Discussion > Trolls and thread spoiling here
And another “hear, hear!” for Hunter. As I have said before, I can find some of the troll posts entertaining, though tend to ignore them, unless they have made a salient point for which a response might be needed, if only to clarify (or unless I am feeling a little devilish, and wish to take them on a little ride). Only Raff (though rarely) and Entropic man tend to qualify on the first count; all the others, only on the second. The bizarre thing is that they tend to be so firmly entrenched in their own metaphorical little foxholes, that they are unable to see we sceptics wandering around the open fields of debate, enjoying the many sights and diversions that they offer. While we may pause to peer into their little dens, we know that there is much more to offer, out there, and move on.
Either way – the Bishop’s gaff; the Bishop’s rules.
Radical Rodent
Ratty:
...that they are unable to see we sceptics wandering around the open fields of debate, enjoying the many sights and diversions that they offer.Yeah, we noticed you, like idiots escaped from the assylum, wandering around your open fields of debate aimlessly, unconstrained by sense or understanding. We noticed.
stewgreen:
...the DAMM book was 12.5 magnitudes out by stating ...don't you teach English? It is DAMN! And what does 12.5 magnitudes mean? I have a horrible feeling you mean 'orders of magnitude' - now I know why you didn't answer my question. Good thing you don't teach maths.
Raff
Just to clarify something. A troll in this context is anyone who comments here but who doesn't toe the party line and who doesn't always answer your loaded questions. Is that about right?
...and Then There's Physics
...idiots escaped from the assylum...
Haha Muphry's law strikes again.
Martin A
ATTP - get back in your teapot.
Martin A
Just to be clear I never mentioned deleting posts banning commenters
So i don't want to give people the idea that is what we talking about
..and I agree ultimately that is the Bishop's decision anyway.
- I am more concerned about whether we engage or ignore people who seem to be non-cooperative, disrupting or intimidating
- Even if people don't think there is a problem right now ..I think it worth contemplating the future, in case it gets worse.
stewgreen
Stew,
I am more concerned about whether we engage or ignore people who seem to be non-cooperative, disrupting or intimidating
I think it depends on what your goals are. If it is to continue promoting your special brand of science denial, then you should probably continue as you are. Call anyone who says something you disagree with a "troll", and convince yourself that the reason they don't want to answer your loaded questions is because you've bamboozled them with your watertight logic, rather than because they don't really want to play gotcha games. On the other hand, if you are really interested in discussing science, you could try something novel and new. Try having an actual discussion, rather than simply playing JAQing games, and think about what others are saying before deciding to call them a name. Worth a shot?
I think it worth contemplating the future, in case it gets worse.
My own guess is that it's unlikely to get worse. I suspect that sites like this are going to get marginalised as it become clear that most of what is presented here is simply nonsense. I might, of course, be wrong, but that would be what I would expect. So, you probably have nothing to really worry about.
...and Then There's Physics
Hmmm… an awful lot of projecting there, aTTP, from one who calls anyone who says something he disagrees with a “denier”. While your site has never been particularly mainstream in the first place, this site is going from strength to strength. However, you are right, we do have very little to worry about.
Radical Rodent
from one who calls anyone who says something he disagrees with a “denier”.
Here's something else to consider. Try not to continually say things that aren't true. It's possible that you don't know that this isn't true, but it's possible that by continually doing this, people will start to think that you're simply dishonest.
...and Then There's Physics
aTTP, could you post a thread on the significant contributions to Climate Science that are "utter nonsense", and should be ignored. It could be your outstanding contribution to improving the quality of your own blog, and with Links, Real Climate and The Guardian too.
golf charlie
aTTP, dishonesty?
When are you going to reveal, what you know to be wrong with Mann's Hockey Stick? And when did you work it out, before or after Steve McIntyre?
If your interest in commenting here, is demonstrating your expertise, it would be dishonest to withhold evidence, even if you ended up being classified a denier, by your climate science buddies
golf charlie
stewgreen, seeing the above comment from aTTP 11:15, makes me think that hypocrites like Ken Rice really ought to be told where to get off, in a similar manner to the way he described to Richard Tol.
But Ken Rice's style of censorship is by all accounts offensive to anyone interested in discussions. Presumably he copied it from Real Climate.
golf charlie
ATTP simultaneously playing Sir Robin and the Black Knight.
hunter
Ahhhh, there are some who actually think that it's possible to spoil threads more than they currently are. How cute.
There you have the problem in a nutshell. I started on my journey reading realclimate.com by asking what I thought (and still do) was a reasonable question as to how it was clear that all the CO2 increase in the atmosphere was human induced when we'd had a warming event 800 years ago which typically causes CO2 to rise 800 -1200 years later. Every reply was abusive in nature. As I was new to the game I was slightly shocked that complete strangers should respond to, what I believed was a reasonable question, with abuse.
And there above you have exactly the same personality type in aTTP, gratuitously sneering at and insulting complete strangers rather than engaging us.
We should welcome people who challenge our ideas and assumptions, how else are we to improve our knowledge unless we engage with people with different views? I enjoy the knockabout of forthright debate and both EM and raff can take it as well as giving it sometimes irritating but on the whole decent coves. (Although it's over year now that I told EM that Dana had made a serious blunder when he'd calculated the 1910 to 1940 rise in temperature and would have gotten a figure much more to his liking if he'd been a smidgeon more manipulative, and I've still not had a response. It's easy too.)
I don't even mind trolling if has some humour to it. It's when it's deadly serious and slightly sinister like aTTP above that I find it pathetic.
geronimo
...and think about what others are saying before deciding to call them a name.
From the man who started his discussion with.
Ahhhh, there are some who actually think that it's possible to spoil threads more than they currently are. How cute.
I often wonder if these people are like this in their real lives, perhaps social-misfits who admired bullies at school but lacked the courage to be one?
geronimo
Geronimo: your experience was similar to mine. Raff has challenged me to “prove it”, having gone to some length (how sweet!) to find comments I had made, with their responses, and claiming that I was … well, let’s just say, erm, mistaken (though Ken’s response was not exactly pleasant; odd how he overlooked that, despite quoting it).
Seeing your post made me realise that I do not have to give a personal example – all that is required is to look at what happens to anyone who questions the meme, on sites like RealClimate, etc.
Radical Rodent
Geronimo & Radical Rodent & stewgreen & others
Imagine how many of the mistakes of climate science could have been avoided if the likes of aTTP and Real Climate hadn't trampled, slashed and destroyed any ideas that challenged their assumed expertise and authority.
Mann still can't find a credible expert witness, and aTTP won't say what is wrong with his Hockey Stick.
Rising CO2 levels might not have adverse consequences on the climate, but without them, it does damage the ability of Climate Scientists to think rationally. It seems that their ability to clutch at straws has allowed them to build so many strawmen, as they idle away their time awaiting proof of the link between CO2 and temperature.
golf charlie
Radical, site-specific search is easy. Just add the site to the search term, as in the search text:
Radical Rodent site:andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comSo I went to no length to find your quotes. And from what I found, not only did nobody throw "ridicule, vilification and insult" at you or "recommendations to self-harm and suicide", the response was polite and everyone else just ignored you. You were not "excluded" beyond being ignored.
So I'm beginning to think this victimization you and other "skeptics" feel is just another illusion that you echo around your little bubble until you all believe it without actually experiencing it yourselves. It is like the "lies" that "skeptics" continually accuse scientists and organizations of telling that, when you're asked to give examples, turn out to be nothing of the sort.
But I'll be generous and let you give an example of the abuse and exclusion of someone else at ATTP. I read ATTP and I see how it is moderated - it takes some deliberate effort to excluded and there is plenty of warning. But let's have your best example.
Raff
geronimo
"it's over year now that I told EM that Dana had made a serious blunder when he'd calculated the 1910 to 1940 rise in temperature and would have gotten a figure much more to his liking if he'd been a smidgeon more manipulative,"
I've stayed off this thread until now, but you mentioned me specifically.
As best I can decode it, you say the following.
Dana was mistaken.
Dana was manipulative.
Dana was not manipulative.
It is hard to imagine a meaningful response to a meaningless statement.
Entropic man
I read ATTP and I see how it is moderated - it takes some deliberate effort to excluded and there is plenty of warningIn all my time posting here the only two contributors that have been banned (to my recollection) have been Zed and BBD, neither if whom were making any attempt to engage in any way with others on this blog.
This blog has been considerably more welcoming of differing points of view than any of the warmest blogs and certainly more so than ATTP's. It is certainly easier to excluded from there than from here, else how have you and the Seer of Blackford Hill managed to survive this long, tell me.
If this were my blog you both have been shown the door by now, not because you aren't toeing some mythical party line but because in your case you are an arrogant pain in the arse and in Rice's case because he enters every time toting his movable goalposts with him and applying them the second he is challenged on anything.
The result is that it is impossible to have any meaningful discussion on any terms except yours or his which is the same as saying you are derailing the thread (and probably deliberately) which is the same as calling you a troll.
Mike Jackson
Radical Rodent
I looked at the Realclimate thread at which you asked for a definition of CAGW. I saw 14 responses, some serious and some not.
May I ask why you did not respond to the serious replies?
Entropic man
Mike Jackson, Raff is trying to get his school climate science homework done. EM and aTTP are trying to be as arrogant as Mann, and doing very well by all accounts.
golf charlie
Radical Rodent
I then found this in their Borehole.
1346
Radical Rodent says:
21 Oct 2013 at 10:33 AM
O-o-kay. Let me rephrase the question: what is the most commonly accepted definition of the “C” part of CAGW, if the remaining three letters mean “Anthropogenic Global Warming”?
Entropic man
Odd. Why the conviction that the sites where I have had the most aggressive answers are either Realclimate or aTTP, when I never claimed that they were? It makes it doubly odd when I have only mentioned them in passing, as it were. Truth be told, I cannot remember which sites they were that really poured the scorn on – it was several years ago, and I was not particularly savvy with the situation. The simple fact is that it happened; probably one reason why there are only two questioning that is that the others have had similar experiences, so accept what I say. As to why I did not respond to the serious responses, EM – it was two years ago, and I cannot remember the circumstances; it could be that I found the answers satisfactory, but not requiring a response; it could be that I became disillusioned after reading the less serious ones.
Radical Rodent
The "do not toe the line" is your judgement, not why I do so, but I'm not following your logic. How is how I run my blog relevant to what I said? What were you suggesting?
To be clear, though, I thoroughly recommend strict moderation, but each to their own.