This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
this was an attempt to post regarding a DT article which reported that a scientist can calculate how long a secret remains secret based on who is in the know.
I have now tried about 9-10 times with different versions but cannot see what the problem is.
I would have thought questionable posts would be referred to an administrator e.g. the website owner for example? to make a judgement. But alas not. Click continue and you are dumped and your post lost.
Interestingly, over on the DT blogs I have discovered that Discus has removed two of my posts. This is extremely rare for me. Both were comments on the Swansea tidal lagoon story. One was where I commented on the fact that Milliband had a Friends of the Earth activist with a degree in English lit write (lead author) the climate change act and was rewarded by being made a Baroness. Nothing more.
The other was to suggest a cross link to the story about how with the collapse of oil prices due to Opec that the green energy subsidy was going to need to become significantly higher.
It occurs to me to wonder if the activists have switched their attention to the censorship mechanisms in various blogs.
My attempted article here was about the report that a scientist had created a formula to measure the length of time before a conspiracy begins to unravel with the number of employees. I questioned not just the science but the real purpose which seemed to be to suggest that AGW was true because this fitted in with moon landing being true rather than aliens in area 51 or wherever.
I had a look around for information on why posts could be rejected by Disqus, and found this webpage which answers the question "Why are my comments marked as spam or removed?":
Posts can apparently be identified as spam if they use "Bad or strange syntax", which is certainly a characteristic of spammers, but unfortunately quite a proportion of the general public do that as well. So I would be careful not to deviate too much from a recognised formal English communication style.
I couldn't find equivalent information to the above webpage for Bravenet in the public domain, but Bravenet must know how their spam filter works, and might be prepared to disclose such information to a Bravenet customer like JEB.
but while syntax etc. might be a reason there was nothing exceptional in my post compared to other posts, no links, no signatures.
Besides, since I was commenting on an article about conspiracies it seemed potentially ironic if there was an AGW conspiracy to prevent "deniers" getting their views aired and what better way than by perverting the spam programs?
Would this be any different from the censorship in once respected scientific journals or the way in which once respected organisations with genuine environmental objectives have been taken over, as per the Militant tendency attempted take over of the labour party and all as per the methodology set out by Maurice Strong? (""If we don’t change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." )
An interesting overview here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_tavistock04b.htm
I would guess this is the Daily Telegraph article that you're talking about:
The author of the paper, David Grimes, appears to be a 'scientivist' from the articles he writes for the Guardian:
There is a pretty good debunking of the paper in an article on the "Little Atoms" website:
Good links David, thanks.
And some of the flaws in the logic were so obvious even I spotted them! (e.g. that not everyone employed is necessarily in the know).
Fundamentally, the idea that the more people involved the more difficult to conceal a conspiracy is a reasonable assumption but equally reasonable is that there are so many variables that a mathematical model of the sort claimed would be extremely unlikely/impossible.
What is of interest is that being generous the debunking article suggests Dr Grimes might have made a simple mistake (the silence from Dr Grimes is deafening) but it also raises the possibility that this was deliberate for some reason and the reason I came up with was that it was intended to bolster the AGW cause.
As I say, the silence of Dr Grimes is deafening.
The Oxford web site still has his article posted without apology - or shame.