The Very Deep Hole

Welcome to the Very Deep Hole, where particularly egregious comments go. All comments have been reposted bearing the original name and timestamp.

7 Responses to The Very Deep Hole

  1. Skip Smith | January 19, 2011 at 1:29 pm |

    This kind of censorship only proves you are afraid of the truth.

    [DC:Sounds like a good candidate for first entry in the Very Deep Hole. Congratulations.]

  2. TimG | January 20, 2011 at 6:08 pm |

    The real issue here is how the “Team” acts like a set of cops defending one of their own after being caught tasering a man to death. They rationalize, justify and attack the people criticizing them instead of coming clean and acknowledging that one of their own has failed to meet the the standards that the public has a right to demand.

    Such actions only take the failure of a few individuals and turn it into something that permanently damages the reputation of the entire group.

    I am surprised DeepClimate is so blind to these dynamics given the fact that he has watched the RCMP in BC destroy its reputation with tactics that are identical to what DeepClimate is using now.

  3. Tom Gray | January 20, 2011 at 8:29 pm |

    A better Marx Brothers movie for climate scientists would be ” A Day at the Races”. I won;t spoil the joke so I won’t say why I think so. However watch it and you will see. It is very funny – especially when Groucho gets ‘audited’.

  4. Tom Gray | January 21, 2011 at 6:52 am |

    Frank – I really don’t care about the specific issue. I think that it is beneath the trivial. it only illustrates how inadequate the academic scientific response has been to AGW. AGW is too important an issue to be dragged down into the petty politics of obscure academic scientists. AGW is a critical issue. Science has not failed us but scientists have. Look at the public response now. Why do people not care and why do they not believe the constant hype they get from scientists. This posting is an illustation of one major reason.

  5. Skip Smith | January 22, 2011 at 11:47 pm |

    LOL. I knew it would come to this. You know you’re outmatched, so now you’ll censor me. That’s OK. Even if you refuse to publish this post,everyone will still know I humiliated you.

  6. Bentley Strange | January 30, 2011 at 1:17 am |

    Submitted on 2011/01/30 at 1:17 am

    Do not feed the trolls might be good advice, but DC, you’re whole behaviour is nothing BUT trollish ! Jesus, you tolerate outright lies and deceptions by your many “supporters” (The rabbit, the Hog himself for whom honesty is apparently an absolute unknown), and you are an outright liar yourself, on this thread directly. Why not, just for a change, get honest, and admit that Phil Jones has been an IPCC author since 1990, and Real Climate defines an author entirely consistently with Jones as an “IPCC author” since that time.

    Cult behaviour though, it is amusing if somewhat tedious to read !

  7. Joseph Cambria | February 15, 2011 at 6:06 pm |

    Joseph Cambria Submitted on 2011/02/15 at 5:59 pm

    If you are incapable of proving that Plimer is wrong, why not prove that the USGS is right? Supposing that they were right? Surely this would be a walk in the park?

    Joseph Cambria Submitted on 2011/02/15 at 6:06 pm

    Well there is another choice of course. If you cannot prove the manifestly false and lying claim of the USGS, then you are free to remove this particular thread. Or is this too much to ask?

    I don’t think thats too much to ask. One or the other. You have nothing to lose.