BPSDBI seem to have opened up a can of worms in The Curious Incident of the Denier in the Night-time.
For anyone who has not yet waded through all the comments, I tried to calm things down by imposing a temporary ban (on that thread alone) on any comments that were not relevant to Mike’s original post.
(I should point out that I did so entirely without Mike’s knowledge or consent. It is going to be interesting to read what he makes of all this on his return).
My intention was to stop the circular reasoning and name-calling that was becoming more and more persistent.
It seemed like a good idea at the time. 🙂
In practice, I may have made a rod for my own back. It is surprisingly hard to act as sole judge on the validity of comments, especially those from people for whom I have a lot of respect. To make matters worse, this isn’t even my blog – I’m just minding the shop for a while.
But it has got me thinking about the nature of censorship.
Possibly the most repeated quotation on the nature of free speech is
I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
This is frequently (and wrongly) attributed to Voltaire.
According to this article (amongst other sources) it was actually written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G. Tallentyre in 1906). It seems that she was using this as an example of the sort of thing that Voltaire was likely to say.
It still makes a nice quote, though, even when it is wrongly attributed. But does it always make sense?
I listened to a talk on light pollution last night. It was mostly pretty interesting, but at one point the speaker made the rather astonishing claim that street lights are associated with melanoma. I had to challenge that, and after a brief discussion about how much ultraviolet light is emitted from street lamps and his admission that he couldn’t remember his source, we dropped the subject by mutual consent.
But that doesn’t seem to be the way it works on blogs.
Instead, some people can keep going round in circles spouting the same nonsense again and again as long as the blog owner permits it (or until they get bored and move on somewhere else).
And if the blog owner does lose patience and pulls the plug on them, they can jump up and down crying “Infamy! Infamy!“.
How much room should you give people in the name of free speech?
I don’t really know the answer, I’m on a steep learning curve here.
But maybe Tamino has it right when he says
It’s one thing to claim the right to say what you want. It’s quite another to insist that you have the right to spout your deceitful stupidity in my house.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Voltaire’s portrait from The Times Online
All the others are from Wikipedia
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
Freedom of speech merely means you can say whatever you want, not that others should give you a forum to do so. A blog is not public space, so you are allowed to use the rules you seem fit (as long as they are within the laws of the country…).
S2,
1. I agree with Marco. Greenfyre and you are under no obligation to provide a public forum open to whatever anyone wants.
2. I think the Comment Policy is a good idea that other blogs should follow, but I suggest moving the posts, not deleting them.
3. If (2) is not followed, every thread ends up with the same old arguments about the basics of the science, with the same references being cited for the millionth time. I don’t know a blog or forum where this doesn’t happen unless thread relevance is enforced.
This is a subject that I’ve been dwelling on recently, as I’ve been considering whether I should start a blog – and if I did how I would mod it.
The final quote by Tamino is spot-on IMO. I don’t advocate censorship of everyone I disagree with – no matter how offensive or idiotic – I just won’t allow them to do it with impunity in my house.
And the comment policy implemented by Mike is also spot-on. The Deniers can post here, but if they start polluting threads with their dishonest, weasely, scientifically illiterate drivel, as omnologos did in the last thread, they are deleted and ultimately banned if they continue.
I think the problem arises when they start using the tactic that Martha noted omnotroll was using – making posts that are partially on-topic but padding them out with whatever drivel they’re desperate to spew. At this point it’s a subjective call – and from several years of arguing with the Deniers, my judgement is that omnotroll is here for only a few reasons: vomiting up idiocy, wasting people’s time and enjoying the attention it brings him – no matter how vitriolic it is. Also, people like him are incapable or unwilling to learn, no matter what evidence, science or rational argument is placed in front of them.
Also, once you give a little leeway to one of them, others will soon follow. Before long the comment threads would be a vomitorium of Denier dreck and a bunch of frustrated realists trying to clean up the mess. I don’t know about anyone else, but I can get my fill of that at reddit or Digg or a thousand other forums across the ‘net. It’s good to have little havens of sanity and not be presented with some moron in the comment thread claiming, “There is no evidence for global warming!1!”
I think a ‘three strikes’ and ban policy is good. People like Vernon and omnotroll know what they’re doing and hide behind their faux civility and the oh-so-genuine “but I only want to discuss these things!”. Don’t be fooled by them. They’re not here to learn, they’re here to waste your time.
And the potentially controversial bit – these standards are primarily for the Deniers. I would not feel it necessary to moderate comments from realists – especially ones that have been posted as a result of a Denier posting their idiocy – it’s good to know that many of us feel the same frustration and anger towards these people.
S2, again I appreciate you’re doing a tough job on someone else’s blog – but I disagree with your moderation of the last thread for the reasons I’ve just given. And it doesn’t take too many deleted posts before people will stop commenting and then stop visiting a blog. I’m not going to pen a mini masterpiece (!), uncertain if it will remain or be deleted at the whim of someone else.
HTH. 🙂
Gah, I don’t know. If a comment’s irrelevant to the original blog post, then it’s irrelevant, no matter who writes it — and the comment (or part of it) should probably be moved or zapped.
— bi
I’ve moderated football (soccer) forums in the past (some mine, some not), and I’ve always used the rule that this is someone’s “home” (as per tamino), and what’s allowed is up to the owner. I think blogs should use the same process.
All – thanks for the feedback. It is much appreciated. 🙂
TrueSceptic –
It’s an interesting idea, but I can’t quite see how moving a comment would prevent the same (or similar) comment being posted again. A “Hall of Shame” might be kind of fun, though – but I suspect you would have to restrict it to the dumbest comments (e.g. “Global warming is real – it’s the trees…”) to stop it getting too large.
DavidCOG –
I’m glad you’re still with us. 🙂
When I set the policy I really expected that the regulars would read it and understand why I was trying it out – but in retrospect I got the mechanics wrong. It is quite natural to start reading from (and replying to) the last comment posted, and given the rate at which comments were being posted it is understandable (blindingly obvious, in retrospect) that some people were likely to reply to a comment without having read the “new rules” bit.
As soon as the “regulars” started posting, I realised that I’d got it wrong – but by then I thought that I had probably gone too far for an immediate retraction.
I’d dug myself into a nice hole. 😦
That’s why I tried to explain why I was editing comments.
I think most people got the message – but I note that Martha has not yet responded.
frankbi –
I think that’s fair if you don’t have a comment policy (and of course there is no reason why you should).
But if you do have a policy, don’t you need to enforce it?
Anyone is totally within their rights to moderate comments on their blog. If a commenter wants to post things that are offensive, or just stupid or boring, they are free to start their own.
I had open comments with no moderation on my little inconsequential blog, until I got a pestilential stalker. Now I moderate, which is a pain, but I didn’t want my blog sullied with trash talk.
Oh and I forgot to say, your comment at the top
“My heart is moved by all I cannot save” is a modest but profound sentiment I reflect upon every day. Very well said, Greenfyre.
Your house, your rules.
Marco,
I (and presumably many others) started blogging on a climate theme to correct the incredible amount of junk science on air and especially online.
From the beginning, I never considered giving these extremists a forum to spread more disinformation.
That said it does seem to be a hard call sometimes. Having worked around TV newsrooms for too many years, you can usually spot nutters easily. They rarely leave a name, but call you plenty. So those are easy to knock out.
Those who have been wholly indoctrinated into the weird world of Morano and Watts are mostly hopeless, but I take them on a case by case basis.
Having not been around as long as Greenfyre, I do not have the volume to deal with that you all do!
Dan
I keep asking for “shadow threads”, to which one can trivially move posts, with appropraite linkage, so that hte main thread remains uncluttered. This is suefulk in that one can see silly posters and recognize them in the fure and/or Killfile them. Blog tools are really not yet what they need to be.
But in any case, any blog owner simply should post their rules, and then enforce them.
Great post.
Climate change denier trolls — such a problem.
We have all seen that there are no easy solutions. The world is a big and mess place, industry shills are well-oiled (‘scuse the pun), society and people can be dysfunctional, and the media (and especially the Internet) confuses lies, incompetence and grandstanding with positive principles of information-sharing and opinion-giving.
Opinions are not equal: stupid opinions are simply not as good as informed opinions. Contrary to the cultural relativism on which trolls depend, it is still possible to adjudicate between the two.
