Hypocrisy at Climate Clash

Although I will not normally make a policy of commenting on other blogs, in this case I will make an exception.

Until recently, I have been an active participant in the Climate Clash blog maintained Dr Ed Berry.  I had withdrawn from that site, in part because of the inconsistent moderation by Dr Berry which, in practise, gave open slather to opponents of AGW to insult both pro-AGW participants on the board, and noted defenders of AGW, both academic and in the blogosphere.


However, Dr Berry has now ramped up his perpetual attacks, in his role of adminstrator, upon Dr Eric Grimsrud.  Given the leniency (in fact, complete failure to comment upon) which he gave to direct and abusive insults of AGW proponents, both those involved in the discussion, and those who are not; this hypercritical approach do moderating Dr Grimsrud amounts to an absurd hypocrisy.

I posted a comment to that effect on Climate Clash, only to have it deleted.  In the interests of anyone interested in the Climate Clash debate, my post is reproduced below.  Let no one assume that Dr Grimsrud is being given a fair go on Climate Clash, for it is plainly not the case.

My deleted post was:

Hello again.
Apparently my indication that my previous post would be my last was innaccurate, but this one certainly will.  I feel it was necessary to make this post because of the self serving and hypocritical comments made by Dr Ed @257.  In it he accuses Dr Eric of behaviour that is "departing from normal professional conduct".
Dr Eric is a member of a group of people repeatedly refered to as "climatards" ,ie, "climate retards" by Al tekhasski.  That same group has also been repeatedly accused of data manipulation and fraud by other participants in this forum.  As a member of that group, Dr Eric has also been so accussed by simple logical inference.  I believe Al tekhasski has meant to insult every accepter of AGW by his epithet, so that all his opponents on this board can reasonably consider themselves to be directly insulted by him in straight forwardly abusuive language.  Of course, most of his opponents have had no need to consider themselves indirectly abused by Al tekhasski, for most have them have been directly abused by him, including myself and Dr Eric.
However, from Dr Ed's example <b>as administrator</b> we are to believe that Al tekhasski abusive commentary does not "depart form normal professional conduct", for it has drawn not a single rebuke from Dr Ed as administrator (or as participant); while Dr Eric's comments have repeatedly drawn rebukes.
Based on Dr Ed acts as administrator, we can determine that calling an AGW proponent a "climatard" is not in his opinion a personal attack, but if an AGW proponent should write:
<blockquote> " <strike>When doing basic research, how does one know what the practical uses that knowledge might be later be put to? Did the invention of the airplane precede or follow the work of Bernoulli in the 1730’s?</strike>"</blockquote>
<b>that</b> is considered a sufficiently henious personal attack that it must be deleted.
The evidence that Dr Ed has adminsitered this site in a biased manner intended to favour the case against AGW is overwhelming.  He has placed evidence thought to be contrary to AGW in posts so that they can always be easilly found, while more accurate evidence that rebuts it is allowed to languish in obscurity in the comments.  He has used his position as administrator to move comments by anti-AGW participants into prominence as posts, a privilege never granted to pro -AGW participants.  He has posted parts of his case while preserving them from "cross examination" for weeks, and potentialy months, while Dr Eric's posts were always subject to immediate  attack.  And he has turned a blind eye to repeated, and continual personal abuse by anti-AGW participants of pro-AGW participants while policing Dr Eric for "offences" which look very much like good nature banter in the face of continued personal abuse.  In other words, in every way possible, he has given his side of the argument administrative advantages denied to his opponent.  Saying that he has adminstered as though conducting a soviet style show trial is a fair comparison.
As previously indicated, I am no longer willing to discuss AGW with its opponents on this site.  That is in part because the biased administration by Dr Ed has made it unpleasant to do so by not preventing personal abuse from his side.  It is also because even the best of the anti-AGW participants (Dr Weinstein) is apparently so uncommitted to rational discourse that he throws up objections which are improbable, and contradict peer reviewed papers of which he is aware without even bothering to fact check his claims by so simple a procedure as googling.  (That fact contradicts Dr Weinsteins no doubt sincere self image as a truth seeker.) 
I am, however, still continuing to comment on the issues raised here.  Primarilly I am doing so on my new blog.  My initial posts on the blog critique Dr Ed's first witness for the defence (something currently forbidden on this site).  I am currently following up by critiquing George White's argument against AGW (Cyril and Leonard may be interested).  I welcome anyone who can restrict themselves to rational enquiry to comment at the blog.http://bybrisbanewaters.blogspot.com/
Good bye

Dr Berry also deleted a post by Dr Grimsrud commenting on the deletion of my post.  Apparently Dr Berry is determined that no record of his abuse of process should be kept on his site.

Follow up: Immediately following the publication of this post, I contacted Dr Berry to advice him of its existence, and to offer him the chance to defend himself against my accusations.  I further offered him complete freedom from any censorship within terms of service.  He declined that offer, saying that my post was "crap" and that no doubt my site was "crap" also.  Since then he has advised readers on his site of the existence of my post.  At his first posting, that advice contained a (fairly mild) personal attack against me, which I note he has now removed.

In his responce to my offer, Dr Berry also claimed that Dr Grimsrud was the first person to start personal attacks on Climate Clash.  I consider that claim to be dubious, and in point of fact, false of the particular thread in which the issue arose.  (I have not perused the volumnous comments on that site to determine who was the first offender in each and every thread.)


Additional follow up: As noted by Dr Grimsrud in the post below, he has now been booted of Climate Clash, which should probably be renamed Climate Denial Colloquium as it has no active posters who support the position of mainstream science.  Hypocritical to the last, Dr Berry  has kicked Dr Grimsrud from the site for a variety of reasons, some real, some imagined, and all (IMO) irrelevant to the purpose of the site; while allowing deniers to suggest that Dr Grimsrud has genocidal aspirations, and wishes to kill of 6 billion of the planets population, starting with the deniers.  That, in Dr Berry's opinion, is not a personal attack, presumably because it is directed at an acceptor of main stream science on AGW.