Bring the hammer down - 'climate change deniers are dangerous' and being banished from The Conversation, page-226 - HotCopper | ASX Share Prices, Stock Market & Share Trading Forum

Originally posted by ronsterm: ↑

"
More of the " I'm only doing it because someone else is doing it " excuse.

Ever heard of the saying " two wrongs don't make a right " ?"

Perhaps you are more turn the other cheek than me.

"The thing is the majority of people who think that man made climate change is likey to be real aren't hurling at insults at people. It is only the extremists at the edge that are doing this. And then their comments are spun and amplified by the deniers that oppose them. Most people have no time for the shockjocks at either end of the scale."

All that may be true, but the issue at hand is the slow progressive(in more than one sense) denial of opposing views. And on a government funded platform, The Conversation. Government sponsored censorship.

"" Climacultist " ? Hah. Maybe in the 60's it was cool and clever to attempt to insult people in a discussion to try and win an argument. But these days, insulting people to try and make a point doesn't work. It just demonstrates that your argument is weak and you are trying to bolster it with insults."

You have no doubt seen the insults coming back the other way. Even the term 'denier' was adopted as a subtle insult by way of association with 'holocaust denier', so every time you use that term, consciously or not, you are using an insult as a psychological tool to enhance your psychological domination of the debate. A neutral term like 'dissenter' would be preferable.

"35 years ? Are you trying to say you have 35 years worth of knowledge on climate change ? I notice you have avoided saying how much you've actually read on the subject in that time."

I never said that I have 35 years of knowledge on it or anything else. What I am saying is that after the global cooling scare of the 1970's and various other scares(eg. the overpopulation scare, resource depletion scare, ozone hole etc) I became sceptical of scare campaigns in general. So I have watched the global warming story through the same lens, a propaganda campaign in aid of political and economic goals.

"Tell me now, yes or no, do you support the banning of dissenting views on alleged climate change? Your answer will determine how worthwhile a person I consider you to be, and whether you are worthy of any respect."

You forgot to answer this question. Failure to answer will confirm my assumption that you support the censoring of dissenting views. Surprise me....

Expand

There you go, making excuses again. It still doesn't help the conversation, does it ?

Dissenter/denier ? I'm happy to use either. Did it ever occur to you that calling people ' cultists ' might upset them a bit ? You have a problem with people calling you a denier but you call them a " climacultist ". Maybe you should think about that for a bit ?

I must have missed the question before when I skimmed your post.

For the record, I do not support banning of free speech or of dissenting views. I have only just read the conversation's position on this which seems to have upset a few people. On the face of it I get what they are trying to say. Their position is that they want to exclude the fake news and the same old bs. They want to keep the discussion more factual.

" In my view it is journalistically irresponsible to present settled science alongside comments that undermine and distort it and mislead our readers. That is why we are going to be more careful to police the small and vocal group of climate science contrarians whose passion overwhelms their ability to assess the evidence.

This is not about a denial of free speech. Media outlets have always curated the ways in which they feature audience feedback. Think about the big bags of letters newspaper editors used to sift to pick a dozen or so to publish every day. The skill was always about giving a debate a chance to be aired, to allow all sides to be heard, and then to move on.

At The Conversation we believe that now is the time to exercise more care around the quality of information we present in the comments stream. And this means less emotive argument that distorts the evidence.

The opinion-based sceptics have had ample opportunity to have their say. They will continue to have them, on social media and in many media outlets. As long as they aren’t allowed to overwhelm the quiet Australians who understand and respect the science, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

But at The Conversation we are going to be careful to weed out misinformation and present the evidence accurately. We owe it to the academics we publish, to our readers, and to the planet. "

https://theconversation.com/theres-a-good-reason-were-moderating-climate-change-deniers-uninformed-comments-undermine-expertise-123857

As long as people put up a reasonable argument I'm fine with that. Nothing wrong with someone having a different opinion at all. It's when you get down to the facts that the problems start. So, if the conversation does what they say they are going to and still allow discussion, I think that's fine.
As the author suggests, people want to be able to sift through all the information and not have to deal with twisted emotional rhetoric.

So, as long as the conversation can manage that balance and don't abuse it, I think that's ok.

As for the people that have a problem with it being government funded, the Australian government is a signatory to the Paris Accord. The Prime Minister himself said that the government believes man made climate change is real and they are taking action to deal with it. So, for a government funded publication to say that they are going to try and focus more on the subject at hand and weed out the misinformation, I'd say they are doing the public a service.