[Flightdeck]

Realclimate.org is a climate science blog written by many of the people involved in all the recent climate science scandals. Comments are moderated before being posted, but it is possible for visitors to exchange dialogue with the scientists. If you read the blog, it quickly becomes clear that the scientists are extremely ideological. They attempt to cover this fact with scientific discussion, but the arrogance seeps through like a sieve. Valid criticisms are often deleted, and those that make it through are ridiculed. At any rate, in the interest of the whole climate science debate, which I find fascinating, I have posted their side of the story here.

[mountainlion]

It said that most people working for them were unpaid College researchers. This is just another lie because they are paid by the College.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

Ya wanna read a real bombshell of a story? Here it is;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490

[Bhoy]

“the impression has been given that even the fundamental results of climate change science are now in question, such as whether humans are in fact changing the climate, causing glacier melt, sea level rise and so on.

“...mistakes in the IPCC reports do not imply that any climate research itself is wrong. ...a poor report or an editorial lapse by IPCC authors obviously does not undermine climate science. ...none of the real or supposed errors being discussed ... [are] where the climate science basis is laid out.

“... The system we study is ruled by the well-known laws of physics.... The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824 by Fourier, the heat trapping properties of CO2 and other gases were first measured by Tyndall in 1859, the climate sensitivity to CO2 was first computed in 1896 by Arrhenius, and by the 1950s the scientific foundations were pretty much understood.”

THAT SHOULD BE THE TARGET.

[been_lurking]

Realclimate.org is mentioned numerous times in the leaked emails.

It is a pro-AGW blog set up for the expressed purpose of defaming AGW "skeptics". It's mission statement as expressed in the leaked emails was to become an echo chamber for all of the pro-AGW scientists and organizations, and a central clearing house for the suppression of valid climate science that did not conform to the "settled" science.

A pro-AGW version of the Spanish Inquisition.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Norseman]

The best site I’ve found for keeping up with the skeptics’ arguments is climatedepot.com It’s like a DrudgeReport for climate skeptics.

The real scandal surfacing now is the fabrication of the temperature records. Rural records that show no warming have been culled from the databases in favor of what are called Urban Heat Islands, i.e., stations located near cities, airports, etc. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that there’s been no warming at all over the last 50 years if the data is ever fully reassessed.

As far as Realclimate.org is concerned, as long as they keep defending the discredited Hockey Stick and refuse to acknowledge the Medieval Warming Period, they should have no credibility whatsoever. Yet they continue to do so.

[5by5]

Kudos to Gavin Schmidt. He managed to dredge up every excuse except “the dog ate my homework.”

[bjc]

RealClimate receives support from a progressive/liberal PR firm, Environmental Media Services and its parent Fenton Communications. These firms have a significant list of environmental organizations and progressive foundations as clients.
Interestingly this particular post is by “group”. It is unclear if, when and how the PR pros from Environmental Media Services and Fenton Communications do more than simply host the RealClimate Blog.

After ClimateGate Gavin Schmidt, a GISS/NASA climate scientists and one of the key organizers/contributors, made a noticeable effort to allow more skeptical comments to get through moderation.

[marktwain]

“To be fair to our colleagues from WG2 and WG3, climate scientists do have a much simpler task. The system we study is ruled by the well-known laws of physics, there is plenty of hard data and peer-reviewed studies, and the science is relatively mature. The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824 by Fourier, the heat trapping properties of CO2 and other gases were first measured by Tyndall in 1859, the climate sensitivity to CO2 was first computed in 1896 by Arrhenius, and by the 1950s the scientific foundations were pretty much understood.”

I think this statement is fundamentally flawed. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is one of the most contentious issues in the debate about AGW. The climate models are reported to assume that there are positive feedback effects that magnify the direct effects of CO2 rise by about 5X.