But it's 2019, and now we know better. Climate change deniers, and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet. As a publisher, giving them a voice on our site contributes to a stalled public discourse. That's why we're implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we'll be locking their accounts. We believe conversations are integral to sharing knowledge, but those who are fixated on dodgy ideas in the face of decades of peer-reviewed science are nothing but dangerous. It is counter productive to present the evidence and then immediately undermine it by giving space to trolls. The hopeless debates between those with evidence and those who fabricate simply stalls action. As a reader, author or commenter, we need your help. If you see something that is misinformation, please don't engage, simply report it. Do this by clicking the report button below a comment.

I think it is called censorship. Worse than knobs who believe in conspiracy theories.

That sounds like a dictatorship decrepit.

once upon a time people were silenced (permanently) if there ideas or questions were too far from common belief. You know, stuff like the earth is round, and rotates around the sun. But somewhere along the way, we learnt that questioning things was a far better way to learn.

Sure, theres the odd crazy out there that still believes the earth is flat, but to outright shutdown any debate contrary to common belief (even scientific) about things that haven't occurred yet, well, thats no better and just as closed minded as still believing the earth is flat.

Select to expand quote

hilly said..
I think it is called censorship. Worse than knobs who believe in conspiracy theories.

Maybe , but we have laws to ban people from spouting racist views. we stop holocaust deniers from entering the country. Generally I'm for freedoms to talk rubbish, join some nutbag religious group etc , but the openness of the democratic process is being subverted by bad faith actors. Shills, being paid for by big business have led the gullible to believe something that isn't true..........what do we do about that? We can't just let our system be pig rooted by people that are acting against the future of the planet and the people.

So you are saying your point of view is fact and everyone else is wrong and that a moderator should then be obliged to fulfill their apparent obligation to stop others with differing points of view. That is dangerous territory man, very dangerous. You need to rethink your entire perspective mate and quickly. Ask what 6 million Jews think about a certain dogma as believed fact. Or the local population that dared to speak out against it.

Change or just grow the hell up. Or better please this forum, maybe find one where all the idiots are singing from the same hymn book so your precious little egoic focus can be enlarged.

what a ridiculous post, you complete twat.

He must be taking the piss, surely?????????

Select to expand quote

eppo said..
So you are saying your point of view is fact and everyone else is wrong and that a moderator should then be obliged to fulfill their apparent obligation to stop others with differing points of view. That is dangerous territory man, very dangerous. You need to rethink your entire perspective mate and quickly. Ask what 6 million Jews think about a certain dogma as believed fact. Or the local population that dared to speak out against it.

Change or just grow the hell up. Or better please this forum, maybe find one where all the idiots are singing from the same hymn book so your precious little egoic focus can be enlarged.

what a ridiculous post, you complete twat.

Are you calling Decrepit a complete twat

This is not about individuals "opinions", these days it's about scientific fact.

It's a rock and a hardplace scenario, how valuable is the future of the Earth against how valuable freedom of expression is.
Unfortunately the pedalling of false information is having a huge effect, allowing climate deniers to get into power.
So some people can keep lining their pockets at the expense of future generations.
Basically it's not my problem I'll be long gone before things get really bad.
And i guess it's not fair to compare this forum with a major news organisation, Laurie doesn't have the resources they do.

Select to expand quote

kk said..
He must be taking the piss, surely?????????

Nah, decrepit is usually quite level headed, i think he mighta just got a bit too involved/lost his cool in one of the climate change threads.

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said..>> That sounds like a dictatorship decrepit.
>>>

As I've said elsewhere I'm getting disillusioned with democracy, modern communication allows the spread of sophisticated false information. And most of the science is just too complicated for most people to understand, (me included), so we are fed oversimplified "facts", out of context, and without a full explanation.
Like posting past cyclone activity that's actually dropped a little recently, with out the explanation that at the moment the elnino, lanina cycles are what's causing it.

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said..
Nah, decrepit is usually quite level headed, i think he mighta just got a bit too involved/lost his cool in one of the climate change threads.

Yep, Bad reaction to denier crap!
It's easy to get emotional when the future of the Earth is being threatened, by selfish, greedy, conspiring, spreaders of well thought out false information, designed to keep the burning of fossil fuels going as long as possible.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
This is not about individuals "opinions", these days it's about scientific fact.

It's a rock and a hardplace scenario, how valuable is the future of the Earth against how valuable freedom of expression is.
Unfortunately the pedalling of false information is having a huge effect, allowing climate deniers to get into power.
So some people can keep lining their pockets at the expense of future generations.
Basically it's not my problem I'll be long gone before things get really bad.
And i guess it's not fair to compare this forum with a major news organisation, Laurie doesn't have the resources they do.

False info can come from either way though.

alarmist studies that end up being wrong can hurt the cause for changing our ways in a much worse way than all the deniers put together. Scepticism doesn't always mean denial.

The yellowstone cauldera might erupt in a couple of years. That'll change the graphs a bit.

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said.. >>>>False info can come from either way though.

alarmist studies that end up being wrong can hurt the cause for changing our ways in a much worse way than all the deniers put together. Scepticism doesn't always mean denial.

The yellowstone cauldera might erupt in a couple of years. That'll change the graphs a bit.

Totally agree, we've seen that already.

It's posting, stuff that's designed to be misleading that's the problem,

When I first read your post I thought you were being sarcastic or something.

Im guessing you watched Four Corners last night? It was about the dangers of fake news etc.

One woman on there repeated like on four separate occasions fake news was the biggest problem facing humanity....wtf.

Who do you think should be responsible for deciding fake from truth - the military industrial complex no doubt.

The end of free speech George Orwell 1984 is what you are advocating effectively.


www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-climate-change-hoax-collapses-new-science-cloud-cover.html

So Pete, you're violently opposed to main stream media but you're happy to sit down and watch 4 Corners??

Ok then

Nah. It's entertaining seeing the loopy stuff written here at times.
Empty vessels create the most noise but it's like a fridge. You often only notice them once they turn off.

Alarmists are a bigger problem

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

Subsonic said..>> That sounds like a dictatorship decrepit.
>>>

As I've said elsewhere I'm getting disillusioned with democracy, modern communication allows the spread of sophisticated false information. And most of the science is just too complicated for most people to understand, (me included), so we are fed oversimplified "facts", out of context, and without a full explanation.
Like posting past cyclone activity that's actually dropped a little recently, with out the explanation that at the moment the elnino, lanina cycles are what's causing it.

The empirical data is just that....data. It does not care about your feelings.

Maybe you could have used the other thread to express your opinion instead of starting a new thread calling for the end of democracy and freedom.

Are you a Marxists decrepit?

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

decrepit said..

Subsonic said..>> That sounds like a dictatorship decrepit.
>>>

As I've said elsewhere I'm getting disillusioned with democracy, modern communication allows the spread of sophisticated false information. And most of the science is just too complicated for most people to understand, (me included), so we are fed oversimplified "facts", out of context, and without a full explanation.
Like posting past cyclone activity that's actually dropped a little recently, with out the explanation that at the moment the elnino, lanina cycles are what's causing it.

The empirical data is just that....data. It does not care about your feelings.

It's not the data it's the explanation. You don't want to show that because you're being dishonest.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
...Unfortunately the pedalling of false information is having a huge effect, ...

Is it kinda ironic this started with Flysurfer posting a link to an article explaining how Hockey-Stick Mann sued somebody for public questioing of his 'scientific' methods, then refused to release the 'science' behind those methods, then lost his own court case and apologized to the person he sued for questioning him and now everyone agrees (at least 97% consensus ! ) that the hockey-stick graph he produced that had such a huge effect was indeed false information ??

- and now, posting a link to the outcome of a court case where somebody lost on account of the fact they peddled false information is regarded as peddling false information !!

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

decrepit said..
...Unfortunately the pedalling of false information is having a huge effect, ...

Is it kinda ironic this started with Flysurfer posting a link to an article explaining how Hockey-Stick Mann sued somebody for public questioing of his 'scientific' methods, then refused to release the 'science' behind those methods, then lost his own court case and apologized to the person he sued for questioning him and now everyone agrees (at least 97% consensus ! ) that the hockey-stick graph he produced that had such a huge effect was indeed false information ??

- and now, posting a link to the outcome of a court case where somebody lost on account of the fact they peddled false information is regarded as peddling false information !!

Sorry, but you ARE peddling false information. Mann did NOT "apologise to the person who sued him". Mann still says that he is right. The other defendant that was sued by Mann apologised to Mann.

Whatever we may think of Mann and his graph, the fact is that you are wrong.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

Subsonic said..
Nah, decrepit is usually quite level headed, i think he mighta just got a bit too involved/lost his cool in one of the climate change threads.

Yep, Bad reaction to denier crap!
It's easy to get emotional when the future of the Earth is being threatened, by selfish, greedy, conspiring, spreaders of well thought out false information, designed to keep the burning of fossil fuels going as long as possible.

Follow the dollar Mike!

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
Is it kinda ironic this started with Flysurfer posting a link to an article explaining how Hockey-Stick Mann sued somebody for public questioing of his 'scientific' methods, then refused to release the 'science' behind those methods, then lost his own court case and apologized to the person he sued for questioning him and now everyone agrees (at least 97% consensus ! ) that the hockey-stick graph he produced that had such a huge effect was indeed false information ??

- and now, posting a link to the outcome of a court case where somebody lost on account of the fact they peddled false information is regarded as peddling false information !!

Wrong on one small point, so I stand corrected Chris 249. Happy to correct the record.

But the rest of what I wrote though ? Is it now completely irrelevant due to my constant "peddling of false information" ?

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
This is not about individuals "opinions", these days it's about scientific fact.

It's a rock and a hardplace scenario, how valuable is the future of the Earth against how valuable freedom of expression is.
Unfortunately the pedalling of false information is having a huge effect, allowing climate deniers to get into power.
So some people can keep lining their pockets at the expense of future generations.
Basically it's not my problem I'll be long gone before things get really bad.
And i guess it's not fair to compare this forum with a major news organisation, Laurie doesn't have the resources they do.

Funny thing about that
Is
Even the side accepting climate change is real are offering no solutions except implementing taxes

Select to expand quote

theDoctor said..

decrepit said..
This is not about individuals "opinions", these days it's about scientific fact.

It's a rock and a hardplace scenario, how valuable is the future of the Earth against how valuable freedom of expression is.
Unfortunately the pedalling of false information is having a huge effect, allowing climate deniers to get into power.
So some people can keep lining their pockets at the expense of future generations.
Basically it's not my problem I'll be long gone before things get really bad.
And i guess it's not fair to compare this forum with a major news organisation, Laurie doesn't have the resources they do.

Funny thing about that
Is
Even the side accepting climate change is real are offering no solutions except implementing taxes

Completely and utterly wrong.

Let's look at Canada, just to take it away from a fight over Aussie politics. The Canadian Greens policies on climate change include;

* bans on fracking;
* new pipelines;
* no oil sand projects;
* ban on new petrol or diesel cars;
* new trains

Now, you may well criticise those policies as being expensive or unworkable. However, the point is that it is utterly wrong to claim that they are "offering no solutions except implementing taxes".

If your side's case is so strong why do you have to say stuff that is not true?

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

Carantoc said..
Is it kinda ironic this started with Flysurfer posting a link to an article explaining how Hockey-Stick Mann sued somebody for public questioing of his 'scientific' methods, then refused to release the 'science' behind those methods, then lost his own court case and apologized to the person he sued for questioning him and now everyone agrees (at least 97% consensus ! ) that the hockey-stick graph he produced that had such a huge effect was indeed false information ??

- and now, posting a link to the outcome of a court case where somebody lost on account of the fact they peddled false information is regarded as peddling false information !!

Wrong on one small point, so I stand corrected Chris 249. Happy to correct the record.

But the rest of what I wrote though ? Is it now completely irrelevant due to my constant "peddling of false information" ?

Good on you for retracting the claim that Mann apologised, but the fact is that he did NOT lose a court case. The case took too long to get to court, and so the judge threw it out before it reached a hearing. Each side accuses the other of stalling. So the court did NOT find that he "peddled false information".

Mann paid "court costs" but that is standard procedure and not anything that indicates anything wrong with his lawsuit. If a judge thinks a party is really messing people around they will often order "indemnity costs" which are a lot higher. That did not happen in this matter, therefore the attempts by some people to make it seem a big deal that Mann paid normal costs are ignorant or dishonest.

By the way, I cannot find any information that says that 97% (of who? think the graph was wrong.

It has been any eye-opener to see how much false information is being pushed by the "sceptics" side. Here on Seabreeze over the last few days alone, people have claimed that "climate warriors" were stuck in the Arctic ice (bull**** - they were just a bunch of old guys recreating an exploration), that an icebreaker's journey was stopped by thick ice (BS- gland packing bolts came loose) and that a court said that Mann was wrong and he apologised (as noted, there was no court ruling and it was one of his opponents who apologised).

When one side makes so many claims that are so easily proven wrong, their claims to be right on other things seem to be pretty doubtful. But again, thanks for retracting your claim that Mann apologised.

This post had nothing to do with climate change and whether you agree or not or you are unsure. It's about one dude declaring other opinions are not tolerable from his little world of so called scientific fact. I've got 6 years of tertiary maths and physics background including a degree in environmental science (among others) and I can tell you science and it's conclusions still roam in the grey area.

Especially when it comes to to meteorological maths and physics. That stuff borders on bloody magic and art. Did our heads in trying to wrap our head around that field.

But to proclaim other points of view should not be expressed is horrendously out of place here. Express your opinions, provide evidence - regardless of its validity (because we can never tell in this era of misinformation). But to say some should be silenced the others not is completely out of line and I implore you to reconsider such a limited doctrine.

Select to expand quote

eppo said..>>>>>>>
But to proclaim other points of view should not be expressed is horrendously out of place here. >>>

Did I do that?
Have you heard of "The Conversation"?
I was just quoting part of a statement from them about their editorial policy, In regards to false information about climate change, and asking if Laurie agreed with it.
here's the full article.
theconversation.com/climate-change-deniers-are-dangerous-they-dont-deserve-a-place-on-our-site-123164

Yes interpretation of data should always be open to discussion, couldn't agree more. It's the deliberately false and/or misleading, selective reporting of those facts that are the problem.
To sort those out would take a very deep knowledge of the subject, and we can't expect any of the moderators here to have that.

So yes, maybe my title was inappropriate. But I'd gone to the conversation after coming from a frustrating climate change thread, and the first thing I read was the above. Sorry, just couldn't help posting it.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

theDoctor said..

decrepit said..
This is not about individuals "opinions", these days it's about scientific fact.

It's a rock and a hardplace scenario, how valuable is the future of the Earth against how valuable freedom of expression is.
Unfortunately the pedalling of false information is having a huge effect, allowing climate deniers to get into power.
So some people can keep lining their pockets at the expense of future generations.
Basically it's not my problem I'll be long gone before things get really bad.
And i guess it's not fair to compare this forum with a major news organisation, Laurie doesn't have the resources they do.

Funny thing about that
Is
Even the side accepting climate change is real are offering no solutions except implementing taxes

Completely and utterly wrong.

Let's look at Canada, just to take it away from a fight over Aussie politics. The Canadian Greens policies on climate change include;

* bans on fracking;
* new pipelines;
* no oil sand projects;
* ban on new petrol or diesel cars;
* new trains

Now, you may well criticise those policies as being expensive or unworkable. However, the point is that it is utterly wrong to claim that they are "offering no solutions except implementing taxes".

If your side's case is so strong why do you have to say stuff that is not true?

Perhaps Australia is moving as well?

mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-18/bylong-coal-mine-proposal-knocked-back/11523856

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
This is not about individuals "opinions", these days it's about scientific fact.

................................

Lets add religion to that as well (Unfortunately you see what I did there)

Should have put inverted commas around your first post Decrepit. I think a few people (myself included) thought you were laying out the new editorial policy for this forum! (not a bad idea though)