Suck It Up Princess – The New Comment Policies

“…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.

9 thoughts on “Suck It Up Princess – The New Comment Policies

  1. “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?…… truly descend into ad hominem territory.”

    “I will not, nor have I ever, simply deleted comments that are too difficult to answer”

    Oh really Mothincarnate,

    Could you please tell me what was so abusive and ad hominem, about those comments I posted before. IN which I made a pretty good case against AGW, and you deleted every single one of them. And yes, I know you did answer (sort of: you didn’t refute anything, just expressed your opinion) my comments, but it’s not really the same without showing the damning comments in the first place, is it?


    1. In your case Adam, as anyone would see from looking at our discussion on the anti-vaccination post, I’m tired of repeating myself to someone that is convinced that one scientist is correct, regardless that no-one else can repeat his work and Lockwood (2010) demonstrates from observations, that his conclusions just don’t match reality. You warp and misunderstand the science, as I’ve said a number of times. Your censorship falls more into, “They ask a question, you give them an answer and they reply that you “blather” on, didn’t answer their question,” and “I’ve long said that this public debate is pointless and without the rigour demanded in scientific methodology” and “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).”

      You’re not generally abusive, but rather annoying (with starting most sentences with my screen name) and obsessed with the “it’s the sun!” mantra that just goes beyond all reason.


  2. [I know full well what you think of me, but I’ve also seen your ability to analyse data, so I’m not too worried. It’s your personal choice to selectively rely on one ” renowned solar scientist” who uses one data set (that doesn’t match up with likewise data sets available elsewhere) to achieve results that cannot be replicated. This is, in my opinion, a weak view point and that his studies have failed to find flaws provocative enough in all the rest of contrary evidence to overturn the maintained certainty in AGW within the scientific community is telling.
    I find it funny that you wish to educate me on science – to explain how we can write off the never before impacts as a result of human activity – by cherry picking and warping a select group of data – but quite frankly, I’ve got more interesting things to do – including actually working in environmental science. Maybe you should actually look into acquiring some scientific training and lecture on your wisdom to those who want to see the world through your rose-coloured glasses.
    However, it should be as clear to you as it is to me that this exchange is pointless – you clearly think Scafetta is correct while I’m convinced by the contrary wealth of evidence provided (that persists and grows after decades upon decades) by sceptical scientific investigation. You simply cannot see how Scafetta’s results lead us to a conclusion that is impossible as it leaves CO2 forcing outside the actual observed values, likewise you maintain the effect of CO2 that is indirectly observed in paleo-climate studies is undetectable, when again, we have actual observation data contrary to this. I, likewise, fail to truly appreciate the genius that must be Scafetta – that drew you to near devotion – when reading his studies.
    Thus, move on (it looks like GWSH are getting ready to pull apart your argument, but I’m sure, just like Poptech’s list, you know best and will claim to debunk the debunk yet again) – this exchange is really getting neither of us anywhere.]


  3. [I am in no way trying to make it secret that I’m deleting your comments and in cases like this, commenting over them. As I said early on in your appearance here, it was you (and also RedJeff) that detracted me from GWSH and I’m not having you do that to my own space. It’s clear by your bombastic style that (to you) you’re right, so you’re right therefore everything else you don’t agree with it wrong. It’s your personal call to rely on Scafetta, who relies on a data set that doesn’t match any of the others, to achieve results no-one else can replicate), as it’s your personal opinion that John Cook is an “ugly caratoonist” as is it that the giant ball in the sky is far more important trace gases, as is it that you expect me both to not debunk every last paper on Poptech’s list, but also do so or shut up.

    I on the other hand believe in all correlating data which is discusses and supported by NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, Aust BOM, WMO, and is explained in fairly good detail in Lockwood (2010), which you clearly ignored – unlike Scafetta, it’s based on numerous correlating studies. I also know with very high certainty that the Earth’s atmospheric chemistry and magnetic field are crucial for our dynamic climate that can support life, just as I’m certain that CO2’s role as a greenhouse gas, which has also become increasingly concerning as we modify the atmosphere. As Gavin Schmidt stated,

    “Think of the science as a large building, with foundations reaching back to the 19th Century and a whole edifice of knowledge built upon them. The community spends most of its time trying to add a brick here or a brick there and slowly adding to the construction. The idea that the ‘science is settled’ is equivalent to stating that the building is complete and that nothing further can be added. Obviously that is false – new bricks (and windows and decoration and interior designs) are being added and argued about all the time. However, while the science may not be settled, we can still tell what kind of building we have and what the overall picture looks like. Arguments over whether a single brick should be blue or yellow don’t change the building from a skyscraper to a mud hut. ”

    That people like you have tried to run John Cook through the mud, does not undermine the quality of the reports available there, but I don’t need to rely on him – I can rely on major scientific organisations, a brilliant paper which tries its best to explain the formula (but of course, it is contrary to Scafetta so it must be wrong – none of your papers responded to this) and a nice explanation by a scientist working in the field. As I asked before – can’t you see how pointless this exchange is or are you as blind to that as you are the the plethora of scientific evidence contrary to your personal opinion? You are not welcome here, nor is your warped idea of an article war (when you don’t understand an argument, you can’t simply hurl papers instead: eg. ” So far Scafetta, has answered every attempt at refuting his paper, e.g. Benstad and Schmidt >> So is he a time traveller or does this statement not refer to Lockwook (2010) thus an irrelevant comment to begin with – and of course a scientist would respond to criticism, they are required to – it doesn’t mean that they’re right!!!). I suggest you don’t waste your time here any further.]


  4. [“Now, for the past several months I have been debating many warmists and all they have done is provide links to Skeptical Science.
    Now, usually I just humour them, take the article accept it, provide a rebuttal and all that, but not this time…
    “Mothincarnate you are not a skeptic. You have accepted everything off that website unquestionably as if it was the word of god. You believed it because it was what you wanted to believe, and not once did you question or check any of it.”

    What an arrogant self-righteous individual you are!

    Over the past decade, I’ve worked with various governing SA state bodies, academic groups, industry leads and farmers. I’m a contributor to the SA State of the Environment Report 2008. I’ve been involved in eco-efficiency meetings with significant industry bodies. I’ve been a scientific officer, providing data to Aust BOM. I’ve been a member of many groups that have modelled environmental and ecological responses currently observed and expected. I’ve been involved in both state government and academic initiatives to engage the growing water insecurity of SA. I’ve mapped. I’ve collected. I’ve engaged. I’m aware of the ecology of my state more so that most. Currently, I’ve personally built, as a project leader, a monitoring station that captures data at a tenth of a second to accurately account for the CO2, water and energy fluxes between the atmosphere and mallee forest environment – data that is used to many climate related studies, carbon accounting work, meteorological monitoring and numerous ecological studies.

    I’ve worked, engaged and been involved in the science the revolves around climate science and ecological security and you know what – I’ve never – not within any scientific community, governing body nor engaged primary producer / organisational body – ever heard anything that would lead me to think there’s reasonable doubt with any sector to seriously (and scientifically) question the validity of AGW. Nothing else, from many years of study, makes sense! I know better than you that yes, solar activity has been one of the major factors for previous climate change events. This is not the case for the current case and if you disregard the reference points that I’ve led you to, it’s not my problem that you continue to choose to ignore them.

    How dare you disregard my experience and training as though I am merely a puppet of a faith! I’m not like you – trolling around the web, looking where next to waste my time (and the author’s). I decided instead many years ago that although it wasn’t my first preference, I had to obtain environmental science qualifications so as I can at least attempt to leave the world a better place than I found it. I think every one of us is obliged to – so instead of perusing my true passion, I became a scientist. It would be far easier to disregard it all and do what I want to do – so don’t you dare say that I’m not sceptical. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t be where I am with the experience that I’ve achieved. I don’t believe because I want to believe – I understand enough to know that I need to do something about it.

    You don’t humour me! I’ve actively told you from you very first post that I just don’t care to discuss all of this with yet another self-appointed “citizen scientist” who confused being unconvinced for “scepticism”. Honestly – just find some other blog to hunt. Waste you life on GWSH. I don’t care! I want to engage with people who actively wish to learn about science or are happy enough to just ask, “what can I do?”

    I’m not at all interested in “citizen scientists” telling me that I don’t know shit. Well I’m sorry Adam, but my career has led me to too many studies, too many presentations, too many initiatives and too many confused stake holders for me to bother. If we found another cause for the current climate change tomorrow, I’d be all over it – waxing lyrically about it on the street. Yet, I know enough science to know that’s highly unlikely.

    Look, humour someone else. I don’t care what you think of me. Frankly I’m insulted that a damn troll can take such a pig-headed approach to a career I’ve worked damn hard to achieve! I’m a hard working and ethical environmental scientist.]


  5. I agree Tim , when it get to the stage your just fighting off zombie arguments , your time can be better spent on other things .
    There are plenty of website where people with a contrarian veiw of the science can argue their case if they stick to science .

    Adam what the point of quoting Tim above ?


    1. He likes to quote, “I will not, nor have I ever, simply deleted comments that are too difficult to answer” in the hope I’ll publish the crap he keeps pushing through. After the last, where he went above and beyond insulting my ethics and scientific training, I’ll simply trash everything he writes. His obviously an angry person who feels that being contrarian on AGW is important. I’m sure Scafetta wouldn’t care as much about it as he does. I hate the fact that I’m so accommodating as it means I read all of his comments, leading me to wonder if I’m likely to spend me life discussing the subject with him (I severely hope not).

      But thank you David, it is good to also receive the positive feedback, mate! 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s