Saturday, February 02, 2013

Putting the "die" into "dialogue"

Prompted by my previous post, I wondered what was happening with the shiny new "platform [is] to explore the full range of views" at climatedialogue.org, so I went and had a look. The second post, on climate sensitivity, was originally scheduled for 1 Dec. But now it's past Feb 1, and the site has been moribund now for a couple of months.

If I was a Dutch taxpayer, I might be asking for my money back.

Eli called it right at the outset, of course.

Still, you can all carry on the discussion here, if you like. But be nice [no, that's wrong - I don't care so much about "nice", I care more about content], I try to be more discriminating than some blog hosts.

7 comments:

William Connolley said...

Is the total absence of comments on this post some kind of meta-comment? Oh, wait...

James Annan said...

Spam deleted :-)

Carrick said...

James did say "die".

James Annan said...

Do you think the curry was poisoned? There is precedent for that, actually...

James Annan said...

For the avoidance of ambiguity, for "poisoned", read "poisonous".

Hank Roberts said...

last post!

Steve Bloom said...

The outcome of the first post was no surprise given that the known septic (and non-scientist) Crok was moderating and that JC was mistaken for some sort of scientific sea ice expert. It's almost as if there was an intent to fail. I'm not going to say it would be impossible to entice credible scientists to participate after that first round, but it sure as hell got far more difficult.

Hank wins.