Climate Audit Paranoia

Posted by Tim Lambert on December 27, 2007
(43)
More »

Some time ago, Steve McIntyre insinuated that Gavin Schmidt was dishonest after one of McIntyre’s comments was held up in moderation. In his latest post (at 9:20 am on December 26) McIntyre complains that:

realclimate censored my post, which pointed out an incident of realclimate fallability, as opposed to admitting and correcting that part of their post which was in error.

After all, he’d posted his comment at 5:00 pm on December 24, and they’d had all of December 25 to approve it. What other explanation could there be for the fact that it was not through moderation by 9:20 am on December 26? After McIntyre’s comment was approved, McIntyre noted this in an update but did not admit his fallibility and correct his erroneous claim that they had censored him to conceal an error.

Update: McIntyre put this post up a few hours ago:

Is NASA employee Gavin Schmidt above the law?

NASA employee Gavin Schmidt permitted Eli Rabett (who uses an alias to attempt to evade accountability) to make defamatory statements about me at realclimate and then censored my attempt to rebut the defamatory statements. He has demonstrated that he is immune to ordinary standards of fairness. But let’s think a little about whether he [...]

But now it’s gone.

It is nice to know that McIntyre was using his Nigel Persaud sock puppet to evade accountability.

(43)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Nick
    December 27, 2007

    Well, they may have problems with their software, but I’ve had similar problems posting posts that are critical on the site.

  2. #2 Pinko Punko
    December 27, 2007

    I expect some of the critical posts that don’t make it through over there are essentially identical talking points that have been posted over there many, many times. The thing is, Nick, they actually expect you to read their site and search the site for the answer to your criticism first before just posting whatever. That being said, I think Steve McIntyre hates the Baby Jesus.

  3. #3 Glen Raphael
    December 27, 2007

    It seems like RealClimate has some sort of two-tier moderation system. Messages they agree with go straight through; messages they disagree with are held up until they have time to edit the message and respond in-line. That’s why a bunch of other messages were approved immediately while McIntyre’s was held up leading him to think they wouldn’t post it at all.

    And as far as I know they *still* haven’t corrected the original post he was responding to. So unless you read through all the comments, RC’s “aura of infallibility” is still present in the original post.

  4. #4 Eli Rabett
    December 27, 2007

    Glen, I think it is rather two fold. First, they must rotate who approves the posts, and different people are differently engaged. Second, I think that the different editors (for want of a better word) have different trusted lists. I’ve been in all these situations and more with my comments and it is not something worth getting excited about.

  5. #5 Jason Coleman
    December 27, 2007

    This statement has been at the top of the Real Climate site for the past week-and-a-half:

    Technical note (Dec 17): A significant number of comments have been inadvertently sent to spam in recent weeks. Some have been rescued (and so numbering in some threads may have changed). We have now changed the system so that you are notified of any potential problems, but please email us at contrib -at- realclimate.org if there are any continuing issues.

    As someone who also uses the otherwise excellent WordPress platform to power a website, I can say that a great deal of comment spam has been getting through the Akismet filters and that comment moderation is the best solution. I do not know exactly what method that RC employs, but it appears that they have similar issues. It’s unfortunate that Mr. McIntyre’s post was held up for two days. His frustration that other posts had gotten through yet his hadn’t is certainly understandable. However, I think crying fowl play is probably assuming too much given RC’s public statement on comment spam.

  6. #6 luminous beauty
    December 27, 2007

    Stevie Mac has such a Napoleon complex.

  7. #7 Paul S
    December 27, 2007

    On a positive note, it’s good to see that RC and CA are talking again. ;)

  8. #8 Barton Paul Levenson
    December 27, 2007

    Glen posts:

    [[It seems like RealClimate has some sort of two-tier moderation system. Messages they agree with go straight through; messages they disagree with are held up until they have time to edit the message and respond in-line.]]

    This is incorrect. I have had my posts held up for moderation on RealClimate plenty of times, and I don’t think I’ve ever had a substantive disagreement with the editors on climatology. (We had one on politics in which I became quite vehement, and they posted it anyway, though I later apologized for losing my cool.)

  9. #9 Hank Roberts
    December 27, 2007

    Last I recall, some time back
    – each incoming comment gets its time stamp
    – the spam filter holds up some stuff
    – what’s left is put where any individual Contributor can approve it
    – anything none of the Contributors approves right away can be reviewed
    – the spamtrapped stuff can be reviewed
    – anything once released shows up in time sequence from its original incoming timestamp (so better to refer to posts by date/time and content, not to the autonumbering, which changes when an earlier comment gets approved and inserted)
    – inline edits can happen after the comment appears (and I wish they were timestamped); watch for them to be listed under “… With Inline Responses”

    I’m just a reader, this is just my recollection putting together memories about how they’ve said it works. I didn’t find the workflow summarized.

    The amount of spam getting past filters elsewhere is huge; they’re doing well keeping it out.

    Next big opportunity to have a posting held up and complain about censorship would be this coming weekend, for those with nothing better to do.

    Cartoon I wish someone would draw:

    Two of the troll dolls, standing in front of a keyboard/screen; one says to the other:

    “They say ‘On the Internet nobody can tell you’re a dog.’ How do they recognize _us_ so easily?”

  10. #10 Thom
    December 27, 2007

    I don’t know if this latest fit by McIntyre is worth much analysis. There enough unhealthy behavior at Climate Audit to spur several talks and discussions at meetings of the American Psychological Association.

    Pinko Punko: “I think Steve McIntyre hates the Baby Jesus.”

    Some people just don’t like the Christmas Jesus. Some people like the growed-up Jesus, the teenage Jesus, the bearded Jesus, or whoever.

  11. #11 Boris
    December 27, 2007

    After Steve McIntyre called the RC guys “vicious little men” then erased in his post in a fit of better judgment, I don’t think he has any right to complain.

    Also, I’d wager McSteve posted his post on Xmas eve on purpose, just to have something to bitch about on the holidays.

    Publish, McSteve, or be happy with your right wing blogosphere status.

  12. #12 Eli Rabett
    December 27, 2007

    Hank, I’m sure N3xus6 will come through. The newest thing on my blogger spam front is links to various adult sites.

  13. #13 ChrisC
    December 28, 2007

    For what it’s worth, I’ve also had comments held in moderation for (what seems to be) a long time at RC, and I am certainly not a contrarian/denialist. Indeed, a post of mine on the vagarities of the stratospheric Antartic polar vortex didn’t seem to come through at all (stoped checking after a week or so).

    I’ve often got alot of URL links in my posts, which I’m pretty sure holds them up in moderation. As RC is staffed by volunteers and gets high volumes of traffic, people really shouldn’t get upset about this. RC allows plenty of moronic, denialist stuff through (as well as much more educated, genuine scientific questions and queries about climatology).

    RC’s comment moderation policy can be found here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/comment-policy/langswitch_lang/in

    Most of it seems pretty straightforward, especially:

    “If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been flagged by the moderation filters as potentially problematic. These comments are periodically reviewed, but especially at weekends, evenings and holidays, there may be some delay in approving otherwise non-contentious posts. Please be patient.”

    As others have said oh so many times, Steve Mc should do a little research.

  14. #14 Tim Lambert
    December 28, 2007

    Mr McIntyre put this post up a few hours ago:

    >Is NASA employee Gavin Schmidt above the law?

    >NASA employee Gavin Schmidt permitted Eli Rabett (who uses an alias to attempt to evade accountability) to make defamatory statements about me at realclimate and then censored my attempt to rebut the defamatory statements. He has demonstrated that he is immune to ordinary standards of fairness. But let’s think a little about whether he [...]

    But now it’s gone.

    It is nice to know that McIntyre was using his Nigel Persaud sock puppet to evade accountability.

  15. #15 Ken
    December 28, 2007

    A bit off topic but has anyone got a take on this? There are several David Whitehouse’s that come up on google scholar but it seems like he isn’t referring to any kind of science papers done by himself. I think he got involved in criticising the Royal Society for critisising big oil’s astroturfing. Given his media history, he probably knows how to pitch things to the uninformed.

  16. #16 Hans Erren
    December 28, 2007

    Realclimate deletes linkys to climateaudit.

  17. #17 Hank Roberts
    December 28, 2007

    Hans, you should check that out. Type each site’s URL into the search box for the other. Both have links to each other — in posts they consider worth keeping.

  18. #18 JB
    December 28, 2007

    Good grief.

    I just read the cached page for the Is Gavin Schmidt above the law? post and I think paranoia is the least of McIntyre’s worries.

    He apparently has a giant bug up his ass.

  19. #19 Rattus Norvegicus
    December 29, 2007

    He just changed the title of the post to “NASA Evasion of Quality Control Procedures”. All accusations remain the same.

    Seriously, I think McSteve is going off of the deep end here. A bug up his ass is the least of his worries, he should make sure he doesn’t miss any of his doses of Risperidone. The guy is wacked out; he used to make some sense about MBH98 (although his points were adequately refuted) but lately he has just been casting (undeserved) aspersions on the entire field of climate science. He has gone from being a (semi) useful idiot to just being an idiot.

  20. #20 Marion Delgado
    December 29, 2007

    What more do you need to realize about McIntyre than that he’s the less scientific and less honest of the 2 Ms? That does it for me.

  21. #21 Thom
    December 29, 2007

    Marion Delgado: “What more do you need to realize about McIntyre than that he’s the less scientific and less honest of the 2 Ms?”

    Hmmmm….the need for extended discussion. So difficult to choose between the 2 Ms.

    They’ve both left trails of nutty behavior that would be rude to ignore.

  22. #22 Hans Erren
    December 29, 2007

    “why bother investing serious time and thought in a comment when chances are high it either won’t appear or will be ignored if the RC moderators can’t quickly dismiss it without spending much time on it? The RC staff seem most comfortable with a lecture-type model where they impart wisdom as set-piece presentations and avoid engaging very deeply with the readers.”

    Mind you, this is about scientific replies.

  23. #23 Boris
    December 29, 2007

    Hans “no net warming since 1998″ Erren:

    Did someone link to McSteve’s post on “vicious little men”? I’d delete that too.

  24. #24 Hank Roberts
    December 29, 2007

    Hans, have you checked your claim yet about the possibility of posting links from RC to CA that will be allowed? I do it.

    The point is to link to scientific ideas found worth discussing.

    Both sites allow a whole lot of chaff to be posted because they’re not allowing comments only by scientific readers.

  25. #25 Hank Roberts
    December 29, 2007

    What I think is lacking is a sense of proportion.

    Douglas Adams writes somewhere that in this universe, only the utter lack of any sense of proportion allows us to remain sane and believe in our own importance.

    But even if we restrict our attention to this one planet and the its very short time span — human ego displays look rather inflated.

    Read a page of this and tell me what’s important:

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&scoring=r&q=PETM+precipitation&as_ylo=2006

  26. #26 Hans Erren
    December 29, 2007

    “Hans, have you checked your claim yet about the possibility of posting links from RC to CA that will be allowed? I do it. ”

    “Fool me once, Shame on you. Fool me twice, Shame on me.” (Chinese Proverb0
    I won’t play the RC lottery anymore, thank you.

  28. #28 JC
    December 30, 2007

    It is nice to know that McIntyre was using his Nigel Persaud sock puppet to evade accountability.

    Have you asked him? And what about Rabbet?

  29. #29 dhogaza
    December 30, 2007

    I won’t play the RC lottery anymore, thank you.

    Ah, yes, Hans with his self-fulfilling prophecy of RC censorship of his posts.

  30. #30 ges
    December 31, 2007

    I think he got involved in criticising the Royal Society for critisising big oil’s astroturfing.

  31. #31 Eli Rabett
    December 31, 2007

    Methinks people need to check their dictionary for definitions of sock puppets and drama queens

  32. #32 jc..
    January 1, 2008

    Rabbet:
    I read somwhere that you go on some sites using your real name. I wouldn’t say what it is out of respect for your obvious desire for privacy. If that’s correct how is that different from Steve M using his real name in certain sites and calling himself Nigel P at another.

    And as for drama queens, dudeeeee!

    And if one uses only one moniker at a particular site and a different one elsewhere how does that fit into the sock puppet definition?

  33. #33 dhogaza
    January 1, 2008

    how is that different from Steve M using his real name in certain sites and calling himself Nigel P at another.

    Go read that definition of sock puppet again, grasshopper. Rub both of those grey cells together until you achieve at least heat, perhaps smoke, and with luck intellectual fire, OK?

  34. #34 jc...
    January 1, 2008

    Hoggise:

    You seem to have problems with verbal definitions and analogies. What was your verbal SAT verbal score?

  35. #35 dhogaza
    January 1, 2008

    You seem to have problems with verbal definitions and analogies.

    Those who say such things should be careful that they don’t post crap like …

    What was your verbal SAT verbal score?

    given that there’s no such thing as a “verbal SAT verbal” test.

  36. #36 Hank Roberts
    January 2, 2008

    Someone I’ve Killfiled wrote:

    > how is that different from Steve M using
    > his real name in certain sites and calling
    > himself Nigel P at another

    And the answer is: “at another” is different from “at the same thread in the same discussion posing as someone else who’s talking about him”

    That’s what the collection from sci environment documented — playing two different people in one conversation, commenting on his own stuff
    as though he were someone else. That’s how it’s different.

    I could draw you a Venn diagram; what’s your math SAT score look like?

  37. #37 Jc..
    January 4, 2008

    And the answer is: “at another” is different from “at the same thread in the same discussion posing as someone else who’s talking about him”

    Can you show where Steve has done that, or are you just lying, Hankster.

  38. #38 Eli Rabett
    January 4, 2008

    What part of “posing as someone else who’s talking about him” don’t you get? Eli of course is no drama bunny and more.

  39. #39 Dano
    January 4, 2008

    This is another of those “asked and answered long ago’ things that has been shown so many times it requires no link, kinda like “no, JC, the moon is not composed of a dairy product colored with chlorophyll, despite your earnest wish for it to be so”.

    JC (jC, Jc, jc) wants us to timewaste by running down the evidence for him. Asked and answered multiple times. 45 seconds on The Google will find your answer. Do the f’n work yourself with all your prodigious research skills.

    Best,

    D

  40. #40 Hank Roberts
    January 4, 2008

    JjCc see
    http://timlambert.org/2005/08/climate-audiot2/#comment-9232 and just in case you failed to click the link there, it’s
    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:nigel+author:persaud&scoring=d
    and if you need help reading those postings, ask your teacher.

  41. #41 Hank Roberts
    January 4, 2008

    Oh, and those links, of course, are those that wossname would’ve known about had he bothered to click the link provided at

    > read that definition of sock puppet again, grasshopper.

    Clearly he never read it even the first time or he’d have known already. Or, of course, he’s pretending to be stupid.
    Which is, uh, stupid.

    If y’all would quit quoting the trolls, the mediocre killfile tools would be more useful …

  42. #42 dhogaza
    January 5, 2008

    Well, I’ll quote the troll just one more time then leave it alone …

    Can you show where Steve has done that, or are you just lying, Hankster.

    Not only were the links provided above, before you asked, you dumb fuck, but McIntyre FREELY ADMITTED the fact that he had done so.

    What’s the point in trying to “defend” someone against “false charges” they FREELY ADMIT to?

  43. #43 Chris O'Neill
    January 7, 2008

    Chinese Proverb0 I won’t play the RC lottery anymore, thank you.

    That’s a shame. There was a lot of amusement value in comments such as that leading to:

    “Hmm… it seems that Hans Erren has adopted the French king strategy, apres moi le deluge. This tends to end badly, cf 1790.”

    Hans had written: “Why is it that we worry about temperature in 2100?
    The effects in 2100 are caused by emissions in 2080.
    Everybody in this forum will be dead by then, and also their children.”

    I hope Hans reconsiders. His amusing, aka “scientific”, comments will be sadly missed.

    BTW, I hope my daughter has a small chance of being alive in 2100, not to mention a remote chance for my son.