It matters.
Both shills and individually-acting trolls (almost all of them very obviously basing their actions on poor analysis, libertarian politics, and for some bizarre reason, extreme self-inflation and attention-seeking) are confusing the public and failing to serve anything or anyone well.
Unfortunately, climate change doesn’t care whether we humans get it or not. The consequences will be much worse without a conscious approach to international planning and personal changes in consumption.
Deniers trolls do not deserve the same respect as dedicated scientists, or all the citizens who bother to know something about the evolving science; and who therefore know something about the difference between real questions, still unaddressed in the science, and bogus questions variously and creatively packaged by deniers to dismiss the basic facts and problems.
No matter how loudly a troll proclaims his (sorry, it is usually ‘his’, no offense to males in general) opinions, or how convincingly he argues that he is being censored/victimized by namecalling/whatever, it is important to be objective rather than bullied.
It is astonishing how frequently they shout out that they are being abused since it is THEY who are the abusers if the word ‘abuse’ is to be used meaningfully.
Nontheless, we are all human beings, so on this and most science sites, they are rightly given attention and opportunities to discuss their views. It is not possible to say they aren’t, if one is an ojective observer.
Of course the real difficulty becomes that no amount of attention is enough for them.
How are we to describe the difficulty with the person?
I really like this site’s existing policies. Not perfect, of course; but the structure of these policies ensures that deniers are free to present real news, or to challenge erroneous thinking, their choice; and without wasting too much time or confusing anyone with utter b.s.
When consistently applied, this is protective of truth and prevents grandstanding.
S2, I think GreenFyre will feel how anyone feels when they have had assistance – grateful for t he help provided. 🙂 [1]
—-
An off-topic post but just FYI. I suspect the speaker on light-pollution was a bit confused between the skin cancer “melonoma” and the hormone “melatonin”, which is inhibited by light and activated by darkness.
There appears to be some type of link between low levels of melatonin and breast cancer and lately (Feb 2009, ScienceDaily) prostate cancer. Other health effects are also studied.
So, in my limited understanding, the longer the duration of light we are exposed the less melatonin we produce. Melatonin also helps regulate circadian rhythms so research into how artificial lights affect our circadian rhythms and our health have been ongoing for a while now.
Anyway, just thought I’d pass that along. I’m sure the speaker has already checked and is probably kicking himself right about now.
—-
I agree with DavidCOG.
Sums up my thoughts pretty well.
I consider intentional stupidity to be a virus.
If you let it, the virus will take over.
You don’t just have a right to moderate comments, you have a *duty* to do so. Otherwise threads degenate into a valueless morass. Part of the value-added of a blog owner as opposed to a newsgroup is a central owner. Anyone who doesn’t like this can go off to sci.environment and get lost in the noise.
—-
Go for it… you are wisely editing your site. [1] Thank you.
I am not sure about this, but there may be a lost opportunity in dumping shill propagandists like O’Sullivan. [2] You did have a nice analysis of his words. It could be educational.
On the other hand – you straightforwardly countered one of the top denier tactics of wasting our time and tangling up the pages with pseudo argumentation.
All my support.
—-
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
Because “Ice Age” is a relative term, and the “Ice Age” was actually hotter than even today?
Please feel free to scream persecution and censorship now. Thank you.
— bi
I see that O’Sullivan has responded to my debunking of his bunk — by simply pretending it doesn’t exist.
— bi
Mr O’Sullivan, You are quite the wordsmith. But otherwise you are inconsequential. Your words, no matter how skillfully crafted, will not re-freeze the Arctic – nor restore ice shelves in the Antarctic, nor halt the fires, the droughts, the deluge. No syntax is magical enough.
Most people at this blog are discussing adaptation and mitigation – and you come along with denial.
It is as if we are trying to organize a bucket brigade to put out the fire, and suddenly out of the smoke comes a man saying “there is no fire”. In the face of facts and pain and heat, your words are idiotic blather – no matter how well you string them together.
In the face of such change, it must take increasing energy for you to support your own denial. I don’t envy you. Because it will be more difficult as the rate of change increases, and you will be trapped by your own words.
Your goal seems to be to display your craft – you do that so well. But you are taunting, and any labels you pick up from us are well deserved. At sometime, maybe soon, you will be completely ignored.
Great Wm. F. Buckley’s Ghost!
Your adversary’s easy familiarism is a hallmark of those who would be WASPs, but really ain’t. Leftover gum from the Big Guy’s golf shoes, no doubt.
I love the smell of bubblegum in the morning!
Nice moniker:
Bubble Gum O’Sullivan !
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
Yep, one bogus inactivist talking point is debunked, and O’Sullivan simply comes back to throw out yet another talking point! No retraction, no clarification, no follow-up, no nothing.
That’s not trolling, no sir, absolutely not!
Sorry, O’Sullivan, but we’re done with your little game. If you can show that you’re willing to do more than just dumping truckloads of inactivist talking points while screaming persecution, then be our guest. Otherwise, you have the right to shut up and start your own blog.
— bi
So, you post an entirely off-topic comment in violation of comment policy on a post that discusses comment policy and moderation. And you do this while whining about lack of civility in others. Your pompous, faux civility doesn’t make you any less of a hypocrite.
There’s a very good reason people like you are referred to as shill, troll, moron, weasel or some other pejorative – you deserve it.
As to your assertion that Greenland is not melting from the one paper you’ve cherry-picked, 30 seconds searching produces:
Why are you not capable of doing just a little research and applying a little balanced thinking? Rhetorical questions.
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
Oh. “As I understand”.
Here’s what you need to understand: when you refuse to do the research to fact-check your own talking points, then it’s not our duty to “clarify” things to convince you.
— bi
John O’Sullivan,
What are your comments doing here? There could not be clearer examples of violations of this blog’s comment policy.
If they belong anywhere, it’s in “Challenging the Core Science”.
What is it about Denydiots that prevents them from understanding such simple concepts as “on topic” and a blog’s comment policy?
I think the idea is that, when a blog owner asks people to post comments in the appropriate threads, it’s called “censorship”.
Yeah.
— bi
Of course.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
Bloody peasant!
Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn’t you?
John, it’s easy to ask questions, it’s apparently much more difficult to do some critical thinking yourself. The earth was covered with MUCH more water, which has a higher heat retention than land. Moreover, there was a completely different distribution of the land masses. That makes comparisons with today almost impossible. Anyone still trying to do so either does not understand anything about the various processes, or is willfully dishonest. Which one do you prefer?
In respect of the site’s policy on posting I shall endeavour to confine my comments to the appropriate forum. I’m so sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities, gentlemen.
Silly me for forgetting that Internet tribalism is alive and well and he who clumsily trespasses where he is not wanted will be met with abuse ; )
Tribalism?
If you go into someone’s house, would you obey the rules or behave as if they don’t apply to you?
The owner of a blog is not obliged to ignore bad behaviour just because s/he allows comments from all and sundry.
I’ll happily translate the denialospeak.
In respect of the site’s policy on posting I shall endeavour to confine my comments to the appropriate forum.
Ooops – I’ve been shown up for the vapour-thin level of research I’ve done on the topic, so to keep my Dunning-Kruger Effect on full, I’d best stick with other denailists.
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
“I shall endeavour to confine my comments to the appropriate forum. I’m so sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities, gentlemen.” Denier John
Regarding his complaints about site policy, the guidelines clearly encourage him to develop his knowledge about climate science and his climate science denial, while discouraging spam that is a) completely false, b) a serious misrepresentation of facts, or c) delusional.
Oh, and John? Women are allowed on the site. 🙂
Thank you, Martha, for this!
“Oh, and John? Women are allowed on the site.”
Here’s a thought about keeping comments open to deniers. I have this theory that perhaps the most rabidly fanatic deniers are actually closest to recognizing how serious are the challenges we face from climate change. I think the more hysterically they argue the science, is due to their implicit recognition that there is a terrifying threat.
Thus there may be some point in engaging them, because a bigger problem are the many more persons who don’t deny climate change exactly – they just IGNORE it. Let’s call them the Ignorers.
They ignore because otherwise they would have to consider making radical changes to their lifestyles! And confront ecosystem collapse, and extinction. Ouch!
