A note about comments

ACM encourages open debate and comments on its stories, but I would like to point out to anyone thinking of posting abuse or ad hominem rants that they will NOT be published. Full stop. The same goes for comments on Facebook, which are reviewed regularly and will be deleted if they do not meet the following basic requirements.

So don’t waste your time and mine, and stick to these tediously obvious commenting guidelines:

  • If you disagree with what is said on this site, make cogent, reasoned arguments for why you disagree.
  • Be polite and courteous, as all scientific discourse should be.
  • Leave out the name-calling and abuse.
  • Avoid anything potentially libellous (obviously)

If you abide by these simple rules, your comment will be published, although publication does not indicate endorsement by ACM.

Thanks for taking part in the discussions.


  1. I have made several submissions that were cogent, reasoned, polite, courteous, non-name-calling, non-abusive and non-libellous, but only one – perhaps two – were published. I don’t expect this one to be, either: ACM comes across as a right-wing echo chamber far more interested in heaping ridicule on those with differing views than looking dispassionately at their arguments.

    • Actually, marnit, three were published (link, link, link). They all disagreed with what was said on this site, but they were all published and responded to.

      And I only published the one above because I wanted to respond to it, because do you think that calling a site that disagrees with your position a “right wing echo chamber” is polite and courteous, or adds to the debate in any way?

      • Sorry, three. As it happens I don’t think that calling a site that disagrees with my position a “right-wing echo chamber” is impolite or discourteous. From what I can gather from your posts, Simon, your politics are right-wing. Surely you don’t think that calling something or someone “right-wing” is an insult? “Echo chamber” is a pretty good description of your site: as soon as a comment is made, in comes “Loaded Dog” and all your other regulars to echo what has just been said. If it provokes howls of outrage then perhaps it will add to what you call “debate”.

        An article you published on Feb 26 2011 was titled “Ju-liar the Puppet”. Ha ha ha – very witty! And not at all impolite. Loaded Dog responded with “GILLARD – LIAR AND BACKSTABBER”. You have called Simon Sheikh a “half-wit”. Compared to these examples, “right-wing echo chamber” seems like praise!

        What do you think, Loaded Dog?

        • You are entitled to think what you like. You can stay here or go. Your choice, but I’m not going to continue to justify myself to you. My blog my rules. If you want to write something different, be my guest. The more blogs the better.

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          What do you think, Loaded Dog?

          You don’t want to know….

          One question. If you consider this site to be a “right-wing echo chamber” what’s your purpose in being here?

        • LD: Believe it or not, I am genuinely interested in your and others’ views of what some call anthropogenic global warming. I don’t know who is right – the so-called alarmists or Simon and most of the people who contribute to this site. I am interested in, and want to know, what you think.

          I must say that Simon’s response, above, hardly reflects his statement that “ACM encourages open debate”. He writes: “I’m not going to continue to justify myself to you. My blog my rules.” This is akin to saying he’s gunna take his cricket bat and go home. All I’ve done here is say that calling Simon Sheikh a “half-wit” hardly conforms to the exhortation to “Be polite and courteous”. No-one has answered that. I’m told, instead, that I’m not welcome here.

        • “Take my bat and go home?” Why are you here? I don’t get it – if you don’t agree with this blog or the way it’s run, then GO AWAY. This will be the last word on this subject: a subtle distinction, as you don’t seem to be able to let this drop: “You are an idiot therefore your argument is wrong” is an ad hominem. “Your argument is nonsensical for the following reasons […], therefore you are an idiot” is not. Simon Sheikh claimed that a single tough interview of Bob Brown from Chris Uhlmann showed that the ABC had “lurched to the right”. This is clearly nonsense based on the evidence, as anyone who has followed the institutional left-wing bias and groupthink as closely as I have would be able to see. Yes, the comment wasn’t polite or courteous, because it was a disgraceful comment from a public figure who should know better and which was thoroughly deserving of ridicule – like the misrepresentations and lies we hear from the government every day. My exhortation to politeness and courteousness in the comments perhaps should have said “to each other”. As I said, I am not going to spend any further time justifying myself. This line of interrogation is closed.

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          I am interested in, and want to know, what you think.

          Uhuh. Well you should already know what I think – unless of course you don’t read my comments.

          I’m not here to convince you one way or the other and I dare say neither is Simon. I am one of those who believe people should make up their own minds on a subject and am for freedom of thought and speech – even if I disagree with it.

          As such I ask again. What is YOUR purpose in being here?

          Maybe you are one of the insecure collective who find it necessary to have people agree with them – for personal reassurance.

          Maybe you don’t think I can be trusted to use my own mind.

    • marnit, I replied to your post on:
      Sunday, 29 May 2011 at 1:49 pm

      I am sorry but the premise that “Australia has never been more wealthy” does not equate. It seems that those who support the Carbon Dioxide Tax can only talk about the “cost of living pressures” anecdotally.

      Please tell me where that comes across as anything more than fact?
      “ACM comes across as a right-wing echo chamber far more interested in heaping ridicule on those with differing views than looking dispassionately at their arguments”.

      • I’m not sure how one measures the wealth of a country. Instead of saying (in a long-ago post) that “Australia has never been more wealthy” I should have said “It seems to me that Australia has never been more wealthy”. It’s an anecdotal observation. Another one: it seems to me that our standard of living has, generally, never been higher and that many of the battlers said to be struggling can still afford a flat-screen television set. Ron’s statement that “It seems that those who support the Carbon Dioxide Tax can only talk about the ‘cost of living pressures’ anecdotally” is an attempt to paint Carbon tax supporters as wealthy enough not to notice a rise in the cost of living. That is itself an anecdotal observation. It’s not a “fact”. Some so-called “alarmists” are wealthy, but many are not. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that a start has to be made in combatting anthropogenic global warming, and they are prepared to make a sacrifice to help it along.

    • Right wing echo chamber is the current attack meme of the day. I’ve seen it pop up on two other climate sites. It’s either the same group of people pushing it out, or just a group of commenting sheep who regurgitate whatever they read elsewhere. I’ll leave others to ponder the irony viz gravatars. Sure this site does lean one way but so do they all. If you want to see an echo chamber, take a stiff drink and read some green blog where they all congratulating each other for coming up with the lowest number of people that should be allowed to live on earth.

      As for Simon Sheikh – he’s about as interesting and original as a year 10 arts student trying to re-interpret Picasso. A definite non-event as far as having any type of serious long term dent in Australian political discourse. So much astroturfing must be hell on the knees.

  2. Why is it, marnit, that the “Left” has a global monopoly on economy wrecking lunacy? God knows, it’s bad enough here, but in the UK, all parties are intent on feeding the Green Monster (Bob Katter’s apt description) by forsaking sweet reason for barking mad leftarded green agendas. James Delingpole, as always, nails the madness.

    Never before in history, I doubt, has so much money ever been squandered, so much suffering and poverty exacerbated, so much economic damage been inflicted, so many lies promulgated and so much environmental destruction wrought in order to deal with a problem so microscopically miniscule.

    Really, if Barack Obama were to declare war on Belgium because he’d always found Tintin Au Congo offensively racist, or if David Cameron were to launch a nuclear strike on Mykonos because all those white-painted buildings were “way too gay”, you still wouldn’t be even half way close to equalling the quite breathtaking stupidity, purblind ignorance and suicidal wrongheadedness of the disasters currently being inflicted on the world by our boneheaded political and administrative classes on their holy mission to “combat climate change.”

    • You accuse the “Left” of having a global monopoly on economy-wrecking lunacy, then immediately contradict yourself by saying that in the UK, all parties are intent on feeding the Green Monster … Let’s hope that the problem is “microscopically miniscule”. But what if it’s not? How come you and James Delingpole are so sure you are right when it seems that the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists think you are probably wrong? What proof do you have that they are wrong?

  3. I don’t consider myself to be politically left, or right, I just happen to disagree with a lot of what the current government is proposing or doing, and if the current government was a liberal one, and doing things I didn’t agree with, then I’d be complaining about them too (and they have done heaps that made me furious). I think maybe I should just be put in charge, you know, if you want it done right, do it yourself…

    Anyway, right wing echo chamber? I think if you look at any blog (I haven’t looked at all the blogs about everything in the world, obviously), on any subject, with comments, the blog will attract people of like mind, and thus, agreeing with whatever viewpoint the blogger has. It will also attract people who disagree, but given how it is easier to just not go to a site you don’t like than it is to keep posting opposing views, then naturally, the “likes” outnumber the “dislikes”. If you can avoid it, you don’t keep hanging around people you dislike, do you?

  4. Well it seems like the debate is over on that one………

  5. @Marnit on Sunday 12 June at 11.48 PM

    You asked for proof that the climate scientists are wrong. Have a look at the article below which provides a good summary of why I think climate scientists are wrong.


    How about you reply to these 7 reasons with scientific explanations refuting what they say in a “logical and coherent” manner.

  6. The bottom line as far as I’m concerned is:
    – Carbon based energy sources are not sustainable. It will run out one day, when that day comes is up for debate.
    – Another energy source needs to be found. Nuclear doesn’t seem to be the answer. That can also be debated.
    – Money is needed to find this alternative power source.
    – Governments around the world are taxing carbon polluters and in the end us, for this money.
    – If not the carbon polluters? Then who?

  7. Toscamaster says:

    To Marnit and others interested in gaining a better perspective in this debate:-

    In order to translate figures into something easier to perceive, could you please let us know whether you agree with the following?

    The steel in the Sydney Harbour Bridge arch weighs 39,000 tonnes.

    If that steel represented earth’s total atmosphere do you, or do you not, agree that the weight of Australia’s contribution to reducing CO2 emissions by 2020 (5% of our 1.5% contribution to earth’s total human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere) would be that of a small bottle of soda water (around 380 grams).

    Is this bottle of soda water significant enough to warrant destroying our economy by the imposition of a tax on Carbon Dioxide?

    Please note: At this stage I am putting to one side two scientific debating points:-
    1. Whether CO2 is a cause or a consequence of temperature change.
    2. The rate at which atmospheric CO2, from any source, is depleted.

  8. [snip – stop whining and respond to the points – they will be published]

%d bloggers like this: