Post Your Rejected Posts Here #5

To the top!

[John used to say in his American accent “Where are we goin’ fellas?” and we’d say “To the top Johnny! To the top!”]. Referring of course (for those youngsters who may not know) to The Beatles!

If you think that your post might be censored/rejected/edited at a climate blog (as apparently they sometimes are!) keep a copy and post it here. For the record.


7 Responses to “Post Your Rejected Posts Here #5”

  1. rcrejects Says:

    A post from Malcolm Taylor in our Post Your Rejected Comments Here #4 thread. Moved here to the current thread. Thanks Malcolm.

    Malcolm Taylor Says:

    August 4, 2010 at 6:35 pm edit

    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.

  2. laursaurus Says:

    IMHO, Keith Kloor’s moderation policy at C-a-s is top-notch. He lets the objectionable posts appear, and then responds directly to the author and what was said that violates the policy. It seems to work really well since other participants can see what was actually said that crossed the line. If he has to put you on “moderation”, he sends you a personal email advising as to the reason. Even those who are officially put into moderation can continue to participate, he just screens it before allowing it to post. Clean up your act, and he stops moderating your content.
    In the thread “Gavin’s Perspective”, a lot of people who are banned from commenting on RC, expressed their displeasure with it’s moderation style of blocking, delaying, and even worse, snipping their comments.
    Buried down in the comments, Keith offers his wisdom to Gavin:

    “I respectfully suggest this is something he might want to consider with respect to how the moderation and some of the hosts (such as Gavin) are perceived in the skeptical/dissenting wing of the climate blogosphere. Fairly or unfairly, everything Gavin says–from what he says to how he says it–is magnified out of proportion.

    As a result, I tend to think that the tone of the main moderators at RC is a contributing factor to the ill will between the opposing sides. Some commenters on this thread have noted the difference between Gavin’s tone here and over at RC. But you know what: I don’t blame him for being baited into snappishness over there; I get baited here all the time and it’s hard for to not respond with a verbal jab, as well. (And yeah, sometimes I can’t help myself.)

    The thing I’ve noticed, though, is that the snappish, snarky tone of moderators at RC comes through all too often, even when they’re not being baited. I think this undermines the communication of the moderators. And here’s the thing, it’s really on the moderator, I believe, to take the high road in these exchanges.

    So given that whatever Gavin says will be “ imbued with more significance and get more attention than it necessarily deserves,” and given that he is one of the public faces of climate science, because of his role at RC, I think it behooves him to consider the manner of his blog-style communication.

    If Gavin accepts Keith’s advice, what will become of this blog?
    I guess there’s always CP rejects 😉

  3. Claude Says:

    RC have just posted a pompous & pedantic denunciation of Christopher Monckton by one Barry Bickmore.

    I checked Bickmore out and posted this – but I doubt it will see the light of day:-

    “Barry Bickmore obviously strongly believes that Monckton is talking rubbish.

    According to his Wikipedia page, Barry is a Mormon fundamentalist and missionary who also believes that scriptures written on golden plates by ancient Incas were handed to Joseph Smith by an angel in 1830.

    Well, it takes all sorts – but don’t I remember Roy Spencer being ridiculed as a serious scientist here because of his Christian beliefs?”

  4. AMac Says:

    On 8/20/10, RC posted Doing it yourself, on the McShane and Wyner 2010 preprint. The comment I submitted to that thread, while civil in tone and on-topic, appears to have failed moderation.

    (Not that there’s anything wrong with that! Their publishing platform, they should be accorded full discretion as to their stated comments policy and their actual comments policy.)

    My comment is posted here.

  5. MikeN Says:

    This is for ClimateSight. in response to

    I wrote
    #10 leads to biased journalism.
    It was censored as infammatory.

  6. Journeyman Says:

    In RC’s thread about Wahl and Mann,
    I posted

    If Mann did nothing wrong in forwarding to Wahl an e-mail from Phil Jones to delete e-mails, then why did Mann tell Penn State that he did not encourage anyone to delete e-mails?

  7. AMac Says:

    An on-topic, polite, and brief comment to the 7/8/12 post Tree Rings and Climate: Some Recent Developments rejected by RealClimate

    – – – – –

    AMac says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    11 Jul 2012 at 4:45 PM

    Prof Mann,

    In the post, you present panel b of Figure S6 of Mann et al (2008, PNAS). This is the EIV reconstruction of “Northern Hemisphere Land + Ocean.” The current post discusses the blue line (“Full network without tree rings”):

    if one eliminates tree-ring data entirely from the Mann et al (2008) “EIV” temperature reconstruction (see below; blue curve corresponds to the case where all tree-ring data have been withheld from the multiproxy network), one finds not only that the resulting reconstruction is broadly similar to that obtained with tree-ring data, but in fact the pre-industrial long-term cooling trend in hemispheric mean temperature is actually lessened when the tree-ring data are eliminated…

    This reconstruction appears closely related to the one presented as Figure S8 in Mann et al (2009, Science). The legend to that figure notes that when the Tiljander data series are not used, the no-dendro curve fails validation prior to 1500. In addition, post-1500, the no-dendro/no-Tiljander curve (green) and the no-dendro/yes-Tiljander curve (blue) have entirely different shapes.

    It appears that the portion of the figure that you are discussing with regards to the new Esper paper is entirely dependent on the inclusion of the two (not four) uncalibratable Tiljander data series as paleotemperature proxies in the reconstruction. At this late date, that does not seem to be a reasonable choice.

    – – – – –

    A different on-topic, polite, and brief comment to the same “Tree Rings and Climate: Some Recent Developments” post consigned by RealClimate’s moderator to their “The Bore Hole”:

    – – – – –

    Comment by Benjamin — 10 Jul 2012 @ 3:45 PM

    I got two questions :

    1/ The Mann08 you show has no tree rings but still has Tijlander lake sediments proxy, right ?

    2/ On the Mann08 graph, the post 1900 part is only represented with instrumental record. Is there a version of this graph without the instrumental record but with the proxies used all the way to 2000, like on Jan Esper’s graph ?


    – – – – –

    Local copies here, at AMac’s blog.

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: