A telling omission by Real Climate

What? I’m not on the list! Where do I apply. lol.

I posted on RealClimate when Gavin was expounding on the precautionary principle. I said that there can be occasions when you may have what you deem as knowledge but it is best not to act. I gave the Bush administration’s rationale for WMDs in Iraq justifying a ‘preemptive strike’, its juvenile and puerile justification of torture yielding life-saving intelligence, as examples. My post was deleted.
Ironically, warmist comments using similar examples to derive the very opposite conclusions were allowed.
To the constant stream of self-unaware commenters who kept thanking Gavin for such hard work and tireless effort on his part disseminating climate truisms and fending off the hordes, I posted that they pause a moment to thank the person who leaked the emails and data thereby giving Gavin et al the very opportunity to expend his energies. Post deleted. Not once but twice.
To requests of data from Scafetta and West, I posted that asking data from other scientists when your own clique has stonewalled and refused data to polite requests over years smacks of outright hypocrisy. Have they ever asked data from skeptics before? Post deleted.
Ray Ladbury (Bradley?) and Gavin Schmidt will shout down, and indulge in casual smearing of anyone who accidentally wanders into RealClimate. They are past masters at this game – they play the same game with their scientific peers, with their journalist friends and common laymen.

RC is a comedy of errors. I hope they keep it up a while longer to prove to the world how foolish they look.

Gavin Schmidt is such a dunce to think he can really hide them.

Anand, at the rate this scandal is unfolding we’ll get to see how well they play it with federal prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges – wink wink.
Perhaps abusing the ability to control all aspects of debate on their blog is what gave them the idea that they could control all the data generated by mother nature and collected at taxpayer’s expense.
My take on the situation, quite common judging from comments, is that if the data actually supported their case then they wouldn’t spend so much time committing fraud to change it or violating the law to delete it, kind of like asserting your innocence to the public the day after your estranged ex-wife disappeared and you’ve been caught wiping down the inside of the trunk of your car with bleach. Nobody buys it.
As Hamlet said:
To cheat, or not to cheat, – that is the question: –
Whether ‘tis easier in science to create
The graphs and charts by manipulation,
and make fake warming from all too flat data,
So by amending trend it? – To lie, to cheat, –
What’s more, and by a cheat to say we use
A trick, aye, and the thousand clever tweaks
Our code is there for, – toward a conclusion
Devoutly to be wish’d. To lie, to cheat; –
To cheat, perchance to scheme: – ay, there’s the rub;
For from those peaking temps what schemes may come,
When we have shuffled all this data just
To serve a cause: Raise the prospect
That makes calamity of a long life,
For who would bear the higher temps in time,
The oppressive heat, the planet’s undoing?
Harangues our global gov: “this end – delay!”
Doth not the British Met office daily warn
This gradient cannot be sustained?
So what man would speak bare truths
When he himself might the planet save
With naked fibbing? Who would these taxes bear,
To grunt and sweat under onerous rates,
But that the dread of planetary death,
The predicted future, for whose doom
No taxpayer yearns, – will foot the bill,
And makes us rather feed the till this day
Than wait for the costs that we know naught of?
Thus the science does make patsies of us all;
And thus the native dose of common sense
Is shouted o’er with the pretense of science;
And many countries of great wealth and fortune
Will then collapse, their currencies awry,
And lose the name of nations. But e-mails
Our plot hath exposed! Now, in editorials
Be all our sins considered.
Well, it didn’t actually say that in the folios, but I applied a standard statistical model well accepted in the peer-reviewed Shakespeare literature to adjust for transcription errors, creating a more accurate and meaningful quote from the raw passage, which I unfortunately deleted when I moved from the halfway house to my double-wide because my trailer didn’t have enough room to store it. Nevertheless, it’s quite clear even in the small fragments of the raw play that are still available that Hamlet was a play about climate change, such as:
Claudius: How is it that the clouds still hang on you?
Hamlet: Not so my lord; I am too much i’ the sun
This exchange serves as a proxy for most of Act I, and extrapolating from this one example it’s easy to infer the trend the rest of the play takes.
To sum up, you know something is wrong when literary criticism seems like a hard science compared to thermodynamics.

My two cents for what it is worth:
I have asked a few questions on Realclimate – and got some answers – probably for some fairly dumb and/or annoying questions from an expert’s perspective. I have asked questions on another AGW-type site and seen some pretty rude and unhelpful answers. On Realclimate I got answers outside normal US working hours – so I don’t think that the tax payer is necessarily funding the operation to any great extent.
I have just been trying to find out the facts since climategate broke (as I suspect have very many people). I have to say that the best and most straightforward information that I have seen is on CA and WUWT. That doesn’t mean that AGW doesn’t exist. It is just my observation that if I want to find a reasonable review of e.g. what models tell us about climate, what a ‘trick’ in climate science is, etc. I find it on CA or WUWT, and not on AGW-type sites or by asking questions on those sites.
The information on the AGW-type sites is way too jargon filled, defensive, and hard to follow. It seems that various terms have been redefined, e.g. in climate science model doesn’t necessarily mean something that can make predictions(?!), (and if you ask about that you are not treated gently!).
The information on CA and WUWT is very much more open and logical. There is generally a spirit of – if you can make the logic or conclusions better – go ahead and tell us – we’re trying to find out what is really happening.
So – I would agree with the sentiment that obfuscation and attacking people doesn’t work in this field. Focusing on information and information analysis is the way to go.
Now – I am off to watch Fox (not my favorite channel) to see if I can see Steve M.

Nice, Explaining the Hockey stick origins and nice graphics.

Steve Oregon (17:09:11) :
To Ray Bradbury (If he’s reading):
Criticism is the mirror in which we see everything but ourselves

Just ignore Real Climate. To give them any serious attention at all is to give them a legitimacy that they don’t deserve.
At this point, Gavin Schmidt is as tainted by Climategate as Mann, Jones, Wigley, et al. And his actions at RC simply mirror the unprofessional, tribal behavior we’ve seen displayed in the CRU e-mails. If people want to get angry, they should be examining why a government employee like Schmidt is doing any kind of blogging on work time (what government charge code are you using for RC, Gavin?)…of course, does anyone think alerting his boss would do any good?

Five cold things …

The second largest snowfall… since RECORDS began in 1884.
And I though the snowfall in Copenhagen was significant.

You should see what is happening in Northern France. Due to heavy snow there is a buildup of snow on the undersides of the trains. When the trains enter the “Chunnel”, the snow begins to melt, the water seeps into electronic compartments and disables the trains. Trains are due to be idle another day while more snow is forecast. Mind you, all of this is with only 4 inches of snow so far but more is forecast.

The Fox Channel Story on Global Warming was very balanced. They let everyone talk and didn’t cut anyone off like other networks have done. M&M were very impressive in their explanations and in their mien. Lomborg was also measured and gave many people plenty to think about. Wow we need more mainstream reporting exactly like that. Nice to see some light shined on the dark recesses of the incestuous CAGW community.

Notice they also omit Idso from the list.
Some folks are just too hot to handle. For all those above wondering how to get onto the list, just think — maybe you’ve already done better: You’ve been “excluded”!
I notice RC tends not to link to skeptics sites, even cautions in comments against doing so too liberally. They sure don’t like to debate openly or let their audience see unspun versions of skeptical arguments. I occasionally visit over there, but don’t have the stomach for much of it. What an echo chamber! The best spin money can buy.