Russ Steele
Over at Rebane's Ruminations Anna Haynes is demanding asking for an apology for some of my comments. Rather then create a mess on George blog I have moved my answer here. (Anna was correct, she asked. My apology for assuming other wise.)
Anna writes:
Russ, for saying "distortion seem to be Anna's mode", basing this on untruths - a false claim that you'd only deleted a single comment, and your subsequent false assertion that the additional deleted comments had been of a particular type that you find philosophically unacceptable.
Also for falsely asserting "she never address the data I presented", in my month of commenting on your blog.
Anna, I have searched the log on my post back over a year. All comments are flagged as posted. As I said before, there were two post that had not posted and I posted them after my last communication on this issue with you. Any deleted post are gone, but as I said before, to my knowledge I only deleted one of your comments and held those two on hypotheticals. In both cases I communicated to you that I would not address your hypotheticals and I told you that one of the posts had been deleted. If you cannot accept that answer, so be it.
As the moderator of my blog I can manage it any way I see fit. If you find commenting on my this blog objectionable, then please do not post here. Put your comments on your own blog. It is your choice how you want to handle information on your blog. If you choose to think that all facts you disagree with are produced by the energy companies, then do it on your blog, where you can say anything you want without moderation.
I will post information here that I find interesting and readers are welcome to challenge my views, but I will not accept personal attacks on the scientist, or other professional who have published their views, and I have posted here. Tell me why their science is wrong, not that it was fund by some foundations twice removed from an oil or coal company. As for the preponderance of evidence argument. Some times the majority is wrong. Some of those arguments that come to mind are plate tectonics, cause of stomach ulcers, sun revolves around the earth, human flight is impossible, aircraft cannot go faster than sound. And some day soon, we will all know that the sun has far more influence over our climate then human generated CO2.
I have turned the moderation feature off, so if you post here stick to the science, not who funded it. Was the science supportable, or not, If not why not.
Anna also offered this:
In return, I'd like to apologize for the hostile tone of my earlier comments in this thread - when I perceive sophistry I do get hot under the collar, but I should have taken more care in how I expressed it.
Anna, no apology necessary for me. You say what you think and the reader is welcome interpret your language and tone as they see fit. The person you owe an apology to is George for capturing his blog for this little verbal dust up.
