the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Climate Blogger Censored by New York Times

Posted by Jeff Id on March 28, 2011

I’ve been thrown out of better.   It seems that my commentary was unwelcome at the New York Times.   Last night – at around 3 am – I left a comment in reply to Paul Krugman’s post on the bad people wanting to prosecute scientists.   Ironically, the post was centered on an issue of disclosure, privacy and indirectly free speech.  Titled – American Thought Police – in reference to the evil Republican requests for emails from some political rivals.  Where he goes wrong is to chuck in this little tidbit h/t Bishop Hill:

Back in 2009 climate skeptics got hold of more than a thousand e-mails between researchers at the Climate Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia. Nothing in the correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety; at most, we learned — I know this will shock you — that scientists are human beings, who occasionally say snide things about people they dislike.

Of course I couldn’t resist so I left a comment.   We all know that Krugman’s ilk are nothing but extremists who consider their own intellect well beyond that of mere citizens.  After all, he did receive a Nobel prize, of course so did Arafat.  Can anyone name the last time the economics prize was given to a conservative instead of yet another statist?

I do agree with much of his point, however the climategate bit was incredibly biased crap.  So I left this:

“Nothing in the correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety; “

You need to read the context of course, and of course you have already made up your mind, but BS sir.

Guess what, scientists are human and can also be pressured into making false scientific conclusions by money and fame. No, not that global warming is fake, but in the ‘hide the decline’ case the data was not good temperature data. They knew it and instead of admitting the problem, they covered up the problem through unjustifiably throwing out data which didn’t match their intended conclusions. It didn’t stop there though, then they went about replacing it with other data to make the shape they wanted. Another hockey stick temperature curve was born.

I suppose you can write what you want, I just wish people didn’t have to read the constant propaganda from a major news source.

I left it at 3 am when there were few comments on the article.  Since that time, over 500 comments were allowed, several with wild ass critiques of Krugman, never reading the emails and with little understanding.    Guess who didn’t make the cut?

It was odd that I saved the comment.  I’ve commented strongly at NYT a lot of times and never saved it.  The remarks and commentary in the thread were so left wing whacko though that I suspected they would be censor happy if someone made a strong point.  My comment was still in moderation at 5pm today with 501 comments – most afterward.  Two hours later — it’s gone.

Oddly enough, I also took a screenshot, just to make sure there was proof.  It is odd because I’ve only taken one other comment screenshot that I remember and it was after being repeatedly snipped at RC.

Left at 3am -- Note the in moderation message which lasted all day long. Only tonight did it finally disappear. Also note that there were only 27 comments at that point.

So, there you have it, another whacko, complaining about thought police/free speech and whatever else, tosses a flat lie about climategate in the mix and censors one of the people who does understand the issue.  Actually, tAV was one of only two blogs I know of which complained of the false clipping of data well before ‘hide the decline’ became famous.

What do I know though.

169 Responses to “Climate Blogger Censored by New York Times”

  1. I turns out that that does not surprise me as much as some of the places I’ve been banned. I’ve had one of the Sullivan-class (we need a new word–no class here) bloggers ban me not only from his blog, but from several others as well.

    Freedom of speech, thought, or commentary is a myth.

  2. I guess that is why the freedom of the press (which is only important if you own one) was so important, once upon a time.

  3. GaryP said

    Welcome back from your short pause in blogging. I saw one of your recent comments at WUWT and put your site back on my regular rotation. Its #3 in my climate bookmarks.

    I was very late into checking into the entire climate story, but what caught may attention immediately was the poor behavior in refusing requests for taxpayer sponsored data and methods. The censorship is just more of the same. These well proven facts of hiding information and censorship by the warmists does more to show them as frauds than than anything else.

  4. John_L said

    Welcome to krugman’s Thrown Out Club’. I quit commenting on the conscience of an idiot some time ago, but did post this bit of humor on a rather large financial blog just for the fun of it:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/when-keynesian-correlation-causation-krugmans-contrived-climate-connundrum

    Keep up the good work Jeff.

    John Lohman

  5. RB said

    Nytimes: “…a history professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison …” “..Professor Cronon, who describes himself as a political independent,..” “It was a lengthy and speculative examination of a national organization for conservative lawmakers..”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/us/politics/26professor.html?scp=3&sq=cronon&st=cse

    Jeff Id: “.. evil Republican requests for emails from some political rivals.”

    What is a political rival?

  6. TimTheToolMan said

    Take it as a compliment and as a consequence of the niche fame that you have :-)

  7. Mark T said

    You should write an actual letter (snail mail) to the editor pointing out that you, as one of principals in the Climategate affair, are probably not the best commentor to censor on a NYT blog in regards to said affair, and, not coincidentally, free speech. Certainly the fact that you have an open mic in more than one avenue to potential subscribers should be sufficient cause for concern for a company espousing free speech, and more importantly, currently experiencing a decline in readership.

    Mark

  8. Sera said

    @John_L said:

    I don’t think Tyler and the gang appreciate Krugmans lame sense of humor. I mean, Krugman’s not that stupid, right? ;)

    Glad to see you’re still in the game, Jeff.

  9. jeff Id said

    This doesn’t seem like actual blogging. It’s just venting a bit about some crazy political hacks. I get in trouble for even a few minutes of blogging by the wife.

  10. kim said

    All the News That’s Left to Print.
    =============

  11. John F. Pittman said

    Before you get in too much trouble Jeff, please remind yourself that Krugman and many other self proclaimed liberals have to be considered intellectually dishonest psuedo-liberals. If Krugman was worth his liberal salt, he would have made it a point that you could post. Nothing should irk a liberal like censorship. That is what the slavers, and statists have always used to the owrsening of the human condition. Krugman should be ashamed. Instead, like a dog returning to his vomit, he continues to swallow anti-liberty stances as though he is a moral person. This is apparently not true. He should insist that the your comment is printed. If he has no control, instead of being a oil shill, he is a psuedo lib news shill.

  12. stan said

    Jeff,

    I wrote that Earth Hour is merely emotional masturbation by the morally retarded. I think that the same could be written about most of Krugman’s columns. He is the very embodiment of Krauthammer’s observation about the difference between Republicans and Democrats (or conservatives and liberals). Republicans think Democrats are wrong and Democrats think Republicans are evil. The belief in GOP’s evil is the central, overriding theme of Krugman’s approach to everything. When that is his starting point, we shouldn’t be surprised at where his fevered imagination takes him.

  13. RB said

    Krugman, per his statements in the past, doesn’t get involved in approving/deleting blog posts. An NYT staffer does it for him, though he occasionally tells posters that abusing him is OK but they should do it in two paragraphs or less or get their own blog. The chances that he took a special interest in Jeff’s post are low.

  14. RB said

    Maybe it was the “BS” that got Jeff.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?s=delete

  15. RB said

    OK, sometimes he moderates himself too.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/blog-meta/

  16. Beth Cooper said

    John Pittman says, ‘Nothing should irk a liberal more than censorship.’ How true, but unfortunately, ‘liberal’ has come to mean ‘social’ liberal but not ‘political’ liberal to the leftist authoritarians seeking to pass muster as the voice of freedom.

  17. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID, I am sure you know that Paul Krugman is/was an economist who has long since become the partisan mouthpiece at the NYT – which probably makes him right more often when he criticizes the Repubs than when he defends the Dems. However, I would not want to respond to some throw-away line he puts out about climategate that is so general as not to have much meaning. He would rather need to be pinned downed on such topics as “hide the decline”. If he were to reply that it was a legitimate “science” trick, you would merely be reaffirming that he is a partisan – and/or perhaps ignorant of how science should operate.

  18. Responding to Krugman is like bailing water with a sieve. Literally. He has the intellect of a child. Anyone who recites the liberal mantra gets a nobel prize these days. At best one can say krugman is a economist. he is no climate scientist or political analyst.

    I applaud your tenacity, but think your effort is wasted. it is the NY Crimes after all.

  19. Pat Frank said

    Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. (bolding added)”

    Evidence appears to be that the NYT lies, too. No wonder they can’t figure out “hide the decline.”

  20. j ferguson said

    Krugman is a bit of a mystery. One would think that you could rely on an academician to have done his homework. Isn’t that how they get those gigs?

    His prize was in economics, not given by the same folks who have little idea where peace comes from, and until recently, say last 30 years, not as respected – at least with respect to those who respect such things.

    If, by chance there is anyone reading this who regularly reads the NYT editorials, do you also sense they are written by a committee of sophomores? There is a thread of innocence revealed by a worldview where solutions to really hairy problems, or even worse, solutions to things which are not problems, are so very simple.

    But krugman is a dynamite guy, nonetheless. I’m sure the sophomores think highly of him.

  21. @ J Ferguson – as an economist, I cannot speak to the mindset of the Nobel Committee, just on Krugman’s expertise in that area – which is just plain wrong (but that is normal in econmics as their are 2 mutually exclusive schools of thought in the field). but since he got one, and as you say “at least with respect to those who respect such things”, many give his voice a depth that is just not evident in either his writings, research, or findings in his chosen field. That he has decided to branch out into areas he is totally clueless on by anyone’s honest admission merely accentuates the fact that a scholar today is one who knows it all yet does not know that he knows not.

    In simple terms, he is a child. I would not even give him the benefit of calling him a sophmore.

  22. Jeremy said

    People read the NYT?

    Nobel Prizes are for fame-seekers. They say nothing about the talents of those who receive them (though perhaps they used to). In fact, they’ve been completely corrupt since at least the prize awarded for the discovery of nuclear fission (It should have gone to a woman who was never recognized).

  23. RuhRoh said

    Off topic;

    Tisdale has moved to wordpress.

    In your abundant free time, you might fix up the link.

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/argo-era-nodc-ocean-heat-content-data-0-700-meters-through-december-2010/

    Happy to see “JeffId Lite”. Cold turkey with drawl was rocky…
    The Air Vent is back to being my first-checked site.
    Geez, Nick S offered up a nail to Steve M with that ‘provenance’ question.
    Somehow I doubt he expected Steve M to fire up the steam roller…
    RR

  24. Kenneth Fritsch said

    It should be made clear that Krugman won his Nobel prize based on work that showed the benefits of free trade amongst nations. That is one area where I would probably agree with him – until such point he has to make an exception in order to hold the party line.

  25. Edward said

    Krugman, phew, no bias…… or any inference of lucid objectivity either.

  26. Pascvaks said

    “Freedom of the Press” does not mean “Freedom for You to say or write whatever You want on my press or anyone else’s”. It’s something the lawyers worked out a long time ago. What we’re dealing with here is “taste”, “integrity”, “balance”, “listening” to the public, and “expanding” your market and profit. One reason the MSM is going broke is because they like shooting themselves in the head so much. Another way to think of it, they’re bulimic -characterized by
    compulsive overeating usually followed by self-induced vomiting.

  27. Pascvaks: True enough but I will judge and evaluate you on what you include and what you deny–the latter, more than the former.

  28. Mark T said

    No kidding, Larry. To espouse a freedom then openly reject publication of ideas based solely on disagreement is hypocrisy at best. Just because you have a right to do so does not lessen that fact. That is the point most everyone in here seems to understand.

    Mark

  29. Gary said

    Can anyone name the last time the economics prize was given to a conservative instead of yet another statist?

    Milton Friedman – 1976

    FWIW – Krugman is a former advisor to ENRON. A laughable factoid on several fronts…

  30. RB said

    There was Edward Prescott in 2004, Robert Lucas in 1995.. I guess conservatives are stuck on Friedman. Krugman has been more strident over the last few years, partly also because he was highly critical of GWB during and at the peak of his Mission Accomplished swagger. And it hasn’t helped that the Chicago-School-ites like Cochrane and Fama have been looking very wrong over the last few years ..

  31. RB said

    2006- Edmund Phelps, 1999- Robert Mundell ..

  32. Mark T said

    Conservative/liberal is immaterial w.r.t. economics. It’s more about Keynesian/Chicagoan/Austrian. Many of the so-called “conservative” economists are still just Keynesians in disguise. The Austrians certainly aren’t looking too bad in recent times and Chicagoans only look bad if you don’t actually understand what precipitated recent events.

    Mark

  33. Mark T said

    He’ll, even Keynes wasn’t a Keynesian after WW2 apparently.

    Mark

  34. kuhnkat said

    RB,

    you just hit one of those leftard hot buttons for me (not saying you are a leftard). You talk about the Mission Accomplished strutting. Are you familiar with military protocols and what happens when they return from being deployed? I can’t honestly say i was until I was deployed to GTMO with the California National Guard. Upon our return to the states we were greeted with a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED party. Son of a Gun but if a US Military Unit goes somewhere and does something that isn’t shameful or in need of hiding it is SOP to BRAG ABOUT THEIR HAVING DONE A GREAT JOB!!!

    In the case of the Media’s making a big deal out of GWB’s alleged incorrect boast about Mission Accomplished in Iraq, their BIAS simply overrode the basic concept of ASKING the Navy whether it was the Personnel on the Carrier bragging to their Commander in Chief of their Mission Accomplished or the CIC bragging to the world. I think you know my take at this point.

  35. RB said

    kk,
    That’s interesting to know and Presidents kiss babies too. The point I’m trying to make however is that part of Krugman’s perception lies in his becoming more strident and relentless over the years and at times when it was not popular to be doing so.

  36. Brian H said

    Jeff;
    If you are using Firefox or a clone thereof (I use Wyzo, and it’s compatible, e.g.) install the Lazarus add-on and lengthen the “Save” period. Mine’s set at 250 days. It automatically saves comment/post entries on the fly, so if you accidentally drop/delete one, or need to go back to recover text killed by the NYT etc., it’s all there, both the URL where you had open at the time and whatever text you’d keyed in to that point.

    Its internal Search function is pretty good, so you’ll generally be able to get to the right item quickly.

    Great tool!

  37. Joshua said

    I always find it amusing when self-important people are convinced that they’ve been “censored” on blog posts for the content of their posts when many other equally divisive comments get posted. I see it all the time at a blog that I frequent. That particular blog has a very poorly designed filter than snags random posts for reasons that are hard to understand but obviously lie hidden in the screening mechanism’s algorithm. But because the blog’s writer is a lib, frequently when a righwinger’s post get snagged for no apparent reason, they whine for days about how they were “censored” for voicing disagreement with a lib, about how all libz are intolerant and unwilling to listen to dissenting viewpoints, about how such fascism is typical of libz, etc. And all the while, other equally critical posts that pass through the filter are right there in plain sight.

    Point of fact is that you don’t know why your comment didn’t appear; it could have been the “bs,” it could have been a random error, or indeed, it could have been the critical nature of your comment.

    The fact that you have definitively concluded that you were “censored” reveals a very well-developed persecution complex, no doubt nurtured by a delusional belief that all libz are either closeted or overt fascists.

    One might be tempted to conclude that such bias affects your reasoning on other domains as well.

  38. Jeff Id said

    You’re right Josh. It sat in moderation though even after comments were closed. Then another 50 comments appeared and mine was deleted.

    Work it in your head however you want.

  39. Joshua said

    Jeff, did other equally critical comments go through in the meantime? Is the conspiracy to “censor” only you, or would it apply to any other equally famous climate skeptics?

  40. Joshua said

    Why do you suppose your comment was “censored,” yet this one, among many critical of Krugman, went through?

    There is little that irks us more in these four dimensions of space and time than the smarmy, self-satisfied, superior, hyper-liberal academic, and the schools that attract and support them. A balanced discussion at, oh, say Harvard, basically consists of the opinions of two communists, two socialists and a Euro Social Democrat; to include a conservative, even a moderate one, would be tantamount to acknowledging that such twisted thinking actually exists in a reasonable world — that wouldn’t be balance, it would be ceding to a psychosis.

    Was there something your post that was so unique that made it stand out, or is it attributable the conspiracy among “warmists” (and interns at the NYTimes who slog through blog comments to weed some out) to stifle you? What are the logistics? Do they have a list of names of climate skeptics posted next to their computers? Has someone written and disseminated a program to automatically flag your comments? Does Krugman himself read all comments on his blog in hopes that he might find one of yours to “censor?”

  41. Jeff Id said

    Well Joshua, as you may be aware I’ve been rather critical ;) of the ‘hide the decline’ since well before it was released in the climategate emails. They were of course first noticed right here on this very blog and I received a number of requests for interview by NYT people at the time.

    Any time I leave a comment WRT climategate, hide the decline or whatever, it is a unique statement based on literally thousands of hours of study. Not many non-climatologists I know have put that kind of time in and even less understand the statistics used in the field. Of course if you put some crazy crap which makes no sense but happens to be critical as in your example #40, it can do little harm to the intended false message – so on it goes.

    My guess is that the moderators full well recognized who was commenting and didn’t want the informed view expressed, but again you are right, it is just a guess. Interesting though that it sat in moderation all day long, and wasn’t deleted until the second closing of comments.

  42. Joshua said

    Given that Krugman’s articles are not particularly focused on issues of climate change, it seems rather implausible to think that your comment was deleted because of its specific focus.

    You think that the moderators were focused on your comment because of the potential damage it might due to the conspiracy to dupe the American public about CO2?

    First, I think that you’re overestimating how much a moderator would think that any individual comment on a blog might do “harm to the intended message.” Somebody who’s looking at (thousands of?) comments on a blog isn’t likely to view any one comment as being earth-shattering (or climate change myth-shattering) in import.

    Second, I don’t think that they bring in a new team of moderators with expertise on any given topic coordinated to match any of the many subjects that might be related to one of Krugman’s articles on any given day. Chances are some 18 year-old intern who doesn’t care particularly about arcane debates on temperature statistics made the decision to delete your post.

    I suppose that your belief about being “censored” might theoretically be possible. My impression is that you’re leaning just a tad too heavily on the side of being persecuted.

    I will reiterate my major point: you really don’t know one way or the other, and yet you initially drew a hard conclusion without sufficient data. That doesn’t speak well to the “scientificness” of your approach – although your subsequent reassessment of your position is duly noted.

  43. Mark T said

    Uh, Jeff isn’t “self-important,” at least not in regards to Climategate. He is one of the principals. This is almost as bad as the jerks that wouldn’t allow him to post over at RC in regards to his own paper.

    People llike Joshua actually come across as if they were looking in a mirror when making such comments.

    Mark

  44. Jeff Id said

    Joshua,

    Thanks for your perspective, however my comment was disallowed. This happened despite the fact that my comment’s criticality wasn’t unique for tone as you noted.

    “I suppose that your belief about being “censored” might theoretically be possible.”

    Is it possible for a person to gain such incredible name recognition that this might be the case? Hell yes. If the guys commenting on climategate don’t recognize my email and name, they probably can’t spell climategate. When the British secret service calls your home number in the US, you tell me just how you will answer.

    The comment was considered carefully. When someone makes a subtle point beyond their control, they snip it. Real Climate does the same. Free speech right up until it hurts the goal.

  45. Jeff Id said

    Thanks Mark.

  46. RB said

    I’m inclined to go with Joshua that econ-bloggers are probably not aware of Jeff Id. Someone at Dot Earth yes, but at an econ-blog it is more likely that Jeff’s post got flagged because of the “BS” which could violate their “no obscenities” criterion.

  47. John F. Pittman said

    I have a question, does it make the condition worse if they did not consciously censor Jeff or “better”? If they cannot control their own site, does this inspire confidence?

    An organization that is in the communications business to the public is not in control of its own site that the public uses. It boggles the mind this claim.

  48. RB said

    So John, are you saying that you lost confidence in the entire NYT because of how one random blog comment got deleted? Or are you saying that it serves to “confirm” your pre-existing opinion – because there seems to be plenty of that going around here.

  49. John F. Pittman said

    I did not have confidence in them to begin with respect to freedom of speech. This is not because of this one instance. I do not like censorship, period. Your misunderstanding of my position is perhaps due to lack of familiarity. So, if you want to think my opposition is a pre-existing one, you would be correct. If you are using the word “confirm” as an indication of unreasoned bias, you are wrong.

    However, my point was to contrast the two thoughts that are contained in the two paragraphs. According to those who have researched, such as Slovic, Frischhoff et al., it is easy to lose in communicating and hard to win back.

    I would contrast your two statements 1)So John, are you saying that you lost confidence in the entire NYT because of how one random blog comment got deleted? and 2)but at an econ-blog it is more likely that Jeff’s post got flagged because of the “BS” which could violate their “no obscenities” criterion.

    I would say you are speculating. However, it is my experience and the research agrees that censorship can lose in the communications arena. From Fischhoff, actions that can create negative results, he lists dismissing peple’s questions or concerns, and refusing to release information. Censorship is veiwed by persons such as myself as both of these.

  50. Joshua said

    Interesting juxtaposition:

    Uh, Jeff isn’t “self-important,” at least not in regards to Climategate.

    </i

    and tis

    If the guys commenting on climategate don’t recognize my email and name, they probably can’t spell climategate.

    Jeff – I can spell climategate, and I’ve been following the debate fairly closely – mostly at a non-highly technical level – since the whole issue blew up. I’ve read many articles that go back and forth on the issue, from both sides, for quite a while. I don’t recall ever seeing you name until I came to your blog, and I only came to your blog because it was mentioned w.r.t. another issue entirely that was the subject of a post at Climate etc.

    People are so fixed in their camps on this issue that they lose a realistic perspective. I’d say that the probabilities of, 1) some screener at the NYT for Krugman’s blog recognizing your name and deleting your comment for that reason, and/or 2), a screener feeling that your comment would be so intolerably destructive to Krugman’s article that it needed to be deleted, are both exceedingly low.

    It reminds me of when “skeptics” make pronouncements of how devastating climategate was to public perceptions of AGW. No doubt, some polls show that general public belief in AGW has diminished since climategate (other polls do not confirm that trend), but all the polls I’ve seen that ask about specifically about climategate show that most people are not even familiar with the controversy about the emails.

  51. Joshua said

    If they cannot control their own site, does this inspire confidence?

    John.

    If the post was delete for the “bs,” then it wasn’t incompetence. If it was mistakenly deleted for another reason other than “censorship” it would suggest incompetence, but given the scale of the number of comments that get processed, it would hardly measure up to incompetence at some particualry significant level.

    I agree with the suggestion that your question reflects a confirmation bias.

    The fact that you don’t even seem to consider it a possibility that your opinion about the NT Times engaging in “censorship” might reflect bias on your part is also an indication that you’re not examining all the potential biases that might be in play.

  52. Joshua said

    When someone makes a subtle point beyond their control, they snip it

    So you think there is some tightly coordinated message “control” that extends not only from the editorial positioning at the NY Times, but down through the nuances of every decision about thousands of daily blog comments, to make sure that any “subtle point” that might be “uncontrollable” be intolerable?

    Have you considered the logistical difficulty of such a conspiratorial endeavor? What, do they interrogate all their interns to assess their precise political orientation to make sure that they match perfectly? Do they enlist the FBI to do background checks to make sure that none of the interns are a counteragent?

    I haven’t (yet) read your scientifically based analyses, but your theory about the level of “censorship” at the NY Times does suggest to me that your evaluation of probabilities might be just a tad politically influenced at times.

  53. RB said

    As far as I can see, and I don’t have the time to scroll through all 500 comments, these aren’t even people commenting on climategate, but are people drawn to the main thrust of the article – which was to do with Wisconsin and Professor Cronon. They seem far more concerned about Joseph McCarthy than Keith Briffa.

  54. Joshua said

    As far as I can see, and I don’t have the time to scroll through all 500 comment, these aren’t even people commenting on climategate, but are people drawn to the main thrust of the article.

    In contrast to John’s assertion of incompetence, your point suggests all that much more reason to be impressed with the hypervivilance of the NY Times “censorship” patrol. Since the main topic of the article wasn’t directly related to climategate, they had to be even more careful not to get caught off-guard and let some subtle message beyond their control go through. They obviously know that famous bloggers try to sneak their devastating blog comments through in the most cunning fashion.

    They must have to add personnel to blog staff in inverse proportion to how far away the post’s topic is from the climategate debate.

  55. RomanM said

    #42 Joshua:

    So you think there is some tightly coordinated message “control” that extends not only from the editorial positioning at the NY Times, but down through the nuances of every decision about thousands of daily blog comments, to make sure that any “subtle point” that might be “uncontrollable” be intolerable?

    WTF are you going on about? You are the only one here who seems to be talking about a conspiracy. “When someone makes a subtle point beyond their control, they snip it” refers to the control of the comment thread of the post in question. Your imaginary view that everyone here is running around hollering “conspiracy” is a good example of the ignorance engendered in those who like yourself automatically believe all of the misinformation which forms a major portion of the AGW believers’ credo.

    Yes, Jeff’s comment got censored. We know that because it didn’t appear. Is it reasonable that a person who is well-informed on climategate issues should know who Jeff is? Certainly. If the NYT columnist can write

    Nothing in the correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety; at most, we learned — I know this will shock you — that scientists are human beings, who occasionally say snide things about people they dislike.

    without informing himself of the background of the situation, then I would posit that he is no more credible than you are.

  56. Jeff Id said

    “I don’t recall ever seeing you name until I came to your blog”

    I suggest that you read the history a little more closely. This IS the site where the link was picked up from although I am one of a group of technical bloggers where the link was also left. We are typically not deniers and we don’t imagine the boogey man is hanging outside the window. Also, the group is typically well educated (see reader background above) and we do understand the context and meaning of ‘hide the decline’ — because many of us have read and dissected dozens of paleoclimate papers.

    WRT climategate, I’m considered the enemy because I keep pointing out their lies. Despite the fact that you were unaware of my moniker the climate world including the NYT isn’t.

    BTW, Here’s me back in 2008 when I had just started blogging and learned that Mann08 paleoclimate reconstructionchopped the data off the Briffa MXD (tree ring latewood density) series (climategate style). Same data, same problem:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/mxd-tree-removal-service-choppin-wood-off-a-hockey-stick/

  57. curious said

    Joshua –

    “..I’ve been following the debate fairly closely – mostly at a non-highly technical level..”

    This means you haven’t been following the substantive issues. Getting to grips with some of technical posts in the archives here, CA, the Blackboard etc. will give you some of the perspective and background you lack.

    As for not knowing of the AirVent, the blog where the “Climategate” emails were first posted, I’m afraid this means you haven’t been following closely even at a “non-highly technical level”.

    And for info.: are you the same Joshua posting at Judith Curry’s?

  58. Joshua said

    Roman,

    You are the only one here who seems to be talking about a conspiracy. “When someone makes a subtle point beyond their control, they snip it” refers to the control of the comment thread of the post in question.

    Well, actually, the language of Jeff’s comment refer to a general condition, not one specific to that particular comment thread. It was a reference to when “someone” makes “a” comment, beyond “their” control.

    Further, do you really think that the NY Times employed a uniquely tailored strategy to handle blog comments on that particular post because there was mention of climategate, and therefore famous bloggers such as Jeff Id might try to slip in a “subtle” comment that was “beyond their control?” Really? Because if, as you state, Jeff’s comment only refers to that one thread, such a targeted approach would have been required.

    Either way, whether it be specific to that one thread or characteristic of an overall policy, the assertion is that there is a conspiracy among NY Times employees at multiple levels of their hierarchy to “censor” comments of someone who may be well known among AGW “skeptics” but who is undoubtedly completely unknown to the vast, vast majority of the NY Times’ readers, or to “censor” any of thousands of daily blog comments which might have “subtle” implications that run counter to some unified perspective among editors, writers, and low-level employees.

    I would never broadly characterize AGW “skeptics” as being unable to apply simple logic in all circumstances. You might be inclined to think that way of people who believe that GW is likely to be A, but 1), the reality is that you have no idea what my beliefs are on that subject and thus are making accusations based on a lack of data and 2), I would suggest that such a broadstroke generalization is suggestive of a mindset highly susceptible to conspiratorial thinking.

  59. John F. Pittman said

    Joshua, my comment was about censorship and confidence, not incompetence. As RomanM pointed ut we do know it was censored. The confidence I speakof is that which Dr. Frischhoff discovered in his research, when people restrict, and censorship is a restriction, the flow of information, people begin to sidtrust those who do this.

    It is my opinion based on what I have read about new organizations, that they are familiar with Dr. Frischhoff’s and others work.

  60. RB said

    RomanM: … I would posit that he is no more credible than you are.

    Whether Krugman is credible regarding climategate is not relevant to the idea of deliberate censoring of “free speech right until it hurts a goal.”

  61. Layman Lurker said

    #55

    Nail on the head Roman. In the first breath Jeff gets the lecture that his interpretation of NYT handling of his comment is due to him being a “self important” skeptic. In the next breath we get baseless pontification about Jeff implying a grand conspiracy. Logical consistency dat.

    Whatever the explanation is for his comment not appearing in the NYT, Jeff and many others here have had plenty of experience with AGW blogs snipping reasonable, on topic, comments attempting to engage in point / counter-point discussion. It happens all the time.

  62. Joshua said

    This IS the site where the link was picked up from although I am one of a group of technical bloggers where the link was also left.

    As someone who is not technically oriented to the climate change debate, I follow it a lot but from a bit of a distance, and have been doing so for a while. I read about the email controversy pretty extensively when it first hit the news, and have been following it pretty closely since. I tend to read summarizations of the arguments as one might find in the mainstream media(and to avoid any confusion, mainstream includes Fox, rightwing blogs – including WUWT – and rightwing talk radio).

    My point is this – while I may have seen your name mentioned as a source related to the public exposure of the emails, I was not particularly interested in the source but far more interested in the content and in the active debate about the content; thus, you name was not one that I recognized even though I have, in fact, been following the debate far more closely than the vast majority of the American public.

    A distinct minority of Americans have much knowledge at all about anything more than the general outlines of the climategate situation (in fact, polls show that the vast majority are unaware of the issue entirely). I think it reasonable to speculate that even among that minority that know more than the general outlines about climategate, a rather small subset would recognize your name.

    Even further, among those who know about climategate, and who know your name, a small subset would be likely to be working at the NY Times as moderators for blog comments. Even further, among those who know about climategate, and who know your name, and who would be likely to be working at the NY Times as moderators for blog comments, would feel a need to “censor” your comment among thousands of comments, because of what you think they might perceive to be a substantial threat from its content. Even further still, among those who know about climategate, and who know your name, and would be working at the Times, and who would be inclined to feel a need to “censor” your comments, among thousands of comments, a small subset of the moderators on a blog post on a largely unrelated topic would match the descriptors I previously described.

    Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for climategate. There are many names listed there, from both sides of the debate. A search at that site turns up zero hits for your name.

    Because this blog (I am assuming) is a favored hangout for people who are (1) technically oriented regarding the debates, (2) intricately familiar with the controversy over climategate, (3) as “skeptics” are particularly inclined to be interested in your role in the controversy, I would suggest that you consider thinking outside the bubble, as it were, about the realistic implications of your assertions.

    I have not, and I have no reason to, question how well-educated you (or any of your readers) are on climategate or the work of Mann or Briffa, etc. I’m not questioning your bonafides. I am questioning your reasoning about the likelihood of your comment having been “censored,” and possible reasons why your reasoning my be biased.

  63. RomanM said

    #18 Joshua

    There is nothing in Jeff’s head post that speaks of a belief in a conspiracy. The fact that you continue to present this straw man as relevant to anything under discussion is simply nonsense.

    Well, actually, the language of Jeff’s comment refer to a general condition, not one specific to that particular comment thread. It was a reference to when “someone” makes “a” comment, beyond “their” control.

    In your mind. Where else other than on a blog does a normal person talk of controlling comments? Babbling about invented conspiracy-phobia bespeaks a lot about how you apparently view the world.

    Further, do you really think that the NY Times employed a uniquely tailored strategy to handle blog comments on that particular post because there was mention of climategate, and therefore famous bloggers such as Jeff Id might try to slip in a “subtle” comment that was “beyond their control?” Really? Because if, as you state, Jeff’s comment only refers to that one thread, such a targeted approach would have been required.

    Say what? “Uniquely tailored strategy”? “Targeted approach”? Get real! Anybody who has a blog can control what comments are allowed to appear on it. No “targeting” is involved. How they exert that control and what they choose to block or to allow through tells you volumes about the message they are trying to convey.

  64. Joshua said

    John – I read your comments about that work about confidence at Climate etc., and found it to be very interesting. I look forward to reading more about it.

    From what I’ve read so far, I disagree with your application of that work to this question of censorship at the NY Times.

  65. RB said

    “…about the message they are trying to convey.”
    It could just be that what they block violates any pre-requisites they may have set up such as “no obscenities.” It doesn’t have to be about message control. It doesn’t have to be about suppressing the inconvenient truth. In this case, for Jeff to imply that they recognized his name and that they want to suppress his informing their readers about the “truth” that would detract from a (socialist?) goal is in line with conspiracy outlooks.

  66. Joshua said

    Roman – the logistics required for what Jeff suggests happened – that his comment was deleted from comments on a post about a different topic because the moderators read his name and were afraid of the impact of his “subtle” comment in disagreement with Krguman’s characterization of climategate would necessitate a conspiracy.

    Well, either that, or it was a basically completely uncoordinated act by a particular moderator – in which case the statement of:

    When someone makes a subtle point beyond their control, they snip it.

    is highly lacking in contextualization. If Jeff had said, “It is theoretically possible that one AGW zealot that happened to be moderating comments on Krugman’s post saw my name and took the opportunity to snip out of spite” then I wouldn’t really quibble.

    I means seriously, do any of you really think that anyone, even someone who was an AGW zealot, would be as deeply concerned about one comment among many at a NY Times blog thread as you suggest?

    Really?

  67. John F. Pittman said

    You could be right with your disagreement. Though I would point out that the reaction you have seen here from the regulars supports my veiw that withholding or percieved censorship can be a negative action for credibility.

    I hope Dr. Fischhoff sends a truncated version of his work like I have here with me. I think if you were to read it as I have read it, you would see my point, and understand that I could be correct. One of the issues I pointed out at Dr. Curry’s site was that it might be that the IPCC was a victim of their own success. I would like Dr. Fischhoff’s opinion on that. It would be ironic if what made Copenhagen was not Climategate and the revealing of the emails, but “buyer fatigue”, and that the IPCC success in making it a high concern issue, were actually the seeds of the falling of credibility with the public.

  68. Joshua said

    Though I would point out that the reaction you have seen here from the regulars supports my veiw that withholding or percieved censorship can be a negative action for credibility.

    Indeed. I completely agree with that statement – as I agree with your thoughts about the IPCC being a victim of its “success.” I think I disagree, however, with your views on the complexities of how the NY Times is institutionalizing “censorship.”

  69. Joshua said

    As for not knowing of the AirVent, the blog where the “Climategate” emails were first posted, I’m afraid this means you haven’t been following closely even at a “non-highly technical level”.

    Once again, evidence of how bias affects reasoning. I have been following the debate fairly closely at a non-technical level since the controversy first started. I have read many non-technically oriented materials about the debate. For example, I started reading about Judith Curry’s comments on tribalism when they were first being published. I didn’t recognize Jeff’s name.

    Your conclusion is a counterfactual.

  70. John F. Pittman said

    Thanks Joshua. I do hope he joins us. His writing is clear and examples often noteworthy. Besides, I am curious as to whether the IPCC was a victim of its own success.

  71. Joshua said

    Anyway, I’ve made my points. I think further discussion would just amount to mental masturbation as so frequently seen in blog arguments. Besides, its a beautiful day outside after an unusual Spring cold spell in these here parts (probably a result of “global cooling”).

  72. Jeff Id said

    “I means seriously, do any of you really think that anyone, even someone who was an AGW zealot, would be as deeply concerned about one comment among many at a NY Times blog thread as you suggest? “

    It happens to me all the time and it doesn’t require a conspiracy, just a dislike for those who present the truth credibly. As I have said, you are right that we don’t ‘know’ anything for sure, but the way it was snipped has all the signs. If ‘BS’ was the problem, it wouldn’t have sat in moderation all day. IMO they thought carefully about it then snipped it.

  73. “I am curious as to whether the IPCC was a victim of its own success.”

    I do not know nor much care who the IPCC is a victim of. (Full disclosure: the “victim of its own” doublerspeak makes no sense to me in any context–it is very close to the definition of a null string.)

    I do know that the planet (and every person on it) is the victim (as well, in some cases, the cause) of its success.

  74. Mark T said

    Joshua said
    April 3, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Once again, evidence of how bias affects reasoning. I have been following the debate fairly closely at a non-technical level since the controversy first started.

    Indeed. By your own logic, you are proving your point with your own ignorance as evidence of the situtation.

    I have read many non-technically oriented materials about the debate. For example, I started reading about Judith Curry’s comments on tribalism when they were first being published.

    Well hell, that’s it then. A self-admitted expert on the field… wonder why nobody here believes anything you’re saying?

    I didn’t recognize Jeff’s name.

    Your ignorance is evidence of nothing.

    Your conclusion is a counterfactual.

    Yet yours, based on anecdote that indicates your own ignorance, are otherwise?

    I means seriously, do any of you really think that anyone, even someone who was an AGW zealot, would be as deeply concerned about one comment among many at a NY Times blog thread as you suggest?

    The frequency at which this occurs is astounding. RC won’t let anything through, as noted, even from authors of the papers they are critiquing. Krugman had already made a claim that was clearly untrue, thus it is more than simply reasonable to assume his behavior continues on into handling of comments. Perhaps if he had a reputation of being even-handed in regards to such debates, such a conclusion would not be warranted. Tis not so, however…

    Mark

  75. Mark T said

    And, for the record, The Air Vent is mentioned in the first paragraph of the history of Climategate issue on Wikipedia. The fact that you did not notice this, nor follow-up (at least through the point when you claimed you did not recognize Jeff’s name,) is indication your ignorance is due to laziness. Anybody reading the Wikipedia article would have seen the reference.

    A reasonably smart person would also have noticed that the Climategate page editors are under sanctions for failing to abide by Wikipedia rules. That is, the people that are reporting on the Climategate incident cannot even be trusted to do so without bias.

    Mark

  76. John F. Pittman said

    Larry FYI, I am one of the IPCC’s adamant critics. Look at my Yamal and climategate posts here at tAV. I want to know if IPCC was a victim of its own success, because I think it is true and said as much. I like confirmation, and don’t mind audits per se. I get audited all the time in my profession.

    It is not doublespeak. Persons such as Dr. Frischhoff have studied in particuar the aspects of credibility. I have posted on Dr. Curry’s site the typical models are “Tell Process” and the “Dialogue Process.” The IPCC used the “Tell Process” which is good for high trust but low concern environments. The IPCC, if successful, would have made, and I beleive they did, the discussion a high concern environment. In low trust/high concern environemtns the “Tell Process’ fails, you need to go to the “Dialogue Process” wher you actually listen to your critics.

    I am on record here at tAV for taking the IPCC and others to task for not engaging in dialogue. And, for those who do not understand, dialogue is a two way street of respect. Yes, under this scenario, both CA and RC would have to be respectful to each other, and talk and listen; not talk past and seize upon any error no matter how small. You can decide who is most guilty. My contention is we need to move past the guilty part to the dialogue part.

    I understand about the credibility issues. This is what Dr. Frischhoff’s work concerns. If you do not Google it, or have it on hand, I don’t think you will understand what I am proposing.

  77. Joshua said

    Mark,

    Leaving aside your calling me ignorant (multiple times), and leaving aside potential questions about your characterization of RC’s blog monitoring, you seem to be equating RC and the general level of familiarity with climategate among the blog monitors at RC, with the blog monitors at the NY Times and their familiarity with climategate. That seems like a very problematic comparison on face value.

    I’ll also note that one of Jeff’s speculations was that his post was deleted because the blog monitors at the NY Times deleted his comment because they recognized his name and/or his email address. Now, possibly his email address has some variation of Air Vent in it – but assuming that it is some variation of his name, then my point stands re: no mention of his name in the Wikipedia entry on climategate. My point is that Jeff’s sense of the general familiarity of his name among people not deeply linked into somewhat arcane details about the climategate debate is overinflated.

    Finally, I will point out that when I come across people that I consider to be “ignorant,” I don’t bother engaging in debate with them. It would be illogical to do so. Your response to someone that you called “ignorant,” (multiple times) suggest to me that you may be prone to illogical behavior at times. Just my two cents.

  78. Joshua said

    Oh, and Mark. Maybe you haven’t notice that your name appears at the top of a post when it goes up on this blog. That means that it is redundant for you to also sign your name at the end of your posts. Just another two cents.

  79. Jeff Id said

    Joshua,

    You came here claiming all kinds of odd conspiracy stuff without realizing that there is a history and the possibility that the owner of the blog on which climategate broke, might have a bit of name recognition. It is unusual that my moniker is that well known but it is also true. These are things you didn’t know, and now that you do know them, I don’t really see much difference in your view. Do you now recognize that your previous claims were based on an incorrectly assumed anonymity? I’m 99% certain they knew exactly who I was which doesn’t completely exclude the possibility that I’m wrong.

    You claim to have studied climategate from a non-technical perspective (not sure how you do that) and didn’t know tAV. Well, this is one of the two blogs I know which discussed the improper clipping of the MXD data in question well before ‘hide the decline’ became famous. Since the data IS the issue, you have now found a good spot to read. There is no shame in ignorance of the facts, only in the inability to change direction when presented with new details.

    Is it possible you still think that I am so unreasonable?

    There was a pattern to the snip and a history of me being snipped by those intentionally promoting climategate lies. Anyone who tells you nothing was wrong in those emails is either ignorant or a liar. There isn’t a lot of middle ground. It pissed me off to read that from an editorial written by a person apparently faking scientific authority.

  80. Mark T said

    Yes, Joshua studied the information on Wikipedia but didn’t actually read any of it.

    Mark

  81. “Yes, Joshua studied the information on Wikipedia but didn’t actually read any of it.”

    My irony parser just blew up. I am out of service until the repairman gets here in the morning.

  82. Regarding “victims” of “their own success” …. I did not make my point, but I don’t know how to fix it.

  83. Mark T said

    Joshua,

    I called you ignorant because you admitted you were ignorant of the facts. That’s the basic definition of ignorance. Now you are being wilfully ignorant by not understanding this point, which is idiotic. Your remaining commentary is just plain ignorant, i.e. akin to an ass.

    Mark

  84. Joshua said

    You came here claiming all kinds of odd conspiracy stuff without realizing that there is a history and the possibility that the owner of the blog on which climategate broke, might have a bit of name recognition. It is unusual that my moniker is that well known but it is also true. These are things you didn’t know, and now that you do know them, I don’t really see much difference in your view.

    I never said that you “might [not] have a bit of name recognition.” I’ve said that your sense of your name recognition is exaggerated. Interesting that you needed to completely misrepresent what I actually said.

    It is simply a fact that I have read many accounts and opinions about climategate. For example, climategate was a frequent discussion at Little Green Footballs a while back and I followed the discussion there quite closely. (I’ll go over there now and ask if anyone recognized your name and we’ll see what happens.) I’ve followed many links about climategate posted at Ace of Spades HQ. I’ve read links on climategate from HotAir, from the New York Times, from Climate etc., from Revkin, from Goddard. I checked in at Real Climate and WUWT when the debate was going strong.

    Just a few examples of the many articles I’ve read just from one source (LGF) that don’t mention your name:

    http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-02-28-what-we-have-and-havent-learned-from-climategate

    http://climatesight.org/2010/11/17/the-real-story-of-climategate/

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18474-us-climategate-scientist-all-but-cleared-of-misconduct.html

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=597ab372-802a-23ad-468b-765a651134b0&Region_id=&Issue_id=

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html?_r=2&src=mv

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/science/earth/04climate.html

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/31/climategate-investigations-round-1-cru-exonerated/

    http://thebenshi.com/2010/02/18/14-mike-mann-part-ii-interview-who-will-provide-communication-expertise-and-leadership-for-the-science-community/

    Now those are probably all links that promote a perspective on climategate that you obviously disagree with – but a number of prominent “skeptics” are mentioned in many of those articles; your name, however, ain’t one of them.

    I’m not claiming “conspiracy stuff.” I’m pointing out that the logistics behind your conclusions would require an implausible conspiracy.

    I don’t think that you are unreasonable. I think that you are making an unlikely assertion about why your post at the NY Times didn’t go through.

    I never said that I believed that there was nothing wrong with those emails.

    I didn’t say that I “studied” climategate – I said that I read quite a bit about it.

    I have no feelings of shame for not recognizing your name (being “ignorant” of your name if you prefer) prior to coming to your blog recently.

    Feel free to construct any other strawmen that you’d like to have knocked down.

  85. Joshua said

    I called you ignorant because you admitted you were ignorant of the facts.

    You called me ignorant because I didn’t recognize Jeff’s name. Given that probably more than 99% of Americans wouldn’t recognize his name, I consider myself to be in good company. Don’t get injured patting non-ignorant self on the back.

  86. Larry said

    Tedious.

  87. Joshua said

    Oh, and Mark –

    Yes, Joshua studied the information on Wikipedia but didn’t actually read any of it.

    I didn’t say that I “studied” the information on Wikipedia. I said that I went to the Wikipedia entry on climategate and searched for Jeff’s name. I got no hits.

    Maybe if you and Jeff get together you can start buying straw in bulk? It might save you a few bucks.

  88. Joshua said

    Are you fellas always this inaccurate in your comments?

  89. Joshua said

    A few more:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/20/the-global-warming-scandal-of-the-century/

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html **** note: this articles mentions Air Vent, but alas, not your name ****

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/at_least_the_climategate_scien028631.html

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html?page=1

    http://www.desmogblog.com/elizabeth-may-informed-look-east-anglia-emails

  90. RB said

    Guess it is spam filter nite ..

  91. kim said

    Say my name, say my name. Oops, that’s Steve’s joke. You won’t get it, Joshua.
    ================

  92. chuckr said

    Joshua,

    I’m going to try to explain this to you and any other Joshua’s out there. Please keep an open mind.
    I once compared Jeff and his peers to The Boys of Dog town. I’m sure he had no clue to my analogy but I’m going to have another go at it because both involve passions for me .

    1.My son is a skateboarder. He’s very good. I knew nothing of the sport prior to his involvement but when your son has a passion for something you learn. And you learn the history. The Dog town Boys revolutionized a dying sport. They invented bowl and vert skating ( See big airs 360’s, 540’s, 720’s/, Shawn White, Tony Hawk etc. ) The point is The Boys of Dog town are not that famous outside of the Boarding community but every skateboarder knows them. Every one. And they all know what they owe those boys.

    2.I’ve been following the AGW debate for about six years . It’s one of my passions. I have absorbed substantial knowledge but I still feel quite inadequate to contribute to most discussions. I have read Jeff’s Blog, CA, Lucia and Montford well before Cimategate broke. And yes I read RC. Tamino, Revkin and others also. So here’s point number two. Every one that has followed this issue as I have knows the players. The fact that you didn’t til recently should tell you something. It would be like a skateboarder not knowing about the dog town boys.

    3. To me Jeff, McIntyre, MiCintrick, Mosher,Montford, Fuller, Lucia ,Watts are my Boys of Dog town. The science as it exists today would not except for them. And the science is better now as compared to six years ago. Of course it still has along journey to achieve Shawn White status.

  93. Robert E. Phelan said

    85.Joshua said
    April 3, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    You called me ignorant because I didn’t recognize Jeff’s name. Given that probably more than 99% of Americans wouldn’t recognize his name…

    Josh, you’re not in “good company”, you’re among the 99% who have been lied to, deceived and turned into unthinking tools by your betters who tell what to think and manipulate the sources of information to keep you ignorant. Think about this: if a spam filter will filter out “BS” (or was it “B.S.”?) it will filter out “ID”…. let me ask you a question…. do you think that if the President, or an ex-president, just kinda decided, on the spur of the moment, as it were, to submit a comment in response to an NYT article that it wouldn’t be identified and flagged? The NYT knows who Jeff is and if he were to comment on a beauty pageant it would be selected for evaluation.

    I’d also have to add, that if you were unaware of who Jeff is until recently, then you don’t really know enough to be lecturing us at all.

  94. curious said

    86 – Agreed. Some trolls are worth it if it goes somewhere. Others are a waste of key strokes.

  95. John F. Pittman said

    Larry, Perhaps this will make your point and reset your irony meter.

    They were victims of their own success, but it was not a victimless crime.

  96. Jeff Id said

    Joshua – 84 ,

    In your 8 link example, you just listed 4 sites which have clipped my comments. You keep saying conspiracy, but why is it always mine? Totally clean stuff too, not abusive, no BS included.

    BTW, I can’t believe that you consider reading climatesite or DeepClimate actual research.

    Once your head is in the sand deep enough, you look silly when you pull it out.

  97. Jeff Id said

    #94 How about present tense.

    They are victims of their own success, but their actions are not victimless crimes.

    I don’t by any stretch think they are done. The structure of the organization is designed to create exaggerations. It won’t stop.

  98. Joshua said

    Chuckr:

    The Boys of Dog town are not that famous outside of the Boarding community but every skateboarder knows them.

    I never opined as to whether Jeff’s name is well-known within the “climate change debate” community. I assume it probably is. I never claimed to be part of that community. I have said that I have read a lot of material about climate change, and that prior coming to this site, I didn’t recognize Jeff’s name.

    My point is that it is highly unlikely that thousands of comments posted daily at a NY Times blog are being vetted by a “warmist” thought control army, who are sitting around waiting to prevent Jeff’s “subtle” message from reaching the public. (I’m also, in all honestly, laughing at Jeff’s notion that his “subtle” comment would be seen as having such a devastating impact, but that’s another matter).

    The fact that you are so passionate about the climate change debate is what may well be distorting your sense of how well Jeff’s name is known – even among folks who have followed the debate at a moderate level (and there is no way to know how many of the NY Times’ blog moderators have even followed the debate at a moderate level, particularly if the blog they are moderating is overwhelmingly focused on issues largely unrelated to climate change).

    And btw,fwiw – McIntyre, MiCintrick {sic}, Montford, and Watts are names that have been familiar to me for quite a while. Mosher, and Lucia are names that I became familiar with much more recently. I still don’t know who Fuller is (but I will Google the name to find out). I would suggest that those first four names are much more likely to be recognized in the public arena than those other names along with Jeff’s. I would also be willing to bet good money that the majority of the NY Times blog moderators don’t know all of those names, and that quite a few of them recognize none of those names – even if they have read a fair amount of articles on climategate.

  99. Joshua said

    I’d also have to add, that if you were unaware of who Jeff is until recently, then you don’t really know enough to be lecturing us at all.

    Robert – I’m not lecturing anyone. I’m voicing the opinion that the logistical implication of Jeff’s evaluation – that there is a 99% chance that he was censored at Krugman’s blog because his name was recognized, and there was fear that his “subtle” post would require “censorship” because his message was “beyond their control” – would necessitate an unlikely conspiracy.

    C’mon, admit it. You fellas buy your straw in bulk, don’t you?

  100. Joshua said

    BTW, I can’t believe that you consider reading climatesite or DeepClimate actual research.

    I never said that reading those sites is “actual research.” And, I never said that I did “actual research” on climategate. I said that I read material at those sites (among many other sites) about climategate, and didn’t see mention of your name.

    Another response, another coupla’ strawmen.

  101. Joshua said

    In your 8 link example, you just listed 4 sites which have clipped my comments.

    Did they mention your name? Because when I searched for your name at those articles, I didn’t get any hits.

    My point stands.

    Jeff – I get it. You are “famous” in the “climate change community.” I am not trying to detract from your pride in that fact. I’m merely pointing out that you have a distorted sense of your fame outside of that very circumscribed group.

  102. Jeff – I get it. You are “famous” in the “climate change community.” I am not trying to detract from your pride in that fact. I’m merely pointing out that you have a distorted sense of your fame outside of that very circumscribed group.

    Sadly, not really. He is grounded in reality. You however have the myopic view that the MSM has no bias and are altruistic. Both beliefs are as real as the tooth fairy. The NY Times is one of the worst in that regard. But as long as you believe them to be unbiased and altruistic, you will never see their bias and vindictiveness. It is plain to see – to those that will open their eyes.

    Now, as the others have said, you have wasted enough of my time, so I will skip over any more of your posts on the subject.

  103. Joshua said

    You however have the myopic view that the MSM has no bias and are altruistic

    Wow! Yet another strawman.

    Here’s a challenge to you fellas. Try to write a response that doesn’t contain a strawman.

    Go ahead, give it a shot.

    And Phil, I fully support your right to not read my posts. Oh, wait, you’re not reading this.

    Hilarious.

  104. kim said

    Try as he might to
    Blow this mighty trumpet ho.
    Joshua just squeaks.
    ===============

  105. Carrick said

    Kim:

    Joshua just squeaks.

    If by “squeaks” you mean tiny farts.

  106. Anonymous said

    Jeff – Either your readership has completely turned over, or I’m beginning to think that you had the wool pulled over your eyes in that reader background data. I don’t think that junior high school students can accrue the qualifications described.

    I mean seriously, fart jokes?

  107. Joshua said

    Sorry – I commented from another computer and didn’t notice that my name wasn’t affixed. #106 was mine.

  108. Jeff Id said

    “Jeff – I get it. You are “famous” in the “climate change community.” I am not trying to detract from your pride in that fact. I’m merely pointing out that you have a distorted sense of your fame outside of that very circumscribed group.”

    Nobody critiqued here was outside of the group. Krugman has a bit of history in climate science.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26krugman.html

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/452/

  109. Jeff Id said

    #106, It’s up to him, but if Carrick were to list his credentials, your eyes would probably glaze over before you got half way.

  110. RB said

    So, let’s see … Jeff is entitled to believe with 99% confidence that he was singled out because he is a famous and informed skeptic. At the same time, there are other informed commentators without Jeff’s fame going through on the blog. Krugman cannot also deny that he is aware of skeptics like Anthony Watts. With that said, Joshua, you should probably visit your comment #71.

  111. Joshua said

    RB – An extensive and critical post from someone self-identified as a climate scientist went through, but Jeff’s post was deleted because his name was recognized as being a climate change skeptic?

    Interesting logic.

  112. Joshua said

    #106, It’s up to him, but if Carrick were to list his credentials, your eyes would probably glaze over before you got half way.

    Point taken. In reality, acquiring credentials and maintaining junior high levels of maturity are not mutually exclusive. Snark rescinded.

  113. Joshua said

    Nobody critiqued here was outside of the group. Krugman has a bit of history in climate science.

    Jeff – your “censorship” theory is based in the notion that the blog moderators recognized your name, and deleted your post because of its “subtle,” yet potentially devastating effect on the ability of the “warmists” to maintain the AGW myth.

    Whether Krugman has written anything about the climate change debate is only remotely material, unless:

    (1) as a member of the AGW cabal, he instructed his minions to delete any posts written by the famous Jeff Id (even though he also told his minions to allow critical comments from self-identified climate scientists) or,

    2) he goes through all the posts himself just to double-check that no “subtle” yet potentially devastating comments from the famous Jeff Id get through (although he allows critical comments from self-identified climate scientists to go through).

    I think that either of those two possibilities are highly unlikely.

  114. Joshua said

    With that said, Joshua, you should probably visit your comment #71.

    The second good point made by my friends here at the Air Vent. And with that, I head outside.

  115. Layman Lurker said

    RB, your example is of someone making a general comment. Jeff directly challenged an incorrect assertion by Krugman. To wit:

    much of the smear has focused on just one e-mail, in which a researcher talks about using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a particular series. In context, it’s clear that he’s talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence.

    Jeff is one of only a handful of skeptical ‘experts’ on the technical matters of “Hide the Decline”.

  116. RB said

    LL,
    The climate scientist is making the claim that there is nothing alarming about the warming seen to date and there are no alarming implications. This would challenge the following assertions made by Krugman:
    Of course, it’s actually the climate deniers who have the agenda, and nobody who’s been following this discussion believed for a moment that they would accept a result confirming global warming.

    and …
    For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic.

    Maybe you think that the 500+ commenters on the thread that Jeff tried to post, would give more credence to and be influenced by Jeff’s opinions because of his name-recognition, influence and known expertise, in contrast with an anonymous climate scientist who only challenges Krugman’s assertions based on his professional opinion.

  117. RB said

    “…that the 500+ commenters on the thread”

    I guess I should have said “all the readers”, but I wonder who the heck has the time to read through so many comments anyway?

  118. Carrick said

    Joshua:

    Point taken. In reality, acquiring credentials and maintaining junior high levels of maturity are not mutually exclusive. Snark rescinded.

    Looks like we can add “hypocrite” to Joshua’s list of credentials (maturity certainly not being one of them.)

    I though it was funny, but then I find Terrance and Phillip funny too.

  119. Layman Lurker said

    RB:

    Maybe you think that the 500+ commenters on the thread that Jeff tried to post, would give more credence to and be influenced by Jeff’s opinions because of his name-recognition, influence and known expertise, in contrast with an anonymous climate scientist who only challenges Krugman’s assertions based on his professional opinion.

    I wasn’t concerned with the commenters (or readers). Only pointing out that Krugman got his facts wrong wrt “hide the decline”, and that he was being called out by an authority on the subject.

    Krugman was stating opinions in your examples (it is an op-ed after all). Had Krugman made an assertion and presented facts in support, like he did with “hide the decline”, then it would comparable.

  120. RB said

    LL,
    Krugman made statements of “fact” such as Instead, however, Professor Muller reported that his group’s preliminary results find a global warming trend “very similar to that reported by the prior groups.” There might be a subtle difference apparent to you that the blog hosts could have taken into consideration in not disseminating anything deviating from their leftist goal(s). It is of course always possible that they might be afraid that any of their skeptically-inclined audience would more readily accept something if it was seen to be coming from a well-known authority figure on the subject.

  121. Layman Lurker said

    RB, sorry if I haven’t been very clear.

    Your next example of a “fact” in #120 was not being challenged by the commenter in question so I’m not sure why you would use that example.

    I’m not sure what you are getting at with the “leftist goal” stuff. I am just trying to make a distinction between using facts to support an assertion – and stating opinion which is by definition much more subjective.

  122. RB said

    Krugman got his facts wrong wrt “hide the decline”, and that he was being called out
    BTW, this is your interpretation that Krugman didn’t post because his ego was hurt, not even Jeff’s. Its yet another possibility. Nothing is indeed 100% certain.

  123. RB said

    LL,
    Krugman stated that there was a “global warming trend” and that this had bad implications. The commenter challenged the statements that there was anything significant in the warming seen as shown by a trend, and that it had bad implications.

  124. Layman Lurker said

    BTW, this is your interpretation that Krugman didn’t post because his ego was hurt, not even Jeff’s. Its yet another possibility. Nothing is indeed 100% certain

    First off, where have I stated this? I have not ruled out any explanations to account for Jeff’s post not showing up. You attempted to equate the other commenter to Jeff. I am pointing out why this is apples and oranges.

    Your argument in #123 is not comparable. Krugman did not get his facts wrong when he spoke to Muller’s preliminary findings nor did the commenter directly call him out for that.

  125. RB said

    LL,
    I believe that the commenter challenged what the context of Krugman’s entire article where global warming was implied to be a fact, even if not stated in so many words on one line. No two things are identical, but in the context of Jeff’s charge, in summary, that the NYT deliberately suppresses free speech that hurts its leftist goals, I don’t see any difference nor evidence. You can have the last word though.

  126. Layman Lurker said

    RB, any response to #125 would be repeating myself and I’ll just refer back to #124, #121, #119, and #115.

    As always RB, it is good to chat with you.

  127. kim said

    One of the reasons this phenomenon has run under the radar for so long, by ‘phenomenon’ I mean both the exaggeration of the effect of CO2, and the deception about uncertainty, is that skeptical voices have consistently been suppressed.

    Worms turn, and nature changes. I’ve long hoped this social catastrophe would end in ridicule and not in anger, but the suppression of skepticism just keeps the pot on the boil, and the pressure relief valve jammed. If Nature doesn’t co-operate with warming, and CO2 turns out to be the weak greenhouse agent is seems to be, and we get cold, there will be Hell to pay for the herd having been so wrong-footed, and so recklessly stampeded. There’ll be a hard rain gonna fall to settle all the dust.
    =============

  128. Brian H said

    @127, Kim;
    from your KB to God’s retina. There’s an overdue lesson to be taught about running major political/economic/scientific con games.

  129. Brian H said

    And, re: payback, here’s 4U:
    The End of the Raven
    by Edgar Allen Poe’s Cat

  130. j ferguson said

    “BS” was likely the problem at NYT, although I must say that I’ve had polite comments rejected there over the years which expressed a differing conclusion based on direct, personal experience of the topic under discussion.

    I might add, “direct, personal experience” which I had that the author of the article did not.

    I always thought the Steinberg cartoon showing the US as seen by the Northeast corridor Gang especially descriptive of the New York Times and its aficionados. It’s the one where you are looking west from the Atlantic and there is a lot of New York, especially Manhattan and then a lot of San Francisco with a very narrow strip of corn between.

    I can well remember the astonishment of my newly acquired 16 year old stepson as we flew into Chicago for his first time revealed in his statement “I had no idea there was anything like this out here.”

    He’d grown up in Bangkok and Washington D.C.

    It is interesting that Krugman lacks the discipline to confine himself to subjects he actually understands. Maybe that weakness is not his alone>

  131. kim said

    I don’t understand why Andy Revkin hasn’t snapped to the ‘Biggest Story of His Life’. The Pulitzer awaits, Son, or something much better.
    ================

  132. Kan said

    The real victims of the blocked comment were the poor innocents lamenting the increasing, unseen, loss of free speech in this country.

  133. willard said

    Joshua,

    You missed this one:

    http://bigjournalism.com/pcourrielche/2010/01/12/peer-to-peer-review-part-iii-how-climategate-marks-the-maturing-of-a-new-science-movement/

    Perhaps someone should send a corrigendum there to make sure that the Air Vent and Jeff Id are both mentioned.

  134. RomanM said

    Re: willard (Apr 6 10:27),

    Did you read the link?

    Once the link was on the Air Vent, Mosher hit the ground running. He simultaneously informed Jeff Id and Lucia Liljegren of the existence of the link on the blog.

    Duh!

  135. willard said

    Big duh indeed!

    Thanks anyway for having read that link, RomanM.

    Let’s hope Joshua will do the same. If we’re to follow Jeff Id’s logic, by mentioning Id’s name, the author of that article shows that he’s able to spell Climategate.
    ;-)

  136. RomanM said

    Re: willard (Apr 7 10:39),

    Yes, at least the author of your linked article actually bothered to do some real newspaper work and learned some of the background behind the event, something that journalists such as Krugman no longer seem to think necessary when expounding on their propagandistic views.

    For the record,a little known fact is that the comment alerting the existence of the Climategate files was posted at the same time to my blog. I initially thought it was spam and deleted the comment.

  137. Jeff Id said

    #136,

    It was interesting the group of blogs chosen picked yours as well. The leakers recognized those who would understand the nuance of the issue rather than just the popularity of climate blogs. Statpad had very few posts at that time but those of us who followed the issues knew Roman well enough to know he would understand the issues.

  138. willard said

    > For the record, a little known fact is that the comment alerting the existence of the Climategate files was posted at the same time to my blog. I initially thought it was spam and deleted the comment.

    Interesting! Our Miracle Worker seemed to be acquainted with the blogs of the Climate Boys of Dog.

  139. kim said

    I noticed the remark announcing the posting at CA, didn’t understand it, but noted how cryptic it was, which is supposed to be my bailiwick. I was then offline for a week, and stunned when I came back on with what was unraveling. Or raveling. Care I why the climatologists wear their hearts on their sleeves?

    Shabbas came then and I went elsewhere for months.
    ================

  140. Eli Rabett said

    Welcome to the club

  141. kim said

    In tonight’s feature club event, a cage match, we have Moshe, ‘Float like a Butterfly, Sting like a Bee’ vs Josh the Thumper.
    ====================

  142. Mark T said

    Josh gave up. He lost once it was clear his only response was personal insult.

    Mark

  143. steven mosher said

    willard, this is all covered in the mosher timeline at CA

    read all the comments.

  144. steven mosher said

    Shaun White effin rocks.

    RE 138. Yes, the mail liberator was well aware of the Boys. It’s highly likely that
    it was a single male individual. They were clever, almost too clever for their own good
    as the first mention of the files was hidden away under a linkable name. RC.
    very clever and wry piece of humor. College prank style, especially with hosting the
    file on RC. uber funny.

    at one time we figured out the sequence of posting of the links.

    First at CA, which recieved 4 hits according to gavin (unsubstantiated)

    I believe we tracked down 3 of the 4 people who hit that link, the 4th perhaps being
    the Liberator, checking that his link worked. bender was one as I recall.

    Next the link went to WUWT. As I recall there was some delay before the Liberator
    seeded it other places. On the 19th he sent a note wondering why we were sitting on
    the story. By that time he had seeded it to a few places. Apparently CTM was the
    only one who downloaded it to inspect it (on the 17th) Pretty routine for the head mod
    at WUWT to check links before publishing, nobody wanted a link to inappropriate content
    or damaging content put up. So, it went into the sandbox for examination.

    Also as Jeff pointed out the Liberator was not up to speed on all the facts of Yamal etc.

    Finding it on Jeffs site was a relief for me in a number of ways.

    But that’s all been written up fully

  145. steven mosher said

    Re137.

    yes the link on Roman’s was very interesting. To understand the mails you had to be an avid reader of CA. there were a couple other blogs as well, less CA centric

    As we know CRU folks are avid readers of CA.

  146. steven mosher said

    easy thing to test. Joshua try to post jeff’s comment using your name and IP

  147. Joshua said

    I already thought of that, Steven – and I imagine that the idea occurred to a few of Jeff’s buds. Only thing is it wouldn’t really prove anything. There might have been any number of random reasons why Jeff’s post didn’t go through besides the “bs” component. Fact is, there’s no way to know. What I do know is that his conspiracy theory is far-fetched.

  148. Joshua said

    Willard – apparently you misread what I wrote. I didn’t say that there weren’t any articles that mentioned Jeff’s name; I said that I read quite a few and didn’t recognize his name, and I provided quite a few of those that I read.

    I also said that his sense of his own fame, outside of a very specific circle, is inflated. My guess is that if we polled the blog moderators over at the NY Times, only a tiny percentage of them would have any idea who Jeff is.

  149. Joshua said

    Mark – Didn’t give up, just took a break.

    I don’t believe I insulted anyone in any of my posts. I did, however, point out numerous strawmen, a string of inaccurate statements, and dubious logic. Apparently that earned me insults in return.

  150. Joshua said

    Uh, I take that back. I guess I did sling a couple of insults. Guess I deserved to be treated in kind.

  151. Mark T said

    I did not insult you, though you did insult me. Your own logic is rather questionable. I certainly did not make any straw arguments, either, in spite of your earlier claim. I suggest you look up that term over at fallacy files, too. You can find the definition of humor, particularly as it pertains to sarcasm, in any dictionary. I also suggest you look up what ignorance actually means then square that definition with your admission that you did not know who Jeff was. Really, if you want to claim that you did not know some fact as supporting evidence, albeit anecdotal (look that up, too,) you can’t gripe when people point out that you are ignorant of the facts. It makes you look petty and whiny.

    Perhaps if we redefine our language to suit your apparent level of understanding, your version of “logic” may hold up as well.

    Mark

  152. Joshua said

    That’s funny, Mark.

    I never said that you insulted me or made straw man arguments. So in response to a comment where I did neither, you managed to create numerous straw men, insinuate that I have no sense of humor, don’t understand humor, don’t understand sarcasm, don’t know what anecdotal means (well, that or albeit), etc.

    Yes, Mark, I was “ignorant” as to Jeff’s identity. You don’t know my phone number, so you are “ignorant” also.

    Brilliant point.

    And while you used a rather weaselly way of going about it, you also managed to call me petty and whiny.

    Absolutely fantastic post. And I really do have a good sense of humor. In fact, I first read your post a couple of minutes ago and I’m still laughing.

  153. Joshua said

    Oh, and Mark. You might have noticed that when you write a post, your name appears at the top automatically.

    It really isn’t necessary for you to write your name at the bottom also. Just thought I’d point that out.

  154. RomanM said

    Re: Joshua (Apr 14 19:13),

    And while you used a rather weaselly way of going about it, you also managed to call me petty and whiny.

    Looking at your comment #153, I would say that he seems to have been “right on the mark”, so to speak. ;)

  155. willard said

    Joshua,

    I believe I understand what you’re saying.

    My last sentence was not directed at what you said.

  156. Jeff Id said

    The thing that Joshua does is energetically engage those who have taken the time to educate themselves of the issues being discussed. I wonder if he has yet taken the time to actually read any of the background material which is so regularly critiqued here.

    There is a reason that the climategate leak appeared at Roman’s blog, and there is a reason that his opinions on the issues should matter. It would literally take 20 minutes to find out just whom he was writing to and what the real issues are. He should be carefully intimidated, instead we are presented by Joshua with a list of blogs and news sites with precisely zero understanding or technical knowledge of anything related to climate papers (and literally several from a high school girl).

    Just what is the point of discussion with someone who has no basics? Joshua, you don’t have the basics. Not one damned thing. Steve McIntyre has listed them very very clearly to properly workable thinkers. His latest posts have been brilliant to an extreme. Read, learn, then write. Like many of our youth, you have things out of order.

  157. Joshua said

    So Jeff, a request.

    Have you tried yet to write one of your “subtle” but devastating posts that will bring the entire AGW myth crashing to earth without the “bs” and posting it to another NYTimes blog – using your name – to see if you can get through that massive conspiracy to silence you?

    Maybe you could try on one of Rivkin’s articles? Maybe you could slip one through on one of Krugman’s posts on a different topic? Could it even be possible that you could write a “subtle” yet devastating post on an economics topic as you can with the topic of climate change?

    I know it’s a lot to ask, Jeff, but I beg of you to give it a shot. Think of the children, Jeff.

    I beseech you to endure as much as you can to protect society from these evil conspiracies.

    You can bring them down with your “subtle” posts, Jeff.

    And even though they will do their utmost to silence you, on the off chance that that might slip up just once, it’s worth giving it a shot. You could put an end to all their scheming.

    Think of the children, Jeff!!1!!!!1!!!!

  158. RomanM said

    Re: Joshua (Apr 14 23:29),

    Grow up.

  159. Jeff Id said

    Joshua,

    I wonder just where I have stated that AGW is a myth?

    Perhaps you missed that subtlety?

    Go educate yourself and then write. Like so many of our youth, you have reversed education and espousal.

  160. kim said

    Joshua, the Old Gray Lady lives by the motto: All the News that’s Left to Print. The joke about Murdoch is that he discovered a niche market for Fox News, half of America.

    There is a culture war going on in America. The irony is that half of the warriors are ‘reality based’.
    ===============

  161. Joshua said

    “Grow up.”

    It is my aspiration to grow up enough to start making fart jokes, Roman.

  162. Layman Lurker said

    What was it in Jeff’s innocuous comment in #156 that drew out such thin skinned petulance in #157?

    You have obviously convinced yourself that Jeff is: a) trying to “devastate agw”; and b) feels there is a “consipiracy to silence” – but you certainly haven’t shown anything convincing to persuade anyone else reading this thread.

    Your suggestion that the censorship scenario for Jeff’s comment can only be explained by a conspiracy on the part of Krugman and all NYT moderators doesn’t hold up as Roman pointed out to you. Nor does the existence of opionions from other skeptics in the thread rule out possible censorship of Jeff’s comment. As I explained to RB, Jeff pointed out that Krugman got his *facts* wrong wrt “hide the decline”. Difference of opinion is one thing, getting facts wrong is another. Does this mean Jeff’s comment must have been censored? Obviously not.

    Jeff obviously reacted with some cynicism to the deletion of his comment and has admitted as much. Maybe that reaction is hard for you to understand, but for those of us who have had many polite, on topic, comments snipped (at various agw blogs) attempting to challenge facts or conclusions, cynicism makes perfect sense.

  163. kim said

    Primum fart jokes, next
    Fooling oneself so badly.
    Were I to joke. Moi?
    ==========

  164. willard said

    > I [Jeff Id] wonder just where I [Jeff Id] have stated that AGW is a myth?

    It seems Jeff Id stated 10 myths about AGW there:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/ten-global-warming-myths/

    Ten myths about AGW does not imply that AGW is a myth, of course.

    A very important subtlety, one that justifies bullying.

  165. ..Whoever is compiling a list of what journalists really believe when they put forth certain vague but commonly used phrases e.g. using some people believe instead of truthfully saying in my opinion should consider adding the following small but vocal group really means a tiny bunch of people I agree with….Thats my assessment as I look at two uses of the term this past weekend each referring to pathetically small gatherings of people using tax-filing weekend as a excuse to protest corporate tax loopholes….The first comes to us via David Roeder of HT via where the papers headline writers cooked up something that would give those who didnt read the underlying report the impression that the citys Tea Party Tax Day protest was small . You said they might lead us to third world -…Its impressive that Feller even knew that Obama as reported by AFP of creating a fiscal plan that would in Obamas words turn the U.S. a nation of potholes and our airports would be worse than places that we thought — that we used to call the Third World but who are now investing in infrastructure….Thats because as seen on Obama third world entered without quotes there is no current story at the APs home site .

  166. I thought it was just my comments that the NYT’s censored for partisan reasons. Recent post. lightfootletters.typepad.com/blog with like examples.

    Lightfoot Letters

  167. steven mosher said

    Willard, you have a weird notion of bullying. Jeff, as we all know, accepts the main tents of AGW. Increased GHGs cause warming all other things being equal.
    That science, however, has been perverted to include beliefs that are not science. Pointing out the areas where there is disagreement within climate science is not as you note
    the same as calling AGW a myth.

    Joshua tried to frame Jeff. Jeff objects to the framing. That is not bullying. that is setting the record straight.

    A bully would say you are sissy for making this mistake

  168. willard said

    > A bully would say you are sissy for making this mistake

    Yes, and he would also say:

    > Go educate yourself and then write. Like so many of our youth, you have reversed education and espousal.

    Or:

    > Grow up.

    Or, in another avenue:

    > Idjit.

  169. Jeff Id said

    Willard,

    You are not skilled enough to call anyone here an idiot. Your points were incorrect and addressed. I’m sorry that you don’t like the truth but that is the way things work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers

%d bloggers like this: