The real "climategate" scandal isn't scientific, it's journalistic

ShareThis

Chris WoodDuring "climategate" some of the declarations made under prominent bylines demonstrated professional negligence, writes Chris Wood, who thinks reporters concealed the truth and practised dishonest journalism.

I can’t speak with authority on science. But after 35 years and a score of honours for documentaries, articles and books, I do know a thing or two about journalism. So I’ll let the academy decide whether the email behind 'climategate' exposed any scientific fraud. But I can say this:

The real scandal here isn’t scientific. It’s journalistic.

Under prominent bylines I read that the emails exposed man-made climate change as (a partial list): “the biggest fraud in history” (David Warren, the Ottawa Citizen); “one of the biggest scientific scams of our time” (Charles Adler, blog); “the biggest scientific hoax in a generation” (Lorne Gunter, National Post); and a "racket" (Mark Steyn, National Review). Peter Worthington (Sun) cites approvingly Conrad Black’s verdict that, “global warming… is not, in fact, occurring at all.”    

Even were an East Anglian cabal plotting to subvert the global temperature record (and independent reviews by The Associated Press and FactCheck.org found no support for that charge), to declare human-induced climate change thereby proven a hoax that Canadians can safely ignore goes beyond cherry-picking facts to reckless endangerment.

In a twist on the old legal saw, it is the equivalent of failing to shout fire in a crowded theater that is slowly filling with deadly fumes.

To pass it off as journalism is professional negligence.

The poison filling the theatre is revealed in real-world records. Arctic ice sheets are collapsing and their collapse accelerating. Rivers on the Prairies, in Asia and Latin America, have dwindled along with mountain glaciers. The most violent rainstorms, persistent droughts and powerful storms are all increasing. Plants and animals are migrating away from the equator and up to higher elevations. Diseases are appearing in new places. Established seasons are becoming irregular. Extreme weather has blighted food harvests from salmon to wheat.

These aren't computer simulations or doctored decimal points. Not frauds or fictions. Real people hurt and die when wildfires, storms, floods and droughts grow in frequency and lethality. These changes endanger wealth and security even in Canada. Elsewhere they threaten the stability of states.     

I can imagine innocent explanations for why a journalist might overlook these facts. But I don’t believe any of these writers is stupid or lazy. I think they chose to ignore the only value that justifies our trade at all, and conceal the truth. We used to call that dishonest reporting—a fraud on the consumer.

Or perhaps it was what Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt refreshingly calls by its street name: bullshit.

The bullshitter doesn’t lie precisely. He simply, “does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly,” the scholar says.  A lie or the truth are all the same to him.

That may be fine around the kitchen table and expected over a bar stool, but it’s not journalism.

In fact, the philosopher warns that making a habit of bullshit carries a risk: “A person’s normal habit of attending to the way things are may become attenuated or lost.”

Journalists aren’t (god knows) society's brains. But we can make a case for being its synapses, passing around information and ideas so the rest of society can better navigate a shifting landscape of threats and opportunities. When age and plaque turn the signals flickering in a human brain to alphabet soup, its owner loses track of their surroundings, memories and abilities. We call this dementia.

When true and false is all the same to journalism, an entire society loses touch with the way things are. And Frankfurt reminds us that pundits are at special risk: “Bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic are more excessive than his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic.”

Comedian Jon Stewart’s 2004 appearance on CNN’s Crossfire called the bluff of news 'analysis' in which rabid partisanship smothered all reason. Faux journalist Stewart called out his hosts for posturing while their nation burned. "Stop!" he implored. "You’re hurting America."

Peter, Lorne, Mark and the rest of you: You betray journalism’s core product, that flint of fact beneath the fancy footwork. You’re urging people to stay in their seats while the theatre burns.
You’re hurting us. Stop.


Freelance journalist Chris Wood has covered events in every Canadian province and half a dozen foreign countries. Over a 34-year career he has won recognition for his work in radio, magazines and book-length journalism. His most recent book, Dry Spring: The Coming Water Crisis of North America, connects the dots between looming water conflicts and a changing climate. It was shortlisted in 2009 for the Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for best Canadian political writing. Chris now lives on Vancouver Island, continues to write for Canadian and international publications, and accepts speaking engagements on how communities can adapt to changing climes.

Comments

Sir: I must take deep umbrage with your piece. The true tragedy in Canadian journalism is the way so much of the mainstream media simply refuses to admit there is a story here worth covering at all. You and I will have to disagree about Global Warming -- something I was sceptical about before and am convinced now is either not happening or happening to such a minor degree it is not of importance. Your "science" and "proof" is falling apart day by day as we learn the depths the IPCC has fallen into. Just the date on your piece shows you haven't been reading both sides of the story. But what I object to deeply is the suggestion that these writers are doing the same thing as not yelling fire in a crowded theatre. I've been a professional journalist for 30 years and I was always trained by my mentor that our job is to tell both sides of the story, no matter how much the other side bothers us. What Gunter, et al., are doing is not failing to shout fire in a crowded theatre, they are offering another side to a story that is not complete. In fact, not only may there not be a theatre filling with gas, there may not be a theatre at all. Anytime a journalist tells me he has the "facts" I blanch. We can, at best, present the "facts" as we know them at the time we write our stories. And be certain they will quickly change as events transpire. Asserting that you have the "facts" and the other journalists not only do not, but are willfully defying them, is the height of arrogance, in my view. Your piece betrays, in my mind, someone who has given up his journalism for activism. Something we must never, ever do. Otherwise we become mere propagandists. Malcolm Kelly Toronto
The wheels are falling off the AGW bus Chris. The IPCC had to apologize for claiming the Himalayan glaciers were melting when they weren't. Phil Jones is cited in the Guardian for cooking the books on the UHI effect in China. It turns out that the entire temperature record of New Zealand has gone "missing." And so on. The fact is that most of the MSM has been in the tank for global warming/climate change/climate chaos/AGW for the last decade. No less a lefty than George Monbiot admitted he failed as a journalist because he simply took the "scientists" at their word. The real work of journalism is to look for the truth and to be sceptical of establishment claims. Nothing is more establishment than the hysteria over CO2. And you lazy slack asses in the MSM fell for it hook line and sinker. Dear Lord, Jeffery Simpson has - without a seconds reflection - given AGW a five year tongue bath slavishly regurgitating silly lines about drowning polar bears and evil tar sands. The people who made the running here were bloggers - Steve McIntyre first and foremost. Anthony Watts - who actually goes out and collects data - and a host of others. Whereas you tired apologists for the Establishment have simply done stenography for big government and big oil. As you fall to your knees to fellatiate the fabulist Al Gore, you might ask if you have the slightest idea if he and Hensan and Mann and Jones are actually correct in their claims. And if you don't then you might be a bit more modest as you hurl accusations.
Kelly, Currie and crew, your confirmation biases are showing. And let's make a distinction, please, between journalists and the Adler/Steyn/Worthington claque whose stock in trade is fly-in-your-face contrarianism. We expect them to challenge cant and pieties, it makes for fun and sizzle, but that doesn't mean we buy into their skepto-science. And what's this about "both" sides of the story? In a world of special interests and clashing ideologies, stories have a dozen "sides" but that certainly doesn't mean they have equivalent weight. A journalist's job is to consider all those "sides" and make a reasonable determination, with the help of people doing the heavy work, about what is fact and what is flake. That, I submit, is that the MSM is doing with global warming. And so far, I believe they're doing a pretty responsible job. PS Can we please lose the acronym MSM? In the new media landscape, it's a pejorative that has lost all meaning.
Great piece, Chris. Predictable response from the first two commenters. Pointless to go over all the overwhelming evidence for human-caused global warming and to point out the continued scientific debunking of their talking points. As George Monbiot wrote: “It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.”
For a journalist to not call out the IPCC for their behaviour, regardless of one's belief on climate change, is simply to expose oneself as a partisan hack. That is the real story of Climategate - the political biases of science and media converging to curtail any objective, peer-reviewed analysis of the IPCC. "Bullshitting", if you like.
What you are suggesting Claude is the theory of False Balance. False Balance may be the most dangerous threat to journalism as we know it today (and how's that for a definitive!). False Balance gives any powerful editor the right to choose between telling a story they believe to be true or hope desperately to be true, and doing their duty to leave open the door for other beliefs. False Balance is why when you go to the Toronto Sun's website and put in "climategate" you get dozens of entries. Same with the Globe and Mail. Same with the National Post. Toronto Star? Nothing. And nothing recent under Pauchari, Dr. Phil Jones, IPCC apologies, etc. etc. As for Adler/Steyn/Worthington, they are doing what columnists are supposed to do -- stir up crap. It's their job to be contrarian, whether you like it or not. Our job as journalists is to tell the story. The whole story. Oh and Ian? Quoting George Monbiot, whom skeptics believe to be a high priest of what they call the AGW religion (the one that led the Star to call for a "global crusade" against global warming on the first day of the Copehagen summit)? That's fine. But make sure you also quote James Delingpole. Or Anthony Watts. Or Geoffrey Lean. Or Joanne Nova. Or Rex Murphy. Or Fiona McRae. Or David Derbyshire ... These people are also doing "a pretty reasonable job." As for not telling dealing with both sides of story because there's just too many sides and us journos just have to sit there and decide what's real and what isn't? That's how we wound up in a war in Iraq over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Or falling all over ourselves because of Y2K. And by the way, yelling fire in a crowded theatre without checking carefully to see if there is a fire, is a terrible thing to do. People can get trampled.
At the risk of coming across as too self-serving I would point people to a recent CBC.ca column I wrote on the subject which tried to explain why the traditional journalism of two-sidedness was very difficult to apply in a domain which is being characterized as a "super wicked problem". See http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/01/20/f-vp-strauss-climate-change.html. What I found fascinating were the exchanges which followed in which most of the people ignored everything I said and argued back and forth amongst themselves over the question of whether humans were creating climate change in the first place. There wasn't a bah-humbug journalist marching them in that direction, rather it was what they - or at least a set of the they's - felt should be the topic of discussion. That's the non-journalistic zeitgeist. Doubt is there. Having said that, let me point out that I think Chris is wrong when he says that there is clear evidence which anyone with half a brain can see that catastrophic climate change is occurring today. There is sufficient climatic too-ing and fro-ing from year to year and place to place - lots of hurricanes one year, hardly any another; a very warm winter one year, a very cold one another - that reasonable people can easily come to believe from their own life's observation that case for climate change has been over-stated. They doubt the science of global warming precisely because they aren't seeing catastrophes happening in a linear fashion. Thus the problem for journalists is conveying to people that something potentially dire is going on in a climate universe where nature apparently doesn't so much abhor a vacuum as a straight line.
As the rather conflicted Mr. Monbiot is being cited as some sort of journalistic guru, perhaps another quote: "It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them. Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4). Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed. monbiot back in november while you were pretending climategate was a fiction You lard asses in the Canadian legacy media could not be bothered with climategate. I guess that many emails, not to mention disastrously awful code and long repressed data, were a bit too dense. To, well, sciency. You completely missed the story - Mark, Lorne and Lawrence have been on it for years. Little wonder legacy media circulation is tanking and no one watches TV.
"Lard asses" ???? Did commentator Jay Currie REALLY call people in what he calls the "Canadian legacy media" "lard asses" who, he suggests, can't comprehend the climate issue because it's "To, (sic) well, sciency" ??? Really, man? This is how you foster intelligent debate? Seriously?
In case anyone finds the print in the Comment Policy beneath the comment box too small to read, I post here in plain view the playground rules. In short, play nice. Deborah Jones, editor, Townhall ~~~ J-Source invites comments on any content items or on any other topics relevant to journalism. Those posting comments are expected to adhere to standards of accuracy and fairness that would be recognized by those who practise, teach or study journalism. Please communicate as effectively and intelligently as you would in a professional or academic forum, focusing on the issues at hand rather than the characters or characteristics of those involved. Sign your post with your first and last name unless there is a sound and clear reason for anonymity (if the reason isn't obvious, please contact us by email to discuss it). This forum is intended for discussion of the craft of journalism, not of the issues of the day that journalists cover; please do not post story tips or press releases. We moderate the forum for adherence to these standards of discourse, and reserve the right to decline any comment without giving reasons.
We Canadian journalists are not lard asses. Smug. Self righteous. Convinced our truths are self-evident. But certainly not lard asses.
I did indeed call the journalists in Canadian legacy media "lard asses". On the climate file (and much else but we'll stick to the climate file). When did a legacy journalist first interview or go to Steve McIntyre or Ross McKitrick for comment on the Mann "hockey stick". Which they refuted. They are, after all, both Canadians and both in the Golden triangle - how hard would it have been? Were Canadian journalists all over the fraudulent but iconic "drowning polar bear" pic? Did any of them bother to check the "science" in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" before it was rubbished in a British Court? To this day has any enterprising legacy journalist bothered to examine the efficacy of a ban on incandescent lightbulbs in a cold country like Canada? Could you cite the last hard, or even neutral, interview of David Suzuki conducted by a member of the Canadian legacy media? Have any of the lard asses managed to read through the "Climategate" emails and data - as poor Fred Barnes at the Guardian has now gotten around to? Where was the coverage of the declining count of thermometers north of 60? Stephen Strauss, whose work I occasionally read to my kids, gives an unintentionally good example. The article he cites simply takes for granted that there is AGW. He assumes that the science is settled when, in fact, the "science" is barely underway. A better article would have acknowledged that the climate models relied upon by the IPCC are losing traction steadily as the overall climate cools. Not one of them predicted this and, on that basis alone, all are incorrect. That is not to say they cannot be recalibrated; rather it is to say that they cannot be relied upon until they are. Strauss knows better. But, in the usual lazy legacy media style, he simply wanders along with the herd mooing that the "end is nigh, or, at least close". I don't want to pick on Strauss, but the fact is that his article is very much of a piece with the vast majority of reporting in legacy media on climate. The Establishment view of the IPCC is assumed correct and then we can get on to the interesting question of cow belches and methane. While Strauss acknowledges a need of "other sidedness", he cannot be arsed to find a person who speaks for the other side. Instead he quotes Lord Stern, of the now discredited "Stern" Report, on vegetarianism. You could not possibly find a better exemplar of the Establishment than Lord Stern and there he is popping up on the question of cows. Did Strauss bother to compare cow methane to natural sources? Did he consider the persistence of methane in the atmosphere? Did he raise the question of why the political classes are obsessing about CO2 when methane is, as Strauss points out, 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2? No he did not. And that is hardly a surprise because he has already accepted that AGW is true. His objectivity has left the proverbial building. Legacy journalists in Canada have been lazy on the climate file. They have not challenged the underlying assumptions of the science and, worse, the policy which flows from the science. So, yup, by and large they are lard asses.
The head and sub-head of a recent Monbiot blog post at the Guardian: “Climate change email scandal shames the university and requires resignations The hacked emails shows that Phil Jones, after 20 years of failing to issue a correction, isn’t the only one who should resign” Phil Jones is suspended and Michael Mann is being investigated by Penn State. Pachauri's business dealings seem to conflict with his role as head of IPCC. Climate scientists have apparently cherry-picked, lost or distorted climate data from around the world. Of course NASA, GISS and CRU results roughly tally - they are based on the same corrupted inputs. Even big oil sees huge profits in carbon trading systems that do nothing to reduce emissions. The story angles go on and on, and most journalists simply repeat conclusions based on evidence that is steadily being discredited. The Climategate emails and the results of subsequent investigations of national climate data manipulation make it clear that there is no credible climate change science any more. Many careers and businesses have been built on crying ‘fire’ in the wading pool and charging money for directions to the exit (‘Chris Wood [author of the J-source article] ... accepts speaking engagements on how communities can adapt to changing climes’) but that doesn’t make it true.
This must reflect on how poorly I made my argument, because Jay you miss the point I was trying to make. The debate over whether or not humans have or are producing climate change is essentially two-sided. You can say: Here are the arguments for and here are the arguments against. Here is the evidence for, here is the evidence against those arguments. You can reflect this quoting people who believe human actions are making a significant difference in global warming and people who don't think so. Everything is bipolar and that means you can apply the traditional journalistic sidedness approach to reporting what is going on. However if you move beyond that, if you accept humans are doing something significant, and you try and talk about what to do about human actions, the yes/no schema simply falls apart. I used the cows' burps as an example. Solutions here contradict themselves not the least because they go against solutions to other issues. Remediation is both a very wicked problem and almost impossible for journalists to convey to the general public using their traditional Hegalian paradigm. Rather we - the journalists and those who read what we write - find ourselves in a universe where the Latin quotation "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" seems to sum up best our feelings about what to do about the contradictions which lie before us. That is: "Kill them all; let god sort it out." Signed: Clearly A Tofu Ass
A journalism website is not the place to argue the existence of human-caused global warming, but if you read some of the responses to this article, you’ll see that they back up my original statement that there is no point in arguing against people who deny the existence of global warming. They also offer further evidence for the truth of the George Monbiot quote I posted, regardless of what one might think of Mr. Monbiot. For example, if you can wade through the ad hominem attacks, tortured grammar and spelling, and absurd arguments of Jay Currie’s posts, you will see that they represent a fairly comprehensive summary of all the thoroughly discredited talking points used by the likes of Lorne Gunter, Rex Murphy, and other writers who either fail to do enough research to recognize the facts or are too ideologically blinded to consider them. No one has yet provided any peer-reviewed science to challenge the volumes of scientific evidence for human-caused climate change, as one can easily learn from going to the websites of scientific journals such as Nature, and websites such as Grist.org and Desmog Blog. And to believe, as some posters do, that this is a global conspiracy on the part of the majority of the world’s scientists, scientific academies, science journals, and governments is simply too ridiculous for words. Ian Hanington
As far as how we in the media might approach this story, I'll go with Bud Ward: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/11/climate-scientists-emails-hacked-posted/
You're right Ian, this isn't supposed to be about whether Global Warming exists or it doesn't, it's supposed to be about how we cover it. So on that score, merely by saying that "there is no point in arguing against people who deny the existence of global warming," proves my journalistic point. You are certain you are right. There is no arguing with you. Anyone who argues against your point is simply absurd. And by the way. You can attack anyone else you'd like, but suggesting Rex Murphy is "ideologically blinded" is insulting and ignorant. You clearly, clearly do not know the man nor have you bothered to listen to or read the body of his work.
Oh, and Claude? The story you linked to? It's two and a half months old. This story has moved on somewhat since then.
Malcolm, Ward's column is indeed old and hoary at 2 1/2 months! But his main contention still holds true, as this discussion demonstrates: "This continuing story will evolve. Contrarians will make the most of it, play it to the hilt, take phrases out of context, cherry-pick, and go for the weak underbelly. Truth is, there is a lot there for them to choose from. "On the other hand, the far larger and (still) far more reputable climate science community will have to double-down, face increasing scrutiny and doubts about even their most evidence-based findings, and face what likely will be a heightened and stretched-out period of cynicism about them and their work."
Malcolm: Every time you post, you do more to bolster the positions that Claude Adams and I have taken than your own. First, the story has not moved on since Mr. Ward’s excellent article, except that even more reputable scientists and researchers have confirmed that the emails do nothing to diminish the overwhelming scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. Second, I am not sure I am right. I’m a father and would love to be proven wrong. But my background as a journalist has compelled me to do the research. What I’ve found is a mountain of scientific evidence that spans disciplines and the entire world, along with an ever-growing body of directly observable evidence, that climate change is happening and that we humans are largely responsible. On the other hand, my research has also led me to read enormous amounts of work by writers like Rex Murphy (as painful as that has been), who base their arguments on the “work” of thoroughly discredited, industry-funded shills like Ian Plimer.
Leaving aside the science or reporting thereof, Mr. Wood understates the hyperbole around the issue. It can go beyond “stirring things up”. From David Warren in the Citizen, we get environmentalists, not just as Hitler or Stalin, but as evil servants of the “Moloch”: “’new Western man’ is half-free, with approximately half our earnings retained, and half surrendered to the Moloch….But to get beyond this half-measure, the central planners need a war. The “climate change” and “global warming” scares are intended to provide this war, and justify Moloch in seizing the rest of our earnings, property, and freedom.” The article, like others by Warren, also contains factual errors. Steyn gives us the world government stuff too, complete with false information via Rush Limbaugh and chain email: "The cap-and-trade bill… is a bold assault on property rights: in order to sell your home—whether built in 2006 or 1772—you would have to bring it into compliance with... national ‘energy efficiency’ standards, starting with a 50 per cent reduction in energy use by 2018. Fail to do so and it would be illegal for you to enter into a private contract with a willing buyer”, he wrote. That was shown to be false by Factcheck.org, and the U.S. Homebuilders and Realtors Associations months earlier. But as in other cases, Maclean’s won’t run a correction. While it may be difficult to accurately report the complexities of evolving research in a specialized field like climate science, one would hope journalists would get the facts straight about what is contained in climate legislation, and provide readers with something more intelligent than the “Moloch” and world government.
There are many places to argue over the specific details of issues like climate change. This ain't one of them. Here's why -- taken from the policy right below the box where comments are entered: "This forum is intended for discussion of the craft of journalism, not of the issues of the day that journalists cover." Those with something to say about how the craft of journalism has dealt with an issue, please join in. Those who want to comment on that issue -- or focus on someone's character -- will need to go someplace else. In cases of overlap where the difference is not clear, moderation will side strongly with journalism. Deborah Jones, editor, Townhall
Very interesting discussion. I read this sitting on the other side of the Atlantic sea, in Norway. I am writing a piece about the ethical considerations in environmental communication, or more precisely about journalistic responsibility when writing about climate change. To what extent does a journalist have the obligation to try to save the world? None, some may say. It is unprofessional to do try such a thing. But, and it's a big but, if journalists are people with a conscience and the human right to speak freely, should they be criticized for telling the story that the vast majority of the scientists have concluded with? I think not. Also, when talking about ethics: In Jay Curries post, the one where he calls the canadian legacy journalists "lard asses", he sites Monbiot.com introduction correctly. The thing is, Monbiot doesn't stop there, he continues: "But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed." This is an example of Jay Curries unethical argumentation.
Coming across this a few months later, it is remarkably illustrative in the comment thread of the issue taken up in the original post. I don't see much journalism in the arguments. I see posturing and name calling. Where is the investigation into the actual emails, the verification of claims by anyone, or comment from those who have? Virtually everyone who has commented here needs to turn in their claim to journalism and hang the "opinionator" shingle. ( btw the sight entry for spam prevention asks me to type 'flattens government'- a lovely twist)

Comment Policy

J-Source invites comments on any content items or on any other topics relevant to journalism. Those posting comments are expected to adhere to standards of accuracy and fairness that would be recognized by those who practise, teach or study journalism.

  • Comments are restricted to registered users. You must register with your full first and last name in order to be eligible to comment.
  • Please communicate as effectively and intelligently as you would in a professional or academic forum, focusing on the issues at hand rather than the characters or characteristics of those involved.
  • This forum is intended for discussion of the craft of journalism, not of the issues of the day that journalists cover; please do not post story tips or press releases.
  • We moderate the forum for adherence to these standards of discourse, and reserve the right to decline any comment or restrict any user from commenting without giving reasons. Every effort is made to approve valid comments within 24 hours of submission.