This is a follow-up to my wildly successful http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html. That one was to save for a grateful posterity comments that the blog author wasn't allowing past moderation; this one is for comments and tracking of Judith Curry's http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/24/are-climate-scientists-being-forced-to-toe-the-line/. And I should make it clear that, so far, my comments have appeared immeadiately there. But the problem with JC's place is the sheer volume of comments, most of which are junk; so I'll keep a few here to track the bits I care about.
Just in case, there's a webcite at: http://www.webcitation.org/6PpYIj02N.
This blog consists of comments from my real blog, http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/, which I don't want to publish there. Plus some other stuff convenient to place here. And its becoming a convenient place for me to dump my comments on other blogs so I can find them again.
William Connolley | May 24, 2014 at 6:17 pm | Reply
ReplyDeletePointman’s essay contains numerous obvious errors. I attempted to discuss them with him; if you go to his blog, you’ll find a bizarre one-sided conversation, since he suppresses all my posts. Rather than try to reconstruct what I say from his quoting of fragments, its better to read the full conversation from http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html
I admit to some surprise that you didn’t notice the obvious problems with his essay.
Victor Venema | May 24, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
ReplyDeleteIt would be hard to find a more objectionable post to promote at Climate Etc. I really wonder why prof Curry would do so.
If only already because of all the clear factual errors, some of which William mentions, which no one here has commented on.
We have:
A KKK picture
A Nazi fetish: “Berlin, April ’45, the last bullet and complete destruction.” & A trending post on “Do we call them Nazis or not?”
And a fury of further curse words.
And the titled is not only terrible, but now also turns out be rather ironic: The Age of Unenlightenment. The Pointman is destroying the Enlightenment in an error riddled post claiming others do and betrays all Enlightenment ideals by moderating a critical comment with arguments. Seeing arguments as having some importance in understanding the world was a main innovation of the Enlightenment.
(it appears I'm not the only one having comments censored at Pointman's)
ReplyDeletePointman | May 24, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
The best fun I’ve had in ages. Kicking his derriere all over the place. You be sure and visit me again real soon Willy, and I’ll do exactly the same.
What’s that thing they say about payback …
Pointman
willard (@nevaudit) | May 24, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
> What’s that thing they say about payback …
Do you promise to let my comments stand for once, Pointman?
(JC replies, which is nice, but her comments are beside the point. So far, she isn't taking this seriously: I think she's relying on the fanboyz to drown us in noise. I've seen that before, at "skeptic" blogs)
ReplyDeletecurryja | May 24, 2014 at 7:39 pm | Reply
Well, it must be a quiet week in the climate blogosophere – interesting to have William Connolley, Victor Venema, Pointman and David Appell show up here.
Apparently unlike other sites, my linking to or quoting from a post does not imply my personal endorsement of the entire post or everything that person has ever said. I highlight what I think are interesting arguments or statements that are worth discussing.
I guess it is futile to protest against being mentioned with Pointman in one sentence. Not a very polite thing to do.
Delete(DA points this out. JC still doesn't get it. I've included the two successive comments to demonstrate)
ReplyDeleteDavid Appell | May 24, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
interesting to have William Connolley, Victor Venema, Pointman and David Appell show up here.
You sound like you’d prefer applause, not a readership who can think for themselves.
curryja | May 24, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
My preference is for people who make interesting comments – topical, well-argued, logical, with evidence
kim | May 24, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
Interesting how David interpret’s Judy’s interest. Three cheers for his dumb show.
======
Pointman | May 24, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
Always a pleasure to visit and sit for a spell, Miss Judy. Sorry if I trailed in some dirt on my boots.
(there's an interesting comment by Andrew Lacis, but I've made that into a post of its own: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/25/lacis-at-currys-on-bengtsson/)
ReplyDelete(we now return you to your regular diet of knockabout fun)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley | May 25, 2014 at 5:11 am | Reply
Pointman> The best fun I’ve had in ages. Kicking his derriere all over the place.
Normally, derriere-kicking involves letting the audience see both sides of the conversation, and your comments being so much better that the audience agrees you’ve won. Having to suppress the other side is a confession that you’ve lost.
Compare and contrast your version (http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/the-age-of-unenlightenment/) with my version (http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html).
> a quiet week in the climate blogosophere
Not really; the LB fuss woke us all up though BishopHill did his best to keep things quiet (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/21/adventures-in-the-denialosphere/)
> I highlight what I think are interesting arguments
Fair enough, its your blog. But I’d also expect you to highlight obvious errors in posts you discuss. For example, Pointman said “Lennart Bengtsson… resigned from an advisory committee of the GWPF… The reason he’d been forced to resign was an intense campaign of vilification and intimidation. Former colleagues even refused to work with him and his papers in the publication process were suddenly being rejected”.
But this is clearly wrong: his paper was rejected (for not being innovative, an inconvenient fact few on the “skeptic” side can bear to see, let alone mention) *first*: the GWPF stuff came afterwards. The “vilification and intimidation” is wrong too, obvs.
Someone who, nominally, wants to encourage dialogue ought to be calling out those who make deliberately inflammatory statements designed to prevent dialogue.
freeHat | May 25, 2014 at 6:17 am |
ReplyDeleteDo you think Begntsson is lying or is being disingenuous regarding his statements in general? If so, what’s his motivation?
William Connolley | May 25, 2014 at 7:05 am | Reply
> Do you think Begntsson is lying or is being disingenuous regarding his statements in general?
I think in general "disingenuous" or perhaps "partial" are closer than lying. For example, now that we have the full reviews available (from http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times) it is clear that LB's original quotes, whilst accurate, were extremely selective, and omitted highly relevant information that would have destroyed his storyline.
For another example, he originally stated that colleagues (plural) had withdrawn from co-authorship; later, he said colleague (singular). He's never explained the disparity, or clarified which if either were correct.
> If so, what’s his motivation?
He is partial in his own cause. There's nothing strange about that. We should always be cautious about people talking of their own affairs, and should always seek the other side's view.