2011-10-06 07:49:42Alleycat the stray kat . Stormin' Norman
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

Been trolling the threads.  Someone to keep an eye on.

New one (not one of the other trolls with a new screen avatar); probably not a professional troll as he made no real attempt to hide his real ID.

2011-10-06 19:55:31
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.220.95

Do you have any info on Norman? He only seems to post on extreme weather threads. KR has called him a troll, and I'd tend to agree with that.

2011-10-06 22:27:21On the perils of being Norman
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

There is this, from his own post:

Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
DB @ 134

"By all means, acquire those methodologies, do the work and disprove what the current experts in the field are saying. You will be welcome to submit the work here as a guest post if it meets publication standards."

I think regardless of work I would do on the topic it will not be accepted in journals. Here is why. My credentials. I have a BA in Chemistry. Long ago I did take one year in Meterology (I did receive an A). There are many people with degrees in Meterology or Climatology that want to get their research published. I cannot forsee any publication opening up their limited space to anyone with a science degree while they have so many applications from those with credentials in the field of study. Therefore I would conclude I would never be able to post such an research project. But I do thank you for the offer.

The nature of my posts may seem to lack a consistent overall methodology. Mostly because I am responding to specific points brought up in someone's post. At times it does lead to divergence from the OP.

My efforts on SkS are not to disprove the expert opinions or findings. (some may feel that is my goal). I am of the opinion that maybe too many just accept an expert opinion without doing active research on their own to question it. I am just working to keep the thought process active, think for yourself, question everything. Maybe it does not come across in that fashion.

Then there is this:

City Fremont
State or Region Nebraska
Country United States
ISP Microlnk LLC. 
Latitude & Longitude 41.439722   -96.490000   MapG  MapV
Domain MICROLNK.COM  
ZIP Code 68025

Other knowns:

  • Norman has been posting for about a year. 
  • Despite a (claimed) degree in Chemistry, there are gaping holes in his understanding of science and the scientific method. 
  • He has been posting here at SkS for about a year. 
  • He is civil, mostly obedient to the moderation he receives and (mostly) adheres to the comments policy.
  • At times he does display a good grasp of subject material & interconnectivity.

All-in-all, I find him to be a genuine seeker of knowledge, albeit one hampered by preconceptions that colour his world-view and blind him to his metholodological mistakes.

That being said, he effectively demonstrates troll-like behaviour from time to time in his eagereness to prosecute his narratives.

2011-10-06 23:06:06
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.220.95

Thanks for the info, Daniel. I guess I've never forgiven him for calling one of my posts one of the most unscientific things he'd ever read ;)

Sphaerica seems to agree with KR, and certainly on extreme weather blogs Norman shows little will to learn.

2011-10-07 00:44:04
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

Norman's preconceptions effectively bar him from learning; in that regard he is no different from RW1, Co2isnotevil or Damorbel (to name a few of the notorious trolls here).

But I differentiate Norman from them in that if he could get past those blockages, his intellect would allow him to assimilate what he needs to assimilate to then see the light WRT climate science and climate change.

Does that mean I think that he will get past those blinders?  No.

Does that mean that I think that he won't get past those blinders?  No.

 

Norman is in a kind of limbo, stuck in a bubble not of his own conscious devising.  Should he emerge, he can be won over.  But the window of opportunity to reach him is small.  He has been participating in discussions at SkS since Nov 6 of 2010.  At some point he may give up, if we are too hard on him.

A conundrum. 

Have patience, all.  This will resolve itself, given time.

2011-10-07 03:14:13
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.220.95

By the way, I wasn't suggesting he should be banned. I was interested in seeing if we had a bit of a background on him because he keeps on posting the same arguments which have been addressed many times in the threads in question. Which means I've not convinced he can get past those blinders you mention, but only time will tell :)

2011-10-07 06:05:03
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I gave up on Norman a long time ago-- he is not open to listening and does not understand how to do science (or does not want to understand). Daniel has his persona and his objectives nailed IMHO.

Maybe Dikran can do another one of his brilliant step-by-step dialogues?  He has done that twice and both times has succeeded-- showing the person to be a troll, but maybe with Norman he will actually convince him by walking him through the science...

2011-10-08 03:36:43
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

I haven't really been following that discussion.  The comment quoted by Daniel above is fairly ironic given that I am writing a blog post on how (and why) I published a paper in a Chemistry journal, when my highest qualification in Chemistry is a grade C 'A'-level ;o) 

2011-10-10 11:55:22
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

Hi guys, very nice place you have here (thanks DB!).  Norman is a funny one.  He shows more than most a willingness to go and read material, and seems to accept some basics, but has a crucial block between accepting that an enahced hydrological cycle will lead to more of certain extremes.  His fallback then is one that he hasn't seen it so he requires an unreasonably high standard of evidence to believe it's actually happening elsewhere.  But he's so rigidly stuck at this barrier that it's hard to see what it would take to convince him.  Extremes in Nebraska?!

Dikran, I'll look forward to your post.  Examples of how credentials are not required to publish in journals is rather important (content matters), and I'm sure there are many famous examples beyond your good self!

2011-10-16 16:09:25
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

Norman's rapidly moved to utter trolling now (shown trends in a huge dataset then dismissing them with respect to a single station), but his posts are disappearing without any visible moderator intervention.  Is this deliberate, or a glitch?  Not that I mind the posts disappearing as he's just wasting everyone's time now, but wanted to check in the light of the accusations against SkS that there is no glitch in the system.  Similarly if he's being moderated out, you can remove my replies if appropriate!

2011-10-16 22:23:16
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.153.2

Did anyone notice Norman's shift in focus from publishing at SkS to journal publishing?

 

"You will be welcome to submit the work here as a guest post if it meets publication standards."

"I think regardless of work I would do on the topic it will not be accepted in journals."

 

If Norman could be induced to write something scientific for SkS, regardless of formal credentials, it would serve to show him and others that climate science is not the closed shop which is portrayed by propagandists.

2011-10-17 00:18:30
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

I invited him to put something together & submit it for review here.  I have no expectation that he would actually do the heavy lifting & put together anything that would pass internal review.

After his citing c3 as a reputable source it became abundantly clear to me that Norman is just a very clever vampire/attention troll.  He will string a thread along with constant apologies for "not understanding" and "this doesn't seem right to me" while all the while prosecuting his agenda of dissembling and naysaying.

At every opportunity he interjects with material taken from the denialist side in preference to that found on science-based sites (since he cannot support his contentions with actual evidence he therefore resorts to manufactured evidence).  When called on it he apologizes and says he won't do that again.  Until the next time.

He is just here to sow confusion and doubt for as long as we give him the opportunity to do so.

Sad.

 

His c3 reference I found quite offensive and told him so.  He kept carrying on without regard for that or real apology so it became clear that he was just trolling.  So those few derivative comments he posted after that I deleted as trolling.

DNFTT

2011-10-17 03:17:19
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.219.26

Yep, definitely a troll of some type. Quite a sly one, but one nevertheless. Still, if you re-read the whole threads, his agenda becomes pretty clear very early on and I doubt people won't see straight through it eventually.

2011-10-18 00:55:32
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.153.2

fyi -

'Norman' is one of the group (family?): Norman, Lori, Gary & John of Yutan, near Freemont, Nebraska.

Watch out for alternate combinations of these four names if he gets banned.

2011-10-18 02:11:03
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

Norman has garyjohn as part of his email address.

And yes, I pulled the plug.  Enough was enough.

2011-10-18 12:26:04Got an email from Norman
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
58.166.140.180

Just got this:

Name: Norman Grinvalds
Email: garyjohn@microlnk.com
Message: I can't post on the comments section at this time.  Have I been banned from posting or is there a system glitch?

I was bringing up points but did not receive a warming of violation of comments rules or that I was in danger of being removed.  James Powell book review thread.

So what was the straw that broke the camel's back. Did he receive any warnings? Was there a specific action that tipped him over the line?

2011-10-18 13:01:13
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

John, I feel that everyone at SkS has worked exceptionally hard at trying to communicate with Norman that his approach to science (to first presume that the science had to be wrong & to then work to show that it was wrong by finding support through anecdotes and information found on denier websites) was flawed with examples of how to more properly approach the science.  And with tips on how to better present his case.

But, as noted above, Norman simply goes on his orbit.  My perceptions on that are noted above.  For me, the last straw was his using c3 as a cited source; when I objected to it due to the likening of SkS with the SS and being Funadamentally Evil (as detailed in my comment here), Norman either didn't see my being personally offended by it or didn't care to apologize for it (as noted here).

The offending reference, coupled with the continual drain on participants resources with zero appreciable behaviour change, was the defining point for me.

If that was insufficient a reason, John, then I apologize for overstepping.

 

That being said, I do not oppose his reinstatement (I was considering it a time-out myself).  I have a lot of interaction invested in Norman over the past year and am loath to consider it a sunken cost.

 

Your call on how to proceed.  Either way, I will support your decision.

 


Note:  Given his volume of comments, the Comments-by-a-User function doesn't show if he's ever received a Warning.  I'm certain he was not given a Final Warning.

 

2011-10-18 13:27:09
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

Just ot point out, as I did to Norman himself on the thread in question, of the first 225 comments on the thread he alone had 85, most of them very long, and they all said basically the same thing, listing one anecdotal extreme event after another.  One of the definitions of a troll is someone who keeps saying the same thing over and over in the face of all evidence and argument. He doesn't actually say anyone else is wrong, he just ignores their comments and keeps posting more of the same.

His posts are clearly designed to be unscientific but to appear to present a valid case.  It amounts to the extreme weather equivalent of "it's cold out today, so global warming is over".

The fact that he keeps going and going, in the face of all comments to the contrary, is to me the trollish behavior that should never be allowed to continue.  He doesn't need to accept defeat, but he does need to stop simply posting more and more examples of what amounts to thin air.

Perhaps you could arrange for a sort of thread-ban.  Simply declare his input into that particular thread as over the top and thus censored, without affecting his ability to post elsewhere.

2011-11-21 14:26:53
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
69.138.165.234

I'm getting very tired of Norman, and his (apparent) complete inability to learn.

That said, I wouldn't totally block him, as pointing out his errors may be helpful in general education, but oh my, does he spout nonsense.

2011-11-21 14:34:54
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

I had given him a 2-week timeout after his brazenly (& insulting) unrepentant links to C3.  However, his reinstatement seems to have emboldened him, as his modus operandi is back in full rigor.

Short of full banishment, the only recourse we now have is to tightly moderate his presence at SkS, which will entail a great deal of interaction on the part of the mod's.  He is essentially just trolling, both of the regular participants and the moderators.  And mass-deletion of his comments is no real answer, either.

2011-11-23 00:14:36Get on with it!
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

The amount of time and energy that authors and moderators have spent babysitting Norman is absurd! He's nothing more than an energy drainer.

Ban him and devote your time & energy to more important tasks. 

2011-11-23 05:36:55
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.84.23

When it comes to vampire trolling, Norman must be up there with Gilles. Only difference being that Norman is totally fixated on extreme events, whereas Gilles trolled vitrually every subject.

2012-02-12 14:25:13
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
70.165.79.231

Norman is currently engaged in a rather amazing cherry-pick streak. I believe several of the last posts took the numbers from a review chapter I linked (Milly et al 2010), in isolation, and tried to make rhetorical points from them. I'm almost sorry I found such a good reference on anthropogenic water usage/flow in regards to sea rise...

Norman cannot seem to look at the larger picture, nor to recognize when he's cherry-picking. These are the same characteristics he exhibited in the 'climate extreme'/'extreme weather' threads.

2012-02-13 13:23:09
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.149.122

KR, I think you are being extraordinarilly generous in attributing the cherry picking to an inability to handle data with integrity, rather than a determination to not do so.

2012-02-13 13:58:47
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

I noted that Tom set up Norman with a logic-trap and Norman has walked right into it...

Since Tom has now closed the gate on him it is up to Norman and his reaction that determines the next step.

2012-03-09 01:31:50
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

He's baaack!

2012-03-09 06:20:23
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.161.203.6

Another thread derailed by Norman, great....

2012-03-09 10:07:50
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
68.34.93.62

My apologies to everyone, especially Glenn Tamblyn - I am exercising less and less patience with Norman.

WRT the earthquake data he directly contradicts the source of his data.

I suspect he's well-meaning; but his confirmation bias (apocalypic sources, for #### sake?) is just overwhelming. And he will.not.acknowledge when an error on his part is pointed out - just move onto the next poorly supported arguing point.

2012-03-09 10:16:58
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37
I'm going to play "Lizzie Borden" on the thread later, unless anyone has any objections. I could even reassign all the OT comments and the responses to them to KR's "extremes" thread, if desired. And yes, it's a PITA to do...
2012-03-09 18:06:18
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

No objections from me, DB.  KR's right, Norman's contradiction of USGS is quite breathtaking.  Was going to comment that Munich Re show geophysical events increasing (due to better monitoring/more observation), with indication from USGS that the earthquakes are being better monitored (as others have pointed out to Norman), therefore that earthquakes are apparently increasing hardly contradicts Munich Re!!  But as you're going to deal with him I'll leave it.  I note he's still avoiding the Hansen 2011 paper (I've pointed him to it twice now), which has some relevance to Glenn's OP here; if you see fit to purge the thread I might post a link to it without reference to Norman. 

2012-03-10 10:52:43
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Yooper,

The sooner wwe dispose Norman the better!

2012-03-11 02:15:21
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Unfortunately, simply deleting the OT portions is an extremely slippery slope (once one starts there is no end).  Implementation would gut the A Sunburnt Country thread (now at 69 comments and growing).  Reassigning them to the Hansen thread is impractical (would take me some 4 hours to move them all & adjust the links and comment references on both threads accordingly).

I have the power to act but am not empowered to do so.

I will state this:  any further mish-mash/FUD by Norman will not be tolerated by me.  Hang the ramifications.

2012-03-11 03:50:51
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Deleted this comment for blatant trolling:

A Sunburnt Country
Tom Curtis @69

Also I believe I will have to agree to disagree that when you plot both data sets (actual strong earthquake number vs Munich Re catastrophe report on geophysical phenomena) that they show correlation. I think in this case eyeball is more than adequate to demonstrate these two lines are not moving with each other.


Emphasis added.

2012-03-11 05:40:16
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Daniel,

The best way to deal with Norman is to paint him into a corner and not let out.

2012-03-11 23:32:25
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37
JH, that has already been done. Norman denies he's been trapped and continues to blithely pursue his agenda. After 3 more OT comments today I pulled the plug on him. Es finito.
2012-03-12 05:49:12
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Yooper,

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

2012-03-12 10:34:18DB - Sadly, I agree.
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
68.34.93.62

I really dislike banning people - I have a deep-seated urge to convince folks, rather than chase them away.

That said, I don't think rational argument would have ever worked with Norman. He refused to engage in discussion, just running off to the next goal post shift or red herring. Good call.

2012-03-12 10:47:06
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

"I really dislike banning people"

As do I, very much so.  In fact, I detest having to do it.  I take it as a personal failure when individuals simply refuse to conform to the standards and expectations of behavior that participation in this forum makes incumbent upon them.  Because as moderator, that is my job. 

So if I am slow to respond to calls for banishment, then please understand that it is out of an innate reluctance to deprive people of the right to speak.  However, some comments are simply so egregious that it is patently obvious that there is no intent at all to participate in dialogue, ever.  In those cases I act with imperitive and impunity.

That said, Norman has had far more chances then many receive.  He even was given a 2-week timeout, after which he became much more circumspect with his comments.  The recent issues with moderation, coincident with the return of Ken Lambert and Camburn, seem to have emboldened him.  The "bulletproof" syndrome.

A sorry chapter.  With many detritus-littered threads in its wake. 

On to the living...

2012-03-12 14:21:16DB - Understand and agree.
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
68.34.93.62

I think you've been quite considerate (and incredibly patient) in this respect. No complaints whatsoever, and in fact my compliments to your attempts (quite successful, I would add) to keep things as reasonable, on topic, and germane to the discussion.