Post Your Rejected Posts Here

As our tag line says, our main purpose is to act as a repository for comments rejected at RC and other sites. When you post, just keep a copy. If it doesn’t show, or if it is edited in a way you don’t like, simply post it here.

UPDATE: Apologies for slow posting. At the moment I am away from the internet 6 days each week, only checking the site on Thursdays. Sorry if that means a post sits in my inbox for a few days.


24 Responses to “Post Your Rejected Posts Here”

  1. MikeN Says:

    Tamino on his post accusing Ian Plimer of lying when he said temperatures were warmer in the 1930s, Arctic ice was higher…

    I pointed out that in the interview, Plimer stated that he didn’t believe the temperature measurements, so you can’t accuse him of lying because the measurements don’t show what he says.
    Also that subs could surface in the 1950s.

    Post deleted.

  2. MikeN Says:

    Also on Tamino’s site:

    He complained about Watt’s comments on the Kaufman 09 paper

    I asked

    ‘Do you have an opinion on the use of Tiljander proxy upside down in Kaufman et al?’

    Post is gone. A later poster asked about the paper and ClimateAudit’s critiques, and Tamino just said he doesn’t pay attention to CA as he focuses on real science.

  3. rcrejects Says:

    A bit of a storm in blogland over the Hockey Stick, or more accurately, the underlying data that was used to develop the Hockey Stick. Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has finally succeeded in getting Briffa to archive the data underlying the Hockey Stick, particularly the Yamal series, which is argued to provide much of the Hockey Stickness shape of the Hockey Stick.

    Steve McIntyre has analysed the data and found that it appears that the Hockey Stickness of the Yamal data series stems from the fact that Briffa ‘cherry-picked’ the ten series that supported his thesis, and rejected the many others that didn’t.

    It appears that this development is very embarrassing for the team. For more information on the topic go to or which is carrying a mirror of Steve McIntyre’s post.

    Predictably, total silence is reigning on Real Climate, Tamino’s Open Mind and similar sites. Numerous comments at Climate Audit and WUWT make it clear that the silence is not because posters are not submitting posts to those sites – rather, the sites are exercising their right to censor/reject posts that they don’t much like.

    Strange really. The silence of the dendrochronologists in response to Steve McIntyre’s revelations has the appearance of an admission that Steve is correct. Surely if Steve were wrong, someone would have emerged with a compelling rebuttal.

    It will be interesting indeed to see how this saga plays out.

  4. maurice Says:

    Talk about denial. Still no mention of the Yamal debacle at Real Climate or Open Mind, of any substance anyhow. Amazing.

    I tried to put up a post at Tamino’s “Open Mind” blog, in the Open Thread #16 thread. Of course it was rejected:

    Maurice // September 29, 2009 at 6:19 am:

    No discussion on the Steve McIntyre analysis of the Briffa Yamal data? Strange. Rather damaging for those who still accept the Hockey Stick conclusion that there was no MWP!

    Or are you censoring any mentions of this topic?

    Seems to me that if Mann, Briffa et al had a case to make, they would smartly put up a rebuttal. Instead, we get total silence here, and at RC, that to the interested observer suggests that the team don’t have a rejoinder. If they do, why don’t they put it up.

    It has been observed that the AGW proponents are their own greatest enemy. Poor quality work, not archiving data, not responding to reasonable requests for methods/data/processes is resulting in a rather sad outcome for the team.

    If your arguments are so strong, why not take them on?

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  5. maurice Says:

    I also tried to post a similar message at RC. However, for some reason they didn’t like it and rejected it. I was only trying to be helpful!

    maurice says: 29 September 2009 at 2:58 PM

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    No discussion on the Steve McIntyre analysis of the Briffa Yamal data? Strange. Rather damaging for those who still accept the Hockey Stick conclusion that there was no MWP!

    Or are you censoring any mentions of this topic?

    Seems to me that if Mann, Briffa et al had a case to make, they would smartly put up a rebuttal. Instead, we get total silence here, and at Tamino’s Open Mind, that to the interested observer suggests that the team don’t have a rejoinder. If you do, why don’t you put it up?

    It has been observed that the AGW proponents are their own greatest enemy. Poor quality work, not archiving data, not responding to reasonable requests for methods/data/processes, etc is resulting in a rather sad outcome for the team.

    If your arguments are so strong, why not take them on?

  6. Neil Craig Says:

    I have collected a series of bans on which I have blogged:



    Re the responses to my post 149:
    1 – You seem to now be disputing not whether the the report was suppressed but merely asking me to say why the author should think his bosses shouldn’t have done so. The answer is not because the author has right to be heard but that the EPA, as a body funded by the taxpayer, has a duty to put up all the evidence not merely what supports their programme. This should also be the self enforcing duty of all scientists.

    2 – You might indeed “that Gregory’s and the FoS’s connection to the practice of true science is somewhat ambiguous” & I might make a similar suggestion about the Hockey Stick theory & Realclimate but if one does so without producing evidence one is simply dropping to the level of schoolyard insults. What exactly is your evidence that all those involved in Friends of Science, including Mr McKittrick, have no good relationship with science?

    3 – Alarmists are calling for the ending of around 80% of combustion on the planet. There is a strong correlation between economic capacity & power usage & thus those who don’t publicly support a massive extension of nuclear power (admittedly there are a handful who do) are in effect calling for the destruction of around 80% of the world economy. This would indeed be “most” of the world economy & before doing so we should have undisputable evidence that warming, on a catastrophic scale such as would render “Antarctica the only habitable continent” is actually happening. There is a theory & there are computer models (ie a theory calculated on a computer) but where is the evidence of catastrophic warming?”

    Deltoid where I was banned after getting Jeff Harvey, a former Nature editor, accused Sir David King (he didn’t realise he had said it not me) of being capable of onkly “kibdergarten” science.

    “Before I forget I agree with you on one point:

    I would not have been so impolite as to say that the statement about Antarctica being the only inhabitable continent within a century indicated the author capable of only “kindergarten analysis” but since you have done so I cannot dispute it & reserve the right to quote you. If you had actually read what was written you would have seen it was written by Sir David King the government’s chief science advisor & a prominent alarmist”

    They banned me later as well.

    Brave New Climate

    This response to various, largely ad hom, attacks was banned for being “not sensible”

    “David 105 – Yes. Can you produce links from that site showing mass ad hominem attacks on an alarmist who has made a scientific point. I do not ask for the “name calling [that] defied description” that Bernie claims to have found merely the equivalent of “kooks” & “tin hat wearer” that Bernie finds proper.

    Barry 106 – Cooling

    Perps 107 – You could equally have put up a link to the expanding ice in Antarctica.

    Bernie 103 – If you say I shouldn’t count 1998 could you name any alarmist who, at the time, said it shouldn’t count as evidence for warming. If not who is cherry picking?

    In any case you are wrong to say that 1998 was “the warmest year ever recorded”. Stephen McIntyre forced NASA/GISS to acknowledge that, at least in the US were records are most extensive, 1933 was the warmest year.

    This happened a year & a half ago so obviously the alarmist press haven’t reported it yet..

    He replaced it with “Ed: Sorry Neil, but the amount of mangled disinformation and recycled claptrap that was packed into that last post was the last straw”

  7. MikeN Says:

    RealClimate has a response up.
    They’ve rejected three comments so far.

  8. MikeN Says:

    [MikeN posted the following at RC. Rejected. mod]

    McIntyre has based his ‘critique’ on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet.

    So noone should critique McIntyre based on stuff found on the internet, like at

    Your own critique is based on hockey stick graphs found on the internet.
    YOu do a real disservice to Schweingruber by describing his chronology in that way.

  9. MikeN Says:

    [MikeN posted the following at RC – rejected. mod]

    What is the local temperature record for Yamal? I didn’t see a hockey stick at Salehard station.

  10. MikeN Says:

    [MikeN posted the following at RC. Rejected. mod]

    Do you think Briffa should release all his data, including for cores that were not used?

  11. p Says:

    [PER posted the following, I assume at RC. Rejected. mod]

    on the current farrago on McIntyre;

    you ask what would happen when you take out the Yamal data from Kaufman et al.’s reconstruction, providing a graph. When you look closely at the graph, it appears that removing Yamal lowers temperatures by ~0.15-0.2Celsius (difficult to tell from the small scale).

    Is that not quite a big effect on temperature in a reconstruction ?


  12. george Antunes Says:

    [George posted the following at RC. Rejected. mod]

    snip: George posted a funny, enjoyable and abusive post. I think it crosses the boundaries, so have snipped most of it. mod/snip

    – I knew they wouldn’t post this, in response to their so-called response to Steve’s post…but, I wanted to see then react. Just hilarious.

  13. Paul Says:

    I posted on Tamino that the nearby weather station to Yamal doesn’t show the same warming as the proxy. Tamino responded that temperature from 1880 is up, and temperature from 1970 is up even more.
    I pointed out that the temperatures from 1925 to 1950 were the same as 1980-2000. DELETED

  14. Antonio San Says:

    After a Tamino rant, I tried to post this…

    “Re: #44 Tamino

    “Do you really believe that? Do you think, if all data from every study for all time were freely and easily available, that would have stopped McIntyre from useless unfounded FUD? Or even slowed him down?

    I don’t.”

    My reply:

    Perhaps then instead of Steve McIntyre you fulminate about, it would have been a well respected climatology laboratory independently testing the robustness of these proxies the same year the papers were published…

  15. freespeech Says:

    Posted on tamino (and expected to be rejected):
    Scott A Mandia wrote:
    “So is this cherry-picking (according to CA and WUWT) or is this just using the “best data” (Briffa) to get the correct reconstruction?”

    What a bizarre argument.

    Removing contaminated surfacestations and describing how they are tainted prior to their removal can be reasonably and scientifically argued. Are you really trying to argue that a rural weather station with no significant land use changes around it is not going to provide a much cleaner picture of long term temperature change than a weather station moved from an orchard, to a car park and then to the roof of a firestation?

    This is nothing like selecting a subset of data that matches your requirements when the majority does not. Not describing or justifying the selection method (which could well be completely justified), and not even mentioning that the data was even part of a larger set – is nothing but poor science.

    The sad thing is that there is even an argument about this. And sadder still that people are attempting to defend this style of “science” just because it matches their belief systems.

  16. freespeech Says:

    I also posted a rebuttal to Gunner’s charactersation of Steve McIntyre, it was rejected. Sadly I didn’t save a copy.

    I pointed out (without any name calling), that in contrast to his characterisation of Steve as an incompetent in matters of science. Steve was asking for access to data an methods so that he (a statistician) could perform an audit on statistical methods and conclusions performed by scientists who for the most part have little or no statistics background.
    Apparently this was too controversial for Tamino’s site, but he was more than happy with the usual crowd of ad hom attacks.

    The world of Climate Science is a very sad place.

  17. None Says:

    Another RC Reject; response to dhogal on the yamal thread. I tried twice then gave up.


    Engineers are probably “overrepresented” amongst creationists only because there are 100 times more engineers on the planet than there are scientists. Put that into your google groups and see how it computes.

    The fact that such a ludicrous claim is even relevant for you in such a debate speaks volumes about your knee-jerk defence mechanisms on this matter.

    The fact that a very widely used proxy comes down to having only 10 constituents, one of which has a freakishly high “response” which significantly enhances the overall signal of the group, and which does not align with local temperature variations anyway is a matter of concern for anyone with an open mind on the subject.

    Instead of what should be unanimous agreement, we get another “it doesn’t matter because all these other studies also support it” response.

    Right answer + wrong method = Bad Science.

  18. JoeDuck Says:

    Maybe open a new thread for the “Yamal” controversy. After three tries I’ve given up at RealClimate even though I’ve never posted anything unreasonable – just asked real questions.

  19. freespeech Says:

    [Freespeech attempted to post this at Tamino’s Open Mind blog – rejected. mod]

    More expected rejects at Tamino’s site – and yes all the others were rejected.

    Dhogaza:”What kind of soap did you use in the shower afterwards to remove the stench? Must be damned powerful stuff.”

    It’s nice to see what passes for valid comment through your “moderation filter”, when questions of science and methodologies are so routinely deleted.

    At least there is no ambiguity that you have abandoned any pretense at science and have decided that advocacy in support of your paycheck is much more important.

    [PS let me know if I have it wrong, and this was posted at RC. mod]

  20. freespeech Says:

    [Freespeech posted the following at RC – rejected. mod]

    I couldn’t help myself and added:
    By the way, I always make it a point to post at rcrejects so that your malfeasance is well documented. Can’t have your feeble minded regulars believing that what is posted here is the entire truth.

    By the way that dhogaza is all class, it must make you proud to associate with him. When the dignity of science is restored university courses will be citing your blog as a study in the perversion of science by talentless cronies.

  21. Eric (skeptic) Says:

    [Ericskeptic posted the following at RC – rejected. mod]

    I asked the following on Oct 3rd:

    “Ray, which of studies you refer to used Briffa’s Yamal data? If they used Yamal mean ring width instead, should they have looked at the raw data also?”

    when I asked I mistakenly believed that Briffa shared the mrw data, but now I realize he only publicly published RCS which shows a hockey stick. Basically it’s a meaningless statistical artifact unless we know how the original data was created. The mrw shows a general rise but no sharp blade.

    Since we who are asking are not dendrochronologists we are not allowed to ask or just accept the pat answer that it is ok to choose a hockey stick if matches some local instrument record. But as shown above, they won’t let anyone ask about that either.

  22. Neil Craig Says:

    On & Not on Realclimate

    Post 315 reads:

    “Apparently everything we’ve done in our entire careers is a “MASSIVE lie” (sic) because all of radiative physics, climate history, the instrumental record, modeling and satellite observations turn out to be based on 12 trees in an obscure part of Siberia. Who knew?”

    Who indeed? Your explanation doesn’t actually mention what the 12 trees have to do with it. McIntyre alleges that there were 34 trees & that Mann decided to choose only 12 of them, which were atypical. [edit]

    [Response: You are extremely confused. a) this has nothing to do with Mike Mann, b) the tree cores were collected by the Russians of which these 12 were a small part, c) Briffa just reprocessed the cores the Russians gave him, d) The ’34 trees’ were collected later and come from a different location and were not part of the Russian collection, e) no-one has provided any reason why the ’12’ are special in any way other than they give a result some people don’t like, f) will more cores help improve the chronology? Probably yes. Are there more data around? Yes. Will the chronology change once they are included? Maybe or maybe not. Does McIntyre’s calculation have anything to add? No. – gavin]

    The 2nd part of that post was deleted. I included it in this 2nd post which was censored as was #3:


    You deleted from my previous post #315:

    “I think all scientists would agree that to remove most of the data because it doesn’t fit the desired result is fraud. Perhaps you could make another go at defence & say whether you deny that those 12 trees were used or that the others don’t exist. That is the issue.”

    & replied to the first part that “e) no-one has provided any reason why the ’12’ are special in any way other than they give a result some people don’t like”

    McIntyre, after going back to the original samples has said specifically that these 12 were indeed atypical. Are you saying specifically either that these 12 tree rings were the only ones available or that they are typical of the full range, or that if they are atypical that there is a real statistical possibility that such an error could happen randomly?


    Gavin you said (post 323) that it was “absolute rubbish” that there could be any bias in funding research designed to prove or question global warming. Apart from the obvious failure of government to fund ANY of Stephen McIntyre’s research how do you correlate such impartiality with the challenge issued by Alan Thorpe, in the pages of the Guardian, for him to have the chance of an open or online debate with sceptics with his role as head of Britain’s NERC handing out £360 million of grants for such research? I will grant that when his challenge was accepted he suddenly went silent so the promised debate never happened but that does not affect the principle of impartiality of grant givers.

  23. Antonio San Says:

    [Antonio San tried to post this at RC – rejected. mod]

    Antonio San says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    9 October 2009 at 1:16 PM
    Meanwhile Willard Boyle, 2009 Physics Nobel Prize winner -a scientific award, not the political one…- described his days as a researcher for Bell labs, as the most exciting of his life… What is needed is “an appreciation for the free will, free spirit of scientists. Give them a chance to do the things they want to do.”
    So Rasmus, who and in under what competence is to decide what Svenmark and/or others should research or not? You? How convenient!

  24. freespeech Says:

    There is an interesting subthread in realclimate now that attempts to paint their “moderation” as fair and not biased against inconvenient questions.
    So I posted the following response to Ray Ladbury and of course it was rejected.

    Ray Ladbury wrote:

    “Terry Sarigumba–How can you read the comments here and conclude that opposing points of view are censored? In fact, given some of the stuff that does get through, I’d be afraid to read what didn’t pass through the stupidity filter!”

    This site continually deletes posts that are embarrassing to its dogmatic position, For example it will always delete questions about what physical biological process allows Mann to include dendro proxies that react negatively to warmer temperatures in his reconstructions. It will also delete questions about the scientific credibility of sites and their authors who defend Mann in this practice

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: