Gavin's borehole logic

Realclimate censorship by Ecotretas

Realclimate.org is notoriously known for censoring comments. Examples are everywhere on the Internet, and in a couple of minutes you get a handful of them: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5). I knew this when I went there today, for the “Is Sea-Level Rise Accelerating?” post.

I bet they know that the sea level rise rate is going down, and fast. But that’s not what you get when you read the article. And they don’t want their readers to know. So I kept the printscreen, because I was pretty certain I would be censored. I was. But as can be seen below, the message is of no harm, except for the Global Warming religious priests, and one more clear example of “hiding the decline”:

Now, what is more surprising is that you can track the amount of comment rejection at RC. My comment has id 210412; when I did this post, these were the ids available in the top right, in the Recent Comments section:

  • 210407
  • 210411
  • 210414
  • 210415
  • 210417
  • 210418
  • 210421
  • 210422
  • 210423
  • 210424

I was not alone in the rejection! Almost half of the comments are censored! But hey, I did manage to get to the bore hole, where not all of the censored comments are allowed to go!

Advertisements

103 thoughts on “Gavin's borehole logic

  1. I gave up on them a while ago.
    It is a sad sight when you have SCIENTISTS at that place.Being so scared of a different viewpoint.
    I have no trouble allowing John Cook post at my forum.I am GLAD he posted there because he make it easy for me and others to make a direct reply to what he wrote.
    Gavin and his camp are not driven to know what is really going on in the real world.It is hard to know when he keeps his nose to the Modelling grindstone.

  2. Congratulations on making it to the bore hole!
    It is an interesting balancing act for Gavin. Censoring comments surely does little to convince those that post – but allowing those questions to appear would equally surely disturb the faithful flock. I wonder if Gavin employs a robust climatological principle component model to determine the AGW enhancing benefit of incoming questions or comments, prior to deleting them?
    Additionally, I suspect that the real climate rejection:acceptance ratio versus time trend would provide an interesting indicator of declining respectability of climate ‘science’.
    Possibly it would be forensically possible to determine this trend by examining real climate comment numbers….(I predict that Gavin may be updating the site shortly!).

  3. that’s our tax dollars at work…I wonder how much is a one way ticket back to London these days ?

  4. Hmph…. children at RC. When I first got interested in the CAGW topic, it took only 2-3 visits to RC to see what was going on, and I just really wasn’t looking for the “totally High School” experience. I have better things to do with my time (and I just wasted a few more minutes of it by bothering to discuss my experience there. It won’t happen again).

  5. I was banned from commenting at RealClimate unless I changed my nom-de-plume. Perhaps all the bigots in the hockey team are thin.

  6. I’m not worried about rising sea levels, since I can’t tell if the sea has risen or fallen by looking at it.
    I am worried about people who never look.
    My buddy once said “It’s not the people who don’t know that bothers me, it’s them that don’t suspect”.
    I have yet to see a before/after pic that didn’t show no change over >50 years.
    And, worst of all, after 50 years of observing the stars, I haven’t seen a UFO. I never get to have any fun, gee whiz.

  7. Jeff Alberts says:
    July 12, 2011 at 6:48 pm
    > The missing comments could be spam, so you really can’t go by missing numbers.
    The .png screen shot includes a note about having reactivated the ReCaptcha plug in, so that will keep a lot of spam away.

  8. Posted once at real climate and was rejected. I was respectful to the good doctor only disagreed with his conclusion. was rejected and saw no point to return to the site. No questions no learning, no learning wasted time and money.
    Bill Derryberry

  9. “I bet they know that the sea level rise rate is going down, and fast”
    Just how do you define fast? From what I’ve seen so far the sea level rise seems to be leveling off. (pardon the pun there) Looking back decades, I can’t see much much of a decrease at all, just a stagnation to the significant increase from earlier.

  10. Since it’s on the governments dime, can you go all FOIA on him for the rejection numbers? ;P

  11. In my experience, RC is far and away the best site to push people towards the skeptical view. Busy people often don’t have time to analyse sites like CA and WUWT in great detail, so when they’re new to the subject they often take a quick look but aren’t completely persuaded because they’ve heard so much about cherry-picking, etc. A few minutes with RC, though, and they generally realise RC’re shysters of some kind just from the tone and behaviour.

  12. Oh, and in regard to the missing comments: without seeing their back-end code, I wouldn’t draw any conclusions. There could be all kinds of reasons for the ‘missing’ comments – perhaps to do with the code, perhaps because it creates a new id if someone starts a comment but doesn’t post it, perhaps spam.
    Surely there are better things to focus on.

  13. I would suggest using sardonic comments (sar·don·ic/särˈdänik/
    Adjective: Grimly mocking or cynical. More »
    Dictionary.com – Answers.com – Merriam-Webster – The Free Dictionary) comments vailed in double entendre spread over several commnets separated in time and name… THat should drive the censors crazy.

  14. I too have been censored for non offensive valid questions at realclimate, that site is a sad joke.

  15. Jeff Alberts says:
    July 12, 2011 at 6:48 pm
    > The missing comments could be spam, so you really can’t go by missing numbers.

    I have tried posting at RC a few times. Not one comment has made it past moderation.
    But it is possible that RC does get more spam than average, and that the deletion of comments is a mistake.

  16. Wucash says:
    July 12, 2011 at 7:56 pm
    “I bet they know that the sea level rise rate is going down, and fast”
    “Just how do you define fast? From what I’ve seen so far the sea level rise seems to be leveling off. (pardon the pun there) Looking back decades, I can’t see much much of a decrease at all, just a stagnation to the significant increase from earlier.”
    how do you define a significant increase?

  17. Gavin reminds me of a certain sort of psycho-therapist that came into fashion in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. They liked the position of being a wise guru, and having a cult-like following of clients who paid quite a lot to hear their wisdom. They were very down on any client who dared suggest they might be mistaken. Such clients were accused of all sorts of things, in fluant psycho-babble, if they dared suggest the guru was not perfect. Eventually these psycho-gurus were called “shrinks,” because they did the opposite of expanding consciousness.
    Gavin is on the path to being called far worse.

  18. Wucash says:
    [Ecotretas] I bet they know that the sea level rise rate is going down, and fast
    [Wucash] Just how do you define fast? From what I’ve seen so far the sea level rise seems to be leveling off. (pardon the pun there) Looking back decades, I can’t see much much of a decrease at all, just a stagnation to the significant increase from earlier.
    You’re confusing “sea level rise rate” with “sea level.”

  19. Well… I must be special then. Submitted a similar comment to Ecotretas’s posted comment and reference the same webpage AND it got accepted AND Gavin favoured me with a response.
    Beat that!
    ========================================================
    So why have sea levels been going down the last few years?
    http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/05/rate-of-sea-level-rise-going-down.html
    [Response: See above. You can cling to La Niña-related dips if it makes you feel better, but the long term trend is up. – gavin]
    Comment by JimA — 12 Jul 2011 @ 9:25 PM

  20. RC has not only removed and blocked posts, Gavin has doctored posts and discussions to make them bend his way. On one occasion he removed part of my post, changed the emphasis and meaning then blocked any rebutal. His regulars then assumed I had ran away in defeat and Gavin let them continue commenting while claiming I had left in defeat.
    & Ray Ladbury is probably the worst kind of alarmist posting anywhere.

  21. I, like others, first got interested in the CAGW and looked around the internet for information.
    Visited sites like RC, OpenMind, and Eli Rabbet’s site.
    Several things chased me away:
    The replies when I asked simple questions (“read the papers”, “we’re not going to do your homework for you”, etc).
    The censoring of posts that, according to their moderators, were not appropriate to the discussion.
    And a constant tearing down of ClimateAudit and WUWT. Made me wonder – if these sites get under their skin so much, what are they saying?

  22. After a year of trying to engage the CAGW folks on their own sites I have done more harm than good.
    Sites like Joe Romm’s “Climate Progress” apply total censorship so there never was a possibility of any kind of debate.
    Sites like Tim Lambert’s “Deltoid” allow dissenting comments but expect the faithful to heap scorn and derision on dissenters. That gets old in a hurry.
    In contrast, John Cook’s “Skeptical Science” and Barry Brook’s “Brave New Climate” allowed an open exchange of views while discouraging ad hominem attacks. For a while dissenters like me were well treated but as time went on things gradually deteriorated. I suspect that our arguments were causing discomfort to frequenters of those sites whose belief in “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” is based more on faith than on reason.
    “Skeptical Science” began implementing a heavy handed “Moderation” policy in March 2011 and “Brave New Climate” followed suit in July. It will be interesting to see how that works out for them.
    In contrast, I notice that blogs challenging the “Consensus” view on climate change are generally quite tolerant even to trolls from the other side. I think that says a great deal about who is going to prevail in the climate debate.

  23. OMG!!! I’d like to report a rise of almost 2 feet overnight!! Oh wait it’s going back down now…

  24. My comments which I attempted to post on Real Climate all of which were specifically on topic to the thread in question – Including but not limited to observational evidence and analysis that predicted solar cycle 24 was a Dalton or Maunder minimum, Tinsley’s analysis and data that shows solar wind bursts modulate planetary cloud cover via the mechanism electroscavenging, data and analysis that shows there is correlation of 20th century temperature changes and solar wind bursts, data and analysis that shows there is correlation of changes in planetary cloud cover with 20th century temperature changes presented in a series of papers by Enric Palle, paleoclimate analysis showing correlation of cosmogenic isotopes and planetary temperature in a series of papers by Shiva and Gerald Bond and Svensmark, deep paleoclimatic analysis showing correlation of large changes in GCR caused as the solar system moved through the spiral arms of the Milky Way and the Ice Epochs including this one by Shiva, Svensmark’s observational data and analysis that explained the polar see-saw and the long term cyclic planetary climate changes in terms of a detailed mechanism and so on – with links to the specific papers and with quotes from the linked paper that specifically supported the statement I made were deleted.
    When I persisted, I has finally kindly sent a note that I was banned from Real Climate as my comments and the papers and observational data I linked to were “Off Message”.
    The difference between Science and propaganda is the observational data and analysis that does not support a theory is discussed and is interesting. There is no special “Message theory” in science that necessitates manipulation of data and banning of scientific discussion. Scientific theories or hypotheses that are incorrect are rejected. That is the scientific process.

  25. Perhaps you could have a page here (or someone have one, somewhere) where people can post their censored RC posts, and see how far the borehole really goes..

  26. I remember the first, ( and one of the few) times I wasted bandwidth going to RC.
    It was just after Climategate occured, and RC instantly let loose with a strawman argument that directed blame towards the hackers, while ignoring the damning evidence itself. ( Apparently its ok to dodge and delete FOI requests, and hide abnormalities in your work, but when someone brings said shenanigans to public attention, they’re the bad ones.)
    RC decided to take the ” We’re not sorry we screwed up, we’re sorry we got caught” routine.
    Remind me of the old Scooby Doo cartoons, I can just picture Gavin and co. saying ” And I would have got away with it if it weren’t for you meddiling kids…”

  27. Not to single out @wucash but articles and commenters frequently confuse absolute change in sea level with of acceleration.
    Disastrous scenarios rely on a significant acceleration. This is not evident.

  28. I know it’s important to try and discuss the science – but honestly, why do any of you bother trying to comment at RC when you know that any contrary view (and certainly one to which they have no direct response/rebuttal) will be expelled? It’s a pointless exercise! I see no merit in trying to help the ‘Fawning Few’ that post there! Just leave them to fawn and masterbate each others egos! Look at it logically – if those that run the site and those that adhere to the site are so insecure that they need such intensive censorship to ‘protect’ them – you are simply wasting your valuable time. They are not operating in a scientific debate but a religious one! Religious style ‘Beliefs’ in many walks of life are illustrative of ‘the sheepish mind’ but in science, it’s a definate no no.
    In the couple of times I went there over 2 years ago now – I felt they were like kids with their fingers in their ears going ‘la,la,la!’, or worse, a kind of aloof, ‘it’s OUR ball (the AGW meme) and we’ll not let you play with it!’. Just my view guys.

  29. @mike sphar

    that’s our tax dollars at work…I wonder how much is a one way ticket back to London these days ?

    You got him, you keep him.
    We’ve got Bill Bryson from you – erudite, witty, all round good guy, housetrained, earns his own living, brings his own hair…..and you got Schmidt from us. Guess who got the better deal?

  30. Jantar says:
    July 12, 2011 at 8:28 pm
    Jeff Alberts says:
    July 12, 2011 at 6:48 pm
    …..
    But it is possible that RC does get more spam than average, and that the deletion of comments is a mistake.
    But not probable.

  31. Real Climate is a waste of time and bandwidth, except for their faithful and the resident illuminati who run the thing. Like nettles and Poison Ivy – best avoided.,

  32. Gavin’s job these days is to run PR for the ‘Team’ , so its not surprise to find he acts like a spinner rather than a scientist . RC allows him to act like god , complete with acolytes and the ability to control all that is seen , which is clearly something he enjoys . But he still comes across as little more than a school bully happy to run to mother when someone hits back.

  33. James Allison:
    Your post at July 12, 2011 at 9:43 pm is very mistaken. It says (in full);
    “Well… I must be special then. Submitted a similar comment to Ecotretas’s posted comment and reference the same webpage AND it got accepted AND Gavin favoured me with a response.
    Beat that!
    ========================================================
    So why have sea levels been going down the last few years?
    http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/05/rate-of-sea-level-rise-going-down.html
    [Response: See above. You can cling to La Niña-related dips if it makes you feel better, but the long term trend is up. – gavin]
    Comment by JimA — 12 Jul 2011 @ 9:25 PM”
    NO! You did NOT submit “a similar comment to Ecotretas’s posted comment”. You posted a very different comment, and your comment was wrong so “gavin” could easilly rebut it (which he did).
    Ecoteras rightly said;
    “Rate of rise of of global sea levels, measured by satelite, have been going down for at least 4 years”.
    That is right (if you ignore his trivial grammatical error): the rate of rise in sea level has fallen over recent years.
    The recent fall in the rate of rise in global sea level is important because
    (a) global sea level has been rising since the last ice age,
    and
    (b) the fact that the rate of global sea level rise has recently declined proves AGW is not accelerating the natural rise in sea level.
    But you said the sea level has fallen in recent years: that is wrong. Sea level has been rising since the last ice age.
    RC censored the correct post from Ecoteras but posted your incorrect post and rebutted it. And it seems this tactic misled you so it may have also misled others. Simply, your error was a Godsend to RC because it deflected attention from the important point that Ecoteras (and possibly others) attempted to post on RC.
    Richard

  34. July 12, 2011 at 7:56 pm
    “I bet they know that the sea level rise rate is going down, and fast”
    Just how do you define fast? From what I’ve seen so far the sea level rise seems to be leveling off. (pardon the pun there) Looking back decades, I can’t see much much of a decrease at all,
    just a stagnation to the significant increase from earlier.
    If function = sea level then:
    rate is the first derivative
    and “rate going down fast”
    implies a negative second derivative, ie a deceleration.
    Just Calculus 101 really and it is not worse than we thought.

  35. Dave N says:
    July 12, 2011 at 11:06 pm
    Perhaps you could have a page here (or someone have one, somewhere) where people can post their censored RC posts, and see how far the borehole really goes..
    How difficult and how legal would it be to duplicate the Real Climate postings here so that we could have the opportunity of commenting in an unfettered way? My guess would be that most people would use this site only and leave RC to the zealots.

  36. Steve
    It’s significant when compared with the afforementioned sea-level rise rate decrease.
    Smoking Frog
    Looking at the whole of sea level change over the recent past, you cannot say that the last 4 years is significant. That’s the kind of feeling I sometimes get reading these articles, a certain amount of clutching at straws. There is no real reason as of yet to believe that the sea level won’t continue to rise, the change in increase rate also doesn’t matter if you look at the long term.

  37. For you Americans that surely must be an infringment of your freedom of speech, first amendment. I mean if you let them post here without censorship and they do not there, especially if ‘there’ is funded in any way by tax dollars, for example if the person doing the censoring is a public employee.
    Particulary in an election year, couldn’t that use of government money in supporting a particular stance and censoring others come under the areas of soft money in campaigns or be a breach of the Federal Election Campaign Act?
    Just wondering.

  38. Left a comment there a while back about using sediments as a proxy for sea level change pointing out that the proxy was 50% out hindcasting just 100years back so couldn’t be relied upon to hindcast back 2000years. Gavin let it stand but put up a comment in reply that made a mathematically unsound assumption that a high school student would have spotted (he assumed that both proxy and instrumental record were linear). I replied again, this time with my real name and my qualifications shown pointing out the glaring error in his thinking. The comment didn’t get posted. It didn’t get put in the bore hole either. Since then they have posted enough new threads such that the sediment proxy thread is no longer on the first screen – I don’t know if that was a deliberate attempt to bury it before more questions were asked about this dubious proxy.
    Fact is that Real Climate is a blog promoting climate propaganda. Its low comment count is a symptom of people’s frsutration with it. Gaving probably thinks he’s being clever by screening out comments that challenge AGW theories, but he is just adding fuel to the fire as people with perfectly reasonable questions or issues with given threads find themselves consored.
    It follows from this that we could give RealClimate a big headache if Mr Watts created a page entitled “Difficult questions to ask the people at Real Climate”. Anybody with the smallest doubt about AGW theory can then be prompted to ask pertinent but reasonable questions of the folks at Real Climate and see what happens to them. When they get censored too they will be left in no doubt about the games being played by the likes of Hansen et al.

  39. Haven’t been to RC in a while. Didn’t like it. The entries were too authoritative, not admitting of any uncertainty. Replies to skeptical comments were too condescending. Most pro- comments read like high school kids taking their teacher an apple.
    I like to think of blogs having an atmosphere, somewhat like a bar. WUWT would work as a bar. RC – I’m not sure about that. The image that comes to mind is not Cheers, let’s put it that way. Maybe a Soviet era canteen with lukewarm tea piped straight out of a tap in the wall, non-flushing loos and a hard-looking bouncer at the door.
    The only problem with WUWT is that some commenters here have a violent response hard-wired in their brains, such that any research article advancing AGW is met with an automatic nay. Personally I’ve always been interested in the facts – and I think I’m more likely to find them here than at RC, despite the hifalutin’ authors there.

  40. For all those discussing the proportion of comments that may or may not be spam – in the Borehole, if you mouse over the date stamp on the comments you get the post’s original index number (on Firefox anyway – other browsers might require more effort to get the target URL). If anyone wants to pursue this exercise, I’d be mildly curious to see the results. Not curious enough to undertake this endeavor myself, mind you, but curious nonetheless.

  41. “Caleb says:
    July 12, 2011 at 8:31 pm
    Gavin reminds me of a certain sort of psycho-therapist that came into fashion in the late 1960′s and early 1970′s.”
    You of course remember when the consensus amongst the psychiatrists and physiotherapists was that erectile dysfunction was a mental problem, typically caused by a childhood/adolescent sexual longing for ones mother? The shrinks made a fortune from impotence, until 1991. Alas, all their psycho-babble was bollocks and erectile dysfunction in middle age results from a change in nitric oxide formation in the endothelial cells.

  42. Wucash:
    At July 13, 2011 at 2:57 am you assert:
    “… There is no real reason as of yet to believe that the sea level won’t continue to rise, the change in increase rate also doesn’t matter if you look at the long term.”
    Nobody has suggested that “sea level won’t continue to rise” and there is NO “increase rate” to sea level rise. And the fact that the rate of sea level rise is NOT increasing is important.
    The rate of sea level rise has been consistent for about 4,000 years (following a period of rapid rise that started about ~20,000 years ago); see
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html
    But the IPCC ‘projects’ large increase to the rate of sea level rise as a result of AGW.
    Figure 5.13 in Section 5.5.2.1 of the most recent IPCC Report (AR5) shows sea level indicated by the Church&White reconstruction, tide gauges and altimetry from satellites.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2.html#5-5-2-1
    FAQ Figure 1 from the same report shows the acceleration to sea level rise that the IPCC ‘projects’ and can be seen at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html
    The satellite data (cited by Ecotretas) shows a strong reduction in the rate of sea level rise since about 2003 and the start of that is shown by the IPCC as Figure 5.14 in Section 5.5.2.2 at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2-2.html
    A more clear graph of the TOPEX, Poseidon1 and Poseidon2 data sets is at
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    So, the facts are that
    (a)
    the IPCC ‘projects’ significant increase to the rate of sea level rise,
    (b)
    there is an observed decline in sea level rate of rise over the last decade
    and
    (c)
    the very most that can be said in support of the IPCC ‘projections’ is that there is no evidence of any recent increase to rate of sea level rise over the last millennium, the last century or the last decade.
    Richard

  43. Following the November volcanic eruption named climategate, there was a time when a lot of comments were posted. They wanted to pretend to be open. That was the last time i had a few non sensitive statements posted.
    If your comment doesn’t stroke their egos, it is discarded. good old communism.

  44. I very rarely visit RC, except if it is referenced in a post or comment at an open/uncensored site.
    Epistemologically RC often comes through as a few dogmatic elements supported by a necessary host of devotees who act as guardians against the slightest perception of skeptic heresy.
    John

  45. I too was boreholed. I had a bet going with a warmist who said Schmidt does not censor reasonable comments. So I gave him an on topic skeptic comment to be posted under his name (I have been banned). The warmist tweaked my comment, watering it down and kissing up to Schmidt. And even so, it was still sent to the borehole, and labeled ‘off topic’. Yet another warmist schooled.

  46. Baron von Monckhofen has asked me to thank you for the extra traffic resulting from citing his rock-solid example of RC censorship (number 3 above). Some unkind folk have been spreading the calumny that the Baron is a crude satire of an aristocratic, delusional ‘sceptic’, the recognition of a link from this flagship science site puts that one to bed for good.
    After all if it was a spoof site, that might indicate a paucity of real examples, and nothing could be further from the truth!.
    PS. (I’ve screencaptured this. Can’t be too careful!)

  47. Wucash says:
    July 13, 2011 at 2:57 am
    Looking at the whole of sea level change over the recent past, you cannot say that the last 4 years is significant.

    Again, the acceleration of change can be significant even if the actual change level isn’t significant.
    A steep slope which flattens represents a significant change in acceleration. This concept is covered within the first 30 days of any calculus course.

  48. Well of course RC has a well rehearsed censor department, they’er communists. Any type of socialist system, which always is based on a foundation of propaganda, will unequivocally censor all dissenters critical of the socialists elite preferred reality. And besides they know they can’t fool the people all the time, hence the censoring. :p

  49. I’m confused, what is it called when a government funded department censors the publics comments on important issues?
    As it’s goverment funded (Or is this site run in his spare time?) surely freedom of speech must be enforced?

  50. On several occasions I posted comments about the topics posted on Real Climate as being a violation of Real Climate’s stated mission. The “About” section reads, in pertinent part:
    “The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.”
    The last time was a comment about “Steve Schneider’s Letter.” MOST of RV’s posts had been about political subjects and the site was about the political and economic implications with a little hard core science tossed in. (Could the “Warm Beer Chart” have been any less about science?)
    I see that in the last month or so, RC has been pretty thin on new topics. I figured that intellectual honesty would require either hardcore science or changing the “About.” At least it seems as though they are moving away from the Joe Romm material recently, so I’ll hand them that.

  51. Richard S Courtney says:
    July 13, 2011 at 1:38 am
    RC censored the correct post from Ecoteras but posted your incorrect post and rebutted it.

    Slight correction. While James Allison did post an incorrect statement, Gavin did not rebut it. He seemed to be rebutting the boreholed post of Ecotretas with his response, but instead of telling James he was flat our wrong, he merely explained the dip in the rate of increase over the past few years as due to La Nina.

  52. Ric Werme says:
    July 12, 2011 at 7:30 pm
    The .png screen shot includes a note about having reactivated the ReCaptcha plug in, so that will keep a lot of spam away.

    A lot, but not all. As someone who runs several web sites, I know that captcha, re-captcha, all those, will usually keep out automated spam, but there are many spammers who do things manually.
    I was not trying to imply that RC doesn’t just delete comments they don’t like, it’s happened to me a few years ago, never went back. Just saying that missing numbers aren’t indicative of any one thing. I’m sure there are also many useless comments that get posted, which add nothing to the argument, which also get culled. The problem is those replies which are reasoned and seemingly factual that are being deleted without public discourse on the topic.

  53. I had the same experience with unrealclimate.org. My first comment went through although it was skeptical in nature. All subsequent comments for the immediate period following that first post however were deleted. Gavin and his sycophant followers are not scientists in my opinion, they have forsaken science in favor of political activism.

  54. I visited RC one time awhile back after hearing about it on WUWT. Looking over that site I quickly realized I was much better off sticking to this site where honest articles and real discussions are presented and encouraged. Hats off to WUWT.

  55. I haven’t seen a blog so ripped in a long time. I went over there to look and the tone sucks, the feedback from the site (for those comments that aren’t deleted) is disrespectful or condescending. In comment 20 of the sea level post there is a graph showing the very distinct upward trend, but the end data seem to have broken out of the trend line on the lower side. To me, that is an indication that theories should be put on hold pending a bit more data. Trends do not last forever. Am I interpreting it right? (I’ll risk sending traffic over there).
    I was going to leave a comment, but the captcha thingy wiped my comment when I failed to put in an email and name (I forgot). I successfully ignored the temptation to leave a message to the effect of “thanks for sending wuwt traffic”. But I thought better of it and didn’t leave a comment. To my knowledge, I’ve never been censored here, and I’ve seen plenty of other people’s comments that were worthy of being censored but weren’t. The regulars here do a great job of taking apart dumb troll posts. Occasionally, I’ll notice the [snip] marker, but it is left in to let people know it was snipped rather than memory holed. Usually a brief reason for the snip is added as well, so people know what was wrong with it.
    I really wish people wouldn’t be so certain about their positions when we really don’t know enough one way or the other. The guys at realclimate don’t seem to understand that 30 or 150 years isn’t enough time to make conclusions for this type of stuff. I’m skeptical of their conclusions because they had to cheat to make them and because they haven’t accounted for all the climate variables. I’ve also lived through the “ice age is coming” period of the 70s, so I know a bit about climate fads.

  56. I am always concerned that Gavin seems to have time to push a political agenda on a website he maintains while on government time. Censoring opposing viewpoints is clearly agenda enforcement.
    Eventually that will catch up with him. His defense that he was merely running an informational scientific website to inform the public evaporates completely once it can be established that he wielded censorship over opposing viewpoints.
    He would be far better off not allowing any comments whatsoever than controlling which viewpoints can be expressed. He just isn’t smart enough to figure it out. It’s been a while since a public employee has been prosecuted for engaging out and out political advocacy using government resources. (Employee time is clearly a resource.)
    That it hasn’t been prosecuted before is no defense at all.

  57. I wonder if someone could just write a simple app (Greasemonkey plugin perhaps – not quite my speciality) that when posting to Real Climate also CC’s the posting to another site – (maybe a section one one of the popular blogs) to keep an archive of what actually gets censored from Real Climate and then be able to see the context of the censorship in the RC discussion.

  58. Gavin’s logic? Oxymoron accusations aside, check his replies to Tilo Reber #45 and #47
    I could recommend a therapist.

  59. Gavin and the gang routinely delete messages that don’t support the AGW dogma? Would it surprise anyone that they would give observational data and modelling results that don’t support the dogma the exact same treatment?

  60. Following the suggestions of others, I did an analysis of RC comments using PHP and cURL (source code available upon request). The script went through all the pages with URLs from http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1 to …?comments_popup=8092 and extracted the comment IDs from the HTML source with the following Perl regular expression:
    /id=”comment-(\d+)”/i
    The results are as follows:
    Total number of comment IDs: 131930
    Number of unique comment IDs: 131930
    Lowest published ID: 3
    Highest published ID: 210541
    Therefore, number of missing IDs between first and last IDs: 78609
    Proportion of missing IDs as percentage of all published IDs from first to last: 37.3%
    As noted previously, this takes no account of truly spammy comments that may have been deleted. I don’t know how long they’ve been using a CAPTCHA on the site.

  61. WUWT is open to comments from both sides of the argument and (AFAIK) do not censor posts at all (except where they are abusive, rude or litigious perhaps). Why is it that those who post and/or run RC are so disinclined to put their opinions and counter-arguments on HERE? They would be more than welcome; they wouldn’t be ‘abused’; they could defend their position and argue their counterpoint to WUWT articles etc.
    Perhaps an open invite directly from you (Anthony) could encourage them to participate?
    Regular contributors to WUWT would more than welcoming I’m sure.

  62. kellys_eye,
    Anthony regularly solicits and posts articles from warmists. The owners and writers at RealClimate are welcome to submit articles to WUWT, where they would get a much wider readership — and get respect for taking a position outside their safe, censoring cloister.
    But they don’t dare. Their pseudo-scientific claims would be debunked in short order. Instead, they maintain an echo chamber frequented by a small claque of true believers who are no different from Harold Camping’s true believers.
    I double dog dare Schmidt or Mann to prove me wrong by submitting an article here. I don’t make predictions, but I’ll make an exception in this case and predict that they won’t submit an article to WUWT’s enormous readership. They are scientific charlatans who don’t have the stones to face true peer review here, where they can’t control the pal review process.

  63. I keep reading that RC is being run on Government time.
    It seems to me that if RC is NOT a government-sponsored blog, then Gavin is running a political propaganda site on the taxpayer’s dime. Not good, and probably not legal. On the other hand, if RC IS government-sponsored, then the government is engaging in censorship in violation of the First Amendment.
    Surely there is some enterprising attorney out there who could file a class-action suit based on 1A violations – let’s force someone to take one of these positions, and once they have, knock it down.
    Why do skeptics seem to want to play nice? Believers don’t.

  64. Well, I did manage to get my post on RealClimate. It looks like this – with Gavin’s response.
    “I took the satellite data from the University of Colorado sea level site and spit it into two equal halves. I charted the data and ran trend lines through it. The rate in sea level rise for the first half was 3.4 mm/year. The rate of rise of the second half was 2.1 mm/year. For the satellite era at least, the rate of sea level rise is falling. The rate that is shown by the second half of the satellite record would give us 8.3 inches of sea level rise in 100 years.
    [Response: Is it conceivable that linear extrapolation is not the optimum way to assess risk? – gavin]”
    So, my response to Gavin’s response was:
    “Yes, it is very conceivable. However, basing risk on assumed acceleration of sea level rise when there is actually deceleration would seem to be even less predictive than linear extrapolation. And while there may have been acceleration going from the pre-satellite era into the satellite era, that acceleration has now ceased and changed to deceleration.
    [Response: Is it conceivable that any kind of statistical extrapolation is not the optimal way to assess risk? – gavin]”
    In any case, NikFromNYC managed to post a great link on RealClimate, here:
    http://i.min.us/idFxzI.jpg
    Anthony might want to think about using this one.

  65. gallopingcamel said: “Skeptical Science” began implementing a heavy handed “Moderation” policy in March 2011 and “Brave New Climate” followed suit in July. It will be interesting to see how that works out for them.
    That’s actually just the month in which they got tired of you tearing through various threads for a year or more with a menagerie of off-topic arguments (some of which you started, some you didn’t, not that it matters, YOU are not allowed to do that). Face that fact that if you go there as a skeptic, you have to set yourself a high bar, higher than everyone else, and live up to it 24×7.
    One actual difference at Skeptical Science IMO is that one is no longer allowed to argue with the moderators. Those comments now get deleted (mine did even though it contained other on-topic material) and Dikran even said he does so on a recent thread. Moderators there do not always leave their personal opinions at the door (often will argue in a moderator comment instead of giving a link, correcting an actual mistake, etc) thus giving themselves an unfair advantage. But generally I find that they adhere to their moderation policy: no ad homs or personal attacks of any sort, no off-topic even if “someone else started it”, etc.
    I think their policy works for that style site, which exists to provide links to rebut common skeptic arguments while allowing a discussion that ultimately improves their own arguments. Some of the arguments they rebut (e.g. volcanoes blah blah…) are pure junk and good riddance to them. Some are fringe science (e.g. CO2 causes more cooling than warming) and need to be discussed at tiny little forums outside of public view. The rest of their posts are similar to those found elsewhere (e.g. climate progress) with the addition of relatively open comments. I don’t find those particularly valuable for either side.
    They key targets for them are natural causes for warming, ice melt, extreme weather, etc and there they take a divide and conquer approach. For example positive ENSO contributed to some of the 80’s and 90’s warming. But their “rebuttal” shows that ENSO does not correlate well to all warming and cooling since 1900 or some arbitrary old date. Therefore, they say, it cannot be a cause of 80’s and 90’s warming. To contradict this rebuttal is possible, but it will be buried on that thread and ignored by anyone except a regular or interested skeptic. The rest of the world, 99.99% of the population, will see the head post and nothing much else. Obviously their policy that restricts off-topic comments works to their advantage since the argument against CO2 influences involve many types of natural factors, not just one.

  66. How can one argue sea level rise is accelerating without at least noting the recent decline. Why would anyone post a topic about accelerating sea level rise when it is actually falling now. Only if one wanted to keep people mis-informed.
    The Envisat, Jason 1 and Jason 2 satellites are all showing a substantial decline in sea level over the past 18 months and Envisat even has no sea level increase over the last 7 years.
    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_ALL_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
    You can’t have an increasing acceleration in the trend when the data is falling substantially and it obviously does not show an acceleration.
    That is propaganda-astroturf-type-science versus realclimate science.
    One poster also linked to the actual global sea level gauge site …
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
    … which someone named “Gavin” also pointed me to on another board discussing this exact same topic some time ago. I had to tear him down afterward and say it was ridiculous to point to a website which contains nothing but data showing no acceleration in sea level anywhere going back to 1880 and earlier. Did he think I wouldn’t actually look. Well, I think that is what RealClimate is all about. You are not supposed to look at the actual evidence, just accept the insinuation given.

  67. Wucash questions the statement that “I bet they know that the sea level rise rate is going down, and fast”, and adds that “From what I’ve seen so far the sea level rise seems to be leveling off.” The two statements are actually compatible. Several have commented on this, but to add to their comments: the first statement means that the *slope* is lowering, i.e. the first derivative. If the sea level rise rate went to zero, this would mean the sea level was unchanging = leveling off. (And if the rise rate went below zero, it would mean the sea level was dropping.)
    Reminds me of a common statement that someone “took off at a high rate of speed.” That should mean that the someone was accelerating, although it’s usually used to mean they’re speeding (and may not be continuing to accelerate at all). Confusing language, this English.

  68. Perhaps your post was put in the borehole because it offered nothing to the thread and was not worth reading?

  69. sceptical says:
    “Perhaps your post was put in the borehole because it offered nothing to the thread and was not worth reading?”
    Perhaps your own posts offer nothing to the thread and are not worth reading. But at least WUWT does not censor them like the execrable Gavin Schmidt does.

  70. Smokey, I have had several posts censored at this blog. Seems you read my posts and beyond being worth reading you also deem them worth commenting on.

  71. sceptical says:
    “I have had several posts censored at this blog.”
    And which particular posts would those be? Chapter and verse, please.

  72. Post censored June 26, 7:10 pm under the blog entry “Bring it, Mr. Wirth – a challenge”

  73. I’ve given up on Gavin. He’s a lost cause.
    I send comments now just to annoy him.
    I did notice that while he was away, that one of his ‘tools’
    let me leave a comment on the post about Willie Soon.
    I also noticed that soon after that, comments to the post were disabled.
    Funny stuff.

  74. sceptical says:
    “…June 26, 7:10 pm…”
    Write some more times and dates, maybe that will make it even more convincing.☺
    WUWT doesn’t censor opposing points of view. That’s what makes it stand head and shoulders above the censoring alarmist blogs. WUWT has more than 82 million unique hits, and over 625,000 reader comments to date in just four years. If one particular comment of yours was snipped, no doubt you violated the site’s Policy, because your comments are hardly threatening to the position of scientific skeptics.

  75. Wucash Looking at the whole of sea level change over the recent past, you cannot say that the last 4 years is significant. That’s the kind of feeling I sometimes get reading these articles, a certain amount of clutching at straws. There is no real reason as of yet to believe that the sea level won’t continue to rise, the change in increase rate also doesn’t matter if you look at the long term.
    I didn’t say it was significant. I said that you were confusing “sea level rise rate” with “sea level.” It’s possible I misunderstood you, though.

  76. Further to my previous post, here is a summary of the number of RealClimate deleted comments by month, as a percentage of total comments:
    Jan 2005 : 16.6%
    Feb 2005 : 29.2%
    Mar 2005 : 18.8%
    Apr 2005 : 32.9%
    May 2005 : 15.7%
    Jun 2005 : 24.8%
    Jul 2005 : 63.5%
    Aug 2005 : 53.9%
    Sep 2005 : 21.4%
    Oct 2005 : 15%
    Nov 2005 : 10.4%
    Dec 2005 : 47.4%
    Jan 2006 : 29.4%
    Feb 2006 : 24.8%
    Mar 2006 : 30.2%
    Apr 2006 : 31%
    May 2006 : 39.3%
    Jun 2006 : 17.6%
    Jul 2006 : 11.4%
    Aug 2006 : 41.9%
    Sep 2006 : 25.2%
    Oct 2006 : 32.3%
    Nov 2006 : 8.9%
    Dec 2006 : 7.2%
    Jan 2007 : 11.4%
    Feb 2007 : 9.8%
    Mar 2007 : 11.1%
    Apr 2007 : 8.2%
    May 2007 : 9.4%
    Jun 2007 : 9.2%
    Jul 2007 : 71%
    Aug 2007 : 75.4%
    Sep 2007 : 75.3%
    Oct 2007 : 64.3%
    Nov 2007 : 73.7%
    Dec 2007 : 68.9%
    Jan 2008 : 25.5%
    Feb 2008 : 27.3%
    Mar 2008 : 23%
    Apr 2008 : 38.5%
    May 2008 : 38%
    Jun 2008 : 34.9%
    Jul 2008 : 37.5%
    Aug 2008 : 33.8%
    Sep 2008 : 30.9%
    Oct 2008 : 36.6%
    Nov 2008 : 48.5%
    Dec 2008 : 34.8%
    Jan 2009 : 32.5%
    Feb 2009 : 32.3%
    Mar 2009 : 37.8%
    Apr 2009 : 37.4%
    May 2009 : 46.7%
    Jun 2009 : 25.4%
    Jul 2009 : 17.7%
    Aug 2009 : 16.4%
    Sep 2009 : 20.4%
    Oct 2009 : 19.5%
    Nov 2009 : 26.4%
    Dec 2009 : 15.3%
    Jan 2010 : 13.6%
    Feb 2010 : 16.1%
    Mar 2010 : 17.2%
    Apr 2010 : 20.9%
    May 2010 : 28.2%
    Jun 2010 : 33.7%
    Jul 2010 : 42.4%
    Aug 2010 : 33.2%
    Sep 2010 : 37.2%
    Oct 2010 : 30.1%
    Nov 2010 : 30.6%
    Dec 2010 : 51.9%
    Jan 2011 : 24.5%
    Feb 2011 : 33.2%
    Mar 2011 : 46.3%
    Apr 2011 : 40.9%
    May 2011 : 44%
    Jun 2011 : 55.7%
    Based on what Smokey says, it would appear the number of comments that get deleted on WUWT is about 10 or 11% (625K/700K).

    [reply]
    The vast majority of that 10% would be spam.- tallmod
    [Reply: The “10 or 11%” number is incorrect. Excluding spam, WUWT moderators snip well under 1% of comments, for violating site Policy. WordPress occasionally loses a comment. I moderate 200+ comments every day, and on most days all of them are approved. ~dbs, mod.]

  77. Ian, your numbers are very telling. I would expect the early trends, since when first started there would be a lot of good debate, before the censorship kicked in. But the latter is the most telling. Many people (using myself as an example) do not bother to post on a site that is heavily censored, so the scores should be improving. However, they seem to be getting worse (and no I have not returned to the site to get censored). That would indicate that one of 2 things are occurring – 1: more people are getting interested in the subject (fresh blood to delete), or – 2: more people are starting to question the inconsistencies. Either way, it does not bode well for the alarmist dogma.

  78. July 2007 had a step increase in deleted comments and coincided with RC’s attack on the surface stations project. Their policy then was to let some critical comments through, but only enough and the type that they and the regulars could “rebut”. Remember that RC’s reason for existence (and funding) was to portray that the science was settled, in this case that surface station siting problems were taken care of.
    Read the thread and you see the message: “there are some siting issues, but we are very smart and handle them” Any comment that seriously challenged that mantra was sure to be deleted except for some regular posters and answered with “most stations are rural”, “oversampled”, “1200 km grid”, “Watts’ project is agenda-driven”, etc.

  79. > > The “10 or 11%” number is incorrect. Excluding spam, WUWT moderators
    > snip well under 1% of comments […]
    I understand that the Tips & Notes Page accounts for a lot of deleted comments (perhaps 1000 per month), since it’s cleared on a regular basis. I’m now doing a similar analysis of WUWT, at Anthony’s request, but do any of you mods know exactly when the Tips & Notes Page was created, so I can make take some account of T&N deletions? Thanks.
    [Reply: I recommend asking Anthony that question in the Tips & Notes page, which he reads regularly. Also, there are regular requests from readers to delete the T&N comments when they become too numerous, and slow down the page loading. Deleting old T&N comments to speed up loading should not be conflated with the deliberate censoring of comments the way RealClimate and other blogs delete opposing points of view. ~dbs, mod.]

  80. Ian says:
    July 14, 2011 at 7:12 am
    Further to my previous post, here is a summary of the number of RealClimate deleted comments by month, as a percentage of total comments:

    That is interesting Ian. Some standout figures – July in the early days – wow.
    (I gather there is a little confusion after the table is presented;-)

  81. Ian:
    Thankyou for posting your determinations of deletions from RC. All data is potentially useful.
    However, I have a concern that the list is open to interpretation that cannot be verified and, therefore, could be misrepresented as being a smear. For example, the interpretation presented by Eric (skeptic) at July 14, 2011 at 10:19 am makes perfect sense to me so I think it is probably right, but it cannot be substantiated.
    Several other interpretations can also be drawn from the list and if one such were shown to be mistaken then RC could assert that this mistaken interpretation discredits the real point which your list illustrates.
    And that real point is the censorship policy of RC which makes that site an organ for propoganda and not for scientific discourse.
    Everyone who has tried to obtain serious discussion on RC of anything RC considers ‘off message’ has experienced that censorship policy. Indeed, several people (including myself) have been banned from that site because we attempted discussion instead of chearing the ‘Team’.
    So, I commend that we all cite your list as empirical proof of the censorship policy at RC and tell people that if they doubt the proof then they should test the matter themselves by trying to post an ‘on topic’ but ‘off message’ comment on RC. And I suggest that we resist the temptation to make any other interpretations of your data.
    It is possible (OK, remotely possible) that correct use of your proof could cause RC to stop its propoganda policy. But I fear that making interpretations of your data could damage the usefulness of your list as proof of the RC propoganda policy..
    Richard

  82. Richard, here’s a little more support for my theory: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/07/04/the-climatic-blog-war-of-2007/
    A blog war like that means that lots of foot soldiers go to realclimate, start reading their one-sided post on surface stations, and fire off an angry response. Gavin couldn’t do much except keep hitting the delete key. In fact, being pressed for time, he probably just deleted everyone but posters that he recognizes like Mosher. Gavin, especially at that point, was maintaining the mantra that GAT science is settled, and that any deviations from the GISStemp results would be minor (measurement errors would have a rough balance of positive and negative).

  83. Richard,
    I agree in general, although I do think the more recent figures (from months when we can be confident that their spam CAPTCHA was operating) are probably quite reliable. Nevertheless, the figures can only really be regarded as indicative rather than probative.

  84. RC is not science, it is cult conversion 101.
    A cult operates by the “follow the leader” principle. Rule number 1 in any cult is the same. The leader is supreme and all decisions follow from the leader. So, if RC tells you climate is “A”, your only valid response in a cult is “A”. If you reply, why is climate “A”? the answer is “because the leader says so”.
    A cult operates much like when you are a small child. Your parents say “do this”. You ask why? They answer “because we say so”. This is how cults operate, they look for individuals that never outgrew the parent child relationship, and take the role of the parent.
    Anyone that does not accept these rules is first disciplines and if that doesn’t work they are removed from the cult. RC disciplines anyone that qestions the leader because that is not allowed in any cult. You can ask question about climate, but you cannot ask the leader to justify those answers. That is against the rules of any cult, because it implies the leader is not perfect and thus not supreme.

  85. Ferd Berple has two boreholes in a row at RC, two days apart!
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/comment-page-9/#comments
    405
    ferd berple says:
    13 Jul 2011 at 11:09 PM
    (from Gavin)
    This war/climate connection is nonsense – orders of magnitude too small to have global impacts.
    Is this an assumption or is supported by research? References? One of the main effects of warfare is increased burning. Coincidentally there is a hypothesis that AGW and climate change is related to increased burning and the CO2 and aerosols that result.
    406
    ferd berple says:
    15 Jul 2011 at 2:48 PM
    If there was an instrumentation problem after 1945, then the climate models using data up to 1945 should have predicted unexpected warming/cooling after 1945 as compared to the instrument records.
    Why wasn’t any unexpected warming/cooling reported by the climate models after 1945? This should have alerted climate scientists to a likely data error.

  86. If Realclimate deletes a higher percentage of posts than WUWT, perhaps it is because the site is more concerned with having a thoughtful discussion on scientific issues instead of countless posts containing theories involving communists trying to take over the world.

  87. sceptical,
    If you were the least bit skeptical you would see that the snipped comments at WUWT are insignificant compared with the wholesale censorship of honestly skeptical comments at the RealClimate propaganda mill/echo chamber.
    But you’re really not skeptical at all, so you don’t understand. True believers never do.

  88. Ian says (deludedly so) on July 14, 2011 at 1:24 pm
    > > The “10 or 11%” number is incorrect. Excluding spam, WUWT moderators
    > snip well under 1% of comments […]
    I understand that the Tips & Notes Page accounts for a lot of deleted comments (perhaps 1000 per month), since it’s cleared on a regular basis. I’m now doing a similar analysis of WUWT, at Anthony’s request, but do any of you mods know exactly when the Tips & Notes Page was created, so I can make take some account of T&N deletions? Thanks.

    Where is the ‘Tips and Notes Page’ on Real Klimate? (I did a text search – didn’t find one)
    THEY don’t have one?
    Case closed – ruling by summary judgment – an attempt at “Apples and Oranges comparison” by the plaintiff – ruling is hereby made for the defendant (WUWT); plaintiff/complainant is to pay all court costs and at least three rounds of beers (plus chips) on a date and at a place to be named later by the defendant …
    .

  89. Jim,
    It’s not entirely clear to me what you’re trying to say. WUWT has a Tips & Notes page here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes/
    and if I’m to do a comparison I need to take account of that. Also, I need to take account of spam on the site, which is recorded by Akismet. Preliminary results show that the numbers of deleted comments here are quite negligible, almost certainly less than 1% and I would guess less than 0.5%. I’ll write the whole lot up after the weekend.
    RealClimate doesn’t have a similar Tips & Notes page, so far as I am aware. I doubt very much they would have any records of spam volume in previous years, if like normal people they simply delete it and forget about it, so I wasn’t planning on writing to ask them.

  90. _Jim:
    Your comment at July 15, 2011 at 8:12 pm makes a valid point when it says RC does not have a ‘Tips & Notes’ section similar to that of WUWT. That is a fact.
    But your post flies off into fantasy when it claims that fact prevents a comparison of the deletions from RC and WUWT that are indicated by Ian’s list.
    There are three sets of data reported by ‘Ian’, ‘tallmod’ and ‘dbs mod’ in this thread at July 14, 2011 at 3:51 am. They provide the following information.
    1. WUWT deletes about 10% or 11% of posts.
    2. About 10% of posts deleted by WUWT are spam.
    3. WUWT deletes “well under 1% of comments” that are not spam.
    Considering each of the 78 months since its inception RC has deleted
    more than 10% of comments in 74 months.
    more than 20% of comments in 58 months.
    more than 30% of comments in 39 months.
    more than 40% of comments in 17 months.
    more than 50% of comments in 9 months.
    more than 60% of comments in 7 months.
    more than 70% of comments in 4 months.
    So, WUWT deletes ~11% of comments that are mostly spam.
    But RC typically RC deletes 30% of comments each month and in some months more than 70% of comments.
    This is a substantial difference between the deletions from RC and WUWT.
    If this difference were to be accounted by RC not having a ‘Tips & Notes’ page then RC would require ‘Tips& Notes’ to RC to be typically 20% of all posts to RC. Of course, this is possible when one consides the very small traffic at RC, but it is very, very unlikely.
    Richard

Comments are closed.