Climate Rage: We absolutely cannot have… a rational conversation! (cite) is wildly ironic, all the more so because not one of them can see it. Time for my current-favourite image I think. There's a webcite around, I think.
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.
Saturday, 21 June 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
(may just be because the link I included has a naughty word in it; or maybe JN is getting cautious in her old age. Who knows)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 22, 2014 at 3:48 am · Reply
Come on if you think you’re hard enough. I warn you though that I spam some stuff; http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/fuck-you-wc-you-are-coward.html for example.
(that got censored itself: it now appears as:)
DeleteWilliam Connolley
June 22, 2014 at 3:48 am · Reply
Come on if you think you’re hard enough. I warn you though that I spam some stuff;
[nope not a chance] ED
(nah, its just the naughty word in the link; this one went through fine. BTW, these are not my only comments there)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley
June 22, 2014 at 4:02 am
> Wikipedia is the exact opposite. It allows…
…anyone to edit it, provided they can back up what they say with reliable sources. When talking about science – like, say, GW – then reliable sources are ultimately scientific papers, or syntheses thereof. Or, sparingly, blog postings by recognised experts. Which is why the stuff related to climate and GW looks like it does – it reflects the mainstream position; this is what wiki intends to do, on any issue, whilst giving due weight to dissenting views.
The attitude of “skeptics” to this varies: sometimes you see yourself as brave individual voices decrying the “consensus” – but somehow unable to see that if you are decrying a “consensus”, you have no reason to complain that wiki is reporting the consensus. Sometimes you think there is no consensus – in which case, you need to invent a fairy story to explain why you can’t hack your views into wiki. The truth is that reliable sources don’t back up what you want to say; but that would be damaging to your world view, so instead you invent myths about the way wiki is run.
But, just like writing scientific papers, you also know nothing about editing wiki because you’re never brave enough to try.
(and another one)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 26, 2014 at 5:56 am · Reply
You have nothing. Civil comments are published. I censored http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/fuck-you-wc-you-are-coward.html (well, as you see, I published it but on a different blog; and there’s a link from the original to that post) but it would have been censored had you published similar here (as our hostess affirms: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/climate-rage-we-absolutely-cannot-have-a-rational-conversation/#comment-1491022). You have certain ideas stuck in your mind. You hold fast to them no matter how often its pointed out that you have no evidence for them.
(and after I realised that the first one was too rude to be permitted)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley
June 26, 2014 at 6:18 am · Reply
Ha ha. I’ve just noticed that my previous link to the comment you were so sad about having “censored” was deemed too rude to appear here, even as a link, because it partially quoted your words. That’s how ridiculous your claims are. In that case, http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/jonova-climate-rage-we-absolutely.html will do instead.
(mind you all this belated deleting is a bit weird; the same link appears in http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/scientist-intimidated-and-forced-into-resigning-lennart-bengtsson-leaves-the-gwpf/ and in http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/failure-of-peer-review-meaningless-statistical-significance-needs-fixing-says-doctor-journal/)
ReplyDelete