Post Your Rejected Posts Here #3

When you put up a post and you think it might be rejected, just cut and paste a copy. If it isn’t posted, you are welcome to put it up here.

We reserve the right to ‘snip’ posts here. Usually that will be if the post is not suitable for family viewing, or which, in the opinion of the proprietor, could result in legal exposure of some kind, which we most certainly don’t want.

Go for it.


16 Responses to “Post Your Rejected Posts Here #3”

  1. rcrejects Says:

    At CA, “Climategate on Finnish TV” thread.

    honorable: Posted Dec 30, 2009 at 1:52 PM

    Not published by RealClimate:

    “There is little point comparing models with « data » if the data are not valid. See this documentary from Finnish TV. Notably the third part, which deals with the issue of heatislands in Russia badly dealt with.”

    Published in an edited form by RealClimate (as a result of the above comment being blocked):

    “264 The cavalier way with which you block comments that might appear critical is simply disgusting. I’m very disturbed by climategate and the way RealClimate is managed. More science and less activism, please. Criticism is the essence of the scientific approach. In my scientific research, I have always welcomed criticism, [edit]

    By the way, I am a professor of Medicine in a first rate North American university.

    [Response: Oh please. People repeating the same old tired nonsense add nothing to a comment thread and I make no apology for trying to maintain the signal to noise ratio. Not every letter to the editor gets published either. – gavin]”

    PS : here is what was edited (i.e. deleted) : “and never would you find in my emails any thing coming close to what I have read from Mann, Jones et al.. Get your act together and stop your cherry picking.”

    Conclusion: I am ashamed of the climate scientists of RealClimate. They are basically political activists.

    TerryMN agrees:

    TerryMN: Posted Dec 30, 2009 at 2:13 PM

    I agree with your conclusion and this is probably OT – snip away if so, but I think the day is fast approaching when someone will compare timestamps and quantity of posts by members of the team operating realclimate, vs. what they’re (supposed to be) doing and being paid for wrt their (mostly taxpayer funded) day jobs. Just a guess though.

  2. Jimw Says:

    I hope this may be the appropriate place for this post – if not, do please refer me to the right place (if any). This letter to Science Magazine was rejected with a polite note to that effect, advising me I should feel free to publish it elsewhere. I must say I do understand their rejection, but I stand by the letter.

    *Global Warring*

    I was happy to see Michael Mann and colleagues (27 Nov 2009 326:1256-1260) acknowledging the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, as everyone else calls it – or the Medieval Temperature Anomaly, as they would prefer. This is a welcome departure from his colleague’s previous opinion (Overpeck?), if the released emails are accurate, that it needed to be gotten rid of – welcome even if alleged to be a merely local phenomenon. Perhaps his moderate most current posture means that simple renaming will be sufficient for his purposes.

    I was disappointed that the interviewer (podcast) did not inquire of Mann his opinion of the not inconsiderable evidence of the existence of a corresponding warm period in Russia, China, Pakistan, North America, and Patagonia.

    I respectfully request that Science magazine consider reviewing his previous publications in their journal in view of the University of East Anglia material, and also the rejected papers submitted by authors previously disparaged or intimidated by this cabal, including but not limited to Steve McIntyre, Roger Pielke, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Craig Loehle and Richard Lindzen. It seems to me that a moral debt has been incurred by the choir boys of the AGW priesthood, and that penance must be said and amends must be made.

    James Whiting

  3. rcrejects Says:

    A comment re rejection at RC at Bishop Hill blog, Flipping Bizarre thread.

    freespeech: February 6, 2010

    Everytime I ask the “scientists” at RealClimate the simple scientific question: “What peer-reviewed biological process allows Mann to include proxies that show negative tree-ring growth correlation to temperature in his studies.” My comment is deleted.

    It isn’t hard to infer whether that site is actually interested in science from their actions.

    It should be noted also, that not one paleoclimatologist has spoken out against what Mann has done and called for a correction or withdrawal of the papers involved. “Climate Science” just isn’t Science at all … and the lead players have zero integrity.

  4. mondo Says:

    I tried to put up a post at RC. It is over 24 hours now since I posted. My post is still visible to me, saying that it is in moderation. So it is possible that it may still be posted. If that happens, I will advise.

    My post was in “The IPCC is not infallible (Shock!)” thread.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    9 February 2010 at 2:07 AM

    Gavin, in post #1471 you make a comment as follows: [I should have said responded to the following comment]

    “Despite the statements above, I am also concerned about the CRU emails which at the very least suggest that there is a small number of people in a position to attempt to control what gets published in the science journals. Arguing a case is one thing, attempting to suppress other points of view is another – and simply not the right way to behave.

    [Response: Sorry – but this is exactly what peer-review means. – gavin]”

    I can’t believe that you are serious. Perhaps in your world. And if so, that attitude explains a lot.

    Surely peer review is really all about ensuring that papers proposed for publication are sound, address all relevant prior art, and meet the archiving policies of the journal concerned. To say that peer review is about “attempting to suppress other points of view” is clearly not supportable.

    Perhaps I have misunderstood. If so, please explain.

  5. mondo Says:

    Well. It turns out that RC DID in fact put my post up, with a long comment from Gavin. It is post 1499. I checked last night at 3:00 am on 10th February, and it was still in moderation.

    Anyhow, this was not a rejected post. Thanks for responding Gavin.

  6. rcrejects Says:

    Roger Pielke Jr has a thread at his blog discussing RC’s treatment of his questions relating to how IPCC has handled the disaster issue. The thread is called “From Mistakes to Lies”.

    Richard Tol posts the following posts:

    Post 11. Mon Feb 15, 08:57:00 AM MST Richard Tol said:

    For good measure, RealClimate does not allow me to comment on their blog.


    Post 12. Mon Feb 15, 09:29:00 AM MST Richard Tol said

    “@Harrywr2. You paraphrase the comment I was not allowed to make.”

    The literature is still by and large the same as it was in October. Climate change is still the same problem as it was 3 months ago.

    In the public mind, however, climate change is a broken hockeystick and a gentleman with his hand in the cookie jar.

  7. MikeN Says:

    Tamino put up a short post on n-spheres which included the following:

    The n-sphere is the n-dimensional surface of an n+1-dimensional ball. The 1-sphere is just a circle; the 2-sphere is the ordinary sphere we’re all familiar with; the 3-sphere is the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional ball, etc.

    On its face, this is wrong. The post ended with And that’s our interesting factoid of the day. I put up a comment
    And that’s our interesting factoid of the day. Plus that Tamino can’t count.

    It didn’t make it, but one of the other commenters saw my post about it at WattsUpWithThat, and quoted me there. His comment got through. Apparently noone there can count.

  8. MikeN Says:

    Joe Romm at Climate Progress said that Newsweek is playing fast and loose with the facts. He accuses them of not knowing that Al Gore didn’t use Michael Mann’s hockey stick in his movie. I pointed out to him that in fact Gore did use Mann’s hockey stick, though it was labelled as Thompson’s because Gre pulled the wrong figure from Thompson’s paper.
    Didn’t make it through moderation

  9. Bob_FJ Says:

    Over at RC on the “Daily Mangle” thread there was this comment that I felt merited my response following:

    397 Doug Bostrom says: 24 February 2010 at 12:58 AM
    Interesting article in the Globe and Mail.

    “The key objection to the work of bloggers such as Mr. McIntyre is that they are engaged in an epic game of nitpicking: zeroing in on minor technical issues while ignoring the massive and converging lines of evidence that are coming in from many disciplines. To read their online work is to enter a dank, claustrophobic universe where obsessive personalities talk endlessly about small building blocks – Yamal Peninsula trees, bristlecones, weather stations – the removal of which will somehow topple the entire edifice of climate science. Lost in the blogging world is any sense of proportion, or the idea that science is built on cumulative work in many fields, the scientists say.”

    My response; screen copy; deleted in moderation

    BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    24 February 2010 at 3:07 PM
    Doug Bostrom 397:
    Interesting article in the Globe and Mail.

    Interesting article in the Globe de Blog:
    “…5. Consistency of modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere.
    Santer, B.D., et al [including G.A. Schmidt and S.C. {wind-shear} Sherwood & 14 others]
    This paper is one of the great obfuscations from a champion cherry-picker. Fig 9.1[c], AR4, p675, unambiguously predicts a tropical hot spot [THS] from increased ACO2 warming of the surface. Santer et al finds it using a “global” weighting function, T2lt, derived from a synthetic [sic] base, T2, with an error margin of 0.0 – 0.5CPD, which means no warming at all would still produce a THS. A crescendo of Santer support followed based on increased humidity [not happening], changes in the moist adiabat and a rising tropopause. The THS is not hotter, it’s taller. This height issue was rebutted by Spencer and Christy’s response to Fu et al. Finally, the non-existent THS was rationalized by Tim Lambert as a signature of surface warming from any source not just ACO2…”

    It would seem that Gavin Schmidt as co-author was over sensitive about his involvement in a paper that has BTW been debunked elsewhere. I actually had quite a good run with “inconvenient” comments without snips or deletes prior to this.

  10. Bob_FJ Says:

    I had an exchange with RC regular dhogaza on the “Daily Mangle” thread where he disappointingly did not respond to an “inconvenient” post of mine, but then he later popped-up on a different thread, so I made enquiries there @;
    Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind

    My screen copy; subsequently deleted

    BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    27 February 2010 at 2:22 AM
    dhogaza 347/p7:
    Ah dhogaza, I thought you had retired, but I see you are still offering your infinite wisdom here!

    The real problem: you don’t understand FOIA. When someone requests information, you must follow the law. *sometimes* following the law means you must give it to them. *sometimes* it means you must reject the request.

    I thought I read somewhere that it was a statutory time limit of 6 months that prevented criminal charges being laid. Oh never mind.
    Meanwhile, any chance you could respond to my:
    where I commented on some other wisdom of yours?

  11. Bob_FJ Says:

    I tried to have further intercourse with RC regular dhogaza on the thread ‘Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind’ without success:

    My screen copy; subsequently deleted:

    BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    1 March 2010 at 1:33 AM
    dhogaza Reur 519, in part:

    CRU’s backup server was illegally accessed. The server hosting Real Climate was illegally accessed. Both are crimes (not civil) offenses in the US, and I imagine the UK. End of story.”

    End of story you say? It really does not matter if your speculation of a hack on CRU is correct, or whether other more forensic considerations may ultimately reveal that it was a whistleblower job. (Re: Norfolk police maybe)
    It is far more important what the Emails AND other documents reveal. (and whatever happened at RC AND other sites is relatively trivial).
    The Watergate episode was a crime? Did it expose something reprehensible and criminal, including a big cover-up? The recent exposure of the British MP’s creative expenses accounting was a crime? Did it expose something reprehensible and criminal?

    Although, my very next post on that thread (566) was accepted:
    Maybe the moderator was distracted by my quote of some wonderful poetry by Dorothea McKellar back in 1904?

  12. Bob_FJ Says:

    I had a complicated exchange over at RC:
    In order to demonstrate that electro magnetic radiation, (EMR – e.g. sunlight), radiates equally in all directions I commented that the sun, although it is a sphere, appears to look like a disc of uniform brightness, and the fundamental reason was; equal radiation in all directions. There was a storm of protest that the sun actually has lesser brightness towards the edges (or limb) because it is a plasma, not a solid surface etc

    Here is a screen copy of my final copy…. Subsequently deleted!

    BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    8 August 2009 at 2:19 AM
    [professor] Martin Vermeer, in reply to your 481:
    I remember that someone on your side instructed me to go look at the setting sun and that I should see limb darkening. Well apparently not so in zoom-in on TV as I have just seen in a documentary. Also not so in the “Photobucket” sunset web-gallery either…. Here is a nice sharp edged less diffused example:
    Or this….. More moody:

    Back to your 481, when you wrote in part:

    BobFJ #470, congratulations, you just invented “limb darkening denial”.

    To recapitulate, I have never denied limb darkening, but have questioned if the Wiki’ article portrayed an exaggerated image of it, given that there were several contradictions apparent elsewhere at the time.
    I also used the word ‘fundamental’ in bold for emphasis to indicate that the description of radiation from the sun I first gave was an imperfect statement.
    In the same manner, solar scientists describe that the sun has a “surface” temperature of 5780K, but that too is an imperfect statement, because in the same way that you argued, approaching the limb, the plasma is colder in line of sight to us.

  13. Bob_FJ Says:

    Over at RC, Ray Ladbury cited a classic Tamino article that was severally rather silly, but I had no response from Ray concerning the first question I had on it. (and I’m surprised it was not deleted) Oh well, so I posted at Tamino’s site:

    Here is my screen copy, subsequently deleted by Tamino:

    Bob_FJ // March 4, 2010 at 4:03 am
    Hi Tamino,
    I posted the following over at RC on the “Daily Mangle” thread to Ray Ladbury after he cited you here. I see that Ray is otherwise active around RC, but seems reluctant to respond to this:

    Ray Ladbury, Reur 416:

    “Sulfates were lower in the 1910-1940 period due to abnormally low volcanic activity…”

    Thankyou for the link to a Tamino article on this wherein he describes a 30-year lag in the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions. However, I have some difficulties with that assertion. A good example for consideration of it is the Mauna Loa record of reduced solar transmission through the atmosphere attributed to the famous El Chichon and Pinatubo events @:

    From this you can see that the dimming is a sharp spike initially but then tails off exponentially over maybe 4-years.
    Now let us consider an analogy with a pot of hot water on a stove at an equilibrium temperature of say 90C and a thermostat setting of say 7. Now let us turn down the thermostat to say 6 for a period. There would be a consequent cooling of the water and the pot that would be quite pronounced initially, trailing off exponentially. Now let us return the thermostat to the original 7 heat input setting. The pot and the water would return to their original equilibria after a period. [AOTBE]. However, Tamino asserts that AFTER any such cooling effect, such as the analogous thermostat reverting back from 6 to 7, the system will continue to cool despite increased heat input. As a retired engineer familiar with thermodynamics, I’m somewhat puzzled by this assertion. Any chance that you could clarify it please Ray?

    Without Ray’s help, is there any chance that you could clarify this for me Grant?
    I‘d appreciate that, thanks.
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  14. Bob_FJ Says:

    Here is my screen copy, of my comment at RC, (“Daily Mangle) that was very quickly deleted:

    BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    5 March 2010 at 3:18 PM
    Hank Roberts Reur 440:
    “BobFJ, why ask _me_? Tamino’s over there, and the topic’s available…”
    Well actually, I did that, and guess what:
    Here is my screen copy, subsequently deleted by Tamino:

    …[Then followed the post to Tamino, (aka as Grant Foster in “The Team”); same as shown above]…

    It’s maybe a week since I’ve had any deletes at RC, so I’m trying again with a brief two-liner to Hank Roberts.

  15. Bob_FJ Says:

    Although the number of deletions of sceptical comments at RC seems to be much less than in the past, there is another irritating technique that they use. Just as things start to get interesting sometimes, they simply close the thread.
    For instance, this post of mine posed some embarrassing questions concerning one of Tamino’s articles:
    Apart from some waffle and rudeness from a couple of non-scientists, there was nothing from Ray Ladbury, David B Benson or Gavin Schmidt et al, and the thread was closed.

  16. Bob_FJ Says:

    Here is a screen copy of a relatively innocuous comment of mine that was deleted at RC. I’m puzzled as to why, and a shortened version was accepted.

    BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    15 March 2010 at 3:26 PM
    Didactylos Reur 487:

    And your “without explanation or caveat” jibe is just low – and wrong. Tamino said explicitly: “This is of course a simplified model, which can’t be expected to be as realisitic as general circulation models.” As for explanation – the whole post is explanation!
    Take your snark elsewhere, please.

    Please note with more care, the exact context and facts of what lacked caveats etc: quoting with original emphasis:
    It [the GISS V forcing] may be the best estimate available, but Sato et al opine that the uncertainty is large, prior to 1990. Thus for Tamino to use this data and to exclude other relevant parameters, (without explanation or caveat), and then claim a fit with GISSTEMP, is an academic exercise with zero merit, and is likely to create misunderstanding.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: