We’ve all pretty much had it up to our keesters with the brusque and dismissive treatment that commenters who don’t agree with the RC world view get over there. This is why many of us have simply given up trying, there’s no point in attempting to have a relevant and open discussion there anymore.
It should be foremost on the minds of many that the RealClimate.org webserver domain is funded by Fenton Communications, an eco media group. Further, our tax dollars pay the salaries of people like Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS who has been (according to several post and comment times noted) using his taxpayer paid time at work to participate in that blog.
One of the missions of RC (Actually most of the mission, as it was setup as a response to the McIntyre and McKitrick paper in E&E, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 14 NUMBER 6, November 1st 2003) is to counter skeptical arguments. One of the ways they do this in to provide a list of people they disagree with, with links to rebuttals.
Long before RC went online, we have this 10/31/2003 email from Michael Mann, excerpt:
Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against MM. So I look forward to peoples attempts to revise the first part in particular.
Steve McIntyre started ClimateAudit on 10/26/2004. Here is his very first blog post.
RealClimate.org was registered November 19th, 2004 – see the WHOIS screencap.
Today, while searching for something else, I found myself looking at this list. It reads like a who’s who of climate skeptics, but for one telling and glaring omission…
Here’s the list at RCWiki done as a screencap below and to a PDF file , so that Gavin or Mike or some other team member can’t fix it fast and then claim I “simply didn’t see it”.
Steve McIntyre is missing. Ross McKitrick is missing.
Why?
Because Gavin and Mike and the other Team members know that M&M is right, and they don’t want to draw any attention to it themselves, particularly now. They don’t want RC to have a discussion on the faulty dendro and dubious statistical issues that are fairly presented in peer review by M&M, even though there has been a concerted effort by Team members and associates to stifle publication of dissenting views.
RC and in particular Mann, don’t want to focus on the data, statistical failures, or process, but instead on the “stolen emails” and how they “don’t change the conclusion”. It’s spin cycle science.
A way RC might try to spin this omission would be to say that they don’t consider the argument of M&M valid or prominent, but that won’t fly because they have dismissals listed there of arguments many lesser known skeptics, who have not published a peer reviewed paper, such as Lucy Skywalker. That’s nothing against you Lucy, just an example.
Inarguably, McIntyre and McKitrick are now the two most well known skeptics on the planet, and they are about to become even more well known with a Fox News special tonight.
Yet RC’s world view of Climategate and M&M’s vindication in the emails revealed is to say “it doesn’t matter”, it doesn’t change the conclusions of climate science.” Yeah right, just keep singing that tune.
What Climategate shows more than anything is that the climate science process has been corrupted by a few people with influence, and RC is the centerpiece for showcasing the Team consensus of that corruption.
UPDATE: I made chronology typo in the original posting, fixed within minutes thanks to many commenters who pointed it out. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The MSM should out and out acknowledge that RC is merely the mouthpiece for these fraudsters. In the 90″s (Y2K) we had a name for people preaching the “end of the world as we know it!” We named them “Doomers”.
I think that we should go back to that appelation for these hucksters. And RC is Doomer Central.
Well they hid the decline, why be surprised they hide the ones who found them out 🙂
While not quite in line with the subject here is the introductory email introducing RC to the “Team’
Note: from inside email “We hope that you will find this a useful resource for your own outreach efforts.”
Used to work on NASA programs, “outreach” means one thing, get the public interested so the money keeps coming, period
From: Gavin Schmidt
To: mprather@xxxx.edu, robert.berner@xxxxx.edu, p.jones@xxxxxx.uk, rjs@xxxxxxx.gov, jhansen@xxxxx.gov, dshindell@xxxxxxx.gov, rmiller@xxxxx.gov, drind@xxxxx.govjames.risbey, td@xxxxxx.gov, aclement@xxxxxxx.edu, james.white@xxxxxxxx.edu, hfd@xxxxxx.gov, wuebbles@xxxxx.edu, thompson.3@xxxxxx.edu, thompson.4@xxxxxxx.edu, juerg@xxxxx mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, jto@xxxx.edu, tcrowley@xxxx.edu, wigley@xxxx.edu, santer1@xxxx.gov, schrag@xxxx.edu, jlean@xxxx.navy.mil, weaver@xxxxx.ca, djt@vvvxxxx.ca, k.briffa@uxxxxx.uk, t.osborn@xxxxx.uk, peter.stott@xxxxxx.com, robock@xxxxxx.edu, trenbert@xxxxx.edu, mmaccrac@xxxxxxx.net, schlesin@xxxxxx.edu, dkaroly@xxxxxx.edu, omichael@xxxxx.EDU, shs@xxxxxx.edu, berger@xxxxxx.be, david@xxxxx.edu, drdendro@xxxxxx.edu, davet@axxxx.edu, mcane@lxxxxx.edu, meehl@xxxxx.edu, myles.allen@xxxxxx.uk, natasha@xxxxxx.edu, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxx.gov, m.manning@xxxxx.nz, nmantua@xxxxx.edu, Jeffrey.Park@xxxxx.edu, jseveringhaus@xxxx.edu, bengtsson@xxxxx.de, jcole@xxxxx.edu, juliebg@xxxxx.edu, rich@xxxxxx.edu, hegerl@xxxxx.edu, dcayan@xxxxx.edu, chris.folland@xxxxxx.com, masson@xxxxxxx.fr, goosse@xxxxx.uk, atimmermann@ifm.uni-kiel.de, ajb@xxxxx.gov, penner@xxxxx.edu, solomon@xxxxxx.gov, jmahlman@xxxxxx.edu, rbierbau@xxxxxx.edu
Subject: RealClimate.org
Date: 10 Dec 2004 08:56:42 -0500
Cc: Mike Mann , Eric Steig , ammann@xxxxx.edu, rbradley@xxxxxx.edu, aclement@xxxxx.edu, rasmus.benestad@xxxxx.no, rahmstorf@xxxxx.de
Colleagues,
No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of
media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see
agenda-driven “commentary” on the Internet and in the opinion columns of
newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on
educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and
letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task.
In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below)
have recently got together to build a new ‘climate blog’ website:
RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at:
http://www.realclimate.org
The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.
Some examples that we have already posted relate to combatting
dis-information regarding certain proxy reconstructions and supposed
‘refutations’ of the science used in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
We have also posted more educational pieces relating to the
interpretation of the ice core GHG records or the reason why the
stratosphere is cooling. We are keeping the content strictly scientific,
though at an accessible level.
The blog format allows us to update postings frequently and clearly as
new studies come along as well as maintaining a library of useful
information (tutorials, FAQs, a glossary etc.) and past discussions. The
site will be moderated to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio.
We hope that you will find this a useful resource for your own outreach
efforts. For those more inclined to join the fray, we extend an open
invitation to participate, for instance, as an occasional guest
contributor of commentaries in your specific domain, as a more regular
contributor of more general pieces, or simply as a critical reader.
Every time you explain a basic point of your science to a journalist
covering a breaking story, think about sharing your explanation with
wider community. RealClimate will hopefully make that easier. You can
contact us personally or at contrib@realclimate.org for more
information.
This is a strictly volunteer/spare time/personal capacity project and
obviously nothing we say there reflects any kind of ‘official’ position.
We welcome any comments, criticisms or suggestions you may have, even if
it is just to tell us to stop wasting our time! (hopefully not though).
Thanks,
Gavin Schmidt
on behalf of the RealClimate.org team:
– Gavin Schmidt
– Mike Mann
– Eric Steig
– William Connolley
– Stefan Rahmstorf
– Ray Bradley
– Amy Clement
– Rasmus Benestad
– William Connolley
– Caspar Ammann
How exactly do I get MY name on that list?
Damn I’d be proud to have my name there.
Fenton Communications has a history of being at the root of many junk science scares. Surf over to http://junkscience.com/archlinks.html and search on “Fenton Communications” for some eye-opening history.
Their arrogance will be their undoing. They behave as though anyone not involved in “climate science” is stupid and cannot see through their deception. Those who are on “the list” should be very proud. They are in good company. In regards to the team, the term sociopath comes to mind. Admit you are wrong and we can all move forward. Please allow me my wishful thinking.
Link to PDF file RCWiki-121909 is returning ERROR-404.
It doesn’t detract from the main point, but I think the timeline has a problem. The Mann email looks like it was from 2003, not 2004. Otherwise good post, but the “contrarians” will jump on any inconsistency.
REPLY: Thanks, I made a typo, and it is now fixed. -Anthony
Heads up: Connolley is on twice?
JimB in Canada,
I have been trying to do exactly that. They just ignore me though 🙁 . I would really like to be mentioned on that list as well. I believe I have earned it, but alas I have given up as I have determined that it would be easier to get a Nobel Prize.
Look on the bright side. In a totalitarian state the names on that list would’ve been sent to eco re-education camps. ^_^
I still like the raging sun at full blown solar maximum on the Real Climate website banner…
What also seems relevant with the production of this list is a recognition by RC that there is another side to their argument. They are implicitly saying that there are at least 75 people of sufficient stature (many of whom are highly respected scientists) who are prepared to argue the skeptic case. This must then mean that they (RC) agree the science is not settled.
The first mistake that people make by going to RealClimate is that the discussion will be about real climate. The second mistake is that they are reading comments by real scientists who know what they are talking about. The third mistake is that the comments are apolitical that there is no hidden agenda. RealClimate is about real a real agenda to effect political and social change, aka: revolution. They don’t give a hang about the climate or the weather.
One of the interesting things about Mann’s mess is that you don’t even need Ross and Steve to debunk it (other than Ross’ description of what Mann did). Mann wrote his own code rather than use one of the commercially prepared (already debugged) stats packages. Nobody does that. It’s incompetent.
And instead of using standard measures of statistical significance, he made up his own. Of course, M&M eventually found proof that he had computed standard measures and he had flunked.
So if you want to avoid all the arguments about the details (which M&M win easily), just focus on the ridiculous amateurish software and stats. Because there isn’t any argument about whether he did both.
Enough: Tell me there aren’t two William Connolleys, please!
How do I get on the list?
There is nothing new under the sun .. all the RC guys probably started off genuinely believing what they said but along the way they went the way of many human beings. Don’t be too hard on them, they are wrong but they are just being human.
Leo Tolstoy had it all worked out and he died in 1910…
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”.
Leo Tolstoy (1828 – 1910)
Its as if he were alive today and describing Hansen, Schmidt etc .. Yes?
Clearly a case of ‘hoisted on his own petard’
Yes indeed, thanks to the still-free alternative-media we know RC are a crock.
But it’s just getting worse. They’re digging themselves in deep, they really are.
Chinese saying: when in sh*t, stop digging.
And here’s Al Gore – from Saturday – spouting lie after fatuous lie on a ‘news program’, which tries to appear like a debate…
I know it’s hard to watch Al Gore for eight minutes, but, if you want to, here’s the link:
Warning: once he gets into his stride it’s a real torrent of lies and Bad Science – it may make you angry…
I have tried to post 3 comments on RealClimate.org in response to their postings. First two times my comments were in slight anger at their incomplete and skewed outlook, which I felt was purposefully deceptive. So, I figured they were not allowed by the moderator b/c of my tone.
The third time, I was responding to a commentor who, clearly more angry and caustic in tone than I ever was, claimed that Lindzen was a hack who didn’t go to others’ original journal articles before making his claims (for example in his recent letter in the WSJ), which I found to be a complete rubbish statement b/c Dr. Lindzen is all about the basic science of climate, being foremost a physicist by training. Well, I tried to keep my comment polite and stated only that Dr. Lindzen is a well-respected professor at MIT. As you can guess, this very innocent and undeniable comment was not allowed by the moderator.
The net effect of this experience is that I no longer expend energy to post at that site, which I am sure is the net effect on people who disagree with the party line (allusion to communist governments not unintentional) over there. The ultimate net effect is that RealClimate.org is a propaganda site!!
Re: Richard Goodley (11:44:20) :
“There is nothing new under the sun ..
Leo Tolstoy had it all worked out and he died in 1910…
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth…”.
“Its as if he were alive today and describing Hansen, Schmidt etc .. Yes?
__________
OK! Yes.
Richard Goodley,
That is a great quote! Thank you for sharing!
Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt
I’ll wager that William Connolley has links to Big Al for funding his Wikipedia censorship efforts.
Jimmy Haigh (11:42:27),
Ironic isn’t it? Seeing as they completely ignore any effects of that enormous burning ball in the sky.