This Homewood chap has a blog, called Not a Lot of People Know That, and via some route I stumbled upon his post claiming to reveal "What The BBC Does Not Want You To Know About Arctic Ice". Don't worry, I have 'no followed' both of those links, I don't want to add the pollution of Google.
Considering that Homewood wasn't seeing the full picture, and was being rather simplistic, I posted a comment. I don't normally bother with denialists, but sometimes I get bored. Anyway, I screen grabbed the comment posting, just in case.
It is now 48 hours after that was posted, and it still hasn't been let through moderation. Yet, since I posted the comment he has published three blog posts and published about 35 comments. He may come out with the bloggers equivalent of 'the dog ate my homework', and claim the comment was lost, but the comment was posted through to his moderation queue, as the above image shows. Occams Razor suggests he didn't like someone calling out his rather selective interpretation of the evidence and binned the comment. Which makes him guilty of what he falsely accuses the BBC; refusing to admit evidence that doesn't support his prejudice. It is interesting how people readily read their own behaviours into others...
Lest it be thought that it is only denialists that play such dishonest games, the alarmists do it too. Back in 2012 I posted a comment at the Arctic Methane Emergency Group's blog. I'm with Stoat in considering them the AMEG Bozos. I started off by attacking the use of volume loss trend extrapolation, that was as far as I got, I posted the further reply three times but those replies were not published: Thus giving the impression I had been awed by Sam Carana's piss poor reply and had desisted.
There is a connection between these two extremes in the debate over anthropogenic global warming: People who think their cause is so important that it over-rides the evidence. Denialist, Alarmist, they are both wrong, no cause is above being subjected to critical analysis.