Climate Audit is currently headlining a post from RomanM titled “Rejected … by RC!” – http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6857. (apologies if the link doesn’t work – I haven’t got the hang of WP yet, as must be clear to observers LOL).
RomanM attempted to post a contribution to the ongoing discussion of the Eric Steig paper that was published in Nature, and which has subsequently been the subject of a correction. I won’t go into the detail here – go to CA.
There are numerous mentions on that thread, and some other current CA threads, about comments being rejected at RC. Most of these are in a similar vein to the many comments posted here. Study of the rejected posts merely confirms that RC prefers to “manage” the discussion on its website, and chooses not to post contributions that it decides don’t meet its agenda. Of course, it is their website, and they are free to do as they wish. However, when one compares their censorship policy with that of other climate sites, it is clear that RC elects to censor many posts without any comment or advice to the poster at all. Or if a post is posted, they retain the right to delete content, without marking content as deleted.
In contrast, Climate Audit, which exercises moderation (mainly to ensure that threads remain on-topic and that posts are not just “piling on” or “editorialising”), does the poster the honour of posting comment, but with the offending parts marked “snip”, and usually reasons are given.
The different styles are interesting to say the least, and in the opinion of RC Rejects, affects the tone and style of the respective blogs in quite telling ways. Anyhow, it remains more than interesting to follow the debate.
As frequent visitors to this site would know, the vast majority of rejected posts put up here are those that I notice at other blogs, and which I have cut and pasted for the record here. This is a bit of an onerous task, and since I am currently away from the blog a fair bit, I have come to the conclusion that I shouldn’t try to capture all of the posts where posters remark on their rejection experience at RC. Instead, I have decided to drop back to the primary focus of this site, which is to act as a place for posters to post contributions that they have tried to post at RC (or any other climate site) which have been rejected.
So, go for it guys. When you post at RC (or any other climate site) keep a copy of your post in Word (or notepad or whatever). If they don’t post it, feel free to post it here as a comment to the most recent thread.
Before I close, there was a very interesting suggestion over at CA regarding the need for http://rcuncensored.com/. The idea is that a parallel website to RC be set up, presumably mirroring threads put up at RC, but inviting allcomers to post as they wish, with only a lighthanded moderation policy designed primarily I suppose to keep the site proprietors out of the courts.
We won’t set up such a site, but would love to see someone do it.