This one isn't spam, obviously :-). Its a comment left at http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/the-age-of-unenlightenment/ Anyone care to guess what happened to it? Oh go on, guess, it isn't hard. Just like Pointman.
You say:
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 for what was obviously non-scientific reasons. Bear in mind, he’d already had over two hundred papers published, so obviously knew what would be viable in terms of publication. Most tellingly, one of the rejected papers highlighted the glaring disparity between computer climate predictions and the real world data. What’s most disturbing about the treatment of Prof. Bengtsson, is the people acting like common or garden thugs...
But that's an awful lot to hang on very little information; a distinct lack of skepticism methinks. Its not even clear quite what you're referring to (cite your sources). I'll assume you're talking about LB's own statements. You can't possibly read "acting like common or garden thugs" from that. But nor can we take his statements entirely at face value, since he is clearly writing in his own self interest. We don't actually know what "pressure" he's come under; he won't release any of these emails. We do know that he began by saying that colleagues (plural) had withdrawn from co-authorship, and that he later changes that to the singular. So he's not quite reliable in these matters.
Also, you have your timeline wrong: the rejection of the paper came first, the fuss with the GWPF came after, so the GWPF can't have caused the rejection.
As for "were suddenly being rejected for what was obviously non-scientific reasons" - the reviews are available (unlike LB's emails) at http://ioppublishing.org/
And "so obviously knew what would be viable in terms of publication" - this appears to be a credentialism argument: his paper should have been published, because he'd had others published, That's invalid, obviously.
[We then had a bizarre one-sided exchange, in which he censored all my comments, but then, weirdly, answered them all. I've copied them into the comments here, so you can see. Even more weirdly, P then wrote <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/6Pxu2yDjS">this follow up</a>. Which was apparently sufficiently exciting to get copied onto <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/6PxtyFEor">WUWT</a>]
[We then had a bizarre one-sided exchange, in which he censored all my comments, but then, weirdly, answered them all. I've copied them into the comments here, so you can see. Even more weirdly, P then wrote <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/6Pxu2yDjS">this follow up</a>. Which was apparently sufficiently exciting to get copied onto <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/6PxtyFEor">WUWT</a>]
(And this was the reply)
ReplyDeleteIf you’ve ever worked in a bar, and I have, there’s an expression – taking out the trash. It means someone is misbehaving themselves and are basically being a pain in the butt for the regulars, so you encourage them out of the joint – feet first or head first, and you’re easy about which way it’s going to be, but it is going to happen.
After a while, you can spot the type coming through the door and sometimes you already know all about them by reputation, because the bartender’s Mafia tend to pass the word around about undesirables.
I’ve just had a comment in for moderation from a certain William Connolley, the creature infamous for over five thousand egregious edits of Wikipedia articles on climate, before he finally got banned from there. I’ve no doubt he’s snuck back in under yet another sock puppet persona, but he’s their problem and very definitely not going to be mine.
I’m aware of the school of thought that allowing the occasional troll in will pump up the number of hits but as I really don’t give a rat’s ass about hits, it’s not a consideration. I’m not allowed to comment on any warmist sites under my own name, so in the spirit of reciprocity, I fail to see why I should let them into Pointy’s Bar & Grill.
A zero tolerance policy on trolling and undesirables means exactly that, and you mate are an undesirable.
You’re barred.
Pointman
(and I left him a reply, pointing to this, and also pointing out some of his more obvious errors)
ReplyDeletehttp://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html
> I’m not allowed to comment on any warmist sites under my own name
I’m not sure if mine counts as “warminst”, but you’re certainly allowed to comment there.
> before he finally got banned from there
I’m not banned from there, and never have been. I continue to edit under my own name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley
> troll
No, that’s not the reason; the reason is you’re too soft and weak.
(I presume you won’t publish this; I will, of course).
(weirdly, that got a reply, though it will appear a very one-sided conversation to anyone not reading this)
ReplyDeletePublish away Willy, you’re yesterday’s man.
Pointman
(and so I replied)
ReplyDeleteWell, this is a strange one sided conversation. I've found some more irony, I do hope you like it. Its your:
"This imposition of uniformity and stifling of dissent"
which is exactly what you're doing.
> Their very public and violent intimidation of Bengtsson
That is topsy-turvy. The person who went public was Bengtsson. None of the "intimidation" of which you're so certain is public; it is known only to LB, who keeps the Sekrit Emails. Nor, as far as can be told, was there the least hint of violence.
> That’s to be done not by logical refutation or counter argument
Kinda like what you're doing here, by suppressing any dissent?
(and the strange one-sided-as-far-as-all-his-readers-are-concerned conversation continued)
ReplyDeleteWhat’s it feel like Willy? To be denied a right of reply? Like your Wiki victims?
Pointman
(Pointman tries changing the subject, alas to something he knows nothing about)
ReplyDelete> To be denied a right of reply?
Well, I do have right of reply, at http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html And this promises to be an interesting follow-up to http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/21/adventures-in-the-denialosphere/ – your BishopHill turns out to be not much cop either.
> Like your Wiki victims?
I’m really not sure what you mean by that. I don’t think you understand how wiki works. The most obvious interpretation of what you’ve said is nonsensical; I can’t really think of one that makes any sense. Wiki talk pages are available to everyone.
Meanwhile, I notice you’re completely unable to defend any of your words. I think you’re tacitly admitting that much of what you’ve written is wrong, indefensibly so. Doing so by suppressing polite and valid comment, whilst pretending you’re suppressing trolling, is weak.
(and on)
ReplyDeleteReading skills Willy. I didn’t say you were a troll, just an undesirable.
Pointman
(so, still no defence of his words. Though I'm obliged to admit I misread his banning reason. I'm kinda curious to see whether he'll have the strength of will to let the conversation drop; obviously, I don't)
ReplyDelete"troll" was your word, not mine. So I'm banned here for being "an undesirable". That's positively Orwellian, or perhaps Kafkaesque: my comments are accurate, you can find no fault with them (though I admit I misread your reason for banning); your own errors it would appear you don't care to try to defend.
(and on)
ReplyDeleteWilly, it’s not about your comments, it’s about you. You’re an undesirable and if I let you in, it’d lower the whole tone of the joint. Pretty soon the polite company here would drift away and the place would just become hangout for bums and drunkards high on cheap booze and their own boring egos.
Seriously though, you’re used to being banned. Why such a hissy fit because you got the bum’s rush outta my gaff?
Pointman
(so, he just can't stop scratching the itch, and neither can I. Will I manage to save his soul?)
ReplyDelete> it’s not about your comments, it’s about you.
I don't think that's believable. All that is here (or not here) of me are my comments. You're banning me, because you don't want your readers to see my comments; so it cannot but be about my comments. But you've given no reason why. You claim, I think, to desire reason, and to despise those who work "not by logical refutation or counter argument" but instead by brute suppression; and yet that's exactly what you're doing here.
> Why such a hissy fit
Oh, I care. About you. About your intellectual honesty. Seeing you damage yourself like this is painful.
“You’re banning me, because you don’t want your readers to see my comments; so it cannot but be about my comments. But you’ve given no reason why.”
ReplyDeleteBut dear boy, I have and more than once – you’re an undesirable.
“Oh, I care. About you. About your intellectual honesty. Seeing you damage yourself like this is painful.”
Nice to know you care about me but I guess I’ll just have to limp along with the damage. Such is life, as Ned Kelly observed.
I’m just a minor imp of Satan, why are you obsessing on a wee timorous beastie like me? It’s not like I’ve any influence.
Pointman
(getting? Its been utterly weird for some time now)
ReplyDeleteThis is getting a bit odd. You’re now quoting my comments, but still not allowing the comments themselves to be published. I’m here to talk, if you’re prepared to have a conversation. But simply saying “you’re an undesirable” without saying why is the suppression that you claim to disdain.
I’ve found a bit more irony, I hope you like this one enough to refuse to publish it too. Your comment
“I do tend to think over carefully even the most startling ideas. More often than not, I see the flaw in the idea but I always examine the idea, not the person articulating it. If you don’t do that, you’re a believer rather than a person of reason.”
Isn’t that fun?
> I’m just a minor imp of Satan.
http://biblehub.com/luke/15-7.htm
(and it doesn't get better)
ReplyDelete“This is getting a bit odd. You’re now quoting my comments, but still not allowing the comments themselves to be published. I’m here to talk, if you’re prepared to have a conversation. But simply saying “you’re an undesirable” without saying why is the suppression that you claim to disdain.”
Ah, at last. Having finally dragged you to the heart of the matter, let’s do the Socratic thing. Why would I consider you to be an undesirable?
Get that answer right, and I’ll let you in.
Pointman
> Why would I consider you to be an undesirable?
ReplyDeleteI can think of many answers, but none that you'd be prepared to accept. Indeed, I've given them already, as can be verified by anyone checking the unexpurgated version of this conversation (http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html).
The most obvious is that I've pointed up numerous errors and inconsistencies in what you've written - much as I did at BishopHill(http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/21/adventures-in-the-denialosphere/) - and you're not prepared to defend your own words. There are numerous examples sitting in moderation, would you like me to repeat them, or is saying them once enough?
(its not getting any better)
ReplyDeleteBecause I’m rong and you’re right. Meh, not even warm Willy. Reread the question. It’s why “I” would consider you an undesirable – reading skills laddie. This is your chance to “read” me.
Get those little brain cells of yours racing around. That was strike one, by the way.
Pointman
> It’s why “I” would consider you an undesirable
ReplyDeleteBut that’s what I said: you consider me undesirable, because you’re unable to answer the points I’ve raised. If I was some nonsense-spouting Greenie whose arguments you could demolish, you’d be delighted to post my comments. I’m undesirable, because I expose the weakness of all the arguments that your “skeptical” commentators lap up. As your man said “perhaps the most effective and contemptuous put down I have read” – and yet, its so feeble that you can’t allow your folk to see my criticism.
(still no better)
ReplyDelete“I’m undesirable, because I expose the weakness of all the arguments that your “skeptical” commentators lap up”
Nope, you’ll find the commenters here quite capable of speaking their own mind when they don’t agree with a piece. I’d never insist a contributor must concur with my viewpoint and it’s a common curtsey I fully expect in return. Just as long as it’s lucid, polite and honest.
If that’s an example of you “reading” me, I have to say it’s pretty poor. I’ll give you a hint, since you obviously need one – it’s about data quality.
That was strike two. Only one more chance …
Pointman
Data quality? Then I'll guess its to do with 'As for “were suddenly being rejected for what was obviously non-scientific reasons” – the reviews are available (unlike LB’s emails) at http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times and “The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low” is fatal; this is an entirely scientific reason for rejection.' That's me providing real data - the actual reviews - in response to your mere assertions. You don't like quality data; you prefer your own opinions.
ReplyDelete(and on)
ReplyDeleteOne chance left and you panicked, didn’t you Willy? There wasn’t even an attempt to answer the question in that last rambling diatribe. Think yourself lucky that I wasn’t your tutor in whatever hell hole of education dribbled you out. Even then, the pig’s ear and silk purse adage would apply, I’m afraid.
I notice a whole 3 hits from your blog amongst the hundreds of hits here today, so you’re obviously having a great old time telling me off over there. You make sure to tell all those righteous bruddas and sistas all about norty Pointy. Both of them.
Anyway, the answer is I don’t like data pollutants and after your activities on Wiki, that’s exactly what I consider you to be and therefore an undesirable.
Pointman
(the going-round-in-circles is becoming just a touch over-obvious, no?)
ReplyDelete> whatever hell hole of education dribbled you out.
I guess you're saying that in order to demonstrate that incivility wasn't any part of the reason for my banning here.
> your blog amongst the hundreds of hits here today, so you’re obviously having a great old time telling me off over there
That one is just the "spam" blog, though I did mention it on twitter too. But I'm glad you check up on these things; I'm afraid I never do.
> I don’t like data pollutants and after your activities on Wiki, that’s exactly what I consider you to be
You've already demonstrated you have no idea of how wiki works, or what I do there; you thought I was banned, for example. I provided you with data to demonstrate that you were wrong. But you didn't like that data.
We're back to your claim "I always examine the idea, not the person articulating it. If you don’t do that, you’re a believer rather than a person of reason"; that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Any more that do your various assertions: for example, as I said before "Also, you have your timeline wrong: the rejection of the paper came first, the fuss with the GWPF came after, so the GWPF can’t have caused the rejection." Its odd you don't want your other commentators to see that, if you think I'm wrong, because then you'd be exposing my errors. OTOH, if you think I'm right, its easy to see why you don't want them to read that, because I'd be exposing yours.
(at this point, the outside world gets to see http://www.webcitation.org/6Pon4Lv30)
ReplyDelete(and on)
ReplyDeleteYou don’t handle rejection very well, do you Willy? You must be stamping your foot or holding your breath until you turn blue, all to no effect. You must feel very put upon. It’s so unfair when someone can dangle you off the end of a leash and there’s nothing you can do about it. I must admit, there’s a certain buzz jerking your particular lead.
Perhaps you’re now getting a feel for what your Wiki victims experienced.
Pointman
> It’s so unfair when...
ReplyDeleteIts good to see some honesty and self-criticism coming in; but its a shame you're only describing it, not acting on it.
> Perhaps you’re now getting a feel for what your Wiki victims experienced.
You've tried that one already, and I've answered: what you're saying makes no sense in the wiki context. Its almost like you know nothing about it. Would you like to learn something? Try http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/
When reading such posts, I tend to wonder if it is humanly possible that the writer believes his own words. Being so terribly afraid of your arguments makes this even harder to believe.
ReplyDeleteIt might be amusing if you tried to comment there. Pointman has an excuse, at least in his own mind, for banning me; its pretty tenuous, but he thinks it exists. I wonder what excuse he'd find if you tried to comment? Its worth a go, if only to see if he has any imagination.
DeleteI just tried. The weird last sentence of pointies last comment is probably me. And that probably means that also my comment is not acceptable. Given that I had expected he did not like real arguments and would not release it, I kept it short:
Deletehttp://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/the-age-of-unenlightenment/#comment-14388
The Pointman: "The reason he’d been forced to resign was an intense campaign of vilification and intimidation."
Do you have any evidence for this claim? I did not know that Lennart Bengtsson has published his correspondence.
Well, no great surprise. But thanks for trying.
Delete(vague, but maybe closer)
ReplyDelete“what you’re saying makes no sense in the wiki context. Its almost like you know nothing about it.”
Oh I think I can speak with some authority about being one of your Wiki victims. Your activities there will not be forgotten, and if they are, I’ll make it my business to remind people. Let’s face it, in your heyday you went a little further than being a data pollutant.
Pointman
> being one of your Wiki victims. Your activities there will not be forgotten
ReplyDeleteVague, but since you've not forgotten, please provide us with the appropriate diff, so everyone can see just how I behaved. Or the article name, and rough date. And/or the name you edited under. See? I'm all keen to see your data; and doubtless you're all keen to show up my behaviour, so we're sure to get down to specifics: yes?
I just noticed the Judith Curry referred her fans to this awful piece the The Pointman. Is there really no level she will not go under? A KKK post full of obvious and clear errors?
ReplyDeleteMaybe I do not read Climate Etc. enough, but I feel that pointing to The Pointman is one for history and I have made a web cite.
Deletehttp://www.webcitation.org/6Por0PfH7
I left her:
DeletePointman'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.
(at http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/24/are-climate-scientists-being-forced-to-toe-the-line/ I'm pretty sure I've been suppressed at Curry's before; just in case, he's a cite http://www.webcitation.org/6PorLfng3 showing my comment being present)
“please provide us with the appropriate diff, so everyone can see just how I behaved. Or the article name, and rough date. And/or the name you edited under. See? I’m all keen to see your data”
ReplyDeleteNo problem Willy, I’m there under my real name of Michael Mann. Just amend all those bloody lies under that piece and I’ll consider letting you in.
Pointman
ps. Who’s the “us” by the way? It wouldn’t be that Victoria Venom or whoever person who’s also tapping on the glass to get in?
(by this point, I think its obvious that Pointman is just silly, so I'm close to getting bored)
ReplyDeleteThat should have been Victor Venema.
Sorry Vicky or is it Vic? Did you know a company tried to market a PC called the Vic-20 in Germany and didn’t sell a single one until they renamed it to the Steinberger-20 or something.
In German, the V in Vic is pronounced as F and is a lineal descendant of a very old Anglo-Saxon word …
Pointman
(and now I am bored, so will stop unless something new and exciting appears)
ReplyDelete> I’m there under my real name of Michael Mann
A random selection of falsehoods isn’t much substitute for a conversation. You alleged you’d been wronged at wiki. But phrased your complaint in such a vague way as to make it impossible to verify (incidentally, AW was unwise enough to phrase a similar complaint in enough detail that it could be verified; it turned out to be wrong: see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/05/02/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-1/
> ps. Who’s the “us” by the way?
All the people reading this thread, who might be expected to be interested in the details.
> or whoever person
Its a cunning plot we hatched. You’ve provided an excuse (almost unbelievably tenuous, and not really believable by anyone of good faith, but an excuse nonetheless) for banning me. But you have no such excuse for VV, whom you know nothing about. And his comment (http://stoat-spam.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html?showComment=1400968602084#c6385073212234037706) was entirely reasonable. So, its clear you’re merely excluding opinions you find unpalatable.
We’ve been round enough circles now to make this obvious. You offered three strikes, but didn’t have the self-discipline to stop talking. I do have: unless you’ve got something new to say, I’ll leave you to it.
(with a bit of luck, this is the end)
ReplyDelete“You’ve provided an excuse (almost unbelievably tenuous, and not really believable by anyone of good faith, but an excuse nonetheless) for banning me. But you have no such excuse for VV,”
With a name like Vic Venom and his association with the likes of you, I’d ban him just on general principles.
“unless you’ve got something new to say, I’ll leave you to it.”
Thank God for that. Some people just can’t take a hint.
Run along now and bother someone else. And take your little friend with you.
Pointman
My comment at Curry's is on moderation. I hope you do not mind me publishing it here. For the few people that follow your link.
ReplyDeleteVictor Venema | May 24, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
It 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.
You made moderation? Mine just seem to be appearing at Curry's. I'm jealous :-).
DeleteFWIW, I've made a new post to track comments at JC's post: http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/are-climate-scientists-being-forced-to.html
I'll add yours there.
:-) I seem to be doing something right.
DeleteAt WUWT my comments only appear after a long time and mostly with a comment by Watts himself. Seems like I am too dangerous for his moderators.
When Watts discusses my crimes, he never linked to my blog. Seems like he does not want his readers to read it.
That is my fear uncertainty and doubt.
At Tallbloke my status is still: "[co-moderator: Held for decision, invalid email address, trace mismatch not uni-bonn. If spoofed could be trouble. --comod]"
DeleteBeautiful excuse, isn't it?
Victor - the word "Nazi" flags the screening software at Judith's crib.
Delete(Pointman's analysis seems popular with the denialists; Tallbloke has now copied it to http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/the-age-of-unenlightenment/ (cite: http://www.webcitation.org/6PpaMXsWF), So I thought I'd see if he was interested in discussing the problems. Its not looking promising so far)
ReplyDeleteThere are some errors in Pointman's analysis. I tried to discuss them with him, but he wasn't very interested. In particular, his causality is wrong. More details at http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html
Had also noticed the Tallbloke repost. Tried to point readers to this post, but am also there under moderation (By now visible at Climate Etc.).
ReplyDeleteOn twitter Tallbloke responded: @VariabilityBlog As a historian and philosopher of science I thought @ThePointmans post was worth putting in the annals of my blog #debate
https://twitter.com/VariabilityBlog/status/470510544114679809
(I posted this at NTZ http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/23/german-professors-peer-reviewed-paper-on-skeptics-belief-of-a-climate-conspiracy-backfires/; a previous comment along similar lines hadn't appeared)
ReplyDelete> The phrase “freedom of speech” does not give anyone the right to demand that another person provide the means or opportunity to make a statement.
I entirely agree. Which is why I'm not making such a demand. However, if you make a big thing about encouraging free debate, about "skepticism", about how vigourous debate is better than imposed authority, you make yourself look rather hypocritical when you don't allow that debate.
I've documented the comments I attempted to make at BH (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/21/adventures-in-the-denialosphere/) and you can read them for yourself. They are all clearly on-topic. The problem with them, from BH's point of view, is that they're unanswerable.
Its also pretty clear that BH's reply isn't honest. His "I am not sure if I have ever come across anyone quite so disagreeable" is mere ad-hom, and for bonus points I provide links to some recent comments at mine that are far worse.
On occasion, I've seen "skeptics" lambast, e.g. RealClimate for not allowing comments from various people. I've never seen the likes of you stand up and defend them.
But the fundamental problem is BH's inability to read LB's reviewer saying “The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low”. That's a problem other "skeptics" have also had.
> News papers routinely DO NOT print letters to the editor.
But blogs do routinely print comments.
(Sorry: this thread seems to have diverged somewhat from the original topic. I *did* attempt to discuss that in my first comment, "Sounds exciting. But I’m not sure quite what the backfire is. Is it that FV wrote the guys a letter? And that FV won’t tell you what they said?" but no one wanted to talk).
>Pointman
Pointman's essay contains numerous errors, including getting the causality wrong. P, too, is reluctant to engage in conversation; see http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html
I really think you two should just get a room , exposing yourselves to ridicule like this is almost unbearable to watch.
ReplyDeleteTweedle Dum and Tweedle Dummer ,the electric duo , kersplash!,
One of you two denies something. Gee, what could that be? Which one might it be?
ReplyDeletehttp://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg
Why don't links show up here? Is this not the hypertext Universe, online, here? Passive-aggressive dickhead!
ReplyDelete