I Suspect Ann Reid

Well, I've been trying to figure out why I've been banned from NCSE's blog. I don't know exactly why, but I do have quite a few ideas. As to who banned me, I'm a bit more certain. I suspect it was Ann Reid, the executive director, who has recently taken over from founder, Eugenie Scott.

To recap, I've been banned from NCSE's blog and had my comments from the last three posts I commented on deleted. The next earlier  post I commented on, had some of my comments put in perpetual moderation. Comments in earlier posts appear to be intact. I posted all my deleted comments on this page.

The last post was by Ann Reid entitled What We're Reading. It was a list of seven linked articles, some about climate. I made this comment on one about Bill Nye:

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."

I'm Banned at NCSE

I've been banned at NCSE's blog.  Also, the comments from the last three post I commented on have been deleted. Fortunately they use the DISQUS commenting system, which saves and displays your pending and removed comments, so I've posted my deleted comments on this page. On the  post I commented on before these three, I had a few of my comments put in perpetual moderation. I have a post about it here. All my other comments at NCSE appear to be intact. I intend to post more commentary on all this when I get it better sorted out. 

Links:

http://ncse.com/blog

https://disqus.com/home/explore/

http://canmancannedcomments.blogspot.com/p/my.html

http://ncse.com/blog/2015/10/who-counts-as-climate-scientist-0016688

http://canmancannedcomments.blogspot.com/2015/10/ncse-blogger-puts-my-comments-into.html

NCSE Blogger Puts My Comments into Perpetual Moderation and Quotes Mao

NCSE blogger Steven Newton had this post a couple of weeks ago. It was a rather bland description of a recent study about the consensus on climate change and he included some whining about the use of the word "skeptic" to denote climate skeptics and Climategate being a fake scandal. So I made a comment that included some quotes by Willis Eschenbach from this WUWT post. It was put in moderation with the option of allowing readers to see the post anyway.

Another commenter liked my comment and suggested that it might soon disappear. I replied that I had made preparations and included a link to this blog. Newton and some of his regulars belittled my blog. I also made a response to a comment by Newton that disappeared from the thread. I asked him if he deleted it and he replied that he didn't know what happened to it. He said as a rule that he was not deleting comments. And he included this quote from Mao: "let a thousand flowers bloom". I responded by reposting my comment and hazarding a guess as to what Mao's moderation policy might be.

NCSE uses the DISQUS commenting system. When you log into your own DISCUS profile, comments that are in moderation will include a red box that says "pending". Deleted comments will have a red box that says "removed".

Parody Amazon Review of Mann's Book Disappears

With the recent vanishing of the RICO20 letter and the impending vanishing of ringleader Jagadish Shukla's IGES, I thought I'd write about another obscure disappearance -- an Amazon review of Michael Mann's book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.

It was a parody written in the style that a North Korean propagandist might use in a tribute to the late Kim Jong Il. It was fairly long (about seven or eight paragraphs) and very well done. I noticed it's absence because I had made a comment some time ago and went back looking to see if there were any newer responses.

(Update: If anyone saved a copy of this review, I would greatly appreciate it if they would post it in a comment here)

(Further Update: A small portion of this review has been found. See this post.)

Commenter Takes his Ball (Deletes his Comments) and Goes Home

I went over an old Disqus thread at this post for the NCSE's blog. It was a new blogger named Kate Heffernan introducing herself. She is interested in climate and referred to 97% consensus papers. So I fired off a comment:

"It astonished me that people were allowing ideology to cloud their judgment on anthropogenic climate change, choosing to disregard the 97% of peer-reviewed scientific articles on the causes of global warming that support the theory, instead favoring positions on climate change that suit their worldviews."

Some skeptics of climate catastrphe may be allowing their idiology to cloud their judgement. But is your side doing the same thing? Those 97% studies have been found to be of very poor quality. Check out what Jose Duarte and Tom Fuller have to say:

Blocked @billmoyers.com

I read this post by Naomi Oreskes at billmoyers.com and fired off this snarky comment:

Maybe delaying action is a good thing. Right now climate action consists of subsidizing a bunch of boondogles like shipping woodchips across the Atlantic to burn in power plants in the UK or filling the landscape with huge white elephants that give intermitent power with no credible prospects for storage. Advances in next generation nuclear plants could make them all superfluous. Lomborg has it right -- more research.

Prevent future authoritarianism? It looks to me like a ruse for loony, delusional, economics and engineering illiterate leftist to grab power.

It was put into moderation and removed. It was a bit hasty  and shrill and I could have checked the spelling a bit more. I don't like blowing a chance to be heard on a post by a major climate figure like Oreskes, so I thought I would make an apology and try again:

Chris Mooney Zaps Comments with Quotes and Links about Himself

It's probably understandable. Chris Mooney has a post up at the Post's Energy and Environment section about the just published response by Ruth Dixon and Jonathan Jones, to Steven Lewandowsky's crappy moon landing hoax paper. I tried to make the following comment:

A lot of respectable people, such as Tom Fuller, consider Lewandowsky a charlatan:

"I feel for Jose Duarte–I really do. He’s taking apart Lewandowky’s latest effort, which is not very difficult to do. Lewandowsky is not just a charlatan–he’s incompetent as well. But Duarte seems really surprised–almost shocked–at how low Lewandowsky can stoop to get his message through to the media."

 https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/the-grand-tradition-of-propaganda-in-climate-releases-to-understand-lewandowsky-you-must-travel-a-long-road/