Not to continue to gripe, but I find it also interesting that certain Hockey Team types demand to know who you are, if you been published, were you work or who funds your research if you make any headway or valid points in the debate.

If they have control over the debate however, with their delete buttons or do know your real name… they don’t care! After all, it then explains your intelligence level (especially if you a ‘nobody in paticular” like a housewife) and the validity of your information/comments, and of course your real intentions.

Whatever the case may be this behavior and these demands always take top priority over the actual facts or scientific truth.

JustAHouseWife was spoken to as a “stereotypical housewife” too. How intelligent is that? LOL

What is ironic is that we do know who Gavin is, where he works and how to get in touch with him, and who pays him. It doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t stop these people because they have a “Consensus” don’t you know!

If someone said their name was “WarmerMan@hotmail.com” it would make not make a bit of difference to me. I’d still form opinions about the science or argument they made, not who they are, and I’d still pdf’them data if they asked.
Truth stands-up under any circumstances.
Cheers!

c) keep unnecessary personalisations and ad homs out of the scientific debate

Well if Gavin said that he should then take a look at a comment made on RC referring to what label to give climate skeptics

link

This is the Hockey Team, so unnecessary personalizations and ad homs are deliberately kept in and scientific debate excluded.

5….4….3….2….1….

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-comments-popup.php?p=242&c=1

I am commenting as “justahousewife”.
They posted my comment as #1. Kept me from replying until they completely formed a character profile in the comments regarding my “state of mind”. Prevented me from replying to anything said directly to me and about me.

“I personally think it is sad (and dangerous) to see how big oil, coal and gas has manipulated peoples’ opinions like hers”

” I know is must be hard for mothers to contemplate the possibility that what (most) scientists say about GW is true”

“You think Wife is a little off, I have someone called The Lumo sniping at me now for conspiring with the ‘commie climate cabal’ …”

“Am I the only one expecting to hear the esteemed housewife say, ‘yeah, but if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?’

Also, when I said my husband was an evironmental geologist the moderator william said this:

“Re geologists: well, to be somewhat flippant, geologists study rocks, which don’t have much to do with climate change. ”

Then Gavin said these things:

“Oh, and just to show good will, I even corrected your spelling”

“Comments are moderated according to our comment policy to try and a) keep things focussed, b) maintain a certain level of decorum and c) keep unnecessary personalisations and ad homs out of the scientific debate. If you stick to the science you’ll be fine, if you prefer to flame, you might be happier on sci.env. – gavin]”

(he spells” focused” wrong)

Gavin also didn’t allow me to reply in context either, allowed others comment before me (and my comments had science links in them that somehow disappeared) They he allowed Dano to lecture me on various “questions” I must have, and gave me links to read, as if I didn’t know what I was talking about.

Anyway, I am off topic sorry!
This still makes me livid and proves to me what’s really going on at RC and it has nothing to do with science. I really thank CA for doing what it does. And Steve, thank you for writing me back when I pointed you to what happened to to me at RC. Made all the difference in the world to me, and besides being a smart cookie you are kind and fair. I am not trying to be a kiss ass either! Heh!

You know, the character of a person should not have anything to do with data or the procedures realated to the science of climate, but I really think it factors in: at least to me it does.

Steve and I occasionally disagree on procedural things, like how much editorializing there should be, and how much latitude to give to certain comments or commentators, but generally it works quite well.

Most of the time, I find out what Steve’s pulled out of the statistical rabbit hole at the same time as everyone else. Most of the time, I make changes to the weblog and then Steve finds out at the same time as everyone else.

I don’t post at RealClimate because there’s no guarantee that anything written, no matter how accurate, will make it through the censorship and because (and I’m not the only person who thinks this) the ideological slant of most of the posts is just creepy – and by creepy I mean neither liberal creepy nor conservative creepy but swivel-eyed skin-crawling creepy. The kind of creepy that make you want to check you wineglass for odd smells before tasting any.

It seems to me to contrast a bit with the realclimate blog where there seem to be quite rare disagreements or corrections amongst/betwixt regular authors and/or contributing authors. My perception might be a bit off though as I’m a more regular reader of this one.

re graphic from comment #12

Why does it seem like every chart begins at the end of the last little ice age? Why not 1500 CE? Or 1000?

One almost suspects the sample period is chosen to guarantee an upward bias over time

umm these are real observations with a thermometer, they start in 1706 because the measurements started then.

No, you’ve got me. Who was John Adams?