Recognition!!

Lucia runs a great little blog called The Blackboard. Well, rcrejects gets a mention today. In the thread Funny Names at CRU http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/funny-file-names-at-cru/ poster Steve Reynolds asks (Comment#16878):

May I request a chance to discuss censorship at RealClimate with a RealClimate reader here? Doing it there won’t work for obvious reasons, and I think your blog would allow a fair discussion.

Lucia responds (Comment #16882):

I think everyone sort of knows RC has a heavy moderation policy. Isn’t there some blog that lets people post what they submitted to RC so we can see what gets censored?

Steve Reynolds replies (Comment #16884):

Yes, I think this: https://rcrejects.wordpress.com/

But that is probably not a very neutral site for a fair discussion, and I have never put my rejects there.

Well, you could hardly call that fulsome praise! And I don’t really know why Steve thinks that we wouldn’t allow a fair discussion. I suppose that he has noticed some of our gentle ribbing of RC for the stances that they adopt on various issues. Anyhow, we invite anybody who wants to discuss moderation policies at RC and other blogs (from all three sides of the discussion – Pro AGW, Neutral and Sceptic) to post here. We will do our best to allow fair discussion.

In fact, as you will see from some of our earlier posts, we think that the issue of moderation and how it affects blog style and tone is fascinating, and we have made numerous comments on this below.

There clearly is a need to adopt some form of moderation policy if a blog proprietor is going to be able to manage the style and tone of the discussion. It is indeed interesting to compare the moderation styles evident at Climate Audit with those implemented at Real Climate.

Our commitment is to encourage fair discussion from all sides of the debate. However, we have noticed on other blogs that the moderation approach adopted by the blog proprietor has a big impact on the tone/style of the blog, and we want to maintain a civil blog above all. So we will moderate as we see fit.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Recognition!!”

  1. rcrejects Says:

    The complete exchange between Steve Reynolds and Lucia develops some further points about censorship, and is worth repeating here:

    Steve Reynolds (Comment#16878) July 29th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    Lucia,

    I noticed that you let Steve Mosher hijack a thread.
    May I request a chance to discuss censorship at RealClimate with a RealClimate reader here? Doing it there won’t work for obvious reasons, and I think your blog would allow a fair discussion.

    Thanks, Steve

    lucia rankexploits.com (Comment#16882) July 29th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    Steve–

    I’m not too severe about people hijacking threads as long as they don’t go all ‘TCO’ on me.

    I think everyone sort of knows RC has a heavy moderation policy. Isn’t there some blog that lets people post what they submitted to RC so we can see what gets censored?

    Steve Reynolds (Comment#16884) July 29th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    “I think everyone sort of knows RC has a heavy moderation policy.”

    Apparently everyone does not include a lot of the commenters at RC.
    Most of them seem to have no interest in what they are protected from seeing, but one did try to get to your blog for this discussion (I did not give a direct link, since those often cause the comment to be deleted):

    From RC: “Steve Fish says: 29 July 2009 at 10:43 AM
    Steve Reynolds #176. I was unable to access rankexploits.com because of 404 Not Found and internal errors. As a scientist (retired) I find any accusations of censoreship or suppression of science by scientists to be both exceptional and very important to substantiate. Please try to post your information again here or elsewhere if this doesn’t work (it is not necessary to make an active link, although a little primer here or a link to one would be helpful). There are many non-experts who use this site for accurate information on climate science findings and we all need to be able to trust this source.

    I have to say that my previous attempts to verify accusations of suppression of science by the climate science community have not been fruitful, but I am trying to be vigilant.”

    I did later get a link through RC moderation after a long delay.

    “Isn’t there some blog that lets people post what they submitted to RC so we can see what gets censored?”

    Yes, I think this: https://rcrejects.wordpress.com/

    But that is probably not a very neutral site for a fair discussion, and I have never put my rejects there.

    As an example of some of the worst censorship I have seen is related to the excellent Antarctic analysis that RyanO did to apparently improve on the method Eric Steig used that was presented here:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.c…..from-here/

    The efforts to discuss this at RC are documented in comments 31-47 of that post. Even I was surprised at that level of censorship.”

  2. rcrejects Says:

    Mike N put a post in a thread way back in the past – Role of This Site thread. Since it is current, I have taken the liberty of copying it here. THanks Mike.

    MikeN Says: July 30, 2009 at 4:45 am

    So how does one post rejected RC comments?

    rcrejects: Just copy the RC comment when you post it ie, when it says “waiting for moderation” and paste into a new comment box here. Fill in the username and e:mail address and post. If it needs tidying up, we will do that, but otherwise we will post it as it arrives. Unless of course it breaches our moderation policy when we will snip and explain our snip. Our moderation policy isn’t formally expressed, but we will snip wildly OT topics (unless they justify a separate thread), abusive comments, and allegations of ‘f…d’ and similar non-acceptable words.

  3. freespeech Says:

    Just posted: I don’t think I have said anything overly controversial, but I’m guessing it won’t see the light of day.

    dogaza wrote:
    “This is being spun now by the denialsphere to mean that Briffa’s saying McI raises points regarding Briffa’s work that require further investigation. Briffa said no such thing. But the spin doesn’t surprise me…”

    Actually I think the Briffa quote implying this might be:
    “We have not yet had a chance to explore the details of McIntyre’s analysis or its implication for temperature reconstruction at Yamal”

    This doesn’t exactly sound like an outright dismissal, it is phrased as one would expect of a scientist. It is a pity Briffa’s original paper didn’t archive his data or mention why particular selections were made, my guess is much of these problems can be averted by the level of open science considered standard in other disciplines.

    By the way, what do all the graphs look like above when you remove those which contain sources where the underlying data is not archived, or lost? Why is it scientifically appropriate to reference them? What is the value of peer review when the underlying data is unavailable and where articles are accepted for publication and emerge from peer review, but fundamental information such as proxy selection/discard methodologies are missing? It seems a mighty small fig-leaf to take refuge behind.

  4. freespeech Says:

    Another likely to be rejected post:
    Hank Roberts says[85]:

    “the stimulation of yield by elevated CO2 in crop species is much smaller than expected”

    Can you confirm that the Yamal proxies were of crop species, grown in otherwise ideal conditions, which is what this quote is referring to? My understanding is that they are of trees in the Arctic. The study specifically confirms elevated carbon gain (that’d be wood for a tree) in drought conditions and lower water use. I wonder if this might be advantageous in permafrost?

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: