Poll on Real Climate Blog Effectiveness

This post is a bit long winded, but sometimes the passion to write comes in waves.

Words have immense power in our human world.  It’s really not opposed thumbs (or fear of vacuums) which set us apart from animals, it’s actually words, language, communication of complex ideas.  Imagine writing to blogspace, you sign up for an internet account, nearly anonymous, having more opinions than any human deserves and starting to write.  You see your work gets like 10 views, so you know all you’re doing is taking a record of thoughts, it might as well be on a cassette or for the yongins, a CD, stored in a dresser.

I can remember writing a post at my folks house early in blogging, which got 250 views.  Wow, people are reading this, better shape up.  Other posts resulted in emails warning me to be careful, both of government and writing the wrong thing.  I told them, if I screw up, I’ll admit it.  So far that’s worked fine and a small bit of pride comes from knowing that those who hang out today understand that I won’t intentionally mislead to win a point, at least I try very hard not to.   It’s not the kind of pride which buoys one to great height but rather a sort of humiliating one which reminds you to be careful.

I,I,I, blah blah blah, it’s all crap, the point here is not a self aggrandizing celebration but rather recognition that I have little to do with this forum.  I’m only smart enough to bring up points and concepts which start discussions, and to know that I don’t get left behind by their complexity.  I’m also fearless enough to openly argue points from both friends and opponents to my views.  If my opinions cannot hold up to debate, then the views are not worth holding.  It is certainly true that those who leave comments here have affected my views more than my views have affected theirs.  Why let Tom Fuller post here with opinions which are often 180 degrees from my own?  Same reason, we shouldn’t fear those who honestly disagree. I would let anyone with honest opinions do the same here, no trolling however and if you do write a post here, you can expect the same no quarter policy as the rest of us.

Climatologists seem to think they deserve special status, including protection from criticism, whereas I see them as special status deserving of the most criticism.  Not because they are the most wrong (although they often are) but because they ask the most from us.  They ask way too much from us in fact, especially considering their continued and nearly universal demands for unacceptable levels of government control.  It will be a cold day in HELL before I forget their raucous applause for Hugo Chavez’s purely evil speech in Copenhagen.  I mean the kind of speech that makes a good conservative look for his rifle and ammo.  During that speech many of these unqualified dolt’s and would-be-politicians stood up and applauded.  I’ve seen evil in this world and have learned to recognize it.

Actually this meandering post has a point, climatologists claim apolitical status while recommending extremist political action en-masse.  They demand far too much and claim it will cost you far too little or even nothing.  They come from a particular political viewpoint which is flat wrong from any reasoned perspective that I can imagine and their demands will cause more damage than any of their exaggerations can conjur.   They state apolitical status while recommending leftists actions, they claim unbiased scientific views while supporting unequivocally bad work hockeysticks, exaggerated temperature trends and to support the whole, they then claim superior intelligence.

When tens of thousands of educated scientists sign a petition, they are deniers, criminals, deceivers, and part of an oil funded, international organization with the intent to deceive.  When people make claims with respect to data that do not fit what the Duma style consensus requires, their opinions are deleted, derided or contained.

When papers are written which prove warmist claims are suspect, they are blocked, stalled and suppressed.

Why is the world this way?  What has led us to this state?

Today, the skeptic is winning.  We are winning!  Not against the physics or reality because that is not the battle, but against the policy, and politics, and a distorted version of physics and reality.    I’m not imagining that many more bad policies will NOT be enacted by the US’s current extremist  in chief, but rather that people are seeing the whole movement for what it is.  Eco-extremism, with a strong political motivation.  There are many ways to combat influences on environment, loss of freedom and money are not required.  Government intervention is in fact, not required.  People will do what we do with or without an all powerful, over-controlling government beast with cameras on every street corner, observation of our eating habits, our medical records, how we deal with our families.  Our skepticism is winning the battle, pushing back against  the self assigned hyper-intelligent aggressors, at least until the current rash of overbearing rules become accepted commonplace intrusions.

So what prompted this truly heartfelt vent?? — A simple comment by a climatologist brave enough to give his opinions on tAV.   I don’t assign any of the above to this individual, in part because he’s brave enough to give his views, also in part because I don’t think he sees his role to fit the above description.

In reply to a recent gridded temperature reconstruction here.

Dr, Eric Steig wrote:

Now here is a post from you that I wholeheartedly endorse.
Although I’m on record for saying you are crazy , I continue to be impressed by your honest presentation of results you come up with.

Kind words for sure, however, after considering the point on honest presentation, it’s left me with a bit of a conundrum, a difficulty in consideration of this nice remark.    The ‘crazy’ referred to my conservative views of the Copenhagen global government , I think, no problem, but the honest presentation stuck with me.   I’ve got to admit that I try very hard to give honest presentations here and I don’t feel that the Real Climate blog does the same.  Dr. Steig does in his few posts there though, but I don’t believe that several of the rest are honest.    They are politically motivated, like Romm, but won’t admit it.

I like honest blogging, the links on the right are honest blogs to my knowledge although all make mistakes (and at least one I’m no longer sure about), there is another which I cannot catch real mistakes at – Steve M is on notice that I’m still waiting patiently to bust him messing up, and Lubos’s link needs to be added.  If Real Climate were an honest blog, I would have the link on the right also.  I’m certain that Dr. Steig takes heat from his cohorts at RC for even acknowledging the Air Vent exists.  The others there think that discussion of our existence gives us credibility, as though climate scientists have the ability to dole out correctness.

This blog was a regular bashing point for both RC and Tamino commenters, until simultaneously tAV disappeared from any comments in their blogs, it appeared to me that it was a result of censorship.  There was a point prior to climategate, where no matter what I wrote, it wouldn’t appear at RC. I’ve never written anything at either place that I didn’t believe.

Real Climate has earned a reputation, it’s one which they have built over many years.  The reputation is a self feeding oxymoron, having both  good honest technical science and another of awkward assertions having a subtext of leftist political motivations including censorship, abuse, aloofness and derision of some very, very qualified people.  Nobody is qualified to censor my writing, no matter how smart you think you are, because my words are what I think.  If you disagree about that, consider that Roman’s writing was also snipped at RC.  A polite professional statistician holding university qualifications that make Mann look like a kid with a crayon – censored at both RC and Tamino. This is not honest blogging.

So this post has been sitting in my mind for some time now.  There needs to be a separation of people at Real Climate between those who have the fortitude and honesty to face difficult opinions and those who censor them.  So when answering these polls we are teaching the climatologists, all they have to do is read the registry here to realize we’re not ignorant fools, but rather professionals with solid successful backgrounds.  The the polls here in this post are a lesson that many here already know the answer to, but our climate friends haven’t understood.   In my opinion, it’s a lesson that climate science needs to learn and learn soon if the policy they desire is to be implemented.

Thus far, climategate has taught them nothing, a little fear, a little shoulder shrug, a little sheepishness, followed by a return to the same old thing.

So, without further venting, the following polls are not proof of anything other than how Real Climate is viewed by the technical public:

I would encourage the honest scientists to separate themselves from RC.  Standing alone with nuanced opinion is far more convincing than working as a consensus.  Also, open unmoderated policy works well on climate blogs, trolls fear graphs after all. Anyway, don’t forget to give your opinions and experiences in the comments.