Pcar. So you also self censor. I wonder just how many others do. This allows the bullies to thrive. I notice they have been suspiciously quiet recently, perhaps waiting for any fuss to die away before resuming their normal habits.

Hector P. Precious I might be, but I have no wish to be part of a community, nor to contribute to it, that tolerates such unconscionable behaviour by a small minority.

Pcar. EM does indeed deliberately provoke, and almost all of you fall for it. He was very blatant about it when he posted a raft of messages, on several threads a few days ago. I think he is much cleverer than you give him credit for and he can twist some of you around his little finger. Other than deliberately using"denier" (which is your hangup) I have never seen him use deliberately offensive language to warrent him being termed a "troll" nor to be subjected to the particularly virulent attact by Hunter, let alone it being repeated by Stewgreen. No one here has yet spoken up about this blatant abuse

Phillip Bratby, yes I don't know how people develop that level of cheek. Or why anyone would support it. There's something about charitable works that breeds it.

Harry Passfield. Of course not you

Hector Pascal
For me it is guilt by comment and contribution and not association, as far as I'm concerned degrees from UEA aren't really important it's what you've done with them in the subsequent decades that's important. After all Phil Jones' qualified at Lancaster and did his post-graduate qualifications at the University of Newcastle and no-one holds graduates from either in contempt because of that. So not guilt assigned without evidence by comment and content.

Alan Kendall has taken a lot of stick, unfairly a lot of the time, because he likes a most of the output from the BBC. I don't watch reality, soaps or many American made programmes of any genre, but if you like any of that sort of stuff fine lots of people do. Documentaries on all channels have been dumbed down in my opinion, again if you think that brings science to a larger audience and is therefore a good thing then it's a valid position; I happen to think that it fails both viewers of a technical and non-technical background.

Personally I think EM is a totally different type of commenter than all regulars here. I can remember EM commenting on the BBC website in the days of Richard Black, his style hasn't changed (either that or he has stolen someone else's identity).

"If anyone queries the party line at pro-AGW blogs, including the Guardian, their comments will be censored/deleted, and therefore the illusion of Consensus is maintained."

Very true, GC. Recently the Big G has employed a new tactic after discovering that the consensus is not always in the direction that they desire. There's a couple of topics with which Comment is Free has become Comment is Forbidden.

Alan Kendall:

If I tell you that EM correctly interprets my feelings, who the h*ll are you to question this?

You have misunderstood me.Your feelings may have been correctly interpreted, but EM put that interpretation in quotes. It has been my experience with warmists like EM that they are sticklers for accuracy of citations etc when they come from sceptics so I was merely pointing out that he was being a bit cavalier with your words. Had he said that he felt this is what you meant, then no argument.

You then go on to say:

I am also entitled to ask what the moderators are doing to allow regular contributors to behave in trolllike behaviour.

I shall ignore the inference that this comment might have been aimed at me. But when it comes to Trolls - at least when they appear in the main blog - the Bish is very quick to jump on them, and if you'd experienced some of them you would, I submit, find it hard to think of many of the regulars here as trolls.

BTW: If any commenter, as EM has done, uses the 'D' word to describe we sceptics that immediately qualifies them for a trollery badge, IMHO.