Post Your Rejected Posts Here #2

I just filled up a whole thread – “The Yamal Conspiracy” – just cutting and pasting comments relating to censorship at climate blogs from primarily two threads – “Unthreaded n+2” at CA, and “Climate Auditor Challenged to do Climate Science” at Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth. Clearly there is a lot being said on the topic.

Given that the main aim of this site is to give posters the opportunity to put up posts rejected at RC, Tamino’s Open Mind, and even CA if they have that experience, it seems sensible to open a new thread so that independent posts don’t get mixed up with the cut and pastes from other blogs on the Yamal thread.

So go to it.

Update 21 Nov 2009:

The CRU hacking is getting a lot of attention. Unfortunately, our modem broke down just as it was all developing, and we have only now gotten back on line. As MikeN points out, there are some comments regarding how RC use their moderation policies which deserve comment. I will prepare a post on that when I can get some time on the ‘puter – other family members are demanding access as I write.

This entry was posted on November 8, 2009 at 11:56 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

15 Responses to “Post Your Rejected Posts Here #2”

rcrejects Says:
October 21, 2009 at 9:05 pm
CA “Unthreaded” thread – Post 260

Mark P: October 21st, 2009 at 9:06 am

I’m getting snipped by Gavin at RC as I go down the H&S (2002) rabbit hole.

Has anyone here read H&S (2002)? Am I going mad? It’s a peer reviewed, published, statistically focused paper which
– contains no error analysis,
– contains no sensitivity analysis,
– has no error bars on any plot,
– does not state or test key selection criteria (living trees, spatial diversity of dead trees)
– discusses 300 year and “remarkable” 170 year cool periods when the method is only sensitive to annual and decadal trends.

Am I misreading it? Is there an appendix I’m not aware of, full of highfalutin’ statistics and tests?

dhogaza, if you’re reading this, could you ask H&S this in your email

The paper is here http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/Holocene_v12a.pdf

Is this kind of thing common with other dendro papers?

I can’t cope, help please.

Mark
rcrejects Says:
October 21, 2009 at 10:45 pm
CA “Gavin’s Guru RCS Standardization” thread – Post 565

Mark P: October 21st, 2009 at 9:22 am

To Jim Bouldin

Not sure if you are reading this site. Gavin at RC has started snipping my questions to you. I was trying to understand what kind of spatial selection criterion H&S might have had & why the paper didn’t mention it.

I’m not going to play games with Gavin, so this is me signing off.

I’m sure you will be very relieved, you can get back to doing dendro/drinking coffee now!

I do thank you for your patience. I was genuinely trying to learn and was getting ratty purely because you were talking about the importance of a spatial selection criterion, and I was reading and re-reading H&S (2002) without finding any mention of it.

Thanks very much for your time, sorry to waste 1000’s of your words.

Mark P
rcrejects Says:
October 26, 2009 at 8:33 am
WUWT “Bob Carter with a down-under view of climate science” thread.

Bulldust 25 October 2009 22:26:46:

Bob Carter. It is clear that you are “not qualified” to comment on Climate (big C because it is that important) as you are not a climate scientist. This is the vibe I pick up from the unilateral postings on Real Climate blogs, where you are no doubt a villain on the top 100 list. It is somewhat off topic, but I shall copy and paste my latest post to them hereunder. My previous efforts regarding Briffa tree ring analysis both met the same inglorious fate, as I am sure this latest one will:

“If the science is so robust and settled, and all the climate scientists are in consensus (apart from a few “freaks” on the sidelines), why is it that when I post a question regarding your settled science that it is invariably moderated into the bit bucket? Surely a science as robust as yours is open to a bit of peer scrutiny?

Also, please define what it means to be a “climate scientist.” Given that there were certainly no climate science degrees on offer in the handbooks when I went to college for the second time (which was less than two decades ago), where did all these climate scientists spring up from? Perhaps there is a certification course one has to attend? I can only conclude that the vast majority of “climate scientists” are in fact people who studied other fields, albeit to some degree associated with climate science.

I shalln’t hold my, breeath, because knowing the fate of two prior postings, I think I have a pretty good idea of where these bits and bytes will end up…”

Posted under:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-a-brief-review/
rcrejects Says:
October 26, 2009 at 9:08 am
At Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog – “Joe Romm’s Latest 3500 Words On Me thread” – Posts 6 & 7

Sylvain said… Sat Oct 24, 07:14:00 PM MDT:

I have posted this at Joe’s blog but it will no doubt be censored.

“Sorry Joe,

But I don’t know how anyone can give you any credibility. In my eyes you have none while Pielke jr stands high. Understand that you lost you the little credibility you had in my eye after you censored one of my comment, that you must have disagreed with, but had no argument to refute it.

Because of people like you, I am a proud denier, while I will fight almost every you say, I did agree with many policy action propose by Pielke jr.

As I said before with people like you Exxon doesn’t have to fear that any policy will get enforced anytime soon. I guess that you are the most valuable player in the hand of deniers like me. So keep bashing on people that share your opinion that AGW is real.

(You will probably erase this comment like you did other of mine in the last year, anyway I’m posting the same at Pielke).”

Sylvain said… Sat Oct 24, 07:58:00 PM MDT

As I postulated in my previous comment JR censored my comment on his blog.

Not sure why.
rcrejects Says:
November 1, 2009 at 6:47 am
William Connolley at Stoat has been weighing in on the Tiljander issues. He is inclined to edit/censor ‘inconvenient posts’ rather than just reject them out of hand as happens on some other climate blogs.

Here is an example reported at CA “Connolley Endorses Upside Down Mann” thread – Post 250

MrPete: October 31st, 2009 at 5:32 pm

WC trimmed my comment. My response, which this time is being held for approval rather than allowed through… (readers, note his technique appears to be: cut off any substantial reply, completely removing it from his records! We’ll see if something substantial is actually allowed in.)

W,
You wrote

[Cut. The rest of this was a number of vague, unreferenced, useless assertions. Please provide links to give us some clue what you mean -W]

[We edited out the balance of MrPete’s comment as it is not really relevant to our purpose. You can see it at CA if you want – mod]
MikeN Says:
November 20, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Posted to RealClimate as Journeyman, at 2:07 ET

In the Nature trick, didn’t they also use the instrumental data as part of the smoothing, averaging in instrumental record calibrated values rather than the actual proxy data, to hide the decline, thus affecting the part that wasn’t cut off as well?
MikeN Says:
November 20, 2009 at 9:25 pm
That last one made it through. Let’s go further then.
MikeN Says:
November 20, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Again to RC @4:36 PM
I don’t think the Nature trick has been described adequately in your post. It isn’t just graphing the instrument record for comparison, but graphing it to ‘hide the decline.’ They didn’t just cut off the proxy value and add on the instrument record from 1961 on; they used the instrument temperature values to calculate smoothed average value for earlier years as well. That is the ‘trick,’ to let the instrument record replace actual values of the data that are lower than you want.

Sorry for preposting, go ahead and throw out the previous two comments.
None Says:
November 20, 2009 at 9:57 pm
I posted the following at RC regarding the CRU hacking, in response to a Gavin response:

XXX
“[Response: The paper and journal in question were indeed a scandal. But the scandal was that it was ever published. Six editors of the journal resigned in protest at the publication, not because of pressure. – gavin]”

That’s fortunate. I note that in mail #1051190249
“Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work”

It wasn’t necessary, but there had clearly been discussion about leaning on them to resign…

Do you understand that when there is an argument over a scientific matter, both sides think they are right and think that the other sides science is (relatively) poor ? Trying to squeeze one side out of publication so that you can then crow about their papers not being “published” is abhorrent and an embarassing shame on those undertaking that approach. The correct response is to respond to the papers, and NOT to try to stop them publishing (or commenting). Apparently improving the signal to noise ratio is only important when it’s your signal ?

All the talk about the science being settled, when there are discussions amongst yourselves about not being able to explain the current lack of warming is also shameful – why is the discussion taking place on private emails instead of in established climate journals ? Is it because it may damage the signal to noise ratio, and confuse the under class ?
XXX

It actually made it through moderation, Gavin added a comment at the end saying I was misrepresenting something, without addressing the point that they had discussed in emails putting pressure on editors to resign, whether or not that was ultimately the reason they did so. 10 minutes later the post was gone.
None Says:
November 20, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Sorry scratch that post – my post IS in fact still at RC as #124 on the thread.
MikeN Says:
November 21, 2009 at 4:54 am
The censoring appears to be off for now. Every so often, we see Gavin’s arrogance pop up again, but all comments appear to be getting through, including my last one.

Perhaps the editor will declare Mission Accomplished and close shop.
rcrejects Says:
December 20, 2009 at 12:31 am
Comment on Lucia’s Blackboard – “Scafetta Should Share Code. Period.” thread.

Alex Harvey (Comment#28553). December 17th, 2009 at 10:35 pm

hi Lucia, I posted a message to RealClimate stating, as a climate change skeptic, I fully agree that Scafetta et al. should release their code. I then asked, does this mean that RealClimate scientists will also release their code in future, even to Steve McIntyre?

That post was deleted, so perhaps the message can be made here.

Best, Alex

Lucia added a comment further down.

lucia (Comment#28692). December 19th, 2009 at 10:02 am

“hi Lucia, I posted a message to RealClimate stating, as a climate change skeptic, I fully agree that Scafetta et al. should release their code. I then asked, does this mean that RealClimate scientists will also release their code in future, even to Steve McIntyre?

That post was deleted, so perhaps the message can be made here.

Best, Alex”

Deleting questions about Mann and Steig not releasing code are definitely signs of bad faith. I see Gavin & Rasmus in comments. If both agree that Scafetta should release code, then they should at a minimum permit people to ask why Steig or Mann will not.
rcrejects Says:
December 20, 2009 at 12:34 am
Carrick responds to Lucia’s comment referred to in the post above. Same thread.

Carrick (Comment#28696). December 19th, 2009 at 10:12 am

Lucia: “Deleting questions about Mann and Steig not releasing code are definitely signs of bad faith. I see Gavin & Rasmus in comments. If both agree that Scafetta should release code, then they should at a minimum permit people to ask why Steig or Mann will not. ”

I agree. There is a lot of capriciousness in their commenting policy, and the science would benefit from a much more rigorous and rigid policy for when comments should be removed. As things stand with their blog, it is clear these authors will not allow an honest discussion on almost any given topic.
rcrejects Says:
December 21, 2009 at 2:23 am
WUWT have a thread up today (20th Dec 2009) titled “A Telling Omission by Real Climate” relating to the omission of certain names (McIntyre, McKitrick, Pielke Jr & Sr, Motl) etc from an RC list of sceptics at RC Wiki.

The following relates to posts being censored at RC.

danimals. 20 December 2009, 11:51:47:

I have tried to post 3 comments on RealClimate.org in response to their postings. First two times my comments were in slight anger at their incomplete and skewed outlook, which I felt was purposefully deceptive. So, I figured they were not allowed by the moderator b/c of my tone.

The third time, I was responding to a commentor who, clearly more angry and caustic in tone than I ever was, claimed that Lindzen was a hack who didn’t go to others’ original journal articles before making his claims (for example in his recent letter in the WSJ), which I found to be a complete rubbish statement b/c Dr. Lindzen is all about the basic science of climate, being foremost a physicist by training. Well, I tried to keep my comment polite and stated only that Dr. Lindzen is a well-respected professor at MIT. As you can guess, this very innocent and undeniable comment was not allowed by the moderator.

The net effect of this experience is that I no longer expend energy to post at that site, which I am sure is the net effect on people who disagree with the party line (allusion to communist governments not unintentional) over there. The ultimate net effect is that RealClimate.org is a propaganda site!!
rcrejects Says:
December 21, 2009 at 2:57 am
Also at WUWT “A Telling Omission by RC” thread:

tallbloke: 20 December 2009 (13:34:32):

I notice RC recently had a post lamenting the lack of data and method publication from Scafetta among a couple of others.

I posted congratulating them on their desire for openness and asking when CRU’s station lists would be published.

They deleted my post of course.

RC Rejects