Welcome to RC Rejects

Real Climate is notorious for censoring lodged posts, even when they are from serious scientists, asking serious questions.  No doubt they get a lot of provocative and even mischievous posts that one can understand that they delete. 

It has been suggested that it would be an interesting exercise to set up a blog that allows those who have had posts rejected at RC to put them up in one place.  This blog has been established to do just that.   We will observe a tight moderation policy in order to ensure that the tone of this blog is civil.  However, we will not censor serious posts.

Can we suggest that when you post at RC, you keep a copy (I just copy the text of the message to Word before I post), and if it is rejected, then, if you choose, you can post it up here.  It would probably be a good idea to include a note detailing the thread to which you tried to post, the date, and the time. 

Clearly this could develop into a somewhat chaotic endeavour, and I have no idea at this stage how it will unfold, nor how we might organise the content that turns up here.  I guess that we will just have to suck it and see.   And we might just have to wind it up, sooner or later. So no promises.

I don’t really have any real interest in running a blog, and I have done this a) to get some experience of blogging (I do have other topics that interest me greatly) and b) to kickstart what some see as a need.  If anybody wants to take over the initiative, I would be more than interested in discussing that.

For the record, I am agnostic on AGW.  It seems to me that the earth climate system is highly complex, and that we collectively don’t know very much about it.  I am skeptical about some of the data presented by both sides of the debate.  However, I can’t help but note that the skeptics seem to present a more carefully objective approach than those on the AGW side.  

I think that it is pretty obvious that man is having some impact on the environment, particularly at the local and regional level, and it seems to me that the inordinate focus on CO2 as the bad actor is diverting attention from the real issues – clear felling of forests, disturbance of natural hydrological cycles, industrial monoculture farming practices etc.  To my mind Roger Pielke Sr is a beacon of calm, rational and objective sense, and I appreciate his contribution to the debate.  In saying so, I should also comment that I do appreciate the contributions of many others who engage in the debate.

We intend not to permit ad hominems, such as ‘deniers’ or ‘denialists’, nor on the other hand will be permit ad hominems such as “alarmists”.   And as I said above, we reserve the right to not put up posts that we think will detract from rather than enhance the debate.  Obviously I will be using my judgement in relation to that.

So, with those few words – Lets Go!!

About these ads

9 Responses to “Welcome to RC Rejects”

  1. storeman norman Says:

    What a good idea: I had a post rejected at RC just the other day. I tried to post the following in the “CNN is spun right round, baby, right round” thread. But, sadly, it was rejected.

    storeman norman Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    16 January 2009 at 6:11 PM
    From #147.
    “One of Hansen’s more amusing statements in his letter to Prof. Holdren is his expression of frustration with “the minority of vehement anti-nuclear ‘environmentalists’” who oppose even his “clean” nuclear power proposals. “It seems to me that it is time to get fed-up with those people who think they can impose their will on everybody, and all the consequences that might imply for the planet,” Hansen tells Holdren”
    What a richly ironic statement from Dr Hansen. Perhaps he can’t see that he is criticising others for doing exactly what he does – there is a word for that I think, beginning with h.
    And also, Joe Hunkins in #139 makes a couple of telling points. So where IS the detailed refutation from Real Climate scientist of Al Gore’s excesses and exaggerations? Cite please.
    And yes, “We reap skepticism when we sow alarmism”. How pithy and how accurate.

  2. storeman norman Says:

    PS, for those interested, storeman norman is a funny (well I think it is funny, anyhow) play on Stormin Norman Schwartzkopf, the general who led the first Gulf War. A friend of mine was not impressed by Schwarzkopf, and coined the term Storeman Norman.

  3. rcrejects Says:

    It is amazing how easy it is to set up a blog these days – so far I have invested maybe half an hour, starting from scratch.

  4. Geoff Sherrington Says:

    rerejects – why scratch first?

  5. rcrejects Says:

    Well, this may be a bit too much information, but I generally start my day with a stretch and a good scratch!

  6. Alan Wilkinson Says:

    Why tolerate Realclimate at all? Simply move to less rudely offensive and politically-censored forums.

  7. Concerned of Berkeley Says:

    I don’t think that we are on the same side of the discussion. But RC even refused to post my post. This is from a fair way back, but still:

    concerned of berkeley Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    5 September 2007 at 5:48 AM
    As someone gravely concerned about the world that we will leave to our grandchildren, I am distressed by the ineffectual responses of the climate scientists to the challenges coming from CA, Andrew Watts, Warwick Hughes and others.
    How come it is not possible to engage with these people at the level of real science? It seems to me, and many other concerned observers, that you are letting the game get away from you. There have been many threads at CA very critical of the underlying data records, with nary an effective response.
    The responses to questions here at RC are defensive, and if you don’t mind me saying, arrogant.
    It is abhorrent that RC (and Mr Hansen and Mr Jones and Mr Mann) seem unprepared to disclose data, methods so that their work can be effectively replicated. Failure to respond in a scientific fashion is serving only to support the sceptic cause. What have you got to hide? The process of science requires disclosure of data, methods, assumptions so that sceptics can replicate the work and confirm it, or not.
    You MUST answer effectively. NO ad homs. NO refusal to disclose data, codes, methods.
    The strategy that you have adopted runs the grave risk of climate science being completely discredited. The way I see it, sceptics are gaining the ascendancy simply because the scientists that represent those of us gravely concerned about AGW are letting us down.
    PLEASE get your act together.

  8. Alan Wilkinson Says:

    You are right, Concerned of Berkeley. The tactics and behaviour of realclimate, Tamino, etc are self-defeating – a public relations disaster for their cause.

    No real scientist is going to tolerate the abuse and censorship that those sites perpetrate, so many who have concerns about AGW (and the first concern is how much of is true) will switch to sources of information and forums conducted in an open and civil manner. At present, that means Anthony Watts, Climate Audit, Climate Science amongst others mostly on the sceptic side.

    Civility and openness is not an optional extra because, as Richard Feynman pointed out so brilliantly, scepticism is the foundation of science and cannot be discarded in favour of passion for a cause.

    Also, climate science is so complex spanning so many disciplines that no individual can know it all. It behoves us then to be modest and listen carefully to those who may know useful things or ask good questions about matters beyond our own expertise.

  9. Chris S. Says:

    “How come it is not possible to engage with these people at the level of real science?”

    Quite simple, these people are not doing any real science. When they have published their work, be they critiscisms, challenges, reanalysis, whatever, in peer-reviewed journals then will have legitimacy. Until then they are, in effect, no more qualified to comment than you, I, or my dog. The fact that they haven’t is not down to any ‘global conspiracy of scientists’ but simply because their work – convincing as it may seem to the layman – does not bear up to even the slightest scrutiny.

    I’ll agree that the attitude at BLOGS like RC can be often be aggressive & patronising. But then these are merely blogs, which are not where the true scientific discourse is being carried out. To be involved in the real scientific conversations you need to be reading the journals, it is a shame that this can be expensive but then there is always the local library…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: