2012-02-28 14:15:05So, does Camburn get a second chance?
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.200.254

Because he's certainly used up his first one:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1279&p=2#75759 and subsequent.

2012-02-28 14:32:11
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

As I said here:

"Letting fake-skeptics like Norman or Camburn make you mad or letting them drive threads off-topic merely plays into their hand.

Their goal is obfuscation and delay.  And denial, when they can sneak it in."

 

Examples on the thread Tom links:

  1. Camburn making people mad = unknown (a personal judgement call)
  2. Camburn driving threads off-topic = check (OHC/Argo THC/run-off) [Strike one]
  3. Camburn obfuscation = check (claims of Argo THC declining and run-off conflations) [Strike two]
  4. Camburn delay = insufficient data (but much hand-waving about many things)
  5. Camburn denial = check (claims of Argo THC declining and run-off conflations) [Strike three]

And that was just on that one thread.

 

Per JC:

"Keep a close eye on him, though, no second chances, any violation and you can ban him again."

 

Anyone care to weigh in?

2012-02-28 14:39:13
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
68.34.93.62

'Tho I find him infuriating, Camburn has weighed in on YOGI, correctly pointing out that he/she is making absolutely no sense whatsoever. And there are few 'skeptics' willing to do so - I would include Eric (skeptic) in that small group, can't think of others off the top of my head...

So one (1) point in his favor.

2012-02-28 14:46:59
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

KR, while I acknowledge the veracity of your point, it is quite clear in my mind that it is only to curry favor with the establishment.  Camburn is endeavoring to play the "honest broker" role vacated by Pielke (not that he ever actually held the position).  It is a ploy, a stratagem, a gambit.  He seeks to bury himself like a tick in the mass of regulars at SkS to prosecute his agenda of obfuscation, delay and denial.   Nothing more.

Camburn has been studying in his time away.  His comments, like apirate's have grown more sophisticated and polished in the delivery of their stratagems.  Much more nuanced denial is exhibited.  Note Camburn's favorite blogs include WUWT, RPSr, & Judith Curry.

2012-02-28 14:58:13
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
68.34.93.62

DB - An entirely reasonable point of view, he may be trying to gain/game points with the regulars.

Camburn's most recent comment would be a case in point, maintaining a poorly supported (unsupported?) view in direct contradiction to the evidence he's been shown, namely the mass accumulation in several regions of the globe.

2012-02-28 15:02:38
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Well, I for one have had enough, if someone will but second me.

2012-02-28 15:08:56
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.200.254

Seconded, but perhaps you should get your second thumb from a moderator.

2012-02-28 19:55:59
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.84.202

Pull the pin on him/her. Enough is enough. There never was any chance Camburn or KL were going to change their ways, and so it has proven to be. 

2012-02-28 21:41:46
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
88.108.208.125

I would agee that it looks like Camburn knows that YOGI is skating on thin ice and may be throwing him/her under a bus to save himself.  However it would be better to wait before banning him as he could make mileage at WUWT etc by saying that he was being banned whilst behaving well, as demonstrated by the following posts blah blah blah.

I would agree though that Camburns long term future lies elsewhere.

2012-02-29 00:18:21
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

I need someone to pin Camburn down on his assertion (made here):

"ARGO data, while short, shows a reduction in THC of the oceans in the 0-700M volume."

 He was challenged to support that assertion and his reply was less than supportive:

"DB@56:
Refer to Rob Painting at 29 of this thread.
He posted the temperature data of the 0-700M volume."

Rob's comment provided this graphic

Click to enlarge

From Roemmich and Gilson 2011.  This is the graphic that Camburn refers to as "data".

Now here is a better quality version of the image:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

So Camburn commits two three follies:

  1. He refers to a graphic as "data"
  2. He then apparently uses his Eyecrometer to make the observation that "ARGO data, while short, shows a reduction in THC of the oceans in the 0-700M volume."
  3. Without comparing it to anything (e.g., the source for the graphic, Roemmich and Gilson 2011, refers to the 2005-2010 dataset, not to any previous record, so Camburn compares the 2005-2010 period to itself), Camburn pronounces it as "a reduction in THC of the oceans in the 0-700M volume."

Someone needs to call him on this.  And ask him about the statisical significance testing he used to derive that claim.

And then I will hold him to it.

2012-02-29 03:34:18
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Yooper,

It's a shame that you have to devote so much time and attention in moderating a climate denier like Camburni.

At some point, we have to stop gumming to death the question of how best to revise the Comments Policy and make some decisions and implement those decisions. (I am repeating this on other appropriate Moderation threads.)

BTW, you have my Green Thumb to re-ban Camburn ASAP. I don't give a rat's arse about what he might claim at WUWT.

2012-02-29 05:42:16
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

Ah, I see that someone named Prof P. Body took up my mantlet for me.

2012-02-29 12:12:54
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

I have long wanted to try an experiment.  A troll (e.g., Camburn) enters a thread with some nice juicy bait to get things rolling. Now what if instead of taking the bait, two posters (no more) just start having a discussion about (and maybe even the claims being made by the troll) the post and ignore Camburn.  He'll feel like a third wheel.  Being ignored will annoy them and may force them to bugger off eventually or ramp up the rhetoric to get attention until they get banned.  

It is a more passive aggressive approach to what i would normally employ and come down hard on him in the hopes that he caves (unlikely) or seeing that he is defeated ramps up the rhetoric in lieu of a robust rebuttal.

Dan, fantastic to see you here again :)

2012-02-29 12:14:30
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

I'm reticent to ban him unless he has received the standard warnings.  That will happen, so as I say to my daughters "patience mogwai".

2012-02-29 12:51:01
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Thanks, Albie.  We'll see what form the moderation system takes down the road.

As for Camburn, JC's guidance was clear:  any violation...

 

He has now evaded answering multiple challenges of his assertion.  Usual Modus Operandi in action.

2012-02-29 14:41:07
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Dan chck my latest post, his claims were demonstrably wrong.  

2012-02-29 23:25:49Moderation revamp
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176
Sorry I dropped out of the moderation discussion over the last few days. Had 2 huge deadlines connected to the Sydney trip. Now that's done, will have a look at all the discussion tomorrow & try to synthesise it into a single summary, hopefully with a suggested final approach.