2011-07-12 18:11:43Co2isnotevil on Trenberth
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I noticed that Co2isnotevil has cherry picked a sentence from Tranberths article. I have written a rebuttal comment, which I think is correct. Maybe others would like to check??

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tracking_Earths_Energy.html

I think the sentence picked probably could have been written with clearer grammar?

2011-07-12 18:45:48
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.242.156

I deleted your comment Paul, as I deleted the George White comment. Personally I see no value whatsoever in letting comments degenerate like that '2nd law' thread.  

2011-07-12 19:00:57
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I think a moderator comment may have been appropriate in the first instance??
Then if he took it further, deletion of subsequent comments.

2011-07-12 19:31:18
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.242.156

Different strokes. If he was a new commenter, sure. Do we have to go through the silly games every time these idjits make a re-appearance? 

2011-07-12 21:00:30
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

I've already warned RW1 (George's disciple and protege) to not perpetuate the crap he pulled on the 2nd Law thread.

Then along comes George to pull the same crap (for which he'd already been corrected on the 2nd Law thread as well).

2011-07-12 23:51:14I vote for...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

knee-capping these climate denier drones!  

2011-07-13 00:20:41Badger
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

I sympathise, I really do.  But one must be sensitive as to the timing and the circumstance.  After all, we are dealing with something not of our creation (SkS and its reputation).  It is an easy thing to wish, but only when one attains the power to do so does the enormity of the implication become fully realized.  In the words of the Master:

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

(OK, killed the autoplay...was a PITA)

2011-07-13 02:30:29Daniel Bailey
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Knee-capping isn't murder.

2011-07-13 02:38:10
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

If by knee-capping you mean banning them from SkS, then that is the blog equivalent.

If you mean tighter moderation, then I'm doing what I can in that regard already (recidivists are held to higher Comment Policy adherence standards).

If it were my blog (and I underscore that I know it isn't), then RW1 and White both would be already gone.  Among others.

2011-07-13 03:38:22Daniel Bailey
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Perhaps the time has come to undertake a thorough review of the current posting policy. Under our current policy, we provide climate denier drones a venue to spread their pseudo-science poppycock as long as they remain civil about it. This policy just doesn't make sense to me because the costs of adhering to it far exceed the benefits.

Our children and grandchildren will judge us on whether or not we did all we could possibly do to avert a climate catastrophe. I doubt whether they will give a rat's ass about whether or not we bent over backwards to be civil in pursuing our objectives. 

2011-07-13 05:11:20
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Your views Badger are the complete opposite of mine.

I think skeptics and deniers should be managed, that is the only acceptable way of doing things.

The current policy is very good (many people appreciate it) and there is no reason to review it.
It seems you want everything changed??

2011-07-13 05:31:00Paul D
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Open and frank discussions on issues of import is healthy for any team.

Re comment threads, my observation is that SkS moderators and authors spend way too much of their valuable time and energy in marathon blogging sessions with climate deniers.  

2011-07-13 06:06:50
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

You can't dictate what comments are posted. Allowing comments requires management of them and that doesn't mean deleting them.

BTW, why should your comments be allowed on the sites you comment on?
People respond better if their views are managed rather than banned.


Also making comments isn't blogging.

2011-07-13 06:51:38
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Not to prolong this unnecessarily, but I agree with you both, with one big addition.

SkS does indeed provide a venue for denier skeptic drones to prattle on & on (witness Camburn, Eric the Red, Norman and RW1 among the current crop of outright dissemblers), but the cost for the drones is high: they get exposed for such that they are to the 99% of SkS readership that seldom if ever posts a comment.

Not only does SkS debunk skeptic mythologies, but SkS takes apart the "skeptics" in real time in front of readership's eyes.  Once exposed, the bully pulpit of the dissemblers withers to a thimble.

I honestly feel that the current level of denier noise on the threads is less than it was this spring.  More moderators have helped, as now the Comments Policy is enforced more consistently.  The moderators act as white blood cells to the infection of the "skeptics":  once attention is attracted, the moderators and regular commentators harry the dissemblers mercilessly across the landscape of the SkS threads.

Eventually the dissemblers lose interest (it becomes "too hard" to dispense their intended narrative - damn reality to the contrary), or they water down their modus operandi to become more compliant with the Comments Policy or they leave.  Or they continue their mendacious ways until they are banned.

Note how little Ken Lambert and Berenyi Peters post anymore.

QED

2011-07-13 07:05:26
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Well put Daniel. That is a good summation.

2011-07-13 07:15:01
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.187.28

I think it's important that some real deniers show up from time to time. A lot of undecided or confused people (the population we are trying to reach) view the interactions we have with skeptics and judge us on how we behave. Nearly always what they see is one side making a polite, fact-based case and the other blustering and constantly changing the subject. Many people lack the skills to weigh the scientific evidence but they can easily see who the jerks are.

It can't be said often enough: my thanks for the excellent job that the moderators of this site do.

2011-07-13 07:42:44Badger: Apologies for not acknowledging this
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Our children and grandchildren will judge us on whether or not we did all we could possibly do to avert a climate catastrophe. I doubt whether they will give a rat's ass about whether or not we bent over backwards to be civil in pursuing our objectives.

Thank you for bringing this up.  Not that we need reminders, but it still is nice to get them.

This is why I participate here, why I am often up to 2 or 3 in the morning researching and writing articles, why I do outreach to climate scientists and learned individuals on the blogs alike looking to swell our ranks, why I endure the mendacity of the dissemblers here.

Along with remaining cognizant of that we form the world of my daughter's adult years with today's actions.

The time to rest is when I'm dead.

 

2011-07-13 08:30:46
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
121.10.1.66

I think it's also important to remember that if we are overly aggressive in silencing their questions (however inane they may be) then those guys are just going to go to other sites and rant about how SkS doesn't allow people to ask questions.

I've always been of the mind that you USE the deniers to your own advantage to point out exactly why their questions are inane.  That, then, puts the onus back on our side to have solid answers to exactly why their questions are so inane.  

Use the denier to convince the broader reading audience.  The denier is a lost cause.

2011-07-13 08:44:00Rob Honeycutt
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Regardless of how they are treated on SkS, climate deniers will rail against SkS on other sites, including making false assertions about being censored on SkS.  

2011-07-13 10:43:07
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
121.10.1.66

I have to agree that there is a certain level of debate that is just not worth giving airtime to.  RC and CP both do a lot of knee-capping.  Tamino is also pretty intolerant of anything that deviates from solid science.

In fact, Tamino is probably a good example of how to do it right.  I've watched him give deniers just enough rope for him to thoroughly hang themselves.  He makes a good faith effort to allow them to make their case.  Then when they cross the line, he comes in and yanks that rope tight around their necks.  His manner of doing this has always seemed effective from an audience standpoint.  Tamino is a uniquely capable individual.  Someone to learn from.

With Tamino if that person then goes off to other sites and starts ranting about how unfair Tamino is, if anyone goes back to read the discussion they quickly realize that the denier basically had his head handed to him.  Once again, I think that plays extremely well from an audience perspective.

The mistake is to allow deniers to take the rope and run around making a muck of things.  Give them only enough rope to hang 'em. 

2011-07-13 13:23:24Rob Honeycutt
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Tamino's technique also limits a denier's ability to create the illusion of debate over the science.

2011-07-13 14:44:36
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Rob,

"I've watched him give deniers just enough rope for him to thoroughly hang themselves.  He makes a good faith effort to allow them to make their case.  Then when they cross the line, he comes in and yanks that rope tight around their necks."

He is brilliant at that.  He has become increasingly snarky and intolerant.  But how he allows them to hang themselves is entertaining to watch.  Word must spread, becasue between Tamino and the knowledgeable people who post there, the deniers do not stand a chance.

IMHO, for SkS, fair but firm.  You get warnings, and then you get your marching orders.  I would prefer people to be given three strikes and your out (zero tolerance for trolling-- trolling posts can be deleted retroactively), or something similar, so as to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio and to keep the focus on the science and calibre of posts high.

I would recommend adding a zero tolerance policy on trolling of any kind to the comments policy.

2011-07-13 14:58:53
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Trolling is a very subjective thing.  One must know a poster's previous history of commenting in order to catch all of the trolling going on.  It can and is done (moderating out the trolling) but defining it for the benefit of the Comments Policy would be difficult.

I try to emulate Gavin, because my natural tendencies run very deeply towards snark and sarcasm.

2011-07-13 15:42:15
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.133.62.234

I agree re - Tamino - he's a maestro in this field - a great proponent of the "give 'em enough rope" principle.

Trolling is a subjective matter, for sure. It is easier to recognise the main players just from styles of writing, but sometimes you just get completely confused people who express their views in a seemingly confident way even when they are flailing like mad. One sees a lot of that over at the Guardian and typically when challenged they go away without responding or they come back with abuse - at which point it's Game Over. True trolls on the other hand have any amount of gish-galloping lined up ready to go....

Cheers - John