Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > On being banned

This thread is inspired by what various people have said to me: that they were once true believers (or some such) but were driven away from the consensus side by the arrogance and rudeness of others. On the "Here we go again" thread, Radical Rodent said:

I, too, was a firm believer of the AGW lie, though was puzzled as to how such a small change of a very minor component of the atmosphere could create such havoc. When I asked about this, I was rounded upon by those on "warmist" sites, many being particularly savage, suggesting self-harm and suicide; on the more sceptical sites, the response was not so unpleasant, though no more informative.

After I questioned this, jamesp suggested everything is edited away:

As for 'no evidence of rough treatment' at what you call 'consensus' sites (we have some consensus too, you know), that is because contrary comments at SkS, Real Climate, Climate Progress, etc. tend to be excised and their authors, if they are at all persistent, barred. That way is history re-written...

David S chipped in with:

If you go back through the comments, a tedious task I admit, you will find that a number of regulars here have documented their having been moderated or banned from everything from RealClimate to Commentisfree (not!) in spite of the civil tone of their contributions, because they don't fit the preferred story, whereas all manner of abuse is tolerated and in some cases encouraged if it comes from those with whom the moderators agree.

And later stewgreen added:

PS about alarmist websites : it is my experience that they routinely sanitize the comments ..it becomes not worth participating cos they just get angry and refuse to post comments that don't agree with them under the slightest pretext ie when the comment had no bad language, nor namecalling etc.
excuses are "you commented on our moderating policy and that is not allowed here", "you linked to a 'denialist' website", "You are a troll, leading the topic off topic" (when all you did is reply to their question)

So these feelings of having been unfairly excluded from discussion appear common. However, I've seen no direct evidence offered and so, as you would hopefully expect of someone presented with unsubstantiated claims, I am sceptical. David says that people are banned in spite of a "civil tone", but it is clear that to be accepted to be discussing a subject in good faith requires more than civility. It is quite possible to destroy a discussion while remaining perfectly civil.

If just expressing sceptic views really is a recipe for being banned, then it should be easily proved. So this thread is for people to show how they become (or became) banned or badly treated. Prove your mishandling and exclusion with links to examples where you have been banned or badly treated. If you are going to demonstrate, please post the relevant links so we can follow along. If you get banned, I'll believe you (and maybe tell you where you went wrong).

Note that I have no relationship with any consensus site so I cannot interfere. I am nobody.

Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Hopefully Entropic man will give chapter and verse of his banning from WUWT too.

Oct 26, 2014 at 7:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

As far as I know I've never been banned but I've had perfectly reasonable comments deleted from an extraordinary number of sites. Still more have been ignored and while it isn't anyone's duty to respond, it's curious how few defences the warmist side is prepared to mount. It's that lack of fortitude that makes me question CAGW further but it's not the sole or largest reason to be sceptical. If I were convinced of CAGW I'd want to know as much about the science so I could pass it on to my friends and family. I'd be here at BH trying to sway opinions or more likely on those sites where the uninterested hang out because they're more important that a few sceptics. However the evidence for CAGW is extremely poor and relies on 'the scientists say' and black box computer models with little track record of predictive skill, worse predictions have been shown to be wrong. I know for a fact that uncertainty is well known and discussed amongst scientists but almost none of that is admitted in public until an excuse for failure is required. The fallback position is always the Precautionary Principle and I’m bemused that supposedly intelligent people would think ‘just in case’ is a strong enough argument to make the kinds of societal changes staving off CAGW would require.

There are many wicked problems in CAGW but one of the simplest is knowing how hard cutting CO2 is going to be. So difficult that without the full co-operation of the global population it would be impossible. I’m dismayed that supposedly highly intelligent people can’t see how poor renewables are or more likely how much they are prepared to gloss over the flaws because they hope that a magical solution will present itself. That’s not a feature of successful people. To overcome problems you first have to admit there are problems and warmists aren’t doing that. It makes me think ‘if they’re prepared to lie about the easy stuff, what are they prepared to do about the complex?’ Now you could say that all the dishonesty came about because of the pressure from shadowy fossil fuel lobbyists but frankly that’s pathetic. It’s an excuse that ranks up there with ‘the dog ate my homework’ when you haven’t even got a dog. It says to me ‘these people do not take responsibility for their own mistakes’.

If these unflattering attributes were not enough, warmists have an amazing ability to back the wrong leaders. If you had a true inkling of the enormity of cutting CO2 without an as yet invented solution, you’d realise that reduction in CO2 would require massive reductions in comfort. To generate that, the last people you need fronting your scheme are disgustingly overt consumers. The only people who are dumb enough not to be offended are those least likely to act no matter how impressed they are with the speaker. When you descend into PR and ‘any advertising is good advertising’ you are truly lost. You CANNOT con people into reducing their lifestyle.

I don’t care if you don’t believe that people have been banned from making comments on prominent warmist sites. It doesn’t matter to me that when an undecided person asks a few innocuous questions they are slapped down. Ludicrously, at least one person has been initially blocked from commenting on their own article at the Guardian and I seem to remember several similar incidents. A recent example of mass deletion was the very polite and well worded arguments put to this article on the Anti-Defamation League website. The majority of arguments didn't even relate to climate change.

http://atlanta.adl.org/news/adl-condemns-spencers-nazi-analogy/

It’s their right to delete us, just as it’s our right to disbelieve them and spread our version of reality. If you really care about AGW shouldn’t you be fixing the plank in your own eye before you tackle the speck in ours?

Oct 26, 2014 at 9:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

My 'unreasonable' comment to the ADL was this:-

If you listen to just one argument from us global warming sceptics I recommend you watch this video from a well respected UK CO2 reduction campaign called 10:10.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skW6krOLL20

This wasn’t a spoof video by climate sceptics trying to paint the consensus as Nazis. It wasn’t a student video or one from some rabid environmental organisation. It was a well funded, much planned effort by some leading UK and US figures including a well known person in prime time comedy writing. As you will see, a lot of intelligent and prominent figures got involved. It was intended for release in cinemas and perhaps later on TV if it proved effective. Well it was effective, just not the way they intended.

That vile video and much more is aimed at me and I’m just an unassuming member of the public with no incentive other than genuine questions about the quality and accuracy of climate science and its catastrophic predictions. Unlike Dr Roy Spencer I’m invisible. My career and finances or family are not threatened by those who dream of blowing me up. Where has your defence of him been?

I don’t remember a press statement from you on any of the occasions where threats have been made against global warming sceptics. Like when Dr Pachauri, head of the IPCC said he wished we’d put asbestos on our faces like talcum powder. Or the warning from Greenpeace that read:

“The proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and scepticism. If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like. If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fuelling spurious debates around false solutions and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”

Did you know that if you search for denier on Google you get twice as many references for climate change denier as Holocaust denier?

We are under fierce attack for asking questions and you have utterly failed to defend that most reasonable activity. You only spring to life when one of our numbers snaps. Go back and watch the 10:10 video and ask yourself if you’re on the right sight of defamation or worse – persecution.

Oct 26, 2014 at 10:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Try it yourself. Adjust your mind-set, become an out-and-out “denier”, then, without being rude or offensive, express your doubts on sites such as SkepticalScience [sic], Desmogblog, Commentisfree, Sunny Hundal, etc. In many cases, I merely questioned how CO2 is the greenhouse gas monster that it is portrayed as. Interestingly, no-one yet as provided an answer, other than: “Because it is!”

Oct 26, 2014 at 10:04 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Raff,
A question for you as clarification.

Do you considered continuous deleting of comments by a single person as banning? If not what is it?

When you've cleared that up for me I'll tell you why I ask the question(s),

Oct 26, 2014 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

I have had many posts removed and vanished from warmist sites, I have no direct proof as they disappear and you cannot prove a -VE but for a few have kept the text in a word file and they are posted on this site so use the search function.

But you can easily prove it yourself by going to those sites and posting some sceptical comments, not in the condescending manner you use from time to time but in a polite manner on say the 18 year pause, the validity of models or low climate sensitivity and see how long they last.

There is no way a sceptic with your attitude to posters who disagree with you would survive for long, the fact you are allowed to post here shows much greater tolerance and a knowledge that the argument is on the sceptic side.

As I see you as a Troll I normally do not reply to your posts, this policy will now resume.

Oct 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

I’m with you, there, BoFA. Let me just leave this link for Raff to view: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/13/nasa_earth_just_experienced_the_warmest_six_month_stretch_ever.html?utm_content=bufferac518&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&wp_login_redirect=0 Observe the responses to “rcina”; they are actually quite tame to some that I have experienced. Leave aside your personal prejudices, and consider the general unpleasantness shown to Rcina’s generally reasonable comments, and his willingness to admit errors and to provide supporting evidence.

Oct 26, 2014 at 2:53 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

TinyCO2: "I don’t care if you don’t believe that people have been banned from making comments on prominent warmist sites.". Oh I believe that alright. I've seen the sort of commenting that leads to people getting snipped or banned. What I'd like proof pf is the reasonableness of the comment and the commenter's behaviour. That is very different.

Sandy: "Do you considered continuous deleting of comments by a single person as banning? If not what is it?" - well if none get through, it is clearly an effective ban. Like that on ZDB here.

A few people have suggested that I try to act the sceptic myself, but that is not really a valid test unless scpetics write the questions for me. I can post some questions but I cannot un-learn what I know about the debate and what raises hackles. I'd need some questions posed in the way a neophyte or sceptic would phrase them. Give me some questions that you think reasonable but likely to be snipped/banned/attacked and I'll post them.

Oct 26, 2014 at 2:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

"comments are now closed" is another trick
- t was pointed out here last week that that trick was used on a particular item at The Conversation, when skeptics questioning got too difficult to answer .
- However I don't know if that happens at other time at The Conversation, as it is one of those forums I know to stay to stay away from cos the discussion is so unfair.
- All we taxpayers pay for these sites like The Conversation yet ironically we skeptics feel excluded
- I feel the same about BBC, as they also on enviro issues seem to follow the trick ..Seems to me a BBC Eco-warrior report spins a story ..tells all his eco mates who post comments and then by the time I or other skeptics turn up ..the gate has closed .."comments are now closed" it says

Oct 26, 2014 at 3:41 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

- Well for me it's a bit long ago for the Guardian 6, 8 10 years or something ..think I got banned twice and gave up, so that is too long ago for me to have screenshots.
Recent examples
- The DECC blog ..did publish our comments and the guy answered the first ones
but the Brunel guy ended his Blog post about Paterson

What do you think?
Paul Lashmar
See that he ends by inviting comments , but when we skeptics took the time to.. we are silenced ..He then after 24 hours allowed one skeptic comment thru, but my innocuous one is still sitting in moderation screenshot (despite me tweeting him), someone else (Geoff?) said he posted, but it has never appeared either.

Oct 26, 2014 at 4:00 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

So what was unreasonable about my comment that it should be deleted?

Like I wrote, I don't mind that warmists ban anyone who dares to say something different or ask questions. It makes more converts. It's not like they can ban us everywhere and slowly we are getting heard.

Oct 26, 2014 at 4:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Stewgreen: yeah, that has happened with me a few times, too: “Comment awaiting moderation”. Only once has the comment actually made it through the censors. It is a favourite with the BBC, too; if you ask too many embarrassing questions, they put you on a to-be-moderated list, and any comments made might take a long time to get through. Annoying when you are attempting to respond to someone else on the thread.

Anyhoo, I think it is time for us all to give up, here. I have posted a link to a very good example (if comparatively mild) of what we are talking about, but we do have to remember that we are responding here to a mind that is very tightly shut, so I doubt that it will be viewed.

Answer one question, Raff: do you think that the 10:10 video is a reasonable response to those who question the AGW theory?

A few people have suggested that I try to act the sceptic myself, but that is not really a valid test unless scpetics write the questions for me. [sic]
Are you admitting, here, that you do not consider a sceptical mind to be a scientific mind? Apply some scepticism to the debate on the "warmist" sites; even a little can get some dire responses. As for “un-learning”, perhaps you could start by learning.

Oct 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Zed was banned for calling the Bish a liar after being given fair warning.

Oct 26, 2014 at 5:29 PM | Unregistered Commentersplitpin

Stewgreen, disabling comments (which can be automatic after a default period) is reasonable if the site comes under "attack". By that I mean that they receive what appears to be a coordinated flow of comments. You'll doubtless say you act alone, but I have seen enough "I just posted this on blog xxxx" to know that coordination exists. If you want your comments to stand, perhaps be sure to act alone.

The DECC blog seems to have given sceptic replies good access - where's the beef? The other one has two negative comments. If many of you sent similar comments (again maybe coordinated, and also by prolific commenters who must become known) then I see no issue with snipping them. The Paterson event, for all its content weakness, was clearly managed, and managed well, by the GWPF. The comment storm that probably resulted was perhaps spontaneous/ Perhaps not. Remember, you have no automatic right to be heard or published. It takes time and effort to monitor comments (ask the Bishop if you doubt that), and money too.

Radical, the comments on the thread you posted seem unremarkable (in the first few I read) - nothing that would not be addressed to me here. Was there something in particular that you wanted me to see (it is long). The 10:10 video is crass and stupid. I cannot imagine how anyone thought it would help - quite the reverse.

"Are you admitting, here, that you do not consider a sceptical mind to be a scientific mind?"

I don't know where you get that from. The minds of most of the population are not scientific. Why should they be? My point was that if I were to ask about, for example, the issue of CO2 being a minor component of the atmosphere, that is what I would ask about. For example,

How can CO2 be so influential on temperatures when it makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere?

If someone then answered:
99% of the atmosphere is nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Unlike CO2, these gasses are unaffected by infra-red radiation? Therefore the "very minor component" is actually a major component of what is left.

my obvious response would be to admit (maybe privately) that they didn't know what they had been told and reappraise my level of knowledge. In other words, the conversation probably ends there. If I really were to post again it would have to be in a way that recognised my initial ignorance. That is what I would do if pretending to real scepticism. There would be no back and forth that antagonised my correspondent and got me banned as I would not go on the question some other aspect that, from the evidence of the first question, I almost certainly don't understand any better.

Hence if you want to show how to be banned, you have to write the questions and responses for me (or do it yourself and keep a record of the conversation).

splitpin - and had the Bish actually lied?

Oct 26, 2014 at 6:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Perhaps you should have read a bit more, Raff. It did start out quite civilly but, as it became obvious that Rcina was winning the argument, it soon became more ad hominem attacks against him rather than debate. Take this example:

Publicola.
@rcina @Publicola. @Gomezzzx
RCINA's latest Gish Gallop* included:
RCINA: "As I said..."
Me: "You are lying again, RCINA - you did not say anything about your scientific education and expertise or lack thereof in your previous post."
"The "As I said..." obviously applies to what I wrote write after those three words..."
"As I said" implies that you had previously said what you said after those words, which again you didn't.
But you knew that... right?
"...that you deceitfully ignored"
You are lying again. I did not ignore what you wrote after that,
Your brazen dishonesty is, uh, amusing.
"What is your educational expertise..."
I am far, far more educated in the physical and more specifically environmental sciences than you are, that is assuming you have any formal physical sciences education at all. Speaking of, you still haven't told us what what formal scientific education you have, if any. After you finally do tell us what what formal scientific education you have, if any, I'll provide you with details about my formal scientific education.
Your physical science education is minimal to non-existent, and yet you reject the scientific findings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, every other national science academy in the world, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, NASA, and virtually every other reputable scientific body that has expertise on the subject and instead "differ" to of a relatively very small number of "skeptics", most of whom who are not even climate scientists and receive funding from Oil Industry and/or allied interests.
"the Russian Academy of Sciences... do not have climate change statements that agree with the "consensus" that most climate change is caused by humans."
You are shoveling crapola again
Not one jot of constructive scientific argument, just ladling more and more insults upon the hapless Rcina, who, to give him his due, rarely rises in kind, but offers cogent, verifiable argument – something which, alas, you do not bother with, yourself, Raff (you have yet to provide me with one – ONE! – item of proof that models can give, other than whether or not the assumptions made by the modeller(s) in its construction were correct). You prefer to launch into ad hom and just labelling folk as “wrong”, with little or no justification whatsoever (look at your rather pathetic, pointed remarks about me, for instance).

The discourse becomes a lot more heated, though Rcina does insist on remaining calm and aloof to the diatribes against him, responding with rational argument.

You seem to be prepared to spend time hauling any of us over any perceived coals that you might find; try and spend some of that time viewing in greater depths the links that are freely provided for you.

Perhaps you have not seen the worst of ZDB’s comments, but most of them are simply sad little diatribes against we posters, without one constructive comment included.

BTW, as no-one has yet given me the slightest hint of evidence that CO2 (or any other gas) is effective as a “greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere, I maintain my belief that this demonising of CO2 is just a spook that folk are chasing.

"Are you admitting, here, that you do not consider a sceptical mind to be a scientific mind?"

I don't know where you get that from.

Try: “A few people have suggested that I try to act the sceptic myself…” That does give the impression that you do not want to be considered a sceptic, yet you want to be considered scientific; ergo, you do not think being sceptical is being scientific.

Oct 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

We can't show most of the ones where they deleted everything of course ..though years ago many people posted on WUWT etc. screen shots of many occasions thus proving that the posts were being sanitised and deleted on warmist forums

- here one I have a copy of "mellow" sanitising from May 2013
"You have received a warning for the following post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9235058"

DC says "who care what you deniers deny?"
- So activists get an input but the rest of the tax payers not ?
..the world is a democracy and everyone has experienced massive tax rises to subsidise the green machine, fund the multinational billion dollar eco-activist charities like WWF, Greenpeace, Sierra Club etc. aswell as pay for green solutions that that don't work, destroy the economy and get a free pass to damage nature.
remember "no taxation without representation" ?
- If activists want to do irrational stuff they can do it with their own money.
"The infraction issued was: Breach of Rule 11: You will not deliberately attempt to derail threads or start threads in the wrong section."

WTF some one calls me a 'denier' (a term calculated to demean & disempower equal to climate nigger)
insults me .. and when I answer him politely , I am the one sanctioned for 'deliberately attempt to derail threads"

- note that his post stayed in the original thread
(and note his name has BANNED next to it showing that he was subsequently banned) ..
whilst I was sanctioned for replying to him and my post moved to the middle of a completely new thread
and my 3 next posts similarly diverted onto that branchline

Yes they weren't deleted cos it's not one of the superloony forums like Skepticalscience, the Guardian or Phil Plaits blog..rather JREF used to be sane but then Phil Plaits mates got control of it & SGU..so rather than objective science skepticism it became one those places where skepticism was done by sneering "look at those idiots, EVERYBODY knows this is true, cos a big authority says this is the truth" ..whereas old time skeptics know that is rubbish cos that is the fallacy of authority
- You can prove things on their own merits alone (it takes a bit more work but it is rock solid compared to their flawed shortcut of "authority says")

Oct 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Radical, did you really read the whole thread. It is unbearably tedious, although I can see why you and the WUWT crowd liked 'rcina'. They probably especially liked his dividing 12% by 65% and expecting gold - one can only laugh (except you, I guess)! If you really think that he was treated roughly, take a look at how Nick Stokes is treated at WUWT or CA. I've had more rudeness here I think than poor, 'hapless', rcina endured. And of course he was under no obligation to endure his harsh treatment - he is dedicated to his cause.

But that is all besides the point. People here like to claim they were badly treated when they asked simple questions at consensus sites. Your hero is not the blushing virgin asking a simple question and getting an abusive response, not with his 350 page Word document "full of links, abstract summaries, graphs, and quotes".

Your belief in the non-existence of greenhouse gasses defies scientific evidence from a century or more. Good for you! Don't let science get in the way of a good obsession, eh?

And you miss the point about my inability to "act sceptical". I can pretend to be a sceptic easily enough, I've seen plenty of how it is done. And I'd get rude responses and more, as you claim, exactly as expected. But from my first words it would be very different form of interaction from acting the supplicant.

Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, my working hypothesis is that it is the manner of your asking that causes negative reactions to your simple questions. But as I said, you can prove me wrong easily enough.

Oct 26, 2014 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

stewgreen, this is a bit far from the original premise from commenters: "that they were once true believers (or some such) but were driven away from the consensus side by the arrogance and rudeness of others. "

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the example you quoted, you clearly had a developed opinion of the subject and were not, as above, a true believer asking simple questions and being rebuffed.

Oct 26, 2014 at 9:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Radical, did you really read the whole thread. [sic]
Well… yes. How else am I to get the full information? Unlike you, I cannot glance at a publication and automatically absorb the entire contents; shame really, it would be a useful talent. The actual content of the comments is utterly irrelevant; it is the spirit in the responses of those replying to Rcina, and his replies in their turn, that are the most telling. I strongly doubt that there is one of the avowed sceptics that I know of on this site who would give responses similar in tone to those of Publicola et al, and, should anyone do so, they would be ripped into by the others.
…defies scientific evidence from a century or more.
What scientific evidence? If you could point me to some, it would be appreciated. Ah, but you have yet to give me ONE example of “proof” that can be gained from climate models, other than whether or not the assumption made in their construction were correct, so I don’t expect you to go out of your way to providing any such evidence.

So, you can pretend to be sceptical. Good for you. From a scientific point of view, however, it is better to actually be sceptical.

Oct 26, 2014 at 9:40 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Raff
Thanks for that answer, I agree with your thoughts on that.

I also quite liked reading ZDB's postings although I think too many people responded to them directly. As a recent contributor you are probably not aware how long he/she actually posted diversionary stuff here.

The fact you can't pose a question with a sceptical mindset is a serious problem, as you can't question the theory and therefore cannot prove it.

Oct 26, 2014 at 10:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Full information? There was little factual information to be had in that thread. What did you learn? And why does that thread excite you when Nick Stokes treatment at WUWT or CA does not?

"What scientific evidence? If you could point me to some, it would be appreciated." From Arrhenius onward. Go look it up.

Sandy, give me an example of a subject on which you (or someone else) have asked a question and received abuse or banning. I'll do my best to write a sceptical question using that.

Oct 27, 2014 at 12:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

"If you really think that he was treated roughly, take a look at how Nick Stokes is treated at WUWT or CA."
Oct 26, 2014 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff


If commenters at Climate Audit believe his use of selective quotations is tantamount to lying, then they have a right to say so at Climate Audit if Steve McIntyre allows them. He has snipped my exchanges with Nic Stokes for less. What Steve McIntyre does do is allow him to continue posting. On one such recent post, in response to people calling for Nic Stokes to be snipped, he said

"...when Nick was just racehorsing, it was one thing. But now he frequently and consistently misquotes and misrepresents and (what Mosher calls) “lies”. I’d prefer to be challenged than not challenged, but it is tiresome dealing with the inaccuracies. Obviously not “everything” is a misrepresentation, but the ratio is far too high to be useful.

Oct 27, 2014 at 12:48 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Raff - here's a recent example of a respected academic (IPCC lead author no less) being moderated by the Guardian:

http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/42542383 - Prof Richard Tol comment deleted by Guardian

Tol explains:

Richard S.J. Tol says:
October 22, 2014 at 11:14 am

In fairness to the Gruaniad, I congratulated them on setting a new standard for self-congratulation.

Abraham is the author of a piece about a piece authored by Abraham. Surprisingly, Abraham finds that Abraham is right.

Source: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/guardian-deletes-comment-from-an-ipcc-lead-author/

Oct 27, 2014 at 7:55 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

I once counted something like 12 or 15 pointlessly insulting comments which had been repeatedly entered overnight by Zed in a single post, before they were deleted. No wonder she earned her ban.

Oct 27, 2014 at 8:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger