Recent activities in the featured WU climate blogs include an influx of comments from members who, while technically maintaining their focus on the subject of human-induced climate change, repeatedly derail the discussion throughout the comment sections in blogs such as Dr. Masters and Dr. Rood's. This is done by commenters who vociferate false information, post links to websites that confuse climate issues, and repeatedly ask circular or assuming questions about pre-established scientific fact on climate science, such as what is available in the WU Climate Change section.

While monomania and trolling are problem in every blog, climate blogs are much more prone to it because of the vast amount of readily-available misinformation and disinformation pervading the internet. When commenters post erroneous or inaccurate climate information (sometimes deliberately), the incensed conversation that usually follows will drown out WU users who have legitimate questions about climate science, or who wish to engage in a civil and sincere dialog about climate change topics. Ultimately, the blog comments devolve into an indecipherable quagmire of personal disputes about trivial science topics that can be better answered through discussion elsewhere, sidelining the topic of the original blog entry.

While it may be easier for WU admin and moderators to ban trolls and monomania, it's harder to identify WU users who are actively and concertedly attempting to derail climate discussions, because they technically do not break any rules: They hide behind the facade of an innocent skeptic who is "just asking questions" about pre-established climate science, even though the questions they ask have already been answered in the WU Climate Change section. Furthermore, the science behind human-induced climate change is now well-established (it has been for many decades), and much of the misinformation and disinformation that is being disseminated within the comments of these featured WU climate blogs are re-hashing very old arguments that have long been solved in the science community. To bring them up in this day and age is synonymous to (in weather terms and meteorology) questioning the very existence of weather fronts, precipitation patterns, or the jet stream -- it would be absurd to do so and still be able to have sincere discussion about modern weather forecasting. So is the same with climate science.

Therefore, I propose the creation of a "Climate History" or "Climate Redux" Blog: A new forum where climate blog owners and moderators of their choosing can transfer comments within their own blog that bring up these very old challenges to the established science behind human-induced climate change. This new blog forum would be better suited to an audience that discusses how modern climate science has evolved over time, rather than re-hash old arguments about whether or not human-induced climate change exists. This would not be a place to penalize talk of climate skepticism, but would allow featured WU climate blog owners and moderators to "move" a discussion elsewhere so as not to complicate their current blog discussion on climate change, which can often transform their comment sections into series of petty disputes and circular arguments. The new blog could then provide these skeptical commenters their own space for which to allow the discussion to progress within the context of what they often tend to be: basic dialogue on rudimentary science from which modern climate science has evolved.

An example for "moving" a climate skeptic comment would occur as follows: (1) A comment is flagged in a featured WU climate blog (either through community or moderator flags). (2) The blog owner or moderator would click on a task button which would duplicate the comment to the new "Climate History" or "Climate Redux" Blog. (3) The comment in the original blog would remain, but a new link towards the bottom would read "This comment has been moved to the Wunderground Climate History blog", providing a link to the new page. (4) The "quote" link at the bottom of the comment in the original blog would be grayed-out, disallowing further discussion on the subject in the original blog. (5) Further comment on the issue could then proceed in the new "Climate History" blog. Ownership and moderation of this new blog could be implemented as seen fit by WunderBlogAdmin.

Thank you for your time.

I know that the WunderBlogAdmin has started a moderator program, with select members being given admin status in order to monitor communities, delete comments, and ban other users. While this is understandable and necessary, there seems to be no apparent oversight of the moderators, and users can be (and have been) banned with little to no explanation. This gives the impression of favoritism and elitism in the WunderBlog community.

Consider the point of view for an individual who has been banned (for whatever reason): They log in to find a window telling them to "take a break". No explanation as to why they were banned, and no indication of who did the banning. The only offered route for adjudication of the ban is to contact WunderBlogAdmin, who may or may not respond to them (usually not). For a new person (or a seasoned member who hasn't been banned before) who has been trying to follow the community rules, it can be a traumatic experience regardless of the moderator reasoning.

I would propose (1) a banned individual be given a specific reason for why they were banned by the admin who performs it, (2) for the identity of that admin to be revealed to the person being banned, and (3) a specific and recordable route for which the banned individual can take in order to challenge the ban.

Without such a system, moderators in the WunderBlog community have free reign to do whatever they wish with little recourse for perceived overreach. In conclusion, moderation of the WunderBlog community is important and necessary, but anonymous moderation with no oversight by the web staff lends itself to abuse and favoritism.