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. “
Thinking Scientist. Same thread in response to Philip 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.
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?”!).
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 🙂
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…
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.