As visitors to this site would know, Steve McIntyre at CA has finally managed to gain access to the key Briffa data relating to the crucial Yamal series. Over the past couple of weeks there has been intense discussion about the issue at many blogs with literally 100s of posts being put up by interested blog participants.
It is intriguing indeed to observe the very different moderation policies being implemented by RC (and Tamino’s Open Mind blog) on the one hand and CA on the other.
CA has a post moderation policy which means that all posts are put up, and only moderated after the case. CA has been very tolerant of dissenting comment, and Steve McIntyre has even offered leading proponents with dissenting views the opportunity to run their own threads at CA, completely without moderation from CA. So far, none of the dissenters has taken up Steve’s offer.
RC by contrast, has continued its very draconian moderation policy of deleting any comments that don’t support its agenda.
There has been considerable comment on this issue, and we have ourselves seen quite a few people using this site to put up posts that were rejected at RC or TOM.
JeffID at The Air Vent has had a thread called RC Real Censors discussing RC and its moderation policies. There are quite a few posts there where people have put up their censored RC posts. Go to: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/busted/
When we first established RC Rejects, in order to get the site going, we ourselves cut and pasted comments relating to RC moderation policy posted at other sites. This proved onerous in a time sense, and after a while we decided to let posters put up their own posts here, which has been happening thanks to the efforts of people like MikeN (thanks Mike) in mentioning RCRejects at other blogs.
Due to the intensity of the discussion, there clearly has been a lot of censorship going on over at RC. In fact, one observer stated that he thought that they would be rejecting more than half the comments being posted there, though I don’t know how he could know that.
It is certainly a most interesting time. I decided to go through just one thread at CA (Unthreaded n+2) since there were many comments relating to rejected RC or TOM posts. So far we have 47 comments which we will put up progressively over the next few days. Each one requires a bit of editing to make it intelligible, since we had some issues with our cut and paste process into Word.
Thanks to all the posters who have put up posts here. We really appreciate your contributions. You may have noticed that we have sometimes included an introductory comment indicating where the post was rejected from in case that isn’t clear.
It is also evident that there is no real flow to the posts here. The only thing that most have in common is that they were rejected, or at least discuss rejection, or moderation policies at RC, CA and other blogs. We try to be fair and copy all posts discussing the topic from either pov. Similarly, while we sometimes edit out non-relevant material (for this blog anyhow), we do try to do this fairly, and indicate that we have edited the post.
What conclusions can we draw from all this? The main conclusion is the same as before. Real Climate does appear to exercise a draconian moderation policy to suppress ‘difficult’ questions or dissenting views.