neutrons,
    5. Etc., etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, but . . .

    it matters that the United Nations encouraged governments to DECEIVE the public about the source of energy in cores of

    Heavy atoms
    Some planets
    Ordinary stars
    Ordinary galaxies
    The expanding universe

    immediately after being formed on 24 Oct 1945 !

    1. Changing the internal composition of the Sun from:
    _ a.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to
    _ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946

    2. Changing the definition of nuclear stability from:
    _ a.) Aston’s valid concept of “nuclear packing fraction” before WWII to
    _ b.) Weizsacker’s flawed concept of “nuclear binding energy” after WWII..

    3. Destroying the integrity of major fields of science: Astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, geology, nuclear, particle, planetary, solar and theoretical physics

    See: “Solar energy”

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

    [See also this Teachers Supplement to “Solar energy”] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Supplement.pdf

  2. Willard

    You just discovered the secret ingredient to every climate blogs, Shub, including those more focused on the auditing sciences, such as yours.

    PaulM just added this other ingredient:

    You are right I probably ought to write more about fluid dynamics and non-linear systems and numerical computations, as Essex does. But my blog has got rather sidetracked into the social science/public opinion side of things.

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/26/christopher-essex-on-suppressing-scientific-inquiry/#comment-687514

    Every time PaulM may think he’s out, the lords of ClimateBall pulls him back in.

  3. Shub Niggurath

    willard, just discovered? I have pointed out something along these lines for years. As you know very well, many blogs try to be above it all, and fail.

    They look at the occasional good discussion, which is an emergent phenomenon, and try to engineer it. It doesn’t work that way.

    w.r.t PaulM, his comment is truer than you think. He just published major analysis in a journal paper, in the social sciences literature.

  4. Brad Keyes

    I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s [sic] she’s doing, but its [sic] not helping the cause!

  5. Willard

    > They look at the occasional good discussion, which is an emergent phenomenon, and try to engineer it. It doesn’t work that way.

    You may not have chosen your day to say “they,” Shub. Few days go by without dissent being manufactured, somewhere. Locked horns, locked horns everywhere:

    Please leave “engineering” to engineer-minded ClimateBall players.

    ***

    I don’t know why you presume I don’t know about PaulM’s paper, BTW. The few times I’ve seen PaulM posting mathematical comments, there were no words in them. Mathematics as a performance art, so to speak.

    His paper looked way better than these graphs, although I’ve only read the literature review.

  6. Shub Niggurath

    Brad, what exactly happened? Do you have a specific thread I can read and see?

    willard, “they” certainly applies to Michael Tobis and Michael Quircke. If the ‘debate is over’ why have an online presence, try to attract commenters and foster discussion? After all there is nothing open for discussion. Or, do you want the commenters to only ‘discuss’ how ‘bio’fuels are corroding engine chambers seeing as how the science is settled?

    If it is ‘locked horns, locked horns’ everywhere, how did the threads on Bart’s blog take place at all?

    Commenters, topics, rules – none of the points can be fixed, or taken for granted. Blog fortunes wax and wane. It’s a beautiful thing.

  7. Willard

    > “they” certainly applies to Michael Tobis and Michael Quircke.

    I tell you your “they” is not general enough, and you name name names, Shub.

    Overinterpreting like that is suboptimal. I think stats guy have a name for that. Please remind me.

    ***

    > If it is ‘locked horns, locked horns’ everywhere, how did the threads on Bart’s blog take place at all?

    See for yourself:

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/12/03/open-thread-winter-2014-2015/#comment-30743

    ***

    What you’ve just done, I call this an Inhofe Cheeseburger:

    ***

    Reality doesn’t care about your lack of creativity, Shub.

    It is the “out there” where your investigative journalism is supposed to find the truth.

  8. tallbloke

    I see Gavin and the realclimate dozen have handed the blog over to some fall guys and run away before the bs hits the wind turbine.

    Cowards.

  9. Shub Niggurath

    willard, you are either interested in the substance of the argument or the form it takes. You can’t do both, or do one and get coy and pretend you were referring to the other. Either good blog conversations are possible regardless of the participants’ own biases, or they are not.

    All the ‘Climateball’ rules apply to the warmists and the entire matrix you’ve lovingly crafted applies to them first. I’ve followed your comments on this now, I don’t think you’ve evinced awareness of the possibility.

  10. Willard

    > you are either interested in the substance of the argument or the form it takes

    What substance, Shub? You don’t even seem to realize that you have two main claims, two topics that are orthogonal, but joining them together helps you special plead about blogs you don’t like, and to cast a pox onto their houses because they moderate you, and that my previous comments, contrary to what you presume in my quote above, addressed the first one.

    To pick your second claim: moderation happens everywhere. Most popular blogs have very strict moderation, “very strict” being mostly idiosyncratic. It may be a “number” thing, e.g.:

    Elliott included links with three recent stories on Ukraine from The Guardian with the listed number of comments and those deleted “for reasons of abuse,” including this one, from which they spiked 259 comments. Out of 4,817 total comments on the stories, Guardian moderators deleted 494.

    In the comments for the story about comment trolling, one person wrote “as long as paid EU trolls are allowed to post, it should be OK.”

    http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/250835/guardian-has-deleted-almost-500-comments-from-pro-russia-trolls/

    That, I believe, is checkmate.

    ***

    Now, for your hook, i.e. your stupidly freaking cheap shot about someone, somewhere else on the Internet, whom you decide to send out off your island, and yet fail to address him while he’s right there.

    You have no idea why Judy has come to do what she does. You don’t seem to have followed what happened during the week. You don’t seem to acknowledge that your comment may have been rightfully deleted.

    While I don’t necessarily condone Judy’s moderation, I think that posts like these are the lousiest and laziest ClimateBall stuff one could find around.

    Stop whining, and be more subtle, next time.

  11. Willard

    Sorry about the rant.

    To be a bit more constructive, I’ve expanded my first point at AT’s:

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/persistence/#comment-51749

    Sometimes I feel it coming all the same. Then I go all queer. (He takes off his hat, peers inside it, feels about inside it, shakes it, puts it on again.) How shall I say? Relieved and at the same time . . . (he searches for the word) . . . appalled. (With emphasis.) AP-PALLED. (He takes off his hat again, peers inside it.) Funny. (He knocks on the crown as though to dislodge a foreign body, peers into it again, puts it on again.) Nothing to be done. (Estragon with a supreme effort succeeds in pulling off his boot. He peers inside it, feels about inside it, turns it upside down, shakes it, looks on the ground to see if anything has fallen out, finds nothing, feels inside it again, staring sightlessly before him.) Well?

  12. Shub Niggurath

    What are the ‘two main claims’? I make no specific claims: Judith Curry has decided to adopt stricter moderation. She’s said that several times in the past. I read down the thread, added my own comment and there she was, practicing the moderation on me. The post is about the same topic she wrote – blogs and discussions.

    Curry wants to delete my comments, that is her prerogative. But don’t tell me I have to blindly accept her decisions. There are two people who know what I wrote and one of them is her. In an earlier time, I would have perhaps contested or written to her about it. Not any more. I ran out of the fund of goodwill and patience I had for her, as a fellow blogger. I have no idea whose loss is greater.

    If it is idiosyncratic moderation, could I see some deleted ATTP posts? Or other random deleted comments and their owners? I’ll take up cudgels on their behalf too.

    I’ll keep aside your contention that Guardian blogs are ‘popular’, for now. It is laughable anyone would think a newspaper website to be a ‘blog’ or any kind, or that their moderation practices are worth thinking about it.

    [EDIT] Cross-post there. I hadn’t seen your response above.

  13. Shub Niggurath

    willard, your MT blog formulation is interesting. I certainly agree with it. I went one step further in a specific direction – to run a so-called ‘warmist’ blog, you need one more crucial ingredient: censorship (please note that I did not say moderation). Censorship implies a degree of dishonesty, and protection of a viewpoint, person, or ideology.

    Skeptics don’t need to resort to censorship, at least not too much of it, as they are not primary claimsmakers in the climate debate. Supporters of the climate consensus indulge in censorship on two grounds, broadly speaking: (1) in the short-run, against a back-drop of reason, compromise and caution, censorship and brazenness appears bold, unapologetic and confident (the RC way), (2) they convinced themselves discussing issues with skeptics would create an impression of debate, which is antithetical to their position which they had just declared was based on science and physics.

  14. Willard

    > I’ll keep aside your contention that Guardian blogs are ‘popular’, for now. It is laughable anyone would think a newspaper website to be a ‘blog’ or any kind, or that their moderation practices are worth thinking about it.

    Come on, Shub. News outlets run blogs, nowadays:

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/series/science-blog-network

    Keith sold Keith’s to Discover Magazine. Dana’s at the Guardian. A blog is only a content management system.

    I think we ought to think of the new information warfare that may invade soon the climate sphere. Brace yourselves, automated agents are coming.

    ***

    My point does not rest on that anyway, but the number of comments. Tony’s receive too many comments to expect that the threads will moderate themselves. The same is happening at Judy’s. Even the Auditor’s once received more comments than I could read. For smaller spaces like Lucia’s or Jeff’s, exchanges usually don’t need much moderation. There is evidence of moderation at both places, however.

    Moderation in popular blogs is also needed because there is a clash between the in groups and the out groups. Personal blogs are still personal. We need to respect that.

    No, I won’t tell you how many blogs banned me, and will only say that it may be more than you think.

    ***

    These two aspects (number and in group concentratio) may explain why we didn’t have epic threads on popular sites, but on smaller sites like Keith’s or Bart’d. Of course, that’s not enough to explain it, since we also had epic threads at MT’s, at Eli’s, at Lucia’s, at Jeff’s, at AT’s, at Judy’s, etc.

    The natural authority of the host certainly helps. BartV doesn’t have to say things twice for people to behave. Nevertheless, we’ve had epic threads almost everywhere, come to think of it. As long as all the ClimateBall players could join in and play, and that there were not too much newbies, I guess.

    Note that this can’t be possible in blogs representing the establishment.

    I’m too tired to finish this comment, and will continue tomorrow. I’ll simply say that Judy has a thing against content-free ad hom sniping: she can’t delete them all, but she usually delete those, even if Denizens are getting better at bypassing this constraint.

  15. Shub Niggurath

    willard, please don’t teach me what moderation is. I know what I wrote and whether it required moderation. There are lots of spammers and whiners at Climate Etc who’ve escaped the scissors, for years. They are directly responsible for the overflowing barrage of repetitive thread-hogging comments that fill up rapidly. From day one, it has been hands-off and this is the end-result. The few words in the single comment I wrote bothers her? Sell the nonsense to someone else.

    The point is not about moderation, or about me. We don’t know if Curry will proceed along the same track. If she doesn’t, it will look hypocritical, but only to me. Her blog will relapse back to its usual self and there will be lots of spam and junk and the odd good thread. If she does proceed she would have to get her hands dirty and spend significant time deleting her commenters, making choices and decisions, reducing her blog to one more venue where no one’s sure what will survive and what won’t.

    My guess is that the former rather than the latter is what will take place. Which would mean I would be the only one subjected to this ‘moderation’ and the end-result in my book is censorship.

    On the ‘Denizens II’ thread, Curry bumped off comments, after announcing that she only solicited brief biographies from her commenters – as though everyone was supposed to line up like schoolchildren and drop little slips of paper in a box.

  16. Willard

    > willard, please don’t teach me what moderation is. I know what I wrote and whether it required moderation.

    Let me tell you a little secret, Shub: this quote suffices to show that you might need some teaching about what moderation is.

    Let me see if Tony can make it easy for you to understand the first rule:

    Ok Phil, let me make this easy for you.

    This blog is my home on the internet, you along with many others, are guests here, just as if I invited you into my living room for a chat. Now if one of my guests gets unruly, and says things that not only insults me, but the other guests, I see it as a reasonable to ask that person to refrain from doing so, and if they choose not to, ask them to leave my home.

    Should I be asking you to leave? Or would you prefer to use a gentler word not linked to WWII Germany to describe your host and other guests? – Anthony

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/21/weather-channel-nixes-forecast-earth-possibly-cullen/#comment-59308

    See how simple it is? Tony’s blog, Tony’s rules. More generally, your blog, your rule. So this is the first rule. The moderator is the law.

    The first rule dissolves your argument that you know whether your comment required moderation or not. You entered private property, and the owner of that property moderated you. Case closed.

    ***

    An immediate corrolary to this rule is this one: don’t play the ref. In my opinion, any kind of whining against censorship, arbitrariness, whatever should not be tolerated. An arbiter is an arbiter is an arbiter.

    In the example above, I believe that Tony’s argument is wrong. It is his right to be wrong.

    This does not apply to your editorial. You know why? This is your blog. This is your property. Not only is it your right to uphold the law, but it is your duty: you are legally binded by WordPress to do so. Read your contract.

    ***

    Lastly, please note that my comment about Judy’s moderation stands whatever you wrote beside “ATTP does not belong in the climate debate.” In my experience, Judy moderates that kind of sideswipe more than anything else. You can try to sidestep her hammer and get more subtle. You can try to raise above that kind of cheap shot. Do as you please. See if I care.

    ***

    TL;DR — Both your own authority about what you wrote and your authority about what does or does not require moderation are irrelevant for the actual case.

  17. Shub Niggurath

    Sorry willard, you are wrong as ever on all points. You are wrong that blog owners are hosts and commenters are guests. Clearly, you’ve been steeped in this nonsense for too long and have been walking around having internalized these constructs as ‘truths’, befitting a feudal serf more than anything. A serf believes in the rule of the whip – no surprises there. You can go back to the Curry blog and hang out trading barbs with the rest, and coloring between the lines. Don’t worry, you’ll be treated nice. Be a good guest. 😉

    Curry can moderate sideswipes. What will she do with frontal criticism? She has to choose her course of action, hasn’t she?

  18. Don Monfort

    Willy is bragging about manhandling you over on Judith’s blog, Shub. Why do you put up with this clown?

  19. Joshua

    Shub –

    There are “skeptic” who continue to post regularly over at ATTP. Do you think that Anders just decides randomly on which “skeptics” he decides to moderate or ban? I don’t think so. Clearly, disagreement with him about the science is not the criterion he uses. I also don’t think that the sophistication of the disagreement is the criterion either (which is the rather typical and banal explanation “skeptics’ usually offer – where the conclude with certainty that their own comments have been deleted because of their “devastating” effect – without, apparently, and amusingly, considering that perhaps their self-evaluation of their own arguments might just be a tad biased).

    Do you think there is some difference of kind when I get put into moderation at a ‘skeptic” blog like Judith’s, or WUWT, or Brandon’s, and when your comments get moderated at ATTP,

    Is there some difference of kind when Keith Kloor repeatedly sends me emails “threatening” me with moderation, and when you get your comment deleted at Judith’s?

    I’m surprised to read that Judith moderated that comment of yours., but then again, from what I’ve been able to tell, Judith’s moderation is capricious. There is no consistent standard of moderation. Sometime it happens just because a particular comment caught her eye when she was actively looking at the blog. Sometimes it happens because she is taking sides in a discussion that is going on. Sometimes it happens because someone emails her to complain about a comment.

    So what? It is what it is. It’s her playground. She holds the hammer. It seems to me that you think this is all very serious or meaningful. I fail to understand why.

  20. Joshua

    Shub –

    ==> “You are wrong that blog owners are hosts and commenters are guests.”

    Why is he wrong about that?

  21. omanuel

    Professor Curry continues to try to reorganize her blog, perhaps unaware that the momentum for AGW is driven by political forces that cannot be stopped by lack of veracity.

    The 1970’s debate [1] over the formation of the Solar System’s evolved along a similar path, with Nature finally conceding The demise of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System in 1983 [2] before returning to the 1950s dogma of stellar nucleosynthesis (B2FH).

    1. “Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195, 208-210 (1977) http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf

    2. “The demise of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System,” Nature 303 (1983) 286]. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Demise_of_Dogma-NATURE_303_(1983)_286.pdf

  22. Shub Niggurath

    joshua, forget ATTP for now – his ‘moderation’ is not relevant here, and I figured out the guy’s problems a good while back.

    Of course there is no difference where you are snipped unfairly, and by whom.

    In climate blogs though there are several fluid participants, people use persistent identities. Even the lurkers for the most part tend to use the same handles. Secondly the debate is a relatively grown-up one, between mature individuals. What does this mean? I cannot treat ‘joshua’, or ‘willard’ like some throwaway name that has no meaning and there is a person with an identity sitting behind each name.

    This is no more or less serious than it is.

    Re: blog owners being guests: That’s just a lame throwaway line. The larger point is blogs need good writers, moderators and commenters. No one entity is more important than the other. If you are good writer who cannot handle comments online, you are a columnist. If you are a blogger but you want to delete comments from ‘deniers’ all the time, your climate blog will eventually tank. Any entity behaving as though they are beyond these constraints is already a failure – be it blogger, commenter or moderator. Even the most popular of blogs can hollow themselves out if they declare rules and start applying them stringently. You might be surprised but this happens to be true even if the rules are ‘good’.

  23. Shub Niggurath

    “Willy is bragging about manhandling you over on Judith’s blog, Shub”

    Don, do you have a link for this? Tried finding it but couldn’t.

  24. Don Monfort

    It was probably in one of the last two threads. If I run across it again, I will let you know. I am sure that willy would be proud to provide the link. He’s obsessive about keeping track of his mutterings on the various blogs he haunts. you could also ask little joshie. He is willy’s stepson and fervent admirer.

  25. Willard

    > [D]o you have a link for this?

    Here, Shub:

    I’ve used that example to help Shub understand a little secret about moderation:

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/26/christopher-essex-on-suppressing-scientific-inquiry/#comment-688029

    As far as I am concerned, I told you a little secret about moderation. Better to leave manhandling to dons.

    Don Don’s the don.

    ***

    > You are wrong that blog owners are hosts and commenters are guests.

    This is irrelevant and it’s not even what I am saying. Tony used this metaphor to make the point that Tony’s is Tony’s, i.e. it is private property, his private property, and he has the rights and duties set up by contractual terms, in this case WordPress, within the law that rules over where are the serves, which I presume in this case is California, extending the freedoms of their clients beyond their wildest dreams.

    Your blog, your rules.

    This is a very basic point, Shub. Nothing you say addresses that point. Take this:

    The larger point is blogs need good writers, moderators and commenters.

    I agree with this. However, this does not refute the point I am making. In fact, the point I am making delimits your larger point: commenters who whine about moderation go agains the first rule. This is why I added the corrolary: don’t play the ref.

    We could take Don Don as a good example of that if you please, since he’s here. The way he tried to cast Jim D away from Judy’s was a thing of beauty.

    ***

    Look, Shub. I can recognize that you feel Judy lacked respect toward you. Perhaps she should have done this differently. That’s something between you and her. I don’t want to condone her moderation: how she decided to throw out Bart R was quite suboptimal. That’s not the point. Moderation is a fine art.

    Yet you associate this episode to censorship, incorrectly in my opinion, and use it to sideswipe “warmie” blogs. Even if I grant you all this, and I have no reason to accept that stupid second sideswide at AT’s, my point stands.

    You need to abide by the ground rules. There’s no need to accept them. Just add this to your “provisional moral code.”

    And that’s the memo.

    Over and out.

    W

  26. Joshua

    Shub –

    jim2 thinks I’m a troll of the worst order and that Anders makes nice contributions to Climate Etc. But you think that Anders is a tyrant who moderates commenters because has no valid arguments on the science and IIRC you felt that Brandon, who shares your opinion of Anders and his moderation, should not have put me in moderation. A few others at Climate Etc. think I play a valuable role yet Don, Pokerguy, Tom Fuller, tim56 and a few assorted others go for weeks at time making hardly any comments at Judith’s at all except to lob broadside insults at me even as they all climb on their high horses to declare their moral superiority to anyone that holds views other than theirs. You think that Judith’s moderation was censorship yet the vast majority of her “denizens” think she’s a “hero” of the highest moral standing – in part because of her morally superior moderation policies. Faustino writes of his years of spiritual study yet insults the moral standing of millions of people that he’s never met, merely on the basis of reverse engineering from their political views or outlook on climate change – which my guess would be completely inconsistent with the doctrine of his spiritual studies. He’s a fan of mosomoso whose every comment is directed at demeaning his inferiors. In a similar way, GaryM justifies his moral elitism by branding all but maybe 5% of the American public as incapable of critical thinking Steve Fredricks asserts his moral superiority because he uses his real name when he posts, yet I doubt that he would simply dismiss your opinions or morality or those of Jean S or Random Engineer merely because they remain anonymous. Springer and Willis agree that Fredericks is right about bravery and honesty and value being a function of whether someone uses their real name when they post, yet Springer and Willis regularly launch insult-filled rants against people based on highly selective reasoning. David Appell agrees with Fredericks and Willis and Springer about the reliability of anonymity as a measure of character yet no doubt he would question each of their moral characters just as they would question his. “Skeptics” complain about the holocaust connotation of “denier” even as they call people deniers themselves and applaud Stevie Mac even though he compares people to pedophiles and George Zimmerman and uses Nazi analogies. Similarly, they look the other way when Spencer and Monckton and a long line of “skeptics” compare some 1/2 of the American Public to the worst tyrants throughout history.

    ==> “Secondly the debate is a relatively grown-up one, between mature individuals.

    There is no objectivity here. There are no standards. It’s a free for all. This is not a debate, let alone one between mature individuals.

    ==> “What does this mean? I cannot treat ‘joshua’, or ‘willard’ like some throwaway name that has no meaning and there is a person with an identity sitting behind each name.

    Of course you can. People do it all the time. Worse yet, people think that they know something about the person behind the name of my blog comments when in fact, they know nothing about me which the prove regularly when they make completely mistaken judgements of me.

    ==> “No one entity is more important than the other.”

    Do you live in a world where what is “important” has some kind of power advantage? And who is it that gets to determine what is important?

    ==> “If you are a blogger but you want to delete comments from ‘deniers’ all the time, your climate blog will eventually tank. ”

    It’s like you think that you get to make up the rules, as if you’re the teenager playing in the sandbox with the 6 year-olds. There are no rules here. Some of the most popular and long-standing blogs have completely arbitrary (in the sense of being subjective not in the sense of being random) rules for moderation. And I know that you don’t want to talk about Anders, but there are many “skeptics” who regularly post at his blog and have for quite a while.

    ==> “Even the most popular of blogs can hollow themselves out if they declare rules and start applying them stringently. You might be surprised but this happens to be true even if the rules are ‘good’.”

    I say that there is no cause and effect between moderation rules and the traffic level or popularity of a blog. I say that you are cherry-picking different associations, based on your own confirmation bias, to determine some kind of iron-clad cause and effect.

  27. Joshua

    An interesting case study is Little Green Footballs. Once one of the favorite of the right wing, where lefty commenters were pounced upon and moderated, the proprietor shifted his political orientation and purged the roles of his registered commenters one by one as the longstanding conservative denizens vented their hatred at his conversion. Still a relatively popular blog now inhabited by lefties even though he clearly declares rules and enforces them strictly – and even though he did a 180 in the nature of those rules.

  28. Don Monfort

    You don’t know any secrets of moderation, willy. You must have been a respected academic is some esoteric liberal arts field, before you became an annoying old warmist curmudgeon haunting various climate blogs.

    ========> “A few others at Climate Etc. think I play a valuable role yet Don, Pokerguy, Tom Fuller, tim56 and a few assorted others go for weeks at time making hardly any comments at Judith’s at all except to lob broadside insults at me even as they all climb on their high horses to declare their moral superiority to anyone that holds views other than theirs.”

    What a paranoid little crybaby. Evidence, joshie. I can prove that I lob broadside insults at many trolls of your ilk. Nothing personal. LOL!

    Judith put you in moderation for spamming. And saved from embarrassing yourself, for a few days.

  29. Shub Niggurath

    willard, blog as hosted venue for guests, blog as private property – all claptrap in the final analysis. They make some sense as metaphors and there is some truth to them but blogs are venues or mediums of information interchange. The rules are in the information domain and they are different. As I said, the feudal framework may be useful in making sense of the online world by providing it familiar contours, but little beyond. It’s sad to think you believe you have to bend over, metophorically speaking, just because someone owns and runs a blog.

    Joshua, I realize you specialize in cataloguing people’s hypocrisy but do you see it buys you nothing? As an aside, you are wrong as well on of your examples – Steve McIntyre did not compare anyone to pedophiles. We live in richly historical times, people like drawing analogies and climbing on to high horses, it is unavoidable. But climate alarmists believe they’ve found El Dorado, the magical moral cause that has no historical parallel and thus irrefutable from the lessons of recorded human history. How wrong and tragically blind they are.

    You say “Of course you can. People do it all the time”.

    On Curry’s blog, ATTP tells Steve Fitzpatrick “You clearly have the self-awareness of a brick …”, and further down, he tells him “I’ll explain something to you, try and concentrate now. I would explain it slowly, but that’s tricky with the written word…..”.

    Quite the learned scholar right?

    Meanwhile as David Springer points out about ATTP:

    “I gave it a fair chance but I’m simply wasting my time in a censorium like that. JC SNIP He comes here where he is allowed to speak freely from a warmist POV but doesn’t offer the same courtesy to skeptics on his own blog. JC SNIP.”

    as Don Monfort compares ATTP to a Soviet apparatchik:

    “…I ran into a few ATTPs I had known from the Cold War and they were driving cabs and waiting tables. But one of their guys is filthy rich and is the President of the new CCCP. JC SNIP

    and this funny one from Don I’m not sure is real, or a joke;

    “…Well, JC SNIP and JC SNIP. Have a good JC SNIP you JC SNIP.

    In another thread, Curry, responding to commenter szilard wanting more expert participation, says: “Yes, definitely experts at CA, ATTP, but not actual academic climate scientists. It will be difficult to get academics…”.

    When Curry goes rapping people on the knuckles playing defense for Mr ATTP, fails to see his shockingly rude diatribes at non-anonymous individuals, and sings his praises, I see it as censorship. Who knows what the reasons are?

  30. Don Monfort

    Yes Shub, the second comment was a playful jab at Judith, the school marm. I was retaliating for her snip on the other comment: “…I ran into a few ATTPs I had known from the Cold War and they were driving cabs and waiting tables. But one of their guys is filthy rich and is the President of the new CCCP. JC SNIP”

    The snipped sentence. ” And he’s running circles around our stooge.” What’s wrong wit dat?

    Little joshie pees his little nappy over Judith putting him in moderation for his obviously excessive trolling, but it’s plain to see that Judith bends over backwards to avoid being accused of censoring the warmist crowd. Have you seen how that putz David Appell treats her? He’s worse than joshie the inane stalker.

  31. Joshua

    Shub –

    ==> “Steve McIntyre did not compare anyone to pedophiles. ”

    Shub – I was referring to this:

    –snip–

    Posted Nov 11, 2011 at 5:04 AM | Permalink
    I completely understand the criticism of Spanier’s approach to enquiries, which seems feckless and indolent, if not actually venal. But I am very uncomfortable at being offered parallels between a paedophile incident and possible scientific misconduct. We already see Bishop Hill blogging about “hide the paedophile” so I’m not imagining the likely effect of this juxtaposition.

    Posted Nov 11, 2011 at 6:32 AM | Permalink
    I’m with Roy. While it is certainly possible to criticize the whitewash investigation of Mann, I think drawing any parallels or comparisons to the current football fiasco is unwarranted and wrong. Quite frankly, Steve, I am disappointed in you for trying to draw any parallels.

    Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 11, 2011 at 8:34 AM | Permalink
    I understand the criticism. I expect commenters to tread lightly.

    In defence of commenting now, Graham Spanier had been discussed by name in an earlier CA post on the Mann Report, in which I sharply criticized Spanier’s untrue characterization of the Penn State inquiry committee, in the context of observing Penn State’s failure to carry out a proper investigation and apparent lack of understanding of what was involved in an investigation. Yes, the issue in one case is more serious than the issue in the other, but I think that the failure to properly investigate was common to the two investigations and a valid parallel.

    –snip–

    These reactions could have been entirely predicable. His readers and supporters saw his post as comparisons to a pedophile. So while the claim might be made that wasn’t his intent, what would that matter if it would be very likely that people would see it that way, and if it was entirely predictable that they would? In fact, it seems clear that Steve anticipated the reactions. And of course, there’s also the comparisons he makes to the Lasaga situation.

    Now we can all play games here and hide behind plausible deniability. We can write posts such as that which Steve wrote, and then say “But I didn’t actually say he was like a pedophile, now did I?” We can say “That wasn’t my intent.” But if we draw such comparisons knowing how people (even those who support us on the issues) will interpret it, and proceed anyway, it is effectively the same.

    But that is all really just a side issue – not one that I think is important as it was just one example of a list, a list to show that this isn’t a debate, let alone a debate between adults.

    ==> “Joshua, I realize you specialize in cataloguing people’s hypocrisy but do you see it buys you nothing?

    Of course it doesn’t buy me anything. Do you think that expect that if I point out Don’s obsession with me, that it will somehow change anything? Of course I don’t. I have no such expectation. You seem to think that I think that this is a debate between adults – the kind of situation where pointing out to someone that they’re obsessed with me might make a difference. I think that this is a food fight between juveniles. And that’s one of the reasons why this stuff about “censorship” is nonsense, IMO. Censorship is a serious issue – where someone’s freedom of expression is materially limited. I don’t think that serious issue should be exploited to air petty, personal grievances such as whether Judith deletes one of your blog comments.

    ==> “Quite the learned scholar right”

    I see that you do want to talk about Anders now? If that’s the criteria that you’re going to use to determine who is or isn’t a “learned scholar” – would you mind pointing to which of the participants in these discussions you think would qualify?

    ==> “But climate alarmists believe they’ve found El Dorado, the magical moral cause that has no historical parallel and thus irrefutable from the lessons of recorded human history. How wrong and tragically blind they are.”

    You’re switching topics. I came here to discuss the issue of moderation – with the moderation of you at Climate Etc. as the entry point. Why is it, that when I try to discuss such issues, so often then asked to defend one-sided constructions of issues that are completely unrelated?

    Can we talk about that issue I came to discuss?

    ==> “Meanwhile as David Springer points out about ATTP:”

    There are quite a few “skeptics” who regularly participate at ATTP. I asked you to address the implications of that vis a vis your arguments about moderation at ATTP, and moderation more generally. The fact that Springer gets moderated at ATTP can be a part of that discussion, if you’d like. What it tells me that is that simply being a “skeptic” is not the standard for moderation.

    ==> “When Curry goes rapping people on the knuckles playing defense for Mr ATTP, fails to see his shockingly rude diatribes at non-anonymous individuals, and sings his praises, I see it as censorship. Who knows what the reasons are?”

    And I see it as capricious moderation. The reasons vary over time and circumstance. Now I don’t think that blog comments should be moderated, but I don’t agree with your assertion that it amounts to “censorship.” So could we discuss that?

  32. Don Monfort

    Joshie is dispensing BS in his usual pretentious and loquacious manner.

    =======================> “His readers and supporters saw his post as comparisons to a pedophile..”

    That’s all you got, joshie. Was there an uproar joshie? An uprising of Steve’s supporters? Nobody took Steve’s side and pointed out the obvious fact that he didn’t compare anybody with a pedophile? Link, putz.

    It’s customary for the guy who runs the blog to decide which topics he is going to discuss. Get your own blog. But you will be very lonely there.

  33. Joshua

    And Shub –

    The point of my rant wasn’t to list hypocrisy – but to point to the overwhelming attribute of juvenility and subjectivity. Views on moderation are an extension of those attributes. You seem to have some belief in some absolute authority about right and wrong. Looking beyond your subjectivity in determining what that authority is, I find it to be a surprisingly statist position on your part.

    There is no higher authority on this matter that stretches across the entire blogosphere . There is no god of the blogosphere with omnipotent powers. No CEO hired by the board. No president elected by the populous. There is an ever-changing, ever-flowing, ever-shifting authority that people are making up as they go along. Different people see it differently And for them, as individuals, many times it works. Judith, in the eyes of her “denizens” is a towering hero, not the least because of her moderation policy and implementation thereof. She is the authority on her own blog. You have the option to accept the existing hierarchy, or not. No one forces your hand. You make that decision as a willful individual. It is, IMO, no different than deciding to conform to the wishes of a guest that invites you into their home, but if you have some problem with that, no matter. The bottom line is that there is no supreme being in the blogosphere, and for sure, you have no claim to authority over Judith’s blog, or Anders’ blog.

  34. Willard

    Shub,

    Here’s what Don Don told Judy in a thread following the one about moderation:

    I don’t have a lot of time to waste these days, so when I look in here and see that the spammers, like joshie and jimmy dee, are bombarding with comments I usually move on. Judith needs to limit the spammers.

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/20/week-in-review-49/#comment-685640

    Don Don seems to have forgotten to count jim2’s comments on that thread before trying to play Judge Judy. That’s for another time. I’m mentioning this because Don Don’s playing the ref seems to presume something that goes against your censorship doctrine.

    In other words, Don Don seems to be arguing that Judy should moderate, while you seem to be arguing that Judy should not.

    Could you settle this between you two, pretty please with some sugar on it?

    Many thanks!

  35. Joshua

    What would a thread at Judith’s be without a request that I be banned?

    I guess by Shub’s logic, there is many a “denizen” (not to mention Judith, Brandon, Stevie-Mac, Anthony, RPJr., – all of whom have moderated my comments) who is an authoritarian who wants to use censorship as a tool for suppression?

    I dunno. Seems a bit “alarmist” to me.

    Seems to me it’s just people taking comments at their blogs and putting them in moderation.

    The act of censorship, IMO, has large societal implications.

    I don’t see any societal implications to blog comments being moderated. The question of whether the tendency towards moderating blog comments might speak to larger societal patterns is one I think is more interesting.

  36. Don Monfort

    OMG! Wee willy has discovered that Shub and I don’t agree on everything and he is begging us to get lined up. Poor willy.

    You must have missed where I answered some fool whining about me not not counting jim2’s comments. I said that jim2 is an anti-spammer. Cut down on the spammer comments and jim2 doesn’t have to work so hard. Everybody benefits except lonely attention craving clown spammers, like joshie.

    Joshie, you should beg Shub to put you in moderation. You are making a fool of yourself, again. Bwahhahaaa! They want to ban me at Judith’s! That’s because you are a tedious annoying little prick. Stop trying to hog ever thread with your self-righteous self-aggrandizing BS and you might feel more welcome.

  37. Shub Niggurath

    Joshua, you pointed out various commenters referring to Nazis and pedophiles as examples of unfair rhetorical flourishes that go unpunished. I pointed out this was unavoidable. I think we can let go of that point as we don’t seem to be in dispute over it. Climate activists take umbrage at unfavourable historical parallels drawn with them but this is not something that can be avoided. You cannot hope to protect the climate cause by covering it up with Godwin’s law red-tape.

    You wrote quite a bit about the pedophilia problem at PSU vis a vis skeptic comparisons. I don’t agree with your take, fully. But again, a separate track to handle?

    What is the difference between moderation and censorship? As Don points out, moderation applies to limited circumstances – spam, repetitive posting, off-topic posts, and personal attack. Censorship involves protection of a viewpoint, person or ideology. Censorship can masquerade as moderation (otherwise we would not have this discussion).

    Enthusiastic posters can become ‘spammers’ if they post too many messages. From my own limited knowledge, you posted prolifically a few times and crossed this threshold yourself. If you were handed some form of ‘punishment’, you shouldn’t complain (seeing as how keen you are to obey the rules instead of refraining from posting excessively). However, if someone bans you – for posting enthusiastically – there is an element of censorship.

    Personal attack? I pointed out ATTP’s examples. They were not snipped. Curry’s blog is generally a robust place, and not for the faint of heart.

    Bumping off a single comment to protect one commenter from another, by deleting text that is mild by any standard, becomes censorship.

    Don’s example above is worse – it is the perfect shibboleth. If I’m right, Don’s made jokes about Putin and Obama, which I believe Curry interpreted as referring to ATTP, and snipped. Similarly, in my case, I said ATTP was a ‘censorious offendotron’ and she snipped. I doubt either you or willard would dispute that ATTP practices censorship ( which he himself admits) and likes to take offense (he has a post hand-wringing about Andrew Montford running right now), or importantly, that ‘censorious offendotron’ is terribly offensive.

    Want to test the hypothesis? Think laterally, back to the time when some commenter was snipped to protect you, at Curry’s blog. Let me know if it happened.

    It is my claim that censorship and moderation can be easily told apart. As a long-time climate commenter I have been snipped at several points of time. I don’t go around thinking they were all forms of censorship.

    If you owned a blog, you’d recognize the moment in time a blog owner stares at a troublesome comment and has to decide what to do. Blog software makes censorship easy, and mechanistically not very different from moderation. It’s like the Zimmerman/Ferguson situation – you make a quick decision and suddenly you’re offing someone.

  38. Don Monfort

    This should be interesting:

    “Want to test the hypothesis? Think laterally, back to the time when some commenter was snipped to protect you, at Curry’s blog. Let me know if it happened.”

  39. Joshua

    ==> “Joshua, you pointed out various commenters referring to Nazis and pedophiles as examples of unfair rhetorical flourishes that go unpunished. ”

    That wasn’t my point. Sorry for the confusion. I don’t care about those types of comments except in that they are the basis for pointing out hypocrisy. IMO, they aren’t important, and there’s no need for “punishment” I was, again, pointing out that they were examples of juvenility, and that the determination of what is or isn’t offensive is subjective.

    ==> “I pointed out this was unavoidable. I think we can let go of that point as we don’t seem to be in dispute over it. ”

    I agree it is unavoidable.

    ==> “Climate activists take umbrage at unfavourable historical parallels drawn with them…”

    as do “sketpics”

    ==> “but this is not something that can be avoided. You cannot hope to protect the climate cause by covering it up with Godwin’s law red-tape.”

    I’m not trying to avoid it. I don’t think it’s something that can be avoided. I am not justifying moderation. I don’t agree with moderation as I think it is always subjective and doesn’t net beneficial results. My point, however, is that it isn’t important.

    ==> “What is the difference between moderation and censorship? As Don points out, moderation applies to limited circumstances – spam, repetitive posting, off-topic posts, and personal attack. ”

    And all of them are subjectively determined.

    ==> “Censorship involves protection of a viewpoint, person or ideology.”

    Again, subjectively determined. You want the authority to make those determinations. You have that authority on your blog. You don’t have it on other people’s blogs. You don’t get to tell them how to define “protection of viewpoint.”

    ==> “Censorship can masquerade as moderation (otherwise we would not have this discussion).”

    No. It isn’t “censorship” because your ability to express your views is not materially being limited.

    ==> “Enthusiastic posters can become ‘spammers’ if they post too many messages.”

    A subjective determination.

    ==> ” From my own limited knowledge, you posted prolifically a few times and crossed this threshold yourself. ”

    As you have determined subjectively – except you only have the authority to act on that if it is your blog. If it isn’t your blog, you don’t have that authority.

    ==> “If you were handed some form of ‘punishment’, you shouldn’t complain”

    Should? Says who? What does it matter? It’s OK for me to compare millions of people to Hitler, but I shouldn’t complain about moderation? IMO, there is no “should” here except what the blog owner determines, and the blog owner has the hammer to act on what he/she thinks people should/shouldn’t do.

    ==> ” (seeing as how keen you are to obey the rules instead of refrainiig from posting excessively). However, if someone bans you – for posting enthusiastically – there is an element of censorship.”

    No. My ability to express myself has not been materially affected. If I choose to not abide by the blog owner’s authority, whether I agree with his/her criteria and the implementation of those criteria or not, then the blog owner has the ability to hit me with a moderation hammer. It is just the rule of the land. I willingfully decide to participate, knowing the lay of the land. I can think that the blog owner’s moderation is logically flawed, but there can’t be anything “unfair” about moderation – by definition. It isn’t “unfair’ for a blog owner to determine what to delete and not delete, and to determine what criteria to use and how to apply them.

    ==> “Bumping off a single comment to protect one commenter from another, by deleting text that is mild by any standard, becomes censorship.”

    We’re just repeating. You say it’s censorship. I say it isn’t. Life goes on.

    ==> “I doubt either you or willard would dispute that ATTP practices censorship ”

    ???? I have said repeatedly that I don’t agree that it is “censorship.” He moderates his blog. So does Judith. As does McIntyre, and Watts, and RPJr., and Brandon….. None of it is “censorship,” IMO.

    ===> … that ‘censorious offendotron’ is terribly offensive.”

    I guess you’re just more sensitive than I. When my comments get deleted at Judith’s, I might say to her that her application of moderation criteria is capricious, or obviously biased – but I’m not a bit “offended.” It’s her blog. She holds the hammer. Such is life.

    ==> “Want to test the hypothesis? Think laterally, back to the time when some commenter was snipped to protect you, at Curry’s blog. Let me know if it happened.”

    I can’t cite a specific case. But there have been a number of times when people have attacked me and Judith has deleted the comments. More often, what happens, is that someone insults me, I respond, and then Judith deletes my response (even though my response doesn’t contain any insults but only comments on my attacker’s juvenility or poor his poorly reasoned argument that forms the basis of the attack) and leaves the insult standing. Her rationale is that she doesn’t want the thread filled up with food fights. I think that her approach is biased and counterproductive towards achieving that goal: I don’t think that moderation is the way to achieve that goal, and even if I did, capricious and slanted moderation certainly isn’t the way to achieve that goal.

    ==> “It is my claim that censorship and moderation can be easily told apart.”

    I think what you’re teasing apart are different kinds of moderation, not moderation and censorship. Censorship is a real problem – which entails the limits of someone’s free speech in a meaningful way.

    ==> “It’s like the Zimmerman/Ferguson situation – you make a quick decision and suddenly you’re offing someone.”

    Sorry, Shub, but I think that is an absurd situation. Deleting someone’s blog comment is in a different universe than killing someone.

    Anyway, I think we’ve taken this about as far as it’s going to go.

  40. Shub Niggurath

    Joshua, your reasons sound more like what you’ve told yourself to subsist as a commenter in high-traffic blogs. Clearly, you’ve identified the problem – you point out people value your comments and yet when push comes to shove, it is your comments that get bumped off. You’ve defined censorship out of the possibility of everyday existence but censorship comes in various degrees and forms. The value of information lies in context. If information meaningful in a specific context is prevented from appearing, there is censorship. By your absurd logic, there can be no censorship anywhere because anyone can write something on a piece of paper (or on the walls of a prison cell).

    Stop prolific posting, for example, and you might find that no one has any reason to delete your comments.

    As with the Graham Spanier example, you did not understand the crux of the analogy with the Zimmerman one. The equivalence does not lie the violence perpetrated or the horrific consequences but how the ease of performing momentous actions results in potentially indiscriminate application. WordPress and other blogs give blog-owners several tools to manage spam, block users, IP numbers, filter for trigger words. It’s very easy to block someone, not so easy to do the opposite.

  41. Joshua

    ==> ” By your absurd logic, there can be no censorship anywhere because anyone can write something on a piece of paper (or on the walls of a prison cell).”

    But that isn’t true – because if someone were limited to such an avenue to express him/herself, his/her freedom of expression would be materially limited. Again, as I said many times, my logic s that censorship occurs when someone’s ability to express themselves in materially limited.

    ==> “The equivalence does not lie the violence perpetrated or the horrific consequences but how the ease of performing momentous actions results in potentially indiscriminate application. ”

    Likewise, there’s nothing remotely “momentous” about having a blog comment deleted.

    What you highlight in both points is the problem with using absurd analogies.

  42. Joshua

    FYI – Judith deleted two comments of mine yesterday. In both, I teased her for making mistakes that revealed her confirmation bias. The first was that she was so gullible to think it was “breaking news” that Goddard was kicked off Twitter – in her biased mindset because he was posting about adjustments in temperature records. I mean seriously, what kind of persecution complex do you need to think that’s what was happening?

    The second, was that she assumed without reading a book of collected essays by notable “skeptics,” that none of them doubted that there is any significant GHE from ACO2 This, despite that every day there probably tens of comments at her very own blog written by “skeptics” who doubt that there any significant GHE from ACO2. Such thinking is typical of her desire to throw the inconvenient non-GHE-believing “skeptics” under the bus, even though a significant number of “skeptics” hold such views.

    So what does it mean that she is “protecting” herself from those comments? Nothing of significance. It’s her blog. She has the hammer. I know full well that when I write such comments, she is likely to delete them. I am not some kind of a victim.

  43. Shub Niggurath

    Joshua, we did discuss the issue using my own comment as an example but it is not my claim that Judith Curry’s practicing censorship just from that one instance. Take your second deleted comment: if you posted a few different ones like that , and they were all bumped off, at what point would you pause to think the blogger in question was deleting comments to keep the shine fading off her glowing reputation? The military censors sentences in love letters from wives and girlfriends to soldiers – that is censorship too. Sticking polonium into someone’s coffee is censorship too. If you cannot point out the hypocrisy of a given situation and you are surrounding by worshiping fanboys *none* of whom would do the same, there is censorship – plain and simple.

    Take Goddard’s Twitter situation: Now I don’t know what exactly she wrote and you replied to. But, independently, in a general sense, it is well possible that an individual on Twitter can be taken out on the basis of ‘complaints’, that can be easily orchestrated. Take Roger Pielke Jr on 538: he was absolutely made to shut up – from the high reaches of the Obama administration. Pielke Jr could continue writing his material on his own blog but he’s been knocked out of an discomfiting perch. That is censorship.

    Climate consensusists are funny; in many aspects they toe the left but the left is well versed in recognizing censorship and suppression of dissent and yet you find climate activists willingly blinded to the possibility and instead involved in manufacturing consent. Ironic.

  44. Willard

    > Shub and I don’t agree on everything […]

    What’s more surprising is that we agree about moderation, Don Don, except perhaps for the playing the ref part. You should at least acknowledge that Shub’s position This one was quite marvelous, BTW:

    Anybody with any capacity for objectivity can see that Judith’s linking this case with the Mann BS is inappropriate. She should close this thread down and move on.

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/11/charlie-challenging-free-speech/#comment-662901

    Not only Don Don protects Judy’s with his gracious manhandling, he sometimes protects Judy from herself.

    Perhaps you should take this opportunity to manhandle Shub a bit, since he’s threatening your role as a the censor-in-chief. You could also man handle other commenters ad nauseam, since it would exemplify the need to moderate ClimateBall ™ players like you who rejoice in food fights.

    ***

    Speaking of which, here are rationales for censorship, Shub:

    Moral censorship is the removal of materials that are obscene or otherwise considered morally questionable. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale, especially child pornography, which is illegal and censored in most jurisdictions in the world.

    Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information.

    Political censorship occurs when governments hold back information from their citizens. This is often done to exert control over the populace and prevent free expression that might foment rebellion.

    Religious censorship is the means by which any material considered objectionable by a certain religion is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their religion.

    Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to disrupt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light, or intervene to prevent alternate offers from reaching public exposure.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

    When you say that Judy is practicing censorship, the only remotely plausible case seems to be corporate censorship. In that case, I’m not sure how deleting your comment would count as such. Perhaps it’s moral censorship, but the only thing you revealed about your comment is quite thin, although objectionable in its own right.

    Why not publish that comment on your blog?

    ***

    I duly acknowledge your moving to the “but it’s unfair!” goalpost, BTW. My argument already covers that.

  45. Willard

    Scratch the “You should at least acknowledge that Shub’s position” part. I’ve added this idea elsewhere.

  46. Joshua

    Shub –

    ==> “Climate consensusists are funny; in many aspects they toe the left but the left is well versed in recognizing censorship and suppression of dissent and yet you find climate activists willingly blinded to the possibility and instead involved in manufacturing consent. Ironic.”

    I think that exploring the real proven if censorship too shine about petty and insignificant developments in the blogosphere is not advancing the power of “dissent.” i think it trivializes dissent.

    What is also interesting, indeed, is that in this case, it is Judith, and many other “skeptics” who are trying tut manufacture consensus, by throwing inconvenient “skeptics” under the bus.

    Btw, what is a consensusist ? Am i one? If so, how do you make that determination?

  47. Joshua

    Heh. Auto-correct strikes again.

    I think that exploiting the real problem of censorship, to whine about petty and insignificant developments in the blogosphere, is not advancing…

  48. Don Monfort

    I wonder why you are trying to manufacture a conflict between Shub and I, willy? I don’t see anything sinister in his attitude towards censorship. And in regards to Judith, she probably snips me as much as she does anybody. It can be chickenshit at times, but I don’t feel like I am being unfairly censored. Some of us boys think she is too strict, but I have some sympathy for Judith’s schoolmarmishness. She doesn’t want us to hurt each other’s feelings. Little crybaby putz joshie has made it his mission in life to stalk Judith, but she has been very tolerant of the smarmy* little tyke. I am sure that he benefits most from her protection.

    smarmy* Judith won’t allow that anymore

  49. Shub Niggurath

    joshua, the question for you is quite clear: if you don’t spam/overcomment, can you say something that would make Judith Curry delete your comment with no explanation? If so, what is it that you would say to accomplish this?

    ATTP likes sauntering around the blogs as though he’s done nothing. In reality, he knows little of the issues that people discuss on the blogs, and one finds him frequently covering up his ignorance by simply parroting the accepted party line from a safe source. I find it bewildering that Curry would try to pass off ATTP as a ‘new kid on the block’ who has a magic touch and possesses ‘expertise’. Is she blind to commenters pointing out his censorious tactics? Surely she’s not operating in a vacuum? My question is, if you cannot discuss these matters in a thread about blogs at a blog that rarely censors outright, there’s got to be something to it. What could it be?

    If the comment is petty and insignificant, why did it deserve to be deleted without explanation?

  50. Joshua

    Shub –

    ==> “If the comment is petty and insignificant, why did it deserve to be deleted without explanation?”

    It’s as if you don’t read what I’ve written.

    I don’t think that your comment “deserved” to be deleted, any more than I think that your comments at ATTP “deserved” to be deleted, or that my comments at Judith’s, or Brandon’s, or Anthony’s, or RPJr.’s “deserve” to be deleted or put into moderation.

    So I just don’t get why you’d ask me that question.

    Again, I don’t think that your comment “deserved” to be deleted. How many times, and how many ways, can I say that?

    I think that basically all blog moderation I’ve seen,with rare exceptions in extreme cases, is arbitrary (in the sense of subjective, not in the sense of random), and reflects a selective application of criteria.

    I was working at a prestigious university one time when the administrators were dealing with the problem where a very high % of the students were cheating. The method that the university decided to use to deal with the problem was to step up their enforcement of more stringent punishment. It never occurred to them that if a lot of the students viewed their educational goals in such a way that they thought that cheating was furthering their goals, then there was a larger problem that needed to be dealt with. The response reflected a lack of leadership.

    I view moderation at blogs in a similar way. I think that deleting comments and moderating comments is counterproductive towards a goal of creating productive dialog. I think that if you’re relying on such tactics to create quality dialog, you’re just chasing your tail.

    But that doesn’t mean that I agree that it is “censorship.” I think that calling it censorship is exploiting a real problem.

    ==> “ATTP likes sauntering around the blogs as though he’s done nothing. In reality, he knows little of the issues that people discuss on the blogs, and one finds him frequently covering up his ignorance by simply parroting the accepted party line from a safe source.”

    Attacks against Anders are unrelated to this discussion, IMO.

    Perhaps related to this discussion is the question as to why there are “skeptics” who remain to regularly comment at his blog while others have been put into moderation or banned. But although I have asked you about that repeatedly – as I think it is relevant, I have yet to see you address that issue.

    My observation is that there is more, higher quality, exchange of views between people of differing viewpoint at ATTP than at virtually any other high volume blog in the “climate-o-sphere.” IMO, that reflects a quality leadership (relatively speaking) at his blog. Now that is, obviously, a completely subjective assessment. Maybe I’m wrong about that. If so, then we could talk about that. If I’m right, maybe we could talk about that.

  51. Shub Niggurath

    Joshua, deserving, as in befitting, suitable for etc.

    I understand moderation can be capricious. I have pointed out several points that are widely known about ATTP that makes one pause whether it was caprice that prompted Curry’s step. When I wrote this I took a leap in deciding against it. Looking at Don’s ‘JC SNIP’ -ed ‘stooge’ comment, I am convinced Curry was running around defending ATTP.

    Why would you see me pointing out ATTP’s relative unfamiliarity with climate blog issues as an ‘attack’ ? You’re doing the same thing Curry likely did.

    The quality of discussion at ATTP is poor. There are no skeptics there, as opposed to what you claim. He’s not a ‘quality leader’ (or I don’t know what a leader is). Saying all of these things is not an ‘attack’. Please recall my original claim which I can re-iterate: it is not possible to run a ‘quality’ climate consensus blog without the combination of skeptical talking points and censorship. In that sense, his is just a run-of-the-mill consensus blog. After having chased away all the people that can question your claims you have a bunch of people who can but agree – of course the atmosphere is going to appear convivial.

    Don’t think I’m trying to beat up on ATTP. He is not the focus here, it’s Curry’s assessment of his blog that is. For the record, and I have stated this before, I think he is a good guy. Obviously he does not return the courtesy but I don’t care, and obviously his view of climate science is starry-eyed while mine is not. I’ve told him (and Rachel) this a few times. It’s his practice of censorship that discredits him

  52. Joshua

    ==> “Why would you see me pointing out ATTP’s relative unfamiliarity with climate blog issues as an ‘attack’ ?”

    Well, that’s a bit of a bait and switch.

    ==> “ATTP likes sauntering around the blogs as though he’s done nothing.”

    That has nothing to do with his familiarity of “climate blog issues.”

    ==> “and one finds him frequently covering up his ignorance by simply parroting the accepted party line from a safe source”

    While it has to do with his familiarity of “climate blog issues,” is also looks to me like an attack.

    ==> “ATTP does not belong in the climate debate

    Attack

    ==> “Quite the learned scholar right”

    Attack

    ==> ” his shockingly rude diatribes ”

    Attack
    ——————————————————————————-

    Don’t play games with me Shub. Characterizing your attacks as “pointing out ATTP’s relative unfamiliarity” is playing a game. Game-playing doesn’t lead to productive discussion. I have no problem with you attacking ATTP. It is what it is. Attacking people is a part of this medium. I remember when you once attacked me and then later apologized.

    ==> “The quality of discussion at ATTP is poor. ”

    This is what I object to. It is a subjective statement dress up as a statement of fact. In your opinion the discussion is poor. Others have a different opinion. I’d venture to guess that Judith has a different opinion.

    ==> “There are no skeptics there, as opposed to what you claim. ”

    Ok. Not sure where to go with that. There are a number of regular commenters who self-identify as ‘skeptics.” There are a number of regular commenters there who write comments very similar in content to what I can read, regularly, at any number of “skeptical” sites. Recognizing that all of these terms are very subjective, I see no basis for that claim. So I guess I stated opinion as fact when I said there are “skeptics” there, and now you’re stating opinion as fact that there aren’t. So I’ll revisit that. IMO, I think that there are “skeptics” there, for the reasons I listed above. If you have reasoned argument otherwise, I would be interested to read it.

    ==> “He’s not a ‘quality leader’ (or I don’t know what a leader is).”

    OK. Similar problem as above.

    ==> ” Please recall my original claim which I can re-iterate: it is not possible to run a ‘quality’ climate consensus blog without the combination of skeptical talking points and censorship. In that sense, his is just a run-of-the-mill consensus blog.”

    I don’t know what you mean by “quality” there. I don’t agree with your assertion of “censorship” I don’t know on what basis you declare what is fact. Your declaration of fact looks to me like a conflation of opinion and fact.

    ==> ” After having chased away all the people that can question your claims…”

    This, IMO, is clearly a mistaken characterization of ATTP. It seems obviously wrong. In virtually any thread, you will see many comments “questioning [his] claims.” Not sure where else we can gowith that.

    ==> Don’t think I’m trying to beat up on ATTP.”

    That wasn’t my impression. But you do seem to me to be whining. I think that you’re acting like a victim – by inflating the “offenses” beyond reasonable accuracy.

    ==> “, it’s Curry’s assessment of his blog that is…”

    Curry’s assessment of his blog is what it is. She’s has considerable technical expertise. As such, she carries a certain weight in assessing the technical discussions at his blog. She also as an opinion, as a non-expert on discourse, about the level of discourse at his blog. I disagree with her opinions quite often. So what? OK. You disagree with her.

    ==> “Obviously he does not return the courtesy but I don’t care, and obviously his view of climate science is starry-eyed while mine is not.”

    Lol! Brandon would be proud, Shub.

    I am not in a position to judge the merits of technical discussions on climate blogs – but as much as I can tell from my perspective as someone not particularly bright or particularly knowledgeable, the discussions that take place there have more high-level exchange between technically proficient and intelligent people of differing perspectives than what occurs at most blogs in the climate-o-sphere, be they “realist” or “skeptic” blogs. \

    For me, that is useful. Obviously YMMV.

  53. Don Monfort

    TEST

    Here you go Shub. I just posted this on CE in reply to some of joshie’s idiotic babbling. I will be surprised if she doesn’t delete it. She doesn’t like us to treat joshie with the disdain he deserves:

    Well there you go, joshie. Thanks to Peter Davies you can point to one kind, misguided soul who you can claim takes at least something you say seriously. Very nearly all the rest of us don’t give a flying f—. Nobody cares what you think about climate change. We know that you know nothing. You are just a troll. What you believe is that you were put on this earth to stalk Judith and annoy your beloved “skeptics”. Very creepy, dude. You really should insist that Judith put you back in moderation. She is allowing you to incite ridicule and to bring humiliation on yourself. Doesn’t seem to be in your best interests. I don’t know what she’s thinking.

  54. Shub Niggurath

    Joshua, you’re mixing different things. ATTP does go wandering around climate blogs as though he’s done nothing at all. In reality, he’s gone banning one commenter after another often with the flimsiest and most brazen of reasons (‘it’s my blog’) when the underlying cause is a bit more unfavourable to him (like they ask uncomfortable questions and make him look bad). The latest person he’s chased off his blog is Steve Bloom! In short this is a person that gets off mistreating individuals who belong in the climate blogosphere. I will buy some of your excuses if he ran a super-busy blog with hundreds of comments and thousands and thousands of visitors but what he does is different. He baits commenters, draws them into discussions and then pretends to be upset by something they say and bans them.

    Where is the indication Curry knows any of this? She too pretends ATTP is just another blog with ‘expert’ commenters. If people more experienced in the actual style of functioning of the blog comment, she cuts them off. If this is an indication of Curry’s technical assessment I am beginning to doubt that as well.

    Telling Steve Fitzpatrick ‘now look here, listen carefully’ is shockingly rude. I have never seen anyone address another person like that.

    The rest of your comment offers various interpretations of how ATTP’s blog is a great place. I know the place and the guy better. It is depressing and mind-numbing to think you have his venue as a model climate blog.

  55. Don Monfort

    Joshie is a dishonest little putz. Judith is naive. Kenny Rice is a punk. Sorry to be so blunt 🙂

  56. Joshua

    Shub –

    ==> “It is depressing and mind-numbing to think you have his venue as a model climate blog.”

    I wouldn’t describe it as a “model” blog. I don’t think that any “model”” blogs exist. It’s better than most. Reasonably high level discussion with a reasonably broad range of views.

    I notice that you still have not addressed many issues I raised. As few examples: A fair number of pretty knowledgeable and sophisticated commenters post there. A fair number of self-identified “skeptics” post there. A fairly diverse cross-section poss there (I’d say that “skeptics” post there in a higher % than the % of “realists” that hang out at any “skeptic” blogs). Your claims about his reasons for deleting and banning seem to be in direct contrast to the available evidence. Being banned or moderated on climate blogs does not materially impact on someone’s ability to express their views. You have mischaracterized my views, repeatedly, about moderation (I don’t defend it, I don’t think that comments “deserve” to be deleted, etc.).

  57. Brad Keyes

    Shub, no, nothing happened with Judy, that was a jocular quote from the Mannster himself, which I found at the home of such quotes—the Mannheim—i.e. the Climategate mannmails.

  58. Shub Niggurath

    joshua, the problem is your unwillingness to venture beyond your limited perspective. We all have the limitation but it’s not too hard to look beyond.

    For example, you say a “fair number of pretty knowledgeable and sophisticated commenters post” at ATTP blog.

    Did you think the commenters appear ‘knowledgeable’ and ‘sophisticated’ because there’s no one around to question them?
    Did you think there are any commenters at his blog at all because he draws in sceptics by posting about their topics, linking to their blogs, and subsequently assures a cadre of thin-skinned, aggressive consensus artists *their views* about the sceptics* would be protected at the cost of censoring/banning sceptics?

    If I were potty-mouth BBD, unable to survive anywhere else on the internet but the wasteland of Deltoid, I would be very happy to take up residence at ATTP because I know he would protect my claims against challenges.

    You must have missed the yearlong period when ATTP posting nothing but mirror copies of WUWT posts as wotty. You must have also missed the wailing, morose threads about Bishop Hill topics. Or the Matt Ridley ones, or the Richard Tol ones.

    He tolerates you, likely, because you like pointing out ‘hypocrisy’ of the people he intensely wants to dislike.

    Like I said, that ATTP’s blog is a bit of a hole, is an open secret. It’s only people who cannot widely participate elsewhere that appear to be deluded about it.

  59. David Springer

    For the record, I got Joshua put into moderation at judithcurry.com by pointing out to Curry that the volume of his comments exceeded the 5% guideline by nearly double.

    I was wondering if this blog might be worth commenting on until I saw Willard here spamming it up with the usual science-free Climateball drivel. No thanks.

    On the plus side over at Curry’s joint she was recently forced to enable registration in order to comment by a rebel who knows how to get around IP blocks and found something that Curry found intolerable – using the names of regular anonymous posters to confuse the crowd. ATTP, Joshua, Willard, etc. all suddenly found someone signing comments using those names. The registration forced a few disruptive trolls to go elsewhere particularly WebHubTelescope, Fan of More Discourse, R.Gates, and Chief Hydrologist to name a few.

    The improvement is substantial. More people signing with their real names. less incivility, more topical discussion. Unfortunately Willard and Joshua haven’t been discouraged by registration and continue content-free disruption of any people engaging in fact-based topical dialog.

  60. Shub Niggurath

    David, you are right that joshua’s problem is spamming, i.e., excessive commenting. Is that something you cannot tell another person about? Joshua is on this thread, talking to me. He’s not on every thread is he? He’s not spamming here. willard does not spam every thread here with his Climateball drivel (LOL).

    You are not the only person to tell me they don’t like willard and joshua spamming the boards here, believe me.

    I see a thread where David Appell is questioning Judith Curry’s income and conflict-of-interest. Should his comments have been deleted? I see it far more important that blog owners don’t run rampant than blog commenters saying something hurtful.

    joshua is at pains to tell me the discussion at ATTP is of high quality but what I heard was joshua had a hand in chasing such commenters as Pekka from Climate Etc to ATTP. I may be mistaken.

    For the record I never could participate at JC’s blog because of the regular commenters, some of whose names you mention, posting excessively long and frequent comments. It was just scroll, scroll, scroll.

  61. David Springer

    I didn’t look at any other threads here and given this is about Curry it should have occurred to me that it would attract Willard and Joshua. Appell is hot and cold. He goes for weeks without making an appearance and CE. I think he’s mostly a troll because his MO is too often very briefly to ask people to provide citations where he knows very well what those citations are. A warmist version of Steven Mosher only qualified to speak where Mosher’s a piker. The main reason I wouldn’t ban him is he uses his real name, is modestly well informed, and a credentialed science journalist. There is a dearth of qualified consensus-supporting scientists on Curry’s blog and personally I welcome them all to come by and attempt to defend their beliefs but only if they put their real names behind their writing. A number of qualified skeptic scientists make appearances… Pielke Sr. and Craig Loehle come to mind and of course Curry herself. The commentary is mostly entertainment for me anymore or just doing what I can to correct misinformation. Occasionally I learn something new in the process but I’ve been in this debate for 8 years now and information new to me is infrequent. I saw the pause coming 8 years ago. The AMDO cycle stood out like a sore thumb but with only 2.5 cycles in the instrument record there were too few samples to say there was a high chance of repetition. So I gambled.

    I’d like someone qualifed to look into the variable solar spectrum. TSI changes very little through regular 11-year solar cycles but high energy spectra changes a lot with UVB and more energetic frequency power rising as much as 50% while power in lower frequencies falls by same amount to keep total power nearly constant. The higher frequencies are absorbed in the stratosphere while lower frequencies make through into the troposphere or earth surface. So the how and where energy enters the column, is absorbed and radiated outward, changes. All Watts of power aren’t created equal. Wavelength matters a lot. In an 11-year solar cycle it’s a wash but there are longer solar cycles measured in centuries and millennia where the same spectral changes may persist and through accumulation and over time cause a more noticeable effect. Curry is really well qualified to look into that.

  62. omanuel

    David,

    I believe NASA knows, but hides information on cyclic variations in the Sun’s surface temperature, composition and wavelength of radiation because the primary purpose of government research agencies after WWII was to hide from the public the energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores of heavy atoms, stars, galaxies, etc.

    From memory,

    In times of low sunspot activity:
    The Sun gets hotter;
    The planets get cooler;
    The solar surface is iron-rich;
    Shorter wavelength radiation

    In times of high sunspot activity:
    The solar surface cools;
    The planets get warmer;
    The photosphere has less iron;
    Emits longer wavelength light.

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/sharpening-the-message/

  63. omanuel

    Here is the program on the 2006 Impending Oxygen Crisis and the (now deleted) prediction by Tom Ayers that the entire Sun will be entirely devoid of oxygen in 2015:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060528095910/http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/events/colloquium_2006new.html

    The pulsar-centered Sun that birthed and controls every atom, live and planet in the solar system will be revealed if NASA and other research agencies will reveal cyclic changes over a typical solar cycle in:

    1. The solar surface temperature

    2. The solar surface composition

    3. “Cosmic” and neutron fluxes in Earth’s upper atmosphere

    4. Changes in abundances of isotopes in solar flares and eruptions

    Professor Stig Friberg and I reported some of this information at the Helio-seismology Conference, Big Bear Observatory in 2002: http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/gong-2002.pdf

    Professors Barry Ninham, Stig Friberg and I also published information on implications of solar eruptions for Earth’s climate in 2002: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/

  64. Willard

    > I wonder why you are trying to manufacture a conflict between Shub and I

    There’s nothing to manufacture, Don Don. Shub considers that when Judy removed his “critical comment,” she’s onto censorship. You, OTOH, would favor even more “moderation”. There are two questions you and Shub need to settle between you two:

    [C] Under what conditions is moderation censorship?

    [M] Under what conditions is censorship bad?

    Both questions are more interesting than the special pleading for the sake of more Joshua bashing. Not that I don’t appreciate what’s going on. Please, do continue.

  65. Shub Niggurath

    willard, a blog the size and scope of JC, WUWT, BH, CA, RC or Joanne Nova needs moderation and oversight. Nearly no other climate blog approaches these, or needs moderation. All the others are merely blog owners and their buddies running message control. Among these venues, JC’s was somewhat unique in being quite open, forgiving even of its prolific posters. It is not anymore. All this doesn’t need much explanation.

  66. stewgreen

    Complex issue, where to start OK
    1. Blog commenting is fantastic
    Why ? – When I teach an English class a lot of the learning comes in the practice part.
    While one student is giving his/her input the rest are learning from that persons mistakes etc.
    So often issues come up which I hadn’t thought to teach ..the learning process becomes really organic.
    Similarly the Climate blogger doesn’t cover every point but 20 commenters may bring lots of interesting snippets & insights.

    2. Rule is TRUST not CENSOR
    There are 2 types of commenter ..i. Truth Seekers ii. Disrupters
    Rather than do the hard work of reading every comment, it’s simply much easier to just ban when someone emerges as a disrupter ..and leave the TRUSTED ones to get on with commenting.

    3. Note how many/all warmists blogs use censoring as a way of sculpturing a narrative
    Any blog that does this is worthless ..as it’s dishonest.
    SO Curry should not have censored Shub’s comments

    There are a number of problems with comment systems and a number of solutions
    4. Problem 1 : Too many comments : Curry’s blog is usually not as good as others cos it has far too many lenghthy comments.
    (WUWT similar but less so)
    a) Curry does have a good solution, in that in her post she often summarisers previous commenters points
    b)Presenting only Comment Title Lines,I like blogs – which make use of expanding title lines to present comments, so that a page of comments doesn’t have a 1000 lines of comments, but rather 50 lines of titles that way I can scan down the list ignore ATTP types and clicking on Shub-types to read their comments.
    (Newspapers and Facebook kind of so this in just showing you the first 4 lines of a comment)
    If mods have had to intervene it is useful to see a line saying “post deleted : spam/childporn/ incitement to violence etc.”

    5. Problem 2 Going Off Topic
    What makes Bishop-Hill.net the best is that he has good solutions
    a)The Discussion button – That any one can create a brand new discussion thread for a new topic
    b)The Unthreaded button – where you can post a quick link or breaking news, which can be moved to it’s own new thread if it starts to become a discussion.

    6. There are good reasons why you don’t delete posts.
    – Some people bully by taking offence – so there actually has to be a right to offend otherwise those people manipulate the discussion. Saying that “abc is offensive” is not a reason for deleting a comment.
    Similarly cos posts are not deleted then there is a record of a commenters past offences.
    – As I mentioned in 4. to show that the moderation is honest you need to put a “reason bullet” for the rare occasion that a post is deleted. (Personally I would keep a private page of all deleted comments)

    7. Ability to vote up comments – this is a good advantage of FB, BBC, and newspaper comments ..that you can order 1000’s of comments by BEST
    8. The Close comments trick ..practiced by BBC and some newspapers ..Seems sometimes they post an article tell their green friends, but then close the comments before too many skeptic points come in

    9. I like the way on Paul Homewoods blog that you can reply to a persons comment directly underneath it.

    Despite all GreenBlob’s money, power, PR and influence much of the public know not to trust Climate info cos they can see presentation is being deceptiovely manipulated.

  67. stewgreen

    A Drama queening dramagreen ? I just spotted this on BH
    “And Shub, seriously, don’t try and give me advice again. If you do, I’ll quite happily tell you why you’re close to being the last person from whom I would consider accepting it.
    Anyway, I’m done here for now. I’d like to say that I haven’t wasted my time, but I’d be lying if I did. I’d also like to say something nice and complimentary about this whole exchange, but – again – I’d be lying if I did.
    Apr 5, 2015 at 8:28 PM | …and Then There’s Physics”
    meow !
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2488199?currentPage=2

  68. Joshua

    Some amusing arguments by assertion:

    ==> “The registration forced a few disruptive trolls to go elsewhere particularly WebHubTelescope, Fan of More Discourse, R.Gates, and Chief Hydrologist to name a few.”

    There is no evidence of this. All the commenters mentioned had reduced their posting at CE prior to Springer going on his sock-puppet frenzy (much of which consisted of the exact same name-calling and insult-slinging that Springer had engaged in for months on end previously).

    ==> “The improvement is substantial. More people signing with their real names. less incivility, more topical discussion.”

    There was nothing about forcing registration that would cause people to sign in any differently than previously. The only thing it might change would be to make sock-puppeting more difficult; which is ironic because Springer was the main sock-puppeteer.

    ==> “joshua is at pains to tell me the discussion at ATTP is of high quality but what I heard was joshua had a hand in chasing such commenters as Pekka from Climate Etc to ATTP. I may be mistaken.”

    Heh. “What I heard.” So let’s see if I got this right, I had a hand in driving Pekka away from CE to begin commenting at ATTP, where I am a regular commenter. That’s beautiful, Shub.

    This reminds me of the validation process you apply to your definition of “open secrets,” which in reality means “what people who are in agreement tell each other all the time, and also post in public comments all the time.”

  69. Joshua

    And how interesting it is that Springer seems to take a great measure of pride that Judith started requiring registration, temporarily, when Springer started writing a series of insult-filled comments under a variety of sockpuppets, for only as long as Springer continued to write a series of insult-filled comments under a variety of sockpuppets, after which she lifted the registration requirement, until Springer started again in writing a series of insult-filled comments under a variety of sockpuppets.

    What an interesting person Springer is – to get some kind of excitement from that. Takes all kinds, I guess, eh?

  70. Joshua

    Oh, and I love this, btw:

    ==> “==> “The registration forced a few disruptive trolls to go elsewhere particularly WebHubTelescope, Fan of More Discourse, R.Gates, and Chief Hydrologist to name a few.”

    To name a few? I love that. Make a list of people who left because of Spinger’s brilliant sockpuppet frenzy (when actually his sockpuppet frenzy had nothing to do with why they left), and end the list with “to name a few” when there was no one else for whom he could feel proud for making leave (even though they didn’t leave as an outcome of his sockpuppet frenzy).

  71. Joshua

    ==> “The main reason I wouldn’t ban him is he uses his real name,”

    heh. Must be the main reason you’re posting here, eh Springer? Because Shub uses his real name?

  72. Don Monfort

    Little joshie mutters: “Some amusing arguments by assertion:”

    Who said those statements you quoted are arguments, joshie? Everybody but you recognizes them as assertions. You are just creating a strawman argument. It’s a very strange and annoying habit of yours to go around mischaracterizing opinions and assertions as arguments and then demanding evidence. Where is you evidence that Springer is doing the sockpuppet thing? What you have so far provided is suspicion. We already knew to suspect Springer, but where is your evidence that it is actually Springer, joshie boy? Put up, or shut up?

  73. Joshua

    Hi Don –

    How are ya’, bud?

    ==> “Where is you evidence that Springer is doing the sockpuppet thing? ”

    Lol!

  74. Joshua

    ==> “did I get your panties in a bunch there, Joshua?

    I see that Springer is fantasizing about me again. Some things never change, I guess.

    Well, Dave – if imagining that I have panties does the trick for you, have at it. Who am I to judge?

  75. Joshua

    BTW – Springer –

    That anonymous “coward,” kim, is at around 94 of the last 1100 comments at Climate Etc., 84 out of the last 800 or so.

    I think you should be emailing Judith to whine and ask her to play mommy for you, don’t you?

  76. Shub Niggurath

    ?

    play mommy? I thought moderation was all part of life.

    I also learned that moderation is God’s work, from willard who recently turned a blog moderator.

  77. Joshua

    ==> “I thought moderation was all part of life.”

    So you did understand after all? Good.

    Yes, Springer looking for an authority figure, and asking Judith to play mommy are part of life.

    It’s exactly what to expect from Springer. He’s been emailing Judith and pleading for her to moderate other people’s comments since he first showed up at Climate Etc. It’s part of the landscape at her blog. There’s nothing unfair about it, as it’s her blog and she gets to choose how she wants to moderate and I have the option of posting my comments elsewhere if I so choose.

  78. Shub Niggurath

    I understood what you said, I didn’t agree to it.

    David might have complained because he thinks you and willard write too many meta- comments, i.e,, comments about comments, comments about commenter behaviour, comments about commenter psychology etc. Everytime someone says something, you going off ‘You know what I think about some “skeptics”…’.

    Regardless, commenters getting each other banned is not a part of the landscape of a blog. I mean, I do get Climate Etc might be home to people who are that aggressively jobless (‘if only joshua was not around, I would crack the problems of climate with my unhindered comments’) but it’s not normal.

    You don’t have the ‘option of posting your comments elsewhere’, what you have there is a loss of options. What makes sense in a comment thread needs to be said then, and there. I think you will find lot more support from JC commenters if you refrain from constantly psychoanalyzing them, who knows maybe even Springer.

  79. omanuel

    Shub,

    The Climategate emails in 2009 revealed more – far more than anyone could have imagined! Many blog owners are uncomfortable. I tried to explain that to Jeff Condren: https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/thermorons/#comment-214196

    The Climategate discussions have confirmed a common human flaw: We all want to appear smarter than we really are. Citing the laws of thermodynamics are a convenient way to convey our message.

    In actual, factual fact – Earth’s heat source is a pulsar that made the chemical elements, birthed the solar system and still controls every atom, life and world in the solar system – including the climate of every planet in the solar system. Nobody wants to admit “we have been stupid,” so we reject or delete information that makes us uncomfortable and remain slaves.

    Thank you, Shub, for allowing me to post factual information that many blog owners would delete.

  80. Joshua

    Shub –

    ==> “David might have complained because he thinks you and willard write too many meta- comments, i.e,, comments about comments, comments about commenter behaviour, comments about commenter psychology etc.

    Sure, and if you believe in fantasies then you can think that your fantasies might be true. Springer complains because he’s a whiner – who has some kind of weird obsession with blog moderation resulting from his apparent belief that everyone should defer to his moderation godliness…because of some moderating he did at some point in the past and that he keeps boring people with stories about.

    Springer is a tribalist,and bases his beliefs about moderation (and anonymity) on whether they are a “realist” or a “skeptic” – with an exception made in cases like with Chief because Springer felt threatened by Chief’s science and climate chops.

    ==> ” but it’s not normal…”

    Once again, as with your self-appointed authority on the morality of blog moderation, I’m not impressed with your self-appointed authority on what is or isn’t “normal.” There is no “normal” or “not normal” in the blogosphere. It is what it is. And one thing that characterizes most popular blogs that focus on polarizing issues as does like Climate Etc., a high # of comments are written by the most active participants.

    ==> “You don’t have the ‘option of posting your comments elsewhere’, what you have there is a loss of options.”

    Sure. So instead of 1,000,000 blogs where I can write my comment, I’m restricted to 999,999. I’ll survive.

    ==> “What makes sense in a comment thread needs to be said then, and there.”

    I don’t think that in the real world, any of this “makes sense.” They’re blog comments, for god’s sake.

    And nothing meaningful in the world will change if I (or anyone else) can’t post a particular comment in a particular thread on a particular blog at a particular time.

    ==> “I think you will find lot more support from JC commenters if you refrain from constantly psychoanalyzing them, who knows maybe even Springer.”

    I’m not looking for support from JC commenters, and certainly not from one like Springer (or Don). But regardless, I get enough respect from the commenters I respect. There’s one exception…Billc…who at some point switched his opinion and gave me some pretty harsh criticism. I never quite figured that one out.

  81. Shub Niggurath

    I think I have figured this out: when I, and presumably other commenters, write something on a blog I want to say something. You, and others, on the other hand write to contribute to non-specific frothy observations. So it can be written on any blog and it doesn’t matter much if the comments are deleted. So my comments are about what I wrote in them, your comments are about your ‘survival’ as a commenter.

    Of course, comments being deleted is not the end of the world but you have to decide whether what you write matters to you, or not.

  82. Joshua

    Shub –

    ==> “So my comments are about what I wrote in them, your comments are about your ‘survival’ as a commenter.”

    I think that that it boils down to is that you think this is all much important than I consider it to be.

    ==> “Of course, comments being deleted is not the end of the world but you have to decide whether what you write matters to you, or not.”

    I’m not big on binary thinking. It matters to me, but just not that much. I’m aware of the absurdity of all of this. People argue with people of differing viewpoints, and we see very little in the way of meaningful dialogue. We see very little ‘listening.” We see tons o’ fallacious arguments. We see very few people altering their views as the result of exchange. We see the same arguments being made over and over. We see threads filled with name-calling. We see double-standards all over the place. We see tribalism.

    What I write matters to me, but I’m also aware that nothing in the real world changes materially as the result of the deletion of what I (or you) wrote in some blog comment. The closest thing that comes to meeting that bar is that after your comment got deleted at Judith’s, you wrote this blog post about the experience, and a discussion ensued. Would the world be a better place if your comment hadn’t been deleted and you hadn’t had this thread? Or is it a better place because it got deleted and you had this thread? Was your ability to express your opinion materially diminished because you comment got deleted at Judith’s, or was it expanded because you expressed your opinion in the post and thread that you wrote in response? What would have ensued had your comment not been deleted? What would have happened of more people had read you saying, at Judith’s blog, that ATTP doesn’t belong in the climate debate? Would someone have been convinced of something? Would someone have gained insight that they wouldn’t have otherwise? Would someone have seen something they hadn’t seen many,many times before?

    When one of my comments gets deleted, I find it interesting that sometimes I am bothered by it initially, and then later i realize how silly it was for it to have mattered to me as much as it did.

  83. Don Monfort

    That clown will talk you to death, Shub. He is very needy. This is very revealing:

    “But regardless, I get enough respect from the commenters I respect.”

    That would be about 3. He will whine that it’s got to be more than that, but he’ll count the naive passersby who give him the benefit of the doubt but wise up to his shit in a short time and come to despise him as much as the rest of us do.

    “from the commenters I respect.”

    Of course, you have to respect him first. What a life that joker leads. He’s a poster boy for a half dozen personality disorders.

  84. Joshua

    Hi Don.

    Thanks for reading, bud. Can’t tell you how much it means to me.

  85. Don Monfort

    They are known on CE as the navel gazer and the nitpicker. And the epithets are used interchangeably. Sometimes together. E.g., that navel gazing nitpicking putz.

  86. deminthon

    “Skeptics don’t need to resort to censorship”

    Then why does WUWT and every other major septic blog do so?

    You’re just a foul stinking dishonest piece of shit, hypocritical to the core, like all deniers.

  87. deminthon

    Joshua, why do you waste time here with immature idiots like Don Monfort and deeply hypocritical ideologues like Shug? Because you can? To put it on the record? Surely there are more effective uses of your abilities.