Thus, I decided to document comments that got snipped. I don't want to have written them for nothing.
Following comment that I submitted was snipped from the thread "Watts et al paper 2nd discussion thread" (with some typos corrected):
----- snip
"kadaka (KD Knoebel):
One full week after the last comment, you tried to slip in The Last Word
How this sounds. I "tried to slip". Like I did something in an secretive way through some backdoor.
Yes, I wrote my comment a week after the previous comment. I hadn't seen the article before. What's the problem? Is there a statue of limitation with respect to the time passed after which a misrepresentation of the results from scientific studies and personal attacks on climate scientists can't be rebutted anymore in a comment?
using an insulting tone from the start:
In the following, you quote some statements as examples, which I made. I just don't see how most of the statements could be reasonably interpreted as "insulting and spiteful".
Let's look at them:
Anthony Watts misleads the audience already in the title of his article:
I stated a fact. I provided an explanation for what the misrepresentation was.
And most of the devote followers here don’t notice or don’t care about being misled. They just want to get confirmed their preconceived views.
In the first sentence, I stated a fact again. If you and Anthony Watts feel insulted by those statements, I can only conclude that you two feel insulted by facts.
The second sentence is my explanation for the behavior of the crowd here. Nothing insulting in the statement.
Although I don’t really understand why the fake skeptics crowd, except the ones who dismiss tree ring proxies altogether, is so excited about this study.
The explanation for the statement followed. I see, though, that there may be people who could feel insulted by my use of the word "fake skeptic", since many here see themselves as part of a heroic resistance against some global and omnipotent evil conspiracy. But that's how I see it. I can't accept the majority here as true skeptics, because the majority doesn't use arguments and approaches true skeptics would use, if they didn't scientifically agree with results from research presented by scientists. Also, no one should expect that my comments here are cheerful after climate scientists like me have been defamed, smeared, insulted, accused of being liars and fraudsters again and again, in thread after thread, like in the mentioned one, often after Anthony Watts has provided the lead, and then in the trail of comments in his echo chamber.
These are the kind of personal, inciting statements, which don’t belong in a scientific argument.
Is this an insulting statement? I don't think so.
But this here is just an opinion blog. Anthony Watts doesn’t do any science. Thus, personal attacks against scientists are allowed.
The real science is done at other venues. It's not done in opinion blogs like this one, where no standards are mandated regarding methodological approach, logic, evidence, or proof of sources. One could try to make an effort to uphold standards of a scientific discussion also in an opinion blog, though, to improve the quality of the blog. But such a thing is not done here by Anthony Watts. He doesn't uphold these standards for himself, and the comment section is even worse."
----- snip
Another comment by me in which I challenged Anthony Watts regarding assertions in another thread he made without providing evidence got snipped as well, from an allegedly "Open Thread". Here it is:
----- snip
I'm still waiting for Anthony Watts to provide the evidence for following assertions, he boldly stated in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/02/update-on-watts-et-al-2012/#comment-1050993
1.
Jim Hansen and his sponsor actually did turn the thermostat up in June 1988:
This transcript excerpt is from PBS series Frontline which aired a special in April 2007. Here he admits his stagecraft in his own words:
In the following video, no word by Hansen or evidence of his involvement could be found.
2. directed at me:
The only circular reasoning is yours, courtesy of the taxpayers of the USA.
3.
The surface network is a mess, and by extension so is GISTEMP.
----- snip
Update, Monday Aug 20, 2012: A very ugly smear by Anthony Watts against my person has been brought to my attention by arch in a comment below. Mr. Watts insinuated publicly on his blog that I somehow bear personal responsibility for the tragic passing of Robert E. Phelan, one of the WUWT moderators. The ethics of such a personal attack are discussed here.
