2010-11-24 01:30:33Ken Lambert is Mad
Ned

ned.flounders@yahoo...
129.170.23.58

Ken Lambert is not happy right now ... and John, you may get an email from him.

I deleted two identical comments he posted, for including the expression "So this virtuous circle of bogus auto-fellation is called 'climate science'. Hello??"

Riccardo deleted another of his comments, perhaps because it was riddled with accusations of deception or perhaps because of the accusation of tax fraud.

So ... Ken came back with this comment:


A post of mine has already been deleted on this matter. Please re-instate it if your SS blog is to be taken seriously.

Perhaps now is the time to note that kdkd is also a 'Moderator' on this blog and has the power to purge my and other posts without explanation.

If the Moderators of this(to date)excellent blog start purging opposition views whilst being partisan AGW contributors themselves - then they will end up talking to themselves and therefore stifling proper debate. 


 

Hopefully my reply (see Ken's comment) didn't overstep any bounds.  If any other moderators think I should have handled this differently, feel free to edit my reply to Ken, or just delete his whole comment.

 

2010-11-24 08:13:39Something had to be done to rein him in
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
68.188.192.170

Your moderation comment constitutes employment of the nuclear option; FWIW, I approve, as nothing else so far has deterred him in his (as you say) "madness".

Hopefully it will be enough.

 

BTW, the Comments By A User function shows even Deleted Comments (a godlike power indeed, resurrecting the dead...)

2012-01-29 16:13:06Just FYI, got an email from Ken today
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.215.212.33

Extract from his email:

I have a look at SKS occasionally and have to say that banning me and BP was a mistake.  The discussion is pretty shallow and uninformative since your thought police decided to stamp out any serious dissent from orthodoxy.  Self-congratulation is pretty poor fare.

Extract from my reply:

Re banning, there are two things I don't want on SkS. Firstly, I don't want an echo chamber and am very keen for dissenting voices to provoke stimulating discussion. But I am also very keen for high quality discussion, and accusations of deception, tax fraud and "auto-fellation" have no business being on our site. Would love to have had your contribution to the discussion but if it comes with that kind of behaviour, I have to sacrifice that extra bit of diversity for quality of discussion.

Bit blunter than I usually am, too busy these days to spend too much time being diplomatic.

2012-01-29 17:14:19
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.76.131

BP did not get banned, he made a huge clusterfrak on one of the posts and has been too embarrassed to show his face since. I don't expect he'll stay away forever though.

Ken's gonna be hopping mad his Trenberth's missing heat thing has gone down the gurgler. That was his baby. Weird how he thinks an insult is the way to get back in your good books too. 

2012-02-03 02:43:10
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

doesn't sound blunt to me at all.

2012-02-03 15:42:25Okay Daniel, I reinstated Ken... but let me explain...
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.215.212.33

I'm doing some research at the moment into simulating climate denial, in an effort to work out how best to change a denier's mind, and i need a few denier friends to subtly bounce ideas of. So with Ken being local in Brisbane, I've reinstated him as a good faith measure in order to open up some dialogue.

So my apologies to the mods if things go pear shaped on SkS - it's a bit of a selfish decision in that I did it to hopefully benefit my research - but taking the long game approach, it could help yield some useful results down the track.

2012-02-03 22:07:37
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

There's been a couple of users who are on my radar as potentially having multiple user ID's on SkS; several are from Brisbane and at least 1 could be KL already.  If so, not a big deal. 

What would really help me is a query function that would bring up multiple user ID's when inputting a particular IP as a search parameter...

As long as KL adhere's to the Comments Policy and stays on-topic, then I don't have a problem with the decision.

However, that would not be KL.  So we'll see how long he can fight his inner demons.

2012-02-07 02:20:09How long...
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
216.185.0.2

...can Ken maintain an even keel? Not long at all (http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1242#73560), it would appear.


Back to 'integrated energy', neglecting S-B negative feedbacks - again.

2012-02-14 04:24:12
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

And back to bitching about moderation again. 

Despite being the one responsible for giving moderators no choice but to intervene...

Ken Lambert at 23:55 PM on 13 February 2012
Sorry gentlemen - my entirely moderate reply has been deleted by moderators who can't stand a bit of interesting opposition. Pity, because John Cook was a robust and big enough character to facilitate my return.

 

2012-02-14 06:40:40So was this comment in a thread about ENSO off-topic?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.215.212.33

Ken Lambert at 00:45 AM on 13 February 2012 (Email commenter)
dana1981 CBD, Spherica - good to see your comments.

Well, it is getting closer to 14 years by the end of 2012 if we take 1998 as inclusive. 15 years seems to be the magic number for statistical significance in many arguments I have encountered over the last 3 years or so studying the AGW case.

I am not arguing for McLean's prediction, nor any other extreme skeptic mantra.

Surface temperature rise is an artifact of warming imbalance or ENSO redistribution of stored heat from the oceans.

No surface temperature rise can mean that:

1) the warming imbalance is reduced, zero or negative;
AND/OR 
2) as AGW proponents usually argue - that the warming imbalance is positive if not increasing and during a stasis in surface temperatures, all the imbalance is absorbed (and a chunk hidden) in the oceans.

Quantifying and tracking the imbalance is the key, and experts are arguing significant differences on this very point.

I am not convinced that ENSO is neutral in redistributing heat within the system. Perhaps you could point to any research which confirms that the quantum of heat given up to the surface by the oceans in El Nino is evenly balanced by that absorbed in La Nina. 

My understanding of ENSO is that it is not just a piece of the 'noisy signal' which shunts heat around in the closed room of the Earth system - but a couple of windows to the sun and space which open and shut in a cyclical fashion - but not necessarily symmetrical in the amount of heat gained or heat lost to space. 

If surface temperatures don't change much over several ENSO cycles and the small solar ripple, then the only conclusion is that the overall warming imbalance has significantly declined which puts the predominantly CO2GHG driven increasing imbalance theory to the test.

2012-02-14 06:57:37
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

No John.  KL's comment was deleted due to his off-topic trolling over a short temperature series.  All of his comments on that thread are constructed by design to waste the time of as many participants as possible.  2 days before his deleted comment above, he was doing the usual "no warming since 1998" bullshit:

Fig 3 shows that nothing much has happened since 1998 vis-a-vis surface temperature rise

Multiple participants then engaged him in good faith.  Some even pointed out more opportune threads for him to take that meme to.  Even dana warned him.  KL then continued to prosecute his agenda (that he and BP perfected) of derailing yet another thread.

The thread was about "The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures".  Every thread that KL gets involved in turns into a circus with KL at center stage.  After KL got involved the thread quickly went into the sh*tter.  By his own admission above he acknowledged being off-topic:

I am not arguing for McLean's prediction, nor any other extreme skeptic mantra.

Honestly, that is the only purpose that KL, Norman and Camburn have at SkS: to derail as many threads as possible.  None of them are here to learn anything.  Even RW1 contributes more to the discussion than the three of them combined.

2012-02-14 07:42:27
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

FWIW, I agree with Daniel's deletion, but primarily becuase it was blatant trolling.  Earlier on the thread Ken had made arguments and then simply ingored the responses and gone on to other questions that seem to me to be blatant trolling, e.g.

"I am not convinced that ENSO is neutral in redistributing heat within the system. Perhaps you could point to any research which confirms that the quantum of heat given up to the surface by the oceans in El Nino is evenly balanced by that absorbed in La Nina. "

It seems to me that it is pretty obvious that there is conservation of energy in the transfer of heat between the atmospher and the oceans (duh!), and asking for pointers on research to something so blindinly obvious just looks like an attempt to waste the time of other contributors to the blog.

The following paragraph is just obvious nonsense

"My understanding of ENSO is that it is not just a piece of the 'noisy signal' which shunts heat around in the closed room of the Earth system - but a couple of windows to the sun and space which open and shut in a cyclical fashion - but not necessarily symmetrical in the amount of heat gained or heat lost to space. "

Note there is no attempt whatsoever to justify this piece of whimsey, no physical mechanism to explain the action of these windos, no pointers to the research that he requests from us.  He is clearly just making it up as he goes along.

2012-02-14 15:50:10Okay thanks
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Appreciate the explanation and sounds like well handled. KL and Camburn are on a very delicate probation so if they post off-topic comments, feel free to ban their user accounts.

2012-02-16 06:35:53
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
72.74.77.39

FYI, note my comment here in response to one of Ken's quietly insidious insinuations (say that 10 times fast).

2012-02-26 03:10:37
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

I think Ken's current behaviour is asking to be banned again for trolling in my opinion, his most recent post deleted by Daniel (good call) includes

defer to your expertise in this area but if ENSO has a relatively short (50 year) history of reasonably accurate determination - how can it be claimed that it has a zero trend on a decadal time scale? There are not that many decades to establish that - so the possibility of a longer underlying cycle or even a randon walk cannot be ruled out.

when he has been told repeatedly that ENSO does not have a zero trend on a decadal timescale, I even challenged him to go and verify that this is true by having a look at the data and if necessary compute te decadal trends (as Daniel says "None of them are here to learn anything.").  I can't see how he could possibly have interpreted this as an assertion that ENSO does have a zero decadal trend.  This is just blatant trolling, and not for the first time since his return (see above)

2012-02-26 03:45:41
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

"Ken's current behaviour is asking to be banned again for trolling"

Agreed.  And done.

2012-02-26 05:49:01
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.194.67

Cool. Wholeheartedly agree with this action 

2012-02-26 05:53:47
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

YOGI needs to be monitored.  I am trying to get him/her to explain why drier conditions means it cools faster at night in the desert.  It is like getting blood out of a stone, presumably because he/she has presumably realised that the question will lead to the conclusion that GHGs result in back-radiation of IR.

2012-02-26 11:26:54
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Yooper:

Welcome back!

Excellent call on Ken Lambert!