Real Climate is a weblog that is the defacto voice of the establishment regarding climate change issues. It is financed by an environmental media communications outfit and staffed primarily by Gavin Schmidt, who works at NASA.
They were one of the very first climate weblogs and scientists have used it as a forum to discuss relevant issues and try to educate the public. However, it also quickly became a venue for defending the policy positions of people like Al Gore and James Hansen, and they are now just the propaganda arm of the extreme end of the climate/political spectrum.
They had a brief resurrection following Climategate, where Gavin Schmidt heroically responded to over 2,000 comments in three days and became my blogger of the year. His work was more impressive because Real Climate has always been famous for the tendency to censor comments, deleting opposing views and cutting out the 'good' parts of what critics have written. It got so bad that there is a website devoted to comments that have been deleted by Real Climate. During the immediate aftermath of Climategate, all comments got through, and Schmidt was courteous and prompt in responding to even hostile comments. It was a bravura performance.
Now, however, Real Climate has returned to several bad habits. They recently posted a rather pathetic defense of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick chart, written by a gentleman nicknamed Tamino, who has his own weblog--so Real Climate must have thought it was something.
Immediately after Tamino posted his defense, 553 comments, mostly praising Tamino for his attacks on Steve McIntyre (who was one of the principal critics of the Hockey Stick) were posted. But then a funny thing happened. Over at Steve McIntyre's site, Climate Audit, Mr. McIntyre methodically dissected Tamino's defense, found new material that showed errors in some of Michael Mann's later work--and all of a sudden nobody could post comments on Real Climate. Back to their old, statist propaganda style ways.
This morning it got worse. Real Climate posted another weak defense--this time of Stephen Schneider et al and their paper / blacklist of skeptics. I've written about this before. The paper sought to prove that people on Schneider's 'side' in the climate debates were more expert than their opponents. The highly respected Spencer Weart had quickly dismissed the paper as being of no worth after a quick reading, saying it should never have been published.
They did this by Googling the names of people who had signed various petitions and letters, some supporting Schneider's position, some expressing doubt--even skepticism--about the state of climate science and global warming.
The letter posted at Real Climate today is truly pathetic. It doesn't address any of the serious criticisms that have been leveled at it.
First and foremost, it broke one of the 'rules' of social research by making it possible for the subjects of their research to be identified and classified. This is a huge no-no, like getting a phone call from a company after you named them in a market research survey. The names of the people who were studied are on the website of one of the paper's authors.
Second, they made a series of amateur mistakes.
They used only one database (Google), when they could have checked in several to make sure they were getting adequate information.
They searched in only one language--English. Do they have any reason to think that all climate scientists write in English? (I have the email address of the French embassy for those who make such a mistake, and the Chinese might be somewhat offended as well.) Do they think that people publishing in other languages will have the same opinions as those who publish in English? If so, why?
They got the names, job titles and descriptions and crucially, the numbers of published papers wrong on large numbers of scientists.
They didn't sense check or verify their results.
It's really a pathetic, amateurish piece of work and I'm really saddened that it's the last piece of work that the late Stephen Schneider had his name associated with. It's pretty clear that he just tacked his name onto a paper done by an amateur and a grad student.
But Real Climate has published its defence. I've sent them a comment about it. Let's see if they publish it.
Real Climate has tried for years to control the flow of information about climate change, censoring commenters, ridiculing opponents, resurrecting discredited tenets of the hysteric faction of the climate crew. In doing so they have sacrificed any opportunity to serve as a forum for meaningful discussion of the issues, and they spend their time preaching to the choir--while public opinion turns away from them.
Over at Climate Audit, people are posting the comments that have not been published recently at Real Climate. If my characterization of Real Climate is correct, I can see why they would not want those comments published.
But if I am mistaken about Real Climate, the questions become, why don't they allow critical comments? Why do they publish lame defences of a discredited Hockey Stick and a pathetic paper the only function of which is to create a blacklist to intimidate climate scientists early in their careers?
If anyone at Real Climate wants to respond, I promise they won't be censored here.
Update: Here is the comment I submitted to Real Climate. It still hasn't been published.
I'm with Spencer Weart on this one. The paper should not have been published. The methodological biases introduced by several decisions by the authors make the paper of no use for its intended purpose, and despite the authors' protestations to the contrary, will indeed by used going forward as a blacklist, as has already been advocated in the blogosophere.
I call attention to a clear violation of the ethical standards of sociological research in a point tangentially addressed in the authors' letter above. Subjects of the research are identifiable through use of data stored at the website of one of the authors.
This is unethical. It also makes the authors' claim that no repercussions will occur as a result of the paper's publication somewhat disingenuous.
If conducting a search on a commercial database with no established quality controls, in English only, with no attempt at replicating the search, without contacting a sub sample of the scientists to verify publication records, if all this is the standard of scientific quality that climate science endorses, it is no surprise that many are skeptical of scientific findings.
Comments
Tom- Agreed on your assessment of RC.
The worst part of the Schneider paper is where it was published. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science was a highly respected, top-flight journal that not only carried tremendous weight in academic circles, but virtually guaranteed that the contents of papers contained therein made substantial contributions to our knowledge base.
The execrable Schneider and Oppenheimer papers that were recently published have permanently destroyed the reputation of PNAS.
My take on this comment in your article,
"But if I am mistaken about Real Climate, the questions become, why don't they allow critical comments? Why do they publish lame defences of a discredited Hockey Stick and a pathetic paper the only function of which is to create a blacklist to intimidate climate scientists early in their careers?"
I've always maintained that RealClimate is actually a double agent in the climate wars. The quickest way to convert a neutral obsever to a skeptic is to have them spend a couple of days reading the commentary at RealClimate.
Great article, but I have to disagree with you that realclimate published all comments right after climategate. I politely commented (using my real name) regarding Mann's CENSORED folder and also regarding comments in some of the code, and these comments were not published.
Tom,
You have described RC just about right. The few times I commented there, I offered calm, reasoned, dispassionate words, and received responses of pure vitriol. In the aftermath of the UEA email release, I pointed out the email messages showed clearly that Jones et al understood their behind-the-scenes efforts to influence journals and editors were inappropriate and so should be 'kept in confidence', and I then said that I hoped those involved could, in hindsight, see these activities were not wise. I was immediately accused in comments of trying to mislead people for political purposes, and that my motives for commenting were obviously those of a 'denialist'. For his part, Gavin flat refused to admit those involved believed their activities were inappropriate (in spite of their own words to the contrary!), and claimed everything that had happened WRT publications was "normal". Truly bizarre.
It is just not worth commenting at RC.
Haven't checked in for a long while (not because I don't enjoy your site) and am happy to see all the activity and level headed commentary still going on here. Kudos!
Dr. John Christie, among the most easygoing skeptical scientists, who along with Dr. Roy Spencer (also easygoing) is the custodian of the UAH satellite temperature record, recently commented in a presentation before the IPCC inquiry committee that "climate science" as now understood is badly in need of adult supervision.
For once, a climatologist says something that noone can reasonably disagree with...
While I understand that the behaviour at RC may be seen as biased and heavily censored, it should be remembered that RC is funded by Fenton Communications. Those running the site have a commercial obligation to engage in political advocacy with regard to AGW. The appearance of open discussion may be required to further the objectives of the site, however it would be unreasonable to expect the moderators to allow comments that would seriously undermine their position. The recent treatment of Dr. Curry may be disturbing but in light of RC's funding it could not be said to be unethical. The only ethical concerns that should be raised regarding RC would be government employees using work hours to administer the site.
tom, you are completely wrong on this.
the paper does still not include a blacklist.
the RC article did reply to a number of direct questions. you did not adress a single of these points with an argument, based on any facts or informations.
the methodoly of the paper is fine. looking at one source (google scholar) is a typical approach. you need to make a valid argument, about why this would bias the results. (sceptic articles get blacklisted by google scholar?) you have not done that.
if you think the article is flawed, all you need to do, is to write one of your own. improve the methodology, and demonstrate that the result is significantly different.
nothing like that has been done so far, by any of the people compleining about the article.
Those last two papers at PNAS were so dishonest they were ineffective.
=============
Judy engineered a ramble through RealClimate, and wrecked it.
===================
Shouldn't you provide a link to Tamino as well?
Why does it matter that peoples' names are on a site?
How else can people study their results?
Dear Tom
You have really congratulated Gavin n number of times for his performance in November. The sad truth however is, he continued to swallow and mutilate comments even at the time as hockey schtick says. The same thing happened with my comments too.
Hi all,
MikeN, thanks--I linked to Tamino. Shub and Hockey Shtick, I guess I should have known better--but he sure let a lot in, anyhow. I'm still impressed with what he did.
Sorry kim--no rhyme, no time! I would like to commission a sonnet...
Sod--given the low opinion you express regarding me everywhere else on the internet, I'm really curious as to why you keep coming back. That paper is trash--I know. It's within my range of competency to say that. The blacklist is on the website, not within the paper, as you well know. Looking at one source is not fine if it's a black box (no published standards) and you have other sources to check against. But that actually was the least of their sins. That... paper... is... garbage.
Looks like Day 1 of Tom's Comment Held Hostage will end without a resolution. 23 comments up there--none of them mine...
Tom--
I can't find much to disagree with you on this issue. That the National Academies of Sciences chose to publish the garbage written by Andreeg, et al is to be expected, unfortunately.
Just one problem. Use Andreeg's search methodology for your own publications and see what you come up with -- sorry friends, but the results are nothing but nonsense!!! No mention of journal transactions (at least in my case where some of my best work was published), no mention of chapters written in books, no mention of items appearing in appendices of books used by thousands of practitioners of radiation heat transfer. Andreeg and his cohorts would have saved a huge amount of credibility by using the Web of Science, which isn't perfect, but I'm sure that Steve Schneider and his likes would have no part of that. But then again what can we expect from the admirers of Trofim Lysenko???
The PNAS paper is indeed rubbish.
However, I would not worry too much about anonymity. The subjects of the study signed a public petition, and thus voluntarily disclosed their opinion. Academics are also used to being ranked in public, which may be fair as we're paid by public money after all.
The problem: Basic scientific principles were not followed.
The solution: Avoid personalities and focus on the problem.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for NASA
Hold the Bristlecone
And gander at Tiljander.
Hazy crystal ball.
Sorry, sonnets are real work; these appear as if by magic.
========================
Its not just realclimate though. Almost all of the alarmist blogs are heavily moderated. And their owners dare not stray far from that controlled environment. In short they are cowards.
When old William M. Connelly was getting heat for his control of wiki he baited Watts over at WUWT to come to his blog and debate him. He would not engage in discussion with Anthony on a forum he could not control.
Blogs need moderation there is no denying that but over at CA and WUWT its reactive moderation. If someone breaks the rules the comment is taken down and everyone sees that. If the mods start abusing their power its obvious to all readers. At the alarmists blogs its all about creating the illusion of debate when there really is none.
Tom,
"At the alarmists blogs its all about creating the illusion of debate when there really is none."
Of course not! These are just political advocacy blogs, and only tenuously connected to any kind of science. Any scientists involved in administering theses sites are nothing more than "lipstick on a pig".... the sites are all image, no substance.
When strong contrary arguments on substantive issues are offered, these simply will not be allowed to appear, because that would eliminate the entire purpose of the blog. To wit, an endlessly repeated stream of propaganda: "the science is settled, only selfish fools and liars express any doubts", "the science dictates extreme and immediate public action; CO2 emissions must fall to near zero very soon, and only high taxes can do that", "climate science is beyond the comprehension of anybody who is not a published climate scientist", etc. etc. ad nauseum.
The real question is: Why even try to engage such cowards on their own turf?
I'm a big fan of your site. Stay level headed and keep your cool (don't let the craziness drive you crazy).
Sod,
If I conducted an study on Aids and noted that 97% of all oscar winners had Aids, but did not release the names IN MY PAPER, that would pass your ethical muster.
With the Jurassic having many times the CO2 of today, no runaway greenhouse or fabled "tipping point" ever, and annoyingly undissolved fossils of corals and shellfish from that era continually appearing in our museums, the issue is dead - blacklist or not.
How quickly people forget proven history..
<i>sod says:
tom, you are completely wrong on this.
the paper does still not include a blacklist.</i>
You are correct that the paper itself doesn't include a blacklist, but it does refer to one.
This was my response to RC’s article on “Expert Credibility in Climate Change – Responses to Comments”. Naturally, it didn’t get past moderation.
"I seldom visit Real Climate because of the huge amount of censorship that occurs, so I’m fortunate that on one of the few times I do visit that the topic is this very one.
First, may I thank the authors of the lists that the paper “Expert Credibility in Climate Change” was based on for including my name among the UE list alongside such top scientists as Lindzen, Spencer, Carter et al. Even if I am ranked a lowly 460 on the list I still consider it an honour.
I see that this post notes “Some employers explicitly preclude their employees from signing public stateme
Continued...
"“Some employers explicitly preclude their employees from signing public statements of this sort, and some individuals may self-limit in the same way on principle apart from employer rules.” I guess I am lucky that my employer doesn’t prevent me from making my opinion known, but where I am restricted is in publishing anything outside our company. I believe there are many in industry who face the same restrictions. Then there are those who would like to publish, but are blocked by the team. Its no use trying to claim that such blocking doesn’t exist, because there is now overwhelming evidence that it does indeed happen. It was often suspected, but absolutely confirmed in the climategate emails. See also [link deleted]
In my case, not publishing anything isn’t a big issue, because any research I carry out for my employer is very limited in geographical scope to the effects that climate has on our company’s future earnings.
continued..
"This is mainly looking at the effects of ENSO, PDO, SSNs etc on rainfall and temperature in our hydro-electric catchments. So there is nothing global that I can add to the debate. I can say that my climate predictions for my company over the past 15 years have been reasonably close, and I only ever allow for a very small forcing from CO2. I look primarily to ENSO for short range, then to PDO for long term forecasts.
Actually, I wish the AGW theory was more accurate. Our climate would be much nicer and more predictable."
This is not the first time my posts have not passed moderation at RC, so my only conclusion is that it isn't a science site at all. It is simply a propaganda site.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!