Boreholed

Gavin tests the new moderation que at Real Climate. Hmmm....what was that famous saying by Will Rogers again?

Jeff Id was trying to defend his paper on Antarctica (O’Donnell et al) at Real Climate. This is what he got for his trouble. Red lines mine.

Meanwhile the dhogazas of the world run free in the same thread:


Clearly, in the eyes of the RC moderators, skiing on Mt. Bachelor and discussions of mass delusion from a friendly but obnoxious regular are far more important than discussing the actual science and the analysis issues with a co-author of the paper being critiqued.

This sciencey entertainment is from a new feature at RC called The “Bore Hole” which is a place they put “undesirable” comments.

Bad move fellas. I predict this feature will become the most popular fixture at RC as people compete to have their comments boreholed. It’s like a sport now.

In case you have not read it yet, this story shows what our government funded employees do while on the clock:

RC’s duplicity prods Jeff Id out of retirement

While I fully understand the need to keep unruly posters from taking over threads, you guys at RC really owe Jeff and Ryan O’Donnell an apology.

About these ads

113 thoughts on “Boreholed

  1. Always remember to take a screen-shot of your comments at RC. Once you’ve submitted them, it’s the only SURE way to keep a record of what you ACTUALLY said before the RC moderators get their grubby little mitts on them.

  2. I have said it many times and I will say it again. The posters and contributors to RC are not scientists or even interested in science. Their concern about the environment is extraordinarily weak. What they really are concerned about is bizarre politics that involves such as them controlling the lives of everyone on Earth. Period.
    They suffer a mass delusion of authority that tempers every bit of sophistry that is posted.

  3. Of all the moderators Jim Bouldin is very fair and keeps discussions on topic. He will often chastise or delete personal attacks like dhogaza is prone to do. I am not sure who the big offenders are, but Bouldin is a good man, trying to make RC a place for respectable discussion.

    On the other hand some moderators are very totalitarian allowing personal attacks when they like and deleting controversial . I had some of my replies allowed. Then Tamino or Ladbury will give a denigrating reply, and then all further response by me will get deleted, or moved. The scary things is they think and are blogging about how scientists like themselves should have more political power. Based on their biased underhanded methods of handling controversy, if they ever get any political power it will be a dark day for democracy and free speech as well as scientific inquiry.

  4. Unfortunately, the pleasure of reading the comments at the Borehole will drive up RC hits (first time I’ve been back there in ages). The boreholed comments are very revelatory of RC sensitivities as many of the deleted comments are totally moderate, or show honest bewilderment about RC ‘scientific’ arguments.

  5. I have stacked up a few copies of War and Peace, Gone with the Wind and Encyclopedia Britannica to read while I wait for the apology to be published…

  6. LOL

    Statistics from Alexa:

    I guess RC got to do as they always has done, if their “scientific” mission depends on their “methodology” (dodgy communication methodology).

  7. I think we are running into the root problem here with this issue.

    It reminds me of the Jehovah witness’ that come around and want to talk about god. In the end it really doesn’t matter what you say to them, because they don’t listen to what you say. They look at you as an unenlightened person who is in need of their help to see the light. No matter what you say you get the same answer in return, simply because they feel they know more than you and it is their spiritual mission to direct you to think like them.

    No matter how much time and effort is spent trying to draw attention to errors on their part, you will accomplish nothing. This is because they truly dont care if there was errors as long as the message was right. They are so busy looking at the big picture (AGW) that it annoys them to be criticized about small stuff.

    This why you get things like the steig paper. They simply try different methods in statistics until they get the answer they wanted and quit trying. It might never occur to them, a result of to long with buddy review, that they might be challenged on their methods later.

    They are so used to never being challenged by an adoring media and gushing peers, they never expect someone to want to prove their work wrong. The purpose of their science is to get the “right” answer. It is simply the right method when it produces the answer you already knew to be right.

    Or to be brutal in analysis, they have forgotten what real science is and react agressively when somebody tries to reintroduce science into their sandbox.

  8. Jay Currie:

    I go to RC once in a while for a giggle. While I am not qualified to speak on the intricacies of “climate science” being discussed there, I skim through the green text (replies from the site kommissars) to see what outrageous statements they have made that week.

    They are quite fond of tossing insults at people they disagree with and I find that behaviour far more telling than anytyhing else at the site. Surely “Real Scientists” do not communicate that way in public?

  9. RE: ‘Borehole”
    That is the best name for the south of end of the mule RC has become I have read yet.

  10. I completely agree that the borehole is already by far the most interesting and illuminating feature at RC. I wonder if it’s possible to treat it like a kind of proxy “open thread”, where you can discuss topics in the borehole by leaving a comment on a main RC thread in the certainty that it’ll end up in the borehole….if you see what I mean.

    I predict it’ll be gone in a matter of days, if not hours. Which will be a shame. I’d love to see their viewing figures over its lifetime…..there might just be a discernable trend.

  11. I have tried to post a number of times requesting Eric to advise if he is prepared to counter Donnelly’s post – no can do – they are stopping all comment.

  12. If anyone is relegated to the bore hole, please have a look around in the dark, damp depths and see if there is any data or methodologies lying around that many have been asking for for a long time. This may be where they are hidden.

    There could also be some missing heat down there – let Mr ‘travesty’ Trenberth know if there is.

  13. juanslayton says:
    February 7, 2011 at 8:30 pm (Edit)

    Gavin tests the new moderation que…

    Should this perhaps be queue?

    ?Pour queue, mi amigo?

  14. Well I’ve skied Bachelor, skied Timberline and played with Gavin and company.
    Although many, in one particular discussion Gavin apparently didn’t like the way the path of the discussion was going with his regulars. I made a post and Gavin [without mention] editted out a sentence, another partial sentence and changed it’s emphasis and meaning. After his regulars easily jumped all over that post, which Gavin had altered, I found I was blocked and unable to respond. His regulars then proceeded to declare that I had run away empty headed and defeated.
    All of my following posts were blocked.
    That’s Gavin Schmidt.

  15. Gavin Schmidt and The Bore Hole.
    ….
    Well, no denying that’d be a source of Anthropogenic Warming.

  16. Does mean they now publicly archive all comments at RC?! Even death threats, swear words, trade secrets like Google’s algorithm, or maybe just links to opposing facts? Or is it yet another means to show off the worst of the undesirable comments from immature skeptics? This would rapidly become sport for the usual kind of Leftists who fake “hate crimes” many times a year. It will be like fake Tea Party members waving racist signs around. Wouldn’t it be *so* nice though to have a huge archive of valid comments that they have disappeared?

    There was an attempt that continues, to do this very thing: http://aicomment.blogspot.com/

    ‘An Inconvenient Comment’

  17. Anthony.
    At last something really entertaining and informative over at Gavin’s RealClimate. Ive just spent an hour there with a big smile on my face. there are tons of intelligent climate wise folks, who are throw into the Borehole on a daily basis. Some are funny, and most are simple trying to contribute to a one way mirror with well thought out science and observations. But Gavin is a hard task master and takes no S##T.
    I do intend to visit the Borehole often from now on.
    Here is a small sample of the Borehole classic comments:
    ——————————————————————————–
    So, rather than deleting comments that question your “consensus” they now get put in a thread.
    Sounds like real climate progress to me.
    ——————————————————————————-
    There is finally something worth reading on this site: The Bore Hole! I might even have to bookmark this website now…wait…no, never mind.

  18. Last year I left a comment on RealClimate that was technical in nature, with a bit of math, 100% on topic, but critical of a RealClimate position. The comment referred to one of my blog posts that elaborated on my point.

    Naturally, my comment was deleted.

    Nevertheless, some RealClimate readers happened to stumble upon my blog. They made comments referring to me on the same RealClimate post where I had left my comment. I was referred to as a liar and a fraud. Their arguments were insulting, specious and dimwitted. Yet that seemed to be fine with RealClimate.

    You can read one of my subsequent posts, where I include a screen shot of my comment to RealClimate and my responses to the RC commentors that so profoundly misunderstood my simple math here…

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/rahmstorf-2009-response-to-realclimate-comments/

    Tom Moriarty
    Climate Sanity

  19. I gotta think its Ockham’s Razor time here. It makes much more sense to just say the RC moderators are simply incapable of understanding Jeff and Ryan’s paper or points derived from it.

  20. juanslayton says:
    February 7, 2011 at 8:47 pm (Edit)

    racookpe1978
    ?Pour queue, mi amigo?
    Para evitar burlas de las calientistas : > )

    See, sea. Las burlequesas tiene muchas calisthenics calientas …

  21. Only one word comes to my mind with the mention of RC:

    Sanctimonious
    (note the capital ‘S’)

  22. Not sure why anyone that doesn’t buy into their m.o. would even bother trying to post at RC. Their habit of snipping comments, selective editing, and outright modification of views they disagree with is well documented. Either the echo chamber doesn’t realize, doesn’t care, or is simply complicit with the tactic doesn’t matter. They will not get the whole story so any attempt to defend a point of view is purely a waste of time at best. There is no upside.

    Mark

  23. Jay Currie says:
    February 7, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    Q: Does anyone still go to RC?
    A: I don’t.

    Q: Really?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Why?
    A: Because I value my sanity.

    Really, I’m starting to think that maybe they’re trying to increase their own pathetic web traffic by pulling stunts like the Steig criticism and goading people into defending Ryan and Jeff at their site. Just ignore them, and let them wallow in their bore hole.

    Real Climate has never been about climate science, but rather about making certain petulant and insecure climate scientists feel good about themselves…

  24. Censorship is one of the last refuges of those who know they have lost. If they were right, why would they ever need to censor ANYTHING ?

  25. I wonder if this is RC’s attempt to get more traffic on their site, and to try and catch up in the site visit stats. People will go there to read the borehole, and some to post in order to get into the bore hole. At least for a while, until the novelty wears off . . .

  26. My thoughts exactly Anthony.

    If gavin had any brains he would let skeptics post whatever drivel they wanted
    and he would send the bores on his side to the borehole.

  27. It took me only four or five visits to Real Climate a couple of years ago to realize that the moderation was heavily skewed to one side. Better to not educate them since such heavyhandedness costs supporters, it doesn’t gain them.

  28. Steven Mosher, if I am not mistaken, there is a jab at Anthony’s readership in your post @10:04. Please explain. All post make a contribution, even if they are incorrect. In my opinion, this is lost on Gavin. It is the failures and mistakes that help find the true path. Censorship is a road to nowhere. The wheat must come with the chaff, or no wheat.


  29. Steve Oregon says:
    February 7, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Well I’ve skied Bachelor, skied Timberline and played with Gavin and company.
    Although many, in one particular discussion Gavin apparently didn’t like the way the path of the discussion was going with his regulars. I made a post and Gavin [without mention] editted out a sentence, another partial sentence and changed it’s emphasis and meaning. After his regulars easily jumped all over that post, which Gavin had altered, I found I was blocked and unable to respond. His regulars then proceeded to declare that I had run away empty headed and defeated.
    All of my following posts were blocked.
    That’s Gavin Schmidt.

    Had virtually the same experience.

  30. On Schmidt going quote mining..

    “When I said the science isn’t settled, I didn’t mean S09. Now PLEASE Eric, pull me back up..”

  31. “So, rather than deleting comments that question your “consensus” they now get put in a thread.
    Sounds like real climate progress to me.”

    That was me :-)

  32. If you ask me, the real killer expose from climategate was that they ran realclimate.

    It might have been wide known before, but it just made my skin crawl to think that any “scientist” could have got involved with such an obnoxious site.

    Personally I think realclimate has done to climate “science” what Joseph Stalin did to socialism … they have turned the acceptable face of science into the unacceptable face of propaganda.

    Realclimate = a small propaganda gain for the total loss of scientific credibility

  33. David Ball says:
    February 7, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    Steven Mosher, if I am not mistaken, there is a jab at Anthony’s readership in your post @10:04. Please explain.

    ######
    HUH?

    let me put it differently. On both sides of the debate people say smart things and dumb things.

    If gavin were smart he would delete the dumb things his side says, thereby giving the appearance that his side only said smart things. Get it?

  34. The borehole contents is highly revealing. I reckon it won’t last long, as it shows that the vast majority of its contents are highly pertinent & polite questions, pieces of evidence that conflict with the RC stance.
    I also see that comment 108 is Jeff’s from above!
    Also
    “116.[edit -keep on trying to sneak in off-topic snark like this, and all of your stuff will go straight to the borehole from now on--understood?]
    The ‘snark’ is hardly off topic and only 1 in 3 of my comments makes moderation anyway so it isn’t much of a threat.
    If you can’t handle reasoned criticism, you aren’t much of a scientist – whomever you are. Eric wouldn’t have written this.
    Comment by Jeff Id — 4 Feb 2011 @ 4:59 PM”

  35. I found my way to WUWT after being moderated at Realclimate. I came there as a concerned citizen with what I thought were legitimate questions, and I was exposed to mr. Schmidt’s arrogance and sarcasm. He wasn’t answering my question, just trying to ridicule me for the audience of true believers of the holy God of CAGW. I was really surprised because my question was one that regarded a specific uncertainty and I just wanted to learn what RC scientists thought of it. That was clearly too much for the narcissistic mr. Schmidt who could feel a slightly uncomfortable feeling of anxiety which he promptly turned in to rage and attack. A great way to discharge feelings of uncertainty, but no way to act as a truth seeking, noble scientist.

    I must say I am in awe over how little they comprehend from basic psychology. They behave like immature, sarcastic and aggressive bullies towards curious people who visit their blog. Then they get funding to hold seminars where they ponder “why don’t people convert to CAGW? Why are we not reaching out to audiences?”

    Someone should just step in and say: “It’s your friggin manners and ignorance, stupid.”

  36. Steve Oregon says:
    February 7, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Well I’ve skied Bachelor, skied Timberline and played with Gavin and company.
    Although many, in one particular discussion Gavin apparently didn’t like the way the path of the discussion was going with his regulars. I made a post and Gavin [without mention] editted out a sentence, another partial sentence and changed it’s emphasis and meaning. After his regulars easily jumped all over that post, which Gavin had altered, I found I was blocked and unable to respond. His regulars then proceeded to declare that I had run away empty headed and defeated.
    All of my following posts were blocked.
    That’s Gavin Schmidt.
    ____________________________________________________________

    The work of a psychopath.

  37. Frank K. says(among other things):
    February 7, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    Real Climate has never been about climate science, but rather about making certain petulant and insecure climate scientists feel good about themselves…
    ___________________________________________

    QFT!

  38. RC views censorship in the same way as some misguided mothers in a Roman Catholic co-ed high school school I taught in many years ago.
    I was checking books in the school library that I could use as a resource, when I spotted a book on human biology/human development whose pages seemed strangely aligned. I opened the book where pages appeared to be missing and discovered the section on physical changes, including the growth of testes and breasts during puberty, had been razored out; I immediately took the book to the school Principal to alert him to the problem. He laughed and said that a few of the poorly-educated mothers thought that by this action, their kids would not read any ‘dirty stuff’; the mothers obviously thought that ‘behind the bike sheds’ or somewhere similar was the proper place for transmitting information about biological development. He said he would fix the problem by shining a light on it and posting some quality graphic posters on the topic on the library bulletin boards and invite the mothers in to tell them why the posters were there.
    RC seems stuck in a similar pseudo-medieval mindset and I prefer not to go there.

  39. Steve Oregon says:
    February 7, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Well I’ve skied Bachelor, skied Timberline and played with Gavin and company.
    Although many, in one particular discussion Gavin apparently didn’t like the way the path of the discussion was going with his regulars. I made a post and Gavin [without mention] edited out a sentence, another partial sentence and changed it’s emphasis and meaning. After his regulars easily jumped all over that post, which Gavin had altered, I found I was blocked and unable to respond. His regulars then proceeded to declare that I had run away empty headed and defeated.
    All of my following posts were blocked.
    That’s Gavin Schmidt.

    ===

    What’s particularly galling is that these bigots are employed as scientists using public funding to spend their time maintaining this one-sided, non scientific PRIVATE web site.

    Hopefully some of the legal procedures will eventually get them for fraudulent use of public funds.

  40. hunter says:
    February 7, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    RE: ‘Borehole”
    That is the best name for the south of end of the mule RC has become I have read yet.

    ===

    Well spotted. There is nothing more pointless and boring than a “discussion” where one side is removed.

    See the photo to see what you find when you look into a bore-hole.

  41. Taken from “The Bore Hole” which was replaced there from a debate on Freeman Dyson:

    “…maybe Dyson has a thing or two to learn about the biodiversity of unmanaged ecosystems.”

    This supposes two mistaken views of ecology and possibly one ethical proposition. First, that “unmanaged” ecosystems are a viable option – which they are not; and second, that nature, sans humanity, would be in classical Clementsian balance. The mathematical approximations that “ecosystems” truly are far more variable, unstable, and evolving than the populist vision; this false idealization of nature “before the Fall” informs most environmental activists commitment to the cause, including combating man-made climate change.

    Finally, there is the ethical view of eco-centrists that is straightforwardly religious: nature is best off unmolested by humanity. This view, while rarely shared explicitly, affects most public debates, including the one here.

    Therefore there is another answer, given short-shrift here: that Dyson is not only pro-humanistic, but also understands ecology in its scientific sense as a limited field (for example, see R. H. Peters, “A Critique For Ecology”), and rejects its religious rationalizations. Hence, his skepticism of global warming alarm is consistent with these other scientifically informed views.

    Comment by Orson — 7 Feb 2011 @ 8:58 PM

    This is laughable. Why not keep it in there?

  42. Borehole? Well! Well!
    Doesn’t stand up to investigation, quite appropriate for Gavin to be hung up in a mistake, really.

  43. Funny enough having read the comments about RC here, at CA and BH I have never been to the site as it seems to much like a cult vibe over there, same as Church of Scientology squashing all negative comments from the real world to keep the faithful blinded from the truth.

    Cult – The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered strange.[1] The word originally denoted a system of ritual practices. The narrower, derogatory sense of the word is a product of the 20th century, especially since the 1980s, and is considered subjective. It is also a result of the anti-cult movement which uses the word in reference to groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative and that are believed to use dangerous rituals or mind control. The word implies a group which is a minority in a given society.

  44. I agree with Gallon. The “borehole” has many polite, thoughtful comments which happen to question the RC dogma. It confirms what most of us have known for a long time, which is that RC is biased in its moderation.

    As for me, I don’t post on pro-CAGW blogs anymore because all of the ones I have posted on start censoring comments once they start losing the argument. At the end of the day, there is shockingly little evidence to support the pro-CAGW position. In short, the emporer is naked and people get pretty annoyed when you point it out.

  45. If you question their scientific approach or have critical inquiery about methodology, you promptly get “boreholed”. Especially if you point out the fundamental weakness of computer models. If you talk to them about their own models, they gladly post it. They would like you to step out of the real world and into their virtual world of models where they dictate how nature is, how it will respond if you fart too much and how the weather will be on April 1st the year 3920. That’s where the geeky Schmidt is king. This is HIS world and where he has an awesome personality and is a favourite with the ladies.

    In the real world, however, he is as geeky as he looks, and as insecure as he seems. The “bore hole” is continually exposing the fear and horror these men have of criticism. They’d rather we accept and watch their own horror productions: the virtual collapse of ecosystems modeled by computers. These are different varieties of horrorfilm plots written, directed and produced by the CAGW crowd and their computers.

    Lindzen once compared them to little kids locking themselves in closets to scare eachother in the dark.

  46. It might be Gavin sees his bore hole as a cursed empty place filled with nuthing but crap.

    Maybe it’s a psychological thing this anathema of Gavin?

    So, essentially, it could mean that to get boreholed by Gavin . . . o_O

  47. A number of people, frustrated with trying to post their own comments at RC, have said “why bother posting at RC”?

    I think the reason is self-evident from the response at RC and the need for them to create The Bore Hole. Every time they delete, snip or relegate to the borehole comments they don’t like their credibility is reduced. New readers to RC, perhaps unaware of its reputation, notice it. By not being open and actively censoring critical posts they are actually driving people away. By posting occasionally at RC we can help this process along.

    Besides, I think its actually fun to watch the silly antics of RC moderators as they shoot themselves in the foot…again…and again…and again…

  48. Actually, my final two posts last night to the Steig thread didn’t even make it to the bore hole with snips. They just vanished. I am very disappointed not to make The Bore Hole.

    Always keep a copy when posting at RC. I paste mine and email them to myself (or cross-post at Bishophill or somewhere). I also take web page saves of the comments at regular intervals because they do have a habit of editing the posted comment list later.

  49. Someone needs to write a Firefox add-in that records your comments when you post them at certain sites.

    It already exists: the “Lazarus: Form Recovery” plugin recovers and stores all your writings in a searchable database. I never lost a comment since I installed it.

  50. Why does anyone even bother with RC? They are closed minded and obnoxious. Let them silently slip away into oblivion.

  51. Steve Oregon:

    Well I’ve skied Bachelor, skied Timberline and played with Gavin and company.
    Although many, in one particular discussion Gavin apparently didn’t like the way the path of the discussion was going with his regulars. I made a post and Gavin [without mention] editted out a sentence, another partial sentence and changed it’s emphasis and meaning. After his regulars easily jumped all over that post, which Gavin had altered, I found I was blocked and unable to respond. His regulars then proceeded to declare that I had run away empty headed and defeated.
    All of my following posts were blocked.
    That’s Gavin Schmidt.

    That’s appalling. I can hardly believe it. Do they have no shame at all at RC?

  52. On Thinking scientists comment above about his posts being removed (and not even showing up in the borehole), here is one of them…

    “I am sure you do have a day job, as do many of us posting here and elsewhere. I am unsure what was insulting in the last post (I cross-posted in full at Bishophill by the way, so people may read it all there).

    Perhaps you could answer some questions which arise from this post and the subsequent response by RyanO at CA:

    (a) Would you consider it normal practice to be a reviewer of the O’Donnell et al paper when it critiques your own? Do you consider that to be a conflict of interest?
    (b) How come you are now criticising a method in O’Donnell et al which as a reviewer you recommended and preferred?”

    Obviously, these questions need answering. Steig’s earlier comment about making a point of not visiting sites like CA (Gavin calls it a ‘disinformation site’) is to simply keep the less curious from looking into the other side of the story. Therefore Real Climate is real science by real climate scientists. All others spread propaganda, focus on irellevancies and are politically motivated. This was also Gavin’s ‘excuse’ for not attending the Lisbon conference. But here we have a case where science is trying to progress and every step from the Team has been one of blocking, dodging, filtering, ignoring or cutting off completely. If those guys were truly scientifically motivated, Gavin and the other RCers would clear the space so these things could be talked about and dealt with. Yet here we are, again. And the comments just keep disappearing.

  53. Here’s my post at RC:

    “Can you please put a link to the borehole thread on your homepage? Finally, the general public gets to read some genuine scientific discussion on this website.”

  54. “Lindzen once compared them to little kids locking themselves in closets to scare eachother in the dark.”

    ROFL

  55. Congrats, Mike, you’ve joined the “party”:

    134. Hi, I hear from WUWT that there’s a real cool party going on in the bore hole, can I join? Comment by Mike Haseler — 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:28 AM

  56. Jeff Id is back blogging? RC karma well earned! The gift that keeps on giving.

    I love RC. One of my favorite blogs. Know thy useful idiots!

    I encourage everyone to visit. Often. Like beer drinkers to the loo. Don’t bother trying to comment, though. Thugs moderate the threads. Dissent is not tolerated. I’ve been banned for life since 2007. Don’t know why, really. Just wanted to disagree with something Gavin wrote, but that’s not allowed.

    So much for civil discourse.

  57. I first visited RC in 2005-06 or thereabouts, quite innocently checking out what all the hooha was about with this “Global Warming” thingamabob….. The thread was about Greenland and Vikings, and like a fool I dared ask a question about how the northern settlement could have had farms and cattle considering that now it is all permafrost, therefore it must have been warmer back then…….. Boy, wasn’t I sent packing!

    ….Which was a good thing ’cause I fled into the sanity and security of Climate Audit and an extremely interesting dismantling of a Hockey Stick….;-)

  58. Sorry- on my comment above, not Shmidt but Steig, and not disinformation but “dishonest or disingenuous with respect to the science”. Thanks to Barry for providing the actual quote, which is where I thought I’d read ‘disinformation’ a while back.

  59. I love the bore hole.

    I never visit RC since, as a scientist, I was banned for asking a simple question. I say banned as anything I post simply disappears, it doesn’t even show up as being moderated.

    However, now I am torn. The posts sent to the Bore Hole are great reading, but going to the site will up their `numbers’. Maybe that is the real reason they created it. A desperate attempt to make it look like their site had any relevance any more????

  60. Wiglaf says: February 8, 2011 at 5:35 am

    “Congrats, Mike, you’ve joined the “party”:

    134. Hi, I hear from WUWT that there’s a real cool party going on in the bore hole, can I join? Comment by Mike Haseler — 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:28 AM

    I wonder whether my previous comment a few days had anything to do with the creation of this borehole. It think it went like this:

    “Come you global warmers, life on the outside is getting boring cause you lot refuse to come outside and play! Please buck up your ideas … and stop hiding … we need everyone of you out here because there’s now a serious shortage of alarmists to go around.”

  61. Has RC ever been anything other than a psychophantic narcissistic collection of idiots? I ask genuinely, as I only visted it a couple of times, maybe a year or 18 months ago – and it struck me as completely censured with somewhat dogmatic explanations by the ‘staff’. Was it ever any better? Needless to say I have never been back and I am not interested in such behaviour.

  62. Steven Mosher, I see you also completely missed my point. Everyone has something to contribute, whether you think what they say is dumb or not. WUWT? is successful because it is inclusionary, not exclusionary as is RC. Get it?

  63. re: Bishop Hill, 11:19 pm

    Bishop Hill says “Someone needs to write a Firefox add-in that records your comments when you post them at certain sites.

    That would be great. When I comment on RealClimate I always make a screen capture of my browser, opened to the comment page with the RC URL obvious at the top, and the “waiting for moderation” note that accompanies my just submitted comment.

    RealClimate has NEVER allowed one of my comments. I believe my comments have been sane and rational, but contrany to the slant at RC.

  64. ThinkingScientist says:
    February 8, 2011 at 3:41 am
    Actually, my final two posts last night to the Steig thread didn’t even make it to the bore hole with snips. They just vanished. I am very disappointed not to make The Bore Hole.

    ____________________

    I can understand your frustration, but IMO it is a sign of high intelligence when you can write a question that is “not even boreholed”. It means they fear you.

  65. Would it be possible for WUWT to make a link to the borehole so that the visits are reflected in WUWT hits rather than RC hits?

    Just a thought…

  66. Sigh, those people at RC……..don’t bother. Let them blather in their echo chamber. Their relevance isn’t palatable. Bore hole…..whatever. I haven’t been back since I tried to help them understand a graph in the M&W paper. A doltish group of people with obnoxious habits. I can take rude, and have a slight tolerance for stupid, but I cannot abide the double assault of rude and stupid.

  67. @Tommoriarty

    “RealClimate has NEVER allowed one of my comments. I believe my comments have been sane and rational, but contrany (sic) to the slant at RC.”

    ……been sane and rational…………. Well no wonder you they wont post your comments see :-)

  68. Orkneygal says:
    February 8, 2011 at 12:11 am
    Had virtually the same experience.

    Magnus says:
    February 8, 2011 at 1:11 am
    The work of a psychopath.

    P. Solar says:
    February 8, 2011 at 1:34 am
    Hopefully some of the legal procedures will eventually get them for fraudulent use of public funds.

    Robinson says:
    February 8, 2011 at 4:48 am
    That’s appalling. I can hardly believe it. Do they have no shame at all at RC?

    P. Solar has it right. It is fraud. It crosses the line.

    Schmidt has plenty to gain from his deliberate doctoring of discussons to make them appear and develop into false impressions and meanings.

    This pattern of egregious stunts that provide cover and insulation for his tax funded falsified science is just like other cover ups that have brought ruin to many.
    [snip]

  69. hunter says:
    February 7, 2011 at 8:00 pm
    RE: ‘Borehole”
    That is the best name for the south of end of the mule RC has become I have read yet.

    At first, I was about to argue with you that it is not a mule, it is clearly a horse’s, um, “south end”.

    However, I realise neither can be correct since you don’t get Bull, uh, stuff from either a mule or a horse and there sure is a lot of it there.

    Just an observation.

  70. a sample of comments RC sent to the BoreHole:

    10.Oh and here is the evidence for excessive funding in climate research:

    http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/how-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money/

    http://icecap.us/docs/change/Greenhousegasesclimate%20map.pdf

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 8 Jan 2011 @ 1:16 PM

    114.This may not be the right site, but what I’m interested in are the effects of the warming. I have no major doubts that the planet is warming as is so well explained on this site, but is it yet as warm as it was ten thousand years ago at the end of the last ice age? and even if it is or will be does it mater much? I know there are books out there, just not a lot of info on the main climate sites, or maybe I havent looked hard enough. Thanks

    Comment by Raf Val — 4 Feb 2011 @ 3:14 AM

    121.In a Physics Today essay linked in the Wikipedia entry on Judith Curry, she states that Steve McIntyre was unable to post on Real Climate when he was trying to defend his critiques of the hockey stick. I was wondering if this is true, and if so what the rationale was.

    Comment by Richard Palm — 5 Feb 2011 @ 11:51 PM

    122.May I give my personal opinion about Judith Curry : from my point of view, the way she expresses her concerns about climate science is very close to the ideal scientific attitude, trying to be balanced and free from ideological a priori (this doesn’t mean of course that she is always right, although I did not notice anything wrong in what she said). This is not the case for many posters on this blog.

    Comment by Gilles — 6 Feb 2011 @ 3:01 AM

  71. I openly invited the RC folk to come and put up their positions here on WUWT, having told them that this is a tolerant and stimulating place to voice one’s opinions.

    There was a tsunami of “how awful WUWT is” and “they aren’t tolerant of me and they banned me”. I wonder if even one has been here and given us the benefit of their point of view?

    I see vigorous , let’s say brutal, exchanges here backed up by references and data but it seems that as long as the ripostes are civil and lacking profanity they see the light of day on the thread. Those folk over at RC would find WUWT invaluable in sharpening and refining their arguments because there aren’t many fules or maroons over here ( present poster excepted of course *grin* )

  72. A few years ago, when I was naive to their censorship, I visited RC to ask some perfectly reasonable and honest questions hoping for some “real” answers. To repeat an analogy I’ve made before about the experience, I discovered that RC is an alligator site – all mouth and no ears with an ornery propensity to attack any unwary person who steps into their waters.

  73. If you look at the Alexa results for RC, their traffic is up by 41% in 2011. I’d say their method is improving their popularity in the short run at least. It’s only 1.41 times almost nill, but it is still an improvement…..

    If they were actually regular about the way they boreholed people, we could probably get some resonable discussions working down there in the hole itself.

  74. It would be beyond my web programming skills, but it ought to be possible to produce a proxy site for RC. Let’s call it TheRealRealClimate.com (TRRC). Every RC page would have a corresponding TRRC page. If you posted a comment at TRRC then it would be entered (automatically) as a comment at RC. But if RC moderated it out of existence (or even just edited it) then the original would remain on TRRC, but with color coding to indicate the fate of the comment. It wouldn’t be long before all of RC’s visitors migrated to TRRC.

    There’s a potential copyright issue that could perhaps be overcome by embedding RC’s material in TRRC without actually copying it across [alternatively, simply put TRRC on a host in Moldova or The Ukraine and forget about copyright issues]. But (even) more of a problem would RC countermeasures — I’m sure they’d block TRRC’s IP address on the day it opened shop. But if TRRC was to proxy RC via something like Tor then that might make it hard for them to block.

  75. Is there a direct link to The Borehole in the sidebar – yet?

    .

    REPLY:
    yes its been there awhile…see the colored inset in the post above – Anthony

  76. So funny, the patience of some of the genuinely concerned punters, carefully reposting their earlier comment that didn’t appear, and their reposts go into the same bit bucket as the first! But seriously, what is the point now? Are they trying to claim “we don’t prevent contrary points of view, we put them all up” while at the same time removing them out of the relevant thread? Quite perplexing, I can’t figure why they would even do this, it just ridicules the whole point of having a comment mechanism to their stories.

    See Borehole 123 “It appears my recent comment was not dispalyed. So I’ll try again.” And the post seems valid, on topic and not contraversial at all.

    Go figure.

  77. From _Jim on February 8, 2011 at 5:40 pm:

    Is there a direct link to The Borehole in the sidebar – yet?

    Also found is:

    REPLY: yes its been there awhile…see the colored inset in the post above – Anthony

    Could he have meant in the WUWT sidebar?

    Might as well set the RC link right to the BH. People can still find the rest of the site if they really want to, otherwise people can avoid cerebral depletion while getting to the good stuff. ☺

  78. kadaka (KD Knoebel) February 8, 2011 at 7:50 pm


    Could he have meant in the WUWT sidebar?

    Might as well set the RC link right to the BH. People can still find the rest of the site if they really want to, otherwise people can avoid cerebral depletion while getting to the good stuff. ☺

    +1 x 10^6

    .

  79. I am puzzled.
    Anthony,

    Here is the exchange between Jeff Id and Eric Steig, comment number 18:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/west-antarctica-still-warming-2/#comment-199265

    Eric Stieg’s reply to Jeff Id’s comment said nothing about boreholes. It was a polite scientific sounding reply.


    [Response: It is a bit strange that your coauthors have spent so much time talking about the differences in the Ross Sea region, as if this somehow 'refutes' our work, and now you are saying that the methods simply can't resolve such small areas. Whichizzit?

    I think that one of the things that many readers will take away from your work is that these methods are simply too sensitive to parameter choices to be able to say anything. That's Kevin Trenberth's unhelpful comment when my paper came out: "It's hard to obtain data where none exist" or something like that." The problem with that -- besides being demonstrably untrue -- is that without these sorts of analyses, all that's left is 'interpolation by eye', which is what everyone was doing for West Antarctica prior to our work. And to be clear again, a main point of my post is that you have *not* optimized the results properly. Our results can certainly be improved on, but unfortunately I don't think you have been successful in doing that. As for the distance-weighting calculations, I agree that's a reasonable thing to do, but the point of our paper was to use the *additional* information about spatial relationships that the satellite data provides. I think this is useful, and I think that your paper -- with its very good agreement during the satellite era with weather forecast reanalysis products (NCEP2, etc.) demonstrates this very nicely. Cheers -- eric]

    The borehole comment was in reference to a post which linked Jennifer Marohasy’s web site, in comment number 10.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/west-antarctica-still-warming-2/#comment-199235

    Can you explain how you made this error? These comments are far apart.

    REPLY:

    eadler wrote: “Eric Stieg’s reply to Jeff Id’s comment said nothing about boreholes. It was a polite scientific sounding reply. ”

    There’s no error here, you just can’t comprehend what’s going on. You’ve missed it completely, and it’s hilarious. Either that or you are being purposely disingenuous just to troll the thread. If it’s the latter, you’ve earned yourself a 24 hour time out. – Anthony

  80. Now one of the RC geniuses thinks that:
    “Response: Sigh…. I’d put this in the “Bore Hole”, but perhaps one of our readers wants to explain something about the difference between watts/m^2 and milliwatts/m^2? [hint: I frequently ski on volcanoes; how the heck does the snow stay up there?] It might provide an object lesson, not to mention show why ‘jeffifermarohasy.com’ is not a credible source for anything.–eric]”

    is the same as the quote listed in the article:

    The poor lads can’t even read. He then uses his own confusion to dismiss the entire thing.

  81. Now one of the RC geniuses thinks that:
    “Response: Sigh…. I’d put this in the “Bore Hole”, but perhaps one of our readers wants to explain something about the difference between watts/m^2 and milliwatts/m^2? [hint: I frequently ski on volcanoes; how the heck does the snow stay up there?] It might provide an object lesson, not to mention show why ‘jeffifermarohasy.com’ is not a credible source for anything.–eric]”

    is the same as the quote listed in the article:

    The poor lads can’t even read. He then uses his own confusion to dismiss the entire thing.

  82. RC is unscientific and irrelevant. Let them vent and contrive to change statements so that their authors can be better vilified. We want nothing to do with them. They are irrelevant, and we should so regard them. If they post something outrageous, raise it on WUPT and discuss it there. Who cares about their Bore Hole, they are the Rathole.

  83. Umm – Anthony, have you seen the original unedited comment? The clue is in this part:

    > [edit – ….

    According to subsequent comments in the thread, there was some snark about Mann in there that was edited out at the same time as the comment got binned to the borehole. So what’s left looks perfectly reasonable, but that’s because the *reason* the post was binned has been excised.

    That’s my understanding – unless Jeff wants to come forward and say the post was not edited, that is.

  84. Anthony wrote:
    REPLY:

    eadler wrote: “Eric Stieg’s reply to Jeff Id’s comment said nothing about boreholes. It was a polite scientific sounding reply. ”

    There’s no error here, you just can’t comprehend what’s going on. You’ve missed it completely, and it’s hilarious. Either that or you are being purposely disingenuous just to troll the thread. If it’s the latter, you’ve earned yourself a 24 hour time out. – Anthony

    I realize that I wasn’t looking in the right place for the exchange. It was put in the borehole, and I was looking in the Antarctica thread. So you might say that I missed it.

    This whole controversy is quite arcane. I am not well enough versed in the controversy to know why Steig saw the comment he boreholed as snarky.

    I have had comments that I considered perfectly valid and to the point snipped on WUWT . That’s the way the world is. I take it, move on and don’t complain about it.

    As I pointed out, Jeff’s comments on Antarctica have appeared on the RC Antarctica, thread and the replies have been serious and scientific. Why this particular one was boreholed, is beyond my understanding. I think the right thing to do is to indicate that a poster made a post, and refer the reader to the borehole if he wants to go there.

  85. I was wondering if you could have permanent link to “the bore hole” from realclimate.org on this site. If you make it a URL on this site and just copy/paste from RC, then I could read great critical review on climate science without paying the realclimate.org site a visit. Not sure if this is possible, but I feel bad giving RC many hits when I so strongly disagree with their censorship policy.

    Could this be done?

  86. Eadler wrote:
    I have had comments that I considered perfectly valid and to the point snipped on WUWT . That’s the way the world is. I take it, move on and don’t complain about it.
    ———–
    You can not be serious. This is a false and disingenuous comparison. This very comment would have been boreholed immediatly at rc. I once wrote that there was a lack of open dialogue about uncertainties at rc. Guess what, it didn’t even get boreholed. There is an obvious reason why wuwt is regarded AS open and rc…. Not so much: it’s bc it’s true and bc Stalin is moderating at rc.

  87. Magnus says:
    February 9, 2011 at 10:14 am

    Eadler wrote:
    I have had comments that I considered perfectly valid and to the point snipped on WUWT . That’s the way the world is. I take it, move on and don’t complain about it.
    ———–
    You can not be serious. This is a false and disingenuous comparison. This very comment would have been boreholed immediatly at rc. I once wrote that there was a lack of open dialogue about uncertainties at rc. Guess what, it didn’t even get boreholed. There is an obvious reason why wuwt is regarded AS open and rc…. Not so much: it’s bc it’s true and bc Stalin is moderating at rc.

    You can disagree with me, but I was speaking seriously, and out of my own experience. In my opinion a lot of the comments here at WUWT are nonsense, but because the comments side with Anthony’s point of view, and the dominant majority of posters here, they go unchallenged, including the most outrageous ad hominem remarks. This is the same thing that goes on at RC, even though the manner of enforcement of rules is different. As a “warmer” I have to be careful not to make remarks that are gratuitously insulting, because I know they will not be permitted.

    I am not claiming exact equivalence, because I haven’t done statistics. It is my impression that at a maximum, about 5% of the posts here are by “warmers”. I suspect a similar statistic would be found for “skeptics” at RC, maybe even a larger percentage.

    People who run web sites are only human, so it doesn’t make sense to me to protest.

  88. eadler. Ur missing the point. This is not a matter of “all moderators are human”. The censorship policy at rc is extreme. There Are hardly ever any discussions there bc no skeptical view is allowed. At wuwt you’ve actually had warmists saying they enjoy the openness. But, I do of course agree there is much bs too: freedom is a helluva thing.

  89. If you think getting a constructive comment posted at RC is a problem, try Climate Progress. It’s virtually impossible.

Comments are closed.