No Scientific Discussion Allowed At The Guardian

My good friend Barb Wired posted this comment at the Guardian on a discussion of climate feedbacks.

ScreenHunter_1599 Apr. 24 10.25

They deleted it within four minutes

ScreenHunter_1600 Apr. 24 10.28

Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming | John Abraham | Environment | The Guardian

The desperation of the team has reached volume 11


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to No Scientific Discussion Allowed At The Guardian

  1. Disillusioned says:

    Getting closer to the time to storm the Bastille

  2. annieoakley says:

    I feel as though I am living in the Twilight Zone. Only lies are important.

    • Menicholas says:

      It is just like that for me too.

      • Gail Combs says:


        How in heck do you deal with the LIES and Propaganda put out by Acadamia and the MSM carefully designed to herd people towards their own destruction. Especially those with the true facts are muzzled or called insane?

  3. rah says:

    For a long time now The Guardian has only guarded lies and those that produce and broadcast them. The BBC isn’t much better.

  4. gator69 says:


  5. Oops, I’m afraid your friend Barb’s comments are now pre-moderated.

    • myrightpenguin says:

      In other words every comment will be deleted going by the inoffensive comment that was deleted after being flagged by the stasi as shown above. There may be terms & conditions for commenting at the Guardian but on paper only, definitely not in practice, and on-side commenters can get away with virtually any level of abuse they like. It’s basically a criminal enterprise, we are starting to see things reveal themselves with the whole crony capitalism charade with the Clinton Foundation now.

  6. cheshirered says:

    I had a similar ‘experience’ the other week. A perfectly on-topic comment got pulled because it was too accurate for their liking. They HATE the pause and react with absolute fury when anyone posts something along those lines. Comment is Free? My ar$e.

  7. emsnews says:

    And this is why eliminating anyone saying something you don’t agree with is stupid. All sites should be ashamed to do this. But it is quite common which makes most comment sections extremely boring. BORING. The internet used to be very open long ago. We delighted in long arguments about everything and it was quite illuminating. I miss the old days before 2000.

    • Menicholas says:

      When the conversation shifts to repealing democracy because there are some who refuse to hew to the lies, something fundamental is shifting.
      This is not just about lies vs. truth anymore.
      This is getting serious.

      • Gail Combs says:


        I always took Alex Jones with a very large grain of salt but I think he is correct when he says were are looking at the end of the game — terrifying given the slaughter of millions we have seen from those with similar beliefs/agendas.

        • annieoakley says:

          I was more skeptical of Alex Jones with the nutritional advice and other tangents. He sent some investigators to look at the ISIS on the border reports and they did find a mosque. Sometimes he is correct.

      • annieoakley says:

        Yes it is serious.

  8. scott mccall says:

    This comment section is never boring. 🙂

  9. Alf says:

    I try to fallow the cloud feedback discussion. Seems that the GW argument hinges on cloud feedback. Is the artical in the Guardian wrong? I have mostly read articles that suggest cloud feedback is negative.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Cloud feed back is mostly negative but it depends on the type of clout, the location and wether it is day or night.

      This has some of the informatin:

      • rah says:

        If the sun is shining it’s almost all negative. If it’s not, then it’s almost all positive. That is the general impression that I’ve gotten reading different stuff over the years.

        • Gail Combs says:

          NIce example.

        • Yes, that also means those clouds are radiating heat upwards too. Water droplets are like nearly perfect little black body radiators (and absorbers). So they take the heat from the surface that found its way into clouds, condensed, releasing heat of vaporization, and then radiate it to space. As each droplet loses energy to space, it absorbs some more from the surrounding air until it too is cooled. The upper surface of a cloud will be the most active radiator to space, with cooled air flowing from it (in up and down-flow patterns , which further defines the cloud’s shape). The cooled air will descend, to be replaced by warmer air to be radiated. This goes on until the cloud has depleted its energy or no further heating is to be rejected to space. The tops of clouds are pretty cold, and so radiate with lower W/m^2 than the ground might, but they are also above most other GHGs and so radiate more directly with fewer losses. And they shade the ground, reducing the input of heat.

          Note also that you have a clear picture with good contrast in radiated temperatures. If CO2 (or water vapor) produced such an effective scattering at these concentrations, then most of these IR photons should have been absorbed and re-radiated in another direction and your camera would not have contrast, it would be gray. The fact that most have not indicates that the effect of GHGs at these distances is not huge, but there. If your camera saw absolute zero, it would effectively rule out the GHE. Try shooting an IR meter at the sky on a humid night vs a clear cold night. I usually see around -80°F on a clear night, maybe +30F or so on a humid summer night (not cloudy, just humid).

        • amirlach says:

          That camera has a lower limit of -40C. It had just rained when I took those shots and even the small area that looked open had some thin cloud. Any time I imaged open sky, day or night, it always read <-40C. Clouds imaged during a sunny day read -13 to -16C.

          There are some calibration issues discussed in the manual regarding emissivity.

          "Thermal physics for industrial
          In order to interpret the thermal images correctly the operator
          needs to know how different materials and circumstances influence
          the temperature readings from the thermal imaging camera. Some
          of the most important factors influencing the temperature readings
          1. Thermal conductivity
          Different materials have different thermal properties. Insulation
          tends to warm up slowly, while metals tend to warm up quickly, for
          instance. This is called thermal conductivity. Difference in thermal
          conductivity in two different materials can lead to large temperature
          differences in certain situations.
          2. Emissivity
          To read correct temperatures, one important thing needs to be
          taken into account, and that is a factor known as emissivity.
          Emissivity is the efficiency with which an object emits infrared
          radiation. This is highly dependent on material properties.
          (Here as an example they use an image of a glazed ceramic cup.)
          If you look at the thermal image you might think that the gold paint is colder than
          the mug surface. In reality they have exactly the same temperature, the difference in
          intensity of infrared radiation is caused by a difference in emissivity."

          So given that the emissivity is unknown to me I would say that the readings should not be taken as absolute. Anyone who regularly uses a thermal spot gun to measure temperature will already know different surfaces give different readings. A chromed surface is a good example when compared to an exhaust pipe it is attached to.

        • Brian H says:

          Internal server error. No images.

  10. Norm says:

    As an aside, it was all the rage to write about the D.C. cherry blossoms blooming in March, now they are moving towards mid April the media is silent.

  11. Aphan says:

    April 2015-
    “The Guardian had the largest decline among the quality titles, with sales falling 9.5% to 174,941 ”

    (I object to the term “quality titles”, but then, what else would a Guardian reporter say?)

    • Tim Groves says:

      This is heartening news indeed. Let’s see them try to hide that decline.

      After several years commenting for climate common sense at Komment Macht Frei, enduring insults from the guards, disappearing posts and comment pre-moderation, I’ve recently changed my MO and decided to no longer visit the Guardian website at all and instead slag them off to all and sundry. In the world of web media, publications live or die according to how many unique users and page views they get, so depriving the more nefarious ones of clicks is a very useful and worthwhile activity.

  12. Robertv says:

    Delete a comment or not publish it in the first place does not mean it has disappeared. It is used to make the black list of trouble makers. Now they know who we are and they know where we live. GESTAPO techniques. The moment they have all the information they need the net is closed.

  13. Password Protected says:

    AGW believer sites seem far more prone to this type of ‘comment screening’ than those challenging AGW crisis beliefs. Science doesn’t fear scrutiny but oddly, those claiming the ‘science’ is being attacked appear quite fearful.

    • gator69 says:

      I have been banned from just about every alarmist site you can name, and all I did was post evidence against CAGW, and challenged their models. I once had a semi-reasonable alarmist tell me that if I wrote up my argument, he would post it at RealClimate under his name, as he was a regular there and was cerain it would not get boreholed.

      I gave him my argument, which he seemed to believe had merit, and shortly after he posted it under his name it was gone. Even he was shocked. Many of the believers do not know the truth, because they never hear or see it.

      And yet skeptics welcome debate. I was attempting to get a troll to debate at another site, but he refused to discuss science or logic, and was simply a sh*t disturber. This went on for a week, and each time I would try to bring him back to the debate, and each time he would say “I want to debate”.

      Here is how it ended after half a dozen of us gave him published peer reviewed science, and he just kept saying “nuh-uh”, giving us nothing but excuses.

      Troll: I listen to reason, but little else. Provide me sufficient evidence and I’ll flip to your side, but it has to be legitimate. I can’t be convinced if I suspect I’m being lied to, or otherwise misled.

      Then when he refused to engage in anything but juvenile bevaior…

      Troll: I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.

      I had ID’d him as a troll days before, but he denied it, then this…

      Troll: I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.

      And yet we get banned.

  14. Winnipeg Boy says:

    Check out this hockey stick graph.
    20 years down the road…”March in time or we take your house”

    • Gail Combs says:

      That certainly explains why the government has dumbed down high school and is trying to get every one to go for a college education.

    • gator69 says:

      Our abusive Uncle Sam’s greatest asset is land and mineral rights.

      Speaking of US minerals, Hillary is selling them to the Russians.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Thank goodness it was the Russians who ended up with the uranium! If the Clintons had somehow gotten their hands on it we would REALLY be in danger…


  15. craigm350 says:

    Anything that may pop their privileged bubbles is tantamount to harassment and by questioning the orthodoxy you are a ‘phobe’ of some kind (as opposed to their truthphobic world view).

    (The video on the post is worth a watch as it gives a nice flavour to the mindset, even if the focus on millenials is misguided – the rot started waaay before them.)

    • gator69 says:

      Sounds like a description of my pet troll. 😆

      Troll: I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.

      Troll: I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.

    • gator69 says:

      BTW – F’g awesome video. 😉

    • Me says:

      Exactly, and sounds like what the UN is today! SJWs.

  16. oldbrew says:

    It was always going to end up as a warmists echo chamber. Looks like they just about got there.

  17. Hope Forjohncleese says:

    I think Dr. Mann designed their Stonehenge Model.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s