Comment on Comments Redux

Climate Progress wants your comments! How else am I ever going to get it right? So I have tried to adopt a liberal progressive comment policy.


I don’t edit comments, even ones that are factually inaccurate–I say, bring it on, Doubters and Deniers! I do delete comments spam that include swearing, vulgarity and gratuitous insults — this discussion is too important to be uncivil, even among those who strongly disagree. That’s one reason I started using the term “Doubters” — Denier is a “strong term and should be reserved for professional misinformers and disinformers.”

I have noticed some people posting comments and leaving a fake email address. I don’t think anonymous posters are a good idea. So I may delete such comments.

9 Responses to Comment on Comments Redux

  1. Drew Jones says:

    Hey Joe —

    Just found your blog. Loving the breadth, from seriously serious to seriously funny. Keep it up!


  2. greg says:

    why is providing an email address necessary at all?

  3. Joe says:

    It’s pretty standard — I do not think you will find many blogs that let you comment without providing one. No one but me sees it. In part its to avoid anonymous comments.

  4. greg says:

    fair enough. Thank you for all your hard work.

  5. Government Accountability Project (GAP)
    Free Speech for Climate Scientists – Free Conference Call and Q&A

    Wednesday, September 12th, 6:00 – 7:00 PM.

    Featuring Rick Piltz, Director of Climate Science Watch and federal climate science whistleblower,
    & Tarek Maasarani, GAP staff Attorney and co-author of Atmosphere of Pressure and Redacting the Science of Climate Change.

    To register for this call, email Richard Kim-Solloway at
    To listen to our previous calls, visit

    Background: As the second category 5 hurricane in as many weeks devastates Central America – the first time two such severe storms have made landfall in one season since 1886 – attention has sharply returned to questions over the imminent threat posed by climate change.

    But while scientific opinion has reached a strong consensus on the seriousness of the changes and the role of human emissions in causing them, scientists working for Agencies like NASA have reported having their views suppressed and altered by appointees with no scientific training and a brief to promote the policies of the Bush Administration.

    In 2005, GAP helped Rick Piltz – then a senior staffer in the U.S Climate Change Science Program – blow the whistle on the White House’s improper editing and censorship of scientific reports on global warming intended for the public and Congress.

    GAP helped Rick release two major reports to The New York Times that documented the actual hand-editing by Chief of Staff Philip Cooney – a lawyer and former climate team leader with the American Petroleum Institute – thereby launching a media frenzy that resulted in the resignation of the “former” lobbyist, who left to work for ExxonMobil.

    With Piltz’ leadership GAP has launched Climate Science Watch, a GAP program that reaches out to scientists, helps them fight off censorship, and brings to light the continued politicization of environmental science. He is also featured in the award-winning documentary, Everything’s Cool.

    GAP also represented Dr. James Hansen, one of the world’s top climate scientists, who blew the whistle on NASA’s attempts to silence him. Hansen’s disclosures led GAP Staff Attorney, Tarek Massarani, to conduct a year-long investigation that found objectionable and possibly illegal restrictions on the communication of scientific information to the media.

    His findings, summarized in Redacting the Science of Climate Change, included examples of the delaying, monitoring, screening, and denying of interviews, as well as the delay, denial, and inappropriate editing of press releases.

    GAP also released a joint Atmosphere of Pressure report with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that combined GAP’s investigative reporting and legal analysis with the results of a UCS survey of federal climate scientists. The reports received broad national attention and have already been presented in testimony at two congressional oversight hearings.

  6. IANVS says:


    Are you trying to recruit a band of rejects like Atouk in Caveman? :)

  7. Ronald Lindeman says:

    I saw you on c-span in that IWC thing. What was it, 6 or 8 to 1. Hard work for you with limited time.

    Anyway, one of the questioners asked about economics of energy and cost. How can we afford higher costs in energy? I thought a good reply would have been to do a tax trade. Reduce the sales tax on the vehicle and have a carbon tax on the fuel. Why isn’t more said on Tax Trade and more taxes on carbon, less on income, sales, property and social security taxes.

  8. Ron says:


    The reason you don’t hear much about reducing taxes is because the agenda is for MORE taxes.

    Behind the global warming hysteria and propaganda is a plan for global governance and a reduction in the world’s population through, among other things, higher taxes, control of energy, transportation, and economies, and re-distribution of wealth (the po’ folks will be hurt the worst by higher prices, especially energy prices).

    Google ‘Maurice Strong’. You’ll find him behind this fiasco. Add ‘global governance’, ‘depopulation’ or ‘eugenics’ to the search and if you are not shocked, I will be amazed.

    Even if AGW turns out to have some reality to it, the way the UN is using it to further their own ends is really bad. Look it into it for yourself.

  9. Jacob says:

    Ron and Ronald are right:

    The best, most realistic and feasible approach would be a carbon tax, to be offset by reducing other taxes. That is – shifting taxation from income to carbon production.

    The “cap and trade” schemes are more like the five year economic plans in the USSR, a giant social engineering scheme that does not work. It does not work in the EU now.

    A carbon tax would result in some modest reduction in carbon emissions – which is the best that can be realistically done.