2012-01-06 10:57:01mace is trouble
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

I hope that I have not overplayed my hand here, but i just deleted a bunch of comments on the 2011 BS award winners OP.  Mace was/is baiting people and trolling and posting off-topic nonsense, and reasonable people being reasonable felt obliged to correct and challenge his BS.

If he posts agin maybe Daniel can give him the standard warning-- probably what i should have done in retrospect.

 

2012-01-06 23:56:40
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Indeed, mace is now very clearly just trolling.  Daniels approach of not letting him post on multiple articles until he starts responding to the answers he has been given on other threads seems like a good approach to me.

Perhaps the site should have a limit to the number of articles you can post on per day, which starts at one, and then is increased gradually by the moderators as an earned privelidge.  It would make it more difficult for trolls to behave in the way that mace has been,

2012-01-07 01:01:39
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

The number of SkS authors/moderators chasing mace's tail astounding.

The amount of time and energy being expended by SkS/authors chasing mace's tail is absurd.

Mace should have been banned days ago!

 

2012-01-07 02:35:04
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Now that he is failing to obey directions from the moderator (DB), banning (again) would be a reasonable option.

2012-01-07 03:50:47
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Aaah!  I had to delete a few of Mace's trolling posts yesterday in addition to a number of posts by people trying to reason with him. Unfortunately Tom's post at #43 opened the door for mace again, and we are now back to square one.

Yesterday I warned "The topic of this post is "The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards". Can we please stay on topic and avoid the temptation to respond to baiting and off-topic assertions and attempts to distract from the BS award winners. Further trolling, off-topic discussions and unsupported assertions will be summarily deleted. Thank you."

Now what do I/we do?  Go back in and delete a bunch of posts again, inlc. Toms's at#43?  Or post a standard warning to mace to comply or move on?

This thread is going to need close monitoring folks and i am probbly not the best one to moderate, but I will if noone else is able/willing.

2012-01-07 04:00:39
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

Mace is done.

And in case anyone is curious, "none" posts from Dover, New Hampshire in the US, while mace/jdey123 posts from Exeter/Leicester, England.

2012-01-07 04:35:27
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Hi Daniel,

Thanks.  I'm assuming he was banned becasue this was not his first transgression?

So what do we do with the thread Daniel?  It is somewhat of a mess.

2012-01-07 04:45:48
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

I've cleaned it up a good bit.  I'll do a once over in a bit for clarity.

Mace was jdey123 (James Dey) under a new name.  When James was banned for inflammatory ideology & trolling he immediately logged back in as "mace", but was much more circumspect than he had been.  His first comment was to confirm someone else's question of jdey123 by saying "he was banned".  The only persons who knew that at that time was James and myself (as I had not yet had time to email JC & let him know).

When a super-admin bans someone, it disables that user account only; the IP/ISP is still open for business.  We then email JC with the IP/IPs to ban (they're hard-coded in).  To give the cognitive guys JC works with something to play with, mace was given space to see what he'd do.  Which was to eventually revert back to his predetermined agenda of dissembling, disinformation and trolling.

Edit:  thread in question was sanitized.

2012-01-07 05:48:37
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Hi Daniel,

Holy cow...sanitized indeed! Thanks Daniel.  Mace/James is a very good troll....

In such situations does someone email the guilty party to explain to them why they were banned?

2012-01-07 05:55:23
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

"In such situations does someone email the guilty party to explain to them why they were banned?"

In an ideal world.  John set me up with an SkS email address, but I have to figure out what to use for an email reader.  I use hotmail for personal & SkS stuff and my work email uses Outlook (so I can't configure that).  Once I get that straightened out I'll start emailing the banned people with explanations. 

But I'll need a email reader with the ability to block emails, as at some point I'll get flooded with trollspam from irate denialists...(suggestions welcome).

2012-01-07 05:57:12
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Hi Dan,

Tks. Good points, don't want your personal email flooded with hate mail and spam. No suggestions from me, I'm not IT savvy enough.  One could open a SkS gmail account I suppose.....

2012-01-07 12:48:16
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.145.36

DB. You always apologize for deleting posts which respond to deleted posts, but generally I never mind.  I have even posted in the expectation of deletion so that an egregious myth or misrepresentation will not stand uncorrected while waiting for a moderator to notice that it is of topic.

But, my post on England winter temperatures was different.  Not only did I track down the relevant graphs, I even downloaded a new program and learnt to use it so I could verify what my eyeballs told me with some number crunching.  All that work winnowed as chaffe.  Cé la vie.

So apology accepted this time, but seriously it is not required.  Rather thanks for the excellent work you do.

2012-01-07 14:23:26
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Sorry, Tom.  And to everyone else.  It is truly an awful thing to have to do, to delete the comments of Forum members.  As much as I dislike having to act the "bad cop" & mete out some measure of reining in the trolls and denialists, I dislike even more being forced to delete the comments of those caught up in the action.  Sanitizing the thread in the wake of the mess that mace made of it was a horrible thing to have to do.  But it was necessary; someone had to do it.

I'm going to attempt to restore your comment, Tom.  With your permission, I'll edit out the references to mace so it will no longer be construed as a specific reply to a deleted comment.

2012-01-07 14:48:28I believe it was this comment?
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37
Tom Curtis at 17:09 PM on 6 January 2012 (Email commenter)

Mace @32 and 35, Stephen Baines has shown why there is no cherry picking involved in the "Significant Events in Climate for Nov and Autumn 2011" report. Further, picking just one seasons data from just one country is clearly cherry picking. The appropriate data set is global temperatures, and the effect of global trends can clearly be seen in the recent paper by Hansen et al, 2011:



However, those points have been adequately covered above. What I really want to point out is that your chosen data set also shows warming. This can clearly be seen by looking at the area between the smoothed line (black dashes) and the 1971-2000 average. Clearly the area above the 1971-2000 average is much greater in more recent years than they where in the early 20th century, indicating an overall positive trend.

Indeed, I digitized the data to confirm that. Overall the data shows a positive trend of 0.03 degrees C per decade; and a positive trend of 0.33 degrees C per decade since 1970. It is well known that it is only since 1970 that a clear global warming signal has emerged due to the restricted growth of anthropogenic aerosols since then.

Mean Temperature:


So, even a data set especially cherry picked to show no warming in fact clearly shows the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Nothing could more aptly demonstrate the intellectual poverty of climate change denialism.

2012-01-07 14:48:53Posted as this
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37
Tom Curtis at 17:09 PM on 6 January, 2012

There is no cherry picking involved in the "Significant Events in Climate for Nov and Autumn 2011" report. Further, picking just one seasons data from just one country, a common tactic of those in denial, is clearly cherry picking. The appropriate data set is global temperatures, and the effect of global trends can clearly be seen in the recent paper by Hansen et al, 2011:



However, those points have been adequately covered above. What I really want to point out is that the chosen data set of those in denial also shows warming. This can clearly be seen by looking at the area between the smoothed line (black dashes) and the 1971-2000 average. Clearly the area above the 1971-2000 average is much greater in more recent years than they where in the early 20th century, indicating an overall positive trend.

Indeed, I digitized the data to confirm that. Overall the data shows a positive trend of 0.03 degrees C per decade; and a positive trend of 0.33 degrees C per decade since 1970. It is well known that it is only since 1970 that a clear global warming signal has emerged due to the restricted growth of anthropogenic aerosols since then.

Mean Temperature:


[Source]

So, even a data set especially cherry picked to show no warming in fact clearly shows the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Nothing could more aptly demonstrate the intellectual poverty of climate change denialism.

2012-01-07 15:02:18
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.145.36

Thanks, Daniel.

Your willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty on such a regular basis is what gives this site its generally high standard of moderation.  Much appreciated.

2012-01-08 01:31:56
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Daniel, always feel free to delete any of my posts as well, I don't mind either; getting the message across is the important thing, and sometimes a bit of slash and burn provides fertile space for a more productive discussion. ;o)