Anthony Watts practising censorship

[Climate Realist]

Ever since I posted some comments about the Sky Dragon slayers a few weeks ago, WUWT is refusing to post my comments.

Let's see if they post this"-

"John of Kent says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 28, 2012 at 8:05 am

That will be a puff of imaginary “greenhouse gas” from the Sky Dragon.

They have global warming on Mars too, you know…."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/28/my.../#comments

I also included a link to the Dragon slayers blog. Will it post or is Watts paid to suppress the revelation that the greenhouse theory has been finally disproved???

[Derek]

WUWT effectively banned me a couple of years back, before I was associated with the Slayers.
But, being associated with the Slayers, or merely supporting their position / questions / science is, it would seem, a virtual guarantee now not to be allowed to post at WUWT.

In my case, I got the distinct impression that, it is not liked if people ask him why he no longer questions MLO.
Which he used to do with great effect, possibly too great an effect.
He caught MLO altering the data on several occasions, to name just one highly successful line of questioning he initiated in regard of MLO
I wonder how his websites weather instrument sales are going.....

BTW - I am seemingly getting the same at Jo Nova's too. I recently posted a reply to a Blouis79 comment there that Jo later said in a private email to me was not in the spam filter.
She suggested that one of the mods may have deleted it as it had not appeared on the thread....

[Climate Realist]

MLO????

[Derek]

MLO = Mauna Loa Observatory.

[Derek]

BTW - My inbox has gone very quiet too, just after I was advised to get a personnal life........

You know, I think I am sleeping better..

[Climate Realist]

Thanks! I didn't know what MLO stood for!

As I understand, on the question of CO2:-

1) Some scientists, such as polish Zbigniue Jarowovski have found that CO2 was higher in the past than ice core records show, so that modern CO2 levels may not be anything unusual.

2) MLO is built on a volcano that emits CO2, so can we trust the figures from there?

3) The CO2 gain in the atmosphere may not be due to humans at all, but may be natural.

[Climate Realist]

See this on Climate Realists, Watts has at last acknowledged Climate Realists blog but has categorised it as " "Transcendent Rant" blog site with "way out there theory!""

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=...mments_top

Sorry Anthony Watts, the only "way out theory" is the one where a colder atmosphere can heat the warmer ground via some magic so- called "Greenhouse gasses".

WUWT indeed!

[Derek]

re MLO, you may find this old thread from the old forum useful.

"We" do NOT measure CO2 - resurrected thread.

[Sunsettommy]

(04-06-2012 07:47 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  See this on Climate Realists, Watts has at last acknowledged Climate Realists blog but has categorised it as " "Transcendent Rant" blog site with "way out there theory!""

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=...mments_top

Sorry Anthony Watts, the only "way out theory" is the one where a colder atmosphere can heat the warmer ground via some magic so- called "Greenhouse gasses".

WUWT indeed!

I find that list deplorable.

He seems to be losing his tolerance over time as he gets more harsh on people for wanting to discuss "fringe" science.

Tallbloke allows "fringe" ideas to get posted at his blog even though he has stated several times that he does not agree with some or all of it.He wants to discuss it because it is interesting and is making it clear that he will block nasty comments against guest authors or the "fringe" ideas being talked about.

If "fringe" ideas are indeed crap it will not get anywhere but if it is legitimate it will shed the "fringe" label and gain supporters.Anthony Watts seems afraid of that possibility thus he is targeting and squelching discussion of "fringe" ideas on his blog site.

I think he is wrong in doing this.

[Sunsettommy]

(03-28-2012 08:12 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  Ever since I posted some comments about the Sky Dragon slayers a few weeks ago, WUWT is refusing to post my comments.

Let's see if they post this"-

"John of Kent says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 28, 2012 at 8:05 am

That will be a puff of imaginary “greenhouse gas” from the Sky Dragon.

They have global warming on Mars too, you know…."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/28/my.../#comments

I also included a link to the Dragon slayers blog. Will it post or is Watts paid to suppress the revelation that the greenhouse theory has been finally disproved???

It was approved later.

[Sunsettommy]

(04-06-2012 12:59 PM)Derek Wrote:  re MLO, you may find this old thread from the old forum useful.

"We" do NOT measure CO2 - resurrected thread.

I am still sore about my blunder at the old forum.I regret losing a lot of postings that are relevant today.You could say that I accidentally censored the entire forum.



I am also still unhappy with Steve for not doing the back ups the entire 9 months of the forum running on phpBB3 based forum software.He as the owner should have been doing that and could have easily set up to do it automatically.

He failed to back up the original forum too and it was hacked and destroyed.He had to start all over again.This current forum is the THIRD time around as GWS forum.

I think Steve lied to me when he claims that Siteground server host refused to provide a back up after I made that deletion blunder.It COULD have been restored easily.

If so we would have the largest climate forum on the net and I would have over 6,500 postings.But alas.

[Derek]

For the record as such, I am not sore about the loss of the old forum.
It was a genuine mistake, and unintentional accident, that is all.
There is no blame to apportion anywhere.
Yes, we lost some stuff, and some of it was very good, but such is life.
I think generally and overall the forum has moved on to bigger and better things.

No point in crying over spilt milk, for want of a better phrase.

So few posters in the forum though, apart from a regular few, that perplexes me.
Maybe people are just sick and tired and simply want one answer to sort the confusion in and over climate science out with.
But that ain't science is it.
Add in politics, and well, most will just throw up their hands and walk away.

[Sunsettommy]

(04-15-2012 03:30 AM)Derek Wrote:  For the record as such, I am not sore about the loss of the old forum.
It was a genuine mistake, and unintentional accident, that is all.
There is no blame to apportion anywhere.
Yes, we lost some stuff, and some of it was very good, but such is life.
I think generally and overall the forum has moved on to bigger and better things.

No point in crying over spilt milk, for want of a better phrase.

So few posters in the forum though, apart from a regular few, that perplexes me.
Maybe people are just sick and tired and simply want one answer to sort the confusion in and over climate science out with.
But that ain't science is it.
Add in politics, and well, most will just throw up their hands and walk away.

I appreciate your reply but it still bugs me from time to time because we had people like Ferdinand Engelbeen and Tony Brown posting there and they were very useful as well as It's cold in here postings about the solar influence.But I am not that upset.

With mybb it is hard to delete everything in one move in the ACP but easy in phpBB3 acp.

I have been getting a number of legitimate new members in the last two years who join and get approved and NEVER come back once afterwards.

Why do they bother joining if they did not intend to do anything?

I have already deleted around 50 members in the past for being completely absent of at least 6 months but always those who never post gets the deletion.It looks like another mass deletion is upcoming because it is a potential security hole when they are completely dormant.That is why I periodically delete them in the first place.

[Questioning_Climate]

Ice cores are unable to record absolute values of constituents of air. All gases and isotopes are fractionated during and after capture in the ice. The snow/firn basically act as a graduated molecular filter with numerous well known processes occurring. Also, there appears to be mounting evidence in the literature that those people involved know this to be the case but have to decided not to declare it in open, but to hide it in what might be described as a more subtle "hide-the-decline".

Could it be they are doing this to cover themselves, in as much as they can claim later that they reported it? Could it be that this technique will back-fire because it means they obtained funding knowing that the main thrust of their work was not as claimed?

I also get the impression that WUWT is selective in its output. Is that unusual? Unfortunately it is all too common in this debate.

[tallbloke]

Hi All,

A couple of useful links here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/2...11-poland/

Anthony is pragmatic, and is overly protective of a couple of regulars who deserve the criticism they should be paying attention to rather than deleting.

We still owe him a lot though, so I forgive him the idiosyncracies.

Cheers

Rog

[Derek]

A "soft landing"....
Perhaps, but I doubt it.

In his debt, and held in great regard in some resects yes, most definately, GMT / temp stations, climategate, etc,
but ice cores, MLO, etc, hmmm, the "evidence" is still not in fully, or rather undeniably in the open yet, if it ever will be.

I remain none committal, with some major reservations, untill the full weight of the evidence both ways is more openly known.
Certainly, he is NOT squeaky clean, nor is he unbiased.
I have met / talked to at least one of his "moderators", conceited, condesending, blinkered, little know it all he was / is.
I only just managed not to thump him, we were in the middle of a field with no witnesses, but I did restrain myself.
In some ways I now wish I had not.

[Richard111]

(04-22-2012 02:31 PM)Questioning_Climate Wrote:  . . . . . is selective in its output. Is that unusual? Unfortunately it is all too common in this debate.

Hear, hear! Absolutely! ! !
My impression is that ALL AGW support agencies are selecting their results (read fudging) to underwrite 'climate change' as a direct result of increasing CO2 levels. The field is now so wide and the arguments so diverse that when you pick on any one subject you are directed to another and so on that you can never reach a satisfactory conclusion. Lord Monckton has a nice line in latin phrases that express this planned and directed obfuscation.

Effectively there are now many and diverse champions each tilting at their own windmill. Each champion has their own band of loyal supporters. The final result is that the sceptic field is now so fragmented that they are unable to influence the dabate to any great extent.

[Derek]

Great comment Richard111.
re consensus, as Dr. Richard S Courtney said some years back now, there is not a single global climate metric that is reliable.

re skeptics - divide and conquer, yes, but also if you accept GH then you are arguing from a false basis. No wonder the skeptics can "only" disprove the global metrics, they are not questioning the principles of GH / AGW, and they are shooting the messenger that there is no GH effect in the first place.
No wonder then that they are fragmented. When will so many realise the thing to unite skeptics of AGW is that there is no GH effect.
Egos, reputations, that is a major issue, if not THE issue that is hindering the skeptics of AGW progress.
Hence I posted "Do not shoot the messenger" yesterday.

[Richard111]

Here is a prime example how fractured the AGW debate has become.

Biodiversity Bombshell: Polar Bears And Penguins Prospering, But Pity Those Paramecium!

[JohnWho]

(04-22-2012 05:16 PM)tallbloke Wrote:  We still owe him a lot though, so I forgive him the idiosyncracies.

There isn't a blogger on the Net who enjoys only praise - there are detractors against any opinion. Overall, I agree that WUWT has done quite a lot for the, uh, "anti-cause".



Regarding the "global warming" discussions, there are really only two sides: either anthropogenic CO2 emisssions are, or will, cause atmospheric warming that will be catastrophic or they will not. What virtually all the non-CAGW by CO2 various discussions show is the uncertainty and weakness of the CAGW position.