Realclimate censorship by Ecotretas
Realclimate.org is notoriously known for censoring comments. Examples are everywhere on the Internet, and in a couple of minutes you get a handful of them: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5). I knew this when I went there today, for the “Is Sea-Level Rise Accelerating?” post.
I bet they know that the sea level rise rate is going down, and fast. But that’s not what you get when you read the article. And they don’t want their readers to know. So I kept the printscreen, because I was pretty certain I would be censored. I was. But as can be seen below, the message is of no harm, except for the Global Warming religious priests, and one more clear example of “hiding the decline”:
Now, what is more surprising is that you can track the amount of comment rejection at RC. My comment has id 210412; when I did this post, these were the ids available in the top right, in the Recent Comments section:
- 210407
- 210411
- 210414
- 210415
- 210417
- 210418
- 210421
- 210422
- 210423
- 210424
I was not alone in the rejection! Almost half of the comments are censored! But hey, I did manage to get to the bore hole, where not all of the censored comments are allowed to go!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The missing comments could be spam, so you really can’t go by missing numbers.
Keep ’em busy with the delete key…they’ll have less time to publish!!
RealClimate has had no problem deleting my comments. Ironically, some of the RealClimate readers came across my blog and made some boneheaded comments about it at RealClimate. The editors at RealClimate seemed to be all too happy to erase my comments, but kept in the misinformed comments about me. Details here…
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/rahmstorf-2009-response-to-realclimate-comments/
I gave up on them a while ago.
It is a sad sight when you have SCIENTISTS at that place.Being so scared of a different viewpoint.
I have no trouble allowing John Cook post at my forum.I am GLAD he posted there because he make it easy for me and others to make a direct reply to what he wrote.
Gavin and his camp are not driven to know what is really going on in the real world.It is hard to know when he keeps his nose to the Modelling grindstone.
Congratulations on making it to the bore hole!
It is an interesting balancing act for Gavin. Censoring comments surely does little to convince those that post – but allowing those questions to appear would equally surely disturb the faithful flock. I wonder if Gavin employs a robust climatological principle component model to determine the AGW enhancing benefit of incoming questions or comments, prior to deleting them?
Additionally, I suspect that the real climate rejection:acceptance ratio versus time trend would provide an interesting indicator of declining respectability of climate ‘science’.
Possibly it would be forensically possible to determine this trend by examining real climate comment numbers….(I predict that Gavin may be updating the site shortly!).
that’s our tax dollars at work…I wonder how much is a one way ticket back to London these days ?
Hmph…. children at RC. When I first got interested in the CAGW topic, it took only 2-3 visits to RC to see what was going on, and I just really wasn’t looking for the “totally High School” experience. I have better things to do with my time (and I just wasted a few more minutes of it by bothering to discuss my experience there. It won’t happen again).
The Borehole is the only part of that site worth reading.
I was banned from commenting at RealClimate unless I changed my nom-de-plume. Perhaps all the bigots in the hockey team are thin.
I’m not worried about rising sea levels, since I can’t tell if the sea has risen or fallen by looking at it.
I am worried about people who never look.
My buddy once said “It’s not the people who don’t know that bothers me, it’s them that don’t suspect”.
I have yet to see a before/after pic that didn’t show no change over >50 years.
And, worst of all, after 50 years of observing the stars, I haven’t seen a UFO. I never get to have any fun, gee whiz.
Jeff Alberts says:
July 12, 2011 at 6:48 pm
> The missing comments could be spam, so you really can’t go by missing numbers.
The .png screen shot includes a note about having reactivated the ReCaptcha plug in, so that will keep a lot of spam away.
Posted once at real climate and was rejected. I was respectful to the good doctor only disagreed with his conclusion. was rejected and saw no point to return to the site. No questions no learning, no learning wasted time and money.
Bill Derryberry
“I bet they know that the sea level rise rate is going down, and fast”
Just how do you define fast? From what I’ve seen so far the sea level rise seems to be leveling off. (pardon the pun there) Looking back decades, I can’t see much much of a decrease at all, just a stagnation to the significant increase from earlier.
Since it’s on the governments dime, can you go all FOIA on him for the rejection numbers? ;P
In my experience, RC is far and away the best site to push people towards the skeptical view. Busy people often don’t have time to analyse sites like CA and WUWT in great detail, so when they’re new to the subject they often take a quick look but aren’t completely persuaded because they’ve heard so much about cherry-picking, etc. A few minutes with RC, though, and they generally realise RC’re shysters of some kind just from the tone and behaviour.
A missed opportunity. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/07/boreholed/
Someone should have cut the rope.
Oh, and in regard to the missing comments: without seeing their back-end code, I wouldn’t draw any conclusions. There could be all kinds of reasons for the ‘missing’ comments – perhaps to do with the code, perhaps because it creates a new id if someone starts a comment but doesn’t post it, perhaps spam.
Surely there are better things to focus on.
Wow!
You got all the way to the “Bore Hole”!
It must have been one hell of a comment!
I would suggest using sardonic comments (sar·don·ic/särˈdänik/
Adjective: Grimly mocking or cynical. More »
Dictionary.com – Answers.com – Merriam-Webster – The Free Dictionary) comments vailed in double entendre spread over several commnets separated in time and name… THat should drive the censors crazy.
I too have been censored for non offensive valid questions at realclimate, that site is a sad joke.
Jeff Alberts says:
July 12, 2011 at 6:48 pm
> The missing comments could be spam, so you really can’t go by missing numbers.
I have tried posting at RC a few times. Not one comment has made it past moderation.
But it is possible that RC does get more spam than average, and that the deletion of comments is a mistake.
Wucash says:
July 12, 2011 at 7:56 pm
“I bet they know that the sea level rise rate is going down, and fast”
“Just how do you define fast? From what I’ve seen so far the sea level rise seems to be leveling off. (pardon the pun there) Looking back decades, I can’t see much much of a decrease at all, just a stagnation to the significant increase from earlier.”
how do you define a significant increase?
Gavin reminds me of a certain sort of psycho-therapist that came into fashion in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. They liked the position of being a wise guru, and having a cult-like following of clients who paid quite a lot to hear their wisdom. They were very down on any client who dared suggest they might be mistaken. Such clients were accused of all sorts of things, in fluant psycho-babble, if they dared suggest the guru was not perfect. Eventually these psycho-gurus were called “shrinks,” because they did the opposite of expanding consciousness.
Gavin is on the path to being called far worse.
Real who?
Wucash says:
[Ecotretas] I bet they know that the sea level rise rate is going down, and fast
[Wucash] Just how do you define fast? From what I’ve seen so far the sea level rise seems to be leveling off. (pardon the pun there) Looking back decades, I can’t see much much of a decrease at all, just a stagnation to the significant increase from earlier.
You’re confusing “sea level rise rate” with “sea level.”