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!!