Applying RC Policy To Warmists

In an earlier post, Silence of the Greens, I broke one of my own rules (not to delete opposing views, like RC does). But in this case, I felt one particular annoying ultra-warmist reader needed to learn his own lesson. That is, if they are going to make rules for the rest of us to live by, then they too ought to live by those rules too, just to see what it’s like.

We already know that top warmists demand we live carbon-free lives, yet they themselves leave carbon footprints the size of craters.

In the comments of the above mentioned post, I posed the following question to the annoying warmist reader:

You do know that you are free to say what you want here, though I do not agree with it. At RealClimate their rules are a bit different. Opposing comments never see the light of day.
Now, are you going to argue that your side is always correct, and that the sceptics are wrong, and thus it’s correct that their comments are deleted? If so, then you are only confirming the intolerance I’ve written about here. RC is notorious for their suppression of dissent. An exchange of differing views like we are having here would not be possible at RC.

The warmist reader replied:

The reason why climate scientists remove posts is simply because they think Deniers are trolling and don’t even believe themselves what they post!

They think Deniers are merely trying to prolong the debate. This provides the impression to the public of a meaningful debate between two equally informed groups which isn’t the case. To them its like arguing with Apollo moon hoax conspiracy theorists or even flat earthers! They want to move on to debate the detail of how warm and how fast, not if.

Name me one climate scientist (sceptic or otherwise) who believes man has no effect on the rate of warming.

As an Engineer I’m more interested in solutions, but I do get annoyed at people deliberately misleading others, life is difficult enough without that sort of thing.

It’s mean, I know, but I decided that this reader should learn a lesson and live according to his own rules, and so I proceeded to snip all his comments, citing: “trolling and saying things you yourself do not even believe (RC Policy – sorry)”. The small-minded reader must have wasted a good amount of time, as he wrote a good three pages worth of childish provocation.

Really sorry about that.

I won’t do this in the future with other readers, unless of course they get as annoying and provocative as this particular reader did.

I have saved the content of this warmist reader, and so there is the possibility I’ll repost them. It wasn’t all bad. But at the moment, I think this person should find better ways to spend his time.

Deserved? Or not?

17 responses to “Applying RC Policy To Warmists”

  1. DirkH

    Well. This warmist reader postulates that sceptics don’t believe their own arguments. That attitude makes debate indeed senseless; so i wonder what he wanted here.

  2. John Shade

    A closed mind, hermetically sealed by relegating all critics to the status of cranks. No point in trying to have discussions with such people, other than to learn more about their worldview and motivation. If insight can be gained with which to help protect others from their bigotry, then it may be worth it.

  3. Ed Caryl

    I can’t understand why he thinks we don’t believe our own arguments! Why would we waste our time and energy on them?

    1. TinyCO2

      Hear, hear. It annoys me greatly that I’m not allowed to have my own ideas. According to warmists I’m either mentally unstable or being paid. Of course that attitude makes me post all the more 😀

  4. Hugh Roper

    I’d be inclined to re-instate Cassiopeia’s comments, apart from any personal insults and material which might cause personal offence. (However I didn’t read the correspondence re the Greens so I accept you may have had reason to snip so much.) I know it’s hard to engage with those who hold irrational and prejudiced beliefs but I’d prefer to let them have their say and just get on with other things. I don’t think they are worth the bother.

  5. Ed Caryl

    Put his comments back up. Taking them down only cofirms his beliefs about us. Let the dialog continue!!!!

  6. Edward.

    I think PG if you put the comments up, then, he/she defenestrates his/her stance quite effectively.

    And, it worries me not a whit.

    Bigots and pedants reflect their psychoses, they have no control.


    It is your blog my friend.

  7. TimiBoy

    Let him publicly espouse his belief in the suspension of freedom of speech and thought. It only serves to underline his association with groups that don’t hold Society’s best interests at heart.

    I’ve always been proud that such people are allowed to post on Skeptical blogs, and love pointing out to them that we practice free speech.



  8. Nonoy Oplas

    Sometimes it’s cute to see when people self-destruct, when they talk like they have 100 percent knowledge of everything. So better reinstate his/their comments, just remove undesirable adjectives.

  9. DirkH

    There is one propaganda tactic that is at work here – namely; accuse your enemy of your own deepest sin.

    Of psychologically: Analyse what your enemy accuses you of; this tells you a lot about the way he is thinking.

    We get accused of not believing our own arguments. Turning this around, i would deduce that my enemy either consciously or unconsciously projects his own wrongdoing on me. And i think there is a lot speaking for this hypothesis – namely: My personal wellbeing does not depend on whether AGW is true or not. Is this also true for the enemy? His personal wellbeing – whether he is an AGW scientist, a carbon trader, a Kyotocrat, or a recipient of solar subsidies, the list goes on and on – might very well depend on the AGW gravy train.

    There is a very high likelihood that people like Hansen know fully well that they are falsificating the temperature record; that they deliberately distort and destroy science. The culling of stations in the GISS record in the 90ies from 6000 to 1500 speaks volumes – leading to a rise in surface temperature anomaly.

  10. Taras

    Pierre, until you apologize to us, your readers, and to Cassiopeia for what you did, and until you reinstate Cassiopeia’s comments, insults and all, your blog will be no different from RC.
    Joseph Thoma

  11. Taras

    Pierre, I am no stinking warmista, I am no lukewarmer, and I am not skeptic. I am one hundred percent denier. Period. Until you can explain to me role of Co2 for sturtian glaciations (snowball earth), early cainozoic and younger drayas, I will stay denier.
    Pierre, I spent 23 years of my life in a communist country, and any censorship is abhorrent to me. There is no justification for censorship – even the worst SOB can be right someday. As you said, it is your blog and you can do anything you want, but I have no interest in, and even less respect for cheer leading blogs. It is your chice.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy