Scroll To Top

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

On censorship, double standards and name-calling on WUWT

Sou | 12:48 AM Go to the first of 4 comments. Add a comment

People on the right side of a scientific debate encourage open discussion

Interesting juxtaposition - from an article on WUWT about some blogger tearing into Willie Soon.  Bob Turner pointed out that WUWT often tears into climate scientists.  Eventually this happened:

Speaks for itself, don't you think?  Yes, that's exactly how it appears on WUWT.  Coincidentally Louis' comment was immediately below the censored comment from Bob Turner. (For more on the topic of censorship, see here, including the comments.)

The Verdict on name-calling? Yes, similar or worse comments are allowed on WUWT...

...but only if they are against climate scientists and those who accept science.

If you are interested, here is the exchange and "the verdict" to which the mod was probably referring.  Bob Turner says the language of the blogger was wrong, but not dissimilar to that used by WUWT:
August 5, 2013 at 3:31 am  Indeed, he shouldn’t have used language like that. Calling somebody a prostitute is simply unacceptable.  Perhaps the monitors at WUWT will remember this when they allow through similar or worse comments about Michael Mann and his scientific colleagues.

Well, the monitors at WUWT might "remember this", but they see no problem with applying standards differently, depending on the target.  These are all from the same thread.

Peter Miller likes "grant-addicted, data-manipulating, opportunists":
August 5, 2013 at 4:13 am “Michael Mann and his scientific colleagues?
That’s a bit of a stretch describing them as ‘scientific’ – grant addicted, data manipulating, opportunists would be much more apt.

Justthinkin says scientists aren't scientists:
August 5, 2013 at 4:19 am  “Michael Mann and his scientific colleagues.”
Thanks for the Monday morning laugh. Mann and his colleague are no more scientists of anything,let alone climate,then I am JP Morgan.Your one brain cell must be getting really lonely.

CodeTech accuses scientists of faking and prefers the term "enemy of the planet":
August 5, 2013 at 4:40 am  A prostitute is someone to who takes money in exchange for sexual services.  What does one call someone who takes money in exchange for faking up scientific-sounding results? Mann et. al. are not scientists, they’re activists. And I’ve never heard anyone call them prostitutes… but I have to admit, it’s probably pretty appropriate.
By the way, if you want “enemy of the planet”, just check out the horrific damage being done by wind turbines, aka bird slicer/dicer/clubbers. People putting those things up, now THEY’RE enemies of the planet.

Jimbo just insultingly defames in general terms:
August 5, 2013 at 4:56 am  What many Warmists fail to observe about sceptical scientists is this: They can make their lives a whole lot easier and get more funding by jumping on the bandwagon. No loss of income likely, increased income most probable. Warmists would embrace them with open arms and lavish funding upon them. All they have to do is accept the dogma.

Paul Coppin says insttutional (sic) co-dependent is a good euphemism for prostitute:
August 5, 2013 at 5:04 am  Mr Turner, Mann repudiated his qualifications when he chose to become and remain an insttutional co-dependent ( a term that also could be applied to prostitutes, but at least they provide a service. Note, I didn’t call Mann a prostitute. Readers of WUWT are well aware that correlation doesn’t equal causation…)

Psychologists, hmm. When I was passing through university and appropriately arrogant, psychologists were viewed generally as wannabee psychiatrists that didn’t make it into medical school….

Jim A prefers [grant] whores and liars:
August 5, 2013 at 6:23 am
Yet another who believes it is those who hold conservative views who must make the effort to be civil, in order to have a civil discourse.
Well… in the last two Presidential elections, that was tried. Doesn’t work.
And there is plenty of evidence to show it does not work re: Climate Change as well. Skeptics called ‘Deniers’ when the evidence for that is only on the fringe.
The PROPER term would be ‘[Grant] Whores’… an invective that has been used for decades by politicians.
‘Liar’ is also a rough term but sometimes you have to call ‘em out. So before people get their panties all in a bunch over invective they should take a look at what certain warmists like the German group PIK have to say.

It appears that the complainer never reads Bishop Hill or Notrickszone. Either that or objects to Alinsky’s Rule of ‘Identify Isolate Ridicule’ being used against them.

Ah well, I don't think anyone has ever accused WUWT of not having double standards.


  1. I thought Ric Werme's response to Bob Turner was remarkable. Bob Turner commented that maybe WUWT moderators should bear this post in mind when people make similar or worse comments about Michael Mann and his colleagues. Ric Werme responded by pointing out that he could find no evidence of anyone at WUWT referring to Michael Mann as a prostitute. Clearly doesn't understand the term "similar or worse".

  2. Reading the responses on WUWT, I had to make sure it wasn't a DenialDepot parody.

  3. I had to laugh at the, oh so self-aware comment by someone that they were spending so much time worrying about the thoughts of a psychologist who doesn't know anything about climate change. They could, of course, be worrying about the thoughts of a qualified masseur, a former weather presenter, a peer with a degree in classics, the odd Oxford English graduate, an economist, and who knows who else that qualifies on the same basis as ignorant. To mangle a proverb, different sauces for different genders of geese.

    1. KR

      I really don't have anything against masseurs, weathermen, or classics majors (peers or not) offering their opinions on climate - if those opinions are actually based upon an honest evaluation of available facts.

      However, the wholesale ignorance of -any- evidence contrary to their economic preferences, dismissal of expert opinion, constant ad hominems and other logical fallacies, hounding of anyone who presents reason, and spinning of innumerable unsupportable (and contradictory) hypotheses? All while demanding unreasonable and inhuman perfection from anyone else, claiming that -any- uncertainty invalidates the entire field of climate science? That, I would have to consider to be just ideological propaganda.

      Double standards indeed. Book of Matthew (23:3): "...but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.".


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.