Consider this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6253912/Most-people-in-denial-over-climate-change-according-to-psychologists.html
S2 – “credulity” must be a Freudian slip of the keyboard. I believe you mean “credibility”.
—-
You may appreciate the thread _here_, rather similar
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=863
particularly see
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=863&page=1#31159
This is an important quote right at the beginning of the solarcycle24 link above: “any personal attacks on message board users, or back and forth bickering that turns personal will not be tolerated“.
Will that fall within or without the remit of the “validity of the comments” in this blog?
It’s not that I am particularly bothered by being called of a “weak intellect” or being indicated as having a “profoundly self-absorbed and deceitful personality”. It’s that the number of people willing to discuss anything under those circumstances is close to zero outside of the Usenet community, as remarked by Connolley.
The risk is that this blog or any other one will become a pointless echo chamber of perennial mutual consensus. A “valueless morass” indeed.
Yes, the Ignorers. I have also encountered this phenomenon a couple of times. Some of them are rather straightforward with their attitude. “…climate change, that’s such a dull subject… but what is your opinion on the latest *insert sports series* developments? I’ve planned to bet on saturday, and I’m in need for advice because *insert player* of the *isert team* has had some *insert trouble* or so they said in *insert yellow paper*?” While in a larger group, they might avoid topics that could lead to a discussion about weather or even raise their voice, over some contemporaous issue, so the attention to “dull climate talk” gets distracted their way. “You may worry all you want, it doesn’t get things done, and doesn’t make you happy”, thay might say, and continue as they were. I could say of course:”Well, some worrying might make me happy”, and the answer would be “don’t be such a boring scientist, enjoy life a little now and then.” I’m about to get philosophical so I’ll stop. Maybe there’s a story for the blog.
‘Ignorers’ is an interesting term. I call them the ‘the economic school of climate denial’ as they admit is happening but all the arguments come down to money in their eyes. I have been building a list of ‘species’ of denial…
-those who think the scintists are mistaken and it is not happening (‘flat-earth’ denialists)
– those who think it is a conspiracy run by the NWO/communiststs/league of evil scientists/anarchists/environmentalists etc (‘alien abduction’ denailists)
– those who think God’s law means it is nothing for humans to bother with (climate-creationists)
– those who think it is happening but humans are not causing it (‘sun-spot-volcano-ice-age’ denailists)
– those who think it is happening and humans are causing it but we should not change (the economic school of climate denial)
– people who raise vague philosophical arguments to reality in an attempt to avoid reality (‘post-structuralist denialist’)
A useful list, Anarchist! I think you should put the Ignorers in a separate category though, as “those who do not think, period”. Instead they shop. They worry incessantly about their children being exposed to germs. They are very concerned about being cheated by the lawn service, or the dry cleaners. They let their car engine idle while they pack it up with plastic water bottles for the journey, and drive past hundreds of salons to get to the one hairdresser who does highlights the way they like them done. Life without a weekly pedicure is unimaginable. And yes, jyyh, sports are essential to the ignorers of the masculine persuasion. Toys that burn fuel, like snowmobiles and ATV’s are useful distractions as well.
Nice list, Anarchist. I might prefer to use the word ‘believe’ rather than ‘think’ … because denialism is irrational. political and very much like a religion.
Time to remember the late, great Johnny Rook and his essay on “Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology” He has a terrific list in his famous essay.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/12/143145/743/173/513430
(https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/johnny-rook-2009/)
We should not think we are immune to denial ourselves – mostly to the extent of the problem, and to our impact on the world. We humans require some denial to get through daily living.
It is the dangerous denial that concerns me. And like any religion, it is the fanatical acolytes that cause all the trouble.
Finally, we should know that there is a large class of people on the other end of the spectrum from deniers – call them the quiet nihilists. One scientists suggested to me that half his colleagues are in this group. We just don’t hear from them much.
The question then becomes…how far should “moderation” go and at what point does it become “insulating oneself from the pressures of a free society”?
In the other blog, there is plenty that I have written that has been removed from view. At the same time, there is plenty of outright insults directed against me (not by S2 or Greenfyre, as far as I can tell) that are still waiting to be collected for my “AGW Bingo” game (all in direct violation of Greenfyre’s statement: “I believe the comment is directed at a particular post you authored and the lack of substance/logic therein. I see no reference to you, your character, or your abilities“).
To me, it looks like some people are being insulating themselves from the mere thought of sharing the same web page with somebody that doesn’t believe the world will turn into cinders.
May I remind everybody that I have been dragged into the discussion by Greenfyre’s defining my blog as the only one he could ifn “pretend[ing] to analyse the debate from a Denier perspective”. A great deal of time and a great many vicious innuendos later, I can only recognize that there is no practical way to rebuke or even openly discuss the “Denier” accusation in Greenfyre’s “home”. Any attempt will mostly evoke a barrage of gratuitous remarks. Is this truly the way to talk about a possible catastrophe?
And no, I am not jumping up and down or clamoring against “censorship”. You may have noticed that I have never actually protested the deletion of my posts (yes it’s Greenfyre’s/S2’s home here, so they can do as they please).
Rather, I was and still am puzzled by what the underlying rule is, and if there is one for climate believers and another for the rest of humanity. Perhaps there is, but then it’d be better to see it made explicit. [1] Otherwise there is no point in posting anything that can go remotely against the AGW consensus as perceived by Greenfyre and S2 (and we go back to the “self-insulation” argument)
—-
Onowhateveritis said:
The one rule is “never tell lies”. Didn’t your mother instill that into your head when you were young?
The reason we do not like deniers’ rubbish is that they are telling lies, distorting information and slandering scientists.
Keep it up and you will be treated with derision by the many honest scientists who post here.
beats me Ian…I have looked at the comments in the “Curious” blog and also in the “Science” thread and cannot find any substantiated accusation of “lying” against me (and believe me, I have been accused of plenty of very nasty things).
I also do not think “lies” have anything to do with S2’s decision to heavily moderate the comments under “Curious”. It’d be interesting to figure out where and when exactly I have “lied”, “distorted information” or “slandered scientists”. However, that discussion very likely falls out of the scope of the current blog, therefore deserving deletion by S2.
Onowhateveritis shows his lack of understanding of English syntax. My comments are directed at deniers in general and why they should be banned, censored or just told to shut up.
However, if the hat fits wear it.
Ian – your reply makes no sense. Your comment was clearly directed at me, not just at “deniers in general”. In the “Curious” blog you have already accused me of telling “lies”, and of having committed assorted evil. In fact, you accused me of hiding behind a pseudonym, got told by Marco how wrong you were, but obviously have not found as yet the time to correct yourself.
I have spent some time on your blog (too much time) and I stand by my comments. You are typical, you even deny that you are denying.
omnologos – I spent a good while reading your comments, and I really don’t understand what you are trying to say.
This is dropping way down the comments ladder into the inconsequential. I’m bailing on this thread.
“I have been dragged into the discussion”
He is hilarious. 🙂
Translation: I have repetitively and repeatedly posted here because I struggle with a grossly inflated ego and compulsive behaviour and I don’t like it when I don’t receive attention (even if it is negative attention) for my b.s. because I feel I am really rather clever and I couldn’t care less that I have bored everyone to tears by my nonsense and contributed zero to accurate or current understanding and demonstrated no capacity for new learning and even less capacity for understanding anything to do with science.
Yours forever and with a strong sense of victimization, omnologos
“Feel free to join me on the science thread“- Martha, comment in the “Curious” blog, September 29, 2009 at 6:16 pm. Contrarily to the what is usual in the Science thread, you thenproceeded to analyze one of my blogs, rather than wait for me to make any claim in that thread.
And btw…”inflated ego and compulsive behaviour” were not yet in my AGW bingo list. Thanks.
No problem. Join me again on the Science thread for my response to your latest b.s.
I see you don’t monetize your blog, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn extra cash
every month because you’ve got hi quality content.
If you want to know how to make extra $$$, search for:
best adsense alternative Wrastain’s tools
Yes agree this is a good blog with good content. The comments moderate or not is always a hard one as without an element of moderation then it can be spammed to death. On the climate side , my focus is mainly on carbon credits and how they can be used to drive behaviours by actually brining a secondary value to them and also looking at mobilising teams to collate data on plastic waste that currently can be unrepresentative as very small sample sizes with a rpoject https://actnoweco.com