From The Legend of the Titanic at RealClimate (bold mine):
However, if the notion that information makes little impact is correct, one may wonder what the point would be in having a debate about climate change, and why certain organisations would put so much efforts into denial, as described in books such as Heat is on, Climate Cover-up, Republican war on science, Merchants of doubt, and The Hockeystick and Climate Wars. Why then, would there be such things as ‘the Heartland Institute’, ‘NIPCC’, climateaudit, WUWT, climatedepot, and FoS, if they had no effect? And indeed, the IPCC reports and the reports from the National Academy of Sciences? One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.
Look at the data, then you be the judge:
From Alexa.com – note that the lower number for traffic rank is better
(Google is traffic rank #1 for example)
Source for comparisons: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com+realclimate.org#
Seems like an order of magnitude slam dunk to me, RC can’t even get out of the grass at greater than 100,000 traffic rank…they aren’t even being tracked anymore. Here’s the last 6 months:
Source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/realclimate.org#
Rasmus goes on to say at RC:
What do I think? Public opinion is changed not by big events as such, but by the public interpretation of those events. Whether a major event like hurricane Katrina or the Moscow heat wave changes attitudes towards climate change is determined by people’s interpretation of this event, and whether they draw a connection to climate change – though not necessarily directly. I see this as a major reason why organisations such as the Heartland are fighting their PR battle by claiming that such events are all natural and have nothing to do with emissions.
The similarity between these organisations and the Titanic legend is that there was a widespread misconception that it could not sink (and hence it’s fame) and now organisations like the Heartland make dismissive claims about any connection between big events and climate change. However, new and emerging science is suggesting that there may indeed be some connections between global warming and heat waves and between trends in mean precipitation and more extreme rainfall.
This is a good time to remind readers and the few remaining RC denizens of why Rasmus Benestad is clueless on the “emerging science” of severe weather = climate change:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In my experience of engaging with the debate at the Guardian environment section, RealClimate is dead and buried. No-one mentions it. No-one refers to it.
It is forgotten.
However, the gold standard source for interpreting the climate seems to be the Skeptical Science website. At least to the true believers. They link to Skeptical Science every day.
It makes me wonder if the funding and green charity strategy has switched after the revelations of Climategate 2.
If so, that must really hurt.
No matter how clever you are at maths (I’m not).
2+2=4 no matter how you spin it.
James Bull
Following my comment to Monty: “they are so bad we can’t even trust them to have made their own case well” I.e. we can’t even rely on them to have shown the worst aspects of CO2, … so we have to be open to the possibility It could be worse than they say.
Monty replied: “do some original research”. Obviously, that’s crackers … the key to good science is an open mind, not going off on a wild goose chase.
But, I will thank him, for at least I did sit down to think of a few things which I’ve never understood why we haven’t heard more about and which I suspect is largely because of their obsession with CO2.
The first thoughts of that list are here. If anyone else would like to brainstorm a few ideas, please do add comments.
Monopole 10:29pm.
#1
“Same goes for RC dis-allowing any adverse comments or searching questions. They can’t stand anything contrary to the party line or against the “settled science”.”
That’s the pot calling tne kettle black!!
My last comment couldn’t get by the censors – because it critisized this website?
[REPLY: Your comment was stuck in the spam filter and there were no duty moderators at the time to retrieve it. Your comment was consigned to trash because it violated site policy, which you can see here. If you have something substantive to say, it will get posted. Insult, snark, and condescending arrogance will not. -REP]
contd #2
I wonder which bit the Gatekeeping Priesthood didn’t like…..
Try asking RC if most of their hits come after an article in WUWT.
Go easy on Rasmus if only for the sake of the fact that he shares a splendid name with my eldest son. Rasmus is the god of the Baltic sea. When you’ve sold the catch, scrubbed the desks and battened down the hatches, pour two schnapps. One goes in the sea to thank Rasmus for bringing you home safely, the other down the throat to take the morning chill off…
The Friends of Science Society (FoS), on its tenth birthday, is delighted to be recognised by RC as a thorn in the side of the warmists.
Kim 2000 = Hope for the future
There is one very fascinating page at Real Climate. The RC Bore Hole. Some of the very best questions show up there. Often well worth a read.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/comment-page-18/#comments
The rest of RC is propaganda nonsense. The cult of climate science enforced through censorship. No questioning of the orthodoxy is allowed in any cult. No questioning of the supreme leader, the godhead is allowed in any cult.
Here is an example of the sort of comments RC cannot tolerate.
851
tim lanigan says:
3 May 2012 at 12:25 PM
‘One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.’
With only 9 comments I would have to agree with that proposistion.
Here is another comment that RC cannot tolerate:
858
vukcevic says:
4 May 2012 at 2:07 AM
#17 Daniel Bailey says:
vukcevic’s comment above is quite off-topic on this thread. At a minimum, please consign it to the open thread and delete this comment.
Yes, I agree, indeed it is off topic, but it may be of a fundamental importance to the climate science and geophysics.
– fact that (as it appears) fluctuations in the intensity of the geomagnetic field are synchronized with solar magnetic activity, to a degree of two orders of magnitude greater, is totally unexpected and eventually may lead to redefining of the sun-Earth link.
– from practical and more immediate concern to the climate science are the interpretations of the Antarctica’s 10Be data from the Dome Fuji ice cores, which are widely used for various assessment in numerous academic papers (see graph no. 3) in
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzAa.htm
Finally, there are strong indications that the GW may be experiencing either plateau or a possible decline in the near future, in which case the above discovery may provide some of the answers.
James Bull says:
May 4, 2012 at 12:24 am
2+2=4 no matter how you spin it.
2 + 2 = 10 (base 4)
It will be interesting to see how the paradigm changes when Greece followed by Spain defaults. The extreme AGW end of the world story created an imaginary crisis that justified lunatic deficit spending on ‘green’ scams that had no economic or practical energy benefit. This will be the most cost policy blunder in history. The cause of this madness is not, however, a scientific blunder. There is obvious widespread evidence of massive scientific cover-up, data manipulation, and blocking of analysis and data concerning this subject.
The scientific data and analysis unequivocally supports the assertion that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes where it will result in an expansion in the biosphere. Planetary cloud cover in the tropical regions increases or decreases thereby reflecting more or less sunlight off into space which resists any forcing change, negative feedback. The IPCC general circulation models (GCM) used positive feedback, which amplifies any forcing change. Analysis of changes of top of the atmosphere radiation (from satellites) Vs changes in changes in ocean surface temperature unequivocally shows the planet’s feedback response is negative. Even assuming all of the observed warming in the 20th century was caused by carbon dioxide increases, the observations are consistent with negative feedback rather than positive feedback. The science is settled. The extreme AGW prediction is an urban legend, a myth created to justify lunatic policies.
Carbon dioxide is essential for life on the planet. CO2 is not a poison. Plants eat CO2. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to levels of 1000 ppm to 1200 ppm, to reduce growing times and to increase yield. Cereal crop yields increase by 30% to 40% in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Western countries particularly the EU used the extreme AGW end of the world prediction, as an excuse for massive amounts of deficit spending on “green” scams such as the construction of solar farms and wind farm which result in minimal reduction in the CO2 emission if one includes the energy input to construct the facilities and the very expensive and inefficient back natural gas power plants that are required due to the intermittent nature of solar and wind. (A peak load single cycle natural gas plant has an efficiency of 30% as combined to 60% efficiency for a combined cycle natural gas power plant.)
http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm
“Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality. …Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent in the air we breathe. It comprises only .03% [ 300 parts per million, or PPM] of the atmosphere, but is virtually important to all life on this planet! …Plants are made up of about 90% carbon and water with other elements like nitrogen calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and trace elements making up only a small percentage. Almost all the carbon in plants comes from this minor 300 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6036529.ece
“There is no doubt that the enrichment of the air with CO2 is increasing plant growth rates in many areas,” said Professor Martin Parry, head of plant science at Rothamsted Research, Britain’s leading crop institute.”
http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Global-Warming-Disaster/dp/1441110526
The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with “Climate Change” Turning Out to Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? By Christopher Booker
“A ‘story’ for our time”
“…the fear that mankind might be heating up the planet to the point of destruction had mushroomed into the greatest and potentially most expensive scare the world has ever known.
The first of these, preparing the ground for all that followed, was that profound shift in consciousness which took place in the 1960s giving rise to what came to be known as ‘environmentalism’. For all those caught up in it, this gave them a way of looking at man’s place in the world as …thoughtlessly wreaking untold havoc on the natural world around him and seemly bent on destroying all life on earth. …we are consciously aware, see the world in terms of stories, ‘narratives’ which help shape the way in which we try to understand the world around us…The next few years are going to be increasingly uncomfortable but very interesting. At the moment, it begins to look in many ways as though the lunatics have taken over the asylum. One of the greatest challenges confronting us in the years ahead may be to find ways of pulling them and ourselves back from that headlong rush towards chaos and self-destruction which is now hanging over our blindly comfortable Western world very much more than most of us realize.”
If you visit a blog and your comments (polite, reasonable, intelligent) always go awol, you tend not to visit anymore.
To me this goes to the heart of my problem with realclimate.org. I posted there a few times, the first couple were questions that were answered by a long series of snarks by someone who had harassed me on another blog venue (I have been on the internet since 1984 and you tend to accumulate people who don’t like you). This person was an ardent warmista and as I noted had a long record on RC. When I started putting forth an argument based on known history in response to this person, my comments were never published.
After this happened about four or five times, I said the heck with this and never came back. That was in 2007 so in five years I have not visited that site. I know from reading here and other places that this is a normal occurrence there, thus I would posit that it is a pretty good reason why their traffic is low.
I have noted in my own blog that people love to argue and I have tested this theory on multiple occasions by posting some good science, which gets maybe two or three responses, and then something controversial in the political realm and the responses go on for days….
Those cowards. I posted this at RC on the “Titanic” thread and it’s now Bore Hole # 860.
It’s ironic and strangely fitting that a supporter of CAGW hypotheses should argue on RealClimate in favor of a proposition that the sad fate of the Titanic was chiefly due to the inactions of the stupid people aboard another ship.
Susan Anderson wrote: …with the doubting and delaying efforts of [climate alamism skeptics] [climate change] is in the process of becoming a much bigger disaster.
Ah, you must be talking about the Hanson temperature projections? But they were wrong, too high. Ah, so you must be talking about the polar bear extinctions. No? I’ve got it, it’s the 50 million climate refugees from two years ago. No, that didn’t happen. It must be the shrinking alpine glaciers in the Himalayas. No, wait, is it the rising sea levels?
Clearly, the need for actual Real [tm] disasters is why there is such a big push from your side to suddenly link weather tragedies and deaths to climate change, That’s funny, too, because up until now, there at least seemed to have been a gentleman’s agreement that short term weather and long term climate should not be conflated, lest we begin to delude ourselves for emotionally satisfying, but inaccurate reasons.
Now, it would seem, your side NEEDS this specifc delusion so that the tragedy of tornado or flood deaths, which have been occurring to humans since they’ve existed, can keep alive your silly and unsupported assertions of impending global doom.
The Tree House !
Ajmal was young kid and , he wanted to make a tree house all of his other friends were making tree houses of their own. Ajmal asked tons of people to help him make the house but nobody agreed but his son and daughter Adam and Laila. In the end Ajmal had to make the tree house on his own with his kids.
He cut the wood and hammered all the pieces together until the tree house was finally made. Even though the house wasn’t as good as his friends Ajmal still played in it. Then one day a gush of wind came and blew all the tree houses to the ground.
The only tree house that was still in good condition and was still in a tree was Ajmal’s tree house. All the people admired his tree house. The lesson learned in this story is that when a person works hard to make something he expects people to like it and admire it.
This story is exactly like how God (Rab) made the earth. He made everything so lovely and beautiful, then he made the first man who we all know as Adam to live in the wonderful world he made. When Adam first came on earth the sun was just rising. Adam opened his eyes and took a sneeze (The heart start pumping) and said, “ Allhum Dulila Hey Rabulalameen” meaning Thank you God (Rab)for the beautiful earth and it’s life !
Human Faith is heavenly light of knowledge restriction on sacred light is eclipse on humanity and blasphemy.
Human Faith is a religious of God (Rab) of humanity (Rabi). The definition of humanity (Rabi)in our faith is the quality of being humane and respectful for life. The Divine Affirmations of human faith are the commandment of God (Rab) of Humanity (Rabi). The crime against the Divine Affirmations is blasphemy and great disrespect for our God (Rab) of humanity (Rabi).
Our method of teaching moral values and human fealty can give realistic purpose of achieving complete fulfillment of internal life. The spiritual change from loneness to loveliness is based on love by giving unlimited trust in God (Rab) and faith in humanity.
Human mind is miracle of Supreme Being when we struggle to boil it at lukewarm temperature of wisdom to understand fundamental of life by reading (Rabi). The ever lasting stage of satisfaction for mind is to reach Supreme Being before death. The journey of memories can be pleasant with divine affirmations of human faith. We believe that it is time to joggle every conscious to show them that human mind is superior matter not material.
The festival of life can be celebrated with wisdom of human faith knowledge once we realize that we are part of the superior race . We advocates spiritual and moral principles on very high scales for the longest term in human history. Human faith is monotheistic faith and knows that God is the creator and overseer of the universe at all the time and all matters.
God Bless America
Written By Ajmal Mehdi of Mehdi LLC Medics Home Healthcare/ Lucky’s Mini Mart 37 center Street Bristol CT 06010 860.582.2226/860.583.3338 http://www.humanfaith.info
contd #3
Let’s see if we can’t tack down the forbidden thoughts or words.
I commented on the above. Monopole 10:29pm:
“The folks at RC don’t want to recogonize that there are other views, let alone engage them in discussion. Their attitude is very condescending to say the least.”
The word acknowledgment was used in my censored comment.
Engagement would be acknowledgment
Ok so far??
[REPLY: No. Good try, but no. I presume you have the brains to read the site policy and figure it out for yourself. If you don’t have the brains, why are you here? -REP]
Village Idiot,
Appropriate screen name. Since you’re an idiot, I’ll use simple words: “Censorship” can only be done by governments. RealClimate is run 24/7/366 by people who are paid by the taxpayers. They censor skeptics’ comments while representing the government. They are censors. That is their correct label.
WUWT does not censor. WUWT is privately owned. WUWT allows all scientific points of view without censorship. Moderation is done with a light touch.
That does not mean you can post anything you like. There is a site Policy that you should read. If you violate it, your comment can be snipped or deleted by a moderator. That is not censorship. That is following the site rules.
RealClimate censors the scientific views of skeptics. Do you understand the difference? RC is run by government workers, who censor scientific comments they do not agree with. They censor peoples’ opinions using their taxpayer-paid positions.
If you still don’t understand the difference, ask questions and I will explain further, to the point that even someone with your disability can understand.
Peter Kovachev says:
May 3, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Yeppers!!!
When RC posted at RC – they knew they were protected. They could “edit” or “delete” at will.
Once those claims – arguments were copied and pasted to the site we were at…it was out of echo-chamber edit control.
When their comments and my referenced rebuttals started showing-up on search engines……:)
ABOUT KIDS and inundation.
The very best thing adults can do in providing critical thinking skills, Is teaching basic logic, and what a “divergence” from a hypothesis – means…. to that hypothesis. Such as, temperatures falling, or held steady, while CO2 rises.
It takes about 15 minutes of your time….AND isn’t taught.
Thank you!
David Ball says:
May 4, 2012 at 7:22 am
Thank you!
RE
William Astley says:
@ur momisugly May 4, 2012 at 8:49 am
————
Thanks William.
Jimmy Haigh says:
May 3, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Real Climate disappoints. – gavin.
========================================
Think the real climate is what disappointed RealClimate.
Their internet traffic went down because they censored so many visitors that they left and never came back.
Way to go RC!
contd #4
Smokey 3:27pm
Definition of censor = “to delete or make changes in”
You don’t have an argument.
Let’s talk about site policy. This appears only to apply to those accepting mainstream climate science.
Policy: “..those without manners that insult others..may find their posts deleted”
Smokey to Village Idiot:
“even someone with your disability”
Moderator to Village Idiot:
“I presume you have the brains to read the site policy and figure it out for yourself. If you don’t have the brains, why are you here?
Ok to use this tone if you are someone who rejects mainstream climate science.
In my next comment I’ll use some expressions allowed further up in this thread
[snip. Site Policy violation. Stop it. ~dbs, mod.]