First, thanks to all the moderators for keeping the discussion threads sane and on topic.

I note that there's occasionally a fair bit of meta-discussion about deleted comments. Often this involves people complaining about censorship of legitimate Other blogs are dealing with this with threads called things like the Bore Hole (Real Climate), the Rabett Hole or the Very Deep Hole (Deep Climate), it's certainly interesting for everyone to see to see what rubbish gets moderated out and, I think, it embarrasses the trolls (I would love to see the equivalent on WUWT, I would bet that a lot of sensible critical commentary gets deleted on that blog).

It seems that a good name is a prerequisite if a blog is to have such a place. If the Moderation Team here ever decides to go this route and have an open thread where the effluent is flushed to, may I suggest that you consider calling it the "Skeptic Tank" ?

Not "Sqeptic Tank"?

It's clever but leads to the accusation that we're just deleting skeptic comments. That in itself is not a good image to convey but it's also not true - plenty of warmist comments get deleted too:

1.  But are the deleted Warmist comments a feedback to the deleted Skeptic forcings?

2.  Or do Warmist comments force Skeptic feedbacks?

3.  And is there a lag?

4.  Anyone run a Granger Causality test on the slopes, 'cause it sure looks like a natural cycle...

I know you're being tongue in cheek but these are the kind of questions the cognitive scientists ask me when we talk about blogging behaviour. It's certainly possible to answer all these questions but it would take a lot of work to link deleted comments to previous comments.

Yes I was being TIC.  However, I'm well aware of the cascade reaction, which goes both ways, on provocative statements made on threads. 

I've made it a point to be more reflective of my statements before I post my comments.  Perhaps my deleting my own comments after some retrospection has inflated the deleted Warmist comments (I assume I'm classified as a Warmist...)

:)