Whiny Willis’ Wearisome Whatsup Whataboutery

Over at Whatsup, Willis has been telling porkies again:

“With Roger Tallbloke, I’m banned from commenting on his site, Tallbloke’s Talkshop.”

This is a lie. Willis last came here to gnaw the same old bone in 2019 on the thread ‘Crying Cowboy’s Censorship Complaint Codswallop’. I told him I hoped he wouldn’t make frequent use of the privilege.

Prior to that, he banned himself, see his comment in the headline screenshot.

“It started with him banning Joel Shore from his site for saying that N&Z’s gravity analysis violated the conservation of energy. From a post during that time, Roger’s exact words to Joel were:

… you’re not posting here unless and until you apologise to Nikolov and Zeller for spreading misinformation about conservation of energy in their theory all over the blogosphere and failing to correct it.

“Then, in a separate incident, I put up an actual proof that N&Z’s claim violated conservation of energy. I’m sure that didn’t endear me to N&Z. In the comments to that post, Rog got angry at me and banned me. I guess I’m double-banned.

This is another lie. You can see my comment in its entirety below.

“So me commenting on an N&Z post hosted at Tallbloke’s Talkshop … well … let me just say there are forces at play and leave it at that.”

Here’s my 2012 response to the attack on Nikolov and Zeller and me that Willis made on the thread “A matter of some gravity” he refers to above. WIllis censored this comment. Whatsup also banned Ned and Karl. Some time later, he realised that if he censored my comment, he couldn’t then whine about me ‘censoring’ Joel Shore, a motormouth who never backed his thread-enveloping verbal diarrhea with evidence, and who left the climate debate over a decade ago after getting his sorry arse handed to him. So after the debate had moved on, he reinstated it. Here it is for the record, in case Willis decides to censor it again:

tallbloke
January 14, 2012 1:57 am

Apologies for the long comment, there’s quite a lot to deal with here.
Nikolov and Zeller’s extended conference poster ‘The Unified Theory of Climate’ was originally posted at the Talkshop a day before it was posted here at WUWT. On my website Willis says of it:
” I find the work of Nikolov and Jelbring to be laughable. I cannot even understand Nikolov. I invited him to state the core of his theory in a few sentences, since his writing is unintelligible….. He talks about atmospheric sponges and bowls, I can’t make sense of it…..As a result, I can’t tell if Nikolov’s theory violates the laws of thermodynamics.”
I ran a word search on the text but could not find any references to “atmospheric sponges and bowls”. Willis often complains that people argue against what they think he said rather than directly quoting him. I think he should follow his own advice and extend the same courtesy to others.
I also republished Hans Jelbring’s 2003 E&E paper ‘The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric Mass’ on which Hans Jelbring was kind enough to engage with Talkshop contributors.
Willis didn’t place any comment on that thread but said elsewhere on my website:
“Here’s the short proof, by contradiction. Jelbring proposes that a perfectly transparent, GHG-free atmosphere will raise the temperature of a planet’s surface well above the S-B temperature obtained from the average impinging solar radiation. (This is the situation of the Earth, for example.)
But if that is so, and the surface is somehow warmed above the S-B temperature, and the atmosphere is transparent, then the surface must radiate more energy to space than it is receiving, which is clearly impossible. Q. E. D…..I said the same thing to his face—his theory breaks the laws of thermodynamics.”
Once again Wiillis is doing what he tells other people not to do; arguing about what he thinks Dr Jelbring said instead of quoting him: Here is a brief excerpt from the beginning of section 2.1 where Hans Jelbring sets up the definitions for the model Earth in his 2003 paper. It is sufficient to dismiss Willis’ ‘proof’:
“A simplified model of Earth will be considered. The model planet does not rotate. It
neither receives solar radiation nor emits infrared radiation into space.”
Hans Jelbring tells me he has never met Willis face to face. To help resolve this apparent contradiction Willis could tell us when and where he
“said the same thing to his face—his theory breaks the laws of thermodynamics.”
Perhaps Willis is speaking figuratively, and is referring to an interaction with Hans Jelbring on the old CS email list? Before banning himself from the Talkshop because I ‘banned Joel Shore’ Willis should have engaged directly with Hans Jelbring on the same page where the entire E&E paper is published. That would have been the more scientific (and courteous) thing to do in my opinion.
Willis complains that I am preventing Joel Shore from expressing his scientific beliefs. This is incorrect. I won’t let Joel engage in the various very active and nicely undisrupted threads we have running at the moment but instead offered him a guest post where he could set out his scientific position formally on a thread of his own. It’s a strange kind of censorship which offers the ‘victim’ the microphone and points the way to the stage. According to Willis:
“Joel may have a hundred reasons not to want to invest the time and effort in a guest post.”
Joel himself says:
“I’m not particularly interested in doing a guest post. I have my hands full just trying to respond to all the misguided people over at WUWT and, with classes starting again tomorrow, I won’t be able to allow this time sink to continue for too much longer.”
Considering the much bigger loudhailer Joel has here at the biggest climate site in the world, it’s understandable why he would think it more important to spend his time here rather than on a website which gets around 1/20 of the traffic WUWT does.
The benefit to the Talkshop is that it enables its contributors to continue calmly discussing the merits and demerits of the properly set out scientific positions in the papers kindly provided by
Nikolov and Zeller
Hans Jelbring
Gerlich and Tscheuschner
R.P Sheehan
Johann Josef Loschmidt
Coombs and Laue
Roman et al.
Velasco et al.
William Gilbert
and
Dean Brooks
Cheers
TB.