Passing the Ball

I established rcrejects back in January with two objectives.  First, to demonstrate that RC (and Open Mind) do engage in a very censorious policy of not putting up posts that don’t further their agenda.  While this was not in contention, I felt it would be useful to provide a site dedicated to putting up posts rejected at RC or OM.

In the less than 2 months we have operated, we have had some posts from independent posters who wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to put their rejected posts up (thanks guys).  However,  many of the posts were cut and pasted by me from other sites where I noticed that posters there had commented regarding rejected RC posts.

If it ever needed proving, the exercise has already demonstrated that RC and OM do engage in censoring posts that do not further their agenda.

My objective in starting rcrejects was twofold – the second objective was to gain some experience of blogging, since I have another area of interest that I want to devote a serious amount of time to buildin g a blog on.

I am travelling at the moment, and internet access is ‘sporadic’.

I notice that Jeff ID at The Air Vent has invited his readers to put up rejected posts at his site.  Jeff probably has quite a few more readers than we have, so I have decided to reduce my activity here, and direct my reader to follow the ongong discussion over at The Air Vent.

In fact, I offered to let Jeff take over this blog as a subset of his site, or simply to access the accumulated posts here to enhance the record. I am very relaxed about how it will unfold.

If nothing happens, I will probably keep this site going for a bit longer. However, it seems silly to cut and paste paste rejected comments from Jeff’s site here.

Anyhow, I have found blogging fun, and I have certainly learned a bit (well OK, just a very litle bit as any observer can see from this blog!) from my intitial experience as a blogger.

Hopefully you will see my new blog emerge in all its glory in due course. I will post a link when that is appropriate.

In the meantime, regards to all the many Davids out there taking on the AGW Goliath. You are alll doing a GREAT job, and I think that the tide is turning.

I am particularly pleased to see some MSM jourunralists, notably Lawrence Solomon, Christopher Booker, George Will and Andrew Bolt prepared to demonstrate the courage that it takes to show that the emperor has no clothes. I think that trend will develop further.

I must confess to chortling too at the latest demonstration of the Gore Effect today in Washington.


7 Responses to “Passing the Ball”

  1. rcrejects Says:

    An interesting exchange over at CA (on the ‘Gavin and PC Stories’ thread) regarding censorship at RC

    Post 37
    Michael Jankowski: March 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    “Some of Gavin’s new comments seem to be only loosely connected with the actual record…Does Gavin think that nobody’s going to check?”

    He doesn’t have to worry about the readers at RC to check, nor does he have to worry about them coming over here. He can just post it at RC, and the readers nod their head and say, “Case closed! Gavin solves another case.”

    Post 38
    stephen richards: March 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    What appears interesting chez gavin is that his commenters all accept what he says without quetion, or that is at least how it appears, but we should not forget gavin’s high bandpass filtering system. Anyone who questions the great god Iam gets deleted.

    Post 39
    Andrew Yoder: March 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    Re: Stephen Richards #38
    You’re absolutely right on the “filtering” If you read his latest post on what he says how George Will should have “apologized”, I commented to him that I thought it was funny for him to say that considering the games he played with McIntyre over the Steig paper and incorrect station data. Then I asked him how was Will’s column less ethical than that? Needless to say, he didn’t print that part of my comment.

  2. rcrejects Says:

    A comment over at CA in the ‘Gavin and the PC Stories’ thread.

    John Norris: March 8th, 2009 at 11:50 am

    Re: Ryan O (#86),

    I tried posting this yesterday at RC after seeing a lack of response to Ryan O’s last comment:

    “376. John Norris Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 7 March 2009 at 8:09 PM

    re: 375 in the context of 353, 364, 369, 370, 372, 373, and 374. So any further defense of “Antarctic warming is robust”? ”

    It no longer shows up as awaiting moderation, so I am guessing it didn’t make the cut. Perhaps they are preparing an irrefutable response that shows something wasn’t taken into account in the analysis that all you folks did. Then they can then close the thread.

  3. rcrejects Says:

    An interesting (and clearly heartfelt) comment over at CA (on Gavin and the PC Stories thread) that reflects on attitudes evident at some of the ‘team’ websites. Not specifically about a rejected post, but I think an interesting observation nonetheless.

    Edouard: March 10th, 2009 at 12:59 am

    I “believe” in science. I always loved it and I trie to find answers to my questions for years and years (and years). To express them in English is not easy for me. I was very happy to find german blogs to communicate, but I got no answers to my questions. I got answers to questions I didn’t ask. “Questions” from the “scpetical zoo” as the german scientist Georg Hoffmann calls them. But not only did he say this. Similar odd things happened to me on Stefan Rahmstorf’s blog. I feel like I’m trapped in a very bad B-movie. Should I think that hundreds of scientists are lying to me? I just couldn’t. Or could I? Do I have to?

    I don’t know any more how to get real answers from AGW-scientists. I don’t know which part of their answer could be science and wich religion. I’m a little bit desperate and a little bit angry.

    In german language and in german culture I know and understand the little tricks of Georg Hoffmann and Stefan Rahmstorf and I know that “I”
    never lie. The only reason I could be wrong in this sad game, is if I was a morone. Those people like others to think that I am. They insult me and even insult Mr. Pielke as I’ve linked above. In my opinion they insult “the whole world”.

    One time in my life I must have said this clearly!

    Best regards an thanks for the blog


  4. rcrejects Says:

    An exchange on The Air Vent regarding RC – New York Times Wishful Thinking Thread:

    Post 26, cgh said
    March 11, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Dubids, your three points are all entirely valid, and would collectively settle the issue. Russell is wrong, particularly in his linked article when he states, “Absent intellectually serious Republicans, scientific professionals on websites like RealClimate have only Democrats with whom to discuss policy.”

    Good luck getting a contrarian post or view on RealClimate. It’s a pure propaganda site. There is no debate there, as it exists purely to reinforce the views of The Team. For Russell to claim that this is so because Republicans are either disengaged or lack scientific credentials is simply wrong. Russell makes the further presumption that those on places like RealClimate are all “scientific professionals”, when this has clearly been demonstrated not to be the case.

    His analysis is also far too shallow. This is not about Democrats vs. Republicans. It is about a war of philosophies, our generation’s version of the clash between Hume and Rousseau or Reason vs. Romanticism, and it’s been going on for centuries in various forms. A universal sympton of this debate is any group idolizing the pastoral past and despairing of the modern present. Climate change simply serves as the convenient vehicle to drive their long desired antidevelopment program, outlined in the 1970s in Amory Lovins’ soft energy path.

    TCO responded in Post 34 as follows:

    TCO said
    March 12, 2009 at 1:10 am
    26: I agree that REalClimate is overly restrictive in comment approval and in allowing debate. It is not a salon for debate given that they have confounded the venue with outreach and teaching. And Mann and the ilk tend to be biased.

    All that said, I see CA and others adopting some RC habits (voice of God interventions, quashing debate, etc.)

  5. rcrejects Says:

    A post put up at WUWT regarding a post at RC likely to be rejected – if it is posted, please let me know, and I will correct this. I guess too, that this is one of those posts that I can understand might be rejected at any site!

    PHE (14:01:57) :

    Having followed Realclimate for a a good 2 or 3 years now, its great to see a picture of Gavin Schmidt and Raypierre. I just posted the following at Realclimate, though I can be sure they won’t post it. My comments are often censored for being undesirable anyway, even though my questions have always been legitimate and never rude.

    To RC:
    “Believe it or not, this is a serious observation.
    Gavin Scmidt, I have just seen your photo on on WUWT. You are overweight. Now, I don’t really want to have a go at you, but there are two points to mention.
    (1) Being overweight means you have a larger ‘footprint’ than average. You are using more of the world’s resources than many of your peers, and more than you need to, especially when you think of the supply chain. The energy use, the water use, and the carbon footprint of all the food you consume. This isn’t fair.
    (ii) You illustrate the fact that we would all like to consume less (food.., or carbon dioxide). But it is far more difficult than we would wish. I’m sure you are eating more than you would reaaly like. And we see, that despite all the scares and drama about over recent years about the need to reduce our carbon footprint, carbon emissions just continue to go up and up. What can we do??!!
    The truth is, I will have much more faith in your AGW convictions when I see you slim and hunky.”

  6. TCO Says:

    Who cares if that post gets on? In the grand scheme of things? A bloviation on Gavin being fat? Cripes people…

  7. rcrejects Says:

    Actually I agree with your point. The issue though is whether we should censor here or not. I tend to favour putting up all posts, whether supportive or critical, providing of course that they don’t breach kiddies codes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: