This thread is inspired by what various people have said to me: that they were once true believers (or some such) but were driven away from the consensus side by the arrogance and rudeness of others. On the "Here we go again" thread, Radical Rodent said:

I, too, was a firm believer of the AGW lie, though was puzzled as to how such a small change of a very minor component of the atmosphere could create such havoc. When I asked about this, I was rounded upon by those on "warmist" sites, many being particularly savage, suggesting self-harm and suicide; on the more sceptical sites, the response was not so unpleasant, though no more informative.

After I questioned this, jamesp suggested everything is edited away:

As for 'no evidence of rough treatment' at what you call 'consensus' sites (we have some consensus too, you know), that is because contrary comments at SkS, Real Climate, Climate Progress, etc. tend to be excised and their authors, if they are at all persistent, barred. That way is history re-written...

David S chipped in with:

If you go back through the comments, a tedious task I admit, you will find that a number of regulars here have documented their having been moderated or banned from everything from RealClimate to Commentisfree (not!) in spite of the civil tone of their contributions, because they don't fit the preferred story, whereas all manner of abuse is tolerated and in some cases encouraged if it comes from those with whom the moderators agree.

And later stewgreen added:

PS about alarmist websites : it is my experience that they routinely sanitize the comments ..it becomes not worth participating cos they just get angry and refuse to post comments that don't agree with them under the slightest pretext ie when the comment had no bad language, nor namecalling etc.
excuses are "you commented on our moderating policy and that is not allowed here", "you linked to a 'denialist' website", "You are a troll, leading the topic off topic" (when all you did is reply to their question)

So these feelings of having been unfairly excluded from discussion appear common. However, I've seen no direct evidence offered and so, as you would hopefully expect of someone presented with unsubstantiated claims, I am sceptical. David says that people are banned in spite of a "civil tone", but it is clear that to be accepted to be discussing a subject in good faith requires more than civility. It is quite possible to destroy a discussion while remaining perfectly civil.

If just expressing sceptic views really is a recipe for being banned, then it should be easily proved. So this thread is for people to show how they become (or became) banned or badly treated. Prove your mishandling and exclusion with links to examples where you have been banned or badly treated. If you are going to demonstrate, please post the relevant links so we can follow along. If you get banned, I'll believe you (and maybe tell you where you went wrong).

Note that I have no relationship with any consensus site so I cannot interfere. I am nobody.

Hopefully Entropic man will give chapter and verse of his banning from WUWT too.

As far as I know I've never been banned but I've had perfectly reasonable comments deleted from an extraordinary number of sites. Still more have been ignored and while it isn't anyone's duty to respond, it's curious how few defences the warmist side is prepared to mount. It's that lack of fortitude that makes me question CAGW further but it's not the sole or largest reason to be sceptical. If I were convinced of CAGW I'd want to know as much about the science so I could pass it on to my friends and family. I'd be here at BH trying to sway opinions or more likely on those sites where the uninterested hang out because they're more important that a few sceptics. However the evidence for CAGW is extremely poor and relies on 'the scientists say' and black box computer models with little track record of predictive skill, worse predictions have been shown to be wrong. I know for a fact that uncertainty is well known and discussed amongst scientists but almost none of that is admitted in public until an excuse for failure is required. The fallback position is always the Precautionary Principle and I’m bemused that supposedly intelligent people would think ‘just in case’ is a strong enough argument to make the kinds of societal changes staving off CAGW would require.

There are many wicked problems in CAGW but one of the simplest is knowing how hard cutting CO2 is going to be. So difficult that without the full co-operation of the global population it would be impossible. I’m dismayed that supposedly highly intelligent people can’t see how poor renewables are or more likely how much they are prepared to gloss over the flaws because they hope that a magical solution will present itself. That’s not a feature of successful people. To overcome problems you first have to admit there are problems and warmists aren’t doing that. It makes me think ‘if they’re prepared to lie about the easy stuff, what are they prepared to do about the complex?’ Now you could say that all the dishonesty came about because of the pressure from shadowy fossil fuel lobbyists but frankly that’s pathetic. It’s an excuse that ranks up there with ‘the dog ate my homework’ when you haven’t even got a dog. It says to me ‘these people do not take responsibility for their own mistakes’.

If these unflattering attributes were not enough, warmists have an amazing ability to back the wrong leaders. If you had a true inkling of the enormity of cutting CO2 without an as yet invented solution, you’d realise that reduction in CO2 would require massive reductions in comfort. To generate that, the last people you need fronting your scheme are disgustingly overt consumers. The only people who are dumb enough not to be offended are those least likely to act no matter how impressed they are with the speaker. When you descend into PR and ‘any advertising is good advertising’ you are truly lost. You CANNOT con people into reducing their lifestyle.

I don’t care if you don’t believe that people have been banned from making comments on prominent warmist sites. It doesn’t matter to me that when an undecided person asks a few innocuous questions they are slapped down. Ludicrously, at least one person has been initially blocked from commenting on their own article at the Guardian and I seem to remember several similar incidents. A recent example of mass deletion was the very polite and well worded arguments put to this article on the Anti-Defamation League website. The majority of arguments didn't even relate to climate change.

http://atlanta.adl.org/news/adl-condemns-spencers-nazi-analogy/

It’s their right to delete us, just as it’s our right to disbelieve them and spread our version of reality. If you really care about AGW shouldn’t you be fixing the plank in your own eye before you tackle the speck in ours?

My 'unreasonable' comment to the ADL was this:-

If you listen to just one argument from us global warming sceptics I recommend you watch this video from a well respected UK CO2 reduction campaign called 10:10.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skW6krOLL20

This wasn’t a spoof video by climate sceptics trying to paint the consensus as Nazis. It wasn’t a student video or one from some rabid environmental organisation. It was a well funded, much planned effort by some leading UK and US figures including a well known person in prime time comedy writing. As you will see, a lot of intelligent and prominent figures got involved. It was intended for release in cinemas and perhaps later on TV if it proved effective. Well it was effective, just not the way they intended.

That vile video and much more is aimed at me and I’m just an unassuming member of the public with no incentive other than genuine questions about the quality and accuracy of climate science and its catastrophic predictions. Unlike Dr Roy Spencer I’m invisible. My career and finances or family are not threatened by those who dream of blowing me up. Where has your defence of him been?

I don’t remember a press statement from you on any of the occasions where threats have been made against global warming sceptics. Like when Dr Pachauri, head of the IPCC said he wished we’d put asbestos on our faces like talcum powder. Or the warning from Greenpeace that read:

“The proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and scepticism. If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like. If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fuelling spurious debates around false solutions and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”

Did you know that if you search for denier on Google you get twice as many references for climate change denier as Holocaust denier?

We are under fierce attack for asking questions and you have utterly failed to defend that most reasonable activity. You only spring to life when one of our numbers snaps. Go back and watch the 10:10 video and ask yourself if you’re on the right sight of defamation or worse – persecution.

Raff,
A question for you as clarification.

Do you considered continuous deleting of comments by a single person as banning? If not what is it?

When you've cleared that up for me I'll tell you why I ask the question(s),

TinyCO2: "I don’t care if you don’t believe that people have been banned from making comments on prominent warmist sites.". Oh I believe that alright. I've seen the sort of commenting that leads to people getting snipped or banned. What I'd like proof pf is the reasonableness of the comment and the commenter's behaviour. That is very different.

Sandy: "Do you considered continuous deleting of comments by a single person as banning? If not what is it?" - well if none get through, it is clearly an effective ban. Like that on ZDB here.

A few people have suggested that I try to act the sceptic myself, but that is not really a valid test unless scpetics write the questions for me. I can post some questions but I cannot un-learn what I know about the debate and what raises hackles. I'd need some questions posed in the way a neophyte or sceptic would phrase them. Give me some questions that you think reasonable but likely to be snipped/banned/attacked and I'll post them.

So what was unreasonable about my comment that it should be deleted?

Like I wrote, I don't mind that warmists ban anyone who dares to say something different or ask questions. It makes more converts. It's not like they can ban us everywhere and slowly we are getting heard.

Zed was banned for calling the Bish a liar after being given fair warning.

Stewgreen, disabling comments (which can be automatic after a default period) is reasonable if the site comes under "attack". By that I mean that they receive what appears to be a coordinated flow of comments. You'll doubtless say you act alone, but I have seen enough "I just posted this on blog xxxx" to know that coordination exists. If you want your comments to stand, perhaps be sure to act alone.

The DECC blog seems to have given sceptic replies good access - where's the beef? The other one has two negative comments. If many of you sent similar comments (again maybe coordinated, and also by prolific commenters who must become known) then I see no issue with snipping them. The Paterson event, for all its content weakness, was clearly managed, and managed well, by the GWPF. The comment storm that probably resulted was perhaps spontaneous/ Perhaps not. Remember, you have no automatic right to be heard or published. It takes time and effort to monitor comments (ask the Bishop if you doubt that), and money too.

Radical, the comments on the thread you posted seem unremarkable (in the first few I read) - nothing that would not be addressed to me here. Was there something in particular that you wanted me to see (it is long). The 10:10 video is crass and stupid. I cannot imagine how anyone thought it would help - quite the reverse.

"Are you admitting, here, that you do not consider a sceptical mind to be a scientific mind?"

I don't know where you get that from. The minds of most of the population are not scientific. Why should they be? My point was that if I were to ask about, for example, the issue of CO2 being a minor component of the atmosphere, that is what I would ask about. For example,

How can CO2 be so influential on temperatures when it makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere?

99% of the atmosphere is nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Unlike CO2, these gasses are unaffected by infra-red radiation? Therefore the "very minor component" is actually a major component of what is left.

my obvious response would be to admit (maybe privately) that they didn't know what they had been told and reappraise my level of knowledge. In other words, the conversation probably ends there. If I really were to post again it would have to be in a way that recognised my initial ignorance. That is what I would do if pretending to real scepticism. There would be no back and forth that antagonised my correspondent and got me banned as I would not go on the question some other aspect that, from the evidence of the first question, I almost certainly don't understand any better.

Hence if you want to show how to be banned, you have to write the questions and responses for me (or do it yourself and keep a record of the conversation).

splitpin - and had the Bish actually lied?

Radical, did you really read the whole thread. It is unbearably tedious, although I can see why you and the WUWT crowd liked 'rcina'. They probably especially liked his dividing 12% by 65% and expecting gold - one can only laugh (except you, I guess)! If you really think that he was treated roughly, take a look at how Nick Stokes is treated at WUWT or CA. I've had more rudeness here I think than poor, 'hapless', rcina endured. And of course he was under no obligation to endure his harsh treatment - he is dedicated to his cause.

But that is all besides the point. People here like to claim they were badly treated when they asked simple questions at consensus sites. Your hero is not the blushing virgin asking a simple question and getting an abusive response, not with his 350 page Word document "full of links, abstract summaries, graphs, and quotes".

Your belief in the non-existence of greenhouse gasses defies scientific evidence from a century or more. Good for you! Don't let science get in the way of a good obsession, eh?

And you miss the point about my inability to "act sceptical". I can pretend to be a sceptic easily enough, I've seen plenty of how it is done. And I'd get rude responses and more, as you claim, exactly as expected. But from my first words it would be very different form of interaction from acting the supplicant.

Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, my working hypothesis is that it is the manner of your asking that causes negative reactions to your simple questions. But as I said, you can prove me wrong easily enough.

stewgreen, this is a bit far from the original premise from commenters: "that they were once true believers (or some such) but were driven away from the consensus side by the arrogance and rudeness of others. "

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the example you quoted, you clearly had a developed opinion of the subject and were not, as above, a true believer asking simple questions and being rebuffed.

Raff
Thanks for that answer, I agree with your thoughts on that.

I also quite liked reading ZDB's postings although I think too many people responded to them directly. As a recent contributor you are probably not aware how long he/she actually posted diversionary stuff here.

The fact you can't pose a question with a sceptical mindset is a serious problem, as you can't question the theory and therefore cannot prove it.

Full information? There was little factual information to be had in that thread. What did you learn? And why does that thread excite you when Nick Stokes treatment at WUWT or CA does not?

"What scientific evidence? If you could point me to some, it would be appreciated." From Arrhenius onward. Go look it up.

Sandy, give me an example of a subject on which you (or someone else) have asked a question and received abuse or banning. I'll do my best to write a sceptical question using that.

"If you really think that he was treated roughly, take a look at how Nick Stokes is treated at WUWT or CA."
Oct 26, 2014 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

If commenters at Climate Audit believe his use of selective quotations is tantamount to lying, then they have a right to say so at Climate Audit if Steve McIntyre allows them. He has snipped my exchanges with Nic Stokes for less. What Steve McIntyre does do is allow him to continue posting. On one such recent post, in response to people calling for Nic Stokes to be snipped, he said

"...when Nick was just racehorsing, it was one thing. But now he frequently and consistently misquotes and misrepresents and (what Mosher calls) “lies”. I’d prefer to be challenged than not challenged, but it is tiresome dealing with the inaccuracies. Obviously not “everything” is a misrepresentation, but the ratio is far too high to be useful.

I once counted something like 12 or 15 pointlessly insulting comments which had been repeatedly entered overnight by Zed in a single post, before they were deleted. No wonder she earned her ban.