Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Bring the hammer down - 'climate change deniers are dangerous' and being banished from The Conversation, page-250

First 250 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
ronsterm

6,721 Posts.

1

22/09/19

20:51

Post #: 40517275
Share

Originally posted by acorn: ↑

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.

Expand

"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 have been on HC for many years and the warmists have never been accused of being overly polite.

"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. "

Good to hear.

"Their position is that they want to exclude the fake news and the same old bs. They want to keep the discussion more factual."

The question then arises as to who gets to decide what is 'fake news'.

"As for the people that have a problem with it being government funded, the Australian government is a signatory to the Paris Accord."

Australia is also a signatory to the UN Convention on Human Rights, Article 19 which states "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." So which treaty trumps the other?
1 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

CKA

Cokal upgrades infrastructure for BBM ramp-up in Indonesia

SLS

Solstice Minerals to ramp up drilling campaign at Yarri Gold Project

COD

Coda Minerals (ASX:COD) enters rights issue to further exploration in South Australia

ACW

Actinogen Medical ramps up Alzheimer’s treatment trials, targeting fast-track global approvals

BUX

Buxton projects new graphite province discovery at WA Narryer play

Week 40 Wrap: China's nonsensical stimmy hype wanes (shocking!); HotCopper's picks; oil & inflation

BCI

BCI reaches close of funding facility for salt-first part of Mardie project

RCE

Recce eyes Indonesia for novel anti-infective as Indo-Aus ties grow stronger

WCN

White Cliff jumps 24% on 'bonanza grade' copper rock chips at Rae project, Canada

NTI

Neurotech knocked back by FDA as agency declares target condition not rare enough for special status

There are more pages in this discussion • 1,975 more messages in this thread...

First 250 Last