In a response to a post (#441 on the What George Will Should Have Written thread) at RC by ‘truth’, Gavin shed some light on RC’s moderating policy. The whole exchange follows:
13 mars 2009 at 9:02 AM
Re  Response to RodB:
Gavin, what you allow to be posted and what you edit out speaks for you too—not just your direct remarks.
Allowing some who are passionate AGW proponents to make statements of absolute certainty, along with their venom and vitriol and smearing of dissenters, without comment from you or other moderators, while on the other hand censoring out from dissenters’ posts the mildest of remarks [or often censoring out their posts [made in reply to their critics]in their entirety]—is a tacit endorsement by the moderators of the certainty expressed by the AGW commenters.
Eg: a commenter on one of your other topics said, ‘Scientists who fail to communicate the alarming reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming are doing the public a great disservice’, implying that it’s the duty of all scientists to go forth and preach and promote the certainty. There was no reply or comment from the moderators.
And, even more directly, in one of your other posts, Mike made it clear in his reply to a commenter. The commenter was describing a previous Lou Dobbs show, saying that Dobbs said ‘On my show, global warming is happening and we are causing it. That’s not for debate. I want to hear what we should do about it.’ The commenter said he believed some scientists from RC were there, and said, ‘No sceptics or deniers were included.’, and expressed a hope for a return to that happy and much more acceptable state by Dobbs. Mike replied ‘Yes, this was myself, Gavin and Alan Robock’—and agreed that it was a shame that Dobbs had changed. That would seem to me to be an expression of the moderators’ expectations that the media should stifle the debate for them—nip it in the bud, as Dobbs did on that occasion—a situation that prevails in Australia, as journalists almost never interview any person who can’t be relied upon to express certainty on AGW——it just doesn’t happen.
[Response: This is really getting tiresome. ‘Debate’ is not just contradiction. There are plenty of interesting things to discuss and very varied points of view among the mainstream without having some idiot come on and assert that the world is flat. The people who aren’t worth including in any discussion are the people who can’t go a single sentence without throwing in some tired old cliche about the Vikings or how water vapor is really the most important greenhouse gas or that they grew wine in medieval England don’t you know… This isn’t debate, this is noise. And I have no problem with saying that this discussion needs less noise, not more. You appear to be persuaded otherwise, and indeed your actions demonstrate a commitment to that. Find a serious ‘contrarian’ – one that doesn’t lace their statements with nonsense, and you’ll find someone perhaps worth interviewing. But these are pretty thin on the ground – if they exist at all. – gavin]