Monday
Sep132010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Quickfire Bob
Sep 13, 2010 I'm off to the big smoke this morning, but I leave you with another example of Bob's superfast typing. This time it's his comment on the notice I posted, pointing readers to the Guardian article.
Update on Sep 13, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
I think we've had enough of this now. Let's get back to the subject of the post, or we'll have to move on to something else.
Today's moderator
Comments off Share Article
Share Article
Reader Comments (147)
He must love you deeply to monitor your every word like that...
Is this part of his day job, hanging on the blogs ready to pounce! How sad.
RwD:
I don't think it's a part, it is his day job.
Ah, but surely your success has always brought a reward?
A friend sent the following quote to me this morning in relation to an entirely different matter; however, it seems appropriate here as well.
"The road to the Truth is long and, always, lined with annoying bastards"...Alexander Jablokov
However, seriously encouraged by the new Judith Curry blog, on top of everything else the woman got excellent emailing manners :o)
Oh the innocence/hypocracy
When I complained about being deleted/moderated censored at Real CLimate and the Guardain, you defended them, on your blog...
Yet, I was much less controversial than you....
Jo abbess got deleted at the Guardian... she says has withdrawn support for CiF..
and gives the sage advice to others to do the same....
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/09/12/the-guardian-comment-is-feeble/#comments
To her GREAT credit, she will probably allow this comment on her blog. (takes a while, usually no comments on every article there, so she obvioulsy does not check very often. I would stop commenting ther, but Jo might get lonely)
---------------------------------------
In your comments that were deleted at CIF...
Example 2
“mpaul : 11 September 2010 12:28AM : I think it’s abusive that the Guardian would hold Andrew’s response to Bob’s comment above in moderation for so long. Free the comment!”
“joabbess : 11 September 2010 12:50AM : @mpaul : I don’t think that Andrew Montford’s comments will add much to universal accord or understanding on the subject of Global Warming. Free the science ! :-
You were defending , the guardian, for moderating Andrew Montford's comments - the actual article's author, not being allowed to comment at Cif.
Do you not see the irony of your comments (hypocracy even) when you go off in a huff, when you are moderated?
Welcome to theworld of media manipulation, and the public's questions being ignored for the editors/journalists own agenda.
Enjoy the big smoke and release of your report.
My browsers don't show the time of your original post, Bish. Is it meant to be displayed?
It is, of course, the same piece he posted 4 minutes earlier on CiF, so all he had to do was change the he's to you's, which he (or his secretary) could have managed easily enough. What we don't know is how 'lightning fingers' Bob managed to fire off the original in two minutes!
[BH adds: I don't normally display the time (for aesthetic reasons). But I switched the settings for a moment so I could see what time he posted.]
Jo Abbess is no different to the many other eco-loons who post at CiF Environment, but I think that CiF is now beginning to feel the pressure of it's past actions and own prejudices.
It's heightened sensitivity to the words of a rival eco-blogger and member of the faithful is a measure of that.
Coming back to Bob "QuickDraw" Ward; I do think this Guardian inspired ad-hom attack has blown up in the faces of Ward and his co-partner in crime James Randerson. Giving Ward the right and the opportunity to have the first word of reply with a prepared statement to AM's Guardian article and AM's BH blog was simply a shoddy piece of contrived journalism.
It is evident that Ward played Randerson's willing fool too well, far too well - in that it backfired badly - he was too quick off the mark.
"Well, that's another nice mess you've gotten me into!", as Hardy would say.
You can't help feeling that it has become a fine mess for the Guardian Environment section and CiF each and every day.
My above post went a bit wrong, please feel free to delete it, or replace it with this one.........
Jo abbess got deleted at the Guardian... she says has withdrawn support for CiF..
and gives the sage advice to others to do the same....
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/09/12/the-guardian-comment-is-feeble/#comments
To her GREAT credit, she will probably allow this comment on her blog. (takes a while, usually no comments on every article there, so she obvioulsy does not check very often. I would stop commenting there, but Jo might get lonely)
------------
Oh the innocence/hypocracy
When I complained about being deleted/moderated censored at Real CLimate and the Guardain, you defended them, on your blog...
Yet, I was much less controversial than you....
In your comments that were deleted at CIF... you say
Example 2
“mpaul : 11 September 2010 12:28AM : I think it’s abusive that the Guardian would hold Andrew’s response to Bob’s comment above in moderation for so long. Free the comment!”
“joabbess : 11 September 2010 12:50AM : @mpaul : I don’t think that Andrew Montford’s comments will add much to universal accord or understanding on the subject of Global Warming. Free the science ! :-
You were defending , the guardian, for moderating Andrew Montford's comments - the actual article's author, not being allowed to comment at Cif.
Do you not see the irony of your comments (hypocracy even) when you go off in a huff, when you are moderated?
Welcome to the world of media manipulation, and the public's questions being ignored for the editors/journalists own agenda.
------------------------------------
I wonder if Jo is realising, that as a Campaign Against Climate Change foot soldier, she is being treated as a 'useful idiot' Maybe she should complain to George Monbiot as he works for the Guardain (and the Campaign's honourary president)
Deniers are so funny.
Comparing Montford's and Ward's writing in the Grauniad, it looks strongly to me like Ward came off better. Instead of looking at this, you're all fixated on timings and whether Ward was given a heads up.
I'll give you a clue, it doesn't matter. You're so used to creating strawmen instead of looking at content, that it's become your default setting now. The Graun's generously given you a platform somewhere that people notice for once, and you've all blown your chance by obsessing about minor details, because that's all you know how to do.
zed...
JO ABBESS is complaining about the Guardian deleting people. she is ANYTHING but a 'deniar'!!!!!!!!!!
"zed...
JO ABBESS is complaining about the Guardian deleting people. she is ANYTHING but a 'deniar'!!!!!!!!!!"
Sep 13, 2010 at 11:18 AM | Barry Woods
Tell you what Barry, I'll start finding that remotely relevant to my comments, when my comments start being about Graun post deletion and Jo Abbess.
Until then, I'll point out that non sequiturs are rarely a hallmark of informed debate, deniar is actually spelled denier, and exclamation marks should be used sparingly, and never more than once at the end of a sentence.
Dear Zedetc
As a fully fledged member of the Pedants and Grammar Nazi Society (PGNS) I am reluctantly forced to agree with you on spelling & logic in the Barry Woods post.
Unfortunately I also realise the limits in using accuracy against intent.
In this case your point attack, while correct, ignores the intent of Barry Woods and the relevance to the discussion.
It would create a better debate if you addressed the intent, and noted the concern that Jo Abbess being censored is an indication of the uninformed repression of CIF.
ZDB, "it looks strongly to me 'like' (?) Ward came off better"
That 'like' is dangling in mid-air.
Morning troll. Your views about Montford v Ward are entirely predictable, although hard to fathom. Perhaps you can explain to simple people in what way you think Ward came off best, when he made no accurate factual criticism of Montford at all. Also, since you are dishing out grammar lessons, the comma after "comments" is redundant, and someone as picky as you seem to be would use a colon, rather than a comma, after "clue" in your previous post.
Finally, for the record, you think it's acceptable journalistic practice for the editorial staff of a national newspaper to pre-brief a columnist's opponent so that he can kick off the comments section with an attempted rebuttal. Reminds me of the old Willie John McBride line "Get your retaliation in first".
"It would create a better debate if you addressed the intent, and noted the concern that Jo Abbess being censored is an indication of the uninformed repression of CIF."
Sep 13, 2010 at 11:39 AM | Jerry
I prefer the phrase 'Conan the Grammarian', although it always backfires against me, as I invariably make a spelling mistake or grammatical error after pulling someone else up for it.
If you read back to my orignal comment of 10.57, you'll see I make no reference whatsoever to comment deletion and Jo Abbess. Barry Woods was using the standard denier tactic of completely ignoring my original points, and instead trying to swing debate onto an unrelated subject he feels more confident in.
There's no way for me to stop someone doing that, but frankly, I don't give two hoots about the new subject that he's introduced. As such, I so no reason to be drawn into discussing it.
ok..
What am I denying?
Dear Z etc
Your comment at 10:57 says "The Graun's generously given you a platform"
I refer to my earlier post. The Graun is not generous in giving anything away. It represses both the true believer's as well as the opposition.
However; to paraphrase (or steal, or misquote - any one will do)
"The rain it raineth every day upon the true and untrue fellow. But more upon the untrue because, the the true's got the Grauniad's imprimateur."
Apologies to whoever wrote "The rain it raineth every day up the just and unjust fellow. But more upon the just because: the unjust's got the juts's umbrella"
"ok..
What am I denying?"
Sep 13, 2010 at 11:59 AM | Barry Woods
The truth of my original comment. Hence your responding in nothing but distraction-technique non sequiturs.
crap!
Several text errors in my previous post!
Here is the 10 second later edited version:
Dear Z etc
Your comment at 10:57 says "The Graun's generously given you a platform"
I refer to my earlier post. The Graun is not generous in giving anything away. It represses both the true believers as well as the opposition.
However; to paraphrase (or steal, or misquote - any one will do)
"The rain it raineth every day upon the true and untrue fellow. But more upon the untrue because, the true's got the Grauniad's imprimateur."
Apologies to whoever wrote "The rain it raineth every day upon the just and unjust fellow. But more upon the just because: the unjust's got the just's umbrella"
Ward has come across as someone who is not very good at PR..
Even the BBC removed his comments from the Newsnight blog.
"IThe Graun is not generous in giving anything away"
Sep 13, 2010 at 12:06 PM | Jerry
You are joking aren't you? You lot amount to a handful of cranks with a take on climate change which stems from: gullibility, financial or political motivation, denial of complicity, fear of change, bias confirmation, poor source selection, and in the case of some commentors here, varying degrees of outright madness.
As such, to be given even an occasional voice in an outlet as important and respected as the Grauniad, is incredibly kind of them.
They report based on the overwhelming evidence of the science. Even still, they recognise that some people try to pretend there is an actual scientific debate on the matter and as such, occasionally cover the likes of you lot.
Even deniers would be hard pushed not to agree that Monbiot is open minded. When the climategate emails first came out, he was prepared to condem the CRU. When we came to understand them in context, he was prepared again to say that his original judgement was wrong, and he, along with many others, was manipulated by those that hacked the e-mails. Just recently he's changed his stance on meat eating, because he's learned new information.
It's in this spirit that the Graun publishes articles like Montford's. As I've said before, you lot had a pretty good chance there, but you blew it obsessing about irrelevant trivialities instead of trying to make a strong, central, scientific case.
I wonder why you weren't able to do that....
Is it normal for the Grauniad to give a heads up on refutations so the abuser can "get their retaliation in first"? I find Bob a bit of an odd ball, he did complain to realclimate that they hadn't dissected the rubbish in AI Gore's propoganda film, so he's clearly suss enough to know that once the great unwashed see "frighteners" and recognise them to be porkies, they'll turn off, and with them the politicians. There is only so much a politician can do to lead the hoi polloi, but if they fail to convince them then they are for sure going to be kicked out of office.
Great contributions from ZDB, clearly the world is divided into those who want to believe and those who don't. My own view is that those who don't are outnumbered by those who do, with a third group how don't give a FF. Those who want to believe are entitled to do so, and if they wish call those who don't holocaust deniers, or whatever insulting epithet they think will provoke anger. ZDB represents a new and interesting type of believer, of whom there are a growing number on the Guardian threads. This type don't seem to have a clue about the science but focus on slanging their supposed opponents.
Z thingy said
In my case I'd tend towards outright madness, but for a few (probably inconsequential) points.
I include the fact that I've worked as a climate scientist for quite a few years. Politically i'm probably 'lefty' but more likely socialist - which is equally likely from left and right. Bias confirmation is based on what I have done and what I have seen. I get no money from anyone unfortunately. (Please! Anyone! pay me lots to be a mouthpiece for whatever you want!)
Yourself Mr Z+ what are your qualifications and affiliations? In an open discourse it's pretty par for the course to admit all at the front.
CAGW is a religion. It has it's saints, high priests, it's zealots, it's hell-fire preachers and blind followers, but funnily enough no martyrs.
I think I've indentified an opening for ZDB.
Zed,
hating the use of the word 'deniers' with all it's horrible connotations, I always get the feeling from the folk that use it that they are also going around calling black people n*****s and homosexuals p***s . Derogatory name calling in an attempt to take a moral high ground only lowers the ground level, in this case below sea levels which is maybe why pro AGW fans keep claiming they are rising.
Lordy, the DeadHead is still here. It may interest other readers to know that not that long ago, DeadHead (in the Daily Mail, where he normally lurks, criticising and insulting other readers, and even decrying that very organ itself) went to great lengths to inform us all that he'd "never read a book in his llife". I leave you to draw your own conclusions...
"... a handful of cranks with a take on climate change which stems from: gullibility, financial or political motivation, denial of complicity, fear of change, bias confirmation, poor source selection, and in the case of some commentors here, varying degrees of outright madness."
And there was me going "YAY!" at a succinct description of the warmist droids who patrol the Grauniad's comment section.
But they weren't your target, were they, Z?
Maybe they should be. You sound like a bright-ish cititzen, and it surely has to be hideously embarrassing for you to be lumped in with that load of clockwork soldiers.
Just a passing thought for a dulll Monday.
"Lordy, the DeadHead is still here. It may interest other readers to know that not that long ago, DeadHead (in the Daily Mail, where he normally lurks, criticising and insulting other readers, and even decrying that very organ itself) went to great lengths to inform us all that he'd "never read a book in his llife". I leave you to draw your own conclusions..."
Sep 13, 2010 at 12:45 PM | Natsman
How's that fantasy world working out for you? I see your self-proclaimed exile didn't last long. Didn't think you were a person of your word anyway.
Would these 'great lengths' of which you talk be a small part of a satirical comment I made, sending up those who only wish the government to spend money on services they personally use?
For the record, I'm something of an avid reader. Although the fiction I'd really like to see, is you describing these 'great lengths', beyond that one passing piece in a clearly satricial comment.
How typical of a denier to choose to take a quote out of context, and then try to use it as a stick to beat with.
Sep 13, 2010 at 12:45 PM | Natsman
Incidentally - why don't you reveal what name you post under on the Daily Mail website?
@Zed -
"an outlet as important and respected" as the Guardian? You must be joking. The Grauniad is a classic case of an echo chamber - everybody inside thinks "important" and "respects" the cacophony of reflex piety it contains, and which prevents them from hearing the rest of us laughing at them. They are, however, and unlike you, smart enough to have realised, post Climategate, that they had overplayed their hand, and that the Good Ship CAGW needed her bottom cleaning if she was to remain seaworthy. Hence the carefully-managed dalliance with sceptics such as Bish. "Keep your friends near, but keep your enemies nearer", as the Chinese guy said. They hope that if their preemptive measures, such as the priming of Ward, are skilful enough, they will regain the control of the debate they enjoyed until November last year. And if they upset a few readers like you, who can't see the bigger picture, so what? Where else can you go that will provide you with anything like the pharisaical smugness that is the G's chief product?
Will their strategy succeed? So far as Grauniad devotees are concerned, it depends on just how stupid they turn out to be. My guess is very, but then they become fewer in number year by year, so we shouldn't worry too much. And a few of them will read the Montford stuff and be impressed by it, read the response to it and be unimpressed, and then - probably start reading another paper.
"Yourself Mr Z+ what are your qualifications and affiliations? In an open discourse it's pretty par for the course to admit all at the front."
Sep 13, 2010 at 12:29 PM | Jerry
When dealing with deniers, there's one thing upon which one can almost always depend, which says a great deal about their preconceptions. When faced with robust debate, they almost always assume I'm a man.
I have no affiliations apart from wanting to tackle deniers head on. As for qualifications, I'm not sure where you got the idea that declaring them is a standard part of open discourse. It sounds like an attempt to appeal to argument from authority to me. Good debate should be judged on content.
Hi Zed, welcome back, missed ya!
Last week you actually posted an interesting comment of some discussion value, but you seem to have gone back to pure insult. I don't think anyone I've seen posting here regularly would fit the stereotype you seem to have in your head. Stick to factual and constructive, it work's much better. As Jerry M notes, you seem like a bright spark; go with the flow!
Z+ said
In my view, if I hear something on the Tele from the Prime Minister I'd apply a different set of rules to evaluate what he said - as compared to what my taxi-driver said.
In both cases I'd take it with a grain of salt.
M(r/s) Z please tell me which grain of salt I should use with you?
Truth is one thing. The filter from which it emanates is quite another.
"How typical of a denier"
There's the name calling again. Zed have you ever been called a name you didn't like? What did you think of the person who called you the name? Perhaps you are one of those people that go around using names to label people.
Z's -
Almost unheard of. A CAGWist being satirical. They are much too dour and earnest for that sort of thing. However, perhaps you will kind enough to favour us with the full text of of your "clearly satricial (sic) comment". So that we may appreciate the level of your satiricalness.
Sep 13, 2010 at 1:24 PM | Cumbrian Lad
I frequently do let emotion get the better of me in these kind of discussions, but don't believe I'm all that insulting. A little maybe...
If you're referring to my use of the term denier, I don't see it as an insult. It's use has been covered and explained in many places by minds far better than mine, I refer you to that easily found work for justifications. I find it an easy shorthand, and if people can't see to whom I refer with the term, then they're generally choosing to muddy the waters.
If you refer to my summary of the motivations of deniers above, I assure you, it's absolutely from the heart. There are a few categories of motivation with negative implications I've missed out, and there certainly are a couple of positive ones which I've deliberately excluded. But seeing my stance, and where I'm posting, perhaps allow me the vanity play the devils advocate in extremis, and enjoy putting the cat amongst the pigeons.
The eco friendly Guardian
24 hours in Abu Dhabi riding F1 cars courtesy of the Guardian.
9pm: Yas Island is on the outskirts of Abu Dhabi (think Windsor to London) but is already known on the world stage, thanks to the Yas Marina F1 racetrack. It's free to the public on Tuesdays (to walk or cycle around only), or you can pay AED 7,500 (£1,300) for a two-lap blast in custom-built two-seater F1 race car.
Yas Marina Circuit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/abu-dhabi/24-hours-in-abu-dhabi
It has to be the least sustainable activity ever invented,
But seeing my stance, and where I'm posting, perhaps allow me the vanity play the devils advocate in extremis, and enjoy putting the cat amongst the pigeons.
I suspect that this is more likely the reasons for posting here, as opposed to genuine debate. I would though welcome genuine debate from both/all sides as I like to gather my information and make up my own mind.
I have posted only once on real climate and the post referenced that I would like all scientists to question the motives behind their employers research and act ssincerely and honestly no matter the outcome. I repeated this post on Bishophill
The real climate post failed to "make the grade"
The bishophill post was posted
It does seem to me that the moderation is biased on pro AGW sites and not biased on alternative view sites. I am not worthy to comment on the technical issues raised within this post but the view of this "not sure which way to turn" correspondent is that the alternative view sites are more sincere.
Steve
"perhaps you will kind enough to favour us with the full text of of your "clearly satricial (sic) comment". So that we may appreciate the level of your satiricalness."
Sep 13, 2010 at 1:35 PM | GrantB
Love to if I could find it. It's unequivocal, and speaks poorly of Natsman that he/she chooses to so seriously distort that part of my comment, in an attempt to slur me like that.
If anyone here is particularly good at the dark arts of t'interweb 'n' archives 'n' things, a search through old Hate Mail comments with keywords including my name, 'never read a book in my life', library(ies?), maybe something about funding and tax as well? I've just tried googling it and came up blank.
Despite Natsman's claims about it being recent, I think it was actually a while back, although couldn't swear to that.
The gist of the comment, as mentioned before, was to send up the endless comments under an article by many Daily Mailes, to the effect that they were so utterly, and narrowly focused on themselves, that they begrudged every single penny of public money spent on services they didn't personally use.
I think I was paraphrasing one comment in particular, but the cells are a little foggy about it now, and I couldn't attest to it. It was something along the lines of:
I've never read a book in my life, I see no use at all in it, when one can read papers and magazines, in fact, I despise people who do read books, and fear them slightly. It is outrageous that government spends fortunes of my money on these so called 'libraries', and they should all be shut down immediately, and all involved in this criminal squandering of precious, precious money, should be fired, FINED, AND SENT TO JAIL IMMMEDYATELY!!!!!!!!!!!
Something like that, I maybe extended the metaphor to things like wheelchairs and other things I don't use as well.
Seems less funny now when subjected to analysis and justification, but I'm fairly confident it worked at the time. It's a context thing.
Hi Bob!
What am I denying Zed?
Hi Zed
Just one question. Would you say there would be anyone "skeptical" about CAGW, or are they all deniers?
"What am I denying Zed?"
Sep 13, 2010 at 1:58 PM | Cumbrian Lad
No idea. You're having problems coming to terms with your sexuality maybe?
As for my use of the term, please see the comment immediately preceding your previous one for an explanation of that.
No idea. You're having problems coming to terms with your sexuality maybe?
As for my use of the term, please see the comment immediately preceding your previous one for an explanation of that
More buttons being pressed it seems
"As for my use of the term, please see the comment immediately preceding your previous one for an explanation of that."
If you're referring to this comment-
Sep 13, 2010 at 1:20 PM
then the only explanation you've given is that 'deniers' seem to have a blind spot when it comes to assumptions about your gender, and that you prefer to tackle them 'head on'.
So deniers are in denial about you being a woman, and you're here to set them straight?
I'm thinking maybe you have the wrong blog?
"If you're referring to this comment- Sep 13, 2010 at 1:20 PM"
Sep 13, 2010 at 2:13 PM | Stu
Whoops, good point, thank you Stu. Got that one wrong. I should instead have referred to my response to Cumbrian Lad's previous post, the one made at 1.37 PM.
You've no idea what, if anything, I'm denying, yet you call me a denier?
The prior comment you refer to has no information as to what it is you think I may be denying.
Discussing (or more accurately casting aspersions as to) 'why' I may, or may not be denying seems a little previous, given that you've not established whether or not I'm actually denying anything.
Come on man, (for the avoidance of doubt, that's a generic reference to humankind) get a grip
Z's
So you've no idea what you said. Pretty much in character with all of your posts. You really should turn your hand to something else. You're lost here.