Many readers have commented about their experiences at Real Climate with posts being deleted and being run over roughshod by hostile comments there. I was sent this YouTube link by a WUWT web affiliate, and as I was watching it, it occurred to me that the phrase “tightly controlled” really describes the Real Climate methodology.
Watch Helen Thomas at the end. For those of you who don’t know Helen Thomas, may I suggest reading up on her. She’s a fixture with the White House Press Corp and her statements to Robert Gibbs are simply stunning. Helen mentioned “openness and transparency”, from my view she could have just as easily been talking about Michael Mann and his famous “censored” FTP folder discovered by McIntyre.
Now if we can just get Andy Revkin to ask questions like Chip Reid and Helen Thomas, we might get somewhere.
Now every time I think of Chip Reid, I’ll think of Real Climate’s “tightly controlled” environment.
I should add that I’ve experienced the same thing at RC, valid questions I have posed have been wholesale deleted personally by Gavin Schmidt. I’ve kept a record and screencaps of such things, I would suggest that you all do the same.
Deleting rude comments or comments that are badly OT or inflaming is one thing, but when you start deleting valid scientific questions posed by people in your circle of interest, it doesn’t take long for all of those individually affected to start comparing notes.
RC seems to have a small following of the same people that make up a core group, but when you examine the web statistics, it seems obvious that such a strategy is failing their primary mission of reaching out to people:
My blue stats start in October of last year because that is when I started the full domain name. Prior to that they are in the olive green color plot. In both reach and traffic, WUWT grows and RC declines.
Here is the URL to see for yourself:
http://alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com+realclimate.org+%20wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com
Of course, these are unadjusted numbers so any conclusion drawn from them may be premature. Best to wait for the adjusted data set.
UPDATE: Since there is some confusion in comments, I’m adding this. That first graph is a “top sites” graph, with sites like Google and iTunes and Amazon being at the very top. It shows where WUWT and RC exist in the “top sites” pecking order. WUWT is now somewhere around the top 30,000 web sites while RC has fallen below the top 100,000 mark. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When I was placed in a very compromising position, I didn’t cooperate and I didn’t quit immediately. I had a family to support. I found another job as soon as possible. I can understand why many of the staff of government agencies might remain silent. After all, the unemployment rate is near 10%. I would be difficult for a PhD or MS specialist to change jobs at will. I can understand the desire to remain silent also so that one isn’t going against the wishes and well-being of the group, that’s the social aspect of this. I can understand the desire to keep money rolling into the group, that is both a personal and social consideration. While silence isn’t outright fraud, it is close. But that being said, I understand the pressures. That understanding is in fact an out for those who really would like to speak out. I, and we in general should, understand the human aspect of the AGW complicitness.
Certainly EcoChemist has revealed, and caused others to reveal, a very human trait. We expect to be treated fairly and our phyches are troubled when we are not. We expect to be allowed to be honest in our work. We expect to be appropriately rewarded for our efforts. Then we encounter politicians and other crooks and we frequently “go along to get along”. So did the people who built Auschwitz.
“Many readers have commented about their experiences at Real Climate with posts being deleted and being run over roughshod by hostile comments there.”
That’s how some folks are treated at WUWT. Remove the log from thine own eye.
REPLY: Well Gary, all you have to do is answer the question posed several times to you. You are welcome here, but we really don’t understand your stubbornness. The only explanation I can think of is that you won’t answer it because you just don’t want to admit that you had no cognizant firsthand experience with global cooling media or science during the 1970’s. I answered immediately when you turned around the question on me, and your refusal to reciprocate makes you look petty. But, we see such sort of petty behavior over at RC. I’ve asked Gavin some serious questions, far more important and on topic than what I’ve asked you, and my were questions wholesale deleted from the get-go. Got screencaps of that. One day I’ll do a post with mine and many others who had the same RC experience.
It seems pettiness is a trait with warmers. Here’s your chance to prove me wrong by answering the question posed of you. – Anthony
Your whole “Gary is petty because he won’t tell me if he read Newsweek in the mid-1970s and thus has firsthand knowledge of the claim that belief in global cooling was the scientific consensus at the time” just drips with pettiness. Another instance of a double standard on WUWT’s part.
BTW, you do realize that the whole “Taylor was banned from the PBSG because of his views on AGW” was a lie:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/christopher_bookers_misinforma.php
REPLY: Ah more misdirection from Gary “can’t answer a simple question” Strand. Why not answer the question Gary? Shall we have another misdirection marathon? where I keep asking the question and you keep posting deflections and misdirections? Last weekend was fun!
Answer the question Gary. The question is not what you posed. It is simply. “How old are you”? You added all the rest. – Anthony
From CA…
Gary likes to ask questions but is not too keen on answering them…
“Gary Strand:
June 28th, 2009 at 7:41 am
How many of you know *why* Phil Jones hasn’t released the data to any and all? Leave aside the acrimony and unwarranted extrapolations and personal feelings. Have any of you considered other reasons?”
“Mike Bryant:
June 28th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Gary Strand, as an intellectual exercise, could you please construct a satisfactory reason *why* Phil Jones would not release the data to any and all? Perhaps there are even two or three very good reasons why this data that may be used to reshape the earth’s political systems might be reasonably withheld from those who will be affected. I’m looking forward to your comment.
Mike Bryant”
Gary’s closest thing to an answer:
“Gary Strand:
June 30th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I’m not going to guess why Jones won’t release his data and/or methods.”
According to Gary Strand there could be perfectly legitimate reasons for hiding methods and data… however he can’t imagine what they could be…
Mike Bryant
REPLY: Yes it appears Gary Strand shares the trait that other climate scientists have, they can lecture but they can’t answer. I’ve puzzled as to why Gary has his “Strand Cam” showing him sitting at his office desk at UCAR, seen here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/gallerypage.html
Since there’s no obvious entertainment or educational value to seeing a series of poorly framed pictures of some angry guy sitting at a cubicle chair with some oriental writing in the background, the only reason I can think of is to prove to his superiors that he’s actually working. It sure beats having to answer questions about your activities I guess.
Either that or it is pure ego. I’d ask Gary but he won’t answer the first question I posed. Maybe I should elevate the question to a blog post. – Anthony
And here we go with the pettiness, hostility, *ad hominem*, and so on, that I’ve come to expect from WUWT.
I’ll give y’all a hint – clean up that nonsense, and perhaps, someday, you’ll have some credibility. Until that time, you’ll be (rightly) disregarded.
REPLY: Yes Gary, we’ve been (rightly) disregarded 15,855,870 times as of this writing. But here you are, still unable to answer a simple question. What do ya say I make it a full blog post? That might be fun. Why do you have that webcam anyway? – Anthony
Go right ahead, Anthony. Then tell me what “science” content there is in making a whole new thread about me. I’d expect better from the “best” science blog than its author and owner elevating a personal attack to the stature of a whole thread.
REPLY: Back so soon? Actually, while you’ve been dodging the question, I’ve been doing some literature research of my own into the 1970’s, and on Orkeske’s claim. Your refusal to answer a simple question would be just an interesting sidenote on the aberrations of ego when it comes to challenging questions.
For the record, Gary has not provided a single direct answer to any question posed to him on any subject here on WUWT or on CA.
We’ll forgive all the others, but now we have two questions pending for Gary
1) How old are you?
2) Why do you have an office webcam trained on you?
– Anthony
P.S. Of course if you answer the questions, I’d have no ability to claim that you don’t.
Where’s my thread, Anthony? Don’t I deserve a headline all my own, suitably titled “Watt’s Up With Gary Strand”? Heck, why not a whole new blog devoted to the “science” of my age and my webcam?
I seriously doubt
http://www.wattsupwithgarystrand.com
is a taken name.
PS – Now, don’t you feel a bit silly being so petty and juvenile? For a fellow older than me, that’s pretty bad.
REPLY:Why would I do that? Goodness, such emotion. No, actually its a story on WUWT that involves the 1970’s global cooling issue, popular literature, scientific literature, Oreske, Peterson, and of course , your refusal to answer the “how old are you” question as it relates to men/women of science being able to communicate with the general public…you know, people like here on WUWT, whose taxes pay your salary. It’s not a personal attack, but an observation based on your dialog here. It’s not in press yet. – Anthony
P.S I should add that I owe a debt of gratitude to Gary, because without his refusal to answer a simple question, I never would have been motivated to look into the 1970’s global cooling issue. – Anthony
The whole “issue” is a non-issue, but you’re intent on making it one. Why?
REPLY: It was a curiosity when the question was first asked. As a member of the media (which I am) I’ve learned that when a person such as yourself deflects the simplest of questions, there’s usually something worth learning about attached to that. In your case, had you simply answered the question “how old are you?” it probably would have resulted in nothing beyond that momentary curiosity, maybe a comment response. But that’s all.
Now it has started a whole new idea, and for that, I thank you. – Anthony
To be exhaustive, and avoid relying on perhaps flawed analyses, you could recruit some volunteers to go through all the relevant popular media and journals from the 1970s and come up with your own evidence for the various aspects of belief in global cooling at that time.
Perhaps each volunteer gets assigned a month, or a journal, or a newsweekly, and then they can judge (using transparent criteria) the presence or absence, and the “strength” of either the global warming or global cooling memes, and then report back here.
You might even be able to get some nifty charts for good ol’ Eyeball Mk 1 to enjoy.
REPLY: Way ahead of you Gary .
Oh, and restrict the volunteers to a suitable age range so they have *in situ* observations – wouldn’t want to have the contamination of *post hoc* analysis. After all, recollections based on firsthand experience (even after ~30 years) are preferable.
REPLY: Since you indicate these types of observations are preferable, you’ll then have no trouble telling us your age so that we can determine if you had any first hand experience with the subject? – Anthony
Where’s my thread?
REPLY: Gosh Gary, you’ve gone in a few minutes from saying WUWT should be “rightfully ignored” to demanding “Where’s my thread?”. Having trouble making up your mind? Love/hate relationship? It’s not “your” thread, but you’ll be mentioned. And, as I said, it is not in press yet. – Anthony
PS there’s still time to answer the questions
Gary – no need to answer now, I decided not to wait on you to answer, since it was apparent you wouldn’t. Took me about a minute. You are 44.
In 1975 you’d be 10 years old, in 1978 you’d be 13. Probably too busy then with baseball, comic books, Pong, friends, and discovering girls to worry about climate change issues. – Anthony
I think that it would be valuable for WUWT to explore and document several prior erroneous scientific consensuses. The results would be helpful in highlighting and dismantling the current one, as well as potentially preventing some of the future ones.
I never said “rightfully ignored”, as the quote marks imply.
I’m still trying to figure out why you’re so hot on my age, and have even “threatened” to make a whole thread about it. Is it worth the loss of credibility (which you can ill afford) to elevate a personal obsession to the level of a headline on the blogosphere’s “best” science blog? It has nothing to do with science, not even remotely.
As you note with your first sentence on this thread, some folks allege bad treatment over at RC – would making a thread about my age really help you and WUWT?
You’re playing the man, not the ball – in spades.
REPLY: My interest isn’t personal in you, but one of perception. Don’t worry I’m not going to trash you. I just wanted to see if a hunch was right.
For the record then you said “(rightly) disregarded.”. But my query is still valid, in one minute you say “(rightly) disregarded.” and a few minutes later you demand “where’s my thread”. The point being that you can’t seem to make up your mind about anything here. – Anthony
And my age is of relevance to what, again?
REPLY: You’ll have to wait for the article I’m writing to be finished to find out. – Anthony
A bit off topic, but the moral of EcoChemist’s story parallels the problem of politics in general on a larger scale, and since Obama aims to be the messiah of climate healing, maybe my point won’t even be off-topic at all.
Simply put: if we want opponents to change sides, we have to give them opportunities to do so. Lefties as a rule aren’t proselytizers, really. They’re singing to the choir. They’re blamers. Blame is the game. It feels good. It makes them feel superior. They get to be Sir Thomas More with none of the icky consequences.
That’s “them.” As for “everybody else,” whether conservative, moderate, libertarian or whatever, if we champion an idea, we need to provide chances for other people to embrace it — and let them do so for their own motives — whatever those motives are.
The AGW crowd pretends to own a higher moral ground. They’re saving the planet. And if we’re “deniers,” then obviously we just don’t care about the planet. That position could have plausibility except that as deniers, we don’t have any other planets we can occupy. So obviously deniers don’t believe that our contemporary economic way of life harms the planet.
Lots of things do harm corners of the planet. Most of us like breathing clean air, like drinking clean water. A great many of us feel that biodiversity gives the earth beauty, imparts mystery to life. So, if we want the AGW crowd to consider the merits of denial, we need to let them like us, and we need to let them save face.
Cause if you’ve been publically promoting something that turns out to be seriously big-time wrong, you’re gonna need to save face.
If the shoe were on the other foot. If Obama were right, and if he made the “oceans recede” and the earth began to “heal,” I for one would own up to all my lib friends (red girl in a blue state that I am). I’d buy them all a drink. And I’d shout the hoorays for their side. But that ain’t gonna happen since the odds are quite good that Obama will be Carter Deux.
EcoChemist’s moral, if I got it, is that we need to give opponents a chance to make a soft landing. Cause these AGWers are gonna need it.
To be a skeptic on RC is, as the Italians say, “essere ricevuto come un cane in chiesa” Translation: to be welcomed like a dog in church.
Since we’re telling our ages, I’ll help the cause — being a woman, it can be more appreciated what I’m surrendering in doing so — I’m 53.
And in the 70s, I never heard of global cooling theories. The media marketplace was very different, and I’ve never been particularly hip.
However, first I ever heard of global warming was circa 1985. A very hip-aspiring friend attended a college campus lecture where the speaker predicted that “in ten years” the contemporary North Carolina coastline would disappear. Well, of course it didn’t.
That might date the origins of my skepticism.
On the other hand, my generation listened to John Denver and Gordon Lightfoot. We wanted to be living in mellow harmony with nature. Musically, I’ve moved on. I listen to Bach now. However, my love for nature is deep seated. I have more respect for nature now than ever before. Hmm, but nature is a mystery.
The AGW philosophy is complex psychologically. It’s supposed to be “science.” Science is supposed to be science. (“Just the facts, ma’am.”) But in modern times, scientists have discovered how immense the universe is. It’s hard to fathom the idea that man can assail “nature” when “nature” is this much larger than ever imagined “something” “out there.” You can have Neil de Grasse Tyson saying that we’re “just” an insignificant little planet in an unprepossessing solar system on the edges of an ordinary galaxy, and for a bookend have Al Gore saying that we offend the universe by our hubristic excess. These are really flip sides of the same psychological coin.
The whole question gets tangled in other issues of ancient human pedigree — religion verses rationalism — left brain verses right brain — and though it’s perhaps not pertinent here — one cannot forget that every generation of Western societies has had its dooms-day scenerios. The end is near. Apocalypse is not so different from Global Warming. Same song, different verse.
If I were lexically imitative of my lefty friends, I might say “it’s human psychology, stupid.” But all that “stupid” stuff is so rude. And rudeness is never a substitute for knowledge, for learning, for curiosity.
Civility and “there but for the Grace of Whatever Higher Power You Believe In go I.” As I said previously, I’m on board with EcoChemist’s basic thesis: allow the other guy a soft landing. The next gaffe may be one’s own.
Gary what’s your secret? Looking at your webcam I’d swear you look under 40 YO.
Thanks Ann. That’s one of the messages I was trying to get across. You can’t back an animal into a corner and beat them and not expect them to fight back. If you offer them kindness, then perhaps you may find yourself a powerful ally.
🙂
Gary Strand (08:44:20) :
Once again… Gary, you are a programmer, not a climate scientist. I (was) a programmer/analyst NOT an accountant… or chemist, or compounder… if your program reflected the thinking and processess of your principles, you did well. Frankly, in a process-manufacturing environment like the one described by EcoChemist, I wrote programs that were honest in the details and dishonest in the “big picture”. I finally got disturbed enough to spend about a man-month on my own dime to write a program that would track materials through warehouse and production and concluded they were losing almost two million per year…. I was a consultant and not an employee like EchoChemist.. but the results were the same, They weren’t interested.
The issue is not whether Gary Strand somehow “$%^&*(” up the prgramming, but whether the principles “$%^&*(” the spec.
uh, Anthony. Gary is closer to 35. We were both 35 once. Once… long ago, in a galaxy far, far away…. Gary is here and has contributed and may not only be a curious soul but one of integrity as well.
Uh, Gary, all that being said, when some one comes along and says “Prof. So-and So’s article didn’t account for TSU by x% and said nothing about ENSO… I think you can confirm or deny that… and most of us, who don’t have your expertise, may agree. But the day I, or any of us, suspect you’ve mid-less us.
Ann’s New Friend (14:22:43)
EcoChemist’s moral, if I got it, is that we need to give opponents a chance to make a soft landing. Cause these AGWers are gonna need it.
That’s assuming we wouldn’t give them the chance.
And I don’t believe that those in the skeptic camp wouldn’t. As a ‘skeptic’ (I prefer the moniker ‘realist’), I know that when the whole AGW sham is acknowledged for what it is, that will be the end. There may be a few “I told ya so’s” passed around, but nothing on the scale that would be the case IF, and it is a multi-trillion $$ ‘if’, the AGW hypothesis was raised to the level of a true theory.
‘Realist’ personalities are the exact opposite of those in the AGW camp. We want to know the whole picture and that’s why we frequent WUWT. We want the cake, not just the glossy icing that makes the cake look so appealing.
We need to look at integrity. Here, we can and do have our ‘beliefs’ shaken and changed. It would be interesting to know how many RC devotees have changed their ‘religion’ after reading WUWT, Climate Audit, Climate Science, etc. For myself, I never even realized man could change the local climate through land use until I read Pielke Sr’s blog.
As compelling as EcoChemist’s post is, how can it be said that Gavin cares deeply about his family should he continue on his AGW quest knowing it is completely false? He would be fully aware of the dire consequenses of the taxes, regulations, job loss, the skyrocketing prices of everything for all human beings that his continued effort would produce. And let’s not forget how food is being diverted for their crusade. Those things would not be good for his family in generations to come. Unless, of course, he’s so heavily invested in all the things ‘Gore’ that he doesn’t care about what happens to other families.
Sorry, IMHO, no matter how I look at it, a man so selfish that he would risk the well-being of other families for the sake of his own… I would be very disappointed with a father who cared so little about my fellow man.
I’ve never presented myself as a climate scientist.
REPLY: to Gary 7:34 I can vouch for Gary on that – Anthony