Talk:RealClimate#.22They exercise no control over content.22

{{edit semi-protected||answered=yes}}

I propose, in the interests of fairness that the phrase: "The forum is moderated, and is restricted to scientific topics to avoid discussion of political or economic implications of the science." be changed to

"The forum is moderated by proponents of the global warming by anthropogenic greenhouse gas theory, and is claimed by its authors to be restricted to scientific topics to avoid discussion of political or economic implications of the science."

My propsoed changes make this partisan statement a neutral statement and will undoubtably upset the partisan authors, but will make this wikopedia topic far more accurate.

The phrase as originally presented is identical to the position of the authors of there own website and is identical to their own; it's as if history makers were writing their own histories.

I had been a contributor to this forum and found my comments often deleted as "unscientific" while cheerleaders for extremely partisan and often scurrilous attacks on scientists who generally are unsupportive of the authors goals were able to withstand any further scrutiny whatsover. In my opinion, as well as that of many others who have given up on this site, the claim is unsubtantiated that this is, first and foremost, a scientific forum.

Bruce Frykman (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.— Carnivorous Bunny (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

According to this post [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/21/realclimate-org-goes-dark-is-it-permanent/ Realclimate.org goes dark – is it permanent?] [https://web.archive.org/web/20151122132659/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/21/realclimate-org-goes-dark-is-it-permanent/ archived], Realclimate is down. Should this go into the article? Nsaa (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

:"This post" is not reliable, and full of speculation. I'd wait for a day or three, per WP:NOTNEWS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

::I'm not sure why you call WUWT unreliable (as far as I know they always correct errors if that surfaces). Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and the type of information it supports it should be ok. The statements done can easily be checked by opening http://www.realclimate.org/ or looking at some of the archived versions of the page at [http://www.webcitation.org/6dEX2HeZI http://www.webcitation.org/6dEX2HeZI] or [https://web.archive.org/web/20151117080313/http://www.realclimate.org/ archive.org at 2015-11-17]. I assume no big MSM will cover a possible downtime of a blog with very little traffic? Nsaa (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

:::"I'm not sure why you call WUWT unreliable..." "as far as I know they always correct errors..." This is not the place for jokes. — TPX 18:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

::::Jokes? Nsaa (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

::: WUWT is drivel, as any fule kno. For the present, see https://twitter.com/ericsteig/status/668450513252253696?lang=en-gb William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

:::: Thanks for the link! Nsaa (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

::::: Nsaa, as I'm sure you've noticed, RC came back up, but it has little activity, these days.

::::: As I'm sure you've also noticed, WUWT is not "drivel." It is unrivaled as the world's top climate science blog site, and it is essential reading for anyone who wishes to stay informed about climate science and climate politics. Although climate alarmists, climate skeptics, and everyone in-between ("lukewarmers"), are welcomed to the conversations on WUWT, William Connolley dislikes the site because of its balance. Mr. Connolley is a Green Party activist who thinks there is a "scientific consensus" for climate alarmism, and who thinks that those who do not share his opinions about about it are unscientific "deniers." NCdave (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

:::::: {{user|NCdave}}, thanks for the notification. I'm not so regular on the Wiki for the moment so I first read it now. I could not locate the RC (maybe it's archived already?) Nsaa (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

If the site has been taken down, a lot of articles need to be updated with archived versions (iff available) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&target=http%3A%2F%2F%2A.realclimate.org 771 links to articles and discussion treads]. Nsaa (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

:Wot rot! Eric Steig helpfully advises; "RealClimate is down! Will be fixed. But meanwhile, please refer to http://realclimate-backup.org " . . dave souza, talk 18:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

:No! don't refer to http://realclimate-backup.org - that site still has .js and CSS references to realclimate.org and it appears that making any access to a page beyond the topmost page triggers JavaScript that takes you to some random page in the web. Folks on WUWT are reporting that many of them include malware. I think realclimate-backup.org should be shutdown until people purge it of references to realclimate.org, which ought to be done anyway if it's supposed to be a good backup. -Ric Werme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.219.4.25 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

:: I was refereing to the available third parties like Archive.org, Webcitation.org, archive.is etc. This should be done either way in all inline citations either way, I suppose, by using archiveurl, archivedate in the {{tl|cite web}} template. Nsaa (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

http://realclimate-backup.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/reports-of-our-demise/ William M. Connolley (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

:Progress already: https://realclimate.org is live, links go to realclimate-backup.org for the mo. . . . dave souza, talk 16:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RealClimate.org is now a dead link. RealClimate would appear to have gone out of business.--Damorbel (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

:[http://realclimate-backup.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/reports-of-our-demise/#more-18903 Reports of our demise…] … have of course been greatly exaggerated ...... Update: The account details have been restored and the domains renewed. We should be back to normal in a couple of days. . . . dave souza, talk 10:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC

::Progress to date: https://realclimate.org is live, links currently go to realclimate-backup.org pages. . . . dave souza, talk 16:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on RealClimate. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=718804386 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/contributor-bios/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)