[After the scorched earth tactic, @ShubClimate rediscovers moderation.]
Thank you for your comment, Steve, which I just saw.
Nor is it true that I never use the word “fraud”. I’ve written from time to time at Climate Audit about major frauds e.g. Bre-X and Enron.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. You never use the F word regarding Mike, and you frown upon anyone who does at your blog. As a curator on wp.com, you are responsible for the comment section of your blog, and I believe we can agree that using the F word can lead to litigation. Also, your audit against Mike is way more profitable to ClimateBallers if it never ends. Channeling your pride may also be Mike’s best strategy, but that discussion needs to be set aside for another time.
The “regarding Mike” was implicit in my remark, which was preceded by a sentence you again forgot to take into consideration. I know your blog featured lots of fraud stories, and I believe they serve as perfect examples of how to stretch the limits of justified disingenuousness. You’re basically dogwhistling when you do that, and perhaps also conveying enough of “what you think” for having others say what you are prudent enough not to say. The contrarian blog ring provides a well adapted commensalist niche.
That you again use the “get your fact straight” is to be expected, as you use this for most of your gaslighting. How you played the “doctored quote” card was suboptimal, at least way more than playing the “eight” one. (I noticed how you changed subject when Nick Stokes nailed on that one, btw.) But that last card won’t prevent you from having to face the fact that Steyn used an F word, and that Dr Mann has been exonerated, as the title of the section you parsomatize indicates.
Sooner or later, you may need to do more than wage a public relation war against Mike.
You also say:
moderation at CA is triggered by various keywords
I have enough comments that did not appear to doubt your explanation of moderation at CA, Steve. Here again must I presume that you do not say what you think?
You might have more allies if you stopped playing cheap and dirty tricks, you know. A first good step would to link to the goddam documents you criticize. A second one would be to stop pussyfooting with expressions like “one of the parties” when you know damn well which party you might advise in a foreseeable future for a fee, and that you are openly helping pro bono if we exclude what comes by way of your Donate button, anonymously or not.
Yes, but costs opportunities, I know, I know.
Soon to appear here: