The Yamal Controversy

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.

Advertisements

86 Responses to “The Yamal Controversy”

  1. rcrejects Says:

    I tried to post JeffID’s link as a link. However, my rudimentary blogging skills prevented me from doing it. For the moment just cut and paste into the address bar. If anybody can tell me how to make a link work, I would appreciate it!

  2. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 Thread – Post 38:

    Edward: September 28th, 2009 at 8:06 am

    Has anyone else been unsuccessful in getting a post through the censorship at RC regarding this finding? My comment on their most recent thread never made it. Thanks Ed

  3. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 121:

    Stacey: September 29th, 2009 at 10:15 am

    Theres a real interesting post at Real Climate, provided of course you don’t read it. I thought I would comment but as before our Gav was not amused:-
    “Decadel predictions; its quite simple really. Every ten years some so called climate scientist refuses to release details of their work and then Steve McIntyre shows the pathetic mistakes they make? You better come home Gav. One of your cohorts seems to be in trouble soon? I see you managed to infect the Graniad with your moderation policy.”

  4. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 203:

    Ian: October 1st, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    Lorax. Your aspersions on McIntyre’s motives are disgraceful and there is not a shred of evidence to support them.

    Why on earth would Steve McIntyre feed a story to James Dellingbole? He is a journalist in the UK not the US or Canada. That you should imagine such things says much more about your own character than about McIntyres.

    You might also reflect that you are allowed to post here. I and many others are prohibited from posting on RealClimate as our views may be different from those of Gavin Schmidt and his followers.

    And while you are so freely making insinuations, do you think the the refusal by Dr Briffa nd others in the AGW camp to release their data provides a favourable impression of the supporters of AGW? Do you think the sneers and sarcasm so prevalent on RealClimate and other pro-AGW blogs is clever and constructive?

    McIntyre and Anthony Watts do allow all points of view to be aired as to be fair, does George Monbiot who is very pro-AGW. The approach to open and accountable science exhibited by some proponents of AGW is I can assure you, very counterproductive indeed.

  5. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 232

    Steve Geiger: October 1st, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    Lorax, if nothing else please do note how many (off topic, as this one) posts you’ve been allowed today.

    I used to read Real Climate (in fact, I directed others there thinking they were indeed honest brokers)…it didn’t take too long to figure them out. Any supposed science blog that prohibits dissenting opinions/ideas is nonsense. This blog has a MUCH higher real science to nonsense ratio.

  6. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 264:

    Richard: October 1st, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    Re: rephelan (#8),
    “..You were, however wrong about the RC response. Apparently Gavin DOES have an interest in defending Dr. Briffa.” He sure has:

    “Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional. But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review?

    He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered.” [this is a quote from Gavin at RC – mod]

    Well the great Gavin had ample opportunity to directly correct the misrepresentations that I have engendered from Steve McIntyre’s posts, but he passed it up.

    I had posted the following:

    “Richard says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    1 October 2009 at 6:44 PM

    From what I understand of the Yamal chronology story, Briffa used 12 tree rings for the reconstruction of the 19th and 20th centuries – more for the 19th century and even less for the 20th.

    This reconstruction shows a hockey-stick graph, where the current warm period is far warmer than any in the past 2,000 years. When all of Prof Briffa’s and the Schweingruber data is used, the graph is quite different. In this graph, whereas the current warm period shows up, the medieval warm period, for this complete data set, shows as
    warmer than the current warm period.

    Now it was questioned why Prof Briffa used only 12 trees for the modern reconstruction and it was argued that these trees best agreed with modern instrumental records. And the criticism to this argument was that this amounted to cherry-picking and “sharp-shooting” – picking the data to get the result you wanted from the data, rather than letting the data give you the results.

    To me this makes sense. From my high school science I was told that in a scientific experiment, you must record the data as it comes. You must in no way manipulate this data to predict its outcome, even
    though this outcome maybe expected.

    This criticism appears to carry more weight when it appears that just one tree out of those 12 is responsible for most of the big warming of the current warm period.

    What are your comments on this?”

    This was moderated out, perhaps because my observations were too offtopic and unscientific, in favour of the far more polite post, directly addressing deep scientific questions as follows:

    ” Dan L. says: 1 October 2009 at 7:57 PM
    ‘dhogaza: I’m glad that RC is hitting back.’

    Indeed. McI is a coy, sneaky b… uh, fellow. He is cunning enough to avoid directly exposing his nitpicking to peer reviewed publication, relying instead on the usual suspects to shriek on his behalf. Congratulations to RC for knocking the pins from under the WUWTs of this world and their hockey stick obsessions.”

    Bravo Real Climate! I am indeed more enlightened and less confused now by Steve McIntyre’s messages, due to the clarifications you have provided.

  7. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 271:

    MrPete: October 1st, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    Re: Lorax (#175), “Machnee, I too do not appreciate the tone at RC. That said, it is out of character for them, for the most part they are quite professional and thoughtful and do a good job of explaining the science.”

    Lorax, have you not become aware of RC’s long term policy to completely shut down and berate any input, however polite, that doesn’t follow their party line?

    They are professional in the sense of presentation. They are not professional in the sense of scientific dialogue. As soon as a credible critique is written, it is killed. You will never see it at RC. Not because such critiques do not exist but because they have an explicit filter against them.

    And that is why people are learning that the honest truth is not to be found at RC. Science does not advance when managed in such fashion.
    Yes, this site has an agenda. But it is not about pro/anti AGW. It is for good science. That statement is often misbelieved by newcomers. Yet eventually those who take the time to stick around discover that it’s true.

  8. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – post 274:

    Gerald Machnee: October 1st, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    Re: Lorax (#175), “Machnee, I too do not appreciate the tone at RC. That said, it is out of character for them, for the most part they are quite professional and thoughtful and do a good job of explaining the science. I think it an overstatement for you to claim that “There is not one scientific point made there compared to several days worth of critique at Climateaudit.””

    “Explaining the science”. You have not been reading enough there. They do a good job of promoting AGW.

    Re “not one scientific point”. I am still looking for one. Several of the comments twisted what Steve has said or done.

  9. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 275:

    Mark T: October 1st, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    RC is professional? They typically include a half a dozen ad hominem arguments per paragraph. That is not professional.

    Mark

  10. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 – Post 281:

    MrPete: October 1st, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    Re: Lorax (#187), “I need sleep soon as well so this is my final comment for the evening. PS: Can you actually prove what you accuse RC of? If it is true, I will certainly keep that in mind when going there. But I would prefer quantitative proof rather than allegations.”

    I don’t know that anyone has been keeping score. I can be authoritative about CA because I’m one of the volunteers who helps keep it going.

    As for RC, there are plenty of folk whose very-reasonable comments were blocked at RC. At one point, someone was going to create a blog just for the RC-blocked comments. Don’t know if that ever happened.

    In any case, you will find the CA archives chock full of comments from people who have posted their RC comments here because they couldn’t get them through moderation at RC. Many of those comments are from working scientists with very informed material to contribute.

    I don’t want to hijack this topic thread for a discussion of RC vs CA comment policy. Folks, please take further commentary on this to Unthreaded.

  11. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 284:

    MrPete: October 1st, 2009 at 9:57 pm

    (BTW, the moderating practice here at CA is quite simple: get rid of the spam, and trust people to post reasonable comments. Snip after the fact only as necessary. Most of the time, very little snipping is necessary.

    Most comments get auto-moderated because they included a lot of links or their web browser is strangely configured. I promise, there is NO political or point of view bias in the path from your comment to the thread. We use generic automated WordPress management tools.)

  12. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 289:

    Anthony Watts: October 1st, 2009 at 10:23 pm

    Re: Lorax (#92), Lorax. Unlike Steve, who works from home, I don’t often get to watch WUWT during the day. Sometimes I do during break or while I’m waiting on something at my office to finish but for the most part I rely on scheduled publications from items I find in my morning and evening hours, plus volunteer moderators during the day.

    We get several times the volume of comments as some other blogs, and inevitably some bad language does slip through. Like Steve I have a policy against such things, and like Steve sometimes it is moderated after the fact rather than immediately.

    That was the case here and the offending words have now been removed from the WUWT comment. If you look around, you’ll see Steve and I being called all manner on names and labels, yet nobody seems to care about getting those removed.

    The foul prose from “dhoghaza” alone could fill a book. Yet as we’ve seen RC gives precedence to his gutter talk as opposed to more thoughtfully phrased scientific questions.

    Nearly 10 years of stonewalling has led to this. People are angry about this incident, and I can’t blame them for venting at times like this. Briffa and the team brought this anger on themselves with the constant stonewalling for replication data and the ivory tower demeanor that has pervaded their view of legitimate questioning.

    If the team players don’t like this heat coming from their employers, the public, perhaps then they should stop working in the kitchen.

  13. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 290:

    Anthony Watts: October 1st, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Re: bender (#195), “At one point, someone was going to create a blog just for the RC-blocked comments. Don’t know if that ever happened.”

    There is a site now for archiving these called rcrejects.wordpress.com

  14. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 294:

    Dave Dardinger: October 1st, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    Re: Lorax (#189), “PS: Can you actually prove what you accuse RC of? If it is true, I will certainly keep that in mind when going there. But I would prefer quantitative proof rather than allegations.”

    You could do a poll of the regulars here and see if there are any of them who have NOT had polite disagreements with RC blocked.

    I’m a quick learner and though I’ve been here since the first days of Climate Audit, I found quickly that there was no hope of getting RC to engage in real dialog. So I stopped going there. Occasionally I’ll return just to be sure things haven’t changed, but it never has.

  15. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 299:

    Ian: October 1st, 2009 at 11:27 pm

    Lorax. I tried to post this (see below) at RC. Vapourised immediately. Why not have a real good look at the ethos and ethics of RC and CA.

    “I haven’t seen your explanation of why Prof Briffa didn’t provide and was not compelled by the journal to provide the data on which he based his conclusions. Steve McIntyre has been trying for nearly a decade to obtain these data but none at RC seem to think this at all unusual.

    The Western world, by and large, is run on principles of democracy and if people take McIntyre’s results and draw their own conclusions this is all part of the democratic process. Refusing to provide data for others to evaluate that is derived in large part courtesy of the UK taxpayer could not be called either scientific or democratic.

    Additionally it seems that the peer review process is somewhat different in climate science than in other areas of science. I wonder what John Maddox would have thought of that process now.”

    [Steve: I haven’t been trying for “a decade” to get this data. I’ve been trying since early 2006. However, the chronology was first published in 2000 and it took nearly a decade for the measurement data to be made available.]

  16. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 327:

    Bob Koss: October 2nd, 2009 at 6:14 am

    Real Climate is actually surreal climate. They really treat their readers like mushrooms.

    My comment here Bob Koss (#209), is virtually identical with what I attempted to post at surreal climate. I judiciously removed the first sentence in order to not offend their tender sensibilities. That comment has now been purged from their system after awaiting moderation since 12.19 AM their time.

    It seems even the mildest chiding isn’t acceptable reading for their followers.

  17. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 353:

    Lorax: October 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am

    Bender et al. Every single one of my comments from yesterday has been removed (even those pertaining to Briffa and questions about the selection of trees, and even those comments made before I was warned/threatened of being snipped), yet other’s rebuttals to some of my comments remain. That despite people assuring me yesterday that this blog was different, superior even.

    Oh, so it is because I had to be taught a lesson? What nonsense. Try again. Are we adults, or playing in the school yard? Apparently the latter- close ranks and bully the outsider. I have never before witnessed such an en mass rabid attack on a dissenter on a blog as took place here yesterday. Yes, you are clearly much better than that lot at RC.

    Consider this, the censorship and actions like those displayed here yesterday and today by you and your ilk clearly give others very good reasons to consider CA to be a “group think” site.

    Also consider that McIntyre agreed that I had some valid concerns and he acted upon them. So I have been vindicated by McIntyre himself.

    I have, it seems, effectively been banned form this site after one day. So much for openness, fairness and transparency. Talk about the kettle (CA) calling pot (RC) brunt arse.

    Interestingly, skeptics like Spencer and Pielke Snr. do not allow comments, period. So, Bender, please consider to audit some of the recent work published by Lindzen, Spencer and Pielke Snr.

    PS: I know my comment will be snipped, of course. Bender, I’ll remind you that you were guilty of distorting and building endless straw man arguments against me yesterday. So you were not threading questions appropriately; can you say “hypocrisy”? I await you and your cohorts’ indignant replies.

    To say I am disappointed in CA would be a gross understatement.

    [MrPete: Lorax, NOTHING you said has been snipped. Please read my comment above, where I (and Steve in parallel) moved all of the “motivation” notes to the unthreaded thread. There’s a link there as well. This comment of yours also belongs in Unthreaded, but I’m leaving it here for now… obviously you are just getting the hang of the blog and need to know how to find your way to the conversation that got moved!]

  18. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 473:

    Joe Hunkins: October 2nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    Are others having trouble getting comments to appear at RealClimate?

    I had assumed – I now think wrongly – that they would not do heavy handed comment censorship on the latest Mck Attack post. FWIW here’s the comment over there:

    “It’s unfortunate to see so many insults and tired talking points rather than *key issues* such as:

    – Is Yamal robust?

    – Why does proxy selection in papers like Yamal, Kaufman seem to include more proxies with stronger GW signals than a randomized proxy selection process?

    – Why isn’t there a randomized proxy selection process or at least a well structured one as was suggested (but appears not implemented) in the Kaufman Arctic lakes study?

    – Why does it take so long to properly archive data and why is there a single shred of resistance to totally transparent archiving of source code and data?

    – To what degree is observed global warming the product of human activity?

    – To what degree is the modern warming trend unprecedented?

    – Role of the Medieval Warming Period and why is there so much disagreement about temps at that time? (another proxy selection issue!)

    Simply asserting that these questions “have been answered many times” isn’t only wrong and insulting, it’s counterproductive if you sincerely want to challenge the growing mainstream view that climate science has been compromised by cognitive biases and ego.

    I’m staying open to your insistence that the science has not been compromised at all and McKintyre is just a slinging mathematical mud, but posts like this don’t provide much support for that idea.”

  19. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 475:

    Barclay E. MacDonald: October 2nd, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    Joe this blog is littered with posts of censorship at Real Climate. You are by no means the first or the last. But thanks for posting it here. A record of Real Climate censoring should be available somewhere.

  20. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 476

    bender: October 2nd, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    Re: Joe Hunkins (#41),

    Post your questions there and here. We’ll see who lets your posts through and who gives you the more complete answer.

  21. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded.n+2 thread – Post 477

    MikeN: October 2nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Joe, post at rcrejects.wordpress.com.

  22. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 479

    Ian: October 2nd, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    I asked RC if the Briffa series had been plotted without YADO6 but it didn’t get through (actually none of my posts do). It also didn’t get through onto Tamino’s siteand RC where a few are criticising WUWT of cemnsorship. I don’t know how they have the gall to do that when Tamino and RC censor like crazy.

  23. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 482

    Gerald Browning: October 2nd, 2009 at 8:24 pm

    Posted at Real Climate.

    Real Climate. Because you claim to want to deal only with scientific facts, I will point out a number of mathematical facts that you have never addressed (mathematical references available on request).

    1) There is no mathematical or numerical basis for convective adjustment, i.e. it is an ad hoc process to project column instabilities (overturning) to larger scales of motion to artificially maintain hydrostatic equilibrium.

    2) The hydrostatic equations are not the proper well posed limit of the inviscid, unforced, compressible equations of motion and are ill posed for the initial value problem. The ill posedness leads to increasingly larger exponential growth during shorter and shorter periods of numerical integration as the mesh size is decreased in order to attempt to obtain a numerically convergent solution. This problem is swept under the rug by convective adjustment and excessively large (unphysical) dissipation.

    3) The use of unphysically large dissipation in climate models leads to the incorrect nonlinear cascade of enstrophy and to an inaccurate numerical solution of the equations of motion with the correct physical dissipation.

    4) In order to hide the incorrect cascade of enstrophy, the necessarily physically inaccurate parameterizations (forcings) are artificially tuned to alter the spectral cascade. ( Note that if the forcings were physically accurate, but used with the wrong enstrophy cascade, the result could not be physical.

    5) The hydrostatic equations were derived in the free atmosphere, i.e. above the surface boundary layer. The addition of a surface boundary layer parameterization is an ad hoc and inaccurate attempt to add a surface boundary layer (see Sylvie Gravel’s manuscript on Climate Audit to see the impact of such an artificial parameterization.)

    6) In the presence of shear, the equations of motion grow exponentially with a time scale on the order of hours. This exponential growth can only be handled by a numerical method for a few hours – not days, decades, or centuries.

    As I expect this post to be deleted, I will also place the post on Climate Audit.

    Jerry.

  24. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 485

    Gerald Browning: October 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    On real climate, above comment immediately follows comment 299 on Hey Ya! thread. Awaiting moderation (deletion).

    Jerry

  25. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 486

    Gerald Browning:October 2nd, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    Gee, it already seems to have gone into the black hole.

    Jerry

  26. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 488

    MikeN: October 2nd, 2009 at 10:24 pm

    Yea, I pointed out on Tamino’s site about Sahelard’s temperature record, and he came back with the warming since 1960 blah blah, where did you get the idea there was no warming?, and when I tried to respond that 1925-1950 was the same as 1980-2000 he cut it. To make things worse, someone else posted that it’s rude not to answer him.

  27. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 489

    Tom: October 2nd, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    BTW, over at RC they are asking about a better comment preview system, as the one they have causes excessive bandwidth. Perhaps you could suggest the JS one used here?

  28. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 490

    MikeN: October 2nd, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    Ian, you might have to change your name to get a post through.

  29. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 491

    Ian: October 2nd, 2009 at 10:35 pm

    MikeN. I think it works on the IP address or anything from Fremantle as I’ve tried using the Uni library computers with a different name but I still get blocked on Tamino and vapourised on RC.

  30. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 493

    MikeN: October 2nd, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    Well at RC, if you challenge the contributors, or get too scientific in your skepticism, it’s likely blocked automatically. The only skeptic comments they prefer are political or ones that are easy to refute.

  31. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 494

    Phil: October 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 am

    Re: Gerald Browning (#474). “Gee, it already seems to have gone into the black hole. Jerry”

    Well it was off topic so what did you expect, here it would get turfed off into ‘unthreaded’ at best.

  32. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 495

    Patrik: October 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 am

    MikeN. Is there an archive where to send ones censored RC-posts? I posed a question there, when someone ranted about AGW being based on “simple physics”, where I asked this person if this simple physics really can account for solar variation, clouds and precipitation. In no way was I incoherent, insulting, harsh or anything. This comment never appeared. After that I tried with several postings and they all got cut.

    I did get two-three through, and most of those where probably deemed “easily refuted”, since they recieved insulting but far from comprehensive answers. When I tried to follow-up, those comments where cut.

    I actually got quite a long answer directly from Gavin to my first question, but that one was mostly about a clarification of something he had written before which I had problems understanding.

    So, is there someone around who collects all these censorings?
    I have been active on the Internet since 1995 and I have never, ever encountered the type of behaviour that RealClimate exhibits.

  33. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 507

    JamesG: October 3rd, 2009 at 8:35 am

    Last time I had a comment disallowed on RC it was in response to one of Rasmus’s posts. He had said the solar-climate correlation failed after 1950.

    I merely reminded him that his RC colleague Raypierre had previously written that it was 1960 on an RC post, that his other RC colleague Mann along with Trenberth and some other IPCC luminaries had published that the correlation failed after 1980 and that Lockwood had recently published that it failed after 1985. Not very controversial I thought – just a reminder to be consistent.

  34. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 513

    Gerald Browning: October 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am

    Phil. Real Climate made the statement: “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?” as if everything climate scientists have done is perfect.

    My point is that they have come nowhere close to answering the important continuum mathematical questions about the impact of the ad hoc crude assumptions they have made developing climate models.

    Real Climate deletes anything that involves a careful analysis of their gimmicks. And I only posted on one topic. There are serious problems with the assumptions made in radiative physics, satellite measurements, climate data, etc. This area of “science” is a joke.

    Jerry

  35. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 516

    Gerald Browning: October 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    Phil. Just where would you like me to post my comment on Real Climate to ensure that it will be addressed by the Team?

    Jerry

  36. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 518

    bender: October 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    Re: Gerald Browning (#495): There are threads where it would fit, and maybe Phil will oblige to mention one. The problem is you ask a question, they give a one-sentence reply, usually dismissive, and if you follow up, the peanut gallery will flame you as a “denier”.

    If you ask more than one question then Hank Roberts or Ray Ladbury or some such character becomes your handler. Then Barton Paul Levenson or some such character will start a-preachin’ about denialist sin. At that point, Gavin and “-mike” et al are beyond reach. Ever.

  37. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 537

    bender: October 3rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    In one-trick-pony Phil’s haste to point out a double-standard (yawn) I suppose he did not reflect on the fact that RC has no place for general questions, whereas CA does: “unthreaded”. (Another inequality in his ridiculous comparison.) Perhaps RC can try that innovation? Or maybe they just couldn’t give a hoot what questions skeptics might have?

    Shame on Jerry for not suggesting RC implement an unthreaded thread.

  38. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 545

    MikeN: October 3rd, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    [Ideas and contributions have to evaluated on their merits, not from where they come from. – gavin]

  39. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 574

    henry: October 4th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    Since this is “unthreaded”: From RC – “Technical Note: We have just upgraded the blog software. It looks ok, but please let us know (contrib -at- realclimate.org ) if there are any problems. Update: enabling comment preview caused unacceptable loads on the server, possibly because it conflicts in some way with caching. Any suggestions for a pop-up previewer that might work better would be appreciated!”

    I wonder if the load on the server had anything to do with the line of comments in the “awaiting moderation” section. Having to go through that many posts, determining which ones are suitable for posting at RC (i.e, does it support AGW, does it trash CA or SM, etc) probably is a very long process.

    Maybe Someone should post a letter to “contrib -at- realclimate.org “, and say that their upgrade to the blog software seems to preventing anti-AGW posts from getting through.

    Since I know that Gavin reads this blog, then, a statement. When you have to refuse more posts than you allow, there’s someting wrong with the moderation.

  40. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 593

    bender: October 4th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    On the topic of censoring at RC. Here’s one of my favorites where Falafulu fisi was censored http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2015

    [For the convenience of readers, here is a copy of the post that Bender is referring to:

    CA Hansen’s “Bias Method” thread – Post 57:

    Falafulu Fisi: September 3rd, 2007 at 7:21 pm

    I posted the following message at RealClimate but was not published by the admin, in which I criticized Hansen’s climate linear feedback system model. I don’t know if my message was offensive or something.

    ——- message posted at RealClimate ——–

    Timothy Chase said…”I point this out because it really doesn’t make much sense to speak of running climate data thru a purely black box model given the complexity of the climate system – the fact that there as so many aspects which could be modeled.”

    Tim, how about you (ray ladbury, RealClimate members and others) go and re-read the Rossow/Aires paper that I quoted at James Annan’s website. I didn’t respond to James Annan’s comment over there as he seemed to nitpick certain lines & paragraphs to quote in his message, meaning I doubt that he read the mathematical derivation to be able to understand it and make comment. I also doubt that he (James) is familiar with feedback control theory at all, so I couldn’t be bothered to reply.

    “Inferring instantaneous, multivariate and nonlinear sensitivities for the analysis of feedback processes in a dynamical system: Lorenz model case-study” http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Aires_Rossow.pdf

    Once, you understand the paper above, then you can come back for a debate. If you don’t have a background in feed-back control theory, then I suggest the following books:

    #1) “Digital Control of Dynamics Systems” , 3rd Ed, by Gene.F.Franklin, J.David. Powell and Michael. Workman.

    #2) “Feed-back Control of Dynamical Systems” 4th Ed, by Gene.F.Franklin, J.David. Powell and Abbas. Emami-Naeni.

    #3) “System Identification: Theory for the User” , 2nd Ed, by Lennart Ljung.

    #4) “Nonlinear System Identification: From Classical Approaches to Neural Networks and Fuzzy Models” by Oliver Nelles.

    #5) “Multivariable Feedback Control: Analysis and Design” by Sigurd Skogestad , Ian Postlethwaite.

    #6) “Neural Networks for Modelling and Control of Dynamic Systems” by Magnus N�rgaard, O. Ravn, N. K. Poulsen, and L. K. Hansen.

    The NARMAX algorithm (nonlinear auto-regressive moving average exogenous) multiple input multiple output (MIMO) mentioned in Rossow/Aires paper is covered in detail in Ref #6.”

    Timothy Chase said…”Whether you are speaking of genetic programming or neural networks, such approaches work best when the problems which they are applied to are fairly deliminated – or at least far more so than the earth’s climate system.”

    Tim get any of those books I have quoted above and read about the discipline of feedback control theory and Systems Identification, to get some understanding, then come back to debate. The comment you made above is obvious to me that your opinion is uninformed. Get to grip with feedback control theory before you comment. You will also find the formal definition of “System Sensitivity” of how it is defined in “Control” literature.

    Ray Ladbury said…”Climate science is quite mature.”

    Ray, all disciplines of science are mature today, however it doesn’t mean we are getting any closer to a universal climate model. How about you read the issues discussed in the following NASA sponsored workshop (see link below) a few years back and see those difficulties that I said we’re not any closer to finding. Note if you click on the link and when it appears, just refresh it, so that the text doesn’t quashed up to the left side. “WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE SYSTEM FEEDBACKS”
    http://grp.giss.nasa.gov/reports/feedback.workshop.report.html

    I am amazed at how, everyone here (RealClimate) attacked Dr. Swartz’s work on climate sensitivity as too simplistic while James Hansen’s paper on sensitivity does escape criticism. James Hansen’s work on climate linear feed-back control is now regarded as inappropriate and misleading. See the link for the workshop above. Where is the criticism of James Hansen? His model is also simplistic and doesn’t represent the true physics. Just compare the model described in Hansen’s paper (below) and the work done by Rossow/Aires, showed above. “Climate sensitivity – Analysis of feedback mechanisms” by J. Hansen, A. Cacis, D. Rind. G. Russell.

    The one sided criticism of Dr. Schwartz’s work looks like an attempt to shut-down debate.

  41. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 675

    jae: October 5th, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    WELL: I AM GENERALLY A SUPPORTER OF CA, BUT I MADE A VERY INNOCUOUS STATEMENT THIS PM, AND IT WAS DELETED. WTF? ARE YOU ADOPTING RC METHODOLOGY? EXPLANATION, PLEASE!

    [mod: Hi jae. I doubt it was purposefully deleted. Heavy load has made mgmt a bear in recent days. Please bear w/ us!]

  42. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 687

    Geronimo: October 6th, 2009 at 1:39 am

    I’m not suggesting any malfeasance of malpractice by the climate science community, they don’t seem to have a disciplined approach to the process of producing scientific papers, probably due to the fact that until around 1998 their work was carried out without much public, or political interest.

    Once they foretold the end of the world then there were bound to be people who would challenge their output. In this particular case if it was an engineering project and Steve McIntyre managed to get the data and prove it was interpretable in different ways there would be an audit trail for the engineers to follow.

    In the case of Briffa and co. the audit trail should lead to the notes of the peer review, and should show that he was challenged on the number of trees not being a significant statistical sample and answered that to the satisfaction of the reviewers, who, understanding where he was coming from and agreeing with the science put on record their agreement with the outcome of the paper. This could then be produced to refute any suggestions that the work was in anyway anything but openly scientific. So it should be simple for Briffa et al.

    I have a 100% record of being moderated out of RC, and this was one of the questions I posed to Gavin yesterday. I had on censored which stated that Steve McI had not said that Briffa had done anything wrong and that if there was an error on Briffa’s part this in no way refuted the AGW case. What am I doing wrong?

  43. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 701

    See-owe to Rich: October 6th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    Continuing the occasional commentary on RC.

    I used to think that RC stood for Roman Catholic. Then I discovered climate science and discovered it stood for RealClimate (a week before I discovered what CA stood for). Now I know that it stands for Real Censorship.

    Rich.

  44. rcrejects Says:

    CA Unthreaded n+2 thread – Post 723

    TomVonk: October 8th, 2009 at 4:28 am

    Re: Andrew (#708): I have recommended reading Tsonis already some 2 years ago on this blog. The problem is that 99% of the climate “scientists” are stuck with the physics of the 19th century .
    It is all about equilibriums , small deviations from equilibriums and perturbative treatments. Yet it is well known since about 30 years that these physics hopelessly fail when dealing with complex non linear systems .

    So when Dan Hughes told me that Schmidt has posted that his models exhibited chaotic behaviour I was quite excited. And as this statement stands in contradiction with the statement that “models exhibit deterministic trends at specific time scales” I tried to post some comments and clarifications on RC . As none of my comments passed censorship over there , I stopped going to RC.

    [balance of Tom’s post not relevant to this thread – mod]

  45. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Gavin’s Guru and RCS” thread – Post 180

    steven mosher: October 5th, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    Re: Jim Bouldin (#141): As others suggested you can post them here. Posting them @ RC effectively cuts off discussion. As I can personally attest my posts there have been blocked. Even when I say I believe in AGW as I do. Even when I tried to THANK HANSEN PERSONALLY for releasing the Gisstemp code. Like we lukewarmers say: free the data, free the code, free the debate.

  46. rcrejects Says:

    An exchange at CA “Core Counts and Reverse Engineering” thread – Post 78

    steven mosher: October 10th, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    Re: bender (#76),

    I got my paper right here in one sentence. “Using standard methods of multivariate calibration and the data at hand no conclusion can be drawn about the global temperature prior to 1800.”

    Where do I Submit?

    CA “Core Counts and Reverse Engineering” thread – Post 88

    bender: October 11th, 2009 at 6:09 am

    Re: steven mosher (#79),

    Opinions can be solicited at a website called “realclimate”. Folks there are reasonable and helpful.

  47. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 23.

    Harold AmblerAustin, Texas: October 5th, 20096:16 pm.

    It was an interesting journalistic choice to give Michael Mann the last word in this article, given his red-hot, well-publicized, decade-long dispute with Steve McIntyre.

    On the other hand, thank you for quoting Mr. McIntyre at length. From where I stand, his remarks are cogent and hard to dispute.

    Gavin Schmidt’s tone in his rebuttal of McIntyre at RealClimate was not all that august, it turns out. He has also continued his long-standing policy of deleting comments by those who disagree with his views, including and especially in the current case.

  48. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 32.

    [The bulk of this post is OT, so edited out. The coda is pertinent however. mod]

    MrPete, Colorado, October 5th, 2009 7:57 pm:

    (Note too: RC will not allow any dissenting views on their site. You don’t see McIntyre et al there, because he’s not welcome. Contrast that w/ McIntyre’s longstanding policy of offering a top-line post space, without restriction, to any climate scientist wanting to address the community.)

  49. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 46.

    dhogaza. Portland, Oregon. October 5th, 2009:

    [the bulk of this post is OT for this blog, so edited out. The coda is pertinent however. mod]

    Note too: RC will not allow any dissenting views on their site.

    Go to the thread, you’ll see at least a hundred dissenting views. In other news, the sun *is* setting in the West this evening.

    You don’t see McIntyre et al there, because he’s not welcome.

    McIntyre’s posted there using his sockpuppet Nigel Persuad. The use of sockpuppets in this manner is generally frowned upon in webland.

  50. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 64

    dhogaza. Portland, Oregon. October 6th, 2009 8:06

    “(Note too: RC will not allow any dissenting views on their site. You don’t see McIntyre et al there, because he’s not welcome. Contrast that w/ McIntyre’s longstanding policy of offering a top-line post space, without restriction, to any climate scientist wanting to address the community.)”

    I gave the lie to that earlier.

    For any lurker who believes that MrPete is telling the truth:

    http://www.realclimate.org

    There’s the Real Climate thread.

    If you can’t find dissenting view there, you’re blind.

    Meanwhile, MrPete, I (and many others) are banned from Watts Up With That.

  51. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 67.

    Elliot. New Zealand. October 6th, 2009 8:06 am

    Andy, I visit your blog, Climate Audit and Real Climate regularly. I think the tone of each site says a lot.

    Climate Audit seems to be very objective. Steve focuses on the issues and makes reasoned comments about other peoples work. He also regularly posts other people comments verbaitum and addresses their points, much like Dot Earth.

    Real Climate on the other hand constantly derides people without addressing the issue. The constant response seems to be you aren’t in the official “climate tent” so you dont get to comment. There seems to be no acknowledgement that debate is essential in any scientific endeavor. Steve M may be nit picking but if we are going to make trillion dollar decisions based on a handful of proxies shouldn’t we examine those to the nth degree?

    If my comments appear biased then just compare the two posts Andy has provided. There is a distinct difference in tone.

    There was one point that stood out for me:

    “Given the importance of climate change as an issue, it remains disappointing that prompt archiving of data remains an issue with many authors and that funding agencies and journals are not more effective in enforcing existing policies or establishing such policies if existing policies are insufficient. It would be desirable as well if journals publishing statistical paleoclimate articles followed econometric journal practices by requiring the archiving of working code as a condition of review.”

    This seems a statement nobody could disagree with. I wonder Andy whether there could a blog here listing key climate studies that haven’t made such information freely available and challenging them and the respective publications and funders to do so. After all nobody could serious argue the science of climate change would be worse off with such disclosure.

  52. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 73.

    Chris Dunford. Maryland. October 6th, 2009 9:06 am

    Elliot #67:

    If you think this, you really haven’t spent much time there. Every issue is addressed at length and in detail, with references. Many dissenting comments are addressed point-by-point with inline responses. Are they a bit snarky at times? Sure. But after responding for the thousandth time to something like “AGW is false because it warmed in the past without SUVs!”, I’d get snarky too.

    You’re the second person to make this claim in the face of many thousands of easily discoverable dissenting comments. I’d be interested to hear why you say this.

    [This last comment is rather well demonstrated by the many rejected posts on this blog, I would have thought. mod]

  53. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 77.

    [Note. First part of this post edited out as not OT for this blog. mod]

    bernie. Boston. October 6th, 2009 9:22 am

    I have followed the analysis, debates and fisticuffs at Climate Audit and Real Climate for the last three years. I think the above 68 comments represent a pretty good sample of the nature and tone of the comments on both sites. Both sites have their ugly moments and both sets of lead authors can be abrupt, to say the least. However, the attitude of Dr. Schmidt et al to Steve McIntyre’s criticisms makes no sense. It is obvious at least to me, that those at Real Climate are not interested in actually testing their hypotheses and discussing the issues – their mantra appears to be that “the science is settled” . There is a concerted effort to deny any legitimacy whatsoever to Steve McIntyre (and the other very popular skeptical site run by Anthony Watts) – despite the fact that he is an IPCC reviewer. Look at the links to other sites on the sites involved – it is hard to find a single link to Climate Audit at any of the major pro-CAGW sites including Real Climate. Look at the reactions to Steve McIntyre’s appearance at Georgia Tech. Look at the policies and practices governing comments at the sites.

    Ultimately science is about openness – and Steve McIntyre has repeatedly demonstrated that there is an alarming lack of openness on the part of many climate scientists. Which sites are more open?

    The tone of the comments here is a reasonable indicator of the openness of these sites.

  54. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 88.

    PaulD. Cincinnati, Ohio. October 6th, 2009 11:59 am

    “You obviously have not read SM’s comments. He is makes it quite clear that he is not proposing an alternative reconstruction. He is merely questioning whether exisiting proxies are adequate. One way he shows this is by demonstrating a divergence between the instrumental record and the proxies when a more reasonable sample is used.”

    The first comment notes that SM had not made any comments regarding Gavin’s post at Real Climate. That is because he is not welcome to comment at Real Climate. My own comment to the Gavin’s post did not get through the moderation. It was one sentence long and merely stated that SM had responded to Gavin and gave the link to Climate Audit.

  55. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 98

    [An extract from a much longer post – mod]

    Steve Fitzpatrick. Florida. October 6th, 2009 12:36

    3. While McIntyre’s blog allows virtually any comment, barring mainly obscene or completly off-topic comments, blogs such as RealClimate (where Mann is a contributor) routinely censor comments they do not like, or completely block participation of anyone who disagrees with the position of the blog. What are they afraid of?

  56. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 104.

    Gomer1234. ORLANDO. October 6th, 2009 1:32 pm

    Time Saver Tip for ED.

    Why is the EDITOR highlighting comments on this blog. It’s out of the ordinary in any blog to let the reader know which is the favored post by an invisible “Editor” This proves bias by the EDITOR, who is not content in just having control of the original post but wants to extend to everyone’s post, giving prominence to like minded posters.

    Why don’t you just delete the comments you don’t like just as Gavin does at Real Climate?

    Or save yourself a lot of work and reading and just not allow posting on this at all. You will get the same result as your highlighting plus your uneven bent wouldn’t be so obvious.

  57. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 117.

    David B. Benson. Pullman. October 6th, 2009 2:22 pm

    PaulD (88) — The internet is only best effort and their are no guarantees of success. Occasionally comments just disappear. I very much doubt that Real Climate was censoring whatever failed to appear. If you acutally think it important (given what a silly subject this is), try again.

  58. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 118.

    MrPete. Colorado. October 6th, 2009 3:19 pm

    Re: dhogaza (#68),

    Sorry, I’m not going to stoop to your level of outright defamation. You call McIntyre political, even though CA explicitly bans all political and religious comments and allows all others (only two people have been banned, and you’re not one of them 🙂 ). Meanwhile, you praise RC as scientific, even though it is sponsored by a blatantly biased political advocacy organization, and bans all comments and commenters who disagree. I’ll let those facts speak for themselves.

    [Balance of post edited out – mod]

  59. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 124.

    PaulD. Cincinnati, Ohio. October 6th, 2009 3:30 pm

    David Benson #117: writes: “The internet is only best effort and their are no guarantees of success. Occasionally comments just disappear. I very much doubt that Real Climate was censoring whatever failed to appear. If you acutally think it important (given what a silly subject this is), try again”

    I would except that I have many respectfully submitted comments blocked by the moderator. I am not inclined to think this is bad luck.

    My experience causes me to believe Steven McIntre when he says that his comments don’t make it through moderation at Real Climate.

    I am also aware that Roger Pielke, Jr. has observed that his comments have been blocked at Real Climate even when the topic of his own writing is discussed.

    Anyone of who reads through the comments section of any skeptical blog will find numerous commenters who state that their comments are blocked. I am told, but have not verified that there is a website devoted to comments that have been censored at Real Climate.

  60. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 125.

    blueshift. chicago. October 6th, 2009 3:30 pm

    PaulD #88. Your comment appears at RC. It is comment #466 tagged as posted Oct 5th at ~9:45 (from short term memory). Now, you made no explicit claim on censorship but this does make me wonder how many of those that do are simply giving in to impatience and paranoia.

  61. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 126.

    Chris Dunford. Maryland. October 6th, 2009 4:05 pm

    Seafang 109: “As for dialog on the matter; Real Climate is hardly a model for scientific dialog, given that no dissenting voice is ever allowed to appear on their pages.”

    Whoa. Dissenting voices _are_ heard there, in the comments. Contrary to assertions here, they are demonstrably allowed, and there are literally thousands of them. I can’t speak to what happened to individual posts, but it’s patently absurd to say that “no dissenting voice is ever allowed to appear on their pages.” A glance at any of their posts will disprove this instantly.

    I am assuming, by the way, that by “no dissenting voices allowed” you aren’t trying to suggest that they should allow others to post dissenting articles.

    As for “Real Climate is hardly a model for scientific dialog”: Who said that it is? It’s not a dialog, it’s a blog; and it’s their blog. I don’t know anyone who has held it up as a model for scientific dialog. It’s just some climate scientists writing about things that interest them.

  62. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 130.

    Chris Dunford. Maryland. October 6th, 2009 4:05 pm

    124: “My experience causes me to believe Steven McIntre when he says that his comments don’t make it through moderation at Real Climate.”

    As has been pointed out, McIntyre isn’t welcome at RC because he tried to use his sock puppet there.

    [I don’t know whether this is true or not. I hadn’t come across this allegation before this thread. mod.]

  63. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 147.

    Mark Bahner. Durham, NC. October 6th, 2009 6:12 pm.

    “Occasionally comments just disappear. I very much doubt that Real Climate was censoring whatever failed to appear.”

    How do you know what Real Climate censors and does not censor?

  64. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 157.

    [In the interests of brevity, the first part of this post has been edited out. mod]

    Jason. Cambridge, MA. October 6th, 2009 9:29 pm.

    “McI seems to have done nothing to tamp down the various allegations.”

    McI and his associates have manually deleted no fewer than a couple of hundred posts from his site over the past 1+ week (I’d guess closer to 500), the vast majority of them attacking Briffa and company in ways that exceed his site’s policy.

    If you send him email about a post which you think is out of bounds, he will respond and very likely delete the offending post with some alacrity.

    I think this goes above and beyond what is called for on his part. Its unfortunate that RC does not maintain similar policies. Speaking of which:

    Blueshift, your apparent suggestion that RC does not routinely censor comments is laughable. Too many people have too much experience being censored to take this seriously.

    It often seems to me that RC likes to let in obviously weak skeptical comments to serve as natural strawmen, while blocking anything that they don’t have a ready made answer for. RC policies vary enormously from post to post (I’ve always presumed that this is because different people are doing the moderating), but suggesting that a majority of skeptical comments are not censored is simply not credible.

  65. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 174.

    Steve Reynolds. Colorado. October 7th, 2009 7:40 am.

    As someone with plenty of experience with getting comments censored or delayed at RC, I want to respond to those denying it happens.

    First, lost comments are not the reason. A comment that passes the spam filter at RC appears (visible only to the poster) as awaiting moderation. Moderation of disliked comments can take many hours (or days). If it is finally allowed, it appears in time order of its initial submission (annoyingly changing the numbering of later comments).

    This conveniently buries the disliked comment under pages of favored comments that quickly passed moderation.

    Also note the invalid logic: we see some dissenting comments, so no dissenting comments are rejected.

    To be fair, I have had many comments get through (delay generally proportional to dissent expressed), and some even answered by the contributors there.

  66. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 189.

    Chris Dunford. Maryland. October 7th, 2009 10:13 am

    Steve Reynolds 174: “As someone with plenty of experience with getting comments censored or delayed at RC, I want to respond to those denying it happens.”

    I don’t remember anyone sying that comments are never rejected at RC (and it is well within their rights to do so, by the way). What was objected to were the obviously false claims that no dissenting opinions are permitted.

  67. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 190.

    Chris Dudley. Maryland. October 7th, 2009 4:35 pm

    Chris (#189). Here is the RealClimate comment policy: http://www.realclimate.org

    Not everything can be posted there. Same goes for Dot Earth. One consents to the policy by posting.

  68. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 191.

    Chris Dunford. Maryland. October 7th, 2009 4:35 pm.

    Bernie 169: “Does RC censor comments? Does it ban individuals? The answer appears to be yes according to the small, somewhat devious, experiment run by Jeff Id at Air Vent.”

    What you neglect to mention is that “Jeff Id” is pretty notoroious for bringing up the same points over and over and not paying much attention to the replies. At some point I’d start moderating them too (if that’s what actually happened!).

    The following RC response to another skeptical poster is on point: It demonstrates what happens when you (1) post reasonable dissenting comments, (2) are courteous, and (3) listen to the replies you get. The specifics of what “Ryan” is talking about don’t matter, just note the tone of the response (and the passing mention of Jeff Id)

    “Ryan: Unlike most of your fellow bloggers, you have been very gracious in your communications with me. They could learn something from you. Nevertheless, I think you have greatly jumped the gun in claiming to have demonstrated anything. I understand and appreciate your points, and I do not wish to imply that I think every point you have made is wrong.

    To the contrary: you may well be that you are able to show that a different methodology, and retaining a different number of PCs, gives a better result than ours. That would be great, because it will move the science forward.

    But you have by no means demonstrated anything of the sort. I by no means discourage you from trying, but as I said to Jeff Id I’m not interested in an endless debate on this. Write a good paper on the subject, and submit it.”

  69. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 196.

    blueshift. chicago. October 7th, 2009 4:35 pm

    Jason #157. I don’t have time for a lengthy reply and probably not much to add to what I’ve said anyway. However I am curious about two things. You said “Blueshift, your apparent suggestion that RC does not routinely censor comments is laughable. Too many people have too much experience being censored to take this seriously.” Was this a response to my point that someone’s “censored” comment had actually been posted and that others who felt they had been censored were perhaps just impatient?

    Also you said “One last comment”. Did you mean on this issue or something else? I missed any other comment from you to me unless it was under a different name.

  70. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 197.

    Jason Cambridge. MA. October 7th, 2009 4:35 pm

    #185. Chris Dudley: Here is the comment that you say didn’t get published:

    “http://www.opticsinfobase.org… Rick clearly explains that the last two steps in his list ( http://www.scribd.com… ) happened to a DIFFERENT comment in the second paragraph after the end of the list. But somebody who just skimmed the the article looking for something to prove me wrong, would probably have missed that.

    Its too bad, you could have learned something. The other link:

    http://michaelnielsen.org… would have also been highly educational.

    It corrects several commonly held myths such as:

    “Peer review is the way we determine what’s right and wrong in science”

    As to your assertion that there is some sort of obligation to mention a comment response whenever you mention the comment, I’ve not heard of this, and it clearly isn’t always followed.

    Can you provide me with any sort of reference to this principle?”

  71. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 202.

    MrPete. Colorado. October 7th, 2009 4:35 pm

    Re: Chris Dunford (#188). It is an extremely one-sided discussion. The issue is not whether nasty or off-topic remarks are excluded. Every good blog addresses those issues.

    What RC does not permit are opinions that correctly (and therefore embarrassingly) prove the OP wrong. What is not permitted is rebuttal to statements that incorrectly argue in favor of RC’s positions.

    It has happened numerous times, Chris. There’s a whole website that’s attempting to collect examples.

  72. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 205.

    hack_875. Buffalo, NY. October 7th, 2009 4:36 pm.

    #141 – Probably the same way I know that Green Inc is censoring commentary. I send it in more than once, with differences in the header, and when neither copy comes into the commentary, it’s being censored.

    Further, Real Climate isn’t the only one who is “censoring” the commentary. Green Inc, a NY Times based blogosphere has recently prevented my comments from being posted. They were on topic, and did NOT contain any personal attacks, merely pointed out with links to the data, some of the problems with the foundation data of so much of the arugments about carbon emissions. Green Inc, apparently didn’t like the measured and balanced refuting of the data they are basing their arguments on, so they didn’t allow my post.

    I complained to the Times Public editor, but got nothing back but a boilerplate email explaining that they don’t read all the emails.

  73. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 222.

    Paul S. Canada. October 8th, 2009 12:17 am.

    “Here is the RealClimate comment policy: http://www.realclimate.org…” – Chris Dudley

    And a rather censorious policy it is. See especially #7 and #8 of their coment policy.

  74. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 229.

    Mark Bahner. Durham, NC. October 8th, 2009 12:19 am.

    Chris Dunford (#189) writes, “I don’t remember anyone saying that comments are never rejected at RC…”

    David Benson (#117) wrote, “Occasionally comments just disappear. I very much doubt that Real Climate was censoring whatever failed to appear.”

    Isn’t writing, “I very much doubt that Real Climate was censoring whatever failed to appear” essentially saying that Real Climate does not reject comments?

    Chris Dunford continues, regarding Real Climate’s rejecting of comments, “… (and it is well within their rights to do so, by the way).”

    Yes, it *is* the right of the authors at Real Climate to be dishonest, and reject comments (without even providing notification that the comments have indeed been rejected). But it *is* dishonest.

    This has happened to me on more than one occasion. For example, here is a comment I wrote regarding Eric Steig et al.’s correction of their Antarctic temperature analysis…after Hugh McCulloch pointed out the error on Climate Audit (and emailed his findings to the six authors of Steig et al.):

    ‘Mark Bahner // August 16, 2009 at 4:37 am

    “Had Dr. McCulloch been the first person to make Steig et al. aware of the error in the paper,…”

    So who was the first person to make Steig et al. aware of the error in the paper? Dr. McCulloch apparently sent an email to all six authors comprising Steig et al.

    Are Steig et al. claiming that none of them read the email (nor heard of Dr. McCulloch’s post at Climate Audit) before they themselves realized the error?

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.’

    Again, it is indeed the right of Real Climate’s authors to pretend they’ve never received comments that trouble them. But it’s dishonest.

  75. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 258.

    David B. Benson. Pullman. October 8th, 2009 11:00 pm.

    Mark Bahner (229) — Sometimes comments disappear into some sort of smap obliviion. What I see at RealClimate is editing out objectionable material but sotherwise letting the rest of the comment appear. If it is important to yoou for your comment to appear, try a second time. Do not expect perfection and do not attribute to malice what is actually due some combination of humand and software error.

  76. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 303.

    Mark Bahner. Durham, NC. October 9th, 2009 11:43 pm.

    David Benson (258): “Sometimes comments disappear into some sort of smap oblivion.”

    I’ve never had that happen at RealClimate, but I have had multiple comments at RealClimate simply never posted. Like the one I copy/pasted in comment #229:

    “So who was the first person to make Steig et al. aware of the error in the paper? Dr. McCulloch apparently sent an email to all six authors comprising Steig et al. Are Steig et al. claiming that none of them read the email (nor heard of Dr. McCulloch’s post at Climate Audit) before they themselves realized the error?”

    Why don’t you ask Eric Steig, Gavin Schmidt, and the rest of the authors at RealClimate what happened to that comment? Seriously. And if you find out what happened to that comment, I’ll be happy to give you some more to ask about.

    David Benson (258): “What I see at RealClimate is editing out objectionable material but sotherwise letting the rest of the comment appear.”

    How do you know what RealClimate does NOT show? And I’m not just talking about the “snip” stuff. How about when they don’t post any part of the comment (even acknowledging that the comment was made)?

    How do you know the material is “objectionable” if you can’t even see it? Do you have some sort of secret decoder glasses that allow you to see invisible material? Or do the authors at RealClimate provide you with copies of everything that they’ve snipped…or simply have not even published any part of the comment (including the fact that the comment was made at all)?

    Again, why don’t you ask the authors at RealClimate what percentage of comments they receive that the they simply refuse to publish at all? Then ask them why they simply refuse to publish the comments.

    “If it is important to you for your comment to appear, try a second time.”

    I’ve done that on several occasions. I’ve even sent emails to the authors at RealClimate asking them why they have refused to publish comments I’ve made. Neither of those has worked.

    By far the most logical conclusion—the “Occam’s Razor conclusion–is that the RealClimate authors are simply dishonest. They simply refuse to post certain comments, e.g., if the answers to the comments would reveal their dishonesty.

    But I don’t expect you to ever accept the logical conclusion that the censoring–including flat-out refusing to even publish any part of comments they receive, or even publicly acknowledging that the comment was received at all—as evidence that RealClimate’s authors are fundamentally dishonest. You obviously drank RealClimate’s Kool-Aid a long time ago. I can tell by your concluding statement:

    “…do not attribute to malice what is actually due some combination of humand and software error.”

    Again, how in the world do you even know what RealClimate has *not* published? If it’s not published, they haven’t even made it available to the public. And how do you know *why* they haven’t published something they haven’t even published???

  77. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 315.

    Tenney Naumer. Vitoria da Conquista, Bahia, Brazil. October 10th, 20097:28 pm

    Re: comment #303: Mark Bahner. What a big cry baby you are!

    I’ve had comments deleted at Real Climate, too. So what!

  78. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 316.

    dhogaza. portland, oregon. October 10th, 2009 7:28 pm.

    “By far the most logical conclusion—the “Occam’s Razor conclusion–is that the RealClimate authors are simply dishonest. They simply refuse to post certain comments, e.g., if the answers to the comments would reveal their dishonesty.”

    They have a comment policy and openly state that posts in violation won’t be approved. Where’s the dishonesty in this?

    Oh, BTW, September was very warm and we’re seeing the warmest ocean temp anomalies on record and therefore the next ice age will fall on Halloween.

  79. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 318.

    MrPete. Colorado. October 11th, 2009 8:38 am.

    dhogaza. More than once I personally have made positive contributions at RC which have been unceremoniously deleted. The only thing I can imagine is that a previous commenter’s negativity was shown to be false.

    They claim to welcome serious dialogue, but one of their rules overrides all others:

    “b) make claims that we feel have already been validly refuted by us or others on the site,”

    Doesn’t matter if they’re actually wrong. If they THINK they are right, they delete all opposition.

    This is the basis for their confirmation bias.

    Yes, they have the absolute right to moderate as they wish. But don’t pretend RC is a vigorous science site, when their own policy demonstrates a lack of transparency and willingness to be found out wrong.

  80. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 322.

    Mark Bahner. Durham, NC. October 11th, 2009 8:38 am

    dhogaza (316): “They (Real Climate) have a comment policy and openly state that posts in violation won’t be approved. Where’s the dishonesty in this?”

    What in the Real Climate comment policy do you think allows them to honestly refuse to post this comment:

    “So who was the first person to make Steig et al. aware of the error in the paper? Dr. McCulloch apparently sent an email to all six authors comprising Steig et al.

    Are Steig et al. claiming that none of them read the email (nor heard of Dr. McCulloch’s post at Climate Audit) before they themselves realized the error?”

    The only reason not to print those questions would be if the answers would make Steig et al. look bad. If the answers would have shown Steig et al. to have realized their error before they learned of it via Hugh McCulloch’s work, there would have been no reason not to print the questions and provide the answers.

    On my own blog, I certainly do not refuse to publish or remove any comments (other than the spam type, “You have a nice site…buy Clialis). If a person is honest, there is no need to refuse to publish or remove any comments. Especially not comments that simply contain questions.

  81. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 323.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen. Belgium. October 11th, 2009 8:38 am

    dhogaza #316:

    I was a (ir)regular poster on Reallimate in its early days, but did give up when about halve my posts were deleted without comment. Even always on topic. And especially when discussing inline comments, so that readers think that you haven’t had a relevant reaction. As they mainly let pass these sceptic comments that easely can be debunked, that gives a complete false impression of what lives in the real world.

    It is a pity. It could have been a weblog with a honest debate about real science. Now it is just one-sided without much real discussion.

  82. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 324.

    sas. new york. October 11th, 2009 1:50 pm.

    #320 mcpete — “RealClimate, whose domain name continues to be registered and owned by their friends at EMS, a cover for Fenton Communications**

    see working links in #320 post to EMS and fenton.

    so RealClimate is a front for and bankrolled by a washington d.c. public relations /lobbying firm that represents environmental organizations all hoping to feed at the government trough from climate legislation and emissions control.

    big surprise.

  83. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 325.

    spalding craftnorth. Carolina. October 11th, 2009 1:50 pm

    I was fascinated by Mr. Pete’s #320, and his reference to RealClimate’s identification with Environmental Media Services. So much for claims that RealClimate is a relentless seeker of the truth.

    I would like to hear others here weigh in on this topic. Since we constantly discuss commenter’s and scientists credibility, this is definitely not off topic.

    This is Andy’s blog, and he can defer this subject if he likes. But the source of certain groups’ support, on all sides of this debate, would be helpful to folks like myself who are not wired into groups that constantly discuss these issues.

  84. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 328.

    formerpilot. UK. October 11th, 2009 10:41 pm

    spalding craft and sas #325 and #324

    I was intrigued by your posts and have just Googled
    ‘Real Climate Fenton Environmental Media Services’
    The result is fascinating. I invite others to do the same.
    Perhaps some of the professional climate PR scientists from Fenton or RealClimatel or Environmental Media Services will be able to explain?

    Incidentally may I congratulate the NYT on the transparency of this blog’s comments section. The (UK) Guardian blog at http://www.guardian.co.uk… has taken to removing most comments that are not on message so far as CAGW is concerned. The Guardian has a long and honourable history in the UK for liberal views and accurate reporting. Sadly no more.

    Regards

    FP

    PS I am still waiting for dhogaza to explain how historic temperatures can be measured to a tenth of a degree by ‘ teleconnection’.

  85. rcrejects Says:

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 332.

    sas. new york. October 11th, 2009 10:41 pm.

    RealClimate ‘s connection to EMS and Fenton Communications clearly place this website in the political realm with a real big age to grind and an agenda to pursue. there is nothing “unbiased” about real climate.

  86. rcrejects Says:

    Steve McIntyre of CA reports at Dot Earth that he has lodged a post at RC. Steve lodged his post in the “Hey Ya! (mal)” thread, in response to a post in that thread by Benjamin at 4.55 pm on 13 October 2009. It will be interesting indeed to see if it is in fact posted. Or perhaps edited. We will keep you informed as to what happens.

    Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog – Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science – Post 379.

    Steve McIntyre. Toronto. October 14th, 2009. 11:09 am

    A reader from this site transferred my comment above about the upside down use of the Tiljjander series in Mann et al 2008 to realclimate, who, as most people know, frequently censor scientific comment. I posted the following comment a few minutes ago at realclimate in which a reader asked for further information on Mann’s upside down use of the Tiljander series. This was recently confirmed by Atte Korhola, a Finnish paleolimnologist, in an online comment translated by a Finnish reader of Climate Audit http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7272 . I posted the following answer at realclimate and we’ll see if they permit it:

    Comment: “Benjamin asks: Could someone point me to where this “inverted data” issue is addressed by Mann or someone else who knows?

    The Tiljander series in Mann et al SI Fig S9 are shown upside down from the interpretation of the original authors. I directly confirmed these points by email with Tiljander.

    One of the Tiljander series used in Mann et al 2008 was also used upside down in Kaufman et al (2009), who, unlike Mann, truncated the record in 1800 to remove the modern portion of increased sediment attributed by the authors to bridges, ditches etc.

    Atte Korhola, a Finnish paleolimnologist very familiar with the studies, confirmed the upside down use in a Finnish blog (Google translation ( http://translate.google.com… )

    Science recently published a study in arctic regions [Kaufman et al 2009] , average temperatures are found to be higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. Result may well be true, but the way the researchers conclude that raises questions. Proxy-material has been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, glazed, and the combined – for example, own and my colleagues collected data from Finland in the past has even turned upside down when the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific falsification, which has serious consequences.” End Comment

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: