Sigh.
Like Coby and ScruffyDan (and probably every climate blogger at one point or another) I find that I have to rethink comments policy on this blog. Not surprisingly the issue is the same as elsewhere, the proverbial “shouting match” over the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
The “problem” is perfectly evident on these threads and at every climate rationalist’s site; overwhelmingly some climate change Denier posts uniformed &/or obviously nonsensical repetitions of the same old debunked Denier nonsense. In many cases quite obviously without even having read the post to which they are appended.
Some other commenter replies, with or without facts refuting the nonsense, and off it goes.
While not universally true, typically it is the Denier who does not engage rationally, logically or honestly, responding to refutations by ignoring them and advancing yet another false argument instead.
While there is some value to having a display of the vacuity and 
irrationality of the Denier position for all to see, the whole enterprise is time consuming and tiring.
Further, it is alienating to those simply seeking to understand the issue; simply put, they’re fed up with the bickering. Whether done with this goal in mind or not, it plays into the Denier agenda, so if for no other reason that is enough to want to find some way out of the morass.
However, like Coby I am very loath to censor anyone that is not abusive or an outright spammer, so what to do? I think I am going to tilt more to Dan’s decision to be more stringent, but with an experimental approach viz, let’s see if we can quarantine the silliness.
So there are now three options for comments:
- Comments relevant to a particular post should be appended to the post itself;
- The “Mostly” Open Comment Thread is for most comments that are not relevant to a particular post on this site, but which do not belong in;
- “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change (use the IPCC The IPCC Assessment Reports as a baseline for defining “the core science”).
Let’s be clear, there is a huge difference between the naive ‘but I thought CO2 was good for plants?’ and the declarative ‘CO2 is not a pollutant!’ The latter pretends authority, and the standard is now going to be that such claims will either substantiate their statements with reference to credible sources, or be justly ignored for the vacuous idiocy that they are.
The following applies to all comments:
Comments will be also be deleted without mercy &/or have one of the following texts appended, or substituted for it IF:
- It attacks individuals;
- It replicates at length arguments that could simply have been linked;
- It duplicates other comments you have made in this thread or elsewhere on this site;
- It is a copy of a comment that you spam climate sites with.
ALL posters, please do not engage or reply to policy violators. I will be deleting their comments as soon as possible which will leave your comment contextless.
So let’s try this experiment and see how it works…
IMAGE CRDITS:
Greenfyre's 
I wish you luck! I’ll have to monitor your experiment and see how it turns out. My ‘solution’ to the issue is far from perfect (I hate deleting any comments), but it became a necessity.
Perhaps you have found a better solution
—-
It is a shame, but sadly it is understandable.
24 posts from one individual in under 24 hours is somewhat excessive [1], especially given the tone of the posts. I think that there are few climate blogs (or indeed denialist blogs) left that don’t impose some kind of censorship now, and I doubt that any blogger would not consider some kind of censorship after a similar salvo.
Just curious – will you be using some kind of filter – i.e. will some commentators automatically get through, while others are placed in some kind of queue awaiting your approval? Or will you be killing posts retrospectively when you’ve had a chance to read them? [2]
I like the “Challenging the Core Science” concept, though! 🙂
—-
What ever you do is fine by me.
This is after all your site.
Me…I have to go back into lurk mode. My spare time is being compressed and I won’t be able to linger at any one spot for too long.
For the last little while, though, I’ve had fun rooting out “proper” information on the net.
Sometimes a bit of nonsense gets a person motivated to find out for themselves what is real and what is phoney.
Also, the more I dig, I more I find how deeply in trouble we actually are…
Oh, yes. 🙂
Your place your rules. However, I share your loath to censor, but get fed fed up reading the same bull. I don’t have an easy answer.
I don’t even have my own blog, just moderate for someone else.
—-
“Sometimes a bit of nonsense gets a person motivated to find out for themselves what is real and what is phoney.
Also, the more I dig, I more I find how deeply in trouble we actually are…”
Right you are TomG. This has been my experience as well.
My wife and I both have science in our backgrounds, and she in fact works for a scientific consulting company, but neither of us are scientists. We heard of global warming long ago, and eventually saw Al Gore’s film. But finally several months ago I asked myself what did I really know about this, and why do I assume Gore is basically right?
My research of the issue has led to some very sober late night conversations. I think if most folks really understood the amount of trouble that is very likely around the corner, there would be mass demonstrations for change. But if history is any guide, we won’t see enough change fast enough.
—-
Ha! My previous post was basically off topic. Sorry for that. I think I’m awake now.
I’ve learned a heck of a lot from the cat fight that follows a lot of these AGW blog posts. So letting things go can be a good way for neophytes to learn.
On the other hand, yes – once you recognize the denier talking points it gets tiresome really quick. I personally favor a more open exchange, even if the other party is obtuse. But hey, ya’ gotta’ do what ya’ gotta’ do. Thanks for the great blog.
—-