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
“U.S.-Brokered Climate Deal May Give Obama More Sway in Senate “:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBhU1n5q217g&pos=8
“I find his views on nuclear power very interesting. He is not opposed to it, he claims, but he then lists all the reasons not to have it, including not allowing those who ‘we do not think should have it’ access to nuclear weapons technology.”
There’s no such problem with sodium/thorium reactors, enthusiastically described in the just-out issue of Wired.
When I find a follower in a comment log, rather than ignore realclimate I choose to use the term realclimate/CRU whenever either realclimate or CRU could be used. Since I believe that any data from realclimate/CRU that was provided or used after 1986 was maliciously corrupted then any papers that refer to that data directly or indirectly are worthless and amount to no more then a misinformed opinion.
I stay out of the canned talking notes provided by realclimate/CRU for their followers, they seem to get confused and run back to the hive for reprogramming. When they come back with a talking note it is nice to be able to post the URL to the talking note and ask them if they are able to think for themselves, then I pity them.
Some people are just meant to be followers.
Since the topic is omission and there have been several posts detailing how the commenter’s post at RC were deleted (omitted?), then perhaps a thread containing screenshots of these deleted posts would provided information (and some entertainment) of how RC wants to control (spin) their message.
It would seem to me that such a thread would provide a record (dataset?) that could show bias – something I think shouldn’t be present when funded by taxpayers.
Lastly – Frankly I’m getting tired of being called a “loonie” because I don’t have faith in their religion – I prefer infidel
P Wilson (18:25:02)
thats what naughty little schoolboys do. Let them prove themselves better!
American Thinker has John Christy and David Douglass’ chronology of how the Team conspired and/or contributed to delay the publication of their paper all the while they were writing another paper as a rebuttal, which they ensured appeared in parallel. After having obtained the text of the Douglass et al paper through ‘private channels’.
The exact same mentality and operational shenanigans that RealClimate runs on are on display.
See here http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html
In the end I am only grateful for RC – for having opened my eyes to the current state of affairs in the AGW situation.
As we post RC pulls more of their stunts.
Up thread – here -Steve Oregon (12:31:10) :
I described RC methods
Later I checked RC by attempting a post on their new open thead.
It was approved.
I suggested that “RC engages fully and openly the topics and discussions at WUWT because with millions of visits per month WUWT is the premiere site for climate discussion with no exclusions for opposing viewpoints.
RC regular Ray did not take kindly to my suggestion. I posted his nasty comment upthread here-Steve Oregon (17:09:11) :
Since then, I responded to Ray’s disparaging of WUWT by suggesting he simply address some substance at WUWT.
In that attempted RC post, I decided to provide Ray and RC with some WUWT substance to address.
I used the “Historical video perspective: our current “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale”
It’s an exceptional demonstration.
I saved these two attempted posts (below) which sat there for while awaiting moderation before being removed.
Ray’s nasty remarks remain of course.
This proves again that opposing substance is prohibited at RC.
Removed at RC
Howard S. says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
20 December 2009 at 8:05 PM
To 79. Ray Ladbury — 20 December 2009 @ur momisugly 6:34 PM
You think I’m funny?
I’ve followed RC for along time and you’re by far the funniest.
Your caustic behavior is surpassed only by your affection for the comfort zone here.
It’s easy for you to take pot shots here without addressing the substance because so little is allowed to appear. Never mind those you despise at WUWT.
Take one item and respond.
Here’s some good displaying the historical perspective and earth’s global temperature.
You can pretend “worthwhile discussions” only happen here only as long as the discussion is crafted.
Easy graphs to read and easy to grasp the missing temperature trend you’re so alarmed
over.http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
Howard S. says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
20 December 2009 at 9:12 PM
This is actually an easier way to see, understand and then hopefully respond to the Hockey Stick over time graphs.
I wonder if when conversing amongst themselves at RC do they literally refer to the two M&Ms as … ” they who must not be named “… in hushed tones.
And when the accidentally do speak their names, do they throw salt over their left shoulder…
George Turner (17:58:59) :
Thanks – Marvellous post.
Oh, I’m sure they do. How can they even claim to be a distorted side branch of science when they’re paranoid to the point of superstition about the dangerous, quasi-mystical powers of those who can actually do math as opposed to invoking it in a data-smearing incantation?
Even incredibly stupid people can imagine themselves to be a select priesthood.
Graeme From Melbourne (20:13:49) : Wrote
“I wonder if when conversing amongst themselves at RC do they literally refer to the two M&Ms as … ” they who must not be named “… in hushed tones.
And when the accidentally do speak their names, do they throw salt over their left shoulder…”
That’s exactly what I noticed that I was going to write about. I already knew everything they explained to me in the special report except for that.
Did those creepy climate scientist walk around the cubicals in their offices and refer to McKitrick & McIntyre as M&M as a joke often?
Apparently so.
Back in 2007 I went to the web to try and get anwers on the global warming debate. My initial search enquiry led me to Real Climate. The slogan “Climate Sceince from Climate Scientists” had me thinking this is the site I’m after, no politics, great. After five minutes I realised the site was highly biased and I gave up in disgust. It wasn’t till in 2008 I heard about someone who has set up “Climate debate daily” and from that day on I have become quite addicted to the debates and information available on the web about climate change.
Paul Vaughan (12:24:21) :
“Inspired by this article, I just went over to RC, clicked on the first link that caught my interest and found this:
“Skeptic Argument”: “Models are unreliable”
“What the Science Says”: “While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have successfully predicted future climate change.” (my emphasis)
I think everyone here will agree with me when I say: [snip]?”
Indeed [snip], Paul! It is indeed baffling.
What an outrageous and JUVENILE jump in logic.
How ******* stupid do they [RC] think the people who are reading this, really are??
Or are we giving them too much credit??
I think, maybe….we are.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
DirkH (16:17:09) :
‘And BTW, why not call the Team “Team Fenton” from now on ? ;-)’
I would call them “Fenton puppets”. Scientist who sold their souls for a piece of gold.
Sorry….I was just going on the *** acronymn because it had been previously published above….and thus previously screened by a moderator and ALLOWED…in Paul’s post.
Now I see Paul’s has been sanitized, too.
That is a little legalistic, and Newspeak for my tastes.
Regardless….for those of you who wonder what the [snip] was for, suffice it to say it id the 1950s June Cleaver equivalent of:
WITW “What In The World!”
or
LSHCTB “Land Sakes, How Could This Be!”
Please stop being so legalistic here, mods. This site is a goldmine and has an edge to it, and there is no reason you should take the testosterone out of the content of the post just because there is a little edge to the acronyms.
Former Big Brother John Ashcroft is not monitoring the words of your site.
Or is he????
LOL (that translates to Laugh Out Loud)
But I can’t say LMAO as everyone knows what that means and it might indicate something of “baser” taste [whatever that is].
The Puritan Ethic still haunts our souls here in the good ole’ US of A!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I wish someone would pull together a “follow the money” article. There’s a WND article on Pachauri at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118659, showing how he is heavily tied to carbon trading companies. We’ve heard before about Gore’s carbon trading ties. Add to that this business about Tides, Fenton, the EPA, perhaps Soros. It would be very interesting to see how many of the people involved had hopes for big monetary returns.
George Turner (17:02:12) :
🙂 thanks for the laugh
worth a repeat:
I think Shakespeare put it best when 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 a bare 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, maybe Hamlet didn’t exactly phrase it that way, but I adjusted the text to account for errors in the original folios, applying standard statistical techniques well-established in peer-reviewed Shakespeare journals.
I would suggest to initiate a leniency program to support those scientists with little dirt on their fingers and who seek a way out of this morass.
Whenever you hear a discussion of the global temperature pronouncements from GISS, CRU, NASA, NOAA, etc., you might want this reference at hand:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
This is the key word searchable database for the leaked East Anglia CRU e-mails.
OT. You’ll probably need the link when you call up “climate change” or global
warming on Wikipedia too.
George Turner (17:02:12) :
Brilliant! A truly wonderful adaptation …
I can’t wait for the movie and the musical …
“I wish someone would pull together a “follow the money” article. ”
I wish someone would investigate grants that agencies such as EPA makes. Maybe a FOIA request to find out exactly who they have granted money to, were any of those funds earmarked, what were they earmarked for. I would also want to see legislation that prevent donations to groups that are politically active. Science is fine, donations to partisan organizations is not.
Hello Anthony
cover story about global warming today in C&EN (quite long). You are in it, just before rebuttal by Mann (a geophysicist? I thought he was climatologist…), and picture of Orland, calif. station and Marysville, calif., as example of good and bad sites for measurements.
ho! I forgot to mention why I posted the previous message here: I didn’t see any mention of Steve nor Ross!
but I have to admit, I didn’t read in details yet, just used the “search function” after reading about half. It is not always reliable method….
Hamlet finds a powerful lease of life from the pen of the Dane, Saxo Grammaticus, the original story that Shakespeare used. Very telling parallels.
Maybe you should have a post on here ‘Comments Rejected by Real Climate’ and allow people to repost their comments in your comment section.
re: enough (11:18:05)
I see William Connolley gets on the list twice.
Brings to mind the bit from ‘Blazing Saddles’ where evil Hedley Lamarr is also recruiting desperadoes –
Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
Applicant: I like rape.