15

Jailing Climate Change Deniers

Posted by $ Flootus5 5 years ago to Politics
78 comments | Share | Flag

This is classic! I haven't laughed so hard in months.

I had a really tough time deciding upon which category to post this!
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04txNGg-hgY&feature=youtu.be


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
    That was funny...no one is arguing if the climate is changing; it is, and dramatically. But liberal antilectuals don't know the difference between 'Environment and climate or today's weather in one part of the world and climate. If we took them to northern Africa to see the snow fall in august or the snow falls in the upper Midwest and Colorado this past august; nevermind the building ice sheets on the north and south poles, [you know, where greenwar or is it green peace got stuck and we had to bust them out of the ice?], they wouldn't believe it.
    But the worst of it is, if you were to bring this to their attention or try to have a discussion...they call you names. They have no idea how valuable carbon is to life, our atmosphere nor our planet...all they can think about is oil, oil is not even created by fossils, but you can't talk about that...they just scream louder while making up stuff.

    To keep this light hearted and in perspective:...a so called scientist just announced that 'sea turtles' are causing climate warming...can you believe that?!

    Now that proves that it's not your footprint; I say we celebrate and start walking all over everything!
    Laughing my shinny butt off...liberals say the darnedest things...Didn't Art Linkletter do a show about that? hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaapfpfpf.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Temlakos 5 years ago
    I'm not laughing. I take this threat v-e-r-y s-e-r-i-o-u-s-l-y.

    So now the rent-seekers are commanding their competitors and other opponents: Shut-up and get out of our way, on pain of arrest and imprisonment!

    This is Dr. Floyd Ferris all over again.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 5 years ago
    It's telling that he refused to discuss the FACTS. All he wanted to do was argue that someone should be jailed for disagreeing with him. What a horse's ass.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 5 years ago
    Sure. They'll start putting people in prison for expressing doubt in the popular theories. That's what they do. As per the chapter "White Blackmail", though, they'll start by taking your kids. Then, they'll take your property. Then, you'll get blamed and will have to go to a camp about the same time.

    I've been called a terrorist because I believe that medical decisions should be between families and their doctors (vs. the government). That's a real wakeup call.

    Make no mistake - the hard left are master linguists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 5 years ago
    You know what's odd? Doesn't that anger seem out of place? You realize that there are a lot of people who will never admit they were wrong on this, no matter what facts are uncovered? It's some sort of partisan-like psychosis...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
    Thom Hartmann is right about the basic facts but absolutely wrong in even speaking hyperbolically about jailing people for lying. Lying isn't illegal. Like the budget deficit and so many problems, we'll deal with the results of global warming when it becomes a crisis. Just as with the budget deficit, we'll push the costs off onto future generations and act suddenly suprised and say hoocoodanode when it's time to face the consequences.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years ago
      The reason I was laughing is not only how wrong this Hartmann guy is on the facts, but he resorts to the usual dissonant tactics of trying to outshout and out interrupt what should have been a rational discussion.

      But a rational discussion is not what the cognitive dissonants want. It is anathema to that mindset. They always come back with yeah but, yeah but, or a "so what are you saying" query followed by a ridiculously extrapolated irrational conclusion meant to distort the actual premise.

      This Hartmann guy could not even acknowledge that Wisconsin and New England have been covered in mile thick continental glaciers at least four times while humans existed. But before man could even begin to allegedly affect the planet. He calls it a "schtick". What is that?

      Paul Driessens point was exactly that in the beginning, that glaciers have come and go without human responsibility. But he was outshouted by Hartmann without a consideration for reality or even the basic courtesy of listening. And then accuses Driessen of what Hartmann himself is exactly doing. Amazingly typical.

      CG is correct in saying that Hartmann is way off-base in calling for jailing people for free speech.

      But, CG is making the same mistake as Hartmann by assuming that Driessen is lying. That implies your conclusions are already foregone on "climate change" and he is already convicted in the court of alleged "consensus".

      It would appear in your viewpoint, the collective rules.

      Tell me otherwise.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Abaco 5 years ago
        I, after knowing the guy for over 20 years, just broke all ties with a hardcore liberal friend of mine because of what you talk about. He'd, in realizing he's losing an argument, resorts to those tactics. "What are you saying?" He eventually resorted to mentioning something about me abusing my kids (knowing I never would). That's when I pulled the plug. These people really are sick people. And, they are in charge now. Something similar happened in Nazi Germany and I honestly think it's time for people to start paying attention...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
        "It would appear in your viewpoint, the collective rules."
        Of course not. That does not merit a response. But we have to accept reality and be open to new evidence, regardless of whether we like what the evidence has to say.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 5 years ago
          "But we have to accept reality and be open to new evidence"
          When will you start practicing what you preach? You are still defending the same unsupported garbage that you have been since you came to this site.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -2
            Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
            "When will you start practicing what you preach?"
            Look around you. People responding are literally denying the scientific reality of climate change. I've certainly heard of these people, but it's bizarre to meet one in real life. So it's funny you say I'm talking about unsupported garbage in a thread with people who cannot accept science. That's laughable.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • 10
              Posted by $ 5 years ago
              CG; Part of the scientific reality is that there has been no global warming for almost 20 years now.

              Part of the scientific reality that must be considered is that temperature cycles appear to be more closely related to sun activity. A body of science work that must be seriously considered.

              Unfortunately, part of the scientific reality that must be considered is the blatant data tampering that has been going on. From climategate e-mails, to the discredited hockey stick graph, to the discredited alleged 97% consensus, to the denial of research funds to those researchers and institutions that are considered skeptic, the scientific reality that objectivity is being compromised unfortunately means the issue has become political.

              Where there is politics, there is an agenda. And the stakes that have been raised in this agenda means that this is not good.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 5 years ago
              CG; I think it would help here to distinguish generic climate change with the alleged anthropogenic effect on climate. It is these suppositions that are driving serious policy implementations that affect the standard of living, the very well-being of people the world over.

              I don't think anybody is denying the reality of climate change. It changes all the time, always has, always will. I have posted in the past that it was only about 13,000 years ago that New England was under a mile thick ice sheet. I have seen the glacial striations on top of Mt Washington in New Hampshire. And look at it now. That is extreme climate change!

              But, the science is far from settled of the role that CO2 plays in climate change. It is said to be a greenhouse gas, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to atmospheric water vapor. So why the unsupported fixation on CO2?

              Oh, I get it. The fossil fuel connection. The politics of energy and the control of people's standard of living. Note the key word here: Control.

              Unfortunately what we are talking about is actually not so much about science, although it is a component, but about politics. Which is why I posted this under the category of politics.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by freedomforall 5 years ago
              No, they are denying that humans are responsible for climate change to any significant amount and that changes to human activity proposed by the corrupt and/or misguided scientists and politicians will have such an insignificant effect that they are irrational actions.
              There is no evidence to support cause and effect of human activity and climate change. It is an attempt to increase centralized political power, which simultaneously destroys individual liberty and enslaves nearly the entire human population.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 5 years ago
          CG; I would still like to hear how that consensus is not a form of collectivism. Mind you, it is possible to have a collective of individuals. Whether this applies in this case is questionable. But, it is a leap of logic to even have a consensus of individuals conclude that because they think Driessen is wrong - that he is a liar. That smacks of smearing to stifle debate.

          Your second part about accepting reality and considering all and new evidence, even should it be position changing is well put.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
            "I would still like to hear how that consensus is not a form of collectivism."
            If accepting science outside of our own fields is collectivism, does that mean we cannot know things outside of our areas of expertise? Am I being collectivist if I accept that trials show I'm at risk for some disease and can mitigate the risk with some medical intervention?

            "But, it is a leap of logic to even have a consensus of individuals conclude that because they think Driessen is wrong - that he is a liar. That smacks of smearing to stifle debate."
            Maybe liar is the wrong word. But if you say the scientific opinion says one thing when you know it actually says something else, I call that a lie. Contrary to stifling debate, it's actually accepting science, which by it's nature invites scientists to find new evidence that changes our current models.

            If someone in the 80s said medical science shows a high-fat diet isn't necessarily bad for you, that would have been a lie. The new evidence is showing that the claims true: high-fat in itself bad. But it would have been a lie in the 80s to say that was contemporary scientific thought. It was a radical idea that turned out to be proven later. Maybe it will get overturned in some new way by new data. That's the nature of science.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 5 years ago
              The question was: Is consensus not a form of collectivism? The question has nothing to do with knowing things outside of areas of expertise, be it accepting alleged conclusions of science or ones own observation.

              As mentioned before, a collective can be a group of individuals in commonality of rational thought, or it can be the more typical conception of lemmings chasing each other in lockstep ignorance.

              I am not sure what you mean by "trials" in the medical field of statistics. That is confusing, but if you are saying you agree with a reported consensus on such a matter of medical study indicating a health risk, than yes, you are part of that collective. You may be a very informed rational individual and agree with the conclusion and join with the opinion, or conversely, you may just agree with it - because apparently everybody else does. There is a huge difference.

              Yes, liar is clearly the wrong word. Good point. But, in the debate where Driessen is accused of being a liar, the premises must be straightened out. Why is anybody being called a liar at all? He is not the one saying that "scientific opinion says one thing when they actually knows it says something else". Driessen is not the one saying that the pushed agenda of global climate change is lying because they know that it is not true. Where does that come from? He is merely saying that they are wrong. There is a huge difference between being wrong and being a liar.

              But in the tactics then, of saying he is the liar, the debate stifling is the end goal. By the court of media opinion, being forced to accept the questioned science does nothing to encourage scientists to find new data to challenge the truly lemming like party line.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
                "if you are saying you agree with a reported consensus on such a matter of medical study indicating a health risk, than yes, you are part of that collective."
                This means anyone who knows something outside his own field is a collectivist. I accept that that cellular respiration occurs in the mitochodrion, not because I've reviewed the primary sources for myself but because that's the consensus of people who study this stuff. Even in my own field, there are things I accept without being an expert on those specific points.
                "Why is anybody being called a liar at all? "
                Yes. Liar would be appropriate if we saw some private communication in which he admitted to saying something he intended to mislead. Here it's just an epithet that implies we know what's going on in his mind.

                I have probably done the same thing as he Hartmann in the topic of natural medicine. If someone has a disease that science says is not curable but can be slowed down by a painful treatment, and there is a view contrary to scientific medicine that maybe some homeopathic treatment would work, I have an emotional urge to call the homeopath a "liar" and stop the bogus "debate". We all wish the homeopath were right or at least that the evidence were "debatable". The hypothetical alternative medicine proponent makes all these argument that I'm just blinding going alone with the oncology establishment that is funded by drug research without becoming an expert myself. A homeopath offering false hope seems contemptible and makes me want to say liar as an epithet even if I can't back up that they're being intentionally deceptive. Fortunately, I don't have the emotional urge to jail them.

                I feel the same way about climate change, although I don't think addressing it will be anything like a grave disease. The technology will come along to address the problem and people who can't handle results they don't like will be able to come back to reality once engineers and scientists have a solution.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 5 years ago
                  I just stumbled across this article this morning:

                  http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/09/ske...

                  Interesting how closely it parallels our discussion.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
                    It's an interesting analogy to laws having been used to stop tobacco companies from claiming their product doesn't cause health problems.

                    My thought is it's fraud if you say your product is somehow exceptional, i.e. our cigarettes have lower health risks, this fuels does not contribute to climate change, or this homeopathic medicine that really works. But if you promote the product with broad conspiracy theories such as "Cigarettes are safe." "Burning stuff doesn't cause climate change." "Homeopathy is real." "Organic foods are more healthful than GMOs," I think it's up to the buyer to evaluate those claims. It's a fine line. When a pharmacy sells alternative medicines on a shelf right next to scientific medicine, maybe falsely representing them as evidence-based medicine, IMHO they've veered into fraud.

                    I absolutely think companies like Exxon are lying, really shamelessly lying, posting fake videos that appear to be opinions of disinterested people from various demographic groups, to push the costs of their product onto future generations. I'll leave it to the courts to say when they've crossed the line into fraud. But I don't think it's fraud to say openly, "I make product X, and I think product X is safe," even when that statement is wrong according to science. There has to be some caveat emptor.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by bsmith51 5 years ago
      Thom Hartmann should apply his data analysis to the stock market. He could look at the last 20 minutes of data and extrapolate that out to the next 20 years and say we're all going to be ruined, or saved, and assign credit or blame.
      Yet, that is the methodology being cranked out and sold in our schools.
      Hey libs, ever heard of geologic time, sun cycles and the energy budget of the earth?

      Save the Planet: Stop Continental Drift NOW !!!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mccannon01 5 years ago
        Spot on, bsmith51. Except, maybe it should be the last 20 milliseconds of stock activity. I recently saw an article on the Internet that originated in a Houston, Tx newspaper that some college "study" had "proof" that recent earth tremors in Texas were caused by drilling for oil. Yep, the lefties finally blamed the oil companies for the effects of plate tectonics and continental drift!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
          "ep, the lefties finally blamed the oil companies for the effects of plate tectonics and continental drift!"
          We shouldn't give a whit what lefties and righties think about scientific claims. You learn things by observation and experimentation. This seems like an un-objectivist message board, where we look at something we can't predict and assert that all reality depends on what we wish it were. This is the path of quantum mysticism and post-modernism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mccannon01 5 years ago
            Well, CG, I'll decide for myself what to give a whit about or not. What lefties or righties or others think about scientific claims, pseudo-scientific claims, or fantasies may very well have an effect on my (and your) life so it may be worth while to give a whit about what they think. If we aren't to give a whit what others think, then there is no point in visiting this site. Yes, you learn things by observation and experimentation, but the data collected must be sufficient and relevant to make predictions. As bsmith51 pointed out, and I concurred, is there is insufficient data to predict mega weather trends by observing a few decades of data just as you can't predict stock market trends by observing it for 20 minutes. bsmith51 also used a bit of humor to illustrate the absurdity and I offered up an additional absurdity in the vein of his last statement. Hopefully bsmith51 got a smile out of it. You missed the point. Too bad.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
              " If we aren't to give a whit what others think, then there is no point in visiting this site."
              Poor choice of words perhaps. What I mean is I want to get past ideology to the actual facts. I don't care if liberals think GMOs are evil and pesticides do more harm than good or if rightwingers think greenhouse gases don't affect the world's climate and mutations and natural selection couldn't have produced life as we know it. I don't care if animal rights activists think a low-fat diet is better for human health.

              To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, if you start with a theory before you have the facts, you find facts consistent with your theories instead of developing theories consistent with the facts.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by mccannon01 5 years ago
                "... I want to get past ideology to the actual facts." Well said. Sometimes ideologically driven "scientific studies" are so obviously absurd I automatically crack a smile when I see them. I had that reaction with the Houston article I mentioned above. Another article I actually laughed at was written by an Imam in Saudi Arabia giving "scientific proof" that women are biologically unsuitable to drive a car. The sad thing is when people who think that way can get command of the "herd mentality" bad things can happen in a very big way.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
                  Yes. It's like craniometry was used to identify racial differences that turned out to be false. The goal is for science to be value-neutral, but humans and our institutions are imperfect.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
        The "hey libs" thing is telling. It appears you accept the post-modernist view that reality does not exists outside of the perceiver's ideology. You figure if you cannot predict the stock market and you cannot predict the Gaussian noise in a system, we cannot predict anything. We just go with what we wish to be true.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 5 years ago
      Lying can be illegal (fraud) if the liar does it to profit at your expense.

      Fortunately, it's the climate change hoaxters themselves who may get nailed as a result of their own call for investigation.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/02...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
        First, I suspect the people who are saying this truly are not living in reality. They're not lying to get money, i.e. fraud. They really reject the science.
        Second, even if they know better, it's a legitimate policy question how to pay for the costs. Maybe they have a model that says the economic growth caused by burning things, as opposed to finding a solution now, will produce wealth that will easily cover the costs of solving it in the future. I don't agree with that, but it's away they could not be lying or hard-core idiots calling climate change a hoax, and still not being committing fraud.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jlc 5 years ago
          At least you are willing to discuss the issue, CG, instead of spouting epithets or saying that everyone who disagrees with you should be jailed! I am one of the people who disagree with you on this issue. It took me a couple of hours of research, back in about 2002, to begin to doubt anthropogenic global warming, and about 2 days worth to be fairly sure that the warmist agenda was unfounded.

          Please consider that the Earth was 'about as warm as it is now' during the Roman settlement of Britain (grape vineyards in S. England!). At that time, the Earth had about 300M people. At the time of US Independence, the world's population had climbed to about 3.5B...and we were in a little ice age.

          It is pretty obvious that an attempt to relate the temperature of the planet to human activity is very like geocentricity: and attempt to make ourselves more central than we are to the topic under discussion. We humans have very little effect on global temperatures.

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
            I agree with the basic facts about the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and world population. I wish somehow that all led to evidence that scientists' understanding of the planet were wrong. The nature of science is it will find problems in the current models and better models will be created. I have no idea what future research will find. But I can't just take the answer I want and then find a few data points and discount reality.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jlc 5 years ago
              You agree with the historical evidence; I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What we do not agree on is the projections of that data into the future.

              We also both agree that one cannot just 'take the answer I want'. So: this is a viable discussion. But what is happening - and is the source of the this thread - is that people who disagree with the socially-selected 'right' answer are being threatened with jail (and denied publication and tenure). That is bad.

              Jan
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                If CO2 is so dangerous why did we promote clear cutting other parts of the planet The old bumper sticker said Earth First We'll Log The Other Planets Later. Instead we closed down our saw mills and sent them neatly packaged to placed like Costa Rica and Siberia. Little hypocrisy there eh eh eh? If bovine effluent is so bad what about fining the doo doo out of Tyson's and their Chicken Factory operations? Did the buy carbon tax exemptions for all that methane? Inconvenient Truths are a two edge sword .....heh heh heh. Some chickens come home to roost at the most inconvenient times.

                Remember the shills and hucksters and scam artists and shysters are all Al Bore wannabe's
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ jlc 5 years ago
                  CO3 is not dangerous...it is just CO2. As with any substance, it has to be handled with knowledge of its nature. CO2 is an aerial 'fertilizer' that is promoting increased growth of plant life around the world. If you get too much of it, it can be bad for a planet but it takes a LOT to get to that point. CO2 has been as high as 7000 ppm and as low as 180 ppm in Earth's history; right now it is about at 400 ppm.

                  The temperature has not become warmer for about 20 years now. Also, man's contribution to the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small - less than 1%.

                  Jan
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                    Care to comment on methane and get the cows and chickens off the hook at least until time to become stew? Bad pun....
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ jlc 5 years ago
                      Well,...I could...but I am fond of London broil and chicken with garlic, olive oil, and white wine. Maybe we had better just 'start cooking', MichaelA!

                      Jan, solves all problems
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ 5 years ago
                        And cooking with gas!
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ jlc 5 years ago
                          "Cooking? With Methane?" she asks (innocent look; big brown eyes)...

                          Jan
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                            certainly my ex father in law raised chickens for egg laying and campbell soup later. the stuff went into a sort of cooker used 10% at low heat to heat it and then they drew off the methane andused it for everything including generators for electricity. one car was gas - tractor roto tiller you name it all methane. the remainder became fertilizer....after two years he disconnected from the power company. he ended up with three employees on the farm each with one of the farm houses on land adjacent he had purchased. All of them used it as well. Why pay the power company when you have 'free' power from making the fertilizer?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ 5 years ago
                              I remember in the Gillette, Wyoming area some of the best aquifers for domestic water wells were in the coal seams. And along with that came the coal bed methane. Many ranch houses would have methane coming out of the tap at the kitchen sink. Many made great use of the resource for cooking and heating.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 5 years ago
            Exactly. I remember laughing out loud when Al Gore trumped up the discovery of the Ice Man in the Alps, because the ice had retreated enough to expose his well preserved body. Global warming. He failed to acknowledge that 5000 years ago it was warm enough for the man to get up there and die in a crevice in the rocks from the arrow wounds he had sustained.

            And then consider the Viking settlements in Greenland in the centuries around 1000 AD. And that same hot period drove the Anasazi off the Colorado Plateau when springs dried up.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jdg 5 years ago
          It sounds like you still believe in the hoax. The WUWT site is a good place to start finding out all about it; they have links to many science sites, including some not on their side. I'd argue it further here, but I'm not sure it would be welcome.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo