Powerful words Chris M - but examples please, with links so that others can assess the context. I've made a start in Amiability, anger and apologies. Look forward to it. And I've now given a much fuller answer to Dung's claim on this thread that the GHE underpins every other discussion on Bishop Hill.

A vital point, Jiminy, and an obviously true one, which applies to us all. There are currently 144 Bishop Hill discussion threads and I think I have made comments in 14. Is my silence in 130 to be taken as agreement to everything in them, even when people have been violently disagreeing? Even when I haven't read them?!

Silence just indicates my opinion that this is a blog side show with far too many subtleties for myself to ever try to understand.

We do not have to think something is a side show to acknowledge it may have too many subtleties for us to understand, let alone usefully contribute. In February 2011 Jonathan Jones wrote this:

People have asked why mainstream scientists are keeping silent on these issues. As a scientist who has largely kept silent, at least in public, I have more sympathy for silence than most people here. It's not for the obvious reason, that speaking out leads to immediate attacks, not just from Gavin and friends, but also from some of the more excitable commentators here. Far more importantly most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so, and are also well aware that most scientific questions are considerably more complex than outsiders think, and that it is entirely possible that we have missed some subtle but critical point.

There are many other reasons people may be silent, other than assent, as illustrated by the Bish's tweet in response to Richard Betts on involvement in the IPCC in the last hour:

Silly to criticise people for not taking part when only the other side (incl WWF) is funded by the state

I'll come back later to some of the other things said here and (more importantly) to what three people have said in reply in What if the slayers are right? but thanks for getting us over this 'pons asinorum' as I'm sure you remember I like to call it :)

Yep, silence isn't to be taken as assent, to the IPCC or anyone else, but I'm very glad Jonathan chose not to remain silent on this today. And that's the challenge for us all. Which areas count the most, for each of us, with our very different skill sets (if any!) It means a lot to me at least that Professor Jones broke silence in February 2011 and again today. Respect.

So you never take my silence as assent, Chris M? Fair enough, I would agree with you on that. But whose silence, on what, could have been taken as assent here? You seem to be trying hard to stay with generalisations. I could suggest reasons for your apparent unwillingness to deal with the detail but that would be unkind. Please make clear exactly you mean - with links such as I provided here and Dung failed to provide here. Thanks in advance.

Which part of what I said was harassment, just so that Martin and I know? :)

Dung, sorry to be boring but I continue to ask for the worst example of my behaviour on Bishop Hill and a link to it. If I am a troll far worse than BBD that should be easy for you. I suspect, you see, that you do not have any really bad evidence to provide.

As I admitted on 31st December, Hilary Ostrov has just cause to criticise me about something I said in an important thread beginning 2nd December and, to give Hilary credit, she has linked back to that thread in this one. I think that's the worse thing I've done on Bishop Hill in the last few months and I certainly don't think it means I should be banned.

So your example of the worst thing I've done on Bishop Hill, with a link, would be a terrific help to me and I'm sure to others. Or I'll assume you don't have anything that will stand examination in context.

Dung: have you heard of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect? See also here and here. John Houghton, Steve McIntyre, Robert Ellison (Chief Hydrologist) and Spence_UK are not alone in thinking that this is the crucial dividing issue. Nic Lewis I feel sure from his recent work feels the same, as would Judith Curry, Roy Spencer and, last but not least, Richard Lindzen. This may need further explanation but those links, the second from over five years ago, are reasonable places to start.

You haven't provided any links, once again. Why not? The context is always extremely important. If you complain so much and refuse to provide links you cannot be surprised if nobody takes the demand to ban another BH regular very seriously.

Dung: No, that doesn't remotely cut the mustard once you're referring to other threads. If you are arguing I should be banished from Bishop Hill solely because of what I've said on this thread, feel free. But I don't think that's consistent with your campaign so far.

Come on, Dung, you can't be that obtuse surely? I'm asking for the URL for any page from which you quote anything of mine (or anyone else, for that matter), so that others can assess what was written in context. The URL can be found at the top of your browser. It can be used to produce HTML (anchor) links, for maximum convenience to the reader, as Hilary and I have done on this page, or simply pasted in as is, like so:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/1923523?currentPage=9#post2041115

What comes after hash is more of an advanced topic. But just pasting in the URL your browser gives you is fine.