Skip to content

Comment Policy

My policy is very straightforward. I will discuss anything with anyone, so long as you can provide evidence if you make a claim about science, so long as you are civil, and so long as you don’t come here just to tell me why I’m wrong.  Opinion stated as fact isn’t debate, it is cheating – valid discussion is only possible if people can tell the difference.

Ad hominem attacks, personal slights and insults, lies and distortions, childish behaviour and spurious “challenges” will be treated with the contempt they deserve, and deleted (unless I can make some sport out of them).

Update September 2010

I regret that due to a rash of personal remarks, stereotypical obfuscation and bizarre denialist claims, I will now have to pre-moderate all commments from new posters. I tried leaving the blog open, but many people seem to confuse free speech with cheap speech – another detrimental facet of consumerism, I suspect.

I also want to make clear my position on this subject. There are innumerable places in the blogosphere where people can attack climate change science. This isn’t one of them. Deniers, skeptics, doubters, troofers, tin-foil fans – doesn’t matter what you call them, these discussions are pointless, stupid and the bitter fruit of very questionable motives.

I want this blog to be a place where people may constructively address the problems we face. I expect my views to be challenged, but not by repeating the many failed memes of climate denial – telling me why I’m wrong to think we need to address these problems, in other words – or that the problems don’t exist.

Challenge the solutions I discuss, the nature of consumersism or the difficulties of doing good science in such a politicised climate. Do not waste your time here attacking science, scientists, me or anyone else who supports the findings of good and honest men whose work and reputations are traduced and maligned by those will far less scruples and a lot more to gain. Climate denial is the voice of the mob, writ large across the internet. I can’t silence the mob and its baying ignorance, but I can at least keep it out of my house.

This article and others connected with it have described in detail the way that, under the cover of science, reputable people are lending that reputation to statements that science does not support. These statements are part of a propaganda war, they are dishonest and serve purposes that have little or nothing to do with serious debate. I will not entertain them, or their defence, in this blog.

If you want to air your grievances, want to express your many anxieties about hockey sticks, emails, science funding, world governments, communists, socialism, the UN, Illuminati, Bilderbergers, Gore, Mann, Hansen, treehuggers, environmental nazis, tax and control and other brainless conspiracies that are as illogical as they are fearful – go somewhere else.

For the rest of my visitors, if you are looking for somewhere you don’t have to wade through mud, this is the place for you, and I hope you always feel welcome here.

Update December 2010

Discussions about moderation and censorship are no longer permitted – such discursions simply go the way of other fruitless discussions and I have no time for them. I will run this blog the way I see fit, and if anyone takes exception to the way I do things they are free to go somewhere else.

5 Comments leave one →
  1. June 24, 2011 3:56 am

    Very succinctly put. I like the statement “many people seem to confuse free speech with cheap speech … ” It seems, given a degree of anonymity and a forum, certain persons will let their heads explode without caring where the fallout lands or who their words hurt or malign or how devoid of critical thinking they sound.

  2. Nicholas Lalvani permalink
    April 18, 2013 8:32 am

    Lovely website full of intelligent observation. I’m still troubled by how to convince nay-sayers of the disasterous effect of overconsumption. So many different things are pointing to life being really tough for future generations.

  3. Lloyd permalink
    June 12, 2013 9:28 am

    Hi Graham

    Your CiF nick rang a bell (of course 🙂 but, I’m embarrassed to admit, not loudly enough. Yet something about your recent post on “Climate change – what next after the 2C boundary?” struck me as unusually insightful, forthright and articulate. That made me hope to learn more about the person behind it. I couldn’t have guessed – but I’m delighted to discover – that you’ve written so much about this stuff for so long. Your blog’s a real find, and I’m tickled that our interests (and even, for a guess, our ages) have as much in common as our world-views. C64? BBC B for me. Weren’t they fun? Thanks so much.

    Admiration and the best of luck,


  4. Graham Wayne permalink*
    June 12, 2013 11:47 am

    Thanks Lloyd – your generous comment is much appreciated

  5. September 9, 2014 5:21 am

    Dear Sir, To fight global warming, have the United Nations create ‘The Global 50/50 Lottery’, the world’s first honest global lottery, to raise the massive funds needed to buy clean electricity generating wind, solar, ocean and water systems, to replace the electricity from our coal burning electric power plants, that are emitting the carbon dioxide that is causing global warming. Remember, human greed is like a force of nature that can move mountains. If we can exploit it to fight global warming, we just might beat it!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: