We’ve all pretty much had it up to our keesters with the brusque and dismissive treatment that commenters who don’t agree with the RC world view get over there. This is why many of us have simply given up trying, there’s no point in attempting to have a relevant and open discussion there anymore.
It should be foremost on the minds of many that the RealClimate.org webserver domain is funded by Fenton Communications, an eco media group. Further, our tax dollars pay the salaries of people like Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS who has been (according to several post and comment times noted) using his taxpayer paid time at work to participate in that blog.
One of the missions of RC (Actually most of the mission, as it was setup as a response to the McIntyre and McKitrick paper in E&E, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 14 NUMBER 6, November 1st 2003) is to counter skeptical arguments. One of the ways they do this in to provide a list of people they disagree with, with links to rebuttals.
Long before RC went online, we have this 10/31/2003 email from Michael Mann, excerpt:
Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against MM. So I look forward to peoples attempts to revise the first part in particular.
Steve McIntyre started ClimateAudit on 10/26/2004. Here is his very first blog post.
RealClimate.org was registered November 19th, 2004 – see the WHOIS screencap.
Today, while searching for something else, I found myself looking at this list. It reads like a who’s who of climate skeptics, but for one telling and glaring omission…
Here’s the list at RCWiki done as a screencap below and to a PDF file , so that Gavin or Mike or some other team member can’t fix it fast and then claim I “simply didn’t see it”.
Steve McIntyre is missing. Ross McKitrick is missing.
Why?
Because Gavin and Mike and the other Team members know that M&M is right, and they don’t want to draw any attention to it themselves, particularly now. They don’t want RC to have a discussion on the faulty dendro and dubious statistical issues that are fairly presented in peer review by M&M, even though there has been a concerted effort by Team members and associates to stifle publication of dissenting views.
RC and in particular Mann, don’t want to focus on the data, statistical failures, or process, but instead on the “stolen emails” and how they “don’t change the conclusion”. It’s spin cycle science.
A way RC might try to spin this omission would be to say that they don’t consider the argument of M&M valid or prominent, but that won’t fly because they have dismissals listed there of arguments many lesser known skeptics, who have not published a peer reviewed paper, such as Lucy Skywalker. That’s nothing against you Lucy, just an example.
Inarguably, McIntyre and McKitrick are now the two most well known skeptics on the planet, and they are about to become even more well known with a Fox News special tonight.
Yet RC’s world view of Climategate and M&M’s vindication in the emails revealed is to say “it doesn’t matter”, it doesn’t change the conclusions of climate science.” Yeah right, just keep singing that tune.
What Climategate shows more than anything is that the climate science process has been corrupted by a few people with influence, and RC is the centerpiece for showcasing the Team consensus of that corruption.
UPDATE: I made chronology typo in the original posting, fixed within minutes thanks to many commenters who pointed it out. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Something up at Real Climate? I went to their web site and all its says (for me at least) is:
It works!
climateaudit.org as a blog was not started until January 2005 – AFTER realclimate.org.
I had placed posts up at a website. These were transcribed to climateaudit.org with the date of posting at the website preserved. But the blog didn’t start until 2005.
RC is under maintenance apparently.
How did Michael Crichton escape their list? Even though Hollywood wouldn’t touch “State of Fear”, this ongoing e-mail scandal would put “The Insider” (1999) with Russell Crowe to shame. I could imagine the pitch – A global conspiracy replete with villains, billions of dollars at stake, and lies, lies, lies.
As an aside, a few days ago an old friend who’s a professor at UCSF told me Venus’s temperature was proof of an incredible greenhouse effect (he didn’t think about the adiabatic lapse rate) and angrily sent me a link in an e-mail titled “Here, from the reds (or is it greens?) at Wiki.”
Given the Connelly affair, I’m having sooo much fun with that now. 😀
Heck, if 35 W/m^2 at Venus surface, with largely open IR windows from 1 to 2 microns and 6 to 9 microns, can directly produce 900 degrees F, then the sun-room addition at Hardee’s restaurant with twenty times the radiant influx and far better IR blocking should certainly be able to melt titanium. That’s why I don’t sit in it. It’s hard to enjoy a salad when the steel fork melts in your hand.
I notice RC recently had a post lamenting the lack of data and method publication from Scafetta among a couple of others.
I posted congratulating them on their desire for openness and asking when CRU’s station lists would be published.
They deleted my post of course.
John A, I think that you’re recalling an article by Esper who cited Regalado (2005) rather than cite M&M – another instance of strange conduct – by someone not even at CRU.
RC site replaced “It works!” with upgrading so it’s nothing.
Assuming that Mann et. al. are Fentons puppets, i wouldn’t expect them to give up. More money will be flowing, they will get the order to sit out ClimateGate. They’ve been defending crooked science for 10 years, they’ll have the order to perpetuate that. I don’t think reputation is important for a hired hand.
Soros once won billions by speculating against the pound. If he’s behind it, he might this time speculate against the US Dollar; that would be the logical next step.
But maybe i’m only paranoid.
I’m on the list, and tomorrow night I’m hosting a dinner with three list members. Oh frabdous day!
crosspatch (12:49:00) :
Astroturfing is where you create artificial “grass roots” movements (Astroturf is artificial grass)
Interviewer: Which do you prefer, grass or astroturf?
NFL player: I dunno, I never tried to smoke astroturf…
Paul Vaughan:
Perhaps they have a copy of Marty McFly’s almanac from the future?
Or maybe by “successfully predicted” they mean that they succeeded in making a prediction, which admittedly isn’t much of a challenge except perhaps to squirrel monkeys and polar bears.
I would play it safe and predict that the Earth will have a future temperature, whose measurement will continue to stump the thermodynamically impaired.
Well what has happened on the RC website? It seems to be out of commission. All I get is “It works!”
Squidly (12:27:59) :
I compiled a rather lengthy and very comprehensive comment illustrating all of the ties of RC to Fenton, others, and finally Soros.
Any chance of you re-posting that here?
It’s a real pitty that the likes of Anthony, LucySkywalker, M&M etc., should be doing most of the investigative work. Where are all the science journalists? If they did their work there would be no need for so many sceptical blogs, leaked emails / data, accusations, focus on weather cooling / heating events etc.
There is a Pulitzer Prize waiting for any journalist with guts. Bloggers have guts, what about you?
Fascinating documentary from Ch4 17 years ago questioning the validity of the Global Warming scare.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010&hl=en#
I think the best comment on thermageddonists vs skeptics is a line from “The Second Coming” by William Butler Yeats:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Quoting:
DavePrime (11:09:56) :
The MSM should out and out acknowledge that RC is merely the mouthpiece for these fraudsters. In the 90″s (Y2K) we had a name for people preaching the “end of the world as we know it!” We named them “Doomers”.
Doomers is a great name. I have been calling them Gloom and Doomers. I would like to see something catchy, like “The Magnificent Seven”, “The Dirty Dozen”, “Oceans Eleven”, or something. Maybe “The Nasty Nine”, or “Hansen’s Hoods”, or “The Crazy Climate Guys” would sound right.
I think I have too much time on my hands.
I stopped giving RC traffic a long time ago. Never had a comment blocked at WUWT.
My view of Real Climate is simple: any scientist that publishes on that site is either unacceptably naive or morally corrupt since they are acquiesing to a regime of censorship and spin that grossly and disgustingly corrupts proper scientific discourse.
Slightly OT. Every skeptic here should go over to Washington Post and upvote the skeptics’ comments and add your own voice in response to Michael Mann’s shameful editorial. It seems that the AGW fanatics have started a campaign to upvote their own comments. WAPO must not be allowed to get away with giving Michael Mann a bully pulpit to spread his lies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682_Comments.html
Garth Paltridge is also missing. The brief but piercing book by this prominent scientist is essential reading.
Here is the bigger picture, it’s so big no one has seen it…….
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
“This must then mean that they (RC) agree the science is not settled.”
We joke about the warmist catchphrase “It’s worse than we thought”. But it suddenly struck me today that every time one of them says that – or biased media like the BBC endlessly parrot it for them – what they’re actually saying is “Oops, there’s another bit of the science we didn’t actually understand”.
And surely it would be stretching even Mannian statistics for every single error from unsettled science to be one that made things worse? :-/
“Doomers is a great name. I have been calling them Gloom and Doomers. I would like to see something catchy, like “The Magnificent Seven”, “The Dirty Dozen”, “Oceans Eleven”, or something. Maybe “The Nasty Nine”, or “Hansen’s Hoods”, or “The Crazy Climate Guys” would sound right.” – BoB
It’s not mine, but I rather liked “The Motley CRU”… 🙂
The warmers must be so frustrated. Despite the near total (but crumbling) support from the MSM, Copenhagen failed and public opinion in the US and UK at least is turning INCREASINGLY sceptical.
Is it because of the current cold weather?
Is it because of flat global mean temps?
Is it because of blogs lik WUWT?
Is it because of leaked emails & data?
Is it because of propaganda fatigue?
Is it because of all or some of the above?
Keep telling people in the developed countries they are going to die by heat while they struggle to pay their heating bills. Keep telling them about hot temps when they stay at home on their summer holidays only to be drenched by cool rain. Keep overstating your case and ultimatley fatigue sets in. 🙂
I know this is not robust science but neither is Gore, Briffa, RC, CRU, Mann!!