Tuesday, July 12, 2011
As might be expected I have been censored from several of the sites, in all cases for stating facts undisputed by the site author. I think they should be named and shamed.
DELTOID - I was barred from them when I, quoted a prominent government funded alarmist and "Jeff Harvey, a former Nature editor attacked me by saying that sir David King the government's science advisor was capable of only "kindergarten" science. Jeff hadn't properly read what I said & didn't realise who I was quoting but nonetheless his assessment of king was dead on.
RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE I had a long debate on here, which ended constructively purely because there was 1 person on it who agreed that debating science is not simply a matter of ignoring the science and engaging in personal attacks. Nonetheless "Orac", the host, repeatedly refused to discuss the scientific basis of his allegation that Ann Coulter, in disputing the Linear No Threshold theory had been "versus Physics", as if censoring reasoned investigation could ever be "against" the principles of science.
The good bits of the discussion are here & show that, at the very least the no threshold hypothesis has less evidential basis and is thus less scientific than the opposite theory, radiation hormesis.
PHARYNGULA Hosted by Prof P.Z. Myers an Associate Professor in Minnesota who has made something of a name for himself by saying that evolution happened and creationism didn't. I consider this shooting very slow moving fish in a barrel but it has gained him some fame. When he was in Glasgow my question from the floor wasn't taken. I made the comparison between creationism and warming alarmism saying "By any objective standards the warming alarmists are far more destructive, robbing human society of trillions of dollars, whereas the harm creationists do isn't within many magnitudes of that. The cultural effects of teaching children they will die if they question things may be even greater"
This could only be countered by personal vituperation, which is where I was refered to as "fuckwit".. I several times suggested to Prof Myers that anybody who respects science should abjure such vituperation but either (A) he acknowledges he has no respect for science or (B) he has no understanding of it and thinks vituperation essential to and facts anathema to science.
Either way he censored.
STOAT produced a thread devoted to the claim that Richard Lindzen had engaged in "the kind of full blown Black-helicopters-of-peer-review we expect from an incipient fellow of the Breakness Institute". As normal no form of factual support for such silliness could be produced so
I put up the 7 questions that can be answered if alarmism is true and naturally they couldn't,
so instead I was told my "claims" (actually they were questions) were "toe jam". I disagreed and since no seriously better response could be constructed I got censored.
GREG LADEN'S BLOG produced a thread astonishingly favourable to Michelle Bachmann, who is sceptical about global warming so I congratulated him for his fair mindedness and put up the questions.
Apparently questioning anything scientific on his blog results in "COMMENTS DELETED FOR VIOLATION OF BLOG COMMENTING POLICY" though the reply "
Neil- Do you accept George Monbiot as your personal anti-Christ?" remained and thus clearly represents the standard of blog commenting policy he aspires to.
EVOLUTIONBLOG I said "The problem with the anti-creationist argument is that most of those doing it are not trying to promote science but merely trying to make themselves look smarter than the rednecks. No wonder they antagonise these people.
The damage, financial, cultural & scientific done by creationism is tiny and can be easily avoided. The damage done by the catastrophic global warming scam runs into trillions and cannot be avoided by anybody. The cultural and scientific damage can be shown by the fact that most blogs on "scienceblogs" feel the need to censor any discussion to promote, what the very act of censorship proves they know to be, this pseudoscientific fraud. "
Which got me censored. A fine example of the scientific attitude that differentiates "creation scientists" & most "sciencebloggers"
from real scientists.
A FEW THINGS ILL CONSIDERED Attacked "non-Lord" Lord Monckton for doubting that catastrophic global warming is visibly bearing down on us like a steam train. I asked for some evidence that such a claim of visible catastrophe there was and the reply was censorship, which, in its way, does answer the question.
Call this a survey of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming true believers. Not all the "scienceblogs" authors have engaged in censorship but most of the others do not blog to any great extent on the subject. What is quite clear is that
1 - If all the 7 questions cannot be answered in a way that supports the warming scare it is clearly false and if 3,4,6 & 7 cannot be answered it is deliberately fraudulent. Nobody can give an answer to any of the 7 which is both supportive and truthful.
2 - The basic principles of science involve discussion and verification of facts and measurements. Thtey are wholly incompatible with ad hominen cries of "fuckwit", let alone censorship to defend the official faith.
3 - If "scienceblogs" was genuinely motivated by scientific values neither authors nor commenters would feel, it necessary to so betray scientific principles. Obviously every author who engages in censorship rather than debate is not, under any circumstances, concerned about science. They are simply frauds taking the government money.
Pretty much the same applies to commenters who use obscenity and insult in place of reason. Perhaps more important, for the general health of science, at least in America where this site is based, is that there were very few people there willing to put their heads above the parapet to say that reasonable questions deserve reasonable answers and indeed that if such answers are not available there must, by definition, be something wrong with the theory.
I must admit to having reacted robustly but have never done so except in response to the most outrageously insulting behaviour which no person who was not a wholly corrupt charlatan could have engaged in and no site author, of whom the same was true, could have supported.
This links to the latest "scienceblogs" threads. I will post on those that don't censor again. There is informative stuff there as well but, having proven the impermeability of some to anything but religious faith, it is unlikely that I will engage in prolonged debate again.
Your claims of censorship are, in at least two cases erroneous. Your seven questions were answered on several different occasions, including a point-by-point rebuttal from Stoat & several answers at AFIC, and you in turn failed to answer many questions put to you. You displayed no stomach for proper debate choosing instead to ignore some posters and, in preference only focused on those commetators who gave insult, though it should be noted that you were not above giving spittle-flecked vituperation like it was going out of fashion.
Have you denounced Wegmann yet? How about Watts? Monckton perhaps?
No serious answers to any of the 7 questions have been posted. Answers of the "you're a crank", "No" without any explanation or "Professor Jones never said it" anr not serious and inn most cases not honest.
If you have a serious and truthful answer you should have no difficulty posting it.
If you have verified factual evidence of wrongdoing by Wegman, Watts or Monckton you should say what it is and provide evidence. Until that has been done I see no reason to denounce them for unverified and unspecific accusations.
I note that despite your acceptence that dissociating yourself from dishonesty is a requirement for honesty, neither you nor anybody else on "scienceblogs" is wiling to denounce either censorship or the lies and obscenities on which what passes for debate on "The Science" at "scienceblogs" depend.
But you know that, because you've read that post. So you wide-eyed faux-naif is rather faux.
That he is not restricted by truth is proven by the fact that he has just claimed http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/sceptics-vs-academics/
not only not to censor but also to have no idea who I am - which has evidently not stopped knowing who I am and commenting here.