The Globe and Mail newspaper published an article titled “Ontario’s solar industry seeks its place in the sun” on the evening of Sunday, October 16 2011. Between 12:58 PM and 1:22 AM I posted a series of relevant comments, in all cases but one referring to articles on this website citing related studies. At about 4:00 AM I reviewed their status and found that each had been replied to by a commentator using the pseudonym “LeroyLarson“. The following are quotes of his replies to my comments:
I don’t believe any of your examples are true. This is all hear-sayand doesn’t sound at all likely. You have been fooled by reading only these weird examples and have no proof. In short, you are wrong and you have no credibility.There are too many possible scenarios in your comment and none have passed the economics test. In the real world the tax-payers will have the final say and wind and solar will be used as an example of the gullibility of the left leaning thinkers who tried to bankrupt the province for no reason.
Try to stay on topic here. The papers in the UK moderate slightly differently than the g&m, and when you stray so far off topic they save the time and space by deleting comments that are just a rant and trolling for a link to a different weblog. This story is about Ontario politics and economy so you don’t have the right to try hijacking the space with irrelevant ranting and raving about the most bankrupt state in America.
I think the cheese has slipped off your cracker for sure this time Alan [I reported this reply as abusive but it has not been deleted by the “moderators” in spite of its clear violation of terms and conditions prohibiting personal attack]
The name of the story was ONTARIO’S solar industry seeks its place in the sun. I think somewhat tongue in cheek and was not a forum for more of your ranting and raving. Try to stay on topic if you must abuse the comments section of the globe & mail.
@ss you must be mad to think anyone could afford all of these companies on the shrinking government teat in these economic times.
Is that you again Alan?
[These two in reply to a posting by “sean s.“]
All of my comments were censored by the G&M “moderators” in spite of the fact that none of them violated the commentary terms and conditions. Given the sequence of events, the time of day and a clear ideological bias by LeroyLarson, providing no substantiation for his opinions and allegations, I presume that it was he who reported abuse, probably claiming that my comments were “Advertising/Spam”. The only comment remaining in place is the one which did not refer via URL to backing substantiation on my website (here); that comment continues to display his personal attack, in clear violation of commentary terms and conditions.
This website is entirely self-funded, without advertising, unmotivated by any vested interest and provides no financial compensation to me or anyone else. It is not “Advertising/Spam”. Commentary at the Globe and Mail suffers from a number of ergonomic and technical problems, including limited length of comments, “amnesia” making repetitive posturing commonplace by contrarians hiding behind pseudonyms, migration of past stories behind a “pay wall”, and inability to display graphics. I use my website as a reference source and to try to overcome these limitations. Sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change are too important to be left to the flood of propaganda from astroturfing trolls and delivery boys for the “Merchants of Doubt“.
The “moderators” have been capricious in their application of the commentary terms and conditions, as very often happens for comments made on the weekend or at night. I have discussed the dysfunctional moderation with G&M executives who promised to review the issue with the company performing that function but in over six months I have had no reply nor seen any change. “Moderation” of G&M commentary is capricious and without warning, notification, feedback, justification, explanation, right of appeal or audit trail. A user is not even aware of censorship unless he continually reviews his comments to see whether they have been deleted or even replied to.
What did I post that deserved this censorship?
The G&M article has a focus on the science, technology, business, policy and politics of solar energy in Ontario. While my comments were not all immediately involved with these issues happening specifically within Ontario, each was relevant to at least one aspect. The following are some of the postings on this site which I cited in my commentary or which are relevant but not explicitly identified in my series of comments; have a look yourself if you want to see the relevance:
- Smaller, cheaper, faster: Does Moore’s law apply to solar cells?
- Improving Cost Effectiveness of Solar with Power Electronics
- No wind? No problem
- Report Maps California’s Energy Future to 2050
- The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today’s technology, in 20-40 years
- Panel would change Canada’s research landscape
- Rick Perry officials spark revolt after doctoring environment report
- Scientists confront Perry administration over censorship in Texas – October 14, 2011
- Merchant of Doubt S. Fred Singer