I dislike editing comments from contributors to this site. I have done so recently to try and remove at least some of the personal attack – from more than one contributor. The trouble is that it is a slippery slope – both ways. You don’t edit and a wad of comment ends up being ‘nasty’. You do edit and you ‘destroy’ the point that was being made amongst the name calling?
And then this morning I was emailed the link to Prof Bob Carter’s speech to the Melbourne Rotary Club last week in which, perhaps tired of being called a ‘climate skeptic’, he has labelled belief in human-induced climate change ‘Hansenism’.
When is name calling OK? Can it be a useful short-hand?
Anyway, perhaps this is just the excuse I need to stimulate discussion about how to ‘moderate’ this site. What should the rules be?
When I edited a post some weeks ago the angry ‘commenter’ emailed me asking for ‘the rules’. I lamely replied something along the lines that “I edit out the personal attacks when they don’t progress the argument”.
Your suggestions?
Perhaps you know of a site with some ‘good rules’ we could borrow?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Yeah, its a tough one. John Quiggin fairly frequently reiterates that he wants no coarse language and civil discussion, and it seems to keep his comment box fairly clean.
I’ve seen some people take the “disemvowelling” approach – if a comment is obviously just rude, crude, or more interested in trolling than advancing discussion, you remove the vowels from the comment, but leave the comment there. This identifies the person as having commented in an innappropriate way, makes their comment difficult to read so most people won’t bother, but, you still can read it if you try.
And finally, I think you’ll have to accept that you can’t please everyone. What is name calling in one case, might be acceptable criticism in another case. You might also want to edit out repeated comments that are not rude or anything, but just repeatedly inane or ridiculous. I can think of at least one commenter i’d like to see permanently banned from the blogosphere for writing nonsensical comments virtually every time he writes.
Maybe a good rule is, if in doubt, let the comment stay. Most people should be capable of making their own opinions of both your posts and the comments to it.
Actually, I’ve read some bloggers write that its better for a bogger to stay out of their own comment box, and put up all their comments as posts instead. This is, I guess, a good way of keeping yourself above the filth, and also keeping interesting discussion threads alive. You’ve been doing a good job of this with multiple numbered posts on the same topic I think.
Steve
Good point for bloggers to keep out of the comment box. However if a commentator then posts something which is defamatory Jen will be held liable for it by the lawyers from hell. Life is short and having to continually edit posters comments is something no one should be expected to do.
I am not too familiar with Quiggin’s site but most of his posters are like minded, so they really have no need to sink to the usual levels.
I suspect the problem Jen has is that comments to posters like myself attract often virulent invective, and while I personally ignore those childish fleabites, (wounding sometimes they are), rarely am I driven to answering in kind though as Jen knows I have done so but did nto survive the editing process. As my barbs are extremely short and to the point, it is easy to censor them, and I am not offended either by that.
What many posters don’t seem to understand is the concept of diplomacy, or how to send someone to hell and having them look forward to it.
Jen
Bob Carter’s proposal to use the term Hansenite etc is an updating of the term Lysenkoite, for the various reasons he has put publicly. I don’t agree with it as it is an overt ad hominem. That said, one must also fight fire with fire, so one is between an rock and a hard place.
Occasionally I let one or two comments slip, and they don’t get published at all, but the fact that it is a problem – the lack of civil discourse.
The problem is rather simple though – debate the facts, not the messenger. Global warmers and all that identify with that political philsophy have historically always relied on the technique of shooting the messenger to counter debate.
Ken Miles for example, posted somewhere, here I think, that I even don’t believe in plate tectonics! This is a rhetorical device to immasculate your opponent by identifying him with the geolgoical heretics. (I think my answer was that belief or disbelief is not science).
Rules? Only one.
Argue the topic not the debater.
Loius you are good I will give you that. Even when you are talking about something totally different you manage to slip in somthing against GW.
Also the ENTIRE skeptic argument is based on ‘shooting the messenger’ as your side does no science. GW skeptics ONLY try pull apart real scientists research.
Mundane though it might be to point out, I think the tone of the blogger sets the standard for the tone of the blog. Aggressive, confrontational and nasty posts will attract aggressive, confrontational and nasty comments.
I haven’t visited this blog in a while, but I’ve never seen anything aggressive or nasty here. Having said that, I do think many of your posts, Jennifer, are disingenuous and clearly based on your severe political ideology. That kind of attitude will attract similar people, albeit perhaps from the other side of the political spectrum.
If you want a loftier tone to your blog, I suggest you start being considerably less skewed in your political ideology, or at least refine your capacity for making propaganda look like balanced observation.
The last comment by E was actually me. Don’t know how the E thing happened
May I suggest that you don’t need rules? This is your Blog. Your place. You are under no obligation to anyone, other than yourself, to explain your decisions on removing comments that you would prefer not to host.
You may even like to edit comments. For example, a comment may have both personal abuse and good points. As a courtesy you may wish to indicate that you’ve edited the comment, but only as a courtesy.
I have seen nothing here to indicate that you would remove or prohibit comments that you disagree with simply for that reason. What more could anyone sensibly ask?
Jennifer,
StephenD’s comments sound good but are too idealistic. I’m sure you are familiar enough with the blogosphere to know that a sensible and well articulated comments policy will help to keep visitors returning and shield you from easy criticism that you censor unfairly.
Gee!
Thanks Ender 🙂 nice to be appreciated.
However you need to come up with some hard evidence that we climate rationalists shoot messengers.
We shoot concepts and demolish sloppy science.
Given the concerted effort your goodself makes in reacting to me, suggests I must be scoring a few hits.
Steve, re your 3:35pm comment: I tend to follow RWDB-type blogs, and contribute myself to the Australian Libertarian Society group blog
(www.libertarian.org.au) and, I must confess, I have never seen a ‘sensible and well articulated comments policy’ on any of them. What I have seen are occasional expressions of wrestling with the problem by several bloggers. Now, perhaps they do have such policies. I’ve certainly not gone looking for them because I try to be fair in my comments, and consequently (perhaps foolishly) think that I will therefore never fall afoul such a policy. Nevertheless, I’d be very surprised if there were any correlation between the articulation of such policies and the longevity or popularity of a Blog.
A blog is an expression of the Blogger’s personality and mind. It is the attractiveness of those that keeps readers (and commenters) coming back. The existence of a comments policy would, I think, weigh lightly in their calculations. The actual exercise of capricious deletions would weigh much more heavily.
(For what its worth, in my ‘idealism’ I prefer to leave all comments unmolested. Even the abusive, silly ones. Their abusive and silly content is better, in my view, at invalidating them amongst sensible readers than any deletion of them.)
Steve Dawson,
What about web robots or similar that are simply code reacting to predefined syntax?
Murky waters indeed in which we tread.
“Ken Miles for example, posted somewhere, here I think, that I even don’t believe in plate tectonics! This is a rhetorical device to immasculate your opponent by identifying him with the geolgoical heretics. (I think my answer was that belief or disbelief is not science).” – Louis
It is more than a rhetorical device. When science is being discussed by laypeople there are quite frequently arguments to authority. It seems apt to point out (especially because you frequently bring up your background in geology) that your views on many scientific subjects (geology, physics, Darwinian evolution etc) can be labelled as “alternative”.
“When is name calling OK? Can it be a useful short-hand?”
It can be difficult to avoid name calling when you suspect/know that another person isn’t playing fair. For example, when somebody states that modern climate models aren’t 3D or that the IPCC defines climate change to preclude natural causes, then they are either ignorant or worse. When their background suggests that they aren’t ignorant, then it is next to impossible to find suitable adjectives without name calling.
Ken,
Modern climate models are not 3D (Three dimensional)? Whoever said that? Not I, I can assure you.
I find it underwhelming to be confronted with opinion based on the scientific fact that man-made CO2 only contributes 2-5% of total CO2 emissions on this planet, and from that to then assign 95-98% of the blame for increasing the planet’s thermal state on humanity.
Take a look at this interview on some guy who left the White House climate change program
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/jun/policy/pt_piltz.html
Louis, I know that it wasn’t you who made that statement (and I’m not sure why you think that I was referring to you). It was the guy whose book got panned at its launch. No points for guessing who.
You should read up on the concept of equilibriums before being under whelmed. While human GHG emissions are small compared with natural emissions, the natural sources where approximately in equilibrium with the GHG sinks. A small constant increase in CO2 emissions will shift total CO2 considerably.
On a sad note, Charles Keeling, who did great work on monitoring CO2 levels died recently.
Ken,
I am intrigued that you are so reticent to quote at all – which guy – let me guess William Kinninmonth? Panned by whom? no points for guessing what. William Kininmonth is expert in climate, for heaven’s sake.
His sin is that he is politically incorrect.
Human GHG emissions are insignificant when compared to natural emissions and as we mere geologists have shown, elsewhere, geological CO2 levels have been over double in the past.
It might be useful to think carefully when taking a physical scientist to task for his considered opinions. As Ender is finding out, the internet is not necessarily the fount of all wisdom or of scientific accuracy.
None of you seem to have realised that underneath your feet is an enormous source of energy, and therefore heat. I suggest you do some elementary maths, refer Wikpedia for earth dimensions etc, and see how physically insignificant the earth’s atmosphere is physically to the earth.
The earth, in terms of the definition of sphericity, is closer to an ideal sphere than a billiard ball: easily shown by some maths.
Ken,
as an added comment, the earth is not in equilibrium – thermal or otherwise.
So your advice is ignored, and your knowledge of the geological past incomplete.
Lucky we got people like yourself here, eh Louie? Comprehensive AND faultless knowledge of the geological past. If I were human, I’d marry you.
Yes Loius just like this piece of scientific accuracy.
“Using standard physics 101 method of mixtures and assuming here that the specific heat of both the atmosphere and the earth are = 1 we get:”
Who wrote this crok I wonder????
Louis,
We don’t live in the past. Reconstructed or measured ancient CO2 levels are irrelevant wrt current CO2 levels. This would be apparent to anyone with even passing knowledge of CO2 sources and sinks.
The energy from the earth’s interior is irrelevant relative to the energy received from the sun and from the atmosphere. This would be apparent to anyone with even a passing knowledge of global energy balances. And I believe that Tim Lambert has already caught you out in the past trying to use that bit of disinformation: http://timlambert.org/2004/12/hissink/
And no, the earth isn’t in thermal equilibrium now. You can thank the excess greenhouse gases for that. But it used to be approximately in thermal equilibrium. Once again, anybody with even a passing knowledge of the basics of climate change would know this.
Ken,
Your passing knowledge of geoscience is somewhat conspicuous.
Nice rebuttal Louis…