Yesterday we had an enlightening guest post by Ian Rons titled Further Down the “Bore Hole” which presented some comment data and graphs, along with some observations about that nature of RealClimate.org and the way they treat visitors and commenters. Ian pointed out something I didn’t know, and that is this:
“The Bore Hole”, which started on 6th January 2011 (the date being evident from the post_id of 6013 and the moderator’s response to the first comment, although they have since re-dated it 6th December 2004 for some reason)
So I decided to have a look myself to see if this was true or not. Here is what I found. Note the yellow highlights:
…and here is the first comment, actually labeled first by the inline response of the moderator:
Using the search feature on RealClimate for “Borehole” yields this:
So, it seems clear that RC set the starting date for the Borehole thread back to 6 December, 2004, which incidentally is close to the Dec 1 2004 start date for the RC blog. Why? One could speculate that maybe they were trying to give the impression of it always have been a feature to use as tool to ward off the stinging criticism of the way they treat any member of the public who might disagree with them. Or, maybe they planned to put older comments in there. But, since there are no comments in “The Borehole” prior to 6 Jan 2011, it can’t be about them trying to put older, previously approved comments they don’t like from years past in there. They’ve had six months to do that and none have appeared. It is as they say, a curiosity.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt, in his recent inline comment in Unforced Variations 2, says we here at WUWT want to make this a “giant ad hom argument” all about “personalities”. Well no, the post was about data analysis of comment ID’s and why so many just “disappear” at RC. It isn’t anecdotal (though scads of first hand accounts exist) RC’s own comments ID database suggests a systemic removal.
If Dr. Schmidt wants to focus on it being personal, then I say it is about whether we should be trusting scientists that have no reason whatsover to alter the start date of a feature, but actually did so for reasons that are unexplainable.
And I’ll point out that whether Gavin likes it or not, science has always been coupled to personalities; Aristotle, Pythagoras, Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Volta, Rutherford, Curie, Mendel, Darwin, Hertz, Pasteur, Bohr, Planck, Hawking, and Einstein, who had one of the most interesting personalities ever. Science doesn’t make itself known by suddenly appearing in the Ether. It makes itself known through the curious personalities of people. For us here at WUWT, we often wonder if curiosity is dead at NASA GISS and their web-portal, Real Climate, and has been replaced with dogma.
Sure, changing the date on “The Borehole” is a small thing of and by itself, but it reminds me of this well known saying:
He who is true in a little, is true in much; he who is false in small things, is false in great.
Dr. Schmidt is of course, welcome to present his blog comment ID data for evaluation here and explain why RC does the things we are curious about.
Gerald Machneem-
“Will RC have an off-topic for the off-topic?”
The obvious solution is to send off-topic comments in the borehole to…. the borehole. The positive feedback loop could disable RC. Now that would be cheering news!
I don’t think that this is a small point – and I would encourage Anthony and Ian to continue to check on this interesting metric (the comparative rate of message deletion between RealClimate and WUWT). After all, Gavin et al are funded by the taxpayer and it is interesting for their sponsors to have a simple numeric measure of their output. (The RealClimate team evidently have two main activities: 1. cutting and pasting ‘on message’ text from place to place, 2. deleting any questions and comments which would disturb the message). As Ian and Anthony have nicely demonstrated, the RealClimate comment deletion behavior is radically different to that seen on Watts Up With That. Gavin claims that this is because of a greater volume of spam (see the comment Anthony linked to: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/unforced-variations-july-2011/comment-page-7/#comment-211257), though, it is hard to see how a less popular site would attract a substantially higher percentage of spam.
Gavin et al have a real problem here. They are using their taxpayer funded positions to control the message – they have been clearly caught out doing this. However, they cannot back down as they know that allowing questions to occur on the site will insure that the faithful will see that certain questions cannot be answered. I wonder what would happen if questions were asked about this of their political supporters? (Time for a message or two to congress.)
This aspect of their ‘public outreach’ (i.e. the demonstrable message control component) will not sit well with those that have to tolerate their office hours activities. Hence, I think that we can confidently predict that Real Climate will be moving to another blogging platform in the very near future, for ‘completely unrelated reasons’, no doubt, in order to ‘hide the deletions’.
Who said that there are no predictions in climatology?!
Re: the Bore Hole page, the post_id of 6013 is in between 6011 and 6047 (you can see these by typing in realclimate.org/?p=6011, etc.). The missing post_ids in between are unpublished revisions created by WordPress (probably the AutoSave feature) so bearing in mind the date of the first comment, it definitely had to have been created on the 6th Jan. Thus the published date is incorrect.
It would be interesting to know precisely when they changed the date. I have a vague recollection that the date of the Bore Hole post was 6th Jan 2011 when I checked it last week (the 13th or 14th), as I was pulling the data from the site which I almost immediately summarised in comments here. I checked the Bore Hole page because I wanted to see whether they were periodically cleaning the comments from that page, à la the Tips & Notes page at WUWT, since this would have made a difference to my analysis by introducing more uncertainty into the figures.
I was puzzled when I returned to it this week, whilst writing up the RC comment deletion story from the data previously gathered, and found it had this Dec 2004 date. I don’t know whether it was changed during this past week (my recollection is, as I say, “vague”), but I do recall being surprised about the Dec 2004 date when I returned to it. If it was changed deliberately in order to create a false impression that many more comments had been published than was evident from the comment database (something for which there is obviously no evidence), then it wasn’t a very good effort, and they surely couldn’t have hoped to convince anyone by it; however, I felt I should definitely make a note of the true date in my story on the subject, for the avoidance of doubt.
It’s a fine saying that one should never ascribe to malice what can be put down to incompetence (or some other innocent reason). That notwithstanding, I still can’t think why they changed the date: after all, it could hardly have happened by accident, but there seems no good reason for doing so. And it is a small thing, but worth noting.
As for Mr. Schmidt’s accusation that my analysis of the comment IDs at RealClimate was “a giant ad hom argument”, I think this is a rather childish remark. I didn’t “accuse” RealClimate of anything, I merely reported on the facts; facts which they have (until now) seemed happy to admit, i.e. that they moderate the comments strictly, removing anything they consider “misleading” (which obviously implies climate scepticism), as noted in their Comment policy. It ain’t me who has “shift[ed the] discussion to personalities”, since I’m not the one making imputations regarding the motives of others. I note that Mr. Schmidt’s comment flagrantly violates the RC comment policy, which prohibits “comments that (explicitly or implicitly) impugn the motives of others”. However, it’s clearly too much for Mr. Schmidt to practice what he preaches; i.e., it is fair to say that he is a hypocrite, and I expect him to withdraw his baseless accusation and delete his own comment or be regarded as such. (I won’t hold my breath.)
I note further that he offers no figures as to the number of spam comments they receive at the site, merely saying that “they have no idea how much spam we get”, which is a fair comment but which says nothing. Some figures would be helpful.
As for his remark about the WP-reCAPTCHA plugin, again this is a vague statement, but I have checked with an installation of WordPress whether it produces a new comment ID if the CAPTCHA test is failed, and it doesn’t. The user has to pass the CAPTCHA challenge, or it simply sets a new CAPTCHA challenge. If Mr. Schmidt wishes to dispute this, perhaps he might condescend to provide some evidence? I would of course be happy to admit if there are any factual errors in my article, but as things stand I see no reason to resile from my position.
Mr. Schmidt goes on to say that the comment deletion rate is “a small fraction of what they are claiming”, but again this is impossibly vague. What is “a small fraction”, precisely?
It seems clear from what Mr. Schmidt goes on to say that he has no intention of commenting further on this topic, but I thought I’d ask the questions anyway. In closing, may I just say what a privilege it is to be insulted by such a luminary as a NASA scientist, even in such a casual and throwaway manner.
re post by: HankH says:
July 23, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I had a very similar experience. I have a hard science education and career, but not in a ‘climate science’ related field although it does include atmospheric mixing, plume travel, etc. When I first encountered RC, I posted a question directly related to the subject being discussed but trying to understand how other related information I was aware of fit into what they were saying in their post because the information seemed contradictory. As in your situation, I was fairly new to looking into the whole AGW situation, zero intent to criticize or challenge, and very curious about how it all fit together.
My comment was promptly deleted. As were several others I posted subsequently. A few that way and it was the last I had anything to do with RC. Decent scientists don’t censor discussion that way. That sort of behavior is all the more egregious when it comes with claims of supposedly open discussion, and the intent to help educate.
I was all the more ticked off when I discovered that RC is being moderated and run by people who are being paid by our tax dollars, during working hours!! Those people are despicable.
bravo. submitted a harmless nothing comment and question long ago for the first and only time, and I was relegated to ether-ville. I guess my degree doesn’t qualify to comment. Lost respect for that my-tax-funded website in the first 15 minutes forever ago.
GS will answer for this and every thing. Judgement day looms…………………..
Good job Anthony! You’ve gained many fans, myself included.
If you’re ever interested in seeing one spot on the planet (Upper Copper River Basin of Alaska) that is 1st to see natures warming effects (in the northern hemisphere) and last to see the cooling, come on up, we’d be happy to give you a super tour. By the way, we’ve seen the cooling from late 2005 onward in the continuous & discontinuous permafrost temperatures, with no scary stories to be produced from the analysis (contrary to NSIDC’s data).
All The Best & keep up the great work!
[“comment by Anthony Watts” site:realclimate.org ] Total of four.
[ “comment by papertiger” site:realclimate.org ] Total of one.
My interpretation of this is Anthony beats around the bush while I get right to the crux of the matter. 😉
I once asked at RC about their connection with Fenton Communications but, alas, my question never made it there.
RC? Well it calls forth the following parody. : )
Parody starts
A grandfather and his 6 year old granddaughter are standing hand in hand on a small hill one warm summer evening. In the distance a thunder storm is putting on a booming and explosive display.
The girl says, “Grandpa, why is there all that booming noise and light flashing?”
Grandpa, wise to the ways of the weather and climate world, tells his granddaughter, “What is happening is one of two things. Either it is rapidly rising air currents and charge buildup then discharge or it is RC striking down skeptics and denouncing WUWT.”
The girl looks at grandpa with a smile on her face, “Are you talking about that mean old Gavin again? Let’s buy him some ice cream. He sounds like he needs it.”
Parody ends.
glenndc says:
July 23, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Just nit, but your list of “personalities” left out Sir Isaac’s nemesis and sparring partner (remember the unpleasantness over the parentage of the calculus?)
Just a nit, but some interesting connections. Leibniz was an amateur mathematician. Newton was a professional with the most institutional power a scientist had ever achieved. It was when Newton was boss of the British money making factory (the mint) and boss of the royal society, that he used his authority, under Leibniz’s former boss, to undermine the German’s reputation as a successful promoter of the calculus on the continent — with an official RoySoc investigation concluding with an accusations of plagiarism.
It was the Engish Henry More and Isaac Newton who abolished the relativity widely promoted on the continent and defended respectively by Descarte (against More) and Leibniz (against Clarke for Newton). When Eienstein reintroduced relativity, he acknowledge this history.
And another thing….Leibniz was always in a hurry, with so much of his day job getting in the way of his amateur obsession (mathematical philosophy). This day job included his engineering efforts to remove water from his bosses mines in the Hartz Mountains. I recently read HH Lamb attributing the flooding of these mines to…the impacts of climate change (of the natural variety of courses!). In fact, Leibniz’s life span, from 1646 to 1716, makes him the Maunder Minimum philosopher.
Real Climate is an echo chamber. Not a serious blog.
Ian Ron says @ur momisugly July 23, 2011 6:04 PM:
“It seems clear from what Mr. Schmidt goes on to say that he has no intention of commenting further on this topic, but I thought I’d ask the questions anyway. In closing, may I just say what a privilege it is to be insulted by such a luminary as a NASA scientist, even in such a casual and throwaway manner.”
I love your sense of humor on the matter – similar to mine. My response to those who ribbed me on my long-winded presentations (i.e.: thorough and detailed) was, “I’ll have you know that I have been insulted by professionals”.
Real Climate is co-founded and operated by people including employees of the U.S. Government, who claim they contribute work on their off-duty hours. It is currently unexplained how such a claim could be valid given the time stamps on postings. Funding for the project is alleged to come from notorious organization/s with their own suspicious backgrounds, but critics are suspicious of the work contributions from the people on the payroll from the U.S. Government and taxpayers.
Gary Mount: about Clifford Stoll made a comment about Silicon Snake Oil.
From wikipedia: “Stoll left a self-deprecating comment: “Of my many mistakes, flubs, and howlers, few have been as public as my 1995 howler….Now, whenever I think I know what’s happening, I temper my thoughts: Might be wrong, Cliff”
So at least Mr Stoll admits his mistakes.
GS should have used the date 1984.
Re post by:
PRICELESS!!
GS should have used the date 1984.
If he had just a speck of a sense of humor…
Marty says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation. (@RC)
24 Jul 2011 at 12:14 AM
Very interesting comments here.
As we all know, climate science is evolving with greater instrumentation and a better understanding of the air and ocean currents, including satellite sensors, sounding of molecular activity in the troposphere and analysis of the atomic mater/plasma above and beyond. Interactions through the spheres (tropo, strato, meso, ionosphere, thermo and magneto)from molecular to atomic, including the magnetic influences are poorly understood. Our planets ever-changing magnetosphere (declination/inclination) along with its shape and strength are not fully understood, nor is the impetus’s for cloud formation.
Any scientist that claims they have all the modelling inputs with the correct weighting applied is delusional or worse.
Our planets plate boundaries are alive and well and although they are unpredictable, we know for example that a 105 day rift changes everything quickly. From solar influence weighting to % of white ground cover to when are clouds on the dayside VS lack of clouds on the nightside, we have miles to go before gaining a good understanding of cause and effect with climatology.
What geological condition are we in right now? it’s called an interglacial period and it is the shorter portion of our planets two-part history, so I believe we should enjoy it while we can.
Also, does anyone think mankind will delay or stop the next glaciation period?
Take care & All The Best!
Old-timers know that the standard way to merge or even invent a new ‘old’ thread is to re-use an existing thread from the period in question. Most people that run a forum or blog know to create spares for future use, but failing that, any waste thread or topic from years ago will suffice.
What I am getting at is that it leaves only a couple of possible explanations:
(A) Gavin is aware of common newsgroup/website/forum/blog management techniques but had no ‘spare’ or throw-away threads from that week in 2004 that he could re-use for a seamless retrofit.
(B) Gavin is unaware of common forum management techniques and thus he whipped up the new one *but* felt no compunctions about editing the date. This is most telling by the way, as it would be indicative of a person that is careless with data and would alter it. The close proximity to Hansen with his shenanigans could be positive feedback to this behavior.
(C) Gavin is unaware of common forum management techniques and thus he whipped up the new one, and just didn’t think it was a big deal. I should point out one thing that all ethical computer experts would do at this step (those who instinctively treat data as critically important), he should have scribbled an explanation at the top of the thread. This shows you did something unusual but you are coming clean in public about it. This is how trust is earned. Failure to do such a simple thing breeds suspicion, and rightly so since the number one topic on these blogs is the careless mis-handling of data.
BTW … I *do* think the plan actually was to shoehorn older approved classic ‘troll-like’ comments into the new thread, although I still would leave a placeholder pointer: moved to borehole as comment #xxxxx. However, the alteration of the date on this new thread is still NOT NECESSARY even in this scenario (thread dated 2011, comments dated 2004, 2005 etc). It’s cool. So why bother?
Ian Rons …
‘the post_id of 6013 is in between 6011 and 6047 (you can see these by typing in realclimate.org/?p=6011, etc.). The missing post_ids in between are unpublished revisions created by WordPress (probably the AutoSave feature) so bearing in mind the date of the first comment, it definitely had to have been created on the 6th Jan. Thus the published date is incorrect.’
But this is normal, the data has been adjusted to improve its accuracy.
Instead of getting panties in a wad over Gavin Schmidt’s censoring one might have a bit of fun instead using Poe’s Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
So you create yourself a sock puppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
then ingratiate yourself with Gavin through flattery and feigned agreement. After a handful of the puppet’s reasonable comments get approved you start laying it on thicker and thicker. Turn the flattery into outright hero worship. Become a CAGW extremist’s extremist. Start referring to Gavin as ‘Gavin “Captain America” Schmidt’ and see if his ego is big enough to let it through. See how long it takes him to figure out he’s been had.
If Schmidt has a problem with Ad Hominems, perhaps he should think about cleaning up his own act to set an example. The last time I visited RC (many months ago) the sheer vitriol of certain of Schmidt’s coterie left me with an extremely bad taste in my mouth. Language which would never appear on WUWT is apparently condoned providing it is targeted at dissenters to RC’s line.
As an Englishman I am ashamed of Schmidt.
Ian Rons says:
July 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm
“I note further that he offers no figures as to the number of spam comments they receive at the site, merely saying that “they have no idea how much spam we get”, which is a fair comment but which says nothing. Some figures would be helpful.”
Perhaps RC has been overwhelmed with spam to the same extent that CRU has been overwhelmed with FOI requests 🙂
DaveS,
RC uses Captcha as an anti-spam device such that you have to be a real person to read and re-type two words in altered text to submit a comment. Presumably, running WordPress, RC also benefits from Akisment spam blocker which is quite effective. The spam that does get though that could be of the order of 1% but I think it is a learning system so spam stays low as it learns not to let in spam that got through but was then deleted by the site owner. What I am saying is that RC should have the same or less % of spam compared to WUWT.
The fact that something like ‘The Bore Hole’ even exists speaks volumes. OK, I may have a UK sense of humour (different from US humor) but- it is is simply not funny and is the most blatant piece of Ad Hominism to exist almost anywhere. It may have been funny amongst a select few at a private cocktail party when everyone was well lubricated, but should have stayed there. To make it a major part of your blog shows either monumental arrogance or a serious lack of basic social skills and niceties. (Others round here have noted that from watching GISS lunchtimers on YouTube, have they not?)
It (yet again) begs the question; if the scientifically proven case for AGW is so strong, what have they got to fear and also, why the near universal reluctance to comply with FOI requests. If there really is a problem with man-made CO2, they’d be ramming the info down our throats rather than worrying about ‘future funding’ and ‘intellectual property’ (There’s an oxymoron if ever there was)
The whole thing stinks.
Er, Stoll’s investigation into the $0.75 discrepancy in billing records in Berkley had to do with his pursuit of a computer cracker by the name of Markus Hess (a German national) in 1986. His book “The Cuckoo’s Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage” was very fascinating. I remember reading it years ago.