Globe and Mail Censorship of Online Commentary


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:

  1. Smaller, cheaper, faster: Does Moore’s law apply to solar cells?
  2. Improving Cost Effectiveness of Solar with Power Electronics
  3. No wind? No problem
  4. Report Maps California’s Energy Future to 2050
  5. The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today’s technology, in 20-40 years
  6. Panel would change Canada’s research landscape
  7. Rick Perry officials spark revolt after doctoring environment report
  8. Scientists confront Perry administration over censorship in Texas – October 14, 2011
  9. Merchant of Doubt S. Fred Singer
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Globe and Mail Censorship of Online Commentary

  1. George Ennis says:

    To say that GM censorship is capricious is an understatement. One only has to observe a policy that routinely allows ad hominem attacks on commenters, using such terms as “leftard”, “ecotard” etc. In short the GM in most cases has turned over its website comment section to internet trolls.

    • Alan Burke says:

      Thanks for the comment George. I made a very small edit for clarity, inserting a comment to avoid ambiguity. Please let me know if I have misconstrued your intent.

      “attacks on commenters using such terms as “leftard”, “ecotard” etc.”
      ->
      “attacks on commenters, using such terms as “leftard”, “ecotard” etc.”

  2. Alan Burke says:

    I quote the following from my posting in commentary at the G&M:

    Article Title: The high cost of ignoring scientific facts
    Link to Article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/gwyn-morgan/the-high-cost-of-ignoring-scientific-facts/article2210777/
    Link to Comment: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/gwyn-morgan/the-high-cost-of-ignoring-scientific-facts/article2210777/comments/?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:c9d133a5-9936-422f-a689-ed8316e6bb04

    Almost all of my comments in the past day have been censored in spite of the fact that none of them violated G&M commentary terms and conditions. The only common factor is that I used references to articles on my website to substantiate the facts of what I said.

    My website https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/ is entirely self-funded, without advertising, non-commercial, and gives me absolutely no financial return. I use it solely as a repository, like a library, to hold articles for reference.

    I use it here because of limitations of the G&M commentary software, which suffers from amnesia (it’s almost impossible to get to old articles and commentary), has a ridiculously small size limit (especially making it difficult to discuss complex subjects like science), has no ability to display images or graphics (necessary to make science easily understood), has poor threading mechanisms, and has no easy search and retrieval ability.

    It is certainly less spam than many sites often used here like WattsUpWithThat.

    I have stated this many times here and I’m almost certain that the moderators have seen my disclaimer before, making their intervention capricious, as is often the case. “Moderation” here is dysfunctional, without warning, notification, justification, explanation, right of appeal, or audit trail. Other comments which are in clear violation continue unaffected, including several which make unjustified and offensive personal attacks.

    I have previously taken this issue to G&M management and executives who promised to discuss the problems with the “moderating” contractor. No response or visible corrective action has been provided in over six months. I shall post this comment to my website and send it by email to the G&M executives.
    “Globe and Mail Censorship of Online Commentary”
    https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/globe-and-mail-censorship-of-online-commentary/

    It’s particularly galling that this censorship has been so unjustifiably applied to this particular article “The high cost of ignoring scientific facts” when what I have been providing is commentary and citations to legitimate and unrefuted science.

    You’re part of the problem Globe and Mail, not part of the solution.

    See also “Globe and Mail Personal Attack by “Eyes Wide Open”

  3. Alan Burke says:

    Here is one of the comments which was censored:

    The “Merchants of Doubt” and their delivery boys have done a gross injustice to us all by raising unwarranted doubt about human-caused climate change, just as they did for tobacco (cancer), CFCs (ozone depletion), smokestack sulfur (acid rain) and a retrospective on DDT.
    http://merchantsofdoubt.org

    I summarize the science history written by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway in my essay “Merchant of Doubt S. Fred Singer” https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/editorial/merchant-of-doubt-s-fred-singer/

    Extreme-right-wind ideologues, fundamentalist evangelical religious fanatics and greedy vested-interest financiers and businesses have delayed action on the mitigation of (reduction of impact) and adaptation to human-caused climate change, with potentially disastrous results, already affecting wildlife and millions of people worldwide. There is no “Planet B”.

    The ongoing propaganda campaign is extremely irresponsible and reprehensible.

    “Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC.

    A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.

    Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that
    • (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and
    • (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

    https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/expert-credibility-in-climate-change/

    Our continued burning of fossil fuels has extreme “social cost externalities”, amounting to $billions annually in Canada and $trillions worldwide, a real cost which has never been factored into the price of fossil fuels. Everyone in the world has been subsidizing the corporate greed of the fossil fuel companies, who have subverted politics with propaganda totally devoid of objective science.

    I invite you to visit my personal, self-funded, non-commercial, non-advertising repository of reputable science and policy studies concerning sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change. Comment there if you’d like. I have no desire to compete with the G&M articles and commentary but to provide an enduring repository of evidence which is often all too absent or perverted by contrarians and denialists here. https://climateinsight.wordpress.com

  4. Alan Burke says:

    Listed below are timestamps of comments made by me which were censored by the G&M “moderator”. The only reason which I can guess at, given the absence of any notification, justification or audit trail, is that someone reported these comments as “Advertising/Spam” because they contained a substantiating link to an article posted on my website. They certainly did not violate any of the other terms and conditions.

    They also did not violate “Advertising/Spam”. This website is non-commercial, self funded, without any advertising on the site, and I receive no benefit from anyone for having visitors to the site.

    Many links to external sites in G&M commentary do lead to sites which gain financial benefit via advertising. One of the most popular among the contrarian/denialist crowd is that run by Anthony Watt at http://wattsupwiththat.com/ It is outright hypocrisy on the part of G&M moderators not to censor comments linking to that site which does advertise and receive benefit from “hits” if they censor mine which does not.

    The G&M requires substantiation for allegations made in commentary. I use my personal website exactly for that purpose and no other.

    Comments censored in commentary to the G&M article: The high cost of ignoring scientific facts

    2:53 AM on October 24, 2011
    3:13 AM on October 24, 2011
    3:28 AM on October 24, 2011
    7:47 AM on October 24, 2011
    8:39 AM on October 24, 2011
    8:50 AM on October 24, 2011
    9:12 AM on October 24, 2011
    9:43 AM on October 24, 2011
    11:31 AM on October 24, 2011
    11:50 AM on October 24, 2011
    11:59 AM on October 24, 2011
    12:56 PM on October 24, 2011
    1:09 PM on October 24, 2011
    1:54 PM on October 24, 2011
    4:26 PM on October 24, 2011
    5:32 PM on October 24, 2011
    6:02 PM on October 24, 2011
    __________________________
    Klaatu_Barada

    3:09 AM on October 25, 2011

    Here’s a case not just of ignoring science but actually suppressing it. Do you want to see this man as a President of the USA?
    _____
    Rick Perry officials spark revolt after doctoring environment report

    Scientists ask for names to be removed after mentions of climate change and sea-level rise taken out by Texas officials

    Officials in Rick Perry‘s home state of Texas have set off a scientists‘ revolt after purging mentions of climate change and sea-level rise from what was supposed to be a landmark environmental report. The scientists said they were disowning the report on the state of Galveston Bay because of political interference and censorship from Perry appointees at the state’s environmental agency.

    By academic standards, the protest amounts to the beginnings of a rebellion: every single scientist associated with the 200-page report has demanded their names be struck from the document. “None of us can be party to scientific censorship so we would all have our names removed,” said Jim Lester, a co-author of the report and vice-president of the Houston Advanced Research Centre.

    “To me it is simply a question of maintaining scientific credibility. This is simply antithetical to what a scientist does,” Lester said. “We can’t be censored.” Scientists see Texas as at high risk because of climate change, from the increased exposure to hurricanes and extreme weather on its long coastline to this summer’s season of wildfires and drought.
    _____
    https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/rick-perry-officials-spark-revolt-after-doctoring-environment-report/
    citing
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/rick-perry-texas-censorship-environment-report

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    3:01 AM on October 25, 2011

    Here’s some more science being ignored and pooh-poohed by contrarians and denialists, reported on my website. Are you going to continue suppressing the science which I report G&M moderators?
    _____
    No simultaneous warming of northern and southern hemispheres as a result of climate change

    New study shows no simultaneous warming of northern and southern hemispheres as a result of climate change for 20 000 years

    A common argument against global warming is that the climate has always varied. Temperatures rise sometimes and this is perfectly natural is the usual line.

    However, Svante Björck, a climate researcher at Lund University in Sweden, has now shown that global warming, i.e. simultaneous warming events in the northern and southern hemispheres, have not occurred in the past 20 000 years, which is as far back as it is possible to analyse with sufficient precision to compare with modern developments. Svante Björck’s study thus goes 14 000 years further back in time than previous studies have done. “What is happening today is unique from a historical geological perspective”, he says

    Svante Björck has gone through the global climate archives, which are presented in a large number of research publications, and looked for evidence that any of the climate events that have occurred since the end of the last Ice Age 20 000 years ago could have generated similar effects on both the northern and southern hemispheres simultaneously. It has not, however, been possible to verify this. Instead, he has found that when, for example, the temperature rises in one hemisphere, it falls or remains unchanged in the other.
    _____
    https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/no-simultaneous-warming-of-northern-and-southern-hemispheres-as-a-result-of-climate-change/
    citing
    http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24890&news_item=5714

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    2:55 AM on October 25, 2011

    Why has the G&M not reported on this?
    _____
    Weather satellite budget cuts a ‘disaster in the making’

    Jane Lubchenco, head of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, criticises GOP moves to cut funding for critical satellite

    «America and Europe face a “disaster in the making” because of Congress budget cuts to a critical weather satellite, one of Barack Obama’s top science officials has warned.

    The satellite crosses the Earth’s poles 14 times a day, monitoring the atmosphere, clouds, ice, vegetation, and oceans. It provides 90% of the information used by the National Weather Service, UK Met Office and other European agencies to predict severe storms up to seven days in advance.

    But Republican budget-cutting measures would knock out that critical capacity by delaying the launch of the next generation of polar-orbiting satellites, said Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency.

    “It is a disaster in the making. It’s an expression of the dysfunction in our system,” said Lubchenco, who was speaking at a dinner on the sidelines of the Society of Environmental Journalists meeting in Miami.

    It would cost three to five times more to rebuild the project after a gap than to keep the funds flowing. “It’s insanity,” Lubchenco said.”»
    _____
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/24/weather-satellite-cuts-disaster-obama-official

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    2:51 AM on October 25, 2011

    It is outrageous that the G&M “moderators” have suppressed comments of mine like these which I have posted in the past few minutes. They are contributing directly to “The high cost of ignoring scientific facts” with their dysfunctional “moderation” and inadequate coverage of science.

    For a look at what you’re missing here from this mainstream media paper, contrast the lame reporting here with the Guardian’s coverage:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    2:47 AM on October 25, 2011

    Why are right-wing ideologues denying the reality of climate science when the rest of the world with few exceptions recognizes the urgent need to mitigate and adapt?
    _____
    Climate action a ‘moral responsibility’

    Chinese climatologist says the world must work together on global warming.

    “Global warming is causing changes in glaciers, permafrost and snow cover in Central Asia, threatening the livelihood of millions of people in the region. Nature spoke with Qin Dahe, a glaciologist at the Cold and Arid Regions Environment and Engineering Research Institute in Lanzhou and co-chairman of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the International Symposium on Changing Cryosphere, Water Availability and Sustainable Development in Central Asia held last week in Urumqi, China, where he gave un update on the IPCC’s work. Qin tells Nature how the panel is working to ensure scientific rigor in the upcoming assessment report, and what the world must do to tackle global warming. …

    Given the deadlock of recent rounds of climate negotiation, what must the world do to limit and mitigate climate change?

    Despite uncertainties, one thing is absolutely clear: global warming is real and poses a significant threat to civilizations worldwide, and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases can mitigate the problem. The process of climate negotiation has been frustratingly slow, but it’s encouraging that the world has committed to a goal of keeping temperature increases to less than 2 ºC. Both developed and developing countries must work together to share the obligation of emissions reduction. We must act now. This is our moral responsibility towards future generations.”
    _____
    More … http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111020/full/news.2011.604.html
    Jane Qiu, 20 October 2011 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.604

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    2:44 AM on October 25, 2011

    The science of climatology is very clear and unrefuted. However politicians worldwide, especially right-wing ideologues in the USA and Canada refuse to develop policies built upon the conclusions of that science and have done so for over 30 years since James Hansen published his prophetic study:

    Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide : Hansen et al, 1981
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

    The global temperature rose by 0.2°C between the middle 1960′s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980′s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

    Hansen’s projections tracked very well with measurements in the past decades since he published.

    ―――――
    CarlW

    2:37 AM on October 25, 2011

    “Despite the collapse of the Kyoto process and the decline in public concern, professional environmental alarmists and eco-activists — who are now concentrating their venom on stopping the Keystone XL pipeline — continue to thunder that climate science is “settled.” Their authority for this claim is the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. Anybody wishing to gauge the reliability of such science, or the true nature of the IPCC, should read Donna Laframboise’s compelling, indeed at times jaw-dropping, The Delinquent Teenager Who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.”

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/

    And still the science is being ignored by the extreme-right agw anti-science ideologues?????? Not enough debt on our children yet Alan?? Too hot in Alert Alan, a balmy minus thirty degrees as we speak???

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    2:31 AM on October 25, 2011

    Here’s another case of policy ignoring science:

    Impacts of oil sands development on environment are not understood

    (Chapter 2—Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil Sands Projects—October 2011 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development)
    http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201110_02_e_35761.html

    Ottawa, 4 October 2011—A lack of environmental information and monitoring has hindered the government’s ability to understand how oil sands projects in northern Alberta have cumulatively affected environmental conditions there, says Scott Vaughan, federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, in his report tabled today in the House of Commons. The audit focused on the Alberta oil sands because of the high concentration of major development projects in the region.

    “When there are several development projects in the same region, it’s important to understand their combined impacts on the environment and how to minimize them,” said Mr. Vaughan. “Failure to prevent environmental impacts from the start can lead to significant problems down the road.”

    The audit found that decisions about the oil sands projects have been based on incomplete, poor, or non-existent environmental information. The government’s understanding of changing environmental conditions in northern Alberta has been hampered by a lack of baseline information on conditions in the surrounding ecosystems and inadequate environmental monitoring systems. The government’s own scientists have acknowledged that impacts on water quantity and quality, fish and fish habitat, land, air and wildlife are not fully known.

    The Oil Sands Advisory Panel established by the government in 2010 reported that the many efforts at environmental monitoring had failed to add up to a credible system. In response, the government committed to establish, with its partners, a world-class environmental monitoring system for the lower Athabasca River basin.

    “This monitoring is critically important,” said Mr. Vaughan. “The government appears to have the right plan in place. It now needs to follow through and deliver.”

    The chapter “Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil Sands Projects” is available on the Office of the Auditor General of Canada website.
    http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201110_02_e_35761.html

    For more information, please click here … http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/med_fs_e_45.html

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    2:23 AM on October 25, 2011

    The following is from the USA but it applies equally here. Science is being ignored by the extreme-right ideologues.

    “Washington’s Failure To Act On Climate Change Is Blameworthy & The Consequences Profound”

    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse gave a powerful speech in the U.S. Senate last week, making a thorough and well-supported argument for immediate comprehensive action to mitigate the effects of human-caused climate destabilization and ocean acidification:

    Video on YouTube … http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k6VQ0vYfrAw

    “Mr. President, I am here to speak about what is currently an unpopular topic in this town. It has become no longer politically correct in certain circles in Washington to speak about climate change or carbon pollution or how carbon pollution is causing our climate to change.

    This is a peculiar condition of Washington. If you go out into, say, our military and intelligence communities, they understand and are planning for the effects of carbon pollution on climate change. They see it as a national security risk. If you go out into our nonpolluting business and financial communities, they see this as a real and important problem. And, of course, it goes without saying our scientific community is all over this concern. But as I said, Washington is a peculiar place, and here it is getting very little traction.

    Here in Washington we feel the dark hand of the polluters tapping so many shoulders. And where there is power and money behind that dark hand, therefore, a lot of attention is paid to that little tap on the shoulder. What we overlook is that nature–God’s Earth–is also tapping us all on the shoulder, with messages we ignore at our peril. We ignore the messages of nature–of God’s Earth–and we ignore the laws of nature–of God’s Earth–at our very grave peril.

    There is a wave of very justifiable economic frustration that has swept through our Capitol. The problem is that some of the special interests–the polluters–have insinuated themselves into that wave, sort of like parasites that creep into the body of a host animal, and from there they are working terrible mischief. They are propagating two big lies. One is that environmental regulations are a burden to the economy and we need to lift those burdens to spur our economic recovery. The second is the jury is still out on climate changes caused by carbon pollution, so we don’t need to worry about it or even take precautions.

    Both are, frankly, outright false.”

    More (the complete transcript) … https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/washington%e2%80%99s-failure-to-act-on-climate-change-is-blameworthy-the-consequences-profound/

    ―――――
    CarlW

    2:09 AM on October 25, 2011

    Klaatu – “Almost all of my comments in the past day have been censored”

    Look in a mirror Alan, and you’ll see the reason, and it is long overdue. You’ve had a free pass to insult forever, deleting others that responded in kind. Well done G&M, levelling the free speech playing field, striking a blow for science, a blow against spin doctors and propagandists and those piling debt on our children!
    Klaatu_Barada

    2:26 AM on October 25, 2011

    Unlike you and many others here CarlW, I adhere closely to the commentary terms and conditions and I substantiate my opinions. When I comment about other postings, I address what has been said, providing evidence in support of my opinions.

    You, on the other hand, frequently have launched offensive and unjustified personal attacks, without addressing what was said, merely attacking your opponents.
    Name withheld

    2:30 AM on October 25, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.
    Klaatu_Barada

    2:33 AM on October 25, 2011

    CarlW that is a false, offensive and unjustified allegation of lying – intent to deceive has never been one of my motives.
    Name withheld

    2:39 AM on October 25, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    CarlW

    2:03 AM on October 25, 2011

    “Extreme-right-wind ideologues, fundamentalist evangelical religious fanatics and greedy vested-interest financiers and businesses have delayed action on the mitigation of” the trough type baby goracles, that in this country only, have wasted a billion dollars a year since 1996, piling debt on our children, so the agw nutters can vacation for free in Rio, build the goracle more mansions, send money to the mo strong Chinese billionaires clubs!!! And CO2 emissions soar!

    FYI Alan, apparement the science is only settled if the scientist you’re quoting is working on his masters degree at the send us $10 and we’ll send you whatever degree you’d like university!!!

    “New book goes inside IPCC climate-science reports to find use of grad students, lack of peer reviews warrant an ‘F’”
    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/book-excerpt-conspiracy-of-silence/

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    1:27 AM on October 25, 2011

    Here’s one of the comments which was censored:

    The “Merchants of Doubt” and their delivery boys have done a gross injustice to us all by raising unwarranted doubt about human-caused climate change, just as they did for tobacco (cancer), CFCs (ozone depletion), smokestack sulfur (acid rain) and a retrospective on DDT.
    http://merchantsofdoubt.org

    I summarize the science history written by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway … https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/editorial/merchant-of-doubt-s-fred-singer/

    Extreme-right-wind ideologues, fundamentalist evangelical religious fanatics and greedy vested-interest financiers and businesses have delayed action on the mitigation of (reduction of impact) and adaptation to human-caused climate change, with potentially disastrous results, already affecting wildlife and millions of people worldwide. There is no “Planet B”.

    The ongoing propaganda campaign is extremely irresponsible and reprehensible.

    “Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC.

    A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.

    Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that
    • (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and
    • (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

    https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/expert-credibility-in-climate-change/

    Our continued burning of fossil fuels has extreme “social cost externalities”, amounting to $billions annually in Canada and $trillions worldwide, a real cost which has never been factored into the price of fossil fuels. Everyone in the world has been subsidizing the corporate greed of the fossil fuel companies, who have subverted politics with propaganda totally devoid of objective science.

    I invite you to visit my personal, self-funded, non-commercial, non-advertising repository of reputable science and policy studies concerning sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change. Comment there if you’d like. I have no desire to compete with the G&M articles and commentary but to provide an enduring repository of evidence which is often all too absent or perverted by contrarians and denialists here. https://climateinsight.wordpress.com

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    12:55 AM on October 25, 2011

    Almost all of my comments in the past day have been censored in spite of the fact that none of them violated G&M commentary terms and conditions. The only common factor is that I used references to articles on my website to substantiate the facts of what I said.

    My website https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/ is entirely self-funded, without advertising, non-commercial, and gives me absolutely no financial return. I use it solely as a repository, like a library, to hold articles for reference.

    I use it here because of limitations of the G&M commentary software, which suffers from amnesia (it’s almost impossible to get to old articles and commentary), has a ridiculously small size limit (especially making it difficult to discuss complex subjects like science), has no ability to display images or graphics (necessary to make science easily understood), has poor threading mechanisms, and has no easy search and retrieval ability.

    It is certainly less spam than many sites often used here like WattsUpWithThat.

    I have stated this many times here and I’m almost certain that the moderators have seen my disclaimer before, making their intervention capricious, as is often the case. “Moderation” here is dysfunctional, without warning, notification, justification, explanation, right of appeal, or audit trail. Other comments which are in clear violation continue unaffected, including several which make unjustified and offensive personal attacks.

    I have previously taken this issue to G&M management and executives who promised to discuss the problems with the “moderating” contractor. No response or visible corrective action has been provided in over six months. I shall post this comment to my website and send it by email to the G&M executives.
    “Globe and Mail Censorship of Online Commentary”
    https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/globe-and-mail-censorship-of-online-commentary/

    It’s particularly galling that this censorship has been so unjustifiably applied to this particular article “The high cost of ignoring scientific facts” when what I have been providing is commentary and citations to legitimate and unrefuted science.

    You’re part of the problem Globe and Mail, not part of the solution.
    LeroyLarson

    1:04 AM on October 25, 2011

    😉
    Klaatu_Barada

    1:14 AM on October 25, 2011

    See also:

    Globe and Mail Personal Attack by “Eyes Wide Open”
    https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/globe-and-mail-personal-attack-by-eyes-wide-open/

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    8:51 PM on October 24, 2011

    “Igloo-shaped ‘Poo-Gloos’ eat sewage

    Growing towns can save millions; study shows devices cut pollutants”

    More … https://climateinsight.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/igloo-shaped-poo-gloos-eat-sewage/
    NorOnt2

    11:08 PM on October 24, 2011

    I’m sure repeated postings advertising a website is spam. Spam annoys people that have legitimate opinions.
    Klaatu_Barada

    12:24 AM on October 25, 2011

    NorOnt2 my website is entirely self-funded, without advertising, non-commercial, and gives me absolutely no financial return. I use it solely as a repository, like a library, to hold articles for reference. I use it here because of limitations of the G&M commentary software, which suffers from amnesia (it’s almost impossible to get to old articles and commentary), has a ridiculously small size limit (especially making it difficult to discuss complex subjects like science), has no ability to display images or graphics (necessary to make science easily understood), has poor threading mechanisms, and has no easy search and retrieval ability.

    It is certainly less spam than many sites often used here like WattsUpWithThat.

    I have stated this many times here and I’m almost certain that you have seen my disclaimer before, making your comment here visibly an attempt to discredit me and my not-for-profit no-vested-interest commentary.

    ―――――
    Anonymous Source

    6:26 PM on October 24, 2011

    Oh no! Now Klaatu has brought up the so-called ‘BEST’ (Muller) research as supposed evidence of something. Toooo funny.

    But I thought Klaatu was always demanding ‘peer reviewed’ research? That isn’t. Not even by the usual AGW Team.

    There is all sorts of critiques and criticisms of this press released ‘study’ – which actually raises some inconvenient questions:

    “The researchers find a strong correlation between North Atlantic temperature cycles lasting decades, and the global land surface temperature. They admit that the influence in recent decades of oceanic temperature cycles has been unappreciated and may explain most, if not all, of the global warming that has taken place, stating the possibility that the “human component of global warming may be somewhat overstated.””

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/sceptical-berkeley-scientists-say-human-component-of-global-warming-may-be-somewhat-overstated/

    P.S. Lie No. 1 – Muller is not a skeptic. He just pretended to be one:

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/10/23/wapo-punked-berkeley-warmist-posing-skeptic

    You really ought to keep up with things. Otherwise your comments are just plain silly.

    In the meantime, no surprise that there has been some warming. That is what happens when Ice Ages – including the Little Ice Age – end. That is exactly what the ‘BEST’ graph shows. Or did the CO2 emissions of 1850 have some ‘tipping point’ effect?

    Try learning something: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/22/a-preliminary-assessment-of-bests-decline/
    Klaatu_Barada

    12:34 AM on October 25, 2011

    Unsubstantiated nonsense. Give us references to verify your ridiculous claims.

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    6:12 PM on October 24, 2011

    The Republicans in the USA, like the CPC here in Canada, are continuing their war on science:

    “Weather satellite budget cuts a ‘disaster in the making’ – Obama official

    Jane Lubchenco, head of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, criticises GOP moves to cut funding for critical satellite

    America and Europe face a “disaster in the making” because of Congress budget cuts to a critical weather satellite, one of Barack Obama’s top science officials has warned.

    The satellite crosses the Earth’s poles 14 times a day, monitoring the atmosphere, clouds, ice, vegetation, and oceans. It provides 90% of the information used by the National Weather Service, UK Met Office and other European agencies to predict severe storms up to seven days in advance.

    But Republican budget-cutting measures would knock out that critical capacity by delaying the launch of the next generation of polar-orbiting satellites, said Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency.

    “It is a disaster in the making. It’s an expression of the dysfunction in our system,” said Lubchenco, who was speaking at a dinner on the sidelines of the Society of Environmental Journalists meeting in Miami.

    It would cost three to five times more to rebuild the project after a gap than to keep the funds flowing. “It’s insanity,” Lubchenco said.

    2011 has set new records for extreme weather events in the US and around the world, bringing hurricanes, heatwaves, floods, tornadoes, blizzards, droughts and wildfires. Ten of those events, including last August’s devastating Hurricane Irene, inflicted damages of at least $1bn.

    Climate change is expected to produce more extreme weather events in the future, making accurate long-range weather forecasts even more essential.”

    More … http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/24/weather-satellite-cuts-disaster-obama-official

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    6:02 PM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    5:32 PM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    4:26 PM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    CarlW

    2:02 PM on October 24, 2011

    I see that Alan has reported my abusive response to his abuse, but not his own abuse???? What is it about hypocrisy that you don’t get? Minus 28 degrees in Alert as we speak Alan, and you running around like a chicken with its head cut off, screaming, send me to Durban, send me to Durban, for my free vacation, or you’re all gonna die when it warms up to minus 27 degrees!!!

    Have I mentioned my opinion Alan, that you should get a real job, take a science course, start with pH?

    ―――――
    CarlW

    1:22 PM on October 24, 2011

    Klaatu_Barada – “Your propaganda is ridiculous, irresponsible and unsubstantiated argy-bargy.”
    He’s back! The ad hominem master will insult everyone, and, when they predictably respond in kind, have their comments deleted by his G&M buddy, and then lecture the list on decorum?????
    FYI Alan, I think Gwynn is talking about you, and “The high cost of ignoring scientific facts”. For Canadian taxpayers, that would be about a billion dollars a year since Kyoto, since 1996. We’d have been better off burning all that paper currency; at least we’d have got a little warmth out of it, as opposed to sending 20,000 trough type baby goracle morons to Durban for their free, nod, nod, wink, wink, vacations. But of course they’ll purchase carbon off-sets, with our tax dollars, of course!!!!

    Canada, the swarm to warm country, the northern half too cold to grow a tree, and we’re all gonna die if the country warms up a degree????? Cut back on the koolaid Alan, and get a real job, one that doesn’t load our children with debt, so the goracle can build his fifth mansion, with twenty bathrooms!!!!!!
    Klaatu_Barada

    1:43 PM on October 24, 2011

    You still appear unable to distinguish CarlW between attacking an individual concerning irrelevancies of who he is and making false statements about intentions and actions, rather than addressing what he says with relevant rebuttal and substantiation. You do the former. I do the latter.
    Name withheld

    1:54 PM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.
    CarlW

    3:17 PM on October 24, 2011

    In your mind only Alan!!!!!!!!!

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    1:09 PM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    12:56 PM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    11:59 AM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    11:50 AM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    11:31 AM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    11:33 AM on October 24, 2011

    You are confusing legitimate science and the faulty application of science to technology and political policy.

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    9:43 AM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    9:12 AM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    9:08 AM on October 24, 2011

    Instead of forming unsubstantiated opinions about the UK energy policies and Chris Huhne, go to the source and see what is said by them instead of reading propaganda filtered through ideologically-driven blogs like GWPF and mainstream media like Forbes and the Financial Post.

    UK Department of Energy & Climate Change
    http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/news/

    Some recent titles:

    • 20 October 2011 Clegg and Huhne set out government commitment to renewables

    • 19 October 2011 Government reaffirms commitment to CCS

    • 19 October 2011 Chris Huhne’s Written Ministerial Statement on the Hills Fuel Poverty Review interim report

    • 14 October 2011 Chris Huhne’s statement on Ofgem announcement about energy billing

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    8:50 AM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    8:39 AM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    8:45 AM on October 24, 2011

    ClimateGate was an outrageous fraud, as shown by follow-on studies.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=climategate&x=0&y=0

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    7:47 AM on October 24, 2011

    This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by our staff.

    ―――――
    Glenn Fiddich

    7:34 AM on October 24, 2011

    The basement Marxists are up early this morning. Must be welfare Monday. Or perhaps they’re revving up for COP 17 Climate Conference, Durban 2011, next month. The Socialist International is ready to get down and party:
    http://links.org.au/taxonomy/term/518

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    3:28 AM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    3:13 AM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    3:37 AM on October 24, 2011

    The GWPF is a propaganda agency:

    “Don’t Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition”

    “The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently published a flashy headline that reads, ’900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm’. The article links to a blog post on Populartechnology.net listing more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”

    The “900+ papers” list is supposed to somehow prove that a score of scientists reject the scientific consensus on climate change. One might be persuaded by the big numbers. We’re not.

    Oh, where to begin? First, a note of caution about the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It’s a UK group opposing climate change action. Sourcewatch’s digging reveals links to right-wing libertarian climate change deniers. According to the UK Charity Commission, GWPF’s mandate is to “advance the public understanding of global warming and of its possible consequences, and also of the measures taken or proposed to be taken in response to it”. Actually, they’re a heck of a lot more interested in sowing seeds of doubt than in disseminating knowledge. The GWPF’s director is the Heartland Institute’s* Benny Peiser, climate change denier extraordinaire. Other notable members include Canada’s Ross McKitrick of the Fraser Institute.

    Curiously, the GWPF was launched just as the Climategate emails were released. An op-ed by Chairman Nigel Lawson announced the GWPF, predicted the (hopeful) failure of the Copenhagen climate talks, and called for an inquiry into the content of the stolen emails.”

    More … http://www.desmogblog.com/fossil-fools-fund-latest-petition

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    3:41 AM on October 24, 2011

    Global Warming Policy Foundation

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Founda

    ―――――
    Name withheld

    2:53 AM on October 24, 2011

    This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.

    ―――――
    Klaatu_Barada

    2:51 AM on October 24, 2011

    See “Texas conservatives reject Harper’s crime plan

    Conservatives in the United States’ toughest crime-fighting jurisdiction — Texas — say the Harper government’s crime strategy won’t work.

    “You will spend billions and billions and billions on locking people up,” says Judge John Creuzot of the Dallas County Court. “And there will come a point in time where the public says, ‘Enough!’ And you’ll wind up letting them out.””

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/17/pol-vp-milewski-texas-crime.html

    ―――――

  5. Hi! I’ve been reading your blog for a long time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Humble Tx! Just wanted to mention keep up the good work!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s