The Skepticalscience Team, usually prompt in jumping on to any study or a sneeze that confirms their biases, is very quiet about Marcott et al with the 11,000 year hockey stick. Why? Are they worried the study would tank after they stick their necks out for it?
So things sit, dumb. But as a resident hack attempted to work up froth about ‘denier’ Anthony Watts, the itch had to be scratched and discussion of the Marcott paper broke out.
Now, these comments, coming almost entirely from Skepticalscience contributors’ are ‘off-topic’, violate ‘comment policy’ and ought to be deleted right? Nah. That’s not how it works. It is one rule for the in-house boys and another for the rest. So the comments stayed up.
Moderator Response: [DB] This thread is about Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water. Much of your challenge is beyond the scope of this thread – and thus off-topic. FYI.
If you look at the thread, A.Scott began just as instructed by the moderator ‘DB’, with a lengthy comment about [Anthony] Watts’ denial business. The result? Comment butchery by the same moderator: snip, and further snip, snip.
So, not only can there be no lateral movement whatsoever, these guys won’t stand their ground and defend their own threads from questions that are on-topic.
Good luck to A.Scott.
I read with amusement Skepticalscience’s latest in their lineup of posts on climate scientists whose views diverge from the consensus. First it was the ‘Michaels Mischiefs’ series. Now he’s been turned into a ‘serial deleter’. Michaels’ probably getting off easy – John Christy is stuck with ‘Christy’s Crocks’. I guess if you run a website, you can call people whatever names you want.