It’s a routine that I began to do when some pages were delisted because of pointing to a page that was found problematic by some algorithms, probably spurious ones, and it was indicated somewhere that the tag may remove the threat of sharing the bad status with the targets.

My blogroll etc. is having almost no “nofollow” tags.

But I noticed it and mention it. I think Gavin’s editing comments and responding to the edited comment is more important. (His practice is lamentable.)

I think Anthony copied my blog post once. If you think Anthony copying reduces my traffic, you are mistaken. When Anthony links, copies or mentions my blog, that sends me a lot of traffic!

On the other hand: If anyone is going to copy entire blog posts, they would be wise to ask the blog author. If the blog author doesn’t like it, they are going to file a DMAC, and scream holy murder. It’s very difficult to justify copying entire blog posts under fair use, so you would have to take down the copied post. At the very least, this could cause the copier embarrassment. If the copyright holder got angrier… well… I don’t know.

As it happens, the people being coppied don’t seem to mind it at all. I guess it’s because of the colleagues-like relationship they have, all in the same ship against the same foes.

Simon Evans, regarding cherry-picking, there are many different types of cherry-picking that one can do.

One can cherry-pick trees to form a chronology that look like a hockey stick.

One can cherrypick chronologies when making a reconstruction, for example selecting Yamal instead of Polar Urals.

One can use an algorithm that has the effect of cherrypicking those proxies that match the recent temperature increase.

And if I understand Jeff Id’s work correctly, one can use an algorithm to build a chronology that artificially creates a hockey stick shape(RCS).

I agree there are many good comments posted at WUWT, also at RC, I think. I don’t post at RC (only once, I think), so I can better describe my experience of posting at WUWT, which I ended up feeling was not a good use of my time, shall we say.

If what you describe of your experience with RC is a balanced view (and I have no reason to doubt that it is) then I would say that I think their approach is regrettable and even reprehensible. But then, I’ve already said that I don’t like the impression I have of their moderation policy (I don’t like comments having to go through moderation before they appear, for a start). So we probably don’t disagree about RC, but I maintain my view, based on experience, that the notion of WUWT “welcoming” dissident views is something of a stretch.

Simon I’ve seen nothing here or elsewhere that suggests you have the means to critisize other peoples knowledge of the physics of climate.

Are you referring to my criticism of Anthony Watts’ post comparing histograms of temperature anomalies without accounting for different baselines? In which case it matters not a hoot whether you think I have the “means”. Go figure out for yourself what is obviously wrong with it. If you can’t then you will have demonstrated to yourself that it is you who lacks the means. This is not a matter of my opinion, Stephen. You can check the error for yourself. If you have the means.

Lucia, oooh, you can be soooo ………:))

I assume you are referring to my decision not to archive ever scrap of everything at this blog?

I think we do sometimes need a sense of proportion. I think:

• If I say I data from The Climate Explorer, computed an average, and the standard deviation of the AR1 models, I do not think I am required to provide a parallel archive and turn key code just because I wrote a blog post. It’s nuts.
• If the only thing that existed publicly was gridded data, and I computed a series of monthly temperature anomalies for a complex, otherwise not easily available product, based on that, and then did subsubsidiary computation based on the monthly data, and published that in a journal, I think the intermediate data (the monthly tropical tropospheric data) should be archived and made readily available.
• I think the codes for products like GISSTemp and HadCrut should also be available. These products are so heavily used that the community should be able to know precisely what is done, inspect for bugs etc. Journal articles are not sufficient
• I think raw data from tree rings etc. used in journal articles should be archived (for many reasons.) In fact, I think funding agencies should require archiving of this sort of raw data within fairly short time frame even if the data are never used in a journal article published by those funded to drive out, get the tree ring, process etc. (If the archive simple notes: Bug infested, did not process. So be it.)

So, I agree with some of the “free the code”, “free the data” mantra. But I don’t agree that every blogger everywhere needs to provide turn key code and archive every single flippin’ little thing.

Your bagage is showing. Mosh hits the nail on the head as usual. Simon I’ve seen nothing here or elsewhere that suggests you have the means to critisize other peoples knowledge of the physics of climate.

Lucia, oooh, you can be soooo ………:))

I have made a couple of guest posts at WUWT, and I stuck around through the (very long) comment threads that followed, responding to many. For a single post I was accused in comments of being both “obsessed” by greenhouse gas warming and “obviously” understating that warming. Comments are most certainly not only allowed by people who hold skeptical views of global warming.

A few commenters at WUWT are badly misinformed about the basics of chemistry and physics (no doubt the same applies to many other blogs as well), which leads to some non-sense comments that are just politically motivated. But many commenters at WUWT do have a reasonable understanding of science, do have open minds, and want to learn something.

I think that equating the moderation policy of WUWT to RealClimate is not even close to accurate. RealClimate (for the most part) will not allow anyone to comment who questions the magnitude of global warming predicted by GCMs. Comments by skeptics are edited to remove reasonable questions, references to publications that RealClimate disgrees with are removed, and many comments simply disappear.

What are the folks are RealClimate afraid of? Good science does not need censors.

Sad, but all to believable.

I agree with the notion of archiving stuff for journals. But I don’t think everything needs formal archinves. I just don’t. I know many of my readers disagree with me…. but there you go.

1. does the site post the data and code backing up the claims made in posts.? Not link to code, not link to data. Does the site
have a code and data archive backing the posts it makes?

If not, then, I read it for enjoyment. propaganda is fun to read. opinion is fun to read. the funnies are fun to read. Arguing about whether something is propaganda or not is a meaningless fun activity. it’s a diversion. a distraction. popcorn for the brain.
carry on.

Now, why do I have this AGENDA of getting blogs to post their code and data? I’m a propagandist for open science. I think journals are moribund and stuck on stupid. I like citizen science. so should you.

Yes, Lucia you need to establish a code and data archive for your blog. hehe, pretty please.

I’m not in the least bit interested in your bruised feelings because of some manufactured slight that you perceive in the comments.

who provide good object lessons of how people can disagree over substance and yet discuss issues without getting personal and without misrepresenting the other person’s statements.

Response: Science would work a lot faster if authors corrected their own work when errors were found. – gavin]

Aside from profanity, the use of terms like “deniers”, and clearly baseless ad homs, I’m not sure what at WUWT would be snipped. Can you give an example or two of what you find to be an unfair moderation policy at WUWT? I really am puzzled by your comment.

It’s more a matter of what is not snipped from the attacks upon anyone who dissents. As you say, “deniers” would not be allowed, but the whole gamut of pejoratives aimed at dissenters stands. And comments like “Hansen is a fraud” stand but I doubt that “MnIntyre is a fraud” would (I don’t think either are, for clarification). So, I don’t like that any more than I like the equal and opposite elsewhere. The reason I mostly don’t like it is that it allows threads that are just plain boring one-sided slanging.

anthony (Comment#23358) November 12th, 2009 at 8:47 pm

Simon I am personally thrilled that you feel the need to vent emtionally.

I’m thrilled you’re thrilled, Anthony.

The posts you say were deleted are in fact still there.

Woops, I had 404s from my links. I’ve now found one by going back to Feb 2008, so my apols for thinking they were not there somewhere. Here’s the one where you compared histograms of the four temp metrics without accounting for their different baselines:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....anomalies/

I can’t find the post where you recognised your error and withdrew your conclusion. Do you have a link to one such? Cheers

Andrew Kennett (Comment#23361)

You may think Gavin is a wanker (23353) but you defend him and his views all the time

Where have I defended Gavin, Andrew? I suspect you’re making stuff up!

George Tobin (Comment#23384)

What Simon Evans does not get is that the anti-orthodox side (e.g., Anthony Watts) admits that there is a debate and that there are points of view.

That’s not the impression I get from the lead posts. Any old rubbish is put up so long as it can be interpreted as being anti-AGW.

And calling Gavin “a wanker” and attacking Anthony Watts on a rather personal level does not make Simon a transcendent figure seeking only scientific truth.

Hee hee. Anthony Watts once called me a wanker on WUWT, so I thought I’d try it out. Anthony later apologised and withdrew the term, for which I thanked him. Equivalently, I hereby apologise unreservedly to Gavin. He is clearly not a wanker, and I don’t know what came over me. I guess I must have been subject to the same influences that Anthony was when he used the term of me.

As for attacking AW, I hardly think what I have said amounts to much against accusing scientists of fraud.

It makes a him a partisan who simply refuses to accept that label

You haven’t asked me to! Try asking.