Wayback Machine won't archive my Twitter/X Sandusky Case Update

 I have a Twitter/X blue check, so I can write posts as articles. I'm using this feature to post updates on the the Jerry Sandusky case which I've been absorbed in for what's getting to be very close to a decade now. My latest is on Sara Ganim writing for Playboy:

Sara Ganim Now Writing for Playboy

I was very critical of her, especially her Playboy author page saying that she is writing a media ethics text for the Society of Professional Journalists. When I  was going over the links, I couldn't get this author page to load. When I finally got it to load, it wouldn't save in the Wayback Machine. I finally did get it to save. Ganim had written two articles and the byline on one was not a link. I archived it and saw that it had two earlier saves that DID have a link. Now this might not mean anything, but I wanted to archive my X article post and its thread. The Wayback Machine wouldn't let me responding with:

Sorry

We’re currently facing some limitations when it comes to archiving this site. We apologize for any inconvenience this might cause and appreciate your understanding. Please email us at "info@archive.org" if you would like to discuss this more. 

So I'm going to post some screen caps here and perhaps archive this post to the Wayback Machine.

Amazon Cracks Down on Snarky Reviews

Before Jennifer Granholm was announced as Secretary of Energy, I was perusing the comments of my now banner post at my big time blog gig over at Climate Scepticism. Ron Clutz made a comment about green energy scams and I replied with a comment abut how our former Michigan governor got scammed into going on stage and awarding a $9 million tax credit to a convicted fraudster named Richard Short. I'd remembered going through her book at the library and not finding anything about it so I wanted to mention it in my comment. I went to Amazon to see if the book had the index in the Look Inside part just to sort of double check. I was surprised to see the kindle version was only $1.99 (still a couple of orders of magnitude more than its worth) so I bought it with thoughts of writing a review. BTW after her new appointment it has gone up to $9.99.

I've Accumulated Two More Prominent Twitter Blocks

I've accumulated a couple more prominent Twitter blocks. The first is Jerry Taylor. He was an environmental skeptic for the Cato Institute, who sort of switched sides after something of a falling out over advice he used (probably from Pat Michaels) in a debate with Joe Romm. He's now the president of a centrist think tank called the Niskanen Center. Here's a couple links to connect Pat Michaels and Joe Romm.

He's not terribly prominent with 9000 followers, but he does get cited a lot. He's not a 100% renewables zealot, but he does buy into a lot of the renewable hype. He's not anti-nuclear, but also not a big proponent. He does think it should play a roll and castigates anti-nukers. His tweets generally don't get a lot of responses, so I've made a lot of (mostly polite) responses to his climate and energy tweets. In his profile, he says he blocks trolls and in my profile, I refer to myself as a "Fact Mongering Nuclear Troll", along with two other pejorative descriptions.

Amazon Ups requirements for Customer Reviews

I just finished Alex Epstein's The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, and I was going to write an Amazon review. When I clicked the "write a review" button, they hit me with a red box that said I didn't meet the minimum eligibility requirements.

My first thoughts on seeing this were that I'd probably made some transgression that they were cracking down on. I spend a lot of time on Amazon reviews, reading, writing and commenting, and I do like to push the limits of what I can do. I clicked to their guidelines page and found that they've added some new requirements:

Twitter Block Update

I've been blocked by a few more people on Twitter. A couple of them appear to have done it preemptively. First, there's Katharine Hayhoe, who is getting something of a reputation as a Twitter blocker. I don't remember ever tweeting to her. And now I've found out that Twitter has a nifty advanced search. It's a little tricky to find. First you search for anything. Then hit the "Search Filters Show" button. Then hit "Advanced Search".  There's all kinds of search options. I found I made no tweets to Katharine Hayhoe, but did make some that mention her account.

The other preemptive block was anti-nuclear zealot Helen Caldicott. I made no tweets to or mentioning her. I tweet quite a bit about nuclear power, so she clearly took preemptive action.

I've got a couple blocks due to my interest in the Penn State Paterno/Sandusky case. PZ Myers blocked me for tweeting to him about it. He still lets me comment on his blog, Pharyngula, on other topics. The other block is a motor mouth named Steve Shives. I have another blog called Canman Canned Facts where I blog about the Penn State scandal. 

I just got blocked by Sarah Myhre for tweeting to her that I thought she was hysterical. I had no intention of being misogynistic, but that is the only word I could think of to describe her. She is hyper-emotional, almost beyond parody. She's apparently blocking quite a few other twitterers. Judith Curry has a new post up with some stunning quotes from Myhre. She's also tweeted about it.

PS:  Here's a link to Twitter's advance search. It even works when you're not logged in, so you can search for tweets from people who've blocked you.


List of Links:

https://twitter.com/KHayhoe

https://twitter.com/DrHCaldicott

https://twitter.com/pzmyers

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/

https://twitter.com/steve_shives

https://canmancannedfacts.blogspot.com/

https://twitter.com/SarahEMyhre

https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/12/cliff-mass-victim-of-academic-political-bullying/

https://twitter.com/curryja/status/1072959865952370692

https://twitter.com/search-advanced

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!

