Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
Seinfeld fans will remember how proud Kramer was when he thought he had slipped one past the goalie. Well, I’ve managed to slip a few comments onto RealClimate’s discusion of the Times Atlas “Greenland Meltdown” fiasco.
Those of us who have followed the story here on WUWT (1, 2, 3, 4) know the basic facts. (1) The 13th edition of the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World was published this past September, (2) The Atlas includes a misleading map of Greenland ice cover, (3) Publicity for the Atlas hyped a non-existent 15% meltdown in Greenland, (4) The Atlas has withdrawn the bogus claim, and (5) They will create a corrective insert for the Atlas and make it available online.
RC’s 08 November 2011 post on this issue Times Atlas map of Greenland to be corrected, said the original claims were “rather bizarre” but -amazingly to me- they did not not mention that the error was in the direction of excessive warming. Comment #1, by a seemingly misled RC reader, blames the error on the fact that “Harper Collins is owned by Rupert Murdoch.” The RC moderator cautions against personal attacks, and notes that such a claim wouldn’t make any sense, but he does not acknowledge why – because the error was in the Warmist direction!
To be fair, RC did include a link to another posting that, after a bunch of Warmist hype, is pretty clear on the direction of the original error. However, that link was misleadingly titled “Greenland Meltdown” (since changed to “reported earlier”).
So I posted my first-ever comment to RC, and they published it, in an edited manner that partly reverses my point, as follows:
(Comment #7) Ira Glickstein says: 8 Nov 2011 at 4:54 PM
Thanks for reporting “… the first edition was completely in error, and led to some rather bizarre claims about the amount of ice loss in Greenland.”
However, you do not
acknowledgereiterate the direction of the error, which was to report an impossible, way overstated 15% ice loss.An interested reader would have to follow your link to the
misleadinglybrilliantly, amusingly and accurately titled Greenland Meltdown to learn that: “…, the large exaggeration of that loss rate by Harper Collins in the press release for the 2011 edition of the Times Atlas was of course completely wrong. … the confusion came most likely from a confusion in definitions of what is the permanent ice sheet, and what are glaciers, with the ‘glaciers’ being either dropped from the Atlas entirely or colored brown (instead of white) … there is simply no measure — neither thickness nor areal extent — by which Greenland can be said to have lost 15 % of its ice.[Response: edits in italics 😉 –eric]
Well, an attentive RC commenter followed the link from my name to my personal blog, and from there learned I am a “guest contributor to the denialist disinformation blog WUWT”. I thought that might end my new career as a commenter at RC, but the Moderator passed my second comment (# 12), unedited, even though I challenged the use of “denialist” with respect to WUWT, and included five WUWT links to my “Visualizing the ‘Greenhouse’ Effect” series to prove that we skeptics accept the basic science. Perhaps the comment was passed because I also approvingly quoted James Hansen on the Carbon Tax.
My third comment (# 22) was also passed unedited, but the Moderator said my claim that “despite the steady rise in CO2 over the past decade, there has been no statistically significant mean warming” was “simply false”.
My fourth comment (#31) explained what “statistically significant” means (less than a 5% chance it is wrong), and noted that Phil Jones, head of the Climategate Research Unit said as much in his well-publicized BBC interview. The RC Moderator cut my Climategate jibe, but passed the rest unedited. Further discussion has been shunted over to RC’s Open Thread sidelines, where I am attempting to continue it.
The point of this posting is that, whatever the difficulties, it is possible for skeptics to post over at RC, so long as we are not too blatant about it, and if we are not too sensitive about our words being edited.
The WUWT links in my comments have generated some traffic back here, which is evidence some RC readers are open to reasonable discussion. I urge my fellow skeptics to open-handedly accept this opportunity.
I won’t waste one second of my time at blogs like Real Climate. It’s not because I’ve succumbed to confirmation bias and refuse to look at the other side of the issue, but because I won’t tolerate censorship disguised as moderation to reasonable comments with an opposing view.
barry says:
November 13, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Steve from Rockwood
Muller acknowledges no significant warming in the last decade. You can link to his WSJ article from his web-site.
Would that be the 2 year-old WSJ article, before BEST had done its work, he had crunched the numbers and learned differently?
——————————————————-
Barry, I think I have Muller figured out.
He was a skeptic until he did an enormous amount of work and proved that all the previous climate scientists were right (including the hockey stick) and that the world has warmed dramatically during the past 60 years. So he changed his mind. Fair enough.
But he remains skeptical about the cause of global warming and to what extent it will impact humans in the coming decades. But with more research he will no doubt uncover the truth to these important questions.
But I can save Muller all the expensive research. He will come the startling conclusion that fossil fuels are indeed the cause of the alarming warming and that the future of mankind is in trouble. We are at a tipping point he will argue. If we don’t start reducing our CO2 emissions the world will see a runaway global warming marked by extreme weather events and where as many as half of all life could be in peril.
A true scientist, who changes his mind every two years. I wonder how he started out so skeptical? Was he as stupid as the rest of us, ignoring the settled science of Mann and Hansen? Has he now completely debunked the work of McIntyre and Mckitrick? Were the Vikings able to survive in a Greenland colder than today?
Ira.
If i posted on specialist blogs ( say on cars, tech, or horses or dogs ) with some comments on any controversial areas and they struck my words and inserted words of theirs over top…it would be my second last post…the last post would be the one that gets me banned, after telling them what cowardly sleveens they are
I don’t see anything wrong or dishonest in the way that RC edited Ira’s post. The comment was edited openly, so that readers could see the original wording. The editing was annoying and disrespectful, however: it shows a lack of respect for the opinions of others. But I must say I see plenty of disrespect here for the opinions of the AGW proponents.
[Reply: Commenters don’t get disrespect from moderators here …unless they bring it on themselves. And never for an opposing view of science. ~dbs, mod.]
I have evidence that when “regulars” of SkS and RC get out from the protective shell of these moderated blogs – they don’t do well in debating AGW – IPCC claims.
A contributor on a blog, I post on, asked for help from the “regulars” because they couldn’t debate, with evidence, why they believed in the claims made.
On the blog we were on, at least two “regulars” showed up and attempted 🙂 The problem, for them, was the blog allowed dissenting opinions [ with civility ] – something not experienced within the echo chamber.
Ron House,
But that is not what happened. If eric wanted to pretend the edits was the original opinion of the commenter, he wouldn’t have left the original words in, or pointed out what the additions were.
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
Dirk,
[Me] “You realise that you can read the original comment in full?”
[Dirk] Barry, there is not enough evidence to be sure about that
I think it’s clear from Ira’s description. But hopefully Ira will set the record straight for us, preventing any unwarranted speculation from festering.
Michael Klein says:
November 13, 2011 at 5:29 pm
“I don’t see anything wrong or dishonest in the way that RC edited Ira’s post. The comment was edited openly, so that readers could see the original wording.”
……………………………..
hmmmmmmmmm………
Michael Klein says:
November 13, 2011 at 5:29 pm
“The editing was annoying and disrespectful, however: it shows a lack of respect for the opinions of others.”
……………………………
Make up your mind, yet?
Michael Klein says:
November 13, 2011 at 5:29 pm
But I must say I see plenty of disrespect here for the opinions of the AGW proponents.”
If true….. You are saying because one does it – ?
Do you believe that when scientists chose to become authoritarian – they should be held to higher accountability?
I do!
“Alex says:
November 13, 2011 at 2:50 pm
I never managed to get a post passed at RC. Tried at 3 different occasions. No nastiness from my side. They are censoring like they were a part of the old eastern european press.”
Hehehe… they do have ties to the reminisce of the old eastern European press. Trace their ties through Green Peace, WWF, Sierra Club, and so on.
Why wonder when they censor and re-write history like the old eastern European press? A person’s words, spoken or written, are history once laid down and RC re-writes that history regularly, or simply deletes it at will.
It is a snake-pit.
Ira, you’ve been there, done that. Should a person jump in head first or feet first to lengthen the brief stay at RealClimate? You seemed to be dancing so I will guess feet first. ☺
RJ says:
November 13, 2011 at 2:26 pm
“and included five WUWT links to my “Visualizing the ‘Greenhouse’ Effect” series to prove that we skeptics accept the basic science.”
Real sceptics do not accept the basic science. CO2 does not somehow magically create additional energy after it leaves earth as many so called sceptics claim.
You are a warmist but not an alarmist. You accept the basic implausible pseudo science but just challenge the extent of warming
Steve from Rockwood says:
November 13, 2011 at 2:59 pm
“I also approvingly quoted James Hansen on the Carbon Tax” – wait Ira, you’re not trying to slip one by the goalie are you?
Why on [a naturally warming] earth would you support a carbon tax?
Doug in Seattle says:
November 13, 2011 at 4:58 pm
RC allows Ira’s (edited) posts because he is not a skeptic. While perhaps not an alarmist like the usual RC posters, his views, at least those he has written about here, track better with the IPCC than they do with most folks here.
##############
Maybe that’s where Muller got his idea from to begin claiming he was sceptic..
Fifth columnist. Keeps repeating all the same junk AGW science fiction memes in his posts and pushing for carbon taxes ‘as a solution’ to the non-existent problem all the while claiming he’s just like ‘us skeptics’. B.S. in bucketloads.
So why does he want us to go over there to post? He screwed with my posts here in a discussion, abused his guest poster ability to enter into my posts – he’s not the greenhorn Willis describes him. 🙂
While you’re over there, Ira, ask them to explain what happens to the 95% thermal infrared from an incandescent bulb when what you say you feel as heat comes from the 5% visible emitted? Does it get trapped in the bulb or what?
Boiled water with blue visible for the coffee yet?
barry says:
November 13, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“If eric wanted to pretend the edits was the original opinion of the commenter, he wouldn’t have left the original words in, or pointed out what the additions were.
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.”
………………………………
Nonsense! ….
He [ eric ] felt the need to implant his thoughts and words.
What was so “dangerous” in the original posts – that he felt the need?
barry;
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill>>>
I recommend reading the history of how tyrannies begin with the seed of an idea that takes root and is nourished be steadily increasing manipulation of information. If left unweeded, the inch becomes a yard, and the yard a nation, held hostage by force to a fictional cause by those who hold power and will cling to it no matter the cost in lives to do so.
There is NO excuse to justify the editing of someone else’s words, be the edit minor or major, in a debate about anything at any time, and the complete striking of comments in their entirety, a known practice at RC, is just as reprehensible. Manipulating the debate in the smallest of ways and trying to justify it is simply giving the weeds an inch.
Those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it. Unfortunately, when the naive repeat history, they frequently condemn the rest of us to repeating it with them.
Not one inch sir. Not one tiny fraction of a molehill, for molehills do, in fact, grow to be mountains.
kim,
Haha. you have ‘implanted’ the idea that Ira’s post was ‘dangerous’.
If it was that big of a deal, eric could simply have not allowed the post in the first place.
Ira’s post was silly. I’m surprised it made it through moderation to begin with.
I have posted at RC on occasion, and even posts that were not skeptical of the topic or disrespectful or anything have been barred. On re-reading my comment and the thread, it has become clear that my post was barred because it was a) repeating something that had already been said, or b) poorly reasoned, or c) poorly articulated, d) off-topic. My personal experience is not that posts are barred for being skeptical, but because they are not good enough in quality, or because they add nothing new to the topic.
On other occasions, I have had skeptical posts admitted – because they were clear, on topic and unsullied by ad hom or any political rhetoric.
RC have a lower tolerance for poor-quality posts or ignorance than some other blogs, including this one. That is their right.
I know that some people keep a record of their posts that were barred from there. As it would not be inappropriate to the topic here, I’d be interested in checking some of those out. (Of course, it would be difficult to verify that the commenter had honestly kept a record of their original post).
Spelling.
Re: ” Comment #1, by a seemingly mislead RC reader…..” Can “mislead” be changed to “misled”?
IanM
Ira, do you know what the term “Judas goat” connotes?
.
barry;
RC have a lower tolerance for poor-quality posts or ignorance than some other blogs, including this one. That is their right>>>
They have a low tolerance for dissenting opinion, and they allow the most egregious of remarks to be made in regard to those they disagree with. I speak from experience, as do many others. Is it their right? No, actually, it isn’t. Disinformation, misrepresentation of the facts, half truths, and suppression of dissent are not the right of anyone in a free world. Unless you wish to forego the freedoms your forefathers faught and died for, you cannot justify a single edit to someone else’s words be it overt or subtle.
History’s lessons on this are clear, and I for one don’t have any desire to repeat it with you.
barry says:
November 13, 2011 at 6:17 pm
“Haha. you have ‘implanted’ the idea that Ira’s post was ‘dangerous’.”
……………………………..
Ha ha ha yourself………….When eric edited – HE was the one who gave the impression that the wording used by Ira was “dangerous” and needed rewrite.
Logic not your strong suit?
…………………………..
barry says:
November 13, 2011 at 6:17 pm
“Ira’s post was silly. I’m surprised it made it through moderation to begin with.”
……………………………….
I’m surprised that you’re surprised……but then again………….
Have you ever heard the term….”pawned”?
davidmhoffer says:
November 13, 2011 at 6:35 pm…………….
……………………..
WELL SAID!
“Perhaps the comment was passed because I also approvingly quoted James Hansen on the Carbon Tax.”
Hansen opposed the “cap-and-trade” legislation supported by Obama and Al Gore. He said it was “not a smart approach.” Instead, he favors a form of Carbon Tax that he calls “fee-and-dividend”. I couldn’t locate the Hansen quote Ira was referring to. However, it is clear that while Hansen opposes carbon trading, he does not oppose carbon taxes.
For some reason I get the strong feeling that
“the goalie” is reading this thread and laughing his butt off.
Please, you strain the limits of credulity.
I must agree with the assertion that going to RC lends credibility to it. I cannot see any value in visiting RC, not even to see some supposed proof of how bad they may be.
Note that persuasion is an illusion. Generally, only pain forces one to change an opinion. I have found that people will believe whatever they want and base it on anything they desire to deem worthy.
Why would anyone want to waste time in that place?
Ira Glickstein writes:
“——- WUWT links to my “Visualizing the ‘Greenhouse’ Effect” series to prove that we skeptics accept the basic science. Perhaps the comment was passed because I also approvingly quoted James Hansen on the Carbon Tax. —– The point of this posting is that, whatever the difficulties, it is possible for skeptics to post over at RC, so long as we are not too blatant about it, and if we are not too sensitive about our words being edited.“
Ira, any Skeptic who, when writing to RC, openly accepts and admits to what you call “the basic science” and furthermore is willing to be edited by RC is very welcome to post whatever they wish to write on RC.
Why not write a post here on WUWT wherein you state what the proof for AGW is?
The Natural Greenhouse Effect is a theory that may have some kind of consensus, but there seems to be no data, that I can find, that supports it. Therefore for me, it remains an unproven theory.
Proof for AGW is, to me, not that the Sun is only capable of warming a blackbody the size of the Earth, without an Atmosphere, to a temperature of minus 18 Deg. Celsius – (255 Kelvin) and that it must therefore be the atmosphere’s GHGs that supply the rest of the energy necessary to raise the planet’s temperature by 33 K.
IMHO the “formulas and constants” used to work out the “Blackbody Temperature” (BT) pay no attention to the fact that the Earth is turning, on its axis, at such a fast rate that the surface never, in – or at any spot – cools down to anywhere near Zero Kelvin (0 K.) Therefore the Sun does not (and probably never did) have the job of warming the Earth’s surface up from scratch.
–OK, so I’ll go along with the fact that the “water cycle” is helping to keep the warmth in, but if the Earth was orbiting the Sun in the same manner that our moon orbits the Earth, then by how much would CO2 and the rest of the GHGs warm the Earth? –Well, I don’t know, but I doubt there would be anybody here to work it out.
don’t want to give a shred of cred to RC, and NO hits ….
don’t ever go there !