the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

RC Real Censors

Posted by Jeff Id on October 6, 2009

I’ve left a couple of comments at RC lately asking them the following scientific questions regarding their apparent criticism of CA. Lately I’ve noticed that even the trolls aren’t bashing Jeff Id while TomP’s goofiness is being recognized over there. I left this reasonable yet difficult to discount question on their thread:

“Do you have any specific criticisms of the tree ring data used by Steve McIntyre or do you have any criticisms of the methods he used?”

It was snipped and never saw daylight. This quote is from Gavin on moderation policies on a previous thread.

[Response: Our comment moderation has nothing to do with any economic or social policy (indeed, look at the tragedy of the commons post which was the most policy-related one in a while). Instead, it is enabled to improve the signal to noise ratio, and cutting out repetitive continuous cut-and-pasted talking points from people with whom there is no point in having rational discussion. By and large that works. – gavin]

Comment by Carrick — 8 June 2009 @ 10:07 AM

and this:

I have several times before considered making comments on your blog, but have not taken the time to do so, since I have seen the text of several comments “snipped” from you blog that appear to me neither offensive nor nonsensical. Can you offer any guidelines on what types of comments are allowed and what are not?

[Response: Think of it like a dinner party. Discussion is good, disagreement is ok, but throwing food and insulting the hosts or other guests is not appreciated. – gavin]

Comment by Steve Fitzpatrick — 9 June 2009 @ 6:29 AM

On the request of a colleague by email I sent it again and took a screenshot.


It was snipped again. Now since this is not a repetitive talking point BECAUSE it is a brand new question this week, my suspicion was that my name was the problem. Of course being science minded a control was needed. So I posted this beauty under the nom de plume of Jack DeBeers – I was drinking a beer so that’s the first thing that came to mind.

Regular lurker, rare commenter.Sorry to interrupt the conversation but after reading the head post, it’s hard to believe that Steve McIntyre could pick any random set of tree rings from the internet and use them as temperature. Is anyone familiar with the data he chose or are they just unknown selections? And apparenlty he just writes his own software to make it all look good. Isn’t the original software good enough?Is this a scam or something, are these trees temperature sensitive, has anyone checked his numbers? Sorry if this has been covered somewhere else in this seriously long thread.

Comment by Jack DeBeers — 4 October 2009 @ 9:56 PM

It went right on through. No response unfortunately as they have not put forth a single criticism of the methods used or proxies Steve chose.

Sure it’s childish but it’s also tiresome for them to pretend to be all knowing super scientists yet not allow a question from an individual who has clearly studied the subject. Consider the different treatement TomP and other dissenters got from the Air Vent, WUWT and CA in comparison and this is despite the fact that they have not shown integrity in their willingness to understand.

I was interested in their opinion, perhaps someone else can get through the question:

“Do you have any specific criticisms of the Schweingruber tree ring data used by Steve McIntyre or do you have any specific criticisms of the methods he used?”

23 Responses to “RC Real Censors”

  1. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Jeff Id,

    I made a couple of comments after Gavin told me to think of RC as a dinner party. It isn’t. Mann immediately accused me of trying to misrepresent what the PC king Eric had said. My second comment was snipped. They do not allow dissent or discussion at RC, no matter what they say their policy is. I think it is probably a waste of time to try to comment there; they want cheerleaders only.

  2. timetochooseagain said

    Disagreement is only “okay”. God, we are in a bad place when “disagreement is okay” merits a “Oh, if only!”.

  3. wattsupwiththat said

    Real Censors

  4. Johnj said

    In the first comment to Andrew Revkins dot earth post on this controversy, the writer asserts that Gavin demolishes SM argument and then claims:

    “McIntyre did not comment on the RealClimate topic to speak up for himself, however. It’s for the same reason he doesn’t publish anything in the literature: he has zero qualifications to discuss climate science, and knows perfectly well that he would be humiliated in either a legitimate science blog or in a peer reviewed publication.”

    A few posts make comments on Real Climate’s “real” moderation policy. It might be helpful for more people to join in as it might be the only way to let RealClimate readers know what is really going on

  5. Jeff Id said

    #3 thanks, I fixed the title

  6. hswiseman said

    Sock Puppets get full lifetime ban at RC. As opposed to Meat Puppets…

  7. Phillip Bratby said

    Jeff, Please delete this if you think it inappropriate or irrelevant, or just too long.

    I managed to get a couple of innocuous questions at RC under the subject ‘A Warming Pause?’. It concerns the statement by Prof Latif about cooling. Here are the questions and responses. I found it interesting to note the different interpretations put on Latif’s words and the criticism of popular science journalism. I found the comment ‘What is so effing hard to understand about this?’ amusing, given the diversity of interpretations of Latif’s statement. It’s amazing how everybody knows exactly what Latif meant, and yet all interpretations are different.


    How does this fit in with Professor Mojib Latif from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Keil University, who has stated that from recent research he has conducted he has had to conclude that global warning has ceased, that the planet is currently cooling and will likely continue to do so for another 20 years.

    Comment by Phillip Bratby — 6 October 2009 @ 11:55 AM


    Phillip, that is simply not what Latif said. You might find Deep Climate’s posts on the topic interesting (linked above your post) as he replays the telephone game that has been played with Latif’s words. All he says is that it is possible for natural variability to create a one or two decade cooling “trend” within a longer term warming trend, he certainly did not predict cooling in the next decade.

    Comment by Eric L — 6 October 2009 @ 12:18 PM


    re #27

    That’s an odd one Philip considering that Latif has just recently published a paper in which he predicts an extremely large surface warming (around 0.5 oC) in the period around 2010-2030 (see Figure 4 of:

    N. S. Keenlyside, M. Latif, J. Jungclaus, L. Kornblueh & E. Roeckner (2008) Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector Nature 453, 84-88

    That’s completely at odds with your comment. What has Latif published more recently that indicates he’s reconsidered his forecast??

    [Response: Anyone remember we offered them a bet at the time? -stefan

    Comment by chris — 6 October 2009 @ 12:26 PM


    #27 Philip – he never said, and you have either willfully or naively echoed something Morana picked up and spun. What Latif said was “It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two, when the temperature cools, relative to the present level.” He did not conclude “that global warning has ceased, that the planet is currently cooling and will likely continue to do so for another 20 years” as you stated.

    Basically what Latif said is the same as what Stefan said in this post “Even under conditions of anthropogenic global warming (which would contribute a temperature rise of about 0.2 ºC over this period) a flat period or even cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996).”

    Comment by Peter Houlihan — 6 October 2009 @ 1:12 PM


    The trouble is when people make vague statements, such as Prof Latif saying “It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two, when the temperature cools, relative to the present level.” (from the link given). So how are people to interpret “may well happen”? Is this the same as “likely” as defined by the IPCC, i.e. a >66% probability of occurrence? It “may well happen” certainly suggests >50% probability of occurrence to me. Am I wrong?

    Comment by Phillip Bratby — 6 October 2009 @ 2:41 PM


    #27 Phillip Bratby

    The misunderstanding you are talking about has been discussed. I was in the room in Geneva when he discussed the issue. He did not state we are going to cool. He discussed natural variability and potentials in the context of dcadal predictability and potential. If you listen to his words you can hear his contexts. He is talking to scientists of course. He discusses challenges. It is easy to take words out of context, which is what a lot of people did, unfortunately. It is important to understand that he is discussing decadal predictability, not the AGW climate trend.

    Listen for yourself, listen to the end of his talk:

    [audio src="" /]

    His talk starts around 23 minutes and goes to around 40.

    Comment by John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) — 6 October 2009 @ 2:52 PM


    Phillip Bratby @43, yes, you are wrong. Latif said “may well happen” in the context of a public oral presentation, not in scientific paper. He was saying exactly what Stefan is saying in this post: that even during a period when there is an long term upward warming trend there will be times when there may well be a shorter term when natural variability temporarily cancels out or even overcomes that underlying warming trend. Igor Samoylenko @36 provides just such a an example from the recent record up thread.

    What is so effing hard to understand about this?

    Comment by Jim Eager — 6 October 2009 @ 3:20 PM


    Philip, #43, yes you are wrong.

    People may have to take a course in statistics, but they can work out the veracity themselves.

    But having someone give them the comforting lie “AGW is not happening” is far easier and nicer.

    Comment by Mark — 6 October 2009 @ 3:55 PM



    #“May well happen” sounds like something between 20% and 60% to me, but I don’t think this term is defined and I don’t think it is used in IPCC reports. But to me the more egregious error isn’t the probability but the prediction itself and the time table — it is very different to suggest that this coming decade will show cooling with some probability versus saying with some probability there will be some decade during this century that shows cooling, and it seems pretty clear to me that he meant the latter.

    Comment by Eric L — 6 October 2009 @ 4:08 PM


    The trouble is when people make vague statements, such as Prof Latif saying “It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two, when the temperature cools, relative to the present level.” (from the link given). So how are people to interpret “may well happen”? Is this the same as “likely” as defined by the IPCC, i.e. a >66% probability of occurrence? It “may well happen” certainly suggests >50% probability of occurrence to me. Am I wrong?

    I agree that people reading that statement out of context could be forgiven for misinterpreting it (although I did provide that context in my post).

    But the real problem with attributing “misunderstanding” to Latif is that Fred Pearce was there. He was reporting on a conference. He was presumably present for the entire presentation, so context should not have been an issue. He had the presentation and chart in front of him, and presumably could refer back to it, or ask Latif if he wasn’t sure.

    I’m an admitted climate science amateur with an undergrad math/comp sci degree. So how is it that I can look at the statements and presentation and easily discern Latif’s meaning in retrospect (i.e. describing a *hypothetical situation*) and Pearce could not? What does that say about the state of popular science journalism?

    Comment by Deep Climate — 6 October 2009 @ 5:04 PM

  8. Carrick said

    To some extent it depends on who the moderator is for what comments get through.

    Gavin tends to be more forgiving than some of his colleagues. I’ve even seen on occasion a comment being approved, then later deleted, my guess by a different moderator.

