Mr. Connolley, at WUWT, you have to earn persona non grata status through misbehavior.
Almost all alarmist climate blogs are censored to stifle dissent and hide inconvenient facts. That is true of Real Climate, Rabett Run, Skeptical Science, Green Grok, SeaMonster, Yale Climate Forum, Peter Gleick's new National Geographic blog, Tamino's misnamed "Open Mind," and your own blog. The only prominent exception I've found is Peter Sinclair's ClimateCrocks.
In contrast, I've found that most skeptical climate blogs, like WUWT, welcome dissenting views, courteously expressed.
At "Tamino's Open[sic] Mind," Grant Foster (a/k/a Tamino) censors even poetry. A few days ago he posted a light-hearted "Pi-ku" in honor of "Pi day" (3/14), with verses having a number of syllables equal to the first six successive digits of the decimal approximation of Pi:
It is real. Yes! global warming, yes! And it's caused by man atmospheric carbon dioxide
I have been banned repeatedly from Steve Goddard's site and now apparently permanently because I had the persistance to point out his contradictory posts. he banned right before the neew SIE borke the record, since I had been countering his claims about Sea Cie since march.
I just saw a long comment on Sks aout "Tung and Zhou 2013" that was quite full of dissent, all the moderator did was "fix" the links so they didn't mess up the formatting. that seems acceptable to me.
David Burton, here is a little assignment, go find where Eli misbehaved on WUWT comments. Then go find where Willard Tony, Smokey and the guys claimed he misbehaved. Do that for David Appell.
Dave Burton neglects to mention that not only does WUWT require defenders of science to be scrupulously polite; but that they must do so in the face of unchecked abuse by the normal WUWT denizens (and occasionaly moderators). And by "scrupulously polite" I mean polite to the point of dishonesty, where you must not describe as dishonest or absurd claims by regular denizens that are either plainly dishonest, or absurd on the level of people who have claimed to square the circle.
William (Stoat) Connolley is what I call a "Good Sport". He did try to debate the denizens at WUWT but was treated rather unkindly. Eventually he got himself snipped. He says "Banned" but one would need to know what he said before accepting his assertion.
I respect Barry Brook but got banned from his (still excellent) site "Brave New Climate". It is not a total ban as he still allows me to comment as long as I don't challenge the CAGW mythology.
I used to respect John Cook when he allowed "Consensus Science" to be challenged. When he introduced obnoxious "Moderation" managed by numbskulls like [Daniel Bailey] [doug_bostrom], [Ned Flounders], [Philippe Chantreau], [Riccardo] and [dana1981], he lost any vestige of credibility as well as my respect.
Here is a link showing my comments that were snipped and the reasons why SKS moderators snipped them. I will admit that once in a while I was a little harsh with my rhetoric (a milder version of David Appell).
Did I deserve all that snipping? You tell me: http://www.gallopingcamel.info/Docs/DeletedCamel.doc
"Mr. Connolley, at WUWT, you have to earn persona non grata status through misbehavior."
Blatant lie.
You can be extremely polite, and you'll still be banned. Watts does not accept dissent.
Also, the moderators on WUWT use sock puppets to attack those who do not fall in line. These attacks are left alone of course, and cheered on. After all, moderators (like the extreme troll and attack dog "Smokey" who turned out to be one of the moderators on WUWT) are the ones doing the attacks.
You are extremely dishonest and a huge hypocrite, and it makes me sick.
Eli is still waiting for Mr. Burton to conduct his research. Perhaps this is overly optimistic on the Bunny's part, but we know how ethical Willard Tony and his partners are.
12 comments:
I'm banned too. Would be nice for you to put here the comment that was so terrible that AW couldn't face reading it.
Mr. Connolley, at WUWT, you have to earn persona non grata status through misbehavior.
Almost all alarmist climate blogs are censored to stifle dissent and hide inconvenient facts. That is true of Real Climate, Rabett Run, Skeptical Science, Green Grok, SeaMonster, Yale Climate Forum, Peter Gleick's new National Geographic blog, Tamino's misnamed "Open Mind," and your own blog. The only prominent exception I've found is Peter Sinclair's ClimateCrocks.
In contrast, I've found that most skeptical climate blogs, like WUWT, welcome dissenting views, courteously expressed.
At "Tamino's Open[sic] Mind," Grant Foster (a/k/a Tamino) censors even poetry. A few days ago he posted a light-hearted "Pi-ku" in honor of "Pi day" (3/14), with verses having a number of syllables equal to the first six successive digits of the decimal approximation of Pi:
It is real.
Yes!
global warming,
yes!
And it's caused by man
atmospheric carbon dioxide
I posted the following friendly comment:
Nice, but not enough digits. Continuing:
big joke
to play on taxpayers
hiding the decline
in honesty
Tamino/Foster simply deleted it.
I have been banned repeatedly from Steve Goddard's site and now apparently permanently because I had the persistance to point out his contradictory posts. he banned right before the neew SIE borke the record, since I had been countering his claims about Sea Cie since march.
I just saw a long comment on Sks aout "Tung and Zhou 2013" that was quite full of dissent, all the moderator did was "fix" the links so they didn't mess up the formatting. that seems acceptable to me.
David Burton, here is a little assignment, go find where Eli misbehaved on WUWT comments. Then go find where Willard Tony, Smokey and the guys claimed he misbehaved. Do that for David Appell.
Cites please
David Burton, if you need a little help in finding all those offensive things that Eli wrote, here is a search string to use in google
"Eli Rabett" site:http://wattsupwiththat.com/
The Rabett eagerly awaits your report with links.
Dave Burton neglects to mention that not only does WUWT require defenders of science to be scrupulously polite; but that they must do so in the face of unchecked abuse by the normal WUWT denizens (and occasionaly moderators). And by "scrupulously polite" I mean polite to the point of dishonesty, where you must not describe as dishonest or absurd claims by regular denizens that are either plainly dishonest, or absurd on the level of people who have claimed to square the circle.
William (Stoat) Connolley is what I call a "Good Sport". He did try to debate the denizens at WUWT but was treated rather unkindly. Eventually he got himself snipped. He says "Banned" but one would need to know what he said before accepting his assertion.
I respect Barry Brook but got banned from his (still excellent) site "Brave New Climate". It is not a total ban as he still allows me to comment as long as I don't challenge the CAGW mythology.
I used to respect John Cook when he allowed "Consensus Science" to be challenged. When he introduced obnoxious "Moderation" managed by numbskulls like [Daniel Bailey] [doug_bostrom], [Ned Flounders], [Philippe Chantreau], [Riccardo] and [dana1981], he lost any vestige of credibility as well as my respect.
Here is a link showing my comments that were snipped and the reasons why SKS moderators snipped them. I will admit that once in a while I was a little harsh with my rhetoric (a milder version of David Appell).
Did I deserve all that snipping? You tell me:
http://www.gallopingcamel.info/Docs/DeletedCamel.doc
"Mr. Connolley, at WUWT, you have to earn persona non grata status through misbehavior."
Blatant lie.
You can be extremely polite, and you'll still be banned. Watts does not accept dissent.
Also, the moderators on WUWT use sock puppets to attack those who do not fall in line. These attacks are left alone of course, and cheered on. After all, moderators (like the extreme troll and attack dog "Smokey" who turned out to be one of the moderators on WUWT) are the ones doing the attacks.
You are extremely dishonest and a huge hypocrite, and it makes me sick.
Eli is still waiting for Mr. Burton to conduct his research. Perhaps this is overly optimistic on the Bunny's part, but we know how ethical Willard Tony and his partners are.
Writing as one of the banned, it is not being nasty or wrong that gets you the hook, but calmly showing a mirror to the king.
Dave Burton: this blog does not censor comments.
It holds for approval comments that are on posts that are more than 10 day sold, solely to stop comment spam.
I have only stopped one commenter, a few years ago, every one of whose comments eventually came with personal name-calling and other insults.
WUWT did give you reasons as to why you became a persona non grata.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/24/david-appell-denies-he-has-any-class/
I thought Anthony Watts was being a trifle over-sensitive myself but then I am pretty thick-skinned.
Post a Comment