Martin

I enjoy many of your comments and posts, but I'm going to stick my neck out and come to Alan's defence, along the lines of my defence on the last occasion when he was being pilloried. He is a rare thing, a climate change sceptic from inside the world of academia. He therefore has a different take on things from many others who post on here (myself included), and I personally think brings value to the site, not least due to his insights regarding climate change central at UEA.

I suspect one of the problems with commenting on the internet is the same problem that can occur with email communication - things don't always cone across in the way intended, and offence can be caused when none was intended. It's also possible to type something in a hurry and/or in the heat of the moment and regret it afterwards - either because it was a little intemperate, or because it wasn't as carefully worded as we would have liked.

Bottom line, though, in my opinion, is that we climate sceptics remain a small but dedicated band, and we can't really afford to fall out with each other, and drive sceptics away from the debate.

So, my two penn'orth, for what it's worth, is that Alan should be welcome here. We should all try to take offence less easily and work hard to avoid causing it (and I include myself in that), and personally I would prefer it if Alan dropped his Supertroll moniker and reverted to "ACK" or "Alan Kendall".

Martin A. And I thought the discussion we were having about the new dichotomies in politics - you, me, Ravishing Rattie and Mark Hodgeson - was a possible sign of a rapproachment - an indication that you and I could discuss matters, even touchy matters like politics, in a rational, non-confrontational way. But there you go, just how wrong you can be.
I really have no idea why I offend you in particular, but with this particular piece of nastiness I have now lost interest.

Many carpets make a thread
To glisten, worth a tread.
===============

I have to agree with Martin. Alan, or whatever the current childish alias is today, fishes for comments to disagree with to show off his knowledge, experience and/or "superior intellect". His greatest ability though is to nitpick the nits off nits.

I see above that there is a renewed threat to "leave us in peace". Let's hope it is honoured, or if not, then in future posts there is recognition of our critical comments. Too many great contributors have left BH in recent times, some as a reaction to Alan, and my guess is that Martin and TinyCO2 will shortly be following them. If I am right that would be the end of BH for me (not that would be any great loss) but I suspect for other notable contributors.

Martin A.
My comment "If I am accused of being a troll here, I will post as one".
Your response "So infantile game playing".

Far from it, I take being branded a troll by those who engage in the same practices very, very seriously indeed. My nom-de-blog was deliberately chosen to highlight this fact. It's an indictment. The fact that you (and others) get so worked up about it demonstrates that it works.

David Porter wishful thinking on your part perhaps? - I made no renewed threat (or am I nit-picking?).

Martin A. Let's continue with your indictment.

"Last month you explained that you had posted stuff expressly to wind people up and provoke a reaction".

Indeed I did. I admitted doing this once after getting totally frustrated with accusations being thrown at me. My regret is that I failed to put quotation marks around the offending phrase (about Tory gerrymandering). A cursory search on Google using the terms "election, boundary changes, criticism" turns up dozens of occurrences where Labour, Lib-dem and even some Tory commentators have used the same phrase.

Yet there is a prolific commentator on BH who makes things up each and every week creating whole conversations or even whole posts that are entirely fictitious. Sometimes he is called on them, and I recall several instances where he admitted such fabrications. But of course these support accepted BH causes and positions and are thereby not criticized.
So my single provocation was dumped upon by all and sundry and is to be endlessly resurrected. One and only one occurrence.

EM last week made a deliberate provocative post about Trump. This was hardly commented upon - except by me.

Why the double standards?