Never Mind -- Well Maybe Not Never

In my last post, I wrote about a comment of mine that I thought might have been spoofed. After publishing it, I've had my mind jogged by something that reminded me of a comment that I do remember making. I was commenting on this post at the blog, And Then There's Physics, where I found a comment of mine that contained only a cryptic moderation note in brackets. I could not remember making a comment there and I found seeing my avatar, name and Gravatar link to be disconcerting. I tried to think of any comment I might of made there and came up blank. I even sent a note to WordPress on one of their contact pages.

Well looking through my browsing history, I came upon a link I remembered using in a comment. I now pretty much remember the whole comment and I do think I posted it in this spot. In this comment, I berated alarmists for not debating. I included the YouTube video of Gavin Schmidt running from Roy Spencer on John Stossel's show. I also had a link to a story about the head of Leonardo DeCaprio's foundation backing out of a debate with Alex Epstien. The cryptic moderation note ([Peddling --Willard]) even makes sense. Willard is probably a moderator and is accusing me of peddling something -- links that show debate being suppressed. I will have to say that having this comment cut is worth having a Canned Comments post.

I started a WordPress forum called "Comment Spoofing" and will put a link to this post on it. If I could find the WordPress contact page I used (I can't), I'd retract the claims I made in the message I sent them.

Am I Being Spoofed at ATTP?

Yesterday, I made a couple of comments at the blog, And Then There's Physics on this post. I made two comments very close together and then left to go do something else. When I went to check for responses later, I found this comment in between the ones I had made:

It has my name, avatar and links to my Gravatar profile just like my comments do. It appears to be some kind of moderator message. I only remember making two comments, but I suppose I could have forgotten about one and Willard could be a moderator who deleted it's contents, but I'm pretty sure I only made two comments.

Well, anyway, I went to one of WordPress's contact pages and sent off the following message with "Comment Spoofing" in the "WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?" field:

I found this comment that I did not make:

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/lukewarmers-resurgent/#comment-97705

It has my name and avatar. It also links to my Gravatar profile just like my comments do.

The comment reads as follows (between the quote marks): "[Peddling. – Willard]"

It appears to show some kind of moderation message from a moderator.

Is this something that it is possible for another commenter to do or has my account been compromised?  Also I believe one of the moderators at this blog (https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/) works for WordPress. She is the proprietor of this blog:

https://rachel.blog/

I'll see what happens.

[Update: I now think I did post a comment that was clipped. See my next post.]

Satire Wants to be Free -- Parody Review Found

(click image to see full size)

           

As I noted in this post, an Amazon satirical review of Michael Mann's book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, had disappeared from Amazon. In a later post, I detailed how I found a summary of it on the Wayback Machine. Well, it took some doing, but I finally found a full copy of it here.

Amazon Customer is back to Canman

All my Amazon reviews and comments appear to have reverted back from "Amazon Customer" to "Canman", so I suspect it was just squirrels. I just remembered another incident last summer where I found my reviews were unavailable. I went running to the library to see if they were available on their computers. They weren't! I got all excited and tried to find what other reviews were available. I don't even remember whether any others were or not. A short time later all of mine were back online.

Brandon Shollenberger's suggestion that his $9.99 mp3 cd version of his 99 cent ebook was a title mix up also seems plausible and likely. I'm probably reading too much Pointman.


List of Links:

https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2017/01/08/a-message-in-two-parts-part-two/

Weirdness at Amazon

I write Amazon reviews of books on climate and comment on Amazon reviews of books on climate. In my Gravatar profile I have a link to my Amazon reviews. When I recently went to check on some of my comments, I found that my name had been changed from "Canman" to "Amazon Customer". Well, that's kind of irritating. I changed it back on my profile, but my comments were still from "Amazon Customer". They did have a little "change" button that leads back to a profile change page, but changing it for the comments in one review does not change it for comments in other reviews!

How Is Peter Gleik a Genius?

I've been blocked on Twitter from viewing Peter Gleik's tweets. Here's the tweet I retweeted and commented on:

Amazon Deletes my Comments to Shawn Otto

Checking out the new reviews to Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, I found a short review by a name I recognized. I vaguely remember listening to at least one interview of Shawn Otto by Chris Mooney on Point of Inquiry. Checking around, I find that Otto has a has a new book out called The War on Science. The review, entitled A Must Read, reads like a short blurb:

An insightful account of a major global challenge from one of the leading scientists at the center of the storm. A must read.

I saw this as a chance to give one of Mann's enablers a piece of my mind, so I fired off this fire breathing comment in the form of a letter:

[Update: (7-21-16) A comment that I made with a link to this post has been deleted.]

[Update:(10-10-16) I wrote an Amazon review that panned Otto's latest book.]

Mark Jacobson has Blocked Me on Twitter

Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor with all the 100% renewable energy studies and a reputation for blocking critics on Twitter, has finally blocked me. When I tried to follow Michael Mann, it took about a nanosecond for him to block me. But for a small fry like me to get blocked by Jacobson, I've had to work extra hard. In one tweet I called him "the über crackpot". I think this is the tweet that finally did it:

Clean Techo Chamber

An outfit called Clean Technica, which claims it "is the #1 cleantech-focused website in the US and the world according to Compete.com and Quantcast.com" has rejected a comment by me to a post about Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor with all the 100%  renewable energy studies. here's my comment:

Mark Jacobson is a crackpot! He's famous for larding the carbon footprint of nuclear power with soot from future nuclear wars. His original Scientific American study proposes hydrogen for transportation. He's now touting cryogenic airplanes. He's clueless about how impractical actually using hydrogen is. He also appears to be cherrypicking capacity numbers over generation ones. And Amory Lovins is being very disingenuous touting Germany's renewable generation. Bjorn Lomborg sucinctly [sic] demolishes their wind and solar claims:

 

Well, I called Jacobson a crackpot and accused Amory lovins of being disingenuous. Is this ample justification for canning my comment? I think I provided plenty of examples to back up my claims. There are seven comments that all pretty much fawn over Jacobson. Here's a ridiculous quote by commenter Freddy D:

Mark Jacobsen shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all the worlds primary energy needs can be met with wind, water, and solar.

Links:

http://cleantechnica.com/

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/31/mark-jacobson-transitioning-100-renewable-economy/

http://cleantechnica.com/cleantechnica/

https://disqus.com/by/disqus_rkWUn9Hxhy/

Anders Finally Cans One of My Comments

Well, I don't know if it was ANDthenthEReSphysics, but who ever the moderator was, he just wouldn't let this slip by:

I included Cwon14's quote because of how well it expresses the outrage a lot of people feel about the field. It is really unfortunate that this debate no longer appears to be available on the web. It exposes Trenberth as an example of science politization at its worst. I'm absolutely unsurprised that he signed the RICO letter. It looks like the chickens may be coming home to roost on that one.

BBD:

"The politics comes in when right wingers make politically-motivated attacks on the science because they don’t like the policy implications. "

There's some truth in that, but there is also some truth in a sort of correlary [sic]that left wingers defend "The Science" because they like the policy implications. In fact they might even make politically-motivated attacks on science that refutes some of "The Science", such as papers by "McIntyre and McKitrick" or "lewis and Curry" or blog posts that show how incompetent and ethically challenged Stefan Lewandowsky and John Cook are.

[Update:  8 hours later I see my previous 2 comments are canned. More in a later post

]

I Miss Don Monfort

The climate blogosphere is full of  interesting and quirky characters and one boisterous, prolific example  has lately gone absent. Don Monfort is  a big (6' 4"), rich (apparently from investments) Vietnam Veteran. He's been very active on the presidential discussion threads at Judith Curry's Climate Etc. touting Donald Trump. In Presidential Discussion Part 4 he got in some very heated arguments with commenter Dump Trump Now. Things got very nasty with macho challenges to meet at a prescribed place and time and legal threats. A lot of comments have been deleted. As of this writing, the Presidential Discussion threads are up to part seven and Monfort hasn't been seen since.

My Shrill, Fire Breathing Rant to Andrew Revkin is in Moderation

From this post from the NCSE blog, I found a link to an article by Andrew Revkin. It's a long, rambling account of his personal journey through the climate issue. Now Revkin is more respected than most climate  writers by climate skeptics and lukewarmers and has even angered some people on the alarmist side such as Joe Romm. Still, I see him as part of the big government, academic and press climate establishment and I think he ignores a lot of legitimate concerns. So I wrote a rather long shrill comment in order to give him a  piece of my mind. It was immediately put into moderation.

(Update: I asked Revkin if he would allow or axe my comment in a tweet and he liked the tweet, but still left my comment in moderation. I just cleaned up the typos and resubmitted my comment. I also tweeted my question again.

https://twitter.com/DombroskiMike/status/703673534577565696
)

(Further Update: Made new hashtag. #WhereIsMyCommentAndy
)

Here's my comment (as it appeared with all its typos):

Part of Disappeared Parody Review Found

In this post some time ago I lamented the disappearance of a parody Amazon review of Michael Mann's book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.

Why Is My Two Star Amazon Review Ranked Last?

When Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway's book, The Collapse of Western Civilization, came out, I immediately purchased a Kindle copy of this short inexpensive book, because I wanted to write one of the first Amazon reviews of it. My review turned out to be the sixteenth one of the current total of 288. I gave it two stars, even though I really dislike their writing, because I felt it gave a concise look at their views. It has one comment by me where I included some non-Amazon links (Amazon does not allow them in a review). There are 31 two star reviews (11% of the total). The other day I thought I'd check how I was ranking and was surprised to find that my review was ranked dead last among two star reviews!

Now since I'm very critical of these two authors, I don't expect to get a very high ratio of helpful votes. But among the two star reviews, mine was clearly the longest. How did I end up dead last? So I made a table of the two star reviews that includes rank, helpful votes, total votes, the ratio of helpful to total votes and the number of lines of text that appear on my laptop screen, excluding blank lines between paragraphs.