Discuss Moderation Policies at Climate Blogs Here

There is considerable interest in the different moderation policies adopted by different blog proprietors. This post provides an opportunity for posters to express their views and comments on this topic.

Use the “Post Your Rejected Posts Here #2” thread to post your rejected posts. Comment/discuss here.


28 Responses to “Discuss Moderation Policies at Climate Blogs Here”

  1. MikeN Says:

    Well RealClimate’s policies are pretty well known here. If you get too scientific in attacking the work of their contributors, you are very likely to get deleted or banned. If you put up lightweight political stuff that can be refuted, you are more likely to see your comment get through. Different moderators have different levels of censorship.

    Tamino is sometimes better, sometimes worse, but lately has been in a more banning mood.

    An interesting moderation policy is one you endorsed. At climatesight.org, the blogger insists on links to peer-reviewed papers if you make a claim that goes against what she knows, and sometimes even if you agree. This had the strange effect of I couldn’t link to a Tamino post that was pure math, because it wasn’t peer-reviewed.
    Also, that site basically disallows questioning the behavior of other blogs and scientists, at least the ones she agrees with.

    [Mike. I wasn’t aware that I endorsed the Climatesight.org moderation policy? Perhaps I misunderstood your post. For the record, I agree with your position on ClimateSight’s stance. Kate is clearly in thrall with the ‘real’ climate scientists, and won’t even read CA, since Steve McIntyre is considered not ‘credible’. Her comment policy is as follows:

    “Comment Policy

    If you have something to say, you are more than welcome to leave a comment. However, if you make a scientific claim which is not already common knowledge – like a new theory or a recent statistic – you must reference a legitimate peer-reviewed source (ie, not Energy and Environment!). The source cannot have been obviously discredited (ie, don’t reference the 1000-year temperature reconstruction by Sallie Baliunas).

    Blogs don’t count. Most reputable blogs will reference all of their scientific claims, so all you have to do is take the extra step of checking out their citations. If they don’t have any citations, what does that tell you?

    If your claim is actually supported by the scientific literature, this policy shouldn’t be too hard to follow. It exists primarily because I am just a lowly student who can’t assess people’s arguments on their content – I have to go by credibility. Unfortunately, I am not at a point in my education where I can properly facilitate a technical debate that examines new ideas and theories not yet in the scientific literature.

    Any failures to comply with this comment policy will be deleted. Aggressive comments or insults will also be deleted.”

    I would be interested in comments on Kate’s policy. mod]

  2. MikeN Says:

    rcrejects said
    August 31, 2009 @ 3:47 am

    “Kate, Good on you for setting up a blog, and directly encountering the issues relating to moderation. Its your blog, and you have clearly stated your policies.

    The only concern that I have is that I suggest that you seek advice on your policy that it is OK to delete as irrelevant all peer reviewed papers that appear in E&E. What would Richard Feynman say about that do you think?”

    I assumed this was you. The policy in action is pretty bad, as it becomes one sided. I don’t have too much of a problem with it as she admittedly doesn’t have the ability to evaluate scientific arguments. But then in action, I cited a Pielke paper and linked to post of his discussing the paper, and it got cut. Then someone else did the same thing with an AGW scientist, and it was OK. I found it funny that my Tamino link was cut. You might as well ask for peer-reviewed paper that said 2+2=4.

    Most recently I pointed out in response to her discussion of Kaufman that he is using the paper in the opposite format to Tiljander, linking both papers, and pointing out how you can see the data for yourself, linking to the Kaufman Supplemental Info.

    Well, she said if you want to do that, you have to link to a peer-reviewed source that said Kaufman was wrong. She frequently cites an interest in math and modeling, but apparently that is still in the future.

    [Mike. Thanks for posting. Yes. That was my comment – very observant of you. It was my attempt to gently explain to her that her moderation policy was/is problematic – mod]

  3. MikeN Says:

    Yea, read the whole threads, and you’ll see some more examples of your style of posting by Paul.

  4. rcrejects Says:

    Over at Lucia’s Black Board – “The bunny reports that Jimmy is banned for mentioning the lorax at CA” thread, Stephen Richards has a comment re RC moderation policy.

    stephen richards (Comment#21631). October 15th, 2009 at 9:35 am


    I have read and contribute at CA for several years and have ALWAYS found SteveM to honest but direct. Boris has also been allowed to contribute at CA and RC unlike me who cannot post at RC.

    I read virtually all of lanrinx’s comments and found none of them informative, useful or polite.

    It’s fair to say that SteveM chooses his words very, very carefuly and much more carefully than the vast majority of people read them. I too had that problem all my working life. We are fundamentally, all of us, lazy readers. You could argue that it is Steve’s fault that people misread him but I don’t.

    I believe we all have a responsibility not to add our own problems to somebody elses words. Yes there were several contributors at CA who accused Briffa of cherry picking and to be quite honest, the data tended to indicate that but Briffa has at no time in the last 9 years or so taken the opportunity to show his methods and data. In many ways, the reluctance is indicative of someone with something to hide and in France, the Gendarm would certainly drag you along to the brigade and demand an explanation. The whole sorry situation has been fueled by the ambiance created by sites such as RC whose vitriol and censorship is well known.

    I’m with you and Steve. Cut the crap and get back to the science. That’s what will bring an end to this farce.

  5. rcrejects Says:

    There has been some discussion re CA and RC at http://www.randi.org “global warming – again” thread.

    mrsean2k, October 16, 2009

    Hi sailor,

    First, thanks for looking.

    But the problem is that it take a lot of digging through the exchanges to see what was *actually* said, as opposed to what it is *claimed* someone said, for the purposes of rhetoric.

    To take the simplest points in the response, everything from the title down to the “****” is utterly unrelated to the points that Climate Audit make. At best it’s a “sort” of response to the more opinionated summary at Bishop Hill.

    The response then goes on to ascribe motives and insults to Steve Mc. that have never been expressed (or certainly hadn’t at the time of the posting) or implied.

    If you follow through to the actual posts on Climate Audit and the actual words Steve Mc. writes, you’ll see the accusations that Real Climate ascribe to him are without foundation. But still they make them.

    What *does* happen is that other people, generally outraged and rather more uncharitable in their opinion, voice that opinion in the form of comments to Steve’s posts. Steve Mc. then routinely snips these as irrelevant or provocative (if they are), or moves them onto another off-topic thread intact to concentrate on the *data*, *why* it was hidden for so long, *how* it’s processed, and *how* it’s manipulated.

    But voices that dissent from Steve’s conclusions or disagree with his questions aren’t silenced. Compare and contrast with the editorial policy at Real Climate.

    In his own words, this is about keeping your eye on the pea under the thimble – the data, the data, the data. Attempts to reposition the debate as “warmists” against “deniers” are distractions by vested interests.

    I’ve spent weeks following the links of these exchanges through, and without exception I’ve seen moderate language with straightforward requests for more metadata or comment on analysis derailed by attempts to paint this line of enquiry as vendetta or “Big Oil” sticking it’s oar in.

    Please keep plugging away at the exchanges and analysis, whatever opinion you hold at the moment and whatever conclusion you eventually come to.



  6. rcrejects Says:

    Also at http://www.randi.org “global warming – again” thread.

    written by Steel Rat, October 18, 2009

    “By the way, I am a social scientist used to working with complex data, so I have a great deal of sympathy for what climate scientists are doing.”

    Then perhaps you should ask RealClimate why they refuse to disclose data and methods for their conclusions. That would be science. What they’re doing is “trust me, I know”, and nothing more. When scrutinized, the work of Michael Mann (a prominent figure at realclimate), and others who have helped create the “hockey stick” doesn’t stand up. Go to climateaudit.org to see why they don’t stand up to scrutiny.

    It’s never, ever going to be as simple as physics was for its first several centuries, but I have been increasingly convinced of the importance of this issue over the years based on a reading of what the real scientists are saying, insofar as I understand it — rather than the oil company shills, Michael Crichton, the movie-makers, and the GOP.

    Ad hominem attacks don’t help the situation, nor do straw men. You’ve rather ignored some prominent climate scientists, such as MIT’s Richard Lindzen, University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer and John Christy. They don’t have a NASA-funded web site to promote disinformation and ignore dissent like Gavin Schmidt at realclimate.

  7. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Revisiting the “Yamal Substitution” thread – Post 114

    Kevin: October 20th, 2009 at 12:47 pm.

    An aside. I read this blog most days, but I worry about groupthink leaving me with blindspots, and the “echo chamber” effect. So I decided to try out the much maligned Real Climate site.

    Its not bad for what it is trying to accomplish, but they do agressively eliminate dissenting comments. Makes me appreciate what Steve does here.

  8. rcrejects Says:

    CA “RCS – One Size Fits All” thread – Post 79

    steven mosher: October 22nd, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    Re: romanm (#75), Tom is great at finding something he barely understands but which he thinks supports his position. Then he points you at it with the hopes that you will explain it to him.
    I’ve now read DO [Delayed Oscillator – mod] and commented. In general I think he could make some contributions if he gets beyond the arm waving and actually posts data and code and takes questions and provides answers. If he doesnt post code, then I’ll just stop reading and suggest that others do likewise.

    Also, he has said that he doesnt read this blog because of all the negative comments etc etc etc. I won’t bash him for that, I’ll just say this. In the past I’ve read RC ( and all the comments) Rabbit ( and the comments) tamino ( and the comments) in it for the gold ( and the comments) In each and every case I found that I had this remarkable ability called choice. I could choose to go moshpit on people who were flaming or I could choose to ignore them. Now, more often than not, I choose to ignore them. It’s a great time saver.

    I now no longer read RC, rabbit or open mind, primarly because of their comment banning procedures which are ad hoc to say the least. DO, for now, claims that he will moderate with a heavy hand, so if folks want to they should mosey over and ask questions, leave the BS at home, be polite, and see if he can back up ( with data and code and debate) what he says.

  9. rcrejects Says:

    CA “RCS – One Size Fits All” thread – Post 140

    steven mosher: October 23rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    I know it’s off topic here but since Tom P has mentioned DO I will repost a comment I made there that is still in moderation. I wouldnt do this, except that DO has let OTHER POSTS through ( if I am to believe the time stamp) after my comment. Basically he lets through comments that he can use to make himself look good. Cherry picking? Do they all go to the RC school of PR. Now maybe I effed up and got it wrong but when I visit his site it shows my comment still in moderation. Others can correct me if Im wrong and I’ll apologize. So, what horrible thing did moshpit post there?

    it follows:

    “A couple suggestions. Some folks have asked me to have a look at your blog and recommend it. So far I like what I see and would add a few suggestions.

    1. I applaud your decision to create a civil comments section. the blog marketplace has plenty of places for people to vent. I see nothing morally wrong with venting, but it does get in the way of what YOU want to do in YOUR HOUSE. And this is your house.

    2. You apriori rule out any deragatory comments of ‘working scientists’ I suppose you meant to say “all scientists” even those who are retired. Further, I think you would do well to extend this to all people. Again, there are places where people like Lucia ( not a scientist), SteveMc, ( not a scientist), etc are trampled. And there are places where gavin and Mann and et all are trampled. It would be distinctive if you established a house where all such things are off limits.

    3. Your blog roll. Adding contrarian sites is not an endorsement. You should add some. Many of the skeptic sites have full blog rolls of non skeptic sites. For example early on I got WUWT to put Atmoz on the blog roll ( and vice versa). I hope that drove traffic to Atmoz because he struck me as a fine fellow and good student. Anyways people can judge for themselves. I think if you do get skeptic traffic ( especially the engineer types) they will quickly get that you are somebody to listen to and engage on a constructive basis. basically if you keep the discussion technical, answer questions, and rule the comments with an iron fist, most people will get the tone you want to set.
    If they like a little more flavor or color commentary there are places for that.

    4. Open your data and code. get in the habit of posting turn key code for every figure you post. That’s one thing that will attract those commentors who actually want to make a positive contribution. Frankly for folks like me it’s pretty much of a deal breaker. In some cases ( where you are working on code for publication) it can make sense to withhold it ( tamino has done this without complaint from me) I’d still advise to post it; but in general if I can’t get the data and can’t get the code, it’s not really science in my book.

    5. Post on CA, Lucias site, airvent. Doubtless some will throw a bunch of garbage at you. Just ignore it. If you do people will see that you exist above the mud slinging.

    6. Incourage guest posting. When you are just starting it is hard to keep the content fresh. and fresh content ( and/or deep debate) is what makes for an interesting site. Google knows this and sites are ranked ( quality score) based on things like repeat vistors and fresh content. If you want to really be bold, I mean really bold, invite Jeff Id to do a guest post and ask him to return the favor. Do the same with lucia and with St. mac.

    7. Do some personal posts to bust up the monotony and provide a personal flavor. You are anonymous, but have a look at lucia. utterly charming lady.. the cat stuff, her knitting, the haiku. I think that kind of humanizing of the anonymous voice can really go a long way to improved sustained readership.

    So, take what you want and leave the rest. have a nice day.


    Have fun.”

  10. rcrejects Says:

    SF Environmental Examiner Thomas Fuller “The way the wind is blowing for global warming” thread.

    Amir says: October 25, 11:15 AM:

    I am a liberal. An atheist. I believe in energy independence. I love protecting the environment. I hate big corporate America and their political lobbying.

    But I also like to think for myself. I believed in the GW theory until I heard that the “science was settled” and the “debate is over”. Something did not ring right – how can the science be settled on a topic so complex as climate? How can we claim complete understanding of the climate system when we can barely predict the weather for more than a few days?

    So I decided to dig in. And like others here, when I first started digging into the GW debate I found the alarmists sites incredibly condescending and defensive. They projected very troubling narrow mindedness. They seem hell-bent to protect one theory with automatic rejection of any other findings, evidence, theory, people or opinions that did not conform.

    What I read in the alarmist site was not scientific thinking. It was ideology. It lacked the open mindedness…

    Then I turned to the skeptic blogs. The tone and content of the skeptic sites was mostly very substantial. They were providing evidence. Investigating. Analyzing results. Debating. Never censoring. Never sticking to one theory. This was the tone I expected from the real science.

    The attitude of the alarmists tainted their science. I have no doubt that many of their papers had they conclusions written well ahead before the research was done. These “peer review papers” are not research papers. There is no real open research going one. These papers are about “proving” that the author’s position is correct.

    At this point, we are in the dark. The climate science is too tainted to be believed. There is no objective research anymore. The climate science became a religion. And once again we need to separate state from state.

  11. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Tingley and Huybers (2010?)” thread – Post 60

    bender: October 26th, 2009 at 8:20 am

    Re: bent-out-of-shape (#60),

    Here’s the irony, bent one. You want instantaneous updates here. You post on the same subject 4 times in a couple of hours. If you were posting at realclimate, asking them to, say, fix their broken graphs on the “Hey Ya!(mal)” thread (uggh, who writes their titles?), you wouldn’t get a single comment through because of their heavy-handed censorship. So why don’t you either calm down, or get your bent self over to RC and get them to fix THEIR graphs?

  12. rcrejects Says:

    Steve Mosher had a post rejected at William Connolley’s Stoat blog. Interestingly, William contacted Steve, and explained why he was rejecting Steve’s post. Steve related the story at CA.

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside-down Mann” thread – Post 138

    steven mosher: October 29th, 2009 at 10:41 pm

    OK. I was wondering why you guys were not praising me for my post at stoat.

    Moshpit was very moderate. William sent me this:

    “I’ve been trying to keep this thread focussed; I don’t want it to degnerate into the usual anti-Mann stuff. so I’m deleting your comment, but you get this copy in case you want to post it elsewhere, or rework it.

    regards, William”


    “A new comment has been posted on your blog Stoat, on entry #136400 (Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear).

    Aside from misunderstanding the upside argument William you miss the most important aspect of this issue. Without Mann’s data ( as used) and code ( as used) no reviewer can tell if the graphics supplied for the text or the claims in the SI are actually correct. That’s the most fundamental quality check that must be done independently.

    WRT the upside down series.

    1. The period in which the calibration is done is corrupted by non climatic signals according to the peer reviewed literature which introduced the series. This would suggest:

    A: dropping the series altogether

    B: lopping off the corrupted period

    2. If the orientation “doesnt matter”, then

    A. this is a simple claim to TEST with the code and data in hand

    B. there should be no objection to orienting it in the direction indicated by the author who introduced the series.

    C: one wonders if varves are skillful at capturing climatic signals.”

  13. rcrejects Says:

    Steve Mosher posted a comment at CA immediately after the previous post.

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside-down Mann” thread – Post 139

    steven mosher: October 29th, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    So do you all see the ILLOGICAL stance william takes.

    He Blocks my post because he is afriad it will generate OTHER POSTS which are anti mann. Posts which he could BLOCK. Now THATS a precautionary principle. I said nothing negative about MANN.
    Nothing personal, nothing defamatory. William could let my post through and address the issues MY POST raises. he could block idiots who piled on. But no, I spoke manns name so I am blocked. Funny.

    So, you all go support moshpit. Take my comment. rewrite it so it doesnt mention mann. see if William blocks it? And make sure to give me credit.. moshpit. it’ll be fun if you all do it.

  14. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside-down Mann” thread – Post 144

    steven mosher: October 30th, 2009 at 2:30 am

    Re: theduke (#141), as a person who has been blocked by RC, tamino, and stoat, as a person who has been snipped and zambonied by steve I can say this. I understand steve’s rules. the other guys? seems either capricious and/or ad hoc.

  15. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside-down Mann” thread – Post 148

    Dan Hughes: October 30th, 2009 at 6:47 am

    I want to commend AMac for staying on task with a laser-like focus across the several places where these issues are being discussed.

    Several of the regulars here, including me, would not have been permitted to participate in the discussions. AMac has superbly filled that potential void, IMO.

  16. rcrejects Says:

    Sometime posters get things wrong. For example, bender put up the following post at CA.

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside-down Mann” thread – Post 165

    bender: October 30th, 2009 at 9:12 am

    WOW. The censorship at Stoat is unbelievable. All of the comments that I quoted above are gone. All trace of dhogaza’s obstinant willful ignorance. All of Rattus’s denialism.

    However, within minutes, bender put up a retraction.

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside-down Mann” thread – Post 171

    bender: October 30th, 2009 at 9:52 am

    Re: bender (#165),
    Scratch that. I didn’t realize there were two Tiljander threads at stoat. The second one contains everything that I thought was cut.

    Just shows that we can all make mistakes about this stuff. Clearly bender has done the right thing, and retracted his mistaken comment as soon as he became aware of it. Onya bender!!

  17. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside-down Mann” thread – Post 175

    bender: October 30th, 2009 at 10:03 am

    AMac at stoat: “#45. W. Connolley –

    Some of the earlier comments in this thread are now differently numbered. In my comment now numbered 23 (October 29, 2009 11:21 PM), I responded to Peter #23 (now deleted) and windandsea #24 (now 22).

    This is your blog, of course, and it is your prerogative to set any comments policy you wish, of course. [Yes, and I said so -W]

    I don’t recall earlier comments as being particularly noxious, or worse than some later remarks. My third comment here was snipped as irrelevant, but its passing could be mourned. As you know, that was fine by me.

    I dislike the idea of looking like an idjit in the ScienceBlogs archives because I rebutted or built on an earlier argument that no longer exists. [Thats just tough I’m afraid. One solution is to slow down a bit – there is no great hurry about any of this -W]”

    1. The renumbering is because of censorship. That’s why I refuse to post there. Making commenters look like idjits is a design feature. RC does it too. But the similarity in policy is a coincidence.

    2. He’s in no big hurry to resolve the matter, just as Mann was in no big hurry to resolve the issue a year ago. But the similarity in policy is surely a coincidence.

  18. rcrejects Says:

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside-down Mann” thread – Post 181

    bender: October 30th, 2009 at 10:16 am

    Re: AMac (#178): “the cautionary tale of the deleted RealClimate comment.”

    That is why (willard!) I am carrying on my stoat copy-and-paste monologue here. Connolley is censoring liberally. He’s bound to make you look like an idjit, whether he means to or not.

  19. rcrejects Says:

    Censorship happens at CA too! The following posts are interesting in regard to this:

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside-down Mann” thread – Post 183

    AMac: October 30th, 2009 at 11:15 am

    Re: Chris D (#179). Thanks for kind words.

    I think it’s only possible to do this when things are pretty clear cut. There’s a way to phrase the questions about Mann et al’s treatment of the Lake Korttajarvi varve record that goes 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5. That would be much harder to do in terms of exploring the possible defects of SF7 and SF8a, as the arguments are more complex. But I don’t know how to start that discussion without knowing if there’s agreement on the earlier 5 claims. And–there isn’t.

    Steve: snip – sorry, the C-word and discussion is strictly offlimits here.

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside-down Mann” thread – Post 184

    John M: October 30th, 2009 at 11:23 am

    Re: AMac (#183). A well-thought out argument, although I, like you, am wary of analogies. A word to the wise though, the e word and the c word are fodder for the zamboni machine.

    If you don’t know what getting zambonied means, think of what the machine does to stuff sitting on the ice that can get in the way of puck. Though Steve doesn’t “censor” per se, he does like the puck to slide freely.

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside-down Mann” thread – Post 188

    Kasmir: October 30th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    Re: AMac (#178). “gee, the comment #s jump around here, as they do at Stoat…”

    I don’t understand why Steve deletes comments. “Snipping” with an explanation left behind is understandable and completely reasonable; deleting without explanation leaves a detectable trail of disconcerting disruption.

    Steve: It takes me longer to snip than to delete. 99.99% of all deletions are commenters piling on or venting about policy and 99.999% of the time it’s by commenters who I’ve done the same thing on multiple occasions. I begrudge the time in dealing with this sort of serial problem.

    [note: the reference to the C word above is a reference to Steve’s longstanding policy of not permitting discussion of Creationism and Evolution. mod]

  20. rcrejects Says:

    There is an exchange on moderation policy and stance at various climate blogs over at Tom Fuller’s SF Environmental Policy Examiner – “Examiner.com’s First Annual Survey on Global Warming” thread.

    Tom Fuller says: October 31, 5:47 PM

    Tony, it occurs to me that I have tried (not extremely successfully, I guess) to occupy the ‘middle ground.’ But there are those who have been a bit more disciplined about it–the lukewarmer trio of Roger Pielke Sr., his son Roger Jr. and Lucia Liljegren at the Blackboard. Have a look at their websites and see what you think. They’re all linked here on the right hand side of this page.

    Dave says: October 31, 6:09 PM

    Personally, I would think that the IPCC and RealClimate are the “middle ground”, Joe Romm at ClimateProgress and Greenpeace etc. are on one side of the middle, Lucia, Roger Pielke Jr., and such are the other side of the middle. WattsUp, Marohasy, Plimer, etc. push so much junk science that any useful contributions they might make are drowned out by the noise. (I will note that putting everyone on one “axis” probably isn’t ideal in the first place).

    Tom Fuller says: October 31, 6:24 PM

    Dave, I think it’s disingenuous at best to characterise Real Climate as middle of the road. Considering that their principal contributors include the scientists responsible for the flawed use of proxies and principal component analysis leading to the now-discredited Hockey Sticks, I can’t see anybody really saying they are trying for a balance. And given their policy of deleting opposing viewpoints from their comments section, I cannot see any good faith effort on their part to engage in a dialogue at all.

    Wolfgang says: October 31, 7:18 PM

    Tom: Time to get over your hurt feelings with RealClimate. I know they took you to task when you made some comments over there, but what did you expect when your essentially calling them out as fakes and forgers here. I think it’s a pretty fair assessment to view WUWT as the polar opposite to ClimateProgess. Both tend to steer every post, vehemently, towards a single side of the argument. However, if your attempting to attain some sort of a reasonable middle ground of understanding here, then you best get busy.

    As for RealClimate, WUWT, ClimateProgress or anyone else deleting incessant trolling of the same garbage that comes up on these blogs, I don’t blame them. I’ve never found any of them pro or con AGW that removes a sincere post. Of course, I’m sure I’ll hear stories from the trolls that they all “really” had something worthwhile to post repeatedly, which had been answered numerous times, but were so rudely deleted.

    Tom Fuller says: October 31, 7:52 PM

    Wolfgang, if you go to RC Rejects (at wordpress dot com) you will find a blow by blow account of my experience there. I don’t think it matches your description, but take a look.

    As for being deleted at Real Climate, I have been deleted there, and many of the people I correspond with say they have, too. My comment was polite, pertinent to the blog post and comment discussion. I’ve seen posts ‘disappeared’ there, as well.

    I don’t know the people there–I have no personal axe to grind, and no personal resentments. My objections is to what they have done to trash the discussion of an important issue.

    Duncan says: October 31, 9:27 PM

    I can’t agree with calling Real Climate very different from Climate Progress. The main difference in my mind is the frequency of posting; Romm puts out several new topics a day (rehashes several smears a day, if you prefer) while Real Climate goes days without a new topic.

    I haven’t see Real Climate being willing to really engage an issue honestly. They’ll gleefully dismember some of the weirder skeptic theories (and some of those theories deserve gleeful dismemberment), but when their side is wrong – even in an obvious and small thing – they just can’t admit it.

    It was disgraceful the way RC handled the Yamal controversy. Even Briffa was more honest in his reactions to McIntyre’s discoveries. RC put out a deluge of dittohead posts using ad hominem attacks to de-legitimatize McIntyre and censored any post that questioned their party line.

    I don’t know if RC really is funded by George Soros, but if it is I’m very disappointed in him.

    GlendaV says: October 31, 9:33 PM

    At WUWT, facts are welcome and you have to be wildly off-topic or nasty to get censured. At RC, facts will get your comments deleted if they’re facts against the team’s preference.

    And in the survey, if this will be an annual event should the name of the current president be used (and what if it’s “John Smith”?) or should the question refer to “the President of the United States”?

    Tim Lambert says: October 31, 11:05 PM

    If Fuller is in the middle ground, then so is Inhofe — they both think that climate scientists are a bunch of frauds.

    And the poll isn’t asking you what you think, it’s biased towards Fuller’s position.

  21. rcrejects Says:

    An interesting outcome of imposing an interventionist censorship policy is that it drives posters to post at other sites, in order that they can express their viewpoint uncensored. This has ‘consequences’ for the censoring blog in that if posters put up mirror posts elsewhere, the censorship policies of the censoring blog are shown clearly for what they are.

    This has happened most recently in relation to William Connolley’s Stoat blog, where posters wanting to have a detailed technical discussion have been frustrated by WC’s censorship approach, and have been putting replicate posts up at CA and in some cases other sites. There are examples above and a comment from bender below.

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside-down Mann” thread – Post 259

    bender: November 1st, 2009 at 7:01 am

    Re: John A (#257): It was interesting how he was in denial up to the point where I gave him the answer, over at CM. Armed with the facts, denial was no longer a reasonable option, so he had to switch to denigration. But to do that he needed editoiral control, so he took the traffic away from CM and over to Stoat, where he could censor without reprisal.
    Why comment at Stoat? (1) To force Connolley to censor. As long as people double-post here at CA, let him go nuts. (2) To make zealots like dhogoza say idiotic things like “CA worshippers so rarely venture out of their fantasy world”.

  22. rcrejects Says:

    An exchange at Tom Fuller’s blog regarding moderation policies at Tamino’s Open Mind blog. Irrelevant content removed to enhance clarity. For full posts see comments at Tom Fuller’s blog:

    Tom Fuller’s SF Environmental Policy Examiner site “Global warming survey Part 3: More about skepticskim” thread.

    kim says: November 7, 7:02 AM

    Marko, heh, look at all the people banned from Tamino who hang out at Watts Up, like Leif Svalgaard.

    Marco says: November 7, 8:18 AM

    Kim, Leif Svalgaard banned? Any evidence you could provide. All I’ve got is an example where Tamino explicitely defends bad behavior of one poster towards Leif in the comments, and several inline comments on scientific issues by Tamino on Leif. That’s it. Not a single case of outright animosity by Tamino (or vice versa).

    kim says: November 7, 8:44 AM

    Marco, Leif himself says he was banned. JeanS, a stellar statistician, has been banned. Myself, I’ve had stuff deleted, and comments selectively posted such that my argument was decimated. Tamino is anything but firm, patient and silent. He sees as through a glass darkly and is an angry and intolerant man. Many, many people have complained about the censorship on his blog. It’s as bad as that at Real Climate. An Open Mind he does not have. That right there is a prize in my collection of climate debate ironies. It’s in a special showcase all to itself.

  23. rcrejects Says:

    The following reports an exchange at CA discussing WC’s censoring of posts posted by AMac. [AMac post annotated by us to aid clarity in understanding nested quotes. For accurate rendition go to CA]

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upsided Down Mann” thread – post 366:

    AMac: November 8th, 2009 at 6:23 am

    At Stoat’s “Tiljander, again” thread [AMac quotes a dhogaza post]
    – – – – – – – – – –
    dhogaza | November 7, 2009 7:34 PM (Comment #33)

    “On review, Mann et al may conclude that the calibrations and orientations of the four Lake Korttajarvi proxies were justified.” (Quoting my comment of 11/6/09 11:57pm – AMac)

    They didn’t. They said, up front, “we’re not sure”, then showed the results with and without the problematic proxies. Since there was no substantial difference between the reconstruction with and without the proxy, why not throw it out there with the appropriate caveats and let future work – by Mann et al or others – sort it out?

    This isn’t unusual in science, you know. The CA crowd – and you – totally ignore the caveats, the clear statement that the proxies in question are problematic, etc – in favor of “he’s performing bias-driven science!!!!” Same with Mann’s original “hockey stick” paper, which was full of caveats. The denialsphere did, and still does, pretend as though Mann et al in that first paper said “this is all cast in concrete, proven beyond reasonable doubt, above criticism” when the paper very clearly pointed out its innovative and exploratory nature.

    Why do they ignore obvious qualifications like this? Obvious … it’s hard to scream “fraud” when someone acknowledges potential problems in the very paper itself if you acknowledge the fact. [end Dhogaza quote]
    – – – – – – – – – –

    AMac | November 7, 2009 11:22 AM (Comment #35). [AMac now quotes text deleted from his post at WC in response to dhogaza’s post]

    ( — begin deleted text — ) dhogaza, you address your 11/7/09 10:01am comment to me.

    “….[Mann et al] didn’t [conclude that the calibrations and orientations of the four Lake Korttajarvi proxies were justified]. They said, up front, “we’re not sure”…”

    The authors thought that the proxies were important enough to include in the PNAS paper. If they were miscalibrated and/or wrongly oriented, then the authors should acknowledge that mistake and correct it, in PNAS. Otherwise, the literature is needlessly misleading, and we’re left with–to quote Hank Roberts–”blog science.”

    ” …then showed the results with and without the problematic proxies….”

    The Figures (plural) S8a that show those reconstructions have issues of their own, which I’ve touched on elsewhere. But here, in these Stoat threads, informed parties can’t agree on answers to simple questions. Whether procedural errors as to calibration and/or orientation were made (Mann et al have acknowledged neither). Whether such errors in the peer-reviewed literature should be corrected in the peer-reviewed literature. So I’ll decline to extend this comment to cover the broader “Results” argument.

    “…and you – totally ignore the caveats… – in favor of “he’s performing bias-driven science!!!!” Same with Mann’s original “hockey stick” paper… The denialsphere did… pretend… ignore obvious qualifications… scream “fraud”…”

    dhogaza, I’m unaware of having written words to that effect. I don’t think you’re doing a good job of paraphrasing me. Quote me, and I’ll respond. ( — end deleted text -AMac — )

    [I promised to be strict in apply the comment policy,and I failed. But its time now to start applying the “please don’t just repeat yourself” part -W]
    – – – – – – – – – –
    AMac | November 7, 2009 1:10 PM (Comment #37)

    Re: my comment of 11/7/09 11:22am – WMC, Please allow me to note that I dispute dhogaza’s paraphrase of what I’ve written on the subject of Mann et al., in his comment of 11/7/09 10:01am (#33).

    Steve McIntyre comments on the AMac post 366

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside Down Mann” Thread – post 367

    Steve McIntyre: November 8th, 2009 at 7:56 am

    Re: AMac (#366). AMac, this is the sort of situation that arises far too often at Connolley’s and similar sites. Your responses were scientific in tone, moderately expressed and deleted, while the hectoring non-scientific comment to which you were responding is allowed to stand. realclimate obviously does the same thing. It seldom leaves the injured participant feeling reassured.

    Then bender offers a view.

    CA “Connolley Endorses Upside Down Mann” Thread – post 368

    bender: November 8th, 2009 at 8:02 am

    Re: Steve McIntyre (#367). This behavior is precisely why I abandoned the RealClimate site. You can’t win an argument when their game is to make you look like an idjit, using nefarious methods not at your disposal.

  24. solarphysicist Says:

    The Guardian adopts some curious moderation policies.

    An interesting and well balanced article about dialogue with sceptics was posted at
    In the following discussion, after a few days, a number of sceptical comments were deleted, even though they were quite polite and on-topic (this can be seen from the quotes from them in the subsequent comments). However, comments from the other side, making the usual references to Nazis and Goebbels, were allowed to stay.

    I raised this with the author of the piece, Chris Goodall, at his carbon commentary website
    where the same article is posted.
    He said he was as confused as I was, and didn’t have any explanation.

  25. rcrejects Says:

    Some discussion regarding censorship at Tamino and Real Climate at Tom Fuller’s SF Environmental Policy Examiner blog, Global Warming Survey 3: More About Skeptics” thread.

    MikeN says: November 9, 12:07 PM

    [material not pertinent here cut]

    Marco, not sure how censoring by Tamino and RealClimate led to comments about Briffa, but to link the two:

    I posted a comment at Tamino that the Salehard station near Yamal doesn’t show the same warming like in the Yamal Proxy. Tamino responded with some temperature trends, but then didn’t allow any followup comments from me, specifically that at Salehard, temperatures from 1925-1950 were about the same as 1980-2005, unlike what is seen in the Yamal proxy.

    This was censored, but comments from others directed to me like ‘It is rude not to answer the question.’ stayed in.

    kim says: November 10, 4:00 AM

    MikeN @ 12:07 You have just illustrated Tamino’s main contribution to the climate debate, the pioneering of innovative methods of degenerate discourse. His selective editing is even worse than outright banning.

    I was reading his site when he defended The Piltdown Mann’s Crook’t Hockey Stick and I have rarely had greater pleasure than to watch Ian Jolliffe put the smackdown on him over decentered PCA.


  26. MikeN Says:

    Take a look at the hacked e-mails. There are some things in there about RC’s moderation strategies.

  27. MikeN Says:

    By the way, I think the Marco above WAS Tamino.

  28. rcrejects Says:

    Tom Fuller at SF Environmental Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d17-A-global-warming-deal-in-Copenhagenone-more-such-victory-and-we-are-undone) loses patience, and bans a poster – Dano.

    Tom Fuller says: December 18, 2009. 9:22 am.

    Dano, more in sadness than in anger, greater good and all that, but your tenure here as commenter is finished. Nothing supremely objectionable in your recent comments–just more of the same old, same old.

    Interrupting a discussion is not the same as participating in one, and trying to start a fight is not the same as being part of a conversation. Hope you understand.

    I’ll be deleting all your prior posts, but as you have inserted many reference URLs, I’ll wait a day in case you need any of them.

    As mentioned before, I do wish you all the best and recommend you establish your own forum for your own special brand of communications.

    Best regards,

    Tom Fuller

    The straw that broke the camel’s back for Tom was the immediately previous post by Dano.

    Dano says: December 18, 2009. 9:04 am.

    Doc, I’m not sure why you’d try the tactic of ‘mental midget’ on _me_, after your several blatant, basic errors I’ve corrected on this site.

    Unless you are trying a low-wattage tactic to dissemble away from the fact that the delaying SwiftHack tactic didn’t work. In which case, thank you for allowing me to point out the patently obvious, transparent delaying tactic didn’t work, despite the fact that some ululated ‘CliiiiiiiiiiiimaaaaaaaateGaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! at every opportunity, in hopes the smear campaign would work. It didn’t.




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 )

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: