Moderation Hole

It's happened again. A user at this site has decided he doesn't need to follow the site's rules, no matter how simple. Some sites would ban a person for that. I've never liked that idea. Some people are arrogant jerks who feel they don't need to play by the rules, but that's not something I feel means they should be banished forever for.

I came up with an idea to handle this years ago. People who can't follow the rules but don't post things which necessarily need to be deleted will not be banned from the site entirely. Instead, they'll be allowed to post in a single, off-topic thread. I haven't made such a thread in ages as I've not needed to so here's a new one. All people, including anyone soft-banned from this site can use the thread for whatever they want (save for things like cursing and pornography).

Congratulations Ron Graf, you're the first person in several years to force me to do this. Be advised, any comments you make on any other post which consist of anything more than a single link to a comment you make in this thread will be deleted.


  1. Brandon wrote: "I pointed out you made up a quotation and attributed it to an IPCC author. Your response claims you intentionally altered a quote to say "rock in my shoe" instead of using "stone" as some sort of test of me. Leaving aside the absurdity of testing people to see if they'll point out you've posted a fake quotation as proof they're not worth talking to, this "test" of your is insane as the words you cited were from Steve McIntyre."

    Brandon, I actually did see that I had made that error when you first pointed it out. I trusted a recollection rather than re-reading the post. I'm guilty. But the central point of my comment is unchanged and unaffected by the quote. There was evidence of a conspiracy behind the formation of the hockey stick. It was not the work of on investigator or even one team. The Climategate emails clearly show IPCC lead author Chris Folland was coaching Mann (and his team) to alter results. As Steve McIntyre put it:
    'After telling the section authors about the stone in his shoe, Folland added that he only “wanted the truth”.'

    Anyone else reading my revelation of this incident would not have cared if Folland said "stone in my shoe" or had a meeting to convey the same idea. There was clearly unscientific conduct, unethical conduct and collusion to create a centerpiece chart that could be used for the WMO presentation and the IPCC's Third Assessment Report. I read somewhere the IPCC was going to make the chart their logo. I don't know if that was true but I have read enough to know that is an accurate depiction of how important the graph was to climate science. You know this. You have written books on the hockey stick. Yet to prove your post's thesis that conspiracies exist only in the active imagination of fiction writers and the paranoid you are deluding yourself, or perhaps unintentionally diverting focus for the central arguments by revealing an immaterial flaw you found with a microscope, or in some cases a dictionary. This is likely one of the reasons you are banned from so many sites.

    Ironically, the only site I will be banned from is yours. And it all started because I sincerely wanted to help you mend the fence with Steve.

    Joshua, I will be unable to continue but you can find lots of material on William Thompson. It took me litterally two seconds to find this: recorded phone conversations between Dr. Thompson and Dr. Hooker.

    Thompson, I understand is back at the CDC after being getting a deal to getting his career back in exchange for recanting.

  2. To be clear, the reason Ron Graf has earned himself a soft-ban is he makes things up then refuses any effort from others to correct/clarify his untrue claims. Specifically, he wrote:

    Brandon dislikes Steyn, not because he is a champion of free speech, but because he mis-stated Mann's trick in MBH98 and clearly is not a statistician and so has no place to criticize a scientific chart, (even if it's a fraud).

    This is one of the many untrue things he said in a recent post, untrue things he repeatedly refused any effort to correct. Under this site's rules, I challenged him to provide the basis for this claim or admit he had none. That is the right of any commenter on this site who believes someone has made a factually untrue claim. Under this site's rules, such a challenge cannot be ignored. If such a challenge is ignored, the user who ignores it will receive a soft-ban.

    The reason for this is simple. I believe productive discussions are impossible with any person who simply makes things up. As such, nobody is allowed to make factual claims without also being willing to explain the basis for those claims. It's really simple.

  3. Ring -

    Ok. One more. I promise this is the last one... it was just too important to pass up. This kind of damning information about Ford needs to be spread more widely to make sure that the Demz don't get away with their hoax.

    Please pass it along to your friends, especially JDOhio and his buds over at Lucia's.

  4. Hey Brandon, I saw on the news tonight that a leak from the OPCW showed they covered up their own analysis that the chlorine was not dropped but placed. Also, as I mentioned several times before, chlorine is an industrial gas used for water treatment and in chemical manufacturing. It's commonly available and not toxic enough for people not to able to run away from its repulsive smell. It only worked as a weapon of the WWI battlefield when tanker cars of it were used to flood a large area and the winds were calm and directional.

    I happened to see my name in your post here. Even though the world may be insane we can do our part to add to civility by not attacking people personally when we disagree with their analysis on topics. I hope you come to agree at some point as you otherwise have a brilliant mind. We should all admire Steve Mc's ability to do what he did for years amid such inhospitable currents. I think your attacks on him were uncalled for and may have been hurtful in light of the fact that he once saw you as a bright young man he was fond of.

    This is just the first link on the Douma OPCW leak that came up on a search. It's a current blog so you can comment with them about your assurance that it's all a conspiracy theory.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *