The first of my comments that got vanished was in reply to a graph posted by Smokey, which he described as the global satellite record of temperature measurements:
----- snip -----
Smokey writes:
USHCN is only the U.S. ["adjusted"] data. But the central question concerns global warming. So let’s look at the global satellite record, which is by far the most accurate temperature measurement.
and gives us following link to look at:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/plots/rss_ts_channel_tls_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
I suppose Smokey shows us this temperature record, which has been derived from satellite retrievals of radiation data by applying mathematical algorithms with assumptions (since satellites do not measure temperatures) to assert that the global temperature has been decreasing over the satellite period.
Smokey is right. There is a negative temperature trend in the lower stratosphere over the whole satellite period. The graph he shows is for the lower stratosphere. The observed temperature change in the lower stratosphere has happened in parallel to the statistically significant positive temperature trend in the troposphere and at the surface over the same time period. The graph shown by Smokey is empirical data, which are consistent with the global warming at the surface and in the troposphere and show what has been predicted. Global warming in the troposphere comes with lower stratospheric cooling. That is the prediction. The data are in agreement with the physical explanation, which attributes those trends to the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.
Thank you for showing this, Smokey.
----- snip -----
The second snipped reply was to a comment by Smokey, where he showed a figure with a temperature trend:
----- snip -----
Smokey wrote at August 19, 2012 at 8:52 pm:
Some folks didn’t like my previous chart. So they will probably hate this one.,
referring following link: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/HadCrut3Global.jpg
Yes, this is totally destroying “the global warming hoax”, isn’t it. /sarc
What about following one?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
----- snip -----
Well it is because due to your attitude, and because you demand regular answers (that I may not see in the hundreds to thousands of comments each day at WUWT) you are on permanent moderation. Your comments sometimes get lost with SPAM.
ReplyDeleteYou whining about a couple of comments isn't impressive, especially when your partners don't allow me to comment at all at RealClimate.
You have 148 comments at WUWT, I have zero at RealClimate. The reason I have zero is that they are all deleted. Your beloved GISS organization practices censorship on a regular basis. In your case, you lose a couple of comments and get a couple of snips for rudeness, and you setup an attack website to vent your immature rage.
When you get those folks you work with to allow comments from skeptics, then you'll have an argument.
Otherwise it is just heulende geräusche.
wattsupwiththat.com:
DeleteI see you have broken your announcement to not look at my site.
Well it is because due to your attitude, and because you demand regular answers (that I may not see in the hundreds to thousands of comments each day at WUWT) you are on permanent moderation. Your comments sometimes get lost with SPAM.
I believe you this happens in some cases, but not in other cases like when the comment is published first, and then vanishes again. But, as I said before, it's your blog and your privilege to do whatever you want there. Or let the ones who do the moderator job do whatever they want.
You whining about a couple of comments isn't impressive, especially when your partners don't allow me to comment at all at RealClimate.
Like it is the privilege to do on your blog whatever you want, including banning people from posting there, it is the privilege of the hosts of the RealClimate blog to do the same. I do not have anything to do with the RealClimate blog, though. I can't check how often you have tried to post comments there or what the content of your comments was. So, I don't really know what kind of argument this is supposed to be, unless you want to suggest guilt by association.
You have 148 comments at WUWT, I have zero at RealClimate. The reason I have zero is that they are all deleted. Your beloved GISS organization practices censorship on a regular basis.
Now, the statement in the last sentence is simply a falsehood, since the RealClimate blog is not maintained by GISS. The RealClimate blog is a private undertaking by working scientists from all over the world:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/
In your case, you lose a couple of comments and get a couple of snips for rudeness, and you setup an attack website to vent your immature rage.
I let the readers decide, insofar any stop by here, whether my documenting of cases, where comments by me were snipped at your blog, are sufficient to qualify my blog as "attack site". If my blog is an "attack site" what is yours?
The snips of your corrections to Smokey's post make much more sense when you realize that Smokey is the pseudonym of the mod David B Stealey. Actually, much more of Smokey's/dbs's actions make more sense. Funny how pseudonyms arent allowed on WUWT except for site mods.
DeleteSee discussion here for more info: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/arctic-sea-ice-turning-points/#comment-70117