Discuss Moderation Policies at Climate Blogs Here #3

The title says it all. Just bringing this thread to the top.

Advertisements

18 Responses to “Discuss Moderation Policies at Climate Blogs Here #3”

  1. rcrejects Says:

    A comment by Stephen Mosher at http://www.leftfootforward.org. “Combating The Growing Influence of Climate Sceptics” thread.

    Steven Mosher says:
    March 22, 2010 at 7:32 pm

    Extract: “So, just for the record: I believe in AGW. I believe in Radiative physics. I am no skeptic. I talk to skeptics. It’s called dialog. We share certain values: openness and transparency. They let me post on their blogs even though I disagree with their skepticism. In contrast, On RealClimate, a blog that presents science that I largely agree with my comments are routinely blocked. “

  2. rcrejects Says:

    Bart Verheggen (http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/) has had an upsurge in traffic following the contributions of a poster named VS who clearly has a very strong background in statistics, and some views on how statistics has been applied (misapplied) in the field of climate science. Bart’s previously sleepy blog was overun by an avalanche of posts, and he struggled with the moderation issues involved. The active thread is http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/

    He has devoted a thread to discussing his moderation policies in the light of the experience of the VS thread. Worth a look if you’re interested in moderation issues.

    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/the-value-of-open-debate/#comments

  3. rcrejects Says:

    Posted by Philip Bratby at Bishop Hill’s “Tamino On The Hockey Stick Illusion Thread.”

    I don’t like to look at the RC comments any more. they make me feel ill. Has any criticism got through moderation?

    July 22, 2010 | Phillip Bratby

  4. rcrejects Says:

    Thinking Scientist. Same thread in response to Philip Bratby.

    Phillip Bratby:

    I foolishy published at RC a couple of weeks ago while they were all “high fiving” and backslapping over the Muir Russell result. My comment got through but not without edits.

    Want to know what was edited? All references to Bishophill, CA and WUWT websites. Its like being in Harry Potter – He Who Shall Not Be Named.

    Gavin responded with a slightly patronising reply about checking data so I sent a rather disparaging follow up that I have processed the GHCN data myself and could not understand why the climate scientists get so excited about such small data sets. I hoped that Mann might have read it too…anyway nothing further I sent was published. A couple of other posters responded to mine as well as Gavin but of course none one of my subsequent replies were let through. Not even when I mentioned Voldemort.

    They really are a bunch of self indulgent children. Waste of time even trying to have a conversation. I documented all my submissions – it would make entertainment to write a series of posts and responses and then publish elsewhere the censored posts to make people understand what a closed and sycophantic group is RC.

    July 22, 2010 | ThinkingScientist

  5. rcrejects Says:

    Philip Bratby responds to Thinking Scientist. Same thread:

    ThinkingScientist: I got one comment published once, but nothing since I queried/contradicted the response.

    Mark: Grant Foster

    July 22, 2010 | Phillip Bratby

  6. rcrejects Says:

    Roger D weighs in. Same thread:

    @ThinkingScientist:

    I had an almost identical experience at RC (on one of the first times that HSI was mentioned there). It was particularly annoying that after my posts were censored, the others attacking were allowed to go on making their points (including asking “so why aren’t you replying?”!).

    July 22, 2010 | Roger D.

  7. rcrejects Says:

    Dung makes a helpful suggestion. Same thread:

    Big Yin

    Go to Real Climate and make a very polite post that explains why Tamino is wrong (make it up if you must) then see if your post gets published. Then ask a friend to make a post here saying politely that the Bish is wrong 🙂

    July 23, 2010 | Dung

  8. rcrejects Says:

    ZT offers a view. Same thread:

    Historically – having a tendency to believe what I hear on the BBC – I had no clue which side of this discussion was right and I posted questions on Real Climate, Tamino’s blog, etc. and ClimateAudit, etc. with equal aplomb or stupidity. What I observed were logical, relatively polite, informative answers on ClimateAudit and rather rude, illogical answers on RealClimate etc.

    Now I know that neither side really knows the ‘truth’ about the causes of climate change – but at least the honest people say ‘we don’t really know at this point’. The dishonest people splice together data from different sources to make their story more ‘convincing’.

    And now – Real Climate doesn’t allow my questions to go through their screening system most of the time.

    I would guess that many of the people interested in this subject followed a similar trajectory – it is as though Gavin, Tamino et al were in the pay of big oil. They have even managed to lose Jon Stewart…

    July 23, 2010 | ZT

  9. rcrejects Says:

    RayG makes a suggestion. Same thread:

    Thinking Scientist, the domain name censoredbyrc.org is available as is censoredbyrealclimate.org. I say go for it!

    July 23, 2010 | RayG

  10. rcrejects Says:

    Thinking Scientist responds to ZT. Same thread (first part not on this topic edited out):

    ZT says: “What I observed were logical, relatively polite, informative answers on ClimateAudit and rather rude, illogical answers on RealClimate etc.”

    That’s an excellent summary. In fact your comment about illogical answers on RC is very good. Gavin is a master of obfuscation and of course the “one critical only” post before being blocked means no right of reply. In one of my susbsequent posts to RC I pointed out to Gavin how their policy was really self-defeating in the long run. Even if they don’t post it, Gavin probably reads some of it. Have a read of the Gavin post on why CO2 lagging temperature in ice cores is not a problem for AGW and you will see a master obfuscator at work. The arguments are not rational, but of course no right of reply means that challenging it is a waste time. As a consequence RC builds up a back catalog of “smoke and mirrors” and maintains a public face that says only they know what they are talking about. It is a slick but naive exercise in spin and PR.

    July 23, 2010 | ThinkingScientist

  11. rcrejects Says:

    Geronimo offers a view. Same thread:

    I have had only two posts accepted on realclimate. In the first I asked whether anyone can prove it is the increase in human fossil fuel burning that has led to the increase in temperature. The abusive, and I mean abusive, replies were really surprising. None of course had any response in them, they simply regurgitated the C12/C13 isotope issue, proving that the increase in CO2 had been human induced, along with a series of questions about my intelligence, etc. All were written in the sneering tone which would get you censored here and at WUWT and realclimate. So I responded by accepting that the increase in CO2 was caused by humans and asked for some maths that relate this increase and that could be tested by observations. That was, of course, censored. The next time I stuck to dog poop in Paris and it sailed past Gavin. Haven’t bothered to engage since.

    July 23, 2010 | geronimo

  12. rcrejects Says:

    RCR gets a mention. Same thread:

    Thinking Scientist and others, there is already a wordpress blog dedicated to the subject of rc censorship, called rcrejects, so you could put your examples there.

    There is also an ancient CA thread celled ‘is Gavin Schmidt honest’.

    July 23, 2010 | PaulM

  13. rcrejects Says:

    PaulM. Same thread: (Active discussion this, not many RC supporters, yet.)

    Also, see the interesting ‘Reader Background’ tab and thread at the Air Vent blog. This shows how RC has been a spectacularly successful recruitment tool for climate scepticism!
    [typo in previous post, celled -> called]

    July 23, 2010 | PaulM

  14. rcrejects Says:

    Rob B. Same thread: Is there a ‘Consensus’ emerging here?

    Great review, though you’ve just made me look at RealClimate again and having come from a geological/meteorology background that site just makes me cringe with embarrassment. It was the prominent Hockey Stick being portrayed by the media that made me re-investigate the facts as I was puzzled by where the MWP had gone.

    July 23, 2010 | Rob B

  15. rcrejects Says:

    Patogon contributes. Same thread.

    I must say something in defense of RC. I have to thank them for making me a convinced skeptic. In the old times I went as usual, assuming GCM results were reliable as you do in other disciplines, you trust your colleagues. After reading some RC posts I realized that it wasn’t the science I had learnt, I started digging in, and found too much snake oil there.

    Quote: “To: Theo Goodwin

    They are vastly ignorant of science and vastly challenged by the effort of stringing together two consistent sentences. They stand as proof that way too much money has gone into science.” EndQuote

    I beg to disagree. It is just too much money badly allocated. You would be surprised on how many climate-related research projects are rejected if you are a suspected skeptic or if you don’t pay enough attention to climate change. Things would be different if rejections on that basis weren’t accepted and if skeptic climatologist/geologists/glaciologists/hydrologists, etc could apply to funding regardless of their attitude to AGW.

    July 23, 2010 | Patagon

  16. rcrejects Says:

    Thinking Scientists acknowledges PaulM. Same thread:

    PaulM:

    Thanks for pointing me towards rcrejects.

    July 23, 2010 | ThinkingScientist

  17. rcrejects Says:

    Roddy Campbell relates his experience at RC. Same thread:

    And I joined that very large hall of fame – my early and very reasonable comment on Realclimate was moderated. Amazing.

    July 23, 2010 | Roddy Campbell

  18. rcrejects Says:

    I started collecting RC related comments on the Bishop Hill “Tamino On The Hockey Stick Illusion Thread” without having first read all the comments up to date. On doing that, I find that there are many comment discussing RC, their moderation policies, and also their approach to handling questions/comments.

    Very interesting material, and generally confirming what we have already learned about RC.

    Rather than cut and pasting all of the comments, I have decided to start a new thread directing our readers to the Bishop Hill thread.

    Of course, as per our charter, we invite all posters to RC and other sites who think that their posts might be edited/censored to take a copy and we’ll post it up here.

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: