Week 26th Jan 09 to 1 Feb 09

I’m still figuring out how to do this blogging thing. One of the issues is how to structure the head posts so that visitors can easily find comments on rejected posts at other web-sites. I think that it could be a good idea to have chronological threads – anyhow, lets try it.

Another issue to consider is that I have observed that people have posted rejected RC posts at CA, for example, in full or in part. I am interested to know what people think about us copying and pasting those posts here. That approach has the benefit of collecting more of the rejected posts in one place here, and the posters have already effectively put their posts into the public arena. It seems to me OK for me to copy them here, provided that they are properly referenced, as of course I intend to do. No doubt the authors of those posts will let me know if it is not OK for me to post their work here.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Week 26th Jan 09 to 1 Feb 09”

  1. herbert stencil Says:

    I had a post rejected the other day at RC, in the State of Antarctica: Red or Blue thread. I thought it pretty innocuous really, and actually helpful to RC readers. Clearly the moderators didn’t agree.

    The post that I put up was in response to a post put up by Kipp Alpert. Kipp posted as follows at RC:

    “Kipp Alpert says:
    26 January 2009 at 23:40

    I have just posted over at Climate Audit and basically told Steve what he should do with his hockey stick. Here, in the halls of many good Scientists I am humbled. Since Barack Obama used the Internet to get his message across, why shouldn’t you. If all the energy spent is only for each of you to learn, shouldn’t some of that energy be better spent elsewhere. Denier sites are growing at an alarming rate, and public opinion does matter.If each one of you spent fifteen minutes to blog at denier sites, than Real Science would lead the debate on the Internet.David B.Benson has, and Paulm,Andrew,Chris Colose,Dennis Hlinka,and David Bloom.So please,go to Accuweather, IceCap, Climate Audit, and other dumb sites, and teach them a little about AGW. There is this big debate about the cooling of the Antarctic(this week). Your grandchildren should not carry a burden, that you could shoulder now. You are neither weak nor undereducated. You are strong, and the world will thank you for it. Yes, people are already suffering too much. How would you like to be taken off of your sacred land, to be moved next to Walmart. Thanks,Kipp”

    As a keen RC reader, I thought, thats interesting. But Kipp hasn’t actually put up the post he posted at CA, so I put up the following post in response:

    “herbert stencil Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    27 January 2009 at 12:42

    Re #16 by Kipp Alpert.

    For those who haven’t seen it, here is Kipp’s post from CA, on the Rain in Maine thread.

    “January 26th, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    Steve:Obviously you are using Mann as your greatest victory proving nothing. AGW is real despite your hockey stick. Who really cares. The salient point is that the world is warming.If every Academy of Science, and every country except two, believe that Global Warming is real, isn’t that the Issue. Everyone needs a scapegoat and a justification to exist, and you have found yours. Why don’t you argue the science,instead of clothing your debate in rhetoric. AGW believers laugh at AL Gore, Hansen,and the media. All of this does not negate the facts. Your grandchildren would be proud that you thought more about them than your short term comfort level. KIPP”

    Speaks for itself, really.

  2. rcrejects Says:

    Here is a post from Watts Up With That that refers to a rejected RC post:

    Jim Steele (07:57:05) :

    It is ironic that anyone at RealClimate would have been concerned at Hansen’s purported muzzling. The RealCimate blog’s heavy deletion of opposing views is the epitome of muzzling any debate. I just had the following deleted . Have others experienced the same “muzzling”?

    Jim Steele Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
28 January 2009 at 12:27 AM

    Chapman did a similar study of Antarctic temperatures. And to Chapman’s credit he duly noted that depending on the start dates one could construct warming or cooling trends. He chose to generate a warm trend. However if the start date began sometime around 1935 or 1980, we would generate cooling trends.

    The skeptics can readily point to the fact that this recent cooling trend remains if you start around 1980 and data for increased sea ice supports that trend. The recent cooling trend coincides with the time period during which global warming was greatest and decoupled from solar effects.

    Start dates that are chosen simply because that is the beginning of certain instrumental observations may be just as arbitrary as picking a date during a period of abnormally high or low temperatures. 
A discussion of the why specific start dates are chosen would be more constructive. But instead there seems to be a battle to control the “memes of warming” vs the “memes of cooling” so all sides cherry pick their trends. This is not good for science.

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


%d bloggers like this: