“Some big changes coming to WUWT in the near future“ (2013-04-10). “You may have already noticed that commenting is faster. That’s because whitelisting is now enabled.” So says Anthony Watts. Of course, if he doesn’t like you then chances are you haven’t noticed any improvement in service at Watts Up With That.
As many of my visitors can attest, blacklisting has been in place at Anthony’s blog for a looooooooong time.
If Anthony doesn’t like you you’ll discover that your comments are even further out of sync, if they ever appear, dropping into the backwaters of the “debate” unread. But Anthony’s passive-aggressive interference is NOT CENSORSHIP.
The early syrupy praise in the comments by richardscourtney is quite illuminating, in spite of the fact that he’s trying to support Anthony’s practices. He zeros in on exactly how Anthony rigs the game:
WUWT has the success it so rightly deserves because of your blog policy, your moderation policy, your selection of the excellent moderators, and your oversight of the moderators’ actions.
Anthony’s true colours http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/anthony-watts/
[Good thread there. – Ben]
‘Dr’ Courtney is a sicko-phant of the first order, utterly barking… ‘whitelisting’ is another admission of failure; clearly there have been too many effective critical comments lately for glass-jaw Tony to handle.
I’ve just found this site and am really pleased to see site that clarifies what is said on Anthony Watt’s site. If you’re wondering why I use the word “clarify” rather than something stronger it’s largely because I had a rather unpleasant encounter with the same richardscourtney that you mention above and am trying not to use the type of words that he seems to think are suitable for a scientific discussion.
[Don’t you know that louder is righter? Many of Anthony’s favored commenters have a deeply corrosive manner. – Ben]
[I like you blog and your intelligent observations. Just the thing Anthony has to suppress for the shout-osphere. – Ben]
Well, Anthony Watts doesn’t like too much criticism of all the junk “science”, that can be found at WUWT, which combines with vicious and libelous personal attacks on climate scientists who actually work and publish real peer reviewed scientific papers. If the vileness, or even fantasies of violence and prosecution against and of climate scientists are not coming from Anthony Watts and his moderators themselves, then from his devote acolytes in the comment section. Anyone who tries to contradict the nonsense at WUWT is in for a special experience over there. It’s an interesting study, though, on cognitive biases and degrees of delusion of people who rely on conspiracy fantasies to explain away the strong contradiction between what they want to believe and what the evidence supported statements are in climate science, which are based on a whole body of research in the field, conducted over decades now.
I REALLY HATE ANTHONY
[To me Anthony is a fascinating poisonous insect. Unpleasant but predictable and no threat to an observant person. – Ben]
Ben blacklists. Kind of ironic.
[That’s just the kind of thoughtful, well-developed comment I love to get. Thanks! – Ben]
Let’s face it Ben, on this blog you should be grateful for any comments.
[Gosh such a short journey from pithy, if tantalizingly terse, observation to sour hostility. Thank you for perfectly illuminating my reason for moderating comments here… – Ben]
Told you he blacklists.
[So now you’re just having a conversation with yourself? That’s awesome. – Ben]
Are you talking to yourself mate?
I guess so. There’s nobody else to talk to on this blog.
I just had a quick look through your blog and monthly posts. It is pretty lame. Where’s your scientific method and/or data? You just seem to be a bitter man moaning about ‘deniers’ and other people. You sad sad man. I will never visit here again this site is sooo lame and full of drivel. You only come up on google search rankings off the back of the popularity (for many reasons you will never know or accept) of the REAL and commendable read WUWT.
“Big Oil” funded (lol) ‘denier’ of the CO2-is-bad religion
[So here we have “Argue” creating a sock puppet identity to raise the volume of his adolescent hostility and massage his own ego. Apparently unless I tolerate feces-flinging monkeys like him I’m a tyrannical censor. I think I hear the hook coming out. – Ben]
There’s about as much evidence for that assertion as there is for much of the rest of your assertions. Textbook.
Adolescent hostility accusations in the same paragraph as calling someone a ‘feces flinging monkey’. Textbook again.
‘Ben blacklists’ = ‘ I’m a tyrannical censor’. Textbook. Again, again.
They wrote the manual about you. But then you know that. Keep entertaining those crowds on your marathon runs (textbook); after all we did turn out to see just you.
[Not only are you talking to your sock puppet self, you’re actually talking about yourself. How dull. The signs of obsession are a bit creepy though. – Ben]
That’s a bit too playground Ben. Even for you.
But yes, the signs of your self obsession are indeed creepy. We agree on that one.
[Wow you’ve pulled out you biggest rhetorical weapon – “I know you are, but what am I?” You’re an utter waste of time and have been indulged far too long here.- Ben]
Drinking again Ben?
Ha ha nice one Argue, […]
[Oh no, the sock-puppet Argue created (I know this because of the IP addresses and shared love of homophobic “insulting” fake e-mails and websites) is back, despite declaring he would never return, to praise his other self and dare me to publish his incisive comment. But by accident I hit the “delete this brainless idiot’s time-wasting posturing”. Sorry. – Ben]
I can absolutely guarantee that my IP address is not the same as “Ben Derr’s”. Why? Because I’m not him. Ben knows this. Paranoid much Ben?
[You think you know my logic, but you have no clue. Sound familiar? – Ben]
And I was just wondering Ben if you are worth bothering with. So perhaps if you could:
Show us the null hypothesis and an experiment designed to falsify it.
Explain in your own words the significance of the null hypothesis and falsifiability to the scientific method.
Failing that just produce 1(One) peer reviewed paper which shows a causal link between human derived CO2 emissions and any atmospheric warming.
[You name the tune and I dance, huh? I guess I’m not “worth bothering with”, Professor, but I think Wikipedia is about your speed. – Ben]
How nice. Recycled lame arguments. First one is from creationists about evolution–“Show us the null hypothesis and an experiment designed to falsify it.”, with the underlying argument being that evolution is not science (no null hypothesis or no falsifiable experiment = not science). Also, a demonstration of either dishonesty or ignorance because evolutionary studies, like climate studies, are multidisciplinary science with hundreds of hypotheses that were, are, and will be tested. Be very specific…which hypothesis in which field and discipline would you like to see?
Second argument is courtesy of tobacco companies. E.g. Failing that just produce 1(One) peer reviewed paper which shows a causal link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer. Or second-hand tobacco smoke and cancer. Or acid rain and emissions. Cancer and asbestos. Ozone hole and CFC. Leaded gas and nerve damage. Cosmology and a spheroid earth.
Good and original trolls are getting so hard to find nowadays–the original ones are getting old and rather senile now and aren’t leaving enough of a legacy to train the up-and-coming trolls. Pity.
Sigh. Same old same old idiot “arguments”.
Incidentally, a remedial math class might be good addition (ha) to Anthony’s website given how badly he’s stumbled on the 97% items.
As for the big changes at WUWT: Declared persona non grata at wattsupwiththat.com
[Good on you. I couldn’t resist commenting today at Anthony’s blog, but as my update on Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony also shows, Anthony and his “moderators” remain in full denial/censor mode. – Ben]