Claims require evidence: Wild Cobra Edition

[John Cuthber]

I have been apprehensive about showing how solar can possibly affect more recent times because it appears to me that the moderators are quick to suspend or ban anyone who threatens the consensus.

 

 

As far as I am aware, nobody has been banned for threatening the consensus.

Before you go any further, perhaps you would like to cite some evidence for that claim.

[Wild Cobra]

As far as I am aware, nobody has been banned for threatening the consensus.

Before you go any further, perhaps you would like to cite some evidence for that claim.

Suspended at least.

 

That's how you guys set it up. You know the rules and how the moderators respond. I was suspended for a week for not digging into a claim I made before. I said I would provide it the next time it presented itself. My initial claim was not to believe any blog, including those from skeptics. It snowballed into a suspension for me of a week:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/?p=838272

 

My offense was not allowing the thread to be sidetracked farther, and refusing repeated demands.

 

Now here we are again...

Edited February 15, 2015 by Wild Cobra

[Strange]

My offense was not allowing the thread to be sidetracked farther, and refusing repeated demands...

 

So not "threatening the consensus" then. Why do you feel the need to play the martyr, instead of discussing the science?

[Wild Cobra]

 

So not "threatening the consensus" then. Why do you feel the need to play the martyr, instead of discussing the science?

 

I was taken out in my opinion for what ever angle I could be, because I can threaten consensus. Once I said i would show an example once I saw one again, I was hounded and hounded. I was baited into that suspension for holding firm.

 

How about we discuss the science instead of such things as you bring up?

 

Don't you get it? My viewpoint of science has been censored. If I'm not careful, I will be suspended again. Maybe banned.

Strange...

 

How about responding to my viewpoint on science instead. Do you agree or disagree that my methodology for the graph I made has merit? Maybe not the year to year percentage, but what about the methodology?

 

If there is a better forum to discuss this, I will be glad to. Just start a thread and invite me. Otherwise, I would prefer to stick with the science instead of being baited into another suspension.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Wild Cobra

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Wild Cobra's comment was posted at the beginning of a thread that had been split. Replies have been moved here

I have been apprehensive about showing how solar can possibly affect more recent times because it appears to me that the moderators are quick to suspend or ban anyone who threatens the consensus.

Let's see some evidence to support your claims. Name people who have been banned for threatening the consensus, and further show that they were banned quickly.

If you can't, then stop attacking the staff for things we aren't doing.

Don't you get it? My viewpoint of science has been censored. If I'm not careful, I will be suspended again. Maybe banned.

You must be using a different definition of "censored" than everyone else. People have practically begged you to support your claims (pretty much the opposite of censorship), including official moderator requests (such as this and this). Continued refusal to do so is why you were suspended.

[John Cuthber]

 

I was taken out in my opinion for what ever angle I could be, because I can threaten consensus. Once I said i would show an example once I saw one again, I was hounded and hounded. I was baited into that suspension for

You seem to have missed something.

It's not your opinion that mattered, it was the opinion of the mods who suspended you that is relevant.

They held (and stated *) the opinion that you were not following the rules. There was no difficulty finding evidence of that (and the substance of this thread is evidence of you doing it again).

 

Are you saying that they don't know what they suspended you for, or that they lied about it?

It's also worth noting that nobody would get suspended or barred for a single "offence".

 

*Specifically "continued soap boxing and refusal to listen to staff"

[Phi for All]

My initial claim was not to believe any blog, including those from skeptics.

 

I hope we've settled that the staff has no agenda to silence or censor anyone. We don't have to think about motives when it comes to moderating posts. The system we have in place assures that our personal feelings affect decisions about the rules as little as possible. It's never, ever, been about egos or opinion. It's all about the evidence, can't say it enough times.

 

You've had a rough go here because you claim to be skeptical, but then don't change when you see the evidence start to stack up against you. That's not skepticism, that's denial, and it shouldn't have any weight as a scientific argument. Your point of view hasn't been censored, it just hasn't been supported. And when we continue to ask you to support it, you don't, and you don't back away from it either.

 

That's very frustrating in a discussion, more so because I think you're kind of proud of not backing down, or have some reason why you can't. Something is causing you to be a bit irrational about the way you defend your stances. You aren't listening to all the reasonable arguments, and you aren't providing enough to support your own.

 

You still think it's about believing or not believing. It's about looking at the evidence rationally, looking at the methods used to obtain it, looking at the collaborative efforts to explain what's been observed. It's not a search for truth, it's a search for the best current explanation, the one with the most support from objective reality, the most trustworthy.

[Wild Cobra]

You must be using a different definition of "censored" than everyone else. People have practically begged you to support your claims (pretty much the opposite of censorship), including official moderator requests (such as this and this). Continued refusal to do so is why you were suspended.

 

I think you gave two examples just fine to support my contention.

 

In the first "this," I stated what I thought I read by saying "If I read that correctly..." I then asked questions about it.

 

In the second "this," I stated that some of this was very old. I used a 10 year reference. Can you find material from 10 years back with ease? And should I when I was being asked to source an opinion in a thread called "Who here is a global warming skeptic?"

 

I have been hounded at every turn for any little reason.

 

In a recent post in another thread, you assume incorrect facts and accuse me of assuming linear, when what I did is clearly exponential... that is when one is considerate enough to assess a persons works rather than ignore, and go into auto-deny mode as you have frequently done with me.

 

You know, I don't care any more. Someone who assumes so incorrectly, so frequently, like you... should not be a moderator.

 

Suspend me if you want. Ban me if you want. This forum has become beneath me because of people like you!

[swansont]

 

I think you gave two examples just fine to support my contention.

 

In the first "this," I stated what I thought I read by saying "If I read that correctly..." I then asked questions about it.

 

In the second "this," I stated that some of this was very old. I used a 10 year reference. Can you find material from 10 years back with ease? And should I when I was being asked to source an opinion in a thread called "Who here is a global warming skeptic?"

 

 

 

I gave links to show that you have been warned. I don't see how they support your contention that people have been banned for threatening the consensus (obviously, since you haven't been banned) or that you are being censored (using the normal definition of the word).

 

So, what contention do they support? That you have been hounded for threatening the consensus? Well, we "hound" people for citation regardless of their position, when they make claims that don't obviously follow from what is being discussed, and especially when they run contrary to things that people know. That's how it works. We have a rule against just making unsubstantiated claims and not supporting or addressing questions about them (no soapboxing/preaching). What you call "hounding" I call "enforcing the rules of the forum" and "following proper science discussion protocol". You aren't being singled out; everyone is required to follow the rules/protocols. Most do it voluntarily.

 

 

Those links were not meant to enumerate the issues that led to the mod notes. However, it would be a mistake to focus only on the one prior post of yours as being the only cause. It's the pattern that matters. Modnotes are more a sign of the last straw.

[John Cuthber]

Wild Cobra,

At the start of this thread I quoted you as saying

" it appears to me that the moderators are quick to suspend or ban anyone who threatens the consensus."

and I asked you to provide evidence.

You didn't

So, once again,

Before you go any further, perhaps you would like to cite some evidence for that claim.

[Wild Cobra]

 

 

So, what contention do they support?

 

That there is spiteful bias.

 

Anyone who disagree with consensus is treated so much different than those making looser statements that do support consensus.

 

Now that I got my graph in on the other post, and said my piece. I just might not come back again. I'm tired of this "clique" like environment.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Wild Cobra

[swansont]

 

That there is spiteful bias.

 

Anyone who disagree with consensus is treated so much different than those making looser statements that do support consensus.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's science for you.

 

Further, I'm not going to ask for support for a factual statement that I already know to be true. But often, I wouldn't have to even if I didn't know, because a lot of the participants include the support already, so there would be no reason to "hound them" for it. So that's not really evidence that they are treated differently, since you aren't comparing similar circumstances.

 

And, as JC has just reminded us, only some participants in this conversation are claiming people are being banned for threatening the consensus — without supporting evidence — so there is no reason to "hound" anyone else for evidence.

[John Cuthber]

There is,of course, an alternative hypothesis (rather than the idea that people get banned for being "anyone who threatens the consensus".

People get banned for failing to provide evidence for their claims.

 

Does anyone have any evidence of someone who got banned for that where the allegation was not reasonably well supported by evidence?

And, BTW, Wild Cobra, You are in exactly that boat- you made a claim. It's far from being self-evident.

If you don't support it, or retract it then you are likely to get banned for that failure.

 

Are you going to make some absurd claim that you were "hounded" into saying it?

Or are you going at admit that it's simply not true, or are you going to risk getting banned?

 

(Incidentally, I'm not a mod; it won't be my decision, but it may well be yours)