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!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
_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
My last comment on this site was censored–unless the moderator is still contemplating!