My Deleted Comments at NCSE

Here are the posts at NCSE's blog where I had comments deleted starting with the newest. I also list their deleted comments starting with the newest


What We’re Reading  Posted on November 13, 2015  Link


Canman  Robert Dekko  2 days ago  Removed

If I don't know who Nye is talking about and it's not the five people I've mentioned, then who are these "absolutely toxic" people "we can't have", for whom "getting out of our discourse" is "part of the solution to this problem or this set of problems associated with climate change"?

Canman  Robert Dekko  2 days ago  Removed

Are there deniers? I can think of a certian Doug Cotton who spams the comment sections of various climate blogs, but no one takes him seriously and we both know that is not who Bill Nye is talking about. He most likely means "toxic" people like Bjorn Lomborg and Matt Ridley, not to mention actual climate scientists like judith Curry, John Christy, Richard lindzen and Roy Spencer.

How about suspect people on his side such as a certian whiny, litigious, self-proclaimed "nobel prize winner" who won't disclose his data, code or adverse R squared results? Does Bill Nye want to get him out of our discourse? No, he writes the forward for the latest version of his crappy book!

Canman  2 days ago  Removed

Bill Nye, the totalitarian guy, actually says:
Part of the solution to this problem or this set of problems associated with climate change is getting the deniers out of our discourse. You know, we can’t have these people – they’re absolutely toxic.

Textbooks of Doubt  Posted on November 2, 2015  Link

Canman  AnOilMan  8 days ago  Removed

I note that John Mashey is making this response to a deleted comment (not mine). I remember making a comment on one of his DeSmogBlog posts. He deleted it.

Canman  AnOilMan  8 days ago  Removed

Here's my actual comment:

IT'S BASIC ECONOMICS
“But what is exceptionally disturbing about this is that a staggering 91% of the stories that mentioned “job killers” cited no source at all, according to the new report.”
Well, that statement implies that 9% did cite a source. But why might a story, saying that regulations are jobkillers, not cite a source? It seems to me that it obviously and logically follows from basic economics. when something costs more, people buy less of it. Regulations add cost. I’m not saying all regulation is bad, just that it’s not free.
“Even though the talking point of “job killing regulations” has been thoroughly debunked and proven to be a complete myth”
Based on a report from NESCAUM? NESCAUM looks like an environmental group pushing for more air regulations, hardly an unbiased source on the issue. [emphasis mine]
 You'll note that I pointed out that not all regulation is bad. That hardly makes me a straw man, free market zealot.

Canman  AnOilMan  8 days ago  Removed

That was an interesting video.

Canman  Robert Dekko  8 days ago  Removed
Your posts aren't deleted, they're flagged.
This person deleted it from their [sic] own Disqus account, numbskull, I doubt Steve Newton and NCSE have that power....
You appear to have confused Ted Francis's deleting of his own DISQUS account with NCSE's flagging of my comments.

Canman  Robert Dekko  9 days ago  Removed

You're mistaken. My "canned comments" post is about a commenter, Ted Francis, doing the same thing as commenter, Cayce did on this post, back on this previous post:

http://ncse.com/blog/2015/05/n...

They both appear to have deleted their DISQUS accounts in order to obscure a conversation.

Canman  Robert Dekko  9 days ago  Removed

That technique has also been used on this blog by someone on your side:

http://canmancannedcomments.bl...

Canman  AnOilMan  13 days ago  Removed

I actually did read it and went through some of the links. It actually states a lot of my positions (very unusual for your side). It also does not present any rebuttals. I've noticed this type of argument before, where an opponent's arguments are stated without being refuted, sort of implying that there must be some self evident flaw in them -- the debate equivalent of bluffing.

Canman  AnOilMan  13 days ago  Removed

If the Contrarian Matrix site is yours, it's the most coherent thing of yours I've ever read.

Canman  Cueball  13 days ago  Removed

You can go to DeSmogBlog and give him more upvotes, although you might want to read his arguments before actually upvoting them.

Canman  KC Busch  14 days ago  Removed

That Cook study is shredded here:
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...
Ignore them completely – that's your safest bet right now. Most of these studies use political activists as the raters, activists who desired a specific outcome for the studies (to report the highest consensus figure possible), and who sometimes collaborated with each other in their rating decisions. All of this makes these studies completely invalid and untrustworthy (and by customary scientific standards, completely unpublishable.) I had no idea this was happening. This is garbage, and a crisis. It needs to stop, and those papers need to be retracted immediately, especially Cook, et al (2013), as we now have evidence of explicit bias and corruption on the part of the raters. (If that evidence emerged during the actual coding period, it would be fraud.)
 Canman  14 days ago  Removed
Not all scientists agree about the causes of global warming. Some scientists think that the 0.7 Celsius degree rise in global temperatures over the past 120 years may be due in part to natural variations in climate. (Prentice Hall 2008, 377)[emphasis mine] 
I'll agree that that paragraph is unclear. But then again, so are you:
What is the problem with this section of text? First, it uses phrases such as “not all scientists” and “some scientists,” which are, at the very best, unclear. How many is not all or some? 75%? 10%? While the phrasing is technically true, “not all” in this case is only 3% of scientists. The use of these quantifiers creates doubt and uncertainty.[emphasis mine]
 Do you want to state that only 3% of scientists "think that the 0.7 Celsius degree rise in global temperatures over the past 120 years may be due in part to natural variations in climate"?


In the Classroom: Elementary Lesson on Sea Level Rise  Posted on October 29, 2015  Link

Canman  Robert Dekko  15 days ago  Removed

Tom Fuller comes to a different conclusion:
So I still maintain that sea level rise this century is an eminently solvable problem, assuming it stays within the IPCC’s projected range of 26cm to 98cm.
 https://thelukewarmersway.word...

Canman  Cueball  18 days ago  Removed

I don't see anything in my comment refuted. Perhaps I should've included some sort of qualifier. I did omit the possibility of a nonlinear, accelerating melting, but at 0.01% per year, It is going to have to include a pretty substantial exponential upward elbow.

Canman  18 days ago  Removed

Excuse me for being underwhelmed! They have to have bags of ice with holes to make the water level rise? It looks to me like the main lesson is for the children to rally around the authority figure of the teacher giving the lesson.

I think Matt Ridley could give them a lesson in hard headed arithmetic:
``If the entire Greenland ice sheet melted, which is not predicted, scientists estimate that global sea levels would rise about 20 feet, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.''
Is there a single journalist out there who bothered to ask the obvious question: what percentage of its ice mass is Greenland losing each year, so how long have we got before the 20 feet engulf us all?
Not that I could see. So I looked it up.
The new study says Greenland lost 385 cubic miles between 2002 and 2009. Sounds a lot.
Greenland has 700,000 cubic miles of ice. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
So it's losing 1% per century, 0.01% per year. Funny that number never appeared in the news reports.
For Pete's sake, journalists, do your job. 
http://www.rationaloptimist.co...


Links:



No comments:

Post a Comment