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.
Wake-up call for independent scientists:
No need to stay silent anymore in order to not block anything at Copenhagen.
Where the West with Obama/Merkel/Brown has acted like silly kids.
Prepared the stage for the worst of world’s dictators – and promised them billions of taxpayer’s money.
Now look at the perverted
– peer review process
– look at the Fenton Communication subsidiaries called
– RealClimate.com and
– Wikipedia
– realize how climate criminals have undergone FOIA rules
– look at the data
– and look at the people behind both parties.
Now make a decision finally and declare your independence from the doomers.
Re Clawga (19:48:25) :
“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.”
There are two websites (that I am aware of) that provide repositories for comments rejected at RC and other climate sites. The first is http://www.rcrejects.wordpress.com. The second is http://aicomment.blogspot.com
rcrejects has been operating just under a year, and has accumulated a large number of posts rejected at various sites, but mostly RC. rcrejects does not provide for screenshots, so posters are asked to keep a copy (cut and paste) of their post after it is posted, and if it isn’t posted, put it up at rcrejects.
rcrejects also carries discussion on moderation policies at various blogs. There is a large amount of information there that deserves analysis and summarising at some point. However, it is very evident that RC in particular has (perhaps until recently) followed a draconian moderation policy, rejecting posts that do not support their particular POV. There are very few complaints regarding rejected posts at either CA or WUWT, although there are some examples. At both blogs if posts are seldom (if ever) rejected outright. Instead they are ‘snipped’ and the reason for the snip is usually explained.
An Inconvenient Comment has developed a somewhat different approach, seeking to encourage posters who have had their posts rejected at a particular thread at RC, Climate Progress or other sites, to put their rejected posts up in a thread related to the relevant thread at the particular blogsite.
AIC has been subject of a thread at William Connolley’s Stoat blog in recent days.
rcrejects has noticed some posts relating to rejection at RC in the above thread, and these have already been posted.
[snip] Way off topic. ~dbs, mod.
A telling omission … how about a telling admission.
Try the search email
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.phpengine
Type in “kisses”.
Inarguably, McIntyre and McKitrick are now the two most well known skeptics on the planet
McIntyre skeptic–of what? He says he’s a global warming believer. He is skeptical of the Hockey Stick though.
Another convenient omission is found on the RC Wiki on Joanna Nova. While RC Wiki fails to even attempt to counter Joannas arguments, they are linking the readers to DeSmugBlog 🙂 where a PhD student is attempting to debunk JoNovas analysis of the Vostok ice cores but fails totally. DeSmug-student doesn’t even realize that by mentioning the Vostok ice cores he’s opening the Pandoras box every other alarmist keeps quite about.
Take a look at JoNovas Vostok ice core analysis and the related discussion on the lag between rise of temperature and CO2 (yes in that order!) and be prepared for yet another no-man-made surprise.
RE: ann riley (21:45:21)
RE: crosspatch (00:07:38)
Anyone else want to follow the money?
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
I commented a number of times on Mann’s WaPo article, and it was a hoot–negatives were running at least 10 to 1 against Mann. And supporting posts were pretty lame–full of all sorts of inuendo, liberal talking points, outright lies, and so forth. There were some pretty heavy hitters against Mann–some even recommending that he “lawyer up”. From what I hear, now the trial lawyers that took down Big Tobacco are digging into the treasure trove the whistleblower at East Anglia provided, and securities regulators are looking at the falsification of over 5,000 Wiki articles on AGW and how that has impacted investors’ decisions. These two groups are planning on litigation that will subpoena records and emails that have been kept from valid FOI and FOIA requests for years. I think the fun is just beginning.
More gold from Real Climate… Now Ben Santer is an independant voice….
I note with interest that:-
Lord Haw Haw was an independant voice for the Nazi’s… he was English!!!!
And there are three commentaries by “experts” not associated with Real Climate. Namely:-
Ben Santer
Ben Santer (Again)
Myles Allen
More gold from Real Climate… Now Ben Santer is an independant voice….
There are three commentaries by “experts” not associated with Real Climate. Namely:-
-Ben Santer
-Ben Santer (Again)
-Myles Allen
My Father told me that opinions were like [self snip]…. everybody’s got one… apparently Ben Santer has two…. no wonder so much [self snip] pours from his body!!!!
Sorry for the double (triple) post……
While finding out why climateprogress.org seems to be down at the moment, I discovered a few interesting facts.
Tracing route to climateprogress.org [208.87.104.6]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
13 116 ms 115 ms 235 ms va-rt-1-gi1-0.techprogress.org [208.97.234.35]
14 * * * Request timed out.
Domain ID:D126435662-LROR
Domain Name:TECHPROGRESS.ORG
Created On:27-Jul-2006 19:59:47 UTC
Last Updated On:05-Dec-2009 06:41:39 UTC
Expiration Date:27-Jul-2011 19:59:47 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Registrant ID:CR32267838
Registrant Name:Debbie Fine
Registrant Organization:Center for American Progress
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_American_Progress
Personnel:
Fellows:
* Tom Daschle, former Democratic Senator from South Dakota
* Morton H. Halperin, Halperin is also Executive Director Open Society Policy Center [8]
* Joseph Romm, former acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration, and blogger at climateprogress.org.
http://www.soros.org/grants/research/detail.php?id=181
Center for American Progress
Year Awarded: 2006
Amount Awarded: $3,000,000
Grant Term: 3 yrs.
Program: US Programs
Purpose: To provide general support.
So… Joe Romm is in the pay of Big Soros. Three million dollars eh? Not bad
I wonder if George will be renewing the grant this Christmas and filling Joe’s stocking again. From the lack of service at his website at the moment, it looks like he needs a few coins for the meter 🙂
Marcellus: “Something was rotten in the state of Denmark”.
Horatio: “Steven did correct it”.
photon without a Higgs (03:17:14) :
McIntyre skeptic–of what? He says he’s a global warming believer
I saw the show and it really surprised me. He said he was not sure if there was warming or not!. Perhaps he is tired of battling against such a powerful enemy.
Mapou (14:19:33) :
Tried to comment on the Washington Post editorial by Mann, but comments were closed. There were over 650, and he took quite a drubbing.
How much other science at our Universities funded by Federal Tax Dollars is as corrupted and awash with BullShit as this?
All of it? Just a little? Is it ok to assume that all of it is, outside of the hard engineering stuff?
Maybe just the obviously political stuff, perhaps…
photon without a Higgs (03:17:14) :
“Inarguably, McIntyre and McKitrick are now the two most well known skeptics on the planet”
McIntyre skeptic–of what? He says he’s a global warming believer. He is skeptical of the Hockey Stick though.
He’s a scientist in the truest sense, and thus skeptical by definition. As far as believing in global warming, I found this from the Ottawa Citizen:
“While McKitrick said he’s dubious about the threat of climate change, and thinks his research has helped cast doubt on such fears, McIntyre — despite the demonization of him by his opponents — said he really doesn’t know what to think.
“I honestly don’t know whether it is a big problem, a little problem or a medium problem. And I don’t think the skeptics have proven that global warming is not a problem.””
He’s definitely a believer in Mann-made warming, though.
How pathetic.
162.James MacDonald asks, “Why is it so hard to find a terse, cogent explanation of the CRU controversy?”
Because providing context for anything takes more time and space than taking it out of context and constructing a lie in which to embed it. Because people would rather believe what they want to believe than confront reality. Put another way: Reality is more complicated and often more disturbing than bedtime stories.
Comment by Ray Ladbury — 21 December 2009 @ur momisugly 9:07 AM
Reminder
Ray works for NASA GISS
Bob:
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.
Me, too: East Anglia Jones and the temple of Doomers
I agree with McIntyre in that we can’t tell if there is any unusual warming or not. Places like GISS and NOAA and CRU have so messed up the records with their “adjustments” we have no idea what is really going on.
Is anyone else finding the antics of the fraudsters getting funny?
The fraudsters have burned through somewhere around $30 billion in grant money the last 30 odd years trying to prove their hoax. Your tax dollars at work.
I see what was done to peer review the most despicable of deeds.
The Truth about RealClimate.org
royfomr (17:57:34) :
I agree that RC is not such a warmist site as it helps turn a lot of people towards being a sceptic. My position as a sceptic was helpfully created by both RC and Tamino’s “Open Mind”, which I find to be quite a strange name for the blog when you consider the contributing comments and Tamino’s comments.
Those people at RC have not face for assuring that skeptics are wrong; not after climategate and Hudleygate. AGW idea is pseudoscience.