Banned at Sudbury Airport

At a friend’s request, I went up to northern Ontario this weekend to look at a gold prospect, which I might chat about some time. I got to trudge through bush for a few hours – exhausting work for city folk, drove a quad around empty logging roads (at a grandfatherly pace) – my sons would be envious.

It wasn’t all that far north, but it was sure cold. We had to wear winter jackets though it was the first week of June. When you see the lurid red dots in IPCC reports showing intense warming in the far north, don’t get the idea that Siberia (or northern Canada) have become warm enough host an IPCC meeting. They haven’t. The IPCC prefers to meet in warm venues.

When I arrived in Sudbury Airport on Friday night, I logged onto the airport internet terminal (conveniently free) and tried to access Climate Audit. Access was blocked. I was -

Banned in Sudbury.

To verify that Climate Audit was specifically blocked, as opposed to blogs, I visited realclimate, which loaded without event. While I had RC online, an instructor at the local university (Laurentian) happened to walk by and congratulated me for reading such a fine website, saying he didn’t often see people in Sudbury doing so. He did not seem to regard this as evidence of either common sense or connoisseurship.

The block was via the software Softforyou, advertised as parental guidance software.

240 Comments

  1. Ryan O
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM | Permalink

    1984 was such a good book. Good thing it was fiction.

  2. MJ
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 8:54 PM | Permalink

    There is a conspiracy in here somewhere. I just know it.

  3. don
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 9:01 PM | Permalink

    So, was the Climate Audit block a prank by a practical joking, the sky is melting, true believer, or was the block something peculiar to the Internet in Canada, perhaps an official ban to promote better climate mental health?

  4. Mark_T
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 9:40 PM | Permalink

    Maybe you were blocked because you’re upsetting some people who have vested interests in AGW? And I wonder if other sites that might offend people with certain political predispositions are also blocked?

    • Jaye Bass
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 6:37 AM | Permalink

      Re: Mark_T (#4),

      This is Canada we are talking about. Free speech and “human rights commissions” don’t necessarily mix.

  5. Gene Nemetz
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 9:45 PM | Permalink

    You’ve got to be kidding me!

  6. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 9:46 PM | Permalink

    What other sites did you check? Or are you as willing to jump to a conclusion about the “block” of CA as you are one day’s weather and the earth’s climate? Apparently so.

    • benpal
      Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 9:53 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#6), any suggestions as to what other sites Steve should have checked? Disney Channel?

      • Gary Strand
        Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

        Re: benpal (#7), who at Sudbury Airport would have an interest in “blocking” CA and why?

        • D. Patterson
          Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 12:46 AM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#8),

          Re: benpal (#7), who at Sudbury Airport would have an interest in “blocking” CA and why?

          Contacts at Sudbury Airport Community Development Corporation (SACDC) report the Internet service at the airport and the blocking software is the responsibility of MySudbury, the organization authorized by Sudbury’s city hall to manage the facilities. The recommended contact at MySudbury was given as Jody Cameron at 705-674-4455 x4627, who was not available for immediate comment. MySudbury is responsible for managing the “image” of Sudbury in cooperation with the media such as the Sudbury Star, BBC, et al….

  7. INGSOC
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:02 PM | Permalink

    What else would you expect from residents of a crater?

  8. Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:02 PM | Permalink

    I’d say it was because TTLS probably means something REALLY dirty.

    Oh no! Wait! I know! It’s because the words “Phil Jones” appear so many times.

  9. Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:04 PM | Permalink

    I have to say that I’m not surprised by Climate Audit being blocked.

    It’s clear that parents of minors could easily be offended by posts featuring hard-core statistical analysis, pictures of gratuitous principal components analysis mapped to uncensored charts of Antarctica, and frank and open discussions of eigenvectors, eignenvalues, statistical significance tests including open and frank discussions on the relative merits of R2 and RE metrics, en flagrant temperature and rainfall proxies including disgusting “sampling” of innocent bristlecone pines, while explicit replications of multi-proxy reconstructions of past climate could easily offend young people.

    Its a wonder that the police aren’t called to shut the blog down.

    And don’t get me started about the articles on doubles squash where four men get sweaty together in small enclosed spaces while being cheered on by perverts from the bleachers. That’s just the icing on the whole degenerate cake.

    John (A for ANGRY)

  10. Anthony Watts
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    Steve, you’ll be happy to know that CA is open to all in China, but WUWT is blocked to the general public. Surprisingly though, the Shenzhen Met Office knew all about WUWT and CA. They get to see everything unfettered apparently.

    The software company probably contains a master list that you may be able to get removed from, but it appears that they view all blogs as a threat to children:

    http://www.softforyou.com/articles_tutorials/blog_sites_and_your_children.html

    I’m probably banned too as is any WordPress site.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:22 PM | Permalink

      Re: Anthony Watts (#12),

      Neither Lucia and Jeff Id were banned. I hadn’t checked WUWT yet, I was about to, but had to leave.

      • Gary Strand
        Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:28 PM | Permalink

        Re: Steve McIntyre (#14), that’s two data points against the “theory” that CA was “blocked” because of AGW “agents”…

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#16),

          that’s two data points against the “theory” that CA was “blocked” because of AGW “agents”…

          Gary, you seem to have trouble reading carefully. I merely observed that CA was banned in Sudbury. I provided no “theory” as to why. Nor, for that matter, have I ventured my own opinions on overarching question of the sensitivity of climate to increased CO2 levels. I’ve observed that a number of prominent studies fail to accomplish their statistical objectives.

          As I’ve observed on many occasions – people sometimes say to me, if the HS is “wrong”, the situation is much worse than we think, as if that repudiates analyses presented here. My answer is – if so, then we should find out if it’s wrong and govern ourselves accordingly.

          Both Lucia and Jeff Id are newer blogs than CA. And while I read and recommend both blogs, I think that it’s also fair to say that CA has been more prominent than either and that one can easily picture circumstances where CA might have attracted attention that the two other blogs didn’t.

          At this point, I offer no “theories”; I merely reported a fact.

        • Gary Strand
          Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:44 PM | Permalink

          Re: Steve McIntyre (#19), I didn’t say you offered that theory – but others have. See #3 and #4.

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:52 PM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#21),

          OK what’s your explanation as to why CA was blocked? Or do you think that I prematurely “jumped” to the conclusion that CA was blocked, merely the software gave a message saying that it had blocked access to the site ( and did prevent me from accessing the site.)

          Maybe you think that CA was blocked because I’ve posted occasionally on doubles squash.

        • Patrick M.
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

          Re: Steve McIntyre (#23),

          My parental filtering software blocks you too. The block is due to you being “unrated”. So it doesn’t block you because of something “bad”. It’s due to lack of data, (ironically).

        • Jaye Bass
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 6:46 AM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#21),

          Yes you did. You referenced one of Steve’s posts directly then went on to talk about “theory” in that context.

        • Gary Strand
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM | Permalink

          Re: Jaye Bass (#57), I didn’t say that Steve proposed the conspiracy theory, I merely noted that since he visited two other “skeptic” sites (as he said) then not all “skeptic” sites were “blocked”.

        • Jaye Bass
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#60),

          Steve McIntyre (#14), that’s two data points against the “theory” that CA was “blocked” because of AGW “agents”…

          Please reconcile the quoted text in context of my post 57 and your post 60. It’s irreconcilable imo. Stop trolling and say something useful or go away.

        • EddieO
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:48 AM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#60), Gary
          You obviously have an agenda from your over sensitive reaction. If you have any complaints about Steve’s work on this wonderful site please speak up and we can debate your points. This is a blog that encourages open debate, unlike some others. Obviously I am referring to Steve’s serious work which provides an independent analysis of published climate data, not his musings on a day trip to the back woods.

        • Terry
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#60),

          I didn’t say that Steve proposed the conspiracy theory

          Yes, Gary, you did. You first said this:

          are you as willing to jump to a conclusion about the “block” of CA as you are one day’s weather and the earth’s climate? Apparently so.

          Which was directed at Steve (due to the conflagration about his comment on the cold day), and this:

          that’s two data points against the “theory” that CA was “blocked” because of AGW “agents”…

          Reading the entry, I see two observations (CA blocked, RC not blocked) but zero theories from Mr. McIntyre regarding why. Could you point to anything that Steve wrote theorizing why CA was blocked? If not, could you retract the accusation? Thanks.

        • Terry
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

          Re: Terry (#69),

          Oops, conflating, not conflagration. Didn’t mean to “flame” :)

        • Gene Nemetz
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

          Re: Terry (#69),

          If not, could you retract the accusation?

          Steve M asked him to retract it also. Steve M is quite patient with these sort of things–more patient then me.

          It would only be right for Gary Strand to admit his error. It doesn’t make CA or commenters at CA look bad that he hasn’t to this point. It only effects how he is viewed.

        • Gary Strand
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

          Re: Terry (#69),

          Could you point to anything that Steve wrote theorizing why CA was blocked? If not, could you retract the accusation? Thanks.

          I didn’t say what conclusion Steve had reached – only that he had apparently done so, as erroneously as had passed judgment on the IPCC and “intense warming in the far north” based the weather during his travel.

          Steve also didn’t dissuade, or comment upon, those who had made statements about conspiracies and other silliness.

        • Gene Nemetz
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#104),

          as had passed judgment on the IPCC and “intense warming in the far north”

          I’m pretty sure this was jesting, Gary, pointed towards exaggerations we have all seen in this global warming epoch.

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#60),

          One would expect a professional scientist to be able to be able to carry out accurate quotation. Gary Strand stated:

          I didn’t say that Steve proposed the conspiracy theory, I merely noted that since he visited two other “skeptic” sites (as he said) then not all “skeptic” sites were “blocked”.

          If someone uses quotation marks, then he’s quoting someone. I did not say that I visited two other ‘ “skeptic” sites’. Those are Gary’s words, not mine. I said that I visited Lucia’s and Jeff Id’s, the latter being a wordpress.com site.

          In addition, Gary did not merely “observe” that “not all skeptic sites were blocked”. He argued that the non-blocking of Lucia and Jeff Id demonstrated that CA was not blocked because of its critical content, when obviously it demonstrates no such thing. As I observed above, it is quite possible that CA had attracted attention while the other two sites had not. I’m afraid that Gary’s reasoning here contains a fairly elementary logical fallacy and I hope that acknowledges this.

          Gary, I would also appreciate a withdrawal of your untrue allegation that comments were altered to make you look foolish.

        • rephelan
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

          Re: Steve McIntyre (#74),

          “… a professional scientist ….” I once wrote an entire accounting package for a freight forwarder and have designed and written scores of reports and add-on modules for manufacturing accounting systems, but I would not attempt to present myself as an accountant, professional or otherwise. I did notice that you very quietly did Mr. Strand a kindness. You’re a better man than I am.

  11. Tim
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:11 PM | Permalink

    I’m thinking it is because RealClimate is for children (or those with child-like minds), while Climate Audit is for adults.

  12. oakgeo
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:22 PM | Permalink

    Who was the sponsor of the airport internet terminal? Could anyone have downloaded the software and installed it? I don’t doubt that CA is blocked from that terminal, but it is in a transient location where lots of people have time on their hands.

    Still, its amusing that CA is dealt with in the same manner as XXX sites. It must be the size of your cajones, Steve.

  13. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:29 PM | Permalink

    I checked realclimate, Lucia and Jeff Id – none of them were blocked.

    Or are you as willing to jump to a conclusion about the “block” of CA as you are one day’s weather and the earth’s climate?

    I didn’t “jump” to a conclusion that CA was blocked. It was blocked.

    And where exactly did I “jump to a conclusion about one day’s weather and the earth’s climate”? My small point here was that warming in places like northern Ontario or Siberia is not resulting in these places becoming inhospitably hot. The only person “jumping” to unwarranted conclusions is you – you’re jumping to the conclusion that I’m jumping to conclusions. Boing, boing.

    • Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:40 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#17),

      WUWT was blocked in China. No matter where I went, I haven’t asked Anthony if it worked when he was there.

      • Anthony Watts
        Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 11:42 PM | Permalink

        Re: Jeff Id (#18),

        Jeff, WUWT was blocked in everyplace I went in China except the Shenzhen Met Office. CA had no such problem.

        Steve Mosher also reported WUWT was blocked on a recent visit there.

        • Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 12:07 AM | Permalink

          Re: Anthony Watts (#38),

          I thought so. The #1 ranked science blog is blocked, except for the government office. It’s our own future we’re seeing.

          Re: Steve McIntyre (#19),

          Unfortunately it’s probably true that CA is noticed. The Air Vent just isn’t that big, CA on the other hand is pretty well world famous. My little blog gets 1500 visits a day, far less than an average hour on WUWT.

          While I had RC online, an instructor at the local university (Laurentian) happened to walk by and congratulated me for reading such a fine website,

          I would have paid money to see him say that! I wonder if he’s in phys ed.

          Fuuuny stuff!

    • Gary Strand
      Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#17), your comments about “lurid red dots” gave you away. And if you can show me where someone says that northern Ontario or Siberia becoming “inhospitably hot”, I’d be much obliged.

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:48 PM | Permalink

        Re: Gary Strand (#20),
        The rest of the sentence was:

        don’t get the idea that Siberia (or northern Canada) have become warm enough host an IPCC meeting

        I don’t recall seeing that any IPCC meetings have been held in the winter in northern Canada or Siberia. If I’m wrong on this point, can you identify when IPCC met in Siberia or northern Canada?

        • Gary Strand
          Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:53 PM | Permalink

          Re: Steve McIntyre (#22), why did you change what you wrote? I certainly didn’t hallucinate “inhospitably hot”.

          That aside, show me where the IPCC (or anyone else, for that matter) says that northern Ontario or Siberia will become “inhospitably hot”.

  14. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:53 PM | Permalink

    Lighten up, Gary.

  15. Ed Snack
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:53 PM | Permalink

    Gary, look for yourself, the dots referred to are Large and Red, that’s good enough for “Lurid” to be applicable. Please, do yourself a favour and get a humour transplant.

  16. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:54 PM | Permalink

    I don’t proffer any theories as to why CA was “blocked”.

  17. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 10:55 PM | Permalink

    I don’t lack humor – I also don’t appreciate comments being changed in order to try to make others look foolish.

    Steve: No comments were changed to make others look foolish or for any other reason. This is a figment of Gary’s imagination.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 11:03 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#28) and #24,

      You didn’t hallucinate “inhospitably hot” – your hallucination was that the comment had been changed. The words are used in #17.

      No comments were changed to make you look foolish. Your comments speak for themselves.

      • Gary Strand
        Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 11:07 PM | Permalink

        Re: Steve McIntyre (#29), as do yours, Steve, as do yours.

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 11:08 PM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#30), Please withdraw your untrue allegation that comments were changed to make you look foolish.

  18. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 11:15 PM | Permalink

    Hey, everyone, Gary Strand is an obvious troll. Ignore him and he’ll go away.

    And Gary, for what it’s worth, I think you’ve got confused as to something being changed. Steve mentions “inhospitible” in #17, but not, apparently, in the head post.

    • Gene Nemetz
      Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 11:29 PM | Permalink

      Re: Dave Dardinger (#32),

      Obviously feelings are running high on the alarmists side. Maybe the cold weather around the world is making them jumpy. Or maybe their predictions all failing is doing it. I don’t why know for sure. But I can see alarmists are more touchy.

  19. Paul29
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 11:23 PM | Permalink

    Steve,

    You must have edited Gary’s comments. There is no way he could be so confused with several simple sentences. Or maybe he is just joking with us.

    • Gene Nemetz
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 12:32 AM | Permalink

      Re: Paul29 (#33),
      Emotions can make you see things that aren’t there.

  20. MikeU
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM | Permalink

    For the record, I first read this post when there were 3 comments (between 9:01 and 9:40 PM local time), and there was no mention of “inhospitably hot” then…

  21. Ken
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 11:29 PM | Permalink

    Can’t decide if this story is humorous or a bit ominous. Perhaps some of both. Either way, take it as a compliment that you have the full attention of somebody out there.

    Keep up the good work Mr. McInytre.

  22. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 7, 2009 at 11:34 PM | Permalink

    I’m not confused – but some here are, especially regarding weather and climate, and what anthropogenic climate change means.

    • Gene Nemetz
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 12:36 AM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#37),

      I know full well what it mean. I also know what those on your side would like it to mean. Most here know it also.

    • Gene Nemetz
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 12:42 AM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#37),

      especially regarding weather and climate

      There’s no confusion. We just might not want to accept what you would like us to accept about these 2 words–this appears as confusion to you.
      At what point will all this record cold and snow stop being ‘weather’ Gary?

      • Gary Strand
        Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:36 AM | Permalink

        Re: Gene Nemetz (#44),

        At what point will all this record cold and snow stop being ‘weather’ Gary?

        Why don’t you tell me? For some folks, a day or two is sufficient.

        • Gene Nemetz
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#59),

          Why don’t you tell me? For some folks, a day or two is sufficient.

          Are you referring to the heat in Australia that was attributed to global warming?

  23. Richard Henry Lee
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 12:15 AM | Permalink

    There is a way to submit either family friendly sites or objectionable sites to SoftForYou:

    http://www.softforyou.com/submit_site.html

    It seems likely that someone has convinced SoftForYou that CA is somehow unsuitable for children.

  24. Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 12:27 AM | Permalink

    Obviously, the blocking software thinks you might be a pedagog, Steve. I think so, too.

    RC? That’s a coke substitute, isn’t it? No pedagogy, there, just a lot of CO² bubbles to make you burp.
    snip

  25. steven mosher
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 12:50 AM | Permalink

    Verrrrrrrrrry funny McIntyre. Where does a company named “softforyou” get off banning sites?
    Is this some kind of perverted double entendre you made up just to trap the likes of
    Gary? A company named Softforyou? get serious. you made this whole thing up. You don’t fool me!

    hehe..

    • JamesG
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 2:44 AM | Permalink

      Re: steven mosher (#45),
      softforyou is indeed a poor name choice bearing in mind that softondemand sells soft porn. snip

  26. Graeme Rodaughan
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 1:12 AM | Permalink

    snip – too much venting

  27. Wolfgang Flamme
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 2:44 AM | Permalink

    Too much naked truths found here, I presume.

  28. Papertiger
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 3:05 AM | Permalink

    We had a simular thing happen with the phone company during the abortive debate between Tim Ball and Andrew Dessler. The phone company wouldn’t put through Dr. Ball’s call to the blog radio station in the states.
    Doc Dessler ended up having the field to himself. That was a painful moment.

  29. Mike Lorrey
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 3:23 AM | Permalink

    Have you contacted Softforyou to see if CA is on some master list? Many of these parental controls software apps give parents the ability to report objectionable websites to the software maker for inclusion in a master list that all software users get as a default set. I would not be surprised, given the sort of dirty tricks we’ve seen from the alarmists in data disclosure, etc, if one of them filed a false report with Softforyou.com against CA.

  30. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 3:42 AM | Permalink

    Steve, you are joking, aren’t you? Who, in a serious moment, would want to open Climate Audit while in Sudbury? There are much better things to read on the Net.

    “Softforyou” reminds me of the brand name for a toilet paper. Here in Australia (where our sense of humour is strange, idem..) we had a toilet paper named “Dawn” until it became widely known as an acronym for “Does away with newspaper”. We also had bras named “Hestia”, for “Holds every sized t.. in Australia”. And to complete the trifecta, Australia uses toilet paper at over 1600 kph, wll above the speed of sound at sea level.

    Enough of this classy humour. By coincidence, a couple of days ago my eBay site was hacked and some person had me selling a Subaru Impreza WRX motor car, which I think is a little rice burner. The hack is very professional and we have not sorted it after several days of expert work. I mention this in case it is infectious and I have passed on an unwanted artefact in past emails or posts. Part of the symptom could be that the use meter shows 40% CPU use in one core while nothing much is going on. Windows XP task manager.

  31. Michael Mullendore
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 4:08 AM | Permalink

    As one who has a company in China and spends about half my time here, I can testify that about 40% of the “AGW Skeptical” blog sites I regularly peruse are blocked here in China. this includes WUWT & The Air Vent among others. CA is not blocked :)

    • Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

      Re: Michael Mullendore (#52),

      The Air Vent wasn’t blocked in December. I’ve been avoiding going back but I wonder if I won’t be able to post now.

    • Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 9:59 AM | Permalink

      Re: Michael Mullendore (#52),

      With regard to China, the blocking is the blog hosting sites. Both Blogspot and WordPress are blocked, perhaps because peasant-folk can post opinions through those blogs. There are some blogspot/wordpress non-climate(!) blogs that I read and they were not accessible either.

      They also shut down Twitter for the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen(sp?) Square.

      • Michael Mullendore
        Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 4:11 PM | Permalink

        Re: David Jay (#72),

        WordPress may well be universally blocked but there are many other sites also blocked in China such as Lubos http://motls.blogspot.com/

        • Gene Nemetz
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 5:34 PM | Permalink

          Re: Michael Mullendore (#102),

          WordPress may well be universally blocked but there are many other sites also blocked in China such as Lubos

          This may be related : the movie with Harrison Ford, “The Fugitive” was not allowed to be shown in China. Apparently a lone, innocent man who finds ways to escape the authorities may have made the Chinese government uncomfortable. Supposedly the Chinese government has turned over a new leaf since then and is not so uncomfortable with these sort of things. With the blocking of many blogs maybe they have turned the leaf only half over.

  32. Glenn
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 4:14 AM | Permalink

    Softforyou advertises they “Rectrict” Chat and Instant Messaging. That must have been it.

    http://www.softforyou.com/

  33. JamesG
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 6:03 AM | Permalink

    I’d suspect that the Chinese bans are more to do with a great number of skeptic sites being frequented and sometimes run by people who like to air their complaints about socialism in general and China in particular.

  34. Dean
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 6:31 AM | Permalink

    Isn’t it obvious why CA is blocked???

    Everywhere I go on this site, I see people matriculating! Right out in the open!!!!

  35. mick
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:29 AM | Permalink

    Sometimes it’s as simple as an ideologue employee looking after the list slipping it on, & it gets fixed up pretty quickly after enquiries. snip . Filter hawkers are by & large snake oil salesmen. BTW the Rudd Government in Australia is currently trying to introduce mandatory Chinese-style internet censorship.

  36. L J Robinson
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

    snip – argumentative and OT

  37. Fred
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 9:06 AM | Permalink

    snip – language against blog policies

  38. Severian
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

    Well, isn’t it obvious why CA was banned? It’s obviously due to Steve’s snarky “tone,” the same reason Steig and others are so upset!

  39. Ed Moran
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    Gentlemen,

    Thank you for a most enjoyable thread. Special thanks to Mr Strand, whose inability to read, total lack of a GSOH and rhino-thick skin kept the pot boiling nicely.

  40. Bill Hunter
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 9:53 AM | Permalink

    I will venture a motive for blocking CA:

    Never ever question religion.

  41. Gaelan Clark
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    snip – OT

  42. Larry Sheldon
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    What other sites did you check? Or are you as willing to jump to a conclusion about the “block” of CA as you are one day’s weather and the earth’s climate? Apparently so.

    It is truly sad to day in and day out be confronted with the evidence of prefrontal lobotomies every where I turn.

    To verify that Climate Audit was specifically blocked, as opposed to blogs,…

    It takes only one blog working to answer the question “are all blogs blocked”.

  43. Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:37 AM | Permalink

    Labels tend to box people into a certain position. If the Antarctic paper was good, I would have a different reader base now.

    Just for the record, the only things I’m skeptical of are about a dozen of the many climatology papers I’ve now read, overbroad AGW claims, politicians, consensus, and well paid weathermen who claim certainty about the climate future.

    Oh yeah then there’s Doc. Hansen and Mike Mann. — them too.

  44. Severian
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    I wonder if WUWT being blocked in China has anything to do with his coverage of the controversy surrounding the Chinese temperature recording stations, remember the “high quality” data and unmoved site claims that were used to dispel Urban Heat Island effects?

  45. Andrew
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    Man did I get a kick out of the professorial anecdote! Thanks for sharing Steve.

  46. steven mosher
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:45 AM | Permalink

    RE #60. gary.

    Lucia’s site is not a skeptic site. As the unofficial worldwide brand manager of the “lukewarmer” movement
    I demand that you retract this slur against her and her fellow lukewarmers.

  47. steven mosher
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

    Re 74. It’s actually funnier if we just let gary beclown himself some more without setting him straight or giving him the opportunity to set himself straight.

    Lucia and I once discussed a particularly neat trick wherein a blog operator could allow a selected individual to
    view a different version of the blog than everyone else. basically his comments were visible to him but invisible to everyone else. Shrouds for Trolls. hehe. Do you think that gary is even aware that the rest of us see comments that he does not?

    not really gary, just trying to feed your warped sense of reality.

    • James P
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM | Permalink

      Re: steven mosher (#80),

      a blog operator could allow a selected individual to
      view a different version of the blog than everyone else. basically his comments were visible to him but invisible to everyone else.

      I’d be tempted to do it the other way round, so everyone else could see the comments, but the troll couldn’t – just to see how unhinged he became… :-)

    • deadwood
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

      Re: steven mosher (#80),

      Dang, but that’s just way too wicked!

  48. Mitchel44
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

    With Transport Canada having a strangle hold on the airports, I would direct my questions to them first.

    As for Gary, you can expect that a “withdrawal” of Gary’s remarks will follow closely on the heels of Real Climate, Climate Progress and David Suzuki declaring that there is no such thing as AGW, oops, I meant Anthropogenic Climate Change of course (can we say ACC, or will the Atlantic Coast Conference sue?).

    Don’t hold your breath in other words, oh and Gary does not appear to need any assistance in order to “look foolish”, he’s doing fine all by himself.

  49. steven mosher
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

    I’m still waiting for gary to state his case clearly. So I wander over to his NCAR website
    where he was kind enough to put up an Office cam!

    I clicked on the link. Who knew that gary bears a striking resemblance to
    Jim Carrey. And now, gary, in his own words live. stating his case.

    Opps wrong link

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/campage.html

    there thats better.

  50. John G. Bell
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

    Steve M.,
    Back when TCO’s foul rantings were piped unfiltered over the wire to me via akgregator I wouldn’t have let any youngster near. Does such live on in your archives? Humorous substitution of foul with fair words and phrases would preserve what might be useful and help you get past filters.

    Yeah, I don’t like to rewrite “history”, but what are you going to do? Create a CENSORED directory?

  51. mpaul
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

    Usually, internet filtering software companies have ways that you can challenge a decision to block a site. I think you first need to establish that CA is on their blocked site list. (Some software packages allow local admins to add sites to a local list, so its also possible that Sudbury Airport added you to their local list). If Softforyou has CA on their list, I think you can contact them as ask them to remove you from the list.

    • rafa
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 12:24 PM | Permalink

      Re: mpaul (#86), “Create a CENSORED directory?”, very good, LOL!

  52. Papertiger
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    Blocked in China?

    I got that beat. I’m blocked at RC, Joe Romm’s site, and Dot Earth.
    Jen Marohasey still lets me talk though, so it all balances out.

  53. Gary Hladik
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 1:11 PM | Permalink

    Thanks, everyone, for a very amusing thread. The CENSORED comment from #84 was priceless.

  54. CodeTech
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 1:44 PM | Permalink

    Hah! I rarely post here, but this was great.

    As always, I’m left wondering if some people have any idea how their childish rantings appear to others. I can assure you, looking through this thread there is exactly one standout poster, and my first thought was that someone might need their meds adjusted.

    Then I thought maybe CA is blocked because of the naked trolling going on here.

  55. jryan
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    I wonder if CA was blocked as part of a default blacklist in the “Parental Control” software?

    These applications usually come with a default black list as well as regular updates from the web. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that there is someone who owns this software reporting your site as inappropriate just to get it added to the black list for all users of the software.

  56. David L. Hagen
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    I emailed: Support at SoftForYou.com
    notifying them of this problem.

    # How do I prevent a Web Site from being blocked by CyberSieve?
    If CyberSieve blocks a certain Web site for some reason but you consider the site viewable, you can add this web site to the “Trusted Web Sites” list to prevent it from being blocked by CyberSieve.

    Open the CyberSieve Control Panel, click on Settings and select “Web Sites” item. Then push the “Trusted Web Sites List” link, select the user’s group, mark the “Enable Trusted Web Sites List” checkbox, and push the “Add” button. Enter the trusted web site name, choose the user’s group, and push the “OK” button.

    Use “Add”, “Edit” and “Delete” buttons located on the bottom of the window to edit the list.

    Recommend notifying Sudbury Airport of customer satisfaction issue and requesting that they redress it.
    Greater Sudbury Airport
    Box 3014, 2621 Skead Rd., Unit 1
    Garson, ON P3L 1V4
    Telephone: (705) 693-2514
    Fax: (705) 693-2937

    General inquiries: airport@greatersudbury.ca
    AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL

    Bob Johnston
    Chief Executive Officer – Greater Sudbury Airport
    Phone: (705) 693-2514 x 223
    Fax: (705) 693-2937
    bob.johnston@greatersudbury.ca

  57. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 3:14 PM | Permalink

    The overall tenor of CA has turned out to be about what I was expecting.

    • Gaelan Clark
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 3:42 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#93), or, in other words, “Oooofff, I have run smack into my own words and cannot accept this re-hashing of my own statements anymore.”

    • Terry
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#93),

      Were you expecting not to be called out for making unfounded and untrue allegations? I wonder what Dr. Brasseur would think of the “publicity” you’re giving UCAR/NCAR?

      • Gary Strand
        Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

        Re: Terry (#97),

        I wonder what Dr. Brasseur would think of the “publicity” you’re giving UCAR/NCAR?

        I’m not representing any views but my own. On the other hand, I’m not hiding behind a handle.

        • Terry
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#101),

          First, that was by no means a veiled threat or that I was going to pen a letter – sorry if it came off that way. But for better or worse, you’re representing the institution – sorry, but that’s the way it goes.

          Regardless of that, do you still stand behind this question / statement?

          are you as willing to jump to a conclusion about the “block” of CA as you are one day’s weather and the earth’s climate? Apparently so.

          I use only my first name, btw, precisely because what I say *could* reflect on my employer, disclaimer or not. The private sector has a much stricter practice dealing with employees who bring discredit on them via postings and allegations like this. I’m not making a judgement on whether that’s a good or bad thing – again – that’s just the way it goes.

          Re:104 – I would say that he observed that CA was blocked RC was not, but didn’t theorize why, and is not responsible for moderating all posters comments that surmise reasons out of the blog. Having been a consistent reader of several blogs on both sides of the AGW, I can tell you (if only anecdotally) which side over-moderates dissenting posts.

