Developments! Very embarrassing for The Team and RC! The availability of search functions means that myriads of folk around the world are poring over the new cache of e:mail releases.
I know which side of this discussion I would rather be on. Kudos to the heroic whistleblower.
Ira Glickstein has a post up at WUWT discussing his experience posting at RC – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/13/slipping-some-past-the-goalie-at-rc/
Interesting as Ira’s post is, much more interesting is the stream of comments following, where many posters discuss their experiences at RC.
No surprises to loyal readers of this blog.
Given that we seem to have some reliable regular visitors here, who must be disappointed about the lack of new posts or activity on this site, I feel that perhaps I should explain what is happening with RCRejects.
The fact is that it is now widely understood that RC harshly censor posts that ask “inconvenient” questions, or challenge the AGW view promulgated there. They do post some rejected comments to their Bore Hole thread, which actually makes entertaining reading. However, it is very evident that they still reject numerous posts. How do we know that? Well, a sufficiently large number of people have had difficulties posting at RC over the years that there is quite a bit of comment about that topic at some of the more sceptical websites dealing in climate related issues. And numerous posters now put up copies of their rejected posts at one or other of these sites.
In fact, I was stimulated to put this post up after seeing the current “discussion” relating to the Stefan Rahmstorf paper and Roger Pielke Jr’s questions relating to that paper. Roger Pielke is reporting the discussion at his website, but the interested observer can also watch the “edited” version of the discussion at RC.
The reality is that our role, if we ever had one, is pretty much redundant now. Hopefully this site provides a record of RC comment rejection that might be useful to somebody sooner or later who wishes to address the topic of RC handling of comments.
Thanks for coming along. I plan to leave the website up, but it will remain largely inactive.
RC has initiated an open thread called “The Bore Hole” which is described as “A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.”
A good move in our view. Hopefully they will post ALL rejected comments there. Of course, if they do, the role of this site is effectively nullified. Oh well. At least our site provides a rather larger sample of rejected comments than the 13 currently shown on The Bore Hole thread.
It will be interesting to observe the development of The Bore Hole. So far, to this observer anyhow (and maybe reflecting my bias), the posts in The Bore Hole are not really contentious, and on most other blogs would be allowed.
I would guess that the RC mob are following the incredible success of Judith Curry in attracting commenters at her Climate Etc blog. Judith allows comment from all sides of the climate spectrum. Interestingly, the conversation so far seems to attract more commenters of a sceptical bent than CAGW supporters, but perhaps this will change. Certainly the topics she raises attract keen interest.
To the top!
[John used to say in his American accent “Where are we goin’ fellas?” and we’d say “To the top Johnny! To the top!”]. Referring of course (for those youngsters who may not know) to The Beatles!
If you think that your post might be censored/rejected/edited at a climate blog (as apparently they sometimes are!) keep a copy and post it here. For the record.
Bumping to the top.
RC’s approach and particularly its moderation policies are being discussed quite widely across the blogosphere. The latest such missive comes from lukewarmer Tom Fuller (sorry Tom if lukewarmer doesn’t quite catch it) in his thread “Hiding the Decline at Real Climate.”
A quote from Tom’s post gives the flavour:
Real Climate is a weblog that is the defacto voice of the establishment regarding climate change issues. It is financed by an environmental media communications outfit and staffed primarily by Gavin Schmidt, who works at NASA.
They were one of the very first climate weblogs and scientists have used it as a forum to discuss relevant issues and try to educate the public. However, it also quickly became a venue for defending the policy positions of people like Al Gore and James Hansen, and they are now just the propaganda arm of the extreme end of the climate/political spectrum.
They had a brief resurrection following Climategate, where Gavin Schmidt heroically responded to over 2,000 comments in three days and became my blogger of the year. His work was more impressive because Real Climate has always been famous for the tendency to censor comments, deleting opposing views and cutting out the ‘good’ parts of what critics have written. It got so bad that there is a website devoted to comments that have been deleted by Real Climate. During the immediate aftermath of Climategate, all comments got through, and Schmidt was courteous and prompt in responding to even hostile comments. It was a bravura performance.
And:
Real Climate has tried for years to control the flow of information about climate change, censoring commenters, ridiculing opponents, resurrecting discredited tenets of the hysteric faction of the climate crew. In doing so they have sacrificed any opportunity to serve as a forum for meaningful discussion of the issues, and they spend their time preaching to the choir–while public opinion turns away from them.
Over at Climate Audit, people are posting the comments that have not been published recently at Real Climate. If my characterization of Real Climate is correct, I can see why they would not want those comments published.
But if I am mistaken about Real Climate, the questions become, why don’t they allow critical comments? Why do they publish lame defences of a discredited Hockey Stick and a pathetic paper the only function of which is to create a blacklist to intimidate climate scientists early in their careers?
If anyone at Real Climate wants to respond, I promise they won’t be censored here.
For more, go visit Tom athttp://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m8d3-Hiding-the-decline-at-Real-Climate.
I started collecting RC related comments on the Bishop Hill “Tamino On The Hockey Stick Illusion Thread” and posting them in our “Discuss Moderation Policies At Climate Blogs Here #3” thread without having first read all the comments up to date. On doing that, I find that there are many comments discussing RC, their moderation policies, and also their approach to handling questions/comments.
Very interesting material, and generally confirming what we have already learned about RC.
Rather than cut and pasting all of the comments, I have decided to start a new thread directing our readers to the Bishop Hill thread:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/7/22/tamino-on-the-hockey-stick-illusion.html
(I still haven’t figured out how to make that a live linky thing. Sorry bout that).
Of course, as per our charter, we invite all posters to RC and other sites who think that their posts might be edited/censored to take a copy and we’ll post it up here.
Update:
Still catching up. There is a thread discussing “The Hockey Stick Illusion” at RC which relates to this topic. Some comments on moderation, notably from an unidentified editor who says: [edit – comments on our moderation policy are extremely tedious at the best of times. It might not be perfect, but the idea is prevent descent into abusive slanging matches and it mostly works. Don’t insult the hosts is usually a good tip. This is now OT].
Downthread, Thinking Scientist (who expressed concerns about being censored at RC) posts numerous comments. Notably, in comment 142 he says:
“ThinkingScientist says: 23 July 2010 at 6:15 PM
Gavin,
I have enjoyed our discussions today and thank you for allowing every post through. Your final replies to my post #140 are a suitable neutral point for me to close at this point – in my time zone it is now after midnight.
Journalist Keith Kloor has a blog where there are some interesting posts on CAGW. Of particular interest is the discussion on the “Who Started This Ruckus Anyway?” thread where there is (very unusually) some engagements from proponents of CAGW on the one hand, skeptics on the other hand, as well as interested parties trying to find the middle ground such as Judith Curry.
Of particular interest to us is the fact that there are quite a few mentions of RC. The following comments are an unbiased selection. Unfortunately for RC, the opinion of many posters is not flattering.
The estimable Bishop Hill has a thread on censorship at The Guardian blog Comment is Free. (What is it with these ironic titles – Real Climate, Open Mind, Comment is Free?).
The thread is at http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/29/graun-still-deleting-comments.html
The Bishop says: “Not a comprehensive survey, but of the first 50 comments on Pachauri’s article in the Guardian, 18 were deleted. Criticism is forbidden.”
In fact, before the thread was closed, 362 posts were posted, of which 46 were deleted. It appears that the moderators initially tried to ‘manage’ the tide of sceptical comments, but later on simply gave up moderating, and closed the thread to further comment instead.
Many who had their comments at the Guardian deleted re-posted their comments at the Bishop’s thread. It is clear that most of the posts rejected could not have been rejected for breaching blog rules re politeness, tone etc.
This incident throws more light on the range of moderation policies adopted at various blogs. At least The Guardian, unlike other sites, makes it clear that it has deleted a post. However, it gives no reason for taking that action.
For details go visit the Bishop’s thread.
RC Rejects 