Getting Past the Disturbing Trap

It is a disturbing realisation.

No masks. No pseudonyms. No real barriers…

To create a virtual self, bound wholly to the real self, while openly, without hesitation, standing for something one feels completely necessary and allowing the window for retort – indeed a desired result – is in itself liberating. I have never, from day one, proposed to know everything; as much as any other blogger, I’m just another person sharing information, musings and thought experiments. As much as I respect – completely embrace – free speech, I’ve stumbled upon the darker corners of such an arena which provides some angst.

Having worked for close to a decade in customer service whilst a high school and uni student, I’ve grown a fairly thick skin (there’s not much left under the sun that I’ve not already been called). However, even I’m a little concerned by the level of effort I’ve found in some of the emails I’ve received, the obsessive nature some seem to go to breakdown background information of my blog and myself and most importantly, when I find out that others that know me have been sort out solely because they know me.

You can’t help but wish you hadn’t been so honest about your real self, that you hadn’t taken such a stand – that you hadn’t bothered at all…

Wait… Could that be the hope of such people – to intimidate, stalk and belittle others in an attempt to knock them down and if it doesn’t work, prove that you can trace them and those they know?

Soon, I’ll be a married man. I have a son. I don’t need some stalker (ie. Pete Ridley) demanding personal information from me to to search up information about me for further background. I don’t need citizen scientist, unhappy that I won’t double my degree with their backyard equivalent (ie. Adam) sending me increasingly vile emails. I truly wanted to engage with such people, until, of course, I saw this side of some of the members of the blogging community.

I can’t help but find it intriguing and hopelessly disturbed that someone who demands the Heartland Institute has been misrepresented would smugly inform me it a bad idea that I question him…

And on the flip side, to ignore such people gets it’s own criticism; censorship. So, am I suppose to sit here and take it however such characters wish to serve it?

Well, no, I won’t stand for it and from now on I’ll limit my efforts and will not hop on any more merry-go-rounds. I don’t want to censor and am well aware that not everyone considers the overwhelming scientific evidence convincing, that some will go as far as to seriously entertain certain conspiracies (although, not all). I’m sure some will back this up with the odd science paper or two.

I don’t care – I’m sure I’d hear about the overturning of the AGW theory in the most recent Science or Nature if it occurred.

I won’t allow the more repugnant characters intimidate and insult nor will waste copious hours in repetitive nonsensical “debates”.

Alfoil hat AND a sock puppet! What a great find!

Introducing the Alfoil hat!

From now on, three warnings and out comes the hat. Adelady originally put me on to the idea which is in many aspects the same as Greenfyre’s Dunce’s corner. There are a few characters that I won’t even entertain there however and I explain who and why under the alfoil hat. Otherwise, it seems to be the only way to avoid being labelled as yet ‘another agent of alarmism, denying readers from exposing the truth’, while saving my time, effort and sanity.

As for those who I will no longer entertain on any level, I continue to reflect on these with a mixture of awe, concern and confusion. I don’t understand why there’s the need for such nastiness and stalking.

Here’s hoping we can now move on to positive, innovative and rewarding discussions from here on in. 🙂


14 thoughts on “Getting Past the Disturbing Trap

  1. Creeps like Ridley do this kind of thing deliberately to shut down anyone who disagrees with them: they don’t have any good arguments, so they try to silence their opponents instead. They are the censors here.


    1. I wonder: bloggers often mention receiving abusive/offensive messages. Is there any reason, other than personal info (which could easily be removed), not to show these in a dedicated thread (“Hate Bin”?). Sometimes it can be instructive to see what people are like when they think they can get away with it.


      1. Vile… thanks again

        Adam wants me to agree with you (he sent me 13 comments via 2 pseudonyms over night… sick if you ask me) – wanting me to post his emails. Firstly, I can’t in his case, as they are promptly deleted automatically and secondly, after his insulting comments here (which go him banned here) he resorted to emails of the same nature. By saving and then posting his emails, am I not simply giving him a second airing after telling him I’ve had enough? This is the trap that such people try to place on bloggers like myself – am I a passive object for insult and to be honestly, disturbing stalking behaviour, or should I have a choice who I entertain on my blog? Adam assumes I owe him the time and effort, but as far as I care, I owe him that as much as any newspaper owes me page 1 of their rag to explain why I think newspapers are generally full of it! lol

        I’m not sure what he hopes to achieve (apart from attention) – it’s clear his bet is on a few isolated, unverifiable studies (ie. cosmic rays: Scafetta / Shaviv and Veizer) while mine is the more mainstream conclusion – neither will change, why continue the discussion?


      1. “Getting passed” would mean that you were the recipient of the disturbing trap (someone passed it to you). “Getting past” would mean that you avoided, overcame, or left behind the disturbing trap.

        I really wasn’t sure what you meant. 😉


      2. Cheers mate – I figured you were right and went and made the change (quite opposed to what some of the less favourable readers have concluded, I’m often the first to note that I’ve made a mistake) 🙂


  2. Sorry to hear you’ve been copping personal attacks, Moth – I’ve fortunately been spared any so far, only the odd abusive blog comment here and there (I haven’t engaged as wholly as you have though!). Shrugging it off and not engaging is definitely the best way forward.


    1. That’s the thing – challenging such dogma always results in nastiness. You don’t need to get so nasty if you’ve got a reasonable argument to put forth. Personally, I’m over it and happy look forward to Gen[A] and the ‘alarming’ prospect of info sharing that should result in better community level governance, personal expense reduction, food, water and energy security and networking with positive, like-minded people across the globe 🙂


  3. From what your saying it reminds me of the attempts to shut down abortion clinics in the US and the intimidation (bombings ,murders) .

    You reveal to much of yourself in the hope that people will give more weight to your understanding of the science because you work in the field (literally and figuratively) .
    I think unfortunately you may need to be a little more circumspect when dealing with the Libertarian right wing , they are anti anything that denies them the right to do as they please and they all seem to love guns !! .

    Luckily we live in Australia , but I wonder how long before a climate scientist is shot or blown up in the name of freedom and liberty in the US .

    Disengagement while seeming like giving up the fight is the better option , they will find themselves either deleted out or chased off blogs like SkS by real scientists and researchers with up to date studies and refutations of the vague anti AWG papers they manage to find trawling the net .
    Better off showing people it not all doom and gloom and there are things that can be done and we can live with less stuff in our lives and still be happy .


    1. Indeed the stalking nature and language I’ve encountered by a number of such people have been a concern (not Andrew; he doesn’t seem so far inclined, but certainly I’ve encountered fans of him that are and his list – or more directly, how these people view his list – seems to fuel the fire). The level of absolute hatred I’ve witnessed in this public debate exacerbates such needless tension and I truly hope that it doesn’t go as far as an act of terror over this public debate (I worry in retrospect being so open with my own details after some of the emails I’ve received).


  4. Hi Moth – decided to check out your blog to see what the deal was with this seriously misguided masked avenger.
    Man, I shudder to think how crazy it CAN get.
    I’ve had my own bad experiences associated with having a public online profile and openly sharing information; like my scientific background – I’m a medical science researcher. As with environmentalists who are facing a lot of trouble with climate science skeptics, I’ve been at the center of some heated ‘skepticism’ about vaccine research, mercury in amalgam fillings, and the list goes on.
    Don’t be dismayed, and keep blogging the good stuff 🙂


    1. Hi Matt, hope you like my work – albeit the stench of climate change denial and the needless public debate is a hard one to cleanse, but The Human Island is a fair look at my passion.
      I can understand your situation – I wrote an anti-vax post, comparing their tactics to that of climate change deniers, which had them up in arms. GM is another great one to mention to get yourself burnt at the stake! lol…
      Cheers mate – I won’t let these guys run me down.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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