Time passes. Some things change. Others don’t.
We have noticed that the policy of silencing inconvenient voices continues over at RC.
And we have also noticed some snipping going on at CA.
Some of this is no doubt due to the very real requirements for blog proprietors to manage their blog, particularly in keeping it on topic. Steve McIntyre is snipping quite a bit, but generally makes it evident that he is doing so, and explains why. RC, in contrast, simply refuses to post contributions that don’t meet its preconceived positions, or that question the IPCC et al science. They do allow some dissenting opinion in, but only enough to give the appearance of a ‘debate’.
It would be interesting indeed to read all of the posts that they reject! We see but a sample of them here, and usually only where people who have tried to post at RC comment about having their posts rejected. We are getting a few direct posters telling us about their experience.
Overall, the tide seems to be turning in favour of those questioning the science. For the record, the position of this blog is that we must do our best to really understand what is going on. However, we have formed the view that CO2 is, at best, a minor player in the game.
There is no doubt that man is having an impact on the climate. We see that in the Urban Heat Island effect that is evident to anyone who has a thermometer reading outside temperature in their car. We see it in local and regional effects resulting from land use, as Roger Pielke Sr continually reminds us. An example of the latter is the well documented case of the disappearing snows of Mt Kilimanjaro which are acknowledged to be the result of local forest clearing rather than AGW.
The whole focus on CO2 is diverting attention from the many real issues. One of the risks of the current dilemma is that increasing public scepticism about AGW alarmism could cause us all to become complacent, and not deal with the real issues, of which there are many.