Censorship?

What is it with deniers and their insecurities? Recently I was visiting a denier den blogsite called Bishop Hill which was highlighting a recent WUWT post about homogenisation of surface temperature data. It’s the post where Anthony Watts misrepresented the status of a conference abstract and presentation as a “peer-reviewed paper” and which I commented on here.

I decided to mention Anthony Watts’ tactic in the thread and was immediately targeted with comments about this blog and not one person bothering to answer the questions I had raised. Typical. Anyway, eventually someone suggested I had not answered a question raised by one of the mob (apparently its only ok to dodge questions if you’re a denier) so I duly answered. It was in relation to the baseless fraud allegations raised by Douglas Keenan against Phil Jones and Wang. This is what I replied.

and surprise, surprise if it didn’t attract Doug Keenan himself! I am truly blessed. These people must get an alert when there name is mentioned or at least are as thick as thieves and in cahoots. So, this was Doug’s response.

I duly checked out the letter that Doug had written and it was full of the smae garbage I have already mentioned. Of course, if you want to check it out the address is there in his post. I replied…

To which he replied…

Okay, you see what happened there? the good Bishop Hill decided to step in and remove a few posts. I’ll be honest, a couple of them were off topic as one was an attack on my character from some idiot and the second was my response to said idiot. Fair enough although a little disappointing because I believe my response was rather witty. Anyway, if that was all that was removed I’d be happy. I questioned Bishop Hill…

Last time I checked this comment was still there but as yet I haven’t received a response so I am guessing I am unlikely to. I also wouldn’t be surprised if this last comment of mine disappears. So,what was the contradiction? Well, Doug Keenan is trying to appear like he isn’t the hardcore denier that he is so I found a quote of his. I had to go back through my emails for the original confirmation email from Bishop Hill with my comment. Here is the screenshot.

Apologies for the size of that. The important part is the second last paragraph. I quoted Doug…

April 5 2011 ” I believe that what is arguably the most important reason to doubt global warming can be explained in terms that most people can understand.” Doesn’t sound like someone who “accepts that his allegations do not on their own change the global picture”

I then went on to say, “So what do you believe Douglas?”

I have to wonder why this last comment was removed? I am just assuming that it is a deliberate case of censorship for the sake of protecting one of their own, which is of course is extremely dishonest. There are suggestions getting around that Anthony Watts has been engaging in a bit of censorship in regards to his own statements about his former hero now turned enemy Richard Muller. Its happened to me also at the official blogsite for the Climate Sceptics Party as I demonstrated here. So what is it? Is it paranoia? Is it an extension of being a Wig (wilfully ignorant git- I’m trying to start a meme)? Whatever it is, it’s juvenile and sad. To look at the whole exchange….while its still there…go here. If I ever get a response, I’ll post it.

 

27 Comments

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

27 responses to “Censorship?

  1. Monford (the Bishop from the hill) is well known in the UK. He did write an awful book, ‘The Hockey Illusion’ and was really disgruntled that Prof. Mann didn’t merit it a mention in his own ‘‘The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars’.

    He even did his own Climategate report which I ended up looking at in one of my own blogs;
    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/monfords-minnions-and-white-wash.html

    • Hi Lazarus

      Thanks for the comment. It’s good to see I’m not the only one to experience “the hornet effect” over there. Actually that might be a good topic to write about on its own. It happens to me all the time. I like your blogs by the way. Really Sciency is right up my alley so it’s now in my blogroll. Cheers, Mike.

  2. Tony Duncan

    Have you looked at SUYTS blog? he was a regular on Steve Goddard, and fashions himself to be full of integrity and honesty and only looking at the science. he is an right wing socialist conspiracy extreme, but knows a lot more about the science than I do. Much of his arguments are based on assumption and ideology, but he could use someone who knows the math and science to counter his “proofs” of all the ways that climate science is wrong, fraudulent or incompetent. I would avoid his political rants as they are a waste of time, but some of his climate posts are interesting.

  3. john byatt

    Hey, I did not know that you got a mention and link here,

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/pseudoscience-thrives-in-new-political-climate-20120718-22944.html

    well done fella

    • yeah I was surprised when I saw I was getting traffic from Graham Readfern’s opinion piece in the SMH.He also published the same thing in a few other places as well.

  4. If I’m not mistaken, WUWT is funded by Heartland which, in turn, is funded by oil money. At this point, it seems to me there’s a pretty transparent attack on climate science being funded by various oil interests. They have their pet weathermen, their pet denier ‘scientists,’ and, now and then, they are able to have papers produced under university monikers in order to muddy the waters.

    IF anyone in mainstream media were to do even just a tiny bit of muck raking, they’d turn up a huge amount of evidence that various industry players have been involved in a massive misinformation campaign on the issue of climate change. It is a lot like the tobacco industry’s own public misinformation campaign of yore, with the exception being that these oil interests are much, much more powerful.

    You have my sympathies with regards to your efforts on the WUWT site. But since the site is obviously crafted to misinform, I don’t hold out too much hope that they’ll keep your comments in a very visible place. If they don’t delete them, they may just attempt to bury them by bumping them down (posting above them). I’ve received similar treatment on various sites that operate in a similar fashion to WUWT.

    • Tony Duncan

      Robert,
      I think it is a mistake to attribute the obsessive need to undemine ACC in these blogs. it is quite clear to me that the driving froce is ideology, and in many a driving need to prove that you are special and know something that the rest of society is fooled by. I constantly see perople like goddard ONLY interested in winning the argument no matter what.
      My favorite instance with Goddard was his claim that Nucelar testing killed all the coarl at Bikini Island. I questioned him about this and he got livid, Quoting to me the huge heat and temps created at a nuclear blast site. Repeatdly calling em an idiot. I rather patiently asked him to work out the dissipation of heat over 8-10 square miles to the depth of 10 meters or so, where coral can survive, and he refused to ever acknowledge that some coral might survive. It was enlightening to me because the issue was really unimportant, but he HAD to be right, and would use any maneuver he could to maek it appear that he was.
      People like Him and SUYTS and many of their folllowers have a psychological NEED to prove the powers that be wrong. This is part of the reaosn why they project this view of scientists as being habitual liars with no ethical standards and willling to do anything for grant money, etc.

      • Tony Duncan

        sorry for my spelling. He repeatedly called ME an idiot, and it was to a depth of 100 meters not 10

      • Oh, I’m certain the ideology and pride play their own part as well. It’s just that these things don’t exist in a vacuum. And I wouldn’t call climate scientists the powers that be. Certainly they do have a degree of institutional power. But the impact of that power can be watered down by the driving force of moneyed interests, as we have seen by the recent ‘climategate’ attacks on the IPCC and the proliferation of interest org funded sites like WUWT.

        And, yes, there is this whacky mindset that believes there are some driving the world toward a socialist dictatorship. But I don’t think that’s the entire picture. There’s also an underlying force among the wealthy to protect their own interests. And I don’t think you can ignore their effect on the ideology.

        I just think it’s important to separate out the ideologues from the special interest groups. The ideologues have pride, a need to be right, and an axe to grind. The special interests have a financial and political power stake in AGW denial and they are happy to fuel the ideologues to help protect their particular stakes.

        One last point and I’m done: Goddard may have been right in principal — the bomb probably killed a lot of coral. But where he went wrong was when he took an absolute view because, as you noted, he wanted to be absolutely correct. Sadly, this narcissistic tendency happens to be something both sides are afflicted with. And we would do better to show obvious trends and effects: ‘i.e. the Bomb killed most coral,’ rather than ‘the Bomb killed all coral.’

        In a corollary view, I should think we should be equally terrified if climate change had the potential to wipe out most civilizations as we should if it had the potential to wipe out all civilizations. ;)

      • Tony Duncan

        Robert,
        I think we have pretty much the same view. My point is in absolute numbers of people the key thing driving is ideology. I see over and over again bloggers and denier commenters saying. Yeah, when am I getting MY check from Exxon. They sue this as another proof of the lying nature of alarmists.And they are right. WUWT, Goddard, Jonova, Bishop Hill and a host of other blogs are not funded by the special interests you talk about, because they don’t need to be funding them. The special interests can put their money into lobbying and use their resources in other ways that are effective. Not that there is no overlap, but the argument that is special interests mostly drving this is inacurate, there is huge grassroots support for the denialist position.
        also I think yo misunderstood me. about “powers that be” I meant it as an object of the paranoia and conspiracy theories of deniers. It is a huge ego boost to feel that you are standing up to the evil masterminds who have duped the rest of the populace. You can then be a noble courageous rebel.
        As for the coral, that was what so amazed me. Instead of coming back to me and saying. “You idiot of COURSE not every single coral was killed” he had to defend his honor against someone that he has told his followers over and over again is an idiot, stooge, incapable of intelligent thought, that means he can NEVER acknowledge that I am right about anything that might contradict anything he says to the point of defending a ludicrous position that had NO bearing on the issue.
        he actually had a valid point that I agreed with. Ecologists do not always understand the recovery capabilities of organisms or ecosystems. this is a valid issue, but it is in no way proof that nothing bad will happen with signi
        ficant temperature increase

  5. john byatt

    Have sent this in, will advise if it is printed, The Gympie Times is delivered in Noosa,

    Editor,
    Dr Edward Pearson LNP Noosa, made the following statement on an Internet blog regarding his recent talk to the LNP conference, in which they backed his call to have climate change science removed from the QLD school curriculum. “A two minute argument against trillions of dollars worth of propaganda over twenty years – and the latter argument is finished off. All right. It only takes an ugly fact to disprove a beautiful theory in science, no matter how big. I did that”. Pearson.
    I have challenged Dr. Pearson to present his ugly fact in a letter to the editor of The Gympie Times, hopefully Dr Pearson will now accept that challenge. So please Dr Pearson enlighten us as you have the LNP

    • Good luck with that John. I hope it gets published but I doubt he’ll respond. he hasn’t bothered to respond to me either. He’s the type of denier who likes to spit out some element of doubt and then move on without ever having to explain himself. I reckon even deniers who see him type and say that “ugly fact” comment are probably wondering what he’s on.

      • john byatt

        Already have him figured out, bet it is ‘no warming since (insert year)”
        time will tell if he has any stomach for debate.

    • john byatt

      His name was Richard Pearson, corrected that

  6. john byatt

    Goddard, “we need more guns to kill the bad guys”

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/why-so-serious/#comments

  7. john byatt

    Beat you

    denier comment of the day,

    Vincent Gray at the climate sceptics bogsnot

    “The most recent scandal has arisen because two Greek scientists Steirou and Kotsoyannis (attached) have uncovered another error in “homogenization” which should be obvious.”

    argumentum ignoratum

  8. john byatt

    Misleading comment of the day, richard lindzen @ geoff brown TCS bog

    “Real-world observations do not support IPCC models, he said: “We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”

    Lindzen’s point is fundamentally flawed. Temperatures will respond to net forcing – not just CO2, or CO2-eq, and net forcing is around 1.7 W/m2 from the pre-industrial – that is under 50% of the forcing from 2xCO2, not 76%, nor 80% nor ‘almost’ a doubling. Claims that we should have reached equilibrium with that forcing are equally risible. Lindzen is effectively assuming zero heat capacity in the oceans and that aerosol forcing is 0 W/m2 with no uncertainty. The statements he makes on this have only rhetorical content – no science. – gavin]

    AND
    [Response: I know full well what Lindzen is trying to say (and the misleading impression he wants to leave). The fact remains that only using greenhouse gases in this context is wrong - expectations of temperature rise depend crucially on the *net forcing* (incl aerosols) and the heat capacity of the oceans. Pretending these things are zero in order to make a rhetorical point is just wrong. It's like adding up just your salary for the last year and expecting that number to be your total savings. - gavin]

  9. For Tony and Robert

    Don’t forget also the Dunning Kruger effect.

  10. john byatt

    F**KWIT comment of the day at The Gympie Times, ref Greenland surface melt,

    By TyallaC3034 from Australia, about 2 hours ago Reply | Suggest removal
    Given that Greenland is sitting on top of an unpredictable volcanic area I would be considering there is something warm coming from underneath than from above. This situation was published back in 2007 so I am wondering why everyone is so surprised at what has happened.