Don’t people realize RealClimate.org is owned by a public relations firm?
Check this out.
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=realclimate.org
Environmental Media Services is listed as the “registrant organization” which means they own it. Arlie Schardt is the man behind EMS and he is the former communications director (PR guy) for Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000.
EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications, a large for profit PR firm. They share the same address.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services
Plus RealClimate still publishes the writings of Michael Mann, the pseudoscientist who was responsible for the Hockey Stick.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf
So why do people still link to RealClimate? Don’t they realize how discredited they are?
Bob, yes RealClimate has been discredited as have most of their authors (like Mann, Ammann and Bradley) who refused to abide by the standards of science like archiving and sharing their data with other researchers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing
Also, try asking a question or making a comment they are uncomfortable with. The censors are there to push the party line. You cannot really debate with them because when you point out their errors, your comments do not show up on the website.
Trevor, if you go to my websites, I am the registrant. Try asking yourself why a PR firm would be the registrant? What is the connection between the two? Based on the censorship that goes on at RealClimate, it is obvious they are pushing an agenda and not debating science.
Vlado, peer review is not perfect. It is kind of like asking a fellow student to read over a paper before turning it in. He may be able to spot some problems or tell you that you need to go into more depth on certain points but his help is limited. Peer review is designed to spot glaring errors and improve the quality of papers but it is not designed to spot small errors of reproduce the study so it cannot find fabrications and scientific fraud. The two disciplines with the worst reputations for fabrications and failure to archive data are medical and climate science. The European Science Foundation recently held a “World Conference on Research Integrity” and those were the two disciplines with the most problems.
http://www.esf.org/ext-ceo-news-singleview/article/world-conference-on-research-integrity-to-foster-responsible-research-318.html
Dr. Blob, the skeptics understand the science very well. I keep posting links to peer-reviewed science by skeptics. Have you bothered to read any of it? Or do you just read RealClimate to find out what to think about it? You need to realize that RealClimate does not accurately represent the views of skeptics and they will not allow skeptics to voice their objections on the website. Read ClimateAudit.org if you want to know both sides of the issue. Or if you want to continue to be deceived, just stick with RealClimate.
Dr. Jello, I understand what you are saying. I just want people to know that RealClimate is run by political communications professionals. They do not accurately portray the positions of skeptics and then censor out any comments to correct the misinformation. This is not a site where people can expect to get a full debate on the scientific issues.
Dr. Blob, it does not sound like you are really open to the possibility RealClimate is not telling you the truth. But if you are willing to look into the issue, read the NAS panel report about the Hockey Stick.
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
Mann claimed 20th century temps were the warmest in 2,000 years. What does the NAS report say?
Mann claimed his proxies were valid and provided a robust result. What does the NAS panel say about the strip bark bristlecone pine series?
RealClimate will tell you the NAS panel sided with Mann over McIntyre. Not true. Gerald North who led the NAS panel said his panel “roughly agreed” with the findings of The Wegman Report.
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/post-2452668.html
Here is the Fact Sheet and Report by Wegman.
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0607/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0607/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
After reading this, how can you ever trust anything RealClimate says?