          Anyway, this is basically a fun/funny thread, as opposed to a lot of the threads which dig into the details of models, reconstructions, and statistics used therein. I’d be interested to hear your take on the reconstruction of Steig et al 09. Lets get back to the numbers and may the most robust win :)

        • Gary Strand
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 4:36 PM | Permalink

          Re: Terry (#108),

          But for better or worse, you’re representing the institution – sorry, but that’s the way it goes.

          How so?

          Discrediting is in the eyes of the reader, anyway.

          I have no opinion on Steig et.al., as that’s not my area of expertise.

        • Terry
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 5:57 PM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#109),

          I have no opinion on Steig et.al., as that’s not my area of expertise.

          Do you write web site filtering software? :)

        • Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#109),

          Steve also didn’t dissuade, or comment upon, those who had made statements about conspiracies and other silliness.

          And thank god he doesn’t. This is about the only large blog you can have a real discussion on. I can’t believe you threw the whole group under the bus in #93. Another good technical believer kicking around is appreciated by many of us. However, I didn’t know who you are so from your first comments I thought you were just another uninformed troll.

          Why did you pick the fun thread to intentionally start a battle? In blogland it’s helpful to have a lighter thread once in a while to let some steam off. A lot of people read here and don’t add to the math posts. RC does it as a matter of standard practice. In the meantime, there are a lot of technical details to muddle around with and if you find what’s wrong you could really grind our collective noses in the hot AGW sand. We’d all learn something.
          ————–
          OT: I’m still irked about Gavin’s unreasonable reply and deletion of my RC comment on my latest post.

    • Dave Andrews
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#93),

      How can you determine ‘overall tenor’ from a single blog on which you, yourself, make a number of incorrect comments?

      There are hundreds of blogs on this site. You need to read a whole lot more of them before you can try and pass any judgement.

    • Gene Nemetz
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#93),

      The overall tenor of CA has turned out to be about what I was expecting

      So you came in with preconcieved ideas and you see through those prejudiced colored glasses.
      If you would sit back and look at this thread from top to bottom and give everything you read a fair judgement you may see differently.

    • Ryan M
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#93),

      Much like your global warming models I’m sure.

  58. Larry Sheldon
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    This is a test to see if “Gary Strand” is an autobot that fires everytime somebody posts here. If it answers within a certain number of posts (as opposed t a certain length of time, we will know.

  59. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

    My apologies. Steve didn’t alter what I had previously written.

  60. Feedback
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

    CA blocked? Well, forbidden fruit is sweetest.

    We will allways find ways to have a bite.

    Thanks for your great site Steve.

    • Michael Jankowski
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

      Re: Feedback (#105), he didn’t dissuade or comment upon some of your statements and other silliness, either. So what?

      You’ve made a mountain out of a molehill. There are plenty of informative and thorough discussions on other threads here. Just avoid the humorous observational ones like this one, and you’ll be just fine.

  61. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

    Oh that should link to #104. *sigh*

  62. Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

    Earlier today I downloaded a trial version of iProtectYou from SoftForYou.com. When I tried to access Climateaudit.org, I was blocked and received the following message.

    WattsUpWithThat and Lucia’s Blackboard were not blocked.

    I installed the software with the default configuration (and I’ve since removed it, of course).

    Note that the message refers to this post (“Banned in Sudbury”, p=6217). It may be that CA is somehow inadvertantly placing banned words or phrases in its html code, or that there was something in the comments. It might be worthwhile communicating with the software company to find out exactly what triggered the screen in this case.

    It does seem that the problem has nothing to do with any deliberate targeting of CA as far as I can see.

    • Ryan O
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

      Re: Deep Climate (#110), That’s good info. Steve – you may want to check to make sure that someone hasn’t added foul scripts or meta-tags. Lucia had that happen recently on her blog. If that’s the case, then a cleanup and an email to SoftForYou might do the trick.

    • curious
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 5:42 PM | Permalink

      Re: Deep Climate (#110), Nicely done!

    • MJ
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 6:02 PM | Permalink

      Re: Deep Climate (#110),

      Well, crap.. er.. whatever the other inappropriate word is.

      Looks like there’s a steaming pile somewhere on this site that’s turning the nose of the filter.

      Gary Strand..

      LOL @ U, buddy. Seriously, Steve has made no references to any kind of conspiracy, I threw that out there earlier in the thread because it seemed funny. I’m sure it was just a mere coincidence this has happened, but maybe not, and it was up to the readers to make their own conclusion. All he did was just articulate his “investigation” or “experiment” and instead of drawing any conclusions, allowed the user to make up their own mind. It appears that others with computer specialties (an obvious collaborative, and open sharing system) discovered the true nature of the issue, making no pre-conceived notions, obviously believing that Steve wasn’t leading their views. The exercise shows how “bias” is in the process, you fell right into it, and are now flailing away trying to pin it on Steve, attacking his motives without once looking at yourself. Climate Science at its best.

    • Anthony Watts
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 6:45 PM | Permalink

      Re: Deep Climate (#110),

      Steve Mc, I think your can solve this if you go back and delete all of the posts made my “TCO” and maybe a couple of other posters that no longer frequent here.

      TCO’s cuss quotient, as we all know, is very high, and I think there are a few F-bombs left on the site from his many colorful comments in the past. Serach engines don’t pay attention to age of posts/comments, they only care if key words exist somewhere in the site HTML stream.

      It would be an easy chore to just use George Carlin’s “7 dirty words you can’t say on TV” and search comments, deleting those that pop up.

      Anthony

      • Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:03 PM | Permalink

        Re: Anthony Watts (#125),

        Steve Mc, I think your can solve this if you go back and delete all of the posts made my “TCO” and maybe a couple of other posters that no longer frequent here.

        Not sure about that – the message clearly indicated this thread. Ryan O might be on to something – there may be infected scripts.

        • Terry
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:09 PM | Permalink

          Re: Deep Climate (#127),

          To be fair, I think the entry itself makes it clear the site was blocked before this thread existed. I’m not sure what the original cause was, but I can be certain that it wasn’t the contents of this thread, or it wouldn’t exist.

          /unless we’re all living in a recursive black hole of yester
          //!!!!hhhhhhggggggaaaaaaaa

        • DaveE
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:16 PM | Permalink

          Re: Terry (#128),

          I think the problem Deep Climate may have had could have related to the word ‘Banned’ in the page title.

          DaveE.

        • Terry
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:30 PM | Permalink

          Re: DaveE (#140),
          Could very well be.

          Apropos of nothing and for no good reason, I present a favorite song of mine, which helps (me) to put these kinds of things into perspective. Bless the ANZACs, the Canadians, the dogfaces, the leathernecks, the squids, the wingnuts, and all I’ve forgotten – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG48Ftsr3OI – Steve, please snip the entire paragragh if this is too far off track from a funny little anecdote about the airport in Sudbury. Asa retired Army officer and contributer to far too many sites, the song provides a great context to debates such as this.

        • Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:21 PM | Permalink

          Re: Terry (#128),

          To be fair, I think the entry itself makes it clear the site was blocked before this thread existed. I’m not sure what the original cause was, but I can be certain that it wasn’t the contents of this thread, or it wouldn’t exist.

          It’s most likely something that is present in every post, and the first post checked is flagged. That suggests repeated content, perhaps in an infected script.

  63. Geo
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

    It wouldn’t surprise me if blog comment threads are considered too intense –and often profane– (at least temporarily, despite the best efforts of mods) for youngsters by some blocking software.

  64. Plimple
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 5:35 PM | Permalink

    Gary, you have indeed observed the general tenor of CA: Steve M’s careful equivocating coupled with insinuation, selective post-hoc unlabeled editing, conspiracy theories in the comments feeding off the unfortunate, accidental and oh so unintentional insinuation, oh, and paranoia despite all manner of possible, reasonable and logical explanations.

    • Mike B
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

      Re: Plimple (#115),

      You left another important chunk of the general tenor of CA: professional climate scientist makes brief appearance, throws a tantrum, declares victory, and disappears never to be seen again.

  65. Paul Penrose
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 5:48 PM | Permalink

    How convenient Gary. You come in here and pick a fight over virtually nothing, and then you complain about the tenor. If you can’t see what’s wrong with that, then you are no better than Plimple. Then again, maybe you don’t see what’s wrong with his posting either. It’s all so sad.

  66. Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 6:04 PM | Permalink

    It would be interesting if readers would try to access CA, RC, WUWT, tAV, tBB, Tamino, etc, at public libraries or on their own computers with parental controls in effect to see what is or isn’t blocked by which softwares. And why.

    I’ll be on the road and so unable to do this myself.

  67. Severian
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 6:55 PM | Permalink

    One thing, it always amuses me when posters to any blog get self righteous about everyone else posting under a pseudonym, whereas they use their “real” name. Another tactic to attempt to derail discussion, as if the fact they chose a nom de web that looks like a “real” name makes it so (or matters, read the argument/thought, not the name of the book). I could call myself Javier Acevedo, and be posting under a “real” name. Wouldn’t be my real name, or alter the content of my post.

    Wait, I know, I’m John Lee from China, that clears it up. It’s not like there are any other people out there named Lee.

    • Andrew
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:11 PM | Permalink

      Re: Severian (#126), Very western first name you got there. Quick, what’s the price of tea?

    • Gary Strand
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

      Re: Severian (#126),

      One thing, it always amuses me when posters to any blog get self righteous about everyone else posting under a pseudonym, whereas they use their “real” name. Another tactic to attempt to derail discussion,[…]

      Hiding behind a pseudonym causes some degree of damage to the poster’s credibility, IMHO. Using another person’s name also implies something to hide.

      • Severian
        Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 8:16 AM | Permalink

        Re: Gary Strand (#148),

        To you, perhaps, not so much to others. There are ample reasons, from shielding your employer from any implied bad juju, to maintaining a consistent online persona (I’ve posted under the same handle for almost two decades now counting Usenet). If you actively look for reasons to discredit and ignore a posters comments, you can find them, from the use of nom de webs to spelling/grammatical errors. It is still, IMO, a lazy way out of having to pay attention and acknowledge the contents of a post/argument/discussion.

        I also tend to notice this attitude mostly in people who are relatively new to such online discussions, and those who are older and come to this later in life. In people who survived the epic flame wars of early Usenet/ARPAnet, not so much.

        Also, given the fact that many employers now Google a prospective employees name, and never knowing what might set off their hot buttons (a phrase, an ideology, often a political affiliation these days), many are justifiably hesitant to post under anything but a nom de web. Also considering the number of raging lunatics out there (unless you’ve been the victim of an online stalker you will not understand), prudence is a virtue.

        • Mark T
          Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

          Re: Severian (#180),

          It is still, IMO, a lazy way out of having to pay attention and acknowledge the contents of a post/argument/discussion.

          I also tend to notice this attitude mostly in people who are relatively new to such online discussions, and those who are older and come to this later in life.

          I tend to notice it more with people that are looking for an excuse to avoid making real arguments because, deep down, they realize they don’t have one. Credibility, i.e., appeal to authority, is a much bigger issue with alarmists supporting their cause than any others involved in the debate. As you noted, it gives them an out so they don’t have to address the meat of the argument. Cowardice is a better description.

          Mark

      • D. Patterson
        Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM | Permalink

        Re: Gary Strand (#148),

        Re: Severian (#126),
        Hiding behind a pseudonym causes some degree of damage to the poster’s credibility, IMHO. Using another person’s name also implies something to hide.

        Given your conclusion “a pseudonym causes some degree of damage to the poster’s credibility,” would it be accurate to suspect your employee performance evaluations of the subordinates you supervise more often than not must reflect a lesser performance rating as a consequence of the “damage to the poster’s credibility” and how that damaged credibility may reflect upon the credibility and professionalism of the supervisor’s employer?

        What do you think the impact may be upon the “image” of Sudbury’s municipal government as managed by MySudbury when Internet access to Climate Audit and comparable Websites are or are not blocked, deliberately or not deliberately?

  68. Mike Lorrey
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:15 PM | Permalink

    I have emailed softforyou support about this erroneous listing and requested they inspect CA and remove it from their default banlist.

    Meanwhile, I’ve also had a convo with a friend in the British Ministry of Defence about the situation with Hadley, Dr. Jones, and the Met Office, and suggested it would be in their interest to kick Jones’ behind into gear and release the data or they’re likely to see chapter two in FOI scandals. They agreed that “Because Dr. Jones Says So” isn’t a recognized security classification at MoD.

    • ianl
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

      Re: Mike Lorrey (#130),

      Mike

      Interesting post – but are these MoD people actually going to do something, or simply play the Humphrey Appleby “masterly inactivity” line ?

  69. Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:17 PM | Permalink

    RE DC, #127,

    Re: Anthony Watts (#125),

    Steve Mc, I think your can solve this if you go back and delete all of the posts made my “TCO” and maybe a couple of other posters that no longer frequent here.

    Not sure about that – the message clearly indicated this thread. Ryan O might be on to something – there may be infected scripts.

    My guess is that the reference to thread #6217 just meant that this was the lastest thread on the objectionable site. This thread obviously didn’t yet exist when Steve was in Sudbury.

    I wouldn’t want the many TCO comments to be deleted out of hand. He (or she) provides an education about the attitude of many warmers. I prefer Anthony’s second suggestion, to just screen for Carlin’s 7 magic words. It wouldn’t hurt to also scan TCO’s posts, per Anthony’s observation, to see if perhaps Carlin missed a few.

  70. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    Seeing as how at least one person has visited my webpage, you (pl.) ought to have figured out I’m not a climate scientist.

    • Mike Lorrey
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:32 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#132), you mean this website? Nice list of publications, having published with card carrying members of the Hockey Team, if you aren’t a climatologist, you are an IT person who plays a climatologist on the intertubes.

      • PhilH
        Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:39 PM | Permalink

        Re: Mike Lorrey (#133), That is a nice list of publications. Wonder if any of them have ever been audited by a competent statistician. Steve?

      • Gary Strand
        Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

        Re: Mike Lorrey (#133),

        Nice list of publications, having published with card carrying members of the Hockey Team, if you aren’t a climatologist, you are an IT person who plays a climatologist on the intertubes.

        I’ve never presented myself anywhere as a scientist.

        But the snarky “guilt”-by-association is duly noted.

      • Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

        Re: Mike Lorrey (#133),

        Re: Gary Strand (#132), you mean this website? Nice list of publications, having published with card carrying members of the Hockey Team, if you aren’t a climatologist, you are an IT person who plays a climatologist on the intertubes.

        I’m not clear what your point is. GS is apparently a software engineer who collaborates with climatologists on various climate modelling projects.

        • Mike Lorrey
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

          Re: Deep Climate (#147), he denied being a climatologist in a prior post and commented about someone visiting his website, so i went looking.. Was just pointing out that he probably has a longer record publishing on climate studies (with Hockey Team members) than our esteemed CA blogger and many climatologists I know. If we were to consider his copublishing with Hockey Team members to be a condition of Team membership, given how much we know they tend to publish together, reference each other, and peer review each others papers, then Gary here is on the Team.

        • Mark T
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

          Re: Mike Lorrey (#154), The faithful are sensitive to any perceived slant, don’t you know that? :)

          Mark

        • Gary Strand
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:56 PM | Permalink

          Re: Mike Lorrey (#154),

          Was just pointing out that he probably has a longer record publishing on climate studies (with Hockey Team members) than our esteemed CA blogger and many climatologists I know. If we were to consider his copublishing with Hockey Team members to be a condition of Team membership, given how much we know they tend to publish together, reference each other, and peer review each others papers, then Gary here is on the Team.

          How do you figure? One paper in which Santer is 3rd author (I happened to be last) is awfully thin evidence of “Team” membership. Besides, while I realize the “Team” is considered bad mojo around here, I don’t consider them that way.

        • rephelan
          Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 11:47 PM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#163),

          Gary: glad to see you are still here and posting under your own identity. There are lots of Gary Strands on the web including a bass fisherman and a guy who runs safaris in Africa. Very early on Steve M. snipped a comment with your full address. That is the mark of a gentleman. Whether you consider yourself a climate scientist or not, you have a lot to contribute to our discussion, even if you won’t come over to the dark side. Not all of us are knuckle draggers and we’d appreciate thoughtful commentary.

    • Terry
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:46 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#132),

      Seeing as how the current line of posts don’t further our collective knowledge, lets engage in a productive conversation – your choice of topic. Go!

  71. MrPete
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

    Much as I was frustrated by earlier “vigorous discussion” that occasionally bordered on barroom brawls, I am reluctant to suggest completely deleting posts that contained language we’d no longer accept.

    I wonder if there is a way to convert the Carlin Seven into appropriately-substituted “bleep” code?

  72. Harry Eagar
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 7:53 PM | Permalink

    Since this paper is listed as having been published in 2000 — Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, J.M. Arblaster, T.W. Bettge, W.G. Strand Jr., 2000: Anthropogenic Forcing and Decadal Climate Variability in Sensitivity Experiments of 20th and 21st Century Climate J. Climate, Vol. 13, No. 21, pp. 3728-3744. — it seems evident that Strand’s area of expertise is precognition.

    • Gary Strand
      Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:26 PM | Permalink

      Re: Harry Eagar (#138),

      Since this paper is listed as having been published in 2000 — Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, J.M. Arblaster, T.W. Bettge, W.G. Strand Jr., 2000: Anthropogenic Forcing and Decadal Climate Variability in Sensitivity Experiments of 20th and 21st Century Climate J. Climate, Vol. 13, No. 21, pp. 3728-3744. — it seems evident that Strand’s area of expertise is precognition.

      How so?

      • Mike Lorrey
        Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

        Re: Gary Strand (#145), the title implies you were doing climate experiments on 21st century climate, in the year 2000 (the year 2000 being the last year of the 20th century).

  73. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

    Blog policies have evolved. In the early days, as an over-reaction to Real Climate censorship of me and others, I did not censor posts. I’ve had to modify this policy over time. The largest percentage of my snips and deletes are to thin out “piling on” posts by supporters. I seldom touch posts by critics.

    The foulest posts – much fouler than TCO at his worst – were by a computer software engineer associated with climate modeling, who posted here under his own name. I left them up partly to avoid accusations of censorship and partly because he discredited himself. However, I wouldn’t do the same thing these days.

  74. pete m
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM | Permalink

    Gary – how much decadel sensitivity data did you have for the 21st century for your 2000 paper? This is the point post 138 is making above. Perhaps the title doesn’t fairly represent the paper?

  75. mondo
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 9:26 PM | Permalink

    Re Larry Sheldon, Post 75:

    It is truly sad to day in and day out be confronted with the evidence of prefrontal lobotomies every where I turn

    I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

  76. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 9:26 PM | Permalink

    A problem of the logic of censorship can be illustrated by a short sentence in an email from a 13-year old granddaughter. Is her quote

    (a) abbreviated obscenity
    (b) childish innocence
    (c) clever self-referencing linguistics

    Shout it be censored?

    The line is

    “wtf is an acronym”

  77. Hu McCulloch
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 9:35 PM | Permalink

    RE Deep Climate #143,
    I tried clicking VIEW/SOURCE to see the HTML for this page, and then searched for what I imagined the Carlin 7 to be. The worst I turned up was p*rn in #47.
    Perhaps others are more creative than myself.

    • Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:04 PM | Permalink

      Re: Hu McCulloch (#155),

      You would need to look at all referenced scripts (including cascading calls), not just the html code itself. I checked one script and didn’t find anything, but don’t have time or interest to do an exhaustive search. It would be easier for the admin to do a global search of the directories for possible banned words or phrases in the various config files/scripts. Even better … see if SoftForYou.com will help diagnose. One could also download the software and point it at several individual posts (not the home page) and see what happens.

      It might be language in comments, but I think that’s less likely. I’ve noticed occasional offensive language at other blogs and they seemed OK. (Personally, I even edit “cr*p” but that’s just me).

      I seem to recall that Lucia (at Blackboard) had a problem with infected scripts – that might be worth checking out.

  78. Edward Mitchell
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:22 PM | Permalink

    Filtering software sometimes seems to work in mysterious ways but only because their algorithm for determining banned sites is not published or described (hmmmm … why does that sound familiar?)

    It seems likely that for unknown reasons SoftForYou has placed CA in the filter list (see test done by a reader, above, using the demo version of the filter). The filter lists typically have override capabilities at the local level – to make changes from the current default settings. Many – may be most organizations just use the default settings.

    Our local school district has similar problems (and necessarily has to block a ton of stuff unfortunately – I’m on a citizen volunteer on their tech committee and have learned about some of the “inside stories”). All “free” hosting sites are blocked because of the difficulty in controlling the content; a lot of blogs are also blocked. All video sites are blocked because students were consuming much of the district’s bandwidth (and they’ve got a lot of bandwidth!)

    Filters tend to have a lot of problems – but I understand now why they are needed, especially in the school setting. If there is a problem, its best to notify the local system administrator and also the software vendor.

    I doubt there is anything nefarious going on – I had interpreted Steve’s original post as a bit of humor of about being banned. (And yes, my old hobby blog was banned by the local school district too for a long time : ))

  79. steven mosher
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:37 PM | Permalink

    Re 129.. & 111.

    here is my conspiracy theory. Deep climate has just fooled everybody by posting an altered screen grab.
    Ha deep climate, you can’t slip crap past me.

  80. steven mosher
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:42 PM | Permalink

    RE 133. Somebody take his shovel away, for the love of god.

  81. steven mosher
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 10:46 PM | Permalink

    RE 146. +1

  82. Page48
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 11:29 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for the amusing anecdote, Steve.

    Thanks for the ever amusing and unending display of self importance, Mr. Strand. – snip

  83. Minnesota Fats
    Posted Jun 8, 2009 at 11:38 PM | Permalink

    snip

  84. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 3:56 AM | Permalink

    #164 and #165 don’t have any purpose other than as personal attacks. Pity.

    Steve: I’m not online 24/7. I’ve snipped both comments.

  85. Jim
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 4:01 AM | Permalink

    Minnesotea Fats Re: #165

    This is a blog on the Ward Churchill misconduct
    hearings. About the worst thing the Strand wrote
    was that the UC should never have hired Churchill
    in the first place. This seems eminently rational
    and I would not class it as an ad-hominem attack!

    A number of participants on that blog had no
    reluctance in spewing vitriol. Strand was not
    one of them.

  86. JamesG
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 4:15 AM | Permalink

    Once again I’m nonplussed at the snipping policies. Why snip off a good, clean joke and leave up all the I said/ you said/ he said bilge? Might as well have snipped the whole comment now that it’s disjointed. Might as well snip the whole darn thread for that matter.

    Steve: I don’t guarantee 100% consistency in thread mangement. I have other things to do. I prefer that readers ask me to delete something that breaches blog policies than to engage in food fights.

  87. Stacey
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 6:13 AM | Permalink

    Our Gav is famous, he is on two web sites at the same time. On one I don’t have a problem making domestic arrangements and also trying to keep in control his ego. On the other site well I just can’t make myself heard unless I tell him he’s a lovely boy and very clever.

    I am not very good at statistics so I wondered whether the clever people on this site could help :-

    Site One: RC Number of posts: 144 Total: Those Uncritical 142 Those Critical 2

    Site Two: Guardian Environment Number of posts:85 Total : Those Uncritical 40 Those Critical 45

    Can someone use some statistical analysis to advise on the balance of probability which site may be censoring.

  88. Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

    So, you’ve stumbled on our little plan! Sorry, Mr. McIntyre, but now that you have unearthed our internet-site-blocking conspiracy, we have no choice but to send the Men In Black after you. I hope you enjoy yourself in our little UN detention camp. Ha! Ha! Ha!

    -The AGW Masters

    Steve: The word “conspiracy” is not one that I use and one whose use I strongly discourage.

  89. Craig Loehle
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 6:55 AM | Permalink

    I check in to CA from every hotel computer when I travel. Never a problem. Also some libraries, but not recently.

  90. David L. Hagen
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 7:17 AM | Permalink

    Following is the response from SoftForYou support (emphasis added).

    Our Blocked List does not include ClimateAudit.com.
    Our program (iProtectYou or CyberSieve) did not block ClimateAudit.com.
    Someone jokingly put bad words in an article on the ClimateAudit.com
    and this page has been blocked.
    Our program worked correctly.
    Now there are no such words in the article and the program is not blocking the site.

    In any case if CyberSieve blocks a certain Web site for some reason
    but you consider the site viewable, you can add this web site to the
    “Trusted Web Sites” list to prevent it from being blocked by CyberSieve.

    Open the CyberSieve Control Panel, click on Settings and select “Web
    Sites” item. Then push the “Trusted Web Sites List” link, select the
    user’s group, mark the “Enable Trusted Web Sites List” checkbox, and
    push the “Add” button. Enter the trusted web site name
    (*.climateaudit.org), choose the user’s group, and push the “OK” button.
    Use “Add”, “Edit” and “Delete” buttons located on the bottom of the
    window to edit the list. . . .
    Sincerely yours,
    Alex
    SoftForYou support

    • Feedback
      Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 7:34 AM | Permalink

      Re: David L. Hagen (#175),

      “ClimateAudit.com” is a non-used site(?), this is ClimateAudit.org.

      Hopefully they didn’t use the typo when they checked?

      • David L. Hagen
        Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 5:53 PM | Permalink

        Re: Feedback (#178), Thanks for the correction to climateaudit.org. I will recheck.

  91. David L. Hagen
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 7:26 AM | Permalink

    Here is one standard for compliance if you want to be seen by ~20% of the world.

    China defends screening software
    By Michael Bristow, BBC News, Beijing 11:22 GMT, Tuesday, 9 June 2009

    . . . All computers sold in China – even those that are imported – will have to be pre-installed with the “Green Dam Youth Escort” software.

    ‘Poisoned minds’

    The news came in a directive from China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and the new regulations will come into force on 1 July.

    The directive says the newest version of the software has to be pre-installed on Chinese-made computers before they leave the factory.

    Imported computers must contain the software before they are sold. . . .

    The aim is to build a healthy and harmonious online environment that does not poison young people’s minds, according to the directive. . . .

  92. jlc
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 7:32 AM | Permalink

    Gary apparently came here with preconceptions and a chip on his shoulder.

    There is no need for anyone to respond in kind. He is clearly not a troll, he apologized for a heat of the moment error. He should be treated with courtesy and with respect for his properly formulated opinions – just as we would like to be treated at RC.

    BTW (if anyony cares), my real name is John Linard. I am a civil engineer, born in Australia , living in Canada) I have been involved in organized crime (designing and building dams and hydropower plants) for 45 years. Working in this field, I have collaborated with some of the most reknowned earth scientist (of all disciplines) ans have picked up a fair bit of all of them myself.

    After all these years and all this experience (in 30 countries and every continent except Antarctica), all I can say re my own field of knowledge is that I still don’t know what I don’t know, but that what I don’t know is probably astronomically greater than what I do know.

    Jack

  93. Sparkey
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 8:12 AM | Permalink

    As a lurking observer of this thread since it began, I’d like to sum thins up a bit a hopefully calm things down.

    To those of us who have been longtime followers of CA and are used to Steve M.’s writing see the implied eye rolling humor in his post. Add to it the obviously (to the long time casual observer) tongue-in-cheek replies (i.e. #1, #2, & #4). However, the uninitiated could interpret Steve’s post as “I’m blocked and RC’s not! Conspiracy…” And that’s where Gary Strand enters the picture at #6.

    IMNSHO, Mr. Strand is a victim of unwittingly inserting himself into what we would call an inside joke. But give him credit, he’s hung in there and apologized when necessary (#101). And honestly he has behaved himself reasonably well (he’s not a Troll) in what his friends and colleagues would consider enemy territory. After all, he personally knows and works with “The Team.” This association pays his bills, keeps a roof over his family’s head, and has a vested interest in their success. Note, this is NOT a bad thing, but a very human one. However, his association brings with it certain biases as noted in #94

    The overall tenor of CA has turned out to be about what I was expecting.

    In light of this obvious preconception Gary was all too willing to see CA humor as paranoia and went into attack mode with his very first post, the aforementioned #6:

    What other sites did you check? Or are you as willing to jump to a conclusion about the “block” of CA as you are one day’s weather and the earth’s climate? Apparently so.

    It takes a lot of guts to jump out in the open firing blindly in Indian country, but as as a good friend would say about his Navy Cross, “not a lotta brains…” But give the Gary credit, he’s stuck around which is more than we can say about many of his colleagues.

    This is not to say we CA reader haven’t brought our own preconceived notions to the fray. Yes, there are very legitimate gripes with “The Team” that have a long documented history which adds an emotional frustration to the mix. Which has led to guilt by association by some commenters, however, as of 10:56 pm last night, Gary is still here. He’s got guts.

    One of the biggest frustration is “the Team’s” unwillingness to expose their work to critical review. But here, with Gary, there is an opportunity to engage constructively on the topics that concern us all. We can chase him away and puff out our chests pridefully, or we can engage in real scientific discussions on the data and methods.

    I would like to propose a truce and start over with Gary. That he engage thoughtfully with those who have real questions and that we reply thoughtfully as well. Terry is correct:

    the current line of posts don’t further our collective knowledge, lets engage in a productive conversation…

    I second that wise observation. You’ve shown us your retorical guts, Gary, but we’re geeks too we really want to see your intellect.

    With best regards,
    Sparkey

    In God we trust, all others bring data
    Sparkey’s corollary, “simulations are not data…”

  94. Gene Nemetz
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    I check in here from libraries fairly often. I never was blocked. And checked in twice from work, boss present, wanted him to see the site, was not blocked from there either.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 8:55 AM | Permalink

      Re: Gene Nemetz (#181),

      I hadn’t been blocked before. I don’t know why I was blocked and didn’t speculate on it. It could be something in the software, but it;s also possible that some individual caused it to be blacklisted. I don’t know. I merely noted that I was blocked.

      Readers who are getting all excited about this – including Gary Strand – seem to overlook what I thought was amusing about the incident: that I checked realclimate to see if other climate blogs were blocked and in the 5 seconds that I had RC was up, a professor walked by and “caught” me reading RC. We chatted briefly. I have a nephew at Laurentian taking geology – he loves geology.

      • Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

        Re: Steve McIntyre (#182),

        it;s also possible that some individual caused it to be blacklisted.

        That’s highly unlikely based on available evidence. The message I got was unambiguous: “Data transmission was interrupted due to an inappropriate word or phrase.”

        Now of course this particular post was not the problem when Steve accessed CA in Sudbury, but think about it: if CA were in a database of blocked websites, there would be no need to scan the post at all – the software would just block the website right away.

        Today, I reenabled the iProtectYou filter and played with parameters.

        CA is no longer blocked, but the Sudbury post still is. Presumably this is because it is no longer the lead article at CA, and so now the home page is not blocked. So far I haven’t found any other blocked posts, but I only tried a couple and I don’t know which was the lead post when Steve logged in Sudbury.

        I have also been able to find the triggering phrase. iPY has an option to display content with *** in the offending phrase, instead of blocking it. (The software issued all kinds of dire warnings when I selected this option).

        Re: Tim (#13),

        June 7th, 2009 at 10:11 pm

        I’m thinking it is because RealClimate is for children (or those with child-like minds), while Climate Audit is *** ******.

        That’s right – the offending phrase (or at least first one found) was/is “for adults”! Interestingly, the word “porn” in comment 47 was not masked out (but that could be a bug in the software).

        The unassailable conclusion:
        CA is not in the SoftForYou “block” database. And, obviously, the further speculation that it is “possible some individual caused it to be blacklisted” is wholly unfounded.

        This is good news – no need to try and get CA off of some blacklist. And also it seems that there is no hidden malicious content that needs to be cleaned out.

        Steve, if you want to confirm which post was in the “lead” when you were in Sudbury airport, I’ll check it out (just to try and resolve the last remaining question).

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM | Permalink

          Re: Deep Climate (#195),

          The lead post on Friday was GISS and Zonal Data.

          I have also been able to find the triggering phrase. iPY has an option to display content with *** in the offending phrase, instead of blocking it. (The software issued all kinds of dire warnings when I selected this option).

          Can you send this to me by email as I try to immediately delete any Carlin 7 occurrences if they occur.

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM | Permalink

          Re: Deep Climate (#195),

          If CA is not blocked in the Softforyou data base, why was it blocked at Sudbury airport last Friday?

        • Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 10:40 PM | Permalink

          Re: Steve McIntyre (#201) (and others),

          Steve,
          From what I’ve seen so far, it’s only the first post that gets scanned in its entirety. That is, CA was blocked for me when the Sudbury post was at the top, but not later. Then only the Sudbury post itself was blocked, not the home page (where it was now second).

          The GISS post does not get blocked, so right now I have no explanation for what happened in Sudbury. It could be that:
          a) Something changed (e.g. a comment got changed or snipped) or
          b) There was something else on the home page (e.g. a recent comment on another thread)

          It’s also possible that the filter at Sudbury airport was set tighter than the default (which would increase the “false positives”). I haven’t tried that, but there are a lot of parameters to play with.

          Honestly I wouldn’t worry too much about the old stuff that may have gotten through or is hanging around in a cache. I just don’t see that that would be enough to get you on a blacklist. SoftForYou.com says you’re not on the blacklist and I also didn’t see any indication of that.

          It looks like one of those odd intermittent issues, and as long as you are getting rid of the Carlin 7, I’m sure this is a rare occurrence. I would also there’s not much to be done – who could know that “for adults” could trigger a parental software block! Obviously if you could automate the removal/neutralization of Carlin 7, that would help. Not sure how to do that, though …

          I’m not sure what you wanted me to email you. I can send you the iProtectYou trial (executable installer), but you can download it just as easily from SoftForYou.com. But prepared to hassle a little bit getting it to work with your firewall/virus software. Let me know … (I’ll be offlime tomorrow however).

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 10:55 PM | Permalink

          Re: Deep Climate (#220),

          I don’t think that there was anything contentious on the GISS thread as at Friday 11 pm. So we still don’t know why CA was blocked in Sudbury.

        • bluegrue
          Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 3:14 AM | Permalink

          Re: Steve McIntyre (#221),

          A few of your posts have moved off the main page by now. The CA front page seems to comprise 12 articles irrespective of their length, so these articles should have been on Friday’s front page, too:
          Santer et al 2008 – Worse Than We Thought
          “Worse than We Thought”
          Sea Ice Satellite Failure
          Ryan’s Tiles
          Maybe Deep Climate could check those, too.

          Could there have been a link to the following post up on Friday?
          Santer and the “Power of P**p”.
          I think “p**p” a strong candidate for triggering the filtering software, Deep climate could make sure. However, that post and its comments are old enough to not have been on Friday’s main page.

      • Gene Nemetz
        Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 3:40 PM | Permalink

        Re: Steve McIntyre (#182),

        …amusing about the incident: that I checked realclimate to see if other climate blogs were blocked and in the 5 seconds that I had RC was up, a professor walked by and “caught” me reading RC. We chatted briefly.

        That he didn’t know who he was talking to may have been the most amusing part.

  95. M. Villeger
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

    #175 seems to me the only new information in this 180 plus thread… can we move on or do we need another 200 to exhaust the subject?

  96. Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 9:25 AM | Permalink

    The aim is to build a healthy and harmonious online environment that does not poison young people’s minds, according to the directive. . . .

    That’s about the scariest statement I’ve heard in modern times.

  97. Highlander
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    I wrote to SFY yesterday, and received their reply this morning:
    ———-
    Dear XXXXXXXXX,

    Our Blocked List does not include ClimateAudit.com.
    Our program (iProtectYou or CyberSieve) did not block ClimateAudit.com.
    Someone jokingly put bad words in an article on the ClimateAudit.com
    and this page has been blocked. Our program worked correctly.
    Now there are no such words in the article and the program is not blocking the site.

    In any case if CyberSieve blocks a certain Web site for some reason
    but you consider the site viewable, you can add this web site to the
    “Trusted Web Sites” list to prevent it from being blocked by CyberSieve.
    Open the CyberSieve Control Panel, click on Settings and select “Web
    Sites” item. Then push the “Trusted Web Sites List” link, select the
    user’s group, mark the “Enable Trusted Web Sites List” checkbox, and
    push the “Add” button. Enter the trusted web site name
    (*.climateaudit.org), choose the user’s group, and push the “OK” button.
    Use “Add”, “Edit” and “Delete” buttons located on the bottom of the
    window to edit the list.

    Please do not respond to this e-mail. This mailbox is not monitored.
    Please contact us at supportQE@softforyou.com


    Sincerely yours,
    Alex
    SoftForYou support

  98. bluegrue
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM | Permalink

    Would it hurt to update the original post with the following info?

    1. Neither Lucia and Jeff Id were blocked
    2. Softforyou blocks CA in the standard configuration
    3. TCO used a lot of Carlin’s 7 throughout the blog (mended by now?)

    I think, this would benefit those readers who do not read the complete comments section. I _suspect_ the reason for the block is benign, i.e. the site is blocked for the use of Carlin’s 7, which is reason enough for a lot of filtering software to block a site. A quick google for the most infamous one shows that by now these seem to have been replaced by starred versions. Given #2 and #3 above, I consider a targeted blocking of CA to be unlikely. For example, I expect ornithological sites to have a hard time, when they cover such controversial subjects as paridae or sula nebouxii, too. There are also a lot of German and Austrian place names ending in “-ing” which will be blocked by English language filtering software.

    – back to lurking –

    Steve: to my knowledge there are no occurrences of the Carlin 7 on the blog. I immediately deleted this sort of stuff at the time.

  99. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 11:40 AM | Permalink

    Credibility and appeal to authority are not synonymous.

    • PhilH
      Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 12:02 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#188), “Credibility and appeal to authority are not synonymous”

      Depends. Depends on the context. “Peer review” is used at RC a lot as a stalking horse for credibility.

    • Mark T
      Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 12:57 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#188),

      Credibility and appeal to authority are not synonymous.

      Sure, whatever. Nice points, Sparkey and PhilH. ;) People like Gary need for debates to center on these things. They deflect from real issues since they seem otherwise incapable of dealing with real issues.

      Mark

    • Severian
      Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 5:34 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#188),

      Credibility and appeal to authority are not synonymous.

      Yes, but they are teleconnected.

      • rephelan
        Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

        Re: Severian (#210),

        Gary may be from the “enemy camp” but there is absolutely no call to go “RC” on him. His comment 188 was perfectly correct. Let me illustrate with a topic that has been in the forefront of the attention of many of us: The Steig paper.

        All of the experts and authorities prior to 2008 said that the Antarctic was not warming. If someone were to proclaim “the Antarctic is warming” without supplying data, we would refer him back to the experts and authorities that contradicted him. That is an appeal to credibility.

        Dr. Steig published a paper saying that the Antarctic was warming and provided a certain amount of evidence that this was true. To have dismissed his paper as hogwash because no one else agreed with him would have been an appeal to authority: you are wrong because no one else agrees with you. Even worse, a large number of media outlets picked up Dr. Steig’s paper and trumpeted as “true” because he was a climate scientist and this was the latest research. Another appeal to authority and totaling disregarding evidence of “credibility”.

        Steve M., the two Jeffs and Ryan O. took up the challenge of Dr. Steig’s paper and attempted to replicate it. As Jeff Id likes to point out, his blog might have an entirely different readership if the results of that analysis had been different. On the basis of their understanding of the mathematics and measurement methodologies involved, Dr. Steig’s conclusions were not supportable.

        To put it in a different way, the contradiction of Dr. Steig’s claims is credible in part because it supports other long established and documented claims. If Ryan O. and the Jeffs had concluded that Dr. Steig’s methods and conclusions were valid, it would have enhanced the credibility of Dr. Steig’s paper. As it stands, neither approach is a “knock-out punch”. To cite one or the other as proof-positive of a position is an appeal to authority that is unjustified. It is evidence. Period.

        Now, please keep in mind where Gary Strang is coming from. He is, by his own description, a software engineer and not a climate scientist. Oddly enough, that is a title/status that I can claim for myself, sometimes, on a good day, when the sun shines and the wind is out of the south…. what we do, for the cybernetically challenged, is develop a functional specification from some other expert in his field (when such and such happens, I want this valve to open…) and turn it into a set of computer instructions. Very often, we have to go back to our experts and say something like “uhh, in the actual data I’ve got four separate values, not two. How do you want me to handle values three and four?” He may reply, “treat it as CO2″. My job is not to argue that it should not be treated as CO2…. if you get my point. We design the systems or the models as our clients/users tell us they should be designed. Along the way most of us develop a fondness and defensiveness about our creations and can tell you a lot about them….

        If Gary Strang is willing to talk about his work and not cast aspersions, I for one, am all ears… (no, I am not a Vulcan!)

  100. Sparkey
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    Re: Gary Strand (#188)

    Credibility and appeal to authority are not synonymous.

    Sigh…

    Yes; however, an “appeal to authority” is a rethorical tool used to create or bollster the users credibility. Though not synonymous, they are closely tied together.

    Regards,
    Sparkey

    In God we trust, all others bring data.
    Sparkey’s corollary, “Simulations are not data…”

    Steve: Please lose the closing salutation as there’s no need to keep repeating it..

