Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Banned at WUWT? Add Your Name to the List....

The complaints about free speech at WUWT are ironic or laughable, and maybe both. And the very definition of hypocritical. I've seen several people write they've been banned there.... A delusional WUWT commenter thinks it never happens:

Just to reinforce the hypocrisy, look who's been banned again -- today:

Anyone else? Add a comment to join the list.

The last thing someone like Anthony Watts is interested in is an open exchange of scientific ideas -- he'd be out of bu$ine$$ in a matter of days.


William M. Connolley said...

I doubt you'd ever manage to compile a full list; but I'm banned too.

@whut said...

I am banned at Judith Curry's blog, who is also currently belly-aching about censorship.

" curryja | January 10, 2015 at 10:16 am |

WHT is in moderation because he incessantly insults other commenters, notably Robert Ellison. He occasionally shows up with a comment that insults Ellison, which I trash. He was given free reign here to insult my book."

BTW, her book violates various laws of physics.

Brandon R. Gates said...

Thanks for the data point, David. Nicely done.

Victor Venema said...

I am not banned, but under moderation. Given that it normally takes a few hours until the comment is freed, the discussion has normally progressed and people following the new comments do not notice my comments this way.

The ban is not because my comments disrupt the discussion, but as punishment for blogging.

[ Mr. Venema, you wonder why you are on moderation, it is because you are sneering and taunting on your own blog. an example is that you took a comment by our host, suggesting you have a fixation on WUWT and then added words not said to make it “My immature and neurotic fixation on WUWT”, writing a 4,225 word blog post to that effect. it proved exactly the point about you having a fixation on WUWT and Mr. Watts. you will probably write about this too. -mod]

It is kinda sad. I am a scientist working on the quality of the station record that is participating in the climate "debate". The quality of the station record is the core topic of WUWT. If you thought this blog was about science, you would expect them to be thrilled to talk to me.

Unknown said...

David, what was your WUWT comment today that got snipped?

David Appell said...

David: It was this:

dbstealey wrote:
"Yes, I’ve read the same false accusations about ‘censorship’ here."

You're wrong -- they're not false; I know of several people who said they are banned here. So the complaints about freedom of speech aren't very convincing.


No doubt this comment too will (hypocritically) be banned. The last thing this site is interested in is hearing from all sides.

thefordprefect said...

banned a long time ago for having the temerity to suggest that posters on wuwt thought more about money in their wallet than the state of the earth. And then refusing to write a childish apology.

PG said...

Yep banned .

Peter Grace

@whut said...

Inconsistency is the key. I noticed today that someone cited a recent paper of mine on Judith Curry's blog.
And then predictably Curry's chief attack dog, Robert Ellison, does a smear job on it. Yet, I can not say anything because I am effectively moderated into banishment. It appears that the insults are allowed in only one direction according to Curry's rules.

David Appell said...

Thanks WHT. Personally, I have been shocked over the last few months as Judity Curry has morphed into Anthony Watts. I don't know if she likes all the attention or what, but her transformation might be unique in the history of science. I don't understand it at all.

Phil Clarke said...


"SNIP – PROVE your accusation – your opinion is worthless, and as you know you are a long time persona non grata here due to your petty and surly behavior, both here and elsewhere. So, I’m not inclined to engage you again here just because you have another unsubstantiated opinion. No need to reply. – Anthony"

I loved the challenge 'PROVE your accusation [...] No need to reply.' Heh.

I guess the 'petty and surly' behaviour is me characterising Watts as a liar and a hypocrite at Sou's place. Though I was careful to supply both a Watts lie (plenty to choose from) and an example of hypocrisy (enabling Smokey/Stealey to both secretly moderate and post while championing 'open and honest debate')

So I don't post at WUWT anymore, which is good for one's mental health. When I did I found it useful to keep a copy of my words in case the oppressed champions of free speech decided to snip them. If you want to see the comment that got censored, and my response, they're here:


That exchange alone is is sufficient to expose the bleating about 'free speech' as a huge and typical double standard.

Anonymous said...

Currently I don't think I'm banned on any other blogs, although that is probably more because I choose not to comment there, than anything else. I've banned quite a few from mine, but at least I don't complain about free speech at the same time. My ironic moment was Andrew Montford complaining yesterday on Twitter about scientists blocking other people after I blocked someone, without acknowledging that he's blocked me (after I mocked him about something that I can no longer remember).

Anonymous said...

I haven't tried posting a comment at WUWT for a while. When I last did, comments would go into moderation, and only a few would make it out.

TheTracker said...

Also banned. So long ago I don't remember the excuse.

"Thanks WHT. Personally, I have been shocked over the last few months as Judity Curry has morphed into Anthony Watts. I don't know if she likes all the attention or what, but her transformation might be unique in the history of science. I don't understand it at all."

I have been watching that transformation for a while, and it is distinctive enough that I coined the term "Curryism" to describe a scientist, under the pressure of criticism from fellow scientists and with the encouragement of anti-science folks, who slides further and further towards outright denialism.

Richard Tol seems to be another case in point: http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2015/01/for-whom-bell-tols-hot-emotion-denier.html

Chris_Winter said...

Phil Clarke quoted Anthony Watts: "...and as you know you are a long time persona non grata here due to your petty and surly behavior, both here and elsewhere."

What I find impressive about this (not in a favorable way) is that he will factor in comments he finds on some other blog, in making the decision. Suggests an extremely thin skin. But we already knew that.

charlesH said...

I'm personally very sorry if David (or others) is banned on any skeptic blog. I enjoy very much reading the comments when David is posting. Great entertainment.

Anonymous said...

I've lost count of the blogs and forums where either I've been banned or constantly censored (comments scrubbed). Dozens and dozens and dozens by now.

Frankly, I don't even bother anymore trying to post on other sites for this reason (except for a tiny few, less then five, that practice ethical and morally responsible behavior). Why waste the time and energy if nobody is being allowed to read it?

In my opinion and experience, it's extremely common for commentators to either be banned or have their dissenting comments, opinions or research deleted. This occurs everywhere that I've been (20+ years, actually almost 30 years online). It's a topic I've often mentioned on my own blog.

It's also extremely evident that an entirely false sense of "support" is being fabricated on most websites that permit commentary. This is accomplished by doing the above. And the "dogpile" effect for those who do get dissent published.

We've also all heard the term "paid schill". Well, this too is far more common then most seem to realize. Especially on major news websites and boards. Reviewing their comments, you can spot this pretty quick.

Any website that does not pick up its fair share of dissent is probably scrubbing / banning commentators.

Anthony Watts is a talking dick in my opinion, a true idiot-extraordinaire, spewing absolute idiocy and nonsense. Does that get me banned here?

Even so, this is why I now only publish on my own blog, I'm extremely tired of the games other sites play.

The Internet is a great tool, but it's also the StupidNet, and a great surveillance tool. Use it at your own risk - and angst.

Doug Cotton said...

As is well known, I'm banned also, but we now have a group of persons qualified in physics (Planetary Physics") with our own website with several URL's such as http://climate-change-theory.com and http://whtitsnotco2.com and so far our other members have had some success in commenting on WUWT, but of course our current URL's go to moderation so we may need more.

Watts and AGW promoters get totally stumped when asked what is the sensitivity to a 1% increase in water vapor. But if you ask that question on WUWT you'll probably get banned. Our website, by the way, has a refutation of one of the critical posts on WUWT.

Doug Cotton said...

As for William Connolley (top of the list here) well he's just getting some of his own medicine due to his own banning and deleting edits on Wikipedia that go against the AGW scandal.

Mogumbo Gono said...

This is amusing. A handful of misfits here are complaining.

Out of more than ONE MILLION reader comments, you've found seven or eight who have been banned (and you can't count those who complain that their comments aren't instantly published. They aren't here, either).

That is an amazingly tiny number out of more than a million. Any normal person would guess that there would probably be a couple of thousand who would have been banned, at least.

Thanx for proving that WUWT is one of the most tolerant, censorship-free sites on the internet.

David Appell said...

MG: You're backpedaling.

Earlier you wrote, "And your claim that "he blocks anyone who dissents" is so provably preposterous by anyone who reads the comments, that you can be dismissed as a crank."

Shown evidence that W does, in fact, block people, you ignore that you were wrong and are now trying to minimize it.