Monday
Mar292010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Graun still deleting comments
Mar 29, 2010 Climate: Pachauri Media Not a comprehensive survey, but of the first 50 comments on Pachauri's article in the Guardian, 18 were deleted.
Criticism is forbidden.
Reader Comments (62)
Boycott the Grauniad
I have allways preferred the Guardian comments section over all other mainstream newspapers. I particularly like that I can skim down through a long list of comments and only bother to read the ones with high recomendations. I find this a very effective editing process to weed out the nonsense posts.
Now I am far from the typical Grauniad reader and I have left a number of highly sceptical posts and have never had them deleted. I have given up trying to post on Realclimate as I am persona non grata there. I am never abusive and I try to be brief, I think that helps to avoid deletion. I have to say it's not been my experience to have sceptical viewpoints deleted.
James Randerson needn't bother linking to the Guardian's 'Community Standards' waffle. Cif policy can be summed up with this simple ditty...
When we cut posts please be aware,
We draw a line that isn't there,
It won't be there again today -
Don't cross it and your post will stay!
HowSoonIsNow
I change my username, often.
Come back James, I hope you are really really proud of the Guardian...
Go and look up those pronciples mentioned here again.
I tried to post a comment, on the lovelock article a few hours ago, loads of comments since, no evidence it was ever held for moderation or deleted even.
bbcbias-
George Monbiot's comment on this is going to be really interesting!
That is ALL it said,
This is really is utterly depressing, this petty, petty thing is somehow worse, than the millions in fuel poverty because of the AGW delusion.....
Just like you know who's ******** bathplug, peanuts on some MP's expenses who is troughing tens, of thousand of pounds.
Utterly depressing..
I am just a member of the public, with absolutely no means of communicating to anyone in 'authority'
Michael Mann, can just ring up Richard Black at the BBC, I just get condesending patronising rubbish spouted at me by the BBC.
George Monbiot can prance around, absolutely beneath contempt. and make schoollboy arguments saying stuff like:
Creationists and Climate Deniars have this in common they don't answer their critics"
Referencing his Ian Plimer debate...(ian plimer, who has destroyed creationism in the past eminnent professor of Geology, big sceptic - wrote Heaven and Earth)
See george at work below: (why guardian do you allow this)
This professor of denial can't even answer his own questions on climate change
Ian Plimer is a purveyor of 24-carat bafflegab. So why are publications like the Spectator so keen to champion him?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/14/climate-change-denial
I'm with James Delingpole, I want to see them suffer, apologies will not do for the rubbish, bile they have heaped on anyone even mildy sceptical to their religion..
E Smith - I never have and would prefer not to.
Despite having been a regular Guardian reader for perhaps 30 years, I accept I am now quite a way from the Guardianista mainstream on most areas of policy but I still feel it's important to try to maintain my Cif 'persona', and stand by what I have written in the past.
I expect to be banned eventually, or to get so tired of repeatedly being placed on pre-mod I give up, but until then....
I've been censored on the Telegraph again
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7530961/Can-we-trust-the-Climategate-inquiry.html
But David Welch and his cronies are at loose. (media management professional)
http://davidwelchmanagement.com/client.html
Tipped off by, 'Ignore David Welch, the left allways wheel David out when they get worried..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
He has been outed once or twice in the Telegraph, must be a different set of mods again..
rcrejects
Very public spirited of you. May I suggest you head up the thread for rejected Guardian comments with 'Facts are Sacred', the other part of trhe great C.P. Scott's maxim.
rcrejects
Sorry about the typo. I spotted my 'Facts are SCARED', but missed the other one.
To demonstrate The Guardians goodwill.
Do you think James Randerson could ask the moderators at Cif, to let Bishop Hill comment there again..
I'm sure Bishop Hill will follow any house rule and be polite..
Maybe JAmes was unaware that perhaps some moderators there (i'm sure not the best paid/fun job in the world) were perhaps a bit too enthusiastic..
Just a thought..
I'm probably a lost cause.
But let bbcbias have a go please as well...
Shall we start a list, some people here said they had theres deleted.
The following thread on November 25, 2009, in the Guardian CiF has 19 comments of the first 50 deleted. Every single one of the deleted comments were from the skeptical camp and none of them contained anything untoward. I remember that extremely well. You'll see me ('shexmus') complaining strongly about the censorship further down the thread. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea#start-of-comments
It turns out -as was confessed by an AGW faithful in that thread- there is a neat trick to use in CiF to knock out the opposing camp's arguments. All you need to do is to alert moderators about any comment you don't like by clicking on "Report abuse" and entering an excuse. If several people report the same comment to CiF moderators, then the moderators would respond by deleting it. Unfortunately, the comment that exposed the trick was deleted too.
I know it sounds incredible, but it is true. Half a dozen youngsters from around the world and working in concert can easily manipulate CiF, its readers and its moderators.
Hi.......................
This post is really nice and informative. The explanation given is really comprehensive and informative. I am feeling happy to comment on this post.