Rules

UPDATE January 27 2014: New moderation policy. Anyone breaking the rules below will have their email, IP and screen name placed in the moderation filter. This will enable me to SNIP out any parts of comments that fail to fit in with the rules below before publishing. People who come to insult me or other guests will find their comments heavily moderated and will more than likely end up blacklisted.

UPDATE August 5 2013: I am no longer accepting any comments on this blog from people taking a denial position. The science is settled in relation to climate change and the alleged  “debate” only exists in the denial blogosphere. Just as I will not provide a forum for pseudoscientific bullshit like anti-vaccination, anti-fluoridation and free energy lunatics, I will not provide a forum for AGW deniers to spread their garbage. If you don’t like it, I don’t care. Go some other place or start your own blog. As such, the following rules are probably now moot but I’ll leave them here anyway in case any proponents want to discuss the finer aspects of the science.

Yes, I have rules. Everyone needs boundaries, especially people responding to my blogs.

1. Keep it relevant. Getting off topic will result in responses not being posted.

2. Keep it nice. Don’t expect me to always be nice though. If you are an idiot, I will let you know.

3. Keep it interesting. Get repetetive and it’ll get snipped.

4. Keep it original. Don’t cut and paste unless you name the source.

5. Please back up any scientific claims with sources… real sources. Be aware that 3 or more links will result in your comment being queued. That’s not me, but the settings to prevent spam. Quote a DOI if you need to.

6. Keep it short. Excessively lengthy responses may not be posted in full.

7. Keep it to one issue at a time. Gish galloping is not how one engages in a discussion. Anyone engaging in this sort of activity will have their comments snipped to one issue at a time.

I reserve the right to remove sections of responses I deem have breached any of the aforementioned 7 simple rules.

9 responses to “Rules

  1. RULES: 2. Keep it nice. If you were invited to a dinner party, you wouldn’t insult the host or other guests. This is my dinner party.

    John Byatt : I noticed that the idiot

    Mike: just how stupid he is.

    • Ahh Geoff, welcome to my blog. I’m so glad you came. The idiot that John is referring to and whose mental capacity I have assessed falls into the category of “stupid” is not a guest here. Should he arrive to rebutt my comments then I will ensure that anyone acting in an insulting manner towards him is reminded of my rules.

  2. Your second rule reads as follows:
    “Keep it nice. Don’t expect me to though. If you are an idiot, I will let you know.”
    The second sentence should be tweaked. Here’s a suggested rewrite,: “Don’t expect me to always be nice though.”

  3. Mark

    “I am no longer accepting any comments on this blog from people taking a denial position. ”

    So what is a denial position? Is it someone:

    1. Someone who thinks there is no warming
    2. Someone who thinks there is warming but that its not caused by man.
    3. Someone who thinks less than 50% of the warming is caused by man.
    4. Someone who thinks that there is warming, that man has caused at least 50% of that warming, but that the consequences of that will not be catastrophic and therefore the proposed remedies are unnecessary at this time.

    • Someone who thinks that

      “Arctic sea ice remains within normal bounds and the slight decrease is probably due to local factors.”
      “…assertions that the science is settled were way too premature.”
      “Part of scepticism is that we just don’t know enough just now to make a final judgement and therefore implementing societal adjustments is premature.”
      “We don’t buy the eco-catastrophism claims and think all those critters that are supposed to die out due to a slight warming (0.08 so far), won’t (die out). Thus we are perfectly comfortable with joking about GW because its a minor event in man’s history.”

      That would be you. Goodbye.

      • Mark

        so anyone who doesn’t agree with you. I thought the point of these blogs was to generate discussion, not to gather a bunch of sycophants who don’t know enough to understand you are feeding them tripe.

        Good-o. Thanks for that. I’m building up quite a list of bloggers who think they are sooooo knowledgeable but, when they find they can’t argue the facts simply resort to censorship. Its the way the leftoid mind works it seems.

        I think I mentioned before that this was part of a research project. But who thought it could be so fruitful and so much fun.

        • This is my last response to you Mark. You are a serial timewaster and ignorant to boot.

          so anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

          No, anyone who doesn’t agree with the scientific consensus.

          I thought the point of these blogs was to generate discussion, not to gather a bunch of sycophants who don’t know enough to understand you are feeding them tripe.

          No, the point of my blog is to supply information. My blog, my rules. The same goes for Anthony Watts. His blog, his rules. At least I am clear with my rules and apply them. Watts is a hypocrite with his. The fact you think peer reviewed science is tripe says everything. The computer you are typing on is brought to you by tripe. The food you eat is brought to you by tripe. The house you live in is brought to you by tripe. If ever you are in a tripe built hospital being saved by tripe inspired medicine, be sure to refuse it on the grounds that it is tripe.

          I’m building up quite a list of bloggers who think they are sooooo knowledgeable but, when they find they can’t argue the facts simply resort to censorship. Its the way the leftoid mind works it seems.

          Facts? The deniers don’t have facts. The fact you think they do is laughable and shows just how ignorant and scientifically illiterate you are. Good-o. Thanks for that. Yes, I am censoring deniers because their unscientific opinions about science are worthless and designed only to confuse and distort.

          I think I mentioned before that this was part of a research project. But who thought it could be so fruitful and so much fun.

          I can’t wait to see the peer reviewed paper YOU write. Given your scientific illiteracy you have so aptly displayed, it should be a hoot.

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