patrick.net

Onvacation says

I rest my case, for now.

As do I.

Patrick should allow anyone that’s been here for years the ability to ban Sniper/Ironman/CallitCrazy and the other aliases he has made here with the sole intent of harassing people, stifling everyone elses right to free speech, and disrupting the forum.

@Patrick, there’s your solution, what say you?

@errc you do have that ability, as long as you're logged in.

Just go to https://patrick.net/user/Sniper and click "ignore"

Why do some have the ability to mark posts uncivil while others do not?

@patrick
Perhaps you should add an off topic button and jail?
Users always have the option of airing their grievances in a new thread.

I feel as though you have been fair to your users. I do like your efforts to clean up the sight and keep people on topics instead of name calling.

Please mark this post as off topic.

Patrick says

@errc you do have that ability, as long as you're logged in.

Just go to https://patrick.net/user/Sniper and click "ignore"

That doesn’t work. He will still log off and quote my postings and then respond. Worse still, he is on a 24/7 mission to harass everyone else and stifle the free speech of others by constantly attacking their character and intentionally disrupting open and honest discussion.

Why do you constantly skirt around the issue? Grow a set, @Patrick

So I should simply delete him again and wait for him to come back again?

Sniper is a mixed bag. He does usually have some content to his posts in spite of the personal attacks.

OK, here's what I'll do: all of Sniper's comments and posts will go into moderation until he develops a pretty clean new track record. I'll just delete the personal attacks before they get out there.

errc says

That doesn’t work. He will still log off and quote my postings and then respond.

If you have him on ignore, how do you see his posts?

Patrick says

OK, here's what I'll do: all of Sniper's comments and posts will go into moderation until he develops a pretty clean new track record.

Really?

Let's look at the totals for December in Comment Jail (and December isn't over yet) to see who has the most.

errc: 10
HappyGilmore: 8
BorderPatrol: 4
Rew: 2
Bob: 2
Sniper: 2

errc says

Worse still, he is on a 24/7 mission to harass everyone else and stifle the free speech of others by constantly attacking their character and intentionally disrupting open and honest discussion.

Honestly, based on post counts in Comment Jail, everyone can see which posters do the most harassing and attacking.

Yes, we need more changes to the rules for people who cause the least problems, because the posters calling for the changes are the real problem.

@Patrick
What about that off topic idea?
It could share the uncivil button and jail. It would force people to be civil and stay on topic; wouldn't that be nice?

I do take this topic, the environment, seriously. I don't think it belongs in politics but that is where rhe alarmists are arguing it. Even after a hundred posts only a couple of answers have been posted. I have been following this topic for a while and I predict the alarmists are not going to even address a couple of the questions' answers.

Love your site Patrick. The trolls and sockpuppets are entertaining and the topics are interesting

Please mark this off topic.

Onvacation says

Even after a hundred posts only a couple of answers have been posted. I have been following this topic for a while and I predict the alarmists are not going to even address a couple of the questions' answers.

When you answer my question, I'll answer yours.

Sniper says

Honestly, based on post counts in Comment Jail, everyone can see which posters do the most harassing and attacking.

lol--how many of those were marked uncivil by you?

@Onvacation that is a good idea.

So there would be a third option called "off topic". But if you mark a comment as off topic, where should it go?

Patrick says

@Onvacation that is a good idea.

So there would be a third option called "off topic". But if you mark a comment as off topic, where should it go?

Just change the button's label to uncivil/off topic. Go to jail until judged; simple.

Onvacation says

Go to jail until judged; simple.

But then I could mark this comment as off topic, wasting everyone's time. And by the way, you are off topic.

anon_08dee says

But then I could mark this comment as off topic, wasting everyone's time

True, the biggest problem with this is time. Maybe users should have a certain amount of history on the site before being allowed to mark a comment as off-topic.

Patrick says

anon_08dee says

But then I could mark this comment as off topic, wasting everyone's time

True, the biggest problem with this is time. Maybe users should have a certain amount of history on the site before being allowed to mark a comment as off-topic.

Just revoke button privelage for serial abusers.
You are the master.

For Likes, Dislikes, Uncivil, Offtopic, make users purchase Patrick.Net Credits @ a dime a credit.
Process and handling charge: $ 2.00 per transaction.
Then users 'pay' to be able to use the links above.
Makes one think twice before clicking...

Patrick says

anon_08dee says

But then I could mark this comment as off topic, wasting everyone's time

True, the biggest problem with this is time. Maybe users should have a certain amount of history on the site before being allowed to mark a comment as off-topic.

Onvacation says

Just revoke button privelage for serial abusers.

Yes, I do that now, but it also takes time. Need to automate it better.

BlueSardine says

For Likes, Dislikes, Uncivil, Offtopic, make users purchase Patrick.Net Credits @ a dime a credit.

Lol, OK, maybe certain things should cost, like changing your user name.

Rew says

All the anon lurkers: you need to give actual users an ability to block them all.

All the anonymous comments have to go through moderation, so there should not be any personal attacks visible from anon_ users. Are there any?

Rew says

This is no longer a site exchanging ideas, in neutrality. There is a clear agenda here.

Can't we all get along?
@Patrick
Onvacation says

Please mark this off topic.

So I can get back to my questions for alarmists. Thanks.

Onvacation says

So I can get back to my questions for alarmists. Thanks.

Great--how about you start by answering mine?

HappyGilmore says

Great--how about you start by answering mine?

Onvacation says

How much has the temp and sea level risen in the last hundred years?
Answer 3/4 of 1 degree of temp and 4 inches of sea level.

How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?

Answer 4/100 of one degree.
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe? Not answered

If the earth is warming why is the hottest temp ever recorded over a century old?

What is the ideal temp for human habitation?

Still waiting for answers to these important questions.

So does that mean you can't answer my simple question?

And what happened to the high priest of global warmings (Michael Mann) hockey stick?

anonymous says

while still believing some mythical being created the heavens

It does take faith to believe!
Onvacation says

How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?

Answer 4/100 of one degree.
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe? Not answered

Do any of you true believers have answers or just personal attack?

HappyGilmore says

Like I said--I'm not playing your games. The questions you ask are easily answered with a simple google search

So you got no answers?
Thanks for playing.

Do any of you true believers have answers for the huge disrepancies between the CAGW theory and reality?

HappyGilmore says

(some of which have already been answered)

And even without all of the answers the true believers look kind of lame.

Onvacation says

Do any of you true believers have answers for the huge disrepancies between the CAGW theory and reality?

Assumption not valid. There are not huge discrepancies.

HappyGilmore says

Onvacation says

Do any of you true believers have answers for the huge disrepancies between the CAGW theory and reality?

Assumption not valid. There are not huge discrepancies.

Really?
Four inches of sea level rise versus Manhattan underwater. One degree of temp rise versus exponential wet bulbing. No disrepancies?

It's getting harder and harder to be a CAGW sockpuppet every year the temp and sea doesn't rise. Notice the lack of answers to my questions?

Does anyone have any answers?

Onvacation says

Four inches of sea level rise versus Manhattan underwater. One degree of temp rise versus exponential wet bulbing. No disrepancies?

Yep--because you are not accurately recounting what was said and predicted.

HappyGilmore says

Yep--because you are not accurately recounting what was said and predicted.

So what was said and predicted?
Fight for your religion!

Onvacation says

Do any of you true believers have answers or just personal attack?

THe thing is, it would be difficult for a person having both an IQ over 80 and any degree of emotional health to not easily find all the predictions that have been made about (for example) the range of sea level increase that will occur by the year 2100 without significant leveling off of CO2 increases in the atmosphere.

You must understand:

1) It's a range of possibilities based on data analysis

2) By definition to some degree, it's speculative. It's a probabilistic analysis, not God's word on what's going to happen.

But in the real world, people make decisions based on this type of information. Take buying stocks for example. We don't know the market will continue higher when we invest. You analyze potential risk versus reward and act accordingly. Although I will grant you that avoiding catastrophe decades in the future, is a different kind of risk reward analysis, than that involved in not missing out on the next rally in the stock market.

Onvacation says

So what was said and predicted?
Fight for your religion!

Like the post above wrote--experts have warned about potential outcomes and have listed some possibilities that may occur if the worst case scenarios from models prove correct. Thankfully, these worst cases have not come to pass--even the more ardent global warming advocates said they were unlikely to happen, that's why they are called worst case scenarios--and for you to claim that was the "prediction" is disingenuous at best.

Climate is obviously very complex and predictions come with a large error bar because of the many, many variables involved.

But, there is absolute consensus that higher CO2 levels lead to higher temperatures. Once you understand and agree with that, then you can have a discussion.

HappyGilmore says

But, there is absolute consensus that higher CO2 levels lead to higher temperatures.

No there is not!
Propaganda.

anon_08dee says

THe thing is

So you have no answers?

Onvacation says

Do any of you true believers have answers for the huge disrepancies between the CAGW theory and reality?

Still waiting for answers.

Onvacation says

Does anyone have any answers?

Go to 2:20 on this video if you don't have time to watch the entire 4.5 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=203&v=dBs_K59K6GY

anon_08dee says

Go to 2:20 on this video if you don't have time to watch the entire 4.5 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=203&v=dBs_K59K6GY

Can you summarize the point?

anon_08dee says

Go to 2:20 on this video if you don't have time to watch the entire 4.5 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=203&v=dBs_K59K6GY

Do you even have a point posting alarmist videos?

Funny. All that for the science that lead to things like, antibiotics, the internet, all modern technology, very few were crying "propaganda!"

But now just because this topic has a political connection (bullshit right versus left) and there is actual propaganda put out by people in fossil fuel industries and sympathy from right wing business leaders who fear loss of short term economic growth, we have a lot of regular folks ( good at believing whatever they want to believe) that will gullibly go with whatever their overlords tell them to believe.

It is very sad. By extrapolating the political trends and the increasing degree to which the public is so easily manipulated (e.g. the election of Trump) it's easy to get very cynical about the future of humankind. Maybe it's right to not worry about climate change, because we're so totally fucked anyway.