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-123857As 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.
