Opened his SkS account several days after Ken Lambert was banned.  Has had several comments censored for inflammatory rhetoric already.  Now posting a long BP diatribe without a link to the original comment.

And has an identical IP to Ken's banned IP (124.187.16.107).

Wasn't the IP-banning process supposed to block IP's?

Having just reviewed cm's comment stream (here) I have little doubts as to my above supposition.

His first several comments upon opening the account:

• critical mass at 22:54 PM on 7 August 2011
  Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
  As a latecomer to this thread, KL and BP need to answer the criticisms of Albatross and Rob Painting. Otherwise their ability to argue a case must be in question.
  Response:

  [DB] Not to pick on them unduly, but those individuals have a long history of selective focus when it comes to posting comments at SkS.

• critical mass at 11:22 AM on 10 August 2011
  Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
  I noticed on another denialist site that a Ken Lambert claimed he was banned from SKS - is that true?
  
  If so, we will not have the satisfaction of debunking his misguided skeptic arguments.
  Moderator Response:

  [DB] After many, multiple warnings and many subsequent infractions (some egregious), Mr. Lambert was given a final warning to adhere to the Comments Policy.  After several more infractions it was deemed that participation here under the constrictions of the Comments Policy was a burden more onerous than he could endure.

  As for his arguments, those had been debunked and rebunked multiple times.

  Not to worry, other skeptics toting bags of hammers will arise to fill the gap.

  I'll leave this up for a bit for you to see, then I'll have to take down this comment as OT (sorry).

Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
muoncounter #various

Not being familiar with Dr Curry, I had a look at her publications. They seem far from the efforts of a fringe scientist.

To say that her conversion from warmist to 'luke warmer' - to chronicler of the crisis of confidence in the 'standard theory of AGW' is somehow invalid is to miss the point.

Climategate and Copehnhagen were gamechangers for the interested members of the lay public.

Recent differences between Drs Trenberth and Hansen about the measured energy imbalances in recent years adds further uncertainty to the debate.

"Motivated reasoning" is another term for 'advocacy science'. Cool rational apolitical thought and expression is the ideal to which a scientist should aspire - but such sights as Dr Hansen being arrested in a demo outside the White House would moreso read 'advocacy scientist' in the public mind and weaken the case for an overwhelming concensus which is required for effective action on climate change.

• critical mass at 01:27 AM on 17 September 2011
  One-Sided 'Skepticism'
  VeryTallGuy - #50
  
  I agree with your comment. The tone is becoming a bit hysterical. Let's stick to the facts. As a Lukewarmer, I don't think that all errors and exaggerations are confined to the 'skeptic' side of the debate.
  
  For example Dr Trenberth has written on this site of a 'stasis in surface temperatures' and the unresolved problem of the 'missing heat' in the oceans, and Dr Hansen has suggested that delayed effects from Mt Pinitubo have contributed to 'lack of warming' over the last 5-6 years.
  
  I don't see these facts being called 'Trenberth's Travesties' nor 'Hansen's Howlers' by this site's authors who would have to disagree with these scientist's points.
  Response:

  [DB] Trenberth makes the case for the "missing heat" to be found in the deep ocean (paper in press).  Hansen's "Delayed Effects" point is still being discussed in the literature, as is aersol forcing quantification.

  In this regard, there is no disagreement from SkS.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'
#117 DM

I think the issue here is one of over-reaction on both sides of the debate.

The authors of this site have a lot invested in the AGW position - both as students and maybe practitioners of the science. There is a natural tendency to protect this edifice from skeptic hordes.

This also applies to the more extreme skeptics, who give the Lukewarmers a bad name.

When one's strongly held beliefs are attacked by those who one regards as unqualified, then over-reaction and ad hominem are a slippery slope away.

However, evidence of error or incompetence is not evidence of bad faith.

We should all expect that anyone who publishes as a 'scientist' must act in good faith and not knowingly or wilfully publish what they know to be incorrect.

Labelling individual scientists work in mocking tones (rather juvenile and lacking in wit or subtlety to boot) is not quite a personal attack but more properly marked as bad manners which debases the currency of this site.

Al Gore is not a scientist and I don't believe has ever published a 'peer reviewed' paper. When polemic is the topic of discussion then political positions become fair game and the bounds of free speech short of libel should apply.

etc, etc, etc; A common theme throughout.

I would agree as well, Daniel. Critical mass's post here appears identical to KL's arguments about integrating solar influences over the last 150 years, complete with a lack of recognition of the role of S-B radiation in addressing such offsets. 

I'm guessing critical mass=Ken Lambert.

If true, that is pretty poor form by Lambert.  Have you seen how Ken is posting long swaths of text posted by BP here at SkS? I

I hope Ken is not claiming that he and BP were both banned, BP elected to leave.

Yeah, Albie.  That's what aroused my suspicions, at least enough to do the necessary digging.

BP did leave voluntarily.  But when he reneged on that by continuing his disinformation trolling I slammed the door on him.  Technically, he volunteered to leave.  Technically, I banned him by changing the locks after he left.

6 of one, half-a-dozen of the other.  Meh.

Ken pasted the same thing over at Real Climate, on the recent Meehl (2011) thread.