Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Earlier discussion

Prof. Thomas Homer-Dixon on global warming

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 8:33 PM EST 10/12/07

Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Name Witheld from Vancouver, Canada writes: Prof. Homer-Dixon, I've greatly enjoyed your previous work, the 'Ingenuity Gap' and I'm currently working my way through 'The Upside of Down'. My question to you has to do with how climate change is presented in the popular media. It seems to me that much is written about the macro-scale causes and effects of global warming, with very little print invested in explaining the mechanisms that link them. The result, in my opinion is that great gaps were left open for special interests to sow the seeds of doubt and confusion about global warming, overwhelming many to the point that individuals feel hapless to understand the issues, let alone engage in solutions. As an engineer, I've been trained to consider the laws of thermodynamics, how warmer air can hold more water than cold air, and how air that's more humid holds more heat (energy) than dry air, or how warm liquids retain less dissolved gas than cold ones (this is why chilled beer is less foamy than warm beer). I know these laws to be sound, as I've tested them, and found the results to be scaleable and repeatable, and generally irrefutable, under atmospheric conditions. My question is: do you think that the overwhelming focus on qualitative observations, in the media has done a disservice to the public? Do you feel that the public has (or is on the verge of having) abdicated responsibility for mitigating the effects of climate change, overwhelmed at the thought of how they themselves might hold back a glacier, or discount the beneficial effects of one person's energy and lifestyle choices, when compared to those of an entire company, or even a country? This issue seems to me to reinforce your thesis in the 'Ingenutiy Gap' that the complexity of our challenges exceeds our capacity to understand them, and act effectively. Would you care to comment on how we as a society can re-frame the debate, to make causes and solutions accessible to everyone?
  2. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Finally a fully moderated tribune... I find particualrly revealing that the globe and Mail chose a *political* science professor to talk about AGW. Not only there is never any critical discussion of the IPCC dogma in your columns but rarely if ever explanation of phenomenons. Never was discussed why we saw a record thaw in summer 2007 for instance -something even CBC reported!-, just a sensationalist journalistic report. That is not information: that's propaganda. Now you guys wondered about why Canadians don't get Nobel Prizes? Well recycling is not what Nobels go for: they go for original ideas and surely reading his article, its abyssmal understanding of earth history Prof Homer Dixon is among the kind of marginal academics who find it profitable to piggy back on the flavor of the day and as usual in typical Canadian way, will lecture the world about while adding nothing original to the issue. Your newspaper and its editors would have served the public better by offering a tribune to real climatologists such as Prof. Marcel Leroux whose understanding and contribution to atmospheric circulation has been the most creative and the most educating especially when the Homer Dixon of the world promote themselves and their superficial varnish. But to no avail. Instead, you offer a double tribune for the recycler! My comment will never be published but at least YOU'll know people are not as gullable as you think and will fight your political correctness anywhere and everywhere, anytime and all the time.
  3. Karin Green from Princeton, BC, Canada writes: First Global Warming Hysteria - now Geoengineering - perhaps it is time for everyone to leave well enough alone! Technological fixes for climate change change and variability are not a new ides. Stephen H. Schneider and Richard L Temkin in 'Climate Change', edited by John Gribbin, 1978, note the following: Often such suggestions emanate from those who do not fully appreciate the complexities of climate systems, who may have a special interest in some climate modification scheme, or who may be driven simply to consider such drastic measures because of some perceived (real or imaginary) detrimental climate effect on one of their major climate-related survival systems such as food, water or energy. Climate control has been contemplated, and actually attempted in some situations, even though the climatic system interactions are not fully understood and the potential effects, beneficial and harmful, are at present difficult, if not impossible to validate.

    Since nothing is likely to happen that has not happened before under the sun, I would rather let nature take its course than let more human arrogance create a real disaster. Humanity has a tendency to act too rashly on too little understanding and with insufficient thought of consequences!
  4. Bruce Bigham from Deep River, Canada writes: When I look below the retoric I find the case for AGW (warming caused by man) very weak if my interpretation is correct. It seems that the direct greenhouse effect of CO2 is too small to produce the recent temperature increase, so the models require a positive feedback that cannot be quantified directly. To establish the relavent parameters, the models are fitted to the temperatures, assuming the increase is caused by CO2. If this is correct it seems to me that the case for AGW is only circumstantial. Such evidence would not be allowed in a court of law and should be understandable even by politicians!
  5. Duane McMullen from Canada writes: Leaving aside the potential impacts of global warming, the big question is really what can be done about it. If even such a tepid partial measure as Kyoto fails, what hope is there for much more robust action? Is it even remotely realistic to expect major emitters like China, India or Russia to defer the same economic prosperity we have achieved in the name of influencing the climate one hundred years hence? As our own ancestors, these same countries are willing to trade grievous pollution now for economic growth, why would they sacrifice now for climate impacts in one hundred years? In this context, are not all the efforts to solve the global warming problem through lobbying government fore-ordained to failure? Wouldn't we all be better off to look at other solutions? That is, if sea levels are to rise 2 metres in the next hundred years, should we not be looking at ways to adapt to the rise in sea level? If we accept the implications now, one hundred years should be enough time. Likewise, if average temperatures in Canada are to rise by 5-7 degrees Celcius in the next one hundred years, would we not be best to figure out how to best manage adaptation to the new climate? Is not focusing on national and international institutions a dangerous distraction from actually trying to adapt to the climate change? Does this not risk even greater harm to ourselves and future generations than the harm we are ostensibly trying to mitigate by aiming for unachievable solutions? Isn't climate changes best managed as a matter of individual responsibility and individual freedom? Isn't looking to national and international institutions to solve the problem both a cop out and an excuse for individuals to fail to look out for their own best interests and that of their future generations.
  6. Cynthia Nurse from St. Thomas, Canada writes: Good Day Phor. Thomas Homer-Dixon, I'm glad to hear that there are strategies 'Geoengineering' for blocking solar radiation which could involve putting sulphates aerosols into the atmosphere or putting mirrors into space to try to block a fraction of incoming solar radiation.

    After the sun spot activity we experienced in 2001 and we are coming into the sun cycle with peak sun spot activity again in 2012, are these the only strategies being look at for blocking solar radiation?

    I believe it is also best to build awareness for people when spending time outdoors to wear hats and appropraite clothing, take cover under the canopies of trees or shaded areas during peak times.

    In 2001 the solar storms were through out the year and not only in the summer months. I watched one sun spot that was heart shaped and visible to the naked eye during the sun set for a period of 4 days.

    Look forward to reading 'Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada'
  7. Jeff Gardiner from Wellesley, Canada writes: Professor Homer-Dixon should get with the program. It's not Global Warming anymore, it's 'Climate Change'. The switch in terminology is most likely due to the fact that it has recently been discovered that the Earth's average temperature has been cooling by 0.01 degree each year since 1998. Climate change is a boogeyman that is much easier to keep alive since the planets climate is continually undergoing change. This change in strategy will allow the UN and environmentalist to continue blackmailing the developed nations for cash indefinitely. As this period of elevated solar activity continues to decline the fear mongering will soon switch to Global Cooling and the coming of a mini-iceage. There is a lot of money to be made by scaring people and this is the perfect scam.
  8. David Stanley from montreal, Canada writes: IS it global warming that is causing al the other planets to warm with us
    lol
    or is it possible solar rays are bombarding our solar system heating the planets and the sun
    do we get real answers or whitewashing today
  9. Jan Conradi from Canada writes: The idea of putting aerosols of any description into the atmosphere in order to reflect more sunlight has to be one of the nuttier ideas to control global warming. Do recall that coal fired power plants used to spew sulphur dioxide over much of the eastern half of the continent causing significant acid rain. While the coal used now may be cleaner, a similar entry of sulphates or any other aerosol into the atmosphere is more than likely to have similar unintended consequences and must therefore be resisted. A reduction of GHGs, whether reflective or absorbtive, has to be the way to reduce global warming.
  10. Neiland Bob from Canada writes: Professor Dixon: In my opinion, the topic of geoengineering is indeed as provocative as it is half baked. I have read the IPCC reports, and much of the material in opposition to AGW theory in regards to the Sun, Sun Spots, Solar Wind and Irradiance.

    I would suggest that the science of climate is in it's infancy, and given empirical data that the earth's climate has undergone many changes we have yet to fully explain or understand, I would think that there is much more to learn before something as dramatic as geoengineering is even worth consideration.

    Why is more not being done by environmental groups to promote real and do-able solutions such as lobbying government for the following a) a Canada-wide zero emission vehicle mandate b) government grants for implementing home Solar Power Generation that feeds into the grid c) a Canada wide or North America wide, networked Wind Turbine solution for consist and predictable renewable feed-in to the grid. d) creation of more nuclear facilities to replace coal-fired and natural gas plants. ???
  11. Neiland Bob from Canada writes: I guess what bothers me most about this, is the pandora's box effect it has. It seems awfully matrix-esqe to suggest blackening the sky to prevent warming that is still considered a highly contentious issue.

    It would seem to me the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, AND the simplest answer is usually the right one. Can we not step back from this fantasy world that the media all too willing embraces and perpetuates for the almighty advertising dollar - and get back to basics?

    Electric Cars. Consumer captured Solar Energy. Alternative Grid generation sources like solar, networked wind and Nuclear.

    Why does this have to be so complicated? Further, why do we entertain or even give people such as this individual a platform from which to spew their ridiculous Orwellian ideas?
  12. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Jeff Gardiner: Your statement that 'the Earth's average temperature has been cooling each year since 1998' is absolute rubbish. The trend is easy to see on the graphs posted on the websites of most of the scientific organizations in the world.

    That is like saying that the Canadian dollar was higher vis-a-vis the American dollar in 1961 than it is today, therefore it has been declining each year since 1961.

    1998 was an unusually warm year in the midst of a sharp upward decades-long trend in global temperatures. So what?
  13. B D from Saskatoon, Canada writes: I have said it before, and I will say it again:
    This Global Warming debate has to end...

    I'm going to tell it how it is.

    1st - There is little humans can do by way of reduction of habits, and conservation to decrease global warming. Human nature is to grow and to consume rather than conserve. History will validate that claim. Change history and human nature and you might have an argument.

    2nd - The Earth does change, either through rapid change done by human's which we have, as stated before, little or no control over, or naturally over the course of millions of years.

    3rd - Our only hope rests in technology and the ability to control ones environment through technology which does not involve reduction or conservation, but rather more consumption.

    I firmly believe these three points to be valid, unchanging, and concrete as a 21st century reality.
  14. Thomas Homer-Dixon from Fergus, Canada writes: A few comments on the remarks above. Some of them I have already covered in my responses to the “live” questions earlier today. For instance, I’ve described my credentials and background, as they’re relevant to the topics of climate change and geo-engineering. I’m not going to respond to the ad hominem remarks. These kinds of forum seem to attract people who are quick to launch personal attacks. Regarding the comment from “Name Withheld from Vancouver,” I agree that the public is generally not well-equipped to judge these highly technical problems – which is why we have too much discussion about “qualitative” changes, like the possible demise of polar bears. But I think most people are entirely capable of being better informed, and many want to be. Thermodynamics is actually a good place to start, and that’s why I spend a good chunk of my latest book walking the reader through a basic treatment of thermodynamic principles. The central issues here are better education on basic science in our schools and universities and better “bridging” communication between scientists and interested/informed laypeople. To Mr. Fijne, the Globe covered the record 2007 Arctic sea-ice thaw – and the explanations of this thaw – extensively. There must have been a dozen articles on the topic.
  15. Thomas Homer-Dixon from Fergus, Canada writes: Second part: To Karin Green, well, I suppose if we acknowledge that human beings are part of nature, we could certainly let “nature take its course” and see what happens. But don’t think we aren’t headed for a disaster by doing so. If human beings continue to burn fossil fuels at their current rate, we will more than quadruple pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Here’s what I wrote in my recent book about this possibility: “We can debate whether humankind can cope with a doubling of carbon dioxide because there’s room for doubt about its consequences. But there’s no ambiguity about the ultimate implications of a quadrupling. Harvard University’s John Holdren, one of the world’s leading authorities on energy, carbon emissions, and climate change, puts it bluntly. ‘A quadrupled-CO2 world would be a roasted world, with weather patterns and extremes of heat unlike anything yet experienced during the tenure of human beings on the planet. It would be a catastrophe for the human condition.’” Oh, by the way, Stephen Schneider, whom you quote and I know, agrees with the above assessment. To Bruce Bigham, the scientific evidence is completely contrary to your assertion about the small role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas relative to other greenhouse gases (I think you need to learn something about Earth’s black body radiation profile and the differential effects of the various greenhouse gases on blocking passage of infrared radiation through the atmosphere into space). But you’re right that positive feedbacks are key to accentuating the warming effect of these gases. You are entirely incorrect in your claim that the models “assume the increase is caused by CO2.” That would be circular and indefensible. There are many factors influence Earth’s temperature (solar radiation, orbital parameters, volcanic eruptions and the like) and all are considered within climate models.
  16. Thomas Homer-Dixon from Fergus, Canada writes: Third part: To Duane McMullen, yes, we’re going to have to adapt – a lot. But if we give up on mitigation and invest everything in adaptation, the climate is likely to change so much that we simply can’t adapt adequately, at least without horrendous economic and social cost. Mitigation and adaptation aren’t mutually exclusive. We have to do them both, aggressively. And regarding your comment about individual responsibility, I couldn’t agree more. But if we leave the burden entirely on individuals, my guess is that we will see enormous personal suffering later in this century. Governments and public institutions have been created to deal with exactly this kind of “public goods” problem – the provision of police services, fire protection, and national defence, for example. Climate change is a problem of the same kind. Jeff Gardiner is wrong on the facts. He should read the recent review article in the science journal Nature on whether changes in solar radiation can account for the observed warming over the last 40 years. They can’t – and the science refuting this old argument is now decisive. (But like a zombie, the argument just seems to keep coming back.) The claim about how we’ve been cooling since 1998 involves a pure manipulation of statistics: picking one of the highest points on the temperature graph and then saying temperature has been declining since then. But a five-year moving average of Earth’s average temperature shows a steady and steep warming going back 40 years. To Jan Conradi, the quantity of sulphur we’d need to inject into the atmosphere to reduce incoming solar radiation sufficiently to counteract a doubling of CO2 would be a small fraction of the amount we emit globally through our regular industrial processes. So there wouldn’t be much “acid rain” effect. I agree with your general concern, though, about the potential unintended consequences of geo-engineering. That’s why the prospect we’ll do it appalls me.
  17. Thomas Homer-Dixon from Fergus, Canada writes: Final part of my response:

    To Neiland Bob, I agree with many of your prescriptions (in bold), but your skepticism about the state of climate science isn’t warranted. Yes, there are still big uncertainties, but we can now be very certain that humankind is driving the warming we&8217;re currently observing. Regarding solar radiation, I recommend to you the same Nature article I mentioned to Jeff Gardiner above.

    And, please remember, before you accuse me of promoting such &8220;ridiculous Orwellian ideas,&8221; that in introducing the topic of geo-engineering I was simply reporting what some of the world&8217;s top climate scientists are now discussing.
  18. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Neiland Bob from Canada writes:'Electric Cars.'

    A dicy proposition, with limited usability.

    'Consumer captured Solar Energy.'

    Feeding back into the grid, as you've suggested, is quite a complex problem if the percentage of this unreliable generation starts to exceed a few percent.

    'Alternative Grid generation sources like solar, networked wind and Nuclear.'

    Nuclear works well, but has a very long lead time. Wind power is only available with any reliability in a few areas, and solar is just plain unreliable (it's 'off' for about 50% of the time on average).

    And putting power into a grid isn't like pouring water into a basin. There are very heavy line losses over signifigant distances meaning that adding wind from Lethbridge with the expectation of getting power in Toronto from it is way too optimistic.
  19. Don Jenkins from Canada writes: It's bothersome some of the comments here that demonstrate you never read, digested, or understood Dr. Homer-Dixon's article or commentary. It's as though he never spoke and the nay-sayers are tiresomely repeating their same old mantra.

    Doom for mankind in every one of your words.
  20. V ADS from Canada writes: The Greenland Ice-Sheet is melting at its edges, but gained more ice from snowfall at high altitudes than it lost from melting ice along its coast, according to two recent studies by NASA and NERSC.

    NERSC's study shows an average overall increase of 5.4 cm per year, or approximately 60 cm during the 11 years studied. The increase was largely attributed to increased snowfall triggered by the North Atlantic Oscillation.

    The NASA study basically confirmed these findings, but did cite an increase in melting in recent years. Notwithstanding, the NASA study showed that the contribution of the ice sheets to recent sea-level rise (during the decade studied) was much smaller than expected, just 2% of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year.

    NASA also cautions that accurate ice-sheet measurements have only been possible in the past six or seven years. More research is needed before people make dire predictions, as northern climates have always shown great variability. In a recent study, for example, Canadian researchers found that average Arctic temps were as warm in the 1930s as now, if not warmer.
  21. Dorothy Cutting from Canada writes: The enormous amount of Arctic ice that melted this past summer represents a true tipping point for all life on our Planet, not just the life of the human species. When you learn that the Arctic lost 22 percent of its summer ice since 2005 and that the temperature anomaly for October of this year, according to NSDC Arctic specialist Mark Serreze, was 12 to 14 degrees C, you can't help but be stunned. Even if greenhouse gases and temperature were to stabilize at today's level, the Polar North will continue to melt until it disappears almost entirely, with calamitous implications for our biosphere. What's to stop it? The only thing that will is to somehow bring the Earth's temperature back to where it was around the middle of the last century. And to do that, along with slashing emission and changing every light bulb on the Planet, we need to recognise the need for some kind of climate engineering. The one method that appears to present the least amount of danger is the capture of CO2 from the atmosphere. Please refer to the paper by Frank Zeman of Columbia U. - Energy and Material Balance of CO2 Capture from Ambient Air, August 20, 2007. Also, for a very good paper on the great thaw in the Arctic this summer, please read The Big Melt, a 20 page paper produced by the Australian group Carbon Eguity.
  22. Mark Outhwaite _ from Toronto, Canada writes: Perhaps Prof. Homer-Dixon is extending too much credit to Mr. Lomborg. From having read Lomborg's article about 'putting the brakes' on climate change, he doesn't tell us much about anything. He sets up an argument wherein the putative objective of industrialization was and always will be the improvement of the human condition (i.e. warmth, light, speed of transport, human longevity and the unhindered access to material goods whose distribution is contingent on the continued availability of low-cost fossil fuels.) Not only is his disregard for the effects of feed-back disingenuous, (the unknown of unknowns) the implication of his humanity-first tautology is introduced as a comforting platitude. What he's basically saying, in a deceptive way, is that the harmful effects on the global climate system that attend to the human use of energy resources is what makes us human. We're clever primates who can control anything, provided we can wrap out heads around it. The further implication is that without our continued systemic exercise of such control, we would thereby diminish our humanity. He fails to acknowledge the danger, with the exception of stating that 'smarter innovation' is the moving target that only truly perspicacious individuals will successfully observe. Rather than applying brakes to what Bruce Sterling has described as a 'jam-Packed global bus roaring wildly up an exponential slope,' Lomborg would have us effect major engine repairs to the bus, all the while octane is added to the fuel while the driver dozes off at the wheel, pushing the pedal closer to the floor. His essay is more accurately an immoral facilitation of systemic indifference to a major existential threat. Such a diffident view of the human relationship to the environment is one that does little to address the potential dangers of non-linear warming.
    Our option to exploit nature for human gain is different from saying there's no option in the pursuit of gain, apart from its destruction.
  23. Mia Culpa from Canada writes: Like a body that develops a fever as a defense mechanism to stave off a viral infection, the Earth is heating up to extirpate it's virus (i.e., humans). Maybe the best long-term solution is to let nature take it's course. A massive, short-term (in geologic terms) cull may be just what this planet needs to set things right.
  24. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: Geo-engineering is simply the application of more ill-thought out technology to undo the effects of ill-thought out technology.
  25. Bruce Bigham from Deep River, Canada writes: You say-
    'But you’re right that positive feedbacks are key to accentuating the warming effect of these gases. You are entirely incorrect in your claim that the models “assume the increase is caused by CO2.” That would be circular and indefensible. '
    Can you point me to any info to show that I am incorrect? As far as I can tell, the models, for what ever reason, fit the temperature for the last 30 years. This is done by adjusting parameters. The difference in predictions of the different models seems to stem from the different feedback factors applied to the CO2 effect. Circular and indefensible? Yes!
    PS I am a physicist by trade so I think I understand the basics pretty well.
  26. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: I visited the website www.homerdixon.com, which is the website of, you guessed it, Mr. Homer-Dixon. One article I read there (The age of cheap oil is ending) was superb. I'll just mention two of its highlights: 1. Many analyst say that 80% of the world's oil production will have to be replaced in 25 years. Oh yeah, and needs are increasing dramatically . . . 2. Unconventional oil, including oil from the tar sands, will account for 10 percent of world production by 2030.

    Who have we got making policy in Ottawa anyway? Who is in charge of policy? I guess Mr. Homer-Dixon won't be getting appointed to any blue-ribbon panels! He's got the wrong contacts.
  27. V ADS from Canada writes: Climate Change 101. Climate change is normal and natural.

    To measure climate change, we need a 'climate baseline' for the planet. No problem. Geological evidence shows clearly that the climatic 'norm' for Earth is to have no ice on either pole. This has been the case for roughly 80% of this planet's geological history.

    Earth is NOT suffering from a fever. It's suffering from a severe cold.

    We are in an Ice Age, notwithstanding this short-lived and very welcome inter-glacial respite, once of a few dozen in the past few million years. And we humans are not a 'virus.' We are at present the most evolved species on the planet, which isn't saying much.
  28. Cynthia Nurse from St. Thomas, Canada writes: Adapting is what humankind has done for ever. We really need too educated others to what is happaning. I'm afraid that everyone is sitting to comfortable and will be hit blindsided. If that happens we cannot regroup.
  29. Cynthia Nurse from St. Thomas, Canada writes: Thomas Homer-Dixon from Fergus Thank-you for bringing these observations forward.

    We need to engage Canadians and be prepared to adapt.
  30. Mike Mcfae from Canada writes: Mr. Homer Dixon; I trust you can appreciate that some readers will question the effectiveness of using mirrors in space to reflect solar radiation. I'm reminded of the beliefs of Christopher Walken in the movie ' Blast from the Past '.
  31. john gorman from hampshire, United Kingdom writes: Those of us proposing geoengineering do so because we believe that such actions are essential to preserve global temperature and sea level.

    Even if we could stop all CO2 emissions worldwide immediately, there would still be significant sea level rise and there is no probability that it would ever return to the temporary stability that we have seen throughout recorded history. During the last interglacial 125,000 years ago it was five metres higher without any human influence.

    As Prof. H-D says it is Greenland that is the most urgent problem and I believe his estimates are still on the optimistic side as I state in my paper accepted as a poster at The American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco next week (which I have also put on my website at www.naturaljointmobility.info/agu.htm )

    None of us are suggesting that nothing needs to be done to solve “the energy problem” but it is a very big problem for various reasons, particularly because of the worldwide economic expansion as the poor become rich like us. Jeremy Sachs in the recent Reith Lecture estimated a six-fold economic expansion by 2050. That’s six times as much energy needed by 2050!
  32. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bruce Bigham from Deep River, Canada writes:'As far as I can tell, the models, for what ever reason, fit the temperature for the last 30 years. This is done by adjusting parameters.'

    And it appears you are exactly correct.

    The IPCC models fit the latest warming period (ca1970-2000) but do not match the last six years of no warming, nor do they correctly replicate the 1910-1940 warming period.

    While the general circulation models have value in advancing our knowlege of the atmosphere, their predictive ability for the future can't be relied upon to be any better than their 'predictions' for the past, which are pretty poor.
  33. Fred Gunter from United States writes:

    Good Job G&M!

    Excellent idea to bring an expert on to give his view on climate change.

    Now we need more of them of every persuasion (believers and deniers) so that we (the public) can become educated.

    This is far better than the usual sensationalist coverage (aimed at the lowest common denominator) that this topic usually receives!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top