Post Your Rejected Posts Here #4

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.


3 Responses to “Post Your Rejected Posts Here #4”

  1. Bob_FJ Says:

    Over at RealClimate, I’ve made three purely technical on-topic enquiries that were deleted in moderation without any footprint or explanation. The thread was: “What can we learn from the last millennium?”
    Screen copies from that thread follow.
    Can anyone offer an opinion as to why they were deleted?

    [1] BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    23 May 2010 at 8:04 PM
    I’ve joined the discussion late, but upon a quick look through, I notice that Mike and others here have stressed that whilst the MWP/MCA is said to exhibit regional warm and cold periods, the net claim is that the MWP was flat.
    However, this calls into question any millennial proxy study based on tree rings, since as I understand it, the regions in which MOST trees were sampled were in the high latitudes and/or altitudes in the NH. (where presumably it is assumed that snow cover and a few other things were constant over the millennia)
    It could hardly be more regional than that, like not many people live there, so if regionality is important and that issue is not resolved, what is the point in drawing any conclusions from it?

    [2] BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    24 May 2010 at 8:04 PM
    [Same text as above]

    [3] BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    28 May 2010 at 5:22 PM
    There were comments earlier that the MWP/MCA exhibits regional warm and cold periods, and the consequence was that the so-called MWP was flat.
    However, as I understand it, the regions in which most trees have been proxy-sampled were in the high latitudes and/or altitudes in the NH.
    If this is so, why does this not pose a regionality issue of its own?

  2. rcrejects Says:

    Many comments on several blogs re continuing censorship at RC, and I confess that I haven’t bothered to copy them here. I should.

    Here is one I noticed at CA, “You Can’t Be Serious” thread.

    RickA Posted Jul 8, 2010 at 9:59 AM

    RealClimate is filtering comments again!

    I don’t know if anybody else has noticed this – but Realclimate is again filtering comments they don’t like.

    I left the following comment (which I thought was entirely reasonable) – and it never came out of moderation:

    Quote: “RickA says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    7 July 2010 at 4:17 PM

    Let us hope that all the scientists in the climate arena will take the recommendations of the Muir report to heart!

    I hope that everybody sees the importance of archiving data, standardizing the metadata for locations, providing enough information as to methods and the data for proper replication, being really descriptive and accurate about figure descriptions and being cooperative with requests, even if they are trying to find fault with the conclusions of a paper. That is just good science.

    The Muir report shows that climate scientists need to step up in these areas.

    I especially hope the scientists take the recommendation to heart about putting uncertainty on a proper statistical footing. A lot of the battle really revolves around statistics, and being rigorous will only help.
    My observation is that a lot of the problems come from trying to persuade (like the WMO and AR documents), rather than merely reporting the science.

    To much spin, in my opinion.

    Anyway – good luck with your future work.” EndQuote

    Anybody else having trouble getting their comments through at RealClimate?

  3. Malcolm Taylor Says:

    This was my response to RC’s article on “Expert Credibility in Climate Change – Responses to Comments”. Naturally, it didn’t get past moderation.

    I seldom visit Real Climate because of the huge amount of censorship that occurs, so I’m fortunate that on one of the few times I do visit that the topic is this very one.

    First, may I thank the authors of the lists that the paper “Expert Credibility in Climate Change” was based on for including my name among the UE list alongside such top scientists as Lindzen, Spencer, Carter et al. Even if I am ranked a lowly 460 on the list I still consider it an honour.

    I see that this post notes “Some employers explicitly preclude their employees from signing public statements of this sort, and some individuals may self-limit in the same way on principle apart from employer rules.” I guess I am lucky that my employer doesn’t prevent me from making my opinion known, but where I am restricted is in publishing anything outside our company. I believe there are many in industry who face the same restrictions. Then there are those who would like to publish, but are blocked by the team. Its no use trying to claim that such blocking doesn’t exist, because there is now overwhelming evidence that it does indeed happen. It was often suspected, but absolutely confirmed in the climategate emails. See also

    In my case, not publishing anything isn’t a big issue, because any research I carry out for my employer is very limited in geographical scope to the effects that climate has on our company’s future earnings. This is mainly looking at the effects of ENSO, PDO, SSNs etc on rainfall and temperature in our hydro-electric catchments. So there is nothing global that I can add to the debate. I can say that my climate predictions for my company over the past 15 years have been reasonably close, and I only ever allow for a very small forcing from CO2. I look primarily to ENSO for short range, then to PDO for long term forecasts.

    Actually, I wish the AGW theory was more accurate. Our climate would be much nicer and more predictable.

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: