In this case, AIC finds no reason to believe TGG moderated the reader's comment for purposes of censorship, as it exceeded their explicitly stated 275 word limit. While 275 words seems to us a to be a fairly low cap for discussing these complex issues meaningfully, we assume TGG has its own reasons for instituting it, and AIC isn't taking issue with the blog instituting or enforcing it.
At the same time, the reader's comment was respectful and on-topic, in response to another person's response to a previous comment by the reader, and certainly not lacking in succinctness. AIC is happy to provide a space for it. Perhaps the person the rejected comment was directed at will be able to read the response here.
The article in question:
December 15th, 2009
Climate skeptic Ross McKitrick has proposed a new scheme to address climate change. Reasonable or a (McKi)trick?Read the rest of the story at the source...
At Copenhagen things are going hot and cold, with negotiators from Africa and other developing nations walking out in protest (and walking back in hours later) while the United States and China exchange barbs on who is holding up progress toward an agreement.
The Green Grok's Comment Policy