“…wading through Moth’s blather.”
“…you do blather on about nothing”
“…you’re all “holier than thou” aren’t you mothincarnate?”
I know that the above are pretty tame – laughable in fact – but they’re only a small part of the numerous comments I’ve simply not published. Unfortunately, I’ve deleted the rest – rogerthesurf has some crackers back in December and Pete Ridley is never shy about some plug at my apparent ignorance or making a dig at me about my age, as though 30 is fresh from the nappies.
And then there are the various identities of Elsa saying nothing more than, “Elsa is right!” in one form or another…
I’m not a fan of censorship, but sometimes you just look at this abuse and wonder, well firstly, what must go through their heads to act in this way and secondly, do I really want to entertain this crap? You certainly can’t be all things to everyone and with some of the language I use, I’m sure to rub some people the wrong way.
I am happy, which might surprise the named above, to take criticism. Equally, I’m happy to be proven wrong; being right all the time (or at least thinking you’re right all the time) would be a massive bore – how could you learn anything if you were like that? I’ve had a number of my usual readers pick up mistakes, scold me when I’ve got a little too hot-headed and point me to areas for further reading.
However, this is very different to what the named above and their kind do. They ask a question, you give them an answer and they reply that you “blather” on, didn’t answer their question (well, I didn’t provide them with the answer that they wanted), or truly descend into ad hominem territory.
Am I here to be their punching bag?
In the background, I’ve received some bitching of late about my lack of interest in allowing such comments through or deleting the content with a quote over it instead of the original content. It is against my nature to do so, I’ll admit and in Pete’s nicer moments, he’ll comment that I tend to give him more time than most, but really, enough has to be enough.
I want to understand the universe better – that’s why I took the science career path after all. I’m a through-and-through geek and love to
bore share all that I find interesting with anyone who will stand still long enough for me to talk their ear off (I know I often write tediously long comments here and on other peoples posts also). That’s me.
However, I’ve grown tired of talking to brick walls; those whom I genuinely try to engage with, but ignore what I have to say simply because they know AGW is a myth. For that reason, I say ‘farewell’ to such individuals. I’ve long said that this public debate is pointless (what the hell have you succeeded to do if no-one on the blogosphere will bother talking to you? Do you think Obama will shake your hand or you’ll receive a Nobel prize for it?) and without the rigour demanded in scientific methodology. It’s a pointless and very disheartening activity that really spreads a lot of unnecessary nastiness.
For all I know, I may have enjoyed talking to anyone of those above had I randomly met them in the real world. For instance, I once had a regular Jehovah’s Witness door knocker, when I was just a uni student, who understood that I wasn’t interested in his religion, but enjoyed science and (at that time) took an avid interest in learning about all religions. The two of us were respectful of the others religious views and had some really interesting debates.
That said, it’s clear that this is not the nature of the debate present on the blogosphere regarding climate change; this is more two warring factions, under a guise of seeking “scientific clarity” who really voice many unrelated (and in some cases, highly personal) frustrations, fears and misunderstandings.
It was never my intention to be involved in such a squabble.
So to all those who feel hard-done-by by my current and future selectivity over comments, I say, “suck it up princess!”
I will not, nor have I ever, simply deleted comments that are too difficult to answer – as though all the science came down to my response anyway – but equally, I will no longer entertain the droves of self-proclaimed “sceptics” that clearly have no interest in the science (seeing as their conclusions remain contrary to a consensus that continues to stand regardless of more than a century’s worth of sceptical scientific investigation).
I’m personally convinced by the scientific evidence that climate is changing, that food, water and energy are increasingly insecure and biodiversity loss is appalling. If, by some miraculous study, the science behind these issues is overturned one day, I assure you that I will be one of the first dancing, naked, down the streets – overwhelmed by the joyful realisation.
Until then however, I will refer ‘sceptics’ to Innovation is Key, where I outline some of my understanding or to The Human Island, in which (if I ever get it finished) I’m explaining my main focus and passion for future improvements or maybe I’ll simply refer ‘sceptics’ to one of the countless other sites that seem doomed to this endless debate. I know some will want to gripe that I have not right to write what I like and not allow criticism.
Well, I will allow criticism, as I always have, but this is very different to the public climate change debate and those who cannot tell the difference or don’t like it, please feel free to roam elsewhere.
Comment control has been upgraded in the effort to promote far more rewarding and thoughtful discussion. Cheers.