the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Poll on Real Climate Blog Effectiveness

Posted by Jeff Id on May 2, 2010

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.


87 Responses to “Poll on Real Climate Blog Effectiveness”

  1. Derek said

    The first time I visited realclimate.org.nonsense was to read the saturated gassy arguement piece.
    The number of times the piece used “counter intuitively” sort of gave the game away to me.
    A brief scan of the following comments / replies was enough for me.

    I have not been back to RC since, although I have seen excerpted parts of “discussions” from there since.
    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-681.html
    They have only reinforced my initial opinion if the place, learning a little about Fenton communications did not help,
    and of course Micheal Mann set up the site WITH a convicted internet fraudster.

    Nope, I’ve looked elsewhere for climate science, but always with a strong BS detector.
    I prefer simple understandable observation, which is not surprisingly quite rare in all things “climate” related….

  2. Jeff Id said

    It won’t accept my fixes to the poll typos for some reason.

  3. gallopingcamel said

    What I found most obnoxious at RC was the continual sycophantic comments concerning their high priests, such as James Hansen, Tamino, Michael Mann and James Lovelock.

    Oh! I didn’t like the condescension much either.

  4. AMac said

    I wish I could have specified in the polls that I don’t generally read RC’s comments threads. Some of the articles are worthwhile. Occasional ones are useful synopses of aspects of climate science. More commonly, what appears on RC can be read as a Papal Bull or a People’s Daily front-page editorial: Attention peasants, here is the authoritative statement of Truth, as interpreted by the AGW Consensus establishment. Sometimes the AGW Consensus view checks out.

    The comments are a wasteland. The main reason is RC’s moderation policy. Encourage the Home Team fans to make eloquent arguments, use “ditto” praise (Home) and hissing (Visitors) to show that the majority of sensible people is On Board. Clip pro-Visitor comments, interrupt them with patronizing rebuttals. Steven Mosher has told of having poorly-argued comments pass moderation, while well-composed ones fail (Stupid skeptics!). Tom Fuller described a comment of his that was held for many hours in moderation, while Home-Team offerings zipped through the queue. Both of these procedures seem consistent with the final product. Plus, there are the documented instances where on-point, polite, factual, well-argued comments never got past the moderators.

    Life’s too short to spend a lot of time with a blog whose authors are so cavalier towards their readers’ intelligence.

  5. Bad Andrew said

    It’s fun to read and follow daily, sports and dramas and mysteries and stuff because the outcome is in question (at least to the reader or fan).

    A blog that essentially churns out the same talking points all the time gets boring real fast. What free thinker bothers with it anymore?

    Andrew

  6. Harry said

    I have been around at a lot of blogs, daily, with sporadic commenting. During the last year, I have grown more and more irritated until I could not bear it anymore to be treated like an ignorant fool that has to be taught a lesson by patronizing know-it alls. People that post more than 100 comments a week on every imagineable blog, showing off their omniscient arrogance and tutoring people, belitteling anybody with different views. Snipping comments, editing in between the lines, using every opportunity to show off their self-denounced supremacy.

    They can argue as much as they can, I have been and will be developing my own views. I will not participate anymore in any of this link-bashing using the summaries of papers they cannot even read because they are behind a pay-wall.

    I much prefer the most of the time friendly way of reacting at the skeptics blogs, which is now and then interrupted by invasions of ruminating RC-sheep or regurgitating trools. By now I know the signature of most of them, a good text analytical tool identifies most of them by their writing fingerprint. That makes it rather easy to ignore them. In the end, they achieve exactly the opposite of what they intend to.

  7. The behavior of those at Real Climate actually made me more skeptical, particularly, the thread “On replication” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/on-replication/ from 8 Feb 2009. Gavin’s reasoning for why climate scientists shouldn’t follow standard software practices (version control, documentation, configuration management, etc.) kind of pushed me over the edge (I have an IT background). Some of the overzealous commenters like “Completely Fed Up” and “Barton Paul Levision” among others make reading the comments so tiresome, I usually can’t stand to read them.

    I’m a lukewarmer, and like Jeff don’t deny that CO2 causes some warming. How much is the question. The recent discussion between Piekle Sr., Kevin Trenberth, Josh Willis, and Roy Spencer has been interesting to say the least. I am really tired of the alarmism and tying anything and everything to climate change (birds flying into cliffs, and other similar idiotic claims). More facts and less screaming “we’re all gonna die” would be nice. Which is why I frequent (usually as a lurker) this site, McIntyre’s and Lucia’s.

  8. Here’s a salient quote from Schmidt in a response to comment 89 in the post “On Replication”:

    “My working directories are always a mess – full of dead ends, things that turned out to be irrelevant or that never made it into the paper, or are part of further ongoing projects. Some elements (such a one line unix processing) aren’t written down anywhere. Extracting exactly the part that corresponds to a single paper and documenting it so that it is clear what your conventions are (often unstated) is non-trivial. – gavin]”

    If Schmidt’s logic here isn’t a reason to use source code control, documentation and configuration management, I don’t know what is.

  9. Hal said

    After 34 voters, there are too many 100% on one side votes.

    I have to come back from a different IP address and vote opposite to make these poll results look different from RC . LOL

  10. sod said

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

    ouch. things don t get more false than this claim.

    your poll needs a CONTROL QUESTION. you want to figure out something about the people you are polling.

    how about you ask “Do you think you are a member of the technical public?”

    i, for example, would put me into that group. but i just did the poll….

    and how about “please check every one of the boxes that fits your personal view: the globe has been warming by x°C over the 20th century, CO2 is an important factor in that warming, man has caused the significant rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, ..

    your poll results says how, “sceptics” and denialists think about RC. things don t get more biased, than with this poll….

  11. sod said

    sorry, minor correction:

    “i, for example, would NOT put me into that group. but i just did the poll….”

  12. AMac said

    > Do you think you are a member of the technical public
    Yes

    > the globe has been warming by x°C over the 20th century
    x = ~1, per interpretation of graphs posted by Zeke Hausfather and others.

    > CO2 is an important factor in that warming
    Yes, almost certainly

    > man has caused the significant rise in CO2 in the atmosphere
    Yes, almost certainly

  13. timetochooseagain said

    Reduced confidence, never censored, but only because I’ve never bothered to try to post there (it seemed an utterly thankless thing to do), they’re political motivated AFAIAC, the commenters are not just extremely condescending, they’re frighteningly abusive. The bloggers themselves are marginally better, but very condescending nonetheless, having seem them misrepresent the facts on numerous occasions I’d say they are most definitely NOT an honest broker in general, and they most definitely won’t care about this poll. I didn’t do the last question because I never regularly read it. It took a very small number of posts for me to see no point in paying them unnecessary attention.

    Now, I should say, some of the bloggers there are more ill behaved than others. Eric hasn’t done anything terribly ridiculous, but Mann seriously needs some kind of professional help. He comes of as down right nasty and incredibly paranoid.

  14. curious said

    Jeff (and Eric Steig if you are still looking in) – I’m going to call you on this.

    First off as a spectator I appreciate Eric Steig actually getting involved even though it is on an occassional basis. A long while ago in response to a post from Antonio San I made the comment that if RC and co had any balls they’d actually engage with the skilled contributors in the blogosphere. This was around the time you Ryan et al were doing the Antarctic reconstruction and it is pretty clear that you now have some respect for Eric’s work and demeanour. This seems to have come from actually looking through his work line by line, developing your take on it and then some sort of dialogue off blog giving you maybe some background that you took on board. Ok fair enough. However, when Eric posted on another thread recently (Artic Winds thread) claiming certainty that the forcing associated with CO2 was known and beyond reproach whilst caveating it that all other possible forcings were unknown, I questioned it. All I wanted to know was what reference Eric was using for his CO2 forcing and how in his Antarctic work they had managed to conclude that it was hard to explain their results without the effects of GHG. IMO to reach this conlusion you’d have to know the total forcing picture and by his own admission he didn’t and further he was coming on thread to comment that the effects of mass air and water flow are the biggies in terms of energy transfer. And his response to being questioned was “crickets”. Then on the gridding thread Eric posts with a request not to be “attacked” – fair enough but asking questions isn’t an attack and if Eric’s “brave” he’d answer and defend his posts rather than preempt with special pleading. Maybe my question is so stupid, and the answer so obvious, that to Eric it doesn’t need a response but I’d suggest that there are a lot of people out there who will have seen the big red unscaled Antarctic graphic that made all the headlines who’d wonder the same.

  15. Layman Lurker said

    How about a pole about Sod?🙂

    1. Sod is: a) a rightous member of the “false claim” police b) annoying

    2. When Jeff, or Tom, etc. make statments like “So, without further venting, the following polls are not proof of anything other than how Real Climate is viewed by the technical public” we readers do the following: a) parrot this to all who will listen as an irrefutable “finding” b) see the statment for what it is…a blog comment which is not meant to interpreted as gospel truth.

    3. While Sod scours the skeptical blogs for “false claims” like he quoted in #10, his own claims are well supported and argued: a) true b) false

  16. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID, I would reserve judgment on the winning of the policy battles AGW, or otherwise. Many policies can be pushed through before there are any political consequences and conservatives being, well conservative, tend to be slow to change the past – right or wrong. That’s why I am a small “l” libertarian and see the battle of which you speak being fought on the intellectual level. And while conservatives tend to relegate their complaints to the federal level of government I have much to argue about with conservatives or conservative leaning people at the state and local levels. I think our school board and a number of city officials in my locale are fiscally naive and irresponsible.

    That is not to say that I am a “party” line libertarian as there are many I disagree with, and particularly so those that run for political office.

  17. MikeN said

    Hilarious seeing the usual suspects quote RC’s arguments for not publicizing code, and then having RC put up a post called Show us the Code.

    The one time I wasn’t censored in a thread, they were making fun of me for arguing that the proposed solutions would amount to a loss of comfort, and they countered with a Honda Insight has the same amount of space as a Porsche 911.

  18. Ryan O said

    I still read RC pretty regularly. Mostly just the posts, though. I can only take so much of Ray Ladbury, SecularAnimist, John P. Reismann, and the rest of the sycophants.

  19. Terry said

    I also read RC regularly, and I have to say that over the last month or so, the responses from the scientists have been very moderate and lacking the condescending attitude that was their previous hallmark. This is especially so of Gavin who doesnt seem to resort to the same holier than thou responses he used to. That of course cant be said of the died in the wool regular posters who seem to be there to let everyone else know how much they know and how little everyone else knows. RC has changed lately.

  20. Peter Dunford said

    Although I admit to having filled in the poll questions, perhaps in hindsight I shouldn’t have. Should a respectable, mainstream technical blog like TAV be giving attention and thus credence to a political, pseudoscience hack blog like RealClimate?

    Even that’s not actually fair to RC. The instinct not to be fair to them is very strong. They are, after-all, the voice of The Team, and therefore inherently suspect. They defend the (increasingly) indefensible, and to many sycophants they to a bang-up job.

    The ferocious moderation policy on comments may well form the model for how the Chinese, North Korean and Iranian states see the need for control of the internet. None of the four have seemed keen on criticism.

    Much of the problem with RC has been that many rabid comments (particularly in respect of M&M) have passed moderation that should not have been allowed to be posted. They go far beyond the nearest equivalents at WUWT or CA.

    Climategate, (more specifically the whitewash after whitewash inquiries into it), is in danger of teaching RC that they should carry on mostly as before, same old censorship, same old editorial policy, just be a bit more polite.

    At the moment RC and the alarmists have still won. Their ideas form the basis of government policy across the western world. The cracks like Australia dropping C&T for now, are minor setbacks. Rearguard actions against the madness are building, but they are too little, too late.

    I fear for the future of our children. Not only is competition for the available usable energy sources intensifying, our own governments distort our adaptation efforts and cripple our responses.

    There’s nothing like a good vent.

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

    This is a misleading phrasing. This poll is a reflection of tAV readership, which while more technical than most, is not THE technical public. More like a subset of the technical public that either enjoys or endures the snark and cheap-shots that accompany the technical information.

    The word of the week is “Tribalism.”
    It exists here as well.

  22. Oh … and while I do read the comments there (and occasionally post one), I fully acknowledge that after about 100-150 or so, it gets completely dominated by 2 or 3 posters and redundant with the tail of every other thread.

  23. Gary P said

    I do not think I should fill out your poll because I have not been to real climate more than 2 or 3 times. I very much enjoy reading at blogs and almost always read the first 20 or so comments. You have documented the censoring of comments at RC so I will not go there. I have had enough of the MSM and their control of critical comments to last two lifetimes.

  24. Peter Dunford said
    May 2, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    Climategate, (more specifically the whitewash after whitewash inquiries into it), is in danger of teaching RC that they should carry on mostly as before, same old censorship, same old editorial policy, just be a bit more polite.

    Climategate, despite the whitewash, made it clear that not only the IPCC but also “RealClimate” focus on perception rather than reality. When reality contradicts their ‘conclusions’ the aggressively seek ways of wording things, shifting data, etc to make it appear they are correct anyway. Anyone who posits real facts, results of observations vs models, etc. are to be lambasted as deniers while the claims of “we showed”, in repetition, are their defense.

    I enjoy numerous sites, among them tAV. I don’t need only that information I agree with. I need and respect honesty, integrity, ethic, and valid scientific discourse & facts presented without exclusive bias. Thus, I have no use for RealClimate.

  25. Gary, if you that is your measure, you may wish to add WUWT to your list.

    Comments critical of his poorly prepared “Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?” have been censored.

    Roman came close to deleting a reply of mine at his blog for responding to a commentator’s request for reading material related to AGW – it was deemed off topic (although he didn’t deem the original request as off-topic and had responded to it himself).

    Blog owners often feel a need to control the content of their threads. Indeed, on popular blogs, it is almost required to keep the signal-to-noise ratio manageable.

  26. Carrick said

    Ron Broberg:

    Comments critical of his poorly prepared “Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?” have been censored.

    Perhaps that has more to do with the tone of the comment than its content?

    I’ve never had a comment censored on WUWT, including remarks critical of that report.

    I’ve had plenty of comments not make it through moderation at RC (and OpenMind and Climate Progress) that were moderately toned, just saying things that weren’t “climate PC correct”.

  27. Shug Niggurath said

    I’ve voted in these polls and don’t think the answers reflect what is really happening. So I would like to be allowed to homogenise them. My experience tells me that humans have too much say, so, speaking for the vast majority of non humans here I would suggest that any answers negative to global warming have 40 points removed and all answers positive to the topic have 41 points added.

    This homogenisation will allow our calculations to be validated with other, government sponsored answers and so we think they show that the science is now settled.

    By the way, when you post without a lesbian present we need to add ten points to the opposing view as your vote is not acceptable to us without this totally necessary correction.

    Yours aye,

    hm@anelegantchaos.org

  28. Bruce of Newcastle said

    Good vent Jeff as always.

    I was trained in science to be open and to defend my interpretation of data vs all comers. One of the best lessons we learnt was when one of us was handed a certain journal article and was to give a presentation to the department on it, something we did each Thursday. After the victim gave his excellent presentation on the article, head of department stands up and says that in these other later journal articles said article was shown to be fraudulent and wrong, please comment.

    I will always remember the poor guy’s face, and the lesson.

  29. intrepid_wanders said

    The word of the week is “Tribalism.”
    It exists here as well

    I would re-define it more to a collection of lone wolves here. No loyalties other than honest dialog. Oddly enough, I seen the occasional sheep, but with loose treaty of sincerity. “Tribalism”, I think not.

  30. Layman Lurker said

    @Ron Broberg

    Ron are you suggesting somehow that there is moral equivalence between moderation at WUWT and RC? If so, I would be interested in seeing the censored post you are speaking of. If the comment in question was merely asking challenging questions or arguing a point then I would agree with you. Like Carrick said, the tone of the comment is fair game for a moderator IMO.

    Here is a personal experience I have had with RC. Last July RC had a post called “Science at the bleeding edge”. The post was pointing out the phenomenon of new studies purporting some new breakthrough overturning previous views, only to found later to be flawed – leaving the previous held scientific opinion in tact.

    I attempted to post the following comment at RC:

    Dr. Steig’s Antarctic warming paper is an example of recent work overturning conventional views on Antarctic climate trends.

    Ryan O, has just completed an alternative Antarctic climate reconstruction based on iterative truncated SVD rather than RegEM. Some objections raised by Dr. Steig on Ryan’s previous analysis included 1. the affect of calibrating AVHRR and surface station data and 2. overfitting due to inclusion of additional AVHRR PC’s. The latest analysis eliminates calibration and demonstrates improved verification with the inclusion of additional AVHRR PC’s.

    I don’t think my tone was confrontational. I believe I was on topic.

  31. Mark T said

    Though not explicitly stated, LL, I would assume the punchline to your joke is “CENSORED.” The all-caps reference should be otherwise understood.

    Mark

  32. timetochooseagain said

    30-While I sympathize with your problems with RC, I do not agree with certain points of your comment. In particular:

    “Dr. Steig’s Antarctic warming paper is an example of recent work overturning conventional views on Antarctic climate trends.”

    This is not actually the case. Eric’s work actually did line up pretty well with earlier work on Antarctic temperature trends, which indicated slight warming in the last half century, mostly or entirely before about 1980. That’s pretty much what his study showed, too. A good review at that time was done here:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/01/30/antarctica-again/

  33. Steve E said

    Sod @ #10,

    Demonstrates why it is so difficult to dispute the AGW story. Half truths presented against full truths in context seem to win with the public.

    Sod’s right the results of this poll are not statistically significant across the general population, but they were never represented to be that. But he can’t help but erect a straw man when he suggests these poll results only represent the opinions of “sceptics” and “deniers.”

    I think you just have to read the post from a few days back when people posted their backgrounds and beliefs to set off the Sod “bullshit” detector.

    Jeff has made his point. RealClimate has been its own worst enemy and has alienated many people who want to believe a lot of what it’s pushing.

  34. I’m afraid I don’t keep logs of deleted posts. But in general, the post asked if it was reasonable and responsible to call GHCN a hoax and a fraud based on accusations for which alarmist claims had been made but no results or conclusions presented. I may have asked if an apology was due.

    Its been a general theme of mine at WUWT – although I note that the issues in questions in the SPPI pub were largely deleted or severely toned down in the latest version – at least in the summary. So this particular issue may be OBE. I just raise it to point out that, despite what many believe, censorship/moderation happens at WUWT just as at many high-volume blogs.

    A moral equivalency? I generally don’t dwell on the morality of blog moderation. Not very high on my list of moral issues. Maybe a ‘behavioral equivalency.’ But more along the lines of “pretty common practice,” even in blogs where you might not expect it.

    I know that I have had relevant information fail to post at CA. Often. I usually assume that there are in the spam filter due to an overly tight html-link-spam-filter (I’m usually trying to post multiple links to papers and/or data). And I know that on RC, many have assumed censorship only to have their posts show up hours later due to moderation delay. And, yes, some posts fail to show due to content. I tend not to worry about it. I’ve had posts deleted at WUWT and Open Mind. I’ve had posts fall into spam buckets on many sites. I’ve dealt with moderator delay at WUWT and RC. It’s all part of the game.

    People gravitate to some sites for conversation with the like-minded. They gravitate to others for a give-and-take and a challenge. And some come crashing in to troll and make waves. All part of the game as well. And in my browsing, I’ve seen it happens in ‘both’ direction.

  35. you state
    “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.”

    All blogs MUST be moderated. You are responsible for what is posted. McIntyre recently cleaned his blog of hundreds of “fraud” claims (it’s blog policy anyway but had not been enforced). Watts risks all by not enforcing a similar policy.

    Watts uses moderation to extreme. I have been banned for the simple statement that (posters) thought more of their wallet than the environment. I was asked to post a very childish “sorry”. I refused. I have been banned under other names for similar misdemenours (questioning his non release of surface stations data for example) and I am fairly certain that many others who post (reasonable) AGW comments have been similarly banned under the name of “trolls”. Many old names no longer post.

    McIntyre deletes but does not seem to ban – an admirable, in my opinion, attitude.

    RC was once try to be a source of info, to let the blog decend to shouting matches does not increase ones understanding of climate. So I think RC has it about right at present.

    To see what can happen all one needs to do is look at wuwt. Any solar topic brings out the iron sun, the magnetic rays,electric universe, solar wind effect, barycentre etc. Leif Svallgard does a brilliant job batting these down, but it is like a game of “Whack-a-Rat” debunk it in one thread and it just appears somewhere else!! e.g.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/14/lockwood-demonstrates-link-between-low-sun-and-low-temps/#comments
    Cheers,
    Mike

  36. Carrick said

    Ron Brodberg:

    I’m afraid I don’t keep logs of deleted posts. But in general, the post asked if it was reasonable and responsible to call GHCN a hoax and a fraud based on accusations for which alarmist claims had been made but no results or conclusions presented. I may have asked if an apology was due.

    Nothing personal, but it’s pretty hard to take pure anecdote with zero evidence seriously at anything

    All I can say is I’ve had no problems with censorship on WUWT even with critical but reasonably toned comments, whereas on RC it is not uncommon to have reasonably toned non-critical comments randomly suppressed.

    I think there is a mind set among the AGW activist websites that is very tribalistic. And while it exists to some degree on WUWT, to equate the level of censorship on WUWT with OpenMind is just delusional.

    As to “high-volume” blogs… WUWT is the high-volume blog, RC is not. There’s a reason for that. One promotes discourse, the other promotes conformance.

  37. Mark T said

    timetochooseagain said
    May 2, 2010 at 9:26 pm

    This is not actually the case. Eric’s work actually did line up pretty well with earlier work on Antarctic temperature trends, which indicated slight warming in the last half century, mostly or entirely before about 1980.

    The distinction with Steig’s work was that it was what was used as evidence that the Antarctic was warming, in spite of the fact that it showed few differences from what was already known. So it didn’t really overturn anything, but it was placed up on a rather tall pedastal as if it had.

    Mark

  38. A slightly different version of this seems to have disappeared so I will repost with added info and http’s removed:

    you state
    “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.”

    All blogs MUST be moderated. You are responsible for what is posted. McIntyre recently cleaned his blog of hundreds of “fraud” claims (it’s blog policy anyway but had not been enforced). Watts risks all by not enforcing a similar policy.

    Watts uses moderation to extreme. I have been banned for the simple statement that (posters) thought more of their wallet than the environment. I was asked to post a very childish “sorry”. I refused. I have been banned under other names for similar misdemenours (questioning his non release of surface stations data for example) and I am fairly certain that many others who post (reasonable) AGW comments have been similarly banned under the name of “trolls”. Many old names no longer post.
    I kept a record of the latest altercations:
    climateandstuff.blogspot.com/2010/01/oh-dear-2.html
    climateandstuff.blogspot.com/2009/12/oh-dear.html

    McIntyre deletes but does not seem to ban – an admirable, in my opinion, attitude.

    RC was once try to be a source of info, to let the blog decend to shouting matches does not increase ones understanding of climate. So I think RC has it about right at present.

    To see what can happen all one needs to do is look at wuwt. Any solar topic brings out the iron sun, the magnetic rays,electric universe, solar wind effect, barycentre etc. Leif Svallgard does a brilliant job batting these down, but it is like a game of “Whack-a-Rat” debunk it in one thread and it just appears somewhere else!! e.g.
    wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/14/lockwood-demonstrates-link-between-low-sun-and-low-temps/#comments
    Cheers,
    Mike

  39. Jeff Id said

    “You are responsible for what is posted.”

    I know current leftist law might see things this way, but what people write is their own opinion, not mine. I don’t have the time or inclination to delete it. If you carry this idiotic thought process to it’s conclusion you could blame wordpress or perhaps the inventor of the internet.

  40. Tim L said

    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

    Thank you!
    did Eric see the pole results?

  41. Sam said

    “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.”

    I think this is essential and isn’t mentioned often. There is a sense that the only way to ‘save the environment’ is to get government to do it, i.e. make laws coercing people into certain actions. But clearly this isn’t always necessary, just look at all the ‘green’ actions that companies are taking today, without coercion.

    This blog is excellent and part of the inspiration for starting my site. I would say that even if I weren’t a libertarian.

  42. Layman Lurker said

    #34 Ron Broberg

    I just raise it to point out that, despite what many believe, censorship/moderation happens at WUWT just as at many high-volume blogs.

    I have seen many comments that suggest this about WUWT. Yet I have never seen an example of a *respectful* counter-argument or questioning of posts that has been deleted. If a commenter can’t resist throwing in a little “dig” then moderation is fair game – whether it is RC or WUWT. As I suggested before, show me a “dig free” comment deletion at WUWT and I will concede your point.

    Personally, I really don’t care that much about how RC moderates their blog. In the end it is their blog and they can do what they want. In many ways I understand, it would take a lot of time and energy to deal with a can of worms opened by presentation of legitimate scientific challenges (witness the recent thread at Bart V’s blog). But then why spin it as “signal to noise”, or “same old talking points”, or “spam filter”? No reasonable person would take issue with this type of moderation.

  43. HR said

    I’m going to guess that all the blogs on the right are to the sceptical end of the spectrum. It seems worthy that you suggest you would link to pro-warmer websites if you felt they were honest. The fact you haven’t found any is a little suspicious! So I’ll help you out. Try SkepticalScience.com . You might not like what they say but at least it’s an honest attempt at presenting new scientific work.

    I’m also no fan of RC but I have to tip my hat to Romm for the most unpleasant blogger. Although I also don’t quite understand the relevence to climate science of many WUWT posters obsession with their tax dollars.

  44. Annabelle said

    In fairness RC does seem to have relaxed their moderation policy and become more polite to commenters since Climategate, but it’s a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

    I love the way they say “We’ve already refuted that tired denialist argument so many times – see here” and then when you follow the link, you find that the argument they’ve “refuted” is not the one actually being made, or they never refuted it satisfactorily at all.

  45. If you carry this idiotic thought process to it’s conclusion you could blame wordpress or perhaps the inventor of the internet.

    You really have it for Gore, don’t you?!😉

  46. steven Mosher said

    Go to the climategate mails.

    search for the word megaphone.

    On another note; who reads RC

    http://www.quantcast.com/realclimate.org#demographics

    http://www.quantcast.com/climateaudit.org#demographics

    RC readers are less educated, and poorer

    love it

    http://www.quantcast.com/wattsupwiththat.com

  47. stan said

    Steve Mosher (46),

    Same thing is true of Rush Limbaugh listeners. Far better educated, work far more hours per week, and make more money than the average voter. Same thing is true of people who go to Tea Party rallies. Not saying that skeptics, Rush listeners or tea partiers are the same folks. They’re not. They just challenge the same power structure.

    It’s no accident that the same people who slander CAGW skeptics also slander Rush listeners and Tea Party protesters. Or that they use the same tactics to do so. Same folks, same gameplan, same reasons for doing so.

  48. Frank K. said

    CO2 Realist said
    May 2, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Yes, the atrocious state of GISS’s code validation and verification procedures is well known. Just look at model E – a real piece of junk (no real documentation)…Yet, they get millions in precious taxpayer funds to play around run this “GCM” on expensive NASA parallel HPC clusters.

    Frank

  49. Andrew said

    37-If you are saying that the paper was misrepresented in media reports, I completely agree. People acted as though this was some profound revelation. Unfortunately that’s the nature of “news”-making a mountain out of a molehill.

  50. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Steve Mosher #46,

    I don’t think there are many surprises in these demographics. People who have greater career success/higher income tend to be more libertarian and more worried about government taking a larger fraction of what they earn. Skeptics seem to me to generally believe climate science is being improperly used to justify increased government power and redistribution of wealth, both strongly supported by people with left-leaning political views. It is no coincidence that people with strong “green” views usually are left-leaning as well, and it is no coincidence that most climate scientists hold both green and left-leaning views.

    The challenge is to honestly look at the quality of the work done in climate science and rationally evaluate it, knowing that it may be influenced by the green/left political views held by most climate scientists. Some climate science is obviously of good quality, but much seems weak and poorly done to many trained scientists and engineers who work outside of climate science (see the mini-biographies posted on The Air Vent some days back). The crew at Real Climate is unwilling to accept legitimate critiques of even comically bad publications which support CAGW, and unwilling to acknowledge that any of the horrid behavior of climate scientists documented in the “climategate” emails was in fact horrid. They remain 100% in denial.

    So while Real Climate has improved their moderation somewhat since the emails were published, they still don’t control blatant abuse by their many resident trolls, and insist that any skeptic post with respect and restraint. They remain unwilling to engage in any discussions where credible critiques of even very bad climate science are raised. So I think Real Climate remains mostly a politically driven blog pretending to be a climate science blog. They do both their political goals and the credibility of climate science considerable harm.

    So I say: Keep up the good work!

  51. steven Mosher said

    Its unwise to question anybody who says that they were blocked at any blog.

    think about why

  52. […] participate in the poll, visit The Air Vent This entry was posted in media. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with […]

  53. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out Real Climate is a “warmer” site. I frankly seldom go there, if I do I don’t generally read the comments, raises my blood pressure.

  54. Willis Eschenbach said

    My peer-reviewed study that touches on the censorship at RealClimate is here.

    w.

  55. harrywr2 said

    thefordprefect said
    May 2, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    “Watts uses moderation to extreme. I have been banned for the simple statement that (posters) thought more of their wallet than the environment.”

    If you read Watts carefully he’s right up there next to Ed Begley on walking the environmental walk. Electric car, LED lighting etc etc etc. Weather forecasters tend not to believe in computer models, because the models they work with are frequently wrong by orders of magnitude.

  56. Shub said

    I have questioned RealClimate’s post deletion at length at RC- all you get is a deafening silence.

    I read the posts, but not the comments. Every thread degenerates to the same discussion there.

    The structure of RC comments section is the same in every thread – there will be a few initial dull, slavering comments. Then one of the ‘homeboys’ will randomly pick on a innocent first timer and smash down on his/her comments hard. This will elicit a strong counter-response. The rest of the regulars will weave strings of abuse around this main shouting match which will escalate in rancor and spiral inevitably towards the Charney sensitivity. Then our Gavin will show up to delete posts. [edit], [edit], [edit]…comment count will thus climb up slowly over weeks. In the meantime a lot of passers-by would have been condescendingly referred to the ‘start here’ button, ‘skeptical science’, Spencer Weart or blown off with words like tobacco, vaccines, curved-earth and evolution among others.

    The main idea is to elicit some outrage in someone so that the regulars can their indulge in self-catharsis of their bile and bilge.

  57. Tenuc said

    Like the theory of CAGW, the Real Climate blog does not further understanding of our capricious climates.

    It’s sole purpose is to support the cargo cult science of the IPCC cabal of climate scientists and their strange belief in a theory which cannot be falsified and computer model which have no predictive skills.

    Not surprise, perhaps, that in these more sceptical post Climategate times they are loosing their flock.

  58. Pascvaks said

    I turned my back on “RealClimate” after coming to the conclusion that it was a spiritualist website. There was just too much there that I was going to have to swallow on faith if I was ever going to be allowed in to the sacred sanctum sanctorum. As a ‘professional website run by and for professionals’ I was deeply disappointed on every visit. They may actually have achieved the exact opposite of their intended objective in my case, I was so disillusioned by them that I eventually became a flameing sceptic of AGW. But then maybe it was because I was getting to be a grumpy old man anyway.

  59. I think you give most of the people at RC to much credit. They may have degrees in science. They are not acting like scientists, they act like advocates. I am a geologist and pseudo philosopher of science. Little of what I read on RC meets the standards. I have puzzled over this whole AGW business for some yeas. In an attempt to figure out what motivates many Climatologists and Bloggers. So I started blogging myself, writing essays on aspects related to the philosophy of science.

    http://retreadresources.com/blog/

    What so may blogs and RC is example, seen to do is advocacy and propaganda, not science based rational discourse. Here is the opening of my latest essay:

    “The Science Is Settled” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction”

    A couple of examples of the “Big Lie”. These are just a couple of recent slogans reported erroneously as facts. Did former President Bush or former Vice President Gore honestly believe these slogans when they used them? We will never truly know. Were they erroneous? Yes, beyond any doubt. Both claims were challenged at the time? Bush’s vigorously, Gore’s inadequately. Being a “Big Lie” and being used in a propagandistic, ideology driven context, to influence public policy, it matters not. In both cases, supporters defend and opponents attack. The only casualty is truth.

    Good public policy can only result when that truth is recognized. Ah, but whose truth and what is truth anyway? (see essay Truth) Truth need not always be the central driving force behind policy, very often it is not. Truth must however, be acknowledged and recognized. Political perception are often more important than facts in political decisions. That is perfectly acceptable as long as society is aware of it. Think abortion or capital punishment. On examining either issue the decisions are bottom line emotional, dogmatic and ideological, not fact based logical. Neither side sees themselves in error both sides see the other as wrong….These two slogans are representative of ideology, Mythos gone wild. Both are based on oversimplified models of how things work. Societies are highly complex and influenced by many factors. The models used by the pseudo sciences of sociology, psychology, politics, economics and so on, are far to crude to ever accurately predict outcomes, since most of the variables are beyond the control of the molder. Climatology is no different.

  60. TA said

    I did not vote because I don’t think I’ve really checked out Real Climate enough to know them. My overall impression of the site matches that of other commenters on this thread and your poll results. Nevertheless, it’s possible I’ve been unduly influenced by others on skeptics’ sites, rather than forming an opinion of RC from my own experience, which is why I didn’t vote.

  61. Smokey said

    It is extreme psychological projection to compare RealClimate’s routine censorship of uncomfortable posts with the occasional snip – out of literally thousands of posts per week – at WUWT.

    There are a number of posters who comment daily on WUWT, who for all practical purposes are no different than the most rabid RealClimate regulars — yet they still post every day without being censored.

    As #56 makes clear, censorship by RealClimate is ongoing, partisan, and heavy handed; the people running RealClimate are to real science as astrology is to astronomy. They wouldn’t know what true scientific skepticism was if it jumped up and bit ’em on the ankle.

    Finally, #38 says: “Any solar topic brings out the iron sun, the magnetic rays, electric universe, solar wind effect, barycentre etc.”

    That is a false statement. On numerous occasions WUWT moderators have snipped posts that go into subjects like the iron sun, electric universe, barycenter, chemtrails, and similar subjects. But they are warned first. The reason is that once a subject like the iron sun gets rolling it tends to take over the thread, and it is almost always off topic. An occasional post on those subjects might get through moderation. But it is a misuse of the word “censorship” to complain about keeping a thread on topic.

    WUWT moderates with an extremely light touch. OTOH, RealClimate practices outright censorship, because the folks who run it are censoring comments they disapprove of during working hours, and while on government pay.

  62. Henry chance said

    Joe romm @ climate progress
    Mikie Mann Real climate
    Gavin schmidt Real climate and
    My favorite is Anthony Watts at WUWT.
    The first 3 are rude and arrogant. They all work for government and politicians.

    Anthony has commercial experience and a friendly sales personality. He wouldn’t have survived on the air or in sales if he was nasty to customers which gubment style antisocial personalities can get by with. If the three gubment style personalities walked into a business relationship, they would never get a second chance. Just far too unfriendly and borderline nasty with people that do not stroke their egos.

  63. Alexander said

    I have never attempted to post at RC as their tone irritates me and I know that my tuppence worth would be rejected anyway.
    I am not a scientist but I can think logically and apply the process skills of science appropriate to my level of technical understanding and given time, can work my way through most stuff that I read. I have been around long enough to have a nose for BS and the entire Climategate affair has left me looking askance at the pronouncements of ‘peer-reviewed’ climate science. Having lived in Socialist UK for a few years, the Green/Socialist agenda scares me more than somewhat. Hopefully, the Western world’s current financial status will prevent really silly extreme measures being taken to ‘fix’ the climate, as I am convinced that Man does not know nearly enough to attempt to ‘fix’ the climate when we don’t know if we have a problem yet.

  64. Layman Lurker said

    #54 Willis E.

    Thanks for the link to your paper. That was before my time in the blogsphere and so interesting to read.

  65. Willis Eschenbach said

    Layman Lurker said

    May 3, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    #54 Willis E.

    Thanks for the link to your paper. That was before my time in the blogsphere and so interesting to read.

    My pleasure, it’s been a long fight and still going on.

    w.

  66. Stephan said

    RE interest in the subject: There are no more political, religious etc.. extremes, so people in the mainly developed countries (would have to include Europe (ALL), South America (except Surinam ect), North America really don’t have much to argue about.. so along comes climate change which initially was exciting and now alas its becoming obvious that it isn’t (we can all follow ice, temps till we drop dead and it ain’t gonna change much, its like following your heart beat) what a @@@@@@ bore! IM sure the whole climate thing is nearing its end for both fanatic AGW’ers and fanatic skeptics LOL…

  67. It was RealClimate that caused me to be a skeptic.

    Al Gore’s movie is clearly political and a distortion of the science. It manipulates data in ways that scientists are supposed to reject. Yet, RealClimate praised the movie, calling it “essentially correct”. They cannot be “real scientists” as they claim and praise the movie.

    In contrast, ClimateAudit recently condemned the investigations by the Virginia Attorney General into payments supporting Mann’s research (http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/). The investigation is clearly political motivated, and has nothing to do with the matter in question (the validity of Mann’s science).

    ClimateAudit repeatedly demonstrates honor and integrity, whereas RealClimate repeatedly fails such tests.

    As for “condescending”, I loved the post where they suddenly believed in “reproducing results” after the climategate fiasco, yet results from their papers still cannot be reproduced.

  68. astonerii said

    I used to read Real Climate often at work during lunch hour, I was always a skeptic, as I knew that the Earths temperatures and atmospheric makeup has been changing for 4.6 billion years or so, and that with all those changes and the recent frequent ice ages that demonstrated that there could be no such thing as a tipping point. I never commented at the time, but when I lost my job last year I started to comment on things that were just completely wrong, a child of the 5th grade should be able to critically understand the flaws in the thinking, and I pointed the flaws out. I usually followed up to see what kind of comments my comments would produce and found out that only about 1 in 10 of my posts were commented on, and all my posts were fully deleted. The only remnant was a few responses to posts that no longer existed. My final verdict on CO2 is that for every watt of warming it could cause that amount of energy would be removed from the atmosphere through the water and cloud cycles. I think there is some warming, but it is about 1/1000 of what the scientists try to blame on CO2 and the rest is caused by Svalbard’s (sp) cosmic rays and clouds changes, the oceanic cycles and the other Milankovich cycles of the tilt, precession, eccentricity and so forth of the earth and other planets. I do beleive in climate feedbacks, but I think that for the most part the whole of the Earth’s system is negative feedbacks that negate upward or downward trends. The ice ages have limits to their cold and the interglacials have limits to their highs.

  69. […] 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 […] […]

  70. gallopingcamel said

    Willis E,
    Many thanks for the Svalbard link. One of the things you proved is that Mann & Jones are sloppy scientists who lack the humility to admit mistakes even in the details.

    Contrast that with a true scientist who used to talk openly about “my greatest mistake” (the Cosmological Constant).

  71. Johnathan Birks said

    I read RC for several years before finally becoming sufficiently irritated/disgusted to write something (shortly after AR4 release). My post was respectful but pointedly critical of the unquestioning nature of the authors and the readers, esp. regarding the “case closed” posture. The feedback was, needless to say, anything but respectful and I responded in kind.

    If memory serves, it took a dozen or so such exchanges before my remarks no longer appeared on RC. By that time I couldn’t have cared less.

  72. Erik said

    Great read, Thank You Sir!, I’ll be back for sure

  73. David W said

    The thing that the guys at RC don’t realise is that most people who have a genuine interest in what is affecting climate are likely to visit both sceptic and non-sceptic sites. People will distrust sites that don’t welcome open discussion.

    If your someone whose had a post deleted/censored for no apparent reason other than it asks an awkward question of the AGW hypothesis then your more likely to gravitate towards a site like WUWT which is far more open to reasonable discussion.

    You don’t convince people your right by not allowing them to ask pertinent questions. By their heavy handed censorship RC has made me far more suspicious of those espousing AGW theory and for that I guess I should thank them for opening my eyes.

  74. Ken said

    Regarding labeling certain people as “evil” — I agree & here’s a couple of books that explain the psychology of those people in layman’s terms anybody can understand:

    “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness,” by Dr. Lyle Rossiter available for about $10 as a *.pdf download at: www. libertymind.com

    I strongly encourage any & everyone with even the slightest inclination to ponder what makes that sort tick to read his book (one can skip right to Chapters 42-45 to get the essence of how they got the way they are).

    “Know Your Enemy” the saying goes & you won’t find more or better insight than what’s availabe in “The Liberal Mind”!!!

    M. Scott Peck’s book, “The People of the Lie” is also interesting, but doesn’t apply so much to most of the ilk inclined to view things like the authors of Real Climate.

  75. Loco said

    Jeff… just don’t ever stop voicing your opinion. I don’t always agree it, but I always read it. And when enough opinions align, they can change the world!

  76. Trevor said

    Gavin at RealClimate is a certified jackass. He had a post once (“The Guardian disappoints”) jumping on the Guardian for a story on ClimateGate, which, for the most part, was an apology for the perpetrators, but still, Gavin didn’t like it because it didn’t totally dismiss ALL the evidence against Jones et al.

    In this post, Gavin defended a quote from Briffa in a 2003 email to Cook:

    “Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] to ­support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can.”,

    which most people with a brain would accept as PROOF POSITIVE of manipulation of the peer-review process by Briffa. He clearly is attempting to influence Cook’s review of the skeptic paper, and moreover, must have supplied Cook with a copy of Stahle’s review. One would have thought this was indefensible, but Gavin gave it the old college try.

    I posted a reply, totally destroying Gavin’s lame defense of Briffa, and he “moderated” it to leave out the most important part. I followed up with another, and he “moderated” it again. This went on for about 3 more rounds, with him never posting the parts of my comments that he didn’t have an answer for.

    Regards,
    Trevor

  77. MinB said

    I still check in with RC but not as frequently for two reasons. Their posts are only updated about once a week and usually just one post at that time. So for me, it feels stale most of the time. Secondly, Gavin’s replies are just too obnoxious and condescending and, IMO, lowers the standards for all others.

    I really want to balance my blog reading and not just read skeptic sites. I’m trying scienceofdoom.com that was recommended by SM.

    I would like to see a site sponsor on-line “debates” between chosen representatives, with voting on who won the debate, and strict courtesy rules for all commenters.

  78. […] this is what Joe Public thinks of Clippo's 'top notch' real climate scientists. Poll on Real Climate Blog Effectiveness the Air Vent scroll down the page, take the poll yourself, and then – see the results ! If you don't like […]

  79. Jimmy Haigh said

    To me a visit to RC is like watching the movie Borat: I can’t stomach more than 10 minutes at a time.

    The Dhog is always good for a laugh though.

  80. BC Bill said

    I used to read RC regularly but the alternately strident and injured tones got tiresome. WUWT sticks much more to the scientific and less to the ad hominem argument, though WUWT does take jabs, usually in a humorous way. I oscillate between the arguments for and against AGW because while I am a scientist, I don’t have the background to work my way to best approximation of the truth when it comes to anthropogenic global warming. For a bunch of intangible reasons, I find it easier to believe the anti-anthropogenic global warming people. Some of the more tangible intangibles are the diminished level of whine on the Anti-AGW blogs as opposed to the incesssant whine on the pro-AGW blogs, and the nice simple anti-AGW arguments that are not tainted by financial interests (come on, every research proposal I submit has to have “global warming” in it somewhere to have hope of being funded) or spurious data adjustments that only the “initiated” can supposedly understand.

  81. ginckgo said

    “Standing alone with nuanced opinion is far more convincing than working as a consensus”

    In that case scientists who agree that evolution happens are part of a blind consensus, even if they have a unique oinion on the theory of evolution.

  82. Dave McK said

    RC has a very specific value to the student of cult psychology and dynamics.
    Gavin is the master of a cult.
    The only thing changed about RC, recently, is that systematic debunking of all the iconic arguments (dead polar bears, vanishing glaciers, sinking islands, barbecue summers, etc).
    They have taken enough heat over persistent denial of the self evident that even they have lost heart.
    It’s like a pigeon dancing in circles, convinced he’s impressing all the hens, but the hens left long ago, if there even were any, and the cock has turned around to find he’s been dancing without an audience and isn’t going to get a reward.
    Sure, RC has changed – they are in remission only. It can’t be called a cure.

  83. RC is a propaganda tool of the CAGW crowd (Catastrophic AGW). I’ve had numerous posts truncated, dropped altogether and most snippets that do get through are almost always accompanied by a snarky comment by Gavin. I’ve never had a post skip the moderating queue and currently, my posts are blocked from even getting in to the queue. All of this is because I’ve asked questions whose answers contradict CAGW and Gavin knows this which is why he must resort to prejudicial censorship. It seems that all Gavin knows about AGW is that Arrhenius figured out that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and from this, he simply assumes everything else. Here is a quote from him in response to one of my posts.

    “I, my work, this site, the whole debate is about the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Something Arrhenius knew very well and which still appears to be a mystery to some.” (from Hey Ya thread, post 70)

    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1184 see posts, 54, 66, 70 and 88

    Gavin Schmidt as well as William Connolley (the wikipedia climate censor) both work for James Hansen at GISS. Both are radical environmentalists with just enough of a science background to be sucked in to the CAGW side, but not enough to actually understand the physics underlying how the climate operates. Neither of these people has real responsibilities at GISS other than promoting the CAGW cause. It should say something that these are the kinds of employees Hansen likes to surround himself with.

    George

  84. Winderful read, Thank you.

    My english is not sa good but i understand what i reading.

  85. WUWT censorship:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/18010/
    Phil M has problems too!

  86. Willis Eschenbach said

    Thefordprefect said

    May 9, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    WUWT censorship:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/18010/
    Phil M has problems too!

    Now, that was my thread, and I do recall the moderators refusing to post some egregious attacks. You may have mistaken that for censorship, I don’t know.

    Perhaps if you would care to post the actual text that was “censored”, we could decide whether it was the kind of censorship of scientific ideas that goes on regularly at realclimate, or just a simple refusal by the WUWT moderators to post nasty abuse and aggressive ad-hominem attacks.

    And yes, you are right, many of us are aware that Phil M has problems too, that’s why his abuse sometimes doesn’t make it past the moderators either.

    w.

  87. gett said

    there is strong evidence that the real climate website and wikipedia are in collusion to arrange the idea that real climate is a science based site and not an active global warming blog site…search of website links seen at google search reveals the following conspiracy :
    ( yes google is aiding Liberal- minded groups to attack politically conservative ideas ).
    (check the manner in which google links to Rush Limbaugh reveal insults about him on the first page instead of any biography etc info).
    The danger is not only that Liberals are trying to prevent normal news in media, as we see no real criticsm of obama and liberals but more dangerously, an attempt as was seen in the failed Copenhagen meetings, to send money of honest citizens taxes to 3rd world nations with questionable integrity of govt. Can any one say kickbacks ? Can any one say arrest the Liberals now ???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: