First, it is a pity that you seem to take offense in my using Lindzen’s diminutive to address you. I called you Dick because it helped my last sentence to ring like “More Omertà, Nick?”, a sentence the Auditor used against a critic to burden him with commitments he did not have in the discussion.
For the sentence, see
For the overburdening of a commitments of a commenter, see Jean Goodwin’s analysis of this chasing technique at Steve’s:
This is a frequent “trick” (TM — Climate Science), so deserves due diligence.
I won’t use Lindzen’s diminutive again to refer to you.
Perhaps inspired by this diminutive, and despite his avowed ennui, Richard Drake now acts like a gatekeeper.
Gatekeepers should be very prudent with their readings of the people they want to throw out of the auspices they want to protect.
First, I am not claiming affinity with that sorry chap Richard Drake browbeaten a bit yesterday. What I could say, though, is that Richard’s responses does seem to make him claim the affinity. If he does, he should own it, and not burden me with an affinity he projects.
Second, this distracts us from the comparison between a murderer and a sorry fellow who was both a Nazi and an eugenist. To mention in passing a scientist who worked at Auschwitz to refer to people who, like Mike, should be sidelined, just a bit after having browbeaten someone who associated climate scientists with a murderer, takes a very lenient sense of duty as a gatekeeper.
However biased they might be, institutions should beware of such flagrant double standards.
Fourth, I in no way claimed that Richard Drake was a censor. I stated that our beloved Bishop did censor some comments yesterday. Unless another person is responsible for curating this blog, this is a fact. It is the prerogative of a curator to censor at his heart’s content, and even most of the time justified. In exchange, that precludes him from brandishing YesButRcModeration:
Gatekeepers should pay due diligence to facts.
Fifth, it was never my impetus to intimidate Richard Drake. I am quite pleased to see him pursuing this discussion. More so that he succeeded to remain silent on everything relevant we put forward in our last comments.
It is not impossible to remain topical even while having to defend against constant personal attacks. It is even easy when the whole point of our intervention is to show when words are hurled to hide a decline to discuss what is really being conveyed by a propagandist, and how this comedy is enforced by gatekeepers.
Institutions are judged by the way they open their gates to other voices. That includes establishments like RC, whose editorial practices I do not wish to defend. (I rarely read that blog and have other interests than defensive ones.) But that also includes contrarian institutions, with all their biases.
Considering how all the institutions maintain topics beyond discussion (i.e. in our case, that our beloved Bishop’s might be licking his chop a bit too loudly for prudence’s sake), that there is silence among us here, right now, does not imply that any of us is a lamb. And contrary to what Feynman might have idealized in an overblown address to budding scientists, only a few can claim the integrity they pretend. Such pretence does not matter much to science, which in the end always have to progress in spite of it.
The honour Steve defends in his personal vendetta does not transfer to his mutualist niche.