Week 2nd Feb 09 to 8th Feb 09

Not a lot of activity last week – two posts only, one from us, another from herbert stencil. That could mean that RC (and the other sites) are not censoring posts. Or it could mean that awareness and readership of this site is yet to achieve “lift-off”. Or it could mean that my baby-steps at establishing a blog are not yet hitting the mark. Oh well!

We have noticed quite a few comments around the sites that we frequent that RC is still censoring posts, though the posters haven’t brought their posts here – yet!

Below in comments I will put up one post that I noticed referring to RC censorship.

Still have a bit to do to understand blogging. For example, I haven’t yet figured out how to list recent comments – but I guess that I will get around to it.

Best to all.


17 Responses to “Week 2nd Feb 09 to 8th Feb 09”

  1. rcrejects Says:

    Here is a post from Prometheus that mentions a rejection from RC:

    From Prometheus http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/climate-science-infallibility-syndrome-4915#comments

    Mark Bahner Says: January 29th, 2009 at 8:15 pm

    Hi Roger,

    You write, “I assume that Weart was not trying to deceive.”

    I think that assumption is contradicted by evidence. If Spencer Weart wasn’t trying to deceive, Spencer Weart (Real Climate) would not have censored (not published) my comments and questions.

    Also, I note that Spencer Weart appeared briefly on Climate Audit (finishing with a taunt) but hasn’t answered my simple question to him there:

    “My question deals with your Real Climate post, where you wrote the following (I have taken the liberty to remove some words, so that my question will be more clear):

    ‘…we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict…and have predicted for the past quarter century.’

    “Don’t you think that paragraph conflates ‘getting colder’ (i.e., cooling) with ‘cold’?”
    Since he didn’t address (or even publish) my initial comments and questions, and hasn’t addressed this simple question, it seems to me the evidence is that knows he was conflating “getting colder” (”cooling”) with “cold,” and that the conflation was deliberate.
    I also note that Eric Steig hasn’t ever answered my question to him here at Prometheus, when he claimed there was “nothing to correct” in Spencer Weart’s piece.

  2. rcrejects Says:

    Not exactly a rcreject, but pertinent comment on RC moderation policy at The Blackboard – http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/comment-policy-at-blogs/

    edward (Comment#9641)
    January 30th, 2009 at 12:48 pm


    First let me say that I am a regular reader of this blog, Climate Audit, WUWT, Roger Pielke SR’s blog, Real Climate and several other climate related blogs. I find the “open” nature of comments on this site, CA and WUWT satisfying as a reader and participant. Weeding out truly rude comments and adhering to a policy that guides the discussion to keep it on topic seems just enough to keep the strings interesting.

    I find it very disappointing that Real Climate moderates to such an extent that there are very few substantive comments that do not conform to their “mindset”. It seems that only “weak” denialist” arguments make it through the moderation process and they are then beaten down without any supporting commentary or follow-ups. I used to spend an hour researching a response in order to comment there only to find they never got posted. As a result, RC comment strings are no longer interesting for me and not worth the effort for me to post there.

    Keep up the great work here and as a fellow Chicagoan I know I am looking forward to some temperatures somewhere above freezing this weekend.



    We should also include Edward’s subsequent edit for completeness.

    Edward (Comment#9664)

    January 30th, 2009 at 9:00 pm


    Let me edit my comment 9641 to read : “Real Climate” comment strings are no longer interesting for me” rather than “CA comment strings are no longer….”. I can’t go a day without checking up on what Steve has posted or commented on.



  3. herbert stencil Says:

    I have had a couple of posts rejected at RC over the last day or two, on the Warm Reception to Antarctic Warming Story thread. The first:

    herbert stencil Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    2 février 2009 at 10:59 PM

    Re Gavin’s responses to James Lane #161.
    Well that clears that up then, Gavin. Thanks.

    This post was an admittedly cheeky (and sarcastic) comment that was alluding to the contradictory messages being posted by Gavin and Eric. The explanations seem to me to be convoluted, contradictory, and to not make much sense. I suppose I can understand them not posting it.

    The second post related to Eric Steig’s comments re audit, which to be direct, seem non-sensical to me.

    herbert stencil Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    2 February 2009 at 11:36 PM

    Re Eric comment in #162: Eric, what you are effectively saying is that a financial auditor should not audit the accounts produced by the company, but go and do their own accounts.

    Other posters have made pretty much the same point, and it is not a big deal that they chose not to post my comment.

  4. rcrejects Says:

    Over at CA (‘Gavin’s Mystery Man’ thread, post 25) PhilH comments on an experience with RC. A copy of his CA post follows:

    PhilH: February 3rd, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    Re: KevinUK (#14), I agree with Kevin. Probably Gavin. After picking up the clue here.

    Went to RC for a rare visit: confrontational and uninteresting, except for the insults. Sent in the following: “Reading just briefly, so far, I see from your comments that McIntyre is an incompetent, self-appointed,unethical, unregulated, lying “McFraudit”. Given all this, and I am sure he’s been called worse on this site, he’s clearly worthless. So why do you people appear to be so defensive about him?”

    I believe that they know that most people don’t like to be insulted; so they do it to anyone who doubts them, reasoning that they will stay away. It seems to work.

  5. rcrejects Says:

    Also over at CA (On CA thread Dirty Harry 4: When Harry Met Gill post 167) Steve Reynolds refers to RC rejecting a post of his:

    Steve Reynolds: February 3rd, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    My comment below was rejected at RC today.

    Maybe we as a community should officially ‘hire’ Steve as our auditor…

    eric: “Science is not the same as business. The self-appointed auditors of climate science don’t seem to understand that science has a built-in-auditing system — the fact that by proving someone else wrong, especially about an important issue, is a great way to get fame and success.”

    The built-in auditing system of science works great in the long run when there is plenty of time for the process to work. That time may or may not be available in the special case of AGW. Most contributors and commenters here at RC say that time is very short and very costly decisions need to be made very soon. If that is the case, then in my opinion, arguing against a business-type time frame auditing process is helping to delay decisions to implement mitigation policies.

    eric: “You don’t get to be an auditor merely by launching a blog, and you certainly don’t publicly speculate about your findings before (or even after) you’ve done the analysis. Above all, you have to demonstrate competence and integrity, and the company you work with has to trust you, or they won’t hire you.”

    Outside independent auditors are often not hired by the company being audited (IRS for example). Also, trust seems less important here, since no commercial secrets should be at risk. You may worry about unfounded accusations, but in the long run those will not matter (the built-in auditing system of science should take care of that).

    I submit that SM has in essence been ‘hired’ by the community of interested stakeholders that want to see an independent audit of the science that is being relied on for the potentially very costly policy decisions that need to be made soon.

    If you can suggest a better and still fully independent auditor, I would be very interested.

  6. rcrejects Says:

    At CA on the Gavin’s “Mystery Man” Revealed thread, this post appears as Post 52

    bernie: February 4th, 2009 at 11:29 am

    This is funny and silly, but mostly sad.

    I politely commented on the BAS revelation on RC and it has yet to appear. Technically speaking the issue with the Harry data may be of little import. The reactions to Harry at RC is mind numbing and troubling. I guess they don’t realize how much this kind of condescension and hubris is likely to motivate the unwashed masses. It is a “let them eat cake” moment.

  7. rcrejects Says:

    And another post on the same thread at CA. This one is Post 75.

    rephelan: February 4th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    There is an issue here that people seem to touch on only tangentially. As a college professor (ok, a lowly, unpublished adjunct instructor) I am appalled at the lack of intellectual integrity I find in students. It is disheartening to find it in emminent scientists. This is the text of a response I left at RC which is being moderated:

    “Dr. Schmidt:

    In your response to Bernie at 11:01 AM you have essentially admitted to taking the insights of another researcher attempting to replicate the results of a study, insights you did not develop on your own, and then raced to preempt him. If one of my students had done such a thing I would very seriously consider bringing charges before the university’s disciplinary committee. I am very disappointed that a scientist of your stature and position isn’t a bit more sensitive to the ethical message he is sending.

    R.E. Phelan”

  8. rcrejects Says:

    By the way, it is possible that a post that I thought was rejected has in fact been posted at RC, and I have missed it. If that happens, please let me know asap, and I will correct the situation.

  9. Vernon Says:

    This was reject by RC:

    [Response: Since the study clearly (e.g. Figure 3) reconstructs cooling over East Antarctica during certain sub-intervals (e.g. 1969-2000) and warming over others (e.g. the long term, 1957-2006) its hard to make any sense of the question. -mike]

    This is it not fair to say that your study found warming from 1958 to 1969 and your applying it to the whole period?

    Since it was further said in the previous threads that 1035-45 was the warmest time in the century then does not also mean that the 1958 start point was during the coldest period of 1935-2000?

    That going from 1035-45 to 2000 was cooling?

    I do not see how an 11 year warming period when the rest of the time is cooling makes the whole time warming. 11 years is weather not climate, right?

  10. rcrejects Says:

    From CA Gavin’s Mystery Man thread: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5077#comment-324346

    Molon Labe: February 4th, 2009 at 5:29 am

    My question for RC: Please explain how you can exactly reconstruct Harry, including its incorrect splicing with Gill, if Harry was not used in the reconstruction. Thanks.

    Your guess: rejected or not?

  11. rcrejects Says:

    From CA Gavin’s Mystery Man thread http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5077#comment-324346


    James Lane: February 4th, 2009 at 7:51 am

    Oh well, my question over at RC was banned. But for posterity, here it is:

    “I don’t get it. Reading the previous entries, it appears that only one West Antarctic station is used in Steig’s reconstruction – Byrd.

    This is a response to a on-line comment on how it’s inappropriate to rely on one station’s data.”

  12. rcrejects Says:

    At CA Gavin’s “Mystery Man” Revealed thread


    Steve Reynolds: February 4th, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    Re: Dave Dardinger (#235),

    Dave: “I think if we’d patted him on the head and said, “Good job, young man”…
    I sort of tried that at RC (replying to 225) and sincerely meant what I wrote, but they censored as usual:

    Chris: “a) No scientist or organization is under obligation (or should be expected) to follow the news coming out of every science blog out there.”

    Then surely we are fortunate that gavin thinks a certain blog is especially worthy of being closely monitored (even on a Sunday afternoon) so that this error could be fixed so quickly.

  13. rcrejects Says:

    At CA Gavin’s “Mystery Man” Revealed thread

    Terry: February 4th, 2009 at 8:53 pm

    Re: steven mosher (#251),

    They also felt the need to censor these “controversial/off-topic” (my guess) questions:

    Gavin, did you also find the problem with the Racer Rock data? If not, did you at least inform the RAS about it?

    Controversial (or trollish) stuff, I suppose? I thought it was a legitimate question…

  14. rcrejects Says:

    CA At CA Gavin’s “Mystery Man” Revealed thread


    Terry: February 4th, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    Yow, didn’t take long for this to go from “awaiting moderation” to being deleted:
    I guess I’ll take the deletion as a “no”.

    “So Harry had no effect. Racer Rock probably doesn’t either. As we’re getting down to a fairly small number of stations, perhaps you could enlighten us on which stations actually do matter to the study? Thanks!”

    I kind of feel bad for the poor cuss hitting F5 over there and deleting deleting deleting.

  15. rcrejects Says:

    At CA Gavin’s “Mystery Man” Revealed thread


    François GM: February 4th, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    I posted the following at RC:

    “Dr schmidt, I just realized you’re the one who identified the errors in the Stieg paper. Congratulations.”

    Gavin’s response was amazingly funny. It went something like this : ‘There were no errors. And I’m not the one who spotted them.’

    The post was promptly deleted.

  16. rcrejects Says:

    Not exactly a rejected post, but more a comment re RC

    At CA Gavin’s “Mystery Man” Revealed thread


    Gerry Morrow: February 5th, 2009 at 5:56 am

    If Harry isn’t important and hasn’t been used in the reconstructions then why the fuss from RC? (The only blog I know where a question asking for directions to a source of information is moderated out: “Can anyone point me to where I can get the mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature?”) Gavin is clearly exercised that this egregious error has come to light, maybe because it will focus more scientists to question whether they should be taking predictions from the Tarot cards, rather than looking v. carefully at the data. Keep in mind that the Team are telling us that if we don’t do what Hansen tells us the earth will be consumed with firestorms. We are bound to look askance at soothsayers who are looking at the innards of the wrong bird to gvve us their predictions.

  17. spencer Says:

    Just back from a long trip and checking my “Google alerts” I find that somebody thinks I have censored them and also is offended that I haven’t answered his questions. Sorry, I don’t have time to check all blogs for all questions directed to me. Never censored anybody, I don’t control these things.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: