Canman Canned Comments: Willard Cuts Me Off at And Then There's Physics

[Update: Willard won't let me link to this post. BUILD A GATE!]
[Update: Just in case it's not clear, my first two comments were not deleted. My other comment would better be described as "snipped" rather than "not posted", so I FIFY.]

Anders's gatekeeper, Willard, has cut off a subtopic that I brought up in a post about consensus. He also says his next post will be on this very topic, which is CAGW. I'm looking forward to it.

This is the comment I posted:

The big, obvious, elephantine, taboo question, whenever someone is talking about “climate” and “consensus”, is:

Is this a consensus about whether AGW is happening (real or whatever) or is this a consensus about whether it is dangerous?

This is a very important distinction, and everything I ever read from konsensus types is always a big load of BS, blather meant to avoid, conflate or confuse this distinction!

Willard responded

> The big, obvious, elephantine, taboo question […]

Ze question to inject the “but CAGW” meme.

Well played, Canman!

I added another comment:

And what exactly is wrong with the “but CAGW” meme? I’m feeling too lazy to read any of the links in this post, or even this entire post. But if we were in a bar, I’d be happy to bet a brewsky that nobody here could find anything that would clarify this distinction in any of these links.

Willard decided to cut this subtopic off.

> And what exactly is wrong with the “but CAGW” meme?

Besides your peddling and its irrelevance to AT’s post, it’s a very good question, Canman. My next post will be dedicated to it. Stay tuned.

No more “but CAGW” here, please. Meanwhile, enjoy: ...

This comment included a tweet with a picture of the famous climate summit cartoon by Joel Pett. I replied with a comment that was very understandably ~~not posted~~ snipped:

For that stupid cartoon:

What if it's a big hoax and we create a ~~better world~~ totalitarian disaster for nothing?

> ~~Energy Independence~~ Dependence on volitile[sic], Rusian[sic] suplied[sic] nateral gas to back up renewables

> ~~Preseve Rainforests~~ Slash and burn rainforests to make bio-fuels

> ~~Sustainability~~ Shortages of rare earth metals

> ~~Green Jobs~~ loss of industrial jobs due to expensive intermittent electricity

> ~~Livable Cities~~ Unlivable cities due to expensive intermittent electricity

> ~~Renewables~~ Unrenewable, toxic photovoltaic cells.

> ~~Clean Water~~, Air Toxic, radioactive lakes for neodymium mining

> ~~Healthy Children~~ Unhealthy children due to mass poverty

> etc. etc.

FIFY

The first comment thread I ever participated in was for a post about that cartoon on Pharyngula. That thread disappeared when Pharyngula moved from Science Blogs to Free Thought Blogs, but I found it on the Wayback Machine. I engaged with PZ Meyer's climate Rottweiler, who calls himself, An Array in Dilbert Space. He's a bright, articulate, profane physicist who I've sometimes seen on Rabbett Run.He's probably still around, but he seems to have sort of faded away from climate comments.

Note: I consider my typos with the added [sic]s to be part of my online persona. One of my favorite movie lines is by Ted Dansen in Body Heat. As assistant prosecutor, Peter Lowenstien, he is sitting in a diner with his friend Ned Racine, a defense attorney: