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.
Correction:
Is it because of blogs lik[e] WUWT?
This is how RC misleads their readers.
RC moderator Eric Steig, “There’s a simple reason none of the skeptical blogs have taken issue with what we did: they know we’re right.”
By RC modertor Eric Steig, Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2351
[Response: I’m not “trying to prove” anything. I’m showing people how to take a look at the data for themselves and make an assessment about whether CRU is full of cheaters or the deniers are full of it. And CRU doesn’t need to do anything, since any fool can do the analysis we did. There’s a simple reason none of the skeptical blogs have taken issue with what we did: they know we’re right. Indeed, the fact they are ignoring it tells you something, doesn’t it? I thought this post would actually be the end of the discussion, but evidently, I was naive.–eric]
Mapou (14:19:33) :
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
You can vote as many times as you want if you delete your cookies and do a screen refresh after each time you vote. Just sayin ….
I’m guessing the explanation as to why M&M aren’t there is because they are “not climate scientists.”
“You can vote as many times as you want if you delete your cookies and do a screen refresh after each time you vote.”
That sounds like the kind of “voting” the other side engages in. No thanks.
That’s quite funny.
As Steve has often commented, ‘The Team’ are so terrified of him that they dare not mention his name.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6958 entry on Fenton Communications includes the following:
Fenton Communications (FC) is the leading advertising and public relations firm for advocacy groups on the political left
Among the clients and projects that FC has worked for are Marxist-Leninist regimes in Central America and Africa, environmental groups, labor unions, and anti-war organizations.
Throughout the 1980s, FC represented a number of Marxist governments and their supporters. Most prominent among these was the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, which the firm defended against foreign criticism while casting its internal opponents — the Contra guerrillas — as “death squads.” David Fenton acknowledged earning $100,000 annually for three years from contracts with Sandinista authorities.
FC also conducted publicity campaigns on behalf of Grenada’s Marxist dictator Maurice Bishop and El Salvador’s Marxist-Leninist guerrilla organization, the FMLN.
there’s more too.
Hey i got it! Remember Gordon “The science is settled… Flat-earthers” Gordon Brown? Soros must have threatened him: “Remember, i sank England once, i can do it again.” He must be on Soros’ payroll – that’s why he looked so distressed at COP15!
This also explains why the boss of an already-broke country promotes handouts to even poorer countries. I didn’t understand that but now it all makes sense. This might also explain the major data-fudging at CRU – probably an order from the boss.
[snip] Polite comments are welcome. That one was not.
Who pays the rent on the office space where the RC computer that Gavin uses is housed? Isn’t it in the same building as GISS (the Jerry Seinfeld restaurant building)? If it’s in the GISS offices, isn’t that a no-no?
Mark_K
Except Mann can prove what he said. Can you prove your bile?
genezeien (13:03:35) :
Visited your website. If you do indeed know what you are doing – Wow, JBW Wow!! Now if someone else can take the same data and, you know, as they do in real science, replicate your results it could be the end of Global Warming as we know it!!
Should have been “replicate (and validate) your results”
bloomberg has a very lengthy article, basically pushing for cap’n’tax…a MUST-READ:
Carbon Capitalists
Wall Street wants a leading role in the new carbon-trading market being designed in Washington. First, executives like JPMorgan’s Blythe Masters must convince skeptics this isn’t just a new trillion-dollar gamble on derivatives.
http://bloomberg.com/news/marketsmag/mm_0110_story1.html
I just noticed that Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark are also missing?
Regards Kristin
The Pielke’s are missing too.
How is it I’m persona non grata at RC, Tamino, and Dot Earth, but my name is nowhere on their list?
They’re making a list,
checking it twice,
If you’re a skeptic,
you better think twice,
RC claws are coming for you!
They’ll sleaze you on the Wiki,
whatever it may take,
Doesn’t matter if you’ve bad or good,
the scandle will be fake,
So you better watch out,
better not cry,
better not pout,
I’m telling you why,
RC Claws are coming for you!
No he can’t, he just uses circular reasoning:
I am correct because I am correct so therefore I must be correct. Q.E.D.
Now you prove that proxies are correct…
So when will Gavin Schmidt be testifying under oath before Senate?
I may have been directly affected by the activities of the pro global warming crowd. In the late 1990s I was interested in getting the daily temperatures from a chosen site from each of the 50 States in the US. My research had nothing to do with climate change. I found all the data I needed at NOAA and downloaded all I wanted, some going back to the late 19th century, if I remember correctly. A year or two later I wanted to update the data but I was no longer able to access the raw data, it was not there. My guess is that by that stage the climate guys had decided to restrict access so nobody could check with the raw data. Any body know for sure?
Prove what shadow step, that Mann is a fraud? That was done convincingly when Mann’s theories took a figurative hockey stick up the side a da’ head. Or maybe you’d like to talk about the way he’s been flipping data series upside down. (the notorious negative correlation is still positive claim) Or just leave that for the investigative board.
Now as to proving who’s behind your sockpuppet, not enough evidence yet, but the personal insult you feel due to this thread is interesting.
Steve Oregon (14:40:56) :
Thankyou for mentioning the post on RealClimate on the 15th Dec, about which Eric Steig boasted:
“There’s a simple reason none of the skeptical blogs have taken issue with what we did: they know we’re right. Indeed, the fact they are ignoring it tells you something, doesn’t it?”
Well I’ll take issue:
The post took 65 stations at random and compared the raw version of the data from these stations, against the adjusted version, and they found little difference.
Well here’s a clue as to why that was. When choosing the stations the criteria were:
“the length of record should be ~100 years or longer, and the standard reference period 1961–1990 (used to calculate SAT anomalies) must contain no more than 4 missing values.”
No wonder the raw data for the 65 stations chosen were the same as the adjusted data. It’s the stations WITHOUT ‘perfect’ records that are subject to more ‘creative’ adjustments that the whole issue of homogenization techniques is about.
left off the M list too
Mother Nature
I find it very revealing that Bjorn Lomborg is on the list.
He will tell you he is NOT a skeptic. He accepts the IPCC conclusions. The only thing he objects to is the One World solution, which he calculates does not stand up to a cost/benefit analysis.
His inclusion on the list implies that they are more about the politics than about the science.
I find it weird that the moon units who wanted to push the CAGW view called the site Real Climate, when what they push is more like science fiction than fact.
With the Climategate cat out of the bag and the last chance saloon Copenhagen conference a flop, the whole of the PR machine will start to wind down. There are signs of this happening already, as even the MSM start to query what’s going on.
I think that’s why the IPCC cabal hid data and tried to stop debate – they knew that the hypothesis was wrong and that the coming cold period would expose the truth.
By the way, I don’t believe for one minute that the raw data compares with the cooked version.
What I know for sure is that this is not so for the US Historical Climate Network USHCN). Averaging all their 1221 stations, equally weighted, the raw data shows a 0.14C increase to 2006. The adjusted data shows a 0.59C increase.
Same sort of deal appears to apply to NZ and Australia (and throw in the Russian cherrypick).
So unless the story is different over the rest of the world, the adjusted data will turn out to show a significantly greater warming trend than the raw data.