RC’s approach and particularly its moderation policies are being discussed quite widely across the blogosphere. The latest such missive comes from lukewarmer Tom Fuller (sorry Tom if lukewarmer doesn’t quite catch it) in his thread “Hiding the Decline at Real Climate.”
A quote from Tom’s post gives the flavour:
Real Climate is a weblog that is the defacto voice of the establishment regarding climate change issues. It is financed by an environmental media communications outfit and staffed primarily by Gavin Schmidt, who works at NASA.
They were one of the very first climate weblogs and scientists have used it as a forum to discuss relevant issues and try to educate the public. However, it also quickly became a venue for defending the policy positions of people like Al Gore and James Hansen, and they are now just the propaganda arm of the extreme end of the climate/political spectrum.
They had a brief resurrection following Climategate, where Gavin Schmidt heroically responded to over 2,000 comments in three days and became my blogger of the year. His work was more impressive because Real Climate has always been famous for the tendency to censor comments, deleting opposing views and cutting out the ‘good’ parts of what critics have written. It got so bad that there is a website devoted to comments that have been deleted by Real Climate. During the immediate aftermath of Climategate, all comments got through, and Schmidt was courteous and prompt in responding to even hostile comments. It was a bravura performance.
Real Climate has tried for years to control the flow of information about climate change, censoring commenters, ridiculing opponents, resurrecting discredited tenets of the hysteric faction of the climate crew. In doing so they have sacrificed any opportunity to serve as a forum for meaningful discussion of the issues, and they spend their time preaching to the choir–while public opinion turns away from them.
Over at Climate Audit, people are posting the comments that have not been published recently at Real Climate. If my characterization of Real Climate is correct, I can see why they would not want those comments published.
But if I am mistaken about Real Climate, the questions become, why don’t they allow critical comments? Why do they publish lame defences of a discredited Hockey Stick and a pathetic paper the only function of which is to create a blacklist to intimidate climate scientists early in their careers?
If anyone at Real Climate wants to respond, I promise they won’t be censored here.
For more, go visit Tom athttp://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m8d3-Hiding-the-decline-at-Real-Climate.