2011-11-26 12:04:23I've reinstated Don Gaddes (albeit with a short leash)
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
143.238.130.246

Got this email from Don Gaddes:

Hi John,

            After trying to present information from the above source to justify a point of view regarding Solar Influence on climate, and assist with the comprehension of other correspondents, my account was banned. I may have offended some protocol as a new contributor,(if so I apologise,) I believe what I tried to say could be an important contribution to the debate. As you are from a Solar Science background, I believe you may be more sympathetic to my arguments, or at least allow them to be put. Censoring legitimate debate will not advance understanding on either side of the AGW fence.

 

I replied with (and I understand if some moderators think I'm being too lenient here):

I believe your account was banned due to repeated violations of the comments policy - off-topic comments promoting your book.

Would be happy to restore your account so long as your comments are on-topic to the conversation being held.

Don's reply:

             Thank you for your consideration. My comments were to do with the correlation of the Lunar Metonic Cycle with the Solar Sunspot Cycle and Earth's Rotation Ratio aligned with that of the Sun, along with proofs provided by the Ratios Principle outlined in the book 'Tomorrow's Weather' (Alex S Gaddes,1990.) This pertained to immediate previous comments allowed on your blog by other contributors and answered by your editors.
              I look forward to being reinstated as a participant in in these important discussions.

And just now, I sent a final reply:

I've reinstated your user account. Just letting you know, however, that I've also instructed the moderators that if you continue to post comments that are just promoting your book, then they are to ban your account.

I don't think we give away too much by reinstatement in this case - he's on a very short leash so any comments that spruik his book can be deleted.

2011-11-26 13:50:45
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Right-tee-oh

2011-11-29 11:02:36Sorry Daniel, I'm toying with this 'charm offensive' theory
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
207.239.114.206

I tried out the 'charm offensive' on Wes Allen when he appeared at my Tweed talk and it worked quite well. Also worked well on Jon Nicoll. So I'm wondering how far bridge building should go. Of course, there is the danger of building a bridge then crossing to the dark side, Judith Curry style, although I'm not building bridges in order to position myself as an "honest broker" (a totally disingenuous approach) but in order to understand deniers better.

Anyway, let's see how this turns out.

2011-11-29 11:30:14No need to apologize
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

I'm a believer in 2nd chances...as long as you feel that there is an actual chance of success.

But sometimes you have to shake the dust off your cloak.  Like I did recently with Tanahano:

"LOOLOOOOOOOOLLLLL. Al Gore is a failure who should be killed now. THis idiot. He predicted a lot of failed things. Anyway how can somebody believe this fool if he drives a car that uses gas, lives in a house that uses electricity(coal). He also is making millions by tricking everyone. HOw do I know he's wrong? Well he said that c02 caused global warming and it doesn't. That's why global temperatures haven't risen that quickly when it should have as the c02 are at record levels. He predicted more hurricanes but no hurricane for 3 years in USA till Irene came."

Posted on 2011-11-28 10:19:23 at Al Gore got it wrong
IP: 66.65.148.128

2011-11-29 12:33:55LOOLOOOOOOOOLLLLL?!
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
207.239.114.206

What is he, my daughter's age?

2011-12-02 08:43:22
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

FYI, I went through Gaddes' book and was quite surprised at the contents.  His father was very aware of GHG theory and did not dispute it.  He was having fun with numbers, and on some level seemed to recognize the fact.  He was also humble about what he'd done, and simply presented it so that others could see how he'd spent his time.

He also lacked some very basic scientific knowledge that leads to many false assumptions -- which is unsurprising since he dropped out of school at 13 to work with his father as a "professional cedar cutter."

Anyway, I posted two far too lengthy comments for Mr. Gaddes directly addressing his father's work.  The most glaring issue there is that the tie between his various cycles to the real world is only to droughts as inferred from Australian rainfall records.  It is not tied to anything global, or to temperatures of any sort, and his father never made any predictions (although I do now remember a comment wherein Gaddes claimed to extend such predictions into the current decade).

We'll see how he addresses the direct and specific issues I raised, as well as the fact that as far as I can see if his father were alive today he'd be a frequent participant, if not contributor, to Skeptical Science -- and not from the denial side of things.

2011-12-02 09:20:14
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
216.185.0.2

OK, Sphaerica - I for one will allow him some space as well. I was a bit concerned that I was overly harsh in my posts, I just get really tired of seeing Scafetta style correlations without any physics.

That, and I'm starting to get a bit weirded out over the third person posts from Don Gaddes. I've never found it a good sign when someone starts referring to themself in third person outside a court of law. But I'll refrain from posting that publicly...