Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
Seinfeld fans will remember how proud Kramer was when he thought he had slipped one past the goalie. Well, I’ve managed to slip a few comments onto RealClimate’s discusion of the Times Atlas “Greenland Meltdown” fiasco.
Those of us who have followed the story here on WUWT (1, 2, 3, 4) know the basic facts. (1) The 13th edition of the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World was published this past September, (2) The Atlas includes a misleading map of Greenland ice cover, (3) Publicity for the Atlas hyped a non-existent 15% meltdown in Greenland, (4) The Atlas has withdrawn the bogus claim, and (5) They will create a corrective insert for the Atlas and make it available online.
RC’s 08 November 2011 post on this issue Times Atlas map of Greenland to be corrected, said the original claims were “rather bizarre” but -amazingly to me- they did not not mention that the error was in the direction of excessive warming. Comment #1, by a seemingly misled RC reader, blames the error on the fact that “Harper Collins is owned by Rupert Murdoch.” The RC moderator cautions against personal attacks, and notes that such a claim wouldn’t make any sense, but he does not acknowledge why – because the error was in the Warmist direction!
To be fair, RC did include a link to another posting that, after a bunch of Warmist hype, is pretty clear on the direction of the original error. However, that link was misleadingly titled “Greenland Meltdown” (since changed to “reported earlier”).
So I posted my first-ever comment to RC, and they published it, in an edited manner that partly reverses my point, as follows:
(Comment #7) Ira Glickstein says: 8 Nov 2011 at 4:54 PM
Thanks for reporting “… the first edition was completely in error, and led to some rather bizarre claims about the amount of ice loss in Greenland.”
However, you do not
acknowledgereiterate the direction of the error, which was to report an impossible, way overstated 15% ice loss.An interested reader would have to follow your link to the
misleadinglybrilliantly, amusingly and accurately titled Greenland Meltdown to learn that: “…, the large exaggeration of that loss rate by Harper Collins in the press release for the 2011 edition of the Times Atlas was of course completely wrong. … the confusion came most likely from a confusion in definitions of what is the permanent ice sheet, and what are glaciers, with the ‘glaciers’ being either dropped from the Atlas entirely or colored brown (instead of white) … there is simply no measure — neither thickness nor areal extent — by which Greenland can be said to have lost 15 % of its ice.[Response: edits in italics 😉 –eric]
Well, an attentive RC commenter followed the link from my name to my personal blog, and from there learned I am a “guest contributor to the denialist disinformation blog WUWT”. I thought that might end my new career as a commenter at RC, but the Moderator passed my second comment (# 12), unedited, even though I challenged the use of “denialist” with respect to WUWT, and included five WUWT links to my “Visualizing the ‘Greenhouse’ Effect” series to prove that we skeptics accept the basic science. Perhaps the comment was passed because I also approvingly quoted James Hansen on the Carbon Tax.
My third comment (# 22) was also passed unedited, but the Moderator said my claim that “despite the steady rise in CO2 over the past decade, there has been no statistically significant mean warming” was “simply false”.
My fourth comment (#31) explained what “statistically significant” means (less than a 5% chance it is wrong), and noted that Phil Jones, head of the Climategate Research Unit said as much in his well-publicized BBC interview. The RC Moderator cut my Climategate jibe, but passed the rest unedited. Further discussion has been shunted over to RC’s Open Thread sidelines, where I am attempting to continue it.
The point of this posting is that, whatever the difficulties, it is possible for skeptics to post over at RC, so long as we are not too blatant about it, and if we are not too sensitive about our words being edited.
The WUWT links in my comments have generated some traffic back here, which is evidence some RC readers are open to reasonable discussion. I urge my fellow skeptics to open-handedly accept this opportunity.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It might be a surprise to American readers but the News International companies in the UK, such as The Times, Sky News, and HarperCollins are quite firmly in the believers camp on the AGW issue. This could be connected to the fact that the executive chairman of News International, James Murdoch, is married to Kathryn Hufschmid who works for the Clinton Climate Initiative. Therefore the comment that the error may have been a result of HarperCollins being under pressure from a Murdoch could have been correct.
I understand the point you are making but simply don’t trust them, so I’m afraid I won’t be joining in. They are run by professional PR wonks who are skilled at misrepresentation.
I don’t waste my time over at RC any more, they proved themselves to be nasty people in my book so I stay away. Much prefer informative blogs where I actually learn something new (like Bob Tisdales stuff and of course WUWT).
BTW – not to mention Willis 😉 as entertaining education would be a mistake.
“and included five WUWT links to my “Visualizing the ‘Greenhouse’ Effect” series to prove that we skeptics accept the basic science.”
Real sceptics do not accept the basic science. CO2 does not somehow magically create additional energy after it leaves earth as many so called sceptics claim.
You are a warmist but not an alarmist. You accept the basic implausible pseudo science but just challenge the extent of warming.
[Using multiple screen names violate site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
Why bother posting on RealCensorship when you know you will be denounced and black-listed.
James Reid says:
November 13, 2011 at 2:15 pm
“I don’t waste my time over at RC any more,”
Agree. Complete waste of time. They are devotees who are not interested in science. There are a lot about who will never change their mind.
I agree with James. I almost never go to RC, Romm, or Tamino; the acolytes are nasty and the “Team” at RC, Romm, and Tamino are arrogant and censor almost any post that disagrees with their dogma. I also don’t want to count as a “hit” on their websites.
Most of my posts show up over here, minus the snarky ones.
I actually come here more often than RC, as RC is just too boring, what with all their factual climate science talk and what all.
My 3rd most favorite site is the old newsclips and cherry picked graphs website run by someone whose name I can’t remenber at the moment. Sorry. Oops.
Am I to understand that RC edited your submitted comment? — as in changed some of the words? Why in the world would they do that? What incredible hubris.
Dr Glickstein,
Blog owners with comments, have every right to snip my whole comment – or partial comment.
They DO NOT have the right to put words in my mouth – or edit what words i use, as long I’m civil.
I will NOT comment on a blog that uses my name and edits my words to promote their ideas
/ ideals.
IMO…They allow your comments [ with edits ] as a PR tool….[ look here people we allow dissenting views ]. When in fact, the edits change the content.
I never managed to get a post passed at RC. Tried at 3 different occasions. No nastiness from my side. They are censoring like they were a part of the old eastern european press.
I’d rather stick needles in my eyes. Besides, if history is any indication, what you claim is some sort of breakthrough of common sense is likely just a prelude to something horrible and nasty. Note what happened to Anthony when he made an honorable attempt to work with the BEST folks. I don’t think they can help themselves.
I can see a moderator snipping an entire offensive or abusive comment, or even inserting “[snip]” when deleting part of such a comment; but actually changing the words and editing the comment? Seems pretty dodgy to me.
I’m a fan of realclimate because they explain the science well, are experts in the field they write in (usually) and are not as prone as some other blogs to pile on the rhetoric – though they’re hardly perfect.
For instance, they gave a link in the post mentioned here to an explanation of where the Times likely got their map from. They do not talk about political motivations for the error, do not suggest it was deliberate, and note that it was the scientific community that pointed it out.
The take home message for me is not that there is a conspiracy at the Times Atlas or the Guardian (“Atlasgate” – huh!), but that an error in sourcing and consequent wildly exaggerated interpretation was quickly rebutted by the experts. If there is any political component to this story it is about sensationalism. Nothing to do with warmista or skeptics.
Any chance the discussion can occur without the interminable bi-polar narrative should be leapt upon. The game of sides is all political and always muddies the waters.
Muller acknowledges no significant warming in the last decade. You can link to his WSJ article from his web-site.
Gavin Schmidt mentioned something about warming since the 1980s (as being undeniably AGW) in the incredibly boring video when he visited Churchill to love-in with polar bears. Why since the 1980s? This is especially interesting given the lack of warming in the past 10 years. Gavin’s warming only lasted 10 years? And the 1980s were warmer than the 1970s and the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s and the 2000s were, oops.
I used to read JC until I caught her back-paddling in Muller’s canoe. Now it’s all about the defense.
“I also approvingly quoted James Hansen on the Carbon Tax” – wait Ira, you’re not trying to slip one by the goalie are you?
Why on [a naturally warming] earth would you support a carbon tax?
Why do they feel the need to edit the postings? Why do they feel this is perfectly acceptable to delete and alter the author’s words?
RC is 99% proctoganda. I see no point in visiting them.
Ira,
in the post you link to, where you say that RC does not indicate the direction of change, there is this quote in the body of the article.
The first commenter probably skimmed the article and didn’t follow the link.
Consider: the point is that the Times got the science wrong and scientists correct it. This is factual and has no politics in it.
Now, consider that the error was in the direction of…. what warmista would prefer? At this point the discussion moves from the factual to the political, and this is how you entered the conversation at RC, with politics. In a neutral world, the ‘direction’ of the error doesn’t matter – just that there was one. As soon as you start speculating otherwise, you bring politics to the table, and thus you got the response you did.
Ira,
You are not a RC virgin anymore? If you were near Saratoga Springs, NY then I would buy you a couple of brews (or martinis) to celebrate! I remember when I lost my RC virginity, it was so non-consummating. : )
John
There’s a very similar policy at most blogs. Your words can be snipped, your post deleted here (at WUWT), there and many other places. The strikethroughs and rewording was a bit creative, but at least we got to see the original text.
jorgekafkazar says:
November 13, 2011 at 3:08 pm
RC is 99% proctoganda. I see no point in visiting them.
I am with Jorge. The real problem with dealing with RC (or others like them), is that after they have edited your response, you are stuck with what they say you said, however much you might disagree. At best you look like you changed your mind.
If you do not want to be misquoted, do not let them quote you. There is no benefit and only misery down the line – if you get irritable you just prove them right when they say they try but the deniers are impossible to work with.
By the way, I, being Doug Proctor, write proctoganda. RC writes propaganda.
I just watched James O’Keefe’s latest ‘To Catch A Journalist”. Some people just don’t like having the light of truth shone upon their tactics. Not unlike this story here. Good on ya!
barry says:
November 13, 2011 at 2:57 pm
“Any chance the discussion can occur without the interminable bi-polar narrative should be leapt upon. The game of sides is all political and always muddies the waters.”
……………………………………………..
Hmmmmm…. editing my words to change the content….is what – If not political?