  101. Mark T
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

    I should add, btw, or at least, state that more appropriately, credibility arguments are ad hominem arguments. Though, annoyingly, the ad hominem label is misused by skeptics and alarmists alike (insults are not “ad homs” by themselves).

    Mark

  102. Brian
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

    this thread is very educational (and entertaining) … going in the list of robust examples of internet culture for sociology/history classes of the future

  103. bluegrue
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM | Permalink

    Steve,
    just for info: I had searched for “f**k” (in the fully spelled version) and got hits for posts #239, #370, #635, #669 and #3058 (link goes to google, link wrapped in tinyurl to avoid posting the Carlin word here). The pages on CA have been sanitized (so there should be no longer a problem), but the pages cached by google contained and still contain the original Carlin word.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

      Re: bluegrue (#197),

      Hmmm, I deleted the TCO comments at the time. Google must have cached the page before I did so.

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM | Permalink

        Re: Steve McIntyre (#200),

        I checked the Carlin words, most of which weren’t present. There were a number of s**t that I missed and I snipped most of them. It was late when I did this and I wasn’t being hugely attentive. My recollection was that there hadn’t been any f*** but I guess there must have been a few f*** left over from TCO that I had missed earlier and picked up after the matter had been raised.

  104. Mike Lorrey
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

    I got the same response from softforyou.com. Glad to see that was wrapped up. They checked both .com and .org.

  105. Thomas J. Arnold.
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

    Thailand blocks WUWT but filters can be circumnavigated. Many educational institutions and government sites (in UK) block WUWT, can’t speak for CA tho’.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

      Re: Thomas J. Arnold. (#199),

      I could definitely get CA in Thailand.

    • MartinGAtkins
      Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

      Re: Thomas J. Arnold. (#199), Thailand does not block WUWT or CA. I have lived in Patong for nearly three years and have had no problem using two different ISPs. YouTube may still be blocked by one ISP but it was established that it is not a government directive.

      Steve: I observed above that I had encountered no access problem in Thailand.

  106. Harry Eagar
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

    ‘Re: pete m (#150), and Re: Mike Lorrey (#151), the paper describes analysis of simulations made with a climate model.’

    Worse and worse. If it was in a model then it wasn’t in the 20th or the 21st century, was it?

  107. bluegrue
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

    The google cache pages were time stamped June 2 to June 5, 2009, i.e. before and on last Friday.

    @Deep Climate
    “GISS Gridded and Zonal Data” is still on the main page and does not seem to trigger the filter as you reported. Some of the other posts have been pushed off the main page by now, so maybe you find something on the second page of CA.

  108. steven mosher
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

    snip – not unpleasant. but neither is it going to stay up.

  109. steven mosher
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

    RE 188. Gary has a good point.

    Suggested reading on this matter is Locke. Or you can read the following

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/u462g57j10058u67/

    • Mark T
      Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 5:15 PM | Permalink

      Re: steven mosher (#206), Actually, he missed the point, which Sparkey elucidated much better than did I.

      Mark

  110. MrPete
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

    Sorry I have not been able to check in.

    I cleaned up a number of TCO’s f***’s yesterday in the history… there were dozens. S**t is almost hopeless (18 pages!) [Steve: go to the admin comments page, and use the search tool…]

    I don’t know if it helps, but at least the archive is now “cleaner” for observant web spiders.

    What a world we live in.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM | Permalink

      Re: MrPete (#212),

      Pete, thanks for clarifying that. I was confident that I didn’t see any f*** when I used the administrator search but the Google cache evidence trumped my memory. I’m relieved that my memory hasn’t evaporated totally. I cleaned up some more s*** and it;s now down a lot. I guess I should have been more ruthless in deleting but, at the time, the recipients invariably equated such enforcement of civility with realclimate censorship.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 7:39 PM | Permalink

      Re: MrPete (#212),

      PEte, I cleaned up the s*** comments. I mostly deleted rather than snipped as it was a lot faster. It was interesting that the worst offenders were generally critics of the site (though not always).

    • bluegrue
      Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 2:35 AM | Permalink

      Re: MrPete (#212),
      That explains the google cache, thanks. :)

  111. Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    If Softforyou was blocking climateaudit.* because of the spamming activities of climateaudit.com (which we were warned by Revkin of the NYT had spyware/malware attached to it a couple of years ago) then that might explain a lot. Obviously neither Steve nor I have any control over climateaudit.com, and have no claim because “Climate Audit” isn’t a registered trademark.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

      Re: John A (#215), plausible theory, but they said that they weren’t blocking .com.

  112. Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

    I cleaned up some more s*** and it;s now down a lot

    I just had to laugh at that sentence.

  113. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 10:34 PM | Permalink

    I’m happy to talk about my work.

    • rephelan
      Posted Jun 9, 2009 at 11:22 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#219),

      I thought you might. If you want to chat off-line, Steve M. has my permission to release my e-mail address to you. Keep in mind, though, that on this site, honesty and forthrightness is usually appreciated and defended. We are interested in understanding… well most of us are. Ryan O., the two Jeffs and Roman M. have been VERY non-ideological and empirical… and polite. Steve M. bends himself into knots to keep his blog focused on science and not personalities or ideologies. As this thread demonstrates, even where he he himself may have a grievance there are enough people who will research the issue and let him know if the problem is “innocent” or not. Please, be a regular here.

  114. sandy winder
    Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 12:46 AM | Permalink

    It is indeed true that Steve made no assumptions as to why his site was blocked at Sudbury. That’s what his fan club is for. I suspect that there are a lot of other sites blocked at Sudbury and in China that are inoffensive in any way and precious little to do with climate.

    I have great respect for people who challenge the status quo but very little for those who use cherry picked data to fit their agenda.

    I also notice that sea ice extent is dipping from its 30-year norm yet again.

  115. Terra
    Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM | Permalink

    I am a representative of the Greater Sudbury Airport and this blog was brought to my attention. I simply wanted to address the issue regarding the Climate Audit website being blocked from the Public PCs at our airport.

    The blocking of this site was not performed intentionally. One of the two public PC’s in the airport terminal contained a blocking software program that we were not aware of and as a result, certain sites were being blocked.

    We have a found a solution to the issue and will be performing changes shortly.

    I truly hope that your next pass through our airport is a pleasant one!

    Terra

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 8:51 AM | Permalink

      Re: Terra (#230),

      thanks for the reply. Can you provide particulars on how the block was created – in case the situation arises on another occasion elsewhere? And could you describe the solution and the changes. Thanks.

  116. Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 8:57 AM | Permalink

    Ahhh the power of the blogs to get things done. Glad your back up and running @ YSB.
    Glad to see that the team at the Sudbury Airport is on the ball and making changes.

    Cheers

    Scott

  117. Terra
    Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM | Permalink

    The internet on the PCs was being provided by an outside internet company that was somehow allowing passengers to download software programs onto the PC.

    Both PC’s are actually being replaced the internet will now be provided by the City of Greater Sudbury. Their network is completely secure and will not allow any software programs to be downloaded in the future.

    We are confident this is a good solution and will prevent any situation such as this from occurring in the future. Thank you.

    • Severian
      Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 9:56 AM | Permalink

      Re: Terra (#233),

      Well, one good thing that’s come out of this little kerfluffle is that Sudbury has identified and corrected a major security flaw in their airport public internet machines.

      Kudos to Terra for kindly updating us all on what is going on.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

      Re: Terra (#230),

      Terra, I’m glad to learn that the airport itself didn’t block the site, but could you clarify things further.

      I’m still puzzled as to the mechanics of the block even on the basis that the software installation was unauthorized.

      The software company Softforyou says that climateaudit.org was not on their blocked list and yet access was blogged – which would seem to contradict the statement of the software company. Can you shed any light on this?

  118. Jonathan Schafer
    Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    Steve Mc, Mr Pete, Anthony, etc.

    Rather than searching the site and editing posts manually, have you considered just running sql statements to replace the offending text?

    I think you use MySql, which I don’t know the exact syntax, nor the structure of the db, but assuming comments were in a table called comments, in a field called commenttext, sql server would support a statment like

    UPDATE Comments
    SET CommentTExt = REPLACE(CommentText, xxx, yyy)

    xxx is the text you are looking for
    yyy is the text you want to replace xxx with

    If you have full-text indexing on, you can add a WHERE CONTAINS type clause as well.

    If someone uses MySql, maybe you can translate to the appropriate syntax.

    That would seem much easier than manually editing comments. Also, you could filter for all words and put the sql into a scheduled job that would run once a day, replacing banned words with whatever you wanted.

  119. Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 9:29 AM | Permalink

    I think “p**p” a strong candidate for triggering the filtering software, Deep climate could make sure.

    I don’t think so. Any number of baby-oriented sites (parenting, etc.) would be filled with such words. And if it’s THAT sensitive, there’s no point in even trying really.

  120. David L. Hagen
    Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    Checking on the correct name of “ClimateAudit.org”, Alex at SoftForYou.com supportQE@softforyou.com replied:

    Re: Feedback (#178),
    ClimateAudit.org (and ClimateAudit.com) does not include in our Blocked List.
    Our program (iProtectYou or CyberSieve) does not block ClimateAudit.org.

  121. Terra
    Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

    Steve, I can not provide further details on the mechanics of the problem. We do not have an IT staff on site and my knowledge of this technology is quite limited. As mentioned, the internet on those PC’s was being provided by an outside agency.

    There was no security risk to our systems as these computers are not connected to our network, their sole purpose is to allow passengers to have internet access while waiting for flights.

    If you would like further information, please email me at terra.glabb@greatersudbury.ca and I can put you in contact with someone who can provide details.

  122. Mike Lorrey
    Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    I am still curious as to the person Steve talked to at Sudbury who noticed he was at Real Climate and commented how it was such a great site. Firebugs tend to watch the fires they start.

  123. Gene Nemetz
    Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    Maybe it’s those racey Beyoncé videos. ;)

  124. curious
    Posted Jun 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM | Permalink

    Steady Gene – just saying the name will get you snipped! :)

  125. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jun 11, 2009 at 5:58 AM | Permalink

    Steve, I still think you were blocked in Australia, see post 99 of http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4962 January 30th, 2009 at 11:37 pm.

    BTW, we found the bug that was getting to my passwords on my PC this week and it was quite clever. It gathered through the brown dog that Windows XP uses as part of their childish visual help. Doggone now.

One Trackback

  1. By Twitted by joeclor9 on Jun 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM

    […] This post was Twitted by joeclor9 – Real-url.org […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,379 other followers

%d bloggers like this: