2011-03-16 11:43:52Climate_Protector . PhysSci
e
Ed
eu.junk@gmail...
67.177.227.110

Looks like Climate_Protector is just PhysSci in disguise. He appeared just as PhysSci went nuclear, and is now making virtually the same comments. John can you verify this?

2011-03-16 12:21:34example
e
Ed
eu.junk@gmail...
67.177.227.110

PhysSci @458

Given the rather small heat storage capacity of the atmospheres on both planets, these data cannot be explained in the context of the current GH theory founded on radiation interception without violating the Firs law of thermo! ... Yes, the lower atmosphere does contain energy above and beyond of what the Sun provides, but the source of that energy is not IR radiation! It's something else and much more fundamental ... Can you guess what it is? 

Climate_Protector @536

There must be some sort of high energy storage in the atmosphere that is maintained by the absorption of heat by GH gases. At least, that's the logical conclusion (in my view) from the discussion so far ... Or, there might be another source of energy we have not considered yet. Is this possible? 

2011-03-16 12:32:01
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.194.158

The pattern of posting appears the same too. Kochpuppet?

2011-03-16 13:01:35Yes, they're the same
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.101.78

Same IP address 24.9.124.231 which comes from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, USA

Climate_Protector = fineviolins@comcast.net

PhysSci = t.nikolov@comcast.net

How about we add a new comments policy - registering under multiple usernames gets all your accounts banned?

2011-03-16 13:11:54
e
Ed
eu.junk@gmail...
67.177.227.110

Ha, what a nutter. Why did he feel the need to pretend he was from Colorado? Any hint that he may be a trollbot as Rob suggested?

Anyways that sounds like a good policy to me. I think that behavior would fall under the category of a spammer.

2011-03-16 14:10:26
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Agreed on the multiple username = banning issue.

 

BTW, the motto for Cherry Hill, NJ is: 

"You couldn't pick a better place."

Like Skeptical Science.

 

Another lonely soul eager for attention.

2011-03-16 14:52:43
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.181.6.205

Is banning better, or is actually revealing the deception preferable? Particularly if you reveal that you know the IP's and location. Might make some trolls think twice.

2011-03-16 15:08:28
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

He responds to moderation and other users, so I doubt he's a bot.  A puppet perhaps, though where is he coming from seems far too obscure to be something that, as was suggested, the Kochs would be behind.  Another source of energy not the Sun?  That is too out there.

If you're going to start a policy of banning IPs, I would recommend having a grace period of a couple days before you announce and start implementing, and maybe a policy of allowing only a second account, and only to exist by itself and not with a concurrent account.

2011-03-16 15:20:13Banning user
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.101.78

I was thinking of just quietly banning the two user accounts, not the IP - no muss or fuss, not drawing attention to moderation or user behaviour. Just take away the troll's fun and attention, so they get no bang for their buck and move elsewhere. Less energy expended for everyone.

So I've set both user accounts to "Spammer" so they can no longer post comments. If they keep coming back with new accounts, I'll ban the IP.

2011-03-16 15:24:30annoying
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233

That PhysSci guy is annoying.  He tried to derail my Republican physics repealing thread by basically claiming that he'd disproven the greenhouse effect.  We kept telling him to go talk about it in the appropriate rebuttal, and he just kept coming back and harping on it.  I had to delete several of his comments.  Gotta love these guys who probably couldn't pass a college physics class and yet think they've disproven the greenhouse effect.

2011-03-16 15:31:16
e
Ed
eu.junk@gmail...
67.177.227.110

FYI Climate_Protector is still posting as of 3:30 PM website time, not sure if you missed that account or it just hasn't taken effect yet.

2011-03-16 15:32:15
e
Ed
eu.junk@gmail...
67.177.227.110

Or is this one of those things where we can see it but nobody else can?

2011-03-16 16:45:54
e
Ed
eu.junk@gmail...
67.177.227.110

PhysSci is back posting on the 2nd law thread:

"Wow, lots of discussion while I was gone ..."

This guy cracks me up. He obviously did this to create a false impression of discussion. It might have been effective if it wasn't so painfully transparent.

2011-03-16 17:00:44
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.194.158

e - not a trollbot, a kochpuppet. Could be he was recruited because he's a retired engineer or something, knows just enough jabber to confuse the masses. Could be he's just a lone fruitcake. He got real pissed when I deleted a lot of his comments on Dana's "repealing physics" thread. Which is nice. 

2011-03-16 17:04:44
e
Ed
eu.junk@gmail...
67.177.227.110

Yeah I mixed up my terms, kochpuppet was what I was looking for. I'm pretty sure he's just a random crackpot, the 2nd law thread seems to attract a lot of those. I would expect someone being paid to do that would be a bit more nuanced in their attempts. I'd be surprised if everyone on that thread hasn't caught on to his ruse.

2011-03-16 18:12:56loophole with my anti-spam code
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.101.78

Ah yes, I forgot about that loophole, while he's on an existing session, he's still got an active status. Next time he goes away and comes back to SkS, it relogs him back in and at that point, his status is updated to spam. Then he can't post comments.

Really should plug up that code.

2011-03-17 04:01:06
e
Ed
eu.junk@gmail...
67.177.227.110

John, Climate_Protector has reappered as Protector. As if his strategy wasn't ridiculous enough, he's even taken to starting arguments with himself:

"PhysSci, you either explain what you mean clearly or just go away, preferably the latter :-) "

It looks like he will need to be IP banned. I have gone ahead and marked Protector as spam, I hope that is alright. He really only had that one substance free post.

2011-03-17 11:19:04Same guy, name #4
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

And now we have another bad clone (same M.O.):

L.J.Ryan

L.J. Ryan at 10:38 AM on 17 March, 2011

RickG @ 580

"And again, the diagram is about the distribution of energy, not temperature. "

Rick in what form can one quantify the "loose" atmospheric energy? As you say, it is not temperature, so how do you know is there...can it be measured? Measured of course, not based on temperature. And by what means is the atmospheric energy stored?

2011-03-17 11:28:04Okay, banned his IP address
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.101.78

I just banned the IP 24.9.124.231 which was used by Protector, Climate_Protector, CProtector and PhysSci. The guy can't even see our site anymore, he gets a 'page can't be viewed' error.

L.J.Ryan's IP is 98.114.92.78 which hails from Washington, USA so I don't think he's the same person.

2011-03-19 00:19:45
e
Ed
eu.junk@gmail...
76.25.197.227

CTruth has now joined the discussion with similar arguments and speech patterns (and similar choice of username). Probably worth making sure he isn't the same guy again.

2011-03-19 06:42:04Ctruth
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.101.78
I don't think so. IP is 166.2.178.111 located in Virginia.