[dohboi]

My access to TOD has recently been blocked, and I'm not sure why or how to get back on, or if I am welcome. I haven't been posting anything particularly offensive. Is there a way to get in touch with somebody over there that could at least explain what the issue was?

Has anyone else experienced this? Is the some kind of purge going on? Is it turning more pro-industry? Anti-GW?

Is it related to this?:

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2012/05/conservative-thinktanks-step-up-attacks.html

[sjn]

I can still login there, but I mostly lurk. For what it's worth, my impression is it certainly seems more pro-industry, and if not anti-AGW, it certainly plays it down.

[AdTheNad]

I can log still log in, but don't post very much.

Looking at 9th May Drumbeat, the bottom about 10 articles are all about climate change, so I don't think they have suddenly received a cheque from the Heartland Institute.

[dolanbaker]

I can still log in OK, I seldom post there, perhaps they want to narrow the scope of discussion down to just oil depletion and its affects.

[dohboi]

Well, gw is certainly an effect of burning hydrocarbon fuel sources.

I think it must be something that I wrote that triggered some spam filter or something. (But of course it's always more fun to consider more sinister motives--paranoia being the spice of life, after all )

But it is not clear what one needs to do or who one has to contact to get reconnected. This happened once before and leanan explained that I would be back in within a day or two. So at first I just waited, but now its been over a week.

I mostly wondered if they had a new, more sensitive spam filter that I somehow tripped, and whether others have had similar experiences. It sounds so far like it's just little ol' me.

[seenmostofit]

My access to TOD has recently been blocked, and I'm not sure why or how to get back on, or if I am welcome. Is the some kind of purge going on? Is it turning more pro-industry? Anti-GW?

After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, they appeared to suddenly become less tolerant of more than a few things, and I suspect the same things you mention. More pro-industry (you should see Gail go after anti-frackers), more on-topic enforcement (with a preference for the regulars, who can still wander afield versus less regulars), and they really have lost much of their traffic after the disaster ended, at least in terms of new members showing up. So the same people, saying the same things, has led to some staleness. And they were down recently as well, I wasn't able to log on either.

[dohboi]

Yeah, Gail has some nice posts and insights sometimes, but she can certainly come off as an industry shill sometimes, or at least as incredibly naive wrt corporate interests, influence and power.

[Cog]

Some of us like going to the one place on the internet that we can get away from your scare-mongering GW posts. It was all rather boring and I support your banning from there so the adults can have a reasonable conversation without you spamming every thread with your doom scenarios.

Isn't spamming five different boards enough for you?

[dohboi]

LOL. Well, I hope you enjoy the respite from me there. Meanwhile, I will continue "spamming" this and other boards with truth (which, to paraphrase Harry Truman, apparently sounds like hell to you).

[WebHubbleTelescope]

Dohboi,
If it is any consolation, I constantly get booted off of TOD and sent to the corner for a week or two. I spend a lot of time second-guessing what I will write about. What I have found out is that the worst thing you can do is complain about a post getting deleted, so I don't --- except here where I can now complain without fear of banishment

Moderator's Note: COC 3.1.8 Messages devoid of content: This includes posts with nonsense characters (ie. flksdhf). This also includes posts with a single word or only containing emoticons. This includes posts on "why was my post deleted", off-topic posts, threadjacking, complaining about links, unedited reposts, repeated mod evasion, and trolling. -FL

I am glad you posted this and always read your comments. I appreciate the AGW discussions because anything to do with climate has a strong relationship to sustainability issues.

[BobInget]

Make sure you STAY logged on. I doubt there is any anamus toward a particular poster.
TOD's entrance gate is rather dodgy and falls off a cliff from time to time.
Having too many passwords, I sometimes mix them up. This could happen.

I find the level of discourse at TOD, on energy matters, some of the best on the web.
So awed by expertize represented, I keep opinions to myself, lurking and learning.

[Cog]

It is the best place on the internet to discuss energy precisely because they drop the ban-hammer from time to time on people who continually high-jack threads with their own agenda.

Something Dohboi should take heed to.

[dolanbaker]

Make sure you STAY logged on. I doubt there is any anamus toward a particular poster.
TOD's entrance gate is rather dodgy and falls off a cliff from time to time.
Having too many passwords, I sometimes mix them up. This could happen.

I find the level of discourse at TOD, on energy matters, some of the best on the web.
So awed by expertize represented, I keep opinions to myself, lurking and learning.

I often view TOD from different locations and the site requires that I log in whenever my IP address changes (a recent security enhancement it appears).

As for much of the discussions that go on there, I usually lurk and only comment on things that I can stand by (local knowledge and the like).

[rockdoc123]

well my view here is that TOD is large on science and facts and doesn't put up much with "perception or feeling" which is about 180 degrees from this site. The "experts" who post there don't always get it right, they often are talking about subjects they are not expert in but it does attract people who are actual experts who will make comment and as a consequence it is a great place to go and learn if you aren't knowledgeable in that area. There is less tolerance on that site for people who are scientifically challenged and that's a good thing.

[Expatriot]

Every site is going to have its gives and takes.
It seems that 1/2 the content on this site is AGW stuff, with the CC crowd being militant and loud.
If one were only interested in discussing FF issues or the PO issue, the oil drum would make a good choice, I suppose.

[Lore]

Every site is going to have its gives and takes.
It seems that 1/2 the content on this site is AGW stuff, with the CC crowd being militant and loud.
If one were only interested in discussing FF issues or the PO issue, the oil drum would make a good choice, I suppose.

Actually, as I look at the new posts I'd say more then half of the topics have to do here with politics, the economy and pop culture. At least AGW is related to our hydrocarbon use.

If the facts sound loud and militant maybe it's because there are those that don't care to hear them. Suppression and a disregard of reality is ignorance to the highest degree.

[dorlomin]

Most of the climate stuff is kept in the enviroment forum. It is a major part of future choices for energy at the policy level and for people who are prepping to keep tabs on various opinios of where we are headed, and by hell there are a lot of opinions to chose from.

Cant really see anyway to complain about on topic posts in a sub forum designated for them.

People going off topic outside that forum should be politely corrected and suggest they explore that branch of the issue in the relevant forum.

[dolanbaker]

Actually, as I look at the new posts I'd say more then half of the topics have to do here with politics, the economy and pop culture. At least AGW is related to our hydrocarbon use.

I would say that the economy is a prime indicator of the affects that the decline in cheap & readily available oil is having on humanity.

[Loki]

well my view here is that TOD is large on science and facts and doesn't put up much with "perception or feeling" which is about 180 degrees from this site. The "experts" who post there don't always get it right, they often are talking about subjects they are not expert in but it does attract people who are actual experts who will make comment and as a consequence it is a great place to go and learn if you aren't knowledgeable in that area. There is less tolerance on that site for people who are scientifically challenged and that's a good thing.

You're comparing apples and oranges. PO.com is primarily a forum, which means normal people (i.e., those who don't have PhDs and an endowed chair) can start threads to talk about what interests them. Much more of a free-for-all here, which I think is a good thing.

TOD is a moderated blog, with comments largely limited to what the 'expert of the day' (usually some PhD) posts. I don't read TOD much, it's narrow focus on energy industry wonkery and quantitative speculation doesn't interest me much. I also hate the blog-comment format, makes it difficult to follow conversations, especially when there are 500+ comments. Also hard to get to know other posters.

As for the alleged scientific sensibility of TOD, I'll grant you it's extremely quantitative (excessively so), but quantitative doesn't equal scientific. TOD's recent piece on the energy involved in food production was somewhat scientific, I suppose, though the author admits to not putting much effort into verifying his numbers. But the comment section immediately devolved into fad diet hypochondriatic nonsense: "paleo diet" pseudoscience, "wheat is poison" conspiracy theories, soy gives you bitch tits, etc. Same crap you get here, only in a format that makes it twice as difficult to follow conversations.

[Expatriot]

Every site is going to have its gives and takes.
It seems that 1/2 the content on this site is AGW stuff, with the CC crowd being militant and loud.
If one were only interested in discussing FF issues or the PO issue, the oil drum would make a good choice, I suppose.

Suppression and a disregard of reality is ignorance to the highest degree.

More ignorant is wasting a lot of time and energy being militant about something you can't change.
It's all a question of perspective.

From your perspective, you're trying to "save the planet."
From my perspective, you're wasting your time.

So, if there was really a change that you could save the planet, then I'm the ignorant one. But if there is no chance that you can save the planet, then you're the ignorant one for wasting so much time and energy on it.

We're at the beach. We have made a beautiful sand castle together. We didn't expect the tide to come in, but now we notice that it is. The tide is coming in. And it's clear that the tide is going to sweep over our castle. You have spent the last 3 hours running up and down the beach screaming at people that we need to protect the castle. I, while loving the castle and all that it represents, understand that there is no way we can stop the tide. The castle will swept over. As you run up and down the beach kicking sand on people, screaming enough to scare off the gulls, I lounge in my beach chair and enjoy the day. When your screaming and carrying on gets to the point where I can't enjoy the day, I move to a new beach.

Point is, you and everybody like you can't change the fact that humans will burn every last drop of FF before they consider the climate in 5 years time. With FFs running out, the desire to burn them will increase, not decrease. You can't do anything to stop it. It will happen. As gasoline becomes more scare, the probability that what is available will be burned increases.

It's really as simple as that.

How effective have the beach screamers been since AGW came to the public's attention? Zero? Maybe a skoosh? You've built a small sand wall between the tide and your castle.

You run around screaming at everybody that they're ignorant, but you're the one who thinks you can get 7 billion people to stop burning coal and oil by showing them pictures of polar bears and pointing out that low lying areas of land will be under water in X number of years.

Wake up. Most people don't care, and won't be compelled to care unless it affect them directly.
Americans have been happy to rack up 14 trillion in debt that presumably will be foisted on others, in future earning groups. You think they give a flying ----k about polar bears?

Your fatal conceit is that you think that you can stop people from using the resources that they can access. You can't.

Figure that out, and you'll go get get yourself a nice beach chair and relax and enjoy the warm temps.

Until then, knock yourself out.