    I think it is obvious that this comment is just dishonest on Gavin’s part “Our comment moderation has nothing to do with any economic or social policy”. Of course their comment moderation has everything to do with furthering a particular economic and social policy, but its their blog.

    If they only want an echo chamber, they can have it.

    Mostly I go there to gawk and say “oh wow”n at the preposterous BS they try to sling, Stefan, bless his heart, is particularly bad.

    E.g., take the post how yes the Antarctica was not warming but yes that’s consistent with the models, followed by the no the Antarctica really is warming, see we told you! [Let’s neglect that this includes a larger time interval, 1960-current to flip the slope…since 1980—the interval when AGW is supposed to be dominant—it has been cooling and that is a robust empirical fact, deal with it.]

    Last post I saw there was still trying to claim we don’t have a pause in warming. *snickers*

  9. Peter S said

    If RC is a dinner party – the food is inedible.

    Someone should sack the cooks.

  10. P Gosselin said

    Schellnhuber thinks Americans are illiterate in the field of climate science.
    I posted the following at CA.

    Would someone please contact Professor Schellnhuber and ask him why it is mainly the “illiterate” North Americans who constantly have to correct the erroneaous UN reports he and his ilk put out?

    Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber CBE
    Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung (PIK)
    Postfach 60 12 03
    14412 Potsdam
    Tel.: +49 (331) 288 2502
    Fax: +49 (331) 288 2510

    I think it would serve to advance science if some of the very able readers here contacted his office and perhaps dispelled his false belief that Americans are illiterate on the subject.

  11. P Gosselin said

    Prof Schellnhuber’s English is much better than his climate science, so you can talk to him in English.

  12. PaulM said

    Well I tried posting at RC and mine was deleted too.
    There are some more recent examples at
    Nobody has yet responded to Jack DeBeers – but nor have the censors deleted him yet.

    Pierre G, I think Schellnhuber is using the word illiterate to mean ‘someone who disagrees with me’. You have to realise the extent of anti-Americanism in Europe and the UK. The general view is that Americans are overweight, ignorant of anything outside their own town, far-right, intent on world domination, wasteful, don’t care about the environment, violent,…..

  13. Jeff Id said

    #12 I wrote a whole post on that article but didn’t put it up. It ticks me off that these leftists would put Chinese people up as the informed ones. If you see his picture he’s an German of asian decent. The man is full of it and his plans would destroy the world economy and in my opinion create massive starvation and likely even war.

    If the communist intellectuals in china, europe and brazil don’t want to make so much CO2 perhaps they should stop buying so much shit! Why do they think the CO2 is coming from here and China?

    It’s simply a wealth redistribution program for the disadvantaged socialist governments of the world.

  14. P Gosselin said

    Schellnhuber calls his Vision: The Great Transformation.
    Which pretty much says it all. (An Eco-Reich that’ll last 1000 years?)
    I don’t believe he’s of any Asian descent. He’s pure German, and he lets his teutonic arrogance shine through unabated.
    I equate his propaganda to what we’ve seen in the past. I won’t get too specific though.

  15. Jeff Id said

  16. jnorv said

    My latest comments at RC were bounced as coming a suspected spam site.

    Jim N

  17. Jeff Id said

    Mine were both from the same ip address.

  18. William said

    RC will edit and delete by IP address even if you change your name and email address in the posting.

  19. Jeff Id said

    #18, My second post from the same IP address under a different name went through.

  20. 40 Shades of Green said


    Rather than cursing the darkness, why not shine a light.

    As suggested before, do the following. Creat a blog post by taking an RC posting such as the Yamal one and writing your own rebuttal. (You have already done this). Then write a script that copies RC postings into your own thread. Then go to WUWT, CA and other places, tell people what you are doing and invite them to come over and comment.

    The word is sure to leak out and the faithful from RC will come and visit.

    Think about it from a Blog rankings perspective. Imagine if you had all the regulars from CA, WUWT, RC and so on coming to visit, you should shoot up the rankings.

    Might I even suggest you create a website called RCuncensored where you could do this as a regular thing.

    40 Shades

  21. MikeN said

    Actually I got some posts that were just as ridiculous thru also. Just badmouth Steve, and then I still got to say the point I wanted to make. It’s like praising Mao. I got to place the revealing quotes from Esper and Jacoby out there about cherry-picking for a climate signal.

  22. JoeB said

    Response 24 Maybe I’ve missed it in the highly-technical and extremely on-point information presented in the post and comments here.

    Could someone point out the errors in the methods that Steve McIntyre has used, or in the applications of these methods.

    [Response: Hmmm. where to start? perhaps here and then here. -mike]

    Turns out they DO answer questions and simply delete duplicates.

    Here’s an objection to McIntyre’s methods IN THE ARTICLE
    McIntyre has based his ‘critique’ on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. People have written theses about how to construct tree ring chronologies in order to avoid end-member effects and preserve as much of the climate signal as possible. Curiously no-one has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set that you found lying around on the web.

  23. Jeff Id said

    #22, It turns out that I’ve beat this concept to death also. If you include the new treemometer data with the old treemometer data, all together, the blade is no longer unprecedented.

    RC has snipped 80 percent of my on topic questions or comments.

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: