Needless to say, 'RealClimate', the HAFs' favourite blog-site and its principal editor, Gavin Schmidt, have been working overtime trying to rebut or play down the nuclear fall-out from the hacked e-mails. As an integral part of the whole global warming farrago, RealClimate has been forced on the defensive by its own supporters.
One purported email says:
“guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…”
I’m not a sceptic (far from it…I’ve been involved in climate science for a long time and have been convinced about AGW for years) but I do think that this sends a pretty crap message to everyone. If RC is screening posts to push a particular point then it’s not that much better in that regard than a lot of the sceptic sites.
[Response: This is a moderated site, and always has been. We do screen out a lot of the random squawk of the blogosphere and the baseless accusations of malfeasance that are commonplace on open forums. We do that unapologetically in order to maximise the signal-to-noise ratio in threads. When there are technical issues that we aren't qualified to judge, we often ask people more involved to comment - and these comments appear inline with the questions so that the answers are not lost and are provided at the same time as the question appears. This leaves a record for later readers that is much easier to follow. We don't screen out comments just because they disagree with us (as is evident in any comment thread). - gavin]
That is followed immediately by a shorter but much deadlier thrust:
Your anger at people for simply asking questions and trying to replicate results is damning.
[Response: Nonsense. Anger is restricted to people who misrepresent views and make up false accusations. Asking real questions about real issues is welcome. - gavin]
Watching these charlatans wriggle on a hundred deadly barbs almost qualifies as a cruel sport. Gimmee more!
Whatever thought occurs to you about Global Warming, David, you must remember that Gavin Smirk has thought of it first.
Posted by: dearieme | Saturday, 21 November 2009 at 17:24
Look what I found at the University of East Anglia's website:-
"The material published relates to the work of our globally-derided Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. ...."
[that quotation has, of course, been slightly 'adjusted' in best Global Warmmongering style.]
"CRU is one of a number of independent centres working in this important area and reaching similar conclusions. It will continue to engage fully in reasoned debate on its findings with individuals and groups that are in collusion with it...."
[Did you spot the adjustment, David? Just a little one.]
"Comment from Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit:
The following email, which I can confirm is genuine, has caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight.
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in ....from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. ....." ..
The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a not-very-clever thing to do." [Again, just one wee adjustment.]
Sad to say, it looks as if Phil Jones is not the only hoaxer in the village.
Posted by: dearieme | Saturday, 21 November 2009 at 17:40
"Words, words, words" - but they matter!
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 22 November 2009 at 12:15