Those blogs do not appear to open debate forums as they practice deleting comments, editing comments, stealth editing articles, banning commenters merely for not toeing a line etc

Care to post a couple of examples?

For years Watts empowered Dave Stealey, one of his moderators, to post as sockpuppet 'Smokey' in the debates he was moderating, deploying all his mod powers to restrict debate and defend his shonky arguments. It would prob still be happening if 'Smokey' hadn't accidentally outed himself.

Zero integrity.

"Zero integrity.
Jan 12, 2019 at 11:11 PM | Phil Clarke"

Is this the "Zero Integrity" from Gergis Mk1 that you and Climate Science prefer? Gergis Mk2 was even more of a disaster, so you confirmed your own personal Zero Integrity AND Credibility

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/21/the-class-act-of-michael-mann-and-joelle-gergis/

The 'class act' of Michael Mann and Joelle Gergis
Anthony Watts / November 21, 2012
Joelle Gergis and Michael Mann commiserate on Facebook via Tom Nelson
It starts out well enough…except that Kenji never signed off on the UCS report.

“When Research is Attacked” | Facebook
Joelle Gergis Thanks for your encouragement Mike, it’s been a hell of a year. I’ve just chased up the UCS report and forwarded it on through my network to get the word out. Hope things are going well for your these days, you are an inspiration to many of us. I look forward to catching up with you soon…

“When Research is Attacked” | Facebook

Michael E. Mann thanks Joelle–My hope is that this (and the UCS report) proves helpful to you and other young scientists in the field who are increasingly being harassed by the usual suspects. Keep up the great work you are doing, and DON’T let the b@$#aRds get you down!

Tom Nelson: Search results for gergis

McIntyre’s triumph over Gergis, Karoly, and Mann | Watts Up With That?

Mann, in correspondence with the authors Gergis and Karoly, in his typical style tried to sell a collection different workarounds for the problems they brought on themselves, and in the end, his advice was rejected, the JC editors told the authors the paper was not viable, and the authors were forced to withdraw the paper. Full stop.

Except it wasn't full stop was it?

Nothing posted at WUWT should be taken at face value, as I've demonstrated. The original Gergis reconstruction inaccurately stated what had actually been done in the study. The team were working on two papers simultaneously, in the first the data were detrended before analysis, and they incorrectly assumed the same had been done in the second and said so in the methods section. Both approaches have their advocates and critics. When the error came to light and the paper retracted, they could have simply changed 'detrended' to 'non-detrended' in the paper, and resubmitted, but as they had previously argued that using detrended data was the superior method they chose to go back to the drawing board and redo the analysis.

Mistakes happen, and when they do, should be admitted and fixed. This is good science. As it turned out, using a consistent methodology made almost no difference to the results. After many rounds of review....

Finally, today, we publish our study again with virtually the same conclusion: the recent temperatures experienced over the past three decades in Australia, New Zealand and surrounding oceans are warmer than any other 30-year period over the past 1,000 years.

(See the figure here). Predictably McIntyre did not like the new paper, equally predictably, his criticisms have no discernable impact on the conclusions.

Mountain, molehill. The data used are in the public domain so anyone who doesn't agree with the conclusions is free to do their own study and publish. Not holding my breath.

Jan 13, 2019 at 9:26 PM | Phil Clarke

No. It was Peer Reviewed rubbish.

Hockey Teamster Ben Santer throws rubbish and threats

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/13/ben-santer-we-need-understanding-not-physical-walls-to-address-climate-change/

WUWT explains the Climate Science propaganda

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/14/why-climate-change-isnt-science/
Guest Opinion: Why Climate Change Isn’t Science
charles the moderator / 16 mins ago January 14, 2019
Why Climate Change Isn’t Science
By Daniel G. Jones

"Environmentalists first predicted impending climate disaster in the 1970s, but they didn’t call it global warming. Back then, it was “Global Cooling” that would end life on earth as we knew it. The smog of industrial pollutants was blocking out sunlight so severely, we were warned, that our planet would enter a new ice age unless we acted quickly. Magazine covers featured pictures of snowball earth.

In the eighties, we cleaned up our air, the threatened the ice age did not occur, and thousands of people with time on their hands and seeking purpose in life had discovered that they could make a career out of disaster prophecy. Thus, it was time for a new catastrophe: “Global Warming” Well, maybe not so new. Same villain: us and our machines. Same victim: our delicate planet earth. Same threat: the end of life as we know it. Only the predicted temperature had changed"

That's an embarassingly poor article. Jones claims:

Climate change alarmists have made lots of predictions. Perhaps too many, because not one of their predictions whose expiration date has passed has proven correct. Here’s a sampling, courtesy of Anthony Watts at wattsupwiththat.com:

• 1988, Dr. James Hansen. Asked by author Rob Reiss how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, Hansen replied: “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change…There will be more police cars…[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

We now know that Reiss got his dates muddled and the prediction was for 40 years and assumed CO2 had doubled. We know this from Hansen, Reiss himself and um, Anthony Watts. And it was an off-the-cuff remark in a media interview. So Jones is pushing an erroneous claim after the claim has been corrected not least at WUWT. Top editing there.

Jones' thesis is hopelessly muddled; he claims climate science is not real science as it cannot be falsified. He then quotes some failed predictions. How does that work? In fact none of his (Watts') list of 9 failed predictions over 31 years (three a decade) is from academic science or the IPCC: rather he cites politicians, newspapers and celebrities. Meryl Streep now speaks for the science, apparently.

The. Usual. Propaganda.

Here is a partial list of skillful predictions made by climate scientists and models:

• Global warming, the sign and magnitude.
• Stratospheric cooling, tropospheric warming.
• Night temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures, winter more than summer.
• Polar amplification and that the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
• Models accurately predicted the magnitude and duration and effect on humidity of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
• The expansion of the Hadley cells. 
• The poleward movement of storm tracks.
• An increase in the height of the tropopause.
• That relative humidity would on global average remain constant.

Etc Etc, and not a Hollywood actress in sight.

Phil Clarke:

"We now know that Reiss got his dates muddled and the prediction was for 40 years and assumed CO2 had doubled."

Even if it was an off-the-cuff statement, why did Hansen say it? It couldn't possibly to alarm people into doing what he wanted, could it? As for the difference between 20 years and 40 years, it's now 31 years since he said it, and it still looks ridiculous.

"Here is a partial list of skillful predictions made by climate scientists and models:

• Global warming, the sign and magnitude.

Jan 14, 2019 at 10:47 PM Phil Clarke"

You start with a lie, just like Climate Science.

Should anything else be trusted?

http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2018.png

Even if it was an off-the-cuff statement, why did Hansen say it? It couldn't possibly to alarm people into doing what he wanted, could it? As for the difference between 20 years and 40 years, it's now 31 years since he said it, and it still looks ridiculous.

Well, the context is that he was being interviewed for a magazine. Reiss invited him to speculate on how the view from his window would look after CO2 had doubled…

When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question.

Hansen:

Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."

In recalling the interview 10 years later Reiss misremembered the timescale and the CO2 condition. Doubled CO2 would be 560ppm, we are at circa 410ppm, so it is premature to assess the prediction, but here's a picture of the highway from 2017. ;-)

Two observations: Hansen has a substantive body of published research to his name, including some temperature projections made in the same year as the interview which have stood up remarkably well and some of the landmark papers in the climate science canon. That people seeking to discredit him ignore all this and instead sieze upon the mangled recollection of a magazine interview speaks volumes.

Secondly, that WUWT reproduces Jones' piece, giving the Hansen remarks as an example of a prediction "whose expiration date has passed", when the site has previously acknowledged the timescale error, indicates either p*sspoor editing or deliberate mendacity, in my view.

Jan 15, 2019 at 11:06 AM | Phil Clarke
Updating data input adjustments that were wrong, even when averaged, just produces more wrong model averages, and output data.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/10/the-credibility-gap-between-predicted-and-observed-global-warming/

"The CMIP5 models predict 3.37 K midrange equilibrium sensitivity to CO2 doubling (Andrews+ 2012), against 1 K reference sensitivity before accounting for feedback, implying a midrange transfer function 3.37 / 1 = 3.37. The transfer function, the ratio of equilibrium to reference temperature, encompasses by definition the entire operation of feedback on climate.

Therefore, the 21st-century warming that IPCC should be predicting, on the RCP 6.0 scenario and on the basis of its own estimates of CO2 concentration and the models’ estimates of CO2 forcing and Charney sensitivity, is 3.37 x 1.15, or 3.9 K.

Yet IPCC actually predicts only 1.4 to 3.1 K 21st-century warming on the RCP 6.0 scenario, giving a midrange estimate of just 2.2 K warming in the 21st century and implying a transfer function of 2.2 / 1.15 = 1.9, little more than half the midrange transfer function 3.37 implicit in the equilibrium-sensitivity projections of the CMIP5 ensemble."

" .. indicates either p*sspoor editing or deliberate mendacity, in my view.
Jan 15, 2019 at 2:02 PM | Phil Clarke"

But you still believe in propaganda from Mann's Hockey Stick and Gergis. Is your view relevant? Just because you trust Skeptical Science's assault on scientific credibility, is no recommendation to anyone.

Therefore, the 21st-century warming that IPCC should be predicting, on the RCP 6.0 scenario and on the basis of its own estimates of CO2 concentration and the models’ estimates of CO2 forcing and Charney sensitivity, is 3.37 x 1.15, or 3.9 K.

Yet IPCC actually predicts only 1.4 to 3.1 K 21st-century warming on the RCP 6.0 scenario, giving a midrange estimate of just 2.2 K warming in the 21st century

The IPCC number is for the amount of warming realised by 2100, the other number - 3.9K is based on the equilibrium sensitivity (as far as one can determine, Monckton has yet to master the art of communicating scientific idea with clarity, and seems to make up his own terminology without benefit of definition), that is, the resultant temperature after all feedbacks have acted and thermal inertia worked itself out- which would not happen for many decades afterwards.

That is, Monckton has confused equilibrium (sometimes aka Charney) and immediate (or transient) sensitivity, a pretty basic howler. No wonder nobody wants to publish his paper on yet another fatal flaw he has singlehandedly discovered in climate science … ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Equilibrium_and_transient_climate_sensitivity

Monckton & Watts. What a pair!

Why are you all arguing with a troll?

Its like wrestling with a pig, the pig enjoys it and you get covered in shit.

Jan 15, 2019 at 5:40 PM Armitage Shanks

He just keeps proving how easily Climate Science can be flushed.

Why are you all arguing with a troll?

Its like wrestling with a pig, the pig enjoys it and you get covered in shit.
Jan 15, 2019 at 5:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterArmitage Shanks

Well usually I don't, and skip past, unless I'm in the mood.
I've tried suggesting that he make some of his points a bit more readable if he wants engagement, but it's quite possible he really doesn't. You may have noticed his preference to crap on people like Steve McIntyre and Antony Watts from a safe distance. He appears to know in detail what they say and when, but you never actually see him at those sites attempting to engage in detail with the person in question, when he is free to do so. This suggests to me that many of his views, especially ones regarding technical details, are simply cut and pasted from elsewhere. I think the ad-homs are usually his own though. At least, that is how it appears to me.

I also take the view that if someone here does take the time to respond, then that is a little bit of time he isn't trolling somebody else somewhere else.

Phil Clarke: "Well, the context is that he was being interviewed for a magazine. Reiss invited him to speculate on how the view from his window would look after CO2 had doubled…

When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question.
Hansen:

Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."
In recalling the interview 10 years later Reiss misremembered the timescale and the CO2 condition. Doubled CO2 would be 560ppm, we are at circa 410ppm, so it is premature to assess the prediction"

Perhaps the more honest response would be that the question contained a ridiculous premise, and it would be unwise to engage in such alarmist game-playing, based on assumptions that were most unlikely to be borne out (doubling of CO2 emissions in 40 years). Instead it seems Hansen was more than happy to play along. Funny that.

"This suggests to me that many of his views, especially ones regarding technical details, are simply cut and pasted from elsewhere. I think the ad-homs are usually his own though. At least, that is how it appears to me."

Jan 17, 2019 at 6:27 AM | michael hart

William M Connolley, and the Hockey Teamsters, which include Skeptical Science and The Guardian collaborators, particularly on failed Economics

For background info "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford.

also:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/
Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again
Anthony Watts / January 30, 2013

"Apparently Mr. Connolley has edited 5428 Wikipedia articles, most about climate. Die Kalte Sonne:

Unbelievable but true: The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change was a member of the UK Green Party and openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC. So it was not a referee, but the 12th Man of the IPCC team.

I’m not sure how accurate the translation is, but it suggests he was somehow part of the IPCC “short list” team.

With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task."

Climate Science fiddles, but the Planet does not burn as prophesied.

When you read Connolley haw-hawing with his acolytes including dear Phil and another sometime lame troll at BH one Ford Prefect it is clear that one is dealing with irrational zealots.

The quote about Connolley is probably sourced from an article by Lawrence Solomon, with commentary from James Delingpole, published in the Telegraph and then deleted. Archive here.

Here's an extract from Connolley's response

I'll point out that the LS/JD article is riddled with amateur errors that a moments time from someone competent at wiki could have fixed. This is genuine modern journalism at it's very worst.

• ''All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles.'' This is either technically true, or wrong, depending on how you interpret "re-wrote". If you use an edit counter you can discover that I have, to date, edited 5,474 unique articles, so it has gone up by a few since LS wrote (actually I wouldn't swear that total didn't include talk space, but never mind). But that raw number is nearly meaningless, because it includes articles such as Aesop, where I reverted vandalism, Berkhamstead Castle, where I added a picture, I removed the S word from the CRA , and... I'm sure you get the picture. I can't quite make it up to Z, but I did remember the XAP2. If you want to know how many articles where I've valiantly kept at bay the forces of wacko-dom, you need something more intelligent than an edit counter or a Delingpole.

My irony meter is off the scale at the Kalte Sonne (basically Dr Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, a chemist and a geologist) website characterising the IPCC as 'controversial' given the many factual errors contained in their book. They ascribe all global warming to solar cycles and in 2012, predicted the start of a cooling phase. Every year since then has been warmer, with the warmest year record set in 2016, which was 0.38C warmer than 2012.

Jan 18, 2019 at 5:58 PM | Phil Clarke

Why should anyone trust you, William M Connolley or other Hockey Teamsters with their dreadful propaganda?

Phil Clarke, isn't it fortunate that we have wattsupwiththat to expose the deluge of propaganda masquerading as Science?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/18/op-ed-disguised-as-a-science-paper-record-breaking-ocean-temperatures-point-to-trends-of-global-warming/

"Op-ed disguised as a science paper: “Record-breaking ocean temperatures point to trends of global warming”
Anthony Watts / 3 hours ago January 18, 2019
From the “don’t trust it, it’s from ‘Skeptical Science’ team operative John Abraham who’s a mechanical engineer” department comes this op-ed masquerading as a science paper at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Trenberth still hasn’t found his missing heat"

Some of the usual suspects were obviously happy to put their names to it.