The "Conversation" is actively engaged in censoring a discussion.

Well, this is sad.  I’m used to having comments deleted/unpublished, but this is ridiculous.  The Conversation sent me an email stating they have a discussion titled, And what if nothing happens at Durban?  Which I thought was laughable.  Given recent events:  the newly released emails, the new paper about our climate sensitivity being overstated, and Nature’s refusal to cooperate with the alarmism, I’d be really surprised if anything other than a surrender occurred.  And I stated as such and gave links to all of the above mentioned posits.  I was writing a post about it when I got another notice about my comments getting deleted.  Unfortunately, I can’t show you all of my posts in their entirety, but, here is the conversations I had with two other people…… my original comment, was posted for almost 3 hrs when the deleted all of it.  If you go to the page, you’ll see where a Mr. Bruce Moon is agreeing with me, to a comment that isn’t there.  Here are the comments……  can anyone point out a reason for any of this to be deleted?  I mean other than the rude and inaccurate comment about me being dishonest.

What if nothing happens in Durban? Oh my, now who’s the denialists? Nothing is going to happen in Durban other than a surrender of these carbon initiatives……. the game is unraveled. A newly released study shows that our climate sensitivity was completely over blown…..

Nature is refusing to cooperate with the dire predictions.

Noted alarmist scientists…

show full comment

  • about 2 hours ago
  1. Mike Hansen
    Mike Hansen

    James … Is there any limit to your dishonesty.

    You cherrypick temperature data, you cherrypick part of a quote from Dr Dessler and finish by cherrypicking parts of hacked emails.

    An analysis of the Schmittner paper that you refer to is here.

    One of the take home points.
    “If Schmittner et al. are right about climate sensitivity and LGM temperature change, then if we continue with business-as-usual GHG emissions, we will match the amount of warming between glacial and interglacial periods within roughly the next century. Some of the differences between glacial and interglacial periods include 120 meter sea level rise, and a completely different global landscape – very dramatic climate changes”.

    This is the actual author of the paper interviewed in Science Daily

    “Schmittner said continued unabated fossil fuel use could lead to similar warming of the sea surface as reconstruction shows happened between the Last Glacial Maximum and today.
    “Hence, drastic changes over land can be expected,” he said. “However, our study implies that we still have time to prevent that from happening, if we make a concerted effort to change course soon.”

    It is clear that you have never read the paper – you are just cutting and pasting from denier blogs.

    The full quote from Dr Dessler on the above paper
    “Ordinarily, when something is published in Science, you expect it to be a significant advance/revision of our prior knowledge. I’m not sure that’s the case here. The conclusion about the climate sensitivity is pretty consistent what most climate scientists think, so I don’t think this paper will change what people think.
    My sense is that most scientists consider the very high end of the sensitivity range (greater than 4°C) to be pretty unlikely (although it cannot be ruled out), and the most likely value for climate sensitivity is around, probably slightly below, 3°C.
    In other words, I was not terribly worried about runaway climate change before this. After all, we know that the Earth’s had much higher CO2 in the past (and the temperature were correspondingly much higher), and the Earth did not turn into Venus.”

    So Dr Dessler says the paper changes nothing – you claim “Noted alarmist scientists are in damage control”.

    James – you are being dishonest.

    As to your temperature graph – why start with the year 2001 if not to deceive.
    This graph from skeptical science sums up your approach to cherrypicking the temperature record.

    You then finish by cherrypicking some quotes from the hacked emails – truly pathetic.

    • 30 minutes ago
    1. James Sexton
      James Sexton

      Network administrator

      No, I’m not being dishonest. Everyone of those were actual quotes, an actual paper, actual temps…. its cherry picking to note that there has been no warming in over a decade?

      You state that I’m c/p paste from denier blogs? No, I’ve got all the emails myself. As to Cherry picking Dessler’s quote, I could have shown where he was contradicted by the paper. The paper puts the sensitivity well under 3 C…personally, I still think that’s too high.. But, regardless. my quote of Dr. Dessler was in context as to how it relates to the ALARMISM. His opinion on the paper itself isn’t relevant. Dr. Dessler has been a prominent alarmist scientist for the last several years. I never once read anything where he stated something remotely similar to that. This puts him squarely in the “luke warmer’s” camp, and at direct odds with Dr. Hansen’s Venus claptrap.

      I know what Schmittner said, I also know what the paper stated. What do you mean nothing new? So you agree that CO2 won’t raise the temps more than 2 degrees? The last IPCC report didn’t say 2! As to the temps, the fact remains, there has been a 10% increase in CO2 since about 1998 and no warming. Given that the effects of CO2 are immediate…… this evidence is a direct odds with the science. But, if you want to see a cherry pick temp graph, I’ll happily oblige….. La Nina changes real soon, in March we will have had 15 YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING!

      And, those e-mails are not out of context. Anyone who has followed the discussions about Mann, McIntyre, Jones and the rest of the team knows that they are contextually accurate. It doesn’t matter how one wishes to spin them, they are very clear. Mann’s stick is broke. Scientists did delete e-mails and data to thwart FOI requests. And there’s a litany of other issues that have been brought to light.

      As to your ludicrous assertion that I haven’t read the paper, I gave the link. What on earth suggests that I haven’t read it? Given your response to me, I can come to no other conclusion that I was correct with my original statement. There are some people here in complete denial as to what is transpiring in the science, the blogs, and public opinion. Again, nothing is going to happen in Durban.

      • less than a minute ago
  2. Greg Staib

    Greg Staib

    Research Intern at CSIRO

    Perhaps a discussion of that paper within the context of the peer reviewed literature would be a place to start before suddenly jumping on the band wagon of one paper?

    This site here** has a decent discussion on the science of the paper you mention. Phrases like “completely over blown” and “refusing to cooperate” does little to support any scientific case.


    • about 1 hour ago
    1. James Sexton
      James Sexton

      Network administrator

      Greg, you may be correct. However, I’ve no intention of making a comment at that known revisionist site. When I go to alarmists sites, I expect many of my comments not to be posted/deleted. This happens at all of the alarmist sites I’ve ever been to. But, I absolutely refuse to post a comment and then have the content I was commenting about is revised. Cook does this often. I’m a bit shocked that there are people here that condone such a practice.

      I find it laughable that Mike Hansen would accuse me of dishonesty and then suggest I go to one of the most notoriously dishonest blogs in the climate discussion.

      If you wondering if I have any proof of this sort of dishonesty, go here and here ….

      But, then if you guys want an unedited/ un-moderated (within reason, no profanity) discussion, you’re more than welcome to come to my blog….. just drop a comment and I’ll make a post for you.

All of that, and I get this…..

“Dear James Sexton,
Your comment on the article “And what if nothing happens at Durban?” has been removed in line with our community standards.”

Update!  A new comment was posted on the thread regarding the deletions……



  1. Jane Rawson

    Jane Rawson Editor, The Conversation

    Hi everyone, can you please try to stay on topic. The topic is Durban, climate agreements and what other measures might be taken if no agreement is reached. The reason we remove off-topic posts is they stop people discussing the content of the article. There are plenty of articles that discuss modelling of climate change, so please feel free to take your discussion of the intricacies of measurement to one of those topics, where they will be able to grow and flourish. Thanks.

Apparently, when I stated that nothing would happen in Durban and listed some reasons why, my new friend Jane thought it off topic as to the question of Durban and what climate agreements may come out of it.  So, she deleted it.  And 19 hours later decided to respond to my question as to why.

This entry was posted in Climate, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to The "Conversation" is actively engaged in censoring a discussion.

  1. suyts says:

    They didn’t get deleted until I gave the links to show skepticalsciences complete dishonesty. I’m wondering if one of the moderators at “The Conversation” is also a moderator at SS?

  2. Mike Davis says:

    What if nothing happens at Durbin?
    It would be a step in the right direction and may lead to canceling future COPs.
    They could plan their next one in Death Valley Next year and every on could get there driving an EV from LA.
    Just because that is beyond the range of an EV is a minor issue!

  3. in line with our community standards

    We know well what the standards of that community are. That is: anyone that doesn’t agree with their fragile farrago is a ‘denier’, a ‘flat-earther’, a ‘cherry picker’, who ‘has their head stuck in the sand’.

    But ‘No Pressure’, they have a way to deal with that……….where’s that button? ;^)

  4. You defended yourself well James. Obviously you did because your comments were removed.

    You say: “All of that, and I get this…..”, I know the feeling.

    • suyts says:

      Yeh, it’s just a bit disheartening. This isn’t an independent blog. It’s tied to their academic and government systems. When I first started commenting there, they didn’t delete my comments except on rare occasions, but lately its been getting progressively worse. Its akin to a child sticking their fingers in their ears screaming “I can’t hear you!!! I can’t hear you!!”

      • That’s true.

        Maybe they can’t hear, but lots of others can.

      • suyts says:

        Yes, lots of others. 🙂 lol, my comment was there for almost 3 hrs. Apparently, they were fine with it if I didn’t respond to the criticism. I had to run an errand after I made the first comment. Then when I got back, I responded, and it was then they decided to delete that whole part of the conversation. When will they learn that it doesn’t help their cause to engage in such behavior? It was stuff like that which brought about John Daly’s and Steve Macs ClimateAudit.

  5. Pingback: So exactly who are the "deniers"? | suyts space

  6. Dave says:

    Here was a posting I made in a steam of constant comments back and forth to a rabid warmist.

    I haven’t denied Global warming. Global Cooling or Climate Change and I don’t Know anybody that does. I’m skeptical of the IPPC dogma and that’s a whole other thing. The climate has changed since the planet formed and will continue too until our sun burns out with or without mankind. and a Co2 tax ain’t gonna fix that.

    Why didn’t they do COP 17 in Copenhagen again it was such a smashing success apart from the Snow,ice and freezing temperatures, and of coarse the utter failure of the gabfest. That way they would save a ton money and lots of that evil trace gas CO2 commuting first class in their jets.
    Why do I suggest this? because most of the radical warmist come from the EU. and would be within 2 or 3 hours by train or bicycle.

    What do you think Vendi isn’t that a good idea, I know you’ll like the cycling part. I think we have an agreement?

    Sadly he didn’t respond I to my trains and bicycling suggestion, I wonder why?

    • suyts says:

      lol, they hate that. It is the “noble cause corruption” that allows for such hypocrisy. In their minds, they’re saving the world, so they should be privileged to do the things that the rest of us rabble shouldn’t be allowed to do. I recall a reporter getting banned from a rally of sorts, when the people who made the “10-10” video came to the States. The reported kept asking them how they got here.

    • Mike Davis says:

      A point about your comment,
      Climate Change, is being defined as being forced by human activity.
      Natural weather variability is what you are describing and what the earth has experienced since the beginning of time.
      I fell into that trap until I started reading about what they mean by “Climate Change”.
      They think Climate Change forces weather patterns to change and become more extreme.
      Ask just what do they mean when they say Climate Change!
      They are playing a game of redefining words to fit their agenda.
      To be a purist, climate is the study of variations in long term weather patterns. Climate can also be the variations in weather patterns that are experienced in a specific region. If climate is change, how can it change?

  7. kelly liddle says:

    Keep up the good work. I think you have a lot of patience.

  8. Latitude says:

    ……and world peace

  9. I know it doesn’t seem like it now, but Obama could be reelected.

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 )

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